Originally Posted by fizzleation
Out of curiosity, what is the basis for XP being a better choice for this application? I don't care about anyone's opinion of Vista, I am curious about facts.
Difficult to answer when considering your stated conditions... My "opinion" of Vista is based on many, many years of experience with software (designing, developing, managing, on small and large scales). I can't offer a slew of reproduceable facts and specific behaviors that will win arguments - but my experience with Vista over the last year has convinced me that, while pretty and perhaps providing a few new worthwhile features, it tends to create complexities, difficulties and incompatibilities for software publishers that were either less onerous or non-existent under XP. In short - Vista has struck me as having a tendency to "bring out the worst" in software.
I use Vista on a couple of my work machines, but count on XP for the situations when I must be most productive, and cannot afford to have the system simply slow down or lock up for no apparent reason at random.
My "opinion" is that beta software doesn't necessarily perform flawlessly to begin with, and that one would have the best shot of success running the beta product in a simpler, more forgiving and less buggy OS than Vista. It may, in fact, run fine under Vista -- but in general, I find XP to be a more stable and predictable environment, and when I am testing beta products, it's nice to be able to separate out issues that are due to the product from those that are due to the OS.