Talk:Windows XP/Archive 3

message: I've included some more info about XP's compatibility with Windows 9X/Me deskop themes. Pictures included. Nice design of XP, but... In 2001?! If only Microsoft released such a GUI in 1999. For me, Windows 9X and 2000 looked pretty old when they were released. They were gray and the 1990s were colorful, more like XP. Anyway, vista is better generaly. 83.228.121.186 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GUI 

message: There are articles circulating around the Internet these days that point to a single blog entry making a claim that XP SP3 is 10% faster than SP2.  I've been removing this from the article for three reasons:
# It's a four-paragraph blog entry by some otherwise barely-known company called "Devil Mountain Software" that promotes a product they've written called "OfficeBench".  Four paragraphs, yes, really, that's it.
# The article claims that XP SP3 is 10% faster with their specific benchmark, but a lot of people pointing to the article are turning that specific claim into a general statement that the entire operating system is faster.
# The testing methodology itself is suspect as there is next to no information provided about how the tests were performed.
Together, this puts in a situation where the material fails Wikipedia:Verifiability on several counts.  If someone feels like reintroducing this information to the article, a more reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is going to be needed.  -/- Warren 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XP SP3 "performance improvements" 

message: The result of the proposal to merge the service pack information from Windows XP service packs was merge. For clarification, which appears necessary in light of past edits, this means that information will be merged from Windows XP service packs back into this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the discussion at Talk:Windows XP has been closed with the dicision not to merge into this article, we should merge this article back into Windows XP. There's no reason to list this information twice. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - As can be seen already, duplication of information in two articles has resulted in significant differences between the two, particularly as relates to SP3. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to the above, I've made appropriate edits to Windows XP that incorporated some information contained in this article that should have been included in that one. I've also made an edit to this article that I've marked as a "snapshot edit". Only edits made after that need be considered for merging into Windows XP in the event that this proposal is successful. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Why Thank you Mr. Aussie Legend.  I'm glad that you did the appropriate edits. -- KelleyCook (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support - No need to duplicate. Merge back to Windows XP, ASAP. --BWCNY (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion on this proposal was suppose to occur at Talk:Windows XP according to the  tag so I'm going to copy the discussion so far to there. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to merge information from [[Windows XP service packs]] back into this article

message: If one installs a certain beta version, can and should they later just install a newer beta version (or the final version) on top of it? -79.179.148.235 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Pack betas 

message: I believe that the current screen shot does not represent what the standard Windows XP desktop would look like. Someone should revert it to an older "more standard" look.
Wikinerd2000 (talk) 18:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Picture: Bad 

message: Could someone please clear up the WGA section in this article? To me, it sounds like a virus (I was bombarded with it once and 3 days later it was mysteriously genuine. It felt like a scam.).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.141.239 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGA 

message: Please read, Windows XP page editers! Thanks!
Why was my picture removed from the article not even a day after it was posted? It was a picture of XP Energy Blue. Thanks! --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained in the edit summary, Energy Blue is the same theme as Royale, which was already shown. Therefore your image added nothing to the article. It has been removed today because you used it to replace an image of the start menu, which was there to specifically highlight the start menu. As I've explained in the edit summary, the current set of images gives better examples of the available themes specifically highlighting the changes to the start menu. The new images also introduced layout issues which, while not insurmountable problems, do not help the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I just wanted to add a somewhat trivial comment about the default wallpaper installed on windows, the so-called "Bliss" wallpaper. The article states that it is a photo from the Napa Valley, California. I think that it's a photo of Co. Wicklow, Ireland. The mountain in the background on the RH side looks suspiciously like the Great Sugarloaf Mtn. Also, looking at the Dutch-language version of Windows installed on my wife's PC, the file has been translated as "Ierland.bmp".
Sorry if I added the comment in the wrong place, I wasn't sure.
84.194.42.3 (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallpaper 

message: Given that Microsoft just changed the release to web date for SP3, would it be a good idea to tag the SP3 section with the future software template, or current event, or something like that? I wouldn't be surprised if the information in that section changes a few more times before Microsoft gets around to actually releasing SP3. Scj2315 22:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The future software template is for software that is not available to the general public in any form and since there are various beta and RC versions of SP3 available it is inappropriate. Nor is the beta software template appropriate since SP3 has baeen released to manufacturing and is clearly no longer in development. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future software template 

message: Can there a better word than "slipstream" to use in the SP3 section?  Non-technical people read this article, avoid using too much terminology. Ashawley (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats the word in use. However, something like . could be used.--soum talk 17:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it will confuse a lot of people if other word is used (I have to admit, I would). I think slipstream is more common word.--w_tanoto (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Slipstream is not only more common, it's the correct term to use since it's the term that Microsoft uses to describe the process. Rather than use  though, it's more appropriate and conventional to wikilink to the actual article on slipstreaming. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Nobody said anything about it being non-technical. In any case, being a technical term isn't justification for using a different word. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Using jargons without any prior explanation is a pet peeve of mine. Any technical term should be accompanied with at least enough explanation that would let the user to continue reading the rest of the paragraph without first reading the linked article. --soum talk 12:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice in theory but in practice an article like this would be a lot larger if every term that needs explaining was explained in the prose. People who don't need the terms explained tend to "turn off" and the article gets hard to read for them. Wikilinking is a good compromise for both groups. I just wish I'd been able to wikilink in the tech manuals that I've written. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither I am saying it must be there (I know it doesn't work always) nor am I arguing for an inclusion here. I just am saying the correct and arguably-more-common "slipstreaming" should not be sugar-coated just for the sake of jargon busting. I guess we are on the same side here. --soum talk 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slipstream 

message: "[Windows XP] still has trouble running many old DOS programs. This is largely due to the fact that it is a Windows NT system and does not use DOS as a base OS."
DOS not being used as the base OS has little to do with it. The main difference between XP's virtual DOS machine and a real DOS machine is that the VDM doesn't allow access to the real hardware. Couldn't software running as part of an OS that does "use DOS as a base OS" disable direct hardware access just as easily as NT does? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Dos doesn't have memory protection (i.e., a pointer can be point to absolutely any point of the memory). So even if any OS that does "use DOS as a base OS" disables direct hardware, one can point a pointer to a memory address mapped to a hardware and communicate directly with it. For this reason, "DOS not being used as the base OS" has everything to do with this incompatibility. No DOS-emulator in NT can relax the no-direct-hardware-access restrictions and no NT emulator in DOS can prevent that access. --soum talk 11:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for DOS incompatability 

message: I cannot find the word "successful" anywhere in the article? You see, when you need to issue a hotfix just because the software product is running out of available individual installation keys spaces, that IS an undeniable sign of success! So there should be an XP veneration section in the article, not just a criticism section! 82.131.210.162 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much agree. Windows XP is the most successful and most used OS in the world, yet there is no such section. 69.216.17.251 03:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When your POV is from personal desktop Operating Systems, as of 2007, Windows does have a large market share. But when you take into account the Business sector, and the vast amount of Unix and other OS types used in the workplace, successful is a debatable description of Windows XP. --Unixguy 19:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Says a user named "Unix guy"... yeah, no bias there... sheesh.  -/- Warren 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Success" is a value judgment and is dependent on the observer's point of view. As Wikipedia articles are supposed to be from a Neutral point of view I'm not sure that we should be crowing about the success of what is, after all, a commercial product. I'm sure that Microsoft is more than capable of purchasing all the praise it needs. --218.101.84.3 (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with this. Especially since there is already a main Criticism of Windows XP article, the fact that there is also a whole criticism section in this article definitely skews the whole thing towards negativity. I think it adds undue weight and might be best if it's removed almost entirely with simply a main article link. MasterCKO (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just re-read and even the opening section goes from neutral to negative with no positive aspect (such as "most installed OS on Planet Earth" -- with a reference, of course) listed whatsoever. I really don't think that this article can be claimed to be neutral. MasterCKO (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very much lopsided article. 

message: This is poorly written and IMO shouldn't even be there anyway.  What's the concensus on this? Smoothy (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I made an edit to remove the last line that recommended uninstalling IE7 before the upgrade.  If you actually read the article referenced, it makes no mention of uninstalling IE7 before installing XPSP3.  The only recommendation made is to remove IE8 Beta 1 if installed.  That line was the author stating his opinion with a false reference. Goochi32 (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I nuked the section, as it clearly fell under WP:NOTHOWTO. It was hardly relevant to the overall article anyhow. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you're being inconsistent here. You just removed information about an ICS bug introduced by SP3. You justify that removal with WP:NOTHOWTO. However, you have *NOT* removed the "Microsoft recommends that SP3 should not be applied to systems using Microsoft Dynamics Retail Management System until a hotfix is available" and related that introduces the whole SP3 section. What's the deal? The information you removed about the bug did NOT have any howto information in it. It simply stated a fact -- a *MAJOR* difference between SP2 and SP3 is that SP3 requires frequent restarting of the ICS service. Perhaps you would be OK with something like "Users of ICS should not install SP3"? --TedPavlic | talk 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no inconsistency, every minor bug introduced to windows does not get put on this page.  You are correct that the DRM line probably needs to go away too as that has turned out to be a bug with their management system, not SP3. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The RMS (not DRM) information was not added as a bug report. It was included because it was the reason that RTW was delayed. I've just reverted the change that was made as a result of this discussion because the conclusion isn't supported by the citations which say only that SP3 should not be installed on systems running RMS until the hotfix is available, not that SP3 will be automatically pushed out except on systems running RMS. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem of Internet Explorer 7 and SP3 section 

message: Please someone tell me if the service pack 3 final version is out, because there is a 1.0 download on microsoft's web and it doesn't say BETA anywhere --200.121.144.175 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's out, but the page I see says it was released on March 21, 2008.  Your post is from March 18.  Maybe you got an early look.  I updated the article related to SP3, but not the whole paragraph.Slipgrid (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get too excited about support and technical review documents.  The documentation will come out before the SP.  The SP is not on Windows Update or the Windows Download Center. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Is anyone seeing the final SP3 available for download ?  According to the schedule it should be available today?  Is there another delay?  Thanks.
Dreamgear (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Answering my own question here... It's available.  On the windows update page, click "administrator options" at left, then click "Windows Update Catalog".67.158.116.42 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also links to it in the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it's not on automatic updates. When you visit Windows Update or Microsoft Update it's offered to you as a "preferred" manual update. You can skip the update if you wish. "Automatically pushed out" means that it will be distributed automatically to your PC just as security updates are. For most people with Automatic Updates turned on, this will mean that one day they'll discover that their PC has mysteriously changed to Windows XP Service Pack 3. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP3 

message: i really need to know when, because the article is unclear. thanks. 31306D696E6E69636B6D (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has nothing to do with the article, but Microsoft will stop selling retail sales of XP on June 30, 2008. — Wenli (reply here) 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  can i still buy xp? 

message: Since a number of people have edited the article claiming that SP3 is available through automatic updates I thought I'd copy information I posted earlier into this new section at the bottom of the page so it's easier for people to see.
SP3 is NOT available as an automatic update yet. When you visit Windows Update or Microsoft Update it is offered to you as a "preferred" manual update. You can skip the update if you wish. This is not an automatic update! "Automatic updates" or "Automatically pushed out" means that it will be distributed automatically to your PC just as security updates are. For most people with Automatic Updates turned on, this will mean that one day they'll discover that their PC has mysteriously changed to Windows XP Service Pack 3. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the article, it will be "automatically pushed out" near June/July of this year (as you can see in the reference). — Wenli (reply here) 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP3 is NOT on automatic updates 

message: Is/was XP a most popular OS in the world? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it still is (reference); approximately 73% of online PCs run Windows XP. — Wenli (reply here) 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should probably be mentioned in the lead of the article. Can we find out when (year, month) did XP gained this position? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most popular 

message: As is, the article mentions the movement to retain Windows XP rather than upgrade to Windows Vista in the introduction, but doesn't explain the reasons for this movement in the body of the article itself.  I think that this is very important, particularly right now, and that it should be addressed, either with its own section or a summary and a redirect to the appropriate article, if such exists on Wikipedia already.  I would do it, but I don't understand enough about the fine points of computers to do it justice, particularly because I don't have any problems with Windows Vista.Kleio08 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you've misread the introduction. It doesn't mention the movement to retain XP. Rather it simply says that although Windows XP is no longer sold it is still possible to obtain copies. That's as far as this article really needs to go. Discussion of the movement to retain Windows XP is problematic at best because there are far too many reasons why someone might wish to stay with XP rather than purchase Vista and they really have no relevance to this  or the Vista article. I'm not aware of an article that compares the two systems. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista 

message: "Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over the 9x versions of Microsoft Windows."
Is this common sense? The "Fact" tag was removed with the explanation that this is common sense. I don't think so, who said that Windows XP is always more stable and efficient than windows 9x? Please provide a reference that meets Wikipedia:Reliable sources, maybe if Microsoft has ever mentioned this somewhere on their website. Showpaper (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely with the person who removed the tag. It's extremely well known that XP is more stable than the 9x versions. Anyone who has used Windows knows it. Regardless, it actually took me longer to replace the tag with citations than it did to find and review them. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least... I hope it wasn't Steve Ballmer's IP address... References are needed. Maybe it is extremely well known today that XP is more stable than 9x, but I don't everyone will remember that forever. In the next 10 years or so, when XP's popularity has decreased to 5-10%, many people might not even know what Windows XP is, and even less of them knows why XP was better than previous versions Windows... Showpaper (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I know some users don't trust IP addresses as much as regular users, but this case is now settled and I hope you don't see more problems with this excessive lack of references. Pleaceman (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There are a lot of things that won't be remembered in 5-10 years but that doesn't mean we need to provide references for all of them. Uncontroversial claims (The moon orbits around the Earth, the earth is not flat, Windows XP is more stable than Windows 98) don't generally need references. In this case it would have taken less effort to find appropriate citations than it did to explain why you restored the  tag. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's "well known" now doesn't mean that it will be well known in 100 years - unlike the example given of the moon orbiting the earth. More to the point, it might be well known but it is an opinion. There is no one single, scientific measure of a system's "stability" - does that mean system uptime (not particularly useful since most consumer desktops aren't on 24/7), does it mean the frequency of "blue screen" errors (again not particularly useful as in relation to Vista it was shown that most of the early bluescreens were actually nVidia's fault rather than Microsoft's)? When we're dealing with subjective (even if widely-held) opinions like this, we state the opinion and cite reliable sources where this opinion is expressed. Cynical (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be so sure about assuming the moon will still be orbiting the Earth in 100 years. Up until just over two years ago it was a fact that Pluto was still one of the 9 planets of the solar system. My point is that whether or not it will be remembered in 5, 10, 100 or even 1000 years is irrelevant as to whether or not something gets a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WinXP vs Win9x stability and efficiency 

message: I was checking out the reference used for citing the background in Windows XP Starter's Malay edition, and I saw a picture of the Kuala Lumpur skyline wallpaper described in the article.  Is it me, or is the wallpaper strikingly similar to the picture of the Kuala Lumpur skyline used in the KL infobox (or vice-versa)?  For comparison: see this and this. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You just raised a very serious issue there,Sky Harbor.  I am gonna speak to commons about that, since if its been copied from Microsoft XP, that makes the image on Commons NON-FREE and thus unsuitable to be there.  I will get back to you with a result. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 11:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update The image from Commons has been deleted in accordance with Commons policy - Commons is only able to take images which are completely free of licence, or in the public domain.  This image violated that policy, and has been removed.  The WP image will be retagged to make it clear that it is Non-free and requires a rationale for continued use here.  Thor Malmjursson (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surprises 

message: It looks like someone has come in already, but I'll state what I found. I don't see a problem with a footnote explaining the difference- the MOS decision dealt with using these terms inline; e.g., if an article says "The application used 512 megabytes of available memory", that means 512 * 1024 bytes. I don't think that should cover a footnote, but I do agree that the sources aren't specific enough. However, I think I have one that is: . See the section entitled "Definition of binary hard disk drive size". I would say to include it with that citation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first issue I see with using the HP page is that it deals with hard drive sizes. Urhixidur's issue is with RAM, not hard drives. Not unexpectedly, it also contradicts his claim that it is more natural to express hard drive sizes using decimal sizes rather than binary sizes. Clearly Microsoft does not think that's the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. I thought it was used equally on both, but Binary prefix does say that hard disks are typically decimal and RAM is binary prefix. Scrap that reference, then. I still think inclusion would be fine with a reference, but those above don't fit the bill. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That reference doesn't work because it doesn't say that XP's system requirements are expressed in either binary or decimal. Being published by microsoft doesn't necessarily mean they use that system on all of their system requirements. You'd need something that explicitly says Microsoft used one specific system. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we'll ever find such a quote on Microsoft's part, because they all consider it so obvious (when dealing with RAM). Would a third party (such as this, for example) do? I mean, articles such as Computer memory state that "[...] RAM [...is] specified using binary meanings for K (10241), M (10242), G (10243)", without being able to provide a clear reference. Urhixidur (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that source comes even close. As has been stated a number of times, most recently by JeremyMcCracken, the source needs to explicitly state that Microsoft uses one specific system. That source doesn't even mention Microsoft. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Following that argument to its logical conclusion means we'd have to add a footnote to the memory requirements spec stating that « It is not clear whether this refers to 64,000,000 or 67,108,864 bytes. » I have a hunch most readers and editors would find that laughable. Urhixidur (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:3O|Third opinion]]

message: I agree with the IP who deleted this. I don't see how this section is worth including. It's not really an XP issue. It's more an issue with Dell's refund policy than anything else. Before re-inclusion in the article it would need to be substantially expanded to give it some context and explain why it's so notable as to be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask you not to delete notable, well sourced content?--Kozuch (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd dispute that it's notable at all. As is quite obvious from the citations you've provided it's not unusual for refunds to be given and it's not a new policy. It's quite clearly stated in the EULA that if you don't agree to the EULA you can return the OS for a refund so why does it deserve to be in the article? If you want to keep this content in the article you need to explain clearly why giving a refund is so notable. At the moment, the message you are trying to convey is not clear at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the worlds most spread OS EULA suits as notable enough to be included in the article for articles good NPOV. Besides, I hate when somebody deletes well sourced and NPOV content just like that... there is literally tons of other unsourced content waiting to be deleted in Wikipedia. Regards, --Kozuch (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't explained why some British man getting a refund that he is already entitled to under the EULA is notable. Why is this man different to anyone else who has received a refund? As for what you hate, or what I hate for that matter, that's irrelevant. to the issue. Personal preferences are not NPOV. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: PS: Expansion is also very poor reason for a deletion in a B-class article.--Kozuch (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by this. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You argued the text has to be "substantially expanded" before re-inclusion (which I did then though). I say it is not a good reason for a B-class article (for Featured article maybe is, but not here). But that is off topic. Regards --Kozuch (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of expansion is so that your point is clear. As written it wasn't so you needed to expand on what you wrote, otherwise what you wrote served no purpose and may as well be deleted since it appeared to be more trivia than anything else. Now that you have expanded it it's clear from the citations that the main issues are that non-acceptance of the EULA entitles the end user to a refund, that despite the entitlement some companies refuse to issue refunds and courts have enforced the entitlement. Other factors, such as the desire to use another OS and how much people were refunded are really irrelevant issues. I've rewritten the section appropriately, highlighting the important issues and removing the trivial issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  License refund 

message: The article says that retail sales of Windows XP ceased. This is not true, as I saw an advert (a few days ago) for a laptop with Windows XP Home Edition, in a catalogue for Tesco, or some other supermarket. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in a Morrisons leaflet. The offer started on 22 September 2008. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Retail sales refers to sales of boxed versions of the Windows XP operatinmg system, not bundled with hardware. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows XP retail sales 

message: Could someone please clear up the WGA section in this article? To me, it sounds like a virus (I was bombarded with it once and 3 days later it was mysteriously genuine. It felt like a scam.).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.141.239 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WGA and WGA Notification are related but different things. Both keep changing. Notifications puts the display on your screen. As of August, 2008, the MS XP WGAN blog looks like this: http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2008/08/26/update-to-wga-notifications-for-windows-xp-professional.aspx  There is new behavior, including a new persistent display. Accepting WGA Notification is (at the moment, for XP) voluntary. You can reject it and still get to Windows Update by passing the WGA. If anyone is interested in clearing this section up, the WGA page would be a good place to start. 12.226.24.113 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleaned things up a bit, activation is no longer conflated with WGA but work still needs to be done on clarifying the relationship between the checker and the notifications if any. Plugwash (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGA 

message: I added a footnote to the requirements table saying that although Microsoft states that the minimum CPU speed is 233MHz, Windows XP is able to be installed on a 100MHz computer.
I have added a citation for this claim in the form of a youtube video showing windows xp running on an intel pentium 100MHz, with CPU-Z showing the CPU information for verification.
A moderator has added the [requires verification] tag to the end of the footnote.  How do I go about making this (more) verifiable? --Daneel (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to include a citation from a reliable, third party published source that supports your claim. Youtube is not considered to be a reliable source, which is why the  tag was added. In addition to the two documents linked to in this reply, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies, for more guidance. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I will endeavor to find a more reliable reference for the statement. I have previously read Wikipedia:Verifiability, however I assumed (incorrectly), that a youtube video might suffice. Glad to have been corrected :) --Daneel (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual minimum required CPU speed is 100MHz 

message: When I tried obtain quote from PC-Specialist, a British Company making custom PC's; I inputted a custom PC with one of the Phenom x4 processors, 4GB of RAM and and OS of Windows XP and this is the message I've encountered:
Please note - Installing 4GBs of RAM onto PCs with Windows XP Home Operating System is not advised since 32-bit operating systems do not support 4GBs of system memory. We recommend clicking BACK and selecting 2GBs of system memory or changing your operating system to a 64-bit version. If you decide to continue with 4GBs of system memory it will not hurt but you will not be able to address it all. You probably will not be able to address much more than 3GB, and you might not be able to address more than 2GB. If you would like any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0844 499 4000
Does this mean that Windows XP has the maximum RAM support of 2GB only?
When I contacted one of their operators, he said that if I applied for 4GB only 3.5GB of ram will be addressed and recognized.
His statement does seem to be dubious.
I have found no mention of how much more RAM can XP can address and support.
88.105.53.57 (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See MSDN, Memory Limits for Windows Releases: the physical memory limit for XP is 4 GiB; the per-process virtual address space limit is 2 GiB because the OS splits the 4 GiB between the app and the system. The "partition" can be moved so the app has 3 GiB and the system 1 GiB (with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and "4-gigabyte tuning"). Urhixidur (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That page is wrong, I have seen a page on microsofts website with correct information but I cba looking for it right now. Windows XP 32 bit (at least with SP2, i've heared rumours that prior to SP2 it supported more) is limited to 4GB of physical ADDRESS SPACE, since RAM isn't the only thing that has to be in that address space this leads to less than 4GB of usable RAM. Plugwash (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I use Windows XP x86 with 4gb ram; only 3.25gb is recognized under My Computer>properties. No issues though. I used to run Windows XP x86 with 2gb of ram and it was still fine. 74.234.22.141 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  maximum ram? 

message: Windows XP has been hailed for being resistant to viruses, malware, etc. It has NOT been criticized. I will provide external links soon.
--Encyclopedia77  (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's been criticized as well. The fact that it was hailed is irrelevant to the criticism section. Needs a reference either way. Be sure to read the below discussion too. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That it has been criticised is a fairly uncontroversial claim and as such, doesn't really warrant the need for citations, although there are some in Criticism of Windows XP, which is linked to from the section we're speaking about. I don't think even Bill Gates would deny that there have been criticisms about security flaws. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Good luck with that.  Apple has run a successful advertising campaign called Get a Mac, articulating exactly the opposite of what you're claiming.   Warren -talk- 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hail, not Criticize 

message: Three revisons were recently made to the article recently by User:Encyclopedia77. I reverted these for the following reasons:
# This edit replaced the infobox image (:Image:Windows XP SP3.png) with :Image:Windows XP Desktop.png. :Image:Windows XP SP3.png shows what is almost an "out of the box" desktop with examples of the various windows and menu styles, which is consistent with other articles. :Image:Windows XP Desktop.png is a recent upload by Encyclopedia77 that shows some customisation by the user. As such, this is not a layout that would be seen by the majority of Windows users and so the previous image (:Image:Windows XP SP3.png) seems a better image to use.
# Issues in (1) aside, the image that Encyclopedia77 is trying to bludgeon into the article has an invalid fair use rationale that prevents it from being used in this article, or any other article for that matter. The image and the uploader's talk page was tagged appropriately on 22 November 2008 (2 days ago) but the uploader has not seen fit to provide a valid FUR.
# His next edit replaced relevant and reasonably neutral text with glowing praise that is potentially non-NPOV. As stated by User:Josh the Nerd in his later edit summary, "Restored neutral, relevant wording (it's been both criticized and hailed, but only the criticism is relevant".
# Encyclopedia77's third edit added an  tag to the article. I can see no npov issue other than the potentially non-npov statement added by Encyclopedia77. Encyclopedia77 has chosen not to elaborate as to why he believes there is an issue which makes the tag somewhat pointless. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[User:Encyclopedia77]] 

message: It would be quite helpful if this article referenced the detailed operating system documentation. Such documentation addresses the overall OS structure and function, the registry, instructions and commands, services and utilities. This information is far too extensive to be included in the article; however, references to such information is invaluable to users and programmers alike. 75.170.45.231 (talk) 12:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: kko  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.112.225 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  op 

message: Woah! On 14.4.09, Windows XP will be discounied?! Good Job I'm on vista! mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But still for home PCs right. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  14.4.09 Discounied