I still say it's broken. Or, at the very least: it still has some decent problems and doesn't offer any truly compelling reason to upgrade - this despite the fact that it's MS' new OS that took YEARS to develop.
I'm not alone...
Looks like other people think the same way:
Acer: PC Industry 'disappointed' with Vista
Biting the Bullet on Windows Vista: back to XP
More raves for Vista (fake Steve nails it on this editor's antics)
The Fix?
My thought is that Windows needs a 100% clean break if it's going to muster-up as anything valuable in the future. Here's a great Op Ed that says pretty much the same thing.
Only it doesn't address backwards compat - which is critical. No one will stick with Windows if their old hardware/software doesn't work.
And that's where virtualization comes in, and why I can't stand Windows Vista. If MS had decided to truly run with the ball and innovate with Windows Vista, like they initially planned on doing, then Vista might have provided some truly compelling reasons to upgrade. But they kept getting hung up on backwards-compat, and we kept seeing news-releases telling us that MS was dropping more and more features from the list of goodies that they initially promised. In the end, all they shipped was some eye-candy and a new kernel that really benefits the MPAA and RIAA (but still didn't deliver on the ability to let me control volume and output per application).
So what if MS had taken all that energy that they wasted trying to get square pegs into round holes (only to fail after 4 years of trying different size hammers) and dumped it into building a sweet new virtualization layer for Vista? Then they could have provided a CLEAN, FAST, and INNOVATIVE version of Windows and then just 'transparently' opened 'windows' into a virtualized machine running Windows XP on the same box to support older programs, scanners, printers, and the likes. Taking that approach would have allowed them to innovate and deliver on new paradigms while ensuring full backwards compat. And I'm sure they would have spent considerably less development effort.
And yeah, I know that you can pretty-much do what I just described on a Mac. In fact, the fact that APPLE figured this out while MS did not, just drives me batty - and is the big reason for which I continue to maintain that Vista is broken - because it lacks such serious vision that it's not funny. And that's hard for someone like me who has been an MS fanboi for so long.
But I'm pretty sure my next machine will be a Mac.