Talk:Windows Odyssey

6.0 or 5.0?
I'm fairly certain that Windows 2000 was built on the NT 5.0 codebase, not the NT 6.0 codebase like this article implies. NT 6.0 is what eventually became the current Windows Vista kernel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyadav (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul Thurrott said, that Odyssey was planned to be NT 6.0, of course, stemming from the NT 5.0 code-base, but still being NT 6.0.

SchmuckyTheCat mergers
Please, stop merging articles without previously reaching a consensus. You're merging, based on your personal opinions, which is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

Also, the fact, that two of us already un-did your merges, clearly proves, that there's strong opposition to them, so insisting on them might be treated as deliberate vandalism.

The next time you want to merge articles, please, first make a merge proposal, and then merge, only, IF the outcome results in support of the merge.

Also let me remind you, that you already spreded false information before, namely, the fact, that Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese was a for Workgroup Windows, which was eventually generously corrected by mr. Wengier Wu from the China DOS Union, in my humble opinion, clearly points at the fact, that you're hardly a reliable source. - 194.165.96.5 (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Development_of_Windows_XP SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

SchmuckyTheCat
Christ, Windows Odyssey is in no way related to Windows XP, despite the fact that Odyssey and Neptune were cancelled and merged into Whistler. Edited by OBrasilo: Made the user's comment more polite.


 * This article has one source so it fails our notability policy as a standalone article. The single source it uses, Paul Thurrot, is not exactly reliable. That source also only references one fact in this article. The rest of it is unsourced and can be removed by anyone at any time. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, schmuckythecat, you realize, that Euro-Asian Beta Group, is planning on LEAKING Odyssey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.216.230 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to say, Odyssey was never compiled. The evidence is all in those court papers that time ago (something daft like Comes vs MS.) Those claiming to have any builds are outright liars. Odyssey wasn't even close to being compiled. -soulman from BetaArchive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.109.27 (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's solve the whole thing once and for all
Essentially, from the AfD discussion, I seem to gather 3 keep, 1 strong keep vs. 3 merge. This is 4/7, which I think is very close to a 2/3 majority for keep as is. For both this, and Windows Neptune.

Now, as for SchmuckyTheCat being published by MS Press, and thus, the most reliable to work on this - this presents two problems. One, he's NOT uninvolved with the company who created the product, that is, Microsoft Corp. So he might well be hired by them to push Microsoft's current POV on these two Operating Systems. Second is his reliability boasting. He claims no source, existing as of now, which mentiones Neptune, or Odyssey, is reliable, but he is. He defamates leading Windows authorities, such as Paul Thurrott, but pretends we blindly consider him a reliable source. I think this is unacceptable behavior, as per the Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, not to mention, he's not unmistakable either. He claimed that Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese had for Workgroups features, when that's false. When asked proof for it, all he ever provided, were screenshots. He ignored any requests for providing the actual install files for his copy of the product. I can understand copyright implications here, but he could have done it privately, at least to some people who are Chinese just like him, who could then verify it. The fact he ignored such requests, proves that it was most probably not a mistake, but something else.

It should be easily to explain, what. He mentioned, that the for Workgroups tools in the product were left in English. This would have been in practice impossible, given how there exists a Simplified Chinese OEM translation (done on Microsoft's request, I can provide a source for this, if needed), and Microsoft never released half-translated Windows versions. Secondly, why would Microsoft release a for Workgroups version of Windows, and label it as such?

This means, that either there is no such product, and SchmuckyTheCat was creating "evidence" for it by installing Windows 3.2 Simplified Chinese over Windows for Workgroups 3.11 English, and making screenshots of such, or he had a hacked together version of Windows, possibly made by him, and tried to make it appear as official. Or, the most likely, he made a honest mistake, but has just too big a pride to admit it, so he made up fact after fact in hope to cover up the mistake.

All three such cases constitute un-acceptable (by Wikipedia guidelines) behavior.

The fact that both in that case, and in this case here, he's clearly showing disrespect to people, ignoring legitimate requests, and legitimate dissenting sources, attacking people who don't agree with him with snappy comments, and boasting himself as being more reliable, than legitimate reliable sources, and claiming sources to be un-reliable with no rationale behind it, except for his own speculation.

I also feel the user is keeping or retaining edits, depending on who they're done with. The previous version of this article, written by someone whose opinion is not known to him, was kept with no problems, even though it was un-sourced. The version by Lin Godzilla was almost entirely wiped for being un-sourced, when it was no less sourced, than the previous version. This, in my opinion, is serious discrimination.

He's also defamating people, and discriminating them, based on who they work for, and on which forums they're member of. I think it's completely irrelevant, if a source works for Microsoft, or if an editor is a member of a dicussion forum, where people share Beta's on FTP servers - he claims we're sharing them on BitTorrent, which is clearly false, and shows, how he's clearly mis-informed about things here - when choosing whether to use such sources here (accusations need to be themselves proven by sources), and when people edit this article.

But anyway, this is not really relevant here. What's relevant is to add one IP user to those, who're for keeping the articles, as they are. So this is 5 people (counting a point and a half for the strong keep) for keeping it as is of the total 8 people. This I think is a big enough majority to keep the articles, as they are, rather than merge them.

However, I think SchmuckyTheCat should be disqualified since he is not un-involved in the products being talked about here, so he might be pushing a POV Microsoft might want to be pushed, and is thus not reliable and not adequate to judge here, it's 5 people out of the total 7 people for keeping as is. This is an even greater majority, and should be considered.

But anwyay, the majority consensus is apperent - keep, as is. I think any merge would go against the consensus. This goes for both this article, and the Windows Neptune article.

Also, user SchmuckyTheCat should be warned to keep civil. If I see any more angry and/or snappy comments from him, I would be glad to report him at ANI. - OBrasilo (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * These articles should redirect to Development of Windows XP.
 * All information in these articles, or the development article, needs to be reliably sourced.
 * That is all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I think the guy provided reliable sources already but you rejected all of them just because they proved the information of these articles. why bother providing your sources when you just reject any that can source these articles. you must be someone from MS marketing division because i know for a fact that division is trying to erase neptune and odyssey from history of windows (Im a former MS employee, worked in redmond even), so your intent to have the articles nulled looks like blatant ms marketing POV push to me. stay back and stop disrupting these articles.
 * Lin Godzilla (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL, the consensus is clearly written here. Now it's 6 out of 8 people for keeping the articles as is. Yet, SchmuckyTheCat keeps redirecting them. It looks to me, like he thinks he WP:OWNs the articles, and won't accept them to exist as is, even if they're proven by sources, which are reliable by his standards.


 * As for the "speculation" crap - first prove, that it's speculation. The stuff in this article is sourced with the source by Paul Thurrott, so it's NOT speculation. It also uses transitivity logic (Windows Neptune had X editions, Odyssey has a greater version number to Neptune, therefore is its successor, and so logicall also has the same X editions), which is, again, NOT speculation.
 * And as for the Neptune article, again, no speculation, sourced by the articles, and even screen-shots provided to prove the existence of the Builds. Rejecting the screen-shots means considering them fake, which is a personal attack against the users, who provided them.
 * Therefore, I'm issuing the last warning to SchmuckyTheCat here - cease, and desist, or you WILL end up on ANI. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed 6.0 speculation
"which would have been called Windows NT 6.0 had             Microsoft not messed with the naming in late 1998." Thurrott doesn't even say that MS ever intended to call Odyssey NT 6.0. It's just his opinion that it could have been called that way, had Microsoft not changed the naming scheme a full year before. WP:CRYSTAL (it's a retired and obsoleted FAQ--marked as such), WP:UNDUE. Pcap ping  11:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact it was speculated elsewhere that the version number for Odyssey would be 5.5 (I think one of the sources I added states that... haven't checked) and as we know XP reports in as 5.1 wjemather bigissue 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Win2K3 R2 reports itself as 5.2 and 6.x is for Win2K8 series, so all this discussion on what number Odyssey was going to have had it been released is really, really speculative. Pcap ping  14:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the ref calling it 5.5: Whistler also supplants Odyssey, referred to by some sources as NT 5.5, which had been slated as the first full-fledged upgrade to Windows 2000. It's not clear who some sources are; presumably they were from within MS, but it's a bit of stretch to add that. Pcap ping  14:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really matters who the sources are (I agree, probably MS staff) since it is reported in the RS, so it could be added to the article. wjemather bigissue 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reported, but not endorsed by the WP:RS. Do you really want to add "referred to by some sources as NT 5.5"? Pcap ping  15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Pault Thurrott clearly says, that had Microsoft stayed with the original naming scheme, it would have been called NT 6.0 - the original naming scheme called the NT's by their version number, so Odyssey would have been called NT 5.5 by the original naming scheme, were its planned version number 5.5. The fact it would have been called NT 6.0 by the original naming scheme clearly suggests, that its version number would have been 6.0.


 * I'd suggest here to just say in the article, that the real version of the OS is not known, and sources suggest it to be either version 5.5, or 6.0. In this way, it would be the most neutral. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm going to add something to that effect. Pcap ping  18:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename?
Shouldn't this be renamed to Microsoft Odyssey or Odyssey (operating system)? "Windows Odyssey" makes it sound official, and none of the sources cited refer to it that way, but only as Odyssey since it was just an internal code name. Compare with Cairo (operating system). Pcap ping  15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Quite possibly, and Odyssey (operating system) would seem favourite, but I think it is best to wait for the AfD to close. wjemather bigissue 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still a Windows version, so what's the problem with calling it Windows? ;) - OBrasilo (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know no one who talked here might see this, but the name "Windows Odyssey" isn't appropriate for the article because the subject was never refered that way by Microsoft. We know it went by "Odyssey" a lot, which would be useful with the " (operating system)" label suggested above. I do feel almost 12 years of not doing anything about it is enough. TavianCLirette (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

So, merge, or keep?
So, once again, the AfD has ended with keep, saying that merge or not, should be resolved without AfD, so let's have a merge, or not, discussion here, so we can finally properly decide, what to do with this article. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, of course, 90% of this article is now duplicated in three places. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * You clearly want to merge to Development of Windows XP, which is the only place that has any duplication from here, but that is just a single sentence, nowhere near "90%". Referring to WP:MERGE, the only rationale that is relevant is:
 * Reasons to merge, "3. If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic."
 * Yes, potential for future expansion is limited and the article is short, but it's not not very short. So, there is the possibility of merging then, but
 * Reasons not to merge, "3. The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short."
 * As discussed in the AfD, Odyssey was an entirely different project to Whistler/XP, so the development of XP article is clearly not appropriate as a merge target. At present, I cannot see that there is an article on a suitable broader topic, that would not introduce other issues without decimating the content. As such the article should stay. wjemather bigissue 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote WP:LAME. Pcap ping  21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No consensus or conclusion yet so I say merge to Development of Windows XP. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As clearly stated above, that is not a suitable merge target. wjemather bigissue 06:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
So, I'd propose to merge this and the Windows Neptune article, into a single article, named Windows Neptune and Odyssey. The reason would be, the articles are very short, and most sources (like Paul Thurrott) seem to imply that the two projects are related to each other.

So, what do you people here? - OBrasilo (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Negative. They are only related due to the merger of the teams that were working on each distinct project. We should not rely too heavily on Paul Thurrott, who too often seems to contradict the larger publications of the time. My reasoning in the above section still stands. wjemather bigissue 17:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, do it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Please remember that these discussions are not a vote and it would help if you expanded with policy/guideline based reasoning. wjemather bigissue 19:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No consensus to merge, just two users (socks?) on a mission. Jeni  ( talk ) 02:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Faked Screenshot - Remove?
The "screenshot" shown in this article is nothing more than Windows 2000's "winver.exe" with a bitmap replaced so it now says "Odyssey". This is made painfully obvious by the following facts:
 * 1) "Build 2195" is clearly visible on the desktop (Win2k's RTM build)
 * 2) The article clearly states that no compiled version was ever leaked (which means there's nowhere for the screenshot to come from)

An entry on FfD has been posted here:. Dstruct2k (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)