Quote Originally Posted by JuggaloBrotha
Yes, because it's functionally flawed, they rushed it and sp1 didn't fix much. That being said SP2 could actually make Vista work reasonably but I'm wondering if SP2 was rushed like the whole project's been.
What are you talking about? What's flawed and what needs to be fixed? Vista will work great if you're not running it on 8 year old hardware. I currently have it running on 4 machines and all of them are just as fast as they were with Windows XP. They crash less and are so much more usable (Windows Key + start typing what you want to open = heaven to a keyboard junky).

Windows 7 looks really great but I don't get the whole "negativity" around Vista. Most of it seems to be complete FUD. For instance, many state that Vista uses too much memory but this is not true. Unlike XP where it would just let your memory sit there, unused, Vista actually caches your commonly accessed applications so while my Vista machine with 4GB of ram only has 1.2GB free, it's not wasting memory like XP did. If an application needs the memory it immediately frees it up and overwrites it. When I jump into a game of Team Fortress 2 with my settings cranked up while 3 instances of Visual Studio, SQL Management Studio, IE, Firefox, Opera, Safari, Zune iTunes, Media Center and Outlook are running my game still loads and runs as fast as it did on XP Pro.

Also, I would hardly call 5 and a half years "rushing" it. Vista had many components re-written to remove old code from the Windows 3.1 days. That's huge and makes updates and other parts of the operating system work much better.