Vista

yes

www.Ipirateallmysoftware.com

its not for sale until late January...its available through some Microsoft channels, but since you had to ask they wont pertain to you...

Vista schwista, it has a lot of problems. Not sure if I'll ever use it:
http://www.techworld.com/opsys<wbr>/news/index.cfm?newsid=7675

http://blogs.pcworld.com<wbr>/tipsandtweaks/archives/003385<wbr>.html

I'm running Vista and won't go back to XP. Vista is quicker than XP on my M1710 and has actually increased my productivity.

Quicker in what way? I don't notice any lags with XP.

vista keeps stalling for no damned reason. It makes it annoying to do work when you constantly have to save every 5 minutes. And also, I had vista installed on my 6k (now its just in vmware) and I got spyware, adware, viruses all in 10 hours of just doing nothing but on itunes. And thats with Onecare, Defender, Firewall all on too. wtf?

Everything is snappier. Application startup time is twice as fast if not more.

Is that the main benefit? I don't notice startup time much. Start my programs in the morning and go from there. I'll need a lot more incentive than that to buy an OS with DRM issues.

The only difference I've noticed [worth mentioning] yet is the start-up time... it blows XP on that front...

Other than that.. it's not so exciting.... yet

I've decided never to buy Vista, ever. If it comes with a new PC I'll just delete it. The DRM issues are totally mindblowing. See the link I provided further up this thread. M$'s DRM policy is known as "the longest suicide note in history" by people who have read it all (a long document).

Then there the way they are making it impossible to run Vista on a virtual machine ( see http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=160 )

No way, Jose. Other sources are saying Linux will finally be mature on the desktop in 2007/8, so I'll move from XP to Linux.

I'm loving Vista..will NEVER go back to XP...

As others have said...I find that it boots quicker than XP, applications load faster, and it looks a helluva lot better...

Ok. I boot XP once a month, so who cares about fast booting? I don't have a single app that loads in longer than 12 seconds (Photoshop); most load in a few seconds, so again, who cares? Looks better? Who cares?

Damning with faint praise:
Vista: Worthy, Largely Unexciting

Not everyone boots there laptop once a month...I have to boot mine several times a day....faster boot times are welcomed by me...so I care...

Looks better...I care...

you seem to be good at finding articles that go against Vista....I could give links to a shitload of reviews that praise Vista...but I dont...

No, what's interesting is that there are so many anti-Vista reviews, and there'll be a lot more when it gets released. If you're old, like me, you'll remember the journalistic hyperventilation that greeted each new version of Windows, dating back to Windows 3.1. Most of it was "bought journalism", for which M$ is famous, and no doubt that continues, probably in spades. In the face of the financial blandishments offered to journalists to praise this tubload of bloat and theft of users' rights, it's amazing that so many are declaring their reticence. That tells me its probably a real dog, or not worth the money, or runs badly on 90% of machines.

I've read Mossbergs articles before ... usually he's pretty good unbiased ... that has to be one of the worst articles I've seen. The video review is absolutely atrocious. Why don't he just say, "Go out and buy a Mac?" I have nothing against Macs, but this is a review about Windows Vista not OSX.

My 600m, while not spectacular -- did run Vista just fine ... with only 768MB of RAM. No Aero graphics of course, but still most of the similar features from Vista worked. DVD Maker and Movie maker didn't run unforunately....but that's okay.

Not impressed by his review at all. Vista is nice, I think it's hardware requirements are over the top.... still don't understand why it needs so much hardware to run effectively.

Especially considering a 1.5 -2 year old computer I used to have made the switch from Windows 98 SE to Windows XP pretty smoothly. It was just a 1Ghz Athlon Processor and 512MB of RAM, ran XP fine..... just recently replaced it with an HP.

Now a computer that is 15 months old should be able to run Vista sufficiently? UGH -- give me a break. I still don't understand how he says his Dell laptop a (XPS1210) with 2GB of RAM couldn't run Windows Vista sufficiently.

For the price though -- there's nothing really worth the upgrade. XP is just fine for the time being.

The fact that atleast as Mossberg says the OS can't run on a computer that is a year to 2 years old, is a very disturbing thing... very sad. I love linux, but the sad thing there is that it doesn't have the type of applications I'm looking for in terms of photography or video editing. DigiKam is nice (especially .9.0), but it doesn't hold a candle to Adobe Photoshop Elements 5; nor does it have the support or nicer features. The pathetic thing is, my mom's XPSM140 which was purchased April of 2006, WAY less than a year, cannot run Aero graphics due to it's Intel GMA915 card..... it has a four year warranty on it; so the biggest update in years is coming out and a majority of people can't get the major features that Vista provides. I'm kind of in the middle when it comes to Vista honestly, I think it's a major improvement; but not enough for me to go run out and spend hundreds on new hardware.