Vista works fine for me, but this is a NEW machine. I think it is one of those (like XP SP2) that is best done on a clean install, not upgrade.

That’s normally what I recommend to people if they want Vista. To me it is a little pointless to try and upgrade an older machine to the operating system, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to take Vista off of a new machine I bought.

“You worried me when I read the title of this article that it was going to turn in to another one of these Vista-bashing articles that are all over the internet recently. Vista’s minimum requirements are pretty much the same as OS X 10.5 but no-one moans about that.”

Unlike Vista, OSX actually works.

My guess, anonymous, is that you’re saying that based upon what other people have said and you haven’t tried Vista for yourself. Try it, and you’ll see it does in fact work.

Unlike Vista, OSX actually works.

“Interesting Fact: (Windows XP) was the first operating system produced by Microsoft to be built on the Windows NT kernel and architecture.”

???

Windows NT would have been the first, followed by Windows 2000.

I’m sorry, I meant that it was the first consumer oriented version of Windows to be built on the Windows NT kernel.

Vista’s requirements aren’t those steep.

Poor quality article to be honest and frank. Sorry.

I’m sorry this article didn’t appeal to you. Unfortunately what we write won’t always appeal to everybody. Judging by the stats of this particular article, a good chunk of people did find it interesting. Every now and then we like to take a look back at just how far we’ve come with technology, and that’s what this article demonstrates.

You’re right, thanks for pointing out the error.

Ahh.. no Vista bashing here. I’ll be the first to defend Vista with certain things, it’s a great operating system in my opinion (of course it has a few flaws too).