[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]all it took for vista to fail were the morons trying to install it on their 20 year old PC's. what kind of fail is windows 8 going to have when they find the start button is gone and replaced with a whole new UI?[/citation]
All it took for Vista to fail was it's instability, poor driver support, deplorable performance, and then people trying to install it on NEW PCs of the time for it to fail. PCs six years ago often only had 256MB to 1GB of RAM and Vista needs at least 2GB to run properly. It runs even better with 4GB. However,
Windows 7 with 1GB of RAM is faster than Vista with 4GB.
I try not to feed the trolls, but you're not an obvious enough troll for the people who don't know anything about the last decade of computer history. Go ahead and try running Vista on even 2006/2007/2008 machines that had 512MB-2GB of RAM and see how it went.
EDIT: I expect a new OS to run on a new machine. That was not the case with Vista unless you had a high end system back then. Most computers are not high end. People are not morons for expecting a now OS to run on most new machines. If Windows 7 got worse than Vista and needed 4GB of RAM at a minimum, then you can bet that people would be pissed because several years ago, 4GB was not nearly as common as 2GB and a huge amount of people would be screwed out of an upgrade.
For example, my 2006 Campaq desktop only had 1GB of RAM and it was considered mid-range back then. Guess what? It had a sticker on it that specifically said it was ready for Vista. Was I a moron for expecting it to be ready for Vista, especially considering that it had a sticker on it from M$ and Compaq that said it was ready? Guess what, it wasn't ready.