Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 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 think any reference to data from Hitslink should be removed. IMHO their method of determining market share is flawed as systems used mainly on servers will not be counted. I doubt myself it is possible to determine this in an accurate way. As such, I propose to simply state Windows is a popular operating system, but it is impossible to judge usage figures accurately. Drkirkby (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Emulation Software section

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)

Listing virtual machines is kind of missing the point. The section is supposed to be about software that emulates Windows. That's not really what VMware does, as you still need a seperate real Windows (or a seperate Windows emulator) to run Windows apps. Josh (talk | contribs) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Seperating API-level from OS-level is a good idea, though. Josh (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Windows Server 2008 RTMed

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)

It's fixed now. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Security Section

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)

Reverting

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:

  • ME vs. Me: The "Me" nomenclature is in clear contradiction with WP:MOSTM. In fact, the Windows Me article itself should probably be moved.
  • Server 2003: I will admit that the main thing I don't like about this naming is that I don't like the way it stretches out the column. (For the same reason, I chose to use Hitslink instead of "Net Applications" and Awio instead of "W3Counter.") However, there are other reasons to oppose this naming. Neither of the sources that include Windows 2003 results refer to it as Windows Server 2003, so calling it that in the table could be considered an "original research" inference. The Windows NT and Windows 2000 results aren't broken down between client and "Server" editions, so using Server 2003 creates an artificial distinction. It also draws undue attention to a version that only accounts for a small fraction of the web/desktop usage that the surveys are covering. Since the surveys are measuring desktop usage, referring to "Server" has the potential to create confusion. Etc.
  • moving the marketshare table to a new section: I don't see why a single table needs its own section. I didn't choose the table's original placement, but it seems perfectly logical for it to be in a section that discusses the "various families of windows," because it covers the marketshare of the different versions of Windows. (Also, this table was created containing only the Hitslink numbers, and it would have been silly to put such a small table in its own major section. I added the other sources a few months ago, because I didn't feel one set of fallible numbers should be presented as definitive.) I also think that the table should be fairly high up in the article; after all, the most remarkable thing about Windows is its overwhelming marketshare, not features like "pre-emptive multitasking" which other operating systems can also claim. I don't see any reason to move the table at this time.
  • moving images: I really don't see how moving an image of Windows 1.0 to below that of a Windows 3.11 screenshot is a logical improvement.
  • removal of forced image sizes: Someone obviously felt the images would benefit from extra pixels, though this is not a big deal to me. If this becomes contentious, someone else will have to make the case for the larger size.
  • removal of Mergers section: I agree with the rationale here.

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)

Care to clarify how exactly is "ME vs Me" in clear contradiction with WP:MOSTM? According to this list, "Me" or "ME" is not trademarked at all. Although everyone including Microsoft will use both nomenclatures, the product itself and all documentation, splash screen, logo and the Start menu inside the product mention "Windows Me". Even by majority, the use of "Me" wins over "ME". More important than the MOSTM guidelines is the actual branding of the product.

Is this true?

I heard that Windows corrupts CMOS memory to slowly reduce perfomance. Is this true? --Btx40 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

no. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Windows 2000?

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)

Don't see any mention of Windows 2000 in the hybrid mentioned section, which seems correct. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Timeline of releases

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)

Be bolder—create an account!--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not the previous anonymous poster -- but just for the record, a recently created account with no notable history still can't edit the page, because the page is semi-protected. (This is in part the reason for my comment below; although I also would genuinely like to see the views of other contributers regarding my suggested addition...) - Zarmanto 19:04, 5 September 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)


B Class?

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)


Windows Neptune

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)


License refunds

I would like to include information on sucessful Windows license refunds. Sources here: [2]--Kozuch (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed subjective claim re: user experience

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

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

removal of image

"Security: this image doesn't demonstrate anything that's explained in the text) Warren

File:Internet Server internet.server.png
demonstrate NTserver as THE Internet platform

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)

If the non-free image doesn't describe something that's explained in the the text, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. A slide from a presentation doesn't need to be presented in its entirety; it's just a few words, with no defined context. Describing it in text, with reliable sources as references, is the proper way to go about it on Wikipedia. Warren -talk- 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

replacement of Security Center image

"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?

A fair-use image MUST be accompanied by discussion and critical analysis of the picture itself. It can't simply throw non-free images into the encyclopedia that sorta kinda cover the general idea. There's no actual explanation as to why that particular image is there. WP:NFCC #8 is clear in stating that non-free images must be significant to the article. NFCC #1 also points out that we should never use non-free content where free content can be provided that does the same thing. Warren -talk- 07:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

email discussion with Warren

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)

"As we discussed (confidentially). Windows95 (nee Chicago) will contain at least a TCP/IP stack, SLIP and PPP, an SMTP/POP mail client, a newgroup client, a mosaic client, an ftp client, and a gopher client", Oct 1994

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:

As you say, you don't consider the exchange confidential, but you could have done be the common courtesy of asking before disclosing it to a third party. As such I did provide a link to the entire exchange, sorted into conversational order, with nothing left out, unless by accident.

emacsuser (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From: Emacsuser, Date: 17 January 2009, 11:07am
Would you like to produce citations for the following eronious factually
innacurate opinion, os else replace it with the historical facts?
- quote -
Security has been a hot topic with Windows for many years, and even Microsoft
itself has been the victim of security breaches.[citation needed] Consumer
versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user PC
without a network connection, and did not have security features built in from
the outset.[citation needed]
Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a network)
and multi-user PCs, but are not designed with Internet security in mind as much
since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less
prevalent.[citation needed]
- unquote -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Security
From: Warren, Date: 17 January 2009, 11:35am
If these aren't them, then what -are- the "historical facts"?
From: Emacsuser, Date: 17 January 2009, 11:46am
Excuse me, I don't want to get into a game of semiotics, but it is usually up to
the other faller to provide corroborating evidence. Those statements are
obviously worthless, unless you or anyone can come up with the facts. But I
would be happy to provide a historically correct version. I'll place it under
the current section, I'll call it 'Windows on the Internet'. What's your
understanding of the following sentence?
"Demonstrate NTServer as the Internet platform" Feb 1995
From: Warren, Date: 17 January 2009, 1:07pm
Go for it. Make sure you provide reliable sources.
1995 is well after the initial development and release of Windows NT -- NT
development started in 1989, was released in 1993 and had fairly limited TCP/IP
support. The "Demonstrate NTServer as /the/ Internet platform" was part of a
1995 marketing push for software that hadn't been released yet.
From: Emacsuser, Date: 17 January 2009, 2:10pm
> 1995 is well after the initial development and release of Windows NT -- NT
> development started in 1989, was released in 1993 and had fairly limited
> TCP/IP support.
Warren, what exactly do you mean by "had fairly limited TCP/IP support", what
specific technical parts of TCP/IP were not supported. Please be specific and
provide citations.
> The "Demonstrate NTServer as /the/ Internet platform" was part of a 1995
> marketing push for software that hadn't been released yet.
Can you provide a single citation saying that NT wasn't Internet ready ? If it
wasn't designed for the Internet, then what was it doing with a web server and
browser?
"Microsoft is committed to providing great Internet-ready operating systems"
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/ftp/free_netprograms/pc/windows/win311_tcpip/WIN311_TCPIP_OLD/TCPFAQ.TXT
From: Warren, Date: 17 January 2009, 5:32pm
Before I get into this, I remind you that the article states that Windows was
not originally designed with "Internet security" in mind, not being "Internet
ready".
The history lesson:
When I say NT 3.1's TCP/IP support is "fairly limited", I mean that it included
Internet server support for FTP -- that's it. The TCP/IP stack was also slower
than the other protocol stacks included with NT 3.1. Support for DHCP, WINS,
SNMP, and network printing via TCP/IP (Unix LPD support, basically) were later
included with NT 3.5, but obviously these aren't "Internet" services. It was,
however, a big expansion on their support for TCP/IP. The whole TCP/IP stack
was rewritten for NT 3.5, too.
There was no web server in NT 3.1; this isn't surprising, given that Viola and
NCSA Mosaic were still brand-new at the time of its release. IBM WebExplorer
and Netscape Navigator didn't come along until 1994, and Internet Explorer
didn't even begin development until mid-1994. The first web server product
Microsoft shipped was as an add-on to NT 3.51. Gopher came along at around that
time as well, and was actually more important to Microsoft at the time given
that Gopher was a more popular way of navigating the Internet.
Remote Access Services was included in NT 3.1, but only offered connectivity for
dial-up, ISDN and X.25 connections. Operating as a router wasn't supported
until NT 3.51, and accepting connections over the Internet wasn't properly
supported until NT 4.0 SP3 and the NT 4 Option Pack.
That's it in terms of Internet servers and Windows. Microsoft certainly did
have web server and gopher software as early as 1993, though it was not
originally a part of Windows.
My source for a lot of information about NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 is a book titled
"Windows NT Server: Professional Reference", author Karanjit Siyan, published
September 1995, ISBN 1562054813, particularly chapter 14, "Installing and
Configuring Basic TCP/IP Services". Siyan published a number of books in the
1990s on TCP/IP, networking, and popular server operating systems of the time.
There's also "Integrating Unix and NT Technology: The Definitive Guide", which
was published in 1999, ISBN 1882419847, with multiple authors. The book can now
be found online in its entirety here:
http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Documents/Book.cfm?DocumentID=155
specifically, the chapter on Windows NT routing:
http://www.windowsitlibrary.com/Content/155/10/toc.html
Microsoft's own accounting of the history of their online services is an
interesting and informative read, too:
http://www.microsoft.com/misc/features/features_flshbk.htm
You provided a link to the FAQ for the Wolverine beta. I'm not sure what
relevance this has to a discussion about Windows NT, as it was a piece of
software released as an add-on solely for Windows For Workgroups 3.11.
The Wikipedia article:
So we're at a point now where I'm pretty confused about what your point of
argumentation is. Here's a run-down of the sentences.
1) Security has been a hot topic with Windows for many years, and even Microsoft
itself has been the victim of security breaches.[citation needed]
- In 2004, Microsoft had Windows 2000 source code stolen from them
- In 2001, a fraudster posing as a Microsoft employee convinced Verisign to
issue them a copy of Microsoft's signing certificates
- In 1999, Microsoft had to shut down Hotmail for a couple of hours due to a
security breach that allowed hackers to gain access to everybody's mailboxes
without a password
2) Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a
single-user PC without a network connection, and did not have security features
built in from the outset.[citation needed]
- This refers to Windows 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0, none of which include networking
support, none of which include multi-user capabilities, none of which include
file-system security, and none of which include any kind of data protection
mechanisms. Windows 3.0 introduced protected memory, but that only protected
running applications from trashing eachother -- and even that was not very
effective
3) Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a
network) and multi-user PCs, but are not designed with Internet security in mind
as much since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was
less prevalent.[citation needed]
- I think the wording can be improved a bit here (since it suggests that Windows
is not "presently" designed for Internet security, which is wrong), but Windows
NT was designed from the outset for network security (albeit mostly around
network authentication and domain services), and obviously for multiple users.
The Internet was still fairly nascent in the early 1990s, relative to the late
1990s, and security simply wasn't a significant concern to most people using it
at the time. Remember, we're talking about 1991 and 1992 here: people were
using Gopher and WAIS to connect to library catalogs, Usenet to argue and
download pornography, and Telnet to connect to multi-user dungeons.
From: Emacsuser, Date: 18 January 2009, 6:09am
> - I think the wording can be improved a bit here (since it suggests that
Windows is not "presently" designed for Internet security ..
Come off it Warren :)
From: Warren, Date: 18 January 2009, 9:42am
If that's the best you can do, then this conversation is over, and you've
decided that I'm correct in all areas, and, like the old Monty Python sketch,
you were merely here to have an argument. Thanks for that. Have a nice day.


User:Emacsuser did not reply to the above email. Warren -talk- 19:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Titlefix

I've slightly changed the subsection titles to avoid &mdash. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IBM and OS/2

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)

History of Microsoft Windows covers this topic. NT was an entirely new code-base, despite it originally being intended to be "OS/2 3.0". Warren -talk- 20:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Windows/Archive_3&oldid=1084075171"