Jump to content

Talk:Windows XP/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Language list

Okay, look people. It's ugly, and it serves no particularily useful purpose given that it lists just about every language in use on the planet today.

Take a step back from your undo buttons and THINK ABOUT IT for a minute. Consider: Why don't we have a list of countries in which Windows XP is sold? Why don't we have a list of every computer company that preinstalls Windows XP? Why don't we have a list of the price of Windows XP in every country? Why don't we have a list of every patch released for Windows XP? By some extremely broad definition of the word "useful", all of those details might be interesting, but in terms of creating a concise and informative encyclopedia article that provides a decent overviwew of the major aspects of Windows XP, it's far too much detail. Remember, Wikipedia does not replace the internet. Microsoft has a web site that provides an accurate list of all the available localizations of Windows XP, and it is quite fine to link to it and say "Windows XP is available in ___ languages". We don't need the full list here, though... it takes up far too much space. We don't have such lists in any other major operating system article. Also, bear in mind that we can very easily lose Featured Article status if the balance between prose and lists gets thrown too far in the latter direction. -/- Warren 22:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your questions: no reason whatsoever. Such non-existent lists would hurt nothing at all. That's beside the point, though, because those aren't in the article. To answer your point about being useless, I actually had a hard time finding information about what languages XP is available in. It is made in some languages and offers add-ons for others. It wasn't as easy finding it as you claim. That's why the list would come in handy. Further, despite your assertion, there are over 5,000 known human languages, so that list was by no means complete.

...but in terms of creating a concise and informative encyclopedia article that provides a decent overviwew [sic] of the major aspects of Windows XP, it's far too much detail.

Who said (besides you) that it has to be concise? And how do you define "decent"? The only reason why Wikipedia is popular is because it's so comprehensive. It's not popular because it's concise. This isn't a trivial topic. People have written huge books about Windows XP. Because we provide an article about XP that is a little-too long for your taste does not mean that it contains trivial information. Maybe if we were debating on the talk page of "List of Family Guy episodes" I would be less reluctant.
As for your remark about me getting my "head wrapped around the idea that an arbitrary list of countries is not that important," you need to be more respectful to people who are obviously older and more educated than you.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments like "be more respectful to people who are obviously older and more educated than you" are useless, disrespectful, and counterproductive to producing a good encyclopedia. I really very strongly suggest you find a better way of expressing yourself than that. It completely invalidates whatever it is you're trying to say otherwise. And again, you are reminded that Wikipedia does not exist to replace the Internet. Just because there are lots of large books and web sites published about Windows XP, doesn't mean we need to (or should bother trying to) replicate all the information that's been published. There's simply too much information to include, so we need to be selective. Chances are pretty good that the vast majority of English-speaking people don't care about a list of 60+ languages. That's the key here -- focus on the details that most people will be interested in; if they want to explore in further detail, we provide references to web sites and published material so that they can continue their research elsewhere. I'm telling you this as someone with more than 12,000 edits to the encyclopedia over the course of two years, compared with your <400; I'm pretty sure I know what a good encyclopedia article looks like by now. -/- Warren 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually started editing here in 2005. I changed accounts a little while ago. Try not to change the subject, though. This isn't about me. This is about Windows XP. Just read what I wrote. I never said that we should replicate the information. You don't have to pay attention to what I write if you don't want to. I can see you made up your mind about the matter a while ago. I can add a note about Mac OS X to show how it is relevant, though.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If you really have been editing since 2005, than you should be well-aware of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule by now -- which you have violated with four separate reversions of the same content in a 24-hour period. I've placed a warning on your talk page; further reversions of this nature will result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Is that your goal? Is that something you want to have on your permanent record? Probably not -- discuss the changes on the talk page before editing the article. Edit-warring is not an appropriate way of working on the encyclopedia. Thanks. -/- Warren 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Warren, the language list is really not a useful information to this article. Microsoft has the information about Windows XP in many different languages. So, just make a brief sentence about Windows XP is available in many languages with a reference link to it. --BWCNY (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
But this is a multilingual project. One reason I liked the list was that there is a note in the Mac OS X article about how few languages it supports. Perhaps I could add a note to the list mentioning that Microsoft is making its product accessible to more people.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is multilingual, so people looking for different langauges won't be reading the English Wikipedia. By the way, in telling me to read the talk page, you point out that you seem to be the only one wanting to keep the language list. Josh (talk | contribs) 23:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I used to have two Windows XP installations. One was in English and another in Spanish. I use five different keyboard layouts and run applications in different languages. There are many other bilingual people and even trilingual people editing here. As for the second argument, this is not mob rule. Hopefully, the person with the best argument will prevail.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:Consensus. Josh (talk | contribs) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
You haven't presented a useful counter-argument to the idea that we'd have a sentence or two in the article that links to Microsoft's web site where the list of languages is kept. You haven't indicated how having this information directly in the article is superior, and serves the majority of our readers well. -/- Warren 00:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be better than removing the list entirely, which is what you were trying to do at first. It still seems like more hassle for the reader than necessary, though. If it isn't hurting anything, why remove it?--Gnfgb2 (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

GUI

I've included some more info about XP's compatibility with Windows 9X/Me deskop themes. Pictures included. Nice design of XP, but... In 2001?! If only Microsoft released such a GUI in 1999. For me, Windows 9X and 2000 looked pretty old when they were released. They were gray and the 1990s were colorful, more like XP. Anyway, vista is better generaly. 83.228.121.186 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

XP SP3 "performance improvements"

There are articles circulating around the Internet these days that point to a single blog entry making a claim that XP SP3 is 10% faster than SP2. I've been removing this from the article for three reasons:

  1. It's a four-paragraph blog entry by some otherwise barely-known company called "Devil Mountain Software" that promotes a product they've written called "OfficeBench". Four paragraphs, yes, really, that's it.
  2. The article claims that XP SP3 is 10% faster with their specific benchmark, but a lot of people pointing to the article are turning that specific claim into a general statement that the entire operating system is faster.
  3. The testing methodology itself is suspect as there is next to no information provided about how the tests were performed.

Together, this puts in a situation where the material fails Wikipedia:Verifiability on several counts. If someone feels like reintroducing this information to the article, a more reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is going to be needed. -/- Warren 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the service pack information to a separate article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal to merge the service pack information to Windows XP service packs was not merge. For clarification, which appears necessary in light of past edits, this means that information will NOT be removed from this aticle and moved to the other one. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has done this, twice now, and I've reverted those changes. We only have a few paragraphs of information on service packs and updates to Windows XP... there really isn't enough information there to justify creating an entirely separate article for it. All this does is make the readers of the encyclopedia work harder to get information, and we want to avoid that as much as possible. The "Editions" section is larger and would be the first candidate for its own article, but even then, the overall length of this article doesn't really warrant making any more sub-articles. -/- Warren 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for splitting the service pack information out to another article and deleting the information here either. The proposer has given no rationale for the proposal in the 9 days since adding the {{mergeto}} tag, either here or at Talk:Windows XP service packs where discussion is supposed to be taking place. The proposer's suggested location for discussion seems inappropriate to me since success of the proposal would result in a significant alteration of this article. Accordingly, I've edited the {{mergeto}} tag in the article to direct discussion here and plced a comment on Talk:Windows XP service packs. I believe the most appropriate outcome would be to leave the service pack information in this article and delete the article that has been created. There's no need for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After 16 days there seems to be no consensus to move the information to Windows XP service packs. In fact the original proposer still hasn't provided a rationale for the proposal so I'm going to be bold in closing the discussion, removing the {{mergeto}} tag from the article and put Windows XP service packs up for an AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to re-open this discussion apparently, because the original proposer, User:KelleyCook, went ahead and removed the information anyways, claiming "Following consensus not to have duplicate information"... whatever the hell that means. I've reverted this change since they haven't had the cortesy to participate in this discussion. -/- Warren 06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I really see no need to reopen the discussion but I'm not going to close it if anyone wants to continue. KellyCook had 16 days to contribute, during which time he was obviously active on Wikipedia.[1] If he had wanted to contribute to the discussion then he should have done so during that time. There was plenty of opportunity.
There was clearly no consensus to merge the information to the other article. Only one editor wanted to do so but he provided absolutely no justification for it. There was, however, a very clear agreement amongst other editors NOT to merge resulting in, after I first closed the discussion, a proposal by another editor that information be merged 'into this article from the other one so there is no ambiguity in the outcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that nobody is interested in continuing this discussion and it was clear when I last closed the discussion that there was a consesus to NOT MERGE. I Think that it's reasonable to close the discussion again, especially given the other active merge proposal. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to merge information from Windows XP service packs back into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal to merge the service pack information from Windows XP service packs was merge. For clarification, which appears necessary in light of past edits, this means that information will be merged from Windows XP service packs back into this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this proposal was to have occurred here but has taken place at Talk:Windows XP service packs. I've copied the conversation so far to here where it should have been:

Now that the discussion at Talk:Windows XP has been closed with the dicision not to merge into this article, we should merge this article back into Windows XP. There's no reason to list this information twice. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - As can be seen already, duplication of information in two articles has resulted in significant differences between the two, particularly as relates to SP3. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've made appropriate edits to Windows XP that incorporated some information contained in this article that should have been included in that one. I've also made an edit to this article that I've marked as a "snapshot edit". Only edits made after that need be considered for merging into Windows XP in the event that this proposal is successful. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why Thank you Mr. Aussie Legend. I'm glad that you did the appropriate edits. -- KelleyCook (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - No need to duplicate. Merge back to Windows XP, ASAP. --BWCNY (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on this proposal was suppose to occur at Talk:Windows XP according to the {{mergeto}} tag so I'm going to copy the discussion so far to there. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in the copied text, I've made appropriate edits to both articles so there's really nothing to merge. Hopefully we can resolve this issue soon. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus to merge so I'm closing this discussion and taking the appropriate action as detailed at WP:MERGE --AussieLegend (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Service Pack betas

If one installs a certain beta version, can and should they later just install a newer beta version (or the final version) on top of it? -79.179.148.235 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the top: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows XP article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." However, Microsoft usually requires any pre-release or beta software be uninstalled before installing a final release. 122.248.156.196 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Picture: Bad

I believe that the current screen shot does not represent what the standard Windows XP desktop would look like. Someone should revert it to an older "more standard" look. Wikinerd2000 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Screenshot

The current screenshot is really bad; there should be one of the default desktop instead of a customized one; don't you think? TheUnixGeek (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the screenshot would be clean-install with all defaults, first desktop post-OOBE, with the My Computer opened with the default view, the Start Button pressed, and a balloon tip open from the tray. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I see what happened. Some guy uploaded a screenshot of an XP installation with a stupid layout over the old picture. Someone reverted him, though.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)

WGA

Could someone please clear up the WGA section in this article? To me, it sounds like a virus (I was bombarded with it once and 3 days later it was mysteriously genuine. It felt like a scam.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.141.239 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the improvements I made to this page were rolled back?

WindowsXP is NOT a "line of computer operating systems" - it is an iteration of an system that had already been released several times previously.

If the changes were "head-scratching, then why not ask about them instead of merely reverting back to the less-accurate version that was there before? 218.101.86.171 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The "line of computer operating systems" comment was definitely worth changing. Windows is a line of computer operating systems. XP is just one iteration. The only real issue I had with your edits, after a cursory glance at them, was "It was, however, released to provide a very low cost version of WindowsXP in areas where software piracy is common in an attempt to prevent migrations to newer and cheaper operating systems."[2] The citation you provided doesn't actually say that. The citation just contains speculation by one analyst as to the real reason:
"There's a lot of Linux hype in these markets, there's a lot of piracy in these markets, and Microsoft is trying to address the demand with a product at a lower price," said industry analyst Michael Silver, Gartner Inc. vice president. "Certainly they'd rather see Starter Edition than Linux being sold and shipped, but they don't want it to cannibalize their (standard) Windows market."
--AussieLegend (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it is a line of operating systems. "Windows XP Home Edition"; "Windows XP Professional Edition"; "Windows XP Media Center Edition", etc. etc.... collectively, these are all Windows XP. Pedantically speaking, "Windows XP" does not actually exist... any instance of something called Windows XP must, by definition, be one of its editions. -/- Warren 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Please read, Windows XP page editers! Thanks!

Why was my picture removed from the article not even a day after it was posted? It was a picture of XP Energy Blue. Thanks! --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary[3], Energy Blue is the same theme as Royale, which was already shown. Therefore your image added nothing to the article. It has been removed today[4] because you used it to replace an image of the start menu, which was there to specifically highlight the start menu. As I've explained in the edit summary, the current set of images gives better examples of the available themes specifically highlighting the changes to the start menu. The new images also introduced layout issues which, while not insurmountable problems, do not help the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whay isn't it mantioned on the inroduction at the begging that XP is largest OP today, and also the largestc OP on the maket share of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.82.231 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Wallpaper

I just wanted to add a somewhat trivial comment about the default wallpaper installed on windows, the so-called "Bliss" wallpaper. The article states that it is a photo from the Napa Valley, California. I think that it's a photo of Co. Wicklow, Ireland. The mountain in the background on the RH side looks suspiciously like the Great Sugarloaf Mtn. Also, looking at the Dutch-language version of Windows installed on my wife's PC, the file has been translated as "Ierland.bmp".

Sorry if I added the comment in the wrong place, I wasn't sure.

84.194.42.3 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Paul Moore, polomora@gmail.com

Linux compatibility

The subject of this article is Windows XP and content should be directly relevant to the subject. While Linux compatibility might be of interest to somebody who wishes to dual-boot Linux and Windows XP, it isn't directly relevant to Windows XP itself and therefore shouldn't be part of the article. There are many operating systems available for PCs that can be installed on the same computer as Windows XP. None of these are relevant to the article topic and should not be included in the article either. If we include Linux compatibility then there is no reason why compatibility sections on all of the other OSes shouldn't be included. For that matter, sections on applications that are far more widely used than Linux would also be justified. This would result in an already large article blowing out in size. The article is about Windows XP and focus should remain on the OS itself and not how the OS works with other operating systems or programs. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it not directly relevant? I don't see anything wrong with writing how XP interacts with anything. Whether it makes the article long has nothing to do with whether it's relevant or not. The technical limitations of your computer should not determine what we get to read.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Quite simply, it's not directly relevant because the article is about Windows XP and Linux is not part of Windows XP. As I've already pointed out, it might be of interest to somebody who wishes to dual-boot Linux and Windows XP. This, however, does not make it relevant to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no citation to prove that Windows' Linux compatibility is notable. Linux's capabilities are irrelevant to this article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


"Related projects OS/2" -err sorry but if Linux is not related then neither is that dead OS.

What about OSX, BEOS, BSD, UNIX, ...?

Linux is Windows XP's main rival (at least Microsoft sees it that way).
This is how Linux is relevant.

If Microsoft think Linux is related, who am I to argue?

Anyway, what about the bugs in Windows XP?
I mean kernel level stuff etc.
These are not brought up, so how is this article negatively biased?

You are either bring other OSes into the article or not.

Both the Mac OS X and Linux Articles talk about Windows so it's quite fair to include Linux/MacOSX in this article.

The fact that Microsoft have engineered Windows not to play nice with other OSes is not the author's fault ;-)

Grahamatwp (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft OS/2 is the predecessor to Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista. Linux, Mac OS X, BEOS, BSD have never been Microsoft products. There is Xenix, but that's a seperate argument. Regardless, this article has no "OS/2 compatibility" section, so I fail to see what OS/2 has to do with this discussion.
When did Microsoft say that Linux is Windows XP's main rival or that Linux and Windows are related?
I also fail to see what bugs have to do with this discussion.
The Mac OS X article only mentions Windows when it lists improved Windows compatibility as a new feature of version 10.3. I do not care for how the Linux article keeps referring to Windows. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Future software template

Given that Microsoft just changed the release to web date for SP3, would it be a good idea to tag the SP3 section with the future software template, or current event, or something like that? I wouldn't be surprised if the information in that section changes a few more times before Microsoft gets around to actually releasing SP3. Scj2315 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The future software template is for software that is not available to the general public in any form and since there are various beta and RC versions of SP3 available it is inappropriate. Nor is the beta software template appropriate since SP3 has baeen released to manufacturing and is clearly no longer in development. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Slipstream

Can there a better word than "slipstream" to use in the SP3 section? Non-technical people read this article, avoid using too much terminology. Ashawley (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats the word in use. However, something like slipstream. could be used.--soum talk 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it will confuse a lot of people if other word is used (I have to admit, I would). I think slipstream is more common word.--w_tanoto (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Slipstream is not only more common, it's the correct term to use since it's the term that Microsoft uses to describe the process. Rather than use slipstream though, it's more appropriate and conventional to wikilink to the actual article on slipstreaming. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because Microsoft uses it doesn't justify that it's non-technical. Linking to the term's entry in Wikipedia is satisfactory enough. --Ashawley (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about it being non-technical. In any case, being a technical term isn't justification for using a different word. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Using jargons without any prior explanation is a pet peeve of mine. Any technical term should be accompanied with at least enough explanation that would let the user to continue reading the rest of the paragraph without first reading the linked article. --soum talk 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It's nice in theory but in practice an article like this would be a lot larger if every term that needs explaining was explained in the prose. People who don't need the terms explained tend to "turn off" and the article gets hard to read for them. Wikilinking is a good compromise for both groups. I just wish I'd been able to wikilink in the tech manuals that I've written. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Neither I am saying it must be there (I know it doesn't work always) nor am I arguing for an inclusion here. I just am saying the correct and arguably-more-common "slipstreaming" should not be sugar-coated just for the sake of jargon busting. I guess we are on the same side here. --soum talk 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason for DOS incompatability

"[Windows XP] still has trouble running many old DOS programs. This is largely due to the fact that it is a Windows NT system and does not use DOS as a base OS."

DOS not being used as the base OS has little to do with it. The main difference between XP's virtual DOS machine and a real DOS machine is that the VDM doesn't allow access to the real hardware. Couldn't software running as part of an OS that does "use DOS as a base OS" disable direct hardware access just as easily as NT does? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Dos doesn't have memory protection (i.e., a pointer can be point to absolutely any point of the memory). So even if any OS that does "use DOS as a base OS" disables direct hardware, one can point a pointer to a memory address mapped to a hardware and communicate directly with it. For this reason, "DOS not being used as the base OS" has everything to do with this incompatibility. No DOS-emulator in NT can relax the no-direct-hardware-access restrictions and no NT emulator in DOS can prevent that access. --soum talk 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Very much lopsided article.

I cannot find the word "successful" anywhere in the article? You see, when you need to issue a hotfix just because the software product is running out of available individual installation keys spaces, that IS an undeniable sign of success! So there should be an XP veneration section in the article, not just a criticism section! 82.131.210.162 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree. Windows XP is the most successful and most used OS in the world, yet there is no such section. 69.216.17.251 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
When your POV is from personal desktop Operating Systems, as of 2007, Windows does have a large market share. But when you take into account the Business sector, and the vast amount of Unix and other OS types used in the workplace, successful is a debatable description of Windows XP. --Unixguy 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Says a user named "Unix guy"... yeah, no bias there... sheesh. -/- Warren 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"Success" is a value judgment and is dependent on the observer's point of view. As Wikipedia articles are supposed to be from a Neutral point of view I'm not sure that we should be crowing about the success of what is, after all, a commercial product. I'm sure that Microsoft is more than capable of purchasing all the praise it needs. --218.101.84.3 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is not neutral: it has a clear bias towards negativity, talking more about problems than improvements. It should be possible to make it more balanced without "crowing". Several of these comments need to review the list of Logical Fallacies before contributing to this argument. Balance does not automatically lead to "crowing" (Slippery Slope), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.222.182 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Especially since there is already a main Criticism of Windows XP article, the fact that there is also a whole criticism section in this article definitely skews the whole thing towards negativity. I think it adds undue weight and might be best if it's removed almost entirely with simply a main article link. MasterCKO (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just re-read and even the opening section goes from neutral to negative with no positive aspect (such as "most installed OS on Planet Earth" -- with a reference, of course) listed whatsoever. I really don't think that this article can be claimed to be neutral. MasterCKO (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem of Internet Explorer 7 and SP3 section

This is poorly written and IMO shouldn't even be there anyway. What's the concensus on this? Smoothy (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I made an edit to remove the last line that recommended uninstalling IE7 before the upgrade. If you actually read the article referenced, it makes no mention of uninstalling IE7 before installing XPSP3. The only recommendation made is to remove IE8 Beta 1 if installed. That line was the author stating his opinion with a false reference. Goochi32 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I nuked the section, as it clearly fell under WP:NOTHOWTO. It was hardly relevant to the overall article anyhow. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're being inconsistent here. You just removed information about an ICS bug introduced by SP3. You justify that removal with WP:NOTHOWTO. However, you have *NOT* removed the "Microsoft recommends that SP3 should not be applied to systems using Microsoft Dynamics Retail Management System until a hotfix is available" and related that introduces the whole SP3 section. What's the deal? The information you removed about the bug did NOT have any howto information in it. It simply stated a fact -- a *MAJOR* difference between SP2 and SP3 is that SP3 requires frequent restarting of the ICS service. Perhaps you would be OK with something like "Users of ICS should not install SP3"? --TedPavlic | talk 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no inconsistency, every minor bug introduced to windows does not get put on this page. You are correct that the DRM line probably needs to go away too as that has turned out to be a bug with their management system, not SP3. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The RMS (not DRM) information was not added as a bug report. It was included because it was the reason that RTW was delayed. I've just reverted the change that was made as a result of this discussion[5] because the conclusion isn't supported by the citations which say only that SP3 should not be installed on systems running RMS until the hotfix is available, not that SP3 will be automatically pushed out except on systems running RMS. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

SP3

Please someone tell me if the service pack 3 final version is out, because there is a 1.0 download on microsoft's web and it doesn't say BETA anywhere --200.121.144.175 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's out, but the page I see says it was released on March 21, 2008. Your post is from March 18. Maybe you got an early look. I updated the article related to SP3, but not the whole paragraph.Slipgrid (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't get too excited about support and technical review documents. The documentation will come out before the SP. The SP is not on Windows Update or the Windows Download Center. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Is anyone seeing the final SP3 available for download ? According to the schedule it should be available today? Is there another delay? Thanks. Dreamgear (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Answering my own question here... It's available. On the windows update page, click "administrator options" at left, then click "Windows Update Catalog".67.158.116.42 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also links to it in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article says "It (SP3) will be automatically pushed out to Automatic Update users around June-July 2008". It's already out now on Automatic Updates. Just installed it this morning, 16/5/2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.207.3 (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not on automatic updates. When you visit Windows Update or Microsoft Update it's offered to you as a "preferred" manual update. You can skip the update if you wish. "Automatically pushed out" means that it will be distributed automatically to your PC just as security updates are. For most people with Automatic Updates turned on, this will mean that one day they'll discover that their PC has mysteriously changed to Windows XP Service Pack 3. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

can i still buy xp?

i really need to know when, because the article is unclear. thanks. 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC) i still see it at best buy. i still think you can buy it. or if you are a student try through Microsofts Academic alliance seeing as many schools have not upgraded to Vista. or other software they will still give XP an example is MS Visual Studio 2003 and 2005 do not work compleatly with Vista so microsoft issued me a coppy of XP to solve my problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.31.100 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article, but Microsoft will stop selling retail sales of XP on June 30, 2008. — Wenli (reply here) 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank god too. We'd hate to fix all the bugs in SP3. Now we don't have ta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.176.10 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

SP3 is NOT on automatic updates

Since a number of people have edited the article claiming that SP3 is available through automatic updates I thought I'd copy information I posted earlier into this new section at the bottom of the page so it's easier for people to see.

SP3 is NOT available as an automatic update yet. When you visit Windows Update or Microsoft Update it is offered to you as a "preferred" manual update. You can skip the update if you wish. This is not an automatic update! "Automatic updates" or "Automatically pushed out" means that it will be distributed automatically to your PC just as security updates are. For most people with Automatic Updates turned on, this will mean that one day they'll discover that their PC has mysteriously changed to Windows XP Service Pack 3. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Service Pack is not a must have. 129.252.131.58 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the article, it will be "automatically pushed out" near June/July of this year (as you can see in the reference). — Wenli (reply here) 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Is/was XP a most popular OS in the world? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it still is (reference); approximately 73% of online PCs run Windows XP. — Wenli (reply here) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This should probably be mentioned in the lead of the article. Can we find out when (year, month) did XP gained this position? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Themes section

All official (Microsoft made) themes should be displayed (including Royale Noir/Zune), please do not remove them from the page. Doshindude (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Those themes are properly discussed in the Energy Blue article. Displaying them in this article without a proper explanation is an excessive use of fair-use images. -/- Warren 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you determine to be a "proper" explanation? They are both explained in the article:
That seems proper to me and I don't see that they are any more properly discussed in Energy Blue. The purpose of the images here is to provide a comparison of all of the various "official" themes, including Luna and Windows Classic, which can't properly be done in Energy Blue because that article should focus on Energy Blue. This is a more appropriate article for an overview of the themes and since they are properly discussed, the images should be restored. As for excessive use of fair-use images, there is currently no fair use rationale for Image:Windows XP Royale.png as used in Energy Blue. That's not just excessive, it's inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
All six images used in the "User interface" section contain fair-use rationales. The "Luna" theme as well as the classic theme are not discussed in the Energy Blue article, so this article presents a better overview of the themes in Windows XP. — Wenli (reply here) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No. This is NOT an acceptable answer. The fact that the images have a fair-use rationale doesn't mean we can go using them on articles where it's not appropriate. Royale Noir and the Zune theme were not released as part of Windows XP; in fact, Royale Noir wasn't released at all, and the Zune theme has never shipped with Windows XP. For this reason, including them in this article is not acceptable, as they do not depict something that is a part of the operating system itself. I realise people have some difficulties understanding this, but it's really vitally important that we use an absolute minimum of non-free content in the encyclopedia. This is more important than creating a gallery of all the available themes for Windows.
AussieLegend especially -- please don't fight this. Fighting in favour of greater use of non-free content on the encyclopedia is extremely bad form. Warren -talk- 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Regardless of your opinion, each of the images have valid fair use rationales for use in this article and their use here is entirely appropriate for reasons already explained so there's no reason why they can't be used. So far, it's your explanations that have been unacceptable. You obviously don't want them but there are at least three other editors (four including the person whop originally added them) who oppose you and, so far, none who support you. Clearly consensus is against you so in order to implement your changes you need to explain better why they shouldn't be used. I'm going to reinsert them until you do.

You could start by explaining:

  1. Why this is not a more appropriate article than Energy Blue,
  2. Why the explanation here is not adequate when they are more fully explained here than in the Energy Blue article, which should concentrate on Energy Blue and not on other themes,
  3. Why images that have appropriate fair-use rationales for this article can't be used in this article (reference to policy would be nice), and
  4. Why the fact that the themes in question weren't actually released with Windows XP is relevant. Technically, service packs fall under this category. These are all Microsoft created themes created for Windows XP which is the subject of this article.

Please don't delete the images again and then disappear as you've done previously, expecting others to take your word as gospel. You need to discuss this issue.

--AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if they have fair-use rationales, AussieLegend. I also don't care about whether they're used in other articles. What matters is that THESE IMAGES DO NOT PORTRAY SOMETHING INCLUDED IN WINDOWS XP, and that WE MUST OBEY ALL PARTS OF THE FAIR-USE POLICY. I don't understand why you're fighting this -- this is an issue of following Wikipedia policy, something I'd have otherwise assumed you would be familiar with by now! WP:FU policy, part 3, is very explicit in stating that we do not use multiple non-free items if one will suffice. WP:FU part 8, is explicit in stating that the images must significantly increase the understanding of the topic. Screenshots of themes that are not shipped with Windows XP, and indeed one that was not shipped at all, are not needed to describe Windows XP. We already have two screenshots depicting operating system themes, which is fine because there are two distinct themes that have shipped with Windows XP -- anything more than that and it's becoming a gallery. Wikipedia's image usage policy is very clear in stating that we should not be presenting mere galleries of images. This was an issue on Windows Media Player in December[6], and now all those extraneous images are gone -- and yes, most of them had fair-use rationales. I know this because I added the rationales to many of those images myself.
This article is about Windows XP, not "themes released in conjunction with a portable media player for Windows XP by Microsoft", or "themes that Microsoft didn't release but someone managed to pilfer from them and post on the Internet anyways". In the grand scheme of a summarised description of Windows XP, from its inception in 1999 to its dominant status in the mid-2000s, to its present state in 2008, is this really vitally important? Does it "significantly increase readers' understanding of (Windows XP)"? Would the ommission of the Zune theme make it difficult to understand the concept of visual themes in Windows XP?
Come on, be realistic.
This article doesn't do enough to cover the new features of Windows XP, nor does it cover sales figures over time, nor does it contain any kind of positive reviews, nor does it cover the advertising campaigns that were devised. But it has a whole paragraph on a stolen theme released by a third party, and a theme released in conjunction with a portable media player -- neither of which have been included in a release of Windows XP.
If you're going to carry on demanding that we break Wikipedia's policy on image use, I will go ahead and write you up at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I don't want to do that, because it's a waste of time I could be spending improving the encyclopedia instead of protecting it from people that can't be bothered to follow the letter and the spirit of our image usage policy. Please don't force me into that. Accept that I'm arguing this with you for a very good reason, not because I feel like arguing. Let it go. Warren -talk- 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your stated reasons for deletion in the edit summary[7] are flawed. You've misinterpreted the policies. WP:NFCC #3 states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It's not possible to replace all of these with a single item because there isn't a theme that combines all of them. There simply isn't a single item to replace them. #3 further states "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." This clearly doesn't apply. Each shot is only a portion of the work (Windows XP). #8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The use of these images significantly increase reader's understanding. It's not possible to easily explain all of the differences without turning the article into War and Peace. Your reference to the gallery restriction is similarly flawed. For a start, the images aren't a gallery. Yes, the images are grouped together but they are in a table, not a gallery and they are presented as such to provide comparison between the different themes with explanatory text just to the left of them covering the various themes. As for your threat to write this up on WP:CP, rather than try to force my opinions on others by bludgeoning edits into the artcile based on misinterpretations, I've already raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#"Overuse" of non-free images - need some guidance. So far there's been a limited response. One editor supports the inclusion of all of the images while another supports inclusion of the images you object to.
One other thing, please be civil in your edit summaries and talk page comments. There is no need to resort to profanities in edit summaries[8] and "I don't give a shit" is inappropriate language on the talk page. Threats and bullying, as evidenced in your edits, are far worse. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, whether you like it or not. You don't own this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I am very well aware of Wikipedia's policies on non-free image use. Here's the difference between you and me -- I have uploaded quite a number of images, and in conjunction with User:Themodernizer got tags, rationales, categories and Wikiproject templates onto just about every Windows-related image on the encyclopedia.[9] What've you done in this area? You've uploaded exactly one non-free image in your entire two-and-a-half career on Wikipedia (and one other that got speedy-deleted as a blatant copyright violation).[10] And yet, you tell me that I don't understand Wikipedia's non-free image policy? You have some damned nerve. You want me to be civil towards you? Start by not questioning my judgement on something you have absolutely no experience with! That sort of shit pisses me off.
Look. We don't need to explain all the themes that have been released by Microsoft, or by other people, for Windows XP, in the Windows XP article. That is an astoundingly stupid idea. It's just not that important of a topic to merit greater mention than the other things that the article is currently missing! If you want to write an article listing all the themes that have been released (and Microsoft has released several other themes besides the Zune one. See here for starters), or if you want to turn the Royale (theme) article into such a list, go for it... I think that's a fine idea. But making a gallery of themes that includes non-Microsoft and non-Windows XP themes? No. Not here. Warren -talk- 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"I am very well aware of Wikipedia's policies on non-free image use." - You may be aware of them but you've clearly misinterpreted them, as I explained above.
"Here's the difference between you and me -- I have uploaded quite a number of images, (etc)" - How many images you've uploaded compared to me is completely irrelevant to the issue.
"What've you done in this area? You've uploaded exactly one non-free image in your entire two-and-a-half career on Wikipedia (and one other that got speedy-deleted as a blatant copyright violation).[11]" - While this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue, it is an example of how you've misinterpreted what is before you. I've actually uploaded nine, not two, non-free images. One was deleted because it was orphaned after the article in which it was used (which was created by somebody else) was deleted. The other image (Image:Zune.png), which you claim was deleted as a copyvio was actually deleted at my request after I discovered, shortly after I uploaded the image to replace the one that had been deleted as a copyvio, that another version existed. The version that was deleted as a copyvio was uploaded by somebody else.
"We don't need to explain all the themes that have been released by Microsoft" - That's correct but other editors have agreed that the ones we've listed here do need to be explained. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista

As is, the article mentions the movement to retain Windows XP rather than upgrade to Windows Vista in the introduction, but doesn't explain the reasons for this movement in the body of the article itself. I think that this is very important, particularly right now, and that it should be addressed, either with its own section or a summary and a redirect to the appropriate article, if such exists on Wikipedia already. I would do it, but I don't understand enough about the fine points of computers to do it justice, particularly because I don't have any problems with Windows Vista.Kleio08 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misread the introduction. It doesn't mention the movement to retain XP. Rather it simply says that although Windows XP is no longer sold it is still possible to obtain copies. That's as far as this article really needs to go. Discussion of the movement to retain Windows XP is problematic at best because there are far too many reasons why someone might wish to stay with XP rather than purchase Vista and they really have no relevance to this or the Vista article. I'm not aware of an article that compares the two systems. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WinXP vs Win9x stability and efficiency

"Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over the 9x versions of Microsoft Windows."

Is this common sense? The "Fact" tag was removed with the explanation that this is common sense. I don't think so, who said that Windows XP is always more stable and efficient than windows 9x? Please provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources, maybe if Microsoft has ever mentioned this somewhere on their website. Showpaper (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with the person who removed the tag. It's extremely well known that XP is more stable than the 9x versions. Anyone who has used Windows knows it. Regardless, it actually took me longer to replace the tag with citations than it did to find and review them. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well at least... I hope it wasn't Steve Ballmer's IP address... References are needed. Maybe it is extremely well known today that XP is more stable than 9x, but I don't everyone will remember that forever. In the next 10 years or so, when XP's popularity has decreased to 5-10%, many people might not even know what Windows XP is, and even less of them knows why XP was better than previous versions Windows... Showpaper (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I know some users don't trust IP addresses as much as regular users, but this case is now settled and I hope you don't see more problems with this excessive lack of references. Pleaceman (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that won't be remembered in 5-10 years but that doesn't mean we need to provide references for all of them. Uncontroversial claims (The moon orbits around the Earth, the earth is not flat, Windows XP is more stable than Windows 98) don't generally need references. In this case it would have taken less effort to find appropriate citations than it did to explain why you restored the {{fact}} tag. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's "well known" now doesn't mean that it will be well known in 100 years - unlike the example given of the moon orbiting the earth. More to the point, it might be well known but it is an opinion. There is no one single, scientific measure of a system's "stability" - does that mean system uptime (not particularly useful since most consumer desktops aren't on 24/7), does it mean the frequency of "blue screen" errors (again not particularly useful as in relation to Vista it was shown that most of the early bluescreens were actually nVidia's fault rather than Microsoft's)? When we're dealing with subjective (even if widely-held) opinions like this, we state the opinion and cite reliable sources where this opinion is expressed. Cynical (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about assuming the moon will still be orbiting the Earth in 100 years. Up until just over two years ago it was a fact that Pluto was still one of the 9 planets of the solar system. My point is that whether or not it will be remembered in 5, 10, 100 or even 1000 years is irrelevant as to whether or not something gets a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Surprises

I was checking out the reference used for citing the background in Windows XP Starter's Malay edition, and I saw a picture of the Kuala Lumpur skyline wallpaper described in the article. Is it me, or is the wallpaper strikingly similar to the picture of the Kuala Lumpur skyline used in the KL infobox (or vice-versa)? For comparison: see this and this. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You just raised a very serious issue there,Sky Harbor. I am gonna speak to commons about that, since if its been copied from Microsoft XP, that makes the image on Commons NON-FREE and thus unsuitable to be there. I will get back to you with a result. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Update The image from Commons has been deleted in accordance with Commons policy - Commons is only able to take images which are completely free of licence, or in the public domain. This image violated that policy, and has been removed. The WP image will be retagged to make it clear that it is Non-free and requires a rationale for continued use here. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft's "megabyte"

What is WP:OR about the old chestnut that Microsoft uses megabyte (and other byte multiples) in their binary sense? I'm truly puzzled: this has been known for years, is unabashedly admitted by Microsoft, and easily verifiable. So why remove the statement that the 64 MB quoted in Windows XP's system requirements actually means 64 MiB? Specifically: 

<sup>,</sup>{{fn|2}} || 128 MB RAM or higher

{{fnb|2}}Whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes; that is to say, a [[mebibyte]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/funzone/puzzle/answers/nov1105.mspx|accessdate=2008-08-18|title=Weekly Scripting Puzzle for November 11, 2005|date=2005-11-18}}</ref> This is natural for RAM, not so for disk space.

Urhixidur (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it "has been known for years" is irrelevant. It needs to be verifiable that it is the case with this article. This edit is clearly wrong as the source used for the data[12] specifically states the requirements in megabytes, not mebibytes. "At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)"
Regarding this edit, Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The source that you've used to support the claim "Whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes; that is to say, a mebibyte"[13] fails to do that. Yes, it does state that a TechNet scripting puzzle from November 11, 2005 defined a megabyte as 1048576 bytes but it does not support the claim that "Whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes". (emphasis added). Of more relevance to this article, there is no direct link to Windows XP or Windows XP system requirements at all. Arriving at the conclusion that Microsoft always defines a megabyte as 1048576 bytes because of a mention in an unrelated TechNet article and that must therefore mean that when Microsoft has stated that Windows XP requires 64MB it actually means 64MiB is synthesis of published material which advances a position which, as you should know, is original research. The policy is clear on this: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The source you've used does not explicitly reach the same conclusion and is not directly related to the article.
When all is said and done, the units used are really irrelevant. The difference between 64 MB and 64 MiB is only 3.1 MB and the difference between 128 MB and 128 MiB is only 6.2 MB, both of which are trivial amounts, even more so when you consider that memory is sold in units labelled "MB" regardless of the actual number of bits on the memory module. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"The units used are really irrelevant" : Sigh, not that tiresome argument again. If the difference is irrelevant, why obfuscate it? This is precisely the mentality that has been making space probes crash into planets, or Ariane V explode on its first launch. Costly disregard for accuracy. This is an encyclopedia, we're supposed to get it right.

Back to the topic at hand. All right, since a single random page from MS isn't enough, how many will it take? This is a good one: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb330927(VS.80).aspx (Microsoft Developer Network Library, Bits & Bytes: Lesson 3, February 2007). There are plenty of other MS pages that corroborate, such as the one quoted earlier, and this one http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/w2000Msgs/2547.mspx?mfr=true (Microsoft TechNet Windows 2000 Error Messages Reference). And this one http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B842355&x=13&y=9 (Microsoft Help and Support, KB842355 How Services for Macintosh uses system resources in Windows Server 2003, Capacity Planning Examples, 2007-02-27) or http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B288750&x=13&y=13 (Microsoft Help and Support, KB288750 Disk Quota Default Setting Prevents Logon Request, 2006-01-15) or http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/guide/sas_vbs_ghfr.mspx?mfr=true (Microsoft TechNet VBScript Overview: Constants, undated) or http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B181862&x=12&y=15 (Microsoft Help and Support, KB181862 Specifying Amount of RAM Available to Windows Using MaxPhysPage, 2007-01-22). All of these pages state over and over again "One megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes".

I did find one exception: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc180215.aspx (Microsoft TechNet Library, Configuring Monitoring Scenarios in the Windows Servers Base Operating System State Management Pack, Table 8 - Default Performance Thresholds).

I'll be back later with some phrasing suggestions. Urhixidur (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"If the difference is irrelevant, why obfuscate it?" - Quite simply, it's trivial as regards this article. It adds nothing to the article and is completely unnecessary.
"This is precisely the mentality that has been making space probes crash into planets, or Ariane V explode on its first launch." - I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was used as a primary reference by spacecraft designers. If any do then their spacecraft deserve to crash/explode/burn up during reentry etc. There are far more authoritative references that a professional should use for such critical processes. Wikipedia is not one of them.
"All right, since a single random page from MS isn't enough, how many will it take?" - Probably just one, as long as it's directly relevant to the article and improves it as well as not being WP:OR.
"I did find one exception:" - Which immediately disproves the claim that "whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes".
And, FYI, regarding "This is natural for RAM, not so for disk space", you might be interested to learn that this is not entirely correct. In the early days of disk drives (pre-1990), it was natural to express disk drives sizes using what is now defined as a mebibyte. It was only when the number of disk drive manufacturers and drive sizes started increasing (c.1993) that drive manufacturers started expressing sizes using the metric definition of mega. They did so because 536MB sounded a lot better value than 512MB did. It worked well as a marketing ploy until all manufacturers caught on. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"I wasn't aware that Wikipedia was used as a primary reference by spacecraft designers" : You misunderstand again. I was referring to the mentality that considers vagueness of definitions as okay. A Mars probe was lost because some engineers failed to check the specs they were handed and thought pounds-feet-per-whatever were comparable to metric measurements. No doubt some mission-critical signal-processing software will crash somewhere somewhen because of a buffer overrun (from allocating a megabyte but reading a mebibyte): "trivial" differences aren't always trivial.
"They did so because 536MB sounded a lot better value than 512MB did" : Now, that's definitely WP:OR. You just try and prove that quasi-malicious intent!
Anyway, how about a short note attached to the first occurrence of "64 MB" stating simply "Actually meaning 64 MiB" with one reference (probably the MDNL Bits & Bytes one). The exception is probably not worth mentioning here but could be mentioned in the mebibyte article. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Urhixidur (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"You misunderstand again."" - I didn't misunderstand anything. I was trying to be subtle in pointing out how irrelevant the comment was in reference to a Wikipedia article on Windows XP, which is not an operating system used on spacecraft of the type you mentioned.
"I was referring to the mentality that considers vagueness of definitions as okay. A Mars probe was lost etc" - None of which is in any way relevant to this article. It doesn't matter a tinker's cus whether the definition is precise here, for reasons that I've already mentioned. No spacecraft is going to be lost because somebody wasn't pedantic about the difference between MB and MiB on Wikipedia and I should point out that the difference between the two has never caused the loss of any spacecraft. Being so pedantic is really going overboard.
"Now, that's definitely WP:OR." - It might be if I was going to use it in an article but it was presented here only as general information.
"You just try and prove that quasi-malicious intent!" - It's not hard. The evidence is in online spec sheets and old computer magazines.
"how about a short note attached to the first occurrence of "64 MB" stating simply "Actually meaning 64 MiB" with one reference (probably the MDNL Bits & Bytes one)" - I refer you back to WP:SYNTH. You need a citation that explicitly reaches the same conclusion as you. That means that it has to directly support the claim. The Bits & Bytes citation doesn't even mention XP, let alone support the claim that 64MB on the Win XP system requirements page actually means 64MiB. I doubt you'll find a citation that does. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So all the technical pages from Microsoft that state over and over that they mean the binary megabyte are not evidence? You're being obtuse. Microsoft has, for whatever reason, decided to ignore the very existence of the binary prefixes, so of course they won't bother to state that they don't use it. But neither do they hide from explaining what megabyte means for them.

Meanwhile, out of curiosity, do they try and provide at least one source (not some pundit) stating the switch to decimal megabyte on the part of drive manufacturers was at least in part motivated by publicity reasons. Urhixidur (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, as far as this article is concerned, none of the pages that you've so far cited are sources that support your claim in a way that satisfies Wikipedia policy. As I've previously pointed out, with reference to specific policy, the reference must directly support your claim and it must be relevant to the article. The links you've provided are circumstantial support at the very, very best. One even disproves your claim. None show a direct link to Windows XP. In fact they specifically target other operating systems (Mac, Win2k3, Win2k, MS-DOS, Win 98, WinMe etc). You need a verifiable source in which Microsoft unabashedly admits that the figures used on the Windows XP system requirements page define 1MB to be 1,048,576 bytes.
Regarding hard drives, at the time I don't remember seeing a magazine that didn't discuss the issue, along with other relevant topics of the day such as dodgy retailers selling overclocked 486SX25 CPUs and 486SX33s. Interestingly, one of the references that you supplied[14] talks about disk quotas using the 1MB=1,048,576 bytes definition, supporting a claim that it is more natural to specifiy disk sizes in those units rather than the metric definition.
I should point out that this is the only OS article where 1048576 vs 1000000 seems to be an issue. Everyone else seems fine with just specifying MB and not worrying about the extra (or not) 48,576 bytes. I think there's a message there. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw this debate listed on the '3rd opinion' mediation page and thought to add my 2.048 cents worth. I have been an IT professional for more than 20 years and have held MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) certifications. I have not until a few moments ago ever heard of the word 'mebibyte'. Thus, I am confident it has never been used by Microsoft to refer to their system memory requirements. Savlonn (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I also refer you to the official Wikipedia Manual of Style, [15]where agreement has been reached on this exact point. To quote:

After many years of debate, it was agreed that the prefixes K, M, G, ... although familiar, were ambiguous for quantities of bits and bytes. It was also agreed that IEC prefixes, while not ambiguous, had seen little real-world adoption and were therefore unfamiliar to the typical reader. The consensus was that for the byte and bit prefixes, the spirit of the Manual of Style is better reflected by having familiar but ambiguous units, rather than unambiguous but unfamiliar units The guide also states:

  • The IEC prefixes are not to be used on Wikipedia except under the following circumstances:
  • when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes,
  • when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes,
  • in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes.

Savlonn (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(did not know you were a techie ... welcome to the club :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
yep, but not techie enough to figure out how to make fancy Wikipedia user pages :( (pls excuse off-topic comment)Savlonn (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

It looks like someone has come in already, but I'll state what I found. I don't see a problem with a footnote explaining the difference- the MOS decision dealt with using these terms inline; e.g., if an article says "The application used 512 megabytes of available memory", that means 512 * 1024 bytes. I don't think that should cover a footnote, but I do agree that the sources aren't specific enough. However, I think I have one that is: [16]. See the section entitled "Definition of binary hard disk drive size". I would say to include it with that citation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The first issue I see with using the HP page is that it deals with hard drive sizes. Urhixidur's issue is with RAM, not hard drives. Not unexpectedly, it also contradicts his claim that it is more natural to express hard drive sizes using decimal sizes rather than binary sizes. Clearly Microsoft does not think that's the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I thought it was used equally on both, but Binary prefix does say that hard disks are typically decimal and RAM is binary prefix. Scrap that reference, then. I still think inclusion would be fine with a reference, but those above don't fit the bill. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two distinct questions:

  • Would a footnote explaining simply that MS's "64 MB" is "64×1024×1024 bytes" (with a reference to, say, MDNL Bits & Bytes: Lesson 3) be acceptable? How about an addition to that footnote along the lines of "for details, see Binary prefixes"?
  • Was the original intervention WP:OR to within any stretch of the imagination?

Urhixidur (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference doesn't work because it doesn't say that XP's system requirements are expressed in either binary or decimal. Being published by microsoft doesn't necessarily mean they use that system on all of their system requirements. You'd need something that explicitly says Microsoft used one specific system. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we'll ever find such a quote on Microsoft's part, because they all consider it so obvious (when dealing with RAM). Would a third party (such as this, for example) do? I mean, articles such as Computer memory state that "[...] RAM [...is] specified using binary meanings for K (10241), M (10242), G (10243)", without being able to provide a clear reference. Urhixidur (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how that source comes even close. As has been stated a number of times, most recently by JeremyMcCracken, the source needs to explicitly state that Microsoft uses one specific system. That source doesn't even mention Microsoft. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Following that argument to its logical conclusion means we'd have to add a footnote to the memory requirements spec stating that « It is not clear whether this refers to 64,000,000 or 67,108,864 bytes. » I have a hunch most readers and editors would find that laughable. Urhixidur (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

License refund

I agree with the IP who deleted this. I don't see how this section is worth including. It's not really an XP issue. It's more an issue with Dell's refund policy than anything else. Before re-inclusion in the article it would need to be substantially expanded to give it some context and explain why it's so notable as to be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you not to delete notable, well sourced content?--Kozuch (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd dispute that it's notable at all. As is quite obvious from the citations you've provided it's not unusual for refunds to be given and it's not a new policy. It's quite clearly stated in the EULA that if you don't agree to the EULA you can return the OS for a refund so why does it deserve to be in the article? If you want to keep this content in the article you need to explain clearly why giving a refund is so notable. At the moment, the message you are trying to convey is not clear at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I see the worlds most spread OS EULA suits as notable enough to be included in the article for articles good NPOV. Besides, I hate when somebody deletes well sourced and NPOV content just like that... there is literally tons of other unsourced content waiting to be deleted in Wikipedia. Regards, --Kozuch (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why some British man getting a refund that he is already entitled to under the EULA is notable. Why is this man different to anyone else who has received a refund? As for what you hate, or what I hate for that matter, that's irrelevant. to the issue. Personal preferences are not NPOV. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
PS: Expansion is also very poor reason for a deletion in a B-class article.--Kozuch (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by this. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You argued the text has to be "substantially expanded" before re-inclusion (which I did then though). I say it is not a good reason for a B-class article (for Featured article maybe is, but not here). But that is off topic. Regards --Kozuch (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The point of expansion is so that your point is clear. As written it wasn't so you needed to expand on what you wrote, otherwise what you wrote served no purpose and may as well be deleted since it appeared to be more trivia than anything else. Now that you have expanded it it's clear from the citations that the main issues are that non-acceptance of the EULA entitles the end user to a refund, that despite the entitlement some companies refuse to issue refunds and courts have enforced the entitlement. Other factors, such as the desire to use another OS and how much people were refunded are really irrelevant issues. I've rewritten the section appropriately, highlighting the important issues and removing the trivial issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Windows XP retail sales

The article says that retail sales of Windows XP ceased. This is not true, as I saw an advert (a few days ago) for a laptop with Windows XP Home Edition, in a catalogue for Tesco, or some other supermarket. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in a Morrisons leaflet. The offer started on 22 September 2008. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Retail sales refers to sales of boxed versions of the Windows XP operatinmg system, not bundled with hardware. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

WGA

Could someone please clear up the WGA section in this article? To me, it sounds like a virus (I was bombarded with it once and 3 days later it was mysteriously genuine. It felt like a scam.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.141.239 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WGA and WGA Notification are related but different things. Both keep changing. Notifications puts the display on your screen. As of August, 2008, the MS XP WGAN blog looks like this: http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2008/08/26/update-to-wga-notifications-for-windows-xp-professional.aspx There is new behavior, including a new persistent display. Accepting WGA Notification is (at the moment, for XP) voluntary. You can reject it and still get to Windows Update by passing the WGA. If anyone is interested in clearing this section up, the WGA page would be a good place to start. 12.226.24.113 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned things up a bit, activation is no longer conflated with WGA but work still needs to be done on clarifying the relationship between the checker and the notifications if any. Plugwash (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actual minimum required CPU speed is 100MHz

I added a footnote to the requirements table saying that although Microsoft states that the minimum CPU speed is 233MHz, Windows XP is able to be installed on a 100MHz computer.

I have added a citation for this claim in the form of a youtube video showing windows xp running on an intel pentium 100MHz, with CPU-Z showing the CPU information for verification.

A moderator has added the [requires verification] tag to the end of the footnote. How do I go about making this (more) verifiable? --Daneel (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to include a citation from a reliable, third party published source that supports your claim. Youtube is not considered to be a reliable source, which is why the {{Verify source}} tag was added. In addition to the two documents linked to in this reply, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies, for more guidance. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I will endeavor to find a more reliable reference for the statement. I have previously read Wikipedia:Verifiability, however I assumed (incorrectly), that a youtube video might suffice. Glad to have been corrected :) --Daneel (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

maximum ram?

When I tried obtain quote from PC-Specialist, a British Company making custom PC's; I inputted a custom PC with one of the Phenom x4 processors, 4GB of RAM and and OS of Windows XP and this is the message I've encountered:

Please note - Installing 4GBs of RAM onto PCs with Windows XP Home Operating System is not advised since 32-bit operating systems do not support 4GBs of system memory. We recommend clicking BACK and selecting 2GBs of system memory or changing your operating system to a 64-bit version. If you decide to continue with 4GBs of system memory it will not hurt but you will not be able to address it all. You probably will not be able to address much more than 3GB, and you might not be able to address more than 2GB. If you would like any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0844 499 4000

Does this mean that Windows XP has the maximum RAM support of 2GB only?

When I contacted one of their operators, he said that if I applied for 4GB only 3.5GB of ram will be addressed and recognized. His statement does seem to be dubious.

I have found no mention of how much more RAM can XP can address and support.

88.105.53.57 (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See MSDN, Memory Limits for Windows Releases: the physical memory limit for XP is 4 GiB; the per-process virtual address space limit is 2 GiB because the OS splits the 4 GiB between the app and the system. The "partition" can be moved so the app has 3 GiB and the system 1 GiB (with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and "4-gigabyte tuning"). Urhixidur (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
That page is wrong, I have seen a page on microsofts website with correct information but I cba looking for it right now. Windows XP 32 bit (at least with SP2, i've heared rumours that prior to SP2 it supported more) is limited to 4GB of physical ADDRESS SPACE, since RAM isn't the only thing that has to be in that address space this leads to less than 4GB of usable RAM. Plugwash (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I use Windows XP x86 with 4gb ram; only 3.25gb is recognized under My Computer>properties. No issues though. I used to run Windows XP x86 with 2gb of ram and it was still fine. 74.234.22.141 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Hail, not Criticize

Windows XP has been hailed for being resistant to viruses, malware, etc. It has NOT been criticized. I will provide external links soon. --Encyclopedia77 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been criticized as well. The fact that it was hailed is irrelevant to the criticism section. Needs a reference either way. Be sure to read the below discussion too. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That it has been criticised is a fairly uncontroversial claim and as such, doesn't really warrant the need for citations, although there are some in Criticism of Windows XP, which is linked to from the section we're speaking about. I don't think even Bill Gates would deny that there have been criticisms about security flaws.[17] --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with that. Apple has run a successful advertising campaign called Get a Mac, articulating exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. Warren -talk- 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Encyclopedia77

Three revisons were recently made to the article recently by User:Encyclopedia77.[18] I reverted these for the following reasons:

  1. This edit replaced the infobox image (Image:Windows XP SP3.png) with Image:Windows XP Desktop.png. Image:Windows XP SP3.png shows what is almost an "out of the box" desktop with examples of the various windows and menu styles, which is consistent with other articles. Image:Windows XP Desktop.png is a recent upload by Encyclopedia77 that shows some customisation by the user. As such, this is not a layout that would be seen by the majority of Windows users and so the previous image (Image:Windows XP SP3.png) seems a better image to use.
  2. Issues in (1) aside, the image that Encyclopedia77 is trying to bludgeon into the article has an invalid fair use rationale that prevents it from being used in this article, or any other article for that matter. The image and the uploader's talk page was tagged appropriately on 22 November 2008 (2 days ago) but the uploader has not seen fit to provide a valid FUR.
  3. His next edit replaced relevant and reasonably neutral text with glowing praise that is potentially non-NPOV. As stated by User:Josh the Nerd in his later edit summary[19], "Restored neutral, relevant wording (it's been both criticized and hailed, but only the criticism is relevant".
  4. Encyclopedia77's third edit added an {{npov}} tag to the article. I can see no npov issue other than the potentially non-npov statement added by Encyclopedia77. Encyclopedia77 has chosen not to elaborate as to why he believes there is an issue which makes the tag somewhat pointless. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I kind of wish the Windows XP desktop screenshot was actually named "Windows XP Desktop.png", because it's a more understandable name than "Windows XP SP3.png". That aside, I fully agree with the above -- the screenshot needs to show a default configuration. I suppose if someone wanted to write an article on customizing Windows XP with themes and stuff, that'd be good (I'm pretty sure I've suggested this in the past, too), but we need to stay narrowly focused on what Windows XP "is", in and of itself, not what it "can be" with customization and third-party software. Warren -talk- 17:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Documentation

It would be quite helpful if this article referenced the detailed operating system documentation. Such documentation addresses the overall OS structure and function, the registry, instructions and commands, services and utilities. This information is far too extensive to be included in the article; however, references to such information is invaluable to users and programmers alike. 75.170.45.231 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

op

kko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.112.225 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

14.4.09 Discounied

Woah! On 14.4.09, Windows XP will be discounied?! Good Job I'm on vista! mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Not for OEM's selling netbooks. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

But still for home PCs right. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Royale Noir: secret XP theme uncovered". istartedsomething.com. 2006-10-29. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
  2. ^ http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=75078
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_XP/Archive_3&oldid=1137326616"