This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In my opinion, this is a very good article, comprehensive and gives as much info as it can, along with the features and development articles. Is there any reason why it hasn't been nominated for featured article status? Is is because it is a current event thing? - jak (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Longhorn was simply a codename, just like XP's Whistler, and Win98's Memphis. 75.4.216.27KodeK
If I recall/understood correctly, "Longhorn" was the name of the project, not the name of the actual software. A fine point, admittedly, but it may clear up this disagreement. Kind of like "Manhattan" was the name of the project that produced Fat Man and Little Boy. Septegram 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for build 5456? I can't find it, and when I look up the download of Vista Beta 2, the file still has 5384 in the name. Also, for future builds of the beta, will they update old builds, or will a complete re-installation of Vista be needed? - Рэд хот 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed this as it was in the graphics hardware requirements and it seems to have nothing to do with that and, unless I am missing something, appears to have little to do with vista at all and is an announcement for something entirely different... RN 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
better for wikibooks?
if anyone thinks this is useful please add it (perhaps as a link with [:image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]). If no one does, then it can be deleted - i don't care. just thought it might be useful. -- Gatoatigrado 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't make clear which Vista edition is closes to XP Professional (specifically which edition doesn't have all the network editions as in not being able to join a domain or network with more than 5 computers). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
PNG is a given. Will Vista also come with 7-zip, ogg vorbis, X264 encoders? If everyone can use 7zip that would be great! Or do i have to download all of it myself? Renegadeviking 22:56, 4 July 2006 (CST)
Hi, this is possibly the wrong place to ask, but this is where I trust people the most. I find it interesting that the minimum required memory to use the basic features of Vista is 512 MB RAM. What troubles me is, that if this is the required amount, then Vista will most likely use almost all of it - correct me if I'm wrong, I really hope I am. Now what if I have - let's say - 768 MB RAM, but I want to run a program with high memory needs, like a 3d modeller or a game. I guess I'm most likely missing some technical details about how this problem is solved, so I'd really appreciate an answer from someone more qualified in this field ;-) Thanks in advance -- 84.0.147.180 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The minimum required memory for XP is, I thik, 128MB, but it's noticeably slow. Really need at least 512M. I'm sure that much the same applies for Vista. I consider 1MB to be the MINIMUM memory for a NEW computer nowadays. -- Scott McNay 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous contributor is insisting on putting this into the article:
and I'm removing it. There are a few rather major problems here: Most significantly, who are we to state what level of innovation is required to make Vista a must-have upgrade? It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to measure this, and frankly, the average blogger is really in no position to make this judgement, either. Second, "It can be argued" is quite clearly a case of using weasel words to try to smuggle bias into the article, and per Wikipedia policy, we Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Third, is it really a criticism of an operating system that it may not have the "impact of Windows 95"? I mean, what's next, do we write criticism into the article on Rush's Signals album that it didn't come close to the impact of Moving Pictures? You don't criticise one thing for not being as revolutionary as a next; a simple comparasin would suffice. Of course, we can't even make that comparasin until after Vista comes out... all we have right now is the guesswork of analysts and bloggers. -/- Warren 04:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple days ago, I added that all 32-bit editions, minus Starter, support up to 4GB of ram, in the editions section; which promptly got deleted. Wouldn't it be wise to include that, for the people who don't understand the 32-bit addressable memory architecture? I can see regular people complaining that their 32-bit edition can't see 4GB+ ram. - James
As a followup to my comment above, could someone explain how 32-bit editions of Windows Vista support more than 4GB of RAM? Are Vista compatible apps required to implement extensions that allow addressing more that 232 bits of memory? It would seem an application would have to do some tricks to work with more than 4GB. -- Fandyllic 5:28 PM PDT 27 Jul 2006
Ok... I have vista on my computer, and as far as I can tell, nothing that isn't from microsoft works on vista. What does vista have to offer thats better than xp? DVD Maker? We already use 3rd party stuff that works 100% better than microsoft crap. From what I have seen, Vista just looks cool and needs a pretty good graphics card to do that. I'm sticking with xp unless vista has something signeffigant to offer.-- Finest1 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran z is repeatedly changing the article's running order of new features to put User Account Control above all other features. His edit summaries are becoming increasingly forceful and offensive: 23 July, 24 July, 25 July. I've asked him twice in edit summaries and on his talk page to bring the discussion to this talk page, but he has apparently chosen to not do so, preferring to edit war instead. This isn't producing a better article.
Here's my rationale for maintining the running order as it has been for quite some time: In terms of how Microsoft introduces the operating system on their web site, they place user interface features front and center, with their Vista home page stating: "See why computing will be both more beautiful and more intuitive with Windows Vista. The elegant user interface combined with streamlined tasks and search-based navigation will make using your computer more rewarding than ever before." The sections on the left start off with "The Experience", which introduces the features in roughly this order: Aero, Windows Shell enhancements, "digital lifestyle" stuff, then on to features like Backup Center, Readyboost, Previous Versions, the updated Security Center, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, and Internet Explorer 7. That's all in the Experience section, and as it turns out, we cover pretty much all of that stuff in the "End-user features" section of the article's list of new features. This is by coincidence, I'm sure, I don't think any of us were using that web site as a guide for laying out this article. Our other sections let us list the more domain-specific features (a lot of people won't care about corporate deployment, developer, or kernel ehancements), so that the lists aren't unapproachably long. Features new to Windows Vista is a better place to write about esoteric details and things that are of limited interest.
User Account Control is an important new feature in Vista, yes, but it's a security feature, which affects everybody but is still quite domain-specific. There probably isn't a single person here who would tell their computer-illiterate mother that a technology to prompt users for a password before performing administrative actions is somehow the most important new feature of the entire operating system. You might say "it's more secure" instead, and rightly so; we devote an entire paragraph in the lead (about a third of the total text) to the issue of security, but UAC is only one part of Vista's security story. Singling it out at the beginning of a list of features doesn't make a lot of sense.
I encourage Fran z to take this into consideration before continuing this crusade to move this one particular feature to the very top of the article. -/- Warren 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Fran z isn't finished with this pet project of theirs. Again I encourage them to discuss this here on the talk page. -/- Warren 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
XP article has
* 5.1 Security issues * 5.2 Product activation * 5.3 User interface and performance * 5.4 Integration of operating system features * 5.5 Copying restrictions * 5.6 Windows Genuine Notifications
to what extent does Vista fix or change these? Also, DRM issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Widefox ( talk • contribs) .
Regarding the following comment in the version section of the infobox:
Doesn't this seem a blatant violation of WP:NOR? Wikipedia never was an never will be the place for publishing self-researched claims like the result of running winver, and in the scope of Wikipedia, I think that websites and other published sources should have much more weight than some editor's opinion on what constitutes a true version number. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but this article claims that the WinFS project, which has been dropped from Vista, is loosely based on SQL Server 2005. While that's all well and good, wasn't WinFS originally part of the old Microsoft Cairo project? Doesn't that make the claim that WinFS is based on SQL Server a tad disingenuous?
-ianenos03, 2 August, 2006
When the history of this project is written, it will be useful to acquire some data about the staffing of the project. I would like to appeal to the current Vista development team to provide some numbers.
Just a heads up. Info on Vista 5487 has appeared on a number of sites http://www.winfuture.de/news,26656.html (German) but apparently only released to TAP as yet. There may be a CTP coming soon however http://board.iexbeta.com/index.php?s=670cc2c7badaf071a3c2434124d635a7&showtopic=65016&pid=718272&st=0&#entry718272 Incidently 5483 screenies also leaked and it's a RC1 branch build... Nil Einne 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone seen any well informed & reliable info on what kind of time frame would be required for Microsoft to make the release dates? From memory, the Windows XP release built was like 4 months before it's release. I'm guessing the business version in November is unlikely to need such a large timeframe, perhaps a month? Nil Einne 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought this] might be an interesting link to add to the article but I was not sure where to add it. NorthernThunder 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Are Windows Vista screenshots a copyright violation? Because on this italian page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista all the Windows Vista screenshots have been removed because they think is a copyright violation. Is it true or the Italians are stupid? Why en.wikipedia.org can have Windows Vista screenshots and it.wikipedia.org not? I want insert the images but the Italian administrators always remove them. Please tell them that the Windows Vista screenshots are not a copyright violation
Currently, the article is a nominee for GA status. However, I do not feel that the article is stable because it has not yet being released and when it does, lots of people will be editing the article adding in bits here and bits there; maybe causing the language to change, introducing WP:OR and not citing sources. Iola k ana| T 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The following removed content on Windows technologies (as stated by Microsoft) from the article with the comment that it was a "complete duplicate of what's already stated elsewhere in the article". However, the content covering Microsoft's own categorisation of technologies (as stated on their Vista website) was removed, and there is now no mention in the article of the Mobile PC platform or Windows CardSpace, so I think the removal of this content is not warranted. It should be reinstated. Peter Campbell Talk! 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Is that really a criticism? It's obvious from the screenshots that both OSs are graphically rich, and still share common graphical elements (which has been the same for years). It has no bearing on the actual functionality of the operating system - if you didn't know OS X existed, it wouldn't even matter. That criticism is surely not neutral, and presenting it as legitimate means the article is taking on the non-neutral POV of the criticisms. Just a thought :) Dave420 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so we're mentioning the "PatchGuard" kernel protection as a new feature in Vista. Strictly speaking, it's not new, because it already exists in the current 64-bit editions of XP and Server 2003. Jeff Jones at blogs.technet.com/security/ discusses this exact issue. Right now I think we're including it on the basis that this is the first time most people will have heard of it, because it's getting some press thanks to Ars Technica and Symantec and so on. So here's the question... does it belong in this article? Perhaps it should be mentioned in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition instead? I don't know. Any thoughts on this? -/- Warren 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section on the criticism of the hardware requirements. Firstly, the article is the only one I've seen criticize the requirements and probably for a very good reason. Vista is a new OS and of course is going to require more power. In addition it says that it will only fully run on super-advanced PCs making up less than five percent of the UK's PC industry. First off, I can buy a computer for about $1K that would be able to handle Areo, hardly the price of a super-advanced PC. The comment and statistics are also scewed because of Areo's requirements. Ignoring that, I would say that at least 70% of computers sold today would be able to smoothly run Vista. So in summary, I removed the article because it only gets its figures by scewing statistics and not using common sense. Paul Cyr 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As an experiment, I've replaced the prior Template:Infobox OS 2 with Template:Infobox OS version, a new template I made recently that would be used for specific versions of a family of operating systems. Have a look at it, see if you like it, and let me know what you think. -/- Warren 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Whenever you try to do ANYTHING in Vista, a "Are you sure?" message box pops up. In testing, this has trained all users to begin automatically clicking OK on message boxes without paying them any notice. This flaw allows numerous viruses and exploits to be easily implemented."
I understand the above infomation could be counted as biased, but I think to uphold a neutral stand, something should be added stating the currrent security flaws of vista.
152.160.63.126 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
On this topic, I added the following content that was then twice removed, which seems like censorship to me. I would like to test for consensus on whether this content should be include. I definately think it should, with THE primary goal for Vista now confirmed as improved security. It also highlights some of the code base is common with XP & precursors, rather than be a total rewrite. Security updates are of significant interest - enough to make a lead article on CNET news today.
Two security bulletins Microsoft sent out in August 2006 affect the beta version of the Windows Vista, so it already getting regular security fixes provided by the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC). Vista is the first Microsoft product to get security updates while it is still in beta [2]. The two of seven "critical" Windows updates Microsoft delivered on August 8 2006 which affect Vista are MS06-042, for Internet Explorer, and MS06-051, which addresses a flaw in the Windows kernel, according to Microsoft employee Alex Heaton posting to a corporate blog [3].
What do others think? --
Peter Campbell
Talk!
10:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the blue pill comment belongs in this article. It is not really a valid critisism of Vista as the media makes it seem. Blue Pill DOES NOT use bugs in Vista to install; in fact it requires administrator consent. The second point is that blue pill is not targeted just at Vista. Blue Pill is realiant on AMDs hardware virtualization techonology. It has very little to do with the OS as Joanna made clear; she said in her blog it could just as easily be ported to another OS using the same CPU. I will remove the blue pill information because it belongs in another article and has little to do with Vista. For more information on the blue pill read her blog. She also has white papers talking about her projects.
Here is a quote from Joanna's blog ( [1]): "I would like to make it clear, that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system. I have implemented a working prototype for Vista x64, but I see no reasons why it should not be possible to port it to other operating systems, like Linux or BSD which can be run on x64 platform."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.1.132.226 ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC).
What is the difference between the "Basic" and "Standard" GUI's? The article doesn't seem to be very clear on this, made it sound like they were identical except for not supporting Aero/Glass and that the former is bluish and the latter is grayish. Hopefully someone can clarify this. -- 68.252.245.109 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To all screenshot makers: Please use Windows Aero, if possible. Aero Basic is not Vista's standard UI. Themodernizer 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"In addition, it has been noted that many features which were purportedly copied (such as fast searching and gadgets) were actually present in early Vista builds before they were demonstrated by Apple, and were already implemented by third-party products such as Google Desktop Search and Konfabulator."
To clarify: Spotlight preceded Google Desktop Search on either platform, Konfabulator, however, preceded Dashboard.
Perhaps, to further drive the point home, you might mention Exposé, which was a first-of-its-kind application management tool and now has sparked the Vista "Roladex" app management tool (not to mention 3rd-party spin-offs).
-Paul J. 8/29/06 10:21am (CST)
This thing has really ballooned since the last time I saw this article. Currently, some parts are filled with the differences between betas - why are these here at all? They are not on any other article. I guess the question is what to talk about:
Remember - the thing isn't even out yet! It is treading in that grey area of crystal balling...
I also reverted an edit that noted a sidejab that Jobs did at a conference thing that had little/nothing to do with vista. [2] RN 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In reference to patches for a beta this was mentioned afterwards which I removed:
It seems at least partially incorrect to me as it is a beta... RN 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Most seems to reference WikiPedia though (sometimes wholesale without attribution...) - circular! RN 08:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Will Windows Vista support ICQ? 213.240.234.212 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Please indicate below whether you support (yes or no) inclusion of the following comments by Steve Job's in the "Criticm" section. Refer here for some discussion on this.
Existing sentence:
Add this sentence:
There is little support for adding the comments from Jobs, so I have just added the CNet news/photo reference to the article. Thanks to those who responded. -- Peter Campbell 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence seems to jar in the reading of the paragraph: 'Note: Windows Xp where the Xp stand for "experience".' I wondered if perhaps it should be removed. -- T#
Its unclear to me from the article if it automatically runs natively in 64 bit mode on 64 bit capable processors, or if it is still running in 32 bit mode. This info should be in the lead para. Fawcett5 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fran Z's recent edits mostly are duplicating contents. Most of what is there in Features new to Windows Vista are being replicated by him here, which defeats the purpose of having separate pages in the first place. Plus his edits generally are direct copy-pastes from web sites, making them a copyvio. I have tried in past to invite him to dialogue, but couldn't. His edits are not resulting in higher quality articles. -- soumসৌমো yasch 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If this article is right (and I presume it is), it seems like a severe marketing error to sell the consumer editions after christmas. As I understand is, the content is readily availabe on the business editions sold from Novomber on, and even the "Ultimate" version will be avaliable then. Why hold back the home versions, if that entire content is already avaliable? If I misunderstood the whole thing, maybe the article needs to be more clear, but as it is, the move seems not very clever. — Mütze 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
In my opinion, this is a very good article, comprehensive and gives as much info as it can, along with the features and development articles. Is there any reason why it hasn't been nominated for featured article status? Is is because it is a current event thing? - jak (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Longhorn was simply a codename, just like XP's Whistler, and Win98's Memphis. 75.4.216.27KodeK
If I recall/understood correctly, "Longhorn" was the name of the project, not the name of the actual software. A fine point, admittedly, but it may clear up this disagreement. Kind of like "Manhattan" was the name of the project that produced Fat Man and Little Boy. Septegram 15:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for build 5456? I can't find it, and when I look up the download of Vista Beta 2, the file still has 5384 in the name. Also, for future builds of the beta, will they update old builds, or will a complete re-installation of Vista be needed? - Рэд хот 22:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed this as it was in the graphics hardware requirements and it seems to have nothing to do with that and, unless I am missing something, appears to have little to do with vista at all and is an announcement for something entirely different... RN 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
better for wikibooks?
if anyone thinks this is useful please add it (perhaps as a link with [:image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg]). If no one does, then it can be deleted - i don't care. just thought it might be useful. -- Gatoatigrado 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't make clear which Vista edition is closes to XP Professional (specifically which edition doesn't have all the network editions as in not being able to join a domain or network with more than 5 computers). — Ilyan e p (Talk) 21:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
PNG is a given. Will Vista also come with 7-zip, ogg vorbis, X264 encoders? If everyone can use 7zip that would be great! Or do i have to download all of it myself? Renegadeviking 22:56, 4 July 2006 (CST)
Hi, this is possibly the wrong place to ask, but this is where I trust people the most. I find it interesting that the minimum required memory to use the basic features of Vista is 512 MB RAM. What troubles me is, that if this is the required amount, then Vista will most likely use almost all of it - correct me if I'm wrong, I really hope I am. Now what if I have - let's say - 768 MB RAM, but I want to run a program with high memory needs, like a 3d modeller or a game. I guess I'm most likely missing some technical details about how this problem is solved, so I'd really appreciate an answer from someone more qualified in this field ;-) Thanks in advance -- 84.0.147.180 19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The minimum required memory for XP is, I thik, 128MB, but it's noticeably slow. Really need at least 512M. I'm sure that much the same applies for Vista. I consider 1MB to be the MINIMUM memory for a NEW computer nowadays. -- Scott McNay 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous contributor is insisting on putting this into the article:
and I'm removing it. There are a few rather major problems here: Most significantly, who are we to state what level of innovation is required to make Vista a must-have upgrade? It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to measure this, and frankly, the average blogger is really in no position to make this judgement, either. Second, "It can be argued" is quite clearly a case of using weasel words to try to smuggle bias into the article, and per Wikipedia policy, we Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Third, is it really a criticism of an operating system that it may not have the "impact of Windows 95"? I mean, what's next, do we write criticism into the article on Rush's Signals album that it didn't come close to the impact of Moving Pictures? You don't criticise one thing for not being as revolutionary as a next; a simple comparasin would suffice. Of course, we can't even make that comparasin until after Vista comes out... all we have right now is the guesswork of analysts and bloggers. -/- Warren 04:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
A couple days ago, I added that all 32-bit editions, minus Starter, support up to 4GB of ram, in the editions section; which promptly got deleted. Wouldn't it be wise to include that, for the people who don't understand the 32-bit addressable memory architecture? I can see regular people complaining that their 32-bit edition can't see 4GB+ ram. - James
As a followup to my comment above, could someone explain how 32-bit editions of Windows Vista support more than 4GB of RAM? Are Vista compatible apps required to implement extensions that allow addressing more that 232 bits of memory? It would seem an application would have to do some tricks to work with more than 4GB. -- Fandyllic 5:28 PM PDT 27 Jul 2006
Ok... I have vista on my computer, and as far as I can tell, nothing that isn't from microsoft works on vista. What does vista have to offer thats better than xp? DVD Maker? We already use 3rd party stuff that works 100% better than microsoft crap. From what I have seen, Vista just looks cool and needs a pretty good graphics card to do that. I'm sticking with xp unless vista has something signeffigant to offer.-- Finest1 14:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Fran z is repeatedly changing the article's running order of new features to put User Account Control above all other features. His edit summaries are becoming increasingly forceful and offensive: 23 July, 24 July, 25 July. I've asked him twice in edit summaries and on his talk page to bring the discussion to this talk page, but he has apparently chosen to not do so, preferring to edit war instead. This isn't producing a better article.
Here's my rationale for maintining the running order as it has been for quite some time: In terms of how Microsoft introduces the operating system on their web site, they place user interface features front and center, with their Vista home page stating: "See why computing will be both more beautiful and more intuitive with Windows Vista. The elegant user interface combined with streamlined tasks and search-based navigation will make using your computer more rewarding than ever before." The sections on the left start off with "The Experience", which introduces the features in roughly this order: Aero, Windows Shell enhancements, "digital lifestyle" stuff, then on to features like Backup Center, Readyboost, Previous Versions, the updated Security Center, Windows Defender, Windows Firewall, and Internet Explorer 7. That's all in the Experience section, and as it turns out, we cover pretty much all of that stuff in the "End-user features" section of the article's list of new features. This is by coincidence, I'm sure, I don't think any of us were using that web site as a guide for laying out this article. Our other sections let us list the more domain-specific features (a lot of people won't care about corporate deployment, developer, or kernel ehancements), so that the lists aren't unapproachably long. Features new to Windows Vista is a better place to write about esoteric details and things that are of limited interest.
User Account Control is an important new feature in Vista, yes, but it's a security feature, which affects everybody but is still quite domain-specific. There probably isn't a single person here who would tell their computer-illiterate mother that a technology to prompt users for a password before performing administrative actions is somehow the most important new feature of the entire operating system. You might say "it's more secure" instead, and rightly so; we devote an entire paragraph in the lead (about a third of the total text) to the issue of security, but UAC is only one part of Vista's security story. Singling it out at the beginning of a list of features doesn't make a lot of sense.
I encourage Fran z to take this into consideration before continuing this crusade to move this one particular feature to the very top of the article. -/- Warren 17:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Fran z isn't finished with this pet project of theirs. Again I encourage them to discuss this here on the talk page. -/- Warren 09:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
XP article has
* 5.1 Security issues * 5.2 Product activation * 5.3 User interface and performance * 5.4 Integration of operating system features * 5.5 Copying restrictions * 5.6 Windows Genuine Notifications
to what extent does Vista fix or change these? Also, DRM issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Widefox ( talk • contribs) .
Regarding the following comment in the version section of the infobox:
Doesn't this seem a blatant violation of WP:NOR? Wikipedia never was an never will be the place for publishing self-researched claims like the result of running winver, and in the scope of Wikipedia, I think that websites and other published sources should have much more weight than some editor's opinion on what constitutes a true version number. (|-- UlTiMuS ( U • T • C | M • E ) 05:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but this article claims that the WinFS project, which has been dropped from Vista, is loosely based on SQL Server 2005. While that's all well and good, wasn't WinFS originally part of the old Microsoft Cairo project? Doesn't that make the claim that WinFS is based on SQL Server a tad disingenuous?
-ianenos03, 2 August, 2006
When the history of this project is written, it will be useful to acquire some data about the staffing of the project. I would like to appeal to the current Vista development team to provide some numbers.
Just a heads up. Info on Vista 5487 has appeared on a number of sites http://www.winfuture.de/news,26656.html (German) but apparently only released to TAP as yet. There may be a CTP coming soon however http://board.iexbeta.com/index.php?s=670cc2c7badaf071a3c2434124d635a7&showtopic=65016&pid=718272&st=0&#entry718272 Incidently 5483 screenies also leaked and it's a RC1 branch build... Nil Einne 18:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone seen any well informed & reliable info on what kind of time frame would be required for Microsoft to make the release dates? From memory, the Windows XP release built was like 4 months before it's release. I'm guessing the business version in November is unlikely to need such a large timeframe, perhaps a month? Nil Einne 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I thought this] might be an interesting link to add to the article but I was not sure where to add it. NorthernThunder 03:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Are Windows Vista screenshots a copyright violation? Because on this italian page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista all the Windows Vista screenshots have been removed because they think is a copyright violation. Is it true or the Italians are stupid? Why en.wikipedia.org can have Windows Vista screenshots and it.wikipedia.org not? I want insert the images but the Italian administrators always remove them. Please tell them that the Windows Vista screenshots are not a copyright violation
Currently, the article is a nominee for GA status. However, I do not feel that the article is stable because it has not yet being released and when it does, lots of people will be editing the article adding in bits here and bits there; maybe causing the language to change, introducing WP:OR and not citing sources. Iola k ana| T 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The following removed content on Windows technologies (as stated by Microsoft) from the article with the comment that it was a "complete duplicate of what's already stated elsewhere in the article". However, the content covering Microsoft's own categorisation of technologies (as stated on their Vista website) was removed, and there is now no mention in the article of the Mobile PC platform or Windows CardSpace, so I think the removal of this content is not warranted. It should be reinstated. Peter Campbell Talk! 23:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Is that really a criticism? It's obvious from the screenshots that both OSs are graphically rich, and still share common graphical elements (which has been the same for years). It has no bearing on the actual functionality of the operating system - if you didn't know OS X existed, it wouldn't even matter. That criticism is surely not neutral, and presenting it as legitimate means the article is taking on the non-neutral POV of the criticisms. Just a thought :) Dave420 18:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so we're mentioning the "PatchGuard" kernel protection as a new feature in Vista. Strictly speaking, it's not new, because it already exists in the current 64-bit editions of XP and Server 2003. Jeff Jones at blogs.technet.com/security/ discusses this exact issue. Right now I think we're including it on the basis that this is the first time most people will have heard of it, because it's getting some press thanks to Ars Technica and Symantec and so on. So here's the question... does it belong in this article? Perhaps it should be mentioned in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition instead? I don't know. Any thoughts on this? -/- Warren 06:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the section on the criticism of the hardware requirements. Firstly, the article is the only one I've seen criticize the requirements and probably for a very good reason. Vista is a new OS and of course is going to require more power. In addition it says that it will only fully run on super-advanced PCs making up less than five percent of the UK's PC industry. First off, I can buy a computer for about $1K that would be able to handle Areo, hardly the price of a super-advanced PC. The comment and statistics are also scewed because of Areo's requirements. Ignoring that, I would say that at least 70% of computers sold today would be able to smoothly run Vista. So in summary, I removed the article because it only gets its figures by scewing statistics and not using common sense. Paul Cyr 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As an experiment, I've replaced the prior Template:Infobox OS 2 with Template:Infobox OS version, a new template I made recently that would be used for specific versions of a family of operating systems. Have a look at it, see if you like it, and let me know what you think. -/- Warren 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Whenever you try to do ANYTHING in Vista, a "Are you sure?" message box pops up. In testing, this has trained all users to begin automatically clicking OK on message boxes without paying them any notice. This flaw allows numerous viruses and exploits to be easily implemented."
I understand the above infomation could be counted as biased, but I think to uphold a neutral stand, something should be added stating the currrent security flaws of vista.
152.160.63.126 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
On this topic, I added the following content that was then twice removed, which seems like censorship to me. I would like to test for consensus on whether this content should be include. I definately think it should, with THE primary goal for Vista now confirmed as improved security. It also highlights some of the code base is common with XP & precursors, rather than be a total rewrite. Security updates are of significant interest - enough to make a lead article on CNET news today.
Two security bulletins Microsoft sent out in August 2006 affect the beta version of the Windows Vista, so it already getting regular security fixes provided by the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC). Vista is the first Microsoft product to get security updates while it is still in beta [2]. The two of seven "critical" Windows updates Microsoft delivered on August 8 2006 which affect Vista are MS06-042, for Internet Explorer, and MS06-051, which addresses a flaw in the Windows kernel, according to Microsoft employee Alex Heaton posting to a corporate blog [3].
What do others think? --
Peter Campbell
Talk!
10:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the blue pill comment belongs in this article. It is not really a valid critisism of Vista as the media makes it seem. Blue Pill DOES NOT use bugs in Vista to install; in fact it requires administrator consent. The second point is that blue pill is not targeted just at Vista. Blue Pill is realiant on AMDs hardware virtualization techonology. It has very little to do with the OS as Joanna made clear; she said in her blog it could just as easily be ported to another OS using the same CPU. I will remove the blue pill information because it belongs in another article and has little to do with Vista. For more information on the blue pill read her blog. She also has white papers talking about her projects.
Here is a quote from Joanna's blog ( [1]): "I would like to make it clear, that the Blue Pill technology does not rely on any bug of the underlying operating system. I have implemented a working prototype for Vista x64, but I see no reasons why it should not be possible to port it to other operating systems, like Linux or BSD which can be run on x64 platform."
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.1.132.226 ( talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC).
What is the difference between the "Basic" and "Standard" GUI's? The article doesn't seem to be very clear on this, made it sound like they were identical except for not supporting Aero/Glass and that the former is bluish and the latter is grayish. Hopefully someone can clarify this. -- 68.252.245.109 19:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
To all screenshot makers: Please use Windows Aero, if possible. Aero Basic is not Vista's standard UI. Themodernizer 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"In addition, it has been noted that many features which were purportedly copied (such as fast searching and gadgets) were actually present in early Vista builds before they were demonstrated by Apple, and were already implemented by third-party products such as Google Desktop Search and Konfabulator."
To clarify: Spotlight preceded Google Desktop Search on either platform, Konfabulator, however, preceded Dashboard.
Perhaps, to further drive the point home, you might mention Exposé, which was a first-of-its-kind application management tool and now has sparked the Vista "Roladex" app management tool (not to mention 3rd-party spin-offs).
-Paul J. 8/29/06 10:21am (CST)
This thing has really ballooned since the last time I saw this article. Currently, some parts are filled with the differences between betas - why are these here at all? They are not on any other article. I guess the question is what to talk about:
Remember - the thing isn't even out yet! It is treading in that grey area of crystal balling...
I also reverted an edit that noted a sidejab that Jobs did at a conference thing that had little/nothing to do with vista. [2] RN 04:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In reference to patches for a beta this was mentioned afterwards which I removed:
It seems at least partially incorrect to me as it is a beta... RN 06:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Most seems to reference WikiPedia though (sometimes wholesale without attribution...) - circular! RN 08:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Will Windows Vista support ICQ? 213.240.234.212 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Please indicate below whether you support (yes or no) inclusion of the following comments by Steve Job's in the "Criticm" section. Refer here for some discussion on this.
Existing sentence:
Add this sentence:
There is little support for adding the comments from Jobs, so I have just added the CNet news/photo reference to the article. Thanks to those who responded. -- Peter Campbell 23:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The following sentence seems to jar in the reading of the paragraph: 'Note: Windows Xp where the Xp stand for "experience".' I wondered if perhaps it should be removed. -- T#
Its unclear to me from the article if it automatically runs natively in 64 bit mode on 64 bit capable processors, or if it is still running in 32 bit mode. This info should be in the lead para. Fawcett5 17:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Fran Z's recent edits mostly are duplicating contents. Most of what is there in Features new to Windows Vista are being replicated by him here, which defeats the purpose of having separate pages in the first place. Plus his edits generally are direct copy-pastes from web sites, making them a copyvio. I have tried in past to invite him to dialogue, but couldn't. His edits are not resulting in higher quality articles. -- soumসৌমো yasch 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If this article is right (and I presume it is), it seems like a severe marketing error to sell the consumer editions after christmas. As I understand is, the content is readily availabe on the business editions sold from Novomber on, and even the "Ultimate" version will be avaliable then. Why hold back the home versions, if that entire content is already avaliable? If I misunderstood the whole thing, maybe the article needs to be more clear, but as it is, the move seems not very clever. — Mütze 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)