Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

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.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > This is how Apple resolved the MPB overheating problem.

This is how Apple resolved the MPB overheating problem.
Thread Tools
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2006, 03:37 PM
 
I am on my 4th MBP. The other three had the whine and overheating issue. This one however does not (week 29 build). I have discovered (to my dismay) how Apple resolved the overheating problem.

I installed Core Due temp v.91 and noticed that my 2GHz MBP idles between 1.33GHz - 1.5GHz. Very rarely do I see 2.0GHz. This makes sense as this MBP is much cooler than the last three. Unfortunately I see this as a band aid and not a real fix.

I don't notice and lose of performance and I am sure Apple engineers know what they are doing.

But I do find it a bit disturbing that my 2.0GHz MBP really only runs at 2.0GHz under extreme loads.

I welcome your thoughts....
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
     
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
I thought all MBs/MPBs did this
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2006, 04:17 PM
 
I don't see why it would be good to have it always at 2.0Ghz. I would prefer better battery life rather than always having the potential power but not using it.
15" 2.33 MBP 2GB Ram, 120GB HD - Main Rig
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2006, 07:11 PM
 
Yeah I don't see the problem. It's obviously running at 2.0 GHz when you really need it to, per your measurements. Did you take similar measurements on your previous MBPs?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2006, 07:24 PM
 
If you don't notice a performance decrease, and your MBP is running cooler, then what difference does it make to how they fixed it?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Central Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 19, 2006, 07:47 PM
 
Intel's power management software automatically changes the CPU speed based on its needs. This is one way it saves power. Intel may be criticized by a lot of people for a lot of things - but its SpeedStep power management is one of the best in the business.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2006, 10:10 AM
 
Uh, skyman, that's the point of power management. If you're using 20% of a 2Ghz CPU, there's no point in running it at 2Ghz and burning all that power. If you had an app that could tell you the number of active cores, you'd notice that it also shuts down one of the cores when there isn't much demand of CPU cycles. But as soon as you need cores or cycles, everything lights up again.

The whine is solved by a replacement of a DC electronics board. No change to the CPU clockrate cycling (in fact, the whine was caused only when the CPU dropped into the low-power/low-clockrate mode).
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 20, 2006, 02:55 PM
 
Are you complaining that your new 'Book does *exactly* the same thing your old 'Books did, except without the whine and the overheating?

For shame.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 03:55 PM
 
This thread is hilarious.
g4/1.5 GHz 12 inch powerbook / 1.25 RAM / 80 gig / Superdrive / 10.5.6
g3/400 MHz Pismo / 640 RAM / 40 gig / Combo Drive / 10.3.9
     
skyman  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 04:48 PM
 
I appreciate everyone's constructive comments, except for " analoqika".

You have all confirmed what I suspected and I appreciate your feedback, except for "analoqika".

As for "analoqika", your childish and asinine comment "for shame" was unnecessary and unprofessional.

It is my observation that you commented just to ridicule.

I say grow up and for shame....on you!
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
     
skyman  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 04:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kyros
This thread is hilarious.
Why?
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 04:52 PM
 
for shame
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I appreciate everyone's constructive comments, except for " analoqika".

You have all confirmed what I suspected and I appreciate your feedback, except for "analoqika".

As for "analoqika", your childish and asinine comment "for shame" was unnecessary and unprofessional.

It is my observation that you commented just to ridicule.

I say grow up and for shame....on you!
Analogika was quite correct in his statements. Your old MBP did this very same thing -- you just didn't notice before.

Now you have a whine-free MBP, and yet you're still whining. There's no satisfying some people.
     
skyman  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Tomchu
Analogika was quite correct in his statements. Your old MBP did this very same thing -- you just didn't notice before.

Now you have a whine-free MBP, and yet you're still whining. There's no satisfying some people.
I never said that I was not satisfied. I was simply making an observation.

And you are incorrect. My older MBP never idled below 1.67GHz. You just assumed that my older MBP worked the same.

Why is it people like you find it necessary to post negative comments?
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I installed Core Due temp v.91 and noticed that my 2GHz MBP idles between 1.33GHz - 1.5GHz. Very rarely do I see 2.0GHz. This makes sense as this MBP is much cooler than the last three. Unfortunately I see this as a band aid and not a real fix.
So if fixing the overheating problems isnt considered a "real fix" then what is?

Intel has been doing this for years and thats why I'm able to use my PC notebooks while vegging out on the couch while wearing shorts. If all I'm doing is checking email or using the internet then why do I need it cranking out 2.0ghz of power?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I never said that I was not satisfied. I was simply making an observation.

And you are incorrect. My older MBP never idled below 1.67GHz. You just assumed that my older MBP worked the same.

Why is it people like you find it necessary to post negative comments?
If you are satisified then why did you in your first post say "to my dismay"?
Main Computer and EyeTV 200 DVR: Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz 2GB Ram 160GB HD.
Road Warrior: MacBook White 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo 2GB Ram 80GB HD.
Kubuntu Book: Dell Lattitude C400 running Kubuntu Linux 6.06 1.33 Pentium 3 CPU 1GB RAM 40GB HD with Creative laptop speakers (it only has one speaker).
     
skyman  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by ndptal85
If you are satisified then why did you in your first post say "to my dismay"?
Maybe "dismay" was to strong of a word. Maybe I should have said "surprise".

I was simply making an observation and asking for feedback.

However, some people find it necessary to belittle my observation by making childish statements.
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 06:20 PM
 
What's childish is that you're judging Apple before educating yourself about mobile processors and how they step down in voltage/clock speeds.

This is normal behaviour. You are not being cheated out of any performance. When you need the 2.0 GHz, you get it.

What, exactly, is the problem?
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In front of my LCD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I appreciate everyone's constructive comments, except for " analoqika".

You have all confirmed what I suspected and I appreciate your feedback, except for "analoqika".

As for "analoqika", your childish and asinine comment "for shame" was unnecessary and unprofessional.

It is my observation that you commented just to ridicule.

I say grow up and for shame....on you!
"Oh my god! I think I'm going to go cry to my mommy and maybe slit my wrists when I'm done!"
8GB iPhone
Coming Soon: Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz
     
skyman  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Utah, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stwain2003
"Oh my god! I think I'm going to go cry to my mommy and maybe slit my wrists when I'm done!"
Another childish and ignorant comment from the peanut gallery!
MacBookPro 1.83GHz - 1.5 GB RAM - OS 10.4.6
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
Maybe "dismay" was to strong of a word. Maybe I should have said "surprise".

I was simply making an observation and asking for feedback.

However, some people find it necessary to belittle my observation by making childish statements.

The behaviour you have observed from your MacBook is the desired behaviour. Its called "CPU Throttling". In order to conserve battery power and lower heat output the CPU is throttled down to the lowest speed except when you are doing something that requires more speed and then it revs up to a higher speed. This is how all laptops (including G4 Powerbooks/iBooks) have functioned for many years now. The insults you are getting on this thread are due to the fact that this knowledge is pretty basic and well its kind of hard to believe someone doesn't know this by now.

The best thing you could do right now would be to stop making it worse and just walk away from the thread. Nothing can be gained by trying to fight. No one cares if you consider the insults childish. The internet is a tough place to be for someone with sensitive feelings. Grow a thicker skin, this is all just words on a website.
Main Computer and EyeTV 200 DVR: Mac Mini Core Duo 1.66Ghz 2GB Ram 160GB HD.
Road Warrior: MacBook White 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo 2GB Ram 80GB HD.
Kubuntu Book: Dell Lattitude C400 running Kubuntu Linux 6.06 1.33 Pentium 3 CPU 1GB RAM 40GB HD with Creative laptop speakers (it only has one speaker).
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2006, 09:39 PM
 
Actually, skyman's got a point. Mine usually idles at 1.67ghz and it's a fairly old one as MBP17's go. (this is a 2.17ghz) Core Duo Temp does show the minimum ias 1.0ghz and I've never seen that come up. Sometimes 1.5, but no lower.

I have been thinking about having it replaced due to the furnace factor but I usually use it on an iCurve so it's not been a critical issue for me, and right now I really can't afford to have the MBP go away for one of Applecare's pathetically long repair turnarounds.

As far as the throttling goes, I'm fairly sure that for the vast majority of the stuff we normally do, having the CPU run at 1.0 is fine and we probably wouldn't notice the difference between that and 1.67 in say web browsing. It makes sense. I just have to get it on mine now. 50-55C on a fairly large area on the underside when running any slightly intensive apps - ridiculous.

I've been checking temps on my new HP NX9420 (essentially same spec as the MBP - 17", 2.17 dual core) and there's a much smaller portion of it in the middle which runs in the mid-40's, apart from that it's more manageable temps all around and yet it's still not that noisy either (unlike Dells, which nevertheless do run even cooler as compensation). The HP is better built too, which is kind of a bummer as well since it's a lot cheaper.
( Last edited by urfjzdqpmvtflmh aka bob; Aug 22, 2006 at 09:52 PM. )
     
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 03:19 AM
 
I'm surprised that the CPU throttling isn't used as much as it could have. I did some tests on my PowerBook and while doing nothing you could throttle the CPU* back by 32x times without any adverse effects so the 5% load on the CPU hit more like 95% load. All that would be needed is a kext to kick it back to 100% or ramp back up when the user begins to use the laptop and slowly ramp down to as close to 100% depending on what the computer is doing (or not doing). I doubt it would save 32x the power though, but I never investigated too closely into how much power it could be saving... (maybe another 1/2 hour to hour?)

* This was a PowerPC specific throttle for the instruction scheduler, so if the CPU execution units consume no power when not running, in theory you can save some power that way. However, if you clock back the CPU and bus speeds in conjunction with throttling you could save even more power.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 06:17 AM
 
personally, I think that fact that it throttles back further now than it used to is a good thing.

I would like to be able to throttle the thing manually. I have a MacBook on the way, and my PBG3 could be throttled manually, from 333Mhz to 83Mhz. Is there a way to do this manually? I imagine it would work the same in an MBP as an MB.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Millersville, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I am on my 4th MBP. The other three had the whine and overheating issue. This one however does not (week 29 build). I have discovered (to my dismay) how Apple resolved the overheating problem.

I installed Core Due temp v.91 and noticed that my 2GHz MBP idles between 1.33GHz - 1.5GHz. Very rarely do I see 2.0GHz. This makes sense as this MBP is much cooler than the last three. Unfortunately I see this as a band aid and not a real fix.

I don't notice and lose of performance and I am sure Apple engineers know what they are doing.

But I do find it a bit disturbing that my 2.0GHz MBP really only runs at 2.0GHz under extreme loads.

I welcome your thoughts....
curiously, if you set the energy saver to highest processor performance, will it run at a rate that's higher than the idle range?
F = ma
     
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by milhous
curiously, if you set the energy saver to highest processor performance, will it run at a rate that's higher than the idle range?
Can't do that on an Intel Mac.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Millersville, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 04:55 PM
 
really? interesting. i guess i've just blown my cover that i'm still in ppc-land.
F = ma
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ze goggles, zey do nothing
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I don't notice and lose of performance and I am sure Apple engineers know what they are doing.

But I do find it a bit disturbing that my 2.0GHz MBP really only runs at 2.0GHz under extreme loads.

I welcome your thoughts....
I think you should look at it like you do the tachometer on your automobile. Do you notice a loss of performance when your car is idling at a red light?

And as for negativity on forums, I would refer you to John Gabriel's Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory
     
baw
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by MaxPower
     
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by MaxPower
I think you should look at it like you do the tachometer on your automobile. Do you notice a loss of performance when your car is idling at a red light?
In fact it is NOT putting the pedal to the metal (when idling)...
I'm-a trying to wonder, wonder, wonder why you, wonder, wonder why you act so.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 11:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by fhoubi
In fact it is NOT putting the pedal to the metal (when idling)...
If you put the petal to metal, you are not idling, no matter what gear you are in.

However, it is like that. Who cares how fast the CPU is running when you aren't doing anything? I'd rather have it low.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 03:58 AM
 
Is there a disadvantage to throttling down the CPU when it's not used?

No.

Case closed.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 09:51 AM
 
..How about we act like adults and stop the mudslinging. The guy misunderstood the situation with his cpu powerusage and made a comment; not a rude one I might add. Many folks were kind enough to enlighten him. That was cool. The others here who attacked him need to get a life and leave the board. It sure wouldn't hurt the forum's quality to loose some of the chaff around here.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by jamil5454
If you don't notice a performance decrease, and your MBP is running cooler, then what difference does it make to how they fixed it?
bingo.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by lamewing
..How about we act like adults and stop the mudslinging. The guy misunderstood the situation with his cpu powerusage and made a comment; not a rude one I might add. Many folks were kind enough to enlighten him. That was cool. The others here who attacked him need to get a life and leave the board. It sure wouldn't hurt the forum's quality to loose some of the chaff around here.
Ye. Adults lecturing adults is annoying. See quote above for example.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I never said that I was not satisfied. I was simply making an observation.

And you are incorrect. My older MBP never idled below 1.67GHz. You just assumed that my older MBP worked the same.

Why is it people like you find it necessary to post negative comments?
what is it that I hear!?!?!

Oh yeah...the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMmmmmbulance
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 07:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kyros
This thread is hilarious.

i agree. don't we all have something better to do?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 11:10 PM
 
This thread is hilarious.
HyperNova Software, LLC
Check out SuperScanner! for the iPad
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2006, 11:30 PM
 
No, this thread is Tragilarious™.

When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2006, 05:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Is there a disadvantage to throttling down the CPU when it's not used?

No.

Case closed.
Um.

I seem to remember that on the G4, it is important to keep CPU performance on "maximum" when doing audio production.
In fact, Logic Pro will refuse to run at all if processor throttling is enabled.

IIRC, the reason is that stepping up performance when it is needed isn't "instant" but comes with a latency that can really mess up recording/playback performance.

If there is no longer any such setting with the Intels, how has this been resolved?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2006, 05:16 AM
 
For starters, I think the sleep states and their activation is entirely different on the CD and the G4.

That said, if latency when waking up is the issue, I think the solution lies in software, not in hardware. The app in question can make sure the CPU never goes to a deep sleep state in order to prevent any wake up latency.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2006, 07:30 AM
 
I don't think it's a question of software. The G4 AFAIK never had a "deep sleep" state as implemented by Apple, either.

It would make sense, though, that CPU speed slewing is just much faster on the Intel Core Duos than it ever was on the G4 - fast enough for audio use.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2006, 08:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
It would make sense, though, that CPU speed slewing is just much faster on the Intel Core Duos than it ever was on the G4 - fast enough for audio use.
Probably yes.

I'm still wondering why Logic had this problem on the G4 you mentioned. Wouldn't it have been possible for Logic to make sure the CPU doesn't step down in order to prevent this 'wake up latency'? I'm surprised the user would have to switch the performance setting manually rather than just the software talking care of it. Interesting issue.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2006, 01:44 PM
 
My W8612-version 15" MacBook Pro 2.16GHz variably idles between 1.33GHz and 1.86GHz, peaking at 2.16GHz when necessary. Its been doing that since I bought it in mid-May. Seems like perfectly normal behavior to me.
     
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2006, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
I'm still wondering why Logic had this problem on the G4 you mentioned.
Probably more an education issue than a technical issue and a bit of laziness on the side of the programmers. You really need to switch to high speed mode and disable nap mode as this can mess up timing specific streams (audio/video) - for example, on a PB G4 you get a ticking effect as the CPU kicks in/out of nap mode every so often on both modes. Mostly on VideoLAN that I've personally noticed, but they might have fixed it now in most critical apps. Basically nap mode saves power but there's a latency involved in switching it on/off which some applications can't handle well which causes a small glitch in video/audio streams. I can also hear my PowerBook sort of beep/make noise regularly when in high mode so I leave it on low mode most of the time (and I don't really notice a difference for most things).

Back to the Core Duo, the new CPU supports clock and voltage adjustments on a finer (and faster - according to Intel, about 10 usec at times) level than the older PowerPC CPU's so they should get better power savings by dynamically scaling CPU use many times per second rather than more infrequently. They seem to be doing quite a bit of research in this field of EPI (Energy Per Instruction) to max CPU computation power vs electrical power issues. (Break out the reconfigurable computers guys!)

I guess if we got something like RM Clock for MacOS X that would be pretty cool. So far we seem to have CPU Throttle instead. It would be nice if Intel supported instruction throttling like on PowerPC and coupled it to a dynamic FSB/Vcore scale so it would ramp up/down in a nice linear fashion.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 27, 2006, 04:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by skyman
I am on my 4th MBP. The other three had the whine and overheating issue. This one however does not (week 29 build). I have discovered (to my dismay) how Apple resolved the overheating problem.

I installed Core Due temp v.91 and noticed that my 2GHz MBP idles between 1.33GHz - 1.5GHz. Very rarely do I see 2.0GHz. This makes sense as this MBP is much cooler than the last three. Unfortunately I see this as a band aid and not a real fix.

I don't notice and lose of performance and I am sure Apple engineers know what they are doing.

But I do find it a bit disturbing that my 2.0GHz MBP really only runs at 2.0GHz under extreme loads.

I welcome your thoughts....
How do I find or measure the current clock rate? Aluminum Powerbook 10.4.7
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2