Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 1

MSH Delayed?
Gah! ETOOMANYVERSIONS!

Under the Features Delayed section, I think MSH is actually not going to be delayed or cancelled or anything based on those "viruses" (they're just scripts with commands like "del *.*" or "open someotherscript.msh... add my code to it"). According to this, MSH is coming out before Vista and will be available for XP/2003. -nks43


 * I agree with you, they were not viruses. The only reason they even worked was because Windows Vista was in the transition period of converting over to the Least-privilege User Access system (if this were implemented the shell script would've been stopped in its tracks.) The media was having a field day that provided tin-foil hats for all invited guests. I think I may rename the "Features and technologies delayed until future releases" to "Features and technologies separated from Windows Vista" and include a small description underneath to explain what I mean by separated. Unless, of course, someone has a better idea. megamanXplosion 21:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have applied the change I mentioned earlier except I did not create a small description/explanation underneath. I have mentioned that the first version (or what could be considered as the first stable version) will be released before Windows Vista and the second, full-implementation, version will be released after Windows Vista. This section of the article seems more accurate now. --megamanXplosion 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

WinFS New Filesystem?
How could WinFS be the new filesystem if Longhorn will still use NTFS? SD6-Agent 05:50, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * WinFS is not a file system, but a service running on top of NTFS, using existing features in that file system for its functionality. The article correctly states this as well. - unsigned


 * Um, actually, where did you get that information from? I've just rewritten that section of the article because it didn't seem to reflect Microsoft's own descriptions - yes, it incorporates NTFS, but it kind of replaces all access to it, so sort of subsumes it. All the articles on Microsoft's website seem to happily refer to it as a "file system" (although they also refer to it as a "storage platform" and a "storage subsystem", among other buzzwords - as it gets closer to existence, I expect they'll settle down on which buzzwords they prefer).


 * Also, it is most definitely "Microsoft® Windows® Code Name "WinFS" (Windows File System)..." (not "FutureSystem", as the article previously stated; I don't know where that came from...) - IMSoP 14:34, 11 May 2004

(UTC)


 * Humph, I think "Future Storage" must have been an earlier expansion: there are some references to it (now it has the space in the right place), even on Microsoft's site... - IMSoP 22:20, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * WinFS doesn't replace NTFS because it's not a disk filing system; it's ax extensible schema-based search system. It's only used for access to the Document Store (eg Documents and Settings tree); everything else goes through the normal mechanisms. You'll format your drive in NTFS and use WinFS for accessing data from the store; quite different levels of working with files and the information inside files. 11 July 2005

Lonestar
Just a correction (I don't exactly know what to put in place of it though).. "Lonestar" is not Longhorn's TabletPC. It is an update to XP Tablet PC Edition, and is now called XP Tablet PC Edition 2004. Just thought I'd clear that up. --DX 02:01, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. "Lonestar" is officially called Tablet PC Edition 2005. --Betaguy9000


 * Right, whatever it's going to be released as, Microsoft's website definitely associates Lonestar with XP, not Longhorn.
 * "Lonestar is still in development, but when it releases, it will be a must-have upgrade for all Tablet PC users. Currently, it is slated to be released as part of Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)."
 * I'll unlist it from here. - IMSoP 14:45, 11 May 2004 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I can't find any references to "codenamed symphony" re: a Longhorn Media Center edition, so I'll take that out as well. In fact, according to an interview dated 4th March:
 * "Q: How true is the fact that MCE is going to be incorporated into Longhorn proper and it won't be just a special edition of it?"
 * "A: We have not yet announced plans around Media Center and Longhorn."
 * Which rather belies that whole paragraph about intending to have multiple editions. Shall we just cut it out? - IMSoP 15:08, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

QWERTY vs. DVORAK (True or false??)
QWERTY still gains popularity. But, by the time Windows Longhorn comes out, do you think there will be any keyboard options of switching from QWERTY to DVORAK in the Control Panel?? (Answer as if it were a "True or false" quiz. 66.245.102.102 00:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There already is in XP and W2K. ElBenevolente 01:03, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * And I'm pretty sure there was in 98, maybe even 95. While since I'v used Windows though. Does anonymous know of any version of windows which didn't support this? Boffy b 16:42, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)


 * Are we in Kindergarten?&mdash;Kbolino 09:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reworked System requirements
I rewrote the system requirements section since the previous version was alluding to rumor and speculation (before any facts were known). Microsoft has since provided information regarding sys reqs and that is what I've updated with. ERN 03:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

I changed "Aero Pure Glass" back to "Aero Glass" as the document referenced in the article (which is at Microsoft.com) refers to the experience as "Aero Glass". I also reverted back the memory requirements and bpp as per the reference. If someone has found an updated reference (later than April 30, 2004) with updated graphics requirements please provide it. ERN 15:04, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the system requirements for now (3 GHz req, 512 MB RAM req), as it sounded unreasonable, esp. the CPU req. See also here. It says 128 MB should be enough, for example. It also indicates where this rumor may have come from -- it's a recommendation for the most powerful mode. I'm not sure Microsoft has even decided on the sys req's yet? Jugalator 15:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * 512 MB of RAM sounds somewhat reasonable because of the new features and its known that the memory recommendations generally double with each new release of Windows (XP recommended 256 MB.) I would have to say, though, a 3 GHz processor recommendation sounds unreasonable. That is a massive leap from the Windows XP recommendation; especially if you take into consideration the fact that drawing tasks (GDI) has been moved from the CPU to the GPU and more networking tasks are offloaded to the NIC in Windows Vista in comparison to Windows XP. I see no justification for such a huge jump in processing requirements - unless Microsoft has simply given themselves a lot of breathing room. --megamanXplosion 10:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I have revised the system requirements...
 * Now reflects information at the Windows Vista Ready PC Guidance page.
 * I have modified the description slightly so that it points to the source of information and reads more fluently.
 * Removed the patently absurd "requirements" given by Nigel at TechEd 2005. That was probably a joke that was spread by the media as if it were serious. Microsoft wouldn't increase the requirements by that much and only state it to the enthusiasts. If the requirements were factual they would also be reflected in the Windows Vista Ready PC Guideance page for Microsoft's enterprise customers. --megamanXplosion 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 512MB of RAM? I think that's enough to make some computers obsolete. I think that a Pentium 4/Athlon XP CPU and at least a 128MB Video Card is required. Otherwise, I am not happy about the system requirements. As far as memory is concerned, I think at least 1GB RAM should be recommended. 512MB RAM won't cut it. &mdash; Vesther 17:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 512MB is the recommended requirement, not the minimum requirement. Windows Vista has several user experience tiers ranging all the way down to 2000-style and the tier used is dependant on the hardware; thus, it is very much possible that Windows Vista will have the same minimum requirements as Windows XP or Windows 2000. Windows Vista will not make any computers obsolete. The amount of memory required for the GPU has not been officially stated but I've seen the Beta 1 refresh run Aero Glass on video cards with just 64mb (ATI Mobility Radeon 9700, for example.) I've also seen systems that ran the Aero Express (same as Aero glass except without blurring) with just 32mb. Add the fact that betas are usually unoptimized in comparison to the final product and the testing hardware drivers suck, this tells me that 128mb video cards will not be required - though I cannot state that as fact without an official statement from Microsoft. I'm fairly certain P4/AMDXP are included in the "modern" CPU category, I'd even bet money that older processors will be acceptable. --megamanXplosion 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Pirated software?
Should we really have explanations about how to "get Longhorn" by searching a Torrent search engine? Is that really any different than putting a "how to get Photoshop" line at the bottom of a Photoshop article ("download the trial, then find a crack!")? I don't think this is really very Wikipedic, personally... but I'll leave that to others to figure out. (I also think telling people to search for torrents or to use other p2p sharing services -- aside from being potentially illegal -- is a bad idea because they are so rife with viruses, and if whomever is looking for this doesn't know that they should look for illegitimate copies in a p2p service, then they might not know how commonly things like this on said services are actually viruses, but I digress) --Fastfission 01:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you - Wikipedia is not meant for distributing pirated software. It's ok to have a page about Torrent Search (I believe we have one :), but I feel that clearly pointing out where to find Longhorn is ridiculous. I removed that part, hope I didn't make a terrible mistake :>


 * However, the fact that longhorn was leaked should be in the article.

Just about every single piece of software is leaked/pirated. What makes the Longhorn leak notable? AlistairMcMillan
 * Not every piece of software is leaked/pirated before it's official release. Longhorn also happens to be a more anticipated piece of software than most. Colonel Panic
 * I agree with AlistairMcMillan, the Windows Vista leaks are not note-worthy at all. This is an encyclopedia, meant to be filled with encyclopedia-quality information, not "The Pirater's Guide to the Galaxy." I believe the information concerning leaks should be removed. megamanXplosion

I think that Microsoft will really get serious about curbing piracy with Windows Vista. Even with XP the pirating problems were still there. I'm thinking that Microsoft will work around a lot of "things" that would eventually make Vista the first pirate-free Windows in history. &mdash; Vesther 17:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And when we return to Earth, and you get off the Microsoft payroll, we'll realize that's impossible. No matter what is done, piracy will still occur.&mdash;Kbolino 09:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows Graphic System or something like that
I read in the latest issue of Maximum PC that Longhorn will use something like windows graphics foundation to replace DirectX. Shouldn't this be included? &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ)  21:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Windows Vista's DirectX 9.0l (same as DirectX 9.0c except converted to the new vista driver model) is Windows Graphics Foundation version 1.0. DirectX 10 is Windows Graphics Foundation version 2.0. I hope that clears up any confusion.
 * I read somewhere (can't find the link right now) that Microsoft are dropping the WGF name altogether, and just continuing with DirectX. User:whcodered

Advertising, not facts
There is, today, no available product called "Windows Longhorn". Nobody can expect that the fictional product described in this article will be available on the "expected" (i.e. advertised) timetable or any other. Microsoft will continue to change its marketing strategy towards "Windows Longhorn", by touting new features ascribed to it, and dropping others — as they have done already. The currently advertised features are not assured; Microsoft would not be violating a contract if they shipped a product called "Windows Longhorn" without some of them.

Today, therefore, Longhorn is not a product that can be described objectively; it is rather a brand name for "whatever clever things Microsoft wants to talk about doing in the next two years." In the computing business this is often called vaporware. And while I won't go so far as to say that Wikipedia should not include articles about vaporware (since a marketing campaign can be historically important and can be described from a reasonably NPOV) — I think that Wikipedia should report upon the claims made about this brand as advertising, not as facts. —FOo 13:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The article makes clear that the described product is in the future, but it is still a product - in fact, it is an odd kind of brand, if one at all, since it is unlikely that a product will ever ship with the name "Windows Longhorn", just as none shipped as "Microsoft Whistler".


 * As for whether these are "facts", they are facts to the extent that anyone knows them. Maybe we should make clearer that they are just expectations, by adding phrases like "is expected to" and "Microsoft claims" all over the place, but I don't see this as purely marketing. This information reflects the development of a product that doesn't exist yet; as the details of that product change, the article can change too, just like Microsoft Windows will change as the current version of that software changes. And one of the great things about doing things this way, is that as soon as the actual product is released, this article can be moved to its final name, and the content will already be there!


 * And, of course, if it is indeed vaporware, we can just make the article a historical one, as you say. - IMSoP 16:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * First, a very minor point: I am not sure what you mean to say that Windows Longhorn is a "product in the future". It is the nature of the future that it has not happened yet. Your description implies a degree of certainty that nobody can have about the future. Nothing is in the future; it might become.


 * Second, on Longhorn as a brand rather than a product: The name "Windows Longhorn" is being extensively promoted in the IT trade press, in the same fashion that other software vendors have promoted various code-names for unreleased or even undeveloped products. This "buzz" is intended for consumption e.g. by IT managers and developers, as well as for Microsoft stockholders -- not for the general public. This is relatively common practice, for Microsoft and other IT companies. (Compare Taligent.) Thus, "Windows Longhorn" is not a particularly "odd kind of brand" for the IT business.


 * By "vaporware" I mean just this -- the term doesn't mean that no such product ever will exist, just that there isn't a product today except in the advertising materials of the company promoting it, and the childlike excitement of the trade press. (One role of vaporware is to draw attention away from competing products which are available today; Wikipedia's vaporware article discusses this.) Thus, the term "vaporware" can be used to describe a current promotional campaign; it is not purely a retrospective label for products that never came to be (like Taligent).


 * Naturally, Microsoft does have developers working on something it internally calls "Longhorn" -- or rather, working on the various software components that it is promoting to the IT industry under the "Longhorn" rubric. This doesn't change the fact that this rubric is just a brand name (and organizational label) at present. We cannot describe what will happen in the future; we can describe what is in existence today.


 * My concern here is threefold: First, if there is nothing there there, then Wikipedia should be silent. Second, Wikipedia should not participate in "buzz", because to do so violates NPOV. Third, insofar as Wikipedia is discussing a campaign of advertisement and promotion (albeit one within the IT industry and investment community -- not the general public) it should represent its subject as just that. --FOo 20:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Its not just talk, or just a marketing campaign, all of the discussed features of Longhorn have been under development in Microsoft for a while, many of them substantially operable. Certain subsystems like Indigo according to some, could potentially be released now, and Avalon is far in development. Some features, like Monad, are available for download. This is known because people outside of Microsoft do get to see periodically what is being done, either privately or at conferences/conventions. Its true that nobody knows how the final OS will be, as parts like WinFS have been postponed (though Microsoft commits to releasing it later). But regardless, its valid to chronicle development of applications and OSs. In the article on Windows XP for instance it would be valid to have a history of pre-release (even pre-beta) development. Its the same with Longhorn. A lot of people think the ideas behind the development of Longhorn are substantial, even if they don't all bear out. To be fair the article should note that all the features are just what Microsoft is working on, but I don't see why its necessary to pound readers over the head with it, its really self-evident. --Brianshapiro

Size in terabytes
I remember a time in Wikipedia history when this article said something about having a computer size being in terabytes, but it no longer does. What happened?? 66.245.2.212 21:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In this edit. Edward 23:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But why?? 66.245.89.19 23:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd kinda like to know what happened to this too. MS probably realized that those specs were just too outrageous. With the current specs of computers, very few people would be able to run Longhorn/Vista (given it's old requirements). Pcjabber 14:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because it was absurd. megamanXplosion 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Aero - Security
It is my understanding that there is an unprecedented security surrounding Aero with only a few developers having access - is this correct? If so, there ought to be some mention in the article. Brianjd 06:11, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Porting and transition
I removed the Porting and Transition section, added by 208.41.239.85. This section talked about the important features of "Longhorn" and listed WinFS as one of them. WinFS is no longer a feature of Longhorn as it has been delayed until a future release. Furthermore, I'm not sure that backporting these technologies (if they really are backported...) is to help users transition to "Longhorn". I suspect it is actually so that Microsoft doesn't annoy existing XP users, particularly corporate users. That is, people who aren't actually planning on transitioning. Maybe I'm too pessimistic, though.

Anyway, that section needed rewriting at best, and I think the article is simply better without that section. If we want to include information about these technologies being made available under older operating systems, it may make more sense to put them on the specific technology pages themselves.

Furthermore, as WinFS and Avalon are no longer "Longhorn"-specific technologies, we may want to rewrite or even remove those sections entirely from this page. --Yamla 21:51, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Release Date
Bill Gates, at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference in Washington, announced that the product codenamed Longhorn would be released tot he public in December of 2006. Somebody deleted this when I added it, so I ask not to do it again. I have the article saved if needed. Here it is below:


 * The long-delayed Windows upgrade, code-named Longhorn and now expected in December 2006, has been touted as the most significant update to the ubiquitous operating since Windows 95 launched in 1995. On Monday, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates demonstrated Longhorn's new graphics, which include better ways to visualize data, including seeing through windows that are stacked atop each other, more natural file organization and faster searching. He also promised better performance and reliability. And though he spent only a few minutes on security in his speech, Gates said it was the most important improvement and had received the most attention by developers. "If you had to take one area where we put the most investment in, the security area would be the head of that list by a significant amount," he told the audience at the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference.


 * Longhorn is the Windows version to implement Microsoft's vision of boosting security by placing cryptographic keys in special silicon chips that would be built into PCs. Currently, such encryption locks are stored as data on a hard drive. It is, however, much more difficult to crack a chip. The security chip in computers running Longhorn would thus render sensitive files inaccessible if someone tried to boot the machine from a portable hard drive or floppy disk. The security initiative - once code-named Palladium but later christened the Next Generation Secure Computing Base, or NGSCB - was announced in 2002 and was quickly attacked by privacy advocates, Microsoft critics and others as a mechanism by which commercial interests might wrest control of PCs from their owners. Some claimed it would enable strict copyright protection schemes for music, movies and software. It also could restrict the tinkering that has driven computer industry innovation over the years, they said. But secure startup isn't expected to be as controversial as chip-based rights management. Microsoft has not said, however, how else Longhorn might interact with the chip, though security features are expected that would make it more difficult for online criminals to break into PCs. Neil Charney, director of product management in Microsoft's Windows group, said the secure startup feature is most likely to be used by business computers, especially in laptops that store sensitive data that could come back to haunt companies after a theft. A number of companies, including Microsoft, are working together to beef up security using a combination of hardware and software. NGSCB is just one approach, though it's likely to have the most impact given Microsoft's dominance.


 * Some PC vendors, including IBM Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co., have been offering PCs with security chips for years. On Monday, HP announced it will support Longhorn's implementation on some of its business computers and workstations.


 * The bulk of Gates' speech covered Longhorn's visual and organizational features - which Apple CEO Steve Jobs described last week as "shamelessly" copying his company's Mac OS X operating system. "They can't even copy fast," Jobs said at his company's shareholder meeting. Indeed, many of the features that Gates demonstrated Monday have been a part of the Mac OS since it was released in March 2001. And some of Longhorn's organizational tools, such as faster searching and virtual folders that populate with documents based on the information they contain, are expected to be part of the version of Mac OS X that goes on sale Friday. "Microsoft will have a year and a half to add some bells and whistles to allow it to claim some differentiation," said Dwight Davis, an analyst at the research firm Summit Strategies. Charney said improved searching will work even without an updated file system, which is the method the computer uses to organize and store information. WinFS, the updated file system that was originally supposed to ship with Longhorn, is now slated to be available in a preview release in late 2006.


 * Microsoft shares closed at $24.99, up a penny, in Monday trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market. The stock has traded in a 52-week range of $23.82 to $30.20.


 * I reverted this. My apologies. Although the odds of Longhorn actually shipping in December, 2006 are exceedingly slim (has Microsoft EVER kept an accurate release date this far in advance?), we can fix the page when Microsoft fails to meet that date. Until then, I'm happy with leaving the page as-is, particularly as you have strong circumstantial evidence on this topic. Thanks. --Yamla 13:40, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)


 * No problem. I also agree that it probably won't ship in December '06, but anything is possible. And because they are saying December, and it is at the end of 06, they can get away with launching in '07 without any bashing or criticism. --texttonic 13:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Windows Vista
There are some rumors going around that the official name of Windows Codenamed "Longhorn" is going to be Windows Vista. Microsoft is expected to confirm the name tomorrow morning. If that is the case, this article should probably be moved to Windows Vista at that time.

--mathwizxp 02:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking quite likely, rewrite at Windows Longhorn/Vista. Tom- 05:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not rewrite it at Windows Vista instead of just redirecting, and once complete, redirect Longhorn there? or even keep Longhorn with just info about the original codename. Elfguy 13:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Umm...why is This WindowsVista? Shouldn't it be Windows Vista? &mdash; Ilγαηερ   (Tαlκ) '' 14:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Windows Vista and you would have find out. ;) Someone already wrote something in Windows Vista so mere users like me can't move it there. Either that page need to be delete first or some admin or whatever need to move it. -- KTC 15:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Why Vista is from spanish and not from italian?  S γ ω Ω η Σ  tαlk 19:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Vista also means Chicken in Latvian... HowardBerry 22:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The primary Latvian meaning of vista is "hen" (Wiktionary is not a chief authority in Latvian), and only the secondary food-related meaning is what in English is usualy expressed with the word "chicken". And please, stop censoring out the Latvian meaning, because the name of "Hen Windows" will sound most funny for the Latvian speakers, to an extent where Microsoft will probably have to adapt a different name specifically for the Latvian market. 24 July 2005.
 * I've not censored out any Latvian meaning. I was the one who entered the information in the first place. HowardBerry 23:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Brace yourselves. I've heard rumors that Windows Vista will have a 15% longer boot time from Windows XP.
 * Well at least the installation will be fast. "A new installation program that will install Vista in about 15 minutes (which is present in alpha build 4074 of Windows Vista)." I heard Linspire also has a fast installation. -Hyad 18:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * You have heard wrong then, so brace yourself for the truth (I try to be funny but...) Windows Vista's superfetch feature will improve boot time dramatically. Feel free to ask any of the current beta testers if the boot-up time is faster or slower. I have asked and seen comments by many and they all noticed improved boot-up times. --megamanXplosion 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Some people said that Vista is an acronym of these five words, "virus, infection, spyware, trojan, adware". Just kidding. --Hello World! 03:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

WinFX and WinFS?
This Windows Vista page lists Vista will include "WinFX: a new API to allow access to these new features, replacing the current "Win32" API (see Windows API)." But when I clicked WinFX, it says WinFX contains "WinFS: relational file system". How can this be if Windows Vista isn't scheduled to include WinFS at the time of it's release? "The removal of WinFS from Windows Vista was announced in August 2004, and is expected to be released as an update to Vista, entering beta stages at about the same time as Vista is released." The fact that the names are so similar adds to the confusion as well. -Hyad 18:18, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well considering that no one has responsed in almost 2 weeks, I am putting a note on the WinFX page stating that WinFS is not currently scheduled to be included with Windows Vista. It's a shame too as this article showed how promising a better file system can be. As of now, WinFS seems to be vaporware. If Micro$oft plans to include WinFS only in beta form when Windows Vista is released, imagine the problems there will be when they release a "Windows Vista Service Pack 1" that completely restructures the file system. -Hyad 04:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the Windows Vista beta 1 (build 5112) does contain virtual folders implying that WinFS is in place. I see no reason why it would be removed in the final builds. See also hands-on feature on IGN Gear. Felsir 06:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

WinFS is not a part of Vista. The Virtual Folders feature does not depend on WinFS. AlistairMcMillan 10:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Folders/Smart folders article
The virtual folders wikilink links to Smart folder. The smart folder article is heavly based on the Mac OS X. Shouldn't that article also mention Windows Vista? If so is the title 'Smart folder' correct (since it's a Mac term)? I don't know enough about virtual folders to modify the article. Also what is WinFS different than a means to power the virtual folders? Am I correct that Virtual Folders does a scan on filesystem level and with WinFS it does a real DB query? The WinFS article emphasises the relational DB storage and metadata with one real advantage: query the filesystem. There obviously is a big difference but it isn't clear to me from the info I find in Wikipedia. Felsir 12:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the Smart folder page being based on the Mac implementation... the Mac version has shipped and the Windows implementation is still being developed, so right now that is probably what you would expect. AlistairMcMillan 14:42, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Apple did not copy Microsoft (there is proof available that shows they were working on the idea before WinFS was even announced.) Microsoft did not copy Apple either; Microsoft's ambitions are far larger - an intelligent way of handling files that practically removes the need to search. I feel it is silly to claim they copied eachother. While they bring similar benefits (saved searches and smart folders for an example,) their goals are entirely different. megamanXplosion 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

That much?!
512MB RAM or higher?! Well, I guess that will make a lot of hardware obsolete. Looks like I'm going to see a lot of protests here.

A Video Card supporting DirectX 9.0 or higher..Oh wow, looks like you need a very beefy video card, most video cards with only up to DirectX 8.1 support are going to become obsolete.

I'm seeing a disturbance here. Here's my projected recommendations:

1GB RAM Probably at least 10GB Hard Disk Drive Space At least a 3GHz Pentium-Class Processor, or an Athlon Processor rated 3000 or higher At least a GeForce 6000-class Video Card or an ATI Radeon rated 9700 or higher At least 128MB VRAM Likely a DVD-RW+RW drive

Likely Windows Vista is going to make a grievous amount of hardware obsolete and useless&mdash;likely Windows Vista's minimum requirements is going to be criticised by a lot of Build-Your-Own people. &mdash; Vesther 02:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Really? I was under the impression that most of the Build-Your-Own people used Linux --James 19:32, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, most Build-Your-Own people are gamers that use Windows because of compatibility issues and the like. You won't see any rational Build-Your-Owner wasting a high-end system on Linux.Amren 02:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Many people run Linux on yesterday's equipment anyway... quite a few Linux users are using a free operating system for a reason, cuz they don't have any cash! Not to say all Linux users are as such. --CoolFox 16:39, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Microsoft (the link is on /. somewhere), Windows Vista will require 2GB for 64-bit machines and 1GB for 32-bit (512MB absolute minimum) machines. I'm guessing programmers at Microsoft don't realize that memory is still addressed in bytes.&mdash;Kbolino 23:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Microsoft employees themselves have said that Nigel's "requirements" were absurd.

Complaints
I find the comment in this article (otherwise well written, thanks!) that parts of Vista are "similar to Mac OS X" problematic. The obvious implication of that is that Microsoft has copied Apple, and that's a rumor and an opinion, not a fact. Unsigned by Andacar. (AlistairMcMillan 15:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Sorry, is this an advertisement or an article? Half of this shit seems like it's come from the microsoft PR department. Someone please make this unbiased, because at the moment, i'm sorry to say it looks like an advertisement, not an article. Unsigned by 213.40.67.66. (AlistairMcMillan 15:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

I definately dispute the neutrality of this article, as half of the crap sounds like it's from the microsoft PR department. It's annoying, because other OS articles, havent got this kind of Advertisement logic in them.

Someone clean it up. I think Wikipedia is here for us to learn, and read, not be advertised to, and a link to Microsoft is enough for others to decide on their own! Unsigned by JessicaX. (AlistairMcMillan 15:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC))


 * I have to agree. This article seems to have been written by a twelve-year-old who was infatuated with pre-release screenshots. Windows 98 was supposed to "integrate with the Internet" which resulted in Active Desktop! Give anybody five years to make an operating system after they've already had 15 and I'd hope to God it sings and dances, but I know Microsoft. This article needs to be written so that it expresses known fact and not dreamy opinions.&mdash;Kbolino 23:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

WinVI is for "Windows 6"?
I have heard a rumor that Microsoft was thinking about naming Windows 6 "Win VI", akin to "MacOS X" for version 10. Then they called it Vista, so it would be abbreviated as WinVI.

Because I've heard that rumor when the name for Windows 6 was still Longhorn, I think it's quite credible. But can anyone confirm or debunk this?


 * A Google search for "WinVI" seems to support it. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 04:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, about to mention this in the article then... --tyomitch 10:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually the google query doesn't produce results about Windows Vista. It produces results about windows version of Vi. Felsir 09:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

From here:

A Microsoft spokesperson who has been following our coverage of Windows Vista over the last few days, contacted me in regard to the naming of Longhorn Server – the next version of Windows Server, that is expected to start in the timeframe of the Windows Vista beta.

''She also coined the term 'Vi' which is becoming a popular short name for Vista, meaning six in Roman numerals. She said "Just reading your posting on "WinVi" and wanted to let you know that Vista is the name for Longhorn client only. Microsoft is not announcing the name for Longhorn Server at this time, but the current plan is to follow the existing naming convention of Windows Server 2003"''

So WinVI is some kind of official name --tyomitch 07:26, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say it is an unofficial name. It is coined by someone and then reused ("the term stuck").
 * Even were it unofficial, wouldn't it be appropriate in the article if it's a common name? (Note that the article now doesn't claim that WinVI is official name, it says it's a common name.) --tyomitch 12:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, note that your search resulted in a majority of pages about the Windows version of VI (a text editor). Even adding "beta" to the search makes the majority of the results about beta release(s) the text editor. It's a bit like stating Driver is the official name for Driv3r because google produces gazillion hits for driver.
 * OK, now the 6790 hits for winvi+vista are reliable enough, no?
 * It also shows that majority of these pages didn't refer to the text editor, but rather about 1/3 --tyomitch 12:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, Google +WinVI +vista -vi resulted in 3850 hits (of which ~300 are discussing this very same topic). You are right it does seem to be a common name, it just seemed coined by someone and quickly picked up by many. Felsir 13:19, September 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't want to start an edit war over this, I wanted to mention it and hear what others think about including it or not in the article. Felsir 09:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could mention it in the article as an "interesting coincidence." --65.147.21.225 22:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, I carefully follow Window's Vista's progress, on sites other than Wikipedia. I regularly read Neowin.net and Winsupersite.com and never heard of "WinVI", until I visited Wikipedia's article on Windows Vista. I then did some quick checking and confirmed my doubts about the notability of this phrase. By all means have a section talking about the name of Windows Vista, and WinVI, but the first line? The first 5 words? As I have been reliably informed, Wikipedia is where things are recorded after they have happened and not before. This being the case WinVI should not be used as a common term for Windows Vista, not least as Windows Vista as a name has been around a little over 5 months now, and the name is not in common use on any of the major forums such as [Neowin], (offline today). Contact me on my talk page if need be. Lewispb 14:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Though it was me to add its mention, it wasn't me to bring it to the topmost line. Should it be moved down to where I added it originally? --tyomitch 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, yes, I think that this is a better way of including an interesting fact. Lewispb 09:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Now wait until Alistair comes... --tyomitch 17:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Need more on WGF/DX10
There is a vague reference to Windows Graphics Foundation in the article, but no substantial information regarding the inclusion of GGF, which will now be considered DirectX 10. Most likely it will be a truly substantial update, so I think some more information needs to be posted on this. I'm not going to do it since the revert-kings will likely find something wrong with and remove it. There was also a substantial number of links to forums and news sites that were apparently reverted and now gone...

Release date
The release date on the article page seems a little vague--unless that's the best info there is. CoolGuy 00:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the best there is, and the absolute best there could be at this point would be "Qx 200y." I don't think anyone really knows when it's going to come out until Microsoft does the countdown thing or something. --65.147.21.225 22:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Several versions of Vista
Look. --  Thorpe  talk 22:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can anyone confirm that Microsoft will have the 'N' versions for Windows Vista? I'd think they could just make the option to not install the damn program during setup, but that would give users a choice without having to pay $200 twice.&mdash;Kbolino 23:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless you live in Europe it doesnt really matter as it is only available in Europe. although y are they making it so that European people dont have windows medi player?

Rolodex feature and list of new terms
I think there's a need to explain what a rolodex in Windows Vista is. There is little or no general explanation of this and I haven't found before much anything about this 'rolodex' feature that is in 'Vista. The only source that refers to rolodex with a screenshot and a more or less adequate explanation to those not in the know, is this: PC Magazine - Windows Vista Update.

Perhaps what should be added is a section that lists new terms in Windows Vista and their respective descriptions, because just a new feature term/name without an explanation does not quite inform users and all other people, who would want to familiarize themselves with the new operating system. Mardus 21:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of the Sun presentation a couple years back. I can't remember what they called it...Ah, Project Looking Glass. It was just a demo, but you could stack the windows and flip them around and see through them, etc. 65.188.161.20 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have put back (presumedly it was there before) the rolodex feature and added an explanation. Why do we need a list of new terms - can't we just explain them when they are used? Brian Jason Drake 05:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OpenGL support under Aero
SGI are quite troubled over the fact that OpenGL will have limited support under Windows Vista Aero. Taken from the official OpenGL site headlines :

"Microsoft's first technical beta of Vista layers OpenGL over Direct3D in order to use OpenGL with a composited desktop to obtain the Aeroglass experience. If an an application runs using a high-performance OpenGL ICD - the desktop compositor will switch off - significantly degrading the user experience. Write to your preferred software developer, hardware developer and video card manufacturer and tell them to make sure Microsoft solves this problem before release and fully supports OpenGL ICDs within Aero. Hardware and software vendors listen to developers. Don't be passive - send those emails and keep the topic in the foreground."

This will occur with a lot of CAD programs, including modeling-suites like Maya which use OpenGL for rendering. This would also happen with the majority of games software that use advanced OpenGL rendering features, such as id Software's Doom 3, and upcoming releases using the same engine: Quake 4, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, and Prey. (Although, typically you wouldn't want to play these in a window.)


 * I don't think they are as troubled by it as they claim; I believe it is more of a marketing stunt. Think about it, only DirectX 10 (WGF 2.0) cards will be effected as far as I've heard. Considering the power of DirectX 9 cards and they're increasing rapidly, the power of DirectX 10 cards will be on-par, if not surpass, those using DirectX 9 in a very little amount of time. Honestly, I can't imagine any windowed application like AutoCAD, Cartography Shop, Blender, 3D Studio Max, etc. demanding the full resources of a DirectX 10 card. DirectX 10 cards will be able to emulate OpenGL functions fast enough to handle anything those windowed applications throw at it and be able to "take a breather." Full-screen applications that demand the full power the cards can muster, like games, will not have emulated OpenGL but the actual OpenGL itself so I don't see any problem there either. Honestly, I think it is more hot-air and marketing than real concerns. --megamanXplosion 22:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't be so sure. After all, what do you use to make a game but Blender, 3DS Max and the like? These applications can have very high demands on a video card, and these kinds of demands are all about bottlenecks. Expecting OpenGL to be layered on top of Direct3D makes OpenGL moot. If people who rely on these tools and developers who still understand what it means to be cross-platform demand the support from Microsoft, OpenGL support can happen. Rob Russell 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Red screen of death
Why is red screen of death listed as a feature?


 * Um... because it is? --tyomitch 14:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But it's not in the Beta 1 build, nor in the build released at the PDC.
 * Yes, I realized it just now. But there's no separate Longhorn article for the early builds, so perhaps it will stay here with the 'already removed' notice. --tyomitch 19:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the RSOD information should be removed entirely. It is useless and irrelevant. --megamanXplosion
 * It had already been discussed at Articles for deletion/Red screen of death. See the debate results there. --tyomitch 23:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That debate was concerning an article dedicated to the subject of RSODs - an article that would only be found by those interested in the RSODs (I would've agreed to keep the article if I were aware of that debate.) This is an entirely different article though. I believe the mentionings serve no purpose in this article. --megamanXplosion

Seven Editions?!?!
That's outrageous. I'm really not happy to know that there are seven editions (Not counting the ones without Windows Media Player for the European Market) of Windows Vista. How about renaming the editions?

Like this:
 * Windows Vista Basic&mdash;Basically a Starter Edition, but I think "Basic" sounds better than "Starter Edition"
 * Windows Vista Standard&mdash;Probably the Home Basic Edition, but I think Standard sounds better than "Home Basic Edition"
 * Windows Vista Media Center&mdash;Home Premium sounds wordy--I prefer to say "Media Center" instead.
 * Windows Vista Professional&mdash;This one I'm gonna leave it at that
 * Windows Vista Workstation&mdash;Small Business Edition doesn't sound right--Workstation should have been used instead.
 * Windows Vista Advanced Workstation&mdash;Rather than "Enterprise Edition", I'd rather say "Advanced Workstation" to denote that it's for enterprises.
 * Windows Vista Premium&mdash;Ultimate doesn't sound right, I'd rather say "Premium" rather than "Ultimate"

I am sensing that the pricing would be as follows:
 * $100 for the Starter Edition, uh...Vista Basic
 * $200 for the Home Starter Edition, uh...Standard
 * $300 for both the Home Premium Edition (no, no, no, Media Center) and Professional
 * $450 for Small Business and Enterprise (Oops, Workstation and Advanced Workstation)
 * $600 for Ultimate (Excuse me, Premium)

I'm guessing that the pricing for Windows Vista is likely to be outrageous. &mdash; Vesther 17:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Uh, right. All of the above is just made up fantasy land numbers at this point. I guess that Linux will cause computers to catch fire and die after the next release. DoomBringer 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * In the long run, most people (read: everyone except Europeans) will only see 3-4 editions being sold in stores, like we do now. Home Starter, Small Business, and Enterprise will not be sold in most stores (or any at all, in the case of enterprise edition.) Most people will come across only Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate - there's not too much room for confusion there. Most people will not even consider the Ultimate edition because it will be the most expensive; a lot of people will disregard the professional edition because they do not think of themselves as professionals; so that only leaves two choices - a really cheap edition or a slightly more expensive edition with more multimedia capabilities. Not too confusing, if you ask me. --megamanXplosion 22:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have heard that Vista will have a lower licensing fee than Windows XP. I hope that is true. I have heard that it is due to the piracy that is going on with Windows. Microsoft thinks that if they lower the license price, there will be less piracy going on.


 * Maybe something like:
 * $100 for the Home Basic Edition
 * $150 for both the Home Premium Edition and Professional/Small Business
 * $200 for Enterprise edition
 * $250 for Ultimate


 * Lets hope that it is true.
 * I really doubt it&mdash;since Microsoft tends to overprice their software just to have everybody pay for the Microsoft name. Obviously, full versions are likely to cost about $100 more than upgrade versions, with Ultimate costing up to $700. &mdash; Dark Insanity 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I really can't say any pricing details in the exact, but that would be my consensus&mdash;I really get turned off by the high prices of Microsoft products because you pay a lot for the Microsoft name. &mdash; Dark Insanity 22:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Audio stack rewritten
For more information about the rewritten audio stack in Windows Vista, checkout these references:

Larry Osterman's blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/ Channel 9 Videoblog on Audio stack: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=116347


 * Nice find. I was unaware of the improved audio quality and per-application volume settings. That will be a great addition! Now I will be able to have my music cranked to the max while the sound in my web browser is very low (ever been browsing a site and have a sound play very, very, loud and out-of-nowhere and almost give you a heart attack?) megamanXplosion 06:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have just noticed in the article there was no mention of the kernel enhancements regarding application prioritization. Each application can demand a particular amount of resources (for example: processor time, memory space, GPU time, etc.) so the application can work flawlessly regardless of the load placed on the system. This is especially important to audio and video playback because Windows Media Player 11 use the kernel enhancement to ensure audio and video is skip-free and glitch-free. I will add this to the features list later if nobody has added it before then - I have homework to do :p megamanXplosion 06:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite Overview?
I have read the overview a few times and I've noticed a large amount of bias, fabricated evidence, and generally nonsensical utterances. I would go ahead and edit it but I fear the revert queens. Here are the statements I have problems with...
 * "Due to many delays and poor programming, they restructured the new release and changed the name to Windows Vista, which is expected to ship before the end of 2006." -- so they named it "Windows Vista" because they hit a few snags during development? That makes no sense at all. And where is the evidence for "poor programming"? They hit a few snags during the development process, because of the development process, but that does not equal "poor programming" - it means they hit a few snags during the development process.
 * "Gradually, Longhorn (now Vista) has lost many of the original features." -- many? According to wikipedia "many" means "an indefinitely large number of." One or two features, out of the over 100 I've seen mentioned, does not qualify as "an indefinitely large number of" features. There is either an overwhelming bias or an overwhelming lack of evidence to support the claim.
 * "This decision was reached in the wake of Windows XP Service Pack 2." -- the decision was reached in the wake of Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1.
 * "Like many other products (including all Windows releases since Windows 98), it has since been leaked onto popular networks (file sharing or otherwise) such as IRC, BitTorrent and various newsgroups." -- Please see the discussion above about promoting piracy. This is irrelevant information that does nothing more than encourage people to illegally obtain the software.
 * "A beta refresh is being given to 2005 PDC attendees and has been released to Microsoft Beta testers (and soon to MSDN subscribers) with the build number 5219. This refresh contains the Windows Sidebar, which had been removed from previous builds without explanation." -- The side bar was not removed. With a few registry changes the side-bar can be enabled, so it was only hidden. It was likely (I'm not stating this bit as fact) hidden from view because it hadn't received much testing after the code-base switch.
 * "Due to the large number of features that have been cut from Vista (Longhorn) since it was first announced, many are calling it Windows XP SP3, expecting it to be nothing more than an updated version of Windows XP." -- this statement is one of the worst. Large number of features cut? Two (one being delivered earlier than expected) = large? Just like earlier, this is unsubstantiated and is either biased or lacks sufficient evidence in the article to support the claim. I must also question wether the readers of this article would find any value in this utterance.

Do the fellow Wikipedians agree or disagree with the points I've raised? Do you think the overview should be rewritten? Why or why not? --megamanXplosion 02:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article is filled with POV and unverified assertions. In addition, the edits by 129.105.69.125 made it far worse (there were some good edits but nearly all of them are biased/POVed/unverified). For example, "poor programming" is horribly POV and outright slander if its not verified by microsoft itself (which I seriously doubt). Ryan Norton T 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Introduction" and "Timeline" NEED A SERIOUS REWRITE! They are rife with POV and unverified assertians. Not only that but in some places the writing is not encyclopedic. Ryan Norton T 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response. I have changed the formatting on your response slightly to improve readability, just to let you know. Anyways, I shall begin working on a rewrite ~24 hours from now (I have 2 hours of algebra to survive in just a short while; sleep; then survive human ecology, literature, and history tomorrow morning. Ugh.) I have not looked at the timeline for problems but I will once I have finished rewriting the introduction/overview; unless, of course, someone feels like tackling the timeline theirself. megamanXplosion 18:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as the "XP SP3" claim goes, it's utter nonsense. I've removed it from the article. Haeleth 19:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for removing it. It will make my rewrite easier :) --megamanXplosion 15:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The edits were made by 129.105.69.125 and a few other people. It's obvious trolling, and I've just reverted the whole thing back to the last version by Haeleth Paul Cyr 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * thanks! - Anyway, what I did was take the pre-129.105.69.125 article introduction and overview and melded that the newer sections. Anyway, its a lot better now, needless to say :). The article introduction should be at least two paragraphs though for this article length, and the overview section could use some cleaning up and tightning. Other than that, most of the problems were solved with the revert+merge. Ryan Norton T 20:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I did some paragraph combining for the overview section and added anther paragraph to the intro which probably needs to be wikified/tidied up a bit. Ryan Norton T 21:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Now it seems like a big blob of text rather than an organized set of sentences conveying a single idea. To put it basically, it is no longer a paragraph but a mish-mash of text. Sometimes it is better to have a lot of short paragraphs rather than having a long blob of text. Not trying to jump on you or anything, just letting you know to be a bit more careful (note: I have not looked at the prior versions so they might've been a mish-mash of text as well) :) --megamanXplosion 15:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, by all means feel free to fix/modify it :). Maybe I screwed something up :). Ryan Norton T 16:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I am home from school now (reply above was inbetween classes.) I have started to create an updated overview and introduction. In a week or so I may (no promises) have a rewritten features list as well (I have installed mediawiki on my private web server to help.) The feature list may be long enough to justify splitting the article into several peices. I have 54 features listed, sourced, and currently writing descriptions of each in length (not as brief as the current features list.) That number is continuously rising, I *think* it may be possible to reach 90+ features by the time it is complete. Due to the fact it may require splitting the article into peices and its a huge amount of information, I will upload the feature list as a webpage somewhere so everyone can read over them, suggest changes, and approve/disapprove restructuring the article. megamanXplosion 20:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to let everyone know that I have not stopped working on this. I have been working on the new feature list as well as the new overview and plan to unroll the changes all at once. Due to school being hectic, it has been taking longer than expected. I apologize. megamanXplosion 10:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

DRM: Digital Rights Management
There has been much discussion over the content controls being forced into next-generation PC hardware and OSes by the copyright-cartels. e.g.

''For the first time, the Windows operating system will wall off some audio and video processes almost completely from users and outside programmers, in hopes of making them harder for hackers to reach. The company is establishing digital security checks that could even shut off a computer's connections to some monitors or televisions if antipiracy procedures that stop high-quality video copying aren't in place.''Microsoft align on new Windows/2100-1025_3-5844393.html?part=rss&tag=5844393&subj=news

To many users, this will be the most important part of Vista -- at least as far as purchasing decisions go. Yet the article is devoid of mention of these new DRM features. (Comment was by 71.131.202.198)


 * It's mentioned in passing, under the Technologies heading: further support for digital rights management (DRM) . . . and the controversial Trustworthy Computing initiative previously known as Palladium (see also trusted computing). You're right that it could probably go into more detail, though.
 * I've removed two of the links you added - the Inquirer is always alarmist and rarely accurate, and the blog entry didn't seem to contain much information. The remaining two look like informative sources that present both sides of the argument, and would therefore probably be good references for a section on Vista's DRM, if you'd like to consider writing one? Haeleth 22:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Important Builds" / "Summary of Builds" section
Why is it even before the Overview of the OS itself? Here I was wondering if a maintained build list would be worth having in the article at all, and now it pops up as the most important thing of it? Not editing as I'm not sure what to do with it myself... Throw it away (as I recall it was before?) or move it down somewhere above "See also"? -- Jugalator 12:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost worthless and now relegated to bottom of article RyanG 21:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Content to be integrated
Someone added this to the page, but I think it's better to keep it here until someone integrates it properly - IMSoP 18:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

(Edited - Please, one of you wikiexperts polish this up ) This is what we know from today's developments:

There will not be a November Community Technology Preview (CTP).

There will be a December CTP to be released before Christmas.

The December CTP will be "very close" to feature complete.

Microsoft hopes to have all of Windows Vista's features locked in by the end of December.

Windows Vista Beta 2 will be released sometime in early 2006.

Build 5259 will not be a CTP and released to Technical Beta Testers. Only TAP Testers received the build.

Microsoft is no longer committed to a monthly CTP release schedule.

(Source: http://www.longhornblogs.com/ )

All done. —207.177.241.28 (Akhristov) 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Release candidates
Do release candidates count as stable releases? This is a question for when the Vista release candidates start to come out, and I was wondering whether to place them under "Stable Release" or "Preview Release" or both. —Akhristov 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Downloads Vista - False?
Somone put a "Download Vista" head in the article, and posted a scam site, along with false info in the article, i think. I think someone should remove it if the information is false. Also, I read something on slashdot (http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/02/1635233&tid=201&tid=218) about not having to restart your computer when you download updates from the microsoft. Does anyone know more about it? The Indpentdent Conservative 15:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The feature is called Restart Manager. Someone should put more about this, but still we do not have all the details. From what I've read if you do need to reboot it will only take 3 seconds. 'eWeek Article' - Mikecnn 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

costs
how much will each version cost? will there be massive differences? i will obviously be opting for the home premium version, but would like to know the variation in price. (as i remember, XP cost a bomb to get on disc)

has any of this been worked out yet, or is it too early to say? mastodon 12:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just scroll up to "Seven Editions!?!?!?" above. That might answer your question. Edit: no official word from Microsoft on the pricing yet. —Akhristov 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

versions
i live in europe, and i was wondering why there is no sign of a "home premium N"? will i just get the regular premium, or will i be forced by law (cough) to get the basic home N version? mastodon 03:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll contact Paul Thurrott aned ask him whether he meant "Premium" instead of "Professional". —Alex 05:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul says that the way it is now is correct. Who says you are required by law to get the N edition? It is not that different from the original edition. I think the only thing the law requires is that those editions are available. I don't know why you wouldn't but the regular edition instead of the N version. — Alex 04:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, both Home Premium and Ultimate editions have Media Center, so I guess that makes WMP standard. — Alex 04:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sanity with External Links
I notice a lot of, for lack of a better word, entrepreneurship, with the External Links section. This is becoming a serious problem. In an effort to clean up the section, I alphabetized one portion, incorporating some new relevant sites, and removing dead links, in an attempt to make it fair (and informative) for all. What I have noticed tonight are people simply adding a site wherever they see fit, disregarding any formatting rules, and apparently just trying to get their link "on the page". Constantly reverting is not 100% in my jurisdiction, as I am a small-time contributor, and I think this merits some discussion. Mikecnn 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Aero article
I was just having a look though, and didn't really feel that the external Aero article contained enough information to justify it not being a part of the Vista article. Does anyone agree or disagree? I'm just saying. --Seegoon 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The Aero article might get bigger as Microsoft provides more information, though. — Alex 00:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The Aero article may not be very large, but the Vista one is, and it should not focus too much on just one aspect of the programme. I think alex is right that Aero will increase in size. Not really that bothered about the merge, but the tag is very ugly, can this all be resolved so it buggers off? mastodon 17:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows Vista Kernel Improvements
Windows Vista Kernel Improvements: mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/0512/26042/kernel_windows_vista_2005_MBR.wmv Anyone can make a summary of this video?

another interesting document is this: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel-en.mspx http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/5/9c5b2167-8017-4bae-9fde-d599bac8184a/kernel-en.doc