I don't like it. Sure, you can turn off the UAC. That's the first thing I did with the Betas and RC1 & 2. I tried the Final as well, and didn't like it either. As said before, the navigation is horrible. I don't know why they fiddled with it. They made a lot of things 2-3 times harder, adding in some cases several more steps to get to a desired place then in XP. Users who have NEVER used Windows before might find it nice, because they didn't know where anything was anyway, and might find it nice. But, if you're used to where everything is, and it is suddenly randomly changed, and more steps added to get to it, it's just aggravating.
XP also runs a lot better on my machines. There's really no advantage for me, whatsoever, to "upgrade" to Vista. The cost alone makes it undesirable.
The only thing I found I liked in Vista was the Add-on for the Task Manager that allows you to monitor Net speeds and other crap. The Performance Monitor, or whatever it is. I don't care about DX10, or Aero. If I want something "Fancy" like Aero, I'll just use Ubuntu with XGL/Beryl. And, I do have that installed, although I use XP more often right now.
Originally Posted by danlovesjess
Ive had Vista running on my shiny new, custom built, rig for about 6 months, since RC1 came out. And i must say i like it, and i t runs like a dream.
an extra 2Gb of ram is coming soon along with a SECOND graphics card! Sli!
Vista will only end up recognizing about 3.5GB of RAM, I believe. That is, assuming you're using the 32bit edition? XP will do the same. The 64 Bit version will recognize the 4GB fine.
Originally Posted by 0=
It's impossible for that processor to utilize that amount of RAM...
The processor has nothing to do with how much ram the OS and Programs will use. You could have a P3 1.2GHz and a Athlon 64 X2 6000+ both running the same exact things, and have them using approximately the same amount of RAM.