If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Computerworld)   Columnists worries that Microsoft is in danger of ruining their reputation by retiring XP, apparently unaware that their reputation was already done in by the combination of WinMe, Vista and Win8   (computerworld.com) divider line 124
    More: Obvious, Windows Me, Microsoft, Net Applications, Windows 8.1, security updates, columnists, reputation, Windows XP  
•       •       •

1076 clicks; posted to Business » on 09 Mar 2014 at 12:35 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



124 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-09 11:05:51 AM
I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.
 
2014-03-09 11:20:03 AM
I'm running two XP machines and a Windows 7 at work. Mainly because the main software I use is being replaced (hey, it's only taken 6 years, but it's finally happening in a few months) and it only works 100% on XP. I can run it on XP with some creative tweaking, but not all the tools work.

I makes me wonder how many other businesses have not updated software since 2007-08 because they didn't want to spend money or couldn't afford to.
 
2014-03-09 11:23:37 AM
It's been a while so I can't remember.  But when 98se and 2000/NT were being phased out, were there that many machines still running those OS's that it was a problem or had most of them already been replaced?
 
2014-03-09 12:07:26 PM
I wonder, in 2001, how many people were saying Microsoft was doomed for failing to sufficiently support MS-DOS 4.0.  I'm sure there were some, but I wonder how many.
 
2014-03-09 12:13:44 PM
The Major Research Institution I work at still has at least one win 3.1 box.
 
2014-03-09 12:36:11 PM

Relatively Obscure: I wonder, in 2001, how many people were saying Microsoft was doomed for failing to sufficiently support MS-DOS 4.0.  I'm sure there were some, but I wonder how many.


In 2001 the talk of doom was mostly based on the vast suckage of Internet Explorer.

Mostly.
 
2014-03-09 12:43:39 PM

Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.


No it doesn't.

Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.
 
2014-03-09 12:46:20 PM
The Feds still require MCDST certs.
 
2014-03-09 12:48:55 PM
They just need to admit the metro crap was a huge mistake, and completely scrap it for desktop PCs. And put the start menu back while they're at it.
 
2014-03-09 12:52:37 PM
My last place of work still had a mess of SparcStation 5 running SunOS for software development.
 
2014-03-09 01:05:52 PM
I just built a new computer and have been running 8.1 for the past few days.  I gotta say, I don't see the big fuss.  It runs smoothly, and with the new options in 8.1, I haven't seen the Start Screen since the first time I booted it up.  There's a few annoyances, like settings being moved around, but no worse than any Windows upgrade.
 
2014-03-09 01:08:31 PM
Hey old timers, XP came out 13 years ago. It's time to farking upgrade your software and hardware!*

/*does not apply to medical imaging or large machines that should be air-gapped.
 
2014-03-09 01:18:15 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-03-09 01:24:10 PM

yellowcat: I makes me wonder how many other businesses have not updated software since 2007-08 because they didn't want to spend money or couldn't afford to.


Plenty of businesses, including some small software vendors, are now in a pickle because they thought Microsoft was going to push back XP's extended support to 2015-2016.  Vendors have been scrambling to test their software using an XP virtual machine within Windows 7, and that typically doesn't work very well for old software.  And any small business with 10 or fewer PCs is likely to be running XP.

BizarreMan: It's been a while so I can't remember.  But when 98se and 2000/NT were being phased out, were there that many machines still running those OS's that it was a problem or had most of them already been replaced?


There were many machines still running Win98/NT, but things were much different back then.  Nearly all business software was built for Windows, which meant businesses had no choice but to upgrade once their critical systems were migrated and only supported on Windows 2000.  Nowadays, it's possible for a small business to operate entirely through a Web browser so the version of Windows doesn't matter nearly as much as it used to.
 
2014-03-09 01:29:16 PM
The business where I work is still running MSDOS.
 
2014-03-09 01:36:03 PM
You can still run XP.
Just don't connect to any kind of network.
 
2014-03-09 02:01:36 PM

sirrerun: You can still run XP.
Just don't connect to any kind of network.


imgs.xkcd.com

/Old
 
2014-03-09 02:04:02 PM

MrSteve007: Hey old timers, XP came out 13 years ago. It's time to farking upgrade your software and hardware!*

/*does not apply to medical imaging or large machines that should be air-gapped.


We still have mainframes being run on COBOL.
 
2014-03-09 02:08:00 PM

2chris2: The business where I work is still running MSDOS.


How often do you call for support or updates?
 
2014-03-09 02:10:31 PM
 
2014-03-09 02:17:34 PM

jaytkay: Microsoft's 12-year-old Windows XP operating system powers 95 percent of the world's automated teller machines, according to NCR, the largest ATM supplier in the US.


/ WTF


www.betaarchive.co.uk
 
2014-03-09 02:27:42 PM

jaytkay: Microsoft's 12-year-old Windows XP operating system powers 95 percent of the world's automated teller machines, according to NCR, the largest ATM supplier in the US.


/ WTF


At the same time, a bank's ATM network should be airgapped from the general internet, and there shouldn't be an easily accessible USB port that can be used to infect it, so there really isn't a huge risk of infection, especially if you disable non-essential services.

On the other hand, I wonder how many voting machines are running XP and are vulnerable because their ports are more accessible.
 
2014-03-09 02:36:36 PM
It's not Microsoft's fault that all these companies out there, due to the cost of upgrading and testing all new software on what should have been their latest OS yeas ago in Windows 7, decided not to upgrade. There was an article I read awhile ago which stated alot of ATMs and credit card point of purchase machine still are networked to some very acient version of Windows or maybe even MS DOS.
 
2014-03-09 02:51:16 PM

Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high no point whatsoever of a learning curve.


I just recently got a Windows 8.1 laptop.  What a screaming POS!  It is inexcusable trash.  Any fanboy who would even give it a passing grade above Bob can pretty much be assumed to be an employee of MS.  I upgraded the laptop to Windows 7 from my MSDN subscription and it runs fairly well now.

I am always irritated by MS shills who say "you just don't have the ability to learn what great new features are available in this new version."  As if my time is of no consequence to their pursuit of more money.  If I did not have a need for some feature, it is not an upgrade - it is a freaking waste of my time.

/MS employees == purveyors of code bloat and wasted CPU cycles
 
2014-03-09 03:07:18 PM
Old machine, named after an old Navy carrier: WinXP, SP3, all latest updates except one applied.

Seems that one is blocked or obsolete.

New machine, named after another old Navy carrier: W7 Ultimate, SP1 is on standby to install at a time of my choosing.

Everything I could switch off of automatic onto manual is firmly switched.

Perhaps I should check my AV suite today... :P
 
2014-03-09 03:09:12 PM

yellowcat: I'm running two XP machines and a Windows 7 at work. Mainly because the main software I use is being replaced (hey, it's only taken 6 years, but it's finally happening in a few months) and it only works 100% on XP. I can run it on XP with some creative tweaking, but not all the tools work.

I makes me wonder how many other businesses have not updated software since 2007-08 because they didn't want to spend money or couldn't afford to.


What about if you are using a software package that is from 2001ish?  XP had poor DOS legacy support and I haven't even bothered to try it with 7.

I suppose I could just e-mail the company that went out of business ten years ago and ask them to come out with new software... or maybe I could tell everyone whose car is running that particular engine controller that they need to spend $3000 on a new computer + wiring + retuning.
 
2014-03-09 03:11:10 PM
My dentist's office has about 10 computers some of them more then a decade old.  He does not want to spend the money to upgrade but is worried about Microsoft ending their support. Much of his software especially on the machines in the treatment rooms is proprietary to the dental industry especially the imaging stuff for taking pictures inside peoples mouths.   There is some question if it will work with Windows 8.
We have reached a point with computers where there is no point in upgrading, either for home or the business world. A years old computer running XP will serve the purpose of checking Emails and running Office with no problems.
 
2014-03-09 03:17:31 PM

spawn73: Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.


No it doesn't.


Yes it does, moron.   Here, take it from the company's own mouth.  Take it deep.  All the way.  Get it in there good.

I'm curious, when people make idiotic statements like the one you just made, do you really think you're right?  Windows 7 has the same basic interface as XP, Windows 8 does not.  Windows 8 has a higher learning curve.  Do you think by stamping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears that it's going to change reality?
 
2014-03-09 03:17:58 PM
The PC on which I'm typing this is XP.

Is it really true that in a few months it will be as infested with worms and viruses as Lindsay Lohan's hatchet wound, or is that hype that is covered by Norton anti-virus?

/I'm old.
//Should I get a new desktop for home use?
 
2014-03-09 03:22:16 PM
FTFA:

Windows PCs now in operation, that "user share" translates into approximately 488 million systems.
Four hundred and eighty-eight million.
...

Even if one discounts the 70% of the approximately 300 million XP machines in China that are not regularly updated with existing patches -- the 70% statistic comes from Microsoft -- that still leaves 278 million machines.



So... let me get this straight. There are 488 million people with PCs and refuse to update to a new OS after 13 years, and 210 million of them regularly and religiously update their patches and will all of the sudden be at risk when new patches stop coming out?
 
2014-03-09 03:23:36 PM

Cubansaltyballs: So... let me get this straight. There are 488 million people with PCs and refuse to update to a new OS after 13 years, and 210 million of them regularly and religiously update their patches and will all of the sudden be at risk when new patches stop coming out?


Oops. What I meant was 210 million are the *only* ones that don't religiously perform monthly updates.
 
2014-03-09 03:24:03 PM

Lsherm: spawn73: Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.


No it doesn't.

Yes it does, moron.   Here, take it from the company's own mouth.  Take it deep.  All the way.  Get it in there good.

I'm curious, when people make idiotic statements like the one you just made, do you really think you're right?  Windows 7 has the same basic interface as XP, Windows 8 does not.  Windows 8 has a higher learning curve.  Do you think by stamping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears that it's going to change reality?


With 8.1, all you have to do is check a couple of options and reset some file associates, and it's basically like using 7 again.  I haven't seen the Start Screen since my initial installation.  I don't think the learning curve is that bad at all.
 
2014-03-09 03:28:04 PM

spawn73: Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.

No it doesn't.

Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.


Here we go again. Someone who forgets one of the huge reasons why there's a hesitancy to switch to W8.1 from windows XP... DRIVERS. A computer purchased at the start of XP's cycle came with all the drivers necessary for video, audio, SCSI cards or what have you. Some of that hardware is no longer made, and the drivers may not have been updated since then. W8.1 cannot provide drivers for every single piece of hardware in existence that may be in everyone's computer on the planet, so installing W8.1 on a machine without that support will be pointless.
There are some machines that have hardware from 2001 or earlier, like the machine I use as a server, and many businesses own hardware (and software) that's even older but that still works. For them XP isn't going anywhere.

As for your "No it isn't" statement to the learning curve of W8.1, that has already been discussed and dismantled in many other threads, and found to be incorrect. Businesses will continue to stay away from W8.1 for that and other reasons, simply because learning curves = time and time = money.
Also, the "all you have to do is bla bla bla" argument doesn't hold water either, because if more software and hiding stuff and tweaking and reconfiguring is needed to make W8.1 run like, say, Windows7, then the practical solution is to just get W7 and skip the bullsh*ttery altogether. If I want a porsche, I'll get a porsche... I won't buy a Volkswagen bug and stick a porsche engine it it to "make it run like a porsche".
 
2014-03-09 03:29:57 PM

enry: The Major Research Institution I work at still has at least one win 3.1 box.


Unfortunately in certain industries you have to keep old stuff around for regulatory purposes.  I built more than a few networks who's sole purpose was to isolate Windows boxes from the rest of the network so - if they needed to - they could boot up an application to validate or retest some application.

/usually in the medical industry
 
2014-03-09 03:33:14 PM

spawn73: Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.


This is complete bullshiat.  Windows 8 is both larger and runs slower than Windows 7.  And when you have to disable the primary feature of the OS to make it usable - you have a major farking problem on your hands.

If Microsoft just incrementally updated Windows 7 instead of the "no compromises" approach - they wouldn't be in the PR disaster they are now in.
 
2014-03-09 03:33:21 PM
It has been established almost from the start that Microsoft only cares about picking people's pockets, not providing anything of value.  That is their reputation.
 
2014-03-09 03:35:40 PM
If you like a computer that works, automatic updates is the first thing you should disable.

"Automatic updates is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded gun."
 
2014-03-09 03:40:20 PM

Lsherm: spawn73: Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.


No it doesn't.

Yes it does, moron.   Here, take it from the company's own mouth.  Take it deep.  All the way.  Get it in there good.

I'm curious, when people make idiotic statements like the one you just made, do you really think you're right?  Windows 7 has the same basic interface as XP, Windows 8 does not.  Windows 8 has a higher learning curve.  Do you think by stamping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears that it's going to change reality?


No it doesn't clown.

All you ever see are people who don't find Windows 8 to be difficult, claiming that other people probably finds it hard, somehow. Perhaps some people believe it to be so, but that's not why Windows XP is still popular.

Reality is that people upgrade their OS whenever they purchase a new PC, and Windows XP was released at a time where PC's where of a quality and speed where they're still, in large number, performing their duties just fine.

Some people will upgrade once XP stops being supported, others won't. If this just so happends to coincide with Windows 8.x being released, then I am equally sure that a lot of people will fall for the fallacy of finding a pattern where there is none.

The only things that will drive people to Windows 8.x is XP no longer being supported, and Windows 8.x working on 1GB of memory (unlike Windows 7).
 
2014-03-09 03:43:09 PM
Everyone wants to be Apple. Apple is located in Southern California and has a cult following in engineering circles. You can't get the people that Apple gets, so just be Microsoft and kiss corporate ass. There's a lot of money in it, look at Oracle.
 
2014-03-09 03:46:13 PM

rewind2846: spawn73: Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.

No it doesn't.

Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.

Here we go again. Someone who forgets one of the huge reasons why there's a hesitancy to switch to W8.1 from windows XP... DRIVERS. A computer purchased at the start of XP's cycle came with all the drivers necessary for video, audio, SCSI cards or what have you. Some of that hardware is no longer made, and the drivers may not have been updated since then. W8.1 cannot provide drivers for every single piece of hardware in existence that may be in everyone's computer on the planet, so installing W8.1 on a machine without that support will be pointless.
There are some machines that have hardware from 2001 or earlier, like the machine I use as a server, and many businesses own hardware (and software) that's even older but that still works. For them XP isn't going anywhere.

As for your "No it isn't" statement to the learning curve of W8.1, that has already been discussed and dismantled in many other threads, and found to be incorrect. Businesses will continue to stay away from W8.1 for that and other reasons, simply because learning curves = time and time = money.
Also, the "all you have to do is bla bla bla" argument doesn't hold water either, because if more software and hiding stuff and tweaking and reconfiguring is needed to make W8.1 run like, say, Windows7, then the practical solution is to just get W7 and skip the bullsh*ttery altogether. If I want a porsche, I'll get a porsche... I won't buy a Volkswagen bug and stick a porsche engine it it to "make it run like a porsche".


Why are you lecturing me about drivers?

Your car analogy is stupid. Fact is that Windows 8 is faster than Windows 7. Its also more compatible, and has the memory requirement lowered to 1GB over 2GB. Windows 8 runs like Windows 7, just faster and more compatible. Its the same kernel, just improved.

Sure, someone will choose Windows 7 over Windows 8. So people do stupid things, what does that prove?

You're talking about businesses. Now that we're talking about stupid things. You know businesses that will upgrade from XP to Windows 7 without tweaking things, or having a learning curve? Nope.
 
2014-03-09 03:48:41 PM
gingerjet: spawn73: Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.

This is complete bullshiat.  Windows 8 is both larger and runs slower than Windows 7.  And when you have to disable the primary feature of the OS to make it usable - you have a major farking problem on your hands.


That's factually just plain wrong.

Yeah larger, that's why it runs on 1GB vs. 2GB "rolls eyes".

If Microsoft just incrementally updated Windows 7 instead of the "no compromises" approach - they wouldn't be in the PR disaster they are now in.

What PR disaster? Oh right, the "OMG we're selling just as many copies in a stagnating market" one? Or the one in your head?
 
2014-03-09 03:51:06 PM

NeoCortex42: With 8.1, all you have to do is check a couple of options and reset some file associates, and it's basically like using 7 again. I haven't seen the Start Screen since my initial installation. I don't think the learning curve is that bad at all.


I don't think "learning curve" is the sole problem... I won't recommend it for a corporate deployment because a lack of versatility.

Believe it or not, and I know this may be SHOCKING, but not every PC has a touch interface and some do have applications that can't run in metro mode. Sometimes an IT admin needs to view/edit/delete configured wireless settings, etc.  And if that didn't shock you enough, you may be shocked SHOCKED to know that if even if you get past that and rollout, say... 5,000 machines without a start button or any way to view installed programs or shut down the machine, there might be a productivity hit.

But I know, I know...  that's all easy to get past. It's so easy that people will figure it out and I'm just a an old geezer that wants to keep things simple. I mean, you've obviously managed huge networks so you know when you introduce even a small change, like changing the steps required for VPN, like going through an online cert request (ONCE) the users will have a problem, but if you remove their start button and give them an unfamiliar and strange interface they interact with 90% of the day, they will get over it and won't call for you to be hanged in the town square.
 
2014-03-09 03:52:53 PM

mccallcl: Everyone wants to be Apple. Apple is located in Southern California and has a cult following in engineering circles. You can't get the people that Apple gets, so just be Microsoft and kiss corporate ass. There's a lot of money in it, look at Oracle.


When did Cupertino get considered "Southern California"????
 
2014-03-09 03:56:25 PM

yellowcat: I'm running two XP machines and a Windows 7 at work. Mainly because the main software I use is being replaced (hey, it's only taken 6 years, but it's finally happening in a few months) and it only works 100% on XP. I can run it on XP with some creative tweaking, but not all the tools work.

I makes me wonder how many other businesses have not updated software since 2007-08 because they didn't want to spend money or couldn't afford to been suckered into buying Sage software


FTFY
 
2014-03-09 03:57:59 PM

mccallcl: Apple is located in Southern California


Apple headquarters is not near Southern California.
 
2014-03-09 04:14:04 PM
You should not be REQUIRED to tweak an OS straight out of the box.

The tweaking should come AFTER you've USED it for a few days.

I got into a very short, VERY loud screaming match at a friend's house with another friend on this exact issue with Windows 8. It was so damn frustrating to observe user flailing that it turned me into an instant asshole.

My townie friend found the Metro interface impossible to use, and I was trying really hard to help, but what was needed was a god damn 3rd party freeware that she NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO INSTALL because Micronads f*cked up the out of the box user interface.
 
2014-03-09 04:21:59 PM

spawn73: Your car analogy is stupid. Fact is that Windows 8 is faster than Windows 7. Its also more compatible, and has the memory requirement lowered to 1GB over 2GB. Windows 8 runs like Windows 7, just faster and more compatible. Its the same kernel, just improved.


Except no start menu.
 
2014-03-09 04:22:11 PM

spawn73: gingerjet: spawn73: Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.

This is complete bullshiat.  Windows 8 is both larger and runs slower than Windows 7.  And when you have to disable the primary feature of the OS to make it usable - you have a major farking problem on your hands.

That's factually just plain wrong.

Yeah larger, that's why it runs on 1GB vs. 2GB "rolls eyes".

If Microsoft just incrementally updated Windows 7 instead of the "no compromises" approach - they wouldn't be in the PR disaster they are now in.

What PR disaster? Oh right, the "OMG we're selling just as many copies in a stagnating market" one? Or the one in your head?


Here's what, Paul Thurrott, the guy who runs the Windows Supersite, and who has devoted most of his career to writing about Windows has to say. If anyone is going to cut Microsoft some slack, it is him:

God knows, Microsoft tries. It's a wonderful observer and follower. After watching Windows Vista get mismanaged and then slapped around by Apple, it tapped Steven Sinofsky to reimagine Windows. It's fair to say that this man shares many of the same character traits-and flaws-that defined Steve Jobs. He was belligerent and one-sided, didn't work well with others, had no qualms about tossing out features and technologies that didn't originate with his group, and had absolutely zero respect for customer feedback. Here, finally, was a guy who could push through a Steve Jobs-style, singular product vision.

And he did. Sadly, the result was Windows 8.

The reason this happened is that while Sinofsky had the maniacal power and force of will of a Steve Jobs, he lacked Jobs' best gift: An innate understanding of good design. Windows 8 is not well-designed. It's a mess. But Windows 8 is a bigger problem than that. Windows 8 is a disaster in every sense of the word.
This is not open to debate, is not part of some cute imaginary world where everyone's opinion is equally valid or whatever. Windows 8  isa disaster. Period.

While some Windows backers took a wait-and-see approach and openly criticized me for being honest about this, I had found out from internal sources immediately that the product was doomed from the get-go, feared and ignored by customers, partners and other groups in Microsoft alike. Windows 8 was such a disaster that Steven Sinofsky was ejected from the company and his team of lieutenants was removed from Windows in a cyclone of change that triggered a reorganization of the entire company. Even Sinofsky's benefactor, Microsoft's then-CEO Steve Ballmer, was removed from office. Why did all this happen? Because together, these people set the company and Windows back by years and have perhaps destroyed what was once the most successful software franchise of all time.

Paul knows his stuff about Windows, and I find he is pretty unbiased in his reporting. If HE throws up his hands in disgust, it is a crap release.
 
2014-03-09 04:28:16 PM
S'il vous plait: is there an email client out there that most resembles Outlook Express?
 
2014-03-09 04:29:34 PM

spawn73: Lsherm: I get why they need to retire it, but they should still have Win7 in the sales channels.  If you're moving thousands of users off XP Win 8 still has too high a learning curve.

No it doesn't.

Also it requires fewer resources than Windows 7, so its more likely to run on a PC with Windows XP on it.


jaytkay: Microsoft's 12-year-old Windows XP operating system powers 95 percent of the world's automated teller machines, according to NCR, the largest ATM supplier in the US.


/ WTF


NeoCortex42: I'm curious, when people make idiotic statements like the one you just made, do you really think you're right?  Windows 7 has the same basic interface as XP, Windows 8 does not.  Windows 8 has a higher learning curve.  Do you think by stamping your feet and putting your fingers in your ears that it's going to change reality?

With 8.1, all you have to do is check a couple of options and reset some file associates, and it's basically like using 7 again.  I haven't seen the Start Screen since my initial installation.  I don't think the learning curve is that bad at all.


I have many, many clients that are saying the exact opposite thing that you are.  And I've had my share of problems with Win 8, from drivers for specialized hardware, to the nonsensical reorganization of utilities, to the baffling burying of backup.  I agree with you that, under the sheets, its a superior product.  But let's not pretend that the reorganization on the UI side doesn't have every appearance of having been done by committee.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report