Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 6

message: What is the release date for Vista? as Windows Vista is scheduled for 02/12/2006 but Windows vista is scheduled for 30/01/2007. Im a little confused. --87.102.33.71 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox at the top of the article says this: "Will be released on 2006 November 30 for volume customers and 2007 January 30 for worldwide retail availability."  "Retail" means you can buy it off the shelf in the store starting next year.  "Volume customers" means corporations, including computer manufacturers, which means that you can buy a computer with Vista installed on it this year.  Where did you get the December 2 figure?  I assume that you meant December 2, since you didn't use either the format recognized by Wikipedia or the ISO standard yyyy-mm-dd format.  --Scott McNay 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date

message: "Also, applications like Konfabulator and SuperKaramba existed long before Apple's Dashboard."
I wanted to know if this should stay in there. Apperantly, on the Lisas and what not, there were widgets called deskapps. -- Kenta 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on Apple's dashboard 

message: I have heard that windows vista can not read backup files from windows xp. Is this true, or is my informatiion outdated? Also, if it is, is there a way i could manage to get all my windows xp stuff onto vista?
: I don't know if it's true or not (I suspect that it is) but it wouldn't be surprising, since it's not unusual for a new OS version to not support backup files from previous versions.  The usual workaround is to be sure to have a copy of the old backup/restore executable handy.  --Scott McNay 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't able to restore files from my XP backup onto Vista directly. I had to boot XP, restore them to a remote disk drive, then boot Vista and copy them there. I was a little puzzled why I couldn't do this more easily! Themeparkphoto 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You can open BKF files with a tool from Microsoft. You can get it at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7da725e2-8b69-4c65-afa3-2a53107d54a7&DisplayLang=en Zian 04:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cant read backup???? 

message: Right now something strange is going on: If I click on the image used in the infobox, I get... a totally different image. On this page, I see an image with the start menu and the control panel open. When I click on the image, I get a pic of the Programs folder of the start menu opened in Explorer and My Pictures or something. Does anyone else see this? 68.39.174.238 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and if you click the image for the "high resolution" version, you'll get a large version of the picture as seen in the thumbnail, and NOT what you see on the image page.  It's really, really odd.  ~ 70.21.184.233 07:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image weirdness 

message: Thank you for JamesWeb for these screenshots of Windows Vista RTM.  It is just quite same the two of them: :Image:Windows Vista Desktop.png and :Image:Windows Aero.png —210.213.89.132 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? JamesWeb 21:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, you can download & change the wallpaper in Windows Vista from here. --210.14.16.171 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just one picture. Surely you're not trying to get eveyone to use that picture, are you? Harryboyles 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harryboyles, that picture is considered as a desktop wallpaper in Windows Vista, that is from Hong Kong.  It transfers from the Kodak Digital Camera.  Tell JamesWeb to apply that desktop wallpaper in Windows Vista for one of those screenshots. —--210.213.89.220 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, the first two pictures aren't the same as one has the sidebar and the other one doesn't. You can use any picture as a background in Vista, but for continuity's sake, it's better if for screenshots that we use wallpapers that come with Vista. Harryboyles 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations!!! 

message: Sorry, but this reads like advertising blurbs in too many places. All kinds of 'features' that 'enable' things everywhere. I was particularly struck by "Microsoft is also adding new deployment and maintenance features to make a compelling case for businesses still running Windows NT, 2000, and XP desktops." and the citing, with a straight face, of the Yankee Group and the idea that 'critical security vulnerabilities may be "reduced by as much as 80 percent"'. On the other hand, the discussion of the criticisms are desultory at best. Even if you dismiss the validity of concerns over DRM and WGA and others as forms of restrictions and intrusions, the seriousness of the allegations should merit more discussion than a (yes, I'm making up the numbers but aiming for ballpark accuracy) 20 to 1 ratio of lines discussing graphics features enabling compelling cases vs. lines discussing DRM/WGA/etc. I'm not citing these for themselves, as "two/three issues I have", but merely as examples underlying an overall tenor to this article that is decidedly not NPOV.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.118.33 (talk • contribs) .
:Agree. And it's also shocking to find a price list in an encyclopedia article.--Yannick 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: many articles refrence prices, such as: ipod, zune, iTunes Store, Mac OS X. the rrp of a product is a verifyable fact and therefor is encyclopedic. Nicoli nicolivich 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: laugh all u will at the stupidity of the matter but the point still stands, the rrp of an object is a fact, its is something that is the case. It is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.
p.s. please sign ur comments. Nicoli nicolivich 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the Marketing Dept.? 

message: The following questions may be dumb, but I don't have a clue:
I assume it would, but will Vista support MSN Mesenger? In other words, will I be able to download MSNM after I get Vista?
Will I be able to install the games I currently own? They would include Starcraft and other RTS's. I would think so, but I thought I'd ask people who seem to know what they're talking about.
If you had to estimate, how much would a Vista Premium Ready Computer cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.151.162 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2006 November 23
:This page is for discussing the article, not Wnidows Vista itself.  To discuss Wndows Vista itself, you'll need to find another site.  Here are short answers to your questions, though: 1. MSN Messenger is simply no longer bundled; there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't work. 2. Apparently game support (compatibility) has improved a bit; whether a specific game works or not is another matter; probably will, though. 3. The same as a Windows XP computer; you can probably get one for under $600 if you scrounge and don't mind low quality.  Actually buying Windows Vista is what will put you in the hole. --Scott McNay 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: The Criticism section seems to be getting larger and larger.  Considering that the Criticism of Windows Vista section is fairly large already, wouldn't it make more sense to simply summarize the complaints and link to the relevant sections of the Criticism article?  We just seem to have copies of some of the complaints from the criticisms article, and they seem to be out of sync.  Any thoughts? 12.207.87.61 11:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a tough thing to try and find the right balance for... too much criticism results in people feeling it's overpowering the neutrality of the article; not enough criticism makes it sound like marketing material.  We want to avoid both extremes as much as possible, and with a subject like Windows that attracts opinions from OS X fanatics to anti-DRM activists, removing all mention of a certain aspect of criticism can result in someone coming along within days and adding some poorly-stated criticism in.  When we see more reviews and articles on Vista in major news publications, and the criticism that's bound to be reported in conjunction with it, we'll be able to bring that into the article and improve the Criticism section.   -/- Warren 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are now TWO criticism sections in this. How can anyone say this is fair and balanced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.62.72.183 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  If you want to post comics, start a blog.  This is an encyclopedia -- a serious endeavour -- not an outlet for jokes.  -/- Warren 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I was wondering if it would be better to shape the Vista article more like the XP article, as it is a FA. And in XP there is no development page, just a link to the development page. So is it the XP article that should be fixed or is it the Vista article? 67.181.82.100 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither. Just because one article isn't in the same format as the other doesn't mean they both can't qualify for a Featured article. — Alex (T|C|E) 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Devolopment of Windows Vista

message: I have read somewhere that all the Versions of Windows Vista will be on one DVD.
Is this true? Aero Flame 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. They are shipped on the same DVD with different packaging, your serial determines the stuff installed. You can purchase new serials later if you want to upgrade and then install the new features with the same DVD. --Trusader 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my edit Richard Gadsden 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All Versions of Windows Vista on one DVD

message: I know there's no official news on prices outside the US, but for the UK amazon.co.uk has prices up - that are, after conversion to US$, a whopping 80% higher than the US prices listed here.
Would that be worthy of note?
The fact that UK prices are significantly higher that US prices may be worth a note. However it does not merit what ammounts to a catalogue of the full range of vista products and prices. One example of a price comparison to back up the claim, OK. Anything more is blatant advertising.
86.20.195.67 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International pricing 

message: Will there ever be a non-server Windows release with a year based naming scheme? 213.240.234.212 19:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there was Windows 2000, Windows 95 and Windows 98. As to the future, I don't know. However I have read somewhere that Microsoft are not too keen on it as it makes future releases seem to sound less exciting that releases before that, especially as we have gone from 95 and 98 to ME then XP then Vista. Harryboyles 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name?

message: According to Amazon.com, Vista Update requires Windows 2000 or higher - so Windows 9x/ME users will have to fork out on Vista Full.
193.108.73.47 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista Update 

message: The features section is far too long. A short summary of the main article would be sufficient, actually detailing the features here in list form is not summary style. Ansell 07:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The feature list here is already an extremely abbreviated version of the full list, and we are barely detailing anything.  -/- Warren 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet the list is too long for a summary article. It needs serious chopping. Ansell 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features section 

message: "Windows Vista has a long list of new features, changes, and improvements" Compared with what? This can only be true if it is compared to something specifically. If it is Windows XP it should say so. If they are new innovations on the whole GUI market then it should say so also. 
Candy 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compared with ....

message: which included ...
"We know that a lot of people enjoy music, movies and TV on their PCs using headphones, so added the ability to have surround sound using a new feature called Headphone Virtualization, which uses a technology known as Head-Related Transfer Functions or HRTF. Essentially the system uses information about the physics of your head to create an outside-of-the-head experience. As a result, in addition to hearing the normal sensation of left-to-right sound separation, Windows Vista can also enable the user to differentiate between front and rear sounds as well as close and far sounds.
This is not an NPOV section. It is also full of BS. HRTF and "Physics of the Head" are some sort of pseudo science. One moment it's headphones then it's qudrophonic. Keep it factual. Keep it sensible. get rid of the adverts please. Candy 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that it sounds more like marketing than an encyclopedia article, so thanks for removing it -- but I wouldn't dismiss it as *complete* rubbish.  You only have 2 ears and are only capable of hearing two channels; the reason you can localise sound is through various aural cues (see this article.  These can be emulated, giving the impression of quadrophonic/surround sound speakers through headphones.  Creative's X-Fi sound card has done this in hardware for a while, Vista apparently is able to do it in software. Simxp 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I removed this new section ... 

message: The source seems a little baised, as the source is a MAc OS advocate. Unless anyone objects, i'll remove it.Darthnader37 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wgw2024, thank you for being bold. However, since you removed the reference to Apple altogether in the new sentence, there is no need to remove the citation itself since it doesn't claim Apple's statement. Also please be careful when making any changes to the  tag as a typo there can remove all references to the entire article! Thanks. Chikinsawsage 11:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac OS similarities

message: Why does this page say source model open source, Windows is a close source OS?? Thanks --69.24.160.124 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, if you offer enough money, they'll happily share sourcecode with you. I don't think it qualifies as either closed or open, personally, but perhaps the person who marked it as such confused shared-source with open-source? ~Kylu (u|t)  23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source model: Open source

message: *Microsoft-supplied Windows Vista Editions chart, wiki-table-fied:
:from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx
Features                                     	Home Basic	Home Premium	Business	Ultimate
Windows Defender and Windows Firewall        	          	            	        	
Internet Explorer 7 and Instant Search       	          	            	        	
Windows Aero desktop                         	          	            	        	
Windows Mobility Center and Tablet PC support	          	            	        	
Windows Meeting Space                        	          	            	        	
Windows Media Center                         	          	            	        	
Xbox 360 networking                          	          	            	        	
Advanced backup                              	          	            	        	
Business networking and Remote Desktop       	          	            	        	
BitLocker                                    	          	            	        	
In case anyone thinks this can be used. There's one on http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp also, but it's a big big... if anyone thinks it should be wikified, and if Mr. Thurrott doesn't mind, I have no problems doing it. Just let me know. ~Kylu (u|t)  23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this article is big already, I'm not sure if there's room for another table. All those are mentioned in the article anyway. — Alex (T|C|E) 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can consider starting a separate article. :-) (For the big chart, I mean.) — Alex (T|C|E) 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it done.  I transfered it to the article. — Jigs41793 Talk 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The X marks are terrible and unnecessary and noisy, so I removed them from the article. Please do not put them back in unless you are demonstrably not human and they are necessary to your perception and don't give you a headache --KJK::Hyperion 09:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista editions chart 

message: Is it worth mentioning the fact that KMS (Key Management Service) servers located in China have been activating copies of Vista? Not to give people too much information about how to conduct illegal practices, but it's still a fact that this is happening, and Vista is supposed to be difficult to run if pirated.
: I think this should be included.  One of the major features Microsoft has been talking about is security, and especially how their key server will be secure.  It's wiki worthy in my mind, though probably will be more so the system ships.  It will need an unbiased source though, which would help.74.136.199.64 08:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pirated versions via KMS

message: "In addition, Microsoft prohibits software manufacturers from re-introducing it with their products."
How could they do that? 69.23.68.19 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sentence 

message: Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't WinFS a dropped feature from Vista?  If there are no objections I will work on adding a mention to the list in the article. -Thebdj 13:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be there, I think someone removed it a couple of months ago.   -/- Warren 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dropped Features 

message: This is a very good read and deserves being an external link for the Vista page and some of the points it mentions in terms of weaknesses in Vista's design merits inclusion in any criticisms of Vista.
The link
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
--Thirdmoon 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Source of Information for Wiki Vista pages 

message: A question for someone (not sure if this is the right place for it)...
I navigate to the article and see "Kids next door organisations" in the list ending with TechNet. A look back at the edits shows that someone changed the text to stop reading this and instead read (presumably correcty), "volume license customers" or similar. There is no edit showing it being changed back to KND, yet it is there on the page. This seems odd; but then, when I go back to the article, it now says VLC after all. What's been going on?
--81.152.250.181 14:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A variety of Windows articles have been hit with "kids next door"-related vandalism in the last couple of weeks.  I've been trying to keep on top of it.   -/- Warren 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious edits etc. 

message: I do not think the vista edition diagram is correct as vista is not based on two different codebases the editions all have the same codebase but just include different features. Also i do not think Windows starter edition is similar the windows home basic as windows starter is an incrediable stripped down version of windows to run on low spec pc. I don't think the diagram looks very good and it does not have any real purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.167.216 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Editions diagram 

message: the article states that 64bit edition suports 128gb of memory, is that RAM memory or HDD? i think this needs to be specified Nicoli nicolivich 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this slide and this message thread for more information. The 64bit edition is using 128GB as memory page size limit.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 04:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  128GB? 

message: I am removing the gaming section.  Someone may want to replace it with something more appropriate e.g. non-vista machines will not be able to run DirectX 10.  Here is the previous text:
Gaming
With Vista comes DirectX 10 - however in order to run future Vista-only games, a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card is needed. DirectX 10 makes use of Direct3D 10, XACT, XInput, DirectDraw and DirectPlay, meaning that the computer should also have a modern sound card. The monitor should also be at least able to have a screen resolution of 800x600. The WHQL tests in Vista has also been re-designed to meet the requirements of new games. An amount of 1 GB RAM will also provide good stability for new games, making Premium Ready computers most appropriate for future games.
I don't think the statement 'in order to run future Vista-only games' is very useful.  It implies that in the near future many games will be vista only (DirectX 10 only really), when this is not the case.  Perhaps a mention of Halo 2 could also be inserted. The features of DirectX 10, the issue of a sound card and if 1 GB RAM is appropriate for future games also has no place in this article. Isolater 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming 

message: Someone needs to watch the bill gates keynote at CES and write something —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.106.23 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for more Windows Vista Extras 

message: According to Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows, Paul Thurrott said the public release of Windows Vista will be release on January 29, 2007 (not January 30, 2007).  Can we change this release date? - Jigs41793 Talk 13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However the official Windows Vista site (http://microsoft.com/windowsvista) states that it is January 30 for consumers. This also appears in  this Q&A with Sven Hallauer, "release manager and director of program management at Microsoft" and that seems to be mentioned everywhere else. It seems to me to be a typo that Paul has made or a misinterpretation along the line. Harryboyles 13:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release Date 

message: I ran into an unnoticed tidbit about Apple stealing from Microsoft. And I quote (yes, directly from the site):
:"When Microsoft first legitimized operating system based integrated desktop search back in 2003, it sounded like such a great idea that Apple jumpstarted its own efforts and was able to rush Spotlight to market as part of Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" (see my review) in 2005, a full year and a half before Vista. Too, companies like Google started shipping desktop search products to capitalize on Microsoft's tardy operating system and the huge installed base of XP users. That's what happens when you broadcast your plans and then don't follow through quickly, I guess."
Is this a trustworthy source? --Armaetin 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Apple has been doing "desktop search" in one regard or another since Mac OS 8.5 introduced Sherlock back in 1998. --FOo 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say the same about Windows having that good old fashioned Find tool back in, oh, 1995. --Guess Who 10:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS Stealing from Vista