User talk:Jdlowery

My Talk Page.

Thank you for stopping by this page, please post all new comments at the bottom. I will reply on this page unless you want me to reply on yours.

[edit] Windows 2000

Hey, hope things are well with you. Your addition to the article hits all the important points pretty well, glad someone finally got around to putting it in :). It seems like the support durations for each OS have been different, whether it's because of service pack releases or public relations is anybody's guess.

Windows 2000 was superceded by XP in 2001, but it didn't go into extended support for four years. Windows 2000 SP4 came out in June 2003. Right now Microsoft is saying XP will go into extended support two years after Vista comes out... so, beginning of 2009. They're planning on putting out XP SP3 sometime in the first half of next year, ad if Win2k is any indication, that might push the end of mainstream support out to two years after XP SP3... who knows? I've never heard of Microsoft putting out a service pack after mainstream support has ended, but that could change at any time. -/- Warren 04:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP Development

Hello, can you help me improve and expand the section "Development of Windows XP" I created for the Windows XP article? Link here. Please respond on my talk page. - Deogene 09:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ah I think the development of Windows XP section needs more data, references and some images. I'll try to find some. - Deogene 14:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice pictures! I'll try to upload one. - Emir214 01:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you also include some data? I don't know which data are to include in the article. -Emir214 01:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WGA

Hey, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on this subject. I'm not really too up on the details of WGA, and it hasn't really interested me all that much (probably because all my software is legit and it hasn't gotten in my way)... it's an interesting contention that some people are classifying WGA as spyware, and I think if Wikipedia is going to make that claim, we should make a good case for it, since it's going to be a bit contentious. -/- Warren 17:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still around?

A Wikipedia without Jdlowery's keen eye for detail is a sad Wikipedia. Hope to see you around more in the future!

(p.s. the logo on your User page will have to be removed; we can't display copyrighted stuff on our user pages, unfortunately... I'll remove it by the end of November if you don't get to it yourself) -/- Warren 06:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 95 Builds

I'll try and look into it within the next couple of days. I just got in this morning from LA, and sort of feeling out of it right now. - MSTCrow 16:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Windows Defender

In re to the message you left on my talk page. Your message parts are in quotes.. "Why did you revert the information about Windows Defender's support for Windows 2000 that I put into the article?"

First off, did you read what I put on the WinDef Talk Page? Second, you just cannot add into the OS section that Windows 2000 is supported.. It is not officially supported. Third, FYI, I was not the first to revert such edits. A user already added in that the hack is possible, and now, I am completely fine with that, it's the method that should not be discussed in a wiki article, though, I'd now be fine with an ext. link.. But, you need to remember that no matter if hacking an app on a certain OS does not mean it's officially supported, in this case, Win2k is not, so no matter if it can be hacked, it is not officially supported. Again, I am fine with the mention of a hack is possible in that article, and it's there right now IIRC, but what I am not fine with is adding that Win2K is part of the supported OS list, when it's not supported, as you must do a hack, and adding on how to hack it in the article (again, ext link, I'd be fine with).

"I feel that that is a very imortant piece of information that many Windows 2000 users would like to know about and thus should not be ommitted"

Okay, that's completely alright, and it is mentioned in the article that hacking on Win2K is possible

I also would like you to know that I have used this hack several times and it has always worked.

"To say that Windows Defender does not support Windows 2000 would be a total lie."

Okay, again, not officially supported..

However, why don't we try to find a compromise.. Okay, why don't we add in a section, which states that the hack is possible, but not give method, however, we could give a link, that way, when users look at the page in the contents area, there they see that they can use the program under Win2K and click on the link.. I am fine with that.. What do you think? Reply if you wish, either here, my talk page, etc.. --Illyria05-- 00:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In re to the second comment you left on my talk page:

"I think that this is a fair compromise. I was upset your revert, not only deleted Windows 2000 from the supported OS list, but also deleted all the information I added, including the citation with an external link to the source page."

Okay, I am glad we came to a compromise :) . Also, I did not mean offense to you when I did that revert, though I should've waited to listen what other wiki-pedians thought before doing any such thing. For that, I apologise..

"I do however think that you somewhat misunderstood my point. Microsoft purposly stops Windows Defender from installing on Windows 2000 so that users will be be forced to upgrade their operating system to Windows Vista!"

I did understand that, Microsoft did the same with one of it's Age of Empires games, for no reason, it requires XP, and Halo 2 PC will require Vista, even though it won't need DirectX 10.. Microsoft WANTS people to upgrade to it's new OS.. And, I cant justify buying Vista just for Halo 2+new hardware required when I can just buy an XBox 360 and play all three halo games..

"The program natively runs on the Windows 2000 platform, and Microsoft actually did extra work to stop it from doing so. In my opinion, that means Windows 2000 is a supported OS."

I know it can run under Win2K, but the bottom line is, it's not officially supported by Microsoft, but again, compromising, why not add in Win2K in the OS list something like this: OS: Windows XP, Server 2003, and Vista

       Windows 2000 (Beta 1, 2, RTM: With Unsupported Hack (link to section of Windows Defender that explains this, and that section will have link to how to do hack, but it wont be in article itself)..

What do you think of this? This way, Windows 2000 users can see, when they look at the artice, "Oh wow, I guess we can run this app! Yay!"

"I am happy as long as the citation and external link Stay on the article!"

Okay, then, deal :P , I was not planning on reverting it again after that person talked on the WinDef talk page about it, but I will give you my promise that I will not revert it :) .. What do you think of this? Reply if you wish on my talk page, or yours, etc... --Illyria05-- 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 2000 again

Hey! Yeah, the addition to the article looks good, definitely an area we needed to cover. I changed a couple of very minor things... It's really just a stylistic issue, but I prefer using the full expansions of things like "SP2" if the term is only going to be used once or twice, so as to fight off the use of dense jargon as much as possible. This edit from a while ago is another example. The only other thing that comes to mind is that we could maybe have a single "Support" section that covers both the service packs and the lifecycle policy. -/- Warren 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it!  :-) -/- Warren 04:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Administrator Submission

Dear Jeremey,

Could you please visit here to leave a comment about my request for administrator submission? I would really appreciate it.

Thank You.
Sincerely,
Your Friend, Michael Norkus

[edit] Jdlowery,

I cite your contributions to wikipedia to be incredible! I recommend that you contribute your vast knowledge to The Windows Vista Article and write a review on it. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!
Sincerly,

KyleMancillas

[edit] userpage protection

On your request I have semi-protected your userpage. This means that only established users (like yourself) can edit it. I'm more reluctant to do the same with your talk page as it is the established way for new and unregistered users to communicate with you so we really should try to keep it open. I suggest we wait and see if this isn't just a passing problem. But if it continues, just let me know and I'll semi-protect your talk page as well if you want. Shanes 02:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage deletion

Sad to see you want to leave. But we don't delete accounts (it's a software thing, your contributions need to be assigned to a unique username), so that has to stay. If you want your userpage deleted, just tag it with a delete-tag. But space is really not an issue. Deleted pages are kept in the database and take up just as much (or rather little) space as normal pages. But if you want pages in your userpage deleted for any other reasons, just tag them. Sorry for the late reply, I've been away the last days. Shanes 05:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I deleted your user page. -- Gogo Dodo 22:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back

What were you saying about Moondisaster? Michael Norkus 22:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safari

I'm sorry but being able to run something and being supported are two different things. Mac OS 10.4 is able to run on Beige G3 Macs yet it is totally unsupported. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honestly

After a year and a half, I can't believe you are continuing to harp on this point about Windows 2000's status as a discontinued operating system. If you can't even bother to address the points made on the talk page article in 2006, then please at least be respectful enough to not edit the article as this is a settled issue. If you have a point to advance, do so there, where others can contribute, not on my talk page. -/- Warren 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IE6 Outdated Warning.

Hey, I just wanted to ask why your user page says that my browser is outdated and does not work with Wikipedia correctly. I have never encountered any of these problems that you are talking about. Second of all, IE7 is a lot slower that IE6. Its interface is horrendously designed, and it is as slow as heck. Why are you telling people this? If I need to upgrade, where do I get Firefox or Opera? I have heard of them both, but am not sure where to download them at. My understanding was that IE6 had great support for CSS. I use it for all of my web browsing, and it never distorts images or text. IE7 is basically just IE6 with a crappy new interface right? I would appreciate some more information on this matter. Thanks. Jdlowery (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As a web developer, I can assure you that IE7 is not just IE6 with a crappy new user interface, although I admit its user interface stinks. IE7 fixed tons of CSS bugs and provided proper support for transparent images. The English Wikipedia currently makes IE6 do a lot of time-intensive processing to make sure that transparent images display transparently, which can make your browser go very slowly. Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms is an extreme example of this; your browser may freeze for up to 10 seconds while a piece of JavaScript forces it to display the images transparently.

Anyway, you can download Firefox here and Opera here. Both of these browsers work much better than either IE6 or IE7. If you want to stick with IE, you can download IE7 here. I can help you with any problems you might have switching your browser. Please let me know how it goes for you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! Jdlowery (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, thanks for the advice. I love Mozilla Firefox, and I have only been using it for a couple of hours. When I opened that link with the CSS template that you sent me, it took about 2 or so minutes to load. I had wondered about that, because the same thing had happened to me on a few other sites as well. I thought it was just a slow connection, but I see now that it is my browser. Firefox is so easy to use, it has a user interface that is similar to IE6 but with Tabs which I love! Its too bad though, I loved IE6, but I guess it is on its way out, since it is now close to 7 years old. Just one question, how come IE7 is so slow? I use it at work on a computer that is only about a year old. The Internet connection is fast, but It takes for ever to pull up the browser as well as load pages. Does this have something to do with the web site, or the browser? Anyway, thanks for the help, I really appreciate it! Jdlowery (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you love Firefox! I like it a lot too. The automatic spell check may well be my favorite feature. Anyway, I honestly don't know exactly why IE7 is slow for you. It might be that your work computer has a high-latency (lag) Internet connection. So, it would be slow to start loading a page, but fast once it gets started. Linux, Windows Vista, and probably Mac OS X smooth out latency problems a bit through fine-tuned network optimization.

Lots of toolbars and add-ons can really drag down a browser as well. Yet another explanation is the Firefox will render HTML tables as it receives them, whereas Internet Explorer waits until is has the whole table.

I recommend upgrading to IE7 on your home computer even though now that you have Firefox, you probably won't need to use IE any more. If you install IE7 on your home computer, you could see whether the speed problem is just an issue with your work computer or whether it's an issue with IE in general.

As far as IE7's less-than-ideal UI, you can make it look a lot like IE6 by installing the "force IE7's menu bar to the Top" registry patch at [1]. While editing the registry isn't usually recommended, this patch was written by one of the IE developers and works quite well. Make sure to install IE7 before trying to install the registry patch. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

My mistake. Sorry. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I saw your work on the article!

		The Original Barnstar
		For amazing contributions to Windows 2000, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you this Barnstar. Congratulations! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAR notification

Windows 2000 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Collectonian (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)