" I think it's a good thing Vista has high hardware requirements. I don't want something brand new to be run on hardware that's 3 or 4 years old."

As long as what eats the resources is of direct use to you, sure. You don't know how many computers I work on where people only Ebay, email, etc. They aren't interested in flashy UI or all the other bells and whistles. They don't need a new machine, and as a matter of fact they could be using an old 200 and never know the difference.

For instance, a gig of ram in XP is all I really need. Now I later switch to Vista, and I do the SAME work I did the week before, but I have less free ram to use. Why? If I want to keep on using XP, eventually I'll be punished when they stop supporting it and I have to switch up. So the people who could be using an old 200 drop 1k for a new machine just so they make MS happy enough to offer them support.

I like the bells and whistles, but when I am working on a 24x36 print quality image, they don't mean much to me, not nearly as much as the ram. Sure, I can go buy another gig of ram, and it won't be that much, but Microsoft is in the business of forcing people to buy the new OS, not offering the most efficient they can.

I've said it once, and I'll say it again, I'll probably always have a windows gaming rig, but the second someone offers another OS that runs my major apps, and is something lean, low-key, that devotes the ram to what I am working on and not a ton of other tertiary "features" that mean little to me, I'm going with that mainly.

I understand their aversion to cleaning the code, but it is that old code that probably leads to the most security holes.

That old code is also what makes Windows compatible with the absolutely excessive amount of hardware it supports too.. The thing we windows users need to remember is that the bloat is partially for our benefit. MS has gone to great lengths and they spend FAR more money than any other software vendor making sure that their software works on a HUGE variety of hardware in thousands of configurations. Sure, MS could do what Apple does and every time they release a new OS they have 1 specific configuration that it will run on and everyone else can just forget about it. Would you prefer they take that approach? It would surely be easier for MS, they could reduce the number of developers in the Windows division by probably hundreds. They could develop their OSes 2-3 versions in advance, and it wouldn't matter if they wanted to completely change the underlying framework for every new version because the hardware you have today is guaranteed not to run their next version. I really don't think a lot of people understand what they are asking for when they suggest that MS "just start over".

But an OS that needs 8gb of space to load?

Why is that? I have games on my computer right now that are considerably larger than 8gb, and I don't get any of that space back unless I uninstall the game. Is a game a more logical use of HDD space than an OS? Why is it OK for a game to be enormous but an OS has to be miniscule or it gets berated. I don't know about your situation but I have 500GB of HDD space just in my main system and my file server is at 1.2TB, so what's 8 gigs? Besides is that the final size or is that just temp space it needs? With MS moving more towards .NET it's entirely possible that the Vista installer compiles some of the binaries for the OS as it installs in order to optimize it more for your system. Also, with the extra eye candy of Vista the resource files are bound to be quite a bit bigger than the XP resource files that use mostly Windows 98 era icons.

I for one am more concerned about whether or not I'll be able to access the data on my hard drives after removing Vista than about how much disk space it takes while I'm installing it.

I appreciate your perspective, Kevin, and honestly I appreciate all the bells and whistles that are coming. It doesn't change the fact, though, that what the average person is doing with their PC right now isn't much different than what they were doing when everyone was using a less-than-1g processor with 256 megs of ram. For that matter even less.

We should be open to new tasks, all the multimedia, etc. But in the end if we WANT to run the lightest, most spartan OS we can and do the simple work we have always done, we should have an option. Especially since they seem so open to selling multiple versions of their OS now.

As for drivers and whatnot, it's really rare that I end up with what Windows has available natively. I always end up using the drivers that came with the hardware, and even downloading the newest after that. The question for me remains, if I use an older computer to do certain tasks, why would I need a newer computer to do those same tasks?

" Well, for those who only read emails, browse the internet organize pictures etc, they don't have to upgrade to Vista. "

Not if they want their product supported by Microsoft.

"For what I do with the computer I can see many benefit for Vista. At least for my main system which I'll be using to do my work."

Perhaps I'll feel that way too if they show me features that make what I am doing now easier, or run the software that I am using more effectively. Otherwise, it's just more resources to the OS and less for what I am doing.

Nah, I don't have a problem with them dropping support; it's understandable. I just think the reality of the computing experience for the average home user, and ESPECIALLY the average business user escapes them. When they talk "business" they talk about videoconferencing, prokect management, etc., but the average machine in a business is in a cubicle wielded by a drone doing the same thing they were doing 10 years ago.

I just think they would do a service to the user, themselves, and their reputation if they offered the reliability of the newest kernel and file system, and then let us decide if we want to pay for, and devote resources to, the bells and whistles they feel make their OS shine.

Nothing cements their BSOD reputation like your computer crashing or limping along, only to find that it is a bunch of unneccessary "features" that you didn't even ask for to blame. The everything to everyone thing just makes the OS look like a one man band, imho.

I was really skeptical of Vista when the first information came out. I thought it was just XP with a new look. But there have been some articles and links on WC, and a few others, and it looks like Vista will have so much more to offer than a new GUI. The GUI is the least of what impresses me.

You can turn off most of the 'unnecessary' things. I read that a guy got his used memory down to 45MB by optimizing everything.

But as I said, Microsoft shouldn't create a new OS just to be run on old hardware. A year after Vista comes out, many computers will be at the performance level of the high end computers at first release.

More people will buy a computer with Vista in the years after it's release, then when it first comes out, and it should be made to run well and take advantage of the new and future technology.

Microsoft would love to just deal with the OS itself, and leave out support for old hardware and software. They also would love to not have to deal with anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewall, email, IE, media player, etc., but most people probably don't want to go searching around for compatable hard and software, as well as downloading and buying security and utility software. It's hard to fault them for trying to give their customers a complete package.

exactly. I don't differ with them making whatever they want, and I don't differ with them halting support on old software. The combination of the two, though, at least in my opinion, leaves the vast majority of their customers buying hardware they really don't need. If MS was Apple, that would certainly make sense, but to me it seems that the added expense of updating hardware would make people LESS apt to upgrade to their new OS, not more.

Since I first commented I've been trying to notice what they are using when I go into businesses. So far I see on average computers that are 3+ years old, and Windows 2000 has been the norm. It seems like if you were really, really interested in giving people the incentive to upgrade to a new OS that they probably don't need to do what they are doing now, you'd prefer not to ask them to also roll out very new hardware as well.

IMHO, I support balance between supporting old hardware and upgrading features.

I don't think MS needs to support 386 33 MHz SX computer with 4 MB ram, but same time it should support in least 3 years old computer.

...it wasn't all that long ago that someone fairly high up in the microsoft circles said "who could ever need more than 640Kb RAM..." please notice, kilobytes, not megabytes..!

who was that again..? oh yeah, bill gates..!

sure move with the times, and a graphic orientated does need RAM, but now we're talking about 1 giga just to get vista up and running... which for me equates to a 2 giga layout... not to mention the graphic card demands... and what exactly do i get for my money..?

vista..? no sir..!!! maybe in a few years i'll move to vista but for the moment i'm staying put with my 3 year old pc (according to the ms analysis program its vista aero capable) with xp, a few security add-on programs, and stardock ENHANCEMENTS plus a few other goodies...

i must say i really enjoy reading the wincustomise forum, an interesting community of people and ideas... it would pay microsoft and apple big big time to invest money in a department dedicated to studying forums like this... then, and only then would they have their finger on the pulse of what their users really need instead of serving us up what they think we want... light years separate the definition of "want" and "need"...

...it wasn't all that long ago that someone fairly high up in the microsoft circles said "who could ever need more than 640Kb RAM..." please notice, kilobytes, not megabytes..!

Actually that was IBM, not Microsoft.

I'm not convinced Windows is bloated. Even if it is, you don't have to keep the bloat. The 'resource-hungry' Aero can be disabled, and you can remove or not use just about all of the other programs Microsoft puts in Windows. I'd say most people like what some of you consider bloat, for those who don't like or need it, all that's needed is a bit of tweaking to get Windows to run as small as possible.

I would love to see this feature, werewolf. No Messenger, no WMP, no Firewall.....

They could imply that with an advanced/custom setup and a standard setup screen, similar to some programs.