Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Windows: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
{{WikiProject Microsoft|class=B|importance=Top|windows=yes|windows-importance=Top}}
No edit summary
Line 52: Line 52:
Hi, in the Versions of Windows section, there is a credit to someone named Chase Bishop,number 6 in the list of references. The citation doesn't list an article, and I have been unable to find any reference to him online except sites listing this article as their source. This either needs to be cited back to an article, or removed if it can't be verified. This might just be someone who cited an old magazine article, but it needs to be checked and referenced properly in any case.
Hi, in the Versions of Windows section, there is a credit to someone named Chase Bishop,number 6 in the list of references. The citation doesn't list an article, and I have been unable to find any reference to him online except sites listing this article as their source. This either needs to be cited back to an article, or removed if it can't be verified. This might just be someone who cited an old magazine article, but it needs to be checked and referenced properly in any case.
[[User:Spacecase61091|Spacecase61091]] ([[User talk:Spacecase61091|talk]]) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)spacecase61091
[[User:Spacecase61091|Spacecase61091]] ([[User talk:Spacecase61091|talk]]) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)spacecase61091
You guys are actually are really stupid. ha. you eat poop. just kidding.(;;












Section 1.
Windows is a piece of po

Revision as of 17:42, 30 October 2011

Former good articleMicrosoft Windows was one of the 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
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 4, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Hi, shouldn't there also be an article for a Windows window? (I mean, how the Windows windows are built, what they consist of etc.? I was looking on the internet about the information and it's really not east to find. Maybe my comment will motivate someone to create a wiki page about Windows windows ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.240.177 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article update + An objection

Aren't we going to update the "Windows History" section to include Windows 7?? Besides, I'm not sure about Windows 8. The link mentioned above leads me to Micro Soft Careers, and it has no info about Windows 8. TKhaldi (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2010

reference in Security section isn't formatted correctly

It's showing up in the text as: <refSchneier, Bruce (2005-06-15). "Crypto-Gram Newsletter". Counterpane Internet Security, Inc.. http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0506.html. Retrieved 2007-04-22. </ref>

Microsoft Windows NT is not true multi-user

"Fast User Switching is not available on Windows XP Professional-based computers that are part of a domain network. " http://support.microsoft.com/kb/279765 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Fast User Switching is not available for domain computers because it is not needed. Domains have Terminal Services (recently renamed Remote Desktop Services). Multiple users can use a domain workstation without needing Fast User Switching. The only issue that stops them is $$$. Fleet Command (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you say that Microsoft is wrong? I have a Windows XP Professional connected to a Domain and I can not use Fast User Switching as Microsoft says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say you are wrong! You think "True multi-user" = "Fast User Switching always working". Wrong! "True multi-user" = "multiple users being able to login to one computer". They can do that with Terminal Services too. Fleet Command (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. So, we can state that Windows has "True multi-user", but partial "Fast User Switching" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of the joint IBM/Microsoft project that ultimately led to both Windows and OS/2

This is a decidely one-sided history, with no mention of the seminal work in the graphics engine done by IBM engineers and still part of Windows. If the owners of this topic are interested in a more complete history, I will help. I have some first hand knowledge as I worked for IBM at the time (and still do) but was not directly on the OS team; I was an interested outside party as my application had to run on the new operating system. I may be able to contact some of those that were actually on the teams in IBM that worked with M/S before the falling out between the companies that led to M/S lauching Windows and IBM launching OS/2.

Please let me know if you are interested. Email (Email deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept first-hand knowledge per Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia's not a publisher of original thoughts; it is at best a secondary source. Have a reliable publisher publish your info and then we may cover it. Fleet Command (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Microsoft Windows covers OS/2 to some degree. More about this could be said in the OS/2 article if you have good sources, e.g., IBM redbooks would be ideal. A former user of OS/2 Warp Connect: 89.204.153.138 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Chase Bishop

Hi, in the Versions of Windows section, there is a credit to someone named Chase Bishop,number 6 in the list of references. The citation doesn't list an article, and I have been unable to find any reference to him online except sites listing this article as their source. This either needs to be cited back to an article, or removed if it can't be verified. This might just be someone who cited an old magazine article, but it needs to be checked and referenced properly in any case. Spacecase61091 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)spacecase61091 You guys are actually are really stupid. ha. you eat poop. just kidding.(;;[reply]







Section 1. Windows is a piece of po