Jump to content

Talk:Features new to 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 221.155.127.235 (talk) at 13:14, 11 February 2007 (→"Dynamic multidimensional scrolling"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconMicrosoft Windows: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Missing

I cannot find any references to Windows Sidebar? This is still included is it not? - Alastair, 26 April 2006

Its not just included but enabled by default in latest public build. Check in start menu. --soUmyaSch 11:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I though so, perhaps someone with access to the latest build could update this page with information on the sidebar? - Alastair, 27 April 2006

I work on a new feature called "Guided Help" - it shows the user where to click and guides users through completion of a task. This is launched by the Control Panel and in the help system. What's the criteria for inclusion here? - James

I also think the tasks in Control Panel deserve a nod - they're the first thing to get me out of classic mode and I'm not going back anytime soon. - James

Both your things deserve inclusion, James... but someone has to deal with the size of this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.110.243.21 (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Points of view on certain features

Dark side of Parental Controls

Some users may decide not to upgrade to Windows Vista because some of the features, such as Parental Control, are in question. Windows Vista would contain features similar to those of ContentProtect. Parent control features of Windows Vista and censorware could be used to disable Internet access or shape one's point of view such as shaping into a destructive point of view. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with Parental Controls. Mac OS X also includes them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyphen4 (talk • contribs)
Children play console games rather than PC or Mac games. The PC game audience has a higher adult percentage than the console game audience. I was not stating that there is something wrong with Parental Controls. I was stating that there is a dark side to Parental Controls. Parental Controls can be used as tools of oppression. They can be used for wrongful purposes, like censoring access to beneficial information or blocking programs that are really beneficial to the users they are controlling. Disabling downloading may be controversial, but it would often be used in colleges and universities. Some parents make strict use of parental controls, sometimes to the detriment of the user. If the parental controls are too strict on the user, the user may resign from that computer for good, and do some things the primitive way. There are some people who oppose Parental Controls. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 03:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Parents" and their "users"... yeah, you definitely don't have kids, do you.... Warrens 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming "parental" refers only to actual parents and their children is quite naïve. Parental Controls can be used by anyone controlling a PC, to gain control over what contents all of its users can access. That is the dark side. The Parental part is there just as minced oath for Totalitarian. Isilanes 19:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is IE new to Vista???

Just because there is a new version of Internet Explorer for Windows Vista does not make it a "new feature" to the operating system. We could have a section called "Internet navigation" or "networking". Or we could even have a section called "Features new to Internet Explorer" --Cumbiagermen 06:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article discusses new features in Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is an important component of Windows. I don't see a problem with this. Warrens 06:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IE for Windows Vista will feature features that will be available only on that platform. So I think IE7 should get a mention in Vista new features. Soumyasch 07:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Soumyasch[reply]

Symbolic Links???

Vista will have support for sym-links??? I've never found this. How do I set one up? Does anyone know more about this? I've used a couple beta builds, and never bumped across this feature.

On further research, I can find no mention of sym-links in windows help. The only thing similar to sym-links in the Windows world is DFS. I am going to remove the mention from the main article. 131.107.0.71

You make symlinks in Vista using the "mklink" command. Warrens 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See [1] for info about both hard links and symbolic links under Windows, starting with Windows 2000. --Scott McNay 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that SysInternals recently became part of Microsoft, I suspect that the mklink command might be an upgraded version of the SysInternals Junction command. --Scott McNay 03:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Symlinks (Junctions) are an important feature of the Vista directory hierarchy. Do "dir /a" in your user directory to see how they've used it to organize user data. sean 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WMP 11

Windows Media Player 11 is going to be a significant upgrade over version 10. And since Vista will be the first OS to include WMP 11, shouldn't a section for WMP 11 be created? --Soumyasch 11:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

soUmyaSch, why do you not think people would be interested in that iTunes has a similar funcion? I was not intending to point out who pioneered or not, where in lies the problem? --Shandris 13:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ONLY iTunes that has this feature? Thats my point. If you have to say so, you must give a list of all media players which have this functionality, not just promote one. I am removing it for now, because there is no source saying this feature is available only in iTunes. Feel free to add it back with a citation proving the feature is similar only to iTunes. --soUmyaSch 14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People don't come to a page detailing the "Features new to Windows Vista" to find out what other applications and operating systems implement a similar feature, or who did it first. It's not important. We could easily double the size of this article if we went down that route, but it would take away from readability and focus. Make an article on search-as-you-type if you want to write about who "pioneered" the idea. Warrens 17:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about a "Features pioneered by Windows Vista" article? Too little content? —200.104.190.26
Don't go trolling. There are a lot many things that have been, to quote you, Pioneered by Windows Vista — auto-scaling rwin, fully sandboxed browser, graphical view in WMP11 media library, geomtry shaders in dx10, virtualization and demand-paging of graphics hardware, etc etc. As long as one gets everything in the OS of their choice, why care who did it first? The only thing that should matter is how good the implementation is. --soUmyaSch 06:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Account

The default administrator account is still in Windows Vista but is not shown on the welcome screen. If you check 'user accounts' in system or c:\users\ you will see the administrator account. 88.104.40.119 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same is the default behavior with Windows XP as well. --soum************yasch 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, in xp it's activated by default; it simply doesn't show up on the welcome screen unless there's no other administrator set (you can press Ctrl+Alt+Del twice though). --Cataphract 04:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Networking

Considerably expanded the networking section to include as much info regarding the new changes as possible. Hope I haven't left anything out. Please comment. --soUmyaSch 03:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added some information about Windows Filtering Platform. Is there any need of WFP to have its own article? --soUmyaSch 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backporting

I would like to see an obvious statment along with each new technology whether or not it will be madecavaidable to previous versions of windows. Perhaps a single bullet point at the end of each subheading's paragraph stating "IE7 will be avaidable to all windows OSs" or "WinFX will be avaidable to XP" etc. It could also be helpful if the article were to state all those that are unique to Vista (like aero). Thoughts? mastodon 18:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the name of the article suggests, pretty much everything listed on this page is going to be unique to Vista. There's no good reason to weigh down this article with all sorts of semantics about whether or not a described feature is going to be available in other operating systems as well... there are other articles where this would be more suitable. Warrens 19:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, I see your point. I was just wondering about those that will be avaidable to XP. I have heard through the grapevine that WinFX will be backported, and IE7 is suitable for all Windows versions. Is this true? If so, I would like to see it clear in the article. mastodon 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WinFX and IE7 aren't being "backported". They are being designed for and released for the NT 5.x platforms and Vista in the same general timeframe. .NET Framework 3.0 (formerly WinFX -- Northgrove 22:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)), WinFS, Windows Defender, Internet Explorer, and Windows Driver Foundation articles all note the wider availability of these features which will also be in Vista. Warrens 01:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, thankyou, thats cool. One last question: will they all be made avaidable through Windows Update? Possibly as a service pack? mastodon 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reshuffling

The page is getting long and unruly. I have tried to give it a more coherent structure. To start off, the other features and changes was a mess. A moved mentions of new (and updated) apps like collaboration, dvd maker, wpg to a new section "New and updated applications". Then I tried to group related functionalities. DX10 was moved just next to aero, drm moved next to security, sections for applications - windows defender, wie7, wmp11 - have been kept one after another. Hope it gives some coherence to the article. --soUmyaSch 17:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ordering has bothered me for a while. Having a separate section for applications is a good step forward... we should probably move it closer to the top since the applications are going to be a very visible part of the new OS, and are probably of more interest than XPS and such. Windows Defender probably belongs under the Security section, too... maybe DRM as well. In the longer term, I'd like to see the top-level sections be all-encompassing categories instead of specific features unto themselves... I think that'll help with flow.
Some screenshots would really help break up the monotony, too. Warrens 18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took a swing at making the changes I had in mind. What do you think? Warrens 05:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Looks much more coherent now. Only a few things. Since DX is closely related with Aero, shouldn't the two be nearer each other. And as for the screenshot, it is already there in IE/Vista articles. Wouldn't one picture not used in any other article be better? Just a thought. --soUmyaSch 05:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the Aero/DirectX thing: What would be good is for us to get a section together covering "Graphics"... we don't even mention Windows Presentation Foundation on this page (save for a note under XPS), and there isn't even a good description of the DWM (save for an ancilliary mention in the Aero section). I feel like we should lead with "Aero" no matter what, because it's going to be the the single most visible change with Vista, but there's a lot of other graphics features to cover, too.
I'm adding in screenshots from articles because this article feels like it needs some respite from the visual monotony of what's otherwise a massive 50k (and growing) chunk o' text. Warrens 06:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A subsection for WCF in the Networking section, a Graphics section covering DX 9L/10, DWM, WPF is what I think is needed. I just can't figure out where WinWF should go. Or a WinFX section covering WCf/WinWF? --soUmyaSch 06:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Windows XP features excluded from Windows Vista title can be changed to XP features excluded, as has been done in the Windows Vista article. Since this article talks about features of Windows Vista, there is no need to mention that in sections headers. --soUmyaSch 06:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it'll help reclaim some of that whitespace in the TOC. Warrens 06:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added a programmability section to describe all the API enhancements. Populated it with WinFX (WCF, WPF, WinWF) and WinSock Kernel. What do you think? --soUmyaSch 04:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Windows" removed from the header of excluded features Shandris 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh

Services for Macintosh are removed... what current Mac services does Windows XP have? And I hope it doesn't consider iPod, or? --Shandris 08:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Services for Mac denote Windows XP services that allow Windows and Mac machines to exist on the same network. It includes MacFiles which allow windows file shares to be accessed from a Mac, MacPrint allows shring printers with Macs, Remote Access Services for Mac allow Mac users to dial-in / connect to a windows network over TCP/IP, etc. It has nothing to do with supporting Apple hardware such as iPod. --soUmyaSch 09:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPS

XPS was a sub-section in kernel changes. Since it is not a kernel-level change, I moved it outta there into the Graphics section. But I am not sure whether it should be there or kept as a subsection of WPF. Please suggest. --soUmyaSch 08:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a really good place for it. It's part of WPF, yeah, but it's also part of the print infrastructure... probably what we'll need to do is get a "Print" section together covering what's new there (though I haven't found much good information on this yet), and then add some info about XPS there, and then info about XPS as a document format can also be added to WPF. I guess? Warrens 18:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created a print section and shoved XPS into it. Its still a bit rough, though. --soUmyaSch 10:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid confusion, does XPS stand for XML Paper Syndication or XML Paper Specification? --Shandris 16:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its Specification. Did I write Syndication? Sorry about that. I am really sorry. --soUmyaSch 17:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DRM section

The cited document for this section only covers media DRM -- there are no mentions in that document of corporate or end-user DRM, or of an "open RMS server". -- Gnetwerker 05:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XPS section

Warrens recently added to statement: "Most major printer vendors are planning on releasing printers with built-in XPS support". This may be true but needs some kind of citation in order to stay. -- Gnetwerker 05:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Warrens 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I watched that whole (astonishingly dull) video and didn't hear them claim that statement -- in any case, without the printer mfgrs or a third party saying, it's an MS claim, so I adjusted it. It was an awkward, semi-colon'd sentence anyway. -- Gnetwerker 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YOu may want to check this one out. A page control language vendor is supporting XPS. So any printer manufacturer using this pcl (including hp and kodak) will automatically support XPS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumyasch (talk • contribs)
[[Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal

Voice recognition

Not sure if any Microsoft shills are working here, but the voice recognition incident has been reported by many sources (slashdot, washington post, etc) and seems notable. I think it should stay. Shawnc 03:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Windows Live Messenger

The article states that there will be no replacement for Windows Messenger. How then can one possibly explain the existance of "Windows Live Messenger", which not only looks the part with it's vista theme, but offers improved functionality. In fact you can no longer even download older versions of MSN messenger it seems, from Microsoft's own site. -The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.216.1.191 (talk o contribs) .

Windows Live Messenger certainly appears to be the replacement for XP's Windows Messenger, but as of the most recently released build of Vista (a couple weeks ago), there is no instant messenger client of any kind included with Vista, which is why the article reads as it does. If Windows Live Messenger or some variant gets included with future builds or the final release, then we'll include it then. -/- Warren 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I am not really familiar with this Windows operating system, but from what I have heard by talking with my friends, there seems to be quite a lot of criticism for Windows Vista Beta users at this stage, can somebody add a section on criticisms about this os. Thanks Signor Pastrini 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a criticism section at the Windows Vista article that covers most of the important stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrens (talk • contribs)

There is a danger that this page becomes a product advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. As far as I know adopting Vista requires updating all drivers of peripheral equipment. However, many of the equipment manufacturers may not offer driver updates, trying to force customers to buy new Vista-compatible products. So the expense may be considerable. A consumer issue -section is needed on this page!

Consumer issues are not new features and should be part of Windows Vista article instead. Also, adopting most new versions of Windows required new drivers, so there is nothing new here (for example: 9x -> XP). And not all drivers are required to be rewritten (the most affected ones are video cards and printers). Futurix 16:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article reads like a sales brochure developed by Microsoft; every section touts how revolutionary and amazing Vista will be. Evangelization level is pretty high...

Again, this is NOT the place for criticism. There is a entire article for that. Also, sign your comments. TheMasterEmerald 04:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is for a neutral POV about "Features new to Windows Vista". There is no "evangelization", just a list of features with descriptions about what they are. It suggests to me that people who wish to critisie are the ones with anti-Microsoft chips on their shoulders. Briantist 09:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Task Scheduler

I've removed a couple of features from the Task Scheduler section since the heading there indicated it was a list of new features only. XP Task Scheduler can schedule a task to only occur when the PC is idle, and can wake the computer to run a task. -24.170.135.104 01:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Audio Stack

This info should be assimilated into the audio section. --soum************yasch 04:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's this, too: Audio Innovations in Windows Vista, which is a really nice article with lots of screenshots of the new audio UI. Man, I want Creative to get off their asses and get some solid Vista drivers out so I can play with this stuff! :-) -/- Warren 11:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they will replace all the new Microsoft GUI with a bloated applications of their own - as Creative always does... :-( Futurix 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing Exploits

"Also Windows Vista binaries place buffers higher in memory and code in lower memory area. So to actually exploit, a buffer underrun is needed." As I understand it, buffer overflow exploits don't normally overwrite code, they overwrite return addresses on the stack. So how does moving the code to lower memory area affect exploitability? 82.2.52.97 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Its not code. I fixed it. Buffers contain local data and activation record. Code exists in a generally read only text area. The read-onlyness can also be enforced using NX/XD bit, the same which DEP uses, though its not a requirement.--soum************yasch 13:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Printer/File Shares, RPC

On WinXP, it's not possible to completely disable printer/file sharing without crippling printing capabilities. Is that resolved? What about Guest shares being enabled by default?

And RPC / Remote Administration etc? Home users will not benefit from these features (they will only be another source of vulnerabilities); can they be disabled / are they disabled by default? Needless to say that some of the worst exploits have been discovered in these areas.

Oh, and yes: are there still like 10 different places in the registry where programs can set themselves to be started at boot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.89.2 (talk)

1. Sign your comments.
2. This is not a discussion forum about Vista.
3. Clearly you don't know much about XP (it is possible to completely disable printer/file sharing without crippling printing capabilities, RPC can be very useful for local (non-networked) functionality, RPC was locked down in XP SP2, there are only 4 places in the registry - and I don't see how it's a problem).
Futurix 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
haha, that's a polite comment! I was expecting a Windows advocate to show himself sooner or later. I've seen users like you bashing other people on Wikipedia, picking a fight wherever they can.
As for the technical part, I deactivated PRINT$. This should not have had any effect on printing. And if you disable printer and file sharing only for one network interface - not a very elegant way.
I didn't say exactly 10. And it used to be more in 9x by the way; counting win.ini, folders and services, there are still at least 7 ways. Not in the registry, but still accessible to programs running under admin privileges.
Yes, the firewall is active since SP2. Big deal. It's better not to open ports than just to wall in everything afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.89.2 (talk)
RPC hasnt been locked down just by using firewall. Entire surface area has been reduced. RPC is very important for many data sharing scenarios, whether or not u r a home or pro user irrespective. And I have disabled file/printer sharing, but I dont see any adverse effect on printing abilities. --soum************yasch 03:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not Windows "advocate", I just don't like uninformed and misdirected comments.
  • If you want to completely disable sharing, disable "Server" service. Or for more detailed tune up check group policy MMC snap-in.
  • For RPC - Soumyasch is correct.
Futurix 13:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Aero

Is the second sentonce some kind of joke? "[...]window animations and eye candy, which includes hot naked women."87.123.207.90 15:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was vandalism by 216.48.136.5 ... Futurix 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speech recognition

How do you speak "Simplified Chinese"? 207.178.224.50 16:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question :-)
May be there are regional differences in pronunciation between Taiwan (which I believe uses Traditional Chinese) and continental China (which uses Simplified Chinese) ? Futurix 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Mandarin spoken in China and Taiwan has one very noticeable difference that affects speech recognition: the consonants sh,zh,ch don't exist in Taiwan, instead they are merged with s,z,c. So for example "shu1" ("book") in China is "su1" in Taiwan. This merging creates many more homophones in Taiwanese Mandarin, which a speech engine must be prepared to handle. However, this is a dialect difference, not an orthography difference; it's coincidental that the two countries also use different writing systems. So saying that the speech engine "speaks" Simplified and Traditional isn't quite right - it understands two dialects of Mandarin and outputs text in the corresponding writing system.
All that said, MS consistently labels their localizations "Simplified Chinese" and "Traditional Chinese" (along with "Hong Kong (SAR)" for Cantonese) so I don't think listing Simplified and Traditional in this article will cause confusion. Mike in LA 12:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UAC

UAC is a good idea for restricted users; unfortunately some control.exe modules like the device manager still don't show a UAC popup. Is there any intent to fix this? Also the mmc looks still quite frumpy; what about some changes here. 62.202.86.185 10:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a discussion forum about Vista. This is discussion about the article. Futurix 12:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

127KB

This article is 127KB. I separated a large section into its own article (and even without it this is still a big article) and it was reverted quickly. Any suggestions?? Please explain. Georgia guy 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking formally, the entire article is a list of new features in Windows Vista and 32KB limit does not apply to lists. See "Occasional exceptions" in section "Readability issues" of Wikipedia:Article size. People expect it to be big.
Some descriptions of new features could be slightly smaller (but all new features should remain in the article).
As for your edit - ripping off entire section (and leaving it empty with only a link) is a bad editing style. Futurix 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a summary-style article, not list-style. There are areas in the article where we have lists, yes, but for the most part it's in paragraphical form. Renaming the page to "List of..." is misrepresenting the contents of the article, so I've changed it back. -/- Warren 02:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robocopy

Should "Robocopy" be listed as a new command line tool which "is an updated version of Xcopy". Robocopy was there is Server 2003 Reskit as well, and even usable in Win XP. --soumসৌমোyasch 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robocopy is not an updated xcopy. It's a completely different utility which can do the same things that xcopy does and more, and it has completely different parameters. It also doesn't have at least one limitation that xcopy has (the limitation that I'm thinking of is a limit on the number of files that can be copied, if I recall correctly, which can result in incomplete copies). Robocopy has never before shipped as part of the OS; before, it has been part of the resource kit for the OS, which is a separate for-pay package. --Scott McNay 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BCD

Someone please add detailed info about Boot configuration data and booting related new stuff —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.174.250 (talk • contribs) 20:42, October 12, 2006.

Metadata

A lot of the information presented in this article regarding how Vista handles metadata is outdated and now inaccurate. Some of these abilities were planned but were removed for various reasons. Vista exposes metadata only for files that support them and only if the application developer has written code spefically exposing that metadata to the shell.

For Vista, Microsoft has adopted the "truth is in the file" principle for metadata. This means that all file metadata handled by Windows must be stored inside the actual files. This gurantees portability of the metadata because it always travels with the file. This means, for example, if a file is sent as attachement in an email or put on a thumb-drive, the metadata will still be in the file.[2]

In Windows XP, users had the ability to read and write metadata for all file types by right clicking the file and going to Properties>Summary. Windows relied on an NTFS feature called alternate streams to attach this metadata to the file without altering the contents of the file itself. This meant that the metadata would be lost if the file was moved onto a non-NTFS file store such as thumb-drive or sent as an attachement. This feature was purpousefully removed from Vista because it conflicts with "truth is in the file" design goal.[3]

In Vista, the idea is have the metadata inside the file, but the problem is that only a few file types support metadata. Out-of-the-box, Vista has the ability to edit metadata for Microsoft Office files and most audio and video files. In addition to text metadata, thumbnails previews of files, called live icons, are supported as well as searching the text of documents. Application developers can extend Vista's ability to edit metadata for different file types by writing special software that would read and edit the metadata and provide thumbnails for their file types at the Shell's request. For this reason there is no ability to adde metadata to .txt files, for example.[4]

Most of it is present in the metadata para of the shell section. Granted, it can do with a little expansion and reordering. Also, the fact that summary tab doesn't aggregate ADS metadata is mentioned. What is not made clear is that NTFS ADS is still there, and that apps can take full advantage of it. --soumসৌমোyasch 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Dynamic multidimensional scrolling"

Any mention of this in the article? [5] 207.177.241.28 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to sign in. — Alex (T|C|E) 21:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it with a quick search. Go ahead and add it if you can find a good spot, and if it's worth adding (there are many other changes which are not mentioned). --Scott McNay 04:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather frightening thought, given how long the article is already. :-) -/- Warren 04:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said "if it's worth adding". There's a point where the changes may be noticeable, yet of increasing triviality. The article IS quite long, unless want to see about splitting it into a small number of sub-articles. --Scott McNay 04:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's definitely worth mentioning somewhere... Windows Explorer perhaps? We have a section for new Vista stuff there. Just hinking about splitting up this article gives me a splitting headache (bad pun, sorry), but we'll need to find a way to do it eventually. I'd love to hear some ideas on it. -/- Warren 06:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could always (ahem) Be Bold and simply break it in half, parts I and II, with only the References section being duplicated (necessarily). The TOC alone is longer than many other full-fledged articles. The only bad part is that I don't know of a way to replicate the TOC of Part II in Part I, and vice versa, which would be nice. --Scott McNay 04:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IC/MIC/whatever, here and in main article

In the main article, a detailed para on IC was added. In this article, a shorter para on IC was added, and another para on MIC was added. Are IC and MIC the same thing? If not, then I'd suggest putting them next to each other. Further, the para on CI in this article is the one that should be more detailed, not the one in the main article. --Scott McNay 14:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part about Wordpad seems to be true

I've installed the release versions of Vista Ultimate (x86) and Office 2007 Enterprise. Both new and legacy Word documents cannot be openned in Vista's Wordpad. There is no *.doc or *.docx filter, and if you chose *.* as your filter and then chose either type of file, Wordpad displays gibberish.

Split up parts?

Could it be possible to move parts of the article to separate pages, as to reduce the size of the page? Media features, Security Features, Bundled Apps, and UI Features should have there own pages! :P

Modem support?

I notice in the article that some of the removed connectivity stuff is directly related to dial-up. Has dial-up gone out the window? If so, the article should say so explicitly. --Scott McNay 04:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reads like an add for MS

Not all functions are included in every version of Vista. Publishing stipped down versions (e.g. excluding Aero) gives MS the possibility to "allow" any user to pay dircectly to MS if they miss a feature in ther castrated windows. The really new features are mostly harmful for the end-user. DRM allows the media industry full control over ther customers and new backdoors will make it easy for security agencies to infiltrate systems. Good that the MS-guys controlling the vista articles eliminate any free speech. Welcome to 1984.--87.165.230.16 14:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a load of bs!
This article is a list of new features in Windows Vista. It is for neutral and comprehensive list of new features - not for critisism (for that you have Windows Vista article).
As for DRM, move on - it was already refuted by many experts. DRM in Vista is pretty much the same as in XP. Futurix 18:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about backwards compatibility with XP software?

Maybe I am missing something, but I didn't see a section in this article on whether or not MS Vista is backwards compatible with running XP software. I have a number of programs such as Corel WordPerfect, (WordPerfect Office 2002) and misc. programs from Canon, Broderbund, National Geographic 100 Years on CD-ROM, and Judaica Multimedia's Encyclopaedia Judaica CD-ROM. How can I find out if this software will run properly on Vista? The issue of backwards compatibility with recent legacy software (last 5 years or so) should be an important part of this article. Any help would be greatly appreciated. RK 21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, it depends on the software in question. Vista x64 doesn't run 16-bit programs, which is no great loss. UAC breaks some (poorly-coded) programs and drivers. However, Vista has an application compatibility menu to try to trick apps into working. A google search on "vista application compatibility" yields this article, which seems pretty spot-on: [6] —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Application compatibility is completely out of scope of this article - it is only about new features of Vista. Futurix 22:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Backronym

There seems to be a dispute over whether Aero is an acronym or a backronym. To me, it seems unlikely that Aero is a genuine acronym. I mean, who names a piece of software Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open and then after the fact thinks "oh wow, look, it spells aero"?

It is more likely that Microsoft came up with the name 'Aero' first (probably to spoof Mac OS X's 'Aqua' interface) and then invented Authentic, Energetic, Reflective, and Open retrospectively to fit.

On the other hand, Microsoft have never stated this was the case -- and are never likely to, even if its true. Therefore, in line with the main article on Aero, I've edited the article to read "an acronym (or backronym)", which covers both possibilities. 80.93.170.99 16:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Announced but removed features?

Were there not several Vista features, which MS in the end removed, because of time constraints? Could someone who knows them add a list of them to one of the Vista articles? Mlewan 05:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder - this shouldn't be in the current article, because it is about new Vista features only. Futurix 10:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Article

This article is now a good article. Congratulations to all who contributed to this article! Keep working to get this article to Featured Article status! Everything appears to be great for Good Article status. Work on the length to help this reach Featured Article status. Funpika 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review

This article is now up at WP:GA/R.

A couple of notes for reviewers:
  • Yes, this article is quite large - but this is because it is comprehensive. It is written in summary style, which is an occasional exception from WP:SIZE. Besides, large chunks of text where already moved to other articles.
  • Accusation of breaching WP:SOAP is stupid - this article is neutral and contains both good and bad changes in Vista.
Futurix 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted

GA Delist: See comments here. Further, it fails requirements of WP:WIAGA Nja247 Nicholas 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are now archived in GA/R archive 14. Homestarmy 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too Long

I believe this article is too long and could use some good editing and summarisation in many spots. As the review of this article stated (see above) others too, believe it's a tad too long. I copied/pasted it into Word, removed all the refs and such and it was well over 16,000 words (24,000+ with them). Generally, and as cited by wikipedia's guidelines on article length, articles exceeding 6,000-10,000 words become cumbersome to readers and many lose attention span after about 10 printed pages worth of material. This page was 65 pages in word before I removed refs, etc. Even with them, it was well over 40 pages.

So I guess we need a plan of action on how to summarise the article as best as possible without detracting too much from its content. Further, complicated matters may be broken off into seperate articles of their own. Further the exception is just that, an exception for highly complex subjects. I do not believe Vista is of such a complexity that it cannot be summarised. What do you all think aside from the one person who has already been quite clear they think everything is just peachy with this bloated article? Nja247 Nicholas 20:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My lord yes. I tried reading this thing and got bored a 1/4 of the way through. Many aspects could be covered in sub-articles, and there's a lot of space to summarize. Reading this talk page, I seen three or four other people make reference to its size, with one person defending its size. So with myself included, there's six posts saying something needs to be done, and one against. The thing is, it's a good article, however its mere size will make most people except the most avid Vista fans not want to read it. Look at the Tiger OS X article, or even the Windows XP articles: they're MUCH shorter and more condensed and fulfill the same goal of this very long article! Just my $.02 82.45.240.51 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe what you will, but we're talking about an operating system that was under development for about as long as World War II, with many thousands of people working on it full-time. Vista isn't some point-release or service pack, and it's certainly much larger in the scope of change than what came with Windows XP or even Windows 2000. If Wikipedia is going to take a stab at covering every noteworthy aspect (and why wouldn't it?), it necessitates a lot of space. The information presented here is already briefly summarised from the sources that are used, and a lot of information is still missing.
It may not be obvious, but there are already quite a number of sub-pages off of this page already, that discuss Vista's new features in varying degrees of length. Protected Video Path, User Account Control, ReadyBoost, BitLocker Drive Encryption, Windows Aero, and so on and so forth.
If you have something against long pages, go tag Contract bridge glossary, Frizzell County Championship Division Two in 2005, David I of Scotland, and Genealogy of the Russian Imperial Family, all of which are significantly longer than this article. People who aren't interested in meticulous detail can stick to Windows Vista, which is a very brief summation of what's in this article. Sometimes Wikipedia has pages that are really just reference material -- this is one of them. -/- Warren 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good discussion, but regarding your comment about wikipedia and this being just a reference page -- when this article went under review for good article status, there were 6 different reviewers in one-day that stated this article was either too long or written like an advertisement (or both). This is not the type of stuff wikipedia is for. I personally don't see this article as written like an advertisement. However, those comments are valid if the people making the accusations can back it up with some examples, which I have not seen thus far.
I guess if we get five other people that agree with you that it's not too long, then the issue will be split 50/50. Either way I think we could all agree to attempt to work on summarising information that is not pertinent. I could go through and easily eliminate about 20% of the filler in this article. I'm waiting for a consensus before I start hacking away, as I don't won't it to be immediately reversed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
It is long, but not too long. As far as consensus goes, I don't really see how 6 bypassers' opinion can be called consensus, when people who actually edit the article do not agree. Futurix 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I will review and cut parts of the article in the next 12 to 14 hours. There is definitely a lot of junk that can be removed without hurting the article quality itself. I'd very appreciate if there will be no other shortening during that time as this may become very confusing to maintain. Futurix 11:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you edit the article and think it's okay, does not invalidate the comments and views of others. There are no "bypassers" on Wikipedia; it's a community effort. All comments are valid. I agree if someone makes a statement and doesn't support it, then it should be disregarded, but when someone actually believes there is an issue and is willing to work to fix the perceived issue, then that comment is valid and needs addressed, especially by the people that are active in that particular article. Why wouldn't you want what you consider to be "your article" the best? It's far from it at this point, just look at the comments on it's submission for a 'good article'. However this article can be made better, but this will not happen if one or two users try to control the show. Again, while you may have worked hard on the article and should be commended for it, as overall it's a good article, you do not 'own it'. This must be resolved in a better than that it's been handled thus far. Users can't just remove comment tags that they don't agree with, unless it's spam, un-validated (without discussion). I'm willing to work on it, are you? Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother to read my second comment - I'm already working on shortening this article. My prior editing on this article was only to remove blatant "M$ sucks" or "Apple had it before" POV. Futurix 11:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article size is fine way it is. Adding 'long' modifier is like a permanent stamp on a this article. Given the amount of features added, even after culling this article into just a bunch of links (which in my opnion would also render it useless) the size will be big. Searpl

Edit war?

Am I in my first one? That is really sad. Per Help:Reverting:

When to revert

Do's

  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism', or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See alsoWikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

I have a genuine belief the article is too long. So did these people. I am willing to spend time to assist in removing excess filler in this article. I truly believe it can be shortened without loss of content and quality.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nja247. Actually, I'm glad he's pressing this because any criticism about this article at all has been disregarded by people that seem to believe they "own" the article. Yes, you may have worked hard on the article, but you should welcome criticism to make it better. The tag doesn't hurt the article like someone mentioned. A majority of wiki articles have some type of maintenance tag on them, such as for clean-up, citations needed, etc. This one is because the damn article is the longest thing ever. It could be published as a instructional manual.
It is not the longest, not even close. Futurix 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I highly recommend EVERYONE here read WP:OWN, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, Help:Revert.82.45.240.51 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have shortened article by 7kb today (mostly by moving some new features to individual software pages). I plan to continue tomorrow, if you don't mind.
BTW, "Windows XP features excluded" I think could be split into it's own article.
Futurix 02:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted most of your changes. Sorry. Remember that this article serves as the WP:SUMMARY-style target for the "new features" section of the Windows Vista article itself. Given that these applications are collectively an extremely visible part of what is new in Vista, it's important that they are expanded on here, while also acting as a brief summation of the full articles beyond. There are other areas which can be partitioned out into separate articles, e.g. Networking features new to Windows Vista, Management features new to Windows Vista, and so on. That's a better place to start than removing piles of information from the encyclopedia altogether simply because the article is long. -/- Warren 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remove information from Wikipedia, I moved it to different articles (the ones that were linked from the application names). In fact I oppose trimming of this article myself, but what can I do against 6 "experts" who "reviewed" this article and had "consensous" (sic!) that it should be shortened?
Not 'six', One guy actually voted twice.Searspl
Of course I'm pretty sure that they did not even bother to read the article, and acted entirely on the size... Futurix 11:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this article was the victim of blatant fanboyism - look up the history of the reviewers. Size is just an excuse to supress this article. Searspl

I think we need to have a plan of attack for this article, because this article is just too long and varied to have a compromise without a clear "vision", so to speak. I agree that this article is too long, especially for dialup which I am on (even though I am on 512Kb usually). However I also agree with Warrens, that just cutting info seems a bit desperate(if that makes sense). When the content from the main Windows Vista article was copied here and the remainder was summarised, it really helped improve the main article (I still have some quality concerns though). This article has grown "out of control" with no coherency. It really needs a plan to see it become a great article. Harryboyles 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of attack? Are you playing some game here? Yes, this article is long - and there seems to be quite a number of people, who think that this is O.K.
I think that some parts could be rewritten with more clarity, but generally the article is fine. Futurix 11:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I playing a game? I don't know myself :) Was I out of my mind when I wrote that. Probably. Alright, I'll start again. What I was trying to get at without getting over my head is that it is definitely too long. On my speed-reduced "broadband" connection (a.k.a 28.8 kb), it only seems to load half the article. From my perspective, the writing and section organisation starts alright, however near the end it feels less coherent and esp. with the Windows XP excluded part, it feels like a trivia section. By "plan of attack", what I was really thinking was a possible "partitioning out into separate articles" scheme. Certainly not a full article rewrite. Harryboyles 11:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Harryboyles, that a plan of attack needs to be worked out. I am willing to help in any capacity to improve the article. Also I think (believe it or not, the intro needs expanded). Also, I'd forget about the conspiracy theories that this is all a malicious attack by fan-boy'ism. I don't think it's true, and anyhow it doesn't resolve the inherent issue. Further, I actually came to this article wanting to read it as I like Vista and was interested in it and wanted to read about its new features. However, I was overwhelmed by the amount of content stuck onto one page. I actually had to break up reading the entire article into different sessions as it was just too long for general readability. So yes, I've read it. Also I work with the good article review team, and they work very hard to go a good job and demeaning their work is not cool at all. They volunteer their time to make Wikipedia better, just as you, and they don't need to get slack for that!

So anyway, I felt it was too long. I checked policy out and figured the page could use the "too long" tag. Further I came here to chat with the active editors to explain my POV and to offer assistance. I didn't post my tag and run off. That leads me to my final comment: one user keeps reverting my edit and has not once came here and commented on the issue I raised. I can understand that you may not agree with me, but have the common decency to explain your side and not smack me in the face by disregarding my input (and breaking Wiki etiquette). Again, I'm here to assist if needed and if things get cleared up we can get this article back to good article status.

Edit: To address one comment -- I don't think the article needs trimmed, though there are areas this could happen. I think many things could be re-structured and maybe broken off into other topic articles. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your intentions are suspect. You voted twice in the Good Article Review while pretending to be two different reviewers. Plus your history reveals that your +ve contributions have been for a competing OS. Clearly there is a bias here and your intention seems to be supress content rather than make any useful contribution to this article. Searspl 19:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just because I edited the Mac OS X article once in the last week does not make this into a conspiracy. Actually, if you look at the edit, it was a minor error I found in the article. I use both OS X and Windows, and if you bothered to read my post above I only came to this article to learn more about Vista, not to hate on it. To better illustrate my point, there's at least 10 other Vista related articles on Wikipedia, if not more, and I have no complaints with them at all. In fact I contributed slightly to the main Vista article relating to the price of the OS in the UK. Lastly, I never used another name to do anything. Making such an accusation is ridiculous, among other things. It's all in my contributes, there's nothing to hide, no malicious intent. This type of attitude doesn't address the concerns raised, nor does it contribute to a remedy. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

As you may have noticed, the article is now protected. This is bad, and good. It's bad, because now new content and revision can't be done on the fly. This is good though because of that same reason; content and revision can be thought out well and co-ordinated to make a stellar article. The above suggestions by users such as Warren, HarryBoyle, Futurix and others can be planned out and done well. I did not wish to have the page protected, but one user didn't want to adhere to wiki rules regarding improper use of reverts, even after I warned him this would happen if it didn't stop. To top it off, this same user not once came here to say "hey, i don't agree with you". With that said I have no issues with unprotecting the page, but I can only see this happening if the user in question learns to respect others views and the correct usage of the revert. Otherwise, it would just happen all over again. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy that the page got protected (having originally created the article and written a significant percentage of it), but if it's necessary to stop User:Figleaf from reverting edits without discussing it, then it's the right thing to do. -/- Warren 22:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of Talk page

I wanted to get feedback from you guys about archiving this page. Would that be something you're cool with? It's a bit cluttered. If it were archived, how old would you want a comment to be until it's archived? Two weeks, a month? Let me know your thoughts. It'd be easier to utilise this page to discuss article improvements and such if older, non-relevant content was archived away. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product Activation

I don't see any mention of product activation in the article, but the method of activation for Volume License customers has changed significantly in Vista and in terms of the effect on network administrators it's one of the big changes. Vista now activates itself against a local Key Management Server approx twice per year if you have over 25 Vista PCs on your network. There's a fairly clear FAQ on Windows Vista Volume Activation 2.0

I would add an item myself, but I'd be tempted not to lump it in with the "Other features and changes" junk section at the bottom of the article. I'm wary, however, of increasing the size of this hefty, monolithic article. Any advice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sahmeepee (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Features_new_to_Windows_Vista&oldid=107311919"