Talk:Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions

message: General information: Win 2k3, FLP, Vista; cancelled versions; Forthcoming; CE-based
Technical information: Supported architectures, Supported file systems, APIs (Win32, .NET, POSIX), etc
Security features: Encrypted file systems, Integrated firewall, etc
Software: IE, WMP, etc
PS: Sorry for my bad English, but it is not my native language. Master alvaro 17:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been working on filling in the gaps in this page from what I know about Windows. There's still more I can do to clean up the tables, and I will work on it as time allows. Wrldwzrd89 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Done supported architectures for the Windows NT table -- simxp (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

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

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

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

message: Needs to be changed. The stated date is SP1's release date.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.59.154 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista SP2 release date in table 

message: Does Windows 95 really have SMP support??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.109.152.128 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  SMP Support in windows 9x 

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

message: Hi.
Looks like this article is also plagued with the "Microsoft EULA" fiasco: In the license field, the article asserts that the license is "Microsoft EULA". I have seen several discussions about this phrase, all which have established that it is:
#Not informative: The phrase "Microsoft End-User License Agreement (MS-EULA)" was once upon a time printed on top of every Microsoft license agreement document, but only to indicate the document is a legal contract for using a piece of software product. The problem is, despite the title, the content always differed. Even two MS-EULAs for the same software title that came from two different places might have been entirely different. This is specifically the case of Windows, which comes in myriads of licensing scheme including retail, volume licensing, OEM, system builders, software assurance, etc. (The only similarity between the licensing terms of all MS-EULAs was that they were either closed source or shared source. But again, this no similarity.) This is the complete opposite of e.g. GPL: If you grab two copies of GPLv2 from two different places, they match letter for letter.
#It is no longer used: In other words, writing "MS-EULA" in front of Windows 7 is wrong because Microsoft itself notice the problem I mentioned above and has long stopped writing the nonsense. In case of Windows 7, for example, one can find the license agreement in C:\Windows\system32\license.rtf. It is titled "MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS – WINDOWS 7 PROFESSIONAL" (to make it distinguishable from another EULA, say Internet Explorer license) and ends with "EULAID:Win7_RM.0_PRO_RTL_en-us", a code that helps distinguish it from other Windows 7 licenses.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Microsoft EULA" fiasco 

message: Windows RT or Windows Run Time is no more a complete operating system than Java Virtual Machine or Android's Davlik. I can run Android (Davlik) Apps on my PC or on my Mac. Although Window Managers (like Enlightenment) are the face of Linux they are not the operating system. Windows 8 and Windows RT are not binary compatible, indicating different operating systems. RT is a presentation interface running on top of Phone OS core whether CE or BREW etc. Wikipedia calls Linux an operating system because it has a bootable kernel and even without the Window Managers and presentation APIs boots to a usable command line. Still has shell. Windows 8 can also boot to a command line and Windows Server has Core Mode sans GUI. Still has Win32 subsystem. RT is a presentation API only; saying it is an operating system depreciates the term.
Shjacks45 (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't confuse Windows RT with WinRT. WinRT is the name of the API for both Windows 8 and Windows RT. Windows RT is the name of an the ARM version of Windows and is named so because it uses WinRT as its only 3rd-party-accessible API. By the way, Windows RT does have the Win32 subsystem; it's just locked down so that 3rd parties can't write Win32-ARM applications. - Josh (talk | contribs) 13:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I am guessing this needs to go to Wikipedia's hall of fame for jokes: Someone knows about Windows Runtime but not about Windows RT. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I object to Windows RT being listed as an operating system 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511193445/http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=3743 to http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=3743
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) 16:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: Is there a reliable source of information from Microsoft about these versions  Elcidia (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Server 2019 Information 

message: There are some inconsistencies between the dates on the comparison page and the individual versions' Wikipedia pages.
Here are a few I've noticed:
Windows 2.0: the release date is listed as 1987-09-08 and the latest version is 1987-04-08, but on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2.0x, release date is 1987-04-08 and latest version is the same (so likely a mistake on that page)
Windows 98: the release date for the latest version is not given.  The column lists the version as 4.10.1998, which matches the "ver" command.  It might be assumed to be April 10, 1998 (or October 4, 1998) but looking at the other Windows 9x versions, it's likely based on the kernel number and it's a coincidence that it looks like a date.  Either way, what is the actual date of the latest version?
Windows 98 SE:  where did the latest version date 2000-02-25 come from?  There is no individual Wikipedia page for 98 SE, but on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_98, 98 SE is listed as the Latest release, without it's own Released to manufacturing or General availability dates
Windows Vista: Release and Latest version dates don't match Release to manufacturing and Latest release dates on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista
Windows 11: Release date doesn't match Release to manufacturing date on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_11  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsarson (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date inconsistencies