Under their, "What have we learned?, section it says:"
An operating system must be robust and reliable. Users do not accept the need of constant updates, which are interpreted as patchs that should have been anticipated before launch. Before marketing a software or an operating system it should be submitted to all necessary tests to ensure its functionality and performance. In this sense, one can say that Microsoft's strategy was entirely wrong, and its only outcome has been bringing discredit to the company.
I've never had a problem with Vista. I knew what to expect when I got it on a new machine that was made for it. That is exactly what Microsoft said to do. They offered many ways to screen an existing system to see if it was compatible and to make recommendations to upgrade or not transition to Vista. When I loaded it on my wife's laptop PC, a CD made specifically to test the system told me to increase the memory before installing it. She has never had a problem. The "constant updates" happen in the background with no impact to functionality. If a user were an idiot that couldn't unwrap a stick of gum then that person might think Vista was a fiasco.
I myself am tired of this constant bashing of Bill Gates because those with weak character are envious of his success.
In my opinion, the rewrite of the operating system was running behind schedule, and MS didn't like OSX out there gaining market share. Computer manufacturers were clamoring for the next version of Windows, and MS wasn't getting the upgrade purchases. Vista was rushed out the door. I think Windows 7 will be what Vista was supposed to be.
Some of us are unaccustomed to merely clicking the heels and doing whatever Microsoft says to do.