ZJBDragon wrote:If you have a multi-core CPU and more than 3 GB of RAM, then you may actually see performance improvements in Vista due to its better implementation of multi-threading support in its core code.
This has been adequately proven as false in many, many benchmarks and consumer testing - especially with SP3 in which multi-core support in XP was enhanced. Vista will cost you roughly 25-30 percent performance from the same hardware (especially while gaming). So regardless of how new your hardware is you are basically dumping speed for some gimmicks, glitz and glam. You also don't have the 'advantage' of DX10 (hardly noticeable in my opinion), but a group of clever folks have even managed to make that work under XP, which of course was possible from the word go... but it was used as a means of marketing leverage to try and force adoption of the new OS.
Add to this the problems and concerns raised by the very touchy DRM that is built into Vista by Microsoft to control media distribution channels in a bid for greater consumer control and revenue generation (a primary reason that sound hardware access was changed by the way), and generally Vista is not very appealing to intelligent and informed PC users. This is often much more apparent if you have HD media and hardware, it doesn't function as well as it should.
Granted some people hate on Vista just because they see others doing it, but there are valid and real reasons why the OS has failed miserably to be embraced by the IT market. It was SO unsuccessful that they couldn't even manage to force Vista through brand name OEM distribution, and instead had to resurrect support and sales of XP in order to keep from losing massive revenue potential (places like DELL, HP, etc).