Yes, it’s like Google Desktop Search. Microsoft sees Google as their main competitor nowadays, so they will do anything they can to keep Google off the desktop.
You can go into indexing options from the control panel and change the settings if too much indexing is annoying you.
It costs you money so it’s got ta be good.
I have nothing to say.
For your sanity just use XP.
Can’t do it.
We got new laptops a while back. Had to have Vista for the SATA drivers. Vista is a festering piece of shit.
Well, it’s possible to get the SATA drivers for the laptop and slipstream them into a new XP install disc (all you need is an XP install disc, the drivers, the software to do the slipstreaming, and some nerdy can-do spirit). That’s how I got XP Pro installed on my other laptop, and how I am probably going to do it again for the Dell.
Had to get Vista for the SATA drivers, too, for our new machines. As luck would have it, an MSDN subscription let us get two copies of Vista Ultimate. I don’t hate it. I like a few of the new features (seeing my .jpgs on my desktop as little thumbnails just tickles me pink, and I like the “show previews” option for the toolbar) but for the most part, it’s XP with more sparkles.
My only problem with Vista is that my video driver crashes about twice a week.
Or just get Open Office.
I like Vista. It’s pretty.
As for it’s functionality, it’s not much better than XP. If I hadn’t bought a laptop with Vista pre-loaded, I wouldn’t have changed. I don’t dislike it enough to reload XP.
As for Office 2007, it rawks, once you understand the non-intuitive menu ribbon and the “hidden-underneath-the icon” dropdown menu that has everything else you couldn’t find. Again, it’s pretty but not enough to upgrade. The incompatible document format is simply annoying. I save everything as a 1997-2003 file which is the dumbest damn thing I can think of for a new program.
ETA: OpenOffice is a great program for someone who doesn’t use Word extensively. I found it to be annoying as hell to be going back about 10 versions of Word.
I find that Vista’s power saving/hibernate modes work a lot better than XP’s. It doesn’t take long to come out of hibernation and I haven’t experienced any of the errors that I sometimes had with XP.
Vista is more secure than XP and Windows 7 probably won’t be a huge improvements over Vista, if the rumors are correct. Win7 is probably going to be more “cloud computing” focused, which means that to really use it, you’ll need to have a stable high speed internet connection. Not always possible with a laptop (or even with a desk top PC, just ask my ISP).
Nor is the “short life” of Vista all that remarkable. MS didn’t intend to keep XP around as long as it has, but having to retool it to fix the security issues forced a delay in getting Vista released. Had XP not had those issues, Vista would have come out about 2-3 years after XP had been launched. (Like Apple, MS wants to upgrade their OS on a regular schedule.)
Vista looks better and has a better search.
XP runs faster on less expensive hardware.
If Microsoft just changed the appearance of XP to Vista, it would be hard to notice the difference.
FWIW, I like Office 2007. It’s easier to figure out what the functions will do and some functions are easier to locate. The right click menu is a little too bloated for my tastes but otherwise I like it.
Hah, I like Office 2007 and I don’t like it. The new “ribbon” thingy is nifty once you figure it out, but there’s a few things from the old Office 2003 interface I still haven’t tracked down on the new interface yet.
Some things to recommend Vista:
[ul][li]Much more secure and reliable than XP. Daily restore points create shadow copies of files that can be restored if you accidentally delete one, for example (some of my most updated documents have five or six generations of shadow copies).[]For the most part, the user experience is a lot better. It does a better job of pushing time-consuming tasks into the background so that you can still use your machine for other things.[]The indexing for search is dramatically less intrusive than Google Desktop or Windows Search on XP[]The management tools are much improved. Task Manager has been enhanced, and the Resource Manager application is indispensable for drilling down into exactly what’s going on with your machine[]64-bit Vista. It rocks.[/ul][/li]Some things that you won’t like about Vista:
[ul][li]Software vendors have been sluggish updating software to play nicely with Vista. It wasn’t until the most recent patch for World of Warcraft, for instance, that the game was Vista-aware (previously, you had to run it in Administrator mode, because it modified the menu directory directly as part of its update process, which is a security no-no on Vista). Many other programs that do things like modify system areas of the registry are not completely Vista compatible, still.[]System checkpoints, generated after every significant patch or system change, make your hard drive thrash like crazy for 10-15 minutes at a time. So if you kick off Windows Update (or have it set to install updates automatically), you’ll eventually see your hard drive go mad as it creates its checkpoint.[]Memory hungry like whoa. I had to bump my older (single core) machine to 2 GB to get the performance up*.[/ul][/li]
I got a Vista (32 bit) laptop last weekend, and it sucks a lot less than when I used it on an underpowered loaner. Most stuff is faster than on my XP machine - but that had one proc half as fast.
Good point - the restore works really well.
Bad point - I had to use it. When I turned on my machine last night, my desktop had vanished. 
Vista is a better operating system. But, you do need top notch hardware to get it to run smooth. On a laptop? Forget about it. Go for XP.
Linux is good for the server platform, but as a desktop OS, it’s just nowhere near as mature as windows.
I work in IT and I can’t emphasize this point enough. And I would add that you make sure it is not a low-end-designed-for-Vista or you will see incredible slowness. Also, if you have any scanners/cameras/printers/accessories that you are fond of, do plenty of research to make sure that the exact model is vista compatible.
But if it is a nice new higher end machine and you have new peripherals, you shouldn’t have any problems. Most of the bitching you hear about Vista is getting it to work right. Once it’s working right (there are a lot of driver conflicts that cause crashing, so I include that part of getting it working right) people have been generally happy.
Oh yeah, apparently on some of the new laptops, XP won’t work, because there’s no drivers for some of the hardware.
Vista works best with at least a dual core.
Which is one of my gripes with it. (Yeah, I just got done saying it was okay) I have a netbook. It’s got a 1.6 Ghz Hyperthreaded Atom processor. It works GREAT with linux, it works okay with XP if you have a real Hard Disk (not SSD), and don’t even bother trying to use Vista on it.
Coming from a 16 Mhz TI 99-4/a, I have a categorical hatred for the attitude that someone else is obligated to waste my resources. I paid for the CPU, I paid for the RAM, I paid for the Disk space, I did NOT buy it for Microsoft to use up. I did NOT buy the computer to distribute Spam, or to attack other under-protected windows boxes on the net.
You can’t even use the ol ‘more processing power than sent man to the moon’ saw any more. It’s not relevant. I have 10,000 times MORE processing power then that. I want to use it for MY evil purposes.