Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 5

EU conflict & bundling issues

I think the ongoing tussle between the EU & Microsoft is worth a mention, perhaps in the Criticism section. It seems that a version of Vista without Media Player etc may be provided to Europe to comply with their anti-monopoly laws, and the launch of Vista in Europe may also be delayed while the wrangling continues --Peter Campbell 14:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Disappearance of Fiji?

What happened to the Windows Fiji article? It appears to have to have spontaneously disappeared.

Fiji doesn't exist at Microsoft, therefore, we don't have an article about it. -/- Warren 16:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Warren, the "Fiji" is the codename of Windows Vista Service Pack 1, according to Paul Thurrott. --210.213.89.58 09:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

WCF is very signficant

This edit [1] removed the following text from the introduction section:

"The Windows Communication Foundation feature which supports web services is aimed at improving networking and application integration for business and corporate users."

WCF is probably the most significant technology inclusion in Vista as it is the first time a full Web services stack has been bundled with any client OS I know of. This will have wide ramifications for Web 2.0 applications, composite applications, and application integration via messaging. It is therefore of equal or greater signficance to the mention of .Net framework in this regard. I think this content should therefore be reinstated in the introduction. --Peter Campbell 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, The sentence you quoted (and that was removed) isn't accurate... WCF isn't a -feature-... it isn't something that end-users or corporations make use of, in and of itself. It's a developer API.... more accurately, it's a repackaging of several existing Microsoft developer technologies (The CLR's System.Web.Services namespace, MSTDC, etc.) with a nice new API.

99%+ of the article's readers don't need to know (or care) about an incremental improvement in one of hundreds of APIs and frameworks included with Windows. Why would they? And why would we inflate its importance relative to all the other improvements in the operating system? It's just not that significant compared to the entire subject of Windows Vista. We only give WCF one sentence in the article body, after all... so it can't be that important, otherwise someone would have expanded on it by now. Right?

Remember: Windows XP doesn't ship with .NET at all; it's still only available as a redistributible. We're only mentioning the .NET Framework in the lead section because that's the #1 thing to call attention to with Vista for developers. What's the #2 thing? It depends on who you ask... game developers would argue DirectX 10 is the most important; device driver developers would point to KMDF and UMDF. Banking institutions are probably very interested in CardSpace. Web services developers will definitely latch on to WCF. DigiDesign, M-Audio and the many other audio hardware vendors are probably thrilled with the new audio subsystem. Who's to say what's the most important out of these? Not you or I, that's for sure. -/- Warren 04:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the audience of this article is quite broad. Some personal users may only be interested in the eye candy, while others may like the personal networking features. Security folk will obviously focus on the security features. Developers will be most interested in APIs and development-related frameworks. Corporate users and architects and Web 2.0 developers will be greatly interested in understanding and possibly using the Web services stack (WCF) which is a lot more that just an API. I think the overview should cover these main areas of interest:

• User interface
• Integration - personal (P2P) and business/corporate (WCF)
• Developers - .Net framework & other APIs
• Security

What do others think? --Peter Campbell 06:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

exFAT

Is that file system hidden or discontinued? No references in "what page links here" or in the Vista article. Please what EXFAT is!! COstop 12:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

exFAT isn't shipping with Vista. I haven't found any particular explanation as to why in a public forum yet... my guess is that it will be available for download separately, kinda like how HighMAT support was available through Windows Update for Windows XP. exFAT is actually shipping with Windows CE 6.0, which is slated for release before Vista. You may find this powerpoint presentation on the subject to be informative. -/- Warren 22:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Starter Edition

A change was made substituting "Vista Starter" with "Starter Edition 2007". As far as I can see, this isn't an official name change: searching for both terms in google using site:microsoft.com gives 0 matches for "starter edition 2007" and over 300 for "vista starter". The Microsoft Product Page Clearly refers to Vista Starter also. If this change has been made, please cite a source for the name change or provide some evidence that microsoft.com refers to this product name! njan 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

References

The list is getting too long.

KeKe 03:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

How so? — Mütze 12:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's better to have an overreferenced article than an under referenced article. Considering the subject matter (a yet-to-be-released proprietary operating system, with a large range of features, many new or updated) it's especially important to have as many references as practically possible, because of the fact that there are still many details that are not yet known. Harryboyles 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Vista Needs a DVD drive, not a CD drive

In the article, under system requirements, it says that one of the requirements is a CD drive. However, beta 2 took up approximately the size of 7 cds, and a requirement for the beta was a DVD drive. If anyone has any references for the CD drive requirement, could you post them? If not, can someone change it to a DVD drive? DarkSideMoon 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think its a DVD drive. Check this link:Microsoft Get Ready read under "A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least" you will notice it said: DVD-ROM Drive not a CD. --Wiz126 20:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it says it requires a DVD drive, I think it is only required to install Vista if it comes from a DVD. For this reason, to avoid confusion, Microsoft might say you need a DVD drive simply because Vista will come on a DVD. Surely it can be installed through other media than a DVD, so it might be more of a "recommendation" than a "requirement". Once up and running, Vista should be able to run without a DVD drive, or an optical drive at all for that matter. Nsmith 84 02:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, the question is about the installation. Of course there is no need for a DVD drive once its installed. --Wiz126 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought it is DVD as well, but check this out (minimal requirement): [2]. I was a bit surprised seeing that today.--147.197.215.16 17:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft today made available a 5-CD version of build 5744... first time they have done that for any build. I'm fairly certain this means that Vista will be distributed in both CD and DVD format. -/- Warren 00:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

In any case, as mentioned above it doesn't matter since you don't need to have a DVD or CD drive to install Vista since there are other ways to do so. More importantly perhaps, we can only report on Microsoft's official requirements not what you may or may not need Nil Einne 13:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add the reference we should use for all our requirements info IMHO is this [3]. Our current referencing when it comes to requirements is not so good, but this was linked to and it should also be fairly easy for anyone Googling to find... Nil Einne 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When Windows Vista will be released to retail, how many CDs? --210.213.85.225 00:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

5 CDs according to Microsoft ATM. Computer Guru 06:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism article

I've created a separate criticism article, Criticism of Windows Vista, with all the existing content from this article's criticism section. We should try to focus on the most significant and well-documented criticisms of Vista here, and then expand on those and others in the break-out article. I'll be pruning and re-writing some of the content in that section in this article to make it flow a little better and to be a more succint summation. -/- Warren 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe Vista already has it's own criticisms article and it's not even out yet! Poor thing! JamesWeb 06:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It'll survive. ;-) — Mütze 12:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You can get alot of information from betas. I think that the criticism of the UAC should be taken out, because if people would stop complaining and try and do something about it, they would realize that it can be disabled in about 5 minutes through the control panel.... DarkSideMoon

I agree it should be removed but for a different reason. Most complaints people had about UAC regarded it's behaviour in Beta 1 and 2, while in more recent builds the number of UAC prompts has been dramatically reduced, and now, in my opinion, only occur when they truly should be necesary. Most people can see this and the remaining people who complain are likely just not used to the change. Change is bound to be annoying until you get used to it, but I wouldn't say it remains a genuine criticism, coupled with the fact that while it's not recommended, like you say it can easily be disabled if it upsets you that much. JamesWeb 01:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Late to this but I've provided a new comment below ... -- Gnetwerker 05:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

UK Release

According to amazon.co.uk, ([4]), the release date of Windows Vista in UK is 2nd February 2007. --147.197.215.16 17:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

do windows OSs generally come out on one international release date or on different dates in different places? Nicoli nicolivich 19:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

anyone know?

does vista address the y3k bug?--Nytemunkey 07:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows 98 SE had already fixed that, so I don't think Vista will make any trouble on that part. Besides, it is unbelievably irrelevant for so many reasons. — Mütze 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning to use Vista till year 3000? I see only one place where it can be done - a Museum! Anywayz, Vista uses a much wider DateTime format (I think 32 bit), so you are immune till the y89657234k bug (or whatever) causes panic. But in all probability, the timespan that would normally be presented would be limited to, say, 2100, to speed up calculations. --soum^সৌমোyasch 10:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

peer-to-peer makes sharing files easier?

just wondering what new peer-to-peer technologies makes it easier to share files in vista? Any sources?

"Vista also aims to increase the level of communication between machines on a home network using peer-to-peer technology, making it easier to share files, password settings, and digital media between computers and devices."

-J

On the channel 9 site they have a video all about peer to peer. Great video. Stuff like Teredo which allows peers behind NATs to communicate with each other without any special configurations. Also they have virtual networking technologies and the "people near me" technology. Another interesting example (that I have not seen a demonstration of) is the name resolution protocol they have. An application where a lot of these technologies are used is Windows Meeting Space. It can create meetings (share files/desktop/applications) over NATs and it can be used without an internet connection (automatically uses adhoc wireless mode and people near me). So actually it aims to increase communication not just on the home network but on the internet (which is a big problem because of NATs).

Windows Classic style

Is the mention and screenshot of Windows Classic really necessary? I consider it like saying there's a "Desert" color scheme in XP. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 01:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I updated the screenshots for each of the visual styles to ones from RC2, I made one of the Windows Standard style, but not Classic, my edit got reverted on the grounds that Vista has both Standard and Classic and I've since made the edit again leaving the old Classic screenshot in. My question is, Vista also includes a number of high-res styles, fact of the matter is Standard and Classic are very similar, do we really need to see them both? JamesWeb 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

... How creepy is that? JamesWeb 01:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha... — Alex ^(T|C|E) 01:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! :-)

One image per distinct visual style is definitely sufficient. -/- Warren 02:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

When I initially added Classic, it was in accord with the idea there should be screenshot of every color scheme in Vista (excluding those for disabled people). If it should be rather less than more, then OK. But it is logical to remove also Windows Vista Standard screenshot, because it differs from Windows Vista Basic in that amount so kids can play "find three differences" game on these two screenshots. Jakub Horky 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I specifically came to this page to see that Windows Standard looks like as that is the default in the Home Basic addition - so if there is to be no picture of it, perhaps it should at least say it looks the same as Classic. ― Adam Millerchip 04:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well actually according to this it is almost identical to Aero, but without the transparency and zoomy bits. This should deffinitely be mentioned. ― Adam Millerchip 04:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

new features

I would like to suggest that in the introduction to this article, the new GUI should not be the first thing which is mentioned when discussing Vista's new features.

Surely by far and away the most significant improvement in Vista is that of security, and this is the reason people will choose to upgrade, more so than just "because it looks different."

I am aware that security is given a whole paragraph just underneath, but I do think it's important to have security listed as the main difference between XP and Vista..... when XP first came out non-techy people all said "hey! it looks just the same... that was a waste of money..." - they didnt realise the huge steps forward from 9x and ME, and they were instead only noticing the visuals. therefore, i think mentioning Aero first may just be fuelling this misunderstanding, and giving too much prominence to something much less signficant than the real important difference, security.

thanks, Paulfp 14:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I agree. Somebody please do that.

On a different note, it is interesting that you should mention the innovations of XP. That OS was indeed a big step forward from Windows 98 -- because it was a reworked version of Windows 2000. And in that context it is not a big step forward at all, it really is just a new GUI and some features over a sturdy and tested OS. That makes your comparison kind of flawed. — Mütze 16:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a significant reworking of everything from the kernel up. --soum^সৌমোyasch 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

not exactly sure how to tell my anxious friends and family what the benefits of Vista are. they don't respond well to "the network stack has been reworked. significantly!" so far i tell them, "security, eye-candy, and... a lot of invisible improvements." i did watch several internal microsoft videos expousing real internal improvements and how they impact the users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeypruett (talk • contribs)

Just download and install the RC2, then you'll have plenty to tell them. Feature lists can never quite prepare you for the real experience. — Mütze 21:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The new user interface is mentioned first for a few reasons. Basically everybody who reviews Vista, as well as Microsoft's own literature on the subject, starts off by mentioning Aero. It's also what people are going to notice first, and what people are going to be talking about more than just about anything else.

Remember, we're writing for a world-wide audience of hundreds of millions of people, not just for us and other technical experts. Finding a good ordering for all of this information is really hard, because we all have our specific interests and favourites, but I always try to look at it from that perspective of, "what can we say that will be engaging and interesting to anybody who reads the article?" I think this is one of the most interesting challenges of Wikipedia. :-) -/- Warren 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots and copyvio

What about microsoft's copyright saying "Except for Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from products that have not been commercially released (including beta versions), you may use screen shots"?

It seems that fair-use can't apply here, since Microsoft's copyright is explicitly forbidding this use.

Regards, Manchot 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told you in February, which you never responded to: Microsoft representatives have specifically stated that posting screenshots of beta versions of Vista are fine, because there are no confidentiality restrictions or prohibitions in the EULA itself.

But aside from that, we make use of screenshots under fair-use rationale in strong accordance with this... about the only thing we could do better is to include better "fair use rationale" descriptions on the image pages themselves. Please review the policy section of Wikipedia:Fair_use for more information, and to confirm for yourself that we're following the policy pretty well. -/- Warren 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Vista release date

A contributor provided this link as a source for stating that Vista's release date is December 5, 2006. That article referenced a ZDNet article which has since been removed. Because of this, I've reverted the addition of the release date. We're going to need a better source than that... -/- Warren 21:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows for chicks

It has suggested that Windows Vista will not be a huge hit on Latvian market because the word "vista" means chicken in this particular language. I'm not sure if it is worth mentioning in article, but maybe this factoid has some relevance. --Magabund 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you got a source to support this "fact"? Harryboyles 06:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Which fact you mean? The fact that vista means chicken or hen in latvian is easy to google out from some dictionary. The fact that it would make fun and it has been suggested to be not a huge hit in Latvia? For that you probably would have to surf some relevant message boards, which unfortunately are in Latvian. The latter is of course speculation, but the first fact is clearly here. --Magabund 10:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a "Chevy Nova" myth. (The myth is that the Nova did not sell well in Spanish-speaking countries because "no va" means "doesn't go." Of course, this is not true; Spanish-speakers know that "Nova" isn't "no va", just as English-speakers do not confuse "therapist" with "the rapist".) --FOo 22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot resolution

Could somebody provide screenshots with a higher resolution than 1024x768? 17'' LCDs with a native resolution of 1280x1024 are becoming pretty much the norm these days, so it would make sense to show what Vista looks like on those screens (the Start Menu certainly takes up a lot of space as it is). A few shots with the lower resolution should remain though for the sake of a variety. - Cyrus XIII 20:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Heck, I'd like to see a widescreen shot too if possible. Widescreen's becoming more popular all the time; heck I really hate square displays these days. Too constricting :) PanicAttack 07:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Larger screenshots don't scale well. 800x600 and 1024x768 are the preferred screenshot sizes because they look good when thumbnailed. There is no usability benefit to users of the encyclopedia for things like the start menu and application windows to be smaller. -/- Warren 16:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Screenshots depicting a desktop environment give people an impression on how space is distributed/conserved/wasted and using contemporarily common resolutions is crucial to convey this. Just take a look at the articles of a few Linux desktops (i.e. KDE, GNOME & Xfce), there is just that variety and it improves those articles' usability quite a bit. - Cyrus XIII 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The distribution of screenshots in the KDE article looks pretty effing ugly, actually... hardly worth emulating. The last screenshot I see there is 1600x1200, and it doesn't seem to be doing much other than demonstrating a desktop background. Even at the 800x600 size that you see when you look at an Image: article, it's still far too small to really demonstrate the theme, which is apparently what they're attempting to do. As for the GNOME screenshot, it's widescreen and suffers from the exact problem I stated; larger screenshots don't scale well. I can barely make out WTF is going on, but at the same time there's utterly vast amounts of useless, empty space.

Remember also, we're using images in this article under a fair use rationale, not under a GFDL or other free license as with free software screenshots. It states explicitly in Template:Windows-software-screenshot that we are justifying this usage by providing "web-resolution" screenshots. 1600x1200 is too high. We don't need to (actually, we can't) accurately depict how Windows Vista or any non-free operating system will look on a variety of systems, unless we're going to be describing those differences in the article itself... we provide screenshots for the purposes of identification and critical commentary. That's it. Fair-use screenshots should be small, simple, and aid in communicating what's being discussed in the article. -/- Warren 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Main Screenshot

The screenshot from the top of the page went missing, I've replaced it with the example of Aero for the time being but it really needs to be replaced with an example of a new installation (sidebar etc.). Can someone do this, as I'm just a lazy workaround kinda guy. --JamesWeb 17:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WINDOWS VISTA

In my opinion this "article" is more a advertisement for the product then an really encyclopedic article. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR ALL CONTRIBUTERS : clean up this article. It's made clear on the Criticism of Wikipedia about this

"Windows Vista article once read like an advertisement for the product, instead of a factual article with a neutral point of view. While it is not certain that the article was edited by Microsoft, the use of marketing buzzwords such as "technologies" was sufficient to merit a rewording of the article."

Please do not delete this comment or any other comments without permission —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mateia (talk • contribs) October 15, 2006.

What do you own wikipedia or something? Stop crying you sound like this article deeply offends you. There are better things in life to worry about than an article. Simply stating the article may use buzzwords rather than stating your opinion would have been sufficient. And a tip for future writings: "no one cares about your opinion" One of the first rules of writing.--Nytemunkey 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nytemunkey, please keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that bit in the Criticism of Wikipedia article out. I've removed it because it's littered with WP:WEASEL words. Anyways, are you here to make a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, or are you here to bitch about an operating system you don't like? If it's the latter, then go away -- this isn't the place to air gripes. If it's the former, provide a list of specific things that you feel are a problem, and can be backed up by Wikipedia policy. -/- Warren 17:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Criticism to separate article

I understand and have previously witnessed the tendency toward removal of criticism from this article, but was surprised that anyone had countenanced the wholesale removal of the section from this page, and the ghetto-izing of it in Criticism of Windows Vista. However, as it is a serious sub-section of the overall body of information, rather than revert and try to re-incorporate the criticsm, as is preferred everywhere on Wikipedia, I took what I can only hope is a less contentious route: I included an abbreviated version in the WP:LEAD. As the lead contained a major para on criticisms of Windows XP that Vista purported "resolves", it seemed only appropriate to include a reference to major criticism, from respected reviewers, that has been pushed into a secondardy article. -- Gnetwerker 05:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add, for purpose of the inevitable debate, from WP:SIZE: "In most cases, it is a violation of the neutral point of view to specifically break out a controversial section without leaving an adequate summary". Also, from WP:POVFORK, "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." -- Gnetwerker 05:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I share your concerns about the removal of the criticism section - it has the effect of sanitising the original article which is largely uncritical and reads more like a product brochure. There has also been some signficant opposition (and reversions) to the inclusion of some of the new content I have added to the section on the basis it was "POV". So I think the article is now fairly close to Microsoft POV, which is clearly not neutral. I think the criticism section should therefore be reinstated. Peter Campbell 11:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the separate Criticism article so that it could be expanded on in a way that wouldn't have this article spiral further out of control. But, yeah, whoever removed the majority of the criticism section definitely took out too much.

I'd like to see a section comparable in length to the Development section, that gives an "everybody-friendly" overview of the major criticisms, without getting bogged down with he-said-she-said semantics or opinion-based reporting, which, let's face it, makes for an ugly encyclopedia article. People reading about Windows Vista for the first time don't need to hear Paul Thurrott's or Paul Rizzo's opinions on perceived similarities to Mac OS X... things like the anti-trust concerns, licensing and pricing, third-party application integration, etc., are all more important and more interesting to readers. -/- Warren 05:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added abbreviated content into this section as per your suggestion Peter Campbell 08:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article now seems more balanced. While there still appears to be a tendency toward protectionism of Windows, I congratulate the editors for moving in the right direction. However, I disagree that "People reading about Windows Vista ... don't need to hear Paul Thurrott's or Paul Rizzo's opinions on perceived similarities to Mac OS X" -- indeed, these are some of the things that will be most obvious to the casual observer of Vista, and the notion that prominent Windows reviews also observe it is, I believe, interesting. -- Gnetwerker 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No it won't. Only people who drink too much of the Apple kool-aid (or want to garner page hits from Apple fanatics) think that there a lot of similarities... I use both operating systems ever day and believe me, they don't have enough in common that a casual observer would go "wow, this looks like OS X!" Vista's theme is based around black and blue, and OS X is based around white and silver. Other additions like a calendar app and photo management are things that Microsoft has already had available in separate products since well before OS X's release... -/- Warren 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Regrettably, you continue to confuse your opinion with a reliable source. -- Gnetwerker 01:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

So go find a "reliable source" and stop complaining about it. -- «klaus»

The Mac OS similarities are well-sourced. This was settled months ago. -- Gnetwerker 15:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I actually don't agree with their removal, but I also don't agree to the placment of many of the criticism, I would say that 90% of that section would have to be re-written when Windows Vista actually ships. In fact I would go as far as to say that almost all the pre-shipping references would become invalid and obsolete. Creating a criticism section for a beta product is bad form IMO, the Windows Vista that was released in the first CTP is a very different beast from the RC's that Microsoft is shipping. PPGMD 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the majority of criticisms have nothing to do with CTP/RC evolution. Harware requirements, licencing, kernel security protection and design similarities etc will all be relevant to the final RTM version. Peter Campbell 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all the UAC criticism in particular is an example. I think we are setting a precedent, I think that criticism shouldn't be in beta articles. PPGMD 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the UAC feature and criticism is moving around, but I think this is of interest too. Microsoft have responded to some of the criticsm and made some changes. This is quite relevant to both the evolution of Vista via betas and its final form, as long as the article sticks to encylopaedic content and avoids the scuttlebutt. The final outcome (Gold/RTM version) also needs to captured accordingly. Peter Campbell 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree arguing over a future product and possible features is fruitless IMO. PPGMD 01:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not arguing. It is about capturing objective information about a product, then industry comments and feedback, followed by resulting changes and why they were made. Peter Campbell 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then it really isn't a criticism section really, it's a Beta feedback/progress section. Criticism can only truly come from the shipping product. PPGMD 02:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

On PPGMD's note, once Vista is released, would there be any objections to removing critisism that doesn't explicitly refer to the final version? Paul Cyr 03:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Depends on whether or not it still applies. If a pre-release caused your computer to eat babies and the final version does not, then there's less reason to mention it. But if the final release still does eat babies, then it's actually more important: "Beta testers such as Freakyhead McMonkey [1] complained that Vista eats babies, but this condition remained in the final release." --FOo 05:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And criticism can apply to both betas and final releases - as long is it is clear which release is/was criticised. I agree that removing criticism after the final release would depend on the significance of the criticism from an historical perspective. If it influenced the final shape of the product then there would a strong case for retaining it. Peter Campbell 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, historical perspective is not appropriate for the article, and borders on original research. It should only be kept if it applies to the shipping product and that it's mentioned that it applies to the shipping product by another reliable source. PPGMD 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with PPGMD. Although it may be nice to include issues during development which negatively affected the final product, I imagine it would be near impossible for it to not be original research. Then again you may find an news article which explicitly address that issue. Paul Cyr 14:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Same screenshot?

There are two screenshots same for the Windows Vista RC2 taken by JamesWeb:

thumb|center|250px|Windows Vista Desktop RC2.png and thumb|center|250px|Windows Aero.png

It is RECOMMENDED to change the desktop background of one of those screenshot images by downloading the wallpaper here. —210.213.85.90 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Or, one screenshot can be deleted and the other one used in its place. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 07:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's the same screenshot, I told everyone, like, three messages up the page. The original went missing and I uploaded it as a temporary measure until someone can produce a proper first boot one featuring the sidebar. I'd do it myself but I don't have to means to re-install Vista at the moment. JamesWeb 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it as soon as I buy more DVD+Rs. I ran out. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you really want the sidebar in there anyway? These screens usually show a "typical" desktop, and the sidebar is an additional application, not a core part of the operating system. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but the sidebar is enabled by default on the first boot, and while it's not written in stone that an OS's screenshot should be of the first boot, I think Vista with the start menu, Welcome Centre and sidebar makes a pretty nice, "busy" one... Or maybe it's just me, someone decide! JamesWeb 19:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The notion of "typical desktop" is really hard to pin down, and it can result in endless revisions by people who want -their- idea to be what is shown in the Wikipedia article. If we have a good screenshot that demonstrates the default, first-run layout, with Aero, the Sidebar, the Welcome Center, and the Start menu enabled, and with a default desktop background and no additional applications visible, then I think we'll have succeeded in demonstrating Windows Vista in a fashion appropriate for an encyclopedia article.

By the way, Akhristov and JamesWeb have been the ones providing most of the screenshots of Vista builds through 2006. :-) -/- Warren 20:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect reference link

Unless I'm missing something, reference link 42 (number may change) seems to point to an unrelated article: "Most PC buyers need to purchase MCE for free Vista upgrade, PC makers say. Retrieved on 15 September 2006.". I don't see anything about upgrading to Vista there. Retodon8 13:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

64 MB is minimum for Aero NOT 128 MB

The requirements for Aero are 64 mb of VRAM not 128 mb so I have changed the article back to the way it was before this edit [5] accordingly. I have used Aero with 64 mb of VRAM and the Microsoft page that is (and was) linked to also makes it clear 64 mb is the minimum. As I have explained in the talk (see archive 4) 128 mb is the requirement for Vista Premium ready but this is not the requirement for running Aero and if you read the Microsoft page properly this should be clear. You need 128 mb for larger then about 1.3 million pixels but the minimum for Aero is 64 mb according to Microsoft. This is also mentioned in the footer to the Vista Premium requirements. <rant> So really, I wish people would check out references and the actual article and perhaps the talk page before changing info so that it becomes incorrect <end rant> Nil Einne 14:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Version number

Why are we not able to change the latest build to 5840, since that is the latest confirmed build, why is it so anal about getting it expressely confirmed by MS? Rob.derosa 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a public build, only TAP has it. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 01:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aero

There is an error:

Windows Aero (including Windows Flip 3D) is only planned for inclusion in the Ultimate, Business and Home Premium editions

Enterprise also supports Aero - see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/enterprise.mspx - since Enterprise includes all of the Business features, including Aero. We have Enterprise running (RC2) and indeed aero works.

That was added very recently; I've fixed it. Thanks. -/- Warren 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Command Prompt?

Does Windows Vista still have a command prompt, similar to what we have in XP and earlier versions of Windows? If so, perhaps we should mention it on the main page, similar to what we have for WinXP. (I do not have a Vista beta machine set up.) N2e 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it does. Not sure why the Windows XP page refers to it, because it's nothing out of the ordinary, even Mac OS X has CLI. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly, DOS functionality is no longer supported in Vista. However, I tried one old program that I had which I used to use in the DOS days, and it worked fine. I don't know if it's automatically being run in a VM, or what, as I've seen some mention of that also. I haven't seen anything on the subject lately. Can anyone find anything recent on the subject? --Scott McNay 02:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You might have been misled. DOS and Windows 16 bit support was removed from Windows x64 and Windows Vista x64. AFAIK, Windows Vista x32 still has DOS and Windows 16 bit support. Nil Einne 09:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Physical Memory

My computer is just only 128 MB of RAM. Can I use that physical memory fot just 128 MB in Windows Vista? --210.213.83.120 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you need to upgrade it to conform to the minimum requirements as spelt out in the article. --soum^সৌমোyasch 07:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have successfully run Vista in 256MB, but it requires 512 to install (though there may be some way to get around this limiation that I haven't discovered yet). Removing memory to less than 256 causes an immediate blue screen upon boot.12.207.87.61 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will buy a new RAM of 512 MB memory--but my budget is few now, I'm poor. --210.213.86.61 03:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam in Links

There was so much spam here, thank god it's gone! What's up with the PROnetworks spam links staying there though? That's just a content-aggregation service - they steal the images off other sites without citing sources... not up to wikipedia's normal standards..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.236.232.131 (talk • contribs) .

Just as a preface, it'll be to Wikipedia's benefit if we keep the acrimony and side-taking of the PROnetworks / NeoSmart split off the encyclopedia as much as possible. You (and others) have been removing PROnetworks links and adding NeoSmart links without explanation, which, as you might expect, will result in some push-back. This claim of "stealing images" is news to me, though... if you can demonstrate that there is copyright infringement going on, then yes, the PROnetworks link doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is per the policy on external links. Otherwise, it seems like a useful link to have around, since the site contains a variety of Vista screenshots which we wouldn't be able to include in the encyclopedia. -/- Warren 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, no problem; I agree that bringing that argument up in an encyclopedia entry about Vista is a bit 'wrong' so to speak - I promise to stick to the facts and no longer take the initiative on such matters :). The stealing images story is from the Windows Vista Build 5259 - in which PROnetworks first illegally leaked images and information regarding Windows Vista, then replaced them with stolen images from activewin @ http://www.activewin.com/screenshots/vista/nov05ctp/ and jcxp.net.

In the past PROnetworks has distributed longhorn and windows vista builds illegally (via FTP and HTTP - not P2P), and have been contacted by Microsoft and served Cease & Desist orders for constant leaking of TAP builds internally up to build 5365.

87.236.232.131 08:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

Weixiang7326 adding factual inaccuracies and was edit was not nothing to it's source. Please block that user. Thank you. --210.213.86.46 11:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

UK Windows Vista Pricing

Ultimate: £325???? That's about $500+ It's from amazon.co.uk Can you believe it? Or there is error? I'd rather buy it from the US, or Asia.--W Tanoto 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

£325 is actually US$615+... If it were US$500 it wouldn't be that expensive. The US price is US$400 according to this article so considering UK VAT of 17.5% that works out to be US$470... Nil Einne 09:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Editions and pricing

Hello, I did a bunch of work on this section today. In the process of getting this section up-to-date, i noticed a few things. First of all, Microsoft hasn't commented publicly on the "additional license" costs at all, so far as I can tell... the numbers came from numbers posted on Amazon.com, which have since been pulled. This leaves us with a bunch of blogs as the only source of information on additional license SKUs. Given that Microsoft hasn't announced anything, I figure it's probably better for us to talk about that than it is for us to state those prices as fact.

I also found some information about Microsoft's recently announced "Express Upgrade" program. It's actually rather messy and complicated, because different OEMs are handling upgrades in different ways. One example of that is that some OEMs are only offering the Express Upgrade program on some of their newly-sold computers, but not others. There's also conflicting information floating around about whether you use voucher coupons to get your copy of Vista, or if a receipt is enough. On top of all that, I can't find any indication that this offer extends to retail copies of XP. This covers some of the issues in more detail. I'm not sure how much time we should spend on this, but if someone wants to look into it further, knock yourself out. -/- Warren 01:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks for doing that. It looks nicer. I just about to tell that Paul Thurrot just posted the box-art images.--W Tanoto 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead Image

Dear Wikipedian users,

There was a dead image of the screenshot of Windows Vista(TM) Upgrade Advisor RC.

Please upload from this URL: http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/5c350bc24d.png

Thank you.

Truly regards, 210.213.87.51 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy generally prohibit us from uploading images found on other web sites. -/- Warren 04:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about it. Please click the URL to see it and upload. --210.213.89.106 09:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the big deal with you not being able to do it yourself? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just a screenshot of Windows Vista(TM) Upgrade Advisor running on Windows XP. --210.213.89.106 09:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide release?

I don't think 30 Jan 07 is worldwide release. In UK, according to amazon and www.pcworld.co.uk, it will be 2 Feb 07. Can somebody edit it? --147.197.190.40 14:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it will release Windows Vista at the beginning of Chinese New Year 2007. How about in the Philippines—when will be release Windows Vista? --210.213.90.42 23:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Advanced graphics efficiency

Since Aero requires a DirectX 9-capable video card, I'd expect Windows to use video card features to speed up various things, and to reduce the need for main memory. However, I occasionally still see refresh issues, which makes me think that this is not happening. Can someone find anything official on this? --Scott McNay 02:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that this is discussed in a bit more detail in Features new to Windows Vista. --Scott McNay 16:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista Announcemant Video

I found the video of the early announcement of Windows Vista. Please upload the video from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/winme/0507/25234/Win_Name_MBR.asx

because there was a dead media link. --210.213.86.39 06:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Upload a video? Huh? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 06:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a dead link of the sentence "Microsoft employee Don Lionetti tries out an early version of Windows Vista, the next-generation operating system. Atlanta, July 22, 2005." of the file name Windows Vista Announcement.asx. Or from WMV file: mms://wm.microsoft.com/ms/msnse/0507/25234/Win_Name_MBR.wmv. --210.213.85.217 07:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's rather unlikely that would be a fair use reason for us to include the video. We could link to it but it doesn't really seem to add that much to this article Nil Einne 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Common Sidebar for Windows articles

I started work on a template which could be used in a bunch of windows-related articles. Please take a look at it. I'm interested in any suggestions and if you think it would be a good idea to include this as a right-side sidebar. --Dgies 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the template, but it might make the article look a bit too crowded...  :-( — Alex ^(T|C|E) 08:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about this. The Windows version articles (Windows Vista, Windows XP, etc) have their own infobox about the product itself. Adding another infobox, IMHO, would ruin the layout on many of the main articles. Perhaps redesign it so it can be a navigation toolbox at the end of the article and it can replace the Windows Versions template already there. Harryboyles 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista Build Numbers

I have Windows Vista Build 5840 (the latest is now build 5920), and I changed the build # part in the info box but someone changed it back, but since I am running 5840, I can confirm that the build does exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eric C (talk • contribs) .

The infobox is there to denote what the most recent -released- version is, which is something that we can verify, per Wikipedia's policity on verifiability. That means we state build 5744. If you got build 5840, 5920 etc. from a file sharing network, then it's most assuredly an illegal acquisition, and not something Microsoft intended to release. -/- Warren 21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you work for MS or are a very close partner, you might have got these build legally. However you still can't change the build unless you talk about this build in a way which meets our criteria as Warrens mentioned Nil Einne 12:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just recieved Vista build 6000 today through my MSDN subscribtion.

Source if needed: Windows Vista Team Blog Eric C 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

International pricing to be included in Editions and Pricing section of article?

Should other currency pricing be included as well? There are others around the world who do not know and want to know how much they are going to have to pay in their own currency. I can help out abit with these full version Australian pricing:

Full Version Windows Vista Home Basic: $385

Full Version Windows Vista Home Premium: $455

Full Version Windows Vista Business: $565

Full Version Windows Vista Ultimate: $751

All prices in Australian Dollars and are the Recommended Retail Price (RRP)..

--Lakeyboy 02:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

According to amazon.co.uk

windows vista:

ultimate full version £325

home premium full £224.99

business £294.99

home basic £184.99

Please, add all of these to the list (with US$ equivalent, just like they did with playstation 3 articles, so we can compare the price in different country.--147.197.190.40 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit much for a single article to have the price for all countries. I think that at most we should have the price for the english speaking nations only. US, UK, Canada, and Australia. PPGMD 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed today that the Wii article lists prices for more than a dozen countries, including prices for three different accessories. Yeah, the usefulness of non-English pricing in an English-language encyclopedia is a bit questionable... -/- Warren 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said people don't speak English in other countries where English isn't the first language. Obviously there are those countries were English is a strong second language like Malaysia, India etc. But at a guess, I would say there are also probably more English speakers in China then in Australia or New Zealand (I'm from NZ BTW). Now whether they will be reading the English language wiki is another issue. But pricing is universal no matter what language you speak. If you live in Japan, you care about the price in Yen not the price in USD even if you prefer English. At the very least, we should include Euros, Yen, Yuan, Rupee, Real, Can, GBP and maybe Rupiah and AUD IMHO regardless of whether the native language in countries using these currencies is English. Maybe NZD, MYR, Rand and SGD too Nil Einne

Rupiah you said??? You're joking. They (in fact we, because I am Indonesian, living in UK) won't buy any original software - except some. I know it because I live there for about 14 good years. Saying that, my windows XP is original. We should only quote the price from the countries in which Microsoft has big presence (definitely not Indonesia). I am suggesting:

US$, CAN$, GBP, YEN, SIN (microsoft softwares in asia are manufactured in SIngapore), Euro, AU$, NZ$, HK$. And that's it. --147.197.190.40 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First Vista Announcement Photo

I've just found the photo of the early announcement of Windows Vista.

Please upload from this URL: http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/press/2005/07-22lh.jpg

--210.1.95.212 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Showstoppers

I contend that these links should be worked in somewhere; this is the sort of knowledge that I've been looking to learn:

rc_(disambiguation)

release candidate

showstopper {"Let us entrail you,..."}

When programmers use in-lingo, we come to this sort of website f/ explanation.

Thank You.

hopiakuta ; [[ <nowiki> </nowiki> { [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] } ;]] 21:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to learn about showstopper you should visit the showstopper article. It sounds a little silly to me to come to the Vista article to try and find a link to showstopper. If there were a reason for us to talk about showstopper in the Vista article then we might do so and would obvious link to the term but there isn't so we don't. It's not our job to mention every single word that may have been used by the Vista programming team at some stage Nil Einne 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If "showstopper" is actually used in the article, then it should be linked. I had thought that the term was more widely used than that article indicates, but if it is not, then linking is appropriate. --Scott McNay 12:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... this is one of those great Wikipedia debates... how extensively do we wikilink to terminology that isn't domain-specific? Clearly we need to link to computing jargon like "application programming interface" and "tabbed browsing" and so on, but "showstopper" isn't computing-specific. Personally I don't go too far out of my way to wikilink terminology that isn't domain-specific, but that's mainly because I'm lazy... judicious use of it is good.

The real irony with "showstopper" is that that's also the name of a pretty major book in the history of Windows NT... IMO, it's required reading for anyone who's interested in the creation of this OS. -/- Warren 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But it's not used and that's my point. If we were using it then we probably should link but we're not using it so it's a bit silly to come here to find out about showstopper when we don't even use the word. And I don't see any reason to try and find a way to include the word either. If there was a reason to use it, we would have used it. But there isn't so we don't Nil Einne 12:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I will often delink terms if it's for something common and if they have nothing to do with the subject of the article or if the term has already been linked in the section. Just because WP has a page for a term doesn't mean that every single reference should be linked, else we could have some articles with nothing but links. --Scott McNay 04:24, November 9, 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Believe it or not, I only cheated on TWO words up there; see for yourself! --Scott McNay 04:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"Fiji", now a service pack

This is from the Winsupersite: retrieved here

Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1, codenamed "Fiji") is due in late 2007 alongside Windows Server "Longhorn", as is the next version of Windows Media Center, though Microsoft is still not sure how they'll ship that latter upgrade. Vista SP1, despite the name, is going to be a major upgrade: It will include a new version of the Windows kernel (version 6.1), bringing Vista up to date with the changes Microsoft is baking into the next Windows Server version.

Should we put this? (I think not.) - 202.81.177.43 12:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather wait until we hear something from Microsoft on it. The best we could do is write something like "Paul Thurrott says Vista SP1 will be major". Yeah well... that's nice, but it could just as easily be wrong, and we should be trying our best in this article to stay focused on the facts and important details. It's a big article already. :-) -/- Warren 14:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Notes and references

For god sake, 76 external links. I think it's just TOO much. I took a closer look at it, and at least half of them can be removed in my opinion. Some of the links are just plain spam! Do other editors agree to "clean" the external links a little? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spaasje (talk • contribs) .

I don't see 76 external links. There are quite a lot of references however but that's completely different from external link. References by definition are not spam. The only way we could reduce references is either re-use them if there are already some that cover the same thing or find references which cover the several things or reduce the amount of content in this article. Oh and in some cases, we use multiple references if it's something that's controversial it's better if we have multiple references to support it. (Obviously simple facts like Aero needs 64mb of RAM at minimum not 128mb only needs one reference) Nil Einne 12:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was indeed talking about the referances. A link to the specifications of a Geforce 6200, doesn't belong there I think. It's just plain spam. It seems like that particular link has allready been removed.

Wel okay, perhaps there were a few inappropriate references then. However all likehood, we will have a large number of appropriate references. I still believe references by definition aren't spam, but there could be spam posing as references Nil Einne 01:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Huge new features section

Since there's already a linked 'main article Features new to Windows Vista', this section could be a lot shorter. It's too much detailed technical information right up front, but I'm not nearly expert enough to sort out what the most important points are. Is there anyone who could take that on?

I was originally considering just moving the section to below Visual styles, Hardware requirements and Editions and pricing, but thought better of it since it is pre-release, making those sections less important. What do others think about the ordering and/or relative importance of the sections? --Spyforthemoon 20:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section redux

I agree with Warrens that single-para sub-sections are not good stylistically. On the other hand, a huge six-para section without any structure doesn't match the rest of the article either. I restored what appeared to have been a compromise from before the Crit section was removed, which was to place a bold-face phrase at the front of each para. This doesn't mess up the TOC, but makes the section easier to read and make more sense. Revert away. -- Gnetwerker 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that too. Hopefully others will agree. -/- Warren 20:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista just went gold

Just checked CNET News.com and found an article that Microsoft announced today that Vista has gone gold. [6] GeeCee 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Two column references

Reference 11 overlaps text on the second column because it's quite long. Anyone who thinks this looks fine? http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e74-92a3-088782200fe7/TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt download.microsoft.com] – TWAR05002_WinHEC05.ppt 86.140.139.252 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that before but didn't think it was fixable. I looked at the code this time, and saw that a "[" was missing, which is what caused it to be extra long. --Scott McNay 04:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OEM release?

Why couldn't Microsoft release Vista much earlier with limited major manufacturers? I mean they could make a very stable build only for Dell, Thinkpad, HP, Sony, Toshiba ... laptop computers. These builds only need to support a limited number of hardware parts. It would be less likely to go wrong. -- Toytoy 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

November 30th isn't soon enough for you? --Scott McNay 01:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey! It's been delayed for years. -- Toytoy 01:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Drivers are a drop in the bucket of the changes between XP/Server 2003 and Vista. If you haven't used it yet (I've been using it for months now), you should know that it's been described as being as significant as the difference between Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. --Scott McNay 03:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft has throughout the development process worked with the major manufacturers and the extensive preview program has allowed these manufacturers to develop the drivers alongside the development. It would be useless to release Vista much earlier with original equipment manufacturers (OEM's) because they are a MAJOR part of the market for Windows. Harryboyles 08:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Main screenshot too big!!!

The new screenshot of Windows Vista RTM looks nice, but is too big for about 1600 x 1000 pixels. Can you PLEASE change the screenshot of only the size of 1024 x 768 pixels?! --124.106.12.161 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

People can also quit changing screenshots to reflect the most recent build, there are not that many changes anyway. I'd rather have a 1024x768 PNG screenshot than a lower-quality screenshot off of Paul's site. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that doesn't seem to be a problem now. I guess I shouldn't have started the tradition of posting a new screenshot during the release of every build. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is, Alex. I comment out the image for the main screenshot. The RTM screenshot of Windows Vista went missing because the image of non-sourceful and has been removed. --210.213.83.214 07:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't do that. It damages the quality and informative value of the article. -/- Warren 08:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But Warren, the contributor, Themodernizer, was removed the fake screenshot of Windows Vista RTM. Can you help to find the screenshots of Windows Vista RTM? --124.106.13.27 09:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When a contributor to Wikipedia can produce a self-created Vista RTM screenshot, then we can put it in. My guess is that we'll see something by next Wednesday, based on Microsoft's indications of when Vista will be available to MSDN subscribers. In the meantime, the RC2 image will do just fine. -/- Warren 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I dare say that someone could put up an RC1 screenshot, labelled as RTM, and few could tell the difference -- or care. I don't think it matters much, as long as the "flavor" is captured. --Scott McNay 05:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

They would have to somehow get all the new icons to pull that off.--Phnx2ashes 21:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure there are quite a few contributors who could have put up a screenshot since last week. I guess they just don't want people to know they're using Vista RTM when perhaps they should be :-P Nil Einne 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What images are you looking for? If you tell me I can provide them for you. Blunden 12:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista sounds

Should we include some commentary about the creation of Vista sounds? Something about Robert Fripp, and the lead of the Vista sound project, Steve Ball? http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/7056/52/ ---Sometimesthinking 22:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That'd be a good thing to cover in Development of Windows Vista, given how extensively it's been covered by the media. -/- Warren 21:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Vista leaked and cracked?

Is it within the scope of this article to mention that vista was leaked November 11th and cracked the same day? Odmrob 11:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's within the scope only if you list a reliable source.--Phnx2ashes 21:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the only site I can come up with: [7]. I'm not going to put it into the article yet, not sure if it's reliable. Cirus^{Talk/Contribs} 22:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd keep it off for now. It's typical journalism: Using a flashy title to catch a readers attention than explaining that the title isn't necessarily the case, hence the following quote from the article:"In this sense, it’s not a true crack – it’s simply leveraging off compatibilities between the betas and the Gold release. Vista still needs to be activated, and it looks like for the moment, there’s no way around that." I've also never heard of apcstart.com. If vista was truly cracked it would be all over the news and tech websites.--Phnx2ashes 00:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)