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)

I'm not clear on how stating facts are NPOV. Microsoft has chosen to change its Service Packs so that systems that could previously upgrade now cannot. They acknowledge that this is the fact. This is useful information that I wish I had had before butting my head up against this bug in Windows Service Packs. Who, other than MircoSoft, benefits from suppressing this info? If your point is that it applies to all Service packs, then move it, don't delete it. Rknasc (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

OS Marketshare Wikipedia Article

Originally the median marketshare across the biggest market analysts from the OS Marketshare article was used. This data was obtained from the continuous compilation of data for years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share

AussieLegend recently came in and insists that "Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference" and insists on selecting a random market analyst firm...apparently the one with a much lower number. However, the Wikipedia article deep links many references (external sources) and statistical logs of various market researchers.

In addition, AussieLegend's selection of "% marketshare" numbers from that single source is inconsistent with all the other statistics in the article (which draw numbers from the historical data of the OS Marketshare compilation). Also the median represents the most unbiased account of the usage data and product history.

Rasmasyean (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated to you on your talk page, with appropriate links to policy, Wikipedia articles can not be used as references. I'm reproducing what I posted below, for the benefit of others, so that they don't have to go looking for the infomation.

Please note that, as per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources. Furthermore, a source that represents "the median of several stat counters"[5] is in breach of Wikipedia's No original research policy. Combining several sources is defined as being Synthesis of published material that advances a position. WP:SYNTH states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

You should also note that the figures that you removed in your recent edit,[6] were actually added by somebody else,[7] and the figure that you allegedly drew from Usage share of operating systems (OS market share is actually only a redirect to that article) is not mentioned in that article at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A "median" is considered "original research"? I see what you are saying, however, I think you are taking the literal meaning of the policy too seriously. There are other articles that take averages of several sources and others that even link Wikipedia for compactness. I mean, we can import a table into this article...as well as many other articles, but that just makes it unnecessarily verbose. I hadn’t noticed about those figures missing. The figures were there for a long time and used to be from a historical running listing of market stats. Maybe someone moved it somewhere else. Rasmasyean (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's original research because you're "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", as I've already stated. What other articles do is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because one (or more) articles do something that breaches policy, doesn't justify breaching policy in another article. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Averages of numbers are far from "combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If Microsoft says that it sold 10 million copies last month and 10 million copies this month in two separate interviews, then saying that they sold 20 million copies total is "original research"? Are you serious? Rasmasyean (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what these figures are saying though. If source a says there are 10 million widgets, source b says there are 20 million widgets, source c says there are 18 million widgets and source d says there are 15 million widgets then saying that the median value of these reports is the actual number of widgest is OR. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

One comment: whatever the outcome of the debate, picking one source and quoting it to four significant figures (especially when the difference between the estimates from different sources vary by as much as a factor of two) is statistically unjustifiable. That aside, here's my suggestion for a compromise: "...with estimates of market sharing which range from x%^[1] to y%^[2]", with x and y being the lowest and highest of the reliable sources' estimates. This avoids synthesis, whilst still giving a reasonable idea of where the true value lies -- not to mention some idea of how big the variance is. -- simxp (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)