|Part of a series on|
Windows Vista, an operating system released by Microsoft for consumers on January 30, 2007, has been widely criticized by reviewers and users. Due to issues with new security features, performance, driver support and product activation, Windows Vista has been the subject of a number of negative assessments by various groups.
Driver signing requirement
For security reasons, 64-bit versions of Windows Vista allow only signed drivers to be installed in kernel mode. Because code executing in kernel mode enjoys wide privileges on the system, the signing requirement aims to ensure that only code with known origin execute at this level. In order for a driver to be signed, a developer/software vendor will have to obtain an Authenticode certificate with which to sign the driver. Authenticode certificates can be obtained from certificate authorities trusted by Microsoft. Microsoft trusts the certificate authority to verify the applicant's identity before issuing a certificate. If a driver is not signed using a valid certificate, or if the driver was signed using a certificate which has been revoked by Microsoft or the certificate authority, Windows will refuse to load the driver.
The following criticisms/claims have been made regarding this requirement:
- It disallows experimentation from the hobbyist community. The required Authenticode certificates for signing Vista drivers are expensive and out of reach for small developers, usually about $400–$500/year (from Verisign).
Microsoft allows developers to temporarily or locally disable the signing requirement on systems they control (by hitting F8 during boot) or by signing the drivers with self-issued certificates or by running a kernel debugger.
At one time, a third-party tool called Atsiv existed that would allow any driver, unsigned or signed to be loaded. Atsiv worked by installing a signed "surrogate" driver which could be directed to load any other driver, thus circumventing the driver signing requirement. Since this was in violation of the driver signing requirement, Microsoft closed this workaround with hotfix KB932596, by revoking the certificate with which the surrogate driver was signed.
Flaws in memory protection features
Security researchers Alexander Sotirov and Mark Dowd have developed a technique that bypasses many of the new memory-protection safeguards in Windows Vista, such as address space layout randomization (ASLR). The result of this is that any already existing buffer overflow bugs that, in Vista, were previously not exploitable due to such features, may now be exploitable. This is not in itself a vulnerability: as Sotirov notes, "What we presented is weaknesses in the protection mechanism. It still requires the system under attack to have a vulnerability. Without the presence of a vulnerability these techniques don't really [accomplish] anything." The vulnerability Sotirov and Dowd used in their paper as an example was the 2007 animated cursor bug, CVE-2007-0038.
One security researcher (Dino Dai Zovi) claimed that this means that it is "completely game over" for Vista security though Sotirov refuted this, saying that "The articles that describe Vista security as 'broken' or 'done for,' with 'unfixable vulnerabilities' are completely inaccurate. One of the suggestions I saw in many of the discussions was that people should just use Windows XP. In fact, in XP a lot of those protections we're bypassing [such as ASLR] don't even exist."
Digital rights management
Another common criticism concerns the integration of a new form of digital rights management (DRM) into the operating system, specifically the Protected Video Path (PVP), which involves technologies such as High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) and the Image Constraint Token (ICT). These features were added to Vista due to licensing restrictions from the HD-DVD consortium and Blu-ray association. This will concern only the resolution of playback of protected content on HD DVD and Blu-ray discs, but it has not been enabled as of 2017. A lack of a protected channel does not stop playback. Audio plays back as normal but high-definition video downsamples on Blu-ray and HD DVD to slightly-better-than-DVD quality video.
The Protected Video Path mandates that encryption must be used whenever content marked as "protected" will travel over a link where it might be intercepted. This is called a User-Accessible Bus (UAB). Additionally, all devices that come into contact with premium content (such as graphics cards) have to be certified by Microsoft. Before playback starts, all the devices involved are checked using a hardware functionality scan (HFS) to verify if they are genuine and have not been tampered with. Devices are required to lower the resolution (from 1920×1080 to 960×540) of video signals outputs that are not protected by HDCP. Additionally, Microsoft maintains a global revocation list for devices that have been compromised. This list is distributed to PCs over the Internet using normal update mechanisms. The only effect on a revoked driver's functionality is that high-level protected content will not play; all other functionality, including low-definition playback, is retained.
- Adding encryption facilities to devices makes them more expensive, a cost that is passed on to the user.
- If outputs are not deemed sufficiently protected by the media industry, then even very expensive equipment can be required to be switched off (for example, S/PDIF-based, high-end audio cards).
- Some newer high-definition monitors are not HDCP-enabled, even though the manufacturer may claim otherwise.
- The added complexity makes systems less reliable.
- Since non-protected media are not subject to the new restrictions, users may be encouraged to remove the protection in order to view them without restrictions, thus defeating the content protection scheme's initial purpose.
- Protection mechanisms, such as disabling or degrading outputs, may be triggered erroneously or maliciously, motivating denial-of-service attacks.
- Revoking the driver of a device that is in wide use is such a drastic measure that Gutmann doubts Microsoft will ever actually do so. On the other hand, they may be forced to because of their legal obligations to the movie studios.
Reaction to criticism
Bott's criticisms can be summarized as follows:
- Gutmann based his paper on outdated documentation from Microsoft and second-hand web sources.
- Gutmann quotes selectively from the Microsoft specifications.
- Gutmann did no experimental work with Vista to prove his theories. Rather, he makes mistaken assumptions and then speculates wildly on their implications.
- Gutmann's paper, while presented as serious research, is really just an opinion piece.
Technology writer George Ou states that Gutmann's paper relies on unreliable sources and that Gutmann has never used Windows Vista to test his theories.
Gutmann has responded to both Bott and Ou in a further article, which states that the central thesis of Gutmann's article has not been refuted and the response of Bott is "disinformation".
Microsoft has published a blog entry with "Twenty Questions (and Answers)" on Windows Vista Content Protection which refutes some of Gutmann's arguments.
- Microsoft is not to blame for these measures. The company offered this solution as an alternative to not being able to playback the content at all.
- The Protected Video Path will not be used for quite a while. There is said to be an agreement between Microsoft and Sony that Blu-ray discs will not mandate protection until at least 2010, possibly even 2012.
- Vista does not degrade or refuse to play any existing media, CDs or DVDs. The protected data paths are only activated if protected content requires it.
- Users of other operating systems such as Linux or Mac OS X will not have official access to this premium content.
Since mainstream and extended support for Windows Vista has ended on April 10, 2012 and April 11, 2017 respectively, plans to enable the Protected Video Path for Windows Vista is very unlikely.
Hardware requirements and performance
Some of the hardware that worked in Windows XP does not work, or works poorly in Vista, because no Vista-compatible drivers are available due to companies going out of business or their lack of interest in supporting old hardware.
Tom's Hardware published benchmarks in January 2007 that showed that Windows Vista executed typical applications more slowly than Windows XP with the same hardware configuration. A subset of the benchmarks used were provided by Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation (or SPEC), who later stated that such "results should not be compared to those generated while running Windows XP, even if testing is done with the same hardware configuration." SPEC acknowledges that an apple-to-apples comparison cannot be made in cases such as the one done by Tom's Hardware, calling such studies "invalid comparisons." However, the Tom's Hardware report conceded that the SPECviewperf tests "suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista". For this reason the report recommended against replacing Windows XP with Vista until manufacturers made these drivers available.
The report also concluded in tests involving real world applications Vista performed considerably slower, noting "We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios". Other commonly used applications, including Photoshop and WinRAR, also performed worse under Vista.
Many low-to-mid-end machines that come with Windows Vista pre-installed suffer from exceptionally slow performance with the default Vista settings that come pre-loaded, and laptop manufacturers have offered to "downgrade" laptops to Windows XP—for a price. However, this "price" is unnecessary, as Microsoft allows users of Windows Vista and Windows 7 to freely "downgrade" their software by installing XP and then phoning a Microsoft representative for a new product key. 
File operation performance
When first released in November 2006, Vista performed file operations such as copying and deletion more slowly than other operating systems. Large copies required when migrating from one computer to another seemed difficult or impossible without workarounds such as using the command line. This inability to efficiently perform basic file operations attracted strong criticism. After six months, Microsoft confirmed the existence of these problems by releasing a special performance and reliability update, which was later disseminated through Windows Update, and is included in Service Pack 1.
Nonetheless, one benchmark reported to show that, while improving performance compared to Vista's original release, Service Pack 1 does not increase the level of performance to that of Windows XP. However, that benchmark has been questioned by others within ZDNet. Ed Bott both questions his colleagues' methods and provides benchmarks that refute the results.
Early in Vista's lifecycle, many games showed a drop in frame rate compared to Windows XP. These results were largely the consequence of Vista's immature drivers for graphics cards, and higher system requirements for Vista itself. By the time Service Pack 1 was released in mid-2008, gaming benchmarks showed that Vista was on par with Windows XP. However, games such as Devil May Cry 4, Crysis and Left 4 Dead stated that their memory requirements on Vista were 1.5x–2x higher than XP.
Concerns were expressed that Windows Vista may contain 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 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.
Vista capable lawsuit
Two consumers sued Microsoft in United States federal court alleging the "Windows Vista Capable" marketing campaign was a bait-and-switch tactic as some computers with Windows XP pre-installed could only run Vista Basic, sometimes not even running at a user-acceptable speed. In February 2008, a Seattle judge granted the suit class action status, permitting all purchasers in the class to participate in the case. Released documents in the case, as well as a Dell presentation in March 2007, discussed late changes to Windows Vista which permitted hardware to be certified that would require upgrading in order to use Vista, and that lack of compatible drivers forced hardware vendors to "limp out with issues" when Vista was launched. This was one of several Vista launch appraisals included in 158 pages of unsealed documents.
Laptop battery life
With the new features of Vista, criticism has surfaced concerning the use of battery power in laptops running Vista, which can drain the battery much more rapidly than Windows XP, reducing battery life. With the Windows Aero visual effects turned off, battery life is equal to or better than Windows XP systems. "With the release of a new operating system and its new features and higher requirements, higher power consumption is normal", as Richard Shim, an analyst with IDC noted, "when Windows XP came out, that was true, and when Windows 2000 came out, that was true."
According to Gartner, "Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system." Cisco has been reported as saying, "Vista will solve a lot of problems, but for every action, there's a reaction, and unforeseen side-effects and mutations. Networks can become more brittle." According to PC World, "software compatibility issues, bug worries keep businesses from moving to Microsoft's new OS." Citing "concerns over cost and compatibility," the United States Department of Transportation prohibited workers from upgrading to Vista. The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center said that the rollout of Vista is significantly behind schedule because "several key programs still aren't compatible, including patient scheduling software."
As of July 2007, there were over 2,000 tested applications that were compatible with Vista. Microsoft has published a list of legacy applications that meet their "Works with Windows Vista" software standards as well as a list of applications that meet their more stringent "Certified for Windows Vista" standards. Microsoft has released the Application Compatibility Toolkit 5.0 application for migrating Vista-incompatible applications, while virtualization solutions like VirtualBox, Virtual PC 2007 or those from VMware can also be used as a last resort to continue running Vista-incompatible applications under legacy versions of Windows.
Microsoft also provides an Upgrade Advisor Tool (.NET Framework must be installed and an Internet connection is required) which can be used on existing XP systems to flag driver and application compatibility issues before upgrading to Vista.
Removal of announced features
Microsoft has also been criticized for removing some heavily discussed features such as Next-Generation Secure Computing Base in May 2004, WinFS in August 2004, Windows PowerShell in August 2005 (though this was released separately from Vista prior to Vista's release, and is included in Vista's successor, Windows 7), SecurID Support in May 2006, PC-to-PC Synchronization in June 2006. The initial "three pillars" in Vista were all radically altered to reach a release date.
Microsoft's international pricing of Vista has been criticized by many as too expensive. The differences in pricing from one country to another vary significantly, especially considering that copies of Vista can be ordered and shipped worldwide from the United States; this could save between $42 (€26) and $314 (€200). In many cases, the difference in price is significantly greater than was the case for Windows XP. In Malaysia, the pricing for Vista is at around RM799 ($244/€155). At the 2007 exchange rate, United Kingdom consumers paid almost double their United States counterparts for the same software.
Microsoft has come under fire from British consumers about the price it is charging for Vista, the latest version of Windows. British (and French) customers will pay double the US price. The upgrade from Windows XP to Vista Home Basic will cost £100 (€126), while American users will pay only £51 ($100, €64).
Since the release of Windows Vista in January 2007 Microsoft has reduced the retail and upgrade price point of Vista. Originally Vista Ultimate full retail was priced at $399, and the upgrade at $259. These prices have since been reduced to $319 and $219 respectively.
Software Protection Platform
Vista includes an enhanced set of anti-copying technologies, based on Windows XP's Windows Genuine Advantage, called Software Protection Platform (SPP). In the initial release of Windows Vista (without Service Pack 1), SPP included a reduced-functionality mode, which the system enters when it detects that the user has "failed product activation" or that the copy of Vista is "identified as counterfeit or non-genuine". A Microsoft white paper described the technology as follows:
The default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. [...] After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning.
Some analysts questioned this behavior, especially given an imperfect false-positive record on behalf of SPP's predecessor, and given at least one temporary validation server outage which reportedly flagged many legitimate copies of Vista and XP as "Non-Genuine" when Windows Update would "check in" and fail the "validation" challenge.
Microsoft altered SPP significantly in Windows Vista Service Pack 1. Instead of the reduced-functionality mode, installations of Vista left unactivated for 30 days present users with a nag screen which prompts them to activate the operating system when they log in, change the desktop to a solid black colour every hour, and periodically use notification balloons to warn users about software counterfeiting. In addition, updates classified as optional are not available to unactivated copies of Vista. Microsoft maintains a technical bulletin providing further details on product activation for Vista.
Windows Ultimate Extras
Windows Vista Ultimate users can download exclusive Windows Ultimate Extras. These extras have been released much more slowly than expected, with only four available as of August 2009, almost three years after Vista was released, which has angered some users who paid extra mainly for the promised add-ons. Barry Goffe, Director of Windows Vista Ultimate for Microsoft states that they were unexpectedly delayed on releasing several of the extras, but that "Microsoft plans to ship a collection of additional Windows Ultimate Extras that it is confident will delight its passionate Windows Vista Ultimate customers."
This term was coined as a disparaging substitute for the proper name of the Vista operating system. Use of the term was popularized by its use on The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs, a technology and pop culture comedic blog where author Daniel Lyons writes in the persona of then Apple CEO Steve Jobs. This use is in reference to the failure of Vista to meet sales and customer satisfaction expectations. Lyons published an article in Forbes using the term, and it was soon picked up by international media outlets: Jornal de Notícias, Rádio e Televisão de Portugal, La Nación, The Chosun Ilbo, and 163.com.
Contemporary and retrospective analysis by many fans and tech analysts[who?] argue that Windows Vista did not in fact deserve its negative reception and reputation. That it had modernized and introduced features that would not only become staples of Microsoft Windows, but of other operating systems as well. Essentially, that Vista was arguably ahead of its time, and that PC hardware simply wasn't ready for it.
One such retrospective analysis by Linus Sebastian echoes many of the popular sentiments in defense of Vista. Namely that it was more the fault of lagging OEMs who did not follow Microsoft's well-defined guidelines as to the technical specs needed to run Vista. This caused the much maligned mislabeling of underpowered PCs as “Vista Capable”, despite referring strictly to Windows Vista Home Basic edition. Installing fully featured versions of Vista on said underpowered hardware inhibited the lagging and instability issues.
He also states that the RAM usage issue was gravely misunderstood by most, and that Microsoft certainly could have done a better job of marketing the new feature. Vista introduced a new memory management model that loaded frequently used programs and files in to free system RAM to smooth out operation. Most users didn't know of or understand this feature, so they accused Vista of “hogging” system RAM.
Sebastian further notes that the complete overhaul from Windows XP to Windows Vista exacerbated the driver problems. Unlike the transitions from earlier popular versions of Windows that shared the same kernels as each other, that drivers often needed to be completely re-written for Vista, and hardware and OEM manufacturers simply weren't prepared, and didn't heed the warnings as such. The increasingly sour reputation of Vista caused said hardware developers and OEMs to stall on developing capable drivers, which even further soured Vista's reputation.
He further argues that Windows 7 was effectively Windows Vista with some fine tuning, and a fresh coat of paint. By the time of its release, OEMs and hardware manufacturers had three years to correct their Vista-capable driver issues, and that computer hardware had drastically improved in that same period of time.
Overall, Sebastian argues that while Vista wasn't perfect, the OS suffered from a dreadful launch that it never recovered from. And then a rather unfair scapegoating of the flaws of the hardware of its time, and the unpreparedness of hardware and OEM manufacturers in dealing with a completely overhauled operating system.
- "Driver Signing Requirements for Windows". Microsoft. Archived from the original on May 30, 2012. Retrieved February 23, 2008.
- "Microsoft blocks 64-bit driver". Heise Security UK. August 8, 2007.
- "Software Publisher Certificate". Microsoft.
- "Linchpin Labs Response to Microsoft's Classification of Atsiv". Archived from the original on March 26, 2009.
- Marsden, Richard. "Microsoft Authenticode for the Small Independent Software Vendor". Retrieved May 27, 2008.
- van Eerde, Matthew. "How to install unsigned drivers". Microsoft. Retrieved August 28, 2012.
- Gregg Keizer (June 30, 2007). "Utility evades Vista kernel defenses". Computerworld. Archived from the original on January 16, 2009. Retrieved September 14, 2008.
- "Microsoft Security Advisory: Update to improve Kernel Patch Protection". Microsoft. October 26, 2007. Retrieved March 3, 2008.
- "How to Impress Girls with Browser Memory Protection Bypasses" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 26, 2010. Retrieved August 28, 2008.
- "The sky isn't falling: a look at a new Vista security bypass".
- "Alarmed about Vista security? Black Hat researcher Alexander Sotirov speaks out".
- "Researchers use browser to elude Vista memory protections". Searchsecurity.techtarget.com. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- Marsh, Dave (April 27, 2005). "Output Content Protection and Windows Vista". Microsoft. Archived from the original on November 16, 2006. Retrieved January 8, 2007.
- Marsh, Dave (January 20, 2007). "Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)". Windows Vista team blog. Microsoft. Archived from the original on January 21, 2013. Retrieved January 20, 2007.
- Gutmann, Peterson (January 27, 2007). "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection". Retrieved January 27, 2007. Also available: PDF version Archived May 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- Bott, Ed (September 16, 2007). "Everything you've read about Vista DRM is wrong". Retrieved September 21, 2007.
- Ou, George (September 1, 2007). "Gutmann Vista DRM paper uses shoddy Web Forums as source". Retrieved September 22, 2007.
- Peter Gutmann (computer scientist). "Windows DRM: A Response to the Disinformation". Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved October 27, 2007.
- Nick White and Dave Marsh (January 20, 2007). "Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)". Archived from the original on January 21, 2013. Retrieved January 22, 2007.
- Smith, Paul (December 31, 2006). "Windows Vista DRM nonsense". Retrieved January 3, 2007.
- Fisher, Ken (May 21, 2006). "Hollywood reportedly in agreement to delay forced quality downgrades for Blu-ray, HD DVD".
- Judge, Elizabeth (May 20, 2006). "Windows revamp 'too advanced for most PCs'". The Times. London. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
- Spooner, John G.; Foley, Mary Jo (August 5, 2005). "Will Your PC Run Windows Vista?". eweek.com. Retrieved August 15, 2006.
- Thurrott, Paul (March 29, 2006). "Finally, Microsoft Releases Windows Vista Hardware Requirements". WindowsITPro.com. Archived from the original on October 25, 2017. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
- "Creative mute on Vista Soundblaster drivers". Apcmag.com. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
- "Windows Vista's biggest problem". WinTuts.com. Retrieved June 28, 2015.
- Santo Domingo, Joel (May 4, 2007). "New Benchmark Tests for Vista". tomshardware.com. Retrieved May 13, 2007.
- Williams, Ian (May 29, 2007). "Understanding the impact of Windows Vista on SPECviewperf performance measurement". Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. Retrieved October 29, 2008.
- Schmidt, Patrick (January 29, 2007). "New Benchmark Tests for Vista, Conclusion". tomshardware.com.
- "Microsoft gets sued over Windows XP downgrade fees". Engadget. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
- "calculating time remaining moving, deleting, copying files very slow". Archived from the original on August 18, 2007.
- "An update is available that improves the performance and reliability of Windows Vista".
- "Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper". Archived from the original on September 2, 2007. (See 'Performance' section)
- Kingsley-Hughes, Adrian (February 15, 2008). "Vista SP1 vs. XP SP2 - Benchmarked". Retrieved February 16, 2008.
- "Another take on Vista vs. XP benchmarks". February 19, 2008.
- Abazovic, Fuad (December 4, 2006). "Testing Vista's different memory configurations". theinquirer.net. Archived from the original on February 10, 2007. Retrieved May 13, 2007.
- Williams, Rob (January 29, 2007). "Windows Vista Gaming Performance Reports". techgage.com. Retrieved May 26, 2007.
- Cheatham, Miles (November 24, 2006). "ATI Radeon X1950XTX CrossFire". bjorn3d.com. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved May 18, 2007.
- Cross, Jason (February 20, 2007). "Vista Game Performance: Vista vs. XP and ATI vs. Nvidia". extremetech.com. Archived from the original on May 19, 2007. Retrieved May 26, 2007.
- Wall, Jason (May 7, 2007). "XP vs. Vista - A Tale of Framerates". enthusiast.hardocp.com. Archived from the original on January 1, 2010. Retrieved May 26, 2007.
- Durham, Joel (May 12, 2008). "Gaming Performance: Windows Vista SP1 vs. XP SP3". extremetech.com. Archived from the original on June 7, 2011. Retrieved July 29, 2008.
- "Devil May Cry 4 Games Requirements". pcgamerequirements.com. Archived from the original on April 10, 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
(Minimum Requirements) Memory 512MB (Windows XP), 1GB (Windows Vista)
- "Crysis System Requirements". crysis-online.com. Archived from the original on April 9, 2009. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
(Minimum Requirements) RAM: 1GB (1.5GB on Windows Vista)
- "Valve Updates Left 4 Dead Requirements". ign.com. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
RAM: 1 GB for XP / 2 GB for Vista
- "Microsoft to slim down 'bloated' Windows".
- Ed Bott. "Windows bloat? It's always been that way".
- McDougall, Paul. "informationweek.com". informationweek.com. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
- Stross, Randall (March 8, 2008). "They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know". New York Times. Retrieved March 8, 2008.
- NYTimes – Dell Pointed Out Vista Mistakes, Internal Documents Show
- Fried, Ina (June 2, 2006). "Vista beta sucks up battery juice". news.zdnet.com. Archived from the original on May 20, 2007. Retrieved May 6, 2007.
- "Vista draining laptop batteries, patience".
- Krazit, Tom (May 4, 2007). "Vista draining laptop batteries, patience". news.zdnet.com. Archived from the original on May 7, 2007. Retrieved May 6, 2007.
- "Gartner: App testing delaying Vista rollouts". zdnetasia.com. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
- "Microsoft rallies developers behind Vista". zdnetasia.com. Archived from the original on September 28, 2007. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
- "No Rush to Adopt Vista". IDG, quoted on PC World. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
- "Microsoft Hit By U.S. DOT Ban On Windows Vista, Explorer 7, and Office 2007". Information week [www.informationweek.com]. Retrieved May 22, 2007.
- "Six months on, Vista users still griping (page 2 - The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a member of Microsoft's Vista Technical Adoption Program)". MS NBC [NBC News]. Retrieved July 27, 2007.
- "Windows Vista Service Pack 1 Beta White Paper". Microsoft. August 29, 2007. p. 1. Archived from the original on September 2, 2007. Retrieved August 29, 2007.
- "Application List: Works with Windows Vista". Archived from the original on February 2, 2012.
- "Application List: Certified for Windows Vista". Archived from the original on July 4, 2008.
- "Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor".
- "What's been yanked from Vista, and when". Information Week. June 26, 2006. Retrieved July 23, 2018.
- "Windows Vista Versus XP Pricing". PC World. September 1, 2006. Archived from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
- "Windows Vista Too Expensive Says Users". IT Wire. August 30, 2006. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
- "Vista still looks expensive after cuts". New Zealand Harald. March 5, 2008. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
- Warne, Dan (January 22, 2007). "Is Vista's Australian pricing a rip-off?". apcmag.com. Archived from the original on February 12, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
- "Vista comes to rip-off Britain". The Inquirer. January 23, 2007. Retrieved January 24, 2007.
- "Microsoft vilified over price of Vista". VNU Business Publications. February 2007. Archived from the original on February 3, 2007. Retrieved January 23, 2007.
- Protalinski, Emil (June 25, 2009). "Windows 7 pricing announced: cheaper than Vista (Updated)". Retrieved October 4, 2009.
- Computerworld. "The Skinny on Windows SPP and Reduced Functionality in Vista". Archived from the original on May 27, 2007.
- Microsoft PressPass. "Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Protecting Software and Customers from Counterfeiter". Archived from the original on July 6, 2007.
- "White Paper: Microsoft's Software Protection Platform: Innovations for Windows Vista and Windows Server "Longhorn"" (DOC). Microsoft PressPass. October 3, 2006.
- "Hands On: A Hard Look at Windows Vista". November 10, 2006. p. 15. Archived from the original on October 15, 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
- Bott, Ed (October 4, 2006). "For Vista, WGA gets tougher". Ed Bott's Microsoft Report. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
- Ed Bott (October 4, 2006). "Another wave of WGA failures". Ed Bott's Microsoft Report. Retrieved July 19, 2007.
- "Windows Genuine Advantage suffers worldwide outage, problems galore (updated)". Retrieved August 24, 2007.
- "Update on Validation Issues". Retrieved July 28, 2007.
- "ZDNET Hardware 2.0: SP1 brings with it a softer, gentler, naggier WGA". September 2, 2008. Retrieved July 22, 2008.
- "Product Activation for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008". November 6, 2007. Archived from the original on December 15, 2007.
- Phillips, Josh (June 13, 2007). "Ultimate Extras, Where are you?". windowsconnected.com. Archived from the original on May 23, 2012. Retrieved May 1, 2016.
- Dunn, Josh (July 4, 2007). "Microsoft evades promise of Vista Ultimate Extras". windowsconnected.com. Retrieved July 4, 2007.
- Long Zheng. "Windows Ultimate Extras is a sham - where's the responsibility?".
- "Windows DreamScene released!". September 25, 2007. Archived from the original on February 11, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2007.
- Steve (May 27, 2008). "The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs : New word: "vistaster"". Fakesteve.net. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- "Farewell, Bill Gates". Forbes.com. July 21, 2008. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- "Bill Gates desliga-se da Microsoft". JN. June 4, 2010. Retrieved June 11, 2010.[permanent dead link]
- "Bill Gates desliga-se de uma Microsoft que vive tempos agitados - RTP Noticias". Tv1.rtp.pt. June 6, 2010. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- "Bill Gates se retira de Microsoft". lanacion.com. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- "빌 게이츠 없는 마이크로소프트의 운명은? - 1등 인터넷뉴스 조선닷컴". Chosun.com. August 28, 2008. Archived from the original on June 11, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- "没有盖茨,微软是否能够发展得更好?_网易财经". Money.163.com. Archived from the original on July 21, 2011. Retrieved June 11, 2010.
- "Was Windows Vista THAT bad?". Youtube.com. Retrieved December 2, 2019.
- "Was Windows Vista THAT bad?". Youtube.com. Retrieved December 2, 2019.