Then you can use the methods other people have said. I didn't say that it works in every case (someone else has complained about the requirement of having a Windows key), but it covers almost all cases.

Also, just in the off chance that you don't know this and be helpful, apparently you can set remote desktop so that it will always forward the Windows key to the remote host. (See the "alternatively, ..." bit here.) Again, not saying this is better or worse; you may or may not like it.

What you should do is remap Caps Lock to act as the Windows key

Blasphemy! Caps lock is meant to be ctrl!

I suppose you could put mod4/super on the ctrl key, then ctrl on caps. Actually, that's probably what I'd do if I had to deal with a 101-key keyboard.

I don't really care what you want to use to type, but I get irked when I see people (not you, just used your comment as a jumping off point) who scoff at the Windows key and (apparently) everything it stands for.

I know it's irrational, but me too. If anything, I find the windows key (mod4 or super if you prefer) more useful on Linux than I do on Windows, because window managers are so configurable. To me, it is great: window manager functions get the Windows key, which means (1) I only need one key to perform window manager functions* and (2) there's basically no chance I'll mess with a program's shortcuts, which isn't the case for ctrl-<whatever> or alt-<whatever> (or even ctrl-alt-<whatever> some of the time). I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if I use the windows key more than I use alt.

* I use a tiling WM, so I may do a lot more keyboard-based window manager actions than is typical.

A Model M-type keyboard isn't for me for a number of reasons, but I really really feel that people who stick with them are making a huge mistake. There are other mechanical keyboards with windows keys if you want one...

I can't believe that no one has mentioned that Win-R brings up the run dialog, like it always has.

But boot virii/malware are not very common anyway.

And of course the way to respond to a potential threat is to do nothing until it's common, then scramble to find a half-assed solution.

They have already been doing it for nearly 2 decades, there are no infrastructure or upkeep costs at this point that would be substantially diminished by removing XP support.

Says someone who hasn't even written software, apparently. Even if nothing else, dropping a configuration removes a bunch of testing costs.

However, it's even more. When Vista was released, Microsoft made a bunch of changes to the driver model -- basically the API that drivers are programmed against -- usually to move stuff from kernel mode to user mode. (This increases system stability.) Vista through 8 (I think) all use this driver model. Supporting XP as well means writing and maintaining XP-specific code for its driver model.

I don't know anywhere near enough about this to say that it costs 2% more or 20% more or 50% more. But to say that "it costs these companies zero dollars" means that you clearly have zero knowledge about what you're talking about.

That's ridiculous, in fact.

I would say that a reasonable measure is (or you could argue is) the time at which it was superseded by a new version. But that's still Jan. 2007, so almost 6 1/2 years ago. Even Windows 7 is almost 4 years since release.

That only counts as one.

Ummm, yeah. Microsoft is going to stop releasing security patches for the OS. If you're still running XP, using older video drivers should be the least of your concerns.

The summary made me laugh. 'scientists says it has verified that quantum effects are indeed at work in the D-Wave processor'. Exactly the same claim could be made about pretty much any vaguely computer: how do they think transistors work?

Was that also back in the day when the search engine was altavista.digital.com?

With the exception of a very few fairly simple algorithms, anything that you can do in the cloud using homomorphic encryption, you can also do on your laptop without it...

...anything that doesn't have pointers fails the OP's test... which is a lot these days.

And my point is that it's a dumb test. (Granted, I did say it in response to you. :-))

Pretty much all of it. I don't know what a good business model for a FOSS game would be. Probably the same one that the TV studios use: provide a partial implementation (a pilot) for free and charge people for you to finish it. Once you've got enough funding, finish the game and release it. TV studios use channels as middle men in this situation, but there's no reason that it wouldn't work without the middle men.