Template talk:Microsoft Windows family

message: Reasons for edit, seprating 9x from rest:
Talk:Windows_95#MS-DOS
--Naelphin 04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit

message: I don't think it should have its own heading.  It is not significantly different enough (just Windows XP + drivers and a few programs) to warrant its own entry in the template.  Not to mention that its name is so wordy that it skews the size of the template.—Kbolino 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XP Media Center 

message: Windows 95, 98, and Me did require DOS to run (it was used for bootstrapping, low-level IO, and a few other things--see msg above)—they just shipped with their own versions of DOS (you didn't have to have it separately).  Windows 95 is a big change from 3.1, but it did not divorce MS-DOS.—Kbolino 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 95/98/Me 

message: I removed the section labelled "cancelled" from the template.  Cancelled implies that Microsoft intended to release it as a product.  The only entry there "Neptune" only has outside speculation based on a leaked technology demo that Microsoft had such intentions.  Microsoft shows technology demos and mockup products constantly without intending them as products. SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, Neptune is listed there now. --Tim1988 talk 10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cancelled

message: There's text to the right of "Vienna" that does not, for some reason I need to know, produce a valid link. Please fix it. Georgia guy 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last link 

message: MS-DOS/9x–based:
 1.0 • 2.0 • 3.0 • 3.1x • 95 • 98 • Me
NT-based client:
 2000 • XP (IA-64 • AMD64) • FLP • Vista
NT-based server:
 NT 3.1 • NT 3.5 • NT 3.51 • NT 4.0 • Server 2003
CE-based:
 CE 2.0 • CE 3.0 • CE 4.0 • CE 5.0 • CE 6.0 • Mobile
Forthcoming:
 Server "Longhorn" • "Vienna"
Other projects:
 Neptune • Nashville • Cairo • OS/2
Solves the crowding of NT issue without compromising on the looks... I'm not saying this is final, someone can shuffle it around and change terminolity as needed, but just a thought...
: I like it... how about "Client" instead of "Consumer"?  FLP isn't a consumer operating system. :-)   -/- Warren 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Client's a much better word! See, that's what I was saying about the terminoligy... I've updated it a bit above, moving the 'client' and 'server' headings into the first column which I think looks better. Windows 2000 was a client OS, right? It wasn't intended for home users but it was a client nonetheless... JamesWeb 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is tricky because every edition of NT up to & including 2000 were released as both client and server.  You could duplicate the items, I suppose, but it wouldn't really win us much space, would it?  The server edition of 3.1 can be called NTAS, just to mix things up a bit.  We could also consider merging 3.5 and 3.51... and then there's Windows XP articles, which is a whole other issue to consider. :-)   -/- Warren 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fear this conundrum may never be solved. :'( JamesWeb 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? Eh? JamesWeb 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about something like this... 

message: Would it be considered a disruptive edit to remove the "CE-based" section? I think it should be in a seperate template/page. - iguananirvana14 23:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CE

message: ...don't forget the two different 64 bit systems (IA64/x8664). 68.39.174.238 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatever you do... 

message: Hi. I'm not sure why this template's metadata needs removing to this separate page, nor whether or not it's a good idea. Why not simply keep it underneath the  call? Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. Good call. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Microsoft Windows family/footer]] 

message: I think that something can be done create new template about Win 9x series, because Windows Mobile has concrete template about Win Mobile, Win Vista also has template about Win Vista. This template about 9x, will probably as template Microsoft Windows Family. Alden or  talk with Alden 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were to happen, we'd end up with something that is almost entirely redundant to .  I suppose that template could be split so that we have one focused on NT and one focused on 9x...  -/- Warren 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm going to try create this template in my sandbox and when I'll finish create template about 9x, NT series, they're going to see this template in my sandbox. Alden or  talk with Alden 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine about creating a 9x template since the Windows Components template leaves out legacy stuff. But please leave that template alone since all those are NT, even Vista components.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.230 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: User:Alden Jones/sandbox - this template is Beta-Version, but I don't finish create this template and I please about opinion about this "template". Alden or  talk with Alden 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you need a separate navbox for just three releases? Why is it not enough for it to be a part of ? --soum talk 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template. 

message: Both of those projects/products are "Related" to Windows, since they are, after all, attempting to emulate it. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe we should create a new group. including FreeDOS, Wine, ReactOS, Freedows OS mabdul 0=* 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template is titled "Microsoft Windows family", not "Microsoft Windows family and any other operating system that has a vague connection". Would we add Windows to a linux template or a mac os template because it's another operating system? --Blowdart | talk 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, of cource not, but that is totally different! These OS's (or emulators) tring to imitate the exact behaviour of ms win and so they are related to ms win! this template never claimed to be ms-exclusive! mabdul 0=* 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except every up till now has been just microsoft windows releases. The word family would indicate that it's for windows editions alone. --Blowdart | talk 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: and now a revolutionary idea: rm this word and allow other programs that try to be "the same" in this template... mabdul 0=* 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So you'd have to rename the template, move it to be consistent and then update everywhere it's used on. And it would be a controversial move which really needs discussion and a rename that ought to be discussions on template talk. --Blowdart | talk 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think you'd have to open the discussion properly, rather than be bold on this one. I'd certainly vote against it. --Blowdart | talk 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  That was not vandalism 

message: Just wondering, exactly what constitutes an 'early version' of Windows NT?120.152.104.76 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The template currently uses that as a catch-all for when Microsoft released the "client" and "server" flavors together as a package.  All releases after Windows 2000 have released the client and server independently.  It's not exactly clear unless you're familiar with MS Windows history, but I haven't been able to think of a better way.  Suggestions welcomed.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early versions 

message: For some time consensus about Windows 10 Mobile has been reached and that it should be listed under editions, but the childish behavior of some editors simply makes regular conversation impossible, in reaction to one of these reversions an editor wrote "== Try to remain civil ==
   
−    
− You called me a damned edit warrior I'd almost just revert that edit because of your language, next time try to make up an argument other than an ad hominem. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:OWN]] and childish reaction by editors 

message: I need some way to incorporate "new features" of each operating system lists as well as "removed features" of each operating system lists too. How shall I incorporate this? I did it in this way on that template, but I am not sure how else I could do it. Though it may not look right, I think it's good to incorporate this stuff in. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New features