Talk:Windows Vista

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows Vista article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Componentized architecture

Is there a need to mention that Windows Vista is based on a componentized architecture where the core OS is the WinPE and other end user features are added incrementally to it, allowing to mix and match only those functionalities that are needed? --Soumyasch 02:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Core Support

CPU: x86-compatible 32-bit or x64-compatible 64-bit microprocessor(s) (Dual Core systems will be supported) Is the support, as mentioned in the article, limited to Dual-Core systems and not multi-core (like dual core/hyperthreaded and/or quad-core), which will be available around Vista timeframe? --Soumyasch 13:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVD ripping

This article states that the Ultimate edition of Windows Vista may have "DVD ripping capabilities".

While I'm all for letting the legitimate owner of a DVD rip it to his hard drive so he can store and view his entire collection without having to physically use his discs (I'm just lazy, I guess, and hard drive space is cheap these days), I somehow can't see that happening what with all this new DRM technology being introduced. So where exactly does this quote come from?

Rawling 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MS has specifically stated that they prefer HD-DVD to Blu-ray because the HD specs do not prevent users from ripping the content to their hard drives. 69.211.111.112 05:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WinFS

Does WinFS stand for Windows File Storage Foundation, as listed in the article? As far as I know, no official name for WinFS has been announced and the codename WinFS is supposed to be derived from Windows Future Storage. --Soumyasch 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - it is a code-name, not an abbreviation AFAICS, so it is changed :) Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 14:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Legitimate software"?

What does "Legitimate software" mean in the context of a source model? Does this mean any software that doesn't follow the source model of Windows Vista isn't legitimate? 70.92.174.251 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user edited that in a few minutes before you read the article; it has been reverted to its original definition, "Closed source". Warrens 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I failed to check the history. Thank you. 70.92.174.251 17:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

windows vista release delayed

i think the expeced release dates should be edited since microsoft announced today that windows vista will be launced in january, that includes the buisness version Alexanderpas 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source? Warrens 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/21/2331210

http://digg.com/technology/Windows_vista_delayed_to_2007

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152422/microsoft-delays-windows-vista

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060322/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_winners_and_losers;_ylt=AkzX151I4Adlih6QJpilepcjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060322/bs_afp/usitsoftwarecompany;_ylt=AgooWSoja5PO.akcUoOivDgjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/microsoft_windows;_ylt=Akhr5xpw6BaA6GqXglM1wCMjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060321-6433.html

http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/49744/windowspaulthurrott_49744.html The Intellectual 23:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you for pointing out all of those -- I'd edited the article a day ago to reflect this information; now, which one of them indicates that the "business version" will also be launched in January, as Alexanderpas suggested? Warrens 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that the business version will still be released this year: [1]. Might not be the most reliable source, but it's a start. PJ 20:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/mar06/03-21WindowsVistaDeliveryPR.mspx — Alex ^(T|C|E) 22:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60% of Vista Code to be Rewritten

Anybody know more about this, here's a link for some info. http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Computing/Platforms?Article=/Computing/Platforms/R7G5G6U4 The Intellectual 00:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article confuses me. It has absolutely no source attribution for this claim that they're going to rewrite more than half the operating system, which they spend only the first two paragraphs on, then spend the entire remainder of the article on the suit reshuffling at the top of the platforms division. So basically it reads like a dishonest, hit-grabbing headline, and it certainly doesn't warrant a place in this article unless we can get a reputable source. Warrens 00:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I was asking for more information, however it was on the frontpage of digg.com, here's the link:

http://digg.com/software/60_Of_Windows_Vista_Code_To_Be_Rewritten The Intellectual 01:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some info on a mangament shakeup, but nothing on a rewrite of code: http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthurrott/Article/ArticleID/49766/windowspaulthurrott_49766.html

Turns out these claims are false: http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_No_Vista_Code_Changes/1143232877 The Intellectual 01:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroprofit

Windows Vista is not out yet. I'm deleting the entire content because it is immature to announce something that's not out. —This unsigned comment was added by Zeroprofit (talk • contribs) .

There is nothing wrong with an article about unreleased software. Please review Wikipedia policies before making any further removals. Thanks. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what vaporware is? You're putting up something that it's not released! —This unsigned comment was added by Zeroprofit (talk • contribs) .

Are you saying vaporware is automatically not encyclopedia-worthy?

Vista is most definitely not vaporware; there's been plenty of builds released, and the next one when I'm writing this is planned for May. You need to learn the difference between vaporware and software in production. Besides, vaporware is encyclopedia worthy even if it was. -- Northgrove 09:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for deleting this section of the discussion, Zeroprofit Matt Peacock 11:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Looks a lot more coherent now. Good job. --Soumyasch 08:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spring cleaning

I made a whole pile of edits to the article: Rewrote lead paragraph (still needs work), rewrote and expanded Overview, added a bunch of info on what each edition contains, reordered the "New features" list to reflect what I think is a good order of significance, added a small section titled "XP Features removed" (someone please come up with a better name for this), and changed several things in the Requirements section. Please review my changes and improve things where it's needed! I'd like very much for this article to be good enough to qualify for WP:GOOD, especially considering we're second only to Microsoft on a Google search for "windows vista", and we'll probably be heavily referenced in the times ahead. Warrens 08:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I think this copyrighted image should be removed.

Which one? Screenshots of desktops are OK under fair use despite being copyrighted anyway, if you're talking about those. -- Northgrove 08:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it should be mentioned on the image's page [2] I think --Lothar25 14:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding all the builds

I am adding all the builds again beacause someone removed it and it is real important to understand the development of Windows Vista, so anyone, DO NOT DELETE THE BUILDS, you can make changes to it, BUT DON'T DELETE IT. 67.34.213.209 01:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The build history has been moved to Development of Windows Vista. --Soumyasch 04:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in build history, please help with expanding Development of Windows Vista; this article needs to focus more on what Windows Vista *is*; in the long term, a build list isn't a significant in the grand scheme of things of the entire subject. If you plan on contributing, please also make a user account so it'll be easier to participate in the conversation. :-) Warrens 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOES PCI IMPLY INABILITY TO RUN AERO GLASS? VIDEO CARD REQUIREMENTS

"A graphics card that uses AGP 8X or PCI Express x16 bus". Can we source this? More importantly, can we verify or confirm this is an actual requirement? (vs. some intern at MS simply tossing it on an evolving requirements list assuming everyone will be using AGP/PCIe, and then we see it spread all over the net). I'll go out on a limb, but I'm going to guess that this might become more and more of a topic of interest for the article as we approach the release -- lots of owners of otherwise 'up to spec' Dell Dimension budget systems come to mind ;)

I'm honestly confused about the requirement. Let's say you have a PCI card that meets or exceeds all the other Aero Glass requirements (They exist, i.e. FX 5700LE 256MB, 128bit): is there going to be some sort of hard-coded refusal to allow you to select Aero glass mode? Or more of a mere 'warning, your performance may suck'?

I'd love to hear from anyone with some info on this —This unsigned comment was added by 141.161.69.59 (talk • contribs) .

Those requirements were released to TechNet by Microsoft and are only applicable to Vista Beta 1. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vista themes

File:Vista 5342 Appearance Settings.png

I was under the impression there's Aero Glass for the transparent style, Aero Basic for Vista Home Basic and Starter, Aero Express for all editions if you don't have Desktop Window Manager support through LDDM drivers, such as in virtual machines, and Windows Classic for the 2000 look & feel. Paul Thurrott said while reviewing the February CTP that Aero Basic looked basically like Aero Glass but without the translucency, and I recall seeing a screenshot of it somewhere, and thought it looked much better and in line with the Aero style than Aero Express with its square buttons etc. Can anyone clarify on this? In fairly recent builds (5270?), I'm 100% positive Aero Express (this name was used) was selectable in the style combo box in Display Properties anway, and looked pretty much to the 5342 "Aero Basic" there's a screenshot of here now. Has things changed in 5342 or the one build before? -- Northgrove 08:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Alex ^(T|C|E) 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista's user interface confusing.

There are still confusing about Windows Vista's UI. As you can see this in the build 5308, there are four different types of UI which are Windows Classic(like the UI in 2000), Aero Glass, Aero(without glass effect) and, Vista(like Luna UI in XP).

There's a theme named Vista?? If true, that's more than confusing. Anyway, to clarify on my question above, what I called Aero Basic there is what you call Aero, and what I called Aero Express there is what you call Vista. My questions above still remain though. -- Northgrove 09:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's so confusing that we have to wait until Consumer CTP will come out. Anyway, I uploaded 4 different types of UI screenshots. and put them in article. —This unsigned comment was added by Tom2006 (talk • contribs) .

Those screenshots do a nice job at showing the different UIs. It seems confusing a bit though because each screenshot is showing different things. I like the first one with IE7, it's a great example of showing the Aero interface. Could you use that first one as an example to follow for the other three? It would be a bit easier that way to see what exactly changes with each UI. 24.166.149.113 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded new screenshots for better consistency. I'll upload a Home Basic screenshot that is consistent with others later. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 06:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista or Windows 2006/2007

I thoought the new Windows will be named Windows 2006? —This unsigned comment was added by Stanton BG (talk • contribs) .

Nope. Windows Vista. --Yamla 16:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista Logo Program

The Windows Logo Program Requirements Suite, Version 3.0 draft 0.8 lists final Logo system requirements. The Hardware Requirement section should be update to reflect it. EricG 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OS X / Vista: POV or not POV?

I can understand that making comparison with OS X may lead to POV (“Redmond, start your photocopiers” anyone?), but it can also be done in a NPOV way. I will create a new section for helping people to see the similarities. I'll try to stay NPOV, don't hesitate to correct (but please, not “I deleted because you cannot say bad things of my favourite toy”) Reply to David Latapie 01:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all been removed. You will find there isn't a lot of tolerance here for comparative analysis between Vista and other operating systems, because it really doesn't contribute anything of encyclopedic value. Wikipedia isn't a platform for operating system advocacy. Note that the very well-written Mac OS X doesn't have an entire section devoted to comparative analysis with Windows – why do you suppose that is? Warrens 06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the way people add similarities to the article. I see things like "(This is a blatant ripoff of Apple _____)". I don't know why people think every company doesn't copy from another source. Apple's copied from Xerox (interface) and Konfabulator (widgets), GNOME and KDE from Linux has copied from Windows / OSX (taskbar, windows-like minimize, max, close buttons, KDE even has a "start"-like menu) Also, take a look at this screenshot of KDE that looks like OSX and Vista tied together. [3]

Sure, Microsoft has copied some features from OSX and Linux (the GNOME breadcrumb navigation from Nautilus is a good example), but people act like they're evil for doing so. If people want to mention, "this feature is similar to Apple's ____", I think that's fine. But to go on this "Microsoft ripped this off they suck" like POV, it doesn't have a place here at all. Chris83 06:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think it's useful to have a table that compares the feature similarity and differences of multiple operating systems, even if just for the purposes of allowing people to understand that most operating systems aggressively try to offer comparable features and is rarely just a pure unidirectional influence. It might indeed be better to have this comparison table in a separate article, since it has the potential of becoming very large (comparing many features between many operating systems). It would definitely have to be presented in a non-POV manner to be offered in an encylopedic way. -- Bovineone 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for example, see Comparison_of_operating_systems, Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems, Comparison_of_Web_browsers, Comparison_of_Media_players, Comparison_of_Linux_Distributions, etc. -- Bovineone 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a separate article for this is an excellent idea! "Comparison of operating system features" perhaps? It makes a lot more sense than cherry-picking Vista's features and trying to point out that another operating system already has them. Warrens 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compatibilities issues

Eventhough Microsoft states that Vista will be compatible with dual-cores. But i have been having a problem with installing it on mine X2 3800+. I have now tried BETA builds 5308 and 5342, and they cannot install. I have tried same copie on a P4 and a Athlon 64, and they ran the 5308 with no problem. I believe that 5342 gave an error to the Athlon 64 machine aswell. Can anyone suggest something? My dual-core system passes all the checks for compatability, but after the restart during the installation, it locks up in a never ending cycle. Any help would be really appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleksminmar (talk • contribs) .

This discussion page is to be used for discussions regarding the article itself, not about getting betas of Vista to run on your laptop. You are more likely to get the answers you are looking for on a Vista-specific forum. --Yamla 22:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be even better to ask the Windows beta team... You are a beta tester and got Vista legally, right? ;-) — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical articles

Is the Critical Articles section really necessary? How are the articles Critical to Windows Vista? Vista is Vista whether or not the articles are there. And the articles neither promote or demote Windows Vista's improtance. The articles may be improtant for further info, but no way critical. The section should be removed and the links merged into external links section, if required. --so U m y a S ch 19:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're articles critical of Vista, ie. criticism of DRM technologies and so on. Such things should be here, because the issues are probably quite legitimate, but maybe we need a better term than "critical". Warrens 20:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it now. Criticsims, to which the section has been renamed (Thanks Alex), is a much less ambiguous word. --so U m y a S ch 03:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate running order

The current running order for sections is this:

Overview
Development
Editions
New features
Hardware requirements

Every so often I get the idea of switching the order to Overview / Editions / New features / Development / Hardware, or maybe Overview / Editions / Development / New features / Hardware, but I'm not sure. Either way, Development gets moved down. My motivation here is to put what more of what Vista is up front, instead of how it came to be. Any thoughts or opinions on this? Warrens 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bit of background is necessary before we go into describing Windows Vista. So I suggest the sequence be kept as it is. But since deveopment info has been forked to a new article, there is no need of so much info, the Development sectioned be shortened to three-four lines, which say when Longhorn was unveiled, the three pillar vision, removal of WinFS, restart of Longhorn dev on Server 2003 code and naming Longhorn to Vista. Details can be found in the development article. --so U m y a S ch 11:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Yeah, the development section will change a lot in the coming months, because right now we're also keeping note of present and future developments, which we won't need to do for much longer. Maybe once Beta 2 is released we can chop it down a bit. Hmmm... I think I like the word "Background" more than "Development", too. Warrens 16:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gadgets in latest build

/media/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Gadgets.png/517px-Gadgets.png How can I add this image on Windows Vista article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fran z (talk • contribs) .

That image doesn't belong on Wikimedia Commons, since the use of screenshots of copyrighted Windows software (including Windows itself) qualifies as "fair use", and Commons doesn't accept fair use images -- only free-license and public domain ones. What you'll need to do is consult Wikipedia:Uploading images to learn how to upload images here on the english Wikipedia, then edit the article and put the image in an appropriate place; best to replace the existing gadgets image, in my opinion. Hope this helps! Warrens 15:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but I don't see an option to upload or replace that image! Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fran_z (talk • contribs)

It looks like you got it sorted out. Looks good. :-) Warrens 17:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia entry

Read it at their site, it's so funny ^^
Windows Vista (Uncyclopedia) -- Shandris 12:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truly funny, I put a link in this article to it. The Intellectual 01:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Kernel?

I seem to remember some obscure reference that somebody at Microsoft made about how Windows doesn't actually use a hybrid kernel. Does anybody have sources verifying the actual nature of the kernel? Nicholasink 02:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be useful: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=148820 AlistairMcMillan 02:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this: http://channel9.msdn.com/showpost.aspx?postid=182269 AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TOCLeft

The TOCLeft template has been used to reduce wastage of space. If it were not there, then anyone would have to scroll down a considerable distance to get to the article text, as the TOC is quite long. So TOCLeft has been used to get text into the blank space that would have been there beside the TOC if the left-aligned TOC was not used. Those who donot like the TOC can toggle it off with the hide link in the TOC header. --so U m y a S ch 07:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC on Windows Vista is hardly long-- a simple following of your logic would mean the majority of Wikipedia articles should be converted to TOCLeft.

The TOCLeft cuts into the second section header on 1280x760 and up, which is a big no-no. In addition, there is an additional Windows Vista box at the right, making the top of the article look like a three-column newspaper fold. It makes the article more confusing and look inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles when it's just not necessary.

Cws125 08:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The TOC almost takes up three fourths of the screen. And as such the text after TOC does not start quite sometime after the Vista infobox ends, halfway down the second screen. That's quite a wasted scrolltime. As for the TOC cutting into second para, I think thats hardly any problem, as long as the headers are clearly distinguishable, and doesn't mess with any other formatting. However, thats IMO. --so U m y a S ch 08:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you're saying that the Windows Vista TOC is long-- practically all Wikipedia article TOCs are around this length, if not longer. Here are some featured articles that I think have "long" TOCs: Java programming language, United States Constitution, WWI, and law articles like USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, or even this discussion page right now!

When the TOC begins cutting into the second section when it's floated, it's kind of sign that it's a bad idea because then it starts getting in the way of other sections and other content. In addition, there's already something floated at the top (the Windows Vista box), and using two floats like this makes the article cluttered with three columns and kind of inconsistent with other Wikipedia articles.

I will point you to to the discussion pages of the Tocleft and Tocright templates. "It should only be used in cases where the TOC gets in the way of other content or is detrimental to the layout of the page; it should not simply be used for aesthetics since it tampers with the standard appearance of articles. See Wikipedia:Section#Floating the TOC for further guidelines." (emphasis mine)

The tocleft, in this case, is making other stuff get in the way (not out of the way); the TOC is just not that long to justify it; and you're interfering with the standard appearance of articles.

Cws125 08:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this discussions before. Still, thanks for pointing out that. However, Warren has done some layout changes to this article to address the issue. What do you think of that? --so U m y a S ch 08:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I hate to say it, but on resolutions higher than 1280x760 (especially widescreen), you're going to some whitespace after the text in the "Overview" section because the "Discussion" section cannot start until the TOC has been cleared. Also, try looking at it from 1024x768 or 800x600-- the text at the center is really squished. It seems to be me that you're not considering resolutions outside of yours.

From my point of view (compared to 99% of Wikipedia articles), what you're doing is equivalent to having a standard TOC with the "Overview" section floated (pasted) to the right of it. Why is it so hard to just move the "Overview" section down below, like every other Wikipedia article?

It's wierd and it's unnecessary. It really looks to me it's being floated for aesthetics (e.g. the Overview section "looks" better with the TOC to the left of it)-- form should follow function, not the other way around.

Cws125 09:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic consistency with other Wikipedia articles isn't mandated anywhere in the MOS... and, frankly, you're never going to see it happen anyhow. We have all sorts of different things going on through the encyclopedia -- top-right Info boxes like in this article (and many military articles), related-article lists being floated in the top-right like in Anarchism, the piles of related-article boxes at the bottom of Mac OS X, the many, many different table styles and prolific use of colour, e.g. List of The Simpsons episodes, and so on and so forth. The brief three-column thing is an interesting challenge, but I feel it works because we make good use of screen space, and the user can get on with reading the article right away without scrolling. Experimentation with these kinds of things is good! That said, I think the best solution here may be to expand the lead section by a couple of paragraphs, so the whole TOC gets moved down past the bottom of the Infobox. Warrens 09:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying experimentation is bad. I'm saying, in this case, your experimentation is bad. Your experimentation doesn't look that hot if someone isn't on a certain range of screen resolution. Yes, stylistic consistency isn't mandated. But so is using Tocleft. I guess we can both go into an edit war since neither is mandated.

TOCLeft is there to give you the option to use it in rare circumstances, not to experiment or have fun with the TOC. I am adamant that unless there is a fairly good design-related, accessibility-related, or usability-related rationale for using TOCleft, it should not be used. Don't mess with a 99% common Wikipedia design element-- it throws people off and makes the page look like some CSS newbie just found out what float is.

I really would prefer it if you stop messing around with design, since all you're doing is making the lead section longer and adding floats everywhere, and focus on following the Manual of Style and consistency of other Wikipedia articles.

Cws125 09:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Overview section

I dropped it entirely and moved most of it into the lead. After looking at a number of major articles for operating systems, I noticed two things... one, basically none of them adhere to WP:LEAD, and two, none of them had any kind "Overview" section before getting into the history of the operating system. For an article of this length, WP:LEAD recommends a three to four paragraph introduction (which it now is), and that the lead section should be able to stand alone without any following sections (which I think it's pretty close to doing). This also goes a long way to address the concerns of Cws125 that the article's readability was harmed by having text get squeezed between the TOC and the Infobox. I think it looks pretty good. Comments? Warrens 09:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. ~~My issue of readability still stands-- it's just it's now the "Development" section that is being squeezed in 1024x768 and below.~~

Also, Warren, reconsider your longer lead section: now that all of it is at the top, there is only one more reason that the "Development" section should be pushed below the TOC since it's not that relevant being so close to the lead section and it would make the lead section closer to "standing alone".

I would also like people to comment on what's better, what we have now or the revision with a standard TOC.

Cws125 09:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the new rev, one has to scroll considerably just to get to the TOC. And without floating, TOC is a waste of space. --so U m y a S ch 10:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the new rev isn't that hot. However, we only have three choices:

old revision, with the center column ridiculously small on 1024x678 and 800x600.
my revision which fixes the 1024x768/800x600 problem by removing the floated TOC.
current revision which fixes the 1024x768/800x600 problem by making the lead text a lot longer.

I personally feel my revision is less cluttered, looks more like other Wikipedia articles than the others, and therefore the best solution.

Cws125 23:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "stand alone" has absolutely nothing to do with screen distance of the lead from the rest of the article. My changes to the lead section are in adherence to WP:LEAD, which calls out a lead section as being able to exist entirely on its own, without the remainder of the article. You can read the lead, be informed, and move on without having to slog it through many pages. The underlying principle here is Wikipedia:Summary style, which this article adheres pretty closely to... as do most featured articles, for that matter, such as Windows 2000, World War II, Calvin and Hobbes, Autism, Helium, and so on and so forth. All of these articles have lead sections of similar size as what I've put forth.

As for width, you're really starting to sound like you're complaining for the sake of complaining. Look, the width of the Infobox is wider than the TOC, so the width of the lead section is actually thinner than the width of the Development section (superfluous Longhorn logo aside -- which I've removed because it's of limited relevance anyhow), so why complain about the width of the development section? Given the length of the lead section, there is a very, very narrow range of window widths where the "Development" section appears alongside the Infobox instead of underneath it, and the width of the middle section really isn't an issue. If you're going to continue to make an issue out of something that minor, well... that's up to you, but come on, there's a whole encyclopedia out there that needs content, not more debates on style. Warrens 10:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.. all you've done in this discussion is attack me, instead of defending why you need a left floated TOC.

Why do you think the WP:LEAD says you should have a stand-alone lead section? Since a standard TOC causes the rest of the article to start a distance away from the lead text, you should write the lead text to stand alone from the rest of the article due to the offset caused by the standard TOC.

The new lead text is fine-- I'm just suggesting that you apply your own standard for the lead to the TOC as well: you spend all that effort to maintain a nice lead section that follows sylistic guidelines, but when it comes to the TOC, stylistic guidelines aren't "mandatory" and subject to "experimentation".

My issue is not about width (see P.P.S.), but that you are using an unnecessary float on the Table of Contents box, superflously at that. I liken your attempts to float the TOC as making the font of the article red and Comics Sans-- you haven't provided a good rationale for either!

Finally, yes, there's a whole encyclopedia out there that could use more content-- excellent strawman. That's an excuse to have a cluttered and beginner-CSS "Windows Vista" page? Not to mention that there's a whole encyclopedia out there that adheres to a certain layout and you're not a part of it-- <Darth Vader> join us.... </Darth Vader> (Or to flip your logic, there's a whole encyclopedia out there that needs more content, not more messing around with established style.)

P.S. I'm slightly annoyed that you think I'm complaining for the sake of complaining. You're just floating for the sake of floating. How about we both agree to stop?

P.P.S. When I meant the "Development" section can be more easily be pushed below the TOC, I wasn't talking about width/screen resolution. I was saying what's so special about "Development" that it can't be below the TOC (by unfloating the TOC)?

Cws125 23:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

An controversy/criticism section is needed. Windows Vista has, even if it not has been released, criticized from several ways, such as the integration of digital rights management. Please add it. --Off! 14:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add one. But please give proper verifiable citations for each claim made. There is no place for uncited claims. --so U m y a S ch 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called NPOV statement

Thw text which PC World calls "strikingly similar to Mac OS X", back into the Windows Vista article, was added to the article. But I am afraid the quote is not what PCWorld.com has made. The PCWorld article says "The striking similarity to Mac OS X is purely coincidental, we're sure" (last line, page 1). Please do not add mis-attributed quotes to articles. --so U m y a S ch 16:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is correctly used: it is not mis-attributed (which would be to attribute it to someone who didn't say it), nor is it out of context. The use in this article does not take a position about whether the "striking similarity" is intentional or coincidental, only that it is strikingly similar. IMO, the quote is sarcasm, intended to convey the idea that Aero is an imitation of Aqua, and if you want me to start adding citations to that end, I will. But the quote is used correctly, and I will re-add. -- Gnetwerker 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its just that the text of the quote is changed, which is my concern. The text in the article is "The striking similarity to Mac OS X is purely coincidental", whether or not it is a sarcasm or not is a different question. So on quoting them the text must not be changed to "strikingly similar to Mac OS X". (I said misattribution becoz strikingly similar wasn't by PCWorld.)

Also the section talks of what Aero is. So there is no need to detail which other OS has similar feature, or who implemented the feature earlier. The Criticisms article is where all such criticisms should go, I feel. I am not reverting it, to avoid going into an edit war, but I would like to know others opinion.

Should the quote be in this section, somewhere else, or not used at all - that's a good question. In the interim, I've tweaked the line so that the actual PC World text can be used. (Otherwise, it's not a quote.) Hope this helps. --Ckatz 21:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than start a revert war, I'll just say what I said in the Aero article here: The statement is entirely POV. Unless in every article we discuss how A is similar to B and B is similar to C and C is similar to D and so fourth, the inclusion of it is POV. The only way it would be permissible is if it had a notable interaction with the subject. The opinions of web "journalists" (and please, tech journalists are far from the most reliable source) are not facts, not to mention in this case there are factual errors. In short, it is about Aero, not how Aero compares to other GUIs. Paul Cyr 01:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully mirror you. Both Windows and Mac OS are Operating Systems, which are supposed to do similar things. So it should be expected that their functionality will overlap somewhere. So pointing out overlaps, where it is unnecessary, is just POV pushing. --so U m y a S ch 05:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point here is not similar functions, but similar appearance. The remarkable thing, according to many reviewers, is the similarity of the appearance of the Vista/Aero interface to Mac OS X/Aqua, right down to the names. Of course, the context is important too: many Mac users (of whom I am not one) and others believe that Microsoft has imitated the Apple interface over the years. In any case, the observation, sourced in independent third parties, is not POV. -- Gnetwerker 05:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a criticism that dogs Vista. So thats why I suggested the Criticisms section. And it IS pov, as it is what the reviewers feel. The Aero section is also not a proper place for it as it is supposed to present what aero is - neither promote aero not demote it as the cost of any other. It should just present the features - how they stack up with others is a different issue, which needs to be addressed separately. An article on Comparison of OS features, may be? --so U m y a S ch 06:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where it goes as long as it is not ghetto-ized out of existence. True or false, it is a valid criticism, widely-held, and deserves some attention here. -- Gnetwerker 06:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ref is also not a good one I feel, as it doesn't make the criticism "Head-On". --so U m y a S ch 06:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you can write "The new interface is strikingly similar to the Mac OS X Aqua interface" into this article with a straight face while calling me out on introducing an apparent POV on the Embrace, extend and extinguish page is beyond me... Warrens 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, characterizing an edit where changes you made were removed as being vandalism is quite inappropriate. Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not. Warrens 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, moved that bit to Criticisms, and toned down POV as far as I could. But I still feel it better be removed entirely. --so U m y a S ch 09:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms

The criticisms section is looking good so far, but surely there's more that can be added. Here's a few ideas:

IThe issue of the multiple years of delays, especially the slipping of the ship date past Christmas 2006. This has been a major source of criticism of Longhorn & Vista over the past couple years.
Addressing the whole "number of versions" issue makes sense. When this was announced, many people were saying "too many versions! it'll confuse customers" and so on. (IMO it's a legitimate concern for retail customers)
The Segoe UI font fiasco, particularily its being almost identical to Fruitiger Next.
Exclusion of EFI may be worth talking about, too.

Warrens 22:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't necessary in an encyclopaedic article as they merely incite edit wars from apple, linux and microsoft fans alike. Furthermore, the numerous delays don't actually affect consumers - it could even be suggested that they infact benefit them as more errors and interface problems will be fixed.

Deleting Talk page comments

It is hardly ever appropriate to delete comments (other than personal attacks) from article Talk pages, except as a part of archiving or other refactoring. -- Gnetwerker 00:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although Zeroprofits comments were greatly uneducated, unless it was obvious trolling, vandalism or a personal attack it should not be removed Paul Cyr 00:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realise it was such a crime. Apologised to ZP too. Matt Peacock 11:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cost?

I dont want to have to pay $200 just to keep my computer up to date. It is so gay. El benderson 05:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista Capable

Many PC manufacturers are beginning to indicate that their PC's are Windows Vista Capable. HP is one of the companies that is starting to do this.

Vvuser 15:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"though early development builds of Longhorn"

The problem with that being in the article is that Paul doesn't mention that in the sourced link. Everything else is us reporting that other people have pointed out X Y and Z. And then Warrens added his own "counter-point"[4]. AlistairMcMillan 20:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? The link is a November 2002 review of Longhorn. The Sidebar with its gadgetry is described quite clearly in the article, with screenshots. Noting its inclusion in Longhorn prior to OS X 10.4's gadgets, or Konfabulator, is simple inference based on the contents of the cited sources, which is perfectly fine in a Wikipedia article. And no, the entire criticisms section isn't "us reporting that other people have pointed out X Y and Z", nor is there any particular requirement that a criticism section need to be written only in that fashion. We do it here because we need to provide sources to frame a context around what would otherwise sound like an "opinion". The fact that Longhorn had a Sidebar in 2002 isn't a matter of someone's opinion. It's quite clearly there. Now quit being disruptive and removing stuff that you don't like... it's borderlining on pro-Mac POV-pushing. Warrens 18:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starter Ed. limited to 256MB?

How can Vista's minimum requirements need 512MB of RAM or more when the starter edition is said to be limited to 256MB? I believe Microsoft will bump this up to 512MB for Vista, but for now, should it be removed from the article? — Jeremy | Talk 05:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]