Template talk:Microsoft Windows components
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the discussion page for this template.
[edit] Put 'em in order
We need to put all the articles listed in alphabetical order! --Titan602 - The mind of darkness 21:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Compatibility
Move/Include Print Services for UNIX and COMMAND.COM to the Compatibility group? Ghettoblaster (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure. They are not compatibility features per se, but applications that run on top of the compatibility subsystem. In other words, they are the consumers of the compatibility features, not providers of compatibility services. I know I sound vague, but hopefully you get what I meant. --soum talk 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, COMMAND.COM is still a component of (most) versions of Windows and yes, it runs on top of a compatibility subsystem (NTVDM), but isn't it also some kind of compatibility feature on its own, why else would it still be around now that we have cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell? Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Windows has cmd.exe despite Windows PowerShell - is that a compatibility feature? Or that it still supports COM despite .NET Framework. Or ODBC and OLE DB in spite of ADO.NET? Or Notepad despite including Wordpad? I am not saying command.com et al should not be in the article. I just feel they shouldn't be in the compatibility section. --soum talk 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you got a point here. So where do we put it in? A new command shell group? Or shall we just put it into the tools group like cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell? This is already a pretty big group don't you think? Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- How about this? --soum talk 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I dont' think this is a good idea. This way it will soon be the the same as Template:Windows commands. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have a valid point. When I split them out, I was thinking that only the apps that provide their own shell (that provides their own prompt) will be listed here. --soum talk 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use the subgroups. Why not just split into administration/management apps (including the CLI shells) and all the other apps like Notepad, IE, Media Player etc. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have a valid point. When I split them out, I was thinking that only the apps that provide their own shell (that provides their own prompt) will be listed here. --soum talk 18:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- I dont' think this is a good idea. This way it will soon be the the same as Template:Windows commands. Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- How about this? --soum talk 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you got a point here. So where do we put it in? A new command shell group? Or shall we just put it into the tools group like cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell? This is already a pretty big group don't you think? Ghettoblaster (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Windows has cmd.exe despite Windows PowerShell - is that a compatibility feature? Or that it still supports COM despite .NET Framework. Or ODBC and OLE DB in spite of ADO.NET? Or Notepad despite including Wordpad? I am not saying command.com et al should not be in the article. I just feel they shouldn't be in the compatibility section. --soum talk 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, COMMAND.COM is still a component of (most) versions of Windows and yes, it runs on top of a compatibility subsystem (NTVDM), but isn't it also some kind of compatibility feature on its own, why else would it still be around now that we have cmd.exe and Windows PowerShell? Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Kernel
Move Windows Registry to the Core group? Ghettoblaster (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
