Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 3

message: Is there a need to mention that Windows Vista is based on a componentized architecture where the core OS is the WinPE and other end user features are added incrementally to it, allowing to mix and match only those functionalities that are needed? --Soumyasch 02:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Componentized architecture 

message: This article states that the Ultimate edition of Windows Vista may have "DVD ripping capabilities".
While I'm all for letting the legitimate owner of a DVD rip it to his hard drive so he can store and view his entire collection without having to physically use his discs (I'm just lazy, I guess, and hard drive space is cheap these days), I somehow can't see that happening what with all this new DRM technology being introduced. So where exactly does this quote come from?
Rawling 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD ripping 

message: Does WinFS stand for Windows File Storage Foundation, as listed in the article? As far as I know, no official name for WinFS has been announced and the codename WinFS is supposed to be derived from Windows Future Storage. --Soumyasch 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - it is a code-name, not an abbreviation AFAICS, so it is changed :) Just another star in the night T | @ | C 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what it currently is said to mean, FS in relation to filesystems often means exactly that. Doc Daneeka 03:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WinFS 

message: What does "Legitimate software" mean in the context of a source model? Does this mean any software that doesn't follow the source model of Windows Vista isn't legitimate? 70.92.174.251 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user edited that in a few minutes before you read the article; it has been reverted to its original definition, "Closed source". Warrens 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I failed to check the history. Thank you. 70.92.174.251 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legitimate software"? 

message: Looks a lot more coherent now. Good job. --Soumyasch 08:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I made a whole pile of edits to the article: Rewrote lead paragraph (still needs work), rewrote and expanded Overview, added a bunch of info on what each edition contains, reordered the "New features" list to reflect what I think is a good order of significance, added a small section titled "XP Features removed" (someone please come up with a better name for this), and changed several things in the Requirements section.  Please review my changes and improve things where it's needed!  I'd like very much for this article to be good enough to qualify for WP:GOOD, especially considering we're second only to Microsoft on a Google search for "windows vista", and we'll probably be heavily referenced in the times ahead.   Warrens 08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spring cleaning 

message: I think this copyrighted image should be removed.
:Which one? Screenshots of desktops are OK under fair use despite being copyrighted anyway, if you're talking about those. -- Northgrove 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it should be mentioned on the image's page  I think --Lothar25 14:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I am adding all the builds again beacause someone removed it and it is real important to understand the development of Windows Vista, so anyone, DO NOT DELETE THE BUILDS, you can make changes to it, BUT DON'T DELETE IT.   67.34.213.209 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The build history has been moved to Development of Windows Vista. --Soumyasch 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're interested in build history, please help with expanding Development of Windows Vista; this article needs to focus more on what Windows Vista *is*; in the long term, a build list isn't a significant in the grand scheme of things of the entire subject.  If you plan on contributing, please also make a user account so it'll be easier to participate in the conversation. :-)  Warrens 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding all the builds 

message: "A graphics card that uses AGP 8X or PCI Express x16 bus". Can we source this? More importantly, can we verify or confirm this is an actual requirement? (vs. some intern at MS simply tossing it on an evolving requirements list assuming everyone will be using AGP/PCIe, and then we see it spread all over the net). I'll go out on a limb, but I'm going to guess that this might become more and more of a topic of interest for the article as we approach the release -- lots of owners of otherwise 'up to spec' Dell Dimension budget systems come to mind ;)
I'm honestly confused about the requirement. Let's say you have a PCI card that meets or exceeds all the other Aero Glass requirements (They exist, i.e. FX 5700LE 256MB, 128bit): is there going to be some sort of hard-coded refusal to allow you to select Aero glass mode? Or more of a mere 'warning, your performance may suck'?
I'd love to hear from anyone with some info on this —This unsigned comment was added by 141.161.69.59 (talk • contribs) .
:Those requirements were released to TechNet by Microsoft and are only applicable to Vista Beta 1. — Alex (T|C|E) 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOES PCI IMPLY INABILITY TO RUN AERO GLASS? VIDEO CARD REQUIREMENTS 

message: I was under the impression there's Aero Glass for the transparent style, Aero Basic for Vista Home Basic and Starter, Aero Express for all editions if you don't have Desktop Window Manager support through LDDM drivers, such as in virtual machines, and Windows Classic for the 2000 look & feel. Paul Thurrott said while reviewing the February CTP that Aero Basic looked basically like Aero Glass but without the translucency, and I recall seeing a screenshot of it somewhere, and thought it looked much better and in line with the Aero style than Aero Express with its square buttons etc. Can anyone clarify on this? In fairly recent builds (5270?), I'm 100% positive Aero Express (this name was used) was selectable in the style combo box in Display Properties anway, and looked pretty much to the 5342 "Aero Basic" there's a screenshot of here now. Has things changed in 5342 or the one build before? -- Northgrove 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: — Alex (T|C|E) 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vista themes 

message: ::I thoought the new Windows will be named Windows 2006? —This unsigned comment was added by Stanton BG (talk • contribs) .
:::Nope.  Windows Vista.  --Yamla 16:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows Vista or Windows 2006/2007

message: The Windows Logo Program Requirements Suite, Version 3.0 draft 0.8 lists final Logo system requirements. The Hardware Requirement section should be update to reflect it. EricG 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Windows Vista Logo Program

message: I can understand that making comparison with OS X may lead to POV (“Redmond, start your photocopiers” anyone?), but it can also be done in a NPOV way. I will create a new section for helping people to see the similarities. I'll try to stay NPOV, don't hesitate to correct (but please, not “I deleted because you cannot say bad things of my favourite toy”) Reply to David Latapie 01:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all been removed.  You will find there isn't a lot of tolerance here for comparative analysis between Vista and other operating systems, because it really doesn't contribute anything of encyclopedic value.  Wikipedia isn't a platform for operating system advocacy.  Note that the very well-written Mac OS X doesn't have an entire section devoted to comparative analysis with Windows – why do you suppose that is?  Warrens 06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely think it's useful to have a table that compares the feature similarity and differences of multiple operating systems, even if just for the purposes of allowing people to understand that most operating systems aggressively try to offer comparable features and is rarely just a pure unidirectional influence.  It might indeed be better to have this comparison table in a separate article, since it has the potential of becoming very large (comparing many features between many operating systems).  It would definitely have to be presented in a non-POV manner to be offered in an encylopedic way. -- Bovineone 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: for example, see Comparison_of_operating_systems, Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems, Comparison_of_Web_browsers, Comparison_of_Media_players, Comparison_of_Linux_Distributions, etc. -- Bovineone 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, a separate article for this is an excellent idea!  "Comparison of operating system features" perhaps?  It makes a lot more sense than cherry-picking Vista's features and trying to point out that another operating system already has them. Warrens 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OS X / Vista: POV or not POV?

message: Eventhough Microsoft states that Vista will be compatible with dual-cores. But i have been having a problem with installing it on mine X2 3800+. I have now tried BETA builds 5308 and 5342, and they cannot install. I have tried same copie on a P4 and a Athlon 64, and they ran the 5308 with no problem. I believe that 5342 gave an error to the Athlon 64 machine aswell. Can anyone suggest something? My dual-core system passes all the checks for compatability, but after the restart during the installation, it locks up in a never ending cycle.
Any help would be really appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleksminmar (talk • contribs) .
:This discussion page is to be used for discussions regarding the article itself, not about getting betas of Vista to run on your laptop.  You are more likely to get the answers you are looking for on a Vista-specific forum.  --Yamla 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be even better to ask the Windows beta team...  You are a beta tester and got Vista legally, right?  ;-)  — Alex (T|C|E) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compatibilities issues

message: Is the Critical Articles  section really necessary? How are the articles Critical to Windows Vista? Vista is Vista whether or not the articles are there. And the articles neither promote or demote Windows Vista's improtance. The articles may be improtant for further info, but no way critical. The section should be removed and the links merged into external links section, if required. --soUmyaSch 19:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're articles critical of Vista, ie. criticism of DRM technologies and so on.  Such things should be here, because the issues are probably quite legitimate, but maybe we need a better term than "critical".  Warrens 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, got it now. Criticsims, to which the section has been renamed (Thanks Alex), is a much less ambiguous word. --soUmyaSch 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical articles 

message: The current running order for sections is this:
# Overview
# Development
# Editions
# New features
# Hardware requirements
Every so often I get the idea of switching the order to Overview / Editions / New features / Development / Hardware, or maybe Overview / Editions / Development / New features / Hardware, but I'm not sure.  Either way, Development gets moved down.  My motivation here is to put what more of what Vista is up front, instead of how it came to be.  Any thoughts or opinions on this?  Warrens 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a bit of background is necessary before we go into describing Windows Vista. So I suggest the sequence be kept as it is. But since deveopment info has been forked to a new article, there is no need of so much info, the Development sectioned be shortened to three-four lines, which say when Longhorn was unveiled, the three pillar vision, removal of WinFS, restart of Longhorn dev on Server 2003 code and naming Longhorn to Vista. Details can be found in the development article. --soUmyaSch 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the comment. Yeah, the development section will change a lot in the coming months, because right now we're also keeping note of present and future developments, which we won't need to do for much longer.  Maybe once Beta 2 is released we can chop it down a bit. Hmmm... I think I like the word "Background" more than "Development", too.   Warrens 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate running order 

message: Read it at their site, it's so funny ^^
Windows Vista (Uncyclopedia) -- Shandris 12:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Truly funny, I put a link in this article to it. The Intellectual 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia entry 

message: I seem to remember some obscure reference that somebody at Microsoft made about how Windows doesn't actually use a hybrid kernel.  Does anybody have sources verifying the actual nature of the kernel?  Nicholasink 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be useful: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=148820 AlistairMcMillan 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And this: http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=182269 AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hybrid Kernel? 

message: An controversy/criticism section is needed. Windows Vista has, even if it not has been released, criticized from several ways, such as the integration of digital rights management. Please add it. --Off! 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add one. But please give proper verifiable citations for each claim made. There is no place for uncited claims. --soUmyaSch 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: It is hardly ever appropriate to delete comments (other than personal attacks) from article Talk pages, except as a part of archiving or other refactoring. -- Gnetwerker 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Although Zeroprofits comments were greatly uneducated, unless it was obvious trolling, vandalism or a personal attack it should not be removed Paul Cyr 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't realise it was such a crime. Apologised to ZP too. Matt Peacock 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem.  Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Talk page comments 

message: Many PC manufacturers are beginning to indicate that their PC's are Windows Vista Capable. HP is one of the companies that is starting to do this.
Vvuser 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Capable 

message: The problem with that being in the article is that Paul doesn't mention that in the sourced link.  Everything else is us reporting that other people have pointed out X Y and Z.  And then Warrens added his own "counter-point".   AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What in the world are you talking about?  The link is a November 2002 review of Longhorn.  The Sidebar with its gadgetry is described quite clearly in the article, with screenshots.  Noting its inclusion in Longhorn prior to OS X 10.4's gadgets, or Konfabulator, is simple inference based on the contents of the cited sources, which is perfectly fine in a Wikipedia article.  And no, the entire criticisms section isn't "us reporting that other people have pointed out X Y and Z", nor is there any particular requirement that a criticism section need to be written only in that fashion.  We do it here because we need to provide sources to frame a context around what would otherwise sound like an "opinion".  The fact that Longhorn had a Sidebar in 2002 isn't a matter of someone's opinion.  It's quite clearly there.  Now quit being disruptive and removing stuff that you don't like... it's borderlining on pro-Mac POV-pushing.  Warrens 18:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay so you have OSX's Widgets and Longhorn's Tiles.  Which do you think Vista's Gadgets most closely resemble?  Just curious.  AlistairMcMillan 19:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  BTW I don't object to this being pointed out in the article.  I simply object because we are mentioning a criticism that someone has made (with citations) and you have added a defense of that criticism.  However as it stands right now it is your defense.  Cite someone who is saying the same thing as you are saying and I'll be quite happy for it to stay.  AlistairMcMillan 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "though early development builds of Longhorn"

message: How can Vista's minimum requirements need 512MB of RAM or more when the starter edition is said to be limited to 256MB? I believe Microsoft will bump this up to 512MB for Vista, but for now, should it be removed from the article? — Jeremy | Talk 05:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starter Ed. limited to 256MB? 

message: Under the "Ultimate" section, this article says, "Like the Business and Enterprise versions, product activation will not be required," but this screenshot of Beta 2 seems to suggest otherwise: . It says the user is using Ultimate Edition and has 14 days left to activate it. Can somebody confirm what the article says?
CheeToS 08:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seems to be some conflicting information floating around about this.  Internal MS documentation obtained by Paul Thurrott and posted on his web site says that there won't be activation in Vista Ultimate, but Beta 2 itself does have a 14-day activation period on the Ultimate edition.  Microsoft hasn't said anything official on the matter, as far as I can tell.  Warrens 12:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activation in Ultimate Edition? 

message: This follows a certain tradition - Windows XP had the codename Whistler
I removed this line as I felt it was unnecessary. The certain tradition is not mentioned, neither linked, and hence unfathomable to the unaquainted user. If necessary, it may be put in the MS codenames article. --soUmyaSch 09:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XP Codename 

message: Should memory requirements be described in MB/GB or MiB/GiB? Everywhere MB/GB is used, even MS quoted it that way. And btw, bandwidth uses decimal prefixes, hence quoting memory bandwidth in GiB/sec is wrong. --soUmyaSch 14:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tricky... Microsoft has apparently not adopted the __bibyte format of byte reporting, which is unfortunate, since it's an IEC standard and endorsed by the IEEE.  So when they say that 512MB of memory is required, do they mean 512,000,000 or 536,870,912 bytes?  Who knows for sure, but one thing I am sure about, however, is that we're here to accurately report what the sources say, not attempt to answer those kinds of questions ourselves.  If Microsoft says "40GB", then "40GB" it should be, even if we think it's wrong. Warrens 16:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the Binary prefix article contains some good information on the subject. Warrens 16:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, thats why I reverted in the first place. But since my changes were undone, I thought I would bring this issue up here. --soUmyaSch 18:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Changed MiBs to MB and GiBs to GB. Couldn't just revert because lot of changes have been made after that. So some could still remain. Please keep an eye for those. --soUmyaSch 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MB or MiB 

message: "In addition, the "My" prefix on personal folders has been removed. For example, "My Computer" is now simply "Computer," "My Pictures" is now "Pictures," and "My Documents" is now "Documents." Also, the "Documents and Settings" folder is now simply "Users"."
I wouldn't call that a feature. 72.130.177.246 08:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition of a "feature" is "a prominent aspect of something". That XP uses "My" is an aspect of the ui and it is prominent enough as it is visible on many parts of the ui. --soUmyaSch 08:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not the definition of a software feature.  How does the word "My" benefit the users or demonstrate a unique function of Vista? Elwood00 T | C 15:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel neither way for the My stuff, though. But that Documents and Settings folder has been renamed to Users is important enough to be specified, as it changes the entire folder structure for user profile-specific info. --soUmyaSch 15:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Users folder may be important, but it's not a "New Feature" or a "Dropped Feature."  I'm not sure it's notable in the current structure of the article.  It doesn't belong in a section about Luna, EISA, etc., and a list of all the changes from XP would probably make the article way too long.  Elwood00 T | C 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XP Features Removed 

message: I heard Windows Vista was suppose to be 64bit processor only.  Is that correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.205.70.254 (talk • contribs) .
:No, Windows Vista will ship in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. — Alex (T|C|E) 04:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 bit rumour 

message: At least one of the links in the "criticism" section, refers to an OLD build of Vista.
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5308_05.asp
This doesn't make sense. Paul, the author of the article in question, has since said that his article was SPECIFICALLY about an old build of Vista, and doens't apply to the Beta-version currently out.
It is misleading to present his disappointment with an old Vista build, as a criticism of the Beta/final release version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.76.30 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, yes... but the fact that Thurrott later retracted this is also mentioned in the Criticism section.  In the longer term (i.e. years from now), criticism of such a temporal nature isn't going to be that important to state in the article.  It will probably have a better home in Development of Windows Vista, which by its timeline nature can support such things better.  But, for now, criticism of Vista from one of the Internet's most noteworthy Windows advocates is good to have.  Warrens 05:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Mac-fanbois! 

message: Hey what is this new motherboard that is designed for Windows Vista?  Something about 64 bit CPU was mentioned in an earlier thread.  I read something about a dual CPU.  Anyone know???  DyslexicEditor 19:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A new motherboard is needed by new cpu, not new os. Any computer can run anu application designed for the architecture. However the only question is if it can run fast enough to be considered usable. The "Designed for Windows Vista" thingy is just a certification that says the hardware has enough meat to run Vista satisfactorily. It will support both 32bit and 64-bit uni-core as well as multi-core processors. The new motherboard is one that has a TPM module for DRM and encryptions. However, it is not mandatory. --soumসৌমোyasch 04:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new motherboard, 64 bit something??? 

message: Why was my contribution removed?  Please clarify...  I don't understand.  Soumyasch said "rv, no WP:V source cited as source of criticism" while deleting my paragraph which I contributed 19:30, 12 June 2006.  I just want to know what I did wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.232.196 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, in Wikipedia, you cannot write about what you feel about certain things, otherwise it classifies as Original Research. You can only report how notable parties view it, however that must be verifiable. But for that you must give the source which sees the point in the same light as you reported. In your case, you gave the MS ref which talks about the feature but not any which criticizes it, raising the point you mentioned. Because you didnot mention any source, it appeared to be your Point of View, and thats why I removed it. Hope you understand it. Btw, my POV regarding the comment about WinPCap is that if it is useful it will get signed by MS. But rootkits wont be. So IMO this is an important feature. --soumসৌমোyasch 08:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Did I do wrong?