Talk:Windows XP/Archive 4

message: The introduction states that the retail sale of Windows XP ceased on June 30 2008. How can this be true if one is still able to buy the full edition of both XP Home and Professional at amazon.com? Just do a search. This should be corrected. a.buchhorn (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that date was the end of MS selling retail copies but retailers can continue selling it for as long as the stocks hold out. Plugwash (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retail sale did not cease 

message: See here. There is some misconception about Windows XP running 3 programs simultaneously. I think the section needs to be clarified.
:I can't see the confusion. It is discussing a specific edition, hence the section title and the initial part of the sentence? How can it be any mroe clear?-Localzuk(talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "can only run 3 programs at a time" 

message: Please add Extended Support. Now. Jacob Hnri 6 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended Support Period 

message: I heard a foreign friend talking about Windows Sweet. Could you please tell me what you know about this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.73.158 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno much about it, I will google it on the net. I'll find you a answer asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Are you sure he wasn't talking about the Windows suite? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well it apeared that user 71.166.73.158 was talking about windows sweet, I'll google windows suite, but that's the kind of question you'lld have to ask the user himself, for obvious reasons. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 'Sweet'? 

message: I'm missing the development history in this article. With the cancled other windows projects and development teams that are combined. These infos are in some other articles. The problem is that I don't get the period between win 95 and 96/97/98 and 2k integration to the windows nt based(xp) os... hope you understand my problem. I don't get it :p mabdul 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development History 

message: I find the flow of this article slightly difficult given the date formats found within: day month year, instead of month day year.  The former is not in the mainstream media as much as the latter -- correct me if I'm wrong.  And within this same article, we find dates of the latter in combination with dates of the former.  Thus, the allowing of the two formats to be used proves this article's inconsistency. Personally, I know the military uses the former format but this is not the military; can you link to other articles on the relative subject that use this format?  Taking a look at Windows_Vista proves it to the contrary where you can see it uses the latter format I'm in favor of.  
I suggest we rewrite this article to use the latter more commonly accepted format: month day year, in an effort to increase the flow and consistency of the article on a more common level.  I welcome discussion on this, please -- I would've already started to rewrite the dates but I thought it would be more courteous to discuss it first since someone already thought it to be valid to write it as such.. after some consensus, or after about a week should I receive no reply, I'll go ahead and change the dates found within according to the more commonly used format. CaptainMorgan (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All dates in the article should use the same format for consistency, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Format consistency, and it's a long established convention in this article that "month day year" is the format to be used. If you want to fix the inconsistencies, you're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. In fact I'd encourage it. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: AL - thank you for your input.  The reference you point to on Style seems to settle it.  Since this article uses both formats where it should use only one, and since related articles use the one we're in favor of changing to (month day year), I'll go ahead and change them immediately. Cheers.  CaptainMorgan (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date Formatting 

message: This seems to be a Windows XP specific problem and it's very difficult to find the information to correct the problem. Apparently related to SP 3 or some other update(s) though I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to look into that. May be related to properties of video cards also but will affect computers that had previously worked correctly with same cards and the same settings.
The issue is primarily images and backgrounds not displaying at all in Internet Explorer, Firefox and possibly other browsers. Colors may not be apparent though it may be preferable to some for colored text to display as black. "Radio button" icons and text are frequently invisible though moving the mouse cursor may reveal something is at a spot by changing shape and may or may not cause a text description to appear when the mouse cursor shape changes. Many web pages don't use alt text or don't use it correctly and it's only visible when looking at the source code. Can be a very big problem for visually impaired people.
This issue affects computers with the Use High Contrast box checked in Accessibility Properties and unchecking that box either solves the problem completely or makes a huge difference when that does correct the problem.
http://helpmerick.com/firefox-or-internet-explorer-doesnt-display-all-pictures-or-backgrounds.htm
I presume a section on this would also be appropriate in an article on browsers. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where would a section on this issue belong in article? What would be a good title to help people find the information? 

message: Thanks--222.67.212.133 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could some insiders to tabulate the service pack features.... please.... 

message: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=&C2=1173
works. Location on page of the url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#cite_note-lifecycle-1
btw, I scanned thru a couple wp help pages purportedly relevant to "reflist", but didn't see clue as to editing *content* of reflist. else i'd have just edited ref 2 url myself :-)2z2z (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both links are working for me! oh and by the way: go to the ref with a and edit this paragraph. there you'll find the url! mabdul 08:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ms's xp lifecycle url redirects to nothing. reference 2 

message: I heard from other news articles that Windows XP will be ending by January 2011 because all hard drives (current and new ones) will use the 4K advanced format. XP users will have to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 before the transition.--72.148.3.214 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have to upgrade if you want to replace the hard drive. If you don't replace it, Windows XP is fine. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, you can use the compatibility features HD manufacturers are building in, or you can carefully partition and format the drive, as enterprise users who have been using these drives for the last 5 years have been doing. Or if you have and old one without compatibility features, you can just connect it up, in which case it will be much slower than it was designed to be, and not reliable, but you probably won't notice the difference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.193.212 (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could use an old version of gparted to format a new drive with ntfs. 79.70.124.192 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Currently only a fraction of new HDD series uses 4k sector format. Most (if not all of them) have an internal 512 Byte sector emulation to be fully compatible to older OS. All 4k HDD manufacturers supply tools to realign the partition if not correctly set up by the OS (Vista, 7 and Linux should set the partitions correct, XP and older do not). As long as the drives have the 512 Byte sector emulation they are compatible to XP and older. Not realigning the partition makes them slooooow though. --Denniss (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows XP is officially ending by January 2011 because of hard drives 

message: In the first paragraph:
It was first released in August 2001
In the second paragraph:
Windows XP was first released on October 25  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.6.82 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be a contradiction but it's really just a poor choice of words. It was released to manufacturing in August and to retail in October. I've fixed the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this not a contradiction? 

message: Here is something that I need to fight over. Is there a need for users to include "(Service Pack 2 x64 and Service Pack 3 x86)" in the support status of Windows XP? Windows XP Service Pack 2 (32-bit) went out of support yesterday and is only supported on Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 until 8 April 2014. I personally find it unnecessary, but if you want to discuss this without anymore edit wars, please do. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the article history, there were general statements about SP2 support ending on July 13th 2010 without specifiying the 64Bit XP Prof as supported until 2014. --Denniss (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did look at the history of the Windows XP article and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is supported until 8 April 2014. The 32-bit version is out of support now. I did remove the references in parenthesis and it was deemed as vandalism. Why bother?This type of confusion affects a very small percentage of Windows XP x64 users, which is why I did not want the "(Service Pack 2 x64 and Service Pack 3 x86)" line there. The line wasn't even there when Windows XP was in Mainstream Support until 14 April 2009 and that it entered Extended Support.If you have anymore arguments, let me know. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Support 

message: This line probably belongs under the overall service pack heading, not in the SP3 section:
:There have been various complaints regarding Service Pack 3's installation and performance reported by many users, ranging from conflicts with other software such as Symantec and other security applications, to internet connectivity and reboot loops.
Really, that applies to all 3 service packs, most of all to SP2, which broke all security software and many others that tripped over DEP. It's not even specific to XP service packs. Any takers? Foxyshadis (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you are right, but as long as you are able to prove it by providing verifiable evidence in reliable sources, this sentence will stay put.Of course, I am personally inclined to agree with you. Service Pack 2 did cause a reboot loop on my old computer whose processor was a Pentium 4 Prescott. I solved the problem in less than an half an hour by searching Microsoft Support web site. The fact is that Microsoft constantly warns organizations and OEMs in advance to test Service Packs before deploying them and to report the problems back to Microsoft, always makes Service Pack Blocker tools and always publishes beta releases of Service Packs — but alas, people don't pay due attention until disaster strikes! See another example: Kernel_Patch_Protection#Criticisms.</P>Fleet Command (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP3 problems not really specific to SP3 

message: There seems to have been a flurry of activity relating to  who added a link to tecdiary.com   That user has now been banned for spamming. I see absolutely no reason to keep the link so have deleted it. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It fails WP:ELNO#EL13 any way. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also WP:ELNO#EL11. There are hundreds (most likely thousands) of websites on the Internet with how-to information about Windows XP. Why this one, which is very badly written, should be kept is beyond me. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, as of October 2010, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world with a 48.9% market share, having peaked at 76.1% in January 2007.
W3School stats only measure users who visit w3schools.com, so they don't represent the overall market. This is also specified on their site:
From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of seven years, you can read the long term trends of operating system usage.
--Norbiu (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the Microsoft Windows article you will see that a table of web access statistics from a number of different sources is used. All seem to have roughly the same order of market share for XP. W3Schools is a pretty notable statistics site, but you could come up with an average based on several sites. Trouble is that still only deals with Internet access as this seems to be the only available data that shows market share. It does not take into account systems which do not access the Internet but may still be based on XP such as shop tills or airport information screens. --Simple Bob (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  W3Schools Reference 

message: Yes it is really nice if you use this mouse, no, I will recommend this even. ( Not :-| ) The recommendation of this company product is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING which are over WP:V (from the company page). Microsoft Mice is completely unrelevant and unrelated product mention. It also has no relevant standard for Windows XP or mouses. --Perhelion (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an official system requirement to have a M$ mouse or compatible device. EDIT: See M$ KB entry --Denniss (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

text: How is talking about a Microsoft product in a Microsoft article POV or advertising? The source is quite clear. You should read WP:LAME, which is what an argument like yours has the chance to descend into, and then move on...  --Simple Bob (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both. If the source says "Microsoft Mouse", then it is Microsoft Mouse. Sorry, I can't check the source now; Microsoft support website won't open here. It's probably our local cache server going haywire again. Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Mouse 

message: Windows 7 share tops XP for first time in U.S. - perhaps time to update the article? Samatva (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not. Did you read the whole of that report? "Windows 7 accounts for 31.5% of all operating systems in use around the world so far this month, while XP remains the most-widely-used OS with a 46.8% share" and "Net Application's March numbers put Windows 7's global usage share at 24.2%, compared to XP's 54.4%." --AussieLegend (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Share reported change 

message: Somebody has added a section on multi-procesor limits of XP - thanks for that.  It says Professional supports two processors and Home Edition supports one.  Can somebody please add something to make this more precise???  What I mean to say, is, will it support a single chip quad-core?, or only use two cores???  Or are we actually talking about separate processors here?  I have a feeling that it is processors we are talking about here and not cores - but non-techies like myself, we might get them mixed up.  Just thought a short sentence stating that multi-cores (quad and up) are supported, and that the limit strictly applies to processors not cores (assuming this is correct).  Anyway, thanks in advance to anybody who is proficient in this particular matter and can add the sentence.
:These limits are on physical processors regardless of how many cores they have. It should be possible to run XP prof on one or two 12-core CPU but not three or more CPU. --Denniss (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Added additional info on July 31 2011. This topic isn't as straighforward as it first appears because of hyperthreading, which most Intel processors have. AMD processors don't have hyperthreading now, but their next generation of cpu's might. Basically a dual-core intel cpu will show up as 4 logical cpu's in Windows XP task manager. A quad-core intel cpu will show up as 8 logical cpu's in task manager. This is not the case with AMD. A quad-core AMD cpu will show up as 4 logical cpu's in Windows XP task manager. The maximum number of logical cpu's is evident because of processor affinity. In Windows XP Task Manager, on the Processes tab, you can right-click any process and Set Affinity.... In the Processor Affinity window that pops up, there are 32 logical CPU's (cpu 0 - 31) under 32bit windows xp. The number is double in 64bit windows.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.10.151 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-processor limits 

message: It seems like every PC ever come across is still using XP, support extended until 2014? That must be well beyond what was originally planned back in '01. It's over 10 years old and still just the best apparently. Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? XP is as old as Wikipedia. 169.139.19.108 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There IS an explanation for the phenomenon but I have forgotten the source, so I don't think you can put it into the article. But according to the forgotten source, Windows XP changed the role of the computers from an expense into that of a strategic asset.On the whole, I think you had better search for a lot of sources before deciding to add this to the article. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the explanation is partly that your average home PC user doesn't upgrade operating systems - they just use what the computer came with until the computer breaks down then they buy a new computer. Combine this with the fact that a lot of machines are just used for web browsing and other undemanding applications and that once processors reached a level of approx single-core 2GHz (say around 2003/2004) there was really no real need for the average user to upgrade in search of more performance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.175.208 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I say far-fetched. Does not look that way from where I am standing. Do you have a source for this? Fleet Command (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest-lasting OS 

message: The criticism section is mostly unsourced and also not very appropriate. I moved this chunk to the already existing page about WinXp critisicm and removed the section from this article, so it is in line with the other OS articles. StoneProphet (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: Location of term limits Downgrade? Windows 7 Pro OEM EULA:
15. TRANSITION TO DOWNGRADE. Instead, the software, you can use one of the following earlier versions:
· Windows Vista Business,
· Microsoft Windows XP Professional,
· Microsoft Windows Professional x64 Edition, or
· Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.
This agreement covers the use of earlier versions. If an earlier version contains components which are not included in the new version of the software, using these components, you must comply with all conditions of use contained in the agreement, which accompanies an earlier version. Neither the manufacturer or installer, nor Microsoft is not responsible for delivering to you earlier. You must purchase the earlier version separately. You can always replace an earlier version of this version of the software.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miros 0571 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you trying to say with this? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Available until end of Windows 7 lifecycle 

message: Wasn't the first version of Windows to use the NT kernel Windows NT 3.11? Captainsid2001 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says that XP was the first consumer-oriented operating system to be built on the Windows NT kernel, not that it was the first ever operating system to be built on the Windows NT kernel. Windows NT and its variants were all aimed at business use, not the average home user. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Statments 

message: Almost nothing in the section on ATM and Vendor users of XP has a citation.  This is an interesting area of discussion for the operating system enthusiast, but the entire section really ought to be rewritten, cleaned up, and feature proper citations for its claims.  It should also probably be expanded in light of the large number of businesses shipping machines that use various versions of Windows XP Embedded ranging from cash-registers to billboards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATM section 

message: There's a bit of spam under "non-use by end user" (reading "I like tacos"), but I couldn't see it in the markup when I went to edit it. I don't edit very much - please advise? Rincewind32 (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have been a caching glitch or similar, editing and saving the page (without data change) and it's gone. --Denniss (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unremovable spam 

message: I think a section on Windows XP's shortcomings should be included, especially with newer OSes by Microsoft being used more widely. I'm thinking of mentioning:
# Support for Windows XP will cease in early 2013.
# Can support up to directX 9.0c only.
# Cannot support newer CPU instructions like AVX.
203.118.14.114 (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: These are true of any old version of an operating system. Not the kind of shortcomings that we'd include in this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. If the contributor could supply a reliable source, I see no Wikipedia policy against including these. However, I do not recommend it. I'd rather accept that things change with time. Maintaining such a section would not be necessary to remind me of that. New technologies and software always come anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcomings of Windows XP 

message: This article has previously had excessive non-free images removed. Yesterday it had nine non-free images but, in the past 24 hours an editor has added 10 more. I cleaned up the article, removing all but one of these as none of the images had appropriate FURs  but they have since been restored, even adding a gallery for good measure, despite advising the editor at length on his talk page of the problems. His attempts at adding FURs are poor at best, and his edit wars have resulted in me being unable to remove the offending files yet again without breaching 3RR. I have tagged the article appropriately, but little more can be done (at least by me) at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think these images offer little value to the article. We shouldn't add them just to save them from deletion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I agree too. Let's call in an WP:FFD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know what Gaming&Computing means by "I've explained earlier to another editor that these images are useful but are not being used in any articles". All of the images that are being added, with the exception of the two that he recently uploaded (:File:XP Control Panel.PNG and :File:XP Welcome.png), are used in articles for which they have appropriate FURs. None have appropriate FURs for this article, including :File:Windows Explorer XP.png, :File:XP Control Panel.PNG and :File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png, which are still in the article. The exception is :File:Windows XP - Program Access and Defaults.png, which is already in the "Service Pack 1" section, but which Gaming&Computing keeps adding in his gallery. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even so, this gallery adds little or no value to the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely, but there's no excuse for including any image without a valid FUR, which excludes :File:Windows Explorer XP.png, :File:XP Control Panel.PNG and :File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, consensus seems to be against Gaming&Computing's edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on that, I've now removed the three remaining non-compliant images. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive use of non-free content 

message: From the last paragraph above the contents:
, Windows XP market share is at 39.51% (...). , Windows XP market share is at 19.9% (...).
Obviously, one of them is inaccurate, and should be fixed, or, if there are sources claiming either, it should be clarified as such.
Callid13 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. The W3schools statistics are underestimated. Firstly, the difference between these two market share figures is 20%, which is enormous. Secondly, there is no way that just 19% is XP. It's obviously way more than that. Thirdly, when you search for any information about XP's market share (or any other OS), most news/articles are sourced from Net Applications, which is the site that estimated 39%. Fourthly, W3schools only count figures of visitors to their own site, whereas Net Applications track down figures on the whole World Wide Web. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you apparently didn't bother looking in the archives, here is the link to the relevant discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  But nothing says the question can't be opened again. Is there a reference for the claim that "Net Applications track [sic] down figures on the whole World Wide Web"? How do they do that? Jeh (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there's no reason at all why it can't. As I said though, it's unlikely that any site presents a picture that is truly representative, and because every site gathers information differently there are bound to be differences, even significant differences, between sites. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

text:  But 19%? I think that figure is now low enough and different enough that it warrants discounting it. It seems to me that W3schools' info must have a built-in bias - toward people who want info on web coding. That's pretty far from representative of users in general. Web developers are also going to be far more likely than ordinary users to upgrade their operating system. The latter point alone would explain W3schools' surprisingly low figure for XP.  Jeh (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the figure is too low too. An organisation that I do work for has tens of thousands of PCs all running WinXP but those figures won't be captured because the computers are generally isolated from the net. I know of other organisations in the same boat. Most of my own customers still use XP. However, our suspicions aren't enough. We have to present data neutrally without personal analysis and unless we can verifiably show that Net Applications data is more accurate than w3schools we can't really discount it. And if we do, it means all the historical data in the article history, from the time w3schools was first added, is useless. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of the way windows is sold and used it is not really meaningful to talk about "market share" of different versions of windows and while a concept of usage share clearly exists noone (not even MS) knows what the real ratios are. The only data we have are the versions of windows that various websites (and possiblly applications that phone home) see. None of these are likely to be a representative sample of all windows users so all we can really do is look at multiple sources (ideally more than two) and give a range of estimates of usage share based on them. Plugwash (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  XP's market share in 2013 is... both 39.5% *and* 19.9%? 

message: The extended support date in the first paragraph is stated as April 14th, 2014 when it hasn't changed from April 8th. I'm not sure who made that edit but it's wrong and contradicted later in the article.  Can someone who has editing access fix that please before netizens go into a panic because wikipedia says one thing and all the news outlets are saying another? JsyBird2532 (talk) 6:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Date in the First Paragraph 

message: Should the article on Windows XP discuss options for dealing with the ending of support?
This discussion would benefit from brief comments from non-specialist editors (though of course more thorough consideration would be very welcome).Upedge (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for changes to discuss end of life options 

message: The ending of support for XP means that no further updates will be distributed. The danger of this for existing XP users is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) then XP systems will remain vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows may increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, may point to an equivalent weakness in XP.
Most corporate customers will be forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems, but for individual customers a number of options are available.
Option                          	Advantages	Disadvantages
Buy new hardware                	
* modern hardware and software
* potentially avoid reliability problems
* relatively straightforward
* offers opportunity to switch to a low cost Chromebook or an Apple Mac if desired	
* high cost
* windows 8.1 interface significantly different from XP
* data must be migrated (though there is some help with this)
* may need to purchase new versions of third party software
Upgrade to Windows 8.1          	
* most recent version
* no data migration
* modern user interface	
* significant cost
* not possible with most XP era hardware
* windows 8.1 interface significantly different from XP
* possible compatibility issues with existing programs
Upgrade to Windows 7            	
* more familiar interface than Windows 8.1
* some older hardware supported
* no data migration	
* significant cost
* not possible with much XP era hardware
* possible compatibility issues with existing programs
* no longer sold by Microsoft
Continue use of XP              	
* zero direct cost
* zero effort
* anti-virus still available
* no compatibility issues	
* significant, and increasing, risk of hacking
* drivers for new hardware not available
* not appropriate for business environment
Migrate to Ubuntu or other Linux	
* zero direct cost
* supports most older hardware
* continuing support
* no data migration
* can be tried out without committing to Linux	
* different user interface
* compatibility issues with existing programs
* technically more demanding
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upedge (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be (I hope) more clear: This table is not providing information about Windows XP; it is about options available to users of Windows XP. That's why it violates WP:NOTHOWTO. The difference seems very obvious to me. As Guy Macon said above, some of this could be presented as "reactions to end-of-life announcement", provided each documented "reaction" is referenced. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Support Options 

message: *Oppose. First, that's very lovely of you, but you forgot to ask community's opinion or even provide a section for it. So, I took the liberty of complimenting it. But as for the proposal, it is against  and § Wikipedia is not a newspaper, without doubt. It may be accepted in Wikibook instead of Wikipedia, but it ages and dies rather very quickly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be (I hope) more clear: This table is not providing information about Windows XP; it is about options available to users of Windows XP. That's why it violates WP:NOTHOWTO. The difference seems very obvious to me. As Guy Macon said above, some of this could be presented as "reactions to end-of-life announcement", provided each documented "reaction" is referenced. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (withdrawn proposal)

message: I have started an RfC (which the bot should pick up soon) on a related question, which may be of interest to editors who responded here. Upedge (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one? How many RfCs do we need on essentially the same thing, and why is it at your user page when it affects this article? --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another one, because the previous one didn't reach any consensus and I felt asking a different question might contribute to this. My user page at the suggestion of Guy Macon. I don't know his reasons for this suggestion, but I have followed it because I felt I had cluttered up this space enough, unless and until there is a clear reason for coming back here. I added the above mention in case people who have commented before wish to comment again. Upedge (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the problems with the above RfCs is that they were reworded, closed, opened, reoworded and eventually closed again. They're confusing to anyone who hasn't been involved, and probably to anyone who has. If my count is right, there have now been at least 4 RfCs in only 7 days.  That's excessive and really, it's abusing the RfC process. Opening an RfC on your talk page is pointless because it won't have any effect. RfC's aren't binding and, even if there is support on your talk page, you still need to get consensus here for any edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. You start RfCs at the wrong place, at the wrong time and for the wrong reason. As I explained in your talk page, the old RfC reached a natural end when ViperSnake151 implemented a version of your RfC topic which did not face community opposition. Calling an RfC is like calling everyone in a village to a compulsory meeting. You must not call an RfC everytime you want to change a dot. Work the details out at the article level or discuss with Viper first if needed. You won't even need a WP:3O is you know the basics of negotiation. RfC is for the most grave problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related RfC 

message: In the article: "Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security". Is this a "how-to"? comp.arch (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It is reporting on an event. WP:HOWTO would be to say "It is recommended that you migrate to a newer version if you still use XP". ViperSnake151  Talk   15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this also an event? Would you report on it? Where and how? comp.arch (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, just give it a rest already. There has already been overwhelming consensus against the inclusion of that information in the manner you persistently propose (which, I must also add, is already mentioned later in the article, but backed with similar assertions by reliable sources). It only says "Avoid Internet Explorer", not "Avoid XP entirely". It is just a routine security advisory, which they do all the time. A lot of publications and organizations are parroting similar sentiment, but we do not need to report on all of it. Microsoft's actions are significant because I do not believe they have used nag screens to inform users of ending support before. ViperSnake151  Talk   15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of it say "Do avoid XP [but it still works]". It does NOT say (or imply) 'It only says "Avoid Internet Explorer"'. There are WP:PRIMARY sources (Microsoft) (and WP:SECONDARY repeating same) saying Microsoft wants you to upgrade. People might think the primary source is only after money. I'm still looking for, in the main text, language that says "Avoid XP", that the alert does, referencing anything. Maybe I'm missing something? Could it be only in this revert? I'll think I give it some rest now. All feel free to look at the top of my talk page. comp.arch (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, fine. You win. If you specifically require a specific security statement quoted from US-CERT to be incorporated into this article, it is now. ViperSnake151  Talk   16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this within guidelines?