From my OotP post:

I loved Harris as Dumbledore. I like how Gambon plays Dumbledore. It is very hard to say how I would feel had Harris not died or had Gambon be Dumbledore from the start. Is my preference based upon what was first? What I became attached to? Or better portrayal.

I love that two actors have played him, for purposes of reading the books. Dumbledore is the ONLY character I don't picture and "hear" as the actor in the film series while I'm reading the novels.

I wonder what the opinion would be if all the books had been written/read before the first movie? Would Harris still be a favorite, or would he be too nice? I initially found Gambon to be a bit jarring - although nothing to really complain about - but now I rather like him. Harris was so frail and saintly, and Gambon hints at the depth revealed in book seven.

I agree-

I don't see Harris doing many of the things Dumbledore does as the books go on. I can see Gambon dealing with Inferi though.

While Gambon's 'commanding presence' of Dumbledore will be needed for the upcoming movies, who's to say that Harris' Dumbledore wouldn't have achieved the necessary presence?

If you mean the 'necessary presence' being comatose, then perhaps you're on to something. ;)

A younger, healthier Harris would have been spectacular. We've been re-watching the first two movies, and I am convinced he would not have been able to pull off all that the character requires in the later books. He was simply too frail.

The sled was Rosebud.

True. I had forgotten he was sick during the first 2 movies. It's been a long time since I have seen them.

I hear Harvey Fierstein.
:D