Talk:Features new to Windows Vista/Archive 2

message: I notice in the article that some of the removed connectivity stuff is directly related to dial-up.  Has dial-up gone out the window?  If so, the article should say so explicitly.  --Scott McNay 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modem support? 

message: Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't see a section in this article on whether or not MS Vista is backwards compatible with running XP software.  I have a number of programs such as Corel WordPerfect, (WordPerfect Office 2002) and misc. programs from Canon, Broderbund, National Geographic 100 Years on CD-ROM, and Judaica Multimedia's Encyclopaedia Judaica CD-ROM.  How can I find out if this software will run properly on Vista?  The issue of backwards compatibility with recent legacy software (last 5 years or so) should be an important part of this article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. RK 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, it depends on the software in question. Vista x64 doesn't run 16-bit programs, which is no great loss. UAC breaks some (poorly-coded) programs and drivers. However, Vista has an application compatibility menu to try to trick apps into working. A google search on "vista application compatibility" yields this article, which seems pretty spot-on:  —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Application compatibility is completely out of scope of this article - it is only about new features of Vista. Futurix 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about backwards compatibility with XP software?

message: There seems to be a dispute over whether Aero is an acronym or a backronym. To me, it seems unlikely that Aero is a genuine acronym. I mean, who names a piece of software Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open and then after the fact thinks "oh wow, look, it spells aero"?
It is more likely that Microsoft came up with the name 'Aero' first (probably to spoof Mac OS X's 'Aqua' interface) and then invented Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open retrospectively to fit. 
On the other hand, Microsoft have never stated this was the case -- and are never likely to, even if its true. Therefore, in line with the main article on Aero, I've edited the article to read "an acronym (or backronym)", which covers both possibilities. 80.93.170.99 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Backronym

message: Were there not several Vista features, which MS in the end removed, because of time constraints? Could someone who knows them add a list of them to one of the Vista articles? Mlewan 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a reminder - this shouldn't be in the current article, because it is about new Vista features only. Futurix 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announced but removed features? 

message: This article is now up at WP:GA/R.
:A couple of notes for reviewers:
:* Yes, this article is quite large - but this is because it is comprehensive. It is written in summary style, which is an occasional exception from WP:SIZE. Besides, large chunks of text where already moved to other articles.
:* Accusation of breaching WP:SOAP is stupid - this article is neutral and contains both good and bad changes in Vista.
: Futurix 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments are now archived in GA/R archive 14. Homestarmy 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Which is here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 14#Features new to Windows Vista —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]

message: GA Delist: See comments here. Further, it fails requirements of WP:WIAGA Nja247 Nicholas 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comments are now archived in GA/R archive 14. Homestarmy 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Which is here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 14#Features new to Windows Vista —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted

message: As you may have noticed, the article is now protected. This is bad, and good. It's bad, because now new content and revision can't be done on the fly. This is good though because of that same reason; content and revision can be thought out well and co-ordinated to make a stellar article. The above suggestions by users such as Warren, HarryBoyle, Futurix and others can be planned out and done well. I did not wish to have the page protected, but one user didn't want to adhere to wiki rules regarding improper use of reverts, even after I warned him this would happen if it didn't stop. To top it off, this same user not once came here to say "hey, i don't agree with you". With that said I have no issues with unprotecting the page, but I can only see this happening if the user in question learns to respect others views and the correct usage of the revert. Otherwise, it would just happen all over again. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy that the page got protected (having originally created the article and written a significant percentage of it), but if it's necessary to stop User:Figleaf from reverting edits without discussing it, then it's the right thing to do.   -/- Warren 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I wanted to get feedback from you guys about archiving this page. Would that be something you're cool with? It's a bit cluttered. If it were archived, how old would you want a comment to be until it's archived? Two weeks, a month? Let me know your thoughts. It'd be easier to utilise this page to discuss article improvements and such if older, non-relevant content was archived away. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think anything above "Edit war?" can be archived. Futurix 06:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive of Talk page

message: I don't see any mention of product activation in the article, but the method of activation for Volume License customers has changed significantly in Vista and in terms of the effect on network administrators it's one of the big changes. Vista now activates itself against a local Key Management Server approx twice per year if you have over 25 Vista PCs on your network. There's a fairly clear FAQ on Windows Vista Volume Activation 2.0
I would add an item myself, but I'd be tempted not to lump it in with the "Other features and changes" junk section at the bottom of the article. I'm wary, however, of increasing the size of this hefty, monolithic article. Any advice? Sahmeepee 18:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say - go for it. It is better to have info even if the article is too large (other editors will deal with that). Futurix 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product Activation 

message: "However, Direct3D 10 is not backward compatible with prior versions of DirectX. So computer games made for Direct3D 10 do not function on versions of Windows prior to Vista unless they also support Direct3D 9."
This statement seems to use a questionable definition of backwards compatibility. DirectX 10 is backwards compatible if it can handle DirectX 9 (or lower) applications.  And it undoubtedly will. The actual issue that the statement is complaining about is about the backwards compatibility of the applications using DirectX 10 and not about DirectX 10 at all. Or alternatively, you can take it to be about DirectX 9 not being forwards compatible ;P 
Immortius 11:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is fine. You are right in saying that DirectX 10 would be backward compatible if it can handle DirectX 9 (or lower) applications. More appropriately, applications making use of DirectX 9 or lower APIs. However, that is not the case. DirectX 10 runtime cannot deal with DirectX 9 or lower code. So, it is not backward compatible. DirectX 9 apps in Vista need the DirectX runtime (a vista-specific version is provided), and DirectX 10 apps invoke the DirectX 10 runtime. DirectX 10 can reside side-by-side with DirectX 9. The process of choosing which version of the runtime to use is transparent to the user. --soumসৌমোyasch 13:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Immortius; "backwards compatibility" is not the correct term to use in the sentence.  It would be more correct to say  something like "Direct3D 10 will not be made available for older versions of Windows, so computer games which require Direct3D 10 will not run on those older platforms.".  It is the games that lack backwards compatibility; the vendors would need to specifically include DX9 support for the older systems.  Based on what I've read, it's probably easier for them to simply have a different version for the older platforms.  Backwards compatibility for DX9 is included in Vista, so that older games will still work (else adoption rate would surely be low and the complaint rate high).   --Scott McNay 14:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DirectX 10 "Backwards Compatibility" statement

message: I believe that splitting the article is inherently a bad idea. Any method used to do so will inevitably result in conflicts due to certain features belonging in two or more categories (file and registry virtualization, which is included in both Security and safety features new to Windows Vista and Technical features new to Windows Vista, is an example). Moreover, any split introduces difficulties in navigation due to the aforementioned reason and other causes. The only justification for splitting the article is its large size; however, I believe that meeting an arbitrary, numerical standard is not a good option for this article. Themodernizer 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we don't enforce a strict size limit (eg 32kb), there is no denying the fact that the article is way too big. At over 130kb this article is all but impossible to work with. The benefits of reduced article size far outweigh the possible conflicts that could arise and could be dealt with fairly quickly. Harryboyles 05:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you in principle, and I'm also not personally fond of picking specific numbers beyond which a split should be forced.  That said, having multiple articles can work well, if we're thoughtful and consistent on how we split up the information.  In addition to Harry's concerns given above, there have been some complaints in the past from readers about the sheer size and unapproachability of this article.  That's ultimately who we've got to serve with these articles.  How can we improve the situation?  I added those article series nav boxes to help, but there's still more we can do.   -/- Warren 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the article