BetaWiki:Community portal/Archive 5

Windows 10 updates vs development cycles

With the nearing release of Windows Server 2022, perhaps it's the time to clear up the difference between updates and development cycles. Up to last year, Microsoft consistently (mostly) released an update at the end of each development cycle, therefore we didn't have the need to differentiate between the two, however, Manganese/Iron/Cobalt have bumped the system significantly and I feel that there is a need for a systematic solution, since renaming Iron Server to 2022 clearly won't make the cut. Windows 10X is going to cause some problems as well, considering it follows the same development cycle system and in all aspects is pretty much an SKU of Windows but all builds go currently to the same page. Discuss. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 20:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

imo i think manganese and iron server should be deleted cuz they are redundant now. Why? All the manganese and iron server builds are now in server 2022. cant i replace server manganese and iron with redirects? urgh... Norman 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Quick question: why do you care so much? The admins have already made the decision. --AhmadB (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
In case of Manganese/Iron and server 2022, we essentially have duplicates that are pretty much the same pages, the only differences is that on server 2022, the page has both manganese AND iron based server builds. I think that manganese and iron server pages should be removed because the server 2022 page exists. Dunno what to do about cobalt and nickel tho. :/ Norman 12:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Are applications that aren't pre-installed on Windows allowed?

Are applications that aren't pre-installed on Windows allowed such as Scratch? I mean, Scratch has quite alot of versions over the years, starting development back in 2003 and officially releasing in 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetaFan (talkcontribs)

I think BetaWiki should add the languages that the Build have.

This is important.Like Windows ME 2499.7,includes Chinese (Simplified, PRC); English (United States); German (Germany); Hebrew (Israel); Japanese (Japan); Korean (Korea).— Preceding unsigned comment added by AVMLOVER (talkcontribs)

Windows Server version 21H2 should be deleted

I think this page should be deleted because there's a confusion. Is "Windows Server 2022" or "Windows Server version 21H2" real 21H2? If "Windows Server version 21H2" real 21H2, then "Windows Server 2022" should be 22H1 or something else. If "Windows Server 2022" is real 21H2 then this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows .NET Server 2003 (talkcontribs)

I disagree, because much like 21H2 client, it can be obtained through enablement packages. Xeno (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Lemme just say it, just like 21H2 client, it can be obtained through enablement packages. The enablement packages in question are:


Scamdisk (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Then tell me which one is real 21H2. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

All of these files that were listed by Scamdisk are part of 21H2. Install the latest Windows 10 update (assuming you're on 21H1) and run the batch script found in the Windows 10 build 19044.1023 page as administrator to get 21H2, and then open up winver.
That's all the proof I can give to you that 21H2 exists. - pivotman319 (📫) 14:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You can know which one when you start reading instead of asking questions. -AhmadB (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you stop me asking to google everything? Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Both are seemnly real, I mean I wouldn't had made the page if I didn't find the enablement packages. Scamdisk (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
It was not tempting along with Client 21H2, because normally I was expecting Server 21H2 to be in "Iron" Codebase and Client 21H2 to be in "Cobalt" or "Nickel" codebase. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
What? Orbitron (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Working on other OSes

This wiki has a lot of stuff about Windows. I'm happy about that, but it's just that the other OSes are going completely unrecognized. Some OSes don't even have version pages. Literally about every build of Windows does, even if it's just an infobox and a sentence or two. I would like to see more work done on the other OSes on the wiki. 14:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to criticize on work (or lack thereof) done by others, so why not take the challenge and try to improve the wiki by yourself? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The creation of the wiki takes multiple people, not just one. It's very obvious that you need more than one person to run a wiki. Otherwise, it's just a rotting webpage. Tell everybody else to work on the wiki. Why don't you start to tell others start as well? 15:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Other operating systems might seem to be neglected either due to lack of interest or due to lack of knowledge from a significant portion of the current userbase. That being said, there are members which contribute to sections about other OSes quite frequently. In the end, this is a non-commercial site run by volunteers who do all their work in their free time and as a result, there is nobody working for BetaWiki as a full time employee. It just so happens that most of the userbase is interested in Windows, presumably because it's what's running on their own computers. Since nobody is getting paid to do this, your best bet is to add any content you feel that is missing yourself. Perhaps someone will take notice and join you on this. --Cvolton (talk | contribs) 16:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Should we merge all "Windows 10 Manganese, Iron, Cobalt and Nickel" pages into one?

I think these pages should be merged like how Windows Longhorn and Vista pages are merged into one. Or will the merged page be very long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows .NET Server 2003 (talkcontribs)

They're development cycles, not one version, therefore they should stay as is. Orbitron (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
...and why would you want to do that? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 01:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Because Windows Longhorn and Vista merged into one page. I got this idea yesterday. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The difference between Longhorn/Vista and Manganese/Iron/Cobalt/Nickel is that the latter are different projects while the former were basically the same. Orbitron (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
What would you call the resulting article? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Won't they be released to non-Insiders as RTM with different name in future? I think all of them should be merged in one page. Also I think major update can be postponed again. Major update can be 22H1 not 21H2 I think. Because 21H2 still uses 20H1 kernel and it doesn't seem to be a major update. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Even if so, they were development cycles of that release. Orbitron (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
If they're development cycles of Windows 10, then Windows Longhorn is a development cycle of Windows Vista. So these pages should be merged. If not then Windows Longhorn and Vista seperated. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
How is Longhorn a development cycle for Vista? --AhmadB (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Longhorn is not a development cycle tho. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
If you consider Longhorn a dev cycle for Vista you might as well consider Whistler as a dev cycle for XP, and you'd fall into a loop of dev cycles here. --AhmadB (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyways, they should be merged in one like how Longhorn and Vista are merged. I can't believe why all of my ideas get refused. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
they're dev cycles, not one release. Orbitron (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Then Longhorn is not a one release too. Is there any Windows Longhorn RTM (Not talking about Vista)? Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Longhorn was reset, it was supposed to RTM. Development cycles on the other hand are not tied to a Windows release. --AhmadB (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
So, it means they won't be released to non-Insiders as 21H2 when it'll be stable? And all Windows versions from now will be 19045, 19046, 19047... Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
As of right now non-Insiders are on 21H1 with 21H2 (19044) already in the works. We don't know much further than that. However, as most people have said already: Manganese, Iron, Cobalt and Nickel are all development cycles and are not tied to a single release of Windows 10. Some of their features, such as News and Interests, will get ported over to non-Insiders. Longhorn didn't have this concept of development cycles. Xeno (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you even tell the difference between a development cycle and a release? The way you equate Longhorn and Manganese/Iron/Cobalt brings me to doubts. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 18:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I just think all this discussion is absolutely pointless. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I won't talk with you guys again. You guys and I will not be able to make peace. Or else I'll be cancer. Windows .NET Server 2003 (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
It's ok. I got it. ToMi (talk | contribs) 07:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it a bug or something?

Normally we can see all recent changes up to 500. But I wanna see 1000 at once, so I've changed the link to this "" by replacing 500 with 1000. Then I wanted to see more recent changes. I replaced 1000 with 2000. It actually showed me last 2000 changes. But the link description and limit showed on "Results to show"" are stuck to "1000", Finally, I made 3000, it actually made me see all changes to 22 May, but link description and limit showed on "Results to show" are still stucked on 1000. Is this a bug or some feature to prevent BetaWiki to slow down? (talk) 11:17, 7 Jun 2021 (UTC)

Merging of Manganese, Iron and Cobalt

Exactly what it says on the tin. I have a proposed draft on my sandbox. The reason for this is now that Windows 11 exists, we have a reason to merge these pages and we know what we will call the article.


  1. Winins (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Norman 08:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. Icanttellyou (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. Xeno (talk) 10:26 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  5. Support - pivotman319 (📫) 11:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  6. Orbitron (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  7. Nara Insider (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)



Wait, I also asked the same thing before. But it was rejected. So, I don't think your request will be accepted. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 10:10, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

You asked the question before Windows 11 was confirmed so /shrug --Winins (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm very confused about what to say about this. I don't see any fairness. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 10:17, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)
You need to realize that back then, Windows 11 wasn't a thing when you suggested to merge said pages. Information changes all the time and as the Winins said, The reason for this is now that Windows 11 existsXeno (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Then, there's nothing I can do about that. I can only add myself as "Oppose" and it's worthless. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 10:39, 24 Jun 2021 (UTC)

I think we should merge just the builds on the existing Windows 10 Cobalt page into the Windows 11 page, because Windows 11's RTM release is also based on the Cobalt codebase, and many of the early Cobalt builds which still branded themselves as Windows 10 included some Windows 11 features such as the new icons and virtual desktop improvements. -- 16:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Thing is, Cobalt is only one dev cycle of the three responsible for Windows 11, Orbitron (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Removing rs_loc builds

Minimum and maximum version numbers don't exactly tell whether or not the build actually exists. It's just a maximum version number. Ones like this one make sense as they actually say OperatingSystemBuildNumber. Orbitron (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


  1. Orbitron (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Winins (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  3. Icanttellyou (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  4. Xeno (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  5. AhmadB (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  6. Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  7. BF10 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  8. Jurta (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  9. Byronbytes (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  10. MShinoda8768 18:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


  1. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  2. Nara Insider (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  3. LePikaDuCoin YT 17:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


I'm in favor of also removing most pages that rely on appxmanifest.xmlto get the page's build number. It will also lead to situations like Windows 10 build 22363.1000, where it is easy to fake an AppxManifest.xml. The last public 223xx LXP that was sent out was 22362. Xeno (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC) (Updated 21:08, 18 July 2021)

I just tried to be stinky for a while. Otherwise I don't care about the rs_loc pages. You can do it whatever you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbczadgjliqetup (talkcontribs)
To be fair, all of these pages and that includes the page that Orbitron linked as making sense don't really bring much information other than "this build number probably exists". Also would Norman and Nara mind explaining why they oppose this proposal? It's not majority but arguments that win such debates🙄 --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:49, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that the pages are becoming quite cluttered because of these builds. 14:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought we made it clear that file versions never indicate that build is confirmed to exist, and if that is a sole reason a build page exists, it would be removed. BF10 (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

i marked my self on oppose, cuz of these two pages, windows 8 build 8331 winmain and windows 8.1 build 9428, which were winJS build pages left behind from the cleanup last may. If these (winjs) pages are still there, i think its fair to keep the windows 10 localization builds, is it not? Norman 16:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought we were in the process of removing those pages, no? Orbitron (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure what do buildtags from WinJS have to do with this? That's a completely different thing. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 16:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
i think that while winjs and lxps are two completely different things, these pages are very similar to each other, like how they come out of a certain file, full strings and build numbers for winjs and build numbers for lxps (in the latters case, it is the tested versions) i dont understand why 9428 and 8331 winmain are still there despite the rest of the winjs build pages being deleted last may Norman 16:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh my god... Why are you bothering with the WinJS pages again? If they still weren't removed as of July 2021, I suppose it was decided to keep them. ToMi (talk | contribs) 16:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Well there is also the pretty big difference of language packs merely defining the minimum and maximum tested OS build number, while WinJS contained legitimate OS build tags. We stopped deleting them as we realized that they are valuable pieces of information, although most of them have already been lost due to the deleted page contents being purged immediately after most eligible pages have been deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 16:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I marked myself as oppose now. Nara Insider (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I personally agree with removing rs-loc build as most of the time they are usually just one line saying "These were found in (file name)'s latest version, etc". They could get their own page, but I don't plan on that happening. Byronbytes (talk) 18:13

Unable To Fix Windows 10 Cursor Glitch Issue

Hello friends. This is my first post in this forum. For the past few days, I have been suffering from Glitch problems with my computer's cursor. Currently, I am using Windows10 on my computer. I don’t know why this is happening, and how to fix this issue. I am using Windows10. Can anyone provide any suggestions for this issue? Any help will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdanner (talkcontribs)

Hi. This is not a forum, it's a wiki. As such, it's not really suited for this kind of thing. We have a Discord server where someone might be able to help you out, though. Link is in the menu on the left side.--Overdoze (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

So, after searching a lot I found a solution from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdanner (talkcontribs)

Suggestion for user pages

Hello, I have a suggestion for user pages: making the content editable only by the owner of the page and the staff (because if the staff can’t write on user pages they can’t put warnings). I think this will be a good feature for preventing vandalism on user pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by LePikaDuCoin YT (talkcontribs)

This is already a thing. Orbitron (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Filter 8, I think. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It’s not because if I want to edit for example Orbitron’s page, the editor show and it can edit the page (I didn’t edited the page anyways) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LePikaDuCoin YT (talkcontribs)
The edits get blocked by the abuse filter. Orbitron (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, i didn’t knew this. It’s because there’s no warning and also because Edit and Edit Source buttons are showing up on other user pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by LePikaDuCoin YT (talkcontribs)
Yeah, but staff puts warnings on the user talk page. That's literally its intended purpose. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Can non-Windows builds be featured in the News section?

Android 12's beta 3.1 came out recently and it isn't featured. Is this normal? Th3userscene (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone just forgot to add it. ToMi (talk | contribs) 14:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we separate news between shared and released builds?

I think we should to avoid confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangera1n (talkcontribs)

They're available on the Internet either way... What kind of confusion can there even be? "Oh no, I accidentally downloaded a leaked build instead of an officially released one!" --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe that we should separate so it does not appear as if windows 11 build 22000.111 was shared or that iOS 7 build 11A63840h was released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangera1n (talkcontribs)

Yeeeaaah, but who actually cares as long as it's out there? Furthermore, it's mentioned in the respective build page anyway... You are just making up a problem that doesn't really exist. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 15:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)