Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 5

message: I think the ongoing tussle between the EU & Microsoft is worth a mention, perhaps in the Criticism section. It seems that a  version of Vista without Media Player etc may be provided to Europe to comply with their anti-monopoly laws, and the launch of Vista in Europe may also be delayed while the wrangling continues --Peter Campbell 14:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU conflict & bundling issues 

message: What happened to the Windows Fiji article? It appears to have to have spontaneously disappeared.
:Fiji doesn't exist at Microsoft, therefore, we don't have an article about it.  -/- Warren 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren, the "Fiji" is the codename of Windows Vista Service Pack 1, according to Paul Thurrott. --210.213.89.58 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappearance of Fiji? 

message: Is that file system hidden or discontinued? No references in "what page links here" or in the Vista article. Please what EXFAT is!! COstop 12:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: exFAT isn't shipping with Vista.  I haven't found any particular explanation as to why in a public forum yet... my guess is that it will be available for download separately, kinda like how HighMAT support was available through Windows Update for Windows XP.  exFAT is actually shipping with Windows CE 6.0, which is slated for release before Vista. You may find this powerpoint presentation on the subject to be informative.  -/- Warren 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[exFAT]] 

message: A change was made substituting "Vista Starter" with "Starter Edition 2007". As far as I can see, this isn't an official name change: searching for both terms in google using site:microsoft.com gives 0 matches for "starter edition 2007" and over 300 for "vista starter". The Microsoft Product Page Clearly refers to Vista Starter also. If this change has been made, please cite a source for the name change or provide some evidence that microsoft.com refers to this product name! njan 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starter Edition 

message: The list is getting too long.
KeKe 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? — Mütze 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to have an overreferenced article than an under referenced article. Considering the subject matter (a yet-to-be-released proprietary operating system, with a large range of features, many new or updated) it's especially important to have as many references as practically possible, because of the fact that there are still many details that are not yet known. Harryboyles 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: In the article, under system requirements, it says that one of the requirements is a CD drive. However, beta 2 took up approximately the size of 7 cds, and a requirement for the beta was a DVD drive. If anyone has any references for the CD drive requirement, could you post them? If not, can someone change it to a DVD drive?
DarkSideMoon 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its a DVD drive. Check this link:Microsoft Get Ready read under "A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least" you will notice it said: DVD-ROM Drive not  a CD. --Wiz126 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it says it requires a DVD drive, I think it is only required to install Vista if it comes from a DVD. For this reason, to avoid confusion, Microsoft might say you need a DVD drive simply because Vista will come on a DVD. Surely it can be installed through other media than a DVD, so it might be more of a "recommendation" than a "requirement". Once up and running, Vista should be able to run without a DVD drive, or an optical drive at all for that matter. Nsmith 84 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make it clear, the question is about the installation. Of course there is no need for a DVD drive once its installed. --Wiz126 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it is DVD as well, but check this out (minimal requirement): . I was a bit surprised seeing that today.--147.197.215.16 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In any case, as mentioned above it doesn't matter since you don't need to have a DVD or CD drive to install Vista since there are other ways to do so. More importantly perhaps, we can only report on Microsoft's official requirements not what you may or may not need Nil Einne 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to add the reference we should use for all our requirements info IMHO is this . Our current referencing when it comes to requirements is not so good, but this was linked to and it should also be fairly easy for anyone Googling to find... Nil Einne 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 5 CDs according to Microsoft ATM. Computer Guru 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Needs a DVD drive, not a CD drive 

message: According to amazon.co.uk, (), the release date of Windows Vista in UK is 2nd February 2007. --147.197.215.16 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Release 

message: does vista address the y3k bug?--Nytemunkey 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows 98 SE had already fixed that, so I don't think Vista will make any trouble on that part. Besides, it is unbelievably irrelevant for so many reasons. — Mütze 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you planning to use Vista till year 3000? I see only one place where it can be done - a Museum! Anywayz, Vista uses a much wider DateTime format (I think 32 bit), so you are immune till the y89657234k bug (or whatever) causes panic. But in all probability, the timespan that would normally be presented would be limited to, say, 2100, to speed up calculations. --soumসৌমোyasch 10:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: anyone know?

message: A contributor provided this link as a source for stating that Vista's release date is December 5, 2006.  That article referenced a ZDNet article which has since been removed.  Because of this, I've reverted the addition of the release date.  We're going to need a better source than that...  -/- Warren 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista release date 

message: It has suggested that Windows Vista will not be a huge hit on Latvian market because the word "vista" means chicken in this particular language. I'm not sure if it is worth mentioning in article, but maybe this factoid has some relevance.  --Magabund 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you got a source to support this "fact"? Harryboyles 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which fact you mean? The fact that vista means chicken or hen in latvian is easy to google out from some dictionary. The fact that it would make fun and it has been suggested to be not a huge hit in Latvia? For that you probably would have to surf some relevant message boards, which unfortunately are in Latvian. The latter is of course speculation, but the first fact is clearly here. --Magabund 10:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a "Chevy Nova" myth. (The myth is that the Nova did not sell well in Spanish-speaking countries because "no va" means "doesn't go." Of course, this is not true; Spanish-speakers know that "Nova" isn't "no va", just as English-speakers do not confuse "therapist" with "the rapist".) --FOo 22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows for chicks 

message: The screenshot from the top of the page went missing, I've replaced it with the example of Aero for the time being but it really needs to be replaced with an example of a new installation (sidebar etc.). Can someone do this, as I'm just a lazy workaround kinda guy. --JamesWeb 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Screenshot 

message: In my opinion this "article" is more a advertisement for the product then an really encyclopedic article.
THIS MESSAGE IS FOR ALL CONTRIBUTERS : clean up this article.'''
It's made clear on the  Criticism of Wikipedia about this
"Windows Vista article once read like an advertisement for the product, instead of a factual article with a neutral point of view. While it is not certain that the article was edited by Microsoft, the use of marketing buzzwords such as "technologies" was sufficient to merit a rewording of the article."
Please do not delete this comment or any other comments without permission —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia (talk • contribs) October 15, 2006.
:What do you own wikipedia or something? Stop crying you sound like this article deeply offends you. There are better things in life to worry about than an article.  Simply stating the article may use buzzwords rather than stating your opinion would have been sufficient. And a tip for future writings: "no one cares about your opinion" One of the first rules of writing.--Nytemunkey 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nytemunkey, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL.  Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for pointing that bit in the Criticism of Wikipedia article out.  I've removed it because it's littered with WP:WEASEL words.  Anyways, are you here to make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, or are you here to bitch about an operating system you don't like?  If it's the latter, then go away -- this isn't the place to air gripes.  If it's the former, provide a list of specific things that you feel are a problem, and can be backed up by Wikipedia policy.  -/- Warren 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WINDOWS VISTA 

message: Unless I'm missing something, reference link 42 (number may change) seems to point to an unrelated article: "Most PC buyers need to purchase MCE for free Vista upgrade, PC makers say. Retrieved on 15 September 2006.". I don't see anything about upgrading to Vista there. Retodon8 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect reference link

message: The requirements for Aero are 64 mb of VRAM not 128 mb so I have changed the article back to the way it was before this edit  accordingly. I have used Aero with 64 mb of VRAM and the Microsoft page that is (and was) linked to also makes it clear 64 mb is the minimum. As I have explained in the talk (see archive 4) 128 mb is the requirement for Vista Premium ready but this is not the requirement for running Aero and if you read the Microsoft page properly this should be clear. You need 128 mb for larger then about 1.3 million pixels but the minimum for Aero is 64 mb according to Microsoft. This is also mentioned in the footer to the Vista Premium requirements. <rant> So really, I wish people would check out references and the actual article and perhaps the talk page before changing info so that it becomes incorrect <end rant> Nil Einne 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 MB is minimum for Aero NOT 128 MB 

message: Why are we not able to change the latest build to 5840, since that is the latest confirmed build, why is it so anal about getting it expressely confirmed by MS? Rob.derosa 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a public build, only TAP has it. — Alex (T|C|E) 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version number 

message: There is an error:
Windows Aero (including Windows Flip 3D) is only planned for inclusion in the Ultimate, Business and Home Premium editions
Enterprise also supports Aero - see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/enterprise.mspx - since Enterprise includes all of the Business features, including Aero. We have Enterprise running (RC2) and indeed aero works.
: That was added very recently; I've fixed it.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aero 

message: Does Windows Vista still have a command prompt, similar to what we have in XP and earlier versions of Windows?  If so, perhaps we should mention it on the main page, similar to what we have for WinXP. (I do not have a Vista beta machine set up.)  N2e 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it does. Not sure why the Windows XP page refers to it, because it's nothing out of the ordinary, even Mac OS X has CLI. — Alex (T|C|E) 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Supposedly, DOS functionality is no longer supported in Vista.  However, I tried one old program that I had which I used to use in the DOS days, and it worked fine.  I don't know if it's automatically being run in a VM, or what, as I've seen some mention of that also.  I haven't seen anything on the subject lately.  Can anyone find anything recent on the subject?  --Scott McNay 02:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have been misled. DOS and Windows 16 bit support was removed from Windows x64 and Windows Vista x64. AFAIK, Windows Vista x32 still has DOS and Windows 16 bit support. Nil Einne 09:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Command Prompt?

message: My computer is just only 128 MB of RAM.  Can I use that physical memory fot just 128 MB in Windows Vista? --210.213.83.120 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you need to upgrade it to conform to the minimum requirements as spelt out in the article. --soumসৌমোyasch 07:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I have successfully run Vista in 256MB, but it requires 512 to install (though there may be some way to get around this limiation that I haven't discovered yet).  Removing memory to less than 256 causes an immediate blue screen upon boot.12.207.87.61 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will buy a new RAM of 512 MB memory--but my budget is few now, I'm poor. --210.213.86.61 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Memory 

message: Weixiang7326 adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source.  Please block that user.  Thank you. --210.213.86.46 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies 

message: Ultimate: £325????
That's about $500+
It's from amazon.co.uk
Can you believe it? Or there is error?
I'd rather buy it from the US, or Asia.--W Tanoto 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: £325 is actually US$615+... If it were US$500 it wouldn't be that expensive. The US price is US$400 according to this article so considering UK VAT of 17.5% that works out to be US$470... Nil Einne 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Windows Vista Pricing 

message: Hello, I did a bunch of work on this section today.  In the process of getting this section up-to-date, i noticed a few things.  First of all, Microsoft hasn't commented publicly on the "additional license" costs at all, so far as I can tell... the numbers came from numbers posted on Amazon.com, which have since been pulled.  This leaves us with a bunch of blogs as the only source of information on additional license SKUs.  Given that Microsoft hasn't announced anything, I figure it's probably better for us to talk about that than it is for us to state those prices as fact.
I also found some information about Microsoft's recently announced "Express Upgrade" program.  It's actually rather messy and complicated, because different OEMs are handling upgrades in different ways.  One example of that is that some OEMs are only offering the Express Upgrade program on some of their newly-sold computers, but not others.  There's also conflicting information floating around about whether you use voucher coupons to get your copy of Vista, or if a receipt is enough.  On top of all that, I can't find any indication that this offer extends to retail copies of XP.  This covers some of the issues in more detail.  I'm not sure how much time we should spend on this, but if someone wants to look into it further, knock yourself out.   -/- Warren 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work! Thanks for doing that. It looks nicer. I just about to tell that Paul Thurrot just posted the box-art images.--W Tanoto 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions and pricing 

message: Dear Wikipedian users,
There was a dead image of the screenshot of Windows Vista(TM) Upgrade Advisor RC.
Please upload from this URL:
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/5c350bc24d.png
Thank you.
Truly regards, 210.213.87.51 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy generally prohibit us from uploading images found on other web sites.   -/- Warren 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Don't forget about it.  Please click the URL to see it and upload. --210.213.89.106 09:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the big deal with you not being able to do it yourself? — Alex (T|C|E) 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a screenshot of Windows Vista(TM) Upgrade Advisor running on Windows XP. --210.213.89.106 09:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Image 

message: I don't think 30 Jan 07 is worldwide release. In UK, according to amazon and www.pcworld.co.uk, it will be 2 Feb 07. Can somebody edit it? --147.197.190.40 14:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, it will release Windows Vista at the beginning of Chinese New Year 2007.  How about in the Philippines—when will be release Windows Vista? --210.213.90.42 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide release? 

message: Since Aero requires a DirectX 9-capable video card, I'd expect Windows to use video card features to speed up various things, and to reduce the need for main memory.  However, I occasionally still see refresh issues, which makes me think that this is not happening.  Can someone find anything official on this?  --Scott McNay 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that this is discussed in a bit more detail in Features new to Windows Vista.  --Scott McNay 16:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advanced graphics efficiency 

message: I found the video of the early announcement of Windows Vista.  Please upload the video from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0507/25234/Win_Name_MBR.asx
because there was a dead media link. --210.213.86.39 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upload a video? Huh? — Alex (T|C|E) 06:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there's a dead link of the sentence "Microsoft employee Don Lionetti tries out an early version of Windows Vista, the next-generation operating system. Atlanta, July 22, 2005." of the file name Windows Vista Announcement.asx.  Or from WMV file: mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/0507/25234/Win_Name_MBR.wmv. --210.213.85.217 07:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather unlikely that would be a fair use reason for us to include the video. We could link to it but it doesn't really seem to add that much to this article Nil Einne 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Announcemant Video 

message: I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles.  Please take a look at it.  I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. --Dgies 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on the template, but it might make the article look a bit too crowded...  :-( — Alex (T|C|E) 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure about this. The Windows version articles (Windows Vista, Windows XP, etc) have their own infobox about the product itself. Adding another infobox, IMHO, would ruin the layout on many of the main articles. Perhaps redesign it so it can be a navigation toolbox at the end of the article and it can replace the Windows Versions template already there. Harryboyles 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Sidebar for Windows articles 

message: I have Windows Vista Build 5840 (the latest is now build 5920), and I changed the build # part in the info box but someone changed it back, but since I am running 5840, I can confirm that the build does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric C (talk • contribs) .
: The infobox is there to denote what the most recent -released- version is, which is something that we can verify, per Wikipedia's policity on verifiability.  That means we state build 5744.  If you got build 5840, 5920 etc. from a file sharing network, then it's most assuredly an illegal acquisition, and not something Microsoft intended to release.  -/- Warren 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, if you work for MS or are a very close partner, you might have got these build legally. However you still can't change the build unless you talk about this build in a way which meets our criteria as Warrens mentioned Nil Einne 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Build Numbers 

message: I've just found the photo of the early announcement of Windows Vista.
Please upload from this URL:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/press/2005/07-22lh.jpg
--210.1.95.212 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Vista Announcement Photo 

message: This is from the Winsupersite: retrieved here 
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1, codenamed "Fiji") is due in late 2007 alongside Windows Server "Longhorn", as is the next version of Windows Media Center, though Microsoft is still not sure how they'll ship that latter upgrade. Vista SP1, despite the name, is going to be a major upgrade: It will include a new version of the Windows kernel (version 6.1), bringing Vista up to date with the changes Microsoft is baking into the next Windows Server version.
Should we put this? (I think not.) - 202.81.177.43 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather wait until we hear something from Microsoft on it.  The best we could do is write something like "Paul Thurrott says Vista SP1 will be major".  Yeah well... that's nice, but it could just as easily be wrong, and we should be trying our best in this article to stay focused on the facts and important details.  It's a big article already. :-)   -/- Warren 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fiji", now a service pack 

message: For god sake, 76 external links. I think it's just TOO much. I took a closer look at it, and at least half of them can be removed in my opinion. Some of the links are just plain spam! Do other editors agree to "clean" the external links a little? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spaasje (talk • contribs) .
:I don't see 76 external links. There are quite a lot of references however but that's completely different from external link. References by definition are not spam. The only way we could reduce references is either re-use them if there are already some that cover the same thing or find references which cover the several things or reduce the amount of content in this article. Oh and in some cases, we use multiple references if it's something that's controversial it's better if we have multiple references to support it. (Obviously simple facts like Aero needs 64mb of RAM at minimum not 128mb only needs one reference) Nil Einne 12:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wel okay, perhaps there were a few inappropriate references then. However all likehood, we will have a large number of appropriate references. I still believe references by definition aren't spam, but there could be spam posing as references Nil Einne 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and references 

message: Since there's already a linked 'main article Features new to Windows Vista', this section could be a lot shorter. It's too much detailed technical information right up front, but I'm not nearly expert enough to sort out what the most important points are. Is there anyone who could take that on? 
I was originally considering just moving the section to below Visual styles, Hardware requirements and Editions and pricing, but thought better of it since it is pre-release, making those sections less important. What do others think about the ordering and/or relative importance of the sections? --Spyforthemoon 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huge new features section

message: I agree with Warrens that single-para sub-sections are not good stylistically.  On the other hand, a huge six-para section without any structure doesn't match the rest of the article either.  I restored what appeared to have been a compromise from before the Crit section was removed, which was to place a bold-face phrase at the front of each para.  This doesn't mess up the TOC, but makes the section easier to read and make more sense.  Revert away. -- Gnetwerker 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I like that too.  Hopefully others will agree.  -/- Warren 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section redux 

message: Just checked CNET News.com and found an article that Microsoft announced today that Vista has gone gold.  GeeCee 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista just went gold 

message: Reference 11 overlaps text on the second column because it's quite long. Anyone who thinks this looks fine?
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt download.microsoft.com] – TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt 86.140.139.252 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that before but didn't think it was fixable.  I looked at the code this time, and saw that a "[" was missing, which is what caused it to be extra long.  --Scott McNay 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two column references 

message: Why couldn't Microsoft release Vista much earlier with limited major manufacturers? I mean they could make a very stable build only for Dell, Thinkpad, HP, Sony, Toshiba ... laptop computers. These builds only need to support a limited number of hardware parts. It would be less likely to go wrong. -- Toytoy 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: November 30th isn't soon enough for you?  --Scott McNay 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey! It's been delayed for years. -- Toytoy 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Drivers are a drop in the bucket of the changes between XP/Server 2003 and Vista.  If you haven't used it yet (I've been using it for months now), you should know that it's been described as being as significant as the difference between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95.  --Scott McNay 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Microsoft has throughout the development process worked with the major manufacturers and the extensive preview program has allowed these manufacturers to develop the drivers alongside the development. It would be useless to release Vista much earlier with original equipment manufacturers (OEM's) because they are a MAJOR part of the market for Windows. Harryboyles 08:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OEM release? 

message: The new screenshot of Windows Vista RTM looks nice, but is too big for about 1600 x 1000 pixels.  Can you PLEASE change the screenshot of only the size of 1024 x 768 pixels?! --124.106.12.161 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People can also quit changing screenshots to reflect the most recent build, there are not that many changes anyway. I'd rather have a 1024x768 PNG screenshot than a lower-quality screenshot off of Paul's site. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, that doesn't seem to be a problem now. I guess I shouldn't have started the tradition of posting a new screenshot during the release of every build. — Alex (T|C|E) 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here it is, Alex.  I comment out the image for the main screenshot.  The RTM screenshot of Windows Vista went missing because the image of non-sourceful and has been removed. --210.213.83.214 07:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't do that.  It damages the quality and informative value of the article.  -/- Warren 08:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But Warren, the contributor, Themodernizer, was removed the fake screenshot of Windows Vista RTM.   Can you help to find the screenshots of Windows Vista RTM? --124.106.13.27 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When a contributor to Wikipedia can produce a self-created Vista RTM screenshot, then we can put it in.  My guess is that we'll see something by next Wednesday, based on Microsoft's indications of when Vista will be available to MSDN subscribers.  In the meantime, the RC2 image will do just fine.   -/- Warren 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dare say that someone could put up an RC1 screenshot, labelled as RTM, and few could tell the difference -- or care.  I don't think it matters much, as long as the "flavor" is captured. --Scott McNay 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They would have to somehow get all the new icons to pull that off.--Phnx2ashes 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh I'm sure there are quite a few contributors who could have put up a screenshot since last week. I guess they just don't want people to know they're using Vista RTM when perhaps they should be :-P Nil Einne 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What images are you looking for? If you tell me I can provide them for you. Blunden 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main screenshot too big!!! 

message: Should we include some commentary about the creation of Vista sounds? Something about Robert Fripp, and the lead of the Vista sound project, Steve Ball?
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7056/52/
---Sometimesthinking 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be a good thing to cover in Development of Windows Vista, given how extensively it's been covered by the media.   -/- Warren 21:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista sounds 

message: Is it within the scope of this article to mention that vista was leaked November 11th and cracked the same day? Odmrob 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's within the scope only if you list a reliable source.--Phnx2ashes 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the only site I can come up with: .  I'm not going to put it into the article yet, not sure if it's reliable.  CirusTalk/Contribs 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd keep it off for now. It's typical journalism: Using a flashy title to catch a readers attention than explaining that the title isn't necessarily the case, hence the following quote from the article:"In this sense, it’s not a true crack – it’s simply leveraging off compatibilities between the betas and the Gold release. Vista still needs to be activated, and it looks like for the moment, there’s no way around that." I've also never heard of apcstart.com. If vista was truly cracked it would be all over the news and tech websites.--Phnx2ashes 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista leaked and cracked?