I'm using Vista right now. I actually like it. Sometimes I get random crashes, and most full screen programs don't close properly and windows thinks they've crashed. Also my control panel doesn't often show up. Otherwise it's pretty solid and I certainly like the prettiness. My computer is good enough that I wouldn't really notice any kind of lag. I don't think people should really upgrade to Vista with older computers, but there's nothing wrong with buying a new Vista computer or installing it on a self-build (like I did)
Q6600 here, no lag. Only lag I ever see is on boot with superfetch on, but that is SUPPOSED to happen. That's how superfetch works. I oddly don't see any of these instabilities...you install all the patches ( I guess they pushed the compatibility/reliability patches through via update.)
I currently tripple-boot between XP SP2, Vista and Ubuntu 7.10. Vista is getting the boot very soon, and Ubuntu will follow shortly thereafter unless I can figure out how to get Empires running again. Vista has absolutely nothing that I need over what XP already gives me. Aero, DX10, etc. is just useless fluff. Ubuntu is great because it's open-source and does almost everyting XP can do. Almost. The 3 major things I use my home PC for are Video/Audio editing/conversion, Gaming, and an occasional P2P. 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but until driver support matures for Linux, I fear the gaming platform of choice will still be XP.
Aero, sure. People who say Aero - or even compiz is useful...are morons. Its shiny, that's it. Well - Aero DOES make windowed gaming better (windowed gaming in XP sucks)... DX10 - awesome and amazing. If everyone took the view that advancement was fluff, well...we wouldn't get far in this universe. Open source doesn't make something good.
Of course advancement is good. However, currently you can count games that support DX10 on the fingers of one hand. No, but it does make something a lot less susceptible to all forms of corporate pressure. Where's that "Vista's DRM" article someone posted earlier? Also you cannot even compare the cost of a Vista upgrade to going Linux. I'd say that is a good thing.
Would you prefer Vista to not include DRM, and thus not allow you to use HD DVD, BluRay - etc? Microsoft followed the law, which meant DRM. It sucks, its life as we know it. Live with it. 'Bout all that can be said about DRM these days. Oh, I can compare costs together....Linux means I lose all software I use currently, I get a massive headache....eventually try to get Wine working, find it doesn't do everything I want it to, scream and go back to windows. Linux has its uses, desktop OS isn't one of them.
That's the dilema I'm in right now as well. I however don't lose all the software I use, since I've begun moving towards open-source alternatives on XP a while ago. Ubuntu can handle most of the stuff I use my home PC for. For me the deal-breaker is gaming. What good is my Radeon x1950 if ATI's Linux drivers don't do 3D acceleration properly? It all comes down to personal preferences, and having 3 options to choose from is better than only 2. It's gaining momentum quickly though. As soon as video card manufacturers get their asses in gears and start supporting the Linux community properly, the use of Linux on desktops will skyrocket, as gamers everywhere will flock to it.
You're exaggerating. People won't flock to - its too much trouble. You may wanna say its so great...but it isn't. You can go the easy way with some distros, but I've read plenty of times of Ubuntu and others having massive issues with certain versions. Vista boots - acts fucked up for some, but works. Linux on the other hand gets a face lift every few months, making updates hell. And lets not get started on the lack of a unified community. You have what, I'll guess 5000+ distinct distros, many of which work in different distinct ways (albeit some are copy cats) so you may have a game that works on Fedora Core...but not SuSE...and partially on Ubuntu...which means that linux won't be supported by game studios - it will just be a "may work on linux" tag. Why? Well, would YOU want to support 300 operating systems, as opposed to supporting 2 (XP, Vista, although you could add in Win 2K and call XP 64 separate.) Furthermore, it isn't just driver support - its DX vs OpenGL. OGL is harder to code in, DX is easier, and gets updates a little faster - and has been driving the industry. Furthermore, AMD and nVidia won't get off their asses - it doesn't PAY to have open source drivers - that means code they don't control, private design specs gone public...and DRM would die (which, while I think DRM as it stands now is obtrusive and pointless, if done right, it DOES have a purpose.) nV and AMD won't let people get code of their drivers - they will only release some specs and let people make drivers from the ground up...estimates point to open source drivers being available for current hardware - excluding future hardware in about 5 years. Linux is going to stay a desktop toy and a server OS for quite some time I think - my opinion furthered by a press release (which I saw on thecodeproject and need to dig up) in which MSFT and Linux came to terms - Microsoft basically admitted Linux had merits, and Linux - I need to find out who said it - admitted that they cannot hope to replace windows any time soon. Seriously believing that Linux can grow in market share faster than Windows - let alone Mac - means that you need to take a step back and re-evaluate the situation. I think at the very least, until Linux has some predominate distro that sets the standard (key word here, something linux lacks in many regards - standardization) it cannot go anywhere. And once you have a predominate distro - it will either become a monopoly, or it will stay king for a while, then fall out of favor, linux will go through some odd times until some other organization takes over...the PC industry would be turned upside down every few months, years...
