Your Garage botysf16 Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Melvins Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro STEM
Profile for Blejowski > Reviews


Blejowski's Profile

Customer Reviews: 23
Top Reviewer Ranking: 705,059
Helpful Votes: 367

Community Features
Review Discussion Boards
Top Reviewers

Guidelines: Learn more about the ins and outs of Your Profile.

Reviews Written by
Blejowski RSS Feed (Melbourne, Australia)

Page: 1 | 2 | 3
Ministry of Sound: Anthems Electronic 80's
Ministry of Sound: Anthems Electronic 80's
28 used & new from $2.47

1 of 4 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars An anthology of electronic music from before electronic music was much good, August 10, 2011
As a fan of many styles of electronic music, from psytrance to dub to ambient to pop, and having recently rediscovered how much I like 80s music, I was disappointed with many of the tracks here. Though electronic music in the 80s was still in its infancy, many musicians were nevertheless able to make the most of it to craft great songs, and put into them that special characteristic 80s vibe that somehow combines synthetic coldness with emotional warmth; playfulness and optimism with a lyrical melancholy. Those songs have stood the test of time and still have integrity despite their technological shortcomings, and some of them are here, such as Pet Shop Boys' "West End Girls", Johnny Hates Jazz's "Shattered Dreams" or Bronski Beat's "Smalltown Boy".

But many other tracks just sound too much like the musicians were still trying to figure out how to get the most out of the electronic form and, like a kid fooling around on his first Yamaha keyboard, were a bit too infatuated with the new technology to know how to use it tastefully. A lot of the tracks feel like little more than novelties, or experiments that - while they might have sounded innovative at the time - just sound embarrassingly quaint today, not to mention horribly tinny.

I think you probably need very particular tastes and/or a keen interest in pop music history to really get the most from this compilation. I think most people will end up finding a lot of the tracks primitive or grating, and will end up skipping many of them, for much the same reason that relatively few people listen to jazz from the 1910s or classical music from the 1200s.

Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction
Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction
by Ian J. Deary
Edition: Paperback
Price: $8.35
104 used & new from $1.11

10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Very short, yet very long-winded, January 13, 2011
Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction is accessible and easy to read, and written in a pleasant voice that seems unbiased and fair. Deary has tried to cover all of the major areas of intelligence research, and present a wide variety of studies and viewpoints. Though this book was written for the layperson, however, it was very obviously written by a scientist. In scientific writing, a methodical, cautious and highly detailed writing style is probably the norm, and is perhaps even essential. Though in a book like this, it makes the prose dry and unnecessarily repetitive. I can't help but feel that some ruthless editing would have greatly improved it, from someone who is an expert at written communication, and not just psychological research.

For example, Deary introduces one of his chapters by outlining something that everyone already knows: Siblings tend to share some of their environment (eg. they probably eat the same diet, their parents teach them the same values) but not all of it (eg. they probably have separate friends, they might read different books); they also share about 50% of their genes. And while identical twins also share some, but not all, of their environment, they share 100% of their genes, not 50%. It's good that Deary spells this out, for the sake of clarity. The problem is, he spends 4 pages and a number of diagrams doing it, in excruciatingly unnecessary detail.

Though I appreciate that Deary tried to cover all the main areas of research, there are some that to a general reader like me are simply irrelevant. For example, there's a whole section about how brain size and the shapes of electrical brain waves correlate to intelligence. I can't see how this nuts & bolts stuff would seem relevant to anyone but scientific researchers or those with an extraordinary amount of scientific curiosity. In terms of the general reader who is interested in how intelligence functions in the real world, this behind-the-scenes stuff seems like an academic diversion. What makes it even less satisfying to read is the fact that, as Deary stresses many times, scientists still know very little about how the brain works at all. The research he discusses in this section amounts to little more than a pile of 'maybes', 'what-ifs' and inconclusive or conflicting studies. This research will probably bear interesting fruit in many years' time, but until it does, I couldn't care less about it.

Overall, the title of this book is almost a misnomer. It really is more about the *scientific study of intelligence differences* than it is about *intelligence* itself. You'll learn a fair bit about the various ways of testing aspects of intelligence, but not much about how those aspects of intelligence actually affect you or those around you. You'll learn about the various controversies, disagreements and agreements in the scientific world involving the comparison of IQ scores, yet you'll still feel no closer to understanding what some of the key differences between you, Einstein and a chimpanzee actually are.

Overall, this is a recommendable read that sheds a bit of light on where the science of intelligence is at, and the general reader will be sure to find something of interest in it. But be prepared to wade through a lot of extraneous detail and scientific introspection. I felt that for a 100 page book, its content should have been more fleshed out, or else it should have been polished and edited down to 40 pages or so.
Comment Comments (2) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Oct 4, 2012 4:28 AM PDT

Blade Kitten [Download]
Blade Kitten [Download]

8 of 10 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars I found it unplayable. Try before you buy!, October 14, 2010
Due to some limitation with the engine, this game is capped at 30 frames per second. Normally, 30fps isn't so bad - that's more or less what I get in Crysis, yet Crysis looks and feels fantastic on my machine. But on this game, 30fps feels WAY too low and makes everything feel blurry and choppy whenever you're moving, which is basically all the time. I gave it a few tries, but I eventually had to stop because of eye strain. The gameplay didn't seem particularly fun either (and I've read several reviews that say it's lacklustre), so it just didn't seem worth the trouble to plug through this blurfest and give myself a headache.

Maybe it looks great on a CRT monitor, and maybe different people's eyes have different sensitivies. But on my LCD monitor, it just looks horrible. I've played loads of games, and this is the the first time this has happened to me.

There's a free demo available on Steam (and no doubt elsewhere too) so I urge you to try that before you buy. I wish I did.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Dec 10, 2010 7:35 AM PST

Mass Effect 2 - PC
Mass Effect 2 - PC
Offered by ExcitedGamer
Price: $5.19
86 used & new from $0.02

5.0 out of 5 stars The best game ever made. That's all you need to know., October 6, 2010
This review is from: Mass Effect 2 - PC (Video Game)
The story is well-written, told cinematically, and set in a fascinating and immersive universe populated by memorable characters. A very good engine combined with superb art design make this one of the most visually gorgeous games around. The sound design and music is great too. The action is slick, tactical and fun. Die-hard RPG fans might complain that there isn't as much complexity in the stats and level-up mechanics as they'd like, but only someone blinded by very narrow tastes wouldn't be able to see that the merits of this game far outweigh its flaws. It doesn't quite feel long enough, but the recent DLC helps solve that.

Mass Effect 2 is a joy to play, and the day it gets surpassed in quality will probably be the day Mass Effect 3 comes out.

Far Cry 2 - PC
Far Cry 2 - PC
Offered by BLS Mart
Price: $11.99
95 used & new from $0.80

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Could've been better, but still awesome, May 15, 2010
This review is from: Far Cry 2 - PC (Video Game)
If you like your games immersive, atmospheric, strategic and tense, then look no further. Yes, the story is weak and the characters are poorly acted. Yes, there's a little too much driving, and the guardposts rewspan too quickly. Also, the gameplay gets repetitive. But since the gameplay is so damn awesome, that's not such a big problem.

Far Cry 2 does a lot of things really, really well. The graphics are detailed and terrific. The designers knew where to include realistic touches (like a hand-held map rather than an HUD one), and where to add gameplay-aiding contrivances (like the GPS icons that appear on that map). The AI is extremely good, too. Even though you'll come up against similar groups of guys over and over, the gunfights tend to be unpredictable and dynamic, and you can find yourself switching between predator and prey several times in one gunfight.

You have many tactics at your disposal, from stealth to machine guns to explosives, but it's the way the game prods you to constantly combine these that makes it so much fun. No one tactic is ever quite enough to win a fight, and each set of weapons you choose brings with it a lot of strengths but also a few vulnerabilities.

The shooting mechanics feel great, and the game's got some really cool and varied explosives, but what really stands out is the FIRE! It's awesome. Fire has never looked anywhere near this good in a game, and it's actually one of the most useful and exciting parts of the gameplay. I'm sure we'll see this type of fire in many other games soon.

Set the difficulty to "infamous", adjust the gamma so that night really feels like night, and get ready for a flawed yet still totally awesome, immersive, tactical shooter experience. Oh, and get your hands on the flare gun as soon as you can. Trust me.

Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and Diet Dictocrats
Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and Diet Dictocrats
by Mary G. Enig PhD
Edition: Paperback
Price: $16.26
263 used & new from $8.11

141 of 169 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars This book insults your intelligence, May 3, 2010
I'm embarassed to admit it, but when I got this book several years ago, I loved it. It took me years to see through the B.S. and realise that I believed this book because I wanted to believe it, not because it was particularly compelling. Even at the outset, its vitriolic tone and faulty arguments were hard to ignore. This book is less a cookbook and more a platform for the authors' crusade (against the "Diet Dictocrats", no less) and they seem happy to use any distortion, half-truth, and fabrication they can to promote their position.

Here's just one (quite mild!) example: On page 24, the authors write about how sugar leeches calcium from teeth. They then continue: "Thus, sugar consumption causes tooth decay not because it promotes bacterial growth in the mouth, as most dentists believe, but because it alters the internal body chemistry". What?! How on earth does the calcium-leeching theory disprove the bacterial-growth theory? How simplistic do these authors think the body is if they think there can only be one factor involved in tooth decay? It's like saying "smoking is bad for your health because it causes heart disease and not, as previously thought, because it causes lung cancer". The logic is rubbish, but they happily use it to dimiss almost the entire dental community.

This kind of thing happens over and over in the book. They take one study, twist it to meet their ends, and try and use it to discredit just about every other school of thought on the subject, often with spurious logic. Often, they don't quote studies, but just anecdotes, or even their own books, or nothing at all. Do some research online and you'll find plenty of criticism of these women and their organisation (The Weston A Price foundation) for how dodgy their 'research' is: quoting things out of context, quoting from abstracts and not considering the full studies, and so on. I remember reading about one anti-soy article where they quoted a study that found there was a chemical in soy that was bad for the brain. It turns out that the very same study mentioned about 10 other chemicals that were good for the brain, and concluded that soy was actually good for brain health overall. This kind of misrepresentation is offensive and unethical.

I'm all for questioning modern Western medicine and looking towards more holistic viewpoints for answers, but these people throw out the baby with the bathwater. Some of what they write is so biased and their arguments so shoddy that it's hard to trust anything they say. And once they've dismissed the bulk of Western nutritional science, who do they look to instead? Weston A Price - a dentist who worked some 100 years ago. Seriously. So you'll read all about about how native peoples like the far-North Inuit ate mostly animal products and had healthy teeth. Teeth, we are told, are a good indicator of general health, which sounds reasonable enough, if a little crude. Though a little tidbit the authors fail to mention is that many of these tribal cultures had some of lowest life expectancies on the planet. So load up on meat everybody! You'll die young, but you'll have lovely teeth!

It's never fully clear what the authors' motivation for their crusade is, other than an unwavering belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Yet the zeal with which they try and discredit the "diet dictocrats" almost reminds me of ultra-conservative TV evangelists blathering about Communists. It's clear that they don't try and use the facts to help them find the truth, but rather they already have a pre-imagined version of the truth and they bend the facts to match.

So that's the nutrition side of the book, but what about the recipe side? Well, if you can get past the brain omellettes and offal burritos, there are some half-decent recipes in there, but nothing too special. The format isn't great either: recipes are cramped on account of nutrition quotes filling the margins, and there are no pictures or written descriptions of the dishes - just ingredients and instructions. The instructions are in paragraph form, which I find annoying (I prefer point-form). There are some useful obscure things, like how to make sauerkraut or kimchee or sprouts, but there are probably better books out there devoted to those sorts of things.

Ultimately, I think this book is mainly aimed at people who want to feel better about eating animal products. Do you feel bad about the environmental devastation, animal cruelty and health problems connected with your animal-based diet? Want a book that'll ease your conscience by telling you that you HAVE to eat them to be healthy - even if it uses all sorts of really shonky reasoning to arrive at that conclusion? Then this book is for you.

PS - The authors' reckless disregard for the facts is shameful enough, but almost as bad is the way negative reviews get voted down here on Amazon. I've read reviews for hundreds of products on Amazon and I don't ever remember seeing negative reviews being voted "unhelpful" by so many people. Even very well-written, poignant, respectful reviews written by scientists and doctors have recieved overwhelmingly high "unhelpful" votes. It's clear that some people - the authors, people linked to their organisation, and/or their fans - are coming here in droves to vote down the negative reviews. Who are the real diet dictocrats, eh?
Comment Comments (8) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Jun 6, 2012 5:05 PM PDT

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl - PC
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl - PC
Offered by ebid-dealz
Price: $9.10
147 used & new from $0.01

3.0 out of 5 stars Could've been more atmospheric, but too clunky and slapped together, March 28, 2010
I'd heard that Stalker was one of the most atmospheric games out there, and having loved the Tarkovsky film of the same name, I was ready to love this game. But even though I kept pushing myself to return to it in the hope that it'd suck me in, it just kept leaving me cold. In the end, after 20+ hours, I gave up.

The graphics are decent, though a few things regularly break the atmosphere. The dialogue with most NPCs feels wooden, and this is made worse by inconsistent modes of communication: sometimes people speak English, sometimes Ukrainian, and sometimes they stay silent but 'speak' via text boxes. It's hard to feel like you're in a believable place when your conversations feel like they were hastily slapped together after the game outgrew its voiceover budget.

Wrestling with the convoluted interface isn't fun either. I like the "PC games should be intelligent and detailed" philosophy, but this interface just seems poorly designed, not to mention ugly. Merely checking your map as you travel is a hassle, and the inventory system gets clunky real fast, since you spend so much time juggling your items to fit under the weight quota.

The combat is pretty good (and murderously difficult on the hardest setting, which is great if you like a real challenge). The AI is smart and unpredictable, and some gunfights are nail-bitingly intense, where even the most careful strategy and skilled shooting barely scrapes you through. Movement feels unnatural, though. For example, crouching doesn't smoothly lower the view, but just instantaneously pops it to the lower position. Things like this make you feel less like a person moving around a real landscape, and more like a camera moving around a 3D engine.

Overall, it's a game worth considering, and if it floats your boat, then great. But for a game that demands so much of your time and effort, I found it too unpolished and clunky. I never really connected with the story or the characters, and instead of a deep, affecting atmosphere, I just found it drab.

Buddha's Table: Thai Feasting Vegetarian Style
Buddha's Table: Thai Feasting Vegetarian Style
by Chat Mingkwan
Edition: Paperback
Price: $12.70
98 used & new from $2.33

19 of 19 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars some great recipes - and it's vegan, too., March 4, 2010
This is a quiet, unassuming little cookbook - small size, no glossy pages, almost no pictures - but it's become one of my favourites. I've probably only cooked about 10 things from it so far, but that's partly because many of those things are so tasty that I keep making them again. The curry pastes are authentic and delicious, some of the salads are electrifyingly flavoursome, and the Coconut Galangal Soup blows me and my wife away every time (and never fails to impress guests). I've had one recipe misfire on me so far (it was a curry mousse dish, which came out too runny), though I suspect that it was my fault, and not the recipe's. Overall, Buddha's Table is a little gem that definitely deserves a place in your cupboard if you like to cook Thai from time to time.

Vegans please note that although it isn't mentioned on the cover, this cookbook is vegan. Or at least, I haven't found any animal products in its recipes yet. Dairy is practically non-existent in Thai cuisine anyway, and I've found one or two recipes where the author has purposefully used a vegan substitute instead of egg.

68 used & new from $0.39

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Did a few things very, very well...but still not particularly fun to play, February 13, 2010
This review is from: BioShock (Video Game)
I don't blame people who love this game. The detailed graphics, decent storytelling, and original concept make Rapture one of the most unique and stylised worlds I've seen in a 3D computer game (let alone a shooter). The awesome-looking Big Daddies are cool, too. Killing them is difficult but lucrative, yet they never attack unless provoked. Therefore, fighting them is always your choice, and usually feels like a high-stakes gamble.

The novelty of Rapture wears off though, and eventually the cluttered enclosures become claustrophobic and the golden art deco style just feels gaudy. Everything starts to feel as repetitive and visually overloaded as Rapture's populace. The citizens are portrayed as depraved, violent, blathering lunatics, and boss characters are sadistic and maniacal caricatures. The game tries to paint you as an outsider who's forced to observe the sad consequences of an unhinged society. In reality though, Bioshock revels in the depravity of its world, and little separates your character from the lunatics you kill. The gore, the splattered blood, the maniacal screams, your plasmid super-powers, it's all cartoonish and over-the-top.

Bioshock occasionally takes itself seriously and invites you to critique Rapture's foundational philosophies, but it's all so obvious and simplistic. It essentially asks you: What would happen if people built a Utopian society based on social Darwinism, run by an ego-maniacal tyrant, where science gave everyone access to godlike powers? The answer: everything would go sour and chaos would erupt....surprise, surprise. I've played games that gave me food for thought about politics and society (Deus Ex comes to mind) but Bioshock isn't one of them.

The mechanics could be better too. The many plasmids and upgrades you have feel like they came out of a slower RPG, and finding the right weapon or plasmid in the heat of the moment feels fiddly and stressful. A confusing map interface and respawning enemies don't make the experience more satisfying, either.

In the end, I found that I was trudging my way through these garish, stifling levels mainly to see how the story turned out. Eventually I gave up about halfway through and just read the synopsis on wikipedia. Maybe the feel of the game changed dramatically in the latter half, rendering this review inaccurate, but I doubt it.

I wanted to like Bioshock, but the cartoonish brutality and clumsy mechanics just weren't for me. I'm grateful for it because it's set some worthwhile benchmarks for the industry in terms of art direction and originality, but once the lustre wore off, I found much of the game to be frustrating, unpleasant and repetitive.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Nov 6, 2010 9:39 PM PDT

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium
2 used & new from $158.98

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The best OS I've ever used. Microsoft are finally on the right track., January 24, 2010
Windows 7 is the best operating system I've ever used. That's not saying much, as I've never used an OS that I thought was wholly satisfactory, but Windows 7 has come closer than any. It's the first OS that feels like it's actually on my side, rather than me having to wrestle with it half the time.

First, a little about me for context. I've used Windows versions 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, and a little of Vista. At work I use a Mac, where I've used Leopard and Snow Leopard. I hated all versions of windows up until XP, which I thought was imperfect but acceptable and relatively stable. I have a love-hate relationship with Mac OS - some features of it blow XP away, while others feel clunky and poorly thought out. Windows 7, I'm pleased to say, beats them all. It's sleek and pleasant to use, it looks great, and it contains a few smart little additions that make certain tasks easier and more intuitive.

Firstly, they've combined the task bar and the quicklaunch into a more flexible, powerful bar that is a little like what Mac OS uses. You can pin things to it and you can drag task bar items to rearrange them if you like (at last!). Opened and unopened programs now coexist in the same basic area. This might seem odd, but once you get used to it it feels like a better system: ultimately, it makes sense to have all of your commonly used programs in the one place, whether you've opened them yet or not. Right-clicking on items on the taskbar now also offers a variety of useful things. For example, right-clicking on Media Player lets you select from a list of recently played playlists/albums etc. The new taskbar still isn't perfect, and it'll ruffle some feathers since it's different to what people are used to, but I'm sure that most people will eventually agree that it's a step forward.

One of my favourite additions to 7 is the searchable start menu (Vista users are already familiar with this, but the implementation is better in 7). I always found previous start menus to be time-consuming to navigate and therefore rather pointless, but I love this new one. It's like having the power of Google on your desktop (but much quicker), and it's changed the way I use my PC. Press the windows key and start typing something, and as you type it quickly presents you with a list of matching programs, documents, control panel options and other things. It's the fastest way to find anything on your computer.

Organising your files is easier now too. The new Library system lets you organise your documents, pictures, music and file types of your choosing in a more flexible way. You no longer have to place every important file you own in a subfolder of "My Documents", and you no longer feel forced to syphon everything into the categories "documents", "pictures" and "music".

There are some great interface tweaks, too. Drag a window to the top edge of the screen and it'll automatically maximise. Drag it to the left or right edge, and it'll automatically resize to take up the left or right half of the screen (which is great for comparing two folders or working simultaneously on two programs). Things like that feel natural and 'meant-to-be' within seconds of using them. It's great to see Windows actually surpass Mac OS in areas of fluidity and user-friendliness like this, considering that most previous versions of Windows always felt years behind Mac OS in this regard. Of course, this is a subjective opinion, since the success of an interface depends largely on the personality of the person using it. How you use your computer is influenced by whether you're methodical or spontaneous, relaxed or aggressive, an individualist or a conformist, a hoarder or a minimalist. For me, the 7 interface works well, and is the smartest and most logical yet. My guess is that Microsoft spent some time studying how most people actually use their computers and honed the OS accordingly, but that they also left various parts of the interface open to individual preference.

I like the "gadgets" too. They feel less obtrusive than in Vista, yet more convenient and immediate than the widgets in Mac OS. Windows 7 also loads and restarts much quicker than XP did for me. Another key improvement is that 7 hassles you far less. It doesn't throw Vista-style warnings in your face every time you do anything, and you don't get popup baloons sprouting from the system tray like weeds, like on XP. It still has notifications and security monitoring functions, but these are presented to you in a more elegant and well-behaved way.

There are various other things that, depending how you use your computer, you'll love or you'll ignore. Personally, I love that you can change screen resolution and turn on/off a secondary monitor much easier than before (windows-key+P is all you need for the latter). Compatibility mode is great too. Most programs and games I've used have worked fine on my 64-bit version of Windows 7, but for the couple of old ones that had issues, I simply checked the "run in XP compatibility mode" box and the problem was solved.

There are no doubt also various things that will annoy some users and bypass others. For me, it was what Windows 7 did to my Wacom tablet, making it barely usable. It turns out that 7 treats tablets as if they were touch-screen monitors, and for some reason it alters their functionality in ways that are (apparently) suited to touch-screen monitors but that make Photoshopping with a tablet almost unbearable. If you experience this issue, google it and you'll find the settings that need to be changed to make this problem go away.

Overall, I'd definitely recommend Windows 7 to just about anyone. If you're getting a new PC, it's a no-brainer: get Windows 7, because it's superior to all earlier versions (how superior is up for debate, but it'd be hard to argue that it's not at least a little better). If you're still on XP, definitely consider upgrading to 7 unless you're 100% happy with XP and aren't too interested in getting stuff done a little faster (XP now feels about as clunky and unfriendly to me as Windows 95 did when I discovered XP). If you're a Vista user, then maybe 7 is not different enough to warrant the upgrade - I guess it depends on how you use your computer and how much you like Vista. If you're a Mac user but need to use a PC for some reason, then 7 is also for you: it'll probably be the most user-friendly and familiar version of Windows for you, and although you'll still miss things like exposé, you may find that in certain areas 7 is smarter and nicer to use than Mac OS.

Sure, 7 is not perfect. It still has some foibles, and as can be seen from some of the negative reviews here, not every single person has a smooth ride when they install it. This, unfortunately, seems unavoidable and, actually, I think the receptions XP and Vista received when they came out were far worse. For me personally, installing and getting to know windows 7 has been a smoother ride than previous versions of windows. I've only had it running for a few months though, and only time will tell if it gets as rusty and buggy after a year as XP usually did. Many of the IT techies I work with have been using 7 since its pre-release versions, and I've heard nothing but positive reviews from them.

Overall, Windows 7 is two steps in the right direction from Microsoft and, considering the competition, I think it warrants 5 stars. I am, finally, after an agonisingly long wait, happy to be a Windows user.
Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Most recent comment: Feb 21, 2014 6:03 PM PST

Page: 1 | 2 | 3