Vista

Don't reckon so. XP was welcomed as a replacement for win98SE, because it's a vaguely proper OS in the way win95/98/me weren't.

Vista's been out for a while now - and there's no hint of our company moving to it. No justification for it yet, unlike for 98 -> XP.

min is neither.

none required. Got a 2.4 P4 that's about 5 yrs old and was vistafied on vista launch day. It's in daily use and has enough power to play most games and stuff. My laptop stayed XP until november when I replaced it with a core2 duo 2.26, 4 gig ram, and vista. It's great. Plenty of my clients running mixed vista / xp environments. No problems.

Firefox / Chrome should be fine in 2k Pro (not tried them), and VLC or XMBC also.

Vista's only real disappointment was the lack of filesystem improvements. Stability and performance wise it's as good as XP on machines with 1 gig ram or more if installed with the basic user interface.

You should have just posted 'I don't know what I'm talking about', just to save any confusion for the reader.....

PLBCAK

Oh did you ever trace that crap driver in the Sprinter with no clue about his use of hazards?

Wrong. On Slashdot/Digg et al, they published links to stories from

XP was unbelievably s**te up to SP1, the same as Vista.

Must've been one hell of a mickey mouse company if you didn't go to Win2K.

So what monumental changes are there between 10.5 and 10.6?

Saying that, this lappy is running a T2050 and is fast enough.

I don't have a crystal ball.

I don't even use OS X and managed to find...

Apple has stated that Mac OS X "Snow Leopard" will include the following changes and improvements:

• Support for connecting to Microsoft Exchange 2007 servers will be included in Mail, Address Book, and iCal.[2] * A smaller hard drive and RAM footprint and faster installation times, under 15 minutes versus over an hour for Mac OS X v10.5. [3] * Support for up to a theoretical 16 terabytes of RAM[2] by further developing 64-bit kernel technologies.[4] * Grand Central: a parallel-programming technology[5] that aims to take greater advantage of modern multi-core CPUs, which include all current Macs.[2] * QuickTime X which will feature optimized support for modern codecs.[2] * OpenCL (Open Computing Language) will allow developers to more easily code applications to take advantage of the GPU for non-graphics computing purposes.[2] * A 64-bit kernel which provides a complete 64-bit environment for applications, along with 32-bit support for older Macs. This completes a long-running attempt by Apple to completely unify their products in

So basically you're going to be paying £80+ for a few security updates, actually being able to make proper use of the dual core CPU your Mac has, the ability to connect to MS Exchange, the theoretical ability to shove 16TB of RAM in, an updated Quicktime and a 64 bit Kernel with

Wow. What groundbreaking changes.

Most of the changes an end user isn't even going to be aware of. At least MS make glaringly obvious ones in new versions of Windows.

Mind you, it might come with a different default wallpaper though so worth it eh?

Because I'm one of the few people who recognised that Windows was a heap of festering crap that has been a pale imitation of MacOS ever since it was released.

Apple don't charge for "service packs", I don't know where you got that idea.

Refer to my comment that Windows fanbois only admit the last version of Windows was crap when the new one appears.

Get a clue and admit that they're all crippled.

'Will include' - it's miles from release and that Apple update is several months old - when talk of Snow Leopard was only just coming out.

However, it's a real focus on quality, not stuffing the OS with extra features to slow it down.

But at £80 every 2 years, I don't begrudge paying for it - especially when MS want at least double that for a retail version of their latest OS.

Obviously, you've fallen into the eye-candy trap of believing Vista is some kind of huge leap forwards - but it really isn't - it has just been designed to make Win users believe it is.

Did in some parts, not others. Some of the overseas people were quite late to move from 98 (they're tight as anything :-) ), but I think they're on XP now. Some of the other overseas people are on win2K still though. GBP 1BN turnover isn't that big, I'll admit, but I think it probably doesn't count as mickey mouse.

Everything is Mickey Mouse if it doesn't conform with Conor's views.

Are there any other words in the English dictionary that you don't understand besides the word "include"? It does not mean, as you seem to imagine, that the list provided is full and definitive.

OSX 10.5 makes proper use of the dual core CPU. It also makes proper use of the quad core + hyperthreading CPU and of the eight core + hyperthreading CPU. Indeed, the announcement says nothing about "being able to make proper use of the dual core CPU" and you seem to be clueless about the actual configuration of current Macs (no surprise there).

It's not "theoretical", the OS will address 16TB of RAM, end of. Windows

Untrue, XP64 does not have 32bit support. Nor does Vista64. Indeed any

And XP64 is unsupported.

Leopard (10.5) is 64 bit and runs smoothly with the ability to address

Most Mac users were unaware that the OS has been upgraded to 64 bit because every feature of their previous OS and all of their applications and drivers continued to work. Compare that with the fuckup that is Windows 64.

Perhaps you can point to a version of Windows with these features?

Well they make glaringly obvious fuckups such as selling people the beta versions of Vista and XP 64 and the mugs who buy happily pay for the crap.

What I like about Windows Fanbois is that they are so glaringly ignorant that it doesn't take much effort to highlight the fact.