Talk:Windows Vista

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows Vista article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Componentized architecture

Is there a need to mention that Windows Vista is based on a componentized architecture where the core OS is the WinPE and other end user features are added incrementally to it, allowing to mix and match only those functionalities that are needed? --Soumyasch 02:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Core Support

CPU: x86-compatible 32-bit or x64-compatible 64-bit microprocessor(s) (Dual Core systems will be supported) Is the support, as mentioned in the article, limited to Dual-Core systems and not multi-core (like dual core/hyperthreaded and/or quad-core), which will be available around Vista timeframe? --Soumyasch 13:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD ripping

This article states that the Ultimate edition of Windows Vista may have "DVD ripping capabilities".

While I'm all for letting the legitimate owner of a DVD rip it to his hard drive so he can store and view his entire collection without having to physically use his discs (I'm just lazy, I guess, and hard drive space is cheap these days), I somehow can't see that happening what with all this new DRM technology being introduced. So where exactly does this quote come from?

Rawling 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinFS

Does WinFS stand for Windows File Storage Foundation, as listed in the article? As far as I know, no official name for WinFS has been announced and the codename WinFS is supposed to be derived from Windows Future Storage. --Soumyasch 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it is a code-name, not an abbreviation AFAICS, so it is changed :) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Legitimate software"?

What does "Legitimate software" mean in the context of a source model? Does this mean any software that doesn't follow the source model of Windows Vista isn't legitimate? 70.92.174.251 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user edited that in a few minutes before you read the article; it has been reverted to its original definition, "Closed source". Warrens 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I failed to check the history. Thank you. 70.92.174.251 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

windows vista release delayed

i think the expeced release dates should be edited since microsoft announced today that windows vista will be launced in january, that includes the buisness version Alexanderpas 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source? Warrens 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/21/2331210

http://digg.com/technology/Windows_vista_delayed_to_2007

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152422/microsoft-delays-windows-vista

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060322/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_winners_and_losers;_ylt=AkzX151I4Adlih6QJpilepcjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060322/bs_afp/usitsoftwarecompany;_ylt=AgooWSoja5PO.akcUoOivDgjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/microsoft_windows;_ylt=Akhr5xpw6BaA6GqXglM1wCMjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060321-6433.html

http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/49744/windowspaulthurrott_49744.html The Intellectual 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you for pointing out all of those -- I'd edited the article a day ago to reflect this information; now, which one of them indicates that the "business version" will also be launched in January, as Alexanderpas suggested? Warrens 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that the business version will still be released this year: [1]. Might not be the most reliable source, but it's a start. PJ 20:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/mar06/03-21WindowsVistaDeliveryPR.mspx — Alex ^(T|C|E) 22:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60% of Vista Code to be Rewritten

Anybody know more about this, here's a link for some info. http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4 The Intellectual 00:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article confuses me. It has absolutely no source attribution for this claim that they're going to rewrite more than half the operating system, which they spend only the first two paragraphs on, then spend the entire remainder of the article on the suit reshuffling at the top of the platforms division. So basically it reads like a dishonest, hit-grabbing headline, and it certainly doesn't warrant a place in this article unless we can get a reputable source. Warrens 00:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I was asking for more information, however it was on the frontpage of digg.com, here's the link:

http://digg.com/software/60_Of_Windows_Vista_Code_To_Be_Rewritten The Intellectual 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info on a mangament shakeup, but nothing on a rewrite of code: http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/49766/windowspaulthurrott_49766.html

Turns out these claims are false: http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_Vista_Code_Changes/1143232877 The Intellectual 01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroprofit

Windows Vista is not out yet. I'm deleting the entire content because it is immature to announce something that's not out. —This unsigned comment was added by Zeroprofit (talk • contribs) .

There is nothing wrong with an article about unreleased software. Please review Wikipedia policies before making any further removals. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what vaporware is? You're putting up something that it's not released! —This unsigned comment was added by Zeroprofit (talk • contribs) .

Are you saying vaporware is automatically not encyclopedia-worthy?

Vista is most definitely not vaporware; there's been plenty of builds released, and the next one when I'm writing this is planned for May. Besides, vaporware is encyclopedia worthy even if it was. -- Northgrove 09:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Looks a lot more coherent now. Good job. --Soumyasch 08:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring cleaning

I made a whole pile of edits to the article: Rewrote lead paragraph (still needs work), rewrote and expanded Overview, added a bunch of info on what each edition contains, reordered the "New features" list to reflect what I think is a good order of significance, added a small section titled "XP Features removed" (someone please come up with a better name for this), and changed several things in the Requirements section. Please review my changes and improve things where it's needed! I'd like very much for this article to be good enough to qualify for WP:GOOD, especially considering we're second only to Microsoft on a Google search for "windows vista", and we'll probably be heavily referenced in the times ahead. Warrens 08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I think this copyrighted image should be removed.

Which one? Screenshots of desktops are OK under fair use despite being copyrighted anyway, if you're talking about those. -- Northgrove 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding all the builds

I am adding all the builds again beacause someone removed it and it is real important to understand the development of Windows Vista, so anyone, DO NOT DELETE THE BUILDS, you can make changes to it, BUT DON'T DELETE IT. 67.34.213.209 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The build history has been moved to Development of Windows Vista. --Soumyasch 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Card interface requirements for Windows Vista

"A graphics card that uses AGP 8X or PCI Express x16 bus". Can we source this? More importantly, can we verify or confirm this is an actual requirement? (vs. some intern at MS simply tossing it on an evolving requirements list assuming everyone will be using AGP/PCIe, and then we see it spread all over the net). I'll go out on a limb, but I'm going to guess that this might become more and more of a topic of interest for the article as we approach the release -- lots of owners of otherwise 'up to spec' Dell Dimension budget systems come to mind ;)

I'm honestly confused about the requirement. Let's say you have a PCI card that meets or exceeds all the other Aero Glass requirements (They exist, i.e. FX 5700LE 256MB, 128bit): is there going to be some sort of hard-coded refusal to allow you to select Aero glass mode? Or more of a mere 'warning, your performance may suck'?

I'd love to hear from anyone with some info on this —This unsigned comment was added by 141.161.69.59 (talk • contribs) .

Those requirements were released to TechNet by Microsoft and are only applicable to Vista Beta 1. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vista themes

I was under the impression there's Aero Glass for the transparent style, Aero Basic for Vista Home Basic and Starter, Aero Express for all editions if you don't have Desktop Window Manager support through LDDM drivers, such as in virtual machines, and Windows Classic for the 2000 look & feel. Paul Thurrott said while reviewing the February CTP that Aero Basic looked basically like Aero Glass but without the translucency, and I recall seeing a screenshot of it somewhere, and thought it looked much better and in line with the Aero style than Aero Express with its square buttons etc. Can anyone clarify on this? In fairly recent builds, I'm 100% positive Aero Express (this name was used) was selectable in the style combo box in Display Properties anway, and looked pretty much to the 5342 "Aero Basic" there's a screenshot of here now. Has things changed in 5342 or the one build before? -- Northgrove 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista's user interface confusing.

There are still confusing about Windows Vista's UI. As you can see this in the build 5308, there are four different types of UI which are Windows Classic(like the UI in 2000), Aero Glass, Aero(without glass effect) and, Vista(like Luna UI in XP).