Talk:List of features removed in Windows XP

Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Removed vs disabled

If a feature can be enabled by editing the registry or installing it officially from the MS website or the XP CD, it isn't really removed. Such features should not be listed in the article IMHO. - xpclient ^Talk 09:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about WinHelp being at List of features removed in Windows Vista or Microsoft Agent being at List of features removed in Windows 7? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why compare only to Windows 2000 features?

As this issue has clearly caused quite a bit of confusion, I've decided to address it here. Windows XP is in the unique position - compared to all other Windows releases I can think of - of being at the convergence point of two separate Windows product lines, that of Windows NT and the old, MS-DOS-based Windows 9x. However, the core code in XP is based on the former and not the latter (hence XP has an internal version number of 5.1, while Windows 2000 has one of 5.0 - among numerous other things). A list of every single feature included in Windows ME (the last of the MS-DOS based versions) but not in XP would be quite long indeed, and also quite pointless, because it would be comparing operating systems of two very different architectures. (There's also the fact that comparisons between the other "List of features removed in Windows" articles and this one would actually be made far more difficult.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Good to see you back at last; although I didn't expect seeing one of the old arguments.

Forget codebase and kernel. They are for the joy of geeks only. Leaning too much on them is like purchasing a car solely based on the type of screw used in it. Windows ME and Windows 2000 both had one viable upgrade target: Windows XP. XP succeeded both.

As for the length, a list of differences would be long indeed, but not a list of features. And yes, you can ignore unimportant features, per WP:IINFO.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Codename Lisa, you seemed to have missed the point I was making. To put it simply: a list like the one you're talking about should be located at "List of features removed in Windows NT" (or perhaps "Comparison of Windows 9x and Windows NT"). This is because the feature differences between the platforms are so numerous that it is improper to put them all here just because the 9x platform happened to end at this point. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I'm not missing it; I am disagreeing with it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A list of every single feature included in Windows ME (the last of the MS-DOS based versions) but not in XP would be quite long indeed" Aside from the support for MS-DOS, what does Windows ME offer that Windows XP doesn't? (72.251.172.228 (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hmmm... after thinking about this, I think you and User:Codename Lisa might be right about the length issue. If it is indeed the case that the list in question is quite short, then I suppose the information could be included, but only if it is included in such a way that it is not likely to mislead the reader (and preferably with more reliable sourcing as well). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the feature in question back to the list. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I upgraded the sources. I hate Reflinks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Setup customizations

Hi, in Windows 9x/Me there was always the option during Windows Setup to choose Typical, Compact, Portable or Custom installation. In Windows XP it seems that this has been removed. In particular this means you can't select which Windows Components to install during setup, like you could in a "Custom" installation on 9x/Me. You can only configure the components after it has finished installing. This seems like a fairly major change to me, but I can't find any source saying it has been removed. Do you have any tips on how to find such a source? Thanks Kidburla (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kidburla: This was apparently removed in 2000, not XP: [1] Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this article comparing WinXP to _both_ Win2k _and_ Millennium Edition? From the point of view of a user upgrading from Windows Me (or 98) to Windows XP, this feature was removed in Windows XP... Kidburla (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kidburla: If you look at the 9x section here, it only lists stuff that was never in the NT line to begin with and was not carried over from 9x in XP. The thing is, according to that source, NT 4.0 also had this feature, which in my view means that it really doesn't fit here since it was actually removed before (as opposed to simply not being added later). Your point is a very good one, though, since this stuff isn't exactly straightforward... as you can see from the section above, there was significant discussion as to whether to add the 9x section at all. Mdrnpndr (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of features removed in Windows XP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilixis.com/developer/kodak_history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small Icons view is no longer available in Windows Explorer.

I think it is wrong and the link is to an article about Win7.--Reciprocist (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down on that page to where each view is discussed individually, you will see where this specific feature removal is mentioned. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Force-fullscreen command-line applications can not get paused in Window mode.

There are some MS-DOS applications that enforce full-screen mode.

However, when trying to exit full screen mode, Windows XP does minimize the application, while Windows 2000 shows it inside a window with “(Paused)” or something similar added to the title. --Handroid7 (talk) 01:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]