Talk:Windows XP/Archive 5

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Support Lifecycle

This said that Windows XP SP3 would be supported until 2009, five years after G.A. That looks like SP3 was released in 2005, very confusing. Someone should clarify that support ceases five years after the last Service Pack (IIRC). I the meantime it says SP2 now. Chris 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanboys alert

The whole article sounds like an advertisement. "Windows XP features a new task-based graphical user interface." Other operating systems had this kind of interface 15 years before, so this statement doesn't fit in here. The article is bloated and most of the function details mentioned are irrelevant now that XP is a few years old.

Substantiation needed

"Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over previous versions of Windows. It presents a significantly redesigned graphical user interface (GUI), a change Microsoft promoted as more user-friendly than previous versions of Windows." Yes, I know XP is widely sold and stolen, but to say that it is "known for ...GUI" seems to me to be a claim which needs some support (I certainly find it drastically destructive of my texts, harder too use than 2000, even more counter-intuitve and more corrupt'ble than 2000. I will grant the part about being promoted, though.). Kdammers 09:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to fix it. ASHTONZANECKI 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Patches / SP3 / Zune / WMP

There should probably some kind of update regarding the announcement of the Zune player, its accompanying software (portable etc.) and the likely patch requirements and service pack integration. (making the hotfix website link to sp3 beta well out of date) Also the Zune Marketplace (ala iTunes) and its proprietary nature, limited use time-bomb music track sharing schema (3 plays in 3 days, then pop, its gone). All these softwares will need to work with XP, and will most likely require patches to work with their new technology ideas (the whole sharing thing, DRM, time-bomb tracks, wi-fi etc.) I know zero about wiki's so I dont want to do it basically, through fear of breaking something :P --84.13.10.157 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

There are a few guidelines that I follow when making screenshots, and while they are not official, I feel that they convey the most professional and accessible images:

  • No screenshot should exceed 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height, so that the images retain more discernable detail when scaled down, and so that the full-size image can be viewed by the largest base of users.
  • No full-screen screenshot's dimensions should be in any other proportion than 4:3, as this is the de-facto standard (1280x1024 being a notable violation at 5:4) and other dimensions might lead to the idea that the operating system, and not the display, was responsible for the unusual ratio.
  • If text is drawn using anti-aliasing, it should not use subpixel hinting (known as ClearType on Windows). This is rather important, as it affects both CRT users (who can quite clearly discern the effect, without gleaning its intended benefit--it appears blurry) and flatpanels with non-standard pixel orders like BGR, or vertical subpixels (the text can appear seriously malformed and may be unreadable).
  • Unless display of a specific alteration is intended (at which point all other variables should remain constant), the environment and all running applications should be displayed in their most neutral state, without any visible changes from how they were installed. This presents the user with the most accurate representation of a neutral experience, and prevents the user from reaching false conclusions based upon what he or she sees.

I do not feel that these are wholly unreasonable or unrealistic requests; the goal of providing screenshots is not to show off, but rather to supplement the page with an accurate and accessible visual.

Now, as to resolving this: should anyone agree that these are worthwhile objectives in creating screenshots, I would rather not reinstall Windows XP (or try to remove all the changes I've made) to obtain the "most neutral" state, but I can do this if necessary. If anyone has a recently-installed or otherwise unmodified copy of the operating system installed somewhere, then perhaps they could procure the screenshots. There also needs to be some enforcement, as people seem to be inclined to change screenshots (a recent modification, for example, is what prompted me to write this).—Kbolino 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I fully agree with you there. I have made the mistake of uploading several screenshots with ClearType enabled, but I always resize to 800x600. I find it irritating when people upload screenshots with some wacky theme installed, the program in feature opened, with an IM conversation with their friends and buddy list showing off all their IM contacts open. — JeremyTalk 01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You could have a new install running in a Virtual PC just for screenshots. 124.184.11.26 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, idea: Instead of installing fresh, just create a new user account, or log in to the admin account (hopefully unmodified). That should give you the default look. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.143.80 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Doesn't the main screenshot at the top of the article violate the aspect ratio part of this? This may be of concern since it is the main image, after all. (it is 750x600) 76.189.28.183 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased selection under "Other sites".

When much larger Microsoft recommend sites with more content are added they are removed by biased editors. Reason: Information already covered by a small copy and paste blog. Please don't make WikiPedia like DMOZ!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rareviolet (talk • contribs) .

I have posted a comment on your talk page about this. I have now removed all the sites mentioned as they are not directly complimentary to the article.-Localzuk(talk) 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing all quality sites doesn't help. You removed sites saying they were commercial and how-to. All large sites depend on advertisements including Google, MSN (Microsoft) and Yahoo. Regarding How-To: There is a difference between tips / tricks like how to make Windows XP run faster AND how to start windows XP or how to shut down windows XP.
Other sites selection before 21:24, 1 October 2006 edit was good. Excluding Secunia since that site only promotes a graph generation software which displays Microsoft KB's.
This looks good to me (before 1st October edit):


Rareviolet 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete all of those unless they are referenced in the article itself. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Rareviolet your link was clearly spam that you were trying to pass off as something it wasn't (an offical Microsoft site). PPGMD 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PPGMD, The link is a Offical Microsoft Windows XP Expert Zone Community (Microsoft dosen't own it but recommeds it): http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/related/default.mspx. "Use these non-Microsoft communities online to get answers to your questions, state your opinions, meet other Windows XP enthusiasts, and learn more about Windows XP." The sites listed under that section are called Microsoft Windows XP Expert Zone sites. Rareviolet 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Then users will find it if that is the information they are looking for. SchmuckyTheCat 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
There are at least 3 dozen sites there, and you addition made it look like it was a link to that page. Linking to the Expert Zone page should be enough for this article. PPGMD 19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if it wasn't clear. I just wanted people to know I was adding a Microsoft recommend Expert Zone site. Rareviolet 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It ends up you just pointed out a particularly "crufty" part of the article. The whole mess wasn't really necessary or helpful. I bet your addition was as good as or better than many of the others but now the entirety is gone for the better. Keep contributing, you've got a great username. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Plain English EULA Site

Is there any other site that we can get this from? Because the site linked is slightly bias and misstates what some of the sections mean, in particular the DRM clause, and the termination of web services clause. Though technically correct it misleads the reader on exactly how far they are allowed to go. PPGMD 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Linux Advocate . com - What can you expect? lol. Rareviolet 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is linked to from EULA, we don't need it on this article. SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I should have looked a little closer. Indeed, it should definitely go.-Localzuk(talk) 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I got permission from author to re-edit the work under CC Atribution, now to get permission from Microsoft to use their EULA (yes I know I can use it under Fair Use, but getting permission is best).PPGMD 23:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

XP Pro and using multiple processors for symmetric multiprocessing

First of all, this is my very first post in Wikipedia, so please bash me gently this time... I saw the statement regarding the XP Professional Edition and using multiple processors for symmetric multiprocessing, and the way I read it it's as if it claims that dual-core processors can only work on Pro. This is true for HT-enabled processors, yet not for multi-core ones without Hyper-Threading. The linked reference (#3) verifies just that. The multi-core processors are not deemed as separate processors by the Operating System (contrary to the HT ones), and thus can work on XP Home, as well. A quick check at any online store will show you that OEMs sell some dual-core PCs with XP Home. Therefore I suggest that "regardless of the number of CPU cores or Hyper-threading" becomes "regardless of Hyper-threading". R2S 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. :-) The wording did seem a bit vague to me too, so I had a go at rewriting it to try and make that a bit more clear. Have a look at it again and see if it makes more sense to you... of course, if you think you can present it even better, go right in and edit it yourself. -/- Warren 02:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Warren, that I don't feel ready yet to post directly to the article; I hope you understand... (And yes, I saw the Editing Help and got more lost...) Anyhow, back on topic. The current wording leaves the impression HT is a single physical processor, but it's not. So here's what I propose: "support for up to two physical central processing units (CPU). Hyper-threading-enabled processors are considered to be two separate physical processors, and thus require XP Pro to work. Multi-core processors without Hyper-Threading enabled, are considered single physical CPUs, though, and can work on either XP Home or Pro.[3][4]" R2S 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hyper-threading processors aren't considered separate for licensing purposes. XP Home is both HT and multi-core aware and uses both just fine. SchmuckyTheCat 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat, please read the "Details" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading: "All that is required to take advantage of Hyper-Threading is symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support in the operating system, as the logical processors appear as standard separate processors." The XP Home version does not support SMP (reference #4 of the article), therefore it cannot take advantage of HT. Of course one can run XP Home on an HT-machine, if one turns off HT through the BIOS setup. Please also read paragraph 1 of the eula.txt found in \WINDOWS\system32 for an XP Home and an XP Pro machine. Alternatively, you can use this page: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx. Last but not least, a great resource on XP versions and licensing IMHO is this: http://www.techsupportforum.com/showthread.php?t=117140 - but because I noticed all non-Microsoft references have been removed, I was kind of reluctant to mention it; yet it is a really great source. This is not the case with dual-core, though. Dual-core is physically a single processor, and thus can work on XP Home. Please let us make the article clear and accurate on these things, because this article is a Wikipedia Star. Licensing and Technical aspects of the various Windows XP versions are two different things. I am sorry that I feel like quoting the http://www.techsupportforum.com/showthread.php?t=117140 article again, I am not promoting anything in particular; it just helps clarify a great deal of things. R2S 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
They are wrong if they say XP Home does not support HT. Turning off HT on XP Home is idiocy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
R2S, I applaud your wanting to get the article correct and clear on this point. Working it out here on the talk page is appropriate. The way I read [1], which is ref 3 in the article, is that XP Home supports both HT and dual cores. It says first "A physical processor is a single chip that houses a collection of one or more cores" which seems clear. It then says "A core is a collection of one or more processor threads" which is referring to HT. Thus both are supported, which is what I take the article to state now (under the last bullet under Pro features). -R. S. Shaw 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
R. S. Shaw, thanks for the input. I agree with both you and SchmuckyTheCat that now the wording in the article is accurate, clear and correct. As far as the page I mentioned before, I sent a message to the author to ask for clarifications. He admitted that the original statement was wrong, and corrected it by also adding a reference to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810231/en-us. BTW, he thanked us Wikipedians for pointing out the error. :) R2S 05:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Build list

An anonymous contributor added this rather lengthy list of Windows XP builds to the article. Such information is of very limited relevance to an article encompassing the most important aspects of the OS... I'm putting the list here so that if someone wants to write something on the development timeline of Windows XP, it could serve as a useful starting point. -/- Warren 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The initial development of Windows XP was before the release of Windows 2000—namely Windows Neptune, it is copied from Windows 2000 codebase.  Here's is the timeline of Windows XP.
*Early December 1999 - "Neptune" NDAs sent out to testers
*December 27, 1999 - Windows Neptune (build 5111)released
*March 20, 2000 - Neptune Build 2211 leaked to Net
*January 21, 2000 - "Neptune" and "Odyssey" development projects are cancelled (now becomes "Whistler")
*April 17, 2000 - Whistler Build 2223.1 leaked to Net
*June 30, 2000 - Whistler technical beta begins
*July 13, 2000 - Whistler Preview release (Build 2250) introduced visual style named "Professional" and the new Start Menu.
*August 24, 2000 - Whistler alpha release(Build 2257) introduced "Watercolor" visual style.
*October 3, 2000 - Interim Whistler Build 2267 released
*October 31, 2000 - Whistler Beta 1 (Build 2296)
*November 13, 2000 - Microsoft mis-announces that Whistler will be called Windows 2001
*January 4, 2001 - Interim Whistler Build 2410 released, replaces early Windows icons with new Windows XP icons
*January 16, 2001 - Interim Whistler Build 2416 released
*January 23, 2001 - Interim Whistler Build 2419 released
*February 5, 2001 - Whistler officially renamed Windows XP; technical reviewers receive private demonstration of Whistler builds 2428, 2432 at Microsoft. Microsoft announces that Whistler desktop versions will be called Windows XP
*February 13, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2428 released, introduces "Luna" visual style; Windows XP introduction event at Experience Music Project, Seattle (Build 2432 publicly demonstrated)
*March 5, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2446 released
*March 23, 2001 - Windows XP Beta 2 (Build 2462a) released
*April 23, 2001 - Microsoft clarifies USB 2.0 support in Windows XP
*April 26, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2465 released, introduces a new Welcome Screen and the Bliss wallpaper is set by default.
*May 12, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2469 released. A group of 160 Windows enthusiasts meet in Redmond for ExpertZone launch
*May 24, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2475 released
*June 6, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2481 released
*June 15, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2486 released
*June 21, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2494 released
*June 29, 2001 - Windows XP RC1 (Build 2502) released
*July 7, 2001 - Amazon.com reveals Windows XP box designs, pricing; both are quickly pulled from site at Microsoft's request
*July 24, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2520 released, it was removed the Internet Explorer pinned item in the start menu.
*July 28, 2001 - Windows XP Build 2520 assigned as Windows XP RC2
*August 8, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2535 released
*August 14, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2542 released
*August 24, 2001 - Windows XP RTM (Build 2545) released
*October 25, 2001 - Windows XP (Build 2600) released to the retailers worldwide
Perhaps, Warrens, you could use this info to start a stub w/ the title "Development of Windows XP", similar to the "Development of Windows Vista" article you started.:-)
Consider it done, check it out on Development of Windows XP - Emir214 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Service Pack 2b

Why are there no reference to SP2b anywhere in the article? It's show up all over Google and Newegg, but no one knows anything about it. Anyone?

-merv

72.4.160.227 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just a new CD with various updates since SP2. 67.85.137.135 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead Image

There's a dead image that I created the file: XP Black.png, A 3rd-party visual style via UXTHEME.DLL that I downloaded from deviantART.

Please upload the screenshot from the web: http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?eb35c4dc0d.png

Thanks! --210.5.94.39 13:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to the article as if you want to upload an image, you should do it yourself, and that involves creating an account for yourself. Also, I don't think the image really adds anything to the article, and I think the text explains the visual styles thing well. Using fair use images for the sake of using them is a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. jd || talk || 13:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't need to create the account in Wikipedia. You can go by upload yourself by clicking the URL above. --210.5.94.39 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but I'm not going to. The fact that I think the image violates the eighth fair use criterion aside, you have not provided any licensing information, which is needed for every image uploaded to Wikipedia. The image also needs a fair use rationale. I will not upload the image for you, but I can't comment for other people. jd || talk || 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Common criticisms section too large

The "common criticisms" section in this article is rapidly getting out of sync with the main Criticism of Windows XP article. Should the bulk of the content in this section of the article be moved to the "main" criticism article, and a much shorter summary left in its place? --59.167.104.199 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Common Sidebar for Windows articles

I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles. Please take a look at it. I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. --Dgies 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tawker

I want to leave you a message about Windows XP but you blocked the talk page, why? unblock please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.249.32.51 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

The talk page isn't blocked, your account is blocked. See your talk page (and don't just blank it again). Guy Harris 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what is xp

give definetion of xp

"eXPerience. Or, alternatively, "Windows NT 5.1" (except for the x86-64 version, which is Windows NT 5.2). Guy Harris 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Service Pack 3

I was just on the Microsoft Update website and notice that they offered Office XP Service Pack 3. Is that anything like the Service Pack discussed in this article? Knight45 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Windows XP, not Office XP. — Alex (T|C|E) 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


OK. Sorry about the delay. I did find out it was for Office XP seconds after I hit the "Save Page" button. Knight45 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference 29 to microsoft's website about service pack 3 is no longer working so either a new link needs to be established of the citation removed. User:Pajee 14:11, 16 June 2007 (GMT)

SP1 screenshot - Set Program Access and Defaults

I re-uploaded the PNG screenshot because the prior screenshot is just only a low-quality JPEG screenshot (yuck...!). Please do not revert the screenshot because it is OK. --Jigs41793 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the screenshot you uploaded with a neutral one that doesn't falsely represent Windows XP's visual appearance. Please be more careful of this in the future if you're going to replace screenshots; a low-quality screenshot which accurately portrays the subject is preferred to a high-quality one that doesn't. Thanks. -/- Warren 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur, screenshots of OS' need to be the default appearance, not a souped up customized view. The shot needs to represent the product in it's "out of the box" form, unless the subject is the customization (e.g. themes, TweakUI, et al). David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Could someone put up something about minimum requirements or recommended system requirements for XP?75.120.202.117 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Domains

I believe that XP home can be made to join a domain, through fairly simple behind-the-scenes configuration. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 7 January 2007 (GMT).

Indeed it can - but it is not meant to and any ability to do so would simply be a 'hack'. It may also be against the license agreement. -Localzuk(talk) 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Template

I've been browsing through some of the Windows operating system articles, and I've noticed a slight inconsistency in the templates used. For example, this and the Windows Vista article both have the name of the product under the logo, while other articles such as Windows Mobile and Windows XP Media Center Edition have their names on top of the template. I was wondering which of the following is the proper form, so that the others could be changed. --Smoothtofu 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles like this one and Windows Vista use the {{Infobox OS version}} template, which is intended for specific versions of a line of operating systems. Windows Mobile, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows etc. usually use {{Infobox OS 2}}, since they're more geared towards articles that describe an entire line of operating systems, instead of specific releases. Windows XP Media Center Edition should be using the Infobox OS version template. -/- Warren 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10

I am almost 100% certain that DirectX 10 will not be supported on Windows XP in any form, due to underlying architecture and technology changes in Vista that allow it to function. The statement is also completely unreferenced, and as such, I am removing that sentence. If anybody can add a reference to DirectX 10 on XP, feel free to add it back.

Bigbio2002 02:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. DX 10 is vista only, and will not be backported to XP at all, as announced by microsoft. Darthnader37 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Status

Is Windows XP on current support or on extended support? cause on its support status section it notes "Extended Support Ends In 2014". — Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The word "Current" should have been there. I put it back in. Thanks for pointing that out! -/- Warren 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

PowerToys

Should I add a section about the PowerToys for XP? They are not mentioned in the article. See Microsoft's PowerToys website.
—Michael 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone wrote an article, Microsoft PowerToys. SchmuckyTheCat 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Minimum system requirements

I don't believe there are any indications of what them here...

Can someone put up the minimum system requirements for Windows XP? --71.172.57.230 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the info and reference on the extremely minimal requirements now. Altough the computer is practically unusable at those configurations, it's still interesting information. --The Fifth Horseman 11:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Random things hobbyists do might be interesting but aren't encyclopedic. SchmuckyTheCat
I didn't look at the added info (though have seen some site about that), but, although I'd think those “random things hobbyists do” could be encyclopedic, those requirements could be less than the hobbyists could achieve with the hardware available to them.--AVRS 07:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP Registration music

I seemed to notice that alot of people got interested in searching for the music to the Windows XP Registration (registration for new computer or after restoring the system. Should i add a note referring to the location of the music file (which is on every windows xp computer!!!)? if you think it's a stupid idea, fine, i don't care! just wondering so people can stop searching.

The merge of the article Windows welcome music has already been suggested. I am certain that is what you are referring to. If no-one else does, I might have a go. --rjcuk 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
the "registration" screens are called OOBE. SchmuckyTheCat 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have merged the articles. Hopefully few people will disagree with the edit under "Trivia" (that's what it is for Windows 95, anyway). Oh, and thanks to SchmuckyTheCat for pointing out that it's OOBE (thus being in the OOBE folder) --rjcuk 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Modification to lede

Yes sorry to have modified the lede. didnt knoe it was a features article. I thought they had a star on the page or something. i still think the lead is far too long and turgid though--SlipperyHippo 16:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Featured article?

If this is a featured article, why is not in the category: Featured Articles?--SlipperyHippo 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. The category is Category:Wikipedia featured articles.
  2. The category goes on the talk page, not the article itself.
  3. The category is on the talk page.
Harryboyles 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Supported until 2014?

Where does this link mention it?77.97.230.248 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy

Royale Noir

Does the theme hidden in the source code deserve mention? Link. Coolgamer 04:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it interesting to the overall concept of Windows XP, or is it interesting to the .01% of users who futz with themes? SchmuckyTheCat 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It's already been mentioned on the Energy Blue/Royale theme page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tech Nerd (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Origin of XP

Might it not be that it came from Extreme Programming? -82.131.68.73 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It didn't. SchmuckyTheCat 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Windows Welcome Music

Im gonna put in something about the Windows Welcome Music because otherwise its pointless to redirect Windows welcome music to here.

Wikiman232 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the OOBE section. SchmuckyTheCat 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not all too convinced about this section at all. Firstly the composer is incorrectly identified as Brian Eno- who did certainly not compose this score. (My guess is that Bill Brown did it - but I'm not sure). But it seems like quite a trivial thing to discuss in the main XP article. Perhaps it should be boiled down to a passing reference? --Christopher 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - I'm cutting out that section - it seems stupid and out of placeTehniobium 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This is a stared article...no reason to have a trivia section...so i added the trivia tagging

Tehniobium 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And there is a reason not to have a trivia section. For those who think otherwise, see Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles. Considering that two of the three statements have "citation needed" tags, and the third already exists under "User interface", I'm removing the section. Harryboyles 00:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Misread your statement. Corrected above post. Harryboyles 00:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
You are excused ;-) Tehniobium 12:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

XP/NZ Themes

Took this from article as I found a more appropriate page _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP release date

Just noticed that the Windows 2000 and Vista articles use the Release To Manufacturing date as the date they were released. This article uses the retail release date. I'll change it to the RTM date with appropriate cite. If anyone disagrees, let me know here. Smoothy 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Windows 2000 article uses the retail release date (Febuary 17, 2000). Josh the Nerd 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Josh
So it does. My apologies. Vista doesn't though.Smoothy 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Versions (CD)

Nowhere do I see explained the three types of WinXP CDs - Retail/Corporate/OEM. Note that a Retail CD key doesn't work with the OEM CD, etc. Also, I'm not sure that something like WinXP Home Corporate exists. Info on this should be added. --NakiBest 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP for specialized hardware

Minor query: this section says 5 versions, then goes on to list siz. Just in case I'm missing something, would someone familiar with the subject check it out and fix if necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.111.176.237 (talk) 08:01:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Unicode Support?

Perhaps there should be some mention of the level of unicode support. Are there differences in unicode support between versions (e.g. Home, Pro, etc.)? 71.93.238.53 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Unicode is the native character encoding of Windows XP from the kernel to the UI. Everything else (old apps, etc) is transcoded. There is no difference between SKUs. Pro has an advanced feature called MUI to change the interface between languages, and these languages are stored as unicode but that's kind of tangential. SchmuckyTheCat

video card

I'm trying to find out what kind of video card I have. Aside from taking apart the computer, how would I find that out? --Slyder Pilot 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a how-to or troubleshooting site and this kind of question is inappropriate to answer.
However, try this. Open device manager. Right click the video card and choose properties. There should be a tab labeled "Details". Go to it. There will be an entry for the Ven\Dev (Vendor ID, and Device ID). It will look like this: PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2592. Google the Ven\Dev, ignoring anything after the four digit devID. SchmuckyTheCat

MSN Explorer and others

The article lacks information about MSN Explorer bundled by default in RTM version and about Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player 8 (9 in SP2), and .NET Passport integration in users accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.51.78 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows NT-based quote

Windows XP is the successor to both Windows 2000 and Windows Me, and is the first and last consumer-oriented operating system produced by Microsoft to be built on the Windows NT kernel and architecture. Isn't Vista also NT-based? Taylor 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I changed it to just say first. Josh 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Maximum amount of supported RAM

Is the maximum amount of supported RAM for each edition of XP specified in this article? Like what is it for Home and Professional?

features request in SP3

It will be a good idea that on SP3 for windows XP, they remove Windows Messenger, (because is useless),and add the new IE 7 and WMP 10, So you don't have to download those 2 programs. --MarioV 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Service Pack 2 external links...

Do we need so many external links in the Service Pack 2 section..? Isn't to a bit too much? Mugunth 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It can do with a bit of pruning. But I don't feel strongly either way. --soum talk 08:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User Interface

The UI section, has way too many screenshots... I would prefer remove some.. what say? Mugunth 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Its way too many. Royale Noir wasn't officially released. So that should be the first to go. In fact, IMO, the Luna Blue and Royale should be kept. Classic can be viewed in any other windows screenshot. Zune wasn't packaged with any Windows XP version. Luna Blue and Royale are the default themes in XP and MCE respectively. Since we prefer the uncustomozed screenshots, only these two should stay. --soum talk 08:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the snapshots except, Royale, Luna, classic and Start Menu of Royale theme. Mugunth 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Language list

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

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

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

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

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