In terms of core coding Windows Vista and 7 are pretty much alike – broken products.
Both of them are based on Windows NT 6 kernel.
So, one may also assume that Windows 7 suffers from intrinsic problems that bogged down Windows Vista.
Not so at all.
Windows 7 is more refined and matured version of erstwhile Vista.
But, still it is broken!
Without going any further into intricate details -what has changed and what hasn’t, I would say Windows 7 is just a “save-face” and “save-money” product.
Save-face:
Won’t it hurt the world’s largest (in terms of number) OS maker’s ego that the whole OS not just a part of it has failed?
It certainly would. So, to save face, build something upon it and flaunt it as “not a failed product”.
Save-Money:
A major release (like XP to Vista) or even a minor release (like Vista to 7) has financial liabilities attached to it.
Funding a new kernel base so soon would definitely put a dent in their pocket.
So again build something on top of something you already have.
Windows 7 won’t save them too!
How dare you to say so?
Well, public lacks faith in it.
Reasons are manifold.
Ex:-
A previous fellow x10, posted:
-------
I'm using Win7 atm, and IMO it's an improvement over other OS's MS made... Interested in seeing what Windows 8/Next will be like.
----------
Now, read these words again “Interested in seeing what Windows 8/Next will be like”.
People aren’t interest anymore to see what kernel 6 or Windows 7 has to offer anymore.
And so does Microsoft.
C’mon! It ‘had’ already started development of Windows 8.They know it too – Windows 6 kernel base is a doomed product.
It is like a broken ship whatever you use to try to fix it; it will sink sooner or ‘not so later’.
But, what is really appreciable is how they have used their clout (via OEMs/IVHs/media/etc) to pull off a rabbit out of hat – or put a new label on old bag of
dirt.
Thanks
I almost forgot, I use Windows 7 x64 when I need access to more RAM (>4GB).
And I got it on DAY 1.
