Where is the proof?
The arguments w2ktechman makes are weak. On one hand he acknowledges there are security improvements, but then indicates that it hasn't been proven that Vista is more secure than XP. Using his own argument, it hasn't been proven that Vista is *less* secure than XP.
However, we can point to Vista's UAC feature as an example where security has improved and there is no real equivalent in XP. One has to conclude by just this feature alone that Vista *is* more secure than XP. It is difficult to argue, at this point in time, that Vista is less secure due to the number of reported bugs as compared to XP. Only with sufficient time and analysis, will we be able to determine whether the security improvements Microsoft made in Vista actually paid off.
Whether the software is bloated or not is a matter of opinion. Let's not confuse additional features with bloat. You could say *any* software is bloated, if you don't use the majority of it's features. But that doesn't mean that it's bloated for someone else who does use the majority of it's features. What you might desire is the ability to remove features that you don't personally use. Both XP and Vista allow you to do that, but maybe not at the granular level you might like.
Lastly, if you are going to argue "there are many known issues..." then provide references to a few issues that support your argument instead of waving your hands in the air, otherwise they just look like the FUD the article was trying to dispel.
