Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:48, 24 July 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows XP article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Windows XP is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 10, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 29, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted December 21, 2005 Featured article review Kept January 23, 2008 Featured article review Demoted May 13, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

SP3 is NOT on automatic updates

Since a number of people have edited the article claiming that SP3 is available through automatic updates I thought I'd copy information I posted earlier into this new section at the bottom of the page so it's easier for people to see.

SP3 is NOT available as an automatic update yet. When you visit Windows Update or Microsoft Update it is offered to you as a "preferred" manual update. You can skip the update if you wish. This is not an automatic update! "Automatic updates" or "Automatically pushed out" means that it will be distributed automatically to your PC just as security updates are. For most people with Automatic Updates turned on, this will mean that one day they'll discover that their PC has mysteriously changed to Windows XP Service Pack 3. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Service Pack is not a must have. 129.252.131.58 (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Per the article, it will be "automatically pushed out" near June/July of this year (as you can see in the reference). — Wenli  05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Most popular

Is/was XP a most popular OS in the world? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it still is (reference); approximately 73% of online PCs run Windows XP. — Wenli  02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This should probably be mentioned in the lead of the article. Can we find out when (year, month) did XP gained this position? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Themes section

All official (Microsoft made) themes should be displayed (including Royale Noir/Zune), please do not remove them from the page. Doshindude (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Those themes are properly discussed in the Energy Blue article. Displaying them in this article without a proper explanation is an excessive use of fair-use images. -/- Warren 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you determine to be a "proper" explanation? They are both explained in the article:

That seems proper to me and I don't see that they are any more properly discussed in Energy Blue. The purpose of the images here is to provide a comparison of all of the various "official" themes, including Luna and Windows Classic, which can't properly be done in Energy Blue because that article should focus on Energy Blue. This is a more appropriate article for an overview of the themes and since they are properly discussed, the images should be restored. As for excessive use of fair-use images, there is currently no fair use rationale for Image:Windows XP Royale.png as used in Energy Blue. That's not just excessive, it's inappropriate. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

All six images used in the "User interface" section contain fair-use rationales. The "Luna" theme as well as the classic theme are not discussed in the Energy Blue article, so this article presents a better overview of the themes in Windows XP. — Wenli  05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is NOT an acceptable answer. The fact that the images have a fair-use rationale doesn't mean we can go using them on articles where it's not appropriate. Royale Noir and the Zune theme were not released as part of Windows XP; in fact, Royale Noir wasn't released at all, and the Zune theme has never shipped with Windows XP. For this reason, including them in this article is not acceptable, as they do not depict something that is a part of the operating system itself. I realise people have some difficulties understanding this, but it's really vitally important that we use an absolute minimum of non-free content in the encyclopedia. This is more important than creating a gallery of all the available themes for Windows.

AussieLegend especially -- please don't fight this. Fighting in favour of greater use of non-free content on the encyclopedia is extremely bad form. Warren -talk- 00:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(Resetting indent) Regardless of your opinion, each of the images have valid fair use rationales for use in this article and their use here is entirely appropriate for reasons already explained so there's no reason why they can't be used. So far, it's your explanations that have been unacceptable. You obviously don't want them but there are at least three other editors (four including the person whop originally added them) who oppose you and, so far, none who support you. Clearly consensus is against you so in order to implement your changes you need to explain better why they shouldn't be used. I'm going to reinsert them until you do.

You could start by explaining:

1. Why this is not a more appropriate article than Energy Blue,
2. Why the explanation here is not adequate when they are more fully explained here than in the Energy Blue article, which should concentrate on Energy Blue and not on other themes,
3. Why images that have appropriate fair-use rationales for this article can't be used in this article (reference to policy would be nice), and
4. Why the fact that the themes in question weren't actually released with Windows XP is relevant. Technically, service packs fall under this category. These are all Microsoft created themes created for Windows XP which is the subject of this article.

Please don't delete the images again and then disappear as you've done previously, expecting others to take your word as gospel. You need to discuss this issue.

--AussieLegend (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a shit if they have fair-use rationales, AussieLegend. I also don't care about whether they're used in other articles. What matters is that THESE IMAGES DO NOT PORTRAY SOMETHING INCLUDED IN WINDOWS XP, and that WE MUST OBEY ALL PARTS OF THE FAIR-USE POLICY. I don't understand why you're fighting this -- this is an issue of following Misplaced Pages policy, something I'd have otherwise assumed you would be familiar with by now! WP:FU policy, part 3, is very explicit in stating that we do not use multiple non-free items if one will suffice. WP:FU part 8, is explicit in stating that the images must significantly increase the understanding of the topic. Screenshots of themes that are not shipped with Windows XP, and indeed one that was not shipped at all, are not needed to describe Windows XP. We already have two screenshots depicting operating system themes, which is fine because there are two distinct themes that have shipped with Windows XP -- anything more than that and it's becoming a gallery. Misplaced Pages's image usage policy is very clear in stating that we should not be presenting mere galleries of images. This was an issue on Windows Media Player in December, and now all those extraneous images are gone -- and yes, most of them had fair-use rationales. I know this because I added the rationales to many of those images myself.

This article is about Windows XP, not "themes released in conjunction with a portable media player for Windows XP by Microsoft", or "themes that Microsoft didn't release but someone managed to pilfer from them and post on the Internet anyways". In the grand scheme of a summarised description of Windows XP, from its inception in 1999 to its dominant status in the mid-2000s, to its present state in 2008, is this really vitally important? Does it "significantly increase readers' understanding of (Windows XP)"? Would the ommission of the Zune theme make it difficult to understand the concept of visual themes in Windows XP?

Come on, be realistic.

This article doesn't do enough to cover the new features of Windows XP, nor does it cover sales figures over time, nor does it contain any kind of positive reviews, nor does it cover the advertising campaigns that were devised. But it has a whole paragraph on a stolen theme released by a third party, and a theme released in conjunction with a portable media player -- neither of which have been included in a release of Windows XP.

If you're going to carry on demanding that we break Misplaced Pages's policy on image use, I will go ahead and write you up at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. I don't want to do that, because it's a waste of time I could be spending improving the encyclopedia instead of protecting it from people that can't be bothered to follow the letter and the spirit of our image usage policy. Please don't force me into that. Accept that I'm arguing this with you for a very good reason, not because I feel like arguing. Let it go. Warren -talk- 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Your stated reasons for deletion in the edit summary are flawed. You've misinterpreted the policies. WP:NFCC #3 states "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." It's not possible to replace all of these with a single item because there isn't a theme that combines all of them. There simply isn't a single item to replace them. #3 further states "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." This clearly doesn't apply. Each shot is only a portion of the work (Windows XP). #8 states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The use of these images significantly increase reader's understanding. It's not possible to easily explain all of the differences without turning the article into War and Peace. Your reference to the gallery restriction is similarly flawed. For a start, the images aren't a gallery. Yes, the images are grouped together but they are in a table, not a gallery and they are presented as such to provide comparison between the different themes with explanatory text just to the left of them covering the various themes. As for your threat to write this up on WP:CP, rather than try to force my opinions on others by bludgeoning edits into the artcile based on misinterpretations, I've already raised the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#"Overuse" of non-free images - need some guidance. So far there's been a limited response. One editor supports the inclusion of all of the images while another supports inclusion of the images you object to.

One other thing, please be civil in your edit summaries and talk page comments. There is no need to resort to profanities in edit summaries and "I don't give a shit" is inappropriate language on the talk page. Threats are bullying, as evidenced in your edits, are far worse. Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, whether you like it or not. You don't own this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am very well aware of Misplaced Pages's policies on non-free image use. Here's the difference between you and me -- I have uploaded quite a number of images, and in conjunction with User:Themodernizer got tags, rationales, categories and Wikiproject templates onto just about every Windows-related image on the encyclopedia. What've you done in this area? You've uploaded exactly one non-free image in your entire two-and-a-half career on Misplaced Pages (and one other that got speedy-deleted as a blatant copyright violation). And yet, you tell me that I don't understand Misplaced Pages's non-free image policy? You have some damned nerve. You want me to be civil towards you? Start by not questioning my judgement on something you have absolutely no experience with! That sort of shit pisses me off.

Look. We don't need to explain all the themes that have been released by Microsoft, or by other people, for Windows XP, in the Windows XP article. That is an astoundingly stupid idea. It's just not that important of a topic to merit greater mention than the other things that the article is currently missing! If you want to write an article listing all the themes that have been released (and Microsoft has released several other themes besides the Zune one. See here for starters), or if you want to turn the Royale (theme) article into such a list, go for it... I think that's a fine idea. But making a gallery of themes that includes non-Microsoft and non-Windows XP themes? No. Not here. Warren -talk- 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista

As is, the article mentions the movement to retain Windows XP rather than upgrade to Windows Vista in the introduction, but doesn't explain the reasons for this movement in the body of the article itself. I think that this is very important, particularly right now, and that it should be addressed, either with its own section or a summary and a redirect to the appropriate article, if such exists on Misplaced Pages already. I would do it, but I don't understand enough about the fine points of computers to do it justice, particularly because I don't have any problems with Windows Vista.Kleio08 (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misread the introduction. It doesn't mention the movement to retain XP. Rather it simply says that although Windows XP is no longer sold it is still possible to obtain copies. That's as far as this article really needs to go. Discussion of the movement to retain Windows XP is problematic at best because there are far too many reasons why someone might wish to stay with XP rather than purchase Vista and they really have no relevance to this or the Vista article. I'm not aware of an article that compares the two systems. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WinXP vs Win9x stability and efficiency

"Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over the 9x versions of Microsoft Windows."

Is this common sense? The "Fact" tag was removed with the explanation that this is common sense. I don't think so, who said that Windows XP is always more stable and efficient than windows 9x? Please provide a reference that meets Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources, maybe if Microsoft has ever mentioned this somewhere on their website. Showpaper (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with the person who removed the tag. It's extremely well known that XP is more stable than the 9x versions. Anyone who has used Windows knows it. Regardless, it actually took me longer to replace the tag with citations than it did to find and review them. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well at least... I hope it wasn't Steve Ballmer's IP address... References are needed. Maybe it is extremely well known today that XP is more stable than 9x, but I don't everyone will remember that forever. In the next 10 years or so, when XP's popularity has decreased to 5-10%, many people might not even know what Windows XP is, and even less of them knows why XP was better than previous versions Windows... Showpaper (talk) 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I know some users don't trust IP addresses as much as regular users, but this case is now settled and I hope you don't see more problems with this excessive lack of references. Pleaceman (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that won't be remembered in 5-10 years but that doesn't mean we need to provide references for all of them. Uncontroversial claims (The moon orbits around the Earth, the earth is not flat, Windows XP is more stable than Windows 98) don't generally need references. In this case it would have taken less effort to find appropriate citations than it did to explain why you restored the {{fact}} tag. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's "well known" now doesn't mean that it will be well known in 100 years - unlike the example given of the moon orbiting the earth. More to the point, it might be well known but it is an opinion. There is no one single, scientific measure of a system's "stability" - does that mean system uptime (not particularly useful since most consumer desktops aren't on 24/7), does it mean the frequency of "blue screen" errors (again not particularly useful as in relation to Vista it was shown that most of the early bluescreens were actually nVidia's fault rather than Microsoft's)? When we're dealing with subjective (even if widely-held) opinions like this, we state the opinion and cite reliable sources where this opinion is expressed. Cynical (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure about assuming the moon will still be orbiting the Earth in 100 years. Up until just over two years ago it was a fact that Pluto was still one of the 9 planets of the solar system. My point is that whether or not it will be remembered in 5, 10, 100 or even 1000 years is irrelevant as to whether or not something gets a citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

1. "Royale Noir: secret XP theme uncovered". istartedsomething.com. 2006-10-29. Retrieved 2008-04-23.
2. http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=75078

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Top-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Requests for peer review