Talk:Windows XP/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive 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.


Contents

Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board

Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

APM Support in Windows 2000 and XP

Windows 2000 and XP still supports APM.

Yuhong 19:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ACPI support standard with Win 2K

The ACPI support in Windows XP is nothing new. ACPI was supported as well in Windows 2000 as it is in Windows XP.

XP-N

I added a new section on this, but it needs to be added to. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Windows NT 5.1"?

I take issue with this statement in the article: Windows XP is also considered Windows NT 5.1 because of its succession to the NT product line. Who goes around calling it "Windows NT 5.1"? I've certainly never heard anyone refer to it as such. If I went to CompUSA and asked about Windows NT 5.1, at best they would look at me funny and at worst they would have no clue what I meant. - Brian Kendig 02:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If you go to the command prompt (Start->Run->"cmd") the first line says
Microsoft Windows XP (Version 5.1.2600)
While it may not be considered so by the consumer, it is the version number. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so it's Windows XP version 5.1.2600. Where's the NT? - Brian Kendig 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
It's in the NT family, therefore it is NT 5.1. I'm sure I'm missing something and muddling this up, so someone else more in tune with microsoft codenames should come here. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your revision of the article. That's good. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :) - Brian Kendig 04:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This version number is used by programmers to know witch Windows version their program is running on. Windows API will not say: I´m XP! It will say: My higher number is 5. My lower number is 1. And you just guess it´s XP, so this has a use, thought not by the end user. --Sekelsenmat 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No more activation?

Someone added this claim to the article: The product activation feature has subsequently been dropped from the latest CD release of Windows XP, which comes with Service Pack 2 already installed. is this true, does Windows XP SP2 no longer need to be activated with Microsoft? - Brian Kendig 20:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I saw that this morning and didn't immediately remove it, but I'm doubting it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • the top links for "windows xp activation sp2" on google point to plenty of crack databases, so if the crack exists, so does the activation. I'm going to remove the statement. It's probably a mistake based on OEM restore CDs. SchmuckyTheCat 20:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Aww...and I was hoping this'd lead to Longhorn having no activation :(. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 14:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Starter Edition

I will change the text in the article to solve this. The microsoft proposed thats the project "PC Conectado" use Winxp Starter Edition, but the project born to use Open Source Software (primary objective, the use o free software is acceptable, but not very like), and the propose has been ignored if it exists, i dont know anything of this and i know the project PC Conectado. Suns 02:49, 28 oct 2005 (-3 UTC)


The article claims this Windows version is available in Brazil. I´ve never ever seen this in Brazil. This was offered to our governament, but we refused it, since I personally can only beliave this is a joke or an insult to say that developing countries should use a Windows version that cannot run more the 3 programs at the same time. --Sekelsenmat 14:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are some related stories on slashdot:

More Details on Cut-Rate Windows OS For Asia

Windows XP Starter Edition off to Slow Start

Brazil: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend

MS Plans Low-Cost Windows for Brazil

--GaryDunn808 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how starter edition knows it's on an LCD or on a CRT larger than 17"... If you were to say that it is not LICENSED for use with a video card that includes DVI, that would make sense. But unless they are actually reading the DDC data, and comparing to a database, then popping up an error saying "Sorry, this monitor isn't compatible with Windows Starter Edition", I don't see how else to do it. Just saying 'limited to 1024x768' is good enough. (I mean, without doing a lookup of the monitor model to a database saying if it's over 17" or not, the OS has no way of determining the physical screen size! What if someone plugs it into a TV via an adaptor?) Ehurtley 23:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed this line. It's wrong and unreferenced. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tenth Product" as opp "eXPerience" - too speculative to add?

To save space, I've refactored this section of discussion into summary form; the full text can be found in this revision. - IMSoP 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

IMSoP wondered whether it was worth mentionning an alternative (completely unofficial) derivation for the "XP" name, alongside the official "Experience" explanation; towhit, that it stands for something like "10th Product". Office XP is internally 10.0, and it can be argued that there were 9 previous "products" in the Windows and Windows NT lines which XP effectively merged (a table of versions is at User:IMSoP/Winver).

However, SchmuckyTheCat suggested that this was indeed too speculative to add without some "inside source" or other reliable authority. The definition of "Product" required to reach this conclusion was also the subject of debate, but it was agreed that this was not leading to any improvement in the article, so the subject was dropped.

Windows lines

Is XP considerd in the NT/2000 line?

If no one objects, I would like to create a subpage to Microsoft Windows called the Windows Line page, featuring the Numbered (or Original) Line (WIN 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x), the 9th Decade Line (WIN 95, 98, and 98SE, and possibly Me, if Me is considered of the Decade Line), the NT/2000 Line (WIN NT 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, 2000, and 2000 server, and possibly XP), and the Portable Line (WIN CE, Embeded, and Tablet PC). If anyone has better names for these lines, pleas indicate so here. Also, would it be better to put a category template rather than a subpage for MS Windows? Thanks for your time. --Admiral Roo 19:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Where does the number "ninth" in your "Ninth Decade Line" come from? If you are naming the line after the decade when those OSes appeared, you are off by one: the 1990s was the tenth decade of the 1900s. Anyway, I have not heard of "Ninth Decade Line" before. If it's your own coinage, the expression is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia (original research). As to your original question, Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, Windows XP is NT 5.1, and Windows Server 2003 is NT 5.2. Indefatigable 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Your right, it is the 10th decade. Don't know what I was thinking. --Admiral Roo 10:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do this? There are several articles about the history of Windows. I understand the concept you're trying to convey, but I think we already have it here quite well. I've never heard "9th decade", is it original?. 95, 98, ME... are all "Win9x" if you're looking for a real world term.
  • There was no WinNT 1x or 2x. Windows Embedded is based on the core os used, either CE, 2000, or XP all have embedded products. Tablet PC is simply a repackage of Windows XP Pro, not a new line. SchmuckyTheCat 20:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, to both you Indefatigable and SchumckyTheCat. --Admiral Roo 10:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I note that the main Microsoft Windows article takes a slightly different, more technical, approach to dividing the various versions, leading to 5 distinct categories (although its mention of Windows CE is possibly a little brief, since it seems to be completely distinct from both DOS and NT, so should probably get its own category). The "History of" article features a timeline similarly divided by "bittage". I knocked up a more product-oriented table at User:IMSoP/Winver, which may or may not be useful to someone, somewhere... :) [BTW, this discussion would probably be better placed somewhere like Talk:Microsoft Windows - or even the Wikipedia:Microsoft notice board which I only just discovered!] - IMSoP 15:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the layout. --Admiral Roo 15:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Technical Error

I have a Dell Dimension 4700 from the 2004 xmas. Since I got it, the stupid automatic update has and is flawed. All the time it downloads, it makes all of my programs slow, and often frezzes them up. If I disable the feature, the same thing happens. Is their a way to remove the componet from Windows XP without dammaging the system? --Admiral Roo 15:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOT a technical support forum. Seek assistance elsewhere.—Kbolino 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Default theme

Is the default desktop of grass and sky an actual photograph or is it a computer-generated image ? Jay 20:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

From Bliss (image) : Bliss is a JPEG photograph of a landscape in the Napa Valley outside Napa, California. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that was fast! Thanks. Can we have a screenshot of it for the Bliss article. Right now I've linked Image:Default xp theme.JPG which has got the startup menu which is not appropriate for that article. Jay 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Free CDs?

Order Windows XP Service Pack 2 on CD for free

How does one do that? --logixoul 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a link here

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.mspx but it only goes to here http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

so i dont think that microsoft is doing this anymore barbobot

That's what I noticed, otherwise I wouldn't have asked ;) . I'm removing the link. --logixoul 07:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is the link that currently works: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp2/cdorder/en_us/default.mspx

Help

Whenever I go on google or ANY search engine (ask jeeves, yahoo, msn etc.) even the urban dictionary search engine, Whenever I double click where your meant to search it comes up with ALL my previous searches in a little scrollbox! I wanna get rid of it! EVERY SEARCH ENGINE, EVEN WIKIPEDIA'S!!--60.226.28.4 06:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I have the same problem, it's annoying, anyone know how to get rid of it?--Sultn 07:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Clear your browser cache completely. And this is utterly the wrong place to ask this kind of question, anyway. --Kiand 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you clear your browser's cache?--60.226.28.4 07:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Please, how do you clear the cache? And I have XP.
  • ...Please.

Its easy to clear the cache. all you do is (in internet explorer) click on the tools section and then click internet options. then click delete files. too easy

There is a more efficient way to stop those boxes popping up. It is a tool called AutoComplete; all you need to do is turn it off. Go to Tools, Internet Options, and click on the Content tab. Then click on the AutoComplete button and uncheck the boxes. Clearing the cache will temporarily stop the boxes, but they'll soon come back again. Turning off AutoComplete is the best way to go. -- Daverocks 12:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
WP:NOT a support forum. Seek technical assistance elsewhere. And sign your posts, please.—Kbolino 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BSOD

Lest someone start thinking it's a good idea to put a picture of a blue screen of death in this article, please don't - unless you think I should put a picture of a kernel panic in Linux. All operating systems crash at some point. We don't need screenshots of it. Rhobite 20:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but when's the last time you had kernel panic in the course of standard operation? Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Just the other day, actually. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
i got my WinXP ages a go and it has never displayed the blue screen of death. however my Win98 had it about 1 a fortnight.
You don't own Windows XP, Microsoft does. You have licensed the right to use their software. If Windows 98 only crashed once every 14 days, then consider yourself lucky. And yes, Windows XP does display the blue screen of death, but the kernel and operating system are more resilient and less likely to do so.—Kbolino 08:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the BSOD page and I thought I might as well mention it here too...who knows, maybe someone will be able to help someday: I get bluescreens on XP about 5 times a day. Obviously something has gone horribly wrong, but I don't know what. Adam Bishop 02:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Email me from the link on my user page. SchmuckyTheCat 07:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Home DOES support screen cloning

I have a laptop with Windows XP Home, with SP2. It has an nVidia video card, a GeForce Go 6200. Among the video card options, there is a Clone Screen option. I tried it and guess what? It worked. The screen of the laptop was cloned onto the CRT I connected to it. Maybe screen cloning was not supported prior to SP2? I need to know more about this.

Devil Master, 8:48, 28 October 2005 (MET)

Maybe someone should verify this is an XP feature, and not a feature added by video card manufacturers.
  • From my memory, it's not an XP feature (and, I don't think multi-mon is restricted to XP Pro either)
  • "Clone Screen" or "Clone Display" as a search term finds nothing on microsoft.com
  • My laptop, with Intel video, doesn't have "Clone Screen" as an option.
  • Sounds like an Nvidia feature name, SchmuckyTheCat 13:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
This is not an operating system feature or even a driver feature. This is a basic feature of any graphics card that supports two or more displays, i.e. a laptop with a built-in display and a VGA connector.—Kbolino 08:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

removed "Clone Display"

  • Clone Display allows users to "clone" their monitor onto a secondary display (a feature often used in video production). While it does support video cards with dual displays, XP Home Edition limits this feature only to extension of the primary display, and not cloning.

Removed this, needs a cite. SchmuckyTheCat 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Article's Standing

On the top of this page, it says that the article is bad and one of the best. Does the community want to remove it or do they want to commend it for being great? This contradiction doesn't help much either. 71.250.51.234 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Windows XP is a major revision...": No it is not

Windows XP is a minor revision of the Windows NT operating system line. Most of its features were available in Windows 2000, which was not marketed to the average consumer. Even the version number shows evidence of this: Windows NT 4.0 → Windows 2000 (NT 5.0, major revision) → Windows XP (NT 5.1, minor revision). Windows 98 and Me do not count as operating systems, and even if they did, Windows XP does not follow in their line, regardless of what Microsoft might say.—Kbolino 08:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have a point. My vote is yes to minor in place of major. Justin 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It's the biggest release since Windows 95 - even if that is marketing and media hype, it's major. Dot versions are meaningless to what is "major" to the public. SchmuckyTheCat 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
You have a point that XP has been marketed as a major version, but the truth is that Microsoft must think it is, technically, a minor revision and that's far more concrete than it's appearance to the public. I say change it to minor. -- Rishi 04:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Windows XP is billed as a major change, at least for user for a couple of reasons, it the first major change to the GUI since the release of Windows 95, and for home users transitioning from Windows Me and Windows 98 it's a big change in the architecture. I vote for the major to stay because compared to the moving from NT 4 to 2000, and among the various 9x kernel OSs XP was an actual noticable change from both Windows 2000 and Windows Me. PPGMD 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Let me compromise: the Windows XP interface represents several major changes:
  • The new Start menu
  • Some new visual effects (menu/tooltip shadows, the selection rectangle)
  • The new themes
  • The ability to group taskbar buttons (not just automatic grouping)
  • The grouping of the Control panel
  • The use of 48x48 icons in the file manager by default (they did exist before XP)
  • Support for alpha-blending in icons
  • The new "Clear-type" anti-aliasing method (sub-pixel hinting)
  • Some new multimedia libraries
  • The remote desktop functionality (a rework of older technology)
  • NOT support for Unicode (Win 2000), accessiblity features (Win 2000), shadows under the mouse pointer (Win 2000), "personalized" menus that remember most-selected programs (Win 2000), animated opening/closing and "smooth scrolling" (Win 98), menu/selection fading (Win 2000), etc.
But the operating system architecture contains only a few changes. Almost all of the major core differences between say, Windows 98 and Windows XP were present in Windows 2000. And need I remind you that Windows 98 SE was "billed as a major change"—in the NT world, its changes would barely amount to a service pack.—Kbolino 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo size

I've noticed that all Windows articles (Windows 98, Microsoft Windows, etc.) use 96px logos on the same line as the title. Would it not be better to place the logo on it's own line underneath the title and above the screen, in a larger size (say the same size or slightly smaller than the screenshot)? I've made this change in the Windows Vista article already.

Rishi 04:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the way it was before, but for right now, like other infoboxes, that's the way the logos are displayed. — Alex 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's really just the way it makes the title off-centre that bothers me. -- Rishi 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Fixed as a proposed template change. — Alex 10:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice job! This looks much better. It does make sense to place the title outside of the infobox, IMO. -- Rishi 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Features new to Windows XP

Why was a whole section of Windows XP killed and moved to this article without even a mention on the talk page explaining why? I mean, I can understand the need for subarticles, and if the section had been replaced with a decent summary, this would be totally understandable. But you do not destroy an entire section and replace it with {{main|Features new to Windows XP}} and one sentence explaining that Windows XP added some new features to the Windows software line. We need a decent summary of the subarticle with the most important features mentioned. I'd do this myself, but I'm on holiday with limited internet access, so all I have time for is this quick message. Johnleemk | Talk 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. The User Interface section should probably also move to the new article.—Kbolino 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP advertising campaign

Does anyone remember the windows XP advertising campaign when it first launched. Something like 10,000 times safer operating system. just interested as to what exactly the campaign was in hindsight, with all the critical updates/vulnerabilities etc (although they are the largest target with 90% market share).

219.89.177.137 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

security

"There is little defense against a user opening an e-mail attachment without realizing that it is malicious"

I think this is wrong. In this case the problem is not (only) the user - it is the operating system by leaving the user alone with all admin rights as stated above (the fact that users, by default, receive an administrator account). So it´s probably not a very good example.--MilesTeg 03:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the problem has more to do with application programmers not using the tools that Microsoft gives them to programs apps that will use lower permissions. There are a number of applications that still require admin rights for no reason what so ever except crappy programming. With Vista I heard they were pushing the point by making the default user at a lower security level. PPGMD 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New and updated features

I removed the following from the abbreviated list of new and updated features:

  • Improved system start-up, stand-by, and hibernate performance.

Let me clarify why:

  1. One of the design goals for Windows XP was "boot in under thirty seconds"—a slight improvement over Windows 2000 (which loaded drivers serially—one after the other—as opposed to Windows XP, which loads them in parallel), depending on hardware, and a major improvement over Windows 98, depending on how messed up the boot sequence was by other programs. The boot sequence was, however, extended by Service Pack 2 and is no shorter than Windows 2000 on machines with decent specs (800–1000 MHz, 128–256 MB RAM).
  2. No changes have been made to stand-by and hibernate "performance". These features have seen little change since Windows 2000.

I am also considering the removal of the following item:

  • Built-in support for DSL and wireless network connections, as well as networking over Firewire.

with the following justification:

  1. To be honest with you, I lack the knowledge here to comment. I know a number of wireless features were added with SP2, but I forget what was present in SP1 and base XP. I know 2000 could support Wireless, but I think it was done with additional (largely third-party) drivers.
  2. "Support for DSL connections" means support for Point-to-Point over Ethernet (PPoE).
  3. There is no mention of this on the full Features new to Windows XP page, so it is not justified here. It should be added in detail there before ever appearing here.

And I would prefer that "user-friendlier" not be used. It's a foul abomination of a word. Anyone with a decent grasp of English will probably feel the same way.—Kbolino 21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Stand-by and hibernate performance is vastly improved. I don't have time to explain why. I slightly agree with you about start-up time but I disagree enough to believe it should still be in the article. SchmuckyTheCat 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Then I shall wait for your explanation. I agree with you wholeheartedly if you are relating Windows XP to 98 and the like. I cannot, however, agree about Windows 2000—which is Windows XP's true predecessor.—Kbolino
On the subject of hibernation performance: A number of specific improvements were made to the code which reads and writes hiberfil.sys; on my old Toshiba Tecra 366mhz laptop, for example, I saw a performance improvement from about 45 seconds to hibernate with Windows 2000, to about 15 seconds with Windows XP. It was, frankly, f'ing awesome -- one of my favourite iprovements with XP back then. Nowadays in 2006, with machines that are routinely several times faster than the typical computer in late 2001, and faster HDD's with larger caches, on faster I/O buses, the performance differential isn't quite so noticeable. That doesn't negate the fact that improvements were made, and performance was improved as a result. Review the section titled Faster Hibernate and Resume in this MSDN Magazine article from December 2001.
On the subject of support for DSL modems: This is a new feature in Windows XP, and indeed a fairly significant one for people switching from Windows 9x or 2000. It's phrased so that people reading the Windows XP article, but don't know what "PPPoE" is, will "get" what's being said here. It's not mentioned on Features new to Windows XP simply because nobody's added it there. Warrens 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt you on the hibernation performance (any longer), but to be honest with you I haven't the faintest idea how such performance gains could be made. I can only surmise that the Win2k code was messy, possibly for compatibility reasons. I didn't know PPoE support was added in XP; then again, I'd never connect a DSL modem directly to a Windows-based computer anyway, so I guess that's why. As for wireless, how much was added in SP2? My ignorance showing brightly, what exaclty is "networking over Firewire"? Something akin to null modem connections of old? Just want to make sure such a thing exists—along with the support for it.—Kbolino 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The Cable Guy is one of the best sources of anything & everything to do with networking in Windows... lots of good technical details, and no marketing bull. If you've got some time, read through Wireless LAN Enhancements in Windows XP Service Pack 2... that covers all the important stuff. He also wrote an article on Wireless Service Provisioning, and there's also an entire article dedicated to the new Wireless Network Setup Wizard.
As for networking over Firewire, you've got it right -- it's a point-to-point connection. It's implemented as a TCP/IP network; you'll get an icon for this network under Network Connections if you have a Firewire port on your machine. MSKB 310433 has the low-down. Macs and Linux support this technology, too. Hope this helps. :-) Warrens 05:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I apologize if I seemed a bit terse. I've put everything back into the article.—Kbolino 06:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
One thing I'd say about standby and hibernate "performance" in 2000 vs XP, is that in 2000 it works "good enough" but in XP it works "almost always". There were plenty of apps and drivers in 2000 that prevented standby or behaved poorly afterwards. Drivers that didn't "want" to go to standby could bugcheck 9f to prevent it, which is worthless to the user (and suicide to the driver, but whatever). That's mostly been eliminated under XP. This all falls under "working as advertised" for both OS, but internal to msft, it was thousands of hours of work. SchmuckyTheCat 18:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Memory limitations with SP2

This blog post explains about PAE mode http://www.instant-tech.com/blogs/ctyler.nsf/d6plinks/CTYR-6H3KZ4

and contains these Microsoft links about it.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875352

Think having 4gig RAM with SP2 is hot stuff? Think again. :P "Thanks" Microsoft. (I'll leave it to someone else to put that info in the article in a non-snarky way. I run 2000 Pro on _my_ PC.)

  • who cares, and what exactly is the problem? memory handling is covered somewhere, I'm sure. SchmuckyTheCat 07:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Wikipedian with a low level of computer knowledge, looking for help in figuring out whether I should install SP2. I entered Windows XP Service Pack 2, which redirects here. If installing SP2 creates a memory problem, this article would be the place to explain it, at least until there's a separate article on SP2. JamesMLane t c 11:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Install XP SP2, the memory "problem" that is described above is misunderstood by the poster. Warrens 14:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs a Criticism section

Lots of grievances need to be aired - e.g. why is it so slow, so bloated, is it to keep hard drive and chip makers in business? Punanimal 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Punanimal

They may need to be aired, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gripe bulletin board, so they don't need to be aired here. Guy Harris 21:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view so you can come to an understanding as to why such grievances don't belong in Wikipedia. Warrens 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that well sourced, verifiable criticism of Windows XP can not be placed here? I know of many other pages on this site which contain such sections - NPOV is not always positive. -Localzuk (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think they were referring to "airing grievances", not sourced criticism. Besides, the article already has a whole section on common criticisms, so I'm not sure what else there is to be desired. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Turns of phrase like "so slow" and "so bloated" are not encyclopedic. It's as simple as that. Warrens 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Just kind of off topic, but XP really isn't a shitty OS. You look back and you'll see the 95/98 years ... you look forward and you'll see the 80 bazillion versions of Vista. Vista Home Edition! Vista Super Home Edition! Super Duper Home But Not Quite Professional Edition! EXtreme Edition! UB3R 1337 3XTR3M3 3DITI0N!!1 I mean, XP is no OS Ten or Linux, but when you have to use Microsoft, XP is where it's at. 71.112.250.239 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually Windows XP has nearly the same amount of version, XP has 5, Vista will have 6, not counting the EU mandated editions. PPGMD 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

protection of processes

Over in the Memory protection article, there appears the statement that "No version of Microsoft Windows has true protected memory, as one process can invade another's memory. I thought that the NT-heritage Windows (like XP) did protect one process's memory from another. Anybody over here knowledgeable about this point? -R. S. Shaw 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph from that article, which was added by an anonymous user a couple of weeks ago. It's factually incorrect. You are correct; all Windows NT-based OS's have full protected memory. Warrens 06:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Major revision of windows

Windows XP is a major revision of the Microsoft Windows operating system created for use on desktop and business computer systems. Isn't WinXP a minor upgrade that promoted the version number from 5.0 (Win 2K) to 5.1? --Soumyasch 16:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legend

This article mentions that the name XP is a adopted from "experience". I have heard another theory about the origin of this, which I suspect is an urban legend, but though not necessarily. What I heard was that major part of Windows XP was developed in the development centre at Cairo.

Cairo → Chi-rho → χ-ρ → XP

What do you think? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No. SchmuckyTheCat 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

XP is a common abbreviation for christ

End Task

Where is the section in the article that explains how the End Task feature works? I try to use End Task on crashed programs but it seems that Windows just doesn't have the power to do so, but you'd think they would have programmed "End Task" with ultimate authorities to end the task easily by shutting down it's processing directly..I press End Task and it just sits there, it's kind of pathetic ;) Also I am unable to find a third party program that can end tasks more efficiently but if anyone knows of one maybe you can add it to links? 71.112.224.112 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of "end task" would probably be inappropriate in this article because it's supposed to be an encyclopedic overview, not a how-to. Also it wouldn't belong in "Windows XP" because it works the same in all Windows versions since at least 2000, and probably earlier. "End task" sends a message to the app asking it to shut itself down. If the app does not comply with the request, right click on app in Task Manager, go to process, then click on "End Process". This will force the app to close, rather than merely requesting it to close itself. Indefatigable 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

TCP/IP connection limit

This article lacks pretty important information central to the developer community: the new TCP/IP connection limit. This is mentioned no-where in the article. I want to know (1) what the limit is, (2) why the limit is there and why Windows 2000 doesn't have it, (3) what a user can do about it, including whether Windows Vista will have the limit, and (4) what its impact was, i.e. the main problems it caused in existing and future applications. — Given that something this important is missing, I find it extremely disturbing that this article ever became featured. — Timwi 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI: Timwi cited this missing information as part of his motivation for nominating the removal of this article's Featured Article status; see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Windows XP 2. I have addressed the problem by adding a paragraph to the article with the information in question. - Brian Kendig 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a big deal to include it, but that's quite a trivial matter of interest to a small number of people, not a general audience. SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

tcpip.sys

tcpip.sys appears to be a binary file. If indeed this file may be edited to increase the maximum number of outgoing TCP / IP request, then it is not obvious how. Splendour 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual – as such, discussions of how to edit tcpip.sys to remove the connection limit are well beyond the scope of this article. Warrens 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The article's use of "edit" is misleading. Tweaking binary values at nonobvious spots ( then installing the file and rebooting) should not be called "editing", which by normal usage implies textual changes. I've changed the verb to "patched". -R. S. Shaw 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists

Can we please stop putting the lists back in? What's wrong with plain prose? Why do we feel the need to abuse the bullet-point feature of MediaWiki? Our overuse of lists was an issue when this article was nominated on FAC, and later on again at FARC. I don't have the time to turn these lists back into prose, but when I do, I will be reverting future prose-to-list conversions on sight. Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Because

• We

• Like

• Bullet

• Points

Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeah, I agree. Lists should be their own articles. just mention that there were a bunch of different versions of XP, and link to the obscenely long list. Ehurtley 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Teacher and Student "ACADEMIC" Version

Can someone throw in some info about this 'special' version, inc any limitations etc --Deon555|talk 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are academic versions of Windows? I thought that was an office promo? SchmuckyTheCat 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no technical differences with the retail version, just special licensing agreements that make them cheaper and allow them to be installed in a couple more computers (3, IIRC). Titoxd(?!?) 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Software compatibility

Am I blind, or does this article mention almost nothing about Windows XP's compatibility with software applications and driver APIs (e.g. NDIS)? This is probably XP's greatest advantage over competing operating systems, so it would be a good idea to mention this. I would edit it myself, but I don't know where to start. XP is supposed to support software all the way back to the DOS era (and is supposed to support almost everything designed for Windows/DOS with the compatiblity tweaks), and it supports just about every PC hardware device because of its large marketshare being an attractive target for developers. Flayked 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

64-bit version, and Intel chips.

I've made a one-word modification to the sentence on XP x64 Professional to change it from 'Intel Pentium 4 with EM64T' to 'Intel chips with EM64T', since Intel's whole line includes it now (or will soon enough.) Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D, Xeon, Core 2 all support it. At this point, only the Celeron M, Core (1) and the Core (1)-based Xeon LV lack support. Now that I think about it, I should probably change the AMD reference, too, as only Sempron doesn't support AMD64. Ehurtley 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarity

"With the release of Windows XP, the development of operating systems based on the Windows 95/98 architecture was finally discontinued." seems to me to be unclear: Is XP the last 95/98, or the first post 95/98? Also, why is the word "finally" in there?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/n/Talk%7EWindows_XP_Archive_4_a58d.html"