Problem with these types of programs is they have a bad habit of breaking with Windows updates. This happened to Explorer Patcher recently.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/11akdnl/desktop_flickers_after_the_windows_11_update/

Classis Shell had a lot of similar issues on Windows 7.

The lack of being able to move the taskbar to the top of the screen is basically the only thing stopping me updating from Win 10.

Having the taskbar at bottom of screen increases mouse travel way too much when switching apps. There is a 90% chance the first thing I need to click after switching apps is in the top third of the screen, having the taskbar at the bottom of the screen is just inefficient.

Thank you for at least trying, but after reading all the cited sources, none of them official quote Microsoft as saying Windows 10 is the last Windows, the first article comes the closest with actual quote from Microsoft talking about Windows as a service and a change in the way they make their revenue stream, but the last two are just third party misquote of the original developer as I quoted above.

Find me the quote from an official source, not a third party.

Except if you skipped Windows 98, there was a whole range of games, software and hardware (USB) you couldn't use.

Windows XP had some major hate when it was release, people called it the Playmobil OS due to the colour scheme, and a host of older hardware and software wasn't supported due to changes in Kernel and Driver model.

Skipping Windows Vista was easy to do due to the hate train everyone got on, but if you had a 64bit CPU you were wasting a huge chunk of your systems performance. (Windows XP 64bit wasn't an option, as it was just a cut down version of Server 2003 and had major compatibility issues.)

Windows 11 isn't a bad OS, it just requires modern hardware features, my biggest issues with it is I can't move the taskbar to the top of the screen without a hack or third-party software, and I'm not a fan of the new start menu, but I pin most Apps I use to the taskbar so really doesn't matter. But it's stable it supports new hardware features, it's still works like Windows (no Windows 8 how do I use this thing).

Microsoft never said Windows 10 final version of Windows, the actual quote was:

“Right now we’re releasing Windows 10, and because Windows 10 is the last version of Windows, we’re all still working on Windows 10,”

If you change the "last version" to the "latest version" or "last version released" you get the true meaning of what the developer was trying to say. The last version ever was never the official narrative.

You're modifying the list to fit your narrative, not reality.

Many of the Windows versions you list as good, didn't start out that way, you list Vista as bad when it was actual good if you were running descent spec system (I can point you to benchmarks that's show it was faster than XP on the same hardware). You ignore a whole Windows release because it doesn't fit your narrative.

It's dishonest.

Actual list of major Windows releases:

Win 95 average

Win 95(B) OSR2 good

Win 95 (C) bad (test bed for 98)

Win 98 bad

Win 98 SE average (livable when running 98lite to remove crashtasic active desktop)

Win ME bad (basically test bed for Win XP features)

Win XP average

Win XP SP1 average-good

Win XP SP2 good

Win XP SP3 great

Win XP 64bit hot garbage.

Win Vista average (bad for old hardware & software and underspec'd machines)

Win Vista 64bit SP1 & SP2good (5-20% performance bump over Win XP on same hardware)

Win 7 good

Win 7 SP1-onwards great

Win 8 bad

Win 8.1 average

Win 10 good

Win 10 1709-onwards great

Win 11 average-good

Yeah there is totally a good bad cycle, if you just put on the ross tinted glasses, and ignore 80% of major releases.

The fact they have never made a mouse designed to fit a human hand amazes me. You can buy a $2 no name mouse that has better ergonomics than any mouse Apple has ever made.

Did a little bit more digging, the radioactive decay account for about half the heat being given off 20+TW. The rest is the heat from earth formation and the huge pressures created at the core by earth mass and gravity.

What you have to remember is the earth is really big, and when the earth first formed and was a hot molten ball, most of the heavy elements like iron, uranium and thorium sank deep into the core.

Iron makes up 80% of the inner and outer core, but isn't anywhere near that common on the surface, same goes for Uranium and thorium, while they aren't that common on the surface they are much more so in the core, thus the core has a lot more radioactive decay.

The thermal output of the core was calculated by drilling hundreds of deep boreholes and calculating the heat transfer through the earth crust.

While 47TW may seem like a lot, it's nothing compared to the 173,000TW of energy the sun baths the earth in. (thus the reason why greenhouse gases trapping even a tiny percentage more of the suns energy is very bad)

Basically nothing, the core is 4000-6000 Deg C, iron melts at 1538 Deg C, we are talking lowing it by 40-60 Deg C over 8 Billion years.

The Earth's core radiates somewhere around 47TW into space, which is largely replenished by radioactive decay. You could power the whole planet with nothing but geothermal from now until the Sun shallows the Earth, and you would only cool the core by 1-2%

You couldn't even read the first paragraph.

"After its four females gave birth to twins"

4 x 2 = 8

1 male + 4 females = 5

5 + 8 = 13

2 x 5 = 10

13 > 10 (so 13 is more than double)