Talk:Windows Vista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows Vista article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.
Software Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Software articles on Wikipedia.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Good article Windows Vista has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Remove Criticism Section

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRITICISM#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)