Talk:List of Microsoft codenames

old
Does Wikipedia really need this? Lists of Microsoft codenames have been done before, and most of the time, in a more complete way. So, is this worthy of an encyclopedia? --82.135.12.44 04:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, why does Microsoft get its own page when there's a larger, more inclusive list located at list of computer technology code names? I see that this list includes background for some of the names, but is it really necessary? --Paulymer5 03:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION NITPICKERS
Do not second-guess the intentions of this article. You write the article, not the other way around. Please do NOT, ever again: The article title is not policy. It used to be just "Microsoft codenames". Some nitpicker decided this was a list, and moved it. It won't take a lot to put together some accompanying blurbs to the tables, what will you do then? remove them because this is just a "list"? (… and yet, in my heart I know someone will) Please let it rest. I cannot believe anyone could be deleting legitimate entries from this page
 * mutilate the historical Windows NT timeline by removing the Windows 2000 entry, despite its lack of a codename. It must be included because it has no codename, an anomaly that warrants an explaination. The table will look incomplete otherwise and prompt people to readd the entry. I can't believe I have to explain this
 * remove major entries because they lack a codename. I will just, e.g., move "COM+ Runtime" into the codename column, because it only appeared in internal source code, the product was never announced as such. Why waste my time?
 * forget that this is the only Wikipedia article where internal names for Microsoft products are discussed. If you remove related information from this page, it is lost forever

--KJK::Hyperion 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Error?
I believe this sentence is in error:

The Windows line has been since dropped altogether, and Windows NT operating systems are now simply referred to as "Windows".

Perhaps it should read "The Windows NT line..."?


 * Nope. The "Windows line" refered to is that of the MS-DOS based Windows 3.x, 95, etc. Although, from a consumer point of view, Windows 2000 and XP represent a "coming together" of this and Windows NT, they are in a technical sense almost exclusively a continuation of the NT line. In other words, the Windows brand continued, but it's the NT technology that now carries it. - IMSoP 23:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Windows Vista status
Windows Vista is listed as a final name. Shouldn't we mark it differently until we know that it is the final name? 4.255.40.245 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Microsoft has announced it as the final name. They've invested millions (billions?) of dollars in branding to this point, and are not going to throw that all away. Alereon 00:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Update
Codenames from this http://www.bitzenbytes.com/Content-Arcanum-18-1-61.html source could be added.

If not add Mira, the now shelved Windows Smart Display codename.
 * Hmmm... I really like the source in the table... might add this to the tables sometime. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn, Microsoft codenames are cool
Microsoft needs to just start releasing their products under their codenames...scrolling through the list, most of these are pretty badass. Xizer 01:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, especially considering their official names are so lame. And they're not even consistent, I mean: 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003 - what a mess. I personally think they should've better leave out those two-letter-codes, it would be better if they used years all the time. And the meanings of those... ME - "Millenium Edition"... yuck! :) And XP... as I understand, it was supposed to stand for "experience", which is yuck too, but I'd also say it's actually incorrect. Yes it might be eXPerience, but i think the original meaning of XP as 'experience' was from the gaming term which is actually short from 'eXperience Points' :) --Arny 07:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cairo
To be honest, I'm still not sure whether Cairo is NT4.0, NT5.0, both or neither... --Arny 15:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * NT4, but Cairo was actually abandonded as a codename. Jim Allchin refers to it now as a group of "concepts". Every new Windows release since then has contained something he originally hoped for in Cairo. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * wasn't Cairo used for XP? because it draws sounds from the two greek letters chi and roe, with the symbols X and P! if is this is not true i will be very upset, as that has just got to be the best codename ever! mastodon 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * XP stole ideas from the Cairo "vision" but XP was never referred to as Cairo. SchmuckyTheCat 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think I remember that upcoming NT 5.0 was advertised as "Cairo" in magazines. It was finally released as Windows 2000. Arny 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Windows 2000 never had a codename. This is mentioned in the Windows 2000 article. Aluvus 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Singularity
where is Singularity? Muzzle 08:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just another MSR project - not a product. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Venus
I was viewing the source for the documentation of BeginPaint and the line VENUS_START caught my eye. I did some searching and came up with this page which mentions other codenames as well. Hackwrench 17:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

LINQ
Should LINQ even make the list? It seems more like a specific feature than an overall product... atanamir 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can find a source that describes "LINQ" as a codename, then by all means be bold and add it in! I think it might be an acronym, though, for "Language Integrated Query" or somesuch.  Warrens 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Build Numbers
How about putting the build numbers in as well? Make it a bit more complete... I will do it if no one else does. --203.118.135.21 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Windows NT 3.1
I don't think it's correct to say that 'OS/2 3.0' was a codename for Windows NT 3.1. The project was originally called 'NT OS/2', and was intended to ultimately be released as 'OS/2 3.0', but I don't think either of these ('NT OS/2' or 'OS/2 3.0') really qualifies as a codename. Maybe it could be said that 'NT' was the codename, but then that was actually used in the final product name, so perhaps there simply wasn't one.

This article is also the first place I've ever read the claim that the choice of '3.1' for the first version of NT had anything to do with having a higher version number than OS/2. Does anyone know what the source for this claim is? It seems to me that synchronising the version number with the DOS-based Windows product line is a sufficient explanation for the choice.

Office
What about Office codenames? Ones for Flight Simulator and other games? &mdash; User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2 and 3 codenames
The list currently says Windows 2000 was the first major version without a codename since Windows 2.0. Is there any evidence that Windows 2.0 didn't have codename, Windows 3.0 did and Windows 2000 didn't?

re-used codenames
i noticed: Janus Windows 2000 64-bit Same codename as Windows 3.1 so is Hydra used in both "SQL Server 6.5" and "Terminal Services, Terminal Server"

when i added this extra info it was removed minutes after ... so what to do with re-used codenames?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

"Notes" column
Please don't put information about the product itself in the "notes" column, unless it's unreleased (e.g. cancelled or planned)

--62.101.126.225 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? This makes no sense, and removing the information,  makes the table plain, outright wrong.  The notes column contains general information relevant to the codename.  Look at that diff.  Look at the first entry, "Trainyard".  Without information in the notes column, the table now says that Trainyard was the codename for XPSP1.  That is absolutely not the case and this can be (and is) explained in the Notes section.
 * There certainly is information in the Notes that is irrelevant, or better explained by the linked product articles (like how to get W-FLP through SA) but the Notes section is entirely general, and germane, to miscellaneous information and no argument except "don't" says otherwise.
 * Hence, I'm reverting the last change to the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Project Natal
Microsoft announced Project Natal at E3 this week. For information and references, see this link. 70.190.158.11 (talk)

Comes v. Microsoft
The Comes v. Microsoft suit (and probably others as well) have revealed quite a lot internal Microsoft documents and e-mail. Together with the proceeding transcripts, where Microsoft is often asked what certain code names refer to, would make great reliable sources for this article. A lot is this in now publicly available on the Internet (e.g. http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/). —Ruud 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows CE Codenames
Several of the Windows CE code names that are lumped together are codenames for Windows Mobile products. Specifically, Stinger was the original Windows Smartphone OS, Rapier was the code name for Pocket PC. While based on Windows CE, they were separate OS releases built by the Windows Mobile team (separate from Windows CE). Don't know how best to indicate this in the table.

Bob?
No double-knot spy codename for Microsoft Bob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.8.2 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob's codename was "Utopia". It also contains an "UTOPIA.dll". Source: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2008.07.windowsconfidential.aspx (a site hosted on microsoft.com should be confident enough for a Wikipedia article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.160.8 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Work items
diff that deletes a lot of entries. While I agree that sourcing is an issue, I disagree that cutting all of this was necessary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Unreferenced codenames
Alright, everyone. It seems I must remind you that Verifiability which is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia requires all items in an article to have source. Unreferenced material will be challenged or deleted. That is not an essay, guideline, or even policy; it is a pillar and a pillar may not be contradicted, not even through consensus.

In that respect, I have deleted a long list of unreferenced items in this article. If you want them back, you can have them back as long as you have a reliable source for every and each of them. But you can't have them all back without a source, especially given the fact the there were some duplicate codenames amongst them that were repeated for different products and hence I think someone has been making either factually inaccurate or outright dishonest contributions.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you try rewording your post a little? Maybe get even more pretentiousness into it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Have to agree with FC here. Reliable sourcing is especially important with these kinds of lists because they attract a lot of speculation, rumours, hearsay and urban-ledgend type additions on top of the inevitable pure fiction. It's it about time it was cleaned up. A case in point is the first one in the list to be removed – Janus.
 * Seemingly Janus has always been thought of as the codename for Windows 3.1, but this court order from a Caldera vs Microsoft lawsuit would seem to suggest it was nothing more than a packaged bundle of Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 5. What is more, I can find no reliable source that contradicts this view, only blogs, wikimirrors and articles that are sourced from Wikipedia. wjemather bigissue 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course reliable sourcing is important - so Fleet Command should try doing some of it, not just deleting stuff randomly throughout WP. How about some positive contributions, rather than endlessly deleting? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation on FC to try and source anything, but I hope they tried (and am sure they did) to source at least a few before deciding that complete removal was the best way forward. In this case I see the removal as a positive contribution since it prompts others to restore with sourcing. As I said, I tried to source Janus which I figured would be straightforward, but failed. I may give some other the others a go later, too. wjemather bigissue 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On their talk page they questioned what I was talking about when I mentioned 'Chicago'. As that's probably the easiest of the lot to source, I doubt they even read what they deleted before deleting it, they just counted refs. There is no obligation on them to delete articles either, and editors who aren't prepared to do the whole job shouldn't be congrtatulating themselves on their fine works when they choose to only do half of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, now, gentleman; please do not over-involve your emotions: Nothing is permanently deleted; everything can be returned with a click of a mouse button the very second you have source for them. In fact, please do revert any of the deleted items for which you have a source. Please realize that I have NO personal hostility against any of you or your favorite articles; it is only a matter of Wikipedia:Verifiability and the corresponding responsibilities of being a Wikipedian. Oh, an do you mind if I express my surprise of myself being referred to as "they"? Fleet Command (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is your tone (a bit abrupt & officious, maybe) in removing the content that perhaps caused the biggest stir. Incidentally, the only reason this was on my watchlist in the first place was due to a torrent of OR and unsourced crap being added to a pair of related articles that I helped source, rewrite and ultimately survive AfD, and I certainly doubt it is a favourite article of anybody. You can certainly express your surprise at being referred to as "they" but I don't see why you would (assuming this is the cause of your surprise?). wjemather bigissue 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unreferenced material can be challenged. That doesn't mean it has to be.
 * Duplicate code names are not that big a deal. Microsoft does not have a very deep sense of its own history. Product managers (who make up code names) don't really care about code names that are decades old or in other divisions. Every time a new VP comes along the naming scheme changes too. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * In this case it has been, and rightly so. Obviously some will be correct and should be re-added with sources, but they will be an awful lot that are not for one of the reasons I listed above. wjemather bigissue 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true. Some items will be back. I discovered that "Longhorn" was real:  . "Memphis" also looks real:  since Paul Thurrott is reliable LP. I'm adding them back. Fleet Command (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the entries in the Win3x/9x/NT sections were real code names. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Really? Then by all means find a reliable source for Janus. The problem is as I described above. wjemather bigissue 07:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Kato, which I can find zero mention of. And what was with the (LB) after Snowball? wjemather bigissue 07:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Janus, as a code word, is quite easy to attach to some version of win3x because it is still a valid search term on support.microsoft.com. The problem for Wikipedia is attaching that name to a specific release. I don't know why (LB) was after Snowball. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Only one search result at microsoft is relevant and that does not mention the word Janus at all. That result is a product list of all versions of Windows up to 3.11, so attaching Janus to 3.x seems like a shot it the dark. wjemather bigissue 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you were not at least passingly familiar with the codename Longhorn (which got a large amount of coverage in the trade press), then I would argue that you are entirely the wrong person to be making a judgment on what in this article does or does not need a source. And as WP:V explicitly acknowledges, it is not realistic to demand that every claim have a provided source.  You would have done far more good by coming to the Talk page first and voicing your concerns, so that someone (or indeed, many people) familiar with the topic could scrub the list.  Instead you have chosen mass deletion and rules lawyering, which merely annoy those very people.  Surely there are flaws in the list; this is not the right way to find them.  I would also suggest that you reconsider your tone, as telling people they "can't" undo your deletions until they meet your personal standards implies an authority that you (or anyone else, really) do not have.  And your claim that your actions can be undone "with a click of a mouse button" strikes me as hugely disingenuous; the only way to easily undo your actions is to simply revert you, which still leaves out your other deletions of the last few months.  I can guess your opinion of that solution. —  Aluvus  t/c 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you Aluvus. Those parts of your comments which are not factually inaccurate will be duely noted. However, it goes without saying that the basis for the merit of material in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth and contents without source may be challenged or deleted. As for my figurative notion of "one click", if reverting those deleted material is not literally as easy as one click, it is definitely easier than coming to talk page and complaining. 11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) 06:47, December 16, 2010


 * If anything I have said is in error, then point it out; otherwise, you are just poisoning the well. When I commented on your tone I was not suggesting that it needed more sarcasm.  I have already told you that WP:V does not support you in the way you claim, and your rejoinder does not answer any of my criticisms of your actions.  And if your claim is that it is easier for someone to grovel through several dozen items, find references that you personally will not be upset about, and then re-add them, than it is to create an item on Talk saying "Hey guys I think this page needs some cleanup" then that is simply untrue.  It would take longer to just count the items you removed than to post on Talk (I should know; I tried it). —  Aluvus  t/c 00:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP:V explicity supports FCs actions: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 21:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also canon that FC can fix things as well as removing them, and that we shouldn't delete things we can fix by editing. FC's edits (and not just at this article) are a prime example of how to be correct, without being helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifying and sourcing a list this long takes time. I find it strange that those who have complained about the removal of content have so far failed to source and restore a single entry between them. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 22:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Microsoft code names?
The article is Code name not Codename. Shouldn't this article be List of Microsoft code names instead of List of Microsoft codenames? — Pan·da·mo·ni·a 23:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it shouldn't. Both spellings of the word is used across the globe and is correct. (American English has a tendency to connect words to create compound ones.) Furthermore, conversion between dialects of English in Wikipedia is not allowed except when the purpose is to unify the style in the entire article. For more info, see Manual of Style (spelling) and Manual of Style. Fleet Command (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Codename Memphis
Are we sure this was the codename for Windows 98 - and that Windows 95 OSR was Detroit? If you take a Windows 95 OSR boot disc, or CD image of one, and before running any EXEs take a look at 1883:0018-0058 What you get is: Microsoft (R) Memphis (C)Copyright, Microsoft Corp 1981-1996.

while this is not obvious on an image of the disc, if you assemble: (mov ax,2 int 10h mov es,1883h mov bp,18h mov cx,40h mov ax,1301h mov bx,7 xor dx,dx int 10h int 20h) into a com file it's there for anyone to find. Jethro 82 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected - while Windows 95 [4.0.0.1111] does load these words into memory, and seems to somewhere between 1800:0 - 1900:0h starting at an offset of 8 it is not always 1883 - it depends on the hardware configuration. Further some drivers in config.sys seem to push this from memory. I still maintain that both that this happens and that my under lying question is still valid. Jethro 82 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am afraid assertions in Wikipedia require support by a reliable source. (See WP:V and WP:RS.) Your personal interpretation of what you see in a certain SKU of Windows falls under the category of original research. To make matter worse, your assumption can simply be wrong. Memphis can be anything; e.g. codename for a library that Windows called, a codename for the Windows Shell, an easter egg, a piece of old code that evaded cleanup, or even something kept for licensing reasons (like xerox folder in Program Files). It can be anything. Best regards, 91.51.160.8 (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Codename Athena referencing Outlook Express
Hello, I added the info about Athena and the OE. In my XP SP3, the file msoe50.inf/wab50.inf contains the word Athena when the file refers to the rollback and migration process. So I assume that Athena was the codename for either Outlook Express or the Windows Address Book.

And sorry for destroying the layout. Can somebody fix it? I am not very well into wikistyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.82.144 (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello.


 * I am afraid assertions in Wikipedia require support by a reliable source. (See WP:V and WP:RS.) Your personal interpretation of what you see in a certain SKU of Windows falls under the category of original research. To make matter worse, your assumption can simply be wrong. Athena can be anything; e.g. codename for a library that Outlook Express called, a codename for Internet Explorer 5 deployment mechanism, an easter egg, a piece of old code that evaded cleanup, or even something kept for licensing reasons (like xerox folder in Program Files). It can be anything.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Codename Lisa,


 * Thank you for your message. We shall deeply investigate if all of the codenames listed in the Wikipedia article can be verified as "true". Sometimes we can just assert that a specific word is the codename for product A or B.


 * What about codename "Springboard"? For me it's confusing that abstract techniques like "Set of enhanced security features, included in Windows XP Service Pack 2" get an own codename. And, well, there *is* a citation source, but it is a blog. Can it deliver some trusted sources?


 * Best regards,
 * --91.51.160.8 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi.


 * The Springboard source is not a blog; it is a column by Windows IT Pro, and it is written by Paul Thurrott. It has all three elements of a reliable source: Credible author, credible publisher and contents itself.


 * Unlike what you think, it was not a set of "abstract techniques"; it was tangible changes visible to laymen end-user (a new version of Windows Firewall, a new version of Internet Explorer 6 and the famous Windows Security Center.) Windows XP Service Pack 2 was in important milestone because at the time Microsoft was under full-scale global scrutiny about the state of security in its products. Windows XP Service Pack 2 was a security facelift in Windows XP, so there is little surprise its security portion has its own codename.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I was a tester on the IE team at Microsoft in 1997 and can confirm Athena was the code name for Microsoft Internet Mail and News, which eventually became Outlook Express. 71.231.84.222 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Status of Blackcomb
This article originally suggested that Blackcomb was a codename for Windows 7, i.e. Blackcomb, Vienna and 7 are the same thing. I have seen suggestions like that before too, but they do not seem to have a reliable source. There are reliable sources for the fact that Vienna and 7 are the same project, but the status of Blackcomb seems to be unclear.

On digging deeper, I did find that blogger Robert Scoble did say that 'Blackcomb' had changed to 'Vienna' in 2006 in a discussion on Channel 9 on MSDN. It was the only source of this I could find. Either way, as the comments were made in January 2006, before the development of Windows 7, 'Blackcomb' changing to 'Vienna' could have referred generally to the codename of the next version of Windows. Also, as the development of Windows 7 did not occur under the codename 'Blackcomb' at all (as suggested by the timeline of events), I really don't think it can be counted as a codename for Windows 7.

I have removed the reference to Blackcomb for Windows 7. Instead, I am creating a separate entry for Blackcomb. Taraella (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello,


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, where sources are the boss. You have supplied a source to the effect that Blackcomb was renamed Vienna. Therefore, what you think is not important in the least. Now, if you invoke sources that say Blackcomb and Vienna are not codenames for the same project, then we can discuss whether we cover both points of view or not. Because in Wikipedia, when we encounter contradictory points of view, we report them both. (Mind you, there are policies governing this; don't say I didn't warn you.)


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Codename Zurich
Someone incorrectly added Zurich as a codename for Windows 8, but it was promptly removed. In fact, Zurich seems to have been the codename for some cloud .NET utility services which are included in Azure. See ZDNet 24 July 2008, ZDNet 27 October 2008, ZDNet 23 June 2008. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . "Zurich" is already in the article along with "Red Dog". But thanks for the sources given. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Table Breaks
The table for the Windows NT family breaks on the right side at Impala and Quebec. I'm not as experienced and I cannot find the problem so I'm advising on someone fixing it. Thanks C.Goodings 17:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It also breaks at Whidbey on the Visual Studio family and Project 7 on the .NET Framework family. Thanks again C.Goodings 17:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015
Please add the preliminary name of Durango was Xbox 720

72.73.112.104 (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Janus (again)
Thelogoontherun (re-)added the codename "Janus" for Windows 3.1, citing http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/c/codename.htm as a source. I changed the source to a 2004 book about Vista, thinking it should be more reliable. One could say it's not reliable enough, as it might be based on http://old.bink.nu/mscodes.htm. However, there are some more possible sources that mention the codename "Janus" for Windows 3.1: A 1992 article about Windows 3.1x, a home study course from 2010 (which explicitely says that the Janus codename was also reused for Windows 2000 64-bit), and this 1999 court order (which was also mentioned in the discussion above). Razvan Socol (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * I'd go with the 1992 article and the court order. Their age is an advantage, eliminating the possibility of inaccurate circulation over time. The CompTIA A+ 2010 Home Study is the most questionable source here, because it has lists whose coloring look exactly like Wikipedia's.
 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of Microsoft codenames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/8/f/18f8cee2-0b64-41f2-893d-a6f2295b40c8/TW04008_WINHEC2004.ppt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 14:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Split out Azure and all its components into a separate section
I was going to type something here, but I can't really add anything to the subhed ... richi (hello) 11:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Bueller, Bueller? ... richi (hello) 23:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Windows Media Center 2004 Codename
There is a new codename for Windows XP Media Center 2004, which is Bobsled. Gabegriggs1 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I got this from here... https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36518
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Forum posts are generally not considered reliable per the linked policy page.  Fei noh a   Talk 03:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Microsoft codenames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120150045/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jul05/07-22LHMA.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2005/jul05/07-22LHMA.mspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0%2C1000000121%2C2131385%2C00.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070322212538/http://www.crn.com/storage/170702999 to http://www.crn.com/storage/170702999
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229055011/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/jan03/01-09M2GLaunchPR.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/jan03/01-09m2glaunchpr.mspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://i.techrepublic.com.com/downloads/Kaelin/CodeTracker-July2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Microsoft codenames. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111212044145/http://www.itjungle.com/two/two022708-story03.html to http://www.itjungle.com/two/two022708-story03.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829074619/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/sql7_workshop.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/sql7_workshop.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705171134/http://58.240.47.242/~hz/win32/chic_mgt.htm to http://58.240.47.242/~hz/win32/chic_mgt.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110101191514/http://connect.microsoft.com/site94/Surveys to https://connect.microsoft.com/site94/Surveys

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

why tho
I cant find windows 1 codename — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.206.97 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Windows 7 codenames
The code names "Blackcomb" and "Vienna" are not accurate. Please see this blog of a Microsoft employee for more information: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20190722-00/?p=102724

--Blackdrake (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Can the box on the top of the page be reworded?
"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience."

Yes? That's how the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are.

Unless I am missing something (which would prove my point), that box is incredibly evident. It should better explain what it is talking about. Taureonn (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)