Criticism of Windows Vista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part
of a series on
New features

Overview
Technical and core system
Security and safety
Networking technologies
I/O technologies
Management and administration
Removed features
Other articles

Editions
Development history
Criticism
This box: view • talk • edit

Windows Vista, the latest version of Microsoft's PC operating system, has received criticism by reviewers and users. Due to perceived issues with privacy, security, performance, and presence of product activation, Windows Vista has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.

Contents

[edit] Security

In a July 2006 report,[1] security software vendor Symantec stated that the large amount of new and untested code in Vista, especially the new implementation of the network stack, could cause instability and new security flaws.[2] The report claims that "Microsoft has removed a large body of tried and tested code and replaced it with freshly written code, complete with new corner cases and defects". Microsoft denounced the claims, saying that Microsoft "believe the claims are unsubstantiated." Symantec admits that all of the bugs it found were fixed by the time Beta 2 was released, but adds, "While it is reassuring that Microsoft is finding and fixing these defects, we expect that vulnerabilities will continue to be discovered for some time. A networking stack is a complex piece of software that takes many years to mature." IPv6 tunnelling and peer-to-peer collaboration technologies were identified as additional potential problem areas. McAfee has claimed that Vista will actually be less secure than previous versions of Windows.[3][4] According to CNET, some critics are unenthusiastic about the Vista security features, claiming that Vista "offers mostly basic protection and is not the best of its class."[5] Natalie Lambert, an analyst with Forrester Research, stated, "There is no doubt that Vista will be Microsoft's most secure operating system. However, most secure is not equivalent to secure."[6]

[edit] User Account Control

Concerns have been raised about the new User Account Control (UAC) security technology. UAC prompts are triggered by a number of third-party programs not designed to Microsoft's Windows specifications. Microsoft has recommended that programs be written in such a way to avoid requiring elevation for some time. However, because all users are Administrators by default in previous versions of Windows with security (Windows 2000 and XP)[disputed], many developers did not modify their applications. Microsoft added file and registry virtualization technology to reduce the number of these legacy applications that trigger UAC prompts.[7]

Although Microsoft has added functionality that enforces the security model, UAC can be easily disabled through the Control Panel; however, this also disables privilege separation features such as Internet Explorer 7's 'Protected Mode,' which rely on UAC for their operation.

[edit] Driver signing requirement

64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode; this feature cannot be easily overridden by system administrators.[8][9] In order for a driver to be signed, a developer may have to pay Microsoft for the driver to be tested by Microsoft's WHQL Testing.[10] If the driver successfully passes WHQL testing, Microsoft then issues a digital signature that Windows can use to verify the authenticity of the driver before allowing it to be loaded. Alternatively, if WHQL testing is not required, the developer must purchase a "Software Publisher Certificate"[11] with which to sign the driver. While this has been praised as a security feature, it has also been criticized for reducing Vista's compatibility with older hardware (as sometimes, as in the case of VMware Server, the manufacturer of the hardware won't bother releasing a new, signed driver) and for disallowing experimentation from the hobbyist community.[12] There has also been criticism that this requirement might exist not because of security, but to enforce Digital Rights Management policies, especially the Protected Video Path.[13]

Microsoft maintains that the signing requirement is only to "identify the author/creator of a piece of software or code so that the author/creator can be approached in the event a reliability issue, vulnerability, or malware is discovered. Signing is not designed to confirm the “intent” of signed code (i.e. good or bad), or whether exploitable bugs or malicious code is present."[14] The required authenticode certificate for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach[15] for small developers, usually about $400-500/year (from VeriSign).

Unsigned drivers can be installed through the use of tools included with Vista [16], but doing so requires use of an elevated command prompt and command-line tools, making it difficult for users unfamiliar with command-line interface to install such drivers. Microsoft has closed this workaround with hotfix KB932596,[17] which is included in Service Pack 1.

[edit] Digital rights management

Another common criticism concerns the integration of new forms of digital rights management (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the Protected Video Path (PVP), which involves technologies such as High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). These features have been added to Vista due to an agreement between Microsoft and major Hollywood studios.[18] Microsoft claims that movie studios and other providers of "premium content"[citation needed] will only allow their data to be played back on personal computers if sufficient protection is granted. This will concern, among other things, play-back of protected content on HD DVD and Blu-ray discs, but it will not be enabled until at least 2010.

The Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.[18] Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to switch off or artificially degrade the quality of any signal outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content will not play; all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.[18][19]

[edit] Notable critics

Peter Gutmann, a computer security expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, has released a whitepaper[20] in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:

  • Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.
  • If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).
  • Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.
  • The added complexity makes systems less reliable.
  • Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.
  • Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, causing denial-of-service attacks.
  • Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do this. On the other hand, they may be forced to do it because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.

Steve Gibson of Gibson Research Corporation has stated during his Security Now! show that he agrees with Peter Gutmann in principle and that what he proposes is a factually accurate description of what is found in the specification from Microsoft.[21]

The Free Software Foundation is conducting a campaign called "BadVista" against Vista on these grounds.

A security expert who once worked for Microsoft has said he may dump the company's Windows Media Center in favor of Ubuntu-affiliated LinuxMCE after struggling with the software giant's digital rights management software. Johansson said that digital rights management software is not only ineffective, but a waste of money and damaging businesses attempting to use it to control the way consumers use copyright material.[22]

[edit] Reaction to criticism

Ed Bott, author of Windows Vista Inside Out, has published a 3 part blog which attempts to refute many of Gutmann's claims.[23]

Ed Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:

  • Gutmann allegedly based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources.
  • Gutmann allegedly quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications.
  • Gutmann allegedly did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications.
  • Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece.

Technology writer George Ou claims that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.[24]

Gutmann has responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article.[25], which states that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation"

Microsoft has published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection, intending to refute some of Gutmann's arguments.[26]

Paul Smith, a Microsoft MVP has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments.[27] Specifically, he says:

  • Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company has been forced to do this by the movie studios.
  • The Protected Video Path will not be used for quite a while. There is said to be an agreement between Microsoft and Sony that Blu-Ray discs will not mandate protection until at least 2010, possibly even 2012.[28]
  • Vista does not degrade or refuse to play any existing media, CDs or DVDs. The protected data paths are only activated if protected content requires it.
  • Users of other operating systems such as Linux or Mac OS X will not have official access to this premium content.

Microsoft also noted that content protection mechanisms have existed in Windows as far back as Windows Me.[29]

[edit] Hardware requirements and performance

According to Microsoft, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista" and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista.[30][31][32]

However, requirements for running some advanced features, such as the Aero interface, may have an impact on many users. According to Elizabeth Judge, those full features "would be available to less than 5 percent of Britain's PC market."[citation needed] However, hardware sufficient to run Vista is more readily available at lower prices, due to the usual advances in technology, therefore more of Britain's PC market should be able to run advanced features, should they choose to do so.

In addition, many Vista early adopters faced hardware incompatibility problems due to drivers not yet being available for Vista.[citation needed] Service Pack 1 for Vista is said to fix many of these problems.[33]

Windows Vista executes typical applications more slowly than Windows XP, even with the same hardware configuration.[34][35][36]. Early in 2008, a how-to appeared with instructions to make a workstation operating system from Windows Server 2008 that performs faster than Windows Vista.[37]

[edit] File operation performance

When released, Vista performed file operations such as copying and deletion more slowly than other operating systems.[38] After six months, Microsoft released a performance and reliability update,[39] which was later disseminated through Windows Update and integrated into Service Pack 1.[40] However, one benchmark reported to show that, while improving performance compared to Vista's original release, Service Pack 1 does not increase the level of performance to that of Windows XP.[41]But that benchmark has been questioned by others within ZDNet. Ed Bott both questions his collegues methods and provides benchmarks that refute the results.[42]

However, it should be noted that XP's file copy operation may seem faster than Vista's, when in fact it is not. This is because under XP the operation can be pushed off to cached I/O, meaning that the file copy dialog may be dismissed long before the file has actually been copied to disk. [43]

[edit] Game performance

Due to the resource use of Vista, many games, including games using the Source engine (Half Life 2, Counter Strike: Source, etc.) or id Tech 4 engine (Doom 3, Quake 4, etc.), show a drop in frame rate compared to that experienced in Windows XP.[44][45][46] These results, some point out, are also the consequences of the current lack of maturity of Vista's graphics processing units drivers, and even the maturity of Vista itself.[47][48]

[edit] Software bloat

Concerns have been expressed that Windows Vista may contain software bloat. Speaking in 2007 at the University of Illinois, Microsoft "Distinguished Engineer" Eric Traut said, "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined."[49]

Former PC World editor Ed Bott has expressed skepticism about the claims of bloat, noting that almost every single operating system that Microsoft has ever sold had been criticized as "bloated" when they first came out; even those now regarded as the exact opposite, such as MS-DOS.[50]

[edit] Vista capable lawsuit

Two consumers sued Microsoft in United States federal court alleging the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign was a bait and switch tactic as some computers originally installed with Windows XP could only run Vista Basic. In February 2008 a Seattle judge granted the suit class action status, permitting all purchasers in the class to participate in the case.[51][52] Released documents in the case, as well as a Dell presentation in March 2007, discussed how late changes to Windows Vista that permitted hardware to be certified that would require upgrading in order to use Vista, and that lack of compatible drivers forced hardware vendors to "limp out with issues" when Vista was launched.[53][52] This was one of several Vista launch appraisals included in 158 pages of unsealed documents.

[edit] Laptop battery life

With the new features of Vista, criticisms have surfaced concerning the use of battery power in laptops by Vista, which can drain the battery much more rapidly than Windows XP, reducing battery life.[54] With the Windows Aero visual effects turned off, battery life is equal to or better than Windows XP systems.[55] "With the release of a new operating system and its new features and higher requirements, higher power consumption is normal," as Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC noted, "when Windows XP came out, that was true, and when Windows 98 came out, that was true. "[56]

[edit] Software compatibility

Significant problems have surfaced with other software running under Vista. According to Gartner, "Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system."[57] Cisco have been reported as saying, "Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle."[58] According to PC World, "Software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS."[59] Citing "concerns over cost and compatibility," the United States Department of Transportation prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista.[60] The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the rollout (of Vista) is significantly behind schedule because "several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software."[61]

As of July 2007, there are over 2,000 tested applications[40] that are compatible with Vista. Microsoft has published a list of legacy applications that meet their "Works with Windows Vista" software standards[62] as well as a list of applications that meet their more stringent "Certified for Windows Vista" standards.[63] However, as of July 2007, software compatibility problems are still stopping adoption of Vista.[64] Microsoft has released the Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0 application for migrating Vista-incompatible applications, while virtualization solutions like Virtual PC 2007 or those from VMWare can also be used as a last resort to continue running Vista-incompatible applications under legacy versions of Windows.

Microsoft also provides an Upgrade Advisor Tool which can be used on existing XP systems to flag driver and application compatibility issues before upgrading to Vista.[65]

[edit] Removal of announced features

Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as Next-Generation Secure Computing Base in May 2004, WinFS in August 2004, Windows PowerShell in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to Vista's release), SecurID Support in May 2006, PC-to-PC Synchronization in June 2006.[66] The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.[67]

[edit] Pricing

Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive. The differences in pricing from one country to another vary significantly, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the United States; this could save between $42 and $314. In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for Windows XP. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 ($229).[68] At the current exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers could be paying almost double their United States counterparts for the same software, although this may be partly due to value added taxes the UK assesses.[69][disputed]

“ Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows.

British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100, while American users will pay only £51 ($100).[70]

 ”

—Computer Active

[edit] Software Protection Platform

Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-piracy technologies, based on Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage, called Software Protection Platform (SPP).[71] A major component of this is a new reduced-functionality mode, which Vista enters when it detects that the user has "failed product activation" or that his or her copy is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine."[72] The new technology is described in a Microsoft white paper as follows:

“ The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning.[73] ”

This has been criticised for being overly draconian,[74][75] especially given an imperfect false-positive record on behalf of SPP's predecessor,[76] and at least one temporary validation server outage.[77][78]

Microsoft has released a technical bulletin providing further details on product activation for Vista.[79] In addition, Microsoft has said it will cease disrupting Windows Vista installations that fail the company's validation processes in its forthcoming Service Pack 1 update, as well as the removal of the reduced functionality mode in favor of prominent notifications on systems that are found to be non-genuine or non-activated.[80][81]

[edit] Windows Ultimate Extras

Windows Vista Ultimate users can download exclusive Windows Ultimate Extras. These extras have been released much more slowly than expected, with only four available as of March 2008, which has prompted some criticism.[82][83][84] Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "[Microsoft] plan[s] to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that [it is] confident will delight [its] passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."[85]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Friedrichs, Oliver (2006-07-18). Windows Vista: Network Attack Surface Analysis. Symantec Security Response Weblog. Symantec. Retrieved on 2006-08-13.
  2. ^ Evers, Joris (2006-07-18). Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista. CNet News.com. Retrieved on 2006-08-13.
  3. ^ Samenuk, George (2006-09-28). Microsoft Increasing Security Risk with Vista. Retrieved on 2006-11-29.
  4. ^ Montalbano, Elizabeth. "McAfee Cries Foul over Vista Security Features", PC World India, 2006-10-06. Retrieved on 2006-11-29. 
  5. ^ Evers, Joris (2007-01-17). Security tools ready for Vista launch. CNET News.com. Retrieved on 2007-01-20.
  6. ^ >{{Cite web|url=http://www.news.com/Security-tools-ready-for-Vista-launch/2100-7355_3-6150948.html
  7. ^ Charles (2007-03-05). UAC - What. How. Why. (video). Retrieved on 2007-03-23.
  8. ^ Driver Signing Requirements for Windows. Microsoft. Retrieved on 2008-02-23.
  9. ^ Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver. heise Security UK (August 8, 2007).
  10. ^ Signing Drivers For Public Release (Windows Server 2008 and Windows Vista). Microsoft. Retrieved on 2008-02-23.
  11. ^ {{{author}}}, Software Publisher Certificate, [[Microsoft]], [[{{{date}}}]].
  12. ^ Linchpin Labs Response to Microsoft's Classification of Atsiv
  13. ^ Alex Ionescu’s Blog » Update on Driver Signing Bypass
  14. ^ (Driver Signing <> Kernel Patch Protection) AND (KPP <> Driver Signing). Retrieved on 2007-12-23.
  15. ^ Marsden, Richard. Microsoft Authenticode for the Small Independent Software Vendor. Retrieved on 2008-05-27.
  16. ^ Allowing UnSigned Driver Installation in Vista x64. Retrieved on 2008-03-02.
  17. ^ Microsoft Security Advisory: Update to improve Kernel Patch Protection. Microsoft (October 26, 2007). Retrieved on 2008-03-03.
  18. ^ a b c Marsh, Dave (2005-04-27). Output Content Protection and Windows Vista. Microsoft. Retrieved on 2007-01-08.
  19. ^ Marsh, Dave (2007-01-20). Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers).
  20. ^ Gutmann, Peter (2007-01-27). A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. Retrieved on 2007-01-27. Also available: PDF version
  21. ^ Gibson, Steve (2007-01-17). Steve Gibson & Peter Gutmann on Vista DRM. Retrieved on 2007-01-17.
  22. ^ DRM troubles drive ex-Microsoft employee to Linux
  23. ^ Bott, Ed (2007-09-16). Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong.. Retrieved on 2007-09-21.
  24. ^ Ou, George (2007-09-01). Gutmann Vista DRM paper uses shoddy Web Forums as source.. Retrieved on 2007-09-22.
  25. ^ Peter Gutmann. Windows DRM: A Response to the Disinformation.
  26. ^ Nick White and Dave Marsh (2007-01-20). Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers). Retrieved on 2007-01-22.
  27. ^ Smith, Paul (2006-12-31). Windows Vista DRM nonsense. Retrieved on 2007-01-03.
  28. ^ Fisher, Ken (2006-05-21). Hollywood reportedly in agreement to delay forced quality downgrades for Blu-ray, HD DVD.
  29. ^ Marsh, Dave (2007-01-20). Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers). Windows Vista team blog. Microsoft. Retrieved on 2007-01-20.
  30. ^ Judge, Elizabeth (2006-05-20). Windows revamp 'too advanced for most PCs'. The Times. Retrieved on 2006-08-15.
  31. ^ Spooner, John G. (2005-08-05). Will Your PC Run Windows Vista?. eweek.com. Retrieved on 2006-08-15.
  32. ^ Thurrott, Paul (2006-03-29). Finally, Microsoft Releases Windows Vista Hardware Requirements. WinSuperSite.com. Retrieved on 2006-08-15.
  33. ^ Anmol Taneja (2007-03-24). Windows Vista - Hardware Compatibility Issues. Articlesbase. Retrieved on 2006-03-22.
  34. ^ Santo Domingo, Joel (2007-05-04]). New Benchmark Tests for Vista. tomshardware.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.
  35. ^ Schmid, Patrick (2007-01-29]). Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown. abcnews.go.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.
  36. ^ Lynn, Samara (2008-04-04]). Testing Shows XP Still Outperforms Vista. crn.com. Retrieved on 2008-04-06. “In XP, the page file usage hovered at 260-270 MB, whether browsing or opening files. In Vista, the page file usage averaged 555 MB, half the physical memory.”
  37. ^ Windows 'Workstation' 2008: Vista Done Right?
  38. ^ calculating time remaining moving, deleting, copying files very slow.
  39. ^ An update is available that improves the performance and reliability of Windows Vista.
  40. ^ a b Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper. (See 'Performance' section)
  41. ^ Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian (2008-02-15). Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked. Retrieved on 2008-02-16.
  42. ^ {{cite web|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369&page=1|title=Another take on Vista vs. XP benchmarks|date=[[2008-02-19}}
  43. ^ Inside Vista SP1 File Copy Improvements.
  44. ^ Abazovic, Fuad (December 4, 2006). Testing Vista's different memory configurations. theinquirer.net. Retrieved on 2007-05-13.
  45. ^ Williams, Rob (January 29, 2007). Windows Vista Gaming Performance Reports. techgage.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
  46. ^ The 3DMark 06 score on Vista is approximately half the score with XP in some benchmarks, and the average framerate with Vista for F.E.A.R. is also approximately half the XP score, all with 2 GB of memory, a ATI Radeon X1950XTX GPU, and a Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 for XP / Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 for Vista).
  47. ^ Cross, Jason (February 20, 2007). Vista Game Performance: Vista vs. XP and ATI vs. Nvidia. extremetech.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
  48. ^ Wall, Jason (May 7, 2007). XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates. enthusiast.hardocp.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-26.
  49. ^ Microsoft to slim down 'bloated' Windows
  50. ^ Ed Bott. Windows bloat? It’s always been that way.
  51. ^ informationweek.com
  52. ^ a b Stross, Randall. "They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.", New York Times, March 8, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-03-08. 
  53. ^ NYTimes – Dell Pointed Out Vista Mistakes, Internal Documents Show
  54. ^ Fried, Ina (2006-06-02). Vista beta sucks up battery juice. news.zdnet.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-06.
  55. ^ Vista draining laptop batteries, patience
  56. ^ Krazit, Tom (2007-05-04). Vista draining laptop batteries, patience. news.zdnet.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-06.
  57. ^ Gartner: App testing delaying Vista rollouts. zdnetasia.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-22.
  58. ^ Microsoft rallies developers behind Vista. zdnetasia.com. Retrieved on 2007-05-22.
  59. ^ No Rush to Adopt Vista. IDG, quoted on PC World. Retrieved on 2007-05-22.
  60. ^ Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007. Information week [www.informationweek.com]. Retrieved on 2007-05-22.
  61. ^ Six months on, Vista users still griping (page 2 - The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a member of Microsoft's Vista Technical Adoption Program). MS NBC [www.msnbc.com]. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
  62. ^ "Application List: Works with Windows Vista".
  63. ^ "Application List: Certified for Windows Vista".
  64. ^ Six months on, Vista users still griping. MS NBC [www.msnbc.com]. Retrieved on 2007-07-27.
  65. ^ "Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor".
  66. ^ What's been yanked from Vista, and when. Techweb (2006-06-27). Retrieved on 2007-01-29.
  67. ^ zdnetasia.com
  68. ^ Warne, Dan (2007-01-22). Is Vista's Australian pricing a rip-off?. apcmag.com. Retrieved on 2007-01-23.
  69. ^ Vista comes to rip-off Britain. The Inquirer (2007-01-23). Retrieved on 2007-01-24.
  70. ^ Microsoft vilified over price of Vista. VNU Business Publications (February 2007). Retrieved on 2007-01-23.
  71. ^ Computerworld. The Skinny on Windows SPP and Reduced Functionality in Vista.
  72. ^ Microsoft PressPass. Microsoft’s Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiter.
  73. ^ White Paper: Microsoft’s Software Protection Platform: Innovations for Windows Vista and Windows Server “Longhorn” (DOC). Microsoft PressPass (2006-10-03).
  74. ^ Hands On: A Hard Look at Windows Vista (2006-11-10). Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
  75. ^ Bott, Ed (2006-10-04). For Vista, WGA gets tougher. Ed Bott's Microsoft Report. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
  76. ^ Ed Bott (2006-10-04). WGA failures Another wave of WGA failures. Ed Bott's Microsoft Report. Retrieved on 2007-07-19.
  77. ^ Windows Genuine Advantage suffers worldwide outage, problems galore (updated). Retrieved on 2007-08-24.
  78. ^ Update on Validation Issues Update on Validation Issues. Retrieved on 2007-07-28.
  79. ^ Product Activation for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 (2007-11-06).
  80. ^ Microsoft to remove "reduced functionality mode" from Vista (2007-12-04). Retrieved on 2008-01-15.
  81. ^ Microsoft: Vista piracy rate is half that of XP (2007-12-04). Retrieved on 2008-01-15.
  82. ^ Ultimate Extras, Where are you?. windowsconnected.com (July 4, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-07-04.
  83. ^ Dunn, Josh (July 4, 2007). Microsoft evades promise of Vista Ultimate Extras. windowsconnected.com. Retrieved on 2007-07-04.
  84. ^ Long Zheng. Windows Ultimate Extras is a sham - where’s the responsibility?.
  85. ^ Windows DreamScene released! (September 25, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-10-05.
v • d • e
Microsoft
Desktop software
Server software
Technologies
Web properties
Gaming
Hardware
Education and
recognition
Licensing
Criticism
Legal issues
Board of directors