You DO realise that with this line, you negate the rest of your post right? It's like you were saying it was all bad in that way...that is until Vista came.

Annnyway...

i find Server 2003 (tweaked so audio, accelerated graphics etc.... work) to be far superior to XP in stability and speed

Jbennet did as I quoted when I mentioned them. I'll do it again for you:
This is probably an argument we can't agree on, but I'm going to respond anyways.

Vista is somewhat peculiar for a Windows release in both the time it took to release and the sudden leap in min requirements. And while I agree that the leap was pretty extreme, IMHO a large part of it was allowable. But lets look at previous Windows releases for a second:
* Win95 came out in 1995 (duh) and ran on a 386 with 4MB of RAM. The computer I had back then was a 133MHz (I forget the RAM though)
* Win98 came out in '98 and ran on a 486 with 16MB of RAM. My computer around then was a 350MHz with 32MB of RAM.
* WinME sucked
* Win2K ran on a 133MHz with 64MB of RAM. I still had the 350.
* WinXP (2001) ran on a 233MHz with 64MB of RAM. By then I was building a 1.2GHz with 128MB of RAM (those were the days...)
Win XP lasted well through my 3.2GHz with 1GB of RAM and Athlon 2500+ with 1GB RAM.
* Windows Vista (2007) required 800MHz and 512MB RAM and DX9. A sizeable jump, and this was the min. Premium requirements are 1GHz and 1GB of RAM, and DX9. Slightly more. However, my point is that technically, a computer from several years earlier would only require a RAM upgrade to run it. When I got my copy, I build a relatively cheap system (~$500) featuring a dual-core, 2GB of RAM, and DX10. Runs great. The system requirements certainly were a jump (and 2GB really should be the min for Premium) but it's not that hard to get a Vista-capable system. And if that's not an option, there are plenty of PCs that already have XP on them, plus XP isn't being cut for support yet. You can still have a supported Windows OS for your 233MHz computer from the mid-90s.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing how modular it'll be. This opens lots of options for user customizations too. Also probably creates a few new security issues, but that should be good in the long run.

Yeah, and what software company doesn't have a model like that?

If you consider XP SP2 to be an OS in itself (2556mb ram, 650mhz) then the idea of doubling in requirements each release still holds

Do you buy an OS to use the OS, or do you buy an OS to provide the means with which to run the software you use on the hardware you have?

That is where I think MS has gone wrong, OS as an experience, OS being the target application for all our software needs, no thanks, just give me the means run the software I choose to use.

Sure there is a place for bloated MS OS's, but if they would put out a bare-bones performance OS for people who have a little technical know-how, and price it accordingly, I would have my order in.

Maybe that could be a good business model, put out a solid OS core and sell all the bloat-ware as individual add-ons, then keep upgrading those add-ons year after year($$$), like a slick 3D interface, etc.

I don't want a slick 3D interface, or sound, on my XP installs I have ALL themes turned off, all of windows sounds OFF, etc.

Give me a $50 OS that does just that, operates my system, let me choose, and pay for individually, all the extras like calculator, windows games(never even opened that folder yet), address book, messenger, etc.

Nothing annoys more than having to disable that damn messenger that I have never used and never will, didn't ask for it, don't want it.

I hate doing an update and having it reinstall IE7 and make it the default browser AGAIN!

Why is the print spooler loaded and running when no printer installed?

Why is wireless networking service loaded and running when no wireless network card is present?

There are many types of users out there, MS has put out 4(?) versions of Vista, could you consider any one of them to be for the 'power user'?

What would be wrong with MS putting out an OS at a reasonable price that would be attractive to Linux users.

I run Linux on 3 boxes, if MS had a comparable stripped down OS that required me to mount my drives, mount my hardware, find my own hardware drivers, etc. but in the end would run the expensive software that I use daily that runs only on Windows, I would have my credit card in one hand and my mouse in the other, clicking the download link right now.

As far as DRM, I read an article(wish I could find it now) that talked about MS and it's push for DRM.

The article suggested that MS really doesn't give a hoot if you watch a ripped movie on your PC, it is laying the ground work for controlling content, laying the foundation to become THE content provider for the future.

This makes sense to me, MS pioneers DRM to save the entertainment industry, the entertainment industry applies DRM technology to all of it's content.

How does the entertainment industry then get that content to the paying consumer?
Through MS of course.

How does the consumer get the content they want?
Through MS of course.

In the future if you are a content creator, or content user, you will be forced to use MS technology in the form of DRM.

B

which is why xp suits me fine - runs everything i need best

No other than the famous Stephen Hawking said:
"Intelligence is the ability to adapt to change."

That includes the change from XP to Vista. I think Vista looks so cool! It works for many things fairly well.

No other than the famous Stephen Hawking also said:
"It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value!"

Sorry, I would not use intelligence as the reason to switch to Vista.

Sounds like Vista is a girl's OS.

vista IS more secure though and its install and hardware detection are better.

Vista is fine if you use the win2k style interface

A very good friend of mine just purchased an Alienware gaming PC with Vista which has been tweaked and tuned by pros and he says it has been flawless so far.

I am surprised and happy for him.