Talk:Windows XP/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 →

Contents

What factual inaccuracies are there?

Anyone care to tell me? Also, if no one can point out any non-NPOV writing then I'm taking off the tags.- Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this trolling bullshit. You know perfectly well what the factual inacuracies are - I have outlined them above, and provided solid evidence of them. So lopng as you continue to revert to this syncophantic whitewash, the tags stay. If you wish the tags removed, then you must first remove the mistakes of fact and bring some balance to the article. Tannin 08:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Trolling bullshit"? "Sycophantic whitewash" (what exactly do you mean by that?) So far you've already had another user tell you you are incorrect and nobody else is sticking up for you. Nevertheless, you're complaint is about factual inaccuracy and I haven't removed this. Show me where my POV is sticking through then I'll consider putting it back. Until then, I'll keep on removing the NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and for the record, I agree with Tannin 100%. I've been watching this all day, but decided I'd leave it to you guys to sort out. Ambivalenthysteria 09:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Though I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why you think I'm trolling, and why you think I'm a sycophant. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, truce.

I'm taking this to disputes resolution, once I read up on what to do here. I don't particularly want to muck up the edit queue because of a stupid disagreement. Incidently, if I've made personal attacks (which I don't think I have) then I apologise now. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate to me. I don't have the time to deal with this in any detail, but in good faith I cannot stand by and ignore the present syncophantic apologia re the UI, which is not even factually correct. (I note that you did not write it, Ta bu shi da yu - so I don't blame you for it.) The section the apologia is inserted in is devoted to criticisms! Were that passage to be shorn of its factual innacuracies, it could appear elsewhere in the article. Tannin 09:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm not apologising for the Windows XP user interface, so your claim here is baseless. What I'm trying to do is show a balanced view of that criticism, however you appear to only want to show the negative criticism without much reference to actual critics (you'll note I added a reference to CNET where people weren't happy with it) and not show the opposing view. In this case, the opposing view to detractors of the Windows XP UI is actually quite significant so it should be represented in the criticisms section.
So I've wrote some opposing views to the criticisms that were given. There is nothing wrong with having them there, it shows the opposing side. I note that you liked my changes to the rest of the criticism section: well, that's what I did there too. I suspect I annoyed you by removing the NPOV comment "Critics have highlighted the visual clutter and wasted screen space of the "Luna" design, and point out that it offers no new functionality but consumes substantial additional processing overhead." because it talked about "Critics" and didn't actually cite who they were. [1] And it's true, I couldn't find any major UI design critics who said these things. It needed to be removed because it was a weasel term - it talked about critics but didn't mention who they were.
Then you put this back with the following comment: "let's stay somewhere near the real world, shall we? Removing cruical stuff just doesn't cut it, especially when it is so easy to verify for yourself". Yet this is clearly someone's point of view, as other people really like the UI (I give examples in the article). You restored it without any clarification of who the critics were [2]. Then Samrolken and I [3] decided that it was better not to remove the statement (even though it hadn't been clarified) and gave a general response to the statement [4] [5]. Then you came along and removed all the text with the comment "remove the nonsense identified in talk, and the special pleading which (if it belongs here at all) does *not* belong in 'criticisms'" [6]! Yet, before you said "Removing cruical stuff just doesn't cut it, especially when it is so easy to verify for yourself". You did exactly what I did! So then I restored it, perhaps being a little sarcastic in the history comment where I copied your exact statement.
Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tanin, I need to know where the non-NPOV writing is. Could you please state the exact statement so I can try to modify this with better language. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested as Tannin won't let us remove the tags

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation - I've asked for mediation for this dispute. This is clearly something we can't work out together in a civil tone and I'd like to be able to improve the Windows XP page to the point where we can remove the NPOV and factual accuracy tags. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me, that the Criticisms section, without Tannin's deletions, is rather POV, as a brief summary of some common criticisms is followed immediately by a large rebuttal. But it also seems to me that without it, there isn't anything here on what functionality it *does* add. Surely this deserves a section of its own. Would it be acceptable, per se, if that section was moved out of "Criticisms", de-rebuttalised, extended and moved into a seperate section above it?
I think it'd read as a better article if both that first criticism paragraph, and the functionality section were expanded. It's a bit surprising that an article such as this has so little information on what has actually changed since the previous system, at a user level.Ambivalenthysteria
This is actually not a bad solution, though the reason that the large amount of text was added was because it was pointed out that many people like the interface and the performance criticism is not necessarily factually correct. There are many, many things that can cause the alleged (and I do say alleged) performance degradation. This is actually probably the reason why there is so much information about the other side of the argument. I don't know if I agree that without Tannin's deletions it's rather POV. As I've said before, I don't like the UI of Windows XP, however it's easy to change the system back to the old classic style with one of the skins provided by Microsoft. The other thing is, plenty of people have praised the new XP GUI theme and though it has detractors it's hard to give references to them.
Incidently I have added a section of new user features. I very much agree with you - this information would be MUCH better if it was moved into new features and have the User Interface merged into New Features also.
The main thing I would like to emphasis here is that I have no problem with criticism, but it must be balanced in this case because XP has plenty of detractors and fans and we would be misrepresenting them if we didn't show both sides. Also, if we mention critics we need to say WHO those critics are! This was the reason I removed the section that Tannin got upset about. [7]
Overall, I would be more than happy with this solution! I think it's a good compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think it looks pretty good now - nice work! How about you, Tannin? Ambivalenthysteria 11:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks :-) I do try! If this is acceptable to Tannin, then we might be able to forgo mediation through the a Wikipedia mediator - the community (and in particular Ambivalenthysteria) would have sorted itself out civilly and cordially! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
(Just came into this 'argument') What exactly is wrong with Tannin wanting to keep the npov and disputed tags? Thats what they're for, to indicate that there is a dispute, which it seems to me there indeed is. I apploud working out any issue you have, but while you do the dispute continues and so the dispute tags should be put on the page. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:54, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)
Well, dispute tags must have been introduced into the system for a reason. I figure that dispute tags are there so that an article can be flagged as having problems and then editors will get to work on fixing the issues. I mean, it's better to have a balanced piece of writing that represents all views and all facts accurately than to have a biased and inaccurate article. Therefore, I'm currently working to find a compromise that would be acceptable to all parties - when this happens we can remove the tags. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This has been moved to Wikipedia:Request for comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"... hardware-related information ... is transmitted"

A source cited in the article claims that hardware-related information is transmitted to Microsoft. I believe that this is not true, and that what is actually sent to Microsoft is a one-way cryptographic hash of values derived from hardware. It would be impossible for Microsoft to extract any actual information about hardware from the hash that is transmitted to Microsoft. Samrolken 14:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Are we sure about this? Microsoft don't publish their specs for way in which they send info about Product Activation! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think we've had a misunderstanding

I didn't agree to have only one side of the argument taken out. If you look at my comment, we need a balanced argument. At the moment, it looks like there is ONLY criticism of the UI. I'm sorry, but I'm reverting this. I must not have communicated very well in the discussion forum, and for this I am truly sorry - Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, I was under the impression we were going to add this material into the rest of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm removing the whole UI thing. It was never a very good criticism anyway. But, like I say in the history, revert this back to my last edit if you disagree. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I thought it had been added into the rest of the article. With the article as it stood before the latest edit, we saw both the positives illustrated, and then in the criticisms section, we ssaw the negatives. It makes sense to make clear that there is a group of users who like the UI - but not in the format it is now. In that format, it read like persuasive writing - i.e. stating a point, and then spending double the time rebutting that. That was why I suggested moving the material elsewhere - so that we see the positives of XP, but with changed presentation so that it doesn't read like something I'd do in English class.
I won't revert, as I'd rather come to a consensus here before the article is changed. But I'm certainly not okay with censoring what is a major gripe with XP. You mightn't see it that way, but there's a lot of people that do. Nevertheless, if those dispute headings are to go, that criticism needs to stay. Ambivalenthysteria 15:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, I agree it probably wasn't a good idea. I've tried another approach, what do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's better. I'd sooner see it removed completely, but provided that my minor edit stands, I don't object to the removal of the dispute headers. However, we still haven't heard from Tannin yet. I'd also like to see a bit more on that criticism, but I'll leave that to someone else. Ambivalenthysteria 15:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the new UI style in XP myself. I was more concerned about NPOV writing (or what I thought was lack of it). I would be very happy to see a reference to a study into UI design that criticises the UI! You have to understand though, if you look at my edits to the page where I tried to make it less POV, I have done it in the format criticism then rebuttal (if there is one). For instance, look at the info I found that Procomp pushed. I placed that in there and gave a reference to a (since pulled) whitepaper that rebutted the criticisms. I think this turned out pretty NPOV!
But I think your edit was a better turn of phrase, I think it's good. I think this is a positive compromise and I appreciate your tact and good sense in this whole process. A pleasure to work with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to take this in a somewhat different direction, and point out that probably 95% of the criticism of XP has either been about activation, or security. I think it's fine to present the UI issue here but really, this article appears unbalanced. Next to security and activation concerns, UI and antitrust haven't received a ton of discussion online. The article is much better than it was yesterday though, good work.

I also agree that a lot of the text in the criticism section should really be spread out into the article. I think "Product Activation" deserves a section outlining Microsoft's anti-infringement goals as well as critics' thoughts. But we should keep in mind that many of the arguments against activation were based on speculation and bad information. Last, this article needs a section about security concerns, I can write that if people want. Rhobite 18:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

If there isn't mention of security concerns, there needs to be - that would be great, IMHO. Do you want to have a go at rewriting the product activation section? I probably don't know enough about it. Ambivalenthysteria 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's a good point, Rhobite. I was actually thinking this yesterday, but I'm not sure I could write about this very well because I dislike Product Activation so much! Could you give it a shot, I think that would be good. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a substantial improvement. The sneering tone of the para remains, however. (I won't edit it becaue Ta bu shi da yu will revert again, no doubt, and I don't have the time today to argue about it.) Tannin 22:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What's sneering about it? I've only ever tried to present a balanced argument and I think the compromise is good. I only ever reverted what I believed was unbalanced. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Which para? Point me in the right direction, and I'll have a go at fixing it. Ambivalenthysteria 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well done guys!

Through discussion we've managed to remove factual inaccuracies from the article. Now we need to make it so that we can remove the bias. What areas do we think we need to modify to remove this tag? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New security section

I'd appreciate some help on the new security section. It's a start but of course it's missing a rebuttal, it also needs to mention e-mail viruses, and anything else people think is a common security criticism of XP. Rhobite 05:38, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article seems pretty NPOV now

I haven't heard any objections, and there have been some very good edits here. I'm going to remove the NPOV header. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Security

I added information on email viruses (though not much) and spyware, as well as a thorough rebuttal, while trying to end on a NPOV note. I know I'm not a regular of this page, but I thought I could still help out.--naryathegreat 03:43, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

It's a good job! I've tweaked things a little, but this was a valuable addition to the article - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Simultaneous editing

I made a bunch of edits to the article today to make it more technically precise and remove unnecessary wordiness. During my last edit, it looks like User:Naryathegreat was editing as the same time as I was; first he reverted to the version before I had touched the article, then he made some changes to that version to things I'd already rewritten; I can't merge his changes with mine. I put my last edit up. Narya, I apologize that we were editing at the same time - I hope you didn't mean to revert to the copy before I touched it, but if you did, please let me know why? - Brian Kendig 19:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your changes are slightly biased. Also, your introduction is poor. The comparison to mac may be true, but there is no evidence and it just sounds bad. Frankly I think the introduction was better before.--naryathegreat 22:09, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Why was large slabs of information taken out of the new features section? I mean, you got rid of WIA support, remote desktop sharing, remote assistance, Windows side-by-side, Power Management, driver rollback, the increased device support and even the fact that CD-burning is new to the system! No justification was given. Why take out the information in the intro that Home edition computers can't join a domain? This is factual and not my POV. You also call for speculation with the naming of Windows XP - seems like a POV to me. You took out important information about the lines of operating systems with out saying why.
You also modified the sentence: "As not everyone likes the new user interface style, the old Windows 2000 interface can be switched back by changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode." to "As not everyone likes the new user interface style, the Windows 2000 "classic" interface can be used instead." - what you think is reducing verbosity is actually getting rid of important information.:
You change the heading == Criticisms and Rebuttals == to ==Common criticisms of Windows XP== and refer to See also: Common criticisms of Microsoft. Well, these are criticisms of the operating system, not just of Microsoft! This was totally unnecessary.
You modified the UI criticisms section to the detriment of both sides of the argument. Basically your edit is now a big mass of weasel terms. There is a reason that there are so many references to opinion - it's show that this just isn't someone's POV. You might want to check the contoversy surrounding the whole UI section before making edits here.
You removed a whole bunch of citations from the integrations criticism section. Again, there is a reason why there are many references.
You remove a whole bunch of stuff from the security section that was important. Why? No justification was given.
Tip: headings should have words capitalised.
You changed "widely criticised" to "blamed for" - this is not NPOVing, it's just senseless changing.
Overall, I'm glad these edits were reverted.
Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain why I made the changes I did:

  • I didn't remove the information about WIA, remote desktop sharing, remote assistance, etc. It's still all there. All I did was change the 'UL' - 'LI' - '/UL" to asterisks to fit proper Wiki conventions - you probably looked at the diff page, which got confused and seemed to think I replaced the entire section.
  • I thought it was unnecessary to point out that Home users can't join a domain, because the very next sentence says that one of the additional features in Professional is the ability to join a domain. The latter implies the former; there's no need to state it twice.
  • Re As not everyone likes the new user interface style, the old Windows 2000 interface can be switched back by changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode. - I don't understand what "changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode" is supposed to mean. If this is supposed to be a technical guide to changing the setting, then it needs more; but I don't think it's necessary to provide a description here for how to make the change.
  • Re 'Criticisms and Rebuttals:' The section doesn't contain 'rebuttals,' nor should it; this isn't a debate page. This is not the place to defend the features and rebut the arguments. The article should merely state what the common criticisms are. I don't understand why including a link to a general article about criticisms of the parent company (which also discusses the company's decisions regarding operating systems) is unreasonable.
  • I removed some of the citations because I don't believe it's necessary to point to a small discussion group with a couple of people ragging on XP, and I don't think the opinion of the AOL Vice President or two Attourneys General really matter all that much in particular. There are countless people with countless opinions of Windows XP, and none of the people who were cited had anything particularly noteworthy to say. But I do understand what you're saying about needing to show that the opinions aren't just someone's POV; I need to re-read that section and think about what kinds of citations might make it more effective for me. (Don't interpret this to mean I think I have any better say than anyone else.)
  • I added to the security section and organized it to make it more focused - the things I removed were pieces like Often users "agree" to download and allow spyware activity just by being on a website, via cleverly worded and hidden privacy agreements. which has nothing to do with Windows XP (and really nothing to do with anything, in fact - is that sentence trying to say that spyware should be allowed, or something?).
  • Headings should not have words capitalized; only the first word. See Manual of Style.
  • I changed "widely criticisized" to "blamed for" because the word 'critic*' appears way too often in that article, and I was trying to change up the word choice a little.

Thank you for discussing this with me. I want there to be a really good article, and I'm sorry if I stepped on some toes. Let's work together on resolving things? - Brian Kendig 00:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. My suggestion would be to leave the UI stuff as it is: it took us ages to come to consensus on this issue, and another edit is not a good idea. The Attorney General's opinion DO matter, and so does the AOL Vice President. It is important to say *who* has an issue with something, don't just say "some people criticize" (see weasel terms). That's why they aer there. If you can find better citations, by all means add them however. I agree you might have a valid point about the spyware section. The problem is: you made a whole bunch of edits in one go, which meant that when we reverted the stuff that wasn't too good we had to revert EVERYTHING you wrote! Next time, make a bunch of individual edits and we can evaluate each one.
With regards to the common criticisms, the WP:NPOV page very clearly states this:
"First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange."
The section was not talking about just common criticisms. It was talking about criticisms and the opposing views. The opposing views are held by a great many people, and to get rid of them is not writing neutrally as you are not representing both sides of the debates. This leads to a skewed article, and if you get rid of them you'll be putting back the NPOV tag, which we all worked so hard to get rid of. You might like to check the discussion and history pages to get an idea of this article.
It is important to note that XP Home cannot become part of a domain. A great many people believe it can be part of one, and it's also a marketing decision by Microsoft not to allow it to be part of one. Just because I say that XP Professional can join a domain does not mean that it can't join one Home Edition! This fact needs to be clarified in the introduction. Don't get rid of this fact, rewrite the sentence if you believe it doesn't flow.
With regards with changing the start menu back to Classic mode - try it some time. The UI theme doesn't change. The article was talking about how you need to change the theme AND the way the start menu displays. This is not just a technical thing (which btw, if you look down article you'll see more of an explanation of this in the UI features section), it's an accuracy thing.
Finally, I see what you mean about the diff. Apologies for this one.
Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. You're latest rewrite of User interface and performance [8] is much better than the old writeup. You did a good job on this, I'm impressed :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) I really appreciate that!

I've edited the article to add back in the news article links I had removed, but I think I put them into better context: it's not important that three people criticized the company; what's important is that a new lawsuit was discussed. I think now that anything nontrivial I'd taken out is back in. Please let me know if that's not the case!

One small concern with the article: it says that CompTIA and ACT withdrew their rebuttals; I can't find any coverage of this on the web, and it seems odd to mention it - did they concede that their positions were flimsy, or something? Can anyone find a reference for this?

About Classic mode and the Start menu - my issue is that the phrase changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode makes no sense to me; like, is there a toggle switch somewhere to change the Start menu between Start mode and Classic mode, or something? It seems like technical mumbojumbo. If you can phrase it in a way that's useful to a nontechnical reader, please go ahead and edit!

I apologize for making so many radical changes at once. I've learned my lesson - next time, I take it slower! Thank you for being understanding! - Brian Kendig 15:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No worries :-) CompTIA and ACT withdrew their rebuttals as they are no longer on their websites. They've done it very quietly, and it appears that no one has noticed - check out how many people are still linking to their site! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There's a difference between "no longer on the web site" and "withdrawn"... saying "withdrew" implies that the groups don't stand behind their rebuttals, whereas "no longer on the web site" could just be an oversight. Unless there's evidence that the groups actively withdrew their rebuttals, I think using the word "withdrew" is POV... - Brian Kendig 13:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. How to make it flow though? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Leave it to me. :) - Brian Kendig
Good work - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me memory protection

The article stated that these OSes didn't have memory protection. They did (they all run in protected mode). The problem was not that they didn't have memory protection, the problem was that they didn't have good memory protection. I've modified the article to reflect this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shadows under menus

This article states that shadows under menus were introduced in Windows XP. They were actually introduced in Windows 2000.

Whoop-e-doo. All this eye candy and STILL you have to reboot to install a goddam font! I don't believe you ever had to reboot a Mac to install a font, even in version 1.0.Graham 06:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Graham, it looks like you're trying to pick a fight - there are many places on the web to do this, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Rhobite 13:03, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
I concur. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not at all ;-) I'm just get very frustrated when, at work, I am forced to use windows and discover that some ultra-basic functionality is missing, yet it wastes precious cycles on useless crap like graduated title bars and whatnot. I agree, WP is not the place to make such comments, but i needed to get it off my chest. Thanks for listening. Graham 03:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)