Talk:Development of Windows 98

Unofficial development

What about the unofficial development at MSFN.org forums? Can that be included?--Darrelljon (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 Disagree What do we need unofficial information for? This is suppost to be an encyclopedia. Not DeviantArt where you make your own story. User99671 (talk) 04:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh

This could really just be summed up as an organized table or something. The sparse information is spread out pretty thin that it makes this page almost useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.132.165 (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge, nothing to see here

This article is just a list of build numbers and dates. There's nothing about what was actually IN those builds. I see that there are some more mature "Development of" articles for Windows XP, Vista, and 7, but with so little here, I don't believe this article is needed or useful. I suggest merging whatever valuable information there may be into Windows 98, and remove it from the Windows template. The Windows 98 template is also unnecessary at this time. --Vossanova ^o< 19:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Some of the content has been forked to other articles, and should be added to this one. Cleanup, certainly. Merge, no. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree, if we do so, some may complain about the length of article Windows 98. After all, development contains too many details, such as date of every build, which is not necessary in a general article. Alex He Di (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree, the article is better as a stand alone to avoid making Windows 98 cluttersome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree, I think that a full article on the development of Windows 98-plus the rest-will help better understand the subject more without having to scroll down to find the separate article.

Why does the Unofficial Release Matter?

It is not a work of Microsoft's. I don't think it should be included, It also is not relevant to the development of Windows 98.

User99671 (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

As long its labelled unofficial, it is still relevant development of Windows 98.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Windows 9x

I have removed the claim that Windows 9x is what Windows 98 was called during development, Windows 9x refers to all in the 9x Series. (95-Me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User99671 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree

I agree with uh, because all this really is is a bunch of sentences, being let off as a whole new page. The Windows 95 wikipedia page has a chart that this could be eventually. I don't have time to do the charts, but if somebody had time on their hands this could be an hour long project with just using the template that Windows 95 uses.

Best regards, persingern

Persingern (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Moved to a section in Windows 98

Nothing was cleaned up or fixed in this article so I was bold and converted this article to a table, then included it in Windows 98. It doesn't add much in length to the Windows 98 article, which is still shorter than the Windows 95 article. If anything, the section I added could be fleshed out more. I am going to nominate this for deletion since it is no longer needed. ScottSteiner ✍ 07:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)