Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 6

Added Beta Release Date
Added Release Date for beta testers of Windows Vista which was November 15, 2006.

Release Date
What is the release date for Vista? as Windows Vista is scheduled for 02/12/2006 but Windows vista is scheduled for 30/01/2007. Im a little confused. --87.102.33.71 21:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The infobox at the top of the article says this: "Will be released on 2006 November 30 for volume customers and 2007 January 30 for worldwide retail availability." "Retail" means you can buy it off the shelf in the store starting next year.  "Volume customers" means corporations, including computer manufacturers, which means that you can buy a computer with Vista installed on it this year.  Where did you get the December 2 figure?  I assume that you meant December 2, since you didn't use either the format recognized by Wikipedia or the ISO standard yyyy-mm-dd format.  --Scott McNay 02:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Apple's dashboard
"Also, applications like Konfabulator and SuperKaramba existed long before Apple's Dashboard." I wanted to know if this should stay in there. Apperantly, on the Lisas and what not, there were widgets called deskapps. -- Kenta 17:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Apple likes to pretend that the idea for Dashboard came from Deskaccessories, but there is almost no similarity between the two. The implementation of Dashboard uses much more similar technologies to Konfabulator and they look almost identical. I mean, if Desk Accessories were written in a markup language of some sort, had polished and shiny graphics, ran all the time (whether they were being shown or not), and looked just like Konfab or Karamba, then they might have a point... but none of those things are true. 12.207.87.61 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

cant read backup????
I have heard that windows vista can not read backup files from windows xp. Is this true, or is my informatiion outdated? Also, if it is, is there a way i could manage to get all my windows xp stuff onto vista?


 * I don't know if it's true or not (I suspect that it is) but it wouldn't be surprising, since it's not unusual for a new OS version to not support backup files from previous versions. The usual workaround is to be sure to have a copy of the old backup/restore executable handy.  --Scott McNay 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to restore files from my XP backup onto Vista directly. I had to boot XP, restore them to a remote disk drive, then boot Vista and copy them there. I was a little puzzled why I couldn't do this more easily! Themeparkphoto 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You can open BKF files with a tool from Microsoft. You can get it at http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=7da725e2-8b69-4c65-afa3-2a53107d54a7&DisplayLang=en Zian 04:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)Zian

Image weirdness
Right now something strange is going on: If I click on the image used in the infobox, I get... a totally different image. On this page, I see an image with the start menu and the control panel open. When I click on the image, I get a pic of the Programs folder of the start menu opened in Explorer and My Pictures or something. Does anyone else see this? 68.39.174.238 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if you click the image for the "high resolution" version, you'll get a large version of the picture as seen in the thumbnail, and NOT what you see on the image page. It's really, really odd.  ~ 70.21.184.233 07:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!!!
Thank you for JamesWeb for these screenshots of Windows Vista RTM. It is just quite same the two of them: Image:Windows Vista Desktop.png and Image:Windows Aero.png —210.213.89.132 09:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh? JamesWeb 21:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can download & change the wallpaper in Windows Vista from here. --210.14.16.171 23:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That is just one picture. Surely you're not trying to get eveyone to use that picture, are you? Harryboyles 02:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Harryboyles, that picture is considered as a desktop wallpaper in Windows Vista, that is from Hong Kong. It transfers from the Kodak Digital Camera.  Tell JamesWeb to apply that desktop wallpaper in Windows Vista for one of those screenshots. —--210.213.89.220 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, the first two pictures aren't the same as one has the sidebar and the other one doesn't. You can use any picture as a background in Vista, but for continuity's sake, it's better if for screenshots that we use wallpapers that come with Vista. Harryboyles 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

From the Marketing Dept.?
Sorry, but this reads like advertising blurbs in too many places. All kinds of 'features' that 'enable' things everywhere. I was particularly struck by "Microsoft is also adding new deployment and maintenance features to make a compelling case for businesses still running Windows NT, 2000, and XP desktops." and the citing, with a straight face, of the Yankee Group and the idea that 'critical security vulnerabilities may be "reduced by as much as 80 percent"'. On the other hand, the discussion of the criticisms are desultory at best. Even if you dismiss the validity of concerns over DRM and WGA and others as forms of restrictions and intrusions, the seriousness of the allegations should merit more discussion than a (yes, I'm making up the numbers but aiming for ballpark accuracy) 20 to 1 ratio of lines discussing graphics features enabling compelling cases vs. lines discussing DRM/WGA/etc. I'm not citing these for themselves, as "two/three issues I have", but merely as examples underlying an overall tenor to this article that is decidedly not NPOV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.221.118.33 (talk • contribs).
 * Agree. And it's also shocking to find a price list in an encyclopedia article.--Yannick 15:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * many articles refrence prices, such as: ipod, zune, iTunes Store, Mac OS X. the rrp of a product is a verifyable fact and therefor is encyclopedic. Nicoli nicolivich 18:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that others are abusing wikipedia is not a justification for it happening here. This entry reads for a large part like a commercial press release.

As the the comment about RRPs. They are not "facts" they are transient commercial propositions. If anyone one wants prices any search engine will be falling over itself to give commercial links. This is NOT the business of an encyclopedia.

If you want the price of a dishwasher you dont open the Encyclopedia Britanica. It's a laughably stupid comment.
 * laugh all u will at the stupidity of the matter but the point still stands, the rrp of an object is a fact, its is something that is the case. It is the state of affairs reported by a true statement.

p.s. please sign ur comments. Nicoli nicolivich 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions
The following questions may be dumb, but I don't have a clue:

I assume it would, but will Vista support MSN Mesenger? In other words, will I be able to download MSNM after I get Vista? Will I be able to install the games I currently own? They would include Starcraft and other RTS's. I would think so, but I thought I'd ask people who seem to know what they're talking about. If you had to estimate, how much would a Vista Premium Ready Computer cost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.151.162 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 2006 November 23


 * This page is for discussing the article, not Wnidows Vista itself. To discuss Wndows Vista itself, you'll need to find another site.  Here are short answers to your questions, though: 1. MSN Messenger is simply no longer bundled; there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't work. 2. Apparently game support (compatibility) has improved a bit; whether a specific game works or not is another matter; probably will, though. 3. The same as a Windows XP computer; you can probably get one for under $600 if you scrounge and don't mind low quality.  Actually buying Windows Vista is what will put you in the hole. --Scott McNay 00:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
The Criticism section seems to be getting larger and larger. Considering that the Criticism of Windows Vista section is fairly large already, wouldn't it make more sense to simply summarize the complaints and link to the relevant sections of the Criticism article? We just seem to have copies of some of the complaints from the criticisms article, and they seem to be out of sync. Any thoughts? 12.207.87.61 11:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a tough thing to try and find the right balance for... too much criticism results in people feeling it's overpowering the neutrality of the article; not enough criticism makes it sound like marketing material. We want to avoid both extremes as much as possible, and with a subject like Windows that attracts opinions from OS X fanatics to anti-DRM activists, removing all mention of a certain aspect of criticism can result in someone coming along within days and adding some poorly-stated criticism in.  When we see more reviews and articles on Vista in major news publications, and the criticism that's bound to be reported in conjunction with it, we'll be able to bring that into the article and improve the Criticism section.  -/- Warren 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are now TWO criticism sections in this. How can anyone say this is fair and balanced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.62.72.183 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Can i put this cartoon in that mocks Vista's numerous versions? It could just be a thumb image in the criticisms section. Herenthere (Talk) 20:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No. If you want to post comics, start a blog.  This is an encyclopedia -- a serious endeavour -- not an outlet for jokes. -/- Warren 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Devolopment of Windows Vista
I was wondering if it would be better to shape the Vista article more like the XP article, as it is a FA. And in XP there is no development page, just a link to the development page. So is it the XP article that should be fixed or is it the Vista article? 67.181.82.100 23:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neither. Just because one article isn't in the same format as the other doesn't mean they both can't qualify for a Featured article. — Alex (T 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

All Versions of Windows Vista on one DVD
I have read somewhere that all the Versions of Windows Vista will be on one DVD. Is this true? Aero Flame 12:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true.As you can see in the article there will be several retail editions. However there is a dvd of the rtm version available mainly for the msdn subscribers that includes all versions of vista, 32bit or 64bit versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agiak (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2006 November 26

See Windows Anytime Upgrade. That doesn't fully answer the question, but it's close enough for most people. --Scott McNay 23:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True. They are shipped on the same DVD with different packaging, your serial determines the stuff installed. You can purchase new serials later if you want to upgrade and then install the new features with the same DVD. --Trusader 02:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See my edit Richard Gadsden 14:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardware requirements
It says:
 * While Microsoft specifies 1 GB of main memory (RAM), Nigel Page of Microsoft has indicated that 2 GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista which processes data chunks that are double the size for those for 32-bit Vista, hence requiring double the memory.

What a load of rubbish. 64 bits is bigger than 32 bits by a grand total of 4 bytes, not 1,000,000,000 so what are the other 999,999,996 bytes needed for? The reality is that Vista is simply very, very ineffcient. I question whether a piece of obvious misinformation like that should be allowed unchallenged in this article. Man with two legs 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're misread the statement. 64-bit is double 32-bit. The 32 bit version requires 1 GB of ram and because 64 bit is double 32 bit, it makes perfect sense that it should require twice as much memory. We're talking about the individual chunks of data here. Harryboyles 12:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say I questioned this statement too, I mean... If each chunk is twice the size then won't there just be... Less chunks? Or am I just completely misinformed? JamesWeb 13:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. I was "blunt" to put it, because the calculations that Man with two legs made seemed totally unbelievable. I thought of it as "processing units": that a 32-bit and 64-bit instruction are all one instruction. Correct me if I'm wrong. Harryboyles 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, JamesWeb, you are not misinformed, you are exactly right. A 64-bit processor does not need any more memory than a 32-bit processor to store, and process, the same amount of data.  Vista uses much more memory than Win XP when running on the very same computer (Win XP Pro requires 0.128GB which is 16x less than 2GB, and remember Win 3.1 ran fast with only 0.008GB).   I was being slightly facetious by suggesting you need an extra 4 bytes because you don't need even that.  The suggestion that Vista's inflated memory use is to do with word size is pure, and deliberate, nonsense. Man with two legs 15:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 64 bit programs have to use more memory than same program running on same data on a 32 bit processor. All memeory references (pointers) in 64 bit proc is 8 byte long, as opposed to 4 bytes on x86 (I will use MS' convention and use x86 for 32 bit and x64 for 64 bit). So for every pointer (memory reference) 4 more bytes are needed as opposed to x32 systems. Plus, I think (as x86 works best with data aligned at 4 byte boundary) x64 needs 8 byte boundaries. So more padding and thus more memory needed. (The last bit I am not sure of, I have not much experience with the x64 platform as a developer. I plan to switch full time only after Vista comes out). Plus all address translation tables have to be 2x wider (to store the wider addresses) - so more memory for the same bookkeeping job. And *if* it does use a double sized page as compared to 32 bit Vista, then at minimum it has to keep double the data in memory as compared to x86.
 * Plus 128 MB is not 0.128 GB (in MS' parlance - they don't use binary prefixes), its 0.125 GB. Right, XP runs on 128 MB, but so what, Vista too runs on 512 MB - with same performance. But Vista out-of-the-box does more than XP does. My Vista idles around 350 MB on a 512 MB system (and 800 MB on a 2 GB system). But turn off the extra services - the networking services, themes etc and you can get it to 200 odd MB, as opposed to XP which reduces to 90 odd MBs (Vista still does a lot more - security audits, data indexes for fast searches etc). And most of the memory usage by Vista is due to its miserly use of HDD paging and its caching of not-in-use processes in memory - to speed up further usages. So, saying it is not as efficient as XP is not exactly true. -- soum সৌমো yasch  16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought about whether to say 0.125 or 0.128, both of which are dodgy in some respect. But to the point: most code is not pointers or other items that genuinely do have to be bigger, so they will only add a little to the size.  On the additional features, it is fair enough that a program that does more should use more space, but that is a very different thing from saying that changing from 32 to 64 bits simply doubles the amount of memory required.  My objection is to the false explanation rather than to any genuine reasons for using more memory. Man with two legs 17:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reply to several points here.
 * 1. Windows reserves half of the address space available to each program, to hold system information related to the application, such as window handles and the like. So, on a standard 32-bit CPU and standard Windows configuration, each program can have a maximum of 4GB of memory allocated to it -- but it can only use 2GB of that.  As far as I know, this continues in 64-bit versions, although the max memory allocation is much larger.  In 64-bit versions of Windows, data structures in the system information space would be 8-byte aligned for speed (which would not need THAT much extra space for the buffering), and also would contain the larger pointers. (which WOULD take more room).  As for the applications themselves, 32-bit apps would be thunked (which would use some memory) and 64-bit apps would, as mentioned above, use wider data and pointers, in both the code and the data areas.  Code for processors with more bits is always bigger (due to larger pointers, if nothing else), although some arithmetic code will be simplified.
 * 2. 64-bit Windows is also a different OS from 32-bit Windows. Perhaps MS has planned on memory continuing to become cheaper, and has changed stuff accordingly.  Someone more familiar with 64-bit Windows could probably give a more authoritative statement on this.
 * 3. WinXP may have at one time needed only 128 MB (which is clearer than saying .0125 or 0.128 GB) of memory, but NOW, any fully-up-to-date computer which is used on the internet is almost always SLUGGISH with less than 512 MB, even when freshly installed. Among other things, various patches check for more things, which slows things down a bit.  They also take up more memory, which increases the likelihood of page-swapping, which also slows things down (thrashing).  Also, modern anti-virus software is more comprehensive, and antispyware is also now virtually mandatory.  I think that any modern computer should have AT LEAST 1GB of memory, for 32-bit Windows XP, with 512 MB being a bare-bones amount.  My experience is that most computers in the stores today are memory-bound, since people tend to look at only the Mhz rating, and not realize that the amount of memory is inadequate.  Adding memory is the cheapest upgrade that most computers can get.
 * I think that the reason for recommending twice as much memory for 64-bit Vista is due to the fact that it does need SOME more memory, and memory sizes are usually powers of 2, so the next step up from 1 GB is 2 GB.
 * --Scott McNay 05:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My point remains: the jump from 32-bit to 64-bit is not the reason you need more memory and the quote above is making a false statement. Man with two legs 09:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you only read the last sentence that I wrote? I went into quite a bit of detail.  If you want, I can spend a few minutes on the Intel and AMD sites to estimate how much larger a 64-bit program would typically be compared to a 32-bit program; maybe I could even find something that can be cited.  Offhand, I would guess that 64-bit apps are about a quarter larger. --Scott McNay 13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we might be converging. If your figure of about a quarter is correct, I shall have learnt something.  But the quote above "data chunks ...double the size...requiring double the memory" remains nonsense. Man with two legs 14:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Data chunks does not mean individual bytes. Windows never allocates individual bytes to programs - it allocated pages, which in x86 are 4 KB in size. Each process needs to have at least one memory page. Now if x64 windows does work on 8 KB page sizes, it would mean that a process needs to have at least 8 KB of memory, which is double that of previous requirement. And every page of memory that is paged into RAM (from swapfile) is also 8 KB. So double the data flows in when an app is being reactivated. But yes, double page sizes does not necessarily mean that double memory will be needed for apps. Yes, it will mean so if each process fits nicely into one page. But since that is not the case, the number of pages needed will go down. Thus, the address translation tables will also become shorter (but wider, as I previously pointed out). So its not a full 2x increase of requirement for translation tables. As an addendum to the 25%, I would add a 10% for larger page sizes. So that is 35%, on an average. A full doubling is the worst case requirement. Something citable is needed. -- soum সৌমো yasch  17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I notice someone has now removed the contentious bit. Man with two legs 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * says that Vista x64 indeed needs twice as much mem as x86 to perform as fast. -- soum সৌমো yasch  15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

International pricing
I know there's no official news on prices outside the US, but for the UK amazon.co.uk has prices up - that are, after conversion to US$, a whopping 80% higher than the US prices listed here.

Would that be worthy of note?

The fact that UK prices are significantly higher that US prices may be worth a note. However it does not merit what ammounts to a catalogue of the full range of vista products and prices. One example of a price comparison to back up the claim, OK. Anything more is blatant advertising.

86.20.195.67 18:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it true there will be a "Windows Tax" that users will have to pay on an annual basis? This would be important information if true.

Name?
Will there ever be a non-server Windows release with a year based naming scheme? 213.240.234.212 19:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well there was Windows 2000, Windows 95 and Windows 98. As to the future, I don't know. However I have read somewhere that Microsoft are not too keen on it as it makes future releases seem to sound less exciting that releases before that, especially as we have gone from 95 and 98 to ME then XP then Vista. Harryboyles 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista Update
According to Amazon.com, Vista Update requires Windows 2000 or higher - so Windows 9x/ME users will have to fork out on Vista Full.

193.108.73.47 07:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Features section
The features section is far too long. A short summary of the main article would be sufficient, actually detailing the features here in list form is not summary style. Ans e ll 07:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The feature list here is already an extremely abbreviated version of the full list, and we are barely detailing anything. -/- Warren 11:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And yet the list is too long for a summary article. It needs serious chopping. Ans e ll  04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Compared with ....
"Windows Vista has a long list of new features, changes, and improvements" Compared with what? This can only be true if it is compared to something specifically. If it is Windows XP it should say so. If they are new innovations on the whole GUI market then it should say so also. Candy 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed this new section ...
which included ...

"We know that a lot of people enjoy music, movies and TV on their PCs using headphones, so added the ability to have surround sound using a new feature called Headphone Virtualization, which uses a technology known as Head-Related Transfer Functions or HRTF. Essentially the system uses information about the physics of your head to create an outside-of-the-head experience. As a result, in addition to hearing the normal sensation of left-to-right sound separation, Windows Vista can also enable the user to differentiate between front and rear sounds as well as close and far sounds.

This is not an NPOV section. It is also full of BS. HRTF and "Physics of the Head" are some sort of pseudo science. One moment it's headphones then it's qudrophonic. Keep it factual. Keep it sensible. get rid of the adverts please. Candy 20:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that it sounds more like marketing than an encyclopedia article, so thanks for removing it -- but I wouldn't dismiss it as *complete* rubbish. You only have 2 ears and are only capable of hearing two channels; the reason you can localise sound is through various aural cues (see this article.  These can be emulated, giving the impression of quadrophonic/surround sound speakers through headphones.  Creative's X-Fi sound card has done this in hardware for a while, Vista apparently is able to do it in software. Simxp 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS similarities
The source seems a little baised, as the source is a MAc OS advocate. Unless anyone objects, i'll remove it.Darthnader37 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

-The sentance referencing citation #48 stated that Apple considered Vista to be "similiar" to OS X. I visited section 48 and found no indication that Apple Computer had officially stated that. I have seen Apple link to a site that bashed Vista, for, among other things, being similiar to OS X, from the Apple Newsfeed that is the default homepage in Safari, but since that's not precisely official (on the same level as a press release, for instance), and since citation 48 is in any event not a relevant citation for that claim, I decided to axe it. -Wgw2024


 * Wgw2024, thank you for being bold. However, since you removed the reference to Apple altogether in the new sentence, there is no need to remove the citation itself since it doesn't claim Apple's statement. Also please be careful when making any changes to the  tag as a typo there can remove all references to the entire article! Thanks. Chikinsawsage 11:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't mess with that or remove citation 48, I just removed reference to Apple making that claim. Sry for any confusion. -wgw2024

Errr oops nvm, yes I did, sry, my bad. -wgw2024

Source model: Open source
Why does this page say source model open source, Windows is a close source OS?? Thanks --69.24.160.124 20:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm, if you offer enough money, they'll happily share sourcecode with you. I don't think it qualifies as either closed or open, personally, but perhaps the person who marked it as such confused shared-source with open-source? ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows Vista editions chart

 * Microsoft-supplied Windows Vista Editions chart, wiki-table-fied:
 * from http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

In case anyone thinks this can be used. There's one on http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_editions.asp also, but it's a big big... if anyone thinks it should be wikified, and if Mr. Thurrott doesn't mind, I have no problems doing it. Just let me know. ~Kylu ( u | t )  23:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is big already, I'm not sure if there's room for another table. All those are mentioned in the article anyway. — Alex (T 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can consider starting a separate article. :-) (For the big chart, I mean.) — Alex (T 23:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider it done. I transfered it to the article. &mdash;  Jigs41793  Talk 11:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The X marks are terrible and unnecessary and noisy, so I removed them from the article. Please do not put them back in unless you are demonstrably not human and they are necessary to your perception and don't give you a headache --KJK::Hyperion 09:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Pirated versions via KMS
Is it worth mentioning the fact that KMS (Key Management Service) servers located in China have been activating copies of Vista? Not to give people too much information about how to conduct illegal practices, but it's still a fact that this is happening, and Vista is supposed to be difficult to run if pirated.
 * I think this should be included. One of the major features Microsoft has been talking about is security, and especially how their key server will be secure.  It's wiki worthy in my mind, though probably will be more so the system ships.  It will need an unbiased source though, which would help.74.136.199.64 08:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

sentence
"In addition, Microsoft prohibits software manufacturers from re-introducing it with their products."

How could they do that? 69.23.68.19 21:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dropped Features
Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't WinFS a dropped feature from Vista? If there are no objections I will work on adding a mention to the list in the article. -Thebdj 13:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to be there, I think someone removed it a couple of months ago. -/- Warren 00:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article, and moved the bulk of its contents into Development of Windows Vista, where it's more relevant. Another 2700 bytes for the pare-down project. :-) -/- Warren 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Long article
This article is getting really long. I think we need to try and avoid lists and instead summarize each list in a few paragraphs. This way, the article can qualify for WP:FA sooner. I'd work on it too if I had more time, I'll see what I can do. — Alex (T 08:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree... it's just really hard to decide what to cut out. I've already re-formulated some of the lists as paragraphs in recent weeks (not an easy task), and I'll continue with that as time permits.  The end-user features section probably could be split into a few sections, perhaps separating them into "user interface" (Aero, search, touchscreen, speech recognition, fonts), "multimedia" (WMP, Photo Gallery, DVD Maker, Media Center, etc), and "maintenance"(?) (backup & restore, previous versions, windows experience index, etc.) sections.  Features new to Windows Vista needs some work done to cut down its size, too... we could create some more articles to cover specific areas?


 * The breakdown of features by edition is an interesting idea, but it is a bit superfluous. It may need to move to a separate article, or be cut out completely.  The Criticism section is also still too long... it probably should be about 50-60% of its present size.  -/- Warren 09:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's a good article and all of the information it provides is very helpful to the reader. The criticism section is only long because Vista has a lot not to like about it. I believe if anything this entire article should be expounded to explain all of the new features. Yurimxpxman 20:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's already an article explaining all of the features new to Windows Vista, introducing that into this article would make it really messy. — Alex (T 04:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the End-user features needs to shrink. We can try to summarize the changes in a few paragraphs, and if anybody wants a list, they can go to Features new to Windows Vista. — Alex (T 04:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The tag suggests that the reason for some browsers supposedly not rendering this article correctly is its size of 64 kilobytes. The article loaded fine for me, though I have a fast, broadband internet connection, a gigabyte of RAM and a 2 gigahertz processor. I embrace the article's length because it offers quite a read. Especially before the January 30 launch, people may actually want the article's lenght.

Please cut out the large table of UK prices. This is nothing short of a catalogue of MS products, I feel this is an abuse of the encyclopedia. One sentence to note that UK prices is x% higher than US would provide that information without being product catalogue.

Also dropping the half dozen images of product packages would considerably lighten the load of this huge entry.

Good Source of Information for Wiki Vista pages
This is a very good read and deserves being an external link for the Vista page and some of the points it mentions in terms of weaknesses in Vista's design merits inclusion in any criticisms of Vista.

The link

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt

--Thirdmoon 00:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mysterious edits etc.
A question for someone (not sure if this is the right place for it)...

I navigate to the article and see "Kids next door organisations" in the list ending with TechNet. A look back at the edits shows that someone changed the text to stop reading this and instead read (presumably correcty), "volume license customers" or similar. There is no edit showing it being changed back to KND, yet it is there on the page. This seems odd; but then, when I go back to the article, it now says VLC after all. What's been going on?

--81.152.250.181 14:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * A variety of Windows articles have been hit with "kids next door"-related vandalism in the last couple of weeks. I've been trying to keep on top of it.  -/- Warren 17:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vista Editions diagram
I do not think the vista edition diagram is correct as vista is not based on two different codebases the editions all have the same codebase but just include different features. Also i do not think Windows starter edition is similar the windows home basic as windows starter is an incrediable stripped down version of windows to run on low spec pc. I don't think the diagram looks very good and it does not have any real purpose. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.153.167.216 (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

128GB?
the article states that 64bit edition suports 128gb of memory, is that RAM memory or HDD? i think this needs to be specified Nicoli nicolivich 00:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Check this slide and this message thread for more information. The 64bit edition is using 128GB as memory page size limit.--H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 04:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaming
I am removing the gaming section. Someone may want to replace it with something more appropriate e.g. non-vista machines will not be able to run DirectX 10. Here is the previous text:

Gaming With Vista comes DirectX 10 - however in order to run future Vista-only games, a DirectX 10-compatible graphics card is needed. DirectX 10 makes use of Direct3D 10, XACT, XInput, DirectDraw and DirectPlay, meaning that the computer should also have a modern sound card. The monitor should also be at least able to have a screen resolution of 800x600. The WHQL tests in Vista has also been re-designed to meet the requirements of new games. An amount of 1 GB RAM will also provide good stability for new games, making Premium Ready computers most appropriate for future games.

I don't think the statement 'in order to run future Vista-only games' is very useful. It implies that in the near future many games will be vista only (DirectX 10 only really), when this is not the case. Perhaps a mention of Halo 2 could also be inserted. The features of DirectX 10, the issue of a sound card and if 1 GB RAM is appropriate for future games also has no place in this article. Isolater 13:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for more Windows Vista Extras
Someone needs to watch the bill gates keynote at CES and write something —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.155.106.23 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Release Date
According to Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows, Paul Thurrott said the public release of Windows Vista will be release on January 29, 2007 (not January 30, 2007). Can we change this release date? -  Jigs41793   Talk  13:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * However the official Windows Vista site (http://microsoft.com/windowsvista) states that it is January 30 for consumers. This also appears in this Q&A with Sven Hallauer, "release manager and director of program management at Microsoft" and that seems to be mentioned everywhere else. It seems to me to be a typo that Paul has made or a misinterpretation along the line. Harryboyles 13:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS Stealing from Vista
I ran into an unnoticed tidbit about Apple stealing from Microsoft. And I quote (yes, directly from the site):
 * "When Microsoft first legitimized operating system based integrated desktop search back in 2003, it sounded like such a great idea that Apple jumpstarted its own efforts and was able to rush Spotlight to market as part of Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" (see my review) in 2005, a full year and a half before Vista. Too, companies like Google started shipping desktop search products to capitalize on Microsoft's tardy operating system and the huge installed base of XP users. That's what happens when you broadcast your plans and then don't follow through quickly, I guess."

Is this a trustworthy source? --Armaetin 02:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Apple has been doing "desktop search" in one regard or another since Mac OS 8.5 introduced Sherlock back in 1998. --FOo 05:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You could say the same about Windows having that good old fashioned Find tool back in, oh, 1995. --Guess Who 10:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WinSuperSite is a trustworthy source; it's Paul Thurrot's Windows Site and has been cited in this article already. Actually the system based integrated desktop search the article mentions is something relatively new. It's the idea of fast search being pervasive and integrated through the OS. There definitely wasn't anything like it in Windows or Mac OS during 1998. And yes, Microsoft did announce this back in 2003. Of course other companies came out with working products much sooner.67.166.147.5 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Sherlock was the first of the new generation of search technologies because it indexed the content of files on the hard drive. Apple was the first, as usual. Microsoft lovers, get real. Microsoft has been the source of nothing but stagnation and inflated prices for bloatware. How can intelligent people actually like this crud?