I'd probably claim the best thing microsoft did since XP service pack 2 was include dual core support on the PC platform, or do people still ignore how late that came to the party? (it was first seen in vista RC1, then much later an update was released for XP). Surely Vista 64x, being the first significant 64bit system to be released is more of a milestone than windows 7? Forgive the dismissal of your opinion, but you're flat out wrong, windows 7 does not add as much to vista as vista did to XP (in terms of performance and hardware support at least), and from what people keep saying the user interface isn't revolutionary compared to vista, so really, what is it about the operating system that warrants such a claim?Dommyboy said:I find Windows 7 to be great. It's highly optimized, and almost all games run under fine and if there are problems, a small big of configuration can fix this. Start up times have improved greatly for me under Windows 7, along with other areas which have been optimized. Plus, there's the DX10 and 11 support, which is great.
Your text wall didn't seem to point out any technological comparisons, just the points you hate about some users. W7 is not overrated, it's the best thing Microsoft has done since XP service pack 2.
Rereading what you've said, it may not be technicially wrong, as it may be the "best" thing microsoft have done to date. However XP SP2 was hardly a benchmark for operating systems. The entirety of windows XP was a reskinned 2000 in real terms, and while it is familiar and perfectly functional it does not deserve anywhere near the praise it receives from the seemingly uneducated gaming community.