Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Reads like marketing brochure

18-April-2008: The article still has a tendency to read like a marketing brochure, with glowing terms such as "eye candy" (or verbs like "features" rather than "provides"). There is an enormous amount of detailed, semi-technical information, so it could be expected that not every phrase would be neutrally perfect. The article is an excellent start, and I think that rewording or expanding every other section would be sufficient to keep the information well-grounded as viewed by former users. Typically, marketing brochures make no grounded references to specific menu options, folder names, or screen icons, as those details are often omitted from an executive summary of a presentation. However, in working with actual users, too many abstract and glowing terms (such as "Windows Vista features a new way" in April/2008 wording under "Instant Search") do not provide the concrete details that end-users handle. Management personnel might accept "a new way" as an obvious improvement, but to an end-user, more specific wording would be clearer, such as the ability to search for a specific type of data. Again, it takes considerable time to expand details to the wording for a general end-user, but I think such well-grounded wording is also needed, in various sections of the article. The focus is on the general user, not the technical article geared to the system engineer, such as adapting device drivers for the USB2.0 interface spec. This issue of "brochure" is not intended as a criticism of the information provided, as certainly much of the detail would have come from product announcements written in a marketing style. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By all means, be WP:BOLD and adjust the wording. Nobody's going to disagree with making the article more neutrally-presented. -/- Warren 01:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The differences between different localized versions?

The article does not mention the differences between different localized versions of Windows Vista. I think there are some differences between Finnish Windows Vista and English Windows Vista. For example, there are no Finnish version of the speech recognition not to mention Finnish SAPI speaker. Could someone make a list of these differences? Are there some programs in English Windows Vista not included in Finnish Windows Vista?

Are there some programs in 32-bit Windows Vista not included in 64-bit Windows Vista? Urvabara (talk) 10:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not heard of this issue before. Maybe someone else has....?

"Are there some programs in 32-bit Windows Vista not included in 64-bit Windows Vista?"

I think that there are some programs that come with Vista 64-bit that are only 32-bit, but I believe all programs are included.Dvferret (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Different localized versions do have differences. As I'm using the Hong Kong Chinese Windows Vista, I've noticed that the default system font is JhengHei instead of Segoe UI which is mentioned in Features new to Windows Vista#Windows Aero as the default. Also, one of the sidebar gadgets, Weather, doesn't work no matter where the location is set to (but a third-party "repaired" version is available on Microsoft Website for Chinese user) --Quest for Truth (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Bugs with SP1

There were several features that were addressed with SP1 and some of them are just not being addressed. Vista worked fine for me on my laptop before SP1, but since updating to the new service pack I have noticed a couple of things.

First, the battery life is indeed improved.

Second, the volume control disappeared. I was able to reboot and it came back, but it is now a constant source of trouble. Sometimes I can adjust the volume, other times I cannot. Occasionally I am able to use the hotkeys on the laptop keyboard and other times not.

Lastly, the stability of Vista with SP1 doesn't seem to be as good. I could sleep the laptop anytime I wanted and rarely had to reboot. Now with SP1, I have to reboot every other day or so.

There should be a "known issues" or "bugs" section in the main article. 4wallz (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

And, as soon as you can source significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that give evidence that these are known issues with SP1 and are experienced by multiple people, then feel free to Be Bold and add such a section in. Until then, however, it can be dangerous to assume that whatever issues you happen to be having on your personal laptop must be bugs in SP1 that are shared by millions of other people. -- simxp (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you install vista from scratch, then install SP1 soon after, you'll notice in Ultimate Edition that you'll be unable to install language pack (Error 2) and Bitlocker. I made WMI service turned off, then tried again. Bitlocker managed to get installed, and so does language pack, but after installation of second language pack, it gave you error (Error 800700C1). Restarted every time I installed 2 language packs, and then the same error appeared, and then another restart. Frustrating. I tried to find a source to add to this article, but the solution given is for non-SP1. I have yet to find a source for SP1 new problem--w_tanoto (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It really sounds like you need to update your audio driver (for Vista) and you will be fine with the audio controls in Vista SP1. WinCEB (talk) 03:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
That's blaming the victim. The sequence as stated ought to work. If Vista "installed from scratch" contains an audio driver that causes problems with SP1, then SP1 itself ought to have updated that driver. The end-user can't be expected to be responsible for personally performing release engineering on multiple vendors' products. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft builds operating systems NOT drivers for YOUR SPECIFIC hardware. It is impossible for any operating system to incorporate ALL drivers IN THE WORLD. The end user is responsible for updating their own drivers. It is the responsibility of the manufacture of the computers to install the appropriate drivers when they ship your new system to you. If it is blaming the victim, so be it, your OLD driver is not compatible with Vista. WinCEB (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment

This article is now under discussion at Good Article Reassessment to determine if it meets GA criteria. the discussion is here. Majoreditor (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove Criticism Section

It seems that the Criticism section has become a magnet for attacks. Based on;

I suggest we endevour to integrate this section into the rest of the article where appropriate.

Wageslave (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista. -/- Warren 01:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wageslave. See our comments on Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista. Dvferret (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Even as I ironically make this reply from a Linux-based system, I feel somewhat uneasy about the way this section potentially undermines neutrality. It would be more appropriate to spread most of the useful information throughout the topic, as per WP:NPOV#AS.   — C M B J   02:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That isn't possible. In the last two years or so, no Wikipedian has ever demonstrated that there is a way to present relatively narrow, but widely reported, pieces of criticism on a very large topic such as an operating system. What NPOV and related guidelines have to say about integrating criticism generally applies to narrower topics, such as a biography, or a concept, or an event. Vista is a positively huge topic to try to accurately cover -- if we wanted to move, say, the DRM criticism out of a section titled "Criticism", we'd have to write a whole bunch of new content about the DRM capabilities introduced in Vista, which would take a couple of paragraphs... would this be a new section on par with the "Core technologies" section? Vast swaths of the core architecture were rewritten and we only give that a few sentences in this article, because that's all we have time for! Multiple paragraphs on DRM just because there have been some criticisms of it is most certainly giving undue weight to a comparatively minor topic, especially considering that most of the DRM criticism is theoretical and philosophical in nature -- people complain about DRM in Vista because they are morally opposed to DRM.
Also, the Criticism section in this article, as well as Windows XP, are in fact summary-style introductions to a larger body of criticism. This has been a very stable approach for a long time. The one paragraph we have on DRM serves as an introduction to the larger body of content we have on the subject of DRM and Vista in the Criticism of Windows Vista article. Warren -talk- 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I see this being added to several articles in a short span of time. Isn't that promoting it? - xpclient Talk 08:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

License to downgrade to XP

This article currently states, "On June 3, 2008, in response to XP's demand Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announced that Vista's license would allow a legal downgrade to XP, even beyond the June 30 cutoff date of XP's sales." Incorrect wording aside, while this statement does restate what is written in the cited source, a document on Microsoft's Website says that such a downgrade is permissible only in limited situations, such as from an OEM installation of Vista Business or Vista Ultimate to XP Professional.
Furthermore, I believe that this policy has been in effect for some time and was not really news on June 3, 2008; that's just the date that the cited publication spoke to Ballmer. --anon. (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the reference to a more reliable one, and updated the information to what I believe is correct. I've also removed all unsourced information, including the date of "June 3, 2008". — Wenli (reply here) 19:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you replaced it with more unsourced information. The reference you used doesn't mention "XP's demand", Steve Balmer or June 2008 (a year after it was written). - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I was merely using the content written by the previous author. Steve Ballmer is mentioned in the other reference, which is [1]. Besides, the content itself is fully sourced, just not the dates. (I haven't added it back, though) — Wenli (reply here) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
You created a cross between two different stories. One was the downgrade process being simplified a year ago, and the other was Steve Balmer pointing out that you can still downgrade after XP is discontinued. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This has always been true. Windows XP license holders could install Windows 2000. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Yes, but Microsoft is now simplifying the process in which OEMs and customers have to take in order to downgrade. — Wenli (reply here) 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Estimated Release dates

Would it be wise to put in estimated release dates for things like SP2? or would that violate WP:CRYSTAL?--omnipotence407 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

If Microsoft has announced the estimated release date, then we should add it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Service Pack 2 ?

When will comming SP 2 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unknown at this point. Microsoft hasn't said anything about it. Warren -talk- 15:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree Warren - it will probably be first quarter of 2010 before we see the next service pack for Vista. Not need to wait as SP1 is a reliable and performance enhancing service pack... WinCEB (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MS on the offensive?

Should MS's new ad campaign be mentioned in this article? I don't know exactly how to mention it or where to put it, but I think it at least deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmansan (talkcontribs) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that campaign should be mentioned, especially the Windows "Mojave" demo. The only thing would be should this be in this article or in a separate article? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved criticisms

I've removed the "Slow file operations" and "Software Protection Platform" paragraphs from the "Criticisms" section. I did this for two reasons: first, these criticisms are better discussed in the article Criticism of Windows Vista. The article Windows Vista should simply to provide a summary of the criticisms, and we have more than enough legitimate criticisms to discuss without resorting to dragging up long-resolved problems with Vista.

Second, I had concerns about the neutrality of these sections - the Software Protection Platform paragraph went on about Vista including new, evil anti-piracy technologies, mentioning only in the last sentence that these technologies are no longer a part of Vista as of Service Pack 1. Again, the article Criticism of Windows Vista does a better job of providing a balanced viewpoint, and we should have the Windows Vista criticism section focus on the real problems with Vista. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface

Warren says that my attempt to include Microsoft Surface computers was removed by 3 people? It was rephrased first, then removed once by someone who said that Surface does not use Vista (which is incorrect because he looked at the wrong resource), and then removed again by Warren because he does not feel it fits the prose. Surface computers can run various software as a multi-touch applications implement via WPF and XNA. Inclusion of Surface computers is also analogous to the inclusion of Media Center PC’s by virtue that the latter does not necessarily use the standard “Start Menu type shell” in other Vista enabled computers. Please share any thoughts. Thanks. Rasmasyean (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can it be verified that Vista was "developed by Microsoft for use on...Microsoft Surface table computers," which are about a year newer than Vista? - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Vista contains technology that specifically addresses the classes of products mentioned in the lead sentence:
  • Home desktops -- they have two editions with the word "Home" in the name, and helpers for setting up a home network, so it's a clear target market
  • Business desktops -- they have two editions specifically for businesses
  • Laptops -- Windows Mobility Center is new to Vista, as is a bunch of new UI around wireless networking (e.g. automatically reconfiguring the firewall when you bring your laptop into a recognised network)... there's also the Windows SideShow tech, which was always demonstrated as a potential laptop feature. Lots of other stuff, too.
  • Tablet PCs -- Lots of stuff here... handwriting recognition, pen flicking, panning in IE, automatic learning, including for east asian languages, on and on and on
  • Media centers -- Windows Media Center, built-in support for infrared remote controls that are already on the market, Media Center Extenders, Xbox integration, and so on.
These are classes of products, not specific implementations. There is no specific technology in Windows Vista for multi-touch, and it has never been part of the advertising for the operating system. The fact that one of the very few "new" things Microsoft has demonstrated about Windows 7 is multi-touch should tip you off to the fact that Vista was not designed for multi-touch. -/- Warren 02:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft Surface only runs a standard installation of Vista. Notice both were released almost simultaneously. WinCEB (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
So? What does that have to do with anything? Surface is a Vista-specific application, yes, but don't get confused -- Vista wasn't designed for the sake of supporting Surface. Warren -talk- 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Naturally Vista wasn't designed specifically for Surface, but for many different applications. Vista can run on desktops, laptops, special media centers, or even a small server with less than 10 users, and it happens to run on Surface too. If you break it down, Surface is another PC with fancy cameras and other technologies that make it happen, but at the core it is a PC that always runs Vista. Not Windows XP, but Windows Vista. I would not see why it would be a problem to mention that Vista powers Surface. Look at it this way: If you mention that it runs on media center computers which is "only" a specially designed desktop, why not a specially designed computer that happens to be Surface? Surface = Media Center = Special Computer... all three are equal. WinCEB (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Why single out Surface out of the zillion other special purpose computers running Windows Vista? Media Center/Tablet et al are important because those applications are built-into Vista, but the Surface app is not. Even the XP MCE analogy does not fit here. XP had a separate edition just for the sake of supporting Media Centers, thats why it got a separate mention. But Surface uses a regular Vista install. Just installing a special-purpose app on top of a regular Vista install is no reason enough to mention it. Vista doesn't treat the Surface app any differently from any other app, neither should we. --soum talk 03:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, so you think Surface is just an ordinary PC, huh? link to Microsoft Surface WinCEB (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Surface is an ordinary PC in the same way that ATMs are ordinary PCs. That doesn't mean Vista was designed for ATMs, even though it can clearly be used for that purpose. Warren -talk- 15:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Warren, I know you know better than that because you are a smart guy! However, I won't debate on this issue anymore since I am clearly out numbered and you do not see what I am saying but the bias is more important. The reception and criticism needs updated to reflect today because that is obsolete information and why this article failed to retain "Good Article" status. I will help as time permits but do not hit undo. Anybody reading this needs to work on those issues, seriously. (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, get over yourself -- you're wrong on this issue. Warren -talk- 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Warren, most people thought the article was very biased so are you saying they are wrong too? Don't be too quick to assume you are 100% correct - an open mind is important. Additionally, can you walk up to check your email, browse the internet, or print your pictures on an ATM? Not hardly, they are special purpose computers, not "general purpose" like you are likely using right now. They may have the capability but they are designed for a specic purpose, and that is being an ATM or being a Surface computer. WinCEB (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) actually, WinCEB, I think I'm 100% correct on this issue. I've spent quite a lot of time writing articles, and I've also spent quite a lot of time reading & fixing articles that are brutal to read because of the contributions of people who are fixated on their little pet causes, rather than the overall readability of the article. Getting this right is harder than it looks. In this particular case, nobody's put forth a reasonable case for why the very first sentence of the article needs to report on how the operating system is used that goes beyond the widely-acknowledged, widely-reported common cases. There's a reason for that -- there simply isn't a good case for this. Here's a simple test: If you were to ask anybody on this planet to describe Windows Vista in one sentence, or in one paragraph, Microsoft Surface would never come up. Neither would ATMs. That's why I don't support their being mentioned in the lead.

And yes, a lot of people think the article is biased, because they themselves come to the article with a personal bias against Vista (and Microsoft in general) already in place, and are disappointed that the article doesn't read like a "lol vista sux lol" rant (example) or that it doesn't mention their personal grievances (example). Two years ago, people were arguing that the article was biased because it didn't convey enough information about its similarities to Mac OS X. Most of the people involved in that particular argument never did any work on the article aside from trying to push anti-Windows criticism into the article. Again, it's all down to peoples' pet causes.

Really good articles don't come from people attempting to push their personal biases into or out of the encyclopedia. It comes from proper research, fairness in tone, balance of coverage, good informative value, and good structure and flow. Some people simply lack the maturity or experience to understand this. Warren -talk- 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Warren, thanks for your last post because I understand your side of the story better now. I agree with you 100% on the encyclopedia needing to keep personal motives out of the picture. I also agree with you on what you were saying about "What is Vista?". The only point I was really trying to make is that Surface "could" be mentioned somewhere if it deserved it but not in the introduction like you are also saying. We are on the same page now. Thanks for your hard work on the article. And lastly, yes, it is very immature for people to make judgements as they do and try to inject them into the article. Talk later... WinCEB (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Despite the "lackluster reception" of Windows Vista, this section is not an accurrate representation of world-wide complaints about Vista. And I'm a Microsoft employee. My company was acquired a little over 2 years ago, and while I like working at MS, it's painful to read biased, angry, and often completely inaccurate information about your employer, your products or your colleagues. Windows Vista is far better than the dumbed-down, candy-coated piece of shit that is XP. Windows XP lacks many of the IPv6 capabilities, power management features and Media Center capabilities that Vista offers, as well as some of the most exciting security enhancements that Microsoft has ever delivered. (but these facts are not mentioned in Windows XP's criticism section.) The sections about hardware requirements and Software Protection Platform are completely confusing and seemingly wrong. The reference to "The Times" from May 2006 is not relevant, this was over 2 years ago, before Vista was released - and most of the computers that are being sold with Vista today are not suffering from issues with performance or hardware requirements. Software Protection Platform is not based on WGA - it is the next generation of Windows Genuine Advantage, but they don't share the same code-base. Software Protection Platform is a digital licensing solution for improving software security, differentiating genuine software, and enabling software compliance, designed from scratch to be used in combination with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008. (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The most helpful action you can take would be to locate quotations from reliable sources (independent of Microsoft!) that support these points, and add them, with the supporting references, to the article. For example... I have not checked this myself... does (say) Walter Mossberg or Consumer Reports confirm that " most of the computers that are being sold with Vista today are not suffering from issues with performance or hardware requirements?" Dpbsmith (talk) 13:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
All computers sold today have adequate memory for Vista. At the beginning, systems were sold with only 512MB which gave people a bad taste of Vista. Every system in stores today have 2GB and sometimes 4GB of RAM which makes Vista fly... WinCEB (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I still see some systems sold (is that alliteration?) with 512 MB RAM (particularly for the small internet laptops with a 7 to 9 inch screens, economy computers that cost less than $400, and many previous-generation computers still around), though 1 GB through 4 GB RAM are all common now for most types of computers. Even still, 1 GB isn't really enough to take full advantage of Vista in comfort. And we're not even getting into video cards or Vista's usage as virtual machines... Althepal (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Mojave Experiment

Microsoft is coming out with a new campaign, the Mojave experiment [2], it shows hidden video footage of people critical of Vista, who were shown a the 'new' Microsoft OS, and their reactions when they were told it was Vista. I believe Microsoft's efforts to change the public perception of Vista deserves mention, but am unsure where to place it, as I currently see no such section or mention. Yonyb (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure... Wikipedia:Recentism might be an issue. Warren -talk- 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Switch to linux?

I was wondering if the subject of "migration to linux" should be brought up? Linux is being adopted at an increasing rate, and negative criticism of Vista only helped to speed it up. The article mentions people specifically avoiding Vista on new laptops, but there is no mention that at the same time, Dell, HP, Asus and Acer started selling linux based laptops. I think it deserves a mention. For more information, see: Linux_adoption Fuzzbuzz (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that manufacturers ship operating systems other than Windows, or that people choose products other than Windows, isn't really relevant here. It'd be like going to the article on the Honda S2000 and saying, "oh, well, don't you know, some people have taken to buying the BMW Z4 or the Audi TT instead!" .... this is an article that describes Windows Vista, the operating system, not the computing industry as a whole. Warren -talk- 07:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with you WarrenDvferret (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Then again, if the reason people are drifting towards Linux is a direct result of Vista, maybe there should be some mention in the reception section? Althepal (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Correlation does not imply causation, Althepal. People have been migrating to Linux for over a decade because "Windoze sux lol", or because of a desire for a level of computing freedom that Microsoft doesn't offer. There isn't much evidence out there to prove that people are migrating to Linux in significant numbers because of concerns that are specific to Vista, and that's what we'd need to find if we wanted to write about it in this article. Warren -talk- 21:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vista Windows

There exists company not related to Microsoft that uses name Vista Windows: (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Shared source

I don't know when it slipped in these articles, but the source model for XP and Vista was stated as Closed Source / Shared source in their respective infobox. I had to remove the "Shared source" part, because:

  • This was not sourced nor mentioned anywhere else in the articles,
  • Microsoft Shared source can not be considered as a source model, Shared source licenses range from truly OpenSource licenses to licenses that only allow looking at source code for reference purpose.

Hervegirod (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the article on Microsoft Shared Source:

Microsoft Windows Academic Program

The Windows Academic Program provides universities worldwide with concepts, Windows kernel source code, and projects useful for integrating core Windows kernel technologies into teaching and research.

They release their "Windows kernel source code" under their Shared Source license to Academic programs. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Piracy you say?

I just noticed someone removed a link I added to a page that links to a torrent. Piracy is killing people and stealing, etc... at sea. And as far as I know, even torrents itselves are legal, so linking to them should also be... And even if wikipedia says it is not censored, this makes it clear it is... this is censorhip, don't call it other thing... But take no offense: keep in mind censorship "per se" is not a bad thing... (just take the example of child porn censorship...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Piracy means illegally copying someone else's work. "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked." per Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking. Also, from Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [3])." It doesn't really matter if it's censorship or not. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editions of Vista

This article states that there are only six editions. There are several more, even without counting server editions. According to there are 25 editions. These are also specified on line 1108 of winnt.h in the vista SDK. I cant think of a good name (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because they counted Home Basic N and Business N seperately from Home Basic and Business. The server editions are not really Windows Vista. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that server versions are not Vista (they're 2008 server), but both Home Basic N and Business N are Vista, and different versions (yeah, the diference is realy small. but so is the difference between other versions). HuGo_87 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Longhorn its different

Longhorn was another operating system and it was droped, then the deppelopment was restart and based on Windows Server 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Longhorn was the codename of Vista. Longhorn development originally started using the XP codebase, but in 2004 development was reset and they started again with the Server 2003 codebase. Vista == Longhorn -- Imperator3733 (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardware requirements

I was thinking about posting REAL requirements, not those that microsoft publishes. You realy need about 2GiB RAM and minimaly a 2GHz procesorfor vista to run acceptably ok. Plus, you realy need more than 15GB disk space, since vista uses up 15 GiB, but you need some free after that. What does everyone think? Whould that realy be ok with wikipedia's policies? HuGo_87 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Vista does run just fine with the Microsoft-published minimums. They're the ones that did the research and analysis on what the minimum and recommended configurations should be. Sure, it'll be slow, but it'll work, and that's the important part. Bear in mind that stating arbitrary requirements is pretty much useless, since it all comes down to the what any given user is going to do with the machine. Someone who only runs one or two small and simple applications doesn't need a 2 gigahertz processor and 2 GB of memory to do that; on the other hand, if you run a large number of applications and typically work with a large number of files, then 2 GB of memory may not be enough for ideal performance. The fact that Vista will run faster if you feed it more resources isn't really a detail that needs to be documented here; this is true of all computers and all operating systems. Warren -talk- 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Vista"

Is it really necessary to include a pronunciation key for "Vista" in the opening sentence, when the pronunciation is not special and is in fact the normal way to say that (English) word? - Mark 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some cultures (especially European) pronounce the word vista with a hard e sound, i.e. /ˈviːstə/ instead of the correct /ˈvɪstə/. This is because the word is Italian in origin, and in that language, the letter "i" is typically pronounced with that hard "e" sound. A lot of Europeans will pick up on this being an Italian word and apply Italian pronunciation to it. Which is fine for the word, but it's incorrect in terms of the pronunciation of the proper product name. Removing the pronunciation guide would do nothing to increase the usefulness and informative value of the article, and we are talking about how to say the name of human history's second-highest selling consumer operating system... so, it should stay. Warren -talk- 11:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Since when do Microsoft specify that the word can't be pronounced in its natural (Italian) way by Italian people? All the Itaian videos I could find about it on YouTube pronounce it with the "hard e" sound, as you put it. If you can give me a reference indicating that the pronunciation given is the "official" pronunciation according to Microsoft, I guess it should stay. - Mark 03:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
A thought: Who says that there is a "correct" way to pronounce the name? I would think that in Italy they use the hard e despite the product's United States origin. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point, though I couldn't have put it so eloquently. Hence why I don't see the point of having a pronunciation guide in the article, when the word is just going to be pronounced however the locals say the word "vista" normally. We don't have a pronunciation guide for "Windows" in Microsoft Windows, even if some Europeans might pronounce the "w" sound differently. - Mark 05:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The word "vista" is from the Italian, but the word as used in the product name is English. Don't be led astray by the fact that they are spelled the same and mean the same.... As to the correct pronunciation, you can listen to the audio recording of the word Vista here on, for example. Compare that with, oh, I dunno, this official Windows Vista advertisement, or this Bill Gates speech, or this CNet review. It's precisely the same. Whether people pronounce a word with a local dialect isn't the issue, nor is it really "wrong" because nobody can be expected to understand how to pronounce every word in every language correctly... but there is still an authoritatively correct form when speaking the name in English, which is what IPA transcriptions seek to provide. As an encyclopedia, we can help people with that.
Now, could someone explain to me how the article will benefit from removing the pronunciation guide? Warren -talk- 10:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; the inclusion of the pronunciation adds nothing to the article: the variations in pronunciation stem not from errors on the part of the speakers but instead from their own accents. From WP:MOS-P when talking about minor accent differences: "since such variation on the part of the speaker is automatic, it doesn't need to be spelled out, at least not in the case of a simple pronunciation guide to a key word in an article". Pointing to recordings of Americans (some of whom are from Microsoft) pronouncing "Vista" according to their natural accent does nothing to prove that that pronunciation is authoritative and somehow the official pronunciation for the product name. What would be more conclusive of this would be a line in a Vista press kit saying that it is to be pronounced that way, or perhaps a newspaper article saying that New Zealand Microsoft employees have been instructed to abandon their New Zealand accent (see short 'i') when talking about the product, or perhaps Italian employees being forced to pronounce it the American way. - Mark 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Warren is right on this. His first response was well said. If you are in Italy, you will use localized methods to learning how to speak the word "Vista". WinCEB (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The above assertions of vista being "an Italian word" make me laugh out loud. Perhaps it would be best to say it is from Latin origin. In the Spanish language (one of the five Romance languages along with Italian) vista means "(the) sense of sight", in addition to the usual English meanings, according to the WordWeb Online Dictionary (sic):
--AVM (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The word is NOT italian in origin, it's latin in origin, and there's no reason to think microsoft wanted it prononced as it would be in italian, spanish, etc. Idealy, the pronunciation should be based on microsoft presentations, and how THEY prononce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo 87 (talkcontribs) 18:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote that the pronounciation stays in the article. This is mainly because if someone who lives in europe wants to know how it is pronounced in the US, naturally he would look to the pronounciation at the begining of the article. Presario (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary. First, this is an English Wikipedia targeting an English speaking audience. If the obvious or natural pronunciation of "Vista" by a native English speaker is considered correct,no pronunciation key is needed. If that were not the common sense policy, consider how many Wikipedia article would need a pronunciation key simply because someone who is not a native English speaker might mispronounce the title/subject. It might be appropriate to include pronunciation keys for "Vista" on other language versions of this page, but not the English one. Second, I agree with Mark's comments above. Who's to say that Italian's and others can't pronounce "Vista" in whatever way is natural for them. I don't think Microsoft does. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the pronunciation should stay. Certain companies tend to stylize a product by marketing the pronunciation in its etymological language. We say "mocha" with a k sound not our own way, but we change the "i" from the romance language "hard e" The fact that "vista" is not a common english word and is pronounced differently by non native english speaker means that the distintion should be kept in the article.

Removal of "Vulnerabilities" section from the article

This section really isn't an accurate depiction of the facts from the researcher's paper, Bypassing Browser Memory Protections. I read the paper after it was announced at black hat and saw some particularly "short on facts, high on drama" posts on various tech blogs. It seems most just echoed a SearchSecurity article (the same one this section has sourced for its information), and that article's statements and conclusions don't really logically follow what the paper presents.

Much of the paper is about getting browser memory corruption exploits to work around DEP in XP SP2/Vista and ASLR in 32-bit Vista. Many of these revolve around finding modules not compatible with ASLR/Safe SEH/DEP or using Java (which allocates memory pages as executable) or a phony attacker-controlled .NET control with a malicious .text section. Since ASLR in 32-bit Windows only randomizes over somewhat small ranges of memory by having a large attacker-controlled image you can be fairly sure wherever the image was rebased you'll jump into your shell code (or noops with the shell code at the end). He describes how you could do that. Now as neat as the paper is, the media reports are insane.

From the section: "Presenters at Black Hat revealed that many, if not all, of Windows Vista's security-features can be over-taken with a single web-browser exploit"

A browser exploit's code would still be limited to the privileges of the process token of the browser, which in IE7 on Vista's default "protected mode" are quite limited. This line implies complete destruction of Windows' security mechanisms via a browser exploit and that's not the case here.

From the section: "The exploit is reportedly based around Windows Vista's fundamental architecture, not a specific security flaw, and can be executed with any web-browser vulnerability."

The researcher's article itself recommends solutions and at the end comments "The authors expect these problems to be addressed in future releases of Windows and browser plugins shipped by third parties." Quite different from the "game over" tone of this section. The way of maliciously using .NET controls for the browser memory corruption exploits for example, could be fixed. 64-bit Windows with its wider virtual address range will allow for randomization that would be unfeasible to work around using the methods described in the article (though abusing modules that don't support ASLR/Safe SEH/DEP for app compatibility reasons could still happen).

This section really doesn't meet verifiability requirements anyway as it doesn't provide any facts to backup its conclusions. Not going to look through the history to see who added it, but that person really shouldn't be posting about things they don't understand the facts of. sean (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You are stating that that taking control of a system running Windows Vista using an exploit found in IE7 is impossible because of the security token that has been given to the process. Correct? Presario (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Service Pack 2

SP2 is in the pipeline, however Microsoft will not be drawn on the release date or other details. If you have a relationship with Ms, try asking them - you will be met on all fronts with KB948465, as the press too has found. So that reference is currently reliable regarding the fact that they are saying nothing at this time other than that it is coming. Furthermore, as information is made available, that reference will continue to be the reliable as they will be updating it over time. Edit warring by continually deleting this reliable reference about Microsoft's position is not serving any purpose here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys.

I was messing around with Wikipedia and instead of hitting Preview I hit Save. Luckily within seconds this article was repaired, but again, I am very very sorry. Spartan123209 (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

BitLocker Drive Encryption Comment/Correction

I read the part of the article that pretains to the BitLocker Drive Encryption, and found that a portion of the article does not make sense. It states that Windows requires ~1.5 GB to be unencrypted for system files and to allow the system to boot. It goes on to state that this is a security vunerability because of the chance of the OS or third party programs writing files to the disk in this area. Assuming that the system is a single OS system, for this to happen, the offending program would need to be run while windows is running, or an update would need to happen (however this is a legit reason to acces this area and wouldn't be considered a comprimise of security). Windows, being as secure (and a pain to work with) as it is, would most likely only have the necessary files to boot in that area. Since the encryption is on the entire partition, wouldn't it make the ~1.5GB "Boot partiton" essentially a ghost drive that was only read when booted or an update changed files in that area? If it is the case, then the offending program would need to be run from a priviliged position, having the user log the program into the account, and having the user see what is attempting to run from the priviliged position. This would make it next to impossible (unless one was using a hex editor such as dskprobe.exe, used another OS to comprimise the "ghost drive", or knowingly logged the offending program into a priviliged account) to comprimise the system.

Please share your thoughts on this issue. Presario (talk) 17:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the case when BitLocker is running, but normally Vista will dump the entirety of the RAM to the system drive (e.g. C:\Windows) during a STOP Error. I cant think of a good name (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
This happens in all NT based systems. They either make a Minidump, a Small memory dump, or a Full memory dump. Since the %systemroot% is required to boot, then it wouldn't be encrypted, and would be part of the mentioned "Ghost Drive". I am going to make changes to reflect the technology. Presario (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Four, not three visual styles

For reasons that completely escape me, we have an editor that is insisting that there are three visual styles. What this editor has chosen to do is ignore the source that's provided right beside the text he is changing, and instead editorialize based on what I can only guess is their own personal experiences and guesswork. Folks, you just can't do that on Wikipedia. It's not how we operate. If you get reverted because your edits contravene the sources already provided in the article, you must provide a reliable source that agrees with what you claim, otherwise your material doesn't stay in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability is key to writing a good encyclopedia. Warren -talk- 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Revert, Lock, Ban. --Ciao 90 (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
As a side point, I would hope that WP hasn't got to the stage where a block or ban should be considered for what's essentially a minor, first-time, good-faith WP:SYNTH violation. Yes, s/he should have used the talk page; but come one, it didn't even get to 3RR. Talk of banning is a huge overreaction -- whever happened to WP:BITE? -- simxp (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Windows Automated Installation Kit (WAIK)?

I'm not clear on how Windows Automated Installation Kit differs from the Windows Recovery Environment, and what it contains besides Version 2 (and now 2.1) of Windows Preinstallation Environment. IS WAIK and WinRE essentially the same thing renamed? Cuvtixo (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Product Red

Anyone know any more about this Product Red Edition of Vista? It was released on Dec 15 and apparently donates money to AIDS causes for every one sold. It also has some extra wallpapers and screensavers included on the disc.

Kyosuke Aokitalkcontribs 23:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


This article needs clarification. It may be necessary to break it down into several articles. The Table of Contents isn't logical and should be reordered or reworded. I like the very first sentence. It's very clear. Perhaps move the the 2nd sentence(with all the other historical info) to a section called "History". You could also move lots of sentences from the first 4 paragraphs to subsections like History->Development and Technical Information->Features. If possible, a timeline would be of use to the reader.
Where possible, please use standard terminology such as "Networking Support" rather than the Microsoft code-names like "Windows deployment Services". It's ok to list these code-names as long as they are clearly designated under a standard terminology so the readers don't have to know microsoft terminology to read and understand the article. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7's Influence on Adoption

Perhaps a section should be added on the effects Windows 7's upcoming release (is having/will have/has) on business/consumer adoption of Vista. I'm not sure how many reliable sources exist for this, but I know there's "buzz" that many are holding off on Vista to wait for 7. --Resplendent (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

theres probably no difference on the effects than with previous editions - remember Vista was due for release years ago but was put back (from 2003), normally it is only 2-3 years between versions (1.0 (1985), 2.0 (1987), 3.0 (1990), 3.1 (1992), 95 (1995), 98 (1998), 2000/Me (2000), xp (2001), Vista (2006-7), 7 (2009)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocobogamer (talkcontribs) 15:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
If there's no sources or studies that are showing people are waiting to upgrade until 7, we shouldn't start making rumors based on our own assumptions or thoughts here on Wikipedia. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of computer users don't even know 7 is coming out, and think Vista is it for a while. Slinky317 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
But many of them ignore Vista and stick with XP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A Glitch?

It seems that this article has been somehow merged with Ubuntu article, or it was when I accessed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Selvax (talkcontribs) 13:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone come up with a valid reason for an editor to replace this image: File:Windows Vista logo.svg with this: File:Windowsvista new logo.png? Evidently they both contain the same exact content; I don't know if it's the user's pride of uploading images but this is quickly becoming an annoyance. The SVG is of superior quality and I don't see how the PNG fixes any problems the logo might have. Eugene2x►talk 16:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Obsolete prediction

In the "Reception" section, it says:

"Initially it was thought that the adoption of Vista has been generally low, due to largely poor reviews and harsh criticism, but a later Gartner research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%)[96] while IDC had indicated that the launch of Windows Server 2008 served as a catalyst for the stronger adoption rates."

Down in the "Competition with Windows XP Section", however, it says:

"By February, 2009, more than two years after Vista's release, its uptake among corporations was below 10%." The footnote for the former mentioned quotation says, "Windows XP still powering 71 percent of business PCs".

So, what I'm getting at is, even though it was a prediction, this old information that was obviously way off might not have a place in the article. It is misleading and forces you to search in the article for other viewpoints. I'm wondering what other people think. (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Just another advertisement for Microsoft. Wikipedia is slowly being destroyed by people that has a vested interest in rewriting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you refering to the 10%? Well, if that's from the same source and it says "corporation" uptake is < 10%, that does not contradict "business" uptake as not all businesses are corporations. I would guess they are refering to public corporations in their context. It's evident there's a distinguishment as they said 71% of business PC's use Windows XP. That leaves 29% as "other" (not 10%). What is this "other"? I doubt too many of them are Macs's probably mostly Vista and Win2K if I had to make a guess. Rasmasyean (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

A Remarkable Claim

Via /. I note that Microsoft COO Brian Kevin Turner has made a rather dubious claim[4]:

"Vista today, post-Service Pack 2, which is now in the marketplace, is the safest, most reliable OS we've ever built. It's also the most secure OS on the planet, including Linux and open source and Apple Leopard. It's the safest and most secure OS on the planet today."

I should suppress my guffaws as a Linux-user for the sake of NPOV ;)

Seriously though, should this be quoted in the Windows Vista article and/or Security and safety features new to Windows Vista?

-- Limulus (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Microsoft is qualified to claim the "most reliable OS we've ever built" part, but the rest is unsubstantiated marketing hype - not much different than any other company claiming, "We make the best X in the world". I think such statements generally do not warrant inclusion in the article. Now, if an independent organization performed a comparative security analysis and came to the same conclusion, that would warrant inclusion. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Laptop Hunters

Can someone re-write the following section, it sounded like it was written by an upset Mac fanboy:

"These advertisements have been criticized by some Mac users for making much ado over the average price difference between Windows PC and Mac hardware, a fact already widely known. The ads have also been criticized for glossing over technical specifications of the PC laptops which actually show them to be much less comparable to to Macs and much less of an actual cost savings.[89] Interestingly, the Windows operating system is not mentioned by name in any of the three advertisements, and the actors/actresses even go so far as to refer to Macs as "sexy" and "pretty." Also curious is the fact that Microsoft does not manufacture the PC hardware which the customers eventually purchase, and that Macs are also capable of running Windows via Apple's Boot Camp utility or with various third-party software such as VMWare Fusion or Parallels."

If not it will be deleted. (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly how I felt. I re-wrote the section to clear the bias and add neutrality. I also got rid of the Boot Camp/VMWare comment, as it does not pertain to the Laptop Hunter campaign. The "fanboy" re-edited the page back to his posting and I have once again re-edited towards neutrality and will continually do so as necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks like the section was removed altogether. Maybe you can revert back to your edit. I think it is an important part of Windows Vista since Windows really hasn't advertised through commercials in the past. Also it has caused a bit of controversy. (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Laptop Hunters" isn't really an ad for Windows Vista, is it? This doesn't belong in this article at all... perhaps, maybe in Microsoft Windows.... Warren -talk- 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Article changes

Let's stop the edit warring and discuss here what should be removed and what should be kept. I feel that the revision from March had too much intricate detail, and obviously that's why I started trimming down sections; but in doing so I may have overdone it. So what changes (aside from ignorant mass-reverting) should we make? (Adding, removing, etc.) GraYoshi2x►talk 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing fundamental needs to be removed; the long-standing, multi-year consensus (see April 27, 2007) has been to have all the sections that are present. The onus is on you to explain why you are so desperate to remove fully one-third of the article. Nobody here has to justify why the sections you repeatedly remove should stay.
In the meantime, the article stands as-is, without your mass of deletions and additions of original research. This is in accordance with WP:BRD. Warren -talk- 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
First of all, consensus can change. Second of all, that was a mere edit. How does that edit prove that there was any consensus in the first place? And what original research did I add? I've seen this "OMG we need sources for everything we write" behavior several times now, and it definitely isn't the core concept of the reliable sources and original research policies. If someone asks for a bit of advice, you don't go attack them in favor of your own revision. It's completely ridiculous, and you're certainly not following WP:BRD, but acting stubborn. GraYoshi2x►talk 03:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I sure as hell am following BRD -- YOU boldly deleted one third of the article (B), I reverted your changes (R), and instead of coming to the talk page on your own, I had to repeatedly remove your changes and demand you use the talk page (D).
Now would you stop with these outright lies that I'm removing the work of "dozens of editors"? I restored sections one at the time from a revision in mid-March; I looked at every single change made in that time, and in my judgement as someone who's worked on this article for more than three years, felt that the March version was just fine. It's not like there's been some major news between mid-March and mid-April on the subject of Windows Vista's new features, visual styles, hardware requirements. The entire history of the article is available -- I (and anyone who cares) can produce diffs that show that you and you alone are responsible for the significant trimming of the article that occurred on March 31 and April 1. I removed your destructive edits from that time period. So don't try and play this as a "Warren against the world" sort of thing; nobody's going to believe it.
Especially considering that you, and only you, apparently believe all of the following, based on your edits to the article:
  1. The article should not contain any information about Vista's new search features, despite it being a major, visible, widely-reported addition to Windows
  2. The article should not contain any information about Vista's new shell & Explorer features -- the breadcrumb bar, the preview & detail panes, the "Favorites" pane, the pretty fundamental change to how the Start menu looks and works
  3. The article should not mention many of the new applications and tools: Windows Calendar, Windows Photo Gallery, Windows DVD Maker, the updated Windows Media Center, Windows Mobility Center, Windows Speech Recognition, the System Assessment Tool, parental controls, Shadow Copy / Previous Versions, the Reliability and Performance monitor, Backup and Restore center
  4. The article should not mention Windows Media Player at all, except to note that it is not included in N editions
  5. The article should not list the new fonts included with Vista
  6. The article should not describe the new audio features, at all
  7. The article should not mention any new business features, at all -- Windows Imaging Format, support for corporate desktop deployment via Windows Deployment Services, Services for UNIX being included with a desktop OS for the first time, wireless projector support, improved multi-lingual support
  8. The article should not cover Group Policy enhancements in any way
  9. The article should not mention any new developer features, at all -- .NET Framework being included with a desktop operating system for the first time, the fact that many major components were rewritten, information about DirectX 10 (which was covered widely in gaming press and is still considered a point of contention), changes in OpenGL support, the exclusive inclusion of Windows Installer 4.0
  10. The article should not mention the fact that Messenger Service is not included with Vista
  11. The article should not discuss major new features in Vista Service Pack 1
  12. The article should not articulate the fact that Windows Update is now a control panel -- despite the fact that if there's one thing that most people familiar with Windows XP, is that Windows Update was a web site
  13. The article should not state the fact that battery life is reduced when using Aero
  14. The article should not provide a proper explanation of the new security features, particularly User Interface Privilege Isolation, Address space layout randomization, and code integrity
  15. The article should not contain third-party analysis of some of the new security features, including demonstration of a cold-boot attack on Bitlocker, and the results published by a major anti-virus vendor showing User Account Control's effectiveness
You are, of course, welcome to entertain those beliefs, but they are entirely unwelcome on Wikipedia. You are probably the first person to come along in the more than two years that the article has been generally stable to claim that none of this information is suitable for inclusion -- go check the extensive edit history if you like. You should take that as a sign that you're well in the minority in your views.
As for the issue of visual styles, whereupon you are absolutely insistent that there are five visual styles,... I'd like to point you to this edit from December (and other similar ones from the same user), where we had a user insist that there are three visual styles. Yup... three. You'll probably agree with me that that's nuts, and he'd probably agree with me that your assertion that there are five visual styles is also nuts. What both you and him failed to do is to produce verifiable, reliable sources that back up such assertions. This isn't optional. It is especially bad form to ignore and/or remove the sources we already have which back up the assertions made in the article. If you can produce a reliable source, from Microsoft or from a notable author in the area of operating systems, who says it's five, then we can have a look at that. Until you do, though, leave it well alone, and perhaps accept that you're actually wrong. Warren -talk- 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore those first few snide attacks of yours. For the topic of visual styles, why don't you look at Vista's appearance dialog itself? Or do you simply remove that information because you believe the article is all yours? It looks to me like you do the same thing at various other Windows articles even though you have no clue what the subjects are supposed to be. And where did you "demand" I used the talk page? Zip, nada, nowhere. You just clicked "Undo" for every single edit and didn't give a crap about what was in them. GraYoshi2x►talk 22:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You're getting "visual styles" and "themes" confused. No surprise there -- it is quite confusing in Windows Vista due to the unclear UI. When you look at the Appearance Settings dialog, what you're actually getting there is a combination of visual styles and themes. To be really precise about it, you're getting a list of themes available for all visual styles that are supported by your hardware. Windows Aero, Windows Vista Standard, and Windows Vista Basic all have exactly one theme; selecting any of these will therefore change both your visual style and your theme.
This thing called "Windows Standard" which you are insisting is a visual style distinct from "Windows Classic" is, in fact, a theme, not a visual style. Don't get confused by the fact that one of the themes for the Windows Classic visual style is called Windows Classic; it's just one amongst the six that are included (when you include the four high-contrast themes). That's how it's described in the "Windows Classic" section of the article as it has stood for a donkey's age -- read the final sentence. Paul Thurrott explains the confusion at the end of his article on Windows Vista Standard. Also read this MSDN article to better understand the distinction between themes and visual styles.
Now are you going to drop this, or are we going to have to take more serious steps to get you to stop editing the article based on your original research? Warren -talk- 01:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Both of you, stop editing the article while there stands a disagreement. Resolve the disagreements first, before you make any edit. Or I am going to disable editing on the article, and I wouldn't care which version gets frozen - I will freeze whatever version is there when I decide freezing.
In case you need a screenshot
@Grayoshi, the legacy personalization dialog mixes themes and color schemes, so just looking at that isn't sufficient here. What we need is a solid reference from people who understand the difference saying that Windows Standard is a theme distinct from Windows Classic and not a different style of the same Windows Classic theme. From what I could find, they are not. In fact, a reference stating the same has already been added.
For a more clear UI look at Windows XP. In the Appearance tab of the Display properties dialog, the Windows and Buttons drop-down lists the themes (they correspond to the themes in the Themes tab) where as the Color Scheme drop down lists the schemes. You will see that for the classic look, there is only theme (Windows Classic) which has many different color schemes, two of which are named Windows Classic and Windows Standard + 4 high contrast schemes and some others. --soumtalk 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Service Pack 2

Just a heads up that the RTM for Service Pack 2 has been released to the MSDN. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ talk 05:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

completely different topic on sp2, but is there any source for this: [5]. it said that it will be released 26 may 2009. last week, there was also an edit, adding that the date of release was 19 may 2009. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

User issues

Could people add some common user issues to this article, or create a new article? This would be very useful. For example:

  • Has anyone discovered a way to change Vista's default listing of "Recent Items" to display the most recently used items, rather than the lowest items in alphabetical order that the user has ever accessed?
  • Is there any way to change a .txt file to .svg or .pl without opening and resaving it, or running Cygwin?
  • Why can't the "search" function find files listed under "All Programs" in the Start menu, or on the desktop, or just about anywhere else?

Oh, yes, and one other question: What operating system do Microsoft executives use on their computers? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To your quote on changing file extensions, it's the same problem since XP.. windows hides part of the filename (the extension) by default. This is the stupidest behavior ever, and should be noted in the article i believe.

The search option is tweaked to work in your userspace only be default, and may not even index other locations even if you manualy specify it. This should also be noted i belive HuGo_87 (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Directsound3D and HAL removal. Software support critisms.

How about adding under critisms, info about the HAL and Directsound3D. Alot of soundcard manufactures put vista compatible, but without the hardware support on vistas end, it sounds terrible and is forced to emulated through software. I know tons of people have been angered by this. ~~ (talk)

This is a criticism of hardware manufacturers, not Vista. If you buy a product that says "compatible" without doing any research and it doesn't actually work, caveat emptor. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I concur. Definitely a criticism of poorly labeled hardware and, subsequently, the hardware manufacturers as opposed to the OS. Additionally, the title of "Vista Compatible" means exactly as it sounds in that it will work in Vista and there is a driver available. Whether it will work fully or not is another question. NVIDIA's PowerMizer and Creative's driver battles last year are more than enough proof of this. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ talk 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
But doesn't windows have to certify hardware in other for the manufacturers to use the label "vista compatible"? HuGo_87 (talk) 09:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

time article...

the time article calling Vista one of the 10 biggest failures has been removed from here 'as it is an entertainment article and contains no research'. I thought we should discuss if it is worthy of a link on here. The other reason its been removed is 'because it calls youtube a failure' now the person who removed it clearly hasn't read why they consider YouTube a failure - on the points they raise - the failure to take advantage of massive viewership and (in its current state) unrecoupable price Google paid yet they don't charge or even advertise on it, the article is entirely right to call it a failure. As with their description of Vista, again it raises the important points. Its an article from one of the US's most important magazines and it deems Vista a failure, therefore I think its more than worthy of inclusion. chocobogamer mine 19:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

YOU can join the ad business on YouTube if you wanted to. You can even pay to "feature" your video. Most people don’t because they wouldn’t get that much profit from their “home videos”. If you see legit syndicated or professional videos on there, they have ads where Google splits profits with the creator. YouTube video is also very prevalent in Google’s main search and incorporated on an “instant play” within Google (vs. going to external sites) indirectly helping Google. Now YouTube sells videos and music. And they even have popups that sell these. They even broadcast NCAA. That’s only the stuff I can personally think of as a user and not a professional video industry analyst.

You can’t take the economic analysis from all column journalists seriously. And Time Magazine is a news entertainment magazine made for laymen readers. You can attribute the same importance to Popular Mechanics as well, but perhaps only GM engineers read that to keep up to date with automotive technology. Not saying all articles are farce, but you have to put any source in perspective when scrutinizing it. Rasmasyean (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SP2 release date

I would like to challenge the date of release of SP2. I changed it to 25 May, and reverted it once from 26 back to 25. It appeared that someone reverted it back to 26. I would not want to revert it back, so I just put it here in the discussion. The "Official" release date by microsoft is on 25 May (and for this reason I changed it to 25). As stated in MS website (64-bit version) [6]: File Name: Windows6.0-KB948465-X64.exe

Version: 948465

Knowledge Base (KB) Articles: KB948465

Date Published: 5/25/2009

Language: English

Download Size: 577.4 MB I understood the reversion was probably as a result of difference in time zone. I myself live outside USA, and it was on 26th when SP2 was released. So, I'll leave it up to you to decide now. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

32-bit RAM limitations "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues, the 32-bit versions of Windows Vista limit the total available memory to 3.12 GB" This should be added. --tickle me 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. And maybe a reference to 64-bit somewhere. Rasmasyean (talk) 07:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Section "Reception" possibly misleading

The section "Reception" contains a number of statements which, while possibly be in a strict sense "correct", seem misleading without context. For example: a "research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame." - In other words, the hot new OS may actually outsell one released in 2001.

"Within its first month, 20 million copies of Vista were sold, double the amount of Windows XP sales within its first month." - How many desktops, laptops, tablet PCs, and media center PCs are there in the world today as compared with 2001? Twice as many? Three times as many?

Comparisons like this remind me of comparing absolute box office numbers from recent films with those of classic films from the mid-20th century (yes, the absolute sales numbers may be higher, but the ticket price now is 10 times what it was then), or comparing demand for this year's model car with an older model (if many people would rather have a 30-year-old car than the new one that you're selling today, you should wonder if you're doing everything right).
-- (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point on your 20 million note, though the research report is from 2008 and represents the latest % numbers from Gartner. When they have new numbers, it should be substituted.

However, I do think you make a good point. I think originally, the idea was to make a “timeline story” to give a snapshot of Vista’s life. One thing I’ve contemplated on was also the note “However, PC World indicated that its visitor base of Windows Vista had increased at a much slower rate than what was originally predicted compared to that of Windows XP.”. PC World used to be a leading authority on things like this but today it may have lost its place as a de facto standard and seems more of a Web 2.0 free speech news forum with reporters of random quality apparently. But nevertheless, it flows with the paragraph leading into XP decomm postponement and “satisfaction”….which leads to the next paragraph on gaming, which actually has fairly reliable details.

What do other people think on this? Rasmasyean (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PC World's web site statistics are irrelevent, they are a single, small tech website. There are probably websites out there that have similar trends, but inverted in Vista's favor, which are meaningless as well. This article should stick to more statistically relevent analyses.

Additionally, in the opening introduction, Vista is said to have a 33% market share and XP a 52% market share, this does not reflect the "OS market share" wikipedia article, which list Vista as 24% and XP at 61% (from net applications) or 22% for Vista and 65% for XP if using the median. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I changed the reference to Wikipedia’s collected medians instead of Net Applications. Also, they apparently changed their methods recently because they said their methods overemphasized some markets or something like that so they added country weighting based on population. They seem to guess that their “local” sample represents the broader scope of an “entire” country rather than combine it with other raw data. That may explain the 33%, etc.Rasmasyean (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


This article seems to be just an apologetic publicity to Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to make constructive changes. It's a wiki. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The article refers to DRM controversy from Peter Gutmann. The next sentence states "However despite several requests [108] for evidence supporting such claims Peter Gutman has never supported his claims with any researched evidence." This is an apologetic response questioning this criticism with an ad hominem attack. It is inappropriate to include this sentence because it is contrary to tertiary source journalism. A spin doctor is the likely inserter and it should be removed.

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. [1] see kb971644 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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 (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. (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. 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)

GRUB Bootloader and Vista

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. [7] Recently he put it in again and claims that it's something that Microsoft has 'acknowledged'. [8]

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. [9] This content is not appropriate here and should be put instead on the software compatibility section of the Criticism of Windows Vista article. -- (talk) 12:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an additional resource on the issue [10]. 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. -- (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). hi

First :

GRUB is used for the various "Loader Cracks" to circumvent Vista ( and 7s) Product Activation. Simply a grub bootloader is installed on a Vista PC , this grub emulates a OEM Bios table which has all the activation info in its SLIC-table. ( OEM machines are offline activated and automatically are flagged "genuine", without ever having contact to MS servers , all it needs is a certificate in the OS, the right BIOS-info and a OEM-product key ). So grub is misused for "cracking" vista. That may be one reason for MS to hate grub.

Second :

Vista Ultimate and Enterprise both are equipped with Bitlocker Encryption software. This lets useres encrypt the full physical harddrive and needs either a TPM chip on the motherboard to boot or a USB-thumbdrive inserted at each boot where the unlocking key is stored. If TPM fails or the thumbdrive is lost/not inserted, user must enter the key combination by hand.

This "unlocking procedure" takes part before the OS is booted : the facility is embedded inside Vistas Bootloader ( main reason that vista and 7 use different bootloader than XP/2000/NT ) - it automatically kicks in when Bootloader detects a bitlocker encrypred partition table. In Vista SP2 Bitlocker has been updated ( user can choose tpm plus usb ) , so SP2 installs also a new bootloader that can handle the new information.

That simply said : SP2 kills all other bootloaders, naturally also grub.

someone from germany ;) (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not technically correct, although it would be better if it worked this way. Instead of killing all other bootloaders, what SP2 (and Windows 7 update) does is complete almost the entire upgrade, notice that the Master Boot Record (MBR) is not the default one, and then undo the entire upgrade. Best would be to allow the user to opt out of the MBR upgrade and still get the rest of SP2 or Windows 7. Next best would be to just overwrite the MBR it doesn't like, since a knowledgeable user could always reinstall Grub. Instead MS just says, "if you replaced your MBR at some time in the past we're not going to let you upgrade at all". The only rationale I can see for this is pure malice. Rknasc (talk) 03:21, 18 April 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.

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"[11] 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,[12] were actually added by somebody else,[13] 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 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)

Forgive me for intruding on a good argument, but one comment: whatever the outcome, picking any 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 nonsensical. "Shall we use the estimate of 16.46% or the one of 24.43%?". 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)

I think that is perhaps a good idea to list the range. Just picking one (out of many available) may avoid synthesis, but the drawback is that we would ignore relevant information. And I think ignoring any potential equally reliable information would be against the spirit of Wikipedia. Rasmasyean (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Marketing - the idiotic "Wow factor" marketing campaign

I noted that the article does not mention the marketing campaign that Microsoft attempted to use to sell this turkey. I recall Gates himself in the press touting the "wow factor" - the idea being that the public would look at the thin blurred "Aero" borders and sit back and say, "WOW". I'm sure if I write something about this, it will get deleted (so much gets deleted from Wikipedia), but I do think a "Marketing Campaign" paragraph/section should be included in each operating system - to show how Microsoft attempted to promote OS - after all, Microsoft is largely about promotion. Sort of along the lines of noting IBM's marketing campaign of using Charlie Chaplin to sell IBM's goods. Or Lotus using a young hipster to try to sell their failed Lotus Jazz. You get the idea. Point being, article should not just be technical, but should include marketing campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you "remember" it then you should be able to find references for it. Jeh (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Refer To Book A+ Guide To Hardware and Software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Windows Vista сосет я могу играть в одиночную игру видео на нем. не получите Windows Vista —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Lifecycle status on Windows Vista.

Currently, Windows 2000 and Windows XP Wikipedia articles have a Support Lifecycle section. However, this Windows Vista Wikipedia article doesn't have a Support Lifecycle section yet?

Do you think that I can go ahead and and a Support Lifecycle section to this Windows Vista article if I can provide links to the original sources such as direct OEM/retail and OEM system builder End-of-Sales for the product as the phase out of Windows Vista will begin later this week.

Let me know what you think. :) -- (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Business and Enterprise and all Server 2008 ( "pro editions= none Home User OS" ) will receive updates until 2017 ( 10 years since release but must be at current Servicepack level). That is fact per MS lifecycle policies. Home Users = 5 years, Pro Users = 10 years.
If a SP3 for Vista comes out you can add 24 months for all editions, that would expand Home Editions to 2014 ( currently 2012 ) and Pro to 2019.
You must never forget that the servicing of XP Home/Pro is absolutely non-standard. The only thing all XPs still are updated is because Microsoft allowed Netbook makers to deploy XP home even in 2010.. You cannot tell a end-user that he just bought a product with a outdated unsupported OS preinstalled..
Normally XP Home would be dead already ( October 2008 for SP3 plus 24 months = October 2010 ), so MS maxed out the 2014 deadline for *all* XPs to avoid confusion on customers.
This decision leads us to the weired fact that *if no SP3 for Vista cometh* Vista Home will be dead before any XP.. (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It's unlikely that there will be a Service Pack 3 for Windows Vista as it will be out of Mainstream Support next year. :( (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately most of this is purely speculative and must stay out of the article. Microsoft has deviated from its normal path quite a lot of times.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)