OK...
@Some AC "My experience in IT has shown me that anytime there's a major release it will totally blow up some users machines."
Service packs aren't supposed to be a major release -- a major release would be going from 2000 to XP, not original to SP1, SP1 to SP2, etc. Having a serivce pack blow out people's systems is quite unimpressive.
@rob,
"So all the sceptics, I am unsure if you have ever used the OS or if you just like seeing your unguided voices in print on websites but give Vista a chance, it is not nearly as bad as its press of late."
I've seen it. It was slooow to boot (several minutes), ran like crap, thrashed a lot for no reason. It's at least as bad as it's press. The Microsoft "party line" is of course that I should upgrade or replace any system that isn't fast enough.. well, why should I? I can get full functionality (INCLUDING Aero-like desktop effects) on basically any system made since 2000 or so.
wolf:
"It's too expensive! It's too bloated! It won't run on my 386! It's using all my memory!!! Wah!"
My sentiments exactly! Vista *IS* too bloated and slow. I mean, sure, GBs of RAM and multi-ghz CPUs are cheap, but the OS should not be chugging this all for itself just to barely run. I recently saw Ubuntu boot up MUCH faster off a *LiveCD* than Vista did off the hard disk of a Toshiba Satellite. It was a core duo with 1GB of RAM... I know, someone's just going to say "Well, duh, you're supposed to have at least 2GB". Bull. An OS should NOT need 2GB just to boot. Ubuntu 7.10 is relatively bloated for a Linux distro, and it runs fine on a P3-866, 512MB, and a 20GB HD.. it is snappy and boots in about a minute flat. (Note.. my home computers are AthlonXPs, the P3 is an older work computer.) Core 2 Duo with 2GB? I've seen several Linuxes run on a system like this. It's ridiculous, it'll boot in like 15 or 20 seconds, and the desktop will come up so fast it pops up while the few second long startup sound is still playing. It's hard to use up that second GB though 8-).
"And these posters need to get a life--or better yet, a *clue*. If you can't make Vista run you sure as hell won't be running Linux."
If it's driver problems, perhaps true. If it's someone with a system that doesn't meet Vista's portly system requirements, well, the recommendation for even the most modern Linux distro is like 256MB of RAM, 4GB HD, and a P3 (and there's distros for lower end systems.) Realistically, any distro will run great on a P4, 512MB, 10GB or more HD.
@Skullfoot
If you're running 32-bit, Microsoft has just patched it to claim 4GB in use while actually still using 3GB. As much of a hater as I am, I don't blame this on Microsoft -- this seems to be a common limitatin to 32-bit OSes on Intel architecture, 512MB-1GB (or sometimes 2GB) of the 4GB address space is set aside for exclusive OS use, not available to applications. (Linux, other Windows versions, OS/2, etc. all suffer from this limitation unless you go 64-bit.)
@Steven Hewittt
"So what actually is the issue with Vista? It can't be stability, features or cost. (It's as solid if not more so than XP, has more new or improved features than the change from 2000 to XP and it's under £100....)"
Well, of course it can. Stability -- having an update kill a system is not stable. People have had plenty of stability complaints. Features and cost -- Microsoft has competition now! Comparing to older Microsoft OSes, you're right. Compared to Linux distros, OSX, etc., you are not... the features of Vista have been matched and surpassed by other OSes, and price has been beaten by some (and not beaten by others -- OSX costs a lot if you have to buy a Mac to run it for instance.)