The full implications and effects of the DRM subsystem are not yet known. We are receiving all sorts of anecdotal reports of absurd performance bottlenecks, such as the browser/ word processor issue she faced.
Of course, some of these may be caused by users opting to use Vista at its highest graphics rendering capability when their machines can't support that, but as Gutman points out the "content protection" measures exact a deep cost (both financial and performance related) which is still being determined.
It simply isn't possible to use software as a gatekeeper of electron flow (i.e. "premium content" aka RIAA and MPAA balkanized entertainment product) -- without incident or performance impact -- as Microsoft claims to have achieved.
Hollywood appears pleased but as for the rest of us...
[WS:] Is it possible that this will price Micro$oft out of the market? What prevents offshore competitors of designing a simpler an more efficient OS for a fraction of Vista's sticker price and which can run on older machines performing all the tasks that Windows does, less the bottlenecks?
This begs a broader question; why is Micro$oft still a monopolist as far as the OS is concerned, when there are more efficient and less costly alternatives that can be relatively easily installed on every computer?
Wojtek