Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:37, 4 October 2015

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

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

Windows XP was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 10, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing: Software Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Microsoft: Windows Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. [REDACTED] This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

	Windows XP is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 6, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 10, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 29, 2005 Peer review Reviewed February 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted December 21, 2005 Featured article review Kept January 23, 2008 Featured article review Demoted May 13, 2008 Peer review Reviewed July 21, 2008 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Former featured article

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 25, 2004 and October 25, 2014.

What Does XP Really Mean? Is it the mirrored image of 9x?

I have got in touch with Windows XP before its releasing. The very first and official explanation of XP is eXPerience, but please take notice of form of XP in its logo: XP does present itself in the lowercase form, xp, to the upper right corner of Windows, each time we could find when it booting up. If you take a mirror against "xp", you could see into that mirror, another view similar with "9x" would crash into your eye. There is not Windows 9x at all, people just use 9x referring Windows products based on MSDOS and BIOS functions directly, such as Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME. Windows Me is the very last mature release for Windows 9x, and gives way to Windows XP, a completely different product based on NT rather than 9x. And what's more, if you could increase the number from 98, you would get 99 and ninety-ten, 9X, here X stands for ten in Roman Numerical system. And Windows XP is just the one taking this position, but it is not a native(9x) descent but just a foreigner(NT) speaking the similar language(GUI). So 9x could not be used to name it, but a similar or completely reverse one, xp, just suitable to it.

If 98 in Windows 98 refers the year 1998, then xp, which comes from nineteen ninety-ten (2000), would get a new date, 2009, not for its release but for its ending. And in fact, Windows Vista released in early 2007 failed to take place of Windows XP. But only when Windows 7 released in 2009, the place of Windows XP had been shocked, and eventually it gave way to it.

XP also has other meanings! Because Max OS X released before Windows XP, so we could also guess XP with the meaning of overwhelming than X.

If X could be thought as cross, then xp has another meaning, the cross of 1990s and the first decade of twenty first century. And P stands for Product, then XP does really stand for the product of the cross between NT and 9x.--Janagewen (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Your "analysis" reminds strongly of Numerology. Find a WP:RS or else it doesn't belong here. A web site with similar speculation doesn't count. Jeh (talk) 10:25 am, 20 July 2014, Sunday (27 days ago) (UTC−7)

It is only a section in talk, talking about something on XP only! You don't have to judge it right or wrong, you don't have to evaluate its existence on this talk page. It does nothing with the main article! Janagewen (talk 22:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I view it as a suggestion for something that might be incorporated into the main article. And anything on any talk page can be commented on by anyone. And you were way out of line for, first, deleting my reply to you, and second, deleting the entire section. See WP:TALK, please. Jeh (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:NOTFORUM and we should be discussing with a view to improving the article with proposed edits, I will mention that one likely explanation of "XP" is that it came about because of Cairo (operating system), that is, the Greek letters chi and rho are in Latin script X and P. See also Chi Rho as a Christian symbol. Elizium23 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've no right to remove what I post. That is all right. If you think it worthy, let it stay, or else removing of it anytime is ok and welcome. I do really apologize for my deletion days ago, and thanks to Jeh, I understand it is improper to be put on here... Janagewen (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the reply of Elizium23, I do really object to discuss something about religions, it tends to be meaningless to this subsection. People who read this subsection in talk should not be misguided. This is only a talk, a casual talk. Janagewen (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Posting your thoughts here was only a very minor issue. How you reacted to the response to your post is a problem. Sadly, not the only one documented there. Please take the reports seriously. Jeh (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeh, even though I am not very glad about your comments on that Report page. But at this moment, I have to say thank you, no offense. I've necessarily removed something on this that other pages. Please don't revert! Show my greatest respect to you first! Janagewen (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

To Jeh, you don't have to be sad anytime you make warning to me. I had already experienced blocked for 24 hours. Once again, I have no purpose to modify or remove what you wrote on Misplaced Pages, if, that was only the wrong operation only I've made. But I have to say this is Misplaced Pages.org, anytime before you make any warning to me, do please evaluate the word phrase "human right" in your own country, if available. Janagewen (talk) 08:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Janagewen (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi, dude! I agree with you. I found it the first time with my 20s Christmas present. We joked on it as passed 9x. But you've figured it out already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.68.47.20 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

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

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

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

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

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

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Last major overhaul occurred about a month ago.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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

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

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

Best regards

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

Review after hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

1. Is it reasonably well written?

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

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

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Windows N.T. Vs. Microsoft Windows

I recently changed the Microsoft Windows (which has been here for years) to a link, then it got turned into a link to Windows N.T. ¿should I change it on later versions of Windows then to reflect this or is this unique to Windows XP? Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

H.i.

I.t. i.s. a.l.r.e.a.d.y. c.h.a.n.g.e.d. Y.o.u. n.e.e.d.n.'t. d.o. a.n.y.t.h.i.n.g.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I say that you don't have to mock my spelling, it's a commonly accepted form of abbreviations, or do you just do such things to belittle be, because ::your mockery is making me angry and I've seen the style used numerous times and I have never inserted this style in a Misplaced Pages article, this type of mockery is nothing short of a personal attack try to stay on top of the pyramid.

But then again I can't expect this level of maturity from you apparently, anyhow ¿should Windows Phone 8 and Windows Phone 8.1 also be moved to Windows N.T? as they are based on the same kernel. Also the next time you try to mock my style of writing to it correctly. I.T. I.S. W.R.I.T.T.E.N. I.N. C.A.P.I.T.A.L.I.S.E.D. L.E.T.T.E.R.. *rolls eyes at misusage your*

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Come on kids, play nicely. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well excuse me for thinking that such level of mockery should be considered unwelcome in a civilized talk page.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Namlong618: Ah! Now I understand the purpose of that angry comment in CL's talk page! CL's action was the complete opposite of insult; it was a complement. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery". Aside from that, if you are allowed to write wrongly, then CL is allowed to write wrongly too. You really need to work on assuming good faith. Fleet Command (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at this: . I inserted a {{tps}} at the beginning of my message and Namlong618 gets worked up and says: " I can see that you first call me a talk page stalker". Someone please tell him why he is wrong. Fleet Command (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Jeh (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose Merging Criticism of Windows XP with Windows XP This will create a more NPOV article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Criticism section is too large to fit in this article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Luke, I agree that we should keep Misplaced Pages:article size in mind, however, Article size is not pillar of Misplaced Pages. NPOV is. can we agree that it is preferable to have 1 article with both positive and negative sourced material presented in a NPOV than it is to have two seperate articles based on criticism or non criticism? if we can agree there we can work towards getting the article down to size. Size is important. but NPOV is critical. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - as with Lukeno94. XP is so major that its critisism can be made separate. You may add extra information for the main XP article though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I propose that the segregation of criticism is a violation of NPOV, NPOV violations are immune to editor consensus. I put forward 3 questions that we can use.

• Is the topic of Windows XP portrayed ***Fairly*** by banning criticism in it
• Are we representing all aspects of Windows XP ***Proportionally*** when we exclude anything that we call "Criticism"
• Is there any ***bias*** when we say Windows XP is so major that no criticism can be placed in this article

I would argue that we are violating NPOV. We can merge the two articles easily enough into a single narrative. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this article NPOV? It's not singing XP's praises. 95% of it is simply descriptive (with references). If you put the "Criticism" article in here, then per NPOV, you need to include an approximately equal-sized section of positive reviews. Criticism sections and articles are a minefield; read WP:CRITICISM before pursuing any similar ideas. If anything, the XP criticism article should be fixed, as it is violating NPOV. Jeh (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jeh, I've gone ahead and removed the merger request ,I appreciate your feedback and I'm going to look at what I can do to help XP criticism , we should be able to shape it up into a fine article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. I just happened to look here first this evening. Jeh (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Beyond ridiculous

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discontinued

Hello AussieLegend

Windows XP is the very special release (version) in Windows Family, it spanned over 7 years, since its RTM release in 2001 through Service Pack 3 in 2008. This version of Windows has two sub versions,

Windows XP (Version 2002, NT 5.1) --> Windows XP Professional/Home/64-bit (2001) --> Windows XP Tablet/Media Center(2002) --> Service Pack 3 (2008)

Windows XP (Version 2003, NT 5.2) --> Windows XP 64-Bit Edition Version 2003 (2003) --> Windows XP Professional x64 (2005) --> Service Pack 2 (2007)

Windows XP is one version of Windows family, not a different separate operating system, such as XENIX or OS/2. So it is not discontinued, but succeeded by Windows Vista, and even today's Windows 10. Most of software written for Windows XP could also run on latest Windows 10, so it is not discontinued. The only perfect word or phrase to describe the current status of Windows XP is end-of-support.

Best regards,

Aaron J. 139.210.139.116 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In case people are wondering what's going on, instead of replying at Fleet Command's talk page, 139.210.139.116 transcluded the entire talk page here. I've commented out that because it's not appropriate to transclude the entire page here. The relevant discussion is at User talk:FleetCommand#"Discontinued".

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

Hey,

I've already signed my name, Aaron J.

Best Regards,

Aaron J. 139.210.139.116 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Hello.

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

The purpose of a section called "Collocation" is its verdict on collocation, not the definition of "discontinuation". Interpreting it otherwise is gaming the system. And in this case, not interpreting otherwise is what make me agree with you. And as for NPA, you and I are way past that. You have been mean to me times and again. I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But no pressure. Your choice.

Best regards,

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

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

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Top-importance Computing articles
• B-Class software articles
• Top-importance software articles
• B-Class software articles of Top-importance
• All Software articles
• All Computing articles
• B-Class Microsoft articles
• Top-importance Microsoft articles
• B-Class Microsoft Windows articles
• Top-importance Microsoft Windows articles
• WikiProject Microsoft Windows articles
• WikiProject Microsoft articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2014)