Template talk:Microsoft Windows family

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.
 

Edit[edit]

Reasons for edit, seprating 9x from rest:

Talk:Windows_95#MS-DOS --Naelphin 04:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


Quote from email:
From: "Raymond Chen"


dos is used only for bootstrapping and as a compatibility layer
the hard part is defining what "based on" means.=20

-----Original Message-----
From: x [x]=20
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:40 PM
To: Raymond Chen
Subject: (The Old New Thing) : Windows 95 and DOS
Importance: High


There's a great deal of argument about whether Windows 95 is based on
DOS.

--Naelphin 02:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


XP Media Center[edit]

I don't think it should have its own heading. It is not significantly different enough (just Windows XP + drivers and a few programs) to warrant its own entry in the template. Not to mention that its name is so wordy that it skews the size of the template.—Kbolino 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed, it's the same kernel rev. SchmuckyTheCat 22:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Windows 95/98/Me[edit]

Windows 95, 98, and Me did require DOS to run (it was used for bootstrapping, low-level IO, and a few other things--see msg above)—they just shipped with their own versions of DOS (you didn't have to have it separately). Windows 95 is a big change from 3.1, but it did not divorce MS-DOS.—Kbolino 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled[edit]

I removed the section labelled "cancelled" from the template. Cancelled implies that Microsoft intended to release it as a product. The only entry there "Neptune" only has outside speculation based on a leaked technology demo that Microsoft had such intentions. Microsoft shows technology demos and mockup products constantly without intending them as products. SchmuckyTheCat 16:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way, Neptune is listed there now. --Tim1988 talk 10:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Last link[edit]

There's text to the right of "Vienna" that does not, for some reason I need to know, produce a valid link. Please fix it. Georgia guy 19:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this...[edit]


Solves the crowding of NT issue without compromising on the looks... I'm not saying this is final, someone can shuffle it around and change terminolity as needed, but just a thought...

I like it... how about "Client" instead of "Consumer"? FLP isn't a consumer operating system. :-) -/- Warren 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Client's a much better word! See, that's what I was saying about the terminoligy... I've updated it a bit above, moving the 'client' and 'server' headings into the first column which I think looks better. Windows 2000 was a client OS, right? It wasn't intended for home users but it was a client nonetheless... JamesWeb 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is tricky because every edition of NT up to & including 2000 were released as both client and server. You could duplicate the items, I suppose, but it wouldn't really win us much space, would it? The server edition of 3.1 can be called NTAS, just to mix things up a bit. We could also consider merging 3.5 and 3.51... and then there's Windows XP articles, which is a whole other issue to consider. :-) -/- Warren 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I fear this conundrum may never be solved. :'( JamesWeb 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Eh? JamesWeb 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CE[edit]

Would it be considered a disruptive edit to remove the "CE-based" section? I think it should be in a seperate template/page. - iguananirvana14 23:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you do...[edit]

...don't forget the two different 64 bit systems (IA64/x8664). 68.39.174.238 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

suggest to remove home server and server 2008[edit]

NT 3.1 · NT 3.5 · NT 3.51 · NT 4.0 · 2000 · XP · Server 2003 · Vista · Home Server · Server 2008 · Windows 7

Read: NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 6.0, (5.2 SP2), (6.0 SP1), (6.1?)

Specifically, Server 2008 is 6.0 SP1 and does not worth to be counted as a separated release. This is different from Server 2003 which is one point higher (5.2) than its client version (XP 5.1) and thus does deserve its own entry here.

Windows 7? The mile stone 1 is build 6.1.6519.1, so it will likely be Windows NT 6.1 in the end.--Vikizh (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what bizarro planet you may be living on, but on the planet where Microsoft releases products, and the planet where Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Windows Server 2008 absolutely does count as a distinct release of Windows. This template is about operating system releases, broken down by kernel, not the first operating system release with a given kernel. -/- Warren 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
let's continue the discussion on whether we should add the following to the list: Media Center Edition, Tablet PC Edition, HPC Servers, small business server, essential server, and maybe some more that i have not heard about --Vikizh (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are all editions of a particular release of Windows. MCE and Tablet PC are editions of XP; the HPC release is an edition of Server 2003, SBS has had several releases but they're all built on a particular baseline operating system, and that's what Essential will be, too. If you want a complete list of Windows releases, read List of Microsoft Windows versions. -/- Warren 23:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the template is not to make a List of Microsoft Windows versions, but rather promote easy navigation between the editions for which there is a separate wikipedia article. As such, including all variants does not make any sense, but if different editions of a same version has different articles (XP and XP MCE), it makes sense to include them here. --soum talk 15:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the decision of what releases get a separate article and what don't has been a bit arbitrary. Home and Professional don't have their own articles, even though they're the two most well-known editions, but MCE, Tablet, and XPe do. We don't have separate articles for Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, etc., but we have one for Vista Embedded. We don't have separate articles for separate releases of SBS. We don't have a separate article for 2003 R2, or for 2000 Datacenter or Datacenter Limited, but we have one for each of the two releases of 64-bit XP.
This template bounces back and forth between presenting only the "versions" of Windows; the "versions and editions" of Windows; and some hazy middle-point that doesn't correctly capture either. This is happening because our past decisions about what merits an article and what doesn't has been a bit of a mess. I wouldn't mind seeing all the "editions" under a particular release of Windows being rolled up into a single article (like Windows Vista editions), and then either wikilink to that editions article from this template (e.g. 2000 (editions), XP (editions), ...), or just make sure the editions article is prominently linked from the main article. -/- Warren 19:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Why we have separate articles for MCE and Tablet has always bugged me. I would favor their merge. And the editions article sounds a very good idea. --soum talk 05:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm okay with merging but please don't drop any info from MCE or Tablet articles. Often merging results in trimming/summarising which drops valuable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.230 (talkcontribs)
(deindent) I vote for this nice, succint, clearly organized easily navigable template. --soum talk 08:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Microsoft Windows family/footer[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure why this template's metadata needs removing to this separate page, nor whether or not it's a good idea. Why not simply keep it underneath the {{Documentation, template|Template:Microsoft/doc}} call? Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Good call. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

New template.[edit]

I think that something can be done create new template about Win 9x series, because Windows Mobile has concrete template about Win Mobile, Win Vista also has template about Win Vista. This template about 9x, will probably as template Microsoft Windows Family. Alden or talk with Alden 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If that were to happen, we'd end up with something that is almost entirely redundant to {{Windows Components}}. I suppose that template could be split so that we have one focused on NT and one focused on 9x... -/- Warren 23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try create this template in my sandbox and when I'll finish create template about 9x, NT series, they're going to see this template in my sandbox. Alden or talk with Alden 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine about creating a 9x template since the Windows Components template leaves out legacy stuff. But please leave that template alone since all those are NT, even Vista components. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.230 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Alden Jones/sandbox - this template is Beta-Version, but I don't finish create this template and I please about opinion about this "template". Alden or talk with Alden 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would you need a separate navbox for just three releases? Why is it not enough for it to be a part of {{Microsoft Windows family}}? --soum talk 08:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That was not vandalism[edit]

Both of those projects/products are "Related" to Windows, since they are, after all, attempting to emulate it. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe we should create a new group. including FreeDOS, Wine, ReactOS, Freedows OS mabdul 0=* 13:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The template is titled "Microsoft Windows family", not "Microsoft Windows family and any other operating system that has a vague connection". Would we add Windows to a linux template or a mac os template because it's another operating system? --Blowdart | talk 14:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
NO, of cource not, but that is totally different! These OS's (or emulators) tring to imitate the exact behaviour of ms win and so they are related to ms win! this template never claimed to be ms-exclusive! mabdul 0=* 14:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Except every up till now has been just microsoft windows releases. The word family would indicate that it's for windows editions alone. --Blowdart | talk 15:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
and now a revolutionary idea: rm this word and allow other programs that try to be "the same" in this template... mabdul 0=* 15:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So you'd have to rename the template, move it to be consistent and then update everywhere it's used on. And it would be a controversial move which really needs discussion and a rename that ought to be discussions on template talk. --Blowdart | talk 16:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

oh, one moment please: we are on the discussion page and discussing the move; and for moving the template (renmaing) are there enough bots that can handle this! see Wikipedia:Bot request. that shouldn't be the problem to move this template. that is a really fast task. What is you're oppinion now? mabdul 0=* 17:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you'd have to open the discussion properly, rather than be bold on this one. I'd certainly vote against it. --Blowdart | talk 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We should probably make something like Microsoft Windows emulation, link to that, and then have links to the various projects. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DOS based, booted, bundled, etc[edit]

Right. So. Windows 1.0 through 3.x all needed a DOS-like operating system to start them. 9x didn't need a separate product to boot, but essentially included a version of MS-DOS built-in. (It even self-identified as "MS-DOS 7.0".) There's been various spins on that. In an effort to address this, I've split the two up into "Separate DOS" and "Win 9x sub-family". The later is a little cumbersome but I'm hoping it dodges the debate. Anyway, I thought it deserved a little more explanation. Feedback welcomed; feel free to remove if it really bothers you. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DragonHawk.
I was about to contact you. I'm afraid "For DOS" is too technical a term. Nowadays, nobody knows what is DOS and what does "for DOS" means. Therefore, I recommend changing it into early version, for which there is an article section. Other alternatives would be Operating Environment or DOS shells, but these two are equally cryptic.
Of course, if you wouldn't agree, I suggest we get a third opinion.
Fleet Command (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I've got a number of issues, which I will try to break down for ease of discussion:
  1. This is the single most distinguishing characteristic of these products -- they are the only releases of Microsoft Windows to require a separate DOS product/license.
  2. DOS was very significant in the microcomputer revolution, and an hugely significant product for Microsoft. It helped Windows get started, both technically (by providing OS services to the early shells) and financially. It is both directly relevant and a significant thing in computer history; it is not obscure in the context of Windows.
  3. I do not think the "technical term" argument applies, for multiple reasons:
    1. This is a nav template. The whole point is to let people discover and understand relationships, including things they might be unfamiliar with. If people already knew the subject matter they wouldn't need the template.
    2. This template is about operating systems, an already entirely technical concept. "Windows" is a technical term here.
    3. If "DOS" is too technical, then what about things like "Cairo", "OS/2", "HPC", "CE", etc?
  4. Microsoft Windows#Early versions is about 1.x through 2.x, and does not include 3.x.
I think it's safe to say I don't agree.  :-) Hopefully some other people watching this page can comment as well. If you (Fleet Command) have particular responses, please post, and we can discuss further. If we're just deadlocked, let's see what other have to say. If nobody else speaks up in a few days, we can seek additional opinions though the usual methods.
Regards, —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid your discussion didn't convince me at all. But I won't run a long undue argument over such a small issue. Let it be "For DOS" — for now. Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
While you guys seem to have settled on the 'For DOS' to avoid debate, I just want to add my two cents. Personally I'd prefer something like 'Seperate DOS' but in terms of the two proposals, I have to lean toward 'For DOS' for the reason that 'Early Versions' doesn't tell me as an article browser what the actual product difference is, it implies an arbitrary date line and even there no specifics are communicated, since the big difference is between 'separate DOS required' and 'DOS bundled' I'd rather a heading that alludes to that, and then even if I don't know what DOS is, I can click the link and find out. JasonJD48 (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Development of Windows X links[edit]

I suggest adding a link "development" next to 98, XP, Vista and 7 just like there is an "editions" link next to XP, Vista and 7. Why not? :) I will do it myself if nobody answers me in one week! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talkcontribs) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair. However, I'm concerned by the verbosity of all this. Is there a shorter form we can use for "Editions" and "Development"? "Ed.'s" and "Dev." seem like obvious choices, but they might be too cryptic. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about the exact same thing, but I am not sure. Maybe we could make each of the two words to stay in a single column. Something like this:


editions
Windows 7
development
Well not exactly :D but you get the point... F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Child boxes[edit]

An anonymous user at IP 65.51.18.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) recently used child nav boxes to split up DOS vs 9x. I took the idea and ran with it. While I very much like the logical division, I'm concerned the result is ugly (visually unappealing). What do others think? —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

the template uses too much unused space. it looks horrobile although the cats are better/more logical... mabdul 09:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Unused spase? Well we could then place a "Windows" in front of every editon name. Or we could make the template not to be as wide as the page? F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
... Like this:

F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


OH, you missunderstood me. I mean between the lines. the navbox is to "big"/"high" and needs too much space --> it's splittered up.
How about (intead of windows XY) to add the codenames? (like whistler, etc...) mabdul 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. I understand now. I think definitely someone who knows tables in Wikipedia better than me should add also "development" links next to 98, XP, Vista and 7. :) F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Windows HPC Server[edit]

Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, Windows HPC Server 2008 and Windows HPC Server 2008 R2 need to be aded in the box! F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And obviously we DO need Client OS and Server OS subgroups like in here. F.A.I.T.H.L.E.S.S (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a navigation template. We do not need two links to Windows Server 2003. I think HPC Server 2008 R2 is covered by Windows HPC Server 2008 being linked to in the NT section, and Server 2008 R2 being in the upcoming section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
HPC Server, SBS Server, Home Server - these are all derivative marketing SKUs from the base server version. There is no reason for them to be in the template. nor should the R2 editions of any base Server version (and I hope they don't have separate articles) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Those three SKUs and Server 2008 R2 do have their own articles. As long as they do, they belong on this navigation template. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Early versions[edit]

Just wondering, exactly what constitutes an 'early version' of Windows NT?120.152.104.76 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The template currently uses that as a catch-all for when Microsoft released the "client" and "server" flavors together as a package. All releases after Windows 2000 have released the client and server independently. It's not exactly clear unless you're familiar with MS Windows history, but I haven't been able to think of a better way. Suggestions welcomed.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 13:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent geeky edits[edit]

Hi, everyone

Recently, there had been a geeky makeover on the template which only had made navigation more difficult for normal users and bombarded them with irrelevant links and big vague words like business-centric, 32-bit, etc. (I yet have to go through logs to see who did these and alert him or her to participate in this discussion...)

Wikipedia is neither a place for publishing original thoughts nor a place for prioritizing personal preferences over that of the others. A navbox is meant to make navigation between related articles easier for users, not to show your opinion of how you like to categorize release of Windows; not even a place to show how Microsoft likes to categorize releases of Windows! Although I do admit that ease of navigation is somewhat related to logical categorization of the software releases, use of irrelevant and vague words like "business-centric" and "16/32-bit", which only politicians use, is unwarranted.

Now, I had a similar discussion with another dear Wikipedian (DragonHawk perhaps?) over the same issue in this talk page, but I dropped it since the issue was small. But a show of geekiness in this great magnitude is really nothing tolerable for normal users. Fleet Command (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Partially reverted the template. Reason: A navbox is meant to ease navigation not to show what a big geek you are at the price of making navigation difficult."
FleetCommand, this is not only insulting but violates WP:AGF
The very generic language (such as 'earlier') you support impedes navigation, some of the terms used are non-descriptive and don't adequately describe the grouping they are meant to cover, thus making navigation difficult. Using some basic computing terms like DOS and 32-bit and geeky terms like 'business' helps to actually describe why those articles are in their own group, which would otherwise appear arbitrary to a novice. Links were provided to where a computer novice may need reference, but if we arn't going to give adequate descriptions then we might as well consolidate a lot of the categories as to not bog down a wikipedian with too technical a set of terms. JasonJD48 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
First: No,it is neither insulting nor violating WP:AFG. It just means you didn't like my change and we must talk about it. That's all.
Second: By undoing my changes you violate Third opinion rule: My changes were based on previous consensus with at least two other Wikipedians. (Me + Two other = three). Yours were based on no consensus. Please do not start an edit war. Let us finish our discussions here further undoing my changes.
Third: There are two problems with your edit:
  1. One: They are personal: What is your source for calling a group of Windows operating system "Business-centric" and others "Consumer-centric"? What is your source for "Consumer Client"? Most people argue that Microsoft products are purely business products and that Microsoft heeds nothing but business market in which there is money. (It's Micro$oft after all.) I can bring citation from dozens of MSCE-related sources that show that 75% Windows XP, Vista and 7 features are only accessible to business. And all along, there are the articles themselves. But Wikipedia is not a place for such discussions. Wikipedia is not a publisher of the original thoughts.
  2. Two: Pure geeky categories: What is "16-bit/32-bit"? Is it 16-bit or 32-bit? (Make your decision.) Why "Windows 9x" alone wouldn't do? What is "NT Kernel Based"? Why "Windows NT" alone wouldn't do?
  3. Three: Even a correct categorization of the products does not apply in case of infoboxes. Infoboxes are meant to ease navigation. They are not meant to (1) show your opinion of how products are categorized, nor (2) Microsoft's opinion of how products are categorized, nor (3) reliable source's opinion of how products are categorized, nor (4) to teach anyone about the distinctions of the products. An infobox is meant to ease navigation between articles; nothing more.
Fleet Command (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, yes it was insulting "not to show what a big geek you are" is an ad-hominem attack, you are calling me a geek (a title of mixed standing, often used as an insult) and you are implying that my edit was not an effort to improve the template but to demonstrate my supposed geekyness, that's the definition of not assuming good faith.
To answer your questions,
- On 'Business-Centric' the first line of Windows 3.1 article is "Windows NT 3.1 is the first release of Microsoft's Windows NT line of server and business desktop operating systems, and was released to manufacturing on 27 July 1993." NT 4.0 "Windows NT 4.0 "Windows NT 4.0 is a preemptive,[3] graphical and business-oriented operating system designed to work with either uniprocessor or symmetric multi-processor computers." and Windows 2000 "Windows 2000 is a line of operating systems produced by Microsoft for use on business desktops, notebook computers, and servers." Sounds like buisness-centric fits all those to me, or should we change those articles to be less technical and just say they're early versions?
- On 'Business and Consumer' "Windows XP is an operating system produced by Microsoft for use on personal computers, including home and business desktops, laptops, and media centers. It was released in 2001. The name "XP" is short for "eXPerience."[3] Windows XP is the successor to both Windows 2000 Professional and Windows Me, and is the first consumer-oriented operating system produced by Microsoft to be built on the Windows NT kernel and architecture." this is why we have NT 3.1 to 2000 separate from XP and beyond, its because Microsoft changed the business model from having a separate consumer Windows based on DOS and a business client/server OS based on the NT kernel, this fact is reflected in the articles the template links together, but the template itself with its overly generic language does not reflect that.
- On 16bit, the major separating in design between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 is that its the first to support 32bit, this is a major dividing line between early windows and the 9x family, however, unlike the NT-kernel it was also still based on DOS and dual compatible with 16bit, so it is both, there's nothing to decide. Using the term Windows 9x is more descriptive than your other terms but it still arbitrarily separates the software based on name, having the 16bit, etc in parenthesis would help a wikipedian that would be interested in 16-bit Windows OSs but may not know which those are, the irony is that we already have them separated that way, they just arn't titled as such. As for NT-Kernel based, thats because no OS since Windows XP has actually been called NT, so it may help a novice to say that its based on the NT kernel, its simply a more accurate title.
Lastly, I understand the concept of a navigation template, I just feel that accuracy and descriptiveness helps navigation, not impedes it. I will of course follow the concensus on this issue and would love to hear others opinions JasonJD48 (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I have no connection with User:FleetCommand or with User:JasonJD48 but I do consider some of FleetCommand's comments provocative and failing to assume good faith. It's not clear to me how WP:Third opinion is relevant since this page does not seem to have been listed there.
As for the substance of the changes, comparing before and after the most recent revert, I think there are merits on both sides.
I would suggest that the navbox would benefit from being more compact, and in particular from the amalgamation of the first and second column headings and of the Upcoming section into the relevant sections, something like this:
Richardguk (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Richardguk for your input, I had tried a compromise version that still didn't meet FleetCommand's standards but I'll try to suggest one here starting from your idea and get some feedback.
JasonJD48 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
First: JasonJD48, "geek" is not a personal attack at all: It means "technology enthusiast and know-it-all". Microsoft, Symantec and CNet use this word in their newsletter very often in this sense. Besides, it is normal to feel hurt when your contribution is not accepted. But that is the norm here in Wikipedia: Contribution are chiefly accepted or rejected through consensus.
Second: Although you and me know all those things which you said about Windows, people who refer to this template mostly don't know. Only some of the people younger than 30 and older than 10 are aware of what you said. Others neither know nor care. For them, things like "16-bit", "kernel" or "business-centric" are things that us geeks (= technology enthusiasts) know and if they are to use this template effectively, they must all read the half page of explanation which you wrote. So, why should we employ such complicated terms when we simply can use simple terms?
Third: Your new inputs are good. But I am afraid I see no apeal in it. In my humble opinion, the existing design is much easier to navigate. What is this urge for change after all?Fleet Command (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to belabor the geek point, but 'know-it-all' isn't exactly praise where I come from, its usually someone who not only possesses knowledge but is arrogant about it. According to our own Wikipedia "The word geek is a slang term, noting individuals as 'a peculiar or otherwise odd person, especially one who is perceived to be overly obsessed with one or more things including those of intellectuality, electronics, etc.'" my point is that the word has a mixed background, and should not be used to describe someone you don't know, whose feelings on it and background with it are unknown. Probably more insulting however was your assertion that my edit was meant to show off and by implication not improve the project. I do not feel hurt that you did not accept my contribution, I was disappointed in the language you used toward it and me.
To respond to your second and third points, we don't have statistics surrounding the tech-savvy of those that browse Windows articles. I would suspect that its a more tech-savvy demographic than you suppose, but let's for argument sake say your right. If I am trying to learn about Windows from step one and I come across this template at the bottom of an article, etc. does it help me to find what I need with generic language like 'early'? not really, yes if it says 16bit, I may have to learn what that means (follow the link) but that understanding is necessary for a comparative view of Windows anyway, whereas as it stands now, it seems like we've set an arbitrary and unspecified date line, and anyone needing to know what separates Windows 1.0-3.1 from Windows 9x from Windows NT would have to dig through the articles, why not just tell them upfront why we grouped them that way? I mean, its no coincidence that they are grouped that way, its just that the template doesn't say it consistantly. In other words, sometimes you can boil down something into too simple terms and lose any useful meaning. I think this both answers your questions in point 2 and 3. JasonJD48 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
First: No, navbox templates are not supposed to teach anything. They are meant to facilitate navigation. That's all. Your additions simply add to complication. Things like 16-bit/32-bit or NT Kernel-based are unnecessary eye-sores.
Second: My demographic data are not guesswork. They are the outer bounds of possibility: You see, if a person is to understand what one of these technical terms is, he or she must either have (1) experienced it or (2) learned it.
To experience it, he or she must be older than 10 because Windows 3.11 was release roughly 18 years ago and is nearly impossible to find now. On the other hand, to learn it, he or she must have known how to read and must have read and understood a Windows article. Only a ten-years-old (Elementary school, 3rd level) or older can do that. Same goes for the age of forty: It's the maximum bound: Old age and diminishing learning power plus all those responsibilities mean they do not care about anything beyond immediate, urgent or significant necessities to learn.
Third: As for a need to dig through article, people do need to dig through the article one way or another: The differences between the operating systems are so great that you cannot summarize them into such vague and controversial terms as "business-centric" or "consumer-centric" or wrong phraseology such as "16-bit/32-bit" (by which I take you meant the hybrid nature of Windows 9x, having disregard 24-bit protected mode). Fleet Command (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I didn't say that the navbox was meant to teach or give details, but it is supposed to, as others have said' indicate relationships. That is what I'm getting at, what are the big differences between these OSs? if you feel that's too technical, than why separate them into groups at all? Secondly, while your youngest age range is roughly likely (with some exceptions), your oldest age range is just a guess and the rationale is borderline insulting to assume anyone over forty would be unable to understand these topics because of 'diminishing learning power' (nor that anyone under 40 doesn't have demanding responsibilities!). My point is that we don't really know with any scientific or statistical accuracy what the tech-savvy of a windows article browser averages at, I would submit as a hypothesis that its two main groups, students that are required to learn more about the technical and historical background of Windows and techies (geeks as you may call them) that would want to further expand their knowledge on this subject, both of which would come into it with some tech background and would appreciate detailed differences and relationships from a navbox, just my speculation though. Thirdly, yes you need to read the articles anyway, thats the idea, but to know where to go it helps to understand relationships, and the navbox with descriptive labels can help with that. JasonJD48 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
There are really multiple completely separate issues here. Combining them makes the discussion unwieldy, so I'm going to create subsections for the grouping layout question, and the "16/32 bit" question. BartPE I don't care about; I would suggest interested parties create a separate thread if they want to discuss at length. Regarding allegations of misconduct, I'm going to suit actions to policy, and comment on relevant content, not contributors, and ignore irrelevant content. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in, even though you don't seem to share most of my opinions on this issue, you approach it with a level head. I think we can all agree on Bart PE that it doesn't belong. JasonJD48 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Grouping layout[edit]

We can either have a single level of grouping, or we can have multiple levels (nested). I find the single level of grouping more aesthetically pleasing, but I think the nested groupings for NT aid navigation. NT, being the current and biggest product line, has the most articles, so I think it makes sense that it would need some kind of structure. Lacking any other ideas, I would favor the nested groups, because the purpose of the template is navigation. Function over form. • Is there another way? Can we perhaps create a horizontal title bar within this template to group the NT stuff under it vertically? (Having trouble articulating what I'm thinking of here.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the nested style. So far, so good. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have the experience with templates to experiment with other formats, while I think currently that I like Richardguk's suggestion a little better in terms of presentation than the current setup, I don't feel overly passionate either way, I would just say that there's no point in having sub-groupings with more labels if those labels arn't going to be descriptive. JasonJD48 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. In fact, I myself am more comfortable with having subgroup titles "Earlier versions", "Client releases" and "Specialized" removed and only leave the subgroups standing. But I think others rather think of it as too quirky, especially if Windows Server section is to have subgroup title. So, I never even proposed such a thing. But now, let's hear your opinion about it.Fleet Command (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Er, I like my suggestion best. Face-smile.svg But would this be any better as a compromise between the precision of nesting and the simplicity of a single heading column:
Richardguk (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I like it personally JasonJD48 (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking about something similar. This:
I'm also thinking about a bit of color banding... Fleet Command (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

16 and 32 bit[edit]

I don't see the inclusion of "16-bit" vs "32-bit" as appropriate for this template, nor do I find the proposed categorizations particularity accurate or useful. • The terms "16-bit" and "32-bit" are not well defined; they get used to mean a lot of different things (address space, word size, bus width, processor mode, etc.). Microsoft's own usage tends to be more about identifying API revisions (see Win32) • Win 3.x had flavors which could run in i386 protected mode ("32-bit"), so calling the DOS-based Win 3.x "16-bit" isn't accurate. Likewise, Win9x still depended heavily on 16-bit MS-DOS code to boot and provide other essential system functions. • Most importantly, I don't see this as aiding navigation. This is a navigation template -- specifically to navigate different topics in the Windows family. Linking articles about processor architecture seem like a digression. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree with you on not including 16-bit and 32-bit. The technical accuracy issue which you mention is further complicated by the fact that a 24-bit protected mode was also vastly in use in that time. Also, nobody really cares about such technical matters. Fleet Command (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, some people really do care about such technical matters, or we wouldn't have articles on them, or be having this discussion.  :) But that doesn't mean they should be linked from this template. This template should aim to help people find the articles on Windows, and understand the relationships between then, but it should not attempt to detail every aspect of Windows.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 14:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
E.X.A.C.T.L.Y! That's what I was trying to establish throughout the discussion with JasonJD48. In fact, the whole reason for this dispute hangs on this point.
But JasonJD48 seems to disagree. Fleet Command (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok so, lets say that the 16bit etc issue is too open to be included, since as FleetCommand points out, its not as open and shut as one label. How about how we label NT with the business based combined client/server vs. the separate consumer/business client and server OSs. I just don't think 'earlier versions' tells a prospective navigator anything. JasonJD48 (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly the purpose: To remain neutral and tell nothing that needs not telling, especially when everyone has a unique opinion of its own about Microsoft and whatever that is related to Microsoft.
Let me give you an example: Categorizing Windows 2000 as "Business-centric" and Windows XP as "Consumer-centric" is, not necessarily wrong, but POV. Why, anyone can argue that Microsoft intended Windows 2000 to be consumer-centric because it was meant to replace Windows 9x line of OS; Microsoft even included DirectX with Windows 2000! Others can still argue that since 75% of features of Windows XP, Vista and 7 is only available to businesses which have deployed an Active Directory domain, all Windows release are business-centric and Microsoft's pro-consumer advertisements are technically inaccurate and are purely done for financial gain!
But no! Wikipedia is no place for POV views; and from all the Wikipedia, infobox is the least suitable place to stir controversy.
As I said above, I myself prefer to remove "earlier version" and leave no subgroup title, but... I explained about it above. Fleet Command (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
If its inappropriate for wikipedia, why is the fact that they are business OSs mentioned at the beginning of each article, as a quoted a couple of days ago here. Anyway, I would be fine with moving away from 'business-centric' and call the original Windows NT exactly that, and call XP and beyond NT-Based Clients, because they are not branded as NT but based on the same core, they also do (as the articles point out) represent a shift in design philosophy and intended use. How do you feel about that? JasonJD48 (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
If it is not quoted from a reliable source and is not written in a neutral manner, go ahead and delete/edit it. Articles must also stick with neutrality rules. Keep in mind that articles may still list or include controversies in a NPOV manner. Fleet Command (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Replacement for "DOS-based"[edit]

Hi.

We have a problem: "DOS-based" does not make any sense. Please suggest a good replacement. A good replacement is one that immediately makes sense for average Joes or one that when the reader clicks on, he can have additional info.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see with a replacement is there might not be a good one. It is the label given to older versions of Windows which were based on MS-DOS. The phrase "DOS-based" may be explained or defined, but the only replacement I can think of is something like "based on MS-DOS".
Regards,
Mr Wave (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi.
I don't think you can find a worse suggestion. Are Windows 9x also not MS-DOS-based?
We can even use "graphical shells" or we can delete the nonsensical label and only leave the list.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There is an old saying that goes "make things as simple as possible, but no simpler". Operating systems are complex, and some of the concepts simply cannot be mad simple enough for "the average Joe" to understand. The fact that some older versions of Windows were based on MS-DOS and that Windows NT in particular was not is a difficult concept to simplify, especially now that a large number of the readers have never used MS-DOS. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with GM in detail, even including the Einstein quote. Anyone who doesn't know what MS DOS-based means (Well, OK, adding the MS might just help a bit... Dunno.) has a mountain to climb before getting to the point where he could master the subject matter, no matter how simply or catchily it is presented. I would not even expect such a person to be reading such stuff. We have plenty of articles that laymen cannot read with profit until after they have raised their mastery of the material to above lay level. JonRichfield (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

About Windows RT[edit]

I suggest Windows RT to be a independent section is because RT share some code base with other Windows 8 versions, and some notable differences. And can't use x64 software like CE. The reason is copy from Windows RT article, which the source is http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/04/16/announcing-the-windows-8-editions.aspx. Asiaworldcity (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose: I assume you are gathering consensus for this edit. Such edit disrupts the infobox's style consistency and for no good reason. Al editions of Windows borrow code from one another. (Why reinvent wheel?) Lack of support for x86-64, IA-32 or even the entire x86 family is again nothing new because at least six different versions of Windows NT family did not support x86-64. Three versions did not support IA-64. Even ARM architecture support is nothing new. In addition, how do you know that the new family is called Windows RT? Or why do you disregard the fact that your own source places Windows RT an edition of Windows 8? (These are rhetorical questions.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Windows XP End of life.[edit]

So, Windows XP went EOL on April 8th, 2014 and users are thinking it makes it an early release. However, EOL is not counted in this template, but users do it anyway.

What makes something like, Win2k, an early NT version is that both the server and client versions share the name Windows 2k (or NT 4 for NT 4 and it goes on and on and on)

I think it would be a good idea to put a notice above the template saying EOL does not make XP an early NT version to stop users from doing this. 75.71.219.35 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Yes, the consensus for current layout is achieved in April 2010, when Windows 2000 was still supported. I've requested an edit protection for this template. Once we pass this phase and the EOL media blitz dies down, the problem is automatically solved, because at the end of Windows 7's life, no one would think of moving it into Earlier versions while Windows XP is not there.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)