Talk:Windows Phone 8

Logo
Because a IP is reverting the changes all the time, I want to ask all. As seen on the WP8 page, there's now a red logo. But the official logo color is purple, as seen on windowsphone.com. I hope everyone 'll agree with me. --Lolametro (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello. Glad to see you here at last. It was about time.


 * Frankly, all I care is seeing an immediate end to this dispute. The color of the logo does not make the slightest difference to me. I find the resemblance between the "color of the logo" and "color of the bike shed" is very significant.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Purple is indeed the colour of the logo used on the Windows Phone website and we should stick to using the official logo. Maybe on the Windows Phone 7 page we can use red, but otherwise purple. pcuser42 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Did you check their blog as well? They have published a wide range of logos in different colors. Also, you should see the user manual and PDF. They all use different colors. There is no such thing as official color. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revision
Windows Phone 8 lacks some information that would help define what Windows Mobile truly is. I believe the primary definition, rather than listing dates, should have a more clarifying definition pertaining to what Windows 8 Phone is. I am proposing to add in a revision that will contain clarification that a broader target can better understand.
 * Revision of the mobile device article

Windows Phone 8 is the second generation of the Windows Phone mobile operating system, as officially confirmed by Microsoft at an MSDN seminar in August 2011 and previewed at Microsoft's 'sneak peek' at Windows Phone on June 20, 2012. It was released to manufacturing on September 14, 2012 and released to consumers on October 29, 2012.
 * Original Windows 8 article

Devices were initially launched by four companies: Nokia, Samsung, Huawei, and HTC. All devices are based on System on Chips from Qualcomm. Current Windows Phone 7.x devices can not run or update to Windows Phone 8 and new applications compiled specifically for Windows Phone 8 are not made available for Windows Phone 7.x devices.

Windows Phone 8 is the second generation proprietary mobile operating system released on Oct 29th, codenamed "Apollo", developed by Microsoft featuring a new interface known as Metro.
 * My proposed revision

Windows Phone 8 replaces it's CE-based architecture used on Windows Phone 7 devices with the Windows NT kernel found on many Windows 8 components. Current Windows Phone 7.x devices cannot run or update to Windows Phone 8 and new applications compiled specifically for Windows Phone 8 are not made available for Windows Phone 7.x devices.

Nokia announced a partnership with Microsoft on February 11, 2011 making Windows Phone 8 the primary operating system for Nokia. However at launch, Windows 8 devices have also been manufactured by Samsung, HTC and Huawei.


 * References
 * 1) http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us
 * 2) Rubino, Daniel. (Oct 29, 2012). Overview and Review of Windows Phone 8. retrieved from http://www.wpcentral.com/overview-and-review-windows-phone-8
 * 3) Shankland, Stephen (Feb 11, 2011) Nokia, Microsoft becoming Windows Phone bedfellows. retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20031468-264.html#!

Gcimato-NJITWILL (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's good, i'll insert it in the article. --Lolametro (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reported problems
This section doesn't seem like something typically found on wikipedia. Reported problems do not seem to be enumerated for Android, Windows 7, GIMP, or any other popular OS or software. I don't doubt the veracity or potential utility of the information, it just doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.78.178 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have made the section collapsible. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

SD card
It does not encrypt data on the SD card? It allows accessing the card contents from Linux using a card reader? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.123.15 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hardware Requirements
Do we have any source (MSDN prefered?) --95.88.237.27 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reception
The last line of "Reception" section is not appropriate as its not neutral. Further some guy overwrites my attempt to make this topic a neutral one. Please help me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renoldsmartin (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have tried to do the same thing but one IP user continues to override my edits as well. I will see to it that his/her disruptions stop and they are banned if they continue. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "Reported Problems" and "Missing Features" section
I am proposing to remove the "Reported Problems" and "Missing Features" sections from this article. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be lists (WP:LISTS) and should never be a list of complaints to be sent to Microsoft. I have been trying to undo this first by removing the section, and then making it a collapsible list as a sort of compromise-- but an IP user has continued to revert the changes. Unnamed IP User, list your complaints in a tech forum-- Wikipedia is not the place for you to whine about what Microsoft didn't include in its OS. Gamer9832 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's also the potential to violate WP:NPOV. pcuser42 (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, do not use the Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. By deleting you want to make the page not neutral favoring your interests.


 * How am I favoring my interests? If you check back on Talk: Windows Phone, there was a huge discussion on the merits of having a Reported Problems section. They decided to remove it because it flies in the face of WP:NPOV and WP:LISTS. As a subpage of the original WP article, the resolution to that argument applies here as well. I will make it clear to you that Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for Windows Phone haters. If you hate WP, go sound off in some forum. No other OS article has a list of missing features (to quote the other page, it's like creating a list of ways in which a Camry is not a good dump truck). And on what standard do you define "Missing Features"? That's purely subjective--there is no set standard for any OS. Would you list "Live Tiles" under the missing features of the Android page? You are therefore in direct violation of WP:NPOV. To add to that, I am not even removing your stuff from the page, I am merely putting it under a collapsible list. You have no reason to revert those edits. You have also reverted edits of recent changes I made to the Reception section. Those changes are needed-- because recent statistics reflect that. If you do not like Wikipedia to show the fact that WP has increased market share, then go take your hate out on some forum. Stop trying to obscure fact from the rest of the readers of this encyclopedia. Gamer9832 (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree we should remove those because the set of missing features is infinitely large. "Reported problems" should go in a reception section, written in prose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reported Problems do not make any sense under the Reception section. -- JohnMartinErnst (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem about where reported problems should be placed, just that it should be put into prose form. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Decline. While Windows Phone 8 lacks many features that other mobile operating systems have, maybe there is no point on documenting all of them here. At least we should keep the features that Microsoft has recognized as missing like the lack of Notification Center because of lack of time. The problems should not be removed as noted by Unnamed IP User, since that would remove the neutrality in the article. -- JohnMartinErnst (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems haven't been removed, just moved to a collapsible list. JohnMartinErnst, to what standard are you comparing WP? Missing features are subjective-- maybe Microsoft has a reason not to implement them or not to include them. It's like saying "Metro UI" is a missing feature from iOS, or that Android is missing "Microsoft Office". I agree things like Notification Center, which are notable, should be noted as missing on the page because Microsoft does plan to implement it in the future. But Wikipedia should not be a place where we list complaints to be sent to Microsoft. What you think should be in the OS is not what everyone thinks should be in the OS-- so this violates WP:NPOV. I agree with Jasper that the "Reported Problems" section should be written in prose, and I think we should move it under "Reception". But there is no need for a list of Missing Features. Gamer9832 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Section collapsing is not preferable in articles, in my opinion. However, Microsoft has always acknowledged that its software hasn't the most features. There's nothing special about these missing features.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What is missing is still subjective. It's like listing ways why a fish pond is not a good swimming pool. It's not up to Wikipedia users to speculate about what Microsoft plans to include in its OS. Many of these features could be added in the future, and many might not because Microsoft chooses not to. Per WP:CRYSTAL-- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we don't try to predict what will happen in the future. The list of features that Microsoft hasn't included could also go on endlessly (violating WP:LISTS). Just because you think they are common features does not mean that Microsoft or anyone views them as common features. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose a section in the article that lists features removed by carriers to help inform customers that may be trying to find out about the phone. For example, all Windows Phone 8 phones except those carried by Verizon have "Group Messaging", and Verizon has also removed the integrated Visual Voicemail in favor of their own separate app. AT&T doesn't support Data Sense yet.
 * This is not unusual, not is it unique to this OS, so I might think it should be put in a more general article. Wikipedia, after all, isn't a shopping guide.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a shopping guide-- our job is to inform about the OS's features, not a list of ways why a consumer shouldn't buy a product. What WP is missing is purely subjective, it may be a "missing" feature from your point of view, but everyone else may not even need them. The reported problems is a different situation, and I agree that it should be kept and put into prose. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And JohnMartinErnst, the problems you mentioned are carrier-specific. Just because they are limited to one carrier does not make it "missing feature" for WP devices on other carriers. It's not there because Microsoft chose for it not to be there. Going by that logic you might as well put that "T-Mobile doesn't carry the Lumia 920" under a list of missing features. Gamer9832 (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I Agree with the request to remove "Reported Problems" and "Missing Features" sections. --Gaming&#38;Computing (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Great that there is consensus to not remove issues, otherwise the article would become biased. On the other hand, while it is true that there is no point on having all the missing features listed here, there should be a mention on the most important and notable missing features that have references from trusted sources, like the missing notification center. -- Obmpeace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflict Resolution
4 are in favor and 2 are against removal of the "Missing Features" section (assuming JohnMartinErnst is not also the IP user). I think consensus has been reached that we should keep the Reported Problems section, and keep some notable missing features. Gamer9832 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream Support and Extended Support questions
Will Windows Phone 8 go into extended support on July 8, 2014? And will extended support end on January 12, 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.222.11.16 (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

nonsense
"Unlike its predecessor, Windows Phone 8 uses true multitasking, allowing developers to create apps that can run in the background and resume instantly. (This is a lie, it doesn't work that way)". What is that supposed to mean? Does WP8 have "true" multitasking (whatever this means) or not? If it "doesn't work this way", then how does it work? Any proof for the assertion? The quoted sentences are very, very unencyclopedic.178.26.102.111 (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it, it smells of vandalism. pcuser42 (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @IP User-- What do you mean "untrue"? WP8 has had this capability since its release. It's cited right here: http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/20/microsoft-brings-true-background-multitasking-to-windows-phone? Gamer9832 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Bring Windows Phone 8.1 into this article. I don't think that 8.1's article will end up being meaty enough to warrant it's own place. Please discuss. Zero Serenity (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: First, I think Windows Phone 8.1 is a major update to WP8, rather than a GDR. Second, WP8.1 has enough press coverage, so it is notable enough to have its own article. Last, the current size for [/w/index.php?title=Windows_Phone_8&action=info WP8 is 31.9 kB] and [/w/index.php?title=Windows_Phone_8.1&action=info WP8.1 is 13.1 kB]. The combined size would be about 45 kB. According to WP:SIZESPLIT, it is ok to split into two articles if an article's size is around 50 kB, needless to say that Windows Phone 8.1 article is very likely to expand significantly after it is released to users. Chmarkine (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article is already as meaty as Windows Phone 8 and has a lot more content still to be added once the official SDK is released to developers two weeks from now. The gigantic number of feature additions alone (Cortana, Quiet Hours, Battery/Wifi Sense, VPN, notification center, third row of live tiles, completely different app framework (APPX as opposed to XAP), redesigned Windows Phone Store, redesigned calendar app, support for separate volume controls, swipe down to close app, sterescopic 3D, full DLNA, ability to connect WP to a monitor, universal search, on screen buttons, file system, and even more, make this an entirely new operating system. There are more feature additions here than iOS7 and Windows 8.1 (which has its own article). Also, cramming all the information from the WP8.1 article (which already has nearly 20kB of information as of 4-4-14) into the WP8 article would make it unwieldy and hard to navigate through. Microsoft has also publicly called WP8.1 "the next version of Windows Phone" in many press releases and leaks. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support At least, sort of. I acknowledge the fact that Windows Phone 8.1 has MANY new features but as I pointed out in the very Talk page of the Windows Phone 8.1 article, Windows Phone 7.1 (marketed as Windows Phone 7.5) was if not huger, at least as huge as Windows Phone 8.1. Windows 8.1 DOES contain as many features as Windows Phone 8.1, a look at the SDK changes is enough to warrant the fact. In fact, it contains even more changes. However, I believe the number of changes is secondary. In the case of iOS versions, it is a SEPARATE version of iOS which has been acknowledged by Apple Inc. as a separate one. The issue ends there, and it has its own article. In case of Windows, things are very transparent. Windows Vista is Windows NT 6.0, Windows 7, the clearly next version, is Windows NT 6.1, Windows 8 is Windows NT 6.2, and Windows 8.1 is Windows NT 6.3. The pattern shows that Microsoft has granted Windows 8.1 the status of a separate version of Windows. I believe your views about Windows Phone 8.1 being a huger update than Windows 8.1 are fallacious, EndlessCoffee54. We do not take into consideration the number of features already present. The number of new features is not expressed as a percentage of existing ones, but taken in absolute numbers, in which case, Windows 8.1's clearly outweigh Windows Phone 8.1's. I'll mention some of them if needed. Please check out my list of Windows Phone 7.1 features in the Windows Phone 8.1 talk page. Please note that I'm not strictly against Windows Phone 8.1 having its own article, but if so, Windows Phone 7.1 too should have one. Prayaas A. {talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you check Microsoft's changelog, I think you'll see that the number of core changes made in Windows Phone 8.1 match or exceed those made to Windows 8.1. I concede that WP 7.5 is a major update, and am completely open to the idea (and I think others would be too) of WP7.5 having its own article, considering it was reviewed by the press as a separate OS. The reason a WP7.5 article doesn't exist is because back in 2011 there was just one article on Windows Phone as a whole (the stuff on Windows Phone 7.5 was just added to that article). When WP8 was released, I made a new page for WP7 and WP8, and converted the original Windows Phone page to talk about the OS family as a whole. I neglected to make a page for WP7.5 (and in retrospect, I should have done this). But that is a different discussion, we are discussing WP8.1 here. We also need to follow precedent: multiple point-release versions of Windows Mobile, with much fewer feature additions, have their own articles. Using a more current example, Windows 8.1 has its own article. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Because Windows 8.1 is a major milestone. The Windows Phone article is about WP in general so it seems acceptable to summarize 8.1 and then link to this article. Robert Sundström (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I just read WPCentral's review and it's definitely more meaty than I expected. I'm changing my vote and withdrawing the proposal. Zero Serenity (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Misinformation about shift to NT kernel
Quoting from Development History, "On June 20, 2012, Microsoft unveiled Windows Phone 8 (codenamed Apollo), a second generation of the Windows Phone operating system for release later in 2012. Windows Phone 8 replaces its previously Windows CE-based architecture with one based on the Windows NT kernel (with many components shared with Windows 8), allowing developers to easily port applications between the two platforms." I do not believe that the kernel has anything to do with apps. In Windows Phone, all apps run on a high level framework with managed code. The move to the NT kernel was a part of the final objective of Microsoft to unify the Windows and Windows Phone operating systems completely. A CE based Windows Phone could also share framework components with Windows 8 and allow porting of apps. A simple removal of parentheses around "with many components shared with Windows 8" fixes the problem because it will mean that Windows Phone 8 and not the kernel shares the components. Additionally, line 1 of this section calls Windows Phone 8 the second generation, while the first line of the article refers to it as the third. I have edited the section appropriately, and anyone is free to revert. Please be sure to give an argument here, though. I have one more problem with this entire section. It still talks of Windows Phone 8 as if it was unreleased yet. It says, "the four 'confirmed' screen sizes", "...Windows Phone 8 'WILL'..." etc. --Prayaas A. (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Metro or Modern?
The first paragraph says it features the Modern UI. I do not believe Microsoft has ever officially used the term "Modern UI" in context of Windows Phone. They simply stopped using Metro, and only Windows 8 apps were briefly called Modern Apps. --Prayaas A. (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen both used interchangeably on Wikipedia articles. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Porting and comparing e.g. to Android.
"Native code support (C++), allows for simplified porting from platforms such as Android, Symbian, and iOS." I guess what is meant, is that without "native code support" (not too familiar w/Microsofts alternative development environment) porting might be just impossible? And is C++ really helping (that much)? Android uses Java as a native language (and iOS uses Objective-C then Swift as main language) and you would also need to recreate/remap many APIs? What is being done and how successful is this porting? Aren't most Android apps NOT ported to WP? Is this mostly helping to port from WP? That is, to help make WP apps that are cross-platform, as Android can also use C++ with the NDK.

I found another mention of Android, but maybe saying it here that Android is most popular and WP third? after iOS is justified.. comp.arch (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * WikiBlame shows this claim was present in this article from Day 1 (Special:Diff/497836286/next) and never had a source. It has probably come right out of a Microsoft advertisement. In addition to what you explained, software development with C++ is a nightmare; there is nothing simplified about it.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 03:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Update Vs. G.D.R.
I've noticed the change in the naming up the updates, most notably that they were retroactively changed, officially the first 2 G.D.R.'s were not called either "update 1" nor "Update 2" in fact when Update 3 came out it was notable that it wasn't going to be released as "G.D.R. 3" as you can read here, and Wikipedia often doesn't retroactively rebrand articles simply because the company does it an example could be how Microsoft rebranded Windows Mobile 5 and Windows Mobile 6 to "Windows Phone 5" and "Windows Phone 6" as you could see here. I'd suggest changing the names back to their original state. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)