Talk:Features new to Windows Vista/Archive 1

message: Just because there is a new version of Internet Explorer for Windows Vista does not make it a "new feature" to the operating system. We could have a section called "Internet navigation" or "networking". Or we could even have a section called "Features new to Internet Explorer" --Cumbiagermen 06:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article discusses new features in Internet Explorer.  Internet Explorer is an important component of Windows. I don't see a problem with this.  Warrens 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: IE for Windows Vista will feature features that will be available only on that platform. So I think IE7 should get a mention in Vista new features. Soumyasch 07:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is IE new to Vista??? 

message: Vista will have support for sym-links???  I've never found this.  How do I set one up?  Does anyone know more about this?  I've used a couple beta builds, and never bumped across this feature.
On further research, I can find no mention of sym-links in windows help.  The only thing similar to sym-links in the Windows world is DFS.  I am going to remove the mention from the main article.  131.107.0.71
:You make symlinks in Vista using the "mklink" command. Warrens 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  for info about both hard links and symbolic links under Windows, starting with Windows 2000. --Scott McNay 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that SysInternals recently became part of Microsoft, I suspect that the mklink command might be an upgraded version of the SysInternals Junction command.  --Scott McNay 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Symlinks (Junctions) are an important feature of the Vista directory hierarchy. Do "dir /a" in your user directory to see how they've used it to organize user data. sean 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolic Links??? 

message: The default administrator account is still in Windows Vista but is not shown on the welcome screen. If you check 'user accounts' in system or c:\users\ you will see the administrator account.
88.104.40.119 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same is the default behavior with Windows XP as well. --soum************yasch 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, in xp it's activated by default; it simply doesn't show up on the welcome screen unless there's no other administrator set (you can press Ctrl+Alt+Del twice though). --Cataphract 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator Account 

message: Considerably expanded the networking section to include as much info regarding the new changes as possible. Hope I haven't left anything out. Please comment. --soUmyaSch 03:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some information about Windows Filtering Platform. Is there any need of WFP to have its own article? --soUmyaSch 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Networking 

message: I would like to see an obvious statment along with each new technology whether or not it will be madecavaidable to previous versions of windows. Perhaps a single bullet point at the end of each subheading's paragraph stating "IE7 will be avaidable to all windows OSs" or "WinFX will be avaidable to XP" etc. It could also be helpful if the article were to state all those that are unique to Vista (like aero). Thoughts? mastodon 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the name of the article suggests, pretty much everything listed on this page is going to be unique to Vista.  There's no good reason to weigh down this article with all sorts of semantics about whether or not a described feature is going to be available in other operating systems as well... there are other articles where this would be more suitable.  Warrens 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, OK, I see your point. I was just wondering about those that will be avaidable to XP. I have heard through the grapevine that WinFX will be backported, and IE7 is suitable for all Windows versions. Is this true? If so, I would like to see it clear in the article. mastodon 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WinFX and IE7 aren't being "backported".  They are being designed for and released for the NT 5.x platforms and Vista in the same general timeframe.  .NET Framework 3.0 (formerly WinFX -- Northgrove 22:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, thankyou, thats cool. One last question: will they all be made avaidable through Windows Update? Possibly as a service pack? mastodon 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backporting 

message: Services for Macintosh are removed... what current Mac services does Windows XP have? And I hope it doesn't consider iPod, or? --Shandris 08:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Services for Mac denote Windows XP services that allow Windows and Mac machines to exist on the same network. It includes MacFiles which allow windows file shares to be accessed from a Mac, MacPrint allows shring printers with Macs, Remote Access Services for Mac allow Mac users to dial-in / connect to a windows network over TCP/IP, etc. It has nothing to do with supporting Apple hardware such as iPod. --soUmyaSch 09:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macintosh 

message: XPS was a sub-section in kernel changes. Since it is not a kernel-level change, I moved it outta there into the Graphics section. But I am not sure whether it should be there or kept as a subsection of WPF. Please suggest. --soUmyaSch 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a really good place for it.  It's part of WPF, yeah, but it's also part of the print infrastructure... probably what we'll need to do is get a "Print" section together covering what's new there (though I haven't found much good information on this yet), and then add some info about XPS there, and then info about XPS as a document format can also be added to WPF.  I guess?  Warrens 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created a print section and shoved XPS into it. Its still a bit rough, though. --soUmyaSch 10:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid confusion, does XPS stand for XML Paper Syndication or XML Paper Specification? --Shandris 16:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its Specification. Did I write Syndication? Sorry about that. I am really sorry. --soUmyaSch 17:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XPS 

message: The cited document for this section only covers media DRM -- there are no mentions in that document of corporate or end-user DRM, or of an "open RMS server".  -- Gnetwerker 05:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRM section 

message: Not sure if any Microsoft shills are working here, but the voice recognition incident has been reported by many sources (slashdot, washington post, etc) and seems notable. I think it should stay. Shawnc 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice recognition 

message: The article states that there will be no replacement for Windows Messenger. How then can one possibly explain the existance of "Windows Live Messenger", which not only looks the part with it's vista theme, but offers improved functionality. In fact you can no longer even download older versions of MSN messenger it seems, from Microsoft's own site. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.216.1.191 (talk  o  contribs) .
: Windows Live Messenger certainly appears to be the replacement for XP's Windows Messenger, but as of the most recently released build of Vista (a couple weeks ago), there is no instant messenger client of any kind included with Vista, which is why the article reads as it does.  If Windows Live Messenger or some variant gets included with future builds or the final release, then we'll include it then.   -/- Warren 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Live Messenger 

message: I've removed a couple of features from the Task Scheduler section since the heading there indicated it was a list of new features only. XP Task Scheduler can schedule a task to only occur when the PC is idle, and can wake the computer to run a task. -24.170.135.104 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Task Scheduler 

message: This info should be assimilated into the audio section. --soum************yasch 04:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's this, too: Audio Innovations in Windows Vista, which is a really nice article with lots of screenshots of the new audio UI.  Man, I want Creative to get off their asses and get some solid Vista drivers out so I can play with this stuff! :-)  -/- Warren 11:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I bet they will replace all the new Microsoft GUI with a bloated applications of their own - as Creative always does... :-( Futurix 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista Audio Stack 

message: "Also Windows Vista binaries place buffers higher in memory and code in lower memory area. So to actually exploit, a buffer underrun is needed."
As I understand it, buffer overflow exploits don't normally overwrite code, they overwrite return addresses on the stack. So how does moving the code to lower memory area affect exploitability? 82.2.52.97 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Its not code. I fixed it. Buffers contain local data and activation record. Code exists in a generally read only text area. The read-onlyness can also be enforced using NX/XD bit, the same which DEP uses, though its not a requirement.--soum************yasch 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventing Exploits 

message: Is the second sentonce some kind of joke? "[...]window animations and eye candy, which includes hot naked women."87.123.207.90 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was vandalism by 216.48.136.5 ... Futurix 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Aero 

message: UAC is a good idea for restricted users; unfortunately some control.exe modules like the device manager still don't show a UAC popup. Is there any intent to fix this? Also the mmc looks still quite frumpy; what about some changes here.
62.202.86.185 10:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a discussion forum about Vista. This is discussion about the article. Futurix 12:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UAC 

message: Should "Robocopy" be listed as a new command line tool which "is an updated version of Xcopy". Robocopy was there is Server 2003 Reskit as well, and even usable in Win XP. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robocopy is not an updated xcopy.  It's a completely different utility which can do the same things that xcopy does and more, and it has completely different parameters.  It also doesn't have at least one limitation that xcopy has (the limitation that I'm thinking of is a limit on the number of files that can be copied, if I recall correctly, which can result in incomplete copies).  Robocopy has never before shipped as part of the OS; before, it has been part of the resource kit for the OS, which is a separate for-pay package. --Scott McNay 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robocopy 

message: A lot of the information presented in this article regarding how Vista handles metadata is outdated and now inaccurate.  Some of these abilities were planned but were removed for various reasons.  Vista exposes metadata only for files that support them and only if the application developer has written code spefically exposing that metadata to the shell.
For Vista, Microsoft has adopted the "truth is in the file" principle for metadata.  This means that all file metadata handled by Windows must be stored inside the actual files.  This gurantees portability of the metadata because it always travels with the file.  This means, for example, if a file is sent as attachement in an email or put on a thumb-drive, the metadata will still be in the file.
In Windows XP, users had the ability to read and write metadata for all file types by right clicking the file and going to Properties>Summary. Windows relied on an NTFS feature called alternate streams to attach this metadata to the file without altering the contents of the file itself.  This meant that the metadata would be lost if the file was moved onto a non-NTFS file store such as thumb-drive or sent as an attachement.  This feature was purpousefully removed from Vista because it conflicts with "truth is in the file" design goal.
In Vista, the idea is have the metadata inside the file, but the problem is that only a few file types support metadata.  Out-of-the-box, Vista has the ability to edit metadata for Microsoft Office files and most audio and video files.  In addition to text metadata, thumbnails previews of files, called live icons, are supported as well as searching the text of documents.  Application developers can extend Vista's ability to edit metadata for different file types by writing special software that would read and edit the metadata and provide thumbnails for their file types at the Shell's request. For this reason there is no ability to adde metadata to .txt files, for example.
:Most of it is present in the metadata para of the shell section. Granted, it can do with a little expansion and reordering. Also, the fact that summary tab doesn't aggregate ADS metadata is mentioned. What is not made clear is that NTFS ADS is still there, and that apps can take full advantage of it. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metadata 

message: Any mention of this in the article?  207.177.241.28 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, forgot to sign in. — Alex (T|C|E) 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see it with a quick search.  Go ahead and add it if you can find a good spot, and if it's worth adding (there are many other changes which are not mentioned).  --Scott McNay 04:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a rather frightening thought, given how long the article is already. :-)   -/- Warren 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I said "if it's worth adding".  There's a point where the changes may be noticeable, yet of increasing triviality. The article IS quite long, unless want to see about splitting it into a small number of sub-articles. --Scott McNay 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's definitely worth mentioning somewhere... Windows Explorer perhaps?  We have a section for new Vista stuff there.  Just hinking about splitting up this article gives me a splitting headache (bad pun, sorry), but we'll need to find a way to do it eventually.  I'd love to hear some ideas on it.  -/- Warren 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could always (ahem) Be Bold and simply break it in half, parts I and II, with only the References section being duplicated (necessarily).  The TOC alone is longer than many other full-fledged articles.  The only bad part is that I don't know of a way to replicate the TOC of Part II in Part I, and vice versa, which would be nice. --Scott McNay 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dynamic multidimensional scrolling" 

message: In the main article, a detailed para on IC was added.  In this article, a shorter para on IC was added, and another para on MIC was added.  Are IC and MIC the same thing?  If not, then I'd suggest putting them next to each other.  Further, the para on CI in this article is the one that should be more detailed, not the one in the main article. --Scott McNay 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IC/MIC/whatever, here and in main article