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.

Contents 1 Criticisms of Linux 2 Software compatibility 3 writing on diskette 4 Poor design of setup proces (Revert war ?) 5 Factual accuracy of Setup Process 6 Is there a single rebuttal on this page? 7 Windows XP Vs: Windows Vista

[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there are so many "flavours" of Linux, which also evolve far more rapidly than Windows, so that a comment can become outdated quickly.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)

[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 can't find a one, looks like the Lunixtics are at it again.--Rotten 07:01, 20 February 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).