Talk:Windows 7/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Minimium requirements?

I'm running windows 7 64-bit on only 512 mb memory, and it runs pretty well. So I think we chould have a minimum required and minimum recommended section, anyone agree? Wikimann1234 10/14/11 11:30 AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimann1234 (talk • contribs)

Oppose. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our most important policies? Fleet Command (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Microsoft's official minimum requirements are 1GB for 32-bit Windows and 2GB for 64-bit Windows (recommended varies by person: I recommended 4GB for instance). It may be possible to run on less RAM than this but it is NOT the official view. pcuser42 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Unofficial minimums are unverifiable, and really are dependent on many factors.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - as per the above. --JetBlast (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It could be noted that Windows 7 will run on lesser hardware without specifying our own thoughts on the actual "minimum". Perhaps a reference to one of those terribly written blog posts about ancient hardware is in order. Calling it a requirement and allowing Microsoft to get away with "If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:" is a disservice to someone. Somewhere. ζompuλacker (tlk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Development Started in 2006?

The article states that 'Development of 7 occurred as early as 2006 under the codename "Blackcomb".'

I have never read anything that suggests the development of 7 started in 2006, or that any of that development was under the codename of Blackcomb. Indeed, Vienna was the codename, from what I remember.

The statement in the article also does not have a reference to it.

Can anyone provide a source for that statement? Otherwise, I think we should remove it.

Taraella (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Taraella
I've replied to a similar message of you in Talk:List of Microsoft codenames: If there is a source associated to something and you don't agree with that something, you should cite a source of your own. Then, we can decide whether to keep both contradictory points of views or not. (In Wikipedia, we cover contradictory points of view and highlight their contradiction, though I will not detail on the policy governing this at this point.) Otherwise, we don't just remove something with references just because you don't think it is true.
Right now, I am checking and the source needs its URL renewed. No problem; it will be. In addition, you supplied an additional source claiming Blackcomb was renamed Vienna. I don't really see the point of your objection.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Definite article

It appears three editors are engaged in edit warring, and as usual over a trifle, as usually, over a sentence that needs to be re-written completely.

The subject of the dispute is whether "the Windows NT family" is correct or "Windows NT family". Both are correct, and per MOS:STABILITY, no one must change it to another form:

  • "Windows NT family" is correct because it is a definite noun group. No, "the" does not apply to "family" because in presence of a qualifying noun adjunct, a qualifier is not needed. "Windows NT" already qualifies family. If "Windows NT" didn't qualify family, you must have inserted a {{which}} in front of "family". (You don't need to be you know which family: Windows NT)
  • "the Windows NT family" is correct because the majority of people use it, simply because it feels correct in their mouth. (I had this discussion with the revered User:Xpclient once.) It is the same as "You and me should go home" in which "me" is incorrect (must be "I") but people use it and it has become correct through use. People just feel it is right; every reason that I have so far heard was inductive: People first presume it is right ("how could it be wrong?") then try to justify it.

As in all edit wars, the edit warring sides strongly feel that their position is self-evidently right. It is not new; it happens every single time, so much so that the involved parties do not see that "operating system" is entirely redundant here. Wikipedia editors are expect to subdue these feelings and instead discuss.

And User:Codename Lisa: There is a D after BRD. I expected you to post a message either here or in User:Guy Macon's talk page immediately after reverting. Why am I not seeing such a thing? User:Yngvadottir and User:Guy Macon, why neither of you started a discussion with Codename Lisa, each other or in this talk page? Oh, and please none of you start by saying how wrong the other acted; this is just another thing that edit warriors always do.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think you'll find Codename Lisa did indeed discuss - at Guy Macon's talk page, which is where I saw it as a talk page stalker. The issue is now moot since you have rewritten the opening, but I have to disagree that an article is not needed with "family", to produce "the family". Which is obviously why I changed it with an edit summary to that effect. I do not understand your point that this rule is suspended in the presence of a noun adjunct, but carry on :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: So, Codename Lisa did start a discussion!? And yet, you reverted, even though you knew a discussion was in progress? I don't quite get it: Were you under the impression that the revert would somehow magically not be counter-productive to the discussion, given its outcome? Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Fleet Command, I reverted once, on the quite reasonable assumption that an edit by a one-edit IP with an edit comment of "Fuck's sake, this isn't XDA" might have caused Codename Lisa to revert on sight without carefully considering the grammar. When Codename Lisa reverted me, I realized that she meant to re-introduce her preferred grammar and moved on without commenting. Please don't call my single edit "edit warring" or insist that I carry on a discussion which has zero chance of being productive. Making a single edit and then choosing to not contest the issue when reverted was proper behavior on my part, Please do not claim otherwise.
Now that you have brought it up,
"Windows 7 is a personal computer operating system developed by Microsoft as part of the Windows NT family of operating systems."
Is the normal way that the English language is spoken and written, and
"Windows 7 is a personal computer operating system developed by Microsoft as part of Windows NT family of operating systems."
is not. Spelling and grammar are descriptive, not proscriptive prescriptive, (Fixed typo. See Linguistic prescription).
The above is the grand total of time that I am willing to devote to this issue. Please leave me out of any future discussions on this and feel free to word the article as you please. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Edited 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • First, it is "prescriptive" not "proscriptive". It if you believed it was not proscriptive, you'd have never reverted.
  • Second, it is a fact that different English variations have different tendencies towards using "the" liberally. The British use "the" less often than the American. As I said, both are correct; hence MOS:STABILITY: Don't correct the correct. (This applies to you too, Codename Lisa, Yngvadottir and everyone else.)
  • Third, if there was a Club of Edit Warriors, "I reverted once" would be their slogan. X reverts once, Y reverts once, Z reverts once and BAM! We have an edit war but every single person in it says "I reverted once". Just because you didn't violate WP:3RR doesn't mean you didn't edit war, especially since you actively refused collaboration, started your message to Codename Lisa with a "snide remark", ended it with an insult, eventually kicked her out of your talk page with a combative edit summary that reads I am right and I don't care what you say.
  • Fourth, why every single time you are involved with Codename Lisa, you kick up this kind of drama? You even once officially called her a liar at the cost of not becoming a member of WP:MedCom. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. If you two have issues outside Wikipedia, please keep it there. Otherwise, I don't stand aside and see you two compromising the integrity of Wikipedia just so you can get back at each other.
  • Fifth, in my last sentence, if you feel I must have written "the revert button" instead of "revert button", I am afraid I don't share the same concern.
Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The above is a good attempt to add drama to an otherwise boring conversation, but in my opinion, it still needs more drama. Could you scale it up a bit?

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes

WP:EW clearly says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" (emphasis added). "Repeatedly" means "more than once". Yes, it is true that even a single revert made in the middle of an ongoing edit war can be considered edit warring, but there was no ongoing edit war when I made my single edit.
Perhaps you, as an editor who has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring, should not be making accusations of edit warring against an editor who has been editing for over eight years without a single block and another editor who has been editing for nearly six years without a single block. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @FleetCommand: I'm sorry, I don't know either the background to which you allude that is causing you to make such a big deal of this, nor the grammar rule you allude to that makes "family of" superior to "the family of" when there is an interposed adjective, proper name or not. I do know that having rewritten the opening of the article more simply, you have removed the problem, and thus the issue is moot. I'll happily accept your charge of edit warring since I decided to get involved in this article after seeing the exchange at Guy Macon's talk page, if it will get you to drop this now. It's out of all proportion and now far beyond the appropriate scope of this talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. This is a huge waste of time, has nothing to do with improving the page, and has become a stalking horse for trying to reignite ancient disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Yngvadottir: Oh, on the contrary I did not and do not intend to level charges of any sort against you. One element of edit warring is uncivil conduct and you have been more than willing to have a compromise and avoid a drama so far. I am sure this entire state of affair would have been far more peaceful if it only included you. So, sorry if you felt otherwise.
And, no, there is really no point continuing this discussion: Contribution is discussed and I have no intention of exchanging any more personal attack with our dear friend here. In fact, I must have not answered his question in the first place. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Apps

JUST as a thought, would a list of apps bundled with Windows 7 be a good idea … ?

I know I’d appreciate seeing one … !

Cuddy2977 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way would this be different from List of Microsoft Windows components#Applications and utilities? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn’t know that was there, Guy, thanks. That’s handy to see. But I was thinking more inline with a list of bundled apps with each version of the Windows OS, listed on which of the relevant entries. The Windows 7 page would have a list of the apps bundled with it: Vista’s would be listed with that, 8’s with it: and so on an so on and so on … 

Cuddy2977 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this website a scam?

This [] is trying to get $30 to refer one to what I would think windows update will do for free.1archie99 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If this article refers to any such articles please remove it as it's (probably) spam, especially if they ask money to implement features that Microsoft's Windows Update service would implement gratis.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Win7 Effectively Abandoned

MS have effectively abandoned Win7 since the release of SP1. Over 350 updates have been released since SP1 but MS stated there will be no SP2. Hackers 100% cracked WIn7 in less than 18 months, which was even faster than they 'SLP' cracked WinXP. Win8 with secure boot and signatures was designed to stop the rootkit-style bypassing used by the hackers to activate Win7. Hackers 100% cracked Win8 Pro with VLK tricks within 6 months of its release. MS are now bleating on about the replacement for Win8, supposedly Win10, as Win9 confuses with Win9x.203.219.71.96 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article? pcuser42 (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pcuser42: Incorrect and sensational, this is obviously trolling. You should have deleted it instead of responding to it, per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Windows 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Windows 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Windows 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources

How could there not be a lot of primary sources? That is my point of view. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, there is no blanket restriction on the use of, or number of, or percentage of, etc., primary sources, only that they be used "carefully." So you can't just count up the primary source references and say "that's too many". Ok, you think there are "a lot", fine - but that is not justification for a "relies too much on primary sources" tag.
That a claim such as "Microsoft said x" is only supported by a primary source does not mean it is a problem. A quote from something published by Microsoft in which they did say x, although a primary source, is completely sufficient for such a claim as long as it is framed in the article as a quote from MS. A secondary source would be required for a judgment about, conclusion drawn from, etc., the quote or the claim made in the quote, but that's not what we're talking about. There are completely sufficient adequate secondary and tertiary sources for the claims here that require them. And most certainly there is no question of sufficient secondary sources to establish notability for this subject.
I suggest that you consider waiting until you have more experience on Wikipedia before tagging articles for improvement, particularly in the policies and guidelines area. Jeh (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
"...waiting"? I think hat I have waited quite enough (Over 2,000 edits were made by me.) to know what I should have known at that time (I have done that beforehand.), but, unlike everyone else, I have some difficulties with comprehending what speech says. For example, whereas most people would understand "Do not use fractional percentages [e.g. 75% instead of 74.98%].", I would not because it could mean that we were to write 74.98% and not 75% because of the ordering, but "Round fractional percentages to nearest ones." would make 100% sense. I am just at a different pace of comprehension. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Replied on your user talk page. Jeh (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer: Music1201 (talk · contribs) 04:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 7/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Criterion 1A

I found some various spelling and grammar issues throughout the entire article.

Criterion 2D

According to this Copyvios Report, more than 70% of the article is copied directly from another source. If it weren't for this one issue, this article would easily pass it's GA nomination. The major copyright violation is the reason this article has failed GA nomination.

Updates - Convenience rollup

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2016

External links modified

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

External links modified

The Win 7 logo is missing on the sidebar.

Support period has ended?

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2018

Windows 7 still most popular

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019

A project on Windows 7

Inclusion of criticism of Windows Vista Ultimate only being capable of being upgraded to 7 Ultimate

It ended

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Windows 7 code names

"personal computer operating system"

Unprotect This Page

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

Desktop personalization

Windows 7 Whopper

untitled

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Remove the "Windows Update blocked" note

Should we be including security updates as latest releases of an OS?

Edit request

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI