[Turbopilot]

The legal stuff, more than any technical aspect, appears to be the big problem with Vista. I have zero security/malware issues and spend zero time on security/malware with my existing XP boxes, and I doubt Vista would end up being less secure when configured properly. I don't want or need any of the graphical nonsense, but it can probably be disabled. In short, it seems like Vista is mostly a wash and I could take it or leave it.

Except they want to throw a bunch of legal language that appears to benefit 1) Microsoft and 2) "digital rights owners" like the RIAA, with no benefit to me as a user. I don't want my computer reporting back to some company about every piece of audio and video on my computer, or constantly phoning home to make sure all my software is legal and "Microsoft-approved". I certainly don't want to be prevented from using third-party utilities like firewalls and such. If they fix those issues, I'm sure I'll end up happy with Vista. But until then, I may stock up on a few extra XP Pro licenses and see what MS has up their sleeve for SP3.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark

[antiRepublicrat]

Back to the actual license topic, the benchmarking clause worries me. If you want to publish a benchmark, you have to do it on Microsoft's terms. This is a restriction on freedom of speech that has normally been on Microsoft's server products.

That it is enforceable is questionable. Microsoft has used its power to stop unfavorable, although legitimate, benchmarks before. But McAfee lost in court for trying to stop unfavorable reviews using a similar clause.

[Vicki]

From everything I have heard today (PC Magazine) and here I think Vista is an expensive "upgrade" that really doesn't do much for the consumer. Just makes Gates richer and more in control.

We'll stick to our Macs and will not upgrade our business Windows machine.

[Silicon Cowboy]

Well.... it is Mac or Linux for me when I get my next machine. Vista's going nowhere near my HD.