Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows Vista 64-bit editions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus to delete. Editors interested in pursuing a merge are invited to do so on the article's talk page. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh  06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista 64-bit editions

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

We already have the Windows Vista editions article covering the x86 (32-bit) versions as well as the x64 (64-bit) versions of Windows Vista. There is nothing in this article not covered in the Windows Vista editions article, nor is the x64 section in Windows Vista editions large enough to warrant a split. Anything that can be discussed about how Vista x64 is different can very well be fit in there. True, x64 versions of Windows are quite different from the x86 versions, but unless we are writing a text book for a masters course iin Operating Sustems, the differences are not that major to need a separate article. Plus there is stuff here that is not specific to Windows Vista x64 versions ("Old device drivers are particularly problematic, because they need to be rewritten in 64-bit mode"). soum talk 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are now several important documented differences in the article. None of this was in the Windows Edition article. Even if it was, it would be in the middle of the article. I think the differences are major, and are noteworthy enough for a new article. Please re-read the article. I have added some things, and they need more exposition. This article needs to grow, not be deleted. Also, it is plain to see that rewriting drivers to 64 bit is a major impediment to the adoption of 64 bit operating systems, and that this became acute when users chose Vista. In the future, as more and more people need to decide 64 vs 32 bit, this is going to become an important article. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Windows Vista 64 needs a separate article because Windows Vista editions exists to describe the different types of marketing editions -home- -premium- -ultimate- etc. There is very little in that article which describes how or why 64 bit is different. I think that trying to squeeze the 64 bit differences into that article feels unnatural to me. In other words what makes 64 bit different from 32 bit doesn't have a lot to do with why Basic is different from Unltimate. I think that the difference is profound enough to require a separate exposition.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Has a number of references currently; merging into Windows Vista editions would make it way too long. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Windows Vista editions. Neither article is particularly large --T-rex 23:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If I don't want to know about the 64-bit edition I don't want to have cluttering up the (shall we say) "parent" article. If I do want to know about it we have a precise and concise article. Other precedences can be seen with separate articles for different Linux distributions (SUSE Linux distributions).--Triwbe (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For all of the reasons that I wrote above--Marcwiki9 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the information about 64-bit editions to Windows Vista editions]. Most of the rest of the information in this article is not unique to Windows Vista, as it covers 64-bit Windows in general (the sections about WOW64, device driver compatibility, memory addressability, data execution protection -- which isn't even a feature unique to 64-bit Windows -- and so on), and should be merged into Microsoft Windows, or into Windows NT architecture.  -/- Warren 18:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me quote Warren: "most of the rest of the information in this article is not unique to Windows Vista". I would like to correct the record to state that the entire article is about the differences between the 64 bit and the 32 bit versions of Vista. I did not say that it differentiated Vista. That is plain for anyone to see. That is the point of the article. Given the way you have shouted at me that I am wrong so many times, I can truly believe that the point of the article is still escaping you. Let the readers decide. To say it again, all of those four points you write about above here are exactly included in what differentiates Vista 64 bit from 32 bit. To be more specific, hardware assisted Data Execution Prevention is Not included in the 32 bit version. Etcetera. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is astonishing for the vigor of your assertions and the unfriendly way in which you shout them and blank otherwise good pages. Refer to the talk page of the article to assess whether his knowledge of Vista 64 bit is adequate to opine on the matter. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to tell me, the person who wrote fully 75% of the Windows Vista article, and many of its sub-articles, and another dozen articles on the subject of Windows, that I have a "lack of knowledge" on the subject of Windows Vista, whereas you can't even be bothered to spell the word "kernel" correctly, than you may kindly go fuck yourself. That's really offensive, and also provably incorrect given my 2.5 year history of writing on the subject.


 * Not that being wrong has ever stopped you from yammering on, has it? Instead of carrying on with this losing argument, how about actually learning a little bit about what the hell it is you're trying to write about?  But first, let's debunk a little bit of what you've said with reliable sources:
 * You state here (and in the article) that "hardware assisted DEP is not included in the 32 bit version. MSKB 912923, which is the first google result on "hardware DEP", states: "Both 32-bit versions and 64-bit versions of Windows support hardware-enforced DEP."  ... so you are wrong.
 * You state in the article that ASLR is specific to 64-bit Windows. Mark Russinovich's three-part series on the Vista kernel makes it clear that ASLR is available in 32-bit versions of Windows ... so you are wrong again.
 * In your article on the list of incompatible 64-bit Vista applications, you assert that iTunes doesn't work. Had you been bothered to do the most utterly basic of Google searches: "itunes 64-bit", you would have seen the very first hit is HT1426 on Apple's support site, titled "64-bit editions of Windows Vista require iTunes 7.6 or later" ... so you are wrong a third time.
 * You claim in the article that Subsystem for Unix Applications is 64-bit only. No it's not -- it's included in the 32- and 64-bit variants of the Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Vista. Or is this update for 32-bit SUA in Vista just a mirage?  You claim that this is the first time Windows has supported POSIX.  No it's not -- the very first release of Windows NT, fifteen years ago, supported POSIX. Everyone with familiarity of the architectural history of Windows NT knows this.  For a fourth and fifth time, you are wrong.


 * I could carry on, since there are several other factual errors in your contributions, but I'm getting bored of telling you you're wrong.  -/- Warren 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That was really a personal attack. Profanity doesn't help, Warren. And it makes you look bad. You might have 2.5 years, but that doesn't make you a grizzled veteran, or your responses would have been more nuanced. It doesn't take much research to protect your arguments better than that. I don't want to give you advice, but I think you ought to think before speaking like that. Or blank pages without consensus.

DEP: I will give you the reference from Microsoft. It is here. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765. I think the readers should go there and read in black and white that "32 bit versions of Windows vista use a software based version of DEP".
 * additionally I would like to add that the article you quoted for DEP doesn't list Vista. The article I quoted specifically lists Vista. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

ASLR: You quote an article from a Microsoft spokesman. That is great, but Mark Russinovich didn't tell you about the testing of ASLR. When it is independently tested, it is found that ASLR on 32 bits will randomize addresses on reboot, but 64 bit will randomize on every execution. Moreover, 32 bit randomization has 8 bit granularity, giving 256 different random points. 64 bits randomizes into the huge potential address space of 64 bits. Perhaps not an earth shattering advantage, but a hacker that wins one out of 256 times can still gain hidden or overt control of a compromised system, especially if he repeats the attack more than 256 times. see http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/2006/10/04/Alleged-Bugs-in-Windows-Vista_1920_s-ASLR-Implementation.aspx see http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:MRtZZSED-EUJ:www.ntcore.com/Files/vista_x64.htm+address+space+layout+randomization+vista+64&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us

Itunes doesn't work: That is not part of this article. It is part of a beginning of another article that we all agree was badly thought out and should be deleted. Bringing it up here is not helpful to this discussion. Please try to keep it on topic.

Subsystem for Unix: Oops. You're right. I misread my source. The claim was the existence of a new 64 bit subsystem for Unix, not the first subsystem. I am sorry and I will delete that from the original article.

Thank you for taking the time, but please keep it more civil.

I sincerely hope that best decision is made by this AfD consensus.

I really believe this article ought to exist, and that it should be made as excellent as possible.

--Marcwiki9 (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment, Still none of that is specific to Vista x64. Some (like KPP) were already in XP x64. Others will be there in Win7 x64. If at all, the article should be Windows x64 editions, not Windows Vista x64 editions. And the two 64-bit systems supported by Windows (x64 and Itanium) should be differentiated. --soum talk 14:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * We have had article x64 Edition since January of 06. It is odd that no one attempted to delete it. It is a very very tiny one sentence article. You are right that these technologies aren't unique to Vista, But this Article as I wrote it was supposed to be about Vista 64 bit edition. Anyway, my hope was that this article would satisfy the search for Vista 64 bit edition when people are looking for it. I wasn't really dedicated to exposition on the need for X64 as implemented in server 2003 or XP, or itanium for that matter. I am a little bit suprised, now that you mention it, that List_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions doesn't include the itanium version of windows, as it is a separate system. Here is the link http://www.microsoft.com/servers/64bit/itanium/overview.mspx Microsoft has in the biggest letters on the page x86x64 is not equal to Itanium. Thanks for commenting.


 * Keep It is important to have a separate article that just highlights the differences, and not clutter up the excellent Windows Vista Editions article. Also I don't know about others but I find the personal attacks to be unnecessary so please let's stick to the goal here of creating great articles, and avoid tearing eachother down.  Thanks...  --BigalbinoNerd (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. An account created to just vote and speak out against personal attack? Something odd might be brewing here. --soum talk 14:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. The article is a complete mess, unreadable to the layman and an annoyance to the expert. Any saveable facts, specific to Windows, and not written like an advert or magazine review, can be merged, as it doesn't look like there is going to be much not already included. MickMacNee (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it is a mess. But that means that WP:UGLY applies. In other words, messyness is not a reason to delete. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, the fact it is a mess is what actually obscures the fact that the amount of usable content is mergeable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge. MickMacNee just stated the conclusion I reached after reading this entry. Leaving advert/review type material aside, there isn't much of substance to say that is uniquely interesting about Windows Vista 64-bit architecture support. We benefit more from having the few interesting facts merged into the parent articles. Merzul (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please see Windows XP editions. There is plenty of room for Windows Vista editions to expand. Merzul (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

comment Your link is exaclty the kind of exposition of the type that I was hoping for here in the Vista section. However, there has been a bunch of points being made here and in other places that are, in effect, what about (choose your option) [xp, xp edition, xp 64, vista, vista edition, windows, *nix, *nix 64] etcetera. As you can see, all of these articles are violative of WP:WAX. As such, they are fallacious arguments. This article, if notable (and nobody has even questioned that), should stand or fall on its own. Why Vista is different is because Vista 64 bits is the first Windows edition that is marketed to consumers. Why? because XP 64 professional is, by it's own name, not for consumers. XP 64 is for Itanium, which is not for consumers. So now we have this new type of thing, Vista 64 bits, being marketed to consumers, with home editions, media center and all. There are going to be millions of people who must decide which one to pick (64 bit or 32 bit). Up until now, there is no where to go for a NPOV opinion. Believe me, I tried. Wikipedia did not have this info. Google did not help. Microsoft's description did not help or point out what would and wouldn't work.

Most people here who have opined on the matter have, I am quite sure, for the most part, not experienced the issues of actually installing and running and using Vista 64 bits. You have people claiming "it is the same system with compiler options changed", as if it was a simple matter of choice with no ramifications. Nothing could be further from the truth when you actually buy it and, oops, the Audigy card does not work!! (It does not). And then, oops, your motherboard doesn't have drivers. I haven't even gotten into all of the Nforce 3 boards that utterly fail for Vista 64, even though they have a 64 bit processor. Nforce 3 will run *nix 64 until the cows come home. They fail on the Vista drivers that will not and cannot be updated. How many of you actually knew that? It is really not simple at all. XP 64 professional did not have media center.

Morever, the arguments here have been sidetracked by a bunch of ridiculous assertions delivered with a boatload of scorn, making it difficult to make any actual progress. There have been boatloads of violations of WP:NPA and etiquette. I am not reporting anybody because everyone makes mistakes, and Warren is obviously a very valuable and recognized Wikipedian, but trying to squish the newbie is obviously bad.

This article was listed as AfD. Even so, there has not been one vote to delete. Even by the original nominator. Soum listed it for deletion after this notification by Warren:User_talk:Soumyasch. As you can see, this almost created a wp:3rr puppet. Soum wisely declined, but even he knows, I am sure, that nom for deletion was wrong. It should have been nom for merge. Nom for deletion seems like a violation of good faith.

As you can see on this page Deletion policy the reasons for merge are [short, unlikely to grow, duplicates]. This is none of them. If the XP 64 section described above is any guide, this article can grow quite large.

It sure seems like this has grown to a mountain out of a molehill, but the personal attacks made it difficult to be NPOV about the whole thing.

--Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Take it easy, and yes, Warren should try to be kinder. However, note that people can nominate for deletion with the intention that the material is integrated elsewhere. Also, a nominator may be completely wrong... These things are a completely normal parts of the article maintenance process here at Wikipedia. Instead of taking this deletion discussion personally, I suggest you work together with the others to get this material integrated into the main article. Also, it would indeed be good if more experienced Wikipedians here worked with you, rather than against you. From my quick reading of the above, you do seem to know this topic well. Merzul (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merzul, tell me why I should work with someone who comes onto Wikipedia, refuses to work on our existing corpus of articles on the subject of Windows Vista, preferring instead to create their own articles (one of which has been deleted), and then tells one of Wikipedia's most active contributors on the subject (me) that they don't know what they're talking about?  Half the information he's submitted is provably incorrect, too, which is damaging to the overall quality of the encyclopedia.   Warren -talk- 21:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep an important enough aspect of major software for a separate article. DGG (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * DGG, does it make sense to keep this article, in light of the fact that most of the information in the article is not actually specific to 64-bit editions of Windows Vista? The issues discussed also apply to 64-bit Windows XP, 64-bit Windows Server 2003, and especially 64-bit Windows Server 2008, which is based on exactly the same kernel.  If we want to talk about things that are new to the 64-bit edition of Vista, we have a series of Features new to Windows Vista articles.  If we want to talk about things that cover the whole line of 64-bit Windows articles, we have Microsoft Windows (which already discusses the progression of Windows in terms of CPU architecture) and Windows NT architecture.  If we want to talk about releases of Windows Vista, we have Windows Vista editions.  Basically everything that's presented in this article belongs elsewhere, so why duplicate the information?   Warren -talk- 21:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.