from the first time i saw it, i didnt really like it. it was heavy on graphics but poor in perfromance. many things that were intuitive to perform in xp now require one or two additional steps. the operating system is unstable and heavy on system resources. the MS office that comes with it is also crap. why didnt Microsoft think before releasing this product. and its forced down people's throats through coming pre-installed in most systems. AVOID VISTA, EMBRACE XP OR LINUX! this is microsoft innovation gone mad.

Obalende:

from the first time i saw it, i didnt really like it. it was heavy on graphics but poor in perfromance. many things that were intuitive to perform in xp now require one or two additional steps. the operating system is unstable and heavy on system resources. the MS office that comes with it is also crap. why didnt Microsoft think before releasing this product. and its forced down people's throats through coming pre-installed in most systems. AVOID VISTA, EMBRACE XP OR LINUX! this is microsoft innovation gone mad.

What most people don't know is that the vast majority of Vista users are happy with the switch. The system requirements for Vista are higher than that of XP (naturally), but as soon as you can meet or exceed the recommended specs, all should be well. From rigorous benchmarks, Vista SP1 gives a performance similar to XP. There's also the added layer of security and stability built into Vista.

Vista is a prime example of an OS that has failed to shake off a bad name that was unfairly attributed to it early on. That's all. It's by no means a bad OS.

PS: It's really silly to call Office 2007 'crap' compared to 2003. It's significantly enhanced in every way. I mean, i myself dislike the new 'ribbon' interface, but the suite itself is solid.

interesting topic, i think Vista is better too.

what about windows 95?