Talk:Microsoft Windows SDK

message: Old SDK link no longer works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.7.2 (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

message: :Image:Win-SDK rgb.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 12:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Win-SDK rgb.png

message: Is it possible to develop Windows XP/C++ applications using the Microsoft Platform SDK without installing any IDE at all (like Java 6 SDK without NetBeans IDE)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.37.118 (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just downloaded and installed the Windows SDK.  I figured out how to compile C# and Visual Basic code via the command line (as simple as with Java) but cannot figure out C++ for my life.  I'm starting to think this thing doesn't have a C/C++ compiler.  Maybe I'm right.  I can't find jack shit about this SDK on Google either.  There's little enthusiasm about it I guess.  Someone enlighten us please. 162.83.178.109 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SDK without IDE

message: There seem to be an inconsistency on the description of which platforms are supported between:
The latest Windows SDK is the Microsoft Windows SDK for Windows Server 2008 and .NET Framework 3.5, released February, 2008. This SDK release supports Windows Server 2008, .NET Framework 3.5, and Windows Vista SP1 ...
and:
The Windows SDK for Windows Server 2008 and .NET Framework 3.5 (SDK for Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista/Windows Server 2003/Windows XP) ...
I understand that the first list is really part of the name of the release, while the second one shows the platforms that are supported, but I believe this can be better clarified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otodoran (talk • contribs) 19:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supported versions

message: Just a suggestion, but there seems to be unclearance about which SDK is compatible/supported with which Windows version.
It would be handy for readers to know which platform the SDK is meant for by adding a table to the article page; with vertically the SKDs being shown and horizontally the Platforms; which shows green for supported, red for unsupported and gray with ? for unknown, of course these could be later filled in since this table would be new.
Windows SDKs don't take Windows 9x and Windows NT separately, so only one compatibility table is required.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevincrans (talk • contribs) 16:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: SDK Release vs Platform compatibility

message: It is unclear what is the latest version of the SDK.
On one side, the MSDN download page states "version 7, released 2009-07-24" (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=c17ba869-9671-4330-a63e-1fd44e0e2505&displaylang=en).
On the other side, the page referenced in the "version history" table states an earlier version number with a later release date: "version 6.1.7600.16385, released Aug-09" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/dd146047.aspx).
Does anyone know which is correct? It should be updated both in the version histroy table and in the summary table on the top-right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggin15 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, in general, the various MS references and dates are confusing.  I think we could go with the dates MS page with the MS version table, rather than the individual download pages, but will certainly cause confusion. --Christopher G Lewis (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest version 

message: The following paragraph quoted from msdn is almost identical to the paragraph under the "Win32 (unmanaged code) samples" heading.
"The Windows samples demonstrate Windows operating system features primarily using native code. These unmanaged Win32 samples are not included in the documentation. They are installed as loose files to subdirectories of \Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v6.1\samples. This content can be deselected during SDK setup. A few samples with some managed code (PowerShell, Tablet PC) install with the Win32 samples. The Win32 samples directory layout for the Windows SDK for Windows Server 2008 and .NET Framework 3.5 is:"
I'm not sure what the license of msdn content is but I presume that it does not allow copying directly, so the paragraph should be paraphrased or it should be made clear that it is a quote. --Segmented (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from msdn 

message: Near start of article it says "Windows SDK is the successor of the two and supports developing applications for Windows XP...", however according to the following page only platforms from Vista onward are still supported as targets:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/hh852363.aspx
About half way down, under "The Windows SDK can be used to build applications that target the following operating systems".  XP is not in the list nor mentioned anywhere in the article.
Has support for XP as a target been removed since the wiki article was written?  Or is it possible that the Microsoft page is incorrect?  This is beyond my expertise, so I hope someone else can answer and update the page if necessary.
Thanks,
RobertCWebb (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows SDK support for XP? 

message: There were version prior to 3.1, but the table would indicate otherwise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.179.206 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Early History

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Microsoft Windows SDK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090926202739/http://msdn.microsoft.com:80/en-us/windows/dd187216.aspx to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd187216.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Windows SDK. 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/20111008233209/http://mssdk.orderport.net/22221848/showall.asp to http://mssdk.orderport.net/22221848/showall.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) 11:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Any reason why they're not included? specifically 2003 and 2005.
2003 includes v5.0 actually.(?) needs confirming
Would appreciate some assistance in sourcing more official stuff if possible.
Juest (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most Visual Studio/Visual C++ versions include at least one of the SDK versions it needs.  No version of the Windows SDK includes the Visual Studion/Visual C++ IDE, but a few versions included command line compilers for C/C++.  Specifically the SDK released with the x86_64/amd64 editions of Windows (NT 5.02), included prerelease compilers for that platform and the other Windows platforms.  This was continued until a few years after the official release of the corresponding Visual Studio IDE, according to the current article text. 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:FCBE:52CC:2157:85D0 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Studio Platform SDKs