Talk:Windows XP/Archive 1

About the image
There is currently a image of a typical windows xp desktop, i think it would be better to get someone to take a screenshot after completing the following process: 1. Install WinXP 2. Open Explorer 3. Take screenshot, that way we would have a totally virgin screenshot without any user modifications.

I cannot do this since i dont use software from microsoft but if someone is in the situation please step up and do it, thanks --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:32, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)


 * What would be the use of a screen shot of a 'virgin' windows desktop??? Enochlau 07:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * To show how it looks obviously, and not someones theme for it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:14, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Most people do not have such a 'virgin' windows desktop, and, i believe, it is thus unrealistic to depict one here. obviously, the use of such a picture would be for non-winxp users to see what it looks like; a typical setup after some use would better demonstrate its capabilities and available customisations. Perhaps, we could show BOTH and allow for comparisons. Enochlau 10:12, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about the new features of this OS?

At the moment the article just says that the GUI is slightly redesigned. I looked at the Bill Gates keynote speech movie of the introduction but I don't remember much anymore besides that it replaces MS-DOS and has some movie editing features already installed. In the shop I found out that it uses again much more memory and computer power. The movie as well showed a commercial with a lot of people flying around, so the system is supposed to make working with computer a light thing (which has been basically a claim MS made with any introduction of a new OS in the last 10 years). Could somebody who has actually alread installed this OS come up with an elaboration on this? And: I don't like any marketing speech nor just MS bashing.

-- HJH

Hello HJH, Yes I have a system with windows xp. I have owned it for 3 months now. It has been on for probably 3/4 of that time. It has not glitched even once. Not sure if it is because it is xp, or if it is because it is a Dell, or both. So far it has not stumbled once. But so far I have learned not to add a bunch of crap/downloads to it, and so far it has worked. Time will tell.

<< I notice no mention of any unusual number of bugs in XP. >>

By bugs, do you mean security flaws? While XP certainly has plenty of security problems (and this is addressed in the article), most have found it to be a stable, well-rounded OS. XP is frankly no different from any other piece of software, including such products as OS X (which has had some real whopper bugs - including the one that erased some FireWire HDDs) or the Linux kernel (anyone remember the data-corrupting release).

<< Is this an omission? Also missing is any statement that XP is internally a 64-bit OS, and any discussion of the inefficiencies that may result from that. David 21:53 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC) >>

XP is certainly not a "64-bit OS" internally. Although the code is 64-bit clean, and although 64-bit versions exist, the XP you buy at the corner store is certainly a native 32-bit product.

From the article
 * "Further evidence of anticompetitive intent in these products are the extreme processor and memory requirements of these products on the competing Mac OS operating system. While MSN Messenger requires 128MB RAM and a PowerPC Mac, competing products like ICQ require only 8MB RAM and any processor. Since Microsoft discourages and sabotages products like Trillian which unify chat networks, and does not allow ICQ and other competitors to talk to MSN messenger users, it seems likely that the trumped-up memory/processor requirements are a simple attempt to monopolize the online chat marketplace."

While this is absolutely true, the article Windows XP doesn't have to talk about the conspiracy of Microsoft. -- Taku 23:26 Jan 12, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't need to discuss Microsoft's legal issues at all. One other thing: AOL Instant Messenger(AIM) was one of the first messaging programs and later released to non AOL users as well. A recent install of AIM stand alone on my system disabled the MSN Messenger association with Outlook Express on startup, and replaced it! Unchecking "make default messaging program" in AIM preferences restored MSN. The point is, all the squabbling about Microsoft stifling competition with a suite of integrated programs fails to mention how easy it is to just "uncheck" a program from working with another. BF

This article seems to wear quite a bit of a chip on its shoulder, but I'd be a bit leery of going in and trying to work out the bias without checking here first. Several charges are levelled against Microsoft here, with no real support given for them, and the only link at the end is an anti-Windows piece. What evidence is there that Microsoft cribbed the log in system from Linux? It seems to me that there have been graphical log in screens for quite some time. What sort of procedure is there for going in and really taking an article to task? I've only done particularly minor edits on pages before, but this one needs a lot of work from a NPOV perspective. Kirk


 * The procedure is basically, Be Bold :) If you were going to do something extremely drastic though, you might want to discuss it on this talk page first. Adam Bishop 07:28, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Capitalization
I believe the name is capitalized Windows xp, not Windows XP. WhisperToMe 03:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * 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)

Service Packs
The article says "Unlike previous service packs from Microsoft, SP2 will add new functionality to Windows XP...". Actually, Microsoft used to typically include new functionality in service packs. This stopped only after SP2 for Windows NT4 (1997?), which introduced countless new bugs along with new features and led to outrage among MS customers. MS decided to limit future service packs to bug fixes only, and release new functionality via distributions like Option Pack 4 (1997). However, seven years later, it's possible they've become confident enough again to give the all-in-one approach another shot.

Windows XP Second Edition ("Reloaded")
This was a rumor, and nothing officially was announced. Microsoft originally denied its existence. It's since emerged it's apparently just a marketing campaign, and not new software.

Criticisms
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)

NPOV and Factual Inaccuracy
This page looks OK to me now I've editted some of it to get rid of the many weasel terms used in it. I also can't see any more factual inaccuracies. Is it possible to get rid of these headers from the page now? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Good. Nice work. But please DO NOT remove accurate, factual, verifiabe stuff just because you feel like it. The XP UI is *the* single most-criticised part of the OS. Read a BBS. Glance at a review. Or talk to any working technician. Tannin 10:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If it's a fact, why didn't I see any factual evidence? If it's verifiable, why wasn't there some verifiable link or some such thing like that in there? Besides, I didn't get rid of it because I felt like it, I don't like the UI either. Put some factual evidence (like a study or quote someone) before making sweeping statements. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I looked at it again, and the statement has been improved. Good work. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoops, looks like I'm wrong. It looks like someone else put in a counterpoint. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. I am a "working technician". - Ta bu shi da yu 13:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history, it looks as if someone from the "real world" disagrees with you and can back it up with facts. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No, he/she has backed it up with nonsense assertions. XP is criticised for the user interface, and frequently. Whether the criticisms have validity or not is a matter of opinion, the fact that they exist and are frequently made is not opinion.


 * Turning now to the silly assertion that the UI isn't any slower than previous Windows interfaces, this is just ludicrous. Of course a bitmap of any given size takes the same time to load as any other bitmap of the same size. This, however, is entirely irrelevant. The XP UI is so much slower than (e.g.) the Windows 2000 UI that one can see it without even bothering to measure it. Further, Microsoft themselves admit this insofar as they (a) felt compelled to provide, albeit buried well down in the menu structure, a method to turn a good deal of the performace-sapping eye candy off, (b) recommend an accellerated graphics card (something that, until XP came along, has not been considered remotely relevant to a OS desktop), (c) make substantially higher hardware recomendations, particularly for RAM, and (d) programm the installer to insure that XP will not even load on lower-power systems.


 * In short, the fact of the slow and hardware-hungry UI is not something that it is possible to dispute. Nor is it possible to dispute the fact that Microsoft have been criticised for this. Whether or not the slower UI is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing, however, is not for us to say. Tannin 14:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, he's done *exactly* the same thing you have, except given some facts to back up his argument. Firstly, you're using the same weasel terms that I've been trying to get rid of out of this article (you say "some critics" and don't point out who they are - definitely frowned upon in Wikipedia), and secondly, some people like the new UI. Thirdly, the new UI is not actually "slower" - this is factually incorrect. I'm reverting it back to the way it was. After all, it's not for us to say whether we like it or not. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense. You have entirely failed to deal with any of the proofs I offered above. Further, you are trying to smear me by claiming that I do not think some peope like the XP interface. Finally, nowhere, either here or in the article itself, have I made a statement about liking or disliking the XP interface, and it is dishonest of you to claim otherwise. Tannin 15:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What proofs? you haven't mentioned any! I'm putting back the statements - just because you don't like them doesn't mean that others don't like the UI. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * These proofs. I'll put them in bold so that maybe you will read tbem this time. You have not responded to even one of them.


 * Microsoft themselves admit this insofar as they (a) felt compelled to provide, albeit buried well down in the menu structure, a method to turn a good deal of the performace-sapping eye candy off, (b) recommend an accellerated graphics card (something that, until XP came along, has not been considered remotely relevant to a OS desktop), (c) make substantially higher hardware recomendations, particularly for RAM, and (d) programm the installer to insure that XP will not even load on lower-power systems.
 * Tannin 15:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Tannin 15:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's crap. Microsoft have not admitted anything.
 * a) This is done to give people the option of turning off UI features they don't like
 * b) You don't necessarily need an accellerated graphics card for XP - in fact where does it recommend this in their specs?
 * c) Um, the increased demand for extra RAM and hardware could be because of other things like Fast User switching, etc. You can't just say it's for graphics.
 * d) So? This could be - again - for other reasons. See above.
 * I'm putting it back to the page back to normal. Bottom line: if you take out the opposing viewpoint on the UI you are not displaying NPOV writing. Actually, with your "Critics" comment in the article you aren't showing a NPOV viewpoint because you haven't said who those critics are. Stop reverting decent material!
 * Lastly, I don't see you incorporating this into the article. Try it and see how long this information stays in there.
 * - Ta bu shi da yu 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * - Ta bu shi da yu 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * - Ta bu shi da yu 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, how can you say "The XP UI is so much slower than (e.g.) the Windows 2000 UI that one can see it without even bothering to measure it."?!? I have used Windows XP on similarly spec'ed machines using the default UI theme and it's no slower than the old theme. This is purely and simply FUD. And I don't like FUD. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Very easy. If you do it on (e.g.) an Athlon 2000 with a decent amount of RAM, the difference is small. Try it on (e.g.) a K6-II/400. Huge difference. Or, simply read the various proofs offered above - which you have entirely ignored so far. Tannin 15:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact is, even if you personally claim to observe this difference, Wikipedia is not for "primary source" information, precisely for the reason that anyone can claim to have observed anything. Point to a reputable primary source elsewhere as the source for your information, or give it up. Samrolken 22:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * How do you know this isn't something else they've changed in the core O/S? I think the whole performance thing should go. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"marking a shift from the desktop-metaphor used in Mac OS X and most distributions of Linux."
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)

What factual inaccuracies are there?
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)

I don't have time to deal with this trolling bullshit. You know perfectly well what the factual inacuracies are - I have outlined them above, and provided solid evidence of them. So lopng as you continue to revert to this syncophantic whitewash, the tags stay. If you wish the tags removed, then you must first remove the mistakes of fact and bring some balance to the article. Tannin 08:47, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

OK, truce.
I'm taking this to disputes resolution, once I read up on what to do here. I don't particularly want to muck up the edit queue because of a stupid disagreement. Incidently, if I've made personal attacks (which I don't think I have) then I apologise now. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That sounds appropriate to me. I don't have the time to deal with this in any detail, but in good faith I cannot stand by and ignore the present syncophantic apologia re the UI, which is not even factually correct. (I note that you did not write it, Ta bu shi da yu - so I don't blame you for it.) The section the apologia is inserted in is devoted to criticisms! Were that passage to be shorn of its factual innacuracies, it could appear elsewhere in the article. Tannin 09:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'm not apologising for the Windows XP user interface, so your claim here is baseless. What I'm trying to do is show a balanced view of that criticism, however you appear to only want to show the negative criticism without much reference to actual critics (you'll note I added a reference to CNET where people weren't happy with it) and not show the opposing view. In this case, the opposing view to detractors of the Windows XP UI is actually quite significant so it should be represented in the criticisms section.


 * So I've wrote some opposing views to the criticisms that were given. There is nothing wrong with having them there, it shows the opposing side. I note that you liked my changes to the rest of the criticism section: well, that's what I did there too. I suspect I annoyed you by removing the NPOV comment "Critics have highlighted the visual clutter and wasted screen space of the "Luna" design, and point out that it offers no new functionality but consumes substantial additional processing overhead." because it talked about "Critics" and didn't actually cite who they were. And it's true, I couldn't find any major UI design critics who said these things. It needed to be removed because it was a weasel term - it talked about critics but didn't mention who they were.


 * Then you put this back with the following comment: "let's stay somewhere near the real world, shall we? Removing cruical stuff just doesn't cut it, especially when it is so easy to verify for yourself". Yet this is clearly someone's point of view, as other people really like the UI (I give examples in the article). You restored it without any clarification of who the critics were . Then Samrolken and I decided that it was better not to remove the statement (even though it hadn't been clarified) and gave a general response to the statement  . Then you came along and removed all the text with the comment "remove the nonsense identified in talk, and the special pleading which (if it belongs here at all) does *not* belong in 'criticisms'" ! Yet, before you said "Removing cruical stuff just doesn't cut it, especially when it is so easy to verify for yourself". You did exactly what I did! So then I restored it, perhaps being a little sarcastic in the history comment where I copied your exact statement.


 * Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tanin, I need to know where the non-NPOV writing is. Could you please state the exact statement so I can try to modify this with better language. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mediation requested as Tannin won't let us remove the tags
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation - I've asked for mediation for this dispute. This is clearly something we can't work out together in a civil tone and I'd like to be able to improve the Windows XP page to the point where we can remove the NPOV and factual accuracy tags. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, that the Criticisms section, without Tannin's deletions, is rather POV, as a brief summary of some common criticisms is followed immediately by a large rebuttal. But it also seems to me that without it, there isn't anything here on what functionality it *does* add. Surely this deserves a section of its own. Would it be acceptable, per se, if that section was moved out of "Criticisms", de-rebuttalised, extended and moved into a seperate section above it?
 * I think it'd read as a better article if both that first criticism paragraph, and the functionality section were expanded. It's a bit surprising that an article such as this has so little information on what has actually changed since the previous system, at a user level.Ambivalenthysteria
 * I think it'd read as a better article if both that first criticism paragraph, and the functionality section were expanded. It's a bit surprising that an article such as this has so little information on what has actually changed since the previous system, at a user level.Ambivalenthysteria


 * This is actually not a bad solution, though the reason that the large amount of text was added was because it was pointed out that many people like the interface and the performance criticism is not necessarily factually correct. There are many, many things that can cause the alleged (and I do say alleged) performance degradation. This is actually probably the reason why there is so much information about the other side of the argument. I don't know if I agree that without Tannin's deletions it's rather POV. As I've said before, I don't like the UI of Windows XP, however it's easy to change the system back to the old classic style with one of the skins provided by Microsoft. The other thing is, plenty of people have praised the new XP GUI theme and though it has detractors it's hard to give references to them.
 * Incidently I have added a section of new user features. I very much agree with you - this information would be MUCH better if it was moved into new features and have the User Interface merged into New Features also.
 * The main thing I would like to emphasis here is that I have no problem with criticism, but it must be balanced in this case because XP has plenty of detractors and fans and we would be misrepresenting them if we didn't show both sides. Also, if we mention critics we need to say WHO those critics are! This was the reason I removed the section that Tannin got upset about.
 * Overall, I would be more than happy with this solution! I think it's a good compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it looks pretty good now - nice work! How about you, Tannin? Ambivalenthysteria 11:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) I do try! If this is acceptable to Tannin, then we might be able to forgo mediation through the a Wikipedia mediator - the community (and in particular Ambivalenthysteria) would have sorted itself out civilly and cordially! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it looks pretty good now - nice work! How about you, Tannin? Ambivalenthysteria 11:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-) I do try! If this is acceptable to Tannin, then we might be able to forgo mediation through the a Wikipedia mediator - the community (and in particular Ambivalenthysteria) would have sorted itself out civilly and cordially! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * (Just came into this 'argument') What exactly is wrong with Tannin wanting to keep the npov and disputed tags? Thats what they're for, to indicate that there is a dispute, which it seems to me there indeed is. I  apploud working out any issue you have, but while you do the dispute continues and so the dispute tags should be put on the page. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:54, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)


 * Well, dispute tags must have been introduced into the system for a reason. I figure that dispute tags are there so that an article can be flagged as having problems and then editors will get to work on fixing the issues. I mean, it's better to have a balanced piece of writing that represents all views and all facts accurately than to have a biased and inaccurate article. Therefore, I'm currently working to find a compromise that would be acceptable to all parties - when this happens we can remove the tags. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This has been moved to Request for comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:18, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"... hardware-related information ... is transmitted"
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)


 * 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)

OK, I think we've had a misunderstanding
I didn't agree to have only one side of the argument taken out. If you look at my comment, we need a balanced argument. At the moment, it looks like there is ONLY criticism of the UI. I'm sorry, but I'm reverting this. I must not have communicated very well in the discussion forum, and for this I am truly sorry - Ta bu shi da yu 15:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, I was under the impression we were going to add this material into the rest of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm removing the whole UI thing. It was never a very good criticism anyway. But, like I say in the history, revert this back to my last edit if you disagree. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought it had been added into the rest of the article. With the article as it stood before the latest edit, we saw both the positives illustrated, and then in the criticisms section, we ssaw the negatives. It makes sense to make clear that there is a group of users who like the UI - but not in the format it is now. In that format, it read like persuasive writing - i.e. stating a point, and then spending double the time rebutting that. That was why I suggested moving the material elsewhere - so that we see the positives of XP, but with changed presentation so that it doesn't read like something I'd do in English class.


 * I won't revert, as I'd rather come to a consensus here before the article is changed. But I'm certainly not okay with censoring what is a major gripe with XP. You mightn't see it that way, but there's a lot of people that do. Nevertheless, if those dispute headings are to go, that criticism needs to stay. Ambivalenthysteria 15:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree it probably wasn't a good idea. I've tried another approach, what do you think? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's better. I'd sooner see it removed completely, but provided that my minor edit stands, I don't object to the removal of the dispute headers. However, we still haven't heard from Tannin yet. I'd also like to see a bit more on that criticism, but I'll leave that to someone else. Ambivalenthysteria 15:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't get me wrong, I don't like the new UI style in XP myself. I was more concerned about NPOV writing (or what I thought was lack of it). I would be very happy to see a reference to a study into UI design that criticises the UI! You have to understand though, if you look at my edits to the page where I tried to make it less POV, I have done it in the format criticism then rebuttal (if there is one). For instance, look at the info I found that Procomp pushed. I placed that in there and gave a reference to a (since pulled) whitepaper that rebutted the criticisms. I think this turned out pretty NPOV!


 * But I think your edit was a better turn of phrase, I think it's good. I think this is a positive compromise and I appreciate your tact and good sense in this whole process. A pleasure to work with you. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to take this in a somewhat different direction, and point out that probably 95% of the criticism of XP has either been about activation, or security. I think it's fine to present the UI issue here but really, this article appears unbalanced. Next to security and activation concerns, UI and antitrust haven't received a ton of discussion online. The article is much better than it was yesterday though, good work.

I also agree that a lot of the text in the criticism section should really be spread out into the article. I think "Product Activation" deserves a section outlining Microsoft's anti-infringement goals as well as critics' thoughts. But we should keep in mind that many of the arguments against activation were based on speculation and bad information. Last, this article needs a section about security concerns, I can write that if people want. Rhobite 18:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * If there isn't mention of security concerns, there needs to be - that would be great, IMHO. Do you want to have a go at rewriting the product activation section? I probably don't know enough about it. Ambivalenthysteria 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, Rhobite. I was actually thinking this yesterday, but I'm not sure I could write about this very well because I dislike Product Activation so much! Could you give it a shot, I think that would be good. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a substantial improvement. The sneering tone of the para remains, however. (I won't edit it becaue Ta bu shi da yu will revert again, no doubt, and I don't have the time today to argue about it.) Tannin 22:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * What's sneering about it? I've only ever tried to present a balanced argument and I think the compromise is good. I only ever reverted what I believed was unbalanced. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Which para? Point me in the right direction, and I'll have a go at fixing it. Ambivalenthysteria 00:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well done guys!
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)

New security section
I'd appreciate some help on the new security section. It's a start but of course it's missing a rebuttal, it also needs to mention e-mail viruses, and anything else people think is a common security criticism of XP. Rhobite 05:38, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

Article seems pretty NPOV now
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)

Security
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)

Simultaneous editing
I made a bunch of edits to the article today to make it more technically precise and remove unnecessary wordiness. During my last edit, it looks like User:Naryathegreat was editing as the same time as I was; first he reverted to the version before I had touched the article, then he made some changes to that version to things I'd already rewritten; I can't merge his changes with mine. I put my last edit up. Narya, I apologize that we were editing at the same time - I hope you didn't mean to revert to the copy before I touched it, but if you did, please let me know why? - Brian Kendig 19:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Your changes are slightly biased. Also, your introduction is poor.  The comparison to mac may be true, but there is no evidence and it just sounds bad.  Frankly I think the introduction was better before.--naryathegreat 22:09, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Why was large slabs of information taken out of the new features section? I mean, you got rid of WIA support, remote desktop sharing, remote assistance, Windows side-by-side, Power Management, driver rollback, the increased device support and even the fact that CD-burning is new to the system! No justification was given. Why take out the information in the intro that Home edition computers can't join a domain? This is factual and not my POV. You also call for speculation with the naming of Windows XP - seems like a POV to me. You took out important information about the lines of operating systems with out saying why.


 * You also modified the sentence: "As not everyone likes the new user interface style, the old Windows 2000 interface can be switched back by changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode." to "As not everyone likes the new user interface style, the Windows 2000 "classic" interface can be used instead." - what you think is reducing verbosity is actually getting rid of important information.:


 * You change the heading == Criticisms and Rebuttals == to ==Common criticisms of Windows XP== and refer to See also: Common criticisms of Microsoft. Well, these are criticisms of the operating system, not just of Microsoft! This was totally unnecessary.


 * You modified the UI criticisms section to the detriment of both sides of the argument. Basically your edit is now a big mass of weasel terms. There is a reason that there are so many references to opinion - it's show that this just isn't someone's POV. You might want to check the contoversy surrounding the whole UI section before making edits here.


 * You removed a whole bunch of citations from the integrations criticism section. Again, there is a reason why there are many references.


 * You remove a whole bunch of stuff from the security section that was important. Why? No justification was given.


 * Tip: headings should have words capitalised.


 * You changed "widely criticised" to "blamed for" - this is not NPOVing, it's just senseless changing.


 * Overall, I'm glad these edits were reverted.


 * Ta bu shi da yu 23:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me explain why I made the changes I did:


 * I didn't remove the information about WIA, remote desktop sharing, remote assistance, etc. It's still all there. All I did was change the 'UL' - 'LI' - '/UL" to asterisks to fit proper Wiki conventions - you probably looked at the diff page, which got confused and seemed to think I replaced the entire section.


 * I thought it was unnecessary to point out that Home users can't join a domain, because the very next sentence says that one of the additional features in Professional is the ability to join a domain. The latter implies the former; there's no need to state it twice.


 * Re As not everyone likes the new user interface style, the old Windows 2000 interface can be switched back by changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode. - I don't understand what "changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode" is supposed to mean. If this is supposed to be a technical guide to changing the setting, then it needs more; but I don't think it's necessary to provide a description here for how to make the change.


 * Re 'Criticisms and Rebuttals:' The section doesn't contain 'rebuttals,' nor should it; this isn't a debate page. This is not the place to defend the features and rebut the arguments. The article should merely state what the common criticisms are. I don't understand why including a link to a general article about criticisms of the parent company (which also discusses the company's decisions regarding operating systems) is unreasonable.


 * I removed some of the citations because I don't believe it's necessary to point to a small discussion group with a couple of people ragging on XP, and I don't think the opinion of the AOL Vice President or two Attourneys General really matter all that much in particular. There are countless people with countless opinions of Windows XP, and none of the people who were cited had anything particularly noteworthy to say. But I do understand what you're saying about needing to show that the opinions aren't just someone's POV; I need to re-read that section and think about what kinds of citations might make it more effective for me. (Don't interpret this to mean I think I have any better say than anyone else.)


 * I added to the security section and organized it to make it more focused - the things I removed were pieces like Often users "agree" to download and allow spyware activity just by being on a website, via cleverly worded and hidden privacy agreements. which has nothing to do with Windows XP (and really nothing to do with anything, in fact - is that sentence trying to say that spyware should be allowed, or something?).


 * Headings should not have words capitalized; only the first word. See Manual of Style.


 * I changed "widely criticisized" to "blamed for" because the word 'critic*' appears way too often in that article, and I was trying to change up the word choice a little.

Thank you for discussing this with me. I want there to be a really good article, and I'm sorry if I stepped on some toes. Let's work together on resolving things? - Brian Kendig 00:15, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. My suggestion would be to leave the UI stuff as it is: it took us ages to come to consensus on this issue, and another edit is not a good idea. The Attorney General's opinion DO matter, and so does the AOL Vice President. It is important to say *who* has an issue with something, don't just say "some people criticize" (see weasel terms). That's why they aer there. If you can find better citations, by all means add them however. I agree you might have a valid point about the spyware section. The problem is: you made a whole bunch of edits in one go, which meant that when we reverted the stuff that wasn't too good we had to revert EVERYTHING you wrote! Next time, make a bunch of individual edits and we can evaluate each one.


 * With regards to the common criticisms, the WP:NPOV page very clearly states this:


 * "First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to imply that popularity implies correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange."


 * The section was not talking about just common criticisms. It was talking about criticisms and the opposing views. The opposing views are held by a great many people, and to get rid of them is not writing neutrally as you are not representing both sides of the debates. This leads to a skewed article, and if you get rid of them you'll be putting back the NPOV tag, which we all worked so hard to get rid of. You might like to check the discussion and history pages to get an idea of this article.


 * It is important to note that XP Home cannot become part of a domain. A great many people believe it can be part of one, and it's also a marketing decision by Microsoft not to allow it to be part of one. Just because I say that XP Professional can join a domain does not mean that it can't join one Home Edition! This fact needs to be clarified in the introduction. Don't get rid of this fact, rewrite the sentence if you believe it doesn't flow.


 * With regards with changing the start menu back to Classic mode - try it some time. The UI theme doesn't change. The article was talking about how you need to change the theme AND the way the start menu displays. This is not just a technical thing (which btw, if you look down article you'll see more of an explanation of this in the UI features section), it's an accuracy thing.


 * Finally, I see what you mean about the diff. Apologies for this one.


 * Ta bu shi da yu 05:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. You're latest rewrite of User interface and performance is much better than the old writeup. You did a good job on this, I'm impressed :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) I really appreciate that!

I've edited the article to add back in the news article links I had removed, but I think I put them into better context: it's not important that three people criticized the company; what's important is that a new lawsuit was discussed. I think now that anything nontrivial I'd taken out is back in. Please let me know if that's not the case!

One small concern with the article: it says that CompTIA and ACT withdrew their rebuttals; I can't find any coverage of this on the web, and it seems odd to mention it - did they concede that their positions were flimsy, or something? Can anyone find a reference for this?

About Classic mode and the Start menu - my issue is that the phrase changing the theme or visual style and changing the "Start" menu back to "Classic" mode makes no sense to me; like, is there a toggle switch somewhere to change the Start menu between Start mode and Classic mode, or something? It seems like technical mumbojumbo. If you can phrase it in a way that's useful to a nontechnical reader, please go ahead and edit!

I apologize for making so many radical changes at once. I've learned my lesson - next time, I take it slower! Thank you for being understanding! - Brian Kendig 15:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No worries :-) CompTIA and ACT withdrew their rebuttals as they are no longer on their websites. They've done it very quietly, and it appears that no one has noticed - check out how many people are still linking to their site! - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between "no longer on the web site" and "withdrawn"... saying "withdrew" implies that the groups don't stand behind their rebuttals, whereas "no longer on the web site" could just be an oversight. Unless there's evidence that the groups actively withdrew their rebuttals, I think using the word "withdrew" is POV... - Brian Kendig 13:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. How to make it flow though? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:34, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Leave it to me. :) - Brian Kendig


 * Good work - Ta bu shi da yu 13:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows Me memory protection
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)

Shadows under menus
This article states that shadows under menus were introduced in Windows XP. They were actually introduced in Windows 2000.


 * Whoop-e-doo. All this eye candy and STILL you have to reboot to install a goddam font! I don't believe you ever had to reboot a Mac to install a font, even in version 1.0.Graham 06:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Graham, it looks like you're trying to pick a fight - there are many places on the web to do this, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. Rhobite 13:03, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I concur. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Not at all ;-) I'm just get very frustrated when, at work, I am forced to use windows and discover that some ultra-basic functionality is missing, yet it wastes precious cycles on useless crap like graduated title bars and whatnot. I agree, WP is not the place to make such comments, but i needed to get it off my chest. Thanks for listening. Graham 03:38, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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


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


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

Ours 1:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Antiframe you are clearly in the right here, this just goes to show how ignorant some wikipedia editors, like Mel can be. THE KING 07:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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


 * It doesn't look much different to me - maybe someone removed your edit? You might want to check it again. I re-added the external link, I think it is a useful site for those wishing to go into the fine details of the differences and similarities of the two, and is neutral enough to be acceptable to users in both camps. Incidentally I wasn't complaining about managing fonts, I was frustrated at the fact that a REBOOT of XP was necessary to install a font, where, from a purely theoretical standpoint, one should not be needed. Personally I find the overwhelming popularity of Windows to be a continual puzzle, but as far as articles in WP are concerned, NPOV rules. That's why I put my comment on the talk page.Graham 23:43, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Along those lines it amazes me that most of the new 'voting machines' run on a windows core. I'm not gonna lay a finger on this article, it's really getting there, good job all and thanks for your diligence and devotion to this article.!!!Pedant 18:06, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)


 * Just a note, you don't have to reboot Windows XP to install a font. I don't know where you got that information. Rhobite 18:15, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto, I have noticed the same, no reboot for font install. PPGMD 20:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * And in reply to your last edit:
 * Yes, I'd support removing it. I don't think it adds anything particularly useful to the article.   &mdash; Kate | Talk 02:05, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)


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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Windows XP/Mac OS X
This statement:

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


 * My response:


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


 * All you said was that this info should be removed because it should be included in the Win2K I said no such thing. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You said "The paras on malware et al apply just as much to Win2K or other flavours - and belong on a their respective pages." Maybe I misunderstood. Rhobite 22:41, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * So you did. Andy Mabbett 22:37, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I wish you'd make an attempt to explain your edits better. Rhobite 23:52, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Question 1:

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

Yes: No:
 * 1) Rhobite 23:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) naryathegreat 01:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Question 2:

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

Yes: No:
 * 1) Rhobite 23:41, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Ta bu shi da yu 14:21, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) naryathegreat 01:44, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

NPOV statement on linux vs windows starter edition?
Oops, I think I'll stick to using regular tools to do a quick rv. Using the big bad clue-by-four is too easy, and not very enlightening.

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

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

Hope that explains things!

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Object or support removal of pigsonthewing's parenthesis:
 * Support - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support  &mdash; Kate | Talk 14:09, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)
 * Support, see comments above. Kim Bruning 14:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, as per my comments above. - Brian Kendig 14:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Rhobite 15:57, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support David Gerard 21:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support naryathegreat 01:41, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, there is no such consensus. Andy Mabbett 14:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * (Note that to be fair, Andy wrote this when the vote was three to one) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I might have been a bit hasty with the completion of the vote. I'll leave it for a day and we'll see what happens. Incidently, I believe you're fighting a losing battle on this one, not least because you never attempted to modify your parenthesis originally or come to a compromise. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

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


 * As I said above, the article should either:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

References added
I've added some references, however I realised after I put them in I didn't follow the citation guide on Wikipedia. I'm currently halfway through fixing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:37, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * All done. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another security flaw found
Someone want to add this info? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3583860.stm - Ta bu shi da yu 12:39, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a relatively minor problem, but the press has pounced on it because it means "SP2 has already been broken." As if there can be a service pack that fixes every future security hole to be discovered. The actual exploit requires a user to drag and drop an item from a malicious web page to their PC, something most users don't even know is possible. Great work on the references, btw. Hopefully we can get this to featured quality. Rhobite 13:07, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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


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

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

Service Pack 2
I would like to write about service pack two breaking some applications and other mishaps. I have various news sources to back up this claim, and I believe it has a fine NPOV. Here is one news article. Thoughts? KneeLess 06:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


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


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

CNet review of Service Pack 2
I pulled this paragraph:


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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


 * You should probably read the entire page you link to:

If you format a floppy disk in Windows NT or later, the boot record points to the NTLDR file. When NTLDR runs, it loads the available operating system selections from the Boot.ini file. If the user selects Windows, NTLDR runs Ntdetect.com, and then passes control to Osloader.exe. If the user chooses MS-DOS or OS/2, NTLDR loads Bootsect.dos.
 * So a ERD should work for both. Don't know never tried myself. PPGMD


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * AlistairMcMillan 00:33, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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