I've used git and if all you're doing is committing and checking out it's simple enough. But the fact its architecture is so sloppy (imo) is what bothers me -- it nearly encourages you to mess with things like history and the source directory, which is very much against svn/hg's immutability.
Typical linux-way, they even acknowledge it :(. Also, if it was clear from the beginning that a collection of scripts starting with git- blah won't work, why do them? And now conversion to "git dosomething", though "git-daemon" still exists, and "gitweb" is without any dash at all (which is not a command), and config files are spread on the gentoo box in /etc/conf.d and just in /etc. My portion of a rant.
Worth noting that mercurial's performance is horrendous compared to Git. I've been using Git for all my projects lately (ranging from games to libraries, to scripts and other utilities). It works great.
I've yet to see actual numbers on that, especially on Windows systems.
Native Git's performance in Windows doesn't really set records. I just compared a log operation, it seems to take equal amount of time doing a local git status and doing a remote svn status on my 256kbit/ s radiochannel.
I started that mirror because I couldn't get Hg to import our repository. Most of the importing scripts I tried (why not do one official? Migration from other VCS is a HUGELY important thing: look, even GIT, with all fanatism involved, made a really working interoperability tools!) didn't work, caused exceptions, and a couple of other scripts we tried estimated the needed time to import our repo as about several months.
The main problem with Hg is the same problem I have with GCC, Cygwin, etc -- it's a Linux tool built for Linux-based projects, with a fanatic Linux-based fanbase that won't care much about Windows support, stability and performance..
So true... I'm sick of those fanatics, though recently I see a decrease of their count, and a fresh view on FOSS world by people (here in Russia).