I just build a new PC and bought Vista for it. Everything works very well but I am a little mad at HP for not creating Vista drivers for my scanner AND my printer. Gee, thanks a lot, HP. (If I new this beforehand I would have still bought Vista but I may have ordered a new scanner and printer also but NOT from HP.)

Most people who now say they will use XP für the next quadrillion years and will never upgrade probably miss an important point: When the time comes that 4+ GB memory is mandatory, what OS will you be using? XP 64 Bit or Vista 64 Bit?

if it wasnt for dx10 and gamers, vista sales would plummet to near death.

Why would they be concerned?

Sales of XP = free money, at this point.

Whenever a new OS is significantly different from the one it's replacing, many businesses will not want to switch right away, regardless of the merits of the new OS. MS could have saved itself the PR embarrassment by developing a realistic plan from the beginning.

It's not a wonder that folks are hanging on to XP; it's established, people know the quirks and it simply takes time to test preexisting software on new OS code. XP's success has been the biggest obstacle to Vista adoption, but that's not exactly a new phenomenon in the history of OSes.

That's because vista is a pile of crap....blah...blah...hyperbolic blather

Many of us actually do use Vista and XP side by side. While I initially found the erroneous network transfer estimates to be quite annoying, patches released two months ago addressed that issue...even on one of my old nForce4 systems. As for OS X being a resource-light OS, please...you're just trolling here.

DRM is M$'s fault? Another lame troll not even worth addressing.

So they can keep offering XP until Windows Seven is announced formally?

Resistance is futile!

That's because vista is a pile of crap. Work with the two side by side and see how terrible Vista is. Its networking sucks, file transfers on local drives or network drives are abysmal. The only people I see that vista is fine is after they have become accustomed to to it's sluggish working after a week or two. The desktop graphics are nothing and Linux and Mac have far superior graphical effects with much less horse power. Go DRM FTW! :: rolls eyes ::

I use Vista and XP both.

When I wanna get something done, I use XP. It's highly stable, highly compatible, highly functional, and gentle on the resources.

When I'm feeling masochistic I use Vista. It's a huge resource hog in every department, it's got compatibility problems that lead to OS crashes, it adds unfamiliarity without commensurately extending functionality.

Personally, I think MS should have kept XP's interface and simply added better support for themes. The look and feel of XP should have been maintained while "under the hood" improvements were made. Basically, my opinion is that Vista should have been "XP service pack 3" or XP 2.0, even if MS decided to charge for it.

Just an opinion. 5 years from now I'll be saying the same thing about Vista 2.0 as I cling to Vista.

I've been using both vista and XP for quite a while now, and I must say I like XP better. Vista has a few cool things, but XP is less annoying which is what really counts for me.

plus XP pro has support til 2013...