Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 2

Vandalism??
"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)

A concern
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 -- 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)
 * Perhaps these criticism sections could be linked to in the security section? Sammydee 17:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he means, in this page it doesn't mention ONCE about MS's long trials and court hearings or it's anti-competitive practices.

The WHOLE PIECE reads like an MS advertisement.

I mean I thought Wikipedia was about knowledge and facts. Not about intellectual dishonesty to please the big guys.

For example, it's a known fact MS got it's market share from shady business practices. AKA giving resellers a HUGE discount (practically for free) if they installed DOS on ALL the computer they sold and charging them TONS for separate licenses. They signed contracts basically saying they had to install DOS on every machine, regardless of what OS the user wanted to use. And MS could claim they have sold so many computers with this operating system that no one that worked for MS wrote.

LOTS of information missing. Is Wikipedia being a corporate shill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevindk (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So fix it. Paul Cyr 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Invention of GUI
"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.&mdash;Kbolino 07:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Pictures of Vista?
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)


 * 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)
 * Maybe we can use some from beta vesion. -- seXie (t0lk) 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shinobu 04:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)

Removed picture from "See Also" section
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)

No Windows 2003/XP x64 mentioned and WINE is not an emulator
I think Windows 2003 and Windows XP x64 need to be mentioned here. XP to Vista is totally misleading.

Also, http://sourceforge.net/projects/wine/, Says "WINE is not an emulator," it is an API compatible with WIN32.


 * "WINE Is Not an Emulator" is the current official breakdown of the acronym, but what it really means is that WINE is not a hardware emulator or an  emulation layer, but simply an API layer that in itself emulates the Windows APIs.  --tonsofpcs (Talk) 07:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there has to be a more general headline for this section. After all bootcamp is also no emulator 134.225.183.173 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's an OS switcher/manager thingy for installing OS. Ekkusu 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wine is not Wine Is Not an Emulator. The Wine developpers have dropped it. I don't even think that was ever an official name for it. 72.138.179.83 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wine is a compatibility layer, and 3 of the 5 other projects listed are Wine-based. Name it 'Emulators and Compatibility Layers?" Or is that going too far into semantics?  Marimvibe 05:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it was, that was the original name for it. However they reduced it to Wine (not WINE) probably because of space.


 * Btw, the name itself has more than just one meaning. it infact can relate to real wine. Think about it. Ekkusu 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thumbs.db
thumbs.db redirects to "Microsoft Windows", but it is not explained what thumbs.db is. --Abdull 12:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Relation between versions
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)

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

"Windows" article redirect issue
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)


 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)

I think "Windows" will, in general, refer to the operating system, while "window" will refer to something else. Just a thought... 164.107.227.78 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Vista as primary screenshot
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.&mdash;Kbolino 03:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's not even past beta 1, every previous Windows release had fairly large UI changes from Beta 1 to RTM. SchmuckyTheCat 05:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that's RTM'ed I've changed the screenshot. Paul Cyr 22:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Splash screens of various windows versions
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Centro?
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2005/sep05/09-06Infrastructure.mspx --Snori 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's got a brief mention in the Windows Server "Longhorn" article. Warrens 23:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Windows 1.0 Abandonware?
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)

Damned figures
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)

That and the fact that 99% of the userbase had it preinstalled, 40% of the userbase doesn't know alternatives, and except for a few, the rest of them, who know an alternative, think the only one is Mac OS. 72.138.179.83 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange Comment
"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)

No evidence
"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)


 * 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)

Unsubstantiated?
"Microsoft Windows is installed on the vast majority of personal computers. A July 2005 poll of Network Computing magazine readers found that 90% of their organizations used Microsoft's desktop operating systems.[2]"

I followed the link to the reference. I could not see any evidence of the claim that the poll showed 90% of the organisations used Microsoft's desktop Operating systems. Perhaps someone could point a beacon at this for me as I can't find it.

Candy 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears to be there, although it appears to be 87%.... RN 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! I follow. I really didn't see that. However, now it makes the statement in the article a little ambiguous. (I'm not referring to quibbling over the 87% or 90% but that needs changing obviously.) The statement is, "A July 2005 poll of Network Computing magazine readers found that 90% of their organizations used Microsoft's desktop operating systems.[2] ".
 * The way it is phrased with the mention of market penetration in the next sentence implies to me that MS Windows had an 87/90% installed user base. This is not a valid inferrence. In fact the answer simply states that 87% of companies have MS Windows installed on DeskTops. Not that they have it exclusively installed. Nor does it give any indication of how many copies of Windows are installed in those companies.
 * To me it is a misleading figure used in a misleading way. Needs striking, rephrasing or a better, less ambiguous source finding.


 * Candy 09:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph is so misleading it's a joke: "Finally, the large base of software available exclusively for the Windows family of operating systems has become the single largest self-perpetuating reason for the popularity of Windows. In recent years, many companies have been started with the sole intention of releasing Windows software; the fact that there is already a large customer base in place is reason enough for such companies to spend their resources solely on Windows software development. As a result, the fact that many companies are supporting Windows exclusively is a self-reinforcing reason for customers to choose Windows." My attempt to correct it was apparently deemed an "expiriment" and therefore reverted. If the paragraph is not going to be rewritten, it should at least include a statement of the fact that there is no software (that I am familiar of, at least, and therefore probably very little at the most) that is proprietary and released as Windows-only binaries that implements functionality that can not be found in an open source product. Though I wouldn't recommend stating this in the article, it being about Microsoft Windows, you can look to the FreeBSD Ports collection for an example. There is no large base of *functionality* available exclusively for Windows.

This whole article is pretty sad as far as representing unbent truth goes. I guess I didn't see the sign that said it's supposed to be a Microsoft advertisement before I started trying to clean it up some.


 * I changed the part on security to "Due in some part to the widespread usage of Windows on personal computers as well as a number of technical reasons there is a five fold greater amount of malware for Windows than other operating systems such as Linux, Unix, Mac OS X, and FreeBSD[4]. "


 * I read the reference cited and the original text simply seemed to draw erroneous conclusions from the artcile. Now, I am still not fully happy with it. Perhaps the part about "widespread use" needs erasing or rephrasing. However, by this edit I want to bring in all the reasons for Window's security issues and the order of magnitude of differences between Windows and other OS's. I did stretch it by retaining part of the original which also referred to Linux, Unix and Free BSD as the article was only OS X vs Windows.
 * Also, I added "some" to the part of widespread usage although I would like it removed entirely. Part itself is rather vague as it could refer to large part or small part. By adding "some" I think I have implied it is a smaller part rather than larger.
 * Overall I may come back and do a clearer rephrasing of the section.
 * Candy 10:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an excuse. The BIGGEST reason MS gets hit so often is actually because of MS's shoddy security practices. While I think EVERYONE would admit it being the most used OS doesn't help, blaming it purely on this is intellectually dishonest. And makes one think you've been drinking from the MS Kool Aid.

66.76.193.162 17:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

NT genesis?
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)


 * 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)

Please explain!!!
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)


 * Please look at the DR-DOS article. Adam Mirowski 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Little X Redirect
Why does "Little X" redirect here? "Little X" is the name of a popular music video director.

--Jeyler 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why no Criticism Section?
Microsoft Windows certainly has a lot of criticism on its plate...--Dlevenstein 00:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the vastness of what Windows has been over the last 20+ years, it's hard to write relevant criticism that covers the entire product line, past and present. The Windows XP article covers criticism of that version, and Windows Vista has some, too.  -/- Warren 00:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the third time in about to days that I've seen the question "Why no criticism section?" asked. I think it's much more important that articles are neutral and balanced as a whole than that every article has it's own obligatory criticism section. Note also that the name "criticism" is not very useful as a section title. Instead a name addressing the specific problem is usually better, or perhaps moving the criticism to the appropriate sections. Articles that consist mostly of a "praise" section and a "criticism" section would be an eyesore, wouldn't they? Shinobu 06:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an enormous undertaking to make critisisms of Windows becasue it covers so many facets and would only be relevant within specific topics. For instance, if there was a section of Windows Marketing which included the hype, adverts etc then it could easily cover some of the Windows Vapourware as well. However, on its own it would make no sense without a context.
 * There is a lot to critisise imho but it has to be 1. Appropriately referenced and 2. in the correct context.
 * Candy 10:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In my experience, criticism sections usually become nothing but a gigantic furball of revert wars and NPOV disputes. No thanks. Jtrainor 21:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And thus the great failings of wikipedia becomes apparent. Unable to address valid criticism in an informative manner, wikipedia becomes nothing more than a platform for propagandic dross. Nodekeeper 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? Wikipedia has an entire category devoted to criticism and controversies related to Microsoft; some of the articles in there are actually quite good and have high informative value.  -/- Warren 10:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess that that there is a risk that a criticism section would become unmanageable, but maybe we should risk it, or at least link relevant articles such as Criticism_of_Windows_Vista, because with the amount of criticism having recently appeared regarding Vista, ignoring this would itself be a form of bias.--Theosch 08:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a criticism section. I agree that the more specific sections should be in their respective products, but given the enormous controversy surrounding Windows, it should at least be mentioned, and links available on the main Windows page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.6 (talk • contribs)

(reset indent) The section that was added was horribly biased and unsourced which is why I removed it. Paul Cyr 18:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

--Rsantmann 20:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Perhaps the reason there is no criticism because people keep deleting the section. I am a programmer for a company that writes Windows applications using the Windows API, so I am intimately familiar with Windows and how many of it's components work. The following section keeps getting reverted despite it's accuracy, relevance, and sources. Please discuss... If there is something that would make this section of acceptable quality then by all means, edit. I use Windows every day, and I'm not a Mac or Linux fanatic, however Microsoft Windows most certainly needs a criticism section. By the way, if there are too many criticisms to cover in the main article (as stated above), then there should be a link from the main page to the criticism page. Otherwise no one will ever find the section.

Criticism

Microsoft has come under a great deal of criticism for many of their products and business practices. It is difficult to summarize all of these concerns in this article, and as such they are listed under their respective products.


 * Windows 3.11 was a significant improvement over DOS. However, Apple had developed a similar interface several years before Microsoft.
 * Windows 95 was a significant improvement over Windows 3.11. However, it was plagued with instability problems.
 * Windows NT was Microsoft's server line of operating systems. Stability issues may have led Microsoft to purchase  IBM OS2 (the predecessor to Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/Vista).  It was not compatible with many DOS programs, and required different drivers than the Windows 9x series.  It did not have plug-n-play available until Windows 2000, making hardware installation more difficult.
 * Windows ME was arguably the most unstable mainstream Windows OS ever released. In 2006, PCWorld declared Windows Me the fourth "Worst Tech Product of All Time".
 * Windows XP is the first NT based version of Windows which was intended for home users. It caused incompatibility problems with many programs/hardware that were designed for the Windows 9x series or DOS.  However, Windows XP is generally regarded to be far more stable than the Windows 9x series of operating systems.
 * Windows CE is not based on the full Windows API, and normal Windows programs cannot run on Windows CE. Windows CE is designed for hand held devices with limited resources.
 * Windows Vista is the newest release of the Windows, and requires significantly more resources than the prior versions. It is criticized by many as being bloatware.  For a more detailed explanation see Criticism of Windows Vista.
 * The DOS framework lies underneath the Windows 9x/ME series of operating systems. The early versions of Windows were not technically an operating system, but rather an elaborate DOS program.  Microsoft eventually abandoned this framework in favor of the more stable Windows NT framework.  The last Windows 9x release was in 2000 (see Windows Me).
 * The section is not written in a NPOV tone. Try making not sound like a bashing section and it might be reasonable to discuss. Paul Cyr 22:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of Windows 9x as OS type
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

new article: Comparison of Windows versions?
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)

Windows and OS/2 relations
Microsoft has 'legally' stolen some of OS/2 core GUI technologies. Microsoft also wrote some of the parts for OS/2 Warp versions. Also WindowsNT is based on OS/2 sources which where improved by VMS developers. Why is it that there ain't no where mentioned how did the Windows development star at all? Is it that confusing to put into words on a neutral manner? I think that History of Windows is not complete without mentioning OS/2 somewhere since it's role critical in developent history.

-AnXa- (I don't have account since I just randomly borrow english wiki in purpose of making finish wiki better. ;D)


 * I would agree. Microsoft might have never come out with Windows 95 when they did without pressure from IBM and OS/2. I'll have to dig out my copy of The Road Ahead, seems like even Gates might write about that relationship. --Charles Gaudette 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what these "OS/2 core GUI" technologies would be, given that OS/2 GUI code evolved from Windows 1.0 source code, making incompatible changes to it, which Microsoft did not decide to adopt for Windows. One "GUI non-core" contribution of IBM was the visual appearance of Windows 2.x and Windows 3.0; this is already acked in some article; I am not sure people care.


 * NT kernel is not based on OS/2 sources, it is a new design, which was just called "NT OS/2" originally (cf. the dozens of makefiles in the leaked Windows 2000 source code) and was only supposed to have an OS/2 personality atop.


 * If one looks for "OS/2" strings in this leaked code, one can see that some minor stuff was indeed shared: Reversi, Clock, Cardfile could at some point be compiled for both systems, but even there the copyrights says "Microsoft OS/2" and not "IBM OS/2" (and the OS/2-specific C code has been removed, too bad). Otherwise, OS/2 is just another OS with which NT kernel tries to cope in some aspects (OS/2 boot manager is mentioned in a few places). And the OS/2 1.x subsystem code in NT is copyrighted by Microsoft.


 * Anyway, Microsoft also did most of OS/2 1.x and much of 2.0 kernel. Look at how OS/2 16-bit executable files have the same format as Windows 16-bit executable files, while OS/2 32-bit executables have the format of Windows 3.0 VXDs. The header files defining these formats contain only Microsoft copyrights; accordingly, the Microsoft guy who designed 32-bit formats was Wieslaw Kalkus in 1988, while the guy who did the 16-bit formats was Pete Stewart in 1984 (not the musician :-)). OS/2 HPFS filesystem was created by a Microsoft guy, Gordon Letwin, who also wrote Inside OS/2.


 * Of course, there is some IBM-copyrighted code in NT kernel sources, but this is FPU emulation, the PowerPC port involving Rick Simpson, Lou Perazzoli, Chuck Bauman, etc. and some BSP-level power-management stuff.


 * So no, NT does not owe much to OS/2 except a learning experience about how not to write stuff. However, NT does owe a lot to VMS and the Windows GUI API owes a lot to Macintosh. Maybe you remember how Windows 1.x and 2.x programming manuals from Microsoft had a chapter near the end about converting Mac apps to Windows apps without much thinking. Adam Mirowski 00:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Arstechnica / sophos reference
Since this has now been reverted and re-added a few times, it's probably worth discussing here. Neither sophos or arstechnica are by any means unknown. Sophos are a large, and well-respected antivirus company. Discuss.. njan 20:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sophos are one of the 'top few' anti-virus companies - with millions of customers around the world - it has a alexa rank of 13,260 which indicates it is a well known company and finally has millions of google hits.
 * And arstechnica are a very popular, well known and respected technology website that meets our verifiability policy and our reliable sources guideline. It has many, many hits in google and is ranked 1200th most popular website by Alexa..-Localzuk(talk) 21:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What's Windows Programmed in?
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)
 * 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)
 * Isn't JavaScript web-based? WalrusMan118 14:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Common Sidebar for Windows articles
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)

Consideration for replacement of logo on header
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)

windows
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)

possible article error
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)

Oh, sorry


 * 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)

Vandalism
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)Anonymous, December 15, 2006, 7:58PM ET

64 Bit windows
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).

cheaper windows
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).
 * Starter Edition, there is a mention in the Windows XP article SchmuckyTheCat 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Propritary Software? Is that the right word???
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).
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Vista as stable release?
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).

Criticism of Windows
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)


 * Windows Vista and Criticism of Windows Vista are the approrpriate places for that. -/- Warren 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't critize windows vista is the best

Security section: innacurate and not neutral point of view ..
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)


 * 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)

When discussing historical events it is normal debating procedure to produce citations. Is there any citations for the opinions expressed in the original quote regarding not designed for the Internet.

The section specifically refers to historical events. It also misleading states that Windows security was not designed for the Internet. Not a true depiction of the historical facts. There are documents available showing MS executives discussing Windows 95 and TCP/IP at least as far back as Oct 1995. In June 1995 another document shows them discussing putting Netscapes commerce server into Windows NT.

Therefore it isn't a matter of opinion whether Windows was or wasn't designed for Internet security. The historical facts contradict this 'opinion'. And it is most certainly not a NPOV and a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.

http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_4524.pdf http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/122106/PLEX0_5716.pdf

emacsuser 14:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

continued ..

Still waiting for proof and historical citations that Windows NT wasn't designed for 'Internet security'.

It is original research to conclude based on an email whether anyone at microsoft was talkinga bout internet security

revision to Microsoft_Windows as of 15:03, 9 April 2007 by SchmuckyTheCat

What do you mean? .. emacsuser 09:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Windows Defender
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)

MedCab case
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)

Windoze
It doesnt say why Windoze redirects here, this is a misuse of the redirect function... RealG187 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to say it's an insultive way to say Microsoft Windows, and left a link for the real page. If someone can, please expand it by describing origins of the word, possibly. I'm a Linux user myself, but I kept it as simply saying it's an insulting way, because who has ever said "Windoze" in a nice way?
 * 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)
 * I can't believe someone needs to know where "Windoze" came from. JuJube 23:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia shouldn't be housing any "joke" redirects that don't explain themselves. I've opened up an RfD on the subject: 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)

FYI:
Symantec is spelt incorrectly under the heading Security


 * Fixed... thanks. -/- Warren 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Popularity
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)


 * It would be reasonable, but without a source it would be a point of view. Paul Cyr 17:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Windows versions
There is an article "Comparison of Windows versions".

Security: Third - party analysis
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)

History and other sections does not cite sources
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)

Article Expansion
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. &#91;&#91;User:A Raider Like Indiana&#124;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font face=&quot;papyrus&quot; color=&quot;orange&quot;&gt;A Raider Like Indiana&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;]] 02:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows Market Share
I am against the presentation of the market share 'cause it doesn't show the penetration of the OS

Delisted GA
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)

Citations Needed
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)

Criticism links
I see that consensus has been reached in sections above that it is not necessary to have a dedicated criticism section in this article (besides the security one), on the basis that criticisms are sufficiently covered in the individual Windows versions articles -- a decision which I completely agree with: the fewer articles, the less topic sprawl and the easier to maintain it is. However, I do think that we need to make these easier to find -- the only one the article currently links to directly is Criticism of Windows Vista, in the history section. Therefore, I suggest adding a section like the following (copied from Criticism of Microsoft Windows):

Criticism
The various versions of Windows have been the target of a number of criticisms over the years.

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 Fact tags could be. Thoughts? -- simxp (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 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


 * Disadvantages does not equal criticism. Josh 17:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Source code
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)
 * 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 &#149; Contribs) 21:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank God. My sources were not 100% accurate then. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Market share
There is a table giving the market share of various OS. Ir reference some obscure site http://marketshare.hitslink.com Why should anyone trust the figures there? I don't even see Solaris listed at all in their table and anyone who believes Solaris does not have a market share above 0.01% must be either mad or not know much about Solaris.

I'm not suggesting any particular source should be used, but this is hardly a reputable source. If a reputable source of this can't be found, I suggest the table is removed.

Drkirkby (talk) 08:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked at the http://marketshare.hitslink.com and it is clear their method of analysis is flawed. They judge market share by hits to web sites. Operating systems mainly used by servers (for example IBM's AIX) are not going to be used to browse the web. So the method of analysis is flawed. It is clear Windows is popular, but I doubt anyone knows the market share of the different operating systems. Least of all some nothing web site.

There's a lot of stuff stated to which someone has added the 'citation-needed' tag, but which has no credible source. This should be removed too. --
 * They take their data from toolbars that people install into their browsers or they take data from who visits business sites, nothing about servers. If anything, that would show that Windows has a bigger share than it really does, because businesses is Windows's best market. Linux servers are very popular. However, this isn't talking about web servers, this is talking about what people like consumers are using. Also, its important that people get at least some idea of what's being used, and net applications seems good enough for computer news sites. Althepal (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The market share data is no longer accurate. NetApplications released their November data today. One of the rurelased Windows XP9x was made November 4, 2001, known also as Windows Classic.

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10