Template talk:Microsoft Windows family

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

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

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

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

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...

History of Microsoft Windows

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)

History of Microsoft Windows

Eh? Eh? JamesWeb 20:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

CE

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...

...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

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 (talk • contribs)

(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

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.

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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:

{{Navbox |name = Microsoft Windows family /testing/ |state = {{{state|<includeonly>autocollapse</includeonly><noinclude>expanded</noinclude>}}} |title = [[Microsoft Windows]] family |group1 = General |list1 = {{nowrap begin}} [[List of Microsoft Windows versions|Versions]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions|Comparison]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[List of Microsoft Windows components|Components]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[History of Microsoft Windows|History]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Timeline of Microsoft Windows|Timeline]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Criticism of Microsoft Windows|Criticism]] {{nowrap end}} |group2 = Original |list2 = {{navbox|child |group1 = '''Separate [[DOS]]:''' |list1 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows 1.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows 2.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows 2.1x]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows 3.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows 3.1x]] {{nowrap end}} |group2 = '''[[Windows 9x|Win 9x]] sub-family:''' |list2 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows 95]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows 98]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Me]] {{nowrap end}} }} |group3 = [[Windows NT|NT]] & derivatives |list3 = {{navbox|child |group1 = NT/2000 |list1 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows NT 3.1]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows NT 3.5]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows NT 3.51]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows NT 4.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows 2000]] {{nowrap end}} |group2 = Clients |list2 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows XP]] ([[Windows XP editions|editions]]) {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Vista]] ([[Windows Vista editions|editions]]) {{nowrap end}} |group3 = Servers |list3 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows Server 2003]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Server 2008]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Home Server]] {{nowrap end}} }} |group4 = [[Windows CE|CE]] |list4 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows CE|Windows CE 1.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows CE|Windows CE 2.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows CE 3.0|Windows CE 3.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows CE|Windows CE 4.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows CE 5.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Embedded CE 6.0]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Mobile]] {{nowrap end}} <!-- do not add "Azure" here; it is an application hosting offering, not a release of Windows --> |group5 = Upcoming |list5 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows 7]] ([[Windows 7 editions|editions]]) {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Server 2008#Windows Server 2008 R2|Windows Server 2008 R2]] {{nowrap end}} <!-- do not add "Singularity" here; it is not related to Windows --> |group6 = Other |list6 ={{navbox|child |group1 = Cancelled |list1 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Cairo (operating system)|Cairo]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Nashville]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Neptune]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[Windows Odyssey]] {{nowrap end}} |group2 = Related |list2 = {{nowrap begin}} [[Windows Preinstallation Environment|WinPE]] {{·}}{{wrap}} [[OS/2]] {{nowrap end}} }}

}} 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

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

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

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

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. 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

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"

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

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.

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)

"Windows XP went EOL on April 8th, 2014 and users are thinking it makes it an early release." - I'm sorry, but this is complete hogwash. In fact, last of what should arguably be considered an "early version" of NT is NT 4. Even Windows 2000 should be represented in both the client and server branches as "Windows 2000 Professional" and "Windows 2000 Server" respectively. It really makes no sense whatsoever to say NT 5.0 is an "early version" while NT 5.1 or NT 5.2 is not. It is also a joke to suggest that Vista supposedly was the first "proper" client NT version. Anyone who tries to shove NT 5.x systems in to the "early version" category just because they are now 10+ years old is a fool (what's next, saying that NT 6.x (Vista/7/8.x) are "early versions" too, once they go EOL?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.66.239.49 (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You think the best way to achieve the consensus of your fellow editors is to insult them and to order them around? Good luck. Fleet Command (talk)

2014-12-18 revision: Problematic

Hi.

I am writing this in reference to revision 638689358 written by CoolingGibbon. I am very tired and need some sleep but I can see several disadvantages

• First tier no longer represents a Windows family. It represents non-peer groups. They have nothing in common, except being just some group.
• No longer about "Windows family"; now just about "Windows"
• Bulkier
• "NT-based"? What is NT-based? Why not call a spade a spade? It is Windows NT, like it or not. "NT" has been a bit hard to find since Windows 2000 but it is not impossible.
• Wrong. HPC Server 2008 is moved out of Windows Server family. Other Windows Server member too.

Sleepy,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

Apologies for the late response. Thanks for letting me know about this. In case I intend to make any changes later on, I'll discuss them beforehand here on the talk page.

Regards. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's have a talk about Windows 10 for Phones and Small Tablets

Let me first make a comparison with corresponding Wikipedia articles and historical divisions of this same template, earlier Windows Mobile, Windows CE, and Windows Phone all were a part of the "Windows C.E." group of Windows Operating Systems, no article regarding Windows Mobile state that it's "a release of the Windows CE operating system", while the Windows 10 for phones and small tablets article constantly shows "a release of the Windows Phone operating system" I shall not argue that it's not a release of Windows Phone and the article rightfully states that it's the successor to Windows Phone 8.1, and the article has Windows Phone written ¡¡¡ALL OVER IT!!! something which I honestly do agree with, but my protests are at the fact that it is constantly treated as a release of Windows Phone, Windows 10 for (smart)phones and small tablets is comparable to Windows R.T. in the fact that it only runs WinRT applications and no Win32 while Windows R.T. is still shown as an edition of Windows 8, the Windows Phone 7.X Series are Windows C.E.-based while Windows Phone 8.X are Windows N.T. based so factually they could just as well fall under "Windows N.T.", but they rightfully don't because Windows Phone is a brand, Windows Phone 7.X and Windows Phone 8.X differ a lot but they are still considered a part of the same family of products because of branding, so this template justfully places them in the same group, my argument against placing Windows 10 for (smart)phones and small tablet-P.C.'s in this category is because it's more comparable to Windows R.T. as an "edition" of Windows 10 rather than another release of Windows Phone, Microsoft itself has confirmed that they have abolished the Windows Phone brand and replaced it with the general Windows Brand, the Wikipedia article of Windows R.T. itself states that it's more comparable with Google Android and iOS than Windows 8.X itself because it's only used for Tablet-P.C.'s and can't run Win32 applications, this same difference exists between Windows 10 for larger screens and Windows 10 for smaller screens.

Another complaint is also with the page's editor that for some reason simply moves it when someone else places this template on top of the article, but has to "undo" any revisions I did, that aside Windows Phone is a brand, not an operating system, if application compatibility were a standard for an operating system OS/2 should make this list too (which it shouldn't), so my argument is either wait for Microsoft to actually release more details on the operating system, or keep it as a an edition of Windows 10. No information about the software, the S.D.K. and the internals of the operating system have been released, the entire article is purely based on a presentation by Microsoft and some additional limited information that ironically all say the contrary of the content of the article (stating that it's a release of Windows 10 rather than just "Windows Phone 10" an actual phrase even used in the article, and why it wasn't branded as such).

Devil's Advocate (these are some arguments against the ones I've made above):

Windows 10 for Mobile Devices can still be considered a part of the Windows Phone family of operating systems as Pocket P.C.'s that aren't branded as "Windows Mobile" are included in the Windows Mobile peer-group, and since all Windows Phones (based on the Windows N.T. kernel) can upgrade to Windows 10 for mobile devices, furthermore the differences between Windows Phone 8.1 and Windows 10 for Mobile Devices are merely superficial, though internal changes could be large, Microsoft hasn't announced anything concerning it so Wikipedia is best to assume it to be just another variation of Windows Phone rather than be a new operating system by itself.

---

Well there are arguments for both sides and I'm sure someone can think of more for it to be a release of Windows Phone over Windows, but until Microsoft clears up some smoke for us this template, the page, and all corresponding articles will be in a constant edit war, I've already distanced myself from editing it as the information we've been provided is too limited to work for clear conclusions, but the question if this article should be included in either Windows Phone or Windows 10 is purely a question of branding and how Wikipedia stands on the branding, just like how devices made by Ericsson are now part of the Sony template that doesn't mention Ericsson, this question is one purely of branding, on the internet there are hundreds of news sites that refer to it as "Windows Phone 10", while there are many others that simply call it "Windows 10", and there are reasons that validate both, and it's purely a stance we can make, Wikipedia should be neutral so I'd say that either party is right in their own way, but we can't do it both ways, I can suggest how we should make it a between-brackets version of Windows 10 "Windows 10 (Mobile Version)", while others would suggest that we'd go Windows Phone -> Windows 10 for Mobile, so we won't come to conclusions unless we'll have an open discussion about the guidelines we'll use in editing these articles, the differences between Windows 7, Vista, or even XP and Windows Phone 8.1 are smaller than those between Windows 95 and Windows XP, Etc. between the previous share the same kernel, but one could argue because of app compatibility that the differences between Windows 95 and XP are non-existent, while it's a world of difference from Windows Phone 8.1, I won't edit it as my edits will clash with another editor, and while I don't edit someone with the same opinions regarding these articles made the same edits I did and then the same editor from earlier made the same changes, this edit war is useless until Microsoft will announce more about Windows 10 for (smart)phones and small tablet-P.C.'s itself. Honestly I'd even want to see the Windows 10 pages merged, but I can see why others would protest it, personally I vote for branding over operating system so I'd say that Windows 10 for Mobile Devices is a member of the Microsoft Windows Family of operating systems rather than Windows Phone, if the admins of this template could give me any reasons why this is wrong/right please do so. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me further emphasize that I am not suggesting to do anything with the template, only that we should discuss it before moving it around, since I've first added it to the template it has moved between Windows Phone and Windows 10 back and forth, so I suggest that we should discuss it beforehand, and I'll accept either party's conclusions and won't stand in the way of the admin choosing to add it to either Windows 10 or Windows Phone, I will keep my personal opinion out of it, but I fail to see either party come up with final conclusions as long as Microsoft hasn't officially released anything for either developers or consumers (end-users).

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that no-one has responded yet, let me further explain what I meant with "the history of this template" and why the development of Windows 10 for (SMART)phones and small tablet-P.C.'s should be discussed, as you can see in an older draft of this template below Windows Mobile, Windows Embedded, and Windows Phone are all seen as "Windows C.E.", while it was already known at the time that Windows Phone 7 would not share application compatibility with Windows Mobile 6.X, while they did share the same kernel and core, so they (the contemporary editors and admins) placed it in the same group, at the time this made sense, Windows Embedded, nor Windows Mobile, nor Windows Phone were "truly" separate brand-families at the time, in fact Microsoft retroactively renamed Windows Mobile 6.X and Windows Mobile 5 to "Windows Phone 5", and "Windows Phone 6", respectively. Microsoft itself considers these to be the same family of devices, despite application incompatibility (as device incompatibility plagued the kernel-change from Windows C.E. to Windows N.T. from Windows Phone 7.X to Windows Phone 8 too, while these are in the same group), my argument here is that despite the fact that though the article may have Windows Phone written ALL OVER IT (something I support because it is a continuation of Windows Phone, but I disagree with the fact that the article is treated as a "Windowsphobic" Windows Phone-centric article that neglects branding) the fact remains that it's a continuation of Windows Phone under a different brand, and should not be treated as a part of Windows Phone, Microsoft itself sees it as an edition of Windows 10.

Of-course how I personally feel about the article is not what I base my arguments on, I love the fact that it has Windows Phone written ALL OVER IT, I just dislike the fact that it neglects the fact that it's still an edition of Windows, the top of the infobox reads "A release of the Windows Phone operating system" which can be justified by the fact that it's an upgrade from present Windows Phone devices, and does in fact look and act like a release of Windows Phone, but Microsoft itself branded it as a release of Microsoft Windows and branding itself can change over time, another example I named in my earlier argument is the fact that Wikipedia uses the Sony-Ericsson template as a sole Sony Mobile Kabushiki Gaisha template despite the fact that over ½ of the phones in it have no relation(ship) with Sony at all, here is the template:

And here Wikipedia prefers modern branding over historical facts, I don't get why for some reason Microsoft-related articles are the opposite, I suggest that EndlessCoffee is right and that "Windows 10 (Mobile)" is a better place for Windows 10 for mobile devices in this template, I await others for counter arguments.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

TL;DR. I am on a time limit. Codename Lisa (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I thought I wrote a bit too much, thankfully I've learned to keep it shorter by now, at-least I hope that others without the time limit will read it, but then again I can say for your comment TS;DR (oké, that's a lame joke), but I'll keep it in mind the next time I'll set up a set of arguments, maybe I got carried away, well let's just hope that the mediator will have the time (L.O.L.). Also don't worry I've read the page you sent and won't try to write more than is absolutely necessary (but I still hope that the Mediator will take all of the above in account ah).

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC) (formerly 86.81.201.94)

Consensus has been reached

In Talk:Windows 10 (mobile) most users have agreed that Windows 10 (mobile) is Windows and in Windows RT Windows 10 (mobile) is referenced as succeeding Windows Phone not as a part of it. Regardless of what FleetCommand or Codename Lisa and other "damned edit warriors" have to say as they're the ones who want to revert edits based on consensus, and if mobile devices are clients then it would make no sense to exclude smartphones unless this is just based on their personal views, next time you'll send an official warning try to be on the good side of the argument. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Lumia930uploader

I do not see the consensus that you are talking about but you are getting more and more aggressive every time. You are yet to talk to me. Not to mention that you called me and everyone disagreeing with you a "damned edit warrior", even though I defended you on WP:ANEW. I'd appreciate a little more friendliness, and a more accurate address as to what consensus you are talking about.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Windows 10 (mobile) article still calls itself a successor of Windows Phone 8.1. So, again, please provide a more accurate address to the discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can see a discussion at Talk:Windows 10 (mobile) § Windows 10 for Mobile Isn't Windows Phone. EndlessCoffee54 and Namlong618 did not reach an agreement with ViperSnake151 and YannickFran. Unless the meaning of the word "consensus" has changed dramatically yesterday. Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:OWN and childish reaction by editors

For some time consensus about Windows 10 Mobile has been reached and that it should be listed under editions, but the childish behavior of some editors simply makes regular conversation impossible, in reaction to one of these reversions an editor wrote "== Try to remain civil ==

− − You called me a damned edit warrior I'd almost just revert that edit because of your language, next time try to make up an argument other than an ad hominem. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 12:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

− WP:CIVIL in case you were wondering, and the other editor claimed that mobile devices were clients yet excluded Windows 10 mobile from the same reasoning, also the other editor didn't take it to the talk page nor in their reverts to explain the difference and the Windows 10 mobile article itself mentions it as a successor to Windows RT so you're either just being uncivil and picking a side, or you lack neutrality and shouldn't be here and you're the one who needs to be warned. --Lumia930uploader (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

" on a user talk page, as this is basically my argument I will leave this here other arguments I have against placing the Windows 10 Mobile article among Windows Phone is that Microsoft has announced it to be an edition of Windows 10, and that its also listed among Windows 10 editions, meanwhile the only counter argument provided by the "main editors" of this page is that Windows 10 Mobile succeeds Windows Phone 8.1 thus is a Windows Phone, and they can never break the three revert rule as they constantly keep backing each other up, despite consensus having been reached on the talk page of Windows 10 Mobile. --LyThienDao1984 (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

New trend.

In the near past Microsoft used to market/sell its products in a Target Market -> Product -> Version fashion.

Examples:

Desktop -> Windows -> Windows 7

Server -> Windows Server -> Windows Server 2008

Mobile telephones -> Windows Phone -> Windows Phone 7

Small consumer devices -> Embedded Compact -> Embedded Compact 7

Industry devices -> Embedded Industry -> POSReady 7

Cars -> Embedded Automotive -> Embedded Automotive 7

But now, the new trend for the Embedded part seems to be the fusion under a single brand. Specifically, Product -> Target Market is the new way.

(For the desktop, the server and the mobile telephones, everything seems unchanged, by the way.)

This is how it works from my POV:

Windows Embedded 8 Standard has superseded Windows Embedded Compact 2013. I wonder if 8.1 Standard will not be released because Windows 10 has their attention now.

Windows Embedded 8.1 Pro and Industry superseded Windows Embedded Industry. I do not know if Standard, Pro and/or Industry can fill in the gap left by Windows Embedded Automotive, too. If someone can add some information about it, I would be more than glad.

Besides, consider that Windows Embedded 8.1 Handheld is a bridge between Windows Phone 10 and the Windows Embedded 8.1 products.

So, as you can realize, EVERYTHING for small/embedded/etc. devices was agglutinated under Windows Embedded 8/8.1 umbrella.

Later, Windows 10 IoT also shown up.

I wonder if we will see Embedded 10 or, if Windows 10 IoT will be all what we'll get.

Obviously, all THIS UNSTABLE STATE OF THINGS REGARDING THE EMBEDDED/IOT scene is MESSING with THIS BEAUTIFUL TEMPLATE.

Surely it'd be a great idea to make 2 templates: one that covers the previous trend (say until about 2009?) and another one for the current way. The problem is that, as long as Microsoft keeps both ways to market its products, there is no way to completely improve/split this template.

The other option is to unify everything under "embedded".

To split or to unify, that is the question.

What do you all think about this issue?

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, George

Apparently, you are not aware that this template is navbox. Its purpose is to help navigate among existing articles. We will worry about all this when new article came to being. So, to summarize, no to all your proposals. New articles first.

And please be advised: Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. Navboxes can only reflect what can be directly taken from articles.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for your explanations. I apologize for messing up things when trying to improve this. I have contributed with a few things here and there but I have to admit I am not knowledgeable concerning "navboxes". I hope I can help in some other way afterwards.

George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A label better than "Early versions"

Attn: Codename Lisa, comp.arch, Jeh

Hey guys.

This "early versions" label has become troublesome lately. It is subjective, so people don't understand what is its qualification criterion. I've removed it for now, because ... well, how many forth and back reverts are needed for us to realize it is contentious?

The original purpose of the group was to accommodate operating systems that were both used for client and server purposes. This was before 2001, when this happened:

Windows NT 3.1	→	Windows NT 3.5	→	Windows NT 4.0	→	Windows 2000	→		Windows XP	...	(Client-only versions)
									Server 2003	...	(Server-only versions)
									PE 5.1	...	(PE-only versions)
These are "early versions"

So, what are we going to do with? Off the top of my head:

• Removed it; leave the early versions unlabeled.
• Call it "Early hybrids"
• Call it "Before splitting"
• Call it "Pre-division"
• Dissolve it, sending its contents once to "Client versions" and once to "Server versions" (renamed from the existing "Windows Server").
• (What is your idea?)

Everyone is welcome to pitch in, although our dear newcomer editors must pay attention that Wikipedia is not governed by voting; we are here discuss and establish a reasonable consensus.

Fleet Command (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I just wasn't aware of what this was supposed to mean.. I moved XP to early. I guess you wouldn't like "Discontinued versions".. :) I thought that's what "early" meant (here). If not then "early" is at least not clear and people will not remember what you think it means with time (as shown..). Either my memory is fading, my knowledge seams not up to speed on a "split" (I would at least rule out hybrids as that is not what pre-XP was/incompatible with a "split"). I regard 95/ME -> NT the biggest change/split. After that server or non-server are mostly about anti-features (only licensing if you think about say running Apache and not say IIS) and else all capable of the same ("server") functionalities? comp.arch (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The division between client and server is somewhat arbitrary (for OSes) and maybe unclear in these (after the "split") cases: Media Center is "designed to serve as a home-entertainment hub [as in "server"?] [..] adds support for the Xbox 360 as a media center extender"

Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs also sounds like a "server" (the programs you use, those are clients run elsewhere): "designed to work as a client–server solution with RDP clients" in a similar way to that an X server is a server, not a client..

We could put Windows XP, Server 2003, Server 2003 R2 (and everything else older, not longer marketed) in italics. Maybe you want to just say "Before client/server marketing"? comp.arch (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a division based on whether Microsoft releases both a client and a server from the same source tree contents and the same build pass is useful. Particularly because of the reunification that lasted from Vista SP1/Server 2008 through Win 8.1/Server 2012 R2, then split again with Windows 10. I would call "early versions" anything before the NT kernel. "16-bit versions" might be a better term. Then we have "NT kernel-based", and the 9x/ME series. Jeh (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: Hi. With respect, your contribution was not very screen-space friendly. I was thinking FleetCommand's "Before splitting" might be problematic and you put "Before marketing separate client and server versions"? I think you should have at least previewed it on a 800px window size. (I have 1600px screen, so I just snap my browser to one side. It becomes 800px.) Even on 1600px screen, it is not pleasant to lose half of the screen property for nothing.

@Everyone (including FC and Jeh): While I don't mind having the pre-separation OS section sans label, why don't we get rid of the sub-divisions altogether?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at it sans label... It's ok but I'm afraid that to anyone who doesn't already know what's going on, it's going to raise questions. ("What about Windows 2000 Server?")

Does PE even belong on this chart? It's not as if it's sold as a product. It's primarily a part of the existing products. I know it's available as a separate free download but still, it's not at all like the other things in the template. And the chart implies there's just one version, when in fact it's generally built for each shipped version from the contemporaneous source base.

Every variation I've thought of creates more issues than it solves... I think it's about as good as it's going to get now. Jeh (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

More thoughts:

"Client" is of course Microsoft's general term for "any NT-based OS release that is intended for general use". But since that term is unknown (in this meaning) to the general user, does it actually help anyone find things in the table?

Maybe we should eliminate the "client" label and just have all of the "pre-split" versions (NT 3.1 through 2000) together with the client-only versions (XP, Vista, etc.).

Retain the "Server" label for that group, and of course retain "Specialized" for Windows PE. Jeh (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I have rarely seen Microsoft use "client". Also, I've read the discussions above, and it seems multiple users have came up with this term on their own. Also, I've seen merging the pre-splitting version with the client version only in another Wiki. The result was a dispute as to whether they must be merged with server versions, because they were mostly for server purposes. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The support status fever

Hello, everyone;
Hello, Comp.arch

By now I must be starting to look like a complete reverting bitch! (This is the first time I use the B-word in English Wikipedia; wow!) And I am feeling worse about it because I personally recognize comp.arch as one of the good editors.

However, comp.arch, your edit's result suffers from the following problems:

1. It is very unfriendly to screen space, practically squandering it
2. For years now, this template had a purpose: Classifying Windows by production line. (See a proposal from 2006: § How about something like this...) But now, your flat classification is a muddled mix of family-based and support-status–based.
3. "Based on Windows NT" means we have something called Windows NT; these are based on it. No. These are Windows NT; even their API affirms that.
4. Wikipedia is full of tables (and one template) that classify Windows based on its support status, with {{Version}} and those colors. Basically, it seems there is a support status fever in this area of Wikipedia. I strongly oppose infecting this template with that fever.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

It is like building something that is part a brick-and-mortar villa and part an igloo. Fleet Command (talk)

Okay, Comp.arch. This time I ask without reverting. When you removed the "client" label, what positive effect were you seeking?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting based on nr. 1. (it was actually an attempt to save space.. based on a misunderstanding.. this one column is smallar than two before..). Also nr. 2 I agree with, e.g. saying "unsupported" takes up too much space and for NT probably not good to split up the first column in this way.. I'm however not sure it really needs dividing up further, based on this old split, I'm not sure anyone cares about it anymore.. I'll go with the status quo for now, I'm not sure I even care too much about this.. comp.arch (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Logo?

File:Microsoft Windows NT logo and wordmark (Pre-XP).svg

Basic design used longer than current one

Why is there a 2012 logo in a template covering 30 years of software history? We all know perfectly well that other logos have been used far longer. It makes no more sense than using the 1990s version (see image to the right). The image layout is really awkward as well. It ought to be fixed or removed.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Peter

Please explain to me: Why is the length of time is more important?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it's about software history. I think I ought to repeat my initial question: "Why is there a 2012 logo in a template covering 30 years of software history?"

Peter ^Isotalo 11:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

About history? Says who? —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Also if it is really about history (if!) why would you change the logo with one that has no historic precedent at all? I myself created File:Windows logo - 2002–2012 (Multicolored).svg. It has never been used. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a navbox, not a museum dedicated to cherishing the history. It helps people find things. The latest logo helps people who might have seen the logo around connect it with the name, Windows. A historic logo does no such thing. Only the people with historic knowledge know it. Fleet Command (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Midori

I added Midori as a cancelled Windows operating system. It is an operating system, but not necessarily a Windows operating system. People would not know find out about it if only this template links it: Template:Microsoft_operating_systems.

Shall we keep it? (Cairo wasn't strictly Windows either.)

(Before Midori there was Singularity (operating system) and Verve (operating system))

Chris81w (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

If it is not Windows, then it does not belong here. The argument "People would not know find out about it" is true about millions of other things that also we do not list in this template. You can mention those operating system in Microsoft article if you wish.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

New features

I need some way to incorporate "new features" of each operating system lists as well as "removed features" of each operating system lists too. How shall I incorporate this? I did it in this way on that template, but I am not sure how else I could do it. Though it may not look right, I think it's good to incorporate this stuff in. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)