how many is planning to buy or upgrade to vista?

Vista is a cancer for my pc

i alredy have a visa.

i had vista on my other computer and i hated it!everything was runnign to slow there was so many different programs i didnt need or want but all had to do with vista!nope ill stick with xp for now on at least until they improve and fix there vista then maybe ill try it again

I'm still not sure as it's not officially released yet, but from the reports I've seen vista looks like very nice, and I'm very interested to try it. Anyway, how much is it?

I'm not sure, I like a new operating system, but Windows Xp likes myself and I don't think I'll change it

I'm fine with XP. We just got our new computer with Xp on it. I'm not to concerened about having the newest things. Maybe in a few years.

I am currently using Windows Vista and I am really happy about it. I got it free, legally from one of the biggest Assembly 2006. Assembly is a demoparty. Anyway vista really suits my needs, it has a beautiful look, doesnt crash any more than my xp did and 99,9% of the programs that I use work on Vista. And I use a lot of programs.

I think I am gonna stay with my XP, we just got the computer 4 monts ago and I really dont have the $100-$400 they say that the software costs.

Windows Vista clearly is not a great new performer when it comes to executing single applications at maximum speed. Although we only looked at the 32-bit version of Windows Vista Enterprise, we do not expect the 64-bit edition to be faster (at least not with 32-bit applications). Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP. The synthetic benchmarks such as Everest, PCMark05 or Sandra 2007 show that differences are non-existent on a component level. We also found some programs that refused to work, and others that seem to cause problems at first but eventually ran properly. In any case, we recommend watching for Vista-related software upgrades from your software vendors. There are some programs that showed deeply disappointing performance. Unreal Tournament 2004 and the professional graphics benchmarking suite SPECviewperf 9.03 suffered heavily from the lack of support for the OpenGL graphics library under Windows Vista. This is something we expected, and we clearly advise against replacing Windows XP with Windows Vista if you need to run professional graphics applications. Both ATI and Nvidia will offer OpenGL support in upcoming driver releases, but it remains to be seen if and how other graphics vendors or Microsoft may offer it. We are disappointed that CPU-intensive applications such as video transcoding with XviD (DVD to XviD MPEG4) or the MainConcept H.264 Encoder performed 18% to nearly 24% slower in our standard benchmark scenarios. Both benchmarks finished much quicker under Windows XP. There aren't newer versions available, and we don't see immediate solutions to this issue. There is good news as well: we did not find evidence that Windows Vista's new and fancy AeroGlass interface consumes more energy than Windows XP's 2D desktop. Although our measurements indicate a 1 W increase in power draw at the plug, this is too little of a difference to draw any conclusions. Obviously, the requirements for displaying all elements in 3D, rotating and moving them aren't enough to heat up graphics processors. This might also be a result of Windows Vista's more advanced implementation of ACPI 2.0 (and parts of 3.0), which allows the control of power of system components separately. Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP. Is this a K.O. for Windows Vista in the enthusiast space? If you really need your PC to finish huge encoding, transcoding or rendering workloads within a defined time frame, yes, it is. Don't do it; stay with XP. But as long as you don't need to finish workloads in record time, we believe it makes sense to consider these three bullet points: * Vista runs considerably more services and thus has to spend somewhat more resources on itself. Indexing, connectivity and usability don't come for free. * There is a lot of CPU performance available today! We've got really fast dual core processors, and even faster quad cores will hit the market by the middle of the year. Even though you will lose application performance by upgrading to Vista, today's hardware is much faster than yesterday's, and tomorrow's processors will clearly leap even further ahead. * No new Windows release has been able to offer more application performance than its predecessor. Although application performance has had this drawback, the new Windows Vista performance features SuperFetch and ReadyDrive help to make Vista feel faster and smoother than Windows XP.

I do not see myself getting Vista any time soon. Windows XP is doing a fantastic job for myself right now. I don't need to change my OP System. Besides, I really don't think Vista is all that great. Never do I buy a product that is just released, expecially for the computer. Definately going to have bugs found when it is released to the mass public.

I had heard of the windows newest operation system vista, it demands much more support in hardware, it asks for at least an 1 GB space of memory and other highly-demanded hardware equipments, so many computer purchased in the past few years or months would not support by vista, so does my computer. I have no plan to switch my windows xp to vista.

i wanted to update to vista but i have changed my mind, too many bugs still present

Vista is a power and memory-hungry operating system. You need at least a core 2 duo, 1Gb of RAM and 128Mb Videocard. It still has a lot of glitches and i choose to stick to WinXP, which is fine with me.

vista is the worst windows microsoft made after millenium really anouing protection system really slowing down your pc and utterly unstable and doesn't support many programs no way I change to vista oh and something more linux is much better than vista even in grafics and they are free ;P

I am torn but I will have to eventually as microsoft is going to quit supporting xp so I may be forced to make the change to vista rather I want to or not.Have a great day.

I am not sure at this point what I will do although I know there is going to be a time when I have to because of script changes and stuff so I am going to hold off as long as possible,hopefully I won't have to It has already been hacked so I can't say that it is any better but only time will tell.

I think i'am planning to have it on my computer maybe after a year. i'am going to use the original version so it should be expensive. but after a year who knows the price would come down and thinking about virus makes me a bit hesitant to upgrage from XP.

vista is a resource hungry beast. it provides a lot of eye candy but aside from that, i guess there's nothing else. for me anyway. i tried out vista when it was still in it's beta stage all the way up to release candidate 2. one thing i noticed was that my pc was using a lot of system resources when the pc was simply in IDLE. i tried vista ultimate last month with service pack 1. it was great and all but my internet connection would go crazy from time to time. there was also the issue with creative drivers. vista may be resource hungry but the same can be said of windows xp back in the days of the great pentium 3. as it turned out, windows went on to become one of the most stable windows operating systems. i hope the same thing happens for vista.