Could the changes that Microsoft made from Windows Vista to Windows 7 have been released as a service pack?

Yes I believe that to be the case. Fact of the matter is if you take a look under the hood of both operating systems they look and perform almost the exact same, also Windows 7 breaks things that used to run just fine under Vista. So the follow up to Microsoft’s most unpopular OS after Windows ME, delivers almost zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues. The difference between the two is measurable in a few points and not some major rewrite of the OS which is too bad.

There are now a few bugs rearing their ugly heads with Windows 7 and it’s wireless connection

@earthduzt really? I fuckin loathed vista and i feel 7 is pretty good. Ive yet to run into any issues yet either. I suppose im just lucky in that regard though.

@uberbatman yeah I mean look at some of the benchmarks between the two. The run practically the same…I mean for example the kernel thread count in each of the OS is 97 (Windows 7) to 100 (Vista)..that’s what a 3 point gain. The kernel is where the most fundamental system processes of an OS start and it is where it should have been majorly rewritten, overhauled or major update instead again it’s a gain in a few points.
Also the memory footprint of each OS are almost exactly identical, again maybe a difference of a few points. They are basically one in the same. Maybe though future updates will help it out some, hopefully. But as of now XP still kills them in performance.

ohhh no question at all, xp is where its at.

I was under the impression that Vista was an alpha version of 7; something that wasn’t truly even ready for a public Beta-test, let alone commercial release. And since switching to 7, I haven’t had a single issue yet (knock on wood).

@earthduzt Would you care to explain how a netbook can be pretty snappy with either XP or 7 but can barely run Vista (if at all)?
Sounds to me like there are more changes than you are recognizing, even if those changes are merely bug-fixes.
Maybe the kernel was the only part of Vista that was done almost right?

The differences between 7 and Vista are a lot more diverse than many people realize. Vista is a resource hog and mainly because of it’s annoying unique ability of caching resources for a user’s “favorite” programs, leaving the system sluggish and unresponsive when running anything but those programs.
7 on the other hand retains this unique ability but instead of allocating the resources on startup as Vista does, it is far more flexible and only allocates said resources when said programs are actually initiated. Vista and 7 also split when it comes to compatibility. Vista does have a limited ability to emulate XP, especially in an X86 install. However compared to 7’s ability to actually run an entire XP subsystem underneath it’s primary, Vista looks like a child trying to comprehend physics. 7 Ultimate is able to run an XP VirtualMachine underneath 7 itself, allowing 7 to dynamically switch to it’s XP 32 bit subsystem on the fly when troubleshooting compatibility with old and outdated programs. Yes it is only available to those with Ultimate, however the advantages it provides is ridiculous, especially when using an X64 install.
Check here for more info, I’m not always the best at describing it, lack of words :P.
7 is also far more secure than Vista due to the differences in the kernel. Vista had a wide open kernel thanks to Norton, who sued MS when they couldn’t let their precious “antivirus” dig itself into the system. 7’s kernel is locked down and well protected, preventing programs from digging in without limiting beneficial programs abilities to add to the protection.
By far, the best version of 7 to go for is an X64 install, it doesn’t really matter whether you get Home (Basic or Premium), Professional, or Ultimate but go for the X64. The ability to address more than 4GB total system RAM; this includes your GPU, so if you have a 1GB+ video card, that’s 1GB+ of total system RAM already allocated before your actual physical RAM is taken into account, and take advantage of true multi-core performance when dealing with anything more than a dual core.
XP still has the edge in performance, yes but 7 is very flexible compared to Vista in that if you want a nice smooth performance boost on the fly, turn off Aero Glass and it’s effects and you can enjoy a nice smooth ride through Windows, and laptops around the world rejoice in the sudden increase in battery juice :D.

However compared to 7’s ability to actually run an entire XP subsystem underneath it’s primary, Vista looks like a child
I don’t think there is technically much difference between XP in a virtual machine on Vista and Win 7. Win 7’s “XP mode” hides the XP desktop by default, but I think the underlying VM is the same.

The ability to address more than 4GB total system RAM; this includes your GPU,..
Only true if your machine shares RAM between the GPU and CPU. Discrete graphics RAM is not included in the 4GB ceiling.

if you want a nice smooth performance boost on the fly, turn off Aero Glass and it’s effects and you can enjoy a nice smooth ride through Windows
This is also true with Vista.

I’m not saying Vista = Win 7, just addressing those specific points.

Microsoft could have done a lot of things if they wanted to help humanity instead of own it.

First, discrete graphics RAM is calculated in addition to physical RAM. If you have 32 bit XP/Vista/7 system with 4GB physical RAM and say a Radeon HD 4850 with 1GB of RAM on it, your total system RAM tally will be 2.5GB according to Windows. Don’t ask me how it gets 2.5GB when addressing 5GB RAM total, technically it should show 3GB, but as 32 bit systems only address up to 3GB physical and 512MB Discrete/onboard, the extra 512MB is reduced from the final tally. There is an update for Vista/7 32 bit systems that will allow it to utilize and recognize up to 4GB but it is not the same as an x64 system being able to actually cache and clear the extra RAM.
Second, 7’s ability to run an invisible XP subsystem is very different from the way Vista runs a VM. A VM uses resources in addition to the primary OS running with it and has to be actively started, whereas the XP subsystem in 7 is more akin to an additional layer of 7 itself, consuming next to no additional resources and being utilized and accessed automatically according to the OS’s requirements for compatibility.
Third, yes reducing Aero Glass effects in both Vista and 7 will improve performance, but Aero Glass effects in 7 split their resource collection 50/50 between GPU/CPU, causing a constant power usage which is why a 7 computer is considered less power efficient and more resource mongering than an XP computer. Disabling Aero will make your desktop look like a classic Win 98/ME/XP machine yes, but not only do you save in power consumption, but you also decrease load on all components, in addition to reducing total resource consumption.
Vista and 7 are very alike, however the differences between the two underneath what everyone looks at is like comparing a truck and a car. Both have advantages and disadvantages but the changes made in 7 over Vista are not transferable. DX11 is transferable because of it’s design, and the similarities between 7 and Vista in respect to the way their video and audio drivers are made, unlike XP which uses a completely different and outdated (and inefficient) driver package design, allowing for more features, compatibility and robust design.