A lot of you guys are too young to really remember, but these same sentiments arise themselves with every new OS release. When Windows 95 came out, people complained that the GUI took up too many resources and they had to upgrade or replace their entire system just to get it to run. There were so many things that didn't have drivers available.
When Windows 98 came out, people complained that Windows95 was perfectly fine, why should they wasted their money on upgrading when it was basically the exact same thing (but now with better USB support). Same with 98SE, it was only an incremental change, why bother?
Then came Windows 2000, though admittedly this was mostly used in businesses. It took forever to get through its development cycle and then when it came out, as a pure desktop OS (enterprise environments aside) you couldn't run most of your games on it because a lot of things saw "This is Windows NT. I can't run on NT, so I'm going to refuse to install.
Windows ME......ok, Windows ME just plain sucked, there's no getting around it.
Windows XP came out and there again were all kinds of things that didn't have drivers, it was such a huge resource hog, what do you mean I don't have enough memory? 128MB was more than enough for my "awesome" Windows 98 machine. I'm just going to stick with that.
Do you hear commonalities with what you've seen/read/heard about Vista?
My point to all of this is that when there is a new version of an OS, there are bound to be many complaints, hardware incompatibilities, and general moaning and groaning. And I guarantee you that when the next version of Windows, currently
codenamed Vienna, hits the market, these same stories will play themselves out once more, only this time the hero will be Vista and the enemy will be Vienna.