Talk:Criticism of Windows Vista

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Criticism of Windows Vista article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article was nominated for deletion on November 5, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

	This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.

To-do list for Criticism of Windows Vista:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Find more information on pirates ability to disable and get around the anti-piracy features.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

Copyedited by Cheers, Kodster (You talkin' to me?) (Stuff I messed up) – 22:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Windows Vista, due to size or style considerations.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


Archives
July 10, 2007 December 31, 2007
About archives • Edit this box

1 Gutmann Content
2 Public reception and sales
3 quake 4 and directx
4 Pricing
5 POV
6 Windows 2008 Workstation
7 Co-ordinated Universal Time?
8 External links
9 Games Section
10 Criticism Article should become Reception
11 Software bloat
12 Specific Programs Deletion?
13 Pricing Section

[edit] Gutmann Content

I know that the Gutmann content has been greatly discussed in the past, however since a majority of that discussion the article itself has changed significantly. As such, this section is entirely too long relative to the rest of the article. It should undergo some significant reduction to bring it in-line with the rest of the article, especially considering the reactions which question his credibility or authority on the subject. Your thoughts? I'll take a quick look now to see if I can simplify, but it may be something I'll have to work on later -- I simply wanted to raise the issue up the flagpole now, and head off any flack from the other editors. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 05:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. Time doesn't change the fact that the criticism was made and got a lot of attention. -/- Warren 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public reception and sales

I can't see why this section has been moved here from the main Windows Vista page. Yes, it does have a critical result but the section itself should be in the main page. It's not criticism. Can we have some discussion about this please? peterl (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There should have been a dicussion before the move. Regardless of where the consensus puts it, its POV needs to be addressed (perhaps the POV was the catalyst for the move?) Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's been moved around twice now. How do we go about getting a consensus? I'm happy to do some NPOV editing as well. peterl (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If it can get a major NPOV editing overhaul it might be suitable to be put back in the main article. But as it stands now it's, quite frankly, obviously just a bunch of biased Vista bashing, and deserves to be placed in the criticism section. Exodite (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If it is biased, then it should be fixed or deleted, not moved to an article about the position towards which the information is biased. In other words, the bias towards criticism doesn't make it belong in the criticism section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Then if someone fixes it and gives it a NPOV overhaul, it can be moved back. Until then, moving it here is better than deleting it. Exodite (talk) 03:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] quake 4 and directx

this is a minor thing and I might be wrong, but doesn't quake 4 use opengl instead of 'DirectX 9 or older', as mentioned in software compatability > games? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.239.162 (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe so as well. Quake 4 states that an OpenGL compatible graphics card is required. No mention of DirectX is made. Additionally, Quake runs on Linux, although it could support DirectX as well. Cyrus Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing

Dear Vista sufferers, and Vista upgraders to XP,
I propose the inclusion of a table with the retail prices of the individual Vista products globally. This way we can easily compare the prices, and see how much we must shell out for an "upgrade" to WV.
George Adam Horváth (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

It is abundently clear that their is a POV problem with this article. I dont have the time to re-write the article, but perhaps the more neutral editors can try and keep an eye on this article.

For instnace, I offer "Adam horvath"'s contribution above...

Wikipedia is not a junior-school haxor club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wageslave (talk • contribs) 17:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI, my contribution to the article was in an appropriate style, although you may find that the POV of my comment above is somewhat biased. That's probably because I've used vista. In any case, discussion pages are supposed to be the colloquial places where people can recommend things in a more personal way, in a style that is different from an encyclopaedia article. I'm sure you, dear unsigned contributor, also agree with this. George Adam Horváth (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 2008 Workstation

What about addressing the Windows 2008 Workstation issue in the article? Vista done right...--Kozuch (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Co-ordinated Universal Time?

Since this issue is not Vista specific, it should be removed. Especially if it has been like this since Windows was introduced.

It's not Vista-specific. See kb899855 Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The only one of the three citations in the paragraph that actually has any criticism in it is from *2001*, and its main complaint is that Microsoft OSes "don't follow the POSIX standard" -- nonwithstanding that POSIX defines a standard for Unix-like OSes... -- simxp (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Right then I'll remove it..if anyone has any objections, revert. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.138 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Why are only articles that promote a certain point of view being added and not articles that refute them? That seems like a gross violation of NPOV to me. --soum ^talk 12:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. There's no point in having these links. If people have something to say, it should be said by adding verifiable material from reliable sources to the article. I'm going to remove them. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Games Section

Games

"Vista has implemented DirectX 10, and Vista also has DirectX 9.0L for backward compatibility.[52] In Paul Thurrott's review of Vista[53], he notes that the Windows XP-compatible games he tested worked fine in Vista, with the exception of two games published by id Software: Doom 3 and Quake 4. Thurrott suggests that the problems might be related to the graphics driver, as "Microsoft says [these titles] should run fine in Vista.""

It says right there, the problems might be related to the drives, thus making this critisism pointless. Dvferret (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Wageslave (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this performance test (ExtremeTech is quite reliable IMO), Vista's gaming nightmares are completely gone. Those were only driver issues. - xp client ^talk 21:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Article should become Reception

It seems that this article has become a bit of a dumping ground to create a hit-piece. I appreciate it is a "criticism" article, but shouldnt it be more Neutral to have a "Reception" article with a more netural-POV? Wageslave (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. It's fun to hate Microsoft, which is why there's an entire category dedicated to anti-MS hit pieces. Criticism sections are discouraged - I imagine entire criticism articles doubly so. I'm in favor of your suggestion. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No. The reason for the existance of a Criticism article is entirely and solely as a daughter article of the Windows Vista article; specifically, the Criticism section. That is the only reason that an article which only puts forward 'one side of the argument' is allowed: because, formally, it's just the full version of one section of the parent article, and so the POV is balanced by the other sections of the parent article. From the other side, articles such as Features new to Windows Vista don't violate the anti-marketing-brochure guidelines for exactly the same reason. Incidentally, someone may well someday create a "Reception of Windows Vista" article, because there is also a Reception section in the Windows Vista article, which may get long enough to be partially split off into its own daughter article. But that wouldn't this article unless the "Reception" and "Criticism" sections in the parent article were to be merged. Renaming this article to "Reception" and balancing the POV would certainly not improve anything: people would just expect it to be an expansion of the Reception section and be annoyed when they discover it isn't. -- simxp (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

But, based on this policy it is strongly discouraged,

"The main argument for this is that they are often a troll magnet"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRITICISM#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section

I suggest we endevour to integrate this section into the rest of the article where appropriate. This article should be dismantled, integrated into the other articles instead of being a "hit piece" as it currently reads.

Wageslave (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia:Criticism is not a policy document -- it's an essay. We aren't bound to make editing decisions based on it. Wikipedia:Summary style article layout, however, is a manual of style guideline, and should be followed.

Second, your suggestion is hardly new -- I've been hearing it for more than two years, and nobody, not a single person has been able to come up with a way to do it. The problem is that you can't integrate the criticism we have into the rest of the article, because most of the things that are being criticised aren't covered elsewhere in the article. Where would we put content about digital rights management or file copy operations in the main text of the article? Under "new features"? The fact that Vista has a new file copy engine is waaayyy down on the list of things that we need to cover. Likewise with the new DRM stuff, because it doesn't actually affect the vast majority of people in any appreciable fashion that is new to Windows Vista (compared with XP), so it doesn't get much airtime in the article. UAC is the only exception here, and if that were moved inline with the rest of the article, we'd end up with a situation where some of the criticism is inline, and some of it is in its own section, thus making it more difficult for readers to get a quick summation of the major points of controversy and criticism about Vista (which, let's face it, is a topic of interest to our readers, given how many people dislike it). -/- Warren 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Where would we put content about digital rights management"

How about in a section called Digital Rights Managment in the Vista Article. It would cover, in a neutral manner, the virtues and drawbacks of DRM, and the reception and criticism of it?

Wageslave (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that idea!Dvferret (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps including some mention in the topic on digital rights managment would be best yet.

Well something needs to be done with the DRM part. I dont see the point in having those two arguments with it.Dvferret (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software bloat

What does [Criticism_of_Windows_Vista#Software_bloat] serve other than to have a sub-heading of "Software bloat".

Concerns have been expressed that Windows may be experiencing 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." Former PC World editor Ed Bott has 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]

Why is that paragraph even present? Its just a hit-paragraph.

Wageslave (talk) 17:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive been wondering about it also. Its just as bloated as OSX is.Dvferret (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specific Programs Deletion?

I propose that we delete this section as well. I dont believe it is needed. I believe that once again it IS the developer's fault for NOT updating the software for the new operating system.Dvferret (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur, at least it shuld be removed from its own section and be integrated into the article above. Also, the very first line of the Software compatibility needs to be made more neutral. Go to it. Wageslave (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's gone. If someone disagree's, discuss it here before trying to add it back. Thanks. Dvferret (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing Section

The pricing section needs to be rewritten to be more neutral sounding. Right now it is very biased, liked with using the word "striking". Dvferret (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)