UAC is good. Anyone that tells you to shut if is a idiot. Its implementation is very poor but what its trying to accomplish is finally a move in the right direction. OS X and Linux have been using this security model for a LONG TIME, they just implement it better. OS X prompts me when I install a app and I have to put a password in. Same with Ubuntu.

Have to agree here. Some granularity in UAC would be nice, but otherwise it's very similar to other OSes out there.

I just received the go-ahead two days ago to start rolling out Vista for our users (about 750). None of our applications require run-as-admin...because every user is locked down to Power User under XP. So I'm pleased that we can avoid admin-rights related problems and start moving forward with the other platform changes (O2K7, W2K8, MOSS).

Are you people serious? 53 posts and none of you can see what's really going on? Why are you people focusing on the tree and not the forest?

Vista isn't getting accepted as MS hopes, so MS uses marketing and propaganda to encourage people to adopt it more. (No surprise there).

Think about this VERY carefully:
A Microsoft study that shows their own product is superior to others.

Anybody knows you can carefully select the criteria in a study to make the outcome favourable to you.

What's really sad is, only the author of this article Cyril Kowaliski is quite aware of such Microsoft shenanigans!

Think about this: If Vista is as great as some of you say, then why are people more interested when word of "Windows 7" comes along in a conversation?

Vista's flaws I would say far outweight the negatives of either XP or OS X. I mean come on, Vista has been a nightmare! It has had tons of program incompatibilites and hardware incompatibilities. XP off the line was built on the 2000 base and had plenty of compatbility with the current lineup of programs. I still use some of my 95 and 98 programs/hardware without error in XP.

VISTA is a flaw itself! (its design is very annoying, for noobs only) XP is still the best choice!

I have trouble installing XP on my laptop. Because Vista can see my RAID 0 partition without requiring me to have a floppy drive. Hmm.

I thought Vista had only one flaw:

1. Vista

So from a numerical perspective, it's way ahead of other OSes ^_^

I initially hated Vista but it's hard to argue the ram bloatedness of Vista when it only costs $50 for 2048mb's of it.

I was a late adopter to XP, while I have a legitimate copy of Vista 64 I'm still holding off making the move for a compelling application that will justify the hassle.

I would agree, Vista had fewer flaws.

Unfortunately, its needless incompatibility and annoying intrusiveness were deliberate features.

Don't believe the Vista hype, wait for Windows 7:

My own testing - confirmed by my colleagues at the exo.performance.network - showed Vista lagging behind Windows XP by a factor of 2:1 across a variety of business productivity and multitasking scenarios. So when Service Pack 1 failed to close the performance gap I, too, wrote-off Vista for performance-critical tasks. After all, if there's no measurable value proposition (see #1 above) to justify the lost CPU cycles, why upgrade?

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2007/11/the_...

Save XP!

"Microsoft doesn't have to admit failure; it can just say it will keep XP available indefinitely due to customer demand. It can take that opportunity to try again with a better Vista, or just move on to the next version that maybe this time we'll all actually want.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/14/02FE-why-save-xp_1.html

Rebooting my work Vista laptop every other day. Support hasn't found a new MS video driver for it. It's much slower and less stable than when I had XP on it, even with the double amount of memory since upgrade. I really need to talk them into downgrading it...

In regard to this study, I'd say it's fairly meaningless once the data has been boiled down to simple sums. You can cook the numbers any way you like, so always make sure you know who the chef is.

I think the numbers in this study also show that open-source OS's fix a greater percentage of issues than proprietary ones.

Resomegnis: It's nice that you prefer XP over Vista because of compatibility, but that wasn't the point of the article now was it?

To address the compatibility issue as long as it's been raised, here's my take on things:
Microsoft has the very undesirable position of satisfying users that can't (or won't) be satisfied no matter what. As a rule - people complain about how X feature is bad (MS Office interface is a good example). MS then changes the feature to address the concerns raised by users (Office 2007). The users that originally complained then say "OMG it's different!!! I can't handle this, it's terrible, I want the old feature back."

I hate to break it to you people, but you can't have it both ways. Either: 1. nothing will ever change and old programs will always work (but we'll be stuck with the fact that no progress is made) OR 2. MS makes improvements, and we will all just have to learn to deal with change.

As far as breaking backwards compatibility, don't even get me started on Apple - have you ever tried installing a new app on OS 10.2 or older? Good luck with that. They change their API will every release of OSX, and yet get praised for it.