Snidely, thanks for your help. Thank you for the nice photo of the view of the little arrow you were speaking of. Normally, the files have a blue icon with a crown in it signifying it is a Print Master file. This makes it easy for me at a glance. I am using an older version, one that I had on XP. Perhaps Windows 7 does not have what ever driver it takes for a .sig file. Guess it is just one more thing I have to learn to get used to. The icon for the software on my desktop is correct and I do have all my files in the software that I have created and show up when I need them. I don't understand why there are so many hidden files, or I used have not learned how to find all the file folders. An example would be trying to locate the fonts file folder to add more of my favorite fonts. Each time I go to add more fonts I have to do a search for fonts then, that file opens up. It could be I just don't know how to find all these files. I thought going with Windows 7 would have been easier than learning windows 8, maybe I was wrong. This post was edited by loralee on Fri, Feb 7, 14 at 12:56

Hi, zep Thanks for the suggestion. I tried the first option under "repair your computer" but it didn't do anything. :-( Then I went ahead and tried the most recent restore point (Mar. 9) and that worked ! Then I restarted and did a manual Windows Update in case I was missing anything. I was, but I got them re-installed without issues (as far as I know). Then I just needed to re-adjust my time for DST. So, it seems everything's resolved. Thanks again !

If you are adept enough to install a dual boot setup with Linux, you certainly know how to remove trial and ad offerings that most new PCs ship with. No 'deptitude required. The Linux MINT installer told me it detected a Windows 7 installation and asked one question - whether to preserve the other OS or kill it - and created the dual boot installation for me when I said "preserve it". If I had not resized the slider, Win7 would have had half the disk, and Mint the other half. In my previous Linux experiences, most of the distributions assassinated the existing OS without asking permission. This refinement makes Mint a good distribution for anyone who wants to keep an existing Windows setup because they have some Windows-only software. Yes, removing the bundled "crapware" is easy. But, how would you remove the LENOVO ad that LENOVO inserted into the middle of the installation procedure? Without borking the install? It was a pointy-clicky minimal intervention required kind of installation, which is not true of all Linux distros. Mint is worth posting about in areas where novices hang out . Yes, I can get Libre Office, the GIMP, and all the rest for Windows by downloading and installing them ... the point is that I didn't have to. They "came with" the OS, as usual. Unless I need to do something most users don't, such as video editing, I had not only a working OS, but a system that could do real work with no further effort. Getting more software for Linux is usually just opening the software installer and clicking "Install" in what you want. I'm not sure what you've accomplished is an improvement and not just a change. Read the threads here about browser hijacking and viruses and malware and bad links and google for zero day exploits in Windows and IE. It's definitely an improvement, and perhaps knowing there is a easy to install Linux version out there may help someone get into a safer computing environment. Or update the OS on an old machine to get a couple more years out of it? Or get the whole office on a single OS without spending oodles of money? ========== NOTE: I'm a long-time Linux fan. The last Windows OS I installed as the primary OS on a personal machine was Windows 95, although various jobs have had Windows on the office computers. I have Windows only because some software I have to run can't work under WINE.

I haven't used WW in years (Win98 and still have it out on the system in the garage) and have up to recently used ASC (stopped because of the pirating software claim). In my experience they are arguably of the same efficiency in cleaning. In fact, I found ASC's cleaning capability on a current par with CCleaner. I've always done some non-scientific efficiency tests for system cleaning utilities and found none of them to be 100%. I would rate the three of them at 98%. I guarantee if you run any one of them and then run the another you would find some very minor leftovers. Unless you use some other available features of ASC or are emotionally attached to it, I would recommend you save your money and use CC. DA