Ibwebb, some good info., thanks.
Dragon, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you've said. I used simplified because that was the impression that MS wanted to convey. That was really the primary - though, as you say, hardly the only - negative impression caused by Vista that they were trying to combat. And, after all, removing bloat is a powerful way to simplify. Probably 10% of the bloat in Vista was all the usually unnecessary services they added. As I'm sure you're aware, but for our new "listeners" (I've done some DJing :) ), more than one good resource sprang up on the internet to advise XP users which unnecessary services they could turn off to get back more RAM - providing, of course, you kept track in case you needed to turn some back on later. And those sites eventually tackled Vista, too, which, as you said, was even worse. I got back 10% of my RAM that way.
I also agree with you about the driver issue, but, regardless of that issue, I believe that every MS OS since Win 95 was rushed out before it was ready. 7 may or may not be the exception. I believe in the "good Microsoft, bad Microsoft" theory, which says that there are a lot of good people in Redmond, but they're constantly sabotaged by the minions of the Evil Empire. And guess what glasses wearing weasel is considered the head of "bad Microsoft". They've never had the courage to hold something until it was ready if there was an extra penny to be made. Darth Bill wouldn't let them.
Actually, I think we're pretty much in agreement here Paul (nice name ;) ). 7 is probably an overhaul, I'm just saying, I don't think it's a wholesale reversion to XP. I think we were just approaching the discussion from different angles. My emphasis was with the unnecessary complexity, rather than the bloat, because MS has conditioned us to buy bigger hardware all the time. But you make a very good point about MS forcing many to consider buying new machines, when what they really want is a better OS. As you say, hopefully, 7 is a step away from this madness.
