Talk:Windows Vista

Spelling Error

Sorry if i'm nit-picking here but the word since in the reception section cost has been misspelled. I'm unable to edit, so someone who can, will you? Op1238 (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Platform Update for Windows Vista released today, 10/27/09

Platform Update for Windows Vista released to windows update as a recommended update today, 10/27/09. see kb971644 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.112.143 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else...

... notice how a lot of this page sounds like a massive advertisement and endorsement for Vista? Iokerapid (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Except for the Criticism part, which has been flagged because it may not be neutral. It's a bit ironic, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.11.218.215 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Software Compatibility

I noticed that the "criticism" section completely ignores the hundreds of programs that work just fine in XP but either don't work at all in Vista or require some patch or workaround or something. Examples include Quake 4 (won't install unless you know the workaround), Diablo II (versions prior to 1.12 won't run), and Final Fantasy Online (I don't remember what went wrong; my younger brothers were trying to install it on their laptop). While the other criticisms like UAC are mostly just annoyances, the inability to actually run programs is downright crippling, by far the worst problem that Vista has, and its exclusion from the article is a grievous error that must be corrected ASAP. 98.207.48.193 (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It also needs lots of work around for Impossible Creatures patches to work, and part of what i needed to do to get around it doesnt even work on my computer 0_0 Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a wiki that lists the compatability lists apparently run by a group of testers. http://www.iexbeta.com/wiki/index.php/Windows_Vista_Software_Compatibility_List It looks like a majoritiy of "newer" software titles do work good, however, as with any OS or technology upgrade, many older titles are broken in some way. It has been that way since the very beginning of desktop software. Perhaps Vista being such a drastic change in such a long time (i.e. NT 5 -> 6) has something to do with it. Even more so is the 32-bit -> 64-bit transition cases. As a professional in this field, I can tell you that most of us expect this kind of breakage. However, it seems no one anticipated the penetration and reliance of older Windows titles still being used. Hence Microsoft included an XP emulator within Windows 7 because apparently, they are unable to allow the old technology to perfectly co-exist in NT 6. Rasmasyean (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Speed

A major critisim (and mine) is Speed. it seems to go less than 2 mph. should speed of the computer be included or does that go under hardware? me173.75.215.172 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User Rknasc

User Rknasc keeps inserting on the Vista SP2 section that it breaks installation on systems using the GNU GRUB bootloader, and even implies that it's intentional on the part of Microsoft. [1] Recently he put it in again and claims that it's something that Microsoft has 'acknowledged'. [2]

I removed it since the statements are non-NPOV and also not notable for that section, as even on Vista SP1 installing the service pack can lead to failure in booting on dual-boot systems. [3] This content is not appropriate here and should be put instead on the software compatibility section of the Criticism of Windows Vista article. --112.203.32.160 (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an additional resource on the issue [4]. Installation of service packs when the MBR has been replaced with the GRUB boot loader is impossible, and due to the technical similarity of Vista and 7 it's possible the same will happen when the latter obtains its first service pack. It's not an issue with any specific service pack, but rather how the boot managers now work in Vista/7. --112.203.32.160 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)