Talk:Program Manager

program manager

This is also a role within software development, needs to be expanded.

That's what the disambiguation page is for. ...teddy 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Windows NT 3.1.png

The image Image:Windows NT 3.1.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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Shell=" value name does not exist; "Shell" value name does.

The reason it now says "...by specifying the Shell value" is because in Regedit.exe and Regedt32.exe (both are the registry editor executables), I saw the name of that value and it is not named "Shell=". Instead, it is named "Shell". If you think this is false, try to prove I'm wrong.Jerrysmp (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Modern variants"

I think such a section does not deserve a place inline with the article content. At most, it should be an external link. I don't want to get into an edit war so anyone agrees? - xpclient ^Talk 08:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, It was me who put it in there. Sorry about that. :-) Firstly: Thank you for not simply destroying information. Secondly: I disagree, because this sort of useful hints is exactly what I am often looking for in Wikipedia. Thirdly: I'm taking it out again, because a) Unfortunately I can't find a single tool which tries to emulate the functionality of Program Manager, and b) In the meantime I have tested Stardock Fences and it's not exactly what I thought it was. - So I'll apologize for putting forward badly researched information, but not for adding related information to the article in principle.

Text was: "For the user who enjoyed the kind of interface provided by Program Manager there are similar utilities available as an add-on to the later versions of Windows, such as Fences by Stardock Corporation"

--BjKa (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Windows 8

There were recently a couple of edits (Program Manager, Windows 8) made which cited a source for the idea that the windows 8 start screen and program manager are the same concept. They were shortly reverted (Program Manager, Windows 8) with a message saying that "the insanecoding link falls under WP:BLOG". I assume the user who reverted was actually referring to WP:SPS, which I don't believe applies in this case.

WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

The insane coding blog is well-known to those in the computer science, software engineering, and software development field[1]. It is often linked to from FAQ and news articles of popular software it reviews [2][3]. It has shed light on some of the major issues of computing[4][5][6], turned the tide in the usage of many popular programs[7][8], and has even been cited on wikipedia itself in the past[9][10]. — DeFender1031 11:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are right, I meant WP:BLOGS instead of WP:BLOG. What I have problem with, even if the blog is well known and whatnot, the idea of Win8's menu being similar to Program Manager is not a well-established fact, but an opinion of an, as of yet, a single blogger. IMO the sentence would be more honest if changed to "A noted blogger (AFAIK he publishes anonymously, right?) has drawn a parallel between the Windows 8 start screen and Program Manager" or something of the sort. But I somewhat doubt in Insane Coder's established expertise. His work wasn't published in reliable third-party publications; they only linked to his/her self-published blog. AFAIK his only known work is his blog, and I believe this is a problem regarding WP:BLOGS.

"It has shed light on some of the major issues of computing" - The links provided point out one such issue, without explaining how it was major or how it was an issue of computing (instead of, for example, an issue of a number of programs not compiling on some operating systems).

"turned the tide in the usage of many popular programs" - the links provided don't seem to claim that his blog has influenced anybody, much less turned the tide.

"has even been cited on wikipedia itself in the past" - I'm afraid it's WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Additionally, as a footnote in WP:BLOGS says, "Please do note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources". His claim of Win8 being a reimplementation of PM's ideas seems quite exceptional to me. --Krótki (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then let me clarify. After IC's posts about sound systems, oss4 became a mainstream package in most of the distributions out there. The QT people added some features back into their file dialog api which had been removed after an IC article about file dialogs. Links to the blog have been PUBLISHED as comments in the source code and the documentation of the programs i linked to, which are third parties. As for the actual, current case, and the "exceptional" claim that a program, made by microsoft, that organized programs into groups and could only be accessed by minimizing everything, is similar to another, later program which organizes everything into groups and can only be accessed by going to the "start screen", or, in essence, minimizing all, doesn't seem all that exceptional to me. — DeFender1031 12:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me throw in my two cents. I personally thought Program Manager and Windows 8 now lacking a task bar were rather similar. Looking at that IC article and other places I see it discussed, it seems several people are noting the similarities. I don't think they're identical, but the claim is hardly exceptional. 93.173.141.193 (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. One opinion would be not enough, but if the similarity is noted in multiple "verifiable" sources, then it becomes notable by itself; all those sources can be thrown in as references for the sentence. Can you add them? --Krótki (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it discussed on IRC, and mentioned on forums about Windows 8, I don't think those are notable enough though to use as a reference. 93.173.141.193 (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative to PMI's view

The Project Management Institute, PMI, promotes the view that project management is a project of projects. This is a highly biased view by PMI and is gaining widespread acceptance as a defacto standard despite history. The concept of program management originated long before PMI came onto the scene. In Operations Management,OM, programmed management has been a standard operating process dating before WWII and gained wide spread use in the 1950's and 1960's. Programs like the Naval Aviation Maintenance Program, OPNAV 4790, was originally written in the late 1940's. Codifying management practices and policies into a program document stabilizes management to a baseline from which changes are made and to which one returns when a changes fail. Such management programs are NOT project but instead operating parameters. The Naval Aviation Maintenance Program is pure operations management. Under such programs, program managers do have projects from time-to-time but they are not the primary focus.

Thus, the relatively new organization of PMI is in its infancy compared to organizations like the Society of Operations Managers, APICS. Understanding that program management is NOT simply the myopic focus of the PMI view is important to successful management of an operation.