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)

The date/time during setup trick

Hi there, I have been installing any Windows XP pre-release build on a current date before. To do this, set the date to the exact BIOS date before booting to GUI setup, and then whenever Windows asks you to correct your date/time settings, just set it to a current date. After that, you will see a warning box saying This is an evaluation copy of Windows. Verify that your computer's date and time settings are correct., click OK. When the Date/Time Properties pops up, just click OK again, and then Setup should finish. --BGRComputers.co (talk | contribs) 15:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

About 2285

If 2285 has images, should it be confirmed, or unconfirmed? I think it should be confirmed, but I don't know Beta Kiwi (Talk) Choose 00:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

guidelines (don’t read this). 2001:F90:6012:2DF6:D50A:DC13:EFA3:BFE3 11:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible new build found?

Hey, I think I found evidence of a possible build 2196 existing. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-rprn/e81cbc09-ab05-4a32-ae4a-8ec57b436c43 Diyamund (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC) If it exists，it is a post RTM of Windows 2000 or 2600.2196 instead.—AVMLOVER

Does the "Bush hid the facts" easter egg really exists?

I heard once that early RTM builds of Windows XP had an easter egg, where you saved a text file with the content of "Bush hid the facts" to ANSI or Unicode (I don't know actually), and when you opened it again with Notepad, the content will become encrypted. Does this really exist? - 88.67.246.81 22:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

PS to 128188: Don't bother w/ this. Maybe a more experienced user (think of BF10, NaraInsider1964, Ryuzaki or even MyFaceNeverWhen) may know that better. 🧐 - 88.67.246.81 23:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is real. Though according to Wikipedia, it can be triggered by other strings with letters and spaces in the same positions. It so happened to be that Bush Hid The Facts became the most widespread Xeno (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. And according to WP, this isn't even a feature, it's a bug, though I heard that it was fixed in SP2 or SP3 maybe. - 88.67.246.81 23:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

You actually think im experienced??? Im not THAT active on here unlike the other users you mentioned. MyFaceNeverWhen • TALK.EXE 14:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I am also not that experienced, and the IP user apparently mistyped the number on my username (the correct number was 1694, not 1964). NaraInsider1694 (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What did someone remove in your revision?

What happened? 128188 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Separating builds from their inclusion of Luna doesn't make any sense. - 88.67.246.81 22:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand that it didn't make sense, I think it's better to not have them separated then actually separated.;-) 128188 (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

true that, there was no build series solely decidcated to the Luna theme MyFaceNeverWhen • TALK.EXE 21:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Build 2210

I think that it is better to move build 2210 to Windows XP 64-Bit Edition, as Microsoft planned to bring out WinXP to IA-64 and they only used AXP64 as a stopgap to later move to IA-64, as there were no IA-64 machines available for retail at this time. And this build is already 64-bit, so why not? Yes, it does not have any „64-Bit Edition“ branding, but this is because this is an early build of XP.

OT: The build itself sounds interesting, but the problem cones once it becomes shared, as there is no AXP64 emulator available and trying to find such a machine is hard as well. - Bob2204 Click here to begin. Or here. Talk - 20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC) - Last edited 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If anything, this shows that the separation is quite ridiculous at least as far as Version 2002 goes. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 21:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a server build. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a tweet on Twitter that shows Whistler build 2228 existed as a screenshot but the owner of this machine accidently wipe out the HDD without checking about it. https://twitter.com/itanium_guy/status/1479250211172061186 -- Linglin 16:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Merging the 64-bit Articles

The leaking of build 2210 has made it apparent that the way the Windows XP articles are laid out is a bit of a mess. Currently, we have a normal Windows XP article, a Windows XP 64-bit Edition article that actually refers to two totally different codebases under the same name, and a Windows XP x64 Edition article. What I propose is to merge all of the articles for Windows XP 64-bit Edition Version 2002 into the standard Windows XP article, since it's just a different edition and a different architecture. Then, Windows XP 64-bit Edition Version 2003 and Windows XP x64 Edition should be merged, since they're both the same codebase, just for different arches, and actually started out with the same product name.

than why there are Windows 11 2022 and 2023 Update when they had the same codebase 2001:F90:6012:2DF6:D50A:DC13:EFA3:BFE3 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

2023 update is literally just an enablement package delivered through an update applied on top of 2022 update. On the other hand, "same codebase" means that the two products shares the same base source code, while one is not an update to the other. —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by insomnia {{ talk • contribs • email me }} | 12:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Add more info about Service Pack 2

SP2 isn't just a mere Service Pack that adds a few new features; it was a major rewrite of the Windows XP kernel to drastically improve the security of the OS. Not only that, but also it was a major turning point in Windows's history. XP pre-SP2 was the reason why pre-reset Longhorn was so unstable and it was also the reason XP x64 is based of Windows 2003. Dave Cutler, on of the fathers of Windows NT, explained that a few months ago in an interview: Windows Longhorn and the Worst Code I've Ever Seen: Dave Cutler Not only that, but Cutler, which was working on porting Server 2003/XP to x64, had to almost stop that project just to fix XP! His team alone fixed around 5,000 bugs! (Here's the full interview.) We probably need to add this on here. (That's why I think XP is the most overrated version of Windows ever, but that's just my personal opinion.) Ahernandez094 (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the case a little bit in terms of just how big Windows XP SP2 (and Server 2003 SP1) was. It's true that there were a lot of big new features, especially having to do with security - Windows Firewall, DEP, EncodePointer/DecodePointer, and so on, but I'd argue that the "turning point" that happened around XP SP2's release in August 2004 1.) had more to do with Longhorn's reset than XP SP2 and 2.) was more cultural than technological (i.e. Microsoft taking security more seriously in their software - see Dave Plummer's video about Code Red and buffer overflow exploits where he talks about how they purged unsafe C string code from Windows in the early 2000s). Remember that many of XP SP2's new features were intended for Longhorn, but were brought into XP due to Longhorn's delays and the urgency of bringing enhanced security to the Windows desktop platform. It's not the case that XP pre-SP2 was the reason that Longhorn was so unstable. Longhorn was based on a release-candidate build for Windows Server 2003, and the reasons for its instability have more to do with the development practices (i.e, also more cultural than technological) of layering on feature after feature on the still-immature .NET Framework before adequately testing or refining them for stability or performance. The reason XP x64 is based off of Windows Server 2003 also has nothing to do with XP SP2, since XP x64 was in development long before Windows Server 2003 even RTM'd (though it was based on Windows Server 2003 from the beginning, merely because that was the most up-to-date Windows codebase at the time) --CaptainWillStarblazer (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2024 (EST)

Still, the fact that SP2 is more than a simple Service Pack remains. The kernel was heavily revised, which is unusual for a simple Service Pack. And yes, I know that the AMD64 release of Windows was developed before Server 2003 was RTM'd, but they could just recompiled XP SP1 for the client SKU and call it a day... Yet they didn't. Anyway, here's another interesting interview about the development of Windows XP Service Pack 2.Ahernandez094 (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)