The 3-2-1 method can sometimes be useful...

Maybe it was written in a Commodore 64 with a 1541 drive?

Arthur Dent would love to tell about the flavor of tea to this AI.

"At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit..." in "2001: A Space Odyssey". He also contributed with science! But seriously, predict a company's future? Has anyone predicted 25 years ago that today everybody would be a zombie walking down the road, staring at a cell phone interconnected via The Internet? Posting every step in Facebook and Instagram?

Install W7 on a Virtual Machine. Benchmark. Update to the fullest. Benchmark again. Compare. Do this with XP, Vista, 7, 8.x. Come back here and discuss your results. It doesn't matter the antivirus, registry, user folder, virtual memory setting or fragmentation, or any other thing said in this thread. The OS will become slower. Period. It's a fact. Slowdowns ARE inevitable *if* you patch. Ask MS why. On the other hand all other factors affect system speed. But those slowdowns are not correlated with patches. They *will* happen no matter what so if you leave your system unpatched performance will degrade slowly with use (faster if you heavily use your computer for lots of different things). Or add slowness to the already slow patched computer. It will happen with SSD too but it'll be less noticeable because SSD are faster. It bothers me what the guy said "it was reasonably snappyâ. I could *never* get that result. The only thing that I didn't have time to try is to slipstream the updates on a ISO and fresh install a system to run the benchmark and compare. Anyone have tried it?

Plantnet goes in that direction. It's far from perfect, but a good starting point

Could you please people stop the kind of headlines saying "discovered" when the real experiment is "likely candidate"? This is sensationalism! Science is *supposed* to be objective!