Bull. While it's certainly possible for files to get corrupted, an no point will it cause the HDD or video card to become physically damaged. You just got bad hardware out of the box.
Not to start an argument, but my nVidia card was working fine while I was using it under XP. I had no problems with it for a few months until I put Vista on a partition. Few weeks later, video card burns out while using it.
I'm sorry, but it's complete nonsense. True, Vista will put more strain on a GPU than XP will. However, at no point should said GPU "burn out" unless one or both of two things are true: 1) The GPU was defective in the first place, or 2) the GPU was old and was reaching the end of its life anyway. We could also conclude from this that ANY application which uses the GPU would have caused the same thing, such as a 3d game, which is significantly
more strenuous on the GPU than Vista ever
For the hard drive.. again, it worked fine for a while until Vista SHOT it useless. That's why I'm not going back to Vista after this trouble.
See the above conditions. Hard drives don't die from software use. Period. Now, some file systems will cause the mechanical read/write head in a HDD to move in different combination which as a result will be more strenuous on the HDD. However, both XP and Vista (and Windows 2000 for that matter) use the NTFS file system, which is actually very efficient in terms of physical data placement.
Again, you just had really bad luck. It has absolutely nothing to do with Vista.
One of the most HDD intensive programs you can run is Hitachi's Drive Fitness Test
. If anything will make a HDD crash, it's that. In fact, that's that the purpose of the program: It puts the drive through absolute hell. If it fails, the drive has defects and is not a safe drive to use. I'd wager your HDD would have failed this test long before you put Vista on it.
Oh, right.. about the UAC, here's a topic about that, among others things. Click here
Wait, wait, wait. Hold up a second. Maybe I'm not gathering the information correctly in that linked topic, but it seems to me its implying several things.
1) When UAC is disabled, Vista keeps warning you about it.
This is half-true. If UAC is disabled, Vista will warn you only ONCE each time you boot up or log in, just like XP SP2 will warn you if you have the firewall turned off. Cancel this notice in Vista, and it'll never bug you again.
2) Vista will lock you out of your files.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the original author meant, but unless you're using BitLocker or some type of encryption, you can always get access to the files provided you have access to the HDD. Pop the drive out, throw it in an external enclosure, hook it up to a Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, or Server 2008 machine and change the ownership with one change in the files/folder's Security settings. Done.
3) Vista takes up more HDD space. Well, no kidding. It has more features. One thing to consider is that the HDD requirements for Vista aren't actually what's needed. Microsoft, rightfully so, takes into account things like page filing and enough free space in order to do a proper defragmentation.
4) Vista needs 2GB of RAM in order to enjoy all of its features.
Again, not true. I've got Vista Home Premium on a 512MB RAM system. And while it runs slow (as would Leopard or Ubuntu on the same RAM with all features enabled), it still runs every single feature. 1GB is recommended for premium features, 2GB is recommended if you're a multitasker. There's a huge difference.