Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista

message: I know that the Gutmann content has been greatly discussed in the past, however since a majority of that discussion the article itself has changed significantly. As such, this section is entirely too long relative to the rest of the article. It should undergo some significant reduction to bring it in-line with the rest of the article, especially considering the reactions which question his credibility or authority on the subject. Your thoughts? I'll take a quick look now to see if I can simplify, but it may be something I'll have to work on later -- I simply wanted to raise the issue up the flagpole now, and head off any flack from the other editors. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored it.  Time doesn't change the fact that the criticism was made and got a lot of attention.   -/- Warren 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The entire Gutman section does not pass the test for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. It falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources firmly and is therefore should not be on Wikipedia. As proof just check the sources for Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Reaction_to_criticism. LordShard (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gutmann Content 

message: I can't see why this section has been moved here from the main Windows Vista page. Yes, it does have a critical result but the section itself should be in the main page. It's not criticism. Can we have some discussion about this please? peterl (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There should have been a dicussion before the move. Regardless of where the consensus puts it, its POV needs to be addressed (perhaps the POV was the catalyst for the move?) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's been moved around twice now. How do we go about getting a consensus? I'm happy to do some NPOV editing as well. peterl (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If it is biased, then it should be fixed or deleted, not moved to an article about the position towards which the information is biased. In other words, the bias towards criticism doesn't make it belong in the criticism section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then if someone fixes it and gives it a NPOV overhaul, it can be moved back.  Until then, moving it here is better than deleting it. Exodite (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public reception and sales 

message: this is a minor thing and I might be wrong, but doesn't quake 4 use opengl instead of 'DirectX 9 or older', as mentioned in software compatability > games?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.239.162 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so as well. Quake 4 states that an OpenGL compatible graphics card is required. No mention of DirectX is made. Additionally, Quake runs on Linux, although it could support DirectX as well. Cyrus Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (I know this is late) Partially correct: Quake 4 uses OpenGL, and not Direct3D. But Direct3D is just part of DirectX. Quake 2 for instance uses DirectInput, which is part of DirectX. I figure Quake 4 uses other components of DirectX as well. The official sys reqs do list DirectX 9.0c as needed (for both videocard and soundcard), although that could just be to trick you so you have "up-to-date" hardware. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  quake 4 and directx 

message: Dear Vista sufferers, and Vista upgraders to XP,
I propose the inclusion of a table with the retail prices of the individual Vista products globally. This way we can easily compare the prices, and see how much we must shell out for an "upgrade" to WV.George Adam Horváth (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I credit Microsoft with a bit more sense than to deliberately antagonise a party that's already shown itself willing to impose large fines when it sees fit. Truth is, Europe (Western Europe anyway) is a rip-off in general and those of us who live there are used to that; this isn't a Microsoft-specific thing.
"At the current exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers could be paying almost double their United States counterparts for the same software, although this may be partly due to value added taxes the UK assesses." VAT is 17.5% of the net retail price, which doesn't go anywhere near close to accounting for the discrepancy. 217.171.129.72 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing 

message: It is abundently clear that their is a POV problem with this article.  I dont have the time to re-write the article, but perhaps the more neutral editors can try and keep an eye on this article.
For instnace, I offer "Adam horvath"'s contribution above... 
Wikipedia is not a junior-school haxor club.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, my contribution to the article was in an appropriate style, although you may find that the POV of my comment above is somewhat biased. That's probably because I've used vista. In any case, discussion pages are supposed to be the colloquial places where people can recommend things in a more personal way, in a style that is different from an encyclopaedia article. I'm sure you, dear unsigned contributor, also agree with this. George Adam Horváth (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: What about addressing the Windows 2008 Workstation issue in the article? Vista done right...--Kozuch (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 2008 Workstation 

message: Since this issue is not Vista specific, it should be removed. Especially if it has been like this since Windows was introduced.
:It's not Vista-specific.  See kb899855 Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The only one of the three citations in the paragraph that actually has any criticism in it is from *2001*, and its main complaint is that Microsoft OSes "don't follow the POSIX standard" -- nonwithstanding that POSIX defines a standard for Unix-like OSes...  -- simxp (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right then I'll remove it..if anyone has any objections, revert. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.138 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Co-ordinated Universal Time? 

message: Why are only articles that promote a certain point of view being added and not articles that refute them? That seems like a gross violation of NPOV to me. --soum talk 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  There's no point in having these links.  If people have something to say, it should be said by adding verifiable material from reliable sources to the article.  I'm going to remove them.  WalterGR (talk | contributions) 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Games
"Vista has implemented DirectX 10, and Vista also has DirectX 9.0L for backward compatibility.[52] In Paul Thurrott's review of Vista[53], he notes that the Windows XP-compatible games he tested worked fine in Vista, with the exception of two games published by id Software: Doom 3 and Quake 4. Thurrott suggests that the problems might be related to the graphics driver, as "Microsoft says [these titles] should run fine in Vista.""
It says right there, the problems might be related to the drives, thus making this critisism pointless. Dvferret (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Wageslave (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to this performance test (ExtremeTech is quite reliable IMO), Vista's gaming nightmares are completely gone. Those were only driver issues. - xpclient talk 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Games Section 

message: ::: What does [Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Software_bloat] serve other than to have a sub-heading of "Software bloat".
::: Concerns have been expressed that Windows may be experiencing software bloat. Speaking in 2007 at the University of Illinois, Microsoft "Distinguished Engineer" Eric Traut said, "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined." Former PC World editor Ed Bott has expressed skepticism about the claims of bloat, noting that almost every single operating system that Microsoft has ever sold had been criticized as "bloated" when they first came out; even those now regarded as the exact opposite, such as MS-DOS.[47]
::: Why is that paragraph even present?  Its just a hit-paragraph.
::: Wageslave (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive been wondering about it also.  Its just as bloated as OSX is.Dvferret (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Software bloat

message: I propose that we delete this section as well.  I dont believe it is needed.  I believe that once again it IS the developer's fault for NOT updating the software for the new operating system.Dvferret (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, at least it shuld be removed from its own section and be integrated into the article above.  Also, the very first line of the Software compatibility needs to be made more neutral.  Go to it.  Wageslave (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's gone.  If someone disagree's, discuss it here before trying to add it back.  Thanks.  Dvferret (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Strange, I thought that was notable or common - it's happened to me at least. I'll see what I can find. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific Programs Deletion? 

message: The pricing section needs to be rewritten to be more neutral sounding.  Right now it is very biased, liked with using the word "striking".  Dvferret (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing Section 

message: Shouldn't we include a section that talks about the criticism Vista has received, due to it's many "copies" of the Mac OSX system? See this link for more info... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIUkwPybtM
:I've just watched the video, and -- do you really think there's anything in there worthy of inclusion in the article?  Pogue gave five examples to make his point:  Using triangles to collapse folder lists, calendar program, photo organiser program, Spotlight/Windows Search, Widgets / Gadgets, and Chess Program.  Lets look at each of these in more detail:
**With regards to bundled Chess, Calendar, and Photo organiser programs, the general trend for modern OSes is towards greater bundling of middleware apps.  Neither Microsoft nor Apple have been particular innnovators in any of these.  Pogue notes that Windows Calendar looks fairly similar to iCal, which it does -- in the way that both look similar to every single one of the hundreds of other calendar apps ever made!  There's not really much you can do with a desktop calendar app.  (It's also worth noting that Microsoft bundled a calendar with Windows 3.1, years before iCal).  And of course the chess programs look alike, they're both chess programs.  See also: Gnome chess (glchess), whatever chess proggy KDE bundles, etc.
**With regards to Widgets and Gadgets; no, Microsoft wasn't a particular innovator with this.  Neither was Apple: as the dashboard (software) article notes; Apple ripped widgets off a free program called Konfabulator.  It's also worth noting that Windows Sidebar (gadgets) were developed in the summer of 2000, some four years before OS X 10.4.
**With regards to Instant Search/Spotlight; again, neither are particular innovators; third party metadata indexed Search-As-You-Type programs, such as Copernic Desktop Search, had been around for years before either Apple or Microsoft's implementations.  And even if they haden't, is "faster searching" really an incredibly original, stealable idea?  Are AMDs copycats because they "stole" the idea of making CPUs faster from Intel?  Hardly!
**And, finally, the use of triangles to collapse folder lists.  ...Seriously? Tree views have been a native UI widget in Windows for ages.  Windows 3 had them.  If people are finding it necessary to point to the use of a triangle rather than a + sign to indicate node expandability as "proof" that Vista copied OS X, that may say something about the strength of the argument.
:So, as far as I can see, every example pointed to in the video is either ridiculously trivial, or had been implemented by third-parties (or the Free Software world) years before either Apple or Microsoft came to the game. -- simxp (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copying of Mac OSX 

message: I read the security section, and I'm not sure it has enough merit to be part of this article. It seems like unfounded conjecture from companies who depend on security flaws existing pushing out propaganda about the BETA versions of the software.
Furthermore, have any of their predictions come true? If not, I think we should eliminate the section. 216.6.128.244 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security Section 

message: I see someone has tagged the sentence fragment
However, because all users are Administrators by default in previous versions of Windows with security (Windows 2000 and XP){disputed}, ...
Looking at the wiki links and definitions, it seems a "disputed" tag should be used for an entire article, and a "dubious" tag used for a single statement, unless that erroneous statement calls the entire article into disrepute. I changed the tag to dubious - there seem to be sufficient refernces, even in this section, to say that while the isolated statement may be questionable that doesn't affect the totality of the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.117.67 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Account section and wiki tag 

message: This article and/or this one should probably be incorporated into the article, if anyone who cares about it wants to take the initiative. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Project Mojave

message: Not to step on anybody's toes, but this new section looks a bit one-sided. I don't really take issue to the wording, as that can be fixed, but instead the cited sources. CNET is indeed verifiable, but these are very old articles, approaching a year now come to think of it.
The beta for Windows XP SP3 may have indeed been faster than Vista last November, but that was 9 months ago. It's an easy mistake to judge software on past flaws. I still hear people rejecting steam because it was slow during the Half Life 2 launch, or lambasting the Xbox 360 for flaws of the original Xbox. Criticism needs to be current, or labelled as a historic complaint. It's also confusing for the article to say such things, when a few sections earlier a recently added bit states that the performance gap has disappeared.
Rather than just get into a revert war, I've taken it to the talk page and added a POV check template. What do you think? -Skorpus McGee (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the CNET source to the Performance section where it belongs, and deleted the rest of the section as !NPOV WP:WEASELy rubbish.  I mean, "it has been suggested that the *real* upgrade to Vista is XP SP3"?  Come on.  -- simxp (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows XP versus Windows Vista 

message: The sentence "Microsoft has recommended that programs be written in such a way to avoid requiring elevation for some time." has two problems.  First, grammar.  I suspect that "for some time" describes how long Microsoft has been recommending whatever it it.  If that's the case, the sentence should start with "For some time".  Otherwise, apparently elevation should be avoided for some amount of time.  The second problem is that the term "elevation" is a jargon term and should be defined.  
John Stimson (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Account Control 

message: "64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode; this feature cannot be easily overridden by system administrators."
Is there any truth to this? I'm not sure if the inline citations support that claim. Unless I am misunderstanding what this does, there are at least a couple of easy ways to disable driver signing. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misunderstanding this.  Pre-release versions of x64 Vista allowed an override via BcdEdit.exe, but this feature was killed with the production build. Various people have subsequently tried to get around this, e.g. Astiv, however Microsoft moved swiftly to close this down by forcing Verisign to revoke their certificate.  There are temporary workarounds for developers (See How to Disable Signature Enforcement during Development), however this workaround needs to be applied manually with each reboot. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is incorrect.  3rd party programs which modify the BCD can still allow for unsigned drivers to be loaded without needing to manually allow this each reboot.  One such program is EasyBCD.  I know this for a fact as I am running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 with SP1 installed and also using non-signed drivers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.65.245.231 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ^ One such program is EasyBCD Great, but EasyBCD is NOT freeware. 189.120.156.210 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver signing section - lead sentence 

message: A commonly reported problem (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=vista+column+folder&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) is that Vista automatically detects the filetypes in a given folder, and provides what it thinks to be the best columns and sorting of said folder. It does this even when a user has customised a given folder to sort the way he wants; that is, anywhere between an hour and a month later the folder will, upon opening, have reverted back to the incorrect settings Vista already gave it.
The problem was not fixed in SP1. I understand Microsoft regard it as a 'feature' rather than a bug. It's really annoying.
81.101.255.144 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Folder sorting & columns bug 

message: I put the tag on this page because this page is extremely one-sided.
Just because there is critisizm doesn't mean that that critisizm should be stated as true or false.
75.60.13.180 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Errr, what?  If sources are available that disprove or discredit the criticism, we need to provide them as well.  If we don't do that, then the article becomes one-sided.  Given that you didn't actually provide any examples of problems (or make any attempt at correcting them), I'm removing the tag.  Warren -talk- 19:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: Microsoft DHCP bugs make Windows lose networking describes problem and provides help, but only this helped me. --Espoo (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  networking problems 

message: I'm surprised this article does not mention the long delay in releasing Vista.  Development took, what, five years - plus an extra year after release to fix the many defects before it became stable.  I'm not confident enough of the details to add anything to the article - can anyone help?  --Robinson weijman (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was not hard to find some info.  The BBC noted that Vista was delayed, from the second half of 2006 to January 2007 and on their Q&A page on the Vista delay it specifically mentions original release date of August.  That makes a six month delay (for domestic markets) - but that was on top of the five years development time.  Which leaves me with two questions:
# Was the development time originally intended to take five years?
# How long was it before Vista became "stable" - after January 2007 release?
--Robinson weijman (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delays 

message: I think this should be a major criticism of the licensing agreement.  
For people who re-install a clean, legally owned copy of windows, on their computer on a regular basis, after a certain number of re-installs, the user will get a message that their operating system will stop working in several days if they don't contact Microsoft.  If you call their customer service number, which has been outsourced to India, and try to speak to a real person, you are hung up on repeatedly.  I wasted at hour of my time trying to do this.  You must use an automated system to enter the zillion codes that windows give you.  You must tell them that you are only using the software on one computer (a chance to make more profits from licensing?).  Microsoft will also keep a recording of your voice for legal purposes.   Why, if I give Microsoft my hard earned money, do I get treated like this?  
Given a choice between something else and Microsoft, I will take the something else, ty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.171.66 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You should go to Criticism of Microsoft with that, since it has nothing to do with Vista in particular. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm aware, Windows XP has a similar system. And I'm guessing Windows 7 will have it too. What part is Vista-specific? Because if it's not Vista-specific, or if it's a complaint about bad customer-service, it should be done in Criticism of Microsoft, not here. --DanielPharos (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Stops Working For Legal Owners Of Software / Licensing Issues 

message: I also hate wikipedians... this tops the spot.
Critisims of IE was HORRIBLE... most of it misinformation and almost all of it just tacked on.
This page? It looks like Critisims of Firefox. Everything that can be removed is removed.
Don't mind me, but VISTA has a million odd critisims that idiots typically don't know about.
Such as "Simplification of Complex Systems"
You now have zero control over defrag, defrag offers no reports, and the time estimate is "between a few min and several hours" so no real "% complete"
Is that not relivant?
How about every OTHER additional feature? Volume Control has been reduced to "Master Volume" and "program volume" while program volume is cool... where are the options to change individual settings?
Let alone that Vista removes ALL advanced settings. Want to delete an extention? TOO BAD, learn to hack with regedit instead. Do you want to, change the audio rendering settings to full software emulation? TOO BAD, Removed because "it was confusing". Do you want to configure network devices? TOO BAD!!! Do you want to do ANYTHING besides run software... too... f'n... bad.
I say again, this looks just like Critisims of Firefox. Any Critisim that can be removed, is removed... even those that are CONFIRMED by Mozilla Corp THEMSELVES are removed. Wikipedians being fanboi's and reverting changes because they aren't to their liking.
And as for the idiocy remarks. They SHOULD be placed in, Vista downgrades any settings that advanced users may use because "idiots may find them and screw up their computer" Sigh. Spleen Partially Vented, continuing on the quest to find out how to change advanced audio settings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate fanboi's 

message: I've added a sentence "and there is a risk of losing contents of files, that were previously virtualized, reverting to the original installed versions of these files."
If the "legacy" application installs empty database files by setup.exe application (process with this name gets the necessary privileges to install software into Program Files folder), and the user further uses the database and fills there some data, but lacks administrative rights in his token, user access to the files is virtualized to the hidden folder, while the original installed files keep the empty version of the database. Switching off the UAC virtualization reveals again these empty installed databases (or ini-files etc.) and the contents, that the user filled into virtualized files are practically inaccessible...
This is a critical problem of UAC, which may disable the user from switching it off!
(Semi, 2010-03-04)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.121.112 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UAC disabling problem 

message: How exactly is this a criticism of Vista? It is off topic. and should be removed. 74.95.97.62 (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vistaster 

message: This page is for Criticsisms of Vista exclusively! Windows 7 is out and therefore many of these criticisms need to be moved to [] 74.95.97.62 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an update! 

message: One of the more important problems with Windows Vista at launch was poor driver support, particularly the ATI and nVidia graphics drivers.  This article should include the status and maturity of these two extremely important drivers at Vistas launch, but they are only obliquely referenced once.  Other drivers were also a problem to the extent that, in microsoft fashion, a microsoft exec made a fuss about how the vista laptop he got was crippled because of vista.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.178.90 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver Support 

message: Driver signing requirement is not new to Vista — previous x64 version of windows also required drivers to be signed. ï¿½ (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driver signing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070818140715/http://forums.microsoft.com:80/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17 to http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070902075248/http://windowsvistablog.com:80/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070902075248/http://windowsvistablog.com:80/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130317162823/http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/windows-vista-what-and-39s-missing/49 to http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/windows-vista-what-and-39s-missing/49
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6079215.html?tag=nl
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6181366.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070527075709/http://www.computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326043950/http://www.linchpinlabs.com:80/resources/atsiv/usage-design.html to http://www.linchpinlabs.com/resources/atsiv/usage-design.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090116025139/http://www.computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028440 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028440
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121121652/http://blogs.windows.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121121652/http://blogs.windows.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210134639/http://www.theinquirer.net:80/default.aspx?article=36148 to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409191856/http://www.crysis-online.com:80/page/system-requirements.html to http://www.crysis-online.com/page/system-requirements.html
*Added  tag to https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/workswithlist.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212060156/http://www.apcmag.com:80/5079/vistas_rip_off_australian_pricing to http://www.apcmag.com/5079/vistas_rip_off_australian_pricing
*Added  tag to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37140
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070203080346/http://www.computeractive.co.uk:80/computeractive/news/2173895/vilification-vista-pricing to http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2173895/vilification-vista-pricing
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706203635/http://www.microsoft.com:80/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015041946/http://computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004916&pageNumber=15 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004916&pageNumber=15#spp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215054804/http://www.microsoft.com:80/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5cb10f03-27f6-461d-a3db-d440b4ced7f6&DisplayLang=en to http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5cb10f03-27f6-461d-a3db-d440b4ced7f6&DisplayLang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 12 external links on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.linchpinlabs.com/resources/atsiv/usage-design.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028440
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410025415/http://www.pcgamerequirements.com/game-index/devil-may-cry-4-game-requirements/ to http://www.pcgamerequirements.com/game-index/devil-may-cry-4-game-requirements/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crysis-online.com/page/system-requirements.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704185657/http://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/certifiedlist.aspx to https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/certifiedlist.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apcmag.com/5079/vistas_rip_off_australian_pricing
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2173895/vilification-vista-pricing
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004916&pageNumber=15
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5cb10f03-27f6-461d-a3db-d440b4ced7f6&DisplayLang=en
*Added  tag to http://jn.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Tecnologia/Interior.aspx?content_id=962207
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100101142924/http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/07/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates to http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/07/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: One of the problems with Windows Vista not talked at all about in this article is the huge leap in minimum RAM requirements from XP to Vista. The system requirements of RAM for XP is only 64 MB, the system requirements for Vista is 1 GB, or 1,000 MB.  At the time that Vista, and then Windows 7 came out, our company was only using 128 MB of RAM for their Windows XP computers. I have one of the newer computers at home my company bought in 2005, it is an Optiplex GX-630, that came w/ 1 GB RAM, running XP, that computer due to the Architecture, (video card also stated by the article), is unsatisfactory in running Vista, or any Microsoft Operating System after XP.  The computer runs XP, and the modern version of Lubuntu 18.04 super.  A major problem for Vista was that the Hardware upon release was usually at 512 MB, or 1 GB, and is really unsatisfactory in running Windows Vista.  Now, I am typing this on a 12 year old laptop with Windows Vista on it, (also dual boot Lubuntu 16.04.6 LTS).  I have upgraded this laptop from 2 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM.  The change in system requirements of RAM is actually one of the major reasons Vista failed, rather the Marketing of Vista failed by Microsoft. The company I worked for had invested it's money in the IBM AS400 Mini Mainframe, and the software to run it.  Many companies did not, and were not able to make that jump at that time period. <https://www.technologytips.com/windows-system-requirements/>Easeltine (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAM Requirements