![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The introduction states that the retail sale of Windows XP ceased on June 30 2008. How can this be true if one is still able to buy the full edition of both XP Home and Professional at amazon.com? Just do a search. This should be corrected. a.buchhorn ( talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
See here. There is some misconception about Windows XP running 3 programs simultaneously. I think the section needs to be clarified.
Please add Extended Support. Now. Jacob Hnri 6 ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I heard a foreign friend talking about Windows Sweet. Could you please tell me what you know about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.73.158 ( talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm missing the development history in this article. With the cancled other windows projects and development teams that are combined. These infos are in some other articles. The problem is that I don't get the period between win 95 and 96/97/98 and 2k integration to the windows nt based(xp) os... hope you understand my problem. I don't get it :p mabdul 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I find the flow of this article slightly difficult given the date formats found within: day month year, instead of month day year. The former is not in the mainstream media as much as the latter -- correct me if I'm wrong. And within this same article, we find dates of the latter in combination with dates of the former. Thus, the allowing of the two formats to be used proves this article's inconsistency. Personally, I know the military uses the former format but this is not the military; can you link to other articles on the relative subject that use this format? Taking a look at Windows_Vista proves it to the contrary where you can see it uses the latter format I'm in favor of.
I suggest we rewrite this article to use the latter more commonly accepted format: month day year, in an effort to increase the flow and consistency of the article on a more common level. I welcome discussion on this, please -- I would've already started to rewrite the dates but I thought it would be more courteous to discuss it first since someone already thought it to be valid to write it as such.. after some consensus, or after about a week should I receive no reply, I'll go ahead and change the dates found within according to the more commonly used format. CaptainMorgan ( talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a Windows XP specific problem and it's very difficult to find the information to correct the problem. Apparently related to SP 3 or some other update(s) though I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to look into that. May be related to properties of video cards also but will affect computers that had previously worked correctly with same cards and the same settings.
The issue is primarily images and backgrounds not displaying at all in Internet Explorer, Firefox and possibly other browsers. Colors may not be apparent though it may be preferable to some for colored text to display as black. "Radio button" icons and text are frequently invisible though moving the mouse cursor may reveal something is at a spot by changing shape and may or may not cause a text description to appear when the mouse cursor shape changes. Many web pages don't use alt text or don't use it correctly and it's only visible when looking at the source code. Can be a very big problem for visually impaired people.
This issue affects computers with the Use High Contrast box checked in Accessibility Properties and unchecking that box either solves the problem completely or makes a huge difference when that does correct the problem.
http://helpmerick.com/firefox-or-internet-explorer-doesnt-display-all-pictures-or-backgrounds.htm
I presume a section on this would also be appropriate in an article on browsers. -- Moss&Fern ( talk) 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches so that only the latest service pack needs to be installed...".
However, Microsoft states that, with regard to Service Pack 3: "To install SP3, either Windows XP Service Pack 1a (SP1a) or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) must already be installed." ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/sp3/default.mspx).
Some clarification would be helpful.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.41.5 ( talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=&C2=1173 works. Location on page of the url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#cite_note-lifecycle-1
btw, I scanned thru a couple wp help pages purportedly relevant to "reflist", but didn't see clue as to editing *content* of reflist. else i'd have just edited ref 2 url myself :-) 2z2z ( talk) 07:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I heard from other news articles that Windows XP will be ending by January 2011 because all hard drives (current and new ones) will use the 4K advanced format. XP users will have to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 before the transition.-- 72.148.3.214 ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph: It was first released in August 2001
In the second paragraph: Windows XP was first released on October 25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.6.82 ( talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is something that I need to fight over. Is there a need for users to include "(Service Pack 2 x64 and Service Pack 3 x86)" in the support status of Windows XP? Windows XP Service Pack 2 (32-bit) went out of support yesterday and is only supported on Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 until 8 April 2014. I personally find it unnecessary, but if you want to discuss this without anymore edit wars, please do. -- 74.42.188.45 ( talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This line probably belongs under the overall service pack heading, not in the SP3 section:
Really, that applies to all 3 service packs, most of all to SP2, which broke all security software and many others that tripped over DEP. It's not even specific to XP service packs. Any takers? Foxyshadis ( talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, but as long as you are able to prove it by providing verifiable evidence in reliable sources, this sentence will stay put.
Of course, I am personally inclined to agree with you. Service Pack 2 did cause a reboot loop on my old computer whose processor was a Pentium 4 Prescott. I solved the problem in less than an half an hour by searching Microsoft Support web site. The fact is that Microsoft constantly warns organizations and OEMs in advance to test Service Packs before deploying them and to report the problems back to Microsoft, always makes Service Pack Blocker tools and always publishes beta releases of Service Packs — but alas, people don't pay due attention until disaster strikes! See another example: Kernel_Patch_Protection#Criticisms.
Fleet Command ( talk) 07:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)There seems to have been a flurry of activity relating to 219.93.84.105 ( talk · contribs) who added a link to tecdiary.com That user has now been banned for spamming. I see absolutely no reason to keep the link so have deleted it. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 08:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, as of October 2010, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world with a 48.9% market share, having peaked at 76.1% in January 2007.
W3School stats only measure users who visit w3schools.com, so they don't represent the overall market. This is also specified on their site:
From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of seven years, you can read the long term trends of operating system usage.
-- Norbiu ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is really nice if you use this mouse, no, I will recommend this even. ( Not :-| ) The recommendation of this company product is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING which are over WP:V (from the company page). Microsoft Mice is completely unrelevant and unrelated product mention. It also has no relevant standard for Windows XP or mouses. -- Perhelion ( talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Windows 7 share tops XP for first time in U.S. - perhaps time to update the article? Samatva ( talk) 16:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Somebody has added a section on multi-procesor limits of XP - thanks for that. It says Professional supports two processors and Home Edition supports one. Can somebody please add something to make this more precise??? What I mean to say, is, will it support a single chip quad-core?, or only use two cores??? Or are we actually talking about separate processors here? I have a feeling that it is processors we are talking about here and not cores - but non-techies like myself, we might get them mixed up. Just thought a short sentence stating that multi-cores (quad and up) are supported, and that the limit strictly applies to processors not cores (assuming this is correct). Anyway, thanks in advance to anybody who is proficient in this particular matter and can add the sentence.
It seems like every PC ever come across is still using XP, support extended until 2014? That must be well beyond what was originally planned back in '01. It's over 10 years old and still just the best apparently. Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? XP is as old as Wikipedia. 169.139.19.108 ( talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There IS an explanation for the phenomenon but I have forgotten the source, so I don't think you can put it into the article. But according to the forgotten source, Windows XP changed the role of the computers from an expense into that of a strategic asset.
On the whole, I think you had better search for a lot of sources before deciding to add this to the article. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
9/1/2011: 71.234.217.82: I think that a poor economy in the US (probably XP's largest market worldwide) combined with the much less frequent improvements in technology have both contributed to XP long life. While Windows 95 introduced a new shell (Explorer) and Windows 98 introduced FAT32 & USB, Windows XP has been compatible with all (or most) of the gradual improvements in the last 10 years, making a new OS unnecessary. It also helps that XP has very low system requirements (64MB RAM) compared to Windows Vista and Windows 7 (512MB-1GB RAM); both those OS's realistically require a hardware upgrade cycle. Signed 71.234.217.82. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.217.82 ( talk) 06:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The criticism section is mostly unsourced and also not very appropriate. I moved this chunk to the already existing page about WinXp critisicm and removed the section from this article, so it is in line with the other OS articles. StoneProphet ( talk) 15:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC) they dont have sound is there anything on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.157.58 ( talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the recent w3schools OS statistics report for August 2011, I kinda have a feeling that it's starting to become tiresome to having to monitor Windows XP market share now that it is no longer the most widely used operating system for accessing the internet.
The latest report has Windows 7 moving up 1.3% to 40.4% and Windows XP losing 1.1% to 38%, thus overtaking Windows XP's place.
Before there is any sort of flaming, edit-warring or reverting over which OS is the most widely used OS for accessing the internet, is it a good idea to:
1. Remove the references to the current market share for Windows XP now and reword the paragraph regarding the w3schools OS market share report?
2. Wait until after the end of this year and remove the references to the current Windows XP market share?
Share your thoughts on what should be done. 184.12.243.144 ( talk) 07:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Location of term limits Downgrade? Windows 7 Pro OEM EULA:
15. TRANSITION TO DOWNGRADE. Instead, the software, you can use one of the following earlier versions:
· Windows Vista Business,
· Microsoft Windows XP Professional,
· Microsoft Windows Professional x64 Edition, or
· Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.
This agreement covers the use of earlier versions. If an earlier version contains components which are not included in the new version of the software, using these components, you must comply with all conditions of use contained in the agreement, which accompanies an earlier version. Neither the manufacturer or installer, nor Microsoft is not responsible for delivering to you earlier. You must purchase the earlier version separately. You can always replace an earlier version of this version of the software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miros 0571 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the first version of Windows to use the NT kernel Windows NT 3.11? Captainsid2001 ( talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Almost nothing in the section on ATM and Vendor users of XP has a citation. This is an interesting area of discussion for the operating system enthusiast, but the entire section really ought to be rewritten, cleaned up, and feature proper citations for its claims. It should also probably be expanded in light of the large number of businesses shipping machines that use various versions of Windows XP Embedded ranging from cash-registers to billboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not cite w3schools statistics. The statistics only apply to people who access w3schools.com, not the internet at large. That's hardly a representative sample of the public! - furrykef ( Talk at me) 07:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) Allow me to elaborate a bit further. The current wording is, "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world...". This is an absurd claim. You can't take server logs from one site, especially a site with a very specific demographic, and say "this is the distribution of OSes among users all across the internet". You can only say, "this is the distribution of OSes among users of this website". So saying "for accessing the Internet" is making a claim that cannot be backed up by the source. The most it could claim is something like, "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the w3schools website." I imagine that, upon reading this, most people would scratch their heads and go, "So? Why should I care? I've never even been to that site." Which is exactly what I thought (except I have been there before) and is why I deleted it. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have brought this up last year, but it looks like my post was trashed. I agree that having stats is necessary, but w3schools is not the way to go. Why not use StatCounter Global Stats? It tracks 15 billion page views every month from 3 million websites. It's not perfect, but at least it's closer to reality than what w3schools stats have to offer. Norbiu ( talk) 11:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, guys, let's revisit this issue.
No, no, no. You cannot generalize from one website's logs to the entire internet. I am deleting this again. The justification for keeping it so far has basically been, "well, we should cite other sources and nobody has done it yet". Well, it's been half a year and nobody's cited any other sources. Meanwhile the article text has been and still is what basically amounts to a blatant lie, since it implies "most widely used operating system for accessing w3schools.com" is the same as "most widely used operating system for accessing the internet", especially since we know for a fact (given the discussion above) that w3schools' statistics are not representative of the internet. You can put it back after you get more sources or you find a wording that isn't a lie. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Other Ms products are listed with the manufacturere name. i.e.:'Microsoft XP Pro' or 'Microsoft Windows XP Pro'
--
Wikidity (
talk)
18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
|
There's a bit of spam under "non-use by end user" (reading "I like tacos"), but I couldn't see it in the markup when I went to edit it. I don't edit very much - please advise? Rincewind32 ( talk) 09:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think a section on Windows XP's shortcomings should be included, especially with newer OSes by Microsoft being used more widely. I'm thinking of mentioning:
203.118.14.114 ( talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This article has previously had excessive non-free images removed. Yesterday it had nine non-free images but, in the past 24 hours an editor has added 10 more. I cleaned up the article, removing all but one of these as none of the images had appropriate FURs but they have since been restored, even adding a gallery for good measure, [1] despite advising the editor at length on his talk page of the problems. [2] His attempts at adding FURs are poor at best, [3] and his edit wars have resulted in me being unable to remove the offending files yet again without breaching 3RR. I have tagged the article appropriately, [4] but little more can be done (at least by me) at this point. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
From the last paragraph above the contents:
As of January 2013 [update], Windows XP market share is at 39.51% (...). As of January 2013 [update], Windows XP market share is at 19.9% (...).
Obviously, one of them is inaccurate, and should be fixed, or, if there are sources claiming either, it should be clarified as such. Callid13 ( talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The extended support date in the first paragraph is stated as April 14th, 2014 when it hasn't changed from April 8th. I'm not sure who made that edit but it's wrong and contradicted later in the article. Can someone who has editing access fix that please before netizens go into a panic because wikipedia says one thing and all the news outlets are saying another? [1] JsyBird2532 ( talk) 6:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
While the release date is correct, the relative time period given afterwards (11 years ago) is no longer correct. Is there a code capable of automatically giving the difference between the current year or another year? If not I'd recommend the relative time be corrected (or simply removed, the math isn't that difficult.) -- 128.101.142.152 ( talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've re-established the edit I made on 23 march because I consider its reversion to be abusive, as a possible WP:COI. I consider the information I added was highly pertinent and the the accusation that it was off topic as spurious. The information was, I maintain, of interest to anyone looking at this article for information about XP end of life (a hot topic and one which the article already discussed), and a measured and appropriate addition to that information. It contains, in my view, no doubtful statements (indeed this was not given as a reason for reversion) and was appropriately referenced. Upedge ( talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
One risk of continuing to run XP after its end of life arises from the possibility that, as often happens with system software, a vulnerability is discovered. Since the product is no longer supported, Microsoft will not fix such problems, leaving all XP systems vulnerable to attack.
A number of options are available to operators of systems running XP after its end of life is reached.
There is a dispute about including certain information about End of Life support for Windows XP: should the possibility of migrating to Linux be included alongside Microsoft products? Currently both sides of the discussion accuse the other of pushing a POV. There have been a few reversions without discussion. The disputed edit (at time of writing no longer present in the article) are best seen comparing these versions (the relevant change is the additions to the 4th paragraph of the article). Upedge ( talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the article on Windows XP discuss options for dealing with the ending of support?
This discussion would benefit from brief comments from non-specialist editors (though of course more thorough consideration would be very welcome). Upedge ( talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Taking the advice of Guy Macon and Elizium23, I researched this topic by googling <what to do when xp support ends>.
To avoid bias I selected the first 6 answers which talked about options (rejecting microsoft.com as likely to be partisan) which gave the following sources:
Much of the article contents are arguably "how-to" in nature, the following being frequently suggested:
Of the options for upgrading, the following are mentioned (with number of articles mentioning them)
In addition, many pros and cons of each option are discussed.
Here is a proposal for which I invite comment.
Proposal (withdrawn)
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
End of Support OptionsThe ending of support for XP means that no further updates will be distributed. The danger of this for existing XP users is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) then XP systems will remain vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows may increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, may point to an equivalent weakness in XP. [2] Most corporate customers will be forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems [3], but for individual customers a number of options are available.
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upedge ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Responding to comments (particularly
Guy Macon's excellent suggestion) here is a reworked proposal for comment. I've tried to make it as tense neutral as possible so that it will read correctly both before and after the 14th, though some adjustment may be needed.
Reworked Proposal
|
---|
End of SupportThe ending of support on April 8, 2014 means that after that date no further updates are generally distributed. The danger of this for users continuing to run XP is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) XP systems will remain permanently vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows was considered likely to increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, will point to an equivalent weakness in XP. [1] Most corporate customers were forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems [2], but the position of individual customers generated considerable press comment. Microsoft recommended purchasing new hardware (with it's accompanying system software) [3], though it's unlikely they were thinking of The Wall Street Journal's suggestion that users should consider buying an Apple Mac or a low cost Chromebook. [4] Migrating to more recent versions of windows was impossible for many since most older hardware is not capable of running these, [3] though for the most recent XP systems this was a viable solution, being less expensive than a new system purchase. Faced with this situation, many commentators considered the option of continuing to use XP, since this involved zero direct cost and involved no effort beyond ensuring current security best practices were followed. [5] [1] [6] While some were strongly opposed to the idea, [7] [2] others saw it as a legitimate response, provided users understood the risk of their system being compromised. Finally, migrating to a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu was suggested by some as a free alternative to taking the risk of continuing to run XP, while still allowing access to existing data. [4] [1] [6] Any compatibility problems could be explored before committing to a change by booting a live CD or USB key version, [8] and the city of Munich handed out 2000 such CDs to provide its citizens with a no-cost upgrade solution. [9] [10]
|
Upedge ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
ver
outputs kernel version number. How on earth do you call an SMP+clustering kernel same as XP's? Oh, my God, just the amount of nonsense I see above is enough to make
Mark Russinovich die from laughter! I can't believe I am actually talking to an experienced editor. Definitely take a chill pill. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
“The operating system version number reported on 32-bit Windows XP is 5.1, but since 64-bit Windows XP shares the same kernel as 64-bit Windows Server 2003 SP1”
I have started an RfC (which the bot should pick up soon) on a related question, which may be of interest to editors who responded here. Upedge ( talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the hatnote that was reverted. Update: Or this new (after first two comments) and improved version (for placement somewhere):
It might however be justified at least on this page. This information should be front and center. About 430 millions of PC users (about 27% af all) will be on unsupported operating system and soon unsecure (66% estimated increase in malware by Microsoft's prediction), risking e.g. Internet banking/e-commerce. When the Department of Homeland Security ( US-CERT) and others also say it's irresponsible to use IE on XP I do not think we should bury the information on an unsupported system under "Support lifecycle" or last in history section. All of the article will really be a history section in three days. Then (and really now) this will be the most important information in the article.
If this were let's say Windows 95 that is EOL/unsupported, that is just a historical curiosity by now, it wouldn't matter as much as there are close to zero users. Here I think it is justified at least for some time under
WP:Ignore all rules and
WP:Hatnote: "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
For the Internet Explorer (IE) article, some of the those IE versions just about to be unsupported on XP will however be supported on newer versions of Windows. Thus it is less clear that this information is relevant to all readers of that article. Same with the Windows article (not sure if people look up that article or the more specific version one).
See also Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Misuse of hatnote? comp.arch ( talk) 23:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
About "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection resource", see next section about where I changed tone to be "encyclopedic" and was reverted while I believe I was not "breaking rules". The information is also not (only) "news". It's a sourced information about an alert, and sourced "news" about that alert that was reverted wrongly. Who is subject to "systematic bias", only those who want to be kept in the dark. comp.arch ( talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
See revert: [11] [Also included way too much, reverting back "with no more bugs"]. Please revert revert.
Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is as I read it mostly about general disclaimers that could apply to many articles: "Beware of adult content!". I didn't look into it, I assume they proposed a hatnote. I however backed off on that ("Security announcement: "). comp.arch ( talk) 21:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
A general disclaimer would be:
or:
or:
as that is untrue :)
comp.arch ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I was reverted again. This is an "important point". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." If this point is not summarizing the article enough, then the rest of it should be changed. Please revert the revert on important stuff related to the EOL.
I like most people do not have time to comb the article for the important stuff (and will maybe only read the lead):
"On March 8, 2014, Microsoft deployed an update for XP that, on the 8th of each month, displays a pop-up notification to remind users about the end of support"
"In January 2014, it was estimated that more than 95% of the 3 million automated teller machines in the world were still running Windows XP". comp.arch ( talk) 11:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems I need to spell the danger out, that explains why it's an "important point", in an WP:OR-like way that can't be in the article itself, but may inform editors: It doesn't take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know that a security exploit will be found (or not if they are not looking) in Windows XP. That is the risk we have support for from Microsoft, until tomorrow. Then when it happens, usually a patch would be available from Microsoft. This is something an anti-virus software does not fix. It gets worse; when Microsoft patches newer versions of the operating system, that patch (assuming the exploit it patches is also a security hole in XP), is a recipe for break-in into XP that is made worse because XP is proprietary software. If it would be open source, you could possibly backport the patch to XP. Unmitigated, XP is borderline certainly an "unmitigated disaster", not a risk, waiting to happen. Is the advise from the government, not just "some critics" not important and on topic? Please revert the revert. comp.arch ( talk) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
In the article: "Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security". Is this a "how-to"? comp.arch ( talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The introduction states that the retail sale of Windows XP ceased on June 30 2008. How can this be true if one is still able to buy the full edition of both XP Home and Professional at amazon.com? Just do a search. This should be corrected. a.buchhorn ( talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
See here. There is some misconception about Windows XP running 3 programs simultaneously. I think the section needs to be clarified.
Please add Extended Support. Now. Jacob Hnri 6 ( talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I heard a foreign friend talking about Windows Sweet. Could you please tell me what you know about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.73.158 ( talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm missing the development history in this article. With the cancled other windows projects and development teams that are combined. These infos are in some other articles. The problem is that I don't get the period between win 95 and 96/97/98 and 2k integration to the windows nt based(xp) os... hope you understand my problem. I don't get it :p mabdul 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I find the flow of this article slightly difficult given the date formats found within: day month year, instead of month day year. The former is not in the mainstream media as much as the latter -- correct me if I'm wrong. And within this same article, we find dates of the latter in combination with dates of the former. Thus, the allowing of the two formats to be used proves this article's inconsistency. Personally, I know the military uses the former format but this is not the military; can you link to other articles on the relative subject that use this format? Taking a look at Windows_Vista proves it to the contrary where you can see it uses the latter format I'm in favor of.
I suggest we rewrite this article to use the latter more commonly accepted format: month day year, in an effort to increase the flow and consistency of the article on a more common level. I welcome discussion on this, please -- I would've already started to rewrite the dates but I thought it would be more courteous to discuss it first since someone already thought it to be valid to write it as such.. after some consensus, or after about a week should I receive no reply, I'll go ahead and change the dates found within according to the more commonly used format. CaptainMorgan ( talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a Windows XP specific problem and it's very difficult to find the information to correct the problem. Apparently related to SP 3 or some other update(s) though I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to look into that. May be related to properties of video cards also but will affect computers that had previously worked correctly with same cards and the same settings.
The issue is primarily images and backgrounds not displaying at all in Internet Explorer, Firefox and possibly other browsers. Colors may not be apparent though it may be preferable to some for colored text to display as black. "Radio button" icons and text are frequently invisible though moving the mouse cursor may reveal something is at a spot by changing shape and may or may not cause a text description to appear when the mouse cursor shape changes. Many web pages don't use alt text or don't use it correctly and it's only visible when looking at the source code. Can be a very big problem for visually impaired people.
This issue affects computers with the Use High Contrast box checked in Accessibility Properties and unchecking that box either solves the problem completely or makes a huge difference when that does correct the problem.
http://helpmerick.com/firefox-or-internet-explorer-doesnt-display-all-pictures-or-backgrounds.htm
I presume a section on this would also be appropriate in an article on browsers. -- Moss&Fern ( talk) 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks-- 222.67.212.133 ( talk) 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The article states "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches so that only the latest service pack needs to be installed...".
However, Microsoft states that, with regard to Service Pack 3: "To install SP3, either Windows XP Service Pack 1a (SP1a) or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) must already be installed." ( http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/sp3/default.mspx).
Some clarification would be helpful.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.41.5 ( talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=&C2=1173 works. Location on page of the url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#cite_note-lifecycle-1
btw, I scanned thru a couple wp help pages purportedly relevant to "reflist", but didn't see clue as to editing *content* of reflist. else i'd have just edited ref 2 url myself :-) 2z2z ( talk) 07:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I heard from other news articles that Windows XP will be ending by January 2011 because all hard drives (current and new ones) will use the 4K advanced format. XP users will have to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 before the transition.-- 72.148.3.214 ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
In the first paragraph: It was first released in August 2001
In the second paragraph: Windows XP was first released on October 25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.6.82 ( talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is something that I need to fight over. Is there a need for users to include "(Service Pack 2 x64 and Service Pack 3 x86)" in the support status of Windows XP? Windows XP Service Pack 2 (32-bit) went out of support yesterday and is only supported on Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 until 8 April 2014. I personally find it unnecessary, but if you want to discuss this without anymore edit wars, please do. -- 74.42.188.45 ( talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This line probably belongs under the overall service pack heading, not in the SP3 section:
Really, that applies to all 3 service packs, most of all to SP2, which broke all security software and many others that tripped over DEP. It's not even specific to XP service packs. Any takers? Foxyshadis ( talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, but as long as you are able to prove it by providing verifiable evidence in reliable sources, this sentence will stay put.
Of course, I am personally inclined to agree with you. Service Pack 2 did cause a reboot loop on my old computer whose processor was a Pentium 4 Prescott. I solved the problem in less than an half an hour by searching Microsoft Support web site. The fact is that Microsoft constantly warns organizations and OEMs in advance to test Service Packs before deploying them and to report the problems back to Microsoft, always makes Service Pack Blocker tools and always publishes beta releases of Service Packs — but alas, people don't pay due attention until disaster strikes! See another example: Kernel_Patch_Protection#Criticisms.
Fleet Command ( talk) 07:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)There seems to have been a flurry of activity relating to 219.93.84.105 ( talk · contribs) who added a link to tecdiary.com That user has now been banned for spamming. I see absolutely no reason to keep the link so have deleted it. -- Simple Bob ( talk) 08:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, as of October 2010, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world with a 48.9% market share, having peaked at 76.1% in January 2007.
W3School stats only measure users who visit w3schools.com, so they don't represent the overall market. This is also specified on their site:
From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of seven years, you can read the long term trends of operating system usage.
-- Norbiu ( talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is really nice if you use this mouse, no, I will recommend this even. ( Not :-| ) The recommendation of this company product is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING which are over WP:V (from the company page). Microsoft Mice is completely unrelevant and unrelated product mention. It also has no relevant standard for Windows XP or mouses. -- Perhelion ( talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Windows 7 share tops XP for first time in U.S. - perhaps time to update the article? Samatva ( talk) 16:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Somebody has added a section on multi-procesor limits of XP - thanks for that. It says Professional supports two processors and Home Edition supports one. Can somebody please add something to make this more precise??? What I mean to say, is, will it support a single chip quad-core?, or only use two cores??? Or are we actually talking about separate processors here? I have a feeling that it is processors we are talking about here and not cores - but non-techies like myself, we might get them mixed up. Just thought a short sentence stating that multi-cores (quad and up) are supported, and that the limit strictly applies to processors not cores (assuming this is correct). Anyway, thanks in advance to anybody who is proficient in this particular matter and can add the sentence.
It seems like every PC ever come across is still using XP, support extended until 2014? That must be well beyond what was originally planned back in '01. It's over 10 years old and still just the best apparently. Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? XP is as old as Wikipedia. 169.139.19.108 ( talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There IS an explanation for the phenomenon but I have forgotten the source, so I don't think you can put it into the article. But according to the forgotten source, Windows XP changed the role of the computers from an expense into that of a strategic asset.
On the whole, I think you had better search for a lot of sources before deciding to add this to the article. Fleet Command ( talk) 09:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
9/1/2011: 71.234.217.82: I think that a poor economy in the US (probably XP's largest market worldwide) combined with the much less frequent improvements in technology have both contributed to XP long life. While Windows 95 introduced a new shell (Explorer) and Windows 98 introduced FAT32 & USB, Windows XP has been compatible with all (or most) of the gradual improvements in the last 10 years, making a new OS unnecessary. It also helps that XP has very low system requirements (64MB RAM) compared to Windows Vista and Windows 7 (512MB-1GB RAM); both those OS's realistically require a hardware upgrade cycle. Signed 71.234.217.82. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.217.82 ( talk) 06:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The criticism section is mostly unsourced and also not very appropriate. I moved this chunk to the already existing page about WinXp critisicm and removed the section from this article, so it is in line with the other OS articles. StoneProphet ( talk) 15:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC) they dont have sound is there anything on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.157.58 ( talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
After looking at the recent w3schools OS statistics report for August 2011, I kinda have a feeling that it's starting to become tiresome to having to monitor Windows XP market share now that it is no longer the most widely used operating system for accessing the internet.
The latest report has Windows 7 moving up 1.3% to 40.4% and Windows XP losing 1.1% to 38%, thus overtaking Windows XP's place.
Before there is any sort of flaming, edit-warring or reverting over which OS is the most widely used OS for accessing the internet, is it a good idea to:
1. Remove the references to the current market share for Windows XP now and reword the paragraph regarding the w3schools OS market share report?
2. Wait until after the end of this year and remove the references to the current Windows XP market share?
Share your thoughts on what should be done. 184.12.243.144 ( talk) 07:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Location of term limits Downgrade? Windows 7 Pro OEM EULA:
15. TRANSITION TO DOWNGRADE. Instead, the software, you can use one of the following earlier versions:
· Windows Vista Business,
· Microsoft Windows XP Professional,
· Microsoft Windows Professional x64 Edition, or
· Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.
This agreement covers the use of earlier versions. If an earlier version contains components which are not included in the new version of the software, using these components, you must comply with all conditions of use contained in the agreement, which accompanies an earlier version. Neither the manufacturer or installer, nor Microsoft is not responsible for delivering to you earlier. You must purchase the earlier version separately. You can always replace an earlier version of this version of the software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miros 0571 ( talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wasn't the first version of Windows to use the NT kernel Windows NT 3.11? Captainsid2001 ( talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Almost nothing in the section on ATM and Vendor users of XP has a citation. This is an interesting area of discussion for the operating system enthusiast, but the entire section really ought to be rewritten, cleaned up, and feature proper citations for its claims. It should also probably be expanded in light of the large number of businesses shipping machines that use various versions of Windows XP Embedded ranging from cash-registers to billboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Please do not cite w3schools statistics. The statistics only apply to people who access w3schools.com, not the internet at large. That's hardly a representative sample of the public! - furrykef ( Talk at me) 07:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(unindent) Allow me to elaborate a bit further. The current wording is, "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world...". This is an absurd claim. You can't take server logs from one site, especially a site with a very specific demographic, and say "this is the distribution of OSes among users all across the internet". You can only say, "this is the distribution of OSes among users of this website". So saying "for accessing the Internet" is making a claim that cannot be backed up by the source. The most it could claim is something like, "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the w3schools website." I imagine that, upon reading this, most people would scratch their heads and go, "So? Why should I care? I've never even been to that site." Which is exactly what I thought (except I have been there before) and is why I deleted it. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I have brought this up last year, but it looks like my post was trashed. I agree that having stats is necessary, but w3schools is not the way to go. Why not use StatCounter Global Stats? It tracks 15 billion page views every month from 3 million websites. It's not perfect, but at least it's closer to reality than what w3schools stats have to offer. Norbiu ( talk) 11:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, guys, let's revisit this issue.
No, no, no. You cannot generalize from one website's logs to the entire internet. I am deleting this again. The justification for keeping it so far has basically been, "well, we should cite other sources and nobody has done it yet". Well, it's been half a year and nobody's cited any other sources. Meanwhile the article text has been and still is what basically amounts to a blatant lie, since it implies "most widely used operating system for accessing w3schools.com" is the same as "most widely used operating system for accessing the internet", especially since we know for a fact (given the discussion above) that w3schools' statistics are not representative of the internet. You can put it back after you get more sources or you find a wording that isn't a lie. - furrykef ( Talk at me) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Other Ms products are listed with the manufacturere name. i.e.:'Microsoft XP Pro' or 'Microsoft Windows XP Pro'
--
Wikidity (
talk)
18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
|
There's a bit of spam under "non-use by end user" (reading "I like tacos"), but I couldn't see it in the markup when I went to edit it. I don't edit very much - please advise? Rincewind32 ( talk) 09:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I think a section on Windows XP's shortcomings should be included, especially with newer OSes by Microsoft being used more widely. I'm thinking of mentioning:
203.118.14.114 ( talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
This article has previously had excessive non-free images removed. Yesterday it had nine non-free images but, in the past 24 hours an editor has added 10 more. I cleaned up the article, removing all but one of these as none of the images had appropriate FURs but they have since been restored, even adding a gallery for good measure, [1] despite advising the editor at length on his talk page of the problems. [2] His attempts at adding FURs are poor at best, [3] and his edit wars have resulted in me being unable to remove the offending files yet again without breaching 3RR. I have tagged the article appropriately, [4] but little more can be done (at least by me) at this point. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
From the last paragraph above the contents:
As of January 2013 [update], Windows XP market share is at 39.51% (...). As of January 2013 [update], Windows XP market share is at 19.9% (...).
Obviously, one of them is inaccurate, and should be fixed, or, if there are sources claiming either, it should be clarified as such. Callid13 ( talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The extended support date in the first paragraph is stated as April 14th, 2014 when it hasn't changed from April 8th. I'm not sure who made that edit but it's wrong and contradicted later in the article. Can someone who has editing access fix that please before netizens go into a panic because wikipedia says one thing and all the news outlets are saying another? [1] JsyBird2532 ( talk) 6:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
While the release date is correct, the relative time period given afterwards (11 years ago) is no longer correct. Is there a code capable of automatically giving the difference between the current year or another year? If not I'd recommend the relative time be corrected (or simply removed, the math isn't that difficult.) -- 128.101.142.152 ( talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I've re-established the edit I made on 23 march because I consider its reversion to be abusive, as a possible WP:COI. I consider the information I added was highly pertinent and the the accusation that it was off topic as spurious. The information was, I maintain, of interest to anyone looking at this article for information about XP end of life (a hot topic and one which the article already discussed), and a measured and appropriate addition to that information. It contains, in my view, no doubtful statements (indeed this was not given as a reason for reversion) and was appropriately referenced. Upedge ( talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
One risk of continuing to run XP after its end of life arises from the possibility that, as often happens with system software, a vulnerability is discovered. Since the product is no longer supported, Microsoft will not fix such problems, leaving all XP systems vulnerable to attack.
A number of options are available to operators of systems running XP after its end of life is reached.
There is a dispute about including certain information about End of Life support for Windows XP: should the possibility of migrating to Linux be included alongside Microsoft products? Currently both sides of the discussion accuse the other of pushing a POV. There have been a few reversions without discussion. The disputed edit (at time of writing no longer present in the article) are best seen comparing these versions (the relevant change is the additions to the 4th paragraph of the article). Upedge ( talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Should the article on Windows XP discuss options for dealing with the ending of support?
This discussion would benefit from brief comments from non-specialist editors (though of course more thorough consideration would be very welcome). Upedge ( talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Taking the advice of Guy Macon and Elizium23, I researched this topic by googling <what to do when xp support ends>.
To avoid bias I selected the first 6 answers which talked about options (rejecting microsoft.com as likely to be partisan) which gave the following sources:
Much of the article contents are arguably "how-to" in nature, the following being frequently suggested:
Of the options for upgrading, the following are mentioned (with number of articles mentioning them)
In addition, many pros and cons of each option are discussed.
Here is a proposal for which I invite comment.
Proposal (withdrawn)
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
End of Support OptionsThe ending of support for XP means that no further updates will be distributed. The danger of this for existing XP users is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) then XP systems will remain vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows may increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, may point to an equivalent weakness in XP. [2] Most corporate customers will be forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems [3], but for individual customers a number of options are available.
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upedge ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Responding to comments (particularly
Guy Macon's excellent suggestion) here is a reworked proposal for comment. I've tried to make it as tense neutral as possible so that it will read correctly both before and after the 14th, though some adjustment may be needed.
Reworked Proposal
|
---|
End of SupportThe ending of support on April 8, 2014 means that after that date no further updates are generally distributed. The danger of this for users continuing to run XP is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) XP systems will remain permanently vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows was considered likely to increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, will point to an equivalent weakness in XP. [1] Most corporate customers were forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems [2], but the position of individual customers generated considerable press comment. Microsoft recommended purchasing new hardware (with it's accompanying system software) [3], though it's unlikely they were thinking of The Wall Street Journal's suggestion that users should consider buying an Apple Mac or a low cost Chromebook. [4] Migrating to more recent versions of windows was impossible for many since most older hardware is not capable of running these, [3] though for the most recent XP systems this was a viable solution, being less expensive than a new system purchase. Faced with this situation, many commentators considered the option of continuing to use XP, since this involved zero direct cost and involved no effort beyond ensuring current security best practices were followed. [5] [1] [6] While some were strongly opposed to the idea, [7] [2] others saw it as a legitimate response, provided users understood the risk of their system being compromised. Finally, migrating to a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu was suggested by some as a free alternative to taking the risk of continuing to run XP, while still allowing access to existing data. [4] [1] [6] Any compatibility problems could be explored before committing to a change by booting a live CD or USB key version, [8] and the city of Munich handed out 2000 such CDs to provide its citizens with a no-cost upgrade solution. [9] [10]
|
Upedge ( talk) 00:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
ver
outputs kernel version number. How on earth do you call an SMP+clustering kernel same as XP's? Oh, my God, just the amount of nonsense I see above is enough to make
Mark Russinovich die from laughter! I can't believe I am actually talking to an experienced editor. Definitely take a chill pill. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
“The operating system version number reported on 32-bit Windows XP is 5.1, but since 64-bit Windows XP shares the same kernel as 64-bit Windows Server 2003 SP1”
I have started an RfC (which the bot should pick up soon) on a related question, which may be of interest to editors who responded here. Upedge ( talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Take a look at the hatnote that was reverted. Update: Or this new (after first two comments) and improved version (for placement somewhere):
It might however be justified at least on this page. This information should be front and center. About 430 millions of PC users (about 27% af all) will be on unsupported operating system and soon unsecure (66% estimated increase in malware by Microsoft's prediction), risking e.g. Internet banking/e-commerce. When the Department of Homeland Security ( US-CERT) and others also say it's irresponsible to use IE on XP I do not think we should bury the information on an unsupported system under "Support lifecycle" or last in history section. All of the article will really be a history section in three days. Then (and really now) this will be the most important information in the article.
If this were let's say Windows 95 that is EOL/unsupported, that is just a historical curiosity by now, it wouldn't matter as much as there are close to zero users. Here I think it is justified at least for some time under
WP:Ignore all rules and
WP:Hatnote: "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
For the Internet Explorer (IE) article, some of the those IE versions just about to be unsupported on XP will however be supported on newer versions of Windows. Thus it is less clear that this information is relevant to all readers of that article. Same with the Windows article (not sure if people look up that article or the more specific version one).
See also Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Misuse of hatnote? comp.arch ( talk) 23:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
About "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection resource", see next section about where I changed tone to be "encyclopedic" and was reverted while I believe I was not "breaking rules". The information is also not (only) "news". It's a sourced information about an alert, and sourced "news" about that alert that was reverted wrongly. Who is subject to "systematic bias", only those who want to be kept in the dark. comp.arch ( talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
See revert: [11] [Also included way too much, reverting back "with no more bugs"]. Please revert revert.
Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is as I read it mostly about general disclaimers that could apply to many articles: "Beware of adult content!". I didn't look into it, I assume they proposed a hatnote. I however backed off on that ("Security announcement: "). comp.arch ( talk) 21:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
A general disclaimer would be:
or:
or:
as that is untrue :)
comp.arch ( talk) 22:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I was reverted again. This is an "important point". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." If this point is not summarizing the article enough, then the rest of it should be changed. Please revert the revert on important stuff related to the EOL.
I like most people do not have time to comb the article for the important stuff (and will maybe only read the lead):
"On March 8, 2014, Microsoft deployed an update for XP that, on the 8th of each month, displays a pop-up notification to remind users about the end of support"
"In January 2014, it was estimated that more than 95% of the 3 million automated teller machines in the world were still running Windows XP". comp.arch ( talk) 11:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems I need to spell the danger out, that explains why it's an "important point", in an WP:OR-like way that can't be in the article itself, but may inform editors: It doesn't take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know that a security exploit will be found (or not if they are not looking) in Windows XP. That is the risk we have support for from Microsoft, until tomorrow. Then when it happens, usually a patch would be available from Microsoft. This is something an anti-virus software does not fix. It gets worse; when Microsoft patches newer versions of the operating system, that patch (assuming the exploit it patches is also a security hole in XP), is a recipe for break-in into XP that is made worse because XP is proprietary software. If it would be open source, you could possibly backport the patch to XP. Unmitigated, XP is borderline certainly an "unmitigated disaster", not a risk, waiting to happen. Is the advise from the government, not just "some critics" not important and on topic? Please revert the revert. comp.arch ( talk) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
In the article: "Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security". Is this a "how-to"? comp.arch ( talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)