This is an interesting discussion, but it seems to be nothing but a repeat of the same issues regarding XP's release and the push-back from the community.

The exact same issues came up with XP:
1. It was slow
2. The drivers were slow to release
3. It required better equipment and was a resource hog
4. Because of the increased security, many applications had to be re-written.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... The sun will come up tomorrow. People will be complaining about these exact same issues with the next release of the Windows desktop product.

There is a huge difference between before and now. My Win ME systems disintegrated before my eyes; replacing ME with XP allowed me to compute safely and build usage. From all I've seen, Vista is at best margainly safer than XP, while requiring more resources and with driver problems a year after general release.
I want my XP to live until there is a good reason to upgrade; Vista isn't it.

The "extended support" argument is totally irrelevant. If I buy a new computer to get better performance in my highly demanding 3D modeling application, I need to be able to run an OS that is equally as fast as what I have now, or I will have just paid thousands of dollars to only be able to make up for the slow performance of Vista. It is not about "support", it is about day to day performance of an application that is already slower that I would like, and can't be made any faster today, even by throwing money at it. The PC architecture is incapable today of providing anything faster, no matter how much money I have available. So when Intel (or AMD) produces a faster system, I expect ALL of that performance to show up in my application, not get sucked up by a bloated OS that steals clock cycles to perform who knows what.

I'm dragging my feet because of application compatibility. We're using out-dated apps because our clients our using out-dated apps. It's a business decision.

An argument that causes me to delay even longer is the issue of legacy printer support. M$ and app vendors may point fingers at each other, but customers are collateral damage. The right thing to do is for someone to write an XP printer driver shim to work on Vista. That would remove a significant barrier to entry.

Even if the driver /performance issues were resolved, a more important consideration is application compatibility. Health systems such as X-ray image review, op notes, medical records etc. aren't like going to your local computer store and upgrading MS Office. Not only do they have to consider the "in house" users but these apps are made available to all physicians with admitting privileges. We are experiencing several of these issues and even if the vendors re-write the app (which will happen), it will take a monumental effort and expense for healthcare facilities to migrate. Just another unrecognized reason for the cost of health care.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to compare the merits in technical terms. I can say that I have seen a laptop slow down terribly after Vista installation.

If this operating systems was too big to get right by a year after it went to market, then maybe the OS is too big, period?

Don't mistake progress for greed.

Here's what it comes to, if I can be oversimplistic. In our home, alone, we have two (2) Windows 2000 computers, one of which, runs as a video processing / entertainment system. We have a Windows XP running as a moderate-impact server. Also, we have a Windows XP Media Edition laptop. And, in the shop, we run Windows 2000 on an old Gateway (shortly post-Gateway 2000) as a terminal to our central POS. Each computer serves it's purpose. What more can we ask for, unless we want to update something?

There is a time for upgrading. And, when that time comes, it comes at a cost, whether you are a household or a major health system.

In the past, I have developed information systems and data collection/analysis systems for healthcare, state and county governments, and educational institutions; where, the conclusion was always the same: they were ten rows behind Moore's Law and one row in front of Murphy's Law. What did we do? We designed around it; we set limitations; and, we calculated costs of upgrades into future grant applications and budgets.

It only makes sense, in such a hyper-inflated industry as the computer industry is, that a new Windows OS has to be released in a ratio to advances in processing speed, whether it be in memory speed or processor speed. That's progress, y'all! I'll admit that the speed of this industry is crazy. But, it only affects those whom might be plagued by having the newest, the latest, and the greatest.

While I have signed the "Save XP Petition", it was just based on my personal opinion that Microsoft should, civilly, declare a "vacation", allowing the market to "catch up". Consumers can enjoy their computers for a while, perhaps 18 extra months, allowing Microsoft to perfect their next operating system to true Release status.

And, when the fear-mongering is all too much for your fragile dispositions, you can always switch to Linux. I have dabbled in Linux. It's not terribly different. It's easy enough to dual-boot for the sake of testing.

Just some brain candy.

If your going to go the road of dual boot, why not check out this article http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/entdev/article.php/3730276

If your going to consider dual boot and Linux, why not Dual boot with Vista...

Just a thought!!

The problem is that Vista is being bundled with new computers and that you cannot get the necessary drivers to "downgrade" to Windows XP. In other words, you can install XP, but any proprietary feature of the laptop will not work, i.e. web cams, microphones, card readers, newer graphics, etc. Several weeks ago, I purchased a new Toshiba Core 2 Duo 5450-based laptop to replace my two-year old Acer Core Duo 2300-based laptop. Both systems had 2 GB or RAM. Virtually every operation took twice as long on the Toshiba running Vista and the bootup times were quite a bit longer as well, this AFTER I removed the crapware. The hard drive activity light never went off! Remember also that the two-year old laptop has never been reinstalled of had the registry cleaned; a fresh install of XP would have really kicked some Vista aXX. I went to the Toshiba site and looked for XP drivers so that I could install XP on the laptop but they were not available. I took the Toshiba back to Fry's Electronics (that company has a great return policy). Why should I buy a new laptop to receive poorer performance than on my old computer? And, why won't the laptop vendors make drivers for XP available for those of us who want them? Toshiba just lost a long-time customer!

If Vista were on planes in the cockpit, they would be falling out of the sky. When, not if Vista crashes the plane crashes. Sort of gives new meaning to a system crash!!

Don't look now, but Vista isn't crashing. The problem being encountered is the performance hit that everyone is experiencing. As for the driver problem, what is the difference from a legacy system not having Vista drivers to a new system (as Stephen commented) not having XP drivers? Both systems are useless anyway.
I have a new core duo HP Laptop which was delivered with Vista premium. After I tried for about a month to get it to work (believe me, I REALLY tried), I gave up and requested the XP installation CDs from HP (which they provided - as would Toshiba). Now that Vista SP1 is here, I will try dual booting the system and see if it works better. If not, then I can still continue with XP and wait for the next generation of computer/OS combinations.

Vista is not an alternative to XP. XP works. Everything I do in Vista takes additional clicks. Everything that should be readily availabe has been hidden under layers. There "security" is there usual lack of information about the risk, and hassle you so maybe you won't do it. Everything about Vista is difficult, awkward unnesessarily.

Office 2007, the companion to the Vista era is equaly dumb, except for Outlook. Hiding useful menus behind blobs and ribbons is rediculous.

Vista is just a bad example of how corporate america can't recognize a good product. Make XP better? Fine. Replace it because it works and everyone likes it, NO!