# Talk:Windows 8.1

Please create this page because it was confirmed by Microsoft yesterday that they will be realising a preview of windows 8.1 after the event 86.171.33.224 (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We have seperate articles for Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1x. Windows 8.1 is even a bigger upgrade from Windows 8.0 than was Windows 3.1 from 3.0.
There are new features including UI, security, business & management, new apps, new features, and a lot more. This should be treated as a whole new OS rather than a small update, like Windows Service Pack. I will write some starter content for this OS to get us started. Any thoughts?
--NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree. And now that the page is here, we need to expand it, and add more information so that people will know more about this update to Windows 8. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree, Windows 8.1 has the same core as Windows 8 and only adds UI improvements, improvements to the metro interface, improved functionality to the metro side and added functionality that favors desktop users such as boot to desktop. Windows 8.1 in my view isn't a true new version of Windows, especially because the hardware requirements are not very different. If windows 8.1 has its own article then why doesnt Windows with Service Pack 1 that's being sold have an article as well? I am not saying Windows 8.1 is a service pack but it isn't a new version of windows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 

 Done -- Yes, WIN 8.1 is here with its own article; and if you currently click on the 'external link:  official website' it says get ready for Windows 10. -- AstroU (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi.
We do know that a service pack is a huge cumulative hotfix. Windows 8.0 and Windows 8.1 do not have service packs, but they still have monthly incremental hotfixes as big as service packs, called "update rollup"s. Windows 8.0 update rollups so far are twice as big as Windows XP Service Pack 2 package. Windows 8.1 has so far had two update rollups worth 200 MB.
Shouldn't we mention them in the article? I am not saying we include a change log (WP:NOTCHANGELOG) but why not mention the most important feature of every rollup? Or at least, why not write about this new strategy?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Update rollups are just patches; they do not cause any change in how the OS is branded (i.e. install a service pack and the System Information/etc. actually says "Windows 7 Service Pack 1") or affect support status (8.1 will be needed to maintain access to mainstream support for 8 two years following its release, much like service packs on previous versions). In fact, they used to be called "Cumulative Updates". ViperSnake151  Talk   00:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Viper. Did you notice that this is not an RFC? I am not looking for votes. Per WP:5P, any Wikipedian can cover significant aspects of the subject of the article and the policy suite makes no distinction between service pack or other vessel of change. So, I am going to cover it regardless of all the votes unless those discussing (instead of voting) can show that there is a drawback to said coverage. I think you'd have still covered the Start button topic even if Microsoft had add it in an update rollup ... or even in The Most Insignificant Updates of All Times. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
What about the service pack which is due to arrive in a few day's time? It's a major service pack and it has, according to some sources, been leaked back in March and was even available via Microsoft for a short period of time. Why is that not mentioned here? --Maxl (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the Updates section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The Windows 7 article mentions the Convenience Rollup here: Windows 7#Convenience rollup. So, I don't see why the Windows 8.1 shouldn't mention the Update Rollups too..--MisterSanderson (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Google news reveals that there will be a newer version of Windows in the spring of 2015. This isn't just a rumor, it is real. Its code name is Threshold. Any thoughts on where Windows Threshold should re-direct?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I must really ask Google News: When did they learn time-travel? Anyway, I am not sure if time-travel can be used to override WP:NOTCRYSTAL. I still remember the first version of "Windows Blue" article that was deleted.
I've said it a couple times before but encyclopedia writing needs a lot of patience. Contrary to the news agencies, we are hard-press not to hurry.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
While it's true that the Windows Blue article was originally deleted, the reports turned out to be true and we have an article about it today: Windows Blue.  WP:NOTCRYSTAL is an important consideration, but it's not the only consideration.  It would be foolish to think that there would never be another version of Windows, just like it would be foolish to think that there will never be another Olympics, and guess what, we do have an article about the 2014 Winter Olympics.  Yes, we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL, but it doesn't mean that we should all be mindless robots and blindly ignore the implications of the actions that we take.  We need to use common sense.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. That's quite correct and you're not even contradicting me. I'd personally be willing to add an article the moment I felt we know something more tangible than "There will be a next version", "its codename is such and such" and "it contains some changes". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment Please make sure you're reading into this correctly. Please make sure you're not thinking that I'm wanting Wikipedia to have a great deal of info about Windows Threshold as early as now. If that were the reason I brought this up, I would have suggested an article. I only suggested a re-direct. Georgia guy (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. We should redirect Windows Threshold where there is info on this subject. Is there such a place at this time? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Do a Google News search on Windows Threshold as you'll get quite a few pages. Georgia guy (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Are you proposing a redirect to somewhere out of Wikipedia? Sorry, that's not supported. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No; I'm trying to discuss what Wikipedia article Windows Threshold should re-direct to. Georgia guy (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The current redirect is unhelpful. It simply redirects to the main page of Windows where no information of Windows Threshold can be found. Shouldn't it redirect to some place where info about Windows Threshold is found? And I tink Codename Lisa meant where in the WIKIPEDIA can we find info on Windows Threshold to redirect the article. That's also what I mean, to prevent misunderstandings. I believe, though, that this will be difficult as long as there are people who are a bit to keen to delete new info from the Wikipedia. --Maxl (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I feel the article should have the Windows desktop in the top photo as well as the start screen. The desktop has been in Windows since Windows 95 and is obviously major feature as well as the start screen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC) 

Hi. If the desktop has been around since Windows 95, then there is no cause to show it again, after some many articles having shown it. Wikipedia non-free content criteria policy prevents us from overuse of copyright-protected screenshots. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, perhaps the a picture of the desktop could be placed below the start screen in the top photo for fairness. Every Windows article features a photo of the Windows desktop. Additionally Windows 8 offers the desktop and start screen (no compromises). The photo of the start screen could potentially mislead readers Windows 8 is all about the start screen and the desktop isn't as important.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 

You message is just a repetition of Brendenhows' above. Should I just repeat CL's answer? If every article on Windows shows a desktop, then the wise thing would be to show something new and more important than something that people are tired of seeing. Even then, I don't see how you can get away with WP:NFCC. Fleet Command (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I just went over and look at other Windows articles. Who say they show desktop? They show Start menu, Windows Explorer or Program Manager. Small part of the desktop happens to be behind the whole hoopla. The only exceptions are Windows 95, 98 and Home Server 2011. Fleet Command (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I apologize for the confusion as I switched my Wikipedia username from Brendenhows to Polloloco51 recently. Windows 8 features not just the start screen, but also the desktop. I am suggesting to put both a photo of the desktop and the start screen on the top photo. Windows 8 is a no compromise OS and I think having both a photo of the desktop and the start screen would give a better visual of the totality of Window 8/8.1. Windows 8/8.1 isn't just about the start screen, the desktop is an important part as well.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC) 

I put back the list of changes and new features to Windows 8.1, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_8.1&oldid=586857891#List_of_changes_and_new_features and also updated it with changes from Features new to Windows 8 and List of features removed in Windows 8 because really, it doesn't make sense to have a separate article for Windows 8.1 (this page) but then have the features and changes for Windows 8.1 put in two other separate articles that are about Windows 8.0. Also without a list of changes and new features it is really very hard to easily detect the changes to Windows 8.1 and compare it to Windows 8.0. Anyone agree? user931 23:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi.
I disagree. There are no significant benefits in doing this. Therefore, MOS:STABILITY applies. In other words: Don't do it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not entirely against having a summary of Windows 8.1 changes in Windows 8.1 article. In fact, WP:FACR supports it. (But don't we have it there already?)
And one more thing. You didn't put it back. It was never there. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes I put it back from when information about Windows 8.1 was located in Windows 8.0 article and which you then removed despite all being happy with the list. Yes there are significant benefits since there is no way to easily grasp the changes between 8.0 and 8.1 without the list. user931 13:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
We had three discussions about this in Talk:Windows 8, ViperSnake151 reverts you, I disagree; and yet you claim everyone was happy and insist that "I put it back"? You don't even deserve an answer, let alone a discussion.
Wikipedia is not a change log. No regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There should be more information from the haters perspective for this OS - the people who want functionality as similar as possible to Win XP and Win 7, who are not interested in SkyDrive nor Cloud services or Microsoft accounts, and there could be more explanations about the ways Win 8.1 makes live difficult for these people, and ways how to customize Win 8.1 to interact with users the Win XP and Win 7 way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.160.59.67 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 

Your only edits have been to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. There's already reception noting how they're trying to push Microsoft accounts more on 8.1, and you can't just shove personal opinions in articles like that. We also cannot do that because Wikipedia forbids how-to content. ViperSnake151  Talk   16:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
what he/she means is a criticisnm section. And by the way, edits aren't necessarily disruptive just because you personally don't like them. And anyway, you seem not to be inclined to discuss peoples' edits before you revert them, just as you are doing in Windows Threshold where your redirect is useless since it does not lead anywhere where you'll find info on Windows Threshold. As long as there isn't the redirect is useless. The "Chrystal Orb" is your own perception which you, so far chose not to discuss with others. --Maxl (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Criticism sections are a non-neutral form of presentation in most cases, and the reception section already covers major criticisms (coverage of any other criticisms would be undue). IP editor also recommended how-to content, which is also forbidden on Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk   18:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That would depend on how they are written and whether they are sufficiently sourced. There are criticism sections in many articles, so they can hardly be forbidden. They're just not to your taste as I seem to detect from your answer. --Maxl (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Criticism of Windows 8.1 is not a major aspect of its existence. Criticism of Windows Vista, however, was a major aspect of its existence. Also I find it odd that you just randomly came out of nowhere to object any sensible decisions I make regarding these articles. ViperSnake151  Talk   18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I agree with ViperSnake151. The existing articles on the subject fairly, proportionately and as much as possible without bias represent major points of view on this version of Windows. As for User:Maxl, I can't really discern what he is driving at or whether his is supporting, opposing or explaining something. But resorting to other stuff exist discussion is a sign that probably it is not worth contemplating. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone objected to the word "spring" because they think it's not geographically neutral. Spring in the United States is generally April and May. But how about in Canada or the United Kingdom?? I'm sure their spring is the same, so how can it be US-centric?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not geographically neutral. Spring doesn't come at the same time of year in all parts of the world. And I mean by hemispheres. Obviously most of Canada gets Spring at the same time. See WP:SEASON. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Well being geographically neutral contrasts with being US-centric, doesn't it?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
No I mean, it's not specific to the U.S.. "Spring update" is common name based on sources, however. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. A user in WP:ANI mentioned the spring in the Middle East is fixed period of exactly 93 days starting on vernal equinox. This year, that would be 21 March through 23 June and it is not going to change for a couple of decades. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You're talking about Iranian calendars alright. But anyway, "spring" and "early" are both vague, no need to have a discussion on them. Just write "but did not specify a release date beyond the vague 'Spring 2014'". Fleet Command (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 is essentially the same operating system as windows 8 only with some added updates and UI improvements. Its not a new Windows operating system. I believe Windows 8.1 should be merged with Windows 8 to avoid giving the notion that Windows 8.1 is a new version of Windows. Additionally Microsoft has created a new release cycle and windows 8.1 isn't like the past Windows that were released. Windows 8.1 has roughly the same hardware requirements and doesn't introduce new technology into the core of windows 8, and in conclusion it really isn't a true new version of Windows. I believe merging Windows 8.1 with Windows 8 in my opinion would be the most sensible thing to do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC) 
One more thing, the build number of Windows 8.1 is the same as Windows 8 and is evidence that Windows 8.1 isn't a new version of Windows. --Polloloco51 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Already discussed and rejected.  Fleet Command (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I see the Windows 8.1 in someway as a content fork, because Windows 8.1 is Windows 8 but with updates to the Modern side and the desktop side. It states in the Windows 8 article that "Windows 8.1 (codenamed "Blue"), the first major update to Windows 8 and RT". Polloloco51 (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Content fork occurs only when you read two pieces of text and learn nothing new from the second piece. So, Windows 8.1 is definitely not a content fork. But we could not keep them merged. We run into article size problem. It was brimming with so much content that we couldn't keep in one article. Despite my resistance, the split occurred. Eventually, I consented. You read all about it in talk pages of articles on Windows 8.x. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems that, without discussion, Codename Lisa has gone around and changed all references to say that, disregarding Microsoft's terminology and insistant use of the word "update" for legal reasons, that 8.1 is an "upgrade" for 8. I still consider this to be incorrect, because this is not technically an entirely new, major version of Windows, it is simply a revision of 8, or a Windows 98 Second Edition basically.
Although Microsoft did not specifically use the term this time around, given that it's pretty much one for the purposes of support and lifecycle, would you mind if we referred to 8.1 as what it essentially is, a "service pack"? ViperSnake151  Talk   19:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. True, I did. Our guideline BRD does not have a D before B. But tell me, what is the following sentence talking about?
The update was released a month later.
A. Windows 8.1
B. Windows 8.1 Update 1
Both answers are correct; you can call both "an update". I needed another name to make sure a sentence like this in the article consistently refers to one thing.
Now, as for Microsoft's terminology, thanks God, Wikipedia does not work for Microsoft and hence holds no extraordinary value in its terminology especially when it is a biased matter of pure corporate bureaucracy. Update 1 might be a service pack but from a neutral point of view, Windows 8.1 is far more elaborate than a service pack because:
It has a full installer
Needs a special serial number incompatible with 8.0
Bears a new lower version number (6.2 → 6.3)
Is not distributed through Windows Update
Is not given free-of-charge to corporate customers that do not have a standing SA contract. (SA contract holders receive all upgrades for free.)
We have seen such full operating systems before: Windows 3.1 and Windows 3.11.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151:: I am afraid I am getting really concerned over your point of view in your recent edits. You seem to be promoting the service pack point of view while there are sourced evidences in favor of new OS point of view. Please allow me to remind you:Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. 
That means we state the similarities and dissimilarities to a service pack without saying whether it is a service pack or not. Do you agree?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Let me get this straight; we cannot use the term "service pack" because its a synthesis, and sources argue that it is not. We cannot use the term "update" because it requires dedicated license key and installation method and because it is hypernym of "upgrade". So hence, the article must be written to treat 8.1 as a successor to 8 which is supplied free only to existing owners of retail/OEM Windows 8 licenses, and not as an "update" to 8. This reminds me of when an IP editor insisted we cannot call Office 365 a service, but "subscription-based products that require periodic payments to Microsoft in order for the subscriber to use the products", because Microsoft's website lists Office 365 pre-paid subscriptions under "Products". ViperSnake151  Talk   21:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid you I won't term what you just wrote as straight. What I am proposing is this:
About service pack: You showed similarities to service pack, I showed differences from a service pack. So, instead of fighting over calling a spade a stick or blade, we call it a spade. I say Windows 8.1 should be introduced as a version of Windows NT that has such and such similarities to a service pack and such and such differences from a service pack. We even have a ZDNet article to that effect too, right?
About update and upgrade: We can call it both; Microsoft can't. All I say is that calling 8.1 an upgrade while calling 8.1 Update an update suppresses ambiguity. If you have a an alternative idea, please pitch in. (Chances are that your idea is better than mine.)
And as for that IP user, there is a shorter version of what he wants: Software as a service
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know what percentage of users have updated to windows 8.1? I can't see any reason to do so myself. Not very much changed from 8 to 8.1, and there could be problems with the update. HP sends me messages that if I choice to update and my hardware fails they are not responsible. If my computer fails, I will only have to reinstall it again. It is enough work to reinstall with install discs that are for windows 8. Then one must update again to 8.1, creating even more hours of wasted busy work for the user. The so called advantages do not interest me. I already know how to find the start button, I know how to close a full screen app. I don't like the metro style at all, but I am not saying I am a hater. I am saying the whole article seems written by those who are lovers. There should be more perspective from not only from detractors, but from the average consumer.
It would be a good start if someone could find out what percentage of user choose to update and if so why or why not. The article and the comments sound elitist.Apriv40dj (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's how to compare; those market share stats count them separately. Also note, Wikipedia is not a forum. ViperSnake151  Talk   16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my research online did not give a percentage. If I had found an article, I would have added to the page. I don't understand what you mean by "to count market shares." I wanted to know how many user of windows 8 have upgraded to 8.1 and how many have not. It is a legitimate question. Apriv40dj (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
I've spotted the following problems in § Distribution section of revision 603741461:

"Windows 8.1 is distributed in a somewhat different manner". "Somewhat" is fluff. If removed the sense does not lose any info because somewhat does not specify the exact extent.
"...install it through the traditional Windows setup process, either as an in-place upgrade or clean install, and requires an 8.1-specific product key." It reads "...install it ... and requires an 8.1 specific key." Clumsy sentence to say the least.
"Windows 8.1 cannot be acquired through Windows Update, a standalone installer which can be downloaded once and used as many times as needed": The second part after the coma makes no sense at all. Essentially this sentence is saying "Windows Update is a standalone installer which can be downloaded once and..."
"which can also be used to generate DVD or live USB installation media." The word "live" here alters the meaning. A live USB is a USB flash drive or a USB external hard disk drive containing a full operating system that can be booted. Should be "... or USB installation media."
"New retail SKUs of Windows 8 with 8.1 included were also released; unlike Windows 8 [...] can be installed on any computer, even if it does not have an existing operating system." Wrong. This is not correct about all SKUs, only about physical installation media. Non-physical SKUs purchased from web could be installed on any computer.
The section has also lost its focus on distribution.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the section about "Paul Thurrott of Windows Supersite..."  1) He acknowledges he did not invent or introduce this workaround. 2) It's a trick designed to bypass the manufacturer's supported mechanism for updating the product. 3) It does not work for those running the OEM release of Windows 8.0 which is nearly all customers. The comments in the Paul Thurrott article have links to where you can get pirated license keys, which they call "dummy keys", to get around the OEM issue.
Related to this is I deleted using this web site as a reference in the first paragraph as it already has two WP:RS and the links deleted ended up having the same OEM/pirated license keys issue as the paragraph that was deleted. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
This note hardly explains (let alone justify) what you actually did: You deleted the source that provided citations and then put a {{cn}} there! You are introducing the problem. Our source was Paul's article, not the comments, which we don't take for anything in the light of WP:RS. As for your issues:
1) I can rewrite the sentence to resolve this. (2) Ditto. (3) The article says nothing can be done with it, hence your point is moot.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The dummy keys are not pirated, they actually are built in. You just can't activate an installation with them. You can install using the dummy keys and then use a command line tool to set it to your actual key. ViperSnake151  Talk   23:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed that the Windows 8.1 Update changed all the names of Skydrive (the app and desktop version) to Onedrive. I can not find any article stating this, and the Microsoft Knowledge Base has no mention of it either. Can anybody add this information with a source?Avster2000NT (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is already discussed on OneDrive. ViperSnake151  Talk   01:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Viper. WP:FACR requires articles to be self-contained. It means if the rename impacted Windows 8.1, there must be a mention in the article. I tried to discuss this with you before, predicting that such a discussion will inevitably occur. I haven't exactly kept up with all the changes in Windows 8.1 recently. But if I didn't get there first, please to it that this issue is resolved. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Windows 8 also?, Windows 7 (qualified)?, Windows Phone. comp.arch (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi.
There is a recent contribution to this article that says Windows 8.x is outsold by Android as well. This is a copy and paste from Windows article but while it is appropriate there, I think here, it is misleading because:

First, it says the sale ratio of devices with Android to devices with Windows is 2.8 to 1. Of course, that's "Windows", not "Windows 8.1".
Second, the comparison is meaningless because the markets are not totally overlapping. The bulk of Windows market is personal computers, workstations, servers and high-end tablets while the bulk of Android market is phones and low-end tablets. The overlap of their market is at midrange tablets with Windows RT which is very thin. True, it is Microsoft's fault and Microsoft's headache but still, the comparison is meaningless.
These stats say that people buy more phones than PCs; I guess it is okay to say it in Windows, Windows RT or Windows Phone articles. But here? I doubt it. 
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're correct.  Windows 8.1 is not a direct competitor to Android.  However, MacOS X is.  It seems strange to compare market share with a non-competitor but omit market share of a direct competitor.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Which version of OS X matches Windows 8.1? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Not in principle against comparing against OS X, but it is far behind, but up to fifth place of PCs; OS X sells less than Windows 8 (may have been 8.1 or combined, from memory). OS X is far behind Android, because iOS/OS X combined is. Sales for individual OS versions are often hard to find as not too important distinction.. comp.arch (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess you are correct enough so to speak. 2.8:1 isn't about Windows 8.1 exactly, isn't about things that are worth almost the same and isn't about things that target the roughly same market. It is raw stats; WP:NOTSTATS. And the comparison is unfair too: Java devices have always outsold Windows devices when considered by number; especially because they include watches, set-top boxes, and sorts of embedded devices. All this "Microsoft is going down" rhetoric belongs to Microsoft article and this pro-Google POV is certainly against WP:NPOV. (Comp.arch has posted a full novella worth of explanation below which I am ignoring. WP:TL;DR, you know.) Fleet Command (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing at WP:NOTSTATS, I assume you mean "Excessive listings of statistics". How would you summarize Gartner[1]? I believe I did and not by copying "raw stats" but info could maybe be more carefully trimmed (I did after my first edit). Please explain "worth almost the same", in WP:NPOV terms if you can. See my clarified answer below.
Comparing to Android and not something else – e.g. "Java" – is not unfair. I provide sources for what I find and find relevant. You can do too. Java is a programming language (and framework) a system component at best compared to Dalvik or ART. What actual operating system are you talking about that rival Windows now or in the past? Symbian? The discontinued JavaOS..? Or somehow combined as an OS equivalent? Java as a platform is nowhere as popular as a platform for applications by numbers? Set-top boxes and "embedded devices" (some at least) do/did not are not computers for user supplied programs that is an important distinction.
"belongs to Microsoft article", maybe also there, but mostly when feels the financial impact and with sources in dollars not number of units. Note, in case there is a misunderstanding, 2.8:1 outsold is not for Microsoft-branded devices but all carrying Windows. comp.arch (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Summary "TL;DR" (the summary was added afterwards - trying to clarify and added quote from the ref that was reverted prompting this discussion)
"Gartner[2]: "Shipments include mobile phones, ultramobiles (including tablets) and PCs". Garner sees fit to compare the most popular operating systems, including Android and Windows on equal footing, regardless of them being run on PCs or say phones. This should address Lisa's second point (and first?)/"target the roughly same market" as irrelevant and that I'm not doing WP:SYNTH (by doing that I can show Android and Windows have about the same installed base, not just recent sales). For those not paying attention to, in several countries including India and Kenya mobile use has overtaken non-mobile use (and soon China), in these two over 70% use mobile mostly because of Android being by far most popular. [Java or OSes containing JVM/"Java"are not on the list (as a JVM/Java framework is not a full OS, only system software, part of an OS, just like Linux kernel while both have APIs].
Major point - why I agree with Gartner that comparing across form factors is fair - and that "Windows" should apply to Windows 8[.1] article at least
I'm all for clarifying the wording if considered unfair to Windows, but Windows no longer number one is historic and should be documented somehow here. Microsoft Windows is an umbrella article - a concept. Nobody buys a concept, everybody buys/installs an actual product and would look at a subsidiary version article. Many (most?) will look up this article, or some recently marketed version of Windows, for info on Windows (and I tried to find Windows articles on version for the timeframe 2012+). Windows "the operating system" (the common API of all versions) is perceived by most to be dominant.
I'm not saying Windows 8.1 isn't different from 8 or 7 etc. but all versions should be considered mostly the same - API wise. The info on Windows is just spread out to several articles (but fortunately not by service packs :), unlike say Android's or Ubuntu's main artices.  User interface wise, yes there are differences between versions (that are not far between), but I assume API wise, newer versions are a superset (or very nearly) of older. And the API doesn't change that rapidly that (most) programs are not compatible with older versions.
Windows competes with Android (for API reasons). Still Windows has a majority but only for "PC" use but probably not API wise (by installed base) which is important for programmers to know to choose what to program to. And users as a consequence.
Minor points
The first point, Windows vs. Windows 8.x. Feel free to take out 2.8 (in this article, but note I had changed to outsold "Windows versions on the market (7, 8, 8.1)", not saying Windows 8.1 only) or say "at least", if important - best would be to replace by better numbers then. "Outsold" should stay as Android outsold any specific Windows version by that much more (exact numbers are hard to find..).
While Android is considered a "mobile" OS, all OSes compete in some sense with each other for developers and users. All computers running them are general "personal computers" capable of basically the same things (if the API were the same).
If you want to segment the market of devices into PCs (or more finely: desktop and laptops) and smartphones or tablets, that is a somewhat of an artificial distinction from the programmer's point of view at least. Android can be run as on a laptop or "desktop" (with keyboard and mouse) and Windows (the kernel at least its API) runs on phones (WP - but with less portability of apps at least in the past). Microsoft is blurring the lines between general Windows and Windows Phone even more I understand.
Your second point, "low-end tablets" or even tablets vs. phones is irrelevant; yes you can compare Windows tablets' to Android tablets' if one wishes for some reason but you want to compare number of the OS sold or in use as the OS in high- or low-end or tablet or phone is the same (the API standpoint). And this article is about the OS, not devices primarily.
The line between low-end and high-end is also arbitrary and trying to figure out numbers of each would be an impossible task. It's not unfair to compare smartphones use to Windows tablets as the smartphone vs tablet distinction is also artificial. Smartphone apps (most?) run on tablets. Apps that run on low-end tablets (or smartphones) run on high-end, making the number of devices using an OS important, not any possible high-end distinction of Windows. All these devices run also common web browsers..
"Windows 8.1 is not a direct competitor to Android", Windows 8.x was first(?) Windows to market to touch/tablet use that competed with Android? Actually at first iOS was considered the actual threat to Windows? Most users/critics consider Win 8.x an irrelevant addition to 7 except for it main new purpose tablets? comp.arch (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Comp.arch
First, Windows 8 is NOT Microsoft's first foray into the tablet market. Microsoft Tablet PC was. Touch support was first supported in Windows CE and Windows Mobile. Hardware manufacturers could always develop device drivers to add touch interface since Windows 3.1. The only thing visible here is Microsoft's lack acumen to sell in consumers market. Microsoft lacked it in 1992 and still lacks it, so it does not even coincide with Windows 8.
Second, I refuse to acknowledge the sale of one copy of Windows Server an equal to one Android device, period. These two are not equals. A $100 mobile phone is much different from a $1,000,000 server.
Most importantly, none of these discussions satisfy the need of inserting the text in the proper place. People who would come to Windows 8.1 article for this kind of info must already have your info and your bias. The latter is unlikely and the former is the reason for not coming in the first place.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Codename Lisa "refuse to acknowledge the sale of one copy of Windows Server an equal to one Android device" - no need, this article isn't about Windows Server?! Wouldn't using it as such be a license violation (unlike Android)? If you want to include servers and Linux in general (including or excluding Android) isn't Linux more popular for servers (and supercomputers, I know, not "servers")? [and most servers do not cost million dollars anyway]. Popularity is by numbers not dollars. The source and text is explicit about it. comp.arch (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. First, I must protest your action of changing your message after I replied to it. You make me look like a complete idiot. This isn't fair. Second, yes, Gardener did have a point, which – I am afraid – is lost upon you. It is showing the magnitude of smartphone market (which has been lost on Microsoft since 1992) and its trying to promote forward thinking by providing strategic marketing data. It does include Windows Server as well. (And as you said "this article isn't about Windows Server".) None of these has anything to do with Windows 8, Windows 8.1 or any specific version of Windows. It is an all-in comparison.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Also please indent your messages properly so as to give everyone the equal opportunity to participate. I think do that increases your chance of getting support as well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
"Windows 8 is NOT Microsoft's first foray into the tablet market" - ok, doesn't change much regarding including the info I put in the article or not. Whether is was first or not was not may main argument and the least important you answer. Will you reconsider reverting  me reverting your deletion of the info I provided? comp.arch (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by "reconsider reverting" you? Are you asking me to revert you again? (Although that'd be weird.)
I still can't see anything directly related to Windows 8.x. That's a dealbreaker, I'm afraid. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with removing this content. Android is on a great many platform types where Windows is not, and in the smartphone/tablet area has a very long head start. As such this is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Jeh (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
"great many platform types" like? Aside for smartwatches or TVs or some other tiny part of where Android is now, Android is on tablets (and phones), where Lisa argued Windows has a long "headstart". With tablets only compared to Win 8[.x] tablets only there is pretty much orages-to-oranges comparison at least. comp.arch (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
For Lisa, I assume this really means Windows 8.x? comp.arch (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

All operating systems compete with each other as all devices with them for consumers comptete against each other from PCs down to smartphones. People may want PCs or not, but billions of people in e.g. India do without PCs and millions (billions?) there and in several countries are choosing smartphones over PCs (many have Android/mobile over Windows/PCs). Cheap cuts both ways, it may be low end but it may also be good value for money - better than PCs. There is a "worldwide" banner template for biased US/west views regarding the market share section if people do not realize this. Realize that Android outsold Windows 3.37 to 1 in emerging markets in 2013, compared to 2:1 elsewhere. Do not just take my word for this:
"Indeed, when you consider Gartner’s figures for how emerging and mature markets are comparing in terms of operating systems, you can see how the volumes have massively shifted — a sign of where attention and investment will continue to go in years to come."[3]
That was the conclusion here is the rest of article (the interesting bits to me):
"As Apple gears up to unveil [..] Mac computers on Thursday, Gartner has today published figures that underscore the challenge in the market for devices like these against the ineluctable rise of the cheaper, and ultimately more easily replaceable, smartphone.
Gartner’s Q3 and annual figures for device sales worldwide — covering smartphones and tablets as well as PCs of all sizes [..]
The PC, meanwhile, continues its long-term decline
The winner in the consumer electronics race continues to be smartphones, and specifically the Android smartphone.
[Table with "traditional PCs" and Tablets and Mobile Phones summing all up on equal footing.]
Devices built on Google’s mobile operting system will see sales of 1.2 billion devices this year, working out to more than half — 51% — of all devices sold — smartphone or otherwise.
Ultramobiles, the not-quite-PC and not-quite-tablet and not-quite-phone category [..] will grow the fastest. [..]
It’s not that these devices are unsatisfactory to consumers; quite the opposite.
[In the US regarding tablets] we are expecting a 50% penetration. Things just had to slow down as new users are drawn to another device category, larger display smartphones"

This info was reverted, please propose a better one, here's my improved version:
In every year since 2012 have all versions of Microsoft Windows (8.1 and older, RT and Windows Phone) has been outsold by the mobile operating system Android that runs on tablets ("personal computers") and smartphones; in 2013, Android-based devices outsold Windows' 2.8:1 (2:1 in mature markets) or by 573 million units (estimating the gap to widen much in 2014 and 2015). An estimated three billion Android smartphones only (with tablets selling similar to desktop PCs) will be sold by the end of 2014 (including previous years) rivaling Windows installed base in PCs. comp.arch (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Most of the above is irrelevant to whether a comparison of all iOS and Android devices/versions combined vs. Windows 8/8.1 belongs in the Windows 8.1 article, or is a valid comparison at all.
"All operating systems compete with each other as all devices with them for consumers comptete against each other from PCs down to smartphones. "
I agree. And that is why these sorts of comparisons belong in an article called, perhaps, Worldwide market share of personal computing devices. Not an article that's specific to 8/8.1. Jeh (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I wrote:  The term Windows 8.1 is ambiguous because Windows 8 - upgraded with Windows 8.1 - is sold as Windows 8.1 
I have also covered this by source, but this is an everyday occurrence in every store. Show me any exception. 85.193.211.244 (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazon shouldn't be considered as a reliable source. A Press Release by Microsoft or an article in the media would do. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not that Amazon claims something which can be false, and I believe, that it is true - and because Amazon does not know much about Windows 8.1 then Microsoft - as the software maker - must be right. Of course the Microsoft is right, but simultaneously Amazon and the rest of stores sell updated Windows 8 as Windows 8.1.  On the Amazon site you can read:  Microsoft WN7-00614 - OEM - Windows 8.1 64-Bit English International 1 Pack DVD. Does that mean that Amazon lies? No, because this is not a statement, that is either true or false. This is a fact, which is true by definition.  If some terrorist claims something on his private website, would you cite him? Of course he can lie, but what he claims is a fact, and you can cite him despite that he is an extremely unreliable source of information. I just describe what really happens, and the best source is the reality itself, reflected in Google search results. 85.193.211.244 (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
You do realise that what you just said makes little sense, don't you? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, my explanation is very clear, but you still do not understand the difference between a fact and statement or opinion. Maybe it is too difficult for you. Ask me for details, I can help you. 85.193.211.244 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Under the hood, Windows 8.1 is not treated as an update to 8, it is treated as a new version of Windows, distributed free to existing Windows 8 license holders. Notice that 8.1 does not take the same product keys as 8, requires different media for Enterprise users, and installs using the same upgrade process as other Windows 8 upgrades. Microsoft has reissued Windows retail copies with service packs included before, see for example, Windows XP. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Then Amazon sells Windows 8.1 under the right name, and our article is misleading. Furthermore, Microsoft contradicts itself because Microsoft markets Windows 8.1 as an "update" for Windows 8, avoiding the term "upgrade."  But there is another conclusion - my edit was correct :-) So, please restore it. 85.193.211.244 (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Your statement is original research. ViperSnake151  Talk   04:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, my explanation seems to be clear, comprehensive and easy to understand, but logical thinking is necessary, which needs some effort. Much easier is to use the most powerful argument of all: "oryginal research". But a common practice, widely known even by ten-year-olders, does not need any research. Instead, give me any exception. Hard to find? ;-)  Read carefully what you have written, starting from "Under the hood, Windows 8.1 ..." Can't you see that you contradict yourself? If the sentence: "Windows 8 - upgraded with Windows 8.1 - is sold as Windows 8.1" is false, then WHAT does Amazon sell, the free upgrade? ;-) 85.193.211.244 (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

They sell a Windows 8.1 license for clean installation. ViperSnake151  Talk   23:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, but... that is exactly what I am trying to indicate. To tell the truth, your way of thinking is more interesting to me than the problem itself (trivial even for kids). 85.193.211.244 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Original research also means interpreting sources in a way not implied by the sources. ViperSnake151  Talk   17:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As for sources, I have found something for you. According to Microsoft
"Currently running Windows Vista or XP? You will need to buy Windows 8.1 on DVD and perform a clean installation." 
So if my wording is wrong, let's make an edit based on your own wording: "They sell a Windows 8.1 license for clean installation." 
Will you impute a misinterpretation to yourself? ;-) 85.193.211.244 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 is a free upgrade for existing users of Windows 8. At retail, Windows 8 retail product was phased out of production and replaced by Windows 8.1 retail product, which allows new installations and upgrades from previous versions of Windows (i.e. XP/Vista/7). The discussion is confusing me and I do not know what you are complaining about? "The term Windows 8.1 is ambiguous because Windows 8 - upgraded with Windows 8.1 - is sold as Windows 8.1" contradicts itself. ViperSnake151  Talk   18:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
My statement is perfectly true. The term "Windows 8.1" is ambiguous and stands for two different things:

A small service pack, which contains a number of patches.
An operating system, updated with all patches that the service pack contains.
The problem is that you confuse the above two terms. The 8.1-specific product keys is a typical marketing ploy. "Upgrade" also sounds better than "service pack", but it's all about money.
You wrote: New retail installation media of Windows 8.1 were released alongside the online upgrade. Retail copies of 8.1 contain "Full" licenses that can be installed on any computer, regardless of their existing operating system, unlike Windows 8 retail copies, which were only available at retail with upgrade licenses. 
It is all vague and misleading. Given your logic - Windows 8, updated to Windows 8.1, is a "retail copy of 8.1, which contain "Full" license". You confuse the terms: retailing, license and software. Ironically, the source - you refer to - is perfectly clear and logical to me, despite that, I am not a native English speaker. What's more, it confirms all I have written so far. 85.193.211.244 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If it were out today, Windows 98 Second Edition would be handled pretty much the same way as 8.1. It is a new version of Windows, but distributed as a free upgrade to existing users of 8; if you are not an existing user of Windows 8, you have to buy it like every other Windows version. Windows 8 does not use service packs, it uses a full system upgrade process. And on the topic of licenses; Windows 8 retail copies, aside from the "system builder" version, only allowed upgrades from existing versions of Windows and do not allow clean installs on a computer not running an eligible version of Windows. There actually were complaints about this. Again, when they released XP SP2, they released new retail copies that included SP2 integrated into the installation media. But do we say "Windows XP SP2 is ambiguous, because Windows XP, upgraded with Windows XP SP2, is marketed as Windows XP SP2"? No. ViperSnake151  Talk   22:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Anything that can be understood in more than one way is ambiguous by definition. Read again my last post. If you still do not understand it, then you have a serious problem with logical thinking. Maybe you are a kid, but whoever you are, try to learn something from our talk. Logical thinking can be your best friend. Do not take it as a personal attack. I wish you well :-)  85.193.211.244 (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted an invisible message to warn everyone that there is no official logo of Windows 8.1. Is that okay? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Change "On April 8, 2014, Microsoft released "Windows 8.1 Update", which included" to "On April 8, 2014, Microsoft released the "Windows 8.1 Update", which included"
Marioluvswii (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Due to customer feedback, Microsoft decided to extend the Intel "Skylake" processor support from July 17 2017 to July 17 2018. 111.222.18.62 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 8.1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Esquivalience (talk · contribs) 02:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 8.1/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 03:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
WP:LEADLENGTH suggests that for this article, which is less than 5000 words, the lead should be no more than two paragraphs.  Consider moving the material about reception of 8.1 and the channel distribution requirements to appropriate sections in the article body.  Other MOS aspects are met. My mistake.  It calls for 2-3 paragraphs for articles between 15000 and 30000 characters, which this falls in, so it complies with the MoS.  The lead is actually pretty well done, and my procedural quibble was clearly in error.  FalconK (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Once the lead paragraphs are condensed to comply with MoS guidelines, this article can graduate to GA status. This is a great article and tells me everything I might need to know when trying to read up on the development of this OS or Microsoft's thinking and strategy around it.  FalconK (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed some text related to Intel processors and CMPXCHG16B which was using a source that did not explain the problem properly. I wrote http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2015/06/why-your-core-2-processor-appear-to-not.html explaining what is exactly happening. - Yuhong (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello.
We cannot accept original research in Wikipedia or self-published sources that do not have renowned authors. That said, your blog post is as clear as mud. In addition, even with all that your said in your blog, it seems PCWorld was not wrong after all.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that the original source lack many important details and the text also reflected that. I simply removed the text for now. - Yuhong (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Important for who? Laymen? Developers? Geeks like me?
Also, there is no rule in Wikipedia that endorses deletion of what is not detailed enough. Contents are only deleted when their presence is either against a policy or causes a problem. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Things like the exact technical cause of the problem (related to CPUID), exactly what CPUs are affected, and how to fix the problem (a BIOS/microcode update). A developer should be able to understand the contents of my blog post. Notice I also edited Compare-and-swap. - Yuhong (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the blog post could have been written better, but it does have all the important details the PCWorld article lacks. - Yuhong (talk) 06:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
BTW, for the "Due to the virtual address space being extended to 48-bit", there is the source of [4] that has a pretty good technical explanation of the problems. - Yuhong (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand your blog description and I think the removed text (here and in Compare-and-swap) is a reasonable high-level description of the issue. Perhaps we can augment to indicate that a BIOS update can potentially resolve the issue. I would propose adding your blog post as an additional reference to this statement. I know a blog post is not WP:RELIABLE but your post is WP:SECONDARY and references the primary and definitive source for the information so is verifiable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Kvng. First the bad news: I am afraid I take objections with your assessment of the blog post's classification: It is not a secondary source, but an independent source, which is both primary and self-published.
But as your suggestion is a huge improvement over the proposed change (actually, removal without explanation!) I try to keep an open mind.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a WP:RS but I am personally comfortable using using such sources to at least temporarily support tangential material in technical articles. Citing a los-quality source is, in my opinion and in many cases, better than no citation or removing material that other editors can eventually build on. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
@Kvng: First and most importantly, I have issues with ransoming every random vandal who removes contents from Wikipedia with acceptance of an unreliable source into the article. Read his comment below: He is clearly attempting to use a SPS to cover up his SYNTH.
Second, this person just replaced a relevant sentence about Windows 8.1 with an irrelevant sentence about some Core 2 CPUs not booting! This person does not even know what is the subject of the article. I do not trust anything this person says, writes or thinks.
Bottom line it: If anyone here wants to replace a reliable source, that person must bring another reliable source. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 08:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is of course "some Core 2 CPUs not booting" 64-bit Windows 8.1 and why (due to CPU errata). - Yuhong (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
We are working through this. Please WP:AGF. ~Kvng (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe it is safe to say that you two disagree. —Codename Lisa (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Side note, it is probably not worth adding detail like exactly what motherboards are affected. Any one of them can be affected if the BIOS don't apply microcode updates. - Yuhong (talk) 20:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
In my blog article, I cited Intel's own specification updates to support the claim. I think this is a good primary source, right? - Yuhong (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I just edited the page with the text I want that has appropriate technical detail. - Yuhong (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Still no response two months later - Yuhong (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you expect otherwise? Our policy is still the same and what you wrote is still ... garbage. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You had to edit it to remove "weasel words" though. What I was trying to describe is the actual cause of the problem. - Yuhong (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I see this in the openings of all the Windows OS articles. What exactly does it mean? 94.192.38.255 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Internet Explorer 11 unter Windows 8.1.png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The infobox should have a real Windows 8.1 Start screen screenshot, not the blank tiles one. Xiao Wang (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't. Every individual tile is a distinct copyrighted work, which runs afoul of WP:NFCC restrictions on use of multiple non-free works in a single page. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm so confused by this debacle. Why does Win8.1's infobox picture get deleted but Windows 8.0 gets to keep its infobox pic? --Sek-2 (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, considering the lack of response, I'm guessing everyone is as confused as me. --Sek-2 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'm very confused by that answer too. Especially sine Windows 8.0 got to keep its screenshot, and the Windows 10 article's infobox has a screenshot that shows a Start menu full of third party products that come bundled with that OS. Windows 8.1 needs its own screenshot proper screenshot too. I might add one when I get the time to take one. Граймс (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Граймс: Please upload this [5] from Indonesia Wikipedia to English Wikipedia. This image is the perfect fit and is there long ago. Also please reduce the resolution of the image before uploading.
That's not the default start screen. I re-added a proper picture to the infobox - I have no idea what people were on about with the "third-party" thing, all the apps look like Microsoft's to me. --Sek-2 (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors,
I have just modified 5 external links on Windows 8.1. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250902003552/https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/july-11-2023-kb5028228-monthly-rollup-b7ee35a2-91ab-4e36-8e46-7c616d1bd4e4 to https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/july-11-2023-kb5028228-monthly-rollup-b7ee35a2-91ab-4e36-8e46-7c616d1bd4e4
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20190420180627/http://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide to https://gs.statcounter.com/windows-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20250716025546/https://www.tomshardware.com/news/mouse-lag-windows-8.1-dpi-framework-call-of-duty,24789.html to http://www.tomshardware.com/news/mouse-lag-windows-8.1-dpi-framework-call-of-duty,24789.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20201020133956/https://support.microsoft.com/en-my/help/4009470/windows-8-1-windows-server-2012-r2-update-history to https://support.microsoft.com/en-my/help/4009470/windows-8-1-windows-server-2012-r2-update-history
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20201201204016/https://download.microsoft.com/DOWNLOAD/E/5/3/E5395265-D2CD-4451-A2BB-B4504C000E80/MICROSOFT_PRESS_EBOOK_INTRODUCING_WINDOWS_ITPRO_PDF.PDF to https://download.microsoft.com/download/E/5/3/E5395265-D2CD-4451-A2BB-B4504C000E80/Microsoft_Press_ebook_Introducing_Windows_ITPro_PDF.pdf
Please refer to the FaQ for information on correcting errors with the bot.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)