Actually no their not. Their going to tax your GPU on your graphics card. The whole desktop is running off of DirectX 9 or 10 if you have hardware compatible with it. So your processor is relatively free.

Microsoft has openly admitted if your computer is more than 2 years old there is a good chance you'll need an upgrade to run it. Don't be confused though. This is not the kind of OS you upgrade to. This is kind of OS you buy on new hardware. Alot of the features in Vista will come out as upgrades for XP, so the need to upgrade to vista may not be that great, especially at first.

Ok I'll accept that and should really have had my brain in before I said that.

That's fair enough but I really don't think it is right that you should need substantial hardware just for the OS. I'm due an upgrade before vista lands anyway so I doubt it will be a problem, but isn't it getting in the way of a demanding game that could easily run on XP with the WinFX API installed. I just hope that the existence of that API on XP means that XP will still be a viable alternative.
I do remember the same issue with XP though when it first arrived. I could barely run it until I upgraded.

I agree with that, but with the good comes the bad. I had to upgrade for XP too, but it was worth it in my opinion compared to 98, i'm hoping Vista will be worth it to.

Only if it provides unique functionality

I agree. As far as the new GUI goes, needed OR not, I am glad their giving windows a makeover. XP isn't the prettiet OS.

"Pretty" is only a relative term. Five years after its release when Microsoft is releasing their next version we will be saying "Vista isn't the prettiest OS..." I refuse to pay all of this until Microsoft allows people to develop their own themes so when you actually become tired of Vista's you have the capability to change it.
Remember how pretty XP was when it first came out? If you are feeling nostalgic you could go look for some old pages talking about it. On my standards it's still very "pretty."
I still can't believe you people who are willing to spend upwards of 200 dollars for a new theme and a game of solitaire (oh, and all of those wonderful new DRM features too).
Imagine paying 200 dollars for a Linux distribution with as many features as Windows has.

Could you post a link to the screenshots you've seen, because the screenshots I've seen look pretty plain - even with transparent windows.

I think we've established that isn't all about buying a new theme. Vista has alot of upgrades and improvements over XP, thats what is important. That is also one thing you can't deny. Alot of us dislike Microsoft for various reasons, and like most us here, I'll probably never buy Vista unless it comes on a pre-built PC. But you can't hate it for no good reason. And because it comes from Redmond, is lame reason. Not all of thier software blows. Word, Powerpoint, and Excel are all very good programs. Even Mac users know that. (If you didn't know by the way, Microsoft Office is the or of the top selling programs on Mac.) Especially since very few of us have even tried using it yet, and those of us who have, have only used betas. I think we should give Microsoft a shot before we totally condemn them. Hell, I bet even Linus Torvalds is curious about seeing what it can and cannot do.

Not according to Paul Thurrott...

Who's Paul Thurrott?

EDIT: After reading his site on Vista. His conclusion was and I quote:

So there you go, it'll be better, but not what it should be. I'm disapointed, but I'm glad thier atleast improving.

Why do you even care? I couldn't care less what they do.

Compition breeds inovation. Besides the internet will safer if Microsoft makes Windows safer. Windows is what most people use, and thats what most viruses are written for. The safer windows is right now, the safer we all are.

Oh the irony.

Microsoft is neither competitive nor innovative.

Examples:

Innovation: Translucent windows appeared in Linux almost 4 years ago. They are only now just appearing in MS beta products.

Competition: Netscape Navigator was the most popular web browser until... MS tied Internet Exploder into Windows and flatly refused to make it removable. They even lied in court about it.

Microsoft's history as a corporate citizen is downright appalling.
Fair point, but what if Windows didn't exist?? At a guess, I'd say that the majority of computers would be running some form of MacOS or OS/2. And viruses would not exist as we know them today. IMO, the PC world would have been better off without Microsoft.

I think it's a bit mean to say microsoft never contributed any new ideas. My opinion is that both OS's do different things well. I'd never expect my dad to be capable of using linux as effectively. He has barely grasped windows and the added complexity of installing software for linux would make him give up fast. So you want MS's biggest contribution? The have made the computer much more accessible to the technically inept. If you disagree with this, explain to me the prevalence of windows and the massive upsurge in internet usage. This wouldn't have happened if not for windows. Fact.

I can't defend their actions here, they are tragically appauling, and whilst I agree that their primary motivation is squeezing out the competition, but their is likely a small element of trying to make life easier for people who don't know how to do things. At least you CAN install other browsers.

It is very niave in my opinion to think that windows being gone would mean a decline in viruses. The fact is that if windows didn't exist the focus in virus development would shift to the market leader. I'll agree 100% that posix based OS's are inherently more secure, but don't forget that they are still vulnerable. It is possible to get full control with viruses. If a more serious effort was put into finding these loopholes there would be a sharp upturn in linux/mac viruses. So you should be grateful that windows exists for that reason.

Remember innovation can come from anywhere whether it is the open source community, a company, or virus authors.

So you've never heard of OS/2? The OS from which most of Windows 95's interface was copied? And how about MacOS? They had a "Recycle Bin" a full 10 years before any MS product had one.

Believe me, if Windows wasn't around your dad (and 90% of the rest of the world) would be using OS/2 and/or MacOS today. The "technically inept" would not have been forced into Linux. In fact, they would have been even better off without such a single dominant player in the market place.

As for the Internet: It was well & truly on the upswing before Microsoft jumped on board. They didn't even ship a web browser with the first release of Windows 95. Paraphrasing Bill Gates at the time: "That thing'll never take off..." Public pressure made them buy a program called "Mosaic" and re-badge it "Internet Explorer." Is that what you'd call innovative?
Yeah. Maybe you should try running "Windows Update" thru another browser and see just how far you get...

Do you remember the days when Netscape would have to release a new version every time Microsoft made a "security" patch for Windows 98? Was it co-incidence that these security patches ALWAYS managed to break Netscape? This was one of the things that made me fully switch to Linux on my home PC in 1999 (I had been playing with it since late 1998).

More recently:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/05/25/421763.aspx
I hear this argument a lot, but disagree with it completely.

Here's a good article which explores this whole thing further:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/securit...dows_vs_linux/
It comes from everywhere except Microsoft.

I acknowledge that the company may have done many of the things you mentioned, but all of their "initiatives" were already underway well before Microsoft came around. If Microsoft hadn't been there someone else would have.