Talk:Windows XP/Archive 2

Screenshot for pop-up blocking
I think this should be replaced with a sreenshot of a vanilla XP with SP 2 using the Luna theme. Exigentsky 07:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and do it. I did that picture for a forum post, and simply reused it. I personally don't see anything wrong with showing the classic theme, since many users use it, and there are numerous other screens with the normal Windows XP theme. Though I do want to put off the remote desktop off the top. I also use this screen on the pop-up page to show the pop-up blocker, and the google pop-up blocker PPGMD

OS-tan
I'm all for everyone exploring their sexuality, but operating systems anthropomorphised as cute little girls with big boobs in very little clothing, is where I personally draw the line. I don't see what that link possibly adds to this page, or any of the other operating system related pages for that matter. You don't see links to Kirk/Spock slash fiction on the Mr. Spock page or links to naked Data art on the Data (Star Trek) page, so why should Windows XP link to OS-tan?

I don't even understand why we have such a long detailed article on the phenomenon in the first place. It's just a bunch of slightly disturbing, not-funny-at-all images and comics produced by a bunch of BBS users. Also although I've been interested in OSes for at least a decade now, I had never heard of OS-tan until I started editing Wikipedia fairly recently. Lastly compare the size of the english OS-tan page with the actual japanese OS?? page, why do we need so much more detail?

BTW I've restored all the content that was deleted from the actual OS-tan page. AlistairMcMillan 06:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Alistair, I think that you might want to keep that "Related links" OS-tan link. The Windows XP one is directly related to Windows XP, and it doesn't hurt to have it in the article. Use some of that energy on other things, like helping us with your already fantastic work with assisting with NPOVing of this article - Ta bu shi da yu 07:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think OS-tan doesn't have any place in the Windows XP article, it might under a general operating systems article, but not under the individual OS articles. PPGMD


 * Ummmm, who cares if this link is on the page? I mean, I've seen the article, and it's not vulgar, and honestly I think it's slightly counterproductive to argue against an indepth article.  Anyway, what's the likelihood of anyone clicking on the link anyway?  Not much, about the same as someone visiting this page because they didn't know what XP was.  There's nothing offensive about it on Wikipedia so...why not just leave it?--naryathegreat 03:41, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Stability is a feature?
Since when has "stability" been a feature? I would have thought it was mandatory! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Then we can add 'increased stability'. Or 'increased stability from other desktop versions'. Any way I am not my self fan of microsoft. In fact got to this page through user page of Ta bu shi da yu. But that is a feature which microsoft markets and customer like. Zain 20:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Zain, stability is not a "feature". It is a core part of any operating system. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * XP is certainly more stable than Win98, but as AlistairMcMillan says in his edit, that's more a result of adopting the NT kernel than anything specific to Windows XP. The "Development" section, which describes how XP grew out of the NT/2000 code base, would be a good place to mention its increased stability over the Win95/Win98 line. I agree that it doesn't belong in the new features list. (jdcope, 24 Jan 2005)

Round of applause
A round of applause for everyone who's worked to get this featured. This was one of the first articles I edited. Rhobite 05:41, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yay! It was sometimes painful, sometimes frustrating, but at all times interesting to get this article featured. Thanks to User:Johnleemk for sorting out my bulleted list of features, and to all the others who clarified and worried away at the piece to get it to a standard where it could become featured! Truly, a great job at collaboration! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Great work, everyone! - Brian Kendig 06:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Great news, I expected that the Linux zealots would come out and oppose it, but I was surprised that there was ultimately only one objection. Any way we will know when it will be features on the front page (not only am I looking forward to it, but to also brace for vandels)? PPGMD 20:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It's up to Raul654, there are many, many excellent articles however, so it could be chosen at any time :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Linux zealot here - I actually really like this article. --mav 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the lack of Fast User Switching really a drawback to networking?
I just dealt with a stylistic, non-content issue with a sentence in that section, but it has raised an eyebrow for me. Rather minor issue I am picking at here, but is the lack of Fast User Switching in previous versions a drawback to networking, or just a drawback to having multi-users on the same display? (By the display, I mean the Linux/Unix kind - ie. a display being one set/source of (standard) input and output, monitor and keyboard, ie. the first monitor and keyboard and mouse coupled together forms the first display). Because I do recall, that you could network logon to Windows (think ssh?), hence multi-users at the same time, just not on the same display? Its hardly a drawback to networking, unless you mean fully exploiting networking, with the hypothetical scenario, multiple employees for each computer with their own account. Ridiculous, isn't it? Thats why I think its a drawback to a multi-user consumer environment, the average consumer having only one display. Or does Windows lack a form its own ssh daemon, and Fast User Switching allowed that? This is why I brought it up here. -- Natalinasmpf 01:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, that's the first I've heard of being able to ssh into Windows, ala X Window System. I could be wrong, but I didn't think that Windows decouples the client from the server like the X Windows System does. However, usign the RDP protocol you can remotely get onto another computers desktop. Using resource direction (probably wrong terminology) you can use local printers and file shares. I dunno if this answers your question... - Ta bu shi da yu 01:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can only have one user actually using desktop versions of Windows XP at a time. Whether they are actually sitting at the machine or logging in through Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP), only one at a time. Fast User Switching just means that two accounts can be logged in simultaneously, although only one user has access to the desktop at a time. AlistairMcMillan 01:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So this advantage doesn't really help networking, does it? You still can only have one user using the GUI at the same time, after all. -- Natalinasmpf 19:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Device Support as feature add
I've vastly shortened this: As the consumer line of Windows had not seen a new version for a while, Windows XP provided new or improved drivers for several new devices made available since Windows Me and 98. Among them are Firewire, PCI, USB and high-density storage devices and media (DVDs and CDs).

To this: Windows XP provided new and/or improved drivers and user interfaces for devices compared to Windows Me and 98.

First, there was no lag in consumer releases, 98, 98SE, and ME were released within 3 years of each other. Second, PCI and USB have had support since Windows 95, and Firewire since 98 (or maybe SE). I believe ME had the same CD support (a license for DirectCD and integration with WMP) that XP shipped with. I added the term "user interfaces" because, to the user, thats what WIA provides/replaces and so it steps right into the next paragraph. SchmuckyTheCat 22:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article compared with other OS articles
Spoken as someone who is for the first time consuming this article, I must say that it's character seems wildly different from other articles on OS's. Rather than read like an overview of the nature of the OS and including a little history, noting unique features, and highlighting some drawbacks, this article seems to dicuss mostly gritty details of problems with the OS. Certainly this is fine, especially it seems toward the end of an article of this nature, but not throughout and primarily!

It seems like articles covering OS's should having similar tones and organization, allowing for differences in article length due to OS marketshare or historical interest. Just read the OS X article, which is an entirely different species from this one. Encyclopedia entries are no place for exhibiting biases, and so the argument, "Well OS X itself is a different species!" isn't a valid response.

I actually came to this article looking for an informative description of Windows XP, its features, history, and underpinnings. I went to the OS X article looking for that and got it. But not so with this one! Very disappointing.


 * I don't really see what's the problem here; it seems to me the Mac OS X article is actually less comprehensive, due to its lack of detail on features (lists where there could be prose are generally abhorred on Wikipedia). I'm not sure where the bias lies here, and I don't quite understand what's your gripe. Johnleemk | Talk 13:51, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the only featured OS article and he's complaining...genius. Anyway, the article is very good, and if you want "a little history" try the whole article about it at History of Microsoft Windows.--User:naryathegreat(t) 15:59, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey look, I thought this discussion area was for constructive discussions, not name calling, genius. Frankly, I was surprised that this is a featured article. I think my comments on the matter are pretty clear. Disagree? It's not surprising as obviously this article has evolved over a great length of time. But that doesn't mean that other points of view should be shunned.

Personally I have to agree, I think that the Windows XP article is an example of how the OS articles should be. And if either Mac OS X or Linux want to strive to be Featured Articles, they should have similar content to the one within the Windows article, both the praise and faults. PPGMD

Product activation
So if you want to use the software on another machine? Do you activate the software on the new machine, and by doing that the activation on the old machine stops working (windows on the old machine is deactivated)?--Jerryseinfeld 18:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Old installations never "phone home" to Microsoft after they've been activated. If you have a retail version of Windows XP, you can simply install it on a different machine. You may have to call the activation phone number, but I hear it's a pretty quick process. Rhobite 18:30, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Installation problems
This article should state that some programs from earlier versions of Windows e.g. Windows 95 may not work on Windows XP (Noted in the programs as Windows 1.5). Some of those programs are games that came out during the 1995/1996 period.

Draig goch20 21:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Innacuracy in Kernel Improvements section
The article currently states "When Windows 95 was released, 32-bit processors had just arrived on the scene...". This sentence is misleading since the first 32-bit x86 was the 386, released in 1986, 9 years before Windows 95 was released. Perhaps this should be changed to something like "Windows 95 was one of the first 32-bit operating systems from Microsoft..." which would more accurately state what that sentence is trying to say.
 * I re-worded this and the next paragraph too, as the next paragraph seemed to imply that huge amounts of win9x software was still 16 bit and had a hard time running on 9x. SchmuckyTheCat 19:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * There are still major issues with that section. It says that previous versions had lots of problems with... RAM? Say what? I don't think that is what was meant... - Ta bu shi da yu 18:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * ugh, yes. I will see if I can tackle that later.SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Woohoo!
Hey, we're scheduled to go to the front page on June 4! That now said, can we convert our notes to Template:Note and Template:Ref similar to our Windows 2000 article? We'll need to wittle down the references list quite a bit I'm afraid. Anyone up for the challenge? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Infobox/table
Nice work. Short and sweet. &#9992; James C. 00:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
 * Thanx :-) Ta bu shi da yu 03:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Window's (any version) is Pathetic!
I was writing a MS word document on a PC, I tried to right click and format some text and the entire system froze. Now, I don't know that much about computers but that sort of thing should not happen and it does not happen when I use a mac, if a program froze on a mac only that program would be frozen, I would still be able to use other program's and access my hard drive, other programs or similar. I could also very easily force quit the problem program (when I use force quit on a PC even that system feature mucks up and I spend half an hour waiting for a program to be force quitted and then I realise that when I move the mouse the icon that represent's it on the screen doesent move (the system has frozen again!!)).


 * Mac's are Heaven, PC's are HELL!!!

Maybe they are, to people who can't spell (plurals don't have apostrophes).

I'm confused about the Whistler link in the first line of the article. There seems to be no point providing the link unless it's to something relevant (e.g. an article on why they needed to use this codename). As it is, it links to the place in Canada, with which there is not neccessarily any connection. Whistler was also a painter, who's to say they didn't have him in mind?Palefire 06:58, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Codenames are well documented. And Whistler is the mountain, Blackcomb (another codename) is the other mountain, and Longhorn is a bar at the resort. SchmuckyTheCat 07:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If your computer locks up completely and frequently, and you have fully scanned the computer for viruses, it is likely that there is a hardware-level problem beyond the control of the operating system. Cooling issues, poor-quality memory, and an inadequate power supply can all cause lockups and are not the fault of Windows. Besides which, obviously right-clicking would not cause a lockup on a Macintosh, by virtue of the fact that right-clicking is not possible with a one-button mouse.

As it happens, the core group of Microsoft executives are hopelessly in love with the Whistler resort, and can occasionally be spotted at the Longhorn pub. In fact, I myself ran into J Allard, Microsoft's director of all things Xbox, while waiting in line for the lift last December.

A Feature Article On Windows XP?
Do we really need to be made sure of an operating system that is so faulty and highly contagious to security threats? Sure the article is well constructed, but a feature article?
 * Well, what are you using? Linux? • Thorpe • 17:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles become featured articles because they're well-written, not because of any endorsement of the subject of the article. XP itself is crappy indeed, but this is an incredible Wikipedia article. Nickptar 18:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I like how when something's a featured article, everyone and their mother has to edit it (see the history of the article).

enfestid


 * Oh no! A (gasp) Microsoft article might become a featured article? The world, I fear, is nearly at an end! After all, the software that runs on Linux would never be faulty (except of course the kernel vulnerability that cropped up they found affected all source trees from 2.2 down to 1.0, the security issue with zlib, the security flaw with the core snmp library... etc, etc).
 * Perhaps you should reaquaint yourself with the goals of Wikipedia and the NPOV policy? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luna
"Luna is the name of the new visual style that ships with Windows XP, and is enabled by default for machines with more than 64 MB of RAM. As Windows XP requires 64 MB of RAM to install, this means that it is enabled for practically all users". When I installed Windows XP on an old PC with 64MB of RAM, the new visual style was disabled, not enabled by default. Is there a factual inaccuracy here? -- Eagleamn 13:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you share system ram with your video card you can have less than 64Mb on a 64Mb machine. SchmuckyTheCat 21:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft notice board
Note: to start this off I'm posting this to a few Microsoft articles.

I have kicked this off as I think we can do a lot better on many of our Microsoft related articles. Windows XP is just one example of a whole bunch of people getting together to fix up issues of NPOV, fact and verifiability of an article. I think that no matter whether you like Microsoft or not that we could definitely do with a review of: a) the articles that we already have, and b) the articles that we should have in Wikipedia! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

APM Support in Windows 2000 and XP
Windows 2000 and XP still supports APM.

Yuhong 19:04, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ACPI support standard with Win 2K
The ACPI support in Windows XP is nothing new. ACPI was supported as well in Windows 2000 as it is in Windows XP.

XP-N
I added a new section on this, but it needs to be added to. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 23:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Windows NT 5.1"?
I take issue with this statement in the article: Windows XP is also considered Windows NT 5.1 because of its succession to the NT product line. Who goes around calling it "Windows NT 5.1"? I've certainly never heard anyone refer to it as such. If I went to CompUSA and asked about Windows NT 5.1, at best they would look at me funny and at worst they would have no clue what I meant. - Brian Kendig 02:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If you go to the command prompt (Start->Run->"cmd") the first line says

Microsoft Windows XP (Version 5.1.2600)
 * While it may not be considered so by the consumer, it is the version number. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 03:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's Windows XP version 5.1.2600. Where's the NT? - Brian Kendig 04:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's in the NT family, therefore it is NT 5.1. I'm sure I'm missing something and muddling this up, so someone else more in tune with microsoft codenames should come here. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 04:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I like your revision of the article. That's good. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 04:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) - Brian Kendig 04:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This version number is used by programmers to know witch Windows version their program is running on. Windows API will not say: I´m XP! It will say: My higher number is 5. My lower number is 1. And you just guess it´s XP, so this has a use, thought not by the end user. --Sekelsenmat 14:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No more activation?
Someone added this claim to the article: The product activation feature has subsequently been dropped from the latest CD release of Windows XP, which comes with Service Pack 2 already installed. is this true, does Windows XP SP2 no longer need to be activated with Microsoft? - Brian Kendig 20:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw that this morning and didn't immediately remove it, but I'm doubting it. SchmuckyTheCat 20:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the top links for "windows xp activation sp2" on google point to plenty of crack databases, so if the crack exists, so does the activation. I'm going to remove the statement.  It's probably a mistake based on OEM restore CDs. SchmuckyTheCat 20:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Aww...and I was hoping this'd lead to Longhorn having no activation :(. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 14:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Starter Edition
I will change the text in the article to solve this. The microsoft proposed thats the project "PC Conectado" use Winxp Starter Edition, but the project born to use Open Source Software (primary objective, the use o free software is acceptable, but not very like), and the propose has been ignored if it exists, i dont know anything of this and i know the project PC Conectado. Suns 02:49, 28 oct 2005 (-3 UTC)

The article claims this Windows version is available in Brazil. I´ve never ever seen this in Brazil. This was offered to our governament, but we refused it, since I personally can only beliave this is a joke or an insult to say that developing countries should use a Windows version that cannot run more the 3 programs at the same time. --Sekelsenmat 14:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are some related stories on slashdot:

More Details on Cut-Rate Windows OS For Asia

Windows XP Starter Edition off to Slow Start

Brazil: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend

MS Plans Low-Cost Windows for Brazil

--GaryDunn808 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to how starter edition knows it's on an LCD or on a CRT larger than 17"... If you were to say that it is not LICENSED for use with a video card that includes DVI, that would make sense.  But unless they are actually reading the DDC data, and comparing to a database, then popping up an error saying "Sorry, this monitor isn't compatible with Windows Starter Edition", I don't see how else to do it.  Just saying 'limited to 1024x768' is good enough.  (I mean, without doing a lookup of the monitor model to a database saying if it's over 17" or not, the OS has no way of determining the physical screen size!  What if someone plugs it into a TV via an adaptor?)  Ehurtley 23:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed this line. It's wrong and unreferenced. SchmuckyTheCat 01:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Tenth Product" as opp "eXPerience" - too speculative to add?
''To save space, I've refactored this section of discussion into summary form; the full text can be found in this revision. - IMSoP 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)''

IMSoP wondered whether it was worth mentionning an alternative (completely unofficial) derivation for the "XP" name, alongside the official "Experience" explanation; towhit, that it stands for something like "10th Product". Office XP is internally 10.0, and it can be argued that there were 9 previous "products" in the Windows and Windows NT lines which XP effectively merged (a table of versions is at User:IMSoP/Winver).

However, SchmuckyTheCat suggested that this was indeed too speculative to add without some "inside source" or other reliable authority. The definition of "Product" required to reach this conclusion was also the subject of debate, but it was agreed that this was not leading to any improvement in the article, so the subject was dropped.

Windows lines
Is XP considerd in the NT/2000 line?

If no one objects, I would like to create a subpage to Microsoft Windows called the Windows Line page, featuring the Numbered (or Original) Line (WIN 1.x, 2.x, and 3.x), the 9th Decade Line (WIN 95, 98, and 98SE, and possibly Me, if Me is considered of the Decade Line), the NT/2000 Line (WIN NT 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, 2000, and 2000 server, and possibly XP), and the Portable Line (WIN CE, Embeded, and Tablet PC). If anyone has better names for these lines, pleas indicate so here. Also, would it be better to put a category template rather than a subpage for MS Windows? Thanks for your time. --Admiral Roo 19:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Where does the number "ninth" in your "Ninth Decade Line" come from? If you are naming the line after the decade when those OSes appeared, you are off by one: the 1990s was the tenth decade of the 1900s. Anyway, I have not heard of "Ninth Decade Line" before.  If it's your own coinage, the expression is probably not appropriate for Wikipedia (original research). As to your original question, Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, Windows XP is NT 5.1, and Windows Server 2003 is NT 5.2. Indefatigable 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Your right, it is the 10th decade. Don't know what I was thinking.  --Admiral Roo 10:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do this? There are several articles about the history of Windows.  I understand the concept you're trying to convey, but I think we already have it here quite well. I've never heard "9th decade", is it original?.  95, 98, ME... are all "Win9x" if you're looking for a real world term.
 * There was no WinNT 1x or 2x. Windows Embedded is based on the core os used, either CE, 2000, or XP all have embedded products. Tablet PC is simply a repackage of Windows XP Pro, not a new line. SchmuckyTheCat 20:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, to both you Indefatigable and SchumckyTheCat. --Admiral Roo 10:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I note that the main Microsoft Windows article takes a slightly different, more technical, approach to dividing the various versions, leading to 5 distinct categories (although its mention of Windows CE is possibly a little brief, since it seems to be completely distinct from both DOS and NT, so should probably get its own category). The "History of" article features a timeline similarly divided by "bittage". I knocked up a more product-oriented table at User:IMSoP/Winver, which may or may not be useful to someone, somewhere... :) [BTW, this discussion would probably be better placed somewhere like Talk:Microsoft Windows - or even the Microsoft notice board which I only just discovered!] - IMSoP 15:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the layout. --Admiral Roo 15:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Technical Error
I have a Dell Dimension 4700 from the 2004 xmas. Since I got it, the stupid automatic update has and is flawed. All the time it downloads, it makes all of my programs slow, and often frezzes them up. If I disable the feature, the same thing happens. Is their a way to remove the componet from Windows XP without dammaging the system? --Admiral Roo 15:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT a technical support forum. Seek assistance elsewhere.&mdash;Kbolino 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Default theme
Is the default desktop of grass and sky an actual photograph or is it a computer-generated image ? Jay 20:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From Bliss (image) : Bliss is a JPEG photograph of a landscape in the Napa Valley outside Napa, California. &mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 20:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was fast! Thanks. Can we have a screenshot of it for the Bliss article. Right now I've linked Image:Default xp theme.JPG which has got the startup menu which is not appropriate for that article. Jay 20:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Free CDs?
Order Windows XP Service Pack 2 on CD for free

How does one do that? --logixoul 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a link here

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.mspx but it only goes to here http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

so i dont think that microsoft is doing this anymore barbobot
 * That's what I noticed, otherwise I wouldn't have asked ;) . I'm removing the link. --logixoul 07:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the link that currently works: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/sp2/cdorder/en_us/default.mspx

Help
Whenever I go on google or ANY search engine (ask jeeves, yahoo, msn etc.) even the urban dictionary search engine, Whenever I double click where your meant to search it comes up with ALL my previous searches in a little scrollbox! I wanna get rid of it! EVERY SEARCH ENGINE, EVEN WIKIPEDIA'S!!--60.226.28.4 06:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have the same problem, it's annoying, anyone know how to get rid of it?--Sultn 07:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Clear your browser cache completely. And this is utterly the wrong place to ask this kind of question, anyway. --Kiand 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you clear your browser's cache?--60.226.28.4 07:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Its easy to clear the cache. all you do is (in internet explorer) click on the tools section and then click internet options. then click delete files. too easy
 * Please, how do you clear the cache? And I have XP.
 * ...Please.


 * There is a more efficient way to stop those boxes popping up. It is a tool called AutoComplete; all you need to do is turn it off. Go to Tools, Internet Options, and click on the Content tab. Then click on the AutoComplete button and uncheck the boxes. Clearing the cache will temporarily stop the boxes, but they'll soon come back again. Turning off AutoComplete is the best way to go. -- Daverocks 12:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * WP:NOT a support forum. Seek technical assistance elsewhere.  And sign your posts, please.&mdash;Kbolino 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

BSOD
Lest someone start thinking it's a good idea to put a picture of a blue screen of death in this article, please don't - unless you think I should put a picture of a kernel panic in Linux. All operating systems crash at some point. We don't need screenshots of it. Rhobite 20:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but when's the last time you had kernel panic in the course of standard operation? Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Just the other day, actually. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * i got my WinXP ages a go and it has never displayed the blue screen of death. however my Win98 had it about 1 a fortnight.
 * You don't own Windows XP, Microsoft does. You have licensed the right to use their software.  If Windows 98 only crashed once every 14 days, then consider yourself lucky.  And yes, Windows XP does display the blue screen of death, but the kernel and operating system are more resilient and less likely to do so.&mdash;Kbolino 08:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned this on the BSOD page and I thought I might as well mention it here too...who knows, maybe someone will be able to help someday: I get bluescreens on XP about 5 times a day. Obviously something has gone horribly wrong, but I don't know what. Adam Bishop 02:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Email me from the link on my user page. SchmuckyTheCat 07:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Home DOES support screen cloning
I have a laptop with Windows XP Home, with SP2. It has an nVidia video card, a GeForce Go 6200. Among the video card options, there is a Clone Screen option. I tried it and guess what? It worked. The screen of the laptop was cloned onto the CRT I connected to it. Maybe screen cloning was not supported prior to SP2? I need to know more about this.

Devil Master, 8:48, 28 October 2005 (MET)
 * Maybe someone should verify this is an XP feature, and not a feature added by video card manufacturers.
 * From my memory, it's not an XP feature (and, I don't think multi-mon is restricted to XP Pro either)
 * "Clone Screen" or "Clone Display" as a search term finds nothing on microsoft.com
 * My laptop, with Intel video, doesn't have "Clone Screen" as an option.
 * Sounds like an Nvidia feature name, SchmuckyTheCat 13:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not an operating system feature or even a driver feature. This is a basic feature of any graphics card that supports two or more displays, i.e. a laptop with a built-in display and a VGA connector.&mdash;Kbolino 08:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

removed "Clone Display"

 * Clone Display allows users to "clone" their monitor onto a secondary display (a feature often used in video production). While it does support video cards with dual displays, XP Home Edition limits this feature only to extension of the primary display, and not cloning.

Removed this, needs a cite. SchmuckyTheCat 14:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Article's Standing
On the top of this page, it says that the article is bad and one of the best. Does the community want to remove it or do they want to commend it for being great? This contradiction doesn't help much either. 71.250.51.234 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Windows XP is a major revision...": No it is not
Windows XP is a minor revision of the Windows NT operating system line. Most of its features were available in Windows 2000, which was not marketed to the average consumer. Even the version number shows evidence of this: Windows NT 4.0 → Windows 2000 (NT 5.0, major revision) → Windows XP (NT 5.1, minor revision). Windows 98 and Me do not count as operating systems, and even if they did, Windows XP does not follow in their line, regardless of what Microsoft might say.&mdash;Kbolino 08:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you may have a point. My vote is yes to minor in place of major. Justin 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the biggest release since Windows 95 - even if that is marketing and media hype, it's major. Dot versions are meaningless to what is "major" to the public. SchmuckyTheCat 07:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You have a point that XP has been marketed as a major version, but the truth is that Microsoft must think it is, technically, a minor revision and that's far more concrete than it's appearance to the public. I say change it to minor. -- Rishi 04:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Windows XP is billed as a major change, at least for user for a couple of reasons, it the first major change to the GUI since the release of Windows 95, and for home users transitioning from Windows Me and Windows 98 it's a big change in the architecture. I vote for the major to stay because compared to the moving from NT 4 to 2000, and among the various 9x kernel OSs XP was an actual noticable change from both Windows 2000 and Windows Me. PPGMD 04:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me compromise: the Windows XP interface represents several major changes:
 * The new Start menu
 * Some new visual effects (menu/tooltip shadows, the selection rectangle)
 * The new themes
 * The ability to group taskbar buttons (not just automatic grouping)
 * The grouping of the Control panel
 * The use of 48x48 icons in the file manager by default (they did exist before XP)
 * Support for alpha-blending in icons
 * The new "Clear-type" anti-aliasing method (sub-pixel hinting)
 * Some new multimedia libraries
 * The remote desktop functionality (a rework of older technology)
 * NOT support for Unicode (Win 2000), accessiblity features (Win 2000), shadows under the mouse pointer (Win 2000), "personalized" menus that remember most-selected programs (Win 2000), animated opening/closing and "smooth scrolling" (Win 98), menu/selection fading (Win 2000), etc.
 * But the operating system architecture contains only a few changes. Almost all of the major core differences between say, Windows 98 and Windows XP were present in Windows 2000. And need I remind you that Windows 98 SE was "billed as a major change"&mdash;in the NT world, its changes would barely amount to a service pack.&mdash;Kbolino 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Logo size
I've noticed that all Windows articles (Windows 98, Microsoft Windows, etc.) use 96px logos on the same line as the title. Would it not be better to place the logo on it's own line underneath the title and above the screen, in a larger size (say the same size or slightly smaller than the screenshot)? I've made this change in the Windows Vista article already.

Rishi 04:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the way it was before, but for right now, like other infoboxes, that's the way the logos are displayed. — Alex 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. It's really just the way it makes the title off-centre that bothers me. -- Rishi 05:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed as a proposed template change. — Alex 10:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice job! This looks much better. It does make sense to place the title outside of the infobox, IMO. -- Rishi 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Features new to Windows XP
Why was a whole section of Windows XP killed and moved to this article without even a mention on the talk page explaining why? I mean, I can understand the need for subarticles, and if the section had been replaced with a decent summary, this would be totally understandable. But you do not destroy an entire section and replace it with and one sentence explaining that Windows XP added some new features to the Windows software line. We need a decent summary of the subarticle with the most important features mentioned. I'd do this myself, but I'm on holiday with limited internet access, so all I have time for is this quick message. Johnleemk | Talk 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The User Interface section should probably also move to the new article.&mdash;Kbolino 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Windows XP advertising campaign
Does anyone remember the windows XP advertising campaign when it first launched. Something like 10,000 times safer operating system. just interested as to what exactly the campaign was in hindsight, with all the critical updates/vulnerabilities etc (although they are the largest target with 90% market share).
 * 219.89.177.137 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

security
"There is little defense against a user opening an e-mail attachment without realizing that it is malicious"

I think this is wrong. In this case the problem is not (only) the user - it is the operating system by leaving the user alone with all admin rights as stated above (the fact that users, by default, receive an administrator account). So it´s probably not a very good example.--MilesTeg 03:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the problem has more to do with application programmers not using the tools that Microsoft gives them to programs apps that will use lower permissions. There are a number of applications that still require admin rights for no reason what so ever except crappy programming. With Vista I heard they were pushing the point by making the default user at a lower security level. PPGMD 03:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

New and updated features
I removed the following from the abbreviated list of new and updated features:


 * Improved system start-up, stand-by, and hibernate performance.

Let me clarify why:


 * 1) One of the design goals for Windows XP was "boot in under thirty seconds"&mdash;a slight improvement over Windows 2000 (which loaded drivers serially&mdash;one after the other&mdash;as opposed to Windows XP, which loads them in parallel), depending on hardware, and a major improvement over Windows 98, depending on how messed up the boot sequence was by other programs. The boot sequence was, however, extended by Service Pack 2 and is no shorter than Windows 2000 on machines with decent specs (800–1000 MHz, 128–256 MB RAM).
 * 2) No changes have been made to stand-by and hibernate "performance". These features have seen little change since Windows 2000.

I am also considering the removal of the following item:


 * Built-in support for DSL and wireless network connections, as well as networking over Firewire.

with the following justification:


 * 1) To be honest with you, I lack the knowledge here to comment. I know a number of wireless features were added with SP2, but I forget what was present in SP1 and base XP.  I know 2000 could support Wireless, but I think it was done with additional (largely third-party) drivers.
 * 2) "Support for DSL connections" means support for Point-to-Point over Ethernet (PPoE).
 * 3) There is no mention of this on the full Features new to Windows XP page, so it is not justified here. It should be added in detail there before ever appearing here.

And I would prefer that "user-friendlier" not be used. It's a foul abomination of a word. Anyone with a decent grasp of English will probably feel the same way.&mdash;Kbolino 21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stand-by and hibernate performance is vastly improved. I don't have time to explain why. I slightly agree with you about start-up time but I disagree enough to believe it  should still be in the article. SchmuckyTheCat 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I shall wait for your explanation. I agree with you wholeheartedly if you are relating Windows XP to 98 and the like.  I cannot, however, agree about Windows 2000&mdash;which is Windows XP's true predecessor.&mdash;Kbolino
 * On the subject of hibernation performance: A number of specific improvements were made to the code which reads and writes hiberfil.sys; on my old Toshiba Tecra 366mhz laptop, for example, I saw a performance improvement from about 45 seconds to hibernate with Windows 2000, to about 15 seconds with Windows XP.  It was, frankly, f'ing awesome -- one of my favourite iprovements with XP back then.  Nowadays in 2006, with machines that are routinely several times faster than the typical computer in late 2001, and faster HDD's with larger caches, on faster I/O buses, the performance differential isn't quite so noticeable.  That doesn't negate the fact that improvements were made, and performance was improved as a result.  Review the section titled Faster Hibernate and Resume in this MSDN Magazine article from December 2001.
 * On the subject of support for DSL modems: This is a new feature in Windows XP, and indeed a fairly significant one for people switching from Windows 9x or 2000. It's phrased so that people reading the Windows XP article, but don't know what "PPPoE" is, will "get" what's being said here.  It's not mentioned on Features new to Windows XP simply because nobody's added it there.  Warrens 04:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt you on the hibernation performance (any longer), but to be honest with you I haven't the faintest idea how such performance gains could be made. I can only surmise that the Win2k code was messy, possibly for compatibility reasons.  I didn't know PPoE support was added in XP; then again, I'd never connect a DSL modem directly to a Windows-based computer anyway, so I guess that's why.  As for wireless, how much was added in SP2?  My ignorance showing brightly, what exaclty is "networking over Firewire"?  Something akin to null modem connections of old?  Just want to make sure such a thing exists&mdash;along with the support for it.&mdash;Kbolino 04:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Cable Guy is one of the best sources of anything & everything to do with networking in Windows... lots of good technical details, and no marketing bull. If you've got some time, read through Wireless LAN Enhancements in Windows XP Service Pack 2... that covers all the important stuff.  He also wrote an article on Wireless Service Provisioning, and there's also an entire article dedicated to the new Wireless Network Setup Wizard.
 * As for networking over Firewire, you've got it right -- it's a point-to-point connection. It's implemented as a TCP/IP network; you'll get an icon for this network under Network Connections if you have a Firewire port on your machine.  MSKB 310433 has the low-down. Macs and Linux support this technology, too.  Hope this helps. :-)  Warrens 05:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I apologize if I seemed a bit terse. I've put everything back into the article.&mdash;Kbolino 06:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * One thing I'd say about standby and hibernate "performance" in 2000 vs XP, is that in 2000 it works "good enough" but in XP it works "almost always". There were plenty of apps and drivers in 2000 that prevented standby or behaved poorly afterwards.  Drivers that didn't "want" to go to standby could bugcheck 9f to prevent it, which is worthless to the user (and suicide to the driver, but whatever).  That's mostly been eliminated under XP.  This all falls under "working as advertised" for both OS, but internal to msft, it was thousands of hours of work. SchmuckyTheCat 18:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Memory limitations with SP2
This blog post explains about PAE mode http://www.instant-tech.com/blogs/ctyler.nsf/d6plinks/CTYR-6H3KZ4

and contains these Microsoft links about it.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875352

Think having 4gig RAM with SP2 is hot stuff? Think again. :P "Thanks" Microsoft. (I'll leave it to someone else to put that info in the article in a non-snarky way. I run 2000 Pro on _my_ PC.)


 * who cares, and what exactly is the problem? memory handling is covered somewhere, I'm sure. SchmuckyTheCat 07:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a Wikipedian with a low level of computer knowledge, looking for help in figuring out whether I should install SP2. I entered Windows XP Service Pack 2, which redirects here.  If installing SP2 creates a memory problem, this article would be the place to explain it, at least until there's a separate article on SP2. JamesMLane t c 11:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Install XP SP2, the memory "problem" that is described above is misunderstood by the poster. Warrens 14:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs a Criticism section
Lots of grievances need to be aired - e.g. why is it so slow, so bloated, is it to keep hard drive and chip makers in business? Punanimal 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Punanimal


 * They may need to be aired, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gripe bulletin board, so they don't need to be aired here. Guy Harris 21:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to read Neutral point of view so you can come to an understanding as to why such grievances don't belong in Wikipedia. Warrens 22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that well sourced, verifiable criticism of Windows XP can not be placed here? I know of many other pages on this site which contain such sections - NPOV is not always positive. -Localzuk (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they were referring to "airing grievances", not sourced criticism. Besides, the article already has a whole section on common criticisms, so I'm not sure what else there is to be desired. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Turns of phrase like "so slow" and "so bloated" are not encyclopedic. It's as simple as that. Warrens 06:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just kind of off topic, but XP really isn't a shitty OS. You look back and you'll see the 95/98 years ... you look forward and you'll see the 80 bazillion versions of Vista. Vista Home Edition! Vista Super Home Edition! Super Duper Home But Not Quite Professional Edition! EXtreme Edition! UB3R 1337 3XTR3M3 3DITI0N!!1 I mean, XP is no OS Ten or Linux, but when you have to use Microsoft, XP is where it's at. 71.112.250.239 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Windows XP has nearly the same amount of version, XP has 5, Vista will have 6, not counting the EU mandated editions. PPGMD 02:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

protection of processes
Over in the Memory protection article, there appears the statement that "No version of Microsoft Windows has true protected memory, as one process can invade another's memory. I thought that the NT-heritage Windows (like XP) did protect one process's memory from another.  Anybody over here knowledgeable about this point? -R. S. Shaw 00:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the entire paragraph from that article, which was added by an anonymous user a couple of weeks ago. It's factually incorrect.  You are correct; all Windows NT-based OS's have full protected memory. Warrens 06:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Major revision of windows
Windows XP is a major revision of the Microsoft Windows operating system created for use on desktop and business computer systems. Isn't WinXP a minor upgrade that promoted the version number from 5.0 (Win 2K) to 5.1? --Soumyasch 16:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Urban Legend
This article mentions that the name XP is a adopted from "experience". I have heard another theory about the origin of this, which I suspect is an urban legend, but though not necessarily. What I heard was that major part of Windows XP was developed in the development centre at Cairo. Cairo → Chi-rho → χ-ρ → XP What do you think? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No. SchmuckyTheCat 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

XP is a common abbreviation for christ
 * And? Danny Lilithborne 01:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

End Task
Where is the section in the article that explains how the End Task feature works? I try to use End Task on crashed programs but it seems that Windows just doesn't have the power to do so, but you'd think they would have programmed "End Task" with ultimate authorities to end the task easily by shutting down it's processing directly..I press End Task and it just sits there, it's kind of pathetic ;) Also I am unable to find a third party program that can end tasks more efficiently but if anyone knows of one maybe you can add it to links? 71.112.224.112 21:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Detailed discussion of "end task" would probably be inappropriate in this article because it's supposed to be an encyclopedic overview, not a how-to. Also it wouldn't belong in "Windows XP" because it works the same in all Windows versions since at least 2000, and probably earlier. "End task" sends a message to the app asking it to shut itself down. If the app does not comply with the request, right click on app in Task Manager, go to process, then click on "End Process". This will force the app to close, rather than merely requesting it to close itself. Indefatigable 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

TCP/IP connection limit
This article lacks pretty important information central to the developer community: the new TCP/IP connection limit. This is mentioned no-where in the article. I want to know (1) what the limit is, (2) why the limit is there and why Windows 2000 doesn't have it, (3) what a user can do about it, including whether Windows Vista will have the limit, and (4) what its impact was, i.e. the main problems it caused in existing and future applications. &mdash; Given that something this important is missing, I find it extremely disturbing that this article ever became featured. &mdash; Timwi 18:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just FYI: Timwi cited this missing information as part of his motivation for nominating the removal of this article's Featured Article status; see Featured article removal candidates/Windows XP 2. I have addressed the problem by adding a paragraph to the article with the information in question. - Brian Kendig 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a big deal to include it, but that's quite a trivial matter of interest to a small number of people, not a general audience. SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

tcpip.sys
tcpip.sys appears to be a binary file. If indeed this file may be edited to increase the maximum number of outgoing TCP / IP request, then it is not obvious how. Splendour 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, but Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual – as such, discussions of how to edit tcpip.sys to remove the connection limit are well beyond the scope of this article. Warrens 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article's use of "edit" is misleading. Tweaking binary values at nonobvious spots ( then installing the file and rebooting) should not be called "editing", which by normal usage implies textual changes. I've changed the verb to "patched". -R. S. Shaw 19:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Lists
Can we please stop putting the lists back in? What's wrong with plain prose? Why do we feel the need to abuse the bullet-point feature of MediaWiki? Our overuse of lists was an issue when this article was nominated on FAC, and later on again at FARC. I don't have the time to turn these lists back into prose, but when I do, I will be reverting future prose-to-list conversions on sight. Johnleemk | Talk 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Because

• We

• Like

• Bullet

• Points
 * Sorry, couldn't resist. Yeah, I agree.  Lists should be their own articles.  just mention that there were a bunch of different versions of XP, and link to the obscenely long list. Ehurtley 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Teacher and Student "ACADEMIC" Version
Can someone throw in some info about this 'special' version, inc any limitations etc --Deon555|talk 06:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are academic versions of Windows? I thought that was an office promo? SchmuckyTheCat 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no technical differences with the retail version, just special licensing agreements that make them cheaper and allow them to be installed in a couple more computers (3, IIRC). Tito xd (?!?) 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Software compatibility
Am I blind, or does this article mention almost nothing about Windows XP's compatibility with software applications and driver APIs (e.g. NDIS)? This is probably XP's greatest advantage over competing operating systems, so it would be a good idea to mention this. I would edit it myself, but I don't know where to start. XP is supposed to support software all the way back to the DOS era (and is supposed to support almost everything designed for Windows/DOS with the compatiblity tweaks), and it supports just about every PC hardware device because of its large marketshare being an attractive target for developers. Flayked 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

64-bit version, and Intel chips.
I've made a one-word modification to the sentence on XP x64 Professional to change it from 'Intel Pentium 4 with EM64T' to 'Intel chips with EM64T', since Intel's whole line includes it now (or will soon enough.) Pentium 4, Pentium D, Celeron D, Xeon, Core 2 all support it. At this point, only the Celeron M, Core (1) and the Core (1)-based Xeon LV lack support. Now that I think about it, I should probably change the AMD reference, too, as only Sempron doesn't support AMD64. Ehurtley 23:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarity
"With the release of Windows XP, the development of operating systems based on the Windows 95/98 architecture was finally discontinued." seems to me to be unclear: Is XP the last 95/98, or the first post 95/98? Also, why is the word "finally" in there?

Support Lifecycle
This said that Windows XP SP3 would be supported until 2009, five years after G.A. That looks like SP3 was released in 2005, very confusing. Someone should clarify that support ceases five years after the last Service Pack (IIRC). I the meantime it says SP2 now. Chris 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fanboys alert
The whole article sounds like an advertisement. "Windows XP features a new task-based graphical user interface." Other operating systems had this kind of interface 15 years before, so this statement doesn't fit in here. The article is bloated and most of the function details mentioned are irrelevant now that XP is a few years old.

Substantiation needed
"Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over previous versions of Windows. It presents a significantly redesigned graphical user interface (GUI), a change Microsoft promoted as more user-friendly than previous versions of Windows." Yes, I know XP is widely sold and stolen, but to say that it is "known for ...GUI" seems to me to be a claim which needs some support (I certainly find it drastically destructive of my texts, harder too use than 2000, even more counter-intuitve and more corrupt'ble than 2000. I will grant the part about being promoted, though.). Kdammers 09:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to fix it. ASHTONZANECKI 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Patches / SP3 / Zune / WMP
There should probably some kind of update regarding the announcement of the Zune player, its accompanying software (portable etc.) and the likely patch requirements and service pack integration. (making the hotfix website link to sp3 beta well out of date) Also the Zune Marketplace (ala iTunes) and its proprietary nature, limited use time-bomb music track sharing schema (3 plays in 3 days, then pop, its gone). All these softwares will need to work with XP, and will most likely require patches to work with their new technology ideas (the whole sharing thing, DRM, time-bomb tracks, wi-fi etc.) I know zero about wiki's so I dont want to do it basically, through fear of breaking something :P --84.13.10.157 10:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots
There are a few guidelines that I follow when making screenshots, and while they are not official, I feel that they convey the most professional and accessible images:
 * No screenshot should exceed 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height, so that the images retain more discernable detail when scaled down, and so that the full-size image can be viewed by the largest base of users.
 * No full-screen screenshot's dimensions should be in any other proportion than 4:3, as this is the de-facto standard (1280x1024 being a notable violation at 5:4) and other dimensions might lead to the idea that the operating system, and not the display, was responsible for the unusual ratio.
 * If text is drawn using anti-aliasing, it should not use subpixel hinting (known as ClearType on Windows). This is rather important, as it affects both CRT users (who can quite clearly discern the effect, without gleaning its intended benefit--it appears blurry) and flatpanels with non-standard pixel orders like BGR, or vertical subpixels (the text can appear seriously malformed and may be unreadable).
 * Unless display of a specific alteration is intended (at which point all other variables should remain constant), the environment and all running applications should be displayed in their most neutral state, without any visible changes from how they were installed. This presents the user with the most accurate representation of a neutral experience, and prevents the user from reaching false conclusions based upon what he or she sees.

I do not feel that these are wholly unreasonable or unrealistic requests; the goal of providing screenshots is not to show off, but rather to supplement the page with an accurate and accessible visual.

Now, as to resolving this: should anyone agree that these are worthwhile objectives in creating screenshots, I would rather not reinstall Windows XP (or try to remove all the changes I've made) to obtain the "most neutral" state, but I can do this if necessary. If anyone has a recently-installed or otherwise unmodified copy of the operating system installed somewhere, then perhaps they could procure the screenshots. There also needs to be some enforcement, as people seem to be inclined to change screenshots (a recent modification, for example, is what prompted me to write this).&mdash;Kbolino 22:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you there. I have made the mistake of uploading several screenshots with ClearType enabled, but I always resize to 800x600. I find it irritating when people upload screenshots with some wacky theme installed, the program in feature opened, with an IM conversation with their friends and buddy list showing off all their IM contacts open. —  Jeremy  Talk  01:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You could have a new install running in a Virtual PC just for screenshots. 124.184.11.26 09:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, idea: Instead of installing fresh, just create a new user account, or log in to the admin account (hopefully unmodified). That should give you the default look. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.143.80 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the main screenshot at the top of the article violate the aspect ratio part of this? This may be of concern since it is the main image, after all. (it is 750x600) 76.189.28.183 01:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Biased selection under "Other sites".
When much larger Microsoft recommend sites with more content are added they are removed by biased editors. Reason: Information already covered by a small copy and paste blog. Please don't make WikiPedia like DMOZ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rareviolet (talk • contribs).
 * I have posted a comment on your talk page about this. I have now removed all the sites mentioned as they are not directly complimentary to the article.-Localzuk(talk) 18:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing all quality sites doesn't help. You removed sites saying they were commercial and how-to. All large sites depend on advertisements including Google, MSN (Microsoft) and Yahoo. Regarding How-To: There is a difference between tips / tricks like how to make Windows XP run faster AND how to start windows XP or how to shut down windows XP.


 * Other sites selection before 21:24, 1 October 2006 edit was good. Excluding Secunia since that site only promotes a graph generation software which displays Microsoft KB's.


 * This looks good to me (before 1st October edit):
 * Microsoft Software Forum Network (MSFN)
 * Neowin.net - Windows Related News Site and forum
 * PROnetworks.org - Microsoft Featured Community offering XP related news and support
 * Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows with feature articles
 * UpdateXP.com - Windows XP Website by a Microsoft MVP
 * Windows XP EULA in Plain English
 * Windows XP Tips and Tricks

Rareviolet 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete all of those unless they are referenced in the article itself. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rareviolet your link was clearly spam that you were trying to pass off as something it wasn't (an offical Microsoft site). PPGMD 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

PPGMD, The link is a Offical Microsoft Windows XP Expert Zone Community (Microsoft dosen't own it but recommeds it): http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/related/default.mspx. "Use these non-Microsoft communities online to get answers to your questions, state your opinions, meet other Windows XP enthusiasts, and learn more about Windows XP." The sites listed under that section are called Microsoft Windows XP Expert Zone sites. Rareviolet 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Then users will find it if that is the information they are looking for. SchmuckyTheCat 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are at least 3 dozen sites there, and you addition made it look like it was a link to that page. Linking to the Expert Zone page should be enough for this article. PPGMD 19:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if it wasn't clear. I just wanted people to know I was adding a Microsoft recommend Expert Zone site. Rareviolet 20:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It ends up you just pointed out a particularly "crufty" part of the article. The whole mess wasn't really necessary or helpful. I bet your addition was as good as or better than many of the others but now the entirety is gone for the better. Keep contributing, you've got a great username. SchmuckyTheCat 20:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Plain English EULA Site
Is there any other site that we can get this from? Because the site linked is slightly bias and misstates what some of the sections mean, in particular the DRM clause, and the termination of web services clause. Though technically correct it misleads the reader on exactly how far they are allowed to go. PPGMD 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Linux Advocate . com - What can you expect? lol. Rareviolet 19:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is linked to from EULA, we don't need it on this article. SchmuckyTheCat 19:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I should have looked a little closer. Indeed, it should definitely go.-Localzuk(talk) 20:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I got permission from author to re-edit the work under CC Atribution, now to get permission from Microsoft to use their EULA (yes I know I can use it under Fair Use, but getting permission is best).PPGMD 23:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

XP Pro and using multiple processors for symmetric multiprocessing
First of all, this is my very first post in Wikipedia, so please bash me gently this time... I saw the statement regarding the XP Professional Edition and using multiple processors for symmetric multiprocessing, and the way I read it it's as if it claims that dual-core processors can only work on Pro. This is true for HT-enabled processors, yet not for multi-core ones without Hyper-Threading. The linked reference (#3) verifies just that. The multi-core processors are not deemed as separate processors by the Operating System (contrary to the HT ones), and thus can work on XP Home, as well. A quick check at any online store will show you that OEMs sell some dual-core PCs with XP Home. Therefore I suggest that "regardless of the number of CPU cores or Hyper-threading" becomes "regardless of Hyper-threading". R2S 01:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. :-) The wording did seem a bit vague to me too, so I had a go at rewriting it to try and make that a bit more clear.  Have a look at it again and see if it makes more sense to you... of course, if you think you can present it even better, go right in and edit it yourself.  -/- Warren 02:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Warren, that I don't feel ready yet to post directly to the article; I hope you understand... (And yes, I saw the Editing Help and got more lost...) Anyhow, back on topic. The current wording leaves the impression HT is a single physical processor, but it's not. So here's what I propose: "support for up to two physical central processing units (CPU). Hyper-threading-enabled processors are considered to be two separate physical processors, and thus require XP Pro to work. Multi-core processors without Hyper-Threading enabled, are considered single physical CPUs, though, and can work on either XP Home or Pro.[3][4]" R2S 02:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hyper-threading processors aren't considered separate for licensing purposes. XP Home is both HT and multi-core aware and uses both just fine. SchmuckyTheCat 04:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * SchmuckyTheCat, please read the "Details" section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading: "All that is required to take advantage of Hyper-Threading is symmetric multiprocessing (SMP) support in the operating system, as the logical processors appear as standard separate processors." The XP Home version does not support SMP (reference #4 of the article), therefore it cannot take advantage of HT. Of course one can run XP Home on an HT-machine, if one turns off HT through the BIOS setup. Please also read paragraph 1 of the eula.txt found in \WINDOWS\system32 for an XP Home and an XP Pro machine. Alternatively, you can use this page: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx. Last but not least, a great resource on XP versions and licensing IMHO is this: http://www.techsupportforum.com/showthread.php?t=117140 - but because I noticed all non-Microsoft references have been removed, I was kind of reluctant to mention it; yet it is a really great source. This is not the case with dual-core, though. Dual-core is physically a single processor, and thus can work on XP Home. Please let us make the article clear and accurate on these things, because this article is a Wikipedia Star. Licensing and Technical aspects of the various Windows XP versions are two different things. I am sorry that I feel like quoting the http://www.techsupportforum.com/showthread.php?t=117140 article again, I am not promoting anything in particular; it just helps clarify a great deal of things. R2S 10:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They are wrong if they say XP Home does not support HT. Turning off HT on XP Home is idiocy. SchmuckyTheCat 18:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * R2S, I applaud your wanting to get the article correct and clear on this point. Working it out here on the talk page is appropriate.  The way I read, which is ref 3 in the article, is that XP Home supports both HT and dual cores.  It says first "A physical processor is a single chip that houses a collection of one or more cores" which seems clear.  It then says "A core is a collection of one or more processor threads" which is referring to HT.  Thus both are supported, which is what I take the article to state now (under the last bullet under Pro features). -R. S. Shaw 21:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * R. S. Shaw, thanks for the input. I agree with both you and SchmuckyTheCat that now the wording in the article is accurate, clear and correct. As far as the page I mentioned before, I sent a message to the author to ask for clarifications. He admitted that the original statement was wrong, and corrected it by also adding a reference to http://support.microsoft.com/kb/810231/en-us. BTW, he thanked us Wikipedians for pointing out the error. :) R2S 05:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Build list
An anonymous contributor added this rather lengthy list of Windows XP builds to the article. Such information is of very limited relevance to an article encompassing the most important aspects of the OS... I'm putting the list here so that if someone wants to write something on the development timeline of Windows XP, it could serve as a useful starting point. -/- Warren 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The initial development of Windows XP was before the release of Windows 2000—namely Windows Neptune, it is copied from Windows 2000 codebase. Here's is the timeline of Windows XP. *Early December 1999 - "Neptune" NDAs sent out to testers *December 27, 1999 - Windows Neptune (build 5111)released *March 20, 2000 - Neptune Build 2211 leaked to Net *January 21, 2000 - "Neptune" and "Odyssey" development projects are cancelled (now becomes "Whistler") *April 17, 2000 - Whistler Build 2223.1 leaked to Net *June 30, 2000 - Whistler technical beta begins *July 13, 2000 - Whistler Preview release (Build 2250) introduced visual style named "Professional" and the new Start Menu. *August 24, 2000 - Whistler alpha release(Build 2257) introduced "Watercolor" visual style. *October 3, 2000 - Interim Whistler Build 2267 released *October 31, 2000 - Whistler Beta 1 (Build 2296) *November 13, 2000 - Microsoft mis-announces that Whistler will be called Windows 2001 *January 4, 2001 - Interim Whistler Build 2410 released, replaces early Windows icons with new Windows XP icons *January 16, 2001 - Interim Whistler Build 2416 released *January 23, 2001 - Interim Whistler Build 2419 released *February 5, 2001 - Whistler officially renamed Windows XP; technical reviewers receive private demonstration of Whistler builds 2428, 2432 at Microsoft. Microsoft announces that Whistler desktop versions will be called Windows XP *February 13, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2428 released, introduces "Luna" visual style; Windows XP introduction event at Experience Music Project, Seattle (Build 2432 publicly demonstrated) *March 5, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2446 released *March 23, 2001 - Windows XP Beta 2 (Build 2462a) released *April 23, 2001 - Microsoft clarifies USB 2.0 support in Windows XP *April 26, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2465 released, introduces a new Welcome Screen and the Bliss wallpaper is set by default. *May 12, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2469 released. A group of 160 Windows enthusiasts meet in Redmond for ExpertZone launch *May 24, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2475 released *June 6, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2481 released *June 15, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2486 released *June 21, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2494 released *June 29, 2001 - Windows XP RC1 (Build 2502) released *July 7, 2001 - [ http://www.amazon.com Amazon.com] reveals Windows XP box designs, pricing; both are quickly pulled from site at Microsoft's request *July 24, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2520 released, it was removed the Internet Explorer pinned item in the start menu. *July 28, 2001 - Windows XP Build 2520 assigned as Windows XP RC2 *August 8, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2535 released *August 14, 2001 - Interim Windows XP Build 2542 released *August 24, 2001 - Windows XP RTM (Build 2545) released *October 25, 2001 - Windows XP (Build 2600) released to the retailers worldwide


 * Perhaps, Warrens, you could use this info to start a stub w/ the title "Development of Windows XP", similar to the "Development of Windows Vista" article you started.:-)


 * Consider it done, check it out on Development of Windows XP - Emir214 00:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Service Pack 2b
Why are there no reference to SP2b anywhere in the article? It's show up all over Google and Newegg, but no one knows anything about it. Anyone?

-merv

72.4.160.227 02:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just a new CD with various updates since SP2. 67.85.137.135 20:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead Image
There's a dead image that I created the file: XP Black.png, A 3rd-party visual style via UXTHEME.DLL that I downloaded from deviantART.

Please upload the screenshot from the web: http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?eb35c4dc0d.png

Thanks! --210.5.94.39 13:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit to the article as if you want to upload an image, you should do it yourself, and that involves creating an account for yourself. Also, I don't think the image really adds anything to the article, and I think the text explains the visual styles thing well.  Using fair use images for the sake of using them is a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy.  jd || talk || 13:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't need to create the account in Wikipedia. You can go by upload yourself by clicking the URL above. --210.5.94.39 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand, but I'm not going to. The fact that I think the image violates the eighth fair use criterion aside, you have not provided any licensing information, which is needed for every image uploaded to Wikipedia.  The image also needs a fair use rationale.  I will not upload the image for you, but I can't comment for other people.  jd || talk || 13:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Common criticisms section too large
The "common criticisms" section in this article is rapidly getting out of sync with the main Criticism of Windows XP article. Should the bulk of the content in this section of the article be moved to the "main" criticism article, and a much shorter summary left in its place? --59.167.104.199 14:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Common Sidebar for Windows articles
I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles. Please take a look at it. I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. --Dgies 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tawker
I want to leave you a message about Windows XP but you blocked the talk page, why? unblock please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.249.32.51 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC).


 * The talk page isn't blocked, your account is blocked. See your talk page (and don't just blank it again). Guy Harris 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

what is xp
give definetion of xp


 * "eXPerience. Or, alternatively, "Windows NT 5.1" (except for the x86-64 version, which is Windows NT 5.2). Guy Harris 08:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Service Pack 3
I was just on the Microsoft Update website and notice that they offered Office XP Service Pack 3. Is that anything like the Service Pack discussed in this article? Knight45 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about Windows XP, not Office XP. — Alex (T 09:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Sorry about the delay. I did find out it was for Office XP seconds after I hit the "Save Page" button. Knight45 22:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference 29 to microsoft's website about service pack 3 is no longer working so either a new link needs to be established of the citation removed. User:Pajee 14:11, 16 June 2007 (GMT)

SP1 screenshot - Set Program Access and Defaults
I re-uploaded the PNG screenshot because the prior screenshot is just only a low-quality JPEG screenshot (yuck...!). Please do not revert the screenshot because it is OK. --Jigs41793 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the screenshot you uploaded with a neutral one that doesn't falsely represent Windows XP's visual appearance. Please be more careful of this in the future if you're going to replace screenshots; a low-quality screenshot which accurately portrays the subject is preferred to a high-quality one that doesn't.  Thanks. -/- Warren 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur, screenshots of OS' need to be the default appearance, not a souped up customized view. The shot needs to represent the product in it's "out of the box" form, unless the subject is the customization (e.g. themes, TweakUI, et al). David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Could someone put up something about minimum requirements or recommended system requirements for XP?75.120.202.117 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Domains
I believe that XP home can be made to join a domain, through fairly simple behind-the-scenes configuration. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50 7 January 2007 (GMT).
 * Indeed it can - but it is not meant to and any ability to do so would simply be a 'hack'. It may also be against the license agreement. -Localzuk(talk) 17:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies in Template
I've been browsing through some of the Windows operating system articles, and I've noticed a slight inconsistency in the templates used. For example, this and the Windows Vista article both have the name of the product under the logo, while other articles such as Windows Mobile and Windows XP Media Center Edition have their names on top of the template. I was wondering which of the following is the proper form, so that the others could be changed. --Smoothtofu 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Articles like this one and Windows Vista use the Infobox OS version template, which is intended for specific versions of a line of operating systems. Windows Mobile, Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows etc. usually use Infobox OS 2, since they're more geared towards articles that describe an entire line of operating systems, instead of specific releases.  Windows XP Media Center Edition should be using the Infobox OS version template. -/- Warren 17:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10
I am almost 100% certain that DirectX 10 will not be supported on Windows XP in any form, due to underlying architecture and technology changes in Vista that allow it to function. The statement is also completely unreferenced, and as such, I am removing that sentence. If anybody can add a reference to DirectX 10 on XP, feel free to add it back.

Bigbio2002 02:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. DX 10 is vista only, and will not be backported to XP at all, as announced by microsoft. Darthnader37 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Status
Is Windows XP on current support or on extended support? cause on its support status section it notes "Extended Support Ends In 2014". &mdash; Alastor Moody (T + C + U) 04:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "Current" should have been there. I put it back in. Thanks for pointing that out! -/- Warren 04:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

PowerToys
Should I add a section about the PowerToys for XP? They are not mentioned in the article. See Microsoft's PowerToys website. —Michael 17:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone wrote an article, Microsoft PowerToys. SchmuckyTheCat 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Minimum system requirements
I don't believe there are any indications of what them here...


 * Can someone put up the minimum system requirements for Windows XP? --71.172.57.230 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added the info and reference on the extremely minimal requirements now. Altough the computer is practically unusable at those configurations, it's still interesting information. --The Fifth Horseman 11:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Random things hobbyists do might be interesting but aren't encyclopedic. SchmuckyTheCat
 * I didn't look at the added info (though have seen some site about that), but, although I'd think those “random things hobbyists do” could be encyclopedic, those requirements could be less than the hobbyists could achieve with the hardware available to them.--AVRS 07:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP Registration music
I seemed to notice that alot of people got interested in searching for the music to the Windows XP Registration (registration for new computer or after restoring the system. Should i add a note referring to the location of the music file (which is on every windows xp computer!!!)? if you think it's a stupid idea, fine, i don't care! just wondering so people can stop searching.


 * The merge of the article Windows welcome music has already been suggested. I am certain that is what you are referring to. If no-one else does, I might have a go. --rjcuk 23:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the "registration" screens are called OOBE. SchmuckyTheCat 23:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have merged the articles. Hopefully few people will disagree with the edit under "Trivia" (that's what it is for Windows 95, anyway). Oh, and thanks to SchmuckyTheCat for pointing out that it's OOBE (thus being in the OOBE folder) --rjcuk 23:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Modification to lede
Yes sorry to have modified the lede. didnt knoe it was a features article. I thought they had a star on the page or something. i still think the lead is far too long and turgid though--SlipperyHippo 16:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured article?
If this is a featured article, why is not in the category: Featured Articles?--SlipperyHippo 17:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The category is Category:Wikipedia featured articles.
 * 2) The category goes on the talk page, not the article itself.
 * 3) The category is on the talk page.
 * Harryboyles 12:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Supported until 2014?
Where does this link mention it?77.97.230.248 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)DanZieBoy

Royale Noir
Does the theme hidden in the source code deserve mention? Link. Coolgamer 04:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it interesting to the overall concept of Windows XP, or is it interesting to the .01% of users who futz with themes? SchmuckyTheCat 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already been mentioned on the Energy Blue/Royale theme page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tech Nerd (talk • contribs) 20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Origin of XP
Might it not be that it came from Extreme Programming? -82.131.68.73 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It didn't. SchmuckyTheCat 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Windows Welcome Music
Im gonna put in something about the Windows Welcome Music because otherwise its pointless to redirect Windows welcome music to here.

Wikiman232 00:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the OOBE section. SchmuckyTheCat 00:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not all too convinced about this section at all. Firstly the composer is incorrectly identified as Brian Eno- who did certainly not compose this score. (My guess is that Bill Brown did it - but I'm not sure). But it seems like quite a trivial thing to discuss in the main XP article. Perhaps it should be boiled down to a passing reference? --Christopher 11:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I'm cutting out that section - it seems stupid and out of placeTehniobium 12:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia
This is a stared article...no reason to have a trivia section...so i added the trivia tagging

Tehniobium 00:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And there is a reason not to have a trivia section. For those who think otherwise, see Avoid trivia sections in articles. Considering that two of the three statements have "citation needed" tags, and the third already exists under "User interface", I'm removing the section. Harryboyles 00:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Misread your statement. Corrected above post. Harryboyles 00:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are excused ;-) Tehniobium 12:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

XP/NZ Themes
Took this from article as I found a more appropriate page _> MonstaPro:Talk:Contrib. 14:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP release date
Just noticed that the Windows 2000 and Vista articles use the Release To Manufacturing date as the date they were released. This article uses the retail release date. I'll change it to the RTM date with appropriate cite. If anyone disagrees, let me know here. Smoothy 09:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Windows 2000 article uses the retail release date (Febuary 17, 2000). Josh the Nerd 16:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Josh


 * So it does. My apologies.  Vista doesn't though.Smoothy 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Versions (CD)
Nowhere do I see explained the three types of WinXP CDs - Retail/Corporate/OEM. Note that a Retail CD key doesn't work with the OEM CD, etc. Also, I'm not sure that something like WinXP Home Corporate exists. Info on this should be added. --NakiBest 20:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows XP for specialized hardware
Minor query: this section says 5 versions, then goes on to list siz. Just in case I'm missing something, would someone familiar with the subject check it out and fix if necessary? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Unicode Support?
Perhaps there should be some mention of the level of unicode support. Are there differences in unicode support between versions (e.g. Home, Pro, etc.)? 71.93.238.53 16:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unicode is the native character encoding of Windows XP from the kernel to the UI. Everything else (old apps, etc) is transcoded.  There is no difference between SKUs.  Pro has an advanced feature called MUI to change the interface between languages, and these languages are stored as unicode but that's kind of tangential. SchmuckyTheCat

video card
I'm trying to find out what kind of video card I have. Aside from taking apart the computer, how would I find that out? -- Slyder Pilot 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a how-to or troubleshooting site and this kind of question is inappropriate to answer.
 * However, try this. Open device manager.  Right click the video card and choose properties.  There should be a tab labeled "Details".  Go to it.  There will be an entry for the Ven\Dev (Vendor ID, and Device ID).  It will look like this: PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2592.  Google the Ven\Dev, ignoring anything after the four digit devID. SchmuckyTheCat

MSN Explorer and others
The article lacks information about MSN Explorer bundled by default in RTM version and about Windows Messenger, Windows Media Player 8 (9 in SP2), and .NET Passport integration in users accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.51.78 (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows NT-based quote
Windows XP is the successor to both Windows 2000 and Windows Me, and is the first and last consumer-oriented operating system produced by Microsoft to be built on the Windows NT kernel and architecture. Isn't Vista also NT-based? Taylor 12:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. I changed it to just say first. Josh 16:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Maximum amount of supported RAM
Is the maximum amount of supported RAM for each edition of XP specified in this article? Like what is it for Home and Professional?

features request in SP3
It will be a good idea that on SP3 for windows XP, they remove Windows Messenger, (because is useless),and add the new IE 7 and WMP 10, So you don't have to download those 2 programs. --MarioV 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Service Pack 2 external links...
Do we need so many external links in the Service Pack 2 section..? Isn't to a bit too much? Mugunth 18:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It can do with a bit of pruning. But I don't feel strongly either way. --soum talk 08:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

User Interface
The UI section, has way too many screenshots... I would prefer remove some.. what say? Mugunth 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Its way too many. Royale Noir wasn't officially released. So that should be the first to go. In fact, IMO, the Luna Blue and Royale should be kept. Classic can be viewed in any other windows screenshot. Zune wasn't packaged with any Windows XP version. Luna Blue and Royale are the default themes in XP and MCE respectively. Since we prefer the uncustomozed screenshots, only these two should stay. --soum talk 08:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all the snapshots except, Royale, Luna, classic and Start Menu of Royale theme. Mugunth 12:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)