Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Curious as to origin of the Vista/Longhorn name

Although completely irrelevant to most reasonable discussions, I found the name behind Vista/Longhorn odd. I live in the city of Vista, CA and the high school (Rancho Buena Vista) uses Vista Longhorns as a fixed name and mascot. Now, I could just be lacking some education on the history behind a name like Vista, but I've been puzzled by this. Is it possible this is just an ironic happening? --BeggarEthics 06:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out the Development of Windows Vista article. Longhorn is a bar between Whistler (Windows XP) and Blackcomb (Next Windows).--Anss123 07:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Vista is italian for view, think about it, vista's new aero interface is quiet spectacular and aesthetically pleasing, personally I think it is a good name. but Longhorn, it evades me. I have to say, when in doubt ask Billy. --124.184.233.63 06:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, while Windows Vista was in development, they called it Longhorn so that it had a name people could use when in conversation. This was before the marketing department came up with the final name of Vista sometime in 2005, and Longhorn was never intended to be an actual name for the product. It's just that because of the longer development time, the name has become relatively well known and stuck.Harryboyles 10:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently this question would have made more sense in the high school's wiki, but good information regardless.--BeggarEthics 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU again

The EU's recent comments have been added to the Development section and the criticism article. However, they do not have anything to do with Vista per se. The comments are on MS' failure to provide documentation for server protocols, with quality enough to satisfy them. I do not see anything to do with Vista. It should be removed.

Plus, if you claim that the article violate NPOV, please give instances. --soum (0_o) 15:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • EU was involved

It is trite to assume that development of Vista did not have a component of an EU oversifght concern. An EU version without media Player is proof of EU interest in Vista. The article refers to EU earlier. Retention is relevant.

22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubenzenubi (talk • contribs)
The EU was most certainly concerned with Vista. An issue from 4 months after Vista's release most certainly does not have anything to do with making Windows Vista. Paul Cyr 22:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you followed the EU verdicts from the beginning? The only issues EU had with Vista were the removal of WMP and the complaints of Adobe et al. Actually even the N editions were not that an issue. Because by the time XP N editions were out, MS knew they had to do N editions of subsequent OSs at least for sometime in the future.
The EU issue is generally about MS' software playing nicely with rivals'. Specifically, their complain is that server components should be accessible even by third parties. Most software related issues have been sorted out. The only issue they are still dragging is that of documentation of the communication protocols, which EU says MS is charging way too much for and which is substandard. The issue does not have anything to do with Vista per se.
Even Paul's article that you provided as a ref says that it is only doc-related. It never mentions that the issue pertains to the development of Vista or criticism of Vista. If that is to be claimed, a ref needs to be put up which unambiguously states the issue IS Vista-related. --soum (0_o) 03:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If Zubenzenubi doesn't respond by 23:00, on the 25th of April, I'm going to revert his changes. Do any other contributers have anything to add? Paul Cyr 18:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desktops, Notebooks, Tablet PCs and Media Centers

How is a media center a type of computer in the same sense as the other three? Media centers is a subcatagory of either desktops, notebooks or Tablet PCs. Josh the Nerd 14:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Josh

Because media centers don't go on a desktop, aren't notebooks, and aren't tablets. Remember that tablets and notebooks have pretty much the same innards, but differ only in the user interface and form factors. Media centers differ from desktop computers in the same two ways. -/- Warren 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] windows vista updates

are there any ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.37.227.10 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

There have indeed been some patches -- some security updates (mostly Windows Defender definitions updates, but not all) pushed out over Windows Update, and also a few hotfixes for people with specific issues that aren't. No service packs or anything yet though till H2-2007ish. Simxp 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degrading Lines

"Windows Vista is a poor operating system, althogh Mac and Jess are worse."

I'm not sure, is this line proper and in accord to the guidelines? It is the very first line in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert Adrian Dizon (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

It's just vandalism. I removed it. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for my vandalism as well (which hopefully will be caught soon). It's just that my cable modem's getting all the bandwidth sucked out of it, and I'm a bit sour. If I can convince one person to stick with XP, though, it will have been worth it. I'll probably be forced to go around to all the baby editors and remind them to stay in school and drink their milk so they don't end up like me... *sigh* Viewer 06:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Dont make edits to prove your point. Thats vandalism, and will likely get you blocked. --soum (0_o) 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Thank you. Viewer 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The info is old.

Why did Warren remove my edits to the Criticism Section on Windows Vista? The sources were old and weren't referring to Windows Vista RTM. And some places were missing sources. Chetblong 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You removed the sources that were being used for statements that you then proceeded to say were missing sources. What else were you expecting to have happen, than to have your edits reverted? I mean, really. Also... whether information is "old" is not relevant; as of now, the article represents a cross-section of the most notable criticism of Vista, all of which remains valid. Keep in mind that the concerns given are architectural in nature, and not specific to a certain pre-release build. -/- Warren 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
First, I put fact tags where needed, and I put fact tags lots of places without removing sources (which anyone can see by going to the history). Second, The sources that I removed weren't refering to the FINAL/RTM build 6000 of Windows Vista. And you say that "whether information is "old" is not relevant; as of now, the article represents a cross-section of the most notable criticism of Vista, all of which remains valid" well may I refer you to the To-Do list in the Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista page where it's stated "Remove all sources before November 8th, 2006. Make sure all sources after this date deal with the FINAL/RTM build 6000 of Vista." and "All criticisms should be rechecked to see if they are still valid in build 6000." Third, You said "Keep in mind that the concerns given are architectural in nature, and not specific to a certain pre-release build." I wasn't refering to any pre-release build, I was talking about the build that was released to the public. Chetblong 17:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thurrott Reverts

i've seen the reverts and re-reverts about the thurrott opine, so i decided to read the review. here is an excerpt:

Windows Classic UI

For corporations that don't want to retrain their users on the new Windows Vista UI types, Microsoft still provides a Windows Classic UI (Figure) that somewhat resembles the UI in Windows 2000. However, there are many differences due to some of the massive changes Microsoft made to Windows Explorer in this version. For this reason, it's going to take users a while to get used to the new system even when Windows Classic is enabled.

I can't stress this enough: Windows Classic is ugly and only hides much of the useful new functionality that's available in other UI types. My advice is to skip this misbegotten excuse for a UI and pray that Microsoft gets rid of it for good in the next major Windows version. It's horrible.

the reference does support the item in question. The undertow 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thurrott's unsubstantiated commentary does not belong in an informative section concerning the classic user interface. Any reasonable person should see that this is pure opinion, criticism. Come on now, "Thurrott offers the opinion... misbegotten excuse for a UI," this is unencyclopedic. Let me remind you that there is a dedicated article for Windows Vista criticism, and this commentary is in an informative section concerning the Windows Vista visual styles. I'll say that one more time, to make sure everyone understands: there is a dedicated section in this article for Windows Vista criticism, and even a dedicated article for this subject. Please remove the last two sentences in the Windows Classic subsection of Visual Styles. I am not concerned with where this content goes when it is removed from this section, so long as it is removed from this section. 70.176.198.206 07:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

The screenshot of "Windows Vista Ultimate" is actually a screenshot of "Windows Vista Home Premium". The control panel capped by the screenshot clearly says Windows Vista™ Home Premium.

So change the caption maybe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.33.211.245 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

The screenshot was of Windows Vista Ultimate but someone changed it to a screenshot of Windows Vista Home Premium. Chetblong 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the picture to a screenshot of my desktop (Home Premium) (if you liked the previous one, feel free to change it back) and caption to Windows Vista Home Premium. Chetblong 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a personal desktop is what we want; the current version (thanks to User:JamesWeb) of an out-of-the-box Vista Desktop is the most suitable. njan 17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Before I put mine on there there was another one with the same name that was extremly personalized Windows Vista Home Premium screenshot by JamesWeb so I put mine on there (also Home Premium), now JamesWeb has changed it back (thank you) to the Windows Vista Ultimate screenshot. Chetblong 13:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Visual styles

With regards to the visual styles section. As well as selecting an overall appearance, the user may also change the appearance of the Start Menu. By right-clicking on the Task Bar and selecting Properties, you can switch the Start Menu into a Classic menu. This menu is available in the Aero, Basic, Standard and Classic modes but is turned off by default. It really does function like Windows 2000, unlike the menu give to you by Vista as standard, this means that although the Windows Classic function of Vista makes everything look not as good it doesn't change functionality that much. See; http://astrolox.googlepages.com/vistastyles Astrolox 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hardware and software requirements

<<Same hardware requirements as currently>> There are also some significant software requirements. Software that runs OK in previous versions of Microsoft Windows may not install, run correctly or run at all under Windows Vista. Software known to cause particular problems include:

  • Device drivers. Generally, Windows Vista-specific device drivers need to be obtained. Windows Vista comes with a much larger base of standard device drivers, but they may not support all of the device's features. Some hardware may not have a Vista device driver available and may not be useable with Vista.[1]
  • Anti-virus software integrates closely with the operating system, and generally needs to be upgraded to a Vista-compatible version. [2]
  • Some software may need to be upgraded to the latest version to run on Vista.[3] This may be a free upgrade, or it may be at cost.
  • Often software needs to be installed by an administrator to run correctly on Vista.

Some organisations are deciding against upgrading now because of software incompatibilities.[4]

[edit] Desktops, Notebooks, Tablet PCs and Media Centers

How is a media center a type of computer in the same sense as the other three? Media centers is a subcatagory of either desktops, notebooks or Tablet PCs. Josh the Nerd 14:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Josh

Because media centers don't go on a desktop, aren't notebooks, and aren't tablets. Remember that tablets and notebooks have pretty much the same innards, but differ only in the user interface and form factors. Media centers differ from desktop computers in the same two ways. -/- Warren 12:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's a point of view whether or not something goes on a desktop. Dell makes media center notebooks. Dell also makes both media center and non-media center desktops with the same form factor. Josh the Nerd 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Josh

[edit] Instant Search

Do we really require a {{fact}}tag for this? It's evident that Instant Search is faster than classic search found in previous versions of windows. Moreover, because it's evident, no one is going to prove the fact that Windows Vista search is faster than XP. Hence we'll never be able to cite. Please put in your thoughts... Mugunth 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation (to here) to remove the possibility of dispute, but I completely agree with you; it's rather silly to require a citation for something for something that is self-evident. Citations should only be required in the event that in lieu of any citation, it would either be disputable whether the fact in question is true or if it could be original research. And it hardly needs to be said that if something is independantly verifiable by a significant fraction of the entire population, it is of course not original research (e.g., in the article on fingers, stating that humans have 5 of them per hand is not original research and requires no citation). Sadly, some wiki editors, in their (indisputably completely well-intentioned!) zeal for everything to be verified, occasionally need a gentle reminder of this... Simxp 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not self evident and this is an encylcopaedia not an MS advert. The overhead of searching has simply been moved into background indexing which means the overall OS is slower. How much slower and how significant this is, is a matter of debate. The same functionality was available in earlier versions of the OS but turned off because of speed constraints. As an encyclopaedia we should not be supporting value judgements but stating facts. --Nickj69 09:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm rather puzzled by your words. That Microsoft has implemented a non-modal incremental find tool into the start menu in Vista (known as Instant Search and based on WDS) is a fact, is not disputed, and is certainly not a "value judgement". (That this "means the overall OS is slower" as you claim is, on the other hand, not only not self-evident but is not evident in the least -- the only mention of speed in the Instant Search article is in the context of it using low-priority I/O; thus you would need a reliable source to back up your claim.) Simxp 00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The only claim the article makes is that the indexed search returns results faster, which is definitely self evident. It nowhere makes any claims about the performance of the indexing engine (which btw, kicks in only when you wont notice, and backs off when you resume working). The indexing overhead is there wherever indexes are used, from desktop search apps to databases. The definition of index states that it makes retrieval "less computationally intensive"; note that this definition excludes the cost of indexing. So saying that indexing speeds up searches is indeed valid. Though it can be incorporated into the article that a file must be pre-indexed for instant search to span over it. But saying that a deferred indexing makes the overall OS slow, without any attribution whatsoever, is definitely OR. --soum (0_o) 08:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Edition

Product descriptions in general, are very marketing driven. They do not offer an unbiased opinion of the versions. The Basic version sounds like it is crippled from the statement in this article, "for users with low needs.". It should be stated that the biggest feature missing is Aero, and 3rd party software is in now way, hindered.

[edit] hlp files

In section concerning removed features, article dealing with removal of .hlp file support does not make it clear that it is the MS application that opens .hlp files that is prohibited from being reintroduced to the system not .hlp files themselves. Clarification would be nice, either rephrase the statement or use this qoute from ref 27 directly: "Also, third-party programs that include .hlp files are prohibited from redistributing the Windows Help program together with their products". Ondrej, 16 May 2007

Do we really need to specify that other companies aren't allowed to include a specific Windows file with their software, when they're not allowed to include any of the other zillion Windows files, either?

[edit] Shortening the Intro

I shortened the intro to two paragraphs. The general reading pattern of a person viewing a web page is F-shaped, so the introduction should not be longer than that. I also reworded the DRM part. "Digital Rights Management technologies aimed at restricting the copying of protected digital media" makes it sound like a positive thing.Altarbo 13:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel that some important information has been cut out of the introduction here, and I've made some changes to it adding material back in - see what you think. In particular, having links to articles like that on UAC and DRM is extremely important, given the number of people who'll be coming to the article interested in just those. Your "revised" DRM introduction doesn't read neutrally at all - wikipedia's goal isn't to tell everyone DRM's bad, it's to present facts about it neutrally - whether you think it's a "good thing" or not, "Digital Rights Management technologies aimed at restricting the copying of protected digital media" is a textbook definition of what, factually, DRM is designed to do. Pointing out the benefits, and shortfalls, of DRM and making value judgements about it can, should be, and is done elsewhere. njan 13:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it's fine. It's still a little long; but better than before and the article in general needs to be cleaned up. (not so much the writing as the layout.) I don't really feel like my DRM statement showed any NNPOV. In my view it's an NPOV violation to say that it restricts "copying of protected digital media" and to call it "rights management". That seems like a value judgement. I understand the importance to hyperlink the DRM article though.Altarbo 20:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your entire set of changes. Frankly, the writing was awful, and is below the level of quality expected of an encyclopedia identified by the community as one of the best articles we've got.
More specific items: Using acronyms like "OS" in a lead section of an encyclopedia is tacky. Using words like "latest" to describe something isn't appropriate given the various connotations of the word. A WP:LEAD should be able to succinctly summarise the entire subject and require no further reading on the part of the user; that's why we mention things like the new version of the .NET Framework, several of the most discussed end-user features, and underlying architectural changes. The plural of "Criticism" is not "Criticisms", so that change doesn't make sense either. Finally, it's important that we phrase things in terms of Microsoft's "intentions", rather than authoritatively stating things like "Vista has much improved security". That's not our job as an encyclopedia. That's for history to judge, and in time (say, 5 years) we can reference sources that show that Vista did indeed have improved security over its predecessors -- if it turns out to be true. -/- Warren 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see your point about the usage of OS. I didn't write the "latest" part. What you currently have is not succinct. It does not give an explanation of Vista that "require[s] no further reading on the part of the user". What do you mean about criticism?
What you currently have does not deal with Microsoft's intentions. It's an ad. "Windows Vista has hundres of fabulous new features . . ." is not an encyclopedia. The writing quality in general of the article is very low. It is not easy to understand. It sounds like an ad for Vista. It's poorly organised. It's far too bloated. I'll take your comments into consideration in what I write in the future, but the article as it is now is not the way it should stay.
Finally, I think I fundamentally disagree with your style of writing. People when reading an article on the net will read the first two paragraphs. Then, based on that they will read the article, read a section of the article, skim through the article, or leave. There is reasearch to back this up. This isn't my style. It's how humans read. The first two paragraphs could not possibly give a complete understanding of Windows Vista. Take a look at the Angkor Wat article. It just flat out states that it is "the epitome of the high classical style of Khmer architecture."
An encyclopedia does not just deal with intentions. Do we say the holocaust was Hitler's attempt to improve Germany? No.Altarbo 05:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
True, Wikipedia does not deal with our intentions. But that was not present earlier. What was there (regd MS' stated goals) was unbiased reporting of facts. Its not any controversial edit; Microsoft admitted it made security a top priority, and every other publication agrees. So it is neither advertising, nor OR, but simply reporting. And mentioning features is not advertising. Anyone who wants to read about Vista will care about its advantages. Since we cannot opine about advantages, we have to limit ourselves to reporting the most visible features. And its most prominent criticism. Mentioning that is very important for the summary to stand out on its own. The current lead is severlely lacking in all these respects, the entire article has to be read to know these aspects. It does not stand on its own as is expected by WP:LEAD. I am in support of restoring the previous version. --soum (0_o) 06:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"So it is neither advertising, nor OR, but simply reporting." You can have nothing but veriafiable facts and it could still be advertising. You said it doesn't conform to WP:LEAD. WP:LEAD says that the intro should be a "concise overview". The previous intro was not that. It was a long stream of positive comments about Vista that don't help to give the reader a general picture that reflects reality. You're saying that the previous intro conformed to WP:LEAD better because it stood alone. I disagree. A brown dog is more like a black dog than a brown bear.
If you think that previous version is superior, please explain specifically what you feel I have left out that is necessary. Explain why it is necessary for the overview (not the article in general). If you think it was more concise, more accesible, or easier to understand please explain what about my writing is confusing.Altarbo 07:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, advertising can be composed of verifiable facts, but the previous lead wasnt so (well, may be a line or to were POV). And I didnt say your writing was confusing. My only point is that it doesnt summarize the Vista properly. When people ask about Vista, the first question is "What is in it?" or "How is it better?" and "What is not present?". The only way to answer this is to list the topmost features. Just saying it has an UI overhaul and an expanded managed API is a gross understatement of its new features. So a better "feature list" is needed. The previous lead was much better in this respect. And just stating that would not be advertisement, unless we introduce marketing speak into it. Also, since Vista has received a fair amount of criticism. That makes it quite a visible aspect. Leaving it out of a summary makes it not only lacking, but also violates NPOV as we are reporting from only one aspect. Once these are fixed, your edits would turn quite similar to what was there. Thats why I said we should revert to the previous version and work on it rather than adding to what you wrote and reinventing the whee. --soum (0_o) 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
"Concise" is relative to the total size of the article, as well as to the entire subject. Windows Vista is a very broad subject; we have something like 30 articles that discuss various things about the operating system. Another important consideration: Windows 2000 and Windows XP are both Featured Articles, and they both have a lead section that is of comparable length to this article's lead section. It's just how we do things around here. -/- Warren 15:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now starting to look edit-war-like - there obviously isn't concensus regarding the shortening of the introduction, so repetitively introducing the changes back into the article after they get reverted by multiple editors simply isn't appropriate. Please discuss the changes here before reintroducing them. Thanks. njan 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

First. Sorry for removing the UAC and DRM hyperlinks Njan. That wasn't intentional.

Next. I want to address people's reasons for keeping the intro long. So far there is, "'Concise' is relative to the total size of the article." Yes and this article is far too long. Take a look at the articles on Welding and Angkor Wat. They are broader topics, more important topics and have smaller articles. Welding has a longer introduction, but read the first two paragraphs.
There is also, "When people ask about Vista, the first question is 'What is in it?' or 'How is it better?' and 'What is not present?'." These are the first questions they ask if they are thinking about buying it. If someone were writing a report and needed info about Vista, would these be the most important things to them? If someone heard about Windows Vista and just wanted to know what it was, would these be the most important things to them? No. The UAC and DRM links were very valid points. But a list of features does not belong in the lead.Altarbo 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's contended the notion of shortening the introduction so far. The issues people have are with *what* has been removed, and *how* it's been replaced. Assuming no-one objects to shortening the introduction, I'd start by making a quick, back-of-envelope-list of what needs to be in the introduction, and codifying it here for people to disagree with or add to first - if you do that I'd suggest your chances of making this (quite worthy) change would be significantly greater. The reason I prodded you about discussing this change is because it (seemed|seems) like people (were|are) just bounding ahead with making changes (or reverting them) without discussing their points of view first. :) njan 16:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'll try that.Altarbo 20:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
That work has already been done, njan. The lead section as it stands now represents a fair cross-section of everything else that's in the article and its nine primary sub-articles. Don't let one new user's views on article length be a distraction -- the lead section has not changed significantly in the six months since Vista's release, and there's a very good reason for that: it's fine as it is, both in length and content. Surely there's better things to work on. -/- Warren 17:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Why is this page semi-protected. It's not a biography of a famous people or any thing. Please unprotect it. 65.93.211.151 20:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Protection Policy doesn't extend solely to biographies - indeed, the first criteria given for "Indefinite semi-protection" is for "Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism", which certainly includes this article. If you believe that this protection is inappropriate, the place to raise this issue is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. njan 21:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I'm glad the Criticism section was finally added. I got banned for trying to add something similar about a year ago. 128.187.0.178 21:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenshot

Why is it that every screenshot I see of Windows has the Start menu open? It's not needed, you know, not even for detail. It just gives away some private parts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astroview120mm (talk • contribs).

There's nothing wrong with those screenshots. The start menu is a huge part of the operating system, and showing a screenshot of it is necessary. — Alex(U|C|E) 06:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, most versions of Windows automaticly open the Start Menu the first time they're started. So they're probably just screenshots of the first time Windows is started. Also, most screenshots I see just show the default Start Menu, so there's not really anything private about it. Josh the Nerd 12:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC) Josh
Actually Windows Vista doesn't automatically open the Start Menu. But I think it should be open anyway to show a very important feature of Windows Vista --Chetblong 14:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The start menu is open because windows 95 - xp has the version of the OS written on the left hand side of the bar. 203.98.31.34 07:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with the current lead.

This is a response to Warren's claim that the lead is fine as is. I've listed the problems I feel exist below.

"Windows Vista contains hundreds of new features; some of the most significant include an updated graphical user interface and visual style dubbed Windows Aero, improved searching features, new multimedia creation tools such as Windows DVD Maker, and completely redesigned networking, audio, print, and display sub-systems."

This is too much information. It borders on advertising and would not be found a print encyclopedia.

Vista also aims to increase the level of communication between machines on a home network using peer-to-peer technology, making it easier to share files and digital media between computers and devices.

This is false or at least misleading. Vista actually makes it artificially difficult to share info on Vista machine with a machine running another OS. Vista has increased network support for Vista to Vista communication.

For developers, Vista includes version 3.0 of the .NET Framework, which aims to make it significantly easier for developers to write high-quality applications than with the traditional Windows API.

I'm pretty much fine with this. However, "Windows" would be a better adjective than "high quality". It provides actual information and is not POV.

Microsoft's primary stated objective with Windows Vista, however, has been to improve the state of security in the Windows operating system.[1] One common criticism of Windows XP and its predecessors has been their commonly exploited security vulnerabilities and overall susceptibility to malware, viruses and buffer overflows. In light of this, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates announced in early 2002 a company-wide 'Trustworthy Computing initiative' which aims to incorporate security work into every aspect of software development at the company. Microsoft stated that it prioritized improving the security of Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 above finishing Windows Vista, thus delaying its completion.[2]

This is too long. There should only be a sentence or two about security. If it's that important, then create a section in the main body of the article to cover it.

Windows Vista has been the target of a number of negative assessments by various groups. Criticism of Windows Vista has included protracted development time, more restrictive licensing terms, the inclusion of a number of new Digital Rights Management technologies aimed at restricting the copying of protected digital media, and the usability of other new features such as User Account Control.

The DRM is a larger addition (in terms of hours spent programming, bytes of code, etc.) than many of the new features mentioned, but the article only covers it in criticism ghettos. I also have a huge problem with the wording. I've shown this section to two people of above-average computer literacy. Neither of them could tell what it meant, and when I prodded them to guess, neither got it right. (One thought it would prevent you from downloading songs, and one thought it would prevent you from copying cds.) Digital Rights Management is a term that was created by the people who implement it. It is a flowery PR term for something negative. More importantly it is unclear and confusing.

Finally I disagree with your assertion that parts of the article should stay a certain way, because they've been that way for a long time. Much of the lead was written or is rooted in versions of the lead written before the release of Vista. It is based on MS advertising. If someone says we're going to build the world's largest train, then write an article saying that they claim that. When the train comes out, if it happens to be average size, but still significant because it is the world's fastest train; you change the article accordingly.Altarbo 01:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You make a lot of claims here, but you haven't backed up your assertions with any kind of reliable sources. For example, where'd you get your information that "DRM is a larger addition in terms of hours spent programming, bytes of code, etc. than many of the new features mentioned"? You made that up, didn't you? And, honestly, nobody cares about your opinion (or mine) about whether the term "Digital Rights Management" makes sense. This is an encyclopedia -- we as editors don't get to decide what the terms are. Microsoft and many varied news sources and publications use that name, therefore, we must do the same. We really don't have a choice in the matter.
Parts of the lead section were written before Windows Vista's release, yes. Why is that a problem? It still contains hundreds of new features (Features new to Windows Vista was at one point one of Wikipedia's longest articles), and it still aims to accomplish certain things. "Aims to" is an extremely important qualifier here, and you'll see variations of it used a lot in articles that meet WP:NPOV... it's perfectly fine (and perfectly encyclopedic) to state Microsoft's intentions w/r/t Vista; it's not marketing language. Learn the difference.
People who passionately hate Microsoft products and technologies tend to automatically treat anything that doesn't sound negative as being "marketing", but that's their own personal biases and zealous hatred at work; it isn't a reflection of reality. -/- Warren 12:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
EDIT: nevermind. I got about halfway through writing my proposal for what I thought should go into the lead, and realized that any work on this article (Windows Vista) will turn out like this. I don't plan to come to this page again or do any more work on this article. Working on welding, more obscure software, basketball, and history articles is much more rewarding. People don't get attached to those things, or enslave themselves to those things the way people do with religion, drugs, race, nationality, language, politics, or operating systems. Bye. Altarbo 07:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thurrott on Windows Classic

I have removed a Paul Thurrott opinion piece concerning the Windows Classic visual style:

"Technology author Paul Thurrott noted Windows Vista's classic visual style "hides much of the useful new functionality that's available in other UI types," and that the "massive changes Microsoft made to Windows Explorer" also affect Windows Classic."

Also see this note in context of his original article. This information is unsubstantiated, moreover, it would be better suited in criticism although I would object to it being featured in the page at all. It's especially not well suited to the Visual Styles section in its current form, which is directed at purely information. Jebuonag 00:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System requirements: DVDROM?

Is it really necesarry to own a DVD-ROM or won't a standard CDROM reader be fine? Stovetopcookies 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista is normally distributed on DVDs, which cannot be read by normal CD readers. Unless you have a notebook computer, it's not much of a hassle to obtain a DVD reader. --Sigma 7 03:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft does have a CD version of Vista available for people who don't have DVD drives, but I think you have to order it directly from them. -/- Warren 03:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article or section (the entire Windows Vista article) is written like an advertisement.

It needs {{advert}} on it. Admins, put it on please. Or just balance the info; as it is, it looks like the new in-built features are GOOD, thus violating WP:NPOV, which states that they must be placed in a neutral light. Please add information on their evil sides as well. 71.34.252.168 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If the article was lacking those, it would've never passed GA in the first place. So no. (→zelzany - fish) 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This may well be the first time I've seen someone's signature HTML being longer than their comment. - Dudesleeper · Talk 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
What are your specific concerns about the article? What text, exactly, would you like to see changed, and how? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of Windows versions

I would like to add a link to Comparison of Windows versions.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.78.86 (talk • contribs) 8:15, May 27, 2007

Y Done Harryboyles 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More editions

there should as be Enterprise edition in the acticle. User:Amrykid

The Enterprise edition is covered in the Editions and pricing section, and in the Windows Vista editions and pricing article. Harryboyles 02:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for External Links

Here is a very good review/first impression of Windows Home Premium, which actually shows how to use an update disc to install the full version on a computer with no operating system. I suggest it be added to the Reviews or External Links section--

http://www.epinions.com/content_379836927620

Kengland45 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally we only include reviews that have gone through a reliable publication process per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The review you provided comes from the same area as, say, Amazon.com or eBay. There just isn't the reliability there to justify including the link. Harryboyles 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Market adoption

I didn't know if this should be mentioned, but I don't think windows vista is being adopted very quickly.As the successor to the most popular operating system in the world, you'd think people would jump on it pretty fast, but apparently after a year or so its still not even as popular as windows 2000, which was released 7 years ago,or even mac os [5].

Was windows xp this slow at being more popular than its predecessor? Rodrigue 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It has sold more copies than XP did at this point after the release. Paul Cyr 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, given the general increase in population, and the widening popularity and sales of PCs, that should be the norm, but I guess the slow adoption may be normal. Rodrigue 23:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

PC usage has increased ~60% since 2002, yet Vista sold 20mil copies in its first month whereas XP took two months to hit 17mil sales. Vista is selling at a higher rate per PC capita. Paul Cyr 00:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Vista sales are huge because Microsoft has stalled and, in some cases, eliminated XP distribution to retailers. When we can get XP, we sell XP. Unfortunately, we can't get XP. This makes the Vista numbers inflated, because we don't have the XP to sell - people are being strong-armed into purchasing Vista. 66.194.187.10 17:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
So? And the same thing happened with XP. The fact is, Vista is outselling XP per computer capita. If anyone has any reliable sources to the contrary and wishes to add them then say so, otherwise talk pages are not appropriate for speculation and discussion. Paul Cyr 19:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista Support Forums

Should Forums dedicated to Windows Vista support be listed in the main windows vista wikipedia article? Like the 3rd party Windows Vista Support Forumand other forums dedicated to this operating system? Daabomb

The forum you provided only has 29 posts. I wouldn't call that "The Best Microsoft Windows Vista Forum On The Web" and I certainly wouldn't call that valuable enough for Wikipedia. Harryboyles 03:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A Windows Vista forum I find useful is called Vistaheads. It has everything from Newsgroups in many languages and Microsoft Windows Vista Knowledge Base Articles among others.Hiddenstealth 21:06, 06 July 2007 (GMT)