Talk:Windows XP/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Retail sale did not cease

The introduction states that the retail sale of Windows XP ceased on June 30 2008. How can this be true if one is still able to buy the full edition of both XP Home and Professional at amazon.com? Just do a search. This should be corrected. a.buchhorn (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that date was the end of MS selling retail copies but retailers can continue selling it for as long as the stocks hold out. Plugwash (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"can only run 3 programs at a time"

See here. There is some misconception about Windows XP running 3 programs simultaneously. I think the section needs to be clarified.

I can't see the confusion. It is discussing a specific edition, hence the section title and the initial part of the sentence? How can it be any mroe clear?-Localzuk^(talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Extended Support Period

Please add Extended Support. Now. Jacob Hnri 6 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows 'Sweet'?

I heard a foreign friend talking about Windows Sweet. Could you please tell me what you know about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.73.158 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I dunno much about it, I will google it on the net. I'll find you a answer asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure he wasn't talking about the Windows suite? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it apeared that user 71.166.73.158 was talking about windows sweet, I'll google windows suite, but that's the kind of question you'lld have to ask the user himself, for obvious reasons. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Development History

I'm missing the development history in this article. With the cancled other windows projects and development teams that are combined. These infos are in some other articles. The problem is that I don't get the period between win 95 and 96/97/98 and 2k integration to the windows nt based(xp) os... hope you understand my problem. I don't get it :p mabdul 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Date Formatting

I find the flow of this article slightly difficult given the date formats found within: day month year, instead of month day year. The former is not in the mainstream media as much as the latter -- correct me if I'm wrong. And within this same article, we find dates of the latter in combination with dates of the former. Thus, the allowing of the two formats to be used proves this article's inconsistency. Personally, I know the military uses the former format but this is not the military; can you link to other articles on the relative subject that use this format? Taking a look at Windows_Vista proves it to the contrary where you can see it uses the latter format I'm in favor of.

I suggest we rewrite this article to use the latter more commonly accepted format: month day year, in an effort to increase the flow and consistency of the article on a more common level. I welcome discussion on this, please -- I would've already started to rewrite the dates but I thought it would be more courteous to discuss it first since someone already thought it to be valid to write it as such.. after some consensus, or after about a week should I receive no reply, I'll go ahead and change the dates found within according to the more commonly used format. CaptainMorgan (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

All dates in the article should use the same format for consistency, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Format consistency, and it's a long established convention in this article that "month day year" is the format to be used. If you want to fix the inconsistencies, you're more than welcome to as far as I'm concerned. In fact I'd encourage it. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

AL - thank you for your input. The reference you point to on Style seems to settle it. Since this article uses both formats where it should use only one, and since related articles use the one we're in favor of changing to (month day year), I'll go ahead and change them immediately. Cheers. CaptainMorgan (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where would a section on this issue belong in article? What would be a good title to help people find the information?

This seems to be a Windows XP specific problem and it's very difficult to find the information to correct the problem. Apparently related to SP 3 or some other update(s) though I'm not technically knowledgeable enough to look into that. May be related to properties of video cards also but will affect computers that had previously worked correctly with same cards and the same settings.

The issue is primarily images and backgrounds not displaying at all in Internet Explorer, Firefox and possibly other browsers. Colors may not be apparent though it may be preferable to some for colored text to display as black. "Radio button" icons and text are frequently invisible though moving the mouse cursor may reveal something is at a spot by changing shape and may or may not cause a text description to appear when the mouse cursor shape changes. Many web pages don't use alt text or don't use it correctly and it's only visible when looking at the source code. Can be a very big problem for visually impaired people.

This issue affects computers with the Use High Contrast box checked in Accessibility Properties and unchecking that box either solves the problem completely or makes a huge difference when that does correct the problem.

http://helpmerick.com/firefox-or-internet-explorer-doesnt-display-all-pictures-or-backgrounds.htm

I presume a section on this would also be appropriate in an article on browsers. -- Moss&Fern (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Could some insiders to tabulate the service pack features.... please....

Thanks--222.67.212.133 (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Service pack info inaccurate?

The article states "Each service pack is a superset of all previous service packs and patches so that only the latest service pack needs to be installed...".

However, Microsoft states that, with regard to Service Pack 3: "To install SP3, either Windows XP Service Pack 1a (SP1a) or Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) must already be installed." (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsxp/sp3/default.mspx).

Some clarification would be helpful.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.41.5 (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is accurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.99.7 (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is accurate. Service Pack 3 of Windows XP is still a superset of all other prior service packs and can be integrated (slipstreamed) into a virgin Windows XP installation image without needing Service Pack 1. Now, although installing Service Pack 3 on a running copy of Microsoft Windows does require Service Pack 1a to be already installed (and I don't know why), it still does not contradict the fact that Service Pack 3 is indeed a superset of previous service packs. Fleet Command (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

ms's xp lifecycle url redirects to nothing. reference 2

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=&C2=1173 works. Location on page of the url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP#cite_note-lifecycle-1

btw, I scanned thru a couple wp help pages purportedly relevant to "reflist", but didn't see clue as to editing *content* of reflist. else i'd have just edited ref 2 url myself :-)2z2z (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Both links are working for me! oh and by the way: go to the ref with a and edit this paragraph. there you'll find the url! mabdul 08:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Windows XP is officially ending by January 2011 because of hard drives

I heard from other news articles that Windows XP will be ending by January 2011 because all hard drives (current and new ones) will use the 4K advanced format. XP users will have to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 before the transition.--72.148.3.214 (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You only have to upgrade if you want to replace the hard drive. If you don't replace it, Windows XP is fine. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Or, you can use the compatibility features HD manufacturers are building in, or you can carefully partition and format the drive, as enterprise users who have been using these drives for the last 5 years have been doing. Or if you have and old one without compatibility features, you can just connect it up, in which case it will be much slower than it was designed to be, and not reliable, but you probably won't notice the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.193.212 (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You could use an old version of gparted to format a new drive with ntfs. 79.70.124.192 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently only a fraction of new HDD series uses 4k sector format. Most (if not all of them) have an internal 512 Byte sector emulation to be fully compatible to older OS. All 4k HDD manufacturers supply tools to realign the partition if not correctly set up by the OS (Vista, 7 and Linux should set the partitions correct, XP and older do not). As long as the drives have the 512 Byte sector emulation they are compatible to XP and older. Not realigning the partition makes them slooooow though. --Denniss (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this not a contradiction?

In the first paragraph: It was first released in August 2001

In the second paragraph: Windows XP was first released on October 25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.6.82 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a contradiction but it's really just a poor choice of words. It was released to manufacturing in August and to retail in October. I've fixed the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

End of Support

Here is something that I need to fight over. Is there a need for users to include "(Service Pack 2 x64 and Service Pack 3 x86)" in the support status of Windows XP? Windows XP Service Pack 2 (32-bit) went out of support yesterday and is only supported on Windows XP Service Pack 3 and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition Service Pack 2 until 8 April 2014. I personally find it unnecessary, but if you want to discuss this without anymore edit wars, please do. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the article history, there were general statements about SP2 support ending on July 13th 2010 without specifiying the 64Bit XP Prof as supported until 2014. --Denniss (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I did look at the history of the Windows XP article and Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is supported until 8 April 2014. The 32-bit version is out of support now. I did remove the references in parenthesis and it was deemed as vandalism. Why bother?

This type of confusion affects a very small percentage of Windows XP x64 users, which is why I did not want the "(Service Pack 2 x64 and Service Pack 3 x86)" line there. The line wasn't even there when Windows XP was in Mainstream Support until 14 April 2009 and that it entered Extended Support.

If you have anymore arguments, let me know. -- 74.42.188.45 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SP3 problems not really specific to SP3

This line probably belongs under the overall service pack heading, not in the SP3 section:

There have been various complaints regarding Service Pack 3's installation and performance reported by many users, ranging from conflicts with other software such as Symantec and other security applications, to internet connectivity and reboot loops.

Really, that applies to all 3 service packs, most of all to SP2, which broke all security software and many others that tripped over DEP. It's not even specific to XP service packs. Any takers? Foxyshadis (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, but as long as you are able to prove it by providing verifiable evidence in reliable sources, this sentence will stay put.

Of course, I am personally inclined to agree with you. Service Pack 2 did cause a reboot loop on my old computer whose processor was a Pentium 4 Prescott. I solved the problem in less than an half an hour by searching Microsoft Support web site. The fact is that Microsoft constantly warns organizations and OEMs in advance to test Service Packs before deploying them and to report the problems back to Microsoft, always makes Service Pack Blocker tools and always publishes beta releases of Service Packs — but alas, people don't pay due attention until disaster strikes! See another example: Kernel_Patch_Protection#Criticisms.

Fleet Command (talk) 07:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Spam

There seems to have been a flurry of activity relating to 219.93.84.105 (talk · contribs) who added a link to tecdiary.com That user has now been banned for spamming. I see absolutely no reason to keep the link so have deleted it. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It fails WP:ELNO#EL13 any way. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Also WP:ELNO#EL11. There are hundreds (most likely thousands) of websites on the Internet with how-to information about Windows XP. Why this one, which is very badly written, should be kept is beyond me. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

W3Schools Reference

According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, as of October 2010, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world with a 48.9% market share, having peaked at 76.1% in January 2007.

W3School stats only measure users who visit w3schools.com, so they don't represent the overall market. This is also specified on their site:

From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of seven years, you can read the long term trends of operating system usage.

--Norbiu (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Microsoft Windows article you will see that a table of web access statistics from a number of different sources is used. All seem to have roughly the same order of market share for XP. W3Schools is a pretty notable statistics site, but you could come up with an average based on several sites. Trouble is that still only deals with Internet access as this seems to be the only available data that shows market share. It does not take into account systems which do not access the Internet but may still be based on XP such as shop tills or airport information screens. --Simple Bob (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft Mouse

Yes it is really nice if you use this mouse, no, I will recommend this even. ( Not :-| ) The recommendation of this company product is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING which are over WP:V (from the company page). Microsoft Mice is completely unrelevant and unrelated product mention. It also has no relevant standard for Windows XP or mouses. --Perhelion (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an official system requirement to have a M$ mouse or compatible device. EDIT: See M$ KB entry --Denniss (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

How is talking about a Microsoft product in a Microsoft article POV or advertising? The source is quite clear. You should read WP:LAME, which is what an argument like yours has the chance to descend into, and then move on... --Simple Bob (talk) 08:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both. If the source says "Microsoft Mouse", then it is Microsoft Mouse. Sorry, I can't check the source now; Microsoft support website won't open here. It's probably our local cache server going haywire again. Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Market Share reported change

Windows 7 share tops XP for first time in U.S. - perhaps time to update the article? Samatva (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Did you read the whole of that report? "Windows 7 accounts for 31.5% of all operating systems in use around the world so far this month, while XP remains the most-widely-used OS with a 46.8% share" and "Net Application's March numbers put Windows 7's global usage share at 24.2%, compared to XP's 54.4%." --AussieLegend (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Multi-processor limits

Somebody has added a section on multi-procesor limits of XP - thanks for that. It says Professional supports two processors and Home Edition supports one. Can somebody please add something to make this more precise??? What I mean to say, is, will it support a single chip quad-core?, or only use two cores??? Or are we actually talking about separate processors here? I have a feeling that it is processors we are talking about here and not cores - but non-techies like myself, we might get them mixed up. Just thought a short sentence stating that multi-cores (quad and up) are supported, and that the limit strictly applies to processors not cores (assuming this is correct). Anyway, thanks in advance to anybody who is proficient in this particular matter and can add the sentence.

These limits are on physical processors regardless of how many cores they have. It should be possible to run XP prof on one or two 12-core CPU but not three or more CPU. --Denniss (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Added additional info on July 31 2011. This topic isn't as straighforward as it first appears because of hyperthreading, which most Intel processors have. AMD processors don't have hyperthreading now, but their next generation of cpu's might. Basically a dual-core intel cpu will show up as 4 logical cpu's in Windows XP task manager. A quad-core intel cpu will show up as 8 logical cpu's in task manager. This is not the case with AMD. A quad-core AMD cpu will show up as 4 logical cpu's in Windows XP task manager. The maximum number of logical cpu's is evident because of processor affinity. In Windows XP Task Manager, on the Processes tab, you can right-click any process and Set Affinity.... In the Processor Affinity window that pops up, there are 32 logical CPU's (cpu 0 - 31) under 32bit windows xp. The number is double in 64bit windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.10.151 (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Longest-lasting OS

It seems like every PC ever come across is still using XP, support extended until 2014? That must be well beyond what was originally planned back in '01. It's over 10 years old and still just the best apparently. Is there an explanation for this phenomenon? XP is as old as Wikipedia. 169.139.19.108 (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There IS an explanation for the phenomenon but I have forgotten the source, so I don't think you can put it into the article. But according to the forgotten source, Windows XP changed the role of the computers from an expense into that of a strategic asset.

On the whole, I think you had better search for a lot of sources before deciding to add this to the article. Fleet Command (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the explanation is partly that your average home PC user doesn't upgrade operating systems - they just use what the computer came with until the computer breaks down then they buy a new computer. Combine this with the fact that a lot of machines are just used for web browsing and other undemanding applications and that once processors reached a level of approx single-core 2GHz (say around 2003/2004) there was really no real need for the average user to upgrade in search of more performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.175.208 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I say far-fetched. Does not look that way from where I am standing. Do you have a source for this? Fleet Command (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

9/1/2011: 71.234.217.82: I think that a poor economy in the US (probably XP's largest market worldwide) combined with the much less frequent improvements in technology have both contributed to XP long life. While Windows 95 introduced a new shell (Explorer) and Windows 98 introduced FAT32 & USB, Windows XP has been compatible with all (or most) of the gradual improvements in the last 10 years, making a new OS unnecessary. It also helps that XP has very low system requirements (64MB RAM) compared to Windows Vista and Windows 7 (512MB-1GB RAM); both those OS's realistically require a hardware upgrade cycle. Signed 71.234.217.82. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.217.82 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section is mostly unsourced and also not very appropriate. I moved this chunk to the already existing page about WinXp critisicm and removed the section from this article, so it is in line with the other OS articles. StoneProphet (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC) they dont have sound is there anything on that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.163.157.58 (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Windows 7 overtakes Windows XP

After looking at the recent w3schools OS statistics report for August 2011, I kinda have a feeling that it's starting to become tiresome to having to monitor Windows XP market share now that it is no longer the most widely used operating system for accessing the internet.

The latest report has Windows 7 moving up 1.3% to 40.4% and Windows XP losing 1.1% to 38%, thus overtaking Windows XP's place.

Before there is any sort of flaming, edit-warring or reverting over which OS is the most widely used OS for accessing the internet, is it a good idea to:

1. Remove the references to the current market share for Windows XP now and reword the paragraph regarding the w3schools OS market share report?

2. Wait until after the end of this year and remove the references to the current Windows XP market share?

Share your thoughts on what should be done. 184.12.243.144 (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

There's really no need for any action. The figures don't have to be updated every month but, despite this, there's never any shortage of people willing to do so. If things change, and a month is missed here and there it's not an issue. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking, AussieLegend. w3schools reports its operating system usage statistics every month. In any event that we don't want to update the usage for Windows XP anymore, the reference to the current Windows XP market share can be removed and reworded.

Also...I bet that this is also not a issue right now, but you might want to find a way to capitalise "as of August 2011" or reword it at the beginning of the sentence. 184.12.243.144 (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Even in the event that we don't want to update, there's really nothing to do as the wording makes it clear that the figure shown is "as of" a certain date. The capitalisation was easily fixed, it was simply a matter of removing "|lc-y" from the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You have a very good point there. Thanks for fixing it. :) 74.42.181.173 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Available until end of Windows 7 lifecycle

Location of term limits Downgrade? Windows 7 Pro OEM EULA:

15. TRANSITION TO DOWNGRADE. Instead, the software, you can use one of the following earlier versions:

· Windows Vista Business,

· Microsoft Windows XP Professional,

· Microsoft Windows Professional x64 Edition, or

· Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.

This agreement covers the use of earlier versions. If an earlier version contains components which are not included in the new version of the software, using these components, you must comply with all conditions of use contained in the agreement, which accompanies an earlier version. Neither the manufacturer or installer, nor Microsoft is not responsible for delivering to you earlier. You must purchase the earlier version separately. You can always replace an earlier version of this version of the software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miros 0571 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you trying to say with this? --AussieLegend (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Statments

Wasn't the first version of Windows to use the NT kernel Windows NT 3.11? Captainsid2001 (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article says that XP was the first consumer-oriented operating system to be built on the Windows NT kernel, not that it was the first ever operating system to be built on the Windows NT kernel. Windows NT and its variants were all aimed at business use, not the average home user. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

ATM section

Almost nothing in the section on ATM and Vendor users of XP has a citation. This is an interesting area of discussion for the operating system enthusiast, but the entire section really ought to be rewritten, cleaned up, and feature proper citations for its claims. It should also probably be expanded in light of the large number of businesses shipping machines that use various versions of Windows XP Embedded ranging from cash-registers to billboards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgw2024 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

w3schools stats

Please do not cite w3schools statistics. The statistics only apply to people who access w3schools.com, not the internet at large. That's hardly a representative sample of the public! - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this assertion of yours? Fleet Command (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source to the contrary? Why should I be forced to justify it? The burden of proof is on whether w3schools is a reliable source. But I'll give you a source. How about the very page being cited? "Statistics are important information. From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of seven years, you can read the long term trends of operating system usage." It's right there, plain and dry: the statistics are from their own server logs. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What sites do collect data from the internet at large? It's unlikely that any site presents a picture that is truly representative. The only site that might come close is microsoft.com, given the dominance of MS operating systems, but even then, the pictures is going to be skewed slightly. For now, I don't see any evidence that w3schools isn't RS, so it's inappropriate to keep removing the content from the article, especially given that you are obviously in the minority in his discussion. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

W3schools also states: "The statistics above are extracted from W3Schools' log-files, but we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures." And the claim in the article is prefaced by what I feel is an appropriate qualification, clearly stated. I would support strengthening that qualification, and perhaps adding data from and a link to another source, such as this one. I would also support moving such things from the lede to a new "Market share and user base" section. I will not support removing it completely without more justification than I've seen here. Jeh (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"we are also monitoring other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures"? That doesn't mean anything! It doesn't turn an unreliable source into a reliable one. After all, you're taking their word for it on whether they actually do the monitoring they claim. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you are willing to accept their claim that their primary data source is the logs from their own servers, why are you unwilling to accept their other claims? Jeh (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"you're taking their word for it" - That's pretty much true for any source for anything. It doesn't stop a source from being reliable. In the case of w3schools, it would be irresponsible for them not to pull stats from other sources, since web developers need the information in order to develop websites that cater for their demographic. I've seen w3schools referenced numerous times online so I'm going to assume good faith here and not assume that they're telling lies. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not terribly inclined to assume good faith from a company that probably gets a good deal of its business from the common misconception that they have something to do with the W3C. (I realize it would be an ad hominem argument to argue that therefore their stats are unreliable, but I'm just answering the 'good faith' bit here.) Also, it would be simple for them to cite what other sources they are monitoring. If they can't be bothered to say what those sources are, I'm not sure I can be bothered to believe them. Even if it's true (which of course it probably is), we have zero information about the quality and types of sites they are monitoring. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't follow your logic here. "If you are willing to accept a claim of theirs which is a strike against them, why are you unwilling to accept another claim of theirs which is in their favor?" Are you really asking this? - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that to be what he's asking nor do I see them using their server logs as a strike against them. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a strike against them per se, but it's a strike against the idea that it is anything near a representative sample of people on the internet. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What sites do collect data from the internet at large? It's unlikely that any site presents a picture that is truly representative. That's an argument for not citing any statistics at all. If you really must cite statistics, you should cite a variety of sources, not just site with a demographic as specific as web developers. If nintendo.com published their statistics, would you have used theirs? They are no more an authority on the subject. As for who would have a representative picture, I'd suggest Google, since it's about the one site almost everybody uses, though I don't know if they publish such statistics. - furrykef (Talk at me) 02:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that citing a variety of sources is a good idea. Deleting the one we already have does not seem to me to be an effective way to start. Jeh (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should be quoting stats from more sites but I don't see any issue with including the current content. It specifically says that the claim is from w3schools, not that it's from everyone. It's up to the reader to determine whether they're willing to trust w3schools. The difference with nintendo.com is that it's not in the business of generating statistics of the sort we'd use in this article so I wouldn't trust it for that reason. My own websites (I have more than one) generate a range of statistics that differ from w3schools but my business is not generating web statistics either. W3schools' business is generating that data and it has been referenced on numerous websites so it appears to me to be a reliable source. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It says that the claim is from w3schools; it does not clearly say that the data merely comes from their own server logs. I'm also a bit fuzzy on how generating server logs coudl be considered their business. I could make a website that caters to Linux nerds that also has the "business" of publishing stats from its server logs. And then suddenly almost everybody on the internet is a Linux user! Imagine that. w3schools isn't in the business of publishing stats. It's in the business of teaching web development (and therefore the stats will be heavily skewed towards people interested in it). Publishing stats collected from their server logs is just something they do on the side. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Allow me to elaborate a bit further. The current wording is, "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet in the world...". This is an absurd claim. You can't take server logs from one site, especially a site with a very specific demographic, and say "this is the distribution of OSes among users all across the internet". You can only say, "this is the distribution of OSes among users of this website". So saying "for accessing the Internet" is making a claim that cannot be backed up by the source. The most it could claim is something like, "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, Windows XP is the most widely used operating system for accessing the w3schools website." I imagine that, upon reading this, most people would scratch their heads and go, "So? Why should I care? I've never even been to that site." Which is exactly what I thought (except I have been there before) and is why I deleted it. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're completely ignoring w3schools claim that it monitors content from other sources. Based on what the site states, saying that "the data merely comes from their own server logs" would be OR. As for the stats being "something they do on the side", I hope you realise that businesses don't usually concentrate on one specific aspect. Car manufacturers don't just manufacture one model of car, IT professionals don't just fix computers, pet shops don't just sell dogs. Businesses provide related services and that's what w3schools is doing. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring that at all. In fact I addressed that in one of my above comments. The fact is, the only numbers they provide are from their own sources. They can't be aggregating their statistics with statistics from other sites because (unless they have those sites' actual server logs and not just percentages) that would be a horrific statistical blunder. So we have three possibilities here: 1) they are using only their own server logs; 2) they are committing a horrific statistical blunder; 3) they do in fact have server logs from other sites as well, but haven't disclosed what sites those are, so we have zero -- I repeat, zero -- idea of their reliability, reputability, statistical significance, etc. #1 is the situation exactly as I've claimed; #2 would make the statistics completely unusable; #3 seems unlikely, certainly is unverifiable, and as such does nothing to help anyone's case. I still fail to see the "service they're providing" argument; again, if nintendo.com published their server stats, suddenly they would have a side business of providing statistics too. And nobody would seriously cite them as a source. Why do they cite w3schools, then, when their credentials would be the same? (My own personal guess is because people might think they have something to do with the W3C -- which they don't -- and since the W3C is prestigious, there must be something to what they say.) Publishing stats from server logs and monitoring vaguely defined "other web sources" is something any idiot with a web server can do. w3schools is no more and no less qualified to do it than anybody else. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

w3schools' server logs are, if anything, only a reliable source for assertions about the visitors to their own site. It might be reasonable to present this information with statistics from a number of other sites, allowing the reader to make their own decision on which was relevant (though there is a strong risk of bias in selection of sources), but we can't use it to make a claim about the entire world. GreenReaper (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think (hope) we all agree that adding statistics from other sites is necessary and that should be the solution, not deleting the only statistics we have, which doesn't seem productive. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have brought this up last year, but it looks like my post was trashed. I agree that having stats is necessary, but w3schools is not the way to go. Why not use StatCounter Global Stats? It tracks 15 billion page views every month from 3 million websites. It's not perfect, but at least it's closer to reality than what w3schools stats have to offer. Norbiu (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't trasted, just moved to the archives. There are several pages of archives available for this page. - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't trashed, it was archived to Talk:Windows XP/Archive 4#W3Schools Reference after it had been replied to and there had been no further discussion for some time. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

W3Schools own website states that "W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to the browser that comes preinstalled with their computer, and do not seek out other browser alternatives. These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is a more popular browser. Anyway, our data, collected from W3Schools' log-files, over many years, clearly shows the long and medium-term trends." (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp). I think it is important to provide more than one source for statistics. You can't honestly expect people to blindly take one set of statistics and take it as scripture, you are misleading them. I think Net Applications has a much more reliable model of measuring statistics. It's probably also why most publications cite NetApp's market share figures. The only sites that cite W3Schools stats are pro-Windows 7 publications. (talk) 01:51, 14 March 2012

OK, guys, let's revisit this issue.

According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools, from September 2003 to July 2011, Windows XP was the most widely used operating system for accessing the Internet.

No, no, no. You cannot generalize from one website's logs to the entire internet. I am deleting this again. The justification for keeping it so far has basically been, "well, we should cite other sources and nobody has done it yet". Well, it's been half a year and nobody's cited any other sources. Meanwhile the article text has been and still is what basically amounts to a blatant lie, since it implies "most widely used operating system for accessing w3schools.com" is the same as "most widely used operating system for accessing the internet", especially since we know for a fact (given the discussion above) that w3schools' statistics are not representative of the internet. You can put it back after you get more sources or you find a wording that isn't a lie. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

What you're claiming is really no different to what you stated previously, and you're still ignoring the fact that w3schools collects data from other websites. Nothing has changed since the last time we discussed this, you haven't presented any new arguments and there is still no consensus to remove the content. You can't remove cited content just because you don't like it. As was indicated previously, the solution is to add citations, not remove the only one that we have. That's far less disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to you point by point.

you're still ignoring the fact that w3schools collects data from other websites

As I have already explained, the "fact" that "w3schools collects data from other sites" is meaningless. What sites? How much information? There is zero verifiability there. For our purposes, this "fact" may as well not exist. Second, the site itself says, "From the statistics below, collected from W3Schools' log-files over a period of seven years, you can read the long term trends of operating system usage." There is nothing about other websites mentioned as pertains to the statistics cited.

Nothing has changed since the last time we discussed this, you haven't presented any new arguments

My previous arguments weren't wrong.

You can't remove cited content just because you don't like it.

I'm not removing it because "I don't like it", I'm removing it because it is a lie. It is saying that the source gives representative statistics for the internet as a whole, when it does not do anything remotely like this. As I said, find a wording that isn't a lie and it can stay. You have not done this. Can we at least agree that Wikipedia should not contain lies?

As was indicated previously, the solution is to add citations, not remove the only one that we have.

Yes, but nobody has added more citations. Thus this misleading statement has remained in the article for half an entire year. We mustn't put lies in our articles, and especially not leave them for extended periods of time, just in the hope that somebody will come along and fix them later. Have you ever wondered why people claim Wikipedia is an inaccurate source of information, full of half-truths? This is why. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy now, so I'll have to reply to this later. Hopefully, somebody else might join in again in the meantime. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for your response. In the meantime, you may have noticed I changed the wording. I still don't understand why you couldn't just find a better wording instead of putting it back as-is every time. I'm certainly not happy with what I came up with... as I said before, my first reaction upon reading "so-and-so is the most common operating system used to access some obscure website you've never heard of" would be, "So what?" - furrykef (Talk at me) 11:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was otherwise occupied and then this completely slipped from my mind. Despite your assertion in this edit summary, and statements above, there is nothing that is a lie. The text you're having problems with starts with a clear qualifier that the claim is simply "According to web analytics data generated by W3Schools" which stops what follows from being "representative statistics for the internet as a whole" and clarifies that it's the opinion of a single site. However, as was discussed 9 months ago, w3schools does monitor "other sources around the Internet to assure the quality of these figures". Like any claim provided by any source, we're unlikely to find the extent of that monitoring but, just as with any other source, we don't dump the source just because of that. It would certainly be better to quote more sources but nobody, including you, has done that. As has been said before, lack of multiple sources isn't justification for removing the one that we have. If you can provide a better source then please do so but, until such time as you do, your claims are essentially OR. Rehashing the same arguments 9 months after they were last presented isn't achieving anything. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AussieLegend. I think the qualification in the article ("According to...") is completely sufficient. And I think Furrykef's actions here are tendentious (aka beating a dead horse), as this matter was discussed months ago and there is no reason I can see to revisit it. btw, re one of Furrykef's comments: True, consensus is not needed to remove a lie. But consensus is needed to determine that something is a lie, particularly when it was previously agreed upon as acceptable content! Like AussieLegend just above, I don't agree that the text you keep trying to remove is a lie. And there is certainly no more justification for calling it a lie now than there was last year, when the matter was settled in favor of keeping the disputed text. Jeh (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall the matter ever being settled. People just stopped arguing. It doesn't necessarily mean any kind of consensus was formed. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, I apologize for my vehemence in this matter. While my overall opinion still has not changed (in particular, I do not think w3schools is a reputable source, let alone that applying their statistics to the whole internet is a good idea), I realize I have responded with more venom than is warranted. Please understand that it just comes from a passionate desire for Wikipedia to be a solid reference work with reliable information. In any case I will drop this matter for now because I'm just not interested in it any longer. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Article title consistency note

Other Ms products are listed with the manufacturere name. i.e.:'Microsoft XP Pro' or 'Microsoft Windows XP Pro'
--Wikidity (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

They are? I didn't find that in any of the following 47 articles.

• Windows 1.0
• Windows 2.0
• Windows 2.1x
• Windows 3.0
• Windows 3.1x
• Windows 95
• Windows 98
• Windows Me
• Windows NT 3.1
• Windows NT 3.5
• Windows NT 3.51
• Windows NT 4.0

• Windows 2000
• Windows Vista
• Windows 7
• Windows 8
• Windows Server
• Windows Server 2003
• Windows Server 2008
• Windows Server 2008 R2
• Windows HPC Server 2008
• Windows Essential Business Server 2008
• Windows Home Server
• Windows Home Server 2011

• Windows MultiPoint Server
• Windows Small Business Server
• Windows Server 8
• Windows Embedded
• Windows Embedded Automotive
• Windows Embedded POSReady
• Windows Preinstallation Environment
• Windows To Go
• Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
• Windows CE
• Windows CE 3.0
• Windows CE 5.0

• Windows Embedded CE 6.0
• Windows Embedded Compact 7
• Windows Mobile
• Windows Phone
• Cairo (operating system)
• Windows Nashville
• Windows Neptune
• Windows Odyssey
• Windows Aero
• Windows Setup
• Windows XP themes

Which OS articles start with Microsoft? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Unremovable spam

There's a bit of spam under "non-use by end user" (reading "I like tacos"), but I couldn't see it in the markup when I went to edit it. I don't edit very much - please advise? Rincewind32 (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Must have been a caching glitch or similar, editing and saving the page (without data change) and it's gone. --Denniss (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Shortcomings of Windows XP

I think a section on Windows XP's shortcomings should be included, especially with newer OSes by Microsoft being used more widely. I'm thinking of mentioning:

1. Support for Windows XP will cease in early 2013.
2. Can support up to directX 9.0c only.
3. Cannot support newer CPU instructions like AVX.

203.118.14.114 (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

These are true of any old version of an operating system. Not the kind of shortcomings that we'd include in this article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If the contributor could supply a reliable source, I see no Wikipedia policy against including these. However, I do not recommend it. I'd rather accept that things change with time. Maintaining such a section would not be necessary to remind me of that. New technologies and software always come anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Excessive use of non-free content

This article has previously had excessive non-free images removed. Yesterday it had nine non-free images but, in the past 24 hours an editor has added 10 more. I cleaned up the article, removing all but one of these as none of the images had appropriate FURs but they have since been restored, even adding a gallery for good measure,[1] despite advising the editor at length on his talk page of the problems.[2] His attempts at adding FURs are poor at best,[3] and his edit wars have resulted in me being unable to remove the offending files yet again without breaching 3RR. I have tagged the article appropriately,[4] but little more can be done (at least by me) at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the last paragraph above the contents:

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

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

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

Since you apparently didn't bother looking in the archives, here is the link to the relevant discussion.[5] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Indeed, there's no reason at all why it can't. As I said though, it's unlikely that any site presents a picture that is truly representative,[6] and because every site gathers information differently there are bound to be differences, even significant differences, between sites. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wrong Date in the First Paragraph

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

Release Date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of life

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

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

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

I will also add that it is not appropriate for 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 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer here is extremely simple. On 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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a proposal for which I invite comment.

Proposal

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

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

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

Proposal (withdrawn)

End of Support Options The ending of support for XP means that no further updates will be distributed. The danger of this for existing XP users is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) then XP systems will remain vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows may increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, may point to an equivalent weakness in XP. Most corporate customers will be forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems, but for individual customers a number of options are available. Option Advantages Disadvantages Buy new hardware modern hardware and software potentially avoid reliability problems relatively straightforward offers opportunity to switch to a low cost Chromebook or an Apple Mac if desired high cost windows 8.1 interface significantly different from XP data must be migrated (though there is some help with this) may need to purchase new versions of third party software Upgrade to Windows 8.1 most recent version no data migration modern user interface significant cost not possible with most XP era hardware windows 8.1 interface significantly different from XP possible compatibility issues with existing programs Upgrade to Windows 7 more familiar interface than Windows 8.1 some older hardware supported no data migration significant cost not possible with much XP era hardware possible compatibility issues with existing programs no longer sold by Microsoft Continue use of XP zero direct cost zero effort anti-virus still available no compatibility issues significant, and increasing, risk of hacking drivers for new hardware not available not appropriate for business environment Migrate to Ubuntu or other Linux zero direct cost supports most older hardware continuing support no data migration can be tried out without committing to Linux different user interface compatibility issues with existing programs technically more demanding

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

Survey (withdrawn proposal)

• Oppose. First, that's very lovely of you, but you forgot to ask community's opinion or even provide a section for it. So, I took the liberty of complimenting it. But as for the proposal, it is against 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.

Reworked Proposal

End of Support The ending of support on April 8, 2014 means that after that date no further updates are generally distributed. The danger of this for users continuing to run XP is that as security holes are uncovered (as regularly happens with operating system software) XP systems will remain permanently vulnerable to attack. The continued support for newer versions of Windows was considered likely to increase the rate of discovery of such holes as some updates, while plugging the hole for the new version, will point to an equivalent weakness in XP. Most corporate customers were forced by liability issues to migrate to newer systems, but the position of individual customers generated considerable press comment. Microsoft recommended purchasing new hardware (with it's accompanying system software), though it's unlikely they were thinking of The Wall Street Journal's suggestion that users should consider buying an Apple Mac or a low cost Chromebook. Migrating to more recent versions of windows was impossible for many since most older hardware is not capable of running these, though for the most recent XP systems this was a viable solution, being less expensive than a new system purchase. Faced with this situation, many commentators considered the option of continuing to use XP, since this involved zero direct cost and involved no effort beyond ensuring current security best practices were followed. While some were strongly opposed to the idea, others saw it as a legitimate response, provided users understood the risk of their system being compromised. Finally, migrating to a Linux distribution such as Ubuntu was suggested by some as a free alternative to taking the risk of continuing to run XP, while still allowing access to existing data. Any compatibility problems could be explored before committing to a change by booting a live CD or USB key version, and the city of Munich handed out 2000 such CDs to provide its citizens with a no-cost upgrade solution.

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

Survey

• Oppose. Hi again. I am opposing for the same reason that I opposed your previous proposal; 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)

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

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

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

• .

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

Really?

• You threaten to revert whatever I write on the grounds of WP:V, but I have made no declaration that I intend trying to circumvent the discussion process or taken any action in that direction. In fact I intend to follow due process right to the end. I find your statement strange and worrisome.
• "every school child knows that malware protection is what antivirus offers". This isn't really about technical discussions rather than what sources say, but for the record, while security isn't my particular speciality, this statement seems to me to be wrong. Consider [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."[7] --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?[8][9][10]

"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

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)

Security announcement. Reverted - breaking the rules.

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; 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.

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?)

See revert: [11] [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

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 disaster", 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 significant 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)

Is this within guidelines?

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)