Windows 7: The answers to the problems of Vista?

Let's face it, Windows Vista is not what it was hyped to be. Perhaps it may not be as bad as Windows ME (it only lasted for a year and was quickly replaced by Windows XP), but it definitely does not deliver in terms of speed and performance when used with the exact same hardware. Actually, Windows 98 performed better than Vista-so what gives? (actual benchmark tests available here.)
What many people don't realize is that sometimes speed isn't everything. Windows Vista is much more secure than XP, due to the implementation of Windows defender to prevent spyware and other threats. The internal workings of Vista was changed to prevent the ongoing problems Windows XP had with buffer overflows, which presents a significant security risk. So it seems like Windows Vista is the clear choice? Well, not exactly. Due to the high system requirements, some people found that updating to Vista was impossible without upgrading or replacing their entire system. Others who upgraded with the minimum specifications found that Vista was much slower than XP. Windows 7 promises to be more efficient and easier to use.
Nowadays, most computers are dual-core or even quad-core. Engineers were no longer able to make a computer chip any smaller or faster due to heat concerns, so they integrated two or more chips into one, so essentially data is processed by two chips at once. While this offers a significant increase in speed, neither Windows Vista nor XP are designed to efficiently take advantage of these multi-core machines. Windows 7 will have some minor tweaks that add some flexibility to the scheduling of processes thus allowing it to more efficiently use these multi cores. Combine that with an improved user interface and perhaps Windows 7 will finally be able to replace Vista so downgrading to XP will no longer be necessary. Until then, my computer with XP and some independent security software suits me just fine.