Is there any interest in making a whistler.ms site?

[AS95678]

Is there any interest in making a whistler.ms site similar to longhorn.ms?

[Longesthorn]

Probably not. Whistler just isn't as fascinating as Longhorn (mainly pre-reset) is.

[Venetik]

Probably not. Whistler just isn't as fascinating as Longhorn (mainly pre-reset) is.

Disagreed. Whistler has many gui features missed in retail version of XP..

[LuLu]

like what?
different skins?
transition from html to directui logon?

and thats it...

[TinaMeineKatze]

like what?
different skins?
transition from html to directui logon?

and thats it...

I'd find it great. The development from Neptune to Whistler alone would be worth such a site. Whistler is *the* System that combines 9x and NT and as such, though the kernel has basically just stayed Windows 2000, is worth a lot of technical considerations. When, for example, was the activation introduced and how did it work? Are there more information available than just build numbers, like, leaked private keys, or have the internal algorithms of the early betas been cracked (I've read something like that some time ago, but wasn't able to find any description of it).

Such a thing for all Windows's at once would be great. Just a great share of articles. But I personally miss the competence to write such articles.

[Venetik]

like what?
different skins?
transition from html to directui logon?

and thats it...

Not just the GUI, but the transition prior to retail from 9x consumer OS. Dig under the mask, and you would find interesting stuff, what did not seen retail light. The comment above states that.

[cantasan99]

I would like to help, but after mid-June. Love Whistler

[AlphaBeta]

Honestly I don't understand the need for a separate website when we have two great wikis out in the wild - BA Wiki and BetaWiki. What one needs to do is to create an account and start contributing.

[TuneableSumo876]

Probably not. Whistler just isn't as fascinating as Longhorn (mainly pre-reset) is.

Exactly. Also, there are WAY more Longhorn builds out in the wild than there are of Whistler so it would be easier for a reader of longhorn.ms to acquire a certain build (say, 4074) and test it out than a reader of 'whistler.ms'.

Just my thoughts.

[D354M3D]

No. Whistler is not as interesting as Longhorn.

[TheOtherGuy]

Is there any interest in making a whistler.ms site similar to longhorn.ms?

If you don't have access to the forums wiki or any other wiki, and you wanted to keep track of your own findings, it cant do any harm, though you realise that others will probably use whatever info you find that's not already on other wiki's, to update the info on their own.

like what?
different skins?
transition from html to directui logon?

and thats it...

Says the guy who's favorite operating system is whistler.

[whistler2250]

There's nothing that interesting about Whistler anyways. Other than that cool secret theme in build 2223 that was recently unlocked.

[perry]

thats a good idea but whistler is not interesting at all

[James]

thats a good idea but whistler is not interesting at all

...Then why are you posting in a thread about Whistler? Don't post pointless things like this again.

[Maza]

Probably not. Whistler just isn't as fascinating as Longhorn (mainly pre-reset) is.

I would argue that both pre-reset and post-reset are perhaps equally as fascinating, but that is another matter altogether.

OP, if you are interested in a whistler.ms site, why do you not start it yourself? Perhaps first as a free WordPress (or other web host) blog without its own domain? You could lay the foundation, so to speak.

[windowsawesome]

Yes i really wish there was a whistler.ms site

[geminiman112]

Honestly I don't understand the need for a separate website when we have two great wikis out in the wild - BA Wiki and BetaWiki. What one needs to do is to create an account and start contributing.

Not everyone can edit these wikis due to restrictions for registration. I do see what you are saying however.

[AlphaBeta]

Honestly I don't understand the need for a separate website when we have two great wikis out in the wild - BA Wiki and BetaWiki. What one needs to do is to create an account and start contributing.

Not everyone can edit these wikis due to restrictions for registration. I do see what you are saying however.

The BA wiki requirements are pretty lax and BetaWiki doesn't even require registration before editing.

[ovctvct]

Honestly I don't understand the need for a separate website when we have two great wikis out in the wild - BA Wiki and BetaWiki. What one needs to do is to create an account and start contributing.

Not everyone can edit these wikis due to restrictions for registration. I do see what you are saying however.

Offtopic Comment

Is the captcha really that hard to solve?

TBH, I don't think a lot of people are going to make a whistler.ms or whatever.

[geminiman112]

Honestly I don't understand the need for a separate website when we have two great wikis out in the wild - BA Wiki and BetaWiki. What one needs to do is to create an account and start contributing.

Not everyone can edit these wikis due to restrictions for registration. I do see what you are saying however.

The BA wiki requirements are pretty lax and BetaWiki doesn't even require registration before editing.

I can't edit the Beta Archive wiki for example. I do understand that most people can. I don't really care for the way Beta Wiki is laid out however. Also, I wouldn't consider longhorn.ms a wiki per se.