Talk:Microsoft Windows version history

message: OR
Anyone?Eshcorp 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Line or Windows Family? 

message: It appears that no one noticed that windows vista was originally called lonhorn back in '05.
: Longhorn was the project codename, not the intended release name; see the article on Windows Vista. What surprises me is that there's no mention whatsoever of Windows Server .NET, released around the same time as Windows XP and yanked from the market almost as soon as it came out. It was fixed and rebranded as Server 2003. Thatfield977 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure "Windows Server .NET" is not just another rumor or made-up names? Fleet Command (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Server Longhorn? 

message: "I want Mac on a PC, I want Mac on a PC" and the statement that they created Windows only because of the Mac is quite a pro-Mac POV, and I don't think this is accurate. There were other GUIs around at the time, like GEM. Though Microsoft was definitely influenced by the Mac (who in turn were influenced by Palo Alto), I don't think this is the first story here, and not NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was pointed out on IRC that it came from http://www.hsconnexion.com/zine/article.php?a=372. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: When was 3.1 released? 3.11? Mr. Jones 10:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to wikipedia itself, 1992 and 1993 (NT) --Kuzetsa (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date of 3.1 

message: Do we know how many copies of the various Windows systems were shipped? Rich Farmbrough 20:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: Here are some useful links I found, you might want to consider them for this article:
* http://www.activewin.com/win2000/history.shtml
* http://www.levenez.com/windows/windows_a4.pdf and http://www.levenez.com/windows/ - amazingly useful!
* http://members.fortunecity.com/pcmuseum/windows.htm
* http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_gold1.asp
* http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryIntro.mspx
* http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa080499.htm
* http://windows.about.com/od/pastnews/l/aa010218a.htm?terms=History+of+Windows
* http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?981027.wcwin2000.htm
* http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?980818.ecntbeta2.htm
Anyway, hope this helps a bit. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links I found when researching [[Windows 2000]] 

message: The statement that these OSs won't run on more than 512 megs without "obscure registry tweaks" is incorrect, and seems to be a continuation of a series of myths that they couldn't handle more than various amounts of memory, that first seem to have cropped up referring to "more than 64MB" when that was considered a lot of RAM. My current system is still running 98SE on 1 gig. A small change is beneficial to the vcache section of system.ini, nothing else is required.
*There were several popular motherboard chipsets that failed with the way Windows 95 handled memory.  It was clearly a failure with those chipsets, but was the source of the "Windows 95 doesn't handle more than 64mb of memory."   There were large memory bugs that were problems with Windows, but those were at huge (for the time) amounts of memory. SchmuckyTheCat 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 95/98 and 1GB RAM 

message: Does anybody think it may be worth adding a comment on USB Support for Windows 98?
USB Support, despite being used as a marketing buzzword in the OSR2 releases of Windows 95, was a bit sketchy and unreliable, and often required further adjustments and tweaks.  Windows 98, however, supported USB 'out of the box', and I think this is one of the features that made it such an appealling upgrade.
Thanks.
MarkLeeUK 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  USB Support in Windows 98? 

message: The version of Windows NT 3.5 also exists, in addition to 4.0 and 3.1.
Windows 2000 Advanced Server (not sure about just the plain Server version) also includes a "Manage Your Server" page; this is not "new" to Windows Server 2003.
Jdstroy 06:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows NT 3.51 is mentioned in the article, though not as extensively as is deserved.  The "Manage Your Server" role-based tool is a new feature in Windows Server 2003.  There was a "Configure Your Server" wizard which did some of the same stuff, but as the name suggests, was more for initial configuration and not so much ongoing management. Warrens 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows NT 3.5 and Windows 2000 AS 

message: I only fixed the spelling mistake in the link ("breif" ==> "brief") but the article that the link points to is rife with opinion ("reign of terror") and misleading or inaccuarate statements ("Removing a floppy from your drive would crash the computer") but it's an external article, so not the purview of Wikipedia authors.
But the link to it is, and maybe the link should be removed? The content in the page linked to is not unique in any way from the content of other linked pages, or of this article for that matter. So it seems as though nothing is lost by removing the link.
Brianporter 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to "Brief History" 

message: Is anybody writing anything to address "Fiji"? Although it is questioned whether or not it is an update to Vista or a standalone OS to preceed Vienna, it should be addressed. Just wanted to give somebody a chance to reply if they are already working on it.  --Nsbendel 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows "Fiji" 

message: Added 00:52, 16 October 2006 by 194.66.199.249 →Windows 98
When Bill Gates and his assistant demonstrated Windows 98's USB capability by pluggin in a USB Scanner, the computer crashed, showing the Blue Screen of Death.
While I am not disputing that this happened, a source is not cited and the statement does not flow with the structure of the section. It seems out of place and should be integrated into the existing text with the proper source cited.
*I remember this incident, and used to have a film clip. Some diligent searching ought to find a source. A-ha, here we go, Chicago Comdex keynote address, 1998.  ... Still, as it happened to one person, once, in a public venue, doesn't make it notable for this kind of article, does it? I don't think so. YMMV. David Spalding Talk/Contribs 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 98 Crash paragraph 

message: I saw somewhere that NT stands for New Technology? (I think it was on the NT startup screen) Anyone know if this is true?
: SchmuckyTheCat 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NT = New Technology? 

message: I saw something on the History ow MS windows, and it mentioned that the Multi-User windows started with a WfW version 3.00. Could someone confirm this? If it can be confirmed, maybe we should add it to the article, and update the picture.
Blasterman 95 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows for Workgroups 3.0? 

message: The lack of citations in this article is appalling. From an academic perspective, it has no value, even if some of the claims happen to be right. -- Shalineth 06:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of sources 

message: I've read comments, I believe by Gordon Letwin (the architect of OS/2 on the Microsoft side), suggesting that the Microsoft/IBM partnership over OS/2 fell apart because Microsoft wanted to include a 32-bit Windows subsystem in the then 'NT OS/2' (along with POSIX, OS/2 and MS-DOS/16-bit-Windows). IBM were apparently adamant that there be no 32-bit Windows subsystem, even if OS/2 remained the primary subsystem, and issued an ultimatum that Microsoft either abandon all efforts to create a 32-bit Windows API, or IBM would withdraw from the partnership (with the latter coming to pass).
If I can find the source, I may add something about this. -- Shalineth 06:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OS/2 

message: I don't think we should use both 16/32-bit and 32/64-bit to mean very two different things on the timeline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh the Nerd (talk • contribs) 14:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Does anybody have any information on the origin of the name Windows? Were any other names considered (apart from Interface Manager)? Obviously Windows is a reference to "windows" on the screen, but I've always suspected it's also a pun on Gates. Rwxrwxrwx 21:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft loves simple names, I assume they think it helps them market products or makes their products easier to use on a desktop. Look at what you get with a fresh install of Windows: Windows Media Player. Windows Movie Maker. Internet Explorer. Word. That, or Microsoft has a total lack of creativity. But what are the chances of that? --Laugh! 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of the name

message: Hello,
I think the article should emphasize a little better the distinction between the NT line and the 9x line, and the fact that they were developed simultaneously. This difference becomes obvious when looking at the graphical timeline at the end of the article, but not while reading the article. Maybe should this timeline appear near the beginning of the article? Maybe the beginning of each section (i.e. Windows 95, Windows 2000 etc...) should make clear which kernel family is used for this given relevant version of Windows? --CutterX 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Better distinction between the 9x and the NT lines

message: "Judge William Schwarzer dropped all but 9 of the 189 charges that Apple had sued Microsoft with on January 5, 1989." History of Microsoft Windows
"On January 5, 1989, Schwarzer dropped all but 10 of the 189 claims that Apple brought against Microsoft." William Schwarzer
9 or 10, which one is correct? Could anyone provide a reference, please?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.55.40 (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: What's the timeline graphic supposed to show?  Because NT shares a separate path and it contains a marker for the point after which "UI shared code", it seems to be showing the lineage of the source code.  However, it shows Windows Me and Windows 2000 "joining" to form Windows XP, which is certainly not the case.  Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the timeline supposed to show? 

message: Does Xenix belong in the history section? If MS-DOS and OS/2 are included, I see no reason not at least mention it, as it represents a path not taken. ERobson (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xenix 

message: This article has absolutely no information about Windows CE and Windows Mobile. Although not intended for use on a full-size PC, Windows CE and Windows Mobile are legitimate members of the Windows family and its history, and deserve mentioning in this article. I am not an expert on this subject though, so I request that someone more knowledgeable than me please add this information if possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.237.253 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows CE & Windows Mobile 

message: The image :Image:Nt4server.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Windows7logo.png
*:File:Windows 7 build 7000.png
*:File:Os2W4.png
*:Image:Winflp.png
*:Image:WindowsME.png
*:Image:WindowsHomeServer (Server Storage).png
*:Image:Windows Server 2008.png
*:Image:Windows Server 2003 logo.svg
*:Image:Windows Server 2003.png
*:Image:Windows 3.1 start.png
*:      Image:Win2000 logo.png
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Nt4server.png

message: What does this "including up to Service Pack X" on Windows NT 4.0 through Windows Server 2008 mean? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including up to Service Pack...? 

message: Is it just me, or is Wikipedia just not the place to reference blogs, forums, job postings and individual resumes as a way to discern what will be in Windows 8? I'm deleting this section until real sources come up that actually have something to say. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) This text was posted on Sept 18, 2009!
:What's the point of deleting sourced information from the article??? I'd understand it if it were unsourced but it isnt. Yes, it's just you! But I'll not put the info back into the article though I feel sorely pressed to do so. I'll just park it right here so that it doesn't get lost:
Development of the planned Windows 8 is scarcely detailed in public, although job listings have mentioned improved functionality for file access in branch offices http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/21/windows_8_file_storage/ and a next-generation user interface framework. http://www.linkedin.com/in/mengyang
Some internal projects geared for Windows 8 development have also become known, further confirming the development of Windows 8. Perhaps most notably thus far, major revamps for the Windows Test Technologies team (WTT) has been claimed to "change how the Windows division ships products", and the benefits will only start to be reaped during the time frame of Windows 8. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-to-Wrap-Up-New-Windows-8-Testing-Infrastructure-by-Mid-2009-89112.shtml Microsoft claims:
''
User experience (UX) designer Sabine McLain also lists Windows 8 involvement as part of developing a "new generation tool for managing the work on Windows 8, named WorkTrack" for internal use by the company. Her résumé continues:
''
As for the planned server edition of Windows 8, it is scheduled for a release approximately in 2012 according to a slide from an official presentation made in Italy.http://uxevangelist.blogspot.com/2009/08/windows-8-server-due-2012.htmlhttp://www.eightforums.com It is currently unknown if the server release will coincide with the client release, as it did with Windows 7.
Now I hope you'll allow new info to be added and not delete it again rightaway as you did several times within the last few weeks. --Krawunsel (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to say where the Chidori rumor first started, but it just that, a rumor.  No websites have ever had it "confirmed" by Microsoft.  The 128-bit rumor is a complete hoax, the LinkedIn profile was fake, it contained whole sections that were copied from other profiles.  Plus there was a huge contradiction -- it discussed IA-128 being compatible with IA-64, indicating that the 128-bit support would be an extension of Itanium, but it also talked about about AMD 128 and AMD has nothing to do with Itanium.  Again it was never confirmed by Microsoft or any reliable source. 76.22.110.158 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Deleting the entire Windows 8 section is not rational. There are a few knowns about it already, that can be put in the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows 8

message: Someone undid a nice constructive edit to the section on Windows 8 and Windows 9.
:Was it sourced? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those rumors turned out to be bogus, btw. 69.165.156.29 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 8 and 9 section and 128-bit Windows 

message: Hello, I think the "Early history: an expansion of MS-DOS" needs a screenshot of one of the early versions of Windows to show its origins and how much it has changed between then and now. What do you think? LovesMacs (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a picture of Windows 1.0. LovesMacs (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot for early Windows 

message: May I ask why the logos for versions of Windows have been replaced by the logos minus the symbol? This is incomplete thus misrepresentation of the product. Furthermore, I believe the history of styles of the symbol was the primary reason that the logos were in here in the first place. Althepal (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos replaced with wordmarks 

message: In the article, it says Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 (Windows NT 6.1). Isn't Windows 7 - Windows NT 7.0?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JV Smithy (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 7 

message: The Dutch article does not mention Windows 8.--195.240.115.59 (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 8 

message: This article is missing Modular Windows, and the multimedia editions of 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and 3.12 (or any East Asian 3.12 information)
184.144.165.37 (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a reliable source?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ModularWindows 

message: Who deleted it and why? Windows 8 should be at least mentioned.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one justified deleting the entire section, I undid the changeJasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect it was justafiably removed as unsourced speculation. I have reduced it to what can be cited to reliable sources. Note there is nothing to support infinity as a codename other than blog and forum speculation based on the shape of the figure 8. Also, there is no need to specualte here with regards possible release dates for alphas, betas and RTMs. wjematherbigissue 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting Windows 8 Section

message: I have again removed the speculative addtions regarding Windows 8 and a focus on gaming. Although this has been widely reported around the web, it is clear that it is all based on a single TechRadar article which is based on unknown anonymous sources. The referenced used for the addition made that clear, as do all other potential reliable sources, for example cnet, ITProPortal, etc. To quote cnet "Little is known about the next version of Windows", so rumours abound and given the obviously (highly) speculative nature of this, I do not think it appropriate for addition at this time. wjematherbigissue 09:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation regarding Windows 8 gaming 

message: Microsoft's announcement of Windows 7 SP1 and Server 2008 R2 SP1 today included an announcement of a new upcoming piece of software - Windows Thin PC or WinTPC, which is a feature- and size-reduced locked-down version of Windows 7 expressly designed to turn existing "thick clients" into thin clients. So it seems to be a conceptual descendant of Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, albeit I think it's unlikely to be an actual codebase descendant - it seems more likely they just started with the Windows 7 or Windows Embedded client instead, since they said it's a, "version of Windows 7". However, like Fundamentals, it's going to be a SA benefit. So I'm not sure if mention of the product should go in the "Thin Client - Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs" section, or in a new section nearby (since they're both dealing with turning thick clients into thin clients).
Source:  Windows Team Blog
:I'm also not sure how this info should be added, but it's relevant.  Therefore I embellished your text and added it in the WinFLP section. –89.204.153.166 (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows Thin PC is already covered in Windows 7 articles. I think it is Windows 7 editions. Fleet Command (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

text: You could remove both WinFLP (older, XP) and WinTPC (newer), if they are covered elsewhere. Or you could eliminate "thin PC" in the section title of a section only addressing WinFLP. Keeping it as it was is no option, "thin PC" means whatever Microsoft thinks it means today (= WinTPC). –82.113.99.129 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Thin PC 

message: A number of editors have added, to the Windows 8 section, that Windows 8 is codenamed Windows Next and a beta will be released this summer. This is all speculative and should not be added! As most of these editors are very new, maybe this page needs semi-protection.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please watch [[WP:Crystal Ball]] 

message: There is no source, not even while tracking my own Google Alerts, that says this will be NT version 6.2.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not even an official mention of Windows 8 on Microsoft website. (Just in its forums). I say show no mercy. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NT version for Windows 8 

message: Per WP:NFCC, I have removed a number of (mostly) non-free logos used at the top of the individual sections on each version. I can't see why these logos are needed here. They have essentially no distinguishing identificatory value in the context of this page. They all look essentially the same – the same basic windows logo, with different bits of text next to it. The text is the only distinguishing feature, but this text is duplicating the section headings, which serve to identify the products just as well. I don't see why a reader of this page would need the images to recognize each of the products in question.
I recognize that one or two of the logos were marked as free text logos. These ones wouldn't technically have to go, of course, but I thought it would be better for the sake of consistency. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree but there is no juice left in me to disagree. I too have read NFCC but never found it SO strict. Fleet Command (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos removed 

message: The build number for Windows 8 is not necessarily 6.2. We have no reports of and have no way of knowing the final build number. Please do not re-add 6.2.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Everything in Wikipedia requires a reliable source. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build Number 

message: "Product progression" section is a list of links. But what is the use of this list? The navbox at the bottom of the article is much better than this list. As for showing "product progression", I think the article does a better job of doing it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's delete "Product progression" 

message: I've removed the images for now since even though they were given permission by Microsoft, WP:NFCC states that we must have a specific use rationale for this page in particular and for every image.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I still do not see the point of this sudden action, but in order to be consequent I removed the other screenshots as well. 188.254.179.19 (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Hi can we move into into updates like iOS version history so we would only list updates like windows 8.1 and then windows 8.1 update 1. 86.135.248.229 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update information 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Microsoft Windows. 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/20090606054157/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jun09/06-02SteveGuggenheimer.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jun09/06-02SteveGuggenheimer.mspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Microsoft Windows. 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/20081221111256/http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/12_b.htm to http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/12_b.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080211105134/http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/2000_old.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/2000_old.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: "When Windows came out, it was not much more than a buggy toy OS.  However a small number of people discovered that DR DOS running under Windows was a winning combination because DR DOS had a memory manager that made Windows much better on the DR DOS platform.  Windows 3.1 was shipped with code to detect what OS it was running on, and to create a fake blue screen if the OS was DR DOS."  I couldn't find the exact sources, but if possible it would be good to include in the article. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows and DR DOS 

message: This is not entirely true, this depended on the window type.--Reciprocist (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  For example, windows were only displayed "tiled" on the screen; that is, they could not overlap or overlie one another.  

message: We should add information regarding Windows 11, as it released today. We should also edit the reference so it is updated. 2600:8803:A20A:6C00:4C92:3C62:75D9:907D (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Information about Windows 11 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs)  03:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/XP" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Windows 365 is not a version of Windows. All Windows 365 instances run Windows 10 or 11. Therefore, I would argue it should not be included in the Windows version history. Etechgeek24 (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 365 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IOS version history which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not any more, there isn't - "The result of the move request was: pages not moved.". Guy Harris (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: It is a common misconception that Windows9x uses a "DOS based Kernel": https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20071224-00/?p=24063
The real "kernel" of Windows-95 is the VMM, a pure 32-bit kernel which supports preemtive scheduling and memory protection - and VMM was also present on pre-95 Versions of Windows when run in 386 Enhanced Mode. With Windows-95 the VMM was extended to allow scheduling of Windows Processes (and Threads), whereas before Win95 it could only schedule between the "Windows VM" and the "DOS VMs". In Win3x Windows appeared to the VMM almost like a single process (and Windows did schedule the Windows-processes itself in a cooperative way). 193.170.161.246 (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 9x "being DOS based"