Vista a dog? No way. A yawner with users? You bet.

Yesterday's blog, Is Vista a dog? brought many comments in the affirmative. I asked Computerworld's resident Windows expert, Scot Finnie, for his thoughts on this. Scot has 17 years of experience testing and writing about Windows and has written extensively about Vista' pros and cons for Computerworld.

His bottom line: it's not.

To be honest, I don't buy the performance issue. I've got hardware Vista screams on. It doesn't seem faster or slower to me than XP. It probably has more to do with what software you have installed, what software you run, and what your expectations are.

If you expecting fast performance, you will be disappointed. Vista was not a performance release. There is definitely more overhead, not less. They optimized for that.

With the exception of video, I really don't think you want substantially above the sweet spot with hardware. A dual core 2.0GHz machine with 2GB of RAM and a SATA100 hard drive runs Vista quite well. So long as you have a 128MB 3D, Dx9 video card that supports PixelShader 2.0, you are really all set. The video piece is actually the biggest problem.

But, he says, users are remarkably disinterested in Vista.

My newsletter readers, who are (or were) all advanced Windows users, have made their intentions clear. They are not interested in moving to Vista. Since I've been covering Windows.. that's a first ... with the exception of Windows ME, every version of Windows has had more grass-roots support than Vista appears to have now.

Of course, that's totally a subjective assessment, and I just switched to the Mac. Still, I've been amazed. I thought Vista would do better than this among Windows geeks.

Related News and Discussion:

Copyright © 2007 IDG Communications, Inc.

7 inconvenient truths about the hybrid work trend
Shop Tech Products at Amazon