Talk:Windows 8

Media Center sold separately even in Pro?

Microsoft's updated their site, and I noticed something disturbing that may require an update. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/feature-packs Double Asterisk fine print at the bottom...

"** Windows 8 Media Center Pack is available at no charge for a limited time only through this promotional page on Windows.com. If you obtain Windows 8 Media Center Pack through any other location fees might apply. Offer valid from October 26, 2012, until January 31, 2013, and is limited to one product key per email address. You qualify for this promotion if your PC is running Windows 8 Pro. Additional hardware may be required to watch and record live TV. You must provide a valid email address to receive your Windows 8 Media Center Pack product key. Your product key must be activated no later than January 31, 2013. Microsoft will only contact you at the email address you provide to send you your product key and to remind you when the activation period for your product key is ending. Catalysis Corporation is a third-party company we use to collect subscription information and process the delivery of these emails. If you purchase a new PC with Windows 8 preinstalled and you later upgrade that PC with Windows 8 Pro Pack, Windows 8 Media Center Pack, a volume license edition, or a retail edition, you will no longer be able to install apps that are provided exclusively from your PC manufacturer through the Windows Store. Get the full details on our special offers."

So after some arbitrary period Microsoft is going to be charging separately for Media Center even if you own Pro? If remote desktop and some administrative features are all we get why would anyone buy Pro? Small Businesses will likely then buy regular and large will buy Enterprise and it will definitely increase the cost of media center systems OEM's build for clients depending on the add-on price, while I know that is irrelevant to wikipedia... just how much are they going to be charging? and will there be an MCE edition coming out if this is the case? --MundaneRaptor (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Metro no longer exists

Metro no longer exists and never existed. The official name is now Modern UI. [1]--Racklever (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources seem to contradict the "never existed" part, and it still seems to be what reliable sources are calling it, although that may change in the coming weeks. - SudoGhost 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It did exist but only as a code name it was never actually officially called Metro. Its similar to Windows Vista, before it was released it was codenamed called Long horn, the final release was a different name. --JetBlast (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting take, but not one that's reflected by reliable sources. Microsoft backtracking for whatever reason doesn't equate to "never existed", and Microsoft pages still refer to it as Metro, "officially". - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty using the correct words to get my point across, but you know what i mean (I hope ha ha). Here is a source to show it was only a code name [2] --JetBlast (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A Microsoft code name is an internally used name, not one plastered all over Microsoft public documentation, there's a big difference between the two. The only thing that the source you gave verifies is that Microsoft said Metro was the "code name for our design language", but this explanation of the Metro name was only given when, according to the source, the company had been threatened with legal action over its use of the name. That verifies that Microsoft said it, not that it's accurate. I've looked for reliable sources that said Metro was just a code name before the legal issue came up, and I couldn't find any. This "it was just a code name" thing is nothing more than Microsoft trying to avoid a lawsuit. - SudoGhost 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This Vista example goes against your explanation of Microsoft codenames. We have a source to say it was a codename. Do we have one to day it wasnt? --JetBlast (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go against my explanation, how do you figure? The Longhorn codename was not publicly promoted as the name of the product, and used in publicaly available documentation and promotional material. Metro was, and was never explained as a code name until a lawsuit came into the picture. - SudoGhost 12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no source that firmly says that merto was the final name of the feature. --JetBlast (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also no source that says "Windows 8" is the "final" name of the OS, because such a clarification isn't needed. Find a source anywhere that says Metro was a code name before the lawsuit issue came up. Unless that can be presented, it's your opinion against the weight of multiple reliable sources including Microsoft itself, although they're now saying otherwise in the interest of posturing to avoid a lawsuit. Not even reliable sources are buying Microsoft's sudden and unrealistic explanation. - SudoGhost 16:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

...and according to this source, "The folks in Redmond recently revealed that the term is off limits, at first claiming it was just a code name but then apparently fessing up that the dumping of Metro was due to legal reasons." So no, the "it was just a code name" explanation isn't accurate. - SudoGhost 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Racklever, I would not count much on The Register if were you. It is a tabloid and for most part unreliable. It always write sensational articles like this. Besides, Visual Studio 2012 now calls them Windows Store apps.

But our criterion of use is popular usage not being "official". Please study WP:COMMONNAME policy. Also Wikipedia:Official names is an essay.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Register and other tabloids differentiate between news articles, opinion articles and blogs. This is a news article so is a reliable source. Opinion articles and blogs are not reliable sources (this includes Microsoft blogs which people keep using). It is too early in the history of Windows 8 to talk about "commonnames". --Racklever (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Reliability of a source is not decided by its format (i.e. news or blog); it is decided by its authors, editors and contents. The Register has failed at three. It is a tabloid, a sensational journal that has a reputation for sacrificing factual accuracy in favor of sensationalism. (Of course, tabloid also means a journal of certain paper format, but you didn't think I meant that, did you?) The first sign that this article is doing the same is the phrase "It was never 'Metro'" which contradicts the article body itself.

Microsoft blogs are orders of magnitude more reliable than The Register because their only problem is their pro-Microsoft point of view – which can be dangerous to Wikipedia. (Note that Microsoft never had a reputation for lying; questionable competition tactics, yes, but not lying.)

That issue aside, time is not the only element that decides whether we use WP:COMMONNAME or not; Consensus is. See Talk:Metro (design language) § Requested move and you will discover that there is consensus in favor of "Metro".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources because it contradicts what you have stated. --Racklever (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Since I have read it and find it completely supportive of what I said, perhaps you should quote it. But again, you shouldn't bother; we have overwhelming consensus that "Metro" is WP:COMMONNAME. I think we are approaching the stage in which a silence on my part means "I respectfully disagree."

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The name "Metro" is not used at all in the final release and will never again be used by Microsoft for they were sued (or at least threatened to be) by Metro AG, if they continued using this name, which is protected by Metro AG. Maybe today people still use it incorrectly with reference to the UI, but we must not make the same mistake.

As a compromise I propose to begin with the information that Microsoft used the name "Metro" as codename for the new design. But that after being sued (or at least being threatened to be) they gave up "Metro" and instead gave it the name "Modern UI". Then continue to call it "Modern UI" through the article. This way the guys who think "Metro" should still be in the article, have that and at the same time we do not have the problem of always calling the UI by the wrong name. --88.130.100.179 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

No! Wikipedia is not Microsoft; even if Microsoft cannot use it, Wikipedia perfectly can, and will do so according to its WP:COMMONNAME policy. In addition, the legal dispute part needs a reliable source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lisa,

where exactly have I argued that because Wikipedia is Microsoft Wikipedia has to use the new name? I never said that. :-) I said that Wikipedia must not make the mistake of incorrectly using the name "Metro" with reference to the new UI. Some people might do that, but that does not matter at all. Would you jump from the bridge just because some others do?

You have to accept that you are not the one to ultimately decide which terms Wikipedia will use. This is decided upon consensus and I guess you know that. Taking all arguments into account I currently do not see such a consensus here. ;-)

But there is a number of reasons not to be denied to stop using the old name and to use the new name "Modern UI" instead.

You are generally right with the assumption that WP should prefer to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, no doubt. However, this is not valid without limitation. It is extremely one-sided to read WP:COMMONNAME in a sense that the decisive criterion would be popular usage alone. This is by no means true.

Using a wrong name is inaccurate and so as per WP:COMMONNAME to be ultimately avoided.

Finally WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that if a name changes, not the old name from before the change should be used. Instead more weight must be given to the new name used after the name change. And this name is not "Metro", it is "Modern".

So by far the better arguments in fact speak against picking the name "Metro" but for picking the new and accurate name "Modern". --88.130.100.179 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Despite your initial sentence, the rest of your message shows that you perfectly know to what I said "No"! Now, I do not comment on the rest of your message except on the consensus part. You said you see no consensus. Its accuracy notwithstanding, the outcome of no consensus is no change. But I think you should look at Talk:Metro (design language) § Requested move and Talk:Metro (design language) § Move to Modern UI to see the consensus to retain the existing name.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Metro was used extensively in pre-release public presentations and discussions -- just as Longhorn was used in previews and development for years before Vista was affixed to Windows 6 just prior to releases. However, use of a codename in pre-release documents does not make that the intended product name. Such actual product names are decided at the last minute (typically 6-12 weeks before availability) for big splash effect. Its unlikely Metro was ever cosnidered for teh releasesd product.

On the other hand, it is quite likely that the French Metro company did send legal notice to MS and release that legal notice to industry bloggers just for the publicity. I doubt they expect MS to intentionally take their registered name to market.

However given the liberal nature of French civil courts in defending French companies and milking international companies for fines...yes MS is making special effort to make sure the term Metro is not used by any significant number of well-known sources by release time. Because French courts would indeed say that unofficial code names count if a product is referenced by significant numbers of customers -- regardless of official names. So if you want to shaft MS -- chat up to the term Metro vs windows 8 in as many well publicized blogs as possible. Just keep the the term alive. Make MS marketing have official names registered before they even start a product. Sort of pointless vendetta instead of about quality of products but it seems to be in the spirit of this discussion. 72.182.13.111 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory but not one supported by reliable sources, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, not speculation. Metro was the name of the product, and is still in use by Microsoft. Also, the "it was a codename" thing isn't accurate: "The folks in Redmond recently revealed that the term is off limits, at first claiming it was just a code name but then apparently fessing up that the dumping of Metro was due to legal reasons." Find a single reliable source pre-"oh crap lawsuit" that says it was a code name, because I've looked and can't find one. - SudoGhost 14:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Did you even find the lawsuit itself? Everything seems to lead to Mary Jo Foley and her information must be taken with a grain of caution.

And by the way, "Metro AG" is German, not French.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell via reliable sources there isn't any lawsuit, but an unverified "legal threat" which caused Microsoft to scramble to change it. - SudoGhost 21:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Windows Store criticism

The single-point-of-distribution model is a fairly big step away from the traditional Windows ecosystem, yet this restriction microsoft have placed on 'Modern UI' apps is only mentioned in passing. It'd be nice to see this point fleshed out a bit more with a mention as to the kind of restrictions MS have put in place, and the 30% cut they take from all sales - as well as the early indications that the restrictions may be possible to circumvent by installing developer licences on end-user machines. PhonicUK (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I find the wikipedia statement about windows 8 only being able to run apps from the app store to be completely false. at least with earlier releases. I don't think Microsoft would release an OS where a user could only run or install apps from the Microsoft app store. this would be a complete lock on the market and they know users would not stand for it and Microsoft would be abandoned in a real hurry. people like applications on cdroms as a backup! or applications installable over a network, or applications installable from a hard drive, or from a usb stick/flash drive. I think the author needs to change his/her statement. Jmichae3 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The restriction only applies to 'Modern UI ' apps, not to normal Windows applications. The criticism is that the Windows RT ARM edition for tablet computers will not run old Windows 7 applications so all sofware has to be obtained from the Windows store. This is the same as with the iPad and the Apple store.--Racklever (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to correct the grammar

I think that at the start of the article 'willing' should be changed to 'wishing'. I couldn't make the update as it's protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.178.133 (talk • contribs) 23:40 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure I have ever heard "wishing" in English. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Done, although I used "who wish" instead as I think that sounds a bit better. I do agree that "willing" sounded a bit clumsy though. pcuser42 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"They are be available only" might be better written as "They are only available" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.178.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45 5 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Codename Lisa (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No section about the apps included with Windows?

How come there does not appear to be any section about the new Metro-styled/Modern UI-styled apps?

(Edit: I am talking about the apps by Microsoft that are included in Windows 8.)

I would imagine something similar to the following section, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_Mountain_Lion#New_and_changed_features In that section in that article, it lists the new applications and even provides a brief description of each one. But in the Windows 8 article, there does not appear to be even a basic list of the new apps??

Am I missing something? Is it in another article? Or is this considered "off-topic" or "not belonging to this article"??

Thanks in advance.

Niamer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

there is another article but there should be a section here too.Greg Heffley 19:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There is already a section on this topic called "Windows Store". Only instead of "Metro-style app", it calls them "Windows Store app", another term that the confused Microsoft uses. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the specific apps included in Windows 8. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my original post. I am indeed talking about the Metro-styled apps (now known as "Windows Store apps") by Microsoft that are included in Windows 8. Niamer (talk)

Hi. Thanks for clarifications. I hope you do not mind my clarifying the title of the message, although you are welcome to change it back.

I believe this lack of availability of info is due to the relative limited availability of Windows 8. It is a five gigabytes download and is only usable by testers, not mainstream users. Over time, they will be added or will have articles of their own, which is the case with previous Windows apps like WordPad, Paint, Notepad, etc. When it happens, you can expect to find them on {{Microsoft Windows components}}. Mind you, they will be available when the Metro/Modern/Modern UI/Windows Store/Windows 8 app issue is resolved.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"Microsoft design language" may be the new official name for Metro (the design language) (from MSDN)

Hi all.

While "Metro-style app" appears to have found a new official name "Windows Store app", that's not the replacement name for the Metro design language. (thankfully... as that would have made it "Windows Store design language"...)

However, I believe I may have come across the "official" new name of the design language:

Microsoft design language

You can see it being used on the following pages from "Dev Center - Windows Store apps" on MSDN:

Make great Windows Store apps

Design case study: iPad to Windows Store app

Guidelines for typography

...and also on this MSDN page:

Roadmap for Windows Store apps using DirectX and C++

You will notice that on those pages, "Microsoft design language" is the new term for the design language (but not the apps). The first page also had 2 occurrences of "Microsoft design style" (likely a replacement for "Metro style"). Now, of course, I don't know how "official" this makes it. There are only a few instances/mentions of this new name, and also, I suppose it is entirely possible that those pages may change. Also, as often mentioned before, Microsoft apparently started to use "Modern UI" in a few places for a little while: [3] [4]

However, this is MSDN (as opposed to, say, a blog or the MS "Events" site), so I suppose this may be more "official" and may carry more weight?

In any case, at this point in time, at least on MSDN, it would appear that this is the new official name for the design language.

(This was a "re-post" of a post I made in the Metro (design language) talk page. Apologies for that. But this matter does concern the "Windows 8" article as well.)

Niamer (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't agree with Paul Thurott's article, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jasper Deng.

Yes, I've seen that article. You're referring to this part, right?

<<And this week, with Microsoft revealing (not for the first time) that the phrase “Metro-style” (as in “Metro-style app”) would be renamed “Windows Store” (as in “Windows Store app”), I hope we can finally put an end to this nonsense. As for the Metro interface, Microsoft is simply calling that Windows, because, in their words, “it’s just Windows.” Fair enough, I guess. Just stop calling it Modern, people. That was never going to be the name.>>

From his article (as well as some podcasts he's been in), I understand the following. The apps are now officially "Windows Store apps" not "Modern apps" nor "Modern UI apps". And additionally, the Metro interface or environment (the Start screen, the Charms on the right, the app switcher on the left, so on) is simply part of the Windows interface and has no name.

However, this doesn't say anything about the design language. Now, the following is just my opinion, but I really don't think that they're going to start calling the design language the "Windows Store design language". Calling the apps "Windows Store apps" is a bit odd but at least makes sense (mostly). But calling the design language "Windows Store" would make absolutely no sense, just as calling the Metro interface the "Windows Store interface" would make very little sense. (Again, this is just my opinion.)

So far, those MSDN pages are the only official mentions of the design language I have found.

Niamer (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the move to Modern UI (design language) was completely wrong.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Modern" or "Modern UI" appears to have been a temporary replacement (it was actually used by some Microsoft employees), but "Windows Store apps" is official now.

As for the design language, I found some additional evidence that supports "Microsoft design language" and "Microsoft design style".

I previously posted the link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/hh464920.aspx Make great Windows Store apps

Now, I cannot find the old version of this page on Google, but I Google'd the text on the page and found another MSDN page with the exact same content as that page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/hh464920.aspx

It really is the exact same text. (A text diff confirms it.)

And the old version of this page is still there; it was cached by Google on 5 Sep 2012 08:48:04 GMT: the cached past version of http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/hh464920.aspx

Since Google will update its cached pages later, I took a screenshot (as of 2012 09 18) of the "before vs after": http://i.imgur.com/waGbq.png

You will see how the instances of "Metro" were replaced:

"Metro style apps" became "Windows Store apps".

"Metro design style" became "Microsoft design style".

"Metro design language" became "Microsoft design language".

Niamer (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

System requirements source

Hi.

It appears there is an edit dispute about whether the source specified in the article gives the system requirements for Windows 8 in general or only for Windows 8 Enterprise edition.

From one point of view, the source given, titled Download Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation, only gives the system requirements for the Enterprise edition because it is about Enterprise edition. The rationale is that since the feature set of the Enterprise edition is different, therefore the system requirements should be different.

Now, from another point of view, the system requirements pertain to Windows 8 in general. The only rationale for this that comes to my mind is the fact that the word "Enterprise" does not appear near the list. But I think this is not a valid rationale because the word Enterprise has already appeared five times in the source.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the evaluation is Windows 8 Enterprise, as for evaluation they only release it for one edition. If you look at the system requirements section it talks about Windows 7 & 8 in general and doesn't go into specifics. Do we have another source that is more clear to say that Enterprise edition has different system requirements? --JetBlast (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, the statement which you talk about is ambiguous; it might mean "Windows 8 runs on all hardware on which Windows 7 runs" or "Windows 8 runs on the following hardware on which Windows 7 runs". But the system requirements listed thereafter is higher than "all hardware on which Windows 7 runs". See Windows 7 § Hardware requirements.

As for other sources, I found this which is outdated and this which is— Is it system requirements? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

description of "fast and fluid" experience.

paragraph 3 lines 3&4 state that "a new platform for apps that can provide what developers described as a "fast and fluid" experience with emphasis on touchscreen input.[3]". The cited article only quotes Microsoft as saying "fast and fluid" (several times), in fact saying that "“Fast and fluid” is Microsoft’s catchphrase for how they want Windows 8 and its applications to work.". I feel that this quote should therefore be attributed to Microsoft, rather than to "developers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.128.14 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No criticisms section?

I think there should be a section/paragraph for "Criticisms of Windows 8". Things like secure boot & linux people against it. Then claims of MS not caring enough for desktop users and targeting more tablet market. Then gaming industry's bad view about it - Valve's Gabe Newell not liking it and making Valve concentrate on linux more, Minecraft crater refusing to sign Minecraft for Windows 8 hoping that people won't use the OS, even Blizzard saying something against it? Then Windows Store wall garden approach. Then criticisms of Microsoft tracking users from systemwide smartscreen feature, etc. Lot can be put on the Windows 8 page. It looks kinda empty and lacking hell lot of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.32.7 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before. Anyway, I'm not sure why those gaming companies are complaining as Windows 8 performs better than Windows 7. pcuser42 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed before here. - SudoGhost 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 59.182.32.7

Per WP:TRIVIA, whenever possible, the criticism should be integrated into the text of the article itself. In addition, we need a reliable source for each of your entries.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong guideline. Wikipedia:Criticism is the relevant section. I'd personally have Criticism be a subsection of a Reception section, why you want to whitewash the obvious flaws in this operating system is beyond me. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a strong opponent of Windows 8, but the current reception section is sufficient. Why do you think it's called "whitewashing"?--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ViperSnake151. Wikipedia:Criticism is only an essay, the opinion of a single editor who wrote it. But WP:TRIVIA is a guideline and is part of the Manual of Style. And, no, I am not wrong; you will find out if you read both. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Trivia guideline does not mention "criticism", it only mentions miscellaneous information (like say, if a loose section had "UNNOTABLE PERSON took the default wallpaper, the Windows logo is now blue" in a list, that would be trivia). It also says that "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." As long as we break them down into paragraphs detailing each aspect of criticism and present reliable counter-points. All of the criticisms of 8 have been widely, well, criticized by reliable sources. Windows Vista has a criticism section of this type (and yes, it did meet some notable critiques. And when I mean whitewashing, I mean that this article, except for the section regarding secure boot, mentions none of the criticism regarding 8. This violates WP:NPOV because it does not yet present all significant and reliable viewpoints. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, please see the reception section. There is no premise to say that there's no criticism in this article, although we may want to add criticism as a sub-section of the reception section. I might also think it's premature; most of Windows Vista's criticism came after its general availability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Jasper, there is no reception section in this article.

ViperSnake151, a criticism section is usually miscellaneous. It entirely consists of unorganized fragments of criticism gathered from around. On rare occasions, you can find well-organized reception sections; well, since they are not purely criticism (potentially POV) and are not miscellaneous, they are okay.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not supposed to include criticism sections in any article. Any criticism (which is well-sourced and appropriate) should be integrated into the article text. Anyway, one could reasonably argue that Windows_8#Secure_boot is already unbalanced by devoting the majority of coverage to a WP:FRINGE (or at least tiny minority) viewpoint (Linux) . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I couldn't agree more. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic, because they are "usually miscellaneous", that means noting any notable issues are considered trivia? Again, Windows Vista has a criticism section and a criticism article, which by your logic are trivia that has to go. Part of Windows Vista's notabilty is because it did receive some negative reception, it was the Bane of its existance. What is with the inconsistent double-standard you are applying here? You are not showing any consensus for your interpretation of the guideline, and remember that you do not own this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ViperSnake151

Windows Vista is not our subject of discussion and presence of other questionable stuff is not a good excuse for adding more. As for notability, it does not even apply here. There is no shortage of policy and guideline support in the previous messages of me and my friend that I don't think I need repeating them here. If, after reading them, you felt unconvinced, the solution is WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation overkill?

Is it me, or does the "Secure boot" section have citation overkill? ~ihaveamac [t|c] 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's not just you. pcuser42 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I do not see them as citation overkill. All sources, if reliable are welcome. Citations are opportunities for improvements and means of certainty. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It does look a bit like citation overkill. Statements do not need four or five references supporting each sentence, I think it should be no more than three, preferably two. - SudoGhost 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like ViperSnake151 removed some citations, and it looks normal now. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

I think this article needs a section on its reception. I've heard things on both sides, and I think it's important to note what people think about the radically new desktop interface. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Windows 8 has been released everywhere yet, it says on the article that support starts October 30th. So reception would likely be minimal as of now. Ziiike (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/19/benioff_on_windows8/

Salesforce CEO Benioff: Win 8 is 'the end of Windows'

A link to start the horrified industry response section. Hcobb (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

However, that is one website, and one opinion. And in one target audience, I do not think there should be a reception section until past October 30th, when Windows 8 is released everywhere. Ziiike (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure The Register is a reliable source at all. Everywhere I go in Wikipedia, people are discussing its unreliability. (I hope I had remembered the link to them but I distinctly remember a discussion about computer viruses in which The Register had literally quoted from Symantec and said things that Symantec never had said.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How this section can start by saying "mostly positive", i simply cannot fathom. "mostly negative" is what i would say. There´s more jokes about how bad it is before it´s even officially released than there was about Vista a year after release(and Vista´s problems while plentiful were mostly on the technical side, Win8 has serious issues with the user interface, personally i would never ever buy it for my mom or dad for example, it would be wasted cash). If you read on computer forums, the most common statements by those who tried it is one form of annoyance or another. Two not uncommon questions are "did MS try to make the worst OS they could?" and "Is MS trying to push Windows ME down from the top rank as the worst ever Windows?". And no Lisa, "The Register" isn´t really unreliable, they often write about rumours and some people somehow manage to read those as facts(they always differentiate between facts and speculation to my knowledge), they also don´t bother avoiding stepping on toes, and they like to make some neat headlines. But overall, The Register tends to be one of the better predictors of the tech industry. DW75 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

AppX

AppX, which is the new Windows 8 UI Open Packaging Conventions deployment format, links here. But there is nothing in the article about it. Group29 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can source it, feel free to put it in. --JetBlast (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in description of operating systems - Removed features

“support for playing DVDs has been removed from Windows media player due to the cost of licensing the necessary decoders”… This is wrong Windows never contained necessary decoders for playing DVDs–they were always obtained by purchasing a machine that had a DVD player already installed by a third party or by purchasing such software installing it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.128.72 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Hi. I checked the source and it isn't wrong. Windows 7 plays DVD just fine. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the Windows 8 article not Windows 7. Was it a typo above or did you get mixed up with the articles. I assume its a typo but just checking you never know :-) --JetBlast (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is not a typo: the keyword here is the word "removed", meaning that it is a comparison with the past version of Windows like Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows 7. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, had you bought Windows 7, you would have a DVD decoder if you purchased the 3 top versions: However Windows has always lacked DVD playback decoder, and a just few versions of Windows 7 were the first to offer DVD playback. from the Windows website: "Windows 7 Home Premium, Ultimate, and Enterprise come with DVD playback capability built in. If you're running Windows 7 Home Basic or Starter, you can upgrade your edition of Windows 7 to add full DVD capability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.159.34 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That single version is enough for having the word "removed" in the article. Still, I'll check on Windows 7's brothers as well. (I am referring to Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Home Server 2011). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Windows Vista Home Premium or Ultimate also supports DVD playback. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

VSS itself is not deprecated

Regarding this statement:
Both the Shadow Copy and Backup and Restore features have been deprecated on Windows 8 in favor of the new File History function.

That is misleading.
The Volume Shadow Copy service (VSS) is still a Windows service, in Windows 8. One can verify this by viewing "Volume Shadow Copy" service, listed in the Services Management Console. Also, the command line tool for managing VSS is carried forward. Notice the "Applies To:" line on this page http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc754968.aspx

Instead, what is deprecated is the convenient Windows user utility for creating system images (formerly under Backup and Restore), and the Previous Versions interface for recovering specific files from volume snapshots. Thus, the continued presence of VSS leaves the door open for use of any third-party volume imaging utilities - of which there are many - including free utilities. GRSmith26 (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hello. The recent changes should satisfy you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

After 1.2 billion hours of user testing

Great news, Windows 8 now is new record of public testing. News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57540241-75/after-1.2-billion-hours-of-user-testing-windows-8-is-good-to-go/