Also, what do you expect.
People aren't going to manufacture a mouse with a horizontal scrollwheel just because it looks better. :v:
[editline]2nd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41686402]:words::words::words::words::words::words:[/QUOTE]
It's really pointless arguing with him. He's going to think he's right no matter what.
XP is outdated and old. The only reason for using it is being piss poor.
Your desktop is literally a shittier version of the Metro interface. You can't scroll with the desktop, you can't resize icons with the desktop. You even have to close out of everything/minimize to get to the desktop.
As to the image you posted, if you don't know what you've just installed on your PC, you're a moron, and the image is horridly low resolution so nobody can read it.
Why should you switch to Windows 8? Oh, I dunno, better multi-monitor support. Better file copier. Better task manager. Faster boot-up times and better performance in applications like video rendering.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;41686402]In the case of this, they are the fucking [B]branding[/B] of an app, if you can't recognise the branding of an app you installed you should stop using computers. The branding is enough to tell you what the app is, whether it be the full name (in the case of Tube Rider (which is really easy to read if you aren't a sheltered blind man)), or the logo (in the case of whatever that 5 is). The font size is reasonable when you are actually using it at the native resolution, that image is scaled down, of course it's hard to read. You're nitpicking at this point.
If your desktop is your "quickly accesable menu", why the fuck do you even care about the Start Screen or even the Start Menu? Neither are your desktop, which as you said yourself is your menu.
For someone so "logical" and "productive", you sure are wasting a lot of time arguing invalid arguments on an internet forum aren't you? Metro as a design language is pretty great, the Start Screen as a menu is pretty nice, it's fairly logical, works well on both tablets and desktops/ laptops (laptops also have the benefit of touchpad gestures here). It shows more content than the Start Menu in a more readable and accessible way, it's more interesting, it's still in its infancy so it will change in certain ways, but it is in no way bad.
learn to computer[/QUOTE]
1. stop flaming. be respectful.
2. tube rider is easy to read, but not quick to read like a standardized font size and type would be. as in, desktop icons.
3. i don't care about the start screen. i think its awful. the start menu i only use for search and "run..." purposes.
4. don't call metro a "design language" and then tell me to learn to computer.
5. the branding of an app matters not in a desktop context, because it still has a name attached to it.
6. you still haven't mentioned anything worthwhile about win8 that isnt metro.
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41686386]That's a screenshot of the developer preview start screen.
Please tell me if you don't understand any of the icons here.
[img]http://puu.sh/3RZDS/5e9f337a91.jpg[/img]
Or how about here
[t]http://puu.sh/3RZEQ/6f3a4632d5.png[/t][/QUOTE]
actually, i quite like the second one. where is that screen?
the first one is also quite legible, but is not the case for all metro tiles, as seen in previous pictures.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;41686490]
Why should you switch to Windows 8? Oh, I dunno, better multi-monitor support. Better file copier. Better task manager. Faster boot-up times and better performance in applications like video rendering.[/QUOTE]
as i mentioned, i really like the file copier and task manager. and, could you link me to the "performance in video rendering" source?
thanks for mentioning the multi-monitor improvements, i was never informed of those. imo, still not enough to switch, but a very good reason.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41686622]as i mentioned, i really like the file copier and task manager. and, could you link me to the "performance in video rendering" source?
thanks for mentioning the multi-monitor improvements, i was never informed of those. imo, still not enough to switch, but a very good reason.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406668,00.asp[/url]
It's literally better in everything.
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41661103]buy a value tablet
[editline]31st July 2013[/editline]
i've tried it with arch and ubuntu and never really got anywhere with either; wine itself was utterly impenetrable to me (the documentation is fucking shite) so I used playonlinux which was about as useful as a marzipan dildo
also upgrading that 5750 won't do you much good, with IV it's all about the CPU and whether it likes it or not[/QUOTE]
Why would I buy a tablet when I can have tactile input and a more versatile interface for the same price. I have a Netbook so I can run a fuckton of Nancy Drew point and click games that run on toasters, and to browse the internet in bed. That's what Netbooks are for.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41686622]4. don't call metro a "design language" and then tell me to learn to computer.[/QUOTE]
Fucking. Please. Metro is the design language of the Start Screen and fullscreen apps.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28design_language%29[/url]
Learn to computer.
[editline]2nd August 2013[/editline]
Everything else that matters about Win8 has been brought up, I'm not repeating myself, or others, just because you don't like reading threads.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41686622]
actually, i quite like the second one. where is that screen?
the first one is also quite legible, but is not the case for all metro tiles, as seen in previous pictures.[/QUOTE]
On the main 'start screen', right click and click "all apps"
There's also this view.
[t]http://puu.sh/3S1N0/46f4bfa9f3.png[/t]
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;41686991]On the main 'start screen', right click and click "all apps"
[/QUOTE]
is there a way to have the "all apps" view on a screen, accessible from one click or key press, and be able to remove unwanted apps from this view?
bonus points for vertical scrolling, but i'm sure that will be added in a future version.
edit: i'll install the win8.1 OS since apparently it has improvements, and i'll see what i can tweak from there.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;41686490][B]Your desktop is literally a shittier version of the Metro interface. You can't scroll with the desktop, you can't resize icons with the desktop. You even have to close out of everything/minimize to get to the desktop.[/B]
As to the image you posted, if you don't know what you've just installed on your PC, you're a moron, and the image is horridly low resolution so nobody can read it.
Why should you switch to Windows 8? Oh, I dunno, better multi-monitor support. Better file copier. Better task manager. Faster boot-up times and better performance in applications like video rendering.[/QUOTE]
Holy balls, this. I literally have no understanding of why everyone cares about wallpapers so much, because 99 of the time you're seeing a program.
[QUOTE=okaywalrus;41686870]Why would I buy a tablet when I can have tactile input and a more versatile interface for the same price. I have a Netbook so I can run a fuckton of Nancy Drew point and click games that run on toasters, and to browse the internet in bed. That's what Netbooks are for.[/QUOTE]
yeah but tablets, for most people, are the perfect painless media consumption device
i mean you have somewhat esoteric needs but for most people a tablet is perfect
[QUOTE=Generic Monk;41688129]yeah but tablets, for most people, are the perfect painless media consumption device
i mean you have somewhat esoteric needs but for most people a tablet is perfect[/QUOTE]
Most parents who don't know much about a computer except how to use the internet to get on facebook would use a netbook instead of a tablet, because of tactile control. My Mom got a Samsung Galaxy S3, and she bitches out her ass so much about the touch keyboard you would not believe.
im stuck with xp, till micro$oft stop supports xp's
Most prebuilt win7 computers are like 600-800$ jesus thats really high, getting the OS itself is like $100 alone.
[QUOTE=lolo;41693900]Most prebuilt win7 computers are like 600-800$ jesus thats really high, getting the OS itself is like $100 alone.[/QUOTE]
Buy a computer without an OS then download the windows 7 iso, install that and use a loader.
As much as I fear being banned for advocating piracy, not being able to afford it isn't a good reason to use an insecure and incredibly outdated OS at all. There would be no lost sale since you simply can't afford to buy windows 7 anyway. Buy it later after you earn money in the time you've saved not dealing with XP issues.
[QUOTE=sambooo;41694285]Buy a computer without an OS then download the windows 7 iso, install that and use a loader.
As much as I fear being banned for advocating piracy, not being able to afford it isn't a good reason to use an insecure and incredibly outdated OS at all. There would be no lost sale since you simply can't afford to buy windows 7 anyway. Buy it later after you earn money in the time you've saved not dealing with XP issues.[/QUOTE]
You can get all of the windows 7 variations in isos free from digital river legally
[QUOTE=okaywalrus;41687262]Holy balls, this. I literally have no understanding of why everyone cares about wallpapers so much, because 99 of the time you're seeing a program.[/QUOTE]
Because it shows my style man.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41656421]this. vista has UAC(which is amazing, whether or not you hate it) and with the service pack its a great OS. win7 has some slight improvements over vista sp1 that make it worthwhile, and the only good reason not to get it is you cant afford it.[/QUOTE]
Windows Vista was a terrible, and is still a terrible OS. It's like that bastard illegitimate step child that nobody wants. Even with two service packs, it was still a pig that sucked disk space and RAM for no particular reason. A vanilla install consumed 20 GB, compared to 1 GB or less of XP, which is ridiculous. Installing all of the service packs and updates? Forget about it, it bloats up astronomically in size, sometimes up to 40 GB.
The only way I found to make it bearable and even somewhat workable on machines that used it was to disable parts of the OS and run vsp1cln/compcln after the service packs and every subsequent WU install to keep it from sucking up massive amounts of disk space. Another massive waste of disk space (that could literally consume your entire drive) was volume shadow copy (and it's still a massive problem that hasn't been fixed on W7 or W8.)
It basically writes to a hidden folder on the root drive (system volume information) for system restore points, which wouldn't be a problem other than the fact is it writes tens of thousands of small 1-4 kb files that absolutely destroy disk performance. You can forget about trying to defragment your hard drive if you have VSC enabled because it literally can take weeks or months due to the trash in system volume information. The only way to fix this is to shrink the VSC allowed size to something like 4 GB so it deletes all of the shadow copies and turn VSC off.
But getting Windows Vista to a semi-bearable state like this takes [I]many[/I] hours, more like an all night cookout. I last installed Vista a week ago for a client and from start to finish it took from 9 pm to 7 am to install all of the service packs and windows updates, plus apply all of the collective fixes to the OS to make it suck less. And mind you this system was plenty fast (C2D E8400, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB HD)
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41656421]but the article didn't mention any reasons other than "cant afford it", so i'll give a couple of good reasons:
XP: directX 5-6-7 support.
no virtualization. virtualization usually is good, but it causes a heap of problems in older games, including ones published by microsoft..
less bloated control panel.
runs on low-end systems(not to be confused with being faster, which XP is not).
I believe XP also had much easier folder sharing over a network, but i may be wrong about that.[/QUOTE]
1) Direct X is backwards compatible to pretty much the beginning on any Windows OS if you have the runtimes installed properly. The reason you can't run let's say a DX5 game on Windows 7 x64 is because many older games used the Win16 API, which isn't supported on 64 bit versions of Windows. It works on 32 bit versions because of Windows on Windows (SysWOW.)
2)It depends on the type of virtualization. Games can't run in virtualized environments mostly because of the lack of 3D support. Though there is at least one virtualization software that has experimental support for OpenGL and Direct X (Virtualbox) that works really well.
3) The control panel is about the same, especially if you have a bunch of drivers that have their own control panel applets.
4) Windows XP [I]is faster[/I] on older machines (Pentium 4s/Athlon XPs especially) because it requires far less RAM to run (you can get by comfortably on 512MB for just office work and web) and has a far less graphical demand. The GUI is light weight and doesn't put a large burden on the CPU and GPU just to interact with the desktop.
And about it being "swiss cheese" in regard to security, it is true that it has more known vulnerabilities, but a Windows Vista/7/8 machine is just as likely to suffer from malware and exploits (and regularly do) due to phishing or user stupidity. You aren't going to get people to stop downloading bonzi buddy or comet cursor and destroying their Windows installs.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]Windows Vista was a terrible, and is still a terrible OS.[/quote]
I disagree. at launch it did have driver problems, and MS could have worked more with manufacturers. but the software problems were due to poor code practices on 3rd party developers, so when UAC was implemented for the first time, they had to adjust. then, win7 comes out and all apps are ready for UAC and good to go. i've never used vista but i'm sure it now functions well as an OS.
[quote]
2)It depends on the type of virtualization. Games can't run in virtualized environments mostly because of the lack of 3D support. Though there is at least one virtualization software that has experimental support for OpenGL and Direct X (Virtualbox) that works really well.[/quote]
my experience with virtualization: install a mod for age of mythology. dislike mod, uninstall. mod still has effect on game. reinstall game. mod still exists. uninstall game and completely remove directory, install game again. mod still exists. examine computer for ghosts, none found. do a full system scan for a file that the mod came with, and find it in the "virtual store" directory, along with all of the game's files, even while game is not installed.
but apparently it does good things too?
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41694800]I disagree. at launch it did have driver problems, and MS could have worked more with manufacturers.[/QUOTE]
The reason it had driver problems is because Microsoft made the genius move to completely break existing drivers by launching a completely new driver system that wasn't backwards compatible with prior NT versions. Windows XP was able to use drivers in some cases all the way back to Windows NT4, and even some well written Windows 98 WDM drivers.
So at launch, Windows Vista had near zero drivers available. This isn't counting the defacto drivers Microsoft includes for bare bones functionality and missing nearly all features.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41694800]I i've never used vista but i'm sure it now functions well as an OS.[/QUOTE]
You wrote all of that without as so much even glancing at the OS? lol, such ignorance.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;41694800]my experience with virtualization: install a mod for age of mythology. dislike mod, uninstall. mod still has effect on game. reinstall game. mod still exists. uninstall game and completely remove directory, install game again. mod still exists. examine computer for ghosts, none found. do a full system scan for a file that the mod came with, and find it in the "virtual store" directory, along with all of the game's files, even while game is not installed.
but apparently it does good things too?[/QUOTE]
You must be using some paravirtualization that isn't virtualizing the entire OS, just some parts of it (like the API.) If it still does it in full virtualization (like Virtualbox) then it indicates a problem with the game (ie. poor coding.)
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]Windows Vista was a terrible, and is still a terrible OS. It's like that bastard illegitimate step child that nobody wants. Even with two service packs, it was still a pig that sucked disk space and RAM for no particular reason. A vanilla install consumed 20 GB, compared to 1 GB or less of XP, which is ridiculous. Installing all of the service packs and updates? Forget about it, it bloats up astronomically in size, sometimes up to 40 GB.
[/QUOTE]
While the install consumes ~20GB, Vista isn't all that bad as most modern computer hard drives are 250GB or more.
I've not noticed any issues with RAM/CPU consumption on my laptop (which is an Intel Atom with 2GB of RAM)
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
The only way I found to make it bearable and even somewhat workable on machines that used it was to disable parts of the OS and run vsp1cln/compcln after the service packs and every subsequent WU install to keep it from sucking up massive amounts of disk space. Another massive waste of disk space (that could literally consume your entire drive) was volume shadow copy (and it's still a massive problem that hasn't been fixed on W7 or W8.)
[/QUOTE]
Nope. You're just a part of the Vista hate bandwagon.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
It basically writes to a hidden folder on the root drive (system volume information) for system restore points, which wouldn't be a problem other than the fact is it writes tens of thousands of small 1-4 kb files that absolutely destroy disk performance. You can forget about trying to defragment your hard drive if you have VSC enabled because it literally can take weeks or months due to the trash in system volume information. The only way to fix this is to shrink the VSC allowed size to something like 4 GB so it deletes all of the shadow copies and turn VSC off.
[/QUOTE]
Not noticed any issues on my laptop with performance.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
But getting Windows Vista to a semi-bearable state like this takes [I]many[/I] hours, more like an all night cookout. I last installed Vista a week ago for a client and from start to finish it took from 9 pm to 7 am to install all of the service packs and windows updates, plus apply all of the collective fixes to the OS to make it suck less. And mind you this system was plenty fast (C2D E8400, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB HD)
[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn't. It took me just under an hour to install all the required drivers for my laptop, a laptop which has never even supported vista. You're over exaggerating. The updates don't take [I]that[/I] long to install unless you're on dial-up.
[editline]3rd August 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
1) Direct X is backwards compatible to pretty much the beginning on any Windows OS if you have the runtimes installed properly. The reason you can't run let's say a DX5 game on Windows 7 x64 is because many older games used the Win16 API, which isn't supported on 64 bit versions of Windows. It works on 32 bit versions because of Windows on Windows (SysWOW.)
[/QUOTE]
Even some old 32bit DX games don't run in windows 7 or 8 properly.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
2)It depends on the type of virtualization. Games can't run in virtualized environments mostly because of the lack of 3D support. Though there is at least one virtualization software that has experimental support for OpenGL and Direct X (Virtualbox) that works really well.
[/QUOTE]
I'd recommend VMware more.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
3) The control panel is about the same, especially if you have a bunch of drivers that have their own control panel applets.
[/QUOTE]
I actually prefer the W7/8 control panel to XP/Vista's
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
4) Windows XP [I]is faster[/I] on older machines (Pentium 4s/Athlon XPs especially) because it requires far less RAM to run (you can get by comfortably on 512MB for just office work and web) and has a far less graphical demand. The GUI is light weight and doesn't put a large burden on the CPU and GPU just to interact with the desktop.
[/QUOTE]
It's also faster on newer machines, such as my own.
[QUOTE=GiGaBiTe;41694613]
And about it being "swiss cheese" in regard to security, it is true that it has more known vulnerabilities, but a Windows Vista/7/8 machine is just as likely to suffer from malware and exploits (and regularly do) due to phishing or user stupidity. You aren't going to get people to stop downloading bonzi buddy or comet cursor and destroying their Windows installs.[/QUOTE]
What can I say :v:
[QUOTE=alx12345;41673929]Why so much hate for XP? Its still a great os[/QUOTE]
Because XP itself is a security hole now.
Win7 and Win8 are both viable, perfectly sane OSes at the moment, and anyone who wants to claim one of these two is "bad" for anything other than personal preference is an uninformed chump. But whichever you use, I won't get on your case about it.
Running Windows XP on a modern system, however, is like leaving your Ferrari unlocked with the top down and keys in the ignition in the middle of your favorite crime ridden hellhole.
[QUOTE=godinthehouse;41677788]tbh it's not [I]that[/I] bad.
Although, I saw a student install chrome on one of the Inclusion Unit PCs once. There must have been some admin workaround I dodn't know about :([/QUOTE]
More about Windows 7, but at my old school the Antivirus system just blocked Chrome (Sophos) as it was put in the 'banned' applications folder.
My school blocked tabs on IE9/8. I guess so people can't hide webpages and stuff. I found a workaround on the last day of school though, haha.
The C: drive was blocked by default. I found a way of accessing it though. You had to right click a desktop icon that linked to an application on the C drive, click 'properties' then open file location. Then just back down to the root C: folder.
Then I accessed the 'Windows PowerShell' from the C:/Windows/System32/ folder. CMD.exe was blocked with the group policy, but for some strange reason PowerShell automatically elevated itself to Admin privileges. Awesomeness.
Finally learnt that PowerShell can be used to edit the registry, so I just went to HKCU and deleted the Policies folder. After that tabs and stuff were enabled on IE9.
To disable the web filtering system they had in place all I had to do was open internet options which was now allowed and disable the proxy with ran through Sophos Endpoint Protection.
I actually got bored once and made a web browser using Webkit .NET and found that that didn't listen to the proxy settings, which unblocked everything too. That was cool.
[QUOTE=benbb;41707637]More about Windows 7, but at my old school the Antivirus system just blocked Chrome (Sophos) as it was put in the 'banned' applications folder.
My school blocked tabs on IE9/8. I guess so people can't hide webpages and stuff. I found a workaround on the last day of school though, haha.
The C: drive was blocked by default. I found a way of accessing it though. You had to right click a desktop icon that linked to an application on the C drive, click 'properties' then open file location. Then just back down to the root C: folder.
Then I accessed the 'Windows PowerShell' from the C:/Windows/System32/ folder. CMD.exe was blocked with the group policy, but for some strange reason PowerShell automatically elevated itself to Admin privileges. Awesomeness.
Finally learnt that PowerShell can be used to edit the registry, so I just went to HKCU and deleted the Policies folder. After that tabs and stuff were enabled on IE9.
To disable the web filtering system they had in place all I had to do was open internet options which was now allowed and disable the proxy with ran through Sophos Endpoint Protection.
I actually got bored once and made a web browser using Webkit .NET and found that that didn't listen to the proxy settings, which unblocked everything too. That was cool.[/QUOTE]
We have Sophos too.
Tabs are Blocked.
We cannot access properties.
And our network is shit.
Apart from that, that method is theoretically awesome!
[QUOTE=tirpider;41673024]All the little added features of all the MS OS's are actually a down side to me.
I want my OS to be an OS.
I don't want stupid active desktop or pretty themes or other non-OS overhead interfering with my other tasks.
I don't want the OS to have default applications for [I]anything[/I]. As an adult, I am quite capable of picking my own software.
Desktop gadgets... no. Just fucking no. I'd rather paint daffodils on my face and start smoking pot.
XP has a huge collection of what I call "fuckery" added to it and wish it would just go away. Over the years I have learned what little pieces I like and don't like. The end result is always a clean desktop resembling 2000. Simple, like me.
Just hearing about the complaints about Metro is enough for me to wait (yet) another generation before investing in an OS that I may or may not have to spend years trying to de-fuck before it becomes productive for me.
Hardware and process management. Throw the rest in the friggin garbage.. (and not the desktop recycle bin.. delete means delete... FUCK!)[/QUOTE]
This so much. The main reason i haven't "upgraded" from XP is because Micro$oft hasn't made an operating system that actually [B]works[/B] better, and also isn't a blatant "oh look it's shiny and glossy buy it" cash-grab while we're at it.
I probably would have stayed on XP, except I can play way more games with 7.
Using XP pretty well cuts you off from playing most modern games, and once I got used to them I prefer the security options that 7 has.
[QUOTE=lavacano;41699710]Because XP itself is a security hole now.[/QUOTE]
You're acting like Vista, 7 and 8 are immune from security issues. I've never had a security issue on XP because I know how to use my computer properly.
[QUOTE=benbb;41707637]More about Windows 7, but at my old school the Antivirus system just blocked Chrome (Sophos) as it was put in the 'banned' applications folder.
My school blocked tabs on IE9/8. I guess so people can't hide webpages and stuff. I found a workaround on the last day of school though, haha.
The C: drive was blocked by default. I found a way of accessing it though. You had to right click a desktop icon that linked to an application on the C drive, click 'properties' then open file location. Then just back down to the root C: folder.
Then I accessed the 'Windows PowerShell' from the C:/Windows/System32/ folder. CMD.exe was blocked with the group policy, but for some strange reason PowerShell automatically elevated itself to Admin privileges. Awesomeness.
Finally learnt that PowerShell can be used to edit the registry, so I just went to HKCU and deleted the Policies folder. After that tabs and stuff were enabled on IE9.
To disable the web filtering system they had in place all I had to do was open internet options which was now allowed and disable the proxy with ran through Sophos Endpoint Protection.
I actually got bored once and made a web browser using Webkit .NET and found that that didn't listen to the proxy settings, which unblocked everything too. That was cool.[/QUOTE]
You need to be careful doing these things at school. You can be suspended for tampering with school equipment and have your computer privileges revoked for the remainder of the year, plus having to pay for the "damage" done to the computer usually.
[QUOTE=Cureless;41707789]I probably would have stayed on XP, except I can play way more games with 7.
Using XP pretty well cuts you off from playing most modern games, and once I got used to them I prefer the security options that 7 has.[/QUOTE]
I have 50 games on Steam, 90% of which were released in the last 3 to 5 years and I can play every single one of them. XP doesn't cut you off from playing games, game developers cut you off from playing games.
[QUOTE=Quark:;41708805]You're acting like Vista, 7 and 8 are immune from security issues. I've never had a security issue on XP because I know how to use my computer properly.
[/QUOTE]
I'v not seen anyone say that 7 and 8 are immune, but it doesn't matter how properly you use your PC once the security patches stop coming. Unless you are disconnected from the Internet, you are going to catch something
can't use win xp anymore, i can't live without aero snap and all the nice usability improvements, like the cool taskbar and per-app volume changing
and i actually use the start menu in windows 8, rarely used it in win7 and before
[QUOTE]I have 50 games on Steam, 90% of which were released in the last 3 to 5 years and I can play every single one of them. XP doesn't cut you off from playing games, game developers cut you off from playing games.
[/QUOTE]
They don't cut you off from playing games. You're cutting yourself off by refusing to adapt to new technology.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.