My intent is not to start a flame war, rather, it is an attempt to start a serious discussion of Windows Vista and its pros/cons.

Granted, I will say that the security in Vista is laughable compared to UNIX-like Operating Systems. The UAC, in my opinion, is very intrusive; but if you turn it off, you open yourself to an onslaught of issues. But, at the same time, it also must be pointed out that Microsoft did a much better job at security this go-around. For instance, I have never had a virus on Windows Vista, even without virus protection; whereas with Windows XP, I constantly had to worry about these issues, even with virus protection.

At the same time, Microsoft is criticized at the amount of new eye-candy in Vista. Granted, too much can be a distraction, but I believe that Microsoft found a balance in Aero. When you look at Vista with Aero versus Windows XP, which looks more aesthetically pleasing? Vista looks more OS X-ish than the previous versions, and isn’t that what the majority of the users on this site appreciate?

The main reason why Vista gets such a bad reputation is user-based. One cannot be serious expecting Vista to be smoother than XP with 512MB of RAM, integrated graphics, and a 1.8GHz Intel Core Duo processor. I find it quite funny sometimes hearing the expectations of these people. Most think that having a fast processor automatically equals a fast user experience. People are amazed that my Pentium 4 four-year-old computer running Vista can run circles around their Core 2 Duo. My specs can be seen in my signature.

So, what are your thoughts on this issue?

Pro: Dual monitor support blows osx out of the water. OSX cannot even disable one at a time...
Pro: Software support

I cannot list any cons off hand that leopard doesnt suffer from either:
Shared Con: require more than 1GB of ram to be happy

I guess one con for vista would be that its not as flashy as leopard out of the box. But with some additional software can do things like expose and spaces.

I think a major issue with vista is that it needs a stable platform to run on. It doesnt like bad memory, where xp would deal with it. Also it had some issues with sleep in the beginning. If microsoft choose the hardware though it would not have so much hate... all in all its good but it can and will be better. As well mac

all pros for me. runs beatifully with 10gb ram. only nag is the genuine software, but its only a popup so it doesnt bother me

all pros for me. runs beatifully with 10gb ram. only nag is the genuine software, but its only a popup so it doesnt bother me

All of us aren't lucky enough to have 10 gigs of RAM, but it runs perfectly good with 2GB, I've tried with 1GB but that is not nearly enough although its still fine for the usual stuff (word processing, email, web browsing, office work, etc.) and even some light gaming. And no nag screen with my genuine Windows Vista Ultimate

Vista is probably the best 64-bit OS I've ever used. Running it on 4 gb of ram now, and it was a HUGE difference from 2 gb.

Are you.. not running genuine Vista?

I have purchased Vista x64 for my PCs, and WGA is invisible to me.

I like Vista. It looks nice, runs nice, and all of my software runs fine under it.

too chatty, I want my OS to get out of the way and let me do what I want, you have to disable UAC to cut back on these and less security in windows is not an option to me

mem usage too high

"runs beautifully with 10 gb ram" wow

LoL... I'd say there's some serious overkill right there. It runs just fine on 4GB of ram, and more than passingly well on 2. Same as OSX. As for how good it looks... well, opinions differ. I, personally, have skinned the sucker. Found myself a nice, unobtrusive, dark, relatively minimalistic skin. Pretty.

That aside, I'm working with 64bit Vista, which loves my photoshop far more than the 32bit version did. However, that tends to tone down the amount of games I can even try to play in what little spare time I have. Much as I was against the extra weight of the OS when it first came out, though, I have to admit I've gotten used to the flashyness and the extra little visual details that make XP seem so plain nowadays. (Plain...but FASTER. mmMMM. Faster.)

No real qualms, though. To be fair, I like to think that it's better to get more power for your money. So, with the same basic compatibilities one can find in XP (barring those few that have disappeared in Vista), I'm tempted to say XP is the better way to go. Not so much so because Vista is WORSE, but rather because it ends up using more resources for no indispensable reason.

That having been said, I'd like to point out that I was unlucky enough to pick up a virus on 32bit Vista a while back. With antivirus software installed. It was a stupid, stupid thing that ended me up with a virus on my PC though. OS independent. (Lack of sleep and computers are not always a good idea, in the same context.)

So, yeah. Little gain, but I like the prettyness, and I can spare the resources. And thus, I like me some Vista on the main PC, some XP on the secondary for gaming and on the laptop because I really need the ram for photoshop.

It's a new OS though. People were expecting Vista to use as much memory as XP, but XP you have to remember is what, 5-6 years old? Maybe close to 8. Maybe other new OSs like Leopard don't use as much memory, but Leopard is designed for one platform, and is completly based on another kernal. So you can't really compare them. And 2 gb is the standard pretty much right now, and is cheap. Now say 2 gb of ram was like $300, then I could agree with all the memory complaining. But even though it uses more memory, it manages memory extremely better than XP.

Surely though Linux and *BSD run on all kinds of hardware, compiz-fusion on linux runs on all sorts of hardware and yet uses much less memory and other resources than windows...

Cons: it's slow, doing the simplest things feels like driving a Canyonero -disk operations are pretty crappy. Leopard -at least hacked Leopard- suffers for a lot of the same issues.

Pros: It's got the best "dazzle" effects. The compiz effects for *nix are alright, but except for the cube (which is always a PITA for me to set up) they tend to be more stupid or annoying than anything else. The effects for Vista are good looking and practical (the preview view on the taskbar and the 3d flip effects).

It's the prettiest OS out there, imho.

Still -for practical day-to-day usage I'd rather go with a skinned XP or Leopard.

Again, totally different operating system. May not be on different platforms, but different core, different everything.

The worst thing about Vista is that it had great potential(winFS, just to name an example), and instead, we got this thing. It ran OK for me only after a big clean at the services menu. And the degradation(performance loss as time goes by) was a lot faster than xp's.

Microsoft screwed it up. Big time. Vista could have been a great OS.

Im not trying to strat a war, these are just MY opinions.

Pros
Good Driver detection if you're too lazy to seach for hours for drivers.
Direct x 10
64 bits compatability with programs/drivers

Cons
I don't like the ui. It is just not very good looking. I also dont like the fact that the only way to customize it is windows blinds.
RAM I really dislike how much ram it uses. im sorry, but using xp64 = 600 mb of ram searching web and music. Vista64 = 1.6 gb
I also don't like how microsoft is almost forcing you to upgrade to vista. Direct x 10 will work perfectly fine in xp too.

That is basically it.
I would not be complaining about like 1.2 gb of ram, but 1.6 is a little outregeous don't you think

Vista is supported well, but it lags and the system itself hangs from time to time.
My rig should NEVER lag, but I have had it freeze for a few seconds while I am doing no more than im and browsing. Its bloatware.

Now, on the plus side vista is very easily customizable since its so well used, and there are TONS of freeware apps to do everything over the rainbow with it.
But for daily use, my vista experience has been full of bugs and I dont like it.


Which is why I ended up here!

I think I didn't buy memory just to have it sitting idle. Seems pretty silly to me complain that something is being used for what it was intended.

It's like everyone has been trained to think your RAM should just sit there and do nothing.


The only time people should worry about RAM usage is

a.) If it's NOT being used because maybe you have some ridiculous amount like 10 gigs or because your OS is dumb like XP.

b.) Your machine is slow because it's started using the disk instead.


My experience with Vista has been mixed, I've seen it fly on one machine and not have any issues and I've also seen it crash and burn on a different machine with similar specs. Driver issues not necessarily OS problems, as usual. That's what happens when you try to support everything out there.

Just a question to the advanced Vista test drivers. Do you feel it's less bloated than XP was out of the box? I mean in terms of pointless or even potentially vulnerable services running all the time. MS' quite vague documentation what those service exactly do and which are safe to disable without wondering later why this or that app slows down or crashes all the time.

After a few months of heavy use, do you perceive less slump in performance than in XP? In other words, does it clog up as easily and quickly as XP does (ie. orphaned driver files that could interfere with new installs, the registry catching more dirt than the wing on my car etc) ? How about fragmenting when working with large files, video for instance?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trolling against MS. I reckon these are valid points and I would definitely give it another shot if those issues are handled more elegantly than they used to, ie. leave it all in the hands of the user.

Do you feel it's necessary to do a clean slate about once or twice a year and reinstall the whole kit and kaboodle, the same way XP was literally screaming for it on a regular basis?

EDIT: think of it in a multimedia context (mainly music and video) but on a professional basis, recording studio etc. I'm in the middle of making a gear list for a mid-sized studio. I'll be dealing with people who are very used to XP but who are not particularly keen on continuing with it (mostly for the reasons I've mentioned). My immediate suggestion was a Mac Pro hands down but I've also heard good things about Carillon (a UK made PC optimised for recording studios). They come with XP but if Vista really cuts the mustard, that might be an alternative...

cheers

Euh, I wont go into pros and cons, I'm only going to tell you what I use Vista x64 for:

1. Games
2. Watching Vids in Surround (Audigy 2 ZS)
3. Converting vids to DVD with subs

Thats it, workflow is still much better on OSX.

Really? I didn't notice much difference from 2 to 8...

Not trying to convert anyone here, but this is how I look at it:

XP installs on older Win98 hardware and runs pretty well; it's fairly snappy on a P3 550MHz.
XP was desireable (even with initial growing pains) as it combined 9x's compatibility with Win2k's stability.
XP was around for over half a decade doing everything we needed or wanted it to do for us.

vs.

Vista often doesn't even run smoothly on the hardware it's sold on, let alone legacy.
Vista added 'features' which were largely uncalled for and are often turned off in annoyance.
Vista fills a hole we simply don't need filled; no one I know was whining and clamoring for a newer OS.

Of course Vista will eventually replace XP. They've scheduled an EOL for XP, stopped selling it everywhere they could, and are spending billions promoting Vista. It's really quite simple; unlike the 98/ME -> XP days, we're not driven by a reason to switch anymore. So it better be dang seamless in doing so not to ruffle feathers. Unfortunately, it was a mess, hence the bad publicity they are striving to undo now (Windows Mojave).

Joe user used to be able to walk into a computer store and have a salesman tell him how much faster this new XP model was compared to his XP Pentium4 at home. "You can do everything you used to do- but FASTER!" That's an easy sale. "Your games won't lag... Office opens much quicker... you can multitask better." He understands that.

Now he walks in and sees a different (often confusing) interface to learn, sees programs running just as slow on his older XP box, and every little problem or glitch after that becomes one more reason to hate this new Windows Vista thing. Maybe he even buys it for the slick GUI, not being geeky enough to know that XP can be made to look the same....

It's not that Vista's awful, no. It's a perfectly acceptable OS. The hurdle here is that (to a consumer) it's just eye candy coming at too high a cost. Luckily for Microsoft, it's often more difficult (if not impossible with lack of driver support) for end users to replace it with XP. M$ just has to play a waiting game to win.

When I bought my Acer laptop half a year ago, I chose a third option. I wiped Vista off it, installed XP on one partition, and OSX on the other. I now pretty much exclusively use Leopard and enjoy it very much. Both it and XP run circles around Vista on my "budget" hardware. Of course, most people won't do this. But I'm glad I had the choice. Being an IT geek forces me to be a realist, but it also helps be a non-conformant

The bottom line is what I tell my customers: If it works for you, that's all you need; enjoy! If you're unhappy, then we can discuss options and alternatives. No need to start a crusade when some people would rather just buy another 1GB of RAM. Teach those that wish to be taught, be happy for those who are satisfied. I may have my personal opinions, but doesn't everyone? Somewhere right now somebody's grandmother is extolling the virtues of WindowsME because she knows exactly how to use it to get her email. Just because 99% of the world cringes at that thought doesn't make her need correction. Some people still argue about the superiority of manual typewriters and 33rpm vinyl records

Here's a question:
If Vista sucks so much, then how does it have a higher market share than Mac OS X?

Windows is far better supported than OS X is. Beyond that, windows has gained the upper hand in the market and since OS X is so radically different most people wont switch simply because windows is familiar.

Now, vista really sucks, and alto of people have been switching to mac. In fact, vista is what pushed me to join these forums.


Apple is coming up though, and windows is on its way out (hopefully).

Vista has a higher market share because:

-Windows itself has a higher market share, though the Vista fiasco has helped the OSX share grow
-You can buy a Windows PC at WalMart and other stores for under $300, or laptops for under $500
-If you (or a neighbor) has some basic knowledge you can build your own PC and slap on Windows

vs:

-Mac started out with a smaller user base, with the image of being a hip / cool / elite alternative niche
-There's no Macs at WalMart, and the stores that do carry Macs sell them for thousands, not hundreds
-OSX (legally) only runs on Apple-blessed $$$ hardware; no build-your-own money-saving whiteboxes

Some aspects of this are slowly changing, though. The OSX86 community is growing. People are specifically building boxes based on Mac hardware. EFI usb keys are being sold to allow for retail Leopard dvd's to install on PC's. Vista's negative image combined with the lack of XP availability has pushed many to try Mac. Hence Microsoft spending billions trying to "correct" their image with the silly Mojave commercial, and the direct response to the Mac ads ("I'm a PC, and I've been stereotyped.")

Personally, I think Microsoft has lost sight of what customers want. We love Firefox because it's free, very functional, and doesn't get in our way. We like the idea of Google's Chrome because it's free, fairly functional, and faster. In response, Firefox is being reengineered with webkit to run even faster than Chrome. 10.5.x updates (at least from what I've seen) tend to improve performance, polish the experience. Only Microsoft has this idea stuck in their head that anything new has to double the hardware requirements, double the difficulty, and double the price. Their only saving point currently is the Windows userbase lock-in, and having the widest driver database. Microsoft will stay on top of the heap for quite a while yet regardless of what bloatware it puts out. But I see a change already slowly occurring, or a lot of us wouldn't be here on this forum

I might be the only one here to argue this point but I like vista SO much more than xp. Does anyone on this forum even remember using xp before sp2? For those that don't remember it sucked. It had little to no driver support when xp came out and had tons of bugs. Vista on the other hand also had some driver issues (video mainly but that was at the fault of intel, nvidia, and amd), and some issues with older computers. Guess what, maybe its time for an upgrade? I haven't used a computer with less than 2gb of memory for years and if you don't have that much you shouldn't be using aero anyway.

I attempted at going back to xp after a couple of months of using vista and went right back to vista a couple days later because my computer ran faster in vista than it did in xp because of the speed increases that vista has over xp. I also had some major stability problems with my memory in xp (which works fine in vista and osx86).

/rant

good point, agreed 100%

Who cares? How many P3-550's are out there? More importantly, how many P3-550's are out there where the owner wants to upgrade? If they are still on a machine that went out of production nearly a decade ago, they likely won't be dropping a couple hundred bucks on an OS.


Prior to XP, people had been using DOS for almost 20 years. Does this mean DOS is a preferred product? Four times longer than XP!



While this issue has become a legal one, it's also true that today, in October 2008, a PC sold with Vista will be far more capable of running it than one sold on the first machines when Vista was originally released almost two years ago. One needs to work a little harder to get a machine that can't run Vista to some level of "good" today.


UAC is a necessary evil. The common user (ie. soccer mom) isn't particularly tormented by UAC prompts, as they don't tend to install a lot of "bad practices" apps and they don't tend to spend 10 hours a day clicking Administrative Tools icons. At least UAC in Vista can be toggled. In any other OS that uses elevated privs for things (ie. OS X) you can't just click a couple of things and turn it off. Any time a (real) Mac user runs a Software Update that installs a new kernel or other system files.. they have to enter their password. Run a new app the first time, it asks if it's OK to run.


I didn't think I wanted Vista either until I used it. I find it refreshing and easier to look at all day than some dreary grey theme or dopey Fisher Price luna junk. Some people can still look at XP all day. I try to avoid it whenever possible.


The preloads at the computer store will never run right. They come with the same old junk bloat apps that have plagued preloads for years. First order of business on any machine bought from a store is to wipe and restart fresh. Even MS is getting tired of the bad rap they get because of this. For the record, XP can't do Aero. It may look like Aero, but it's not Aero. A skinned theme does not make Aero. It's a lot more than that.


If stealing OS's to run on your "budget" hardware is how you roll, that's fine. My hardware is a little higher up the food chain, and I don't feel like dealing with an OS that may or may not brick on the next Software Update. Vista sees all of my hardware without me having to hand-pick it, and OS X on my Mac is where it belongs and it runs as it should there.

Oh, but then you forget the time and hardware difference between XP and Vista.

I love how people complain about the requirements for Vista. For one, hardware isn't that much anymore since it's been expanded on so many levels. You can get a dual core cpu under $50. Back when XP came out, single core cpus were still pricy. As well as ram! 2 gb of ddr2 800 right now is just above $30. And you act like Vistas requirements aren't reasonable at all. 2 ghz cpu, 512 mb, 15 gb of space. 2 ghz isn't a lot not compared to cpus. The standard of ram is 2 gb right now, and ram is still dropping in prices, and harddrives are completely cheap.

As you can see from my signature, my computer is above the vista requirements. I rate 5.5 on the vista scale
And yet, it lags. It freezes and it takes up 42% of my ram on startup (first time I booted, seriously).


I get what your saying, and yea people cant expect vista to run on older machines. But it doesnt even run on newer machines!

Even so, a company with good ethics would have designed their program to work on lesser computers (ie: stardock engineers their products so they will work on older computers). Granted, advancements require...well, advances.
But vista has taken this too far. It does lots of cool things, but mac does cool things to and uses alot fewer reasources. If mac can do it, vista should be able to as well.

I use Windows Vista Ultimate x86 on my Athlon X2, with 1 GB of RAM, and it's very usable.
If Vista is slow, blame the OEMs for preinstalling crapware and inutilities on your PC, but "clean" vista is a good OS.

I might have to agree with you a little bit there but I used vista ever since it came out until I just began to notice the horrible interface and I went searching across the net until I found docks for vista. After some time of searching I began to admire the interface of OS X; specifically OS X Leopard. I even went so far as to make my Vista comp look just like Leopard but it was fake, it was a mask over the face of a monster and upon researching Leopard religiously I noticed how much easier and intuitive it was. So I was led here and the rest is evident. With my experience OS X is really the greatest OS I have ever used. No longer do I need to scan my computer and set up schedules to do so, no longer must I traverse the Program Files Folder for a missing application and no longer shall I wish to see CCleaner again. I have rid myself of Vista, XP and the whole Windows experience, not to say others can still enjoy it but I really impose that once one sees the beauty, elegance, ease of use, and stability of Mac OS X Leopard, you can forget about Vista and hop on board the Mac wagon.

Vista and Mac aren't the same thing. That's also the problem. Yes, both use the same platform(Intel), but they are completely different. They use different cores and everything, and sorry about your luck with Vista. I've had great expirences with Vista. Vista is good, but at the same time, Vista has one big flaw. And it's both Microsoft and hardware companies fault. Vista will run great on some computers, but then run terrible on others, even if both use say an e8400. Microsoft does need to do more improvements to Vista, but hardware companies have to write decent drivers for Vista.

I work in IT. There's tons of older hardware out there, even Pentium II and Celeron machines. Just because you never see anything below 1GHz in your world doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. My point is also still valid, even if you missed it; XP has better performance per hardware than Vista. Also, when's the last time you shopped for XP? Six months ago it was only $127 (legit copy with COA). Now it's down to $79.



You're missing the point, maybe on purpose. In case you're not: DOS is a command-line primitive OS. Obviously almost anything with a GUI is an improvement. My words were that XP did everything we wanted and needed. You're not honestly saying DOS fills that description, are you?



Wow... so your argument is that two years after Vista comes out, it runs pretty decently on the current hardware? That's fabulous! Oh, wait, didn't I just mention that XP ran great on 3+ year old hardware when it first came out? I guess I'm missing your biting counterpoint here.



UAC teaches people one of two things: Either get used to clicking OK to everything (after the entire system has dimmed and paused for a few seconds), or turn the annoying thing off. I don't call either a success. At least OSX's password prompts are quick, and you actually have to know the password (likely being the computer owner) to get past it. It's bad enough how often Windows users hit OK to random pop-ups; now they're being trained for it!



So you're one of the "it's shiny and pretty- oooh!" crowd. That's great. You're Vista's target audience.



We're obviously having two different arguments here, so let's clear this up now.

There's the consumer argument, and the technical argument. Consumer-wise, average end-user PC buyers such as yourself like the shiny interface. The transparencies awe you. You buy the new dual-core 2GHz machine, and it works for you. You can get your email, surf the web, everything you did on your last machine. So you're happy. Well, good for you. I would never suggest you try going back to XP. It would be a pointless, horrible experience for you. So stop arguing, I'm on your side in this case.

Now the technical argument. Vista is a bloated mess of code. The hardware requirements are silly. XP does everything Vista does except the eye candy, which is enough for some people. Those of us with a little IT knowledge see that it takes double the hardware to do the same exact things on this "better" OS. We see change for the sake of change, with few if any real benefits. These facts have spilled over into the mainstream media, forcing Microsoft to spend billions batting clean-up with "No, Vista's good, really!" commercials.

In the end, it's all academic. New computers (essentially) only come with Vista. As PC's fail, they will be replaced. People like you are happy with it, and that's fine. I'm merely voicing the opinion of the tech savvy folk. Apple is gaining popularity, now capturing a record share of users. Linux is also becoming more widespread, even being sold on PC's at WalMart. The local college here paid to have their latest batch of Vista laptops switched to XP. All the wonderful new tiny mini-notebooks either come with Linux or XP, as Vista is way too bloated to consider. Even people's Grandmothers report to have heard bad things about it.

My facts are still facts regardless of how satisfied you are with Vista. Yes, it will dominate the market. It will replace XP. But that doesn't make it better. It makes it an example of how a strong userbase can overcome a horrible product, as long as you can stomp down the old one.

I don't look for Vista to replace XP. I don't care really. Vista has been better than XP ever was for me. Only thing that I don't like to much about Vista, it offers nothing new that you really need. I'm not gonna lie, Vista is a hell of a lot more convient than XP is. But again, people forget one thing about when Vista and XP came out.

Hardware was totally different from when XP came out. When XP came out, you didn't have things like dual core cpus, or raid, or 64-bit. Hardware is a lot more complicated. And Vista ran on 3 year old hardware for me pretty good. Single core athlon 64 and all, it ran pretty great! I would never take back Vista. I'm running it right now, and loving it. It's not that I won't run XP, but I can't really seeing that XP can't address a full 4 gb of memory, which is what I'm on now with 64-bit Vista. And 64-bit XP? No thanks.

And there is no fact that Vista is a horrible OS. It's strictly opinion pretty much however you look at t.

vbetts: I 100% agree, it's a matter of opinion, and you're welcome to yours.

However, the public has their own opinion about Windows Vista.

The facts I stated speak for themselves. Your "nuh-uh!" response is unimpressive

It works pretty good with if you grafic is supported by aero and if you 2gb ram my friend tried it on a Wind and it worked really really good

Apple is only gaining market share because of marketing and the iPhone, not because the new buyers are more tech savvy or looking into details, it's just marketing. Because of the marketing, people think that their iPod or iPhone will work better on a Mac than a PC and that OSX will never crash or get a virus, not mentioning the "cool" factor... I used OSX on a Hackintosh at work for 3 months and now I am back on Vista on the same hardware and it feels faster. I could just not get used to the interface, using Finder was a very frustrating experience, that probably explains why there are several Finder replacements available...
Although one has to admit that a lot of basic programs are much better designed in OSX than in Windows and make the system easier to use for regular people.

Linux is ok for netbooks to save a couple of dollars of the end price or for the OLPC project, but realistically for the general public it is not at Windows or OSX level just yet. With Linux it's pretty much like with a hacked OSX release, if it all works out of the box then you are ok, if you have to make things work by yourself you are in trouble. I am sure that for every netbook sold with Linux there are 10 or more sold with Windows. At a professional level, Linux is probably popular mainly to save costs, why buy Windows software if you can run your server on Linux for free? Still most IT companies will push Microsoft products because they are making money on the licenses they sell.

Yes Vista was slow and had some bugs when it came out, but XP was exactly the same when it came out. Now the performance (at least for my use) is on par with XP and there is a wide array of benchmarks to prove that. The base specs of the pre-built PC systems have increased and the drivers are mature.

Just as the Mojave experiment (mojaveexperiment.com) proved a lot of people were hating Vista juste because everybody said it was bad, without actual experience with the OS. At my office yesterday an early Mac adopter (who would probably consider himself an IT specialist since he does websites for a lot of small companies) was visiting and when he saw that I was running Vista he said, oh you are running Vista, Vista sucks it crashes all the time, I asked him if he ever had tried Vista and of course the answer was no (ridiculous), I also told him that my Vista crashes a lot less than my bosses iMac that costed 10 times the price of my computer. He ended the discussion as he probably understood I could easily disprove any of his claims.

When I first got it in Feb-ish 2007 I hated it with a passion. No driver support, slow as hell, tons of bugs, I just went back to XP. Then after I had to use it at work a few months ago and saw the improvements I realised wasn't that bad, once you turn off UAC and the indexing service that is!

Vista is great for video editing, encoding and transcoding work. Much faster than Leopard 10.5.5. There are not many useful tools on OS X, there are a ton of great tools on Vista (and XP) like megui, avisynth, vdub etc.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but I'm not here to impress anyone really. But, those articles don't speak for every business out there. Now yes, maybe a majority of it, but not all. And any word from Microsoft is as good as a wet noodle.

I will say this though.
I have had no problems with Vista. It runs good for me, runs better than XP, good for 64-bit, does what I need it to, doesn't mess up on, it works for me perfectly. It fulfills my needs as the customer, so to me and other people, it's a great product.

I thought of another pro for vista: it works with my printer, osx doesnt.

question is just about how optimized ur pc is!....cant blame an operating system if most users have a ton of apps running in their system tray!!!!
though osx is my first love.. i dont have much complains with vista sp1 running on 1gb ram!..
perfectly plays carbon for me..and ram usage stays around 60 % most of the time even when working on vb.net it goes to 70% not above!...

Really? Don't you think that that might be the developer's fault? Get serious people. Are you even running OSX on a real mac?

What does running OS X on a real mac have to do with anything?

Apparently running OS X on "approved hardware" magically makes incompatible components compatible.

But on a serious note, if a cheap printer or webcam is the ONLY thing stopping someone from switching to something then what can be said, really...

BTW you can access and use any "Windows only" hardware through a virtual machine.

This one was really fun