I would stick with what you have for now unless you want to go to XP 32 bit to get your bluetooth adapter working.  XP is a great operating system and unless you are running an Exchange or SQL server and have hundreds of users then the next generation Windows is  only going to slow you down.

As for Windows 7 being faster, it might be slightly faster than Vista but it still runs like a tortoise compared to XP and its not surprising as it is still based on the Vista code base. 

Testing the Windows7 beta I expected big things but was quite disappointed with the speed, it felt just as slow as Vista.

To be fair to the developers though it has loads more drivers for existing hardware so installed flawlessly and isnt annoying with all the popups like Vista was. 

Would I shell out money to go to Vista or Windows 7 - not a chance !!!

Visual Studio seems to start up faster on my Vista laptop which is in every way more limited than my XP workstation (2GB vs 8GB ram, 7200rpm laptop drive vs 10k rpm raptors, dualcore vs quadcore). In fact, everything runs pretty smoothly on this Vista machine... dunno where people are getting that "dog slow" nonsense from (yes, it'll be slow if you don't have enough RAM and the pagefile gets involved, but whatever ).

Diet after diet and people continue to complain that one is Better than the other. Well, the ultimate fact is that if all comes down to caloric intake: the more calories you take in, the more you have to burn off to stay the same weight.
The same goes for your typical OS. Ultimately it comes down to how many things are you expecting it to do at the same time. The more processes you pile into a given input/output operation, the more clock cycles you're going to have to 'burn' to get something done. If you burn more cycles, the whole operation is going to appear 'slower' because the OS is using more clock cycles to get the main job done.
Lacking the specifics regarding how many clock cycles it takes for a given operation, you would have to start with a base measure of each OS (i.e. their most basic state of operation) and look at how much processing is being done at any given moment. Now compare that to how long it takes to perform an additional operation and you'll begin to have a measure of how much additional work it takes for each OS to perform that 'type' of task, to load a file, for example.
It's all Very basic on paper, but much more work in real life. I have yet to see anything close to this type of analysis being done, even a basic measure in terms of seconds taken to do this or that, in a comparison of these two OS's. Very weak indeed.
Maybe the discussion should be slanted to "which sites/forums Do have such useful info?" so that we can all go There instead for Real Answers?

First, for those reading your response and thinking, "oh, this guy's got a 'Honorary' next to his name. He Must speak wisely and truthfully", I must correct your very first statement, oh Wise one. Any OS uses All the clock cycles it is given, whether they are used wisely or wasted; they are All 'eaten up'. Now to the meat.
Aside from your 'general feelings' about Vista, your accumulated 'hate' for some features, bugs, etc. and your specific 'taste' for an OS (I might not want to know the specifics  ), my main gripe is exemplified by your illustrious rendition of an attempt to box me into a corner with guilt that I had dissed this forum, when in fact you've laid the groundwork for my Proof!
As witness to my unfounded ramblings, see where you have used expressions such as 'too little memory', 'dog slow', 'filesystem caching and the shouting of mouthes' (which disses those who may have a point that you fail to invalidate), 'usage stats' ( ), 'expect it to run smoothly' (an unvalidated assumption, probably as reliable as those 'shouting of mouthers' and 'people who bitch'), 'feels smoother than XP', 'able hardware', acceleration purely with shaders, though, since that leaves some otherwise capable fixed-function hardware without acceleration' (simply gobble-d-gook), 'eats up more resources' (what and where, and how is this different from eating up clock cycles and slowing things down, My Point Exactly), 'if my workstation crashed today, I'd be installing Vista' (you would reinstall your OS because it crashed????  ), 'UAC..., a trade off between security and annoyance' (doesn't that depend on how often one attempts system functions that call upon this feature?), 'since harddrives is the major bottleneck in my system' (like, your computer is different how? and since when is this not a antiquated bus system issue?), 'More aggressive prefetcher and disk cache. VS2008 starts faster on my 7200rpm...' (apparently you've figured out a way to successfully compare large apples to small oranges), 'Smoother GUI and (non-hacky) live previews' (sorry, but another  ), blah, blah, blah, then, 'default Vista install is too bloated' (by which I assume you mean that it takes up too much space in memory and eats up too many clock cycles doing unnecessary crap).
Seriously, could I refer to this overview as bloat-babble? I rest my case.

Geez. I guess 2 moderators do make a right. I bow to your combined wisdom, and hereby grovel in a most earnest and humble expression of regret that I ever whispered a syllable of condescension at the wonder that is this forums top-level experts. From the very depth of my programming ilk I could never have imagined that my heart was as a mere clock cycle of time, never amounting to anything useful unless, dare I say, it's beating to the rhythm of your wise analogies and succinct but yet somehow informative reviews as I read them with breathless anticipation seeking if I be so wise those seeds of genuine interest to all whose eyes fall upon them.
Greater still must be your physical prowess for as you illuminate so clearly you've managed, probably through some manner of ultimate mind control, to make your heart beat the same rate whether you're climbing mount Everest or sitting in front of the TV, a skill I do so wish (dare I believe my attendance to this forum may lend me some partial understanding of this power) to emulate, lo someday master. To this very splendid goal of optimism of what can be if I but shut my crude, uneducated trap and read herewith and learn from thou wisest of the wise, I can only beg the benefits that have given you such a lauded, multi-syllabled monocle of wisdom, and may I someday join your ranks, step as proudly through the posts of those like myself of lesser knowledge and wisen them also.
I will wait with baited breath as an undisciplined child, cowering in shame, but willing to aspire to and learn from your greatness, if you will forgive my insolence.

In 1984, I worked in the Traffic Engineering Dept. of a municipality.  Eventhough the rest of the departments were upgrading to the new IBM-PC and clones, we, in this department continued to use the humble "Osborne 64," bit to run a traffic signal timing program called "Transyt-7."  To this day, there is no better piece of software to provide a smooth cruise from 38th Street to 4th Street at any time of the day.

So what's my point...

Simply, no one needs to feel the oppressive stress-inducers of adrenaline-laden commentary.  If you are happy with what you have then don't let the gainsayers beleaguer you contentment.  If you want to and can move to something better easily (and YOU know it's better) then more power to you. 

I run Vista 32 and would be delighted to "upgrade" to XP Pro 32^*. My previous Toshiba (Vista 32) was a breeze, but this HP is a bear!

Bottom Line:  Two rules...

• Rule @1 - If you are content, stay that way.
• Rule @2 - If you are not, then move to where you can apply Rule #1

 

---

^*If anyone can tell me how to get back to XP Pro on this infernal HP Paviliondv6700! (but PM me and I will start a new thread so we don't hijack this one)