personally, i hate it. the beta rig we setup at the PC shop i work in has a gig of ram, and a 3.40ghz pentium D with 2X2mb L2 cache, AND ITS STILL SLOW!. its like running windows XP on a pentium three 1.0 ghz, with 128k cache, and 256mbs of SDRAM... personally, i am going with option five. OH, as a note, you can run it with 512mbs of ram, but a gig is RECOMMENDED by microsoft, personally, i doubt it would run smooth on two gigs of ram, with a 512mb video card.Well, it is still a beta also. I have no plans for it personally, but I am sure it will, in time, be accepted and people will invest in more hardware just to run it. You did not have the option but,I voted try it in three years.I voted "Option four, and it is the next windows ME"
From EVERYTHING I've read on Vista, it is horribly slow and you need a really high-end PC just to run it.
It also seems that boot time is slower than with, say, XP, and games and other applications also run slower under Vista.
You need 1Gb of RAM just to run it, and that's a bare minimum according to most sites.
Personally I have no plans for it, although I may consider it in a few years if/when I buy a new PC, as I really don't think my laptop's up to the mammoth task of Vista.Hasta la Vista baby! Do yourself a favor and save your money, get Linux or use Mac OSX.

How can a company keeps shipping out craps and still stay in business is beyond me. :-?

MacPCBundling and deals with hardware makers has lways been the secret to their success. Despite the court RULINGS, I don't see any change in that behavior.

WIndows Vista sells more hardware just to run it, so hardware makers are happy as well.