Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 10

message: Subject says all... -- 66.239.94.105 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it does not. Whats the problem with the link? --soum talk 14:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's because it requires a password to view it. — Alex(U|C|E) 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 24 link is invalid 

message: Windows Vista is more popular than pornography *wonders if that would be a valid DYK submission* :P --soum talk 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we cant. :( --soum talk 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know? 

message: The "Criticism" section of this article is supposed to be a summary of Criticism of Windows Vista; however, the two are now rather out of sync.  For example, the section on Kernel Patch Protection in the Criticism article has been removed (actually, moved in its entirety to the Kernel Patch Protection article) on the grounds that, since it was present in the 64-bit editions of XP and Server 2003, criticism of it isn't actually criticism of Vista specifically.  In addition, the section on UAC in the criticism article seems to have been whittled down to nothing and then deleted altogether.  I hesitate to delete the two sections in this article (to keep it in line with the criticism article) without discussion, so, any comments?  -- simxp (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That section is way too big. I move to cut it down to two paragraphs, and leave the rest for the main Criticism article.--Anss123 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone considered adding a general reaction section instead? The article seems to be biased towards the negative by giving criticism of the OS its own section, as opposed to a general reaction section. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's difficult to source a 'general reaction' beyond scattered forum posts here and there. Also, keep in mind that 'Criticism' need not be negative, I know that there's articles filled with positive criticism of Vista. Pointing out faults is always easier though.--Anss123 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I was thinking more on the lines of professional reviews and articles from reliable third party sources about sales. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sorry, but forums are not considered reliable enough to be used as sources. Plus, this is not a how-to site. --soum talk 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Criticism is neither a policy nor a guideline. Criticism sections are quite common to talk about criticisms and responses to criticisms. The Criticisms section probably should be shortened, but I'm not what's the best way to go about doing that. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with removing the Criticism section; it's appropriate and well supported by the linked page. It could do with a tighten up, and be more closely aligned with the criticism page. peterl 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only issue I have with it is that this article is quite long. It might make more sense to have a short summary here and leave the bulk of the criticisms for Criticism of Windows Vista. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it could be shortened a bit. peterl 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: When I read that section, my reaction was "who cares?"  It is indeed not a criticism.  Nowhere is it written that Windows should be different from Mac OS.  You could consider it a criticism of Microsoft if they're stealing from Apple, but that doesn't really have any effect on whether Vista is good or bad.  67.167.15.194 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: I also want to add that I'm not sure that the Similarity to OS X should be included in the Criticism section, as that's a very strong opinion not shared by a lot of people. While it deserves to be on the criticisms article, I just don't think it adds to the main one. I say this only because it's not a very detrimental attack to Windows Vista that is primarily only focused on by people who primarily prefer Mac OS X over Windows anyway. Of course, if Apple ever filed a suit against Microsoft for this, I'd very willingly eat my words, but for now, I think it should just reside on the criticisms article. UP ON CPU 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I read that section, my reaction was "who cares?"  It is indeed not a criticism.  Nowhere is it written that Windows should be different from Mac OS.  You could consider it a criticism of Microsoft if they're stealing from Apple, but that doesn't really have any effect on whether Vista is good or bad.  67.167.15.194 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Similarities to OS X? 

message: I am trying to connect a drive from a previous computer as a USB Hard Drive. The drive is not being recognized. Anyone know if VISTA supports FAT32 or FAT? I wonder if that is the problem... I see one comment on NTFS, but otherwise no comment on the file system support in Vista..  TIA  Martin |  talk • contribs  03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it supports FAT32, though it cannot be used on the boot volume (in *nix lingo, root file system). --soum talk 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  File System/s supported? 

message: As of Windows Vista Beta 2, the NVIDIA GeForce...<BR>
This is from the Hardware Requirements section of the article.  Seems pretty out of date now.  Are the requirements the same as the Beta 2 version?  It should be changed to reflect the release version.  SnakeSeries 08:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harware Requirements 

message: Can the section which claims that Service Pack 1 will be released on 29 July 2007 be removed or revised per chance?  It's already been stated by Microsoft that it will not be released to the general public or outside of a 'limited' scope of testers this month. ZBrannigan 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Service Pack 1 

message: Noticed that Windows 2000 and XP articles both use the retail release date.  So how come this article uses the RTM release date?  Shouldn't there be consistency between all articles? Smoothy 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date 

message: Should there not be a mention of 64-bit Vista here?
:I've added a line in the "Editions and Pricing" section -- "All editions except Windows Vista Starter support both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) processor architectures" -- copied from the main Editions and Pricing article.  Better than nothing, at least.  -- simxp (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 bit version 

message: something should be done to determine how much of this entry has been created by microsoft...
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.180.48 (talk • contribs)  on 13:23, 9 August 2007
:The contribution history is public.  --Yamla 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is, and there is a tool which shows how many edits each contributor has made. Even using this tool, I don't know how you could tell which editors are part of Microsoft? And more to the point: why? --Unixguy 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I wrote a large majority of the article's contents.  I don't work for Microsoft nor have they paid me, or even so much as been bothered to thank anyone here for their efforts.   -/- Warren 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You sure did! 758 edits as of today - 8/13/2007. I just linked the count tool page to your large majority words. I don't work for Microsoft either, and I'd like to be the first to say "Warren, thanks for your contributions!" --Unixguy 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll add my thanks as well, both to you and to all other unsung contributors in the general spirit of things.  In reply to the grandparent poster:  On a practical level, I don't think it matters in the slightest whether Microsoft employees have contributed to the article.  What matters is that the content be accurate, verifiable, and NPOV; if it is all of those, what does it matter who wrote it?  a conflict of interest is only a problem insofar as it threatens to violate NPOV and verifiability, no?  -- simxp (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why exactly? Josh 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (what part of this article was edited by) Microsoft 

message: Would it be relevant for the article to include detail about Vista's market penetration? peterl 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market penetration 

message: I know that errors might sound like a redundant thing for a Microsoft product, but they managed to mess up all of their games. None of the games included with Vista are capable of keeping proper track of any of their respective statistics. Apparently I have only managed to play solitaire 8 times in the last couple of months. (I played more than twice that in the last hour.) I have also apparently never won, despite the fact that I won 3 games right in a row. This seems to be a silly error that could have been avoided by a first year programming student. User:evilmadman80 0447, 22 August 2007 Zulu.  —The preceding  signed but undated. 
:Do you have a source for that issue? Paul Cyr 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Errors 

message: Please explain this to me, buddy:  - Thanks in advance. ScarianTalk 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The numerous links from numerous sources in the proceeding text support the statement.  Paul Cyr 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion on some Vista article (moved from User Talk: Paul Cyr) 

message: This article lacks the marketing and sale data which are usually published to public domain, such as number of copies sold (regional and worldwide), copies refunded, company's income through this product, regional sale data, popularity with people and public opinion, etc. 
I urge all wikipedians who can help deliver these information to make haste. Fleet Command 10:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I made a request for this above on 19 Aug. peterl 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Market and Sale Data Required 

message: The Windows Vista system requirements table is incorrect, a "Windows Vista Premium Ready" computer must have a DVD-ROM drive; see the source. --121.45.231.15 13:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, thanks!  I've made the change.  -- simxp (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Premium Ready specifies a DVD-ROM drive 

message: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
:[3] Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 have been built from the same fundamental source code base since the beginning.  Many of the
core files are identical between the two products, although each product has unique features, specific individual files and functional
behaviors that are appropriate for the intended customer uses for the specific product. For example, Windows Media Center only appears in Windows Vista, while Active Directory or Windows Clustering only appear in Windows Server 2008.  Examples of common files shared
between the two operating systems are the kernel and core OS files, the networking stack, file sharing.  In the past year since the
Windows Vista public release, the common files in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 have been continually improved based on customer beta feedback, customer deployments, and Microsoft internal testing.
Notice:
~"Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 have been built from the same fundamental source code base since the beginning."
~"Examples of common files shared between the two operating systems are the kernel and core OS files, the networking stack, file sharing."
Eshcorp 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore me. I just read the last line which says the same. I accidentially thought that line was removed for some reason, sorry Eshcorp 13:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP1 DOES Have a kernel update 

message: It should be noted that some people and consumers are clinging to XP for the time being.  I, myself had a notebook that came with Vista, and downgraded for the less demanding XP OS.  The owner of the shop I apprentice in said he'd hold off on getting vista himself, and that many companies would be slow to adopt it, being that they have been trained, and worked on XP for awhile already.  This same owner is also the Technical Resources Manager in the IT Department at UWM (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee).70.94.7.252 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So?  1) Do you have a reliable source for this? 2) Any time a new OS comes out a lot of people cling to the older one.  The same thing happened with XP.  Paul Cyr 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to find a reliable source.  Vista is very resource hungry as opposed to previous windows versions.  But yeah, I will search for a source that is more than word on the street.  For this reason I have only stated it here, and not the main article. --Ben414 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The daughter article Criticism of Windows Vista already has sections on Performance and Hardware Requirements; if those don't already cover the points you want to make, expanding them would probably be your first port of call.  -- simxp (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinging to XP 

message: I don't see any mention of this for the 32bit or 64bit versions, this seems like important information, especially considering MS's obsession with compatibility. --NEMT 19:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MS wants to keep 32-bit and 64-bit compatible because a lot of current hardware and software is still 32-bit. 16-bit software hasn't been regularly produced in about ten years, so promising compatibility with it isn't going to be much of a selling point. As a result, most of the information MS has about 16-bit compatibility is regarding special configuration for when things go wrong with the default legacy support. GarrettTalk 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for 16 bit Windows applications 

message: Nothing is mentioned of the fact that the vast majority of video games mde before the Vista came out don't work. A massive bummer for any gamer. Like me. We need to include this but I don't have any references.Tourskin 03:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nothing is mentioned" -- except for the three paragraphs on software compatibility in Criticism of Windows Vista, you mean?  Although, now you mention it, the game compatibility paragraph could do with a few citations; if you do find any, they'd be gratefully received on that page.  (On a more practical note, open Windows update and download all the Compatibility Updates, if you haven't done so already -- there have been loads of them; lots of games that had problems originally now work fine.  Oh, and RA2 works fine for me...).  -- simxp (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.Tourskin 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think vast majority is flawed. Only a few games have major compatibility problems with Vista Nil Einne 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games 

message: The sentence about Peter Gutmann should be rewritten to remove the "author of the open source cryptlib library" statement.  This sentence already includes a link to Gutmann's Wikipedia page and his authorship of cryptlib is properly documented there.
Likewise, there has been a lot of recent criticism over the accuracy of Gutmann's work. 
Some mention of this criticism should follow.  I will suggest the following:
Technology writer, Ed Bott disagrees with Gutmann's findings and claims that Gutmann failed to do any hands-on testing with the actual released version of Vista and that his paper relies on older, out of date information obtained while the product was still in development.  
A link to his detailed blog should be provided:  http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
Otaddy 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism - Digital Rights Management