Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 2

message: "The early versions of Windows were often just simply stupid and weak when used. Windows is ugly, stinks, and is difficult to use. Compared to Noel, it is not as fat." - Don't think that's supposed to be there!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.107 (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism?? 

message: It seems that there is no criticism article or section for Windows. There is for Linux. In the interest of balance could someone please add a criticism page or article for Windows.
- Comrade Graham
:There's quite a lot of criticism in Microsoft_Windows#Security -- just because the section's not labelled 'criticism' doesn't mean it isn't criticism.  More comprehensive criticism articles can be found at Criticism of Windows XP and Criticism of Windows Vista.  -- Simxp 20:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps these criticism sections could be linked to in the security section? Sammydee 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: So fix it. Paul Cyr 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A concern 

message: "Windows has produced a significant change in the way people interact with computers; it is possible to perform most common tasks, some quite complex, with very little computer knowledge." - mightn't this give some people the impression that MS invented the GUI? Thomas Ash
:The corollary to that theorem is of course that it is quite impossible to perform the simplest tasks, even with a great deal of computer knowledge.—Kbolino 07:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: GUI technology has evolved.  You could start with CDC Plato, which is almost never given the credit it deserves.  Then the familiar Xerox PARC which inspired Apple and Microsoft.  Microsoft has made major contributions to GUI, in particular the extensible GUI that evolved out of MS Office and became OLE Automation (consider what happenes when you install something like Via Voice or Systran, where new software integrates and modifies the interface of MS Word).  And the use of scripting and interface prototyping with Visual Basic was hugely influential, inspiring many web-based interface scripting languages like javascript. DonPMitchell 06:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like some references for what your saying Don P Mitchell. I don't want to commit an ad ignorantiam, but I've never heard any of that as being inspired by Microsoft. I'd consider myself fairly aware of the topic, for example I've read some papers by Brendan Eich, but I've never heard the conclusions your pulling up. I just don't connect Windows with founder of extensibilty.--Capi crimm 01:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invention of GUI 

message: I think it would be good if there was a good picture (screenshot) of Windows Vista to show the evolution of Windows and what it is proposed to become.  In fact, shots of Windows 3.1, Windows 98, 2000, ME, XP, and Vista would be even better, if they were side by side, in showing the changes in the UI over time.  It's really been quite dramatic.  Nicholasink 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea, but I think for Vista, we should wait for it's release.--Anupam Srivastava 14:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we can use some from beta vesion. --seXie(t0lk) 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shinobu 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. Vista is not yet (officially) released, and not widespread anyway, so an image showing it would only be good in looks, but pretty pointless otherwise. --Frank Miller 21:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You are not allowed to use pictures from Betas. At least this is something that Microsoft want and it's probably somewhere in EULA you have agreed.  Actually there are several 1000's of beta-testers who has legit RTM version and Volume License customers (from MSDN) - so using beta version is clearly unreasonable. Images like this one :Image:Windows_Vista_RC1_desktop.png may (or may not be) in copyright violation. --TAG 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures of Vista? 

message: I removed a picture from the "See Also" section. It showed a teller machine with a Windows exception error message, but the description just stated that it ran Windows and nothing else regarding the message. Besides a picture not making sense in a "See Also" links section, that particular picture's NPOV is highly disputable. Spookfish 19:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed picture from "See Also" section 

message: thumbs.db redirects to "Microsoft Windows", but it is not explained what thumbs.db is. --Abdull 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never really looked into the subject, but isn't it a cache for thumbnails? I never see it unless the "Thumbnails" view is turned on for that folder. --Evice 19:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thumbs.db 

message: An image similar to the one below would improve the article.
  —This unsigned comment was added by 193.166.18.45 (talk • contribs) .
:See History of Microsoft Windows. It has such an image. Warrens 17:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation between versions 

message: Needs more references, but passes GA standards. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: There are some questions arising as to whether or not Windows should redirect to Microsoft Windows or Window (disambiguation).  There are merits to both routes, so please give it some thought and chip in your thoughts at Talk:Windows. :-)  Warrens 21:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if a user types "Windows" in the search field, they should go to the disambiguation page.  Just because Microsoft somehow convinced the feds to give them a trademark (!) doesn't mean that they have that same "right" to the word in Wikipedia.  The Xerox Alto (1973), X Windows (1984), and the Macintosh (1984) were all around before Microsoft Windows.  Branciforte3241 06:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A trade mark only applies within a field of trade, and the only thing close to marketing itself as any sort of windows at the time could be X, but it was not called X Windows so much as X<protocol version>.  Also remember while MS released Windows in 1985, they trade marked it before X was made, and long before X was used.  4.189.118.85 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Windows" article redirect issue 

message: The primary screenshot for this article should not be taken from Windows Vista.  The appearance has not been finalized, the product has not been released, and it may never be released (though this is highly unlikely).  The screenshot should probably be taken from Windows XP, as that is the current consumer- and business-oriented version of the operating system.—Kbolino 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's RTM'ed I've changed the screenshot. Paul Cyr 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista as primary screenshot 

message: I added splash screens of Windows 1.01, Windows 3.11, Windows 98, and Windows 2000. It would be really nice if someone has a Windows XP 64 license and can take a screenshot of the splash screen for us. I also added a screen shot of the desktop of Windows 3.11. They were taken by my self using VMware's software. I hope they are placed appropriately and not too distracting for the reader. Yousifnet 06:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed them.  See Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content, where it states "Except for Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from products that have not been commercially released (including beta versions), you may use screen shots in advertising, in documentation (including educational brochures), in tutorial books, in videotapes, or on Web sites".  It's unfortunate, and I don't like having to do it, because the screenshots are nice... but we have to adhere to these things as part of our collective responsibility in creating a free encyclopedia.  Warrens 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, yes. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I will remove the splash screens I posting in Windows 1.0, Windows 3.1x, Windows 98 and Windows 2000. It did take a while for me to make them, but as they say, the law is the law :). Yousifnet 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand.  The Microsoft language says that you CAN use those screen shots, except for Vista.  You need to attach a short disclaimer stating that Microsoft gave permission.  Branciforte3241 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splash screens of various windows versions 

message: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/sep05/09-06Infrastructure.mspx --Snori 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's got a brief mention in the Windows Server "Longhorn" article.  Warrens 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centro? 

message: Is Windows 1.0 Abandonware?  And if it is, where can it be downloaded?
*Abandonware has no legal meaning. It is unlikely any legitimate site wants to risk Microsofts anti-piracy unit. SchmuckyTheCat 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 1.0 Abandonware? 

message: I changed the intro slightly becasue I felt is was misleading. The reference from IDC needs to be put in historical perspective as the article was from 2004 which at the time of me writing is over 2 years ago. I propose that this is left in unless someone can come up with a more current reference.
I also don't know what help having market share quoted is going to help either in anyone understanding the penetration of the OS. A better figure to represent how many people are actually using Windows would be prefereable imho. The installed user base for Windows is lower than 90% I'm certain. 
Candy 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damned figures 

message: "The widespread use of Microsoft's operating system has benefited from not being tied to the success of one hardware manufacturer and from Microsoft's willingness to license the operating system to manufacturers. This is in contrast with Apple Computer, which does not license Mac OS X to other manufacturers. However, the wide spectrum of possible hardware permutations with Microsoft Windows is also seen as a major source of computer problems because of hardware/software incompatibilities for consumers."
Not certain why the comparison to Apple Computer. The comment refers to Microsoft's Operating system (which clearly also includes MS DOS) and it's not clear whether the author means this or not. Furthermore, it refers to market penetration which occurred well before Mac OS X was created so the comparison also seems to be lost. Perhaps just remove the"Apple"  comment or clarify the whole part and tidy it up.
Candy 10:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Comment 

message: "Due to the widespread usage of Windows on personal computers, many malicious developers have targeted Windows rather than the lesser used operating systems such as Linux, Unix, Mac OS X, and FreeBSD[citation needed]."
This is pure speculation and somthing that needs editing. The assumption made here is that Windows is targetted more because it is widespread and not because of inherent security problems. I would like to see some evidence of this besides pure speculation. I often read this in the Computer Press but have NEVER seen any evidence for it. It seems to be an oft repeated assumption as well. 
I am not stating that Windows is targeted more because of its security issues becasue I also don't have evidence of this either. I think it is fair to say though that Windows is more heavily targeted with attacks Perhaps someone could provide some solid evidence of either. I would suggest a rewrite of this and remove references to other OS's in this respect. 
Candy 11:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a true statement, if misleading.  Of course, some part of the reason that Windows is popular is that you don't have to enter your password to install new software.  It seems to me that a major reason that there are so many security holes in Windows is that Microsoft doesn't want to make things difficult or confusing for the user.  Branciforte3241 05:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence 

message: The article claims that Windows NT is based on OS/2 technology.  This is not my understanding.  I thought that Microsoft, aparently unable to do the job itself, hired David Cutler away from Digital Electronics corporation, where he worked in the VMS kernel security group.  From what I've seen of the NT intenals, they bear a remarkable similarity to the VMS kernel.  I'm thinking of stuff like IRPs and queued I/O and memory management.  In fact, the initials WinNT (WNT) are one more (++) than VMS.  This was Cutler's inside joke and also a subtle reference to the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" in which the ship's computer "HAL" is one less than "IBM".  What say you all?  Branciforte3241 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your description is accurate (apart for the +1 stuff, which is numerological speculation). The article has been corrected since. As for the relation to OS/2, see the chapter below. Adam Mirowski 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NT genesis? 

message: In the section "Hybrid 16/32-bit operating systems" it can be read that "MS-DOS was now bundled with Windows; this notably made it (partially) aware of long file names when its utilities were run from within Windows, but angered the competition." I don't understand why the competition was so angered. Couldn't this paragraph be reworded by somebody? MJGR 08:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the DR-DOS article. Adam Mirowski 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain!!! 

message: Why does "Little X" redirect here? "Little X" is the name of a popular music video director.
--Jeyler 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Little X Redirect 

message: Windows 9x is an MS-DOS-based system, making its inclusion in the OS type almost redudant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin gayler (talk • contribs) .
: No it's not.  Windows 9x uses MS-DOS as a bootloader and that's it.  Once the operating system is up and running, there are no components of DOS running "underneath".  We use "MS-DOS based" to refer to Windows 1.x thru 3.x.   -/- Warren 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid that some DOS code still runs "in" Windows 95 and that all non-NT Windows can be called "MS-DOS based". But "based" does not mean that Windows is built upon DOS system calls - it means that it relies on proper operation of DOS code at certain points. DOS code cannot be killed and restarted like ntvdm.exe can be in Windows NT - if there is a problem there, you have to reboot the machine. Andrew Shulman noted in Unauthorized Windows 95 that Windows 95 is not fundamentally different from Windows/386 2.x. When Windows starts in the 386 enhanced mode, it moves DOS to a virtual 8086 mode virtual machine (shutting down your current, if any, memory manager, which also ran DOS code in this mode), and then uses it for different things and keeps it posted about what is going on. Less and less with every new version, but still. Shulman observed that even on a 95 system where everything was optimal (32-bit File Access, 32-bit Disk Access, not DOS network redirectors, etc.) every Windows program also had a DOS Program Segment Prefix and that the date/time operations implied calling DOS. How the work of managing programs was split between DOS and Windows, and how mono-tasking DOS was hacked to run in several instances is a very complex topic. Adam Mirowski 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that Windows 2000 should also be on the list. While it is true that Windows 2000 is actually NT 5.0, XP is NT 5.1, and is still included in the list. 66.249.228.174 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Windows 9x as OS type 

message: I think this article is big/good enough to inlcude at least a section comparing the differences of windows versions, as one might see in Comparison of operating systems, tables could be added to quickly show the differences of Windows 3.11 versus Windows 95 versus Windows 98 etc etc etc. At the least, such a table should be listed on this page, but I really think an article of this magnitude deserves its own page. After all, Linux has its own such page (Comparison of Linux distributions).
:Dustin 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new article: Comparison of Windows versions? 

message: While this may sound simple, I've never seen any where a detail listing of what windows  (XP )is progammed in. Common sense logic says its likely written in C or C++ ? Can someone shed more light on this.
:Both.  Most of the kernel, core, drives, is C.  Higher level stuff (shell, iexplore, etc) is C++. Other languages are in there too. SchmuckyTheCat 16:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this still is the case, but there were even bits of JavaScript (and man, what rotten code that was...) Shinobu 15:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't JavaScript web-based? WalrusMan118 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The kernel/core is written in C, however Windows consists of many different components, written in many different languages.--Rsantmann 20:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Windows Programmed in? 

message: I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles.  Please take a look at it.  I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. --Dgies 07:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Sidebar for Windows articles 

message: Microsoft recently put up a new image for the "generic" Windows logo. Can that be replaced by the one currently in this article? http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/gallery/logos/web/Windows_generic_h_web.jpg --72.144.35.88 02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consideration for replacement of logo on header 

message: pourquoi tu as changé de logo windows ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.199.203.8 (talk • contribs) .
:"Why have you changed the Windows logo?"
:There is a small amount of dissent over whether to use Vista or Windows XP screen-shots and logos. At the moment, I believe policy is to use the Windows XP versions. Once Vista is officially released, it should change to using all Vista versions. On another note, please use English on the English Wikipedia. There is a French Wikipedia available. tepid 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  windows 

message: I am pretty sure that the picture subtitle or whatever you call it is wrong. It says "A typical windows vista desktop" but as far as i can remember, it only looks like that in aero mode.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.117.118 (talk • contribs) 
:Aero is the default style for windows vista so it is typical to display that mode.-Localzuk(talk) 15:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't feel bad about that mistake. For a while I confused areo with Aero (a type of bad tasting chocolate bar known in particular for being bloated, being full of holes and insubstantial in nature which causes it to be broken easily). See there is obviously no similarity with Windows. ; ) Candy 11:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible article error 

message: I have noticed some vandalism on some of the articles regarding Microsoft Windows on December 15, 2006.  
Someone has edited all text that originally read "Microsoft" and/or "Windows" in the articles to read "Microsuck Doors".  I am asking the person who is doing this to please stop, and I am reminding everyone that this site is meant to be a source of factual information to casual readers, students, and 
researchers, and not a place to post your personal opinion on a subject.
--24.196.247.167 00:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I heard that many -- if not most parts of Win64 are still 32 Bit - even drivers which include some kind of 64/32 Bit wrapper layer - e.g. the nvidia driver.
According to the person I heard it from IA64 Windows uses some kind of emulator to run a 32 Bit Windows. 
Does anybody more about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.195.223 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 Bit windows 

message: whats the name of the version of windows that is cheaper. there is a version that is targeting poorer countries in efforts to fight piracy, so they came out with a version of windows that is cheaper than the ones sold in the states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.204.43 (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starter Edition, there is a mention in the Windows XP article SchmuckyTheCat 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cheaper windows 

message: I though the "Propritary" word is reserved for Macs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.246.37 (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, 'proprietary software' means any software not released under a free software licence. MacOS and Microsoft Windows are both proprietary software. Cynical 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  Proprietary in this context means it is someone's PROPERTY.  Like when you buy Office 2007 (I upgraded today) and Microsoft thanks you for buying a license for genuine Microsoft software made and OWNED by Microsoft.  Software from the Free Software Foundation and similar organizations is non-proprietary.  --Coolcaesar 09:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If proprietary software means someone's property, then only public domain software is non-proprietary.  As you know, software from such companies is normally released under the GPL, which allows the copyright holder to maintain ownership of the work as well as it's distribution rules.  A more detailed distinction is shown on the proprietary software talk page. --Sigma 7 13:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propritary Software? Is that the right word??? 

message: Wouldn't it be more accurate to list it as the current release, and XP as the stable? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.20.190.13 (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista as stable release? 

message: This article seems to be missing a section on criticism, of which there is a great deal, especially the newest version Vista. Before adding one, I'd like to ask here if this would result in edit wars as presumably the NPOV potential is high. Sorry, I didn't see the section above in time. I do think there should be some mention of the controversial nature of Vista. --Theosch 08:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows Vista and Criticism of Windows Vista are the approrpriate places for that.   -/- Warren 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Windows 

message: Security section:
This is not from a neutral point of view and the views stated are contradicted by the historical facts.
'Windows was 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 was not designed for Internet security in mind as much since, when it was first developed, the Internet was less important', Warren
'Windows NT3.1 was introduced in July 1993 and heavily promoted as a mid range server OS and included a built-in TCP/IP stack for connectivity to the Internet. NT also arrived with a new file system NTFS to provide better security and reliability than the previous used file system. Bill gates is quoted in an interview as saying it would make a great Server platform. Despite numerous iterations from NT4 to Vista it continues to be plagued by security lapses', emacsuser
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_2658.pdf
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_4524.pdf
emacsuser 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting documents, but pretty historical now. In my opinion most Windows security problems result not because of the design of the newer systems, but because the default installations are for comfort rather than security, which has resulted in most home users using administrator accounts as standard and giving every successful email virus administrator permissions on such machines. Windows Vista now goes some way to combat this problem but it is too early to see whether it is really successful or weather people will simply click away security warnings. In any case it is a difficult subject with little concensus apparent. Certainly the section here should have some mention of these problems, but it is very difficult to ensure NPOV. --Theosch 09:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security section:  innacurate and not neutral point of view .. 

message: The Beta version of Windows Defender was not called Windows AntiSpyware, it was called Microsoft AntiSpyware. 
 
Matt is Great 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Defender 

message: Hi all. I'm currently mediating a case into which this article is involved.
Every editor can see how's going the mediation and voice his opinion here.
For a successful mediation, I need to hear every position and its arguments.
In order to keep mediation-related stuff all together, I prefer if we discuss on the mediation page rather than here.
I'm at your disposal for every question.
Happy editing,
Snowolf(talk)CONCOI -  18:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-06 Microsoft Windows|'''MedCab case''']] 

message: It doesnt say why Windoze redirects here, this is a misuse of the redirect function... RealG187 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your last sentence sums up why it is un-necessary to mention the redirected spelling in this article and it is un-necessary to change the redirect. SchmuckyTheCat 23:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't believe someone needs to know where "Windoze" came from. JuJube 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia shouldn't be housing any "joke" redirects that don't explain themselves.  I've opened up an RfD on the subject: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 8 with the recommendation that it points to Satiric misspellings instead, just like M$ does.  Let's discuss that there.   -/- Warren 00:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windoze 

message: Symantec is spelt incorrectly under the heading Security
: Fixed... thanks.  -/- Warren 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI: 

message: Considering that Microsoft windows is the dominate operating system on a world wide basis and has been so for many years, and considering all personal computers absolutely need an OS unlike other software, would it be much of a stretch to say Microsoft windows, or at least a version of it is the best selling software in the world,currently or all time?. Rodrigue 13:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be reasonable, but without a source it would be a point of view. Paul Cyr 17:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: It seems to me that the first paragraph of this section displays a bias in favour of Microsoft. Although the overall number of vulnerabilities found in MS Windows was lower than in the other operating systems, the number of vulnerabilities of high severity found in Windows was significantly greater. I.e. Windows: 12, Red Hat + Fedora: 2, Apple OS X: 1, HP-UX: 2, Solaris: 1. David1409 18:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security: Third - party analysis 

message: some sections do not seem to cite their sources, for example when talking about Apple's law-suit.
This kind of statement especially, I feel, requires a reference.
Does this page need to be tagged as "does not cite its sources" ?
 
:* I have added  templates where they were needed. — Wackymacs 08:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and other  sections does not cite sources 

message: I dont think that this article should be expanded any further. This articles evenly divides into Windows XP/2000/9x/NT articles that creates this article. A Raider Like Indiana 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Expansion 

message: This article has been delisted because it fails to meet the current criteria listed at WP:WIAGA. Some of the issues are an insufficient lead, copyrighted images lack fair use rationales, images need to be moved throughout the article so that the text flows better, rather than being sandwiched between images, references need to consistently be formatted per WP:CITE. See WP:CIT for assistance with this. 
Once the article has been brought up to standards, it may be renominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. Regards, Lara♥Love 05:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted [[WP:GA|GA]] 

message: After scrolling through this entire article, only two words pop up at me:  "citation" and "needed." Someone really needs to add references/sources or remove unverifiable information from the article. Fiver2552 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: The various versions of Windows have been the target of a number of criticisms over the years.
*For criticism of Windows XP, see Criticism of Windows XP
*For criticism of Windows Vista, see Criticism of Windows Vista
*For criticism of Windows 2000, see the criticism section of the Windows 2000 article
*For criticism of Windows Me, see the criticism section of the Windows Me article
*For criticism of Windows 98, see the disadvantages section of the Windows 98 article
</blockquote>
This will satisfy those who believe that the article needs a criticism section to be NPOV; and the criticism articles it links to will be a lot more specific and informative to the reader than any "criticisms" section that attempts to summarise all criticisms of Windows into one paragraph and ends up just repeating some overgeneralised and synthesized statements and getting plastered with  tags could be.  Thoughts?  -- simxp (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disadvantages does not equal criticism. Josh 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Didn't Microsoft give in to the EU? Won't future operating systems be open source? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not by a long shot. They were ordered to "give third party program developers access to information that will allow them to make systems interoperable with Windows", according to BBC News. That might include giving them access to some code, but they're certainly not releasing the entire codebase. — Matt Eason (Talk •  Contribs) 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank God. My sources were not 100% accurate then. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source code