Talk:Windows 8

Windows RT[edit source]

Should there be a separate page for Windows RT? --Yue Ling (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

IMO no. We already have the ia64/x64 versions of Windows XP placed onto the Windows XP page and Windows RT is mostly the same as Windows 8 with the inability to install third-party apps by default that is not from the store. BF10 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Fake build deletion[edit source]

Since fake builds have been removed from other pages, shouldn't 7867.winmain.101020-1800 be deleted? --Glossybyte (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

i think so. Same with file version pages like 7914, 7916, 7920 and 7926. MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Think 7992 and 7994. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:F90:40C0:8A97:6109:2A54:6B07:3B58 (talkcontribs)

Edit warring[edit source]

I locked the page for a week and restored the contents prior to the edit war so we can reach some consensus rather than endlessly reverting each other's edits with little to no explanation.

  1. Milestone 3 builds - First, Milestone 3 is the (first) Developer Preview, there is no separation between these stages. Branding is not representative of the development stage and sure enough, 8102 is the Milestone 3 build as confirmed by the branch it comes from. I say first DP, because there were multiple developer previews released internally, only some of which were 8102, 8250 and 8400. Regarding the heading, I think it's cleaner to remain consistent with M1/M2 rather than try to put the Developer Preview name into the heading at all costs (especially if it's not the only Developer Preview).
  2. Hardware compatibility section - there is an opinion that this section (and others similar in other articles) is poorly written and not really relevant. Personally I noticed that the section in this article does not talk about system requirement changes introduced by Windows 8 at all and only talks about modern devices (which is hardly our focus).

--Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Some developer previews were released to a subset of external users under NDA, too (OEM partners, app contest winners), like build 8175. 89.243.142.119 10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Which build introducted the final sine wave sounds?[edit source]

What was the first build that has the sine wave sounds seen in the RTM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BetaLover (talkcontribs)

Windows 8 build 7680[edit source]

Windows 8 build 7680 is seen on this Windows 8 page, but there isn't an actual page of Windows 8 build 7680. It was compiled on 14 November 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennan1234567890 (talkcontribs)

What about the builds listed on the MSFT Buffet Database?[edit source]

I tried adding these builds, more specifically the ones it says were referenced in documentation, but the change got reverted. Are any of these builds acceptable for adding to the list?

Here are the builds I added. Here is where I saw them.

LeoI07 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

They're more file versions than "documentation" Xeno (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  1. 8102.0.winmain_win8m3_d.110908-1930 is also on MSFT buffet database, but it is not a file version, it is a build that was shown in Microsoft Build 2011. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:958A:2177:A4A8:83B9 06:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
If they're actual files from the builds, why don't those confirm their existence? LeoI07 (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Taken from the notability guidelines
The following sources are also acceptable, if the build has been mentioned in more than one:
Warez CD list
Newsgroup discussions, comments, bug reports
Screenshots of download pages
File versions

and from what I'm able to see, the file versions are only mentioned once. That and adding every single file version build would make the page look cluttered Xeno (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)