Yeah, the only reason why I switched to Vista was because I got it for $5. Even so I'm debating switching back to XP, though things are running decently enough so I don't know if I want to deal with the hassle of reformatting and everything.

According to Paul Thurrott on the latest Windows Weekly podcast, you're just clinging to something old, don't like change and are buying into FUD spread by people who just hate Microsoft.

It's not just you, but some got saddled with it when they got new laptops. And how they rue that day.

In a way, it's a true pity because I consider Vista a giant step forward in terms of usability. When it allows you to be used, that is.

DirectX10 doesn't count because there is absolutely no reason it requires Vista other than that MS decided to program in that restriction.

I think its pretty obvious that the next OS will be based on Vista, not XP, and as such is already doomed.

I don't get it. Having a basic standard (such as an OS) change every two years is not good for business or consumers. There just isn't the time to keep up - i mean, a decent game development period is around 3-4 years. How can you code your game to work with an OS which (in theory) could have a different basis than the one that was popular when you started out... not to mention fragmentation of the market.

One of the things that MS isn't known for is compatibility between different versions of their software and previous-gen support of file formats or standards etc. The only way a 2-year OS can operate is through upgrades... which means that they'll essentially just be charging for Service Packs or in game lingo 'expansion packs' with little to no innovation (not that you need it every two years but... then why pay?)

Heh, I'll be the odd-ball out and say that I enjoyed tweaking and using Vista. *dodge*

Their plans for Windows 7.

EDIT: of course after bullsh*t like this the entire article is suspect:

If that article is correct, Windows 7 might well be the silver bullet:

Good luck convincing business customers to buy a product that will force them to run their software through an emulator. That solution might have been feasible for Apple when their userbase was small and specialized enough to ensure a swift update to all major selling-point software. Doing the same thing for Windows? Years and years of crippled running as software developers re-release all their old software for a new market that has no real incentive to grow.

As I understand that process will be transparent. There already are some phenomenal emulator solutions. It's not technically emulation as it doesn't have to emulate CPU instructions, only specific calls to legacy procedures.

I know theres one thing that lets you run most of older games and office apps from just one executable which contains a complete self-contained environment of Windows version of your choosing. I recall seeing an instantly runnable Starcraft rip enclosed within a 60mb exe with that thing.

As Lobster says, DX10 is a marketing feature; there's no reason it couldn't run in XP.

By now, you probably know that I'm a profound Vista hater, and I won't go back over my reasoning. (DRM, almost exclusively.) Even so, there is one good reason: 64-bitness that will be well-supported. XP can easily go past 4 gigs, but Microsoft disabled that feature a couple of service packs ago, because of stupid manufacturers that didn't program for lots of memory. XP is now limited to 4gb of physical address space, forever.

If you want more space than that, and you want Windows, Vista is pretty much the only reasonable choice. If you get away from Windows, though, you have other options. Apple's new Leopard is true 64-bit all the way through, and all the popular Linux distros have 64-bit variants. But if you want Windows and tons of RAM, Vista is the only reasonable choice.

For myself, well... I don't want Windows as much as I want to avoid DRM in my operating system. A system with Microsoft controlled DRM at its core, running anti-tampering code to make sure I'm not a thief thirty times a second, is no longer mine. I'm borrowing it from Microsoft. If I don't have permission to use my hardware however I wish, it's not my hardware.

I've been reading, though, that Server 2008 might have the good bits of Vista without the DRM, but I haven't been able to nail that down for sure. Server 2003 makes a kickass workstation once you turn on the desktop-style features: it's XP minus the anti-consumer crap.

Server 2k8 thus has my interest piqued.

Oh yawn. We've been through this many times before. Running an older version of Windows is just like running an older version of OSX or an older Linux distro - cheaper and easier in the short term, but difficult in the long run. After a while, new software and hardware comes out that makes use of the new OS features, and you're faced with a fait accompli - upgrade or get left behind.

I've fairly enjoyed it as well.
My systems do tend towards the high end though, and I am high enough in the user bracket to know how to change the important settings.

Last I saw, as a worldwide tally of internet connected PCs(according to google), the majority of people are running 98, something around 40 percent. That is scary given how that OS had 0 online security measures.

Overpriced, definitely. Unnecessary? You have used Vista, haven't you?