Talk:Windows XP
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows XP article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Windows XP is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2005. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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
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)
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)
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 [further explanation needed]. 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 [further explanation needed] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
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[1] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Most popular
Is/was XP a most popular OS in the world? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)