This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've just updated the table of Hitslink stats with the November numbers. However, they seem to have revised their Linux and Nintendo Wii stats heavily downward for March through October, and recalculated their other numbers accordingly. For instance, Linux went from .81% share last month to a revised .50, while Wii went from .11 to .01%. This actually doesn't affect the Windows (or Mac) numbers that much, but it does feed my reservations about using the Hitslink numbers at all. More on that later... -- Groggy Dice T | C 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose breaking this list (found in the Emulation Software section) into two lists: an API-level emulation list (e.g. Wine), and a OS-level simulation list (e.g. ReactOS). I also propose mentioning machine-level emulation (such as VMware), perhaps linking to the Comparison_of_virtual_machines article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.92.153 ( talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says Windows Server 2008 is in Beta testing, when in fact it has already RTMed.
Reference: [1] 66.175.215.76 ( talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Security section, it mentions Kevin Mitnick doing a study as to the security of Windows, read his article he is obviously bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.68.229 ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Windows 2000 is not listed in the 32bit versions section and should be. It was 32bit NT business-oriented, and therefore belongs in that section. It appears to have been axed while someone was adding the bit about NT4 being the first to have a 95-style GUI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.31.246 ( talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't agree with most of the recent changes by Xpclient and Warren. I've reverted back everything except the removal of the Mergers section, on the following grounds:
While I was at it, I added "VisiOn" to the "See also" section. Perhaps something should be said about it in the History section. -- Groggy Dice T | C 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard that Windows corrupts CMOS memory to slowly reduce perfomance. Is this true? -- Btx40 ( talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In the versions section, Windows 2000 is briefly mentioned in the "Hybrid 16/32 bit" section, but not included in the timeline of development. Is there a reason for this? From my understanding of the history of Microsoft Windows, Windows 2000 would stand between NT 4.0 and XP? -- Danman2012 ( talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, since the next to last column in this table is almost entirely about "Support", wouldn't that make a better column heading than "Notes"?
Second (and the main reason I'm here), since Microsoft now makes it impossible to see all this info on a single page, it'd be nice if this column included the dates on which support for the various versions was ended, rather than just saying "Unsupported". (I'd be bold, but that's not an option since the article is locked. :-) 71.126.118.117 ( talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a reference in an E-book version of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Edition, ISBN 0-7356-1495-4) where Microsoft states in their definition of "Windows" that it was actually first introduced in 1983, rather then 1985. Further research indicates that the 1983 version was a non-final beta, and was reviewed in the December 1983 edition of Byte magazine. ( citation) I was contemplating whether or not a beta version is worth noting in the version history. The Mac OS X Public Beta is noted in the Mac OS X article -- but I'm not sure if that's a reasonable parallel, since I doubt that those early betas of Windows were public, per se. Thoughts? - Zarmanto 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not B class. Mostly unreferenced. Hardly comprehensiveness. Horrible lead. Citations are not formatted correctly. And so on... — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a page for it, I'm wondering if there should be a section in this article for it. Thoughts? Jab416171 ( talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
While we are at it, we should simply include a short section that includes links to the articles, and a link to Microsoft Codenames and any other applicable pages. CompuHacker ( talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to include information on sucessful Windows license refunds. Sources here: [2]-- Kozuch ( talk) 16:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to requesting citation for the claims that XP improved stability and back-compatibility, I removed completely the claim that it improved "user experience". By definition, this is highly subjective. For example, some users might feel that having a little dog sniff for a bone when they do a file search improves their experience. Others might see it as a needless waste of resources and/or a distraction from the business at hand. (Personal user experience: This user, upon taking the new XP machine out of the box, immediately went back to Classic Start Menu, Classic Desktop, and Classic Folder View. Much less cluttered; fewer resources consumed. Eventually, disabled not only the little dog, but removed the Search Assistant completely, resulting in a classic, functional search without the jazzed-up graphic window.). The article on Windows XP, as of this post, covers this issue properly, viz: "It presents a significantly redesigned graphical user interface, a change Microsoft promoted as more user-friendly than previous versions of Windows." Right, it is a claim that Microsoft made, not a fact. Since this article is an overview of all Windows, I think the "user-experience" issue can be omitted here. Someone looking for more details about XP, including the vendor's marketing claims, would likely go to the specific article anyway. Regards, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 07:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Windows 1.0.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"Security: this image doesn't demonstrate anything that's explained in the text) Warren
That's because the text doesn't have anything verifiable to say regarding Windows 95/Windows NT on the Internet. What do the words "demonstrate 10 of the top 12 Internet sites now running on NTServer platforms" mean in your universe?
emacsuser (
talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Security: replaced the Security Center image with a Windows Update image. Security Center isn't discussed in this section, which is a requirement of our fair-use image policy", Warren
I don't follow your logic, what violates 'fair-use image policy' by including an image of 'Security Center'. Why doesn't an image or discussion of the Security Center, belong in a section titled "SECURITY'?
Could you quote me the Wikipedian rules, that say we can't discuss the Internet in relation to Windows and security. Apart from the insertion of some deceptive and misleading opinion?
Are you referring to this http://pastebin.com/f1cfe2c59
Saying 'There was no web server in NT 3.1' and 'NT .. in 1993 . had fairly limited TCP/IP', does not equate to NT wasn't designed for the Internet. By that logic and even if those statements were technically accurate, NT would have been even more secure, not less!
emacsuser (
talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_4524.pdf
emacsuser ( talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider our conversation confidential. In fact, here's the entire exchange, so other people can see what you have claimed, and what you have chosen to ignore:
emacsuser ( talk) 13:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Emacsuser did not reply to the above email.
Warren
-talk- 19:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've slightly changed the subsection titles to avoid &mdash. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be relevant to mention the history between IBM and Microsoft with regards to the shared roots of the code back in the early days? IBM retained rights to run Windows binaries up through Win32c, and if memory serves correctly the early versions of NT were direct offspring of the work MSFT did on OS/2 versions 1 and 2. I know the OS/2 articles do (or did) deal with the shared histories, though it was so long ago I'd need a refresher to recall all the details. ;-) // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've just updated the table of Hitslink stats with the November numbers. However, they seem to have revised their Linux and Nintendo Wii stats heavily downward for March through October, and recalculated their other numbers accordingly. For instance, Linux went from .81% share last month to a revised .50, while Wii went from .11 to .01%. This actually doesn't affect the Windows (or Mac) numbers that much, but it does feed my reservations about using the Hitslink numbers at all. More on that later... -- Groggy Dice T | C 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose breaking this list (found in the Emulation Software section) into two lists: an API-level emulation list (e.g. Wine), and a OS-level simulation list (e.g. ReactOS). I also propose mentioning machine-level emulation (such as VMware), perhaps linking to the Comparison_of_virtual_machines article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.92.153 ( talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The article says Windows Server 2008 is in Beta testing, when in fact it has already RTMed.
Reference: [1] 66.175.215.76 ( talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In the Security section, it mentions Kevin Mitnick doing a study as to the security of Windows, read his article he is obviously bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.68.229 ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Windows 2000 is not listed in the 32bit versions section and should be. It was 32bit NT business-oriented, and therefore belongs in that section. It appears to have been axed while someone was adding the bit about NT4 being the first to have a 95-style GUI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.31.246 ( talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't agree with most of the recent changes by Xpclient and Warren. I've reverted back everything except the removal of the Mergers section, on the following grounds:
While I was at it, I added "VisiOn" to the "See also" section. Perhaps something should be said about it in the History section. -- Groggy Dice T | C 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I heard that Windows corrupts CMOS memory to slowly reduce perfomance. Is this true? -- Btx40 ( talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
In the versions section, Windows 2000 is briefly mentioned in the "Hybrid 16/32 bit" section, but not included in the timeline of development. Is there a reason for this? From my understanding of the history of Microsoft Windows, Windows 2000 would stand between NT 4.0 and XP? -- Danman2012 ( talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
First off, since the next to last column in this table is almost entirely about "Support", wouldn't that make a better column heading than "Notes"?
Second (and the main reason I'm here), since Microsoft now makes it impossible to see all this info on a single page, it'd be nice if this column included the dates on which support for the various versions was ended, rather than just saying "Unsupported". (I'd be bold, but that's not an option since the article is locked. :-) 71.126.118.117 ( talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I stumbled upon a reference in an E-book version of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Edition, ISBN 0-7356-1495-4) where Microsoft states in their definition of "Windows" that it was actually first introduced in 1983, rather then 1985. Further research indicates that the 1983 version was a non-final beta, and was reviewed in the December 1983 edition of Byte magazine. ( citation) I was contemplating whether or not a beta version is worth noting in the version history. The Mac OS X Public Beta is noted in the Mac OS X article -- but I'm not sure if that's a reasonable parallel, since I doubt that those early betas of Windows were public, per se. Thoughts? - Zarmanto 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not B class. Mostly unreferenced. Hardly comprehensiveness. Horrible lead. Citations are not formatted correctly. And so on... — Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a page for it, I'm wondering if there should be a section in this article for it. Thoughts? Jab416171 ( talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
While we are at it, we should simply include a short section that includes links to the articles, and a link to Microsoft Codenames and any other applicable pages. CompuHacker ( talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to include information on sucessful Windows license refunds. Sources here: [2]-- Kozuch ( talk) 16:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In addition to requesting citation for the claims that XP improved stability and back-compatibility, I removed completely the claim that it improved "user experience". By definition, this is highly subjective. For example, some users might feel that having a little dog sniff for a bone when they do a file search improves their experience. Others might see it as a needless waste of resources and/or a distraction from the business at hand. (Personal user experience: This user, upon taking the new XP machine out of the box, immediately went back to Classic Start Menu, Classic Desktop, and Classic Folder View. Much less cluttered; fewer resources consumed. Eventually, disabled not only the little dog, but removed the Search Assistant completely, resulting in a classic, functional search without the jazzed-up graphic window.). The article on Windows XP, as of this post, covers this issue properly, viz: "It presents a significantly redesigned graphical user interface, a change Microsoft promoted as more user-friendly than previous versions of Windows." Right, it is a claim that Microsoft made, not a fact. Since this article is an overview of all Windows, I think the "user-experience" issue can be omitted here. Someone looking for more details about XP, including the vendor's marketing claims, would likely go to the specific article anyway. Regards, Unimaginative Username ( talk) 07:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Windows 1.0.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
"Security: this image doesn't demonstrate anything that's explained in the text) Warren
That's because the text doesn't have anything verifiable to say regarding Windows 95/Windows NT on the Internet. What do the words "demonstrate 10 of the top 12 Internet sites now running on NTServer platforms" mean in your universe?
emacsuser (
talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
"Security: replaced the Security Center image with a Windows Update image. Security Center isn't discussed in this section, which is a requirement of our fair-use image policy", Warren
I don't follow your logic, what violates 'fair-use image policy' by including an image of 'Security Center'. Why doesn't an image or discussion of the Security Center, belong in a section titled "SECURITY'?
Could you quote me the Wikipedian rules, that say we can't discuss the Internet in relation to Windows and security. Apart from the insertion of some deceptive and misleading opinion?
Are you referring to this http://pastebin.com/f1cfe2c59
Saying 'There was no web server in NT 3.1' and 'NT .. in 1993 . had fairly limited TCP/IP', does not equate to NT wasn't designed for the Internet. By that logic and even if those statements were technically accurate, NT would have been even more secure, not less!
emacsuser (
talk) 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_4524.pdf
emacsuser ( talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider our conversation confidential. In fact, here's the entire exchange, so other people can see what you have claimed, and what you have chosen to ignore:
emacsuser ( talk) 13:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Emacsuser did not reply to the above email.
Warren
-talk- 19:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I've slightly changed the subsection titles to avoid &mdash. // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be relevant to mention the history between IBM and Microsoft with regards to the shared roots of the code back in the early days? IBM retained rights to run Windows binaries up through Win32c, and if memory serves correctly the early versions of NT were direct offspring of the work MSFT did on OS/2 versions 1 and 2. I know the OS/2 articles do (or did) deal with the shared histories, though it was so long ago I'd need a refresher to recall all the details. ;-) // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)