I'm not putting Windows down. I'm just saying each succeeding system isn't a quantum leap from the previous.
Windows 95 was the first wide-spread publicly used system and very unstable from what I hear. I never had the opportunity to use it.
Windows 98/98SE was a more stable version of 95, not a bad start.
Windows ME was essentially Windows 95SE with System Restore. Not too bad, either. But a lot of people didn't like it.
Next came Windows 2000 Pro, my favorite of all the systems so far. It's like a scaled-down XP without all the graphics. I cannot figure out why thay left out System Restore. I guess it was because it was used mostly for businesses.
Then came Windows XP, purportedly the most stable version so far. A lot of fancy graphics which didn't add to it's usefulness.
Then came the slower Vista, essentially XP with a lot more eye candy.
What am I expecting from Win 7? Essentially Windows Vista with a lot of the bugs removed and a lot more eye candy!
Richard Sherman of Smart Computing backs me up:
"Having used it (Win 7) for several months, my feelings remain pretty much the same:
Win 7 is Vista with some new features, most of the bugs removed, and a few aesthetic nips and tucks. It's nice, but not life altering".
Mr. Modem, Smart Computing, 10/09 P. 53.