Talk:Windows XP

Naming system of build pages when there is a revision number
I have a question. How will we handle the revision numbers in the build page names? -- AlphaBeta (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2013 (BST)


 * I don't understand what do you mean, but it shouldn't be a problem to use Windows:XP:2120:xp_client:Rev1 if needed. --JaGoTu (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2013 (BST)


 * I mean, for example, 2600.5512. How will we handle the revision number in the page name? --AlphaBeta (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2013 (BST)


 * Just "merge" it with the build number, it shoul do. --JaGoTu (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2013 (BST)

Windows Whistler PE
This Follows Windows Whistler PE are included Build 2296, 2462, 2526. That thing is Windows Whistler PE. --Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyHatcher2012 (talk) 05:27 BST, 5 April 2014
 * You mean what?
 * Offtopic: Please sign your post by typing ~ on end of your post.
 * --AlphaBeta (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (BST)
 * Looks like he means the WinPE builds for Whistler are 2296, 2462, and 2526. I do not recall seeing or downloading a WinPE image with XP 2462 as a base. -wdn 93.41.178.31 15:52, 9 August 2014 (BST)
 * I've got record of a 2462 PE. Also a 2505 one. Hounsell (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2014 (BST)

Fake builds
These fake build tags: 2309.prebeta2.001047-1279 2429.idx03.010392-1900 2571.xpclient.011254-1551 should be removed IMO. It's illogical to compile a build with impossible time and date strings. I mean, who'd create a Windows build with the buildtag having date and time strings set to 92nd March 2001 or on 47th October 2000 at 12:79? Just saying. -wdn 93.41.192.184 12:55, 6 August 2014 (BST)

There was one Vista build that was legit but had an impossible build tag, an error of the build process iirc. But these are definitely fakes, I agree, and should be killed -Hounsell (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2014 (BST)
 * Where did you found those builds? 113.20.101.226 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems like screenshots got from fake screenshot contests. --Yue Ling (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Also there's one build having date and time strings set to 54/12/2001. It's also fake. --Yue Ling (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

They must have came from some WNR YouTube videos/fandoms/websites. It is simply ridiculous to have a date like March 92 2001. Windows Explorer (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

64-Bit builds
Should we make a separate page for the 64-bit builds, or keep them on separate sections on this page? It seems that there are 3 versions of a 64-bit Windows XP, being the 2001 Itanium version, the 2003 Itanium, and the amd64/x64 2005 Professional version. For right now, I have placed the 2003 Itanium versions and the 2005 Professional edition on the page. BF10 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2018 (BST)
 * I might also suggest the same for the Windows XP Media Center edition builds. BF10 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2018 (BST)
 * Aren't they the same? If one 64-bit version is SP1 and another is SP3 then they are different. If it's the same build just for 64-bit computers and by a different company that I wouldn't say it's different. --LilShootDawg (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2018 (BST)
 * Only the 2001 64-Bit Itanium versions are the same as the RTM. The 2003 Itanium and the 2005 AMD64 versions have different build tags that are above the normal 2600 and are based on Windows Server 2003's codebase. I still want to keep the 2001 64-Bit merged with the RTM because they are the same but on Itanium structure. Unfortunately, there is no full IA64 emulator so emulating 3787 and 3790 of the 2003 64-Bit edition is nigh on impossible. BF10 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2018 (BST)