Well, Windows ME was probably worse:) From a support side, we do have a lot more issues deploying Vista, mostly due to drivers. We're also implementing Bit Locker, which presents a whole new set of problems.
As a factory install, Windows 7 does seem to appear more robust than Vista.

Can't go wrong with a Mac. I have been using Apples since I was like 3 years old and would take one over a Windows machine any day.

Yeah but I can do anything I want or need under Mac OS.

That being said, I do have a slightly older XP box hooked up to the flat screen TV which I use occasionally as a media player or for the odd game. But it is frustrating. Had a video card fail (which got replaced under warranty) but was a pain to sort out. Now the ATI Catalyst Control Center won't run and I just haven't had time to sort that out. I've never had a major problem on a Mac that couldn't be sorted out fairly quickly and the only hardware failure I ever had was a faulty CD ROM that was promptly replaced under warranty.

LOL, I suppose you installed on an older XP machine? Wouldn't surprise me if you had problems... like when people went from 95 to 98, 98 to ME, ME to XP... etc etc. I had issues going from 3.11 to 95, too.

I suppose it helps that all the software on this computer is newer. I wouldn't want to go through the trouble to get a legacy program to work on a Windows machine, it's just not worth it. Unless you have thousands of dollars in old software...

Yup, definitely buying a Mac. I'm just tired of MS products.

I actually never had any problems with Vista after SP1 came out. That being said I use it in a HTPc that really only streams movies and music from a central home server.

I too switched to the new Macbook with my latest laptop but I still have XP in it as well!:mrgreen:

I'm running Vista on both my laptop and my desktop. I found vista easier to install then XP and have had no real significant problems on either machine. The laptop ran a little doggier until I boosted the RAM to 2 gigs but both run fine.

My only complaint about Vista has ever been that it uses more resources, but then it was the same way going from 98se to XP. I think a lot of the problems people have with Vista is that they are trying to put it on older machines without enough OOMPH to run it. Vista has received exactly the same kind of press that XP did in it's early days. I remember when XP launched and everybody HATED it, now it's the good old standby.

If windows 7 is a more efficient version of Vista then I am looking forward to it!

XP will not run on any quad core chips only on dual core, so unless you planning on keeping your machine till you die, we all gona have to decide if we want to run 7 or not.

Windows 7 comes with a Win XP SP3 Virtual Machine(not crummy compatibility mode) so you can continue to use your favourite XP software.

Yes I would certainly say Windows 7 uses less resources and is faster than Vista. From a cold boot I can open Firefox and surf Canreef.com in less than 45 seconds, with Vista this probably took two full minutes to do.

Try processing 6000 GPOs and see how quickly it boots :)

Where did you get that info from?!?!... I just bought 2 quad core machines and installed xp on them with no problems.

That being said I am going to install Windows 7 on my laptop and play around with it. Anyone know if there are any issues with XP and W7 both running on a network?