Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Featured article status

In my opinion, this is a very good article, comprehensive and gives as much info as it can, along with the features and development articles. Is there any reason why it hasn't been nominated for featured article status? Is is because it is a current event thing? - jak (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this won't achieve FA for quite a while, because there's still so much change to come in the next several months. Even Good Article status is unlikely because there is constant flux. Warrens 02:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Longhorn was never Vista's name

Longhorn was simply a codename, just like XP's Whistler, and Win98's Memphis. 75.4.216.27KodeK

So then it was a codename, but not a name? Hmmm. Either way, I don't see the importance of having this in Talk. It's just trivial semantics. --Kamasutra 03:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the point you are trying to make, KodeK? --soumসৌমোyasch 04:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In the Dev section, it says "Longhorn" was renamed to Vista, when Longhorn was never its name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.216.27 (talk • contribs) 18:24 16 June 2006 (UTC)
A codename is a name. That is why the word name is in it. Just like a nickname or a surname are still names. Longhorn definitely was the name of Windows Vista before it was released. Saying that Longhorn isn't a name is just plain wrong. --Fandyllic 5:02 PM PDT 27 Jul 2006

If I recall/understood correctly, "Longhorn" was the name of the project, not the name of the actual software. A fine point, admittedly, but it may clear up this disagreement. Kind of like "Manhattan" was the name of the project that produced Fat Man and Little Boy. Septegram 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Build 5456?

What is the source for build 5456? I can't find it, and when I look up the download of Vista Beta 2, the file still has 5384 in the name. Also, for future builds of the beta, will they update old builds, or will a complete re-installation of Vista be needed? - Рэдхот 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Source: Microsoft connect. This build supports upgrades. MSDN/TechNet will be getting it soon. — Alex (T|C|E) 23:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just couldn't see it anywhere on the site (and the Google search wasn't much better at the time) - Рэдхот 14:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

WDDM paragraph

At WinHEC 2006, Microsoft talked about how it was planning a major change to the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) to allow for better scheduling of tasks (multitasking) on GPUs. WDDM 1.0, which will ship with Windows Vista, only allows rudimentary task scheduling. The upcoming WDDM 2.0, which Microsoft has not put an introduction date on, will require a new generation of GPUs.[1]

I removed this as it was in the graphics hardware requirements and it seems to have nothing to do with that and, unless I am missing something, appears to have little to do with vista at all and is an announcement for something entirely different... RN 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thought about it yesterday... while it's interesting information (and kind of amusing in the sense that they've announced 2.0 several months before 1.0 ships ;) ), it doesn't belong in this article. Warrens 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

useful avoid annoyances screenshot

better for wikibooks?

if anyone thinks this is useful please add it (perhaps as a link with [:image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]). If no one does, then it can be deleted - i don't care. just thought it might be useful. --Gatoatigrado 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You can avoid the Administrator Access popups by running Explorer as an administrator.
You can avoid the Administrator Access popups by running Explorer as an administrator.
This kind of screenshot would probably go well in the Features new to Windows Vista article; however, a comment on the quality: When saving screenshots, it's good to save in PNG format, since it is a lossless format that won't look grainy. JPEG is a great format for photos, but not for user interfaces and other screenshot material. Keep that in mind for future screenshot uploads. :-) Warrens 03:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a new feature, just a way to get around the security approval boxes. The JPEG really keeps the file size down, and I set the quality pretty high. --71.155.200.168 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Even though you set the quality high, there are still artifacts on the screenshot. PNGs are still better.  :-) — Alex (T|C|E) 04:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
it's not supposed to be a display of corporate artwork. it is only supposed to be informative. I didn't set the quality that high; if it were on 100 it would be lossless. a png of the same size would be 6-7 times larger. --71.155.200.168 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"if it were on 100 it would be lossless."
That's not true. Even at the highest quality setting, JPEG is still a lossy file format, even though the loss in data may not be noticeable. -R
There's a less temporary way also, if someone wants to add this to an article. run "secpol.msc", go to security settings / local policies / security options, change UAC: Behavior of the elevation prompt. --71.155.200.168 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

XP Pro -> Vista ??

The article doesn't make clear which Vista edition is closes to XP Professional (specifically which edition doesn't have all the network editions as in not being able to join a domain or network with more than 5 computers). — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista Business is the version of Vista comparable to XP Professional, which is mentioned in the "Editions" section. I believe that all Vista versions support networking like Windows XP Pro does (like your example of domains), but I'm not sure. The Microsoft Windows Vista website isn't very helpful in this regard. Perhaps try Google searching, though I'm not sure that would be a relevant thing to include in this article. Fiskars007 17:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Open Source encoders in Vista?

PNG is a given. Will Vista also come with 7-zip, ogg vorbis, X264 encoders? If everyone can use 7zip that would be great! Or do i have to download all of it myself? Renegadeviking 22:56, 4 July 2006 (CST)

I see no reason that they would include Vorbis and H.264 encoders if they want to spread their own WMA and WMV. Integrated 7-zip is certainly possible if it becomes more popular, as they don't have their own compressed format and already have zip support. --Kamasutra 09:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, even if they dont, like other versions of Windows, 3rd party implementations will definitely be available, including Open source, as the programming model and APIs are public. --soumসৌমোyasch 10:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
CAB files are not compressed? Or aren't Microsoft? --Scott McNay 04:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

System requirements

Hi, this is possibly the wrong place to ask, but this is where I trust people the most. I find it interesting that the minimum required memory to use the basic features of Vista is 512 MB RAM. What troubles me is, that if this is the required amount, then Vista will most likely use almost all of it - correct me if I'm wrong, I really hope I am. Now what if I have - let's say - 768 MB RAM, but I want to run a program with high memory needs, like a 3d modeller or a game. I guess I'm most likely missing some technical details about how this problem is solved, so I'd really appreciate an answer from someone more qualified in this field ;-) Thanks in advance --84.0.147.180 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Vista uses SuperFetch, which preloads common apps into memory. That's the only reason it takes up so much RAM, and it means that your programs will start up quicker and take less extra RAM. 768 should be fine. --UlTiMuS - ( T | C ) 23:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Plus, a lot of the features such as eye candy and stuff will be unused while running a program. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The minimum required memory for XP is, I thik, 128MB, but it's noticeably slow. Really need at least 512M. I'm sure that much the same applies for Vista. I consider 1MB to be the MINIMUM memory for a NEW computer nowadays. --Scott McNay 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1MB! I think you mean 1GB or 1024MB (same thing). But I do see your point, will a computer that has 512MB of RAM run as slow as a 128MB computer running XP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.137.53 (talk • contribs) 14:41 5 August 2006 (UTC)

More criticism

An anonymous contributor is insisting on putting this into the article:

Despite all the excitement, real or artificial, it can be argued that Vista is hardly breaking any new ground and may meet with significant resistance from potential users who might have trouble perceiving that they really need it. Processor.com, whose job is to keep its finger on the IT pulse, thinks that Vista doesn't come close to the impact of Windows 95 (cite web |url=http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/001698.html |title=No Vista Until '07: Should You Care? |year=March 21, 2006 |accessdate=2006-07-11 |publisher=IDG NETWORK), which is the order of innovation required to make Vista a must-have upgrade.

and I'm removing it. There are a few rather major problems here: Most significantly, who are we to state what level of innovation is required to make Vista a must-have upgrade? It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to measure this, and frankly, the average blogger is really in no position to make this judgement, either. Second, "It can be argued" is quite clearly a case of using weasel words to try to smuggle bias into the article, and per Wikipedia policy, we Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Third, is it really a criticism of an operating system that it may not have the "impact of Windows 95"? I mean, what's next, do we write criticism into the article on Rush's Signals album that it didn't come close to the impact of Moving Pictures? You don't criticise one thing for not being as revolutionary as a next; a simple comparasin would suffice. Of course, we can't even make that comparasin until after Vista comes out... all we have right now is the guesswork of analysts and bloggers. -/- Warren 04:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a justified removal. Said contributor should start a blog or something to air out his 'deep thoughts' SubSeven 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding 4GB mem for 32-bit editions

A couple days ago, I added that all 32-bit editions, minus Starter, support up to 4GB of ram, in the editions section; which promptly got deleted. Wouldn't it be wise to include that, for the people who don't understand the 32-bit addressable memory architecture? I can see regular people complaining that their 32-bit edition can't see 4GB+ ram. - James

It got deleted because that's simply not true -- x86 machines are perfectly capable of addressing more than 4GB physical memory, and have been for years; Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports 32GB physical memory on 32-bit x86, for example. Vista Home Basic will support 8GB, Home Premium 16GB, and the Business and Ultimate editions will support as much physical memory as is present in the machine. Even in terms of individual processes, supporting more than 4GB of addressable memory is supported using Address Windowing Extensions, which is described in this MSDN article. -/- Warren 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I don't disagree with the removal of 4GB limitations, it really isn't accurate to say that any application running Windows Server 2003 EE can access or see 32GB of RAM. This functionality only works, with restrictions, if the application supports AWE extensions (as per the MSDN article). So some of the points made are valid. Also, do we know that Vista Home Basic 32-bit will support 8GB? As I understand it, there will be separate 32-bit and 64-bit editions of Vista at most levels, so only the 64-bit version may support 8GB. --Fandyllic 5:18 PM PDT 27 Jul 2006
Only certain 32-bit server CPUs are able to access more than 4GB of physical memory; as far as I know, the addressing extensions are not found in consumer 32-bit CPUs. For the average user, the limit is therefore 4GB. I don't know about 32-bit Vista on 64-bit CPUs; that may be another matter. Of course, the average user will probably not see 4GB as a limit for another year or so. One could put "4GB" back in, with the qualification that this is the limit for "standard" (or "most") x86 CPUs. With x64 becoming mainstream, and new server software from Microsoft already *requiring* x64, I don't see the addressing extensions becoming mainstream on 32-bit CPUs. --Scott McNay 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you're saying in that support for >4GB on 32-bit processors has been limited, and you're right in that we're still a little ways away from the "4GB limit" being a serious issue. This is where we get stuck: we don't know one way or the other if 32-bit Vista will support AWE on 32-bit CPUs such as the Xeon, or if it will be limited to 4GB regardless of AWE capabilities. Without any publications to provide us with insight on the subject, though, I think it's best that we avoid making guesses and wait until Microsoft or a reputable hardware review site, OEM or CPU manufacturer says something about it. It's really interesting to see an increasing number of web sites and blogs out there copying parts of this article verbatim and holding it up as "the truth" about Vista, so we should take care to provide good sources for any newly added information. If you do come across more info on this, though, let's get it in there. :-) -/- Warren 06:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
32-bit CPUs can support only upto 4 GB physical memory at any instance. So any memory reference has to be a 32-bit reference. And Windows processes can access only 2 GB memory normally. AWE api only exposes special virtual memory constructs that allow the process to see 2 GB+ memory. It has nothing to do with processors.
And if 4 GB+ memory has to be used on a 32-bit processor, the processor musst be tricked into accessing the extra pages. This is done by Physical Address Extension, which is again an OS feature, but require processor support. Memory management in OSs is done using two-level translation tables, which translate virtual memory addresses to pysical addresses. But by using PAE, the address achieved (in a 4 GB+ virtual address space) is not suitable for processor consumption natively. So one more address translation is required. The 4 GB+ memory is broken into <=4 GB pages and the processor uses one page at one time. All current Intel processors (Pentium, Centrino, Xeon, Core) support it. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

8GB memory support on 32-bit editions

As a followup to my comment above, could someone explain how 32-bit editions of Windows Vista support more than 4GB of RAM? Are Vista compatible apps required to implement extensions that allow addressing more that 232 bits of memory? It would seem an application would have to do some tricks to work with more than 4GB. --Fandyllic 5:28 PM PDT 27 Jul 2006

The trick will be done by the OS. Apps just need to use the AWE API. --soumসৌমোyasch 13:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Individual 32 bit apps can't address more than 4GB of RAM (AWE maps sections of larger memory into the 32 bit memory space from my understanding, so the app is still only addressing 32 bits, but swapping chunks out to utilize more). That doesn't mean the OS can't utilize more than that. Think about 10 apps, each utilizing 800MB's of memory. Theoretically that would mean all 8 apps could have all their memory in physical RAM at once (though in practice this isn't true for a variety of reasons, though most of the apps memory would be in physical RAM). 12.207.87.61 04:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, OS has their PAE schemes, which form the trick. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vista Vs. XP

Ok... I have vista on my computer, and as far as I can tell, nothing that isn't from microsoft works on vista. What does vista have to offer thats better than xp? DVD Maker? We already use 3rd party stuff that works 100% better than microsoft crap. From what I have seen, Vista just looks cool and needs a pretty good graphics card to do that. I'm sticking with xp unless vista has something signeffigant to offer.--Finest1 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Features new to Windows Vista. — Alex (T|C|E) 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Vista's only in beta mode at the moment and so it's kinda expected that many programs won't work properly. But it's a bit unfair to say that nothing but Microsoft's products work on it. I've used Mozilla Firefox on it and it's been fine. Apart from the odd system crash which is expected. Give it time (and by the way things are going, more time) and programs will work better on Vista. Harryboyles 07:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

UAC

Fran z is repeatedly changing the article's running order of new features to put User Account Control above all other features. His edit summaries are becoming increasingly forceful and offensive: 23 July, 24 July, 25 July. I've asked him twice in edit summaries and on his talk page to bring the discussion to this talk page, but he has apparently chosen to not do so, preferring to edit war instead. This isn't producing a better article.

Here's my rationale for maintining the running order as it has been for quite some time: In terms of how Microsoft introduces the operating system on their web site, they place user interface features front and center, with their Vista home page stating: "See why computing will be both more beautiful and more intuitive with Windows Vista. The elegant user interface combined with streamlined tasks and search-based navigation will make using your computer more rewarding than ever before." The sections on the left start off with "The Experience", which introduces the features in roughly this order: Aero, Windows Shell enhancements, "digital lifestyle" stuff, then on to features like Backup Center, Readyboost, Previous Versions, the updated Security Center, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, and Internet Explorer 7. That's all in the Experience section, and as it turns out, we cover pretty much all of that stuff in the "End-user features" section of the article's list of new features. This is by coincidence, I'm sure, I don't think any of us were using that web site as a guide for laying out this article. Our other sections let us list the more domain-specific features (a lot of people won't care about corporate deployment, developer, or kernel ehancements), so that the lists aren't unapproachably long. Features new to Windows Vista is a better place to write about esoteric details and things that are of limited interest.

User Account Control is an important new feature in Vista, yes, but it's a security feature, which affects everybody but is still quite domain-specific. There probably isn't a single person here who would tell their computer-illiterate mother that a technology to prompt users for a password before performing administrative actions is somehow the most important new feature of the entire operating system. You might say "it's more secure" instead, and rightly so; we devote an entire paragraph in the lead (about a third of the total text) to the issue of security, but UAC is only one part of Vista's security story. Singling it out at the beginning of a list of features doesn't make a lot of sense.

I encourage Fran z to take this into consideration before continuing this crusade to move this one particular feature to the very top of the article. -/- Warren 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Fran z isn't finished with this pet project of theirs. Again I encourage them to discuss this here on the talk page. -/- Warren 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

XP article has

  1. 5 Common criticisms
   * 5.1 Security issues
   * 5.2 Product activation
   * 5.3 User interface and performance
   * 5.4 Integration of operating system features
   * 5.5 Copying restrictions
   * 5.6 Windows Genuine Notifications

to what extent does Vista fix or change these? Also, DRM issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Widefox (talk • contribs) .

You titled this "NPOV". Why? Do you feel there is a problem with the neutrality of the article? -/- Warren 02:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Version comment

Regarding the following comment in the version section of the infobox:

"If you're intending on changing the build number to 5472.5/6, please note that the official build number displayed inside Windows Vista itself is 5472. This can be confirmed by running winver. Never mind what you read on web sites; what the OS identifies itself as is authoritative."

Doesn't this seem a blatant violation of WP:NOR? Wikipedia never was an never will be the place for publishing self-researched claims like the result of running winver, and in the scope of Wikipedia, I think that websites and other published sources should have much more weight than some editor's opinion on what constitutes a true version number. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I would like to see a published source coupled with the version number claim. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 05:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's one of a few official sources for the current build number: http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/archive/2006/07/18/442399.aspx -/- Warren 05:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated the comment to reference that link and make it clear that this is Microsoft's stance on the number, not the stance of an editor that arbitrarily decided on its correctness through original research. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 04:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WinFS

I could be mistaken, but this article claims that the WinFS project, which has been dropped from Vista, is loosely based on SQL Server 2005. While that's all well and good, wasn't WinFS originally part of the old Microsoft Cairo project? Doesn't that make the claim that WinFS is based on SQL Server a tad disingenuous?

-ianenos03, 2 August, 2006

No, because the back-end technology used for the successive projects were totally different. It started out as Object File System, which was a real disk file system like NTFS that stored information as objects, in a format not too dissimilar to the compound document model seen with Office documents. OFS eventually got scrapped because Microsoft chose to focus on NTFS instead as their primary file system. The Cairo article doesn't explain this adequately. Storage+ came about in the COM+ time period (~1999), and that was to be based on SQL Server 2000 technology, but then that got canned as well. WinFS was to be based on SQL Server 2005 tech, but now it turns out that the next version of SQL Server will include some of the WinFS tech. The basic concept of "storing your data in a format the operating system can inherently understand" was intact through all these incarnations, but WinFS and OFS have essentially nothing in common technically, and the scope of what WinFS tried to accomplish was much wider than OFS. -/- Warren 08:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Mythical Man-Month

When the history of this project is written, it will be useful to acquire some data about the staffing of the project. I would like to appeal to the current Vista development team to provide some numbers.

<naked appeal>
For example, in the speech recognition project of Vista, how many developers are working on this project. A timeline of staffing against release dates would be very valuable to the software development community. Is it too much to ask the former WinFS team to provide some numbers? The blogs seem to indicate that something like one or two dozen programmers had been working on WinFS. True? A project manager for Microsoft could make quite a contribution to the field of software development by writing something about this.
</naked appeal> --Ancheta Wis 11:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

5487

Just a heads up. Info on Vista 5487 has appeared on a number of sites http://www.winfuture.de/news,26656.html (German) but apparently only released to TAP as yet. There may be a CTP coming soon however http://board.iexbeta.com/index.php?s=670cc2c7badaf071a3c2434124d635a7&showtopic=65016&pid=718272&st=0&#entry718272 Incidently 5483 screenies also leaked and it's a RC1 branch build... Nil Einne 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Release time frame

Has anyone seen any well informed & reliable info on what kind of time frame would be required for Microsoft to make the release dates? From memory, the Windows XP release built was like 4 months before it's release. I'm guessing the business version in November is unlikely to need such a large timeframe, perhaps a month? Nil Einne 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently removed a sentence indicating that the most recent known RTM date is October 25; not sure why it was removed, so I've reinstated it. -/- Warren 18:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Take your best shot

I thought this] might be an interesting link to add to the article but I was not sure where to add it. NorthernThunder 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Are Windows Vista screenshots a copyright violation?

Are Windows Vista screenshots a copyright violation? Because on this italian page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista all the Windows Vista screenshots have been removed because they think is a copyright violation. Is it true or the Italians are stupid? Why en.wikipedia.org can have Windows Vista screenshots and it.wikipedia.org not? I want insert the images but the Italian administrators always remove them. Please tell them that the Windows Vista screenshots are not a copyright violation

Considering that the legal basis on which the images in the English Wikipedia are hosted is fair use, a U.S. doctrine, I don't believe it would be applicable if the servers were hosted in another country. If that is not the case, then just tag the images with a similar template as Template:Software-screenshot. --Kamasutra 10:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The people running Vista's beta program have been pretty consistent in stating that screenshots of Vista may be used in articles and on web sites. I confirmed this myself with them; they emailed me and said that use of screenshots of Vista is fine for our purposes. Microsoft does retain trademarks and copyrights on visual elements of Windows, of course, so such images will always be included with "fair use" rationale instead of being completely free. Nobody's successfully deleted a Windows (or Mac OS X) screenshot off the English Wikipedia for copyvio reasons anytime recently (I have just about all of them on my watchlist...)
The situation with the Italian Wikipedia is a bit unfortunate. I highly doubt they're really so concerned about copyright violations given that they have similar non-free images on the Windows XP, Windows 2000, Mac OS X, etc. articles, not to mention the Microsoft Windows logo itself in a template -- which we absolutely would not allow here (fair use of logos on the English Wikipedia limits us to using the logo beside text that describes the logo or the product in question). Why they're being inconsistent in their application of demands for free images is hard to imagine... -/- Warren 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


it.wikipedia.org is hosted on the same servers of en.wikipedia.org, but the administrators of it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista still don't want to accept the windows screenshots due theirs ignorance, I also put the right tag. Please help, me!
The only way I know to deal with that kind of ignorance is to force them to listen to reason and learn. If that doesn't work then find another administrator who does understand the circumstances under which the images may be hosted and have them bring into question the others' adminship qualifications. Also, as Warren mentioned, bring up their hypocrisy of allowing the Windows trademark (found at the bottom of the article) to be hosted. Then again, I'm unfamilar with their policies/guidelines on these matters, as they may be different from the English Wikipedia's; those could override the legal argument. --Kamasutra 01:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nom

Currently, the article is a nominee for GA status. However, I do not feel that the article is stable because it has not yet being released and when it does, lots of people will be editing the article adding in bits here and bits there; maybe causing the language to change, introducing WP:OR and not citing sources. Iolakana|T 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a stable at the moment and it meets all of the Wikipedia:What is a good article? criteria. I cannot guarantee that it will stay GA after major changes. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it from Hold status because according to Wikipedia policy, stability means that the article does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. The article is not changing significantly day to day and we are uncertain if it will in the future. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

MS Vista technologies content removed

The following edit removed content on Windows technologies (as stated by Microsoft) from the article with the comment that it was a "complete duplicate of what's already stated elsewhere in the article". However, the content covering Microsoft's own categorisation of technologies (as stated on their Vista website) was removed, and there is now no mention in the article of the Mobile PC platform or Windows CardSpace, so I think the removal of this content is not warranted. It should be reinstated. Peter Campbell Talk! 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added line-items for Windows Mobility Center and Windows CardSpace into appropriate sections. -/- Warren 23:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The Mobile PC platform is different for the Windows Mobility Center - I have will add it too. --Peter Campbell Talk! 00:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparison with OS X

Is that really a criticism? It's obvious from the screenshots that both OSs are graphically rich, and still share common graphical elements (which has been the same for years). It has no bearing on the actual functionality of the operating system - if you didn't know OS X existed, it wouldn't even matter. That criticism is surely not neutral, and presenting it as legitimate means the article is taking on the non-neutral POV of the criticisms. Just a thought :) Dave420 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with criticism in these articles is really, really hard... just about everything you see in that section is the result of some pretty feisty editing disagreements, and several of us have whacked away at it trying to get to a point where the criticism presented is from reasonably notable sources, and is presented in a dispassionate, "here's what party A says, here's what party B says in response" fashion. It's a necessary part of presenting all significant facets of the subject, not just the Microsoft-approved one. :-) Comparison with OS X is an inevitability with Vista, if only because it keeps coming up in reviews and commentary.
That said... Wikipedia's style guides don't favour doing it how criticism is done in this and other computing articles, but it seems like a general consensus has formed over time that this method isn't that bad. Heck, Windows XP has a criticisms section which is laid out much like this one, and it's a Featured Article! -/- Warren 06:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

PatchGuard

Okay, so we're mentioning the "PatchGuard" kernel protection as a new feature in Vista. Strictly speaking, it's not new, because it already exists in the current 64-bit editions of XP and Server 2003.Jeff Jones at blogs.technet.com/security/ discusses this exact issue. Right now I think we're including it on the basis that this is the first time most people will have heard of it, because it's getting some press thanks to Ars Technica and Symantec and so on. So here's the question... does it belong in this article? Perhaps it should be mentioned in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition instead? I don't know. Any thoughts on this? -/- Warren 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned, but with the disclaimer it not new to Vista. Bcoz even though, XP x64 versions had this, the OSs are not in as widespread use as Vista x64 is supposed to be. Many people dont even know that Vista is not the first Windows OS to have x64 support. So unless this feature is highlighted, there exists a possibility that people (by which I am referring to people en masse, sans the geeks and enthusiasts) might not even come to know of it. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added some content on this which mentions it is not a new feature, but an important one nonetheless. It is under the "Security features" heading --Peter Campbell Talk! 07:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be (as it is currently) under x64-specific features. And that is not new to Vista is mentioned. --soumসৌমোyasch 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of requirements

I've removed the section on the criticism of the hardware requirements. Firstly, the article is the only one I've seen criticize the requirements and probably for a very good reason. Vista is a new OS and of course is going to require more power. In addition it says that it will only fully run on super-advanced PCs making up less than five percent of the UK's PC industry. First off, I can buy a computer for about $1K that would be able to handle Areo, hardly the price of a super-advanced PC. The comment and statistics are also scewed because of Areo's requirements. Ignoring that, I would say that at least 70% of computers sold today would be able to smoothly run Vista. So in summary, I removed the article because it only gets its figures by scewing statistics and not using common sense. Paul Cyr 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your removal of the content below is pre-emptive. Possible upgrades to PCs to run Vista is a topic of some interest, as evidenced by numerous blog entries such as this one. Your point of view on whether this is an issue or not really relevent. A source is cited, and a contrary view is included. How about adding to the content rather than just dumping it? There are widespread concerns about current laptop's capabilities to run Vista, and this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Text removed is below.
Increased hardware requirements: Vista has been criticised for the increase in hardware specifications required to run it. Elizabeth Judge of The Times stated that “the system’s full range of tools would be available to less than 5 per cent of Britain’s PC market” and that it “would run in full only on super-advanced PCs”. This has raised concerns that users wanting to enjoy the full experience would be forced to buy expensive new equipment, even though the minimum hardware specifications for Vista indicate that it will run on most PCs sold over the last three years.
Increased memory requirements (1GB RAM) and dedicated graphics requirements to run the new Aero interface are the main concerns. The biggest problems are likely to be with laptops, which tend to have smaller hard drives, less memory and less powerful video. A US analyst estimates that “only around one third of laptops sold now would meet Vista’s basic features”. A Microsoft spokeswoman countered these claims by denying that current PC users would be unable to use Vista, stating that that nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista” Source
What do others think? --Peter Campbell Talk! 04:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact is that the majority of laptops can easily run Vista, it's Aero which is the concern. Paul Cyr 04:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of a citation/reference, your comment is your point of view. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a forum for opinions --Peter Campbell Talk! 05:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Your first source is one POV from one source. If you were able to list multiple sources for that critisism (we're talking about a major product here) I would definately agree it should be included. However one source from an online newspaper and another source from a blog that fails WP:RS is not enough to list the issue as a critisism. It's a major product, an issue needs major critisism to be included. I work at a major computer retailer as a computer specialist so my own authority better meets WP:RS than the blog you posted. The article itself obscures critical information. Although sources that present a POV are allowed, one that scewes the truth would not meet WP:RS. Paul Cyr 02:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that you better balanced the section to make it more NPOV. However I still feel that if we are adding a critisism for a major product, for the section to be included there should still be multiple sources of that critisism which meet WP:RS. Otherwise one report from one journalist would not make it reasonable for the section to stay. Paul Cyr 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Some of the other citations included content that supports the Times article (incidentally, it does present both sides of the story). I will add another that support this directly. This is one of the hottest discussion points in the industry at this point in time. Refreshing corporate fleets (desktop & laptop) is a huge and expensive undertaking, so any drivers for it are of considerable interest. --Peter Campbell Talk! 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

new infobox

As an experiment, I've replaced the prior Template:Infobox OS 2 with Template:Infobox OS version, a new template I made recently that would be used for specific versions of a family of operating systems. Have a look at it, see if you like it, and let me know what you think. -/- Warren 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Security

"Whenever you try to do ANYTHING in Vista, a "Are you sure?" message box pops up. In testing, this has trained all users to begin automatically clicking OK on message boxes without paying them any notice. This flaw allows numerous viruses and exploits to be easily implemented."

I understand the above infomation could be counted as biased, but I think to uphold a neutral stand, something should be added stating the currrent security flaws of vista.

152.160.63.126 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

On this topic, I added the following content that was then twice removed, which seems like censorship to me. I would like to test for consensus on whether this content should be include. I definately think it should, with THE primary goal for Vista now confirmed as improved security. It also highlights some of the code base is common with XP & precursors, rather than be a total rewrite. Security updates are of significant interest - enough to make a lead article on CNET news today.

Security updates and patches

Two security bulletins Microsoft sent out in August 2006 affect the beta version of the Windows Vista, so it already getting regular security fixes provided by the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC). Vista is the first Microsoft product to get security updates while it is still in beta[2]. The two of seven "critical" Windows updates Microsoft delivered on August 8 2006 which affect Vista are MS06-042, for Internet Explorer, and MS06-051, which addresses a flaw in the Windows kernel, according to Microsoft employee Alex Heaton posting to a corporate blog[3].


What do others think? --Peter Campbell Talk! 10:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

(I'll copy this over from my response to you on my talk page:)
It will help your understanding of why I've removed this if you take a step back and ask yourself, "what's the BIG picture? what's the really relevant information to Windows Vista as a whole subject, not just what's in the news this week?" ... Wikipedia is -not- Wikinews, and it's really not the place for temporal stuff that isn't going to matter in a few weeks' time. If you want to write about how Microsoft has released patches for Windows, that's fine; but do it on Wikinews. Or, start a Vista news web site like so many others have done. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and as such as need to focus on summarising the important points of the topic, as a whole, as it relates to the entire audience of potential readers. We don't cover the latest security vulnerabilities for Windows XP or Windows Server 2003, do we? And no, I don't buy the argument that because Vista's primary focus is security, we should report on every security-related problem found and fixed during the beta-testing process.
Have a read through Wikipedia:Recentism. It disucsses this concern in greater detail. -/- Warren 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Recentism is an interesting essay. Following your logic, most of the "Development" section should go, along with mention of various build numbers throughout the article, which you might claim are irrelevant or meaningless when the final product is released. I think the article should be re-edited down the track with this guideline in mind but not overly censored during content creation. Have a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - key policy 4 is Respect other contributors. Also have a read of Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, particularly, don't revert good faith edits. But let's hear from some others, as we clearly differ on this. --Peter Campbell Talk! 12:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I think stating that Vista is the first Microsoft product to get security updates while it is still in beta is fine (if it's true), but specifying the updates wouldn't be appropriate. The mention of build numbers is fine when referring to certain milestones, and the only instances in the article that currently violate this are two under the "Criticism" section when referring to the specific build being criticized -- correctly used in the context but the removal of criticism is outside the scope of this discussion. The "Development" section will likely be replaced by a "History" section eventually, but considering that it's unlikely the article that it's summarizing will be deleted when the product is released, or any time thereafter, I don't see it as a violation of Wikipedia:Recentism.
Also, citing references the way you've done here doesn't work unless there's a "References" section. It's fine to just use normal external links in talk pages. --Kamasutra 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll alter or remove any good-faith edit that lowers the quality of the article, or sets us adrift from the tenets of Wikipedia:The perfect article. Maintaining high article quality is really important now -- this article is going to see a huge amount of work put into it over the next year, especially as Vista hits the shelves in a few months and we transition from documenting the progression of Vista as beta software, to working in the actual major issues and noteworthy stuff that comes after that. (Sales figures, reviews, criticism, pricing, etc.) But how do we measure importance? I think of it like this: The article on George W. Bush doesn't mention pretzels. Sure, in 2001 when the pretzel "incident" occurred, it was big news, but compared to the entire subject, it's hardly relevant at all. Security patches for beta releases are Vista's pretzels, basically.
As for the "Development" section, things like individual build numbers are indeed likely to disappear soon. Everything after, oh let's say, the second sentence of the second paragraph of that section onwards, is almost certainly going to be dumped or rationalised, with the idea that the sub-article will cover all the specifics, and in this article we'll just focus on the major points that are going to be of historical interest. -/- Warren 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
As per Kamasutra's suggestion, I have added mention of the security fixes to the Development section, as the issuing of fixes to a beta is notable. Wikipedia:The perfect article is a good read. I don't see the mention of security updates conflicting with any of its tenets. I like the closing comment:
Ultimately, perfection means different things to different Wikipedians. It may not be achievable, but it's fun trying. For more information, see our editing policy.

Blue Pill

I don't think the blue pill comment belongs in this article. It is not really a valid critisism of Vista as the media makes it seem. Blue Pill DOES NOT use bugs in Vista to install; in fact it requires administrator consent. The second point is that blue pill is not targeted just at Vista. Blue Pill is realiant on AMDs hardware virtualization techonology. It has very little to do with the OS as Joanna made clear; she said in her blog it could just as easily be ported to another OS using the same CPU. I will remove the blue pill information because it belongs in another article and has little to do with Vista. For more information on the blue pill read her blog. She also has white papers talking about her projects.

Here is a quote from Joanna's blog ([1]): "I would like to make it clear, that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system. I have implemented a working prototype for Vista x64, but I see no reasons why it should not be possible to port it to other operating systems, like Linux or BSD which can be run on x64 platform."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.1.132.226 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC).

Basic vs. Standard

What is the difference between the "Basic" and "Standard" GUI's? The article doesn't seem to be very clear on this, made it sound like they were identical except for not supporting Aero/Glass and that the former is bluish and the latter is grayish. Hopefully someone can clarify this. --68.252.245.109 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, something is wrong here. My understanding is that Standard is actually one of the Win2000-like interfaces. I think the grey/blue thing is a difference between builds, with bluish being the more recent implementation. This needs to get confirmed and the article corrected. Daveharr 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing's really wrong. It lists them as Vista Basic and Vista Standard, not just Basic and Standard. — Alex (T|C|E) 13:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is that the screen shots for the two look the same. I don't think the Standard one is right. Daveharr 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
They almost look the same. However, look at the buttons in the top right corner of the window, and the window frame itself. — Alex (T|C|E) 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the "Standard" one is actually the Basic mode in Beta 2 and older builds, while the "Basic" one is the revised theme MS has implemented. Daveharr 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Aero Basic in screenshots

To all screenshot makers: Please use Windows Aero, if possible. Aero Basic is not Vista's standard UI. Themodernizer 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mac OS X, Spotlight & Dashboard

"In addition, it has been noted that many features which were purportedly copied (such as fast searching and gadgets) were actually present in early Vista builds before they were demonstrated by Apple, and were already implemented by third-party products such as Google Desktop Search and Konfabulator."


To clarify: Spotlight preceded Google Desktop Search on either platform, Konfabulator, however, preceded Dashboard.


Perhaps, to further drive the point home, you might mention Exposé, which was a first-of-its-kind application management tool and now has sparked the Vista "Roladex" app management tool (not to mention 3rd-party spin-offs).


-Paul J. 8/29/06 10:21am (CST)

Criticism section again

This thing has really ballooned since the last time I saw this article. Currently, some parts are filled with the differences between betas - why are these here at all? They are not on any other article. I guess the question is what to talk about:

  1. Current and past betas, with the current rather detailed differences between them (in this case there is going to need to be a seperate criticism article... ick)
  2. Current beta only
  3. Strictly on the release version... whenever that may be

Remember - the thing isn't even out yet! It is treading in that grey area of crystal balling...

I also reverted an edit that noted a sidejab that Jobs did at a conference thing that had little/nothing to do with vista.[2] RN 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The reference you reverted had everthing to do with Vista - if you took the trouble to read it. Criticism is just that. People (like Jobs) are making it, the article is reporting it. Surely you are not suggesting that this article should present only one side of the story? This would violate Wp:npov. The criticism section is of signficant interest to general readers and industry commentators. If is based on mature features that will be released, then I think it is perfectly valid to include it. Peter Campbell Talk! 05:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Asking Steve Jobs what he thinks of a Windows Vista would be like asking a Fire Hydrant what it thinks of dogs. It has about as much place in this article as a crack by Bill Gates on an Apple product in an Apple article.PPGMD 16:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
So the criticism section is being edited and filtered according the point of view of editors, some of whom have demonstrated that they are very sensitive to any criticism. Following this logic would mean that the criticism section could be sanitised to the point it might as well not be there - then the article would be great marketing material for Microsoft. I think acolytes should post on MSDN blogs rather than introduce bias to Wikipedia articles --Peter Campbell Talk! 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I really strongly recommend you focus more on the contents of the article itself, rather than pontificating over the motivations of your fellow editors. You'll be much better off if you explain why you feel a particular sentence should be included, and back that up with a strong case that's rooted in Wikipedia policies on neutrality, verifiability and citing reliable sources. Remember that the goal here is to write a great encyclopedia article, and that does sometimes mean leaving out sentences or removing information that isn't really relevant or contributes materially to the article as a whole. Is the WWDC keynote worth mentioning in the context of Vista's similarities to OS X? Absolutely... does a snarky comment from Apple's CEO about Microsoft's overall behaviour of "copying Google and Apple" belong? That's less certain. Personally I think Bertrand Serlet is the Apple person we should be quoting, since he talked far more specifically about the similarities than Steve Jobs did, who spoke more in general terms. -/- Warren 23:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Steve Jobs (and therefore his comments) is much more notable, and therefore of more interest to the general public, than those of Bertrand Serlet. I definately think they should be included (refer to WP:BIO). This is easily confirmed by a simple google search, and shouldn't really require any justification for those who take a broad view of the IT industry. You choose rather emotive language in your criticism ("pontificating") of a fellow editor. I recommend that you practice what you preach. As I have previously stated, editors who preemptively refer good faith edits without appropriate discussion should read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines - the protocols around this are pretty clear. Peter Campbell Talk! 03:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Him taking a swipe at Microsoft is not notable, it's part of his job. Would you quote Bill Gates if he said something like that about Apple in one of his key note speechs? It's unlikely that you would. Also WP:BIO refers to if Jobs would be notable enough for his own article not whether or not his quote should be included here. WP:RS would cover this, as a Microsoft critic he is not a reliable source, and him taking a swipe at Microsoft is not notable, while a comprohensive presetation even done by an Apple Employee OTOH is. PPGMD 04:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I take your point that WP:RS is more relevant than WP:BIO. I don't have a problem with Bill Gates' comments in a criticism section on an article such as Mac OS X if they are are significant and relevant. I think plagiarism is a significant criticism. I think there is a tendency by any to "revert first, discuss later" on this article - as evidenced by numerous comments on this page, which is not conducive to good collaboration. I have added a heading to seek consensus on this issue rather than continue with an edit war or opinion ping pong. Peter Campbell Talk! 23:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No it's not more relevant, it simply that you are applying the wrong policy to the situation, WP:BIO covers article creation, not linked sources. First copying a feature is not plagiarism, it's simply the way that software is developed, if a competitor develops a feature that customers like, you don't just go "Well shit, they did it first were fracked now." no you implement your own version of the feature. Now if Microsoft was caught incorporating code that wasn't there in their product it would be different. Second the sentence as it stands is NPOV and gets the point across rather well without an inflammatory comment by a competing CEO. PPGMD 23:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Its not that the comment is removed because it came from a competing CEO. But u have to take into account the occasion. It was a Mac dev conf, where they were showing off their new release for the first time. As such they had to promote their one-upmanship, which means, marketing their strength and make competition look as insignificant as possible. So any comment that is made with this intent can hardly be NPOV. If it were a covert interview, things might have been different, though. --soumসৌমোyasch 03:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Opinions expressed as criticism do not have to be NPOV - this is not grounds for exclusion. The entire conference was Apple's POV, with Job's comments being notable (at least to the general public). It is the article that needs to adhere to NPOV by presenting both sides to contentious matters or opinions. This is stated within WP:RS as "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion." Peter Campbell Talk! 05:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And we already have an NPOV example of Apple showing that it believes that Microsoft is copying them. Steve Jobs' comments are not NPOV, they are inflammatory, and simply doing his job which is to get the crowd motivated about an upcoming Apple product. The act of copying features as long as you don't violate their copyright, trademarks, or patents, is not illegal nor a bad business practice, if they violated either of those three this would have been at court not at a keynote speech. Personally I don't even think it's a valid criticism, my company regularly looks are competing software to see what features the customers like and incorporate them in our products. PPGMD 17:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"despite Microsoft's claims that Vista was the most secure operating system"

In reference to patches for a beta this was mentioned afterwards which I removed:

This is despite Microsoft's claims that Vista was the most secure operating system in the industry.[4]

It seems at least partially incorrect to me as it is a beta... RN 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible references for graphical interfaces

Most seems to reference WikiPedia though (sometimes wholesale without attribution...) - circular! RN 08:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

One more note - with this edit I removed the requirements there as it contradicted the other section (minimum of 128MB graphics while that said 64 would be ok) and could not find a reference for it. RN 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's why it's really important that we are as accurate and informative as possible. A large portion of the text in the article is mine, so it's kinda weird when I hit up some web site with Vista information and I'm like... HEY!  :-) -/- Warren 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
However the info for the 64mb is well published throughout the web and comes directly from Microsoft [3]. I've done my best to clarify the situation. Note that the minimum requirement for Windows Vista Premium Ready is 128mb which is different from the minimum requirement for the Aero interface. If you're having trouble understanding this, remember that Premium Ready is just a branding. You don't need a DVD drive to use Vista (it will come on a DVD but obviously there are a lot of different ways you could install it if you know how) nor do you actually need a 40gb HD for Vista provided you have enough freespace (although any HD smaller then 40gb is liable to be rather old and slow). Nil Einne 09:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ICQ for Vista?

Will Windows Vista support ICQ?213.240.234.212 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of ICQ software out there for Windows XP, why wouldn't Vista support it? Akral 21:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on inclusion of Steve Job's comments

Please indicate below whether you support (yes or no) inclusion of the following comments by Steve Job's in the "Criticm" section. Refer here for some discussion on this.

Existing sentence:

Apple were keen to highlight the similarities during the keynote presentation at the Worldwide Developers Conference in August 2006, with Bertrand Serlet showing screenshots of Vista and OS X side-by-side ref

Add this sentence:

At the same conference, Steve Jobs also stated "Our friends up north spend up to $5 billion on R&D, and these days all they seem to be able to do is copy Google and Apple"source
  • Support Peter Campbell Talk! 03:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it's very POV and non-academic, the exsisting sentence is NPOV and makes the point rather well. PPGMD 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The statement is biased and with little fact to it. — Alex (T|C|E) 05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sort of neutral on it. I wrote the original sentence, and I chose to mention Serlet instead of Jobs because Serlet's part of the presentation was far more specific to criticism of Windows Vista, even though he got most of it completely wrong (I actually felt rather embarassed for Serlet for being so clueless). Jobs, on the other hand, kinda tossed his comment out as a segue into something else. None of it is particularily enlightened commentary. -/- Warren 18:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda pushing. Jtrainor 05:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. The comment was a marketing trash talk, made with a view to demean the competition, not do a fair critical analysis of it. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose not much to too with vista - the way it was written is just another microsoft bash. RN 06:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Its POV, but isn't most criticism a point of view in the first place? Definitely deserves a mention. — Wackymacs 17:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Criticism is not necesarily POV. — Alex (T|C|E) 18:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Not at all - often Criticism is simply fact due to design or other descisions (see MATLAB for a decent example). RN 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not notable. If Jobs had praised his major competitor, or if he made a statement about a legal point, that might be newsworthy. Jobs knocking Microsoft, on the other hand, is to be expected. --Ckatzchatspy 19:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Outcome

There is little support for adding the comments from Jobs, so I have just added the CNet news/photo reference to the article. Thanks to those who responded. --Peter Campbell 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Development paragraph 1

The following sentence seems to jar in the reading of the paragraph: 'Note: Windows Xp where the Xp stand for "experience".' I wondered if perhaps it should be removed. -- T#

Someone added that just yesterday; I've removed it. Thanks. -/- Warren 14:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Runs in 64 bit mode?

Its unclear to me from the article if it automatically runs natively in 64 bit mode on 64 bit capable processors, or if it is still running in 32 bit mode. This info should be in the lead para. Fawcett5 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The 64 bit OS runs in true 64 bit mode on x64 processors. As did WinXP x64. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fran Z

Fran Z's recent edits mostly are duplicating contents. Most of what is there in Features new to Windows Vista are being replicated by him here, which defeats the purpose of having separate pages in the first place. Plus his edits generally are direct copy-pastes from web sites, making them a copyvio. I have tried in past to invite him to dialogue, but couldn't. His edits are not resulting in higher quality articles. --soumসৌমোyasch 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why two months apart, if the content is already there?

If this article is right (and I presume it is), it seems like a severe marketing error to sell the consumer editions after christmas. As I understand is, the content is readily availabe on the business editions sold from Novomber on, and even the "Ultimate" version will be avaliable then. Why hold back the home versions, if that entire content is already avaliable? If I misunderstood the whole thing, maybe the article needs to be more clear, but as it is, the move seems not very clever. — Mütze 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with home computer manufacturers getting their production lines ready for Vista. The content is actually supposed to be available by late October (RTM). — Alex (T|C|E) 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It always takes a very long time for MS to release the OS from when RTM build is made. Firstly, remember MS has to mass produce the DVDs. More significantly I suspect MS customers (comp sellers) need time to get the OS into their production line as mentioned above, i.e. make systems with the new OS. They would be royally pissed if MS releases the OS when they haven't yet had time to get their new systems with the OS ready since many customers may simply buy the OS and not bother with a new system or alternatively buy a system with the OS which may be a competitors system... Nil Einne 20:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)