They really did OUT-DO themselves with Vista. So much, that they made it a difficult progression. I installed Vista, and was rushing back to XP. I'm a graphics' artist, and when my number one most important thing [pen tablet] was not functioning, it was time to put that OS down. It just requires so much more extra hassle for things that can simply be done in XP.
Its a good OS that most of the complaints that go toward it (like the whole ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO RUN THESE PROGRAMS dialogs that pop up) are often just a few clicks from not happening.
The bad thing for gamers is that it is pretty resource hungry and that if you don thave a good rig with at least 7600 (sli mos def) and 2 gigs of ram your basicaly gonna see a big drop in FPS. But as an OS its a good system. Just wait for the service packs it'll be even more nifty.
damn str8 i said nifty
My lucky ass got vista business for free through my school.
is Vista worth getting right now for gaming. All the issues been worked out. Interested in hearing from those using vista for gaming.
It's been ready for some time now. Just make sure you run the vista upgrade advisor if you're putting in on an existing computer, do a clean install, and don't do anything stupid and just enjoy all the Vista goodness.
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere... *also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
Vista is not at all worth it, seriously. Ill migrate to Ubuntu or Gentoo-Linux when i think that my Current OS does not fulfill my need anymore, but vista will never enter my computer. I had the Rc on my Computer once, and i hated it. And no matter how many new features they build into it or how good the drivers get, i just cant live with the whole concept of it. //edit: Just one thing: UAC.
Sorry, this is an epic fail. The whole concept of a user gaining administrative privileges by simply clicking "ok" does in no way add to the security.
Look how the people who code ubuntu make a way for the normal users to install programs without danger to the whole system. I can set up a box for anyone that is literarily indestructible. No "oh, lets delete io.sys" here, because you will never have the rights to do it, yet you can install programs, use them. Its easy and safe to work with so few systemprivileges under any linux-distro. Why cant it be in Vista?
Vista failed in introdrucing a good usermanagement. Microsoft killed security in Vista to make it compatible to most malcoded windows-apps. (Its more secure than working with administrative privileges in WinXp though..)
Its really simple to achieve superior security with minimum effort. One Account to work with. Hes a normal User, no privileges in other than is homefolder
One Adminaccount with root-privileges. You work with the useraccount. If you want to install something, you have to start the program with admins credentials. It works that way in windows NT (runas), in *nix (sudo / su). In ubuntu you mostly even dont use su. You just install stuff into your homefolder by default, or system-wide via su. Plain, and simple. I dont know what annoys me more: Malwritten programs that wont run with limited privileges, or an Os like vista even supporting those programs and causing much more trouble. Redirecting any access on writeprotected files to a temporary folder so those programs work is a lousy workaround that wont solve the problem.
No, no vista for me. If ms can release an OS that looks as good as Ubuntu does and can be used so easily like Mac/ubuntu (ubuntu/debians packetmanagement. i LOVE it!), then ill buy a copy of it.
Im waiting..
Uh, Vista is the most secure OS on the market right now. Nice try though.
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere... *also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Vista, the OS for the year to come?
Microsoft said they would release a new one in like 2009.
I won't get vista, I'll just wait a few more years.
More like 2010. Then they are going to go to a 4 year schedule. Years 1-3 will each feature a big update like a service pack while every fourth year will be a new OS
Don't buy vista yet unless your rig is almost exclusively for gaming and all of the games you want to play are brand new......there are appearently a ton of vista fanbois running around here commenting on my blog about how awesome Vista is.....trust me if you use your rig for resource intense applications other than brand new games just wait...
so if we're not negative about Vista we're fanboys? I guess the fact that I've used it on a daily basis on multiple computers since the November launch and have only had excellent performance on every system and less problems than any other OS I've ever used means nothing...
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere... *also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Windows 7 (formerly known as Vienna) is due in 2009/10 and given the cost and troubles with Vista I would expect MS to get this one more close to on time than ever before.
is Vista worth getting right now for gaming. All the issues been worked out. Interested in hearing from those using vista for gaming.
Short answer: No.
The (much) longer answer:
How much money do you want to put into your computer system? You need to figure that Vista is going to require about 1 GB of ram all to itself. That does not include running a game or anything else. That's just the O/S.
False
You'll need to get at least 4 GBs of good RAM, a darn good 3D card, and at least a dual core processor. Also, to get the full experience that Vista provides you should get a wide screen monitor, but that has nothing to do with actual performance.
Once again, talking out of your ass
Some may say that 4 GBs is over kill, but remember that Vista needs about 1 GB to itself. So that's 3 GBs for the games. This is a lot of room; perhaps more than is needed for now. However, breathing room is a good thing, and if you run Aero with all of its bells and whistles then you're definitely going to need that breathing room.
Also, SP1 (or at least something similar to it) is rumored to be nearish. I don't know the date exactly, but you would do better to wait for that to be released.
Yes, because all of those updates to support Server 2008 will really make a big difference?
I recommend that you save your money for awhile so that you can dump it into some good parts. This will give time for SP1 to become available and allow you to buy parts that are going to serve you (and Vista) well.
XP will serve you quite nicely for a good bit of time yet, so there's no real rush beyond the urge to get something new.
If you have the money to sink into a good system then Vista is probably fairly nifty. Unfortunately I jumped in way too early and games run like @#$! on my system as a result.
I'm guess you're one of the people with an older computer that couldn't be bothered running the vista compatibility advisor, but blames Microsoft for that. *rolls eyes some more.
Learn from others' mistakes.
edit: all of the above assumes the 64bit version of Vista Ultimate.
I was about to toss vista and install xp when I discovered "User Account Protection" under "User Account Control". So I turn off that utter crap and so far everything's fine. Now I only use it for 2142, WoW, and browsing basically. I was getting memory crashes between level loading with 2142 and WoW would not patch. As soon as I unchecked "account protection" I was good to go. Before that I was checking "run as administrator" in the program's properties with limited success. Why did I go with vista? Because they wanted to charge more to put xp on a new machine.
They really did OUT-DO themselves with Vista. So much, that they made it a difficult progression. I installed Vista, and was rushing back to XP. I'm a graphics' artist, and when my number one most important thing [pen tablet] was not functioning, it was time to put that OS down. It just requires so much more extra hassle for things that can simply be done in XP.
That's a driver issue, not Vista. My laptop is a tablet PC, and The pen features in Vista are a million times better than they were with XP. Instead of being a slapped on extra like in the xp tablet version, it's integrated in and works beautifully. So if the pentablet your using has drivers for vista yet.
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista.
People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Originally posted by greymann I was about to toss vista and install xp when I discovered "User Account Protection" under "User Account Control". So I turn off that utter crap and so far everything's fine. Now I only use it for 2142, WoW, and browsing basically. I was getting memory crashes between level loading with 2142 and WoW would not patch. As soon as I unchecked "account protection" I was good to go. Before that I was checking "run as administrator" in the program's properties with limited success. Why did I go with vista? Because they wanted to charge more to put xp on a new machine.
Just FYI, some applications may revert to default settings once you turn off UAC and flag your account as an administrator account (as is default in XP). This can be quite the pain if you've been running Vista for awhile.
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista. People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
You know, as I read these posts about how bad Vista is, I reflect back on the hard-core Windows 95 folks swearing up and down they'd NEVER buy a computer with Windows XP. That XP sucked..so on..and on..and on. Look at all you guys out there that basically hold onto to XP as it were your breath of life. Jiminey cricket folks, it ain't rocket science and it ain't broke. Vista is OS we have now and you are going to have to adapt to it by the end of 2008, or just play older games and never experience the difference of the newer games.
All I want is the truth Just gimme some truth John Lennon
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista. People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Thats exactly why a well control hardware/software standard like MAC's are so superior. One new piece of hardware or software shouldnt make another obsolete.
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista. People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
I already have this. OSX. I run Legacy Windows, DOS, or even Vista beautifully on my Mac Pro. I usually only run XP SP2 in a windowed enviroment so I can do some real work on OSX while playing Oblivion or Battlefield 2. But sometimes for shits and giggles I boot the machine into Vista to screw around with a bad OSX copy.
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista. People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
I already have this. OSX. I run Legacy Windows, DOS, or even Vista beautifully on my Mac Pro. I usually only run XP SP2 in a windowed enviroment so I can do some real work on OSX while playing Oblivion or Battlefield 2. But sometimes for shits and giggles I boot the machine into Vista to screw around with a bad OSX copy.
Well, it can be done on Windows with virtual PC etc., but I meant built in as no extra installation, etc. As for the rest of the comment, well why would I expect anything based in reality from a mac user
Now is the first time I'd recommend Vista. Their drivers are either good, or getting there, many issues have been ironed out, and a slew of DX10 games are coming out in the next six months. If you're still unsure, then I'd wait until the first service pack.
Keep in mind that M$ has stated before that they want to release their next OS within a few years after Vista. So, if you wait too long, you might as well be ready for the next OS.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
Uh, Vista is the most secure OS on the market right now. Nice try though.
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
well.. DX10 is the only reason people would ever buy vista, but don't buy it yet, even if you want DX10 for the simple reason; the are not enough games out yet who use DX10. and only buy it if you have 2-4 gig ram, because vista has a memory leak somewhere... *also looking forward to HD games , hail to the ati 2000 series *
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
You do realize that Microsoft just announced that they will be launching a new OS codenamed Seven in 3 years right ? Also you didn't even mention any of the "MUST HAVE" features of VISTA outside of DX10. Which by the way has only shown to be marginal at best in terms of performance and graphical quality over DX9.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
If Vista offers anything you need or want, then yes go for it. Most likely it doesn't though (ATM few games use DX10).
So, it's actually pretty dumb to upgrade to Vista without a compelling reason simply because Vista uses more resources than XP. Well, games, specially MMORPGs, use all resources available on the system. If less resources are available, less resources the game can use thus it will run slower on Vista. Really simple.
It's not even whether Vista is good or bad, I personally think it doesn't bring as much as previous releases did, but rather about how much larger it is doing the basic things you need an OS to be doing in order to run your games.
If someone was buying or building a new PC with, for arguments sake, mid line hardware totaling $1200-$1600 for the whole PC minus the monitor. Would you have Vista installed or stay with XP?
Comments
Theres no need for Vista yet, so imo it's not worth it.
But come March when i get my new rig, i'll probably get Vista. Maybe.
They really did OUT-DO themselves with Vista. So much, that they made it a difficult progression. I installed Vista, and was rushing back to XP. I'm a graphics' artist, and when my number one most important thing [pen tablet] was not functioning, it was time to put that OS down. It just requires so much more extra hassle for things that can simply be done in XP.
Its a good OS that most of the complaints that go toward it (like the whole ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO RUN THESE PROGRAMS dialogs that pop up) are often just a few clicks from not happening.
The bad thing for gamers is that it is pretty resource hungry and that if you don thave a good rig with at least 7600 (sli mos def) and 2 gigs of ram your basicaly gonna see a big drop in FPS. But as an OS its a good system. Just wait for the service packs it'll be even more nifty.
damn str8 i said nifty
My lucky ass got vista business for free through my school.
It's been ready for some time now. Just make sure you run the vista upgrade advisor if you're putting in on an existing computer, do a clean install, and don't do anything stupid and just enjoy all the Vista goodness.
member of imminst.org
wrong
member of imminst.org
Uh, Vista is the most secure OS on the market right now. Nice try though.
member of imminst.org
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Vista, the OS for the year to come?Microsoft said they would release a new one in like 2009.
I won't get vista, I'll just wait a few more years.
More like 2010. Then they are going to go to a 4 year schedule. Years 1-3 will each feature a big update like a service pack while every fourth year will be a new OS
member of imminst.org
so if we're not negative about Vista we're fanboys? I guess the fact that I've used it on a daily basis on multiple computers since the November launch and have only had excellent performance on every system and less problems than any other OS I've ever used means nothing...
member of imminst.org
DX 10 is not the only reason people would buy Vista (vista is way more then just DX10), vista will be the oprating system for the years to come weather you buy it now or over 3 years...it does not make difrents price wont drop much anyhow. so just buy it at release and you can use it thill next os hits wich you be safe thill at least 2012 and you can take it whit you to every new computer...
Windows 7 (formerly known as Vienna) is due in 2009/10 and given the cost and troubles with Vista I would expect MS to get this one more close to on time than ever before.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Short answer: No.
The (much) longer answer:
How much money do you want to put into your computer system? You need to figure that Vista is going to require about 1 GB of ram all to itself. That does not include running a game or anything else. That's just the O/S.
False
You'll need to get at least 4 GBs of good RAM, a darn good 3D card, and at least a dual core processor. Also, to get the full experience that Vista provides you should get a wide screen monitor, but that has nothing to do with actual performance.
Once again, talking out of your ass
Some may say that 4 GBs is over kill, but remember that Vista needs about 1 GB to itself. So that's 3 GBs for the games. This is a lot of room; perhaps more than is needed for now. However, breathing room is a good thing, and if you run Aero with all of its bells and whistles then you're definitely going to need that breathing room.
Also, SP1 (or at least something similar to it) is rumored to be nearish. I don't know the date exactly, but you would do better to wait for that to be released.
Yes, because all of those updates to support Server 2008 will really make a big difference?
I recommend that you save your money for awhile so that you can dump it into some good parts. This will give time for SP1 to become available and allow you to buy parts that are going to serve you (and Vista) well.
XP will serve you quite nicely for a good bit of time yet, so there's no real rush beyond the urge to get something new.
If you have the money to sink into a good system then Vista is probably fairly nifty. Unfortunately I jumped in way too early and games run like @#$! on my system as a result.
I'm guess you're one of the people with an older computer that couldn't be bothered running the vista compatibility advisor, but blames Microsoft for that. *rolls eyes some more.
Learn from others' mistakes.
edit: all of the above assumes the 64bit version of Vista Ultimate.
~Mysk
member of imminst.org
I was about to toss vista and install xp when I discovered "User Account Protection" under "User Account Control". So I turn off that utter crap and so far everything's fine. Now I only use it for 2142, WoW, and browsing basically. I was getting memory crashes between level loading with 2142 and WoW would not patch. As soon as I unchecked "account protection" I was good to go. Before that I was checking "run as administrator" in the program's properties with limited success. Why did I go with vista? Because they wanted to charge more to put xp on a new machine.
* Dual-Boot if you do not mind re-doing your XP system (1part XP, 2 part VISTA, 100g / 200g recommended minimum).
* SATA configurations if you want to not touch your XP, but also want to give VISTA a go.
If you are IDE on your drive(s) you have no choice; Dual-Boot.
Good Luck
huh?
member of imminst.org
That's a driver issue, not Vista. My laptop is a tablet PC, and The pen features in Vista are a million times better than they were with XP. Instead of being a slapped on extra like in the xp tablet version, it's integrated in and works beautifully. So if the pentablet your using has drivers for vista yet.
member of imminst.org
I like Vista. I've had it since launch and have had fewer problems that I did with XP at launch. Most games didn't play in XP for the first year. People seem to forget that it's not Microsoft's job to make things compatible with Vista. It's the hardware and software companys jobs to make them work with Vista.
People all complain about the User Account Control when you can just turn it off.
Just FYI, some applications may revert to default settings once you turn off UAC and flag your account as an administrator account (as is default in XP). This can be quite the pain if you've been running Vista for awhile.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
member of imminst.org
You know, as I read these posts about how bad Vista is, I reflect back on the hard-core Windows 95 folks swearing up and down they'd NEVER buy a computer with Windows XP. That XP sucked..so on..and on..and on. Look at all you guys out there that basically hold onto to XP as it were your breath of life. Jiminey cricket folks, it ain't rocket science and it ain't broke. Vista is OS we have now and you are going to have to adapt to it by the end of 2008, or just play older games and never experience the difference of the newer games.
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
Thats exactly why a well control hardware/software standard like MAC's are so superior. One new piece of hardware or software shouldnt make another obsolete.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
I already have this. OSX. I run Legacy Windows, DOS, or even Vista beautifully on my Mac Pro. I usually only run XP SP2 in a windowed enviroment so I can do some real work on OSX while playing Oblivion or Battlefield 2. But sometimes for shits and giggles I boot the machine into Vista to screw around with a bad OSX copy.
Actually one of the things that has held windows back and made Vista's development take so long was consessions for compatibility. If so many people didn't worry so much about legacy programs, Windows could be far more than it is now. Maybe at some point they should build a version of windows with a virtual version of an older Windows to take care of legacy apps.
I already have this. OSX. I run Legacy Windows, DOS, or even Vista beautifully on my Mac Pro. I usually only run XP SP2 in a windowed enviroment so I can do some real work on OSX while playing Oblivion or Battlefield 2. But sometimes for shits and giggles I boot the machine into Vista to screw around with a bad OSX copy.
Well, it can be done on Windows with virtual PC etc., but I meant built in as no extra installation, etc. As for the rest of the comment, well why would I expect anything based in reality from a mac user
member of imminst.org
Now is the first time I'd recommend Vista. Their drivers are either good, or getting there, many issues have been ironed out, and a slew of DX10 games are coming out in the next six months. If you're still unsure, then I'd wait until the first service pack.
Keep in mind that M$ has stated before that they want to release their next OS within a few years after Vista. So, if you wait too long, you might as well be ready for the next OS.
MMO games played or tested: EQ, DAoC, Archlord, Auto Assault, CoH, CoV, EQ2, EVE, Guild Wars, Hellgate: London, Linneage II, LOTRO, MxO, Planetside, SWG, Sword of the New World, Tabula Rasa, Vanguard, WWIIOL, WOW, Age of Conan
I hate to do this, but you're wrong.
You're like most windows fan-boys.
Linux/Unix (probably mac as well) are the most secure operating systems - why? Because Linux/Unix are open source, if someone finds a security hole, they post about it, and someone fixes it within a matter of days, unlike Windows it takes a long time until their next service pack.
Windows is not the answer, windows is the question, the answer is go Linux.
You do realize that Microsoft just announced that they will be launching a new OS codenamed Seven in 3 years right ? Also you didn't even mention any of the "MUST HAVE" features of VISTA outside of DX10. Which by the way has only shown to be marginal at best in terms of performance and graphical quality over DX9.
Games I've played/tried out:WAR, LOTRO, Tabula Rasa, AoC, EQ1, EQ2, WoW, Vangaurd, FFXI, D&DO, Lineage 2, Saga Of Ryzom, EvE Online, DAoC, Guild Wars,Star Wars Galaxies, Hell Gate London, Auto Assault, Grando Espada ( AKA SoTNW ), Archlord, CoV/H, Star Trek Online, APB, Champions Online, FFXIV, Rift Online, GW2.
Game(s) I Am Currently Playing:
GW2 (+LoL and BF3)
If Vista offers anything you need or want, then yes go for it. Most likely it doesn't though (ATM few games use DX10).
So, it's actually pretty dumb to upgrade to Vista without a compelling reason simply because Vista uses more resources than XP. Well, games, specially MMORPGs, use all resources available on the system. If less resources are available, less resources the game can use thus it will run slower on Vista. Really simple.
It's not even whether Vista is good or bad, I personally think it doesn't bring as much as previous releases did, but rather about how much larger it is doing the basic things you need an OS to be doing in order to run your games.
If someone was buying or building a new PC with, for arguments sake, mid line hardware totaling $1200-$1600 for the whole PC minus the monitor. Would you have Vista installed or stay with XP?