You know, maybe if you'd quoted entire sentences, you wouldn't look like an idiot while trying to contradict me.

Just like how 32-bit-only versions of Windows - which describes every version from Windows 95 until XP 64-bit edition - can run 16-bit apps

Win9x had 16-bit pieces, but it required a 32-bit CPU. In the context of this entire thread, that defines it as a 32-bit-only OS. Everything NT6.2 (including XP x64) and forward has supported 64-bit or 32-bit installs, thus is *not* 32-bit-only.

You flunk reading comprehension or something?

Anyhow, anybody running software that old is going to already have a system set up for doing so; they aren't going to be Installing Win9 on those machines most likely anyhow. As for "companies generally load 32-bit OSes on their PCs..." I'll admit that my experience is limited to mostly the more tech-savvy companies out there, but as a consultant I've seen a *lot* of company's computers, and not one of them was running a 32-bit OS as their primary (there was one that still ran XP a year and change back, but it was 64-bit). Of course, I'm working with engineer and developer machines, so maybe that makes the difference. Anyhow, adding an extra thunking/compatibility layer for running 16-bit code on 64-bit OSes sounds logical from an engineering perspective, but it makes very little sense in terms of finances or developer time.

Insert the (technically a spoof, but close enough) movie Galaxy Quest, and it works out again! Nemesis becomes #11, ST 2009 becomes #12, and Into Darkness becomes #13 (which is about right).

What other disadvantages do you ascribe to it? It doesn't take up meaningfully more space than the menu bar would (it takes significantly *less* space than a menu bar plus a single toolbar), it is still navigable with a keyboard, it doesn't override existing keyboard shortcuts for specific actions (from Ctrl+S to Ctrl+Shift+=), it is still hierarchically organized and also still supports expanding (sub)menus for high option density where needed, it scales to multiple resolutions and window sizes better than menus do, it makes it easy to see what the effect of an action will be before you click, and there's still a customizable toolbar for commands you want to hit with the mouse in one click from anywhere.

These all seem like wins vs. the menu bar system...

WHY are you powering down a desktop, never mind cutting its power off?? I mean, I can understand rebooting (which it does pretty damn fast - well under a minute to get back to the login screen on my system, and a good chunk of that is BIOS status displays - so I'm skeptical of your "four minutes" complaint) when needed, but powering down even without disconnecting power is an edge case scenario these days (use Suspend, or Hibernate if you need to) and cutting the power cord is an extremely rare need (also, you can hibernate if needed).

Even in the case that this is something you legitimately need to do, your complaint is stupid. Just wait until the power light on the case goes out (and the fans spin down, which is easy to *hear* even if you aren't looking at the case) before cutting the power!

64-bit OS can run 32-bit processes (do you live under a rock or something?). Just like how 32-bit-only versions of Windows - which describes every version from Windows 95 until XP 64-bit edition - can run 16-bit apps. 64-bit-only doesn't mean it won't run a 32-bit app, it means it won't run on a processor which lacks 64-bit support. There are few such processors in use on PCs today, and they're on their way out. Even Atom chips, for a long time the holdout 32-bit x86 CPUs, support x64 these days. By 2015 it won't matter (seriously legacy machines can continue running legacy OSes; the OSes will probably outlive the machines).

Now, 64-bit OSes can't run 16-bit apps directly - the processor won't drop two levels like that - but 16-bit apps are cheap on CPU power so the tiny number that ever still need to be run (I'm mostly thinking games from the DOS days) can be easily emulated (which is exactly what DOSBox does on x64 today... and also on smartphones and such). 64-bit OSes also won't load 32-bit kernel-mode drivers, but that's not a big problem anymore; very little hardware still in use lacks a 64-bit driver, and if it does, it probably doesn't run on 32-bit Win8 anyhow so Win9 is out of the question.

The Finns I know would resent the implication heavily, in fact. As far as I can tell, darn near the entire mobilization of the Finnish military is on the Russian border, and (according to a Finnish friend of mine) Finland came in on the side of the Axis during WW2 primarily because Germany was opposing Russia.

It's very much related to the engine: the car is a deathtrap because the ultra-lightweight body is unsafe. If you put in the safety features and body strength needed to bring the car up to modern safety standards, that 55HP engine wouldn't cut it anymore, and your fuel economy would go down even if it did.

Modern engines produce more CO2 - that's pretty much a direct function of the amount of gasoline burned - but produce fewer other pollutants. There are an increasing number of PZEV cars out there, for example; they produce more carbon dioxide than your car, but less (effectively nothing) of everything else. In most cases that's better, environmentally speaking.

Speaking as somebody whose newest car has one, you can have my backup camera when you pry it from my cold dead hands. I'd like to *install* them on a few other cars around me sometimes, but there's no way you're taking mine. I'd trade an awful lot of other features (many of which weigh many times as much) before I'd give that up.

The Xbox 360 isn't built on PC hardware, actually - PowerPC instruction set, a slightly weird 3-core hyperthreaded CPU. Admittedly it has a good clock speed, even today (3.2GHz IIRC) but that's no PC part and you can easily get laptops more powerful than that now (my desktop, which was admittedly built for gaming, blows it away - 8 cores at 4GHz, plus 32GB of RAM vs. 0.5GB). The graphics chip isn't PC-standard either, although it's made by a company that makes PC GPUs too...

Are you thinking of the Xbox One? That is much closer, performance-wise, to a typical PC and is indeed built on near-commodity PC hardware.

OT, but you didn't look very hard at all, then. The very first links on Google for "Smartphone Market Share" show WP with 3.2-3.3% for Q1 2014, and on a rising trajectory. (https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Reports-March-2014-US-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share). The top (non-Wikipedia) link on Bing for the same search is less precise but says 3%. (http://www.cio.com/article/751867/U.S._Smartphone_Market_Share_Numbers_for_Q1_2014). Those are US numbers; the European numbers are significantly higher. It's still the third-place platform, but it *is* third place behind the two giants.

Zunes were supported for quite a while actually, so I don't think *you* know what you are talking about. The first-gen model continued receiving firmware updates (which included new features, such as ability to access the store and stream music, ability to install and play games, and so on) for years. The PC software is still available years after the last new model of the hardware was released.

Compared to a comparably-specced 15" laptop, a 12" diagonal 0.5" thick laptop/tablet hybrid is certainly not clumsy, no. Compared to that plus a separate device (which is too big to put in a pocket)... are you high?

Oh, and where'd you get the idea that they're underpowered, anyhow? Aside from gaming due to the lack of a separate GPU and an 8GB limit on RAM, they have very good specs. The CPU is better than you'd get in most 15" laptops, and the display is better than all of them (yes, including Apple's). The SSD and battery life are also both excellent... and for anything even vaguely in the same weight class, the price is actually cheap. So yes, you could get a more powerful Lenovo or something for the cost of the higher-end Pro 3 models, but the power brick and battery would each weigh as much as the entire Surface does (and the battery probably wouldn't last as long), it wouldn't support stylus input, and you'd have to buy *several* of those laptops to get the same number of pixels.

Oooh, original! You not only replaced "Zune" with "Surface Pro", you added a completely incorrect comma to the last line!

You have a strong future in comedy (assuming Idiocracy ever comes to pass).

You don't even know the difference between the Surface RT and the Surface Pro, do you? I'll grant you the branding is idiotic, but I can tell you're an idiot even though you didn't specify which Surface you bought. The RT line is the one that they've had trouble selling; the Pro has never been available anywhere near so cheap as you suggest, even when dumping the old inventory after a new version came out.

You're like somebody claiming they'll never buy an iMac because they once bought an iPad and couldn't figure out how to run Photoshop on it or hook a mouse up to it. Seriously. You're being *exactly* that stupid.

Nice try at sounding like you have a valid argument, but even your own link doesn't support your claims. I don't know if you're just a fanboy or display this glorious level of intelligence in general, but either way your should have been modded "troll" or just ignored. Let's break down this BS and obvious bias of yours, shall we?

The "M$" was a pretty good clue that you were incapable of giving a rational argument. However, the giveaway was the fact that you used a story that talks about how the first generation of product line X (Surface RT tablets) sold poorly. Specifically, you use that story to claim that the manufacturer "can't seem to give away" the third version of product line Y (Surface Pro), which has sold fairly well and sometimes had trouble meeting demand. I mean, seriously, the entire content of that article aside from the second paragraph doesn't even mention the Pro, and when the article was written the Pro had only just gone on sale in a few markets... and sold out in many of them just as fast (as the comments are quick to point out). Notice how there wasn't even a third version of the RT announced? The RT line is crap, mostly due to Microsoft intentionally making it crap, but the Pro line has done quite well.