From the statistics are in department.
InfoWorld is reporting results from their Windows Sentinel study and it's not pretty for Vista. Computers using Vista run up to 40% slower, use 21% more CPU cycles per thread, are spinning twice as many threads and suffer 30% more "memory pressure" than similar hardware running XP.
By abstracting the data from the platform particulars, we make it possible to compare seemingly disparate systems -- for example, a quad-core uber-workstation and an aging Pentium M notebook -- because the indices acknowledge the context in which they are generated.
[they conclude] Vista is considerably "fatter" and more demanding than XP. But you don't need lots of fancy abstract statistics to tell you that. Just boot the thing
... and wait ... and wait ... and wait ...
Despite claims to the contrary, Peter Gutmann did not claim Vista caused global warming when he predicted the high computing cost of Vista DRM. That's too bad because this study proves that Vista is indeed a power hog.
This May 7 InfoWorld article claims that M$ "trims" Vista and Windows to make it less a power hog. If they are serious about that, they will remove wasteful DRM checks but that would just highlight the nature of non free code - the annoyances are for you, not the real users and customers.