...for an age.

Thats better!

This is the state of digital distribution on PC now: You have to buy new hardware and software on a regular schedule - or you lose access to your existing DRM content. And then you still lose it, because the old content becomes incompatible with the new hard- and software.

I'm by no means defending the use of outdated software and/or operating systems, but I can see myself keeping my Windows 7 rig a few more years, while getting locked out of everything purchased past 2006.

That's why I moved my focus to consoles with physical games - these keep working on whatever you had when you bought them and there is no mandatory hardware upgrades. (Also keeping backup hardware around doesn't cost too much, too.)

That may be but I really doubt this will benefit GOG that much. Who knows really, only time will tell.

Offtopic: I want to thank you personally for your videos on YouTube and posts on VOGONS, especially for very helpful instruction on how to use Roland Sound Canvas VA with old games. Your work is much appreciated!

The sure sign that you're getting old, you start complaining about: "the damn kids these days". :P

Comparing the classic Macintosh System/Mac OS to Mac OS X/OS X/macOS is is in some ways like comparing the later Windows (95/98/Me) to modern versions of Windows NT (7/8/10) (fairly familiar user interface) and in other ways like comparing MS-DOS to FreeBSD (completely different OS architecture, no binary compatibility, and just a bit different approaches to security). They are two entirely different operating systems.

I don't know if you made it easy it by choice, or just picked the last 4 "Windows"-branded systems. Considering those are in the same family: Windows NT, same as Windows 2000, Windows NT 4 and Windows NT 3.1 (not to mention the servers).

Had you gone a bit further you would have found Windows Me, Windows 98, Windows 95, Windows 3.x, and MS-DOS (also Windows 1 and 2, but those were more graphical environments for DOS). None of which are of the same OS family as those you picked (despite many concepts having been passed on, and they are compatible in many ways).

I'll go a bit further on the Apple side than you did on the Microsoft side, let's see.
Classics first:
Macintosh System 7 (release 1991) -> Mac OS 7.6.1 (I think 7.5 and 7.6 were only released as complete installs, and they officially switched the name to "Mac OS" with 7.6, does any of that make a new release?)
Mac OS 8 (release 1997) -> 8.6 (8.5 was not released as an upgrade, only as a full install, and required a PowerPC CPU whereas 8.1 still worked on the 68040 and 68LC040 CPUs)
Mac OS 9 (release 1999) -> 9.2.2 (9.2.2 only had some fixes for the "Classic" environment in Mac OS X)

Unix-based:
Mac OS X (10.0, release 2001) -> 10.1.5 (requires the optional-but-bundled "Classic" environment in order to run older applications, rather similar to how Wine is used to run Windows applications).
...
Mac OS X 10.4 (release 2005)-> 10.4.11 (10.4.4 was the first version to run on x86)
Mac OS X 10.5 (release 2007)-> 10.5.8 (no longer has "Classic", last release to run on PowerPC)
...
OS X 10.8 (release 2012)-> 10.8.5 (name change)
...
macOS 10.12 (release 2016)-> 10.12.6 (name change again)
macOS 10.13 (release 2017) -> 10.13.6

The latest (and last) "classic" Mac OS is 9, which was released in 1999 and last updated in 2001
The current (Unix-based) macOS is 10.14 which was released in 2018

The sure sign of you having too much coffee. ;-)

how large is the market share for XP now? about 0.5%?

not sure if it is worth it... especially as gOg have already discontinued xp support

Windows XP was the OS I used on -my- first PC, "dodging" Windows 2000 by about a couple of years. Since then, I have substantially used every Windows OS version, except for Windows 10, because of their compatibility issues with drivers and programs and Windows 7, since I upgraded to Windows 8->Windows 8.1 right after Windows Vista, because I liked the new lightweight design overall.
I was tempted to transition to a Linux OS after Windows Vista, but their "limited" compatibility with the video/audio/image software I was using and some of my favorite video games, at that time, dissuaded me.
I never got myself into looking in-depth stuff about the Macintosh family of OSs, due to the hardware compatibility limitations (firstly I would need a Macintosh PC). Furthermore, the trouble I would have to go to properly run them by having to emulate a Macintosh setup on my custom made PCs. Even if it might be easier than I understood it is, there is no real benefit going through the "procedure", in my case.
I would like to thank you for your time, summarizing and organizing all that information, concerning the Macintosh OSs, in your post, since it's information I would most probably miss, due to not being of immediate interest to me.

You're welcome.

I started off on the Macintosh with System 7.1 in '94, bought a copy of Mac OS 8.1 in '98 (seems likely, looking at release dates) and used that for a year or so until I built an Athlon-based machine with the help of a friend in autumn of '99. I went back and forth with running only Windows 98 and dualbooting with Mandrake Linux for a while, and have been playing around with different operating systems since then, either dualbooting, or, later running virtualisation (VirtualPC, VMWare Workstation, and VirtualBox), until I switched my main machines fully to Linux a few years ago. From an OS that doesn't even have a terminal to one where the graphical environment is almost secondary, and I much prefer doing everyday tasks by text.

I do have a soft spot for the classic Mac OS, and have a Power Macintosh G4 (AGP Graphics) plugged in to this same screen (I don't think Classilla ). I also still have that first Mac of mine, a Performa 475, slightly upgraded from stock, somewhere around.

Although... I think we've gone a fair bit off topic, and I would not argue if someone says we need to stop pullng the thread off track.

Don't worry that was a comment not a debate. When something happened prior to you being around it's not something you can prevent knowledge of except by researching and say buying older retro gear. But newer things that happen or will happen after both our years are concerned yes we will never experience. ;)

Limited lifespan would prevent it. I'm sure one day several generations down your line they'll be on Mars playing GOG+ running Windows 21 thinking this was what great great great ... grandpa was playing then? The graphics are "fill in the blank".

Possibly some form of new computer with holo projection monitors or being inside a movie virtually would be something we'd miss out on. But who knows maybe James Cameron will bring it to the movie theater within our lifetime if Avatar 2-10 ever get released. But at least at that point you can say to someone born after you years later...

Those were the days.

Well unless the OP returns to give issue and there is still relevant XP related discussion I think it's permissible to stray off a little for retro nostalgic diversion's sake. ;)

You're probably the most Mac savy user in this thread given your Mac OS usage. Macs were mainly used in classroom settings for word processing or some kind of desktop publishing in the earlier days of attending university. Even used one for a MIDI course I took. Looks like had you been born about 1 decade sooner you might have been a DOS user, 2 decades sooner an Apple II user if you're starting to favor the command line interface more than a GUI.

Virtual PC was a very good product from Connectix until they got bought out by Microsoft and their company was just around the corner from the university I was attending then. They started out on the MACs but their PC versions were better than VMware or VirtualBox. Built in Sound Blaster emulation and an emulated standard VGA card from S3 Virge I think it was. They would probably have made Windows 98SE run inside MACs and XP just fine for full retro gaming had then held out just for 5-10 years longer before selling out. Now we got a bastardized inferior Virtual PC product that does less emulation than its predecessor (intentionally) because Microsoft wants you to upgrade not downgrade. It would have been fun running Windows 7 or 10 inside Server 2003 today since it could handle 1TB of memory.

I got a few G3, G4, a stack of Power PC Macs in the garage, and a dozen plus of the Classic Boxed Mac SE/30s boxed AIO computers that used floppy disks. Macs were an interesting breed of machines that never quite fit in. Too proprietorially controlled by Apple and expensive enough for a hacker to mess around much. Once they switched over to Intel CPUs this made running MAC OS X more of a reality on your regular computer builds. Almost acquired a NeXT computer for free but it was missing a keyboard so I didn't grab it thinking how would I use it then one day someone grabbed it out of the blue before I could change my mind. I wish I had taken it then as buying the keyboard would have been possible through eBay today for a small price. Probably the snazziest retro product from Steve Jobs worth admiring to put into a computer collection. I wonder if it could have run DOS, 98SE, or XP on it.

Wouldn't that be a sight seeing a Windows logo on the screen?

Now slowly creeping back to some XP discussion. Anyone else still using it here on GOG?

Well that is a sad state of affairs caused by DRM infestation. But staying on Windows 7 would be my suggestion as well for at least the more recent titles only going forward. Also the only reason to even consider Windows 10 is DX12 exclusive titles but most of these have DX11 support included. I think getting an XBOX1 console for DX12 would be a better way of avoiding the Windows 10 debacle of updates that BSOD you out of the blue or forced upon you while your computer is idling.

The rest of the software library can easily be taken care of just using XP and Windows 7 in a simple dual OS boot system. I'd add in DOS and 98SE on mine but most will should be fine with just those two for most of their legacy gaming needs.

With enough Windows 7 hanger-ons most companies will still continue to produce DX10/11 titles as well so nothing to be ashamed of holding onto it for a few more years. Worst case is MS does have a contingency plan for you till 2023. So if you got the dough you can ride it out longer.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-to-offer-paid-windows-7-extended-security-updates/

Galaxy isn't needed to play GOG games tho. Now if the downloader doesn't support XP, that's a different story.

This is not about new titles. When owning a console with physical games you can make a deliberate choice of postponing the next hardware generation and stick with what you have. Of course, you won't play new titles, but the old ones you already own printed on disc will still run forever. People still play NES cartridges in this day and age.

On PC - the digital paradise - this is not the case. At some point all those fancy "digital services" decide to pull the plug on your older platform (Windows version x, CPU generation y, whatever) and your perfectly working hardware compatible with adequate games essentially becomes a doorstop. Dual Boot doesn't help this.

Thankfully physical PC games are not affected by this, but some more modern digital-only PC games will end up completely unplayable black hole at some point.

Neither have to work on Windows XP for Retro PC Gaming. Such a PC is 100% offline, never connected to the network even. I have my 500+ Game installers on a portable USB 3.0 HDD and just install the games from there.

On a modern machine I don't mind using Galaxy at all, and find it more convenient actually.

And that's the appeal with GOG, while they focus on running old games on modern machines, catering for modern users, they don't shut out the old generation. They kindly provide executables and other files to make ScummVM bundled games work on real DOS PCs, and have a roll-back feature, to get the old DOSBox bundled version.