Testing new batteries?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John Doe, Dec 6, 2008.

  1. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    I have an MH-C9000 and eight 4 packs of Kodak Pre-Charged batteries.
    What's the best way to investigate their capacity and stuff before
    putting them to work? Thanks.



    --
    FWIW. The MH-C9000 did not come factory sealed, looks like maybe it
    had been opened but it looks okay. No clear signs of wear, but the
    lower row of contacts is somewhat discolored, not shiny The version
    code is 0G0KA.
    John Doe, Dec 6, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John Doe

    ransley Guest

    On Dec 5, 7:41 pm, John Doe <> wrote:
    > I have an MH-C9000 and eight 4 packs of Kodak Pre-Charged batteries.
    > What's the best way to investigate their capacity and stuff before
    > putting them to work? Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > FWIW. The MH-C9000 did not come factory sealed, looks like maybe it
    > had been opened but it looks okay. No clear signs of wear, but the
    > lower row of contacts is somewhat discolored, not shiny The version
    > code is 0G0KA.


    I would charge them and measure each cell voltage to be sure they are
    equal, but I have no idea on testing them, doesnt the charger have a
    mode to do that.
    ransley, Dec 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John Doe

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <uLk_k.9399$>, John Doe
    <> writes
    >
    >I have an MH-C9000 and eight 4 packs of Kodak Pre-Charged batteries.
    >What's the best way to investigate their capacity and stuff before
    >putting them to work? Thanks.


    Load them at a current typical of the normal operation, and observer how
    the voltage changes from off-load to 30 sec. of load. I do not know the
    specification of these particular batteries and therefore can no advise
    on specific values, the manufacturer's web site might have details.

    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
    ~Ansel Adams
    Prometheus, Dec 6, 2008
    #3
  4. John Doe

    Guest

    Why not just use them and see. Any test is based on assumptions
    about how they will be used. Your use does not equal any of those
    sets of assumptions. it is how they work for you that counts, not how
    they work in some sort of formal test.
    , Dec 6, 2008
    #4
  5. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    dave <user example.net> wrote:

    > First, if one thinks these things should be evaluated prior to use
    > which seems to me to imply less than complete confidence in the
    > outcome of such tests, why on earth would one purchase 8 sets.


    Elementary, my dear Dave. When one is at the store, one
    expects/hopes that the batteries are going to function properly, and
    one doesn't want to return to the store to buy more if in fact the
    batteries do function properly. One might save a trip to the store
    that way.

    > The Kodaks in question come pre-charged,


    In the pack used for testing, two of the Kodak Pre-Charged batteries
    in question came completely discharged, the other two were nearly
    discharged.

    Amazing how experiences differ, dave.

    > you open the package, put them in your camera or other device and
    > when they are depleted you charge them.


    That might be okay, unless I relied on them for something important.
















    > Dave Cohen
    > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
    >
    >
    > Path: nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!news2!nntpserver.com!zeus.nntpserver.com!pfilter-v0.1!news.teranews.com!not-for-mail
    > Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:49:39 -0500
    > From: dave <user example.net>
    > MIME-Version: 1.0
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    > Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
    > References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com>
    > In-Reply-To: <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com>
    > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > Message-ID: <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com>
    > X-Complaints-To: abuse teranews.com
    > Organization: www.TeraNews.com
    > Lines: 24
    > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:49:44 -0500
    > Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517069
    > X-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:39:18 EST (nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com)
    >
    John Doe, Dec 12, 2008
    #5
  6. John Doe

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:30:56 GMT, Our dear Doe wrote:

    >> First, if one thinks these things should be evaluated prior to use
    >> which seems to me to imply less than complete confidence in the
    >> outcome of such tests, why on earth would one purchase 8 sets.

    >
    > Elementary, my dear Dave. When one is at the store, one
    > expects/hopes that the batteries are going to function properly, and
    > one doesn't want to return to the store to buy more if in fact the
    > batteries do function properly. One might save a trip to the store
    > that way.
    >
    >> The Kodaks in question come pre-charged,

    >
    > In the pack used for testing, two of the Kodak Pre-Charged batteries
    > in question came completely discharged, the other two were nearly
    > discharged.
    >
    > Amazing how experiences differ, dave.


    Quite, doe. People here have been buying, using and discussing
    Eneloop and other pre-charged AA cells for at least three years. In
    all that time yours is the first account of any being nearly or
    completely discharged when purchased. What's your point, that
    you're account is an outlier or to be expected? Based on my own
    experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar, in no particular order.
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2008
    #6
  7. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:
    > John Doe wrote:
    >> [Jack messed up the introductions]


    >>> First, if one thinks these things should be evaluated prior to
    >>> use which seems to me to imply less than complete confidence in
    >>> the outcome of such tests, why on earth would one purchase 8
    >>> sets.

    >>
    >> Elementary, my dear Dave. When one is at the store, one
    >> expects/hopes that the batteries are going to function properly,
    >> and one doesn't want to return to the store to buy more if in
    >> fact the batteries do function properly. One might save a trip to
    >> the store that way.
    >>
    >>> The Kodaks in question come pre-charged,

    >>
    >> In the pack used for testing, two of the Kodak Pre-Charged
    >> batteries in question came completely discharged, the other two
    >> were nearly discharged.


    > What's your point, that you're account is an outlier or to be
    > expected?


    I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
    Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
    pre-charged batteries.

    > Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,


    I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?

    Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack. I have
    no motive for bashing Kodak. On the other hand, you have a motive
    for dissing me. And then there is the fact that you insult people
    you don't even know, Jack.












    > in no particular order.
    >
    >
    >
    > Path: nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com!nlpi062.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!nlpi057.nbdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!news2!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!core-easynews!easynews.com!easynews!en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
    > From: ASAAR <caught 22.com>
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    > Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
    > Organization: kimbo
    > Message-ID: <56l3k4t0iorjm3lf3j0n2evjaeje9q30np 4ax.com>
    > References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com> <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com> <A1k0l.9438$Ei5.2786 flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com>
    > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
    > MIME-Version: 1.0
    > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > Lines: 27
    > X-Complaints-To: abuse easynews.com
    > X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
    > Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:26:48 -0500
    > Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517287
    > X-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:28:20 EST (nlpi059.nbdc.sbc.com)
    >
    John Doe, Dec 12, 2008
    #7
  8. John Doe

    Mark Thomas Guest

    John Doe wrote:
    > ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:
    > ..
    > I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
    > Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
    > pre-charged batteries.
    >
    >> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,

    >
    > I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?

    That's it. Respond like a grown-up and impress everyone...

    How's about sticking to facts?

    > Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.

    OK, can you clarify something for me, in technical terms? Earlier you
    said that the package had a 2006 copyright notice on it (I am puzzled as
    what the significance of that might be), presumably inferring there was
    no expiry or use-by date on either the package or the batteries. This
    sounds odd - I've just had a quick flick thru my battery collection, and
    every single one had a date either on the barrel or the minus terminal.
    From ultra cheap and nasty 'Tevion' aa rechargeables to E2 Lithium &
    Duracell, rechargeable or not - every single one. Now I happily admit
    that none I checked were Kodak.. but I can't recall seeing any undated
    battery in recent times (eg last 3 years).

    I also don't live in the USA (where the attitude sometimes seems to be
    just-accept-you-got-ripped-off) but if it was me, I would be taking
    those batteries back in an instant if this parable were true. In fact I
    would never *buy* a set of batteries for which I could not see a date.
    (I guess I'm 'technical' in a different way...)

    So, have you since taken them back?

    If you still claim that there is no date on them, may we see a few
    pictures, or would you check them thoroughly? I'll check next time I
    see them on sale..

    > I have
    > no motive for bashing Kodak.

    How would we know that? FWIW, I've never had a bad battery from kodak,
    even though I've bought quite a few near their expiry date from
    clearance stores. But that experience is only with alkalines and
    perhaps there may be an issue with their others, but you are the only
    one I can see who is having it - a quick Google comes up empty, but do
    correct me.

    > On the other hand, you have a motive
    > for dissing me.

    Everyone has that motive if they see a story that doesn't quite sound
    right... But if you clarify it, all will be happy again.

    > And then there is the fact that you insult people
    > you don't even know, Jack.

    The insults seem to be highly related to the story.
    Mark Thomas, Dec 12, 2008
    #8
  9. John Doe

    ASAAR Guest

    On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 04:58:55 GMT, John DoeNut wrote:

    >> What's your point, that you're account is an outlier or to be
    >> expected?

    >
    > I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
    > Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
    > pre-charged batteries.


    Being ignorant of how long batteries have remained on the shelves
    is no excuse, not matter where they are purchased. Virtually all
    alkalines have expiration dates, and if I see any for sale today
    that show an e.d. of 2011, I'll pass, knowing that they've been aged
    for several years. Not all, but some standard rechargeable
    batteries have a use by or sell by date. When buying rechargeables
    you can recognize age by more than date, since the design or artwork
    on the batteries themselves is periodically updated. But the point
    remains that even if your account hasn't been fabricated, you would
    not have been the only unobservant buyer purchasing pre-charged
    batteries that have sat on shelves at Wal-Mart or in warehouses for
    extended periods. If that was the case we would have heard of many
    complaints by now. In addition, by design the pre-charged NiMH
    batteries retain much of their charge for a year or two, and I doubt
    that Kodak's pre-charged batteries have been sold for that long.
    Sanyo's Eneloops and RayOVac's Hybrids, yes. Kodak, no.


    >> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,

    >
    > I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?


    As you say, so what? This does nothing to bolster your
    credibility and if anything reinforces the feeling that the
    defective batteries you described are less likely to be outliers
    than the fabrication of a pugnacious troll with an axe to grind.


    > Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.


    What you call "facts" appear to be nothing more than the highly
    suspect claims of a biased, arrogant, vulgar, technically oriented
    simpleton who doesn't know jack, Jack.
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2008
    #9
  10. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Mark Thomas <markt _don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
    > John Doe wrote:
    >> ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:


    >> I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a given
    >> Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for Kodak
    >> pre-charged batteries.
    >>
    >>> Based on my own experiences I'd vote for outlier or liar,

    >>
    >> I'd vote for your mother being a whore, Jack. So what?


    > That's it. Respond like a grown-up and impress everyone...


    I wasn't trying to impress anyone, troll, I was responding in kind.

    > How's about sticking to facts?


    How about learning to format your USENET posts, troll.



















    >
    >> Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.

    > OK, can you clarify something for me, in technical terms? Earlier you
    > said that the package had a 2006 copyright notice on it (I am puzzled as
    > what the significance of that might be), presumably inferring there was
    > no expiry or use-by date on either the package or the batteries. This
    > sounds odd - I've just had a quick flick thru my battery collection, and
    > every single one had a date either on the barrel or the minus terminal.
    > From ultra cheap and nasty 'Tevion' aa rechargeables to E2 Lithium &
    > Duracell, rechargeable or not - every single one. Now I happily admit
    > that none I checked were Kodak.. but I can't recall seeing any undated
    > battery in recent times (eg last 3 years).
    >
    > I also don't live in the USA (where the attitude sometimes seems to be
    > just-accept-you-got-ripped-off) but if it was me, I would be taking
    > those batteries back in an instant if this parable were true. In fact I
    > would never *buy* a set of batteries for which I could not see a date.
    > (I guess I'm 'technical' in a different way...)
    >
    > So, have you since taken them back?
    >
    > If you still claim that there is no date on them, may we see a few
    > pictures, or would you check them thoroughly? I'll check next time I
    > see them on sale..
    >
    >> I have
    >> no motive for bashing Kodak.

    > How would we know that? FWIW, I've never had a bad battery from kodak,
    > even though I've bought quite a few near their expiry date from
    > clearance stores. But that experience is only with alkalines and
    > perhaps there may be an issue with their others, but you are the only
    > one I can see who is having it - a quick Google comes up empty, but do
    > correct me.
    >
    >> On the other hand, you have a motive
    >> for dissing me.

    > Everyone has that motive if they see a story that doesn't quite sound
    > right... But if you clarify it, all will be happy again.
    >
    >> And then there is the fact that you insult people
    >> you don't even know, Jack.

    > The insults seem to be highly related to the story.
    >
    >
    > Path: nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com!flph199.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!flph200.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!reader.motzarella.org!not-for-mail
    > From: Mark Thomas <markt _don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    > Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
    > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:40:57 +1000
    > Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    > Lines: 55
    > Message-ID: <ghsthe$qcd$1 reader.motzarella.org>
    > References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com> <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com> <A1k0l.9438$Ei5.2786 flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> <56l3k4t0iorjm3lf3j0n2evjaeje9q30np 4ax.com> <jcm0l.6529$pr6.1208 flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
    > Mime-Version: 1.0
    > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > X-Trace: news.eternal-september.org U2FsdGVkX1+7Mg9rsmCilzWd2VrwnRRbo7jvNiUcOWYF921/67JBx7OM99sj+9lBEFTriwa37m9sMjOilMg5Q7KEe8VSGdYbbqmh83WxjdthMQjK9AMra5lsSvQzSNPPwlhgtbl8uKF7sdxTTVr+Bg==
    > X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to abuse motzarella.org with full headers
    > NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:41:03 +0000 (UTC)
    > In-Reply-To: <jcm0l.6529$pr6.1208 flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
    > X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+l8gQSDdEXyz1g3FfA7eaNhVP562PVj+RKbN3mgP1t70TWo1KaaY/Z
    > Cancel-Lock: sha1:wgh1j40DRygf8SFmEpa+1FQSmJE=
    > User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
    > Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517299
    > X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:42:05 EST (nlpi102-int.nbdc.sbc.com)
    >
    John Doe, Dec 12, 2008
    #10
  11. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    ASAAR <caught 22.com> wrote:
    > John Doe wrote:
    >> [Jack didn't introduce himself]


    >>> What's your point, that you're account is an outlier or to be
    >>> expected?

    >>
    >> I guess that depends on how long they stay on the shelves at a
    >> given Wal-Mart. Perhaps the Wal-Mart here has a slow market for
    >> Kodak pre-charged batteries.


    > This does nothing to bolster your credibility


    No credibility is required, Jack. I simply posted a concise
    non-opinionated fact-based experience with Kodak batteries I bought
    from Wal-Mart.

    > and if anything reinforces the feeling that the defective
    > batteries you described are less likely to be outliers than the
    > fabrication of a pugnacious troll with an axe to grind.


    Sounds like your mother, Jack.

    >> Being technically oriented, I simply state the facts, Jack.

    >
    > What you call "facts" appear to be nothing more than the highly
    > suspect claims of a biased, arrogant, vulgar, technically oriented
    > simpleton who doesn't know jack, Jack.


    Sounds like your mother again, Jack.













    >
    >
    >
    > Path: flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com!flph199.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.com!flph200.ffdc.sbc.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!news.glorb.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!core-easynews!easynews.com!easynews!en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
    > From: ASAAR <caught 22.com>
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    > Subject: Re: Testing new batteries?
    > Organization: kimbo
    > Message-ID: <itv4k45mmenuh79bigs61rh8sspa2grepf 4ax.com>
    > References: <uLk_k.9399$c45.3279 nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> <a5okj4lvjcnk892rndih5knuhqsh4sposj 4ax.com> <b1287$493c9958$22414 news.teranews.com> <A1k0l.9438$Ei5.2786 flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com> <56l3k4t0iorjm3lf3j0n2evjaeje9q30np 4ax.com> <jcm0l.6529$pr6.1208 flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
    > X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
    > MIME-Version: 1.0
    > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    > Lines: 43
    > X-Complaints-To: abuse easynews.com
    > X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
    > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:43:44 -0500
    > Xref: prodigy.net rec.photo.digital:1517351
    > X-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:46:01 EST (flpi142.ffdc.sbc.com)
    >
    John Doe, Dec 12, 2008
    #11
  12. John Doe

    Mark Thomas Guest

    John Doe wrote:
    > Mark Thomas <markt _don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
    > I wasn't trying to impress anyone, troll, I was responding in kind.

    Sow as I, so your point is, as usual, lost in stupidity/hypocrisy.
    >> How's about sticking to facts?

    >
    > How about learning to format your USENET posts, troll.
    >

    ? (the irony just drips as I remove 15 needless CR/LFs.
    Now I shall repeat the bit you avoided:
    >> OK, can you clarify something for me, in technical terms? Earlier you
    >> said that the package had a 2006 copyright notice on it (I am puzzled as
    >> what the significance of that might be), presumably inferring there was
    >> no expiry or use-by date on either the package or the batteries. This
    >> sounds odd - I've just had a quick flick thru my battery collection, and
    >> every single one had a date either on the barrel or the minus terminal.
    >> From ultra cheap and nasty 'Tevion' aa rechargeables to E2 Lithium &
    >> Duracell, rechargeable or not - every single one. Now I happily admit
    >> that none I checked were Kodak.. but I can't recall seeing any undated
    >> battery in recent times (eg last 3 years).
    >>
    >> I also don't live in the USA (where the attitude sometimes seems to be
    >> just-accept-you-got-ripped-off) but if it was me, I would be taking
    >> those batteries back in an instant if this parable were true. In fact I
    >> would never *buy* a set of batteries for which I could not see a date.
    >> (I guess I'm 'technical' in a different way...)
    >>
    >> So, have you since taken them back?
    >>
    >> If you still claim that there is no date on them, may we see a few
    >> pictures, or would you check them thoroughly? I'll check next time I
    >> see them on sale..


    As you would rather toss throwaway lines and do not seem to want to
    discuss minor issues such as those (which do reflect rather strongly on
    your story), I guess the inference is rather obvious. Especially when
    you similarly avoided asaar's observations.

    (The irony continues dripping as I now delete the needless header
    repost. Someone should indeed learn to format.)
    (snip)

    Lastly, I hope you have learned much from the replies - your situation
    was obviously commiserated with by all who responded. Now you could
    return triumphantly and summarise what we have all learnt from this.
    Mark Thomas, Dec 14, 2008
    #12
  13. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    Mark Thomas <markt _don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    > OK, can you clarify something for me, in technical terms? Earlier
    > you said that the package had a 2006 copyright notice on it (I am
    > puzzled as what the significance of that might be), presumably
    > inferring there was no expiry or use-by date on either the package
    > or the batteries. This sounds odd - I've just had a quick flick
    > thru my battery collection, and every single one had a date either
    > on the barrel or the minus terminal. From ultra cheap and nasty
    > 'Tevion' aa rechargeables to E2 Lithium & Duracell, rechargeable
    > or not - every single one. Now I happily admit that none I
    > checked were Kodak.. but I can't recall seeing any undated battery
    > in recent times (eg last 3 years).


    You are full of it, Mark Thomas. I just received an order of Sanyo
    Eneloop batteries. There is no date on the packaging. There is no
    date on the batteries either. You're just a bullshit spammer troll,
    Mark Thomas.
    John Doe, Dec 16, 2008
    #13
  14. John Doe wrote:
    []
    > You are full of it, Mark Thomas. I just received an order of Sanyo
    > Eneloop batteries. There is no date on the packaging. There is no
    > date on the batteries either. You're just a bullshit spammer troll,
    > Mark Thomas.


    FWIW, the Eneloops I just bought have no marking on the cells, but the
    packaging /does/ have a date stamp - "2008 07". Purchased in Europe.

    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 16, 2008
    #14
    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. Boomer

    testing--news2004--testing

    Boomer, Sep 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    452
    William Poaster
    Sep 24, 2003
  2. daniel edwards

    testing testing 123

    daniel edwards, May 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    692
    joevan
    May 20, 2004
  3. neville

    testing testing

    neville, May 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    448
    neville
    May 27, 2005
  4. neville

    testing testing

    neville, Jun 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    826
    neville
    Jun 5, 2005
  5. neville

    testing testing 123

    neville, Jun 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    484
    nevillenevilleson
    Jun 28, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page