Ok, obvious flaws to my not-well thought out rant. I just hate it when I buy a factory computer from Best Buy with the best of everything (quad core, 2 GB RAM, etc. etc. etc.) I install games thinking that it will be so awesome to have one kick butt machine, but oh no!!! Dawn of War Dark Crusade doesn't work!!!! Supreme Commander won't reinstall now!!! Railroad Tycoon3 no longer works (none of these are exactly what I would define as old games). So what am I forced to do? Pay $300 to get the Geek Squad at Best Buy to uninstall VISTA, and install XP. They end up spending 4-5 days to find all the necessary drivers. I have to take the computer back multiple times because they forgot a driver.

However, in the end, my computer does work ok now.

A year from now, I am sure VISTA will work well.

I have learned my lesson: when a new OS comes out, DO NOT BUY A NEW COMPUTER FOR AT LEAST A YEAR. BY THAT TIME, THE DRIVERS WILL BE OUT, BUGS IRONED OUT, ETC.

I payed $1,500 and wanted an awesome gaming machine, but no, they just had to release fing VISTA at the time I wanted a new computer!!!!!

Certainly they could have some overlap between Operating Systems??? When VISTA comes out, still sell XP, and still be able to buy new computers with XP??? Is this not unreasonable?? When "Vista Squared" or whatever gay a@#$@ name comes out for the next operating system, would it be too much to ask to also sell top of the line computers with Vista???? I am not saying to go back to windows 95. Just that when a new OS comes out, give customers the option of buying a brand new computer with the old Operating System so that they don't have to wait a year for all the stupid drivers to be released, etc.

Well, there is your problem
I'm the type to build my own system; but if I were to buy a prebuilt and preconfigured system, I probably would go with Dell. I am pretty sure they still let you choose XP as your OS, and give you more control over your configuration.

Geek Squad had 4-5 days to install XP and any necessary drivers...and they still got it wrong?

In reality, they certainly should. People, myself included, like to use the auto world as an example. I work in parts for Dodge and let me tell you about 'obsolescence'. In the auto world the average time for a part is roughly ten years. After ten years, good luck finding the part you need unless it is a 'common' item used across a variety of models, regardless of model year/age. Long story short, ten years... after that it's anyone's guess if the part is still available... almost based on a demand factor if you will.
Now here we are with all this new fangled technology just waiting to drip down into our grubby little fingers for us to play with (and spend our hard earned cash on). I myself was 'late' into the PC era, purchasing my first PC in 2001 IIRC... 2001 people, six years ago. In six years time I have seen pretty much everything that was in my 'first PC' either become obsolete, outdated, antiquated, or just plain disappear. I am quite certain all of us reading are aware of this fact, and we pretty much all accept it.
My complaint is this... there are still many people out there with the 'older' set ups, be it with hardware, software, whatever... we are here. When companies push their new tech they ought to be forced into improving something, not obsoleting something. I know I am not wording this correctly but you get my point. Why should we as consumers be made to suffer this way when it is our money that makes Bill rich. It is our money that pays for the research department. They seem to have lost touch with this. As far as I am concerned MS has made more than enough money from all of us... so where the hell are our 'free' laptops that they could give to practically everyone and not even take a hit in their wallet. Or how about OS upgrades for free?
Sorry, work calls...

No one, not MS, not Intel, forces people to upgrade. If a person chooses to upgrade their OS (or whole computer) to one that may not, and makes no guarantee of, supporting their relatively antiquated hardware and/or applications, then that is their choice. People take for granted how much hardware and software windows does support out of the box. The bottom line is that if some software application or a piece of hardware does not work with an OS you have to ask these questions. Did the manufacturer of product incompatible with the OS claim it will absolutely work with the OS? and/or Did the OS producer make a similar one? I don't recall MS ever stating Vista would be 100% compatible with the software and hardware that would run on XP, and I don't recall any other hardware or software manufacturers claiming their product would run on Vista before the Vista name was even chosen.

No, but no one forces us to eat either. We could always not eat and then die.

Obviously the situation here is not as serious, but I am sure you can see my point.

While we don't have a free alternative to food, there is always free Linux when it comes to OSes; and barring upgrades and/or malice, software is not perishable nor does it get used up like food.

So then what you are saying SetarcosNous is that you could care less if every last tech outfit out there was to milk your wallet over the years? You could care less about your system not having support a few years down the road because the rest of the tech community felt it wasn't that important to continue to provide service for an old and outdated system? You're fine with spending 50.00 on a game only to find that it doesn't work with your 'new' system... and now you have an expensive coaster for your beer... this is all acceptable to you huh? Wow... you must be loaded. Well let me run this one by you... if you have all of this money to spend then how about sharing a little of it with us?
Don't let my argument fool you into thinking that I am naive about computers and the business. I know no company opens to not make money. I know that progress is inevitable and there's nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is the pricing, the hype, and the great lack of caring about the consumer. Oh, and just to point out, Bill Gates didn't introduce Vista so that he could make more money... I am quite certain he could really care less about the profit for this particular venture. He did do it to in essence 'seize control' of the digital media world, which unchecked, he will eventually have.
But now back to one more from the auto world... maybe this one will make sense to you and show you how 'we' look at this whole fiasco. Let's say that every last model, not make, of car had a different fuel tank fill tube. Now the gas stations all still have just one nozzle. You go to get gas and are told that you need to purchase an adapter to put on the end of the gas station's fuel nozzle so that you can facilitate your fuel purchase. How would you feel? Would you be a little pissed? Wouldn't you ask the attendant if there was a better way? A way to maybe universalize the process so that people wouldn't be put through the aggravation? I know I would ask all of these questions... and then I would go out and 'invent' the universal fill nozzle and make a fortune! I know, a lame comparison, but it is similar.

Do you think I actually meant for not having food to be exactly like not having the latest operating system in this regard??? I was just using an exaggeration (extreme exaggeration) to show a point.

Ok, I will be more specific: we are not forced to upgrade, yes. However, if we want to enjoy awesome video games made in the future, we must have the latest operating system, must spend thousands to upgrade the computer, etc. Eventually, if we are stubborn enough to hang onto our current OS and not upgrade, dare I say that internet use would become impossible? 10 years from now, will it even be possible to use the internet and conduct basic bussiness online if you have windows XP??? Can you perform all matter of functions online with bussinesses today if you still have windows 3.1? Dos?? Thats why microsoft is so freaking rich. The world really has no choice but to upgrade as microsoft upgrades. Bill Gates is the richest man in the world only because of the outright monopoly that microsoft has. If your aim was to make a crap load of money, then sure, I would want to come up with a new OS every few years to essentially "force" the world into buying my new OS. And yes, I know Bill Gates gives alot of his money to charity, and maybe in the grand scheme of things, microsoft's monopoly is actually a good thing overall, because of all the lives saved and improved through the Bill and Melinda foundation. Look monoploies are a bad thing, but a possible inevitable result of capitalism. The world has never faced a monoploy like microsoft, however. Litterally, microsoft is more powerful than most countries (I think Bill Gates alone has more money than many countries' GNP) Bill Gates could easily fund a mercenary army to take over some countries.

Evil Stormbringer,
Maybe I have a unique outlook as a developer and computer hobbyist; but I don't buy software if I don't know it will run on my machine. I don't have a Mac, so I don't buy Mac software. I have too many old games I like so I am holding off going to Vista. While I am living comfortably, having finally finished getting my CS degree, I am by no means well off.

Auto analogies always break apart when examined. Your fuel analogy is flawed because it describes more the power source. All computers have the same "fuel nozzle" or does yours have some weird power supply with a different connector for the power cable. Heck, most computers you change out the power supply with one from a wide selection of vendors and "sizes". How easily can you change out your gas tank?! If you want to compare software to anything, compare it to the engine or adornments. You aren't going to try to fit a diesel engine from a semi into a compact car now are you? Do you expect to use those extra extra big tires on a VW bug without having to modify any other part of it? Heck, just try fitting the window shade from a Hummer into a sedan, and see how well that works out. I am sure you don't expect cars to come with 8-track players anymore, or even support mounting one, do you?

Stanley,
The latest Firefox browser still can run on Win98, and I am not sure about Opera; but I wouldn't be surprised if it would run on it too. Note Windows98 is almost 10 years old (obviously) and is still probably useable on most hardware made five years after its release. Anymore, a modern browser is all most home users need to take care of business. Windows Media Player has several replacements that, while not as good at library management, play files as good if not better.

Heh, I like that. I guess my wording didn't come off quite right and you sir are definitely reading way more into my comment than was meant. Look at it more like, everyone has a car and the 'universal' application of tanking up is there for us already, requiring no more expense on our part to get gas but to pay for the fuel. That is how I would like to see the computer/gaming world if you will follow me on this one... I will accept paying the price for a game, be it 10.00 or 100.00 the price isn't relevant. Now let's say that the game I just bought for 50.00 needs 'a little more' under the hood of my PC in order to run with all the bells and whistles... I guess I now have two, or maybe three choices at this point. I can choose not to buy the game, or buy it and play with minimal 'eye candy' or processing power, or buy the game and go out to get that shiny new graphics card that will make this game scream... but the graphics card needs more power so hmmm, my out of the box chain store puchase only comes with a 350 watt psu and I need a minimum of 450 watts... guess it's off to compare psu's. While I'm at it, it says a minimum of 256 mb of RAM is necessary but 1 GB of RAM is recommended, or more. Well I do have 1 GB of factory installed RAM (remember, I bought this system at an electronics store where probably 60% or better do buy their PC's and if you get it direct from the vendor... same difference, but I am quite certain people purchasing their PC's already 'built' are the majority)but reading my system specs I see that I don't truly have that 1 GB 'available' to me... so maybe a stick or two more of memory for me as well.
Okay, barring savvy shopping let's just put a nice round number on these items...
New graphics card-150.00/new psu-150.00/1 GB RAM-75.00= $375.00
I just spent 375.00 in addition to the 50.00 I shelled out for the game. Does anyone see something wrong with this picture yet or is it just me?
Now someone comes along with something new, let's say two years later. Chances are I am going to have to improve upon something with my rig... at a premium price. How about making discounts available for people who have already shelled out money over the years, money that has lined the pockets of all the companies which produced these products. How about just reduced costs in general? Or bundles... and not the ones that the vendor, like Newegg puts together.
So yes, the fuel thing may have been a little inaccurate... I was basically saying I already bought the damn car... aside from the maintenance and fuel why the hell should I spend anything else in order to drive it, now or twenty years from now. ALMOST the same here with pc's/software/hardware. Honor me as a consumer by being gentle with me, or at least make me feel a little love when you stick it in and break it off... but no, it seems that Microsoft, HP, Dell and the myriad others would just rather stick it in, make a few more holes that weren't there to begin with AND THEN break it off, without so much as a reach around.

Well, don't try towing a boat with a bug and you won't need to upgrade. In all fairness, that $375.00 is not just for one new game in most people's cases, will improve your overall computing experience, and you won't need all those components at every new upgrade if you plan ahead. The problem is that most people get the absolute cheapest parts to save $20 instead of getting decent components that won't be outdated overnight. My wife's computer has my old Geforce 6600LE that I bought about 18 months ago for about $70, and it still runs most games at medium graphics settings. The way this rant is heading, why don't you start railing on monitor manufacturers because your 5 year "free-with-computer" screen won't run a game at 1600x1200, or that your onboard sound won't support the new 9.1 speakers? (Do auto parts manufacturers give you discounts for upgrading carburetors or fuel pumps that do exactly what they were intended to do?)

Should i agree, NOPE.
Does Vista work? many a post on many a forum, say different.
Vista is a heap of shit and it will be for at least a year, like every other MicroSoft OS.
Considering this is a total rewrite I give it 2 years before it's even slightly worth installing.

Anyone who has ever installed "Windows" knows to shy away from new releases, Especially gamers.

Please don't bleat on about dx10, especially if you have to saddle it to a lame donkey with arthritis.

Marcus.

P.S. this is ignoring the drm issues.