General discussion


Is Windows 7 what a 2007 or 2010 OS should be?

By rjnosredna ·
I've had some recent discussion with friends and coworkers about Windows 7 (as a large part of our clients are starting to migrate to it)...
One comment was that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been back in 2007. A shiny user interface, more user-friendly than XP, better device compatibility than XP, around the same resource usage (if not less) as XP, etc. All of that was part of Microsoft's credo when Longhorn was only starting to become more than a whispered rumor.
My question is whether or not Windows 7 is actually what Vista should have been when it was released. Before SP1 and SP2.
After all, it's still Longhorn under the hood. It's got a very similar user interface and very similar features and system utilities. The major differences are the Task Bar "dock" interface (which is fantastic, don't get me wrong) and the Homegroup management.
It was brought up in the same conversation that if Windows 7 is what Vista should have been, while better than the alternatives from MS, shouldn't we be demanding more from Microsoft? Shouldn't Windows 7 be what an OS should be in 2010 and beyond, not trying to make up for a failure several years ago?

My thoughts are that Microsoft has done well with W7 and it's a good OS, even without future service packs. But I feel that there are still a few quirks and features that should have been done away with or overhauled to make W7 modern and not a "do-over" of M$'s mistake.
Particularly, UAC needs a lot of work.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Related Discussions

Related Forums