Quote - > Quote - I myself tend to skip a generation.  I started with DOS, then when I abolutely had to,

went to Windows 3.1.  (skipped 3.0).  Then when I absolutely had to I went to
Windows 98 (skipped 95).  Then when I absolutely had to went to Windows XP Pro.
(skipped NT, ME, 2000, et al).  So what ever comes after Vista is the one I
guess I will install.

 

You will probably have to wait a long time. MS has gone to about a five-year cycle on OS development, so whatever comes after Vista won't be until about 2011 or so.

Quote - <<From what I've read so far, the only advantage that Vista seems to have over XP is that they're redesigning the UI or something. I don't care about that at all, and disable all the cute UI animations and effects. I want power, not stuff to take away my power.

I've also read somewhere that Vista is a sort of "in-between" release, very much like W2K easing user transition from Win98 to WinXP. Supposedly whatever comes after Vista is the sh*t. Also, if Vista uses the same code base as W2K (as XP32 does) then there's even less incentive to upgrade.>>

See, this is why I usually skip  a generation on Windows.  If it's just until 2011, I can wait.
That's not really much different than the time frame from Windows 3.1 to Windows 98
or Windows 98 to Windows XP.

(BTW, just to show that sometimes an old version is still good enough, I have a 386 computer
with Windows 3.11 installed on it that I use to run a milling machine at work.)