Talk:Windows XP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as Top-importance).
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Former featured article 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2005.

Release Date[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 Wikipedia 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[edit]

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)
  • Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Edited 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for changes to discuss end of life options[edit]

Should the article on Windows XP discuss options for dealing with the ending of support?

This discussion would benefit from brief comments from non-specialist editors (though of course more thorough consideration would be very welcome).Upedge (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Methodology[edit]

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:

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[edit]

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey (withdrawn proposal)[edit]

  • 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal and § Wikipedia is not a newspaper, without doubt. It may be accepted in Wikibook instead of Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. Now it grossly violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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[edit]

  • Oppose. Hi again. I am opposing for the same reason that I opposed your previous proposal; Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)
  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 [ms04-028] 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 [see here for a discussion]. 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."[1] --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)
Upon reflection, I am going to WP:IAD and unwatch this page. I prefer a page with a calm, measured discussion based on logic and evidence to a page where sarcasm and snide remarks are the norm. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
32-bit Windows XP and 32-bit Windows Server 2003 are different (build 2600 vs build 3790). But XP for x64 and Windows Server 2003 SP1 for x64 share the same kernel. See Mark Russinovich’s own blog here:
“The operating system version number reported on 32-bit Windows XP is 5.1, but 
since 64-bit Windows XP shares the same kernel as 64-bit Windows Server 2003 SP1”
He doesn’t seem to be “dying with laughter” there.
There is by the way a long history of this commonality. In fact 32-bit Windows XP and Server 2003 are more the exception than the rule. For other than those versions, the “client” and corresponding server products share the same kernel and other core OS files. Windows 2000 Professional shared its kernel with Windows 2000 Server (all editions), and Windows Vista SP1 shared its kernel with Windows Server 2008 etc. Mark Russinovich was one of those who wrote about this early on. See for example here. The server product just has a lot of additional components to implement server-like functions.
Re “SMP”, the NT-based OSs all use an SMP scheduler, with support for up to 32 CPUs everywhere except the product limit enforcement code, since Day One (NT 3.1). That the client versions refuse to acknowledge the existence of more than two CPUs (more than two CPU sockets, ever since XP SP2) is irrelevant.
As for clustering support, that is an add-on (Microsoft Clustering Service, MSCS). It operates as a couple of user mode services. The fact that you can’t install MSCS on a Windows client SKU is not indicative of kernel differences.
The hyperthreading-related changes in XP SP2 were to properly count and identify hyperthreaded CPUs and cores in multicore CPUs. Again, the kernel scheduler has always been 32-way SMP (64-way on earlier 64-bit versions, now 256). But XP, like all the client products, had a two CPU limit. In the early days it would count a machine with two hyperthreaded cores as four CPUs (correct) and then only use two of them. The changes to fix this were not in what I would call the kernel, certainly not in the thread scheduler, but rather in the boot code that identified the hardware. In XP SP2 they changed the HAL code to read the ACPI tables to learn the topology. So XP XP2 and later are limited to two CPU sockets, but each socket can have more than one core, and each core can be hyperthreaded, without bumping into the license limit (until they come up with CPUs that support dual-socket platforms and have more than 16 cores!).
There is support in XP SP2 and later to intelligently use hyperthreaded and multicore (even if not hyperthreaded) CPus, but this was not new with XP SP2. In fact it was first used back in Windows 2000 Server, to support things like the Unisys ES7000. NUMA-aware scheduling and memory allocation is part of this as well. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
It appears that I was not careful enough in expressing my extreme disagreement with Guy Macon and my message have become a personal attack. I am sorry for that and I apologize. In the meantime, another user's comment seems to have aggravated to situation, which is again my fault as much as his and I am sorry for that too. Nevertheless, whether it is just a colossal failure to recognize a personal attack or a more elaborate attempt to canvass me into a display of old hostility, I refuse to be part of it.
As for this side discussion, I believe the statement "X is essentially Y" must be banned from Wikipedia because "essentially" is either a peacock term or a weasel word. But Windows Server 2003 is not a viable alternative for Windows XP because:
  1. It lacks System Restore, Fast User Switching and Security Center
  2. It does not have the same bundled drivers as Windows XP (It comes with just a handful of sound card drivers)
  3. It has strict security settings set; e.g. DEP and IE-ES are both enabled and likely give the user hard times
  4. Microsoft Security Essentials won't run on it
  5. It won't let the user shut down the computer without a challenge through Shutdown Event Tracker
  6. Simple File Sharing is absent
  7. Windows Media Player v11 won't run on it
  8. DirectX hardware acceleration is disabled by default
  9. It is pricy and very difficult to license (Not a problem for pirates)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
All valid differences. (As an "internals person" I tend to focus on the core OS.) And there is another issue, one that is similarly significant for those who might consider 2003 as a migration path from XP: Besides MSE, a fair amount (how's that for a weasel phrase?) of third-party security software, like anti-virus software, won't run on the Server products. Not because they couldn't, but because the installer says "oh, this is a Server! You need to buy our anti-malware product for servers!" ... which of course costs more, much more. (I just went through this.) Similar issues apply to things like the sound card drivers: Technically speaking any driver that works on XP should work on Server 2003, so one should be able to get the XP driver from the hardware manufacturer and go. But their installers or the driver code itself might check "am I running on a Server?" and refuse to run. Jeh (talk) 22:02, 29 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 [~snip~]" 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)
  • What is it about XP that causes Wikipedia editors to make snide comments? Is it Balmer? Are you trying to emulate Balmer?[2][3][4]
"Two support, two oppose" is not a count of votes. It is a count of those who have posted arguments with Support or Oppose in front of them -- a measure of consensus commonly used on Wikipedia. You do not get to count anyone who has not bothered to make a support or oppose comment, and the count of those who have (with the usual assumption that Upedge supports something Upedge wrote) is currently two to two. If you think that there are another three editors with oppose positions, I suggest that you ask them to post a proper response to the survey.
Also, I find the argument for policy violations to be far from compelling. Perhaps if the argument was made in a calm, logical manner instead of through belittling those who dare to disagree it might be more convincing. In other words, more light and less heat, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I am going to WP:IAD and unwatch this page. I prefer a page with a calm, measured discussion based on logic and evidence to a page where sarcasm and snide remarks are the norm. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose: All of the problems with this version have already been mentioned. Do I really need to reiterate them further? ViperSnake151  Talk  04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support as assumed above, unsurprisingly, since I proposed it.
What worries me in this conflict is that I do not believe there would have been any objections if the information content had been "Everyone has upgraded to Windows nnn through a free update program". It seems to me that the objections are to what the content says, not truly to the way it's expressed: that some editors do not want people to read that migrating to Ubuntu provides a possible resolution of their problems. I am not an unconditional fan of Linux (which I only use occasionally myself), but I am a fan of Wikipedia and am prepared to fight against what I see as the ill motivated stonewalling encountered here, where for example one editor maintains a strongly oppose view, but openly declares he does not intend to take the trouble to try to understand the points the other side makes.Upedge (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"Everyone has upgraded to Windows nnn through a free update program" would require a reference. So for that matter would "Everyone affected has moved to Linux." I can't imagine anyone here opposing either statement, provided it was referenced. But as for the actual proposals: I can't speak for anyone else here but I TELL YOU THREE TIMES: my objections were absolutely not based on any desire to suppress information about Linux. And your repeated accusations along that line are blatant flouting of WP:AGF. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support A balanced, concise, encyclopedic presentation of the options, that will useful to readers of this article. Lentower (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is still a guide - "how to fix your system" (for some definition of "fix"). That it may be WP:USEFUL to many WP readers is not a compelling argument; certainly WP content should be useful, but there are a great many things that would be useful but are not suitable for inclusion on WP. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Related RfC[edit]

I have started an RfC (which the bot should pick up soon) on a related question, which may be of interest to editors who responded here. Upedge (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Another one? How many RfCs do we need on essentially the same thing, and why is it at your user page when it affects this article? --AussieLegend () 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Another one, because the previous one didn't reach any consensus and I felt asking a different question might contribute to this. My user page at the suggestion of Guy Macon. I don't know his reasons for this suggestion, but I have followed it because I felt I had cluttered up this space enough, unless and until there is a clear reason for coming back here. I added the above mention in case people who have commented before wish to comment again. Upedge (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the problems with the above RfCs is that they were reworded, closed, opened, reoworded and eventually closed again. They're confusing to anyone who hasn't been involved, and probably to anyone who has. If my count is right, there have now been at least 4 RfCs in only 7 days. That's excessive and really, it's abusing the RfC process. Opening an RfC on your talk page is pointless because it won't have any effect. RfC's aren't binding and, even if there is support on your talk page, you still need to get consensus here for any edits. --AussieLegend () 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You start RfCs at the wrong place, at the wrong time and for the wrong reason. As I explained in your talk page, the old RfC reached a natural end when ViperSnake151 implemented a version of your RfC topic which did not face community opposition. Calling an RfC is like calling everyone in a village to a compulsory meeting. You must not call an RfC everytime you want to change a dot. Work the details out at the article level or discuss with Viper first if needed. You won't even need a WP:3O is you know the basics of negotiation. RfC is for the most grave problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong Date in the First Paragraph[edit]

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 wikipedia says one thing and all the news outlets are saying another?[1] JsyBird2532 (talk) 6:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Security announcement. Reverted - breaking the rules.[edit]

Take a look at the hatnote that was reverted. Update: Or this new (after first two comments) and improved version (for placement somewhere):

Windows XP is End-of-life as of April 8, 2014. Users are advised to "immediately" stop using it;[2][3] in case usage is continued the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) advises migrating from all versions of Internet Explorer (IE), to competing browsers, as no IE version is supported on XP.[4]

It might however be justified at least on this page. This information should be front and center. About 430 millions of PC users (about 27% af all) will be on unsupported operating system and soon unsecure (66% estimated increase in malware by Microsoft's prediction), risking e.g. Internet banking/e-commerce. When the Department of Homeland Security (US-CERT) and others also say it's irresponsible to use IE on XP I do not think we should bury the information on an unsupported system under "Support lifecycle" or last in history section. All of the article will really be a history section in three days. Then (and really now) this will be the most important information in the article.

If this were let's say Windows 95 that is EOL/unsupported, that is just a historical curiosity by now, it wouldn't matter as much as there are close to zero users. Here I think it is justified at least for some time under WP:Ignore all rules and WP:Hatnote: "though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

For the Internet Explorer (IE) article, some of the those IE versions just about to be unsupported on XP will however be supported on newer versions of Windows. Thus it is less clear that this information is relevant to all readers of that article. Same with the Windows article (not sure if people look up that article or the more specific version one).

See also Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#Misuse of hatnote? comp.arch (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection resource. You've attempted to use the hatnote format in a manner fundamentally inconsistent with its accepted purpose (and Wikipedia's).
Likewise, an article's talk page is intended to contain information about (and discussion of) the article itself, not its subject, so this talk page would not be an appropriate venue for such an announcement.
WP:IAR is about setting aside rules when they interfere with Wikipedia's mission, not when we feel like pursuing some other goal instead. —David Levy 00:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi.
I am afraid I have to side with AussieLegend: Your edit suffers from systematic bias and grossly violates our neutral point of view policy. This coverage is neither fair nor proportionate. You basically tried to convert the article into an advertising device for Microsoft's point of view. Actually, for the sake of being friendly, I am keeping the intensity of my message way down.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, did not intent to "help" Microsoft. Of course Microsoft wants you to upgrade to a newer Windows (couldn't "upgrade" mean Linux? :) I would say that would be an upgrade..). Just thought saying Microsoft wants you to "stop using XP" would be more WP:NPOV. Leaving the placement aside, the Microsoft bit (and US-CERT) are both sourced so they belong in the article. In the lead then? The US-CERT bit on its own (in an hatnote or otherwise) might also have been WP:NPOV. Both together seemed not too me, was trying to be very careful.. I would want both together, leaving aside where can you include the language? comp.arch (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Note that a dispute regarding the inclusion of US-CERT's advice arose last month, so it's good that you're discussing this with Codename Lisa now. —David Levy 01:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Patience is one the sacred virtues of an Encyclopedia writer; when you write an Encyclopedia article, you must always assume you are writing it for the people of 100 years in the future. Every time you try to write something that is only suitable for the next five days, you'll find Wikipedia policies all rise up to block your way. (Well, it is deliberate, isn't it?)
Now, US-CERT's modus operandi is shoving people towards the most secure product by whatever means necessary. Microsoft's primary incentive is monetary gain, but also has a policy of pushing newer or more secure versions. (Note that "shoving" means "aggression" and "haste".) Wikipedia does not shove. It just reports, fairly, proportionately and as far as possible without bias all significant points of views on the subject; something that is in direct conflict with what the other two do. If you are worried for those who are using Windows XP, they are far safer than what you think.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Safe for now. One last security update in the pipeline. I know nothing magical happens at the EOL-time, but in case Microsoft doesn't make an exception it only takes one zero day exploit and hundreds of millions of users are very unsafe. I'm assuming XP users use IE "that is part of the operating system". Could even be IE6: "Service Pack 3 can be installed on systems with Internet Explorer versions 6, 7, or 8". comp.arch (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It is an inappropriate way to do so (Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia, not Microsoft support website or a news website), plus I also consider it a violation of "no disclaimers in articles". ViperSnake151  Talk  15:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
About "only suitable for the next five days". Latest addition will only be more relevant as time goes by. I'm not sure it's precedented that US-CERT has advised about an unsupported OS version before. I think Windows XP might be the largest installed base of unsupported OSes ever tomorrow if numbers do not reduce drastically. One day to prepare, as XP is still supported, does not mean including the sourced information premature. If you must revert and put back in tomorrow. US-CERT is not "shoving people towards the most secure product". Read the alert, it doesn't mention any one product, OS or web browser. One way is to turn your computer off :) Or use offline that is. They do not say that.. comp.arch (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

About "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a consumer protection resource", see next section about where I changed tone to be "encyclopedic" and was reverted while I believe I was not "breaking rules". The information is also not (only) "news". It's a sourced information about an alert, and sourced "news" about that alert that was reverted wrongly. Who is subject to "systematic bias", only those who want to be kept in the dark. comp.arch (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"WP:No disclaimers in articles", not violated (and doesn't apply?)[edit]

See revert: [5] [Also included way too much, reverting back "with no more bugs"]. Please revert revert.

Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is as I read it mostly about general disclaimers that could apply to many articles: "Beware of adult content!". I didn't look into it, I assume they proposed a hatnote. I however backed off on that ("Security announcement: "). comp.arch (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A general disclaimer would be:

Please beware that using unsupported software is risky

or:

Please beware that using unsupported proprietary software is even more risky than regular unsupported software

or:

Please beware that this article is about security, meant for system administrators only, not the general public reading Wikipedia, who can not comprehend

as that is untrue :)

comp.arch (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I personally think this problem is distinct from the "no disclaimer" problem but they do share a common ancestry, in terms of the hierarchy of the policies. So, the mistake is understandable. Nevertheless, advices, warnings, breaking news, important notice and such all come from the fact the contributor is not totally familiar with the nature and norms of encyclopedia; perhaps he sees the policy text but not its purpose. Without regard to the purpose, contributions are doomed: Even if they superficially adhere to the text of the policy, it is a matter of time before someone ignores that policy or change it to close the loophole.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What should be in the LEAD (in some form), if not, by now, the most important security matter of XP, that is in my (Comp.arch's) opinion the most important point? the most important point[edit]

I was reverted again. This is an "important point". WP:LEAD: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." If this point is not summarizing the article enough, then the rest of it should be changed. Please revert the revert on important stuff related to the EOL.

I like most people do not have time to comb the article for the important stuff (and will maybe only read the lead):

"On March 8, 2014, Microsoft deployed an update for XP that, on the 8th of each month, displays a pop-up notification to remind users about the end of support"

"In January 2014, it was estimated that more than 95% of the 3 million automated teller machines in the world were still running Windows XP". comp.arch (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems I need to spell the danger out, that explains why it's an "important point", in an WP:OR-like way that can't be in the article itself, but may inform editors: It doesn't take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know that a security exploit will be found (or not if they are not looking) in Windows XP. That is the risk we have support for from Microsoft, until tomorrow. Then when it happens, usually a patch would be available from Microsoft. This is something an anti-virus software does not fix. It gets worse; when Microsoft patches newer versions of the operating system, that patch (assuming the exploit it patches is also a security hole in XP), is a recipe for break-in into XP that is made worse because XP is proprietary software. If it would be open source, you could possibly backport the patch to XP. Unmitigated, XP is borderline certainly an "unmitigated disater", not a risk, waiting to happen. Is the advise from the government, not just "some critics" not important and on topic? Please revert the revert.comp.arch (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You continue to misunderstand Wikipedia's basic nature. Our goal is to cover subjects in an encyclopedic manner, not to report on them as journalists.
The lead section serves to summarize significant points from the article, not to deliver bulletins about recent developments impacting readers' lives. In an encyclopedic context, Microsoft's end of support for Windows XP isn't "the most important information in the article".
Have you considered contributing to Wikinews? —David Levy 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I think I do not misunderstand. The same point is now in the main text, I think in an "encyclopedic manner". Of course it is a value judgement what should be in the lead, we can't cover everything there. But it's not "just news". My estimate is about 430 million users using unsupported OS. If I can find a source tomorrow that says it is unprecedented, I will add it to the main text. What is "news" is what is new and doesn't gets old. The OS will be unsupported for eternity and will get more unsecure as time goes by, the advise doesn't get old. This advise is historically signicifant I think. We change the lead all the time by adding what we think is important, not at its end it seems. What is being reverted from the lead the last few times, doesn't mention Microsoft or mentions "immedediatly upgrade". comp.arch (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news site, nor is it a how-to guide or source of advice. There has been clear consensus against the content that you are trying to reintroduce, which simply reiterates content that has already been mentioned using a division of the U.S. government as a mouthpiece. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Several different editors have told you that it is not WP's job to help publicize warnings to users of products, from government agencies or otherwise. (You'll notice that the article on Arsenic does mention its toxicity, but does not have a prominent warning saying "do not ingest this.") The fact that XP will no longer receive updates is already in the lede... at the end, which is its appropriate location given both chronology and the order of presentation in the article. I doubt that further entreaties from you will result in any changes in our opinions.
PLEASE STOP. You are showing signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and (to the extent that repeatedly trying to explain to you that Wikipedia just is not what you think it is or want it to be, takes up other editors' time) this is disruptive behavior.
If you want to further pursue your intended changes, I would strongly suggest that you not continue down this path. You might consider dispute resolution. Specifically, I would suggest going to the dispute resolution noticeboard as your next step.
And just btw: Your section head here begs the question; it assumes that the announcement you want to publicize is the most important point. Nobody here is going to give a pass to such a crude fallacy. Accordingly, I've fixed it. Jeh (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Suicide methods is a clear-cut example. There wasn't even consensus to append an advisory to that article (or others related to suicide). —David Levy 15:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Still supported[edit]

I edited the article to note that Windows XP is still supported until and including Patch Tuesday (today). See the advance notification for today's security bulletin (Affected Software > Windows Operating System and Components) to verify this. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

IP editors keep reverting the article to the version that prematurely claims that support has ended, despite the XML comments next to the infobox parameter that summarises the above and points to this discussion (except one editor who thinks that there's still eleven more years to go). I'm not going to edit war over it, but it's annoying that editors are ignoring the notes on the page itself, let alone the external sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This is just an opinion by one editor which is original research. All the sources we use say it ends on April 8, so we must go by that. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not my opinion, it's Microsoft's, as the source indicates, and they happen to be the vendor of the product that is the subject of this article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY. If all the sources, even Microsoft itself, just says "April 8", that's what we go with. But given that it's April 9 now, this conversation is now pretty much past its usefulness. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a big if.
This is what The Register said (emphasis mine):

Office 2003 together with Windows XP reach their end-of-life point after this Patch Tuesday [...]

Microsoft itself said (emphasis mine):

As a result, after April 8, 2014, technical assistance for Windows XP will no longer be available, including automatic updates that help protect your PC.

The latter reference was repeatedly removed from the article by those who inserted the verifiably false claim that support had ended when it actually hadn't. This was verifiable via both primary and secondary sources. New updates were released for Windows XP after support had supposedly ended according to this article. "If 5 reliable sources repeat an incorrect fact, then that does not justify repeating a known falsehood." (Wikipedia:Verifiable but not false) --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I wouldn't put much account in what The Register says. It is already listed in Wikipedia:Potentially unreliable sources and I myself have first-hand seen how it twists words and meanings. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many other sources that agree with Microsoft's statement quoted above.[6][7][8][9] --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this within guidelines?[edit]

In the article: "Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security". Is this a "how-to"? comp.arch (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No. It is reporting on an event. WP:HOWTO would be to say "It is recommended that you migrate to a newer version if you still use XP". ViperSnake151  Talk  15:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this also an event? Would you report on it? Where and how? comp.arch (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, just give it a rest already. There has already been overwhelming consensus against the inclusion of that information in the manner you persistently propose (which, I must also add, is already mentioned later in the article, but backed with similar assertions by reliable sources). It only says "Avoid Internet Explorer", not "Avoid XP entirely". It is just a routine security advisory, which they do all the time. A lot of publications and organizations are parroting similar sentiment, but we do not need to report on all of it. Microsoft's actions are significant because I do not believe they have used nag screens to inform users of ending support before. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
My reading of it say "Do avoid XP [but it still works]". It does NOT say (or imply) 'It only says "Avoid Internet Explorer"'. There are WP:PRIMARY sources (Microsoft) (and WP:SECONDARY repeating same) saying Microsoft wants you to upgrade. People might think the primary source is only after money. I'm still looking for, in the main text, language that says "Avoid XP", that the alert does, referencing anything. Maybe I'm missing something? Could it be only in this revert? I'll think I give it some rest now. All feel free to look at the top of my talk page. comp.arch (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, fine. You win. If you specifically require a specific security statement quoted from US-CERT to be incorporated into this article, it is now. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Most popular/billion computers[edit]

user:ViperSnake151 undid my edit citing the popularity and widespread use of XP, with edit summary "poorly cited, subjective". I've just readded it. Sorry, I don't see how this is "poorly cited" or "subjective". It's not like I wrote "XP is the bestest, a bazillion people use it - source: my programming teacher". But I added more info to the ref anyway. The source is a podcast by the BBC which can be heard here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/globalnews, underneath "NATO warns Russia over Ukraine / Irish president in historic UK visit / Windows XP security deadline arrives." (On Stitcher, the episodes are separated by topic, which is where the "Users bid farewell" headline is from.)-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source that backs up the same claims: As we all know, Windows XP went on to become the world’s most popular operating system by some margin. Microsoft has never released any exact figures, but my educated guess is that Microsoft has sold over 1 billion Windows XP licenses over the last 13 years. However, I do concede that some sources say it is only the second most popular OS, such as this. And this states only "800 million users". Perhaps we can compromise on different wording?-- Brainy J ~~ (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).