Talk:Windows Vista

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Windows Vista article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 6 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Windows Vista was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 10, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
November 9, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
December 7, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 20, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 7, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 13, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Computing: Software High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

Microsoft (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft

Microsoft Windows (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows

Software: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as High-importance).

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Out-of-band patches section claims that an update for the "Text Services Framework patch" vulnerability was released for Windows Vista. While one can certainly install the Windows Server 2008 patch on Windows Vista, as they are architecturally compatible, neither the cited source nor any news article I could find support, that Microsoft released a separate patch for Vista, nor did they seem to have endorsed installing the Server 2008 patch on Vista. Which is why I request the mentioning of that update to be removed.

Techmolt (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Done You're correct in that there was no mention in the cited source of Vista as a product that specifically received the patch. I've removed the relevant text. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Windows 6 (AKA Windows Vista)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Windows 6 (AKA Windows Vista) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 23 § Draft:Windows 6 (AKA Windows Vista) until a consensus is reached. GTrang (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this true?

In the article it was stated that:

"Final release Service Pack 2 with June 2025 security update (6.0.6003.23351) / June 10, 2025; 7 days ago"

However the reference does not match with the claim:

https://catalog.update.microsoft.com/ScopedViewInline.aspx?updateid=1f5e16e0-8277-41be-80ed-24be052dc4a6#Overview

x64 Tabanlı Sistemler İçin Windows Vista Güncelleştirmesi (KB4036162) Son Değiştirme: 17.08.2017 Boyut: 14,1 MB UpdateID: 1f5e16e0-8277-41be-80ed-24be052dc4a6

https://support.microsoft.com/kb/4036162 79.123.129.20 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely incorrect. Although Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 ("R1") has the same codebase with different SKUs, and security patches of Server 2008 ("R1") beyond 2017 can be applied to Windows Vista without hassle unofficially, it doesn't mean Windows Vista receives official security support. The build number should be reverted to the one in the reference.

I don't know if unofficial support should be mentioned in the article somewhere though. 38.190.59.11 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (September 2025)

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 3 external links on Windows Vista. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,113701,00.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/4/f/84f00e29-10b8-4342-a102-f75100c8aa15/WVPG%20Revisions%20RTM.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/transcripts/fy09/Cowan_and_Company_Tami_Reller_05282009.doc
Added archive https://archive.today/20120530163648/http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Will-Your-PC-Run-Windows-Vista/ to http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843945,00.asp

Please refer to the FaQ for information on correcting errors with the bot.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change " Final Release Service Pack 2[4] with September 2025 security update (6.0.6003.23529) / September 9, 2025; 27 days ago[5] " to Final Release Service Pack 2[4] with August 17, 2017 security update (6.0.6002.24170) / July 21, 2017; 7 years ago ". This page currently shoes the final current release of Windows Server 2008 rather than Windows Vista. The 2017 security is the correct final update for Windows Vista. (https://www.catalog.update.microsoft.com/Search.aspx?q=vista+update) Magicmace2000 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: July 21, 2017 was 8 years ago. Magicmace2000 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The date should actually be August 17, 2017 ( Final Release Service Pack 2[4] with August 17, 2017 security update (6.0.6002.24170) / August 17, 2017; 8 years ago ) Magicmace2000 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template.

This is far beyond my depth.
I don't think this can be an edit request, at least for now, as the 2025 bit is rather longstanding. @Win11EnterpriseFan originally made that change, so hopefully they can shed some light on this. It does seem that the sources (refs) are outdated. Good luck and happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Revert the "Final release" in the sidebar back to 2017-08-17 (the one from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Vista&oldid=1279103732). The current date is unsourced. Vista hasn't received any (official) updates past that date. Windows Server 2008 still receives security updates, and having the same kernel as Vista (version 6.0), there are unofficial ways to apply those to Vista.

89.246.45.131 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: See the response to the previous edit request concerning this, above. Day Creature (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for what? Wikipedia already has that: WP:PROOF and WP:NOR. The edits made by Win11EnterpriseFan have no sources and should be reverted on those grounds alone. Wp12897628 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

missing info

there is missing info like no mention of the red screen of death which was famously on the windows vista Yisroel The Great2025 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All 2025 and January 2026 Updates for Windows Vista are unofficial

Final Official Support: The underlying codebase for Windows Vista (Windows Server 2008) received its final, paid, and extended security updates in January 2026, marking the absolute end of Microsoft-supported security patches. Unofficial Updates: Tech enthusiasts (e.g., Bob Pony) have released custom images incorporating these final, unofficial, or late-stage enterprise fixes to keep systems functional and relatively secure. Legacy Update Tools: Tools like "Legacy Update" can be used to bring older Windows Vista installations up to date with the latest available patches. Risks: While these updates exist, running Windows Vista in 2026 is highly insecure and not recommended for internet-connected machines due to the extreme age of the operating system. Ken choo (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2026

“““09””” — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-16344-18 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To implement any edits, which this might not be implemented due to it seeming to be just a number, we do need to know where to put the requested edit. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 14:20, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Vista final update section (April 2026)

Windows Vista has not seen an official update since April 2017, why is the last update which is for only Windows Server 2008 or Windows Server 2008 R2 being shown as the final release? This seems a little misleading for someone who could be looking up information about the operating system and thinking it has updates all the up to that point without the modfications to allow the user to recieve updates in that service channel, especially for anyone who could ve not very tech savy. I'm sure this doesn't apply to very many people but it would really help make it more conistent with the other pages about Windows on here (for instance Windows 8 / Windows 8.1, older legacy versions & Windows 10).

This same style is also applied Windows XP article as well using POSReady 2009 as the final update. Rf472d (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

not sure about the Windows XP article, but i have updated the infobox to instead refer to KB4499180, the out-of-band patch for the BlueKeep security vulnerability from 14 May 2019. this was the final update Microsoft released that was intended to be installed on Windows Vista, as despite being listed as a Windows Server 2008 update, the Microsoft Support article for it (https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/topic/may-14-2019-kb4499180-security-only-update-081acd25-afa4-fb15-2dc1-fefcece4325a) states that it is applicable to Windows Vista. LK Computes (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hm the Vista patch is interesting, never heard about that one but yeah I just assumed a 2019 update for XP would have been apart of POSReady 2009 since it had the ten year support window. Rf472d (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah after checking it seems that the Windows XP article, as well as the Server 2003 one, are also referring to the BlueKeep patch. i'll go ahead update this article's infobox again to say "Service Pack 2 with May 2019 security patch" instead to match those, unless someone else thinks "BlueKeep patch" is a better way to refer to this fix. LK Computes (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the POSReady 2009 one, from what I remember from my previous searching about XP, would be due to POSReady 2009 running the XP SP3 kernel. 2009's modified kernel was similar enough to XP SP3 that the updates for it would just work with some slight modifications to the OS on XP SP3. Server 2003 is also a modified SP3 kernel, but its kernel version is 5.2 instead of 5.1 like SP3's. If I fully remember right, not all POSReady 2009 updates work on plain XP, and it definitely is not recommended for updating XP if you don't make sure you know exactly what updates you are applying. (It has been a few months since I worked with XP so I don't fully remember what exactly is what).

I do believe I know why the Vista update was for that too. From what I remember when I screwed with Windows Server installs in my VMs, 2008 used Vista SP1's kernel (and SP2 of 2008 was Vista SP2, apparently released at the same time as SP2 for Vista), whereas 2008 R2 uses 7's kernel. 2008 is basically Vista in Windows Server form, so the updates are basically compatible with a patch for Vista. It was definitely not supported by Microsoft, but people still figured out how to get the Server counterpart's updates to work on normal Vista. Again, as they were not intended for using it on normal Vista, not all of the updates worked, especially ones that required on components found in the Server versions.

Hope this helped! SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone apparently keeps changing it back to the Server 2008 final update. It shouldn't change to that since it is unofficial support. SuperJames888 (Talk to me) 15:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]