I have two laptops. One is a Lenovo Vista machine from work. The other is my Macbook Pro that is my personal machine. Let me also add the Lenovo cost about 1000 dollars less too...

I have to say, I am loving Vista, moreso than OS X these days. Maybe it is just my still higher awareness and familiarity with windows versus OS X, but I just don't really find OS X compelling anymore. I have no major issues with Vista. I find it just as stable, if not more so, than OS X. It also has been decent about legacy application support for things I use. (Let me add, I don't game really)

I've just found my mac to be 'eh.' Iphoto complete sucks. Even after some nifty ferature updates in the latest ilife package, it is just an intense resource hog. Windows Gallery is much better and has almost all the same feature set. Oh, and it also maintians your personal folder system and doesn't move everything. Safari is total garbage. I use IE or Firefox on my PC. I HAVE to use Firefox on my mac, Safari crashes a lot with embedded content and I find it renders pages funny. Itunes is SLOW when it shows album art. Zune MP or Windows MP are much faster. (and I have larger Zune library than itunes one).

I just find the overall expeirence has been better after using both side by side for about 6 months.

I have Vista on the lappy and regular old windows on the PC. Vista's a little different, mostly in its attempt to be user friendly, I guess. As long as it works, I'm happy.

I have had to return a shit ton of laptops from all different manufacturers that had vista on them. Simply because vista has a problem with BSOD. However it is easily fixed by installing XP. Also, on my lappy when I switched from vista to XP, my performance increased by about 4 fold. Vista's wireless utility is very lacking in features and if you turn off the SSID broadcast on your wireless router in an effort to hide it, you have to connect manually.....every single time. Windows XP works....VERY well. Vista is a blunder.

I can understand manu's comment about vista vs. macOS and vista being faster in many respects, but vista is heavily flawed. very heavily.....to the point that function becomes a problem. However, in defense of microsoft, this was an attempt at a completely new OS and as a result it's not going to be perfect, it may never be perfect but they gave it a go and from a developmental standpoint and a change of thought to drift towards new things, it was a success. It will pay off for them, just not right away. I look forward to the next release but i hope they do something to make a version that is less of a resource hog than all of the current vista releases.

Gamers especially are pissed because microsoft announced that they had no intention of releasing DX10 for XP. the reason they are pissed is the huge performance drop when running vista, and when you add a graphics intensive game on top of it, everything goes to shit. the only solution is for gamers to go to XP but if they do that they lose the DX10 support that games will soon require. Luckily at this point there are only a few games requiring it and maybe microsoft will give in to demand.

I'm forced to use Vista at work. XP is way better, although Vista has a few features that are pretty nice. But none of this matters, because we should all be using Linux anyway :)

I'm forced to use Vista at work. XP is way better, although Vista has a few features that are pretty nice. But none of this matters, because we should all be using Linux anyway :)

unless you can back that linux comment....nevermind.

EE-

Did you every try vista with the SP1 beta? I am running that right now on my primary laptop at home/work (I run XP on my desktop at work still), and I've noticed improvements in stability. My boss (who runs Vista 64 on his desktop at work) has noticed major speed increases. May be worth a shot

Nah, I haven't. It would be the wise thing to do but I went for the sure thing. I didn't really think it would make a difference in performance. I was kinda expecting more in the stability department. I will give it a shot sometime soon. right now I am too lazy to take out my restore CD's for my lappy.

I mean, as I said, i'm running this on a Core 2 2.2 with 1GB of ram and it is running really well. But it is mostly 'home' use. Pictures, email, IM, web and then VPN and RD.

mine is a core 2 2.0 with 2gb ram but I do gaming and such so we will see how it does.

Ahh, gotcha. Yeah, 0 gaming here.

I just helped my mom spec out a new desktop. I steered here away from Vista simply due to compatibility (and the fact I'm not around to help her with it)

Would have to buy a new version of office
I seriously doubt Eudora would work on it (I know, I know, I can't get her to change from friggin eudora :mad: )

New Version of office? Is she running office 97 or something? I run 2003 with no worries. Eudora, that I do not know about.

I believe he is talking about office 2007

Right, but that's not required for Vista...

(Office 07 is great btw)

hmm, for some reason I thought there were some issues with earlier versions of office and vista.

I have office XP. Not sure what year that is. I guess 01? It's an older version ;)

I thought I read that only the newest version would run on Vista

XP is always 2002

XP I'm not sure about. 2003 100% compatible.

I for one am not loving Vista.
Constant blue screens with power driver state failure, slow and inconsistent even with 2gb ram, too many UAC, the very same computers with Xp run XXXXX times faster.
The list goes on and on.
Slow shut down, slow startup, inability to do simple things like use a picture as your wallpaper and having that picture being COMPLETELY fullscreen. The need for Vista to only use HQ pictures for the wallpaper so that the picture is at least visible.

AGGGHHHH Vista would drive Jesus insane.

fo shizzle Adi.

Adi, was this a new computer or an upgrade? I've not had a bluescreen on Vista...