Windows7 is just Vista, but worse

[drhowarddrfine]

For all those looking forward to Windows7. From PCWorld and InfoWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html):
Bottom line: So far, Windows 7 looks, behaves, and performs almost exactly like Windows Vista. And it breaks all sorts of things that used to work just fine under Vista. In other words, Microsoft's follow-up to its most unpopular OS release since Windows Me threatens to deliver zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues.

[scragar]

You will need at least 2 cores just to run windows 7? What's the deal with that?

Anyway, I've long since given up on running windows where I can help it, so it means little to me, will be fun to see what sort of PCs will be thrown out to make room to support windows 7, I mean I got a great PC when my uncle "upgraded" to vista, so I look forwards to windows 7 making things even less efficient so I can get another free PC.

[NogDog]

I must be doing something wrong. I've been using Vista regularly on my notebook PC since a couple months after Vista was released, and I've not had any problems with it. Of course, I turned off a lot of the eye candy features, I surf with Firefox except when I specifically need to use IE, and I don't use it for running intense 3D graphics games; so maybe I'm not a typical user?

[scragar]

I must be doing something wrong. I've been using Vista regularly on my notebook PC since a couple months after Vista was released, and I've not had any problems with it. Of course, I turned off a lot of the eye candy features, I surf with Firefox except when I specifically need to use IE, and I don't use it for running intense 3D graphics games; so maybe I'm not a typical user?

Except for the firefox/IE switch you've pretty much hit on what the average user wants.
The problem is that the average user knows a lot less and tends to be scared of breaking things(not that it stops them breaking things), they don't know how to turn off the flashy features, or understand that they can't switch browser to get away from IE.
The average user is more often than not content with a quick system that can chat, run a browser and loads quickly, that's why XP is so attractive over vista, most users don't care about that stuff, user's care nothing for security(since they don't understand it they don't care), this is also why vista was such a failure, people are happy with what they have, and until you force them to "upgrade" to vista they are unlikely to accept it in large numbers(XP is still more popular then vista).

[xvszero]

I must be doing something wrong. I've been using Vista regularly on my notebook PC since a couple months after Vista was released, and I've not had any problems with it. Of course, I turned off a lot of the eye candy features, I surf with Firefox except when I specifically need to use IE, and I don't use it for running intense 3D graphics games; so maybe I'm not a typical user?

I run music creation software that has multiple tracks all with real-time effects process going on. It simply would not work in Vista... after like 4 tracks or so the whole thing became a garbled mess. It's still kind of flaky in XP, but I can get 10-12 or so tracks going now before I run into problems. At least that is workable, in theory I shouldn't be trying to do real-time effects on 12 tracks at once anyway, I'm just too lazy to do them one by one.

I think if someone is just using their computer to create word documents and browse the Internet and such it won't matter too much what OS they are using. But anything more intensive, and Vista starts sucking hard.

[wh666-666]

That's quite a shame. The PC community as a whole was hoping that they would have a less resource intensive OS like XP and follow through on the vista promises.