XP continues to outperform Vista (aka poor copy of OS X).
Wellington, Fla.-based Devil Mountain Software ran several versions of XP and Vista through a test simulating common desktop computing tasks. It found the original Vista performed 50 percent to 100 percent slower than the prevalent XP Service Pack 2, or SP2.
Vista has shaken IT professionals; more and more are considering the "real thing".
Users won't be booting up Vista PCs any time soon, according to a recent survey, which revealed a majority of IT professionals are worried that migrating to Vista will reduce stability and introduce too much complexity into their environments.
In terms of alternatives, Apple's Mac OS X leads the pack, with support from 28 per cent of survey respondents. About 25 per cent said they would opt for Red Hat Linux, with SUSE Linux and Ubuntu each garnering 18 per cent of the vote. Another nine per cent cited other Linux operating systems and four per cent were unsure.
It turns out that even Microsoft execs can't keep straight which version of their new OSX-lookalike OS will run on which new PCs. Just 'cause your hardware says "Vista Capable" doesn't mean it will work with the Vista that you bought.
Actually, the Vista Capable sticker meant that the machine would not necessarily be able to run any version of Vista, but only a version. A Vista Capable machine, for example, might be able to run Vista Home Basic, the lowest-priced and least-capable version in the lineup, but not the more advanced Home Premium. (Systems also tagged with the Premium Ready sticker, however, would be able to run all versions of the operating system, including the top-end versions such as Ultimate or Home Premium.)