Talk:Windows XP/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6

Contents

GUI

I've included some more info about XP's compatibility with Windows 9X/Me deskop themes. Pictures included. Nice design of XP, but... In 2001?! If only Microsoft released such a GUI in 1999. For me, Windows 9X and 2000 looked pretty old when they were released. They were gray and the 1990s were colorful, more like XP. Anyway, vista is better generaly. 83.228.121.186 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

XP SP3 "performance improvements"

There are articles circulating around the Internet these days that point to a single blog entry making a claim that XP SP3 is 10% faster than SP2. I've been removing this from the article for three reasons:

  1. It's a four-paragraph blog entry by some otherwise barely-known company called "Devil Mountain Software" that promotes a product they've written called "OfficeBench". Four paragraphs, yes, really, that's it.
  2. The article claims that XP SP3 is 10% faster with their specific benchmark, but a lot of people pointing to the article are turning that specific claim into a general statement that the entire operating system is faster.
  3. The testing methodology itself is suspect as there is next to no information provided about how the tests were performed.

Together, this puts in a situation where the material fails Wikipedia:Verifiability on several counts. If someone feels like reintroducing this information to the article, a more reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is going to be needed. -/- Warren 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the service pack information to a separate article

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal to merge the service pack information to Windows XP service packs was not merge. For clarification, which appears necessary in light of past edits, this means that information will NOT be removed from this aticle and moved to the other one. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has done this, twice now, and I've reverted those changes. We only have a few paragraphs of information on service packs and updates to Windows XP... there really isn't enough information there to justify creating an entirely separate article for it. All this does is make the readers of the encyclopedia work harder to get information, and we want to avoid that as much as possible. The "Editions" section is larger and would be the first candidate for its own article, but even then, the overall length of this article doesn't really warrant making any more sub-articles. -/- Warren 20:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for splitting the service pack information out to another article and deleting the information here either. The proposer has given no rationale for the proposal in the 9 days since adding the {{mergeto}} tag, either here or at Talk:Windows XP service packs where discussion is supposed to be taking place. The proposer's suggested location for discussion seems inappropriate to me since success of the proposal would result in a significant alteration of this article. Accordingly, I've edited the {{mergeto}} tag in the article to direct discussion here and plced a comment on Talk:Windows XP service packs. I believe the most appropriate outcome would be to leave the service pack information in this article and delete the article that has been created. There's no need for it. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

After 16 days there seems to be no consensus to move the information to Windows XP service packs. In fact the original proposer still hasn't provided a rationale for the proposal so I'm going to be bold in closing the discussion, removing the {{mergeto}} tag from the article and put Windows XP service packs up for an AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to re-open this discussion apparently, because the original proposer, User:KelleyCook, went ahead and removed the information anyways, claiming "Following consensus not to have duplicate information"... whatever the hell that means. I've reverted this change since they haven't had the cortesy to participate in this discussion. -/- Warren 06:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I really see no need to reopen the discussion but I'm not going to close it if anyone wants to continue. KellyCook had 16 days to contribute, during which time he was obviously active on Wikipedia.[1] If he had wanted to contribute to the discussion then he should have done so during that time. There was plenty of opportunity.
There was clearly no consensus to merge the information to the other article. Only one editor wanted to do so but he provided absolutely no justification for it. There was, however, a very clear agreement amongst other editors NOT to merge resulting in, after I first closed the discussion, a proposal by another editor that information be merged 'into this article from the other one so there is no ambiguity in the outcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that nobody is interested in continuing this discussion and it was clear when I last closed the discussion that there was a consesus to NOT MERGE. I Think that it's reasonable to close the discussion again, especially given the other active merge proposal. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Proposal to merge information from Windows XP service packs back into this article

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal to merge the service pack information from Windows XP service packs was merge. For clarification, which appears necessary in light of past edits, this means that information will be merged from Windows XP service packs back into this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on this proposal was to have occurred here but has taken place at Talk:Windows XP service packs. I've copied the conversation so far to here where it should have been:

Now that the discussion at Talk:Windows XP has been closed with the dicision not to merge into this article, we should merge this article back into Windows XP. There's no reason to list this information twice. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - As can be seen already, duplication of information in two articles has resulted in significant differences between the two, particularly as relates to SP3. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, I've made appropriate edits to Windows XP that incorporated some information contained in this article that should have been included in that one. I've also made an edit to this article that I've marked as a "snapshot edit". Only edits made after that need be considered for merging into Windows XP in the event that this proposal is successful. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why Thank you Mr. Aussie Legend. I'm glad that you did the appropriate edits. -- KelleyCook (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - No need to duplicate. Merge back to Windows XP, ASAP. --BWCNY (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion on this proposal was suppose to occur at Talk:Windows XP according to the {{mergeto}} tag so I'm going to copy the discussion so far to there. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out in the copied text, I've made appropriate edits to both articles so there's really nothing to merge. Hopefully we can resolve this issue soon. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a clear consensus to merge so I'm closing this discussion and taking the appropriate action as detailed at WP:MERGE --AussieLegend (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Service Pack betas

If one installs a certain beta version, can and should they later just install a newer beta version (or the final version) on top of it? -79.179.148.235 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the top: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows XP article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." However, Microsoft usually requires any pre-release or beta software be uninstalled before installing a final release. 122.248.156.196 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New Picture: Bad

I believe that the current screen shot does not represent what the standard Windows XP desktop would look like. Someone should revert it to an older "more standard" look. Wikinerd2000 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Bad Screenshot

The current screenshot is really bad; there should be one of the default desktop instead of a customized one; don't you think? TheUnixGeek (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Ideally the screenshot would be clean-install with all defaults, first desktop post-OOBE, with the My Computer opened with the default view, the Start Button pressed, and a balloon tip open from the tray. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I see what happened. Some guy uploaded a screenshot of an XP installation with a stupid layout over the old picture. Someone reverted him, though.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieLegend (talk • contribs)

WGA

Could someone please clear up the WGA section in this article? To me, it sounds like a virus (I was bombarded with it once and 3 days later it was mysteriously genuine. It felt like a scam.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.141.239 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why the improvements I made to this page were rolled back?

WindowsXP is NOT a "line of computer operating systems" - it is an iteration of an system that had already been released several times previously.

If the changes were "head-scratching, then why not ask about them instead of merely reverting back to the less-accurate version that was there before? 218.101.86.171 (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The "line of computer operating systems" comment was definitely worth changing. Windows is a line of computer operating systems. XP is just one iteration. The only real issue I had with your edits, after a cursory glance at them, was "It was, however, released to provide a very low cost version of WindowsXP in areas where software piracy is common in an attempt to prevent migrations to newer and cheaper operating systems."[2] The citation you provided doesn't actually say that. The citation just contains speculation by one analyst as to the real reason:
"There's a lot of Linux hype in these markets, there's a lot of piracy in these markets, and Microsoft is trying to address the demand with a product at a lower price," said industry analyst Michael Silver, Gartner Inc. vice president. "Certainly they'd rather see Starter Edition than Linux being sold and shipped, but they don't want it to cannibalize their (standard) Windows market."
--AussieLegend (talk) 12:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it is a line of operating systems. "Windows XP Home Edition"; "Windows XP Professional Edition"; "Windows XP Media Center Edition", etc. etc.... collectively, these are all Windows XP. Pedantically speaking, "Windows XP" does not actually exist... any instance of something called Windows XP must, by definition, be one of its editions. -/- Warren 19:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Please read, Windows XP page editers! Thanks!

Why was my picture removed from the article not even a day after it was posted? It was a picture of XP Energy Blue. Thanks! --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary[3], Energy Blue is the same theme as Royale, which was already shown. Therefore your image added nothing to the article. It has been removed today[4] because you used it to replace an image of the start menu, which was there to specifically highlight the start menu. As I've explained in the edit summary, the current set of images gives better examples of the available themes specifically highlighting the changes to the start menu. The new images also introduced layout issues which, while not insurmountable problems, do not help the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whay isn't it mantioned on the inroduction at the begging that XP is largest OP today, and also the largestc OP on the maket share of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.82.231 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)