Talk:Windows XP: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:58, 24 July 2008 editAussieLegend (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers173,395 edits →Themes section: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:42, 19 December 2024 edit undoJohnj1995 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users78,123 edits Undid revision 1263999921 by Yann24317 (talk)Tag: Undo
(873 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header\|bottom=yes}}
	{{talkheader}}
	{{WikiProjectBanners
	\|1={{WikiProject Computing\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	\|2={{WikiProject Microsoft Windows\|class=B\|importance=Top}}
	\|3={{v0.5\|class=B\|category=Engtech}}
	\|4={{WikiProject Software\|class=B\|importance=Top}}

	}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=FAC		\|action1=FAC
Line 49:		Line 42:
	\|action7oldid=212094302		\|action7oldid=212094302

			\|action8=PR
	\|maindate=June 5 2005
			\|action8date=16:48, 21 July 2008
	\|currentstatus=FFA
			\|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Windows XP/archive3
	}}
			\|action8result=reviewed
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|action8oldid=227021197
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav\|noredlinks=y}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 40K
	\|counter = 6
	\|algo = old(45d)
	\|archive = Talk:Windows XP/Archive %(counter)d
	}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn \|target=Talk:Windows XP/Archive index \|mask=Talk:Windows XP/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=no}}

			\|action9=GAN
	{{Peer review\|archive=3}}
			\|action9date=00:36, 10 January 2015
			\|action9link=Talk:Windows XP/GA1
			\|action9result=Not listed
			\|action9oldid=639866004

			\|action10 = GAN
	== SP3 is NOT on automatic updates ==
			\|action10date = 22:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
			\|action10link = Talk:Windows XP/GA2
			\|action10result = Listed
			\|action10oldid = 847379180

			\| action11 = GAR
	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.
			\| action11date = 20:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
			\| action11link = /GA3
			\| action11result = kept
			\| action11oldid = 1083076012

			\|maindate=June 5 2005
	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. --] (]) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
			\|currentstatus=GA
			\|topic=Computing and engineering
			\|otd1date=2004-10-25\|otd1oldid=6880541\|otd2date=2014-10-25\|otd2oldid=630907530\|otd3date=2016-10-25\|otd3oldid=745932526\|otd4date=2018-10-25\|otd4oldid=865688677\|otd5date=2021-10-25\|otd5oldid=1051715250

			\|small = no
	Service Pack is not a must have. ] (]) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
			\|collapse = no
	:Per the article, it will be "automatically pushed out" '''near June/July''' of this year (as you can see in the ). — ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
			\|otd6date=2022-10-25\|otd6oldid=1117864772

			\|otd7date=2024-10-25\|otd7oldid=1253097029
	== Most popular ==
			}}

			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=GA\|vital=yes\|1=
	Is/was XP a most popular OS in the world? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Computing\|importance=High\|software=yes\|software-importance=High}}
	: I believe that it still is (); approximately 73% of online PCs run Windows XP. — ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 02:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Microsoft\|importance=High\|windows=yes\|windows-importance=Top}}
	:: This should probably be mentioned in the lead of the article. Can we find out when (year, month) did XP gained this position? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows\|importance=Top}}

			{{WikiProject Software\|importance=Mid\|computing-importance=Mid}}
	== Themes section ==
			}}

			{{split article\|from=Windows XP\|from_oldid=845041843\|to=Development of Windows XP\|diff=845041843\|date=June 8, 2018}}
	All official (Microsoft made) themes should be displayed (including Royale Noir/Zune), please do not remove them from the page. ] (]) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
			{{User:MiszaBot/config

			\|archive = Talk:Windows XP/Archive %(counter)d
	: Those themes are properly discussed in the ] article. Displaying them in this article without a proper explanation is an excessive use of fair-use images. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> ] ]</span> 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
			\|algo = old(60d)

			\|counter = 5
	:: What do you determine to be a "proper" explanation? They are both explained in the article:
			\|maxarchivesize = 150K
	{{cquote\|In addition to the included Windows XP themes, there is one previously unreleased theme with a dark blue taskbar and window bars similar to Windows Vista titled "]" available for download, albeit unofficially.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.istartedsomething.com/20061029/royale-noir/\|title=Royale Noir: secret XP theme uncovered\|publisher=istartedsomething.com\|date=2006-10-29\|accessdate=2008-04-23}}</ref> Microsoft officially released a modified version of this theme as the "]" theme, to celebrate the launch of its Zune portable media player in November 2006. The differences are only visual with a black taskbar instead of dark blue and an orange start button (instead of very dark blue).<ref>http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=75078</ref>}}
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
	:: That seems proper to me and I don't see that they are any more properly discussed in ]. 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 ] as used in Energy Blue. That's not just excessive, it's inappropriate. --] (]) 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 ] article, so this article presents a better overview of the themes in Windows XP. — ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn \|target=Talk:Windows XP/Archive index \|mask=Talk:Windows XP/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=no}}

			__TOC__
	:::: 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. <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> ]</span> ]</b> 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:
	# Why this is not a more appropriate article than ],
	# 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,
	# 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
	# 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.

	--] (]) 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

			== No mention of SP2 crisis? ==
	: 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! ] 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 ] is very clear in stating that we should not be presenting mere galleries of images. This was an issue on ] 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.

			How is there no mention of Microsoft going into crisis-mode becasue of all the critical bugs and vulnerabilities in XP causing a PR nightmare, and putting all other projects on hold until they could release SP2 with its massive changes, and even mailed out SP2 CDs for free instead of charging a shipping fee like they normally did? I’d add that myself, but I can’t be arsed to track down sources. I’m just surprised this huge event in XP’s history isn’t mentioned. 🤨 ] (]) 13:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
	: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?

			== Add color requirements ==
	: Come on, be realistic.

			In the "System requirements" table, change all three of "] (800 × 600) or over" to "800 x 600 with 16-bit color", and change all three of "1024 x 768 or over" to "1024 x 768 with 32-bit color". ] (]) 12:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
	: 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.

			:you can run windows XP with 8 bit color ] (]) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	: 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 ]. 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. <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> ]</span> ]</b> 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

			== References 159 to 164 are the same ==
	::Your stated reasons for deletion in the edit summary are flawed. You've misinterpreted the policies. ] #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 ] 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 ], 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 ]. 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.

			Can an admin fix it? ] --- ] 17:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
	::One other thing, please ] 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 and 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 ] this article. --] (]) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

			== Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024 ==
	::: 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 ] 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.

			At the top of the page the article says that Windows Neptune was based off of the MSDOS based Windows 98 but it’s actually based off of Windows ME which is based off of Windows NT
	::: 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. ), or if you want to turn the ] 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. <b><span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> ]</span> ]</b> 08:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
			}} ] (]) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

			:me is based on msdos ] (]) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::: "I am very well aware of Misplaced Pages's policies on non-free image use." - You may be aware of them but you've clearly misinterpreted them, as I explained above.
	:::: "Here's the difference between you and me -- I have uploaded quite a number of images, (etc)" - How many images you've uploaded compared to me is completely irrelevant to the issue.
	:::: "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)." - While this is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue, it is an example of how you've misinterpreted what is before you. I've actually uploaded nine, not two, non-free images. One was deleted because it was orphaned after the article in which it was used (which was created by somebody else) was deleted. The other image (]), which you claim was deleted as a copyvio was ''actually'' deleted at my request after I discovered, shortly after I uploaded the image to replace the one that had been deleted as a copyvio, that another version existed. The version that was deleted as a copyvio was uploaded by somebody else.
	:::: "We don't need to explain all the themes that have been released by Microsoft" - That's correct but other editors have agreed that the ones we've listed here do need to be explained. --] (]) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

	== ~~Windows~~ ~~Vista~~ ==		== Out of date ==

			My attention was drawn off-wiki to this broken prose in the Market share section:
	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.] (]) 19:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
			<blockquote>XP still has a double-digit market share in a few countries, such as Armenia at over 50%, at 57%, where Windows 7 was highest ranked,</blockquote>
	: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. --] (]) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
			and after finding where the 57% was originally inserted () and noting that the sentence trails off in information about 2019 and that "under the hood" the referencing is stuck in 2021–22, I eventually made truncating the passage and making explicit that it refers to 2021; and tagging the section as needing an update. The 6 references relating to Armenia all had ref names, but none was reused, so I cut all but the first as superfluous. Most of them, including that one, go to StatCounter; they appear to differ in the period they cover, but all periods are 2021 or earlier, and when I click on the Wayback links (between Wayback outages) I find Wayback is actually serving an archive of the search page, not the specific results. It is possible that someone with JavaScript installed can get to the intended result, so I note this here. But even then, this data is not only excessively about one country, it's badly out of date. I'm surprised the over-focus on Armenia, the undefined time reference of "still", and the clumsy English of "Windows XP got highest ranked for the longest time" weren't flagged at the GAR in 2022. I have not looked at any other sections, but this passage was , the day before the GAR, as I found it today. (Courtesy ping to {{U\|Whiteguru}}.) ] (]) 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

			== The article should mention that Windows XP was launched solely in response to Mac OS X. ==
	== WinXP vs Win9x stability and efficiency ==

			. ] (]) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	"Windows XP is known for its improved stability and efficiency over the 9x versions of Microsoft Windows."

			:{{fact}} ] (]) 19:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	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 ], maybe if Microsoft has ever mentioned this somewhere on their website. ] (]) 11:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
			::Yes, someone should add a few citations if/when the mention is added to the article. ] (]) 19:41, 19 December 2024 (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. --] (]) 11:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
	::Well at least... I hope it wasn't ]'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... ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 13:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:42, 19 December 2024

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

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.

Article policies

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

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

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.

Windows XP has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

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
July 21, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
January 10, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 24, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
April 17, 2022	Good article reassessment	Kept

Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 25, 2004, October 25, 2014, October 25, 2016, October 25, 2018, October 25, 2021, October 25, 2022, and October 25, 2024.

Current status: Former featured article, current good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

Microsoft: Windows High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft 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.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Top-importance).

Microsoft Windows: Computing Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows 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.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Software: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance).

Material from Windows XP was split to Development of Windows XP on June 8, 2018 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.

No mention of SP2 crisis?

How is there no mention of Microsoft going into crisis-mode becasue of all the critical bugs and vulnerabilities in XP causing a PR nightmare, and putting all other projects on hold until they could release SP2 with its massive changes, and even mailed out SP2 CDs for free instead of charging a shipping fee like they normally did? I’d add that myself, but I can’t be arsed to track down sources. I’m just surprised this huge event in XP’s history isn’t mentioned. 🤨 Synetech (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Add color requirements

In the "System requirements" table, change all three of "Super VGA (800 × 600) or over" to "800 x 600 with 16-bit color", and change all three of "1024 x 768 or over" to "1024 x 768 with 32-bit color". 172.59.190.90 (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

you can run windows XP with 8 bit color 50.209.62.201 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

References 159 to 164 are the same

Can an admin fix it? HgO! --- Notify me 17:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

At the top of the page the article says that Windows Neptune was based off of the MSDOS based Windows 98 but it’s actually based off of Windows ME which is based off of Windows NT }} Witherstorm666666 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

me is based on msdos 50.209.62.201 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Out of date

My attention was drawn off-wiki to this broken prose in the Market share section:

XP still has a double-digit market share in a few countries, such as Armenia at over 50%, at 57%, where Windows 7 was highest ranked,

and after finding where the 57% was originally inserted (this 2020 edit) and noting that the sentence trails off in information about 2019 and that "under the hood" the referencing is stuck in 2021–22, I eventually made this pair of edits truncating the passage and making explicit that it refers to 2021; and tagging the section as needing an update. The 6 references relating to Armenia all had ref names, but none was reused, so I cut all but the first as superfluous. Most of them, including that one, go to StatCounter; they appear to differ in the period they cover, but all periods are 2021 or earlier, and when I click on the Wayback links (between Wayback outages) I find Wayback is actually serving an archive of the search page, not the specific results. It is possible that someone with JavaScript installed can get to the intended result, so I note this here. But even then, this data is not only excessively about one country, it's badly out of date. I'm surprised the over-focus on Armenia, the undefined time reference of "still", and the clumsy English of "Windows XP got highest ranked for the longest time" weren't flagged at the GAR in 2022. I have not looked at any other sections, but this passage was the same on April 16, 2022, the day before the GAR, as I found it today. (Courtesy ping to Whiteguru.) Yngvadottir (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The article should mention that Windows XP was launched solely in response to Mac OS X.

. KMaster888 (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

pcuser42 (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, someone should add a few citations if/when the mention is added to the article. KMaster888 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: