I think they designed DX10 purposefully to obsolete XP.
DX8 will run on Windows 95. You start with no DirectX on that OS and you can update to 2001 or so tech. I have a REALLY hard time believing that DX10 is so magical that it is totally impossible to run on XP. If they gave a shit about backwards compatibility that is. Why would they? As said, it doesn't make them any money. In fact, it would undoubtely cost them a lot of money from development and loss of sales.
What do you mean by download manager? One that creates extra connections on a server to increase download speed? Those are real pains for server ownsers, especially those who have to limit slots on a server. Just something to possibly pause a download or list what's running all in one window would be okay though.
Also, they could NEVER get away with it, and they could NEVER get away with a fully featured Firewall either.
People complain about some things about Windows, but yet many of the reason for it having limited extras is because its Windows and MS would get sued to high heaven (even more than right now) if they released such products with their OS.
For what I play, windoze games are superior in every wayradeonic, I think you should define quality when talking about PC and console games. Quality of graphics is one thing, butquality of gameplay, entertainment, or content are completely different. Each platform offers quality games, but for most types of games out there consoles just do it better.
Now to stay on topic. I will only get Vista if there is some dire need for me to get it. That would mean running it through Paralells on my Mac for that one or two applications I need. For gaming purposes I may be forced to get it, but then I need a game on the PC that will make me look into it for gaming purposes. WoW runs fine on OS X.
The features in Vista really don't impress me all that much. Aero glass or whatever it's called does indeed look better than the current XP GUI, but it is still a far cry from OS X's. The security looks like it will be better than XP, but it's only a matter of time before the flaws are found and the viruses and spyware comes spewing in like crazy. Are they going to fix the memory management in the thing compared to XP?
Well there is a very large amount of reporting, logging and whatnot going on in the background. I've read about people getting considerable speed-ups by disabling all that, but that would defeat the purpose of a beta, wouldn't it?
Plus, the majority of the visual enhancements are GPU centric, which doesn't explain the slowdown. The nice thing with having the GUI offloaded on the GPU, is that although your framerate might drop in intense situations, the programs still run at full speed. In this case, I'm finding that the programs are going slow, not the GUI. That's blazingly fast, so it couldn't be due to the issues you speak of, but other things.
Moreover, when it does slow down I see the HD light going solid. Afaik, the GPU doesn't usually use the HD for rendering. It's not paging either, because after I open a program (when the excessive slowness usually happens), all the other ones are still snappy. Specifically, it sometimes takes a minute for something as simple as the control panel or my computer to open, although more usually it's with things like IE and WMP. System startup takes at least 5 minutes itself. Overall, it would seem to me that what's happening is just logs and such being written to the HD, not the enhanced visuals that cause the slowdown.
Also, I have a Geforce 6600 with 128MB of VRAM, so it should be able to handle Vista just fine.
Question - I have a 6800GS, which runs in quiet mode (low fan speed) at desktop in WinXP, and spins up to aeroplane speeds in 3D games. Does your Vista desktop usage spin up the fan - assuming your 6600 has the same system?
I hate how with every new major version MS makes the defaults ever more complex, busy and with annoying crap (start bar grouping, yellow dog, hidden menus items with chevrons, huge start menu, ugly left pane etc.)?