Template talk:Microsoft Windows family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

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)

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)

---

Contents 1 XP Media Center 2 Windows 95/98/Me 3 Cancelled 4 Last link 5 How about something like this... 6 Whatever you do... 7 suggest to remove home server and server 2008 8 Template:Microsoft Windows family/footer 9 New template.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] How about something like this...

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

I like it... how about "Client" instead of "Consumer"? FLP isn't a consumer operating system. :-) -/- Warren 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Client's a much better word! See, that's what I was saying about the terminoligy... I've updated it a bit above, moving the 'client' and 'server' headings into the first column which I think looks better. Windows 2000 was a client OS, right? It wasn't intended for home users but it was a client nonetheless... JamesWeb 16:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is tricky because every edition of NT up to & including 2000 were released as both client and server. You could duplicate the items, I suppose, but it wouldn't really win us much space, would it? The server edition of 3.1 can be called NTAS, just to mix things up a bit. We could also consider merging 3.5 and 3.51... and then there's Windows XP articles, which is a whole other issue to consider. :-) -/- Warren 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I fear this conundrum may never be solved. :'( JamesWeb 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Whatever you do...

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)