This is the same arguement people gave about XP when it came out. "XP is so bloated... 2000 is so much faster on the same hardware".

And, people like you will be crying again when Windows 7.x comes out about how much faster Vista was.

Just stop with the drivel and comparisons. It's what people wanted, and Vista is here to stay. Adapt.

They made some improvement with vista sp1, but still has some problem. XP is still the best os in the world.

If as CIO's and IT Managers (and users) we are concerned about our daily productivity, no one can be 100% supportive of what Microsoft has done with Vista. If you use Windows XP, Windows 2000 and SuSE Linux side by side with Vista every day like I do - there simply is no comparison.

It's a fact that Windows XP *was* a dog compared to Windows 2000 (still is for most tasks) and after using Windows Vista for over a year now - Vista looks a pig with makeup compared to both. I've tweaked everything I can, and I've even tried several different virus/malware scanners (and even uninstalling them completely) and nothing significantly improves the performance. It's just slow with everything I do with it, and it makes me mad that we have to live with it. Well - I don't actually. I'm using alternatives more and more every day.

Vista was also supposed to address the cancerous "WinRot" syndrome that describes the general slowness that occurs to Windows users over long periods of time. After over 12 months I'm here to tell you that "WinRot" is still alive and well in Vista. (On one machine I'm even using only the latest Microsoft office applications and NO other third party software - I'm still seeing a 15-20% slowdown compared to the Vista format baseline.)

Keep the new features - leave them in by default if necessary. IMHO, Microsoft needs to give us better "performance" options. Perhaps an option that strips out *all* the extra fat in Windows. There's zero reason "upgrading" an operating system should include a decrease in performance this drastic.

I'll "Adapt" when it's necessary, and when it makes sense to do so. Not everyone wanted these changes and Microsoft knew it. We're the customers - they need to do a better job of listening.

lol...sorry....I've been using computers for....um....26 years now I think. Lets let a little REAL experience talk.

Vista is faster than XP....deal with it. The times XP is faster is on a slower machine with low memory.

Seems like the ONLY people that think Vista is so slow are people that hate on it for various other reasons. I've done my own benchmarking, Vista was clearly faster at just about everything. Guess what that means?

Yup, you're a liar.

Do you know what happened to the copy of Vista I got about a year ago with my new HP Laptop?

Never saw even the login screen. Wiped it clean and installed Ubuntu.

Never looked back.

I still have on VMWare virtual machine with XP that I use once in a blue moon, but that's basically it.

I highly recommend it to anyone willing to spend a little time adjusting. It's well worth it.

No doubt as soon as Vista is to the same level of stability they will wack on a new WGA to think everyone for their bug reports!

I'm so tired of this hardware argument beign thrown around. You're comparing apples and oranges when you evaluate Vista and Xp on the same exact hardware. OF COURSE XP screams on current hardware. So would Win98. So would win95. The minimum configuration for both operating systems is fundamentally different.

If you want a valid comparison, you have to compare the performance of Windows XP on its original minimum configuration for memory, processor speed, disk space, video, etc. to the same minimum configuration for Vista. What did $2000 in 1999 dollars buy you then, for hardware? What does it buy you for hardware today? Apply Xp to the former, Vista to the latter, then run your tests.

It is disingenuous, at the very least, to run XP and Vista on the same exact hardware and then rail about Vista's performance. It has its problems, it has its places where it doesn't stack up... but the basic premise of these tests as presented are flawed.

"If you want a valid comparison, you have to compare the performance of Windows XP on its original minimum configuration for memory, processor speed, disk space, video, etc. to the same minimum configuration for Vista. What did $2000 in 1999 dollars buy you then, for hardware? What does it buy you for hardware today? Apply Xp to the former, Vista to the latter, then run your tests."

Why? I am not interested in an academic discussion of where XP was at the same stage of development relative to Vista. Most of the folks reading this site are working IT pros who have to evaluate which OS to run on the hardware we have in our building *right now*. I, for one, am very happy to have my own observations of Vista confirmed on current hardware.

FYI, I can echo the experience of "Ubuntu convert". One of the partners here brought in a new Toshiba laptop and asked me to find out why it was so bloody slow. I diagnosed Vistabloatis Redmondis and, after discussing with him, installed Ubuntu. After a couple of driver tweaks, it's purring like a kitten and running as fast as a dual-core system should.

I have Vista Home Basic on my laptop (didn't need Aero), Vista Home Premium on my daughter's PC and Vista Ultimate on my main system and they all work near flawlessly. I also stream to my XBOX 360 from my ultimate machine and it works very well. The only problems I've encountered are slow to respond dialog boxes (when attaching to choosing files to upload to a website) and Live Messenger sometimes locks up (enough for a reboot) when starting a video call at times. Other than that, Vista runs and works!

"lol...sorry....I've been using computers for....um....26 years now I think. Lets let a little REAL experience talk.

Vista is faster than XP....deal with it. The times XP is faster is on a slower machine with low memory."

Simply I know this is total BS. Vista x64 is a pig, not a single application on it runs faster then my XP 32 or x64 machines. It idles at 1.4G ram on startup and after an hour of use 2.2g. Everything I do except 1 thing is slower, but I can hardly tell someone Vista is faster than XP when I have seen only 1 application multi-task faster that hardly compels me to recommend Vista... The only reason to run Vista DX10... Unfortunately I am running a slower machine with low memory (QX6850 @ 3.2GHz 8GbDDR3) I am hoping to upgrade to one of those super fast D*lls they sell over at wallyworld for $399.88...

Billy Boy is smoking something and definitely not sharing... Either share so we can all be on drugs or live in the real world and stop being a MicroSuck fanboi...

Such vista hate and misrepresentation on this site.

I have been Using Vista 64 for a year and love it :)

Then again i'm one of those people that stuck with win2kpro and skipped XP. (though, i have worked on many, many XP installations)