For the record (although this isn't true of everyone who has made that comment), I have made it perfectly clear many times that my comparison is from a MARKETING, NOT from a DESIGN standpoint! Vista works very well on Vista-compatible hardware.
No worries, Gid, I have read your comments regarding Vista and I am aware of your viewpoint. In fact, I agree with you, Vista's marketing has been sadly lacking and many would be customers have not been wowed sufficiently to upgrade/purchase.
As you can see from my above post, I've still got that irrepressible tongue in cheek way of putting a view out there.
I guess, though, my point is that, while MS failed in its marketing of Vista, other factors have contributed to Vista's slow uptake: for example, PC manufacturers who install it on less than adequate machines, thus helping prove the self-proclaimed experts right.... that it is unstable, etc.
Another factor here in Oz: suppliers who do not provide PC/retail stores with adequate stock of the available Vista flavours. Vista Home Basic and Premium are generally the ONLY pre-builds available off the shelf, same with the standalone OS, and customers go back to XP rather than wait several days, sometimes weeks for other Vista editions.
In some ways, maybe the market wasn't ready for a new Windows OS just yet, and when you combine MS' unpreparedness to release Vista as well, you have a recipe for OSes to fare better, for disenchanted consumers to look elsewhere.
And Yeah, I agree with your Accountants and Aero comment....businesses should have been offered an edition akin to Home Basic....all the business features minus the eye candy.
