Are you being this ignorant on purpose, or is not attempting to comprehend what you're reading before you hit post normal for you?

DOS's? How do you think all that DOS software would have worked in a multi-user environment? And please, convince me that DOS, an operating system designed for the 80's microcomputer and personal computer market, needed a multi-user environment from its inception. I need a good laugh today. (And yes, I know that UNIX had been around since the 70's, we're talking about personal computers here)

It wasn't until Windows XP that they were successfully able to migrate their userbase to NT itself, let alone baby steps towards a true multiuser environment like Vista did.

Who said that you had to upgrade your current machine to Vista? There is no reason to.

There's also no reason not to put Vista on a new machine unless you're putting less than 2 gigs of RAM on it for some godawful reason.

What do you call new minor kernel revisions of Linux?

What do you call new versions of OS X?

Keep in mind, early versions of OS X were really awful too

Why on earth Windows has to do this is beyond me.

Once again, it's not Windows' fault, it's the software makers fault. Windows NT has had limited-access accounts since forever, it's just that old habits (Writing games for single-user Windows 9x environments) die hard unless you go out of your way to enforce limited user accounts like Vista did.

The same thing that gives you rubber windows in Ubuntu gives me a desktop I can zoom in on and whatever Compiz calls the expose ripoff, which is a really nice alternative to alt-tab.

So yeah, not all eye-candy is useless.

Nobody wants it, but they're getting it anyway and with the phase out of Windows XP uptake will only be getting quicker.

You are insane if you think Microsoft is going to lose the workstation market anytime soon.

I asked in the IRC channel if their Word Processor supported centering within a page easily like Word did. As soon as I mentioned Word, the lurkers became quite caustic and copped an attitude like "If you want X feature from Word, then just go use Word".

I still use OO.o, but believe me, once a suitable alternative pops up I'm gone.

DRM does not stop zero day warez. Spore, for example, has some of the most insane drm in existence on it and was pirated several days before it was released. So, how does drm in this situation do anything useful against piracy at all?

Nothing. But just because Spore's DRM happened to have been cracked on day one does not mean that it is hopeless to even try, because effective DRM has been introduced in past games, such as Bioshock (which took two weeks to crack), and there is far too much money at stake to simply say "We give up, no more DRM."

Maybe you are right but DRM is obviously not the good answer to the problem at hand.

Wrong. Strong DRM is an excellent solution to Day-zero and Day-one piracy, which is when publishers stand to lose the most money. Martin Slater had this to say on Bioshock's DRM.

"We achieved our goals. We were uncracked for 13 whole days. We were happy with it. But we just got slammed. Everybody hated us for it. It was unbelievable.

It's a complex issue in the PC world, and it's something we need to actively address. It's a really hard question. As a company we need to maximise our sales so we can keep making games. I don't think we'll do what we've done before. There are other issues with downloading an executable. There is a lot of strain on our content-delivery servers and things like that, where everyone has to download a 10MB executable. I don't think we'll do exactly the same thing again, but we'll do something close. You can't afford to be cracked. As soon as you're gone, you're gone, and your sales drop astronomically if you've got a day-one crack."

For those with short memories, Bioshock's DRM had an absurdly limited number of installs, but the DRM itself was so good that working crack for Bioshock was off by almost two weeks. You can argue that they should have had a more reasonable number of installs, and it could be reasonably argued that DRM should be toned down or patched out altogether after a few months but that's a question of DRM implementation, and the simple fact is that strong DRM is necessary for software unless you want your sales to be cannibalized because the simple fact is that people like getting things for free as opposed to paying for them.