Talk:Windows XP

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows XP/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Negative24 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is too long. It should summarize the rest of the article. Consider moving paragraphs in the lead to their respective sections in the rest of the article. For example, paragraph two probably can be shortened down to just explain that it was developed originally as two projects and then merged. Paragraph three can almost entirely be moved to the reception section.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   The lead shows many dates that don't have references. It may be repetitive but these refs need to be shown. The removed features section contains no references.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The article is getting to be a bit too big, especially the development sections. The sections about WinXP being in it's Neptune/Odyssey and Whistler states should be moved to separate pages (about the development to those separate projects) and then significantly shortened.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Last major overhaul occurred about a month ago.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Main logo seems to have a disputation on WM Commons. I'm not that experienced with their policies so I don't know if that will make or break the use of that image.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The development section contains no images yet talks about many of the UI changes in that time period. It would be great if images could be placed to illustrate what those specific features looked like (I'm looking for an image like what is in the Service Pack 2 section). Also, fFix the placement of the task grouping image in User interface (it breaks the flow of the text).

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm placing this on hold for about a week (can be changed!). Glaring issues include the lead and the length of the article.

• @Negative24: Hi. I am afraid I must vehemently contest your 6-B assessment for two reasons:

1. Development of Windows XP occurred under strict non-disclosure conditions, thus any image for this discussion is in violation of WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#4. We have had long discussions as to why leaked screenshots are unreliable and the matter is now cut and dried.
2. You have already given a verdict of spin-off for the development section. So, requesting image for another article is no longer within the purview of this review.

Best regards

Codename Lisa (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Codename Lisa: I didn't realize that the development was under a non-disclosure condition or I wouldn't have asked that. I assumed that since the development was covered under many conferences that there were a few screenshots. No matter. I also considered your second reason during review. I thought that since it hasn't already been spun-off that this would be a good place to discuss the matter. Thanks for telling me. I have already updated the page. Do you have any other concerns? Thanks, -24^Talk 03:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, there have been conferences and even usability tests. Conferences used very beautiful PowerPoint presentations with vivid decorative images too, but the images used there, although not in violation of NFCC#2 and NFCC#4, lack sufficient contextual significance for our purpose (NFCC#8 violation). Things have been different in 1997, in Bill Gates era. Maybe we get lucky and find something about Whistler if we tried a lot. But I brand that as FA material, not GA. And we also might get lucky and find event images. We can also use images like Bliss. In fact, unless I am much mistaken, the article used to have more images before boys at WP:NFCR came along... and deleted them. That's for now. Let's see where my research goes.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• 6-A: Main logo's dispute seems all but resolved now. Image on Commons is deleted on 30 October 2014. I closed the case per WP:SNOW. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Review after hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Review is identical since no work has been done since the first review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Beyond ridiculous

So, User:Comp.arch, you think we should add an analogous statement to every single OS article on Wikipedia? Because you can find a truckload of reliable sources in this sense for each and every single one (well, or at least those made since the Internet was created). Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess you are talking about "remotely exploitable", that you fixed (thanks), so it's unclear why you helped and didn't revert. No, Windows XP is kind of special with significant market share, it is the second or third most popular Windows version and that is why news sources still report on it and report on bugs from the Windows 95 era. The news isn't that Windows 95 is exploitable and if that where the case and not XP, then I'm sure no news would be written about it as it has a 0.0% market share. comp.arch (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Comp.arch: Reporting on security bugs based on software popularity is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not and may not care about market share when deciding whether to include or exclude this type of content. Mdrnpndr (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not only my call, I am going by (multiple) news (not just security exploit databases) sources so is there a problem? And as these security holes will never be fixed by Microsoft's policies (and thus not get aged) and in fact the fixes in newer versions are a recipe for attacking older version, it thought it was relevant in the "End of support"-section. Maybe others will comment on this, I assumed previous reverts where on other false grounds, e.g. FleetCommand reverted on "potentially" unreliable source, and he hasn't reverted (now that I think he's convinced that this is the truth). comp.arch (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

What I could argue with in that section is "As of January 2014, at least 49% of all computers in China still ran XP", whether it is true or not (is there a source?); at that time Windows XP was still supported and XP seemed the most popular OS in China. I would however say that the scale of the problem (in China) belongs in that that section with numbers *after* the end of support. As far as I can see XP dropped to 2nd most popular around that time and is now (base on web use proxy statistics) at 25.36%[1] Or depending on you view (the more correct view that includes all "computers") 15.73% 3rd[2] (after Android). Still the former is also useful information, 2nd after Windows 7. comp.arch (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you exclude Stagefright (bug) from the "See also", in the Android (operating system) article? Under what conditions? I'm not saying I would; newer versions have been fixed, anyone can fix older un-supported versions (as the code is open source).. comp.arch (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Comp.arch: Do you not get that the statement you added is true of every single operating system in existence once support for it is dropped? Or do you not get that we can't explain every single general operating system fact in an article on a specific one (much less a specific version as in this case)? Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. I also explained that Windows XP is somewhat special as it is still hugely popular (at least in some countries) still making headlines, because of the aftermath of dropping support with this many users. I do not see this as a "clear violation" (if it is can you point to the exact place in the/a policy to be clear?), but WP:CONSENSUS should decide (as this is a value judgement and similar to what I'm about to say on other things, especially for this section, is not clear cut) if this should stay in. You didn't answer about Stagefright, possibly it should be treated the same? Would you also say that all info on XP or its use after EOL date, should be out? Note e.g. does this info on "specialized devices that run XP, particularly medical devices" belong here, as it will get dated (presumably these devices will get replaced and at some point few or none will use XP, while the bugs will always be in XP) or is it interesting historically?

Mostly, since it's only you and I here, and even if WP:NPOV where the issue, I think someone else would have to judge or show support to either opinion, so I'm not sure it's much point to only us two to discuss further. I have a WP:RS sources, what or who can trump that? comp.arch (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If it's about a bug that's so WP:NOTABLE in and of itself that it got its own Wikipedia article, I wouldn't really object to mentioning it. Otherwise, though... Mdrnpndr (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Comp.arch: Just wanted to let you know that I have significantly less problems with the re-written version, mainly because of the new sources. The Register is the only source on the Internet I would not trust with saying "the night is dark". I've had run into its untrustworthiness too many times. One time, it was drawing a doomsday scenario about a BIOS-infecting virus, using a Symantec blog post as a source. But comparing them showed that it was shamelessly putting word into Symantec's mouth. I haven't kept up with it, but you might want to see Blue Screen of Death § Incorrect attribution too; The Register is one of the entries in the list of shame.

There is one thing, however: I hate the word "numerous". (See WP:WTA.) But I am not going to give you a hard time for this trifle. Fleet Command (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I count one, two, "numerous" :) I just didn't want to say three as that is only a lower bound and probably "three" is not true.. It is bound to increase, and that is the point of the other guy, that this isn't really news, except it seems to be.. comp.arch (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Discontinued

In case people are wondering what's going on, instead of replying at Fleet Command's talk page, the IP transcluded the entire talk page here. I've commented out that because it's not appropriate to transclude the entire page here. The relevant discussion is at User talk:FleetCommand#"Discontinued".

MOS:COMPUTING says not to use strange language. That means using real world definitions, including the definition of a product. It also says The act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation".. The software product here is Windows XP. While it is a member of the Windows family, that doesn't mean it's not a product. When you were able to buy Windows XP you didn't get the whole Windows family. You purchased Windows XP as a stand-alone product. To use a real-world analogy, the 2002 Subaru Outback is a member of the Subaru Outback family, but it is a stand-alone product. It's no longer available, having been discontinued in favour of the 2003 Outback, which was a different car, just as Windows Vista was different to Windows XP. That different software can run on later versions of Windows is irrelevant. CDs can be used in DVD players but that doesn't mean that a 2015 Toshiba DVD player is the same product as a 2000 Toshiba CD player. They are different products. Windows XP has most definitely been discontinued. You cannot purchase it any more, it is not being developed and there is extremely limited support. However, as I wrote in the discussion that you transcluded, products are generally supported for years after they have been discontinued. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with AussieLegend. The "product" here is Windows XP, not the entire Windows NT family. XP is not in the Microsoft catalog for sale any more, therefore it's discontinued. And "end of support" is something very different; XP was supported for some time after it was discontinued. Jeh (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello.

AussieLegend's arguments are the most convincing, in that Windows XP (version 5.1 of Windows NT) must not be treated like WinRAR 4.5 (version 4.5 of WinRAR), even though both developers charge money for giving you an upgrade. I myself love this argument. Truly, Windows XP and Windows Vista are so different that one can make an exception and think about them as family, not different versions of the same thing. They can even co-exist.

But FleetCommand's talk page argument has serious weight in it too. MOS:COMPUTING says "Do not use synonyms of a certain words just because they are synonyms; collocation is very important." So, unless there are many sources that say "Windows XP is discontinued", I say Fleet Command is right.

As I said, I myself love AussieLegend's "discontinued". But I have thought myself not to think only about things that I myself think are correct. It is a dispute and the correct thing in a dispute is to reach a compromise. So, I find [redacted]'s argument a good middle ground.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Point 2 of the section of MOS:COMPUTING that you've quoted from regarding collocation is the part that says The act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation". If we're going to use the MOS for guidance then we should consistently follow it. I suspect that's why Comp.arch added it.[3] --AussieLegend (✉) 08:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot you attack anyone regardless of whether he supports you or not. In this case, I supported you. How am I supposed to respond to your criticism when I agree with you? And yet you criticize my agreement. Sheldon Cooper? —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

That was not an attack, but your response most certainly was. Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. I made no comment about you, only that MOS:COMPUTING says that the act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation". I certainly did not criticise your agreement at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of a section called "Collocation" is its verdict on collocation, not the definition of "discontinuation". Interpreting it otherwise is gaming the system. And in this case, not interpreting otherwise is what make me agree with you. —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Besides MOS:COMPUTING, there is Discontinued, which redirects to End-of-life (product), which says

"indicating that the product is in the end of its useful life (from the vendor's point of view), and a vendor intends to stop marketing, selling, or sustaining it."

In this light I see no way to compromise in favor of removing the word "discontinued". Microsoft not only "intends to stop", they have stopped; it is not marketing, or selling, or sustaining Windows XP. One could make some argument that more recent versions that are still supported could be argued to be not yet entirely discontinued, but XP doesn't make it through any of these gates. Not any more.

Aaron J's argument in favor of not saying "discontinued" could be applied as well to every product in the family and even the 9x family too (since the chain of successors there does lead into the NT family, which still has a current product offered for sale). That would obviously be absurd. The article subject is Windows XP, not the entire Windows family including XP's predecessors and successors.

The fact that XP is still running on many many computers is also irrelevant to this point. My car is still running although almost ten years old; that doesn't mean that the particular model's sale is not "discontinued".

Compromise is fine where there are two sides that are both arguably right, or at least both have arguable points... but I don't see that as being the case here.

I suppose we could say "discontinued, but still widely used". That's as far as I think a compromise should go. Jeh (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: Jeh, dear, I already said I support your position. You can take my support or my compromise; both are on the table. But there is something you should know: I have once seen the epic battle between AussieLegend and Fleet Command, and I don't want to see it again. (Midway, AussieLenged started attacking everyone, including me and my stalker. Well, I have a stalker who came to ANI, totally supported Aussie and said the meanest things about me in another user's talk page. AussieLegend attacked him too.) Implementing Aaron's compromise locally isn't half bad. If you take the Aaron's compromise, I can probably convince Fleet Command to take it too (I have some experience in convincing him to a compromise) and the whole situation would be resolved by tomorrow this time.

But no pressure. Your choice.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to participate here, please do not attack other editors, merely because they quoted the MOS in response to you quoting the MOS. The discussion was progressing amicably, I thought, until you decided to attack. Trying to score points against another editor by bringing up irrelevant, and misquoted, discussions serves little purpose. That's my last word on the matter, hopefully. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

New thought: The argument that XP should not be called "discontinued" because e.g. Windows 10, a later "version", is still on sale, could equally be applied to "end of support": It should not be said that XP is at "end of support" when Windows 10, a later "version", is still supported? I'm sorry, but that's absurd. "Discontinued" is the only thing that makes sense. Jeh (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Discontinued" could be taken to mean "without a next version" (because the development has ceased). But you, I and Aussie agreed that Windows XP should be taken as a full product and it is indeed without a next version, i.e. SP3 was its last version. (Or the last patch.) The meaning of "End of support", however, is modified by the addition of "of Windows XP", which prevents it from leaking into its successors. Please Jeh; I'd like to be able to use this consensus in the future, without someone ridiculing me; it is unlike you to resort to such arguments. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ridiculing you or anyone. I'm commenting on the argument, I believe first raised not by you but by the IP using the name "Aaron J", that "discontinued" does not apply here because later versions of Windows exist. Adding "of Windows XP" is unnecessary because that's the title and subject of the article; everything in it, including the property "discontinued", applies only to XP unless stated otherwise. If we had separate articles on e.g. WinRAR 3.3 vs. WinRAR 4.5 (or whatever the version numbers are) then we could equally well say in the former that its subject is "discontinued". But we just have an article on "WinRAR", so the rules there are different. Jeh (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding references, please see the Windows Lifecycle Fact Sheet at microsoft.com. Note first that what we are calling "versions" here are identified by Microsoft as individual "product"s. Note that Windows XP is listed in the "end of support", "end of sales", and also "support retired" for all three SPs. So I think "discontinued" is very defensible here. As I said earlier, we could say "discontinued but still widely used". Jeh (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not say you intend to ridicule. Believe me, I would never say that about you, even if I believe you did.

But FYI, there was a full MedCab discussion about the use of "discontinued" with IE. (MedCab itself is discontinued, by the way.) The consensus was that "discontinued" cannot be used for single versions. But like I said, we agreed that XP is exempt from that case; that XP is a full product and Vista and 2000 are its predecessors and successors. Why are we constantly talking about things that are not the case here. The important thing is: You, I, Aussie and Aaron agree on a pivotal point. Can't we just establish a consensus?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a big believer in the notion that different circumstances can lead to different results; this tends to reduce the import of consensus in one case on other cases. Re IE, while IE has had many versions, it isn't a product. (Not individual versions, not "IE" as a whole. It's an OS component.) But Microsoft doesn't refer to "Windows XP" as a version. They refer to it as a different product than 2000 or Vista. That product is discontinued and I don't think any consensus that "'discontinued' cannot be used for single versions of IE" is relevant. (Not to the "WinRAR" example either.)

What wording do you suggest here, given the points raised here? Jeh (talk) 03:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems I've, unintentionally, sparked a big argument and it makes my head spin reading it.. About if Windows is only a version in a family that is not discontinued, see Ship of Theseus. As soon as you have a new version ("Vista"), you have a new API (I assume..). Even if all programs that run in XP run in later versions (might be untrue because of bugs), the converse is not true. comp.arch (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe my comment above wasn't helpful/or too cryptic.. If Microsoft intends to never break compatibility (was their pride at one point), then going from A->B, the later version will run all programs that ran on A (assuming they did a perfect job). I remember at some point (Windows 95?) changes were made to insure bug compatibilty with Civilization (video game). There is no point, per se, to replace the lines of code over time (Ship of Theseus, was an imperfect analogy..), what I meant is that even just trying to add stuff (let alone drop stuff (that I do not know of)) to the API, has the potential to break compatibility with some software. And it probably did, as we humans are not perfect. Civilization was considered, a too important game to break compatibility with. I'm sure at the time and from XP->Vista some software fell through the cracks. Drivers? Do all XP drivers work in Vista and later? comp.arch (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:COMPUTING#Collocation says a very simple thing: Use words that collocate, i.e. the definition that the majority use. Please pay attention Jeh: The majority, not Microsoft. (We are not Microsoft's PR.) Collation, not Microsoft use. For example. It does not matter whether the function of VirtualBox matches the definition of "simulation" or "emulation"; the majority say "virtualization", so use that. And why you, Codename Lisa? You've always been fair in discussions. You are saying we can make an exception to the MOS here. Alright, let me ask you this: What purpose does this making an exception serve? The article clearly describes the state of Windows XP and its end of support. You wanted to end the discussion fast. But it hasn't happened either.

Fleet Command (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

FleetCommand Yes, MOS:COMPUTING#Collocation does say that. But it also seems to say (perhaps I need different contact lenses?) "The act of ceasing development of a software product is called "discontinuation".". Microsoft has most certainly ceased development of XP. Therefore, per MOS, it is discontinued. We could argue that this point of MOS does not actually address sales or availability, but consider: One day in the past it was possible, as a wholesaler, to order retail box packages of various editions (Home, Professional, etc., or whatever they were called) of Windows XP from Microsoft and expect them to arrive forthwith. On some later day, it was not possible to do that; Microsoft was no longer accepting those orders. Why would we not say that Microsoft had discontinued availability of that product? Are you claiming that you could, in sincere belief, tell me with a straight face that no, Microsoft has not discontinued XP? Beg pardon but from here that would not make a bit of sense. (The fact that you could order copies of Vista on that day remains irrelevant. That's a different product.) Jeh (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained on FleetCommand's talk page that Version versus product name says Consistently use the most common product name. For example, use Windows XP, not Windows v5.1 or Windows NT v5.1? In fact MOS:COMPUTING has numerous references that support Windows XP being a product. Even without the issue of sales, Windows XP is discontinued per the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: Alright, this discussion is becoming long and unbearable already. So, please answer this question: Yes or no; Do the majority of sources use "discontinued" for Windows XP?

@AussieLegend: Can I ask you a question and have an honest answer? Given our past history, I think this question can clear the air. You see, in the past, I had concluded that you had been mean to me, but someone in the ANI pointed it out that maybe you were not, and giving our attitude another chance is not bad. (It is like this: When someone from another culture lifts his middle finger, we should always bear in mind that maybe it is not insult in his culture.)

When you write stuff like the one in the message above (which you repeated twice already) do you, deep down, believe that it might change our mind? And are you aware that we interpret it as an act of deception?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on our interactions I doubt that there will be a positive outcome to anything I say, so let's just stick to the topic at hand. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... Okay. I guess truce is better than hostility. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I really don't know. I am fairly confident that we could find very few sources that would claim that Windows XP was in any way, by any interpretation, "continued". I know what a Google hit count would tell me for { "Windows XP" discontinued } but I don't know how to look for sources that say it isn't discontinued. Or, for that matter, for those that say it is discontinued but not using that exact word. I do know that the "horse's mouth" source, the Microsoft page I linked previously, says it's end-of-life, support is discontinued, etc. And I see no need for a secondary source to "interpret" such a plain-fact claim. FTR I find nothing compelling in FleetCommand's arguments whatsoever. As AussieLegend has said, the MOS page pointed to by FC says that "discontinued" is the right word to use in these circumstances. Jeh (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeh: You are eluding the question. And I don't know why you keep invoking a logic with which I agreed from the first moment. Looks this discussion is not going anywhere.

@Fleet Command: Per Jeh's advice, I searched Google; lots of results but not all have the word "discontinued". Those that did, often used the phrase "discontinued support" and "discontinued service". So, no, I don't think "discontinued" collocates with "Windows XP". And to answer your question, no, I don't think omission of the word "discontinued" harms the article and I don't think its inclusion improves it significantly. So, I am officially pulling my support. This discussion is all yours. Actually, I do not care that much for one single word.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not really care too much about the word either.. Or which word is used. It seems it depends on whether we use the wording of WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:PRIMARY (Microsoft). First note, I was just putting "discontinued" on a bunch of articles of software/operating systems. Maybe Wikipedia can choose what word is used across articles. News seem to use "discontinued" for XP. I had a hard time finding that word from Microsoft in relation to XP. I found it in other contexts. "Forefront Client Security has been discontinued. Support is ending July 14th, 2015. Antimalware and Antispyware definition updates will no longer be available following the end of the support for the product version. Please evaluate System Center Endpoint Protection as a replacement, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/system-center-2012-r2-configuration-manager/default.aspx." If seems they use the word if there is no replacement from them. For XP this is the closest I found "Support for the Data Link Control (DLC) protocol has been discontinued in Windows XP"[4] This goes to my argument elsewhere, if the version after XP no longer supports something XP did, in relation to the API or similarly protocol/service, then you can say there is not a full substitute for XP (what I quoted applies to next prior version to XP (is this then an argument for saying Windows 2000 is "discontinued"?), but I'm sure something similar applies to XP. Microsoft would never say Windows where "discontinued" even if parts of it where..). We could go with "XP is an unsupported operating system" as a compromize (I'm not sure that it is better..)? comp.arch (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comp.arch: I don't understand what API compatibility has to do with it. But for the record I have some exe's that were built on 3.5 that still run just fine on 10 - haven't found an exception, in fact. And yes, most driver binaries built for XP will work fine in Vista (assuming of course that you match bitness). So what? That doesn't mean they're the same product. They're both versions of Windows, but nobody is claiming that "Windows" was discontinued. Jeh (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Vista isn't the same product as XP, then XP can be discontinued while Vista isn't. XP isn't an umbrella article (except from the view of service pack versions, but see below). Nobody is saying Microsoft Windows (an umbrella article) is discontinued, and I doubt many would think that, reading this article ("successor" in infobox).

APIs (in general, the I/nterfaces are "contracts") have (almost everything (plus UIs) to) do with operating systems (OS); the OS "acts as an intermediary between programs and the computer hardware" (fundamental computer science). If just one program, that ran on XP (even a driver) doesn't run on a later version (and Microsoft doesn't intent to fix it), then in some sense, you can well argue that that version is "discontinued". The thing is, this can happen with any change to software, even trivial changes, let alone many in, such in a service pack to XP. See: semver. At least with a service pack, such as to XP, Microsoft intended to maintain compatibility. If one XP program did not run, it was a bug for Microsoft (might be considered, not too important..) but after discontinuation, then Microsoft doesn't considered it a bug (worth fixing, just look at the security notices from them, that omit XP (and older)). See deprecation about, how breaking compatibility, can be intentional (usually for the greater good of security, but see also Eolas). Another thing: "ActiveX is a deprecated software framework created by Microsoft". Who is going to come back and add "discontinued" to the XP article when no version of Windows supports it any longer? Now, at least isn't supported in Edge browser in Windows 10 (and IE – that Microsoft argued was an "OS component" in United States v. Microsoft Corp. – seems on the say out). Also, big parts of the Windows API where dropped in Windows RT (and could later disappear in all versions of Windows).

Another thing is the user interface (UI or UX, you could call that the "human facing [AP]I"). What you learned on XP does not apply (fully) to later versions. Humans are adaptable, and know often when things move around or say scrollbars get narrower. Imagine you where a robot with no intelligience, then later versions will be very confusing and incompatible to you.. :)

In theory, if Windows where open source somebody could come and maintain XP again (unlikely anyone would want too, more likely for abandoned, last version software). I would worry more about Dalvik (Android 4.4), that IS open source or any such software if "discontinued" applies. See if discontinued I put in at Dalvik. comp.arch (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Those who might argue what Windows XP is not "discontinued" because its development led right into Vista are mistaken about the product development cycle. Development on Vista did not wait to begin until after XP service pack development ended. In fact, per our own article on Windows Vista, development of Windows Vista actually started before XP's first shipment. It is true that Vista is basically a (very large) series of changes to XP, but this work was done starting with a fork of the XP source codebase that happened fairly early in XP's development. The "XP fork" did continue for some time and was the basis for hotfix and service pack development (this is why the build numbers don't change for SPs: The build number is frozen at first ship and is not incremented in the SP LOD) but this work proceeded in parallel with the work on Vista. Now, the development on the XP branch has ceased. Therefore it's discontinued. The fact that another branch (what was at the time the Vista branch) supported ongoing development is irrelevant to that. Jeh (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove the 'x years ago' in the date released section.

Its both out of date and not really necessary. Jumballi (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

How can it be out of date? It automatically updates. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... This looks like a case of "I just don't like it". —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Technically, how can anything be really "Discontinued" or "Out of Date" if Microsoft released a "Windows XP Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool - June 2016 (KB890830), not just for Windows XP Embedded, rather "Windows XP?" Somebody at Microsoft is still supporting XP to an extent.Easeltine (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

Ryans1908761 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC) hi I went to edit this page

 Not done No request made. You cannot edit this article as it is protected and you are not autoconfirmed. You may request edits, or you can become autoconfirmed by first making edits to other, non-protected articles. Meters (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead removal by User:Champion

Hello

Champion, you have been removing content from the article. I would like to know what you were thinking. Hopefully when I know it, we can work out this little dispute.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa,

I am trying to adress the issues on the GA nomination, so hopefully, we can have a peer review on this article, I did not mean to remove any content, but merely to merge some unnecessary content from the lead to other sections. Apologize for any misunderstanding. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"merge some unnecessary content from the lead to other sections".

@Champion: Wrong thing to do! The lead is supposed to be a summary of the whole article; it is supposed to repeat and be redundant. More on this in WP:LEAD.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I have done everything to make sure that it still summarizes the whole article per WP:LEAD, however, I am shortening it due to the GA nomination. Regards, - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 11:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Split development section into Development of Windows XP

The sections is just overly long, with several subsections, so I believe that it is up for a split. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Lots of articles have long sections with several subsections. It used to be a separate article; it was merged into this one. I see no significant change in circumstances that would indicate that having a single article is now a bad idea. Jeh (talk) 03:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Our readable prose size is at 33 kB. Looks like the article size is just fine. WP:SIZERULE.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, cute Lisa, what is the differences between kB, KB and kb? --- Aaron Janagewen