Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs 295
nk497 writes "The vast majority of PCs sold by British PC makers are running Windows 7 — not Windows 8. PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS. One company initially sold its PCs with Windows 8, but feedback from users soon changed that. Customers quickly began to specify systems with Windows 7, those with Windows 8 'took delivery and wanted to change back to Windows 7' – a process the firm described as a 'nightmare.' Another firm found success by installing a 'start menu' tool on Windows 8 machines, and others said the switch would have gone smoother if Microsoft has offered a Windows 8 tutorial or better explained the new OS."
That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 8 UI is ghastly. With Classic Shell though, you'll never need to load metro again, and then its just a fast Win 7...
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
Start8Menu was the best "free" alternative for me. Stardock's Start8 is the best trialware one that I saw.
I tried Classic Shell but it aims to emulate the classic Windows 2000 and earlier Start Menu. I much prefer the more modern Vista/7 Start Menu, which my top two choices provide.
Re:That's because (Score:5, Informative)
Classic Shell can emulate later versions, just check the options. I have noticed that when you search for something and don't find it or select the wrong thing it'll lock up Explorer though. Oh well, just another WER submission on Explorer. Not half as bad as not being able to delete Windows 8 store purchases from your history.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look again, [classicshell.net] because it's there - as an option.
I'd pick Win7 over Win8 any time. Hopefully Win9 will bring back much of Win7, including an upgrade/migration path from Win7 (are you listening, MS?).
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
"I love how I get to customize every little detail with it" - a slashdot poster
"I love how I get to customize every little detail with it" - no normal computer user, ever
Re: (Score:2)
Not true. There is a common fallacy on /. that everyday computer users are computer illiterate and unable to do much more than post on Facebook and this is just not the case. Regular, non-technical users customize stuff all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, I've seen a number of people who went with the olive or silver themes, and managed to make the rotating text say something other than "Microsoft Windows".
Re: (Score:3)
If I had mod points, this would get a "+1 Funny" and/or "+1 Informative".
Your average computer user can't figure out how to add a printer without help, much less customize the interface. The ones who "know computer stuff" tend to do things like download free fonts and emoticons, animated desktops or screensavers, install browser toolbars, and disable "that annoying virus thingy that keeps me from downloading my bling". They then wonder why their computer runs slow.
Source: many years of tech support, working
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
But this raises the question why should millions of customers have go to the trouble of installing a separate program just to get a sane UI. And how many actually will, or can.
What this story tells me is that Microsoft didn't threaten to break enough legs in the British PC sales market.
Nobody here in the US wants Windows 8, and the manufacturers know it. They just sell it to make their Microsoft monkey overlords happy. Customers be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 2000 was also a win.
The ideas behind Windows Vista were sound, they were just badly implemented until about SP2. Windows 7 was Vista done properly.
The difference with Windows 8 is that the whole idea of having a single interface for both tablets and desktops was wrong. It's not that there are some annoying bugs that need to be fixed, the whole specification of it is flawed. For Windows 9, Microsoft will need to either go back to the drawing board, or alternatively release a Windows 7.1 that brings any new under-the-hood stuff to the Windows 7 UI.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 2000 was also a win.
As were Windows 98, Windows 95 and Windows 3.1. Then again, Windows ME was such a big flop, that you really can't count it as just one flop.
The pre-Windows 3 versions were also total flops. Windows 3 was not a flop, but I'm not sure it was a hit, either.
Shachar
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:4, Interesting)
The pattern:
95- Crap
NT- Good
98- Crap
98 SE- Good enough
ME- Crap
2000- Good
XP at launch- Crap
XP after a near complete rewrite through service packs- Good
Vista- Crap
7- Good
8- Crap
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:5, Funny)
Why am I reminded of Star Trek?
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:4, Informative)
ME was released after 2000.
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no harm in trying to look the same but the desktop overlooks the fact that hardly anybody has a touch screen monitor and not many people are likely to get one whilst they sit vertically on the desk.
It makes sense in a tablet or phone format but if you have a separate keyboard you may as well have a separate mouse and this makes the whole touch interface redundant.
Win 7 was, and is, great. It does what it's supposed to with some flaws but flaws that are easy to live with.
Re: (Score:3)
So, MS overdid the touch features on their OS in an attempt
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't the fact that the screen is vertical that would prevent people from getting a touch screen.
Yes, yes it is. [catb.org] The industry learned that lesson in the 80s. Of course, we like to repeat our mistakes every 20-30 years in this industry, so who knows.
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 2000 was also a win.
In terms of quality at release, Windows 2000 is unmatched by any other version of windows save perhaps 3.51. All the problems with Windows 8 seem to lie in the interface, which differentiates it from other hated versions of Windows. It's a shame Microsoft can't admit failure in a timely fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
Floopy disks! The smoke of choice for all true nerds.
Win 3.51 was a lot better than DOS4! On a good day, you could probably read a file and network (using add-ons), although not necessarily in the same hour.
Re: (Score:3)
You're mostly right. But the idea is to have a single interface for tablets, computers and *phones*. I'm on my second Windows Phone, and the interface is the best in the industry (ie: better than i* and Android) for smart phones, as far as I'm concerned. That being said, I haven't spent any time with Windows 8 on a computer. I still use XP at work and home, for the most part.
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:5, Insightful)
But the idea is to have a single interface for tablets, computers and *phones*.
So that brings the idea from "wrong" into "brain-fucked stupid."
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's worse than you think: they missed a very smart play for this nonsense. A single system-level API for tablets, computers, phones, and the X-Box would have been an amazing thing. The same UI is exactly wrong: the same API call for, e.g., a context menu, producing something appropriate for each platform would have been great - and while you can't go very far in that direction on the UI, you sure can on the system-facing parts. If the same system call gets me a new file in the right place for, e.g., program settings, on a phone, game console, or server, it would be far easier to hire devs for any of those platforms.
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:4, Insightful)
If MSFT keeps screwing with their licensing terms, ala Office 2013 for us folks who aren't connected all the time, I won't be buying it so no worries.
Re:Wonder how Win 9 may surprise us? (Score:4, Informative)
You can still use Office 365 offline (the licence lets you download the desktop apps). Of course, you have to pay for it every year.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
That's not enough, there's Metro poking its ugly head out in many places beyond the start menu.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm probably alone here, but I prefer the start screen over a start menu. If I'm using the mouse I find it easier to hit a large tile than a small row of text. And if I'm using the keyboard I press Win-key and type just like in previous versions.
The Win+x menu is also nice, although I'm sure there's a way to get that functionality on Win 7 as well.
I haven't found any useful Metro programs though so I can't comment on their (dis)usability on the desktop.
Re:That's because (Score:5, Insightful)
Memorizing keyboard shortcuts? how 1970s. Do you also like to use WordPerfect for DOS? I bet you are so good you don't even need the PC keyboard overlays.
Re: (Score:2)
Keyboard shortcuts are "how 2013". Or do you laboriously go to Edit - Copy/Edit - Paste instead of just using Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V and not having to take your hands off the keyboard?
One of Shneiderman's 8 Golden Rules of user interface design is to provide frequent users with shortcuts. In programs that are keyboard input based, it's best that they be keyboard shortcuts so your hands can remain on the keyboard as much as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's face it. No normal computer user is EVER going to memorize keyboard shortcuts.
I regularly see lots of ordinary non-technical people working the keyboard on POS machines faster than any human can possibly react to all the dialougs appearing on screen for fleeting milliseconds.
Yes, yes, a billion times, yes! This is how normal computer users do it!
This is how n00bs do it. Eventually people learn and improve out of necessity. If your job is using word all day you memorize shortcuts eventually.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Vista 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vista 2 (Score:5, Funny)
Windows Millennium Edition Part 3.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The transition to Windows 95 from Windows 3.1 was huge, but they did a better job explaining the differences. I remember people wanted to change, the felt the newer version was better.
Re: (Score:2)
Win95 - first generation, kind of a struggle, not nearly as good as OS/2
Not nearly as good? That's like saying that your BBQ in your backyard is nearly as hot as the Sun. Win95 was a program launcher on MS-Dos versus OS/2 was a full fledged 32 bit protected mode operating system that ran many enterprise critical applications, like ATM machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Even GEM was better than Windows Exec. However it was rubbish if you had a EGA (or even Hercules) graphics card. I knocked up a basic replacement in Turbo Pascal simply because I was fed up with it. Could probably have made tons if Microsoft hadn't come along with Win 3 at about the same time...
Why not just say up to 100%? (Score:4, Informative)
is 100% too sensational a number? Up to doesn't mean squat
I'm not switching. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.
First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.
Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).
Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door. I trust reliability and paradigms that are time-tested.
As a lack of positive reason, I'm not sure what Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 does not. There are improvements; they look really neat. I'd like to play with them, on some computer I'm not using for work when I have lots of spare time to play around with it.
The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.
Re:I'm not switching. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I'm not switching. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.
First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.
Yep. Win7 is the OS that made me switch my Deskop back from Linux. (That and the fact that ordering my new PC without Win7 wouldn't have been any cheaper thanks to the ridiciously low OEM prices)
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.
Uh, I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.
I'd also say that Windows XP is deficient in a lot of ways, but I also agree that most of the features and functionality are well baked. This of course happened after Windows 95, Windows NT, Windows NT 3.5, Windows NT 4, Windows 2000 all were evolutionary so XP didn't miraculously have all of this built in. I purposefully forgot to mention Windows ME beca
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, I'd submit that Windows 7 doesn't resemble anything like Window 3.1 or Windows for Workgroups other than having a window and an X button to close it.
Do you really need that much more? Do you think most users see much more than that, leaving aside the fact that the colors have changed (which normal users spot very easily indeed by comparison with techies).
Re: (Score:2)
So by that token DOS 6.22 was the shiznit? We should have packed up on things like Linux, Windows NT and the iterations of other operating systems? I mean I can't fathom an IPAD or any Android device running DOS 6.22 and running halfway reliably at all. I still have a 6.22 running in VirtualBox, I'm wondering if I can run Excel on that or maybe Oracle 12?
Re: (Score:2)
SP1 added the firewall, gave Windows Update a bit of a shake down, and generally acted as though the internet existed and was not necessarily friendly. And that was about it. I don't know where this impression that Windows service packs are huge orbital drops of features came from because in my experience, aside XP SP1, they've been nothing but a banal necessity.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely wrong.
Service pack 1 added native support for USB 2.0. The OS did not ship with this support (much like Windows 7 added official USB 3
Re: (Score:2)
I was recently put in a position where a UPS failure hosed my Win7 Raid 0 array. I had a Win8 disk lying around, so I figured I would give it a go. Once you get used to the fact that Metro is just a full screen start menu, it's nearly identical to Win7. The file copy dialog is more informative, the "start menu" is really just a list of links from the "all apps" drawer which is really just the start menu folders organized differently. The search is just partitioned off into three areas instead of the who
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from one thing... Windows 7 doesn't run perfectly good 32 bit drivers for perfectly good, sometimes hellishly expensive and still best in breed, hardware that works 100% perfectly under Windows XP.
Why ? it's not like it can't be done ?
I'd love to go 64 bit (for the extra memory if nothing else) but there are no drivers for lots of my (perfectly working) audio hardware.
Ho hum
Would be the same in the US (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My brother (in the US) just ordered a PC from a manufacturer's website (discontinued model, inventory clearance, actually a decent deal).
Windows 8 was the default. Windows 7 was a $50 option (over 10% of the total price). He paid the $50.
Microsoft, are you listening? (Yeah, I didn't think so...)
Re:Would be the same in the US (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course Microsoft is listening.
They know that they can make regular people buy 2 OS' for each laptop. What else are lemmings to do? Install Linux? (Maybe in 2015 after Linux gaming takes off.)
It's like corporations buying PCs with OEM windows installed and then get wiped to install their Corporate image using another license. So each PC uses 2 licenses: OEM (non-transferable) and Corporate.
It's win-win times 2 for Microsoft. They can abuse their customers and still roll in it. They have a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no Windows 7 upgrade is offered with most PC manufacturers in the US.
Fixed that for you.
People will tell each other (Score:2, Informative)
And the outcome will be pow (Vista_type_disaster, 2).
Even an idiot would know that. This was hopefully the last desperate attempt by Microsoft to "leverage" their desktop monopoly to gain some mobile market share.
Don't get me started on why it's called Windows when I see all window-less full-screen apps from MS now on desktop (like the native MS PDF viewer). Just WTF, man. WTF.
Re: (Score:3)
7 still better then 8 (Score:3, Funny)
Windows 8 nightmare (Score:4, Interesting)
I bought my mother an Asus "Ultrabook" for christmas as her old laptop had finally given out. It had a hard drive failure last week, and rather than send it in I decided to swap out the drive myself.
Never have I had more trouble attempting to reinstall something like I did with Windows 8. Previously, you could just get a windows ISO, punch in the OEM serial from the sticker on the case, and you'd be set. Now, everything is certificate based, and will only work with a specific OEM copy of Windows made for that machine, and NOTHING else. On top of this, ASUS wants $50 for the disc to reinstall windows.
This OS was a giant step towards appliance computing for Microsoft. If the next version is like this or worse, I'll deal with support issues for my family on Linux instead.
Re: (Score:2)
so why not spend the $120 and get a win 7 download?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 8 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New user experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Having recently taken the plunge, the new user experience can be summarised as "swipe a bit, here's some corners, now don't drown". I really like the OS now I've had some practice, in both its content-browsing Metro guise and as an updated version of Windows 7 but they've made no effort to bridge the gap between the two in such a way that a confident use of one can get to grips with the other. It takes some real lateral thinking to see what the mouse or touchpad equivalent of a touchscreen gesture is.
It doesn't help that touchpad gesture support is uniformly terrible. A look at regedit suggests that scrolling support is mostly hacked in on a per-app basis.
Ah, statistics (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 Still Being Sold On Up To 93% of British PCs
Good old "up to" - how many times have those two little words helped someone weasel out of a corner, or pull in punters from off the street.
PC Pro spoke to several PC builders, with some reporting as many as 93% of recently sold machines were on the older OS
"Some" is most likely journo-speak for "one." And it's probably one that caters to the hardened geek/gamer crowd, both of whom are going to be avoiding 8 for a while yet.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the market for a small footprint PC and I really can't be bothered to build yet another one, so I've been hunting around.
Some "business" PCs still come with W7, but they're too big and powerful for what I need. All the major brick and mortar electric retailers in the UK (Tesco, Asda, PC World, Curries, John Lewis, etc, etc) are selling nothing but W8 and it's pissing me off. Big W8 posters on the doors. Salesmen who give me weird looks when I ask about W7. It's all bollocks.
I just
Re: (Score:2)
People buy more of a product they like ? (Score:2)
Julie Larson-Green (Score:2)
Hey Microsoft.
She's not doing you any favors here.
First, that hot mess that is the Office Ribbon.
Now the flaming, shit-covered mess of Metro.
How many more fucked-up interface choices are going to come on her watch? Costing you customers each and every time.
You guys currently have the underpinnings of a decent OS.
But your UI choices lately have people wondering if you got a bad batch of crack.
Fuck XBox, Fuck Touchscreens Everyplace. Give the user back their productive UI, keyboard shortcuts and all.
Re: (Score:2)
Only an age-hardened IT nerd would say such a thing.
An old school friend of mine got into IT early on and thought that Windows 3.1 brought nothing to the game. He has become more embittered with every passing iteration. He believes that people should learn how to use a computer from the command line and if they want a GUI they should write it themselves. He is a fossil and I told him as much. Technology is for everybody regardless of whether they understand it or not.
The mouse has its place as do ke
Re: (Score:2)
What mouse?
I'm talking about stupidly simple things. Like them REMOVING ALL THE KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS for things like copying and pasting.
In Win8, you're FORCED to use the UI for this crap now. Taking 2-3x as long, because you have to navigate through the UI (not just see the button and click) to get to the functions.
Total, absolute, unadulterated bullshit. First to last.
Windows 8 is as bad as they make it to be... (Score:2)
I needed to use Windows only e-banking and borrowed an unused laptop from with Windows 8 on it - great chance to see what the fuss was all about, especially since it was stock installation and nobody has used it before.
First impressions were good: I figured out I can click on Desktop box in the Metro UI and I started Internet Explorer from the taskbar (if I needed some other app, though, I have no idea how I would go about it).
Then I wanted to turn off the machine. But I really couldn't figure out how. I re
Re: (Score:2)
Wish ReactOS and Wine would just take over (Score:3)
Does anybody else just wish ReactOS and/or WINE would just take over, and reach a point where everything can run on them. That way we could kick out Microsoft and not have to play their upgrade and licensing games all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that will be a good day !
if i like it, who r u to say otherwise (Score:2)
Avoid the mess, use Ubuntu! (Score:2)
Ubuntu, the other white meat!
Shoehorn time! (Score:2)
You may remember Windows Compact Edition- only Microsoft could make a product whose all-but-official nickname meant "grimace in pain." Well, for WinCE, MS decided to shoehorn the desktop- complete w/the Start Menu- onto phones of the day, phones that had much smaller displays than they do now. Well, with Win8, MS did exactly the opposite thing: instead of shoehorning the desktop onto a phone, they blew up a phone to desktop size. The result is... interesting. But not convincing, and certainly not interestin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Tolerable? There is barely any practical difference between winxp and win8 to me, apart from the amount of money that was theoretically supposed to have left my wallet in between them in order to support the development of further versions of windows that I didn't need or ask for. Necessity being the mother of invention after all. The only way I even notice they are still making them is the artificial barriers they include in every new version in order to make people who don't slavishly fawn over them suff
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:5, Funny)
XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year
What, AGAIN?
Re:And this is a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because W7 is the service pack for Vista. Also, the phrase is, "should have been".
XP is still tolerable but gets it support removed this year
XP is far superior in numerous ways to W7. What used to take seconds is now a long, drawn out process of burrowing deep into menus or worse, having to go someplace else to make a change to where you are currently at. Add in that setting a folder view is not consistent across drives, you can't see every program installed through the butchered Start menu or if you mistype a network path through the Search box you can't immediately retype but have to wait for the timeout to occur, and W7 is a classic example of why you never let programmers design your applications.
Re: (Score:3)
Amen brother. I also had several games that I had purchased for my (then new quad-core intel w/8GB RAM) that *refused to install* because they thought it was a *server* OS. *sigh*
XP-64 was simply MS saying "Wait guys,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In my opinion, I think that XP is much better than Windows 7 in lots of ways. It runs much, much faster on the same hardware than Windows 7. When I recently had to switch to Windows 7 on my home server because I bought 3 TB drives (there's no way to get XP to work with 3 TB drives natively), I had to swap out computers entirely, because Windows 7 was such a dog on the same hardware. Even with a fancy new-ish PC running Windows 7, the performan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we didn't need any convincing anyway. Enjoy your doom!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Was this deployment large enough to qualify for Software Assurance with it's Win7 downgrade option?
I assume the school has Education Assurance, which also allows for Win7 downgrade.
Re: (Score:3)
Up to?
So, 0% of British PCs may be sold with Windows 7 on them?
That terminology bugs me.
From TFA:
Redford's Computer Planet isn't the only British firm struggling with the launch of Windows 8. One company told us that of the 1,459 machines it's sold so far in 2013, only 7% have left the factory with Windows 8 installed. A spokesman said that "Windows 7 fulfils the requirements" of its customers, and that driver issues and the unfamiliarity of the new OS was putting people off.
Re: (Score:3)
One company told us that of the 1,459 machines it's sold so far in 2013, only 7% have left the factory with Windows 8 installed.
A quick googling came up with this:
The U.K. PC market totaled 3 million units in the first quarter of 2012
So far in 2013 should be about half that or 1.5 million units, so this is a company with about a 0,1% market share. I think we already know Win8 is not doing great from browser stats, but this is just a way to create a big headline.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
and black people hate change, and yellow people hate change, and red people hate change, and brown people hate change...
But those lousy, change-lovin' purple people! They gotta go man!
Call out the purple people eaters!
Re: (Score:2)
This happens pretty much every update cycle. The new OS is still terrible and unfamiliar and incompatible, and the old OS still has good availability. The only difference this time is that somebody wrote an article about.
Strange, I don't recall this being the case with Windows XP and Windows 7.
Windows XP built on the NT4 kernel that Windows 2000 solidified, and added crucial Win9x software compatibility. It effectively replaced both Win9x and Win2k in one fell swoop.
While Windows Vista was widely panned compared to Windows XP (and for good reason), it was a technically better OS than XP; it just couldn't overcome the flaws. Windows 7 fixed everything that was wrong with Windows Vista, and rapidly displaced Windows Vista sal
Re: (Score:2)
Most consumers that stubbornly held onto XP were because they didn't want to do a hardware upgrade, even though 7 is a much better OS.
Don't mix up 'didn't want' with 'couldn't afford'.
I used to rely on my brother's upgrade cycle to upgrade my system with his cast-off hardware. If I had had to purchase the hardware AND the OS I'd not have got very far.
As for stubbornly holding onto XP, it still works! I only recently (18 months) upgraded to 7 at home as my AMD Barton XP2500 was getting long in the tooth plus the advantage of an Intel i3 with reasonable built in graphics lowered my energy footprint. I still use XP at work albeit we a
Mojave was already used (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
XP was a steaming pile of bloat when it came out, replacing both the resource-friendly but somewhat unstable 98SE (let's ignore ME, shall we?) and the rock-stable 2000. Processor power and service packs made it into the OS we love today.