Windows 7 as an option?

[Salmon Trout]

At one time I was one, but I can honestly say that these days, I find OS fanbois so tedious.

[BC_Programmer]

but seriously... what the heck is a "big multi-tasker"?  Most modern OS's have a good number of processing running when you start them, so they are by definition "multi-tasking" them.

Or perhaps "big multi-tasker" is meant in the sense that the person does a lot of things but does a mediocre job on all of them due to the distraction of the other "tasks".

EDIT:

in any case, I really can't stand when people take a computer-oriented word/phrase, like "multi-tasking" (which is really just an invented word to explain threading and context switching to people) and use it in real life as if there is any sort of direct analogy. a Human brain is NOT a processor. a context switch on a processor takes less then about a millisecond. A Person can take a full half-hour or more to <properly> "context switch" into a different task. It's like trying to write two letters to two different people by writing them one word at a time and switching; it would be a LOT faster to just write them one at a time, since "context switching" (that is, remembering the topic, what you've already written, the current sentence "state", and so forth) between the two letters takes ages.

[Geek-9pm]

Human brain is NOT a processor.

Really?   

Multitasking Muddles Brains, Even When the Computer Is Off

[killerb255]

Moral of this thread:

*censored* hoc (or post hoc) ergo propter hoc. 

Translation: Correlation does not always imply causation.

In the case of Vista, much of the "crap" and "bugs" may have been a combination of poorly written, perhaps rushed code (Microsoft) and poorly written drivers (the third-party developers).  There were many standards that developers were not following with XP that were enforced more strictly in Vista.  They got away with it since the early 00s with XP...why not Vista, right?  Wrong!

Microsoft was bold in "breaking everything at once" to cut off the bad habit of the developers.  However...it backfired, as human nature tends to resist change when it's done too fast/too much/too frequently. 

Also, having XP be the "latest" consumer OS from 2001-early 2007 resulted in a degree of complacency.  Again, people don't like change, especially if it comes off to them as "change just for the sake of change."

However, Vista RTM did have its fair share of problems:

1) file copying through Explorer taking significantly more time than through a command prompt (or even using Explorer in previous Windows OSes).  This was fixed just before SP1 was released.  Speaking of which...

2) SP1 itself...SOOOOO many problems even getting it installed due to many variables.  Finding the variables was often a pain--it's usually better to just reformat with the RTM disc, and then install SP1 (or just get a copy of Vista with SP1 already slipstreamed...'cause Microsoft didn't have an official slipstream method). 

3) Perception of extreme slowdown on older PCs.  This is, of course, to be expected, but it is quite odd that Vista RTM on a P4-3 GHz with 1 GB of RAM would run dirt slow, but yet Vista SP2 with the same specs runs at somewhat acceptable performance. 

4) The new TCP stack seemed to break compatibility with older routers.  It's hard to point the finger solely at Microsoft for this one, though.  I'd say 50/50 between Microsoft and the router manufacturers...especially the ones late with the firmware upgrades or the ones that decided not to release an upgrade altogether, leaving the onus on the consumer to purchase a new one.

5) Older programs not working in Vista, and/or removed from it altogether.  Granted this will happen, but when businesses have this problem, they're not going to move forward with it.  Examples are:
- Hyperterminal (yes, I know consumers don't use this, but some businesses do, especially when using terminal emulation programs).  Why was it removed?  Legal reasons (Hilgrave owned it).
- NTBACKUP.  Many businesses use this (especially with Server 2003), but it was removed from NT6 altogether and replaced with something that, at the time, seemed inferior (no tape support, couldn't backup Exchange at the time, couldn't select what you wanted to backup--it's all-or-nothing).  Why?  Again, legal reasons (Veritas owned it, which was bought by Symantec).
- NetMeeting.  Windows Meeting Space did not replace ALL of the functionality of NetMeeting (specifically, the Remote Desktop Sharing part that acts like WebEx).  With Vista (and 7), the only other option out of the box is to actually have the user send a Remote Assistance invite.  Remote Desktop works, but it locks the screen and the user can't see what you're doing when you remote in.  Why was this removed?  I'm not sure, but my guess is that it's not compatible with rewritten (or revamped, or modified, or whatever you want to call it) graphics engine.

It was probably for the best that Server 2008 started at the NT 6 SP1 level...'cause the RTM level would have caused a lot of havoc in the business sector of things...

However...Vista with SP2 and its current updates is slowly closing the gap on the notion that Windows 7 is better than it in every single way. 

My advice is, as long as you keep your Vista up to date, you're not missing much with Windows 7.  If you're still running Vista at RTM level (or even early SP1 level), then of course Windows 7 is going to blow it away!

If anything, Vista conditioned the public for Windows 7.  I would think that, without Vista, people would raise almost as much of a stink about Windows 7 as they did about Vista (at least about problem #5 above--older apps not working).  Microsoft also seemed to have marketed it better and made absolute certain that it was lean enough to run on a netbook.  Can Vista run acceptably on a netbook?  In its current state, it can (SP2, platform update, etc.).  In its RTM state?  Not a chance.

[Mulreay]

I'm fairly sure this has had it's day.. the argument to 'what is best' is purely academic as it's the user that chooses certainly not the product.