Talk:Windows XP/Archive 3

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 Windows XP for Tablets 2 Prevent vandalism from foaming-at-the-mouth Apple Zealots 3 Mac OS X and Windows XP 4 Blaming 40% of crashes on spyware 5 My reverts 6 Windows XP/Mac OS X 7 Paragraphs about trojans and spyware 8 Limitations? 9 Poll 10 NPOV statement on linux vs windows starter edition? 11 Consensus on reverts of pigsonthewing's comparison of Linux to XP Starter Edition? 12 Comments removed 13 References added 14 Another security flaw found 15 Keyloggers 16 Service Pack 2 17 CNet review of Service Pack 2 18 Boot Disks 19 Screenshot for pop-up blocking 20 OS-tan 21 Stability is a feature? 22 Round of applause 23 Is the lack of Fast User Switching really a drawback to networking? 24 New Device Support as feature add 25 This article compared with other OS articles 26 Product activation 27 Windows XP Installation problems 28 Innacuracy in Kernel Improvements section 29 Woohoo! 30 Infobox/table 31 Window's (any version) is Pathetic! 32 A Feature Article On Windows XP? 33 Luna

Windows XP for Tablets

My change in the description of the Tablet PC edition of Windows XP was reverted. I had corrected the statement that Tablets had touch-sensitive screen to reflect reality, that they have a digitizer. This is an important point, as digitizers have much more resolution, and allow resting of the hand on the screen while writing. Why was this reverted back to touch-sensitive? --Antiframe 21:10, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't revert this, but I think "pen-sensitive screen" (as it is now) is better than "digitizer" or "touch-sensitive screen." Touch implies that it's designed for finger-presses, but the term "digitizer" is ambiguous and in my opinion, improperly used. Outside of the context of pen computing, the term can refer to any hardware which converts analog signals into digital values. Rhobite 23:54, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's not sensitive to pens but more specifically to a magnetic pen made for the purpose. This gives the tablet the capacity to messure the pressure at whitch the pen is pressed on the screen.

Ours 1:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Antiframe you are clearly in the right here, this just goes to show how ignorant some wikipedia editors, like Mel can be. THE KING 07:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prevent vandalism from foaming-at-the-mouth Apple Zealots

It would be nice if we can detect the OS of users who edit these pages, to prevent foaming-at-the-mouth Apple Zealots from continuously vandalizing these pages

Mac OS X and Windows XP

I added quite a bit to this section. At first I thought of it as a place for Apple freaks to try and make XP look bad, but the more I know about both, the more I realize how similar they are. I especially like the sentence I added at the end of the first paragraph which I think points out that, no matter which way is more effective or efficient or easy to do, Windows XP and Mac OS X almost always have ways to do the same job. I see Graham complains about fonts in Windows, but there is a place for managing fonts, and there is one in Mac OS X, this is the point I was trying to get across, while ackonwledging that the OS's are usually used by different classes of people. I tried not to make one look better than the other, and view them on an equal footing, though I am partial to Windows, if only becuase that's all I've ever used. I hope you like my changes, I thought they added some usefulness to the section, which seemed inadaquate before.--naryathegreat 17:11, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't look much different to me - maybe someone removed your edit? You might want to check it again. I re-added the external link, I think it is a useful site for those wishing to go into the fine details of the differences and similarities of the two, and is neutral enough to be acceptable to users in both camps. Incidentally I wasn't complaining about managing fonts, I was frustrated at the fact that a REBOOT of XP was necessary to install a font, where, from a purely theoretical standpoint, one should not be needed. Personally I find the overwhelming popularity of Windows to be a continual puzzle, but as far as articles in WP are concerned, NPOV rules. That's why I put my comment on the talk page.Graham 23:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Along those lines it amazes me that most of the new 'voting machines' run on a windows core. I'm not gonna lay a finger on this article, it's really getting there, good job all and thanks for your diligence and devotion to this article.!!!Pedant 18:06, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

Just a note, you don't have to reboot Windows XP to install a font. I don't know where you got that information. Rhobite 18:15, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ditto, I have noticed the same, no reboot for font install. PPGMD 20:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blaming 40% of crashes on spyware

Re: "Microsoft blames 40% of all software crashes and failures on spyware." This seems like a very dubious statement. Narya, can you cite this? If not we should take it out. Rhobite 17:16, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

It's true. It's from an article in PC World (I can't remember which issue) but Microsoft definately said this, I've seen it two other places.--naryathegreat 17:44, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I found the PC World article. It says "Microsoft blames spyware for over half of all application crashes." I don't believe it, the quote has no source.

This article from eWeek is the best I could find. It says "More than half of all Windows crashes reported to Microsoft Corp. are the result of deceptive software, according to Brian Arbogast, corporate vice president of the Identity, Mobile and Partner Services Group for MSN and the Personal Services Division at Microsoft. Spyware is increasingly making computers slower and less stable in addition to intruding on browsing, he said." It was in the context of an FTC panel. I'm not sure why this would come from an MSN executive, as opposed to someone from the Windows group or PSS. It also differs significantly from the PC World quote. But, I guess it should still be in the article even though it's not authoritative. Rhobite 18:03, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

As it is, I may have gotten it wrong, but there should be a reference to the half thing then, it shouldn't be taken out.--naryathegreat 18:08, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

And then, I read the end of your message, how clever of me. Ah well, whatever. In any case, I've probably thrown the PC World out so it doesn't do me any good. I think it should be in the article, because if we named where every fact came from, it would make for one busy article.

I edited the article and attributed the quote, feel free to adjust if you have any issue with how I presented it. Also fyi, spyware is legal in most places. Rhobite 18:17, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I thought it was illegal in the, they've already passed laws against it, I think. And even so, the people who make should still have their hands chopped off (that's what the did a long time ago to people who stole) or tortured until they scream for mercy--and then keep going. I hate spyware and the people who make it, but who doesn't? ;)--naryathegreat 18:19, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Well, IANAL but this is what I know: The US, UK and Australia don't have national spyware laws. The US state of Utah has a law, but it just requires that spyware companies obtain consent and allow uninstallation. Anyway this is barely related to Windows XP so I took the para out. Rhobite 18:59, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

My reverts

I did some reverting, and I owe it to you folks to back it up. I replaced the two paragraphs on e-mail viruses and malware - they're important, they're basically npov, and there was a LOT of effort put into them as you can see from this talk page and the article's history.

I removed the link to a site that outlines the differences in IE - this info is available from Microsoft's site, so there's no need to link to a possibly misinformed third party.

I also removed a link comparing XP and MacOS X, from a very pro-Mac POV. A link to a non-partisan comparison might belong here, if such a thing exists. But that site was openly biased towards Mac. Rhobite 00:13, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

In response to "there was a LOT of effort put into them" AND I QUOTE " If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. (emphasis present on the original)--naryathegreat 00:26, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

My edits on this page have been pretty minor. Brian Kendig and ta bu shi da yu have done excellent work here, including on the paras you deleted. Anyway that's not my main point - my main point is that those paragraphs contain relevant information and they belong here. Windows has had problems with e-mail viruses and malware, these deserve a mention. Anyway, didn't you write much of that spyware para yourself? Why are you now taking it out? Rhobite 01:43, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Rhobite, I disagree that the site I linked is strongly in favour of the Mac. The author clearly states that his personal view is slightly pro-Mac but that he has not allowed it to persuade him in his comparison on a feature-by-feature basis. Have you actually read through the comparisons on the site? Many features score better on XP over the Mac. There are also many areas that would probably favour OS X that he hasn't actually mentioned. The overall scores are very evenly matched. In providing the link I chose it over a number of other sites that simply rehash the tired old Mac vs PC partisan debates that have been raging for years precisely because it attempts to be objective and consideres only the facts about features, not the opinions of zealots. In addition it is updated as new releases come out and particular issues are brought up in its forums. I believe it is about as non-partisan as it gets, or as far as it can be, as you rightly point out. It also includes further links to pro-XP partisan sites, such as Paul Thurrot's. It seems to me that you are allowing your own pro-Windows bias to see it as pro-Mac. I say leave the link in and then anyone reading this article who is interested in a comparison can go there and make their own minds up whether it's POV or not. NPOV on WP does not mean we have to extend our own philosophy to any sites we link - people are able to decide for themselves and should be allowed to do so. Graham 01:00, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any possible reason to list a site comparing Mac OS and Windows in this article. We're is an encyclopedia, not an OS advocacy site. If people want to compare the two they can read the Mac OS article and the Windows XP article, or they could (gasp) go to Google and find 10,000 such sites. — Kate | Talk 01:07, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

In which case why is there an section in this article titled "Similarities of XP and Mac OS X"? Clearly if this article warrants any comment comparing the two then a link to another site doing the same is a perfectly valid addition. I think one problem here is that while I totally agree with you that WP is not an OS advocacy site, this article as well as the ones on OS X et. al. do tend towards advocacy. It is that, I suggest, that is what prompts others from the "other" camp to add sections such as this one to try and put some balance in. If the rest of the article was truly NPOV this urge would be curbed!Graham 01:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On further though I think I would advocate removing this section altogether. As it stands it doesn't make any meaningful comparisons between the two, and to do so would inevitably be POV. If this were an article about Ford cars, it would be like having a section "Similarities between Ford and other cars", and for that section to point out that Fords have four wheels, an engine, a steering wheel and dashboard, JUST LIKE THE OTHER CARS! More useful, but far more contentious I expect, would be a section "Differences between XP and OS X". It would be virtually impossible to make such a section NPOV, so I propose we lose it altogether and forget about it.Graham 01:52, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Before you wrote the last comment (edit conflict), I'd written:

If there are notable/important similarities between Windows and Mac OS, then certainly they should be covered. For example, claims that Microsoft plagerised the Mac OS UI in .. Windows 95? (I think) would certainly be relevant. On the other hand, a mere comparison of the two with no other purpose isn't particularly useful to include.

A more tongue in cheek answer would be that it's there because Brian Kendig added it. Just because it's here doesn't necessarily mean it should be. :-)

It's also not "clear" that an external link covering exactly the same thing as the article already does should be included. If the article already covers it, what's the point of an external link that says the same thing? — Kate | Talk 02:05, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

And in reply to your last edit:

Yes, I'd support removing it. I don't think it adds anything particularly useful to the article. — Kate | Talk 02:05, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Well let's remove it then. To answer your question though, the external link would allow the comparison to be greatly expanded, and to go into great detail which wouldn't be appropriate here. The WP article could list some broad comparisons, but for the nitty-gritty, the external site is far better suited, since it's not constrained by the NPOV rule we have.Graham 02:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that the section didn't serve much of a purpose in the article. Rhobite 03:23, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

The paras on malware et al apply just as much to Win2K or other flavours - and belong on a their respective pages. Andy Mabbett 08:03, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the link to a site that outlines the differences in IE - this info is available from Microsoft's site, so there's no need to link to a possibly misinformed third party do you have any eidence that the former page is misinformed", or is that just speculation on your part? Andy Mabbett 08:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If the malware info belongs in the Win2K article, why doesn't it belong on the Windows XP article? There's no rule against overlapping articles here.

I said the IE article was "possibly misinformed," I make no claim regarding its accuracy. All I said was if the info is available from Microsoft, we should link to them rather than a third party. Do you have any specific problem with the Microsoft documentation I linked to? Rhobite 13:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Andy, please justify the removal of these paragraphs. I really don't understand your objection to mentioning malware here. Rhobite 13:52, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I don't object to mentioning it; I object to including an encylopedic entry about it. Andy Mabbett 14:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still don't understand your objection, but I reworked those paragraphs. Please don't remove them again. Rhobite 14:26, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

And I've removed most of the material. Please don't add it, again. Andy Mabbett 14:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I'm going to put it back again. It was decent information, and all of it is relevant to Windows XP. They are valid criticisms. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you believe they aren't before you get rid of the paragraphs? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't detail potholes, speed cameras or petrol pricing policy in articles about the Ford Focus. Andy Mabbett 14:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say this is more like removing the Firestone tire controversy from the Ford Explorer article. Rhobite 14:55, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It's funny how the bit about email viruses got removed. I don't have issues with Thunderbird! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Andy, you've now violated the three revert rule. I've listed this on WP:RFC as it's clear that you don't wish to discuss this or arrive at a consensus. Rhobite 15:02, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP/Mac OS X

This statement:

"Windows XP was announced after Mac OS X was, and the name of Windows XP may have been influenced by its competitor."

...I wasn't totally happy with that. Just seems to be a bit of idle speculation. I didn't want to remove it unless someone tries to eat me or anything first :p Barneyboo 02:04, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with you--I've never liked it, it is kind of silly anyway.--naryathegreat 03:29, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've got a couple of comments on this and other points above: :)

• I'm actually somewhat in favor of removing, or at least trimming down, the discussion of malware. Much of it isn't specific to Windows XP; perhaps it can be moved to a different article. In particular I realized that the article talks about Code Red which struck in July 2001 - but Windows XP was released in October 2001; therefore Code Red couldn't have had anything to do with Windows XP.

• Re the similarities between Windows XP and Mac OS X... I wanted to draw attention to the fact that soon after Apple announced its next-generation operating system named "X" with a glossy new interface named Aqua, Microsoft announced its next-generation operating system named "XP" with a glossy new interface named Luna. I think the timing and the similarities can't be a coincidence - I dare say that if Mac OS X had not existed, then Windows XP would have been called "Windows 2001" and there would have been no such thing as Luna. I think Windows XP was strongly influenced (in name and features) by Mac OS X, and it's useful to note that in turn Apple learned to play the same game and took some features from XP (such as fast user switching). Can anyone think of a way to express this NPOV-ly?

- Brian Kendig 03:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My response:

• I agree, this could be cut down somewhat (though it was a decent first attempt at dealing with the issue of Malware in Windows XP.
• Isn't this speculation? How do you know that Microsoft weren't planning a radical new way of doing things for quite a time? Indeed, I had heard about the new UI before Mac OS X's interface came out: I remember it because I was working in support at the time and had to grit my teeth when I first saw it. I remember seeing screenshot's of the UI sometime before OS X was officially released. I guess you need to ask yourself is this just speculation or facts in evidence?

- Ta bu shi da yu 04:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Personally I think you may be right - the timing and GUI changes are suspicious! But a comparison of the two is difficult to make without straying into POV, and a NPOV section is so neutered as to be worthless. The trouble is that without hard evidence that MS was influenced by OS X, anything along those lines is speculation. So I guess what we are looking for is hard evidence that we can quote or mention. A leaked memo or something ;-) Graham 03:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree re: malware. I added the Code Red bit and I can't believe I didn't realize that XP wasn't out at the time. My bad. However, XP has had significant remote worm issues such as Nimda, Blaster, and Sasser. These need to stay. Rhobite 04:05, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

XP <= Chi Rho <= Cairo, why do people try to link OS X and XP?

Paragraphs about trojans and spyware

Andy, you still haven't justified your repeated removal of the paragraphs about trojans and spyware. Please discuss your reasons here before removing the paragraphs again. Rhobite 15:02, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

See above. Andy Mabbett 16:24, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said nothing meaningful above. All you said was that this info should be removed because it should be included in the Win2K article. Nevertheless, let's try a compromise. Rhobite 17:19, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I pared down the spyware section, and edited the trojan section a little. The trojan section really does belong here, and it can't be slimmed down much more than this. The one sentence description of how a trojan operates belongs in this paragraph: "A user who opens one of the file attachments sent to him will unknowingly infect his own computer, which then emails the worm to more people." Providing examples of worms is also a good thing. I removed the MS exec quote from the spyware section - nobody seems to be crazy about it. I think his authority to make that statement is dubious. I removed the info about spyware blockers too. I urge you to post here if you object to specific inclusions, rather than revert. This is my second attempt at a compromise with you. Rhobite 17:27, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

All you said was that this info should be removed because it should be included in the Win2K I said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You said "The paras on malware et al apply just as much to Win2K or other flavours - and belong on a their respective pages." Maybe I misunderstood. Rhobite 22:41, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

So you did. Andy Mabbett 22:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wish you'd make an attempt to explain your edits better. Rhobite 23:52, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Limitations?

Pigsonthewing, why do you insist on re-adding the parenthetical comment to:

According to a Microsoft press release, Windows XP Starter Edition is "a low-cost introduction to the Microsoft Windows XP operating system designed for first-time desktop PC users in developing countries." It is seen as an effort to fight piracy of Windows XP, and also to counter the spread of the open source Linux operating system (with no such limitations) which has been gaining popularity in Asia.

As I said in my edit summary, piracy is not a "limitation"... what are you talking about here? If you're trying to say that Linux has no limitations, I'd raise an issue because you're comparing apples and oranges; the limitations of Linux are of an entirely different sort (namely that Linux is still not for novices; setting up printer sharing on Linux is very difficult, and graphics and sound still don't even work reliably on some chipsets). - Brian Kendig 22:15, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also find this comment confusing. Whatever it's supposed to mean, there's probably a better way to say it. Rhobite 22:47, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

It is similar to Windows XP Home, but has some features removed and some limitations added: display resolution can only be up to 800x600 pixels, only three applications may be run at the same time, PC-to-PC home networking and printer sharing is not available, and only a single user account is allowed Andy Mabbett 22:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, those are some of the limitations of Windows XP Starter Edition. Linux has a different set of limitations. What's the point of bringing this up in the article? - Brian Kendig 23:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is seen as an effort [...] to counter the spread of the open source Linux operating system Andy Mabbett 23:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, hmm, Andy does have something of a point. Windows XP Starter addition apparently has several artificially imposed limitations, which no other current in-use operating system has. Deliberately limiting a system strikes me as a terribly silly thing to do engineering-wise, but there you have it. Kim Bruning 09:11, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"deliberately limiting a system" is the usual way Microsoft has been making so-called "workstation" or "home user" systems out of full-fledged server systems since NT. This is not about engineering, this is about marketing and trade. Cidrolin 09:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nitpicking again. I cannot agree with you that Linux is not for "novices". Printer sharing isn't that difficult (it just lacks an automatic GUI to just complete the scripts). Rather than debate that however, I agree on you that the limitations are of a different sort. Linux is GPL, Windows is closed-source, Linux doesn't just have "no piracy limitations" - because you can't pirate Linux! Natalinasmpf 00:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Samba (for sharing with Windows) does have several administration and client GUIs. Most UNIX printer services are also built for sharing over the network by nature, and they have configuration GUIs in the popular distros. What _is_ the difficulty?

Actually those GUIs are nice and all, but most users will have a difficult time setting it up their first few times. As a network administrator intimately familiar with both FreeBSD and Windows Server, I had a hard time figuring out the Samba GUI without documentation on them. One thing you have to remember about the average user, they hate having to use any sort of documentation. PPGMD 14:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aside from the Windows/Linux debate, I have yet to meet a Windows administrator who was capabable, right from the beginning, to set up *properly* a Windows server without first *studying* the documentation (or taking an expensive course). Meaning by properly, i.e., using judicioulsy rights and permissions to apply the least privilege principle, running the various services under the most proper authority, and so on... Now I agree this doesn't apply to the "average user" (who usually starts to wonder about the various aspects of security once his/her computer is hopelessly compromised). Cidrolin 09:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poll

The purpose of this poll is to resolve an edit war and build consensus over whether certain background information should be included in this article.

Question 1:

Should this sentence be a part of the 'trojan horse' bullet point in the Security issues section?: "A user who opens one of the file attachments sent to him will unknowingly infect his own computer, which then emails the worm to more people."

Yes:

1. Rhobite 23:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. naryathegreat 01:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

No:

Question 2:

Should this sentence be a part of the 'malware' bullet point in the Security issues section?: "These usually unwanted programs can cause system instability, display popup ads, and track a user's activities for marketing purposes. Often these programs are included with seemingly harmless downloads."

Yes:

1. Rhobite 23:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
2. Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. naryathegreat 01:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

No:

What if I don't know what spyware or viruses are, or don't know how they spread? Two sentences is hardly an extended explanation.--naryathegreat 01:48, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Addendum 8/29/04: I have replaced the paragraphs. I wish there was more support in this poll, but since there were no objections for over a week, I replaced them. Rhobite 02:14, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

NPOV statement on linux vs windows starter edition?

Oops, I think I'll stick to using regular tools to do a quick rv . Using the big bad clue-by-four is too easy, and not very enlightening.

In any case, saying that linux has less software available for it, or that it is less user friendly are rather POV statements, hmm, I'm not even sure they're true.

If the reporting is right, I think just about anything might be more flexible than windows XP starter edition. Certainly all the other windows XP versions are considered to be more flexible, by quite a bit! Linux is in direct competition with the other XP versions wrt flexibility, so there isn't much reason to doubt.

Hope that explains things!

Kim Bruning 09:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kate removed the other bit, so now we're stable. Fair deal :-) Kim Bruning 09:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

2nd rv for the day: and let's not go in circles, shall we? :-) Kim Bruning 09:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed not - lets's point out that MS are putting up a crippled, priced product to complete with an uncrippled, free, competitor. Andy Mabbett 10:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well 4 folks tried to beat some sense and NPOVness into the statement. I'm not entirely certain why you're putting it back exactly as it was before? Kim Bruning 11:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because none of them made the relevant point; and the end result was taht the pint was avoided altogther. The most recent draft was a meaningless fudge. Andy Mabbett 12:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Look, nobody understands your parenthetical comment. Parens are awkward and unnecessary in most cases. Rhobite 12:55, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Everyone elected you their spokesman? Andy Mabbett 12:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, certainly noone has yet come forward and agreed with your edit. Maybe it's unnecessary and POV? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:34, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made an attempt. What do people think? Is this a decent compromise? Maybe someone could find Microsoft's opposing view and add this in here? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's beautiful. Or it would be, if it were true :-( . It turns out to actually be illegal to charge licencing fees for Linux , and actually no known linux distribution tries to restrict it's users or any capabilities, even if it were practical. Both these items happen to be basic and (by now) planned in design principles inherent to Linux. Oh well, nice try! :-) Kim Bruning 12:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not correct. Perhaps you could point out to me where in the GPL you are getting this information from? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can't charge "licensing" fees, because the user (by virtue of the GPL) has a right to use it anyway. You can of course charge (licensing fees or otherwise) for support, media, other non-GPL and/or commercial software, and so on. — Kate | Talk 12:35, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

• GPL (at [1]) sections 2b, 3b, and 6.
• Arguments in court by IBM: [2] supporting this interpretation.

Kim Bruning 12:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, I misread the GPL. You make a good point. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Here's my opinion: this whole problem started when someone insisted on adding the parenthetical POV edit, "the open source Linux operating system (with no such limitations)". The previous paragraph describing Windows XP SE already explained how this operating system is crippled with artificial limitations. I don't see any need to specifically point out that Linux *isn't* crippled.

If you want to go into the details of the battle for market share between Windows XP (and its Starter Edition) and Linux, then a lot more factors come into play: licensing costs, support costs, ease of installation, ease of use, software availability, stability, etc. etc. I don't think such an in-depth discussion is warranted, at least not in this article. But you can't just say "Linux isn't crippled" and leave it at that - that's why I attempted to be more balanced by mentioning some reasons why Windows XP SE can be preferred over Linux.

I feel that the paragraph in question should read "Linux has been gaining popularity in Asia where it is seen as a viable competitor to Windows XP." Period. End of paragraph. No mention necessary of Linux's non-crippledness or non-licensing-fees or any other factors.

- Brian Kendig 12:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. I left some of the other text in on my last edit in at attempt at a compromise, but I'm not sure that's going to be possible. — Kate | Talk 13:05, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

The latest edit says: "Linux has been gaining popularity in Asia and is seen as a viable competitor to Windows XP as people do not necessarily have to pay licensing fees, depending on the Linux distribution chosen." That's misleading. The reason that Linux has been gaining popularity is not simply due to its lack of licensing fees (or else any free operating system would be equally popular), and it also implies that some Linux distributions do have licensing fees (a point which has been contested above). Again, I feel that either no attempt to justify the battle between Linux and Windows XP is necessary, or else the battle should be discussed in-depth. - Brian Kendig 13:29, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also agree with Kate, and Brian Kendig. I'll be lazy and just revert to a known good version :-P (Doing a lot of constructive reverting today) Kim Bruning 13:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Too many edits inbetween, so edited instead Kim Bruning 13:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Consensus on reverts of pigsonthewing's comparison of Linux to XP Starter Edition?

I take it consensus is to remove the Linux comparison of Windows XP Starter Edition? I'm taking a straw poll:

Object or support removal of pigsonthewing's parenthesis:

• Support - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support — Kate | Talk 14:09, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
• Support, see comments above. Kim Bruning 14:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support, as per my comments above. - Brian Kendig 14:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support. Rhobite 15:57, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Support David Gerard 21:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Support naryathegreat 01:41, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

No, there is no such consensus. Andy Mabbett 14:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• (Note that to be fair, Andy wrote this when the vote was three to one) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• OK, I might have been a bit hasty with the completion of the vote. I'll leave it for a day and we'll see what happens. Incidently, I believe you're fighting a losing battle on this one, not least because you never attempted to modify your parenthesis originally or come to a compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Consensus: remove. Sorry Andy, but you've been voted 3 to 1. It's going. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) (now 4 to 1 - Brian Kendig) 5 to 1 now Rhobite 15:57, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please don't edit my comments; that was not a "vote" (sic): I repeat, there is no such consesus. Andy Mabbett 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fine. Let's take this to arbitration. After all, you're the only one who wants this in the article. Nobody has spoken out in support of your edit. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:22, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, first let's see if we can do normal consensus finding first, it's not an election, it's just a straw poll. Right now the majority of consensus appears to be against holding arguments of windows vs linux on a page about Windows XP. Kim Bruning 14:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

majority of consensus There is no such thing. Andy Mabbett 15:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 :-) Good catch. Kim Bruning 20:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the matter is that putting such comments here would be POV, we can always hold a better argument on this kind of thing elsewhere, perhaps even off of wikipedia. I think that at least Kate and Myself are also partial to linux (or unixes in general), so we're not actually trying to "suppress the truth" or so. :-)

If you have good reasons why or how we could make an NPOV argument on this matter here, please post them! Kim Bruning 14:38, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps start another article on the reasons commonly given for why Linux or Windows or Mac is superior to the competition? It wouldn't need to be POV as long as opinions are stated fairly. - Brian Kendig 14:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, you can add me to the Linux supporters camp! Personally, I can't stand XP and in fact I only run Linux at home. Besides which, our home gateway runs OpenLDAP, Samba, iptables, DHCP, blah blah blah. So please, I hope people aren't putting me into the XP camp!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:51, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobody (least of all, not me) is arguing that Linux is superior to Windows. How on Earth can the factual comment that MS are putting a crippled product forwards as a response to a non- "crippled" competitor be descibed as PoV? Andy Mabbett 15:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I agree! It's stupid and sucks, but the word "crippled" is your POV. Those who buy a cut-price version of Windows XP may not care. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course "crippled" is PoV; that's why I have not used it in the article. Andy Mabbett 17:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The version that just states the fact is quite enough IMO. Understate and let facts speak for themselves. Avoid interpretation - David Gerard 21:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, exactly what's wrong with the current version? I would even support changing the sentence to say compete witht the spread of Linux. The way pigsonthewings parenthesis statement was stated (how repetitive) it is ambiguous. And I think 7 supporting votes is a consensus, when there are no naysayers.--naryathegreat 01:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, the article should either:

• say "... and also to counter the spread of the open source Linux operating system which has been gaining popularity in Asia." Period. No detail about how Linux compares with Windows XP SE. Or,

• go into detail about licensing costs, support costs, ease of installation, ease of use, software availability, stability, and other metrics by which the two operating systems can be compared.

The version up right now, which says "... even though the latter has none of the restrictions of XP's Starter Editon", is as unacceptable as it would be if it said "... even though the latter is generally considered to be more complicated to install and not quite ready for desktop environments yet." It is biased because it only shows an area where one product happens to be superior to the other. - Brian Kendig 03:25, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this one is that the alternative argument is not specific about who considers Linux to be too hard to install and not quite ready for the desktop yet, and would appear to be someone's POV, in much the same way that Andy's sentence seems to be POV. I think a better suggestion is to make a new page arguing Comparison of Microsoft operating systems to Linux operating systems. What do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we can do without that page, unless we're looking to break some edit war records. It's sort of original research, anyway. Rhobite 05:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

That's precisely the reason I'm suggesting it. Just imagine what we could do: every article about Linux and Microsoft topics that mentions Linux vs Microsoft unnecessarily could have a See also on the page, and they could fight it out there without mucking up the article itself. Incidently, it doesn't have to be original research. Just state the facts and find industry opinions, out them in the article, then localise objections in this story. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:22, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Common criticisms of Microsoft is doing well and has managed to remain NPOV and hasn't generated any edit wars. If such a "Microsoft vs. Linux" article is created, however, it might make sense to bring "vs. Macintosh" in on it too. - Brian Kendig 10:40, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it :-) Good idea, though I'd personally make a seperate one called Microsoft vs. Apple and Linux vs Apple if there is a need for it! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments removed

Are people so desperate to have their way, or so unable to come up with a convincing arguement, that they feel they must remove comments from this page? mine:

lets's point out that MS are putting up a crippled, priced product to complete with an uncrippled, free, competitor. Andy Mabbett 10:43, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

has disappeared. Andy Mabbett 14:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, looks like it's still there. I deleted a duplicate discussion tree, you'll find your comment is still present in the remaining duplicate. Kim Bruning 14:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So it is; sorry. Andy Mabbett 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

References added

I've added some references, however I realised after I put them in I didn't follow the citation guide on Wikipedia. I'm currently halfway through fixing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All done. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another security flaw found

Someone want to add this info? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3583860.stm - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a relatively minor problem, but the press has pounced on it because it means "SP2 has already been broken." As if there can be a service pack that fixes every future security hole to be discovered. The actual exploit requires a user to drag and drop an item from a malicious web page to their PC, something most users don't even know is possible. Great work on the references, btw. Hopefully we can get this to featured quality. Rhobite 13:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Keyloggers

I don't like this text which someone (didn't check to see who) recently added, but I can't quite put my finger on why. It's in the paragraph on spyware and adware, and the specific part in question is:

These programs can contain keyloggers, this is a program that runs in the background without the user knowing and they record every key that is pressed and records a log, and them e-mail the log to whoever created the keylogger. Once the person who has made the keylogger has the log file, they will usually scan through it to see your passwords that you use online. Some use this to get information about your bank details.

Aside from the fact that it needs grammar edits, I'm not sure where an explanation of keyloggers should fit into this article. Keyloggers aren't a problem that's specific to Windows XP, and it seems odd to talk about a specific problem like this in a section which covers other general issues... I want to delete these sentences, but I figured I'd run it by y'all first to see if anyone feels they should stay or knows where they'd fit better. - Brian Kendig 13:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you. I don't think it's relevant to the article. Keyloggers aren't specific to Windows XP (though by the same token, neither are worms or viruses...) and to be honest aren't a commonly cited vulnerability. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also agree. Rhobite 15:56, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too sure either way. I get the impression that Windows XP would be exceptionally vulnerable to keyloggers, where many other operating systems and authentication type systems are definately *not*. But that's just my impression. It might be a good idea for someone to spend some research time on this. :-) Kim Bruning 17:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expanding Keystroke logging would be a good idea, if anyone feels like it - right now that article doesn't mention any of the malevolent uses of keyloggers! - Brian Kendig 22:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Service Pack 2

I would like to write about service pack two breaking some applications and other mishaps. I have various news sources to back up this claim, and I believe it has a fine NPOV. Here is one news article. Thoughts? KneeLess 06:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You should do it, if you think you can back it up. We can modify later. Be bold! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Good work! I've removed one sentence that could be seen as POV, and modified the references, but good work in getting this highly relevant info into the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:13, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

CNet review of Service Pack 2

I pulled this paragraph:

CNet's "Windows XP SP2 more secure? Not so fast" states: "No need to worry about malicious attacks that take advantage of Windows weaknesses? Not so fast. To fully block the aforementioned buffer overflow and the Internet worms that feed on them, you'll need to follow fine print: turns out the necessary No Execute setting isn't present in the current hardware architecture of most 64-bit and 32-bit processors on the market today. This data execution protection, or DEP, is currently available only on newer AMD and a handful of Intel's Itanium server chips. In other words, the new Windows DEP changes won't help you unless you're running XP SP2 on a machine with AMD or Intel Itanium processors."

The reviewer isn't exactly clear on what is talking about. Some parts of Data Execution Prevention (DEP) require hardware support, not all of it. Anyone with SP2 installed can check for themselves in Control Panel->System->Advanced->Data Execution Prevention: "Your computer's processor does not support hardware-based DEP. However, Windows can use DEP software to help prevent some types of attacks." Sloppy journalism. AlistairMcMillan 03:28, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Boot Disks

That may be true. But it's not upto Microsoft to provide bootdisks, hardware companies simply took advantage of the utility that came free with a DOS based OS. Since XP is not DOS based there is no utility. Competent companies (like Symantec) include their own custom made bootdisk utilities (PC DOS in Symantecs case), anyone who doesn't is simply lazy IMO. As such I propose it be removed because it's not a valid criticism. PPGMD

But it isn't true. Rex doesn't know what he is talking about. http://www.mcmillan.cx/~alistair/albums/misc/Windows_XP_SP2.png What does that last option say? AlistairMcMillan 15:10, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While it maybe true that XP allows a gimpy boot disk (unlike 2k which allows nothing) to be created. It's also true that it's utterly barebones: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/learnmore/tips/renken1.mspx

That means no FDISK, no CD DRIVER, no FORMAT. The solution is to tweak the text, not delete it. 216.153.214.94 21:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's what you asked for. A DOS boot disk, it should be enough for what the very few users need it for. And FDISK and such are available in disk management. If you have to do it to your main drive, then you might as well use the Windows XP CD since your blasting the drive anyways. PPGMD

But why, Rex? The one example you gave, upgrading the BIOS, is easy with a barebones XP boot disk. And the proper way to partition and format a drive is to boot from the XP CD, or do it from Windows' drive manager. XP also doesn't include a virus scanner, or a full-featured photo editor, or an IRC client. Are we going to start listing every little feature that someone claims is "missing" from the OS? Rhobite 21:30, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

What PPGMD and Rhobite said. All I have to add is that 2000 can create boot disks. From the link Rex posted in an edit summary: http://www.computerhope.com/boot.htm#07 AlistairMcMillan 21:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Set up" diskettes (a set of 4 disks) and DOS Boot disks arre NOT the same thing. And although XP deals with this issue better than W2k, it is an important fact and on the W2k page at least, I am going to keep re-inserting it there. You are welcome to clarfy, but on the W2K page, this fatc must stay in. As for the XP page, I am going to re-think how best to make this DOS boot disk fact, in the limited XP form it exists, clear. 216.153.214.94 22:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

EMERGENCY REPAIR DISKS ARE DOS BOOT DISKS. Please don't edit what you don't know. AlistairMcMillan 22:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are the one who does not know what he is talking about! Please read this direct quote from Microsoft: "This disk is different from an MS-DOS boot disk because the entire Windows operating system cannot fit on one disk as MS-DOS can." See this: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=101668 216.153.214.94 22:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You should probably read the entire page you link to:

If you format a floppy disk in Windows NT or later, the boot record points to the NTLDR file.
When NTLDR runs, it loads the available operating system selections from the Boot.ini file.
If the user selects Windows, NTLDR runs Ntdetect.com, and then passes control to Osloader.exe.
If the user chooses MS-DOS or OS/2, NTLDR loads Bootsect.dos.

So a ERD should work for both. Don't know never tried myself. PPGMD

The page Rex just linked (http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=101668) to isn't talking about Emergency Repair Boot disks.

The earlier one he linked (http://www.computerhope.com/boot.htm#07) to is talking about Emergency Repair Boot disks.

Emergency Repair Boot disks are MS-DOS boot disks. Windows Boot Disks may be MS-DOS boot disks as well, Bootsect.dos does seem to hint that way. But I can't be arsed to boot VirtualPC right now to try it out.

Either way WINDOWS 2000 CAN CREATE MS-DOS BOOT DISKS.

Just in case anyone else doesn't know who Rex071404 is. He was banned from John Kerry, then banned from a bunch of other pages relating to the 2004 election. Then he disappeared for about a week and now he is back but not signing in, so he appears as 216.153.214.94 all the time. He is basically trolling. AlistairMcMillan 23:27, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His changes to Windows 2000 have some factual basis, although they're inaccurate. I don't think Win2k can create a DOS boot disk through the format GUI, as can 95, 98, Me, and XP. Rhobite 23:52, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

You are right Windows 2000 can't create DOS boot disks through the format GUI. That isn't what Rex was trying to say though.

What do you suggest we do, create a new section...?

== Ability to create DOS boot diskette hidden in non-obvious location ==

Some users (by which we mean User:Rex071404's sockpuppet) have criticised the lack of obvious ways to create DOS boot disks in Windows 2000. They have been so befuddled by the super-mysterious hidden location of the boot disk option that they have even been driven to the point where they spam online encyclopaedias with false claims that Windows 2000 and its successor Windows XP, do not have the ability to create DOS boot disks at all. Bill Gates, when confronted with the accusation by the Associated Press, drew a confused look and refused to comment directly, instead mumbling incoherently about his pet longhorn being embarrassed publicly by a tiger and a piece of fruit.

AlistairMcMillan 00:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please ignore everything I said about Windows 2000. It appears I was wrong about Windows 2000 and Rex was right. He is still wrong about XP though. AlistairMcMillan 04:10, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Screenshot for pop-up blocking

I think this should be replaced with a sreenshot of a vanilla XP with SP 2 using the Luna theme. Exigentsky 07:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead and do it. I did that picture for a forum post, and simply reused it. I personally don't see anything wrong with showing the classic theme, since many users use it, and there are numerous other screens with the normal Windows XP theme. Though I do want to put off the remote desktop off the top. I also use this screen on the pop-up page to show the pop-up blocker, and the google pop-up blocker PPGMD

OS-tan

I'm all for everyone exploring their sexuality, but operating systems anthropomorphised as cute little girls with big boobs in very little clothing, is where I personally draw the line. I don't see what that link possibly adds to this page, or any of the other operating system related pages for that matter. You don't see links to Kirk/Spock slash fiction on the Mr. Spock page or links to naked Data art on the Data (Star Trek) page, so why should Windows XP link to OS-tan?

I don't even understand why we have such a long detailed article on the phenomenon in the first place. It's just a bunch of slightly disturbing, not-funny-at-all images and comics produced by a bunch of BBS users. Also although I've been interested in OSes for at least a decade now, I had never heard of OS-tan until I started editing Wikipedia fairly recently. Lastly compare the size of the english OS-tan page with the actual japanese OS?? page, why do we need so much more detail?

BTW I've restored all the content that was deleted from the actual OS-tan page. AlistairMcMillan 06:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alistair, I think that you might want to keep that "Related links" OS-tan link. The Windows XP one is directly related to Windows XP, and it doesn't hurt to have it in the article. Use some of that energy on other things, like helping us with your already fantastic work with assisting with NPOVing of this article - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think OS-tan doesn't have any place in the Windows XP article, it might under a general operating systems article, but not under the individual OS articles. PPGMD

Ummmm, who cares if this link is on the page? I mean, I've seen the article, and it's not vulgar, and honestly I think it's slightly counterproductive to argue against an indepth article. Anyway, what's the likelihood of anyone clicking on the link anyway? Not much, about the same as someone visiting this page because they didn't know what XP was. There's nothing offensive about it on Wikipedia so...why not just leave it?--naryathegreat 03:41, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stability is a feature?

Since when has "stability" been a feature? [3] I would have thought it was mandatory! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then we can add 'increased stability'. Or 'increased stability from other desktop versions'. Any way I am not my self fan of microsoft. In fact got to this page through user page of Ta bu shi da yu. But that is a feature which microsoft markets and customer like. Zain 20:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Zain, stability is not a "feature". It is a core part of any operating system. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

XP is certainly more stable than Win98, but as AlistairMcMillan says in his edit, that's more a result of adopting the NT kernel than anything specific to Windows XP. The "Development" section, which describes how XP grew out of the NT/2000 code base, would be a good place to mention its increased stability over the Win95/Win98 line. I agree that it doesn't belong in the new features list. (jdcope, 24 Jan 2005)

Round of applause

A round of applause for everyone who's worked to get this featured. This was one of the first articles I edited. Rhobite 05:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yay! It was sometimes painful, sometimes frustrating, but at all times interesting to get this article featured. Thanks to User:Johnleemk for sorting out my bulleted list of features, and to all the others who clarified and worried away at the piece to get it to a standard where it could become featured! Truly, a great job at collaboration! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great work, everyone! - Brian Kendig 06:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great news, I expected that the Linux zealots would come out and oppose it, but I was surprised that there was ultimately only one objection. Any way we will know when it will be features on the front page (not only am I looking forward to it, but to also brace for vandels)? PPGMD 20:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's up to Raul654, there are many, many excellent articles however, so it could be chosen at any time :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Linux zealot here - I actually really like this article. --mav 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the lack of Fast User Switching really a drawback to networking?

I just dealt with a stylistic, non-content issue with a sentence in that section, but it has raised an eyebrow for me. Rather minor issue I am picking at here, but is the lack of Fast User Switching in previous versions a drawback to networking, or just a drawback to having multi-users on the same display? (By the display, I mean the Linux/Unix kind - ie. a display being one set/source of (standard) input and output, monitor and keyboard, ie. the first monitor and keyboard and mouse coupled together forms the first display). Because I do recall, that you could network logon to Windows (think ssh?), hence multi-users at the same time, just not on the same display? Its hardly a drawback to networking, unless you mean fully exploiting networking, with the hypothetical scenario, multiple employees for each computer with their own account. Ridiculous, isn't it? Thats why I think its a drawback to a multi-user consumer environment, the average consumer having only one display. Or does Windows lack a form its own ssh daemon, and Fast User Switching allowed that? This is why I brought it up here. -- Natalinasmpf 01:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, that's the first I've heard of being able to ssh into Windows, ala X Window System. I could be wrong, but I didn't think that Windows decouples the client from the server like the X Windows System does. However, usign the RDP protocol you can remotely get onto another computers desktop. Using resource direction (probably wrong terminology) you can use local printers and file shares. I dunno if this answers your question... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can only have one user actually using desktop versions of Windows XP at a time. Whether they are actually sitting at the machine or logging in through Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), only one at a time. Fast User Switching just means that two accounts can be logged in simultaneously, although only one user has access to the desktop at a time. AlistairMcMillan 01:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So this advantage doesn't really help networking, does it? You still can only have one user using the GUI at the same time, after all. -- Natalinasmpf 19:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Device Support as feature add

I've vastly shortened this:

As the consumer line of Windows had not seen a new version for a while,
Windows XP provided new or improved drivers for several new devices made
available since Windows Me and 98. Among them are Firewire, PCI,
USB and high-density storage devices and media (DVDs and CDs).

To this:

Windows XP provided new and/or improved drivers and user interfaces
for devices compared to Windows Me and 98.

First, there was no lag in consumer releases, 98, 98SE, and ME were released within 3 years of each other. Second, PCI and USB have had support since Windows 95, and Firewire since 98 (or maybe SE). I believe ME had the same CD support (a license for DirectCD and integration with WMP) that XP shipped with. I added the term "user interfaces" because, to the user, thats what WIA provides/replaces and so it steps right into the next paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 22:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article compared with other OS articles

Spoken as someone who is for the first time consuming this article, I must say that it's character seems wildly different from other articles on OS's. Rather than read like an overview of the nature of the OS and including a little history, noting unique features, and highlighting some drawbacks, this article seems to dicuss mostly gritty details of problems with the OS. Certainly this is fine, especially it seems toward the end of an article of this nature, but not throughout and primarily!

It seems like articles covering OS's should having similar tones and organization, allowing for differences in article length due to OS marketshare or historical interest. Just read the OS X article, which is an entirely different species from this one. Encyclopedia entries are no place for exhibiting biases, and so the argument, "Well OS X itself is a different species!" isn't a valid response.

I actually came to this article looking for an informative description of Windows XP, its features, history, and underpinnings. I went to the OS X article looking for that and got it. But not so with this one! Very disappointing.

I don't really see what's the problem here; it seems to me the Mac OS X article is actually less comprehensive, due to its lack of detail on features (lists where there could be prose are generally abhorred on Wikipedia). I'm not sure where the bias lies here, and I don't quite understand what's your gripe. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, the only featured OS article and he's complaining...genius. Anyway, the article is very good, and if you want "a little history" try the whole article about it at History of Microsoft Windows.--User:naryathegreat(t) 15:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hey look, I thought this discussion area was for constructive discussions, not name calling, genius. Frankly, I was surprised that this is a featured article. I think my comments on the matter are pretty clear. Disagree? It's not surprising as obviously this article has evolved over a great length of time. But that doesn't mean that other points of view should be shunned.

Personally I have to agree, I think that the Windows XP article is an example of how the OS articles should be. And if either Mac OS X or Linux want to strive to be Featured Articles, they should have similar content to the one within the Windows article, both the praise and faults. PPGMD

Product activation

So if you want to use the software on another machine? Do you activate the software on the new machine, and by doing that the activation on the old machine stops working (windows on the old machine is deactivated)?--Jerryseinfeld 18:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. Old installations never "phone home" to Microsoft after they've been activated. If you have a retail version of Windows XP, you can simply install it on a different machine. You may have to call the activation phone number, but I hear it's a pretty quick process. Rhobite 18:30, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Installation problems

This article should state that some programs from earlier versions of Windows e.g. Windows 95 may not work on Windows XP (Noted in the programs as Windows 1.5). Some of those programs are games that came out during the 1995/1996 period.

Draig goch20 21:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Innacuracy in Kernel Improvements section

The article currently states "When Windows 95 was released, 32-bit processors had just arrived on the scene...". This sentence is misleading since the first 32-bit x86 was the 386, released in 1986, 9 years before Windows 95 was released. Perhaps this should be changed to something like "Windows 95 was one of the first 32-bit operating systems from Microsoft..." which would more accurately state what that sentence is trying to say.

• I re-worded this and the next paragraph too, as the next paragraph seemed to imply that huge amounts of win9x software was still 16 bit and had a hard time running on 9x. SchmuckyTheCat 19:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There are still major issues with that section. It says that previous versions had lots of problems with... RAM? Say what? I don't think that is what was meant... - Ta bu shi da yu 18:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• ugh, yes. I will see if I can tackle that later.SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo!

Hey, we're scheduled to go to the front page on June 4! That now said, can we convert our notes to Template:Note and Template:Ref similar to our Windows 2000 article? We'll need to wittle down the references list quite a bit I'm afraid. Anyone up for the challenge? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox/table

Nice work. Short and sweet. ✈ James C. 00:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Thanx :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Window's (any version) is Pathetic!

I was writing a MS word document on a PC, I tried to right click and format some text and the entire system froze. Now, I don't know that much about computers but that sort of thing should not happen and it does not happen when I use a mac, if a program froze on a mac only that program would be frozen, I would still be able to use other program's and access my hard drive, other programs or similar. I could also very easily force quit the problem program (when I use force quit on a PC even that system feature mucks up and I spend half an hour waiting for a program to be force quitted and then I realise that when I move the mouse the icon that represent's it on the screen doesent move (the system has frozen again!!)).

Mac's are Heaven, PC's are HELL!!!

Maybe they are, to people who can't spell (plurals don't have apostrophes).

I'm confused about the Whistler link in the first line of the article. There seems to be no point providing the link unless it's to something relevant (e.g. an article on why they needed to use this codename). As it is, it links to the place in Canada, with which there is not neccessarily any connection. Whistler was also a painter, who's to say they didn't have him in mind?Palefire 06:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Codenames are well documented. And Whistler is the mountain, Blackcomb (another codename) is the other mountain, and Longhorn is a bar at the resort. SchmuckyTheCat 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If your computer locks up completely and frequently, and you have fully scanned the computer for viruses, it is likely that there is a hardware-level problem beyond the control of the operating system. Cooling issues, poor-quality memory, and an inadequate power supply can all cause lockups and are not the fault of Windows. Besides which, obviously right-clicking would not cause a lockup on a Macintosh, by virtue of the fact that right-clicking is not possible with a one-button mouse.

As it happens, the core group of Microsoft executives are hopelessly in love with the Whistler resort, and can occasionally be spotted at the Longhorn pub. In fact, I myself ran into J Allard, Microsoft's director of all things Xbox, while waiting in line for the lift last December.

A Feature Article On Windows XP?

Do we really need to be made sure of an operating system that is so faulty and highly contagious to security threats? Sure the article is well constructed, but a feature article?

Well, what are you using? Linux? • Thorpe • 17:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles become featured articles because they're well-written, not because of any endorsement of the subject of the article. XP itself is crappy indeed, but this is an incredible Wikipedia article. Nickptar 18:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like how when something's a featured article, everyone and their mother has to edit it (see the history of the article).

enfestid

Oh no! A (gasp) Microsoft article might become a featured article? The world, I fear, is nearly at an end! After all, the software that runs on Linux would never be faulty (except of course the kernel vulnerability that cropped up they found affected all source trees from 2.2 down to 1.0, the security issue with zlib, the security flaw with the core snmp library... etc, etc).

Perhaps you should reaquaint yourself with the goals of Wikipedia and the NPOV policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luna

"Luna is the name of the new visual style that ships with Windows XP, and is enabled by default for machines with more than 64 MB of RAM. As Windows XP requires 64 MB of RAM to install, this means that it is enabled for practically all users". When I installed Windows XP on an old PC with 64MB of RAM, the new visual style was disabled, not enabled by default. Is there a factual inaccuracy here? -- Eagle^amn 13:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• If you share system ram with your video card you can have less than 64Mb on a 64Mb machine. SchmuckyTheCat 21:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)