Windows 7

[noelfirl]

>> The stupid, uncessary 'glass-like' theme is beautiful, but if you don't like it or feel it slows down your performance too much it switches either down to a non-translucent version, or back to classic battleship grey.

I agree. I swore that on the glass eye candy alone that I wouldn't be sold on Vista, but it really is beautiful. I was worried that my one and a half year old laptop with "Vista Capable" on it at the time wouldn't allow Aero, but it runs fine without any juddering or bad rendering. The only issue with Aero for me is that after it 'fades' on from the login screen to the desktop, there's a very brief screen flash to black a second or two later.

Vista's Start Menu is fantastically designed, and the search box on the menu means I no longer spend three days searching the menu's trees for a specific program. Just typing "ad" will bring up all of my Adobe programs, the most used of course appearing first.

I have no use for Calendar or Sidebar at the moment, but I agree on the start menu search box. I know Google Desktop could do the same, but it's so handy just to hit the start key, quickly tap "fire","word" or even "comptrol [sic] panel" and have the program open.

Oh, and Vista costs a ridiculous amount of money.

If you're stupid enough to buy a retail version in a ridiculously overpriced store then yes, Vista is VERY overpriced. I paid the equivalent of £59 for a copy Vista Business and think I got a VERY good deal.

[Sput]

I used Star Office. It's free and does the job just as well as Office 2007

That depends on what the job is. For what I try and do it's utter shite and Office is the best way to go. I don't ever expect to come across a viable free alternative that does any more than the basics properly.

[cwathen]

I kinda feel sorry for Vista users and their bug-ridden OS which is going to be superseded by Windows 7 in less than 2 years.

This is very clearly a mock (a Wikipedia article is hardly a cast-iron source) *but* it wouldnt surprise me if Microsoft did intend to try and go back to quicker release schedules again. Microsoft's biggest competitor is older versions of it's own software. Nowhere has this ever been truer than Windows XP, a single version for home and consumer use which survived as the current version of Windows from October 2001 right up until January 2007 - that's a *lot* of people to convert. To say nothing of the huge jump in hardware requirements (XP only needs a 300 Mhz processor and 64MB of RAM to run!) which will only serve to hold people back further.

If they did try and move on more quickly (as they did before, there were numerous major releases in the 5 years before Windows XP came out) then there wouldn't be so many people to convert, and hardware would be made forcibly obsolete more quickly.

It's not particularly competitive (not that Microsoft ever is) but from a marketing and revenue point of view, it just makes sense!

I certainly don't see Vista surviving as current and supported into 2013.

[cdd]

All of Jamez' listed arguments could be said about Win9x to XP... but you're using that happily now.

I don't find Vista bad at all. I like the way Windows are rendered on screen. Also, with XP I felt as though I had to format once every three months or so to keep it running nicely. Vista hasn't slowed down at all since I last installed it about 7 months ago.