office 2003 was better than 2000. For basic needs, as browsing, word processing etc, one doesnt needs the latest n greatest. Hell 99% of us dont. So I agree with you on that aspect. Does Vista suck tho? No 98% of the tyme the ppl whining, bitching, n moaning just dont like change, dont know how to turn shyt off, and/or download n install lord knows what n then blames the OS for their woes. I see it daily, n w/o fail its the end users fault not Vista or anyother OS for that matter.

 

true but most non-geek or nerdy types need protected from themselves which Vista does, to a point that its %*%* annoying lol. M$ needs to take more lessons from *nix n I mean take lessons not steal lol.

 

I turn all of winbloze av shyt off n use AVG myself.

 

ive heard about Mojave before...
i like and dislike Vista so far..it seems to crash a lot on my games...if not crashes on a lot of programs...it likes to eat my RAM. I like Windows XP..i thought it was great, Windows could of just redone XP.

 

they did. XP is a fluffed up reworked y2k Pro which was a reworked fluffed up NT. Now they have Vista with all that in its bowels along with what M$ stole from OS X and *nix.

 

Forgive me for not going through all the posts on here and skipping to my response, as I may or may not say things that have already been said. Although I still won't use Vista on my home machine, I must admit that Vista has made tremendous improvements since the first time I used it in it's Beta version at work. Yes, it's annoying with it's constant pop-ups and it often feels like a pesky child asking your permission to do everything, it's MS's most secure OS to date.

People like to bitch and complain about MS products and their lack of security, but what most people don't get is that other OS's out there are not as secure as they think. It's simply a matter of numbers, in that it's not economical for malicious code writers to waste their time trying to get into Macs and Linux boxes when a vast majority of home users are running Windows.

Think of it this way. You're a car thief, and to be an efficient car thief, you want to learn as much as you can about the vulnerabilities of the cars you intend to steal. Do you go out and learn how to steal Bugati Veyrons??? Hell no, you figure out how to steal Honda Accords!! If anybody thinks that other operating systems are more secure because of superior programming, you are dead wrong. The real security issue is the number of people dedicated to cracking MS vulnerabilites as compared to other OS's.

Now, just to be my usual hypocritical self and argue both sides of the argument, I think Vista was a useless and unneccesary upgrade. It has the Millenium Edition vibe to it, and I can't seem to shake that feeling. I simply see no need to upgrade upon XP, which IMHO has become a stable, fast, and secure OS. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But we all know better than that. MS is a business, and a greedy one at that. They are the EA Sports of the OS world, constantly polishing turds and presenting them as golden nuggets.

It's like they said, "Ok, we got XP and it's a great success! We've made some great changes and updates over the years through patches and upgrades, but let's do this. Let's make a new OS, and we'll start by making the system requirements higher than the average computer out there. Then we're gonna take all the most important features of the OS, such as administrative tools, shut down and restart buttons and menu options and we're going to make them really hard to find, even though these common features have been in the same familiar location since Windows 95. Then we're gonna take off our shirts and kiss and have an orgy in a pile of all the money we make."