Classic Shell Skin to Get Windows 7 Lookalike Start Menu & Button


Recommended Posts

But don't forget Windows Vista. Classic Shell also works on Windows Vista.

As you know there is the Classic Windows 98 start menu on Windows Vista but the Microsoft one has limited functions. As you can see in my picture. But the Classic Shell Classic Start menu is much more customisable than Microsoft's one.

In the Classic Shell Classic start menu you can enable the search bar and change the folder names. And also you have the Windows XP start menu,which looks nice on Windows Vista. And also a classic version of the Windows Vista and Windows 7 start menu,with the expanding programs menu.

And Classic Shell also has Classic Explorer which puts classic toolbar buttons in Windows Explorer. Classic Shell also has Classic IE9 which I never installed and I have never upgraded to IE9 on Windows Vista or Windows 7. I have got IE8 and I have uninstalled IE10 from Windows 8.

Pictures,Microsoft Classic start menu on Windows Vista. As you can see it is not very customisable and has limited functions. Other pictures,Classic Shell Classic start menu and Windows XP start menu on Windows Vista.Andrea Borman.

post-417173-0-05727800-1341173631_thumb.

post-417173-0-02782100-1341173777_thumb.

post-417173-0-59115600-1341173795_thumb.

And Classic Shell also has Classic Explorer which puts classic toolbar buttons in Windows Explorer. Classic Shell also has Classic IE9 which I never install and I have never upgraded to IE9 on Windows Vista or Windows 7. I have got IE8 and I have uninstalled IE10 from Windows 8.

No. You don't. You don't just simply install IE8 to Windows 8 without breaking things. And for the love of God, get off IE8!

No 'we' won't. You might.

Whether you like it or not, computing is moving past the point and click OS. The future is all about interactive and dynamic input.

No. You don't. You don't just simply install IE8 to Windows 8 without breaking things. And for the love of God, get off IE8!

Whether you like it or not, computing is moving past the point and click OS. The future is all about interactive and dynamic input.

No,I don't have IE9 on my Windows 7 or on Windows Vista. I have IE8 on both my Windows 7 and Windows Vista.

IE9 is horrible. It is slow,I don't like the toolbar and has a confusing download manager. So I will never install IE9. And I certainly won't install IE10 if they make it for Windows Vista and Windows 7.

On Windows 8 they have IE10 which is exactly like IE9 which I have uninstalled by deleting the program file on C drive.

But I have IE engine based browsers on Windows 8 like I do on my other versions of Windows.I have Advanced browser and Ace Explorer which are Internet Explorer shells. And when I go on the browser sniffer sites on Advanced browser on Windows 8,it says I am running IE8.

Which suggests that IE8 or the source code of IE8 is still on Windows 8,like it is on Windows 7. But you just cannot install IE8 on Windows 8. As Windows won't let you download it.

On Windows XP I had IE6 but I had to upgrade when IE6 stopped working and Advanced browser and my other IE based web browser would not work either. As they ran off of some of the html code of IE6. This often happens on IE6 when you visit some websites and often they crash IE6. Which does not happen on IE8. So I upgraded to IE8 . And I now have IE8 on my Windows XP.

Windows Vista comes with IE7 as my Windows Vista did but forget IE7 that is worse than IE6. Andrea Borman.

You get more desktop icons in every screenshot, I give it another 10 posts before your desktop is gone. Also what's with the Rainbow Vomit colour scheme? Are you partially colour-blind?

But I have IE engine based browsers on Windows 8 like I do on my other versions of Windows.I have Advanced browser and Ace Explorer which are Internet Explorer shells. And when I go on the browser sniffer sites on Advanced browser on Windows 8,it says I am running IE8.

Which suggests that IE8 or the source code of IE8 is still on Windows 8,like it is on Windows 7. But you just cannot install IE8 on Windows 8. As Windows won't let you download it.

No, on Windows 8 it is the IE10 rendering engine you are using. However, it's in IE8 compatibility mode. The developer of Advanced Browser and Ace Explorer have to set a key in the registry for it to take it out of compatibility mode. I think it's IE7 compatibility mode by default, at least on Windows 7.

No offense but that is the most cluttered desktop and ugly menu and window colors I have seen in years. What is the point of making the beautiful Aero look like Windows classic?

Makay wrote-

You get more desktop icons in every screenshot, I give it another 10 posts before your desktop is gone. Also what's with the Rainbow Vomit colour scheme? Are you partially colour-blind?

What do you mean my desktop will be gone?

Well You can always set your desktop icons to small size. On Windows Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8,there is large icons,medium which most people use and small. On Windows XP there is just Medium icons and small icons. And medium icons is the default setting.

No, on Windows 8 it is the IE10 rendering engine you are using. However, it's in IE8 compatibility mode. The developer of Advanced Browser and Ace Explorer have to set a key in the registry for it to take it out of compatibility mode. I think it's IE7 compatibility mode by default, at least on Windows 7.

Well actually when I go onto some browser sniffer sites in Advanced browser,Ace Explorer and other IE based web browsers,some say I am running IE7 on Windows 8. And also You Tube tells me that.

But when I look on the registry in Windows 8 it says the version of Internet Explorer is IE9 not IE10.And it also says IE8. So that means that IE10 and IE9 are the same version. That is IE10 is IE9.

So IE8 is still in Windows 8. Because if you have IE9 installed on Windows Vista and Windows 7 and open Advanced browser. The browser sniffer sites say IE9.

Andrea Borman.

Andrea ... if you have an AMD or Nvidia graphics card/chip on your computer, instead of trying make the Basic theme look

like a hash-up of the old Windows Classic theme from XP, you should re-enable the full Aero UI. It'll take full advantage of

the graphics card/chip, and takes a fair amount of strain off the main processor ... especially on a netbook!

On Windows 8 they have IE10 which is exactly like IE9 which I have uninstalled by deleting the program file on C drive.

But when I look on the registry in Windows 8 it says the version of Internet Explorer is IE9 not IE10.And it also says IE8. So that means that IE10 and IE9 are the same version. That is IE10 is IE9.

:cry:

But don't forget Windows Vista. Classic Shell also works on Windows Vista.

As you know there is the Classic Windows 98 start menu on Windows Vista but the Microsoft one has limited functions. As you can see in my picture. But the Classic Shell Classic Start menu is much more customisable than Microsoft's one.

In the Classic Shell Classic start menu you can enable the search bar and change the folder names. And also you have the Windows XP start menu,which looks nice on Windows Vista. And also a classic version of the Windows Vista and Windows 7 start menu,with the expanding programs menu.

And Classic Shell also has Classic Explorer which puts classic toolbar buttons in Windows Explorer. Classic Shell also has Classic IE9 which I never installed and I have never upgraded to IE9 on Windows Vista or Windows 7. I have got IE8 and I have uninstalled IE10 from Windows 8.

Pictures,Microsoft Classic start menu on Windows Vista. As you can see it is not very customisable and has limited functions. Other pictures,Classic Shell Classic start menu and Windows XP start menu on Windows Vista.Andrea Borman.

post-417173-0-05727800-1341173631_thumb.

post-417173-0-02782100-1341173777_thumb.

post-417173-0-59115600-1341173795_thumb.

Why are you posting this crap in a thread about a Windows 7 Classic Shell skin? This is not a "I can make my desktop look like Windows XP" thread. Maybe you should take this to the Classic Shell thread?

  • Like 3

XP Client,oh yes. I have seen you before. I read your website and we have met on the Classic Shell forums where I am a member. And you are also a member of the Classic Shell forums under the same name XP Client.

I am worried that Classic Shell may not work in the final version of Windows 8 that will go out on sale to the public.The metro start menu does not meet our needs at all.

I hope they can still make Classic Shell work in the final version of Windows 8. Because I don't want to use the metro start menu.

And they say that there won't be Aero in the final version of Windows 8. But that does not matter to me as I never use the Aero theme.

By the way on Windows Vista Home Basic which is the version of Windows Vista I have,there is no Aero,just Windows Vista Basic.

Which is part Aero like Windows 7 Basic but I don't use that either.I use Windows Classic theme.Andrea Borman.

Andrea, can I just ask why you're even bothering using Windows 8, when (at least as far as I see) you're not utilizing one new feature. You've gotten rid of the start screen, and instead replaced it with a start menu. That I would be OK with, if your desktop just wasn't such a mess of XP (Luna msstyle) and Classic/Windows 98 UI elements. That, and the fact that your desktop is just an unbearable sight to me, seeing as almost 2/3rd's of it are taken up by application shortcuts. Here's a little hint-the search field in the Start menu is more efficient than that.

As for the Vista/7 screenshots, the same arguments as above apply, but I've also got to comment on the horrendous choice of window colors. That over-saturated purplish color just can't be pleasing to read on.

You also say that Windows 8 is slower than 7, which is slower than XP. So, why aren't you using XP in that case?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for UI customization, but I just don't see the benefit in installing a new iteration of an OS and then removing all of its' new features and/or replacing them with older ones.

  • Like 3

Andrea Borman Andrea Borman Andrea Borman, your desktop pics makes me want to slam my head really hard in a old CRT. You're the reason I hate the word customization. Please never press printscreen. Ever.

  • Like 2

Andrea, can I just ask why you're even bothering using Windows 8, when (at least as far as I see) you're not utilizing one new feature. You've gotten rid of the start screen, and instead replaced it with a start menu. That I would be OK with, if your desktop just wasn't such a mess of XP (Luna msstyle) and Classic/Windows 98 UI elements. That, and the fact that your desktop is just an unbearable sight to me, seeing as almost 2/3rd's of it are taken up by application shortcuts. Here's a little hint-the search field in the Start menu is more efficient than that.

As for the Vista/7 screenshots, the same arguments as above apply, but I've also got to comment on the horrendous choice of window colors. That over-saturated purplish color just can't be pleasing to read on.

You also say that Windows 8 is slower than 7, which is slower than XP. So, why aren't you using XP in that case?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for UI customization, but I just don't see the benefit in installing a new iteration of an OS and then removing all of its' new features and/or replacing them with older ones.

No the Metro theme and the start screen are still there on Windows 8. Because you can't disable the Metro theme like you could in Windows 8 Developers Preview.

But now with the new version of Classic Shell it boots straight to the desktop. Well you only see the start screen for 1 second before being taken to the desktop.

Where as before,in the old version of Classic Shell you booted into the start screen and did not get to the desktop unless you clicked the desktop tile.

Although in Start Menu 7 you could get to the desktop by clicking the Windows key,which took you to the desktop and brought up the Windows 7 start menu.

But if you have the Windows XP or Windows 7 start menu on Windows 8,which I have. You don't really need to have so many icons on the desktop. And I could make the icons smaller,by using the small icons setting instead of Medium icons.

But if you have got only the Metro start menu and have not installed Classic Shell or other start menu software,then you probably need to have more icons on the desktop. To access things quickly,although you can still pin items to the taskbar in Windows 8. But you notice I have not done that.

Well the quick launch in Windows XP and Windows Vista is useless. As it pins all of the desktop icons to the taskbar. It is not like Windows 7 and Windows 8 pin to the taskbar function,where you can choose what items you want pinned to the taskbar.

Oh,and there is another quick launch toolbar on the right hand side of the taskbar in Windows XP,Windows Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8. That displays all of your items pinned to the desktop. Andrea Borman.

Here is the Quick Launch toolbar in Windows 8 and also the search bar in the taskbar. Where you can search for your files.

The taskbar search bar in Windows 8 and Windows 7 is the same the taskbar search bar in Windows XP. That also searches for files and folders.

Windows Vista also has the taskbar search bar. Andrea Borman.

post-417173-0-59914500-1341182542_thumb.

No the Metro theme and the start screen are still there on Windows 8. Because you can't disable the Metro theme like you could in Windows 8 Developers Preview.

They might be there, but since you're not utilizing them in any way, it's basically the same as having them removed from the OS.

But if you have got only the Metro start menu and have not installed Classic Shell or other start menu software,then you probably need to have more icons on the desktop. To access things quickly,although you can still pin items to the taskbar in Windows 8. But you notice I have not done that.

Nope. I would pin my most often used applications to the taskbar, as I have in Windows 7, but for the rest of my apps, I can still get to them via the same method that I use in Windows 7: Hit the Windows key on the keyboard, and start typing the name of the application. Hit Enter and it's there.

Well the quick launch in Windows XP and Windows Vista is useless. As it pins all of the desktop icons to the taskbar. It is not like Windows 7 and Windows 8 pin to the taskbar function,where you can choose what items you want pinned to the taskbar.

There is so much wrong with this quote. The quick launch does not serve as an area to store your desktop shortcuts. That's what the Desktop toolbar that you can put on the taskbar does.

In Vista and earlier OS's , while installing an application, it would ask if you wanted to make a Quick Launch shortcut. You can also open up the folder and add other files in there. I don't see how it's useless, but I still prefer Windows 7's Superbar to it.

Here is the Quick Launch toolbar in Windows 8 and also the search bar in the taskbar. Where you can search for your files.

The taskbar search bar in Windows 8 and Windows 7 is the same the taskbar search bar in Windows XP. That also searches for files and folders on Windows XP.

Windows Vista also has the taskbar search bar. Andrea Borman.

~Screenshot~

As I said, what you're showing is the Dekstop toolbar. Hence the name "Desktop". If you have ever used Windows 98-Vista, you'd know that the quick launch toolbar is not a link to your desktop folder.

They might be there, but since you're not utilizing them in any way, it's basically the same as having them removed from the OS.

Nope. I would pin my most often used applications to the taskbar, as I have in Windows 7, but for the rest of my apps, I can still get to them via the same method that I use in Windows 7: Hit the Windows key on the keyboard, and start typing the name of the application. Hit Enter and it's there.

There is so much wrong with this quote. The quick launch does not serve as an area to store your desktop shortcuts. That's what the Desktop toolbar that you can put on the taskbar does.

In Vista and earlier OS's , while installing an application, it would ask if you wanted to make a Quick Launch shortcut. You can also open up the folder and add other files in there. I don't see how it's useless, but I still prefer Windows 7's Superbar to it.

As I said, what you're showing is the Dekstop toolbar. Hence the name "Desktop". If you have ever used Windows 98-Vista, you'd know that the quick launch toolbar is not a link to your desktop folder.

Well the truth is,I never figured out how to master the quick launch in Windows XP and Windows Vista.So I don't use it.

And I don't use the Windows search in the taskbar either. As that is not very good.

On Windows XP I use search Companion,you know the one with the animated dog. And on Windows Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8,I use Agent Ransack. Which does the same search as search Companion. But no animated dog,or the other animated characters. Andrea Borman.

Well the truth is,I never figured out how to master the quick launch in Windows XP and Windows Vista.So I don't use it.

Master the quick launch bar? Are you kidding?

And are you not using the W8 Start Menu because you don't like it or because you can't make it as ugly as your desktop?

If by "not that good" you mean that it doesn't search everything, it's like that for a reason. When I'm searching for an application, I don't need the system to look through all my files, just my start menu shortcuts. If I need a full system search, I can always open up an explorer window and use the search field that's in there.

As for the quick launch bar-what's there to master about it? It's a straightforward concept. I didn't use it all that much, and yet I know what its' functionality was.

I didn't say "Don't modify it" I said don't use it. The people here aren't using the Start Screen are they? They found an alternative.

Sorry, I thought you were saying... If you don't like the start screen, don't use windows 8.

This thread has turned into pure gold. If it wasn't for the videos, I'd have laid money on the fact that we were being trolled. :rofl:

  • Like 2

Well I don't like the Metro theme. And I would rather disable it like I did on Windows 8 Developers Preview. But you can't do that in Windows 8 CP or on Windows 8 RP.

And what about search Companion from Windows XP? Like these pictures taken from my Windows XP. Why did they remove it from Windows Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8? I like search Companion and although Agent Ransack does the same thing. I have not been able to find any software that can bring back the animated characters on Windows 7 that you have on Windows XP.You know the animated dog,Merlin the magician, Courtney and the others. Andrea Borman.

post-417173-0-48423100-1341184951_thumb.

post-417173-0-42923800-1341184974_thumb.

Why did they remove it from Windows Vista,Windows 7 and Windows 8. I like search Companion and although Agent Ransack does the same thing. I have not been able to find any software that can bring back the animated characters on Windows 7 that you have on Windows XP.You know the animated dog,Merlin the magician, Courtney and the others. Andrea Borman.

Do we even need to answer this?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!