now starkers, I also have three 95 osr2.1 systems, three win98osr2.5 systems, four xp sp3 only systems, a vista triple boot (xp & v32 &v64), a vista 32 bit laptop, two win7 64bit only, one w764 dual boot(two different setups of w764bit) and a triple boot laptop (xp, w732 bit & wHATE64 bit), and several different linux boxes, and ALL of them are connected through my gigabit capable lan that I installed TWELVE years ago when cat 7 was extreme upper spec for network cabling, and yes the wire I used IS cat 7 STP or the cream of the cream in copper, the only better connections is fibre, BUT I could not justify setting up with fibre cable making equipment just for myself along with the falure rate for making the fibre leads.

and ALL the computers mentioned WORK when I have need to use them, and I have them for support of problems with old hardware and software for my customers.

harpo

First of all, I dislike your arrogance. Who are you?!?, to speak about MS future company policy like you would own it? You are in no position to support all the claims that you have made.

Secondly we already had the topic of support for Win 7..... (2020 at least). You see, many users of Windows are companies. And those companies dont like to spend million of € every two years because MS decided it is time for an new OS. Then there are million of home users.... people who dont buy a new PC every year but maybe 1 PC all 5 years. So go on... tell them that they need to buy a new PC all 2 years. That wont work. Same for the companies. A windows uprade does cost a lot of money.... both in license and work hours. There is no reason for a company to spend that money unless the upgrade offers a good return of investment. That leaves technical reasons. And you know..... the average thing that the average computer supported worker is doing will hardly benefit from an OS upgrade. My old company was still using Win 2000.... old you will correcty say..... but did it affect my productivity? Nope, it didnt, because if I hit buttons A B C in software D running on 2000 is not different to hitting buttons A B C in software D running on Win 7.

Of course you can try to force people and companies with technical limitations..... but you are not going to stand up against your competition if you do.

A company does not care in the slighest what runs on their computers.... as long it gets the job done and does not lead to unacceptable costs. So if MS would annoys it customer base with quickly dropped support it may soon learn that a company without customers is a dead company very soon.

Make the cost of running windows to high.... be it licence price or forced upgrade intervall and people will simple switch to Linux, Apple... ect.

Luckily for MS they have a partial monopoly.... that allows them to get away with things that would destroy a company on a competive market. But things can change.... and MS.... failed attempt .... to enter the phone market.... which is the entire point of Win 8 shows how desperate they are. In a world, where the desktop computer is one of many devices instead of THE device, incentive for people o to upgrade is low. Most of my friends use their computers for 3 things. Internet, e-mail, word processing. All tasks that do not remotly profit from having an OS upgrade. And so they reasonably take their time. BWT, this are all tasks that can be done with Linux... without trouble and for free. (Linux is difficult for the windows power user, not for the normal user that hits the power button and then starts one single program.)

Left behind? What? Huh? Are we on a treck southwest or are we speaking about the insignificant detail of running an OS?

Following peer pressure instead of using your on brain is often a sign of low self esteem.

You and a few others also seem to have one huge misunderstanding about how economy works. A company only decides what it offers, not who will buy it and when. Only the customer will make this decision. _It is MY money.... and if you want it..... you better give me a damm good reason. Companies that do not honor the wishes of their customers...... leave the market and die.

Perhaps your opinion of Win 8 is wrong.... perhaps it is right. It doesnt matter. The economic success of Win 8 will decide the fate of the OS and to some extent that of MS. 

Personally I do however doubt that even a major market gain in the mobile market - which is unlikely as there is indeed fiercy competition - is enough to compensate the losses taken from the desktop market.

I can BSOD it in a heart beat.  Not to say I really want to keep crashing it, but alas, while the hieroglyphics are gone, the blue is not.

In some ways it is history repeating: A new OS comes out and it seems that people do not want to adjust. But that's only from the point of view of those who dislike the new OS, of course. On the other hand, people work with the OS all the time. So they should like that environment. It doesn't make sense to use something because it annoys you.

Look at it this way: Stardock is even intended to serve that audience. It offers products to customize nearly every little nut and bolt in the OS. That should give you an idea how important the look and feel of an OS is.

I started using Vista when I bought my previous computer. I liked it and I didn't see much disadvantages. Much to the dismay of the XP fans I actually liked it. But, who cares? It supported my hardware at the time, so I couldn't see much against it. Now I bought another machine and I have the option of buying W7 or W8. I've used both before and I simply do not like W8. So, I have chosen to opt for W7. MS plans to release newer versions sooner, so let's hope that I like W9 better. Until that time, I'll stick with W7.

The new machine will arrive next week and I'm looking forward to it.

Matthijs!!!!!!  Where have you been hiding? ...Good to see you alive and kicking....

Re recent comments, yes, the tone needs to be 'argue the opinion' not 'argue the person'.  it's sometimes a subtle difference but it's also the difference between lively 'debate' and 'voice removal'...

Re BSOD and Win 8 - I have yet to see it...but then when 2000 came out people called it "rock-solid" [and compared to 98 it probably was] but I killed it on average 3 times a day.  Fortunately there was also a way to skin the BSOD so I could at least make it pretty....

Back to AVs and 98 ....I installed 98 in VirtualBox and then spent all my time getting past the lack of addon support for 98 in it...and have a screen res better than VGA.  You forget how primitive the OS was....looking dumbly at a zip file like a bastard imbecile.  Now I just have to convince it to share files with the host....

No...about the same as a normal machine of the time.  A core i7 with 12gig of ram is dumbed down to a single processor with 128meg ....and hardware emulation [like a soundblaster 16] is still searched/loaded like a normal box.  Shutdown is pretty quick though.

Gonna have to try that on VMWare. I've done DOS6.22, Win 3.x and Win95 in some but it's been a long time. (aka vmware 3.x days)

Handy link there, Taz...tho I'd already used the vid driver refered to as 'unstable' ...32bit does speed things up. An iso mount for file sharing could be easiest ...or see if I can't get some sort of interaction with a USB stick.

This has become a 'challenge'....I'd alread had 9x on VMWare .... but as always....one MUST 'tinker'...

BTW...re the Op....since it's a hiding-to-nothing I can't see an issue in its 'hijacking'...

I just timed it...as a matter of interest ...3.15 to the gong of the welcome thingie...straight 98, not s/e.

I'm pretty sure that can be reduced...obviously a time-out loading something 'hardware'...

Paul!!!!!

Well, I've been hiding in gaming lately. And work of course.

I still have a peek here from time to time. And skinning? Not actively, but I'm enjoying Treetog's Thunderstorm currently.

I hope you're well, sir.

Back to topic. I think it boils down to personal preferences. You either like an OS or you don't. In the case of W8 I have a problem with MS' vision about the mobile market and the way a desktop OS should look like a phone. If I use W8 it feels like I am running a smartphone emulator. It's fun to run it, but I rather use a real phone. Carrying a HAF XM with me gets tiresome real fast. Besides, the batteries for my 1.2KW PSU don't last long either. Ghehe. For my desktop computer, I rather use an OS that fits the machine.

So, back on topic.....

I've heard a great swag of complaints about Win 8 and 99.9999% of them are about Metro/the Modern UI, and for mine, that's like canning a movie after viewing the opening credits.

There is a whole desktop environment beneath Metro/the Modern UI, and if one organises their PC efficiently, one can complete ALL their daily computing tasks within that desktop [you know, the one that's like Win 7 only better] and never have to enter Metro/the Modern UI if one doesn't want to. Therefore, in all my great wisdom and worldly experience, I have deemed all complaints/bitching about Windows 8 based on Metro/the Modern UI to be irrelevant and illegitimate.  And like all competitions, employees, their friends and families are not allowed to enter.. uh, comment and no correspondence shall be entered into. 

Now to what I really wanted to say....

Let's face it Win7 sux dead dogs whatsits. So yeah, my perfectly good and efficiently working Win 8 machine suddenly starts acting up when Win 7 is re-added to the equation.  Like Win 8 wouldn't boot without the installation disc on board.  However, take away Win 7 and all is great with the world again, Win 8 boots like a charms and behaves wonderfully, leaving only one conclusion.... Win 7 f**ked everything up and therefore sux satsquatch saveloys bigtime.