Talk:Technical features new to Windows Vista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Technical features new to Windows Vista article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.

Contents 1 Speech Recognition 2 Too Long 3 Article length 4 Too general 5 Pruning the programmability section

[edit] Speech Recognition

(moved from Talk:Features new to Windows Vista)

"Windows Vista is the first Windows operating system to include fully integrated support for speech recognition. Under Windows 2000 and XP, Speech Recognition was installed with Office 2003."

What I didn't see was the inclusion of speech recognition in the Tablet PC version of XP. XP Tablet Edition also came with speech recognition installed by default - I played around with it plenty on my Tablet PC. Because the page is locked, I currently can't edit it, but I suggest the following change be made:

"Windows Vista is the first Windows operating system to include fully integrated support for speech recognition. Under Windows 2000 and XP, Speech Recognition was installed with Office 2003, or was included in Windows XP Tablet PC Edition."

CobraA1 07:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too Long

Logical breaks in the article as it stands are hard to define. Suggestion; Technical (eg; networking, SMB2 etc) broken from User (Speech synthesis, display etc.

The level of detail in each heading is excellent. However, I agree with the too long description. I do NOT want to drop the information by summarising. Am I dreaming? Jacketed 09:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article length

This article is also becoming too long. I suggest splitting off the Programmability section to a new New APIs in Windows Vista or similar article. That way this article could be shortened. And we could have quite some breathing room to discuss the new APIs as well as scripting and programmability. Also then we would have three articles - one for non-technical users, one for moderately technically savvy users and the other for the hardcore geeks. --soum^talk 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long on this! I think a separate article covering Group Policy and management features might be an easier way to go. I say that, because I'm thinking about how a lot of the programming content would replicate stuff that is (or should be) in .NET Framework. Which bears an interesting question... should we just vastly reduce the amount of text on the .NET 3.0 stuff in this article, and make sure it's well-covered at the main article on the framework?

Another thought, and this is a bit ambitious (even for us!), would be to integrate information about new APIs into articles about those APIs where appropriate. I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, about how it would make a lot of sense to have a bit of text in, for example, Desktop Window Manager describing the existance of a programmable API for thumbnails. Code samples would be going a bit far, but a summation with the candour of, say, Dashboard (software)#Creation of widgets, would be nice. The programmability of an operating system feature seems like an important aspect to cover! -/- Warren 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the management features sounds like a good idea. And yes, I totally agree APIs should be given a bit more coverage. And delegating overlapped text (like the .net part you mentioned) to their own article keeping only summary here is necessary for the sake of size. We already have articles on WCF, etc. They should be enhanced. And for the DRM features, I am first inclined to expand the Protected Media Path and Windows Rights Management Services first. if needed, thenafter, a separate DRM article may be created. Also, each subsystem (WCF/WPF/WF as also Media Framework, DirectX, DWM, Sidebar Gadgets etc) should have an API coverage in their own article. I am quite willing to give it a try. And, what about those subsystems which do not have their own article (networking, sound, print etc) - I still support an API article for their sakes. This wont repeat stuff from the dedicated articles. --soum (0_o) 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the WinFX stuff much in my professional life so I don't really feel qualified to do much there. That seems more your area of expertise. So yeah, give it a shot! I'll tackle creating this new article. -/- Warren 12:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too general

I want more technical details! No, I will not detail my request. VISTA RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.234.55.11 (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Your question is too general! --soum (0_o) 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning the programmability section

I am summarizing the API descriptions here and linking them to the main article. This, I think, would take some significant load off this article. --soum (0_o) 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)