This page was proposed for deletion by Codename Lisa (talk · contribs) on 11 August 2012 with the comment: Lack of Wikipedia Notability It was contested by czarkoff (talk · contribs) on 11 August 2012 with the comment: This article is tightly connected to Merge (software); these two should either be merged or deleted in AfD process.

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 November 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Software: Computing This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

There's duplicate information in this article and the merge article. Should it be merged into the merge article? Family Guy Guy (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Surely there are many more copies of Win4Lin out there (including mine) than there are of SCO-Merge. So no! Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree it deserves to be a separate article as it's too far removed from the DOS Merge. I can't find any reviews of SCO Merge 4, which has/had Windows 95 capability apparently. I've pruned some the detailed pre-Win4Lin history info which was duplicating the Merge article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This page needs some clarification about the various Win4Lin products. Looking at the history section, it seems there was more than one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I think I've managed to know a bit of sense into that section. Presumably they had only one product early on and they diversified later given how older sources talk about it relative to the newer ones. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Computerworld appears to have decayed a fair bit. I'm not sure if that was a staff review or not, or if they even have a staff anymore, because the end of that page has: "Read more of the Bushong Chronicles from the Computerworld Operating Systems Community pages". Anyway, a review claiming performance advantages (one way or the other) with zero benchmarks shown or even mentioning how it tested is hardly a WP:RS. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, if it's fully virtualized how did use the Linux file system?? I'm guessing the fully virtualized "Pro" product was added later and the 2000-2002 sources aren't talking about that one. Anyway, almost all sources are of such low quality that it's impossible to make heads or tails of this: howto-ish books and bloggish columns. Not a single serious product review. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply