Jump to content

Talk:Windows Vista: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Dead links: new section
m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Talk:Windows Vista/Archive 13) (bot
Line 6: Line 6:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 12
|counter = 13
|minthreadsleft = 7
|minthreadsleft = 7
|minthreadstoarchive = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 5
Line 64: Line 64:
|indexhere=yes}}
|indexhere=yes}}
__TOC__
__TOC__

== Visual styles? ==

====Is it XP or Vista, or both, that have 4 visual styles?====
Please provide a citation to support [{{FULLURL:Windows Vista|diff=413898250}} this edit]. Thank you.
[[Special:Contributions/71.252.113.85|71.252.113.85]] ([[User talk:71.252.113.85|talk]]) 16:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
:That user has been warned. There is no rationale for something like that.[[User:Jasper Deng|Jasper Deng]] ([[User talk:Jasper Deng|talk]]) 00:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
'''
Vista is Theme-Wise the very same as Win7 :'''

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

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



[[Special:Contributions/94.220.86.0|94.220.86.0]] ([[User talk:94.220.86.0|talk]]) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Alex Cohen.


== Extended Support end date and edit warring. ==
== Extended Support end date and edit warring. ==
Line 99: Line 82:


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

== ... ==

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

: Not true. Has been done in older vesions as well. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/88.130.103.92|88.130.103.92]] ([[User talk:88.130.103.92|talk]]) 14:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


[[Special:Contributions/207.224.64.82|207.224.64.82]] ([[User talk:207.224.64.82|talk]]) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Not sure where to put this, however the article's information about Vista adoption appears to be strangely biased. Now in 2013, as XP is approaching its SECOND end of life date, it still far outstrips Vista use. XP has only recently been overtaken by Windows 7 in desktop use, and Vista is a very small 5.17% of the market. Corporate users never widely adopted vista , and forced Microsoft to extend the support date for XP, as well as forced Microsoft to allow Vista licences to be converted back to XP. I think the portrayal in this article does not reflect the fact that corporate users were not just less satisfied with Vista- the vast majority completely skipped Vista and waited until Windows 7 was clearly worth adopting. Here are some stats from 2013-13-24 : Windows 7 44.55%, Windows XP 38.99%, Windows Vista 5.17%, and Windows 8 2.67% (the rest include OS X and "other" but as this article was comparing Windows versions ...) At no time has Vista come close to the level XP of adoption, even after 2 service packs. Implying that Vista has gotten a bad rap unfairly seems subjective.
statistics on adoption are from:
<http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0> [[Special:Contributions/207.224.64.82|207.224.64.82]] ([[User talk:207.224.64.82|talk]]) 00:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

== Critism about Costs is nothing special in regards to Windows Vista ==

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

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

== Windows Vista and 7 Package Box ==

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


== Merger Proposal ==
== Merger Proposal ==
Line 136: Line 90:
*'''Oppose'''. As for similar suggestions at [[Linux]] and [[Windows XP]], I suggest this proposal be withdrawn. <i><b>[[User:Tayste|Tayste]]</b> ([[Special:Contributions/Tayste|edits]])</i> 09:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. As for similar suggestions at [[Linux]] and [[Windows XP]], I suggest this proposal be withdrawn. <i><b>[[User:Tayste|Tayste]]</b> ([[Special:Contributions/Tayste|edits]])</i> 09:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as per Codename Lisa. ([[User:IanWilliam20|IanWilliam20]] ([[User talk:IanWilliam20|talk]]) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC))
*'''Oppose''' as per Codename Lisa. ([[User:IanWilliam20|IanWilliam20]] ([[User talk:IanWilliam20|talk]]) 00:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC))

== Guidance on properly explaining changes ==

On 2015-03-22T21:46:35‎ [[Special:Diff/651759603/653068090|my edits]] to the "Windows Vista system requirements" table were [[Special:Diff/653069000|reverted]] by {{User link|Lukeno94}} on the basis of improperly explained changes. I believe that the edits were justified by the references provided in the article and my edit summaries. If I were to correct the table again, how should I properly explain the changes so that they are not reverted? —[[User:Mr.Unknown|Mr.Unknown]] ([[User talk:Mr.Unknown|talk]]) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
*You removed a source without explanation. You removed content without explanation, when that content was valid (WDDM). You replaced "Vista Capable" with "Minimum supported", without proper explanation and without regard for how it is actually described as. You moved a reference for no good reason. None of this was explained properly. [[User:Lukeno94|<span style="color:Navy">Luke</span><span style="color:FireBrick">no</span><span style="color:Green">94</span>]] [[User talk:Lukeno94#top|<i>(tell Luke off here)</i>]] 10:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
**I understand. I believed that my edit summaries were explanatory enough in regard to these valid points, despite devoting just a single word to them. I tried to be concise for the sake of not wasting editors’ time, but ended up making it worse. I’m sorry. I’ll try to find a better balance from now on. —[[User:Mr.Unknown|Mr.Unknown]] ([[User talk:Mr.Unknown|talk]]) 11:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

*{{u|Mr.Unknown}}, I am afraid your rather good contribution became the victim of your own failure to provide an edit summary. I am rather sorry. And I am afraid the Windows Vista product page's arrangement can be mislead, so much so that I think it has misled people who wrote [https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/919183 Article 919183]. "Minimum recommend" really! One can't tell whether it is "minimum" or "recommended". Best regards, [[User:Codename Lisa|Codename Lisa]] ([[User talk:Codename Lisa|talk]]) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
**I did provide an edit summary, which I thought was explanatory enough. This seems not to have been the case, so I’ll try being more verbose next time. Thank you. —[[User:Mr.Unknown|Mr.Unknown]] ([[User talk:Mr.Unknown|talk]]) 11:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/919183- The article shows minimum/recommended requirements for Vista Basic, for Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate the Minimum Requirements are 1 GB. In fact, 1 GB is not enough to run Vista adequately and a main reason the O/S did not do better.[[User:Easeltine|Easeltine]] ([[User talk:Easeltine|talk]]) 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 02:59, 18 March 2016

Former good articleWindows Vista was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
November 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
December 7, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 20, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 13, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Extended Support end date and edit warring.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merger Proposal

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

DMY format?

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

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

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