Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 27 March 2014

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: Software 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Microsoft: Windows Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Top-importance). Template:V0.5

	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.
[REDACTED]	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 Current status: Former featured article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 25, 2004.

Excessive use of non-free content

This article has previously had excessive non-free images removed. Yesterday it had nine non-free images but, in the past 24 hours an editor has added 10 more. I cleaned up the article, removing all but one of these as none of the images had appropriate FURs but they have since been restored, even adding a gallery for good measure, despite advising the editor at length on his talk page of the problems. His attempts at adding FURs are poor at best, and his edit wars have resulted in me being unable to remove the offending files yet again without breaching 3RR. I have tagged the article appropriately, but little more can be done (at least by me) at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think these images offer little value to the article. We shouldn't add them just to save them from deletion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I agree too. Let's call in an WP:FFD. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know what Gaming&Computing means by "I've explained earlier to another editor that these images are useful but are not being used in any articles". All of the images that are being added, with the exception of the two that he recently uploaded (File:XP Control Panel.PNG and File:XP Welcome.png), are used in articles for which they have appropriate FURs. None have appropriate FURs for this article, including File:Windows Explorer XP.png, File:XP Control Panel.PNG and File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png, which are still in the article. The exception is File:Windows XP - Program Access and Defaults.png, which is already in the "Service Pack 1" section, but which Gaming&Computing keeps adding in his gallery. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Even so, this gallery adds little or no value to the article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree completely, but there's no excuse for including any image without a valid FUR, which excludes File:Windows Explorer XP.png, File:XP Control Panel.PNG and File:Windows Media Center on Windows XP.png as well. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, consensus seems to be against Gaming&Computing's edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on that, I've now removed the three remaining non-compliant images. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

XP's market share in 2013 is... both 39.5% *and* 19.9%?

From the last paragraph above the contents:

As of January 2013, Windows XP market share is at 39.51% (...). As of January 2013, Windows XP market share is at 19.9% (...).

Obviously, one of them is inaccurate, and should be fixed, or, if there are sources claiming either, it should be clarified as such. Callid13 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The W3schools statistics are underestimated. Firstly, the difference between these two market share figures is 20%, which is enormous. Secondly, there is no way that just 19% is XP. It's obviously way more than that. Thirdly, when you search for any information about XP's market share (or any other OS), most news/articles are sourced from Net Applications, which is the site that estimated 39%. Fourthly, W3schools only count figures of visitors to their own site, whereas Net Applications track down figures on the whole World Wide Web. --Gaming&Computing (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Since you apparently didn't bother looking in the archives, here is the link to the relevant discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But nothing says the question can't be opened again. Is there a reference for the claim that "Net Applications track down figures on the whole World Wide Web"? How do they do that? Jeh (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, there's no reason at all why it can't. As I said though, it's unlikely that any site presents a picture that is truly representative, and because every site gathers information differently there are bound to be differences, even significant differences, between sites. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

But 19%? I think that figure is now low enough and different enough that it warrants discounting it. It seems to me that W3schools' info must have a built-in bias - toward people who want info on web coding. That's pretty far from representative of users in general. Web developers are also going to be far more likely than ordinary users to upgrade their operating system. The latter point alone would explain W3schools' surprisingly low figure for XP. Jeh (talk) 09:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the figure is too low too. An organisation that I do work for has tens of thousands of PCs all running WinXP but those figures won't be captured because the computers are generally isolated from the net. I know of other organisations in the same boat. Most of my own customers still use XP. However, our suspicions aren't enough. We have to present data neutrally without personal analysis and unless we can verifiably show that Net Applications data is more accurate than w3schools we can't really discount it. And if we do, it means all the historical data in the article history, from the time w3schools was first added, is useless. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the way windows is sold and used it is not really meaningful to talk about "market share" of different versions of windows and while a concept of usage share clearly exists noone (not even MS) knows what the real ratios are. The only data we have are the versions of windows that various websites (and possiblly applications that phone home) see. None of these are likely to be a representative sample of all windows users so all we can really do is look at multiple sources (ideally more than two) and give a range of estimates of usage share based on them. Plugwash (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Release Date

While the release date is correct, the relative time period given afterwards (11 years ago) is no longer correct. Is there a code capable of automatically giving the difference between the current year or another year? If not I'd recommend the relative time be corrected (or simply removed, the math isn't that difficult.) --128.101.142.152 (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The length is automatically calculated and you can't touch it.

And it is correct. Windows XP is released in October 2001, so in October 2011, it's ten years old. In October 2012, it is 11 years old and in October 2013 (in five month and three weeks), it is 12 years old. Of course, if you had only taken years into account (2013-2001=12), there is no surprise you thought it is wrong. But it isn't.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

why does it even say "years ago"? If I were to look up, for example, the foundation of Rome would it say not just day the date but tell me how many years ago that was? ( just checked, it doesn't.) Funny, it also doesn't tell me how old my 1991 car is, etc, etc. Is the "years ago" think here just to make people who haven't upgraded yet feel like troglodytes or is there a reason for it? Are those who use an old OS the types who need someone to do their math for them while those who care about the foundation of Rome are smart enough to do their own math? 108.249.235.44 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"Years ago" is a function of Template:Start date, which is used per the infobox instructions. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It was decided that it is good idea to add length calculation to time-sensitive articles and I agree. If you think it is a good idea to do it with other time-sensitive articles too, you can consult with a WikiProject or ask about it in the corresponding template talk page. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

End of life

I've re-established the edit I made on 23 march because I consider its reversion to be abusive, as a possible WP:COI. I consider the information I added was highly pertinent and the the accusation that it was off topic as spurious. The information was, I maintain, of interest to anyone looking at this article for information about XP end of life (a hot topic and one which the article already discussed), and a measured and appropriate addition to that information. It contains, in my view, no doubtful statements (indeed this was not given as a reason for reversion) and was appropriately referenced.Upedge (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

One, the cycle is supposed to be WP:BRD: Bold (your edits), Revert (I did), Discuss. Not BRRD: You are not supposed to re-establish your change once discussion has begun, even if you're the one to start the discussion. Two, a whole lot of things could be considered "of interest" to readers of this article. I imagine that for each of them we could find someone who considered it "highly pertinent." But this article is not about Linux, and WP is WP:NOT a "how-to" nor a user guide. Most certainly such information should not go in the lede, as it is not covered anywhere else in this article; the lede is not supposed to include anything that isn't mentioned in the article body. And even if it were covered elsewhere, it is not among the most important points in the article, so it should not go in the lede.Jeh (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jeh. Content that isn't discussed elsewhere in the article shouldn't be in the lead so the Linux stuff shouldn't be there. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I will also add that it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages in WP's editorial voice to make, or appear to make, the suggestion to move to Linux (whether in the lede or otherwise). That is a violation of WP:PROMOTION. You will need to find a RS for that suggestion. Assuming you can get past the rest of the rules about what WP is WP:NOT. Jeh (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

On an unrelated point: I have re-established the consistent use of American English after your reversion. Microsoft is a US company (yes, there are subsidiaries in many other countries, but all policy comes from Redmond) and the article predominantly refers to the company in the singular, as is American English practice. There should not be exceptions. Jeh (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You should arguably not have reverted my edit without discussion. It wasn't abusive and if you had a problem with it then you should have discussed it rather than summarily deleting it. Leaving that aside and dealing with your points one by one:

1. The information does not have a "how-to" nature - no explanation of how to perform any operation is given so this criticism is invalid. Simply raising a possibility does not constitute "how-to".
2. It is true that the main body does not contain further discussion of this point, just as it does not contain any repeat of the previously existing statement "Microsoft advises users to migrate to a newer OS before that date" - I agree with you that the article would benefit from a discussion of the options for update and if/when our discussion reaches an amicable resolution then I will add such a section.
3. You state "this is not an article about Linux" which is clearly the case, however I was not discussing Linux or even its merits and demerits wrt XP (which are doubtless well covered elsewhere). I was adding information about update options, which is information about XP.
4. What I take to be your prime objection, that the information is not pertinent/important, I do not accept. During this end of life period, information about update options seems to me to be both highly relevant and of high importance. In this context not mentioning Linux as a update option would be difficult to defend. In three months time, say, I would agree that the information will no longer merit the prominence that I gave it, but right now it does.Upedge (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that suppression of the option to upgrade to Linux is WP:PROMOTION, and that this is at the heart of this disagreement. I have made no statements about the superiority or otherwise of any option. I seems to me to be obvious that Linux is amongst the reasonable options and thus should be mentioned. The only reason for not mentioning it is WP:PROMOTION of Microsoft.Upedge (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the stylistic edits you made, but removing the "under discussion" content prior to reaching a consensus is abusive and I have reverted that part of the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upedge (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, please. We have had this argument on WP dozens of times before, and yours is the standard response given by Linux advocates when their WP:POV-pushing edits to Windows articles are reverted. "I'm being oppressed!" Your accusation that this just must be about promoting Microsoft fits the pattern too. In fact it is your insistence on including a "move to Linux" recommendation in an article about a particular Windows OS that violates WP:PROMOTION and WP:POV. Articles should be about their subject, not about alternatives to the subject.

I agree that information about Linux as an alternative is pertinent and important to Windows users. But that doesn't mean it belongs in an article that is describing the history and characteristics of Windows XP. Yes, XP users on older hardware have a problem, but problem mitigation is part of being a how-to guide, which WP is not. It would be like an article on an EOL'd car model suggesting other similar cars to consider. Most certainly this suggestion does not belong in the lede, even a way is found to include it in the body. Jeh (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and: Actually, it was your reverting to your version, after my first (and only) revert, that was abusive. Reverting without discussion (the first revert, that is) is the essence of WP:BRD. You should not have reverted to your version after my revert and you should not continue to insist on your changes now (even with a slight reword, and oh, I see it's "notably" now!), prior to reaching a consensus. Jeh (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not being a Linux advocate I'm unfamiliar with your entrenched position (professionally and personally I mostly work on Windows machines), and this edit was prompted by considerations of what to recommend to friends who are faced with this EOL problem with XP. I reasoned that if they had difficulty finding this information then others, including WP readers, would benefit from it. As to pushing WP:POV, you are clearly guilty of it yourself. Why else would you try to suppress what is a very moderate and reasonable edit?Upedge (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You are now using a very standard argument repeated by people who want to include extraneous information: "I thought others would benefit." Well, yes, they might, but "WP readers would benefit from it" is not the sole criterion for including information. Yours is basically an "I like it" argument. The only POV I am "pushing" is my interpretation of WP policy and guidelines: WP is not a how-to guide, and articles should be about their subject, regardless of how interesting some related topics are to some editors. If I seem to be "entrenched" in this it's because I and many other editors think article creep is a bad thing.

And with that I am just repeating what I already said, and which you have ignored once; you are utterly refusing to WP:AGF. So unless you can come up with something besides further accusations of COI or promotion, I'm leaving it at that; I'll wait to see what other editors have to say about it. Jeh (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is a suggested addition to the body of the article to deal with EOL options. Suggestions/corrections welcome.Upedge (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

One risk of continuing to run XP after its end of life arises from the possibility that, as often happens with system software, a vulnerability is discovered. Since the product is no longer supported, Microsoft will not fix such problems, leaving all XP systems vulnerable to attack.

A number of options are available to operators of systems running XP after its end of life is reached.

• Continue to operate XP without support. This might be appropriate for systems not subject to external electronic access (non networked embedded systems for example).
• Purchase a more recent version of Windows. This option will depend on how recent the hardware is as Microsoft has stated that very few older computers will be able to run the latest version, Windows 8.1. Updating to an intermediate version of Windows if available (such as 7) may provide a suitable compromise.
• Replace the system with a newly purchased one.
• Replace XP with some other operating system, for example a member of the free Linux family such as Ubuntu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upedge (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"You should arguably not have reverted my edit without discussion" - No, that's not the way it works. When you make an edit and it's reverted, you shouldn't restore it until there is consensus to add the content and while it is under discussion, the status quo reigns. You don't add something and then have it remain in the article until there is consensus to remove it. The burden is on the editor adding the content to convince others that the content should be added.

"no explanation of how to perform any operation is given so this criticism is invalid" - Again, no. Your edit advocated replacing Windows with Linux. That has nothing to do with Windows XP. It's just as invalid to advocate replacing it with any other operating system, as it would be advocating replacing Linux with any other OS.

"I was adding information about update options, which is information about XP." - No it's not. Linux is irrelevant to this article.

"removing the "under discussion" content prior to reaching a consensus is abusive and I have reverted that part of the change." - That's called edit-warring, which is inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Again, no. Your edit advocated replacing Windows with Linux." That's not a fair characterisation. The point is that it is generally acknowledged (as far as I understand it) that most people will need to replace Windows XP with something. Indeed, the existing article contains the text "and Microsoft advises users to migrate to a newer OS before that date" which is a clear avocation of replacing XP. Given the necessity of replacing XP it is not inappropriate to list all the options, and replacement with Linux is certainly one of those.Upedge (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Linux may well be one of the options, but it's not the only option so it's inappropriate to single it out and especially so in the lead. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The answer here is extremely simple. On Misplaced Pages we report what is in reliable secondary sources. So if the sources out there which discuss migration mention Linux as an alternative, then we do it. If they do not, or if this only represents a fringe minority, then we omit the mention. Elizium23 (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC on End of Life of Windows XP support

There is a dispute about including certain information about End of Life support for Windows XP: should the possibility of migrating to Linux be included alongside Microsoft products? Currently both sides of the discussion accuse the other of pushing a POV. There have been a few reversions without discussion. The disputed edit (at time of writing no longer present in the article) are best seen comparing these versions (the relevant change is the additions to the 4th paragraph of the article).Upedge (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Starting an RfC so early in the discussion is rather premature. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the edits I made keep getting summarily removed, I think it's appropriate. It's also the case that articles of this type tend naturally to attract people with a somewhat ossified POV, and getting outside views will be beneficial. The rfc guidelines say that an rfc shouldn't be posted unless there have been two editors responding to the discussion, and this is the case (three, if we count the revision ignoring the ongoing discussion of user:Codename Lisa as a 'comment'). Still, if people disagree I'm sure they will express their view.Upedge (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
    • The edits weren't summarily removed, there is a long explanation above as to why they were removed. Yes, three editors have reverted your edits, but the point is that the discussion is only 4 hours old. That's why the RfC is premature. --AussieLegend (✉) 22:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hi. The RfC has been terminated because of the absence of RfC question and appropriate sections. Please consider studying WP:RFC before re-opening one. Failing to do so only imposes non-actionable burden on maintenance staff that are volunteers like yourself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I did study WP:RFC before opening this rfc, and it doesn't state that an rfc must be posed as a question. However, I have now changed it to be clearer. You also say that appropriate sections are missing. I have created this section at the end of the discussion as per WP:RFC guidelines. Could you please detail what other sections would you wish to see? Thanks.Upedge (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is now worse. You have added a question that contradicts the diff that you supplied and the RFC still has comment on editor. You cannot fix what is wrong from the foundation. Forget whatever you wrote above, clear your mind and think of the shortest and clearest way (concise way) of proposing exactly what the article must say. Bar everything else (including who said and did what) out. If you need help composing it, consult me on my talk page. I will gladly help you by copy-editing it before inserting it here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide or a provider of advice. This is specifically an article about Windows XP, it is not about promoting other operating systems as alternatives (leave that to actual, OSS-dedicated websites). We are an encyclopedia, not the Free Software Foundation. It is also undue to reference Linux as an alternative in this context, because it is a minority viewpoint. Most people wanting to move away from XP are going to go to 7 or 8 (for the same reason, we can't suggest Vista either. But why would we?) ViperSnake151  Talk  23:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
• A suggested way forward: Upedge, ViperSnake151 is right. Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide or a provider of advice. What I suggest that you do is this: Find reliable sources that suggest what to do when XP support ends and write up a paragraph with citations that reflects the sources. You will find a lot of pages suggesting Windows 7 or 8, so lead with that. Then, and only of you can establish this with citations to reliable sources, apply WP:WEIGHT in an unbiased and neutral manner, keeping in mind that the proper weight for Linux just might be "none at all". Likewise those on the other side should do the same, keeping in mind that the proper weight might be "some mention". It all depends on the sources. Follow them. Also, I highly advise taking Codename Lisa's advice and accept her help. She is one of the best and most trusted editors we have and will steer you in the right direction. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for changes to discuss end of life options

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Unsorted Error: No RfC category specified When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Methodology

Taking the advice of Guy Macon and Elizium23, I researched this topic by googling <what to do when xp support ends>.

To avoid bias I selected the first 6 answers which talked about options (rejecting microsoft.com as likely to be partisan) which gave the following sources:

• PC Advisor article
• www.tomsguide.com article
• The Wall Street Journal article
• computerweekly.com article
• consumerreports article
• PC World article

Much of the article contents are arguably "how-to" in nature, the following being frequently suggested:

• keep anti-virus up to date
• abandon IE
• use limited account

Of the options for upgrading, the following are mentioned (with number of articles mentioning them)

• upgrade to windows 8 if hw capable (6)
• upgrade to windows 7 if hw capable (5)
• buy new hardware (5)
• continue using XP (4)
• move to Ubuntu (3)
• buy Mac or Chromebook (1, WSJ)

In addition, many pros and cons of each option are discussed.

Here is a proposal for which I invite comment.

Proposal

• Split current (as of moment of writing, ie revision 601153011) paragraph 4 into two paras and add:

Customers will be faced with a choice of options to deal with the change.

• Add new subsection under "Support lifecycle" as follows:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upedge (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey (withdrawn proposal)

• Oppose. First, that's very lovely of you, but you forgot to ask community's opinion or even provide a section for it. So, I took the liberty of complimenting it. But as for the proposal, it is against Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal and § Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, without doubt. It may be accepted in Wikibook instead of Misplaced Pages, but it ages and dies rather very quickly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a very lovely person... and thanks for prettying it up. As for the article about what WP is not, I did read it quite carefully before composing the above. Maybe I'm being dim: could you please point me to exactly which phrases of that article you find this proposal in violation of, and why? ThanksUpedge (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "you forgot to ask community's opinion" I don't understand this statement. This proposal was at the suggestion of both Guy Macon and Elizium23, at least according to my understanding of what they said. In what way do you feel that that is incorrect?Upedge (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Excellent Good-Faith effort, but needs tweaking. Instead of something like "for individual customers a number of options are available", something more along the lines of "Reaction to EOL announcement" listing what is in the sources. Things like "Operating Systems and My Little Pony Magazine suggested CP/M and the Abacus as replacements..." Not so much like a how to, but rather more like an encyclopedia reporting what alternatives were suggested. Better still would be "Aperture Science decided to replace all existing XP and Win98 systems with GlaDOS. If written correctly, it will still be relevant years from now as a description of what was decided. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's an excellent work—but not for Misplaced Pages. Now it grossly violates Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not § Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. WP is not a place to go for direct advice on what car to buy when your current one becomes unmaintainable; the same principle applies here. It also violates the principle that articles should be about their subject, not about alternatives. And if it is to be included regardless of these points, then absolutely every advantage and disadvantage must be referenced. Those are evaluations, and it cannot be Misplaced Pages's voice that makes those evaluations. WP can only report others' evaluations, as published in reliable sources. And as a minor point, WP prefers prose to tables. Jeh (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

To be (I hope) more clear: This table is not providing information about Windows XP; it is about options available to users of Windows XP. That's why it violates WP:NOTHOWTO. The difference seems very obvious to me. As Guy Macon said above, some of this could be presented as "reactions to end-of-life announcement", provided each documented "reaction" is referenced. Jeh (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons other have stated. This material isn't appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Really great work though nevertheless you guys. You should save that somewhere, just not here. I like Jeh's idea of a workaround. Zell Faze (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• • Actually it was Guy Macon's idea, not mine. I just added a "me, too". Cheers. Jeh (talk) 21:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Responding to comments (particularly Guy Macon's excellent suggestion) here is a reworked proposal for comment. I've tried to make it as tense neutral as possible so that it will read correctly both before and after the 14th, though some adjustment may be needed.

Upedge (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Hi again. I am opposing for the same reason that I opposed your previous proposal; Misplaced Pages does not cover such subjects, regardless of the format. Besides, what you are doing is inherently systematically biased as mainstream media thrives in publishing sensational stories and currently, presenting XP EOS in doomsday scenario light raises their sale figures. Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Quoting your two references in order:

1. "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not."
2. "Ensure that Misplaced Pages articles are not: ... Journalism ... News reports ... Who's who ... A diary"

Some of the criticism of the proposals I have made seems to be based on the idea that editors should rigorously excise all practical information, but this is not what the guideline says. It talks about tone, not content, and explicitly endorses information about how people do something.

For the second point, could you please explain which category are you suggesting the current proposal fits into, and why?Upedge (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your arguments are gradually becoming an act of gaming the system because:

1. As one of the users explained below, you are just disguising the advisory nature of your discussion, and not just with weasel wording. Since weasel wording entails avoiding attribution, I can simply revert your contribution wholesale per WP:V.
2. At what point did you start to think your sources are even remotely reliable? Articles in credible journals are reliable only when they are secondary sources, not as primary sources. (Journalists are experts in sensationalism not computers. Hence we strip sensationalism when they are secondary.) These sources are saying Windows XP will become vulnerable to malware, while every school child knows that malware protection is what antivirus offers, not Windows Update. How on earth do they know that Windows XP will become vulnerable to attacks? It is against WP:CRYSTAL.
3. Many of your sentences do not have a source at all.
4. Your point of view is biased and non-neutral in that same journals have also published articles from other authors that says Windows XP has received updates for more than a decade and that a good firewall automatically stops most of them anyway. Why not cover them, per WP:NPOV?

What you are writing here is a just frightening account of a doomsday scenario that sensational journals are giving. It is too far from our cherished neutral point of view policy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• .

1. You and others freely, and I would argue incorrectly, accuse me of WP:NOTHOWTO
2. I carefully read those guidelines and come to the conclusion that you are mistaken
3. I quote the relevant passage in support of this argument
4. You accuse me of bad faith

Really?

• You threaten to revert whatever I write on the grounds of WP:V, but I have made no declaration that I intend trying to circumvent the discussion process or taken any action in that direction. In fact I intend to follow due process right to the end. I find your statement strange and worrisome.
• "every school child knows that malware protection is what antivirus offers". This isn't really about technical discussions rather than what sources say, but for the record, while security isn't my particular speciality, this statement seems to me to be wrong. Consider for example. According to what I read this was a weakness that most anti-virus programs did not/do not/could not protect adequately against, particularly in conjunction with IE . There are other examples.
• I did cover the "stay with XP camp". I am quite open to expanding this section, but apart from who was for and who was against, the additional information is mostly about what to do to reduce the probability of problems, and I know your attitude to such information... Personally, I would adore it to be feasible to just continue running XP. I have three impoverished XP system owner friends who are depending on my advice, and "status quo" would be great as far as I am concerned. This was the starting point for this whole exercise in fact.
• As to whether it's all just scare, driven by Microsoft and hardware manufacturers (who have most to gain in all this), I don't know. The opinion of the sources is "on the whole, probably not", but who knows. Either way, to me this is clearly a subject the XP article should cover.Upedge (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support the new version is not a manual or a how to, but an encyclopedic description of how various organizations reacted to the end-of-life. I would even like to see something similar written up for our Windows95/98/ME, Windows NT/2000, and maybe even CP/M and OS/2 articles, assuming that we can find reliable sources from when support ended for those. Note that I am supporting the general idea, not implying that the coverage, wording and references couldn't be improved. For example, I can't believe that I am the only one who has thought of running Windows Server 2003 R2 (EOL: July 14, 2015) as a desktop to extend the life of XP systems a bit longer. (I work with some systems that are connected to factory automation, and the high cost of a 2003 R2 license is small compared to the cost of downtime). And what about using XP on a virtual machine, running only the rare XP-Only application? No sources talk about that? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC) (edited 03:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC))

• Whoa! Dude, chill! We don't write original fantasy either. But I do agree that writing such a thing for past versions of Windows is okay because it would be reporting the facts, not a CRYSTALized how-to. Oh, and by the way, Windows Server 2003 has a different kernel, more similar to Windows Vista. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please look at the entries for Windows XP 64-bit Edition (IA-64) and Windows Server 2003 in the first table (Windows timeline: Table) at Timeline of Microsoft Windows#Timeline of releases. Also see http://www.robvanderwoude.com/ver.php

And reporting what reliable sources say about XP EOL is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

"Windows Server 2003 R2 is essentially Windows XP Server, and while the Windows XP end of life date is April 8, 2014, the end of life for Server 2003 R2 comes 15 months after that: July 14, 2015. Since they are roughly the same OS, based on the same kernel, it's likely that anything you require XP for will work on Server 2003 R2 -- and that will buy you more than a year to figure things out." --Guy Macon (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH! You are assuming that ver outputs kernel version number. How on earth do you call an SMP+clustering kernel same as XP's? Oh, my God, just the amount of nonsense I see above is enough to make Mark Russinovich die from laughter! I can't believe I am actually talking to an experienced editor. Definitely take a chill pill. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your personal comments and snide remarks are not welcome. Please stick to verifiable facts, not insults. I gave my source. It says "Windows Server 2003 R2 is essentially Windows XP Server". A direct statement by a reliable third-party source. Not WP:SYNTH. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

First, about the factual inaccuracy: According to Windows Internals, 4th ed., page 48-68, Windows Server 2003 is indeed different from Windows XP. I also know that Microsoft had to change Windows XP kernel with SP2 because it initially supported only two CPUs while quad core CPUs looked like eight CPUs to Windows XP. Microsoft had to define sockets and threads for CPUs.

Second, you made a totally irrelevant comment, provided a bogus source and claimed that it is reliable while it fails verification; someone pointed it out. As much as I hate agreeing with Codename Lisa, I think you must bite the humble pie and refrain from resolving to such underhand tactics as pulling the WP:NPA card in a discussion that is not going anywhere. (Because she commented on your message, not yourself.) If anything, it is your irrelevant discussion that is unwelcome. We expect from a DRN volunteer to be able to keep his head, accept his mistake or agree to disagree and not make a scene. Fleet Command (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think "Oh, my God, just the amount of nonsense I see above is enough to make Mark Russinovich die from laughter! I can't believe I am actually talking to an experienced editor. Definitely take a chill pill." is "commenting on my message, not on myself", I can only say that I respectfully disagree. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recall seeing any mention of Windows Server 2003 R2, but there was considerable talk of virtualisation. I could certainly add something about that, though I was concentrating more on the aspect of individual users than the business ones, and I didn't see it recommended for them.Upedge (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Strong opppose. This is a how-to disguised by weasel words like "many commentators", "impossible for many", "considerable press comment". But the disguise is not perfect as sometimes, it shows itself in the form of "suggested by some" and "The Wall Street Journal's suggestion". Any attempt to resolve the weasel words would yield a perfect How-to guide. Example: "Any compatibility problems could be explored " The first person worth his salt to see this in the article will convert it to "any compatibility problems must be explored", revealing its how-to nature. We have WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL issues in large magnitudes. Fleet Command (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I find your criticisms completely without merit for the following reasons:

The methodology I used to research this topic are documented above. It is based on taking the first 6 topics of a google search that dealt with the subject. This was done to try to reduce bias. The phrases I chose were a function of the number of articles that mentioned an option, as you will see documented if you care to read it above.

• "many commentators" was used for 4 out of six, which seemed to me a reasonable phrase to use and still does
• "suggested by some" was used for exactly half the sample, so it might be criticised as under selling the true number but not of mustela tendencies.
• "considerable press comment" has a less numeric basis, but of the 300 million hits claimed by google I did check out results 990-999, 9 out of the 10 were still on topic. In addition, of the 6 hits I looked at, 5 were for magazines that are currently or have previously been published on paper. I would not be against changing the word "considerable" to something considered more appropriate, but that accusation that it is "weasel" seems to me baseless.
• "impossible for many" was based on the statement by Microsoft in the provided reference that "Very few older computers will be able to run Windows 8.1". For all I know the statement may not be true, but if weaseliness there be it is Microsoft's, not mine.
• Your comments about "how-to" seem to be based on your misunderstanding of the WP guidelines. See my response to Codename Lisa above.
• The process I adopted was designed to expose any WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL bias, and what it revealed is that the suggestion to move to Ubuntu is definitely mainstream. If you don't accept this then it is a question of your prejudices, not mine.
• "... may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source" is part of what WP:WEASEL says, and as I have shown my use was, at the very least, reasonable and supported. If anyone has any suggestions for better phrasing then I am certainly listening.Upedge (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• I read your message and frankly, I have seen automated spambots post more coherent messages in my blog. I am not even pretending to have understood it. So, I tell you what: I will stick to my strong oppose. Fleet Command (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you feel that your position will withstand outside scrutiny then you are certainly within your rights to maintain it.Upedge (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• Right now we are at two support, two oppose (with the usual assumption that Upedge supports something Upedge wrote). --Guy Macon (talk)

• Right now we are at five oppose, two supports and clear policy violations. And we work on consensus, not vote count, remember, DRN guy? Fleet Command (talk) 23:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Date in the First Paragraph

The extended support date in the first paragraph is stated as April 14th, 2014 when it hasn't changed from April 8th. I'm not sure who made that edit but it's wrong and contradicted later in the article. Can someone who has editing access fix that please before netizens go into a panic because[REDACTED] says one thing and all the news outlets are saying another? JsyBird2532 (talk) 6:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

1. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/default.aspx?LN=en-us&x=17&y=9&c2=1173. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Top-importance Computing articles
• B-Class software articles
• Top-importance software articles
• B-Class software articles of Top-importance
• All Software articles
• All Computing articles
• B-Class Microsoft articles
• Top-importance Microsoft articles
• B-Class Microsoft Windows articles
• Top-importance Microsoft Windows articles
• WikiProject Microsoft Windows articles
• WikiProject Microsoft 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
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment