Talk:Development of Windows Vista

message: Is there really a need for the known fake builds section?  — Alex (T|C|E) 21:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. 70.104.16.14 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Known fake builds 

message: Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but is there a release date for Release Candidate 1? I heard sometime in July, but I'm not sure. Maybe this could be added to the article. 70.104.16.14 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the person who put the RC1 date on the article or to any other interested person: please cite your supposed date of availability of Release Candidate 1 for Windows Client Code-Name "Longhorn". Thank you so much. --Cumbiagermen 08:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  release candidate 1?

message: I'm running a copy of build 5456 right now and nowhere does it mention that it's a pre-RC1 build. It's still considered a Beta 2 build, and since the official public beta is 5384 wouldn't it make sense that 5456 is a Post-Beta 2 build? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.184.31.122 (talk • contribs) .
:I've seen a couple of MS employees state that 5456 is part of the RC1 branch, not the Beta 2 branch, which was closed at Beta 2's release.  There's not really enough information out there to reliably go one way or the other, though. Warrens 20:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an official tester so let me explain a bit. The preliminary release schedule for Windows Vista is that there are two betas follows with release candidate (RC) builds. Decision would be made in the development team to see which build/feature sets will be ready for the beta 2 build. Development still continues even the build has been decided, so the code will fork (or branch) for beta 2 release. When build 538x is in escrow for beta 2 release, the build number for the main tree is bumped up to 54xx and being considered as a post-beta 2 and pre-RC1 builds. The build number is just cosmetic so the beta 2 label persists even it is pre-RC1.Xavier Fung 20:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: According to at least one Microsoft guy on the Windows community Neowin, the build series 5400 was started for the RC1 branch, so at least all 54xx builds can probably be considered part of the RC1 branch, and possibly more too if RC1 isn't out before 5500, which seems unlikely. (and then I also think it's more appropriate to call those pre-RC1 rather than post-beta 2, as the latter lacks information of what branch they're part of) Btw, a similar build "jump" seem to have happened with the 52xx builds because I doubt MS did almost 100 builds in 1 month (see 5112 -> 5219). So Microsoft do seem to make "jumps" in build numbers if necessary to indicate new target releases this way. Similarly, build 5000 and onwards were to indicate the major diversion from the old "Longhorn" vision and the new Windows 2003-based kernel. -- Northgrove 22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-RC1 or Post-Beta 2? 

message: Does anyone else feel the story of Vista's speech recognition failing is not relevent to the Development of Windows Vista? If anywhere, I feel this excerpt should go under the Speech Recognition section of Features new to Windows Vista. JamesWeb 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say wha?  Can you explain exactly how a failed demo caused by a bug that's been fixed belongs in a list of new features, and not in an article covering the history of the software's development?  -/- Warren 16:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, fair point, perhaps not move it to new features, it just strikes me for a software development that's been plagued by problems, this particular one has been a bit over-hyped and gets its own paragraph where barely any problems have been spoken of here in any detail since the Vista name was announced. Just stands out like "Why have they put that in there?" JamesWeb 16:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech Recognition 

message: How can we be sure about Vista 5700 being a post-RC1 build?  It's from the WinMain lab, and we only have one source saying that the RC1 will be build 5536.  — Alex (T|C|E) 19:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since IE7 RC1 is build 5700, I'm going to put build 5700 into the pre-RC1 section.  — Alex (T|C|E) 17:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems strange they made the common "build jump" that use to mean a new branch having been made. An article linked to from this page also says: Jeff Alexander used build 5700 (5700.winmain.060810-1900) branched off from RC1. I believe it may be so that RC1 may not have had its final polish and release yet, while work has already begun on RC2. I'm also not sure IE 7 is a good judgement of what the corresponding branch would be for Vista. It may be that IE 7 simply was suitable as an RC1 here, despite in reality being the very first build of the RC2 branch. Unfortunately we have little official word on this, unless the quote I mentioned originated from the MS exec actually saying it happened. -- Northgrove 15:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista 5700 a post-RC1 build? 

message: This information seems to be incorrect:
:Microsoft expects to release Windows Vista RC1 to the public on or after September 7, 2006[24] via the Customer Preview Program. There have been rumours that Microsoft planned RC1 to be Build 5520, but since discovered two major flaws and have now named Build 5536 as the RC1 build.
The 5536 build has now been released, and it's clearly marked as a Pre-RC1 build, even on the desktop wallpaper build string. -- Northgrove 12:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5536 not RC1 

message: Vista 5552 is quite definitely now leaking on to P2P networks, and is marked as "Pre-RC1." I tried to add the information about leaking, but it got deleted. Rhys42 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 5552 Leaking

message: The pre-5000 LH builds are not XP-based, they're based on Windows Server 2003 RC1. This is evidenced by the serial keys they use, the fact that 4028 is marked as "Windows .NET Server", and by other factors.
:Done.--Adam Maras 16:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: XP-based?

message: Why the release date of RTM pushed to late November? --210.14.16.102 10:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because they want to sell it when it's done, not when their deadline is up. After all, the bugs that are on there now, will still be in freshly set up Vista systems in five years, so they are probably paying very close attention to detail. Patience. :–) — Mütze 11:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista RTM date is delayed? 

message: Is there any change someone can snap a picture of the count down sign or future signs on the redmond campus? 68.33.187.203 03:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countdown sign(s) 

message: The screenshot of Windows Vista Beta 1 had been commented, because that screenshot is just only JPEG image and is not actual size.  I've found the PNG screenshot images from Flexbeta, there's a lot of PNG images of Windows Vista, choose the desired screenshot and upload it.  — 210.1.91.103 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting your removal of this screenshot.  The Beta 1 screenshot comes from Microsoft's web site, which is an official and reliable source of screenshots.  The fact that it's JPEG is not a serious problem. Unless someone wants provide a self-created Vista Beta 1 screenshot.  We can't just take screenshots from other web sites, either.   -/- Warren 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warren, I'm insert the  and  templates on the screenshot of Windows Vista Beta 1.  And will be delete that screenshot soon.  Also, I think the Windows Vista Beta 1 screenshot is real or fake. — 210.1.91.182 02:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the screenshot of Windows Vista Beta 1 is nominated at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.  When that screenshot is now deleted, you may upload at Flexbeta yourself. --210.1.91.182 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done.  The Windows Vista Beta 1 screenshot is uploaded and I uploaded as PNG screenshot (image source: Geekpedia. --Jigs41793 11:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Beta 1 screenshot 

message: In the third milestone, where Build 3706 is covered, it says "Build 3706 (build date of October 29, 2002) was finally leaked on May 22, 2006.". Does anyone else feel this is quite a pirates point of view? Shouldn't this be changed to something like "was leaked"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fimbulfamb (talk • contribs) 16:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Finally" 

message: Is this a trustworthy source for build 3646? Windows:Longhorn:3646 - 203.87.129.111 10:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build 3646 - original research? 

message: I think this might be a decent resource to look at for some of the early Microsoft press releases regarding Vista, although some of the delays are already covered in the article.
 --71.120.67.59 22:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Windows Vista 

message: Why did someone change it to say build 4029 was Longhorn Professional?  The  rest of the paragraph still implies and the screenchot caption still says build 4029 is named "onghornLay rofessionalPay", as a test of changing the name. I would change it back to the pig latin, but theres no source, so I don't know for sure that the whole thing wasn't made up in the first place and the name really is Longhorn Professional. Josh the Nerd 00:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  onghornLay rofessionalPay 

message: "Build 3790 (build date of September 7, 2004) is notable, as it was the first build of Longhorn based on the Server 2003 codebase, but with the Windows XP interface."
I noticed that's the same build number as Windows Server 2003 itself, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and (I think) Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003. So is this saying that there was also a "version" of build 3790 that had the Windows XP client stuff but called itseld Longhorn? Josh the Nerd 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build 3790 

message: This article has been put up for GA candidacy. Tarrettalk 19:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nominated

message: This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of October 9, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  Yes.
:2. Factually accurate?:  Yes.
:3. Broad in coverage?:  Yes.
:4. Neutral point of view?:  Yes.
:5. Article stability?  Yes.
:6. Images?:  The images are appropriate, but they need specific fair use rationales (see WP:IUP).
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Sandstein 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination on hold

message: The article has failed good article nomination because the above issue was not addressed in time. Several images are also otherwise improperly tagged (no source, etc.) Sandstein 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article nomination failed

message: :Image:Windows Vista 5259 desktop.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 (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista 5259 desktop.png

message: I read on the todo list that you are looking for a collection of build screenshots. May I be of assistance?
http://justin.nobber.org.uk/screenshots/
You can use any of these that are in the whistler (although not applicable to this topic), longhorn, and vista folders. Jrdaigle1000 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Build Screenshots 

message: I'd like to mention how each build relates to Windows Server 2008, but I'm not sure about some of the less major builds. Does anyone know of a comprehensive Windows Server 2008 release history I can use for reference? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there isn't much in the way of good coverage of Windows Server Longhorn's beta process, or what happened with each successive build.  Vista and Office got all the attention.   -/- Warren 02:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Server 2008 

message: :Image:Vista Beta 2 Desktop.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Vista Beta 2 Desktop.png

message: :Image:Windows Longhorn build 4074 screenshot.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Longhorn build 4074 screenshot.png

message: :Image:Windows Vista 5472 desktop.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista 5472 desktop.png

message: :Image:Windows Vista Beta 1 Desktop.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Beta 1 Desktop.png

message: :Image:Windows Vista RC1 desktop.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista RC1 desktop.png

message: There seem to be a large number of images on this page listed with a 'fair use' rationale... from the looks of this talk page, at least five images have been deleted due to this. Could I suggest that somebody take a look at the remaining images on the content page, most of which have a speedy deletion caption, and fix 'em? I'd imagine that this page used to have images for almost all builds, but they're falling off on a weekly basis. 79.78.251.153 (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Windows Longhorn Build 4015.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: mrpijey at BetaArchive did confirm that KiTTY is not the leaker of 3790 and therefore should not be credited for that leak. I myself know the leaker but I cannot tell you the real identity of the leaker. He wishes for a private leak and for nobody to attempt to take credit for it. He says he may admit he leaked it one day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.96.105 (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "KiTTY" Was Not The Leaker Of 3790 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/lh_alpha_029.gif
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061126223511/http://www.mstechtoday.com:80/2006/10/02/talking-about-vistas-installation-improvements/ to http://www.mstechtoday.com/2006/10/02/talking-about-vistas-installation-improvements
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928082113/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/state/story/8013837p-7906745c.html to http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/state/story/8013837p-7906745c.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218125408/http://blogs.msdn.com:80/michkap/archive/2005/10/16/481625.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/10/16/481625.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsj.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/software/2006-07-30-microsoft-voice-recognition_x.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004201608/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060408213152/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4008.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_4008.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/10/16/481625.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://net127.com/2005/09/24/battling-google-microsoft-changes-how-it-builds-software/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109161221/http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_roadtogold_04.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_roadtogold_04.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901001814/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5231.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5231.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061224023320/http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5365.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_5365.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.crn.com/sections/vista/vista.jhtml?articleId=188702564
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061027094637/http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/shellblog/archive/2006/09/19/List-Mode_3A00_-A-Customer-Feedback-Story.aspx to http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/shellblog/archive/2006/09/19/List-Mode_3A00_-A-Customer-Feedback-Story.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.crn.com/sections/custom/custom.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3D3TOOWHRCQ04ZOQSNDLOSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleId=193000714&printableArticle=true
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060830093347/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/index.php?blogthis=1&p=100 to http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/index.php?blogthis=1&p=100
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mstechtoday.com/2006/10/02/talking-about-vistas-installation-improvements
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061022130552/http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/shellblog/archive/2006/10/03/Back-in-Black_2100_--Or-rather_2C00_-back-OUT-black_2100_.aspx to http://shellrevealed.com/blogs/shellblog/archive/2006/10/03/Back-in-Black_2100_--Or-rather_2C00_-back-OUT-black_2100_.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110150816/http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/08/windows-vista-releases-to-manufacturing.aspx to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/08/windows-vista-releases-to-manufacturing.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080205090639/http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/04/announcing-the-rtm-of-windows-vista-sp1.aspx to http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/02/04/announcing-the-rtm-of-windows-vista-sp1.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Development of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130420140005/http://www.informationweek.co.uk/microsofts-vista-had-major-mac-envy-comp/197001418 to http://www.informationweek.co.uk/microsofts-vista-had-major-mac-envy-comp/197001418
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023094604/http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php to http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110402074232/http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2006/07/05/Windows_Vista_Bug_Analysis.aspx to http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2006/07/05/Windows_Vista_Bug_Analysis.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210005/http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?s=00a2aaa1d26ab5916cc25c35cd28e872&act=ST&f=6&t=4167 to http://www.aeroxp.org/board/index.php?s=00a2aaa1d26ab5916cc25c35cd28e872&act=ST&f=6&t=4167
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109160837/http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_roadtogold_01.asp to http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_roadtogold_01.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007203055/http://winvistabeta.com/ to http://www.winvistabeta.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified