Talk:Features new to Windows Vista/Archive 3

Boot Process and Boot Management
Just a quick note (it's a wiki after all, right?), bcdedit+bootmgr has taken the place of bootcfg+ntldr+boot.ini. Supaplex 01:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Notes (Failed)
Here are my suggestions for improvement (also why it failed): Here's what this article has for it: For this article to be nominated again, it needs to have most of this article cited. Gutworth 02:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Main Reason: not enough citations; To name a few
 * "Aero is intended to be cleaner and more aesthetically pleasing than previous Windows versions"
 * "The new shell includes significant changes from previous versions of Windows such as improved filtering, sorting, grouping and stacking."
 * Only one citation in the Shell section!
 * "These virtual folders are also distributable via RSS"
 * Lead section could use some more "meat." Some possibilities include adding brief references to IE7 and new GUI systems (Aero).
 * The Shell section could be cut down to smaller pieces.
 * What's the "your" doing in the Windows Flip and Flip 3D section?
 * Could use more internal links (eg. JPEG, CSC, metadata)
 * Over all, very well written
 * "New and Upgraded Applications" section is nicely done; It's well organized and the summaries of the upgrades are good.

Question about "N editions"
There's a reference to "N editions of Windows Vista", which is otherwise unexplained. I tried looking in Windows Vista editions and pricing but found nothing there that seemed relevant. Could this be clarified or linked to an explanation? Mike Christie (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * N versions are versions shipped without Windows Media Player because of some lawsuit with Microsoft v. European Union. --TeckWiz Parlate Contribs@(Lets go Yankees!) 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Is there an appropriate article that that phrase could link to? Mike Christie (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can use Windows_XP as a reference. --CCFreak2K 05:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Windows Flip and Flip 3D
The article currently says this: "For all Vista Premium Ready PCs, when using Alt+Tab to switch between open windows, a preview of each open window appears instead of just the program icon. In addition, Windows Flip 3D..."

I can't confirm this but shouldn't it be something more like: "On all PCs running Windows Vista, when using Alt+Tab to switch between open windows, a preview of each open window appears instead of just the program icon. In addition on Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs running editions of Windows Vista other then Starter and Home Basic..." Josh the Nerd 05:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Josh the Nerd


 * No, thumbnails are shown only when Aero is running. Even on Vista Home Premium and better, thumbs are not shown is Aero (at least DWM) is not running. --  soum  (0_o) 07:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edition markers
I think the page could be clearer at a glance about which features are in which editions. I was thinking of icons or a minitable in a template, such as this:

With colours added to the top row. Why doesn't &lt;abbr&gt; work, though? r3m0t talk 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a good idea. Btw, I have hopefully fixed what you were trying to achieve. --  soum  (0_o) 01:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing, suppressed and unsatisfactory features
This article ignores changes in Vista that remove, disable or obscure widely used features of Windows 95 through XP. The missing features include the Up button in Windows Explorer, the Find Computer function within a workgroup and the Printers icon in the Start panel. The release version of Vista lacks any of the milder backgrounds of former systens such as Greenstone and Seaside, leaving business and professional users with only garish and distracting choices. The capabilities of a so-called "administrator" user have been radically reduced and are roughly equivalent to a former "power user." In order to get the crisp performance of previous Windows editions, even running on a processor of two to three times the speed, it is necessary to disable the animations that are enabled by default. Some writers have described techniques that must be practiced to overcome limitations on administrators. [] [] Many overtly new features, incuding indexing, are largely rearrangements and renaming of prior features -- costing businesses for retraining personnel and for lower productivity while personnel relearn the system. There is no apparent offset providing productivity gains. In general, the article seems to be heavily biased with views likely to come from Microsoft developers as contrasted with those of Microsoft product users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.21.56 (talk • contribs)


 * This article is not the only article that describes Vista, its only one in the series. There is Criticism of Windows Vista, which deals specifically with the criticism it has received. Plus a primer to the criticism is there in the main Windows Vista article.


 * Apart from that, most of what you said is FUD. Admin capabilities are not reduced, they are by default enabled on processes running with elevated tokens only (only a confirmation is needed for a process to be elevated). Yes, earlier incarnations of Windows did have an indexing service, but it was quite coarse compared to the Vista incarnation. --  soum  (0_o) 01:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Graphics section
While there will always be overlap between technical features and end-user features, the Graphics section of this article is highly technical. Color management, WIC, DWM, DirectX 10 are all developer APIs and therefore should be moved to the Technical article. The end-user aspect of these features can be mentioned in short. Similarly, this article must make a mention of mostly technical features but end-user features, specifically, per-app volume control, speech XPS, HD Photo, DVD Burning and ReadyBoost, Superfetch etc., some end-user system tools and end-user safety features like Parental controls and UAC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xpclient (talk • contribs)
 * While DX10, DWM etc are developer APIs, end users can directly "see" their effects. So we should give a brief outline here and directed to the technical article (and their own articles) for details (IMO, DWM is fine, but DX is too techie).. And yes, some mention of the end user aspects of sound and networking should be here. As for other visible features XPS, DVDs et al, IMO a list approach would be the best way to handle article size; it will also serve as an index to the features that interests the user. For others on which concerns have been raised, the Vista IO technologies should be expanded to include the NTFS enhancements and linked to in the Windows Vista template. --  soum  (0_o) 19:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

File operations
I've re-instated my previous comment about'can be applied'. The point was that Vista has two new features with move and copy: 1. The abily to rename the file being copied (for single or multiple file copy), and 2. The ability to apply the replace, don't copy or rename options to all the remaining conflicts (for multiple file copyor move only). If the content can be reworded to better reflect that information, or do it more succinctly, feel free. peterl 19:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My rationale for reverting was that single file and multi file scenarios were not different, and thus not handled any differently. Anyways, I will take a shot at rewriting. --soum talk 07:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOS, use of 2nd person is frowned upon. So "you can do..." is not usable (WP is not a user manual). Also, one liner paragraphs are to be avoided. --soum talk 08:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I like what you've done. I've tweaked it slightly. The renaming topic is quite different to moving, so needs its own paragraph. Maybe it needs some further expansion to make it a full paragraph? peterl 11:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. --soum talk 19:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows Vista Search.png
Image:Windows Vista Search.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. ... User:BetacommandBot 23:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image updated 15-Sep-07 for Fair use rationale. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Home Basic and DWM
The "Windows Vista Basic" theme does not use DWM, but doesn't Home Basic's "Windows Vista Standard" theme use DWM for window composition? Perhaps the section on DWM should not exclude the Home Basic edition from the editions supporting DWM if this is the case.

Darthmarth37 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows vista arabic.png
Image:Windows vista arabic.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. (..yada-yada..)BetacommandBot (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Image updated 12-Feb-08 for Fair use rationale. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Windows vista french.png
Image:Windows vista french.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. ... User:BetacommandBot 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Image updated 12-Feb-08 for Fair use rationale. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paint Vista.png
Image:Paint Vista.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. ... User:BetacommandBot 15:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Image updated 08-March-08 for Fair use rationale. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added general stuff about Start Menu
17-April-2008: The section "Start Menu" had jumped into the search-as-you-type box, without a simple introduction to the new Start Menu as a 2-column format with 80% new options. I added a whole paragraph, trying to describe an overview focus, and noting that options can be added to the Start Menu, such as the Calculator. The intent is to give an overview of the general features of the Start Menu, before describing minute details of each menu option. Similar general text could be added to that paragraph. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That ain't necessary. If the readers want what start menu gives, they can read it up at Start menu. We need to focus only on the new Vista additions here. Plus, remember. No original research. Have you got any citation for the 80% claim? --soum talk 06:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Added folder locations
17-April-2008: Although not very exciting (as "new technology"), I added a whole new section about the new folder names, noting the old folder names are gone: My Computer, My Documents, Local Settings, and Application Data. The intent is to tie details to the folder names that most former users would already recognize, such as My Computer or My Pictures. The tactic of mentioning old names is to tie former users into following a well-grounded set of known names to help those readers better relate to new information, rather than just list a gob of abstract new names with no connection to what end-users already know. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reads like marketing brochure
17-April-2008: Although I added some general, well-grounded details that former users could follow, about the "Start Menu" and new folder names (replacing "Documents and Settings"), the article still has a tendency to read like a marketing brochure, with glowing terms such as "eye candy" (or "fast and powerful"). There is an enormous amount of detailed, semi-technical information, so it could be expected that not every phrase would be neutrally perfect. The article is an excellent start, and I think that rewording or expanding every other section would be sufficient to keep the information well-grounded as viewed by former users. Typically, marketing brochures make no grounded references to specific menu options, folder names, or screen icons, as those details are often omitted from an executive summary of a presentation. However, in working with actual users, too many abstract and glowing terms (such as "fast and powerful application launch" in April/2008 wording under "Start Menu") do not provide the concrete details that end-users handle. Management personnel might accept "powerful application launch" as an obvious new feature, but to an end-user, more specific wording would be clearer, such as the ability to choose an application from a list of similar names. Again, it takes considerable time to expand details to the wording for a general end-user, but I think such well-grounded wording is also needed, in various sections of the article. The focus is on the general user, not the technical article geared to the system engineer adapting device drivers for the USB2.0 interface spec. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Windows Vista is the one that focusses on general users; the features article increasingly more focussed than that. (This one is the most general of the features article). --soum talk 06:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article needs expanding
17-April-2008: I had wondered why this article failed to include the most obviously new aspects of Windows Vista, and I suspect that other user contributions are being rejected too quickly. Although the intro claims to pretend to compare Windows Vista to other prior versions (of "Microsoft Windows"), there seems to be an implicit comparison only to Windows XP. Also, the level of new features presented has seemed to omit basic details that the most general user would spot instantly, as quite new: for example, the Start Menu is absolutely, without a doubt, shockingly different with new wording in about 80% of what had appeared before. I'm not sure if there is a cover-up in the article in pretending that the most basic features of prior Windows versions are either totally gone or completely renamed in unexpected ways. I made just a few focused changes to the article to test revision acceptance, and I noticed that, within minutes, some highly-detailed changes were instantly and thoroughly reverted, without any prior dialog with me, and without attempting to open a discussion on the, rather small, talk-page. The whole situation gives me the very strong impression that this article is hiding in a neophyte stage, without much scrutiny by the WP community, although past editors had tried to introduce changes. That neophyte stage would explain why glowing phrases are still in the article (such as "fast and powerful application launcher"), an issue typically removed in early edits of an article, per WP:PEACOCK restricting use of peacock terms. Also, there are few citations, which would typically appear in a medium-age article, despite more than a year of published sources: this article is about computer software from 2006. Plus, the general wording seems vague and glosses past specifics (see above: Reads like marketing brochure). I don't have time to resolve all these issues, and I took the time to write this topic as a warning to other editors that this article (as of April 2008) seems stuck in a neophyte stage and perhaps blocked from the simplest of improvements. At this point, I think the article should be tagged with tag-boxes for improvements. Please help in contacting prior editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed the biggest point here: this is not a stand alone article. But rather one part of a 7-part series - Windows Vista. Take them all together. --soum talk 15:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, this article as one administrator pointed out is part of a series of articles, so rather than accusing Wikipedia administrators, I suggest, in good faith, that you take your time reading them. : ) Before adding redundant content such as changed naming of "My Computer" etc which is already covered under "Other changes" in the Technical features article. Also, this article aims to highlight the new useful features in a summarized form, it is not an elaborate step-by-step guide. For the information you added regarding folder locations, Wikibooks would be appropriate. Your information contains matter similar to the Windows documentation.


 * Also, what you wrote regarding the Start menu is not written in an encyclopedia language. Consider this line, for instance, "80% of the menu options differ". How did you or that source arrive at the percentage? Another case, Microsoft itself refers to it as "Start menu" (rather than "Menu") except in the titles/headings. See here. Regarding your object to a specific line, "fast and powerful application launcher", I've changed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.147 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Security and safety section
Should DRM really be given as a security/safety feature!? I doubt anyone could give a rational argument in favour of it. I wonder if mentioning it here is in fact deliberate misinformation. On the same note, mentioning Trustworthy Computing in this section seems questionable. In the interests of balance, can we remove them? Edam (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming files at explorer
Article says: "Renaming a file, even when extensions are being displayed, highlights the filename without selecting the extension."

Well, if someone wants to call this a feature... In my opinion this behavior should be exclusive to the hide known extensions for newbies option. Most of my click and click operations are for copy a filename with the extension. When renaming a file I usually only add or substitute characters, so having the name highlighted is no useful. New Folder is the only case where preselecting the name is useful and there is not extension involved. I vote to move it to removed features or add "and annoyances" to this article name.81.41.114.29 (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Windows Aero.png
The image Image:Windows Aero.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Windows Explorer Vista.png
 * Image:Windows Vista Explorer.png
 * Image:Windows Photo Gallery Vista.png
 * Image:Windows Mobility Center screenshot.png
 * Image:Windows Calendar.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Windows Vista have a working "recently changed items" menu?
I'm finding tech forums from 2007 to 2009 which agree that Windows Vista provides the curiously useless feature of listing the first 15 items you've ever used in alphabetical order under "Recently Changed Items"... is this supposed to be a bug or a feature? The article mentions the recently changed items but if it doesn't work that seems mistaken. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Clock
The big round clock has changed what it looks like. The old one went back to Windows 1! 76.117.247.55 (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

PUA
Given that MOS:PUA says to have the PUA in hex, and it's only in a reference (and I'm not sure why it's even there), I suggest removing it if no one can convert it. Jerodlycett (talk) 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, . What exactly are you talking about?


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just bothered with it myself. My eyes just suck enough that I had to zoom in at 400% to read the characters. Jerodlycett (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)