Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Out of Date[edit]

This whole article is out of date. Every single source cited has been published before the actual build date of the final build of Windows Vista. This article should be deleted and rewritten, or be given a complete overhaul. -- Stacman 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i hate to be a sour-sob but i think most of the "critisims" on this page have been delt with in later builds Eevo 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have just rewritten the section on digital rights management. Most of the sources cited in that section are very recent ones (barely a few days ago). --Renegade Lisp 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


"... and even if it is, Microsoft will not be the only vendor enforcing support, as Digital Rights Management is largely decided by content providers, not platform providers.[5]"

The provided reference seems to be an opinion article and I couldn't find anything to support the claim that "DRM is largely decided by content providers, not platform providers." I think rather than claiming that DRM is decided by content providers, it would be more appropriate to end that sentence with the names of a few other vendors enforcing support. For example, are Apple doing the same thing? - James Foster 06:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the US, most DRM is used in a way that technically violates several laws (fair use, backup, use with alternate devices, etc.), so in that context, this argument is correct. I think it's safe to say that Microsoft would not be bothering with the complexities of DRM if not pushed to it by the content providers. Finding references may take some effort, though; it's been several months since I saw a good article on that subject. --Scott McNay 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Windows Vista Team Blog post (20 Questions and Answers) basically confirms most of Gutmann's paper, no? 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that above comment was by me. I forgot to sign in. :) LCS 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • DRM is the lamest concept anyone ever came up with, pirating stuff is tricky enough as it is without people actively trying to stop it 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Although Paul Smith has written a response to Gutmann's paper, I do not believe it refutes the paper, rather it supports some of the things Gutmann says (if you look carefully enough). 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) / LCS 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. I forgot to sign in.)


"However, this is not to say the criticism does not have basis. After all, to say that Microsoft started to work on something before Apple released it is not to say they started working on it first. For example the first working demo of spotlight was June 28, 2004, meaning developement must have begun long before that date."

I'm not sure this bit sound encylopedic; I can't really pin down what it *does* sound like, but it doesn't sounds like I'm reading the World Book or something of that nature. I dunno, it comes off as a little snarky. I'm going to be bold and remove it, as I feel that snarkiness has no place in an encylopedia.--IndigoAK200 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

new restrictions[edit]

Microsoft announced, ...

  • users have to buy a new vista license, if the hardware has been changed after the last upgrade.
    • this is quite controvertial. Check the for two opinions about this issue. The problem is that enthusiasts are the only people afected by this problem (if you buy a PC with Windows Vista, there is no need to authenticate), and I can't understand how is MS protecting their market by enforcing such limitation on a 5% market share. Would someone please care to explain? --Pinnecco 13:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It's also been retracted: [1] [2]. Now, you can move Vista to a new computer an unlimited number of times and upgrade an unlimited number of times, as long as your copy is only installed on one device at a time. 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Vista will no longer give the ability to be run in a Virtual Machine environment.
    • This is license-wise though, and both Enterprise and Ultimate editions licensing will allow to run as gues OS on a VM. You can perfectly disregard this licensing issue if you wish to / don't care to. --Pinnecco 13:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the MS page that I looked at indicated that the two-copies rule only applies with an Enterprise license; if you upgrade from Enterprise to Ultimate, you still have the Enterprise-granted second copy. If you upgrade from anything else to Ultimate, you are still stuck with a single copy, so you still have to buy another to use in a VM. --Scott McNay 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • even on a activated one, Vista will regulary run the "validation feature". If Vista detects an invalid validation, it'll lock some features. (those are currently not named)

(source: -- 11:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

MS is allowing retail buyers to move Vista install[edit]

In response to the criticism, it appears MS is allowing it. check here: -- 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Too biased[edit]

This doesn't mention any type of responses from MS.

Similarity to Mac OS X[edit]

Could someone explain how Aero looks anything like Mac OSX? Thanks... - Nö†$®åM 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The general criticism is that Vista incorporates features that are currently included in the latest versions of OSX. The argument, of course, is flawed, in that said features were present in other operating systems before they were in OSX. The article thus needs to be changed to sound less like "Microsoft is copying Apple", and more like "Microsoft and Apple both incorporate these features". cacophony 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The file browser that you get when downloading things looks a lot like the file browser under GNOME, i forget the name 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the "Mac OSX" section in this article sounds a lot different than the one in the main article Windows Vista.

I just removed a section from the Mac OS X section that was inserted to try and defend Vista against the criticisms by noting what features are brand new. I saw no reason to leave it, as this article is in place simply to outline existing criticisms, not discuss how fair or reasonable said criticisms may or may not be. jonny-mt 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kernel Patch Protection[edit]

I moved the part about PatchGuard to the Kernel Patch Protection page because PatchGuard is not new to Windows Vista. It has been around since Windows XP x64. I will expand the Kernel Patch Protection article when I have time. ---Remember the dot 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Windows 20XX = year based naming scheme of server products? Why not all products? 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is 100% up to the whims of the Microsoft merketing department. --Scott McNay 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[edit]

FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista: [3] -- mms 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Security bug[edit]

Security bug affecting Windows Vista kernel (as well previous Windows version 2000, XP, 2003) was identified by accident on Russian developers forum on December 15, 2006 6 weeks before worldwide retail availability.[1]. But Microsoft has downplayed risks of this issue prompting users to install firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spyware software that has nothing to do with this bug,[2] dispute underground hackers were offering exploit for sale on internet for $50,000.[3] This issue adds more skepticism on Microsoft Trustworthy Computing initiative launched in 2002.

Sure - this is violation of NPOV as it's Criticism section. But it's impossible to not mention this - as Vista is claimed by Microsoft as "Windows Vista is our most secure platform to date" [2] [4]. Current security section is all about bad anti-piracy features nobody (expected pirates and Microsoft) must care and bad cooperation of Microsoft and anti-virus vendors (that sounds as advertisement for those anti-virus companies - dispute Antivirus_software#Issues_of_concern is not mentioned). It's a must to talk about actual Vista security as this is something that matter. If you feel that current text is NPOV violation - rewrite it, but do not delete. Even NY Times talk about this [5]. It's important bug - as it's takes only one ActiveX control to be downloaded from evil website to get SYSTEM privileges or at least crash your PC / Terminal server with BSOD. --TAG 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, discovered flaws don't automatically qualify as criticism. The mere fact of the existance of a security vulnerability isn't really all that noteworthy, even if the marketing spiel is saying "most secure platform to date". There were, after all, security vulnerabilities found during the CTP and beta stages, and few made a big deal out of that. Second of all, as editors, it's not our responsibility to decide what counts as criticism; we have to seek out and report on what critical commentary other people are making. The New York Times article you noted, for example, is not a critical analysis of Windows Vista. If you don't agree, I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on critic, and consider what the word really means. Notice how a lot of the criticism stated in this article has been attributed to actual people and groups, who are engaging in "the activity of judgement or informed interpretation" (to quote critic). We don't invent the criticism ourselves, or even correlate several related pieces of information and draw a conclusion from it -- some reliable source must do all that for us. -/- Warren 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for WP guidelines on criticism. I feel that's possible to quote NY Times article like this one “When vendors say a program has been completely rewritten, it doesn’t mean that it’s more secure from the get-go. My expectation is we will see a whole rash of Vista bugs show up in six months or a year.” by Nand Mulchandani (Vice President at Determina) and also note that there are already bug identified by Russian developer that remained from previous versions of Windows (it's already established fact - for a references go to Bugtraq mailing list). --TAG 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That quote from the security software vendor isn't a criticism -- it's analysis of possible future events. It also shows a clear bias as someone hawking a security product -- Determina benefit financially from making Windows sound insecure. That operating systems have bugs hardly counts as criticism meriting much space in the encyclopedia... it's just how things are. For example, Mac OS X v10.4 had hundreds of bugs that were fixed in the first few point releases afterwards, but it isn't discussed in any great detail. If those bugs result in major problems, exploitation, and news coverage, then yes, it's absolutely fine to cover it in Wikipedia. We have a whole article on the Windows Metafile vulnerability, and the security section of Criticism of Windows XP is pretty focused on stuff that happened that can be subsequently criticised, not potential problems. -/- Warren 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. You decide best. But in my opinion - all this rush for "Secure By Design" and other PR issues and bugs are incompatible (and Microsoft benefit from OS sound as secure). People must be aware that there ARE BUGS in Vista - it's a fact. Just like in any other OS. --TAG 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Setup Process[edit]

Has there been any improvment made to the setup process for Windows Vista ??? 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • yes it needs a lot less input from the user and seems to format/partition the hard drive more efficiently, also the install process is all graphical, none of that 16-colour DOS nostalgia stuff, very smooth 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • some of us liked the DOS nostalgia stuff, but it is a lot smoother and faster 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardware Requirements[edit]

I dont know why people are complaining that the hardware reqs for running vista to its full capacity are so high, thats just the way it goes, you cant expect to get stunning graphics on a crappy pc. runs fine at full whack on my pc anyway, thats AMD Athlon 64 @ 2.0GHz and 1Gb cheap generic RAM and a mid-low range GFX card, although it could stand to be a bit faster 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Because other systems with similar or better feature sets are running on much, much older systems. Compositing Window Managers, such as Beryl, are running on machines Vista would not, and are much more advanced graphics-wise, and OSX is running on machines 4 years old. 07:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Will Marshall

Linux is generally better at management of resources (and having lower system requirements) than Windows. true, a newer computer like that (a64, 1 GB RAM) should run it fine, but anything under 1GHz proc or 1 Gig ram, and it lags a log (not to mention the aero interface lags the system when the hardware requirements are not there... Dashboardy 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a mistake in the "Performance" paragraph about the quantity of memory that gamers have in the Steam survey. This is in fact because Windows reports a 2GB amount of RAM as 1.99GB, consequently, you must consider the part of gamers having between 1.5GB and 1.99GB, which is 22.44% as of June 2006. Another explanation is that memory modules are very often used in pairs, so having more than 2GB quite automatically means 4GB, which is only supported nicely on 64bit systems. Low adoption rate for 64bit systems in consumer segment (despite hardware support has been available for a few years) does not encourage the purchase of more than 2GB of memory. Mainstream customers don't need more than 2GB as of today. 10:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Having more than 2GB of memory does not automatically mean 4 GB. Use multiple modules and you can add up to anything in between. And you need a ref to claim that Windows shows 2 GB as 1.99 GB. (I cannot verify. On my XP machine, I have 1.5 gigs, and on Vista x64, I have 4). Both shows as it expected. --soum talk 10:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What about drivers?[edit]

There are also many divers that are noot compatible with vista. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

That would be an issue with the driver provider, not Windows Vista. Paul Cyr 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Speech-recognition exploit[edit]

I added a brief section regarding the "shout hack" security exploit found recently in Vista, which was... ah... quickly removed, the rationale being that this is not a problem specific to Vista, any OS with speech-recognition has this problem. I realize this, but I also think that Vista is the first OS where a large portion of personal computers may be vunerable to such an attack, not to mention that this vunerability warranted enough attention to be headline news for quite some time (PCWorld, Slashdot, and Google News all had at least one article about it). Should this section be returned to the article? (I would've made this a survey, but I don't know how.) Sloverlord 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


I am Placing a Nutrality Disputed Banner on this Page because I feel that some of the Similaritys Betwenn OSX are not written in a neutral Point of view. 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag since you haven't given any specific reasons. Paul Cyr 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the "Detractors" to "Critics". "Detractor" alleges ill-will on the side of the critic. The thesaurus on mentions "mud-slinger","hypercritic","nitpicker","reviler" etc....all in all a very unpleasant person. -- 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting some previous edits but wanted to keep yours, however I changed it from "Critics" to "Opposition" since the comments in favour were listed as "Supporters". Paul Cyr 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Paul Cyr reversions

This article was reverted via popups without discussion of my edits so a neutrality designation is apt as is the reversion as my edits are referenced reliabialy.

Zubenzenubi 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see here. Paul Cyr 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If Zubenzenubi doesn't respond to the linked discussion about this issue by 23:00, on the 25th of April, I'm going to revert his changes. Do any other contributers have anything to add? Paul Cyr 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not satisfied with the word "Opposition" or "opponents". "Opposition" actually says that I don't like something while "criticism" tries to point out actual flaws. This is evident if you read the sentence "Scientist X opposes scientist Y findings". This can be true even if X never uttered a word referencing the work (and that would be formally inacceptable because it flatly denies contradictory evidence). If the sentence "Scientist X criticizes scientist Y findings" it is clear that the methods or conclusions are attacked even when X agrees with Y conclusions. If e.g. X and Y think that astrology is bogus, X can still attack Y if Y uses faulty data and logical fallacies to argue against astrology. Nitpicking, but still POV. -- 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. But keeping the other side as "supporters" doesn't seem semantically correct. Any suggestions? Paul Cyr 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I suggest "Notable critics" as headline because all examples have specific persons and organisations as sources and "Reactions" instead "supporters" because they give a specific response to Gutmanns arguments. -- 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
How about just removing the headings altogether? -/- Warren 17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


The quote "We need answers, not questions" by Jack Evans sound too much emotional. Therefore it is not objective. An Wikipedia article should try to avoid ANY emotional content and try to be completely objective.

This quote comes from this sentence : "We still have not received the guidance we're seeking. In July, we received a formal list of questions, but no answers about what specific concerns the Commission has, or how we should address them. We need answers, not questions."

Since the sentence "we need answers, not questions" contains absolutely NO informational content, I deleted this sentence.

Alrik Fassbauer 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaming/application performance[edit]

For the discussion see Windows Vista talk: Gaming/application performance... I have listed several sources comparing performance in Windows Vista (RTM) with performance in Windows XP SP2. I think it is more than worthy of note. If the consensus is that this is a good idea, I will make an attempt at it. Dashboardy 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to put these scores in context though. Were comparing a relatively new operating system (Vista is what 3-4 months old now?) on first-generation drivers. Everything that is used to support your system's hardware is either first-release, or still beta. And were comparing this to an operating system that has been around for 5-6 years, with drivers that have had time to get the bugs worked out and enchance features. Even more, the iceberg hasn't even been cracked into that is Vista's power. DX10 is on the horizon. I wanna see this test redone when DX10 is released and there is Vista support for 2nd or 3rd generation drivers. If the results are the same, then I'll agree that Vista's a waste. But before you do, i suggest the bashing stop on the system —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xatticus (talkcontribs) 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
I do see your point and I wasn't really suggesting a "bashing" as you have so simply put it. I do think it is a relevant issue, as many gamers have thought that moving to Windows vista combined with a DX10 capable card is a good gaming option - this is hardly the case at this point. If this were to be implemented into the article, it would have to make mention of the fact that the drivers are not yet completed by any stretch of the imagination. I do think Vista will eventually surpass XP in gaming performance - XP has done so with 2000 so there's no reason to think otherwise. I do agree that if a more recent test is performed (with ATI drivers as they have non-beta vista drivers) but with DX10 cards, it should be used. Perhaps we should wait a bit until there are recent tests with the latest drivers. Dashboardy 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft's insistence on "Vista exclusive" software products[edit]

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in Criticism of Microsoft, but there's been considerable disquiet about how many forthcoming software releases from Microsoft and affiliated publishers are going to be Vista exclusives, the game Halo 2 being one prominent example. They seem to be trying to push people, gamers in particular, into upgrading to Vista in a way that they never did with Windows XP. 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, that's probably because DirectX 8 which came with XP, was a "simple" successor to DirectX 7, using much of the same base code. However, with DirectX 10 in Vista, it was a complete re-write of the base code and engines. So the effects available with DirectX 10 can not be done with DX9 (the last upgrade of DX for XP), so making games compatible with DX9 would require substantial effort. If you can get a few reputable sources giving notable criticisms of this (i.e. for reasons beyond the technical limitations) then let's take a look. Paul Cyr 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I suppose the crux of the criticism is not that these games aren't being brought out for XP, but that DirectX 10 isn't being brought out for XP (or Windows 2000, assuming that is still supported).
Is the compatibility issue that big of a deal for developers anyway? Currently, a lot of games support both OpenGL and DirectX, and in the somewhat distant past it wasn't unknown for 3dfx's Glide to be supported as well as those two. 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the technical aspect. The games aren't written for "DirectX", they are written for "DirectX Version 9". So the same API calls they make for DX9 are different or non-existent in DX10. DX10 changed so much of the graphics in Vista (for the OS itself) that it would make no sense porting it to XP. Porting something so integrated into the OS is a lot different to something built on top of the OS otherwise the same argument could be made for a lot of Vista's main features. Paul Cyr 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I think what they're saying is that there's no reason that maintaining backends for both of DX9 and DX10 should be any harder than maintaining them for DX and OpenGL, as many developers have in the past. -- 10:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Except as I explained, there is a reason, a valid reason. Paul Cyr 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't quite managed to follow your argument here. What is this "valid reason"? I think I lost you with this quote:
"DX10 changed so much of the graphics in Vista (for the OS itself) that it would make no sense porting it to XP"
and I think you need to explain this a little further. In what way would it not make sense? The way I see it, DirectX (of whatever version) is a graphics API similar in purpose to OpenGL, and of course OpenGL isn't specific to any particular operating system. It runs on Windows (any version), Linux, GNU/Hurd, Mac, FreeBSD, BeOS, whatever. The fact that DirectX 10 is radically different from DirectX 9 isn't relevant to this argument - the fact that Microsoft have made it exclusive to Windows Vista is.
I also fail to see how this is an issue for software developers, given that many of them currently produce games that can be made to run under either DirectX or OpenGL at the click of a radio button. "Porting" games to other systems and APIs has never been an issue for developers in the past, so why is it suddenly a problem now? 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me simplify: to port DX10 to XP would require significant time from MS developers, and since Time=Money, since DX10 is such an important selling point, MS doesn't feel spending any money on porting it would be justifiable. Paul Cyr 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh-kay... and that negates my original point how, exactly? DX10 is obviously going to be an "important selling point" for Vista if it means that XP users are locked out of playing the latest PC games - that was the whole point of the criticism in the first place. I guess I was hoping for you to explain how this is an utterly unsurmountable technical issue that is unprecedented in the history of Windows, and how it isn't just a cunning ploy for Bill Gates to become even more of a billionaire and monopolist than he already is. 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, MS can't create new products that are such an upgrade that they are not compatible with previous versions? They must either restrict their development, or offer new OSes for free? Cause that's what I'm getting from what you're saying. Paul Cyr 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they can create new products that do whatever they want them to do. What I'm disputing, in essence, is the idea that it isn't legitimate to criticise them for lack of backwards compatibility, when backwards compatibility has in fact been very important in the history of Windows (and DOS) and that of operating systems in general. When Windows 98 came out, Windows 95 users weren't led to think "Oh shit, I have to buy the new one right now, or else Quake IIaVii might not work" or whatever. Microsoft could easily have made new DirectX updates, or IE4 (a radical update to IE3, with Active Desktop and so forth), exclusive to 98, but they did not do so. Similarly with XP vs. 98 - it was taken for granted that 98 would still be supported for at least a couple of years (which it was), both by Microsoft and by third-party developers. Yet even before Vista hit the shelves, there was already talk of Vista-exclusive games, and suggestions that DirectX 10 would never be made available for XP. 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)' So they can create new products that do whatever they want them to do, as long as they ensure that the product is available to previous versions of Windows, regardless of the resources required or damage to a main selling point for the new product? Like I understand what you're saying, but it comes a point where the effort is too great and the result is too damaging to the new product for it to be justifiable, and to complain about it without understanding the reasons (not that you are) is rediculous. Paul Cyr 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10 relies heavily on WDDM, which IIRC a rewrite of the GDI. Porting it would take massive effort, require the replacement of core stuff, and would probably break heaps of other stuff. It's just not worth the effort, and it takes time and resources away from other places that need it more. Besides, DX10 doesn't stop software companies from releasing for DX9 or openGL. -MarkKB 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Blunt Revisions Unwarranted[edit]

I have reverted a user User:Paul_Cyr who gave notice that (s)he was going to revert after a specific time!!. No justification was given for this reversion except to assert a supposed superior view of the topic and the reversion was so blunt as to remove a discussion of OEM disquiet. All validly cited pertinent information is relevant even if it conflicts with the world view of an individual user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubenzenubi (talkcontribs) 10:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you 2 days to respond. Two of us have agreed that the changes you want are not appropriate. You chose not to even try to address our concerns. Paul Cyr 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
My view is the OEM issue is significant. It's clear evidence of the Criticism of Vista, and I think belongs here. What's the rationale on removing the DELL entry? peterl 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If it is clear evidence, surely you can provide a proper source regarding this issue and clearly stating it as a criticism of Vista. Then provide evidence as to why it is notable. Paul Cyr 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Since it was originally posted the OEM issue has had mainstream referencing including citing "Dell brings back XP on home systems". My edits are not POV.
Continuing removal of this reference to OEM disquiet is not in accord with Wikipedia principles of fair and accurate commenting, as relevant accurate sources are cited. If as a Microsoft evangalist, based on your profile, you continue to block and revert then you can be blocked from editing.

Zubenzenubi 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a proper source. It's mainstream media, it's clear and verifiable. As for the need for it to 'clearly state' that it's a criticism: it doesn't need to say 'here it is: a criticism'. It's criticism; it doesn't have to say it's criticism. Why is it notable? One of the largest PC manufacturers goes back to an older operating system because of consumer demand? That's notable. peterl 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that users want Windows XP (the evil they know) instead of Vista (the evil they don't know), is a criticism of Vista? That's what Paul is getting at... what's the specific criticism of Vista here? Yes, it has to be explicit in being critical. You as a Wikipedian cannot make that judgement on your own. The linked article has an analyst offering a sound-bite opinion that Vista might not be "resonating with customers", but the article provides nothing further to back up that assertion. Any decent criticism should be expressed in more than a single sentence! Most of the rest of the article riffs on "this isn't a big deal, this is normal, this is expected." Because of these two things, it really isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it doesn't pass the "undue weight" consideration of WP:NPOV.
If someone wants to find something more concrete than sound-bite opinioneering on the part of an analyst to back up the assertion that there is "disquiet" amongst OEMs regarding Vista, let's see it. Paul Cyr's problem with the text is that it was making statements well beyond what was supported by the article. -/- Warren 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. And what's interesting, when you take out the personal opinion (saying it's because of hardware requirements which the article doesn't mention) and give it more neutral wording, it doesn't read as a criticism at all. More of a, consumers wanted XP, consumers got XP. Doesn't really criticize Vista now does it? Since those users may have wanted XP for the sole reason that they were used to it. But that's just speculation, which should not be included. Paul Cyr 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy with the version now. It's something that is relevant to the topic and is now presented. Thank you. peterl 06:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Anything anyone with a semi-professional website says that could be negative about Windows Vista"[edit]

Since that's what it seems the article is becoming. Last time I checked this article was supposed to be notable criticisms about Vista. You know, things important enough to be discribed as a problem or issue by multiple reputable news sources... not a single website with an Alexa ranking less than 27,000 and has lost 36% of its viewers in the last 3 months... that is not reputable period, let alone to be a single source for this "criticism". Paul Cyr 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to keep it to verifiable criticisms before looking at notability. Otherwise, we're potentially limiting it to "criticism of Windows Vista in huge old-school commercial media outlets that are potentially looking to Bill Gates for major-league advertising revenue". In which case, the article would be precisely 0 words long.
Notability, while important to Wikipedia, should be used carefully, as it is a fairly nebulous and volatile thing that can be used to spin an article in any of a number of different directions. And I'm frankly astonished that you should seek to dismiss citations from websites with an Alexa ranking as high as 27,000 - just to give one example, the website for The Spectator, one of the most important and influential political magazines in the United Kingdom, has an Alexa ranking of 147,109. 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Right but The Spectator has more to go on than just it's Alexa ranking. The website I was refering to turned up no significant results in Google, and didn't seem to have much in the way of third-party references. It's some Joe's personal site, and the only information I could find were Alexa rankings. And when that's all you have, a ranking below 27,000 is definately not enough. Paul Cyr 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
If you've literally nothing but the Alexa ranking to go on, then fair enough. I'm just wary of using factors such as Alexa rankings to dismiss otherwise cast-iron sources. 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and I wouldn't have used Alexa if I had more to go on. That said, only having an Alexa ranking to go on kinda speaks to the reliablilty of the source itself ;). Paul Cyr 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CD DVD Burning defaults[edit]

A criticism about the default behavior of the inbuilt burning software in Vista, that is factual is certainly a noteable criticism. The fact that it discriminates against most users, who click through routinely is worthy of note if it serves to disadvantage them in sharing their data. Criticism of the individual and the website, who highlighted the issue, as irrelevant and speculating that this is not a worthy source is disingenuous. It is "shooting the messenger", rather than addressing the facts. Please address the issue rather than attempting to trash the source. Your "Proposed move .." comment is inappropriate and do not justify your placing of "content" twice in the article. Zubenzenubi 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A good source is a requirement of inclusion. It is not disingenuous, it is policy. I take it you do not have any justifications for the provide source to be considered a proper source? My blog is not a proper source, and neither is some site with a lower traffic ranking than an already established bad source... unless of course you think we should include anything anyone with a semi-professional website says that could be negative about Windows Vista Paul Cyr 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't know what you are saying, but if you are implying that I am not citing proper sources. Consider:

If you do a straight search in Google for:

"" you get 698,000 hits "" 129,000 hits

By comparison some minor specialised commercial sites; "" 880,000 hits "" 1,010,000 hits

while the mega-site is

"" 239,000,000 hits

Accordingly the significance of the sites that refer to the vista criticisms are not minor or trivial peripheral locations but have registered significantly in search engine rankings.

Accordingly you should remove the "content" tags from the article.

Zubenzenubi 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, as it turns out, all this time, you didn't know what policies are on reliable sources? And you're telling me what's what? o_0 Go read WP:RS then come back when you understand. If I'm going to be nice enough to try to resolve this issue with you, I would have hoped you would actually know what you're talking about in this matter. And I will most certainly not remove the tags. I may not be allowed to revert-war with you, but I can most definately tag the content as disputed. Paul Cyr 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
---Civilised editing needed--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubenzenubi (talkcontribs)

You are being patronising in your comments and are being uncivil and insulting in stating "If I'm going to be nice enough.." and that "you would actually know what you're talking about". Civilised behaviour is axiomatic and your statements are unacceptable and contrary to the fundamental editorial principle of assuming good faith. There is no heirarchy of editorial contribution to wikipedia. Anybody can edit provided they conform to citing per
WP:V which states inter alia;
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
Your edits engage in original research by listing as bad source in your posting of 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC). This is your viewpoint and calling a prominent website a "bad source" is contrary to Neutral point of view policy. My edits conform by citing reliably; accordingly the 'content' flags should be removed. Zubenzenubi 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First to your point on manners: someone who engages in personal attacks such as yourself should not be upset that I'm not to cheery that you've been arguing over policies that you apparently have not read. My comments have not had anything to do with good faith. Good faith means that I think you are trying to be honest with your edits, not whether or not I think you know what you are talking about in regards to policies.
Second to the comment on verifabilty: you'll also note that the part you quoted from WP:V gives a link to the policy on reliable sources (read it yet?).
Third to your comment on original research: once again I suggest you read the applicable policy before refering to it. Original research is article content, not my opinion.
And lastly to your comment on the reliablility of your source: the burden of proof is on you to show that your source is reliable, not me, and I have yet to see you put anything forward that Richard Rasker's personal website is a sufficient and reliable source for this to be a valid and notable criticism of Vista. Paul Cyr 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dell's offering of Windows XP[edit]

Although this section does have a reliable source, I don't believe this warrents inclusion in this article. Although Dell's decision and some of the quotes are not positive, the actions and comments are not in themselves criticisms. Nothing mentions anything about Vista that has caused customers to stick with XP, just that they have. If it was something like "If it was -- customers said they didn't like UAC in Vista and wanted XP instead" then it would be valid. But customers prefering one OS over another is definately not a criticism, and including it here is POV. Paul Cyr 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This statement cited by a reliable source in the article;
"That there is remaining demand from some segment of (the) consumer market points to the inability of Vista to resonate with consumers,"
is without doubt a direct criticism of Vista. To suggest that this is not relevant to the article entitled "Criticism of Windows Vista" is incredible. The 'content' tag is ridiculous and will be removed.
Zubenzenubi 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Since you have not answered my concerns and are only pushing your point of view, I've reverted your edits. Paul Cyr 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


Dell's decision to re-offer XP is an implicit declaration of criticism of Vista by Dell's end users. Dell listened to their customers who criticised Vista. Dell did not state all the reasons but their actions speak. Users do not prefer one OS over another for frivilous reasons. Their concerns as reacted to by Dell are direct criticisms. I have pointed this out consistently.

To suggest as you state of me that, "you have not answered my concerns" is incredible as it shows your "concerns" are your POV. To engage in hypotethical comment "customers said they didn't like --" is 100% original research and not in accord with WP:NPOV Your continuing reversion of valid reliable cited facts based on your stated "my concerns" is your POV propagation of "my concerns" and is not in accord with Wikipedia principles WP:NPOV. Zubenzenubi 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't attribute your implications to a source, they will remain out of the articles. Paul Cyr 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

If you aren't willing to discuss the issue, then edit warring will get you blocked. Paul Cyr 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    • All of my asertions are backed up by reliable citations per WP:NPOV described earlier in this discussion. Your reversions to this article using popups without discussion here, is a scattergun approach and it is you who should anticipate blocking.

Where is your rationale for removing the CD burning isue? Where is your rationale for reinserting the 'content' tag on the Dell XP offering? You have most recently made these two reversions without discussion. One is the removal of the valid CD burning issue and the other is the reinsertion of the 'content' tag despite my discussion of this yet again. Your sole contribution has been to threaten another editor. Your actions are contrary to wikipedia policy. You obviously have a POV which you are propagating in contravention of WP:NPOV Zubenzenubi 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You stopped discussing the issue and proceeded to remove the content tags, that's what the above warning was for. I am not going to justify my actions when the burden of proof is on you to show how the CD/DVD Burning issue is properly sourced. As for the Dell issue, I gave my opinion, waiting a week for you to respond, and removed it accordingly since previous editors had sided with my position, to which you immediately reverted. I'm not going rosey dosey with you since you are not acting on good faith by refusing to discuss but willing to revert, even by using sockpuppets. I have asked a few other editors to come and voice their opinion. Of course, it's not like you seem to care about consensus. Paul Cyr 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I have repeatedly emphasised my sources and you have chosen to ignore them. You even refered incorrectly to a non-existent Rasker's blog.

I have discussed. You have ignored and are accusing me of bad faith edits. Why have you removed the CD burning issues which, contrary to your statement is adequately and reliably cited as in [6] All of my edits have been discussed and cited correctly. Your contributions are inconsistent. What are you saying about sockpuppetry. Who are the other editor[s]. Zubenzenubi 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we appear to be moving in circles, I am going to proceed with dispute resolution process WP:RfC. Paul Cyr 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Dell's offering Windows XP and CD/DVD Burning issue[edit]

This is a dispute about whether Dell's offering Windows XP and the CD/DVD burning issue deserve inclusion in this article. 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Although the Dell issue is attributed to a reliable source, the claim that it is a critisicm is not. Although you could imply negative things about Vista in light of some customers choosing XP over it, it is not does fall under criticism that this article covers. Someone saying that this is not a good thing for Vista, is not a criticism about Vista. This article is about things in or about Vista to which people have criticised, which the Dell issue does not fall under.
  • The CD/DVD burning issue is a negative issue about Vista in at least one person's eyes, however the only source (someone's personal website) is not a good enough source (reliablitly or notability) to be the one justification for inclusion. Some people may even like this "issue" and just because some Joe thinks it's bad, doesn't warrant it's inclusion.

Paul Cyr 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Dell issue: the section does not appear to be criticism. For example, Dell offering Linux on select computers is not considered criticism, it is simply a preference by some users. Therefore, since Dell hasn't directly criticized Vista and is not refusing to provide it, that section doesn't belong in the article. — Alex(U|C|E) 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the bigger issue is not that they are offering XP, but rather that they have gone back on their move to Vista. It's not an issue that they offer XP (or Linix or MS-DOS ;-), but that they had ditched XP for Vista, and then rolled back that decision. It's also significant that some of their offerings are not available with Vista (presumably because of hardware or software incompatabilities) - this supports the criticism on compatibility issue. peterl 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but the key point peterl, is whether that speculation can be attributed to the source, which it can't. There are many possible reasons for people wanting XP, and having sold Vista computers for about 3 months, I heard some people concerned about compatibility, but I also heard a lot of FUD such as MS spying on them and not being able to use their music and even just that they thought it was too new and need some time to get the bugs ironed out. But without the article saying why people wanted XP, any implications are unattribuatable. Paul Cyr 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
That some of the Dell "craplets" do not work may be a valid criticism (if reffed) but, as I said in my earlier comment, unless it can be unarguably shown (and not just speculated) that people have demanded XP due to their horrid experiences with the OS and that they were not coerced by the FUD campaigns, it does not become criticism of Vista. --soum (0_o) 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • CD/DVD burning: even though only one source criticized Vista for its CD/DVD burning features, it is still criticism. However, it might not be notable enough for inclusion in the article. I'll remain neutral on this issue for now. — Alex(U|C|E) 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Dell issue: All the statements may be properly sourced and verifiable and stuff, but you (Zhubenzenubi, sorry if I misspelt your name) failed to address the only concern the other editors have - how is that a criticism of Windows Vista? The links you gave as references only say that the analysts *think* people are prefering XP because the do not like Vista, with absolutely no stats to back the *thought* up, nor does it say how many tried Vista and made an informed decision and was not swayed by the FUD. Now, In the same vein, it does not take a rocket scientist to *think* that people are prefering XP over Linux, Mac OS, Solaris and other Windows versions as well. So, if it is a criticism of Vista, it must be a criticism of every other damn OS ever created on this planet!!! I iterate again, the statement may conform to all bureaucratic standards, but how is it relevant to the article? As Warren had said somewhere up in the page, that people are wary of change does not default to being a criticism of the OS that brings the change, only when people make an informed choice to shun it, does it become criticism. And absolutely no proof has been presented it is the case. --soum (0_o) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • CD Burning issue: Whats the criticism here - that MS is calling UDF as Live File System or is it that Live File System is the default choice? LFS is no way "sneaky lock-in" as the article you linked to claims, it just vanilla UDF which is supported by (almost) every writer and OS (if there is not in built support, third party drivers can add support) after the dis has been closed. Not only that, it is the default file system as per the DVD specifications. So, shouldnt it be the default format? For CDs, CDFS can only be used for DAO/TAO/SAO writing, not for packet writing. For the latter, UDF is the only choice. Since the aim of Vista CD writer is to make CD burning aking to using thumb drives (write-rewrite anytime you want, which is the most visible facet of packet writing), I do not see how it can do without exposing UDF as the default format - or else packet writing will not work without fidgeting with settings. And the formatiing step in packet writing is a part of the process, all burning softwares do it. The issue might have become a criticism if it did not present CDFS mastering, but it does. So, IMO, its a non-issue which people are making a FUD-spreading issue of. The help files explain this cleanly.
And about the guys horror story, he hard rebooted the system in the midst of the system formatting a CD-R and expect to go back later and fix the mistakes made during first write? Its a write once disc, goddammit! And he himself says, his issue was not reproducible (his friends machine burnt it properly). So how is a one-off issue a criticism? I have had more horrifying experience with my burner with every OS I have used, most of which I later traced back to cheap CDs and a misaligned lens in the burner. So, is the guy damn sure the burning software is to blame, and not the device or some other component. Plus the question of reliability of the source is also there. You dug up google hits for the site, but popularity is *not* reliability. If it can be shown the source is indeed reliable and that other sources do back up his claim, only then inclusion can be justified. --soum (0_o) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Software compatibility[edit]

Not quite sure why this section had been deleted, when it's clear:

  • it's a criticism (yes, some of the new refs say 'criticism' and 'vista' and 'software' on the same page
  • the refs are legit
  • its factual.

Please don't delete this important section without discussion first. peterl 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The section that was there before was completely improper for this article (no sources of criticisms, just existance of issues), so I removed it since it would need a complete rewrite anyways. What you've added and sourced now seems to be good though. Next time I'll just tag the section as needing a rewrite and bring it up on the talk page. Paul Cyr 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. peterl 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Theres a fake citation[edit]

58^ The 3DMark 06 score on Vista is approximately half the score with XP, and the average framerate with Vista for F.E.A.R. is also approximately half the XP score, all with 2 GB of memory , a ATI Radeon X1950XTX GPU, and a Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 for XP / Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 for Vista).

Doesn't link anywhere, its just original research hidden where citations are supposed to go. I can't figure out how to edit references can someone delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 25 May, 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research to me (I wrote this part). The two links below the text of the note explain it:
  • first test is a test of different memory configs on Vista, with this hardware config (apart from memory): Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX; on this configuration, and with 2 GB of memory (two different memory confs tested), the article shows approx. 6400 on 3DMark 06, and approx. 57 Fps for FEAR, with high quality settings.
  • second test is a test of Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX on XP, with this hardware config: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2 GB of memory, Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX; on this configuration, the article shows approx. 10200 on 3DMark 06, and approx. 120 Fps for FEAR, with high quality settings.

So, OK, these figures do not come for only one article only (strangely, I found no single article dealing with Game results on Vista vs XP with the same hardware configuration), but these two articles deal with exactly the same configuration (CPU, GPU, memory), so the results are interesting (and I say again, no Original research). Also it is clear in the note that the results come from two different articles, and even the configs are mentioned. Hervegirod 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Found some single benchmarks now, added them and modified this part accordingly. Hervegirod 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be biased.[edit]

This article is seems to be biased against Windows Vista and Microsoft. I should point out that there isn't a Criticism of Mac OS X or Criticism of Mac OS article, there is only a small section stating criticisms of Mac OS X in the Mac OS X article. I believe this article is not neutral, and therefore against Wikipedia:NPOV. Chetblong 12:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It would really help if you gave some examples. Paul Cyr 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Also there's much more voiced criticisms on Vista than on Mac OS. Hervegirod 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's because not a lot of people use Mac OS X and therefore not a lot of people review Mac OS X. --Chetblong 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute[edit]

The whole article should not be here. Why? In any article there should be two viewpoints and the article should be neutral

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

and you can't have two viewpoints if the whole article is named "Criticism of Windows Vista".

There should be an article named something like "Pros and Cons of Windows Vista" instead of a clearly biased name like "Criticism of Windows Vista". --Chetblong 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see this is perpetually under debate; however, it seems to be generally agreed that as long as the "Criticism of..." article is purely a daughter article of the main one, created to prevent the main article from becoming too long and unwieldy, and it contains relevent rebuttals if available; it's not POV. There's certainly precedent for it -- Simxp 06:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You say "Criticism of..." is NPOV? Then why don't we have articles called "Applause of..." or "What People Love About..." or "Why No One Can Do Without..."? Also what is the point of having a "Criticism of..." page? In what way does it help to have one? Also according to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral." Most of the statements in this article are not neutral even if they are facts (which a lot of them aren't), and therefore there should be areas talking about good points as well as bad points about Windows Vista, and you really can't talk about good points if the article is named "Criticism of Windows Vista". You could however try somthing like "Viewpoints on Windows Vista" because the whole the article is based on viewpoints anyway. --Chetblong 14:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Criticism articles usually exist because the amount of critical content that's available to report on is far too much to include in the main article. There's nothing wrong with this, so long as we try to maintain a neutral tone. See WP:SPINOUT for more details. If this is your only complaint, then it's not good enough to justify a {{POV}} tag on the article; I'm removing it. -/- Warren 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting the tag back because according to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.

Secondly you said:

If this is your only complaint, then it's not good enough to justify a {{POV}} tag on the article

It is not my only complaint! The article is biased not just the name of the article. Here is an example:

Another criticism is a claim by some that Windows Vista emulates specific features in Apple's Mac OS X. Scott Spanbauer of PCWorld jokes about a perceived "striking similarity" between Vista's Aero visual effects, icon design, buttons and those of Mac OS X's Aqua.[18] Paul Thurrott of WindowsITPro made similar comments in his review of build 5308, while also suggesting that some of the new applications "appear to be directly, ahem, influenced by similar applications in OS X."[19] John Rizzo of eWeek has noted that Vista is integrating features which OS X has had for some time, such as fast searching functionality.[20] Apple was keen to highlight the similarities during the keynote presentation at the Worldwide Developers Conference in August 2006, with Bertrand Serlet showing screenshots of Vista and OS X side-by-side.[21][22][23]

And what is supposed to make the section neutral? This little comment.

However, certain features including the Windows Sidebar and Search features were included and/or introduced in early alpha versions of Vista before Apple released the features in Mac OS 10.4.

There is no evidence to back up the claim that Windows Vista is a copy of Mac OS X so why is that in the article? By having that in the article you are taking the side of Apple. And also I've said it before, according to Wikipedia: NPOV dispute

Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

So even if someone did make their viewpoint known in saying that they think Windows Vista is a copy of Mac OS X, it doesn't mean it should be in the article, because if it is in the article your taking the side of Apple. However I don't say that you should take the side of Microsoft either, but there isn't anything that is on the side of Microsoft in the article.

I hope that this issue can be resolved. --Chetblong 22:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Aw man, not this issue again. The section on Mac OS X has gone piles through of debate, restructuring, rewriting and arguments to get to the point where it is now. You're welcome to review the talk page archives for Windows Vista and Windows Aero to see some extensive discussions on it.
It comes down to this:
  1. The fact that a number of reviewers have made comparisons to Mac OS X is worthy of inclusion in a complete discussion of Windows Vista. We mention the views of a few notable reviewers here, but there are plenty of others available; a bit of searching around would reveal as much. We can't ignore this and have an article that meets Wikipedia's NPOV requirements.
  2. Given that nobody important at Microsoft or in the press has tried very hard to present counter-arguments on the subjects, we don't really have much to go on. That doesn't excuse us the responsibility of reporting on the criticism!
  3. If the criticism was removed, someone would invariably show up and add similar criticism back in, and it wouldn't be as well-researched or well-written as what we have now.
The section as it is is fine. You've gone out of your way to state on your user page that you "hate" Mac OS X; remember that you need to set aside that bias when considering what content needs to be included in the encyclopedia. We all do. -/- Warren 00:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh so you brought up my User page? I knew you would. Yes it is true I don't like Mac OS X, but at least I admit that I have a bias. What would you like me to change it to, "This user dislikes Mac OS X"? It's my opinion and I feel it's OK to have one, (and there are a lot of people who would agree with me about Mac OS X) but I try to not let my opinion affect my edits. You forgot to notice that I also said I try to keep a neutral point of view.
Now for another thing. You are only talking about Mac OS X and you moved the {{POV}} tag there. I never said it was only Mac OS X, I was only using it as an example. There are more places than there that are POV, for example:
Windows Vista, the latest version of Microsoft's desktop operating system, has been the target of a number of negative assessments by various groups. Criticisms of Windows Vista have included concerns about the security implications of the large amounts of new code, the inclusion of a number of new Digital Rights Management technologies aimed at restricting the copying of digital media,[1] and the usability of the new User Account Control security technology. Security software companies like McAfee and Symantec have also lodged complaints that Microsoft has implemented new security measures that prevent their software from being able to access certain parts of the operating system. Additionally, reviewers have noted similarities between the Vista interface and that of Apple's Mac OS X operating system. Concerns have also been raised about many PCs not meeting "Vista Premium Ready" hardware requirements. Further critical comments on Windows Vista's performance have been voiced by, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZDNet and Joe Wilcox of Microsoft Watch, who compared it to the short-lived Windows Millenium Edition
And what is supposed to make it neutral? This:
however Adrian Hughes also stated that Windows Vista is "fast, very reliable and actually quite nice to use"
Oh wait I forgot I added that.(It's in the reference link) --Chetblong 01:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and you know what? It should be removed, because it makes a statement that isn't addressed anywhere else in the article. Per WP:LEAD, that isn't good form.
Look, I appreciate that you don't yet have much experience with working with articles that present crticical points of view in a neutral fashion, and we're always grateful to have people who are interested in improving such articles. But, it's really hard work. There's a lot of subtlety and balance involved in creating a "Criticism of" article that meets WP:NPOV. I have almost a year and a half of experience with this; you'll just have to trust me on that. Note that we aren't required by the NPOV policy to balance out every criticism with a retort. That'd be patently ridiculous, and is probably impossible to attain anyhow. If we can provide this balance by quoting two contrasting reliable sources, great... but if it burdens the text with a litany of "he said, she said" bickering, then we've failed at creating a good encyclopedia article -- and that is ultimately our goal here, rules be damned.
I really very strongly recommend you go read some other articles outside the scope of computing that deal primarily with presenting criticism, to get a sense of how it's handled. Criticism of Tony Blair is a good example of this, as is Criticism of Coca-Cola. Read carefully (IMO, the latter is an especially interesting read), and notice how the criticism isn't balanced out with "pro-Coca Cola" views. Those articles present their criticisms almost identically to this article. This isn't by accident or coincidence, and also note that neither article has sported a {{POV}} tag anytime recently. Finally, bear in mind that this is a criticism article (i.e. Category:Criticisms), not a debate article (i.e. Category:Debates). -/- Warren 02:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and you know what? I didn't add the part about Windows ME I only added the part that told who said it. So, since you're the spokesman for this article, why haven't you deleted it already?
You told me to look at Criticism of Coca-Cola? I looked at it and it looks like to me all the "criticisms" are backed up with facts. Facts not viewpoints. The Criticism of Windows Vista article is mostly based on blogs. Criticism of Coca-Cola doesn't take the side Coca-Cola or have a bias against Coca-Cola the facts they show are neutral they don't take one side or the other they just tell what happened. For example:
In July 2001, the United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund filed suit in US court against Coca-Cola and some bottlers in Colombia on behalf of their workers [24]. This lawsuit was titled Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola. According to the plaintiffs, the companies "hired, contracted with or otherwise directed paramilitary security forces". The companies denied the charges. In April 2003 District Judge Jose E Martinez in Miami excluded The Coca-Cola Company and its Colombian unit because its bottling agreement did not give it "explicit control" over labor issues in Colombia.
Compared to Criticism of Windows Vista (I'm once again using Section 4 as an example, mostly because I used Criticism of Coca-Cola's Section 4, I'm not saying that only Section 4 has a problem.):
Another criticism is a claim by some that Windows Vista emulates specific features in Apple's Mac OS X. Scott Spanbauer of PCWorld jokes about a perceived "striking similarity" between Vista's Aero visual effects, icon design, buttons and those of Mac OS X's Aqua.[18] Paul Thurrott of WindowsITPro made similar comments in his review of build 5308, while also suggesting that some of the new applications "appear to be directly, ahem, influenced by similar applications in OS X."[19] John Rizzo of eWeek has noted that Vista is integrating features which OS X has had for some time, such as fast searching functionality.[20] Apple was keen to highlight the similarities during the keynote presentation at the Worldwide Developers Conference in August 2006, with Bertrand Serlet showing screenshots of Vista and OS X side-by-side.[21][22][23] However, certain features including the Windows Sidebar and Search features were included and/or introduced in early alpha versions of Vista before Apple released the features in Mac OS 10.4.[24][25] Both Vista's Sidebar and Mac OS X's Dashboard share similarities with Konfabulator which predates both.
Here is another example:
Criticism of Coca-Cola has come from many sources for various reasons.
Compared to Criticism of Windows Vista:
Windows Vista, the latest version of Microsoft's desktop operating system, has been the target of a number of negative assessments by various groups. Criticisms of Windows Vista have included concerns about the security implications of the large amounts of new code, the inclusion of a number of new Digital Rights Management technologies aimed at restricting the copying of digital media,[1] and the usability of the new User Account Control security technology. Security software companies like McAfee and Symantec have also lodged complaints that Microsoft has implemented new security measures that prevent their software from being able to access certain parts of the operating system. Additionally, reviewers have noted similarities between the Vista interface and that of Apple's Mac OS X operating system. Concerns have also been raised about many PCs not meeting "Vista Premium Ready" hardware requirements. Further critical comments on Windows Vista's performance have been voiced by, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes of ZDNet and Joe Wilcox of Microsoft Watch, who compared it to the short-lived Windows Millenium Edition, however Adrian Hughes also stated that Windows Vista is "fast, very reliable and actually quite nice to use".[2][3]
You're going to tell me that Criticism of Windows Vista is comparable to Criticism of Coca-Cola? Criticism of Coca-Cola is a very well done article, Criticism of Windows Vista however sounds like a bunch of viewpoints. -- Chetblong 16:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to criticism of things that are intellectual or artistic in nature, viewpoints are pretty much all we're going to have available to us. Roger Ebert is a noted film critic, and what he does (quite successfully) is state a viewpoint that are based on his opinions. Heck, he's famous enough that his opinions of North (film), Blue Velvet, and many other films are given prominence in those articles. But... are you ready for this shocker? He is stating a viewpoint, and nobody is whining that it's not adhering to NPOV. In the former case, there are no notable positive reviews to balance out the negative, so the article doesn't have it. In the latter case, there are notable positive reviews, so they are given due prominence. This is the undue weight aspect of the NPOV policy at work.
Anyways, your attempt to argue that reporting viewpoints is wrong, is not going to get far on Wikipedia. We do that all over the place, and it is considered to be fine practice. If you don't believe me on that, and I know you don't, go fire up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view and ask the folks there for an opinion. -/- Warren 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't argue that it's wrong to report viewpoints but they're supposed to be reliable. To me a personal opinion is not encyclopedic. For instance I could go write a blog that says Mac is unreliable, a horrible computer, and runs on a OS that crashes all the time, but that doesn't mean it should be included in a article.
-- :) Chetblong 18:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Criticism is by definition is judgment about something along certain points of view. So when we are dealing with criticisms, all we can have is opinions. Now when the critic is notable, his point of view does become important as it can sway peoples' perception, and as such it deserves reporting, regardless whether he opined in his blog or some journal. Also, criticism DOES NOT mean bashing. Criticism can be constructive as well. But many people tend to view criticism with a negative connotation (thats why once or twice I tried using market reception or market reaction instead of criticism, but it wasnt welcomed by the majority of the community; its a different story, lets not digress into it).

Also, criticism of Coca Cola is not an ideal article to look upto. It suffers from a lot of problems, like using too many weasel words and too many one liner paragraphs. Sure, we are not perfect either, but we do summarize the sentiments against Vista quite properly. We are not reporting our opinion, but opinions of those who have a voice loud enough to be heard by quite a few. The article does claim anything like "new and untested code can cause flaws" as any opinion; that Symantec said so is stated as a fact. We are not reporting the perception, but rather reporting that Symantec said so. Following their lead, lot of people have questioned the aspect. So, indeed it has become an avenue of criticism.

We are not here to take sides, If there is something that has received wide attention, we report it. If there is another facet to that, we report that too. And when none is present? Do we censor that objection? No, THAT would not be NPOV. Lets take the example of the coca cola article. It said there were lawsuits regarding its health effects. What if there were no lawsuits? Lawsuits dont pop up just like that. They are preceded by media articles, opinions, commentaries, lab results and what not. So, should the article skip out on that?

Same is the case here. People have come up with a criticism and facts that led to the conclusion. (Sure it hasn't become a lawsuit yet). But that does not mean we should skip something out. Take a look at other articles which have garnered criticism - like NGSCB et al - you will see we are not ating without precedent. --soum (0_o) 19:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your last comment, yes, personal opinion is not encyclopedic. Unless you have a voice that can reverberate through the news corridors and make it to the first page of Google News (I am not so certain people read newspapers for anything but hobby anymore :D). As I said, comments from such people can sway peoples opinions, and thus it is not just a blog entry thats criticising. Its a significant portion of the readers thats echoing the same sentiment. Which does indeed make it noticeable. --soum (0_o) 19:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You left out any people in this article that are used as sources (other that Symantec) "who have a voice loud enough to be heard by quite a few". -- :) Chetblong 13:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the answer. I list Symanctec as an example only. Similar rationales apply to everything else that is present. --soum talk 16:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes but what people that are used as sources are important enough to be used in this article. Also show me in your view how you think this article is neutral? I will look at what you have to say and change my argument accordingly. -- :) Chetblong 17:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I had not yet commented on the suitability of whatever points are present, whether they are indeed notable or not. What I have commented is on what you allege as the PoV nature of the article - why this is not POV and what guidelines are to be followed to keep it NPOV. I just used Symantec as an example to indicate the level of notability that is required for any opinion to get a place here. I was not judging whether what they said is relevant or not
This article is not a self-sustained article. It is a spin-off from the Critisisms section in the Windows Vista article, done to keep its length manageable. As such, it is intended to be used as a reference for detailed information regarding what is summarized there. See WP:SPINOUT, the guideline that permits this. It clearly says, "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork".
As for the suitability of content, yes it can be improved a lot. The security systems could do with a really lot of work, and the UAC section is a joke at best. But they do indeed are important as they sow there has been criticisms on these aspects. Leaving them out will be POV. So what we should be striving to do is to fix them by doing a more comprehensive coverage of them (as someone below suggested, including technical details and statistics to back up or refute the claims) not censor them.
The entire article is not such a mess, however. There are very well written sections as well, like DRM, Mac OS similarities and Hardware requirements (though DRM can also do with some technical details). What we must be striving for is to get all sections upto the level of quality set by them. --soum talk 09:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of Blogs as Sources[edit]

There are some references to blogs in the article. These should be removed. Policy relating to Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Any volunteers to remove blog entries from the article as blogers have a POV, which is not a NPOV

23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments peterl 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Blog does not inherently mean its not allowed. As long as we can filter out information from opinion, it is fine. And quite a few blog references are used in a way that adds value to the article, as they help present both sides of the story. --soum (0_o) 18:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


The section needs some context before delving into what Kaspersky or Microsoft or whoever else says. It alone makes little sense to those who are unaware of the happenings. --soum (0_o) 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of flaws, disorganized, outdated sections[edit]

Symantec's "criticism" of Vista isn't really criticism but a complaint, and dated July 2006 before the release of Vista. This criticism is irrelevant and should be removed. The article referenced from McAfee is dated 9/28/06 and may not reflect their current views towards Vista. the article does not state that Vista is inherently less secure, it complains that Microsoft is not cooperating with McAfee and other 3rd-party vendors attempting to make a buck off fixing Vista security. Keep in mind that this is more of a criticism of how Microsoft is playing with third-parties than the actual OS. Also, after reading the McAfee article, it's clear that some of the info in the article is outdated -- the RTM version of Windows Vista (with security center) works well with VirusScan.

The notable critics section under DRM mainly deals with Peter Gutmann and his complaints. Although Steve Gibson and the FSF are mentioned, it's not clear what they are adding to this discussion. Forbes magazine having an opinion about Vista doesn't fit the DRM topic at all. It's also not clear that Steve Gibson is an interviewer and has not published his own study but is merely jumping on the bandwagon. The DRM section is lengthy and disjointed. By the time Microsoft's response is given, it's not immediately clear if they are responding to criticism of DRM or criticism of Vista as a whole.

The user account control section needs to be completely rewritten. The main objections to user account control have nothing to do with how secure Vista is. (if it does, it should be moved to the security section.) It would be good to mention the Mac/PC commercial about "coming to a sad realization". And, it would also be good to find sources that explain how this will cause issues with software compatibility. This would be a good lead-in to the software compatibility section and the gartner quote.

The topic of similarites with the MacOS is only an issue for people that are upset that Microsoft has "copied" the MacOS or people that don't like the MacOS. I'm not sure how similarities in two products are a criticism. I can say two bicycles are similar to each other and tell you about how their handlebars look the same, they are both painted red, and both seats are adjustable. But, that isn't critical analysis. Unless the features are described and an explanation is given about what is wrong or right about these features, it's just attitude without substance, not criticism. While there's nothing wrong with opinions, the approximation of a lot of them without substance turns the piece into a rant or drivel.

The hardware requirements section is one of the better-written sections. However, it would be useful if there was further Vista spec information provided (or links) to Microsoft's actual specs for Vista. Perhaps on a criticism page this sounds like advertising for the enemy, but most readers would find it helpful.

In the laptop battery life section, the summary gives a blanket statement that Vista drains the battery more than Windows XP, but the details of this section do not seem to follow that assertion: 1. Windows Aero turned on drains more battery. 2. Windows Aero turned off drains the same or less battery. 3. Hybrid hard disks improve performance while saving battery life. The assertion should be reworded to say that battery life is sometimes worse, depending on hardware and configuration.

The game compatibility section talks about "significant" compatibility problems with Vista. Perhaps this modifier could be removed. "significant" is not quantitative so it is meaningless. Some of the games do not "run", so "games that run on" should perhaps be changed to "games designed for".

Again, "significant problems" appears when talking about other software. It's clear there are a lot of programs that do not run properly on Vista. It might be easier to just create a list of software and the link to each website's Vista support page rather than keep this in paragraph form. Also, its not clear if this section is talking about corporate software problems, upgrade paths, or licensing. This would be nice to be sorted out somehow.

About Removal of Features: This information is a little dated. I suspect that there are articles out there talking about the first service pack in regard to these packages. PowerShell being available as a download makes it somewhat of a non-issue (so it should be removed).

The anti-trust controversy in Europe is pretty irrelevant to "criticism" of Vista. It's "old news", so to speak. Perhaps it should be added to the Microsoft criticism page and moved from here.

The performance section uses the "significantly" adjective again. (worthless)

Just my two cents worth (err.. 2 dollars worth) 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)BAP

Regarding the Battery Section, specificlly the Hybrid Hard Drives, the information has been edited to show that it decreases performance. In truth, it can affect performance either way. It really depends on if the data is in the Flash based cache. The scheme (like most caches) is designed to increase frequently accessed data, which would offer a net performance increase. I will revert the AGF edit, and if there is a problem, it should be discussed under talk. Tiggerjay 20:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I got caught up in the word usage. The initial edit was "increase access speed" and was edited to "decrease access speed". I can see how that can/has turned into a symantecial nightmare/misunderstanding. To add clarity, I will reword as "improve access speed" (which might be 'in good faith' what the initial author meant. Tiggerjay 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits by[edit]

In a recent edit, the above user stated in their edit summary "Reinserted request for citations, which was removed without exoplanation". But the edit summary tags in question are all attached to a set of bullet points which are summarising the Microsoft blog entry "Twenty Questions (and Answers)", reference number 15 on the article. Since the bullet points are a summary of the blog, the citations for them would all be that blog, which is made clear at the top of the section. I have thus removed the citation tags. Also, the user changed "Windows Desktop Search betas were released well before Mac OS X's Spotlight feature" to "However, Windows Desktop Search betas were released well before Mac OS X's finder", which is incorrect: the Macintosh Finder dates back to before 1985; it and Spotlight are not the same thing. I have reverted those changes. -- simxp (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Pricing of OEM vs. retail editions[edit]

This section is lacking significantly, and very POV bias. It is very common for software vendors to provide their software to hardware manufacture's at a very steeply discounted rate. This fact is not new, nor is unlike any other vendor such as Adobe, etc. The OEM pricing provided for Vista is comperable to prior versions of Microsoft Windows. It would be similar to arguing that car dealers receive the car accessories for 20% the cost they charge the customer. I recommend that this section be removed. Tiggerjay 04:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I second that. -- :) Chetblong 13:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft OEM pricing is part of anti-competitive strategy. There is no way for Software retailer to get same price as Hardware retailer get. If talking about car accessories - this mean that person unable to get spare tire without installation or paying 5x regular price. It's all about cartel agreement between PC manufactures and Microsoft (aka Wintel dominance). --TAG 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see how it can be construed as a specific "anti-competitive strategy" on Microsoft's part given that it's standard industry practice. Could you name a single software vendor (that makes software that's often bundled with new PCs) that doesn't have a lower OEM than retail price? Or hardware vendor for that matter -- buy OEM hard drives are much cheaper than retail hard drives as well, to pick one example; this is standard practice across all manufacturers that sell components to OEMs. See for a more detailed explanation. Not just in the computing industry either: if you buy, say, building materials at a builders yard, it'll be cheaper than buying them retail at, for example, Home Depot. It's the difference between Wholesale and Retail. -- simxp (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
TAG, that is definately showing your POV bias on this issue. Or perhaps your ignorance of the topic of OEM pricing. Despite how unfair you may believe it to be, it is a very standard practice in the industry. (And others as Simxp states.) Additionally, you can purchase Vista as either FPP (retail boxes) or OEM, at many stores, such as Frys_Electronics. You can save $100's by purchasing the OEM route. However there are some very large restrictions on this. The two largest restrictions are: (1) you must purchase the OEM software with computer hardware, to which the software becomes bound; (2) you must receive support from the hardware vendor if you have support issues with the OEM software. This presents two major problems for most users: (1) If you purchase it with a hard drive, Vista is legally bound to the hard drive and if you upgrade your system later, you must continue to use that specific hard drive; (2) That hardware vendor (such as Maxtor or Western Digital) is not going to provide you any support with your Vista opperating system.
However, this is no scam. For example, the same limiations apply to any computer you purchase Vista already installed on. Your support must come through Dell or HP. That is in part why Microsoft sells it at such a discount because they (MS) knows that they will not be burdened with the cost of support. Also, if you upgraded your computer, on OEM installs of Vista, the software is legally bound to the motherboard. As such, you can upgrade hard drive, memory, and perhaps your processor. But when it comes time to replace your motherboard, you must purchase a new copy of Windows....
In the FPP (or Retail) Copy, there are NONE of those restrictions. You can install it and trasfer it as you like. Software support is provided by Microsoft. That is, in part, why you are paying more.
Other software vendors such as Adobe provide similar pricing and structure for their products such as Adobe. Actually, Adobe Elements which is ONLY available as an OEM product with your computer ($99) and cannot be pruchased at retail. The lowest cost retail alternative is over $300 for Acrobat Standard.
Additionally, I'm not sure who you think they are being anti-competitive with or against? Microsoft wants you to purchase their product, regardless of how you purchase it. If you are really interested, I have plenty of vendor references for this information, but I didn't want to take the time now. However if you really want to confirm that what here is true, let me know and I'd be happy to reply with specific links to Adobe and Microsoft's website pertaining to this. Tiggerjay 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Tiggerjay, I've no POV conflict. Even more - if you will take a look on this my edit - Criticism of Windows Vista you will see that I'm aware of this restriction. In my revert I've added new citation to internal memo from Vice President of Microsoft OEM detailing that OEM pricing is part of their anti-competitive strategy - as for example they has cited that Intel or Compaq could start making their own OS in case of Microsoft will change those companies "full-price" for Windows - so Microsoft has entered into pricing agreement (and as result profit sharing) in order to keep OS monopoly. While it's old (1997) - some issues from it apply even today - like adding activation in Windows 6.0 (XP, 2001) or test-drive pay-for-use subscription service for Windows in some markets. Your example of Adobe Elements is not good - as Microsoft allow OEM to sell OS with SAME functionality for 1/5 of it's retail price, while Adobe Elements has trimmed functionality (i.e. regular market segmentation - one Microsoft already has in addition to OEM = Home/Professional/Server). There is no magic way to get full version of Adobe Acrobat for 1/5 of it's price then buying PC. --TAG 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, let's try another approach. The pricing applied to OEM vs Retail is no difference between what was done with windows XP (which is really Windows 5.1). Other software vendors, such as Corel with word perfect discount OEM prices even steeper than MS with Office. They're almost giving it away. The pratice of OEM discount pricing (little alone to say bulk pricing) has been standard in this industry for years. Even in your own quote, over 10 years ago they've been pricing this way. As such, I suggest that this pricing is nothing new to Vista, nor is specific or isolated to this operating system. As such, it adds no real value to this article. Tiggerjay 05:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okey. I'm fine for you to remove this item as long as there will be link to article discussing pricing issues for Windows overall. This section must be complete and no gaps in coverage must be introduced. --TAG 12:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that this would be a complaint of OEM vs Retail pricing, not specifically Microsoft. See the following link to an page [v Retail]. I found this link, among others on Original_equipment_manufacturer. Since this is not isolated to Vista, or Microsoft, this would be unrelated. It is a common problem shared among software vendors. It would be like writing pollution as a criticism of a specific SUV - no the problem is frequently shared by all low fuel economy vehicles. Tiggerjay 05:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Tiggerjay. I completely understand the complaints about OEM vs. retail pricing. But the fact that it's such a widespread issue in the industry and is nothing new, it's not really encyclopediac to include it in this article. Paul Cyr 13:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I would also side with Tiggerjay here, the OEM issue is not specific to Vista. So not point including it here. If any, it should be in the OEM article. --soum talk 13:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposing change of Removal of features[edit]

This should be changed to "Removal of promised/announced features" so to make space for "Features present in XP/older Windows and not present in Vista", like FireWire IP support, HLP viewer ... (it is also funny, that the help tells you how to make IP over FireWire, while the feature itself is not implemented)

--Xerces8 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Could you clarify the current problem and what you think should be done? Paul Cyr 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Windows Vista is an oversized OS"...[edit]

... But the article does not say a word about it. I have read/heard Windows Vista is at least 9 times as big as Windows XP(which is an oversized OS too, IMNSHO), but certainly it is not at least 9 times as efficient as Windows XP (far from that). KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, We are not here to push your personal PoV. Get a blog and do it yourself. --soum talk 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And this isn't a machine, it's software. All 9 times bigger of it isn't running at one time. Paul Cyr 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)