Windows 9 ... is Windows 10

Any particular reason you don't pin them to the taskbar? Then you can use Win +# (1,2,3 - 0) as a shortcut key.

I put the applications I always have in backrgound into the taskbar, so I directly click through them once I start the system. But I try not to add stuff it that I don't use _always_, so it still has enough space for the many many windows I tend to open at times.

I have a fair few shortcuts, but the only ones I ever use are Chrome and Steam. And even then I use the start menu 90% of the time for Chrome and I've never touched my Steam shortcut. I just feel like a desktop should have a few icons on it. Even if it does obscure my amazing backgrounds of awesome.

I like how you, like everyone with that system, had to really fudge it to make it work. How about we look at the real release history:

DOS lineage:

Windows 2.01 - Windows 3.0 - Windows 3.1 - Windows 3.11 for Workgroups - Windows 95 - Windows 98 - Windows 98 SE - Windows ME

New Technology lineage:

Windows NT 3.1 - Windows NT 4.0 - Windows 2000 - Windows XP - Windows XP (x64) - Windows Vista - Windows 7 - Windows 8

Combined:

Windows 2.01 - Windows 3.0 - Windows 3.1 - Windows NT 3.1 - Windows 3.11 for Workgroups - Windows 95 - Windows NT 4.0 - Windows 98 - Windows 2000 - Windows ME - Windows XP - Windows XP (x64) - Windows Vista - Windows 7 - Windows 8

People just try to come up with silly patterns for this. Myself, I think Windows Vista was a glorious release, a much needed overhaul of the way Windows worked, screwed over by a sudden spike in RAM prices (a reversal of the trend that had been occurring of RAM prices consistently dropping) which led to OEMs shipping it at minimum spec levels. I ran it with 2GB RAM and it was glorious.

Everyone who was crying and clinging to XP conveniently forgot how much wailing and gnashing of teeth and clinging to Windows 2000 there was at release. And of course project Mojave revealed what we all knew, that most people complaining about Vista were simply repeating things they'd been told rather than having the slightest clue what they were talking about.

This complaint has always blown my mind. The Start Screen is better in every way, no longer do I have a stupid tiny menu for no goddamn reason, it's making use of my huge monitor to display more applications, more information, larger targets, and what does it take away from me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, because the Start Menu being tiny was a holdover from back when it used to be an expanding series of menus and actually used the rest of the screen for said menus. Since then being small has been pointless as you can't interact with anything else while interacting with that menu. And should you desperately need to look at something else because you have the memory of a goldfish, then charms come to the rescue with search accessible without blocking the wider desktop.

About the only thing I can sympathise with on that front was the complaint about the missing Start icon, because discoverability of anything Metro is ***.

This reversion to the Start Menu in the next version of Windows is just depressing.

My God. The only other person in the universe who shares my thoughts about Windows 8. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

For me it doesn't need to be a giant full page glob. I like having a nice little thing tucked in the corner. What does it take away from me? How about background #92?



The start menu screen is just like having two desktops and sticking all your icons on one of them.

You know you can have your background come through on the Start Screen, right?

Still identical to having two desktops like good ol' Mandrake linux <3.

@Quitch all valid points, I'm sure. I was only being flippant.

However, I vehemently disagree with you on Windows Vista. My parents still have a machine with Vista on it and I loathe the thing. It's the least stable OS they've released in the last decade and is far too resource-hungry.

In any case, I'm potentially looking to switch to Linux for my next build (soon) so I'll likely stop caring about Windows altogether

You'll just end up using WINE or whatever to run half your games you know.

Gawd, it's too early in the morning for this.

People who don't like Windows, will find a way to not like Windows. People who adhere to the "every other version" like it's gospel will continue to do so regardless (despite the fact that Win98 and 98SE breaks that chain right near the start).

Just let those of us that like Windows enjoy what MS are doing. Or in my case, not enjoy that they're reverting the Metro interface because people whined too much. It's like the Xbox One thing, all over again. And then people all use a 24 hour Internet connection to get the benefits of PSN or whatever digital freebie system they buy into. Ludicrous hypocrisy.

The stability of Windows is primarily driven by the hardware and the drivers. Vista was actually written to prevent shitty graphics drivers taking down the entire OS. In terms of stability it's far better than XP, but it used a new stack and a lot of third parties waited until the last second to write their drivers leading to some really **** drivers. nVidia were single-handedly responsible for delaying Service Pack 1.

Worst comes to the worst, I'll dual-boot

Doesn't that kinda kill the point of having Linux?

Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy?

Why not?

Well I'd say because it offers a number of disadvantages, such as inferior GPU support, inferior software support (especially in games), smaller support windows, and doesn't really offer you anything over Windows unless you have a preference for one of the various GUIs.

OK, the software repository stuff is nice, though the almost OS X style of needing to keep the OS upgraded to keep the latest software is annoying.

But I assume WrongCat has actual reasons, hence my question.

Sorry. My brain tells my "why not?" is a mandatory response to "why?".

I didn't say I was definitely going to, my exact wording was "potentially looking to" which means "it sounds good but I haven't done as much research into it so I'm not committing to anything".

Here are my reasons. Excluding games, I think software support is better (the software I use works well in linux, much of the same software is buggy in windows). The terminal is very powerful, admittedly I've never delved too deeply into powershell. It's easier to build things in c (visual studio 2010 is fine but annoying, cygwin and mingw are fine but annoying). There's no 90 day timer.