Jump to content

Criticism of Windows Vista: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
HeiseUK (talk | contribs)
updated links to heise Security
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
 
(917 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Critical reception of the Microsoft operating system}}
{{SubArticle|Windows Vista}}
{{about|the criticism that applies specifically to Vista|criticism applying to several or all versions of Microsoft Windows|Criticism of Microsoft Windows}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=October 2024}}
{{Windows Vista}}
{{Windows Vista}}
'''Criticism of Windows Vista''' includes the various concerns regarding the commercially released version of Vista, due to perceived issues with privacy, security, performance and presence of product activation. [[Windows Vista]], the latest version of [[Microsoft]]'s [[Personal computer|PC]] [[operating system]], has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.
'''[[Windows Vista]]''', an [[operating system]] released by [[Microsoft]] for consumers on January 30, 2007, has been widely criticized by reviewers and users. Due to issues with new security features, performance, driver support and [[product activation]], it has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.


==Security==
==Security==
===Driver signing requirement===
In a July 2006 report,<ref>{{cite web
For security reasons, [[64-bit]] versions of Windows Vista allow only [[code signing|signed]] [[device driver|drivers]] to be installed in [[ring (computer security)|kernel mode]].<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/security_response/weblog/2006/07/post.html
|url = http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvsign.mspx
| title=Windows Vista: Network Attack Surface Analysis
|title = Driver Signing Requirements for Windows
| date=2006-07-18
|publisher = [[Microsoft]]
| accessdate=2006-08-13
|access-date = February 23, 2008
| last=Friedrichs
|archive-url = https://archive.today/20120530/http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winlogo/drvsign/drvsign.mspx
| first=Oliver
|archive-date = May 30, 2012
| work=Symantec Security Response Weblog
|url-status = dead
| publisher=[[Symantec]]
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
}}</ref> security software vendor [[Symantec]] said that the large amount of new and untested code in Vista, especially the new implementation of the [[network stack]], could cause instability and new security flaws.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Microsoft-blocks-64-bit-driver--/news/94035
| url=http://news.com.com/Symantec+sees+an+Achilles+heel+in+Vista/2100-7355_3-6095119.html
|title=Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver
| title=Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista
|publisher=Heise Security UK
| year=2006-07-18
|date=August 8, 2007
| accessdate=2006-08-13
}}</ref> Because code executing in kernel mode enjoys wide privileges on the system, the signing requirement aims to ensure that only code with a known origin executes at this level. In order for a driver to be signed, a developer/software vendor has to obtain an [[Authenticode]] certificate<ref>{{cite web
| last=Evers
|url=http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff552299.aspx
| first=Joris
|title=Software Publisher Certificate
| publisher=CNet News.com
|date=8 June 2022
}}</ref> The report claims that "Microsoft has removed a large body of tried and tested code and replaced it with freshly written code, complete with new [[corner case]]s and defects". Microsoft responded that they "believe the claims are unsubstantiated", and Symantec admits that all of the bugs it found were fixed by the time Beta 2 was released, but adds that "While it is reassuring that Microsoft is finding and fixing these defects, we expect that vulnerabilities will continue to be discovered for some time. A networking stack is a complex piece of software that takes many years to mature." [[IPv6]] [[Tunneling protocol|tunnelling]] and [[peer-to-peer]] collaboration technologies were identified as additional potential problem areas. [[McAfee]] has claimed that Vista will actually be less secure than previous versions of Windows.<ref>{{cite web
|publisher=[[Microsoft]]
| url=http://www.mcafee.com/us/local_content/misc/vista_position.pdf
}}</ref> with which to sign the driver. Authenticode certificates can be obtained from certificate authorities trusted by Microsoft. Microsoft trusts the certificate authority to verify the applicant's identity before issuing a certificate. If a driver is not signed using a valid certificate, or if the driver was signed using a certificate which has been revoked by Microsoft or the certificate authority, Windows will refuse to load the driver.
| title=Microsoft Increasing Security Risk with Vista
| accessdate=2006-11-29
| last=Samenuk
| first=George
| date=2006-09-28
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| first=Elizabeth
| last=Montalbano
| title=McAfee Cries Foul over Vista Security Features
| url=http://www.pcworld.in/news/index.jsp/artId=4587538
| publisher=PC World India
| date=2006-10-06
| accessdate=2006-11-29
}}</ref> According to [[CNET News.com]] some critics are unenthusiastic about the Vista security features, because they believe it "offers mostly basic protection and is not the best of its class."<ref>{{cite web|
| url=http://news.com.com/2100-7355_3-6150948.html
| title=Security tools ready for Vista launch
| last=Evers
| first=Joris
| publisher=[[CNET News.com]]
| date=2007-01-17
| accessdate=2007-01-20
}}</ref>
{{cquote|There is no doubt that Vista will be Microsoft's most secure operating system. However, most secure is not equivalent to secure.|15px|15px|Natalie Lambert, analyst, [[Forrester Research|Forrester]]}}


The following criticisms/claims have been made regarding this requirement:
===User Account Control===
*It disallows experimentation from the hobbyist community.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.linchpinlabs.com/resources/atsiv/usage-design.html |title=Linchpin Labs Response to Microsoft's Classification of Atsiv |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326043950/http://www.linchpinlabs.com/resources/atsiv/usage-design.html |archive-date=March 26, 2009 }}</ref> The required Authenticode certificates for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach<ref>{{cite web
Concerns have been raised about the new [[User Account Control]] (UAC) security technology. While in pre-release states, it was considered too "chatty" by a [[Yankee Group]] analyst.<ref name="pcworlduac">{{cite web
| url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6069464.html
|url=http://www.winwaed.com/info/authenticode/authenticode.shtml
|title=Microsoft Authenticode for the Small Independent Software Vendor
| title=Report: Vista to hit anti-spyware, firewall markets
|access-date=May 27, 2008
| last=Evers
|author=Marsden, Richard
| first=Joris
|archive-date=December 13, 2012
| date=2006-05-07
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213172554/http://www.winwaed.com/info/authenticode/authenticode.shtml
| accessdate=2007-01-21
|url-status=dead
| work=[[ZDNet]] News
}}</ref> for small developers, usually about $400–$500/year (from [[Verisign]]).{{citation needed|date=August 2012}}
| publisher=CNet
}}</ref> By the time Windows Vista was released, the number of operating system tasks that triggered UAC prompts were greatly reduced. In addition, ''file and registry virtualization'' technology was added to reduce the number of [[Legacy system|legacy]] applications that trigger UAC prompts.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=288259
|title=UAC - What. How. Why.
|date=2007-03-05
|accessdate=2007-03-23
|format=video
|author=Charles}}</ref> Despite reductions in UAC prompts the feature is still triggered by a number of third party programs not designed to Microsoft's Windows specifications. Microsoft has recommended that programs be written in such a way to avoid requiring elevation for some time. However, because all users are Administrators by default in previous versions of Windows with security (Windows 2000 and XP), many developers did not modify their applications. Although Microsoft has now added functionality that enforces the security model, UAC can be easily disabled through the Control Panel; however, this also disables privilege separation features such as [[Internet Explorer 7]]'s 'Protected Mode' which rely on it for their operation.


Microsoft allows developers to temporarily or locally disable the signing requirement on systems they control (by hitting F8 during boot) or by signing the drivers with self-issued certificates or by running a kernel debugger.<ref>{{cite web|last=van Eerde|first=Matthew|title=How to install unsigned drivers|url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/matthew_van_eerde/archive/2011/09/14/how-to-install-unsigned-drivers.aspx|publisher=Microsoft|access-date=August 28, 2012}}</ref>
===Driver signing requirement===
64-bit versions of Windows Vista only allow [[device driver|driver]]s [[digital signature|signed]] with a privately purchased code<ref>[http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Microsoft-blocks-64-bit-driver--/news/94035 Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver - News - heise Security UK<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> to be loaded in kernel mode. The drivers must be signed by the authors and this behavior cannot be overridden by system admins. While this has been praised as a security feature, it has also been criticized for reducing Vista's compatibility with older hardware (as sometimes, as in the case of [[VMware Server]], the manufacturer of the hardware won't bother releasing a new, signed driver) and for disallowing experimentation from the hobbyist community.<ref>[http://www.linchpinlabs.com/resources/atsiv/usage-design.htm Linchpin Labs | Response to Microsoft's Classification of Atsiv<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> There has also been criticism that this requirement might exist not because of security, but to enforce DRM policies, especially the [[Protected Video Path]].<ref>[http://www.alex-ionescu.com/?p=24 Alex Ionescu’s Blog » Update on Driver Signing Bypass<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>


At one time, a third-party tool called Atsiv<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028440 |title=Utility evades Vista kernel defenses |date=June 30, 2007 |publisher=Computerworld |author=Gregg Keizer |access-date=September 14, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090116025139/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9028440 |archive-date=January 16, 2009 }}</ref> existed that would allow any driver, unsigned or signed to be loaded. Atsiv worked by installing a signed "surrogate" driver which could be directed to load any other driver, thus circumventing the driver signing requirement. Since this was in violation of the driver signing requirement, Microsoft closed this workaround with hotfix KB932596,<ref>{{cite web
Microsoft maintains that the signing requirement is only to "identify the author/creator of a piece of software or code so that the author/creator can be approached in the event a reliability issue, vulnerability, or malware is discovered. Signing is not designed to confirm the “intent” of signed code (i.e. good or bad), or whether exploitable bugs or malicious code is present."<ref>{{cite web | url = http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistasecurity/archive/2007/08/16/driver-signing-kernel-patch-protection-and-kpp-driver-signing.aspx | title = (Driver Signing <> Kernel Patch Protection) AND (KPP <> Driver Signing) | accessdate = 2007-12-23}}</ref> The required authenticode certificate for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach for small developers, usually about $400-500/year (from Versign).
|url=http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932596
|title=Microsoft Security Advisory: Update to improve Kernel Patch Protection
|publisher=[[Microsoft]]
|date=October 26, 2007
|access-date=March 3, 2008
}}</ref> by revoking the certificate with which the surrogate driver was signed.


===Flaws in memory protection features===
==Digital Rights Management==
Security researchers [[Alexander Sotirov]] and Mark Dowd have developed a technique that bypasses many of the new memory-protection safeguards in Windows Vista, such as [[address space layout randomization]] (ASLR). The result of this is that any already existing buffer overflow bugs that, in Vista, were previously not exploitable due to such features, may now be exploitable.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://taossa.com/archive/bh08sotirovdowd.pdf|title= How to Impress Girls with Browser Memory Protection Bypasses|access-date= August 28, 2008|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101226233647/http://taossa.com/archive/bh08sotirovdowd.pdf|archive-date= December 26, 2010|url-status= dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080811-the-sky-isnt-falling-a-look-at-a-new-vista-security-bypass.html|title= The sky isn't falling: a look at a new Vista security bypass|date= 11 August 2008}}</ref> This is not in itself a vulnerability: as Sotirov notes, "''What we presented is weaknesses in the protection mechanism. It still requires the system under attack to have a vulnerability. Without the presence of a vulnerability these techniques don't really [accomplish] anything.''"<ref name="SotZDNet">{{cite web|url= http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=513|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080813125403/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=513|url-status= dead|archive-date= August 13, 2008|title= Alarmed about Vista security? Black Hat researcher Alexander Sotirov speaks out}}</ref> The vulnerability Sotirov and Dowd used in their paper as an example was the 2007 animated cursor bug, {{CVE|2007-0038}}.
Another common criticism concerns the integration of new forms of [[Digital Rights Management]] (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the [[Protected Video Path]] (PVP), which involves technologies such as [[High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection]] (HDCP) and the [[Image Constraint Token]] (ICT). These features have been added to Vista due to an agreement between Microsoft and major Hollywood studios.<ref name="Microsoft-ocp">{{cite web
| url=http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx
| title=Output Content Protection and Windows Vista
| date=2005-04-27
| accessdate=2007-01-08
| author=Marsh, Dave
| publisher=[[Microsoft]]}}</ref> Microsoft claims that movie studios and other providers of "premium content" will only allow their data to be played back on PCs if sufficient protection is granted. This will concern, among other things, play-back of protected content on [[HD-DVD]] and [[Blu-ray]] discs, but it won't be enabled until at least 2010.


One security researcher (Dino Dai Zovi) claimed that this means that it is "completely game over" for Vista security<ref>{{cite web|url=http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid14_gci1324395,00.html |title=Researchers use browser to elude Vista memory protections |publisher=Searchsecurity.techtarget.com |access-date=June 11, 2010}}</ref> though Sotirov refuted this, saying that "''The articles that describe Vista security as 'broken' or 'done for,' with 'unfixable vulnerabilities' are completely inaccurate. One of the suggestions I saw in many of the discussions was that people should just use Windows XP. In fact, in XP a lot of those protections we're bypassing ''[such as ASLR]'' don't even exist.''"<ref name="SotZDNet" />
In essence, the Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.<ref name="Microsoft-ocp"/> Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a Hardware Functionality Scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to switch off or artificially degrade the quality of any signal outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content won't play — all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.<ref name="Microsoft-ocp"/><ref>{{cite web
| url=http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
| title=Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)
| date=2007-01-20
| author=Marsh, Dave}}</ref>


==Digital rights management==
==Hardware requirements==
Another common criticism concerns the integration of a new form of [[digital rights management]] (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the [[Protected Video Path]] (PVP), which involves technologies such as [[High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection]] (HDCP) and the [[Image Constraint Token]] (ICT). These features were added to Vista due to licensing restrictions from the HD-DVD consortium and Blu-ray association.<ref name="Microsoft-ocp">{{cite web
Initial speculation regarding the hardware requirements for Vista raised concerns from many users, however they were dispelled in March 2006 when Microsoft released the official requirements.<ref name="Hardware1">{{cite web
| url=http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/49835/49835.html?Ad=1
|url=http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx
| title=Finally, Microsoft Releases Windows Vista Hardware Requirements
|title=Output Content Protection and Windows Vista
| date=2006-03-29
|date=April 27, 2005
|access-date=January 8, 2007
| accessdate=2006-08-15
|author=Marsh, Dave
| last=Thurrott
|publisher=[[Microsoft]]
| first=Paul
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061116163834/http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/stream/output_protect.mspx |archive-date = November 16, 2006}}</ref> This would have concerned only the playback resolution of protected content on [[HD DVD]] and [[Blu-ray]] discs, but it had not been enabled as of 2017. A lack of a protected channel did not stop playback. Audio plays back as normal but high-definition video downsampled on Blu-ray and HD DVD to slightly-better-than-DVD quality video.
| authorlink=Paul Thurrott
| publisher= WinSuperSite.com
}}</ref> According to Microsoft, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista" and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista.<ref name="Judge1">{{cite web
| url=http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-2188681,00.html
| title=Windows revamp 'too advanced for most PCs'
| date=2006-05-20
| accessdate=2006-08-15
| last=Judge
| first=Elizabeth
| publisher=The Times
}}</ref><ref name="Hwreqts2">{{cite web
| url=http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843945,00.asp
| title=Will Your PC Run Windows Vista?
| year=2005-08-05
| accessdate=2006-08-15
| author=Spooner, John G.
| coatuhors=Foley, Mary Jo
| publisher=eweek.com
}}</ref>
However, requirements for running some advanced features, such as the [[Windows Aero|Aero interface]], may have an impact on many users. According to Elizabeth Judge, those full features "would be available to less than 5 percent of Britain's PC market."


The Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.<ref name="Microsoft-ocp"/> Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a [[hardware functionality scan]] (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to lower the resolution (from 1920×1080 to 960×540) of video signals outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content will not play; all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.<ref name="Microsoft-ocp"/><ref name="vistablog20" />
==Laptop battery life==
With the new features of Vista, criticisms have surfaced concerning the use of battery power in laptops by Vista, which can drain the battery much more rapidly than [[Windows XP]], reducing battery life.<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6079215.html?tag=nl
| title=Vista beta sucks up battery juice
| year=2006-06-02
| accessdate=2007-05-06
| author=Fried, Ina
| publisher=news.zdnet.com
}}</ref> With the Aero visual effects turned off, battery life is equal to or better than Windows XP systems.<ref>[http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6181366.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn Vista draining laptop batteries, patience]</ref> "With the release of a new operating system and its new features and higher requirements, higher power consumption is normal," as Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC noted, "when Windows XP came out, that was true, and when Windows 98 came out, that was true... "<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6181366.html
| title=Vista draining laptop batteries, patience
| year=2007-05-04
| accessdate=2007-05-06
| author=Krazit, Tom
| publisher=news.zdnet.com
}}</ref>
In order to extend the battery life, Microsoft added the requirement of [[Hybrid drive|hybrid hard disk]] for laptops to be certified as "Vista Premium capable".<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.vnunet.com/personal-computer-world/features/2160039/vista-affect-notebooks
| title=How Vista will affect notebooks
| year=2006-07-18
| accessdate=2007-05-06
| author=Peters, Luke
| publisher=www.vnunet.com
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/13/Laptop-Vista-Premium-certification-will-require-hybrid-HDDs/
| title=Laptop Vista Premium certification will require hybrid HDDs
| year=2006-06-13
| accessdate=2007-05-06
| author=Blass, Evan
| publisher=www.engadget.com
}}</ref>


===Notable critics===
==Software compatibility==
[[Peter Gutmann (computer scientist)|Peter Gutmann]], a computer security expert from the [[University of Auckland]], New Zealand, released a [[whitepaper]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html|title=A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection|last=Gutmann|first=Peterson|author-link=Peter Gutmann (computer scientist)|date=January 27, 2007|access-date=January 27, 2007}} Also available: [http://max-sievers.name/vista_cost.pdf PDF version] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511144644/http://max-sievers.name/vista_cost.pdf |date=May 11, 2011 }}</ref> in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:
Significant problems have surfaced with other software running under Vista. According to Gartner 'Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system'.<ref>{{cite web
* Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.
| url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62012902,00.htm
* If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, [[S/PDIF]]-based, high-end audio cards).
| title=Gartner: App testing delaying Vista rollouts
* Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.
| accessdate=2007-05-22
* The added complexity makes systems less reliable.
| publisher=zdnetasia.com
* Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.
}}</ref>
* Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks.
Cisco have been reported as saying 'Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle'.<ref>{{cite web
* Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.
| url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61953911,00.htm

| title=Microsoft rallies developers behind Vista
The [[Free Software Foundation]] conducted a campaign against Vista, called "[[Free Software Foundation anti-Windows campaigns|BadVista]]", on these grounds.
| accessdate=2007-05-22

| publisher=zdnetasia.com
===Reaction to criticism===
}}</ref> According to PC World, 'Software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS'.<ref>{{cite web
[[Ed Bott]], author of ''Windows Vista Inside Out'', published a three-part blog which rebuts many of Gutmann's claims.<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128346-page,1/article.html
|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
| title=No Rush to Adopt Vista
|title=Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong.
| accessdate=2007-05-22
|first=Ed
| publisher=IDG, quoted on PC World
|last=Bott
}}</ref> Citing 'concerns over cost and compatibility', the [[United States Department of Transportation]] prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista.<ref>{{cite web
|date=September 16, 2007
| url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CPID0SY4ST0CIQSNDLRCKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=197700789
|access-date=September 21, 2007
| title=Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007
|archive-date=September 29, 2007
| accessdate=2007-05-22
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929081957/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299
| publisher=Information week [www.informationweek.com]
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said the rollout (of Vista) is significantly behind schedule because 'several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software'.<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19747743/page/2/
| title=Six months on, Vista users still griping (page 2 - The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a member of Microsoft's Vista Technical Adoption Program)
| accessdate=2007-07-27
| publisher=MS NBC [www.msnbc.com]
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:
As of [[July 2007]], there are over 2,000 tested applications<ref name="sp1whitepaper"/> that "have the Windows Vista logo". Microsoft has published a list of legacy applications that meet their "Works with Vista" software standards<ref>{{cite web|url=https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/workswithlist.aspx|title="Application List: Works with Windows Vista"}}</ref> as well as a list of applications that meet their more stringent "Works with Windows Vista" standards.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/certifiedlist.aspx|title="Application List: Certified for Windows Vista"}}</ref> However, as of July 2007, software compatibility problems are still stopping adoption of Vista.<ref>{{cite web
* Gutmann based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources.
| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19747743/
* Gutmann quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications.
| title=Six months on, Vista users still griping
* Gutmann did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications.
| accessdate=2007-07-27
* Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece.
| publisher=MS NBC [www.msnbc.com]
}}</ref> Microsoft has released the Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0 application for migrating Vista-incompatible applications, while [[virtualization]] solutions like [[Virtual PC|Virtual PC 2007]] or those from [[VMWare]] can also be used as a last resort to continue running Vista-incompatible applications under legacy versions of Windows.


Technology writer George Ou stated that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.<ref>{{cite web
Microsoft also provides an Upgrade Advisor Tool which can be used on existing XP systems to flag driver and application compatibility issues before upgrading to Vista.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx|title="Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor"}}</ref>
|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070904095807/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=September 4, 2007
|title=Gutmann Vista DRM paper uses shoddy Web Forums as source.
|first=George
|last=Ou
|date=September 1, 2007
|access-date=September 22, 2007
}}</ref>


Gutmann responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article,<ref>{{cite web
===Games===
|url = http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html
Vista has implemented [[DirectX#DirectX 10 and 9.0L|DirectX 10]], and Vista also has DirectX 9.0L for backward compatibility.<ref name="9L">[http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35140 theinquirer.net: DirectX 9.0 L works on Vista only]</ref> However, there are significant compatibility problems with some pre-Vista games that use DirectX 9 or older, such as [[Quake 4]].<ref>[http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_06.asp Paul Thurrott's SuperSite for Windows: Windows Vista Review, Part 6: Compatibility<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
|title = Windows DRM: A Response to the Disinformation
|author = Peter Gutmann (computer scientist)
|access-date = October 27, 2007
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110607140702/http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html
|archive-date = June 7, 2011
|url-status = dead
}}</ref> which stated that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation".


Microsoft published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection which refutes some of Gutmann's arguments.<ref>{{cite web
===Specific programs===
|url=http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
Problems have been found with many programs, such as [[Nero Burning ROM|Nero]] and [[Symantec]]'s and other's virus scanning programs<ref name="SWC1">[http://www.symantec.com/home_homeoffice/themes/vista/compatibility.jsp www.symantec.com Vista Compatibility]</ref> require new versions. Many Adobe programs require new versions.<ref name="SWC2">[http://www.adobe.com/support/products/pdfs/adobe_products_and_windows_vista.pdf www.adobe.com Vista support in Adobe products]</ref> Problems have also been shown with many peripherals, including mobile phone synchronising software. There are also compatibility issues with some host-based printing programs under Vista.<ref name="SWC3">[http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?docname=c00824421&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN www.hp.com General compatibility with Vista]</ref><ref name="SWC4">[http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/genericDocument?docname=c00868762&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN www.hp.com Specific example of lack of compatibility with Vista]
|title=Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)
</ref><ref>Printer makers, Dave Wascha, a director in the Windows Client group, noted, draw profits from ink cartridges and services, and have little motivation to invest in updating drivers for old hardware{{cite web
|author=Nick White and Dave Marsh
| url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19747743/page/2/
|date=January 20, 2007
| title=Six months on, Vista users still griping (page 2)
|access-date=January 22, 2007
| accessdate=2007-07-27
|url-status=dead
| publisher=MS NBC [www.msnbc.com]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121121652/http://blogs.windows.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
|archive-date=January 21, 2013
}}</ref>
}}</ref>
Futhermore, some applications fail to work when in-built [[TabletPC]] functionality is enabled - here [[Hewlett Packard]] [[image scanner|scanning]] software<ref>{{cite web|url=http://forums11.itrc.hp.com/service/forums/questionanswer.do?admit=109447626+1199371032512+28353475&threadId=1125399|title=hpqscnvw has stopped working|publisher=[[Hewlett Packard]]}}</ref> is a case in point.


[[Microsoft Most Valuable Professional|Microsoft MVP]] Paul Smith has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments.<ref>{{cite web
==Removal of announced features==
|url=https://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/windows_vista_drm_nonsense
Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as [[Next-Generation Secure Computing Base]] in May 2004, [[WinFS]] in August 2004, [[Windows PowerShell]] in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to its release), [[SecurID]] Support in May 2006, [[Data synchronization|PC-to-PC Synchronization]] in June 2006.<ref name="YankedFromVista">{{cite web
|title=Windows Vista DRM nonsense
| url=http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=34120&CIPseq=0
|first=Paul
| title=What's been yanked from Vista, and when
|last=Smith
| date=2006-06-27
|date=December 31, 2006
| accessdate=2007-01-29
|access-date=January 3, 2007
| publisher=Techweb
}}</ref> Specifically, he says:
}}</ref> The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.<ref>[http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,39191794,00.htm zdnetasia.com]</ref>
* Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company offered this solution as an alternative to not being able to playback the content at all.
* The Protected Video Path will not be used for quite a while. There is said to be an agreement between Microsoft and Sony that Blu-ray discs will not mandate protection until at least 2010, possibly even 2012.<ref name="arstechnica">{{cite web
|url=https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060521-6880.html
|last=Fisher
|first=Ken
|date=May 21, 2006
|title=Hollywood reportedly in agreement to delay forced quality downgrades for Blu-ray, HD DVD
}}</ref>
* Vista does not degrade or refuse to play any existing media, CDs or DVDs. The protected data paths are only activated if protected content requires it.
* Users of other operating systems such as [[Linux]] or [[macOS|Mac OS X]] will not have official access to this premium content.
Microsoft also noted that content protection mechanisms have existed in Windows as far back as [[Windows ME]].<ref name="vistablog20">{{cite web
|url=http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
|title=Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)
|last=Marsh
|first=Dave
|date=January 20, 2007
|access-date=January 20, 2007
|work=Windows Vista team blog
|publisher=Microsoft
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130121121652/http://blogs.windows.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx
|archive-date=January 21, 2013
}}</ref>


Since mainstream and extended support for Windows Vista ended on April 10, 2012, and April 11, 2017, respectively, plans to enable the Protected Video Path for Windows Vista is very unlikely.
==Pricing==
Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive. The differences in pricing from one country to another are also striking, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the US saving between US$42 and US$314. In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for [[Windows XP]]. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 (US$229).<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.apcmag.com/5079/vistas_rip_off_australian_pricing
| title=Is Vista's Australian pricing a rip-off?
| date=2007-01-22
| accessdate=2007-01-23
| last=Warne
| first=Dan
| publisher=apcmag.com
}}</ref> At the current exchange rate, [[United Kingdom|UK]] consumers could be paying almost double their US counterparts for the same software.<ref> {{cite web
| url=http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37140
| title=Vista comes to rip-off Britain
| date=2007-01-23
| accessdate=2007-01-24
| publisher=The Inquirer}}</ref>


==Hardware requirements and performance==
{{Cquote|Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows.
Around the time of its release, Microsoft stated, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista," and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista.<ref name="Judge1">{{cite web
British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100, while American users will pay only £51 ($100).<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2173895/vilification-vista-pricing
|url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/windows-revamp-too-advanced-for-most-pcs-9x9jmjgwvpt
| title=Microsoft vilified over price of Vista
|title=Windows revamp 'too advanced for most PCs'
|date=May 20, 2006
| year=2007
|access-date=October 25, 2017
| month=February
|last=Judge
| accessdate=2007-01-23
|first=Elizabeth
| publisher=VNU Business Publications
|work=[[The Times]]
}}</ref>|20px|20px|[[Computer Active]]}}
| location=London}}</ref><ref name="Hwreqts2">{{cite web
|url=http://www.eweek.com/web/index.php/news/will-your-pc-run-windows-vista
|title=Will Your PC Run Windows Vista?
|date=August 5, 2005
|access-date=August 15, 2006
|author=Spooner, John G.
|author2=Foley, Mary Jo
|publisher=eweek.com
}}</ref><ref name="Hardware1">{{cite web
|url=https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-78/finally-microsoft-releases-windows-vista-hardware-requirements
|title=Finally, Microsoft Releases Windows Vista Hardware Requirements
|date=March 29, 2006
|access-date=May 30, 2022
|last=Thurrott
|first=Paul
|website=[[IT Pro]]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171025075117/http://windowsitpro.com/windows-client/finally-microsoft-releases-windows-vista-hardware-requirements
|archive-date=October 25, 2017
|url-status=live
}}</ref>


Some of the hardware that worked in Windows XP does not work, or works poorly in Vista, because no Vista-compatible drivers are available due to companies going out of business or their lack of interest in supporting old hardware.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.apcmag.com/creative_mute_on_vista_soundblaster_drivers.htm/ |title=Creative mute on Vista Soundblaster drivers |publisher=Apcmag.com |access-date=October 25, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wintuts.com/Windows-Vista-problems|title=Windows Vista's biggest problem|date=18 June 2007 |publisher=WinTuts.com |access-date=June 28, 2015}}</ref>
==Performance==

Windows Vista executes typical applications slower than Windows XP, for the same hardware configuration.<ref>{{cite web
===Speed===
''[[Tom's Hardware]]'' published benchmarks in January 2007 that showed that Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
|url=http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120530163703/http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=May 30, 2012
|title=New Benchmark Tests for Vista
|title=New Benchmark Tests for Vista
|date=[[May 4]] [[2007]]
|date=May 4, 2007
|access-date=May 13, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-13
|last=Santo Domingo|first=Joel|publisher=tomshardware.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|last=Santo Domingo
|first=Joel
|publisher=tomshardware.com
}}</ref> A subset of the benchmarks used were provided by [[Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation]] (or SPEC), who later stated that such "results should not be compared to those generated while running Windows XP, even if testing is done with the same hardware configuration." SPEC acknowledges that an apple-to-apples comparison cannot be made in cases such as the one done by Tom's Hardware, calling such studies "invalid comparisons."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=3139606
|url=http://www.spec.org/gwpg/publish/vista_paper.html
|title=Windows XP vs. Vista: The Benchmark Rundown
|title=Understanding the impact of Windows Vista on SPECviewperf performance measurement
|date=[[January 29]] [[2007]]
|date=May 29, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-13
|access-date=October 29, 2008
|last=Schmid|first=Patrick|publisher=abcnews.go.com}}</ref>
|last=Williams
|first=Ian
|publisher=Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation
}}</ref> However, the ''Tom's Hardware'' report conceded that the SPECviewperf tests "suffered heavily from the lack of support for the [[OpenGL]] graphics library under Windows Vista". For this reason the report recommended against replacing Windows XP with Vista until manufacturers made these drivers available.<ref name="Schmidt">{{cite web
|url=http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-11.html
|title=New Benchmark Tests for Vista, Conclusion
|date=January 29, 2007
|last=Schmidt
|first=Patrick
|publisher=tomshardware.com
}}</ref>


The report also concluded in tests involving real world applications Vista performed considerably slower, noting "We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios". Other commonly used applications, including [[Adobe Photoshop|Photoshop]] and [[WinRAR]], also performed worse under Vista.<ref name="Schmidt"/>
===File system performance===
When released, Vista performed file operations such as copying and deletion more slowly than other operating systems. Large copies required when migrating from one computer to another seemed difficult or impossible without workarounds such as using the command line. This inability to perform basic file operations initially attracted strong criticism.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17 | title=calculating time remaining moving, deleting, copying files very slow}}</ref> After six months, Microsoft confirmed the existence of these problems by releasing a special performance and reliability update,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979 | title=An update is available that improves the performance and reliability of Windows Vista}}</ref> which was later disseminated through Windows Update and will be included in SP1.<ref name="sp1whitepaper">{{cite web|url=http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx | title=Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper}} (See 'Performance' section)</ref>


Many low-to-mid-end machines that come with Windows Vista pre-installed suffer from exceptionally slow performance with the default Vista settings that come pre-loaded, and laptop manufacturers have offered to "downgrade" laptops to Windows XP—for a price.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2009/02/16/microsoft-gets-sued-over-windows-xp-downgrade-fees/ |title=Microsoft gets sued over Windows XP downgrade fees |date=16 February 2009 |publisher=Engadget |access-date=August 6, 2010}}</ref> However, this "price" is unnecessary, as Microsoft allows users of Windows Vista and Windows 7 to freely "downgrade" their software by installing XP and then phoning a Microsoft representative for a new product key.<ref>http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsoft-Windows-XP-Users-Can-Keep-Downgrade-Rights-491684/ {{Dead link|date=February 2022}}</ref>
===Games performance===

Due to the resource use of Vista, many games including games using the [[Source engine]] ([[Half Life 2]], [[Counter Strike: Source]], etc.) or [[Doom 3]] Engine ([[Doom 3]], [[Quake 4]], etc.) show a drop in frame rate compared to that experienced in Windows XP.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148 |title=Testing Vista's different memory configurations |date=[[December 4]] [[2006]] |accessdate=2007-05-13 |last=Abazovic |first=Fuad |publisher=theinquirer.net}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html |title=Valve Survey Summary |date=[[November 15]] [[2006]] |accessdate=2007-05-16 |publisher=steampowered.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_gaming_performance_reports |title=Windows Vista Gaming Performance Reports |date=[[January 29]] [[2007]] |accessdate=2007-05-26 |last=Williams |first=Rob |publisher=techgage.com}}</ref><ref>The [[3DMark|3DMark 06]] score on Vista is approximately half the score with XP in some benchmarks, and the average [[Frame rate|framerate]] with Vista for ''[[F.E.A.R.]]'' is also approximately half the XP score, all with 2 GB of memory, a [[Radeon R520#X1950 series|ATI Radeon X1950XTX]] [[Graphics processing unit|GPU]], and a [[Intel Core 2#Conroe|Intel Core 2 Duo 6600]] for XP / [[Intel Core 2#Conroe|Intel Core 2 Duo 6700]] for Vista).
===File operation performance===
* {{cite web
When first released in November 2006, Vista performed file operations such as copying and deletion more slowly than other operating systems. Large copies required when migrating from one computer to another seemed difficult or impossible without workarounds such as using the command line. This inability to efficiently perform basic file operations attracted strong criticism.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17 |title=calculating time remaining moving, deleting, copying files very slow |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070818140715/http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1358057&SiteID=17 |archive-date=August 18, 2007 }}</ref> After six months, Microsoft confirmed the existence of these problems by releasing a special performance and reliability update,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148
|url=http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=938979
|title=Testing Vista's different memory configurations
|title=An update is available that improves the performance and reliability of Windows Vista
|date=[[December 4]] [[2006]]
}}</ref> which was later disseminated through Windows Update, and is included in Service Pack 1.<ref name="vistablogwhite">{{cite web
|accessdate=2007-05-13
|url=http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
|last=Abazovic|first=Fuad|publisher=theinquirer.net}}
|title=Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper
* {{cite web
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070902075248/http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
|archive-date=September 2, 2007
}} (See 'Performance' section)</ref>

Nonetheless, one benchmark reported to show that, while improving performance compared to Vista's original release, Service Pack 1 does not increase the level of performance to that of Windows XP.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
|title=Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked
|last=Kingsley-Hughes
|first=Adrian
|date=February 15, 2008
|access-date=February 16, 2008
|archive-date=April 30, 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080430161320/http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1332
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> However, that benchmark has been questioned by others within ZDNet. Ed Bott both questions his colleagues' methods and provides benchmarks that refute the results.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369&page=1
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080228122204/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369&page=1
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=February 28, 2008
|title=Another take on Vista vs. XP benchmarks
|date=February 19, 2008
}}</ref>

===Game performance===
Early in Vista's lifecycle, many games showed a drop in frame rate compared to Windows XP.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148
|title=Testing Vista's different memory configurations
|date=December 4, 2006
|access-date=May 13, 2007
|last=Abazovic
|first=Fuad
|publisher=theinquirer.net
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070210134639/http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36148
|archive-date=February 10, 2007
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_gaming_performance_reports
|title=Windows Vista Gaming Performance Reports
|date=January 29, 2007
|access-date=May 26, 2007
|last=Williams
|first=Rob
|publisher=techgage.com
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=1015
|url=http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=1015
|title=ATI Radeon X1950XTX CrossFire
|title=ATI Radeon X1950XTX CrossFire
|date=[[November 24]] [[2006]]
|date=November 24, 2006
|access-date=May 18, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-18
|last=Cheatham
|last=Cheatham |first=Miles|publisher=bjorn3d.com}}</ref> Some articles point out, these results are also the consequence of the current lack of maturity of Vista [[Graphics processing unit]]s drivers, and even maturity of Vista itself.<ref>{{cite web
|first=Miles
|publisher=bjorn3d.com
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927174936/http://www.bjorn3d.com/read_pf.php?cID=1015 |archive-date = September 27, 2007}}</ref> These results were largely the consequence of Vista's immature drivers for [[graphics processing unit|graphics cards]], and higher system requirements for Vista itself.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp
|url=http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp
|title=Vista Game Performance: Vista vs. XP and ATI vs. Nvidia
|title=Vista Game Performance: Vista vs. XP and ATI vs. Nvidia
|date=[[February 20]] [[2007]]
|date=February 20, 2007
|access-date=May 26, 2007
|accessdate=2007-05-26
|last=Cross|first=Jason|publisher=extremetech.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|last=Cross
|first=Jason
|publisher=extremetech.com
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070519222846/http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C1697%2C2096940%2C00.asp
|url=http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMzNCwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==
|archive-date=May 19, 2007
|title=XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates
|url-status=dead
|date=[[May 7]] [[2007]]
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2007-05-26
|last=Wall|first=Jason|publisher=enthusiast.hardocp.com}}</ref>
|url = http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/07/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates
|title = XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates
|date = May 7, 2007
|access-date = May 26, 2007
|last = Wall
|first = Jason
|publisher = enthusiast.hardocp.com
|url-status = dead
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100101142924/http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article/2007/05/07/xp_vs_vista_tale_framerates
|archive-date = January 1, 2010
}}</ref>
By the time Service Pack 1 was released in mid-2008, gaming benchmarks showed that Vista was on par with Windows XP.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302500,00.asp
|title=Gaming Performance: Windows Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3
|date=May 12, 2008
|access-date=July 29, 2008
|last=Durham
|first=Joel
|publisher=extremetech.com
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110607225651/http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C2845%2C2302500%2C00.asp
|archive-date=June 7, 2011
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> However, games such as ''Devil May Cry 4'', ''Crysis'' and ''Left 4 Dead'' stated that their memory requirements on Vista were 1.5x–2x higher than XP.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.pcgamerequirements.com/game-index/devil-may-cry-4-game-requirements/
|title=Devil May Cry 4 Games Requirements
|quote=''(Minimum Requirements) Memory 512MB (Windows XP), 1GB (Windows Vista)''
|access-date=April 13, 2009
|publisher=pcgamerequirements.com
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090410025415/http://www.pcgamerequirements.com/game-index/devil-may-cry-4-game-requirements/
|archive-date=April 10, 2009
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.crysis-online.com/page/system-requirements.html
|title=Crysis System Requirements
|quote=''(Minimum Requirements) RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)''
|access-date=April 13, 2009
|publisher=crysis-online.com
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090409191856/http://www.crysis-online.com/page/system-requirements.html
|archive-date=April 9, 2009
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://pc.ign.com/articles/923/923094p1.html
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081108073704/http://pc.ign.com/articles/923/923094p1.html
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=November 8, 2008
|title=Valve Updates Left 4 Dead Requirements
|access-date=April 13, 2009
|quote=''RAM: 1 GB for XP / 2 GB for Vista''
|publisher=ign.com
}}</ref>


===Software Bloat===
===Software bloat===
Concerns were expressed that Windows Vista may contain [[software bloat]]. Speaking in 2007 at the University of Illinois, Microsoft distinguished engineer [[Eric Traut]] said, "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined."<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsid=10398|title= Microsoft to slim down 'bloated' Windows}}</ref>
With Vista bearing a footprint 10 times larger than XP's, even Microsoft officials are expressing concerns about Windows' growing waistline. Speaking last year at the University of Illinois, Microsoft distinguished engineer Eric Traut said the operating system had become bloated.
''"A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system. That may be a fair characterization,"'' said Traut.<ref>http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205920302 "''A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system. That may be a fair characterization,''" </ref>


Former ''[[PC World]]'' editor [[Ed Bott]] expressed skepticism about the claims of bloat, noting that almost every single operating system that Microsoft has ever sold had been criticized as "bloated" when they first came out; even those now regarded as the exact opposite, such as [[MS-DOS]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-bloat-its-always-been-that-way/|title=Windows bloat? It's always been that way|author=Ed Bott|website=[[ZDNet]]}}</ref>
==Software Protection Platform==
Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-[[Software piracy|piracy]] technologies, based on [[Windows XP]]'s [[Windows Genuine Advantage|WGA]], called Software Protection Platform (SPP).<ref>{{cite web |title=The Skinny on Windows SPP and Reduced Functionality in Vista |author=Computerworld |url=http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970}}</ref> A major component of this is a new reduced functionality mode, which Vista enters when it detects that the user has "failed product activation" or that their copy is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine",<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx |title=Microsoft’s Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiter |author=Microsoft PressPass}}</ref> which is described in a Microsoft white paper as follows:
<blockquote>"The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/features/2006/10-03-06SoftwareProtectionWP.doc |title=White Paper: Microsoft’s Software Protection Platform: Innovations for Windows Vista and Windows Server “Longhorn” |format=[[DOC (computing)|DOC]] |publisher=Microsoft PressPass |date=2006-10-03}}</ref></blockquote>


===Vista capable lawsuit===
This has been criticised for being overly draconian,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004916&pageNumber=15#spp |title=Hands On: A Hard Look at Windows Vista |page=15 |date=2006-11-10 |accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=148 |first=Ed |last=Bott |title=For Vista, WGA gets tougher |work=Ed Bott's Microsoft Report |date=2006-10-04 |accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref> especially given an imperfect false-positive record on behalf of SPP's predecessor,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=150 WGA failures |author=Ed Bott |title=Another wave of WGA failures |work=Ed Bott's Microsoft Report |date=2006-10-04 |accessdate=2007-07-19}}</ref> and at least one temporary validation server outage.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070825-windows-genuine-advantage-suffers-worldwide-outage-problems-galore.html |title=Windows Genuine Advantage suffers worldwide outage, problems galore (updated) |accessdate=2007-08-24}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/08/27/update-on-validation-issues.aspx Update on Validation Issues |title=Update on Validation Issues |accessdate=2007-07-28}}</ref>
Two consumers sued Microsoft in United States federal court alleging the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign was a [[bait-and-switch]] tactic as some computers with Windows XP pre-installed could only run Vista Home Basic, sometimes not even running at a user-acceptable speed. In February 2008, a [[Seattle]] judge granted the suit [[class action]] status, permitting all purchasers in the class to participate in the case.<ref>{{cite web|last=McDougall |first=Paul |url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206900043 |title=informationweek.com |publisher=informationweek.com |access-date=August 6, 2010}}</ref><ref name='NYTimes-Stross-2008-03-09'>
{{cite news
|first=Randall
|last=Stross
|title=They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.
|date=March 8, 2008
|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09digi.html?scp=1&sq=vista&st=nyt
|work=New York Times
|access-date=March 8, 2008
}}
</ref>
Released documents in the case, as well as a [[Dell]] presentation in March 2007, discussed late changes to Windows Vista which permitted hardware to be certified that would require upgrading in order to use Vista, and that lack of compatible drivers forced hardware vendors to "limp out with issues" when Vista was launched.<ref name='NYTimes-Stross-2008-03-09'/><ref>[https://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573FE006B7266.html?ref=technology NYTimes] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160117215702/http://www.nytimes.com/idg/IDG_002570DE00740E18002573FE006B7266.html?ref=technology |date=2016-01-17 }} – Dell Pointed Out Vista Mistakes, Internal Documents Show</ref> This was one of several Vista launch appraisals included in 158 pages of unsealed documents.


===Laptop battery life===
Microsoft has released a technical bulletin providing further details on product activation for Vista.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5cb10f03-27f6-461d-a3db-d440b4ced7f6&DisplayLang=en|title=Product Activation for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008|date=2007-11-06}}</ref> In addition, Microsoft has said it will cease disrupting Windows Vista installations that fail the company's validation processes in its forthcoming Service Pack 1 update, as well as the removal of the reduced functionality mode in favor of prominent notifications on systems that are found to be non-genuine or non-activated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://vista.blorge.com/2007/12/04/microsoft-to-remove-reduced-functionality-mode-from-vista/|title=
With the new features of Vista, criticism has surfaced concerning the use of battery power in laptops running Vista, which can drain the battery much more rapidly than [[Windows XP]], reducing battery life.<ref>{{cite web
Microsoft to remove "reduced functionality mode" from Vista|date=2007-12-04|accessdate=2008-01-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9828305-56.html|title=
|url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6079215.html?tag=nl
Microsoft: Vista piracy rate is half that of XP|date=2007-12-04|accessdate=2008-01-15}}</ref>
|title=Vista beta sucks up battery juice
|date=June 2, 2006
|access-date=May 6, 2007
|author=Fried, Ina
|publisher=[[ZDNet]]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070520144651/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6079215.html?tag=nl
|archive-date=May 20, 2007
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> With the [[Windows Aero]] visual effects turned off, battery life is equal to or better than Windows XP systems.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.zdnet.com/article/vista-draining-laptop-batteries-patience/|title = Vista draining laptop batteries, patience|website = [[ZDNet]]}}</ref> "With the release of a new operating system and its new features and higher requirements, higher power consumption is normal", as Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC noted, "when Windows XP came out, that was true, and when Windows 2000 came out, that was true."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6181366.html
|title=Vista draining laptop batteries, patience
|date=May 4, 2007
|access-date=May 6, 2007
|author=Krazit, Tom
|publisher=[[ZDNet]]
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070507103220/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1040_22-6181366.html
|archive-date=May 7, 2007
|url-status=dead
}}</ref>


==Software compatibility==
==Windows Ultimate Extras==
According to Gartner, "Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system."<ref>{{cite web
Windows Vista Ultimate users can download '[[Windows Ultimate Extras]]', which are available only to the users of Windows Vista Ultimate. These extras have been released much slower than expected, with only 4 available as of [[September]] [[2007]], which has prompted some criticisms.<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62012902,00.htm
|url=http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/joshs_blog/archive/2007/06/13/ultimate-extras-where-are-you.aspx
|title=Gartner: App testing delaying Vista rollouts
|title=Ultimate Extras, Where are you?
|date=[[July 4]] [[2007]]
|access-date=May 22, 2007
|publisher=zdnetasia.com
|accessdate=2007-07-04
}}</ref>
|first=Josh|publisher=windowsconnected.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
Cisco has been reported as saying, "Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070628/
|url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61953911,00.htm
|title=Microsoft evades promise of Vista Ultimate Extras
|title=Microsoft rallies developers behind Vista
|date=[[July 4]] [[2007]]
|access-date=May 22, 2007
|accessdate=2007-07-04
|publisher=zdnetasia.com
|last=Dunn|first=Josh|publisher=windowsconnected.com}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928020417/http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61953911,00.htm
|url=http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070614/windows-ultimate-extras-sham
|archive-date=September 28, 2007
|title=Windows Ultimate Extras is a sham - where’s the responsibility?
|url-status=dead
|author=Long Zheng}}</ref>
}}</ref> According to PC World, "software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS."<ref>{{cite web
Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "[Microsoft] plan to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that [it is] confident will delight [its] passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128346-page,1/article.html
|url=http://windowsultimate.com/blogs/announcements/archive/2007/09/25/windows-dreamscene-released.aspx
|title=Windows DreamScene released!
|title=No Rush to Adopt Vista
|date=[[September 25]] [[2007]]
|access-date=May 22, 2007
|publisher=IDG, quoted on PC World
|accessdate=2007-10-05
}}</ref> Citing "concerns over cost and compatibility," the [[United States Department of Transportation]] prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista.<ref>{{cite web
|url=https://www.informationweek.com/software-services/microsoft-hit-by-u-s-dot-ban-on-windows-vista-explorer-7-and-office-2007
|author=Paul McDougall
|title=Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007
|access-date=May 22, 2007
|date=March 2, 2007
|publisher=Information week
}}</ref> The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center said that the rollout of Vista is significantly behind schedule because "several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19747743
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140805220902/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19747743/
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=August 5, 2014
|title=Six months on, Vista users still griping (page 2 - The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a member of Microsoft's Vista Technical Adoption Program)
|date=13 July 2007
|access-date=July 27, 2007
|publisher=MS NBC [NBC News]
}}</ref>
}}</ref>


As of July 2007, there were over 2,000 tested applications<ref name="vistablogwhite1">{{cite news
==Notable critics==
|url=http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
[[Peter Gutmann (computer scientist)|Peter Gutmann]], a computer scientist from the [[University of Auckland]], New Zealand, has released a [[whitepaper]] in which he raises concerns regarding the security mechanisms used for Digital Rights management.<ref>{{cite web
|publisher=[[Microsoft]]
| url=http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
|title=Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper
| title=A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection
|date=August 29, 2007
| last=Gutmann
|access-date=August 29, 2007
| first=Peter
|page=1
| authorlink=Peter Gutmann
|url-status=dead
| publisher=
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070902075248/http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/pages/windows-vista-service-pack-1-beta-whitepaper.aspx
| date=[[2007-01-27]]
|archive-date=September 2, 2007
| accessdate=2007-01-27}}</ref>
}}</ref> that were compatible with Vista. Microsoft published a list of legacy applications that meet their "Works with Windows Vista" software standards<ref>{{cite web
|url=https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/workswithlist.aspx
|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120202194748/http%3A//winqual.microsoft.com/help/default.htm
|url-status=dead
|archive-date=February 2, 2012
|title=Application List: Works with Windows Vista
}}</ref> as well as a list of applications that meet their more stringent "Certified for Windows Vista" standards.<ref>{{cite web
|url=https://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/certifiedlist.aspx
|title=Application List: Certified for Windows Vista
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704185657/http://winqual.microsoft.com/member/softwarelogo/certifiedlist.aspx
|archive-date=July 4, 2008
}}</ref> Microsoft released the Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0 application for migrating Vista-incompatible applications, while [[Platform virtualization|virtualization]] solutions like [[VirtualBox]], [[Microsoft Virtual PC|Virtual PC 2007]] or those from [[VMware]] can also be used as a last resort to continue running Vista-incompatible applications under legacy versions of Windows.


Microsoft also provided an Upgrade Advisor Tool ([[.NET Framework]] must be installed and an Internet connection is required) which can be used on existing XP systems to flag driver and application compatibility issues before upgrading to Vista.<ref>{{cite web
Ed Bott, a technology journalist with ZDNet and author of a number of books from Microsoft Press<ref>[http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?page_id=993 Buy my books! | Ed Bott’s Windows Expertise |<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> disagrees with Gutmann's findings. He has written a 3-part [[blog]] entry which details his objections.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299|title=Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong|accessdate=2007-12-08|publisher=ZDNet}}</ref>
|url=http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx
|title=Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor
|website=[[Microsoft]]
}}</ref>


==Removal of announced features==
The [[Free Software Foundation]] is leading a campaign called "[[BadVista]]" against Vista on these grounds, as well as because it is an example of prominent [[proprietary software]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://badvista.fsf.org/|title=BadVista.org|accessdate=2007-01-09|publisher=Free Software Foundation}}</ref> Also, "[[Defectivebydesign]]" is another FSF-initiated campaign against Vista for the inclusion of its Digital Rights Management features.
Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as [[Next-Generation Secure Computing Base]] in May 2004, [[WinFS]] in August 2004, [[Windows PowerShell]] in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to Vista's release, and is included in Vista's successor, [[Windows 7]]), [[SecurID]] Support in May 2006, [[Data synchronization|PC-to-PC Synchronization]] in June 2006.<ref name="YankedFromVista">{{cite web
|url=https://www.informationweek.com/whats-been-yanked-from-vista-and-when/d/d-id/1044641
|title=What's been yanked from Vista, and when|date=June 26, 2006|access-date=July 23, 2018
|publisher=Information Week}}</ref> The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,39191794,00.htm|title= zdnetasia.com}}</ref>


==Pricing==
[[Forbes]] Magazine's technology editor, Stephen Manes, has been extremely critical of Vista's speed, hardware requirements, value for price, security, and similarity to Mac OS X. His review in Forbes was entitled "Dim Vista."<ref>
Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002683.html|title=Windows Vista Versus XP Pricing|date=September 1, 2006|publisher=PC World|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110928035845/http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002683.html|archive-date=September 28, 2011|access-date=May 1, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/home-it/5450-windows-vista-too-expensive-says-users|title=Windows Vista Too Expensive Says Users|date=August 30, 2006|publisher=IT Wire|access-date=May 1, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10496007|title=Vista still looks expensive after cuts|date=March 5, 2008|publisher=New Zealand Harald|access-date=May 1, 2016}}</ref> The differences in pricing from one country to another vary significantly, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the United States; this could save between [[USD|$]]42 (€26) and $314 (€200). In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for Windows XP. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 ($244/€155).<ref>{{cite web
{{cite web
| url=http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0226/050.html
|url=http://www.apcmag.com/5079/vistas_rip_off_australian_pricing
| title=Dim Vista, Forbes Magazine
|title=Is Vista's Australian pricing a rip-off?
|date=January 22, 2007
| first=Stephen
|access-date=January 23, 2007
| last=Manes
|last=Warne
| date=2007-02-26
|first=Dan
| accessdate=2007-04-04}}</ref>
|publisher=apcmag.com
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070212060156/http://www.apcmag.com/5079/vistas_rip_off_australian_pricing
|archive-date=February 12, 2007
}}</ref> At the 2007 exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers paid almost double their United States counterparts for the same software.<ref>{{cite web
|url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1001667/vista-comes-to-rip-off-britain
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610220146/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1001667/vista-comes-to-rip-off-britain
|url-status=unfit
|archive-date=June 10, 2011
|title=Vista comes to rip-off Britain
|date=January 23, 2007
|access-date=January 24, 2007
|publisher=The Inquirer
}}</ref>


{{Cquote|Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows.
Security expert [[Bruce Schneier]] has in an article in [[Forbes]] stated<ref> [http://www.forbes.com/security/2007/02/10/microsoft-vista-drm-tech-security-cz_bs_0212vista.html
British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100 (€126), while American users will pay only [[£]]51 ($100, €64).<ref>{{cite web
Why Vista's DRM Is Bad For You]</ref> that:<blockquote>
|url=http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2173895/vilification-vista-pricing
''Windows Vista includes an array of "features" that you don't want. These features will make your computer less reliable and less secure. They'll make your computer less stable and run slower. They will cause technical support problems. They may even require you to upgrade some of your peripheral hardware and existing software. And these features won't do anything useful. In fact, they're working against you. They're digital rights management (DRM) features built into Vista at the behest of the entertainment industry.''</blockquote>
|title=Microsoft vilified over price of Vista
|date=February 2007
|access-date=January 23, 2007
|publisher=VNU Business Publications
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070203080346/http://www.computeractive.co.uk/computeractive/news/2173895/vilification-vista-pricing
|archive-date=February 3, 2007
}}</ref>|20px|20px|[[Computer Active]]}}


Since the release of Windows Vista in January 2007 Microsoft has reduced the retail and upgrade price point of Vista. Originally Vista Ultimate full retail was priced at $399, and the upgrade at $259. These prices have since been reduced to $319 and $219 respectively.<ref>{{cite web
==Public reception and sales==
| url = https://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/06/windows-7-pricing-announced-cheaper-than-vista.ars
{{POV-section|date=January 2008}}
| title = Windows 7 pricing announced: cheaper than Vista (Updated)
| date= June 25, 2009
| access-date = October 4, 2009
| last = Protalinski
| first = Emil}}</ref>


==Software Protection Platform==
Before the release of Windows Vista, expectations for the new operating system were high, fueled by both promises of new features, better security, and a better user interface, as well as the five year period since the release of Windows XP. Large numbers of businesses and consumers planned on upgrading to Vista. However, after its release, it was met with harsh criticism for low hardware support, high system requirements, relatively poor performance, and for not making big enough improvements since the release of XP. This prompted many users and businesses to hold off on upgrading to Vista and even caused some to replace Vista installations with XP. These results further led to low adoption levels of Windows Vista and generally poor public review, as reflected by its title from [[PC World]] as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007<ref>{{cite web
Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-copying technologies, based on Windows XP's [[Windows Genuine Advantage]], called Software Protection Platform (SPP).<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,140583-page,5-c,techindustrytrends/article.html
|title= The Skinny on Windows SPP and Reduced Functionality in Vista
| title = The 15 Biggest Tech Disappointments of 2007
|author= Computerworld
| date=2007-12-16
|url= http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970
| accessdate=2007-12-18
|url-status= dead
| work = PC World
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070527075709/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004970
| publisher=IDG
|archive-date= May 27, 2007
| author=Dan Tynan}}: listed as #1 of "The 15 Biggest Tech Disappointments of 2007"</ref> and from [[InfoWorld]] as #2 of Tech's all-time 25 flops.<ref>{{cite web
}}</ref> In the initial release of Windows Vista (without Service Pack 1), SPP included a reduced-functionality mode, which the system enters when it detects that the user has "failed product activation" or that the copy of Vista is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine".<ref>{{cite web
| url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/21/03FE-25-tech-failures_6.html
|url= http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
| title = Tech's all-time top 25 flops
|title= Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiter
| date=2008-01-21
|author= Microsoft PressPass
| accessdate=2008-01-27
|website= [[Microsoft]]
| work = InfoWorld
|url-status= dead
| publisher=IDG
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070706203635/http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/oct06/10-04SoftwareProtection.mspx
| author=Neil McAllister}}</ref> The actual [[Usage share of desktop operating systems|usage share]], as measured through web browser user agent strings, show Vista to have approximately 6.9% of the desktop OS market as of December 2007.<ref>The figure used is the arithmetic mean of all usage share figures published on or after 1st December 2007, listed in [[Usage share of desktop operating systems]]</ref>
|archive-date= July 6, 2007
}}</ref> A Microsoft white paper described the technology as follows:
{{Cquote|The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning.<ref>{{cite web
|url= http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/features/2006/10-03-06SoftwareProtectionWP.doc
|title= White Paper: Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Innovations for Windows Vista and Windows Server "Longhorn"
|format= [[DOC (computing)|DOC]]
|publisher= Microsoft PressPass
|date= October 3, 2006
}}</ref>}}


Some analysts questioned this behavior,<ref>{{cite web
Due to the large growth of the PC market since the release of Windows XP, initial sales of the operating system set a new high. Within its first month, 20 million copies of Vista were sold, double the amount of XP sales within its first month in [[October 2001]], five years earlier.<ref>[http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_First_Month_Vista_Sales_Double_XP/1174940745 Microsoft: First Month Vista Sales Double XP, article by Nate Mook]</ref> That said, as a factor of the new market, Vista sales were not high. For example, rival operating system [[Mac OS X Leopard]]'s first month's sales also doubled over the number of sales from the release of [[Mac OS X Jaguar]] five years earlier in [[August 2002]].<ref>[http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35321/118/ Apple's Leopard leaps highest of all Mac OS sales]</ref> However, in the case of Jaguar-to-Leopard sales, as opposed to XP-to-Vista sales, users had less pressure to upgrade due to the intermediate releases of both [[Mac OS X Panther]] and [[Mac OS X v10.4|Tiger]]. PC World reports that adoption of Windows Vista is going at a much slower rate compared to the adoption of Windows XP. Within the first year of its release, the percentage of XP users visiting PC World's website reached 36%; in the same time frame, however, Windows Vista adoption reached only 14%, with 71% of users still running XP.<ref>[http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/006130.html PC World's Techlog PCWorld.com Year-End Stats: IE 7, Firefox, Vista, Mac]</ref> Electronista reports that in 2007, Vista sales were outdone by XP sales. At the 2008 [[Consumer Electronics Show]], [[Bill Gates]] announced that they had sold 100 million copies of Vista, while InformationWeek notes a Gartner assessment that there have been over 250 million total PC sales (not counting separate license purchases) during Vista's first year.<ref>[http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/08/xp.on.more.pcs.than.vista/ Electronista: XP on 50% more PCs than Vista in 2007]</ref><ref>[http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/software/229653 List of top selling operating systems on Amazon.com]</ref> Electronista also notes that Vista's growth rate is actually slower than what was with XP, saying that 89 million copies of XP were sold in its first year despite having an overall PC market half the size as in 2007.
|url= http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004916&pageNumber=15#spp
|title= Hands On: A Hard Look at Windows Vista
|page= 15
|date= November 10, 2006
|access-date= July 19, 2007
|url-status= dead
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071015041946/http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004916&pageNumber=15#spp
|archive-date= October 15, 2007
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url= http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=148
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20061006041853/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=148
|url-status= dead
|archive-date= October 6, 2006
|first= Ed
|last= Bott
|title= For Vista, WGA gets tougher
|work= Ed Bott's Microsoft Report
|date= October 4, 2006
|access-date= July 19, 2007
}}</ref>{{failed verification|date=October 2017}} especially given an imperfect false-positive record on behalf of SPP's predecessor,<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=150
|author=Ed Bott
|title=Another wave of WGA failures
|work=Ed Bott's Microsoft Report
|date=October 4, 2006
|access-date=July 19, 2007
|archive-date=December 22, 2007
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071222210322/http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=150
|url-status=dead
}}</ref> and given at least one temporary validation server outage which reportedly flagged many legitimate copies of Vista and XP as "Non-Genuine" when Windows Update would "check in" and fail the "validation" challenge.<ref>{{cite web
|url = https://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070825-windows-genuine-advantage-suffers-worldwide-outage-problems-galore.html
|title = Windows Genuine Advantage suffers worldwide outage, problems galore (updated)
|access-date = August 24, 2007
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url= http://blogs.msdn.com/wga/archive/2007/08/27/update-on-validation-issues.aspx
|title= Update on Validation Issues
|access-date= July 28, 2007
}}</ref>


Microsoft altered SPP significantly in [[Windows Vista Service Pack 1]]. Instead of the reduced-functionality mode, installations of Vista left unactivated for 30 days present users with a [[nag screen]] which prompts them to activate the operating system when they log in, change the desktop to a solid black colour every hour, and periodically use notification balloons to warn users about software counterfeiting. In addition, updates classified as optional are not available to unactivated copies of Vista.<ref>{{cite web
Due to Vista's poor reception and continued demand for Windows XP, Microsoft is allowing continued sales of Windows XP.<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://www.news.com/Microsoft-extends-Windows-XPs-stay/2100-1016_3-6210524.html
|url = http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1253
|title = ZDNET Hardware 2.0: SP1 brings with it a softer, gentler, naggier WGA
| title = Microsoft extends Windows XP's stay
| date=2007-09-27
|date = September 2, 2008
|access-date = July 22, 2008
| author = Ina Fried, CNET}}</ref> An unexpectedly high number of Vista users have downgraded their operating systems, with many having reverted their own Vista installs or even installing XP (or other operating systems) onto computers which were preloaded with Vista, and many computer manufacturers have even begun shipping XP restore disks along with new computers,<ref>{{cite web
|archive-date = September 13, 2008
| url=http://www.news.com/The-XP-alternative-for-Vista-PCs/2100-1016_3-6209481.html
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080913070442/http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1253
| title = The XP alternative for Vista PCs
|url-status = dead
| date=2007-09-21
}}</ref>
| format = Article
Microsoft maintains a technical bulletin providing further details on product activation for Vista.<ref>
| author = Ina Fried, CNET}}</ref> as well as new computers with Linux pre-installed. A study conducted by ChangeWave in [[January 2008]], shows that the percentage of customers who are "very satisfied" with Vista is dramatically lower than other operating systems, with Vista Home Basic at 15% and Vista Home Premium 27%, compared to the approximately 52% who say they are "very satisfied" with Windows XP and the 81% for Mac OS X Leopard.<ref>[http://www.changewave.com/freecontent/2008/01/alliance-011608-PC-Round-Up.html ChangeWave: Post-Holiday PC Round Up]</ref> ChangeWave also reported that 83% of those intending to purchase Macs said that they "are choosing Macs because of Leopard and their distaste for Vista".<ref>{{cite web
{{cite web
| url=http://www.changewave.com/freecontent/viewarticle.html?source=/cwnews/2007/news12-10-072.html
|url= http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5cb10f03-27f6-461d-a3db-d440b4ced7f6&DisplayLang=en
| title =Apple's Mac Market Share Rise is Good for Consumers
|title= Product Activation for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008
| date=2007-12-11
|website= [[Microsoft]]
| format = Article
|date= November 6, 2007
| author = Don Reisinger}}</ref>
|url-status= dead
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20071215054804/http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=5cb10f03-27f6-461d-a3db-d440b4ced7f6&DisplayLang=en
|archive-date= December 15, 2007
}}
</ref>


==Windows Ultimate Extras==
The above ChangeWave study also showed a decrease in the percentage of businesses intending to buy Windows-based PC, down from 96% to 93% between November 2005 and November 2007, partly due to Vista's reception, as well. Business adoption of Vista has been slower than anticipated, with the vast majority still favoring Windows XP and even waiting for [[Windows 7]], Microsoft's next version of Windows scheduled for release in [[2010]].<ref>[http://www.bmighty.com/blog/main/archives/2007/12/if_vista_is_so.html bMighty.com: Vista is Bad. Should Smaller Businesses Go For it Anyway?]</ref> According to InformationWeek, in [[December 2006]], 6% of business enterprises were expected to employ Vista within the first year, yet as of [[October 2007]], only about 1% of enterprise PCs were actually using Vista.<ref>[http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204803653 IT Pros Grapple With Timing Of Windows Vista Deployment]</ref> Furthermore, while a large number of businesses have bought licenses to run Windows Vista, many of these companies are holding off deployment.<ref>[http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39291450,00.htm Microsoft: Vista bought but not deployed]</ref>
Windows Vista Ultimate users could download exclusive [[Windows Ultimate Extras]]. These extras were released much more slowly than expected, with only four available as of August 2009, almost three years after Vista was released, which angered some users who paid extra mainly for the promised add-ons.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/joshs_blog/archive/2007/06/13/ultimate-extras-where-are-you.aspx|title=Ultimate Extras, Where are you?|last=Phillips|first=Josh|date=June 13, 2007|publisher=windowsconnected.com|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120523202501/http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/joshs_blog/archive/2007/06/13/ultimate-extras-where-are-you.aspx|archive-date=May 23, 2012|access-date=May 1, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070628/
|title=Microsoft evades promise of Vista Ultimate Extras
|date=July 4, 2007
|access-date=July 4, 2007
|last=Dunn
|first=Josh
|publisher=windowsconnected.com
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070614/windows-ultimate-extras-sham
|title=Windows Ultimate Extras is a sham - where's the responsibility?
|author=Long Zheng
|date=14 June 2007
}}</ref> Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "Microsoft plans to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that it is confident will delight its passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."<ref>{{cite web
|url=http://windowsultimate.com/blogs/announcements/archive/2007/09/25/windows-dreamscene-released.aspx
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080211120503/http://windowsultimate.com/blogs/announcements/archive/2007/09/25/windows-dreamscene-released.aspx
|archive-date=February 11, 2008
|title=Windows DreamScene released!
|date=September 25, 2007
|access-date=October 5, 2007
}}</ref>


==Vistaster==
Some organizations have denounced Vista due to its problems. For example, in [[October 2007]], The Dutch Consumers Association called for a boycott of Windows Vista after the software giant refused to offer free copies of Windows XP to users who had problems with Vista.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/10/13/dutch_consumer_association_declares_war/|title=Dutch Consumer Association declares war on Vista}}</ref>
This term was coined as a disparaging substitute for the proper name of the Vista operating system. Use of the term was popularized by its use on ''The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs'',<ref>{{cite web|author=Steve |url=http://www.fakesteve.net/2008/05/new-word-vistaster.html |title=The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs : New word: "vistaster" |publisher=Fakesteve.net |date=May 27, 2008 |access-date=June 11, 2010}}</ref> a technology and pop culture comedic blog where author [[Daniel Lyons]] writes in the persona of then [[Apple Inc.|Apple]] CEO [[Steve Jobs]]. This use is in reference to the failure of Vista to meet sales and customer satisfaction expectations. Lyons published an article in ''[[Forbes]]'' using the term,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0721/052.html |title=Farewell, Bill Gates |work=Forbes.com |date=July 21, 2008 |access-date=June 11, 2010}}</ref> and it was soon picked up by international media outlets: ''[[Jornal de Notícias]]'',<ref>{{cite web |url=https://jn.sapo.pt/PaginaInicial/Tecnologia/Interior.aspx?content_id=962207 |title=Bill Gates desliga-se da Microsoft |publisher=JN |date=June 4, 2010 |access-date=June 11, 2010 }}{{dead link|date=August 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> [[Rádio e Televisão de Portugal]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://tv1.rtp.pt/noticias/?article=148405&visual=3&layout=10 |title=Bill Gates desliga-se de uma Microsoft que vive tempos agitados - RTP Noticias |publisher=Tv1.rtp.pt |date=June 6, 2010 |access-date=June 11, 2010}}</ref> ''[[La Nación]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1024955 |title=Bill Gates se retira de Microsoft |publisher=lanacion.com |access-date=June 11, 2010}}</ref> ''[[The Chosun Ilbo]]'',<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/08/28/2008082800635.html |title=빌 게이츠 없는 마이크로소프트의 운명은? - 1등 인터넷뉴스 조선닷컴 |publisher=Chosun.com |date=August 28, 2008 |access-date=June 11, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611200055/http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/08/28/2008082800635.html |archive-date=June 11, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref> and [[163.com]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://money.163.com/08/0708/21/4GC2RCIH00251OBF.html |title=没有盖茨,微软是否能够发展得更好?_网易财经 |publisher=Money.163.com |access-date=June 11, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721193400/http://money.163.com/08/0708/21/4GC2RCIH00251OBF.html |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |url-status=dead }}</ref>


==Retrospective analysis==
==See also==
{{Expand section|date=September 2021}}
* [[Criticism of Microsoft]]
Keith Ward of [[Lifewire]] said that "Windows Vista was not Microsoft's most-loved release. People look at Windows 7 with nostalgia, but you don't hear much love for Vista. Microsoft has mostly forgotten it, but Vista was a good, solid operating system with many things going for it."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ward|first=Keith|title=5 Reasons to Stick With Windows Vista and One Reason You Shouldn't|url=https://www.lifewire.com/reasons-to-keep-windows-vista-3507033|url-status=live|access-date=2022-01-18|website=[[Lifewire]]|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323175326/https://www.lifewire.com/reasons-to-keep-windows-vista-3507033 |archive-date=2019-03-23 }}</ref>
* [[Criticism of Windows XP]]

== See also ==
* [[Criticism of Windows 10]]
* [[Mojave Experiment]]


==References==
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Reflist|30em}}

==External links==
* [http://badvista.fsf.org/ Bad Vista FSF campaign]
{{Microsoft}}
{{Microsoft Windows family}}


[[Category:Microsoft criticisms and controversies|Windows Vista]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Criticism of Windows Vista}}
[[Category:Microsoft criticisms and controversies]]
[[Category:Operating system criticisms|Windows Vista]]
[[Category:Windows Vista]]
[[Category:Windows Vista]]


[[de:Microsoft Windows Vista#Kritik]]
[[de:Windows Vista]]
[[es:Críticas a Windows Vista]]
[[fr:Windows vista : les critiques]]
[[ms:Kritikan Windows Vista]]
[[fi:Windows Vistan kritiikki]]

Latest revision as of 15:09, 2 December 2024

Windows Vista, an operating system released by Microsoft for consumers on January 30, 2007, has been widely criticized by reviewers and users. Due to issues with new security features, performance, driver support and product activation, it has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.

Security

[edit]

Driver signing requirement

[edit]

For security reasons, 64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode.[1][2] Because code executing in kernel mode enjoys wide privileges on the system, the signing requirement aims to ensure that only code with a known origin executes at this level. In order for a driver to be signed, a developer/software vendor has to obtain an Authenticode certificate[3] with which to sign the driver. Authenticode certificates can be obtained from certificate authorities trusted by Microsoft. Microsoft trusts the certificate authority to verify the applicant's identity before issuing a certificate. If a driver is not signed using a valid certificate, or if the driver was signed using a certificate which has been revoked by Microsoft or the certificate authority, Windows will refuse to load the driver.

The following criticisms/claims have been made regarding this requirement:

  • It disallows experimentation from the hobbyist community.[4] The required Authenticode certificates for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach[5] for small developers, usually about $400–$500/year (from Verisign).[citation needed]

Microsoft allows developers to temporarily or locally disable the signing requirement on systems they control (by hitting F8 during boot) or by signing the drivers with self-issued certificates or by running a kernel debugger.[6]

At one time, a third-party tool called Atsiv[7] existed that would allow any driver, unsigned or signed to be loaded. Atsiv worked by installing a signed "surrogate" driver which could be directed to load any other driver, thus circumventing the driver signing requirement. Since this was in violation of the driver signing requirement, Microsoft closed this workaround with hotfix KB932596,[8] by revoking the certificate with which the surrogate driver was signed.

Flaws in memory protection features

[edit]

Security researchers Alexander Sotirov and Mark Dowd have developed a technique that bypasses many of the new memory-protection safeguards in Windows Vista, such as address space layout randomization (ASLR). The result of this is that any already existing buffer overflow bugs that, in Vista, were previously not exploitable due to such features, may now be exploitable.[9][10] This is not in itself a vulnerability: as Sotirov notes, "What we presented is weaknesses in the protection mechanism. It still requires the system under attack to have a vulnerability. Without the presence of a vulnerability these techniques don't really [accomplish] anything."[11] The vulnerability Sotirov and Dowd used in their paper as an example was the 2007 animated cursor bug, CVE-2007-0038.

One security researcher (Dino Dai Zovi) claimed that this means that it is "completely game over" for Vista security[12] though Sotirov refuted this, saying that "The articles that describe Vista security as 'broken' or 'done for,' with 'unfixable vulnerabilities' are completely inaccurate. One of the suggestions I saw in many of the discussions was that people should just use Windows XP. In fact, in XP a lot of those protections we're bypassing [such as ASLR] don't even exist."[11]

Digital rights management

[edit]

Another common criticism concerns the integration of a new form of digital rights management (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the Protected Video Path (PVP), which involves technologies such as High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). These features were added to Vista due to licensing restrictions from the HD-DVD consortium and Blu-ray association.[13] This would have concerned only the playback resolution of protected content on HD DVD and Blu-ray discs, but it had not been enabled as of 2017. A lack of a protected channel did not stop playback. Audio plays back as normal but high-definition video downsampled on Blu-ray and HD DVD to slightly-better-than-DVD quality video.

The Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft.[13] Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a hardware functionality scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to lower the resolution (from 1920×1080 to 960×540) of video signals outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content will not play; all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.[13][14]

Notable critics

[edit]

Peter Gutmann, a computer security expert from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, released a whitepaper[15] in which he raises the following concerns against these mechanisms:

  • Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.
  • If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).
  • Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.
  • The added complexity makes systems less reliable.
  • Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.
  • Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks.
  • Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.

The Free Software Foundation conducted a campaign against Vista, called "BadVista", on these grounds.

Reaction to criticism

[edit]

Ed Bott, author of Windows Vista Inside Out, published a three-part blog which rebuts many of Gutmann's claims.[16]

Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:

  • Gutmann based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources.
  • Gutmann quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications.
  • Gutmann did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications.
  • Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece.

Technology writer George Ou stated that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.[17]

Gutmann responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article,[18] which stated that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation".

Microsoft published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection which refutes some of Gutmann's arguments.[19]

Microsoft MVP Paul Smith has written a response to Gutmann's paper in which he counters some of his arguments.[20] Specifically, he says:

  • Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company offered this solution as an alternative to not being able to playback the content at all.
  • The Protected Video Path will not be used for quite a while. There is said to be an agreement between Microsoft and Sony that Blu-ray discs will not mandate protection until at least 2010, possibly even 2012.[21]
  • Vista does not degrade or refuse to play any existing media, CDs or DVDs. The protected data paths are only activated if protected content requires it.
  • Users of other operating systems such as Linux or Mac OS X will not have official access to this premium content.

Microsoft also noted that content protection mechanisms have existed in Windows as far back as Windows ME.[14]

Since mainstream and extended support for Windows Vista ended on April 10, 2012, and April 11, 2017, respectively, plans to enable the Protected Video Path for Windows Vista is very unlikely.

Hardware requirements and performance

[edit]

Around the time of its release, Microsoft stated, "nearly all PCs on the market today will run Windows Vista," and most PCs sold after 2005 are capable of running Vista.[22][23][24]

Some of the hardware that worked in Windows XP does not work, or works poorly in Vista, because no Vista-compatible drivers are available due to companies going out of business or their lack of interest in supporting old hardware.[25][26]

Speed

[edit]

Tom's Hardware published benchmarks in January 2007 that showed that Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration.[27] A subset of the benchmarks used were provided by Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (or SPEC), who later stated that such "results should not be compared to those generated while running Windows XP, even if testing is done with the same hardware configuration." SPEC acknowledges that an apple-to-apples comparison cannot be made in cases such as the one done by Tom's Hardware, calling such studies "invalid comparisons."[28] However, the Tom's Hardware report conceded that the SPECviewperf tests "suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista". For this reason the report recommended against replacing Windows XP with Vista until manufacturers made these drivers available.[29]

The report also concluded in tests involving real world applications Vista performed considerably slower, noting "We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios". Other commonly used applications, including Photoshop and WinRAR, also performed worse under Vista.[29]

Many low-to-mid-end machines that come with Windows Vista pre-installed suffer from exceptionally slow performance with the default Vista settings that come pre-loaded, and laptop manufacturers have offered to "downgrade" laptops to Windows XP—for a price.[30] However, this "price" is unnecessary, as Microsoft allows users of Windows Vista and Windows 7 to freely "downgrade" their software by installing XP and then phoning a Microsoft representative for a new product key.[31]

File operation performance

[edit]

When first released in November 2006, Vista performed file operations such as copying and deletion more slowly than other operating systems. Large copies required when migrating from one computer to another seemed difficult or impossible without workarounds such as using the command line. This inability to efficiently perform basic file operations attracted strong criticism.[32] After six months, Microsoft confirmed the existence of these problems by releasing a special performance and reliability update,[33] which was later disseminated through Windows Update, and is included in Service Pack 1.[34]

Nonetheless, one benchmark reported to show that, while improving performance compared to Vista's original release, Service Pack 1 does not increase the level of performance to that of Windows XP.[35] However, that benchmark has been questioned by others within ZDNet. Ed Bott both questions his colleagues' methods and provides benchmarks that refute the results.[36]

Game performance

[edit]

Early in Vista's lifecycle, many games showed a drop in frame rate compared to Windows XP.[37][38][39] These results were largely the consequence of Vista's immature drivers for graphics cards, and higher system requirements for Vista itself.[40][41] By the time Service Pack 1 was released in mid-2008, gaming benchmarks showed that Vista was on par with Windows XP.[42] However, games such as Devil May Cry 4, Crysis and Left 4 Dead stated that their memory requirements on Vista were 1.5x–2x higher than XP.[43][44][45]

Software bloat

[edit]

Concerns were expressed that Windows Vista may contain software bloat. Speaking in 2007 at the University of Illinois, Microsoft distinguished engineer Eric Traut said, "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined."[46]

Former PC World editor Ed Bott expressed skepticism about the claims of bloat, noting that almost every single operating system that Microsoft has ever sold had been criticized as "bloated" when they first came out; even those now regarded as the exact opposite, such as MS-DOS.[47]

Vista capable lawsuit

[edit]

Two consumers sued Microsoft in United States federal court alleging the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign was a bait-and-switch tactic as some computers with Windows XP pre-installed could only run Vista Home Basic, sometimes not even running at a user-acceptable speed. In February 2008, a Seattle judge granted the suit class action status, permitting all purchasers in the class to participate in the case.[48][49] Released documents in the case, as well as a Dell presentation in March 2007, discussed late changes to Windows Vista which permitted hardware to be certified that would require upgrading in order to use Vista, and that lack of compatible drivers forced hardware vendors to "limp out with issues" when Vista was launched.[49][50] This was one of several Vista launch appraisals included in 158 pages of unsealed documents.

Laptop battery life

[edit]

With the new features of Vista, criticism has surfaced concerning the use of battery power in laptops running Vista, which can drain the battery much more rapidly than Windows XP, reducing battery life.[51] With the Windows Aero visual effects turned off, battery life is equal to or better than Windows XP systems.[52] "With the release of a new operating system and its new features and higher requirements, higher power consumption is normal", as Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC noted, "when Windows XP came out, that was true, and when Windows 2000 came out, that was true."[53]

Software compatibility

[edit]

According to Gartner, "Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system."[54] Cisco has been reported as saying, "Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle."[55] According to PC World, "software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS."[56] Citing "concerns over cost and compatibility," the United States Department of Transportation prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista.[57] The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center said that the rollout of Vista is significantly behind schedule because "several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software."[58]

As of July 2007, there were over 2,000 tested applications[59] that were compatible with Vista. Microsoft published a list of legacy applications that meet their "Works with Windows Vista" software standards[60] as well as a list of applications that meet their more stringent "Certified for Windows Vista" standards.[61] Microsoft released the Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0 application for migrating Vista-incompatible applications, while virtualization solutions like VirtualBox, Virtual PC 2007 or those from VMware can also be used as a last resort to continue running Vista-incompatible applications under legacy versions of Windows.

Microsoft also provided an Upgrade Advisor Tool (.NET Framework must be installed and an Internet connection is required) which can be used on existing XP systems to flag driver and application compatibility issues before upgrading to Vista.[62]

Removal of announced features

[edit]

Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as Next-Generation Secure Computing Base in May 2004, WinFS in August 2004, Windows PowerShell in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to Vista's release, and is included in Vista's successor, Windows 7), SecurID Support in May 2006, PC-to-PC Synchronization in June 2006.[63] The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.[64]

Pricing

[edit]

Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive.[65][66][67] The differences in pricing from one country to another vary significantly, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the United States; this could save between $42 (€26) and $314 (€200). In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for Windows XP. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 ($244/€155).[68] At the 2007 exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers paid almost double their United States counterparts for the same software.[69]

Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows. British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100 (€126), while American users will pay only £51 ($100, €64).[70]

Since the release of Windows Vista in January 2007 Microsoft has reduced the retail and upgrade price point of Vista. Originally Vista Ultimate full retail was priced at $399, and the upgrade at $259. These prices have since been reduced to $319 and $219 respectively.[71]

Software Protection Platform

[edit]

Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-copying technologies, based on Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage, called Software Protection Platform (SPP).[72] In the initial release of Windows Vista (without Service Pack 1), SPP included a reduced-functionality mode, which the system enters when it detects that the user has "failed product activation" or that the copy of Vista is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine".[73] A Microsoft white paper described the technology as follows:

The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning.[74]

Some analysts questioned this behavior,[75][76][failed verification] especially given an imperfect false-positive record on behalf of SPP's predecessor,[77] and given at least one temporary validation server outage which reportedly flagged many legitimate copies of Vista and XP as "Non-Genuine" when Windows Update would "check in" and fail the "validation" challenge.[78][79]

Microsoft altered SPP significantly in Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Instead of the reduced-functionality mode, installations of Vista left unactivated for 30 days present users with a nag screen which prompts them to activate the operating system when they log in, change the desktop to a solid black colour every hour, and periodically use notification balloons to warn users about software counterfeiting. In addition, updates classified as optional are not available to unactivated copies of Vista.[80] Microsoft maintains a technical bulletin providing further details on product activation for Vista.[81]

Windows Ultimate Extras

[edit]

Windows Vista Ultimate users could download exclusive Windows Ultimate Extras. These extras were released much more slowly than expected, with only four available as of August 2009, almost three years after Vista was released, which angered some users who paid extra mainly for the promised add-ons.[82][83][84] Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "Microsoft plans to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that it is confident will delight its passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."[85]

Vistaster

[edit]

This term was coined as a disparaging substitute for the proper name of the Vista operating system. Use of the term was popularized by its use on The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs,[86] a technology and pop culture comedic blog where author Daniel Lyons writes in the persona of then Apple CEO Steve Jobs. This use is in reference to the failure of Vista to meet sales and customer satisfaction expectations. Lyons published an article in Forbes using the term,[87] and it was soon picked up by international media outlets: Jornal de Notícias,[88] Rádio e Televisão de Portugal,[89] La Nación,[90] The Chosun Ilbo,[91] and 163.com.[92]

Retrospective analysis

[edit]

Keith Ward of Lifewire said that "Windows Vista was not Microsoft's most-loved release. People look at Windows 7 with nostalgia, but you don't hear much love for Vista. Microsoft has mostly forgotten it, but Vista was a good, solid operating system with many things going for it."[93]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Driver Signing Requirements for Windows". Microsoft. Archived from the original on May 30, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2008.
  2. ^ "Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver". Heise Security UK. August 8, 2007.
  3. ^ "Software Publisher Certificate". Microsoft. June 8, 2022.
  4. ^ "Linchpin Labs Response to Microsoft's Classification of Atsiv". Archived from the original on March 26, 2009.
  5. ^ Marsden, Richard. "Microsoft Authenticode for the Small Independent Software Vendor". Archived from the original on December 13, 2012. Retrieved May 27, 2008.
  6. ^ van Eerde, Matthew. "How to install unsigned drivers". Microsoft. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
  7. ^ Gregg Keizer (June 30, 2007). "Utility evades Vista kernel defenses". Computerworld. Archived from the original on January 16, 2009. Retrieved September 14, 2008.
  8. ^ "Microsoft Security Advisory: Update to improve Kernel Patch Protection". Microsoft. October 26, 2007. Retrieved March 3, 2008.
  9. ^ "How to Impress Girls with Browser Memory Protection Bypasses" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 26, 2010. Retrieved August 28, 2008.
  10. ^ "The sky isn't falling: a look at a new Vista security bypass". August 11, 2008.
  11. ^ a b "Alarmed about Vista security? Black Hat researcher Alexander Sotirov speaks out". Archived from the original on August 13, 2008.
  12. ^ "Researchers use browser to elude Vista memory protections". Searchsecurity.techtarget.com. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  13. ^ a b c Marsh, Dave (April 27, 2005). "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista". Microsoft. Archived from the original on November 16, 2006. Retrieved January 8, 2007.
  14. ^ a b Marsh, Dave (January 20, 2007). "Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)". Windows Vista team blog. Microsoft. Archived from the original on January 21, 2013. Retrieved January 20, 2007.
  15. ^ Gutmann, Peterson (January 27, 2007). "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Retrieved January 27, 2007. Also available: PDF version Archived May 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  16. ^ Bott, Ed (September 16, 2007). "Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong". Archived from the original on September 29, 2007. Retrieved September 21, 2007.
  17. ^ Ou, George (September 1, 2007). "Gutmann Vista DRM paper uses shoddy Web Forums as source". Archived from the original on September 4, 2007. Retrieved September 22, 2007.
  18. ^ Peter Gutmann (computer scientist). "Windows DRM: A Response to the Disinformation". Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved October 27, 2007.
  19. ^ Nick White and Dave Marsh (January 20, 2007). "Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)". Archived from the original on January 21, 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2007.
  20. ^ Smith, Paul (December 31, 2006). "Windows Vista DRM nonsense". Retrieved January 3, 2007.
  21. ^ Fisher, Ken (May 21, 2006). "Hollywood reportedly in agreement to delay forced quality downgrades for Blu-ray, HD DVD".
  22. ^ Judge, Elizabeth (May 20, 2006). "Windows revamp 'too advanced for most PCs'". The Times. London. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
  23. ^ Spooner, John G.; Foley, Mary Jo (August 5, 2005). "Will Your PC Run Windows Vista?". eweek.com. Retrieved August 15, 2006.
  24. ^ Thurrott, Paul (March 29, 2006). "Finally, Microsoft Releases Windows Vista Hardware Requirements". IT Pro. Archived from the original on October 25, 2017. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  25. ^ "Creative mute on Vista Soundblaster drivers". Apcmag.com. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
  26. ^ "Windows Vista's biggest problem". WinTuts.com. June 18, 2007. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
  27. ^ Santo Domingo, Joel (May 4, 2007). "New Benchmark Tests for Vista". tomshardware.com. Archived from the original on May 30, 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2007.
  28. ^ Williams, Ian (May 29, 2007). "Understanding the impact of Windows Vista on SPECviewperf performance measurement". Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Retrieved October 29, 2008.
  29. ^ a b Schmidt, Patrick (January 29, 2007). "New Benchmark Tests for Vista, Conclusion". tomshardware.com.
  30. ^ "Microsoft gets sued over Windows XP downgrade fees". Engadget. February 16, 2009. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
  31. ^ http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsoft-Windows-XP-Users-Can-Keep-Downgrade-Rights-491684/ [dead link]
  32. ^ "calculating time remaining moving, deleting, copying files very slow". Archived from the original on August 18, 2007.
  33. ^ "An update is available that improves the performance and reliability of Windows Vista".
  34. ^ "Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper". Archived from the original on September 2, 2007. (See 'Performance' section)
  35. ^ Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian (February 15, 2008). "Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked". Archived from the original on April 30, 2008. Retrieved February 16, 2008.
  36. ^ "Another take on Vista vs. XP benchmarks". February 19, 2008. Archived from the original on February 28, 2008.
  37. ^ Abazovic, Fuad (December 4, 2006). "Testing Vista's different memory configurations". theinquirer.net. Archived from the original on February 10, 2007. Retrieved May 13, 2007.
  38. ^ Williams, Rob (January 29, 2007). "Windows Vista Gaming Performance Reports". techgage.com. Retrieved May 26, 2007.
  39. ^ Cheatham, Miles (November 24, 2006). "ATI Radeon X1950XTX CrossFire". bjorn3d.com. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved May 18, 2007.
  40. ^ Cross, Jason (February 20, 2007). "Vista Game Performance: Vista vs. XP and ATI vs. Nvidia". extremetech.com. Archived from the original on May 19, 2007. Retrieved May 26, 2007.
  41. ^ Wall, Jason (May 7, 2007). "XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates". enthusiast.hardocp.com. Archived from the original on January 1, 2010. Retrieved May 26, 2007.
  42. ^ Durham, Joel (May 12, 2008). "Gaming Performance: Windows Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3". extremetech.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
  43. ^ "Devil May Cry 4 Games Requirements". pcgamerequirements.com. Archived from the original on April 10, 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2009. (Minimum Requirements) Memory 512MB (Windows XP), 1GB (Windows Vista)
  44. ^ "Crysis System Requirements". crysis-online.com. Archived from the original on April 9, 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2009. (Minimum Requirements) RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
  45. ^ "Valve Updates Left 4 Dead Requirements". ign.com. Archived from the original on November 8, 2008. Retrieved April 13, 2009. RAM: 1 GB for XP / 2 GB for Vista
  46. ^ "Microsoft to slim down 'bloated' Windows".
  47. ^ Ed Bott. "Windows bloat? It's always been that way". ZDNet.
  48. ^ McDougall, Paul. "informationweek.com". informationweek.com. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
  49. ^ a b Stross, Randall (March 8, 2008). "They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know". New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
  50. ^ NYTimes Archived 2016-01-17 at the Wayback Machine – Dell Pointed Out Vista Mistakes, Internal Documents Show
  51. ^ Fried, Ina (June 2, 2006). "Vista beta sucks up battery juice". ZDNet. Archived from the original on May 20, 2007. Retrieved May 6, 2007.
  52. ^ "Vista draining laptop batteries, patience". ZDNet.
  53. ^ Krazit, Tom (May 4, 2007). "Vista draining laptop batteries, patience". ZDNet. Archived from the original on May 7, 2007. Retrieved May 6, 2007.
  54. ^ "Gartner: App testing delaying Vista rollouts". zdnetasia.com. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
  55. ^ "Microsoft rallies developers behind Vista". zdnetasia.com. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
  56. ^ "No Rush to Adopt Vista". IDG, quoted on PC World. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
  57. ^ Paul McDougall (March 2, 2007). "Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007". Information week. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
  58. ^ "Six months on, Vista users still griping (page 2 - The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a member of Microsoft's Vista Technical Adoption Program)". MS NBC [NBC News]. July 13, 2007. Archived from the original on August 5, 2014. Retrieved July 27, 2007.
  59. ^ "Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper". Microsoft. August 29, 2007. p. 1. Archived from the original on September 2, 2007. Retrieved August 29, 2007.
  60. ^ "Application List: Works with Windows Vista". Archived from the original on February 2, 2012.
  61. ^ "Application List: Certified for Windows Vista". Archived from the original on July 4, 2008.
  62. ^ "Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor". Microsoft.
  63. ^ "What's been yanked from Vista, and when". Information Week. June 26, 2006. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
  64. ^ "zdnetasia.com".
  65. ^ "Windows Vista Versus XP Pricing". PC World. September 1, 2006. Archived from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
  66. ^ "Windows Vista Too Expensive Says Users". IT Wire. August 30, 2006. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
  67. ^ "Vista still looks expensive after cuts". New Zealand Harald. March 5, 2008. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
  68. ^ Warne, Dan (January 22, 2007). "Is Vista's Australian pricing a rip-off?". apcmag.com. Archived from the original on February 12, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  69. ^ "Vista comes to rip-off Britain". The Inquirer. January 23, 2007. Archived from the original on June 10, 2011. Retrieved January 24, 2007.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  70. ^ "Microsoft vilified over price of Vista". VNU Business Publications. February 2007. Archived from the original on February 3, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  71. ^ Protalinski, Emil (June 25, 2009). "Windows 7 pricing announced: cheaper than Vista (Updated)". Retrieved October 4, 2009.
  72. ^ Computerworld. "The Skinny on Windows SPP and Reduced Functionality in Vista". Archived from the original on May 27, 2007.
  73. ^ Microsoft PressPass. "Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiter". Microsoft. Archived from the original on July 6, 2007.
  74. ^ "White Paper: Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Innovations for Windows Vista and Windows Server "Longhorn"" (DOC). Microsoft PressPass. October 3, 2006.
  75. ^ "Hands On: A Hard Look at Windows Vista". November 10, 2006. p. 15. Archived from the original on October 15, 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
  76. ^ Bott, Ed (October 4, 2006). "For Vista, WGA gets tougher". Ed Bott's Microsoft Report. Archived from the original on October 6, 2006. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
  77. ^ Ed Bott (October 4, 2006). "Another wave of WGA failures". Ed Bott's Microsoft Report. Archived from the original on December 22, 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
  78. ^ "Windows Genuine Advantage suffers worldwide outage, problems galore (updated)". Retrieved August 24, 2007.
  79. ^ "Update on Validation Issues". Retrieved July 28, 2007.
  80. ^ "ZDNET Hardware 2.0: SP1 brings with it a softer, gentler, naggier WGA". September 2, 2008. Archived from the original on September 13, 2008. Retrieved July 22, 2008.
  81. ^ "Product Activation for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008". Microsoft. November 6, 2007. Archived from the original on December 15, 2007.
  82. ^ Phillips, Josh (June 13, 2007). "Ultimate Extras, Where are you?". windowsconnected.com. Archived from the original on May 23, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
  83. ^ Dunn, Josh (July 4, 2007). "Microsoft evades promise of Vista Ultimate Extras". windowsconnected.com. Retrieved July 4, 2007.
  84. ^ Long Zheng (June 14, 2007). "Windows Ultimate Extras is a sham - where's the responsibility?".
  85. ^ "Windows DreamScene released!". September 25, 2007. Archived from the original on February 11, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2007.
  86. ^ Steve (May 27, 2008). "The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs : New word: "vistaster"". Fakesteve.net. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  87. ^ "Farewell, Bill Gates". Forbes.com. July 21, 2008. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  88. ^ "Bill Gates desliga-se da Microsoft". JN. June 4, 2010. Retrieved June 11, 2010.[permanent dead link]
  89. ^ "Bill Gates desliga-se de uma Microsoft que vive tempos agitados - RTP Noticias". Tv1.rtp.pt. June 6, 2010. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  90. ^ "Bill Gates se retira de Microsoft". lanacion.com. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  91. ^ "빌 게이츠 없는 마이크로소프트의 운명은? - 1등 인터넷뉴스 조선닷컴". Chosun.com. August 28, 2008. Archived from the original on June 11, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  92. ^ "没有盖茨,微软是否能够发展得更好?_网易财经". Money.163.com. Archived from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
  93. ^ Ward, Keith. "5 Reasons to Stick With Windows Vista and One Reason You Shouldn't". Lifewire. Archived from the original on March 23, 2019. Retrieved January 18, 2022.
[edit]