Talk:Windows (operating system)

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Doesn't Windows have 94% of the desktop marketshare? Darkknight 20:51, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

Notoriously unreliable?

This isn't really true when applied to the entire product line. Windows 3, 95, and 98 were criminally unstable, but XP is well known to be very steady. DouglasA 21:57, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Very true.I will change that. AddisonDM 22:40, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

What to call it

Microsoft lost a court case when they created Excel, which someone else had trademarked or something. The terms of the settlement required them to replace the word "Excel" with the phrase Microsoft Excel in all their documentation.

We are not bound by the terms of that settlement, and there's no reason to say "Microsoft" every time we talk about Windows, Word, Excel, Powerpoint or Access - provided there's sufficient context to leave it out.

Let's think more about our readers than about courts or corporations. Our job is to serve the general public, especially young people of high school and college age. --Ed Poor Talk 10:23, 1 December 2009 (EST)

What company wrote it

I heard that some parts of Windows were written by IBM. Something to do with Windows NT. Can someone research this? --Ed Poor Talk 10:05, 16 December 2010 (EST)

All Windows versions

I've been working on a table of all major Windows versions, but I now notice that Ed Poor previously deleted a simpler list saying "we don't need to be that detailed." It seems to me that the more info, the better, but is this too much? --David B (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2016 (EST)

I like what you are doing. You need a different wikitable format so that it's easier to add details. I look into improving this weekend.--Jpatt 01:40, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
Thanks! Honestly, I feel like this is becoming a little much for me. Every system has two to twenty names, and often at least two version numbers. I just found an obvious duplicate, and there may be other hiding on the list. Also, I strongly suspect I have them somewhat out of order. I appreciate any improvements you can make! --David B (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
This table is already a mess (I hope you can improve it) but would it be a reasonable and legal idea to grab some Windows logos under Fair Use and add them? The logo has changed with almost every major version, it seems. --David B (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Windows 9

I was thinking of creating a page for Windows 9, "the operating system that never came," since it is reasonable to assume that with Windows 8 and Windows 10, there must be Windows 9. All I would end up saying is basically that such an OS does not exist, and explain that it might have been skipped due to the release of 8.1. Does this sound like a good idea, to help avoid confusion, or should I only make articles for things which actually exist? --David B (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

44 million results for Windows 9 on Google. Here is a good link [1]. On the Windows logos, we just can't add any MS due to copyright demands without permission. I wanted put the new MS logo on the page but the old one was added before the permissions got out of hand. It will have to suffice as is.--Jpatt 10:32, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
That's a lot of results! That's an interesting article you picked, too. Maybe I should add such an article, but then again with so many pages about it already, maybe I shouldn't bother....
As far as the logo goes, I suppose I could request permission to use it here. The worst they can say is "no," which is pretty likely considering the nature of this website. Still, I doubt it would hurt to ask. Do you think it would be worth while? --David B (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Windows NT 4.0 vs Windows 95

On this list, NT 4.0 and Win 95 are listed separately, but does anyone know if this is accurate, or if they are the same system? --David B (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2016 (EDT)

Separate o/s. I was certified on NT 4.0 back in the day. Ask MS for logo permission would be a great idea. You never know.--Jpatt 12:36, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
Alright, I was confused because my research indicated that Win 95 was version NT 4.0.x so I wondered. Maybe I need to recheck that version number.
I'll see what I can do about asking Microsoft. I'll need to go hunt through their website to find out how, I guess. Thanks for your input! --David B (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
I'm starting to realize that Microsoft really does not want to talk to we lowly folk. Here is a page on their logo usage for commercial use [2] which makes it sound like there is no chance we could. However, here they mention Fair Use, and link to WP and the EFF definitions. Reading though those, this does seem to qualify as "Fair Use" to me. I'll keep looking for a way to contact them, but it's not looking hopeful. --David B (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2016 (EDT)
There is no way we will be uploading MS anything without explicit approval. You should ask the user at Wikipedia's MS image upload page for possibly insight. Also, we do want to limit multiple wikilinks of the same word on a page to no more than 3. This is to prevent being penalized by search engine bot indexing.--Jpatt 00:03, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
Alright, thanks for the further info. I really should have known better with the linking....
I'm not on WP, so I don't happen to know where to find there MS image upload page and can't seem to find it. Do you know where it is? --David B (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
I could have made a better description of what I was explaining. Say i was browsing 'Microsoft' on Wikipedia, double click on the MS logo there would bring me to the photo page with the user that had upload privileges || File history || Date/Time || Thumbnail || Dimensions || User || Comment You and me are in the same boat. If you are not member, it would be difficult to contact the user. --Jpatt 14:35, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Okay, I see what you mean, and it's a good idea--I'll give it a try.
I noticed you said that, "The New Technologies (NT) kernel became the basis for all future Windows versions through Windows 10," which made me wonder, what about the CE versions? Were they based on NT too, or did they keep their independent "compact" kernel? --David B (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2016 (EDT)

Yeah, I don't know much about CE other than it's a hybrid of the NT kernel.--Jpatt 23:12, 17 April 2016 (EDT)
okay, thanks anyway. As far a WP Windows logo goes, it's apparently on WikiMedia, labeled as a "Public Domain" Trademark. [3] That sounds a little fishy to me... --David B (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Stray version

I have a stray version which was released on July 27, 1993. Does anyone happen to know the name? Or, did I mess something up? Thanks! --David B (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (EDT)

Stray, I'm not sure I follow. Missing from list? X-box o/s.--Jpatt 10:22, 19 April 2016 (EDT)
Sorry, I should have used better wording. There is an entry without a name, currently number 8 on the list, version NT 3.10.528. They didn't even have X-box then, did they? --David B (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2016 (EDT)
I'm not aware of that NT version, bug fix possibly? Xbox is supposedly built on Windows 2000. --Jpatt 11:20, 19 April 2016 (EDT)
You're probably right--I'm not seeing any official new release then, so I'll weed it. I didn't know that about x-Box. Interesting--maybe that should be added to the comments on Win 2000 then. Thanks! --David B (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2016 (EDT)
After a moment of quick research, I found article on how it is possible to run Win 2000 on XBox, but only using a VM with a Linux system as a host. [4] [5] [6] You might be right, but I'll refrain from adding it unless you are sure. --David B (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (EDT)

JPatt, if I can trouble you with another question, I see that this table says Win 2000 was released before ME, but has a higher version number. This doesn't sound right at all. Do you know what's going on here? Thanks!--David B (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2016 (EDT)


It was a transition period. Win2000 would evolve to Windows 10. Windows ME would be end of life. Generation 5.0 was the future. Plus marketing timelines were put in place and people still waited in line for the next consumer release. It may have been scheduled to go first but was pushed back.--Jpatt 15:27, 29 April 2016 (EDT)
Okay, that makes sense. I'll leave them as they are for now, then. Thanks! --David B (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2016 (EDT)

Registry (regedit) introduced

I'm sure you know more about this topic than me, but saying "Registry (regedit) introduced" seem to imply that the registry did not exist before then. However, do I understand correctly that it did exist, but needed to be accessed though the console (using "Reg")? Thanks! --David B (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2016 (EDT)

I shall remove until I read up on it further. --Jpatt 22:50, 7 May 2016 (EDT)