Talk:Windows XP/Archive 1

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.

Contents 1 About the image 2 Capitalization 3 Service Packs 4 Windows XP Second Edition ("Reloaded") 5 Criticisms 6 NPOV and Factual Inaccuracy 7 "marking a shift from the desktop-metaphor used in Mac OS X and most distributions of Linux."

About the image

There is currently a image of a typical windows xp desktop, i think it would be better to get someone to take a screenshot after completing the following process: 1. Install WinXP 2. Open Explorer 3. Take screenshot, that way we would have a totally virgin screenshot without any user modifications.

I cannot do this since i dont use software from microsoft but if someone is in the situation please step up and do it, thanks --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:32, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

What would be the use of a screen shot of a 'virgin' windows desktop??? Enochlau 07:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To show how it looks obviously, and not someones theme for it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:14, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

Most people do not have such a 'virgin' windows desktop, and, i believe, it is thus unrealistic to depict one here. obviously, the use of such a picture would be for non-winxp users to see what it looks like; a typical setup after some use would better demonstrate its capabilities and available customisations. Perhaps, we could show BOTH and allow for comparisons. Enochlau 10:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

What about the new features of this OS?

At the moment the article just says that the GUI is slightly redesigned. I looked at the Bill Gates keynote speech movie of the introduction but I don't remember much anymore besides that it replaces MS-DOS and has some movie editing features already installed. In the shop I found out that it uses again much more memory and computer power. The movie as well showed a commercial with a lot of people flying around, so the system is supposed to make working with computer a light thing (which has been basically a claim MS made with any introduction of a new OS in the last 10 years). Could somebody who has actually alread installed this OS come up with an elaboration on this? And: I don't like any marketing speech nor just MS bashing.

-- HJH

Hello HJH, Yes I have a system with windows xp. I have owned it for 3 months now. It has been on for probably 3/4 of that time. It has not glitched even once. Not sure if it is because it is xp, or if it is because it is a Dell, or both. So far it has not stumbled once. But so far I have learned not to add a bunch of crap/downloads to it, and so far it has worked. Time will tell.

---

<< I notice no mention of any unusual number of bugs in XP. >>

By bugs, do you mean security flaws? While XP certainly has plenty of security problems (and this is addressed in the article), most have found it to be a stable, well-rounded OS. XP is frankly no different from any other piece of software, including such products as OS X (which has had some real whopper bugs - including the one that erased some FireWire HDDs) or the Linux kernel (anyone remember the data-corrupting release).

<< Is this an omission? Also missing is any statement that XP is internally a 64-bit OS, and any discussion of the inefficiencies that may result from that. David 21:53 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC) >>

XP is certainly not a "64-bit OS" internally. Although the code is 64-bit clean, and although 64-bit versions exist, the XP you buy at the corner store is certainly a native 32-bit product.

---

From the article

"Further evidence of anticompetitive intent in these products are the extreme processor and memory requirements of these products on the competing Mac OS operating system. While MSN Messenger requires 128MB RAM and a PowerPC Mac, competing products like ICQ require only 8MB RAM and any processor. Since Microsoft discourages and sabotages products like Trillian which unify chat networks, and does not allow ICQ and other competitors to talk to MSN messenger users, it seems likely that the trumped-up memory/processor requirements are a simple attempt to monopolize the online chat marketplace."

While this is absolutely true, the article Windows XP doesn't have to talk about the conspiracy of Microsoft. -- Taku 23:26 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't need to discuss Microsoft's legal issues at all. One other thing: AOL Instant Messenger(AIM) was one of the first messaging programs and later released to non AOL users as well. A recent install of AIM stand alone on my system disabled the MSN Messenger association with Outlook Express on startup, and replaced it! Unchecking "make default messaging program" in AIM preferences restored MSN. The point is, all the squabbling about Microsoft stifling competition with a suite of integrated programs fails to mention how easy it is to just "uncheck" a program from working with another. BF

---

This article seems to wear quite a bit of a chip on its shoulder, but I'd be a bit leery of going in and trying to work out the bias without checking here first. Several charges are levelled against Microsoft here, with no real support given for them, and the only link at the end is an anti-Windows piece. What evidence is there that Microsoft cribbed the log in system from Linux? It seems to me that there have been graphical log in screens for quite some time. What sort of procedure is there for going in and really taking an article to task? I've only done particularly minor edits on pages before, but this one needs a lot of work from a NPOV perspective. Kirk

The procedure is basically, Be Bold :) If you were going to do something extremely drastic though, you might want to discuss it on this talk page first. Adam Bishop 07:28, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Capitalization

I believe the name is capitalized Windows xp, not Windows XP. WhisperToMe 03:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Although in the logo the two letters are certainly lower case, Microsoft always refers to it in plain-text in uppercase, as it is now. See the Windows XP Home Page. I don't think any change is needed. -- Tom- 15:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Service Packs

The article says "Unlike previous service packs from Microsoft, SP2 will add new functionality to Windows XP...". Actually, Microsoft used to typically include new functionality in service packs. This stopped only after SP2 for Windows NT4 (1997?), which introduced countless new bugs along with new features and led to outrage among MS customers. MS decided to limit future service packs to bug fixes only, and release new functionality via distributions like Option Pack 4 (1997). However, seven years later, it's possible they've become confident enough again to give the all-in-one approach another shot.

Windows XP Second Edition ("Reloaded")

This was a rumor, and nothing officially was announced. Microsoft originally denied its existence. It's since emerged it's apparently just a marketing campaign, and not new software [1] [2].

Criticisms

I've tried to clean this up a bit - mainly by removing POV stuff that can't be backed up and by citing sources. I've made an attempt to remove several weasel terms (see history) - Ta bu shi da yu 05:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and Factual Inaccuracy

This page looks OK to me now I've editted some of it to get rid of the many weasel terms used in it. I also can't see any more factual inaccuracies. Is it possible to get rid of these headers from the page now? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good. Nice work. But please DO NOT remove accurate, factual, verifiabe stuff just because you feel like it. The XP UI is *the* single most-criticised part of the OS. Read a BBS. Glance at a review. Or talk to any working technician. Tannin 10:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If it's a fact, why didn't I see any factual evidence? If it's verifiable, why wasn't there some verifiable link or some such thing like that in there? Besides, I didn't get rid of it because I felt like it, I don't like the UI either. Put some factual evidence (like a study or quote someone) before making sweeping statements. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I looked at it again, and the statement has been improved. Good work. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like I'm wrong. It looks like someone else put in a counterpoint. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I am a "working technician". - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the history, it looks as if someone from the "real world" disagrees with you and can back it up with facts. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, he/she has backed it up with nonsense assertions. XP is criticised for the user interface, and frequently. Whether the criticisms have validity or not is a matter of opinion, the fact that they exist and are frequently made is not opinion.

Turning now to the silly assertion that the UI isn't any slower than previous Windows interfaces, this is just ludicrous. Of course a bitmap of any given size takes the same time to load as any other bitmap of the same size. This, however, is entirely irrelevant. The XP UI is so much slower than (e.g.) the Windows 2000 UI that one can see it without even bothering to measure it. Further, Microsoft themselves admit this insofar as they (a) felt compelled to provide, albeit buried well down in the menu structure, a method to turn a good deal of the performace-sapping eye candy off, (b) recommend an accellerated graphics card (something that, until XP came along, has not been considered remotely relevant to a OS desktop), (c) make substantially higher hardware recomendations, particularly for RAM, and (d) programm the installer to insure that XP will not even load on lower-power systems.

In short, the fact of the slow and hardware-hungry UI is not something that it is possible to dispute. Nor is it possible to dispute the fact that Microsoft have been criticised for this. Whether or not the slower UI is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, however, is not for us to say. Tannin 14:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, he's done *exactly* the same thing you have, except given some facts to back up his argument. Firstly, you're using the same weasel terms that I've been trying to get rid of out of this article (you say "some critics" and don't point out who they are - definitely frowned upon in Wikipedia), and secondly, some people like the new UI. Thirdly, the new UI is not actually "slower" - this is factually incorrect. I'm reverting it back to the way it was. After all, it's not for us to say whether we like it or not. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. You have entirely failed to deal with any of the proofs I offered above. Further, you are trying to smear me by claiming that I do not think some peope like the XP interface. Finally, nowhere, either here or in the article itself, have I made a statement about liking or disliking the XP interface, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Tannin 15:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What proofs? you haven't mentioned any! I'm putting back the statements - just because you don't like them doesn't mean that others don't like the UI. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These proofs. I'll put them in bold so that maybe you will read tbem this time. You have not responded to even one of them.

Microsoft themselves admit this insofar as they (a) felt compelled to provide, albeit buried well down in the menu structure, a method to turn a good deal of the performace-sapping eye candy off, (b) recommend an accellerated graphics card (something that, until XP came along, has not been considered remotely relevant to a OS desktop), (c) make substantially higher hardware recomendations, particularly for RAM, and (d) programm the installer to insure that XP will not even load on lower-power systems.

Tannin 15:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's crap. Microsoft have not admitted anything.

a) This is done to give people the option of turning off UI features they don't like

b) You don't necessarily need an accellerated graphics card for XP - in fact where does it recommend this in their specs?

c) Um, the increased demand for extra RAM and hardware could be because of other things like Fast User switching, etc. You can't just say it's for graphics.

d) So? This could be - again - for other reasons. See above.

I'm putting it back to the page back to normal. Bottom line: if you take out the opposing viewpoint on the UI you are not displaying NPOV writing. Actually, with your "Critics" comment in the article you aren't showing a NPOV viewpoint because you haven't said who those critics are. Stop reverting decent material!

Lastly, I don't see you incorporating this into the article. Try it and see how long this information stays in there.

- Ta bu shi da yu 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Out of interest, how can you say "The XP UI is so much slower than (e.g.) the Windows 2000 UI that one can see it without even bothering to measure it."?!? I have used Windows XP on similarly spec'ed machines using the default UI theme and it's no slower than the old theme. This is purely and simply FUD. And I don't like FUD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Very easy. If you do it on (e.g.) an Athlon 2000 with a decent amount of RAM, the difference is small. Try it on (e.g.) a K6-II/400. Huge difference. Or, simply read the various proofs offered above - which you have entirely ignored so far. Tannin 15:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fact is, even if you personally claim to observe this difference, Wikipedia is not for "primary source" information, precisely for the reason that anyone can claim to have observed anything. Point to a reputable primary source elsewhere as the source for your information, or give it up. Samrolken 22:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How do you know this isn't something else they've changed in the core O/S? I think the whole performance thing should go. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"marking a shift from the desktop-metaphor used in Mac OS X and most distributions of Linux."

Removed. No source found for the idea that Microsoft is abandoning the desktop metaphor, and a task-based UI doesn't imply this. Samrolken 23:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)