My nostalgia is primarily of the "reacquire exactly what I had at the time I first got it 'X' years ago" type, and since I personally have never done my own custom build with Win7 on it in its prime, I don't anticipate any desire to build one in the future.

That said, there likely will come a time, say 10-15 years down the road or such, where I may desire reacquiring one of the OEM computer systems I did have that shipped with Win7 factory-installed, of which there were only two in my computing history (Lenovo H330 desktop and Lenovo ThinkPad L512).

In some sort of twisted sense, I'm already kinda running Win10 on a vintage-like rig, that being a second-gen Acer netbook from 2009. Well, the hardware itself isn't really vintage, but the overall performance certainly feels on par with a system from 2001, which I do consider borderline vintage. :p

CelGen wrote:

No, because it's stupid.

I meddle in old hardware because I want to intentionally run an older OS which a lot of games from the 80's and 90's are limited to. Sure there's a lot more high performance hardware but what's the point? 3/4 of the games I like don't run on anything past XP, let alone take advantage of any of it should I think running DOS on a P4/Core2 is a good idea. Anything beyond that you can get off Steam and are already patched to work.
Also, it's not "Retro" It's Windows 7. It's cliche to say it's retro. It's kind of disgusting to say it's retro. It's not even remotely retro! It's just a barely 10 years old OS running on otherwise boring hardware with nothing that prevents a game from 2007 running on the latest machines (In comparison with the transition from 9X to 2K/XP back in the day when a lot of applications simply stopped working. I remember when I couldn't run Google Earth because I was still on 98.)

While I agree Windows 7 isn't retro at all because it's not very old, still supported, still arguably the "best" Microsoft OS and also the most commonly used (x86-64) OS of all... I still could not resist the urge to post this image.

A few posts seem almost angry that I would consider Win7 a retro OS. I was not. The question "Will you ever build a Win7 retro PC?" implies a future when Win7 will eventually be considered retro. 😀

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

clueless1 wrote:

A few posts seem almost angry that I would consider Win7 a retro OS. I was not. The question "Will you ever build a Win7 retro PC?" implies a future when Win7 will eventually be considered retro. 😀

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

I know. I was equally surprised at some of the responses 🤣

I think Windows Vista will be the more interesting choice to go retro with, considering it was just around when Intel became competent again, DirectX 10, Aero, laptops slowly became the default form factor, the controversy around OEMs (for low-end retro) and the fact Vista seems to me, built for a different world - one without iPhones and revolving around the computer as a digital hub. Windows 8 (8.0 and to a lesser extent, 8.1) will have the dubious honour of being "transitional" OSes for when the PC industry was fading.

Windows 7 runs on so many machines, and most of the contemporary systems will be standard Nehalem/Westmere/Sandy/Ivy systems, though you can fudge it back to Coppermine if you want it running and don't care about making it contemporary. The fact it'll likely become the next XP will affect how it is remembered.

clueless1 wrote:

A few posts seem almost angry that I would consider Win7 a retro OS. I was not. The question "Will you ever build a Win7 retro PC?" implies a future when Win7 will eventually be considered retro. 😀

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

Yeah, I too saw it as something to consider at a much later date. Say 15+ years when playing current games (that dont require being online) would be better on its native OS and hardware instead of some sort of emulator. Seems that some people just hate all Microsoft OS's made after the 90's and will never consider playing any games or running any hardware from after that point. Why the need to call the act stupid when some of us will want to do that in the furture, is beyond me. Its not like we want to eat live babies or something, just play old games on what will then be vintage hardware. Sheesh, the thought of anybody having any sort of fun seems to offend now days. Cant wait to see what it will be like in 15+ years.

Kodai wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

A few posts seem almost angry that I would consider Win7 a retro OS. I was not. The question "Will you ever build a Win7 retro PC?" implies a future when Win7 will eventually be considered retro. 😀

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

Yeah, I too saw it as something to consider at a much later date. Say 15+ years when playing current games (that dont require being online) would be better on its native OS and hardware instead of some sort of emulator. Seems that some people just hate all Microsoft OS's made after the 90's and will never consider playing any games or running any hardware from after that point. Why the need to call the act stupid when some of us will want to do that in the furture, is beyond me. Its not like we want to eat live babies or something, just play old games on what will then be vintage hardware. Sheesh, the thought of anybody having any sort of fun seems to offend now days. Cant wait to see what it will be like in 15+ years.

^This

Been thinking about if I should have a Win7 PC in my collection as well.
Mostly casue it is the last OS truly designed for computers. Plus its the last OS I actually like

Win8 or 10 are OK, I don't hate them but they are built more with phones or tablets in mind, that's just the way the world is going.

I don't really play modern games so XP is good enough which also happens to be my favourite Windows and I do intend to build an "ultimate" XP PC with the latest hardware that's supported few years down the track once the hardware becomes cheaper.

So I don't need a Win7 PC, its more due to it being the last of an era.

clueless1 wrote:

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

This. If I were to call back in time and tell my younger self that I'd be preserving old computers and stuff, my younger self would dismiss it as crazy.

chinny22 wrote:

Mostly cause it is the last OS truly designed for computers. Plus its the last OS I actually like

Also this. Windows 7 doesn't seem special to me right now, but maybe in a decade I might be singing a different tune. Desktop computing as we know it is starting to feel like the end of an era. And I have learned to hold on to (and hoard) the things that I like 'cause they ain't gonna be around forever.

My previous computer lasted me the better part of a decade, and I do intend to get at least a decade out of my current one. If things head to where they seem they're heading, it'll most likely retire with Windows 7. If not, I'm putting together a pretty similar system that will take its place as "the 2010s Win7 rig".

133MHz wrote:

chinny22 wrote:

Mostly cause it is the last OS truly designed for computers. Plus its the last OS I actually like

Also this. Windows 7 doesn't seem special to me right now, but maybe in a decade I might be singing a different tune. Desktop computing as we know it is starting to feel like the end of an era.

I would not be so drastic. MS tried to focus on touch devices and tablets with Windows 8 and they got a major backlash for it - desktop is where Windows is at. I'm using Windows 10 now and it feels as designed for desktop computers as Windows 7, except it is also more friendly when using touch-enabled devices. I doubt desktops are going anywhere soon - they are yet to be matched in productivity, cost-effectiveness and raw processing power when it comes to consumer-grade hardware.

133MHz wrote:

... Desktop computing as we know it is starting to feel like the end of an era ...

Because it is, as far as Microborg and Windows are concerned.

133MHz wrote:

... If things head to where they seem they're heading ...

They will.

clueless1 wrote:

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

Not really, we're not nearly in the same place now, to be fair. The move from 98SE to XP was an immediately obvious compatibility gap in 2001. No more DOS or old hardware drivers, wide issues with games refusing to run at all. People can't seem to name any compatibility issues going from Win7 to 8 & 10, and the only such example I've personally come across is Conquest: Frontier Wars.

chinny22 wrote:

I don't really play modern games so XP is good enough which also happens to be my favourite Windows and I do intend to build an "ultimate" XP PC with the latest hardware that's supported few years down the track once the hardware becomes cheaper...

Best XP PC ?
It's probably my current PC 😀
Based on LGA 2011 but instead of Quad Core i got U should get Hex Core CPU (or Octa Core, but I don't know how XP OS will react to 16 threads in one CPU).

X79 chipset has got XP drivers for most things (no official support for AHCI sadly, but it can be fixed by external SATA controller).
Best supported GPU for XP is GTX 700 series (like 780 Ti or Titan Black), OR a GTX 960/950 (strange that GTX 980/970 aren't compatible...) : LINK
R9 290X is supported in theory by Win XP, but we all know that driver support isn't best side of AMD.

133MHz wrote:

clueless1 wrote:

I suppose if you asked in 2005 if you'd ever build a Windows 95 retro PC you might get similar responses.

This. If I were to call back in time and tell my younger self that I'd be preserving old computers and stuff, my younger self would dismiss it as crazy.

chinny22 wrote:

Mostly cause it is the last OS truly designed for computers. Plus its the last OS I actually like

Actually, this is exactly what happened to me when I moved in 2005 and a few persons asking why I even wanted to bother with "all that worthless stuff".

But these days I'll just show em one of those ebay pages which includes how much something sold for and then take an identical components out of an antistatic bag right in front of them "you wanted me to toss this 10 years ago! 😁" ...🤣

133MHz wrote:

Also this. Windows 7 doesn't seem special to me right now, but maybe in a decade I might be singing a different tune. Desktop computing as we know it is starting to feel like the end of an era. And I have learned to hold on to (and hoard) the things that I like 'cause they ain't gonna be around forever.

My previous computer lasted me the better part of a decade, and I do intend to get at least a decade out of my current one. If things head to where they seem they're heading, it'll most likely retire with Windows 7. If not, I'm putting together a pretty similar system that will take its place as "the 2010s Win7 rig".

I don't know, but I do like W7 a lot. The newer versions of Windows...I dunno what they are trying to do but most people I know in person really don't like anything past 7, now what kind of impression does that give M$?
So it'll look like I'd have to start tweaking and modding my own OS in the future to make it not have those stupid tiles everywhere, my desktop keeps getting maximally full with those smaller icons already 😵

calvin wrote:

I think Windows Vista will be the more interesting choice to go retro with, considering it was just around when Intel became competent again, DirectX 10, Aero, laptops slowly became the default form factor, the controversy around OEMs (for low-end retro) and the fact Vista seems to me, built for a different world - one without iPhones and revolving around the computer as a digital hub. Windows 8 (8.0 and to a lesser extent, 8.1) will have the dubious honour of being "transitional" OSes for when the PC industry was fading.

Windows 7 runs on so many machines, and most of the contemporary systems will be standard Nehalem/Westmere/Sandy/Ivy systems, though you can fudge it back to Coppermine if you want it running and don't care about making it contemporary. The fact it'll likely become the next XP will affect how it is remembered.

For many Vista brings up bad memories like ME did but if you want to do a retro Vista laptop consider the Thinkpad T/W500 or if you ever get lucky a Dell XPS M1730 as they don't build laptops like that anymore. The first thing that people notice when they encounter a M1730 for the first time is the weight as it is almost all magnesium construction 😎

I haven't made the move beyond W7 myself so I'm not intimately acquainted with game related compatibility issues going forward. But I fully expect to discover enough that in time a W7 retro rig will fill a useful role in the menagerie of retro rigs.

I've heard DRM used by a fair number of XP/W7 era games runs afoul of W8/W10 systems... this is the sort a PITA that makes a retro rig the simplest solution.

Another consideration is that after a long stint with AMD I may go back to Intel for my next "mothership" build. In that case my current Crosshair V Formula/FX8350 setup should make an ideal future W7 retro build.

nforce4max wrote:

For many Vista brings up bad memories like ME did .......................

I used to call Vista "Windows ME-II".

PCBONEZ wrote:

I used to call Vista "Windows ME-II".

Yeah, many did. But it's not quite that. It appears that WinME never recovered from its faults, while Vista did. Even if it was too late for its reputation. Then again, I never used WinME enough to know for sure...

It's a little unfair to call Vista "ME-II". ME was nothing more than Win98 with a fancier theme taken from Win2000, pre-installed drivers (USB and others) and an assortment of other utilities or pre-installed programs meant to give a more pleasant and hassle-free Win9x experience, despite how it all turned out.
Windows Vista on the other hand is a major revision of the NT architecture, vastly different from its predecessors (Win2000 and WinXP), with a completely different visual style and re-designed UI. It was also a massive project even for Microsoft with tons of R&D and developed features, many of which never saw the light of day.

Windows ME's big issue was general instability due to a couple of bugged features such as System Restore. On the other hand, Windows Vista's big issues were very high system requirements due to features such as Aero, with OEMs installing Vista even on their crappiest laptops and a completely overhauled driver system (thanks to the new kernel) which required new drivers to be written from the ground up for this new OS.

They are quite similar disasters in terms of scale (I'd wager Vista was a far bigger hit for Microsoft for a variety of reasons), but quite dissimilar in terms of reasons each one happened. Also, Windows ME was nothing more than a stop-gap product, where as Vista is still on most computers worldwide, in one form or another. The new kernel was carried on to the next products (Win7,8,8.1 and now 10) and even many of the features first introduced in Vista remain or are enhanced in newer versions.

dr_st wrote:

It appears that WinME never recovered from its faults, while Vista did. Even if it was too late for its reputation. Then again, I never used WinME enough to know for sure...

I remember back in 1999 I installed WinME, was quite happy with it (albeit the system was abit slower), but then I noticed it had no "Restart to DOS" option in the Shut Down menu. That day I went back to Windows 98SE, and I've never gone back to WinME.