How about the fact that a significant portion of your machine's resources under Vista are devoted to DRM monitoring? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs

How about the fact that a significant portion of your machine's resources under Vista are devoted to DRM monitoring? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows... There's something seriously wrong when so much engineering effort is put into monitoring and crippling rather than enhancing your users' hardware capabilities. It goes against the very ethos of engineering. Add to that onerous licensing terms specifying that you don't own your copy of Windows, Microsoft does, allowing Microsoft to remotely disable the OS and install or delete software without asking you. Add to that onerous DRM requirements on third-party hardware manufacturers that drive up prices and reduce overall driver support and availability. Vista was Microsoft's bid to become gatekeeper and tolltaker of an OS-level iTunes-like digital content distribution channel. But that's not something Microsoft's customers wanted, a fact that has resulted in arguably the biggest software release failure in Microsoft's long history.