|WikiProject Microsoft Windows / Computing||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/26633/pronunciation-of-azure-in-windows-azure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Feldman (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Announcment Date Incorrect
Cloud isn't 7?
This, from 2nd Oct, "Steve Ballmer was in London at a software conference, where he said Microsoft will officially announce Windows 7, now called Windows Cloud, at the end of October. The official name for the new Windows operating system, as well as other details, will be announced at Microsoft’s annual developer conference in Los Angeles between October 27th through the 30th.". 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, that's wrong; 7 and cloud are two totally different things. --Blowdart | talk 23:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
A Service Platform, not OS
"The Azure™ Services Platform (Azure) is an internet-scale cloud services platform hosted in Microsoft data centers"
- From that same page: "Windows® Azure is a cloud services operating system..." Emphasis added. Where does it say that it isn't an operating system? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Windows Azure and Azure Services Platform are different. Windows Azure is the OS that powers the datacenter/s (cloud) that host the Azure Services Platform (Windows Azure + Live Services, SQL Services, .NET Services, CRM Services and SharePoint Services running on top of Windows Azure inside the datacenter). There is an important distinction between the two, but because they are named so similarly is the cause of the confusion.
The current first sentence of this article, at a minimum, is lifted verbatim out of Microsoft documentation. I'm not sure what else in this article is compromised. Aside from the obvious problem of plagiarism, the use of corporate text makes me wonder about the reliability of the information that is presented. Someone who knows more about Azure should take a close look. Nojamus (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The content of the article properly describes the summary and overview of the features of Windows Azure. It is the good way to list all the features of the platform. If anything the text is too brief and short, something I hope to remedy within the near future. Looking for someone who knows about Windows Azure? I am a Windows Azure MVP so it's fair to say that I am such a person. Cheers, MM. Noopman (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that Nojamus is saying that Microsoft is being used as a source about Azure, which is undesirable. Wikipedia articles should be built around reliable secondary sources. Secondary means independent of the subject that is being discussed, and there's a spectrum of independence. Industry watchers like Gartner and Forrester are definitely independent and won't just paraphrase vendors' publicity. Publications like WSJ and the FT are probably equally independent but don't necessarily have the time and experience to check what vendors may claim. Technical writers may already have invested time in a particular cloud platform, so it can be difficult for them to write impartially, and so on. We should be aiming for a high standard of neutrality in the first few paragraphs of the article. - Pointillist (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I hear what you are saying (or read what you are writing) and yet it looks and feels kind of like you are intentionally aiming to confuse "independent" with "less favorable for Microsoft". There is no "secondary source" to facts. The Windows Azure Platform is what it is and that should be documented in Wikipedia with a reference to the original and true source of what the platform is. In this case that source is windowsazure.com. If that is not possible on Wikipedia there are a LOT of other pages that suffer the same handicap. I would *love* to discuss opinions about what Windows Azure is and is not and how that compares to competing products. I would do that in a completely separate forum. I want to read the facts on Wikipedia about any subject matter that I don't know about and want to learn about. Noopman (talk) 10:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I entirely agree that a lot of other pages suffer from the same handicap – you can find many examples in technology, sports and popular culture – in each case the main problem is that for encyclopedic purposes "the original source" can't possibly be "the true source" for a fact, or we would still believe claims made by all sorts of now-discredited absolute monarchs and corporate fraudsters. Of course, I'm not accusing anyone at Microsoft of dishonesty, but at every quoted company the management has a fiduciary responsibility to promote the company in the most positive light. They aren't measured on how completely they present a situation. What a company says, even in good faith, isn't automatically a fact, Facts are things that have been independently assessed: that's what makes them different from claims. AFAICS the practice at Wikipedia is to require that the introductory material and all controversial claims will be based on reliable third party sources. This works quite well, because if there aren't any third party sources for something, it probably doesn't deserve a prominent place in an article. I can promise this has nothing to do with my own opinions about Azure (which are in fact very positive) because I don't write about what I "know", I write about what I can research using reliable sources. If you are a Microsoft MVP, perhaps you could contribute more neutrally by improving articles outside your immediate areas of interest, such as APL, PL/I or maybe Coral 66 or BCPL? - Pointillist (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you that was a good write up! Also it was pretty much along the lines of my thinking. As a Windows Azure MVP am I considered by this forum as being too close to the originating sources? If I were to write texts on this page that might be close to the texts on the Microsoft site would they be deemed as credible sources based on experience or would it be considered "improper writing". Reason I ask is that there is no point in investing time and effort to add to the Windows Azure material of Wikipedia if that would fuel some debate on the legitimacy of the texts. Not that I expect to stand un-opposed if I write something that others disagree on. But let me say this. As an expert user of Microsoft technology you are used to a certain level of distrust and opposition as soon as you open your mouth. Clearly not from you in this case but I think you know what I mean. I'd love to contribute. In fact I will try to do so. (While on the subject is there a visual editor that allows you to write texts without being in this markup mode?) Noopman (talk) 07:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
no longer called Windows Azure
I am looking for an update on the supported databases on this platform. When I log in to the Microsoft Azure preview portal I see MySQL Database and SQL Database as storage options. MySQL isn't mentioned on the Wikipedia page.. Is there a special reason it's not mentioned yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a03f:412:2d00:9114:d2d1:9305:6995 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because you didn't edit the page and add it.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Under April 2014 is there a source for this "Azure experiences an outage affecting several customers - "An internal server error has occurred"." Should one be added here? Or should line be removed from the history? Also it has been awhile since I have been on this site to edit, I apologize in advance if I have done something wrong. Lothp (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)