Template talk:Microsoft Windows components

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows.
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Computing.

This is the discussion page for this template.

Put 'em in order[edit]

We need to put all the articles listed in alphabetical order! --Titan602 - The mind of darkness 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Move/Include Print Services for UNIX and COMMAND.COM to the Compatibility group? Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. They are not compatibility features per se, but applications that run on top of the compatibility subsystem. In other words, they are the consumers of the compatibility features, not providers of compatibility services. I know I sound vague, but hopefully you get what I meant. --soum talk 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, COMMAND.COM is still a component of (most) versions of Windows and yes, it runs on top of a compatibility subsystem (NTVDM), but isn't it also some kind of compatibility feature on its own, why else would it still be around now that we have cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell? Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Windows has cmd.exe despite Windows PowerShell - is that a compatibility feature? Or that it still supports COM despite .NET Framework. Or ODBC and OLE DB in spite of ADO.NET? Or Notepad despite including Wordpad? I am not saying command.com et al should not be in the article. I just feel they shouldn't be in the compatibility section. --soum talk 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you got a point here. So where do we put it in? A new command shell group? Or shall we just put it into the tools group like cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell? This is already a pretty big group don't you think? Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
How about this? --soum talk 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I dont' think this is a good idea. This way it will soon be the the same as Template:Windows commands. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You have a valid point. When I split them out, I was thinking that only the apps that provide their own shell (that provides their own prompt) will be listed here. --soum talk 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't use the subgroups. Why not just split into administration/management apps (including the CLI shells) and all the other apps like Notepad, IE, Media Player etc. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean like this? --soum talk 19:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call. --soum talk 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Move Windows Registry to the Core group? Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


how about adding Resource Monitor to the template?


Hello, Socrates2008

I have a question about your edit: Which version or edition of Windows contains MDOP?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. None - it's a licensed add-on aimed at the enterprise market. Socrates2008 (Talk) 16:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Excuse me, but if it is not a build-in component of Windows, why do you list it there? Correct me if I am wrong, but looks to me that Microsoft and other companies have released many pieces of independent software that complement Windows for enterprise sector, both freeware and commercial; and MDOP is one of them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
It's listed for the same reason that the other Microsoft management tools are listed-I didn't set the precedent, just following it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 00:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I checked the list and it seems all the articles listed there, except MDOP, MDT (Deployment toolkit), IEAK and WAIK, are about Windows components. That makes 27 of them. But not all Microsoft management tools are listed there. For example, none of the System Center products are there. So, it seems the guideline is to include only Windows components, only some contributors didn't exactly adhere to it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, so here's the problem if you're really keen to fix this template:
  1. The term "components" is vague - does it mean API's, runtimes, (commandline) tools or UI functionality or something else?
  2. The "core" section of the template does not contain core components - for Windows, core means things in the kernel, not the UI, so the definition is entirely wrong.
  3. Some components like Defender, Movie Maker etc. have been included both in the box and available addons via Windows Live. So the distinction is sometimes rather arbitary, and apparently sometimes based on whether a shipping date is met or not. How do you want to treat them?
  4. Similarly runtimes like .Net 4.0 that were addons in earlier versions of Windows, are now included in the box.
  5. Windows PE is a separate OS built on the same kernel, but distributed via WAIK and every retail Windows setup DVD. Does that make it a component?
  6. For enterprises, functionality from the vendor like App-V or IE can be considered part of the core OS, so the distinction about where they came from is arbitary.
So maybe not so simple to call after all... Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm converting your list to numbered list so we can discuss it.
  1. Vague? I don't really think so. If it is (or at some point in time, has been) part of the Windows, then it is a Windows component. Quick check: Does Windows Setup install it? Is it possible to enable or disable it via Turn Windows Features On or Off? If either get "yes" as an answer, then it is a component of Windows. Note that some of the things in Windows disc do not get "yes" as answer to these questions.
  2. Yes, I noticed. Only I wasn't sure if I should bring them up. For example, "Shell" is definitely not "core". These two words are antonyms.
  3. We should treat them as with #1. Are they in the box? (i.e. installed with Windows?) Then, they should be here. So, yes, Windows Defender and Movie Maker are Windows components.
  4. Again, as with #1: Are they part of the box? Then, yes, I think we should link to the main article.
  5. Again, as with #1: It is installed by Windows Setup, so it is a component of Windows. It reminds me of Vatican City but analogies are just good for fun.
  6. Item #1 decides this. If they are installed with Windows, then they are components. If they are not, but they are fundamental or infrastructure software, well, they are not components. Lots of companies sell infrastructure or fundamental software. VMware and Parallels are good examples. If you feel bad, just remind yourself of drivers: Nothing is more fundamentally important than third-party drivers, but they are not Windows components. (Windows does come with a bunch of drivers, but we don't need to bother ourselves with them. They usually fall a long distance away from notability.)
So, may it is simple after all.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
1) RSAT was part of the Win7 release cycle, but released as hotfix because it missed the cut-off for RTM. It's installable via "Turn Features on or off" once the hotfix is installed.
3) I think you may have missed my point - they have been shipped both out and in the box over time. Windows continues to evolve between major releases.
4) As above - varies by Windows version and point in time.
5) WinPE is Windows setup
6) No, we're talking about Microsoft software here that is designed for Windows. Like when Ms choose to release a new feature via Windows Update Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Okay, let's see.
1. If it is later released as part of a service pack, then it is a Windows component because Microsoft often releases Windows discs with service packs included. No worries.
3. No, I don't think I have missed your point. My answer is the same: Once a Windows component, it is eligible for inclusion.
4. Again, once a Windows component, it can be here.
5. So, what? Isn't Windows Setup part of the box? It sure is. But WinPE is installed by Windows 7 for recovery purpose on local hard disk.
6. My answer is still the same: If it is part of Windows release, including one with Service Pack integrated, then it is a component. Otherwise, no. For example: Internet Explorer is a component but Bing Desktop is not. Both are offered via Windows Update.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
1. You're assuming that RSAT was included in a subsequent service pack because the developers were in the Windows team, and chose to use hotfix installer engine.
3. Possibly not. What happens when it's removed (e.g. Move Maker subsequently became part of Windows Live Essentials)
The difficulty you have in trying to classify these items is that you're going to get it wrong repeatedly because it's constantly changing, and because you don't have a view on the company's motiviations or which team in Microsoft developed that particular component. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Long time, no see? How do you do? Alright, let's see...
1. No, I am not assuming anything; I say "if". If included, then it is a component, if not, then it is not a component.
3. My answer is still the same: Once a Windows component, always a Windows component. Articles about Windows components won't get automatically deleted because the subject is discontinued.
That said, I don't think I have the trouble that you think I have. My opinion has been the same from the beginning: If it is included with Windows, then it is a component. Once a Windows component, always a Windows component. If you seek for a waiver about including article about things other than Windows components or expanding the inclusion criteria of the navbox, we can always discuss it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The Microsoft salesman who was onsite at my organisation this week was pitching MDOP as an enterprise extension to the Windows operating system. Anyway, feel free to do as you wish with the template as it's not that important an issue to me that I wish to debate any further. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I am sure he did. By pitching it as an exclusive part or extension to Windows, you are more likely to want to have it. It happen everyday: People purchase packages (say video games or films) containing overpriced exclusive items but never condescend to purchase those items alone.
But when I started editing the template, I try to keep in mind that you liked to include MDOP. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Protected Media Path shouldn't be in Security[edit]

Protected Media Path doesn't protect the user from anything; in fact, it's actually detrimental to the user. Should this really be listed under Security? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 22:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. It is not "user security", no; but it is "vendor security". So, yes, it should be in security. Security is always detrimental. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OneDrive (formerly SkyDrive)[edit]

in Windows 8.1 Microsoft added OneDrive as a component of Windows, should this be mentioned? and if so, where? -- (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)