Template talk:Windows 10 versions

Update table to paint to full story
Currently, this table acts as if 1507 is out of support, which it isn't. 1507 is still supported until 2025, while 1607 will be supported until 2026. Therefor, I propose the table to be altered to show a column for when LTSC support is dropped as well, as currently, it is spreading misinformation.

This additionally adds Redstone 4 as previews for it started on 26 July 2017 with build 16251, and unlike User:Hayman30's claim in the page history, 16251 is in fact a Redstone 4 build. Build 16251.0 from rs3_release is an Redstone 3 build, 16251.1000 from rs_prerelease is a Redstone 4 build. Because they have the same build number does not mean that it is the same release, it isn't. Additionally, this adds in version 1709 and 1803 as these version are already being used, and we are already aware of version 1809, 1903 and 1909 as well in the form of Redstone 5, 6 and 7. --YannickFran (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Hayman30 please stop undoing information based on your own believes. They aren't factually correct and the table claiming that 1507 is out of support is misleading, heck, it's incorrect. LTSC column should be here, this is valuable information. And Redstone 5, 6 and 7 are planned, I don't care that you believe that it only goes to Redstone 4, the facts are that it isn't. Redstone 5 will land next year, and 2019 will see 6 and 7. --YannickFran (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

do you have a reference for the LTSC support versions and dates? I can't find one that lists them all. Lonaowna (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, sorry! I didn't realize they were just on the regular support site. Lonaowna (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss first?
You're the one who initially made these edits and were later reverted, but you restored them and again and again, I wonder who should discuss first, but I don't want to argue on that and there would be no point to do so. What I'm trying to do now is to resolve the edit conflict. "...the table does not reflect proper support dates", yes it does, the usage of LTSB/LTSC outside of "special-purpose devices" is officially discouraged and thus does not count as one of the "mainstream consumer branches". Adding the LTSC is purely your personal preference and liking as far I can tell. "...that note does not contain any valuable information", yes it does, now. I've reworded it to "contain more valuable information", check it out. "Redstone plans have been known to exist for at least RS7", not supported by a reliable source and is merely speculation at this point. Now that there's (what I would consider as) a "valuable note", no misinformation, I hope this will end up being a win-win situation. If you're still not satisfied, please talk first. Do not attempt to restore your LTSC column again without any sort of discussion, I don't want this edit war to continue. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 14:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also removed 1809 since it's very poorly sourced. A tweet from Walking Cat? You could definitely add it back if you've got a more reliable source. And "15245 is not a Redstone 3 build, it's still the Redstone 2 codebase" is unsourced and purely based on your own knowledge. Microsoft never made any sort of announcement about this. Hayman30 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LTSB builds are only available in Windows 10 Enterprise, but I do know some companies that are using them for systems that need to be stable and run a long time. I think it does make sense to add it as a column, but maybe make it more clear that it's *not* for regular versions of the operating system (e.g., Enterprise LTSB Support Expires)S-1-5-7 (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you like to elaborate on how it make sense? You just said that you know it's not for regular consumers. I personally think the note is more than enough to express the idea. Hayman30 (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LTSBs are an important part of Windows and one of the key changes they made when turning Windows into more of a software-as-a-service/rapid development model. This is much more mainstream than patches that were available for Windows XP until recently (maybe still available?), since those are only available with custom contracts from Microsoft (and may only be available depending upon the individual contract.) Adding them gives a more complete picture of how Microsoft is supporting/supported (since this document will live on) Windows 10.S-1-5-7 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ho? So for any edit anyone does, we first need to make a whole discussion about it? I need to come first ask permission from you? Is this your personal page? Since when is that a rule on Wikipedia? I don't care whether or not LTSC is not a "mainstream consumer branch", why does that matter? Quantum fysics is not something that "mainstream consumers" care about either yet there is plenty information about it on Wikipedia, why is it not being for mainstream consumers and it being discouraged an argument for acting as if it doesn't exist at all. How you keep changing it was just factually wrong. Removing LTSC is purely your personal preference and liking as far as I can tell. Also, I like how you say that this is my "personal preference and liking" and yet you seem to be just fine making up your own words for it, 'WIPB' isn't a thing (hence why I've removed this incorrect information). LTSC releases are despite their low use and important part of Windows, but S-1-5-7 already tried to explain that to you. And yes, Microsoft does discourage its use by consumers (because the license doesn't even allow consumers to own this normally), but it encourages it for systems that it is designed for. Microsoft also discourages usage of Windows 8 and lower, shall we remove those articles as well? And if you really believe that this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia, perhaps you should also go to the main article about Microsoft Windows and remove the "extended support" column from that table as well, because why should that one remain and this one not?
 * The Windows 10 Mobile builds in the 152xx-series are not Redstone 3. If they where, the build number wouldn't be different from those for PC. There is a reason for why Mobile did not jump from the Redstone 2-build range: because it still is Redstone 2. There is a reason why websites like Buildfeed and ChangeWindows keep listing these builds under "Redstone 2".
 * https://www.windowscentral.com/microsofts-plan-windows-10-mobile-and-existing-phones
 * https://buildfeed.net/ (look at the name they have put above Mobile builds)
 * https://changewindows.org/milestone/redstone2/mobile
 * I can throw a bunch of reliable sources in here that will tell you that 152xx is Redstone 2 (altough WC, BF and CW should already tell you more than enough). You say that Microsoft never said that 152xx is Redstone 2, so I would like to see you provide a source where Microsoft says that 152xx is Redstone 3, good luck with that.
 * And finally, I'm also glad that you're calling a document from Microsoft an "unreliable source", doesn't matter that h0d0x is the one who put it out there, it matters where it came from. If any source that isn't first party is not acceptable according to you, whe might as well throw the whole idea of Wikipedia out of the window. Having said that, I don't believe version 1809 already needs to be included.
 * Anyways, I'm restoring this until there has been a proper discussion as well as marking 16281 as a current preview, it's not an "old release that is still supported", right now it is even more recent than the current Redstone 4 preview.
 * And now you don't have to come blame me for not going into discussion. I made changes because the table was factually incorrect, you reverted them without discussion, I restored the correct information again and requested discussion over a month ago, you ignored that. You are the one who keeps reverting changes without discussing them. Don't blame me for your mistakes.--YannickFran (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

1511 unsupported
please explain why this is wrong. I can't see any mention about it on this talk page. Lonaowna (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you mean that 1511 is still supported in the LTSC, but that is not true. There is no LTSC-variant of 1511. Like the table says in the LTSC column: "N/A". Lonaowna (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Build 10240
when the support will end ? --Panam2014 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support for both Threshold 1/version 1507 and Threshold 2/version 1511 for consumers has ended.
 * Threshold 1/version 1507 is supported in the Long-Term Support Channel for 10 years after release until October 14, 2025.
 * Threshold 2/version 1511 is not offered in the Long-Term Support Channel and thus is no longer supported since October 10, 2017.
 * Lonaowna (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * and Redstone 2 ? --Panam2014 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Look at the table... Support ends in September 2018. See this page for end of support for updates. Redstone 2 will not be offered in the LTSC. Lonaowna (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

LTSC
About adding "Enterprise" to LTSC,, I think it's necessary, because make possible for people reading the table to understand quickly that the date written there does not apply for their Windows 10 version, only for "Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC". For example, people who have the "1507" or "1607" version could easy see that the LTSC support does not apply to their version, if it's not "Enterprise LTSC"; not even just "Enterprise" has this option.--MisterSanderson (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the home/pro/ent/edu are clear enough. Hayman30 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "support until" columns
To avoid further warring, I suggest that we take out this part of the table and simplify the entire layout. This template was originally meant to only show the current builds. Hayman30 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Seperate PC under "Latest build" to two catergories
Given that some consumer versions of Windows 10 has ended, but the Enterprise versions still being supported and even so for around another 10 years, shouldn't PC be seperated into "Consumer" and "Enterprise" (or something similar, given the correct terms)? Since one would think that a certain old build would be still supported, when it's actually only the Enterprise (or Enterprise LTSC) version of it that's still being supported, with the Home/Pro versions dropped (such as version 1507 and 1607). --Some-username-here1 (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As such, it would look like the table that I have created here, changed directly from the original. --Some-username-here1 (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Fast Ring
This template was created to show all Windows 10 versions. Fast Ring has always been used to test builds of a future release, however Microsoft changed that recently. Fast Ring builds are no longer matched to a specific future release. Because Fast Ring is not a version (it is a release channel, similar to the Semi-Annual Channel or the Long-term Servicing Channel), basically none of the columns in this table applies to it except for "Build", hence it is no longer appropriate to show preview builds in this table. Hayman30 (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Formatting
Please stop uncentering everything. Also, I wasn’t objecting to the colors. SportsFan007 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I overlooked these, thanks for fixing. I was copying from Template:IOS versions. Update: Seems this had it better. Rukario -sama   ^ㅈ^ -(...)  22:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Dev Channel
I'd like to start a discussion on whether or not the Dev channel should be removed from the template. I am of the opinion that it should be maintained because it allows readers to easily see the latest version in the dev channel and this inclusion has a long history of precedent. While it's not technically a "version", it's still a current build of Windows 10, and it's included in Windows 10 version history. I respectfully disagree with the decision to remove the dev builds from the table, but I'm more than willing to consider any opposing viewpoints. Herbfur (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion. As you can see above, I've already started a discussion on this talk page regarding the matter in February of this year, even before Fast Ring was renamed to Dev Channel. But people who kept undoing the didn't seem to bother to contribute to the discussion. Anyway, here's my response to you:
 * it allows readers to easily see the latest version in the dev channel – this template wasn't built for that. The main purpose of this template is to show all versions of Windows 10. Dev Channel (formerly Fast Ring) was added here originally because builds from that channel will eventually become a Windows 10 release in the future. And if you recall, it wasn't labeled as "Fast Ring" back then, but instead it'll be labeled with the upcoming version number, because we know it'll eventually materialize into a full consumer release. However, since the Dev Channel is no longer matched to a specific release, it should not be listed here.
 * this inclusion has a long history of precedent – as I've just explained, the "precedent" was based on that fact that builds from the Dev Channel will eventually become a Windows 10 release. Now that it is no longer true, such precedent no longer holds, and hence should not be implemented simply for sake of preserving the status quo.
 * While it's not technically a "version", it's still a current build of Windows 10 – this template is called "Windows 10 versions", not "Windows 10 builds". People who want to see the latest Dev Channel build should go to Template:Latest preview software release/Windows 10, or for more details, Windows 10 version history. As I've stated before, the idea of this template was to list all Windows 10 versions. Out of all 9 columns in the table, only one column applies to the Dev Channel (the "Build" column), since the Dev Channel doesn't have a version number, codename, marketing name, release date, or EOS dates. This template clearly wasn't designed for it. Hayman30 (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Protection request
Can somebody please protect this template? It keeps getting vandalized by users with no accounts. SportsFan007 (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Users with no accounts where correctly reversing the incorrect information you keep putting back without any argument as to why. --YannickFran (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I second this: had to undo an edit that incorrectly matches date-based release designations with development cycle codenames. These are not the same as 1903/1909 and 2004/20H2/21H1/21H2 share the same development cycle moniker, whereas Windows 10, Windows 11 and Windows Server 2022 releases are to be named (tentatively) 21H2 come from three different branches of codebase: Vibranium, Cobalt and Iron respectively. Talking nerdy, there is a many-to-many relationship between these. I don't have time to substantiate this claim, but I do propose to keep an eye on BetaWiki, e.g. and. Uzzzerrrname (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

LTSC and Extended support
Instead of trying to "protect" the page from "vandalism" (thus forcing everyone to accept a very flawed interpretation of Windows 10 support model), there should be a more constructive discussion about it, hopefully leading to a more accurate and informative article.

1. It's not "vandalism" when someone wants to restore information that used to be always present in the article. If anything, "vandalism" is when someone suddenly tries to redefine it for no reason.

2. Right now LTSC 1507 is marked in red as "Old version, unsupported", which is simply wrong.

3. Mainstream support for 1909 has ended in May, but Enterprise/Education (which currently gets Extended support) is marked in yellow as "Older version, supported". Why shouldn't the same logic apply to LTSC? There is no consistency here.

4. LTSC by design receives only security updates throughout its entire lifespan. For all intents and purposes, there is no difference between Mainstream and Extended support for LTSC. Longer support timeframe is the main reason why LTSC exists, and this fact shouldn't be discounted in the article.

I stand by my statement that this edit (and subsequent attempts to reinstate and protect it) is factually incorrect, misleading, inconsistent in relation to other data in this template, and it should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.178.113 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with your points. --93.44.108.28 (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree too, if LTSC 1507 is not unsupported therefor it is totally wrong to mark it red. It should be vice versa, put (yellow) end date for extended frame there and only add note with end date of mainstream 2001:16B8:2D4:E100:D1AE:196F:7379:70A4 (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who is well-versed in Microsoft's support life cycle policies, allow me:
 * * All the aforementioned points are valid and true, especially the first point.
 * * The split between Mainstream and Extended support for LTSC's are relics from a by-gone era. Windows 10's Modern Life-Cycle Policy has made the distinction redundant, because new features that would usually only come out in the Mainstream Support phase, are now part of a new major version that resets the support life-cycle anyways.
 * * The dates that have been mentioned up to this point are meaningless. There is no difference between the period before and after that date, instead the actual meaningful date is now being hidden in a footnote, obscuring the data.
 * * Watch as websites like ChangeWindows ignore the idea of Mainstream/Extended support entirely: https://changewindows.org/platforms/pc/releases/windows-10.
 * I've moved the mainstream date into the notes (although again, they are entirely irrelevant for Windows 10 and up) and the extended support - the actual EOL dates - back in the table and adjusted the colors accordingly. --YannickFran (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

2021 LTSC (21H2)
Starting with 21H2, regular Windows 10 LTSC will have a shorter 5-year support lifecycle, while Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC will maintain 10 years of support.

IoT LTSC is a binary equivalent to Windows Enterprise, and is also released under "Windows 10" name, so it shouldn't be omitted.

Windows 10 IoT Enterprise LTSC 2021 has gone RTM for OEMs

A separate column for IoT LTSC should be added to this template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.115.191.178 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Or maybe just a note against the LTSC version stating that an IoT LTSC version is also available with a longer support timeframe. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we will end up with supported version (IoT) marked in red, or with unsupported version (regular LTSC) marked in green after 2026. 188.115.191.178 (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The IoT LTSC version doesn't mention "21H2" in the version though. It's called "IoT Enterprise LTSC 2021" so that's another complication. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither does regular LTSC 1809 - its official name is "Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC 2019". But you can still see the version number in the actual OS. And IoT LTSC 2019 also exists, so this is nothing new. 188.115.191.178 (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Updated servicing channel names and added separate columns for LTSC and IoT LTSC. The reason for this has already been stated in the discussion above.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/release-information

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/?terms=iot%20lts 31.31.97.86 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)