Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Uncategorized Things 

message: "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)
replies: text: Glad I could be a part of it :) Dysprosia 12:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about "forced to buy Windows with a PC" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Availability on IA64 shipped at the same time as 32 bit XP. SchmuckyTheCat 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  64-bit =

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Probably also Windows NT 4.0 Embedded. Niteowlneils 01:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs on NT4 editions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lawsuits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Windows resources needs definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issue with info box on top-right of article page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, no point except Windows on Windows. :) SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulation software 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MS windows benefitting from MS widly licensing it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: The last Google Zeitgeist to include user-agent info  gave Windows a total of 91% --tyomitch 07:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Alistair I cited a source  yet you still removed this fact. Do you have a problem with the link? Rhobite 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  90% figure 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Losing Ground" 

message: Do we already have an image with just the four-colored "window", without the black text? --tyomitch 22:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this image, but is there a better (=true-color) one? --tyomitch 12:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OMG yes that's large... I've uploaded it as :Image:Windows XP logo.png. Thank you! --tyomitch 13:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows logo 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Major Interface Developments 

message: Substituted at 21:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment