File talk:Windows Family Tree.svg

Thanks for making this. But the relationships are somewhat mixed-up (I know it's not your fault; the previous version was even muddier!). Some of the arrows represent a technical succession, some represent a marketing succession. I think that a true "family tree" should be primarily a technical tree, because that best shows the evolution and true relationship of all the various versions (and the marketing relationship can still be preserved). And so I *strongly* urge the following changes:

1) Windows 2003 is an evolution of the XP code base, not the 2000 code base. The current chart suggest that XP is just an offshoot of 2000 and that it's unrelated to 2003, which is incorrect: XP was 2003's immediate predecessor, and most of the 2000->2003 changes that Microsoft marketed actually took place in XP.

2) Windows ME is the last of the original Windows. The original Windows line DIED with Me.  UI elements were shared between the Windows and NT lines all throughout (not just 95/NT4, but also Win3.1/NT3.1 and Me/2000, and that should be shown), and to that end, Windows Me made no direct contribution to XP.  The only way in which XP "succeeds" Me is as a marketing successor.  In a technical sense, Me was a complete dead-end.  So the line between Me and XP should either be removed or made into a dotted line to represent that there was no technical connection between them).

3) Server 2003 R2 should be a "side-version" of 2003, either as a separate circle below 2003 or as a partially covered circle (like 98SE/98 and 2.1x/2.0).

4) Server 2008 should be Server 2008 SP1 (the very first 2008 version was SP1, to keep in synchronized with Vista)

5) The diagram shows no relationship between W7 and Server 2008 R2 while showing a relationship between Server 2008 and R2. This is incorrect.  Technically, 2008 R2 is based on the NT6.1 kernel (just like W7) and will use the NT6.1 shell (just like W7).  The best way to show the relationships now that the consumer and server lines have merged is to show a central line in blue with the NT version (6.0, 6.1) and showing Vista, 2008SP1, W7, and 2008R2 as derivatives of NT6.0 and NT6.1, respectively.

6) I think it will be useful to show that Windows "7" is internally versioned as 6.1. Having the diagram show the relationship between "7" and 6.1 should help clear some of the confusion that Microsoft created with their naming scheme.

Unfortunately, I have no experience with SVG, and all I have is a simple paint program, so I don't have the means to make these changes myself. But I do have a (very crude) mockup of what these sorts of changes would look like. http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6391/revisedtreeei2.png

Code65536 (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, I completely agree and I will make these changes as soon as I can, but since now this image is in a vector graphics format - anyone can feel free to edit it with a program like CorelDRAW for exemple....
 * F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone place an arrow for the last of the MS-DOS line to link to the circle describing the Windows 2000 version? --Alexgan (talk) 05:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And why would you wanna do that? F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Windows Me is based on Windows 98 SE, not the first edition.
 * 2) It's Windows Me, not Windows ME.
 * 3) The Server OS box should say "Server only". Otherwise, Windows NT/2000 Server would belong there. It should also be part of the "NT kernel-based" box.
 * 4) To be exact, there should be an arrow from Windows 2000 pointing toward XP and Server 2003, but it should split off (around March 2001) to each of the two.
 * 5) Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 also comes from the same source code as Windows Server 2003.
 * 6) How is XP x64 based on Server 2003 R2? It's older than 2003 R2, and doesn't include the extra CD that distinguishes it from just 2003 with SP1.
 * 7) Windows Vista/Server 2008 is based on the Windows Server 2003 source code, which is also the Windows XP Professional x64 Edition source code. Vista is based on XP x64 just as much as it's based on 2003.
 * 8) To be exact, there should be an arrow from Windows XP 64-bit/Server 2003 pointing toward Vista and Server 2008, but it should split off (around May 2006) to each of the two.
 * 9) There should be a two-way arrow between Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will fix anything you say as soon as I find some free time, but first tell me which is right and which is wrong:

So?... :) F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Josh (talk | contribs) says: To be exact, there should be an arrow from Windows 2000 pointing toward XP and Server 2003, but it should split off (around March 2001) to each of the two. and
 * Code65536 (talk | contribs) says:  Windows 2003 is an evolution of the XP code base, not the 2000 code base.


 * And now I see there are also even more contradictions between wikipedians... F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Server 2003 RTM is based on XP Beta 2/Whistler Server Beta 2, not XP RTM, which is what the chart shows. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is so confused as a diagram, I hate to be critical because I know what you're trying to achieve, but it seems to hinge on the idea of versions of Windows influencing one another rather than deriving from a common source (of which there were two, of course the non-NT line is now dead.) Also Pro and Server are mentioned as Win2K versions, which sorta makes it look like there wasn't a server version of NT4, for example.

I think the timeline needs to be replaced with two strands representing the two Windows lines - so you can have an NT line with NT version numbers and have both server and end-user releases branch off that, and a line with the old Win3.1/95/98/ME line above that. Influences such as 95's GUI finding its way onto NT4 could still be inferred with labelled vertical arrows. 91.109.91.168 (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows 8
can you guys add Windows 8 on there? Jawadreventon (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe this is only for currently released versions of Windows, and Windows 8 is still in beta until October 2012 &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  02:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Me missing?
Windows Me seems to be conspicuously missing from this lineup. Why is this? &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  02:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's there, right after 98SE. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming versions of Windows 8 and RT
Could someone add branches for Windows 8, 8 Pro, RT, and all other upcoming versions of Windows 8?

The diagram seems outdated as the latest year is 2010 and it is becoming almost certain what versions of Windows 8 will be released.

Someone should also add version numbers to allow users to see the progression from Windows versions 1,2,3 to 4 (95-Me), 5 (2000 and XP) and 6 (Vista, 7, 8).

Zywxn 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit: If someone can provide all the relevant new information to go on the diagram, I can edit it myself and update the image.

Zywxn &#124; 03:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)