Quote - I won't chide your argument for Vista.  There are both pluses and minuses.  The problem is that many people are encountering the latter - which is why it is being dissed so much.  For all of its advantages and modern support, it does not play well with all older hardware and software (unfortunately, we can't all be at the cutting edge all of the time).  And older here can be as little as a couple of years.

Basically, for every success story (like yours), I've heard at least two horror stories (like the OP).  That does not bode well for Vista.  I won't touch it.  As a developer, I absolutely require 'status quo'.  If I can't build projects because some inherent feature or flaw of the OS kicks in to prevent it, my livelyhood is in peril.  Mr. Gates needs to provide the evidence of this before I jump in the boat - which appears to be slowly sinking.  No business that I know of will touch it either.  Rumors of Microsoft's own departments going back to XP abound (though unverified).

And there's the rub, aye.  Any user worth their salt has more experience actually USING computers than Bill Gates has neurons.  Vista is a 'user' OS - not a power, experienced user OS.  It infuriates so many real computer users that I fear a revolt.  Actually, the revolt is evident - noone with any real computer needs uses Vista - we all use Windows XP Pro SP2 or Windows XP Pro x64.  Who are you going to trust?  Microsoft pandering or users with 10/20 years experience?  (I have 20 years experience).

Unfortunately, an SP for Vista may not help.  Many experienced users are just going to keep chugging along until the next OS is released.  I hope it hurts M$ down to the core - they will see that short-changing people for control is a criminal offense.

 

Well, in all honesty, windows is a user's OS, plain and simple.  Always has been,  probably always will be.  The fact that Vista doesn't run will on older hardware is to be expected, after all it is based primarly off there 2003 server code, which was pretty heavy on system requirements to run properly too.

Granted I like the power and flexibility of Linux, but when it comes for the average Joe linux distros are still too complicated and cryptic to be able to manage sufficiently.  That and Windows monster market share makes it difficult to consider running strictly Linux - wine is great, don't get me wrong, but until the day comes when you can install a Windows app under Linux as easily as you can under Windows then Linux will remain primarly for power users and those who really need a little extra oomph from the OS.  While I must give all kudo's to some of the newer distro's out there who have made major strides in making Linux desktop's easier to install and configure, they still don't come close to Windows in this regard.

As to who I "trust", I trust myself and my own experiences, which date all the way back to my very first PC.  A 2001 series Pet, with 16k of internal memory and a tape drive.  No harddrive, all programs were in the basic programming language and had to be loaded from tape into memory to be run.  It was state of the art, top of the line hardware when my father purchased it, one of the very first PC's to be commercially available to the public.

I've seen OS's come and go, and I'll probably see quite a few more before my time is up.  I've worked with everything from VAX/VMS to CPM to Tandem at one time or another.  I've been a computer user, computer programmer, website designer and mainframe operator in the many years I've been working as an IT professional.

And in all those years I've found it all boils down to one thing, you have to find what works for you and your application.  Windows XP is great, for certain applications, but it can't hold a candle to even the most out of date Linux distro when ti comes to something like serving web pages or being an internet gateway.  Sure you can get apps that will allow you to use XP fo thoese purposes, but they don't come close to what your average Linux can do out of the box as far as featurs and security.

So does that make Linux a superior OS to XP?  Well, for those who want to run a webserver Linux probably is the better choice - but not everyone is setting up a webserver.  I have 3 daughters, all of whom use the main computer for a variety of reasons.  My youngest just got an mp3 player for her birthday.  She setup the softwware herself, by putting in the CD and plugging the mp3 player into the USB port.  My middle daughter got a camecorder, again she was able to install everything herself and integrate it into the computer easily and quickly because both of these items (and many, many more) are designed to work with a Windows OS rather than a LInux distro.

So for there application Windows is obviously the superior choice.  They want somthing that is "plug it in and it works", not something that is "find the proper text file in the cryptic subdirectory and edit it with cryptic phrases to get this to work".  They could care less if it's more stable or more secure or uses less memory, they want to be able to plug in their camera and see the pictures they took or download music to there mp3 player without having to jump through a lot of hoops.

So no one OS is the absolute best choice for all applications.  I'm glad XP woks for you and many others, it did not work that well for me.  XP is a fine operating system, don't get me wrong, but it just didn't suit my application or my hardware as well as Vista seems too.

Your situation might be different, in fact I'm sure it probably is, but I would'nt dream of telling you that XP is "inferior" or that you should never chose XP under any circumstances.  If your hardware and your application support it and you like it then more power too you.

So the final word on Vista?  If you have the hardware to support it I really think it's worth a look, depending on your application.  It's drive management and caching features are based on there 2003 server code, which means it is far better at accessing the drive than XP is when it comes to reading and writing large chunks of data, something I do fairly regularly here.

However for those with older hardware I wouldnt' recommend Vista, it just wouldn't be a good choice for them overall.  Also if XP is working for you and doing what you want I wouldn't consider switching to Vista unless you actually have a need for some of it's features.  If your needs are already being met by your current OS, why change?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Stepdad