Jump to content

Talk:Windows XP/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Most popular/billion computers

user:ViperSnake151 undid my edit citing the popularity and widespread use of XP, with edit summary "poorly cited, subjective". I've just readded it. Sorry, I don't see how this is "poorly cited" or "subjective". It's not like I wrote "XP is the bestest, a bazillion people use it - source: my programming teacher". But I added more info to the ref anyway. The source is a podcast by the BBC which can be heard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/globalnews, underneath "NATO warns Russia over Ukraine / Irish president in historic UK visit / Windows XP security deadline arrives." (On Stitcher, the episodes are separated by topic, which is where the "Users bid farewell" headline is from.)-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source that backs up the same claims: As we all know, Windows XP went on to become the world’s most popular operating system by some margin. Microsoft has never released any exact figures, but my educated guess is that Microsoft has sold over 1 billion Windows XP licenses over the last 13 years. However, I do concede that some sources say it is only the second most popular OS, such as this. And this states only "800 million users". Perhaps we can compromise on different wording?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Still supported

I edited the article to note that Windows XP is still supported until and including Patch Tuesday (today). See the advance notification for today's security bulletin (Affected Software > Windows Operating System and Components) to verify this. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

IP editors keep reverting the article to the version that prematurely claims that support has ended, despite the XML comments next to the infobox parameter that summarises the above and points to this discussion (except one editor who thinks that there's still eleven more years to go). I'm not going to edit war over it, but it's annoying that editors are ignoring the notes on the page itself, let alone the external sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This is just an opinion by one editor which is original research. All the sources we use say it ends on April 8, so we must go by that. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it's Microsoft's, as the source indicates, and they happen to be the vendor of the product that is the subject of this article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY. If all the sources, even Microsoft itself, just says "April 8", that's what we go with. But given that it's April 9 now, this conversation is now pretty much past its usefulness. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a big if.
This is what The Register said (emphasis mine):

Office 2003 together with Windows XP reach their end-of-life point after this Patch Tuesday [...]

Microsoft itself said (emphasis mine):

As a result, after April 8, 2014, technical assistance for Windows XP will no longer be available, including automatic updates that help protect your PC.

The latter reference was repeatedly removed from the article by those who inserted the verifiably false claim that support had ended when it actually hadn't. This was verifiable via both primary and secondary sources. New updates were released for Windows XP after support had supposedly ended according to this article. "If 5 reliable sources repeat an incorrect fact, then that does not justify repeating a known falsehood." (Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false) --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I wouldn't put much account in what The Register says. It is already listed in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources and I myself have first-hand seen how it twists words and meanings. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many other sources that agree with Microsoft's statement quoted above.[1][2][3][4] --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this relevant? News? [For lead]

"there were fears that the end of support would fuel piracy of newer Windows versions" [5] Isn't this about other, newer, versions of Windows than XP? comp.arch (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

This specifically refers to the concerns in China, that people would dump legit XP for pirated 7 or 8 because of the cost of newer versions. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in the lede. This article provides a general description of the XP operating system. The lede should be a short summary of that description. The fact that support for XP has ended probably belongs in the lede, but one sentence is sufficient. There is no reason to include someone's speculation or fear about ramifications of the end of support in the lede. Jeh (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

XP insecure (IE) - "Could Allow Remote Code Execution"

Now in public, didn't take long, and will not get fixed: [6] [7] comp.arch (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A related article has been nominated for deletion

Windows XP visual styles has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. Pinging the following editors, who have edited this page in recent months: Brainy J, Codename Lisa, David Levy, Elizium23, FleetCommand, Guy Macon, Jeh, Joshua Issac, JsyBird2532, Lentower, Upedge, ViperSnake151, Zellfaze --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What Does XP Really Mean? Is it the mirrored image of 9x?

I have got in touch with Windows XP before its releasing. The very first and official explanation of XP is eXPerience, but please take notice of form of XP in its logo: XP does present itself in the lowercase form, xp, to the upper right corner of Windows, each time we could find when it booting up. If you take a mirror against "xp", you could see into that mirror, another view similar with "9x" would crash into your eye. There is not Windows 9x at all, people just use 9x referring Windows products based on MSDOS and BIOS functions directly, such as Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME. Windows Me is the very last mature release for Windows 9x, and gives way to Windows XP, a completely different product based on NT rather than 9x. And what's more, if you could increase the number from 98, you would get 99 and ninety-ten, 9X, here X stands for ten in Roman Numerical system. And Windows XP is just the one taking this position, but it is not a native(9x) descent but just a foreigner(NT) speaking the similar language(GUI). So 9x could not be used to name it, but a similar or completely reverse one, xp, just suitable to it.

If 98 in Windows 98 refers the year 1998, then xp, which comes from nineteen ninety-ten (2000), would get a new date, 2009, not for its release but for its ending. And in fact, Windows Vista released in early 2007 failed to take place of Windows XP. But only when Windows 7 released in 2009, the place of Windows XP had been shocked, and eventually it gave way to it.

XP also has other meanings! Because Max OS X released before Windows XP, so we could also guess XP with the meaning of overwhelming than X.

If X could be thought as cross, then xp has another meaning, the cross of 1990s and the first decade of twenty first century. And P stands for Product, then XP does really stand for the product of the cross between NT and 9x.--Janagewen (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your "analysis" reminds strongly of Numerology. Find a WP:RS or else it doesn't belong here. A web site with similar speculation doesn't count. Jeh (talk) 10:25 am, 20 July 2014, Sunday (27 days ago) (UTC−7)
It is only a section in talk, talking about something on XP only! You don't have to judge it right or wrong, you don't have to evaluate its existence on this talk page. It does nothing with the main article! Janagewen (talk 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I view it as a suggestion for something that might be incorporated into the main article. And anything on any talk page can be commented on by anyone. And you were way out of line for, first, deleting my reply to you, and second, deleting the entire section. See WP:TALK, please. Jeh (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Keeping in mind WP:NOTFORUM and we should be discussing with a view to improving the article with proposed edits, I will mention that one likely explanation of "XP" is that it came about because of Cairo (operating system), that is, the Greek letters chi and rho are in Latin script X and P. See also Chi Rho as a Christian symbol. Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've no right to remove what I post. That is all right. If you think it worthy, let it stay, or else removing of it anytime is ok and welcome. I do really apologize for my deletion days ago, and thanks to Jeh, I understand it is improper to be put on here... Janagewen (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
For the reply of Elizium23, I do really object to discuss something about religions, it tends to be meaningless to this subsection. People who read this subsection in talk should not be misguided. This is only a talk, a casual talk. Janagewen (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Posting your thoughts here was only a very minor issue. How you reacted to the response to your post is a problem. Sadly, not the only one documented there. Please take the reports seriously. Jeh (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Jeh, even though I am not very glad about your comments on that Report page. But at this moment, I have to say thank you, no offense. I've necessarily removed something on this that other pages. Please don't revert! Show my greatest respect to you first! Janagewen (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
To Jeh, you don't have to be sad anytime you make warning to me. I had already experienced blocked for 24 hours. Once again, I have no purpose to modify or remove what you wrote on Wikipedia, if, that was only the wrong operation only I've made. But I have to say this is Wikipedia.org, anytime before you make any warning to me, do please evaluate the word phrase "human right" in your own country, if available. Janagewen (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Janagewen (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, dude! I agree with you. I found it the first time with my 20s Christmas present. We joked on it as passed 9x. But you've figured it out already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.47.20 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows XP/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Negative24 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead is too long. It should summarize the rest of the article. Consider moving paragraphs in the lead to their respective sections in the rest of the article. For example, paragraph two probably can be shortened down to just explain that it was developed originally as two projects and then merged. Paragraph three can almost entirely be moved to the reception section.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    The lead shows many dates that don't have references. It may be repetitive but these refs need to be shown. The removed features section contains no references.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article is getting to be a bit too big, especially the development sections. The sections about WinXP being in it's Neptune/Odyssey and Whistler states should be moved to separate pages (about the development to those separate projects) and then significantly shortened.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    Last major overhaul occurred about a month ago.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Main logo seems to have a disputation on WM Commons. I'm not that experienced with their policies so I don't know if that will make or break the use of that image.
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The development section contains no images yet talks about many of the UI changes in that time period. It would be great if images could be placed to illustrate what those specific features looked like (I'm looking for an image like what is in the Service Pack 2 section). Also, fFix the placement of the task grouping image in User interface (it breaks the flow of the text).
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    I'm placing this on hold for about a week (can be changed!). Glaring issues include the lead and the length of the article.
  • @Negative24: Hi. I am afraid I must vehemently contest your 6-B assessment for two reasons:
  1. Development of Windows XP occurred under strict non-disclosure conditions, thus any image for this discussion is in violation of WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4. We have had long discussions as to why leaked screenshots are unreliable and the matter is now cut and dried.
  2. You have already given a verdict of spin-off for the development section. So, requesting image for another article is no longer within the purview of this review.
Best regards
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Codename Lisa: I didn't realize that the development was under a non-disclosure condition or I wouldn't have asked that. I assumed that since the development was covered under many conferences that there were a few screenshots. No matter. I also considered your second reason during review. I thought that since it hasn't already been spun-off that this would be a good place to discuss the matter. Thanks for telling me. I have already updated the page. Do you have any other concerns? Thanks, -24Talk 03:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, there have been conferences and even usability tests. Conferences used very beautiful PowerPoint presentations with vivid decorative images too, but the images used there, although not in violation of NFCC#2 and NFCC#4, lack sufficient contextual significance for our purpose (NFCC#8 violation). Things have been different in 1997, in Bill Gates era. Maybe we get lucky and find something about Whistler if we tried a lot. But I brand that as FA material, not GA. And we also might get lucky and find event images. We can also use images like Bliss. In fact, unless I am much mistaken, the article used to have more images before boys at WP:NFCR came along... and deleted them. That's for now. Let's see where my research goes.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Review after hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review is identical since no work has been done since the first review.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Windows N.T. Vs. Microsoft Windows

I recently changed the Microsoft Windows (which has been here for years) to a link, then it got turned into a link to Windows N.T. ¿should I change it on later versions of Windows then to reflect this or is this unique to Windows XP? Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

H.i.
I.t. i.s. a.l.r.e.a.d.y. c.h.a.n.g.e.d. Y.o.u. n.e.e.d.n.'t. d.o. a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I say that you don't have to mock my spelling, it's a commonly accepted form of abbreviations, or do you just do such things to belittle be, because ::your mockery is making me angry and I've seen the style used numerous times and I have never inserted this style in a Wikipedia article, this type of mockery is nothing short of a personal attack try to stay on top of the pyramid.
Try to stay at the top of this pyramid when making arguments.
But then again I can't expect this level of maturity from you apparently, anyhow ¿should Windows Phone 8 and Windows Phone 8.1 also be moved to Windows N.T? as they are based on the same kernel. Also the next time you try to mock my style of writing to it correctly. I.T. I.S. W.R.I.T.T.E.N. I.N. C.A.P.I.T.A.L.I.S.E.D. L.E.T.T.E.R.. *rolls eyes at misusage your*
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Come on kids, play nicely. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Well excuse me for thinking that such level of mockery should be considered unwelcome in a civilized talk page.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Namlong618: Ah! Now I understand the purpose of that angry comment in CL's talk page! CL's action was the complete opposite of insult; it was a complement. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Aside from that, if you are allowed to write wrongly, then CL is allowed to write wrongly too. You really need to work on assuming good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Look at this: [8]. I inserted a {{tps}} at the beginning of my message and Namlong618 gets worked up and says: " I can see that you first call me a talk page stalker". Someone please tell him why he is wrong. Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Jeh (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

WITHDRAWN
Nomination gained zero consensus

The following discussion 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.

I propose Merging Criticism of Windows XP with Windows XP This will create a more NPOV article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Luke, I agree that we should keep Wikipedia:article size in mind, however, Article size is not pillar of Wikipedia. NPOV is. can we agree that it is preferable to have 1 article with both positive and negative sourced material presented in a NPOV than it is to have two seperate articles based on criticism or non criticism? if we can agree there we can work towards getting the article down to size. Size is important. but NPOV is critical. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the segregation of criticism is a violation of NPOV, NPOV violations are immune to editor consensus. I put forward 3 questions that we can use.
  • Is the topic of Windows XP portrayed ***Fairly*** by banning criticism in it
  • Are we representing all aspects of Windows XP ***Proportionally*** when we exclude anything that we call "Criticism"
  • Is there any ***bias*** when we say Windows XP is so major that no criticism can be placed in this article
I would argue that we are violating NPOV. We can merge the two articles easily enough into a single narrative. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
How is this article NPOV? It's not singing XP's praises. 95% of it is simply descriptive (with references). If you put the "Criticism" article in here, then per NPOV, you need to include an approximately equal-sized section of positive reviews. Criticism sections and articles are a minefield; read WP:CRITICISM before pursuing any similar ideas. If anything, the XP criticism article should be fixed, as it is violating NPOV. Jeh (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Jeh, I've gone ahead and removed the merger request ,I appreciate your feedback and I'm going to look at what I can do to help XP criticism , we should be able to shape it up into a fine article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. I just happened to look here first this evening. Jeh (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (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.

Beyond ridiculous

So, User:Comp.arch, you think we should add an analogous statement to every single OS article on Wikipedia? Because you can find a truckload of reliable sources in this sense for each and every single one (well, or at least those made since the Internet was created). Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about "remotely exploitable", that you fixed (thanks), so it's unclear why you helped and didn't revert. No, Windows XP is kind of special with significant market share, it is the second or third most popular Windows version and that is why news sources still report on it and report on bugs from the Windows 95 era. The news isn't that Windows 95 is exploitable and if that where the case and not XP, then I'm sure no news would be written about it as it has a 0.0% market share. comp.arch (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@User:Comp.arch: Reporting on security bugs based on software popularity is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not and may not care about market share when deciding whether to include or exclude this type of content. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not only my call, I am going by (multiple) news (not just security exploit databases) sources so is there a problem? And as these security holes will never be fixed by Microsoft's policies (and thus not get aged) and in fact the fixes in newer versions are a recipe for attacking older version, it thought it was relevant in the "End of support"-section. Maybe others will comment on this, I assumed previous reverts where on other false grounds, e.g. FleetCommand reverted on "potentially" unreliable source, and he hasn't reverted (now that I think he's convinced that this is the truth). comp.arch (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
What I could argue with in that section is "As of January 2014, at least 49% of all computers in China still ran XP", whether it is true or not (is there a source?); at that time Windows XP was still supported and XP seemed the most popular OS in China. I would however say that the scale of the problem (in China) belongs in that that section with numbers *after* the end of support. As far as I can see XP dropped to 2nd most popular around that time and is now (base on web use proxy statistics) at 25.36%[9] Or depending on you view (the more correct view that includes all "computers") 15.73% 3rd[10] (after Android). Still the former is also useful information, 2nd after Windows 7. comp.arch (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you exclude Stagefright (bug) from the "See also", in the Android (operating system) article? Under what conditions? I'm not saying I would; newer versions have been fixed, anyone can fix older un-supported versions (as the code is open source).. comp.arch (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@User:Comp.arch: Do you not get that the statement you added is true of every single operating system in existence once support for it is dropped? Or do you not get that we can't explain every single general operating system fact in an article on a specific one (much less a specific version as in this case)? Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I get that. I also explained that Windows XP is somewhat special as it is still hugely popular (at least in some countries) still making headlines, because of the aftermath of dropping support with this many users. I do not see this as a "clear violation" (if it is can you point to the exact place in the/a policy to be clear?), but WP:CONSENSUS should decide (as this is a value judgement and similar to what I'm about to say on other things, especially for this section, is not clear cut) if this should stay in. You didn't answer about Stagefright, possibly it should be treated the same? Would you also say that all info on XP or its use after EOL date, should be out? Note e.g. does this info on "specialized devices that run XP, particularly medical devices" belong here, as it will get dated (presumably these devices will get replaced and at some point few or none will use XP, while the bugs will always be in XP) or is it interesting historically?
Mostly, since it's only you and I here, and even if WP:NPOV where the issue, I think someone else would have to judge or show support to either opinion, so I'm not sure it's much point to only us two to discuss further. I have a WP:RS sources, what or who can trump that? comp.arch (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If it's about a bug that's so WP:NOTABLE in and of itself that it got its own Wikipedia article, I wouldn't really object to mentioning it. Otherwise, though... Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Comp.arch: Just wanted to let you know that I have significantly less problems with the re-written version, mainly because of the new sources. The Register is the only source on the Internet I would not trust with saying "the night is dark". I've had run into its untrustworthiness too many times. One time, it was drawing a doomsday scenario about a BIOS-infecting virus, using a Symantec blog post as a source. But comparing them showed that it was shamelessly putting word into Symantec's mouth. I haven't kept up with it, but you might want to see Blue Screen of Death § Incorrect attribution too; The Register is one of the entries in the list of shame.
There is one thing, however: I hate the word "numerous". (See WP:WTA.) But I am not going to give you a hard time for this trifle. Fleet Command (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I count one, two, "numerous" :) I just didn't want to say three as that is only a lower bound and probably "three" is not true.. It is bound to increase, and that is the point of the other guy, that this isn't really news, except it seems to be.. comp.arch (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discontinued

In case people are wondering what's going on, instead of replying at Fleet Command's talk page, the IP transcluded the entire talk page here. I've commented out that because it's not appropriate to transclude the entire page here. The relevant discussion is at User talk:FleetCommand#"Discontinued".
MOS:COMPUTING says not to use strange language. That means using real world definitions, including the definition of a product. It also says The act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation".. The software product here is Windows XP. While it is a member of the Windows family, that doesn't mean it's not a product. When you were able to buy Windows XP you didn't get the whole Windows family. You purchased Windows XP as a stand-alone product. To use a real-world analogy, the 2002 Subaru Outback is a member of the Subaru Outback family, but it is a stand-alone product. It's no longer available, having been discontinued in favour of the 2003 Outback, which was a different car, just as Windows Vista was different to Windows XP. That different software can run on later versions of Windows is irrelevant. CDs can be used in DVD players but that doesn't mean that a 2015 Toshiba DVD player is the same product as a 2000 Toshiba CD player. They are different products. Windows XP has most definitely been discontinued. You cannot purchase it any more, it is not being developed and there is extremely limited support. However, as I wrote in the discussion that you transcluded, products are generally supported for years after they have been discontinued. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Agree with AussieLegend. The "product" here is Windows XP, not the entire Windows NT family. XP is not in the Microsoft catalog for sale any more, therefore it's discontinued. And "end of support" is something very different; XP was supported for some time after it was discontinued. Jeh (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello.
AussieLegend's arguments are the most convincing, in that Windows XP (version 5.1 of Windows NT) must not be treated like WinRAR 4.5 (version 4.5 of WinRAR), even though both developers charge money for giving you an upgrade. I myself love this argument. Truly, Windows XP and Windows Vista are so different that one can make an exception and think about them as family, not different versions of the same thing. They can even co-exist.
But FleetCommand's talk page argument has serious weight in it too. MOS:COMPUTING says "Do not use synonyms of a certain words just because they are synonyms; collocation is very important." So, unless there are many sources that say "Windows XP is discontinued", I say Fleet Command is right.
As I said, I myself love AussieLegend's "discontinued". But I have thought myself not to think only about things that I myself think are correct. It is a dispute and the correct thing in a dispute is to reach a compromise. So, I find [redacted]'s argument a good middle ground.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Point 2 of the section of MOS:COMPUTING that you've quoted from regarding collocation is the part that says The act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation". If we're going to use the MOS for guidance then we should consistently follow it. I suspect that's why Comp.arch added it.[11] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot you attack anyone regardless of whether he supports you or not. In this case, I supported you. How am I supposed to respond to your criticism when I agree with you? And yet you criticize my agreement. Sheldon Cooper? —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
That was not an attack, but your response most certainly was. Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. I made no comment about you, only that MOS:COMPUTING says that the act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation". I certainly did not criticise your agreement at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of a section called "Collocation" is its verdict on collocation, not the definition of "discontinuation". Interpreting it otherwise is gaming the system. And in this case, not interpreting otherwise is what make me agree with you. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Besides MOS:COMPUTING, there is Discontinued, which redirects to End-of-life (product), which says
"indicating that the product is in the end of its useful life (from the vendor's point of view), and a vendor intends to stop marketing, selling, or sustaining it."
In this light I see no way to compromise in favor of removing the word "discontinued". Microsoft not only "intends to stop", they have stopped; it is not marketing, or selling, or sustaining Windows XP. One could make some argument that more recent versions that are still supported could be argued to be not yet entirely discontinued, but XP doesn't make it through any of these gates. Not any more.
Aaron J's argument in favor of not saying "discontinued" could be applied as well to every product in the family and even the 9x family too (since the chain of successors there does lead into the NT family, which still has a current product offered for sale). That would obviously be absurd. The article subject is Windows XP, not the entire Windows family including XP's predecessors and successors.
The fact that XP is still running on many many computers is also irrelevant to this point. My car is still running although almost ten years old; that doesn't mean that the particular model's sale is not "discontinued".
Compromise is fine where there are two sides that are both arguably right, or at least both have arguable points... but I don't see that as being the case here.
I suppose we could say "discontinued, but still widely used". That's as far as I think a compromise should go. Jeh (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jeh: Jeh, dear, I already said I support your position. You can take my support or my compromise; both are on the table. But there is something you should know: I have once seen the epic battle between AussieLegend and Fleet Command, and I don't want to see it again. (Midway, AussieLenged started attacking everyone, including me and my stalker. Well, I have a stalker who came to ANI, totally supported Aussie and said the meanest things about me in another user's talk page. AussieLegend attacked him too.) Implementing Aaron's compromise locally isn't half bad. If you take the Aaron's compromise, I can probably convince Fleet Command to take it too (I have some experience in convincing him to a compromise) and the whole situation would be resolved by tomorrow this time.
But no pressure. Your choice.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to participate here, please do not attack other editors, merely because they quoted the MOS in response to you quoting the MOS. The discussion was progressing amicably, I thought, until you decided to attack. Trying to score points against another editor by bringing up irrelevant, and misquoted, discussions serves little purpose. That's my last word on the matter, hopefully. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
New thought: The argument that XP should not be called "discontinued" because e.g. Windows 10, a later "version", is still on sale, could equally be applied to "end of support": It should not be said that XP is at "end of support" when Windows 10, a later "version", is still supported? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. "Discontinued" is the only thing that makes sense. Jeh (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"Discontinued" could be taken to mean "without a next version" (because the development has ceased). But you, I and Aussie agreed that Windows XP should be taken as a full product and it is indeed without a next version, i.e. SP3 was its last version. (Or the last patch.) The meaning of "End of support", however, is modified by the addition of "of Windows XP", which prevents it from leaking into its successors. Please Jeh; I'd like to be able to use this consensus in the future, without someone ridiculing me; it is unlike you to resort to such arguments. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not ridiculing you or anyone. I'm commenting on the argument, I believe first raised not by you but by the IP using the name "Aaron J", that "discontinued" does not apply here because later versions of Windows exist. Adding "of Windows XP" is unnecessary because that's the title and subject of the article; everything in it, including the property "discontinued", applies only to XP unless stated otherwise. If we had separate articles on e.g. WinRAR 3.3 vs. WinRAR 4.5 (or whatever the version numbers are) then we could equally well say in the former that its subject is "discontinued". But we just have an article on "WinRAR", so the rules there are different. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding references, please see the Windows Lifecycle Fact Sheet at microsoft.com. Note first that what we are calling "versions" here are identified by Microsoft as individual "product"s. Note that Windows XP is listed in the "end of support", "end of sales", and also "support retired" for all three SPs. So I think "discontinued" is very defensible here. As I said earlier, we could say "discontinued but still widely used". Jeh (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you intend to ridicule. Believe me, I would never say that about you, even if I believe you did.
But FYI, there was a full MedCab discussion about the use of "discontinued" with IE. (MedCab itself is discontinued, by the way.) The consensus was that "discontinued" cannot be used for single versions. But like I said, we agreed that XP is exempt from that case; that XP is a full product and Vista and 2000 are its predecessors and successors. Why are we constantly talking about things that are not the case here. The important thing is: You, I, Aussie and Aaron agree on a pivotal point. Can't we just establish a consensus?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I am a big believer in the notion that different circumstances can lead to different results; this tends to reduce the import of consensus in one case on other cases. Re IE, while IE has had many versions, it isn't a product. (Not individual versions, not "IE" as a whole. It's an OS component.) But Microsoft doesn't refer to "Windows XP" as a version. They refer to it as a different product than 2000 or Vista. That product is discontinued and I don't think any consensus that "'discontinued' cannot be used for single versions of IE" is relevant. (Not to the "WinRAR" example either.)
What wording do you suggest here, given the points raised here? Jeh (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems I've, unintentionally, sparked a big argument and it makes my head spin reading it.. About if Windows is only a version in a family that is not discontinued, see Ship of Theseus. As soon as you have a new version ("Vista"), you have a new API (I assume..). Even if all programs that run in XP run in later versions (might be untrue because of bugs), the converse is not true. comp.arch (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my comment above wasn't helpful/or too cryptic.. If Microsoft intends to never break compatibility (was their pride at one point), then going from A->B, the later version will run all programs that ran on A (assuming they did a perfect job). I remember at some point (Windows 95?) changes were made to insure bug compatibilty with Civilization (video game). There is no point, per se, to replace the lines of code over time (Ship of Theseus, was an imperfect analogy..), what I meant is that even just trying to add stuff (let alone drop stuff (that I do not know of)) to the API, has the potential to break compatibility with some software. And it probably did, as we humans are not perfect. Civilization was considered, a too important game to break compatibility with. I'm sure at the time and from XP->Vista some software fell through the cracks. Drivers? Do all XP drivers work in Vista and later? comp.arch (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COMPUTING#Collocation says a very simple thing: Use words that collocate, i.e. the definition that the majority use. Please pay attention Jeh: The majority, not Microsoft. (We are not Microsoft's PR.) Collation, not Microsoft use. For example. It does not matter whether the function of VirtualBox matches the definition of "simulation" or "emulation"; the majority say "virtualization", so use that. And why you, Codename Lisa? You've always been fair in discussions. You are saying we can make an exception to the MOS here. Alright, let me ask you this: What purpose does this making an exception serve? The article clearly describes the state of Windows XP and its end of support. You wanted to end the discussion fast. But it hasn't happened either.
Fleet Command (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
FleetCommand Yes, MOS:COMPUTING#Collocation does say that. But it also seems to say (perhaps I need different contact lenses?) "The act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation".". Microsoft has most certainly ceased development of XP. Therefore, per MOS, it is discontinued. We could argue that this point of MOS does not actually address sales or availability, but consider: One day in the past it was possible, as a wholesaler, to order retail box packages of various editions (Home, Professional, etc., or whatever they were called) of Windows XP from Microsoft and expect them to arrive forthwith. On some later day, it was not possible to do that; Microsoft was no longer accepting those orders. Why would we not say that Microsoft had discontinued availability of that product? Are you claiming that you could, in sincere belief, tell me with a straight face that no, Microsoft has not discontinued XP? Beg pardon but from here that would not make a bit of sense. (The fact that you could order copies of Vista on that day remains irrelevant. That's a different product.) Jeh (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I've already explained on FleetCommand's talk page that Version versus product name says Consistently use the most common product name. For example, use Windows XP, not Windows v5.1 or Windows NT v5.1? In fact MOS:COMPUTING has numerous references that support Windows XP being a product. Even without the issue of sales, Windows XP is discontinued per the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jeh: Alright, this discussion is becoming long and unbearable already. So, please answer this question: Yes or no; Do the majority of sources use "discontinued" for Windows XP?
@AussieLegend: Can I ask you a question and have an honest answer? Given our past history, I think this question can clear the air. You see, in the past, I had concluded that you had been mean to me, but someone in the ANI pointed it out that maybe you were not, and giving our attitude another chance is not bad. (It is like this: When someone from another culture lifts his middle finger, we should always bear in mind that maybe it is not insult in his culture.)
When you write stuff like the one in the message above (which you repeated twice already) do you, deep down, believe that it might change our mind? And are you aware that we interpret it as an act of deception?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on our interactions I doubt that there will be a positive outcome to anything I say, so let's just stick to the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Okay. I guess truce is better than hostility. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, I really don't know. I am fairly confident that we could find very few sources that would claim that Windows XP was in any way, by any interpretation, "continued". I know what a Google hit count would tell me for { "Windows XP" discontinued } but I don't know how to look for sources that say it isn't discontinued. Or, for that matter, for those that say it is discontinued but not using that exact word. I do know that the "horse's mouth" source, the Microsoft page I linked previously, says it's end-of-life, support is discontinued, etc. And I see no need for a secondary source to "interpret" such a plain-fact claim. FTR I find nothing compelling in FleetCommand's arguments whatsoever. As AussieLegend has said, the MOS page pointed to by FC says that "discontinued" is the right word to use in these circumstances. Jeh (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jeh: You are eluding the question. And I don't know why you keep invoking a logic with which I agreed from the first moment. Looks this discussion is not going anywhere.
@Fleet Command: Per Jeh's advice, I searched Google; lots of results but not all have the word "discontinued". Those that did, often used the phrase "discontinued support" and "discontinued service". So, no, I don't think "discontinued" collocates with "Windows XP". And to answer your question, no, I don't think omission of the word "discontinued" harms the article and I don't think its inclusion improves it significantly. So, I am officially pulling my support. This discussion is all yours. Actually, I do not care that much for one single word.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not really care too much about the word either.. Or which word is used. It seems it depends on whether we use the wording of WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:PRIMARY (Microsoft). First note, I was just putting "discontinued" on a bunch of articles of software/operating systems. Maybe Wikipedia can choose what word is used across articles. News seem to use "discontinued" for XP. I had a hard time finding that word from Microsoft in relation to XP. I found it in other contexts. "Forefront Client Security has been discontinued. Support is ending July 14th, 2015. Antimalware and Antispyware definition updates will no longer be available following the end of the support for the product version. Please evaluate System Center Endpoint Protection as a replacement, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/system-center-2012-r2-configuration-manager/default.aspx." If seems they use the word if there is no replacement from them. For XP this is the closest I found "Support for the Data Link Control (DLC) protocol has been discontinued in Windows XP"[12] This goes to my argument elsewhere, if the version after XP no longer supports something XP did, in relation to the API or similarly protocol/service, then you can say there is not a full substitute for XP (what I quoted applies to next prior version to XP (is this then an argument for saying Windows 2000 is "discontinued"?), but I'm sure something similar applies to XP. Microsoft would never say Windows where "discontinued" even if parts of it where..). We could go with "XP is an unsupported operating system" as a compromize (I'm not sure that it is better..)? comp.arch (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Comp.arch: I don't understand what API compatibility has to do with it. But for the record I have some exe's that were built on 3.5 that still run just fine on 10 - haven't found an exception, in fact. And yes, most driver binaries built for XP will work fine in Vista (assuming of course that you match bitness). So what? That doesn't mean they're the same product. They're both versions of Windows, but nobody is claiming that "Windows" was discontinued. Jeh (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Because Vista isn't the same product as XP, then XP can be discontinued while Vista isn't. XP isn't an umbrella article (except from the view of service pack versions, but see below). Nobody is saying Microsoft Windows (an umbrella article) is discontinued, and I doubt many would think that, reading this article ("successor" in infobox).
APIs (in general, the I/nterfaces are "contracts") have (almost everything (plus UIs) to) do with operating systems (OS); the OS "acts as an intermediary between programs and the computer hardware" (fundamental computer science). If just one program, that ran on XP (even a driver) doesn't run on a later version (and Microsoft doesn't intent to fix it), then in some sense, you can well argue that that version is "discontinued". The thing is, this can happen with any change to software, even trivial changes, let alone many in, such in a service pack to XP. See: semver. At least with a service pack, such as to XP, Microsoft intended to maintain compatibility. If one XP program did not run, it was a bug for Microsoft (might be considered, not too important..) but after discontinuation, then Microsoft doesn't considered it a bug (worth fixing, just look at the security notices from them, that omit XP (and older)). See deprecation about, how breaking compatibility, can be intentional (usually for the greater good of security, but see also Eolas). Another thing: "ActiveX is a deprecated software framework created by Microsoft". Who is going to come back and add "discontinued" to the XP article when no version of Windows supports it any longer? Now, at least isn't supported in Edge browser in Windows 10 (and IE – that Microsoft argued was an "OS component" in United States v. Microsoft Corp. – seems on the say out). Also, big parts of the Windows API where dropped in Windows RT (and could later disappear in all versions of Windows).
Another thing is the user interface (UI or UX, you could call that the "human facing [AP]I"). What you learned on XP does not apply (fully) to later versions. Humans are adaptable, and know often when things move around or say scrollbars get narrower. Imagine you where a robot with no intelligience, then later versions will be very confusing and incompatible to you.. :)
In theory, if Windows where open source somebody could come and maintain XP again (unlikely anyone would want too, more likely for abandoned, last version software). I would worry more about Dalvik (Android 4.4), that IS open source or any such software if "discontinued" applies. See if discontinued I put in at Dalvik. comp.arch (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who might argue what Windows XP is not "discontinued" because its development led right into Vista are mistaken about the product development cycle. Development on Vista did not wait to begin until after XP service pack development ended. In fact, per our own article on Windows Vista, development of Windows Vista actually started before XP's first shipment. It is true that Vista is basically a (very large) series of changes to XP, but this work was done starting with a fork of the XP source codebase that happened fairly early in XP's development. The "XP fork" did continue for some time and was the basis for hotfix and service pack development (this is why the build numbers don't change for SPs: The build number is frozen at first ship and is not incremented in the SP LOD) but this work proceeded in parallel with the work on Vista. Now, the development on the XP branch has ceased. Therefore it's discontinued. The fact that another branch (what was at the time the Vista branch) supported ongoing development is irrelevant to that. Jeh (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

Ryans1908761 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC) hi I went to edit this page

 Not done No request made. You cannot edit this article as it is protected and you are not autoconfirmed. You may request edits, or you can become autoconfirmed by first making edits to other, non-protected articles. Meters (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove the 'x years ago' in the date released section.

Its both out of date and not really necessary. Jumballi (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How can it be out of date? It automatically updates. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... This looks like a case of "I just don't like it". —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically, how can anything be really "Discontinued" or "Out of Date" if Microsoft released a "Windows XP Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - June 2016 (KB890830), not just for Windows XP Embedded, rather "Windows XP?" Somebody at Microsoft is still supporting XP to an extent.Easeltine (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead removal by User:Champion

Hello

Champion, you have been removing content from the article. I would like to know what you were thinking. Hopefully when I know it, we can work out this little dispute.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa,
I am trying to adress the issues on the GA nomination, so hopefully, we can have a peer review on this article, I did not mean to remove any content, but merely to merge some unnecessary content from the lead to other sections. Apologize for any misunderstanding. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
"merge some unnecessary content from the lead to other sections".
@Champion: Wrong thing to do! The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article; it is supposed to repeat and be redundant. More on this in WP:LEAD.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: I have done everything to make sure that it still summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD, however, I am shortening it due to the GA nomination. Regards, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Split development section into Development of Windows XP

The sections is just overly long, with several subsections, so I believe that it is up for a split. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of articles have long sections with several subsections. It used to be a separate article; it was merged into this one. I see no significant change in circumstances that would indicate that having a single article is now a bad idea. Jeh (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Our readable prose size is at 33 kB. Looks like the article size is just fine. WP:SIZERULE.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, development section into Development of Windows XP Арсений Иванов (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed before and rejected. Unless you have some new arguments to make for your side there is no reason to think it won't be rejected again. And your history of abusive editing re this question is not going to help make your case. Further attempts by you to restore the material to the "Development of" article will be regarded as disruptive editing and will be reported accordingly. Jeh (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Windows XP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Windows XP. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

End of "extended support" has never meant "no more patches"

Hey, guys. Codename Lisa, if you don't mind, I need you to explain your edit summary: End of "extended support" has never meant "no more patches".

I was under the impression that this is exactly when the end of extended support means.

On the other hand, since our malicious sock started counter-acting you, and we know he wants to damage Wikipedia, there is probably merit in your edit summary. Or ... is there? I mean, in one edit summary, he confesses to being Flyboy the notorious disruptor and sock and in another, he denies it and says "bad-faith accusations without SPI". All these years of consistently trying and failing to do any harm might have caused him to develop a brain tumor!

Just explain yourself, lovebird, will you?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, FleetCommand
Please do not call me "lovebird" ever again.
The end of extended support marks the end of Microsoft's obligation to provide free security patches. There are two keywords here: "free" and "obligation". Even after the extended support, Microsoft may provide premium patching services. In fact, when Windows XP expended its extended support period, many news outlets reported various organizations that purchased premium support.
Nevertheless, when Microsoft published those extracurricular patches for WannaCry, it wasn't doing it out of obligation, mandate, or such. It was a one-time exceptional act that bestowed a privilege to which no one was entitled. To be more specific, those patches were not part of any support plan, policy or such. I removed information that unwittingly implied the contrary.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
My Google searches didn't find a premium support case. Microsoft Premier Support site seems to provide something but I can't find out what, because it needs signing in with an account that has a contract. So, you might want to show me a "for instance".
I can also argue that the premium patching service, even if it exists, is also a kind of thing with no guarantee. But that argument is in favor of your removal, not against it. One or two off-the-book patches mustn't imply that Microsoft has forgotten to end the extended support.
Looking at the contribution, I can find fault with it: "Extended support ended on April 8, 2014 with the exception of 2 patches released in [~snip~]." This is directly saying (not implying) that support for two patches has not ended. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 09:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You can try this: "Lifecycle FAQ—general policy questions". Support. Microsoft. 9 March 2017.
Read the following questions and their answers.
  • For business, developer, and desktop operating system software, will Microsoft offer support beyond Extended Support?
  • How does the Lifecycle Policy work with Premier Support?
  • How can customers who do not have a Premier Support Agreement obtain Extended Hotfix Support for non-security updates?
  • How will the Lifecycle Policy affect telephone and web support options that are customized to meet the requirements of home users and home office customers?
But to sum it up, Premium Assurance adds 6 more years to the previous 10. Extended Hotfix Support program is for purchasing non-security patches during Extended Support period.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

WannaCry and Petya

Hello, everyone

Today, I reverted a contribution by RecentEdits. (Hello, RecentEdits; I hope you are seeing this.) But because the edit summary field could not fully accommodate my reason, I am writing it here. For reference, here is the diff of the reversion: revision 791434022

The problems with the contribution are as follows:

  1. Violation of our neutral point of view policy: The contribution is strewn with sensational metaphors and weasel words, such as "One of the most notable victims" (what makes it most notable?), "after a couple of days of carnage" (there was no literal bloodshed), "spreads rapidly across"
  2. Violation of our Verification policy: In neither of the three sources given is a single mention of Windows XP, which means this contribution must have not appeared in this article in the first place. In fact, it appears Windows XP was actually immune to WannaCry attack: Palmer, Danny (31 May 2017). "Blue screen of death saved Windows XP from WannaCry ransomware, say security researchers". ZDNet. CBS Interactive.

So, one the whole, regardless of the intention of the author, this whole contribution sensationally and wrongly implicate Windows XP.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 July 2017

I would like to add the old website of Windows XP from the Internet Way Back Machine. Url: http://web.archive.org/web/20030215104348/http://www.microsoft.com:80/windowsXP/default.asp Joshua Shah 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuarshah (talk • contribs) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, Joshuarshah, I don't have permission to be able to edit the page, but I know you'll need to be clearer on why you want to add that URL as a source. What fact are you going to support with that URL? — Gestrid (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Article is no longer protected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove Official Website

The official website for this article should be removed as per the discussion here. 128.12.255.132 (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to do: I am not seeing any official website specified in the article source code. Can you? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 00:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't mean there is nothing to be done. There is no website in the source code because the infobox automatically pulls the url from Wikidata. Now that the url is no longer valid, it should probably be removed from Wikidata. Alternatively, to simply suppress the website here, |website=hide needs to be added to the infobox. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done: Thanks for the tip AussieLegend; I've hidden the official website link from the article. 128.12.255.132 (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Service Pack 3 needs Service Pack 1

Codename Lisa, you reverted my edition saying "Reverted content deletion without explanation". Had you not see my edit summary here? My explanation was right there: "WRONG! This was true only with SP2 in relation to SP1. SP3 requires SP1 to be installed, it cannot be installed directly!". Can now the misleading info be removed?--200.223.199.146 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi.
I sorry for the delay in my response. I did see the red notification icon but I deliberately ignored it because I didn't want to be tempted to do a fourth revert today. I was planning to contact a WikiProject to assess your edit. But it turns out the red icon was just about the message you sent in my talk page.
Anyway, Service Pack 3 can be integrated into a Windows XP installation source without first integrating Service Pack 1. Also, if I am not mistaken, the network administrator's version of Service Pack 3 can be installed without having Service Pack 1 first. But the Windows Update version needs Service Pack 1 because of the modifications that it does to the servicing module. (There was no servicing stack at the time.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, in the talk page of the article, you mean. I empirically confirmed that SP3 needs SP1 when trying to install it recently. I had the "WindowsXP-KB936929-SP3-x86-PTB.exe", and a Windows XP without any Service Pack. I got an error message saying that SP3 requires at least SP1. So the info on Wikipedia is incorrect. This version weights 302MB and was download directly from https://web.archive.org/web/20150811040225/http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/c/c/dccd3e5b-aef9-4f61-bfc4-d973396282aa/WindowsXP-KB936929-SP3-x86-PTB.exe , the official Microsoft site. So you see the update code and the file size are not trivia, as you labeled, but a way to identify which version of the Service Pack we are talking about (each Service Pack has more than one version).
The reference used in the article to support the info "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches so that only the latest service pack needs to be installed, and also includes new revisions." is http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/overview.mspx, a page about SP2 and published in 2004. So it does not supports info about SP3 (released on 2008), it's talking only about SP2, as I said in my edit summary: "This was true only with SP2 in relation to SP1." The reference cannot allow someone to conclude that SP3 does not need SP1, because it talked only about SP2!!! It's misleading.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi again
Did you test slipstreaming it into a Windows XP RTM image?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, the source provided on the article, http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/overview.mspx, only talks about SP2 in relation to SP1. It cannot support any claim about SP3. This is already sufficient to motivate the removal of the claim, as it's misleading. The source said nothing about SP3, but the person who wrote this sentence on the article changed the meaning of the claims. I mentioned the empirical testing just as the trigger that pointed to me that the claim was wrong in the first place. I believed what I've read on Wikipedia, and it was wrong, when I tried.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
You are dodging my question.
But I guess I can leave this matter alone. We have other disputes.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is my two cents:
  • 200.223.199.146 is right about SP3 needing SP1: a Microsoft TechNet article confirms this, although curiously, the Microsoft Support article said nothing about it. We'll call that an oversight on Microsoft's part.
  • Codename Lisa is right about the slipstreaming matter: It is possible to slipstream SP3 into a Windows XP RTM (without service pack) installation source. [13][14]
  • 200.223.199.146 has literally done everything else wrong, including the removal of the sentence discussed here. The sentence "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches" is still completely correct. The worst thing he has done is this blanket counter-revert which brings back bad edits made by others. I can say with much confidence that technical accuracy isn't the main source of dispute here; brutish behavior is as much problematic. Edit responsibly.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 20:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
FleetCommand, how can the sentence "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches" be correct, if SP3 requires SP1? If SP3 included everything previously released, it would include SP1 too, and not require SP1. Something that SP1 included must be missing on SP3, as it requires SP1 first.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
See my bullet point #2: SP3 can be slipstreamed into a Windows XP image without slipstreaming SP1 first. That means SP3 is cumulatively complete. The need for SP1 when the OS is online must therefore have arised from technical difficulties, not incompleteness. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I checked now. Still, the reference https://web.archive.org/web/20070220161040/http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/overview.mspx only says "Note: You may recall that Windows XP Service Pack 1 (SP1) was released in September 2002. If you never installed SP1, don't worry. Every improvement contained in SP1 is also included in SP2." This says nothing about SP3, only about SP2 in relation to SP1. So the article cannot claim "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches so that only the latest service pack needs to be installed" as it did.--200.223.199.146 (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
And that's why I said you are wrong in every other respect. You are clearly holding a double standard: You are permitting your own supervision on the source while you don't accept other people's suervision. The purpose of your supervision seems to be improving technical accuracy, while you are defeating this purpose, by not accepting technically accurate statement from others. This double standard means Wikipedia achieves neither verifiability nor accuracy, but simply censorship.
Off the bat, I can remember four cases where editor's supervision rejected bad sources. So, supervision is a good thing. Not cooperating and double standards are not.
If the source is not good enough, replace it. I provided plenty above. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 10:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The Win XP logo is missing.

The Win XP logo is missing on the sidebar.


Cnon20 (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Cnon20

WIndows XP was not "preceded by" Windows ME

In terms of chronology of sale, yes, it was. But that's not what this template field is about.

The template here correctly says that Windows XP was a "version of' Windows NT.

In terms of line of development, Windows XP was absolutely not preceded by Windows ME; Windows XP is not a later version of ME. The build and version number strings of 95, 98, ME follow one line of progression. THose of the NT family follow another. Windows 2000 was NT 5.0 / build 2195; XP was 5.1 / build 2600; Vista was 6.0. / build 6000. Where does ME fit on this sequence? It doesn't. 98's version/build number was 4.1.2222, and ME, 4.90.3000! Clearly Microsoft did not consider them part of the same LOD.

And, of course, ME was never intended for anything but home users. So they don't have the same target audience. XP's target audience does include ME's but that does not make them the same, nor does it make ME XP's "predecessor" as we use the field. Jeh (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The most that can be said in support of the claim that XP was "preceded by" ME is that when MS stopped selling ME, they offered XP to 95/98/ME customers instead. But XP was already well in development while ME was still being sold. When GM shut down Pontiac, did we start saying that Chevrolet was its "successor"? Nonsense. Jeh (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Whistler Info

The first build of Whistler was 5.0.2202.1 (disputed over Post-RTM 2000 or first build of Whistler. Screenshot: https://www.thecollectionbook.info/gallery/galleries/windows/nt%20kernel/windows%20xp/5.0.2202.1/english/professional/Screen%20057.png) or 5.0.2211.1 (In the tag on the bottom right corner it says "Whistler Windows 2001 Professional". Screenshot: https://www.thecollectionbook.info/gallery/galleries/windows/nt%20kernel/windows%20xp/5.0.2211.1/english/professional/Screen%20044.png) DVINTHEHOUSEMAN (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows XP/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nova Crystallis (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Reviewing later. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Check the "External links" part of the GA toolbox. Some of the links are dead or are linking to completely different things.
    • You will have to check each reference to see if they still link to the thing you want.
    •  Done All references checked and furnished with archive links. Ones that were either dead or seemingly not relevant have been removed or replaced. The 'too many refs in one place' issue below may still exist, I've not checked thoroughly for that yet. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 23:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Improvements were also made to IntelliMirror features such as Offline Files, Roaming user profiles and Folder redirection." [citation needed]
 Done -- ChamithN (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done - I've removed the latter two paragraphs, as they don't really add any information not provided elsewhere. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 09:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • References need various things that is needed to be completed. For example, access dates, publishers, dates, authors, etc.
    •  Done I believe I've fixed them all! Some references didn't list authors or publication dates, but I've added blank (i.e. |author=<!--N/A-->) parameters to those. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Images are copyrighted, but there are no realistic alternatives.
    • Yeah, unfortunately there aren't any suitable alternatives - we need to show the operating system's UI, and can only really do that by using non-free content. So this is a {{cantfix}}. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Plenty of things to fix before it becomes a GA. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A few more things:

  • Ref 2 is a bare ref and needs citation form.
  • Last bullet point of Other features needs the ref fixed.
  • Ref 16, 20, 31, 45, and 84 needs consistent date formats.
  • Ref 99 needs to be fixed.

Getting there. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 20:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: thanks for this, all  Done. ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 20:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Passing the article. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Nova Crystallis: Fantastic - thanks! ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 00:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

LastXP

Someone made an OS like Windows® XP. The OS is called Last XP. There are versions 12 to 22, and the administrator of the forum where I saw that only Last XP 12+ were for general use, that he lost Last XP 1 to 11, and only versions 9+ weren't used only by his family and friends. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

|_ It's not so much of the "new OS", as much as it is a rebranded version of Windows Embedded POSReady 2009, which is, in its turn, the Embedded version of XP with updates until April-May 2019. There's been manyt unofficial repacks of WinXP, including MiniXP, MediaXP and what not Tabdiukov (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"Windows Express" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Windows Express. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Source code leaks

Should this be written about on the main Windows XP article? It can have security implications for the remaining Windows XP users and also a legal minefield for projects like Wine and ReactOS. 94.175.6.205 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

If it has received significant coverage in third-party media and you think it should be in the article, add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbfur (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done -- Ljcool2006 (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The Unofficial XP Service Pack 4

The article probably should have mentioned the Unofficial XP Service Pack 4. Most of us that use XP in the VirtualBox have at least considered this version. Major Geeks says this about it: "Windows XP Service Pack 4 Unofficial is a cumulative update rollup for Windows XP (x86) English as well as security enhancements not addressed by Microsoft. 3.1b is expected to be the final release."[1][2][3] ERPMAN is an interesting site for old Windows updates.Easeltine (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/details/windows_xp_service_pack_4_unofficial.html
  2. ^ http://ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133918#133918
  3. ^ http://erpman1.tripod.com/wnt5xupd.html/ERPMan-s-Windows-2000-XP-Server-2003-System-Updates-Page

OOBE Setup Music

It should be mentioned in the article the OOBE Setup music and its origins. Here's a link for official source: https://soundcloud.com/stanlepard/windows-98-velkommen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.3.59 (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The source you cited isn't sufficient to back up your claim that music is played during setup. Can you find a reliable source backing your claim? Herbfur (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

About "citation needed" for the statement about Windows XP being the last "Microsoft Windows"

I see the following statement has been marked as "citation needed":

Windows XP is also the last version (other than server) to have the name "Microsoft Windows". The software was rebranded as just windows from Windows Vista onwards.

I did some research out of curiosity, and I believe it refers to the name shown in System properties. I found two images on the net that show this change, but I don't own them. If two images like these could be used as verification for the aforementioned statement, I can take screenshots and upload them to Wikipedia under a reasonable license. XP: https://i.imgur.com/DwyAI1W.png Vista: https://i.imgur.com/xcl90Si.png

--Fanbus (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding branding as "Microsoft Windows"

I wanted to open a discussion about the disputed line in the end of the lead that I just removed. The line said that Windows XP was the last version branded as "Microsoft Windows". The issue is that Microsoft never really branded any version as "Microsoft Windows" and marketed every version as just "Windows". Windows XP was the last to carry the name "Microsoft" in its packaging and in its identification in Winver, but Windows Vista still carried it in the bootloader before Windows 7 completely eliminated it. I think this is trivial and doesn't belong in the lead, but another approach would to be mention it elsewhere as a sort of gradual transition away from including "Microsoft" in the name. I'll cite more sources on the matter tomorrow, it's well after midnight where I am. Thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

it is not trivial because it is still being branded as "Microsoft Windows Vista" making the claim that XP is the last to be branded as such as false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.53.123 (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Microsoft never really branded any version as "Microsoft Windows" - Looking through some earlier versions of Windows (I have everything up to 7, including (unfortunately) Vista, all are branded "Microsoft Windows", although Microsoft is in a smaller font. XP even identifies itself as Microsoft Windows XP. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Dubious sources: Activation

The sources claiming that the internet was required and used information from hardware to activate seems relatively dubious, considering that Windows XP shipped with pre-printed activation keys on the physical CD labels, as did windows 95 and 98. In fact, it is still possible to install Windows XP with a KeyGen- which inherently means it's not using hardware identification at all to activate. This in fact remained true up and through windows 8. Rather, the use of the Network and hardware is a distinguishing feature of windows 10 that was not present in Windows XP. Therefore, the sources cited need to be carefully re-read and verified with other sources, to ensure that they are in fact correct. 108.235.248.227 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about exactly which part of the paragraph you disagree with? I've read it several times and the article correctly describe how Microsoft Product Activation worked on Windows XP. Your opening sentence says that sources claiming that the internet was required but I did not find that anywhere in the article or the corresponding citation. Windows XP could be activated either by phone or internet. DavidDelaune (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not know if this helps, but I installed XP on a machine, and the activation code I supplied was rejected. The reason given was that the CD I used was from an OEM, but the code was from a different source - I think it was a corporate user. I do not know if this was "built into the CD" or by internet access to MicroSoft. I susspect that early XP was same as Windows 98, and later XP might have required internet connection. FYI - I have installed Win 10 without internet connecting, full activation and payment to MicroSoft will no doubt have to be paid soon. 92.238.31.69 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_XP/Archive_5&oldid=1142783184"