Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista

Out of Date

This whole article is out of date. Every single source cited has been published before the actual build date of the final build of Windows Vista. This article should be deleted and rewritten, or be given a complete overhaul. -- Stacman 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i hate to be a sour-sob but i think most of the "critisims" on this page have been delt with in later builds Eevo 12:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just rewritten the section on digital rights management. Most of the sources cited in that section are very recent ones (barely a few days ago). --Renegade Lisp 11:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

DRM

"... and even if it is, Microsoft will not be the only vendor enforcing support, as Digital Rights Management is largely decided by content providers, not platform providers.[5]"

The provided reference seems to be an opinion article and I couldn't find anything to support the claim that "DRM is largely decided by content providers, not platform providers." I think rather than claiming that DRM is decided by content providers, it would be more appropriate to end that sentence with the names of a few other vendors enforcing support. For example, are Apple doing the same thing? - James Foster 06:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that in the US, most DRM is used in a way that technically violates several laws (fair use, backup, use with alternate devices, etc.), so in that context, this argument is correct. I think it's safe to say that Microsoft would not be bothering with the complexities of DRM if not pushed to it by the content providers. Finding references may take some effort, though; it's been several months since I saw a good article on that subject. --Scott McNay 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Windows Vista Team Blog post (20 Questions and Answers) basically confirms most of Gutmann's paper, no? 71.249.33.52 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that above comment was by me. I forgot to sign in. :) LCS 01:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• DRM is the lamest concept anyone ever came up with, pirating stuff is tricky enough as it is without people actively trying to stop it 172.141.138.207 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Although Paul Smith has written a response to Gutmann's paper, I do not believe it refutes the paper, rather it supports some of the things Gutmann says (if you look carefully enough). 71.249.33.52 23:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC) / LCS 23:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC) (Sorry, that was me. I forgot to sign in.)

Hmm...

"However, this is not to say the criticism does not have basis. After all, to say that Microsoft started to work on something before Apple released it is not to say they started working on it first. For example the first working demo of spotlight was June 28, 2004, meaning developement must have begun long before that date."

I'm not sure this bit sound encylopedic; I can't really pin down what it *does* sound like, but it doesn't sounds like I'm reading the World Book or something of that nature. I dunno, it comes off as a little snarky. I'm going to be bold and remove it, as I feel that snarkiness has no place in an encylopedia.--IndigoAK200 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

new restrictions

Microsoft announced, ...

• users have to buy a new vista license, if the hardware has been changed after the last upgrade.
  • this is quite controvertial. Check the www.winsupersite.com for two opinions about this issue. The problem is that enthusiasts are the only people afected by this problem (if you buy a PC with Windows Vista, there is no need to authenticate), and I can't understand how is MS protecting their market by enforcing such limitation on a 5% market share. Would someone please care to explain? --Pinnecco 13:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's also been retracted: [1] [2]. Now, you can move Vista to a new computer an unlimited number of times and upgrade an unlimited number of times, as long as your copy is only installed on one device at a time. 86.20.195.124 10:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Vista will no longer give the ability to be run in a Virtual Machine environment.
  • This is license-wise though, and both Enterprise and Ultimate editions licensing will allow to run as gues OS on a VM. You can perfectly disregard this licensing issue if you wish to / don't care to. --Pinnecco 13:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the MS page that I looked at indicated that the two-copies rule only applies with an Enterprise license; if you upgrade from Enterprise to Ultimate, you still have the Enterprise-granted second copy. If you upgrade from anything else to Ultimate, you are still stuck with a single copy, so you still have to buy another to use in a VM. --Scott McNay 03:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• even on a activated one, Vista will regulary run the "validation feature". If Vista detects an invalid validation, it'll lock some features. (those are currently not named)

(source: http://www.gamestar.de/news/software/windows_vista/1465365/windows_vista.html) --84.171.98.123 11:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

MS is allowing retail buyers to move Vista install

In response to the criticism, it appears MS is allowing it. check here: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx --70.55.214.162 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Too biased

This doesn't mention any type of responses from MS.

Similarity to Mac OS X

Could someone explain how Aero looks anything like Mac OSX? Thanks... - Nö†$®åM 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The general criticism is that Vista incorporates features that are currently included in the latest versions of OSX. The argument, of course, is flawed, in that said features were present in other operating systems before they were in OSX. The article thus needs to be changed to sound less like "Microsoft is copying Apple", and more like "Microsoft and Apple both incorporate these features". cacophony ◄► 21:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The file browser that you get when downloading things looks a lot like the file browser under GNOME, i forget the name 172.141.138.207 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the "Mac OSX" section in this article sounds a lot different than the one in the main article Windows Vista.

I just removed a section from the Mac OS X section that was inserted to try and defend Vista against the criticisms by noting what features are brand new. I saw no reason to leave it, as this article is in place simply to outline existing criticisms, not discuss how fair or reasonable said criticisms may or may not be. jonny-mt 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kernel Patch Protection

I moved the part about PatchGuard to the Kernel Patch Protection page because PatchGuard is not new to Windows Vista. It has been around since Windows XP x64. I will expand the Kernel Patch Protection article when I have time. ---Remember the dot 07:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

Windows 20XX = year based naming scheme of server products? Why not all products?213.240.234.212 19:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is 100% up to the whims of the Microsoft merketing department. --Scott McNay 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

BadVista.org

FSF launches campaign against Microsoft Vista: [3] -- mms 13:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Security bug

Security bug affecting Windows Vista kernel (as well previous Windows version 2000, XP, 2003) was identified by accident on Russian developers forum on December 15, 2006 6 weeks before worldwide retail availability.. But Microsoft has downplayed risks of this issue prompting users to install firewalls, anti-virus, anti-spyware software that has nothing to do with this bug, dispute underground hackers were offering exploit for sale on internet for $50,000. This issue adds more skepticism on Microsoft Trustworthy Computing initiative launched in 2002.

Sure - this is violation of NPOV as it's Criticism section. But it's impossible to not mention this - as Vista is claimed by Microsoft as "Windows Vista is our most secure platform to date" [4]. Current security section is all about bad anti-piracy features nobody (expected pirates and Microsoft) must care and bad cooperation of Microsoft and anti-virus vendors (that sounds as advertisement for those anti-virus companies - dispute Antivirus_software#Issues_of_concern is not mentioned). It's a must to talk about actual Vista security as this is something that matter. If you feel that current text is NPOV violation - rewrite it, but do not delete. Even NY Times talk about this [5]. It's important bug - as it's takes only one ActiveX control to be downloaded from evil website to get SYSTEM privileges or at least crash your PC / Terminal server with BSOD. --TAG 07:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, discovered flaws don't automatically qualify as criticism. The mere fact of the existance of a security vulnerability isn't really all that noteworthy, even if the marketing spiel is saying "most secure platform to date". There were, after all, security vulnerabilities found during the CTP and beta stages, and few made a big deal out of that. Second of all, as editors, it's not our responsibility to decide what counts as criticism; we have to seek out and report on what critical commentary other people are making. The New York Times article you noted, for example, is not a critical analysis of Windows Vista. If you don't agree, I encourage you to read the Wikipedia article on critic, and consider what the word really means. Notice how a lot of the criticism stated in this article has been attributed to actual people and groups, who are engaging in "the activity of judgement or informed interpretation" (to quote critic). We don't invent the criticism ourselves, or even correlate several related pieces of information and draw a conclusion from it -- some reliable source must do all that for us. -/- Warren 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for WP guidelines on criticism. I feel that's possible to quote NY Times article like this one “When vendors say a program has been completely rewritten, it doesn’t mean that it’s more secure from the get-go. My expectation is we will see a whole rash of Vista bugs show up in six months or a year.” by Nand Mulchandani (Vice President at Determina) and also note that there are already bug identified by Russian developer that remained from previous versions of Windows (it's already established fact - for a references go to Bugtraq mailing list). --TAG 10:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That quote from the security software vendor isn't a criticism -- it's analysis of possible future events. It also shows a clear bias as someone hawking a security product -- Determina benefit financially from making Windows sound insecure. That operating systems have bugs hardly counts as criticism meriting much space in the encyclopedia... it's just how things are. For example, Mac OS X v10.4 had hundreds of bugs that were fixed in the first few point releases afterwards, but it isn't discussed in any great detail. If those bugs result in major problems, exploitation, and news coverage, then yes, it's absolutely fine to cover it in Wikipedia. We have a whole article on the Windows Metafile vulnerability, and the security section of Criticism of Windows XP is pretty focused on stuff that happened that can be subsequently criticised, not potential problems. -/- Warren 14:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. You decide best. But in my opinion - all this rush for "Secure By Design" and other PR issues and bugs are incompatible (and Microsoft benefit from OS sound as secure). People must be aware that there ARE BUGS in Vista - it's a fact. Just like in any other OS. --TAG 17:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Setup Process

Has there been any improvment made to the setup process for Windows Vista ??? 87.112.12.166 22:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• yes it needs a lot less input from the user and seems to format/partition the hard drive more efficiently, also the install process is all graphical, none of that 16-colour DOS nostalgia stuff, very smooth 172.141.138.207 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• some of us liked the DOS nostalgia stuff, but it is a lot smoother and faster 172.212.27.3 16:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hardware Requirements

I dont know why people are complaining that the hardware reqs for running vista to its full capacity are so high, thats just the way it goes, you cant expect to get stunning graphics on a crappy pc. runs fine at full whack on my pc anyway, thats AMD Athlon 64 @ 2.0GHz and 1Gb cheap generic RAM and a mid-low range GFX card, although it could stand to be a bit faster 172.141.138.207 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.138.207 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Because other systems with similar or better feature sets are running on much, much older systems. Compositing Window Managers, such as Beryl, are running on machines Vista would not, and are much more advanced graphics-wise, and OSX is running on machines 4 years old. 124.197.55.72 07:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Will Marshall

Linux is generally better at management of resources (and having lower system requirements) than Windows. true, a newer computer like that (a64, 1 GB RAM) should run it fine, but anything under 1GHz proc or 1 Gig ram, and it lags a log (not to mention the aero interface lags the system when the hardware requirements are not there... Dashboardy 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about drivers?

There are also many divers that are noot compatible with vista. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.168.198 (talk) 05:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

That would be an issue with the driver provider, not Windows Vista. Paul Cyr 17:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Speech-recognition exploit

I added a brief section regarding the "shout hack" security exploit found recently in Vista, which was... ah... quickly removed, the rationale being that this is not a problem specific to Vista, any OS with speech-recognition has this problem. I realize this, but I also think that Vista is the first OS where a large portion of personal computers may be vunerable to such an attack, not to mention that this vunerability warranted enough attention to be headline news for quite some time (PCWorld, Slashdot, and Google News all had at least one article about it). Should this section be returned to the article? (I would've made this a survey, but I don't know how.) Sloverlord 16:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I am Placing a Nutrality Disputed Banner on this Page because I feel that some of the Similaritys Betwenn OSX are not written in a neutral Point of view. 68.173.12.180 22:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag since you haven't given any specific reasons. Paul Cyr 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have renamed the "Detractors" to "Critics". "Detractor" alleges ill-will on the side of the critic. The thesaurus on http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/detractor mentions "mud-slinger","hypercritic","nitpicker","reviler" etc....all in all a very unpleasant person. --136.172.253.189 19:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting some previous edits but wanted to keep yours, however I changed it from "Critics" to "Opposition" since the comments in favour were listed as "Supporters". Paul Cyr 22:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Paul Cyr reversions

This article was reverted via popups without discussion of my edits so a neutrality designation is apt as is the reversion as my edits are referenced reliabialy.

Zubenzenubi 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Move along, nothing to see here. Paul Cyr 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If Zubenzenubi doesn't respond to the linked discussion about this issue by 23:00, on the 25th of April, I'm going to revert his changes. Do any other contributers have anything to add? Paul Cyr 18:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not satisfied with the word "Opposition" or "opponents". "Opposition" actually says that I don't like something while "criticism" tries to point out actual flaws. This is evident if you read the sentence "Scientist X opposes scientist Y findings". This can be true even if X never uttered a word referencing the work (and that would be formally inacceptable because it flatly denies contradictory evidence). If the sentence "Scientist X criticizes scientist Y findings" it is clear that the methods or conclusions are attacked even when X agrees with Y conclusions. If e.g. X and Y think that astrology is bogus, X can still attack Y if Y uses faulty data and logical fallacies to argue against astrology. Nitpicking, but still POV. --136.172.253.189 13:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. But keeping the other side as "supporters" doesn't seem semantically correct. Any suggestions? Paul Cyr 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest "Notable critics" as headline because all examples have specific persons and organisations as sources and "Reactions" instead "supporters" because they give a specific response to Gutmanns arguments. --136.172.253.189 22:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How about just removing the headings altogether? -/- Warren 17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Formulation

The quote "We need answers, not questions" by Jack Evans sound too much emotional. Therefore it is not objective. An Wikipedia article should try to avoid ANY emotional content and try to be completely objective.

This quote comes from this sentence : "We still have not received the guidance we're seeking. In July, we received a formal list of questions, but no answers about what specific concerns the Commission has, or how we should address them. We need answers, not questions."

Since the sentence "we need answers, not questions" contains absolutely NO informational content, I deleted this sentence.

Alrik Fassbauer 14:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gaming/application performance

For the discussion see Windows Vista talk: Gaming/application performance... I have listed several sources comparing performance in Windows Vista (RTM) with performance in Windows XP SP2. I think it is more than worthy of note. If the consensus is that this is a good idea, I will make an attempt at it. Dashboardy 21:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to put these scores in context though. Were comparing a relatively new operating system (Vista is what 3-4 months old now?) on first-generation drivers. Everything that is used to support your system's hardware is either first-release, or still beta. And were comparing this to an operating system that has been around for 5-6 years, with drivers that have had time to get the bugs worked out and enchance features. Even more, the iceberg hasn't even been cracked into that is Vista's power. DX10 is on the horizon. I wanna see this test redone when DX10 is released and there is Vista support for 2nd or 3rd generation drivers. If the results are the same, then I'll agree that Vista's a waste. But before you do, i suggest the bashing stop on the system —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xatticus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

I do see your point and I wasn't really suggesting a "bashing" as you have so simply put it. I do think it is a relevant issue, as many gamers have thought that moving to Windows vista combined with a DX10 capable card is a good gaming option - this is hardly the case at this point. If this were to be implemented into the article, it would have to make mention of the fact that the drivers are not yet completed by any stretch of the imagination. I do think Vista will eventually surpass XP in gaming performance - XP has done so with 2000 so there's no reason to think otherwise. I do agree that if a more recent test is performed (with ATI drivers as they have non-beta vista drivers) but with DX10 cards, it should be used. Perhaps we should wait a bit until there are recent tests with the latest drivers. Dashboardy 20:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft's insistence on "Vista exclusive" software products

I'm not sure if this belongs here or in Criticism of Microsoft, but there's been considerable disquiet about how many forthcoming software releases from Microsoft and affiliated publishers are going to be Vista exclusives, the game Halo 2 being one prominent example. They seem to be trying to push people, gamers in particular, into upgrading to Vista in a way that they never did with Windows XP. 217.34.39.123 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, that's probably because DirectX 8 which came with XP, was a "simple" successor to DirectX 7, using much of the same base code. However, with DirectX 10 in Vista, it was a complete re-write of the base code and engines. So the effects available with DirectX 10 can not be done with DX9 (the last upgrade of DX for XP), so making games compatible with DX9 would require substantial effort. If you can get a few reputable sources giving notable criticisms of this (i.e. for reasons beyond the technical limitations) then let's take a look. Paul Cyr 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I suppose the crux of the criticism is not that these games aren't being brought out for XP, but that DirectX 10 isn't being brought out for XP (or Windows 2000, assuming that is still supported).

Is the compatibility issue that big of a deal for developers anyway? Currently, a lot of games support both OpenGL and DirectX, and in the somewhat distant past it wasn't unknown for 3dfx's Glide to be supported as well as those two. 217.155.20.163 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the technical aspect. The games aren't written for "DirectX", they are written for "DirectX Version 9". So the same API calls they make for DX9 are different or non-existent in DX10. DX10 changed so much of the graphics in Vista (for the OS itself) that it would make no sense porting it to XP. Porting something so integrated into the OS is a lot different to something built on top of the OS otherwise the same argument could be made for a lot of Vista's main features. Paul Cyr 21:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what they're saying is that there's no reason that maintaining backends for both of DX9 and DX10 should be any harder than maintaining them for DX and OpenGL, as many developers have in the past. --71.197.67.138 10:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Except as I explained, there is a reason, a valid reason. Paul Cyr 17:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't quite managed to follow your argument here. What is this "valid reason"? I think I lost you with this quote:

"DX10 changed so much of the graphics in Vista (for the OS itself) that it would make no sense porting it to XP"

and I think you need to explain this a little further. In what way would it not make sense? The way I see it, DirectX (of whatever version) is a graphics API similar in purpose to OpenGL, and of course OpenGL isn't specific to any particular operating system. It runs on Windows (any version), Linux, GNU/Hurd, Mac, FreeBSD, BeOS, whatever. The fact that DirectX 10 is radically different from DirectX 9 isn't relevant to this argument - the fact that Microsoft have made it exclusive to Windows Vista is.

I also fail to see how this is an issue for software developers, given that many of them currently produce games that can be made to run under either DirectX or OpenGL at the click of a radio button. "Porting" games to other systems and APIs has never been an issue for developers in the past, so why is it suddenly a problem now? 217.155.20.163 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me simplify: to port DX10 to XP would require significant time from MS developers, and since Time=Money, since DX10 is such an important selling point, MS doesn't feel spending any money on porting it would be justifiable. Paul Cyr 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh-kay... and that negates my original point how, exactly? DX10 is obviously going to be an "important selling point" for Vista if it means that XP users are locked out of playing the latest PC games - that was the whole point of the criticism in the first place. I guess I was hoping for you to explain how this is an utterly unsurmountable technical issue that is unprecedented in the history of Windows, and how it isn't just a cunning ploy for Bill Gates to become even more of a billionaire and monopolist than he already is. 217.155.20.163 01:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, MS can't create new products that are such an upgrade that they are not compatible with previous versions? They must either restrict their development, or offer new OSes for free? Cause that's what I'm getting from what you're saying. Paul Cyr 01:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can create new products that do whatever they want them to do. What I'm disputing, in essence, is the idea that it isn't legitimate to criticise them for lack of backwards compatibility, when backwards compatibility has in fact been very important in the history of Windows (and DOS) and that of operating systems in general. When Windows 98 came out, Windows 95 users weren't led to think "Oh shit, I have to buy the new one right now, or else Quake IIaVii might not work" or whatever. Microsoft could easily have made new DirectX updates, or IE4 (a radical update to IE3, with Active Desktop and so forth), exclusive to 98, but they did not do so. Similarly with XP vs. 98 - it was taken for granted that 98 would still be supported for at least a couple of years (which it was), both by Microsoft and by third-party developers. Yet even before Vista hit the shelves, there was already talk of Vista-exclusive games, and suggestions that DirectX 10 would never be made available for XP. 217.155.20.163 01:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)' So they can create new products that do whatever they want them to do, as long as they ensure that the product is available to previous versions of Windows, regardless of the resources required or damage to a main selling point for the new product? Like I understand what you're saying, but it comes a point where the effort is too great and the result is too damaging to the new product for it to be justifiable, and to complain about it without understanding the reasons (not that you are) is rediculous. Paul Cyr 01:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DirectX 10 relies heavily on WDDM, which IIRC a rewrite of the GDI. Porting it would take massive effort, require the replacement of core stuff, and would probably break heaps of other stuff. It's just not worth the effort, and it takes time and resources away from other places that need it more. Besides, DX10 doesn't stop software companies from releasing for DX9 or openGL. -MarkKB 13:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Blunt Revisions Unwarranted

I have reverted a user User:Paul_Cyr who gave notice that (s)he was going to revert after a specific time!!. No justification was given for this reversion except to assert a supposed superior view of the topic and the reversion was so blunt as to remove a discussion of OEM disquiet. All validly cited pertinent information is relevant even if it conflicts with the world view of an individual user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubenzenubi (talk • contribs) 10:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I gave you 2 days to respond. Two of us have agreed that the changes you want are not appropriate. You chose not to even try to address our concerns. Paul Cyr 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is the OEM issue is significant. It's clear evidence of the Criticism of Vista, and I think belongs here. What's the rationale on removing the DELL entry? peterl 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If it is clear evidence, surely you can provide a proper source regarding this issue and clearly stating it as a criticism of Vista. Then provide evidence as to why it is notable. Paul Cyr 01:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Since it was originally posted the OEM issue has had mainstream referencing including citing http://news.com.com/Dell+brings+back+XP+on+home+systems/2100-1046_3-6177619.html "Dell brings back XP on home systems". My edits are not POV.

Continuing removal of this reference to OEM disquiet is not in accord with Wikipedia principles of fair and accurate commenting, as relevant accurate sources are cited. If as a Microsoft evangalist, based on your profile, you continue to block and revert then you can be blocked from editing.

Zubenzenubi 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a proper source. It's mainstream media, it's clear and verifiable. As for the need for it to 'clearly state' that it's a criticism: it doesn't need to say 'here it is: a criticism'. It's criticism; it doesn't have to say it's criticism. Why is it notable? One of the largest PC manufacturers goes back to an older operating system because of consumer demand? That's notable. peterl 23:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that users want Windows XP (the evil they know) instead of Vista (the evil they don't know), is a criticism of Vista? That's what Paul is getting at... what's the specific criticism of Vista here? Yes, it has to be explicit in being critical. You as a Wikipedian cannot make that judgement on your own. The linked news.com article has an analyst offering a sound-bite opinion that Vista might not be "resonating with customers", but the article provides nothing further to back up that assertion. Any decent criticism should be expressed in more than a single sentence! Most of the rest of the article riffs on "this isn't a big deal, this is normal, this is expected." Because of these two things, it really isn't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it doesn't pass the "undue weight" consideration of WP:NPOV.

If someone wants to find something more concrete than sound-bite opinioneering on the part of an analyst to back up the assertion that there is "disquiet" amongst OEMs regarding Vista, let's see it. Paul Cyr's problem with the text is that it was making statements well beyond what was supported by the article. -/- Warren 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. And what's interesting, when you take out the personal opinion (saying it's because of hardware requirements which the article doesn't mention) and give it more neutral wording, it doesn't read as a criticism at all. More of a, consumers wanted XP, consumers got XP. Doesn't really criticize Vista now does it? Since those users may have wanted XP for the sole reason that they were used to it. But that's just speculation, which should not be included. Paul Cyr 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with the version now. It's something that is relevant to the topic and is now presented. Thank you. peterl 06:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to "Anything anyone with a semi-professional website says that could be negative about Windows Vista"

Since that's what it seems the article is becoming. Last time I checked this article was supposed to be notable criticisms about Vista. You know, things important enough to be discribed as a problem or issue by multiple reputable news sources... not a single website with an Alexa ranking less than 27,000 and has lost 36% of its viewers in the last 3 months... that is not reputable period, let alone to be a single source for this "criticism". Paul Cyr 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to keep it to verifiable criticisms before looking at notability. Otherwise, we're potentially limiting it to "criticism of Windows Vista in huge old-school commercial media outlets that are potentially looking to Bill Gates for major-league advertising revenue". In which case, the article would be precisely 0 words long.

Notability, while important to Wikipedia, should be used carefully, as it is a fairly nebulous and volatile thing that can be used to spin an article in any of a number of different directions. And I'm frankly astonished that you should seek to dismiss citations from websites with an Alexa ranking as high as 27,000 - just to give one example, the website for The Spectator, one of the most important and influential political magazines in the United Kingdom, has an Alexa ranking of 147,109. 217.155.20.163 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Right but The Spectator has more to go on than just it's Alexa ranking. The website I was refering to turned up no significant results in Google, and didn't seem to have much in the way of third-party references. It's some Joe's personal site, and the only information I could find were Alexa rankings. And when that's all you have, a ranking below 27,000 is definately not enough. Paul Cyr 01:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you've literally nothing but the Alexa ranking to go on, then fair enough. I'm just wary of using factors such as Alexa rankings to dismiss otherwise cast-iron sources. 217.155.20.163 01:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and I wouldn't have used Alexa if I had more to go on. That said, only having an Alexa ranking to go on kinda speaks to the reliablilty of the source itself ;). Paul Cyr 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

CD DVD Burning defaults

A criticism about the default behavior of the inbuilt burning software in Vista, that is factual is certainly a noteable criticism. The fact that it discriminates against most users, who click through routinely is worthy of note if it serves to disadvantage them in sharing their data. Criticism of the individual and the website, who highlighted the issue, as irrelevant and speculating that this is not a worthy source is disingenuous. It is "shooting the messenger", rather than addressing the facts. Please address the issue rather than attempting to trash the source. Your "Proposed move .." comment is inappropriate and do not justify your placing of "content" twice in the article. Zubenzenubi 11:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A good source is a requirement of inclusion. It is not disingenuous, it is policy. I take it you do not have any justifications for the provide source to be considered a proper source? My blog is not a proper source, and neither is some site with a lower traffic ranking than an already established bad source... unless of course you think we should include anything anyone with a semi-professional website says that could be negative about Windows Vista Paul Cyr 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what you are saying, but if you are implying that I am not citing proper sources. Consider:

If you do a straight search in Google for:

"fsf.org" you get 698,000 hits "groklaw.net" 129,000 hits

By comparison some minor specialised commercial sites; "vmware.com" 880,000 hits "mcafee.com" 1,010,000 hits

while the mega-site is

"en.wikipedia.org" 239,000,000 hits

Accordingly the significance of the sites that refer to the vista criticisms are not minor or trivial peripheral locations but have registered significantly in search engine rankings.

Accordingly you should remove the "content" tags from the article.

Zubenzenubi 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So, as it turns out, all this time, you didn't know what policies are on reliable sources? And you're telling me what's what? o_0 Go read WP:RS then come back when you understand. If I'm going to be nice enough to try to resolve this issue with you, I would have hoped you would actually know what you're talking about in this matter. And I will most certainly not remove the tags. I may not be allowed to revert-war with you, but I can most definately tag the content as disputed. Paul Cyr 00:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

---Civilised editing needed--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zubenzenubi (talk • contribs)

You are being patronising in your comments and are being uncivil and insulting in stating "If I'm going to be nice enough.." and that "you would actually know what you're talking about". Civilised behaviour is axiomatic and your statements are unacceptable and contrary to the fundamental editorial principle of assuming good faith. There is no heirarchy of editorial contribution to wikipedia. Anybody can edit provided they conform to citing per
WP:V which states inter alia;
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.
Your edits engage in original research by listing badvista.fsf.org as bad source in your posting of 13:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC). This is your viewpoint and calling a prominent website a "bad source" is contrary to Neutral point of view policy. My edits conform by citing reliably; accordingly the 'content' flags should be removed. Zubenzenubi 01:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

First to your point on manners: someone who engages in personal attacks such as yourself should not be upset that I'm not to cheery that you've been arguing over policies that you apparently have not read. My comments have not had anything to do with good faith. Good faith means that I think you are trying to be honest with your edits, not whether or not I think you know what you are talking about in regards to policies.

Second to the comment on verifabilty: you'll also note that the part you quoted from WP:V gives a link to the policy on reliable sources (read it yet?).

Third to your comment on original research: once again I suggest you read the applicable policy before refering to it. Original research is article content, not my opinion.

And lastly to your comment on the reliablility of your source: the burden of proof is on you to show that your source is reliable, not me, and I have yet to see you put anything forward that Richard Rasker's personal website is a sufficient and reliable source for this to be a valid and notable criticism of Vista. Paul Cyr 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dell's offering of Windows XP

Although this section does have a reliable source, I don't believe this warrents inclusion in this article. Although Dell's decision and some of the quotes are not positive, the actions and comments are not in themselves criticisms. Nothing mentions anything about Vista that has caused customers to stick with XP, just that they have. If it was something like "If it was -- customers said they didn't like UAC in Vista and wanted XP instead" then it would be valid. But customers prefering one OS over another is definately not a criticism, and including it here is POV. Paul Cyr 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This statement cited by a reliable source in the article;

"That there is remaining demand from some segment of (the) consumer market points to the inability of Vista to resonate with consumers,"

is without doubt a direct criticism of Vista. To suggest that this is not relevant to the article entitled "Criticism of Windows Vista" is incredible. The 'content' tag is ridiculous and will be removed.

Zubenzenubi 01:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you have not answered my concerns and are only pushing your point of view, I've reverted your edits. Paul Cyr 02:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

==

Dell's decision to re-offer XP is an implicit declaration of criticism of Vista by Dell's end users. Dell listened to their customers who criticised Vista. Dell did not state all the reasons but their actions speak. Users do not prefer one OS over another for frivilous reasons. Their concerns as reacted to by Dell are direct criticisms. I have pointed this out consistently.

To suggest as you state of me that, "you have not answered my concerns" is incredible as it shows your "concerns" are your POV. To engage in hypotethical comment "customers said they didn't like --" is 100% original research and not in accord with WP:NPOV Your continuing reversion of valid reliable cited facts based on your stated "my concerns" is your POV propagation of "my concerns" and is not in accord with Wikipedia principles WP:NPOV. Zubenzenubi 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Since you can't attribute your implications to a source, they will remain out of the articles. Paul Cyr 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

If you aren't willing to discuss the issue, then edit warring will get you blocked. Paul Cyr 00:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• • All of my asertions are backed up by reliable citations per WP:NPOV described earlier in this discussion. Your reversions to this article using popups without discussion here, is a scattergun approach and it is you who should anticipate blocking.

Where is your rationale for removing the CD burning isue? Where is your rationale for reinserting the 'content' tag on the Dell XP offering? You have most recently made these two reversions without discussion. One is the removal of the valid CD burning issue and the other is the reinsertion of the 'content' tag despite my discussion of this yet again. Your sole contribution has been to threaten another editor. Your actions are contrary to wikipedia policy. You obviously have a POV which you are propagating in contravention of WP:NPOV Zubenzenubi 23:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You stopped discussing the issue and proceeded to remove the content tags, that's what the above warning was for. I am not going to justify my actions when the burden of proof is on you to show how the CD/DVD Burning issue is properly sourced. As for the Dell issue, I gave my opinion, waiting a week for you to respond, and removed it accordingly since previous editors had sided with my position, to which you immediately reverted. I'm not going rosey dosey with you since you are not acting on good faith by refusing to discuss but willing to revert, even by using sockpuppets. I have asked a few other editors to come and voice their opinion. Of course, it's not like you seem to care about consensus. Paul Cyr 23:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • I have repeatedly emphasised my sources and you have chosen to ignore them. You even refered incorrectly to a non-existent Rasker's blog.

I have discussed. You have ignored and are accusing me of bad faith edits. Why have you removed the CD burning issues which, contrary to your statement is adequately and reliably cited as in [6] All of my edits have been discussed and cited correctly. Your contributions are inconsistent. What are you saying about sockpuppetry. Who are the other editor[s]. Zubenzenubi 00:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Since we appear to be moving in circles, I am going to proceed with dispute resolution process WP:RfC. Paul Cyr 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Dell's offering Windows XP and CD/DVD Burning issue

This is a dispute about whether Dell's offering Windows XP and the CD/DVD burning issue deserve inclusion in this article. 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Although the Dell issue is attributed to a reliable source, the claim that it is a critisicm is not. Although you could imply negative things about Vista in light of some customers choosing XP over it, it is not does fall under criticism that this article covers. Someone saying that this is not a good thing for Vista, is not a criticism about Vista. This article is about things in or about Vista to which people have criticised, which the Dell issue does not fall under.
• The CD/DVD burning issue is a negative issue about Vista in at least one person's eyes, however the only source (someone's personal website) is not a good enough source (reliablitly or notability) to be the one justification for inclusion. Some people may even like this "issue" and just because some Joe thinks it's bad, doesn't warrant it's inclusion.

Paul Cyr 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Dell issue: the section does not appear to be criticism. For example, Dell offering Linux on select computers is not considered criticism, it is simply a preference by some users. Therefore, since Dell hasn't directly criticized Vista and is not refusing to provide it, that section doesn't belong in the article. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is not that they are offering XP, but rather that they have gone back on their move to Vista. It's not an issue that they offer XP (or Linix or MS-DOS ;-), but that they had ditched XP for Vista, and then rolled back that decision. It's also significant that some of their offerings are not available with Vista (presumably because of hardware or software incompatabilities) - this supports the criticism on compatibility issue. peterl 10:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the key point peterl, is whether that speculation can be attributed to the source, which it can't. There are many possible reasons for people wanting XP, and having sold Vista computers for about 3 months, I heard some people concerned about compatibility, but I also heard a lot of FUD such as MS spying on them and not being able to use their music and even just that they thought it was too new and need some time to get the bugs ironed out. But without the article saying why people wanted XP, any implications are unattribuatable. Paul Cyr 21:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That some of the Dell "craplets" do not work may be a valid criticism (if reffed) but, as I said in my earlier comment, unless it can be unarguably shown (and not just speculated) that people have demanded XP due to their horrid experiences with the OS and that they were not coerced by the FUD campaigns, it does not become criticism of Vista. --soum (0_o) 02:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• CD/DVD burning: even though only one source criticized Vista for its CD/DVD burning features, it is still criticism. However, it might not be notable enough for inclusion in the article. I'll remain neutral on this issue for now. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dell issue: All the statements may be properly sourced and verifiable and stuff, but you (Zhubenzenubi, sorry if I misspelt your name) failed to address the only concern the other editors have - how is that a criticism of Windows Vista? The links you gave as references only say that the analysts *think* people are prefering XP because the do not like Vista, with absolutely no stats to back the *thought* up, nor does it say how many tried Vista and made an informed decision and was not swayed by the badvista.org FUD. Now, In the same vein, it does not take a rocket scientist to *think* that people are prefering XP over Linux, Mac OS, Solaris and other Windows versions as well. So, if it is a criticism of Vista, it must be a criticism of every other damn OS ever created on this planet!!! I iterate again, the statement may conform to all bureaucratic standards, but how is it relevant to the article? As Warren had said somewhere up in the page, that people are wary of change does not default to being a criticism of the OS that brings the change, only when people make an informed choice to shun it, does it become criticism. And absolutely no proof has been presented it is the case. --soum (0_o) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• CD Burning issue: Whats the criticism here - that MS is calling UDF as Live File System or is it that Live File System is the default choice? LFS is no way "sneaky lock-in" as the article you linked to claims, it just vanilla UDF which is supported by (almost) every writer and OS (if there is not in built support, third party drivers can add support) after the dis has been closed. Not only that, it is the default file system as per the DVD specifications. So, shouldnt it be the default format? For CDs, CDFS can only be used for DAO/TAO/SAO writing, not for packet writing. For the latter, UDF is the only choice. Since the aim of Vista CD writer is to make CD burning aking to using thumb drives (write-rewrite anytime you want, which is the most visible facet of packet writing), I do not see how it can do without exposing UDF as the default format - or else packet writing will not work without fidgeting with settings. And the formatiing step in packet writing is a part of the process, all burning softwares do it. The issue might have become a criticism if it did not present CDFS mastering, but it does. So, IMO, its a non-issue which people are making a FUD-spreading issue of. The help files explain this cleanly.

And about the guys horror story, he hard rebooted the system in the midst of the system formatting a CD-R and expect to go back later and fix the mistakes made during first write? Its a write once disc, goddammit! And he himself says, his issue was not reproducible (his friends machine burnt it properly). So how is a one-off issue a criticism? I have had more horrifying experience with my burner with every OS I have used, most of which I later traced back to cheap CDs and a misaligned lens in the burner. So, is the guy damn sure the burning software is to blame, and not the device or some other component. Plus the question of reliability of the source is also there. You dug up google hits for the site, but popularity is *not* reliability. If it can be shown the source is indeed reliable and that other sources do back up his claim, only then inclusion can be justified. --soum (0_o) 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Software compatibility

Not quite sure why this section had been deleted, when it's clear:

• it's a criticism (yes, some of the new refs say 'criticism' and 'vista' and 'software' on the same page
• the refs are legit
• its factual.

Please don't delete this important section without discussion first. peterl 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The section that was there before was completely improper for this article (no sources of criticisms, just existance of issues), so I removed it since it would need a complete rewrite anyways. What you've added and sourced now seems to be good though. Next time I'll just tag the section as needing a rewrite and bring it up on the talk page. Paul Cyr 21:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. peterl 09:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Theres a fake citation

58^ The 3DMark 06 score on Vista is approximately half the score with XP, and the average framerate with Vista for F.E.A.R. is also approximately half the XP score, all with 2 GB of memory , a ATI Radeon X1950XTX GPU, and a Intel Core 2 Duo 6600 for XP / Intel Core 2 Duo 6700 for Vista).

Doesn't link anywhere, its just original research hidden where citations are supposed to go. I can't figure out how to edit references can someone delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.62.221 (talk) 04:09, 25 May, 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research to me (I wrote this part). The two links below the text of the note explain it:

• first test is a test of different memory configs on Vista, with this hardware config (apart from memory): Intel Core 2 Duo E6700, Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX; on this configuration, and with 2 GB of memory (two different memory confs tested), the article shows approx. 6400 on 3DMark 06, and approx. 57 Fps for FEAR, with high quality settings.
• second test is a test of Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX on XP, with this hardware config: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2 GB of memory, Sapphire Radeon X1950XTX; on this configuration, the article shows approx. 10200 on 3DMark 06, and approx. 120 Fps for FEAR, with high quality settings.

So, OK, these figures do not come for only one article only (strangely, I found no single article dealing with Game results on Vista vs XP with the same hardware configuration), but these two articles deal with exactly the same configuration (CPU, GPU, memory), so the results are interesting (and I say again, no Original research). Also it is clear in the note that the results come from two different articles, and even the configs are mentioned. Hervegirod 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Found some single benchmarks now, added them and modified this part accordingly. Hervegirod 10:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be biased.

This article is seems to be biased against Windows Vista and Microsoft. I should point out that there isn't a Criticism of Mac OS X or Criticism of Mac OS article, there is only a small section stating criticisms of Mac OS X in the Mac OS X article. I belive this article is not neutral, and therefore against Wikipedia:NPOV.

It would really help if you gave some examples. Paul Cyr 13:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also there's much more voiced criticisms on Vista than on Mac OS. Hervegirod 13:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

The whole article should not be here. Why? In any article there should be two veiwpoints and the article should be neutral

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and — this party is mistaken (see second example below) — that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

and you can't have two veiwpoints if the whole article is named "Criticism of Windows Vista".

There should be an article named somthing like "Pros and Cons of Windows Vista" instaed of a clearly biased name like "Criticism of Windows Vista".