Given the trend...it looks like M$ has done a great job so far (in comparison to Vista)!
Maybe one of the most intelligent posts offered here on the news board!ET3D said:
Consider that Vista arrived late 2006, XP in late 2001. That's 5 years (or just a bit more), which is the longest time Microsoft ever went between OS releases. So sure, it might have waited longer, but it was already very late to the game.Vrmithrax said:
As PUTALE said, Win7 is what Vista should have been. And it probably would have been, if Microsoft hadn't been in a hurry to get a product out to generate revenue.
Not to mention that if it shipped Windows 7 without Vista, it wouldn't have been considered such a good OS. Sure, 7 is a lot better than Vista, but it's only thanks to Vista that stable Windows 7 drivers are available, that software is largely compatible, things that made Vista's launch such a failure.
Vista also allowed Microsoft to learn the lessons. It's hard to release a new product and make it perfect. Vista was very ambitious, late as a result, and not ready (IMO it was ready at SP1). But Microsoft didn't foresee netbooks, its DX10 API was untested as were many new features. Having Vista on the market allowed seeing how things are used, where users are having problems, and fixing that.
So yes, it would have been nice to have Windows 7 to begin with, but it was impossible, and it's not a result of any conspiracy on Microsoft's part.