My laptop, and one task-specific PC both run Win2k actually. But I use XP SP3 on my main PC. It dual boots with Linux Mint 17.1. I might still try CentOS 7, but Mint is working okay so far. Currently I still use XP as the primary OS.
I have no interest in adopting Windows 8 as a desktop OS, but I can imagine using it as a game loader. I don't need that though, I'm playing games just fine on XP. The newest game I have is Skyrim, and it works well, even with mods. Same story with Fallout 3. The most demanding game I run is actually heavily modded Morrowind. The graphical mods hit that game pretty hard.

I don't think my XP install has ever been fully updated. I've never worried much about keeping up with that stuff. I just pay attention to what I'm installing on my computer, use NoScript in my browser, and there are no problems.
This gets to one of my complaints with all the modern versions of Windows - they are designed to aggressively protect users from themselves. It's understandable I guess - Microsoft gets kicked around a lot for any sort of instability or security problems that might arise, so these nanny-style operating systems are the result. I don't think I'm the type of user that Microsoft wants to have as a customer anymore. I want to control my own computer, doing whatever I do without asking for Microsoft's permission.

Linux can have some nuisances with this stuff as well though. UAC prompts are pretty annoying there, and it was a struggle to dig up any useful help on getting rid of them.

Despite my dislike of newer Windows versions, if Windows 7 was still available, I might adopt it if I needed to. But I don't need it yet, and it's already been pulled from the market, so Linux is in the lead right now. The fact that Microsoft discontinued 7 is something that amazes me from a business standpoint. It's as if personal egos are more important than selling a successful product that people want to buy. They apparently take their desktop market share for granted and think it will follow them anywhere.

shamino wrote:

I don't think I'm the type of user that Microsoft wants to have as a customer anymore. I want to control my own computer, doing whatever I do without asking for Microsoft's permission.

This! Well said!

shamino wrote:

Linux can have some nuisances with this stuff as well though. UAC prompts are pretty annoying there, and it was a struggle to dig up any useful help on getting rid of them.

Yeah, I remember this annoyance from when I tried it out years ago. I'm hoping it won't be too much of an obstacle to overcome.

shamino wrote:

Despite my dislike of newer Windows versions, if Windows 7 was still available, I might adopt it if I needed to. But I don't need it yet, and it's already been pulled from the market, so Linux is in the lead right now. The fact that Microsoft discontinued 7 is something that amazes me from a business standpoint. It's as if personal egos are more important than selling a successful product that people want to buy. They apparently take their desktop market share for granted and think it will follow them anywhere.

Umm... Newegg still has it for sale. It's still way overpriced, but you can use promo code EMCAKNV33 until Feb 2nd and get $20 off.

My father just sent me a link to this article about Windows 10. It seems like it's somewhat good news, but I still think the screenshots of the Win8/Win10 UI are fugly. ... And then there's this:

Woody Leonhard wrote:

Most surprising, however, was the statement that all Windows 7 users will get a free upgrade for a year after Win10’s release — and once they’ve upgraded, all future changes to Windows 10 will be free.

Great! Cool! They really do want to win us back!

Woody Leonhard wrote:

As discussed above, Windows 10 will be free to Win7 and Win8.1 users. And, unlike Windows 8, it nicely blends the use of tablet and desktop PCs. So what, you might ask, is the catch?

Microsoft hasn’t explicitly said one way other the other, but based on hints and comments, it seems likely that many Windows 10 users (anyone who doesn’t fall under a corporate volume license) will have to stay tethered to the Microsoft mother ship most of the time. Likely, Microsoft believes that keeping Win10 users continuously updated to the same version of Windows will reduce support issues and costs.

Goddamit so much... 😒

I wouldn't worry too much, there's a lot of intentional misreading because people are looking for a "catch" while the reasons Microsoft are giving out Windows 10 are pretty obvious.

I've heard a few rumors that with Windows 10 they are considering going to yearly subscription, anyone know?

God that would be hilarious. 🤣

You know how many people would flee windows if they did that? 🤣

Which is exactly why they're not doing it. Come on, everyone knows Microsoft's primary goal: to get everyone to use Windows.

They don't want to be scaring people away from that with online requirements or high license prices for upgrades when most of their money comes from OEMs and corporations.

ZellSF wrote:

I really don't get this point. Surely everyone has tons of third party software (I count 66 games installed on my computer) and […]
Show full quote

skitters wrote:

But as far as I'm concerned, Windows 8/8.1 is crippleware. Not only do you need 3rd party utilities to restore basic functionality

I really don't get this point. Surely everyone has tons of third party software (I count 66 games installed on my computer) and lots of third party software that provides basic functionality (who uses the standard Windows browser or media player?).

What exactly is the problem with third party software?

Oh and for reference, I also need third party software to restore basic functionality to Windows 7: why the hell can't I pause file operations? Don't even want to get into all the software I need to restore basic functionality to a Windows XP computer. It's all done once though, when you setup your computer. Then you never have to worry about it again.

When I reinstall my computer, installing Classic Shell is a few seconds in an hour long process. One that I also do in Windows 7, because the Windows 7 start menu sucks.

I've seen this point repeated so many times and it just makes no sense at all.

Looks like you'll miss Windows XP...

Uh? I got rid of XP many years ago. Never missed it one bit.

KT7AGuy wrote:

shamino wrote:

Despite my dislike of newer Windows versions, if Windows 7 was still available, I might adopt it if I needed to. But I don't need it yet, and it's already been pulled from the market, so Linux is in the lead right now. The fact that Microsoft discontinued 7 is something that amazes me from a business standpoint. It's as if personal egos are more important than selling a successful product that people want to buy. They apparently take their desktop market share for granted and think it will follow them anywhere.

Umm... Newegg still has it for sale. It's still way overpriced, but you can use promo code EMCAKNV33 until Feb 2nd and get $20 off.

I've seen OEM versions for sale here and there, but not retail versions. The OEM licenses are tied to one motherboard for life, and can't be moved to another system later. It makes it more like a rental instead of a purchase.
OEM licenses used to cost about $50, and that's about all they're worth to me.
They pulled the retail versions because they've decided they don't want end-users buying Windows 7 anymore, regardless of the fact that many people prefer it. It's a strange business model, perhaps not unusual with the software business in general, but still strange, and they are losing people.

shamino wrote:

so Linux is in the lead right now

If you're specifically talking about your very own list of preferred OS' for a desktop computer, I'll give it as much, but I have yet to come across a reputable OS market share study that leads in any direction other than Windows continuing to withhold the record for the most popular choice in the aforementioned category.

In the end, though, if it's a popular OS, be it Microsoft's, Apple's or Unix-like, it's already compromised as far as security and privacy go, thus many people shall have many regrets, for we're not going to be persecuted for the bad things that we say or do, but for the good, which most no one would account for enough a trespass.

Write this down; the "easier to use", the more "user-friendly" and the shinier the gadgets, the larger the damage.

Linux runs 99% of servers in the world. You don't think that's a big target?

Where did you get this 99% from? in any event, I specifically stated "desktop computers", as in "not servers".

Lo Wang wrote:

shamino wrote:

so Linux is in the lead right now

If you're specifically talking about your very own list of preferred OS' for a desktop computer, I'll give it as much, but I have yet to come across a reputable OS market share study that leads in any direction other than Windows continuing to withhold the record for the most popular choice in the aforementioned category.

Yes, I was talking about how I would rank my current choices for a new desktop OS, if I needed to move beyond XP.
I haven't looked at any market share studies, but I have no doubt Microsoft currently has almost all of the desktop OS market. I think they are taking this too much for granted though, it's increasingly a function of mindshare rather than product, and mindshare will erode if the product isn't making people happy. Out of 3 attempts they had a very popular XP successor with Windows 7 - they should be marketing it proudly instead of stifling it.
Microsoft will always be famous for their prominence in the boom years of the PC, and for their height of invincibility in the Windows 98-XP era. What mistakes they may or may not have made in the subsequent years will be debated forever, but they don't look invincible anymore. Just my speculation, but I think they are in a long term decline.

I seem to have read much speculation that the desktop PC in general is in decline, and that many of Microsoft's missteps are a result of them attempting to position themselves to compensate for this declining market.

shamino wrote:

The OEM licenses are tied to one motherboard for life, and can't be moved to another system later. It makes it more like a rental instead of a purchase. OEM licenses used to cost about $50, and that's about all they're worth to me.

I almost replied with, "No friggin' way. There's no way they would gimp a $100+ OS license like that". Then, I looked it up and saw that you're right! Holy crap! I had no idea! In that case, I also agree that the OEM license is really only worth about $50, and probably much less.

In some of the comments I read regarding this, it was mentioned that you can call up MS and beg for forgiveness after you change your motherboard. Sometimes, they'll renew your OEM license. Still, what a crappy policy to have.

shamino wrote:

They pulled the retail versions because they've decided they don't want end-users buying Windows 7 anymore, regardless of the fact that many people prefer it. It's a strange business model, perhaps not unusual with the software business in general, but still strange, and they are losing people.

I seem to remember them doing something similar with Vista, but they eventually allowed downgrades back to XP when they realized what a disaster it was.

I'm not sure what the numbers are currently like for Win8, but it feels like just as big of a disaster as Vista was.

shamino wrote:

Microsoft will always be famous for their prominence in the boom years of the PC, and for their height of invincibility in the Windows 98-XP era. What mistakes they may or may not have made in the subsequent years will be debated forever, but they don't look invincible anymore. Just my speculation, but I think they are in a long term decline.

Yep, they might still have 90% of the desktop market, but I agree that they're no longer invincible. They've opened up a hole for a serious competitor to emerge. Will it be Linux as we know it? I seriously doubt it. Maybe Valve could put together some sort of desktop Linux distro that would make people switch. Of course, Google is probably even more prepared for something like this with Android.

Consider downgrading 8.1 to XP...

Jorpho wrote:

It seems strange to me that the game would only run under NT or 2000 compatibility mode and not Windows 9x or XP compatibility mode – the game certainly wasn't written for NT or 2000, was it? I reckon the only apps that specifically required NT or 2000 would be obscure productivity applications.

Nope. This happens with games. No productivity involved at all.
According to one of Mobygames' photos of the game box, Still Life was meant to run on Windows 98/ME/2000/XP.
It would only run in Vista and Windows 7 with compatibility mode set to NT. If compatibility was set to Windows 95 or 98, the game would crash shortly after the opening cut scene. Without compatibility mode, or with compatibility mode set to XP, the game leaves you at a black screen -- you have to ctl-alt-delete out of it -- or sometimes it is so hard frozen you have to use the off button or pull the plug.

There is surely some combination of Application Compatibility Toolkit settings that will get this game in part.

Not that I've been able to find. Not that GOG has been able to find either.

GOG's version of Still Life is listed as compatible with Windows (XP, Vista, 7) and Mac OS X (10.7.0), but not with Windows 8/8.1. If you install the GOG version on Windows 7, it automatically creates a desktop shortcut with compatibility set to Windows NT -- and the game runs fine with NT compatibility on Windows 7. But it can't be set that way on Windows 8/8.1.

I've also had other games -- originally made for Windows 95/98 -- which run better with compatibility set to Windows NT or 2000 -- as in they displayed better (weren't shoved to one side of the screen) and/or were not prone to crashing the way they were with Windows 95 or 98 compatibility.

I don't know what Microsoft did to create NT and 2000 compatibility mode as opposed to 95/98 compatibility mode. But some Windows games need it, or at least benefit greatly from using NT compatibility instead of Win95/98 compatibility.

All compatibility modes are ACT fixes combinations + inheritance (all child processes use same fixes automatically). No more.
An example of "NT only" games - Homeworld and Homeworld: Cataclysm. They work correctly with OGL and glide renderers only if WinNTSp4+ was detected.

NT/2000 compatibility modes doesn't actually seem to do much at all and they're still included in Win8 (you just need ACT, they're not in the simple UI because they're mostly useless).

I think you're looking in the wrong place: Windows 8 broke compatibility elsewhere, not by changing the compatibility modes.

That too, but I can confirm there are games that worked only with NT4 compatibility mode. Rogue Squadron demo was one.