XP->7 Testimony

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cerulean

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,476
NOTE: This post is merely of facts from my observations, not opinion, and thus not qualifying for fanboyism. This is my testimony of the factual, obvious observations I have made within the past couple to few days of my migration

Old laptop: Lenovo G530, 2GHz Pentium Dualcore w/ 1MB L2, 2GB DDR2, 250GB SATA HDD, shared Intel GPU w/ 256MB VRAM
New laptop: Lenovo T61, 2GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 4MB L2, 2GB DDR2, same HDD (swapped), dedicated NVIDIA NVS 140M w/ 128MB VRAM

Old laptop setup:
I setup Windows XP Professional from scratch, however, ever since its release I have been very carefully fine-tuning Windows XP and experimenting with it over the years, and have gotten to a point where my particular Windows XP Professional disk and tweaks yield XP to run like day #1 after 3+ years. No performance loss over time, snappy, quick, and fast. Everything came up in a bam, and when monitoring the system resources (CPU, RAM, GPU, etc) in programs like Process Explorer and Task Manager, you could figure out which hardware component was bottlenecking the system within mere instant moments of attempting to run an application. Less than 32 running processes (I had certain things like PowerMenu running -- personal preference stuff), and a memory usage of about 250-300MB at boot (about 2-4x more than Linux, depending on which distro you load -- comparing to Parted Magic, Ubuntu Netbook, and Debian Mint).

New laptop setup:
Same everything but slightly better, more powerful hardware; same RAM, same HDD. Fresh, vanilla installation of Windows 7 Professional (x64). Through my past couple days, the first several hours setting up about half my programs, I have noticed obvious performance differences.
  • The system bottlenecks on RAM
  • Programs are slow to start (might be in correlation to RAM)
EVEN if Windows 7 manages memory differently than XP, one thing is definitely clear: Windows 7 is far more demanding on memory and resultingly suffers related consequences. In comparison, XP would be like Linux to 7. Linux is fast, packs a punch, and bams! everything at you when you do things; XP was the same experience to me (note: I often use Parted Magic, related distros, and had Debian Mint setup in dual-boot on old lappy, so I know what I'm talking about what I am making these comparisons). Windows 7 is quite, very obviously, on the contrary.



I have Aero turned off (using Classic), black solid background (no wallpaper), turned off all Windows audio sounds and boot sound, turned off screensaver, turned off power savings for PCI-E, set minimum CPU state to 100% for Plugged In, unchecked useless things from the Startup tab in msconfig, manually set number of processors in msconfig to 2 (which is what I have, and permits to set to at most), I installed latest version of Diskeeper Pro (genuine) very soon after completing OS installation and defragmented both partitions (and now they are kept defragmented), I am using the latest drivers for everything, I am using enhanced video drivers for my NVS 140M. I have the very latest Windows Updates (including SP1 and post-SP1 patches). I have components of my laptop that I don't use (like ExpressCard and modem, for example) disabled via BIOS. I updated the BIOS firmware long before installing the OS (there was a handful of versions missed out on).

If there is something I haven't done, please let me know or suggest something. Obviously, at this point, I need to get another stick of RAM (or replace current sticks) with 4GB, the max my laptop's motherboard will support.
 
Last edited:
No one cares about uber install on a 10+ year old OS.

Shut up and use 7 like the rest of us
 
HelioX said:
No one cares about uber install on a 10+ year old OS.

Shut up and use 7 like the rest of us
Click to expand...
You're not very logical, are you? (Would have used a different word than 'logical' but then that would have constituted as flaming and thus an impending infraction.)
 
Sounds like you're doing everything to get in the way of letting Windows handle itself the way its supposed to.
 
Cerulean said:
unchecked useless things from the Startup tab in msconfig,
Click to expand...

What sorts of "useless things" were in your Startup tab? I just checked mine (for the first time actually) and found only 10 items, all of which were clearly recognizable and wanted.

Did you disable any services too?

manually set number of processors in msconfig to 2 (which is what I have, and permits to set to at most),
Click to expand...

Only affects boot times.

Obviously, at this point, I need to get another stick of RAM (or replace current sticks) with 4GB, the max my laptop's motherboard will support.
Click to expand...

Does the Task Manager, Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor show evidence that your RAM is maxed out?

Are you aware that, unlike WinXP, Win7 works under the philosophy that empty RAM is wasted RAM and tries to keep it as full as possible, without impacting performance? Hopefully, you have not misguidedly disabled SuperFetch in all of your disabling of "useless things".
 
I have noticed Windows 7 to be more responsive and overall better running on almost all machines that I put 7 on from XP.
These range from Pentium 4 2.8Ghz to Core2Quads.
The only machine that didn't run as good as XP was my dads old P4 3.0Ghz machine with an ATI X1950Pro.

Windows 7 Ultimate ran better on my Dell Mini 9 than XP Home. OSX 10.6 runs better on it than XP, and on par with Windows 7.

I am waiting for the day that XP is finally put to rest.
 
Cerulean said:
  • The system bottlenecks on RAM
  • Programs are slow to start (might be in correlation to RAM)
EVEN if Windows 7 manages memory differently than XP[, one thing is definitely clear: Windows 7 is far more demanding on memory and resultingly suffers related consequences.

If there is something I haven't done, please let me know or suggest something. Obviously, at this point, I need to get another stick of RAM (or replace current sticks) with 4GB, the max my laptop's motherboard will support.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the time to type that up, but what you just posted was not a even comparison, since both your XP and Win7 laptops have 2GB memory. Windows 7 has a much higher minimum requirement for memory:

Minimum memory for XP: 64MB (128MB recommended)
Minimum memory for Win7: 1GB (2GB with x64)

Your optimizations may or may not have helped Windows 7 run better (in fact, you can negatively impact the user experience by disabling some items, such as superfetch), but the fact is that you're running 2x the minimum requirement for Win7 while you're running 32x the minimum memory required for XP.
 
Honestly, there's a TON of opinion in this. And really what is the point of debating XP, it's about to be THREE versions behind in the next year. XP was fine it its day but those days are gone and there's simply little reason for the vast bulk of people to touch it anymore.
 
Cerulean said:



I have Aero turned off (using Classic), black solid background (no wallpaper), turned off all Windows audio sounds and boot sound, turned off screensaver, turned off power savings for PCI-E, set minimum CPU state to 100% for Plugged In, unchecked useless things from the Startup tab in msconfig, manually set number of processors in msconfig to 2 (which is what I have, and permits to set to at most), I installed latest version of Diskeeper Pro (genuine) very soon after completing OS installation and defragmented both partitions (and now they are kept defragmented), I am using the latest drivers for everything, I am using enhanced video drivers for my NVS 140M. I have the very latest Windows Updates (including SP1 and post-SP1 patches). I have components of my laptop that I don't use (like ExpressCard and modem, for example) disabled via BIOS. I updated the BIOS firmware long before installing the OS (there was a handful of versions missed out on).
Click to expand...


Turn Aero back on.

Look at figure 6. You've just reverted that behavior so that the memory is kept both in system RAM and on the graphics card.
 
evilsofa said:
What sorts of "useless things" were in your Startup tab? I just checked mine (for the first time actually) and found only 10 items, all of which were clearly recognizable and wanted.
Click to expand...
NVIDIA Compatible Windows Vista Display driver, Version 267.31
Intel(R) Flash Cache Logic Chip
Synaptics Pointing Device Driver
Microsoft Security Client
DAEMON Tools Lite
SMax4PNP Application
Adobe Acrobat
Adobe Reader and Acrobat Manager
Immunet Protect
ClamWin Antivirus
RAID Event Monitor
nwiz

Bold = disabled.

evilsofa said:
Did you disable any services too?
Click to expand...
Nope.

evilsofa said:
Only affects boot times.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if you are saying I did is incorrect or correct, because according to that, I did everything correctly. On my workstation (Q9450 @ 3.6GHz, 12MB L2, 4GB DDR2, Quadro FX1400, Windows 7 Pro x64), it makes a notable difference in boot time, which is why I manually set my laptop likewise to use the maximum number of processors Windows detects.. which is 2.

evilsofa said:
Does the Task Manager, Performance Monitor and Resource Monitor show evidence that your RAM is maxed out?
Click to expand...
About 52% right now. Last night it was 87%+, and I had a PITA trying to get Skype and Windows Live Mail to open. BTW, it isn't like I am going to immediately go back to XP or anything, because I want to continue using Windows 7 (as my workstation does use it, and has for the last couple to few years).

evilsofa said:
Are you aware that, unlike WinXP, Win7 works under the philosophy that empty RAM is wasted RAM and tries to keep it as full as possible, without impacting performance? Hopefully, you have not misguidedly disabled SuperFetch in all of your disabling of "useless things".
Click to expand...
Yes, I am fully and very much aware of it. Nope, I never disabled anything like that. I am not "tweaking" or modifying services or components of 7 that would have any detrimental affect to performance.
 
Neb said:
Thanks for taking the time to type that up, but what you just posted was not a even comparison, since both your XP and Win7 laptops have 2GB memory. Windows 7 has a much higher minimum requirement for memory:

Minimum memory for XP: 64MB (128MB recommended)
Minimum memory for Win7: 1GB (2GB with x64)

Your optimizations may or may not have helped Windows 7 run better (in fact, you can negatively impact the user experience by disabling some items, such as superfetch), but the fact is that you're running 2x the minimum requirement for Win7 while you're running 32x the minimum memory required for XP.
Click to expand...

Since he's running Win7 x64, he is running the minimum amount. However, Microsoft has learned to make the minimum amount more realistic. I'm sure that running WinXP with 64MB is quite unsatisfactory compared to running Win7 with 1GB.
 
phide said:
Why exactly are you so resistant to the idea of buying more RAM?
Click to expand...
I am not, but for the sake of my testimony, it is to show that with the same amount of RAM, very same HDD, and even slightly better, more powerful hardware, I have less performance compared to a previous release of Windows (XP in this case). I will be buying more RAM, be assured of that, as I am a memory hungry individual (this hasn't changed from XP -- 2GB was more than enough, even though my OCD, computer enthusiastic, MAX PAOWWERRR!!!11 self yearned for me). My problem is the fact that Windows 7 is underperforming compared to XP. That isn't very nice.

EDIT: Funnily enough, with the above paragraph, I am sure DOS would obviously run better than XP. :D However, things today have rather come to a stand-still with technological advancements and reached a point where getting more RAM doesn't generally make noticeable increases in system performances, like they did back in the late 90s and early-to-mid 00s.

Tawnos said:
Turn Aero back on.

Look at figure 6. You've just reverted that behavior so that the memory is kept both in system RAM and on the graphics card.
Click to expand...
Alright, will try this and see how it goes. Thanks!

How do I turn off the wallpaper and use a black solid color background? o_O (EDIT: Nevermind! Figured it out. Had to do the drop down and select solid colors. :D)

I appreciate the mature replies to this thread.
 
Cerulean said:
I am not, but for the sake of my testimony, it is to show that with the same amount of RAM, very same HDD, and even slightly better, more powerful hardware, I have less performance compared to a previous release of Windows (XP in this case).
Click to expand...
Accomplishing what, exactly?
 
phide said:
Accomplishing what, exactly?
Click to expand...
In my opinion (do note this for the following), it goes to show how belligerently quick and foolish many people are during the "great" Windows XP vs 7 "debates" when Windows 7 came out and people started migrating. I'm mostly pointing at the Windows 7 fanboy crowd, but there are some people in the XP crowd that are like that as well. People are too quick to make judgments when time is required.

I'm not saying Windows 7 is bad, but a growing concern for me is that.. say a decade down the road when we'll probably have 10TB HDDs (possibly even SSDs), are we honestly, seriously, going to have Windows OS that takes up 5TB and requires 16GB RAM and what right now would be considered insane?

This logic is wrong, and I fear that this is the way software developers are heading. Just because there's more resources available doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it -- it's not efficient. You can't exactly apply this to real world engineering, can you? (Using the term 'green', it wouldn't be a very 'green' thing to do.)

EDIT: And as someone mentioned... *can't find post, ugh D: * something along the lines of Microsoft's philosophy that resources shouldn't be wasted. I would have to do some technical research to find out how 7 handles memory, but without doing some research (which I already have, but would have to refresh my mind with the documents again, and with new ones), I think the philosophy may be true to a certain extent and dependent on conditions. Just because you have everything doesn't mean you should use it all -- it isn't necessarily wise. Yes, let it be available for use for when it is needed, but don't go out and spend all the money you have in one sitting now.

I don't know, it just doesn't make sense to me. Why doesn't Linux do it this way? :?

One thought I had while writing this edit is in regards to...
However, things today have rather come to a stand-still with technological advancements and reached a point where getting more RAM doesn't generally make noticeable increases in system performances, like they did back in the late 90s and early-to-mid 00s.
Click to expand...
What if Microsoft, because of this phenomenon, optimized (or tried to) to match the phenomenon? Because things have settled down, Microsoft specializes Windows 7 within this paradigm?

blah, nevermind. I don't know how to write it with the right words. :D
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
In my opinion (do note this for the following), it goes to show how belligerently quick and foolish many people are during the "great" Windows XP vs 7 "debates" when Windows 7 came out and people started migrating.

I'm not saying Windows 7 is bad, but a growing concern for me is that.. say a decade down the road when we'll probably have 10TB HDDs (possibly even SSDs), are we honestly, seriously, going to have Windows OS that takes up 5TB and requires 16GB RAM and what right now would be considered insane?

This logic is wrong, and I fear that this is the way software developers are heading. Just because there's more resources available doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it -- it's not efficient. You can't exactly apply this to real world engineering, can you? (Using the term 'green', it wouldn't be a very 'green' thing to do.)
Click to expand...

If you don't like the way technology is heading then stay with old outdated shit.

Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP -- and requires some moderately decent hardware to run it. Software grows as the hardware does.. this is just how it is.

Try and run Windows XP on an old Windows 95 machine and QQ about that too
 
khanable said:
If you don't like the way technology is heading then stay with old outdated shit.

Windows 7 is leaps and bounds better than XP -- and requires some moderately decent hardware to run it. Software grows as the hardware does.. this is just how it is.

Try and run Windows XP on an old Windows 95 machine and QQ about that too
Click to expand...
It isn't technology that is headed that way. Technology doesn't decide for you or anyone else.
 
Cerulean said:
Just because you have everything doesn't mean you should use it all -- it isn't necessarily wise. Yes, let it be available for use for when it is needed, but don't go out and spend all the money you have in one sitting now.
Click to expand...
Charged memory is always available for use. I don't understand what would have led you to believe otherwise.
 
Cerulean said:
This logic is wrong, and I fear that this is the way software developers are heading. Just because there's more resources available doesn't mean you have to take advantage of it -- it's not efficient. You can't exactly apply this to real world engineering, can you? (Using the term 'green', it wouldn't be a very 'green' thing to do.)
Click to expand...

There's a different between inefficient and using more resources to do more things. 7 is considerably more advanced than XP and comparing how many resources each uses without actually comparing what you get for those resources.

However along your thinking Microsoft talks a lot about making Windows more modular and scalable to make it more efficient. Windows 8 should be better optimized in this regard particularly because it will run on ARM. Indeed Windows 8 on ARM should be quite a bit "greener" than Windows XP ever was.
 
evilsofa said:
Since he's running Win7 x64, he is running the minimum amount. However, Microsoft has learned to make the minimum amount more realistic. I'm sure that running WinXP with 64MB is quite unsatisfactory compared to running Win7 with 1GB.
Click to expand...

True, but the fact remains that he's comparing an XP install with a large amount of free memory versus a Win7 install with the minimum amount of ram. Claiming that the XP install runs smoother seems to be a rather obvious statement when you view it with those facts in mind.
 
OP is right, and we should all ditch our Win7 and go back to XP. It's the right thing to do just out of principle.
 
Met-AL said:
OP is right, and we should all ditch our Win7 and go back to XP. It's the right thing to do just out of principle.
Click to expand...

That's just underwhelming. Proper principles dictate that we should go back to the days of Win 3.1! :D
 
Neb said:
That's just underwhelming. Proper principles dictate that we should go back to the days of Win 3.1! :D
Click to expand...

It's very difficult to get the proper internet experience on a Win 3.1 machine in todays age of multimedia sites. Add in the fact that, Trumpet Winsock isn't being supported anymore.
 
Cerulean said:
I am not, but for the sake of my testimony, it is to show that with the same amount of RAM, very same HDD, and even slightly better, more powerful hardware, I have less performance compared to a previous release of Windows (XP in this case).
Click to expand...
So you're saying that a newer OS, designed for more modern computers, with more features and better security, requires more resources than an OS from ten years ago that is basically antiquated by modern standards? What a ridiculous notion.

You know, I bet if you could put Windows 95 on that machine, it would run really fucking fast.
 
IMO, a PC that was made before 7, should get XP. Anything new which will most likely be a quad core with over 4Gb of ram, may as well put 7 on it. By putting 7 on a lower end PC, you gain nothing but a slower PC. I built my PC way before vista came out, I have no reason to upgrade from XP. Been using it for years with no issues. Next build, I will go 7 (or maybe Linux). I've been wanting to learn 7 more though as I may end up supporting it once our clients switch to it. I've only played with it here and there, but it does look like it's good, just need to get used to all the changes (which are not really bad).

It is sad though how software is getting more and more bloated. There is no reason for this. Companies just choose to add more crap and inefficient code because they can. "bah ram is cheap anyway" is basically their reasoning. When XP came out, it was rediculously bloated for it's time. Vista, same thing, 7 not as bad though.
 
Cerulean said:
In my opinion (do note this for the following), it goes to show how belligerently quick and foolish many people are during the "great" Windows XP vs 7 "debates" when Windows 7 came out and people started migrating. I'm mostly pointing at the Windows 7 fanboy crowd, but there are some people in the XP crowd that are like that as well. People are too quick to make judgments when time is required.
Click to expand...
So, have you actually taken objective measurements of performance, or are you basing this entirely on your own notions?
 
Red Squirrel said:
IMO, a PC that was made before 7, should get XP.
Click to expand...

I'd say that this would be the case with machines that came along towards the end of XP's life span. I have a few machines from 2006 that with cheap RAM upgrades run Windows 7 just fine. In fact I had an old Toshina R25 Tablet PC from 2006 that came then XP and it runs much better as a tablet simply because inking in Windows 7 is faster and more stable than XP.
 
Since I'm the guy that started "the movement," let's just get it out of the way:

Leave it alone.

Windows 7 is not XP, and you can't compare them, at all, in any meaningful manners or ways.

The biggest issue is the OP is looking at RAM usage and is stuck in "XP Mode" himself by thinking "oh god, it's using 2GB+ of RAM <or whatever>..." and not realizing that's a good thing and how Windows 7 actually DOES use RAM. You paid for a lot of RAM, it's a good thing that it's being used instead of being completely idle, doing nothing, sucking up battery or AC power, and gradually will improve performance and not lessen it.

Bleh... as noted, the OP is full of opinions that aren't based on anything but a few days of use. If the OP waited this long (2+ years) to get into Windows 7, that basically means nearly 8 years of XP use - and habits are extremely difficult to break. This is no different.

Nothing to see here, folks, we've come across these kinds of opinionated posts hundreds if not thousands of times.

And just for the record: I'm on a ThinkPad T60 with a Core Duo T2300 @ 1.6 GHz with 4GB of physical RAM but only 3GB actually useful (and I don't mean because of Windows, I mean this chipset limits RAM to 3072MB aka 3GB, hard), and I'm running Windows 7 Pro x86 and it literally runs circles around XP on the same machine once the installation is settled in which takes roughly 1-2 weeks of it watching my usage patterns.

I appreciate the OP sharing his thoughts, since this is a discussion forum, but expecting nobody to slam him (or her, if that's the case, sorry) on the somewhat limited experience of using Windows 7 for a few days is meaningless. The OP has used XP for so long there can be no useful comparison because every sentence, practically every thought expressed is "<whateverwhatever> but XP didn't do that/doesn't do that/doesn't work that way/etc" which is useless in the long run.

You have to walk away from XP, leave it behind, and move to Windows 7 full on, or not. There's no middle ground...

Leave it alone.

Your machine will run much better if you do, seriously. You're breaking Windows 7 by altering the basic functionality, the interface, etc. Either leave it alone or go back to XP for as long as you're so inclined.

It's pretty simple.
 
EVEN if Windows 7 manages memory differently than XP, one thing is definitely clear: Windows 7 is far more demanding on memory and resultingly suffers related consequences. In comparison, XP would be like Linux to 7. Linux is fast, packs a punch, and bams! everything at you when you do thing
Click to expand...
That's funny, I've had the exact opposite experience of you. I installed Ubuntu on my tablet (which formerly had Win7), and I was amazed how slow common UI tasks like right clicking on things, opening programs, etc. was. 99.9% of my computing never maxes out my CPU or RAM; I spend most of my time on the core cases like navigating menus, opening programs, logging in, etc. - and it's those scenarios where it's most evident to me that Microsoft has spent the time ensuring great performance and where Linux has been slacking. For me, Win7 feels decidedly faster.
EDIT: And as someone mentioned... *can't find post, ugh D: * something along the lines of Microsoft's philosophy that resources shouldn't be wasted. I would have to do some technical research to find out how 7 handles memory, but without doing some research (which I already have, but would have to refresh my mind with the documents again, and with new ones), I think the philosophy may be true to a certain extent and dependent on conditions. Just because you have everything doesn't mean you should use it all -- it isn't necessarily wise. Yes, let it be available for use for when it is needed, but don't go out and spend all the money you have in one sitting now.
Click to expand...
RAM is not Money. Money is gone when you nuse it and you have to get it back. The instant that RAM is needed, the memory for stuff that is cached is available.
My problem is the fact that Windows 7 is underperforming compared to XP. That isn't very nice.
Click to expand...
It's doing quite a bit more in terms of security, international support, extra features, and other things. There's always a tradeoff. The idea that you could take ancient hardware and constantly add new features with the same overall performance is lunacy.

At the end of the day, your mistake is thinking 7 is XP. It's not. Stop trying to outsmart the system and tweak everything - Microsoft has a number of people who know how their OS works a lot better than you ever will configuring things for optimal performance.
 
Going back to the facts, nothing changes the fact that Windows 7 is being slower than Windows XP on essentially the same hardware -- my hardware. Yes, my Windows XP was tweaked, and am comparing a fine-tuned XP to an essentially vanilla 7. I stated my testimony -- the facts that I observed. None of it is out of prejudgment or prejudice, that I assure you.

/thread
 
But it's tainted by the habitual use of XP for so long, and your belief that you can alter Windows 7 to "make it work more like XP" is where the problems lie.

You can't, and the fact that you want XP-like performance suggests you're better off with XP since Windows 7 is so different you can't seem to tolerate it.

It might not perform like XP right outta the box with a clean install, but as time goes by, Windows 7 will outperform XP on the same hardware because of the way it does actually work, but I doubt you're going to let it get that far.

Which is a damned shame, really.

But, to each his own... good luck living in the past. ;)
 
1) Your initial post has no data in it. You say this isn't opinion, but then you give a bunch of statements and back them up with nothing. I am not going to trust you without data. I'm not disagreeing with your final conclusion here, i'm just letting you know there is no reason for me take your initial post as fact

2) I'm not really sure what your measuring in terms of performance. The fastest computer i ever booted was an old athlon 1ghz computer a client brought in for me to work on. It had windows ME on it. So if you're measuring by boot speed i think we should all move back to windows me. What are you measuring?

edit: 3) if you want to end a thread, don't try to get in your last word and then type /thread, it will not work.
 
Cerulean said:
Going back to the facts, nothing changes the fact that Windows 7 is being slower than Windows XP on essentially the same hardware -- my hardware.
Click to expand...

So an older, less secure and less capable OS with support fading by the minute is slower on older and/or inappropriate hardware. Not exactly news and it really means little. This is ALWAYS the case OSes especially considering XP age. And as I've and others have stated depending on what that older hardware is it's quite possible that 7 could run BETTER than XP as was the case with the Toshiba R25 I mentioned earlier.

Anything 5 years old and newer? Bump up the RAM if you have less than 2 GB in the system and forget XP unless there is a SPECIFIC need.
 
serpretetsky said:
edit: 3) if you want to end a thread, don't try to get in your last word and then type /thread, it will not work.
Click to expand...
As a subscriber, he has the ability to lock his threads at his discretion. If he wanted to put an end to the discussion, he could have done so with a click. The reason why he chose not to is obvious: he craves the attention, however negative it might be, and wants for the discussion to continue on.
 
phide said:
As a subscriber, he has the ability to lock his threads at his discretion. If he wanted to put an end to the discussion, he could have done so with a click. The reason why he chose not to is obvious: he craves the attention, however negative it might be, and wants for the discussion to continue on.
Click to expand...
Or because I never knew I could do that. Thanks for pointing it out phide.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top