Vista has been a major disappointment to the computer world, a warmed-over version of XP really with an overly high price tag, slower performance, technically obsolete out of the box (compared to other op systems like Mac OS X) given the amount of time, and where the state of the art is in operation systems....and the list goes on.
Add to this the accelerated arrogance of MS, their license agreement (EULA) is typically 'written for MS'....the whole ball of wax is weak, at best.
Is it getting Windows 98 like bad coverage?
My test computer--->>>
Athlon XP 2800+
1 gigabyte memory
Shuttle nforce2 motherboard
64mb nvidia graphics card
I loaded Vista Ultimate onto a spare hard drive
Aeroglass is off
Computer crashed 4 times in 4 hours. Blue screen of death memory defaults and other crashes
With the regular hard drive with XP Professional it rarely crashes
I was in Sam's Club yesterday and saw an HP with Intel core duo processor (4300 I think) and 2 gigabytes memory handle Vista very well with all the Aero glass effects. But why should I buy or build a more powerful computer just to handle a bloated operating system? I copied and burned a DVD movie on my Athlon XP computer yesterday. This took 40 minutes. Would a new Vista computer do any better? I doubt it
I'm not a MS-hater, but I don't want anything to do with Vista. Dog-slow, resource-intensive, DRM-laden steaming pile, as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't even pirate it, nevermind pay for it. I think there's a real opening out there for alternatives who aren't as arrogant as MS, and who aren't in the MPAA and RIAA's pocket.