Are you kidding?
Try reading up on the new features and capabilities of Windows Vista and get back to us.
If it's everything it promises to be, this will be a great new operating system.
My next computer will be a MAC! I hope Microsoft eventually goes down in flames!
But what's the real minimum hardware to run it? I'm thinking anything less than a 2.4 Mhz dual core or dual processor system with a minumum of 2 GB RAM won't be worth upgrading. It might be great for most apps, but old Win 2K boxes will still be good for surfing the web.
Windows is garbage. Office is OK. Flight Simulator is their best by far.
When have you ever known this to be true?
Why should I pay $199 to buy a new OS that is slower than the one it replaces? Vista is slower than NT, 2000, and XP.
If I have Vista, I get to have Vista "speak" my emails to me (which is eerie when the computer voice doesn't match the gender of the person sending me the email, by the way).
OK, not something that I really want going on in an office of cubicles filled with other workers either listening to their emails or else listening to mine, but hey, that's a new "Feature" in Vista that's not in NT/XP/2K.
But why would I pay a couple hundred bucks for it?
We're talking about the same ancient file system being accessed by a slower OS. Why do I want that? Why not run the older, faster OS's on any new hardware that I buy?
And how do most people use their PC's? Email. Internet surfing. Word processing. Games. Spreadsheets.
Where in that list does Vista have an edge over older MicroSoft OS's?
I did. From what I see, they ripped off "google desktop" search, and the rest of the stuff I see is either useless to me, or more-cpu-consuming versions of the functionality I already have
He wrote "innovative," not "new to Microsoft." Name a new feature of Vista that isn't already in OS X or other operating systems -- aside from the activation/DRM scheme, which benefits Microsoft and the copyright cartel, not consumers.