Talk:Windows 1.0

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows 1.0 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Windows 1.0 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 4, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed

Computing: Software Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

Microsoft: Windows High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Top-importance).

Microsoft Windows: Computing Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Software: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

On 23 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Windows 1.0x to Windows 1.0. The result of the discussion was moved.

Logo[edit]

The Windows logo used in this article is dubious. I've tried Windows 10.1 myself and I never saw this logo (I used virtual machines). The only thing similar to a logo in Windows 1.01 is when you go to the About tab and it shows a 5.25" floppy disc on the far left side of the window. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this, the logo in the article is correct. Vacant0 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

windows 1.02[edit]

Is there a reason for the exclusion of Windows 1.02 from the system requirements section? FusionSub (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now added. It is virtually identical to version 1.01, just sold outside of the U.S. and with more localizations. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Verbatim search result hits for "Windows 1.0(x)":

Google Search "Windows 1.0x": ~17,500 results
Google Search "Windows 1.0": ~958,000 results
Google Books "Windows 1.0x": 91 results
Google Books "Windows 1.0": 11,200 results
ProQuest "Windows 1.0x": 8 results (subscription required)
ProQuest "Windows 1.0": 1,733 results (subscription required)

– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.0(x)":

Google Search "Windows 2.0x": ~4,050 results
Google Search "Windows 2.0": ~242,000 results
Google Books "Windows 2.0x": 82 results
Google Books "Windows 2.0": 23,400 results
ProQuest "Windows 2.0x": 0 results (subscription required)
ProQuest "Windows 2.0": 1,472 results (subscription required)

– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.1(x)":

Google Search "Windows 2.1x": ~6,930 results
Google Search "Windows 2.1": ~130,000 results
Google Books "Windows 2.1x": 168 results
Google Books "Windows 2.1": 3,420 results
ProQuest "Windows 2.1x": 0 results (subscription required)
ProQuest "Windows 2.1": 312 results (subscription required)

– Verbatim search hits for "Windows 3.1(x)":

Google Search "Windows 3.1x": ~96,300 results
Google Search "Windows 3.1": ~5,000,000 results
Google Books "Windows 3.1x": 10,400 results
Google Books "Windows 3.1": 565,000 results
ProQuest "Windows 3.1x": 597 results (subscription required)
ProQuest "Windows 3.1": 27,961 results (subscription required)

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Suffixing x to the ends of the version numbers to denote that subversion exist is unnecessary when the vast, vast majority of reliable sources refer to the releases by their common, concise release name, without causing confusion to the reader. Windows 3.11/Windows for Workgroups 3.11, while notable upgrades, are minor revisions compared to the major leaps from 2.1 to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.1, and until they have their own articles, Windows 3.1 is a sufficient synecdoche to refer to them. The differences between 1.01–1.04, 2.01–2.03, and 2.1–2.11 are, as far as I can tell, totally minute and not worth the annotation.

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." These three articles are the only ones that adhere to this practice of suffixing the version number with x to denote subversions. Other version-specific software articles, like Mac OS 9 or Firefox 4, do not adhere to this practice. If I'm wrong, please let me know, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." I can only speak anecdotally, but I have only ever heard "Windows 3.1" uttered in natural conversation; I have never heard "Windows 3.1 ecks". While readers have no problem finding these articles as they stand now, I think the x is an ugly, unnecessary blemish that only serves to hint that updates to the base release exist, when I think that's implicit to just about anyone who has ever used software—then or now. It might have been relevant to add the x for the periods of time where these operating systems were still supported by Microsoft and other vendors, but this is no longer the case. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support moves. The vast majority of common use omits the x. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Just added Windows 2.1x to the move discussion, as I had somehow forgot its existence until just now. Oops. Pinging @Old Naval Rooftops:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. --49.150.0.134 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.