Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista/Archive 1

message: This whole article is out of date.  Every single source cited has been published before the actual build date of the final build of Windows Vista.  This article should be deleted and rewritten, or be given a complete overhaul.
-- Stacman 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i hate to be a sour-sob but i think most of the "critisims" on this page have been delt with in later builds Eevo 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just rewritten the section on digital rights management.  Most of the sources cited in that section are very recent ones (barely a few days ago). --Renegade Lisp 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of Date

message: "... and even if it is, Microsoft will not be the only vendor enforcing support, as Digital Rights Management is largely decided by content providers, not platform providers.[5]"
The provided reference seems to be an opinion article and I couldn't find anything to support the claim that "DRM is largely decided by content providers, not platform providers." I think rather than claiming that DRM is decided by content providers, it would be more appropriate to end that sentence with the names of a few other vendors enforcing support. For example, are Apple doing the same thing? - James Foster 06:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that in the US, most DRM is used in a way that technically violates several laws (fair use, backup, use with alternate devices, etc.), so in that context, this argument is correct.  I think it's safe to say that Microsoft would not be bothering with the complexities of DRM if not pushed to it by the content providers.  Finding references may take some effort, though; it's been several months since I saw a good article on that subject.  --Scott McNay 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DRM

message: "However, this is not to say the criticism does not have basis. After all, to say that Microsoft started to work on something before Apple released it is not to say they started working on it first. For example the first working demo of spotlight was June 28, 2004, meaning developement must have begun long before that date."
I'm not sure this bit sound encylopedic; I can't really pin down what it *does* sound like, but it doesn't sounds like I'm reading the World Book or something of that nature.  I dunno, it comes off as a little snarky.  I'm going to be bold and remove it, as I feel that snarkiness has no place in an encylopedia.--IndigoAK200 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hmm...

message: Microsoft announced, ...
* users have to buy a new vista license, if the hardware has been changed after the last upgrade.
** this is quite controvertial. Check the www.winsupersite.com for two opinions about this issue. The problem is that enthusiasts are the only people afected by this problem (if you buy a PC with Windows Vista, there is no need to authenticate), and I can't understand how is MS protecting their market by enforcing such limitation on a 5% market share. Would someone please care to explain? --Pinnecco 13:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new restrictions 

message: In response to the criticism, it appears MS is allowing it. check here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx --70.55.214.162 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MS is allowing retail buyers to move Vista install

message: Could someone explain how Aero looks anything like Mac OSX? Thanks... - Nö†$®åM 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The general criticism is that Vista incorporates features that are currently included in the latest versions of OSX.  The argument, of course, is flawed, in that said features were present in other operating systems before they were in OSX.  The article thus needs to be changed to sound less like "Microsoft is copying Apple", and more like "Microsoft and Apple both incorporate these features".  cacophony ◄► 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarity to Mac OS X

message: I moved the part about PatchGuard to the Kernel Patch Protection page because PatchGuard is not new to Windows Vista. It has been around since Windows XP x64. I will expand the Kernel Patch Protection article when I have time. ---Remember the dot 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kernel Patch Protection

message: Windows 20XX = year based naming scheme of server products? Why not all products?213.240.234.212 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is 100% up to the whims of the Microsoft merketing department. --Scott McNay 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista:  -- mms 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BadVista.org 

message: : Security bug affecting Windows Vista kernel (as well previous Windows version 2000, XP, 2003) was identified by accident on Russian developers forum on December 15, 2006 6 weeks before worldwide retail availability.. But Microsoft has downplayed risks of this issue prompting users to install firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spyware software that has nothing to do with this bug, dispute underground hackers were offering exploit for sale on internet for $50,000. This issue adds more skepticism on Microsoft Trustworthy Computing initiative launched in 2002.
Sure - this is violation of NPOV as it's Criticism section. But it's impossible to not mention this - as Vista is claimed by Microsoft as "Windows Vista is our most secure platform to date"  . Current security section is all about bad anti-piracy features nobody (expected pirates and Microsoft) must care and bad cooperation of Microsoft and anti-virus vendors (that sounds as advertisement for those anti-virus companies - dispute Antivirus_software#Issues_of_concern is not mentioned). It's a must to talk about actual Vista security as this is something that matter. If you feel that current text is NPOV violation - rewrite it, but do not delete. Even NY Times talk about this . It's important bug - as it's takes only one ActiveX control to be downloaded from evil website to get SYSTEM privileges or at least crash your PC / Terminal server with BSOD. --TAG 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, discovered flaws don't automatically qualify as criticism.  The mere fact of the existance of a security vulnerability isn't really all that noteworthy, even if the marketing spiel is saying "most secure platform to date".  There were, after all, security vulnerabilities found during the CTP and beta stages, and few made a big deal out of that.  Second of all, as editors, it's not our responsibility to decide what counts as criticism; we have to seek out and report on what critical commentary other people are making.  The New York Times article you noted, for example, is not a critical analysis of Windows Vista.  If you don't agree, I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on critic, and consider what the word really means.  Notice how a lot of the criticism stated in this article has been attributed to actual people and groups, who are engaging in "the activity of judgement or informed interpretation" (to quote critic).  We don't invent the criticism ourselves, or even correlate several related pieces of information and draw a conclusion from it -- some reliable source must do all that for us.   -/- Warren 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for WP guidelines on criticism. I feel that's possible to quote NY Times article like this one “When vendors say a program has been completely rewritten, it doesn’t mean that it’s more secure from the get-go. My expectation is we will see a whole rash of Vista bugs show up in six months or a year.” by Nand Mulchandani (Vice President at Determina) and also note that there are already bug identified by Russian developer that remained from previous versions of Windows (it's already established fact - for a references go to Bugtraq mailing list). --TAG 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That quote from the security software vendor isn't a criticism -- it's analysis of possible future events.  It also shows a clear bias as someone hawking a security product -- Determina benefit financially from making Windows sound insecure.  That operating systems have bugs hardly counts as criticism meriting much space in the encyclopedia... it's just how things are.  For example, Mac OS X v10.4 had hundreds of bugs that were fixed in the first few point releases afterwards, but it isn't discussed in any great detail.  If those bugs result in major problems, exploitation, and news coverage, then yes, it's absolutely fine to cover it in Wikipedia.  We have a whole article on the Windows Metafile vulnerability, and the security section of Criticism of Windows XP is pretty focused on stuff that happened that can be subsequently criticised, not potential problems.  -/- Warren 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. You decide best. But in my opinion - all this rush for "Secure By Design" and other PR issues and bugs are incompatible (and Microsoft benefit from OS sound as secure). People must be aware that there ARE BUGS in Vista - it's a fact. Just like in any other OS. --TAG 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security bug 

message: Has there been any improvment made to the setup process for Windows Vista ???
87.112.12.166 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setup Process

message: I dont know why people are complaining that the hardware reqs for running vista to its full capacity are so high, thats just the way it goes, you cant expect to get stunning graphics on a crappy pc.  runs fine at full whack on my pc anyway, thats AMD Athlon 64 @ 2.0GHz and 1Gb cheap generic RAM and a mid-low range GFX card, although it could stand to be a bit faster 172.141.138.207 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having more than 2GB of memory does not automatically mean 4 GB. Use multiple modules and you can add up to anything in between. And you need a ref to claim that Windows shows 2 GB as 1.99 GB. (I cannot verify. On my XP machine, I have 1.5 gigs, and on Vista x64, I have 4). Both shows as it expected. --soum talk 10:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware Requirements 

message: There are also many divers that are noot compatible with vista. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.168.198 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be an issue with the driver provider, not Windows Vista. Paul Cyr 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about drivers? 

message: I added a brief section regarding the "shout hack" security exploit found recently in Vista, which was... ah... quickly removed, the rationale being that this is not a problem specific to Vista, any OS with speech-recognition has this problem. I realize this, but I also think that Vista is the first OS where a large portion of personal computers may be vunerable to such an attack, not to mention that this vunerability warranted enough attention to be headline news for quite some time (PCWorld, Slashdot, and Google News all had at least one article about it). Should this section be returned to the article? (I would've made this a survey, but I don't know how.) Sloverlord 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech-recognition exploit 

message: I am Placing a Nutrality Disputed Banner on this Page because I feel that some of the Similaritys Betwenn OSX are not written in a neutral Point of view. 68.173.12.180 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag since you haven't given any specific reasons. Paul Cyr 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was reverting some previous edits but wanted to keep yours, however I changed it from "Critics" to "Opposition" since the comments in favour were listed as "Supporters". Paul Cyr 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Move along, nothing to see here. Paul Cyr 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Zubenzenubi doesn't respond to the linked discussion about this issue by 23:00, on the 25th of April, I'm going to revert his changes.  Do any other contributers have anything to add? Paul Cyr 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not satisfied with the word "Opposition" or "opponents". "Opposition" actually says that I don't like something while "criticism" tries to point out actual flaws. This is evident if you read the sentence "Scientist X opposes scientist Y findings". This can be true even if X never uttered a word referencing the work (and that would be formally inacceptable because it flatly denies contradictory evidence). If the sentence "Scientist X criticizes scientist Y findings" it is clear that the methods or conclusions are attacked even when X agrees with Y conclusions. If e.g. X and Y think that astrology is bogus, X can still attack Y if Y uses faulty data and logical fallacies to argue against astrology. Nitpicking, but still POV. --136.172.253.189 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  But keeping the other side as "supporters" doesn't seem semantically correct.  Any suggestions? Paul Cyr 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest "Notable critics" as headline because all examples have specific persons and organisations as sources and "Reactions" instead "supporters" because they give a specific response to Gutmanns arguments. --136.172.253.189 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about just removing the headings altogether?   -/- Warren 17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: The quote "We need answers, not questions" by Jack Evans sound too much emotional. Therefore it is not objective. An Wikipedia article should try to avoid ANY emotional content and try to be completely objective.
This quote comes from this sentence : "We still have not received the guidance we're seeking. In July, we received a formal list of questions, but no answers about what specific concerns the Commission has, or how we should address them. We need answers, not questions."
Since the sentence "we need answers, not questions" contains absolutely NO informational content, I deleted this sentence.
Alrik Fassbauer 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formulation 

message: For the discussion see Windows Vista talk: Gaming/application performance... I have listed several sources comparing performance in Windows Vista (RTM) with performance in Windows XP SP2. I think it is more than worthy of note. If the consensus is that this is a good idea, I will make an attempt at it. Dashboardy 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to put these scores in context though. Were comparing a relatively new operating system (Vista is what 3-4 months old now?) on first-generation drivers. Everything that is used to support your system's hardware is either first-release, or still beta. And were comparing this to an operating system that has been around for 5-6 years, with drivers that have had time to get the bugs worked out and enchance features. Even more, the iceberg hasn't even been cracked into that is Vista's power. DX10 is on the horizon. I wanna see this test redone when DX10 is released and there is Vista support for 2nd or 3rd generation drivers. If the results are the same, then I'll agree that Vista's a waste. But before you do, i suggest the bashing stop on the system —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xatticus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do see your point and I wasn't really suggesting a "bashing" as you have so simply put it. I do think it is a relevant issue, as many gamers have thought that moving to Windows vista combined with a DX10 capable card is a good gaming option - this is hardly the case at this point. If this were to be implemented into the article, it would have to make mention of the fact that the drivers are not yet completed by any stretch of the imagination. I do think Vista will eventually surpass XP in gaming performance - XP has done so with 2000 so there's no reason to think otherwise. I do agree that if a more recent test is performed (with ATI drivers as they have non-beta vista drivers) but with DX10 cards, it should be used. Perhaps we should wait a bit until there are recent tests with the latest drivers. Dashboardy 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming/application performance 

message: If you aren't willing to discuss the issue, then edit warring will get you blocked. Paul Cyr 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You stopped discussing the issue and proceeded to remove the content tags, that's what the above warning was for.  I am not going to justify my actions when the burden of proof is on you to show how the CD/DVD Burning issue is properly sourced.  As for the Dell issue, I gave my opinion, waiting a week for you to respond, and removed it accordingly since previous editors had sided with my position, to which you immediately reverted.  I'm not going rosey dosey with you since you are not acting on good faith by refusing to discuss but willing to revert, even by using sockpuppets.  I have asked a few other editors to come and voice their opinion.  Of course, it's not like you seem to care about consensus. Paul Cyr 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Since we appear to be moving in circles, I am going to proceed with dispute resolution process WP:RfC. Paul Cyr 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Warring 

message: This is a dispute about whether Dell's offering Windows XP and the CD/DVD burning issue deserve inclusion in this article. 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the bigger issue is not that they are offering XP, but rather that they have gone back on their move to Vista. It's not an issue that they offer XP (or Linix or MS-DOS ;-), but that they had ditched XP for Vista, and then rolled back that decision. It's also significant that some of their offerings are not available with Vista (presumably because of hardware or software incompatabilities) - this supports the criticism on compatibility issue. peterl 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but the key point peterl, is whether that speculation can be attributed to the source, which it can't.  There are many possible reasons for people wanting XP, and having sold Vista computers for about 3 months, I heard some people concerned about compatibility, but I also heard a lot of FUD such as MS spying on them and not being able to use their music and even just that they thought it was too new and need some time to get the bugs ironed out.  But without the article saying why people wanted XP, any implications are unattribuatable. Paul Cyr 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That some of the Dell "craplets" do not work may be a valid criticism (if reffed) but, as I said in my earlier comment, unless it can be unarguably shown (and not just speculated) that people have demanded XP due to their horrid experiences with the OS and that they were not coerced by the FUD campaigns, it does not become criticism of Vista. --soum (0_o) 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And about the guys horror story, he hard rebooted the system in the midst of the system formatting a CD-R and expect to go back later and fix the mistakes made during first write? Its a write once disc, goddammit! And he himself says, his issue was not reproducible (his friends machine burnt it properly). So how is a one-off issue a criticism? I have had more horrifying experience with my burner with every OS I have used, most of which I later traced back to cheap CDs and a misaligned lens in the burner. So, is the guy damn sure the burning software is to blame, and not the device or some other component. Plus the question of reliability of the source is also there. You dug up google hits for the site, but popularity is *not* reliability. If it can be shown the source is indeed reliable and that other sources do back up his claim, only then inclusion can be justified. --soum (0_o) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Dell's offering Windows XP and CD/DVD Burning issue 

message: Not quite sure why this section had been deleted, when it's clear:
* it's a criticism (yes, some of the new refs say 'criticism' and 'vista' and 'software' on the same page
* the refs are legit
* its factual.
Please don't delete this important section without discussion first.
peterl 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section that was there before was completely improper for this article (no sources of criticisms, just existance of issues), so I removed it since it would need a complete rewrite anyways.  What you've added and sourced now seems to be good though. Next time I'll just tag the section as needing a rewrite and bring it up on the talk page. Paul Cyr 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. peterl 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software compatibility 

message: 58^ The 3DMark 06 score on Vista is approximately half the score with XP, and the average framerate with Vista for F.E.A.R. is also approximately half the XP score, all with 2 GB of memory , a ATI Radeon X1950XTX GPU, and a Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 for XP / Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 for Vista).
Doesn't link anywhere, its just original research hidden where citations are supposed to go. I can't figure out how to edit references can someone delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.62.221 (talk) 04:09, 25 May, 2007 (UTC)
: It is not original research to me (I wrote this part). The two links below the text of the note explain it:
* first test is a test of different memory configs on  Vista, with this hardware config (apart from memory): Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX; on this configuration, and with 2 GB of memory (two different memory confs tested), the article shows approx. 6400 on 3DMark 06, and approx. 57 Fps for FEAR, with high quality settings.
* second test is a test of Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX on  XP, with this hardware config: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2 GB of memory, Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX; on this configuration, the article shows approx. 10200 on 3DMark 06, and approx. 120 Fps for FEAR, with high quality settings.
So, OK, these figures do not come for only one article only (strangely, I found no single article dealing with Game results on Vista vs XP with the same hardware configuration), but these two articles deal with exactly the same 
configuration (CPU, GPU, memory), so the results are interesting (and I say again, no Original research). Also it is clear in the note that the results come from two different articles, and even the configs are mentioned. Hervegirod 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found some single benchmarks now, added them and modified this part accordingly. Hervegirod 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theres a fake citation 

message: This article is seems to be biased against Windows Vista and Microsoft. I should point out that there isn't a Criticism of Mac OS X or Criticism of Mac OS article, there is only a small section stating criticisms of Mac OS X in the Mac OS X article. I believe this article is not neutral, and therefore against Wikipedia:NPOV. Chetblong 12:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would really help if you gave some examples. Paul Cyr 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also there's much more voiced criticisms on Vista than on Mac OS. Hervegirod 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because not a lot of people use Mac OS X and therefore not a lot of people review Mac OS X. --Chetblong 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems to be biased. 

message: There are some references to blogs in the article. These should be removed.
Policy relating to 
 Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.
Any volunteers to remove blog entries from the article as blogers have a POV, which is not a NPOV
23:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign your comments peterl 01:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blog does not inherently mean its not allowed. As long as we can filter out information from opinion, it is fine. And quite a few blog references are used in a way that adds value to the article, as they help present both sides of the story. --soum (0_o) 18:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Blogs as Sources

message: The section needs some context before delving into what Kaspersky or Microsoft or whoever else says. It alone makes little sense to those who are unaware of the happenings. --soum (0_o) 18:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UAC 

message: Symantec's "criticism" of Vista isn't really criticism but a complaint, and dated July 2006 before the release of Vista. This criticism is irrelevant and should be removed. The article referenced from McAfee is dated 9/28/06 and may not reflect their current views towards Vista.  the article does not state that Vista is inherently less secure, it complains that Microsoft is not cooperating with McAfee and other 3rd-party vendors attempting to make a buck off fixing Vista security. Keep in mind that this is more of a criticism of how Microsoft is playing with third-parties than the actual OS. Also, after reading the McAfee article, it's clear that some of the info in the article is outdated -- the RTM version of Windows Vista (with security center) works well with VirusScan.
The notable critics section under DRM mainly deals with Peter Gutmann and his complaints. Although Steve Gibson and the FSF are mentioned, it's not clear what they are adding to this discussion. Forbes magazine having an opinion about Vista doesn't fit the DRM topic at all. It's also not clear that Steve Gibson is an interviewer and has not published his own study but is merely jumping on the bandwagon. The DRM section is lengthy and disjointed. By the time Microsoft's response is given, it's not immediately clear if they are responding to criticism of DRM or criticism of Vista as a whole.
The user account control section needs to be completely rewritten. The main objections to user account control have nothing to do with how secure Vista is. (if it does, it should be moved to the security section.) It would be good to mention the Mac/PC commercial about "coming to a sad realization". And, it would also be good to find sources that explain how this will cause issues with software compatibility. This would be a good lead-in to the software compatibility section and the gartner quote.
The topic of similarites with the MacOS is only an issue for people that are upset that Microsoft has "copied" the MacOS or people that don't like the MacOS. I'm not sure how similarities in two products are a criticism. I can say two bicycles are similar to each other and tell you about how their handlebars look the same, they are both painted red, and both seats are adjustable. But, that isn't critical analysis. Unless the features are described and an explanation is given about what is wrong or right about these features, it's just attitude without substance, not criticism. While there's nothing wrong with opinions, the approximation of a lot of them without substance turns the piece into a rant or drivel.
The hardware requirements section is one of the better-written sections. However, it would be useful if there was further Vista spec information provided (or links) to Microsoft's actual specs for Vista. Perhaps on a criticism page this sounds like advertising for the enemy, but most readers would find it helpful.
In the laptop battery life section, the summary gives a blanket statement that Vista drains the battery more than Windows XP, but the details of this section do not seem to follow that assertion:
1. Windows Aero turned on drains more battery.
2. Windows Aero turned off drains the same or less battery.
3. Hybrid hard disks improve performance while saving battery life.
The assertion should be reworded to say that battery life is sometimes worse, depending on hardware and configuration.
The game compatibility section talks about "significant" compatibility problems with Vista. Perhaps this modifier could be removed. "significant" is not quantitative so it is meaningless. Some of the games do not "run", so "games that run on" should perhaps be changed to "games designed for".
Again, "significant problems" appears when talking about other software. It's clear there are a lot of programs that do not run properly on Vista. It might be easier to just create a list of software and the link to each website's Vista support page rather than keep this in paragraph form. Also, its not clear if this section is talking about corporate software problems, upgrade paths, or licensing. This would be nice to be sorted out somehow.
About Removal of Features: This information is a little dated. I suspect that there are articles out there talking about the first service pack in regard to these packages. PowerShell being available as a download makes it somewhat of a non-issue (so it should be removed).
The anti-trust controversy in Europe is pretty irrelevant to "criticism" of Vista. It's "old news", so to speak. Perhaps it should be added to the Microsoft criticism page and moved from here.
The performance section uses the "significantly" adjective again. (worthless)
Just my two cents worth (err.. 2 dollars worth) 204.65.0.26 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding the Battery Section, specificlly the Hybrid Hard Drives, the information has been edited to show that it decreases performance. In truth, it can affect performance either way. It really depends on if the data is in the Flash based cache. The scheme (like most caches) is designed to increase frequently accessed data, which would offer a net performance increase. I will revert the AGF edit, and if there is a problem, it should be discussed under talk. Tiggerjay 20:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I got caught up in the word usage. The initial edit was "increase access speed" and was edited to "decrease access speed". I can see how that can/has turned into a symantecial nightmare/misunderstanding. To add clarity, I will reword as "improve access speed" (which might be 'in good faith' what the initial author meant. Tiggerjay 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of flaws, disorganized, outdated sections 

message: In a recent edit, the above user stated in their edit summary "Reinserted request for citations, which was removed without exoplanation". But the edit summary tags in question are all attached to a set of bullet points which are summarising the Microsoft blog entry "Twenty Questions (and Answers)", reference number 15 on the article. Since the bullet points are a summary of the blog, the citations for them would all be that blog, which is made clear at the top of the section. I have thus removed the citation tags. Also, the user changed "Windows Desktop Search betas were released well before Mac OS X's Spotlight feature" to "However, Windows Desktop Search betas were released well before Mac OS X's finder", which is incorrect: the Macintosh Finder dates back to before 1985; it and Spotlight are not the same thing. I have reverted those changes. -- simxp (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by [[User talk:194.46.231.180|194.46.231.180]]

message: This should be changed to "Removal of promised/announced features" so to make space for "Features present in XP/older Windows and not present in Vista", like FireWire IP support, HLP viewer ...
(it is also funny, that the help tells you how to make IP over FireWire, while the feature itself is not implemented)
--Xerces8 10:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  Could you clarify the current problem and what you think should be done? Paul Cyr 18:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing change of Removal of features 

message: ... But the article does not say a word about it. I have read/heard Windows Vista is at least 9 times as big as Windows XP(which is an oversized OS too, IMNSHO), but certainly it is not at least 9 times as efficient as Windows XP (far from that). KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 200.143.28.18 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, We are not here to push your personal PoV. Get a blog and do it yourself. --soum talk 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  And this isn't a machine, it's software.  All 9 times bigger of it isn't running at one time. Paul Cyr 18:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Windows Vista is an oversized OS"...