Jump to content

Talk:Windows Vista

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vista2003 (talk | contribs) at 13:21, 3 June 2021 (Not sure what the full support ended means in this context). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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]

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

Windows Vista (codenamed Longhorn)

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2017

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

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

Day, month, year?

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

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

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

The Win Vista logo is missing on the sidebar.

The Win XP logo is missing on the sidebar.


Cnon20 (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)Cnon20[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

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

Memory section is wrong

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

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

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

Date in short description

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

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

Full End of support 2021???

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_Vista&oldid=1026647097"