Talk:Windows 11 2024 Update

Resolving dispute

I think we should keep the Germanium builds in this list. Who agrees with me? 763004 (Talk • Sandbox • Contributions) 13:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Well noone wants to remove Germanium in the first place... --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 13:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can the page be unlocked for editing? PCRepairTech (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I can now finally say that the Gallium and Germanium builds will be kept for the page. — 763004 (Talk • Sandbox • Contributions) 13:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, but I still unsure to include Gallium builds though. Enperfectify (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing against that in the first place. The dispute is about Zinc and earlier. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 20:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Unlock the page

Please allow people to edit the page, This page hasn't been edited since 4 days ago because only Administrators are allowed to edit. The Edit warring has been solved. PCRepairTech (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has not yet been reached for this page. - 763004 (Talk • Sandbox • Contributions) 17:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no edit warring because noone can edit the page lol --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 20:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

When will the protection be removed? PCRepairTech (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

When consensus has been reached for this page. — 763004 (Talk • Sandbox • Contributions) 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The Windows Server 2025 page protection has been removed, can the protection for this page be removed as well, since consensus has been reached. PCRepairTech (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Consensus was reached for Server, which was in a different situation to begin with. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 20:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Cu & Zn should be removed

Three semesters passed between Windows 10 20H1 and Windows 11 21H2 (Mn, Fe and Co), but only Co builds were listed on Windows 11 21H2 page since the commercial release of Fe (Mn discontinued in spring 2020) was Windows Server 2022 instead of any other client versions of Windows. Now that 3 semesters have passed between Windows 11 22H2/23H2 and 24H2 (Cu, Zn and Ga), and the commercial release of Zn was Windows Server, version 23H2 and ASHCI v23H2, so only client builds after Zn should be listed on the Windows 11 24H2 page. --MicrosoftRTX2080 (Talk • Contributions) 02:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah since Copper isn't tied to any release, and Zinc is Windows Server, version 23H2 and Xbox OS v2308. I think it's safe to keep separating Copper and Zinc builds. But about Gallium builds still unclear, because Gallium isn't tied to any release either (like Copper). Probably separate Gallium builds too and only include Germanium builds in the article? Enperfectify (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Never heard of builds that uses "cu_release" branches 2001:F90:6022:6F83:7970:BA56:3249:4C14 07:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The development of Windows 11 v21H2 is way too specific for it to be used as a general guideline. Most Cobalt builds are not even included in its build list, because we make a distinction between Cobalt and Sun Valley - only the builds clearly associated with the SV project are included on the page. Not quite sure what a server release have to do with client builds either? Using the same logic, the Server 2016 page should only include RS1 builds because TH1 and TH2 already had client releases. Therefore I think they should stay. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 10:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Your own argument here doesn't make that much sense. Zinc and Copper aren't a part of 24H2 development, and on the Windows Server 2025 page they have already been removed, so why not here doesn't make sense either. - Upseguest (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Zinc and Copper aren't a part of 24H2 development" says who? Semesters are not versions. Yes, Zinc and earlier have been removed from the Server 2025 page but that's because there was an interim server release, so it makes more sense to include them there. However, there was no client release, so why even apply the same logic here? Again, this is not the first time only client had a release while server continued development (or vice versa), and for most of these we include all builds since the last release of the same family. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

So, you think Cu, Zn, and Ga are part of 24H2? It's so confusing tho lol Enperfectify (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Cu and Zn are part of 24H2 development. PCRepairTech (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. Please include Cu, Zn, and Ga builds. 182.0.132.130 10:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

They certainly are a part of Windows 11 version 24H2 development as far as I am concerned. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 10:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Support as well. Enperfectify (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

those builds (CU, ZN and GA) in question are listed in the 24h2 category on flight hub on ms site, so i think the page can be unlocked now Discrim5958 (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The page can now be edited

Try that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Vera Beta (talk • contribs)

But it (mainspace 24H2 page) hasn't been unprotected yet, so it's still not editable yet HarpHarpaster (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) (Edited: 23:33)

Hudson Valley

Hudson Valley is the codename for Windows 11 version 24H2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningerely (talk • contribs)

Windows Latest is just one of these generic sites that repost Microsoft's PR. I wouldn't really trust them on internal information like this. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the reference that the Windows 11 2024 Update for AMD64-based Copilot+PC will ship on July 28?

What is the reference that the Windows 11 2024 Update for AMD64-based Copilot+PC will ship on July 28? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ningerely (talk • contribs)

They just wrote the wrong thing. It is actually meaning AMD64 Strix Point PCs 2001:F90:40A0:F84:41F4:AD78:EAFF:1F60 23:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Is linking to the Wikipedia articles for Abuse, Domestic Violence, and Stalking really necessary?

I don't see how this adds to the page at all, and really seems a lot like link spam. Questionable and out of place choice. CyndaReal (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)