Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Visual styles?

Is it XP or Vista, or both, that have 4 visual styles?

Please provide a citation to support this edit. Thank you. 71.252.113.85 (talk) 16:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That user has been warned. There is no rationale for something like that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Vista is Theme-Wise the very same as Win7 :

Win2000like Classic and Vista (7) Basic Look on all Hardware available, even in low-res VGA mode or in virtual pcs.

Aero is offered on DX9 WDDM Cards on all editions minus Starter. Aero Transparency not in HomeBasic ( = Opaque Aero ).


94.220.86.0 (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Alex Cohen.

Critism about Costs is nothing special in regards to Windows Vista

The article stated that when Vista was released some users thought Windows Vista would be too expensive. However, I don't think this is valid a critique point especially with regards to Windows Vista. Instead it is the result of economic thinking on side of the producer of a product, which you do not only find with Windows Vista, but which you in fact find in many sectors of economy. It is quite usual to introduce a product with a rather high price to get an "additional fee" from the early adopters and then to drop the price to something the majority thinks is reasonable so that then this majority has a bigger appeal of buying the product. It may be true that this has also been done in case of Windows Vista, but this is a general phenomenon which belongs to economic theory (and is discussed there). --88.130.85.92 (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is not criticizing Vista in this regard. It is reporting on criticism that appeared in the press (and it has references to prove that). This was a significant aspect of the reaction to Windows Vista and so should be retained. Please note that existing content is assumed to enjoy consensus until a new consensus is reached. There is no consensus for this change, so I am restoring the section, and the section should not be deleted again unless consensus is reached to delete it. Jeh (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Windows Vista and 7 Package Box

I think some information about the packaging of original discs of Windowsshould be added, including: different editions, how to open it and criticism about the Vista version of the box, which was later changed in Windows 7 into a more DVD-like box. Galzigler (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

...

You may add that this is the first product that they have collaborated with other companies to create it (e.g. Oberon Games worked on Windows Games). Galzigler (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Has been done in older vesions as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.103.92 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


207.224.64.82 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Not sure where to put this, however the article's information about Vista adoption appears to be strangely biased. Now in 2013, as XP is approaching its SECOND end of life date, it still far outstrips Vista use. XP has only recently been overtaken by Windows 7 in desktop use, and Vista is a very small 5.17% of the market. Corporate users never widely adopted vista , and forced Microsoft to extend the support date for XP, as well as forced Microsoft to allow Vista licences to be converted back to XP. I think the portrayal in this article does not reflect the fact that corporate users were not just less satisfied with Vista- the vast majority completely skipped Vista and waited until Windows 7 was clearly worth adopting. Here are some stats from 2013-13-24 : Windows 7 44.55%, Windows XP 38.99%, Windows Vista 5.17%, and Windows 8 2.67% (the rest include OS X and "other" but as this article was comparing Windows versions ...) At no time has Vista come close to the level XP of adoption, even after 2 service packs. Implying that Vista has gotten a bad rap unfairly seems subjective. statistics on adoption are from: 

<http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0>        207.224.64.82 (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

downgrading from Vista to XP- Microsoft no longer has online info about this, just about allowing you to "downgrade" windows 8 to Windows 7: <http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9040318/FAQ_Giving_up_on_Vista_Here_s_how_to_downgrade_to_XP>

microsoft had an option for volume users to "downgrade" from Windows 7 to XP as well:

<http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-will-allow-windows-7-users-to-downgrade-to-xp/2456> 207.224.64.82 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Guidance on properly explaining changes

On 2015-03-22T21:46:35‎ my edits to the "Windows Vista system requirements" table were reverted by Lukeno94 on the basis of improperly explained changes. I believe that the edits were justified by the references provided in the article and my edit summaries. If I were to correct the table again, how should I properly explain the changes so that they are not reverted? —Mr.Unknown (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • You removed a source without explanation. You removed content without explanation, when that content was valid (WDDM). You replaced "Vista Capable" with "Minimum supported", without proper explanation and without regard for how it is actually described as. You moved a reference for no good reason. None of this was explained properly. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand. I believed that my edit summaries were explanatory enough in regard to these valid points, despite devoting just a single word to them. I tried to be concise for the sake of not wasting editors’ time, but ended up making it worse. I’m sorry. I’ll try to find a better balance from now on. —Mr.Unknown (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mr.Unknown, I am afraid your rather good contribution became the victim of your own failure to provide an edit summary. I am rather sorry. And I am afraid the Windows Vista product page's arrangement can be mislead, so much so that I think it has misled people who wrote Article 919183. "Minimum recommend" really! One can't tell whether it is "minimum" or "recommended". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I did provide an edit summary, which I thought was explanatory enough. This seems not to have been the case, so I’ll try being more verbose next time. Thank you. —Mr.Unknown (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/919183- The article shows minimum/recommended requirements for Vista Basic, for Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate the Minimum Requirements are 1 GB. In fact, 1 GB is not enough to run Vista adequately and a main reason the O/S did not do better.Easeltine (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Extended Support end date and edit warring.

There has been a couple of edit wars between a couple of individuals stating that all editions of Windows Vista would be supported until 4 November 2017.

Realistically, that is NOT the case. Mainstream Support for Windows Vista ends on 10 April 2012, in which consumer versions will transition to a non-supported status. Windows Vista Business and Windows Vista Enterprise will be supported until 11 April 2017.

Please consider either editing or commenting out the line that reads "Extended support until 4 November 2017" or have the owners semi-protect this article in question to prevent any further edit warring.

Thank you for your concern. 74.42.191.30 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

--> Microsoft could release a vista SP3 and thus bump the EOL date 2 years further which would give Home Users until 2014 and Business Users until 2019.

It is unbelievable that they support XP for home users 2 years longer then vista. ( xp home/pro/media/tablet = 2014 , vista home,ultimate = 2012 ) - So they have to put out something . Even Microsoft's Vista Information page says that it is no longer sold, but it is STILL SUPPORTED ( seen yesterday ) .

78.50.87.15 (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC) German User

End Support is 4/11/2017 for all versions. - https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/search/default.aspx?alpha=VistaEaseltine (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose Merging criticism of windows vista with windows vista to give the article a more NPOV. Bryce Carmony (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Criticism section is too large to fit in this article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a break-out article from the main article, which is already very sizable. The criticism presented here is, by and large, done with neutral presentation of facts based on reliable sources, making it an acceptable article for inclusion on Wikipedia. There's no particularly good reason to throw away all that work. Warren -talk- 01:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SIZERULE. Consider Wikipedia:Summary style instead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As for similar suggestions at Linux and Windows XP, I suggest this proposal be withdrawn. Tayste (edits) 09:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Codename Lisa. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC))

External links modified (3)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 09:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Linked checked. Not okay. Replaced. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 05:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I checked the sources. While both are good archived versions, the IDC document is effectively worthless.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (2)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Check. Everything is good.
Actually, both sources are alive. Archiving was not needed. —Codename Lisa (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DMY format?

Because Windows Vista originated in America (where MDY format is used) (EDIT: or did it originate there?), would it be better to use Americans' (and my) way of writing down dates? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It was changed to DMY format with this edit. That edit was unchallenged afaict. Per MOS:STABILITY and MOS:ENGVAR it should not be changed unless there is a compelling reason for it. Although MS is US-based it is a multinational company, many components of Windows are developed outside the U.S., and of course there are users everywhere. If you change it back to MDY now you can expect an, um, "spirited" response, and really, no one wants that. Jeh (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The moment before I read the succeeding comment, I was thinking "Did Windows Vista really originate in America?", so I have edited my above comment.
Anyway, I was more concerned with MOS:TIES (which, prior to this discussion, I ironically have not yet read but figured was there after reading articles whose subjects were mostly based in America, the United Kingdom, etc.), but I guess that the article's subject really is not solely based in America, so anybody (including those from Canada, Great Britain, Australia, etc., and not just Americans) can dispute over this, so it would not guide us anywhere near being constructive. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
MOS:TIES needs very strong national ties, not just some ties. IMHO, it should be something that Americans can claim non-Americans don't understand it. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead links

This article suffers from a large number of dead links. I have already found six dead links, and I have already rescued four of them, but, while I am feeling tired of repairing them all by myself, I can very almost promise you that the article might have yet another dead link. I am red-flagging this issue here so that I could show other editors an opportunity to improve this article so that I would not have to do all of that work myself. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gamingforfun365: Link rot is an encyclopedia's never ending problem. You can use WP:Checklinks. Fleet Command (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Day, month, year?

Why does the article follow the date, month, year ("dd-mm-yyyy") format (e.g., 8 November 2006) instead of the month, date, year ("mm-dd-yyyy") (e.g., November 8, 2006) that is in use by the other Windows articles? (IanWilliam20 (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC))

One could check the page histories for clues, I guess, but it might be because different Wikipedians wrote the respective articles. People will often use the date format they're personally most familiar with, and there's often no compelling reason to change it. RivertorchFIREWATER 11:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If I recall, all of the Windows articles use the latter format. I am not sure why this one should be the exception. Perhaps that will change with the next contribution? (IanWilliam20 (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC))
Windows NT 4.0 also uses DMY format. Windows 7, 8, and 10 all did but the editor who made the changes reverted themselves and went back to the MDY format. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

The http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/ link for the official Vista website is gone. Please add the Wayback Machine link to the article. 75.117.135.225 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: This request does not comply with our WP:EL policy. Official website links are automatically acceptable but their mirrors are not.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Codename Lisa, the Windows XP article has a Wayback Machine link for its official website. Should I remove it as per your advice above?
Additionally, the official website links on the Windows 1.0, Windows 2.1x, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1x, and Windows ME articles redirect to a Windows 10 help page. If Internet Archive versions of dead pages are not allowed for official website links, how should these links be repaired? 75.117.135.225 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
When the official website ceases to exist, its link must be deleted. I don't presume users just want to see the website's pretty face, do they?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Very well. Could you also remove the dead official website link for the Windows Vista page? 75.117.135.225 (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. 75.117.135.225 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Link in current template

Would someone please remove the following link that appears in the current infobox OS template of this article? web.archive.org/web/20060414151446/http://www.microsoft.com/rus/windowsvista/ (IanWilliam20 (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC))

Windows Vista (codenamed Longhorn)

Longhorn was the predecessor project, which was fully cancelled. Vista is not Longhorn. --2A02:908:EB20:C600:98B0:F322:8F57:E308 (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Longhorn is the codename for Windows Vista. pcuser42 (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I would just like to chime in that "fully cancelled" is a terrible misconception; "Longhorn" is the codename of Windows Vista. (IanWilliam20 (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC))

The earliest builds of "Windows Longhorn" were based on Windows Server 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverCoding (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The Win Vista logo is missing on the sidebar.

The Win XP logo is missing on the sidebar.


Cnon20 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Cnon20

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

180.251.240.39 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Spintendo ᔦᔭ 14:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Memory section is wrong

1GB Was never an option for Vista. Vista couldn't handle more than something like 768MB RAM. Anything beyond that and it was crippled. Also, note that the only reason this was so is because Microsoft purposefully kludged the VMM's code; a guy from an electronics shop on Long Island wrote a replacement for the memory manager that allowed you to access several GB of RAM. Microsoft obviously wouldn't admit that they had kludged their code to cripple 98, because they wanted everyone to dump 98 for XP. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@AllGloryToTheHypnotoad: None of this can be used to update the article without citations of reliable sources that support what you have said. See WP:BURDEN. General Ization Talk 18:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, the article reflects exactly what Microsoft itself has said, so it is unlikely to be changed without compelling evidence. General Ization Talk 18:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither our article nor Microsoft have said that all of the 1GB was going to be utilized by the OS. These are the limits on memory that can be installed. Since memory was at the time being sold in increments of 1 GB and 768 MB RAM cards were not offered, as a practical limit a 1 GB memory card was the most that could be used in a machine running Vista. General Ization Talk 18:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh wait a sec... this was a problem with Win98, not Vista. My bad. Comment stricken. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Date in short description

The short description lists the release year as 2006, the year it was released to manufacturers; but it was made generally available in 2007. Should it be edited to list the general availability date? Bowler the Carmine (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering Windows Vista has been unsupported for 3 years and not sold since October 2010 I don't think it is really an advertisement. More of a Vista fan's POV. 88.215.30.163 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Full End of support 2021???

Not sure what full support ends on 13th April 2021 in the infobox means as Vista support ended in 2017 with the end of extended support. Vista2003 (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Date of latest stable version

Where does that date (October 18, 2016) for the latest stable version come from? Is there a source for that? The source gives another date (May 26, 2009).--NvPhsyx (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Windows® Vista" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Windows® Vista and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Windows® Vista until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Linus Tech Tips Review Of Vista Isn't An "Advertisement"

Stop removing it. It's no damn different than referencing an article from a journalist at PC World.

StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with removing it. While it's true that LMG is a respected tech source, it's IMO placing undue weight on one particular opinion. pcuser42 (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not undue weight. It's a retrospective analysis, and reviews have them all the time. And this particular opinion is also popular in the tech community. Not every opinion is going to be that it sucks.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

66.116.45.26 keeps editing this page to remove that section, and I have no way to speak to them first. So I will instead report to the admins if it happens again.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Vista/Archive_13&oldid=1131569474"