But does it bring you coffee to bed and wake you up with a blowjob?

Considering all this shilling, I think you certainly earned it!

Which is why essentially all games that run on both XP and 7 list system requirements in the following fashion:

XP: X gigs of RAM.
7: X+1 gigs of RAM.

Clearly, they're hating on 7. It's not like it has a massively larger system overhead. Honest!

Almost all modern games offer DX11 rendering path nowadays, often with massive graphical improvements. Quite a few AAA titles no longer offer DX9 rendering path, which means that you can't even run them on XP any more.

Latter is what forced me to upgrade - I wanted to play BF3.

So your argument is that you're apple is "meaningful" because it sells "one size fits all" computers instead of tailoring each system for person's needs, overpricing them massively because of apple brand and collecting massive profits because about 5-7% of people buying PCs are willing to pay that much more for the logo.

I would argue on the same merits that it's the exact opposite. That's what makes apple less meaningful in desktop world.

Most people never need this option to spawn single 7 disk over multiple computers. And in event of a critical fuck up, you can always either call MS to have your OEM version reset, and if that doesn't work, just crack it.

He tried. But Chinese culture survived those worse than him.

Just because they put a slightly different shade of lipstick on the pig that was 8, doesn't make it any more suitable for being a human being.

That would be because of DX10 and 11 not being released for XP. It was the reason I upgraded my machine as well.

If DX11 was available for XP, my new machine would still be running XP. As a gamer, I appreciate the fact that XP is far more lightweight and consumes much less overhead than 7.

Not really. 7 is supported until 2020, and from previews, it looks like 9 is going to be just like 8 in all the aspects that people hate. It's more of the "hey, phone's touch interface on on desktop can be made to work (and we want to use it to stop our phone strategy from being a trainwreck that it is)".

I suspect that 7 is the new XP in that it's currently the most functional desktop OS in windows family, matched only by XP in usability and functionality. So in a way, it is a good news for microsoft, as it means that it's desktop domination and income from "microsoft tax" isn't going anywhere.

It's bad news for microsoft because it continues to show that their design paradigms, with which they are sticking for 9 btw, are an abysmal failure. And while they have five more years to produce replacement for 7, it's not looking like they have the people who want to. Instead they are still focusing on leveraging desktop dominance to push for marketshare in mobile by destroying the desktop windows.

And as long as 7, the last actual version of windows designed for desktop exists, any such attempts will likely fail just like 8 did. Because there will always be a much better alternative to whatever "mobile OS interface on desktop" version of windows microsoft will continue to try to peddle. As we have seen with 8, even forcing OEMs not to offer 7 at all in favour of the newer OS doesn't fix the problem.

In other words, business as usual. Windows dominates the desktop, Mac remains the desktop fashion accessory for those who care about style over function and linux on desktop remains mainly a marginal toy for the techies like us.

This is also a pretty good reference point of where we're going with mobile I think. There linux is currently headed for that 90ish percentile of all phones (well, android, but you get the picture), with IOS sinking towards that 5-7% market share and others taking the rest.

And hilariously enough, "others" is formed mainly by windows phone, which sits pretty much where linux is on desktop. It certainly shows how market works for operating systems on consumer devices.

They have one continuous civilization based on same culture.

Same cannot be said about any other civilization currently in existence.

Ignore the "The current Egypt is a part of Arab civilization that conquered North African parts of Rome". Had a bit of a brain fart there due to lack of sleep.

Current Egyptian civilization is not the same civilization that existed in times of Ancient Egypt. That one lies dead, destroyed by Ancient Persian Civilization. Which was also destroyed by Greek led by Alexander the Great. Which was supplanted by Karthagian Empire after his death. Which was destroyed by Roman Empire. The current Egypt is a part of Arab civilization that conquered North African parts of Rome. Which then split putting Egypt as a part of Byzantine empire. Which was finally conquered by Muslim Arabs, bringing to existence the current civilization of Egypt, based around Muslim Arab culture.

Hence my "you'll have to count current civilization, the civilization that existed in the region before that civilization, and then civilization that existed before that and then possible another one". I was specifically thinking of Ancient Egypt.

Chinese. Their culture dates back more than any existing civilization. If you're going to pretend that they somehow have no right to their land because someone else arrived there first, you'll have to first go through the same claim against every single nation on European, African and Asian continent. Americas don't even need to be mentioned for obvious reasons. After you're done with those, you can start laying claims against nations that were there before the current nations. Then you'll have to do it again a and in most cases, one more time.

Once you're done with all that, then you can start looking at China. The oldest known surviving civilization on the planet, that only got shafted during colonial period because of one bad emperor making a terrible choice to burn the entire Chinese navy and stop their sailing activities.

I suspect the answer to your first question is because people recognise lunacy spewed by your kind of lunatics as just that. Lunacy.

Between epic bouts of paranoia, complaints about a bug that impacted essentially no one (at least that I know of, and I maintain quite a few computers of all which have adblock isntalled on anything ranging from older versions of Firefox to this machine I'm typing on that has it on Pale Moon). No bugs.

You even attribute easylist problems to adblock. Easylist is a blocklist maintained by folks behind easylist. If you don't like it, adblock offers a huge variety of lists for you to subscribe to.

I genuinely can't be bothered to argue about this further. I bared a few weeks of watching the lunacy of hardcore "I must have no ads anywhere ever, and even asking me to check the checkbox is too much to ask" crowd explode in the wildest bouts of schizophrenia about the "Darth Vader behind ad block plus" (real quote that I remember to this day that made me finally stop believing that I'd hear any real arguments from that crowd).

And before the obvious "oh you're just shilling". Full disclosure: I have zero interest of investment of any kind in ad block plus other than to make sure that it blocks all ads for me properly. So far it has done so marvellously. And I'm really tired of constant whining by hard-core lunatics that appear hell bent to make ad block plus dev into some kind of evil entity just because he added a way to monetize the add on without infringing on my ad blocking in any way.

I do the same thing for lunatics whining the same thing about ghostery. "Oh noes, he sold out". Yeah, first page in options, first option. Shut the fuck up and untick the damn box. Thank you.