I have a hard time believing there is a 50% performance decrease from xp to vista. A least be realistic, i don't even have vista, my roommate does, but based on the benchmarks, its at most 10% and even that's high. as a previous poster stated show the numbers if your gonna make outrageous claims
A new OS isn't supposed to be only as good as what you're currently using. It is supposed to be better
. That's right, it's supposed to be enough of an improvement so you'd want to take the time to upgrade
. Otherwise, why bother, unless the PC already comes with it installed?
Going from Windows 3.11 to 95, I certainly did do the upgrade. 95 to 98, yup still have the upgrade CD. 98 to ME, no way. I used NT 4.0 for development, then upgraded to 2000 for deveopment purposes. XP? Yes for gaming after XP SP1, much more stable than 98, which was the last gaming OS (2000 was never intended as to be a gaming OS by MS). XP to Vista, only if it was already installed on a new PC. I haven't been this unenthusiastic about upgrading since Windows ME. Vista isn't ME, but it's not as interesting as almost any of the other upgrades either.