Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista/Archive 2

History or present?
Should this article be about what the initial problems/criticisms are of the software, or should they be edited to only contain current problems/criticisms? Two things are very evident throughout this article: (1) Some of the issues are regarding pre-release/beta/demo copies, which are not valid for the final release; and (2) issues such as software compatibility are working themselves as software vendors update their software to run on Vista... Which brings me to another observation: should this article pertain to Vista specific problems/criticisms, and therefore be sanitized of all general and common problems with major software releases? Some of the issues brought-up here are valid problems for users, however they are no specific to this release of Vista, but rather are common problems throughout any major software release, and were probably similar pleadings of Windows 2000 users about XP -- however many of those issues are no longer "issues" anymore. Same would be true of Apple OS 9 to X. Your thoughts? My vote would be to clean this up to only include current, relevant, Vista specific issues. (In the absence of a good dialogue here, I will begin this sort of cleanup later this week). Tiggerjay 18:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think any significant problem that has now been corrected should still be noted, but marked now as resolved. Perhaps a 'previous problems' section? Even though some problems are common to other major software releases, they are still relevant here. I'll add some more thoughts shortly. peterl 20:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone would disagree that problems which existed only in alpha, beta, or RC versions, which were not present in the final RTM code, have no place in criticism articles. I don't wish to over-generalise, but all pre-release software has issues; that's why it's not released yet.  The corollary to that is that problems present in the RTM code that were later fixed (e.g. in the upcoming SP1) do still deserve a place in the article, albeit, as Peterl says, with an explanation that the problem has n resolved.  Regarding problems which aren't specific to Vista: I agree that it seem a little silly for problems which exist in more than one version of Windows to be featured in an article about criticism of Windows Vista, but I see no real alternative.  A [Criticism of Microsoft Windows] article is not the right solution: There are very few problems that have existed right through from Windows 1.0 to Vista, so what it would effectively be is an article about any problems that have existed in more than one Windows version, which just wouldn't work as a useful reference source.  The only sensible solution is to put all criticism of Windows X in the article about Criticism of Windows X, even if that criticism could apply to Windows W as well.  -- simxp (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree, bugs in pre-release version should not be mentioned. But those in released versions should be here, for historical interest if nothing. (I read somewhere wikipedia is a great means as a time capsule and I absolutely agree with that philosophy :D ) --soum talk 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me first summarized that there is a general agreement that:
 * Pre-RTM should be removed;
 * RTM issues which have been resolved should be kept and marked as such and/or placed in a separate section;
 * There are some non-Vists specific issues which need to handled differently then those which are Vista specific.


 * As such, it would appear that the next place to take this thread would be to discuss the options of how to handle the non-Vista specific issues. Notwithstanding Simxp, I believe the non-Vista issues can further be grouped into two categories -- Windows and software-in-general.


 * Many of the issues I have been addressing with Vista happen to be fairly common to just about any major OS release, and even many application releases -- again, when they are a major rework of code. I see many parallels between XP -> Vista as there were with OS 9 -> X. Some examples would be very strict new hardware requirements, software incompatibility (such as needing to upgrade your applications so they run properly on the OS, etc). These issues are not isolated to Microsoft Windows alone. Additional items which is common to just about every major software release is a lack of featured which were promised during development or may even had been in pre-release code and was removed from RTM. Again, these issues are common treads through most major software releases. Many of these issues were very similar to issues brought up for Windows XP initial release. The interest point is that very, very few of those issues were actually fixed by Microsoft, but we all are using it very strong today. Why? Because when XP was first released, many computers were shipping with less than 128MB of memory, so upgrading was difficult. However, shortly thereafter, all systems with Windows ship with at least 256, and more often 512. In a year, the standard memory component of desktop systems will be 1 GB -- because of Vista, in-part-perhaps, but more likely because prices continue to drop, and Moore's Law continues to be at play.


 * Perhaps to address this non-vendor specific problem, we could: (1) create a new section in which all of these types of issues would be placed in, and perhaps condensed; or (2) create a new article for these types of issues, and the place a summary section on how these problems play out in Vista...


 * I'm not trying to be difficult to too much of a discussion based for this, however I am finding that due to media attention and articles similar to this, poeple have the belief that Vista is very "buggy" when in fact, it is more peripheral issues, such as those mentioned. However ALL of these issues (Vista specific or not) are factors in choosing to use Vista or not. Me? I have Vista on my laptop for trials, but XP on all my other machines. Your thoughts? Tiggerjay 06:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think separation into MS and non MS products is necessary. Because our focus should be on how buggy Vista is not how buggy MS products are or how buggy non-MS products are. That said, we can create a different section for vulnerabilities, and present Vista's share with refutes when bugs in others are attributed to Vista.


 * For other criticisms, like hardware requirements and software incompat we can present an aggregate picture of the 2000/XP and OS 9/OS X transitions. But we cannot make any generalizations, like "Many of the issues I have been addressing with Vista happen to be fairly common to just about any major OS release, and even many application releases -- again, when they are a major rework of code"; that would be OR. --soum talk 08:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Googles criticism of vista
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/technology/goog.reut/index.htm?postversion=2007062611 "Judge to Google: take Vista issues to Justice Statement from district judge made after No. 1 search engine questions antitrust compliance of Microsoft's Vista" Mathiastck 11:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources for reaction on Peter Gutmann's criticism
Is it necessary to demand citations for all points stated by Paul Smith in response to Peter Gutmann's criticism (see section Digital Rights Management -> Reaction)? In my opinion, it's Paul Smith's job to do that, Wikipedia should only provide the source of his statement (plus its main arguments). - Jack&#39;s Revenge 12:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. Some POV-pusher has been reinserting the tags over the past few months. Paul Cyr 21:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Link Blacklisting
I attempted to add a ref link to a discussion on the 2cpu forum about the network performance issues, but the link came back as black listed. What can be done about this? Below is the ref (remove dash from between 2 and cpu)

&lt;ref&gt;cite web }}&lt;/ref&gt;
 * url=http://forums.2-cpu.com/showthread.php?t=83112
 * title=Interesting thing about slow vista network speed


 * Online forums are not a suitable source for Wikipedia. That's why it's blacklisted. -/- Warren 05:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Performance section
Sorry, I haven't caught up on all the history of the performance section, but why was the link to Tom's Hardware removed? For this topic it would be as relevant and solid as any. Please explain? peterl 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RAM comment and Similarity to OS X
I removed the comment on Vista's usage of RAM because 1) I was never presented by the sources as a criticism. 2) Since when did people get the idea that a high usage of available RAM was a bad thing? It's not like the system slows down when you go from using 40% of your RAM to 80%. Vista was intentionally designed this way to help load programs and system files faster. When a program needs the RAM, Vista stops using it.

As for the OS X removal, that was done as a result of the discussion on Talk:Windows Vista. Anyone is free to object, but since the consensus has been made you need to discuss the issue before adding it back in. Paul Cyr 13:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User Account Control and WP:SS
As Paul Cyr notes in the previous section, the Criticism section in the Vista article is a summary of this article, and is supposed to be kept synchronised with it. I've just had a quick look over the two, and the biggest violation is UAC; which does have a section in the Vista article, but doesn't have one in this article, of which it is supposed to be a summary. IIRC, the paragraph existed once, but was gradually whittled away, and eventually removed altogether (although it's still mentioned in the introduction section). On the Vista page, on the other hand, they seem to have arrived at a consensus wording. So if so-one has any objections, I'll copy and paste the paragraph from that page to this one, possibly as a subsection of the Security section. -- simxp (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with that. I think the sections in this article do need a bit of work; UAC criticism is really a Usability issue. Other sections don't seem to flow very well. peterl 07:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied over. You're right, it's not very well organised.  And on re-reading the paragraph I've just copied over I'd be much happier if the sentence " [UAC] is still triggered by a number of third party programs not properly designed for Windows Vista" had a citation. I've Googled for a bit but I can't find a good one.  -- simxp (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Security
I've re-instated the removed links to McAffee criticism of security. Although the statements were made pre-RTM, they are still relevant and there haven't been any substantial changes in RTM. It's likely to change in SP1, but as of now the McAffee comments are still relevant. peterl 11:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interface
Would it be appropriate to include some information about common criticisms of the interface? Nearly every person that I have talked to having issues about Windows Vista takes issue with either the interface or software compatibility.

The consensus (at least among students at my college) is that Windows Vista and the Office 2007 package are patronizing and nearly impossible to use for people even remotely computer-literate.128.187.0.164 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can really see how things like the improved Office keyboard accelerator model and new Windows powershell scripting capabilities are 'patronizing' and not for use by 'people even remotely computer-literate'... Seriously, though; I'm afraid students at your college do not qualify as Reliable Sources.  -- simxp (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Business take up citation removed for spurious reasons
Why has user User:Tiggerjay removed this statement twice calling it vandalism ?

"Market survey has shown that there is a huge gap in the Windows Vista take-up when it comes to business adoption, which is voluntary, versus the home adoption, which is mandated exclusively by the PC maker. "

09:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly the statement is wrong. How can you assert that "business adoption in mandatory" and "home adoption is mandated exclusively by the PC maker". Thats OR. Secondly, is there any evidence that the survey quoted is actually reliable enough? --soum talk 09:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Software Protection Platform
I imported the paragraph on SPP from the main Vista article back to here (that section had been expanded upon, this one trimmed). For one thing, the criticism section in that article is supposed to be a WP:SUMMARY of this article, not the other way round! (Accordingly, I have just shortened the para in the main Vista article slightly). For another, the editor who trimmed the para in this article removed some of the sources (and the corresponding text) on the grounds that it was technically from a blog: indeed it is, but when the author of that blog is a former PC World editor who has published a large number of books on Windows in general and Vista specifically, it is not exactly unreliable as a secondary source. Since the original paragraph was probably too long, though, I cut down the MS white paper quote and integrated it more into the text, as I did for the section in the main Vista article. -- simxp (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, as I was the one who cut it down. I could/should have looked into the main Vista article to summary it as well. The primary reasons for my edits were that the section appeared to bloated and wordy, redundant. But we can leave it as-is if everyone things the longer version provides a better understanding of SPP. Although to me, personally, my POV is that if you are not legally using the software then there is nothing wrong with the publisher timebombing the software to reduce functionality, but I guess some people are bothered by it... hmmm. Tiggerjay 23:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, integrating the whitepaper text into the paragraph rather than putting it in a quotation block has alleviated some of the bloat you criticise. Re your last sentence: you implicitly assumes that the only people who will be affected by the timebombing are those who are using the software illegally.  The trouble is, this has several times been shown to be false.  See citations 68, 69, and 70.  -- simxp (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms
"There are several security experts who show concerns about the new security features implemented in Windows Vista" - Who are we to claim "several"? How can we show it is "not" limited to the instances given. As such, this is weasel wording and not acceptible. As for BadVista, I already said, read the archives. We work by consensus. Respect that. Its an official policy, violations are not tolerated. Hang around here for sometime and understand the current status before digging into controversial articles. The article has been under immense scrutiny and the current state is the result of that. Finally, crying that we are on MS payroll is not going to help, especially when you yourself are POV-pushing. We have been accused of it far too frequently. :P --soum talk 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you arguing about? Did you read? Symantec, McAfee and a few more are of course security experts, and they did show concerns about the security about Windows Vista, as stated in the article. If you spend some time to search, you can also find more security experts who are complaining about the new security features in Windows Vista. There are more negatives about the new security features in Windows Vista and is available in many articles on the net. Google is your friend.

After all the whole passage is a lot of fragment and the article is poorly written. It is no difference to some copy and paste work (after some content filtering of course!) without any organization, making it very messy and hard to read. They should learn how to write an article properly. You can easily find a better article than this mess elsewhere.

I tried to see if I can rewrite the article so it makes some senses. Start your article with an introduction (abstract) so as to give a concise overview. Improve the structure and flow of arguments. Of course I get stopped out before I can finish it, and be warned that you will be banned soon if you continue. It is how it works as a collaborative editing nature of Wikipedia - someone who can revert without explanation and edit without discussion, but others must get approval from him before they can edit. The draconian style is really how Wikipedia works.

Microsoft is proved to be best of the best!!

Perhaps one of the worst thing in the article is that soum insisted the quoting style above must be perceived. If all quotes needed to be done in this way, he should quote all. However soum selectively quote two only in this way. First this makes the page unnecessarily bloated. Second, why do you want to stick out two quotes only? Third, by sticking out two only, this can draw readers' attention, and pretend that it is an authoritative or more trustworthy statement (so readers may discard or pay less attentions to other statements).

Sorry I searched but I couldn't see where is the consensus you mentioned. A search in archives and that is the only discussion topic I saw - 10 BadVista.org. Unfortunately there is only one person posting and he said: FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista [3]

Odd Master 10:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

BadVista.org criticisms (moved from my personal talk page)
Please refrain from adding BadVista.org links or criticisms. This situation has played out a long time back. See the discussion archives for Windows Vista articles. Most claims there are exaggerated and are not substantiated beyond a point. Heck, many have even been downright refuted. Its plain and simple yellow journalism. By consensus, it is not considered a source reliable enough to be quoted in the article. Plus, nothing is there that has not already been covered. Repeating them again is not neutral. Please respect policy, otherwise, I am sorry to say this, it will lead you to being blocked from editing here. --soum talk 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to say which source is reliable? Your act of filtering statements based on your own liking is against WP:NPOV. Also it appears Wikipedian likes to threaten a member as a way to welcome someone who tries to contribute. Perhaps you have an interest in Microsoft business. Bye! Odd Master 09:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Engage in discussion first, before making unilateral changes to the article. --soum talk 09:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule in Wikipedia to say we have to discuss first before we can edit the article. Wikipedia says Be bold when editing the page. Yours is against this rule. Besides I find that you also remove changes or do changes without discussing first. This is a double standard. I found no official source in Wikipeida which says BadVista.org has been officially blacklisted or flagged as bad source. Judging on your own liking is against WP:NPOV. Odd Master 09:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to move this part of discussion on the right page.

By the way I think some of the claims made by BadVista.org may not be accurate but this is not the ground for us to filter the claims to our liking. As long as there is a third-party source which contains such claims. If you google 'Vista', it comes up in the first page so we should include some of their claims on the article. Please feel free to point to other sites or articles which say otherwise.


 * We do not report just for reporting's sake. We make sure the claims are valid, are corroborated from others and are not just an uninformed decision. Read through the archives, this situation has played out long back. --soum talk 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Policy
(moved from personal talk page)
 * There is also another policy here: its called consensus, which holds precedence over being bold (the latter of which is a guideline, and thus not canonical). Consensus for this article is to not refer to badvista, and discuss any such changes before making it live (I already said, the discussions in this effect can be found in talk pages).


 * Btw, I am preserving the original state of the article, nor "making them without discussion". Propose your concerns, and let others comment. This is how such articles are handled. Each party has to accept the majority decision.


 * Btw, you are not supposed to edit archive pages. Comments should go to the talk page. And removing comments from user talk pages without a pointer to where it is also frowned on. Btw, sorry for coming of as bitey, that wasn't my intention.


 * I haven't removed any comment from this page. If I don't edit the page, how can I add new comments? Odd Master 12:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest again, you propose the changes in the talk page, and let others respond. My comments are already there. The ball now lies with the community, and not either you or me. --soum talk 09:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't notice you already did. --soum talk 09:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it very confusing as I read more.

soum keep saying we need to propose changes in the talk page before we can edit it. However first I saw you don't discuss before you revert changes. Second I found that you didn't discuss every time before you edit pages or add new contents by viewing your own edit history, so it appears you are asking someone to follow some "rules" which you don't follow either. You are setting a bad example since you are an admin. After all no page saying we have to discuss pages before we can edit. Please point it out if I'm wrong since I have no time reading all minor policies and rules in Wikipeida.

If soum is right about what it says, I could say Wikipedia gives you a false impression that anyone can contribute the article freely, as long as you are acting in good faith. Try to read WP:bold or Wikipedia does not have firm rules. The reality clearly tells you the other way round.

Ignore_all_rules states that it is an official policy. It reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Then could anyone try me why I received a serious warning from soum said you must follow this and that or you will be banned? I don't think I have violated any major policy or I am deserved to be banned (eg vandalism). Is it enough to issue a ban simply because you don't know "BadVista.org is a bad source as the admin claims"

As for BadVista, I already said, read the archives. We work by consensus. Respect that. Its an official policy, violations are not tolerated. This further proves the so-called official policy above is non-existent. From the sound of it, the admin has been closing all room for argument once it is decided. It doesn't really allow you to ignore a rule in reality, no matter how sound you are. Let's say I think we should present all popular claims (BadVista.org is one of them) because we shouldn't filter on behalf of the readers. We should present both sides of the arguments and let the readers should judge by themselves. Of course I can't choose to ignore even if the official policy grant me to do so. Admin is always above the policy.

Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit On 14 Oct 2007, the page was locked up because "I made some bad edit" according to what soum said. I assume a lock up is not a decision made so lightly. As a matter of fact, I couldn't edit it anymore.

Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article" In reality the admin essentially soum controlled everything. Although there are official policies in place, I seriously doubt whether admins will obey it. As a matter of fact, he once reverted all my contributions. Of course he offered no reasons when he first did it, clearly against the revert policy which said you should explain to the contributor before you revert.

Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. I don't think the admin is treating me as if I am acting in good faith. When I first received the message from the admin, his word is already very harsh, treating me as if a vandal. He said you are not allowed do this and that. Otherwise you will be blocked from editing here. Is this the standard way for someone to welcome a new contributor? I can't see how he was assuming good faith on me if he chose to warn you immediately for the very first time.

If you see something that can be improved, do not hesitate to do so yourself. If you will be threatened to be banned from editing by an admin, why can you not hesitate to edit before you edit. Of course we are told it is not required to discuss every time you wish to make changes. But someone who have full power told you otherwise. That's what WP:BOLD actually means in reality - "Don't edit it simply because you see something that can be improved. Only do it when you are very certain that you are permitted to do from an admin"

Wikipedia is advertised as a way that everyone is equal. Everyone is free to edit the page based on good faith. Be bold when editing. Ignore rule if you do think they stop you from improving Wikipedia.

The reality is clearly the reverse. "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is just a joke. Essentially admin control everything. They can and do control the articles in Wikipedia. Instead of posting both side of arguments, they decide to filter the contents or sources they don't like and so on.


 * No Wikipedia does not have firm rules. This is done on purpose, because of the lack of firm rules Wikipedia admins may arbitrarily delete whatever they dislike and arbitrarily protect anything they like. Wikipedia is indeed the encyclopedia anyone can edit... anyone can edit it but they better hope they don't offend the political sensibilities of a biased Wikipedia administrator. --Rotten 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This real lesson teaches me what Wikipedia really is. The articles are biased towards the admin liking. They will control what they want to view. Anyone who doesn't take a large bunch of salt when reading any article at Wikipedia is an idiot.

I'm glad I can see the dark side of Wikipedia early so I don't waste tons of my free time to help. It is high time to leave and contribute somewhere else. Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd Master (talk • contribs)


 * I really didn't read all that as I don't have a lot of free time. Let me just say that I agree with Soum.  This has already been discussed and if you have something new to add then discuss it before adding rejected content back in.  Wikipedia rules can be contradictory and confusing, but that's because many of them are not set in stone.  You should take the value of the rules and guidelines to heart.  In this case, if a bunch of contributors are disagreeing with you unilaterally adding rejected content back, you should probably talk with them first and see if you can reach consensus. Paul Cyr 07:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No criticism of volume license activiation
I removed the following section because it does not actually cite any criticism of volume license activation. It is also wrong (i.e. it should say Multiple Activation Keys and Key Management Service).

Volume license activation
Unlike previous versions of Windows, organizations using Vista with a Volume License Agreement are now required to use use a Windows Activation method similar to the one used in consumer editions. Specifically Multiple Action Keys (a limited number of installs per key) or Key Management Server (25 or more computers) must be used to activate Vista in an enterprise.

My guess is that the only people criticising volume license activation are software pirates but it would be nice if someone could prove it either way.--59.167.108.178 13:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, actually it's a real pain for enterprises with high security, separate test and production (or otherwise partitioned networks), as you now have to install a KMS on every isolated segment. 08:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of EU and Market Reaction sections
I removed these two sections simply because they do not actually have an criticisms. The Market Reaction section doesn't present any, and the EU section's only source talks about MS's problems with getting specific criticisms from the EU. Neither have a notable person or organization criticising something in Vista. Paul Cyr 07:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Bluetooth Stack
I read that Vista had a much improved Bluetooth Stack (compared to the one in Windows XP) in the beta, but it was pulled before release and the current one used is very much the same as the one found in Windows XP. Is this true? And if so, would it be too much to hope for if the updated Bluetooth Stack would be introduced in SP1? I dont run Vista myself so I cannot test it. Of what I understand, the Bluetooth stack cant handle bluetooth headsets, game controllers and some other devices. This is the article where I read about the Vista Bluetooth Stack: http://www.theunwired.net/?itemid=3804 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.96.242 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Security Section
I removed the security section near the top as it seemed to be not neutral, as it's critisms are lodged by companies that make a profit if the criticisms are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.200.113 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Peripherals
Can someone make a section on lack of drivers and support of many peripherals (namely printers and scanners) for Vista? Althepal (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a criticism of Vista? What in Vista could be changed in order to make manufactures write drivers? Paul Cyr (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro revision
I will be reverting back to my original edits to clean up the intro section to simplify the overview of the article. It appears that the current intro launches into major points, complete with references - which I believe belong in the body of the article, not the into. Your thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the second sentence of the intro just reiterates what the first one has already stated. David13579 (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Performance Issues
The first tests of Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3 beta show huge advantage for XP. I think this should be mentioned in the article, because as the article reads now, it seems like Microsoft has solved the problems with SP1.  The fact that Vista is heavily outperformed by XP is a major criticism and it should be updated whenever new tests (and more importantly new updates) come out. It doesn't even matter that XP is getting a new service pack, it's a new system vs. its predecessor. If Vista can't catch up, this will always be a criticism and with every month, every test and every service pack it's more severe. Both positive and negative events regarding the Vista-XP performance comparison should be updated whenever they happen. --JTrdi (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)