Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 11

message: Does anyone know if the official pronunciation is like "vih.sta" /vIsta/, or like "vee.sta" /vi.sta/. Sorry for the mix of dictionary-guide and mock IPA, but does anyone know, I've heard both about equally. 128.122.36.34 15:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its vista, like vih stah. Vee stah is horrendously wrong. Tourskin 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You EEEDIOT! It's VEEEESTA!" - Ren  (I'm just kidding!) - Bevo 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "vista" derives from the Spanish word for "view". They pronounce it "veestah". If Microsoft calls it vihstuh, it's due to the anglicizing of the word. 24.4.131.142 02:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Does anyone oppose to splitting the excessively long Archive 8 into two or three archives? Josh 16:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: For example - "Windows Vista contains hundreds of new and reworked features". Hundreds? Seems to me, that even if there is one hundred of these "new" features copied straight over from Mac OS X, Linux and other serious operating systems, there is no many hundreds of these.
 - anonymous coward who hasn't got an account on the English wikipedia
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.149.46 (talk) 
: I'm pretty tempted to change it to 'many new and reworked features'. Any feedback? peterl 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your opinion, but the actual count of new features in Vista is in the hundreds.  Actually, it's over a thousand when you start counting the small things.  You're welcome to review the half-dozen Wikipedia articles covering Vista's new features to confirm the quantity of stuff for yourself.   -/- Warren 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I admit, if you count all of the Vistas tiny little features and "features" (If you know what I mean ;) then it does make several hundreds. But this article still seems like an advertisement, for example, the article reminds several times that Vista has "completely re-architected audio, network..."etc. Has some Microsoft tech writers and marketers been editing this article? Also, the article should mention of the criticism that the Vista's new innovations are really just ripped off the other Operating Systems out there... --213.243.149.46 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is because Vista DOES have a totally redone network and audio stack. And why should the article mention of the *ripping off* any more than it already does? You *think* it looks like something else, can you prove that absolutely objectively? Okay leave that aside, can you prove that MS *did* copy something and *not* come up with it separately? If not, its speculation and theoretizing which does not have any place here. --soum talk 05:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article sounds like an advertisement 

message: This is referred to several times in this article, but we are not told what it is(what is it by the way?) Surely this should be included--Jac16888 04:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's explained in the Editions and pricing section. Josh 14:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Ultimate Edition 

message: What does this mean?  Can I still run my old DOS programs in a DOS box, like I do on XP, or not?  Is CMD.EXE available?  Jm546 01:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been able to run the older MSDOS apps under cmd.exe using Vista just like I do under XP.   As for 16-bit Windows applications (that were probably developed for Win 3.1), I'm not sure what happens when they are installed and started under Vista. - Bevo 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In 32-bit Vista, 16-bit Windows programs run on a modified version of Windows 3.1 that runs in a virtual machine. NTVDM and/or WoWexec handle displaying the 16-bit program's window on the screen. 64-bit Vista has no 16-bit support. Josh 16:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm aware things in Vista are fairly similar to XP. The 64 bit version of Windows has removed Dos and 16 bit Windows support. The 32 bit version retains this support. You can still run Dos applications in a 32 bit or 64 bit Windows emulator like Dosbox. All versions retain cmd but cmd.exe is a Windows command line interpreter. It is mostly unrelated to Dos support which is actually a seperate feature of Windows despite the apparent similarities between the two. Nil Einne 09:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you mean the MS-DOS so-called "software interrupt" INT 21h support is distinguishable from the command line interpreter's support for so-called "batch files".  (Is there a better way to say this?) - Bevo 01:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry interrupts is a bit beyond me. What I was saying is that the Windows Virtual DOS machine which is what provides DOS support is seperate from the cmd.exe which is the command line interpreter. The former is necessary to run DOS programs/executables while the later is simply the command line interpreter which interprets and responds to command and can be used for a variety of things including running scripts i.e. batch files Nil Einne 13:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 16bit Windows 3.11 Programs rus fine under Vista 32bit for me but not in 64bit oviuelsy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJenbo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 32-bit Vista has all the same DOS support as XP. 64-bit Vista cannot run DOS programs unless you use a program like DOSBox. CMD.EXE works in all versions but has nothing to do with running real DOS programs. Josh 16:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for 16 bit MSDOS applications 

message: Should it be mentioned that this is the first Windows to have a real name (i.e. not 3.1, 98, 2000, XP, etc).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.131.142 (talk) 22:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are those not real names? 76.248.46.100 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: "The first beta of Windows Vista Service Pack 1, build 16659, was released on September 24th, 2007 and is currently being tested by TechBeta participants in the Windows Vista SP1 Beta Program as well as TechNet and MSDN subscribers."
Vista SP1 beta is not available to TechNet subscribers.
Microsoft says so: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/bb738089.aspx
"Windows Vista SP1 has been released as a limited beta to a group of selected beta testers. Technet subscribers will be the first to gain access to the SP1 release candidate when it becomes available. The timing of the release candidate will be based on feedback from the current beta testers."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.99.148 (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP1 Beta Not Available on Technet 

message: Wil service pack 1 be available for a free download, or will i have to fork out another sum of money after i get vista next month. i'm pretty sure it will, cause isn't xp's service packs free?
--Jameogle 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it will be free of charge, just like every other Microsoft update or service pack. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sp1 downloads 

message: While this article provides a general overview, all the new features of Windows Vista are thoroughly listed only in the "New features" series of articles. Amongst those, the networking and I/O articles were created much later and therefore are not directly and prominently linked to from the main article. An administrator should edit the main article to prominently link to the networking and I/O articles, just like they've done for End user/General, Technical, Business and Developer features' articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.197 (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only semi protected (blocks unregistered users). You can edit it just by logging in. Btw, I made the edits for now.  --soum talk 08:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No links to networking and I/O features 

message: Has this been nominated for peer review?
When are we going to make this  a featured article?
Of late, I'm seeing very little changes and edit wars...
time for making it featured?
Mugunth 17:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I think the only weak part of the article is the SP1 section, it looks sloppy. (heh, I thought SP1 was primarily bugfixes). Look how the XP article has their Service Pack information organized Windows_XP#Service_Pack_1 MahangaTalk 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done some work on the SP1 section today to help it along.   -/- Warren 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Warren. I think it looks ready. Someone who has worked on it should nominate it. MahangaTalk 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Is it "Veesta" or "Vihsta"? RageSamurai21655 00:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have half-life 2 ep1 or ep2 you can hear and excample, it's sounds like Veesta.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJenbo (talk • contribs) 10:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it now says in the article, it's (IPA: /ˈvɪs.tə/). Harryboyles 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: I have read about handwriting recognition (INK) features of WINVista and I wanted to know if they are limited only to tablet PC type machines. can't i use a desktop machine and use WACOM digitizer (graphire) to make hand writing notes and get them converted to editable text in programs such as one note and journal etc... ??? 202.142.190.245 16:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The handwriting recognition can not handle images, as it makes use of the timing information and order of strokes when recognizing text. A graphire should provide this information for Inc, but not owning one myself I can't say for sure.:--Anss123 16:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Short answer: yes.  To Windows, there is very little difference between a tablet PC and a normal PC with a Wacom tablet; you can use all the tabletPC features with a tablet, including ink, guestures, etc.  (Anss123: the OP wasn't asking about recognising images, they were asking about using a Wacom graphics tablet to input text).  -- simxp (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handwriting recognition (INK) in Vista 

message: Why have a seperate criticism page when this page exhaustively details them all, I propose we delete the entire criticism section but retain the link to the criticisms section. If noone objects, I will do this now.--Rotten 06:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the problem and fixed it.  Do you think this is good, or should other action(s) be taken? You are definatly right about the section being deleted.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 06:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thought would be to distribute some or all of the criticism throughout the main article, with, for example, criticisms of feature X being given when feature X is discussed, as per, for example, Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticisms of a topic in its article, Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticisms about a topic in other articles, and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. (This does have the risk of provoking complaints that the article sounds like it's written by a fanboy - see, for example, the complaints raised about the iPhone article every so often.) Guy Harris 11:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: Why is Vista called Vista?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.203.161 (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the name Windows thought was best, why shouldn't it be called Vista?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeking16 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the meaning behind the name? --  timc  talk   15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is. Maybe because it has a good look to it, a good... view? IronCrow 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to have to agree with IronCrow Microsoft don't have to have a meaning behind all of their product's name. Joeking16 13:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I seriously doubt the name "Vista" came about because some engineer at Microsoft said "Hey, let's call it Vista" and everyone else said "Yeah, that sounds great."  Microsoft probably paid some branding consultancy six or seven figures to come up with the name and research the heck out of it.  If anyone could find out the story behind it, it might indeed make an interesting addition. Greyfedora (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Vista? 

message: I've removed the long horn logo and before bringing it back, please discuss here...
I felt that, the longhorn logo, right in the first section make the article look old...
Infact the logo was added during the initial stages of the article, around 2.5 yrs back... or something...
<FONT COLOR="#006000"><B><I>Mugunth</I></B></FONT>(<FONT COLOR="#DC32DC">ping me!!!</FONT>,<FONT COLOR="#FF8000">contribs</FONT>) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it does belong in the development section and development goes first chronologicly speaking. Josh (talk | contribs) 01:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.. but do we require that logo in Windows Vista article?
Development of Windows Vista should have that...
For example, Windows XP article does not have a huge logo of the codename...
Because Vista is now pretty old, i think we should remove the image, or atleast make it small...<FONT COLOR="#006000"><B><I>Mugunth</I></B></FONT>(<FONT COLOR="#DC32DC">ping me!!!</FONT>,<FONT COLOR="#FF8000">contribs</FONT>) 06:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article mentions the development period, I think the logo is quite important. The comparison to Windows XP does not hold because Longhorn was way more publicized (and more popular) than Whistler ever was. In fact there are many people who think Longhorn and Vista are different OSs altogether. The contrast of the visual identification (logo) needs to be shown to dispel that notion. And if you want the logo to be small... --soum talk 10:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed long horn logo... 

message: Why the fact that XP and Vista are poor in visaual styles isn't stated? I mean, 98 and Me at least included Plus! themes that changed color, sounds and icons. In XP and Vista there are not many themes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.234.212 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Vista there are theoretically 4,228,250,625 different "colour schemes": 255 levels each of hue, saturation, brightness, and translucency; all independently adjustable.  Though Windows XP has only three by default, Microsoft have made two more available (Energy Blue and Zune, both free), and there are thousands of user-made ones available from sites such as customize.org. Also, if you prefer the old 98/Me style themes, they're all still there in both XP and Vista, under "Windows Classic".  -- simxp (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between themes and the theoretical ability to make themes. Regardless, they have nothing to do with Vista since they were removed in XP. Josh (talk | contribs) 16:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  The theme engine is locked and you can't change the colour of taskbar its away black blargh  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.203.22 (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even XP had its theme engine locked down from external access. (That it was hacked around is a different matter). Btw, I wish they included this feature isn't a criticism. Thats why it is not here. --soum talk 15:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Desktop Themes 

message: I'm disappointed this article doesn't contain a section describing how well or poorly Vista has done compared to expectations. The words 'sales' nor 'reception' can't even be found in the article. Boo!Yeago (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are conflicting reports. See  for example. The article already is large, but it might be worth a couple of sentences. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to insert some information if you can find some reliable independent sources for it.  I'm turning up Microsoft saying sales are good, and Microsoft-Watch and the FSF accusing them of fudging the figures.  Which, frankly, is what they were always going to say (on both sides) whatever Vista sales were like...  -- simxp (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Preferably keep MS and FSF and their affiliates out of the references, and use independent, but reliable, sources. --soum talk 17:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, feel free if you can find any, but the thing with sales figures is that the only company who reliable knows how many copies of Vista have been sold is Microsoft, and they're obviously not an independent source (they're always going to claim figures are good, whether they are or not).  Any independent bodies can only estimate based on, for example, web browser usage agents (as Usage share of desktop operating systems does).  This is distinctly dodgy, and even if it wasn't, evaluating how well these figures match up to "expectations" (whose expectations?) is extremely subjective.  I suspect we're really not going to find anything useful and encyclopedic on this.  -- simxp (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also maybe refer to the cnet poll which shows some surprising (or maybe not-so-surprising, considering the issues plaguing Vista) numbers. Althepal (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but I only read in that sentance "I hear... rumors... article... needs words on this."  Please refer to the above posts for ways to get that subject included. Paul Cyr (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumors and criticism often repeated in the media and other notable sources are certainly up for discussion here. Maybe you've had you're head in a place where sound and light do not reach, however, Vista is often scoffed at as a replacement to XP.Yeago (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said rumours in critisism don't exist, but they shouldn't exist in this article if they do not come from a proper source.  The OP made no reference to any.  In addition, that type of rudeness is not appropriate, please remain civil. Paul Cyr 19:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I made a section on the public reception of Windows Vista, I think it is actually pretty interesting information. Althepal 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A few points: I removed the web poll.  A web poll is not a reliable source, as it is self-selecting: only people with a point to make or an ax to grind are liable to vote in them.  See the article on Opinion poll for proper sampling methods.  I also changed the market share section from an external link to WebApplications to an internal link to Usage share of desktop operating systems, which collates information from a number of companies, including WebApplications; and replaced the slight OS X promotioneering with a statement of current market share, using an arithmetic mean of the four web market share companies results.  -- simxp (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception and sales? 

message: Do you think this article is good enough to be star quallity? - Titan602 (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See results of previous nominations here and here.  -- simxp (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article? 

message: This article IMO, does not suffer from much vandalism recently...
Can we remove the semi protection?<FONT COLOR="#006000"><B><I>Mugunth</I></B></FONT>(<FONT COLOR="#DC32DC">ping me!!!</FONT>,<FONT COLOR="#FF8000">contribs</FONT>) 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Semi-protection is the reason it does not suffer from vandalism. Althepal (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Protection 

message: The articles has a very long introduction which pretty much summarizes most of the stuff written below. I'm not really familiar with the OS (still using XP myself), but maybe we could break the intro down to a paragraph and have delete or re-appropriate the rest into their respective categories?Grifter tm (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Something similar to the current first paragraph is probably about all that is needed as a lead. Happypoems (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Lead section for an understanding of why the lead section is of the size that it is.  The lead section is supposed to summarise what comes in the rest of the article.  That's what it's there for.   -/- Warren 07:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Summarize yes, but thing is they even go into detail on the new features, Microsoft's primary stated objective and criticism. It's an article all to itself. I did read the Lead Section article, and it would be best to follow that type of intro. It didn't need to go four paragraphs, did it? Grifter tm (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The section regarding Vista's sales is not verifiable and does not stand up to even the slightest bit of fact checking.  Microsoft's "100 million licenses" are through retail channels while the IDC/Gartner stats are for total PC sales through all channels (business, online, Dell etc). Therefore one can't use those numbers together to determine the percentage of machines that shipped with Vista, as this article claims to do. Microsoft is on record as also noting that they sold an additional amount of 42 million licenses through volume license agreements. [1][2]
Vista didn't hit retail until Jan 30th and therefore missed about a month of sales counted for 2007.  The 89 million licenses credited to XP is counting from October of 2001 to the end of 2002. [3]  Actually, Microsoft allowed PC makers to ship XP up to a month before launch in order to jump start PC sales. [4][5][6] That's 15 months and two holiday seasons versus Vista's 11 months and one holiday season.
Microsoft also claimed that 77% of all retail PC's sold in Feb 2007 had Vista pre-installed and that number increased to 96% by CES 2008. That also vibes with common sense and everyone's personal experience as we all know it's nearly impossible to walk into a retailer an find a PC with XP pre-installed and that's been the case since shortly after Vista was released. [7] [8]
[1]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-Vista-Numbers-Sit-Between-100-and-150-Million-75362.shtml
[2]http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1079
[3]http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2003/jan03/01-08ces2003overallpr.mspx
[4]http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/industry/10/16/xp.systems.idg/index.html
[5]http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2092737,00.htm
[6]http://www.itworld.com/Comp/1197/IDG010924CompaqXPsystems/
[7]http://entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=9399
[8]http://www.wininsider.com/news/?10985
I think the criticsm section should also mention how fashionable it has become to complain about Vista/Longhorn.  The FUD has been pouring out for years; from MS is trying to kill OpenGL by making run on top of D3D, to trying to kill PDF and ODF with XPS and OOXML, to trying to kill Flash with Expression and Silverlight, to Palladium fears about not letting users switch to Linux, and even that ridiculously bad article about DRM in Vista.
If you want you can link to Ed Bott saying he was offered money to trash Vista:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=287
Brandon Gilchrist (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism of Windows Vista#Software compatibility -- simxp (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone who works on this article is going to disagree with you on the issues you've mentioned... however, being an encyclopedia, we need to ensure that anything we put in the article, especially when it is critical of the subject, can be backed up by reliable sources.  This is really important, because it's your assurance as a reader that the article isn't lying to you.  If the problems you're describing are that widespread, surely it's been covered in a major computing publication by now... if you can find that, fantastic, we'll find a way to work it into the article.  -/- Warren 21:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the contrary, I think it's pretty important that anything put in the article that is positive towards the subject be backed up with reliable sources, when the subject of the article is a heavily promoted commercial product. I'm not saying that everyone putting positive comments is a shill, but rather that we need to make sure that our articles are credible and don't merely buy in to commercial hype. Hype and excitement about new products are infectious, although Apple has generally proven more skilled at harnessing this phenomenon than Microsoft; but an encyclopedia has a responsibility to be more critical -- in the sense of "critical thinking", not "opposition". --FOo (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody's arguing "to the contrary", Mr. Obfusco.  -/- Warren 04:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said 'especially when it is critical of the subject'. He disagrees with this double standard, and so do I. 218.159.144.49 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: While we're at it, should we mention that not all MSDOS games work under vista too? What about windows 98 games?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.43.189 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I think this will always be a problem area, even given reputable sources. Microsoft's own figures for Vista sales undoubtedly will include the millions of preinstalled OEM copies supplied with new computers. Yet, if experience is anything to judge by, a very high percentage of such copies are never even once booted-up, the new computer being reloaded with an alternative OS straight out of box. Do such 'never-booted' copies count as a sale? Good question. It is also obvious that while some customers will buy XP as a replacement, some will use an existing copy from a previous computer, which therefore won't show in XP sales figures. Thus, even given reliable figures, it is hard to draw any firm conclusions as to how the continuing usage of XP correlates with Vista sales. --Anteaus (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparing Vista / XP sales figures. 

message: In oppose of "hundreds of new features" I just replaced "number of negative assessments" to "hundreds of negative assessments". This is for equal the tone of article to reach better NPOV. Let me know what you think about it. --Ciao 90 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming good faith, I think you seriously misunderstand the point of WP:NPOV.  NPOV does not mean that criticism of a topic should use the same adjectives as the description of a topic!  As a wider issue, nor does it mean that criticism should take up an equal amount of space as description: see WP:Undue Weight (for example, the Linux article has no criticism section at all, but contrary to your apparent interpretation of NPOV, this is not actually an NPOV violation, but rather a function of there being insufficient verifiable mainstream criticism to put in one).  On this specific issue, however, the important factor is WP:V -- verifiability.  The lead says 'hundreds of new features' because there are hundreds of verifiable significant new features: those which are catalogued, referenced, and verified in the numerous "X features new to Windows Vista" subarticles.  This is manifestly not true of criticisms.  Reverted.  -- simxp (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine, I just noticed that "hunderds of the new features" was replaced by "many changes and new features" seems better npov now. --Ciao 90 (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hundreds" word. 

message: Ok. Vista SP1 is already here. Do we/you know anything about Vista SP2? If you do, please add info to the main article. Urvabara (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well SP1 isn't really here...consumer release in March and even April for some...but I haven't heard anything on SP2. Exodite (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's technically here, although it isn't official from microsoft yet. A simple google search will get you SP1 via torrent. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Did fix 479 bugs though! Cooldude7273 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SP1 is not officially released for those who already have Vista until mid-March, so until then, any reviews about SP1 to current Vista owners seems premature. It should be noted the SP1 were released to manufacturers, not to consumers directly.--BirdKr (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista SP2? 

message: Just wondering, why is this article still semi-protected? It's been this way for quite some time now, I can't find anything in the history nor on the talk page. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection? 

message: The lack of support for running the real time clock on UTC in Vista is definitely a criticism of Vista, even if it's not limited to Vista. It's no excuse that the problem has been known for many years now; on the contrary, the neglection of this problem makes the criticism even more justified. --X-Bert (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the text you're adding doesn't even mention the clock management being criticized; it just states how it works, and that it doesn't support certain features. Furthermore, the words "poor" and "desirable" are POV. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the criticism is about clock management, what else? It's not just a missing feature which is a matter of taste. It's a technical issue which leads to real problems under certain conditions (see knowledge base articles). Therefore it would no doubt be desirable to solve this problem. I don't know why Microsoft doesn't do that, but the actual criticism is that this bevaviour is "poor", like the slow file operations are called "slow". Perhaps there are other words like "problematic" or "insufficient", but it is no POV to name the documented criticism. Just writing "clock management" wouldn't say anything. By the way, the "Hardware requirements" should be called "High hardware requirements". --X-Bert (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What criticism? What I'm saying is that your text doesn't mention anything being criticized; it just lists some "poor" aspects of Windows' clock management. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved section to Criticism article. Continue discussion there. peterl (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of clock management 

message: I work in the field of technical support for PCs and am constantly browsing adverts as I change jobs quite frequently. Very, very few firms are asking for experience of Vista, maybe one in 50. So it seems people, or at least businesses are sticking with XP despite Vista having been around for a year now. Does this merit a mention in the article?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, as it verges upon original research. It also wouldn't be much of an indicator as to uptake of Vista, because it depends on the adverts you are looking at. Are they from just one geographical area? Is it a specific industry area you are looking at. It wouldn't be as useful as, say, sales figures or market share statistics.Harryboyles 15:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Already mentioned in the article (with references for every sentence): "As of December 2007, small business adoption of Vista has been slower than expected, with the vast majority still favoring Windows XP and even waiting for Windows 7, Microsoft's next version of Windows then expected to be released in late 2009 or 2010.[95] According to InformationWeek, in December 2006, 6% of business enterprises were expected to employ Vista within the first year, yet as of October 2007, only about 1% of enterprise PCs were actually using Vista.[96] Furthermore, while a large number of businesses have bought licenses to run Windows Vista, many of these companies are delaying deployment.[97]". Althepal (talk) 19:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference doesn't say anything about the "vast majority" waiting for Windows 7.  And slower than expected for small businesses according to whom?  But who am I kidding, the whole section is terrible and horribly biased and needs to be severely overhauled. Exodite (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It indicates that the vast majority are holding onto XP for now, and a lot of them are planning to skip Vista completely to go for Windows 7. I agree that the section could use some refining, but the article does at least need something like this to address what's going on, otherwise its just trying to hide the information. "according to whom?" According to the references and about a million other places. Just check Google news for vista business adoption or something. ChangeWave and other people have conducted surveys and interviews and stuff. Althepal (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No I did not see anywhere where it said "a lot" of them were actually planning to skip Vista completely.  And you can't just tell people to google information, to use the phrase "slower than expected" it should be about Microsoft's expectations, and I've seen nothing indicating Vista is below Microsoft's expectations.  In fact many articles, even the ones referenced, have quotes saying how Vista is selling record numbers to enterprises, but do I see that in there?  Of course not.  "Hiding information" indeed. Exodite (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm sure it doesn't hurt those record numbers (which are mentioned in that very section) that the computer market was twice as large during the release of Vista as it was in 2001. "Expectations" are also specified in that section as how many companies, in 2006, planned to use Vista. Althepal (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slow Take Up 

message: Here's an external link, giving a favorable review of Vista.  --Kodster (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's actually lots of good reviews and talks and stats about Vista, good to have another though.  However you won't see them anywhere in this article, particularly in the awful "Public Reception and Sales" section.  Weasel word bias central. Exodite (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exodite, instead of complaining that the section is so horrible, why don't you fix it? I'm sure there are plenty of people who like Vista. Changewave said that 20 percent of people are very satisfied with Vista, so there's no problem mentioning some of these things. But the section in general is important there, seeing as 20 percent is a lot lower than 50% of people who really like XP. Althepal (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, please accept the fact that ChangeWave is not the be all end all opinion of the world.  If their surveys were really representative, Mac sales would be killing Windows sales and have a much higher percentage OS share, which it doesn't.  As to why I don't rewrite the entire thing, as soon as I put the work into doing that it will get immediately reverted back.  If we could get a team going to fix up that section I would gladly help. Exodite (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exodite, the fact that people like Leopard more than Vista and XP more than Vista is not trying to say that Leopard sales outweigh Vista sales (its just saying the general theme of the section makes sense and in fact does have NPOV when it lists so many negative things about it). Change wave indicates that, among consumers, 30% now intend to purchase Macs. Now we both know that the Windows market share is way over 70%, and that Windows sales are overall outdoing Mac sales. The explanation is that in the past, the number of consumers choosing Macs has been much lower than it is now, as well as the fact the majority of computer purchases are by businesses, which almost always choose PCs. If you want to get an idea of how Macs are getting more popular among consumers, check out the sales on Amazon.com. You'll see that, among regular (non-mini-Linux) laptops and desktops, at the moment, different Macs place in numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 on Amazon's bestseller list. Oh, and as you can see from market share trends, the Mac market share is steadily increasing. Althepal (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New website 

message: This software is NOT part of Vista, and will also need to be purchased separately, when it becomes available later in the year, as won't be free. Also, the current version of SoftGrid was originally designed for Windows XP, not Vista.  So why is this unrelated software being mentioned here as feature of Vista? Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desktop Optimization Pack/Microsoft Application Virtualization 

message: Over the weekend a timetable for the public release of SP1 was added - but without citation. A link was added, but the reliability of the link was questioned, and thus removed. I've since added back the  tag; if we don't have a verifiable source for the statement in a few days the relevant lines should be removed. Onesecondglance (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Pack 1 

message: Not enough discussion on improvements over Windows XP.  Criticisms and issues seems to dominate this article and is biased and I actually get the strange feeling it was composed by an Apple employee or activist bashing Windows.  I personally have used Windows Vista professionally since the release date and find over 50% of this article biased and unfair.  Let me make my point clear: look at Apple's article on Mac OS X on this website.  You will actually find no critisms listed.  This is not that Apple is better because it is not.  You CANNOT list CRICISMS for one operating system and not the other.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.123 (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "New or improved features" is already the longest section in the article. Less than half of the article has to do with opinion. Mac OS X does list criticism; it just doesn't separate it into its own section. The Microsoft Windows article, which is roughly equivalent to Mac OS X, doesn't have a criticism section either. Mac OS X v10.5 has one. Besides, each article is an individual article; one article having a criticism section and another not having one is not someone "listing criticisms for one operating system and not the other". - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Josh is right, anonymous Vista fan. Vista and Leopard both have criticism sections, and Windows and Mac OS X don't. And you know what? The criticisms listed in any article is dependent on the product, not other articles. You may be fine using Vista, but there were a lot more people who had problems with Vista than for Leopard. And you stated your opinion, "Apple [Mac OS X] is not [better than Vista]." Um, this is my opinion now, OS X is better than Windows. I use Windows all the time... I grew up on Windows... then I tried OS X about a year ago, whereupon I started using both. I think I have a little ground to make a good decision on which is better... I chose OS X as my primary platform, Windows as secondary. Have you ever used Mac OS X to decide Vista is better, or were you just forced to buy it at your computer store along with your computer and don't want to accept the fact that you could have done better? Well, not to say that Vista computers will run poorly or are bad, but more frequently will you see issues like speed problems or other annoyances with Vista than with Linux or Leopard. I mean, do you ever read tech magazines? Everything is almost always saying that Vista is bad this way or people don't like Vista that way, and pretty much every YouTube video on the subject is making fun of Vista, every blog post complaining. Reality kind of has to be reflected in the article you know? Can't just make every article the same with different nouns or make up fake realities that Vista is perfect or Mac is horrible when nothing else indicates that. I mean, in case I didn't make myself clear, check out this article. Can you show me where the Mac or Linux toilet paper is? And don't tell me those operating systems aren't used enough to get noticed, because XP is way more popular than Vista and doesn't have that problem (and also, by the way, among computer people, Linux is highly popular). Oh, and by the way, check out the article's history... you'll see pretty much all the main editors are big Windows users. Makes sense, seeing as this is a free encyclopedia and Windows users would be interested in Windows articles... Good luck with Vista, man, and have fun with your eye-candy... Althepal (talk) 06:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the first message about it being biased and would like to respond back to Josh and the follow up guy after that.  Yes, I have used Apple products, but rarely due to their lack of support for software and hardware on the market.  I get the feeling from your response that I am somehow close minded to Apple.  You took my complaint the wrong way.  As a matter of fact, I like the competition because I see how Vista is so much better due to the fact that Mac OS X was popular.  If there was no Apple computers, we would still be using a Windows 2000 boring interface.  Having said that, I believe Windows leads the way especially since they still have the majority of the market share.  You state that Windows XP is still the most popular operating system and Vista not well received.  Yes, you are absolutely correct but what you fail to realize is that it is doing better than previous versions of Windows.  As a professional, I know exactly how long it took for coorporations and individuals to move from Windows 9x to Windows 2000/XP.  I was also not forced to use Vista as you implied.  I chose to use it because I want to use the latest technology as this is my field of expertise.  The problem with Vista is that manufactures did not configure them properly and shipped them with unnecessary software.  Apple computers come clean and configured properly from one vendor.  Vista is shipped from a huge competitive field of companies and each one wants to sell it better with more software.  This is from experience and not from tech magazines which I do not have to rely upon.  For two separate people, I helped them setup their brand new laptops with Vista.  Both laptops are sluggish out of the box because they had McAfee and Norton installed.  With both systems this puts a huge drag on performance. I uninstalled both and the laptops run faster, faster than the Mac laptops.  Yes, I have seen and used them.  Windows Defender comes preinstalled on all Vista machines to protect against spyware and viruses.  I have seen plenty of Windows XP machines infected with spyware but the new IE 7 and Defender on Vista is practically immune based on my experience so far.  Here is my point on performance:  it is not Vista's fault that performance is bad on your system and that the article implies.  The first year most companies were shipping Vista with 512MB RAM and with anti-virus programs that was simply not the right configuration for Vista.  1) not enough RAM   2) too much anti-virus protected installed.   Do not reply that Vista needs that protection to guard against viruses because you are simply being negative as Vista has a revamped Internet browser and integrated spyware and virus protection already installed and the additional anti-virus protection cripples performance.  I have been around since Windows 3.11/95 came out and I remember this same negative hype that Windows NT was not compatible with DOS programs and that it was a terrible system.  Guess where we are today?  The Windows 9x kernel is in the history books and Windows XP/Vista uses the NT kernel.  However, Vista has a revamped version of the NT kernel.  BACK TO THE POINT:  I realize I did not account for the new features section and I made a mistake that critisms is a majority of the section.  Critisms are ok in my opinion.  Mac OS X does not have a critisms section.  Look at the introductory paragraphs to Windows Vista, you find the word "critism" more times than you have fingers and toes.  Then do A SEARCH on the Mac OS X article and people find NOTHING.  CASE CLOSED   - Chad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.159 (talk) 01:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chad, please check out Mac OS X v10.5, you will see the Criticism section. Now check out Microsoft Windows, which has no such section.... Ahem? Now listen, Vista may be perfectly fine when properly configured, no one's saying otherwise. But as you even stated, without first tinkering, computers with Mac OS X have fewer issues than new computers with Vista or old computers upgraded to Vista. And one more thing, Vista is selling more copies than XP simply because there is a larger market for computers. There are far more XP sales over one year after Vista's release than there were sales of all previous versions of Windows one year after XP's release. Again, no one is saying Vista is completely useless or anything, but its just that Wikipedia is all about verifiability: if notable 3rd party articles say it, its reflected right here, and there are no two ways about it. And its a simple fact that since generally people have better experiences with OS X than with Vista, you'll see the corresponding content in the articles. Sorry if it doesn't reflect your use after configuring computers, but you're not everyone. You're good with computers, thats fine, there's nothing wrong with enjoying all Vista has to offer, especially if you get it working well and want the full range of Windows software. I myself always have to remove software from HP or whomever for other people's computers... you're right: its annoying when companies clutter up computers. And, for what its worth, its better to not have to worry about malware at all (in Mac OS X) than it is to rely on Windows Defender, which, I have found, is not as thorough as software made by people like Trend Micro or others. Althepal (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Althepal, the Mac OS X v10.5 article is a specific operating system whereas the Microsoft Windows is not.  Windows Vista is a specific operating system like Mac OS X v10.5 is a specific operating system.  Both specific operating systems could have criticisms.  I do not quite buy into the idea that the majority of tech magazines or generally people have better experiences with Mac OS X.  All you have to do is look at the market share and Vista alone is higher than all Apple versions combined.  I can post a reference to the latest figures if needed.  If your statements were true, why are more people buying Vista?  I know what you mean on Windows Defender, but it still does a good job keeping out the spyware in the first place.  It installs on XP as well...    -Chad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.159 (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I had installed Windows Defender, but it didn't check all the file areas where spyware might be, so I bought Trend Micro and it seems much better... Anyway, yeah, that's the point. Leopard and Vista are specific versions, and both have criticism sections. Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X are both a group of operating systems, and don't have criticism sections (partially since the criticism would have to apply to each and every version of Windows or Mac OS X for it to apply to the whole group). Yeah, I know all about the market shares. I also know that Mac OS X, and to a lesser extent, Linux, are both gaining market share. Mass use doesn't translate into a better product, you know. Most people don't eat organically grown produce, for example, though most experts would tell you organic is healthier and tastes better, so you can't use something like that to indicate how good a product is. There is a history which led to Windows's large market share, not related to product quality. I think it basically goes something like this (didn't double-check if every detail is 100% accurate, but bottom line is): Apple made their hardware and software for their computers in the 1980s, IBM made hardware and bought Microsoft software. Since IBM used 3rd party software, it became easy for other computer makers to make and sell IBM "clones" using the already somewhat popular and available MS-DOS software. This led to one computer manufacturer (Apple) using one operating system (their own), with several other companies using Microsoft's software. Even though the Macintosh operating system may have been significantly superior to Microsoft's OS, it wasn't as popular. As a result, software writers focused on DOS and Windows, since that's where the majority of the market was, furthering the market share gap. (Notice that this is the cause: a rolling stone gaining speed, without a "fair" market to compare how one is better than the other.) This continued making the Mac market share extremely small: Windows and PCs were doing the job, and compatibility, and price, was a main concern. Mac OS, though it had some advantages, was not significantly better than Windows, either, so the trends continued. Then around 2000, Apple started a new line of operating systems based on Unix to give it much more power, security, and performance. Apple also made the iMac around the time. This publicity started to give attention to Mac again, and its market share started growing a bit, but compatibility was still keeping it down. Then around 2005, Apple started using Intel processors, allowing the option of using Windows on the Macs, opening the Mac option to many more people. Again in 2007, Apple introduced Mac OS X Leopard with BootCamp, making duel booting of Windows with Mac OS X easier, and shrinking compatibility issues further. All the while, the Mac market share was growing, making it profitable for software makers to write for OS X as well as Windows. Where it stands, there is almost nothing you need Windows for anymore that you can't find for Mac OS X. Now, the Mac OS X market share peaked to the highest point its been since the charts started, and its still going strong... Net Applications shows you the trends. Nowadays, in order for you to get a college degree requiring software, it is usually a prerequisite that you get training on both Mac and PC platforms... yes, that day has come where you don't have to be afraid to try Mac OS X. I don't need to show you the reviews on Amazon.com or anywhere else if you really want to see which is better, not just more popular. And look at the core of the systems themselves: Leopard is 64 bit but runs 32 bit programs just fine. Vista doesn't. Mac OS X has few or no viruses (a result of UNIX), Windows has Windows Defender. Leopard runs smoothly on 1 Gig RAM and lots of programs, with full Aqua graphics, Vista is slower with Aero. Etc., etc..... Oh man, I've gone on forever trying to show you that the market share differences aren't indicators of quality, even though Wikipedia Talk pages are not discussion forums... Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't worry. The article is not biased, its just reflective of the reality. Nowhere does it say you can't get it working well, it just states the facts. Well, I've had enough of this discussion. You can have a fine time with Windows, its an OS which should do its job well. You didn't make it clear if you've used a Mac recently... its really a pleasure, and you should really just go to an Apple store and try it out. No need to delete pre-installed software, you should like that. ;) About Apple support? I found that I don't need it nearly as much as I do/did HP or Microsoft support since things usually work more smoothly, and whenever I did need them they've been fine for me, significantly better than Microsoft support in my experience. Well, to each his own, right? Just remember that you having a problem with Apple support in the past doesn't mean that Vista is good or the articles are biased. Althepal (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Althepal, we agree on the Defender seeming to be less tweakable but you have to tell it to do a full scan to scan everywhere. I then recommend a follow up scan by Adaware or your favorite just to be safe.  It is clear that you think Apple is better and that is fine. Fine with me, but you can not make the article have that impression to neutral readers.  If I had never owned a computer in my life and read this article on my hungry mind to know what Vista was about I would actually be afraid to buy it.  Do you think that is fair?  Why cannot you not put a crisism on Leopard that Apple is plagued by the fact that you can't easily obtain software for it? Yes you can get software for Apple but I'm talking about easily, like in Walmart.  No major games work on Apple.  Leopard needs to say on its criticism section that "Security vulnerabilities exists in Apple operating systems as they do in Windows but since virus writers target Windows due to the overwhelming market share, Leopard is less of a target." You have to be fair and the tech magazines are in it for the money.  You can't listen to their biased readings.  Quoting their biased messages in an encyclopedic article has no meaning to me.  It leads uneducated minds toward false beliefs that have agendas.  They realize that iPods are popular and happen to be made by Apple and are dogging Microsoft to get reader attention. iPods had a big surge the past few years so why not promote Apple and dog Microsoft?  Magazines would be foolish to not jump on the opportunity.  Magazines also promoted Microsoft xBox and dogged Sony's problems when customers flew to buy xBoxes. It is a fact that over 90% of viruses and spyware can be avoided if you set your machine to automatically update.  That is never on the front page and it never will be because negativity to Microsoft prevails.  Hackers actually read the details of microsoft's download section for patches released and then target unpatched systems.  Let me assure you that if Apple captures a majority of the market one day that attackers will hit them instead.  Apple and Linux has been criticized for taking longer than Windows to patch security vulnerabilities.  If you was a virus writer, would you write a virus to target less than 10% of the market share?  Nah, you would write one for Windows and that has been the problem for Windows, especially XP. So is Apple really better or does it happen to seem that way?  The Apple kernel may not be as secure as some believe.  I installed the latest Linux Fedora version last month and it had over 100 patches needed to install.  My point is that security vulnerabilities exists in every operating system and should be noted on those articles if it is going to be heavily criticised on the Vista and XP articles.  Your statement that Vista 64bit edition cannot run 32bit apps like the Apple is false.  Vista 64bit edition runs all 32bit applications in an emulation environment and it does it well. As a matter of fact, I find Vista running older Windows XP apps more than the article leads me to believe.  And lastly, if Apple is organic, I guess Vista is considered toxic to my health.  Do you get a paycheck from Apple?  Now I understand.  I have no interest in an Apple store.  Interesting debate, have a nice day.  -Chad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.169 (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows Defender: when I tried it, it didn't scan for spyware-cookies. I don't know if they changed that or not. I have no connection to Apple, I'm just someone with an opinion. We really need to find a non-Wikipedia page to have this discussion.... Organic/not-organic was just a counter-example to popularity. The article does not say the Mac is better than Windows. It is true that Mac has been less of a target, which has helped, but it is also true that unix is a solid kernel. EA and id are now making their games for Mac OS X, you can see some here. Mac OS X has tons of non-Apple software: see http://www.macupdate.com/ for some of them. Now you need to see the distinction between biased statements and ones about possibly biased statements: "Most computer experts will tell you that its better to avoid Vista and go with XP or something else," is not a biased statement, but "It is better to avoid Vista" is a biased statement. The article is careful to only word things like the former sentence. Whether or not you agree with it, if a large number of respected computer magazines say something, the Wikipedia editors can't just choose to ignore it. Althepal (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To keep it short for Wikipedia because I think it is important for this article's success, your example is biased because you don't offer both views - it is not NPOV (in Wiki terms).  What if we quoted "Most experts believe Apple should be avoided for business use because of lack of hardware and software support?"  Suddenly you feel it is biased as I do on the Vista side.  YOU CANNOT SAY ON A FORD ENCYLOPEDIA ARTICLE THAT MOST EXPERTS BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE AVOIDED AND GO WITH GENERAL MOTORS OR TOYOTA!  YOU CANNOT SAY ON A GLOBAL WARMING ARTICLE THAT MOST EXPERTS BELIEVE IT IS A MADE-UP THEORY!  Now you see my point?  I find it ironic that near the top it gives a false paragraph that is not relevant today.  All manufactures, especially well-known manufactures ship Vista drivers so that is not true for an encyclopedia article.  UAC thwarts viruses and spyware, why would that be criticised?.  This ridiculous paragraph is not even cited!  If I am welcomed to provide sources of good reviews of Vista to make this article balanced, I can list a million. If you want to talk more on the other stuff, let me know which site.  Have a nice day. -Chad  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.208.114 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chad, you would be right, except I haven't found articles from any respected sites which say Vista is the biggest success of 2007 (something that most people would seem to disagree with), nor have I seen anything saying that Mac OS X doesn't have enough software to be used (which clearly isn't the case, as it is even quite popular and useful among both graphic artists and scientists). What is said is reflected, simple as that. Make a Wikipedia account and provide the sources, then find a way to work them into the article so it is neutral, and that would be fine, no question. If you really want to continue a Mac vs. PC debate, you can just go to my talk page. Althepal (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Is Biased 

message: The article need to be updated.--Eikern (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can supply a source for a *public* release of SP1 - and not a release candidate or beta, etc - then by all means add it in. A quick search of Microsoft's own website shows no such information, though. Onesecondglance (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that, I have managed to find the standalone download for SP1 on Microsoft.com - although you can't find it by any searches such as "vista" or "service pack 1" (!). It's described as "KB936330". I suggest once we have a link to a press release we don't include anything though.Onesecondglance (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Enterprises have had it over a month already. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Windows Vista SP1 appeared in Windows Update on my computer, running Windows Vista Home Premium. The article definitely needs to be updated.24.84.168.114 (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Pack 1 has been released 

message: This article does not state the Recommended Sys. Req. for running Vista smoothly. Only stating the Capable/Premium Ready Reqs. is biased and misleads the possible buyer to buy something that will work incredibly slow on those machines.
These articles state Recommended Sys. Reqs.
http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/windows-vista-rtm-review03.html
http://help.cnet.com/Software/9602-12576_39-0.html?messageID=2509548&kw=Software&nodeId=3513
VShaka (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommended System Reqs. apart from Capable/Premium Ready Reqs. 

message: Am I the only one who finds it extremely biased? No mention of 100 million mark reach. Citing userbase statistic off some obscure website as evidence of adoption and only drawing comparisons on XP and VISTA only if it makes VISTA look bad. I'm referring to Business user equally conservative attitude towards adopting XP. And Slashdot has compiled a list? I mean common....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.101.233 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The slashdot list was relevant to the paragraph. Better than listing everything here. There was mention of 100 million sales, but it was in context of the total PC market, indicating that its sales were still not that high, and that was considered original research. Just stating "100 million sales" without context, however, is meaningless. You figure out the best way. Althepal (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's very important to mantion that Vista has sold over 100 million copies worldwide, because for the time it's been part of the market, it is the most selling OP ever, but in the article Vista is made to look bad. I mean, XP has more market share, but every month its persentage is going down and Vista's going up. Also, let's not forget that Windows XP has been around for 6 years, Vista only has one year in the market.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.88.45 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More like one and a half years. 100 million copies isn't really impressive, you know. All operating systems are selling a much larger percentages than they used to. And a huge percentage of those Vista sales are just going to bulk purchases of business computers which are then re-installed with Windows XP. The section already says that it is the best-selling OS: "...sales of the operating system set a new high. Within its first month, 20 million copies of Vista were sold, double the amount of Windows XP sales within its first month..." Does it need to mention everything Microsoft proudly announces? Do you really want to include all the info about 100 million sales compared to 2 million leopard sales in its first weekend or large replacements of Vista copies with XP? Althepal (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public reception and sales section