Definitely, Windows 7 not only used fewer resources than Vista but also had its upgraded UI with good scaling and smooth fonts, plus a better taskbar and clever window management extras, like snapping. The overall experience was less annoying as third party software had already adapted to the new user permissions system and other quirks over the years.
After 7, I switched to Mac, and even after all these years, I still have fond memories of that OS. Every time I tried a new Windows version, they seemed to have gone downhill.
>Windows 7 not only used fewer resources than Vista
Windows 7 didn't use less resources than Vista, it was virtually the same, it's just that PCs have gotten miles faster in the timespan between Vista and 7 and people thought it was the OS that improved (think going from Pentium 4 to Core 2 Duo, from 256/512 MB to 2GB RAM, spinning rust to SSD).
7 was not that much different from Vista, the problem was that when Vista launched, most people still had Windows 9/XP level hardware and that's what most PC retailers were still selling as well, at least on the budget end, and expected Vista to run the same on the same HW, while Vista demanded more as it was a complete overhaul from Windows XP/9.
7 didn't improve much performance wise from Vista, it's just that by that time people had already upgraded to much better hardware, and they felt a massive performance improvement.
By most metrics, 7 was basically a Vista Service Pack, renamed to distance itself from the bad press Vista got, but it was more or less Vista under the hood, but it's the better HW that brought the speed bump. If you were to review both OSs side by side, you wouldn't notice a speed difference.
Sure, I give you that, technology did progress for what Vista was quite of a jump in requirements for little extra function at the time. And yes, 7 was a small revision.
But still... assuming a decent non-launchdate machine (1GB RAM, Geforce 6200), Windows 7 was more performant overall on the same hardware, and this was never 'fixed' on Vista's codebase over time. You can pretty much notice the small but important optimizations in the search service (faster, less lag), resizing explorer windows (less redraws), less scheduled services running, user account control alerts weren't as obtrusive. Sure, you wouldn't get extra fps on your favorite game, but those quality of life improvements really did show on daily usage.
I think Windows 7 did actually use ressources better than Vista. I remember two things:
1. Vista removed all hw acceleration from GDI, Windows 7 brought some back
2. Windows Search really slowed down Vista computers, but in Windows 7 they tuned it so that it used less ressources or had lower priority for IO.
For me that made a huge difference, with Vista I had to always stop the search service
I had a new laptop somewhere around 2006. Vista was lagging and throwing errors constantly. I switched to beta of windows 7 and it was waay snappier and stable. On the same hardware.
Maybe your Vista installation was messed up or crusty. Did you compare fresh Vista vs fresh 7 for this?
A lot of laptops of the day that came preinstalled with Vista also came preinstalled with a lot of junk that slowed it down like Norton, AT&T, other such bloatware that ran at start-up, and people blamed it all on Vista being slow. Then later they wiped it and installed fresh Win 7 without bloatware, and hey waddaya know, it's faster.
After 7, I switched to Mac, and even after all these years, I still have fond memories of that OS. Every time I tried a new Windows version, they seemed to have gone downhill.