That list shows a whole bunch of relatively trivial user interface changes, many of which could easily be achieved by third party add-ons for XP already e.g. launchy instead of new start menu).
Maybe people like having the stuff built into the OS instead of going out and collecting a bunch of third party applications to provide basic functionality. On the topic of launchy, I found it to be completely useless and no substitute for the start menu, and guess what, a lot of people feel that way too. You know, a lot of people don't even like Firefox! I'm not one of those people though, it's my favorite browser, but I digress...
Many of the changes are just arbitrary, and many are completely irrelevant to me - new media player (don't use it) etc... They complete whacked up the configuration part (LAN/IP settings), at least before SP1. Haven't tried it since.
And this is where we get to some real beef of your post, which proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. You admit that you haven't tried post-SP1, and I'm willing to bet your pre-SP1 experiences lasted about a day or two. That's how things seem to go with Vista bashers. The changes are not just arbitrary, though I will grant that not all of them are going to be relevant to you. When was the last time you saw a new Linux kernel release, or Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian release, where every single change was applicable to you and entirely beneficial? The answer, none. I find that the figure of 25% which you pulled out of your ass is about 24% higher than the amount of useful stuff for me when it comes to new Linux distro or kernel releases (Which is, by the way, a completely irrelevant metric to be using because I am not the center of the universe). Does that mean that Linux distros are just throwing on a bunch of fluff because it's not always stuff that is directly applicable to me and my usage scenarios? Not in the least.
The new media player was a welcome addition for the people who actually enjoy using it, and the people who have to use it from time to time. I know this might be hard for you to understand, but diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. One of my old friends would insist on WMP because of his multimedia keys, among other things. Other friends just plain like it. You can't convert everyone to software that you personally feel is superior (I always push VLC). The TCP/IP configuration, I have no idea what the hell you are talking about because undearneath all of the new stuff, behind the new Networking Center, it's got the same goddamn configuration dialogs that have been here since 2k/XP. Boo hoo you might have to dig one level deeper to get to something. Every Average Joe desktop user I come across likes the way the Networking Center presents information instead of just having Interface 1 Interface 2 Wireless 1, stuff like that. It's more accessible and it gives more information on the surface, with the same amount of depth underneath.
At a quick glance I can find no major "killer" feature - just a bunch of minor changes. Out of these:
- 25% are nice and useful
- 25% I hate
- 25% Are complete useless to me (new fonts, media player, language support etc...)
- 25% are arbitrary interface changes
Are you so dense that you can't understand that stuff like language support and an enhanced user interface are things that most users appreciate? Language support especially because uhhh hey guess what, lots of people like to use their computer in their own language/locale. Localization progress is touted by every software project including Windows because it's important. If you really think these are arbitrary user interface changes then what it really boils down to is how resistant you are to change your own computing habits, even if those changes would ultimately result in increased workflow and production. When you stop resisting these changes and start learning their advantages, the reasons why they were implemented begin to become very clear. You probably think the breadcrumb navigation is a pain in the ass when it's as simple as clicking the location bar to turn it into the old-style. But no, that extra click is unforgivable to you, and you can't be bothered to adapt to a more efficient paradigm. This particular one I hear a lot of people complaining about, and it just so happens to be the same change that every other desktop environment is implementing or has already implemented.
Wow, how awesome. Coupled with worse performance than XP, I think it is fair to say that, for me, Vista blows.
You keep throwing around this worse performance as if you have anything to stand on when you make these claims. You admit yourself that you haven't used Vista post-SP1, you most certainly haven't tried the new Windows 7 beta, and you haven't the slightest idea apparently that for standard everyday usage and tasks, especially gaming, Windows Vista SP1 and beyond are almost always on parity with XP. The problem at launch was drivers, and that has been fixed. But you can't be assed enough to do some testing of your own (Real benchmarking in game performance, in everyday task performance) so you sit there on the sideline complaining like an old geezer about changes that are beneficial but don't exactly apply to you directly, and resisting learning new more efficient methods of doing things or looking at things.