Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 8

message: I will defer to my betters, but I think that the following information regarding the Department of Transportation's ban on Vista upgrades is relevant enough to merit inclusion. You may read about it here:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CPID0SY4ST0CIQSNDLRCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=197700789
I look forward to reading Wikipedia's take on this matter (Incognit000 18:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think a government organization prohibiting upgrades to Vista because of concerns over cost and compatibility should be included.  It isn't notable, and it opens a can of worms. Paul Cyr 19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A United States government department's decision to delay rolling out Vista isn't news.  Actually, it makes excellent business sense to take time to do proper analysis and compatibility testing.   -/- Warren 19:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, actually, it (quite literally) is news; it's been reported widely in industry news sources. --FOo 22:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DOT ban? 

message: "Prior versions of Windows typically needed third-party wireless networking software to work properly; this is no longer the case with Vista, as it includes more comprehensive wireless networking support."
Having worked for the largest manufacturer of laptops in the world, I must say that this statement is incorrect.  Often I told users that could not get wireless to work to disable any wireless networking apps and use the built in XP tool.
This line is incorrect and should be deleted.  --Mfergason 19:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wireless in Previous Versions? 

message: Is it too early to be putting SP1 information in? MS is targeting a latter half of 07 release. It's also said to basically include an updated kernel, as it will take any stability improvements from Windows Server 2007 (a fork of the Vista kernel), and put them into Vista.
: All of those things are unsubstantiated claims and guesses made by commentators.  When Microsoft publishes information, or a reviewer not under NDA writes a review of SP1, then we can quote them.  We don't need to be in a hurry.   -/- Warren 18:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually could you point to where Paul says he has been told this.  He states this in his Vista FAQ but doesn't say where he got the information.  He could just be guessing based on the release date.  AlistairMcMillan 22:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've changed the wording to be less assertive on this point.  It's probably correct information; server & client kernel versions have been synchronized in the past...  -/- Warren 23:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, wouldn't support for EFI require a kernel update? — Alex(T|C|E) 23:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, EFI support has been there since 2001.  Building a "workstation" SKU is mostly a matter of re-working source and testing. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP1 

message: Regarding reverts from user Warrens:
SecurityFocus, involving Symantec , Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures and Bugtraq, is a reference. Touisiau 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SecurityFocus list of vulnerabilities 

message: It appears that any price in editions and pricing is mentioned.  Please fix this whoever has the info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.159.33.181 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand what you're after. If you are after a list of prices for various countries, see the sub-article Windows Vista editions and pricing Harryboyles 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editions and Pricing 

message: In the Criticism section, under digital rights management, HD DVD is spelled as HD-DVD. HD-DVD is wrong. Please do not change it back.
Source:http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com/ Go to FAQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.5.186 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HD-DVD dosen't contain a -. 

message: to what i have read, this isnt possible. but yet, im running this as i type this. and there is no lag. no anything negitive. any retorts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoshi navi t (talk • contribs) 
:You have 512MB installed, some of which is allocated to video memory.  In addition, the 512MB is not an absolute minimum amount of memory required for the base operating system - it's the minimum required for normal operation as not installing that amount will cause thrashing if you load a few applications.  --Sigma 7 20:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for resizing my picture, i kinda wanted to rush this on here, wasn't thinking. But actually showing that my laptop could do this got tons of my school chums actually less weary about vista upgrades. --Yoshi navi t 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed your image from the talk page.  Wikipedia's policy on the use of copyrighted images requires us to restrict usage of them to the articles themselves.  See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details. Thanks.  -/- Warren 21:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements? 

message: Would it be important to add a section--a blurb, even--which deals with the System Builder licenses/editions of Vista which Microsoft releases? It's an OEM version of their software. I don't know how much, or if at all, Microsoft OEM software has been pushed in the past, but many internet retailers seem to be carrying it.
This OEM software is intended for system builders only and cannot be transferred to another PC once it is installed. The purchaser of this software is required to comply with the terms of the System Builder license, including the responsibility of providing all end-user support for the software.
: I suppose it would be good to note the extended license; it is available here: http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/English.pdf Kingsean 04:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if Windows Vista editions and pricing would be a good place to get into more detail on that.  -/- Warren 08:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Builder Section 

message: This article has been tagged and needs to be locked. Someone has edited the top portion and typed rather disturbing sentences.
Ben 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The protection log says it's semi'd until 23:30, April 15, 2007 (UTC)...I think  should be used here. PhoenixTwo 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Can somebody possibly create an article which only contains broken programs, and what patches might prevent the software from breaking?
:Your best bet right now is to first see if the program works fine by iteself in Vista, if not, then:
:#Quick and easy Google search for patch or whatnot.
:#Force use Compatibility with Windows XP
:#Use Virtual PC with Windows XP in that
:#Stick with Windows XP and not upgrade at all
:I don't think a new article would be easy or beneficial (too many programs out there, no time to test them all with Vista). so really, if you have a program that is a must have, and there's not an obvious Vista version, you are on your own. Blame Microsoft. :)Lamename3000 20:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iexbeta.com has a list of programs that have been identified as either fully compatible, having minor problems, or more serious problems. Microsoft has a list of programs that have been either "Certified for Windows Vista" or programs that "Work with Windows Vista". Harryboyles 03:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia generally tries to avoid arbitrary, uncompletable lists.  See Wikipedia:Listcruft for more details.  -/- Warren 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  software that doesn't work 

message: According to , parts of NGSCB were delayed mainly because developers had concerns about the feature set, rather than because of scheduling concerns. According to , the Secure Startup and Bitlocker technologies in Vista are part of NGSCB. Gazpacho 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not part of NGSCB, they are part of Vista :D NGSCB, as a secure computing platform, is not there in Vista. But that doesn't mean any feature that was conceived as part of that platform cant morph into anything else. This is what happenned to BitLocker (and Secure Startup followed from that). It wad ported out from the NGSCB's Nexus platform into the native Vista stack. --soum (0_o) 00:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista and NGSCB 

message: In the section "Criticism" under sub-category Kernel Patch Protection there is a minor grammatical error (possibly just a typo).  Error has been marked in bold.  Because of the singular subject McAfee, "claim" should be changed to "claims".
The Kernel Patch Protection feature (also known as "Patchguard") on 64-bit versions of Vista that locks down the OS kernel has been criticized by computer security company McAfee who claim that since PatchGuard also prevents third-party security companies from getting inside the OS, they cannot activate crucial security measures in their software to protect the OS from intruders.
--Dpsaves 02:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both variants are gramatically correct; the use of the word "claim" implies that the word "McAfee" is plural.  This noun-verb plural agreement is something you see much more often in British English.  American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement explains this better than I could.  Ideally, we could change this sentence to avoid the ambiguity altogether by using a different phrasing that avoids assigning a singular or plural quantifier to "McAfee".  This could perhaps be done by going with something like, "A McAfee representative stated".  You're quite welcome to give it a try yourself!   -/- Warren 05:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In other words, to the British (and some others), a company is a 'they' - a group of people operating in common cause.  Corporate personhood is a thing Americans embrace more than most others. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism edit 

message: I removed citation needed  statements due to the fact they were listed under the features which are without a doubt included an urn no way disputable.  Like the speech recognition that I'm using to type this for example. Dm2ortiz 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact tags aren't there for the presence or absence of the features, they're there because the article makes claims relative merits of the features, which is disputable. Yes you have speech recognition, but do you have "improved speech recognition"? You may claim that you do, but 1. that's original research, and 2. users are notoriously bad judges of actual performance, particularly when it comes to speech recognition. The claims that features are "improved", "simplified", "faster", or "optimum" need to be backed with a real study or removed. Ripe 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Is it just me, or is the Windows logo missing from the startup screen, with the green crawly thing at the bottom? O_o --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just you. The screen you're seeing is the real startup screen for Windows Vista. It's to do with "unnecessary" advertising during the startup process, according to Microsoft. Apparently the new screen also makes the system boot faster. See here for more info. Harryboyles 18:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Startup splash screen thingy 

message: I suggest replacing "a completely new and highly graphical interface" in the WMP11 section with "a new GUI". while I don't need condescending definitions of what new and highly are, there is no information imparted by the adverbs. Is it reasonable to expect that a reader who sees a less verbose version to mentally expand that into "partially new" or "partially graphical interface." The article is long; words should be cut if they aren't necessary. Ripe 17:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "completely new and highly graphical" WMP11 

message: thumb|right|210px|SVG @ 210pxthumb|right|215px|SVG @ 215px
The current Windows Vista Orb logo (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Winvista.png) is a png of a vector copy of the actual logo, created in Inkscape by User:Althepal.  When I saw this I assumed that there were licensing issues that prevented Wikipedia using the actual, Microsoft-provided logo.  But the licensing box says simply that "Low-resolution logos qualify as fair use".  Given this, why are we using Althepal's version and not Microsoft's?  I realise that WP Policy is to use vector images over scalars where available, but surely the fact that the scalar is the *actual* logo rather than a copy is far more important than that (especially considering the innaccuracies of Althepal's version; most notably the highlight across the top of the flag which appears to be the product of artistic license on Althepal's part, pretty as it may be)? Simxp 05:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The jpeg logo I based it on had the highlight. It is no longer on Wikipedia, but this was not artistic license; it was a careful copy. I'm sure that the smooth-looking version is much preferable to the jpeg artifact version. :Image:Windows Vista Orb.jpg is another jpeg logo from Microsoft, with a difference most notably in the thickness of the flag, but you can see the highlights on the flag there. Althepal 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an SVG version: :Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg.  The only problem with it is that it doesn't render properly if you put it under 215px. V60 干什么？ · VDemolitions · ER 3 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Althepal; thank you for taking the time to reply.  I apologise for casting aspirations on the care of your copy -- I agree that it is an excellent representation of :Image:Windows Vista Orb.jpg -- but are you completely sure that that and the JPEG logo you originally copied are from Microsoft?  If so (and, of course, I trust you if you say they were), the only thing I can think of is that Microsoft revised the logo before the final release (i.e. by removing the highlight from the flag).  Certainly, I have a copy of Vista, and in none of the places the orb appears (the pre-login animation, the start button, the System page) is there a highlight on the flag.  And as I said before, the official logo on Microsoft's press site has no highlight on the flag (the logo in the System Information box especially appears identical to the one on the press site).  So even if the logo did originally have a highlight on the flag, it seemingly does not have one any more, and the Wikipedia page should ideally reflect that.  Regarding smoothness and quality, the image on the presspass site may be JPEG, but it's pretty high quality -- 1,564x1,559 pixels, 24-bit, no visible artifacts even at 1:1.  Simxp 23:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I just copied a jpeg that was already on Wikipedia. It is sure possible that the logo has changed, but to tell you the truth, there are many variations of the orb all over Microsoft's websites. That big logo you linked to does not show jpeg, however downsized jpegs on wikipedia will always show some jpeg artifacts. A suggestion could be to take that logo you linked to, downsize it, save as png, and replace white with transparency. But I don't have the time to make more windows logos. I will not object to replacing my png file(s) if you follow those steps to convert the image you linked to. Althepal 05:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'WinVista' Orb logo 

message: The Mac criticisms read more like bemoanings of features that Mac users wish Vista hadn't evolved into, especially since Mac didn't come up with half of them first (as stated in the article). The entire premise is like criticizing a third-world country for adopting good changes in government, simply because you're jealous of their success. In other words, they aren't valid criticisms, as they aren't flaws, but rather strengths of Windows Vista that some Mac users wish they hadn't developed. They appear to be just biased, child-like bemoanings, which lead hapless readers to believe that there's something WRONG with Vista adapting these new features, which is entirely subjective, and a biased way to criticize (or rather bemoan) Vista's natural evolution. Virtually all of the criticized features are useful things that every computer would one day have anyway, regardless of platform, and most of them were NOT first featured on Mac to begin with.
Anyway, I was going to remove that section, but I want to post this first to see if other non-biased people agree that this doesn't belong here. If anything, it should go in a Bemoaning section, but I find the entire thing to be made of invalid criticisms, unless someone can attest some valid reason that Vista SHOULDN'T have these features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 
:They've received much attention for numerous reputable sources.  It isn't a matter of what you view the criticisms as, its a matter of what the criticism are and how notable they are. If you can give a reason why they aren't notable enough or valid enough for inclusion, please say how. Paul Cyr 01:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saying the criticisms stem from Aero "not being ugly" without a cite is OR, and thus not allowed. --soum (0_o) 01:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Mac Criticisms (?)