[Panoptic]

I prefer XP myself, as the interface seems like a tighter, snappier experience (plus some of my programs just don't work right in Vista) but Vista isn't terrible assuming you have enough power for it. What I find funny about the Mojave Experiment ads is the people seeing the demos don't realize the demo systems would probably smash their systems out of existence.

[Panoptic]

Unless SP1 gives Vista an enormous boost to interface speed, I disagree with you on how snappy the GUI is. Yeah, a fully accelerated GUI is nice - it may render without (or at least with less) tearing and not have the artifacting issue that XP's blitter graphics have, but in my opinion it doesn't have the speed or responsiveness of XP (Note that the "worst" GPU I've used Vista with on one of my own systems is a GeForce 7800GTX). I stopped using Vista about a month before SP1 officially dropped, and kept it updated, but if you're adamant that the performance difference is there, I might try installing it again.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but my intent wasn't to say that you need a monster system to run Vista - I was just making light of the fact that most people's problems with the new OS are because of antiquated hardware (referring to the Mojave Experiment ads). Back when Vista came out there was a camp that was outraged that the accelerated GUI required PS model 2.0 to run. I seem to recall Apple poking fun at this aspect of Vista as well (isn't DirectX more feature-laden than OpenGL?), but the way I see it, it's a necessary step forward. They just haven't implemented it in a way I'm willing to change operating systems for yet. I'd bet most of the people whose computers aren't up to the task of running Vista are the same people who're happy with XP that you refer to, but my system is DX10.1 capable, and I happen to be happy with XP, myself. Well, not completely happy with it, but I find it's better than all the alternatives for what I do on my PC.

[Panoptic]