I wouldn't say the updates are 'like a decade behind everything else'. Like most things in software, there's a really broad array of what is available from really bad to really good and a lot of things are in between. If we're comparing major OS architectures in terms of market share, then we're comparing what, 6 things? Anyway. I'm a fan first of the ideologies and designs present in the linux/BSD world but I'm not willing to overgeneralize the difficulty of what has been achieved in other corners...and I guess mostly I'm sick of ignorant people saying "XP is the best, why can't I use it on my institutional device". My point about how the updates are actually good now was about pointing at the stupidity of thinking that the older versions were better when they quite clearly were not. It's not as simple as "oh the old stuff was so much better than now". That's reductivist thinking that doesn't even try to understand the massive complexity of the problems of computing and software development today. We are constantly increasing the amount of overhead that we are putting into our software, and people are wondering why things are not just endlessly getting faster when we're improving the hardware year over year. It's like folks complaining about the idea of "planned obsolecence" when that obsolescence is a consequence of all the additional shit that you are requiring a computer to do. I'm not just talking about one vendor here, or one operating system, I'm just tired of these kinds of statements with so little thought behind them.