Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 1

message: Gah! ETOOMANYVERSIONS!
Under the Features Delayed section, I think MSH is actually not going to be delayed or cancelled or anything based on those "viruses" (they're just scripts with commands like "del *.*" or "open someotherscript.msh... add my code to it"). According to this, MSH is coming out before Vista and will be available for XP/2003. -nks43
:I agree with you, they were not viruses. The only reason they even worked was because Windows Vista was in the transition period of converting over to the Least-privilege User Access system (if this were implemented the shell script would've been stopped in its tracks.) The media was having a field day that provided tin-foil hats for all invited guests. I think I may rename the "Features and technologies delayed until future releases" to "Features and technologies separated from Windows Vista" and include a small description underneath to explain what I mean by separated. Unless, of course, someone has a better idea. megamanXplosion 21:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have applied the change I mentioned earlier except I did not create a small description/explanation underneath. I have mentioned that the first version (or what could be considered as the first stable version) will be released before Windows Vista and the second, full-implementation, version will be released after Windows Vista. This section of the article seems more accurate now. --megamanXplosion 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSH Delayed? 

message: I rewrote the system requirements section since the previous version was alluding to rumor and speculation (before any facts were known). Microsoft has since provided information regarding sys reqs and that is what I've updated with. ERN 03:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
I changed "Aero Pure Glass" back to "Aero Glass" as the document referenced in the article (which is at Microsoft.com) refers to the experience as "Aero Glass". I also reverted back the memory requirements and bpp as per the reference. If someone has found an updated reference (later than April 30, 2004) with updated graphics requirements please provide it. ERN 15:04, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
I removed the system requirements for now (3 GHz req, 512 MB RAM req), as it sounded unreasonable, esp. the CPU req. See also here . It says 128 MB should be enough, for example. It also indicates where this rumor may have come from -- it's a recommendation for the most powerful mode. I'm not sure Microsoft has even decided on the sys req's yet? Jugalator 15:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
:512 MB of RAM sounds somewhat reasonable because of the new features and its known that the memory recommendations generally double with each new release of Windows (XP recommended 256 MB.) I would have to say, though, a 3 GHz processor recommendation sounds unreasonable. That is a massive leap from the Windows XP recommendation; especially if you take into consideration the fact that drawing tasks (GDI) has been moved from the CPU to the GPU and more networking tasks are offloaded to the NIC in Windows Vista in comparison to Windows XP. I see no justification for such a huge jump in processing requirements - unless Microsoft has simply given themselves a lot of breathing room. --megamanXplosion 10:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 512MB of RAM? I think that's enough to make some computers obsolete. I think that a Pentium 4/Athlon XP CPU and at least a 128MB Video Card is required. Otherwise, I am not happy about the system requirements. As far as memory is concerned, I think at least 1GB RAM should be recommended. 512MB RAM won't cut it. — Vesther 17:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 512MB is the recommended requirement, not the minimum requirement. Windows Vista has several user experience tiers ranging all the way down to 2000-style and the tier used is dependant on the hardware; thus, it is very much possible that Windows Vista will have the same minimum requirements as Windows XP or Windows 2000. Windows Vista will not make any computers obsolete. The amount of memory required for the GPU has not been officially stated but I've seen the Beta 1 refresh run Aero Glass on video cards with just 64mb (ATI Mobility Radeon 9700, for example.) I've also seen systems that ran the Aero Express (same as Aero glass except without blurring) with just 32mb. Add the fact that betas are usually unoptimized in comparison to the final product and the testing hardware drivers suck, this tells me that 128mb video cards will not be required - though I cannot state that as fact without an official statement from Microsoft. I'm fairly certain P4/AMDXP are included in the "modern" CPU category, I'd even bet money that older processors will be acceptable. --megamanXplosion 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworked System requirements 

message: I remember a time in Wikipedia history when this article said something about having a computer size being in terabytes, but it no longer does. What happened?? 66.245.2.212 21:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was absurd. megamanXplosion 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size in terabytes 

message: The virtual folders wikilink links to Smart folder. The smart folder article is heavly based on the Mac OS X. Shouldn't that article also mention Windows Vista? If so is the title 'Smart folder' correct (since it's a Mac term)? I don't know enough about virtual folders to modify the article.
Also what is WinFS different than a means to power the virtual folders? Am I correct that Virtual Folders does a scan on filesystem level and with WinFS it does a real DB query? The WinFS article emphasises the relational DB storage and metadata with one real advantage: query the filesystem. There obviously is a big difference but it isn't clear to me from the info I find in Wikipedia. Felsir 12:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
: On the subject of the Smart folder page being based on the Mac implementation... the Mac version has shipped and the Windows implementation is still being developed, so right now that is probably what you would expect. AlistairMcMillan 14:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Apple did not copy Microsoft (there is proof available that shows they were working on the idea before WinFS was even announced.) Microsoft did not copy Apple either; Microsoft's ambitions are far larger - an intelligent way of handling files that practically removes the need to search. I feel it is silly to claim they copied eachother. While they bring similar benefits (saved searches and smart folders for an example,) their goals are entirely different. megamanXplosion 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Folders/Smart folders article 

message: I find the comment in this article (otherwise well written, thanks!) that parts of Vista are "similar to Mac OS X" problematic. The obvious implication of that is that Microsoft has copied Apple, and that's a rumor and an opinion, not a fact. Unsigned by Andacar. (AlistairMcMillan 15:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. This article seems to have been written by a twelve-year-old who was infatuated with pre-release screenshots. Windows 98 was supposed to "integrate with the Internet" which resulted in Active Desktop! Give anybody five years to make an operating system after they've already had 15 and I'd hope to God it sings and dances, but I know Microsoft. This article needs to be written so that it expresses known fact and not dreamy opinions.—Kbolino 23:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints 

message: The release date on the article page seems a little vague--unless that's the best info there is. CoolGuy 00:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best there is, and the absolute best there could be at this point would be "Qx 200y." I don't think anyone really knows when it's going to come out until Microsoft does the countdown thing or something. --65.147.21.225 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: I think there's a need to explain what a rolodex in Windows Vista is. There is little or no general explanation of this and I haven't found before much anything about this 'rolodex' feature that is in 'Vista. The only source that refers to rolodex with a screenshot and a more or less adequate explanation to those not in the know, is this: PC Magazine - Windows Vista Update.
Perhaps what should be added is a section that lists new terms in Windows Vista and their respective descriptions, because just a new feature term/name without an explanation does not quite inform users and all other people, who would want to familiarize themselves with the new operating system. Mardus 21:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put back (presumedly it was there before) the rolodex feature and added an explanation. Why do we need a list of new terms - can't we just explain them when they are used? Brian Jason Drake 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rolodex feature and list of new terms 

message: SGI are quite troubled over the fact that OpenGL will have limited support under Windows Vista Aero. Taken from the official OpenGL site headlines ():
"Microsoft's first technical beta of Vista layers OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an an application runs using a high-performance OpenGL ICD - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience. Write to your preferred software developer, hardware developer and video card manufacturer and tell them to make sure Microsoft solves this problem before release and fully supports OpenGL ICDs within Aero. Hardware and software vendors listen to developers. Don't be passive - send those emails and keep the topic in the foreground."
This will occur with a lot of CAD programs, including modeling-suites like Maya which use OpenGL for rendering. This would also happen with the majority of games software that use advanced OpenGL rendering features, such as id Software's Doom 3, and upcoming releases using the same engine: Quake 4, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Prey. (Although, typically you wouldn't want to play these in a window.)
:I don't think they are as troubled by it as they claim; I believe it is more of a marketing stunt. Think about it, only DirectX 10 (WGF 2.0) cards will be effected as far as I've heard. Considering the power of DirectX 9 cards and they're increasing rapidly, the power of DirectX 10 cards will be on-par, if not surpass, those using DirectX 9 in a very little amount of time. Honestly, I can't imagine any windowed application like AutoCAD, Cartography Shop, Blender, 3D Studio Max, etc. demanding the full resources of a DirectX 10 card. DirectX 10 cards will be able to emulate OpenGL functions fast enough to handle anything those windowed applications throw at it and be able to "take a breather." Full-screen applications that demand the full power the cards can muster, like games, will not have emulated OpenGL but the actual OpenGL itself so I don't see any problem there either. Honestly, I think it is more hot-air and marketing than real concerns. --megamanXplosion 22:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Don't be so sure. After all, what do you use to make a game but Blender, 3DS Max and the like? These applications can have very high demands on a video card, and these kinds of demands are all about bottlenecks. Expecting OpenGL to be layered on top of Direct3D makes OpenGL moot. If people who rely on these tools and developers who still understand what it means to be cross-platform demand the support from Microsoft, OpenGL support can happen. Rob Russell 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenGL support under Aero 

message: For more information about the rewritten audio stack in Windows Vista, checkout these references:
Larry Osterman's blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/
Channel 9 Videoblog on Audio stack: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116347
:Nice find. I was unaware of the improved audio quality and per-application volume settings. That will be a great addition! Now I will be able to have my music cranked to the max while the sound in my web browser is very low (ever been browsing a site and have a sound play very, very, loud and out-of-nowhere and almost give you a heart attack?) megamanXplosion 06:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just noticed in the article there was no mention of the kernel enhancements regarding application prioritization. Each application can demand a particular amount of resources (for example: processor time, memory space, GPU time, etc.) so the application can work flawlessly regardless of the load placed on the system. This is especially important to audio and video playback because Windows Media Player 11 use the kernel enhancement to ensure audio and video is skip-free and glitch-free. I will add this to the features list later if nobody has added it before then - I have homework to do :p megamanXplosion 06:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio stack rewritten 

message: I have read the overview a few times and I've noticed a large amount of bias, fabricated evidence, and generally nonsensical utterances. I would go ahead and edit it but I fear the revert queens. Here are the statements I have problems with...
* "Due to many delays and poor programming, they restructured the new release and changed the name to Windows Vista, which is expected to ship before the end of 2006." -- so they named it "Windows Vista" because they hit a few snags during development? That makes no sense at all. And where is the evidence for "poor programming"? They hit a few snags during the development process, because of the development process, but that does not equal "poor programming" - it means they hit a few snags during the development process.
* "Gradually, Longhorn (now Vista) has lost many of the original features." -- many? According to wikipedia "many" means "an indefinitely large number of." One or two features, out of the over 100 I've seen mentioned, does not qualify as "an indefinitely large number of" features. There is either an overwhelming bias or an overwhelming lack of evidence to support the claim.
* "This decision was reached in the wake of Windows XP Service Pack 2." -- the decision was reached in the wake of Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1.
* "Like many other products (including all Windows releases since Windows 98), it has since been leaked onto popular networks (file sharing or otherwise) such as IRC, BitTorrent and various newsgroups." -- Please see the discussion above about promoting piracy. This is irrelevant information that does nothing more than encourage people to illegally obtain the software.
* "A beta refresh is being given to 2005 PDC attendees and has been released to Microsoft Beta testers (and soon to MSDN subscribers) with the build number 5219. This refresh contains the Windows Sidebar, which had been removed from previous builds without explanation." -- The side bar was not removed. With a few registry changes the side-bar can be enabled, so it was only hidden. It was likely (I'm not stating this bit as fact) hidden from view because it hadn't received much testing after the code-base switch.
* "Due to the large number of features that have been cut from Vista (Longhorn) since it was first announced, many are calling it Windows XP SP3, expecting it to be nothing more than an updated version of Windows XP." -- this statement is one of the worst. Large number of features cut? Two (one being delivered earlier than expected) = large? Just like earlier, this is unsubstantiated and is either biased or lacks sufficient evidence in the article to support the claim. I must also question wether the readers of this article would find any value in this utterance.
Do the fellow Wikipedians agree or disagree with the points I've raised? Do you think the overview should be rewritten? Why or why not? --megamanXplosion 02:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the response. I have changed the formatting on your response slightly to improve readability, just to let you know. Anyways, I shall begin working on a rewrite ~24 hours from now (I have 2 hours of algebra to survive in just a short while; sleep; then survive human ecology, literature, and history tomorrow morning. Ugh.) I have not looked at the timeline for problems but I will once I have finished rewriting the introduction/overview; unless, of course, someone feels like tackling the timeline theirself. megamanXplosion 18:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as the "XP SP3" claim goes, it's utter nonsense. I've removed it from the article. Haeleth 19:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for removing it. It will make my rewrite easier :) --megamanXplosion 15:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The edits were made by 129.105.69.125 and a few other people. It's obvious trolling, and I've just reverted the whole thing back to the last version by Haeleth Paul Cyr 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks! - Anyway, what I did was take the pre-129.105.69.125 article introduction and overview and melded that the newer sections. Anyway, its a lot better now, needless to say :). The article introduction should be at least two paragraphs though for this article length, and the overview section could use some cleaning up and tightning. Other than that, most of the problems were solved with the revert+merge. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did some paragraph combining for the overview section and added anther paragraph to the intro which probably needs to be wikified/tidied up a bit. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now it seems like a big blob of text rather than an organized set of sentences conveying a single idea. To put it basically, it is no longer a paragraph but a mish-mash of text. Sometimes it is better to have a lot of short paragraphs rather than having a long blob of text. Not trying to jump on you or anything, just letting you know to be a bit more careful (note: I have not looked at the prior versions so they might've been a mish-mash of text as well) :) --megamanXplosion 15:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, by all means feel free to fix/modify it :). Maybe I screwed something up :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am home from school now (reply above was inbetween classes.) I have started to create an updated overview and introduction. In a week or so I may (no promises) have a rewritten features list as well (I have installed mediawiki on my private web server to help.) The feature list may be long enough to justify splitting the article into several peices. I have 54 features listed, sourced, and currently writing descriptions of each in length (not as brief as the current features list.) That number is continuously rising, I *think* it may be possible to reach 90+ features by the time it is complete. Due to the fact it may require splitting the article into peices and its a huge amount of information, I will upload the feature list as a webpage somewhere so everyone can read over them, suggest changes, and approve/disapprove restructuring the article. megamanXplosion 20:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite Overview? 

message: There has been much discussion over the content controls being forced into next-generation PC hardware and OSes by the copyright-cartels. e.g.
For the first time, the Windows operating system will wall off some audio and video processes almost completely from users and outside programmers, in hopes of making them harder for hackers to reach. The company is establishing digital security checks that could even shut off a computer's connections to some monitors or televisions if antipiracy procedures that stop high-quality video copying aren't in place.Microsoft align on new Windows/2100-1025_3-5844393.html?part=rss&tag=5844393&subj=news
To many users, this will be the most important part of Vista -- at least as far as purchasing decisions go. Yet the article is devoid of mention of these new DRM features. (Comment was by 71.131.202.198)
: It's mentioned in passing, under the Technologies heading: further support for digital rights management (DRM) . . . and the controversial Trustworthy Computing initiative previously known as Palladium (see also trusted computing). You're right that it could probably go into more detail, though.
: I've removed two of the links you added - the Inquirer is always alarmist and rarely accurate, and the blog entry didn't seem to contain much information. The remaining two look like informative sources that present both sides of the argument, and would therefore probably be good references for a section on Vista's DRM, if you'd like to consider writing one? Haeleth 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRM: Digital Rights Management 

message: Why is it even before the Overview of the OS itself? Here I was wondering if a maintained build list would be worth having in the article at all, and now it pops up as the most important thing of it? Not editing as I'm not sure what to do with it myself... Throw it away (as I recall it was before?) or move it down somewhere above "See also"? -- Jugalator 12:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Important Builds" / "Summary of Builds" section 

message: Someone added this to the page, but I think it's better to keep it here until someone integrates it properly - IMSoP 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content to be integrated 

message: Do release candidates count as stable releases? This is a question for when the Vista release candidates start to come out, and I was wondering whether to place them under "Stable Release" or "Preview Release" or both. —Akhristov 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release candidates 

message: Somone put a "Download Vista" head in the article, and posted a scam site, along with false info in the article, i think. I think someone should remove it if the information is false. Also, I read something on slashdot (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/02/1635233&tid=201&tid=218) about not having to restart your computer when you download updates from the microsoft. Does anyone know more about it? The Indpentdent Conservative 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The feature is called Restart Manager. Someone should put more about this, but still we do not have all the details. From what I've read if you do need to reboot it will only take 3 seconds. 'eWeek Article' - Mikecnn 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downloads Vista - False? 

message: how much will each version cost? will there be massive differences? i will obviously be opting for the home premium version, but would like to know the variation in price. (as i remember, XP cost a bomb to get on disc) 
has any of this been worked out yet, or is it too early to say? mastodon 12:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just scroll up to "Seven Editions!?!?!?" above. That might answer your question. Edit: no official word from Microsoft on the pricing yet. —Akhristov 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good point. I'll contact Paul Thurrott aned ask him whether he meant "Premium" instead of "Professional". —Alex 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul says that the way it is now is correct. Who says you are required by law to get the N edition? It is not that different from the original edition. I think the only thing the law requires is that those editions are available. I don't know why you wouldn't but the regular edition instead of the N version. — Alex 04:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, both Home Premium and Ultimate editions have Media Center, so I guess that makes WMP standard. — Alex 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  costs 

message: i live in europe, and i was wondering why there is no sign of a "home premium N"? will i just get the regular premium, or will i be forced by law (cough) to get the basic home N version? mastodon 03:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I'll contact Paul Thurrott aned ask him whether he meant "Premium" instead of "Professional". —Alex 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul says that the way it is now is correct. Who says you are required by law to get the N edition? It is not that different from the original edition. I think the only thing the law requires is that those editions are available. I don't know why you wouldn't but the regular edition instead of the N version. — Alex 04:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, both Home Premium and Ultimate editions have Media Center, so I guess that makes WMP standard. — Alex 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  versions 

message: I notice a lot of, for lack of a better word, entrepreneurship, with the External Links section. This is becoming a serious problem. In an effort to clean up the section, I alphabetized one portion, incorporating some new relevant sites, and removing dead links, in an attempt to make it fair (and informative) for all. What I have noticed tonight are people simply adding a site wherever they see fit, disregarding any formatting rules, and apparently just trying to get their link "on the page". Constantly reverting is not 100% in my jurisdiction, as I am a small-time contributor, and I think this merits some discussion. Mikecnn 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanity with External Links 

message: I was just having a look though, and didn't really feel that the external Aero article contained enough information to justify it not being a part of the Vista article. Does anyone agree or disagree? I'm just saying. --Seegoon 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Aero article