Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 9, 2006Articles for deletionKept
August 6, 2008Articles for deletionSpeedily kept

Gutmann Content[edit]

I know that the Gutmann content has been greatly discussed in the past, however since a majority of that discussion the article itself has changed significantly. As such, this section is entirely too long relative to the rest of the article. It should undergo some significant reduction to bring it in-line with the rest of the article, especially considering the reactions which question his credibility or authority on the subject. Your thoughts? I'll take a quick look now to see if I can simplify, but it may be something I'll have to work on later -- I simply wanted to raise the issue up the flagpole now, and head off any flack from the other editors. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it. Time doesn't change the fact that the criticism was made and got a lot of attention. -/- Warren 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire Gutman section does not pass the test for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. It falls under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable_sources firmly and is therefore should not be on Wikipedia. As proof just check the sources for Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Reaction_to_criticism. LordShard (talk) 08:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Public reception and sales[edit]

I can't see why this section has been moved here from the main Windows Vista page. Yes, it does have a critical result but the section itself should be in the main page. It's not criticism. Can we have some discussion about this please? peterl (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There should have been a dicussion before the move. Regardless of where the consensus puts it, its POV needs to be addressed (perhaps the POV was the catalyst for the move?) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's been moved around twice now. How do we go about getting a consensus? I'm happy to do some NPOV editing as well. peterl (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can get a major NPOV editing overhaul it might be suitable to be put back in the main article. But as it stands now it's, quite frankly, obviously just a bunch of biased Vista bashing, and deserves to be placed in the criticism section. Exodite (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is biased, then it should be fixed or deleted, not moved to an article about the position towards which the information is biased. In other words, the bias towards criticism doesn't make it belong in the criticism section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then if someone fixes it and gives it a NPOV overhaul, it can be moved back. Until then, moving it here is better than deleting it. Exodite (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quake 4 and directx[edit]

this is a minor thing and I might be wrong, but doesn't quake 4 use opengl instead of 'DirectX 9 or older', as mentioned in software compatability > games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.239.162 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so as well. Quake 4 states that an OpenGL compatible graphics card is required. No mention of DirectX is made. Additionally, Quake runs on Linux, although it could support DirectX as well. Cyrus Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I know this is late) Partially correct: Quake 4 uses OpenGL, and not Direct3D. But Direct3D is just part of DirectX. Quake 2 for instance uses DirectInput, which is part of DirectX. I figure Quake 4 uses other components of DirectX as well. The official sys reqs do list DirectX 9.0c as needed (for both videocard and soundcard), although that could just be to trick you so you have "up-to-date" hardware. --DanielPharos (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing[edit]

Dear Vista sufferers, and Vista upgraders to XP,
I propose the inclusion of a table with the retail prices of the individual Vista products globally. This way we can easily compare the prices, and see how much we must shell out for an "upgrade" to WV.
George Adam Horváth (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


just a random suggestion, but perhaps microsoft raised the price of vista in europe due to the 2.5 billion USD fine inposed on it by the EU, it raised the price to conpensate75.68.105.12 (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I credit Microsoft with a bit more sense than to deliberately antagonise a party that's already shown itself willing to impose large fines when it sees fit. Truth is, Europe (Western Europe anyway) is a rip-off in general and those of us who live there are used to that; this isn't a Microsoft-specific thing.

"At the current exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers could be paying almost double their United States counterparts for the same software, although this may be partly due to value added taxes the UK assesses." VAT is 17.5% of the net retail price, which doesn't go anywhere near close to accounting for the discrepancy. 217.171.129.72 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the claim about VAT. The claim was "although this may be partly due to value added taxes the UK assesses" to explain a near-double price for a product. The "although this may be partly due" infers speculation and opinion and ambiguity where VAT is very, very easily measured and factually checked. The claim is wrong. This is FUD. -Frederik (not a Wiki user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.220.192.25 (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

It is abundently clear that their is a POV problem with this article. I dont have the time to re-write the article, but perhaps the more neutral editors can try and keep an eye on this article.

For instnace, I offer "Adam horvath"'s contribution above...

Wikipedia is not a junior-school haxor club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, my contribution to the article was in an appropriate style, although you may find that the POV of my comment above is somewhat biased. That's probably because I've used vista. In any case, discussion pages are supposed to be the colloquial places where people can recommend things in a more personal way, in a style that is different from an encyclopaedia article. I'm sure you, dear unsigned contributor, also agree with this. George Adam Horváth (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 2008 Workstation[edit]

What about addressing the Windows 2008 Workstation issue in the article? Vista done right...--Kozuch (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ordinated Universal Time?[edit]

Since this issue is not Vista specific, it should be removed. Especially if it has been like this since Windows was introduced.

It's not Vista-specific. See kb899855 Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only one of the three citations in the paragraph that actually has any criticism in it is from *2001*, and its main complaint is that Microsoft OSes "don't follow the POSIX standard" -- nonwithstanding that POSIX defines a standard for Unix-like OSes... -- simxp (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right then I'll remove it..if anyone has any objections, revert. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.138 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Why are only articles that promote a certain point of view being added and not articles that refute them? That seems like a gross violation of NPOV to me. --soum talk 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. There's no point in having these links. If people have something to say, it should be said by adding verifiable material from reliable sources to the article. I'm going to remove them. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Games Section[edit]

Games

"Vista has implemented DirectX 10, and Vista also has DirectX 9.0L for backward compatibility.[52] In Paul Thurrott's review of Vista[53], he notes that the Windows XP-compatible games he tested worked fine in Vista, with the exception of two games published by id Software: Doom 3 and Quake 4. Thurrott suggests that the problems might be related to the graphics driver, as "Microsoft says [these titles] should run fine in Vista.""

It says right there, the problems might be related to the drives, thus making this critisism pointless. Dvferret (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Wageslave (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this performance test (ExtremeTech is quite reliable IMO), Vista's gaming nightmares are completely gone. Those were only driver issues. - xpclient talk 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to fix this within the next few hours, if no one objects. I'll leave in that this WAS a problem, but no longer is. Playwrite (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is changed, but I still have to add the extremetech source. I don't have time now, but if someone else feels like doing it, feel free —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playwrite (talk • contribs) 07:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Article should become Reception[edit]

It seems that this article has become a bit of a dumping ground to create a hit-piece. I appreciate it is a "criticism" article, but shouldnt it be more Neutral to have a "Reception" article with a more netural-POV? Wageslave (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's true. It's fun to hate Microsoft, which is why there's an entire category dedicated to anti-MS hit pieces. Criticism sections are discouraged - I imagine entire criticism articles doubly so. I'm in favor of your suggestion. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The reason for the existance of a Criticism article is entirely and solely as a daughter article of the Windows Vista article; specifically, the Criticism section. That is the only reason that an article which only puts forward 'one side of the argument' is allowed: because, formally, it's just the full version of one section of the parent article, and so the POV is balanced by the other sections of the parent article. From the other side, articles such as Features new to Windows Vista don't violate the anti-marketing-brochure guidelines for exactly the same reason. Incidentally, someone may well someday create a "Reception of Windows Vista" article, because there is also a Reception section in the Windows Vista article, which may get long enough to be partially split off into its own daughter article. But that wouldn't this article unless the "Reception" and "Criticism" sections in the parent article were to be merged. Renaming this article to "Reception" and balancing the POV would certainly not improve anything: people would just expect it to be an expansion of the Reception section and be annoyed when they discover it isn't. -- simxp (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, based on this policy it is strongly discouraged,
"The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRITICISM#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section
I suggest we endevour to integrate this section into the rest of the article where appropriate. This article should be dismantled, integrated into the other articles instead of being a "hit piece" as it currently reads.
Wageslave (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Wikipedia:Criticism is not a policy document -- it's an essay. We aren't bound to make editing decisions based on it. Wikipedia:Summary style article layout, however, is a manual of style guideline, and should be followed.
Second, your suggestion is hardly new -- I've been hearing it for more than two years, and nobody, not a single person has been able to come up with a way to do it. The problem is that you can't integrate the criticism we have into the rest of the article, because most of the things that are being criticised aren't covered elsewhere in the article. Where would we put content about digital rights management or file copy operations in the main text of the article? Under "new features"? The fact that Vista has a new file copy engine is waaayyy down on the list of things that we need to cover. Likewise with the new DRM stuff, because it doesn't actually affect the vast majority of people in any appreciable fashion that is new to Windows Vista (compared with XP), so it doesn't get much airtime in the article. UAC is the only exception here, and if that were moved inline with the rest of the article, we'd end up with a situation where some of the criticism is inline, and some of it is in its own section, thus making it more difficult for readers to get a quick summation of the major points of controversy and criticism about Vista (which, let's face it, is a topic of interest to our readers, given how many people dislike it). -/- Warren 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Where would we put content about digital rights management"
How about in a section called Digital Rights Managment in the Vista Article. It would cover, in a neutral manner, the virtues and drawbacks of DRM, and the reception and criticism of it?
Wageslave (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that idea!Dvferret (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps including some mention in the topic on digital rights managment would be best yet.

Well something needs to be done with the DRM part. I dont see the point in having those two arguments with it.Dvferret (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software bloat[edit]

What does [Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Software_bloat] serve other than to have a sub-heading of "Software bloat".

Concerns have been expressed that Windows may be experiencing software bloat. Speaking in 2007 at the University of Illinois, Microsoft "Distinguished Engineer" Eric Traut said, "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined." Former PC World editor Ed Bott has expressed skepticism about the claims of bloat, noting that almost every single operating system that Microsoft has ever sold had been criticized as "bloated" when they first came out; even those now regarded as the exact opposite, such as MS-DOS.[47]

Why is that paragraph even present? Its just a hit-paragraph.
Wageslave (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive been wondering about it also. Its just as bloated as OSX is.Dvferret (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However unlike OS X I don't think 2GB is wasted on printer drivers and languages. 142.68.212.100 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Programs Deletion?[edit]

I propose that we delete this section as well. I dont believe it is needed. I believe that once again it IS the developer's fault for NOT updating the software for the new operating system.Dvferret (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, at least it shuld be removed from its own section and be integrated into the article above. Also, the very first line of the Software compatibility needs to be made more neutral. Go to it. Wageslave (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's gone. If someone disagree's, discuss it here before trying to add it back. Thanks. Dvferret (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I thought that was notable or common - it's happened to me at least. I'll see what I can find. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing Section[edit]

The pricing section needs to be rewritten to be more neutral sounding. Right now it is very biased, liked with using the word "striking". Dvferret (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copying of Mac OSX[edit]

Shouldn't we include a section that talks about the criticism Vista has received, due to it's many "copies" of the Mac OSX system? See this link for more info... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaIUkwPybtM

I've just watched the video, and -- do you really think there's anything in there worthy of inclusion in the article? Pogue gave five examples to make his point: Using triangles to collapse folder lists, calendar program, photo organiser program, Spotlight/Windows Search, Widgets / Gadgets, and Chess Program. Lets look at each of these in more detail:
    • With regards to bundled Chess, Calendar, and Photo organiser programs, the general trend for modern OSes is towards greater bundling of middleware apps. Neither Microsoft nor Apple have been particular innnovators in any of these. Pogue notes that Windows Calendar looks fairly similar to iCal, which it does -- in the way that both look similar to every single one of the hundreds of other calendar apps ever made! There's not really much you can do with a desktop calendar app. (It's also worth noting that Microsoft bundled a calendar with Windows 3.1, years before iCal). And of course the chess programs look alike, they're both chess programs. See also: Gnome chess (glchess), whatever chess proggy KDE bundles, etc.
    • With regards to Widgets and Gadgets; no, Microsoft wasn't a particular innovator with this. Neither was Apple: as the dashboard (software) article notes; Apple ripped widgets off a free program called Konfabulator. It's also worth noting that Windows Sidebar (gadgets) were developed in the summer of 2000, some four years before OS X 10.4.
    • With regards to Instant Search/Spotlight; again, neither are particular innovators; third party metadata indexed Search-As-You-Type programs, such as Copernic Desktop Search, had been around for years before either Apple or Microsoft's implementations. And even if they haden't, is "faster searching" really an incredibly original, stealable idea? Are AMDs copycats because they "stole" the idea of making CPUs faster from Intel? Hardly!
    • And, finally, the use of triangles to collapse folder lists. ...Seriously? Tree views have been a native UI widget in Windows for ages. Windows 3 had them. If people are finding it necessary to point to the use of a triangle rather than a + sign to indicate node expandability as "proof" that Vista copied OS X, that may say something about the strength of the argument.
So, as far as I can see, every example pointed to in the video is either ridiculously trivial, or had been implemented by third-parties (or the Free Software world) years before either Apple or Microsoft came to the game. -- simxp (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Section[edit]

I read the security section, and I'm not sure it has enough merit to be part of this article. It seems like unfounded conjecture from companies who depend on security flaws existing pushing out propaganda about the BETA versions of the software.

Furthermore, have any of their predictions come true? If not, I think we should eliminate the section. 216.6.128.244 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the information seems outdated now after vista has been out for well over a year —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.23.52.150 (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Security section should remain, but the UAC and Driver signing sections of it be removed. It seems to err toward fluff instead of content and criticism which this article is about. If the criticism is about how such things are implemented, not security of then they should get their own section in this article. LordShard (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Account section and wiki tag[edit]

I see someone has tagged the sentence fragment

However, because all users are Administrators by default in previous versions of Windows with security (Windows 2000 and XP){disputed}, ...

Looking at the wiki links and definitions, it seems a "disputed" tag should be used for an entire article, and a "dubious" tag used for a single statement, unless that erroneous statement calls the entire article into disrepute. I changed the tag to dubious - there seem to be sufficient refernces, even in this section, to say that while the isolated statement may be questionable that doesn't affect the totality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.117.67 (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it disputed or dubious at all? Users are administrators by default in previous NT versions (XP, 2000, don't know about NT) and especially in versions of Windows lacking permissions such as Win9x. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.212.100 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Mojave[edit]

This article and/or this one should probably be incorporated into the article, if anyone who cares about it wants to take the initiative. --Heyitspeter (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I care about it, but there's no way I could write a blurb about it in an unbiased way... It's another dodgy MS marketing campaign based on misdirection and carefully selected "real" participants. Supertin (talk) 05:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to take issue with Microsoft, not Vista. Your sources would do better at [[1]] LordShard (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources from before November 8, 2006 should be removed[edit]

If it is not obvious Vista was released (RTM) on that date. This article uses many sources from before this date which exhibit problems from various beta, alphas and release candidate that are not/were not Vista. I feel the current condition is obvious and devastatingly violates the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. LordShard (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Vista or Beta Vista is not Vista? Come on, ground yourself. If you want to remove some (valid) sources, then you censor the article.--Kozuch (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. An Alpha is not the same as a Beta, and is not the same as a RTM. It is not censoring the article. It is good common sense. Features and core parts of the system may be rearranged, not functional or otherwise completely different from Vista from Beta to Beta to RC to RC to the RTM. Any criticism of Vista from before it was released is obviously completely flawed. As an example each release candidate had a different compliment of features and some rather devastating bugs which are not present in Vista. Would you criticize a car when it's prototype was made with faulty seatbelt even if they were fixed before being put into production?
If they are not removed they need to be consolidated to a section with a title such as "Pre Release Critism" or a outdated tag be present at the top of this article. LordShard (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In fact, if you look at the Security section, it's using predictions from Security companies from mid-2006, before Vista was released, which I don't think have even come true. Yet, it's the top section in the article! I suggested above that parts of that need to be cut back/altered. 216.6.128.244 (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Let's stick to the facts, please, and not predictions made before Vista was even released. Furthermore, George Samenuk's letter is full of misleading and blatantly incorrect statements; it is hardly a reliable source. Compare it to our article on Kernel Patch Protection if you don't believe me. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
REMEMBER: Wikipedia is here not to judge what is "correct" or "misleading", it uses reliable sources to build content. So I am wanting to revert your diff. The material should be only moved to another section ("Pre Release Critism" seems to be a good idea), but the sources are reliable so far.--Kozuch (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of beta software is to find and fix bugs. It's not fair to judge the final product on the flaws of the beta. If we are going to cover bugs in the beta at all, it should be in the article Development of Windows Vista.
Furthermore, the way this material is presented is highly biased - for example, the article currently claims that Vista's new networking stack was "untested" [2] when the source says nothing of the kind [3]. The source does say "we expect that vulnerabilities will continue to be discovered for some time". It's been nearly two years since Vista's release - where are the sources to back this prediction up? And finally, George Samunek's letter was based on problems that Microsoft worked to resolve. For example, Microsoft enabled third parties to override Windows Security Center before Vista was released, and added new APIs to assist antivirus developers in Vista SP1. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The past state of Vista, pre-release rumours, and FUD do not make an accurate article, let alone a neutral one. I'm all for showing facts from both sides of an argument and letting them speak for themselves, but that doesn't mean we should reference every unfounded statement made from otherwise reliable sources.
I know there are those who disagree, but the last I checked Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if it was, I can see most people agreeing with the sentiment. This article needs a hell of a lot of work - removing old sources is only the beginning.
It may just be my inexperience with wikipedia, but I have to ask. What are we waiting for? -Skorpus McGee (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just the obvious: This cannot apply to sources that state thing like "Vista has DRM, and DRM is bad", but only to sources that corroborate affirmations about bugs Cold Light (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Have to agree with the heading, anything pre Published releae, such as Alpha, Beta (Longhorn) , RC (Longhorn), should be excluded. Criticisms of test and development phase should not encompass criticisms of the final retail product. Vista ha actually improved dramatically, and I think a lot of the criticisms are hype, often generated by the pro-Apple publicity.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you really believe that "pro-Apple" conspiracy theory, removing random paragraphs and adding glowing POV statements are not the way to improve the article. Please discuss such changes and reach a clear consensus before acting in the future. Althepal (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP versus Windows Vista[edit]

Not to step on anybody's toes, but this new section looks a bit one-sided. I don't really take issue to the wording, as that can be fixed, but instead the cited sources. CNET is indeed verifiable, but these are very old articles, approaching a year now come to think of it.
The beta for Windows XP SP3 may have indeed been faster than Vista last November, but that was 9 months ago. It's an easy mistake to judge software on past flaws. I still hear people rejecting steam because it was slow during the Half Life 2 launch, or lambasting the Xbox 360 for flaws of the original Xbox. Criticism needs to be current, or labelled as a historic complaint. It's also confusing for the article to say such things, when a few sections earlier a recently added bit states that the performance gap has disappeared[4].
Rather than just get into a revert war, I've taken it to the talk page and added a POV check template. What do you think? -Skorpus McGee (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the CNET source to the Performance section where it belongs, and deleted the rest of the section as !NPOV WP:WEASELy rubbish. I mean, "it has been suggested that the *real* upgrade to Vista is XP SP3"? Come on. -- simxp (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clock management[edit]

I don't see how this section belongs in here as it's not Vista-specific. If this is the line this article will be taking, then we may as well vent every criticism there's ever been about Windows in here, which would bloat this article right out as there are many; not to mention deviating from the article subject, which is ultimately about Vista. While I am sympathetic for the folks who are dual booting, this article is not a soapbox for your longstanding issue. Socrates2008 (Talk) 04:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, and there seems to be no "criticism of windows" article (to be precise: the article is a desambiguation page). There are only criticisms of versions of windows. So, this seams to be the most adequate place for the moment (as opposed to nowhere at all =P). If, however, the article bloats with criticisms that apply to many versions of windows, we should consider creating a "criticism of windows" article and move the apropriate sections. What do you say ? Cold Light (talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is currently no real "criticism of windows" article, so the section does fit into this article, although it would also fit in the other windows articles, especially the XP article. Perhaps it would make sense to collect criticisms that apply to all versions of windows in a separate article instead of repeating such sections for each version. I think there could be covered the following criticisms (just a collection that came to my mind, no sources yet):
  • clock management (no UTC support)
  • poor software installation and uninstallation management
  • poor separation of user data from system data
  • bloated and difficult to edit registry
  • no symbolic links until vista
  • no support for other file systems, e.g. ext2/3
  • poor command-line support
  • unusual use of backslashes instead of slashes
  • incompatible handling of line breaks
  • poor mounting support via drive letters
  • intransparent behaviour
  • no support for swap partitions
  • disk fragmentation
  • paternalism of the user
  • no support for multiple languages
  • poor system tools
  • no differentiation of letter cases
  • software bloat
  • closed sources
  • create own standards, violate or ignore other standards
  • too expensive
  • system gets slower and more instable with time
  • deaf ears for user wishes
  • poor security, especially before vista
  • complicated driver management
  • very much work to install and configure OS and basic software
  • many reboots required when changing software or system settings
  • inventing own terms (e.g. "folder" instead of "directory")
  • bad default settings (e.g. hide file extensions)
--X-Bert (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're up for it ^^
I must say, though, that your list seems to mix objective criticism (clock, user X system data ...) with things much more subjective (like "deaf ear to users wishes", "bad" default settings ...), and I fear objective criticism might get diluted by those.
Anyway, as far as this article is concerned, as soon as there is an "criticism of windows" that clarifies the issue, the clock section could become a single paragraph with a pointer. Cold Light (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds interesting, however I suspect that a new article like this will soon become a bloody battleground, laced with POV, OR, disputes and Microsoft bashing. I'm not brave enough right now to go there. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That list of criticisms reads a lot like "things I'm used to because I use Linux" and not criticisms of Windows. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
It wouldn't matter if there was a general "Criticism of Windows" page. This is applies to Vista and therefore does belong on this page. I will admit that this is a somewhat obscure issue that does not come up often (XP and Vista automatically try to sync time using NTP). Until it changes and it no longer applies to Vista it needs to be here. LordShard (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this being mentioned in this article only, is that doing so effectively amounts to POV Vista-bashing. As above, this issue is common to ALL versions of Windows (and DOS), so why specifically mention it only here, unless you're trying to have a go at Vista? Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then go add it to the other Windows pages then. Like it or not it is a legitimate concern. As long as it doesn't cover other OSes such as "Linux doesn't have this problem" or say something else like "MacOSX rulz" I don't see a NPOV problem. It covers the fact that there is a concern, and that Windows does come with a work around (NTP time). LordShard (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. One: Any attempts to duplicate large amounts of information between articles will be stopped. It's an extremely stupid idea. Writing criticism of the platform as a whole in a criticism article about a single version of it would be like going to the Michigan article and writing criticism about the American government's actions in Iraq.
Two: If you or anyone wants to write criticism that relates to the entire history of Windows, that's fine , but use the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article. Don't be put off by the fact that it's a disambiguation article -- the reality is that, after several years of Wikipedia's existence, nobody's actually produced reliably sourced material that applies to the entire platform. If it can be demonstrated that a criticism applies to every release from 1.0 to Server 2008 SP1, then put it in that article. Otherwise, if the criticism only applies to Windows NT, go for Criticism of Windows NT. Yes, that article doesn't exist of that writing, but don't be put off by that either.
Warren -talk- 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about, apart from general criticisms of the platform as a whole (which, I agree, Criticism of Microsoft Windows would be a good place for), putting specific criticisms that apply to more than one version in the relevent article for the first version (chronologically) to which they apply? That seems sensible enough to me, and avoids having multiple different criticism articles for various subsets of Windows versions (Criticism of Windows NT, Criticism of Windows 3.x through XP SP1 inclusive, etc.) that would be difficult to maintain. -- simxp (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Account Control[edit]

The sentence "Microsoft has recommended that programs be written in such a way to avoid requiring elevation for some time." has two problems. First, grammar. I suspect that "for some time" describes how long Microsoft has been recommending whatever it it. If that's the case, the sentence should start with "For some time". Otherwise, apparently elevation should be avoided for some amount of time. The second problem is that the term "elevation" is a jargon term and should be defined. John Stimson (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Driver signing section - lead sentence[edit]

"64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode; this feature cannot be easily overridden by system administrators."

Is there any truth to this? I'm not sure if the inline citations support that claim. Unless I am misunderstanding what this does, there are at least a couple of easy ways to disable driver signing. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding this. Pre-release versions of x64 Vista allowed an override via BcdEdit.exe, but this feature was killed with the production build. Various people have subsequently tried to get around this, e.g. Astiv, however Microsoft moved swiftly to close this down by forcing Verisign to revoke their certificate. There are temporary workarounds for developers (See How to Disable Signature Enforcement during Development), however this workaround needs to be applied manually with each reboot. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. 3rd party programs which modify the BCD can still allow for unsigned drivers to be loaded without needing to manually allow this each reboot. One such program is EasyBCD. I know this for a fact as I am running Windows Vista Ultimate x64 with SP1 installed and also using non-signed drivers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.65.245.231 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^ One such program is EasyBCD Great, but EasyBCD is NOT freeware. 189.120.156.210 (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folder sorting & columns bug[edit]

A commonly reported problem (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=vista+column+folder&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) is that Vista automatically detects the filetypes in a given folder, and provides what it thinks to be the best columns and sorting of said folder. It does this even when a user has customised a given folder to sort the way he wants; that is, anywhere between an hour and a month later the folder will, upon opening, have reverted back to the incorrect settings Vista already gave it.

The problem was not fixed in SP1. I understand Microsoft regard it as a 'feature' rather than a bug. It's really annoying.

81.101.255.144 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I put the tag on this page because this page is extremely one-sided. Just because there is critisizm doesn't mean that that critisizm should be stated as true or false. 75.60.13.180 (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what? If sources are available that disprove or discredit the criticism, we need to provide them as well. If we don't do that, then the article becomes one-sided. Given that you didn't actually provide any examples of problems (or make any attempt at correcting them), I'm removing the tag. Warren -talk- 19:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article IS NPOV, it's all about CRITICISM, one side? No defense? *knocks on Warrens head* anybody in there? You can't say "jebadiah977 on youtube says vista suxorz" and say thats a valid reference. Nor can you reference "Jane Reporter says 'Vista Sucks' and has the credentials... of being a reporter." NOR can you even reference the techboys. WHY?

It SHOULD be obvious for those who aren't WikiIdiots (unfortunate aspect of wikipedia... most people are. I've found people even putting NPOV tags on USER TALKPAGES.) the only person who can VERIFY critisim is a licenced critic... unfortunately there are no licenced critics as there is no licence to be a critic.

Of course, for those who are slow due to the wikipedia "i'm better than you so I revert your ass" process. "Critisim" is unsubstatiable. Even if a problem exists, like some computers don't boot up, there is NO WAY to VERIFY that it is PROPPER CRITISIM.

For those who STILL don't get it. This is an article about CRITISIM. Unless you have someone saying "This is good critisim" then the article is inherently the viewpoint of the person who posts the critisim. AND as this is an article focused on a single viewpoint, it is inherently in violation of NPOV.


Of course, this also brings out a bigger problem in Wikipedia, what constitutes a valid source? For wikipedia, any internet link outside of wikipedia is a valid source. So I could start up a website with fallacious claims and, by wikipedian standards, I would have sourced my article. (Of course wikipedia forbids this, but people do it anyways). I've even seen COMMENTS and FORUM posts used as references.

Ugg... wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

networking problems[edit]

Microsoft DHCP bugs make Windows lose networking describes problem and provides help, but only this helped me. --Espoo (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delays[edit]

I'm surprised this article does not mention the long delay in releasing Vista. Development took, what, five years - plus an extra year after release to fix the many defects before it became stable. I'm not confident enough of the details to add anything to the article - can anyone help? --Robinson weijman (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was not hard to find some info. The BBC noted that Vista was delayed, from the second half of 2006 to January 2007 and on their Q&A page on the Vista delay it specifically mentions original release date of August. That makes a six month delay (for domestic markets) - but that was on top of the five years development time. Which leaves me with two questions:
  1. Was the development time originally intended to take five years?
  2. How long was it before Vista became "stable" - after January 2007 release?

--Robinson weijman (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Stops Working For Legal Owners Of Software / Licensing Issues[edit]

I think this should be a major criticism of the licensing agreement.

For people who re-install a clean, legally owned copy of windows, on their computer on a regular basis, after a certain number of re-installs, the user will get a message that their operating system will stop working in several days if they don't contact Microsoft. If you call their customer service number, which has been outsourced to India, and try to speak to a real person, you are hung up on repeatedly. I wasted at hour of my time trying to do this. You must use an automated system to enter the zillion codes that windows give you. You must tell them that you are only using the software on one computer (a chance to make more profits from licensing?). Microsoft will also keep a recording of your voice for legal purposes. Why, if I give Microsoft my hard earned money, do I get treated like this?

Given a choice between something else and Microsoft, I will take the something else, ty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.171.66 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to Criticism of Microsoft with that, since it has nothing to do with Vista in particular. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a characteristic of Windows Vista in particular. 18:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.75.236 (talk)

As far as I'm aware, Windows XP has a similar system. And I'm guessing Windows 7 will have it too. What part is Vista-specific? Because if it's not Vista-specific, or if it's a complaint about bad customer-service, it should be done in Criticism of Microsoft, not here. --DanielPharos (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate fanboi's[edit]

I also hate wikipedians... this tops the spot.

Critisims of IE was HORRIBLE... most of it misinformation and almost all of it just tacked on. This page? It looks like Critisims of Firefox. Everything that can be removed is removed.


Don't mind me, but VISTA has a million odd critisims that idiots typically don't know about. Such as "Simplification of Complex Systems" You now have zero control over defrag, defrag offers no reports, and the time estimate is "between a few min and several hours" so no real "% complete"

Is that not relivant?


How about every OTHER additional feature? Volume Control has been reduced to "Master Volume" and "program volume" while program volume is cool... where are the options to change individual settings?


Let alone that Vista removes ALL advanced settings. Want to delete an extention? TOO BAD, learn to hack with regedit instead. Do you want to, change the audio rendering settings to full software emulation? TOO BAD, Removed because "it was confusing". Do you want to configure network devices? TOO BAD!!! Do you want to do ANYTHING besides run software... too... f'n... bad.


I say again, this looks just like Critisims of Firefox. Any Critisim that can be removed, is removed... even those that are CONFIRMED by Mozilla Corp THEMSELVES are removed. Wikipedians being fanboi's and reverting changes because they aren't to their liking.

And as for the idiocy remarks. They SHOULD be placed in, Vista downgrades any settings that advanced users may use because "idiots may find them and screw up their computer" Sigh. Spleen Partially Vented, continuing on the quest to find out how to change advanced audio settings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UAC disabling problem[edit]

I've added a sentence "and there is a risk of losing contents of files, that were previously virtualized, reverting to the original installed versions of these files."

If the "legacy" application installs empty database files by setup.exe application (process with this name gets the necessary privileges to install software into Program Files folder), and the user further uses the database and fills there some data, but lacks administrative rights in his token, user access to the files is virtualized to the hidden folder, while the original installed files keep the empty version of the database. Switching off the UAC virtualization reveals again these empty installed databases (or ini-files etc.) and the contents, that the user filled into virtualized files are practically inaccessible...

This is a critical problem of UAC, which may disable the user from switching it off!

(Semi, 2010-03-04) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.121.112 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vistaster[edit]

How exactly is this a criticism of Vista? It is off topic. and should be removed. 74.95.97.62 (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time for an update![edit]

This page is for Criticsisms of Vista exclusively! Windows 7 is out and therefore many of these criticisms need to be moved to [[5]] 74.95.97.62 (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Support[edit]

One of the more important problems with Windows Vista at launch was poor driver support, particularly the ATI and nVidia graphics drivers. This article should include the status and maturity of these two extremely important drivers at Vistas launch, but they are only obliquely referenced once. Other drivers were also a problem to the extent that, in microsoft fashion, a microsoft exec made a fuss about how the vista laptop he got was crippled because of vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.178.90 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This is still an issue for network cards and graphic cards to this day. Some companies such as Netgear bypassed the development of driver software for wireless hardware (such as WPN311) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.71.95.39 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book Windows Vista Resource Kit ISBN 9780735638013[edit]

The book Honeycutt, Jerry; Tulloch, Mitch; Northrup, Tony (2009). Windows Vista Resource Kit. O'Reilly Media. pp. 318–319. ISBN 9780735638013. does not seem to exist with that ISBN number and not from that publisher. The ISBN link can find a book with that title at Google books but not with that ISBN (fishy!). The Windows Vista Resource Kit Second Edition exists with ISBN 978-0-7356-2596-9 and ISBN 0-7356-2596-4 from Microsoft Press. The indicated pages (318-319) of that book do not support the statement at all.

Please update to reference the correct ISBN and publisher and refer to the correct pages or alternatively refer to section number/title preferably with quotation. --Useerup (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this book [6] (ISBN is as in the citation). Could you clarify? 1exec1 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know what's going on with that book. It is clearly the same book but everywhere else it is known under other ISBNs (ISBN 978-0-7356-2596-9 and ISBN 0-7356-2596-4). Are you perhaps quoting a mobi/epub version? Anyway, to clear it up, perhaps you could quote the criticism you have found in that book? Would it be possible for you to indicate the section title to avoid confusion about page numbers if ePub or other formats are involved? --Useerup (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seem that's just another edition of that book. From the format of the pages I guess it's indeed an ebook. The relevant quote:

  Why applications fail
The following list describes common compatibility issues for Windows Vista, <...>

* User Account Control (UAC). In Windows Vista, all interactive users, including members of the administrators group, run as standard users. UAC is the mechanism through which users can elevate applications to full administrator privileges. Because of UAC, applications that require administrator rights or check for administrator privileges behave differently in Windows Vista, even when run by a user as administrator.

1exec1 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Would you characterize that as criticism or a non-criticizing description? I fail to see any criticism. This article is not about features of Windows or about what WP editors believe is missing featurws. It is about criticism voiced publicly by reliable sources and significant viewpoints associated with that criticism (e.g. Microsoft's or others responses/justifications)Useerup (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The citation indeed does not criticise Vista. However, it is adequate for the text it is used to support ("The following concerns have been raised several Windows professionals <...>") since UAC is still a problem which received attention by that RS. Even though the opinion is not expressed strongly, it is still a slight criticism. 1exec1 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the text is still unbalanced, still draws its own conclusions with no support from RS. There's a rationale behind UAC which is even cited by the cited sources, but which is not mentioned in the text. The text uses weasel words (many, some) without specifics. Even "slight" criticism still needs at least one RS to support the criticism. This has to be fixed or the section removed as it is WP:UNDUE.--Useerup (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exact unsupported conclusion is being drawn? Windows 7 Annoyances supports entire sentence, Windows Vista Resource Kit supports the first part about concerns. What's the problem? 1exec1 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no source for criticism. Trying to label it as "slight" criticism doesn't cut it, especially since the claims have been taken out of context of the books which each also explain the advantages and the reasoning. WP should explain all significant viewpoints. Cherry-picking single sentences and passing them as criticism (while they're not) is dishonest and is not supported by the sources. Fix it or remove it. --Useerup (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useerup, I find it disgusting that you are going ahead and removing large chunks of text when this talk page obviously shows there is no consensus to do so. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not required to remove material when it is 1) not properly sourced and 2) potentially damaging. In this case I tagged it before removing it and allowed for ample time to find a source of criticism. In general, when material is disputed and until consensus can be built to keep material in an article, it should be left out until such consensus can be built. In this instance the "criticism" was expressed by WP editors - not by any of sources. Expressing your own criticism of a certain decision by a public figure or company and then referencing sources which merely report on the decision is not properly sourcing. This article is about criticism; it is not a web page where random editors can express their personal criticisms. For criticism to get a mention here it must be notable, it must have been expressed through a media which has meaningful editorial oversight and effort must have been made to see is there are any significant opposing viewpoints. If there are, they must be mentioned too. Be disgusted all you want, but that is the standard this article will be have to meet. Useerup (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Driver signing[edit]

Driver signing requirement is not new to Vista — previous x64 version of windows also required drivers to be signed. � (talk) 07:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAM Requirements[edit]

One of the problems with Windows Vista not talked at all about in this article is the huge leap in minimum RAM requirements from XP to Vista. The system requirements of RAM for XP is only 64 MB, the system requirements for Vista is 1 GB, or 1,000 MB. At the time that Vista, and then Windows 7 came out, our company was only using 128 MB of RAM for their Windows XP computers. I have one of the newer computers at home my company bought in 2005, it is an Optiplex GX-630, that came w/ 1 GB RAM, running XP, that computer due to the Architecture, (video card also stated by the article), is unsatisfactory in running Vista, or any Microsoft Operating System after XP. The computer runs XP, and the modern version of Lubuntu 18.04 super. A major problem for Vista was that the Hardware upon release was usually at 512 MB, or 1 GB, and is really unsatisfactory in running Windows Vista. Now, I am typing this on a 12 year old laptop with Windows Vista on it, (also dual boot Lubuntu 16.04.6 LTS). I have upgraded this laptop from 2 GB of RAM to 4 GB of RAM. The change in system requirements of RAM is actually one of the major reasons Vista failed, rather the Marketing of Vista failed by Microsoft. The company I worked for had invested it's money in the IBM AS400 Mini Mainframe, and the software to run it. Many companies did not, and were not able to make that jump at that time period. <https://www.technologytips.com/windows-system-requirements/>Easeltine (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Windows_Vista&oldid=1206827034"