Talk:Technical features new to Windows Vista: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:08, 3 January 2012

Latest revision as of 18:25, 11 February 2024

(6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProject Microsoftbanner Windowsshell|class=B|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Computing |importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Microsoft |importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows |importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Software |importance=low}}

}}

{{SubArticle|Windows Vista}}

__TOC__

==Speech Recognition==

(moved from [[Talk:Features new to Windows Vista]])

Line 23 ⟶ 30:

== Article length ==

This article is also becoming too long. I suggest splitting off the [[Technical features new to Windows Vista#Programmability|Programmability]] section to a new [[New APIs in Windows Vista]] or similar article. That way this article could be shortened. And we could have quite some breathing room to discuss the new APIs as well as scripting and programmability. Also then we would have three articles - one for non-technical users, one for moderately technically savvy users and the other for the hardcore geeks. --<span class="mysigtalk" style="padding: 0.1em; border: 1px solid #F22; background-color: #Fda; color: #000;">''[[User:Soumyasch|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff6633;">soum</fontspan>]]''</span>^{''[[User talk:Soumyasch|<font color="white"span style="color:white;background: #ff6633;">talk</fontspan>]]''} 09:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

: Sorry for taking so long on this! I think a separate article covering Group Policy and management features might be an easier way to go. I say that, because I'm thinking about how a lot of the programming content would replicate stuff that is (or should be) in [[.NET Framework]]. Which bears an interesting question... should we just vastly reduce the amount of text on the .NET 3.0 stuff in this article, and make sure it's well-covered at the main article on the framework?

Line 29 ⟶ 36:

: Another thought, and this is a bit ambitious (even for us!), would be to integrate information about new APIs into articles about those APIs where appropriate. I was thinking about this a few weeks ago, about how it would make a lot of sense to have a bit of text in, for example, [[Desktop Window Manager]] describing the existance of a programmable API for thumbnails. Code samples would be going a bit far, but a summation with the candour of, say, [[Dashboard (software)#Creation of widgets]], would be nice. The programmability of an operating system feature seems like an important aspect to cover! <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User talk:Warrens|-/-]] [[User:Warrens|Warren]]</span> 11:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::Splitting the management features sounds like a good idea. And yes, I totally agree APIs should be given a bit more coverage. And delegating overlapped text (like the .net part you mentioned) to their own article keeping only summary here is necessary for the sake of size. We already have articles on WCF, etc. They should be enhanced. And for the DRM features, I am first inclined to expand the Protected Media Path and Windows Rights Management Services first. if needed, thenafter, a separate DRM article may be created. Also, each subsystem (WCF/WPF/WF as also Media Framework, DirectX, DWM, Sidebar Gadgets etc) should have an API coverage in their own article. I am quite willing to give it a try. And, what about those subsystems which do not have their own article (networking, sound, print etc) - I still support an API article for their sakes. This wont repeat stuff from the dedicated articles. --<span style="background-color: #Fda;">''[[User:Soumyasch|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff6633;">soum</fontspan>]]'' [[User talk:Soumyasch|(0_o)]]</span> 12:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

::: I haven't looked into the WinFX stuff much in my professional life so I don't really feel qualified to do much there. That seems more your area of expertise. So yeah, give it a shot! I'll tackle creating this new article. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> [[User talk:Warrens|-/-]] [[User:Warrens|Warren]]</span> 12:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Line 37 ⟶ 44:

I want more technical details! No, I will not detail my request. VISTA RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!!! <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/208.234.55.11|208.234.55.11]] ([[User talk:208.234.55.11|talk]]) 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:Your question is too general! --<span style="background-color: #Fda;">''[[User:Soumyasch|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff6633;">soum</fontspan>]]'' [[User talk:Soumyasch|(0_o)]]</span> 17:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

== Pruning the programmability section ==

I am summarizing the API descriptions here and linking them to the main article. This, I think, would take some significant load off this article. --<span style="background-color: #Fda;">''[[User:Soumyasch|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff6633;">soum</fontspan>]]'' [[User talk:Soumyasch|(0_o)]]</span> 17:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

== Networking related "other features and changes" ==

WebDAV, Folder sharing info, DFS Replication, Network projection are networking related parts. They should be moved and "made to fit" somewhere into the Networking article. How about starting an "Other features" section in the Networking article?

:It might be helpful, but I am not trerribly fond of the section title. But in the absense of a better title, we can go ahead with that one, changing it when a better name strikes someone.--<span style="background-color: #Fda;">''[[User:Soumyasch|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#ff6633;">soum</fontspan>]]'' [[User talk:Soumyasch|(0_o)]]</span> 18:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:Volume Mixer Vista.png==

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]

Line 104 ⟶ 111:

Is it possible to locate a stolen laptop if someone is using it to gain internet browsing. I don't know the serial number of an ACER laptop. Very critical to business <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.65.57.166|173.65.57.166]] ([[User talk:173.65.57.166|talk]]) 20:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Dubiousness in Audio section ==

"The new audio stack runs at user level, thus increasing stability." seems dubious to me. Simply moving things to user-space doesn't make anything 'more stable' (except the kernel, if the audio subsystem is/was buggy). It can be ''rewritten'' in user-space and provide additional stability because the old code was buggy, but simply moving anything to user-space never increases stability. If the rewrite caused additional stability? It is not because it now runs in user-space. I'd actually argue against the statement of moving things to user-space making code more stable, since all code running in user-space is subject to lesser privileges than kernel-code? The kernel can then terminate the user-space code at will. I doubt a kernel module would ever be terminated and unloaded. Then again? I'm not a windows/kernel expert.

If it is meant that it ''increases stability'' of the kernel and not stability of the audio subsystem? This should also be made clear.[[Special:Contributions/2001:981:9B5E:1:1417:4806:4588:4D36|2001:981:9B5E:1:1417:4806:4588:4D36]] ([[User talk:2001:981:9B5E:1:1417:4806:4588:4D36|talk]]) 02:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)