Talk:Microsoft Windows
|
|
| Contents |
Palladium, trusted computing
There is no "validating" with trusted computing, every computer can boot up any operating system, it is up to the individual operating system if they wish to make use of the chip. Currently the TCP chip is not protected from its user/hardware attacks and therefore not much good for DRM. -Towel401
NPOV?
Ymicrosoft.png
On a Mac
Microsoft Windows
Revision history
11:49, 22 Mar 2004 . . Monedula (add Windows logo (will be correctly displayed only on windows computers))
So why bother? JWSchmidt 19:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Removed, for same reason. If anybody really wants the Windows® logo on this page, they can go get an image from Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/gallery.asp). -- Cyrius 02:36, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Uncategorized Things
Too detailed to go in the main article, I think, but it's worth pasting this citation in here to remind editors that the MS security issues are real and public:
- Speaking at a .NET developers conference, held in Seattle on September 5th, 2002, Brian Valentine, Microsoft's SVP for Windows development, admitted "We really haven't done everything we could to protect our customers. Our products just aren't engineered for security."
I don't really understand why this article about Microsoft Windows starts out by mentioning Commodore 64 GEOS... I think there are better ways to divide the various versions of Windows than by talking about the bit-ness, especially since there's never been an 8-bit version of Windows. Brian Kendig 00:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Discussion about the name "Windows"
Why Microsoft Windows not simply Windows? People call it "Windows" most of time not "Microsoft Windows" -- Taku 17:45 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Because 'Windows' by itself is the plural of a common noun in the English language. Only, when used in the context of personal or portable computers does it refer to an operating system. Most people call it simply 'Windows' since the context renders the usage abundantly clear. Gyan 17:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
"windows" is a generic term used in computer graphics to refer to a region on a screen through which you can view application space (and is a separate concept than viewport).
"Microsoft Windows" is the full name of the software product.
- Also Windows might be about glass in buildings. -- SGB
I am not talking about proper usage. When people are speaking Windows, which is more common the collection of window or Microsoft Windows? We mean by Macintosh a computer by Apple almost regardless of context. Besides, Windows is currently redirected to Microsoft windows. -- Taku 17:57 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Because it is a brand name and not a common concept. Gyan 17:59 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
Machintosh is an apple, a fruit. -- Taku 18:00 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm compelled to point out that the fruit is a McIntosh, the raincoat is a Mackintosh, and the computer is a Macintosh... -- Someone else 04:40 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
Taku, Two quick questions for you:
1 - What is the romanji for "Windows"? In nihongo, is that romanji used for anything besides microsoft windows?
- This discussion is nothing related to the fact that I am Japanese unless you want to start personal attack.
- Please, I do *not* wish to attack you. I was attempting to understand if a native Japanese speaker might use the English work "Windows" in a different manner than native English speakers. I was also attempting to understand if this difference could be contributing to a misunderstanding between us.
- I see. By the way, I don't know the romaji of Windows in Japanese. I believe they simply use an English word Windows in Japanese text just like French do.
2 - You are aware that to an english speaker, the word "windows" has several meanings, including glass windows on a building, the individual square rectangles on a computer screen (in unix, linux, windows, or ANY operating system), and the brand name of Microsoft's operating system?
You are missing my point completely. Just remember the principle of choosing the title of an article. Use the most common name for it. That is all. If the name is ambigous, then do disambigous. Think of the fact that the current article Windows is redirected to Microsoft Windows, which means in Wikipedia Windows is considered synonymous with Microsoft Windows. Wikipedia is not an English dictionary. We don't cover any noun of English. That is why Macintosh is treated as a computer instead of a kind of an apple. We don't care what is a brand name, what is a trademark, whatever. We only care about what is common. John F Kennedy should have several meanings too. You can name your son John F Kennedy if you want. But we don't cover such. Besides, as convension the title of an article is basically basic form, which means if we want to cover windows in the house, the title should be a window not windows. -- Taku 23:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Again, I am not trying to offend. It isn't clear to me *what* is the most common meaning that an English speaker would assign to the word "windows" when used out of context. The sentence "close the windows", without any context, could mean to close the windows on a house, or to close the windows on a computer (which could be running linux). The sentence "I'm going to buy windows", without any context, could mean I'm redecorating my home or it could mean I'm rebuilding my computer.
In everyday life sure what you mean by windows may be ambigous. But in the context of Encyclopedia, as a plural from, the meaning Windows should be obvious I believe. Word should mean a word in a language rather than Microsoft Word because it is a singlure form. I mean if we see Windows in the title of newspaper article, how many of us it might mean ones in the house. The context of here, it seems to me that Windows more mean Microsoft Windows. By the way, if we decide Windows more mean one in the house, one by Microsoft, we should redirect Windows to Window. It is so misleading. -- Taku 23:54 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, I see your point. You would have the non-plural form refer to glass openings, and the plural form refer to the operating system. I think we have agreed that there isn't a simple language usage problem here.
- Please have a look at the encyclopedia Britannica: "Windows", opening in the wall of a building for the admission of light and air... In two pages not even mentioned the name "Mircorosft". "Windows" and "Microsft Windows" are two different things, no matter if plural or singular. Fantasy 10:42 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC) ...BTW: The Title of the "Microsoft Windows" is "Windows (computer interface)"
I kind of gave in. It seems people prefer openings in the wall rather than Microsoft. -- Taku 04:18 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
- If you want to get deeper in this discussion, have a look at the current trial of "Lindows" against Microsoft ([1] (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2003-02-25-maney_x.htm)). Lindows was sued by Microsoft, that the name is too close to Windows, so they have to stop using it for thir Linux version. Microsoft LOST. Now, Lindows turned around and sued Microsoft, that "Windows" is a general term and can not be used as trademark. Currently Microsoft is fighting, and I am not yet sure, who will win. Would be interresting, what happens, if Microsoft loses its rights on the name "Windows" ;-) Fantasy 20:30 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- And what is your point? -- Taku 23:22 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Nothing will happen. MS will keep calling it Windows, it just won't be trademarked. :) -Frecklefoot
- That is what would happen at first, but eventually MS would have to invent a new name for their OS, since the powers of controlling trademark are just too compelling. Also, FWIW, if you go back to when the trademark was first granted you will find that many in the industry thought the USPTO erred. The -word "windows" was in widespread and common use as a GUI concept.
- ...and what is the point? If Microsoft looses, everyone can sell a Operating System called Windows, you can get then Linux Windows, Whatever Windows, Then no longer the word "Windows" would direct you directly to Microsoft. THAT is my point. Fantasy
- Same as what Intel did when they found "486" couldnt be a TM -- they invented the pentium -- Tarquin 11:06 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
Discussion about "forced to buy Windows with a PC"
"users of competing operating systems often are forced to purchase a PC and delete Windows". I'm not sure we should be including politics like this. Does Wikipedia have a policy on this sort of thing? Cgs 13:32 April 5, 2003 (GMT)
It's clearly relevant, it's clearly factual, it does not express an opinion. It needs to stay. (It's not very well written as it manages to imply that users are forced to "purchase a PC" rather than "purchase an unwanted copy of Windows whenever they purchase a PC", but that's a seperate matter.) Tannin 13:39 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
I think the problem is the use of the phrase "forced to purchase" -- I prefer to used the term forced in cases where someone puts a gun to your head. A better way of conveying the "purchase...and delete" thing might be to point out that many computers come with Windows pre-installed, and that the total package of machine plus software includes the price of Windows. Then, if someone wants to COMPLAIN about this state of affairs, because they'd rather have Gnu/Linux or something, we have to say something like:
- Some computer buyers who intend to replace Windows with another operating system object to what they characterize as "being forced to buy an unwanted copy of Windows". A. N. Hacker of Computer Advocacy International challenged American computer manufacturers and the Redmond software giant to, etc.
My 20 cents (sorry, prices have gone up ;-) --Uncle Ed 13:59 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
The thing is, Ed, that if you want to buy a computer from any of the majors in a typical large store (IBM, Compaq/HP, Dell, and the rest) you have to buy Windows, whether you want it or not. That's "forced" in anyone's book. Microsoft are well aware of it. Have you not seen their semi-hysterical campaign of villification against any business that sells what they call "naked PCs"? They are trying hard to make it not just impractical but impossible to buy a PC without Windows preinstalled. Personally, I don't think they will succeed, but I may be wrong. Tannin
- While I despise the fact that there is little choice but to pay the soi-disant "Windows tax" when buying a computer system, I do feel that "forced" is too strong a term, simply due to the easy (sort of) alternative of not buying any computer. That's why I feel it doesn't qualify as being in the same realm as gun-to-the-head "forced". -- John Owens 14:27 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
- If you subscribe to the belief that the only things a human being really needs or can expect is water and food, then yes, I can understand your argument. But if one accepts the conpect that human rights and fair expectations of life go beyond this point (as does the UN charter, for instance), then I would say that in a modern society access to computers and networking is getting fairly close to becoming a necessity. Access to many important functions is quickly getting impossible without a computer. The aspect of one corporation attempting to monopolize this by all legal and in part illegal means that is at its disposial, is in my opinion an extremely serious issue, indeed. The word forced is definitely not too strong. -- Egil 18:34 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Hmm, let me contemplate life without Wikipedia access for a moment... maybe you've got a point there. <g> -- John Owens 23:31 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
I think I've come to a good conclusion. I've said they "have" to buy windows because manafactures "almost always include Windows as part of the package". Cgs 15:04 13 April 2003 BST
- What you've got there now looks pretty good to me, for my part. -- John Owens
- It's a horrible monster of a sentence, but it says what we want to say, Cgs. No problem here. Tannin
Tannin 12:26, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Nice work, people. Living proof that four minds are better than one. Tannin
- Glad I could be a part of it :) Dysprosia 12:38, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
NPOV
I don't think it's pov to note that Windows is closed-source. As such, I've reinserted it into the intro. Meelar 21:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
- I agree that most of Microsoft's software is closed source, but I think it's POV to fail to mention the Shared Source Initiative (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx) and the software that MS has made open source, like WiX (http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=365546). I hate MS with a passion (I'm writing this on my Linux system, with my Apple Powerbook close to hand), but I don't think a wikipedia entry is the right place to express bias against them. In the open source community the words closed source are almost as loaded as the word terrorist, although I doubt anyone from the open source community needs to read wikipedia to find out what MS Windows is. Betelgeuse 11:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
How exactly is stating that Windows is closed source a biased statement? It is a statement of independently verifiable fact. Opinions of the term are irrelevant; the fact is, it is a fact, and an increasingly important one.
Images
Couldn't we use the Wimdows logo under fair use to illustrate? (ricjl 11:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC))
- Yes based on the information at Fair_use#Fair_use_and_trademark_law, I conclude that despite Microsoft's denial of the fact, such use would be allowed under fair use. The same concept was used for Apple's Logo. Tacvek 20:16, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Windows Tabworks
I remember a friend having this version of windows Tab-Works. It was pretty weird, i think it was pre '95 and post 3.1 - perhaps a beta development of 3.1 i dunno.
Anyone know anything more?
- I had to google for this one. Tabworks wasn't a Microsoft product, but it was preinstalled on Compaq computers in the Windows 3.1 era. It wasn't a replacement for Windows, it was just a shell that ran on top of Windows. It was apparently written by Xerox, or a company affiliated with Xerox. [2] (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;q126822) Rhobite 05:47, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)
64-bit =
64-bit windows talks about amd64 and Intel's x86_64 pendant, but afaik 64-bit windows already exists for Itanic^Hum ?
Stubs on NT4 editions
The articles Windows NT 4.0 Enterprise Server, Windows NT 4.0 Server, Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server and Windows NT 4.0 Workstation exist as very short unwikified stubs. Does anyone think that they can ever exist as separate articles, or should they be merge-and-redirected into either Windows NT 4.0 or History of Microsoft Windows (which is where they are linked from)? I was going to merge them, but I thought I'd canvass opinions first. --rbrwr± 20:55, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'd say Windows NT 4.0, which is presently pretty short--could use some fleshing out (and adjust the linkage from the history article). Niteowlneils 21:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Probably also Windows NT 4.0 Embedded. Niteowlneils 01:05, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Formerly or formally?
In Current Versions of Windows, we have "Windows Mobile for embedded systems (formally known as Windows CE)". I haven't heard of Windows Mobile, so I don't know if it's an alternative name (in which case "formally" could be right) or a new name (in which case the word should be "formerly"). And I bet the writer didn't even know the difference :-/ .
- I believe I am the one that made that edit. It's sort of both. CE engine is still being updated and used, but Windows Mobile is the name of the operating system used in those devices. The only area where the Windows CE is being continued visibly is within Windows Embedded. PPGMD
Past and current versions
Under the "Past versions of Windows" section, the current OSes (Windows XP, Server 2003, etc) are listed. Should they be removed from there until they are past, or what?
They will never be past. All versions are still used somewhere - who decides which ones are "past"? "Past" should mean that it has already been released. Brianjd 02:09, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
- That doesn't need to be our criteria for deciding what a past version is. Most Windows admins will agree that XP and Server 2003 are the "current" versions because they supercede 2000, Me, etc. Microsoft's product list for volume licensing [3] (http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PL.aspx) is an authoritative source for determining which versions of Windows are considered current. Rhobite 06:32, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Lawsuits
Could we have a section added on some of the more notable lawsuits Microsoft has been involved in that have directly impacted Windows? A discussion on the Apple vs Microsoft lawsuit would be valuable for understanding Windows's early history, and a discussion on the various Eurpoean open source vs closed source lawsuits would be handy for understanding the company's current actions. Almafeta 18:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
OS
Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board
Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.
I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)