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 » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old June 29th 20, 08:28 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,447
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On 6/29/2020 6:31 AM, Wolffan wrote:
ZFS is run by Oracle, a.k.a. The Enemy; Larry Ellison has performed the
miracle of ****ing off Apple, Google,_and_ Microsoft all at the same time,
something which takes Serious Talent.


Not talent, that's just standard par for the course, all of these tech
billionaires are walking egos.

At one point Apple was sniffing around
ZFS. They stopped, thanks in part to various Ellison shenanigans, and
developed APFS instead. MS started building ReFS at about the same time.
Google is, well, Google. Perhaps MS will unleash ReFS generally, once
they’ve got the bugs out.


Getting the bugs out and Microsoft are mutually exclusive.

Right now it’s available for server OSes, for
Enterprise and Pro for Workstation versions of desktop OSes, as of Server
2012/Win 8.1. It’s not available for Home versions, period. Note that
Education versions are basically Pro/Enterprise versions, just for schools,
and so can have ReFS; I usually just put NTFS on my systems, I don’t need
the headaches of dealing with ReFS until it’s been debugged. I’m not
holding my breath waiting for MS to fix it.


Some years back I was hearing rumours of Microsoft developing its MS-SQL
database software as its new filesystem. I guess that didn't pan out?

Yousuf Khan
Ads
  #62  
Old June 29th 20, 08:30 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,447
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On 6/29/2020 7:08 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Well, the attribute/permission set is different, which affects both
directions. Maybe more issues? Legal?


I'm sure one of the older public-domain filesystems, such as Ext3fs can
be modified to include Microsoft attributes instead? I mean the source
code is completely available for free.

Yousuf Khan
  #63  
Old June 29th 20, 09:19 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

On 29/06/2020 21.30, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/29/2020 7:08 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Well, the attribute/permission set is different, which affects both
directions. Maybe more issues? Legal?


I'm sure one of the older public-domain filesystems, such as Ext3fs can
be modified to include Microsoft attributes instead? I mean the source
code is completely available for free.


Yes, but then your own code based on it would also have to be available
for free to competitors, and is not in the M$ DNA ;-p

Maybe they would need a team to extract the full detailed specs, and
another team that never ever had a look at the code, create another code
set from scratch.

--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #64  
Old June 30th 20, 03:11 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 603
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 08:33:27, Mayayana
wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I don't think it's really a big factor. The main bloat
| is wrappers. When you've got something like Java or
| .Net, or javascript posing as software, you're very
| far removed from the actual operations. The trouble
|
| As a _user_, I am not really that bothered whether it's real or
| "pretend" software. I know enough (just) about concepts, like
| assemblers, compilers, linkers, and so on, as well as general
| programming, to have some idea what people are talking about: but
| really, I just want it to do it. I know enough to appreciate efficient
| code like IrfanView.
|

I think it's worth understanding. And it's not
always bad. Often it's just convenience. Sometimes
it's for security, like with phone apps. But the farther
one is from the CPU, the slower it will be. An SSD will
mostly be noticeable at boot and when moving 2 GB
from one partition or disk to another.


I do understand _that_ much: I understand the concept(s) of wrappers,
and interpreted code. (I really started with BASIC on home computers,
which was always interpreted.)

Example: If you're in IView, or another graphics program,
and you want to sharpen a 30 MB image, that will
probably be relatively slow. But it has nothing to do
with the disk. The image is in memory. The operation is
millions of mathematical comparisons. In IView, compiled
to native code, those operations are probably direct calls
to the CPU itself. If you have a graphics library then you
have calls to the library, which calls the CPU. If that library
is not in the same process then each call will be slowed.


Agreed - though at present, even inefficient code will mostly be memory.
Will still be slower if multilayered code, because it's called for every
pixel (or worse); however, probably wouldn't be affected much by SSD/HDD
differences.

Although having several prog.s running - especially if that's several
(almost inefficient by default) web pages - _is_ more likely to eat
through the RAM you have, sooner.
[]
I don't mean to say that's bad. It provides a lot of
convenience and it has its place. The trouble is that
the more efficient the hardware gets, the more people
figure it's OK to use another wrapper and save themselves


We're singing from the same hymn-sheet (though singing is
counter-indicated at the moment!).

some work. And at the same time, the more people can
write software without knowing what they're doing.


Quite a few years ago now, I remember being startled to find a young
computing graduate had never done any assembler. (Nowadays, I could
imagine one not having done any textual coding at all, having used
entirely graphical tools for code development.)

So if you work as a graphic artist and edit photos all
day, you want lots of RAM, top quality software (not
Java or .Net wrappers. Definitely not Python
or javascript.), and a fast CPU. The disk will be all but
irrelevant. The operations are not happening on the disk
unless you don't have enough RAM to hold the data.

With the "lots of RAM", yes.
|
| My concern is that if it happens to C: - which is where an SSD's speed
| advantage would show best - it's like cutting the power; cloning such a
| disc would I fear have at least some chance of not restoring a working
| system. Most of the time, I imagine it'd just come up with a "Windows
| did not shut down properly" message and fix itself, granted.
|

I wouldn't expect a problem, but I haven't faced that
scenario so far.


Not had one fail, or just not had one failing read-only cause problems
after cloning it?

| So far I haven't lost one, and given the cost I probably
| won't keep them running for their expected life. I'm not


That seems to have been another thing which to me is a sea change in the
change from HDDs to SSDs: the concept of limited life. Yes, I know
everything is really, but actually making it part of planning is (or
will be), to me, a change.

| a person who needs 2-6 TB. An $80 500 GB is ample
| for my needs, and I mirror everything except the
| actual OS on a second disk.
|
| I'm managing on a 1 TB (HD); I image the C: part of that, and copy the
| D: part.

I do that, too. I keep disk images of basic C with software
installed. I back up to a second disk and to DVD. Once in
awhile I also make a current disk image of C. But I try to have
it set up in such a way that if it fails I just need to reinstall
a basic disk image, copy over app data, do any needed
program updates, and be ready to go again. Though it can


Would take me certainly many days - I suspect weeks - to restore
everything, especially including setting changes. So I make an image
that's a lot more than basic. (Once I learnt about imaging, I saw/see no
reason to do _other_ than image all of C:. Maybe OK for business/school
situations where a standard configuration's needed for many machines.
But not for me.)

take a couple of hours to do all of that. Just adjusting prefs
and reinstalling extensions in Firefox is a bear of a job. (Though
I back up copies of prefs.js and keep copies of all extensions.)


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28
  #65  
Old June 30th 20, 10:12 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware pricesgone crazy during Covid?)

Mayayana wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| No, programmers will not eliminate that advantage. On the contrary,
| they will make use of it and expect that everybody has an SSD. Same as
|
| That _is_ eliminating the advantage. If, in a few years' time, softwares
| run no faster even if you are using an SSD than they do now if you're
| not, then the advantage has been eliminated.

I don't think it's really a big factor. The main bloat
is wrappers. When you've got something like Java or
.Net, or javascript posing as software, you're very
far removed from the actual operations. The trouble
is that things are so fast now that people don't care
about doing a good job. They care about easy. An
SSD is really only going to be a factor with intensive
disk operations, like moving a lot of files.


It's important for *any* file I/O. The massive gain is the lack of latency
with all disk operations. Given that all applications touch a lot of files
in their general operation every micro/milli-second gain adds up. It is
genuinely transformative.

On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.
  #66  
Old June 30th 20, 10:24 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/06/2020 21.30, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/29/2020 7:08 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Well, the attribute/permission set is different, which affects both
directions. Maybe more issues? Legal?


I'm sure one of the older public-domain filesystems, such as Ext3fs can
be modified to include Microsoft attributes instead? I mean the source
code is completely available for free.


Yes, but then your own code based on it would also have to be available
for free to competitors, and is not in the M$ DNA ;-p


That's not unheard of. They have contributed a lot to the Linux kernel in
the past. They also released their main Visual Code IDE as open source.
They bought GitHub in part so that they maintained control of all their
open source projects in there.

Maybe they would need a team to extract the full detailed specs, and
another team that never ever had a look at the code, create another code
set from scratch.




  #67  
Old June 30th 20, 10:27 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ...

Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 6/29/2020 6:31 AM, Wolffan wrote:
ZFS is run by Oracle, a.k.a. The Enemy; Larry Ellison has performed the
miracle of ****ing off Apple, Google,_and_ Microsoft all at the same time,
something which takes Serious Talent.


Not talent, that's just standard par for the course, all of these tech
billionaires are walking egos.

At one point Apple was sniffing around
ZFS. They stopped, thanks in part to various Ellison shenanigans, and
developed APFS instead. MS started building ReFS at about the same time.
Google is, well, Google. Perhaps MS will unleash ReFS generally, once
they’ve got the bugs out.


Getting the bugs out and Microsoft are mutually exclusive.

Right now it’s available for server OSes, for
Enterprise and Pro for Workstation versions of desktop OSes, as of Server
2012/Win 8.1. It’s not available for Home versions, period. Note that
Education versions are basically Pro/Enterprise versions, just for schools,
and so can have ReFS; I usually just put NTFS on my systems, I don’t need
the headaches of dealing with ReFS until it’s been debugged. I’m not
holding my breath waiting for MS to fix it.


Some years back I was hearing rumours of Microsoft developing its MS-SQL
database software as its new filesystem. I guess that didn't pan out?


It was called WinFS

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS

  #68  
Old June 30th 20, 12:02 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 603
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 09:12:20, Chris wrote:
[]
The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.


I think the failure mode is another downside. (Sure, it isn't if you
have a robust and frequent backup strategy.) [And I'm talking
statistically/probabilistically; yes, I know, HDDs _can_ fail in those
ways too (other than going read-only).]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... social media's tendency to knock on front doors and run away.
Andrew Collins, RT 2017/8/5-11
  #69  
Old June 30th 20, 01:43 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Example: If you're in IView, or another graphics program,
| and you want to sharpen a 30 MB image, that will
| probably be relatively slow. But it has nothing to do
| with the disk. The image is in memory. The operation is
| millions of mathematical comparisons. In IView, compiled
| to native code, those operations are probably direct calls
| to the CPU itself. If you have a graphics library then you
| have calls to the library, which calls the CPU. If that library
| is not in the same process then each call will be slowed.
|
| Agreed - though at present, even inefficient code will mostly be memory.
| Will still be slower if multilayered code, because it's called for every
| pixel (or worse); however, probably wouldn't be affected much by SSD/HDD
| differences.
|

Yes. That was my point. Wrappers. CPU.
RAM. all might have an effect. But in most
cases an SSD won't. My computer was mostly
responding instantly before an SSD and still
does. The big difference is fast boot. And where
it's slow, like Firefox getting itself up off the
ground, that speed doesn't seem to be improved.


| Although having several prog.s running - especially if that's several
| (almost inefficient by default) web pages - _is_ more likely to eat
| through the RAM you have, sooner.

I wonder about that. There seems to be some kind of
system. I'm on Win32, so the RAM maxes at 3+ GB. I also
set up a RAMDISK recently. But actually, I rarely seem
to use even half the RAM. Maybe that's partly my
"clean living" habits. I don't leave webpages open and
abandoned. But there also seems to be some kind of
system that I don't understand, so that Firefox using 6 GB
RAM on a 16 GB system still won't max out my system.

At any rate, I just don't see the big advantage of SSD
in general usage. But I do buy them now, since they're
not too expensive. No moving parts is nice. Fast boot
is nice. And the prices are now reasonable. I recently
bought a 500 GB hard disk for $35-40 just to use for
backup. At that price I couldn't afford not to buy it.

So I'm now thinking of hard disks that way: Reasobnably
stable, large-scale backup. I don't trust the long-term
stability of USB sticks and SSDs that are not powered.



| Quite a few years ago now, I remember being startled to find a young
| computing graduate had never done any assembler. (Nowadays, I could
| imagine one not having done any textual coding at all, having used
| entirely graphical tools for code development.)

I don't think it's that extreme yet, though most web
designers seem to be that way. Last week a friend asked
me if I could help him to be able to update his website.
But he didn't want to have to learn anything. It turns
out his "web designer" set it up with Wordpress. Apparently
that's a drag-drop "dashboard" for editing and uploading
pages, which then get stored in a database on the server.
I'm not entirely sure. But in seeing things like that, and
looking at webpage code, I don't think there are many people
who actually know how to code anymore.

But many of those people have the same attitude that
was voiced here earlier: Why reinvent the wheel? They
don't understand that it's the wrappers that are reinventing
the wheel. They figure that if it's more work then that work
must be wasted because they don't understand how it
all works in the first place.

| I wouldn't expect a problem, but I haven't faced that
| scenario so far.
|
| Not had one fail, or just not had one failing read-only cause problems
| after cloning it?

I haven't had an SSD fail. Actually, I've never had a
hard disk fail. But I don't push it. Every once in a while
I replace them and use the old one for backup. When
I repair an older computer that's the one thing I replace.
If a hard disk is 10 years old, why take a chance? I don't
think my own have ever gone past 5 years without
replacement.

My SSDs are Samsung, maybe 3 years old.... I'm
not sure. I'll likely replace at least one sometime when
the SSD market gets overloaded and they go on sale.
Probably when Microcenter starts selling them out
of palette crates rather than out of locked glass
cases.


  #70  
Old June 30th 20, 01:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

Quite a few years ago now, I remember being startled to find a young
computing graduate had never done any assembler.


why? assembly is rarely needed anymore and has been for many, many
years. compilers can do a *better* job than humans in nearly every
case.

(Nowadays, I could
imagine one not having done any textual coding at all, having used
entirely graphical tools for code development.)


software development still requires text coding.



| So far I haven't lost one, and given the cost I probably
| won't keep them running for their expected life. I'm not


That seems to have been another thing which to me is a sea change in the
change from HDDs to SSDs: the concept of limited life. Yes, I know
everything is really, but actually making it part of planning is (or
will be), to me, a change.


ssds are *more* reliable than hard drives, therefore less likely to
fail.

the concept of limited life is *more* applicable to a hard drive.





Would take me certainly many days - I suspect weeks - to restore
everything, especially including setting changes. So I make an image
that's a lot more than basic. (Once I learnt about imaging, I saw/see no
reason to do _other_ than image all of C:. Maybe OK for business/school
situations where a standard configuration's needed for many machines.
But not for me.)


if it takes more than a day (likely less) to restore everything then
you're doing something very wrong.
  #71  
Old June 30th 20, 01:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:

The only downside to SSDs is the per GB cost.


I think the failure mode is another downside. (Sure, it isn't if you
have a robust and frequent backup strategy.) [And I'm talking
statistically/probabilistically; yes, I know, HDDs _can_ fail in those
ways too (other than going read-only).]


hard drives are statistically *more* likely to fail than an ssd.
  #72  
Old June 30th 20, 01:57 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

"Chris" wrote

| It's important for *any* file I/O. The massive gain is the lack of latency
| with all disk operations. Given that all applications touch a lot of files
| in their general operation every micro/milli-second gain adds up. It is
| genuinely transformative.
|

Yes, that's true. That's what Carlos was talking about
with his on-disk database work. But most people are
not doing massive file access. I open a file in a text editor
or graphic editor. Most of what's happening is in RAM until
I save to disk. I load a webpage. It' save cache, etc, to
disk. Even on older disks, the speed of loading a file is
in the range of maybe 1 ms per MB. (I've tested it before
and don't remember exactly, but it's extremely fast.)

The point being that in the vast majority of things
that people do, an SSD offers no advantage. You're not
going to is a difference if MS Word is saving your DOC
to disk once every 5 minutes, spending 1 ms to do it
instead of 2 ms.

| On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
| application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.
|

Then you must be using I/O-intensive software, or
there's something wrong with your system. It depends
on what you mean by "performance". On my system
there's almost nothing I wait for except some operations
on very large files in a graphic editor. So I wouldn't
know how to measure such "application performance".
I do notice a big difference, though, when I want to back
up from one place to another. I use 2 SSDs with redundant
data partitions. So sometimes I'll just drag some from on
disk to the same partition on the other disk. The SSDs are
great for that.

Another factor that may have an effect is simply that
it doesn't make sense to install software on a separate disk.
You're running a program on one disk but loading libraries
from a separate physical location. Why would you do that?


  #73  
Old June 30th 20, 02:28 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Carlos E.R.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,356
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazyduring Covid?)

On 30/06/2020 14.57, Mayayana wrote:
"Chris" wrote

| It's important for *any* file I/O. The massive gain is the lack of latency
| with all disk operations. Given that all applications touch a lot of files
| in their general operation every micro/milli-second gain adds up. It is
| genuinely transformative.
|

Yes, that's true. That's what Carlos was talking about
with his on-disk database work. But most people are
not doing massive file access.


It was not massive, something about a hundred megabytes was enough to
show the problem :-)

I open a file in a text editor
or graphic editor. Most of what's happening is in RAM until
I save to disk.


But not with a word processor.

I load a webpage. It' save cache, etc, to
disk. Even on older disks, the speed of loading a file is
in the range of maybe 1 ms per MB. (I've tested it before
and don't remember exactly, but it's extremely fast.)

The point being that in the vast majority of things
that people do, an SSD offers no advantage. You're not
going to is a difference if MS Word is saving your DOC
to disk once every 5 minutes, spending 1 ms to do it
instead of 2 ms.


You do if you handle a 20 page document with photos or figures on every
page. Or with active links to calc sheet portions. I can hear the disk
working as I go around.

Modern software handle hundreds of internal files for apparently trivial
tasks.



| On my desktop I've both an SSD on C: and an HDD on D:. The difference in
| application performance if it's installed on C or D is like night and day.
|

Then you must be using I/O-intensive software, or
there's something wrong with your system. It depends
on what you mean by "performance". On my system
there's almost nothing I wait for except some operations
on very large files in a graphic editor. So I wouldn't
know how to measure such "application performance".
I do notice a big difference, though, when I want to back
up from one place to another. I use 2 SSDs with redundant
data partitions. So sometimes I'll just drag some from on
disk to the same partition on the other disk. The SSDs are
great for that.

Another factor that may have an effect is simply that
it doesn't make sense to install software on a separate disk.
You're running a program on one disk but loading libraries
from a separate physical location. Why would you do that?




--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #74  
Old June 30th 20, 02:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default SSDs/HDDs, memory ... (was: Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?)

In article , Mayayana
wrote:


| It's important for *any* file I/O. The massive gain is the lack of latency
| with all disk operations. Given that all applications touch a lot of files
| in their general operation every micro/milli-second gain adds up. It is
| genuinely transformative.
|

Yes, that's true. That's what Carlos was talking about
with his on-disk database work. But most people are
not doing massive file access. I open a file in a text editor
or graphic editor. Most of what's happening is in RAM until
I save to disk.


you're ignoring scratch files, log files, parts of the os, the app
itself and much more.

I load a webpage. It' save cache, etc, to
disk. Even on older disks, the speed of loading a file is
in the range of maybe 1 ms per MB. (I've tested it before
and don't remember exactly, but it's extremely fast.)


your numbers of 1ms per mb would be 1 second per gigabyte, which is not
only impossible for a hard drive but also not possible for the fastest
ssds (~300mbyte/s).

you're also ignoring hard drive seek time, which is a significant
overhead for smaller files as well as fragmented larger files.

seek time on an ssd is effectively zero. that alone is a benefit, even
without the faster i/o.

The point being that in the vast majority of things
that people do, an SSD offers no advantage. You're not
going to is a difference if MS Word is saving your DOC
to disk once every 5 minutes, spending 1 ms to do it
instead of 2 ms.


that is simply false.

replacing a hard drive with an ssd will result in a substantial overall
improvement in performance.

the difference might be a little less noticeable with ms word since the
limiting factor is the user typing, but that's not the only app people
use.
  #75  
Old June 30th 20, 04:44 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
Stan Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,904
Default Have hardware prices gone crazy during Covid?

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 00:18:33 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 28/06/2020 21.52, tesla sTinker wrote:
bill gates is the corona virus.* He made it on purpose.\


Kill this subthread.


Please don't respond to trolls -- it just encourages them to keep
posting.

Hard as it may be, the most effective strategy, over time, is to make
no comment of any kind.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
https://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...
 




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 06:30 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.