This sounds promising. I could use a memory upgrade.

I get the feeling we're witnessing the beginnings of a superhero origin story.

Mix in a little gene-splicing, some radiation and a brilliant but shy lab assistant who's working late one night. Next thing you know, Manhattan is in shambles.

OK, I see what you're saying. That there's really little reason for the operating system on a home computer to look and work exactly like the one at work.

I agree. I think as computer users, we're mature enough not to need this level of familiarity. This is one reason that at some point down the road, I hope to be able to use both Windows for my digital audio workstation in my home studio, and some form of "SteamOS" for playing games. Of course, with companies like EA/Origin and Ubisoft using their own game store platforms, I don't see all PC games being compatible with a SteamOS for some time to come.

Yet my income is well below the poverty level, [...]
Then how do you afford the things you say you have ? Because a thousand bucks a month minus necessities like food and shelter, doesn't leave a lot left over to pay for iPads, big TVs and cars.
The rest of your post is just straw men and non-sequiturs.

Only if the DoJ continues to look the other way in the face of continuing flagrant Sherman act violations

If you're a fan of any current computing tech, either mobile or on the desktop, you really don't want to be bringing up Sherman Act violations.

I can't think of a single major manufacturer of PCs, mobiles, or commercial operating systems for PCs or mobiles that isn't guilty of anti-trust violations.

How do I turn all this crap off? I do not want "charms" or active notifications or dancing paper clips.

Just run all my programs fast and don't make me notice your interface. Why is that so hard?

Sure there's always a few garage developers/wanna-be entrepreneurs/SOHO users, but they're a niche.

But certainly, you don't consider all the people who have PCs on their desks at work to be a "niche", do you?

Is it "pro-science" to want to keep the provenance of consumers' food a secret?

Yes retard.

The pro-GMO argument distilled to its essence.

"Safe" doesn't even have to be the issue. The issue is, why are these people so keen to make sure consumers don't know where their food comes from? Even more important, why are they so keen to make sure that consumers don't know where their food money is going?

When I buy a bag of rice or an ear of corn, I want to know whether or not my money is going to pay for a license fee for intellectual property covering a basic foodstuff. Because I would rather it did not. And for some strange reason, there is a group of people out there who believe I should not have that choice as a consumer, and they use "science" as their reason.

It's "anti-science" to be opposed to the application of intellectual property laws to basic foodstuffs? It's "anti-science" to be opposed to putting ownership of that IP in the hands of companies like Monsanto?

Is it "pro-science" to want to keep the provenance of consumers' food a secret?

The problem with you pro-GMO people is that for some reason, you appear desperate to promote something for which there is no benefit to consumers and that may cause serious harm to the economics and politics of our food supply.

PCs have 2 major remaining market niches:

1) Enterprise(/educational) workstations (Like, for doing WORK on.)
2) PC Gaming)

What does it say about us that we now consider "doing work" to be a niche?

But I'd argue that elections in the US are designed to give people no real choice.

It's kind of the same thing. People don't vote because they can see through the charade and figure they have more important things to do, like sort their sock drawers alphabetically according to color.

that magical wall is sometimes called a paywall

And corporations are paying the bills. Just look at the names on the fancy new buildings in every Ag department at every major university.

Please explain how universities churn out paper after paper after paper sounding the alarm on climate change in the face of the multi-trillion dollar oil/gas industry that lobbies hard against said research,

Why do you think climate change became so "controversial"? It's because it wasn't supposed to happen. That's why you have enormous butthurt on the part of the oligarchs. They just can't believe that all these scientists went off the reservation.

You know the pro-GMO people must be right, because there arguments always include copious insults. That's the sure sign of a winning argument.