Friday, June 28th 2013

Windows 8.1, and Why You Should Let Go of Windows 7

When Steve Jobs went upstage in early-April 2010 to unveil the iPad, it was expected to be the next logical step to Apple's successful miniaturization of the MacBook to the category-defining MacBook Air. It was expected to be an OS X-based handheld that ran on hardware not much different. When Jobs revealed the iPad to be an upscale of the iPhone idea, rather than a downscale of the MacBook idea, the industry was never the same again. The successful reception of the iOS on both the iPhone and iPad is what could have been the genesis of the Windows of today, which looks great on smartphones, tablets, and touch-enabled notebooks, but is hated on desktops, particularly by the PC enthusiast community. Much of that hatred is misdirected, and is a waste of time. Here's why.

While Microsoft Windows CE and Windows Phone powered PDAs for years before the smartphone revolution, Microsoft's most popular creation in the mobile space has been Windows Phone 7, and its successors. The brand new 'tile' interface, coupled with clear, finger-friendly, and forgiving UI elements finally gave Microsoft the UI design it was looking for. Rather than making a repeat of Apple's winning formula of upscaling Windows Phone 7 to a software for tablets (i.e. being content with Windows RT), Microsoft extended the UI to the entire Windows product family, including operating systems for the PC, and shockingly, even Windows Server. With the new Windows 8.1 Release Preview, it's clear that Microsoft isn't going back on the direction Windows 8 took, and so as PC enthusiasts, we're forced to ask ourselves if putting up a fight against it, by clinging on to Windows 7, is really worth it.

The Start Menu that never really left.
The guiding principle behind a tile-like UI on mainline PC operating systems isn't that people would drop their mice and stretch their arms out to the monitor (a touchscreen), and begin using their PCs that way. It was so the PC in itself could evolve. The biggest point of contention for PC enthusiasts refusing to upgrade to Windows 8 and its inevitable successor is the lack of a Start menu. Well, not sure if you noticed, but the Start menu never left. It's only not a menu anymore, it's a screen. When you click on the start button on older Windows desktops, whatever shows up as a result, has your undivided attention. You're either looking for a program to launch, a document you were just working on, or finding your way to the key areas of the operating system. Your business with the Start menu gets wrapped up in a few seconds. So why not stretch that Start "thing" to cover the entire screen, and make it more functional?

Submenus of the Windows XP Start menu stretched out to the entire height of the screen, and with enough items, you could practically fill the screen with an extremely collapsed Start menu. Ask yourself if a fullscreen Start screen is really that different, after all, when Microsoft shrunk the Start menu to a fixed-size one in Windows Vista, by dropping in a scroll-bar, it sparked outrage.

Finding programs, documents, or OS-related functions using the Start screen takes nearly the same time once you get the hang of it, and can actually be quicker. When people screamed from the rooftops asking for their familiar Start button back on the taskbar, Microsoft obliged. The upcoming Windows 8.1, which will be a free upgrade to current Windows 8 users, features a Start button, right where you expect it to be. Before you get excited, all it does is spawn up the Start screen. Windows 8.1 also features an option with which your computer starts up straight to the desktop, instead of the Start screen.

The Modern UI bloat that doesn't really exist.
Another point of contention for Start screen opponents is the modern UI apps that come included with the operating system constituting bloatware. Well, they don't. These are apps that tell you the weather, list out the headlines, track your stocks, and so on. The default set of apps that come with Windows 8 barely have a couple of dozen megabytes in memory footprint, which is made up for by an overall better memory management by Windows 8. Besides, enthusiast PCs begin at 4 GB of memory, 8 GB is considered mainstream for gaming PCs, and enthusiast builds are getting the whiff of 16 GB already. Plenty of room in there for an app that tells the weather.

The grass on the other side stays greener even after you get there.
With the Windows 8.1 Release Preview we got to play with, Microsoft made it clear that it's not going to make steps backwards. There's "a" Start button, not "the" Start button. What shows up after you click it is bigger and better than its predecessor's Start screen. There are new tile-size options, including "large" (double the area of a medium tile), and "tiny" (a quarter of the area of a regular tile). The new "tiny" tile size is perfect for organizing shortcuts to scores of programs or games, the tiles have just enough room for a clear icon.

Windows 8.1, like its predecessor, starts up quicker than Windows 7 does. The kernel of the operating system never really shuts down, but hibernates, and wakes up in a snap each time you power up the PC. The new Storage Spaces, which is similar to Linux LDM, lets you better organize data across multiple physical hard drives.

Windows 8.1 introduces a new display driver model, WDDM 1.3. This brings with it a few new display features, including the standardization of wireless display, 48 Hz dynamic refresh rates for video playback, V-sync interrupt optimization, video conferencing acceleration, a Direct3D API feature so major, that it warrants a version number change. Introduced with DirectX 11.2, a new API feature called "tiled surfaces."

Tiled Surfaces is analogous to the OpenGL mega-textures technology demonstrated by id Software on "Rage," which helped it create vast, detailed, and smoothly animating 3D scenes. Instead of streaming textures as the scene is being rendered, mega-textures allows developers to deploy larger textures that are fewer in number, and dynamically show portions of it. These textures needn't be loaded to the video memory entirely, can stay on the disk, and the API would access portions of it as they become relevant to the scene, as it's being viewed. In essence, mega-texturing is a sort of "virtual-memory" for GPUs, and could shift focus from larger video memory to faster memory, in the upcoming generations of GPUs.

In conclusion
Suck it up. Windows for PC isn't going to change, and was always prone to significant change. Windows 95 was Microsoft's response to PCs that were firmly capable of GUI, at a time when people at large were getting the hang of using a mouse. Windows 8 and 8.1 are just as landmark, whether we like it or not. Microsoft is catering to a large mass of people that are getting the hang of a touchscreen, and prefer a uniform experience between devices both on the desk, and on the move. Improvements such as new "tiny" tiles make the Start screen just as functional and quick to use as a menu, and Microsoft isn't stopping with its innovations that will get increasingly out of reach for Windows 7 users.
Add your own comment

339 Comments on Windows 8.1, and Why You Should Let Go of Windows 7

#1
rooivalk
My experiences with Windows 8 are surprisingly good. I have several old laptops in the office that run Visual Studio 2012 rather slow on Win7, but after migrating to Win8, these oldies run far smoother. Cheers! no need to buy new laptops.

My friend's Win8 is also feels faster and smoother than previous Win7.

I agree though that the start screen GUI, meanwhile not ugly, isn't necessary. But that's probably because I almost never touch start menu anymore, everything I need is on the desktop or I'm going straight to win explorer.

Also, I think what's really hamper Win8 is because Win7 is already quite good.
Posted on Reply
#2
Jorge
I have some ocean front property in Arizona for those who buy into the theory that Win 8 is good for PCs and that you should abandon Win 7. Lots of luck with that POV. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#3
Jadawin
I'm using Windows 8 as a heavy desktop user. I'm self-employed, working on the PC using mostly desktop programs and if Windows 8 would be worse than Windows 7 for that, I wouldn't use it. It's my money and my time that would be wasted.

What totally makes me want to do a giant facepalm are people complaining about the start screen or the start menu. We PC users have always installed tools to achieve certain things the OS didn't offer. This will never change because we all need different things. But if just installing something like Classic Shell is too much (if you really can't use a PC without a start menu, which is a shame in itself) then you are just complaining for the sake of complaing and not looking for a solution. There are even very nice tools like ModernMix (5 USD) to use Metro-Apps in a window on the desktop and pin them to the taskbar. Also, if you are happy with and stìll using Windows 7, what the hell are you complaining about Windows 8? :banghead:

I haven't tried Windows 8.1 btw, but once it's final, I will.
Posted on Reply
#4
PopcornMachine
by: Fluffmeister
Yeah come on guys, teach Microsoft a lesson by using one another Microsoft OS.

Fight the power!
Yeah, well, isn't that what happened with Vista?

Most people stuck with XP until 7 came along, which was what Vista should have been in the first place.

Thought MS learned their lesson, but it's deja vu all over again.

Not to worry though. Just more reason to move to Linux.
Posted on Reply
#6
puma99dk|
they may have put in awesome features, but i still don't like i need the fullscreen view to see all i got installed and customize like that...

i tried Windows 8.1 Preview yesterday and i think i will stick to the Windows 7 look a like start menu i like that the best ^^;
Posted on Reply
#7
Ikaruga
Win8 is fast and stable indeed (so it's not a new ME or Vista), and I'm usually all into progression and new things, but not like this and not this time....it's simply a setback if you know how to use a desktop PC.
Perhaps if MS would offer a desktop only version....... I would most likely upgrade again.
Posted on Reply
#8
PLSG08
If windows 8 booted straight to the desktop rather than the Metro UI then I'll be happy :D (also possible with some apps if i'm not mistaken)

Still thinking of going to Win8...
Posted on Reply
#9
kid41212003
You know I tried. Like I tried to like FFXIII ... but i just couldn't.

You just don't fix what is working... you add more features...

Search should be smart like Windows 7. Show the most frequently used programs, files, and setting... I don't want to do an extra click... and i like my wallpapers.

Titties look good, but it just doesn't work for non-touch PC. You know, gotta touch to experience Windows 8.
Posted on Reply
#10
Derek12
It's funny most people hate Win8 due to Metro/start menu or undisclosed reasons "it's retarded, it's dumb, it's a POS, it's awful, etc"...
...When you can easily install Start8, classic shell or whenever and... forget Metro, because it'll boot straight to desktop, and get a FULL start menu again and make a hybrid Win7/8.

Yes it was a mistake to remove start menu without a option to enable it, yes it was dumb, yes I don't know why MS didn't gave a adapting period altogether, but you can add it again easily and forget Metro if you hate it.

while keeping the obvious Windows 8 advantages: Fast boot, improved file copy, improved task manager, better overall performance, a cleaner GUI, mounting ISOs, improved File explorer, etc..

Gosh, every new Windows is bashed, same happened for XP, for example.
Posted on Reply
#11
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: newtekie1
Why shouldn't it take up the entire screen? Simple, I am capable of multi-tasking. I often have a video playing while I'm using my computer. When I open the start menu in Win7 my video is not completely obscured. When I open the start screen in Win8 my video is completely obscured. And no, the start menu does not have my entire attention, I'm looking back and forth between the start menu and the video that is playing.
So you spend more than 1~3 or maybe 5 seconds on the Start menu. You probably do need to stick to Windows 7.

by: DaC
Windows 8 interface...
...is the familiar-looking Windows Desktop on Windows 8.1, if you want it to be. It can boot straight to the Desktop.

by: hellrazor
So a disorganized, full-screen mess experience is just as fast (if not faster) than a structured menu?
Then organize it, the way you organized your Windows 7 start menu. Shortcuts to all executables from your "All Programs" menu are laid out in the start screen, which can be reduced to tiny tiles. Once you know what's where, or once you've moved it around, selecting what you want eventually becomes muscle-memory. In fact it takes fewer clicks.

For example, opening a lesser-used program, say WinZip from your Windows 7 Start menu would involve either the first click on the Start button, or "Win" key press, the second click on "All Programs," a scroll down, the third click on the "WinZip" programs folder, and then the executable (or four button presses, typing "Winz" in the search box). With a 1080p screen, you could have as many as a 192 48x48-sized tiles on the first Start screen. So it's just the first click or "Win" key press, and it's over to the app or document shortcut you're looking for. Programs and documents which you most frequently use, you already pin to your taskbar or have shortcuts on the desktop, anyway.

by: lilhasselhoffer
The community may be beta testing, but this means nothing about the final OS.
There's no reason to believe that Windows 8.1 RTM will have a Windows 7-styled Start menu. Like you, I didn't believe my eyes with non-public betas, and I'd hoped for one on Windows 8.1 Release Preview, but it never came. The outrage that followed Windows 8 launch about lack of a Start menu, wasn't enough for Microsoft to give you one on Windows 8.1 Release Preview. Coding one up would have taken Microsoft barely any time. The code is already there. A Release Preview is a major event in the launch cycle. It's publicly-available, and so the lack of a Start menu shows that it's decided there won't be one on the RTM.

by: D007
I just want an answer to "Are any games using that mega textures thing?"':laugh:
Like I mentioned in the editorial, "Rage." Rage was an OpenGL application. With Direct3D implementing that feature, it could have a profound impact on the GPU industry. Speed, rather than size of the video memory, could take precedence.
Posted on Reply
#12
buggalugs
I'm surprised Microsoft were not prepared for this backlash. I like change and I normally upgrade when new stuff comes out but theres a lot of things I don't like about win8.

I used to laugh about people hating design changes in Vista which were very minimal. Then windows7 came out that is almost exactly the same as vista and everyone loved it. I think Microsoft thought they could do the same thing here. Bring out a REALLY different OS, then change a few things and everyone will love it, but I don't think that will work this time because its too different.

I don't know why Microsoft cant give you the option to choose "traditional" or "modern/touch" and let people choose which one they want. So if you're installing on a gaming or workstation PC you can choose "traditional" if installing on a notebook/mobile or HTPC device you could choose "modern". Best of both worlds. They have kind of done it with win8 but traditional desktop lost its usual functionality.

I guess in reality, Microsoft will win in the end because we wont have a choice. Over time, They will release features and functions that will only work in win 8 like a new DX and eventually win7 will be a dinosaur....but that could take 5 years at this rate.

I really wanted to like win8, because I like progression but it feels dumbed down for simpletons and designed to force shit on you that you don't want.
Posted on Reply
#13
AsRock
TPU addict
by: Derek12
It's funny most people hate Win8 due to Metro/start menu or undisclosed reasons...

When you can easily install Start8, classic shell or whenever and... forget Metro, because it'll boot straight to desktop, and get a FULL start menu again and make a hybrid Win7/8.

Yes it was a mistake to remove start menu without a option to enable it, yes it was dumb, yes I don't know why MS didn't gave a adapting period altogether, but you can add it again easily and forget Metro if you hate it.

while keeping the obvious Windows 8 advantages: Fast boot, improved file copy, improved task manager, better overall performance, a cleaner GUI, mounting ISOs, improved File explorer, etc..

Gosh, every new Windows is bashed, same happened for XP, for example.
Not funny really, ask your self this question is a PC a PC when you can use it without a keyboard and mouse or does it become a tablet ?.. Don't know how true it is but when a system is sold with windows 8 and a touch screen i believe it becomes a tablet sale not a PC sale.

XP people loved and a lot still today and to a hell load of people Win 7 is the next XP and MS are just crazy just to try kill it off so soon.

It's a real shame that MS has so much cash as it would not force people in to such crap. Sure i guess you cannot say force at this time but wait a few years although a savoir might be on the way which a hell load of people have been waiting so long to happen..
Posted on Reply
#14
johnspack
Disk space free in the explorer taskbar.... why is that so hard?
Edit: it's the one of my biggest bugs, and why I won't use it.
May seem like a small inconvenience, but I load things like Classic
Shell and several other mods just to make Win 8 usable...
I'm a power user, not a touch tablist..... arg
Posted on Reply
#15
Derek12
by: AsRock
Not funny really, ask your self this question is a PC a PC when you can use it without a keyboard and mouse or does it become a tablet ?.. Don't know how true it is but when a system is sold with windows 8 and a touch screen i believe it becomes a tablet sale not a PC sale.

XP people loved and a lot still today and to a hell load of people Win 7 is the next XP and MS are just crazy just to try kill it off so soon.

It's a real shame that MS has so much cash as it would not force people in to such crap. Sure i guess you cannot say force at this time but wait a few years although a savoir might be on the way which a hell load of people have been waiting so long to happen..
Read the second and third paragraphs of the quoted post as the bolded statement is incomplete.

I don't like metro, that's why I've installed start8 :rockout:

Also XP was hated when it was launched (ugly, slow, unstable, etc...) in the same fashion Vista was.
Posted on Reply
#16
DayKnight
I use Vista x64 and see ZERO reason to move to anything new.

All I need, works fine on it. All games work fine on it. No crashes, no slow downs, nothing that would take away my piece of mind.

Until unless a game that I like is released exclusively for Win 7 or above, I dont see any need to move to a newer Windows OS.

I've been using Vista for years!. First 32 bit and for past year/when I got the SSD, 64 bit.
Posted on Reply
#17
Ikaruga
by: Derek12
It's funny most people hate Win8 due to Metro/start menu or undisclosed reasons "it's retarded, it's dumb, it's a POS, it's awful, etc"...

When you can easily install Start8, classic shell or whenever and... forget Metro, because it'll boot straight to desktop, and get a FULL start menu again and make a hybrid Win7/8.

Yes it was a mistake to remove start menu without a option to enable it, yes it was dumb, yes I don't know why MS didn't gave a adapting period altogether, but you can add it again easily and forget Metro if you hate it.

while keeping the obvious Windows 8 advantages: Fast boot, improved file copy, improved task manager, better overall performance, a cleaner GUI, mounting ISOs, improved File explorer, etc..

Gosh, every new Windows is bashed, same happened for XP, for example.
I'm glad you find those PC enthusast funny who did not stay with Win8, but perhaps they had a valid reason?

- The whole start menu hack and boot to desktop thing starts to fall apart as soon as you do things like locking your computer for example... then you forced to mess around with the registry and other stuffz to make things simple like how it was in win7.
- I used scriptable ortodox file managers since forever which were 72.6 lightyears ahead of win7 and now they are only 69.4 lightyears ahead of win8..... big change indeed.
- I'm a PC enthusiast and not tablet user (while I truly love android and my tablet, it's linux based and it's a very good companion when you are on the move), I don't want Microsoft to force it's twisted vision on me with their closed down "world" (hell it's not even possible to simply develop a single app to that crap new interface, you need to be in a secret holy group of developpers to do such things). Not to mention how carpy most of the apps are in that MS strore.
- I almost never shut down my computer, it just sleeps most of the times, or I hibernate it perhaps, both happens pretty quick with the modern high end SSDs we are using nowadays.
- The search is just f****ked up in win8, it's simply annoying that I can't just type the name of the (lesser used) program I want to start.
- I use this instead of task manager: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653



I could go on for pages(!)... We are not against progression or new things, and we are definitely not hating on anything..Win8 could be a pretty good choice if MS would treat us as desktop PC users and not somebody esle.
We are simply not into giving up our freedom of choice and also the "old ways" how we like to do things for more complicated approaches.
Posted on Reply
#18
AsRock
TPU addict
by: Derek12
Read the second and third paragraphs of the quoted post as the bolded statement is incomplete.

I don't like metro, that's why I've installed start8 :rockout:

Also XP was hated when it was launched (ugly, slow, unstable, etc...) in the same fashion Vista was.
but by buying it all you have told MS is it's alright.

I must been one of the few who hated it i guess then as i found it more usable and stable than W98 although the OS did piss me off in the early stages with my Creative card.
Posted on Reply
#19
Derek12
I'm glad you find those PC enthusast funny who did not stay with Win8, but perhaps they had a valid reason?
*yawn*
AGAIN, AGAIN I see their point read my previous posts :slap: I say that that thing can be solved easily, and it's a FACT.

- The whole start menu hack and boot to desktop thing starts to fall apart as soon as you do things like locking your computer for examlpe... then you forced to mess around with the registry and other stuffz to make things simple like how it was in win7.

No issues while locking computer, nothing falling apart, no registry messing at all, install start8 or classic shell or whatever (next, next, finish, reboot) and running

- I used scriptable ortodox file managers since forever which were 72.6 lightyears ahead of win7 and now they are only 69.4 lightyears ahead of win8..... big change indeed.

I don't know what file manager did you but Win7/8 is fine for me

- I'm a PC enthusiast and not tablet user (while I truly love android and my tablet, it's linux based and it's a very good companion when you are on the move), I don't want Microsoft to force it's twisted vision on me with their closed down "world" (hell it's not even possible to simply develop a single app to that crap new interface, you need to be in a secret holy group of developpers to do such things). Not to mention how carpy most of the apps are in that MS strore.

I love Android too.
As I said in my prevois post the MS move was dumb, but you can overcome it with start8.

- I almost never shut down my computer, it just sleeps most of the times, or I hibernate it perhaps, both happens pretty quick with the modern high end SSDs we are using nowadays.

Many people do shut down their computers not everyone has SSDs and it's quickier that hibernate IME
- The search is just f****ked up in win8, it's simply annoying that I can'T just type the name of the (lesser used) program I want to start.

Start8/classic shell solve that, don't use the side panel search, because yes, it's a mess

- I use this instead of task manager: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals

OK but I think Win8 task manager is prettier and useful
[/B]
/bb896653


I could go on for pages(!)... We are not against progression or new things, and we are definitely not hating on anything..Win8 could be a pretty good choice if MS would treat us as desktop PC users and not somebody esle.
We are simply not into giving up our freedom of choice and also the "old ways" how we like to do things for more complicated approaches.

You have the freedom to install Start8 or any shell and get rid of metro and those tablet-like stuff
Posted on Reply
#20
Derek12
by: AsRock
but by buying it all you have told MS is it's alright.

I must been one of the few who hated it i guess then as i found it more usable and stable than W98 although the OS did piss me off in the early stages with my Creative card.
Metro is not right, removing start menu is not right, defaulting metro instead of regular desktop on non touchscreen pcs is not right, but Win8 has amazing features, 2 sec fast boot with my laptop hard drive, revamped task manager, wonderful file copying windows, cleaner interface, etc and I like those.
By using Start8 I am telling MS that metro is not right for a regular compute (aka not touchscreen one)

windows 8 is more than Metro (even when metro is the main feature, which makes the other features be overlooked)
Posted on Reply
#21
jmcslob
I like 8.1 and I did not like 8...It seems to me Win 8.1 is a slightly faster Win 7 with WMC fully integrated...it took me all of 5 minutes to make the adjustment from 7 to 8.1.
Methinks people are stuck on "Fearing Change" and they need to get over it...
Microsoft is letting people do a Win 8.1 prevue for no other reason other than to give you a no cost option to take a look at it..

8.1 is completely stable as is...
Posted on Reply
#22
Ikaruga
by: Derek12
No issues while locking computer, nothing falling apart, no registry messing at all, install start8 or classic shell or whatever (next, next, finish, reboot) and running..............
Start8/classic shell solve that, don't use the side panel search, because yes, it's a mess......
You have the freedom to install Start8 or any shell and get rid of metro and those tablet-like stuff
Well, it was a long time ago (no clue if it's improved since), but I did have problems with classic shell, since the app switcher popped up every time when I moved my cursor near the corner, and I had to disable the whole thing in the registry. I do remember that I had many other annoying setbacks which only made things more complicated than how it was in Win7.
Well perhaps I'm just too old, and it was too much for me:toast:
Posted on Reply
#23
erocker
by: jmcslob
Methinks people are stuck on "Fearing Change" and they need to get over it..
Why would some "common end-user" sitting on their HP that they bought from some retailer, who is satisfied with their current O/S want to even bother to change?
Posted on Reply
#24
BbigTree
by: hellrazor
Call me crazy, but I'm a firm believer that simply starting a program (not even to the point of running it) should not require an entire screen.

...
by: xtremesv
...
You say people get a more "functional" Start Menu, what is functional about a screen where you get the most from apps optimized for smartphones and tablets, what is functional if you are restricted to a downgraded multitasking experience where you can only use 2/3 + 1/3 split screens. What is functional about a dull unicolor full-screened menu where you have to switch constantly between that and your desktop to get simple things done like tuning your music in a full-blown desktop player. What is functional about a Start Menu thats feels intrusive and practically makes Windows a non-windowed OS.The new Start Menu is a good idea for touch-enabled displays but for traditional PCs is odd.
by: Bull Dog
...
My main monitor is a Dell U2711 (27in, 2560x1440) and for me, the Modern UI Start Screen is a complete farce. There is nothing it does, that the Windows 7 style Start Menu doesn't do better. While the Start Screen's search function has been kinda fixed in 8.1, it still doesn't address the insane amount of extra mousing required versus the Start Menu.

This brings me to another point about the absurdity of using the Modern UI Start Screen and Apps on a Desktop PC. Because it is full screen, everything requires ridiculous amounts of mouse movement to reach various UI elements. As an example, shutting down the computer with a mouse in stock Windows 8, requires around 100% more mouse movement and an extra click compared to using the Start Menu.
...
This is so true!
Multitasking took a huge step back. The "modern" UI is pain to see and pain to use.
Sure you can install Start8 or something similar, to bring back the functionally partially, but why should i buy or use such a product?
To show M$ that they are on the wrong track (for me) and Win8 offers nothing but a step back, i'm not going to buy it!!

For me, M$ knows, that Win8 / 8.1 is a fail, so they pull thier last straw, call on thier monopoly and add (out of the blue XD) DirectX 11.2! That is the only way, an sane PC gamer would buy Win8.

Win8/8.1 no thanks!
Posted on Reply
#25
RejZoR
by: jmcslob

Methinks people are stuck on "Fearing Change" and they need to get over it...
People are afraid of idiotic changes, not changes in general...
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment