I took down my Mandriva workstation and replaced it with my Vista test machine and tried to work normally for a day. I found it difficult to get good desktop software applications for affordable prices, I had trouble getting my Microsoft mouse to work properly, the unintuitive and strangely rearranged interface drove me crazy, and the system's poor performance was intolerable. I have several pages of notes on Vista; this review would double in size if I were to list every issue I found with this operating system, so I'll cut it short and say that I was extremely disappointed. When you peel away the fancy graphical interface enhancements, you're left with an operating environment that performs poorly, is difficult to use, has inadequate desktop hardware and software support, and annoys its users with unending security messages.

From reading other people's reviews, and Microsoft's marketing materials, I was expecting a much more intelligently designed operating environment. Microsoft is a gigantic company that had every resource imaginable -- time, money, talent, market power -- available to it to design the world's best operating system, and Vista is nowhere near the top of that potential. To use a car analogy, Vista should have been the Acura NSX of operating systems; instead it ended up a DeLorean DMC-12 -- it looks cool and has a few interesting features, but performs poorly and is impractical in nearly any imaginable scenario. I suspect the source of Vista's design problems are at the top of the management chain -- the so-called "Chief Software Architect" seems incapable of designing technologically advanced, maximally useful software, or at very least fostering a corporate environment in which competent employees can design it for him. I'd recommend that he be replaced, but I'm pretty sure he owns a majority of the company's stock.

I definitely do not recommend upgrading to Vista from any previous edition of Windows. If you end up stuck with Vista because you've bought a new PC, there are other operating system options available to you -- most appropriately, GNU/Linux in the form of openSUSE, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Xandros, Linspire, and Freespire. Through a framework like CrossOver Linux or Cedega (or even Wine), you'll be better enabled to run your older Windows programs, and you'll have better hardware support than Windows Vista offers.

Not only is Vista uncompetitive with other current desktop operating systems, it's also a step down from its predecessors. The situation isn't hopeless -- yet. Here's what I think needs to be done to salvage Vista, and Microsoft's future as an operating system manufacturer:

* Switch to the "operating environment" philosophy. The biggest problem with Microsoft Windows is that it serves mostly as a platform for installing third-party software. The problem is, there is so much malware and spyware being shoved in users' faces that this philosophy is doomed to fail. For Microsoft to truly end its security and malware nightmares, it has to implement a single managed framework for installing all software, much like commercial desktop GNU/Linux distributions. Not only would this provide a safe and reliable way to install/uninstall/reinstall third-party applications, but it would also virtually eliminate illegal software copying, and thus the need for annoying product activation schemes.
* Lower prices. Windows is far too expensive compared to its competition. Considering the fact that you will almost certainly need some kind of hardware upgrade to run Windows Vista, the hidden ancillary costs make Vista a hugely expensive upgrade that offers virtually nothing in return. That needs to change, and the best way to do it is to put every version of Vista under U.S. $100 for the full version.
* Consider hardware deployments before designing new features. Windows Vista was built with unrealistic hardware goals in mind. It was not built for today's computers, let alone yesterday's, and even tomorrow's machines will have some performance problems with Vista. Microsoft's developers need to start thinking in terms of the computers that people have today, not the ones they might have in 5 years.
* A shorter release cycle. Microsoft's biggest software development problem is that it is trying to do too much with an aging Windows codebase that has been extended long beyond its usefulness. It needs to design an excellent, lightweight, modular operating system from the ground up -- or preferably build on something worth using, like FreeBSD or HaikuOS -- and then add a few enhancements every 6-12 months. This is the only way the company can prevent its software from becoming laughably outdated halfway through its support cycle, as was the case with Windows XP.
* Focus on 64-bit. IA32 is a thing of the past. You can hardly find any new CPUs in today's market that don't support 64-bit functions ala AMD64 or EM64T. So why isn't more software compiled for 64-bit? That's a question that I've asked a lot of programmers over the years, and the general answer I get each time has to do with poorly written software. Windows may be 64-bit, but there are few good hardware drivers, and so much desktop software is not yet 64-bit clean, which requires a huge 32-bit compatibility layer. Someone needs to take the initiative in moving to fully 64-bit environments, and the only company in a good position to do that is Microsoft. I think the best way to do that is to refuse to make a 32-bit version of its next operating system.

Also depending on the OS choice which choice would be best for video editing:

For video editing, I would personally use Windows XP (Windows Vista uses up too much RAM) and with MAC you are stuck with 'MAC' video editing programs (which aren't numerous).

No i lik vista. Vista is slowy. I LIKE XP PRO and vista style