deletion. The debate was closed on 11 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Criticism of Windows Vista. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see ; for its talk page, see
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.
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)
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]
Two things. One: Any attempts to duplicate large amounts of information between articles will be stopped. It's an extremely stupid idea. Writing criticism of the platform as a whole in a criticism article about a single version of it would be like going to the Michigan article and writing criticism about the American government's actions in Iraq.
Two: If you or anyone wants to write criticism that relates to the entire history of Windows, that's fine , but use the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article. Don't be put off by the fact that it's a disambiguation article -- the reality is that, after several years of Wikipedia's existence, nobody's actually produced reliably sourced material that applies to the entire platform. If it can be demonstrated that a criticism applies to every release from 1.0 to Server 2008 SP1, then put it in that article. Otherwise, if the criticism only applies to Windows NT, go for Criticism of Windows NT. Yes, that article doesn't exist of that writing, but don't be put off by that either.
Warren -talk- 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What exact unsupported conclusion is being drawn? Windows 7 Annoyances supports entire sentence, Windows Vista Resource Kit supports the first part about concerns. What's the problem? 1exec1 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There is still no source for criticism. Trying to label it as "slight" criticism doesn't cut it, especially since the claims have been taken out of context of the books which each also explain the advantages and the reasoning. WP should explain all significant viewpoints. Cherry-picking single sentences and passing them as criticism (while they're not) is dishonest and is not supported by the sources. Fix it or remove it. --Useerup (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Useerup, I find it disgusting that you are going ahead and removing large chunks of text when this talk page obviously shows there is no consensus to do so. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to remove material when it is 1) not properly sourced and 2) potentially damaging. In this case I tagged it before removing it and allowed for ample time to find a source of criticism. In general, when material is disputed and until consensus can be built to keep material in an article, it should be left out until such consensus can be built. In this instance the "criticism" was expressed by WP editors - not by any of sources. Expressing your own criticism of a certain decision by a public figure or company and then referencing sources which merely report on the decision is not properly sourcing. This article is about criticism; it is not a web page where random editors can express their personal criticisms. For criticism to get a mention here it must be notable, it must have been expressed through a media which has meaningful editorial oversight and effort must have been made to see is there are any significant opposing viewpoints. If there are, they must be mentioned too. Be disgusted all you want, but that is the standard this article will be have to meet. Useerup (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
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.
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)
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]
Two things. One: Any attempts to duplicate large amounts of information between articles will be stopped. It's an extremely stupid idea. Writing criticism of the platform as a whole in a criticism article about a single version of it would be like going to the Michigan article and writing criticism about the American government's actions in Iraq.
Two: If you or anyone wants to write criticism that relates to the entire history of Windows, that's fine , but use the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article. Don't be put off by the fact that it's a disambiguation article -- the reality is that, after several years of Wikipedia's existence, nobody's actually produced reliably sourced material that applies to the entire platform. If it can be demonstrated that a criticism applies to every release from 1.0 to Server 2008 SP1, then put it in that article. Otherwise, if the criticism only applies to Windows NT, go for Criticism of Windows NT. Yes, that article doesn't exist of that writing, but don't be put off by that either.
Warren -talk- 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What exact unsupported conclusion is being drawn? Windows 7 Annoyances supports entire sentence, Windows Vista Resource Kit supports the first part about concerns. What's the problem? 1exec1 (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There is still no source for criticism. Trying to label it as "slight" criticism doesn't cut it, especially since the claims have been taken out of context of the books which each also explain the advantages and the reasoning. WP should explain all significant viewpoints. Cherry-picking single sentences and passing them as criticism (while they're not) is dishonest and is not supported by the sources. Fix it or remove it. --Useerup (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Useerup, I find it disgusting that you are going ahead and removing large chunks of text when this talk page obviously shows there is no consensus to do so. Wickedjacob (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is not required to remove material when it is 1) not properly sourced and 2) potentially damaging. In this case I tagged it before removing it and allowed for ample time to find a source of criticism. In general, when material is disputed and until consensus can be built to keep material in an article, it should be left out until such consensus can be built. In this instance the "criticism" was expressed by WP editors - not by any of sources. Expressing your own criticism of a certain decision by a public figure or company and then referencing sources which merely report on the decision is not properly sourcing. This article is about criticism; it is not a web page where random editors can express their personal criticisms. For criticism to get a mention here it must be notable, it must have been expressed through a media which has meaningful editorial oversight and effort must have been made to see is there are any significant opposing viewpoints. If there are, they must be mentioned too. Be disgusted all you want, but that is the standard this article will be have to meet. Useerup (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
RSS Feed