Talk:Microsoft Azure/Archive 1

Pronunciation?[edit]

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/pronunciation-of-azure-in-windows-azure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Feldman (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed source?[edit]

Is there an official or confirmed source that supports the new OS system? Or has Microsoft already said something about Cloud? 71.106.120.87 (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Announcment Date Incorrect[edit]

It says it was announced Oct. 27, it is only the 13. Perhaps it meant September? Acid 1 (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud isn't 7?[edit]

This, from 2nd Oct, "Steve Ballmer was in London at a software conference, where he said Microsoft will officially announce Windows 7, now called Windows Cloud, at the end of October. The official name for the new Windows operating system, as well as other details, will be announced at Microsoft’s annual developer conference in Los Angeles between October 27th through the 30th.". 86.144.105.78 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's wrong; 7 and cloud are two totally different things. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Move removed

I removed the move request after I moved the article to it's official name. --Blowdart | ^talk 21:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The Microsoft Windows article says that Cloud is a codename and that Strata is the current name. Georgia guy (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately there hasn't been an announcement either way as yet; in fact the Microsoft Windows article makes no mention of cloud being a codename at all; the only reference to Strata at all is in a product name column with a citation that's basically a news blog. --Blowdart | ^talk 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. According to the reference at Microsoft Windows [1], "there is no official confirmation that Windows Strata is actually the Windows Cloud that Ballmer mentioned". Best to leave the page here until the announcements are made (which will be before this move request expires, anyway!) 81.98.251.134 (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; based on the above source, it appears that cloud is a standalone operating system (or something), not a codename. RockManQ ^(talk) 03:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just FYI Azure is the official name.^[1]^[2] Lord Procyon (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

A Service Platform, not OS[edit]

Microsoft's website notes that this isn't an operating system, but a comparable service platform, for creating SaaS, to AWS or Google App Engine.

"The Azure™ Services Platform (Azure) is an internet-scale cloud services platform hosted in Microsoft data centers"

Emphasis added.

http://www.microsoft.com/azure/whatisazure.mspx

--220.232.210.142 (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From that same page: "Windows® Azure is a cloud services operating system..." Emphasis added. Where does it say that it isn't an operating system? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; there's a common confusion here already; Azure (the OS) hosts the Azure Services Platform. So I've removed that redirect; cleaned out the bits that talk about the platform and hopefully the article will stand alone now. --Blowdart | ^talk 09:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Azure and Azure Services Platform are different. Windows Azure is the OS that powers the datacenter/s (cloud) that host the Azure Services Platform (Windows Azure + Live Services, SQL Services, .NET Services, CRM Services and SharePoint Services running on top of Windows Azure inside the datacenter). There is an important distinction between the two, but because they are named so similarly is the cause of the confusion.

Improper writing[edit]

The current first sentence of this article, at a minimum, is lifted verbatim out of Microsoft documentation. I'm not sure what else in this article is compromised. Aside from the obvious problem of plagiarism, the use of corporate text makes me wonder about the reliability of the information that is presented. Someone who knows more about Azure should take a close look. Nojamus (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article properly describes the summary and overview of the features of Windows Azure. It is the good way to list all the features of the platform. If anything the text is too brief and short, something I hope to remedy within the near future. Looking for someone who knows about Windows Azure? I am a Windows Azure MVP so it's fair to say that I am such a person. Cheers, MM. Noopman (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Nojamus is saying that Microsoft is being used as a source about Azure, which is undesirable. Wikipedia articles should be built around reliable secondary sources. Secondary means independent of the subject that is being discussed, and there's a spectrum of independence. Industry watchers like Gartner and Forrester are definitely independent and won't just paraphrase vendors' publicity. Publications like WSJ and the FT are probably equally independent but don't necessarily have the time and experience to check what vendors may claim. Technical writers may already have invested time in a particular cloud platform, so it can be difficult for them to write impartially, and so on. We should be aiming for a high standard of neutrality in the first few paragraphs of the article. - Pointillist (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying (or read what you are writing) and yet it looks and feels kind of like you are intentionally aiming to confuse "independent" with "less favorable for Microsoft". There is no "secondary source" to facts. The Windows Azure Platform is what it is and that should be documented in Wikipedia with a reference to the original and true source of what the platform is. In this case that source is windowsazure.com. If that is not possible on Wikipedia there are a LOT of other pages that suffer the same handicap. I would *love* to discuss opinions about what Windows Azure is and is not and how that compares to competing products. I would do that in a completely separate forum. I want to read the facts on Wikipedia about any subject matter that I don't know about and want to learn about. Noopman (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree that a lot of other pages suffer from the same handicap – you can find many examples in technology, sports and popular culture – in each case the main problem is that for encyclopedic purposes "the original source" can't possibly be "the true source" for a fact, or we would still believe claims made by all sorts of now-discredited absolute monarchs and corporate fraudsters. Of course, I'm not accusing anyone at Microsoft of dishonesty, but at every quoted company the management has a fiduciary responsibility to promote the company in the most positive light. They aren't measured on how completely they present a situation. What a company says, even in good faith, isn't automatically a fact, Facts are things that have been independently assessed: that's what makes them different from claims. AFAICS the practice at Wikipedia is to require that the introductory material and all controversial claims will be based on reliable third party sources. This works quite well, because if there aren't any third party sources for something, it probably doesn't deserve a prominent place in an article. I can promise this has nothing to do with my own opinions about Azure (which are in fact very positive) because I don't write about what I "know", I write about what I can research using reliable sources. If you are a Microsoft MVP, perhaps you could contribute more neutrally by improving articles outside your immediate areas of interest, such as APL, PL/I or maybe Coral 66 or BCPL? - Pointillist (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that was a good write up! Also it was pretty much along the lines of my thinking. As a Windows Azure MVP am I considered by this forum as being too close to the originating sources? If I were to write texts on this page that might be close to the texts on the Microsoft site would they be deemed as credible sources based on experience or would it be considered "improper writing". Reason I ask is that there is no point in investing time and effort to add to the Windows Azure material of Wikipedia if that would fuel some debate on the legitimacy of the texts. Not that I expect to stand un-opposed if I write something that others disagree on. But let me say this. As an expert user of Microsoft technology you are used to a certain level of distrust and opposition as soon as you open your mouth. Clearly not from you in this case but I think you know what I mean. I'd love to contribute. In fact I will try to do so. (While on the subject is there a visual editor that allows you to write texts without being in this markup mode?) Noopman (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no longer called Windows Azure[edit]

new name is Microsoft Azure (source: TechCrunch) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.254.169 (talk) 03:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MySQL?[edit]

I am looking for an update on the supported databases on this platform. When I log in to the Microsoft Azure preview portal I see MySQL Database and SQL Database as storage options. MySQL isn't mentioned on the Wikipedia page.. Is there a special reason it's not mentioned yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:412:2d00:9114:d2d1:9305:6995 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Because you didn't edit the page and add it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.247.82.190 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Outage incident[edit]

Under April 2014 is there a source for this "Azure experiences an outage affecting several customers - "An internal server error has occurred"." Should one be added here? Or should line be removed from the history? Also it has been awhile since I have been on this site to edit, I apologize in advance if I have done something wrong. Lothp (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microsoft Azure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatting[edit]

I've done a bit of a clean-up, mostly just reducing subheads to bullet points - the Amazon Web Services article is good template.

Still needs a lot of work! Snori (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft requesting edits[edit]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hello, my name is Patricia Wagner and I'm an employee of Microsoft. I work in the Cloud+Enterprise division as a content publisher for Azure products. We are reviewing Wikipedia articles that relate to our areas and would like to update some to better represent the current state and features of our products. Please review the changes below and let me know if they are acceptable to you. Thank you very much for your consideration.

In this article, footnote 17 is currently "Data Factory Developer Reference- Microsoft Azure." We would like to replace that link with this one, which is a more recent, general article about Azure: ^[1]

Pat MSFT (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/services/data-factory/

Currently[edit]

The article is top heavy with too much Microsoft website information and not enough outside sources. There are large blocks of information also with no sourcing at all. I removed a little of that but there is a lot more bloat in this article than is needed. At its worst it is a little like a Microsoft promo site. The article needs major trimming and outside sources need to be used. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It still reads like MS corporate PR 4 years later. --Ef80 (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microsoft Azure. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sasikala Edition[edit]

Sasikala Edition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.205.186 (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of Azure services[edit]

The page says that "Microsoft lists over 600 Azure services", but the link referenced (Directory of Azure Cloud Services) only displays 245 services.

What is Azure?[edit]

I came here looking for an answer to this question, but am none the wiser. If Azure is cloud-based, is it the same as OneDrive? Or is it a website for experimenting with software? Is it a web-based app or a programming language or a database? Is it for software engineers, IT experts, businesses or the general public? Davidelit (Talk) 03:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cloud based infrastructure for hosting data and applications for corporate clients. Amazon and Google offer comparable services. --Ef80 (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for responding. So does that mean it's the same as OneDrive? Not trying to be difficult, but I just can't get my head round this. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 04:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azure is a framework of services for corporate and public sector bodies allowing them to outsource their entire IT infrastructure. OneDrive is just a small subcomponent that provides cloud storage for individual computer users. Microsoft makes most of its money selling Azure services nowadays. --Ef80 (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer using "A" logo?[edit]

I don't think the "A" logo with points edges is being used by Microsoft anymore. If you go to the Microsoft Azure website or their Facebook page, both use Microsoft's window logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartszyszka (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Market share[edit]

The article should include some estimates of market share, or at least a mention of why they're hard to find (because Microsoft mixes revenues from Office365 and other legacy products). Not sure what sources are best here. Example:

The extra income from these other services makes identifying Azure-specific revenue challenging. As a consequence, comparing market share based purely on revenue is almost impossible. But we can still look at Microsoft Azure growth rates through time. The cloud industry continues to be frustrated by the ambiguity in the real dollar amount produced by Azure, making it impossible to evaluate how Azure is actually doing.

https://www.codeenigma.com/blog/comparing-aws-and-microsoft-azure-market-share-2021

Other sources are analyses of overall revenues/spending or surveys:

2001:14BA:21F0:ED00:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "XYZ" real?[edit]

Regarding this in sub section Computer services:

"...communicate between WebApps,XYZ,iOS Softwares and WebJobs..."

Does "XYZ" actually exist, etc.?

--Mortense (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabric Controller on Server 2008[edit]

The article cites a quote “The Fabric Controller, which automates pretty much everything including new hardware installs, is a modified Windows Server 2008 OS”. While this was almost certainly true when Azure originally launched, Server 2008 has been EOL for a while now and no longer is updated. I have no source on this but it’s far more likely the fabric controller is based on whatever the current version of Windows Server is at the time. Tokyotapes (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.microsoft.com/azure/windowsazure.mspx

[2] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7693993.stm

[3] ttps://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/services/data-factory/

[1]

[2]

[1]