Talk:Microsoft Windows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Microsoft Windows was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 3, 2006 Good article nominee Listed August 4, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted May 19, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current Status: Delisted good article

This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

	This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Technology WikiProject, a group related to the the study of Technology. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Neutrality: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is written from a neutral point of view. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

	This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale
	This article is supported by the WikiProject Software ( Discuss ), dedicated to improving the Software-related articles on Wikipedia.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance for the WikiProject Software.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Market share 2 Hitslink 3 Emulation Software section 4 Windows 7 release date early? 5 Windows Server 2008 RTMed 6 Security Section 7 Reverting 8 Is this true? 9 Windows 2000? 10 Stable release 11 Timeline of releases 12 B Class? 13 Windows Neptune 14 License refunds

[edit] 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)

I can't believe there isn't a criticism's section

We've been over this before. There aren't any criticisms that apply to all versions, so we link to Criticism of Microsoft Windows, a disambiguation page in the See Also section. Josh (talk | contribs) 14:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hitslink

I've just updated the table of Hitslink stats with the November numbers. However, they seem to have revised their Linux and Nintendo Wii stats heavily downward for March through October, and recalculated their other numbers accordingly. For instance, Linux went from .81% share last month to a revised .50, while Wii went from .11 to .01%. This actually doesn't affect the Windows (or Mac) numbers that much, but it does feed my reservations about using the Hitslink numbers at all. More on that later... --Groggy Dice T | C 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any reference to data from Hitslink should be removed. IMHO their method of determining market share is flawed as systems used mainly on servers will not be counted. I doubt myself it is possible to determine this in an accurate way. As such, I propose to simply state Windows is a popular operating system, but it is impossible to judge usage figures accurately. Drkirkby (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emulation Software section

I propose breaking this list (found in the Emulation Software section) into two lists: an API-level emulation list (e.g. Wine), and a OS-level simulation list (e.g. ReactOS). I also propose mentioning machine-level emulation (such as VMware), perhaps linking to the Comparison_of_virtual_machines article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.21.92.153 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing virtual machines is kind of missing the point. The section is supposed to be about software that emulates Windows. That's not really what VMware does, as you still need a seperate real Windows (or a seperate Windows emulator) to run Windows apps. Josh (talk | contribs) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Seperating API-level from OS-level is a good idea, though. Josh (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 7 release date early?

I noticed that it says that there is going to be a new windows operating system, it doesn't have a name yet, but it has a code name, and it is Windows 7. Well the release date seems early, and I think it should be allot more than 3 years after vista.Foper (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft says that they are "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe", and that "the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar." - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard 2010 from other sources, this seems valid as is.

However, shouldnt the following tag be added to the page?

123.243.27.198 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Server 2008 RTMed

The article says Windows Server 2008 is in Beta testing, when in fact it has already RTMed.

Reference: [1] 66.175.215.76 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Security Section

In the Security section, it mentions Kevin Mitnick doing a study as to the security of Windows, read his article he is obviously bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.68.229 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows 2000 is not listed in the 32bit versions section and should be. It was 32bit NT business-oriented, and therefore belongs in that section. It appears to have been axed while someone was adding the bit about NT4 being the first to have a 95-style GUI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.31.246 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I don't agree with most of the recent changes by Xpclient and Warren. I've reverted back everything except the removal of the Mergers section, on the following grounds:

• ME vs. Me: The "Me" nomenclature is in clear contradiction with WP:MOSTM. In fact, the Windows Me article itself should probably be moved.
• Server 2003: I will admit that the main thing I don't like about this naming is that I don't like the way it stretches out the column. (For the same reason, I chose to use Hitslink instead of "Net Applications" and Awio instead of "W3Counter.") However, there are other reasons to oppose this naming. Neither of the sources that include Windows 2003 results refer to it as Windows Server 2003, so calling it that in the table could be considered an "original research" inference. The Windows NT and Windows 2000 results aren't broken down between client and "Server" editions, so using Server 2003 creates an artificial distinction. It also draws undue attention to a version that only accounts for a small fraction of the web/desktop usage that the surveys are covering. Since the surveys are measuring desktop usage, referring to "Server" has the potential to create confusion. Etc.
• moving the marketshare table to a new section: I don't see why a single table needs its own section. I didn't choose the table's original placement, but it seems perfectly logical for it to be in a section that discusses the "various families of windows," because it covers the marketshare of the different versions of Windows. (Also, this table was created containing only the Hitslink numbers, and it would have been silly to put such a small table in its own major section. I added the other sources a few months ago, because I didn't feel one set of fallible numbers should be presented as definitive.) I also think that the table should be fairly high up in the article; after all, the most remarkable thing about Windows is its overwhelming marketshare, not features like "pre-emptive multitasking" which other operating systems can also claim. I don't see any reason to move the table at this time.
• moving images: I really don't see how moving an image of Windows 1.0 to below that of a Windows 3.11 screenshot is a logical improvement.
• removal of forced image sizes: Someone obviously felt the images would benefit from extra pixels, though this is not a big deal to me. If this becomes contentious, someone else will have to make the case for the larger size.
• removal of Mergers section: I agree with the rationale here.

While I was at it, I added "VisiOn" to the "See also" section. Perhaps something should be said about it in the History section. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Care to clarify how exactly is "ME vs Me" in clear contradiction with WP:MOSTM? According to this list, "Me" or "ME" is not trademarked at all. Although everyone including Microsoft will use both nomenclatures, the product itself and all documentation, splash screen, logo and the Start menu inside the product mention "Windows Me". Even by majority, the use of "Me" wins over "ME". More important than the MOSTM guidelines is the actual branding of the product.

[edit] Is this true?

I heard that Windows corrupts CMOS memory to slowly reduce perfomance. Is this true? --Btx40 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

no. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Windows 2000?

In the versions section, Windows 2000 is briefly mentioned in the "Hybrid 16/32 bit" section, but not included in the timeline of development. Is there a reason for this? From my understanding of the history of Microsoft Windows, Windows 2000 would stand between NT 4.0 and XP? --Danman2012 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't see any mention of Windows 2000 in the hybrid mentioned section, which seems correct. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Stable release

Shouldn't Windows Server 2008 be mentioned as stable release of Windows instead of Vista? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.14.207 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point -- done (diff). I've put both Vista and Server 2008 in the template, making a distinction between the latest client and the latest server release. -- simxp (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of releases

First off, since the next to last column in this table is almost entirely about "Support", wouldn't that make a better column heading than "Notes"?

Second (and the main reason I'm here), since Microsoft now makes it impossible to see all this info on a single page, it'd be nice if this column included the dates on which support for the various versions was ended, rather than just saying "Unsupported". (I'd be bold, but that's not an option since the article is locked. :-) 71.126.118.117 (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Be bolder—create an account!--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not the previous anonymous poster -- but just for the record, a recently created account with no notable history still can't edit the page, because the page is semi-protected. (This is in part the reason for my comment below; although I also would genuinely like to see the views of other contributers regarding my suggested addition...) - Zarmanto 19:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon a reference in an E-book version of the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th Edition, ISBN 0-7356-1495-4) where Microsoft states in their definition of "Windows" that it was actually first introduced in 1983, rather then 1985. Further research indicates that the 1983 version was a non-final beta, and was reviewed in the December 1983 edition of Byte magazine. (citation) I was contemplating whether or not a beta version is worth noting in the version history. The Mac OS X Public Beta is noted in the Mac OS X article -- but I'm not sure if that's a reasonable parallel, since I doubt that those early betas of Windows were public, per se. Thoughts? - Zarmanto 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] B Class?

This is not B class. Mostly unreferenced. Hardly comprehensiveness. Horrible lead. Citations are not formatted correctly. And so on... — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Neptune

Wikipedia has a page for it, I'm wondering if there should be a section in this article for it. Thoughts? Jab416171 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

While we are at it, we should simply include a short section that includes links to the articles, and a link to Microsoft Codenames and any other applicable pages. CompuHacker (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License refunds

I would like to include information on sucessful Windows license refunds. Sources here: [2]--Kozuch (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)