User talk:Tyomitch/Archive

Small Business Server

Just wanted to say, nice work on the SBS page. AlistairMcMillan 13:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Persistency

Damn it, I've just been editing a page for about an hour, and then my PC suddenly rebooted and I've lost all my work. Investigation shown no local traces of the incomplete page -- neither in Internet cache, nor even in the pagefile.

What do other editors use to protect themselves from such disasters? Are there any ways for emergency recovery of lost pages?

Okay, jokey solution first. Buy a Mac. :)

Serious solution. Normally if I'm doing a long edit I use a text editor. That way if the browser crashes or someone else does another edit that results in a conflict, it doesn't cause problems. AlistairMcMillan 21:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WinVI

Do you really think it is worth our time to explain the joke for people who aren't quick enough to get it themselves? Please note that there isn't a "Windows XP is normally abbreviated as "Ex Pee" in verbal communication and "WinXP" in written communication" section in Windows XP or "Windows Me is normally abbreviated as "like OH MY GOD HA HA HA" in all forms of communication know to man" section in Windows Me. AlistairMcMillan 21:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

cmd.exe

Please feel free to correct mistakes in the article. Thanks for helping here. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Bob

You know? I was also about to edit that "dubios joke". Wikipedia is small, after all. ^_^

Windows Script/Scripting Host

I can move the page for you. I'd like to add something to the article showing when Microsoft changed the name though, so we don't have someone coming along months from now and complaining that we've moved it to the wrong name. I'm looking into that, and once that's in the article I'll move it. AlistairMcMillan 21:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Couldn't find the date they changed the name though. AlistairMcMillan 22:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was some time in 1999, as demonstrated in [1]

Longhorn

I disagree. The main article on Windows Vista is meant to say a whole lot more than "is the next version of Microsoft Windows" and we explain what things are on a great long list of disambig pages. There is nothing wrong about giving people a wee bit of context on the disambig page. Just saying Longhorn is another word for Windows Vista, is no good if people don't know what Longhorn and Windows Vista are. And they shouldn't have to click on the link and load that big long page to find out that, "Oh it's an operating system from Microsoft...". AlistairMcMillan 04:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I already removed other wiki links on that disambig page, so I'm not sure what you mean by referring to the Grateful Dead example. Also note how the Grateful Dead example does however explain that "Dark Star" is a song. AlistairMcMillan 04:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, it's better now. However I don't think there is anyone here not knowing that Windows is an OS from Microsoft --tyomitch 12:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WinVi

Fair enough. I was wondering why you were reverting a legitimate edit and spelling correction! However, according to Mirriam-Webster at least, it looks like "supersede" is not only an acceptable variant of "supercede", it's actually the most common one! (Yes, "supercede" is a real word; until tonight I, and I've no doubt the other bloke, thought it was the only spelling). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, according to the more conservative dictionaries, "supersede" is the correct spelling; "supercede" is a mistake. The various dictionaries called "Webster's" are notorious for documenting popular mistakes as "acceptable usage." The American Heritage Dictionary and Oxford's both correctly list "supercede" as erroneous. See, for example, http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&field-12668446=supersede&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact&sortorder=score%2Cname . Jeh 19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Windows logo horz.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Windows logo horz.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Red screen of death

Please take a look at Talk:Red screen of death#Inline text example. Are you going to delete the recreations from Blue screen of death, too? --tyomitch 15:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because there is a screenshot on the same page that is exactly the same, so what are the advantages of having your re-created example on the page too? If there were advantages to it, I wouldn't have removed it - but there aren't, because of the screenshot. On the Blue screen of death page there are not screenshot replacements for every re-creation, so no. — Wackymacs 15:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling

that's what I get for trying to remember user names instead of the date of the revert... admins get it lucky with their autogenerated text. SchmuckyTheCat 13:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blue screen of death/Red screen of death

Hello. The merge of articles is disputed. I much appreciate your opnion, thanks. --Mateusc 02:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this debate has sort of turned into a mess, so if nobody objects, I'm going to try mediating. Can you come and comment at Talk:Blue screen of death#Foo Screen of Death merge? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an image

How do you move an image without breaking the history? Sorry. --Akhristov 23:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TNX for flower

Привет. Спасибо за цветок. Я смотрю ты здорово работаешь над статьями по Windows. Классная прога на пользовательской странице - давно не програмил под любимую Винду - соревноваться не буду но...на вид кажется тут применимы приёмы с www.wasm.ru - стаб способен вывести "!" (ну не совсем по правилам) , а функции ещё можно импортить по ординалу - сам не пробовал, лентяй я. Ну в общем аффтар пеши есчо, я пошёл. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Data

Really? I didn't know - thanks, I won't revert such an edit again (although I still think it reads better as singular) Stephenb (Talk) 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flowers

I don't know how much I can help. I don't know Arabic, I just happen to be in possession of the Langenscheidt Arabic-German/German-Arabic dictionary. According to this, ward is a collective meaning "roses", wardah is the singular, and wurūd is the plural. It doesn't say what the gender is, but I belive nouns in -ah are usually feminine in Arabic. It doesn't say what the difference in usage is between the collective ward and the plural wurūd, but I can imagine that the collective is used when considering roses in general (e.g. "Roses are beautiful flowers"), or even a specific group of roses if you're not considering the flowers individually (e.g. "Look at all the pretty roses"), but the plural is used when considering them individually, maybe such as when they're counted (e.g. "He gave his wife a dozen roses"). As for "flowers", my dictionary says the Arabic word for this is the collective zahr (زَهر) with singular zahrah and plural azhār or zuhūr. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see; that's what tarjim.sakhr.com gave me for "flowers", too. What I meant to ask is, does your dictionary say that ward can be applied to flowers other than roses? If it does, is it singular or collective form for them? (Is it alright that I'm replying on my own talk page?) --tyomitch 22:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it just says "roses" for the definition of ward. But it's not a huge, comprehensive dictionary, either. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 22:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Windows ME

Lol, sorry if what I added was vandalism. I just thought it would be a funny addition.

90% figure

Replied, kinda, at Talk:Microsoft Windows. AlistairMcMillan 03:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warm welcome

I will read your recommended instructions to gain more understanding on how to contribute as a decent Wikipedian. I added some comments to the talk page of the article Realtek. Give me some thoughts if you feel like to. -- Weberwang 06:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do? Ohhhhhhhhh, now I get it :)

Hola, so my account is Rosameliamartinez then? I don't know what I was thinking...I should have chosen a better name. So if someones' name doesn't appear but instead they have a number that means they don't have an account right? A-ha, now I'm beginning to see it clearly. Phew, I'm lucky I can still play the newbie card, I must seem so dumb lolRosameliamartinez 20:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

....

Any compelling reason not to redirect it to Ellipsis? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Ellipsis: the term refers to the row of three dots --tyomitch 16:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but there is popular belief in a four-dot ellipsis, otherwise the sentence explicitly stating otherwise wouldn't need to be there. I would think ellipsis would be the clearly intended (and most meaningful) target of anybody searching for or linking from "...." regardless of how improbable such a query might be. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Dynamic Link Library

What are you using for reference? Are there any books that focus on just DLLs and the PE format?

We need a better definiton of what makes a PE file a DLL file. Based on my references DLL, DRV, FON, ICL, and SYS are all given as example DLL files.

Are TTF files DLLs? I read a few years ago that true-type font files have code which did the actual rendering of fonts.

Are SYS files were DLLs? My references say that SYS files are system files which may also contain device drivers. I also read a few years ago that SYS files are DLLs, which are compiled as DLLs and then simply have their exetension changed to denote system use, e.g. within the kernel or as system libraries.

All language independing information should probably be before the examples. If you want to seperate out that information from the C++ run-time linking example, and make examples for the other languages, that would be great. Maybe something like Microsoft's .NET documentation should be used. i.e. An example for each DLL use (import, export, run-time) containing a short explanation of what it is doing followed by a short implementation for each language would be nice.

I've just about finished this. Jsmethers 03:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like the article to have information seperated more distinctivly. e.g. Introduction (no heading), History, Features, Implementation, Programming considerations, Programming examples, See also, External links, References.

BTW, thanks for all of the rewrites. The article reads much nicer.

Jsmethers 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't like that move... If someone is looking for DLL, clearly he means the Windows DLL, not a shared object or something. Also this breaks all the wikilinks previously targeting the DLL article. --tyomitch 09:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a non sequintur because a user searching for DLL will be taken to a disambiguation page with links to the use of DLL as an acronym in many different fields. This was already the case before I moved the article. Likewise, if someone is looking for dynamic link library they may mean either the concept, a windows DLL, or some other use of dynamic libraries on another platform; therefore, I have added a disambiguation page for that situation. Since wikiarticle titles are in a global namespace, adding Microsoft to the title should be more than sufficient to negate any future conflicts. Jsmethers 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it does not matter if it breaks wikiarticles. They should be fixed. I have already made a large number of fixes for such articles. I have even spent a bit of time clarifying and further improving some of the articles because of this. Since the articles that are still broken will be taken to the disambiguation page; someone will eventually use the correct disambiguation link in the refereing article. A number of article were even already broken because of this confusion. Jsmethers 20:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's the exports that make a PE file a DLL. A PE file without exports is essentially an EXE; I mean, just like SCRs are renamed EXEs, SYS are just (written in a special way and) renamed EXEs.

I would greatly prefer what Microsft's documenation and the general community of Microsoft developers classify as constituting a DLL.

For example, this shows resource files are considered DLLs. An ICL file is a type of resource file in which the resource section exclusively contains icon data. Therefore, an ICL file is a DLL.

Dynamic-Link Library is the name of the implementation, not of the concept. The concept is called just shared library, as you pointed out earlier. Would you please provide a reasonable source which used "Dynamic-Link Library" to refer to some other implementation than Windows DLL? --tyomitch 21:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Not all shared libraries are dynamically linked, and not all dynamically linked libraries are shared libraries. Therefore, the concept of dynamic linking is not a subset of the concept of shared libraries; Allthough there is overlap, the two concepts are independent.

The original shared libraries, implemented in platforms such as IBM's OS/360 used shared libraries with static offsets. Programs were linked staticly at compile time with the standard offsets where standard libraries would be loaded into memory. This continued with other operatins sytems such as AIX which used system wide staticly linked libraries; For example, with the standard C library.

There are also implementations of dynamically linked libraries that can not be shared. Each time an application uses the library, a seperate copy is loaded and direct modifications are made to the code during linking.

You can begin your research with Linkers and Loaders by John Levine, ISBN 155860496. It is the most concise source for an introduction into linker and loader technology.

Jsmethers 22:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does that book by John Levine use "Dynamic-Link Library" to refer to something other than Windows DLL? (I mean this exact spelling, and MS always writes it that way; "dynamically linked library", being a generic concept, might have its own article.) --tyomitch 22:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

While dynamic link library may not be ambigous to someone who has never used anything but Microsoft products, it is clearly ambigous to any who has a much more well-rounded experience in computing. That is why additional context should be required. Since this is an implemenation defined by Microsoft, it is only fitting that Microsoft be in the title to provide this context. Dynamic link library in and of itself only implies a library that only supports dynamic linking.

Levine's book, as I said is a good introduction, but it is far from comprehensive. The chapter on DLLs it titled 10.7 Microsoft Dynamic-Link Libraries. Dynamic-Link Library is not even in the index. Instead, there is dynamically linked libraries and dynamically linked shared libraries. He also covers implementations of non-shared dynamically linked libraries somewhere else in the book.

I see no point in arguing over the use of adjectives versus adverbs for dynamic or verb tenses for link. All such permutations should simply redirect to a disambiguation page.

Also, I have seen both "dynamic link library" and "dynamic-link library" in Microsoft's documentation (on MSDN).

Jsmethers 00:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between EXE and DLL in your opinion? --tyomitch 21:19, 3 December 2005

I figure that there will probably be four view points.

As you already presented, the presence of exported symbols.
Any object file with flags and sections associated only with DLL files by the object file specification. This is a very technical one.
Any object file that may be loaded by the LoadLibrary or LoadLibraryEx API functions.
Any file that is, in common use, called a DLL.

Jsmethers 01:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider all these POVs for a definition mutually exclusive. Jsmethers 22:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's that thing that you call "implicit run-time linking"? AFAIK, run-time linking can only be done through a call to LoadLibrary[Ex].

Dynamic links that are created by the compiler/linker at compile-time are also known as implicit links. The run-time linker/loader resolves them automatically.

Links that are resolved by explicit calls to a run-time linker API are also known a explicit links. This term feels a little weird because the linking is retrieving function and data addresses instead of being applied to a jump table, etc.

I do not think the term load-time should be used because links may be resolved at any time during the programs run-time/execution, i.e. lazy binding and dynamic loading. The implementation of something akin to lazy binding may even be changed within the implementation without effecting existing binaries.

Jsmethers 01:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with that?

[2] —why? --tyomitch 13:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A tiny list of distributions at the bottom of a gigantic list of distributions? It's completely redundant. ¦ Reisio 13:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Template:History of Windows at the bottom of History of Microsoft Windows --tyomitch 13:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is an article on the history of something with a list of software packages at the bottom, not a list of software packages with a list of software packages at the bottom. ¦ Reisio 13:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MS-DOS Icon

I've reverted your blurring of the ms-dos icon because:

1. Icons are supposed to be pixelated, that's the way they originally were and that's how they should be represented.

2. Blurring hugely inflates the file size-the blurred version was 5x the size of the original. PNG is for pixel art, not soft blends.

If you feel your version would be better, please give a reason on my talk page or the image's talk before you revert. Night Gyr 05:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was already resampled, but your change just blurred it. Night Gyr 18:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave it the way it is now? 32x32 is awfully small, and we want it to be clearly visible to our readers.

Mistaken revert

Sorry about reverting back past your disambiguation. My mistake. I had intended to only undo the vandalism by the anonymous user. MarkHudson 14:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Volkov Commander

You shorted the description for a external link in the Volkov Commander article. I've reverted it, as your version seems to contain less info, and be less clear, than the previous version. Please don't remove information when "tidying up". 66.81.22.161 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (that was me; cookie persistance problems... JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Raymond Chen.jpg

Are you sure that it's free to use for any purpose? - Ta bu shi da yu 16:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User on Swedish WP

Hello Tyomitch. Have you registered and used User:Tyomitch on Swedish Wikipedia? –Caesar 10:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]