Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Citation 24 link is invalid

Subject says all... -- 66.239.94.105 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. Whats the problem with the link? --soum ^talk 14:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because it requires a password to view it. — Alex^(U|C|E) 15:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you know?

Windows Vista is more popular than pornography *wonders if that would be a valid DYK submission* :P --soum ^talk 13:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha, Gud one.. But can we put Wikipedia data itself for DYK? Mugunth 07:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we cant. :( --soum ^talk 07:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Snapshot changed to JPG

wikid77 has changed the snapshot of Windows Vista to jpg version, from the high resolution PNG version. The snapshot is smaller in size, I agree, but there are compression artifacts. Moreover the PNG version is not large, just around 350 KB... Why don't we bring it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugunth Kumar (talk • contribs)

I prefer the PNG version. The JPG has compression artifacts not only around text but also where color changes are sharp. The artefacts are visible even in the thumbnail version. Plus WP guidelines prefer PNG to JPG for software screenshots. And 350 kb is no big deal unless you live in early 1990s. Plus the edit summary is definitely PoV. I am reverting it, since there seems to be consensus here. Wikid77, please do not rever unilaterally, join in the discussion. --soum ^talk 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To User:Soumyasch: You missed the point, I changed the screenshot to what? To JPEG? No, I changed the screenshot to both JPEG and PNG. I changed the screenshot to both, inclusive of both, and definitely not POV, but rather inclusive of both file formats. You're characterization of my including both PNG & JPEG and providing support to both groups, inclusively, described as "edit summary is definitely PoV" is a very slanted, biased inuendo and is totally inappropriate here, don't you agree? I found your remark utterly insulting, when I had provided support for BOTH files, inclusively, not just a PNG-only option. I'm converting back to support all users, as in June. Please do not revert again & again to the narrow, PNG-only viewpoint without further discussion. NOTE: I am asking you politely to please adjust your attitude and cooperate, instead of proclaiming "concensus" and reverting again & again. The JPEG connection links both file formats: if you need explanation, request more discussion here. This matter had been settled back in June. As a matter of fact, other users wanted all PNG files converted to JPEG format as well. So, that is the next topic to discuss (below). Please calm down and expand the discussion. Thanks. -Wikid77 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Even you missed the point of my comment totally. I said "linked for PNG fanatics who want PNG-only universe" was not neutral. It wasnt directed to your edit. I should have paid more attention to being politically correct. Sorry about that. And one more request, could you please point to prior discussion? --soum ^talk 10:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

To User:Soumyasch: Okay, I see your viewpoint about the phrase "PNG fanatics who want PNG-only universe" which is actually an intense, expressive comment, but not POV. The 2 attributes ("expressive" and "opinionated") are commonly linked, but expressive language is not the same as POV-slanted or biased opinions. For example, if someone said, "Drug addicts should get medical treatment, not jail time" then that statement doesn't intend a bias or demeaning tone with the term "drug addicts" but rather a descriptive label. Similarly, the term "fanatics" refers to real people, who have a real mindset and they do exist and act in a fanatical manner. The term doesn't imply a bias, such as "fanatics should have restricted computer access" or some such. I will note that other people have also considered expressive language as POV, which I think is tied to the emotional connotation of certain words, such as the term "murderer" considered an insult, rather than a legal conviction in court.

Now, the other subject: the prior discussion was private, and I warned that JPEG files would be reverted to PNG in an almost fanatical manner, which they are. That statement is not POV, but the action of instantly reverting to PNG as "sharper, clearer" is actually a very-biased, slanted viewpoint: in whose opinion (on what PC) is the image sharper/clearer? "Who's been crowned King of Image Judgment?" In fact, JPEG images can be clearer, due to auto-contrast of backgrounds which can make words easier to read, although pixel-for-pixel, the PNG files seem more accurate. Regardless, casting an opinion that "PNG files are clearer" is biased and depends on many factors. I did not say "POV" but I realize now that, yes, proclaiming PNG files as appearing better than JPEG or claiming artefacts as intolerable is totally POV-biased, slanted, judgmental, and opinionated. Thank you for that revelation. Hating image artefacts is, indeed, a POV-slanted viewpoint. -Wikid77 11:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We are going nowhere reading to much into each others lack of political correctness. So I am backing out of this discussion. As for technical suitability, I am responding in the later secn. --soum ^talk 11:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Activation / Reduced Functionality Mode?

I think we should mention the new activation requirements and what Reduced Functionality Mode is. --joeOnSunset 05:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not add it to the article yourself? In reduced functionality mode you get a web browser. I was able to get a CMD prompt through use of the file open menu on the web browser, but there does not appear do be any 'supported' way of opening applications. So for most users it will only be that web browser.

--Anss123 06:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way I can trigger that in an activated copy (without reinstallation)? --soum ^talk 07:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. Change your product key (Control Panel\System and Maintenance\System), but instead of re-activating set the date three months ahead and reboot. Don't do this unless you have unlimited activations!

--Anss123 07:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This might be something it would be better to add to the Criticism of Windows Vista article first, flesh out a bit, then summarize for the main article. There's some good info on it in one of Ed Bott's columns here. I'll try and get around to it in a few days if no-ones done it by then... *yawn* -- simxp (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC). Now done -- simxp (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not add it myself? I dunno, maybe I figured I'd actually use the.... talk page? Get some input, that sort of thing. Some people are bolder than others. Or maybe I was hoping someone industrious would come along and do it before I got back here. Sosumi! Thus the beauty of diveristy of life, etc. and so forth. Blah blah. ---joeOnSunset 03:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added some content a couple of days back... But some part of it has been changed to an extent that, the meaning of the content has changed... I'm reverting those back... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925582 This is where I got the info from... Please read this before making any changes. Thanks Mugunth 10:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that this needs to be in the article somewhere, "new an improved features" is not the right place for it: it's an antipiracy control, not a developer or end-user feature. Since I've just written a section on SPP for the Criticism of Windows Vista article, with a good few citations, I'll summarize that and port it over to the criticism section. -- simxp (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All PNGs with JPEG

10-July-2007: Some users have requested that all PNG-format images be displayed as quick JPEG thumbnails. It is easy to link both forms and allow enlargement to the 6x times larger PNG files, as well as allow viewing of the JPEG form. This falls under the category of PNG files as an "access barrier" which is discouraged by Wikipedia policies. Please discuss here about changing the "Windows Vista" article to display both quick JPEG files plus link larger PNG files, both, inclusively to accommodate a wider range of users. I have no technical preference, as I judge improvement by the way other people are treated. If you are angered by JPEG files, then please think carefully before responding. Thanks for your input. -Wikid77 09:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the request? And how exactly does a 350 KB file cause an "access barrier"? PNG is technically superior to JPG for software screenshots, thats why the preference. The JPG has significant compression artefacts visible. I would not have said anything if it were not visible in the thumbnail version but it clearly is.

Also using one and linking to another is not permissible. According to fair use policy, use of FU images must be minimized, which means deleting duplicate images. So either JPG or PNG, not both. Using JPG and linking PNG is also not permissible. FU images must be in use in the article; and linking does not count as use.

I also removed the section break, so that the entire set of arguments is visible in a single edit section. --soum ^talk 10:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The way JPG compression works is creates compression artefacts whereever sharp change in frequency occurs (around fonts, especially) and reduce sharpness. Its a design choice.(Do you want me to quote research papers which compare the effectiveness of JPG?) Resizing a raster image (as in when creating a thumbnail) already makes the fonts blurry, adding more noise does not help (since we cannot use both versions).

However, this has given me an idea. It would probably take long time but worth a try. MediaWiki should give an option to choose thumbnail format, regardless of source image format: either JPEG or PNG. So users can choose whether they want fast loading times or higher quality. I am creating a bugzilla feature request and will probably try writing an extension. --soum ^talk 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PNG#Comparison_with_other_file_formats

Read this article on wikipedia...

JPEG can produce a smaller file than PNG for photographic (and photo-like) images since it uses a lossy encoding method specifically designed for photographic image data. Using PNG instead of a high-quality JPEG for such images would result in a large increase in filesize (often 5–10 times) with negligible gain in quality.

PNG is a better choice than JPEG for storing images that contain text, line art, or other images with sharp transitions. Where an image contains both sharp transitions and photographic parts a choice must be made between the large but sharp PNG and a small JPEG with artifacts around sharp transitions.

If it is a natural scenery, photograph of a downtown or something, PNG will not have any perceivable difference, but in case of a computer software snapshot, where text and line art are inevitable, PNG is a better choice as it employs a lossless encoding technique as opposed to JPEG.

Hope that clears things... Let's have PNG format images instead of JPG... on this article (Windows Vista). Moreover, 350 kb PNG and 60 KB JPG will not affect the download time of the page in it's entirety unless, one uses a dial up or a slower connection... Mugunth 12:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus JPGs do not support transparency. So sshots which use transparent backgrounds, or show transparent window chrome cannot be replaced by a JPG. --soum ^talk 12:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the article doesn't display the full screenshots anyway. It's my understanding that the Wiki software caches the thumbnails of the image and uses those. So we're not even talking about 60K vs. 350K: it's 15K (JPG) vs. 65K (PNG). 50K isn't even worth worrying about, especially given the artifacting present in the JPG version and that PNG is preferred by policy. (Please note that disfavoring images with artifacts is not POV, as it is not POV to prefer accuracy over performance. In fact, it's Wikipedia policy to favor accuracy.) Powers ^T 13:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All PNGs with JPEG, part 2

10-July-2007: ("All PNGs with JPEG" User:Wikid77, topic originator) I've purposely remained out of this discussion for 7 hours, but the focus has shifted, drifting off-topic, so let me emphasize the discussion points again, with the emphasis on "can" (not "can't") be done:

Can both JPEG and PNG versions be linked to an image?
Reasoning: Yes, if the images are both allowed. Screenshots could be linked as both full & "close-up" images, clearly providing an avenue for 2 views of the same copyrighted screen to co-exist, one as a closeup. One would link visually, the other as a caption-link.

Clarification: According to WP:FU's One-article minimum, all copyrighted images must appear in articles, so it would probably be best to show both images with text that refers to the full-size and closeup views. However, if either image appears in some other "one-article (minimum)" that image would not need to be shown. There is no wording in WP:FU that prohibits a close-up view, just keep resolution low. -Wikid77 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can both PNG & JPEG version images be visually linked in the article?
Reasoning: In a single image-box, showing both versions would likely be confusing as repetition; however, in the see-also links, it would be possible to thumbnail-display the unseen version as a link to its full-size image, in the manner done in many American-Civil-War articles that link both PNG & JPEG versions in each article.

Restriction: For copyrighted images, the WP:FU states, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." Typically, the see-also section is navigational, so copyrighted fair-use images would need to appear in another section, where their appearance is emphasized by the text. Putting such text within a see-also section would probably be judged as excessive detail, so another section would be better for showing such images. -Wikid77 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can the full-size images be ignored to focus solely on thumbnail display?
Reasoning: The only word readable on the thumbnail screenshot is "Welcome" so I suspect first-time viewers are clicking to view the full-size image (59kb JPEG or 350kb PNG). Doesn't it make sense that new viewers would want to see the full-size Vista screen? Thus unfortunately, the problem remains both, with the full-size PNG slower by 350/59kb = 5.93x (nearly 6x times slower than JPEG). The equivalent thumbnails are 65kb PNG or 14kb JPEG. Note the vast difference: the full-size JPEG (59kb) is even 10% faster than the tiny thumbnail PNG. No wonder people complained about the PNG speed: the PNG thumbnail is slower than full-size JPEG.
Can we just ignore these JPEG users?
Reasoning: They, or perhaps their associates, might have limited speed connections. At 5kb transfer rate, the full-size PNG needs over 70 seconds to display (350kb/5 + buffering time), while the JPEG requires around 11.8 seconds (59kb/5 + buffering). No wonder the concern: the full-size PNG requires nearly an entire minute longer to display (over 58 seconds).
Can we double-link just the top screenshot image?
Reasoning: Well, after the top image was linked as only JPEG, one user requested all PNG images in article "Windows Vista" be replaced with quicker JPEG files. Since Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, I think it comes down to asking if people are smart enough to link both image-formats and satisfy a wider range of users.

Analysis: Past the top image, other PNG screenshots were much faster/thinner images, with PNG thumbnails linked to only 61kb-125kb images, rather than 350kb full-size. The sizing made the other PNG images equivalent to the size/speed of the first screenshot in JPEG format, which was not regarded as still "too slow" and, so, only the top image, as a PNG version, caused the slow display problems, with a 65kb thumbnail. The size/speed difference between top & other PNG files prompted the suggestion that resizing the full-size top screenshot might significantly reduce the thumbnail speed/weight as well, more in line with the 4x-faster other PNG screenshot thumbnails. While the JPEG versions would still be even 6x times faster than those PNGs, the elapsed clock-time would be tolerable for waiting to see the PNG versions. -Wikid77 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will begin by linking the top-screenshot PNG as visible in the see-also section, as a tactic to make this "impossible" task more possible. Please continue discussions, I see several problems have been resolved by the discussion thus far. Thanks. -Wikid77 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Result: The see-also section was not changed, after objections based on the WP:FU questioned acceptability of non-free images in a see-also section. -Wikid77 12:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(off topic) I have changed the bullets to numbers for easier referencing when responding. --soum ^talk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Number 2, no that cannot be done. Screenshots of Windows Vista is a fair use image, and by policy their use MUST BE as limited as possible. That means no redundnacies.

Number 3, In the JPG version compression artefacts are visible in both thumbnail and full size images; with them being more visible in the larger size. And save for dial up (or slower) users, using a poor quality image does not benefit anyone. And the way of linking to PNGs is not discoverable at all.

Linking in see also secn All FU images MUST be accompanied by critical discussion of the context, and CANNOT be used decoratively. Using in see also is just decorative. So it cannot be done. Volunteer effort does not mean we get a free ticket to infringe copyright. Wikmedia foundation takes copyright very seriously, and the fair use doctrine is very strict about the leeway it gives.

Please do not make unilateral changes as the discussion is continuing. Thats not productive. Wait till a consensus is reached here. --soum ^talk 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

None on the images in the American Civil War article are fair use images. So you cannot cite that article as precedents. All images used here are restricted use images. But over there, they are public domain images, and you can use them whichever way you want. But restricted usage images must adhere to a strict set of rules. Please read the fair use policy. --soum ^talk 18:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the most important issue, and that's that the PNG image is more accurate. That's why Wikipedia policy dictates the use of PNGs (wherever possible) for non-photorealistic screenshots. Performance is a consideration, but it's not a primary one. Powers ^T 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And who is using 5kb transfer rate lines...? Even a dial-up connection gives upto 56 kbps and easily, you can reach speeds of around 30 kbps for more than 80% of time. Which means, the comparison is between 2s time taken for PNG vs 0.33s time taken for jpg. Moreover, nearly all the snapshots of Windows Vista screens in the article uses PNG. Wikipedia also favors accuracy over performance. And here when performance is not affected, why not use PNG? Moreover, having multiple copies of the same image in different format is a violation of the fair use policy. Moreover, the discussion whether, PNG should be used or JPG should be used, should be on the policies page and not here. Because the policy dictates use of PNG, and because PNG is preferred over JPG throughout Wikipedia, I prefer to go with PNG. What do you people say? Mugunth 04:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

56 kilobits per second is 7 kilobytes per second, at maximum efficiency. 5 KBps is therefore a reasonable estimate for the speed of a 56k modem, and Wikid77's estimates of time it should take for these things to load on such a device is roughly correct. A remarkable percentage of the public still uses 56k.

On the non-technical side, personally I prefer the larger and more accurate PNGs. Fidelity for the majority trumps loading time for the minority any day in my book, especially given that you're hardly missing much if you don't see a screenshot of Vista at the side of the article. It's not surprising that using a modern Internet site requires you have broadband if you want decent loading time. I do admit I'm pretty surprised at the poor performance of PNG here, but I guess it's unavoidable in the case of a mix of photo-like and text-like stuff. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely oppose converting all screenshots to JPEG. Some of the screenshots are a bit large, yes, but not all of them are like that. The Windows Media Player's thumbnail, for example, is about 21.6 KiB, which is not that much. This can be explained by the fact that since the screenshot was taken using Kenny Kerr's Window Clippings, the colors that would be seen as a background are instead replaced by transparency, conserving file size. If most screenshots can be re-taken using Kenny Kerr's Windows Clippings, I'm sure the size problem can be eliminated, with a few exceptions of screenshots with fancy backgrounds (which is sometimes unavoidable). — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I might be a bit wrong about Kenny Kerr's feature reducing file size (somebody please verify) but the thumbnails are still not a big problem. The default MediaWiki thumbnail size is 180 pixels, and if users aren't happy, they can reduce it in their settings. I made sure (at least I think it was me who did it) that almost all the screenshots in this article could be adjusted through user preferences. PNGs shouldn't be a big problem. — Alex^(U|C|E) 02:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To Alex: Thanks for your input. This topic wasn't so much about concensus but rather, capability, of linking both JPEG & PNG to support both user groups. I have noticed that some thinner PNG thumbnails come from smaller full-size PNGs, which is also true for JPEGs: massive JPEG photos (megapixels) generate double-size heavier thumbnails than 600x400 JPEGs, which often thumbnail-resize as 4kb-19kb.

However, the JPEG reality is "stranger than fiction": after months of analyzing the JPEG clarity, I noticed how the JPEG images had sharper contrasts (the black lettering was blacker), and don't "tell" anyone else, but the sharper lettering came from the artefact regions, where the JPEG seemed to lighten the background, darken the lettering, and produce clearer wording on small images. Although the PNG was more accurate, pixel-for-pixel, the JPEG was easier to read for sharper wording, while the PNG file was equally blurry, image-wide. Perhaps people who asked for JPEG screenshots knew they were clearer than PNG, but regardless, I only approached the dual-link issue to try supporting both PNG & JPEG, not to reveal that JPEGs were actually clearer. Don't be mad at Wikipedia, for proclaiming PNGs "better for text" when JPEGs actually sharpen letter contrasts, because similar "inverse-revelations" have happened in many fields of study, such as introducing predator insects into a region, only to learn that the predator grew worse than the original pest. Such a situation can be considered a cosmic joke: that an encyclopedia bases policies on bad information that would never have appeared in a "better" encyclopedia. Also, consider it a hint from God not to get too obsessed with "right" and "wrong" policy, when the whole fiasco is just part of God's endless circus for enjoying life. That's another good reason to focus on the capability (of potentially linking both PNG & JPEG files), rather than obsess on concensus, as though the editing of this one article really matters much in life. Thanks for maintaining a balanced view about the subject. -Wikid77 03:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All PNGs with JPEG, part 3

[Part 3 subheader allows concurrent edit of parts. -Wikid77]

Whats sharper to you might not be to others (I personally find the artefacts distracting), and thats where consensus comes in. Rather than moulding the service to our preferences, we compromise a little so that it is the liking to most of the editors, not me or you. And consensus (a guideline is formed out of consensus only, and the same preference is clearly reflected here) is currently with PNG. You may start the discussion at the talk page there if you want to change the consensus. As for contrast in PNG, I am sure there are plenty of us for whom Photoshop is only a few clicks away. And policies are here for a reason, not to be overruled by IAR.

As for linking both JPG and PNG files, I already said, thats not possible under fair use. By minimal use, one has to go. Anyone can anytime submit it for fair use violation, and the deleting admin would go by policies and delete the JPEG image, as guideline specifies PNG for sreenshots. Heck, duplicates (which are decided by common sense, not by pixel-by-pixel accuracy) are actually speedily deletable under CSD I1 (I7 also applies) without any discussion whatsoever. Because I am in the discussion, I wont personally do either the nomination or deletion, but cannot say of anyone else. I also pointed out the deficiencies of JPG, most important being lack of transparencies. JPEG is a very good format, but not for screenshots or images with mixed text and images with prominent same color blocks, gradients and line arts (which screenshots fit the description perfectly). Why else do you thing SVGs are rendered as PNG and not JPG?

"Proclaiming PNG files as appearing better than JPEG or claiming artefacts as intolerable is totally POV-biased, slanted, judgmental, and opinionated" indeed is true. Everyone has a POV; even Wikipedia does not prohibit you from having one. What it prohibits is you forcing your POV upon the masses. (You is used as a generic term, not as a reference to a particular editor) As I said, the consensus clause is there to prevent exactly this, as a consensus reflects the collective opinion of the masses. If I tried to change all photographic images from JPG to PNG (assuming I am what you call a PNG fanatic) claiming that PNGs do not cause image quality degradation, I would only end up beating a dead horse. Similarly, changing PNGs to JPGs because someone feels artefacts enhance contrast, even though a JPG gives an inappropriate representation of the actual screen (thats not a POV, thats a fact) is against consensus as well.

As I already said, I wont invoke policies and delete the JPG or change the policy and delete the PNG, as I have a COI. Till either happens, I am suggesting a simple poll, kept open for two or three days. Probably all technical and political reasons, that can be cited have already been stated. Now we need to just find out consensus, in clear and simple words, via a count of Support and Oppose votes. You might also consider bringing it up at WT:FU and WT:IUP if you want the policies changed. --soum ^talk 09:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of comments

"According to WP:FU's One-article minimum, all copyrighted images must appear in articles, so it would probably be best to show both images with text that refers to the full-size and closeup views. However, if either image appears in some other "one-article (minimum)" that image would not need to be shown. There is no wording in WP:FU that prohibits a close-up view, just keep resolution low"

Actually there is. Its called Minimal use (3a) which states "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary". An alternative interpretation is that there will be no redundancy. If the JPG is used, then there is need for another version without the artefacts for correctness. If that is used, then the JPG is redundant (also incorrect representation, buts lets keep that out for policy's sake), and thus not usable. Not using PNG means that information presented is not complete. If the PNG is just linked, it would fail one use minimum and this get deleted. With this particular PNG, it is being used elsewhere, so linking wouldnt get the image deleted. But what if the sshot is updated which isnt used anywhere else? We cannot have this discussion everytime a shot is changed! --soum ^talk 12:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus users can contol the size of both thumbnails and the image desc page view. If someone feels the sizes are too big, they can easily reduce both the size from preferences, which would reduce the amount of data to be downloaded as well. So, we should not benefit one set of users (dial up users) at the cost of others when they can get the same benefit other ways as well. --soum ^talk 12:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

The "Criticism" section of this article is supposed to be a summary of Criticism of Windows Vista; however, the two are now rather out of sync. For example, the section on Kernel Patch Protection in the Criticism article has been removed (actually, moved in its entirety to the Kernel Patch Protection article) on the grounds that, since it was present in the 64-bit editions of XP and Server 2003, criticism of it isn't actually criticism of Vista specifically. In addition, the section on UAC in the criticism article seems to have been whittled down to nothing and then deleted altogether. I hesitate to delete the two sections in this article (to keep it in line with the criticism article) without discussion, so, any comments? -- simxp (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That section is way too big. I move to cut it down to two paragraphs, and leave the rest for the main Criticism article.--Anss123 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

And now someone's added ([1] [2]) another paragraph which is not present in the criticism article, without a single citiation, which makes several slightly dubious claims ("XPDM drivers supported Vista Aero in the beta versions of Windows Vista" is contradicted by the Windows Display Driver Model article, and in any case gives the rather misleading impression that all graphics cards could run Aero in the Vista beta, which is obviously untrue). I'm removing it until the adding user can cite to some sources, and left a note on their talk page. -- simxp (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone considered adding a general reaction section instead? The article seems to be biased towards the negative by giving criticism of the OS its own section, as opposed to a general reaction section. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to source a 'general reaction' beyond scattered forum posts here and there. Also, keep in mind that 'Criticism' need not be negative, I know that there's articles filled with positive criticism of Vista. Pointing out faults is always easier though.--Anss123 20:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more on the lines of professional reviews and articles from reliable third party sources about sales. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I want to add information on installing XP over Vista, and how difficult that is. As seen here: [3] and here: [4] and here: [5]. There are more, but I think three separate sources are enough. So should I add this here, or elsewhere? --Moriatti

I am sorry, but forums are not considered reliable enough to be used as sources. Plus, this is not a how-to site. --soum ^talk 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the removal of the criticism section of this article entirely, and moving the content it contains to more appropriate sections. See Wikipedia:Criticism, which states that creating separate sections titled "Criticism" is generally discouraged. Iccdel 02:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism is neither a policy nor a guideline. Criticism sections are quite common to talk about criticisms and responses to criticisms. The Criticisms section probably should be shortened, but I'm not what's the best way to go about doing that. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with removing the Criticism section; it's appropriate and well supported by the linked page. It could do with a tighten up, and be more closely aligned with the criticism page. peterl 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I have with it is that this article is quite long. It might make more sense to have a short summary here and leave the bulk of the criticisms for Criticism of Windows Vista. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree it could be shortened a bit. peterl 05:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing Similarities to OS X?

I also want to add that I'm not sure that the Similarity to OS X should be included in the Criticism section, as that's a very strong opinion not shared by a lot of people. While it deserves to be on the criticisms article, I just don't think it adds to the main one. I say this only because it's not a very detrimental attack to Windows Vista that is primarily only focused on by people who primarily prefer Mac OS X over Windows anyway. Of course, if Apple ever filed a suit against Microsoft for this, I'd very willingly eat my words, but for now, I think it should just reside on the criticisms article. UP ON CPU 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

When I read that section, my reaction was "who cares?" It is indeed not a criticism. Nowhere is it written that Windows should be different from Mac OS. You could consider it a criticism of Microsoft if they're stealing from Apple, but that doesn't really have any effect on whether Vista is good or bad. 67.167.15.194 04:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

File System/s supported?

I am trying to connect a drive from a previous computer as a USB Hard Drive. The drive is not being recognized. Anyone know if VISTA supports FAT32 or FAT? I wonder if that is the problem... I see one comment on NTFS, but otherwise no comment on the file system support in Vista.. TIA Martin | talk • contribs 03:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it supports FAT32, though it cannot be used on the boot volume (in *nix lingo, root file system). --soum ^talk 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harware Requirements

As of Windows Vista Beta 2, the NVIDIA GeForce...
This is from the Hardware Requirements section of the article. Seems pretty out of date now. Are the requirements the same as the Beta 2 version? It should be changed to reflect the release version. SnakeSeries 08:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Service Pack 1

Can the section which claims that Service Pack 1 will be released on 29 July 2007 be removed or revised per chance? It's already been stated by Microsoft that it will not be released to the general public or outside of a 'limited' scope of testers this month. ZBrannigan 02:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Release date

Noticed that Windows 2000 and XP articles both use the retail release date. So how come this article uses the RTM release date? Shouldn't there be consistency between all articles? Smoothy 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

64 bit version

Should there not be a mention of 64-bit Vista here?

I've added a line in the "Editions and Pricing" section -- "All editions except Windows Vista Starter support both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) processor architectures" -- copied from the main Editions and Pricing article. Better than nothing, at least. -- simxp (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mass removal of Criticism

Regarding my recent revert, I am generally in favour of a mass removal of the criticism section to it's own page. But before that is done every single piece of information in that section must be cross-checked and where needed inserted into the Criticism sub-page, to ensure that nothing gets lost. To avoid my ire, please make the additions to the criticism page first before you remove the data from the main Vista page. Thank you. peterl 23:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A criticism article is *not* a self-sustained article, it is intended as a companion article where everything can be explained in details, and the most visible criticism be summarized onto the main article. As such, I am against removal of specific instances from the criticism section from the main article (which is intended to give a summary of all aspects of the OS, and censoring criticism is POV). Saying Windows Vista has been criticized is not enough to summarize the criticism. We need to set up the context for the most visible criticism, which can then be detailed in the criticism article. <sarcasm>All features are explained in sub articles as well, so just saying Vista ha a lot of new features should be enough here.</sarcasm> I am reverting the removal. What it needs is pruning and not removal. --soum ^talk 06:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I didn't do the mass removal; I'm for a prune but what had been done removed too much valuable material. peterl 11:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

My comment wasnt aimed at you :P --soum ^talk 11:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of criticism may cause the article to sound POV-ish, which is why I am for having the criticisms back, but pruned. -Mardus 12:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of the Criticism section, unless it is in favor of moving the criticisms to the appropriate sections of the main article. It is my (strongly held) opinion that segregating the Criticism into its own section is inherently POV. This article lists feature after feature, upgrade after upgrade, and it's only at the bottom that we hear anything other than what I could have read from Microsoft's advertisements. It does not do an adequate job portraying a variety of opinions on the OS. I happen to more-or-less like the OS, but there are certain things associated with it which I feel are very serious issues and should be given appropriate space in the article about the operating system.

Further, if the separate Criticism section is bad, the Criticism article is even worse. It seems akin to sweeping the Criticisms under a rug, and is absolutely preposterous, in my opinion.

Finally, the Criticism section itself is simply poor. Less than 50% of the section is actually criticism - most of it is Microsoft's rebuttals/excuses! Completely unacceptable, in my opinion. I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia, but it disgusts me that this article, in this state, is considered "Good". In my conversations with other tech-savvy people (and this is personal experience, nothing more or less), it seems most people who know what is going on are simply hoping that Vista will become the next ME, and that we'll be able to simply forget about the myriad problems associated with Vista. This article, on the other hand, makes the OS appear to be the obvious upgrade, a no-brainer for anyone buying a computer. It misrepresents reality in a very significant way. When it costs more to buy XP than Vista, you know they're having a hard time getting people to use it. This article is completely inadequate in addressing this.

I do not, personally, have the time required to fully research and cite an accurate "Criticism" section, though I would if it were possible, since the Wikipedians who have maintained this article clearly do not feel it is necessary. I've watched several similar discussions to this one in the past on this page, and the people active here have really shot down any suggestion that this page is anything but perfectly NPOV. I've seen it claimed that having a separate "Criticism" section is standard operating procedure (though no link to any policy regarding this was ever provided), and people were assured that there were good reasons for things being done this way. I've tried, and failed, to figure out what they are - would someone care to illuminate me on this matter? Someone explain why all negative references to the OS should be relegated to the bottom of the page, or better yet! another page entirely? Why the criticism section should contain more rebuttal than criticism? Why the rest of the article seems to pretend that there is no criticism? Please, I'm completely at a loss to explain any of these things. --DragoonWraith 19:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, you're disgusted. A bit strong of an emotion, don't you think? Anyways, the reason that there are rebuttals included in the criticism is because those responses are available, and we should provide both sides of a discussion where we can. This requirement is made extremely clear by Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view core content policy, in particular the parts about balance and fairness of tone. If you're just going to drop by Wikipedia once every few months to bitch about how this article isn't written in a form that pleases your stated anti-Microsoft bias, then, please, find something else to do with your time. We don't need that kind of "help" here.

We have a separate criticim article because the quantity of available information on criticism of Windows Vista is such that including it all here would make the article too long. This article almost perfectly follows the MOS's guidelines on creating Wikipedia:Summary style articles. Furthermore, the criticisms mentioned wouldn't naturally fit into the rest of the article, because the issues they bring up are generally more issue-specific than we have space to go into in this article. -/- Warren 18:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is clear that splitting criticism into a separate article is *strongly* discouraged. So I strongly disagree with it being siphoned off. Even if there is enough criticism to warrant a separate article it is still neccesary to maintain a large body of summary information in the main article.

(what part of this article was edited by) Microsoft

something should be done to determine how much of this entry has been created by microsoft... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.180.48 (talk • contribs) on 13:23, 9 August 2007

The contribution history is public. --Yamla 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is, and there is a tool which shows how many edits each contributor has made. Even using this tool, I don't know how you could tell which editors are part of Microsoft? And more to the point: why? --Unixguy 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a large majority of the article's contents. I don't work for Microsoft nor have they paid me, or even so much as been bothered to thank anyone here for their efforts. -/- Warren 18:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You sure did! 758 edits as of today - 8/13/2007. I just linked the count tool page to your large majority words. I don't work for Microsoft either, and I'd like to be the first to say "Warren, thanks for your contributions!" --Unixguy 18:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add my thanks as well, both to you and to all other unsung contributors in the general spirit of things. In reply to the grandparent poster: On a practical level, I don't think it matters in the slightest whether Microsoft employees have contributed to the article. What matters is that the content be accurate, verifiable, and NPOV; if it is all of those, what does it matter who wrote it? a conflict of interest is only a problem insofar as it threatens to violate NPOV and verifiability, no? -- simxp (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly? Josh 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Market penetration

Would it be relevant for the article to include detail about Vista's market penetration? peterl 17:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarity to Mac OS X

Is this section needed? In every industry, companies look at the cool things their competition is doing and try to do them themselves.

The citations don't actually say the similarities are criticisms as much as observing them, making part the section at least partially POV or OR, but I'm sure there are sources out there that criticize Vista for that.

On one hand, I don't think it's a valid criticism, and its current state borders on OR, but I do recognize that we can find sources criticizing Vista for similarities to OS X. I'm just not sure what to do when it comes to a topic that's existence is probably biased with sources that are closer to fanboys than reputable sources.

If someone says wikipedia is bad because it spreads information, 1) is it notable, and 2) isn't that the nature of wikipedia? 171.71.37.103 00:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with the clarifyme template, as the logic escapes me too. I would get it if these features that are similar were actually bad, then it would make sense to criticize Vista for being worse for them. But apparently they are instead good features. Is the idea that Microsoft is infringing on some Apple patents, and can expect to be sued any day now? Apparently not. Then why? Because (strawman alert) Vista having good features cuts into Apple's profits, and because Apple is a more likeable company than Microsoft, it's therefore evil for Microsoft to compete with them? (huh?) Or what? Nothing I could come up with makes any sense, so hopefully someone who gets the idea will clarify, so that all readers can understand it. -- Coffee2theorems 23:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Similarity is not necessarily bad. It might be more suited to a critism of business practices, rather than a critism of the OS itself. --rsantmann

This is a common comment on Vista and however you spin it (good or bad) I feel it belongs on this page. Nilbert 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no question on whether Vista borrows from OSX, but I do not think that is worthy of its own section. All companies steal each other's ideas; Apple has stole as many ideas from MS as MS has from Apple, and they've both stolen ideas originally from the OSS community. Criticism of Microsoft copying Apple belong in the Microsoft article, and not in the specific product's article. If every product that copied something else had this criticism listed, the list would be huge. Why pick on one product in particular? Scortiaus 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Errors

I know that errors might sound like a redundant thing for a Microsoft product, but they managed to mess up all of their games. None of the games included with Vista are capable of keeping proper track of any of their respective statistics. Apparently I have only managed to play solitaire 8 times in the last couple of months. (I played more than twice that in the last hour.) I have also apparently never won, despite the fact that I won 3 games right in a row. This seems to be a silly error that could have been avoided by a first year programming student. User:evilmadman80 0447, 22 August 2007 Zulu. —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:48, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Do you have a source for that issue? Paul Cyr 15:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

SP1 Beta and Release

windows vista doesnt suport 5.1 and 7.1 suround

Microsoft is planning to release SP1 alongside Windows Server 2008 in the second half of 2007,[39][40] with a beta later this year.[41]"

that doesnt even make sense second half of 2007 with a bata later this year no matter when later this year refers to, its in the second half of 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.89.125 (talk) 18:10, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Reversion on some Vista article (moved from User Talk: Paul Cyr)

Please explain this to me, buddy: [6] - Thanks in advance. Scarian ^Talk 17:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The numerous links from numerous sources in the proceeding text support the statement. Paul Cyr 17:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Market and Sale Data Required

This article lacks the marketing and sale data which are usually published to public domain, such as number of copies sold (regional and worldwide), copies refunded, company's income through this product, regional sale data, popularity with people and public opinion, etc.

I urge all wikipedians who can help deliver these information to make haste. Fleet Command 10:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I made a request for this above on 19 Aug. peterl 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MiB vs. MB (moved from User Talk: Paul Cyr)

You said "although MiB is more definative, MB is 2^20B in this context. The sources are in MB too"

What are "the sources"? An MB is 2^20 in this context, thus you must write MiB. See the Wikipedia manual of style regarding this. Please revert your revert. njaard 00:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"The sources" being the sources for the information you are editing. The manual of style does not support your position as it says, "Most publications, computer manufacturers and software companies continue to use the historical binary units (KB, MB, GB).

There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other, especially if there is uncertainty as to which term is appropriate within the context—one must be certain whether "100 GB" means binary not decimal units in the material at hand before equating it with 100 GiB." Paul Cyr 15:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The MoS says "...When this is certain, the use of parentheses for IEC binary prefixes, for example, 256 KB (KiB) is acceptable" - it is certain because we are talking about memory, which cannot be had in decimal multiples. njaard 02:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's clear Microsoft quote all their figures in MB, so that's what this article should use. peterl 06:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I second Peterl. When describing Microsoft's products, and especially when quoting system requirements, we should follow their usage, unless it is misleading to the extent that following their usage would be not NPOV. The situation is comparable to the decision on whether to refer to the bookmarks feature of IE as "Favorites" or "Favourites": if Microsoft followed country spelling conventions with software sold in the UK and US, there would be a legitimate debate on which spelling to use; the manual of style would be consulted, and it might be decided to go with the first article major contributor (or possibly the US conventions since MS is a US company); but since they in fact spell it "Favorites" in software sold in both countries, there is no debate; the article uses MS's conventions when talking about MS software, and rightly so. -- simxp (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But favorites and favourites mean the same thing. When microsoft says MB in this case, they mean MiB, and thus, as according to the MoS, that is what should be specified. Microsoft is not god of terminology.
If you're not sure if Microsoft means 1000000 bytes or 1048576 bytes, then maybe the article should say so.njaard 16:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thereis no doubt which one Microsoft means, in the context of memory requirements at least: they are using MB as a binary unit, to mean 1048576 bytes; as everyone did before the 1999 IEC paper, and, I'm afraid, as most people still do. I'm not certain you've read the manual of style page you're citing, so if you will permit me to quote it: "There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other ... When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor". In this case, binary SI prefixes are the established usage, and for good reason: they are what Microsoft uses, and we are quoting the system reqs for a Microsoft product. I agree that an exception could be made if the usage was misleading, but it isn't: it's the OED usage, and even the Wiki page on Mebibyte states that "the megabyte (MB) ... can be a synonym for mebibyte'". -- simxp (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The MoS says "...When this is certain, the use of parentheses for IEC binary prefixes, for example, 256 KB (KiB) is acceptable". njaard 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AKA the Jesus article's BC/BCE AD/CE mess? "Acceptable", certainly, but read the paragraph: neither of the three alternatives is regarded as unacceptable; which one to use depending on the presence of ambiguity, first usage, and context. Alright: if you really, genuinely think that the terminology that has been used for many decades and in almost all file managers has suddenly become confusing and misleading since the publication of the 1999 IEC paper, go ahead and make the change. I'm certainly not going to edit-war on this. But I would politely request that you not affect the pretense, as you have done above, that you are only humbly implementing the Manual of Style's dictum and fein indignation when someone dares to disagree ("you must write MiB. See the Wikipedia manual of style regarding this. Please revert your revert"). -- simxp (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not declaring that I am fullfilling the MoS's requirements, I am declaring that I am resolving a potential source of confusion for readers- many not-so-technical people do believe MB always means "millions of bytes". Paul Cyr reverted my original change, I am not sure why. I pointed out that the change is accepted by the MoS. I could have reverted his revert, but instead I asked him to do that himself so as not to risk Undo Hockey. It's apparent that you are debating based on what terminology you prefer rather than if my change should have been reverted in the first place. So I will reinstate my change and if you feel the need to revert it again, perhaps you should seek WikiArbitration first. njaard 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's clear your moves are against the majority of editors here, and to restate my case from earlier "It's clear (the source) Microsoft quote all their figures in MB, so that's what this article should use". It's got nothing to do with what we prefer, and more to do with what the source states. I'd rather you didn't re-instate your change. peterl 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Windows Vista Premium Ready specifies a DVD-ROM drive

The Windows Vista system requirements table is incorrect, a "Windows Vista Premium Ready" computer must have a DVD-ROM drive; see the source. --121.45.231.15 13:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks! I've made the change. -- simxp (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

SP1 DOES Have a kernel update

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx

[3] Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 have been built from the same fundamental source code base since the beginning. Many of the

core files are identical between the two products, although each product has unique features, specific individual files and functional behaviors that are appropriate for the intended customer uses for the specific product. For example, Windows Media Center only appears in Windows Vista, while Active Directory or Windows Clustering only appear in Windows Server 2008. Examples of common files shared between the two operating systems are the kernel and core OS files, the networking stack, file sharing. In the past year since the Windows Vista public release, the common files in Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 have been continually improved based on customer beta feedback, customer deployments, and Microsoft internal testing.

Notice: ~"Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 have been built from the same fundamental source code base since the beginning." ~"Examples of common files shared between the two operating systems are the kernel and core OS files, the networking stack, file sharing." Eshcorp 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore me. I just read the last line which says the same. I accidentially thought that line was removed for some reason, sorry Eshcorp 13:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Clinging to XP

It should be noted that some people and consumers are clinging to XP for the time being. I, myself had a notebook that came with Vista, and downgraded for the less demanding XP OS. The owner of the shop I apprentice in said he'd hold off on getting vista himself, and that many companies would be slow to adopt it, being that they have been trained, and worked on XP for awhile already. This same owner is also the Technical Resources Manager in the IT Department at UWM (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee).70.94.7.252 13:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So? 1) Do you have a reliable source for this? 2) Any time a new OS comes out a lot of people cling to the older one. The same thing happened with XP. Paul Cyr 17:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to find a reliable source. Vista is very resource hungry as opposed to previous windows versions. But yeah, I will search for a source that is more than word on the street. For this reason I have only stated it here, and not the main article. --Ben414 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The daughter article Criticism of Windows Vista already has sections on Performance and Hardware Requirements; if those don't already cover the points you want to make, expanding them would probably be your first port of call. -- simxp (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support for 16 bit Windows applications

I don't see any mention of this for the 32bit or 64bit versions, this seems like important information, especially considering MS's obsession with compatibility. --NEMT 19:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

MS wants to keep 32-bit and 64-bit compatible because a lot of current hardware and software is still 32-bit. 16-bit software hasn't been regularly produced in about ten years, so promising compatibility with it isn't going to be much of a selling point. As a result, most of the information MS has about 16-bit compatibility is regarding special configuration for when things go wrong with the default legacy support. Garrett^Talk 00:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can Microsoft Access 2.0 based applications be used with Vista? - Bevo 20:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

UAC Information

Showing examples of where the User Account Control in the critcisims section is correct, but it fails to mention that the UAC feature can easily be turned off and overridden to stop alerting the user, this also applies for confliction 3rd party software. I added this yesterday but it appears to have been removed.

Opinions?

Cheers Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benpaul12 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's something that really should be noted. Can't imagine why it wasn't added to begin with, or why it was removed after you added it, Ben Toxicityj 18:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. The reason was given in my edit summary, which you can see in the history page; but I'll repeat it here.

On the UAC page, after the note that you can turn it off is a paragraph explaining the dangers of doing so. For example: "...since File & Registry Virtualization is only active when UAC is turned on, user settings and configuration files may be installed to a different place (a system directory rather than a user-specific directory) if UAC is switched off than they would be otherwise...", leading to problems using the program. Also note that Internet Explorer's "protected mode" relies on UAC and won't work if UAC is turned off. The trouble is, in the very short summarised paragraph on UAC there's no room to explain all this -- and any explanation would probably get deleted anyway since it's not criticism, and the paragraph is after all part of the criticism section. As such, our guiding principle should really be Do No Harm. -- simxp (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Video Games

Nothing is mentioned of the fact that the vast majority of video games mde before the Vista came out don't work. A massive bummer for any gamer. Like me. We need to include this but I don't have any references.Tourskin 03:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Nothing is mentioned" -- except for the three paragraphs on software compatibility in Criticism of Windows Vista, you mean? Although, now you mention it, the game compatibility paragraph could do with a few citations; if you do find any, they'd be gratefully received on that page. (On a more practical note, open Windows update and download all the Compatibility Updates, if you haven't done so already -- there have been loads of them; lots of games that had problems originally now work fine. Oh, and RA2 works fine for me...). -- simxp (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Tourskin 18:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think vast majority is flawed. Only a few games have major compatibility problems with Vista Nil Einne 09:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism - Digital Rights Management

The sentence about Peter Gutmann should be rewritten to remove the "author of the open source cryptlib library" statement. This sentence already includes a link to Gutmann's Wikipedia page and his authorship of cryptlib is properly documented there.

Likewise, there has been a lot of recent criticism over the accuracy of Gutmann's work. Some mention of this criticism should follow. I will suggest the following:

Technology writer, Ed Bott disagrees with Gutmann's findings and claims that Gutmann failed to do any hands-on testing with the actual released version of Vista and that his paper relies on older, out of date information obtained while the product was still in development.

A link to his detailed blog should be provided: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299

Otaddy 15:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)