Talk:Windows XP - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Encyclopedia77 (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 24 November 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:18, 24 November 2008 by Encyclopedia77 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows XP article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Top-importance).

Windows XP is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2005.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 6, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 10, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 29, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
February 9, 2005	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 21, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
January 23, 2008	Featured article review	Demoted
May 13, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
July 21, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Microsoft's "megabyte"

What is WP:OR about the old chestnut that Microsoft uses megabyte (and other byte multiples) in their binary sense? I'm truly puzzled: this has been known for years, is unabashedly admitted by Microsoft, and easily verifiable. So why remove the statement that the 64 MB quoted in Windows XP's system requirements actually means 64 MiB? Specifically:

<sup>,</sup>{{fn|2}} || 128 MB RAM or higher
{{fnb|2}}Whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes; that is to say, a ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/funzone/puzzle/answers/nov1105.mspx|accessdate=2008-08-18|title=Weekly Scripting Puzzle for November 11, 2005|date=2005-11-18}}</ref> This is natural for RAM, not so for disk space.

Urhixidur (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not it "has been known for years" is irrelevant. It needs to be verifiable that it is the case with this article. This edit is clearly wrong as the source used for the data specifically states the requirements in megabytes, not mebibytes. "At least 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM (128 MB is recommended)"

Regarding this edit, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability states "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The source that you've used to support the claim "Whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes; that is to say, a mebibyte" fails to do that. Yes, it does state that a TechNet scripting puzzle from November 11, 2005 defined a megabyte as 1048576 bytes but it does not support the claim that "Whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes". (emphasis added). Of more relevance to this article, there is no direct link to Windows XP or Windows XP system requirements at all. Arriving at the conclusion that Microsoft always defines a megabyte as 1048576 bytes because of a mention in an unrelated TechNet article and that must therefore mean that when Microsoft has stated that Windows XP requires 64MB it actually means 64MiB is synthesis of published material which advances a position which, as you should know, is original research. The policy is clear on this: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." The source you've used does not explicitly reach the same conclusion and is not directly related to the article.

When all is said and done, the units used are really irrelevant. The difference between 64 MB and 64 MiB is only 3.1 MB and the difference between 128 MB and 128 MiB is only 6.2 MB, both of which are trivial amounts, even more so when you consider that memory is sold in units labelled "MB" regardless of the actual number of bits on the memory module. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"The units used are really irrelevant" : Sigh, not that tiresome argument again. If the difference is irrelevant, why obfuscate it? This is precisely the mentality that has been making space probes crash into planets, or Ariane V explode on its first launch. Costly disregard for accuracy. This is an encyclopedia, we're supposed to get it right.

Back to the topic at hand. All right, since a single random page from MS isn't enough, how many will it take? This is a good one: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb330927(VS.80).aspx (Microsoft Developer Network Library, Bits & Bytes: Lesson 3, February 2007). There are plenty of other MS pages that corroborate, such as the one quoted earlier, and this one http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/windows2000serv/reskit/w2000Msgs/2547.mspx?mfr=true (Microsoft TechNet Windows 2000 Error Messages Reference). And this one http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B842355&x=13&y=9 (Microsoft Help and Support, KB842355 How Services for Macintosh uses system resources in Windows Server 2003, Capacity Planning Examples, 2007-02-27) or http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B288750&x=13&y=13 (Microsoft Help and Support, KB288750 Disk Quota Default Setting Prevents Logon Request, 2006-01-15) or http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/guide/sas_vbs_ghfr.mspx?mfr=true (Microsoft TechNet VBScript Overview: Constants, undated) or http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=kb%3Ben-us%3B181862&x=12&y=15 (Microsoft Help and Support, KB181862 Specifying Amount of RAM Available to Windows Using MaxPhysPage, 2007-01-22). All of these pages state over and over again "One megabyte is 1,048,576 bytes".

I did find one exception: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc180215.aspx (Microsoft TechNet Library, Configuring Monitoring Scenarios in the Windows Servers Base Operating System State Management Pack, Table 8 - Default Performance Thresholds).

I'll be back later with some phrasing suggestions. Urhixidur (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"If the difference is irrelevant, why obfuscate it?" - Quite simply, it's trivial as regards this article. It adds nothing to the article and is completely unnecessary.

"This is precisely the mentality that has been making space probes crash into planets, or Ariane V explode on its first launch." - I wasn't aware that Misplaced Pages was used as a primary reference by spacecraft designers. If any do then their spacecraft deserve to crash/explode/burn up during reentry etc. There are far more authoritative references that a professional should use for such critical processes. Misplaced Pages is not one of them.

"All right, since a single random page from MS isn't enough, how many will it take?" - Probably just one, as long as it's directly relevant to the article and improves it as well as not being WP:OR.

"I did find one exception:" - Which immediately disproves the claim that "whenever Microsoft talks of a "megabyte", it means 1048576 bytes".

And, FYI, regarding "This is natural for RAM, not so for disk space", you might be interested to learn that this is not entirely correct. In the early days of disk drives (pre-1990), it was natural to express disk drives sizes using what is now defined as a mebibyte. It was only when the number of disk drive manufacturers and drive sizes started increasing (c.1993) that drive manufacturers started expressing sizes using the metric definition of mega. They did so because 536MB sounded a lot better value than 512MB did. It worked well as a marketing ploy until all manufacturers caught on. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"I wasn't aware that Misplaced Pages was used as a primary reference by spacecraft designers" : You misunderstand again. I was referring to the mentality that considers vagueness of definitions as okay. A Mars probe was lost because some engineers failed to check the specs they were handed and thought pounds-feet-per-whatever were comparable to metric measurements. No doubt some mission-critical signal-processing software will crash somewhere somewhen because of a buffer overrun (from allocating a megabyte but reading a mebibyte): "trivial" differences aren't always trivial.

"They did so because 536MB sounded a lot better value than 512MB did" : Now, that's definitely WP:OR. You just try and prove that quasi-malicious intent!

Anyway, how about a short note attached to the first occurrence of "64 MB" stating simply "Actually meaning 64 MiB" with one reference (probably the MDNL Bits & Bytes one). The exception is probably not worth mentioning here but could be mentioned in the mebibyte article. Would this be an acceptable compromise? Urhixidur (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"You misunderstand again."" - I didn't misunderstand anything. I was trying to be subtle in pointing out how irrelevant the comment was in reference to a Misplaced Pages article on Windows XP, which is not an operating system used on spacecraft of the type you mentioned.

"I was referring to the mentality that considers vagueness of definitions as okay. A Mars probe was lost etc" - None of which is in any way relevant to this article. It doesn't matter a tinker's cus whether the definition is precise here, for reasons that I've already mentioned. No spacecraft is going to be lost because somebody wasn't pedantic about the difference between MB and MiB on Misplaced Pages and I should point out that the difference between the two has never caused the loss of any spacecraft. Being so pedantic is really going overboard.

"Now, that's definitely WP:OR." - It might be if I was going to use it in an article but it was presented here only as general information.

"You just try and prove that quasi-malicious intent!" - It's not hard. The evidence is in online spec sheets and old computer magazines.

"how about a short note attached to the first occurrence of "64 MB" stating simply "Actually meaning 64 MiB" with one reference (probably the MDNL Bits & Bytes one)" - I refer you back to WP:SYNTH. You need a citation that explicitly reaches the same conclusion as you. That means that it has to directly support the claim. The Bits & Bytes citation doesn't even mention XP, let alone support the claim that 64MB on the Win XP system requirements page actually means 64MiB. I doubt you'll find a citation that does. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

So all the technical pages from Microsoft that state over and over that they mean the binary megabyte are not evidence? You're being obtuse. Microsoft has, for whatever reason, decided to ignore the very existence of the binary prefixes, so of course they won't bother to state that they don't use it. But neither do they hide from explaining what megabyte means for them.

Meanwhile, out of curiosity, do they try and provide at least one source (not some pundit) stating the switch to decimal megabyte on the part of drive manufacturers was at least in part motivated by publicity reasons. Urhixidur (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

In short, as far as this article is concerned, none of the pages that you've so far cited are sources that support your claim in a way that satisfies Misplaced Pages policy. As I've previously pointed out, with reference to specific policy, the reference must directly support your claim and it must be relevant to the article. The links you've provided are circumstantial support at the very, very best. One even disproves your claim. None show a direct link to Windows XP. In fact they specifically target other operating systems (Mac, Win2k3, Win2k, MS-DOS, Win 98, WinMe etc). You need a verifiable source in which Microsoft unabashedly admits that the figures used on the Windows XP system requirements page define 1MB to be 1,048,576 bytes.

Regarding hard drives, at the time I don't remember seeing a magazine that didn't discuss the issue, along with other relevant topics of the day such as dodgy retailers selling overclocked 486SX25 CPUs and 486SX33s. Interestingly, one of the references that you supplied talks about disk quotas using the 1MB=1,048,576 bytes definition, supporting a claim that it is more natural to specifiy disk sizes in those units rather than the metric definition.

I should point out that this is the only OS article where 1048576 vs 1000000 seems to be an issue. Everyone else seems fine with just specifying MB and not worrying about the extra (or not) 48,576 bytes. I think there's a message there. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw this debate listed on the '3rd opinion' mediation page and thought to add my 2.048 cents worth. I have been an IT professional for more than 20 years and have held MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) certifications. I have not until a few moments ago ever heard of the word 'mebibyte'. Thus, I am confident it has never been used by Microsoft to refer to their system memory requirements. Savlonn (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I also refer you to the official Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, where agreement has been reached on this exact point. To quote:

After many years of debate, it was agreed that the prefixes K, M, G, ... although familiar, were ambiguous for quantities of bits and bytes. It was also agreed that IEC prefixes, while not ambiguous, had seen little real-world adoption and were therefore unfamiliar to the typical reader. The consensus was that for the byte and bit prefixes, the spirit of the Manual of Style is better reflected by having familiar but ambiguous units, rather than unambiguous but unfamiliar units The guide also states:

The IEC prefixes are not to be used on Misplaced Pages except under the following circumstances:

when the article is on a topic where the majority of cited sources use the IEC prefixes,
when directly quoting a source that uses the IEC prefixes,
in articles specifically about or explicitly discussing the IEC prefixes.

Savlonn (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(did not know you were a techie ... welcome to the club :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

yep, but not techie enough to figure out how to make fancy Misplaced Pages user pages :( (pls excuse off-topic comment)Savlonn (talk) 10:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

It looks like someone has come in already, but I'll state what I found. I don't see a problem with a footnote explaining the difference- the MOS decision dealt with using these terms inline; e.g., if an article says "The application used 512 megabytes of available memory", that means 512 * 1024 bytes. I don't think that should cover a footnote, but I do agree that the sources aren't specific enough. However, I think I have one that is: . See the section entitled "Definition of binary hard disk drive size". I would say to include it with that citation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The first issue I see with using the HP page is that it deals with hard drive sizes. Urhixidur's issue is with RAM, not hard drives. Not unexpectedly, it also contradicts his claim that it is more natural to express hard drive sizes using decimal sizes rather than binary sizes. Clearly Microsoft does not think that's the case. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought it was used equally on both, but Binary prefix does say that hard disks are typically decimal and RAM is binary prefix. Scrap that reference, then. I still think inclusion would be fine with a reference, but those above don't fit the bill. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Two distinct questions:

Would a footnote explaining simply that MS's "64 MB" is "64×1024×1024 bytes" (with a reference to, say, MDNL Bits & Bytes: Lesson 3) be acceptable? How about an addition to that footnote along the lines of "for details, see Binary prefixes"?
Was the original intervention WP:OR to within any stretch of the imagination?

Urhixidur (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference doesn't work because it doesn't say that XP's system requirements are expressed in either binary or decimal. Being published by microsoft doesn't necessarily mean they use that system on all of their system requirements. You'd need something that explicitly says Microsoft used one specific system. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever find such a quote on Microsoft's part, because they all consider it so obvious (when dealing with RAM). Would a third party (such as this, for example) do? I mean, articles such as Computer memory state that " RAM specified using binary meanings for K (1024), M (1024), G (1024)", without being able to provide a clear reference. Urhixidur (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that source comes even close. As has been stated a number of times, most recently by JeremyMcCracken, the source needs to explicitly state that Microsoft uses one specific system. That source doesn't even mention Microsoft. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Following that argument to its logical conclusion means we'd have to add a footnote to the memory requirements spec stating that « It is not clear whether this refers to 64,000,000 or 67,108,864 bytes. » I have a hunch most readers and editors would find that laughable. Urhixidur (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

maximum ram?

When I tried obtain quote from PC-Specialist, a British Company making custom PC's; I inputted a custom PC with one of the Phenom x4 processors, 4GB of RAM and and OS of Windows XP and this is the message I've encountered:

Please note - Installing 4GBs of RAM onto PCs with Windows XP Home Operating System is not advised since 32-bit operating systems do not support 4GBs of system memory. We recommend clicking BACK and selecting 2GBs of system memory or changing your operating system to a 64-bit version. If you decide to continue with 4GBs of system memory it will not hurt but you will not be able to address it all. You probably will not be able to address much more than 3GB, and you might not be able to address more than 2GB. If you would like any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us on 0844 499 4000

Does this mean that Windows XP has the maximum RAM support of 2GB only?

When I contacted one of their operators, he said that if I applied for 4GB only 3.5GB of ram will be addressed and recognized. His statement does seem to be dubious.

I have found no mention of how much more RAM can XP can address and support.

88.105.53.57 (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See MSDN, Memory Limits for Windows Releases: the physical memory limit for XP is 4 GiB; the per-process virtual address space limit is 2 GiB because the OS splits the 4 GiB between the app and the system. The "partition" can be moved so the app has 3 GiB and the system 1 GiB (with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and "4-gigabyte tuning"). Urhixidur (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

That page is wrong, I have seen a page on microsofts website with correct information but I cba looking for it right now. Windows XP 32 bit (at least with SP2, i've heared rumours that prior to SP2 it supported more) is limited to 4GB of physical ADDRESS SPACE, since RAM isn't the only thing that has to be in that address space this leads to less than 4GB of usable RAM. Plugwash (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WGA

Could someone please clear up the WGA section in this article? To me, it sounds like a virus (I was bombarded with it once and 3 days later it was mysteriously genuine. It felt like a scam.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.141.239 (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

WGA and WGA Notification are related but different things. Both keep changing. Notifications puts the display on your screen. As of August, 2008, the MS XP WGAN blog looks like this: http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2008/08/26/update-to-wga-notifications-for-windows-xp-professional.aspx There is new behavior, including a new persistent display. Accepting WGA Notification is (at the moment, for XP) voluntary. You can reject it and still get to Windows Update by passing the WGA. If anyone is interested in clearing this section up, the WGA page would be a good place to start. 12.226.24.113 (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned things up a bit, activation is no longer conflated with WGA but work still needs to be done on clarifying the relationship between the checker and the notifications if any. Plugwash (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

License refund

I agree with the IP who deleted this. I don't see how this section is worth including. It's not really an XP issue. It's more an issue with Dell's refund policy than anything else. Before re-inclusion in the article it would need to be substantially expanded to give it some context and explain why it's so notable as to be included. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you not to delete notable, well sourced content?--Kozuch (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd dispute that it's notable at all. As is quite obvious from the citations you've provided it's not unusual for refunds to be given and it's not a new policy. It's quite clearly stated in the EULA that if you don't agree to the EULA you can return the OS for a refund so why does it deserve to be in the article? If you want to keep this content in the article you need to explain clearly why giving a refund is so notable. At the moment, the message you are trying to convey is not clear at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the worlds most spread OS EULA suits as notable enough to be included in the article for articles good NPOV. Besides, I hate when somebody deletes well sourced and NPOV content just like that... there is literally tons of other unsourced content waiting to be deleted in Misplaced Pages. Regards, --Kozuch (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't explained why some British man getting a refund that he is already entitled to under the EULA is notable. Why is this man different to anyone else who has received a refund? As for what you hate, or what I hate for that matter, that's irrelevant. to the issue. Personal preferences are not NPOV. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

PS: Expansion is also very poor reason for a deletion in a B-class article.--Kozuch (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by this. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You argued the text has to be "substantially expanded" before re-inclusion (which I did then though). I say it is not a good reason for a B-class article (for Featured article maybe is, but not here). But that is off topic. Regards --Kozuch (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The point of expansion is so that your point is clear. As written it wasn't so you needed to expand on what you wrote, otherwise what you wrote served no purpose and may as well be deleted since it appeared to be more trivia than anything else. Now that you have expanded it it's clear from the citations that the main issues are that non-acceptance of the EULA entitles the end user to a refund, that despite the entitlement some companies refuse to issue refunds and courts have enforced the entitlement. Other factors, such as the desire to use another OS and how much people were refunded are really irrelevant issues. I've rewritten the section appropriately, highlighting the important issues and removing the trivial issues. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Windows XP retail sales

The article says that retail sales of Windows XP ceased. This is not true, as I saw an advert (a few days ago) for a laptop with Windows XP Home Edition, in a catalogue for Tesco, or some other supermarket. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It was in a Morrisons leaflet. The offer started on 22 September 2008. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Retail sales refers to sales of boxed versions of the Windows XP operatinmg system, not bundled with hardware. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actual minimum required CPU speed is 100MHz

I added a footnote to the requirements table saying that although Microsoft states that the minimum CPU speed is 233MHz, Windows XP is able to be installed on a 100MHz computer.

I have added a citation for this claim in the form of a youtube video showing windows xp running on an intel pentium 100MHz, with CPU-Z showing the CPU information for verification.

A moderator has added the tag to the end of the footnote. How do I go about making this (more) verifiable? --Daneel (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to include a citation from a reliable, third party published source that supports your claim. Youtube is not considered to be a reliable source, which is why the {{Verify source}} tag was added. In addition to the two documents linked to in this reply, I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, which is one of Misplaced Pages's core policies, for more guidance. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I will endeavor to find a more reliable reference for the statement. I have previously read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, however I assumed (incorrectly), that a youtube video might suffice. Glad to have been corrected :) --Daneel (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hail, not Criticize

Windows XP has been hailed for being resistant to viruses, malware, etc. It has NOT been criticized. I will provide external links soon. --Encyclopedia77 (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it's been criticized as well. The fact that it was hailed is irrelevant to the criticism section. Needs a reference either way. Be sure to read the below discussion too. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That it has been criticised is a fairly uncontroversial claim and as such, doesn't really warrant the need for citations, although there are some in Criticism of Windows XP, which is linked to from the section we're speaking about. I don't think even Bill Gates would deny that there have been criticisms about security flaws. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Apple has run a successful advertising campaign called Get a Mac, articulating exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. Warren -talk- 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories: