If you have 4GB, are you getting 4GB?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David J Taylor, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. David J Taylor wrote:

    > Are you saying that there's no need for any 3rd party firewall and
    > anti-virus software in Win64?


    I haven't found a use for them in Win32 and have never used them. If the
    user takes basic steps to secure their computer by using a modified HOSTS
    file and other tweaks they will be on their way to having a bullet proof
    system. From personal experience I have seen people that get their machines
    compromised are the ones that get duped into clicking on or opening things
    they shouldn't be opening, especially from things sent by total strangers.
    These are the people with lacking computer skills that aren't even advanced
    enough to be called novices. Third party "protections" aren't a substitute
    for common sense and user skills. A dirt cheap router or switch will fill
    the bill as well.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 28, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:

    > I don't understand why you wouldn't then just set a higher fixed
    > limit. Disk space is cheap and if you need it do it. Then you don't
    > have to deal with automatic resizing and defragging that happens when
    > you least expect it. Best kept on a partition separate from the one
    > with the OS as well, IIRC.


    Yes, good point. Sure, you can always go higher with a fixed sized
    pagefile, but your performance gains shrink to the point were it is
    comparable with letting Windows do the work for you. At least this has been
    my personal experience doing this. I even set the pagefile to a separate HD
    (U320 SCSI RAID) from which the OS is on and the gains we negligible over
    what Windows management is doing. I also found resizing and defragging
    hasn't been much of an issue for me either since most of this is happening
    when my system has been idle for some time. I came to the conclusion, at
    least for my operating style, that a fixed pagefile is equivalent to a
    placebo in a double-blind test and it is near impossible to distinguish
    which one is being used.







    Rita
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 28, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Are you saying that there's no need for any 3rd party firewall and
    >> anti-virus software in Win64?

    >
    > I haven't found a use for them in Win32 and have never used them. If
    > the user takes basic steps to secure their computer by using a
    > modified HOSTS file and other tweaks they will be on their way to
    > having a bullet proof system. From personal experience I have seen
    > people that get their machines compromised are the ones that get
    > duped into clicking on or opening things they shouldn't be opening,
    > especially from things sent by total strangers. These are the people
    > with lacking computer skills that aren't even advanced enough to be
    > called novices. Third party "protections" aren't a substitute for
    > common sense and user skills. A dirt cheap router or switch will
    > fill the bill as well.


    Rita, whilst I agree with your ideas, I still prefer that added layer!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 29, 2006
    #43
  4. David J Taylor

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >Beach Bum wrote:
    >> "Beach Bum" <> wrote in message
    >> news:HkcCf.24023$...
    >>> "David J Taylor"
    >>> <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote

    >> in
    >>> message news:XFbCf.9780$...
    >>>> If you are fortunate enough to have 4GB of physical memory for your

    >> image
    >>>> editing with Windows XP, are you actually seeing 4GB?
    >>> Mostly. I mean Windows takes some space to run, and there are some other
    >>> things going on besides the photo editing software. On the other hand,
    >>> virtual memory gives me another 10 gig, but it's obviously much slower

    >> when
    >>> accessing it.

    >>
    >> Sorry, typo.. that's another 1 (one) gig of virtual memory.
    >>

    >Since 'virtual memory' is really the free space on your HD, then should
    >should have MUCH more than 1GB of virtual memory, or you badly need a
    >larger HD!


    No. It is limited by the swap space. And that depends on how
    the swap space is set up.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 29, 2006
    #44
  5. David J Taylor

    Paul J Gans Guest

    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >Rita ? Berkowitz wrote:
    >> David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Well, it's a case at the moment of being limited to 1GB of memory on
    >>> this 4-year old Dell but often running a process which takes around
    >>> 1GB of memory with all the other stuff still running (which takes
    >>> nearly 1GB in itself). So do I upgrade to 2GB, 3GB or 4GB. I chose
    >>> 4GB knowing that Win64 will support it, when I do upgrade.

    >>
    >> Understand. Well, memory is so cheap that it's nothing more than
    >> pocket change unless you need several gigs of RAMBUS. At this point
    >> in time, since you are pretty much at the limitations of your 32-bit
    >> platform, you should just pack the 4GB in there and use the /3GB
    >> switch and enjoy your system till you upgrade your hardware to
    >> 64-bit. Good luck.


    >Thanks, Rita. That is exactly what I have decided to do, and just leave
    >the 4GB. The shop offered the option at 3GB at a reduced cost, but it
    >seems penny pinching.


    If you are going to run 64-bit Windows on that same machine,
    you will have to change the processor, won't you? And will
    your present machine take one of the new chips?

    I assume that you have already looked into this. In that
    case, since the 64-bit OS will address the full 4 GB, I'd
    go for the 4 GB.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 29, 2006
    #45
  6. David J Taylor

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Al Dykes <> wrote:
    >In article <>,
    >Hywel Jenkins <> wrote:
    >>In article <XFbCf.9780$>, david-
    >>-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid says...
    >>> If you are fortunate enough to have 4GB of physical memory for your image
    >>> editing with Windows XP, are you actually seeing 4GB?

    >>
    >>Eh? Windows uses the physical memory it needs, then some more, and once
    >>it's run out it uses the disk as well.
    >>


    >The max size of any single process (or data structure) is 2GB in a 32
    >bit system, and the pagefile gets used when total of all process
    >Working Sets[1] exceeds the physical memory, limited to 3GB on a 32
    >bit windows system. This is the 5 cent explanation.


    >here's is a new Adobe tech note for CS2 that covers all current 32 and
    >64 bit operating systems and 32 and 64 bit iron, as wall as workdisk
    >requirements.


    >http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html


    >[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_set


    Thanks Al. I'm about to install CS2 and that sounds
    useful.

    --- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 29, 2006
    #46
  7. David J Taylor

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Al Dykes <> wrote:
    >In article <W%gCf.9941$>,
    >David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >>JohnR66 wrote:
    >>> "Rita ? Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> David J Taylor wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> If you are fortunate enough to have 4GB of physical memory for your
    >>>>> image editing with Windows XP, are you actually seeing 4GB?
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx
    >>>>
    >>>> Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The
    >>>> maximum
    >>>> amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and
    >>>> Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003,
    >>>> Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server
    >>>> 2003, Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM using the
    >>>> PAE feature. The virtual address space of processes and applications is
    >>>> still
    >>>> limited to
    >>>> 2 GB unless the /3GB switch is used in the Boot.ini file. When the
    >>>> physical
    >>>> RAM in the system exceeds 16 GB and the /3GB switch is used, the
    >>>> operating system will ignore the additional RAM until the /3GB
    >>>> switch is removed. This
    >>>> is because of the increased size of the kernel required to support
    >>>> more Page
    >>>> Table Entries. The assumption is made that the administrator would
    >>>> rather not lose the /3GB functionality silently and automatically;
    >>>> therefore, this
    >>>> requires the administrator to explicitly change this setting.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Rita
    >>>>
    >>> To expand on this, even with the 3 GB switch set, each 32 bit
    >>> application gets 2 GB of space max. So one app would have 2 GB and
    >>> the other could have the remaining 1GB.
    >>>
    >>> If you put 4GB in a non server machine, it is important to use the
    >>> switch or you are wasting memory as the OS never uses anywhere near
    >>> 2GB in a workstation.
    >>>
    >>> Also, with 4GB, the chipset may use some address space and you will
    >>> only get something like 3.4GB.
    >>> John

    >>
    >>Thanks, John. That's the first on-topic answer I've seen.
    >>
    >>Is there any chipset (and/or graphics card) which allows Windows XP to see
    >>the full 4GB?


    >No.


    >The hack of using the upper part of the virtual address sapce for the
    >operating system isn't unique to Windows. VMS did it right from the
    >start, in 1978(?). IBM OS/360 did something similar in the 60s but I
    >feel my memory dimmer, dimmer.......


    PC bootloader ROMs back in the old DOS days were often located
    at the extreme high end of the addressable memory space.

    Nobody had that much memory back then.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 29, 2006
    #47
  8. David J Taylor

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Al Dykes <> wrote:
    >In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >>David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Is there any chipset (and/or graphics card) which allows Windows XP to see
    >>> the full 4GB?

    >>
    >>Yes. They are called "64 bit CPU's".
    >>



    >But not with XP.


    It also is a function of the motherboard. There are many
    32-bit motherboards out there that will not see a full 4 GB
    in spite of having the slots for that much memory.

    I don't think we yet know what will become "standard" on
    64-bit motherboards.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 29, 2006
    #48
  9. David J Taylor

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Al Dykes <> wrote:
    >In article <sgGCf.10604$>,
    >David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>> David J Taylor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I am dealing with some quite large images - 130Mpix - which take up
    >>>> some 400MB of memory each. Coupling with this with doing software
    >>>> development, plus running a 500MB+ production system, is taxing my
    >>>> current 1GB system rather!
    >>>
    >>> Sounds like you need another computer, not necessarily more memory.
    >>> At least get that "production" stuff off your development machine.
    >>>
    >>>> It seems that with Win32 today's systems don't give you access to
    >>>> all of the 4GB physical memory which many motherboards will allow,
    >>>> and this fact doesn't seem to be common knowledge.
    >>>
    >>> This is not limited to Windoze. No 32b OS will provide all 4GB to a
    >>> single process: a comparitively large swath of the address space is
    >>> taken by the OS. You can play tricks with the page tables etc to give
    >>> sets of processes 4GB (less PTE overhead) in aggregate, but text+data
    >>> for each process is doing to be 2 (or 3) GB. It's unfortunately easy
    >>> to come up against this limit nowadays. Even if 4GB were available,
    >>> it's still not enough. Maybe Intel/AMD/et al can make processors that
    >>> automatically grow address and data lines on the fly?

    >>
    >>Yes, a further PC would be a good idea, but physical space and network
    >>connections are limited!
    >>
    >>2GB per process is [currently] fine. That allows the manipulation of my
    >>130MPix images. Yes, I know about the /3GB switch if needed (and I wrote
    >>my software to use it).
    >>
    >>Just as soon as Win64 supports my preferred anti-virus and firewall
    >>software I'll be off! I already have the CD.
    >>
    >>David
    >>
    >>



    >Buy a 64 bit PC for PS, but read your email and browse the internet
    >porn sites on 32 bit XP running in a Virtual machine [1]. It will run
    >your AV software and firewall in 32 bits. Any old DSL router/NAT box
    >found in a dumpster will give you a physical brick wall firewall.


    >If you don't use the 64 bit browser and are behind a physical firewall
    >you're really safe.



    >[1] VMWare or MS Virtual PC.


    Good advice.

    Or read the net using a unix clone on your ISP's machine which
    is what I'm doing right now.

    Of course my Windows machine talking to my ISP is sitting behind
    a router also acting as a hardware firewall.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jan 29, 2006
    #49
  10. Paul J Gans wrote:
    > David J Taylor

    []
    >> Thanks, Rita. That is exactly what I have decided to do, and just
    >> leave the 4GB. The shop offered the option at 3GB at a reduced
    >> cost, but it seems penny pinching.

    >
    > If you are going to run 64-bit Windows on that same machine,
    > you will have to change the processor, won't you? And will
    > your present machine take one of the new chips?
    >
    > I assume that you have already looked into this. In that
    > case, since the 64-bit OS will address the full 4 GB, I'd
    > go for the 4 GB.
    >
    > ---- Paul J. Gans


    The PC I'm talking about already has a 64-bit processor - the AMD 4400 X2
    as it happens. Precisely why I'm staying with the 4GB.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 29, 2006
    #50
  11. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:20:31 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Since 'virtual memory' is really the free space on your HD, then should
    >> should have MUCH more than 1GB of virtual memory, or you badly need a
    >> larger HD!

    >
    > No there could be another informed choice. Once can fix the size of the
    > swap drive. That way you take Windoze out of the picture from wasting time
    > and resources by "managing" it. set it 1.5 -2x your physical memory as a
    > start.


    That will help, somewhat. However, no matter how fast your HD is,
    swapping is vastly slower than RAM. My 'virtual memory' shows as
    however much free space is on my C: drive, which is about 55GB on this
    machine.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #51
  12. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    > On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 07:29:16 -0500, in rec.photo.digital "Rita Ä Berkowitz"
    > <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    >>
    >>> No there could be another informed choice. Once can fix the size of
    >>> the swap drive. That way you take Windoze out of the picture from
    >>> wasting time and resources by "managing" it. set it 1.5 -2x your
    >>> physical memory as a start.

    >> Been there and done that. It works great in 90% of the applications and is
    >> great advice, but it's not that hard to slam into the wall by running out of
    >> memory. I did this and found the tradeoff of letting Windows manage my
    >> pagefile more advantageous for my needs much better so I switched back.

    >
    > I don't understand why you wouldn't then just set a higher fixed limit.
    > Disk space is cheap and if you need it do it. Then you don't have to deal
    > with automatic resizing and defragging that happens when you least expect
    > it. Best kept on a partition separate from the one with the OS as well,
    > IIRC.

    Keeping it on another physical drive IS advantageous, but keeping it on
    another partition of the same physical drive only makes the swap process
    slower, although it may avoid the fragmentation problems.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #52
  13. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    >
    >> I don't understand why you wouldn't then just set a higher fixed
    >> limit. Disk space is cheap and if you need it do it. Then you don't
    >> have to deal with automatic resizing and defragging that happens when
    >> you least expect it. Best kept on a partition separate from the one
    >> with the OS as well, IIRC.

    >
    > Yes, good point. Sure, you can always go higher with a fixed sized
    > pagefile, but your performance gains shrink to the point were it is
    > comparable with letting Windows do the work for you. At least this has
    > been
    > my personal experience doing this. I even set the pagefile to a
    > separate HD
    > (U320 SCSI RAID) from which the OS is on and the gains we negligible over
    > what Windows management is doing. I also found resizing and defragging
    > hasn't been much of an issue for me either since most of this is happening
    > when my system has been idle for some time. I came to the conclusion, at
    > least for my operating style, that a fixed pagefile is equivalent to a
    > placebo in a double-blind test and it is near impossible to distinguish
    > which one is being used.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >

    My experience as well. A good defrag program, like Diskeeper, will
    minimize this problem.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #53
  14. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Paul J Gans wrote:
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >> Beach Bum wrote:
    >>> "Beach Bum" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:HkcCf.24023$...
    >>>> "David J Taylor"
    >>>> <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote
    >>> in
    >>>> message news:XFbCf.9780$...
    >>>>> If you are fortunate enough to have 4GB of physical memory for your
    >>> image
    >>>>> editing with Windows XP, are you actually seeing 4GB?
    >>>> Mostly. I mean Windows takes some space to run, and there are some other
    >>>> things going on besides the photo editing software. On the other hand,
    >>>> virtual memory gives me another 10 gig, but it's obviously much slower
    >>> when
    >>>> accessing it.
    >>> Sorry, typo.. that's another 1 (one) gig of virtual memory.
    >>>

    >> Since 'virtual memory' is really the free space on your HD, then should
    >> should have MUCH more than 1GB of virtual memory, or you badly need a
    >> larger HD!

    >
    > No. It is limited by the swap space. And that depends on how
    > the swap space is set up.
    >
    > ---- Paul J. Gans


    Letting Windows manage the swapfile is usually the best approach. Have
    tried it both ways, and the difference is not perceptible. I would
    rather not set an arbitrary swapfile size and find hours into a process
    that it wasn't enough.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #54
  15. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    > []
    >> Right-click on your 'my computer' icon, then select 'properties'. It
    >> will tell you how much system ram it can access.

    >
    > Thanks, Ron.
    >
    > I know about that technique, but I don't have the actual PC in front of me
    > just yet. Oh, and I don't have a "My computer" icon.
    >
    > On my existing PC, the 1GB of physical memory is reported as 1GB.
    > However, a 4GB system reports less than 4GB - about 3.2GB. Hence my
    > original question. I have had at least one other report confirming this
    > behaviour, and there is a Microsoft article about it as well:
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;888137
    >
    > David
    >
    >

    There is always overhead, and the memory management depends a lot on
    what chipset your computer uses (and what OS). Many computers also
    share main memory with the graphics system, which further erodes your
    free ram.
    Still, 3.2GB is much better than a bit under 1GB.... right?
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #55
  16. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Are you saying that there's no need for any 3rd party firewall and
    >> anti-virus software in Win64?

    >
    > I haven't found a use for them in Win32 and have never used them. If the
    > user takes basic steps to secure their computer by using a modified HOSTS
    > file and other tweaks they will be on their way to having a bullet proof
    > system. From personal experience I have seen people that get their
    > machines
    > compromised are the ones that get duped into clicking on or opening things
    > they shouldn't be opening, especially from things sent by total strangers.
    > These are the people with lacking computer skills that aren't even advanced
    > enough to be called novices. Third party "protections" aren't a substitute
    > for common sense and user skills. A dirt cheap router or switch will
    > fill the bill as well.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita
    >

    While I agree that the best protection is an informed user, who follows
    the 'safe hex' program, an anti-virus and firewall program are useful to
    alert you to attempts to compromise your system, and might save you from
    things like the Blaster worm. Keeping the OS updated regularly is also
    mandatory in this environment.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #56
  17. David J Taylor

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Paul J Gans wrote:
    >> David J Taylor

    > []
    >>> Thanks, Rita. That is exactly what I have decided to do, and just
    >>> leave the 4GB. The shop offered the option at 3GB at a reduced
    >>> cost, but it seems penny pinching.

    >> If you are going to run 64-bit Windows on that same machine,
    >> you will have to change the processor, won't you? And will
    >> your present machine take one of the new chips?
    >>
    >> I assume that you have already looked into this. In that
    >> case, since the 64-bit OS will address the full 4 GB, I'd
    >> go for the 4 GB.
    >>
    >> ---- Paul J. Gans

    >
    > The PC I'm talking about already has a 64-bit processor - the AMD 4400 X2
    > as it happens. Precisely why I'm staying with the 4GB.
    >
    > David
    >
    >

    That should keep you in CPU cycles for a few years. Care to trade for
    my 512MB AMD Athlon XP (1.8Ghz)? Grin.
    I have been thinking of replacing it, but the trauma of moving
    everything over to a new machine is daunting.
     
    Ron Hunter, Jan 29, 2006
    #57
  18. On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 02:41:22 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
    <> wrote:

    >Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
    >> On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 03:20:31 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Since 'virtual memory' is really the free space on your HD, then should
    >>> should have MUCH more than 1GB of virtual memory, or you badly need a
    >>> larger HD!

    >>
    >> No there could be another informed choice. Once can fix the size of the
    >> swap drive. That way you take Windoze out of the picture from wasting time
    >> and resources by "managing" it. set it 1.5 -2x your physical memory as a
    >> start.

    >
    >That will help, somewhat. However, no matter how fast your HD is,
    >swapping is vastly slower than RAM. My 'virtual memory' shows as
    >however much free space is on my C: drive, which is about 55GB on this
    >machine.


    That's a given even on my SATA RAID0 running two WD Raptor 10,000 rpm
    drives.
    --
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 29, 2006
    #58
  19. Ron Hunter wrote:
    []
    > There is always overhead, and the memory management depends a lot on
    > what chipset your computer uses (and what OS). Many computers also
    > share main memory with the graphics system, which further erodes your
    > free ram.
    > Still, 3.2GB is much better than a bit under 1GB.... right?


    That's exactly how I feel!

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 29, 2006
    #59
  20. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:

    []
    >> The PC I'm talking about already has a 64-bit processor - the AMD
    >> 4400 X2 as it happens. Precisely why I'm staying with the 4GB.
    >>
    >> David
    >>
    >>

    > That should keep you in CPU cycles for a few years. Care to trade for
    > my 512MB AMD Athlon XP (1.8Ghz)? Grin.
    > I have been thinking of replacing it, but the trauma of moving
    > everything over to a new machine is daunting.


    Yes, I'm not quite sure how I will schedule the move just yet. I expect
    to use the Windows "Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. Need the desk
    space for two PCs as well. Plus I'm just installing a small FreeBSD
    system....

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 29, 2006
    #60
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frisbee®
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    791
    Frisbee®
    Oct 22, 2007
  2. TBone
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    827
    TBone
    Oct 30, 2007
  3. shoplifes

    You have come? Definitely you have not gone

    shoplifes, Nov 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    589
    shoplifes
    Nov 25, 2007
  4. Geronimo
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    369
    Dave - Dave.net.nz
    Oct 28, 2004
  5. pez
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,517
    Dragon Without Wings
    Mar 15, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page