[citation][nom]thornbreaker[/nom]Vista is a bomb because it didn't sell. Kinda like RDRAM may have been better tech, but it didn't sell.[/citation]
Are you sure it wasn't a bomb because of the actual problems with both it and the circumstances (ie the OEMs stupid hardware choices) surrounding it? I think it's failure has to do with why it didn't sell too well, not that it didn't sell. RDRAM was not particularly better, it had more bandwidth and higher latency than SDRAM. Once DDR came out it didn't even beat the performance of the much cheaper alternative noticeably, after a while it even lost whilst being extremely expensive.
I like to think that there are reasons for stuff not selling. Sometimes they aren't because the product isn't better, the product may be better in every way (neither Vista nor RDRAM were better than alternatives in every way), but because another company marketed better or took actions against an opposing product. However, most failed products aren't because of other companies doing what they can to kill a product (such as buying out the competitor or taking legal action of some sort), but are because the product had flaws.
Vista was a huge resource hog, the largest such of all Windows editions, even up to now and the near future with Windows 8. Beyond that, Vista was being put on OEM machines that had far less than necessary performance (insufficient memory capacity, processor power, graphics power, etc.) to run Vista even tolerably.