Talk:Windows 8 editions

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... The replacement version is substantially the same. Edit the current article rather than deleting it. I am failing to see the need to delete if it's just going to be "replaced" with a nearly identical article. --Resplendent (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Moot, deletion removed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Comparing non-differences

The purpose of the comparison chart is to list the differences between editions. Therefore, any feature that is identical in every edition shouldn't appear on the chart. Windows 7 editions follows this rule, with one exception right now that only came about because Microsoft changed their support plans after the chart was created. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I see now. Feel free to revert now, but be prepared to write a paragraph showing the shared features.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't renaming the section 'Feature Comparison Chart' allow the chart to remain as is without trimming it for brevity sake. I would suggest that the list may change by RTM and the time to trim would be after public release of the OS. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this the category home networking and running XP apps fall under (common to all)? Because the problem with Win7 was one had to move up to Win7 Pro to get XP apps to run reliably, and one had to move up to XP Pro to get home networking to function properly. Just wondering if M$ has finally added these capabilities to all versions or if the chart is missing these vital (at least to me) capabilities. JimScott (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 China edition

There's all this talk about the "China edition" of Windows 8 Microsoft introduced to the Chinese market to curb software piracy in China (see [1], [2]). Should it be placed into the article? NoNews! 13:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade compatibility; XP and Vista paths to Win8 Pro

Microsoft's 'Blogging Windows' site has mentioned an upgrade path for Windows XP and Windows Vista, (as well as Win7) to Win8 pro. The chart must be updated to reflect this. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

They really meant that you can buy an upgrade version of Windows 8, but you still have to do a clean install on XP and Vista.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

You seem to be right. Screenshots included in that blog show the same upgrade path that is available on Release Preview and Consumer's Preview.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Features that are in all editions

Hi.

Should we include the features that are present in all editions of Windows 8 in table or shouldn't we? More specifically, I am referring to the recent edits ([3], [4]) by User:Shiroishimatora (which seem to borderline on edit warring) in which he removed the shared features.

My take on this matter is that these shared features must be included, regardless of their inclusion in Features new to Windows 8. First, because a comparison is not about differences only but also about similarities. Second, absence does not always mean "shared". Most of the time, especially in Wikipedia, absence means incompleteness. In other words, when user sees that a specific feature he is looking for is absent from the table, he simply assumes that Wikipedians have not yet got around to include it. Last but not least, not all the features that Shiroishimatora deleted are included in "Features new to Windows 8".

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Windows embedded standard 8 is also an edition

Wes 8 is also an edition from microsoft,so it should be added in. Zapper067 (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Zapper067

I am afraid I disagree. WES 8 belongs to Windows Embedded family. You see, Microsoft has released numerous operating systems that are somewhat built on Windows 8 foundation (like Windows Phone 8 and Windows Server 8) but they are not an edition of Windows 8.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the article Windows Embedded also did not talk about that.Also Windows XP and 7 pages say it as an edition,so there is something wrong there too.--Zapper067 (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Zapper067

A "Windows XP Embedded" is indeed listed in Windows XP editions article but that article is really a mess of different irrelevant editions. Basically everything that is remotely related to XP is mentioned there. However, Windows Vista editions and Windows 7 editions articles only mention the embedded brand. Their comparison charts and their detailed listings do not have any "embedded" edition in them. If you wish to mention Windows 8 Embedded in separate "Derivatives" section, as in Windows 7 editions, why, go ahead.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 Pro VL

as far as I know the install-media for "Windows 8" and "Windows 8 Pro" is identical, the install-key decides what u get, now on MSDN you find following iso images for download

• Windows 8
• Windows 8 Pro VL

the "Windows 8" iso and the "Windows 8 Pro VL" iso are not the same

so what's the difference between "Windows 8 Pro" and "Windows 8 Pro VL"?

--92.228.166.108 (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

VL images have different license agreements and do not require the user to enter the license key at install time (it can either be entered later from a Licensing server or manually, e.g. from the command prompt). The install keys are also different (there are 3 "flavors" of keys: Retail, OEM and VL that are not interchangeable, one cannot be used to activate a copy installed from media that is built for a diferent kind of key. OEM media is not available from MSDN)

Ecrz (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

An additional difference is that Volume Licensed versions do no have upgrade capabilities. Since Media Center installation depends on the upgrade functionality, it is not possible to add it to any VL edition (Pro VL, Enterprise).

Ecrz (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Add Features to Windows 8

Having installed Windows 8 Enterprise (RTM version, media from MSDN), I have seen that this item is missing from the control panel. There is a related item "Turn Windows features on or off" that is present but is different. The importance of the "Add features to Windows 8" is that currently it is the only officially announced way to add Media Center.

There are a number of online discussions that Media Center for Windows 8 cannot be added to Win8 Enterprise and that this is an area where Win8 Enterprise offers less than Win8 Pro. In some of the discussions, people are basing their install decisions based on the information in this page and annoyed when they cannot add Media Center.

Since Media Center for Windows 8 is still unreleased and things may change I didn't want to specifically call out that it is missing but I thought it was relevant to note that Enterprise is not a 100% super-set, that some things may not be available. Since the control panel item not showing up is something easily verifiable, that is why I added that info (and then people can do their own research on what are the consequences, if any, of that being missing).

I considered adding it to the table. From the information available about Media Center it is easy to infer that Win8 and Win8 Pro do offer this feature (and WinRT probably doesn't but that wasn't completely clear). However, since all I have installed is Win8 Enterprise, I didn't want to add info I couldn't satisfactorily verify so I left the table as is.

Ecrz (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The table already says that Media Center is not available in Enterprise. The "Add features" thing really is Windows Anytime Upgrade which has never applied to an Enterprise edition of any version of Windows.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found some "non-original research" (with screenshots) at http://forums.mydigitallife.info/threads/36162-Windows-8-Pro-Enterprise-and-Media-Center. At this point however, I've already done the same edit twice and I don't want to be stubborn by re-doing it a third time to have it removed for whatever other reason. Jasper, if you agree please add it back (undo your undo?).

By the way, you are saying: "Windows Anytime Upgrade which has never applied to an Enterprise edition of any version of Windows". Doesn't that mean it is unavailable from Enterprise editions and should qualify to be in the list of differences? ;)

Ecrz (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Anytime Upgrade was never considered a feature of any version of Windows, and the same applies to the "Add Features" thing in Windows 8. Even if a forum were a reliable source (which it is not), it's not a difference between the editions, per see.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The big problem is that the initial summary says that Enterprise supports "all the features" that Pro supports and in reality the table says something else (Media Center). Technically you may argue that the ability to support a certain upgrade is not a feature per se, however, for people trying to make a decision it can be an important point and they couldn't care less about the technicality. Also, it is pretty common for people to read the article until they find the info they need, most often they won't read the entire article in detail to see if there is some caveat buried further down in a different section.

Ecrz (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll note the Media Center exception, which should be sufficient.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone 8

Based on Windows_Phone#Windows_Phone_8 and Windows_Phone_version_history#Windows_Phone_8 - WP8 is based on Win8RT. I propose adding this edition to the comparison table (after WP8 is officially launched with sufficient sources to backup the yes/no assumptions currently presented below):

Proposal

Comparison of Windows 8 editions Features Windows Phone 8 Windows RT Windows 8 Windows 8 Pro Windows 8 Enterprise Compatible with current Windows Applications No No Yes Yes Yes Availability Pre-installed on devices Pre-installed on devices Most channels Most channels Volume License customers Architecture ARM (32-bit) ARM (32-bit) IA-32 (32-bit) or x86-64 (64-bit) IA-32 (32-bit) or x86-64 (64-bit) IA-32 (32-bit) or x86-64 (64-bit) Trusted boot Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Picture password ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Start screen, Semantic Zoom, Live Tiles Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Touch and Thumb keyboard Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Language packs ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Updated Windows Explorer ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Standard apps Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Phone apps Yes ? ? ? ? File History ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Refresh and reset of OS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Play To Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Connected standby Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Windows Update Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Windows Defender ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Better multi-monitor support ? Yes Yes Yes Yes New Windows Task Manager ? Yes Yes Yes Yes ISO image and VHD mounting ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Mobile broadband features Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Microsoft account Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Internet Explorer 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SmartScreen Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Windows Store Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Xbox Live app (including Xbox Live Arcade) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Exchange ActiveSync Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Snap No Yes Yes Yes Yes Can connect to a VPN? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Microsoft Office apps bundled with OS Yes Yes via separate purchase via separate purchase via separate purchase Desktop ? Partial Yes Yes Yes Storage Spaces No No Yes Yes Yes Windows Media Player No No Yes Yes Yes Windows Media Center No No No Via an add-in No Remote Desktop ? Client only Client only Client and host Client and host Encryption Device encryption Device encryption No BitLocker and BitLocker To Go BitLocker and BitLocker To Go Encrypting File System No No No Yes Yes Boot from VHD No No No Yes Yes Can join a Windows domain? No No No Yes Yes Group Policy No No No Yes Yes AppLocker No No No Yes Yes Hyper-V No No No On 64-bit versions only with SLAT capable CPU Windows To Go No No No No Yes DirectAccess No No No No Yes BranchCache No No No No Yes Can be virtualized by RemoteFX? No No No No Yes Modern UI Style App deployment (of internal applications) Yes No No No Yes

Corrections are welcome, but please drop a note pointing what's wrong. Ianteraf (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone 8 is a distinct OS from Windows RT, especially in its user interface, and is targeted for different devices. Therefore I don't think we should make such an addition.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are UI differences (WP8 lacks Desktop?), but nevertheless the non-UI components of the OS are from the same pot (+/- some components), so it's valuable to have both compared side-by-side. Most of the items in the table are actually non-UI, thus highly relevant for that comparison. Ianteraf (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone has never been comparable to Windows on the desktop. It's irrelevant when Microsoft never thinks of Windows Phone 8 as a whole edition of Windows 8.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and is not allowed to write anything that issues a novel judgment of its own. The assertion that Windows Phone 8 is part of Windows 8 brand, however, is completely novel. Mainstream reliable sources, as well as Microsoft, regard Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 as separate subjects and separate brands. Simple technical comparability is not enough to promote this point of view. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows Phone 8 is comparable to Windows 8 on a tablet (this is not really new, there are other OSs that cover the range from phone to tablet like Android and iOS. Devices like the Dell streak are sometimes described as an oversized phone and others as a small tablet). Windows phone 8 shares the same core as Windows. Microsoft has done a lot of work to standardize the foundation for both, to give developers a common platform for app development.[5]. All this goes well beyond "simple comparability", it is useful for developers to have a reference as to which differences they may need to pay attention to. However, since the title of this article is "Windows 8 editions", it may be reasonable to present the information in an article of its own.

Ecrz (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Despite sharing the same core, they are two separate commercial products with different scopes, different incompatibilities, etc. Again, asserting that WP8 is an edition of W8 is original research, and that is forbidden on Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In favor I believe that the Windows 8 editions wikipedia page should list Windows 8 Phone. This ZDNET article states: Windows Phone 8 has the Windows 8 kernel and some of the programming interfaces, which is why Steve Ballmer said at the Nokia 920 launch that "we bring a developer platform and the Store in a common way to Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8". The reference is to the Windows Phone 8 launch, http://www.zdnet.com/nokias-first-windows-phone-8-devices-revealed-the-lumia-820-and-920-7000003774/. This is not original research. This is cited. 69.143.180.9 (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This is like saying that Windows Server 2012 is also an edition of Windows 8. The branding and marketing just doesn't work that way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. 69.143.180.9. Jasper Deng is right. In this case the opinion of ZDNet or yourself does not have due weight for inclusion or effect in the article. It is strictly Microsoft's that Wikipedia policies care, Microsoft can copy and paste the whole Windows 8 into Windows Phone 8 and still do not regard them as editions of the same product. The interpretation of this action does not have merit for inclusion in Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows RT

WIndows RT is not marketed as Windows 8 so it shouldn't be included in this page. 19:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.122.80.174 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. False statement. See [6]. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that RT should not be included as a version of Windows 8 since Microsoft's Windows RT FAQs include

"What's the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8?

Windows RT contains many of the same features as Windows 8, but is a new operating system for thin and light PCs."

which indicates to me that Windows RT is NOT an edition of Windows 8. See http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows/windows-rt-faq Highnumber (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is related to Windows 8, but the confusion between Windows 8 and RT is something that may just be notable enough for its own section. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is boot from VHD an option?

I don't think it would be very useful. Perhaps install from VHD is the intended field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mb0742 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Boot from VHD is correct. An entire Windows system can be booted from a VHD (file format). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:27, 21 October 201

Windows RT: Not traditional Windows

"software that run on Windows 8" may or may not run on Windows RT. Hint: Windows Store -- User:Codename Lisa

It is common knowledge that, software that is developed and compiled for x86 architecture, cannot be run on ARM, and vice versa. Therefore, Microsoft must be doing the same thing, Google has been for it's fragmented ecosystem: deploying a different package of the same software depending on the device compatibility. --Ne0 (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That is only half of the truth. Windows Store software are CPU architecture-independent, (JavaScript and .NET Framework apps are like that) meaning that they run on both devices. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

any reference to back you up? --Ne0 (talk) 04:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

See:

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/tech/31040510_1_steven-sinofsky-pcs-microsoft-first

http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/show-reports/287736-build-more-details-on-building-windows-8-metro-apps

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/09/building-windows-for-the-arm-processor-architecture.aspx

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_rt-windows_install/faq-windows-rt-and-windows-8/06bd1ac1-c7ba-40ce-8baa-3f4773944cd9

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33642_7-57454524-292/just-what-is-windows-rt-anyway-faq/

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Language Packs?

Just want to double check the Win 8 supports language packs claim. I've been told you need Pro or better to run a language pack. Something I need to research as I need a dual language system. I've also read (on the Microsoft site) not all languages are supported out side their countries!!!~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.163.199.190 (talk) 10:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There is also a fifth, undocumented edition: The SL versions, or "Single Language". They're full installation distributions limited to one built-in language and can't receive any language pack at all. Sold on "emerging markets" like the BRIC countries at reduced prices, the SL versions sound more like a price strategy than a language matter.

• http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_8-windows_install/regarding-windows-8-sl-64-bit-os/6a7c460a-1031-43b9-b0b0-36417495b8e9
• http://www.kabum.com.br/produto/33479/sistema-operacional-windows-8-sl-32bits-brazilian-oem-4hr-00047-/?tag=windows oem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.99.12.68 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Add End of support section

Information about end of support for different editions would be very useful (like in Windows 7 editions table). 88.195.12.107 (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am seeing in Windows 7 editions#Comparison chart and all dates are similar. Bad idea. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Pro Pack

Right now Windows Media Center is marked as "via an add-on" for Windows 8. This is a problem for one, because this "add-in" doesn't actually let you run Media Center on Windows 8 (the edition with that name;) it upgrades you to Windows 8 Pro. Second, this is inconsistent because the Pro Pack also adds BitLocker, EFS, app sideloading, boot from VHD, domain support and Hyper-V. Instead I suggest adding a line to the chart for the Add Features to Windows 8 feature explaining which upgrades can be done from each edition. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Josh. The part of the Pro Pack that adds other features is covered in the upgrade path section of the article and it is not unique to Pro Pack. Any upgrade method from 8 to 8 Pro gives those features by the virtue of edition change. So, no, an "Add Features to Windows 8" line would be totally uncalled for. This is not the case for Media Center; it is a bonus separate from the upgrade process. So, in brief, what the Pro Pack does is unique and so it calls for unique treatment (i.e. coverage as both an add-in and an upgrade path). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The upgrade compatibility section? It only covers upgrades from Windows 7/Vista/XP. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You are right. I must have mistaken it with another article. Still, it sounds like a good idea. Let's do it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Windows Vista/7 to Windows 8/8.1 edition matching

While Enterprise being equivalent to Ultimate in terms of feature set might not be completely true for Windows Vista, it is so for Windows 7, as per the respective articles here on the wiki. "Core" definitely replaces old Home Premium and it supersedes Starter and Home Basic, which were SKUs with an even more limited feature set than Home Premium.

This could explain the revert by Codename Lisa that led to the removal of the piece mentioning this. I believe the information should be readded with the required corrections. 93.108.222.180 (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

That is not the reason I reverted. The reason is that Wikipedia does not publish original research or synthesis of published sources. These edition matchings are all your own conclusions. Wikipedia publishes solid facts: Windows 7 comes in six major editions while Windows 8 only in four major editions. 6 to 4 is not a match; it's a compromise. Our policy is that instead of publishing a specific person's compromise, let people compare and do their own.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 with Bing

There is a rumour about Windows 8.1 with Bing getting released this year. If this is confirmed by Microsoft, how will this be listed under this article? --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I have been actively pursuing this subject and I am afraid we still don't know enough to say whether it has due weight or is just another Microsoft marketing trick worth forgetting.

Please be patient. Wikipedia's mission is to be the last to report stuff. The good things is, with Microsoft, you never have to wait long.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Windows RT's applications

I have noticed a dispute in progress about the nature of apps that can run on Windows RT. On May 15, User:Ne0Freedom changed the sentence "Windows RT only runs third-party WinRT software" into "Windows RT only runs software from Windows store". User:Codename Lisa reverted the edit with the edit summary that reads "Out of context and wrong. As explained later on, Windows RT can sideload apps too." All was well, until today, when 106.216.154.4 reverted Codename Lisa's revert without revealing why. (This, by the way, is against the revert policy.) Eventually Codename Lisa, re-wrote the entire disputed area, adding one or two sources for each:

Additional software for Windows RT can be either downloaded from Windows Store or sideloaded by acquiring a especial license from Microsoft.^(Sources) Desktop software that run on previous versions of Windows cannot be run on Windows RT^(Source) as Windows Store apps are based on Windows Runtime API which differs from the traditional apps.^(Source)

106.216.154.4 made the following change:

Windows RT only runs software Authorized by Microsoft and available in it's Windows store; and compiling from source code requires a special license from Microsoft.

Now, this looks like WP:SYNTH to me. "Authorized" and "compiling from source code" are not said by the source. In fact, when I read the source, I do not see that downloading requires Microsoft authorization (although I know that Windows Store is curated, however poorly so) and the source does not suggest that LOB programs compiled elsewhere cannot be sideloaded (in fact I do know that compiling them does not need license at all; it needs a Windows Store account).

106.216.154.4 defended himself by the following edit summary: "Additional software implies there is an alternative to MS windows store; plz give ref. Sideloading allows anyone to install non-published apps, not just those with source code". Honestly I don't understand where the first sentence comes from and the second sentence is exactly the opposite of 106.216.154.4's edits.

So, I think it is time we settle this confusion. Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.itworld.com/answers/topic/mobile-wireless/question/what-sideloading-smartphone-and-it-bad-thing
• http://www.intomobile.com/2013/01/12/windows-rt-easy-jailbreak-tool-allows-users-sideload-apps/

--IP#106.216.155.90 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

--IP#223.227.77.180 (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources are not allowed in Wikipedia. These are self-published sources, written by some guy who wasn't aware of sideloading on Windows RT. Beside, they don't explain what you have been doing or why you wrote that strange edit summary. Nor do they address any of my points above. Fleet Command (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sideloading dosen't exist on Windows RT or iOS, regardless of MS calling developer testing as sideloading. Sideloading is available on Windos 7, Linux, & android. Sideloading on Windows RT or iOS requires jail-breaking (device Hacking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.216.155.90 (talk)

Hi. You know, when someone provides a source, it would be a good idea to actually look at it before uttering sentences like this. First, what Microsoft is talking about is not development; it is clearing sideloading of line-of-business apps. For developing, Microsoft requires an account, not sideloading.[7] Even your self-published sources do not confuse jailbreaking with sideloading. It is just your personal assumption.

But because this was originally ViperSnake151's contribution, I'd ask him to have a look at it too.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Industry" edition and Microsoft App-V

There should be mention of Windows 8.1 Industry editions, which apparently are similar to Enterprise, but have further software apps. I've seen a hearsay claim that Win 8 Industry is now a superset of the others. (I recall that previous embedded versions would, leave out DirectX.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobart (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Windows RT is not an edition of Windows 8

Windows RT is not an edition of Windows 8. Sure, Windows RT may have been release at the same time as Windows 8 and may resemble Windows 8, but so does Windows Server 2012 and nobody considers Windows Server 2012 to be an edition of Windows 8. Information about Windows RT shall hence be removed from the article.

Straight from Microsoft: "Windows 8 is the official product name for the next x86/64 editions of Windows." and "Windows RT is the newest member of the Windows family – also known as Windows on ARM or WOA." See [8]

Illegal Operation (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Illegal Operation

Your link is broken (It has been broken for a very long time. The actual link is at [9]) and your analysis is the most erroneous interpretation of what is written by Brandon LeBlanc. I am afraid I am not going to write a response as to millions of signs that I see there indicating that Windows RT is actually an edition of Windows 8. Competence is required for editing Wikipedia and it is up to you to prove that competence by finding those obvious signs.

Also, Windows PowerShell and other Windows Store apps don't see any difference between Windows 8, 8 Pro, 8 Enterprise and RT.

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Windows 8 Bing Edition

Windows 8 Bing Edition (as I understand) has the search provider locked to Bing, and is available at no charge to OEM's.

It can't use standard installation media. You cannot download the ISO from Microsoft's website. Other than these differences, it's the same as Windows 8 core. I believe it counts as a separate edition. 69.145.67.34 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Deletion

I am new so I don't know how to do this but someone should simplify this info and put it into the windows 8 article and then delete this page. Tortle (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)