I think this is a bit of a silly thing to say. For several reasons.
Firstly, Win 7 is indeed how Vista should have been in the first place. That doesn't invalidate the original criticisms of Vista. I don't quite see where you get that from. Vista got a whole lot better with service packs, but on release it was bloated, had a horrible file-copy bug, and had features (mainly aero) that were actually too demanding for the hardware most users had at the time (and this wasn't made clear to purchasers). It also was built around paranoia about DRM and copyright issues, something that worried some people (though, to be fair, that seems to have turned out not to be a problem), Oh, and it broke EAX. And had masses of driver issues (partly because of the way it incorporated so much DRM supporting stuff).
7 didn't have those downsides and further improved Vista's genuine pluses. That made it a more acceptable upgrade to XP for many.
The other reason I think your comment is a bit silly is your remark about 'isn't going to return to something like windows 7'.. When of course it already _is_ 'something like windows 7'. Its a _lot_ like windows 7, it just has no aero and no start menu. Oh, and it has an alternate touch-oriented UI - but if you are using touch that's a _good_ thing, and if you aren't it wouldn't matter except for the start menu problem.
So if you mean by windows 9 being 'a polishing of 7' you mean 'it will stop forcing desktop users to deal with Metro' or 'will find a compromise way of using Metro for desktop users that isn't annoying', then, yeah, I'm sure if that happened people would be happy with it.
But that contradicts your (curiously macho - as if in your mind you are some sort of official spokesperson for MS!) comment about how a return to 'something like 7' 'is not going to happen'..