Talk:Windows Vista editions

message: Does anyone pay attention to table colours as to be colourblindness or web safe?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.192.85 (talk) 10:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, some users do. I have gone ahead and matched the colors of one of the legends with its respective table since previously, to red/green color blind users the green/lightgreen/red/lightred appeared as 4 different shades of brown. If anyone's interested you can see a color blind simulation of the previous article here and compare it with the current article here. I didn't notice any other issues so I have gone ahead and removed the tag.AerobicFox (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WEB and Colour Blind Safe colours

message: Why is there no information in this article on the numerous problems inherent to Vista? A simple google search shows plenty of credible tech news articles listing the things that are wrong with it, from its general buginess, to its resistance to installing certain programs. Vista 64 is obviously much slower than previous editions (the concensus seems to be a 1-2 second delay when clicking tabs or using Mozilla or Explorer). This really needs to be in here, because lots of people use wikipedia when they decide to purchase something. Wikipeida should not be a defacto ad space for Microsoft in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.110.167 (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2009‎ (UTC)
:WP:NPOV please. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Vista Problems

message: The intro needs to clarify that each of the five editions (excluding Starter) are available in 32- and 64-bit "versions", meaning separate discs. Right now it reads like each edition supports both on a single disc. So, in fact, there are eleven "editions" of Vista.Armandtanzarian (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 32/64 bit versions clarification

message: Can the 64 bit editions only be run on a system with a 64 bit prossessor or can they run on a 32 bit prossessor also?
--63.65.45.102 04:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no, however 32bit editions can and often do run on 64bit capable processors --Rythie 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 64 bit

message: The limitations mentioned regarding the starter edition are almost complete crap. Maybe do a bit of research before writing something? (There is no memory limit of 256MB, hell, it won't even run with that little, and afaik there is no actual CPU limit either, but rather, the sale of the product is limited to areas where there really isn't anything faster than 2GHz available).
:I've fixed this -Rythie 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starter edition information complete crap

message: The prices for the basic edition, as quoted by the article are, US$199.00, £179.99, €259.00 and AU$385.00. £179-99 is $355.63! To put it another way,
USA - $200 (plus tax for whatever state you're buying it in presumably)
UK - $356
EURO - $336
Australia - $304
Surely this can't be right, can it? ;) --Mal 13:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These kinds of price discrepencies are common.  Ask any world traveller about it, they'll tell you...  -/- Warren 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to add to this. The Aussie Ultimate prices are crazy! AU$1251.00 full and AU$895.00 upgrade God, the full version costs more than a computer which can run Vista for crying out loud. I was informed the full Aussie price for Ultimate is around $750 and the upgrade around $550. Where is the source for these out of this world prices? --Lakeyboy 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can confirm via Amazon.co.uk that the prices on the main article are NOT correct. The full version of ultimate is £369.99 and the upgrade is £249.99. Still more than US, but no where near what the article has them as. They should be updated accordingly. Nicholas 13:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct prices? 

message: Yes price discrepancies are common, but not like this! Are you trying to tell me that Microsoft actually plans to sell the upgrade of vista ultimate in the UK for £650? That's over US$1200! I could buy a new Dell with Home Premium on it next month for £650! (seriously). Or better yet I could get a MaBook with Tiger for £100 more. Where's the sheet that says these will really be the prices?Nicholas 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to add to this. The Aussie Ultimate prices are crazy! AU$1251.00 full and AU$895.00 upgrade God, the full version costs more than a computer which can run Vista for crying out loud. I was informed the full Aussie price for Ultimate is around $750 and the upgrade around $550. Where is the source for these out of this world prices? --Lakeyboy 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can confirm via Amazon.co.uk that the prices on the main article are NOT correct. The full version of ultimate is £369.99 and the upgrade is £249.99. Still more than US, but no where near what the article has them as. They should be updated accordingly. Nicholas 13:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously?

message: In my opinion the article is missing a consideration on the products specifics like the ridiculously crippled "starter Edition" and the incredible price policy. I may accept that there are price diferences between Brazil and USA, but not between USA and Europe, specialy prices 70% higher on European countries! There are other cases like this on other countries. The article could have a section trying to explain the reasons for this. It may seem out of order to put price discussions on an Enciclopedia article, but in this case they seem to be so absurd that it may raise suspition of some hidden intentions from Microsoft. Knowing the real reasons behind this policy could be very important in terms of future defense of consumer rights. I can sugest a couple of reasons for this policy:
-The closing eyes to piracy and the very low prices on poor countries have the objective of avoiding the entrance of Linux. We know that the price of developing software is large, but the real price of a software copy is virtual nil, specialy considering product versions that give no user support.
-Price discrepancys between similar income regions like USA and Europe may be a way of this American company lowering development speed on Europe.
Amcgt 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOVJasper Deng (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Vista Pricing 

message: I was checking the pricing for the ultimate and I believe it needs to be readjusted... it's listed as $599 at newegg (god knows why) but can someone confirm this and make changes
Newegg Vista Ultimate
Xeontg 00:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for a 3-pack. A single OEM license is $199  - Indecision 03:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultimate Vista Pricing (US) 

message: Can we please move the "Editions and pricing" section somewhat higher up on the page. I suspect it has information that page visitors would want to see before some of the other sections.--Sonjaaa 16:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I moved it under the features section.  It's important that we describe the features before we get into editions, so it shouldn't be any higher than that.   -/- Warren 23:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move "editions and pricing" higher up? 

message: See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Windows_Vista/Archive_6 for discussion section about this article reading like extracts from a marketing blurb. I think it's a little better now. Junkwaffle 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *shrug* We're discussing retail software, it's not really out of line to show the retail packaging.  We have similar images on Mac OS X.   -/- Warren 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree, while not exactly out of line, showing the retail packaging is IMO of little value, merely bloat. The packaging is not the product, and the article isn't titled Windows Vista retail packaging. I also feel that it's not much of an argument that there are similar images on the OS X article; perhaps they shouldn't be there either? I suggest including one representative image of a package, not the entire catalogue (they don't look that different anyway). Naphra 07:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing Blurb 

message: The article mentions a Korean won, which hasn't existed since 1910. It must be referring to either a North Korean won or a South Korean won, I assume the latter? Don't want to put it in without knowing that, though - Jack · talk · 14:51, Sunday, 4 February 2007
:It's gotta be South Korean, for one thing that's what the KRW abbreviation refers to (North Korea is KPW). I've changed it. DopefishJustin 01:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korean won 

message: The article suggests (well, makes explicit) that Microsoft will only support Vista to 2012.  Since they're also supporting XP to 2012, I wonder if someone hasn't got some wires crossed?  203.129.54.183 02:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "support to 2012" 

message: Part of this article states that "Dream Scene" was available immediately after launch. This is incorrect.  A technical preview of Dream Scene was released several days after the launch, however the full version of this utility has yet to be released. Dino213aa 17:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream Scene inaccuracy 

message: Added Brazilian prices —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.146.101.189 (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Warrens told me to direct the following question to this discussion board: 
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. The license is a bit more restrictive and there is no support from microsoft, but that is traded off with a cheaper price: Windows Vista 32-Bit Ultimate System builder is $189USD; 64-Bit goes for $199USD as of 3/28.
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.
The full text of the license is available here: http://oem.microsoft.com/downloads/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/English.pdf Kingsean 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Builder Edition 

message: There is no hint anywhere on Microsoft related websites that WinSAT is an Ultimate-only feature. Yet it is listed here under the Ultimate description. Confusing, at best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.59.213.50 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WinSAT 

message: May I ask the editors of this article what is the motivation for having an article about an ever-changing retail-value of a piece of software? If individuals wish the current updated price they can use pricerunner or similar. I personally see no need for any information about price, though the comparisons between the different versions is good.  Fred26 11:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there an article of this subject? 

message: Has the Starter edition not shipped yet? It seems everything in the article about this version is written in future tense. Josh the Nerd 17:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Starter 

message: I removed this line
# The prices quoted in GB£ refer to the price paid, and not a simple exchange of prices in US$.  For example, the price of the Home Basic edition in the UK is GB£179.99.  Based on the exchange rate on Feb 16 2007, this is US$350.87, approximately 75% more than the US price  (The converse price in the UK would be GB£102.57).
It is unreferenced and therefore likely OR. More importantly it was extremely simplistic and misleading. Firstly the price in all regions including the UK refers to the RRP, not the price paid. The actual price paid may be lower or higher depending on retailer. (Amazon.co.uk for example currentlys sells at below the RRP). Secondly, the exchange rate used should surely be the 2006 one when these prices were set, not the 2007 one. Most importantly, whoever did this comparison appears to have completely forgotten the UK prices includes 17% VAT. If someone wishes to re-include a price comparison, I suggest they at least use a good source. For example, I came across this source  which at least does a half decent job at doing a proper comparison (and comes out with the conclusion that while the price is higher, not nearly as much as people are making out) Nil Einne 07:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing comparisons 

message: :Image:Windows Vista Business Box.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Business Box.png

message: :Image:Windows Vista Home Basic Box.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Home Basic Box.png

message: :Image:Windows Vista Starter Box Image.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 23:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Starter Box Image.gif

message: These images are purely decorative. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. these do not. I have tagged the section with  Rettetast 20:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images of Retail boxes 

message: I'm being bold and removing the pricing information from this article. Per this AFD, consensus seems to be that Wikipedia is not a sales catalogue. If anyone has any objections, feel free to revert me and leave a note on my talk page so we can discuss in a civil manner. shoy (words words) 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing Information 

message: I am not bothered if the Windows Vista 64 remains or is merged, but I think the 64-bit editions should be given more cover, and I was surprised that no such article was found when I searched when this article was first created. I also think this article could expand and be relevant. I must say it is not covered in this article at this time. The only thing I recommend is that a proper merge is performed so that a) nothing is lost and b) the section is clearly defined. I also take note of the name issue and propose renaming Windows Vista 64  to Windows Vista 64 editions. Cheers.--Triwbe (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Write them into this article, then, and if you come up with enough content to merit splitting it into a separate article, then we can split it off.  Speaking as someone who has worked on Windows Vista articles on Wikipedia for two and a half years, I can pretty much guarantee that you won't be able to find a significant amount of content on the issue.  Either trust me on that, or prove me wrong with a significant amount of well-sourced, neutral content that doesn't engage in original research.  Thanks.  -/- Warren 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista 64 article 

message: The article claims that the Visual Basic 6 IDE does not run on 64-bit Vista. However, the referenced article states only that the IDE will not be supported. That doesn't mean that the IDE will not run. Has anyone actually confirmed that the VB6 IDE will not run under 64-bit Vista or is the statement incorrect? 203.30.105.137 (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visual Basic 6 IDE on 64-bit Vista 

message: There should be a companion article for Win2k editions... Windows 2000 editions. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 2000 editions

message: What's this "Unix application support" mentioned in Windows Vista Enterprise? Does it mean: "run Linux programs in a Virtual PC?"? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 15:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unix?

message: I propose that Windows 7 editions be merged into Windows Vista and 7 editions. I think that the content of both articles can easily be explained in one, and the articles are of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.  Here is an example of what the new article will look like.  Please visit Talk:Windows 7 editions#Merger proposal to discuss. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: To the troll that deleted it, I'm laughing so much right now! Can you see my face? Here it is: 😐 TheTank3753 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison chart added again