I take it you weren't in favor of 8 or 8.1 ?

Right. In my mind, I was replying to a post about not upgrading from 7, so there was no need to address 8. I can see how my post would be confusing.

The new task manager was the only thing I found compelling about 8/8.1. Client Hyper-V is more supra-OS, and it's not necessary to use Win8+ to install a hypervisor. And as mentioned above, multiple desktops have been a part of Windows for a while, though must be enabled through external tools.

I'll upgrade to whatever's current when they EOL 7, but not before.

Almost anything can be brought up at sentencing. If we limit things in sentencing to only what was presented at trial, then people could not make supportive statements either.

I agree that it's pushing the limits of propriety (and necessity) to factor in allegations for which there will be a separate trial, especially if he is found not guilty, but I also don't think the bar you set is necessarily the correct one.

On the upside, there is a finite limit to how long stupidity can exist in the universe!

No, it is not always wrong to compare them, nor to use them as keys.

That's like saying that it's not always wrong to kill someone. While it's technically true, it's still probably wrong if you're thinking of doing it.

Virtual desktops are already supported. http://www.howtogeek.com/19596...

None of the other things you mention are inherent features of an OS. Edge (codename Spartan) will almost certainly be available on older OSes. Cortana will probably be tightly integrated, but there's no reason it has to be except to drive adoption. Not impressed.

Define "handle."

Developers decide the level of detail and effects they want to be the max settings in their games, and they can always make this higher than the current state of the art, regardless of what that state is. Generally, they're going to be targeting 1920x1080 displays, since that's what the overwhelming majority of users have right now, even with the best video cards. And this has *always* been the case. Back when I had a 21" CRT with "MultiSync," I would never be able to run the latest games in 1600x1200 (max res) on the latest hardware. It was unthinkable. 1280x1024 was usually the best I could do.

If you, as a user, want higher resolution, you're going to have to either make a tradeoff in detail/effects, or wait a few years for hardware to exceed the performance that was available when the developers wrote the game. As 4k becomes more popular, developers may change their performance targets as well (at the expense of improvements in quality other than resolution), but probably not until adoption exceeds 50% of the market.

By the way, you can safely improve performance without sacrificing any quality by reducing anti-aliasing by 1/2 in 4k, since the resolution is twice that of 1080p. Granted, it would look even better to keep AA maxed, but the picture will still be sharper than 1080p because you will be viewing actual pixels instead of virtual pixels.

The start menu still uses tile-like buttons, and the windows are "Metro" style. I don't particularly care for the look. The "flat" looks with 16 colors are a step backwards, trendy or not, and I include Apple with this. It looks like some sort of accessibility mode has been enabled for people with poor eyesight.

I've been in favor of every Windows upgrade (aside from ME) since WFW 3.1.

95 gave us a native TCP/IP stack and DirectX. XP looked a little too "Playskool," but the NT kernel tradeoff was so worth it.

Vista was a nice visual upgrade and provided fully-baked 64-bit support. The driver issues were largely overblown and non-issues after a few months anyway. The sidebar was useful for displaying hardware usage. My biggest critique was the price and SKU explosion; the introduction of crippleware at the OS level. Market segmentation might be a good business practice, but insulting knowledgeable customers in the process generally is not. Meanwhile, "Ultimate Extras" proved to be a code name for language packs that were useless to many, many people. Still, these were not criticisms of the core OS itself, just the business practices surrounding it.

Win7 refined the Vista UI and added stability, booted significantly faster, search indexing was improved, and revised UAC (which I had previously disabled) made the feature more acceptable.

Meanwhile I get nothing in Windows 10 other than an interface I don't care for. If XP had been nothing more than a re-skinned Windows 95 with all the same features, I wouldn't have upgraded then either. I'll stick with 7 until they EOL it or introduce a compelling reason to upgrade. I suspect that they've run out of compelling features to add. It would require a sea change in core hardware that we're unlikely to see in the near future -- 128 bit processors, or quantum computing. The feature set of OSes seems to be mature at this point, much like the core controls of vehicles. At this point it's just change for the sake of change, which is a waste of resources.

The ones who are in it for notoriety will claim credit anyway. It's the ones who want to remain in the shadows who are generally the most dangerous. This includes state actors.

The only downside I see to identifying the authors and/or users is that it potentially tips them off as to the identifying characteristics of their software so that they can better cover their tracks in the future. It can be easier to stay ahead of an adversary if they don't know that you're ahead. This is not "security through obscurity," it's just a tactical advantage.

38% when I'm watching it.

What's with the cutesy headline? "Shock collision in black hole plasma jet," is pretty sensational on its own, and actually tells us something. Maybe more people would have read the article and we'd have a discussion here instead of crickets.

Unless you're reading ancient aramaic and greek, you're interpreting an interpretation of words whose original meanings and connotations are speculative anyway. You're speculating on speculation, even assuming the original text was authoritative.

Of course, the canonical texts of the New Testament were chosen by some guy named Athanasius who lived 300 years after Jesus, and you probably didn't know of until reading this. If you did, you'd be an exception. And why are there four gospels? Because of such amazing logic as: "since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh⦠Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things⦠For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform⦠These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer." By that logic, the Bible should exhibit bilateral symmetry and be capable of reproduction.

But I guess that doesn't matter, as long as we get the "jist" of the Bible. Even though not one word can be added or removed, sayeth the Lord, dontchaknow.

Meanwhile, science is testable and repeatable, not "trust me, it happened because someone wrote it down and then some other people voted on it."

"Jur ass has had it Park"?

"Late Cretaceous Park," would have been a much more relevant dig at the name.

Most people don't have time to do this, even if they had the requisite level of knowledge, so we trust other people to do it for us, and we call those people "journalists." Ideally, there would be multiple people doing independent reviews, but in the days of the AP and Reuters, we just get 1 semi-literate write up and then syndication, unless it has to do with whether some soccer people took bribes or how cute kittens are, and then we can count on no less than 20 independent reporters and weekly follow-ups.

The other problem is that there is no genuine nutrition research, nor genuine nutrition practitioners. As someone above mentioned, the only way to have controlled trials which pass ethical considerations is if you believe a substance will help, or very certain that it won't harm someone. You can't just feed them a diet of Twinkies and red meat and then see what happens, and say "oh yeah, heart disease, sorry about that" but you can't have a controlled trial without doing that either.

Eating less... food that is not chocolate, you mean.

I know, right? Kids these days don't even know why we call it "rolling down the windows." Give me a GPS where I have to tap in my destination by morse code using a switch from a Model M and I'll be a happy camper.