I must admit that after 20 years of dabbling in Linux it has never stopped being bleeding edge and like running with scissors. Whilst the driver situation has been significantly relieved, there are still a lot of geeks around who think that if you can't compile and link your own driver then load it by hand you have no business using Linux. Sadly if your hardware depends on a boneheaded geek like that and you don't have the skills (or the time or the inclination), then Linux is a bust.
The whole lack of an immersive installation environment just drives me nuts. I left DOS behind a very LONG time ago and even Windows 3.0 would give Linux a run for it's money in terms of application installation and organisation. I do like Ubunto for some things but I also just want to beat it to a bloody pulp every time I have to use it. My most common thought being "did you really have to be so bloody obtuse?"
I think I'm too invested in MS technologies now. Not that I don't know and can't install other OS' like IBM AIX, or Sun Solaris, I'm just of the opinion they you wouldn't want to unless you had a burning and overriding reason for doing so.
If Mint works for you, have you considered doing it the other way round and running W7 under Mint to provide the few things which don't work under it?
That might be a better compromise because the virtualised ports are more likely to work and if you get this kind of borked issue with USB, you can remove the ports and add them again. This gives it a totally new hardware entry and all the prior drivers are left on the old ports you have removed.
Just a thought from the arsenal of tools and techniques I use to manage the, mostly unruly, Windows installations.