Yeah, if you run it with low specs.  XP's minimum RAM spec was 64 MB.  Did you ever run XP on a machine with 64 MB of RAM?  Or Windows 2000 for that matter? 

Vista runs great for me on my gaming rig with 2 gigs of RAM and a Q6600, but it also runs great on my laptop, which is a dual core with 1 GB of RAM.  Obviously the laptop is not quite as snappy, but it runs Vista just fine WITH Aero turned on.

That was a nice read Final Fan.  I especially enjoyed this question.

Q: Do you see much of a long term future for Microsoft?s Entertainment & Devices Division? I saw that they just got a new campus and troubled projects rarely get new expensive buildings. Do you see that division ever turning a profit? So what do you think their overall hardware strategy is? Do you think that they will still be selling videogame systems and music players in five years?
Xbox's mission statement is to preserve the Windows monopoly and extend it into the living room, as a media extender for a Media Center PC, along with a host of other MS and other company's hardware devices that fit into a digital entertainment lifestyle. MS has the bucks to keep losing money on Xbox for a long time, maybe forever. They've already lost around 6 billion dollars. How are they ever going to make that back on Xbox? They can't. Maybe they don't think they have to. That amount might be just 1 or 2 quarters of profit for an integrated hw/sw portfolio, with windows, PC Hardware, Xbox, Zune, TV, Movies, ads, etc., all providing some revenue stream to MS. You should check out their jobs site sometime. You can learn a lot about what they are doing. And their patent applications. They have a team working on making PCs now. That voice activated thing they did for Ford? Where do you think you will see that next? MS devices and sw is my guess.

That new H&E campus says that MS is getting into consumer electronics in a big way, and you can bet they are working to refine a strategy of integrating their offerings into a digital lifestyle universe, with most everything covered that we could want to stay productive, connected and entertained. Not piece meal, like some companies seem to be approaching electronics. Look at Apple. They are doing great, keep rolling out innovative stuff, but what's their vision and strategy to implement? What's their roadmap and timeline? How does it all go together, work together? I can't tell from what they say or do. But I can see what MS is trying to do. They are just getting started I think. So yes, they will still be doing this in 5 years. But they really need to mature their business and change some blood in there. Hire some key people who have experience running large hardware companies who can put the right organization, process and infrastructure in place. If they don't, they may continue to have quality and operational issues that will really dampen their progress. And with all of the external challenges in consumer markets, even MS can't afford to be it's own enemy for too much longer.

The bolded part is probably the most important thing to do.  The people at M$ had no experience at producing hardware and it caused problems.

You know, come to think of it, there's a much more on-point question and answer from that interview:

"Q: Of all five videogame systems on the market now (PS3, PSP, PS2, DS, Wii and 360)only the Xbox 360 has had such major hardware failure problems. Microsoft being the only company based in the US making a videogame system. What part of Microsoft's way of doing things do you think caused this situation to happen[?]"

A: "First, MS has under resourced that product unit in all engineering areas since the very beginning. Especially in engineering support functions like test, quality, manufacturing, and supplier management. There just weren't enough people to do the job that needed to be done. The leadership in many of those areas was also lopsided in essential skills and experience. But I hear they are really trying to staff up now based on what has happened, and how cheap staff is compared to a couple of billion in cost of quality.

"Second, MS was so focused on beating Sony this cycle that the 360 was rushed to market when all indications were that it had serious flaws. The design qual testing was insufficient and incomplete when the product was released to production. The manufacturing test equipment had major gaps in test coverage and wasn't reliable or repeatable. Manufacturing processes at eall levels of suppliers were immature and not in control. Initial end to end yields were in the mid 30%. Low yields always indicate serious design and manufacturing defects. Management chose to continue to ship anyways, and keep the lines running while trying to solve problems and bring the yields up. Whenever something failed and there was a question about whether the test result was false, they would remove that test, retest and ship, or see if the unit would boot a game and run briefly and then ship. 360 is too complex of a machine to get away with that.

"In the end I think it was fear of failure, ambition to beat Sony, and the arrogance that they could figure anything out, that led to the decision to keep shipping. That management team had made some pretty bad decisions in the past and had never had to pay a proportional consequence. I'm sure they thought that somehow they would figure it out and everything would end up ok. Plus, they tend to make big decisions like that in terms of dollars. They would rationalize that if the first few million boxes had a high failure rate, a few 10's of millions of dollars would cover it. And contrasting that cost with a big lead on Sony, would pay it in a heartbeat. They weren't even thinking about Nintendo.

"Compare that to Sony, who delayed their launch, even though they were behind, when their box wasn't ready."
(same source; emphasis added)

Now this is coming from an insider who clearly has deep knowledge of what the situation was with MS both internally and strategically. He is very clear that (1) "bad luck" had little or nothing to do with the RRoD making it to customers; (2) RRoD would have been avoidable had MS not been rushing to market heedless of all danger; (3) The problem might have been exacerbated by particularly reckless management; (4) Sony was not "lucky" to avoid a similar fate (nor was Nintendo for that matter).

Unless you plan to attack the credibility of this guy I think you had better pack it in Squilliam ... after all, consider what I was responding when I started our exchange:
"OT: Nvidia recently fucked up and got a 40% failure rate on their GPUs. What does this mean? RROD could have happened to Sony just as easily. Its not that Microsoft is a screw up, its just that either Sony is Lucky or Microsoft is Unlucky depending on how you spin it. (Nvidia is the supplier of GPUs to Sony btw)"
(emphasis added)
It's clear that unless this guy is a complete liar this is just not true.

According to our sources, the failures are caused by a solderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solder bump that connects the I/O termination of the silicon chip to the pad on the substrate. In Nvidia’s GPUs, this solder bump is created using high-lead. A thermal mismatch between the chip and the substrate has substantially grown in recent chip generations, apparently leading to fatigue cracking. Add into the equation a growing chip size (double the chip dimension, quadruple the stress on the bump) as well as generally hotter chips and you may have the perfect storm to take high lead beyond its limits. Apparently, problems arise at what Nvidia claims to be "extreme temperatures" and what we hear may be temperatures not too much above 70 degrees Celsiushttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius .

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Nvidia-GPU-failure,6248.html

What do the laptop failures have to do with RRoD?  Are the GPUs that similar?  And if so, is the implementation that similar in the 360 and those laptops?  In any case this has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted material.

What you SHOULD be quoting is this post.  Here, let me provide you with the crucial protion of it:
Well, I thank you for the refresher on recent developments in soldering, but all it means to me is "yes, MS rushed design and/or manufacturing (insufficient training on Pb-free) and or quality control".  I don't believe there was no way to compensate for having to go Pb-free unless I see highly reputable sources saying so. 

You said nothing about my NVidia point/question. 
You said nothing regarding my request for source(s) on your NVidia failure rate allegation.
You did not respond to my suggestion about schizophrenia within MS regarding possible early reports of RRoD. 
In fact, you did not even say anything that would support your suggestion that test units used Pb solder! 

All in all, I feel I have no choice but to wonder whether your post is just a red herring.

What's that?  I didn't put in the part about how solder wasn't the main issue?  Well, maybe that's because it's a side point that you're hyperfocusing on in either a conscious or subconscious effort to avoid the MAIN POINT we're discussing.  Which is MS fucking up quality control and letting the RRoD loose upon the world. 

Now, if you want to either drop or concede that debate, then TELL me and I'll be happy to refocus on whether or not Pb-free solder was a main factor in the RRoD.  Or, if you want to drop even THAT argument in favor of talking about NVidia's current woes with the 8400/8600m or whatever, then tell me THAT and I'll let you blather on to yourself, as I don't really care. 

But let me know what the deal is so you can stop wasting my time posting irrelevant data. 

P.S.  If you're trying to imply that Sony could have fallen victim to faulty hardware as easily as MS did, since Sony is using NVidia which is currently mired in faulty hardware issues:  (1) Please don't ask others to reverse-engineer your argument from your evidence; and (2) did you not read a fucking word of that interview?  MS had systemic quality control problems, including but not limited to bad management, critical understaffing, a hugely rushed timetable, and a software mentality (we can always patch it later).  Sony did not, and had the balls to delay the PS3's release when they had to to ensure a quality product.  Clearly MS was not willing to do the same. 

If that was not your argument, then that's why I said (1). 

P.P.S.  I thought you were blaming Pb-free solder?  And yet this latest article is about a GPU with a "solder bump [that] is created using high-lead."  Is there something I'm missing here?

I honestly feel like I'm being trolled. Am I?

For one thing, I really have no clue what that most recent article was supposed to tell me.  If there are massive heat differences beyond what the solder/substrate was designed for, then it will fail?  Quelle surprise.  That's like blaming an ultralight chair for breaking when Fatty McLardass sits on it. 

Just to bring a positive note to all this.

Now that MS has lost billions and there reputation is hanging in the balance, I am very confident that this mistake is unlikely to be repeated. That they compensated the consumers instead of turning a blind eye like Sony did with DRE, shows at least some respect to the consumer.

I am also surprised no one mentioned the PS2 failure rates. 100% of the people I know who had bought a PS2 had it die on them before the end of its life cycle. PS2 was almost sure to fail if you watched a decent amount of movies or gamed a lot. Its just that MS seems to get more coverage for the issue.

The issue with the Xbox 360 is mainly a GPU issue.

The issue with the Nvidia GPUs is a GPU issue.

The reasons why I bought it up is because of the parellels between the two issues with regards to solder/packaging issues of the GPUS brought about by partially by an increase in heat output of GPUs over time.

1. The Nvidia GPUs were tested by competent engineers by both Nvidia and the companies which installed them in the laptops. Since it passed at least two phases of competent testing and was installed in envirionments which were inside the specifications for the parts. The issues only became aparant once the devices were released into the wild. So saying that systematic quality control errors was the cause of the issue is moot if the problems can show up with several different companies who all tested the design and passed it through their own quality control procedures.

2. The issues related to the Nvidia GPU would have required a complete respin of the chip, so if the same were true of the Xbox 360 they would have had to remove the console from the market for a minimum period of 6 months and more likely 9-12 months of testing and design work. For that reason had an issue become aparant in the PS3 GPU they would have likely faced a further 9 months of redisign and testing and the PS3 would have been forced to release in 2007 and thats a huge issue, not to mention the cost of the already manufactured PS3s. Could you really say that the executives at Sony would have held back the PS3 for a further 6-9months to fix a GPU problem and let the Xbox 360 gain an unassailable lead?

3. This is an issue that was always going to creep into the computer industry at some point or another. The problem is that thermals are increasing, not decreasing with time and newer process shrinks are not helping the problem at all. This is all especially true of GPUs which have increased their thermal output over time quite considerably. The GTX 280 uses more power than the Xbox 360 or PS3 as a whole. Its just one chip!

I must say with all this Technical speculation, the bottom line is how good is a 360 as a game machine? Its paid through the nose for games and paid through the nose for warranties. It delivers the best games and don't over charge for accessories or dated hardware.

On the other hand, Wii has dated hardware which it sells for a good mark up, replaced button pressing with waggle motions, a la Zelda, Mario and NMH's and thinks that this superficial change makes the games inherently innovative and not a rehash that bases most of its acclaim on familiarity with the product.

I think 360 gets way too much complaints for what it is and what its done and its just far too popular to bash them because they are rich.

I agree with all your points except this one.