Talk:Windows 1.0

Ready go!

Logo
The Windows logo used in this article is dubious. I've tried Windows 10.1 myself and I never saw this logo (I used virtual machines). The only thing similar to a logo in Windows 1.01 is when you go to the About tab and it shows a 5.25" floppy disc on the far left side of the window. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * See this, the logo in the article is correct. Vacant0 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

windows 1.02
Is there a reason for the exclusion of Windows 1.02 from the system requirements section? FusionSub (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Now added. It is virtually identical to version 1.01, just sold outside of the U.S. and with more localizations. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. – robertsky (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

– Verbatim search result hits for "Windows 1.0(x)": – Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.0(x)": – Verbatim search hits for "Windows 2.1(x)": – Verbatim search hits for "Windows 3.1(x)": Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Suffixing x to the ends of the version numbers to denote that subversion exist is unnecessary when the vast, vast majority of reliable sources refer to the releases by their common, concise release name, without causing confusion to the reader. Windows 3.11/Windows for Workgroups 3.11, while notable upgrades, are minor revisions compared to the major leaps from 2.1 to 3.0 and from 3.0 to 3.1, and until they have their own articles, Windows 3.1 is a sufficient synecdoche to refer to them. The differences between 1.01–1.04, 2.01–2.03, and 2.1–2.11 are, as far as I can tell, totally minute and not worth the annotation.
 * Windows 1.0x → Windows 1.0
 * Windows 2.0x → Windows 2.0
 * Windows 2.1x → Windows 2.1
 * Windows 3.1x → Windows 3.1
 * Google Search "Windows 1.0x": ~17,500 results
 * Google Search "Windows 1.0": ~958,000 results
 * Google Books "Windows 1.0x": 91 results
 * Google Books "Windows 1.0": 11,200 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 1.0x": 8 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 1.0": 1,733 results
 * Google Search "Windows 2.0x": ~4,050 results
 * Google Search "Windows 2.0": ~242,000 results
 * Google Books "Windows 2.0x": 82 results
 * Google Books "Windows 2.0": 23,400 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 2.0x": 0 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 2.0": 1,472 results
 * Google Search "Windows 2.1x": ~6,930 results
 * Google Search "Windows 2.1": ~130,000 results
 * Google Books "Windows 2.1x": 168 results
 * Google Books "Windows 2.1": 3,420 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 2.1x": 0 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 2.1": 312 results
 * Google Search "Windows 3.1x": ~96,300 results
 * Google Search "Windows 3.1": ~5,000,000 results
 * Google Books "Windows 3.1x": 10,400 results
 * Google Books "Windows 3.1": 565,000 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 3.1x": 597 results
 * ProQuest "Windows 3.1": 27,961 results

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." These three articles are the only ones that adhere to this practice of suffixing the version number with x to denote subversions. Other version-specific software articles, like Mac OS 9 or Firefox 4, do not adhere to this practice. If I'm wrong, please let me know, but I'm pretty sure this is the case.

Per WP:CRITERIA: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles." I can only speak anecdotally, but I have only ever heard "Windows 3.1" uttered in natural conversation; I have never heard "Windows 3.1 ecks". While readers have no problem finding these articles as they stand now, I think the x is an ugly, unnecessary blemish that only serves to hint that updates to the base release exist, when I think that's implicit to just about anyone who has ever used software—then or now. It might have been relevant to add the x for the periods of time where these operating systems were still supported by Microsoft and other vendors, but this is no longer the case. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support moves. The vast majority of common use omits the x.  O.N.R.  (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note Just added Windows 2.1x to the move discussion, as I had somehow forgot its existence until just now. Oops. Pinging . DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. --49.150.0.134 (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)