I noticed faster browser speeds after installing SP1, but then again I really didn't have any issues prior to SP1 with Vista. I then installed Windows Server 2008 and have been running that for about two weeks now. I'd say WS 2008 is 2-3 times faster then XP SP2 or Vista SP1.

---

XP Pro/Vista Business/Windows Server 2008 Intel Core 2 Q6600 WD 320GB/HD/Seagate 160GB/HD Asus Extreme Striker 3GB-DDR2 GeForce 8800 640 GTS

I'll wait and get a Vista PC for DX10 game (AoC). then i'll test Vista's overall usefullness, sinc eDX10 is supposed to be a big aspect of Vista's value.

The frame rate drops reported are laughable. Who really cares if we're running at 195 or 166 frames per second? You want it over 60 fps on your highest video settings the rest is just a number. What I want to see is the asthetic difference on the game because of DX10 graphics.

Is it a surprise that games built for XP run better on XP?

Of course, I may get Vista and hate it. Can't say much beyond that.

I find Evildave's comment about Mr. Gates wife to be vile and request that is is removed from this forum immediately. I have cached this webapge and forwarded it to MS and their lawyers.

MasterGuru - Public forums are protected as free speech, and not defamation of character or whatever you think it might be. You are allowed to be repulsive in the United States -- it's not against the law.

Maybe your MS lawyer friends can bring a frivolous lawsuit against Evildave, spend millions of dollars, and then charge more for their products to make up for the expense.

Good job MasterGuru.

An even bigger reason why nothing will fix Vista: People who think it needs a slash and burn defense against anyone who would question its perfection and value.

So long as there are tireless half-wit volunteer shills to proclaim its virtues non-stop, contrary to all reasonable evidence, Microsoft will remain confident of their market position and not bother to produce anything but patched-up bloated dreck.

They never would have made a service pack as 'quickly' as a year into its service life to address complaints if everyone had complacently failed to complain about Vista 'as is', as some among us would prefer.

Think how 'wonderful' Vista could be if nobody ever complained about Microsoft's operating systems or had anything else to choose from, if Microsoft had the total dominance that would make their shills gleeful. Microsoft would still be shipping that clunky 'Windows 3.1' interface on top of 16 bit DOS. With dancing paperclips that can't be turned off. And you would have no choice but to run it.

If any of you are Microsoft fanboys, then be glad that Microsoft has competition to steal ideas from. They never make anything new on their own.

This article doesn't make sense at all. If you were to try and make some worth noticing comments about problems with Vista and and ask Microsoft to fix them they would probably pay attention, but to ask Microsoft not to promote an operating system they worked on for years and rather set it aside like a failed attempt (Vista is great BTW, I have no problems and it works for me) and promote the one released 8 years ago is completely illogical.

I continue to us XP on my main computer because it runs some older programs, such as Acrobat 4 and Nero 6 without any hassle. I do have Vista installed on my older machine, a Shuttle 939, with a 2.2 single core chip and 2 megs of RAM. On cold boot it takes approx 45 seconds to boot up and everything works and works fine. I have SP1 installed and see no appreciable difference either way. I do have all of the latest drivers installed which may explain my lack of problems with Vista. Having used both OS's on an everyday basis, I choose to stick with XP for the duration.