Talk:Criticism of Windows XP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Citations

would someone please add citations to the first section detailing the security flaws? because i saw at least 15 statements without citations, everyone knows un-cited info is quickly deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.228.120 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Criticisms of Linux

Does anyone else feel that there should be an article about criticisms of Linux aswell? 84.251.209.174 14:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course although any such criticisms are unlikely to be applicable to all distros of Linux. 87.112.24.89 01:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be and there are some, e.g. Debian#Advantages_and_Criticisms (I realise that this is very mild criticism, and as a Linux fan I think there is scope for more). But it is difficult because there are so many "flavours" of Linux, which also evolve far more rapidly than Windows, so that a comment can become outdated quickly. People also update Linux systems much more rapidly than other systems, so it is not interesting to read about stuff which is no longer being used. (In contrast, while I am rarely more than one version behind with Linux, I still use Windows98 and Mac OS 7.1.) --Theosch 10:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There should not be a "Criticism of Linux" article. An article about the criticisms of Linux once existed (Talk:Criticism of Linux), but it was deleted because it was against official Wikipedia guidelines (see Talk:Linux#criticisms_of_linux ).
Does that violate NPOV policy? No, not if we treat all OSes equally. There should be no "Criticism of ..." article or section for any OS. The article about the OS should mention notable critics and criticisms in other sections.
But don't take my word for it -- check out the official policy, guidelines, and widely-agreed-with essays: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Article_structures_that_can_imply_a_point_of_view, Template:Criticism-section, and Wikipedia:Criticism.
Please tag any "Criticism" article or section, for any OS, with {{Template:Criticism-section}}. Thank you. --70.130.44.41 19:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software compatibility

The article states that "16 bit applications are incompatible with 64-bit versions of Windows XP and Windows Vista". I suggest a reference is added, to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282423/en-us (List of limitations in 64-Bit Windows). R2S 02:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] writing on diskette

When XP firrst came out: If you start up XP /MSW to edit a text on a diskette, XP will apparently let you do that. But when you later look for all the work you did, XP will tell you that the diskette is unformatted (which is untrue, since 2000 and 98 can read all the changes you have made). Presumably this has been fixed, but I don't know if that's true. Kdammers 07:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor design of setup proces (Revert war ?)

1. In Windows XP locale/language/keyboard/location are different settings, which is good - at least for people living outside of the USA. Each of this has to be configured only once (and not serveral times as currently stated). "US English" is the fallback for any language. Defaults depend on the localized version of Windows (e.g. German or Russian Windows XP have different defaults). Yes but it would be better for the seup process to ask the user which country/language they wanted once and then simply ask them to confirm the appropriate settings for keyboard layout, timezone, standards/formats, news, non-unicode settings, default paper size etc. Most distros of Linux do this

2 and 3. This is only a problem in the USA. Default timezone depend on the localized version of Windows and the country selected. e.g. German or Russian Windows XP have different defaults - not a general problem. Nope English language copies of Windows sold outside of North America have GMT -8 as their default timezone as well. It would make far more sense to have the default timezone based on the country specified at the start of the install process. For countries with multiple timezones the most populated zone (e.g. GMT -5 for the US) should be used.

4. a problem indeed, very annoying

5. Visual Studio is not part of Windows XP, iirc. An application problem not a problem in Windows XP itself. Yes but other applications should be able to access the Windows XP country settings and set their own defaults accordingly. -- 62.178.136.129 (replies in bold from 87.112.24.89 01:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC) )

I've deleted this whole section as it contains no verifiable information, and reads like a rant from a bored blogger, not like an encyclopedia article. -/- Warren 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The information IS verifiable and consequently has been reinstated. Simply try installing windows XP from a CD yourself and you will see ! 87.112.12.166 00:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this again. As is it is OR. I have heard no less than Jim Allchin complain about the XP setup process, that running through text mode setup seemed absolutely primitive to him after seeing how OS X installs. There is no way to source him saying that - that I know of. And that isn't what the text in the article was. Before this section is put back in the article, please source it. SchmuckyTheCat 06:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out already everything in the section is verifiable by anyone attempting a windows install themselves. I really think Wikipedia is being ruined by some Wikipedians going way too overboard in their interpretation of the guidlines on Original research/verifibility. Does the fact that someone says it elsewhere on the internet or a book really make it any more likely to be true ? Is it really necessary to cite articles when writing about the religious affiliation of the pope or the toilet habits of bears in forests ? 193.112.172.11 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That it is true does not mean it is widely regarded as criticism. That is what is OR. SchmuckyTheCat 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So it is true that windows has these shortcomings but not enough people are (publicly) complaining about it to make it a "criticism" ?

Should we therfore reinstate the section but rename the article "Major DEFECTS of Windows XP" ???

Or would that only bring the NPOV nitpickers out of the woodwork (sigh) 193.112.172.10 12:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, this isn't annoyances.org or some other online forum for discussing problems with Windows. This is an encyclopedia. No self-respecting encyclopedia in the world is going to include information on opinionated, unpublished, unsourced observations made by nobodys. This has nothing to do with NPOV -- Wikipedia requires proper Wikipedia:Attribution of all claims made. Read the article on attribution, in its entirety, decide if you're going to play by Wikipedia's rules. If you aren't interested in adhering to Wikipedia's policies when contributing content, then you are not welcome here. -/- Warren 13:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here has suggested that people not adhere to Wikipedia's policy. The problem is certain peoples excessivly nit-picking interpretation of them. Where in Wikipedias policy does it state that information (which is readily verifiable by anyone with a computer and a Windows XP disc) has to be deleted even when there is no dispute over its accuracy ? There are entire articles on Wikipedia which are uncited without being deleted. A simple "this section/article does not cite its sources" and or "This article or section may contain original research or unattributed claims" tag is deemed to suffice. But this is obviously too much like common sense for some people ? 193.112.172.10 14:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual accuracy of Setup Process

  1. Language settings is a valid concern, but this is the case for other systems as well. With Linux some Setup programs do this better than Windows XP, but some offer no or only very rudimentary language settings.
  2. Might seem to be splitting hairs. Linux Setups generally make a good guess of the timezone from the language and keyboard settings but often get it wrong by one or even sometimes two hours.
  3. This is a common gripe which causes me lots of bother, but on Linux, as the dreaded "Letter" manages to kick out "A4" on many occasions, often upsetting the printer completely.
  4. Again, a characteristic of many Setup programs. I think a fair criticism would be that Microsoft doesn't provide a "do the settings first" Setup, forcing users to find or write such Setup programs themselves. In Linux, there are all sorts, from "one-click" to "spend hours" Setup programs.
  5. Again, a common problem with many systems. In Linux at the administrator level you're sunk without some knowledge of English. With some BIOS and Linux-install programs, you're sunk if you can't find the US-keys on your keyboard (i.e. mainly switching y and z and finding characters like =).

To sum up, these are agravating problems are probably solved best by Mac OS, second best by some Linux distributions, third best by Windows, and forth best by some Linux distributions. Therfore while the facts of this section might be factual and accurate, they may not be fair criticism or be somewhat out of context. --Theosch 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"they may not be fair criticism" why ? Because the alternatives may (or may not) be just as bad ??? 87.113.68.35 06:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a single rebuttal on this page?

I think there are sufficient rebuttals at this time. --Rotten 05:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows XP Vs: Windows Vista

If you think Windows XP is a bad egg, just wait until you start to use Windows Vista. Look out for BIG BROTHER!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.110.194.201 (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, that might be informative for some people. Anyway, what I would like to know is if any criticism listed in the article are addressed in Windows Vista. Hopefully somebody can elucidate on this area. Springbreak04 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I believe Criticism of Windows XP#Antitrust concerns should be moved to Criticism of Microsoft

It seems as though this section discusses criticism of the business practices of Microsoft (bundling software with the operating system), rather then criticism of the operating system itself. What do you think? — H.7004.Vx (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deleted section

Even security-conscious users had trouble with Blaster, since it could infect a computer with a newly installed copy of Windows XP before the user had time to download security fixes.

This line is in violation of WP:NOR. Talk:Digg explains.

Online polls, comments, etc are unreliable because it's trivial for a sufficiently motivated person to make their point of view appear to have wider support than it does them using multiple accounts and/or IP addresses. Vary | Talk 23:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Misterdiscreet 17:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources.

There are a lot of statements in this article that need to be sourced. Please add them soon, before I go through the article with a bulldozer and clear out anything without a WP:RS-- and remember to read the policy, blogs and forums are not reliable sources --Lucid 01:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Startup and Shutdown

Is it just me, or Windows XP really starts up and shuts down slower than previous and next releases?194.141.3.17 (talk) 00:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unstable OS?

"It is also found unstable by most consumers, who rather prefer buying Windows XP Professional. Windows XP Home Edition was dubbed The most unstable Microsoft OS after Windows Millennium Edition."

I have used XP for about four years without ever having a BSOD. Besides, the afirmation isn't sourced, so I'm removing it. 143.107.151.34 (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TCP socket limit

The TCP socket limit criticism section was sourced to a blog, and then a DIY "patch" from a file sharing site. It was also poorly written. I think the socket limit section may have a reliable source out there, and I've got no prejudice to a properly sourced and better written paragraph about it. For now, I've deleted it. It sat in the article long enough to find good sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Storm

Kozuch - you reverted my edit without an explanation. Please provide one here. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)