Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Palladium, trusted computing

There is no "validating" with trusted computing, every computer can boot up any operating system, it is up to the individual operating system if they wish to make use of the chip. Currently the TCP chip is not protected from its user/hardware attacks and therefore not much good for DRM. -Towel401

NPOV?

On a Mac

Microsoft Windows

Revision history

11:49, 22 Mar 2004 . . Monedula (add Windows logo (will be correctly displayed only on windows computers))

So why bother? JWSchmidt 19:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Removed, for same reason. If anybody really wants the Windows® logo on this page, they can go get an image from Microsoft. -- Cyrius 02:36, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Uncategorized Things

Too detailed to go in the main article, I think, but it's worth pasting this citation in here to remind editors that the MS security issues are real and public:

• Speaking at a .NET developers conference, held in Seattle on September 5th, 2002, Brian Valentine, Microsoft's SVP for Windows development, admitted "We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."

I don't really understand why this article about Microsoft Windows starts out by mentioning Commodore 64 GEOS... I think there are better ways to divide the various versions of Windows than by talking about the bit-ness, especially since there's never been an 8-bit version of Windows. Brian Kendig 00:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Discussion about the name "Windows"

Why Microsoft Windows not simply Windows? People call it "Windows" most of time not "Microsoft Windows" -- Taku 17:45 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Because 'Windows' by itself is the plural of a common noun in the English language. Only, when used in the context of personal or portable computers does it refer to an operating system. Most people call it simply 'Windows' since the context renders the usage abundantly clear. Gyan 17:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

"windows" is a generic term used in computer graphics to refer to a region on a screen through which you can view application space (and is a separate concept than viewport).

"Microsoft Windows" is the full name of the software product.

Also Windows might be about glass in buildings. -- SGB

I am not talking about proper usage. When people are speaking Windows, which is more common the collection of window or Microsoft Windows? We mean by Macintosh a computer by Apple almost regardless of context. Besides, Windows is currently redirected to Microsoft windows. -- Taku 17:57 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Because it is a brand name and not a common concept. Gyan 17:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Machintosh is an apple, a fruit. -- Taku 18:00 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

I'm compelled to point out that the fruit is a McIntosh, the raincoat is a Mackintosh, and the computer is a Macintosh... -- Someone else 04:40 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Taku, Two quick questions for you:

1 - What is the romanji for "Windows"? In nihongo, is that romanji used for anything besides microsoft windows?

This discussion is nothing related to the fact that I am Japanese unless you want to start personal attack.

Please, I do *not* wish to attack you. I was attempting to understand if a native Japanese speaker might use the English work "Windows" in a different manner than native English speakers. I was also attempting to understand if this difference could be contributing to a misunderstanding between us.

I see. By the way, I don't know the romaji of Windows in Japanese. I believe they simply use an English word Windows in Japanese text just like French do.

2 - You are aware that to an english speaker, the word "windows" has several meanings, including glass windows on a building, the individual square rectangles on a computer screen (in unix, linux, windows, or ANY operating system), and the brand name of Microsoft's operating system?

You are missing my point completely. Just remember the principle of choosing the title of an article. Use the most common name for it. That is all. If the name is ambigous, then do disambigous. Think of the fact that the current article Windows is redirected to Microsoft Windows, which means in Wikipedia Windows is considered synonymous with Microsoft Windows. Wikipedia is not an English dictionary. We don't cover any noun of English. That is why Macintosh is treated as a computer instead of a kind of an apple. We don't care what is a brand name, what is a trademark, whatever. We only care about what is common. John F Kennedy should have several meanings too. You can name your son John F Kennedy if you want. But we don't cover such. Besides, as convension the title of an article is basically basic form, which means if we want to cover windows in the house, the title should be a window not windows. -- Taku 23:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Again, I am not trying to offend. It isn't clear to me *what* is the most common meaning that an English speaker would assign to the word "windows" when used out of context. The sentence "close the windows", without any context, could mean to close the windows on a house, or to close the windows on a computer (which could be running linux). The sentence "I'm going to buy windows", without any context, could mean I'm redecorating my home or it could mean I'm rebuilding my computer.

In everyday life sure what you mean by windows may be ambigous. But in the context of Encyclopedia, as a plural from, the meaning Windows should be obvious I believe. Word should mean a word in a language rather than Microsoft Word because it is a singlure form. I mean if we see Windows in the title of newspaper article, how many of us it might mean ones in the house. The context of here, it seems to me that Windows more mean Microsoft Windows. By the way, if we decide Windows more mean one in the house, one by Microsoft, we should redirect Windows to Window. It is so misleading. -- Taku 23:54 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. You would have the non-plural form refer to glass openings, and the plural form refer to the operating system. I think we have agreed that there isn't a simple language usage problem here.

Please have a look at the encyclopedia Britannica: "Windows", opening in the wall of a building for the admission of light and air... In two pages not even mentioned the name "Mircorosft". "Windows" and "Microsft Windows" are two different things, no matter if plural or singular. Fantasy 10:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC) ...BTW: The Title of the "Microsoft Windows" is "Windows (computer interface)"

I kind of gave in. It seems people prefer openings in the wall rather than Microsoft. -- Taku 04:18 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

If you want to get deeper in this discussion, have a look at the current trial of "Lindows" against Microsoft ([1]). Lindows was sued by Microsoft, that the name is too close to Windows, so they have to stop using it for thir Linux version. Microsoft LOST. Now, Lindows turned around and sued Microsoft, that "Windows" is a general term and can not be used as trademark. Currently Microsoft is fighting, and I am not yet sure, who will win. Would be interresting, what happens, if Microsoft loses its rights on the name "Windows" ;-) Fantasy 20:30 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

And what is your point? -- Taku 23:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Nothing will happen. MS will keep calling it Windows, it just won't be trademarked. :) -Frecklefoot

That is what would happen at first, but eventually MS would have to invent a new name for their OS, since the powers of controlling trademark are just too compelling. Also, FWIW, if you go back to when the trademark was first granted you will find that many in the industry thought the USPTO erred. The -word "windows" was in widespread and common use as a GUI concept.

...and what is the point? If Microsoft looses, everyone can sell a Operating System called Windows, you can get then Linux Windows, Whatever Windows, Then no longer the word "Windows" would direct you directly to Microsoft. THAT is my point. Fantasy

Same as what Intel did when they found "486" couldnt be a TM -- they invented the pentium -- Tarquin 11:06 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion about "forced to buy Windows with a PC"

"users of competing operating systems often are forced to purchase a PC and delete Windows". I'm not sure we should be including politics like this. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this sort of thing? Cgs 13:32 April 5, 2003 (GMT)

It's clearly relevant, it's clearly factual, it does not express an opinion. It needs to stay. (It's not very well written as it manages to imply that users are forced to "purchase a PC" rather than "purchase an unwanted copy of Windows whenever they purchase a PC", but that's a seperate matter.) Tannin 13:39 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think the problem is the use of the phrase "forced to purchase" -- I prefer to used the term forced in cases where someone puts a gun to your head. A better way of conveying the "purchase...and delete" thing might be to point out that many computers come with Windows pre-installed, and that the total package of machine plus software includes the price of Windows. Then, if someone wants to COMPLAIN about this state of affairs, because they'd rather have Gnu/Linux or something, we have to say something like:

• Some computer buyers who intend to replace Windows with another operating system object to what they characterize as "being forced to buy an unwanted copy of Windows". A. N. Hacker of Computer Advocacy International challenged American computer manufacturers and the Redmond software giant to, etc.

My 20 cents (sorry, prices have gone up ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:59 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

The thing is, Ed, that if you want to buy a computer from any of the majors in a typical large store (IBM, Compaq/HP, Dell, and the rest) you have to buy Windows, whether you want it or not. That's "forced" in anyone's book. Microsoft are well aware of it. Have you not seen their semi-hysterical campaign of villification against any business that sells what they call "naked PCs"? They are trying hard to make it not just impractical but impossible to buy a PC without Windows preinstalled. Personally, I don't think they will succeed, but I may be wrong. Tannin

While I despise the fact that there is little choice but to pay the soi-disant "Windows tax" when buying a computer system, I do feel that "forced" is too strong a term, simply due to the easy (sort of) alternative of not buying any computer. That's why I feel it doesn't qualify as being in the same realm as gun-to-the-head "forced". -- John Owens 14:27 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

If you subscribe to the belief that the only things a human being really needs or can expect is water and food, then yes, I can understand your argument. But if one accepts the conpect that human rights and fair expectations of life go beyond this point (as does the UN charter, for instance), then I would say that in a modern society access to computers and networking is getting fairly close to becoming a necessity. Access to many important functions is quickly getting impossible without a computer. The aspect of one corporation attempting to monopolize this by all legal and in part illegal means that is at its disposial, is in my opinion an extremely serious issue, indeed. The word forced is definitely not too strong. -- Egil 18:34 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, let me contemplate life without Wikipedia access for a moment... maybe you've got a point there. <g> -- John Owens 23:31 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

I think I've come to a good conclusion. I've said they "have" to buy windows because manafactures "almost always include Windows as part of the package". Cgs 15:04 13 April 2003 BST

[That's still too strong a statement. Originally, computers did NOT include the operating system. As they became more popular with the "average" person, "off the shelf" computers came to include the operating system for convenience - just as they include a keyboard and mouse. Anthing that relates to the OS not being optional is just a low-brow injection of the PC vs MAC vs LINUX debate, and shoudn't be in an encyclopedic work.]

What you've got there now looks pretty good to me, for my part. -- John Owens

It's a horrible monster of a sentence, but it says what we want to say, Cgs. No problem here. Tannin

Tannin 12:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nice work, people. Living proof that four minds are better than one. Tannin

Glad I could be a part of it :) Dysprosia 12:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't think it's pov to note that Windows is closed-source. As such, I've reinserted it into the intro. Meelar 21:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that most of Microsoft's software is closed source, but I think it's POV to fail to mention the Shared Source Initiative and the software that MS has made open source, like WiX. I hate MS with a passion (I'm writing this on my Linux system, with my Apple Powerbook close to hand), but I don't think a wikipedia entry is the right place to express bias against them. In the open source community the words closed source are almost as loaded as the word terrorist, although I doubt anyone from the open source community needs to read wikipedia to find out what MS Windows is. Betelgeuse 11:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

How exactly is stating that Windows is closed source a biased statement? It is a statement of independently verifiable fact. Opinions of the term are irrelevant; the fact is, it is a fact, and an increasingly important one.

Images

Couldn't we use the Wimdows logo under fair use to illustrate? (ricjl 11:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Yes based on the information at Fair_use#Fair_use_and_trademark_law, I conclude that despite Microsoft's denial of the fact, such use would be allowed under fair use. The same concept was used for Apple's Logo. Tacvek 20:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows Tabworks

I remember a friend having this version of windows Tab-Works. It was pretty weird, i think it was pre '95 and post 3.1 - perhaps a beta development of 3.1 i dunno.

Anyone know anything more?

I had to google for this one. Tabworks wasn't a Microsoft product, but it was preinstalled on Compaq computers in the Windows 3.1 era. It wasn't a replacement for Windows, it was just a shell that ran on top of Windows. It was apparently written by Xerox, or a company affiliated with Xerox. [2] Rhobite 05:47, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

64-bit =

64-bit windows talks about amd64 and Intel's x86_64 pendant, but afaik 64-bit windows already exists for Itanic^Hum ?

Colloquially known as IA64 (Intel Architecture 64-bit), and yes, it existed in that form before any version for AMD64-esque machines.—Kbolino 07:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Availability on IA64 shipped at the same time as 32 bit XP. SchmuckyTheCat 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Stubs on NT4 editions

The articles Windows NT 4.0 Enterprise Server, Windows NT 4.0 Server, Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server and Windows NT 4.0 Workstation exist as very short unwikified stubs. Does anyone think that they can ever exist as separate articles, or should they be merge-and-redirected into either Windows NT 4.0 or History of Microsoft Windows (which is where they are linked from)? I was going to merge them, but I thought I'd canvass opinions first. --rbrwr^± 20:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say Windows NT 4.0, which is presently pretty short--could use some fleshing out (and adjust the linkage from the history article). Niteowlneils 21:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probably also Windows NT 4.0 Embedded. Niteowlneils 01:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Formerly or formally?

In Current Versions of Windows, we have "Windows Mobile for embedded systems (formally known as Windows CE)". I haven't heard of Windows Mobile, so I don't know if it's an alternative name (in which case "formally" could be right) or a new name (in which case the word should be "formerly"). And I bet the writer didn't even know the difference :-/ .

I believe I am the one that made that edit. It's sort of both. CE engine is still being updated and used, but Windows Mobile is the name of the operating system used in those devices. The only area where the Windows CE is being continued visibly is within Windows Embedded. PPGMD

Past and current versions

Under the "Past versions of Windows" section, the current OSes (Windows XP, Server 2003, etc) are listed. Should they be removed from there until they are past, or what?

They will never be past. All versions are still used somewhere - who decides which ones are "past"? "Past" should mean that it has already been released. Brianjd 02:09, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

That doesn't need to be our criteria for deciding what a past version is. Most Windows admins will agree that XP and Server 2003 are the "current" versions because they supercede 2000, Me, etc. Microsoft's product list for volume licensing [3] is an authoritative source for determining which versions of Windows are considered current. Rhobite 06:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuits

Could we have a section added on some of the more notable lawsuits Microsoft has been involved in that have directly impacted Windows? A discussion on the Apple vs Microsoft lawsuit would be valuable for understanding Windows's early history, and a discussion on the various Eurpoean open source vs closed source lawsuits would be handy for understanding the company's current actions. Almafeta 18:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board

Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crash comment

There is a comment in the Current versions section; "Note: All of these crash very frequently." I've commented it out, as IMO, its pure POV. aidan_walsh

Branch - Windows Versions

The detail regarding the Windows Versions (both by name/number and category) has grown to the point that it is cluttering the article. I propose the creation of a "Windows Versions" article and moving that information aside to keep the article clean, and provide an overview.

Windows resources needs definition

In the Microsoft Windows versions, Windows "resources" links to the disambiguation page for Resources. I was going to point it to the "Resources (computer science)" page, but this does not deal with Windows resources either. We need for somebody with expertise in the innards of Windows to provide a definition of Windows resources. 151.203.109.138 02:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone is about to write an article on Windows resources (which are icons and bitmaps and strings and similar stuff), I think we'd better change the text to "... memory: code and data segments are swapped ..." to remove the confusing reference completely. --tyomitch 03:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I created a stub at Resource (Windows) and pointed the link there. Hopefully the stub is more informative than the disambig page previously linked to. --tyomitch 20:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Issue with info box on top-right of article page

The Kernel: Hybrid link points to an article on biological hybrids. The hybrid disambig page does not mention hybrid kernels. I have some computer architecture knowledge, but less operating system theory knowledge, and I have no idea what a hybrid kernel is. Can anyone fix the link?

Should I point it to Kernel (computers)#Hybrid kernels (aka modified microkernels)? --tyomitch 00:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Emulation software

Would it make sense to move the emulation software section to its own entry, as none of it is Windows software? Odd bloke 17:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. It's obvious that none of it is Windows software -- there's no point to emulate Windows under Windows. --tyomitch 18:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, no point except Windows on Windows. :) SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Wine

In the article, after the comment about the project Daid controversy, it then lists Codeweavers CrossOver Office as "another WINE spin-off that allows Windows programs to run on other OSs". I suspect this may bias the readers view of crossover as it may appear to link them together with a what the article identifies as a controversial company. Crossover hire many of the wine developers including A. Julliard who is the gatekeeper to cvs. The official wine site www.winehq.org regularly report new releases of crossover wine news archive, listing crossover in the wine download section Wine Downloads, whereas the latest WWN discussed project david in a different light: WWN 302-possible LGPL violation. I have only seen one poster claim to be from Project David post once to the mailing lists wine-devel and that was only to try and contact A. Julliard. Employees from Codeweavers regulary contribute to wine, whereas SpecOps have posted rarely (if at all) to the mailing lists. Perhaps this may change in future.

I have altered the links in an attempt to reflect the large difference between the two companies and at least list Codeweavers first.--Jan 2006

POV

I agree with the second talker. "Microsoft Windows eventually came to dominate the world personal computer market" is pov. A gnome 13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Windows has ~90% market share.. how is that not market domination? When discussing a market, the term "domination" is an acceptable and neutral term. It is not opinionated. Do you have any other POV concerns? If not we should remove the POV tag. Rhobite 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a full solution here, but one improvement, if "domination" is to be used, is to say that MS currently dominates the desktop. Simply "came to dominate" does sound like they acquired an unchangeable position. (Small note: a name more specific than "POV" would have been good for this section.) Gronky 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Since gnome hasn't responded with further concerns, I've removed the POV tag. Rhobite 20:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

---

"Some claim Microsoft Windows gets more than its fair share of attacks because poor engineering design makes it such an easy target. Others say it gets more attacks simply because it is the dominant desktop operating system. They imply that other operating systems are as insecure, and if they had as great an install base they would be exploited as Windows has been."

That's hardly encyclopaedic quality ('some say')??? A little less heresay and a lot more facts!--Dan 14:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, you've misspelled "heresy" ;-) --tyomitch 20:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing by the wink-smiley that you realize heresay and heresy are two different words. Just making sure.—Kbolino 07:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

MS windows benefitting from MS widly licensing it?

Hi, the "Popularity" section of the article claimed that MS Windows' gained popularity because MS were willing to license it, unlike Apple and Sun did with their OSs. I think this is over-stating, or mis-stating the benefit. MS did not license the OS very widely, it was for x86 and Alpha, and then Alpha support was dropped. I've updated that section to what I think the contributor meant to say: MS Windows' gained popularity because it wasn't tied to the success of any hardware platform. Review appreciated. Gronky 15:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more important to note that Windows succeeded because it isn't tied to any single hardware manufacturer. You wrote that they licensed their software "narrowly", this is not correct. They will license Windows to any hardware manufacturer. It's true that they only produce Windows for the x86 and 64 bit platforms, but that doesn't mean it is licensed narrowly.. it is very easy to get a system builder license. Rhobite 16:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it should be clarified that "narrowly" applies to type of hardware, not number of manufacturers. I'm not too expert on Windows history specifics though, so I want to leave it to someone else to put that in words. Thanks. Gronky 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

90% figure

Where does this figure come from? Everyone "knows" that Windows is on at least 90% of computers, but where does that number come from? w3schools.com publishes their browser statistics and include platform statistics too, but that only counts people who visit w3schools and fairly recently they've started fudging their analysis, so that's not too reliable. People like IDC and Gartner publish analysis of the PC market, but I think they just talk about sales figures each quarter, not the actual numbers of PC out there already. Is there anyone that gives reliable figures for the numbers of PCs out there with Windows on them? AlistairMcMillan 03:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The last Google Zeitgeist to include user-agent info [4] gave Windows a total of 91% --tyomitch 07:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But again, like w3schools, that just uses the browser user-agent which isn't necessarily accurate. Is there no-one that gives figures for PC market share that are thought to be reasonably accurate? AlistairMcMillan 15:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Alistair I cited a source [5] yet you still removed this fact. Do you have a problem with the link? Rhobite 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Another source from Business Week - early 2004 the Windows market share was 94%. [6] According to a 2005 poll of Network Computing readers, 87% said their organization uses Microsoft's desktop operating system products. [7] Rhobite 20:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no true way to assess the prevalence of a specific platform. There are users who never access the Internet, users who never visit the sites in question, etc. It is safe to say that some version of Microsoft Windows runs on a large majority of desktop and notebook PCs. Beyond that, there's little that can be truly assessed.—Kbolino 07:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

History

The timeline of Windows versions was out of place in an encyclopedia article; besides, it duplicated an even better chart in History of Microsoft Windows. I deleted the timeline and replaced it with a brief summary of the History of Microsoft Windows article. It's not very good, so please improve it :) Massysett 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Losing Ground"

This line appears in the 'Popularity' section:

Although currently losing ground to Mac OS X, Linux (also called GNU/Linux), and others, Microsoft Windows is thought to be installed on the majority of personal computers.

Erm... This is false. In the last 10 years, Microsoft's share has grown (from 80-something percent to 91%), while the Macintosh OS families have lost ground to BSD, and Linux has replaced the Amiga. Windows isn't losing ground in any field by any measuring stick, and the article should not present that. Almafeta 16:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you argue that people who started using Windows, and then switched have caused a decline in its market share, then yeah that's true for the last 5 years. Of course, you'd have to ignore the people who are buying new computers for the first time, and people switching from Solaris/AIX/HP-UX/NetWare/SCO to Windows. P.S.: Mac OS X is BSD-based and would therefore have a difficult time losing ground to BSD.—Kbolino 07:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows logo

Do we already have an image with just the four-colored "window", without the black text? --tyomitch 22:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I see this image, but is there a better (=true-color) one? --tyomitch 12:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems not. Here is a really large high quality version of the four-colored window logo: http://www.buildorbuy.org/images/wxp_v_illum_rgb.jpg , You'll have to remove the text though (in an image manipulation app like photoshop). — Wackymacs 12:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OMG yes that's large... I've uploaded it as Image:Windows XP logo.png. Thank you! --tyomitch 13:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Linux users aren't forced to buy a copy of Windows with new PC.

All you have to do is decline the EULA and ship the bundled copy back to MS for a $100 refund (Pricing may vary).

Please cite your name and time with 4 tildes. Computer companies sign licensing agreements with Microsoft so they can distribute Windows with their PCs; these agreements in turn stipulate that they must distribute Windows. So yes, you are forced to buy a copy of Windows—being able to ship it back doesn't mean it wasn't purchased in the first place. There are vendors who tailor to alternative operating systems if one desires to avoid the Microsoft bundling hassle.—Kbolino 07:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Major Interface Developments

The author(s) of the Interface section of this document must never have used Windows 95, or in some cases, any GUI-based operating system previously. To quote,

The most obvious feature of the more recent Windows versions (since Windows 95 and NT 4.0) besides the window, is the desktop, which holds various icons, or graphical objects that the user can double-click to open

Windows 1.0 had windows—hence the name!—for Pete's sake. And the desktop? The Xerox Alto had that. These are not "features of more recent Windows versions."

To continue,

Another quite significant feature of Windows since Windows 95 is the Start Button and Start Menu, which gives users access to installed programs and many of the other features of the operating system. It is attached to the taskbar (blue in the picture on the right).

Windows 95 introduced the Start button and menu. It was carried over to Windows NT in version 4.0.

Moving on,

Windows also comes with features to help the disabled through its accessibility options. Under Windows XP, these features include the Narrator, Magnifier and contrast display mode.

Narrator: Windows 2000, Magnifier: Windows 95, Contrast Display Mode: Have you ever seen a Windows 1.0 screenshot? Yuck. This has been around intentionally since at least Windows 3.0. And the onscreen keyboard, another Windows 2000 feature, was omitted.

Windows XP may have rocked the author's world, but there needs to be some accuracy maintained. There are a few major changes, but most of it is inherited from prior versions.—Kbolino 07:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Please remove windows vista logo and such things...it's not shiping yet...

windows vista is not shiping yet and is not the default windows operating system(what most users have) so this can be integrated inside upcomming product...but here it seems PROPAGANDA for windows vista and microsoft...

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Microsoft Windows/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

As of 2006-07-29 the Microsoft Windows article is simply superior: Short, informative, systematic, giving much. Maybe newbees and students of economy or political history will have difficulties understanding some of the words but then again there are ample references. Donald Axel(Denmark).

Last edited at 11:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)