Talk:Windows 8

Separate article for Windows 8.1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we create a separate article for Windows 8.1? It has a brand new kernel (6.3) and has enough features to merit an article as a new operating system. Wikipedia also has articles on Windows 2.1 and Windows 3.1. Gamer9832 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it more of a service pack than a brand new OS? A bit like Windows XP SP2. pcuser42 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

8.1 has more feature additions than XP SP2, which is mostly security updates and bug fixes, and didn't include major aesthetic changes to the OS. Windows 8.1 has a handful of significant changes, like new start screen app sizes, Search, and Settings menu. 8.1 is also a completely different version of Windows (6.3, whereas Windows 8 was 6.2), while XP SP1, SP2, and SP3 were all Windows 5.1. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Server 2012 R2. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If this ever changes (for instance, if we get 8.xs appearing as we have OS X 10.xs), then an 8.1 article may be required. However, 8.1 is, at this time, a minor revision to Windows 8. The key there is "revision", in that nothing substantial has been changed, but some design and function elements of 8 have been revised or updated. Should minor revisions become the new method of progress at Microsoft (unlikely, but not impossible), then our idea of what is worthy of a separate article will need to be revised also. Until such a time, however, 8.1 is to 8 what SP1 is to XP.  drewmunn  talk  19:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Comparing 8.1 to XP SP1 is unfair. SP1 was a bundle of security updates and bug fixes. 8.1 contains completely new UI features, especially in the Metro interface, which I would argue do qualify as substantial changes. These changes change the way you use the OS, especially if you use Windows with a tablet. And Microsoft has released on the model you described before, with Windows 2, 2.1, 3, and 3.1. This is nothing new, it's just that we haven't been used to this kind of release cycle and naming in a long time. Gamer9832 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I know of the original release cycle (I used Windows 3.1, you know!), but my point stands. What you state as "completely new UI features" are not really anything beyond revisions. The ability to change the size of a menu option is not a major change, nor is the existence of a slightly different visual cue for accessing it. The ability to change the background of the start screen isn't new, it's just extended beyond the presets. There are a few changes that are more major, but these are better noted as inclusions of application updates, such as the Music app. Most of the other features either already exist in Windows 8 and are available in a different manner in 8.1, or are compatibility-based changes or bug fixes. On a more holistic note, using 8.1 feels no different to using 8 (except Boot to Desktop). A perhaps more appropriate analogue would be that 8.1 is similar to Vista SP1, where UI, API, and new standards were included in the OS. At the same time, new versions of Windows Applications (specifically the Windows Live suite) were made available. 8.1 is not more than a series of minor revisions to the way 8 is used, with a few bundled application updates.  drewmunn  talk  12:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

8.1 includes more than just application updates to common Metro apps such as News and Weather, it adds at least 5 new programs. You also can't just say that these revisions are insignificant. I agree that 8.1 probably feels the same as 8 when using the Desktop, but definitely not in the Metro UI, where the aesthetic changes are comparable to the difference between the taskbars of Windows Vista and Windows 7. You mentioned a few of the smaller changes, but neglected to mention major updates such as completely different Search (bringing back universal Search instead of one segregated by apps, settings, and files) and Settings Menu. 8.1 probably has two times as many feature additions as each iteration of OSX. Vista SP1, Vista SP2, and Windows 7 SP1 combined do not have as many new features Vista SP1 and SP2 both do not have as many new features as Windows 8.1, so comparing 8.1 to Vista SP1 is also very unfair. You might mention the transition from Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE, but 8.1 has even more feature additions than 98 SE did, as well as more aesthetic changes. The only proper comparison you can make is between Windows 3 and Windows 3.1. Gamer9832 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Bundled apps are just that, bundled. They're not part of the update, just tagged on to push them out. As far as 'major' changes, unfied search isn't really one of them. Nether is the Settings access in Metro; search is a small refinement to an algorithm, and settings are not newly accessible, just newly presented in a different form. Also, I'd debate that the 8.1 update is more significant than an OS X iteration; as a developer for both, I've seen their respective change logs, and the new OS X Mavericks (although a relatively minor update) has significantly greater changes than those listed in 8.1. I chose Vista SP1 as it fairly accurately demonstrates my point of simultaneously updating software outside the OS, but integrating that update with the rollout of an SP. Another major element would be the lack of cost for 8.1, which in Microsoft's history denotes a minor update rather than a major one. I can't remember back to the 3.1 days to say whether it cost money for existing users, but more recent form leans heavily on the 'service pack' side rather than 'major update'.  drewmunn  talk  21:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Hi. I think we should treat Windows 8.1 like a service pack and adhere to the service pack formula for the previously written articles like Windows XP and its Service Pack 2. In other words, mention of Windows 8.1 comes in the main article (i.e. Windows 8) and the details of its features goes to Features removed from Windows 8 and Features new to Windows 8. Please note that this suggestion does not come bundled with my oppose and is negotiable; but I seriously do not think we can warrant an article for a service pack whose primary function is to add a Start button, just because Microsoft has suddenly decided to make another foray into the field of inconsistent software naming. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that merging the changes made in Windows 8.1 into the Windows 8 new and removed features pages is a terrible idea. Now, there is no easy way to compare Windows 8 to 8.1. If someone wants to see a list of changes (for example, in order to decide whether to upgrade or not), he/she simply can't. In previous cases like Windows XP, service pack changes were listed both in the main Windows XP page and in the new and removed features pages of Windows XP. Noam el (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Hi. That is exactly the point of this change: Wikipedia is not a changelog or a list of miscellany items. Anyway, this ship has sailed. We started this discussion in July and with so many people and the policy supporting it, it was about time. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Unless it gains notability on its own, it should be considered an update to 8 and not an entirely new version. In fact, for legal reasons, Microsoft cannot call it an "upgrade" or new version either. It is effectively a service pack. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: I looked for precedent; Windows XP SP2 was a major OS overhaul (in response to the Windows security crisis of the early 2000s) and yet it didn't get its own article. Windows 8.1 doesn't seem to warrant its own article in this light, in my opinion. 87Fan (talk) 22:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a rather minor update, and while the consensus at the Server 2012 R2 AfD is not applicable here directly, my reasoning is similar.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Why is the consensus "not applicable here directly"? Windows Server 2012 R2 comes from the same codebase as Windows 8.1 (they're both Windows NT 6.3 under the hood). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think it should be a separate article at this point, to little changed. However I think it should be put under development history/updates as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_8&oldid=571542270 user931 10:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. Unfortunately, that's not a good idea. Not everything in that section pertains development history. There are changes and system requirements too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, a separate article for Windows 8.1 should be made. What about Apple's OS X Mavericks? It has a separate article even though it is in preview stage.124.253.49.211 (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Mavericks is a new version of OS X, while Windows 8.1 can be likened to a service pack update. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 08:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Hi. Looks like a classic example of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official Windows 8.1 Release Date

According to Microsoft, Windows 8.1 will be released on the Windows Store on Oct. 18, 2013. Should this be included in the article? [1] --megamanfan3 (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The source seems to have been removed. Sorry. I requests login and when I do, it generates 404 error. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Did you mean this? Well, yes, we can write "Windows 8.1 is scheduled for release in October 18". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Would "Windows 8.1 is scheduled for release on October 18" be better? GoingBatty (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I meant to write "October" but then added "18" and forgot to change "in" to "on". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

backdoor? probably not

http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-german-government-warns-key-entities-not-to-use-windows-8--links-the-nsa-2013-8 http://www.zdnet.com/german-government-refutes-windows-backdoor-claims-7000019739/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.160.39 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This screams of a conspiracy theory. pcuser42 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Why should it not be true, in view of recent revelations? See also How NSA access was built into Windows. The only safe option for e.g. a government involved in diplomatic negotiations, or a company negotiating a big contract, appears to be open source operating systems. But Windows 8 is probably safe enough, as long as it isn't connected to Internet. --Sigmundg (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It is not true because that is not governments' modus operandi which are orders of magnitude more vulnerable and skeptical than you and me. Let me give you and example: If a government lodge a backdoor into an OS that is used by billions, according to the zeroth law of security, it is only a matter of time before it is discovered. Then, if the said government is using the same OS, the backdoor become, not a security hole, but a security tunnel with a paved road and no toll booth! Now, if the said government use a different OS, what about its allies? According to Robert Gates, "governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets." And what if they discover that the pain of having a backdoor in their OSes is no longer in their interest, especially when they don't trust US not to use it?

That was just an example. The rule of the thumb is: The weapon that has the potential to wipe out both side is not a weapon on black ops. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a business, so it is not a problem for me personally. But if I did I would never trust OS's made by a company known to be part of the PRISM spy-network, be it Windows or OS X. --Sigmundg (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. PRISM was a signal intelligence program; it was chiefly OS- and company-independent. A benefit of having studied so much about security as I did is that you will not be surprised that PRISM even exists or be afraid of using the OS of your choice. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sigmundg and Codename Lisa, a friendly reminder that this page is solely for the discussion of the development of the Windows 8 article on Wikipedia, not a forum for your opinions and concerns about spying and so forth. Let's stay focused. Thanks. Warren -talk- 00:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That is a very careless assessment of the discussion which shows insufficient regard for the context, Warren. We were discussing businessinsider.com's article. I do not see a reason to enforce WP:RS by bludgeoning when I can do it sociably or to reaffirm my faith in Wikipedia policy by shouting "Hail WP:Something"!.

If you want a direct comment on the article, however, here is one: "Backup and Restore" was a single program, not software, as you wrote in the article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I think you missed my point, or perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am not suggesting that PRISM is directly related to Win8. What I meant to say was that I would not trust Microsoft not to include a backdoor in Win8, when it is known that they have been forced to give NSA access to Outlook, Skype and SkyDrive Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages. I am not suggesting that Microsoft is evil, but if NSA wants a backdoor then Microsoft, or any other US-company, doesn't have a choice. For the average user I think the real concerns are: 1) NSA is relying on outsourcing, which means that a lot of people will have access to the data gathered. Although not very smart, lots of people will probably store ID numbers, passwords to their netbank, credit card numbers, etc. in a docx- or ASCII-file. What if somebody with access to the data are tempted to sell it to criminals? What if they sell medical data to insurance companies? 2) What if the backdoor access is hacked? --Sigmundg (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Actually I did; only as I told Warren above, I was concentrating on the WP:RS aspect. You see, The Guardian says "Microsoft handed the NSA ..." Shocker! Microsoft had two choices: Either to hand it over or to hand it over.

On the whole, I agree with most of what you say but I don't sanction using any of those sources in the article. Beyond RS, it is a general principle: If pollution threatens the ozone layer, I don't think it is a good idea to add it to every article about a specific model of a car. Similarly, if NSA spies on people, I don't think it is a good idea to go to add it to every article about a product whose producers were somehow connected to the incident.

There is an exception: If the product in question was directly involved. I don't see it so far. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

There was an update to these stories. According to this, the only thing the German agency was concerned about was that problems with Secure Boot might result in a user's computer becoming unbootable, thus the user would "lose control" of it. The inference that "lost control" meant "Microsoft or the NSA could take over your computer and control it remotely" was apparently something done by reporters. Jeh (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is likely that United States National Security Agency (NSA) spyware exists in most hard drives. In the PDF report EQUATION GROUP: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Kaspersky says they have discovered the spyware called Fanny that has likely existed in hard disk drives and solid-state drives for nearly two decades. Note that Kaspersky does not use the name NSA, instead they call them "the Equation group"; you can search the internet for more information. If there is a backdoor in current versions of Windows then they have just learned how to hide it better. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Move windows 8.1 section

Hi could we please move the windows 8.1 section to Windows 8.1 please because windows 8 should be about windows 8 and windows 8.1 should be about windows 8.1 because windows 8.1 has added a lot of features 86.171.32.223 (talk) 09:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed above and so far it appears as if editors are not in favour of this, as Windows 8.1 is actually an update to Windows 8 (like Windows XP SP2) as opposed to a completely new OS. pcuser42 (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

For legal reasons, Microsoft cannot call this a new version of Windows. It is an update. In fact, no article should discuss 8.1 like it is a new version of Windows alongside 8 in order to maintain this view (i.e. List of Windows 8 and RT tablet devices). ViperSnake151  Talk  03:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Just curious what are those legal reasons? I assume(d) they could release new major updates whenever they wanted and call them that. Or minor updates and decide what deserves major vs. minor distinction. comp.arch (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, intending to release an "upgrade" to a product after it is released would require Microsoft to defer revenue on all Windows 8 sales until it is released, because Windows 8 will technically not have been "delivered" in full. Apple was forced to charge iPod Touch users for iOS updates and people with 802.11n in their new Macs for similar reasons ViperSnake151  Talk  18:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting (if true, what about the service packs, just not announce them?). So not really "legal requirement". iPod Touch users really charged for (software only) updates? I can understand charging and rules for hardware updates (or included if under warranty) on software that enables broken hardware. Does this have something to do with them being dominant (or not a "requirement" for open source software)? comp.arch (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If the act makes it harder for them to call it an update, wouldn't they call it a new version instead? Am I missing something? comp.arch (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Windows NT family"?

Codename Lisa (talk · contribs)'s recent edit to the lede here, and the accompanying edit comment:

Fixed sentence that implied "Windows" and "Windows NT" are peer families. It is not so. 
"Windows" is a super-family. It is divided into families like NT, Phone, Embedded, etc.)

reminded me of something that's been bothering me about all of the WP articles on the "Windows NT family".

What bothers me is that I can't think of a reference that supports the "Windows NT family" term, not in regards to everything from NT 3.1 through Windows 8. NT 4 was the last product to carry the "NT" designation. Oh, Windows 2000 did say on its splash screen that it included "Windows NT technology", but even that was dropped with Windows XP.

Microsoft does not use the term to apply to current or recent versions of Windows. They say things like "Windows 8 is the latest version of Windows." The term "NT" is simply gone from their lexicon.

A Google search for

"Windows NT family" site:microsoft.com

finds only about 230 hits. Most of those either were written by non-Microsoft people on their various forums, or are in articles referring only to NT 3.1 through NT 4, or are similarly vestigial in nature. If this was a current term at Microsoft I would expect far more than 230 hits. It appears, rather, that according to Microsoft the "Windows NT family of operating systems" ends at NT 4. And it's their product series. I think they get to choose what it's called.

Believe me, I fully understand the heritage of these operating systems. That, for example, Windows 2000 was a series of improvements over and additions to NT 4. (Believe me, I understand. This is where I live.) I agree that from a technical point of view, "Windows NT family" is a completely defensible term for the entire series of products from NT 3.1 through Windows 8.

But that's my synthesis. Is there a reliable source for it? Preferably more than one? Jeh (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

First, you are searching within Microsoft.com, a WP:PRIMARY. I save you a lecture on the merits of primary or secondary sources for now. But still, if you looked at the results, you'd have found: [2] [3] [4] I didn't spend time on Microsoft.com but you should look in support.microsoft.com and msdn.microsoft.com for this type of stuff. Anywhere else in Microsoft.com, things are marketing-oriented.

In Wikipedia, WP:SECONDARY is more favorable. Here you are: [5] [6] [7]

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you linked the right pages? Your secondary references do not mention "NT family" at all. (This page does, but as far as I can tell it's just someone's blog, not a RS.) They do support the technical principle, but not the specific term. Re the Microsoft pages, I am not suggesting that Microsoft never uses the term. But it certainly is not current, common, or in any way part of their official nomenclature. (And yes, I did "look at the results.") As for "marketing-oriented," that's exactly what I'm looking for. It is the absence of this term from Microsoft's current or recent marketing materials that is the problem. WP's use of "Windows NT family," while technically correct, appears to me to be not supported by Microsoft's official nomenclature. Furthermore, WP's use of the term may convey the impression that this is an official Microsoft term, when it quite clearly is not. Jeh (talk) 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I should probably make clear that I have no intention of "being bold" about this issue by making any changes to article space regarding this term. I do know of other cases where WP has used unofficial terms for products. For example, the Toyota Supra had four different model series, which are very commonly (in enthusiast magazines, web sites, etc.) called the "Mark I" through the "Mark IV". The WP article on the Supra uses this nomenclature. Perhaps it falls under WP:COMMONNAME: though it isn't widely known to the general public, it certainly is to Supra fans. Perhaps "Windows NT family", used to refer to NT 3.1 through Windows 8.1, falls under WP:COMMONNAME as well. I just think the point needs to be settled by something more than a few editors agreeing with each other, and I don't see any evidence that anything beyond that has happened. If it did, then please point me at the discussion, and I'll be perfectly happy to drop it. Jeh (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Did you just say 'Your secondary references do not mention "NT family" at all'? I had a very tough time trying to stop myself from writing a retort about not being able to see or read. However, the fact is that if we go by your argument, it is impossible to prove that my username is Codename Lisa by going to User:Codename Lisa because the word "username" is not there! Same way, it is impossible to say that "Gates" is the family name of Bill Gates by reading a book about him because the word "family name" is not in the book. All the secondary sources that I provided make it a point that Windows 8 is Windows NT; if all you have against them is this kind of nitpicking, I am afraid I see no point continuing this discussion without mediation.

Then again you said "not supported by Microsoft's official nomenclature" while I provided three primary sources to that effect. Then again, your request regarding a consensus for WP:COMMONNAME ignores WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Split of Windows 8.1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I strongly feel that Windows 8.1 should be split from this article as it is a major update and not a Service Pack which has its own Support Lifecycle Policy.

Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Windows 8.1 is legally an update, and service packs also have their own support lifecycle - support for Windows 7 without service packs has ended, for example. pcuser42 (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Windows 8.1 is about to be pushed as an update for free to Windows 8 users. Just like Service Packs are. If you buy a retail copy of 8, again, you'll get 8.1 as a free update. Accordingly, it gets treated as an update here, just like service packs do. Jeh (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Didn't we already have this discussion? Windows XP SP2 was also a major update to the base OS, and it didn't get its own article either. It's ok, and this article is fine thw way it is. 87Fan (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

We have. pcuser42 (talk) 04:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. See the outcome of every previous discussion on the subject above and at Talk:Features new to Windows 8. I understand consensus can change and all that but do we have to have this discussion so often? We agreed against one last month, and the month before. That's not going to change in the next month, so why go through this whole thing again?  drewmunn  talk  07:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows 8.1: An actual, more effective split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well, there's been off and on discussions upon whether we should give Windows 8.1 its own article, and even I've asserted in the past that 8.1 needed to remain part of Windows 8's article because it was legally "just an update". But;

• These distribution caveats (enterprise users having to deploy the quote unquote "OS update" exactly like how you normally install Windows, as opposed to it just being a patch) have left me confused over whether we should just ignore Microsoft's spin and say that "Windows 8.1 is a version of the Windows 8 operating system, released by Microsoft on October 17, 2013")
• Windows 8.1 may or may not have dramatically different reception in comparison to Windows 8 RTM.
• There is enough material about 8.1 now that could justify a new article, because this just isn't a patch rollup like XP SP3 or Vista SP1)
• It would let us go into a bit more detail on things they changed (about the same level as the existing Features section on the Windows 8 article, maybe)

However, if this were to occur we'd still keep the Features new to Windows 8 article, and carefully write the article to mention how Microsoft is classifying and distributing 8.1.

Does anyone agree with my logic? ViperSnake151  Talk  02:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Newcomer comment - We have articles for each new version of Internet Explorer for crying out loud. Is a yearly update of a friggin' operating system really too small to include here? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

New versions of Internet Explorer are marketed as completely new versions, rather than an update to an existing version as Windows 8.1 is being marketed. pcuser42 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft's marketing department does not have any bearing on this. Suppose Microsoft calls it Windows 9. What does that really change? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, God. Another Wikipedia:Other stuff exists discussion. But anyway, I was considering an AfD for Internet Explorer 11 article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

By all means, nominate it. I may oppose. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this proposal needs to be closed per WP:SNOWBALL. Service packs have never had a separate article, and at its core, that's what this is: a service pack. Split proposals have not been successful in the past, and consensus has proven that that's unlikely to change.GSK ✉ ✓ 05:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Hi. Sorry, my reason for opposing has never been "just an update"; it has been the fact that Windows 8.1 is no more important than a service pack, (regardless of whether it is one or it isn't) and that all the information lying around about it are mostly non-encyclopedic intricate details. Upgrade woes take up one paragraph, not one article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that, since the core of Windows 8.1 functions and is used the exact same way as the original Windows 8, it makes sense for Windows 8.1 to make up a section within the Windows 8 article. That way, the new features of the enhanced replacement (Maybe this could be compared to Toki Tori 2+?!) of the original version of Windows 8 is still described adequately, but without applying undue weight to various aspects of it. You bring up some valid points in your proposal, but overall I still think the current consensus is the way to go for now. DarkToonLink 10:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. AGAIN. Seriously, can we stop with proposing this every couple of days now? Windows 8.1 is essentially a service pack for Windows 8. The argument of individual IE articles obviously fails WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and the fact that they are all different versions. We don't have any individual articles on the new Firefox versions, or Google Chrome versions, because they're all incremental updates with random version numbers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like you to note that all of the tech publications are treating Windows 8.1 as it were a separate product for the purposes of reception. Additionally, I also feel that the current consensus of considering 8.1 to be the equivalent to a service pack (and thus automatically presumed non-notable) will make the current Windows 8 article too unwieldily. Windows 8.1 also does have some notable backstory, i.e. the entire idea that Microsoft is intentionally shifting to a faster development cycle to meet demands. I started a userspace draft at User:ViperSnake151/Windows 8.1 if anyone wants to see, but right now, you're operating under the assumption that 8.1 is subject to pre-existing norms; as somehow every free "update" (not "upgrade" due to financial laws, sorry 1st Gen iPod Touch users) for competing platform iOS is notable for an article. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• That's not even close to accurate ViperSnake. The individual versions (iOS 4, 5, 6 and 7) have articles, not every single free update version. Equally, that is linked to another pair of WikiProjects - the Apple one, and the iOS one, so their consensus is not relevant here. Windows 8.1 simply isn't any more substantial a change than Windows XP SP2 was; just because Microsoft haven't named it a service pack, doesn't mean that 8.1 should suddenly get its own article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay; when it turned into iOS, that's when it started getting articles, but the iOS 4 article is merely a changelog, and at least 5 through 7 have some content. But remember, consensus can change: comparing XP SP2 to 8.1 is like comparing giving the house steel doors and a new security system to giving the house a new paintjob and renovating some rooms. Even when I installed it, it felt more like the update process going from 7 to 8 than the traditional Windows Update process. Combine this with the fact that 8.1 has to be deployed like an entirely new version of Windows (i.e. through normal installation processes and not Windows Update) leads me to believe that technically Windows 8.1 "is" a new version of Windows internally, but Microsoft cannot call it a "new version" in marketing or else they'd have to charge for it. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons I've stated above. And XPSP2 wasn't just an update rollup; your statement that you believe this is true leads me to believe you're not interested in the facts. 87Fan (talk) 00:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with ViperSnake151. First of all, according to Microsoft, Windows 8.1 is not a service pack, so we should not treat it as a SP. Also, I know we don't have an article for Windows XP SP2, but this does not imply Windows 8.1 cannot have its own article (Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). I have read User:ViperSnake151/Windows 8.1, and I think it deserves its own article.--Chmarkine (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I just expanded the features section on the aforementioned article. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Chmarkine, I must respectfully disagree. It's a well-written article, but doesn't do enough for me to be convinced about it being a justifiable separate article. It simply reinforces the fact that this is just a big service pack; exactly like XP SP2, with a similar number of changes in proportion to the base OS. Talking about leaked builds doesn't change that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Don't forget, 8.1 is not just an update for one operating system, it is an update for two operating systems. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Windows RT is just another edition of Windows 8. Third-party apps that run on RT also run on all other editions. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• @Chmarkine: Hi. Unfortunately, what you says is the bare minimum that does not suffice on its own. Like Jasper Deng said in one of the previous discussions, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Server 2012 R2 and Windows 98 SE also do not have their own articles. Minimum criteria for splitting an article is not just notability but also presence of material with broad scope and due weight. We have a large quantity of sources but the scope is narrow. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• How does due weight factor into this? Pretty much only Microsoft is not referring to 8.1 like its a new version of Windows, sources are reviewing it like it is. Also, this may also be another example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the free Mac OS X 10.1 update (which was released under, ironically, very similar circumstances due to reception of the prior release) also has an article and is not counted as an update to Mac OS X 10.0.ViperSnake151  Talk  18:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. WP:DUE is our fundamental policy. Things without due weight may not exist in Wikipedia. For example, Paul Thurrott has published over 6 gigabytes of contents on Windows 8 and 8.1 and we cannot publish any of them. He and his talk show host ramble on for hours but their discussion (250 MB each) can be summarized into "we don't know; anything is possible" or "Windows 8 uses sharp corners instead of round ones". I am saying there are a lot of contents out there on Windows 8.1 but most are fuss; they add questions instead of facts.

Now, you might have noticed that Windows 8 article has exceeded 100 KB and it is time we split it. But if you make a Windows 8.1 article, how much can you reduce from its size? Perhaps it is more practical if you prepared a Windows 8.1 draft in your user space. Makes judgment easier. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, I have been. Just gotta add some reception now. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a very minor update to Windows 8 - my previous reasoning still stands.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I don't think Windows 8.1 is a "very minor update". The kernel changed from 6.2 to 6.3.--Chmarkine (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

While I certainly love to see a valid evidence about kernel change (other than a WP:SYNTH of version number), I am inclined to ask: So what? That makes it a very minor update with a kernel change. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

By your logic, Windows 7 is a very minor change.ElectroPro (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not get too myopic in our discussion. The issue of splitting off the Win 8.1 article has been brought up 3 different times(!) and the community has voted it down each time. Let's move on. There's plenty of other articles that need improving, let's focus on those instead. 87Fan (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• The logic is flawed because of WP:INHERITED; the fact that 8.1 is related to a certain class of update that has never been considered notable enough for an article does not mean that it inherits this non-notability. Unlike say, Vista SP1, which was routine maintenance, 8.1 has gotten significant media attention and scrutiny for showing that Microsoft could easily begin digging itself out of the hole it dug itself into with 8 proper after just a year. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Support Windows 8.1 is an entirely new operating system. It required its own RTM, has been reviewed as a completely new operating system, and even has a different version number from its predecessor (6.3 vs. 6.2). It has also been marketed as a new OS, as opposed to XP's, Vista's, and Windows 7's service packs, which were not advertised updates at all. Plus, we also have to consider that Microsoft is moving to a faster release cycle where new operating systems are delivered every year. Also, if we were to keep adding Windows 8.1 features to the standard Windows 8 article, it would be very unwieldy and difficult to navigate. ViperSnake's draft of a Windows 8.1 article is excellent, and shows how informative a separate Windows 8.1 article would be to everybody who reads and uses Wikipedia as a source of information. 8.1 is a new operating system, and it deserves more than just two paragraphs at the bottom of another article. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Windows 8.1 Screenshot

Closed because it is a non-issue (the screenshot should always reflect the latest released version), this is not a proper topic for an RFC to begin with, and others have asserted that this is an inappropriate use of the RFC process. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Screenshots:

• File:Windows 8 Start Screen.png: Windows 8.0; previous image in infobox.
• File:Windows 8.1 Start screen.jpg: Windows 8.1; current image.

First thing first, I would definitely like to say that the screenshot of Windows 8.1 that User:Codename Lisa uploaded is just beautiful, fantastic, fabulous etc.

But as User:Sonicdrewdriver while answering me said " No major changes occurred between 8 and 8.1's Start Screen, and all changes can be explained semantically. There is no screenshot of XP SP1, for instance, because no major visual changes occurred. Similarly, the Start Screen will include all my software in installation, and I'm not going to uninstall the applications I have installed just to take a screenshot that will be removed for failing Fair Use. " I'm confused and I think the screenshot must not be there at least in the infobox of the article.

For proof, the full message is available here @ Drew's talk page in 10th paragraph.

I think it would be the best if Lisa asked regarding this matter in the talk page of this article.

Now I ask openly to other users, shall the use of Windows 8.1 screenshot will be reverted to the previous screenshot of Windows 8 which is this or not ?

And yes, unless User:Sonicdrewdriver compromises the situation or being solved by other users, please don't remove the RFC.

Himanis Das  talk 17:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Support: The screenshot in any infobox for software should reflect the most recent release, recognizing that 8.1 has done more noticeable changes than the typical "service pack". Remind me to start an RFC on whether 8.1 should be treated differently in a few weeks, because I think that decision may need a bit more input. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Himanis, no compromise is necessary (and this really isn't RfC fodder, anyway). Lisa replaced instances of 8's start screen with 8.1's. It'd be different if the original was kept in the article also, but it wasn't. We're fair-using the 8.1 exactly as we were fair-using 8. Fair Use would, however, have a hard time protecting us if both were in use in the article, as it was when you originally uploaded.  drewmunn  talk  18:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If my standalone Windows 8.1 article does go live in mainspace, I'd put the Windows 8 one back and move the 8.1 one to the respective page. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get back into that one, shall we?  drewmunn  talk  23:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Remember this is the article about Windows 8. Sure it's more than a service pack, but media treats Windows 8.1 and 8 differently. WP:COMMON (i think, i hadn't done this in a long time) ElectroPro (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, that's not true. This is not a Windows 8.0 article; it is a Windows 8.x article. (Or just removed ".x") Commons sense says media must treat them differently to earn money; they have no obligation to stick to NPOV and no restriction on not showing both. We on the other hand have WP:NFCC to consider, according to which we cannot have both shots. I say have the 8.1 shot instead of 8.0. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If this is truly a 8.x article, then you should clearly state that in the article. it looks like just 8.0 to me. ElectroPro (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Support - The newer screenshot provides the best overview of the current operating system interface, and per Codename Lisa above, this article represents Windows 8 as a whole so the most up-to-date image would be the best to choose, given the constraints of the nonfree content policy. DarkToonLink 05:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Insupport - When i was rarely editing Wikipedia as an IP user, I've noticed that in article Windows 7, the predecessor of 8. There were no screenshots of Windows 7 SP1 at the time of its release as may be the starter, SP1, developer, RC may come under the article "Windows 7". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer67 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am afraid SP1 and RTM screenshots are identical; so the question of updating it was out of the window already. Even if they were not identical, maybe the action to take was to update that screenshot, not opposing this one. Including an updated screenshot that reveals a significant difference was a good idea in this article and IMHO good ideas do not need any reason beyond that of being a good idea. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

First learn how to write in proper English without errors, then come to Wikipedia, please go through the message I've posted in your talk page. Himanis Das  talk 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh! It seems that the position of the case is 50-50. The number of supporting users is as equal to to the number of opposing users. If possible, I have to conclude the final decision and if I find more supporters, I'll award Lisa with a beautiful barnstar.

But, before that I would like to ask this question to few known users - Dogmaticeclectic, Pratyya, Mr. Shiney and Crisco.

Himanis Das  talk 17:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you do not "conclude the final decision". And it's not voting, it's !voting. Please review the RFC guidelines, especially WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. Jojalozzo 18:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support the newer screenshot. And while I'm here, just checking something... Did the editor who started an RFC called "Shall the new screenshot will be kept ?", containing the question "shall the use of Windows 8.1 screenshot will be reverted to the previous screenshot of Windows 8 which is this or not ?", really just tell another editor to "First learn how to write in proper English without errors, then come to Wikipedia"? That would be an odd and ironic thing if it happened. Just saying... Begoon ^talk 23:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'll surely go for support. As Windows 8 and 8.1 don't have much difference. Also Windows 8.1 is a redirect and redirected to Windows 8 (this article) So it means Windows 8.1 is a part of Windows 8. So the new screenshot should be kept. It's a updated version and good!! And Begoon don't bite --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to read what I said again? I don't think you probably understood my comment. Not biting was my entire point... Begoon ^talk 07:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was invited randomly to participate here by Legobot. An RFC should be a simple question without editorializing. This RFC does not meet those requirements and therefore cannot bring about a valid consensus. I suggest this one be closed and another be started that follows the guidelines. See WP:RFC. Jojalozzo 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. I am afraid this is not gonna happen. RFC is a lightweight process by definition and Wikipedia has no firm rules. Suggesting to restart this whole discussion because of slight deviation from what is a mere guideline? I'd call that pure bureaucracy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support - (saw this on the RfC page) With technology, it always serves the reader best to have the most accurate information possible (actually, that applies to all of Wikipedia). Thus, the most recent screenshot is best. Also, agree that those reading should note Joja's comment. This RfC doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. GRUcrule (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Agree with Joja that this RfC doesn't meet the standards. Honestly I can't really figure this RfC out. If you want us to compare two screenshots, then you should probably give us a link to the two of them. I tried examining the history and didn't see the last one. II | (t - c) 09:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have added links at the top of the RfC.

• Neutral leaning towards the new image. It has higher resolution. People can click on the image and see more details. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm assuming that a substantiate discussion was attempted on this before going to an RFC, but I'm unable to find it in the talk page. Could you point me to it? Thanx North8000 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Exactly why would you assume something like that? Having a substantial discussion is the goal of RFC, not its prerequisite. We had a discussion and it was WP:SNOW. It was a long time ago, so I don't exactly remember it, but please do feel free to browse my talk page archive. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dispute with section on device drivers

I would change it, but I know that x86 drivers that are user mode can be used in Windows x64 8. I can in fact provide proof that this is the case. I have a Mayflash 3 in 1 Magic joy box that comes with a driver for the three controllers it has. While the Gamecube and PS2 don't install the driver in device manager, the Xbox does require it. There is only x86 drivers right now, but I can assure you that X86 drivers can run in Windows X64, provided they do not run in Kernel mode. Presumably, this driver is User mode, which Microsoft allows. It is also unsigned, but Windows X64 installed it anyway (proving it couldn't be x64 because Windows won't install 64 bit drivers unsigned. I can give some screenshots proving this. Also, I found other parts of Wikipedia saying that User mode drivers can be x64 or x86 installed on Windows X64, which I find does work. But the reason I am going to the talk page is that I have a hard time writing the correct references, I mess up them. I would appreciate the help correcting this, as I have a hard time doing it correctly. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 21:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Change the name of the article

I find very disappointing of this article to miss the single most important fact: the name! "Windows 8" is not the true name, it is only the commercial name - commspeak. The true name of Windows 8 is Windows NT 6.2 - as the true name of Windows 8.1 seems to be Windows NT 6.3, from what I am reading. This is the real name with real consequences. The unchanged first version number tells us that there are no radical changes, and that all hardware drivers from Windows NT 6.0 and 6.1 (Vista and Seven) are likely to work OK. This name also reminds us that this OS is a descendant from OS/2, not from Windows 98. Article should be renamed "Windows NT 6.2" and have "Windows 8" redirect to it.-Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.249 (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, Windows 8 is the most appropriate name. If I asked someone whether they were running Windows NT 6.2 they'd either think I was weird or from 1995. pcuser42 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

pcuser42 is correct, COMMONNAME prevails; we are an encyclopaedic reference, not a technical manual. People will come here to read about Windows 8, and you are in a very small minority who know it's internal reference name. Using such an unknown term adds nothing to the experience of the majority of users.  drewmunn  talk  08:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This request is too problematic to even consider. Windows NT 6.2 also refers to Windows Server 2012. Windows 8, on the other hand, refers to both Windows 8.0 and Windows 8.1; the latter is Windows NT 6.3. Without meaning to sound like Earthsea, Windows 8 is the true name. NT 6.2 is just a technical name that would be discarded the moment Microsoft could. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Windows 8 is the most appropriate name and the name you said above i.e Windows NT 6.2, is the technical name of it, it is not used in the public except the developers. So, the name of the article must not be changed. Himanis Das (Talk, Facebook me, Tweet me) 17:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No, the developers don't call it that either. Microsoft doesn't even have the legal right to use the "NT" initialism any more. Jeh (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

What? What? Come again, please? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Not only that, the comment "all hardware drivers from Windows NT 6.0 and 6.1 (Vista and Seven) are likely to work OK" is categorically false. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

They don't not have legal rights to it anymore. They intentionally dropped it on Windows 2000 so they could focus more on the Windows brand. But still, this is a ludicrous argument that WP:COMMONNAME trumps. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Would it be okay to just add "Windows 8 (technically called Windows NT 6.2), is..." to the introduction? This is probably the easient answer, but I think that it probably isn't an important enough detail to put right at the front. --Nerdybyo6057 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, it wouldn't, for the above reasons. It is not technically called Windows NT 6.2. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Actually, it is technically called "Windows NT 6.2" and actually, that's exactly why we cannot write it in the article. (undue technicality)

Still, you can check this source or execute the following command in Windows PowerShell:

[System.Environment]::OSVersion.VersionString

Nevertheless, whatever I said earlier still holds.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, sure, for some definition of "technical." Yes, there is a highly technical way to get the OS to identify itself as "Windows NT 6.2...". But that string is maintained largely for compatibility with older apps that insist on matching that part of the string. It is similar to why the first release of Windows NT was deemed "3.1". If numbering was to reflect only Windows NT releases it should have been called "1.0", but a lot of apps developed for the old 16-bit "Windows 3.1" would then have refused to run. And having the OS report one version number to 16-bit interfaces and something else to 32-bit interfaces would have led to other problems. So, Windows NT first release called itself 3.1. This "Windows NT" identification for the latest releases is no different and no more definitive as to the "technical" name of the OS. It is certainly no justification for changing the name of the article. Jeh (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Very true. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 Marketing

The way Microsoft has approached their marketing and advertisement of Windows 8 is worthy of mentioning on the page. It has a striking fit to the OS, as well as many of their promotional videos including more of the OS itself.

If this section is created, though, I have one point to add into it: In one of Microsoft's Windows 8 promotional videos (titled "Meet Windows 8"), the pinch-to-zoom gesture is inverted on the Start Screen. In the actual product, however, it is not inverted. I'm not sure if this is significant enough to include, though.

--Nerdybyo6057 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Short answer is: No. This would be a huge violation of WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and WP:RS unless evidence of huge critical reaction comes to the light through secondary sources that are independent of the subject; even in that case, we can cover the critical react, not the ads. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

References

FYI: 8.1 AFD

Yesterday, I boldly made an Windows 8.1 page. As expected, its been nominated for deletion. Please examine the article and arguments, and decide accordingly. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Boot To Desktop In Windows 8 And 8 Pro

If you have not upgraded to Windows 8.1 yet, here is a work around for booting to the desktop at startup.

Boot To The Desktop - For Windows 8 and 8 Pro

Make sure you have "Hide extensions for known file types" unchecked in Folder Options. Just for file verification purposes. Re-check it afterwards if you want.

Create the "Show Desktop" file:

Open a text editor like Notepad. (not Word or Wordpad) Copy and Paste or type the following into the text editor:

[Shell] Command=2 IconFile=explorer.exe,3 [Taskbar] Command=ToggleDesktop

Do not have any extra spaces at the top and do not "Carriage Return" (enter) to next line at the end.

Save the file as - Show Desktop.scf (actually any name you want, just remember it) When you see the file it will have the Desktop icon but it will not have .scf at the end even with "Hide extensions for known file types" unchecked. Right click the file and go to properties. It should have "Type of file: File Explorer Command (.scf)" and the name should be just "Show Desktop" with no extension.

Copy the file to the "Start Menu\Programs\Startup" folder. There are more than one "Startup" folders in Windows 8 and 8 Pro. Put it in this one:

C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup

Close everything down. Restart your computer.

When it boots up, it will pause at the "Start" screen until it reads the contents of Startup. It will then go to the Desktop with nothing opened up.

Side note: If you want something to open automatically when you boot up, put it in this same Startup folder after Show Desktop. 75.20.228.110 (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia does not publish original research and is not a how-to guide. On top of that, it is not a true boot-to-desktop option, only a script that immediately clicks the "desktop" option in Metro after logging in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Service packs for Windows 8.0 and Windows 8.1

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Windows 8.1#Service packs for Windows 8.0 and Windows 8.1. Codename Lisa (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

8.1 listed as successor

There was never consensus on how 8.1 is to be treated in the infobox; a comment in its code says that 8.1 is listed under release_version (which I also just wikilinked to the newly-created 8.1 article), and I agree with this. 8.1 is an update to Windows 8, not a new version of Windows. Even if, in this special situation, such a release has an article, effective service packs should not count as a "successor" in this scenario. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I believe I am responsible for that HTML comment. At that time, I believed Windows 8.1 would be a service pack and moreover I wanted to stop editors from adding a circular redirect to the infobox. More importantly, everyone agreed with me, including you. It appears I was wrong on both accounts: Windows 8.1 now has an article of its own and was marketed just as any full-fledged operating system would be marketed. It is not even a free service pack or feature pack; in fact it is not free for all license owners of Windows 8.0. Microsoft may not be able to call it an upgrade, but from a neutral point of view, it is a distinct operating system. (In fact, from a neutral point of view, Microsoft stretched the meaning of "truth" too close to distortion.)

To sum it up: Minor or not, version 8.1 (or should I say version 6.3?) now has its own article. That article is responsible for maintaining its own version number info. So far as this article is concerned, it is about Windows 8.0 only. Mention of Windows 8.1 must go into |Successor=.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean the Windows 8.1 summary section (which makes Windows 8.1 a sub-article of this article) also doesn't belong here? It seems that would be the only way to consistently apply a "Windows 8.0 only" decision. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

That's not necessarily true. WP:FA requires articles to be self-contained, having addressed all that is directly related to their subject without wandering off topic. Using summary style to address that problem is appropriate. As you can see, articles like Windows Vista and Windows 7 have already done that; although Windows 8 is the first article to derive excerpts from another operating system article. But again, Windows 8 and everything about it is unlike any operating system that came before it. We didn't have a Windows x.1 since Windows 3.1.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to see how this can work: This article is about Windows 8.0, but 8.1 is so relevant to 8.0 that a summary is justified in 8.0's article. Is that how it is? - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A relevant summary, yes. For example, the part that 8.1 address major criticisms of 8.0 is relevant. The part that there was a delay in shipping RT 8.1, no. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Online services and functionality section

Second line - should 'formally' be 'formerly'? If the Live ID is past and gone, then 'formerly' is the word. If the Windows account is CALLED Live ID in documentation but not in real life, then 'formally' is correct. 'Formally' is an uncommon word in correct use, and most of the time it should be 'formerly'. Peridon (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I would if I knew the correct answer to the question - that is why I am asking the people who presumably know about Windows 8 what the situation is. If you DO know, then you fix it instead of carping when someone who knows the English language but doesn't know the OS raises a point. Peridon (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Secure Boot

This is not an accurate quotation: "Tom Warren, in an article on The Verge, said that other smartphones and tablets are typically sold in a locked-down state." That sentence and the one that follows makes it look like Tom Warren was defending Microsoft in the cited article, when in fact he was strongly criticizing them.

Therefore, I must Object regarding the impartiality of the two sentences. It should also be made clear that despite what other manufactures may be doing that Microsoft should be held to a different standard since they have been convicted of being an abusive monopolist by a US Federal Court. Their actions are clearly illegal restraint of trade and should be identified as such.

Tyrerj (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I read The Verge's article right now and spotted to problems in your message.

1. Tom Warren is not strongly criticizing anybody or anything; he is being impartial.
2. Since the previous and next sentences come from three different sources (a total of six), reader must explicitly assume that Tom Warren is defending Microsoft. Even so, we are not responsible for other people's false assumptions. If they wish to see evil in every corner, that's not our fault.

As for your next paragraph: First, bring a source that proves a federal court has condemned Microsoft's treatment of Secure Boot and that "Their actions are clearly illegal". Even then, Wikipedia won't hold Microsoft to any standard, be it higher, same or lower. Doing so goes against our WP:NPOV charter and WP:NOTBATTLE.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, its like this, I presumed that a reasonable and impartial person would review this question so I did not go into detail. Instead, I get a superficial response that makes me doubt that you even read the article in The Verge carefully. First: the author did not say what the WP article alleges that he said. Therefore, the word said should not be used. The construction: 'stated that' is preferable when it isn't a direct quote. However, you still shouldn't make up something that doesn't accurately represent what he actually wrote. The actual quote is "Android smartphone makers have attempted to lock down their own bootloaders previously, while Windows Phone and iOS devices are always sold locked down". Clearly, WP's editing changed the meaning of that sentence. Second, what is not really clear about the paragraph which I quoted that sentence from is who is speaking. Two more sentences down, the sentence starts with 'We'. So, if you read the whole paragraph, is Tom Warren is not "We". So, did he write this paragraph, or is he quoting the Software Freedom Law Center and the FSF. The point here, in conclusion, is that this paragraph, taken as a whole, is highly critical of Microsoft and the single WP rewritten sentence taken out of context is not. That is just like biased or distorted news. Not impartial at all.

"we are not responsible for other people's false assumptions." Indeed you are. If you write something that gives the wrong impression, just exactly who do you think is at fault: the reader? NO, it is the editor's responsibility to see that an article does not give the wrong impression when read by the average person even if you can claim that it is technically correct. And, in this case, that claim is not even true.

And then we have your unbelieveable Red Herring. "bring a source that proves a federal court has condemned Microsoft's treatment of Secure Boot" I do hope that you aren't being serious and that you actually understand the issue. But, I suppose that you are a left liberal and don't understand things like the law. Briefly, there was an antitrust case against Microsoft and the Judge, the Court, entered into the findings of fact that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly and that they had illegally used their monopoly power to abuse their competition. That finding of fact applies forever unless a Federal Court reverses it at some time in the future.

Now if WP has this knowledge, and it can be found by reading WP, and do not treat Microsoft differently, then you are not being objective since you are not considering all of the facts. To not apply a different standard to a known law breaker is usually called the Pseudo-Liberal Fallacy. It is like you said with your Red Herring, it hasn't been proven in Court that the hardware and firmware that prevents installing another OS on ARM based Windows RT (and makes if very difficult to do so on x86 Windows) computers is there -- was designed -- for the purpose of restraint of completion so you will presume that it isn't despite that Microsoft has admitted doing similar things to were violations of antitrust laws (illegal restraint of trade) in the past. Perhaps I should be clear about this since I am a retired hardware and software engineer. The alleged purpose of secure boot is legitimate. However, it could have been accomplished in a way that was user friendly and did not also accomplish the nefarious secondary purpose of prevention the installation of a non-Microsoft OS, or making the installation of a non-Microsoft OS very difficult for the average user. Microsoft got where they are by being very devious and I have been in the PC sphere long enough to have a great deal of knowledge about it.

Please have another editor review this. It would be best if you could find one that uses Open Source Software.

Tyrerj (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I just read your message and I must say, if you wish to see a biased person and don't have a mirror, look into a flat shiny object. Internet is full of venues dedicated to abusing the entity of your choice (Microsoft or others); Wikipedia is not one of them. Either cite a reliable source, or risk being ignored and/or blocked for personal attack on other editors. Fleet Command (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8.2

There is going to be be a new update coming out in Late 2014. An unstable release will be out in June 2014 --Herobinfake (talk) 01:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Source? pcuser42 (talk) 08:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Disproven. There will be no Windows 8.2. Windows 9 (formerly Windows Threshold) will come out in April 2015. Georgia guy (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Windows 9 Rumors

Should we add a Section with Windows 9?

Original Source with Win9 Details: http://m.winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-be-called-windows-9-ship-april-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.133.44 (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from including this speculative information. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern Win 8 Interface

Why not precise in the article (why can't it be edited btw?) that The "Modern" Win 8 interface is objectively an interface reduced to the possibilities of devices of inferior interface capabilities like tablets and smartphones, which don't have the option of right and left mouse clicks for example. On a PC, with a superior interface, the user is forced to use a tablet interface with more limited possibilities. This is what it amounts to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.160.92.207 (talk)

Hello. Can't comment on the subject matter right now, but to answer your question (why can't it be edited btw?): The article is semi-protected, which means it can't be edited by unregistered or newly registered users. It's a precaution often undertaken for articles that experience a lot of vandalism. Hope that clears it up. Cheers. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 11:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You're potentially violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV with that statement. Best to leave it out. pcuser42 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to windows 7 just released.

This page seems to be protected.

it should be known, that according to Microsoft themselves with this link, have stated that the Windows 8 OS has sold 200 million copies. This should be includes.

BUT ALSO it should be included it is 100 million less than Windows 7 did in just its first 12 months and Windows 8 has been out 3 months longer than Windows 7 with just 200 million buyers. both of these are in the link. Chan-Murphy (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Why? Do you want to prove something? Or do you just love numbers? In case of the later, WP:RAWDATA. In case of the former, WP:SYNTH. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Although that is completely true, I saw this: Windows 8 Not Really “the New Vista” on Softpedia. Puts the information in context and is a reliable source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory statements about Windows 8.1

In Windows 8.1 article, the introductory sentence states Windows 8.1 is an upgrade to Windows 8. On the other hand in the Windows 8 article, Windows 8.1 is called an update. An update and an upgrade are two very different things. From the Windows 8.1 article "Windows 8.1 is a version of Windows NT family of operating systems and a upgrade for Windows 8." In Windows 8 article here it says "Windows 8.1 (codenamed "Blue"), the first major update to Windows 8 and RT, was officially announced by Microsoft on May 14, 2013." Polloloco51 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is a minor typo. I'll fix it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, an "update" is a hypernym of "upgrade". So, so an upgrade is an update too, but the opposite is not true. Still, my concerns were ambiguity. One can argue that the first major update to Windows 8 was not Windows 8.1, but the cumulative update of November 2012 ([8]) which 170.1 MB, almost as big as a service pack. The word "major" itself is problematic because it is a WP:PEA. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, if windows 8.1 were an update, Windows 8.1 would have installed as a regular update and the pc restarted. However, Windows 8.1 is an upgrade because it installs like a normal windows installation. I see your point though with upgrade and update, you could say windows 7 was a performance and UI enhancing update to windows vista but obviously it was much more than an update. Although personally I consider windows 8 an incremental update to windows 7 for the desktop but that's technically incorrect because of winrt API. Polloloco51 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

True. But the strongest thing we have is version number leap from 6.0 to 6.1 to 6.2 to 6.3. Windows 8.1 is nothing like we have seen before.

On a side note, you might want to see MOS:CAPS. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, for the lack of capitalization. Typing on a tablet isn't the best and most appropriate way to type things. Polloloco51 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of capitalization? Dude, you capitalize way too much. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in Microsoft's terminology in relation to Windows, I've never seen the word "upgrade" used in the context of a free download such as a service pack. It has always been "update"; to "upgrade" is to go from say, Windows XP to 7, implying a payment somewhere along the line. I'd consider, despite not using the term, Windows 8.1, and 8.1 Update, to essentially be service and feature packs. They're just not calling them that. We need to use the same logic we used when you declared that the Start screen is a version of the Start menu and not a completely distinct feature. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and in fact, saying its an "upgrade" because the install process is different is an original synthesis. If reliable sources consider it akin to a service pack, then so be it. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. All you say is true but just for the record, the reliable sources say neither. As we have already established in the article, Windows 8.1 is a new creature never seen before. (Service Packs never needed a specialized serial number. Independent operating systems never terminated the support periods of their predecessor within 24 month.) They used to call it a service pack when they didn't know better. And as you remember, Viper, so we did, according to our policy.

On a side note, I didn't start this update-upgrade change before I perceived a risk of ambiguity. When it comes to fact, sources are the boss; but in terms of language and style, we are our own masters so long as our deviation from the subject does not risk misrepresenting our sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Even a ZDnet writer thinks Microsoft was being intentionally ambiguous, but he makes an argument similar to the Start screen situation, that Microsoft re-branded the OS to attract distinct attention to it from Windows 8 RTM. Also you say that "Independent operating systems never terminated the support periods of their predecessor within 24 month[s]"; this was the case before. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The ZDNet source is still a pre-release source; hence our point of view before you write Windows 8.1 article. But I agree with it.

As for your Ars Technica source, what am I looking at? It does not seem that Windows XP suddenly cut both mainstream and extended support period of Windows 2000 upon its release in 2002.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Users Prospective and experiences

Is there a way users prospective and experiences of Windows 8 can be included? Critical reception in the article doesn't reflect the people's experiences who have used Windows 8. For instance many users weren't positive of the lack of the start menu and had to install third party apps. Also some user have downgraded to windows 8 because of windows 8s radical new design.

I would LOVE to be included... Windows 8 brings a new, and horrible experience to people... The internet connection is not permanent. No matter what you do to the Wifi card drivers, the connection lasts about an hour then you have to go through the troubleshooting rubbish which usually resets the Wifi card. Then everything is OK for another hour or so. This is NOTHING to do with power off options, changing these is a waste of time. Basically Win8 internet is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.38.118 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV. pcuser42 (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Windows 8 end of support

The article currently states "Windows 8.1 will be required for mainstream support after January 12, 2016" This implies that a user will no longer receive mainstream support benefits but still receives extended support benefits (e.g. security updates). My understanding is that Windows 8.1 will be required to receive mainstream support AND extended support after January 12, 2016. More info here: http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifecycle-Windows81-faq Nategb (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nategb (talk • contribs) 06:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

I think you are totally right. The word "mainstream" must be removed from the article. Now fixing...

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

I'm adding things that will be guide lines to when support ends. SimCity52013 (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 20:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Check previous edits from this editor to other MS OS articles. They consisted of adding relative times ("3 years from now", "2 years ago", etc.) to the "support" information. They were all reverted as they would have required constant updating. Jeh (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

8 or 8.1

The latest stable version in the info box says 8.1, but there was previously a discussion about 8.1 being a separate operating system and we have Windows 8.1 so shouldn't the info box on this page show the latest stable version of windows 8? 96.253.76.142 (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I've fixed it. It needs to be this way to be consistent with decisions we've already made. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Windows Store apps

It seems to me that Windows Store apps should be a separate article. They are definitively not unique to Windows 8, correct? I see very little history about them. I know that prior to release of Windows 8, Windows Store apps were called something else and I forget what that was. And now Microsoft has announced a Universal Apps platform that sounds like Windows Store apps and perhaps Universal Apps is the new name of Windows Store apps. If so then all that should be a separate article. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I saw this a long time ago: User:Codename Lisa/Metro-style apps. I don't know why it is abandoned like that. Fleet Command (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Toast?

The paged linked for toast doesn't explain the difference between toast and any other kind of popup. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dan Wylie-Sears 2: Hi! Actually, there is no other kind. "Toast" is another name for "pop-up notifications". There are other things that pop up, per se, though. And that's everything in computing.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ARM version

I don't think any ARM version of Windows 8 was actually released other than Windows RT, which past consensus has decided to be a separate topic. If no citation is found confirming some other such release, then ARM should not be listed in the infobox. Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You are 100% correct. The ARM version of Windows 8 is Windows RT. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand, do you agree that it should be removed from the infobox in this article? Mdrnpndr (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I agree. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 11:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 Upgrade

Herbfur, you recently removed that Windows Embedded 8 Standard users aren't required to install the Windows 8.1 Update after January 12, 2016. Please explain why you reverted that. And also, I know that Windows 8.1 uses a different NT version number from Windows 8, but when I added today that Windows 8.1 was a successor to Windows 8 as an Update and Windows 10 was a successor to Windows 8 as a major release, you also reverted that. Please explain why. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I have restored the portion about Windows Embedded. It was unintentionally removed, thank you for bringing that to my attention. In regards to the edit about the successor to Windows 8, I feel that the status quo is better. If we look at the documentation for Template:Infobox OS, the "succeeded by" field is described as follows: "For operating system versions: next version of the operating system intended for the same target audience". This shows a consensus that this field should be filled with one single item, which would be the immediate version of Windows following this, that targets the same user base. Given that Windows 8.1 was considered notable enough by the Wikipedia community for its own article (which no update or service pack was) and it carries its own NT version number, it best fits in this box. It is not necessary to list Windows 10 as well, as readers can simply follow the chronological flow of versions from 8 to 8.1 to 10, or use the links at the bottom of the article. Including both versions is not what the guidelines for the infobox suggest, and I do not think it's necessary; differentiating between "major release" and "update" here is also speculative. Nonetheless, I do not want to get into a major disagreement over this issue, and I am willing to hear your reasoning. Herbfur (He/Him) (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I have recently added a year when Windows 8.1 was released into the Windows 8 infobox. I think that readers can follow the chronological flow of versions from 8 to 10, because Windows 8.1 was a service pack, but rather called as an update for Windows 8. In other case, if we should say that Windows 8.1 was a successor to Windows 8 as an Update, readers can follow the chronological flow of versions from Windows 8.0 to Windows 8.1 to Windows 10 RTM to Windows 10 22H2. What do you think? 195.5.3.58 (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you rephrase your comment please? I'm not sure I'm understanding. To recap my comment:

- Windows 8.1 was not a service pack, even if it was treated that way for support purposes

- Readers can simply use the infobox links to navigate from 8 to 8.1 to 10, so including both is against the infobox guidelines and is not necessary.

Herbfur (He/Him) (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that we should say in the infobox that Windows 8.1 was a successor to Windows 8 as an Update. I mean like this

Windows 8.1 (2013, as an Update)

Windows 10 was a successor to Windows 8 as a major release. I mean like this

Windows 10 (2015, as a major release)

Should we add into the Windows 8 infobox that Windows 10 was a successor to Windows 8 as a major release, or keep Windows 8.1? 195.5.3.58 (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

If Windows 8.1 wasn't a service pack, so it was an Update. Even if it carried it's own NT number version, it was treated as a service Pack for support reasons, but Win8.1 was called as an Update rather than a service pack. 195.5.3.58 (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 8/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Rjjiii (talk · contribs) 05:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if you have contributed to the article under other IP addresses or under a user name, but it's expected that nominators are significant contributors to an article they put up for GA (Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions).

Regardless, there are significant issues with the writing throughout the article. Much of the article consists of a dense series of facts. If you are a contributor and would like specific examples to help with future improvement, let me know, Rjjiii (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Briefly here are a couple examples of the issue with the writing:

• The lead should provide an overview and ideally be approachable even for readers with lower levels of English-language abilities. The first paragraph is packed with dates, footnotes, and jargon: Windows 8 is a major release of the Windows NT operating system developed by Microsoft. It was released to manufacturing on August 1, 2012; it was subsequently made available for download via MSDN and TechNet on August 15, 2012, and later to retail on October 26, 2012.
• The first paragraph of the body should give the reader some kind of footing either chronologically or theoretically. The first couple of sentences are dense with information and do not have a clear connection: Windows 8 development started before Windows 7 had shipped in 2009. At the Consumer Electronics Show in January 2011, it was announced that the next version of Windows would add support for ARM System-on-chips alongside the existing 32-bit processors produced by vendors, especially AMD and Intel.
• Some sentences contain facts without appropriate references or context: The traditional Blue Screen of Death (BSoD) was replaced by a new black screen, although it was later reverted to a different blue color.

Good luck to any future editors looking to improve this article, Rjjiii (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)