Windows XP vs Windows Vista

No offence Vishnu, but even Microsoft already made a "replacement" for Windows Vista. What I mean here is, if Vista is this any good - at least from marketing side, but a bad sales from Vista means there is something wrong with Vista technically - then Microsoft would not made a immediate replacement for Vista, just the way like XP do. I don't really agree with your statement that Vista is the best OS from Microsoft. I have used Vista also (I use all Windows series since Windows 3.1! (2000, NT, Server, etc)). I agree that Vista has better graphics and more core security at initial stage, but please make note that XP now have reached SP3, and the patch are updated regulary so it has better security also. No hard feeling here brother. Question: Did you really use Vista on P4 with 512MB RAM? Didn't it lagged a lot? What Vista version did you use?

What MS has agreed to is that their OS was having some hardware and software compatibility issues. They did not admit that Vista was any bad than any previous OS. They also said "they learned their lessons from their experience with vista". And yes, Windows 7 is in no way a replacement for Vista(anyways, a newer version is always a replacement for the older one) because Windows Longhorn(Windows 7)'s work was started even before the release of Vista. Answer: Yes I did install and I was very happy to see the performance of the so called bad OS. I was not willing to install Vista at first because everyone said it was not good. But I thought I will try it out when I got my hands on Vista DVD(without SP1). I installed it on my then computer(old one). The same machine took almost 40 minutes to install Windows XP while Vista was installed in a bit more than 20 minutes!!!. It took a minute to startup the computer but after it was all up, it worked so well. My motherboard didn't support Aero interface so it was automatically turned off. I am an avid user of Graphics s/ws like 3D Max, Photoshop and flash. Everything worked great and while I used these softwares(no all at once, ofcourse), I felt that system is giving me better response than while using XP. Only some places like copying files was when it took a bit more time than normal but after SP1 was installed, that issue was also sorted out. MS also said that many computers faced a problem while playing music because Vista(without SP1) did not reserve processor for multimedia threads that has to be executed in real time. But I never faced that problem.

While responding to your comment. I was looking for the URL of a site that I visited some months ago. Visit this site: http://www.mojaveexperiment.com. MS claims that It was an experiment done by the MS. In the experiment MS guys changed the look of Vista and showcased it in front of some 140 people saying that it was a new OS from MS. Go to the website to see the story in detail. Now you know what Vista actually is. Its all there in people's mind. More than half of the population say Vista is no good just because others say this. Some website guys might have given the review that Vista is not good after evaluating the beta/pre-beta releases. Other websites and other people might have spread this word and so this news spread that Vista is not good. And to top it up, when Vista was released, it had some compatibility issues. This is what I feel why people have ill feeling about Vista. One more thing... I have never faced a hardware compatibility issue. I have worked with variety of hardware in vista but till today I didn't face any major hardware compatibility problems... But I did face some software problems but that was rectified by those software developers soon after the release of Vista. Like Nero came up with Nero 7 enhanced for Vista.