The majority of haters are gamers, my point isn't that it's an awsome OS, but that it's a step up from XP and that it implemented a lot of new features. Obviously, as you seem to have been unable to pick up on it, the operating system was designed for enthusiasts, not your average office computer, as such it is in enthusiast level computers that the benifets are apparent. In the real world most bussiness models are based off of 2000 or occasionally XP (far more often 2000, especially in larger businesses). This is, of course, because for large scale bussiness operations both XP and Vista are considered inferior (be for cost related reasons or performance), so talking about what's most appropriate for the largest userbases becomes redundant as neither of us are are part of that demographic. You're flat out wrong if you think that any of XP, vista or 7 are the most used or most stable operating system on budget rigs.Gruthar said:
Why should I care how an operating system performs on systems that I'm not likely to use? So I don't try and run new software on old systems, yay for me? My point about Vista being the better OS (than XP) is still very much true, as in my experience and for my needs, it is.
Being a dick doesn't make you right. Do you think that the majority of users use a windows OS the way windows released it? I earlier said I've had experience with 5 top end machines in which I upgraded XP to vista and compared performance, it's probably worth noting that I've worked on far more computers than I can count running 2000 or XP in various offices (mostly with news ltd) and I can tell you that I've not seen a single large corporate desktop use an OS that isn't notably different from the standard microsoft release. This is, of course, because they are all optimized to run the specific purpose as efficently as possible. Basicially you're certainty that vista is a worse OS than others because it runs excess stuff in the background is clearly poorly though out, as every modern build of windows does as well. Most of the market for Vista gaming rigs are gamers, and while most PC gamers like to act the elitists they generally know fuck all about computers and end up destroying them with half baked modifications and viruses (thus all the over the top security and hand holding in vista). If you miss the point of the system that completely you might as well go buy a Mac, as Mac OS will boot faster.
Go back and re-read what I said. Note that at no point do I say that I'm sure that it's not worth the hassle, rather that at this point in time based on what I've heard it isn't enough of an improvement to motivate me upgrading (which would require going out and spending several hundred dollars on the operating system). Are you seriously telling me I'm wrong for being sceptical about new products before I drop money on them? I've not tried it yet, installing an OS on my system that doesn't meet my needs (or doesn't meet them better than my current system) is stupid, so naturally I need to get in and use it a bit before I commit....Did you buy XP/Vista/W7 on release? If so, you're far from the most intelligent person on the internet, if not, why bring up a mute point?
Compare XP 64 to Vista 64 and I think you'll find that vista quite convincingly is the clear winner (even though it's insanely difficult to find comparisons since after Vista SP2 came out, I also can't for the love of god find anything comparing the 64bit systems, and I somehow doubt you'll be will to take anyones word that Vista 64> XP 64). Windows Vista boots out of hibernation far more quickly (I don't actually know anyone who uses hibernate in XP consistantly, and in fairness I've not had a whole lot of chance to test it on XP so this assertion is limited to word of mouth and my experience), loads up automatic startup programs faster (for some reason XP is just incredibly slow with things like xfire, steam etc, again if I could find relevent benchmarks I'd post them but they just don't seem to exist, especially not with vista not booting up all the security stuff first) though does take slightly longer to load windows UI (overall I find it's far faster, though again this is based on the relevent demographics computers and programs they are likely to use, I've no business testing how fast a 512mb ram system with an intel centrino boots and loads steam). In my mind driver implementation and effeciency are kind of the same thing in my mind(along with updates etc), you already seem aware of the drivers so I'll skim past that.
Basicially why I ignored the "running vista on an old machine" question is because it's pointless. The system isn't designed for older systems, or budget systems. I've said all that above, but that's more or less it. Running vista on an old computer is like installing a high end SLi setup on an office computer (where all the other specs are far below that of the graphics). It's just pointless.