Windows 7 is ok, why do they want me to upgrade to 10 so badly?

What, in general, would I miss when going back to 7 from 10? DirectX 12? Does non-vidya software even use that?

Because I'm moments away from integrating the latest update roll-up from the Windows Update Catalog and adding the necessary drivers and just rolling back to 7.

Windows 10 is terrible. What a buggy piece of shit OS.
I miss Windows 7.

You're thinking Vista, which was a dumpster fire out the gate, and by the time it was fixed 7 was already a household name.

-Still- only a small handful of games use DX12, nothing else.

gnu > linux > 2k > xp > 7 > OSX > 10

And we have no real choice, unless linux but that can come with it's own issues, so yeah kind of stuck ether:
1. figuring out a bullshit way to get 7 to work on a newer cpu but even that might have issues in hardware performance and stuff
2. getting a distro of linux and hoping everything works fine and that enough of my games actually support the damn thing or hurting performance,
3. Getting 10 and having to figure out how to neuter all the bullshit inside of it.

Explain how it wasn't free for the consumer.

I think OP meant "free" as in a kind of too good to be true thing where yeah they give it to ya but they sell your data and shove ads at you. Kind of like what drug dealers do, give you the first hit free.

If they didn’t pressure people to upgade they would be admitting defeat. They want to make Windows 10 the “OS for life” and having Windows 7 availible undermines that.

Windows 10 is literal pajeetware with NSA baked in.

What are all these retarded posts ? W10 is obviously a full blown netbot made to collect and sell personal data, and promote their shit

Im still on Vista btw.

So they can sell your data to 100 different advertising companies and get big yearly payments from the government

but what are you gonna do when your computer inevitably dies? Keep forever looking for used hardware ?

Windows 8.1 is fucking fine. What is this shitty meme? I was on 10 for one month and ran back to 8.1 because nothing fucking worked and somehow the organization was more fucked than any edition of Windows I've used.

Full screen apps? They're not even relevant. Can be completely uninstalled.
Metro? You can neuter the entire thing and disable the services.

It's literally Windows 7 but more compatible with new shit.

So they don't have to support a 10 year old operating system any more. Duh.

>You're thinking Vista, which was a dumpster fire out the gate
>and by the time it was fixed 7 was already a household name
I find it hilarious how few people see how tightly connected these statements are.

It's funny how many drivers for Windows 7 work flawlessly on 8.1.

I'm thinking about running windows-server-core/minimal-linux/bsd/etc. as a virtual machine host with only the necessary things for the guest OS's. That way you could run anything.
I haven't researched it but dos still runs on most hardware so I think it's something else keeping windows 7 from running if it doesn't.

>type 1 hypervisor
You're going to have a bad time once you realise what this actually means.

Maybe, I have no idea what you mean and haven't checked into it. I know its possible but why is that type bad?

You're still running Windows at this point. (Windows Server so you can run Hyper-V.)
Why not use ESXi and then virtualize Windows?

Anyways I find the core discussion a bit lacking. It takes 5 minutes to unpin and uninstall the shit it comes with and tweak settings. Windows 7 requires much more time than that to install a bunch of software to do things you can do out of box in Win 10. You can't fucking scroll in a window that isn't focused in Windows 7 FFS. Tons of file formats won't work without extra software in 7. I have a very minimal amount of extra software running in 10 compared to 7.

The "type" isn't bad - in fact, I prefer type 1 (also known as "bare metal") hypervisors, since they're essentially tiny little operating systems whose job is just to run VMs.
Problem is, people fall for the following logical - but horribly wrong - extrapolation:
>wow these type 1 hypervisors are so small simple and secure
>gonna have no problem just running it as a thin abstraction layer and throwing any OS I like on top
Which couldn't be further from the truth. It actually works the opposite way: the thinner your hypervisor, the LESS you can do with it. A (decent) hypervisor totally isolates you from the hardware it's running on - which is great for security (server VMs, etc.) - but it's a PITA for a consumer box i.e. to pass through sound or video.Type 2 hypervisors are a much better choice for that, because they can simply hand off complicated things to the host OS; they don't have to emulate sound or video cards themselves.

>Why not use ESXi and then virtualize Windows?
Idk, I'll check into it.
That makes sense, by minimal...i could do it on a minimized 8.1 (which I currently use but wouldn't) is what I meant but I'm not sure because there pros and cons to each.

In type-1 hypervisors like ESXi you just assign the hardware you want to the VM. Type-2 is much more of a hassle (and of course is less efficient overall by their very nature)

the Borg wants to assimilate you

Well to be fair at least one of them was hot.

Attached: 1379846-seven10.jpg (337x640, 25K)