Recommended Posts

Wasn't Vista close enough to one? I mean I know it wasn't entirely, but you still had a new audio engine, new network engine, new security features, new graphics engine...you get the idea.

I wouldn't mind a new non-compatible OS project as long as I could guarantee the old OS couldn't read the new filesystem and therefore mess with it, but for MS that would be a hard thing to convince people to get unless it was cheap and had some really convincing reasons to snag it.

And likewise really hard to spend the money and time developing, especially when it'd be competing even more directly with alternative OSes, which are getting fairly well fleshed out at the moment. On that note it'd be competing with Windows itself, which would be just as painful for MS.

Windows 7 is really just going to be Vista Second Edition......

QFT

"You've let us know you don't want to face the kinds of incompatibility challenges with the next version of Windows you might have experienced early with Windows Vista. As a result, our approach with Windows 7 is to build off the same core architecture as Windows Vista so the investments you and our partners have made in Windows Vista will continue to pay off with Windows 7. Our goal is to ensure the migration process from Windows Vista to Windows 7 is straightforward," Veghte stated.

Source

QFT

Source

That doesn't mean anything!

Just because a new car's engine is kinda similar to the old cars engine .. does that mean the new car is a copy-paste of the old one?

No... because cars arent just engines ... they also have body shells, suspension, brakes, handling, chasis, interior design .. even the leather trim may differ...

Just because the kernel won't be rewritten, that doesn't mean Windows 7 will be Vista SP1. Just because they will be more compatible and use same guidelines .. doesn't mean they will be the same.

Microsoft started with a lot of new guidelines and principles with Windows Vista (on many fronts .. UI, networking, security...). By doing this they broke their own development cycle and released the os "3 years too late". They got a lot of critic on this but now it will pay off as they now have a new foundation to build on with the new principles with Windows Vista.

Also .. we know nearly nothing about Windows 7... Windows 7 information isn't public yet and people who do know what they are talking about can't just yet.

So till PDC you can speculate all you want but talking about 7 before ANY public information is out is just plain stupid and speculation.

Conclusion ... saying Windows 7 is Vista SP2 is just stupid as you (or anyone else in the public) know NOTHING about Windows 7 itself...

That was a CPU architecture change -- Not an OS architecture change. OSX is still fundamentally the same, just compiled for a different OS.

What you seem to want is a switch like Apple did from OS9 to OSX....but that's just silly. Apple had to do it. OS9 was a mess compared to more modern operating systems like Linux/Windows NT. It had no protected memory, multitasking, security concepts, etc.

There's no reason for Microsoft to make that kind of switch. Microsoft upgraded or flat out replaced many of the systems with Vista (Networking, security, audio, video, media, and so on) and look at how much people complained about that.

This.

There isn't a reason for MS to re-write Windows from scratch, Vista had a few components overhauled (including proper security elevation for users) and people whined and bitched about it constantly.

Re-writing Windows from scratch would break backwards compatibility, and love it or hate it, it's the reason Windows is so popular.

I expect the virtualization stuff getting so popular will offer MS interesting ways to mess around with compatibility problems though.

Virtualization isn't anywhere near the point as to be accessible to the casual user.

Try building a softgrid package. It's neither easy nor straightforward.

Try explaining installing why she should or how to install a guest OS in a virual machine. She'll look at you like you're crazy and wonder why she needs another windows to run her programs.

It doesn't have to be accessible to the enduser at all if it's part of the OS. Vista already does some virtualization.

You certainly don't have to make a guest OS of Vista within Vista for it to use its virtualization.

So I'm guessing you didn't quite catch my drift.

That doesn't mean anything!

Just because a new car's engine is kinda similar to the old cars engine .. does that mean the new car is a copy-paste of the old one?

No... because cars arent just engines ... they also have body shells, suspension, brakes, handling, chasis, interior design .. even the leather trim may differ...

Just because the kernel won't be rewritten, that doesn't mean Windows 7 will be Vista SP1. Just because they will be more compatible and use same guidelines .. doesn't mean they will be the same.

Microsoft started with a lot of new guidelines and principles with Windows Vista (on many fronts .. UI, networking, security...). By doing this they broke their own development cycle and released the os "3 years too late". They got a lot of critic on this but now it will pay off as they now have a new foundation to build on with the new principles with Windows Vista.

Also .. we know nearly nothing about Windows 7... Windows 7 information isn't public yet and people who do know what they are talking about can't just yet.

So till PDC you can speculate all you want but talking about 7 before ANY public information is out is just plain stupid and speculation.

Conclusion ... saying Windows 7 is Vista SP2 is just stupid as you (or anyone else in the public) know NOTHING about Windows 7 itself...

My god you just do not read. Nobody said its going to be SP2. The reference made is that its basically going to be like Win98 was to Win95. No major fundamental differences, because it is built on the same core. Your not going to see a Win98 to XP style jump, is the point that is being made.

but hey.... didn't Apple do it? Isn't Mac OS X coded from scratch on FreeBSD as opposed to MacOS 9 or older being just RISC-type stuff? well I guess yea it is trouble; they had it standard to dual-boot between OS X and OS 9 until developers had time to make new Aqua-themed OS X-compatible apps..... imagine that happening on a Windows scale where it's the most used OS on Earth..... yea..... chaos...... meh......... i STILL think Windows from scratch would be a golden opportunity to make things right.... hmm... or maybe escape through the "window" into the "sky" and release a new OS called Microsoft Skies alongside Windows..... ok i'm rambling now so cya later lol but wait then you can't have application windows; you would have fluffy cloudy application skies; ok omg ok bye! lol

Do you actually realise how monolithic the windows platform is? Completely rewrite the OS from scratch? You're kidding me right?

Windows is compatible with thousands of devices, do you realise how long it would take to achieve the same level of compatibility with a rewrite? What about software? One of the reasons Microsoft took so long with Vista is because they need to maintain the greatest percentage of backwards compatibility. Could you really imaging them brining out a complete rewrite, and half the worlds devices just didn't work, and even more software failed too.

And you can't compare Apple's OSX. Apple have been working on basically the same finely tuned hardware platform for years. A handful of specifically chosen devices work with it, so development time for ensuring compatibility is drastically cut down.

As far as I can tell three pain areas are partitioning tools (Vista really hates some,) RAID drivers (likewise,) and older development tools (which can be expensive to replace.)

For the first six-nine months I could understand that XP was just all around easier to get along with, while the drivers and app compatibility stabilized. Now, though, I can't imagine ever using XP again.

It doesn't have to be accessible to the enduser at all if it's part of the OS. Vista already does some virtualization.

You certainly don't have to make a guest OS of Vista within Vista for it to use its virtualization.

So I'm guessing you didn't quite catch my drift.

Oh I caught it, you just have no idea what you're talking about. The only "virtualization" in Vista is a bit of write re-direction so applications don't **** the bed when they suddenly can't write to certain parts of the FS/registry, what you want is a whole different beast entirely

It's pretty obvious you've never really used a virtualization solution. We had several deployed in my last workplace. Virtual PC/Virtual Server is pretty much what you see, but try explaining why your grandma needs to boot up ANOTHER OS to write an email or do some trivial task ala the classic enviornment in OSX. Don't forget to mention that she needs to shell out for another OS license, btw. I'm sure she'll be thrilled aobut that.

SoftGrid... well, heck, softgrid needs a virtual machine itself (or at the very least a spare real machine) to do the capturing, then you have to repackage and deploy the software. Oh whats that? You needed to install something to the context menu or interact with just about any other component on your system? Tough ****, ain't happening.

I don't know anything about Kidaro but I'm sure it's not that much simpler. My point is this is all way too advanced for your average user. They simply won't do it just to write a document or balance their checkbook. Buying a mac or even installing Linux is much less hassle.

It would be a massive undertaking to overcome these problems. It's easy to say they should, its a whole nother thing to actually go and do it. And to what benefit? So you can toss Win32 out of the system? You can already do that; Win32 is just a subsystem that runs on top of the NT kernel, which has been proven by pretty much anyone who knows anything about OS kernels to be fast, reliable, and extremely well designed. And if the whole point of virtualization is to keep compatibility with Win32 apps, well, why the hell don't you just leave the subsystem in there until you don't need it anymore and not take the performance and complexity hit virtualization incurs?

And while you're throwing away compatibility for virtualization, don't forget that you'll need an entirely new set of drivers. Don't worry, its no big deal. It's not like anyone had any problems with drivers when Vista was released.

People are claiming the Vista is bloated and blaming all this "compatiblity code" for taking up all the resources in their systems. Guess what? There's about 4 MB of compat code on your hard disk, and none of it is loaded until its needed. And outside of one check call, it doesn't have anything to do with kernel. What's taking up all the resources in Vista (mainly sucking up your RAM) is the new features in Vista: desktop search, SuperFetch and even the DWM. Turn off those features and you wind up with something like... oh I don't know, Windows Server 2008 which has received pretty much nothing but praise.

Edited by y_notm

Just give Vista time and then it will be loved as much as XP.

In time drivers will catch up as companies revisit and rewrite them.

I mean anyone else remember when Win2k came out or NT3.5 came out. It took a while for drivers to really be written for them that worked and were stable 100% of the time.

And what happened to blackcomb --- As the vision changed so did the code name-- I mean don't we all wish we had a dime for all the code names that never was... Anyone else remember Neptune?

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/ac_preview.asp

also here is the wiki on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Neptune

I fail to see what's wrong with just expanding the implementation of the compatibility shims that XP and Vista already use (The Application Compatibility tab).

It seems like a much more elegant and lightweight solution than virtualizing a whole OS.

Edited by MioTheGreat

Now this is a topic that could help make the push to 8,000,000. Posts .

I do agree Windows 7 is not the vision blackcomb was.

In fact I think isn't it this Ski resort...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistler-Blackcomb

Just a thought what if it was not a Windows version plan but instead a location for the next business meeting to discuss the next Windows. (The Whistler which became XP). And someone only heard what they wanted to hear.

That is just my thought.

My god you just do not read. Nobody said its going to be SP2. The reference made is that its basically going to be like Win98 was to Win95. No major fundamental differences, because it is built on the same core. Your not going to see a Win98 to XP style jump, is the point that is being made.

Windows 95 (without IE4) to Windows 98 was actually a pretty considerable leap. You might be surprised how much was missing if you go back to 95. No quick launch, no drag-and-drop in the start menu, and the entire Explorer was very basic with far less extensibility.

I remember installing the Desktop Update with IE4.0 for Win95 and NT4.0 which gave it some if not all of what Win98 had... It also had preview in the side.

But yes it was a big leap... Though the question is have you ever installed Windows 95 using the old Windows 3.1 desktop. Instead of the Start menu-?

What Windows 98 had that Windows 95 did not have was better support for higher memory and drive sizes as well as Fat32 support.

I remember installing the Desktop Update with IE4.0 for Win95 and NT4.0 which gave it some if not all of what Win98 had... It also had preview in the side.

But yes it was a big leap... Though the question is have you ever installed Windows 95 using the old Windows 3.1 desktop. Instead of the Start menu-?

What Windows 98 had that Windows 95 did not have was better support for higher memory and drive sizes as well as Fat32 support.

Yeah but all the stuff that came with IE4 was basically the Windows 98 shell.

so i just caught up on what was said on this thread i started

Singularity: it's not something like a desktop O/S; it's just a small lil thingy for hardware and software geeks to go "Neee!!!" over lol :blink:

Neptune: yes; it's based on the old age Microsoft Encarta UI and navigation and it was soooooo cool! Just like the Longhorn concept video is cool today, Neptune was just as cool back in those days.... But of course they didn't go through with it; maybe they didn't want the whole OS to look like one big website hehe.

many posts are regarding the question WHY recode it from scratch? i could think of MANY reasons.... like i'm tired of how some developers release software that sticks its stupid driver(s) right at the very native boot opportunity and risk preventing Windows from starting, or just slow down the boot! A re-coded Windows with an appropriate loading time for such drivers would have a boot time of like three seconds!!! When Windows starts, the ONLY drivers that should be loaded are functional (i.e. filesystem, CPU, power management), and user experience (i.e. peripherals, audio, video) -- NOTHING ELSE! Why the f**k does Alcohol 120% want its stupid SPI CD-ROM driver thing to load during the Windows boot logo screen at the very beginning?!? They're just too lazy to make their stuff work by loading it later on when Windows starts that's why, and it's Microsoft that allows developers access to shove drivers there. Have any of you ever noticed that booting up after a clean Vista or XP install is only like 2 or 3 runs of the loading meter? And then after you install let's say the nVidia ForceWare drivers and you reboot, it is eternally gonna take about 6 or 7 runs of the loading meter! How annoying!

that's just ONE reason.

Anyway; I'm saying that re-coding from scratch is an excellent opportunity to do things right with no BS. Knowledge of how to make software work with today's hardware technology is exponentially more advanced, and it's limited by the current platform. For example I don't know about everyone else but the new "low-latency" Vista audio stack is laggy/choppy! I've gone through like 5 motherboards and 3 sound cards and like 6 installations of Vista ever since it was released, and no matter what, the problem persists! It's totally gone if you have a really suped up computer though, but even now with my X-Fi Fatal1ty Pro sound card, 2 gigs DDR2 RAM, etc. etc. and Windows Experience Index of 5.9, in Windows Media Player when I enable the crossfader, it's choppy doing the fading between songs!!!! Like COME ON!!! That's what happens when you remove the functionality of the audio stack from the kernel itself like it always has been. The whole architecture is just totally messed up. They NEED a fresh start!

Some posts express worry about compatibility with hardware devices and stuff. I'm sure that the thousands of beta testers would squish most all of such bugs. There could be a separate dev. team for the coded-from-scratch Windows and have it developed for like eight (8) years while regular Windows is being released on the side.

Yeah but all the stuff that came with IE4 was basically the Windows 98 shell.

For all the customization forums we have at neowin, you would be surprised by the flexibility of the IE4 shell update. Awergh's NT4 Visual Update packages are good example of it. You can get an XP/Vista'ish desktop out of a 95/NT4 interface.

http://www.msfn.org/board/NT4-Visual-Updat...html&st=100

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Go for a Echo Dot or Pop instead. These Echo shows just advertise to you.
    • NetSpeedTray 1.3.3 by Razvan Serea NetSpeedTray is a lightweight, open-source Windows network monitor that shows live upload and download speeds directly on the Taskbar. Designed for efficiency, it quietly sits in the system tray, conserving CPU and battery with dynamic updates. It blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11, adapts to light/dark themes, and auto-positions to avoid overlaps. Features include accurate interface detection, customizable display, optional mini-graph, color coding, granular font and unit control, detailed per-interface history graphs, safe data management, and easy CSV export—bringing the network monitoring Windows forgot. NetSpeedTray key features: Lightweight & Efficient Runs quietly in your system tray without consuming resources. Features a "Dynamic Update Rate" that lowers refresh frequency when the network is idle to save CPU and battery life. Native Look & Feel Blends seamlessly with Windows 10/11 UI. Smart detection for light and dark taskbar themes ensures text is always visible. Intelligent & Adaptive Positioning Automatically finds empty space next to your system tray and shifts to make room for new icons, preventing overlaps. Seamless OS Integration Behaves like a native Windows component. Hides instantly with auto-hiding taskbar Hides when a fullscreen app is active Smart Network Monitoring Accurate by Default: Auto mode identifies your main internet connection and ignores noise from VPNs or virtual adapters. Easy Interface Selection: Switch effortlessly between Auto, All, or Selected network interfaces via intuitive radio buttons. Total Visual Customization Free Move Mode: Unlock and place the widget anywhere on your screen. Optional Mini-Graph: Real-time graph of recent network activity with adjustable opacity. Color Coding: Customize colors and speed thresholds to quickly see network status. Granular Display Control Text & Font: Adjust font family, size, weight, and alignment. Units: Automatic (B/s, KB/s, MB/s) or fixed Mbps display. Precision: Set decimal places and always show them for uniform appearance. Detailed & Intelligent History Graph Smart Scale: Logarithmic scale shows low-level traffic and large spikes clearly. Per-Interface Filtering: View speed history for specific adapters (Wi-Fi, Ethernet, VPN). Safe & Efficient Data Management: Adjustable retention, automatic cleanup, optimized database. Easy Data Export: Export raw data to .csv or save high-quality graphs for reports. NetSpeedTray v1.3.3: The Updater Fix A stabilization release that repairs a critical regression in v1.3.2: the app shipped without OpenSSL, which silently broke every HTTPS request — including the built-in update checker (the "Could not check for updates" error many of you hit). This release restores it, hardens the build so it can't happen again, and fixes a startup crash plus four other reported bugs. Changes: Fixed update checking — Resolved a critical issue that prevented the app from checking for updates ("Could not check for updates"). Fixed startup crash with Auto-Cycling — The app no longer crashes on launch after enabling Cycle display mode. Fixed incorrect network speeds on 10GbE adapters — Multi-gigabit network cards now display speeds correctly instead of being stuck at 0. Improved color coding — Default color is shown when idle, and color/threshold changes now apply immediately without restarting. Fullscreen visibility fix — The widget now correctly stays visible over fullscreen apps when Keep Visible is enabled. Improved AMD Ryzen temperature detection — More reliable CPU temperature monitoring for Ryzen processors. Cleaner upgrades — Installer now removes outdated application files during upgrades, preventing DLL/version conflicts while preserving user settings. Improved stability — Fixed potential DLL loading issues by excluding critical OpenSSL and NumPy components from UPX compression. Better settings window — Scrollbars removed and layout improved for a cleaner experience. Localization improvements — Updated translations and completed missing UI text across all supported languages. More reliable releases — Added regression tests covering recent critical fixes, bringing the test suite to 196 passing tests. [full release notes] Download: NetSpeedTray 1.3.3 | 87.9 MB (Open Source) Download: NetSpeedTray Portable | 101.0 MB View: NetSpeedTray Home Page | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Why Delta Chat is the best decentralized messenger you have probably never tried by Paul Hill There is no shortage of messaging apps out there; we have WhatsApp, Messenger, and Telegram, just to name a few. While Meta has taken steps to incorporate encryption into Messenger and WhatsApp, they still leave a lot to be desired. If you are in the market for a messaging app that promotes security, privacy, and optional anonymity, you'll want to read what I have to say about Delta Chat. For those not familiar with Delta Chat, rather than relying on centralized servers as you do with Facebook Messenger, it relies on email. Essentially, it is a chat interface that feels like a messaging app, but secretly in the background, it is firing off emails. In the past, you used to have to sign in with your email account. When you sent messages to people, it would just be sending encrypted messages to their inbox, which their Delta Chat client would decrypt. When I first learned about Delta Chat, it required users to sign in with an email account, but I was pleasantly surprised upon trying it in 2026 that this is no longer a requirement, or the preferred method was to use the app. Recently, I’ve tried UAD-ng on my old Nokia 3.4 to disable most of the Google apps because the bootloader is locked, and this is the next best option. While finding replacement apps in F-Droid, I came across Delta Chat again, and it has undergone quite a big change since I last used it, with its new chatmail relays, which no longer require you to sign in to your own email account, providing anonymity, and they offer greater security. Android and Desktop Delta Chat apps. Not only does it run on my de-googled phone, but it also works on desktop computers and iOS, making it truly ubiquitous. For me, Delta Chat is a wonderful alternative messenger because it gives you more control. It supports switching between different profiles, which you can set up super quickly; you don’t register a username, you don’t register a password. The only thing you do have is a random string email address on a chatmail relay (which you don’t have to memorize). To maintain access to your profile, you just need to add a second device to your account via QR code or make a backup of your account, which you can restore later. Fail to do these, your account is gone - as it should be if you don’t want to leave accounts that could get hacked later on. My decision to block Google stuff on my Nokia was done for practical reasons; the device sucked when it launched, and it sucks even more now. The nice thing about F-Droid and the apps within is that they’re usually lightweight, free of bloat, and work well on that device. What was inconvenient for me was that it was hard to send messages from that device, say if I wanted to copy a code over to my main phone or send family members a link from that device. That’s when I decided to look at the available chat apps and saw Delta Chat. Another nice thing about Delta Chat is its notifications. Some messaging apps rely on Google’s ecosystem for notification transport on Android; however, with Delta Chat, it can use Google’s solutions if you have Play Services or MicroG installed. Otherwise, it is able to keep a background connection to the chatmail relay server so that you can get notified when you receive a message. As free software, the code of Delta Chat is open for all who want to take it and build upon it. In the future, if the developers of Delta Chat make a catastrophically bad decision and take the app in an undesirable direction, users can take the code and fork the project. This contrasts with closed-source apps from corporations that can take their products in any direction they like. By relying on free software instead of closed-source programs, you actually control your computing. I’ve spoken at length about how running this type of software is like owning your own home rather than renting it. The same applies here; if you use Delta Chat, you don’t need to worry about it going away in the future. Whether it is Telegram, WhatsApp, or Messenger, you are required to register a username and password to use these services. A major flaw in this design is that anyone can try various passwords and potentially break into your account with your complete chat history intact. Sure, there is encryption in Messenger, where you need a second PIN and two-factor authentication in Telegram, but breaches happen all the time. Unlike before, when you used to sign in to your email account to send and receive messages, the primary way to do it now is to create an account on a chatmail relay. The resulting email address is a random string followed by the name of the relay you pick. This means you can start and begin adding contacts Without a username and password, you either need to ensure you have a backup or at least one device running your Delta Chat profile. The primary way to log in on another device is to go to the settings and add a second device. Then, you’ll just scan a QR code with your new device, and it’ll log in to your account and sync all your chat history and contacts. To end users, Delta Chat just looks like any instant messenger; however, it is really sending your messages as encrypted emails to your contact. This is pretty cool from a censorship perspective, as it makes the service more difficult to block. Previously, the main way to use the app was by logging in with email, but nowadays, it’s recommended that you use chatmail relays. Chatmail relays temporarily hold messages in case your device is offline. They are cheap, simple servers that don’t store data as group states. Other information, like your name and avatar, only exists on your device and the devices of those you share your contact information with. The relays are also decentralized and operated by various groups and individuals. It is even possible to set up your own chatmail relay, but most people will want to use one hosted elsewhere. To keep your messages secure, Delta Chat uses a secure subset of the OpenPGP standard that gives you automatic end-to-end encryption. It also uses Secure-Join to exchange encryption setup information through QR-code scanning or invite links. Autocrypt is also used to automatically establish end-to-end encryption between contacts and all members of group chat, but sometime this year Autocrypt v2 will be rolled out, bringing post-quantum resistant encryption and forward secrecy. The Delta Chat FAQ is an interesting read that explains many more details about the app. Credit: Pexels Delta Chat is unique among messaging apps because it is built on email, a technology that’s decades old and isn’t going anywhere soon. What’s more is that email is not centralized either, so it’s far more difficult for any authoritarian regime to disrupt the Delta Chat app. I haven’t spoken too much about features yet, so I will do that now. Delta Chat allows you to do one-on-one chats, group chats, and create channels. It also supports file sharing and making audio and video calls when chatting one-to-one, but it’s not available for group chats right now. At the time of writing, the calling functionality is disabled and can be enabled in Settings > Advanced > Debug Calls. I have used the video calling feature, and the quality is excellent. It works over WebRTC, another open standard. The app also lets you send voice notes, enables disappearing messages, and has its own app ecosystem. I did try playing chess one time there, but it was a bit spotty; though, we did manage to complete the game with a victory for me. To add people to Delta Chat, you can either give them your Delta Chat link or your QR code to scan. These are the only ways to add users, so you won't have any spam bots bothering you. If the people you want to chat with don't have the app yet, just send them your link, and it will take them to a webpage where they can install the app and then add you. It's really quick for them to install it and get started, which is nice. Credit: Microsoft. The Majorana 2 quantum chip unveiled in 2026. I do not think quantum computers are too far out now, and I do hope that Delta Chat is able to push out Autocrypt v2 sooner, rather than later, so bad actors do not attempt to collect encrypted communications and then decrypt them in the future using quantum computers. By getting people’s messages post-quantum-safe now, users won’t have to worry when quantum computers start cracking legacy encryption. Overall, I would recommend this app to people who are already past WhatsApp and Messenger and have perhaps begun using apps like Telegram or Session. It shares a lot of characteristics with these apps and goes a lot further than Telegram in terms of security. By being based on email, it is also resistant to censorship, and the lack of a username and password makes you anonymous (if you want to be) and safe from brute force password cracking attempts. Let me know in the comments if you’ve tried Delta Chat recently. Do you think it's a good bulwark against governments that are tightening their grip on the internet?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      OffsetAbs earned a badge
      Reacting Well
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      474
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      220
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!