You're probably right, but it's all a bit late for my purchase of Vista just when I was getting to like it, too and now it's obsolete...BOO, HOO, HOO SOB, SOB.

Yeah, I am disappointed Vista hasn't fared better, but the getting out/needing some air was more to do with my daily constitutional than any woes concerning PC's or OSes.

Thing is, I'm happy with what I've got, and hopefully the industry will have resolved the various issues by the time I need to replace my current OSes....Vista AND XP.



That it is...it's debates like these that come to the attention of MS, Apple and Linux, etc, and while I may be happy with what I have right now, there are no defining boundaries in the computing world that say there's no room for improvement.

but then again people must realize is that when ANY new OS comes out which includes and does not exclude windows,linux,unix,solaris ETC some people will like it some will not...the reason being is the new OS has more features and a completely different look plus it's got more security features some people will like these feature some will not, some people will love those features some will not.XP got good when SP1 was released and got greater when SP2 was released.vista is going to be the same way,when SP1 comes out it will be alot geater then what it is now.though i do agree they should of left all the "goodies" in there..and for ultimate users they should give us more since we paid what? 500 on over for the OS.as far as the UAC goes they should of did some type of "trusted platform" where if you install a program that has been from a company known to add malicious code such as spyware,adware ETC. it would decline the install..but company that are known NOT to add malicious code would be allowed to install.and if you go to a website that has malicious code that tries to self install the "trusted platform" will not allow it or will not allow you to on that site.

Believe it or not, I know of companies still using Win2000...religiously adhering to it because XP, according to them, still hasn't proven itself.

Dunno whether or not that may be 'a why fix what ain't broken' or a cost saving thing, and it's not just in one or two companies, either. In fact, some are rather large Aussie businesses (insurance companies and the like), so it's not an isolated thing that's confined to small outfits.

In fact, I had a neighbour in Tasmania who ran a small volunteer organisation with 98SE as his OS of choice. He was adamant that XP was an over-bloated piece of crap that offered him nothing 98 couldn't, no matter what anyone said to the contrary.

I have to wonder how much of the dislike of Vista is a fear of change....people not wanting to step outside their comfort zone now that XP has become more stable/reliable.

Yeah, MS needs to address various Vista issues, but that was the same with XP in its infancy, wasn't it....now millions of people swear by XP as being most stable and THE OS of choice. Hopefully, MS will overcome these 'new OS' teething problems quickly and Vista is more widely accepted than it is now, because it is a good OS with great potential.

An OS is a tool to get your real job done.  CP/M (MS-DOS), 3.11, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2k, XP, Vista, *nix, OSX, Amiga, BeOS, OS/2 . . whatever. 

Does it run the apps you want?
Does it have the security level you need?
Does it run the hardware you have?

Everything else is marketing.

Until we had the newest version of whatever OS we use, we got by successfully with what came before.  I run Vista and XP for the most part (I don't remember when I last booted my G4) and they both take me here to WC.  Problem solved.