Both Egan and Vinge have been very disappointing to me. I read them because they wrote a lot about the singularity, but found them to be extremely boring, dry and unimaginative. Stephenson's Snow Crash was also very underwhelming.
I read Lem when I was young and it was a chore. I read him again when I was older and found his stuff to be pretty dated.
I couldn't even remember what Herbert wrote, even though I read Dune (not the 1000 follow ups though) recently. It made almost no impression on me. Maybe it's like War & Peace where it has been copied so much that the original doesn't seem that, well, original.
Not sure who Dick is.
The only overlap we seem to have is our dislike for Egan. I read a LOT of his short stories (recommended by fans of Lem btw), and it was just entirely boring - the only one I remember is about a health-check ring and two aliens deciding to die after being immortal for a while. Nothing new in there, no story. Basically Egan and Lem seem like the worst of Stephenson - intellectual theory with zero story. It's funny - I like relatively hard sci-fi, but I still insist on it not being a science/social theory book.
Random note - I don't think Clarke was mentioned yet. I read "Rendezvous with Rama" after all the Ouamuamua comparisons and it came off as pretty dry as well, though very well written.
To conclude, I am trying, and having a hard time reconciling why our preferences differ so much. I always think I am missing something, especially about Lem, but I can't tell what.
I'm more of a fan of Dick, Herbert, and Lem.