Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 9

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Curious as to origin of the Vista/Longhorn name 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Desktops, Notebooks, Tablet PCs and Media Centers 

message: are there any ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.37.227.10 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  windows vista updates 

message: "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)
replies: text: It's just vandalism. I removed it. --esanchez, Camp Lazlo fan! 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Dont make edits to prove your point. Thats vandalism, and will likely get you blocked. --soum (0_o) 06:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Thank you. Viewer 07:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrading Lines 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The info is old. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thurrott Reverts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Visual styles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Desktops, Notebooks, Tablet PCs and Media Centers 

message: Do we really require a 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Instant Search 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thurrott on Windows Classic 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  System requirements: DVDROM? 

message: It needs  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  This article or section (the entire Windows Vista article) is written like an advertisement. 

message: 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
: Done Harryboyles 02:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comparison of Windows versions]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More editions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestions for External Links 

message: 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 .
Was windows xp this slow at being more popular than its predecessor? Rodrigue 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has sold more copies than XP did at this point after the release. Paul Cyr 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Market adoption 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Support Forums