Windows 7: Vista was based on Windows 7

I'm as guilty as they come in saying that Windows 7 as the general feel of Vista, however it is in fact the other way round. Let me explain...

Windows codename Blackcomb was supposed to succeed Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. A major feature planned for Blackcomb was an advanced storage system called WinFS. Blackcomb was put hold whilst an interim build "Longhorn" was announced for 2003. Longhorn acquired some of the features originally intended for Blackcomb. But after three major viruses; SOBIG, BLASTER & SASSER exploited flaws in Windows operating systems during the same period, Microsoft was forced to put both development of Blackcomb on hold to develop new service packs for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Development of Longhorn (Windows Vista) was also "reset", or delayed in August 2004. By this time development of Vista was already behind and to prevent further delays a number of features were cut from Longhorn.

In 2006 codename Blackcomb was renamed Vienna then again in 2007 it was renamed Windows 7 in 2007. In 2008 Windows 7 was adopted as the official name for the operating system.

In all irony a number of capabilities and certain programs that made up Windows Vista have been changed or removed in Windows Seven taking away some of it's functionality. Such notable features include the classic 'Start Menu' UI, 'Windows Ultimate Extras' (altho a patch exists to enable 'Dreamscenes'), 'Inkball' and 'Windows Calendars'. Another three applications that were bundled in Windows Vista; 'Windows Photogallery', 'Windows Movie Maker' and 'Windows Mail' are not included in Windows Seven, instead these are available for free as part of 'Windows Live Essentials' which also includes amongst other things 'Windows Live Messenger'.

This is common logic. Everybody (by now) knows that Vista was just a rushed, early version of Windows 7, released just to make a little cash.

Yeah... coz' vista can't be anything else than that.

How can you claim that Vista is based on Windows 7, when Vista was released close to 3 years earlier than Seven?

Anyway, I find it highly ironic that to this very day people claim that Vista was rushed, when in fact it was released 6 years after XP. Allow ME to explain:

1. Whistler became XP, followed by Longhorn which is Vista, then Blackcomb which is Seven.
2. The development of both Longhorn AND Blackcomb was delayed, allowing developers to be pulled off both projects in order to concentrate on getting XP SP 2 completed (because of the viruses you mention)
3. It was the development of XP SP2 that prompted Microsoft to "reset" the development of Longhorn, which at the time was still based primarily on XP, which would have meant all the security holes would have carried over. Or have you forgotten that XP is still the most virus prone Windows ever?
4. To a certain degree, you can thank anti-trust regulators for the exclusion of programs like Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Mail and the like. Also, people complaining about bloat are to blame for this. I guess that Microsoft fealt it would minimise bloat by removing them when people would be using Windows Live Essentials anyway. Why would they need both "Windows Photo Gallery" AND "Windows Live Photo Gallery" installed at the same time? Or "Windows Mail" and "Windows Live Mail"? Windows Calendar was never any good anyway.

To highlight and summarise the chronologie of Windows: NT, 2000, XP, Vista, Seven.

Vista and Seven was delayed because of XP...

because development on Blackcomb was started first, the developers were then pulled off Blackcomb to develop Longhorn, then yes both projects were put on hold to rebuild XP.

How could you forget the bestest OS ever... 3.1!?

I agree with both of you fellows....7's core is a highly optimized version of vista's...where as Windows 2000 would have been an optimized version of Windows Me if they didn't have a different type of kernel. This is a really petty issue to argue about...I am quite thankful that the longhorn/blackcomb projects were delayed; it took them a while but finally they came around with something that really puts Vista, XP, and all their others from the past in shame. I hope their level of quality continues onwards to Windows 8. It better because I am hard pressed to use anything but Windows 7 now.

Same product, polished UI.
It is the best microsoft product so far, but unfortunately too late.

It marks the end of windows dominance as a business OS.

LOL, different family. (presuming you are referring to Windows 3.1).

Of course in the NT family, indeed there was NT 3.1, NT3.5 and NT4.0

May I ask what you propose the new business OS is? I think that the fact that Windows has almost 90% of the market share is still pretty dominating, and that is worldwide. Even higher in business...

With 7, I assume it will bounce back and Mac may be back under 5%, seeing that they are only at 8 now. "Other" will make up the other 5.