Windows 7 just... works...

My install has been running without the need to tamper for two years

Yes, but it's a decaying market...

It gave users quite a bit.

• Increased security far above XP's security. Both under the hood, invisible changes (better stack protection, ASLR), as well as the very visible (to the point of annoying) UAC.
• Graphics and sound libraries were rewritten. Vista uses hardware acceleration on the desktop, which should improve the performance of apps that draw stuff on the screen.
• Better caching via SuperFetch.
• Rewritten printing.
• Rewritten networking.
• Better use of multiple cores.
• Better memory management. (although this was offset by having more bloat to manage . . .)
• A rewritten driver model.
• Actually, just go to the Wikipedia, a lot of stuff changed.

Truth be known, there are lot of internal changes not normally visible to end users, but honestly required for Microsoft to move forward. Just because many of the changes aren't so obvious doesn't mean nothing changed.

And I certainly don't think Microsoft had any "lack of forethought." The problem is that they needed to make a lot of changes, and lots of changes == lots of bugs. I don't think they really could have done better, considering the circumstances.

The biggest problems with Vista boiled down to the following:

• UAC was new to users who never used Linux or Macs. And it was very much annoying in its first implementation. Windows 7 improves on this, making it far less annoying.
• More features = more bloat and more bugs. As usual, Microsoft tended to work under the assumption that computers would get better and this would go away anyways. This assumption would actually be reversed in Windows 7 and Windows 8.
• Copying files was broken. Severely broken. They had rewritten it, but their intentions were far better than the end result. This was eventually fixed in SP1.
• Rewritten driver model == broken compatibility with many devices. There's not a whole lot Microsoft could do about this, as manufacturers needed to supply new drivers. This problem would eventually resolve itself over time, and I doubt Microsoft is going to break drivers again any time soon.

Here's why I don't think they could have done much better, even if they delayed the (already very much delayed) release of Vista even further:

• UAC was going to upset people, period. There's really no way around it. Windows users were not used to Unix-like security dialogs. I don't think there's a whole lot Microsoft could have done about this.
• Microsoft's mentality about more features and more bloat was probably engrained into their corporate culture. I'm willing to bet that it took changing out some of the "old guard" to make them reverse this trend in Windows 7/8.
• Copying files wasn't really tested in a way that reflected real world usage. This is something that hopefully Microsoft has learned from.
• Nothing can really be done about breaking devices with a new driver model. All they can really do is to plead with manufacturers for better drivers.

Vista was needed, to be honest. People may hate it, but it was needed for Microsoft to move forward. Windows 7 and the upcoming Windows 8 build upon the changes that Vista bought.

Yeah, I ran on Windows Vista, although since then I've switched to Windows 7, which fixes all of Vista's issues and is IMO is really the best OS Microsoft has made thus far .

That was not my experience.  I built a machine and installed Vista x86 Ultimate, and it worked well for me from the get go.  There were occasional glitches with moving/copying files, but SP1 resolved that and I found Vista to be a capable OS, so much so that I got a x64 version, which I still use on my second rig.  Do I have any issues or like Win 7 more?  Absolutely not!  Both OSes are great and I like them both.

well there was a way  they could have added the ability to remember LET THIS PROGRAM RUN

all they had to do and can still do it for Vista and 7 is to add a check box to the dialog of UAC "Yes I want to run it and remember that I do the next times I click on it to RUN" 

I remember reading an interview with someone at Microsoft, talking about UAC back in the day, and I remember they addressed this, but I don't remember how.  I remembering it sort of making sense, but I have a feeling they could figure something out.  Say what you want about them, Microsoft has a lot of smart people running around.

Be better if they knee-capped them so they'd sit down for 5 seconds and FIX Windows 8......

Hmm... I wonder if that trick would work on Stardock personel VS 64bit RightClick, too....

?

Indeed they do, and to a person they are all yelling as they run around, 'Don't blame me I didn't do it!'  

I truely miss that Right click for sure.

Ya know, it's going to be interesting about this time next year, when the site statistics are published again....

Windows 7 - 4, 700, 696 users

Windows Vista - 1, 443,789 users

Windows XP - 242 users

Windows 8 - 1 user... and only because MS paid him to use it.

That makes alot of us....

Selection bias perhaps?  I'd point my finger at a confounding variable: computer saviness...

My guess is that people who are less computer savy need more support/help....by coincidence, people who are less computer savy also are less adventurous "software-wise" or less familiar with "what's out there"...

As such, the same people who generally need help also don't know about Google Chrome or Firefox...or they don't have the self-efficacy to think they could change browsers...or they just don't know anything bad about IE...

Don't take what I've said the wrong way...I use IE 9 now even though I've used Firefox and Chrome in the past...

I'm amazed at the number of @aol.com addresses in support.