# Talk:Microsoft Office XP

re:"...successor to Office 2000 and the predecessor to Office 2003..." Microsoft 'Office XP' is version 10 and also called 'Office 2002'.--Boldklub-PJs (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It has not been determined or documented if Microsoft Office XP 2002 is supported by the Windows 7 operating system  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.212.41 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC) 

is this compatible with windows 8?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.247.18.145 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC) 

User:IanWilliam20, your massive removal of content in this diff was misguided. Every single point was cited, but in some cases as a combination of two references. This is not WP:SYNTH, because it is ironclad logic: if something is noted as being removed between Office 2000 and 2003, but not XP and 2003, the only remaining possibility is that it was removed between 2000 and XP as there were no other releases in that period.
I did like your expansion of the remaining points, though. If you could restore the missing ones in a similar way as soon as possible, it would be much appreciated. Modernponderer (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I will reinstate the missing points. I apologize for being misguided and for any inconvenience that this might have caused. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC))
User:IanWilliam20, as you haven't edited this article nor responded to my query on your talk page for some time, I plan to restore the missing entries myself soon. It would still be great if you could expand on them after that, of course. Modernponderer (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I am terribly sorry for being away for so long. I do have a question for you: When you write "expand on them after that" are you referring to the citation syntax? Additionally, I truly thank you for cleaning up after my errors in the article. I hope to, well, read from you soon. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC))
Not a problem. And I was originally referring to expanding the text, but please do feel free to make any other constructive changes you see fit. Modernponderer (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Microsoft Office XP/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Enterprisey (talk · contribs) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll review this. This will be my first GA review, so I will be asking for additional opinions on WT:GAN at various points. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
From the first two read-throughs, this article reads well and looks like it covers the topic thoroughly. I've put comments on specific sections below.


### (Lead)
Microsoft incorporated several features to address reliability issues... Feel free to skip this point as it might be a nitpick, but you may want to add an example of one of said features. I'd expect reliability issues would be fixed outright, not addressed by additional features!
The Office Assistant... "Clippy" is the more well-known name for the feature - maybe add a parenthetical note to explain this?
...which was a key element... I assume that the word "which" is referring to the fact that Clippy/the Office Assistant was disabled for Office XP. Either the noun phrase right before the "which" should refer to the fact that it was disabled, or the sentence should be reworked. Possible splitting of the sentence (without dealing with the previous bullet point): "The Office Assistant, introduced in Office 97 and widely reviled by users, is disabled by default; this change was a key element of Microsoft's promotional campaign for Office XP."
viewed as inaccurate when compared with competititors'... Could be shortened, maybe to "viewed as inferior to competititors'".
As of May 2002... Do we have more recent statistics? Maybe some source has the total number of licenses sold until now.


### History
...the company's .NET strategy The .NET wikilink is unhelpful, since the article only talks about the software framework. I think it would be helpful if the term ".NET strategy" was explained (in the context of Office XP).
a subset of features Did you mean "a subset of the features Microsoft demonstrated were designed in accordance...", or that Microsoft hadn't finished all of the features that would be designed in accordance with the strategy? The word "reported" also complicates the meaning.
...with a particular emphasis on NetDocs You don't have to explain this at this point in the article, but NetDocs is a form generator and it's confusing to me how Microsoft would do that integration. Honestly, this point is a nitpick, so ignore it if you want.
Office 10 was slated What point in time is this referring to? I don't think we're still talking about the meeting in July 2000, but dating the press release so the reader can see at which point the feature was planned might help readability.
Microsoft intended to rebrand the new product... The citations here are a bit wonky (and I couldn't load the cited page) - does the winsupersite.com citation really support the first two but not the last two? Also, "Office XP" should probably be cited, as that name was ultimately chosen.
introduced several improvements to setup tools Two interpretations possible: did the Custom Maintenance Wizard by itself allow setup components to be modified, or did the "several improvements" accomplish this? (Also, I think "which" should be used instead of "that" - I didn't change it myself, since I'm not sure how you're going to redo that part of the sentence.)
Office XP was released Any more details on the release? I feel like there's at least one (interesting) statement that could go here for complete coverage of that part of the history.


### Service packs
Client and Administrative (Full File) updates... Explain this a bit? I couldn't find an article to link this to either.
could not be rolled back I made this change (the original wording was "could not be removed"); revert if necessary.
Full file updates require... Not sure if the full release history for Windows Installer 2.0 is necessary; maybe it could be abbreviated.
Service Pack 1... This sentence could be broken up.
The Administrative Update... Explain the Administrative/Client difference? Maybe in the same place where you put the explanation for the "Full File" term.
as well as exclusive stability improvements Not sure what sense "exclusive" is being used in.


### User interface
Office XP supports Word choice - maybe "uses" or "presents"?
I'll get to the rest of the article later. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


### Addressing your comments (1)
I am sorry if this is not how one should discuss such matters, but I wanted to address your comments before it became much later. I have edited portions of the article as per many of your comments. Unaddressed issues with the article that were reflected in your comments are discussed below. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


#### Lead comments
Feel free to skip this point as it might be a nitpick, but you may want to add an example of one of said features. I'd expect reliability issues would be fixed outright, not addressed by additional features! There were new features (such as Application Recovery) designed to specifically to address reliability concerns. I did not think that an example was necessary, though I could add one if you would prefer this.
"Clippy" is the more well-known name for the feature - maybe add a parenthetical note to explain this? Should I only add the word "Clippy," itself included in parentheses? I would hate to add more information to the introduction than is necessary.
Do we have more recent statistics? Maybe some source has the total number of licenses sold until now. I am afraid that May 2002 is the most recent date that I could find. I have searched more than once.


#### History comments
The .NET wikilink is unhelpful, since the article only talks about the software framework. I think it would be helpful if the term ".NET strategy" was explained (in the context of Office XP). Yes, I will try to edit this to be more clear.
The citations here are a bit wonky (and I couldn't load the cited page) - does the winsupersite.com citation really support the first two but not the last two? Also, "Office XP" should probably be cited, as that name was ultimately chosen. I have not removed the previous citation from the first two; however, I have added an additional citation for "Office XP" that shows the speculation regarding this name. Unfortunately, none of the references list all of the names; therefore, I cannot only include one.
[...] did the Custom Maintenance Wizard by itself allow setup components to be modified, or did the "several improvements" accomplish this? I have changed this to "Beta 2 introduced several improvements to setup tools. The Custom Maintenance Wizard, for example, now allowed setup components to be modified after their installation, and the setup process of Office XP itself used a new version of Windows Installer."
Any more details on the release? I would love to include such information, as Office XP is one of my favorite versions, but I did not find anything that I thought could be added.


#### Service pack comments
Explain this a bit? I couldn't find an article to link this to either. I think that I should revise the sentence so that it becomes part of the other sentences that explicitly mention the differences between Client and Full File updates. I have not done this as of yet.
Not sure if the full release history for Windows Installer 2.0 is necessary; maybe it could be abbreviated. I included that information because of the various differences between Windows Installer in the versions of Windows that Office XP supports. I would really like to retain that information within the article, but if you do not deem it necessary I might try to change it. Perhaps I should shorten Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME to Windows 9x?
This sentence could be broken up. Should it be similar to the sentences for SP2 and SP3?
Explain the Administrative/Client difference? Maybe in the same place where you put the explanation for the "Full File" term. I think that I can accomplish this by combining the sentences, as mentioned before. It would also be helpful if my terminology were consistent.
Not sure what sense "exclusive" is being used in. "Exclusive" means that these fixes were not released before SP3.
Thank you! (IanWilliam20 (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC))


### Taking over the review
Enterprisey has agreed for another reviewer to finish this review as it's been sitting for so long; I'll take it on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I saw above that you weren't sure what the best way was to respond to the reviewer's points -- it's entirely up to you, but a common approach is to interleave your responses with the review bullet points.  If you sign each comment then each point becomes its own thread and it's easy to see what's addressed and what is not.

Suggest moving the fifth paragraph of the lead up and appending it to the third paragraph; those are rather small paragraphs, and per WP:LEADLENGTH we should try to keep it to four.  The service pack history is a reasonable fit with the list of versions, even though it slightly breaks the chronological sequence.
During this period Office 10 was characterized as an interim release between its predecessor, Office 2000 and a future version, and would include new formatting options...: suggest "and was planned to include".
If we're going to mention Clippy by name in the lead, we should do so in the body too.
I apologize if this is not what you meant when you wrote about interleaving responses with bullet points; I am unfamiliar with such things but I wanted some way to address what you have written. When you wrote that Clippy should appear in the body as well, where exactly did you have this in mind? I only added it to user assistance. (Ian Wolfman (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC))
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.  Re Clippy, I just meant that we should only include material in the lead that is in the body, so we just needed to mention it somewhere in the body.  The "User assistance" section is a good place, so that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Not required for GA, but FYI, you have two dead links, in footnotes 22 and 31 -- if archive links are available that would be nice.
The two links have been updated. I did not use an archived link for the Microsoft Office 10 Preview article because the Internet Archive was not displaying it properly. Additionally, while Microsoft's description of changes in Microsoft Office XP SP1 was updated to use an archived link, this too is not rendering properly (I have always had such issues with Microsoft Support articles and thee Wayback Machine, as indicated in the discussion pertaining Microsoft Office Picture Manager). (Ian Wolfman (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC))
I went through the points Enterprisey raised above, and all of them seem to be fixed or adequately addressed in the replies.  The article's prose isn't very fluid, but it's hard to write engaging prose about a technical topic like this.  I think this meets the GA standards; once the minor points above are fixed I will promote it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ian Wolfman: pinging just to make sure you see this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Everything looks good now; promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I hope that all is well for you. I just wanted to discuss the edit that was made to the Microsoft Office XP article. You stated that the ".NET strategy" is not to be confused with the .NET Framework, but the article I referenced specifically refers to this technology (e.g., "Next Generation Windows Services" was the codename for the .NET Framework). Additionally, several aspects of what is described (e.g., web services) were a major initiative with the technology at one point in time. As such, I also do not feel that it was misplaced to include a link to the framework in that section of the article. I hope to discuss this with you! (IanWilliam20 (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC))

Hello, IanWilliam20
"Next Generation Windows Services" was the codename for .NET Framework but it was dumped. That's because the nature of .NET Framework changed along the way. The source can give you an overview of what it was initially intended to be:[...] a layer of software that runs on both servers and client machines. It provides an environment for all kinds of client devices to access services that live on the Web or on enterprise servers, according to Microsoft. The company said .Net will work on Windows and other operating systems, although it didn't specify which ones or when they would be supported.[...]For end users, .Net provides a sparse, browser-like user interface without any menu bars. A key concept in the new user interface is the "universal canvas," which Microsoft said eliminates the borders between different applications. For example, spreadsheet and word processing features will be available inside e-mail documents. .Net also will support handwriting and speech recognition, the company said. It goes without saying that .NET Framework is none of these, especially, the cross-platform thing. (.NET Core is cross-platform though.)
This whole story belongs to 18 years ago, when .NET Framework was supposed to be a framework for .NET. There was supposed to be a Windows .NET Server. There is a Visual Studio .NET too. And Microsoft Account was at the time called .NET Passport. Other server components like Exchange Server, SQL Server, Host Integration Server and ISA Server were supposed to be part of the .NET platform. Even there were reports of an MSN.NET being at work! (You have admit; that one is funny.) These sources tell you that Steve Ballmer explained the .NET strategy as one of Microsoft's most ambitious strategies, implying that Microsoft intended to connect all these in a very tangible way.
But Microsoft abandoned it all. By 2003, ".NET" had become a nonsensical branding instead of an ambitious strategy.One of Microsoft's longstanding problems has been explaining exactly what .Net is. Early on, the software titan failed to clearly articulate its .Net strategy, leading to customer and partner confusion, analysts say.[Gartner analyst David Smith] said Microsoft was making no technology change with the name change. "It's purely a branding issue," he said. "They've had a lot of problem explaining .Net. Putting .Net on products in a willy-nilly way only exacerbates the problem. They've certainly been guilty of that, and this is a way of policing that."
So, yeah, .Net strategy is far more extensive than .NET Framework.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. I understand that the .NET Framework is (or was) not the strategy per se, that the strategy was more extensive than the framework (e.g., .NET My Services), and that the framework is not cross platform. I am also aware of the company's previous .NET branding incoherencies and tendencies (e.g., "Castle.NET" during development of Windows Vista), but the article itself states that the strategy pertained "Next Generation Windows Services" which, as discussed, was the codename for the .NET Framework. I would like to discuss this more with you, but I regrettably feel as though I am at an impasse. I do wish the Office XP article included a link to the framework and that it retains its "with what at the time was known as the ".Net strategy' [...]" wording but with capitalization (.Net -> .NET). The current wording is preferably very cautious so as not to imply that the framework was the strategy.(IanWilliam20 (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
Hello again, IanWilliam20
It is actually far simpler than you imagine. The question that you must ask yourself is: Will linking to .NET Framework help people learn about .Net strategy? The answer is, unfortunately no. It doesn't matter how related they are; at the end of the day, the link would send people after a wild goose chase.
Of course, I am thinking maybe we can add a .Net strategy section to the .NET Framework article.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I see. I do like your idea about adding a strategy section to the .NET Framework article. If or when that happens, could the associated text in Office XP link to that section? Also, would you mind if I changed .Net to .NET in the current article? I know you said that permission is not necessary for edits, but you have been consistent in your use and I do not want to displease you. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC))
EDIT: I see that the strategy is a new article. Thank you! (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC))

Can someone explain why we show older versions of office, like this one running on newer OSes rather than their respective era OSes? For example, the screenshot should show the main 4 office programs running on Windows XP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.138.48.74 (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
It was a dumb decision and I would have stopped it, had I noticed it in time.
I myself have neither Windows XP nor Office XP, so I can't replace the screenshot myself.
Best regards,Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a screenshot of Microsoft Office XP in what is apparently Windows 2000. Is that acceptable?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.64.163 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

OfficeXPWindows10.png
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

اريد ان افعل العاب جديده 85.106.144.225 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)