Talk:Windows XP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Article policies
Featured article star Windows XP is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2006.


This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 (making the hotfix website link to sp3 beta well out of date) Also the Zune Marketplace (ala iTunes) and its proprietary nature, limited use time-bomb music track sharing schema (3 plays in 3 days, then pop, its gone).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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] 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)


[edit] Featured article?

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWindows_XP_4044.html"