A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I need another batch file.



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old July 3rd 18, 01:35 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default I need another batch file.

"Paul" wrote

| Actually, you cannot stop Windows Search from indexing content.
|

Why not? Indexing service is one of the first
things I turn off. I don't see any point to all that
disk thrashing just to provide faster search. And
I never use Windows search, anyway.

I think this was discussed before. Everything.exe
indexes while Agent Ransack just does a fast
search. I find AR nearly instant for most of what
I search for, but maybe it depends on personal style.
If Char waits nearly 1 minute just to find a matching
file name he must have an awfully lot of files. I don't
wait that long to find embedded text in a file. On
the other hand, I'm never searching C drive because
I don't store things there.

Everything.exe might be best for people who don't
tend to be organized, and AR for people who don't
depend so much on search.


Ads
  #17  
Old July 3rd 18, 01:46 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default I need another batch file.

"VanguardLH" wrote

| Alas, quite often I need to find something *in* a file, especially
| because I don't know what the file is named. Filelocator can search
| inside. Everything cannot.
|
| Of course, you can also configure the Windows Search service to not only
| search on filenames but also on their contents.

One of the reasons I stopped using Windows search was
because it would only look inside certain types of files. It
so happens that CAB files contain a plain text list of the
contained files. I rarely need to search for a file by name,
but needing to find a file in a CAB is not so unusual.
If I need to find something like abc.dll among 60 system
CABs in a service pack or on a Windows install disk, I can
do that quickly by seaching for the text "abc.dll" in the
CABs, using Agent Ransack.

Windows search categorizes a CAB as a "binary" file
and considers text search irrelevant. So you can't search
for files in CABs. VersionInfo or resource strings in PE
files, or EXIF tags in JPG are a similar case.



  #18  
Old July 3rd 18, 06:36 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default I need another batch file.

Paul wrote:

Actually, you cannot stop Windows Search from indexing content.


I don't remember discussing stopping Windows Search but maybe. I
haven't had my coffee yet and my concentration is impaired by a sore
body after felling and cutting up yet another tree destroyed by
carpenter ants (so I had to spray insecticide when cutting the trunk).

In any case, yes, you can stop it. Got into services.msc and either
stop the service (for that Windows session) or disable it (to never run
again until you reenable the service).

Rather than permanently disable it, you can remove it: Control Panel -
Programs and Features - Turn Windows features on or off (and wait) -
scroll down and deselect Windows Search. I leave Windows Search running
because of its integration with the Start menu's search box and also in
MS Outlook. I have also added more places for where it will scan.

While Microsoft has a rather large vocabulary of operators you can use
in its searches, it's their proprietary list. Since I've learned regex
for several programs, I prefer to use that to narrow my searches. Both
Everything and FileLocator support regex.

Doesn't matter what that little control claims :-) I already tested
this and was disappointed by the result.


Of what little control do you speak?

I don't know if Microsoft ever bothered to fix it. I'm not going to
sit around re-testing it.


I've never had a problem disabling the Windows Search service or
removing the feature from Windows.

There's a philosophical statement inherent in this from the Windows
Search developers that says "of course you *always* index content, no
exceptions". So that tick box is probably their little in-joke.


Are you talking about right-clicking on a drive in Windows Explorer and
disabling Windows Search from scanning that drive? After deselecting
"Allow files on this drive to have contents indexed in addition to file
properties", and after rebuilding the index, anytime that I've performed
a Windows Search the files on those drives aren't found. I have a disk
where local copies of backups are stored (amonst other places) and I
don't need those files indexed. I have a disk where I save downloads
(for installs), some much smaller backups (like exported settings for
programs), some ISO image files of CDs (e.g., Windows 7, Office 365),
and other files that are reproducible and have their own online backups,
so I don't need those files indexed.
  #19  
Old July 3rd 18, 06:45 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default I need another batch file.

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

no wrote:

I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie
files.
I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch
file that will give me a hit if I get a match.

I have no batch file skillz.
Anyone care to write one for me?

Why not use a file search tool?

Search Everything from voidtools
Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast.

FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack)
Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search
since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename
cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches
(performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a
temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program.

Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search
completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from
the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th,
and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds.


Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on
its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast.


Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on
Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster
than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast".


Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that
FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is
a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than
Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference.
On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC
disk), it would be noticeable.

In my test described above, the initial search times for Everything and
Agent Ransack were 0 seconds and 59 seconds, respectively. Subsequent
searches took 0 seconds and 42 seconds, respectively. Unless I'm
misunderstanding, I think you're saying that subsequent searches in
Agent Ransack can also be 0 seconds, or very close to it. So far, I can
only force that behavior by drastically restricting Ransack's search
scope, so I must be missing something.


FileLocator will still have to scan the file system to check for folder
timestamp changes to determine if any files under them have changed. It
still has to do a lot of file I/O. Everything is monitoring file
changes as they happen. That's why I said Everything, as an indexing
service, will be faster than FileLocator even on FileLocator's cached
searches. However, on an SSD, that file system scan in FileLocator on
its cached search is so fast that I cannot see it taking longer than
Everything.
  #20  
Old July 3rd 18, 07:22 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default I need another batch file.

Mayayana wrote:

VanguardLH wrote

| Alas, quite often I need to find something *in* a file, especially
| because I don't know what the file is named. Filelocator can search
| inside. Everything cannot.
|
| Of course, you can also configure the Windows Search service to not only
| search on filenames but also on their contents.

One of the reasons I stopped using Windows search was because it would
only look inside certain types of files. It so happens that CAB files
contain a plain text list of the contained files. I rarely need to
search for a file by name, but needing to find a file in a CAB is not
so unusual. If I need to find something like abc.dll among 60 system
CABs in a service pack or on a Windows install disk, I can do that
quickly by seaching for the text "abc.dll" in the CABs, using Agent
Ransack.

Windows search categorizes a CAB as a "binary" file and considers
text search irrelevant. So you can't search for files in CABs.
VersionInfo or resource strings in PE files, or EXIF tags in JPG are
a similar case.


Control Panel - Indexing Options - Advanced - File Types tab

You don't see a list of filetypes there that have an associated handler
that you can choose whether or not to include in Windows Search? It
won't search for contents on filetypes for which no handler has been
assigned because then it has no means of looking in the file. For me,
all filetypes available with a handler (so the only ones listed) are
selected. CAB is one of the filetypes listed.

For me, Peazip is the handler associated with .cab files. I don't know
what handler (program) you use to open .cab files. I can see why
Windows Search doesn't look in compressed archive files. Does
Everything search /inside/ of .zip files? I just did a test. I created
a .txt file with a long string that should be unique. I zipped up the
..txt file into a .zip file. Everything could instantly find the new zip
file with a search on "*.zip". It took over 55 seconds (how long
depends on how many .zip files you have to look inside) for Everything
to run "*.zip content:nowisthetimeforallgoodmentocometotheaid" to find
the particular .zip file with the unique string. If I exit Everthing's
window (not its service) and reperform the search on zip files with
content of the unique string, it again takes 55 seconds to find the
particular .zip file. So Everything will look inside compressed files
but only it you direct it to, but the search results are not cached
across multiple runs of the Everything GUI.

Did you ever configure the Windows Search service to look inside of
files? Control Panel - Indexing Options - Advanced - Filetypes tab,
enable the "Index Properties and File Contents" option (and rebuild the
index)? As with Everything taking a lot longer in its search on
contents, Windows Search will take a long time to dig into files. Be
interesting to find out if "and File Contents" would make Windows Search
dig into compressed files.
  #21  
Old July 3rd 18, 11:05 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default I need another batch file.

"VanguardLH" wrote

| Windows search categorizes a CAB as a "binary" file and considers
| text search irrelevant. So you can't search for files in CABs.
| VersionInfo or resource strings in PE files, or EXIF tags in JPG are
| a similar case.
|
| Control Panel - Indexing Options - Advanced - File Types tab
|

Interesting. That must be a Win7 addition. I
haven't looked at Windows search to speak of
since I chased away that obnoxious dog cartoon
in XP. I don't know why anyone would use it.


  #22  
Old July 4th 18, 12:01 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default I need another batch file.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:45:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

no wrote:

I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie
files.
I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch
file that will give me a hit if I get a match.

I have no batch file skillz.
Anyone care to write one for me?

Why not use a file search tool?

Search Everything from voidtools
Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast.

FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack)
Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search
since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename
cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches
(performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a
temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program.

Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search
completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from
the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th,
and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds.

Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on
its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast.


Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on
Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster
than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast".


Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that
FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is
a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than
Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference.
On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC
disk), it would be noticeable.


Nope, that's not it. I use SSD's here, as well, and the difference
between Everything and Ransack on first runs versus subsequent runs
isn't a fraction of a second. Using the numbers I provided above,
Everything provided results in 0 and 0 seconds, while Ransack provided
results in 59 and 42 seconds. You'd definitely notice the difference
between 0 and 42 seconds.

The only way to get Ransack to operate as fast as Everything is to
severely constrain the test; i.e, ask both to search a very shallow
directory tree with relatively few files. That's not a valid test,
though, so I think the conclusion has to be that your claim is provably
false.

--

Char Jackson
  #23  
Old July 4th 18, 03:52 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default I need another batch file.

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:45:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

no wrote:

I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie
files.
I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch
file that will give me a hit if I get a match.

I have no batch file skillz.
Anyone care to write one for me?

Why not use a file search tool?

Search Everything from voidtools
Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast.

FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack)
Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search
since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename
cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches
(performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a
temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program.

Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search
completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from
the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th,
and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds.

Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on
its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast.

Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on
Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster
than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast".


Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that
FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is
a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than
Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference.
On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC
disk), it would be noticeable.


Nope, that's not it. I use SSD's here, as well, and the difference
between Everything and Ransack on first runs versus subsequent runs
isn't a fraction of a second. Using the numbers I provided above,
Everything provided results in 0 and 0 seconds, while Ransack provided
results in 59 and 42 seconds. You'd definitely notice the difference
between 0 and 42 seconds.

The only way to get Ransack to operate as fast as Everything is to
severely constrain the test; i.e, ask both to search a very shallow
directory tree with relatively few files. That's not a valid test,
though, so I think the conclusion has to be that your claim is provably
false.


Guess that depends on how many files can be found matching on your
search criteria. For me, there are only 903 *.txt files. FileLocator
took 9 seconds on a 2nd (cached) search, not 42 seconds. I don't
remember what I searche on in my 1st reply.
  #24  
Old July 4th 18, 05:40 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default I need another batch file.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 21:52:17 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:45:40 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 02:46:57 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 22:14:07 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:

no wrote:

I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie
files.
I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a batch
file that will give me a hit if I get a match.

I have no batch file skillz.
Anyone care to write one for me?

Why not use a file search tool?

Search Everything from voidtools
Builds a database of filenames only (no contents of files). Very fast.

FileLocator Lite (aka Agent Ransack)
Can search on title and/or contents in files. Slow on first search
since it actually has to do a search instead of building up a filename
cache. Just as fast as Everything on 2nd and subsequent searches
(performed within the same instance of FileLocator) because it builds a
temporary cache. Its cache is discarded when you exit the program.

Mini-hijack: When I do a baseline search of my data drive, the search
completes in 59 seconds. If I immediately do the same search again, from
the same instance of Agent Ransack, it takes 42 seconds. The 3rd, 4th,
and 5th searches each also take 42 seconds.

Like I said, File Locator (aka Agent Ransack) builds a filename cache on
its first run, so each subsequent search is lightning fast.

Actually, that's why I jumped in. I don't see that behavior here on
Windows 7, 8.1, or 10. Subsequent searches in Agent Ransack are faster
than initial searches, but still very far from "lightning fast".

Maybe because I'm using an SSD for the Windows and app drive that
FileLocator's subsequent runs looks just as fast to me. Maybe there is
a difference where FileLocator is slower on its cached runs than
Everything but I doubt I'll notice a fraction of a second difference.
On an HDD, especially a slow one (like a blue instead of black WDC
disk), it would be noticeable.


Nope, that's not it. I use SSD's here, as well, and the difference
between Everything and Ransack on first runs versus subsequent runs
isn't a fraction of a second. Using the numbers I provided above,
Everything provided results in 0 and 0 seconds, while Ransack provided
results in 59 and 42 seconds. You'd definitely notice the difference
between 0 and 42 seconds.

The only way to get Ransack to operate as fast as Everything is to
severely constrain the test; i.e, ask both to search a very shallow
directory tree with relatively few files. That's not a valid test,
though, so I think the conclusion has to be that your claim is provably
false.


Guess that depends on how many files can be found matching on your
search criteria. For me, there are only 903 *.txt files.


The number of matching files is mostly irrelevant. What's more important
is the total number of files and the total number of directories that
needed to be traversed.

FileLocator
took 9 seconds on a 2nd (cached) search, not 42 seconds. I don't
remember what I searche on in my 1st reply.


Heh, the 42 seconds was on my system, not yours. :-)

--

Char Jackson
  #25  
Old July 4th 18, 05:32 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
VanguardLH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,881
Default I need another batch file.

Char Jackson wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

FileLocator took 9 seconds on a 2nd (cached) search, not 42 seconds.
I don't remember what I searche on in my 1st reply.


Heh, the 42 seconds was on my system, not yours. :-)


Yep, 9 seconds on mine, 42 seconds on yours, but probably different
search criteria in file systems with different numbers of folders and
files. While probably not exactly the same folder and file count as
FileLocator must traverse when reading the file system, a 'dir /s'
command (which takes a LOT longer probably due to all the stdout)
returns 223,765 files and 138,371 folders (and just over an additional
thousand each for a 'dir /ahs'). I didn't bother looking at the depth
of the folders.

My SSD is a Samsung 850 EVO 2.5" 256MB SATA3. Different SSDs have
different read/write speeds. Alas, this is in an old desktop PC that
only has SATA2 ports on the mobo. No SATA3 yet (that'll be in my next
build). This was a salvaged PC built in 2009 that I got in 2013 that
required a new PSU, new video card (which still pricey these days), a
new HDD (later added the SSD), and Speedfan for the CPU fan since the
BIOS could no longer control RPM based on temperature. The 8 GB RAM it
has is the max this old mobo will support. Most times about half is
unused. Hey, it was free (but not to repair).

The only setting that I found in FileLocator that looks like it could
change its search speed is under Tools - Configuration - General -
Performance - Allow multiple search threads. The description says it
will create seaparate threads for each CPU core. While I don't consider
my CPU as recent or powerful (Intel Core 2 Quad 9400), it is a quad
core, so maybe that helps.

Something else that could affect search speed is security software. I
was using Avast free (trimmed down to just the file, behavior, and web
shields - no fluff, no lureware). I uninstalled it, ran aswclear, and
cleaned out all its remnant registry entries and files. I tried
Bitdefender free but found it noticeably impacted file operations. Most
everything got slower. Web browsing was most affected where web
browsers got jerky or longer delay to respond when scrolling long web
pages and downloads took longer. When starting to download a file, it
was like 5-10 seconds before even the browser dialog appeared to let me
select where to save the file. Went back to Avast and everything was
faster to respond. In the interim between uninstalling Avast but before
installing Bitdefender, I noticed my system seemed a tad perkier. I
realize all that interrogation causes overhead but some security
software causes more impact on responsiveness than others.

Now that I found Everything has a "content:" operator to look inside of
files (although a lot slower but still seems faster than FileLocator),
I'll probably not bother using FileLocator anymore. FileLocator let me
dig into files looking for strings but I found out so does Everything.
I'll have to spend some time digging into all the operators available in
Everything (see Help - Search Syntax) along with all the command-line
options (Help - Command Line Options).
  #26  
Old July 9th 18, 11:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default I need another batch file.

Paul news Jul 2018 22:26:20 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

lid wrote:
I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie
files.
I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a
batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match.

I have no batch file skillz.
Anyone care to write one for me?


Who needs batch skillz, when you have money ?

http://qa.mythicsoft.com/14676/how-t...fic-sub-subfol
ders-in-agent-ransack

"That functionality is not available in Agent Ransack.
However, in FileLocator Pro you can do it using a location
filter, e.g.

Look In: C:\Folder;+important
"

Paul



You can do it for free with dirlister, the console, etc... [g]


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
The best teddy bears are the live kind.
  #27  
Old July 9th 18, 11:43 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default I need another batch file.

lid Mon, 02
Jul 2018 22:18:30 GMT in alt.windows7.general, wrote:

I want to search more than directory on multiple drives for movie
files.


If you're going to search by extension and not content, a batch file
can be useful for doing it. If you want to search by content and not
rely on filename, you'll require an actual program to do it.

I would like to copy a title to the clipboard and pass it to a
batch file that will give me a hit if I get a match.

I have no batch file skillz.


you could follow along and edit something as required, couldn't you? I
mean, if someone were to provide you a simple batch file that even
provides you a list! of the files (and their locations), you could edit
it as needed to search on more drives and for more content, yea?

For example.. If you're looking for avi files...

from console (command prompt)

cd\
cd %temp%
dir /s /a c:\*.avi myavi.txt
notepad myavi.txt


You could copy and paste those four lines into notepad and save it as a
..bat or .cmd file, so you don't need to rekey it everytime you want use
it. You can also make modifications like so:

cd\
cd %temp%
dir /s /a c:\*.avi myavi.txt
dir /s /a c:\*.mp4 myavi.txt
notepad myavi.txt

This will cause it to create myavi.txt in your profiles temp folder,
initially listing all avi files found on drive c:. It'll then search
again for mp4s and append them to the now existing myavi.txt file. So,
you'll have a list of avi and mp4 files on drive c: in myavi.txt when
it's finished.

Wanna search for webm too?

cd\
cd %temp%
dir /s /a c:\*.avi myavi.txt
dir /s /a c:\*.mp4 myavi.txt
dir /s /a c:\*.webm myavi.txt
notepad myavi.txt

Those statements above will search for avi, mp4, and webm file formats
present on drive c:.

So pick one and copy paste it from cd\ to notepad and save it as
filehunt.bat or filehunt.cmd. That way, just clicking on it will search
for the files in question and store the results in myavi.txt which will
then be opened with notepad for you to view when the searching is
finished.

With those examples, you should be able to see what has to be altered
to search on other drives or for more types of video files. If not,
ask your questions and we'll go from there.

Anyone care to write one for me?


Done...remember though, All three of those rely on common file
extensions to perform their searches. They do not perform any sort of
file analysis; no content search.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
The best teddy bears are the live kind.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.