I said OSes can be objectively measured, when you were pointing out that much of the measurement is subjective. I pointed out that is largely irrelevant, since all that matters is they can be measured objectively, even if it's a discussion on how best to do that. You begrudgingly agreed.
I simply stated W7 was the best without defining criteria, but did say I believe it would hold up against whatever objective criteria are established, and that there is already objective evidence in support of that point.
Here, you've listed unambiguously subjective preferences and opinions, with not even a slight attempt to define objective criteria to support your point.
For what it's worth, if you search 'best version of windows', pretty much every singles article ranking them is giving Windows 7 first. At the very least, it seems to be the majority opinion.
I think the text from the Digital Trends article giving it first place is fair:
"There’s an argument to be made that Windows 7 is a just a refined version of Windows Vista, released at a time when people actually had the kind of hardware that could run it properly. But this king of Windows releases did so much more than that. It was fast and responsive, with many important visual upgrades over previous versions of Windows. It had excellent compatibility, working with older hardware and software alike, and introduced important features which are still Windows mainstays today. It added pinning applications to the taskbar, introduced stacking Windows for better organization, let you preview windows with taskbar thumbnails, and it made it possible to snap Windows to different portions of the screen.
Windows 7 is important for what it didn’t have, too. It feels like the last Windows operating system that was fast and modern, but hadn’t yet started chasing features designed for other platforms, like touch-targeted UI elements, or smart assistant integration. It didn’t have the Microsoft Store or overblown data collection, and there was no attempt to force you to use an online account to login.
It was a clean, responsive operating system that many would likely continue to use today if it was still supported by Microsoft and modern hardware alike."
> Here, you've listed unambiguously subjective preferences and opinions, with not even a slight attempt to define objective criteria to support your point.
Now you’re just being obtuse. Most of my comments were on a par with your own comments. In fact some of the comments you’ve just shared are literally just repackaging similar remarks I made about 2000!
I’m honestly surprised you can’t see the irony in your comments. You’re literally applying a double standard where its “objective” it’s your judgement but anyone else’s judgement that disagrees with your own is subjective.
I’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
> Now you’re just being obtuse. Most of my comments were on a par with your own comments.
I strongly disagree.
> In fact some of the comments you’ve just shared are literally just repackaging similar remarks I made about 2000!
Except, the context matters, because 7 was a continue refinement of those things whereas things took a downturn other than that, meaing 7 was the peak, which is what is part of the justfiication.
> I’m honestly surprised you can’t see the irony in your comments.
Because I think it only exists in your perception.
> You’re literally applying a double standard where its “objective” it’s your judgement but anyone else’s judgement that disagrees with your own is subjective.
Not at all, I have repeatedly stressed that objective criteria should be fined and used.
> ’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
I’ve got a fair amount more I’d love to discuss, but it’s probably better we just agree to disagree.
Entirely up to you. I'll probably keep replying every time I see a reply. If you think we can have productive discussion, then I hope you would continue, if you think we are seeing things too differently and the discussion will devolve and not be productive, then I would hope you don't.
I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity. If you think the same would occur in this discussion with me, knowing we disagree, then I would definitely ask that we just leave it here - but again, I will continue to reply to any messages received that I feel are misrepresenting anything or need what I consider correction.
> I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity.
Hard disagree.
I hadn’t clocked that you were the same person who was lecturing other people about the politics in their country while living in a different country. I remember from that conversation that you considered your own opinion irrefutable regardless of any evidence presented so it’s no surprise to learn here that you also consider your opinion to be objective and infallible.
If I’d clicked you were the same person I wouldnt have bothered replying and just downvoted you like others had.
> > I will note that in a recent, separate discussion you resorted to insults and vulgarity.
> Hard disagree.
It's not a matter of opinion. You literally resorted to insults and vulgarity. Do I need quote your words back to you?
> who was lecturing other people about the politics in their country while living in a different country. I
No, I was someone pointing our your arguments were bad. Out of the two of us, I'm the only one who has lived in both countries, and my arguments were not fallacious.
> I remember from that conversation that you considered your own opinion irrefutable regardless of any evidence presented
This is certainly ironic given you engaged in whataboutism and your evidence was shown to be flawed for the points you were trying to make.
> so it’s no surprise to learn here that you also consider your opinion to be objective and infallible.
I think you are bad at reasoning your points and you ignore objective evidence. My opinion isn't infallible, but the reasoning and evidence to support it is better than what you are relying on to support yours.
> If I’d clicked you were the same person I wouldnt have bothered replying and just downvoted you like others had.
Funny, I suspected you only started the discussion you did because you had recognized I was the same person.
But, whatever - let's just not engage with each other anymore? I'm here for productive discussion, if we are clashing to a point that isn't possible I would rather us just both avoid each other.
I find it absolutely astounding you deny you engaged in vulgarity and insults, for the same reason I find MAGA folk astounding when they deny reality. Unless for some reason you don't consider saying 'Bullshit'[1] vulgarity - I assume that would be your defense, and indeed I would perceive that to be disingenuous since it clearly is, in the sense it lowers the quality of and taints an otherwise civil conversation.
I'd be more curious to hear why you don't think calling my comment idiotic[1] is resorting to insults - that seems harder to deny, so I wonder what creative justification you might come up with?
> So let's just not engage with each other anymore?
100%. If you want to reply just to note you in fact do not consider saying 'Bullshit' vulgarity' or defend how calling a comment idiotic is not resorting to insults, I'll understand and might respond to that. If we are not discussing operating systems or problems with countries, I consider that a win since that thread would run its course very shortly, then we could be done with each other. Of course if you don't want to reply at all I'll consider that an even bigger win.
So now you're admitting you insulted me after previously denying that you had?
I never called you an idiot, I stuck to facts and explained why I thought you were wrong.
> Anyway, I thought you wanted us to part ways?
If you read above, I said that if you must reply to this final thread that at least it will be over quickly, and that I will continue to reply to messages as I get notified of them if I feel I need to defend against misinformation (such as you denying you resorted to insults).
If you want our interacting to cease sooner, simply resist your urge to reply.
Of course you do, thankfully I trust most readers to look at the evidence and see that without any doubt, you resorted to an insult and vulgarity when I did not, and then denied doing so.
I have no issues with my behavior or anything I've said, as I didn't resort to insults and then deny doing so. Additionally, the evidence is overwhelmingly on my side (yes yes, "you disagree", I know).
> I also don't think even you believe the stuff you're posting
Instead of choosing not to reply, you chose to continue the discussion instead of being done with me as you said you preferred, just to make a bad faith accusation.
>Instead of choosing not to reply, you chose to continue the discussion instead of being done with me as you said you preferred, just to make a bad faith accusation.
You do understand that you're also engaging with me, right?
And that every comment you've made for the last hour has been directed at me as a person?
>You do understand that you're also engaging with me, right?
The difference is I said upfront that I would continue to reply to messages as I see them, as where you just said you wanted to be done yet keep making the effort to engage - even if it's just to make a bad faith accusation.
Edit: And interestingly as your below comment shows, you are manually refreshing to monitor replies which is an extra level of dedication.
> And that every comment you've made for the last hour has been directed at me as a person?
So? I keep getting notifications that you've replied, and I am not engaging in any other discussions so far.
I said OSes can be objectively measured, when you were pointing out that much of the measurement is subjective. I pointed out that is largely irrelevant, since all that matters is they can be measured objectively, even if it's a discussion on how best to do that. You begrudgingly agreed.
I simply stated W7 was the best without defining criteria, but did say I believe it would hold up against whatever objective criteria are established, and that there is already objective evidence in support of that point.
Here, you've listed unambiguously subjective preferences and opinions, with not even a slight attempt to define objective criteria to support your point.
For what it's worth, if you search 'best version of windows', pretty much every singles article ranking them is giving Windows 7 first. At the very least, it seems to be the majority opinion.
I think the text from the Digital Trends article giving it first place is fair:
"There’s an argument to be made that Windows 7 is a just a refined version of Windows Vista, released at a time when people actually had the kind of hardware that could run it properly. But this king of Windows releases did so much more than that. It was fast and responsive, with many important visual upgrades over previous versions of Windows. It had excellent compatibility, working with older hardware and software alike, and introduced important features which are still Windows mainstays today. It added pinning applications to the taskbar, introduced stacking Windows for better organization, let you preview windows with taskbar thumbnails, and it made it possible to snap Windows to different portions of the screen.
Windows 7 is important for what it didn’t have, too. It feels like the last Windows operating system that was fast and modern, but hadn’t yet started chasing features designed for other platforms, like touch-targeted UI elements, or smart assistant integration. It didn’t have the Microsoft Store or overblown data collection, and there was no attempt to force you to use an online account to login.
It was a clean, responsive operating system that many would likely continue to use today if it was still supported by Microsoft and modern hardware alike."