Talk:Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To do[edit]

General information: Win 2k3, FLP, Vista; cancelled versions; Forthcoming; CE-based

Technical information: Supported architectures, Supported file systems, APIs (Win32, .NET, POSIX), etc

Security features: Encrypted file systems, Integrated firewall, etc

Software: IE, WMP, etc


PS: Sorry for my bad English, but it is not my native language. Master alvaro 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on filling in the gaps in this page from what I know about Windows. There's still more I can do to clean up the tables, and I will work on it as time allows. Wrldwzrd89 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done supported architectures for the Windows NT table -- simxp (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LE: add USB 3.0 compatibility to the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al3x3 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random Comments[edit]

I'm not really into making edits yet, but it does seem weird that a table comparing MSW distributions would have a column for License/Source Model. Just a little redundant and unnecessary if one is only comparing windows products, no? 199.91.34.33 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with that Microsoft has made source code licenses available to many of their operating systems. For example, if you had an Microsoft Communications Protocol Program (MCPP) license that entitled you to view the Windows operating system products source code as needed.[1] The Diskkeeper people had a source code license and used that to customized versions of various Windows components to support their disk defragmentation product. Microsoft eventually merged Diskeeper's changes into the main Windows code.
I agree though that from an end-user perspective all of the Microsoft Windows versions are closed source. We likely could eliminate the Source Model and License columns and add a paragraph that explains that all versions of windows are closed source but that Microsoft offers shared source licenses to qualified organizations.[2] Unfortunately, that page does not detail which products are covered by the program. I've seen the list at times and know it did not cover all editions or versions of Windows. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DOS-based[edit]

Windows 1.0-3.11 aren't based on DOS. They're programs that run from DOS.

32 bit version of Windows Vienna available??[edit]

Microsoft has already said that Windows Server 2008 is the last Windows server system to have 32 bit version. After that, the whole Windows server family will be published in 64 bit only

Windows Eight?[edit]

This is the first time I have heard of Windows Eight. Unless someone can cite this I think it should be removed.72.135.255.23 00:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable?[edit]

I'm sure that there's a good reason for the tables not being sortable, as in Comparison of web browsers#General information, as I have never seen this article before. Can someone clarify this for me? This comment is not intended to be sarcastic, but might be interpreted that way, hence this sentence. --Thinboy00 @920, i.e. 21:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX?[edit]

Perhaps it would be noteworthy to have the included directx version in the features table? --Rgb9000 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vista SP2 release date in table[edit]

Needs to be changed. The stated date is SP1's release date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.59.154 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMP Support in windows 9x[edit]

Does Windows 95 really have SMP support?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.152.128 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP memory limit[edit]

It sould be noted that XP SP1 could go beyound 4GB in 32-bits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8422:1191:6E00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Microsoft EULA" fiasco[edit]

Hi.

Looks like this article is also plagued with the "Microsoft EULA" fiasco: In the license field, the article asserts that the license is "Microsoft EULA". I have seen several discussions about this phrase, all which have established that it is:

  1. Not informative: The phrase "Microsoft End-User License Agreement (MS-EULA)" was once upon a time printed on top of every Microsoft license agreement document, but only to indicate the document is a legal contract for using a piece of software product. The problem is, despite the title, the content always differed. Even two MS-EULAs for the same software title that came from two different places might have been entirely different. This is specifically the case of Windows, which comes in myriads of licensing scheme including retail, volume licensing, OEM, system builders, software assurance, etc. (The only similarity between the licensing terms of all MS-EULAs was that they were either closed source or shared source. But again, this no similarity.) This is the complete opposite of e.g. GPL: If you grab two copies of GPLv2 from two different places, they match letter for letter.
  2. It is no longer used: In other words, writing "MS-EULA" in front of Windows 7 is wrong because Microsoft itself notice the problem I mentioned above and has long stopped writing the nonsense. In case of Windows 7, for example, one can find the license agreement in C:\Windows\system32\license.rtf. It is titled "MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS – WINDOWS 7 PROFESSIONAL" (to make it distinguishable from another EULA, say Internet Explorer license) and ends with "EULAID:Win7_RM.0_PRO_RTL_en-us", a code that helps distinguish it from other Windows 7 licenses.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I object to Windows RT being listed as an operating system[edit]

Windows RT or Windows Run Time is no more a complete operating system than Java Virtual Machine or Android's Davlik. I can run Android (Davlik) Apps on my PC or on my Mac. Although Window Managers (like Enlightenment) are the face of Linux they are not the operating system. Windows 8 and Windows RT are not binary compatible, indicating different operating systems. RT is a presentation interface running on top of Phone OS core whether CE or BREW etc. Wikipedia calls Linux an operating system because it has a bootable kernel and even without the Window Managers and presentation APIs boots to a usable command line. Still has shell. Windows 8 can also boot to a command line and Windows Server has Core Mode sans GUI. Still has Win32 subsystem. RT is a presentation API only; saying it is an operating system depreciates the term. Shjacks45 (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse Windows RT with WinRT. WinRT is the name of the API for both Windows 8 and Windows RT. Windows RT is the name of an the ARM version of Windows and is named so because it uses WinRT as its only 3rd-party-accessible API. By the way, Windows RT does have the Win32 subsystem; it's just locked down so that 3rd parties can't write Win32-ARM applications. - Josh (talk | contribs) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am guessing this needs to go to Wikipedia's hall of fame for jokes: Someone knows about Windows Runtime but not about Windows RT. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10[edit]

You guys look like you have everything very neat and specific, so instead of just adding it, I figured I'd ask if there was a reason Windows 10 wasn't listed yet. Do you only list them once they hit RTM? Don't want to step on toes, here. 173.67.252.227 (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
It is very simple really. How are you supposed to compare something that as of yet does not exist? e.g. wow do you know the RTM build? Command-line interpreter and file system support are also unconfirmed. Microsoft seems to be renovating the CLI and appears to be dropping ReFS. But we can't know for certain yet.
Filling the article with speculation or "N/A" is same as not covering the subject.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Size Matters[edit]

You MUST also post the size of Operating Systems (OS). Each of the Microsoft Windows Operating Systems.

The size of an Operating System Matters.

The Size of an Operating System (OS) determines how fast the Operating System will take to load from a Storage Device like a Hard Drive.

The Size of an Operating System (OS) will determine how fast actions are accomplished.

Translation: A very small Operating System will be like an Olympic Athlete; while a large Operating System will be like an Obese Person attempting to run a Marathon.

The Size of an Operating System is like a Distance in Miles or Kilometers; that must be "Run" (loaded from Hard Drive). A small Operating System of 200 KB (Kilo Bytes) would be "Running" about 200 Meters to finish the Marathon; while a Large Operating System of 20 GB (Giga Bytes) would be running over 2,000 Miles just to finish the Marathon; both Runners start at the same time. This can be physically tested by loading a small Operating System unto a computer designed to use a Large Operating System.

Because Operating Systems were getting Larger the Computer Manufacturers had to start making Computers with faster Processors, more Random Access Memory (RAM Memory), larger faster read write Hard Drives; that would seem to be about the same speed of processing as the previous smaller Operating Systems, but with more User Friendly Features.

A Real Computer Person since the early 1970s. Nakamuradavid (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add size information to the article, there are three rules you should observe:
If you fail to observe any of these, your edit will be reverted.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. First of all, the size of an operating system has nothing to do with its performance. I can make a super small OS that's just a couple of MBs in size that even a super computer wouldn't be able to run at an acceptable speed. That's all a matter of optimization. Second, there are a ridiculous amount of factors that influence the size of the OS, there is no way to calculate this. And finally: size really doesn't matter. --YannickFran (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Example: Windows 7, Windows 8 and Windows 10 have the same sizes. Windows 8 runs much faster than the other two. Windows 7 is much slower than the rest. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 04:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2016 hardware requirement[edit]

Hello everyone, this edit the hardware requirement in Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2016 is restored again. Is editing in text beside it wrong ?. And I saw on the website correctly. That means the website is wrong. So can I again add hardware requirement in Windows Server 2012 and Windows Server 2016 ?. Please answer below. EverythingEpan (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Server 2019 Information[edit]

Is there a reliable source of information from Microsoft about these versions Elcidia (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date inconsistencies[edit]

There are some inconsistencies between the dates on the comparison page and the individual versions' Wikipedia pages.

Here are a few I've noticed:

Windows 2.0: the release date is listed as 1987-09-08 and the latest version is 1987-04-08, but on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0x, release date is 1987-04-08 and latest version is the same (so likely a mistake on that page)

Windows 98: the release date for the latest version is not given. The column lists the version as 4.10.1998, which matches the "ver" command. It might be assumed to be April 10, 1998 (or October 4, 1998) but looking at the other Windows 9x versions, it's likely based on the kernel number and it's a coincidence that it looks like a date. Either way, what is the actual date of the latest version?

Windows 98 SE: where did the latest version date 2000-02-25 come from? There is no individual Wikipedia page for 98 SE, but on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98, 98 SE is listed as the Latest release, without it's own Released to manufacturing or General availability dates

Windows Vista: Release and Latest version dates don't match Release to manufacturing and Latest release dates on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista

Windows 11: Release date doesn't match Release to manufacturing date on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsarson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions&oldid=1206764856"