![]() | Windows RT has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 26, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Windows RT is SEPARATE from Windows 8, and should have its own page. Many people rely on Wikipedia, and many are confused about the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8. We need this page to help people who need information about the differences of Windows 8 and Windows RT. Bombeano ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is important to note that while Windows RT is being developed concurrently with Windows 8, it is not Windows 8 or an edition of Windows 8. Microsoft clearly states in the announcement blog that Windows RT is a new line of product in the Windows family.
This should be looked as Windows Server is looked at, even though Windows Server shares huge amounts of code from it's client counterpart. Furthermore, With Windows "9", We will likely have a release 2 of Windows RT, rather than "Windows 9 RT".
I will argue that Windows RT should be a section in the Windows 8 article, but under the section heading, it should have "Windows RT: Main Article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete this article. Windows in and of itself is a significant global topic. A new iteration of the OS, or a new deployment of Windows technology is a keeper. 203.83.51.37 ( talk) 09:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't find it anywhere. Can anyone help? Fletcherbrian ( talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the uncited claim that "RT" stands for "Runtime". This recent article directly contradicts the claim that RT = Runtime, and another recent column by John Dvorak leaves him also scratching his head. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe RT stands for RISC Technology, since ARM means Acorn RISC Machine. Mikael4u ( talk) 13:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Is WinRT a Windows 8 replacement for WinCE? Like how Win8 is a replacement for W2k-interface-descended systems (2k, XP, Vista, 7) ? Or does WinRT fit between WinCE and full-Windows (Win8, Win7) 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I added the windows store/walled garden aspect of RT some time ago, and this was deleted by ViperSnake. I have put it back. It is a major strategic change for Microsoft. (Also tiedied up a bit. It is of course possible to port x86 apps to Windows RT, but they will have to be modified to follow RT's rules.) Tuntable ( talk) 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
User:ViperSnake151 has been reverting the edits without any discussion here. I have reinstated them agsin. They also had deleted a cricisim section, which I have not reviewed but at least some of which should probably be added back.
It looks like the beginning of another tedious edit war, sigh. Others please comment. Tuntable ( talk) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, first of all lets start with the basics. If you disagree with another user about an article you discuss it politely in the talk. You do not just go on a mad edit war. Personally I do not much care about Windows RT one way or the other, but I do very much care about ugly behaviour on Wikipedia.
As to the issue itself, my understanding is that Windows RT will only run applications that have been downloaded from the App Store. That makes it quite unlike any other Microsoft operating system which have been quite open in that regard. To say that that should not be stated in the article is, I believe, unjustifiable.
I also did not make that a criticism, but pointed out that it could improve security. But its certainly a characteristic of Windows RT and not the store that Windows RT will not run anything except from the store.
So I suggest that you pull your head in a bit, and respect the work of others. Add your other contributions back in, but leave the Windows Store bit alone. And then come back here to discuss the issue properly. Tuntable ( talk) 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you ViperSnake for being so magnanimous in your recent edits. I have tidied it up a bit, put back a few references, and I hope we are done. I still think it contains quite a lot of weasil words that could be removed, but it is OK. I'll also add back the bit about the walled garden potentially improving security which I think you would like.
And getting other people to view a disputed page in an edit war is exactly the right thing to do. As to owing this page, I never really want to see it again, unless it gets reverted again. Tuntable ( talk) 08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the walled garden aspect of RT should be a seperate para or (sub-)section. It does not belong in the criticism section because this was a very conscious choice and MS has both been praised and criticized for this decision.
Andries (
talk) 11:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I think it is quite okay now.
Andries (
talk)
13:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 suggested that there were some copyright issues with the article, without providing details. Sounds likes bluster, but if there are any issues please provide details so that they can be dealt with. Tuntable ( talk) 23:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlike other windows o/s Windows RT will only run apps from the app store. Does this warrant a sentence in the header and paragraph in the body. Or is it a very minor issue that should not be mentioned or be burried in paragraphs conataining other matter. Would mentioning this promenantly be NPOV, or would hiding it completely be NPOV?
Note that we are not saying whether it is good or not. Just whether the fact can be stated at all.
Disputed sentence in intro is
And in the body is
Are thes POV, or would removing them be POV? (Note that the actual article is flipping back and forward at the moment, so comments as to "the current state" are hard to interpret.)
What about the advantage of Windows RT that there are no viruses and due to the walled garden there will likely be no viruses. Andries ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The jailbreak exploit paragraph contains some factual inaccuracies.
1) The exploit used wasn't discovered in January, it was discovered in 2008, and later elaborated on in 2011 by j00ru, see
http://j00ru.vexillium.org/?p=1393#more-1393. The actual byte that is changed using the exploit was reverse engineered(discovered) by clrokr in January 2013. It's interesting to note that the exploit used was reported to Microsoft almost 5 years ago and remained unpatched because it wasn't considered to be maliciously exploitable, since it requires administrator privlidiges and is only an admin->kernel EoP.
2) While a debugger is used in the exploit the article incorrectly states that the debugger itself is changing the memory values. The debugger is injecting some code into a user-mode process (CSRSS) to exploit a kernel-mode vulnerability that allows us to decrement an arbitrary (word-aligned) memory value by 1. The initial writeup called it 0x80000 times to decrement the byte desired to 0, the jailbreak tool calls it 0x7EFF0 times, to still decrement it to 0 but avoid a bugcheck that is called when the entire word is 0. See
http://surfsec.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/circumventing-windows-rts-code-integrity-mechanism/ for more information on the technicalities behind the jailbreak.
I've also added a link to the jailbreak tool back to the references, even though it was removed as a forum post. I feel that it is within the rules governing forum posts since it is the official distribution channel of the jailbreak tool (and the only place that I post updates and whatnot), and since I wrote the tool that the entire paragraph talks about it would be silly not to consider me an expert and invalidate it as a source.
Edit: The rules I was sent to were Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources which state that for a non-living biography a forum post or second-hand post by an established expert is valid, which is exactly what that forum post is.
Netham45 ( talk) 05:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
"modifying the signing level stored in RAM using a debugger."
modifying the signing level stored in RAM. According to Microsoft's statement to CNET, it needs [...]"
Also, I would not say that they have indicated that it -will- be patched, the quote from Microsoft I believe says something more along the lines of they won't guarantee it'll stay around, which to me says that they won't actively work to preserve the exploit; if something breaks it so be it. The original source should be on TheNextWeb. Netham45 ( talk) 23:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
there must be estimates somewhere. should e reference them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.152.151 ( talk) 04:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
RT (Run Time) is NOT an ARM OS. It is ONLY a Window Shell that runs the XAML and HTML5 functionality required for the Windows 8 'Metro' interface. It does not support Win32 Windows function calls and does not support Native Mode (hence not Win32 functionality). This article is no more accurate than calling Enlightenment or Gnome a Linux Distribution. Shjacks45 ( talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The chapter about Windows_RT#Development was scrubbed because "it did not related on the subject". I fail to see why. I came to the Windows RT article because I wanted to have information about developing on Windows RT, and I saw nothing, so I created this after researching sources. I have no problem on putting it on another article specific about developing on Windows Rt rather than in this one, but for the moment there is not enough material to do that. Besides, there is a development chapter for all of the major Operating systems, including mobile ones like iOS and Android. Hervegirod ( talk) 15:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bonkers The Clown ( talk · contribs) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
==Comments by the Clown==
I will review this article. Cheers, ☯
Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/
Nonsensical Babble ☯
04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 25, 2013, compares against the
six good article criteria:
I have taken over the GA review of this article.
Andrew
327
13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). Several small fixes needed, but nothing serious.
(Andrew). Looks good. ✓ Pass Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). The article is sufficiently broad. ✓ Pass Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). More small suggestions:
No edit wars. Good.
(Andrew). Despite the volume of substantive edits over the past month, the article has remained sufficiently stable. ✓ Pass. Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). All images are appropriately tagged, but it would be nice to have higher quality on both. Not grounds for a GA fail by any means. ✓ Pass Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
More to come. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It has been over a month since anything has been posted to this page. There have been a number of edits to the article in the past month. What is the status of the review, please? Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to pick up this review since it has been over a month without an update. Although I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait for consensus. Andrew 327 02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article is very close to meeting GA criteria and I see no reason why it couldn't pass within 24 hours. Let me know if you have any questions. Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The reviews are as complete as they are going to get at this point, so I'm closing and passing. Wizardman 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that necessary to mention? It's a very trivial thing to say. An x86 emulator may run all x86 operating system, no need to say which one they tried first. SilverEzhik ( talk) 21:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The XDA-Developers website is the home of these jailbreak-type exploits. From my reading of WP:SPS, it seems the site can indeed be used:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ✓
it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); ✓
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; ✓
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; ✓ (the site is cited by the other sources in the section; screenshots and software downloads prove this isn't a dubious article)
the article is not based primarily on such sources. ✓
Regards
-- RaviC ( talk) 18:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As the edit history shows, there has been an WP:EDIT WAR on the fact that Windows 10 Mobile (or the PC Windows 10) is a (or the) successor to Windows RT and/or Windows Phone. Before the semi-protection expires, let's see if we can reach a consensus below!
(Please note also the following WP:GAR)
This page has recently been subjected to edit warring concerning whether Windows RT is succeeded by Windows 10 or Windows 10 Mobile. Hence the article no longer meets the stable criterion of GACR, justifying delisting from WP:GA. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 19:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll kick it off... Windows 10 Mobile should be considered a de facto successor to Windows RT as it is a mobile-oriented OS designed for tablets and smartphones, which are considered mobile devices (more specifically mobile computers) by definition.
As far as I can tell these are 2 completely different platforms used on 2 completely different form factors and Windows CE is more of an under the hood operating system while Windows RT is consumer client software, and I've searched it and couldn't find any source that state that Windows RT is the successor to Windows CE. -- Cookie Nguyen ( talk) 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Do not let yourself get confused by this. Windows 10 desktop OS IS the direct successor to Windows RT. It just happens to have an emulation layer that Windows RT didn't have that lets it run x86 apps. It also doesn't block installation of apps from outside the Windows Store. Finally, it has multiple editions like its x86 counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's make this very simple, okay? Windows 10 on x86 is the next version of Windows 8.x on x86. Windows 10 on ARM is the next version of Windows 8.x on ARM. Any questions? Any confusions?
Still in doubt? Let's try this: addition of a new feature for a succeeding version is normal. Windows 10 on x86 has features Windows 8 on x86 doesn't have, such as TaskView. Windows 10 on ARM has features Windows 8 on ARM didn't have, such as an emulation layer.
Still confused? Fine, one here's another: Just because you can't directly upgrade to a newer version doesn't mean it's not a successor. Have you heard of Windows Phone 8 having no upgrade path from Windows Phone 7? No one doubts that Windows Phone 8 is a successor, do they? Windows RT is no different.
Still not convinced? Okay, finally, a name change doesn't mean it's not a successor. iOS 3 is the successor to iPhone OS 2. Different names, but so what. Windows 10 is the successor to Windows RT. Different names, but so what.
Any questions?
-- NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"Windows 10 on ARM is the next version of Windows 8.x on ARM."
At the time of the Lumia 2520 release, the MS acquisition of Nokia's mobile business had been announced, but not yet completed. The latter took until in 2014. I corrected this in the article. Mottenkiste ( talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Please reupload the images to the English Wikipedia and adapt them to meet the non-free and fair use criteria. These images are currently on Commons, where they are not allowed as they are of copyrighted software. There is a deletion discussion. Thank you! -- 93.42.65.133 ( talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Windows RT has been listed as one of the
Engineering and technology good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: September 26, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Windows RT is SEPARATE from Windows 8, and should have its own page. Many people rely on Wikipedia, and many are confused about the difference between Windows RT and Windows 8. We need this page to help people who need information about the differences of Windows 8 and Windows RT. Bombeano ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It is important to note that while Windows RT is being developed concurrently with Windows 8, it is not Windows 8 or an edition of Windows 8. Microsoft clearly states in the announcement blog that Windows RT is a new line of product in the Windows family.
This should be looked as Windows Server is looked at, even though Windows Server shares huge amounts of code from it's client counterpart. Furthermore, With Windows "9", We will likely have a release 2 of Windows RT, rather than "Windows 9 RT".
I will argue that Windows RT should be a section in the Windows 8 article, but under the section heading, it should have "Windows RT: Main Article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs ( talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete this article. Windows in and of itself is a significant global topic. A new iteration of the OS, or a new deployment of Windows technology is a keeper. 203.83.51.37 ( talk) 09:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't find it anywhere. Can anyone help? Fletcherbrian ( talk) 11:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the uncited claim that "RT" stands for "Runtime". This recent article directly contradicts the claim that RT = Runtime, and another recent column by John Dvorak leaves him also scratching his head. -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe RT stands for RISC Technology, since ARM means Acorn RISC Machine. Mikael4u ( talk) 13:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Is WinRT a Windows 8 replacement for WinCE? Like how Win8 is a replacement for W2k-interface-descended systems (2k, XP, Vista, 7) ? Or does WinRT fit between WinCE and full-Windows (Win8, Win7) 70.49.127.65 ( talk) 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I added the windows store/walled garden aspect of RT some time ago, and this was deleted by ViperSnake. I have put it back. It is a major strategic change for Microsoft. (Also tiedied up a bit. It is of course possible to port x86 apps to Windows RT, but they will have to be modified to follow RT's rules.) Tuntable ( talk) 02:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
User:ViperSnake151 has been reverting the edits without any discussion here. I have reinstated them agsin. They also had deleted a cricisim section, which I have not reviewed but at least some of which should probably be added back.
It looks like the beginning of another tedious edit war, sigh. Others please comment. Tuntable ( talk) 02:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, first of all lets start with the basics. If you disagree with another user about an article you discuss it politely in the talk. You do not just go on a mad edit war. Personally I do not much care about Windows RT one way or the other, but I do very much care about ugly behaviour on Wikipedia.
As to the issue itself, my understanding is that Windows RT will only run applications that have been downloaded from the App Store. That makes it quite unlike any other Microsoft operating system which have been quite open in that regard. To say that that should not be stated in the article is, I believe, unjustifiable.
I also did not make that a criticism, but pointed out that it could improve security. But its certainly a characteristic of Windows RT and not the store that Windows RT will not run anything except from the store.
So I suggest that you pull your head in a bit, and respect the work of others. Add your other contributions back in, but leave the Windows Store bit alone. And then come back here to discuss the issue properly. Tuntable ( talk) 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, thank you ViperSnake for being so magnanimous in your recent edits. I have tidied it up a bit, put back a few references, and I hope we are done. I still think it contains quite a lot of weasil words that could be removed, but it is OK. I'll also add back the bit about the walled garden potentially improving security which I think you would like.
And getting other people to view a disputed page in an edit war is exactly the right thing to do. As to owing this page, I never really want to see it again, unless it gets reverted again. Tuntable ( talk) 08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think the walled garden aspect of RT should be a seperate para or (sub-)section. It does not belong in the criticism section because this was a very conscious choice and MS has both been praised and criticized for this decision.
Andries (
talk) 11:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC) I think it is quite okay now.
Andries (
talk)
13:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 suggested that there were some copyright issues with the article, without providing details. Sounds likes bluster, but if there are any issues please provide details so that they can be dealt with. Tuntable ( talk) 23:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlike other windows o/s Windows RT will only run apps from the app store. Does this warrant a sentence in the header and paragraph in the body. Or is it a very minor issue that should not be mentioned or be burried in paragraphs conataining other matter. Would mentioning this promenantly be NPOV, or would hiding it completely be NPOV?
Note that we are not saying whether it is good or not. Just whether the fact can be stated at all.
Disputed sentence in intro is
And in the body is
Are thes POV, or would removing them be POV? (Note that the actual article is flipping back and forward at the moment, so comments as to "the current state" are hard to interpret.)
What about the advantage of Windows RT that there are no viruses and due to the walled garden there will likely be no viruses. Andries ( talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The jailbreak exploit paragraph contains some factual inaccuracies.
1) The exploit used wasn't discovered in January, it was discovered in 2008, and later elaborated on in 2011 by j00ru, see
http://j00ru.vexillium.org/?p=1393#more-1393. The actual byte that is changed using the exploit was reverse engineered(discovered) by clrokr in January 2013. It's interesting to note that the exploit used was reported to Microsoft almost 5 years ago and remained unpatched because it wasn't considered to be maliciously exploitable, since it requires administrator privlidiges and is only an admin->kernel EoP.
2) While a debugger is used in the exploit the article incorrectly states that the debugger itself is changing the memory values. The debugger is injecting some code into a user-mode process (CSRSS) to exploit a kernel-mode vulnerability that allows us to decrement an arbitrary (word-aligned) memory value by 1. The initial writeup called it 0x80000 times to decrement the byte desired to 0, the jailbreak tool calls it 0x7EFF0 times, to still decrement it to 0 but avoid a bugcheck that is called when the entire word is 0. See
http://surfsec.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/circumventing-windows-rts-code-integrity-mechanism/ for more information on the technicalities behind the jailbreak.
I've also added a link to the jailbreak tool back to the references, even though it was removed as a forum post. I feel that it is within the rules governing forum posts since it is the official distribution channel of the jailbreak tool (and the only place that I post updates and whatnot), and since I wrote the tool that the entire paragraph talks about it would be silly not to consider me an expert and invalidate it as a source.
Edit: The rules I was sent to were Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources which state that for a non-living biography a forum post or second-hand post by an established expert is valid, which is exactly what that forum post is.
Netham45 ( talk) 05:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
"modifying the signing level stored in RAM using a debugger."
modifying the signing level stored in RAM. According to Microsoft's statement to CNET, it needs [...]"
Also, I would not say that they have indicated that it -will- be patched, the quote from Microsoft I believe says something more along the lines of they won't guarantee it'll stay around, which to me says that they won't actively work to preserve the exploit; if something breaks it so be it. The original source should be on TheNextWeb. Netham45 ( talk) 23:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
there must be estimates somewhere. should e reference them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.152.151 ( talk) 04:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
RT (Run Time) is NOT an ARM OS. It is ONLY a Window Shell that runs the XAML and HTML5 functionality required for the Windows 8 'Metro' interface. It does not support Win32 Windows function calls and does not support Native Mode (hence not Win32 functionality). This article is no more accurate than calling Enlightenment or Gnome a Linux Distribution. Shjacks45 ( talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
The chapter about Windows_RT#Development was scrubbed because "it did not related on the subject". I fail to see why. I came to the Windows RT article because I wanted to have information about developing on Windows RT, and I saw nothing, so I created this after researching sources. I have no problem on putting it on another article specific about developing on Windows Rt rather than in this one, but for the moment there is not enough material to do that. Besides, there is a development chapter for all of the major Operating systems, including mobile ones like iOS and Android. Hervegirod ( talk) 15:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Bonkers The Clown ( talk · contribs) 04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
==Comments by the Clown==
I will review this article. Cheers, ☯
Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/
Nonsensical Babble ☯
04:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of June 25, 2013, compares against the
six good article criteria:
I have taken over the GA review of this article.
Andrew
327
13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). Several small fixes needed, but nothing serious.
(Andrew). Looks good. ✓ Pass Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). The article is sufficiently broad. ✓ Pass Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). More small suggestions:
No edit wars. Good.
(Andrew). Despite the volume of substantive edits over the past month, the article has remained sufficiently stable. ✓ Pass. Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
(Andrew). All images are appropriately tagged, but it would be nice to have higher quality on both. Not grounds for a GA fail by any means. ✓ Pass Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
More to come. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It has been over a month since anything has been posted to this page. There have been a number of edits to the article in the past month. What is the status of the review, please? Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 15:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be happy to pick up this review since it has been over a month without an update. Although I don't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'll wait for consensus. Andrew 327 02:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The article is very close to meeting GA criteria and I see no reason why it couldn't pass within 24 hours. Let me know if you have any questions. Andrew 327 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The reviews are as complete as they are going to get at this point, so I'm closing and passing. Wizardman 21:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that necessary to mention? It's a very trivial thing to say. An x86 emulator may run all x86 operating system, no need to say which one they tried first. SilverEzhik ( talk) 21:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The XDA-Developers website is the home of these jailbreak-type exploits. From my reading of WP:SPS, it seems the site can indeed be used:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; ✓
it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); ✓
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; ✓
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; ✓ (the site is cited by the other sources in the section; screenshots and software downloads prove this isn't a dubious article)
the article is not based primarily on such sources. ✓
Regards
-- RaviC ( talk) 18:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As the edit history shows, there has been an WP:EDIT WAR on the fact that Windows 10 Mobile (or the PC Windows 10) is a (or the) successor to Windows RT and/or Windows Phone. Before the semi-protection expires, let's see if we can reach a consensus below!
(Please note also the following WP:GAR)
This page has recently been subjected to edit warring concerning whether Windows RT is succeeded by Windows 10 or Windows 10 Mobile. Hence the article no longer meets the stable criterion of GACR, justifying delisting from WP:GA. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> ( talk) 19:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll kick it off... Windows 10 Mobile should be considered a de facto successor to Windows RT as it is a mobile-oriented OS designed for tablets and smartphones, which are considered mobile devices (more specifically mobile computers) by definition.
As far as I can tell these are 2 completely different platforms used on 2 completely different form factors and Windows CE is more of an under the hood operating system while Windows RT is consumer client software, and I've searched it and couldn't find any source that state that Windows RT is the successor to Windows CE. -- Cookie Nguyen ( talk) 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Do not let yourself get confused by this. Windows 10 desktop OS IS the direct successor to Windows RT. It just happens to have an emulation layer that Windows RT didn't have that lets it run x86 apps. It also doesn't block installation of apps from outside the Windows Store. Finally, it has multiple editions like its x86 counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NazmusLabs ( talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's make this very simple, okay? Windows 10 on x86 is the next version of Windows 8.x on x86. Windows 10 on ARM is the next version of Windows 8.x on ARM. Any questions? Any confusions?
Still in doubt? Let's try this: addition of a new feature for a succeeding version is normal. Windows 10 on x86 has features Windows 8 on x86 doesn't have, such as TaskView. Windows 10 on ARM has features Windows 8 on ARM didn't have, such as an emulation layer.
Still confused? Fine, one here's another: Just because you can't directly upgrade to a newer version doesn't mean it's not a successor. Have you heard of Windows Phone 8 having no upgrade path from Windows Phone 7? No one doubts that Windows Phone 8 is a successor, do they? Windows RT is no different.
Still not convinced? Okay, finally, a name change doesn't mean it's not a successor. iOS 3 is the successor to iPhone OS 2. Different names, but so what. Windows 10 is the successor to Windows RT. Different names, but so what.
Any questions?
-- NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) ( talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
"Windows 10 on ARM is the next version of Windows 8.x on ARM."
At the time of the Lumia 2520 release, the MS acquisition of Nokia's mobile business had been announced, but not yet completed. The latter took until in 2014. I corrected this in the article. Mottenkiste ( talk) 22:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Please reupload the images to the English Wikipedia and adapt them to meet the non-free and fair use criteria. These images are currently on Commons, where they are not allowed as they are of copyrighted software. There is a deletion discussion. Thank you! -- 93.42.65.133 ( talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)