Talk:List of Microsoft codenames

old

Does Wikipedia really need this? Lists of Microsoft codenames have been done before, and most of the time, in a more complete way. So, is this worthy of an encyclopedia? --82.135.12.44 04:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, why does Microsoft get its own page when there's a larger, more inclusive list located at list of computer technology code names? I see that this list includes background for some of the names, but is it really necessary? --Paulymer5 03:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION NITPICKERS

Do not second-guess the intentions of this article. You write the article, not the other way around. Please do NOT, ever again:

• mutilate the historical Windows NT timeline by removing the Windows 2000 entry, despite its lack of a codename. It must be included because it has no codename, an anomaly that warrants an explaination. The table will look incomplete otherwise and prompt people to readd the entry. I can't believe I have to explain this
• remove major entries because they lack a codename. I will just, e.g., move "COM+ Runtime" into the codename column, because it only appeared in internal source code, the product was never announced as such. Why waste my time?
• forget that this is the only Wikipedia article where internal names for Microsoft products are discussed. If you remove related information from this page, it is lost forever

The article title is not policy. It used to be just "Microsoft codenames". Some nitpicker decided this was a list, and moved it. It won't take a lot to put together some accompanying blurbs to the tables, what will you do then? remove them because this is just a "list"? (… and yet, in my heart I know someone will) Please let it rest. I cannot believe anyone could be deleting legitimate entries from this page

--KJK::Hyperion 02:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Error?

I believe this sentence is in error:

The Windows line has been since dropped altogether, and Windows NT operating systems are now simply referred to as "Windows".

Perhaps it should read "The Windows NT line..."?

Nope. The "Windows line" refered to is that of the MS-DOS based Windows 3.x, 95, etc. Although, from a consumer point of view, Windows 2000 and XP represent a "coming together" of this and Windows NT, they are in a technical sense almost exclusively a continuation of the NT line. In other words, the Windows brand continued, but it's the NT technology that now carries it. - IMSoP 23:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Windows Vista status

Windows Vista is listed as a final name. Shouldn't we mark it differently until we know that it is the final name? 4.255.40.245 00:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft has announced it as the final name. They've invested millions (billions?) of dollars in branding to this point, and are not going to throw that all away. Alereon 00:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Update

Codenames from this http://www.bitzenbytes.com/Content-Arcanum-18-1-61.html source could be added.

If not add Mira, the now shelved Windows Smart Display codename.

Hmmm... I really like the source in the table... might add this to the tables sometime. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Damn, Microsoft codenames are cool

Microsoft needs to just start releasing their products under their codenames...scrolling through the list, most of these are pretty badass. Xizer 01:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, especially considering their official names are so lame. And they're not even consistent, I mean: 98, ME, 2000, XP, 2003 - what a mess. I personally think they should've better leave out those two-letter-codes, it would be better if they used years all the time. And the meanings of those... ME - "Millenium Edition"... yuck! :) And XP... as I understand, it was supposed to stand for "experience", which is yuck too, but I'd also say it's actually incorrect. Yes it might be eXPerience, but i think the original meaning of XP as 'experience' was from the gaming term which is actually short from 'eXperience Points' :) --Arny 07:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Cairo

To be honest, I'm still not sure whether Cairo is NT4.0, NT5.0, both or neither... --Arny 15:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

NT4, but Cairo was actually abandonded as a codename. Jim Allchin refers to it now as a group of "concepts". Every new Windows release since then has contained something he originally hoped for in Cairo. SchmuckyTheCat 16:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

wasn't Cairo used for XP? because it draws sounds from the two greek letters chi and roe, with the symbols X and P! if is this is not true i will be very upset, as that has just got to be the best codename ever! mastodon 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

XP stole ideas from the Cairo "vision" but XP was never referred to as Cairo. SchmuckyTheCat 18:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think I remember that upcoming NT 5.0 was advertised as "Cairo" in magazines. It was finally released as Windows 2000. Arny 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2000 never had a codename. This is mentioned in the Windows 2000 article. Aluvus 12:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Singularity

where is Singularity? Muzzle 08:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Just another MSR project - not a product. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Venus

I was viewing the source for the documentation of BeginPaint and the line VENUS_START caught my eye. I did some searching and came up with this page which mentions other codenames as well. Hackwrench 17:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

LINQ

Should LINQ even make the list? It seems more like a specific feature than an overall product... atanamir 05:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a source that describes "LINQ" as a codename, then by all means be bold and add it in! I think it might be an acronym, though, for "Language Integrated Query" or somesuch. Warrens 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Build Numbers

How about putting the build numbers in as well? Make it a bit more complete... I will do it if no one else does. --203.118.135.21 11:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Windows NT 3.1

I don't think it's correct to say that 'OS/2 3.0' was a codename for Windows NT 3.1. The project was originally called 'NT OS/2', and was intended to ultimately be released as 'OS/2 3.0', but I don't think either of these ('NT OS/2' or 'OS/2 3.0') really qualifies as a codename. Maybe it could be said that 'NT' was the codename, but then that was actually used in the final product name, so perhaps there simply wasn't one.

This article is also the first place I've ever read the claim that the choice of '3.1' for the first version of NT had anything to do with having a higher version number than OS/2. Does anyone know what the source for this claim is? It seems to me that synchronising the version number with the DOS-based Windows product line is a sufficient explanation for the choice.

Office

What about Office codenames? Ones for Flight Simulator and other games? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows 2 and 3 codenames

The list currently says Windows 2000 was the first major version without a codename since Windows 2.0. Is there any evidence that Windows 2.0 didn't have codename, Windows 3.0 did and Windows 2000 didn't?

re-used codenames

i noticed: Janus Windows 2000 64-bit Same codename as Windows 3.1 so is Hydra used in both "SQL Server 6.5" and "Terminal Services, Terminal Server"

when i added this extra info it was removed minutes after ... so what to do with re-used codenames?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.220.114.102 (talk) 13:39, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

"Notes" column

Please don't put information about the product itself in the "notes" column, unless it's unreleased (e.g. cancelled or planned)

--62.101.126.225 (talk) 02:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? This makes no sense, and removing the information, [1] makes the table plain, outright wrong. The notes column contains general information relevant to the codename. Look at that diff. Look at the first entry, "Trainyard". Without information in the notes column, the table now says that Trainyard was the codename for XPSP1. That is absolutely not the case and this can be (and is) explained in the Notes section.

There certainly is information in the Notes that is irrelevant, or better explained by the linked product articles (like how to get W-FLP through SA) but the Notes section is entirely general, and germane, to miscellaneous information and no argument except "don't" says otherwise.

Hence, I'm reverting the last change to the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Project Natal

Microsoft announced Project Natal at E3 this week. For information and references, see this link. 70.190.158.11 (talk)

Comes v. Microsoft

The Comes v. Microsoft suit (and probably others as well) have revealed quite a lot internal Microsoft documents and e-mail. Together with the proceeding transcripts, where Microsoft is often asked what certain code names refer to, would make great reliable sources for this article. A lot is this in now publicly available on the Internet (e.g. http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/). —Ruud 01:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows CE Codenames

Several of the Windows CE code names that are lumped together are codenames for Windows Mobile products. Specifically, Stinger was the original Windows Smartphone OS, Rapier was the code name for Pocket PC. While based on Windows CE, they were separate OS releases built by the Windows Mobile team (separate from Windows CE). Don't know how best to indicate this in the table.

Bob?

No double-knot spy codename for Microsoft Bob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.8.2 (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Work items

diff that deletes a lot of entries. While I agree that sourcing is an issue, I disagree that cutting all of this was necessary. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Unreferenced codenames

Alright, everyone. It seems I must remind you that Wikipedia:Verifiability which is a non-negotiable pillar of Wikipedia requires all items in an article to have source. Unreferenced material will be challenged or deleted. That is not an essay, guideline, or even policy; it is a pillar and a pillar may not be contradicted, not even through consensus.

In that respect, I have deleted a long list of unreferenced items in this article. If you want them back, you can have them back as long as you have a reliable source for every and each of them. But you can't have them all back without a source, especially given the fact the there were some duplicate codenames amongst them that were repeated for different products and hence I think someone has been making either factually inaccurate or outright dishonest contributions.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you try rewording your post a little? Maybe get even more pretentiousness into it? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with FC here. Reliable sourcing is especially important with these kinds of lists because they attract a lot of speculation, rumours, hearsay and urban-ledgend type additions on top of the inevitable pure fiction. It's it about time it was cleaned up. A case in point is the first one in the list to be removed – Janus.

Seemingly Janus has always been thought of as the codename for Windows 3.1, but this court order from a Caldera vs Microsoft lawsuit would seem to suggest it was nothing more than a packaged bundle of Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS 5. What is more, I can find no reliable source that contradicts this view, only blogs, wikimirrors and articles that are sourced from Wikipedia. _wjemather^bigissue 21:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course reliable sourcing is important - so Fleet Command should try doing some of it, not just deleting stuff randomly throughout WP. How about some positive contributions, rather than endlessly deleting? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no obligation on FC to try and source anything, but I hope they tried (and am sure they did) to source at least a few before deciding that complete removal was the best way forward. In this case I see the removal as a positive contribution since it prompts others to restore with sourcing. As I said, I tried to source Janus which I figured would be straightforward, but failed. I may give some other the others a go later, too. _wjemather^bigissue 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

On their talk page they questioned what I was talking about when I mentioned 'Chicago'. As that's probably the easiest of the lot to source, I doubt they even read what they deleted before deleting it, they just counted refs. There is no obligation on them to delete articles either, and editors who aren't prepared to do the whole job shouldn't be congrtatulating themselves on their fine works when they choose to only do half of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, gentleman; please do not over-involve your emotions: Nothing is permanently deleted; everything can be returned with a click of a mouse button the very second you have source for them. In fact, please do revert any of the deleted items for which you have a source. Please realize that I have NO personal hostility against any of you or your favorite articles; it is only a matter of Wikipedia:Verifiability and the corresponding responsibilities of being a Wikipedian. Oh, an do you mind if I express my surprise of myself being referred to as "they"? Fleet Command (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is your tone (a bit abrupt & officious, maybe) in removing the content that perhaps caused the biggest stir. Incidentally, the only reason this was on my watchlist in the first place was due to a torrent of OR and unsourced crap being added to a pair of related articles that I helped source, rewrite and ultimately survive AfD, and I certainly doubt it is a favourite article of anybody. You can certainly express your surprise at being referred to as "they" but I don't see why you would (assuming this is the cause of your surprise?). _wjemather^bigissue 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced material can be challenged. That doesn't mean it has to be.

Duplicate code names are not that big a deal. Microsoft does not have a very deep sense of its own history. Product managers (who make up code names) don't really care about code names that are decades old or in other divisions. Every time a new VP comes along the naming scheme changes too. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

In this case it has been, and rightly so. Obviously some will be correct and should be re-added with sources, but they will be an awful lot that are not for one of the reasons I listed above. _wjemather^bigissue 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That is true. Some items will be back. I discovered that "Longhorn" was real: [2] [3] [4]. "Memphis" also looks real: [5] since Paul Thurrott is reliable LP. I'm adding them back. Fleet Command (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the entries in the Win3x/9x/NT sections were real code names. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Really? Then by all means find a reliable source for Janus. The problem is as I described above. _wjemather^bigissue 07:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Kato, which I can find zero mention of. And what was with the (LB) after Snowball? _wjemather^bigissue 07:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Janus, as a code word, is quite easy to attach to some version of win3x because it is still a valid search term on support.microsoft.com. The problem for Wikipedia is attaching that name to a specific release. I don't know why (LB) was after Snowball. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Only one search result at microsoft is relevant and that does not mention the word Janus at all. That result is a product list of all versions of Windows up to 3.11, so attaching Janus to 3.x seems like a shot it the dark. _wjemather^bigissue 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If you were not at least passingly familiar with the codename Longhorn (which got a large amount of coverage in the trade press), then I would argue that you are entirely the wrong person to be making a judgment on what in this article does or does not need a source. And as WP:V explicitly acknowledges, it is not realistic to demand that every claim have a provided source.

You would have done far more good by coming to the Talk page first and voicing your concerns, so that someone (or indeed, many people) familiar with the topic could scrub the list. Instead you have chosen mass deletion and rules lawyering, which merely annoy those very people. Surely there are flaws in the list; this is not the right way to find them.

I would also suggest that you reconsider your tone, as telling people they "can't" undo your deletions until they meet your personal standards implies an authority that you (or anyone else, really) do not have. And your claim that your actions can be undone "with a click of a mouse button" strikes me as hugely disingenuous; the only way to easily undo your actions is to simply revert you, which still leaves out your other deletions of the last few months. I can guess your opinion of that solution. — Aluvus t/c 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Aluvus. Those parts of your comments which are not factually inaccurate will be duely noted. However, it goes without saying that the basis for the merit of material in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth and contents without source may be challenged or deleted. As for my figurative notion of "one click", if reverting those deleted material is not literally as easy as one click, it is definitely easier than coming to talk page and complaining. 11:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs) 06:47, December 16, 2010

If anything I have said is in error, then point it out; otherwise, you are just poisoning the well. When I commented on your tone I was not suggesting that it needed more sarcasm. I have already told you that WP:V does not support you in the way you claim, and your rejoinder does not answer any of my criticisms of your actions. And if you think it is easier for someone to grovel through several dozen items, find references that you personally will not be upset about, and then re-add them, than it is to create an item on Talk saying "Hey guys I think this page needs some cleanup" then you are insane. It would take longer to just count the items you removed than to post on Talk (I should know; I tried it). — Aluvus t/c 00:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)