The only crashes I've had with Windows 7 or 8 were from bad graphics card drivers causing a BSOD.

There are simple workarounds to the issue though. There's the boot-to-desktop option, there's the option of Classic Shell if you really need a start menu and then there's complete shell replacements like LiteStep.

Now with boot-to-desktop you don't have a start menu, for those indoctrinated in Windows usage that may be an issue so you probably want either Classic Shell or to adapt your workflow but for most of us that often or mostly work on platforms other than Windows (which don't have a start menu) this isn't a big deal. Application launching mechanisms like those on OS X map to Windows without the start menu: Dock (Taskbar), Finder (Explorer), Spotlight (Search), Desktop Icons (Desktop Icons), Launchpad (Start Screen) ... so the lack of a start menu is easy for those of us that use multiple platforms.

I already explained that to you, I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I conceded the point however he explicitly separated the two issues, he did the opposite of discussing them in relation to one another. It's all here in plain English, very, very simple to understand.

So, again, explain how it is relevant in this context. Whether that's a point you want to make or a point you think he was making. If you understand the issues at hand it would be very easy, the reason you cannot do it is because you lack the ability to understand the issues. Come on, I've asked you this numerous times and every time you have failed, undoubtedly you will fail again, but try anyway.

Yes a bug in the windows update algorithm for previously applied updates, that would occur predominantly when running windows update if you had IE 6 or 7 installed. Given that XP support has been dropped there is no reason to run windows update on it so it isn't an issue anymore.

Well then this OS decay issue probably doesn't affect you.

So what you're saying is that you cannot articulate how it would be relevant to the discussion, now the reason you can't is because it isn't relevant, as I have clearly explained time and time again.

And yes, when you've failed at reading comprehension so many times even when I've dumbed it down to list form for you and even explained what these posts mean in the context of the discussion it is indeed time for you to give up. You clearly lack the cognitive ability to have this discussion or to even be educated about it. Your only response has been open hostility, an expression of your own frustration at your inability to understand this discussion and/or articulate your thoughts about it.

As I have already said, I'm happy to hear why you think it's relevant and to discuss it but you can't seem to articulate your thoughts. Stay calm, think and try again.

What of it? It's the side-by-side assembly folder to manage multiple versions of the same DLL on an application-specific basis, the UNIX way (which IMHO is better) is to have the version in the filename. I'm not quite sure how you equate this to "OS decay" though, sure it could eat up more disk space if you install and uninstall a lot of applications with poor uninstallers that don't remove their files properly but that won't necessarily slow the OS down.

I definitely remember it from the old Windows 9x days but not since the move to NT.

Not that I can be bothered actually doing that but since you're saying that I'm guessing you've done it and had significant results, what were they and for which version?

No, if you think that then you obviously couldn't comprehend it, the discussion is about abusing a monopoly to bundle additional software and I even annotated the progression of the discussion for you in list form quite clearly here since you were unable to follow the thread. If you have a point to make about partner exclusivity agreements and how they relate to software bundling in this context then make it but the post you are so vehemently defending - yet obviously didn't read - does the opposite, it splits separates the two issues:
What he said was:

"And that was what I consider the real issue. I don't give a damn if MS installed IE on those computers I was forced to buy with an MS operating system on them. It was trivial enough to install another browser"

He didn't care about the bundling issue, what he cared about was a different issue, the partner exclusivity agreements (yes the two issues could affect eachother but whether they do or not makes no difference to his point). Now Google is doing bundling but does not have partner exclusivity agreements, so if you don't care about bundling but do care about partner exclusivity agreements then this Google issue isn't going to affect you so partner exclusivity agreements are irrelevant to this discussion. Understand yet?

If you don't understand then explain to me how partner exclusivity agreements are relevant to the discussion, if you understand the issues and the discussion then that should be extremely simple to do, the fact that you haven't been able to do it thus far proves you don't understand any of this.

So precisely what relevance does partner exclusivity have in the context of this discussion? Many things are related to bundling, that doesn't mean they are all relevant to every discussion about bundling.

They can affect eachother, in this instance whether they do or do not is not relevant. And I didn't exclude it from being discussed, in fact I discussed and conceded his point, but then you lack the cognitive ability to comprehend that. So again, what is your point?

Actually I did, but the fact that software bundling and partner exclusivity agreements can possibly have an impact on one another was never in dispute, nor is that fact relevant to this discussion, if you thought it was then you clearly didn't understand it. So again, what is your point? Try and concisely explain your point.

Also since you weren't part of the original discussion perhaps you should explain to me what you think it is about and how it relates to the presented story, because obviously you've misunderstood so let's try and find out where your misunderstanding is and I can educate you on that and help you to understand.

That is precisely what this story is about: Google To Require As Many As 20 of Its Apps Preinstalled On Android Devices <-bundling software, nothing about partner exclusivity agreements

But since you failed to comprehend that I'm not surprised you're having such difficulty with following a discussion thread so I'll point it out for you in list form that perhaps you have the cognitive ability to process:
Remember when simply bundling IE was a monopoly abuse? Google is behaving in exactly the same way <-bundling software
I think Microsoft also required OEM's to not preload Netscape. <- bundling software
I don't think so, Compaq shipped Windows PCs with Netscape preloaded. <- bundling software

And then this post changed the topic of discussion from bundling software to exclusivity licensing.

The real issue back then was that MS required OEMs to install MS OS on every computer they sold <- not bundling software, exclusivity agreements

It really can't be any more clear. Now let's assume you lack the cognitive ability to follow a simple list, if you look here I conceded his point even though that isn't what I and the people I responded to were discussing anyway. So what is your point?

No, nobody was discussing partner exclusivity until this, but again your inability to follow a simple comment thread fails you.

If you want to refute this then do it with quoted examples then I can educate you on where you failed reading comprehension.

Seriously how is this impeding you from doing your work? Like a genuine example rather than a contrived, intentionally obtuse one. None of my applications work any differently on Windows 8 than they did in Windows 7. If you can't manage without the start menu then obviously OS X (not having a start menu) is not competition they would need to worry about.

Turn off SecureBoot then. When did the intelligence level of the slashdot audience drop to a point at which changing a BIOS setting ended up in the "too hard" basket? You can also still partition your hard drive and install the OSes side-by-side.