Windows 7 - Wait for service pack!

[board123]

So what happened to all those people who claimed to wait for at least one or two service packs before trying any new Microsoft OS? It appears that they've all gone under hiding since Win 7 RTM'd.

lolwut...

[torseller07]

What are you talking about? Win7 already went through three service packs. Let me count it for you...

Vista, Vista SP1, Vista SP2

There!

[Oversized Rooster]

What are you talking about? Win7 already went through three service packs. Let me count it for you...

Vista, Vista SP1, Vista SP2

There!

LOL, oh the ignorance!

[torseller07]

LOL, oh the ignorance!

I agreed. Service packs are so 1990s, who needs them in Year 2009...

[board123]

What are you talking about? Win7 already went through three service packs. Let me count it for you...

Vista, Vista SP1, Vista SP2

There!
I only see two. Original Vista doesn't count. That was Win 7 pre-Alpha.

[willy]

I consider W7 = Vista SP3 :)

[board123]

I consider W7 = Vista SP3 :)
Do you actually believe that or is that just something you say to feel better at the end of the day?

[willy]

Do you actually believe that or is that just something you say to feel better at the end of the day?
I found that right from the installation to the actual operation, it just feels so 'Vista'ish ... And I actually use some Vista device drivers too !

My subjective opinion, of course.

[jz1n]

The only reason why W7 is good is because Vista was sh\t.

[Sogeking]

what does rtm stand for? there isnt going to be windows 7 service packs? :confused:

[board123]

I found that right from the installation to the actual operation, it just feels so 'Vista'ish ... And I actually use some Vista device drivers too !

My subjective opinion, of course.
Ah, then it must be true then. Impeccable argument.

[chinesedevil]

what does rtm stand for? there isnt going to be windows 7 service packs? :confused:

Release to Manufactuerer or something

[Oversized Rooster]

The only reason why W7 is good is because Vista was sh\t.

LOL more ignorance. Windows 7 is built upon the same kernel as Vista.

[jz1n]

what does rtm stand for? there isnt going to be windows 7 service packs? :confused:

RTM stands for Remember The Milk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_The_Milk) it's a new application that's going to be in W7 that's going to replace the calender and merge into the media player. So you'll always remember to buy milk when watching pr0n.

And no, there won't be anymore SPs because W7 is Microsoft's last operating system. There's talk about MS and Apple merging to take on open source operating systems like Ubuntu.

LOL more ignorance. Windows 7 is built upon the same kernel as Vista.

Indeed. You're talking about what's under the hood, I'm talking about what normal people talk about "usability". Technology is suppose to make life easier, Vista made life harder... hence sh\t.

[board123]

There's talk about MS and Apple merging to take on open source operating systems like Ubuntu.
I would love to see that happen just to get the holy Mac OS infected with cooties.

[ckhw]

LOL more ignorance. Windows 7 is built upon the same kernel as Vista.

Does it mean I should skip W7 as well?

[luthair]

RTM stands for Remember The Milk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_The_Milk) it's a new application that's going to be in W7 that's going to replace the calender and merge into the media player. So you'll always remember to buy milk when watching pr0n.

And no, there won't be anymore SPs because W7 is Microsoft's last operating system. There's talk about MS and Apple merging to take on open source operating systems like Ubuntu.

I really hope this was drunk posting.

Indeed. You're talking about what's under the hood, I'm talking about what normal people talk about "usability". Technology is suppose to make life easier, Vista made life harder... hence sh\t.

Vista was fine, people just don't like change. The complaints people had about Vista were the same type of complaints people had about XP for the the first few years, and the same type of complaints others had about Windows 95. Had there been more time before Windows 7 came out people would have simply gotten used to it.

[terrybear]

*And no, there won't be anymore SPs because W7 is Microsoft's last operating system. There's talk about MS and Apple merging to take on open source operating systems like Ubuntu.

**Indeed. You're talking about what's under the hood, I'm talking about what normal people talk about "usability". Technology is suppose to make life easier, Vista made life harder... hence sh\t.

* that will NEVER occure as long as peaple are willing to pay for a OS, Office package premium dollers that cost the manufactorer to make it for pennies. Plus its Monoposoft :lol::lol::lol: :D

** No I used vista home on a laptop with decent specs & it was fine .... NOW if you want the shi**iest OS Microsoft released the champion of it would be Windows ME. :D

[jetway1212]

wow is there any real IT on this forum?

Windows 7 built on Vista kernel with fixes and enhanced features. However the only features end users experience are GUI and task manager. It does have better resources management and threads management. (Also the copy/write engine from Vistat SP1 - multi-writes engine which makes network file sharing from Vista/Windows7 amazing fast )

However, windows 7 to my eye as an IT developer comes with a god sent feature that help boosting the cloud computing to main stream. Cloud computing has only been known at enterprise/cooperate level. A technology that MS paid $125M to buy from a small company... (how typical of MS).

This would drive the cost of clouded computing to house hold in term of implementation. However as evil as MS, they're profited from it even more with....... LICENSES. Soon enough you will see they will change the whole licensing structure.

I sure hope someone on here to know what i'm talking about ;)

[movieman]

Vista was fine, people just don't like change.

No, Vista was abysmal: I had the misfortune to have to use a friend's Vista laptop recently and it was appallingly slow despite theoretically having better specs than my XP laptop, UAC was the worst 'security' implementation I've ever seen, and after downloading a 1.83MB file I had to wait over twenty seconds watching the 'copying file' bar before it got to the place I told IE to download it to.

I'm so glad that when I bought my laptop I went out of my way to avoid getting Vista.

[JAC]

There's talk about MS and Apple merging to take on open source operating systems like Ubuntu.

LMFAO. "Take on" open-source OS? The market share of these *nix OSes is so insignificant, I rather doubt they're on Microsoft's radar.

Merge. LOL.

[Oversized Rooster]

No, Vista was abysmal: I had the misfortune to have to use a friend's Vista laptop recently and it was appallingly slow despite theoretically having better specs than my XP laptop, UAC was the worst 'security' implementation I've ever seen, and after downloading a 1.83MB file I had to wait over twenty seconds watching the 'copying file' bar before it got to the place I told IE to download it to.

I'm so glad that when I bought my laptop I went out of my way to avoid getting Vista.

Even more ignorance...

UAC can be disabled and anyone who knows ANYTHING about Windows will know to disable this and Windows Search from day 1. Clearly, neither your friend nor you know this.

Yes, Vista needs better hardware but what is the problem? Do you seriously think that you can keep hardware from an XP machine from 3 years ago and then put on a new OS and it will run precisely as fast? That obviously won't happen.

If you got Vista but you were too cheap to upgrade the hardware, then you deserve to feel the pain.

[neoafi]

Yes Microsoft is aware that Linux is getting yeld on the market...
it's not for nothing that they are searching for a counter Opensource Director recently...
They are observing alot of peoples switching to linux bcause of vista failure. OS reactivity were ugly, too much strings that weren't needed in their codes, file transfer beeing pain...
I'm not a Linux user personally since the Release Candidate (RC) of Windows 7 I use it as my main OS (instead of vista) and i'm surprised that a RC can be better then a a fully coded OS.
Windows 7 will not be bad because of the fack that microsoft doesn't want another failure and lose their part of the market.

[mysticalinfluence]

I consider W7 = Vista SP3 :)

So true and it is and nothing more.

[jetway1212]

Even more ignorance...

UAC can be disabled and anyone who knows ANYTHING about Windows will know to disable this and Windows Search from day 1. Clearly, neither your friend nor you know this.

Yes, Vista needs better hardware but what is the problem? Do you seriously think that you can keep hardware from an XP machine from 3 years ago and then put on a new OS and it will run precisely as fast? That obviously won't happen.

If you got Vista but you were too cheap to upgrade the hardware, then you deserve to feel the pain.


UAC is just a part of Vista failure tho. The fact still remains that Vista wasting resources on eye candy gui. Not to mention the poor performace and buggy.

After testing Vista with few application at work, its very disappointing.

[squall458]

Vista runs horrible even on modern hardware according to MY experiences. It just a resource hogging, over bloated OS. UAC can be disabled right away, but what's the point of evening having it. It was touted as such a great feature and yet anyone with a brain should disable it. What a waste of resources in designing, implementing and executing this UAC. Its just one example of how bloated and unnecessary so many parts of Vista is.

Anyone who thinks Win 7 is going to be that much better is smoking some good weed. Its the step in the right direction and what Vista should have been at first, but its not.

[Mattguy]

ITT: I can't run Vista on my crappy machine, so it sucks.

In reality Vista doesn infact use too much resources than it needs. However, running XP on this computer would be horrible since XP (32bit) can only do 4GB RAM. XP would be a downgrade for me. 7 is great, still running the RC waiting for retail.



Anyone who thinks Win 7 is going to be that much better is smoking some good weed. Its the step in the right direction and what Vista should have been at first, but its not.

Have you tried 7? It's not a step in the right direction, it's nearing perfection. Sure, in an ideal world Vista should have been like this. But also in an ideal world we'd have this tech back in 1995.

[jetway1212]

Vista runs horrible even on modern hardware according to MY experiences. It just a resource hogging, over bloated OS. UAC can be disabled right away, but what's the point of evening having it. It was touted as such a great feature and yet anyone with a brain should disable it. What a waste of resources in designing, implementing and executing this UAC. Its just one example of how bloated and unnecessary so many parts of Vista is.

Anyone who thinks Win 7 is going to be that much better is smoking some good weed. Its the step in the right direction and what Vista should have been at first, but its not.

Given the fact that both windows& and Vista are way to bloated in my opinion i still think windows7 upgrade is worth it. Having able to tunnel fully rich application remotely without paying a premium is very well worth it. This is definitely the step in the right direction. I'm sure everyone will use Windows7 at home in near future for this exact reason.

[movieman]

UAC can be disabled and anyone who knows ANYTHING about Windows will know to disable this and Windows Search from day 1. Clearly, neither your friend nor you know this.

'Security' was one of the selling points of Vista: why should anyone have to turn off one of it's big selling points in order to make the OS usable?

Yes, Vista needs better hardware but what is the problem?

Why should anyone need a quad-core CPU and 8GB of RAM just for some basic web-browsing? Why should a 1.83MB file take twenty seconds to copy from one directory to another?

Do you seriously think that you can keep hardware from an XP machine from 3 years ago and then put on a new OS and it will run precisely as fast? That obviously won't happen.

Yet people are claiming that 'Windows 7' is as fast as XP on the same hardware. If that's true, then clearly Vista did something horribly wrong... well, it did something horribly wrong anyway if it makes a new laptop pre-installed with Vista feel like a 286 running Windows 3.0 in 256k or RAM.

If you got Vista but you were too cheap to upgrade the hardware, then you deserve to feel the pain.

Again, this is a laptop which was shipped with Vista installed. And companies who expect their customers to 'feel pain' when buying new products tend not to stay in business for long.

[BobSagget]

Windows 7 is awesome and if you don't like it it's because you haven't even tried it.

[luthair]

No, Vista was abysmal: I had the misfortune to have to use a friend's Vista laptop recently and it was appallingly slow despite theoretically having better specs than my XP laptop, UAC was the worst 'security' implementation I've ever seen, and after downloading a 1.83MB file I had to wait over twenty seconds watching the 'copying file' bar before it got to the place I told IE to download it to.

Exactly what was bad about UAC? In many ways it was one of the better implementation of privilege elevation as the user did not need to switch users or restart the program. In all probability the 'slow' copy after the download was due to your virus scanner.

UAC can be disabled and anyone who knows ANYTHING about Windows will know to disable this and Windows Search from day 1. Clearly, neither your friend nor you know this.

I disagree, disabling UAC is not a smart move.

UAC is just a part of Vista failure tho. The fact still remains that Vista wasting resources on eye candy gui. Not to mention the poor performace and buggy.

Buggy how? Its more secure and less prone to crashing than XP for a few reasons.

[Seiphas]

Yes Microsoft is aware that Linux is getting yeld on the market...
it's not for nothing that they are searching for a counter Opensource Director recently...
They are observing alot of peoples switching to linux bcause of vista failure. OS reactivity were ugly, too much strings that weren't needed in their codes, file transfer beeing pain...
I'm not a Linux user personally since the Release Candidate (RC) of Windows 7 I use it as my main OS (instead of vista) and i'm surprised that a RC can be better then a a fully coded OS.
Windows 7 will not be bad because of the fack that microsoft doesn't want another failure and lose their part of the market.

Wow. I've never heard such ignorance in my life. Most people aren't switching to Linux because of Vista. Using the statistics provided at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems, we can see that while Linux market share on the desktop has increased, it's completely unrelated to Vista. The main cause of the increase has to do with the netbook market shipping Linux on a fair amount of computers.

Microsoft would search for a person to fill such a position in order to counter Linux on the server market. Considering that Microsoft is getting creamed by open source over there, it makes sense that they would try to attain more market share. However, Vista is unrelated to this, as anyone using Vista on a server is a ******.

Next, a Release Candidate IS a fully coded OS. Think about what the words "release candidate" mean. If no bugs are found in an RC, the RC BECOMES the RTM copy.

LMFAO. "Take on" open-source OS? The market share of these *nix OSes is so insignificant, I rather doubt they're on Microsoft's radar.

Merge. LOL.

Linux has a desktop market share of just over 1%, depending on who you ask. However, the server side market is a little different. Looking at Netcraft's latest survey:

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2009/07/28/july_2009_web_server_survey.html

Market Share for Top Servers Across the Million Busiest Sites
September 2008 - July 2009

Developer June 2009 Percent July 2009 Percent Change
Apache 657,502 66.26% 663,253 66.82% 0.55
Microsoft 186,226 18.77% 181,188 18.25% -0.51
nginx 33,426 3.37% 34,098 3.43% 0.07
Google 19,616 1.98% 19,092 1.92% -0.05

Apache, nginx, and Google are currently kicking serious ass, compared to IIS. Microsoft only has 18% of the web server market (this isn't counting the fact that Apache can be installed on Windows, as nobody uses WAMP). So yeah, I wouldn't exactly be calling the market share of OSS Operating Systems insignificant. Linux and BSD are currently running the majority of the internet, whether you like it or not.

Vista runs horrible even on modern hardware according to MY experiences. It just a resource hogging, over bloated OS. UAC can be disabled right away, but what's the point of evening having it. It was touted as such a great feature and yet anyone with a brain should disable it. What a waste of resources in designing, implementing and executing this UAC. Its just one example of how bloated and unnecessary so many parts of Vista is.

Anyone who thinks Win 7 is going to be that much better is smoking some good weed. Its the step in the right direction and what Vista should have been at first, but its not.

Windows XP is a piece of crap on modern hardware. It has terrible support for multi threading, supports under 4GB of RAM, can't use 64 bit extensions, and has terrible GPU support. Yes, Vista uses more resources than it needs to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29#System_requirements, recommended is with Compiz enabled), but that doesn't stop the fact that XP sucks. I don't have the specs of my computer in a signature like some people, but if I were to use XP, I would be limited to 2.8 GB of RAM down from 8 (3.3-512 from my GPU), I wouldn't have full use of my quad core processor, wouldn't have the ability to emulate other processors properly, and wouldn't have certain instruction sets usable. I'd much rather have a better computer and have to replace a decade year old printer or scanner than have to use outdated equipment. Hell, I wouldn't even be able to do my job properly if I had to use XP.

That being said, there isn't much difference in Vista versus Windows 7. I really hate to say this, but Windows 7 does feel more like a service pack than a full blown OS. Looking at the build numbers (7600 as opposed to 6000), versus Vista to XP (2600 -> 6000), the version number (6 -> 6.1), the driver support, the user interface, the network stack, the file system, the audio stack, and the display stack, it's safe to say that things haven't exactly changed radically.

That being said, Windows 7 does get a lot of things right that Windows Vista did wrong. The biggest change, in my opinion, is the amount of refinement that went into creating the OS. Microsoft finally redid all the included utilities (I'm looking at you, calc, mspaint, and wordpad), shipped a refined user experience (a better dock IMO than OS X), and included a bunch of things that were missing by default. Codecs? Check. A decent Word Processor? Check. Decent media player? Check.

Windows 7 still has some flaws (I'm looking at you, 16 bit color Virtualization Mode), but the amount of criticism that went into Vista is completely without merit. People don't like change, and it's only because Windows 7 is identical to Vista that people won't complain as much.

[betamaxman]

The trouble with linux is simply the lack of hardware vendor support. People become daunted when they find their new printer doesn't have a linux driver. However that is a changing situation. I am seeing more and more hardware with 'linux kernel 2.6>' included on the limited requirements list. When this becomes common place, and it will. We will then see linux squeeze MS for more and more market share. Companies like intel are contributing more then ever to the linux kernel development and that simply means greater hardware support as the years go on, and extra concern at redmond.

[Oversized Rooster]

Exactly what was bad about UAC? In many ways it was one of the better implementation of privilege elevation as the user did not need to switch users or restart the program. In all probability the 'slow' copy after the download was due to your virus scanner.

I disagree, disabling UAC is not a smart move.

Buggy how? Its more secure and less prone to crashing than XP for a few reasons.

There is no need for privilege elevation. Just make sure only you use your machine, and create an admin account from day 1. Also disable UAC from day 1.

If you have kids or computer-challenged people at home, I can see the need for user profiles and such. But, otherwise absolutely no use.

I agree - Vista does crash less often and even when some process or service dies, you don't get total death like in XP. Pretty much the only total death that you can experience in Vista is with hardware-based errors.

[board123]

Windows XP is a piece of crap on modern hardware. It has terrible support for multi threading, supports under 4GB of RAM, can't use 64 bit extensions, and has terrible GPU support. Yes, Vista uses more resources than it needs to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29#System_requirements, recommended is with Compiz enabled), but that doesn't stop the fact that XP sucks. I don't have the specs of my computer in a signature like some people, but if I were to use XP, I would be limited to 2.8 GB of RAM down from 8 (3.3-512 from my GPU), I wouldn't have full use of my quad core processor, wouldn't have the ability to emulate other processors properly, and wouldn't have certain instruction sets usable. I'd much rather have a better computer and have to replace a decade year old printer or scanner than have to use outdated equipment. Hell, I wouldn't even be able to do my job properly if I had to use XP.

That being said, there isn't much difference in Vista versus Windows 7. I really hate to say this, but Windows 7 does feel more like a service pack than a full blown OS. Looking at the build numbers (7600 as opposed to 6000), versus Vista to XP (2600 -> 6000), the version number (6 -> 6.1), the driver support, the user interface, the network stack, the file system, the audio stack, and the display stack, it's safe to say that things haven't exactly changed radically.

That being said, Windows 7 does get a lot of things right that Windows Vista did wrong. The biggest change, in my opinion, is the amount of refinement that went into creating the OS. Microsoft finally redid all the included utilities (I'm looking at you, calc, mspaint, and wordpad), shipped a refined user experience (a better dock IMO than OS X), and included a bunch of things that were missing by default. Codecs? Check. A decent Word Processor? Check. Decent media player? Check.

Windows 7 still has some flaws (I'm looking at you, 16 bit color Virtualization Mode), but the amount of criticism that went into Vista is completely without merit. People don't like change, and it's only because Windows 7 is identical to Vista that people won't complain as much.
This fellow knows what he's talking about and is at least able to argue this from an objective standpoint.

Sadly...I can't say that for a lot of others on this thread who are very representative of the ignorant masses.

[jetway1212]

Buggy how? Its more secure and less prone to crashing than XP for a few reasons.

You're the end user. Its harder for you to know than me as a developer. We have tested and tried to make our app to be Vista compatible. Its quite a pain since Vista's so call XP mode doesnt work. Also the Vista version does not perform as well.

[jetway1212]

Windows XP is a piece of crap on modern hardware. It has terrible support for multi threading, supports under 4GB of RAM, can't use 64 bit extensions, and has terrible GPU support. Yes, Vista uses more resources than it needs to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28operating_system%29#System_requirements, recommended is with Compiz enabled), but that doesn't stop the fact that XP sucks. I don't have the specs of my computer in a signature like some people, but if I were to use XP, I would be limited to 2.8 GB of RAM down from 8 (3.3-512 from my GPU), I wouldn't have full use of my quad core processor, wouldn't have the ability to emulate other processors properly, and wouldn't have certain instruction sets usable. I'd much rather have a better computer and have to replace a decade year old printer or scanner than have to use outdated equipment. Hell, I wouldn't even be able to do my job properly if I had to use XP.

That being said, there isn't much difference in Vista versus Windows 7. I really hate to say this, but Windows 7 does feel more like a service pack than a full blown OS. Looking at the build numbers (7600 as opposed to 6000), versus Vista to XP (2600 -> 6000), the version number (6 -> 6.1), the driver support, the user interface, the network stack, the file system, the audio stack, and the display stack, it's safe to say that things haven't exactly changed radically.

That being said, Windows 7 does get a lot of things right that Windows Vista did wrong. The biggest change, in my opinion, is the amount of refinement that went into creating the OS. Microsoft finally redid all the included utilities (I'm looking at you, calc, mspaint, and wordpad), shipped a refined user experience (a better dock IMO than OS X), and included a bunch of things that were missing by default. Codecs? Check. A decent Word Processor? Check. Decent media player? Check.

Windows 7 still has some flaws (I'm looking at you, 16 bit color Virtualization Mode), but the amount of criticism that went into Vista is completely without merit. People don't like change, and it's only because Windows 7 is identical to Vista that people won't complain as much.

Gaming much?

Elaborate "refinement" you said windows 7 has.....

Default codec support, proper word processor and media player are not what i call a refinement.

[luthair]

There is no need for privilege elevation. Just make sure only you use your machine, and create an admin account from day 1. Also disable UAC from day 1.

If you have kids or computer-challenged people at home, I can see the need for user profiles and such. But, otherwise absolutely no use.

Of course there is need, running a system as administrator with no protection is simply reckless. Its not a matter of 'knowing what you're doing', its about protection from the unexpected. A zero-day exploit in an application (ie flash) allowing remote code execution and nothing will prevent someone from exploiting your system.

You're the end user. Its harder for you to know than me as a developer. We have tested and tried to make our app to be Vista compatible. Its quite a pain since Vista's so call XP mode doesnt work. Also the Vista version does not perform as well.

Afraid not, I'm also a developer. By and large the biggest source of problems are applications which either do something they should not, or make assumptions which they should not. XP mode was not intended to provide complete backwards compatibility, it cannot be done without compromising the security.

[Seiphas]

Firstly, I don't play games in the traditional sense. The last modern game I played on my desktop was Mirror's Edge, and I don't own any next-gen consoles. In fact, the game with the most playtime this year has been Starcraft.

However, anyone that does play games religiously will still vouch for the fact that Windows Vista is a better OS. It's a universally accepted fact that Windows XP 64 is a terrible OS, designed solely to get a foot-in-the-door for 64 bit software.

Considering that Windows XP, along with any other 32 bit OS that doesn't support PAE can't address more than 3.3 gigabytes of RAM, anyone playing games with a high end graphics card or SLI array is probably not going to want to sacrifice their RAM in order to make their graphics cards work. As I stated earlier, I would be limited to 2.8 gigabytes of RAM if I used a 32 bit OS. Since 512MB GPUs are on the low end of the spectrum, and SLI rigs that support upwards of 2 GB of onboard RAM exist, you'll be hard pressed to find anyone willing to use a computer with 1.3 gigs of RAM in exchange for having Quad SLI. Besides, DirectX10 was a much needed revamp of DirectX, and managed to shed a lot of overhead that's been hanging along for the years. Combined with the fact that most games support multi threading, which XP handles poorly, good luck finding anyone with a brain that prefers XP for gaming.

As to the refinement that Windows 7 has, it's the small things that matter. Yes, shipping a new version of mspaint and wordpad aren't exactly huge things. However, the fact that you no longer need to install an office suite just to type up a document with a photo in it is a rather big deal. No, Wordpad isn't a substitute for Microsoft Office, but it does allow anyone to type up the occasional document without buying or installing anything else. Same thing goes for mspaint. By no means is it a replacement for Photoshop, but the fact that a user can now easily edit an image, use real brushes, and properly manipulate something basic means that Windows 7 is more complete. Same goes for included codecs; there's no reason why you should have to download something like cccp or k-lite just to watch a video, when both are freely available and legal.

At a minimum, the fact that all those programs were re-done shows that Microsoft took the time to recompile them for 64 bit processors. However, it should show the fact that more attention to detail was taken than with Vista, which merely continued to ship the same versions of certain programs included with Windows 2000.

You might not realize it, but a fair amount of time goes into the little things that make an operating system. I'm sure that most people on here haven't exactly studied the taskbar in depth, but it shouldn't take long to realize that it's a significant improvement over previous interfaces. I stated in my previous post that Microsoft had a better dock than OS X, and that's because of the attention to detail that was put into improving it. Past versions of Windows have contained Quick Launch among Open Programs, which is a huge waste of visual real estate. The dock from OS X, which merges the two, helps to de-clutter the screen. However, the fact that programs still aren't grouped by open windows still adds a fair amount of visual clutter. Just the fact that Microsoft noticed this and corrected this in their new UI tells me, as a user, that somebody went over the OS with a fine-tooth comb, trying to improve it. That same person might be the one that fixed some problems with UAC (it only pops up when you're messing with something legitimate, like disabling a firewall), decided that gadgets might be better spread out amongst the desktop, and that Windows Search shouldn't spawn multiple threads for a single query.

I mentioned that WMP got an overhaul, which some might think isn't a big deal. Once again, the fact that someone noticed that watching a video in a window shouldn't leave play controls open permanently shows that someone was doing their job, and there are other things that are improved behind the scenes that might not be as evident.

Don't get me wrong, Windows has a long way to go. The fact that NTFS, Microsoft's de facto filesystem, still doesn't have proper addressing support on their own OS screams trouble, and the fact that two versions of WMP are shipped also screams trouble. However, the fact that so many things were fixed in a single release shows that someone took the time to refine things, making it a much more complete OS.