Talk:List of Microsoft Windows components

What's a Windows Component?

This list does not define, and does not link to, a clear definition of 'windows component.' Instead it links to a general article on computer programs. The problem is that there are several possibilities for a how a 'windows component' may be defined. Does Microsoft have an in-house definition of what is or is not a 'windows component?' Is it any program Microsoft provides as part of a default windows installation? etc.

soo

soo, what exactly isnt up to date --68.80.197.167 02:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving everything into tables, and locating other articles which need to be in this list. But more significantly, there are a number of components that need to be listed that Wikipedia doesn't have articles for... we need to get all that into this article. -/- Warren 02:17, 11 July 2006

Missing components

Registry

Can an article about Windows Components be considered complete when, although referred to in context, there is no mention of the Registry as a component part of Windows? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.148.140 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Private Character Editor

Someone should add "Private Character Editor", it is part of all Windows XP as "Eudcedit.exe", it is shown in the "System Tools" in the Chinese editions of Windows XP. --Voidvector 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ReadyBoost

76.100.219.251 (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Split

As this article is growing people are deleting components from previous operating systems. This should be split instead of deleted!

I agree. There should be pages such as List of Windows 95 components, List of Windows 98 components, List of Windows ME components, List of Windows 2000 components, List of Windows XP components, and List of Windows Vista components. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelR. (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Some updated

I updated a lot of the screenshots to their Vista versions --froth^T 06:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use criteria

The use of images not in compliance with our fair-use criteria or our policy on nonfree content is not appropriate, and the images have been removed. Please do not restore them. — Moe ε 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What does it violate? Their usage is not purely decorative. There is critical commentary for each and every component listed here. FUC does not list how long the commentary has to be! --soum ^talk 07:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paint Vista.png

Image:Paint Vista.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hearts Vista.png

The image Image:Hearts Vista.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

How to phrase description of Delivery Optimization

Here are three different versions of the description:

DavidDelaune:

A cloud-based downloader, that downloads Windows Updates, apps from the Windows Store, and other Microsoft products.

Codename Lisa:

A peer-to-peer file sharing service that downloads Windows updates and Windows Store apps from peers on the Internet or the local network.

DIYeditor:

1. A file distribution service that participates in the download of Windows updates and Microsoft Store apps from multiple locations depending on policy, including servers on Internet or local network and peers on the Internet or local network.
2. A download service that participates in the retrieval of Windows updates and Microsoft Store apps from multiple locations depending on policy, including both local and Internet servers and peers.

Let's discuss the relative merits of them based on descriptions of what the service is. DavidDelaune has some issues with Codename Lisa's version although it is not clear what exactly those issues are other than the description not being copy-pasted from Microsoft. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

References

The version by :DIYeditor: is brilliant. Maybe that should be copy-pasted back onto the service support documentation. /s

My issues with the previous description were as follows:

1. Peer-to-Peer is just one of the methods used by the service and should not be used as the sole descriptor.
2. The phrase 'File sharing' has a negative connotation and does not appropriately describe the service.

I have absolutely no issues with the current service description.DavidDelaune (talk) 01:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@DavidDelaune: Thanks. I added an alternative description as #2 - I believe after you wrote this; there may have been an edit conflict which you can note with the template {{edit conflict}} at the beginning of your post, after any indents. #1 is the version currently in the article as of this post. I agree that it is more than just a peer-to-peer service and file sharing is not the most accurate description. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello

If you guys permit, I start with David Delaune's 2-item list:

1. Here, David says peer-to-peer transfer is only one of DoSvc's transfer methods. That maybe true, but DoSvc's purpose is still decentralized content distribution that extensively relies on peers. A cat may bear kittens in an oven, but that does not make them biscuits. Likewise, peer-to-peer software may at times exhibit ancillary behavior that is not their purpose. It gets worse: In my talk page, he says that DoSvc is not peer-to-peer software just because it supports "HTTP range GET requests". But to my knowledge, many other peer-to-peer clients use it as a firewall-friendly protocol. As long as you receive from a peer, the communication is peer-to-peer regardless of the protocol.
2. If there is indeed a negative connotation associated with "file sharing" (I am not aware of any) it must be preserved per WP:NPOV policy. (Please bear in mind that David has already declared having a conflict of interest in this matter and is definitely not the best judge here.) Thinking more over this, however, I find "file sharing" might have the wrong connotation here, as opposed to negative ones.

Now, problems with the proposed sentences:

1. Wordiness: "[...] multiple locations depending on policy, including both [...]" is too many words that can be deleted altogether, without a change in meaning. Compare: "A download service that participates in the retrieval of Windows updates and Microsoft Store apps from local and Internet servers and peers."
2. Claim of download-only: DoSvc uploads too.
3. What I said above also applies.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Please consider removing the word 'decentralized' as this is technically incorrect. I was going to say that the service is 'centralized' but that's not technically correct either. Maybe just avoid adding any technical 'architectural descriptions' and go with the generic description?

HyperText Markup LanguageP.S. How do I keep my old statements intact and strike them out? Is there a STRIKE format tag? Nevermind I found it.DavidDelaune (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@DavidDelaune: Let me put it this way: When it comes to choosing between your statement and a reliable secondary source's statement, you don't stand a chance, because the former is original research (forbidden) and the latter is verifiable (sanctioned). So, please consider citing a reliable source. Right now, Redmond Magazine says "Delivery Optimization is a peer-to-peer client update service". If you don't like my "decentralized" compromise, I can always go back to what the source says.

And by the way, the correct syntax is the <s>...</s> or <del>...</del> tag.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This is correct. David, your willingness to help out on Wikipedia is appreciated. Accepting contributions from people who are directly involved with a subject is considered problematic out of a concern that the contributions will be slanted in a favourable direction. Think of Wikipedia is a place that collates already-published material, and our job as editors is to organize and present that already-published information without advancing any opinions or new ideas of our own. If you've got any insights into print or Internet publications that have covered Delivery Optimization accurately, that would be very helpful! — Warren. ‘ talk , 18:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Warren: The latest version authored by @Codename Lisa: looks good to me. Do wikipedia editors always go through these lengthy edit-wars and debates on each and every edit? It seems like an extremely counterproductive process. DavidDelaune (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, David!

No, we don't. Most of our converstations are usually short because we do not violate copyright in the first place, refrain from such personal attacks as "vandalising my edits" and "edit-wars" that downgrades the dispute resolution flow, stick to what the source says and do not try to assume the ownership of contents by claiming COI. The universtal principle is: When you tell someone "you are wrong because ..." you have a much higher chance of getting accepted than when you say "you are an idiot, I'm the authority". I might add that you are lucky you ran into such kind souls as Jeh, DIYeditor and Warren. Wikipedia's old guard hates Microsoft employees. (I am just saying this so that there are no other nasty surprises in the future for you. Please don't overthink it.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

An even better way of saying 'you are wrong because...' might be 'we think your statement might be incorrect because...'

In a customer-facing previous job in an accountancy practice/business consultancy, we were advised never to directly tell customers that they were wrong, to prevent problems with customers getting defensive about criticism of their work submitted for audit, but to gently imply that from a polite statement such as the one above. VBasak (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Bluetooth File Transfer

Hi, I've started a new article Draft:Bluetooth File Transfer which needs a lot of work, please update / improve it as needed. Thanks! John a s (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Windows Time (W32Time)

According to https://ss64.com/nt/w32tm.html, 'The W32Time service is not a full-featured Network Time Protocol (NTP) solution that meets time-sensitive needs.', contrary to what is currently mentioned on the Wikipedia page. Other sources also make similar statements. From what I can gather, Windows Time satisfies most of the NTP requirements, meaning that it generally works well in most practical networked environments requiring a reasonable degree of time accuracy, even though it might not be completely compliant with NTP. VBasak (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)