As far as I know, MS coders who work on stability are separate from coders who work on UI (correct me if I’m wrong) so MS should be able to produce both a nice looking and stable OS. I just don’t get how Vista was released with Win 3.11 stuff in it. Mind boggling.

Yes, they are completely separate teams. I’ve talked with a project manager on the graphics team and they worked solely on the presentation foundation, which is used for things like Flip3D.

It is no where near as bad as Windows ME in my experience. Windows ME would crash almost everyday for no apparent reason, and I’ve received a blue screen once in over a year that I’ve been running the RTM version of Vista. And that was only because I tried to install an antivirus application to see if it was compatible.

I’m one of those people who find the UI to be be an important aspect of the operating system. Don’t ask me why, I’m just a sucker for eye candy.

That’s a really good point, and I like Vista’s appearance enough where I wouldn’t expect to see much of a change the next time around.

Does it really need to be, look at Apple they bring out .x increment for the past 7 years and OS X still looks the same. No was does OS X looks bad don’t get me wrong but Microsoft doesn’t really need to change the way Win7 look when it is going to be coming about 2 and half years after Vista IMO.

As far as I know, MS coders who work on stability are separate from coders who work on UI (correct me if I’m wrong) so MS should be able to produce both a nice looking and stable OS. I just don’t get how Vista was released with Win 3.11 stuff in it. Mind boggling.

If that is true, then I wish that Microsoft would get more people to work on the stability part. It seems that the people who worked on Vista were drunk because Vista’s compatibility/stability is horrible. It’s like Windows ME all over again. Hopefully Microsoft can dig themselves out of this hole…

I think Microsoft is focusing a little bit too much on the UI. If Windows 7 ends up to be a program that looks like Windows 98, but fixes most of the problems in Vista; it would still be a program I would consider buying. I don’t care about the UI. I care about how stable the operating system. Besides; you could always skin your computer to make it look a whole lot better.

I will agree that Vista or Windows 7 would be better after a few years since their release; but how many people are actually going to wait for Microsoft to fix everything? People believe that there are much better alternatives out there. Why should they stick with an operating system that just “doesn’t work”?

As far as I know, MS coders who work on stability are separate from coders who work on UI (correct me if I’m wrong) so MS should be able to produce both a nice looking and stable OS. I just don’t get how Vista was released with Win 3.11 stuff in it. Mind boggling.

I will agree that Vista or Windows 7 would be better after a few years since their release; but how many people are actually going to wait for Microsoft to fix everything? People believe that there are much better alternatives out there. Why should they stick with an operating system that just “doesn’t work”?

I don’t think it will satisfy users, at least not till about 2 years after release. Same goes for Vista as well, as it did for XP.
People bitched about XP for a couple of years, then after Service pack 2 a lot less, and now they are like “XP is so much better than Vista, why would I ever upgrade”.
By the time 7 come out, it will be “Vista is so much better than 7, why would I ever upgrade.”
I am pretty happy with Vista 64 at the moment.

I’ve been a bit skeptical about jumping on the 64-bit operating system right now. I’m just not sure if I’m ready to find out how many 64-bit drivers my system lacks.