This page 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. |
I think the ongoing tussle between the EU & Microsoft is worth a mention, perhaps in the Criticism section. It seems that a version of Vista without Media Player etc may be provided to Europe to comply with their anti-monopoly laws, and the launch of Vista in Europe may also be delayed while the wrangling continues -- Peter Campbell 14:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the Windows Fiji article? It appears to have to have spontaneously disappeared.
This edit [1] removed the following text from the introduction section:
WCF is probably the most significant technology inclusion in Vista as it is the first time a full Web services stack has been bundled with any client OS I know of. This will have wide ramifications for Web 2.0 applications, composite applications, and application integration via messaging. It is therefore of equal or greater signficance to the mention of .Net framework in this regard. I think this content should therefore be reinstated in the introduction. -- Peter Campbell 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that file system hidden or discontinued? No references in "what page links here" or in the Vista article. Please what EXFAT is!! COstop 12:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A change was made substituting "Vista Starter" with "Starter Edition 2007". As far as I can see, this isn't an official name change: searching for both terms in google using site:microsoft.com gives 0 matches for "starter edition 2007" and over 300 for "vista starter". The Microsoft Product Page Clearly refers to Vista Starter also. If this change has been made, please cite a source for the name change or provide some evidence that microsoft.com refers to this product name! njan 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The list is getting too long.
KeKe 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In the article, under system requirements, it says that one of the requirements is a CD drive. However, beta 2 took up approximately the size of 7 cds, and a requirement for the beta was a DVD drive. If anyone has any references for the CD drive requirement, could you post them? If not, can someone change it to a DVD drive? DarkSideMoon 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft today made available a 5-CD version of build 5744... first time they have done that for any build. I'm fairly certain this means that Vista will be distributed in both CD and DVD format. -/- Warren 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
When Windows Vista will be released to retail, how many CDs? -- 210.213.85.225 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created a separate criticism article, Criticism of Windows Vista, with all the existing content from this article's criticism section. We should try to focus on the most significant and well-documented criticisms of Vista here, and then expand on those and others in the break-out article. I'll be pruning and re-writing some of the content in that section in this article to make it flow a little better and to be a more succint summation. -/- Warren 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Late to this but I've provided a new comment below ... -- Gnetwerker 05:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
According to amazon.co.uk, ( [4]), the release date of Windows Vista in UK is 2nd February 2007. -- 147.197.215.16 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
do windows OSs generally come out on one international release date or on different dates in different places? Nicoli nicolivich 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
does vista address the y3k bug?-- Nytemunkey 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
just wondering what new peer-to-peer technologies makes it easier to share files in vista? Any sources?
"Vista also aims to increase the level of communication between machines on a home network using peer-to-peer technology, making it easier to share files, password settings, and digital media between computers and devices."
-J
On the channel 9 site they have a video all about peer to peer. Great video. Stuff like Teredo which allows peers behind NATs to communicate with each other without any special configurations. Also they have virtual networking technologies and the "people near me" technology. Another interesting example (that I have not seen a demonstration of) is the name resolution protocol they have. An application where a lot of these technologies are used is Windows Meeting Space. It can create meetings (share files/desktop/applications) over NATs and it can be used without an internet connection (automatically uses adhoc wireless mode and people near me). So actually it aims to increase communication not just on the home network but on the internet (which is a big problem because of NATs).
Is the mention and screenshot of Windows Classic really necessary? I consider it like saying there's a "Desert" color scheme in XP. — Alex ( T| C| E) 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the screenshots for each of the visual styles to ones from RC2, I made one of the Windows Standard style, but not Classic, my edit got reverted on the grounds that Vista has both Standard and Classic and I've since made the edit again leaving the old Classic screenshot in. My question is, Vista also includes a number of high-res styles, fact of the matter is Standard and Classic are very similar, do we really need to see them both? JamesWeb 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
When I initially added Classic, it was in accord with the idea there should be screenshot of every color scheme in Vista (excluding those for disabled people). If it should be rather less than more, then OK. But it is logical to remove also Windows Vista Standard screenshot, because it differs from Windows Vista Basic in that amount so kids can play "find three differences" game on these two screenshots. Jakub Horky 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I specifically came to this page to see that Windows Standard looks like as that is the default in the Home Basic addition - so if there is to be no picture of it, perhaps it should at least say it looks the same as Classic. ― Adam Millerchip 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that in the introduction to this article, the new GUI should not be the first thing which is mentioned when discussing Vista's new features.
Surely by far and away the most significant improvement in Vista is that of security, and this is the reason people will choose to upgrade, more so than just "because it looks different."
I am aware that security is given a whole paragraph just underneath, but I do think it's important to have security listed as the main difference between XP and Vista..... when XP first came out non-techy people all said "hey! it looks just the same... that was a waste of money..." - they didnt realise the huge steps forward from 9x and ME, and they were instead only noticing the visuals. therefore, i think mentioning Aero first may just be fuelling this misunderstanding, and giving too much prominence to something much less signficant than the real important difference, security.
thanks, Paulfp 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What about microsoft's copyright saying "Except for Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from products that have not been commercially released (including beta versions), you may use screen shots"?
It seems that fair-use can't apply here, since Microsoft's copyright is explicitly forbidding this use.
Regards, Manchot 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A contributor provided this link as a source for stating that Vista's release date is December 5, 2006. That article referenced a ZDNet article which has since been removed. Because of this, I've reverted the addition of the release date. We're going to need a better source than that... -/- Warren 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It has suggested that Windows Vista will not be a huge hit on Latvian market because the word "vista" means chicken in this particular language. I'm not sure if it is worth mentioning in article, but maybe this factoid has some relevance. -- Magabund 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody provide screenshots with a higher resolution than 1024x768? 17'' LCDs with a native resolution of 1280x1024 are becoming pretty much the norm these days, so it would make sense to show what Vista looks like on those screens (the Start Menu certainly takes up a lot of space as it is). A few shots with the lower resolution should remain though for the sake of a variety. - Cyrus XIII 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The screenshot from the top of the page went missing, I've replaced it with the example of Aero for the time being but it really needs to be replaced with an example of a new installation (sidebar etc.). Can someone do this, as I'm just a lazy workaround kinda guy. -- JamesWeb 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion this "article" is more a advertisement for the product then an really encyclopedic article. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR ALL CONTRIBUTERS : clean up this article. It's made clear on the Criticism of Wikipedia about this
"Windows Vista article once read like an advertisement for the product, instead of a factual article with a neutral point of view. While it is not certain that the article was edited by Microsoft, the use of marketing buzzwords such as "technologies" was sufficient to merit a rewording of the article."
Please do not delete this comment or any other comments without permission —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia ( talk • contribs) October 15, 2006.
I understand and have previously witnessed the tendency toward removal of criticism from this article, but was surprised that anyone had countenanced the wholesale removal of the section from this page, and the ghetto-izing of it in Criticism of Windows Vista. However, as it is a serious sub-section of the overall body of information, rather than revert and try to re-incorporate the criticsm, as is preferred everywhere on Wikipedia, I took what I can only hope is a less contentious route: I included an abbreviated version in the WP:LEAD. As the lead contained a major para on criticisms of Windows XP that Vista purported "resolves", it seemed only appropriate to include a reference to major criticism, from respected reviewers, that has been pushed into a secondardy article. -- Gnetwerker 05:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The article now seems more balanced. While there still appears to be a tendency toward protectionism of Windows, I congratulate the editors for moving in the right direction. However, I disagree that "People reading about Windows Vista ... don't need to hear Paul Thurrott's or Paul Rizzo's opinions on perceived similarities to Mac OS X" -- indeed, these are some of the things that will be most obvious to the casual observer of Vista, and the notion that prominent Windows reviews also observe it is, I believe, interesting. -- Gnetwerker 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with their removal, but I also don't agree to the placment of many of the criticism, I would say that 90% of that section would have to be re-written when Windows Vista actually ships. In fact I would go as far as to say that almost all the pre-shipping references would become invalid and obsolete. Creating a criticism section for a beta product is bad form IMO, the Windows Vista that was released in the first CTP is a very different beast from the RC's that Microsoft is shipping. PPGMD 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
On PPGMD's note, once Vista is released, would there be any objections to removing critisism that doesn't explicitly refer to the final version? Paul Cyr 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two screenshots same for the Windows Vista RC2 taken by JamesWeb:
thumb|center|250px|Windows Vista Desktop RC2.png and thumb|center|250px|Windows Aero.png
It is RECOMMENDED to change the desktop background of one of those screenshot images by downloading the wallpaper here. — 210.213.85.90 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, reference link 42 (number may change) seems to point to an unrelated article: "Most PC buyers need to purchase MCE for free Vista upgrade, PC makers say. Retrieved on 15 September 2006.". I don't see anything about upgrading to Vista there. Retodon8 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The requirements for Aero are 64 mb of VRAM not 128 mb so I have changed the article back to the way it was before this edit [5] accordingly. I have used Aero with 64 mb of VRAM and the Microsoft page that is (and was) linked to also makes it clear 64 mb is the minimum. As I have explained in the talk (see archive 4) 128 mb is the requirement for Vista Premium ready but this is not the requirement for running Aero and if you read the Microsoft page properly this should be clear. You need 128 mb for larger then about 1.3 million pixels but the minimum for Aero is 64 mb according to Microsoft. This is also mentioned in the footer to the Vista Premium requirements. <rant> So really, I wish people would check out references and the actual article and perhaps the talk page before changing info so that it becomes incorrect <end rant> Nil Einne 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are we not able to change the latest build to 5840, since that is the latest confirmed build, why is it so anal about getting it expressely confirmed by MS? Rob.derosa 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an error:
Windows Aero (including Windows Flip 3D) is only planned for inclusion in the Ultimate, Business and Home Premium editions
Enterprise also supports Aero - see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/enterprise.mspx - since Enterprise includes all of the Business features, including Aero. We have Enterprise running (RC2) and indeed aero works.
Does Windows Vista still have a command prompt, similar to what we have in XP and earlier versions of Windows? If so, perhaps we should mention it on the main page, similar to what we have for WinXP. (I do not have a Vista beta machine set up.) N2e 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
My computer is just only 128 MB of RAM. Can I use that physical memory fot just 128 MB in Windows Vista? -- 210.213.83.120 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There was so much spam here, thank god it's gone! What's up with the PROnetworks spam links staying there though? That's just a content-aggregation service - they steal the images off other sites without citing sources... not up to wikipedia's normal standards..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.236.232.131 ( talk • contribs) .
Weixiang7326 adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source. Please block that user. Thank you. -- 210.213.86.46 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultimate: £325???? That's about $500+ It's from amazon.co.uk Can you believe it? Or there is error? I'd rather buy it from the US, or Asia.-- W Tanoto 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I did a bunch of work on this section today. In the process of getting this section up-to-date, i noticed a few things. First of all, Microsoft hasn't commented publicly on the "additional license" costs at all, so far as I can tell... the numbers came from numbers posted on Amazon.com, which have since been pulled. This leaves us with a bunch of blogs as the only source of information on additional license SKUs. Given that Microsoft hasn't announced anything, I figure it's probably better for us to talk about that than it is for us to state those prices as fact.
I also found some information about Microsoft's recently announced "Express Upgrade" program. It's actually rather messy and complicated, because different OEMs are handling upgrades in different ways. One example of that is that some OEMs are only offering the Express Upgrade program on some of their newly-sold computers, but not others. There's also conflicting information floating around about whether you use voucher coupons to get your copy of Vista, or if a receipt is enough. On top of all that, I can't find any indication that this offer extends to retail copies of XP. This covers some of the issues in more detail. I'm not sure how much time we should spend on this, but if someone wants to look into it further, knock yourself out. -/- Warren 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedian users,
There was a dead image of the screenshot of Windows Vista(TM) Upgrade Advisor RC.
Please upload from this URL: http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/5c350bc24d.png
Thank you.
Truly regards, 210.213.87.51 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget about it. Please click the URL to see it and upload. -- 210.213.89.106 09:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 30 Jan 07 is worldwide release. In UK, according to amazon and www.pcworld.co.uk, it will be 2 Feb 07. Can somebody edit it? -- 147.197.190.40 14:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Aero requires a DirectX 9-capable video card, I'd expect Windows to use video card features to speed up various things, and to reduce the need for main memory. However, I occasionally still see refresh issues, which makes me think that this is not happening. Can someone find anything official on this? -- Scott McNay 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I found the video of the early announcement of Windows Vista. Please upload the video from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0507/25234/Win_Name_MBR.asx
because there was a dead media link. -- 210.213.86.39 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles. Please take a look at it. I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. -- Dgies 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have Windows Vista Build 5840 (the latest is now build 5920), and I changed the build # part in the info box but someone changed it back, but since I am running 5840, I can confirm that the build does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric C ( talk • contribs) .
Just recieved Vista build 6000 today through my MSDN subscribtion.
Source if needed: Windows Vista Team Blog Eric C 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Should other currency pricing be included as well? There are others around the world who do not know and want to know how much they are going to have to pay in their own currency. I can help out abit with these full version Australian pricing:
Full Version Windows Vista Home Basic: $385
Full Version Windows Vista Home Premium: $455
Full Version Windows Vista Business: $565
Full Version Windows Vista Ultimate: $751
All prices in Australian Dollars and are the Recommended Retail Price (RRP)..
-- Lakeyboy 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
According to amazon.co.uk
windows vista:
ultimate full version £325
home premium full £224.99
business £294.99
home basic £184.99
Please, add all of these to the list (with US$ equivalent, just like they did with playstation 3 articles, so we can compare the price in different country.-- 147.197.190.40 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems a bit much for a single article to have the price for all countries. I think that at most we should have the price for the english speaking nations only. US, UK, Canada, and Australia. PPGMD 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
US$, CAN$, GBP, YEN, SIN (microsoft softwares in asia are manufactured in SIngapore), Euro, AU$, NZ$, HK$. And that's it. -- 147.197.190.40 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just found the photo of the early announcement of Windows Vista.
Please upload from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/press/2005/07-22lh.jpg
-- 210.1.95.212 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I contend that these links should be worked in somewhere; this is the sort of knowledge that I've been looking to learn:
showstopper {"Let us entrail you,..."}
When programmers use in-lingo, we come to this sort of website f/ explanation.
Thank You.
hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This is from the Winsupersite: retrieved here
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1, codenamed "Fiji") is due in late 2007 alongside Windows Server "Longhorn", as is the next version of Windows Media Center, though Microsoft is still not sure how they'll ship that latter upgrade. Vista SP1, despite the name, is going to be a major upgrade: It will include a new version of the Windows kernel (version 6.1), bringing Vista up to date with the changes Microsoft is baking into the next Windows Server version.
Should we put this? (I think not.) - 202.81.177.43 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
For god sake, 76 external links. I think it's just TOO much. I took a closer look at it, and at least half of them can be removed in my opinion. Some of the links are just plain spam! Do other editors agree to "clean" the external links a little? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spaasje ( talk • contribs) .
I'm sorry, I was indeed talking about the referances. A link to the specifications of a Geforce 6200, doesn't belong there I think. It's just plain spam. It seems like that particular link has allready been removed.
Since there's already a linked 'main article Features new to Windows Vista', this section could be a lot shorter. It's too much detailed technical information right up front, but I'm not nearly expert enough to sort out what the most important points are. Is there anyone who could take that on?
I was originally considering just moving the section to below Visual styles, Hardware requirements and Editions and pricing, but thought better of it since it is pre-release, making those sections less important. What do others think about the ordering and/or relative importance of the sections? -- Spyforthemoon 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Warrens that single-para sub-sections are not good stylistically. On the other hand, a huge six-para section without any structure doesn't match the rest of the article either. I restored what appeared to have been a compromise from before the Crit section was removed, which was to place a bold-face phrase at the front of each para. This doesn't mess up the TOC, but makes the section easier to read and make more sense. Revert away. -- Gnetwerker 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just checked CNET News.com and found an article that Microsoft announced today that Vista has gone gold. [6] GeeCee 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Reference 11 overlaps text on the second column because it's quite long. Anyone who thinks this looks fine? http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt download.microsoft.com] – TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt 86.140.139.252 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why couldn't Microsoft release Vista much earlier with limited major manufacturers? I mean they could make a very stable build only for Dell, Thinkpad, HP, Sony, Toshiba ... laptop computers. These builds only need to support a limited number of hardware parts. It would be less likely to go wrong. -- Toytoy 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The new screenshot of Windows Vista RTM looks nice, but is too big for about 1600 x 1000 pixels. Can you PLEASE change the screenshot of only the size of 1024 x 768 pixels?! -- 124.106.12.161 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we include some commentary about the creation of Vista sounds? Something about Robert Fripp, and the lead of the Vista sound project, Steve Ball? http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7056/52/ --- Sometimesthinking 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it within the scope of this article to mention that vista was leaked November 11th and cracked the same day? Odmrob 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This page 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. |
I think the ongoing tussle between the EU & Microsoft is worth a mention, perhaps in the Criticism section. It seems that a version of Vista without Media Player etc may be provided to Europe to comply with their anti-monopoly laws, and the launch of Vista in Europe may also be delayed while the wrangling continues -- Peter Campbell 14:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the Windows Fiji article? It appears to have to have spontaneously disappeared.
This edit [1] removed the following text from the introduction section:
WCF is probably the most significant technology inclusion in Vista as it is the first time a full Web services stack has been bundled with any client OS I know of. This will have wide ramifications for Web 2.0 applications, composite applications, and application integration via messaging. It is therefore of equal or greater signficance to the mention of .Net framework in this regard. I think this content should therefore be reinstated in the introduction. -- Peter Campbell 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Is that file system hidden or discontinued? No references in "what page links here" or in the Vista article. Please what EXFAT is!! COstop 12:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A change was made substituting "Vista Starter" with "Starter Edition 2007". As far as I can see, this isn't an official name change: searching for both terms in google using site:microsoft.com gives 0 matches for "starter edition 2007" and over 300 for "vista starter". The Microsoft Product Page Clearly refers to Vista Starter also. If this change has been made, please cite a source for the name change or provide some evidence that microsoft.com refers to this product name! njan 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The list is getting too long.
KeKe 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In the article, under system requirements, it says that one of the requirements is a CD drive. However, beta 2 took up approximately the size of 7 cds, and a requirement for the beta was a DVD drive. If anyone has any references for the CD drive requirement, could you post them? If not, can someone change it to a DVD drive? DarkSideMoon 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Microsoft today made available a 5-CD version of build 5744... first time they have done that for any build. I'm fairly certain this means that Vista will be distributed in both CD and DVD format. -/- Warren 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
When Windows Vista will be released to retail, how many CDs? -- 210.213.85.225 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've created a separate criticism article, Criticism of Windows Vista, with all the existing content from this article's criticism section. We should try to focus on the most significant and well-documented criticisms of Vista here, and then expand on those and others in the break-out article. I'll be pruning and re-writing some of the content in that section in this article to make it flow a little better and to be a more succint summation. -/- Warren 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Late to this but I've provided a new comment below ... -- Gnetwerker 05:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
According to amazon.co.uk, ( [4]), the release date of Windows Vista in UK is 2nd February 2007. -- 147.197.215.16 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
do windows OSs generally come out on one international release date or on different dates in different places? Nicoli nicolivich 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
does vista address the y3k bug?-- Nytemunkey 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
just wondering what new peer-to-peer technologies makes it easier to share files in vista? Any sources?
"Vista also aims to increase the level of communication between machines on a home network using peer-to-peer technology, making it easier to share files, password settings, and digital media between computers and devices."
-J
On the channel 9 site they have a video all about peer to peer. Great video. Stuff like Teredo which allows peers behind NATs to communicate with each other without any special configurations. Also they have virtual networking technologies and the "people near me" technology. Another interesting example (that I have not seen a demonstration of) is the name resolution protocol they have. An application where a lot of these technologies are used is Windows Meeting Space. It can create meetings (share files/desktop/applications) over NATs and it can be used without an internet connection (automatically uses adhoc wireless mode and people near me). So actually it aims to increase communication not just on the home network but on the internet (which is a big problem because of NATs).
Is the mention and screenshot of Windows Classic really necessary? I consider it like saying there's a "Desert" color scheme in XP. — Alex ( T| C| E) 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I updated the screenshots for each of the visual styles to ones from RC2, I made one of the Windows Standard style, but not Classic, my edit got reverted on the grounds that Vista has both Standard and Classic and I've since made the edit again leaving the old Classic screenshot in. My question is, Vista also includes a number of high-res styles, fact of the matter is Standard and Classic are very similar, do we really need to see them both? JamesWeb 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
When I initially added Classic, it was in accord with the idea there should be screenshot of every color scheme in Vista (excluding those for disabled people). If it should be rather less than more, then OK. But it is logical to remove also Windows Vista Standard screenshot, because it differs from Windows Vista Basic in that amount so kids can play "find three differences" game on these two screenshots. Jakub Horky 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I specifically came to this page to see that Windows Standard looks like as that is the default in the Home Basic addition - so if there is to be no picture of it, perhaps it should at least say it looks the same as Classic. ― Adam Millerchip 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that in the introduction to this article, the new GUI should not be the first thing which is mentioned when discussing Vista's new features.
Surely by far and away the most significant improvement in Vista is that of security, and this is the reason people will choose to upgrade, more so than just "because it looks different."
I am aware that security is given a whole paragraph just underneath, but I do think it's important to have security listed as the main difference between XP and Vista..... when XP first came out non-techy people all said "hey! it looks just the same... that was a waste of money..." - they didnt realise the huge steps forward from 9x and ME, and they were instead only noticing the visuals. therefore, i think mentioning Aero first may just be fuelling this misunderstanding, and giving too much prominence to something much less signficant than the real important difference, security.
thanks, Paulfp 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
What about microsoft's copyright saying "Except for Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from products that have not been commercially released (including beta versions), you may use screen shots"?
It seems that fair-use can't apply here, since Microsoft's copyright is explicitly forbidding this use.
Regards, Manchot 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
A contributor provided this link as a source for stating that Vista's release date is December 5, 2006. That article referenced a ZDNet article which has since been removed. Because of this, I've reverted the addition of the release date. We're going to need a better source than that... -/- Warren 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It has suggested that Windows Vista will not be a huge hit on Latvian market because the word "vista" means chicken in this particular language. I'm not sure if it is worth mentioning in article, but maybe this factoid has some relevance. -- Magabund 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Could somebody provide screenshots with a higher resolution than 1024x768? 17'' LCDs with a native resolution of 1280x1024 are becoming pretty much the norm these days, so it would make sense to show what Vista looks like on those screens (the Start Menu certainly takes up a lot of space as it is). A few shots with the lower resolution should remain though for the sake of a variety. - Cyrus XIII 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The screenshot from the top of the page went missing, I've replaced it with the example of Aero for the time being but it really needs to be replaced with an example of a new installation (sidebar etc.). Can someone do this, as I'm just a lazy workaround kinda guy. -- JamesWeb 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion this "article" is more a advertisement for the product then an really encyclopedic article. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR ALL CONTRIBUTERS : clean up this article. It's made clear on the Criticism of Wikipedia about this
"Windows Vista article once read like an advertisement for the product, instead of a factual article with a neutral point of view. While it is not certain that the article was edited by Microsoft, the use of marketing buzzwords such as "technologies" was sufficient to merit a rewording of the article."
Please do not delete this comment or any other comments without permission —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia ( talk • contribs) October 15, 2006.
I understand and have previously witnessed the tendency toward removal of criticism from this article, but was surprised that anyone had countenanced the wholesale removal of the section from this page, and the ghetto-izing of it in Criticism of Windows Vista. However, as it is a serious sub-section of the overall body of information, rather than revert and try to re-incorporate the criticsm, as is preferred everywhere on Wikipedia, I took what I can only hope is a less contentious route: I included an abbreviated version in the WP:LEAD. As the lead contained a major para on criticisms of Windows XP that Vista purported "resolves", it seemed only appropriate to include a reference to major criticism, from respected reviewers, that has been pushed into a secondardy article. -- Gnetwerker 05:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The article now seems more balanced. While there still appears to be a tendency toward protectionism of Windows, I congratulate the editors for moving in the right direction. However, I disagree that "People reading about Windows Vista ... don't need to hear Paul Thurrott's or Paul Rizzo's opinions on perceived similarities to Mac OS X" -- indeed, these are some of the things that will be most obvious to the casual observer of Vista, and the notion that prominent Windows reviews also observe it is, I believe, interesting. -- Gnetwerker 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with their removal, but I also don't agree to the placment of many of the criticism, I would say that 90% of that section would have to be re-written when Windows Vista actually ships. In fact I would go as far as to say that almost all the pre-shipping references would become invalid and obsolete. Creating a criticism section for a beta product is bad form IMO, the Windows Vista that was released in the first CTP is a very different beast from the RC's that Microsoft is shipping. PPGMD 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
On PPGMD's note, once Vista is released, would there be any objections to removing critisism that doesn't explicitly refer to the final version? Paul Cyr 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There are two screenshots same for the Windows Vista RC2 taken by JamesWeb:
thumb|center|250px|Windows Vista Desktop RC2.png and thumb|center|250px|Windows Aero.png
It is RECOMMENDED to change the desktop background of one of those screenshot images by downloading the wallpaper here. — 210.213.85.90 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, reference link 42 (number may change) seems to point to an unrelated article: "Most PC buyers need to purchase MCE for free Vista upgrade, PC makers say. Retrieved on 15 September 2006.". I don't see anything about upgrading to Vista there. Retodon8 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The requirements for Aero are 64 mb of VRAM not 128 mb so I have changed the article back to the way it was before this edit [5] accordingly. I have used Aero with 64 mb of VRAM and the Microsoft page that is (and was) linked to also makes it clear 64 mb is the minimum. As I have explained in the talk (see archive 4) 128 mb is the requirement for Vista Premium ready but this is not the requirement for running Aero and if you read the Microsoft page properly this should be clear. You need 128 mb for larger then about 1.3 million pixels but the minimum for Aero is 64 mb according to Microsoft. This is also mentioned in the footer to the Vista Premium requirements. <rant> So really, I wish people would check out references and the actual article and perhaps the talk page before changing info so that it becomes incorrect <end rant> Nil Einne 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are we not able to change the latest build to 5840, since that is the latest confirmed build, why is it so anal about getting it expressely confirmed by MS? Rob.derosa 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There is an error:
Windows Aero (including Windows Flip 3D) is only planned for inclusion in the Ultimate, Business and Home Premium editions
Enterprise also supports Aero - see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/enterprise.mspx - since Enterprise includes all of the Business features, including Aero. We have Enterprise running (RC2) and indeed aero works.
Does Windows Vista still have a command prompt, similar to what we have in XP and earlier versions of Windows? If so, perhaps we should mention it on the main page, similar to what we have for WinXP. (I do not have a Vista beta machine set up.) N2e 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
My computer is just only 128 MB of RAM. Can I use that physical memory fot just 128 MB in Windows Vista? -- 210.213.83.120 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
There was so much spam here, thank god it's gone! What's up with the PROnetworks spam links staying there though? That's just a content-aggregation service - they steal the images off other sites without citing sources... not up to wikipedia's normal standards..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.236.232.131 ( talk • contribs) .
Weixiang7326 adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source. Please block that user. Thank you. -- 210.213.86.46 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ultimate: £325???? That's about $500+ It's from amazon.co.uk Can you believe it? Or there is error? I'd rather buy it from the US, or Asia.-- W Tanoto 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I did a bunch of work on this section today. In the process of getting this section up-to-date, i noticed a few things. First of all, Microsoft hasn't commented publicly on the "additional license" costs at all, so far as I can tell... the numbers came from numbers posted on Amazon.com, which have since been pulled. This leaves us with a bunch of blogs as the only source of information on additional license SKUs. Given that Microsoft hasn't announced anything, I figure it's probably better for us to talk about that than it is for us to state those prices as fact.
I also found some information about Microsoft's recently announced "Express Upgrade" program. It's actually rather messy and complicated, because different OEMs are handling upgrades in different ways. One example of that is that some OEMs are only offering the Express Upgrade program on some of their newly-sold computers, but not others. There's also conflicting information floating around about whether you use voucher coupons to get your copy of Vista, or if a receipt is enough. On top of all that, I can't find any indication that this offer extends to retail copies of XP. This covers some of the issues in more detail. I'm not sure how much time we should spend on this, but if someone wants to look into it further, knock yourself out. -/- Warren 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedian users,
There was a dead image of the screenshot of Windows Vista(TM) Upgrade Advisor RC.
Please upload from this URL: http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/5c350bc24d.png
Thank you.
Truly regards, 210.213.87.51 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't forget about it. Please click the URL to see it and upload. -- 210.213.89.106 09:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think 30 Jan 07 is worldwide release. In UK, according to amazon and www.pcworld.co.uk, it will be 2 Feb 07. Can somebody edit it? -- 147.197.190.40 14:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Aero requires a DirectX 9-capable video card, I'd expect Windows to use video card features to speed up various things, and to reduce the need for main memory. However, I occasionally still see refresh issues, which makes me think that this is not happening. Can someone find anything official on this? -- Scott McNay 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I found the video of the early announcement of Windows Vista. Please upload the video from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0507/25234/Win_Name_MBR.asx
because there was a dead media link. -- 210.213.86.39 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles. Please take a look at it. I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. -- Dgies 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have Windows Vista Build 5840 (the latest is now build 5920), and I changed the build # part in the info box but someone changed it back, but since I am running 5840, I can confirm that the build does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric C ( talk • contribs) .
Just recieved Vista build 6000 today through my MSDN subscribtion.
Source if needed: Windows Vista Team Blog Eric C 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Should other currency pricing be included as well? There are others around the world who do not know and want to know how much they are going to have to pay in their own currency. I can help out abit with these full version Australian pricing:
Full Version Windows Vista Home Basic: $385
Full Version Windows Vista Home Premium: $455
Full Version Windows Vista Business: $565
Full Version Windows Vista Ultimate: $751
All prices in Australian Dollars and are the Recommended Retail Price (RRP)..
-- Lakeyboy 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
According to amazon.co.uk
windows vista:
ultimate full version £325
home premium full £224.99
business £294.99
home basic £184.99
Please, add all of these to the list (with US$ equivalent, just like they did with playstation 3 articles, so we can compare the price in different country.-- 147.197.190.40 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems a bit much for a single article to have the price for all countries. I think that at most we should have the price for the english speaking nations only. US, UK, Canada, and Australia. PPGMD 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
US$, CAN$, GBP, YEN, SIN (microsoft softwares in asia are manufactured in SIngapore), Euro, AU$, NZ$, HK$. And that's it. -- 147.197.190.40 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just found the photo of the early announcement of Windows Vista.
Please upload from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/press/2005/07-22lh.jpg
-- 210.1.95.212 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I contend that these links should be worked in somewhere; this is the sort of knowledge that I've been looking to learn:
showstopper {"Let us entrail you,..."}
When programmers use in-lingo, we come to this sort of website f/ explanation.
Thank You.
hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
This is from the Winsupersite: retrieved here
Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1, codenamed "Fiji") is due in late 2007 alongside Windows Server "Longhorn", as is the next version of Windows Media Center, though Microsoft is still not sure how they'll ship that latter upgrade. Vista SP1, despite the name, is going to be a major upgrade: It will include a new version of the Windows kernel (version 6.1), bringing Vista up to date with the changes Microsoft is baking into the next Windows Server version.
Should we put this? (I think not.) - 202.81.177.43 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
For god sake, 76 external links. I think it's just TOO much. I took a closer look at it, and at least half of them can be removed in my opinion. Some of the links are just plain spam! Do other editors agree to "clean" the external links a little? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spaasje ( talk • contribs) .
I'm sorry, I was indeed talking about the referances. A link to the specifications of a Geforce 6200, doesn't belong there I think. It's just plain spam. It seems like that particular link has allready been removed.
Since there's already a linked 'main article Features new to Windows Vista', this section could be a lot shorter. It's too much detailed technical information right up front, but I'm not nearly expert enough to sort out what the most important points are. Is there anyone who could take that on?
I was originally considering just moving the section to below Visual styles, Hardware requirements and Editions and pricing, but thought better of it since it is pre-release, making those sections less important. What do others think about the ordering and/or relative importance of the sections? -- Spyforthemoon 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Warrens that single-para sub-sections are not good stylistically. On the other hand, a huge six-para section without any structure doesn't match the rest of the article either. I restored what appeared to have been a compromise from before the Crit section was removed, which was to place a bold-face phrase at the front of each para. This doesn't mess up the TOC, but makes the section easier to read and make more sense. Revert away. -- Gnetwerker 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just checked CNET News.com and found an article that Microsoft announced today that Vista has gone gold. [6] GeeCee 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Reference 11 overlaps text on the second column because it's quite long. Anyone who thinks this looks fine? http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt download.microsoft.com] – TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt 86.140.139.252 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Why couldn't Microsoft release Vista much earlier with limited major manufacturers? I mean they could make a very stable build only for Dell, Thinkpad, HP, Sony, Toshiba ... laptop computers. These builds only need to support a limited number of hardware parts. It would be less likely to go wrong. -- Toytoy 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The new screenshot of Windows Vista RTM looks nice, but is too big for about 1600 x 1000 pixels. Can you PLEASE change the screenshot of only the size of 1024 x 768 pixels?! -- 124.106.12.161 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we include some commentary about the creation of Vista sounds? Something about Robert Fripp, and the lead of the Vista sound project, Steve Ball? http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7056/52/ --- Sometimesthinking 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it within the scope of this article to mention that vista was leaked November 11th and cracked the same day? Odmrob 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)