Talk:Windows XP/Archive 1

message: I believe the name is capitalized Windows xp, not Windows XP. WhisperToMe 03:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Although in the logo the two letters are certainly lower case, Microsoft always refers to it in plain-text in uppercase, as it is now. See the Windows XP Home Page. I don't think any change is needed. -- Tom- 15:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization

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

message: Removed. No source found for the idea that Microsoft is abandoning the desktop metaphor, and a task-based UI doesn't imply this. Samrolken 23:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "marking a shift from the desktop-metaphor used in [[Mac OS X]] and most distributions of [[Linux]]." 

message: Anyone care to tell me? Also, if no one can point out any non-NPOV writing then I'm taking off the tags.- Ta bu shi da yu 08:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trolling bullshit"? "Sycophantic whitewash" (what exactly do you mean by that?) So far you've already had another user tell you you are incorrect and nobody else is sticking up for you. Nevertheless, you're complaint is about factual inaccuracy and I haven't removed this. Show me where my POV is sticking through then I'll consider putting it back. Until then, I'll keep on removing the NPOV tag. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, and for the record, I agree with Tannin 100%. I've been watching this all day, but decided I'd leave it to you guys to sort out. Ambivalenthysteria 09:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. Though I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why you think I'm trolling, and why you think I'm a sycophant. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  What factual inaccuracies are there? 

message: A source cited in the article claims that hardware-related information is transmitted to Microsoft. I believe that this is not true, and that what is actually sent to Microsoft is a one-way cryptographic hash of values derived from hardware. It would be impossible for Microsoft to extract any actual information about hardware from the hash that is transmitted to Microsoft. Samrolken 14:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we sure about this? Microsoft don't publish their specs for way in which they send info about Product Activation! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 15:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... hardware-related information ... is transmitted" 

message: Through discussion we've managed to remove factual inaccuracies from the article. Now we need to make it so that we can remove the bias. What areas do we think we need to modify to remove this tag? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done guys! 

message: I haven't heard any objections, and there have been some very good edits here. I'm going to remove the NPOV header. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article seems pretty NPOV now 

message: I added information on email viruses (though not much) and spyware, as well as a thorough rebuttal, while trying to end on a NPOV note.  I know I'm not a regular of this page, but I thought I could still help out.--naryathegreat 03:43, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)
:It's a good job! I've tweaked things a little, but this was a valuable addition to the article - Ta bu shi da yu 11:17, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Security

message: The article stated that these OSes didn't have memory protection. They did (they all run in protected mode). The problem was not that they didn't have memory protection, the problem was that they didn't have good memory protection. I've modified the article to reflect this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:21, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me memory protection 

message: 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:
# Rhobite 23:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
# Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  So it is; sorry. Andy Mabbett 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments removed

message: 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)
replies: text: All done. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  References added 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title: Service Pack 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  CNet review of Service Pack 2