MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Mac Desktops (http://forums.macnn.com/mac-desktops/)
-   -   Next iMacs to get redesigned? (http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-desktops/330869/next-imacs-to-get-redesigned/)

 
lizardgator Mar 20, 2007 10:28 AM
Next iMacs to get redesigned?
At least according to Appleinsider the next iMacs will be getting a complete redesign:
AppleInsider | Apple's next-generation iMacs to add a touch of grace
 
Pierre B. Mar 21, 2007 05:32 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by lizardgator (Post 3332234)
At least according to Appleinsider the next iMacs will be getting a complete redesign:
AppleInsider | Apple's next-generation iMacs to add a touch of grace
Most likely yes. Apart slight changes (more slim form factor and the built-in camera), the current design is fast nearing three years of existence.
 
red rocket Mar 21, 2007 09:48 AM
What kind of design changes do you guys want to see?

I think they should make the whole thing out of metal, add a sunflower-style neck, make it look like a cross between a cinema display and an XServe. The base will have to be ultra-heavy, to compensate for the already top-heavy design, maybe a solid slab of steel with a few status lights and a power supply.

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/4550/2007imacun8.jpg

Won't happen, I suppose.
 
Atheist Mar 21, 2007 09:54 AM
I certainly hope so. Not a fan of the current iMac. Mostly because it's white. I've never liked white computers/peripherals. Gimme metal or black, preferably in a brushed finish.
 
earthlings Mar 21, 2007 12:31 PM
Stainless steel- yes.
 
Eug Mar 21, 2007 12:48 PM
1) 30" iMac. ;)
2) Decrease the height of the 24". I have one now and because the chin is so big the screen rides high, and I had to totally readjust my desk/chair setup to compensate.
3) HDCP support.
4) 4 GB RAM max and faster bus (both of which will come with the new chipset).

P.S. I could see them phasing out the 17" (except for educational sales), but I wouldn't say it's a sure thing.
 
Dakar² Mar 21, 2007 12:52 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3333269)
P.S. I could see them phasing out the 17" (except for educational sales), but I wouldn't say it's a sure thing.
I read that too, but I don't get it unless it's selling least well.
 
Eug Mar 21, 2007 12:58 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Dakar² (Post 3333272)
I read that too, but I don't get it unless it's selling least well.
Well, that's what people said when they phased out the 15". When they did, the 15" was still quite popular, cuz it was cheaper. Nonetheless, Apple got rid of it. Perhaps they felt the profit margin was low enough that they could do without it.

I note that at this time, 20" screens have come down in price to the same league as 17" screens years ago. You can get 20" LCD monitors now for well under US$250.
 
Dakar² Mar 21, 2007 01:04 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3333282)
Well, that's what people said when they phased out the 15". When they did, the 15" was still quite popular, cuz it was cheaper. Nonetheless, Apple got rid of it. Perhaps they felt the profit margin was low enough that they could do without it.
Whenever a low-end product gets eliminated I always suspect that's the reason. I still hear people complaining about there being no 12" iBook (not that I care)

Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3333282)
I note that at this time, 20" screens have come down in price to the same league as 17" screens years ago. You can get 20" LCD monitors now for well under US$250.
Well that certainly seems like a good thing -- if the 20" iMac would be sold closer to the 17" price.
 
Eug Mar 21, 2007 01:14 PM
^^^ Well, I have a 13.3" MacBook, but I find it kinda big. I would prefer to have a slightly smaller Mac laptop. I don't want a G4 iBook though.
 
earthlings Mar 21, 2007 01:16 PM
I like my 15" pb, its a great size for me. But carrying it, it's heavy.
 
Dakar² Mar 21, 2007 01:21 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by earthlings (Post 3333308)
I like my 15" pb, its a great size for me. But carrying it, it's heavy.
It can get a bit uncomfortable on a long walk, but when I was a student I loved the fusion of size and portability. Neither a 12" nor a 17" would have made me nearly as happy. (Actually I think I would have hated the 12. It's very toyish to me)
 
earthlings Mar 21, 2007 01:27 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Dakar² (Post 3333312)
It can get a bit uncomfortable on a long walk, but when I was a student I loved the fusion of size and portability. Neither a 12" nor a 17" would have made me nearly as happy. (Actually I think I would have hated the 12. It's very toyish to me)
Yes, I agree. I don't see how I could go with anything smaller than what I have. But when Leopard and Santa Rosa come out in an all new iMac, I might just get a new desktop. But first I have to see what the new change is!!!
 
Eug Mar 21, 2007 01:55 PM
I went from a 15" TiBook to a 12" iBook. I preferred the latter, but then again it's because I had a 20" iMac at home.

Now I have a 24" iMac at home, and would prefer an 12" 1152x768 MacBook Lite. Maybe when I get that 30" iMac, I'll want an even smaller laptop. ;)

Anyways, back on topic. I think it's a sure thing that the new iMacs will have the 4 GB RAM limit and a faster bus. I think the 4 GB limit is important. I have 2 GB now, and it's not enough, and going to 3 GB means losing out on dual-channel support. I just hope they use standard DIMMs instead of SO-DIMMs. SO-DIMMs are a pain, and these are desktops after all.
 
Dakar² Mar 21, 2007 02:13 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3333357)
Anyways, back on topic. I think it's a sure thing that the new iMacs will have the 4 GB RAM limit and a faster bus. I think the 4 GB limit is important. I have 2 GB now, and it's not enough, and going to 3 GB means losing out on dual-channel support. I just hope they use standard DIMMs instead of SO-DIMMs. SO-DIMMs are a pain, and these are desktops after all.
No sh¡t. My iMac becomes a joke after being up for a week (granted I have only 1.5 gigs and Safari isn't helping either), the lag is just incredible. And to think how much worse it was when I had only 1 gig and a few rosetta apps...
 
earthlings Mar 21, 2007 02:25 PM
Do you all think that the Product Red org. and Apple will actually make a Red iMac.
 
Dakar² Mar 21, 2007 02:27 PM
Not a chance.
 
earthlings Mar 21, 2007 03:06 PM
At first I thought a red iMac would be nice, but only if they went back to the old box look with the colors pink, green, blue, etc. But a red macbook would be nice.
 
Northeastern292 Mar 21, 2007 05:11 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by earthlings (Post 3333426)
At first I thought a red iMac would be nice, but only if they went back to the old box look with the colors pink, green, blue, etc. But a red macbook would be nice.
Apple should keep the 17" display. LCD's are still not cheap, and there is still no $799 iMac. They should not overhaul, but give the iMac a facelift. Add a larger display, etc.

Apple should also put in more desktop models. Introduce a budget tower and a few desktops. Apple's lineup has become too slim. It's either cheap and not expandable or expensive and expandable. Expandability shouldn't cost extra.

That's why I am giving Dell an applause on this one. Schools like the Dell Optiplex due to its slim size and low cost (sometimes). I miss the days when Apple's product line was confusing, although I couldn't personally remember.
 
Northeastern292 Mar 21, 2007 05:12 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3333357)
I went from a 15" TiBook to a 12" iBook. I preferred the latter, but then again it's because I had a 20" iMac at home.

Now I have a 24" iMac at home, and would prefer an 12" 1152x768 MacBook Lite. Maybe when I get that 30" iMac, I'll want an even smaller laptop. ;)

Anyways, back on topic. I think it's a sure thing that the new iMacs will have the 4 GB RAM limit and a faster bus. I think the 4 GB limit is important. I have 2 GB now, and it's not enough, and going to 3 GB means losing out on dual-channel support. I just hope they use standard DIMMs instead of SO-DIMMs. SO-DIMMs are a pain, and these are desktops after all.
Apple should also dump SO-DIMM's. Go for full size RAM if possible. Slant the RAM slots if need be.
 
Eriamjh Mar 21, 2007 10:31 PM
It would be nice if Apple dumped the mobile processor in the iMac for a full blown desktop CPU.
 
Eug Mar 22, 2007 12:19 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eriamjh (Post 3333826)
It would be nice if Apple dumped the mobile processor in the iMac for a full blown desktop CPU.
It would be nice, but then again, my 24" iMac is extremely quiet. My 2.33 GHz 24" is quieter than the G5 iMacs, and the G5 iMacs were already fairly quiet.

Sticking with laptop CPUs, 2.6 GHz would be fine, but I doubt Intel will release that initially for their mobile chip. Rumour has it that at launch, the max speed for the Santa Rosa oriented Core 2 Duo mobile chip will be 2.4 GHz. That's an insignificant clock speed increase over the current 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo. There is the memory speed difference, but the 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo already does fairly well, considering it has a 4 MB L2 cache.
 
pyrite Mar 22, 2007 01:11 AM
stainless imacs? not a chance... they'll be reserving that look for the 'pro' line for many years to come IMO...
 
P Mar 22, 2007 10:09 AM
While I don't like Apple raising the floor for the iMac, I think that they could move to a 19" widescreen without hiking the price over the 17". They're significantly cheaper than 20" wides - for some reason they fit well onto the common size of LCD sheets. Eliminate both 17" and 20" and keep just the 19" one and the new 24". I'd love a smaller iMac at a lower price - say a 15" widescreen with Mac mini-style performance as the edu model - but I doubt it will happen.
 
Dakar² Mar 22, 2007 10:14 AM
A 15" seems ridiculous on a desktop anymore.
 
Eug Mar 22, 2007 10:31 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by P (Post 3334119)
While I don't like Apple raising the floor for the iMac, I think that they could move to a 19" widescreen without hiking the price over the 17". They're significantly cheaper than 20" wides - for some reason they fit well onto the common size of LCD sheets. Eliminate both 17" and 20" and keep just the 19" one and the new 24". I'd love a smaller iMac at a lower price - say a 15" widescreen with Mac mini-style performance as the edu model - but I doubt it will happen.
19" screens are generally the same ballpark rez as 17" screens, but just with bigger pixels and higher cost.

I suppose they could get a higher rez widescreen 19" screen, but 20" screens at 1600x1050 are a common standard size made by many manufacturers, so it would likely be a better bang for the buck.
 
JEB Mar 22, 2007 04:28 PM
Maybe we'll see one more dual-core with a processor speed bump . . .

Then, "one more thing" would be a Quad-core iMac . . . altho' tthat'll of course be in Jan. at MWSF '08

Before Jan., I'd say any iMac would include Leopard (he heee) . . . that's what we're waiting for . . . and for our desk, a 24" would be the max size...


GO APPLE!!! GO iMAC!!! GO LEOPARD!!!
 
Eriamjh Mar 22, 2007 05:22 PM
I do like the quiet iMacs thanks to the mobile processor, but one always craves more speed.

Higher rez LCDs with "resolution independent" Leopard would rock.

A bus speed increase would help total performance.

How about a graphics card upgrade for once in 2 years?
 
tutelary Mar 22, 2007 06:58 PM
Predicting 8300/8600 series gpus. These are due in the pc market april 17th. Its right on schedule.
 
dimmer Mar 22, 2007 08:18 PM
Dual core? Maybe, but keep in mind that most of the apps iMac users deal with are not mutithreaded. While I've argued against this time after time Apple -might- make the iMac a little more flexible, in terms of having a coupler of PCI Express slots (for the video cards) and space for a couple of hard drives: that setup would require a return to a more box + screen setup. I know consumers would like the ability to upgrade the GFX card or the screen (and the ability to reuse the screen, in time) -- and maybe Apple is doing well enough now that those would not be impossible?

The "big chin" has to go: esp. that it went up almost in proportion with the bigger screens: that wasn't required by engineering, and it's not a design "win".

Or, make the screen totally separate, an Apple TV with an LCD, and make the iMac a small tower with an 802.11n connection: not good for games, but hey, it's an iMac...
 
tutelary Mar 23, 2007 02:09 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by dimmer (Post 3334669)
Dual core? Maybe, but keep in mind that most of the apps iMac users deal with are not mutithreaded.
..the iMacs are already dual core. You dont need multithreaded software to experience the benefit of multiple cores anyway, you simply need to multitask. Any good OS will assign threads to cores to balance load. Sure, multithreading is nice, but not necessary for the end user to see real benefit in terms of workflow.
 
Simon Mar 23, 2007 04:32 AM
Just for the record: There will be no quad-core iMac as long as Apple sticks with mobile CPUs and chipset for the iMac. Intel doesn't sell quad-core mobile CPUs.
 
brokenjago Mar 23, 2007 05:19 AM
Isn't one coming out in the latter half of 2007?

A quad core mobile chip, I mean.
 
tutelary Mar 23, 2007 08:32 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Simon (Post 3334966)
Intel doesn't sell quad-core mobile CPUs.
..which will change this year. Wow you have a rather narrow field of view.
 
Eug Mar 23, 2007 11:19 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by tutelary (Post 3335029)
..which will change this year. Wow you have a rather narrow field of view.
Has Intel actually confirmed quad laptop chips for this year? I wasn't aware they did.

Anyways, I sold my G5 iMac I was using at work. I'm still mulling over whether I need to replace it (since I have a Windows box there already), but if there are new iMacs with a cool new design I might just have to get one. ;)

I don't really care about quad, but the possibility of a cheaper 20" (if they drop the 17") intrigues me.

Right now I can get this for CAD$1804 (US$1556):

* 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
* 250GB Serial ATA Drive
* ATI Radeon X1600/128MB VRAM
* SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
* Apple Wireless Keyboard & wireless Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
* 20-inch widescreen LCD
* AirPort Extreme
* Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

I'd like to see this for ~$1700 (US$1467) next quarter:

* 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2GB 800 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB <-- desktop DIMMs
* 250GB Serial ATA Drive
* ATI Radeon X1650/128MB VRAM
* SuperDrive 8X (DVD+/-R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
* Apple Wireless Keyboard & wireless Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
* 20-inch widescreen LCD
* AirPort Extreme
* Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

Alternatively, I could just get a Mac mini.

BTW, it seems the edu pricing in Canada is cheaper. In the US, the first setup is US$1611, or $55 (3.5%) more than here.
 
Simon Mar 23, 2007 03:13 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tutelary (Post 3335029)
..which will change this year. Wow you have a rather narrow field of view.
Umm, time for a reality check. Intel hasn't confirmed diddly squat about quad-core mobile CPUs.

The upcoming mobile CPU they have actually talked about is Penryn and it will be a 45nm dual-core CPU.

However, regardless if and when they introduce quad-core mobile CPUs, Apple certainly isn't going to wait that long to upgrade the iMac. Again, unless Apple switches to a desktop chipset the next iMac will be dual-core. Anything else is just a pipe dream.
 
mike518 Mar 23, 2007 10:46 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by dimmer (Post 3334669)
Or, make the screen totally separate, an Apple TV with an LCD, and make the iMac a small tower with an 802.11n connection: not good for games, but hey, it's an iMac...
I don't think Apple would ever "split-up" the iMac? It's a bit of a selling point for them really, that it's a computer with "everything-in-one" almost.. And I actually like that too, that the entire computer is in the screen..
 
tutelary Mar 24, 2007 10:23 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Simon (Post 3335402)
Umm, time for a reality check. Intel hasn't confirmed diddly squat about quad-core mobile CPUs.

The upcoming mobile CPU they have actually talked about is Penryn and it will be a 45nm dual-core CPU.

However, regardless if and when they introduce quad-core mobile CPUs, Apple certainly isn't going to wait that long to upgrade the iMac. Again, unless Apple switches to a desktop chipset the next iMac will be dual-core. Anything else is just a pipe dream.
reality check? dont make me laugh. Intel is promising 80 cores in 5 years. If you dont think Santa Rosa is going to target quads you're an idiot.
X-bit labs - Hardware news - Intel Readies Quad-Core Mobile Chips - Analyst.
 
Eug Mar 24, 2007 11:24 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by tutelary (Post 3335994)
reality check? dont make me laugh. Intel is promising 80 cores in 5 years. If you dont think Santa Rosa is going to target quads you're an idiot.
X-bit labs - Hardware news - Intel Readies Quad-Core Mobile Chips - Analyst.
A quote from that year-old article:

Jim McGregor, principal analyst of Microprocessor Report from In-Stat, said in his recent report that Intel is also planning a quad-core mobile processor. TG Daily web-site claims that the observer believed that Intel’s quad-core mobile processor could be compatible with “Santa Rosa” platform, “which will be launched in Q2 of 2007 as a refresh for the Merom processor”.
 
Northeastern292 Mar 24, 2007 11:59 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eriamjh (Post 3333826)
It would be nice if Apple dumped the mobile processor in the iMac for a full blown desktop CPU.
Agreed. The iMac is a desktop, and Apple treats it like a portable. That turns off people. I think Apple's current line turns off many potential buyers. (I don't like Low Price=Nil expandability and High Price=Expandability).

You can buy an eMachines for $500 and do more expanding than in a $1500 iMac.
 
kamina Mar 24, 2007 01:54 PM
The iMac is a desktop, but the design leaves two choices:

1. Use mobile components
2. Use desktop components and have very loud fans

I have a 20" imac of the latest revision, and would not want it any louder then it is now. It's clear there has been a lot of thought put into making it silent. Using desktop components the increase in heat production would make it impossible to cool silently:

- The processor would create 2-4 times more heat depending what model is used
- The motherboards chipset would create 2 times more heat
- The video card would produce 2-3 times more heat
- The memory would produce more heat

Apple would end up having to make it bulkier, not smaller like most people here seem to want (lose the chin). Saying the iMac is a desktop but Apple are treating it as a portable does not really make a lot of sence. The iMac is a computer stuffed into a monitor, not your average desktop.

We have one 17" G5 iMac at work and it's so loud under load comparing to the intel models that it's just plain funny. Makes it very clear to me why Apple has chosen to use Mobile parts...
 
tutelary Mar 24, 2007 03:08 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3336029)
A quote from that year-old article:

Jim McGregor, principal analyst of Microprocessor Report from In-Stat, said in his recent report that Intel is also planning a quad-core mobile processor. TG Daily web-site claims that the observer believed that Intel’s quad-core mobile processor could be compatible with “Santa Rosa” platform, “which will be launched in Q2 of 2007 as a refresh for the Merom processor”.
no **** sherlock, but hes not an idiot. Its coming, get over it. You apple people are so used to being pigeon-holed into no choice that you cant seem to see the market for what it is now. I feel sorry for you that you see "the Steve" to say it before you have any ability to use a bit of common sense and come to the conclusion first. Everything is multicore from here on out, get used to it.
 
brokenjago Mar 24, 2007 03:12 PM
Are you trying to be an asshole, or is that just the way you are when someone doesn't agree with your unsubstantiated views?
 
Eug Mar 24, 2007 04:42 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tutelary (Post 3336149)
no **** sherlock, but hes not an idiot. Its coming, get over it. You apple people are so used to being pigeon-holed into no choice that you cant seem to see the market for what it is now. I feel sorry for you that you see "the Steve" to say it before you have any ability to use a bit of common sense and come to the conclusion first. Everything is multicore from here on out, get used to it.
The In-Stat people have been wrong on many occasions. :stick:
 
Pierre B. Mar 24, 2007 04:55 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by tutelary (Post 3336149)
no **** sherlock, but hes not an idiot. Its coming, get over it. You apple people are so used to being pigeon-holed into no choice that you cant seem to see the market for what it is now. I feel sorry for you that you see "the Steve" to say it before you have any ability to use a bit of common sense and come to the conclusion first. Everything is multicore from here on out, get used to it.
Do you really believe that the MacNN fellows who replied to you do not expect that it is coming? The whole point here is when exactly and at this moment there is no official anouncement..
 
Simon Mar 25, 2007 03:04 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by tutelary (Post 3335994)
reality check? dont make me laugh. Intel is promising 80 cores in 5 years. If you dont think Santa Rosa is going to target quads you're an idiot.
X-bit labs - Hardware news - Intel Readies Quad-Core Mobile Chips - Analyst.
OK, let's some things straight:
• The 80-core CPU was a demonstration within an ongoing R&D project. It has nothing to do with the Core 2 CPUs.
• Santa Rosa is the upcoming chipset as a successor to Napa. When it comes out, the CPU that will be used with it is Merom. That's a dual-core mobile Core 2 CPU. Santa Rosa has nothing to do with the number of cores in a CPU.
• The article you linked to is almost a year old and is nothing more than an analysts's blurb. It doesn't come form Intel and it hasn't been confirmed by anybody at Intel who's actually in the know.

You would rather educate yourself before you come here and insult others in public. First of all because naiveness mixes poorly with impertinence and secondly, because when Apple debuts the new iMac it will likely be running SR with the same dual-core Merom it is running today (possibly at a higher clock though) and you will look like a fool. Not a good way to start off on a board like this one. :stick:
 
Simon Mar 25, 2007 03:14 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Pierre B. (Post 3336212)
Do you really believe that the MacNN fellows who replied to you do not expect that it is coming? The whole point here is when exactly and at this moment there is no official anouncement..
That is precisely the point.

I'm pretty sure nobody here doubts that Intel's mobile solution will eventually make use of a quad-core CPU. But unfortunately Intel has not yet confirmed anything regarding the introduction of such a product. And since the new iMac will likely be released within the next 3 months, it will - assuming Apple doesn't switch to using Kentsfield - be a dual-core machine. There has already been a lot of debate about why Apple chose the Merom/945 instead of Conroe/975 CPU and chipset. I believe the consensus was that while the latter was not entirely impossible and possibly the cheaper solution, Apple's thermal design is relaxed considerably by going with the mobile chipset.
 
Eug Mar 25, 2007 11:19 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Simon (Post 3336512)
Apple's thermal design is relaxed considerably by going with the mobile chipset.
Indeed. I was a little disappointed in Apple's choice of the mobile chips for the iMac, but OTOH, I'm constantly impressed as to just how quiet this thing is. Even at full tilt (for days, encoding video), it's dead quiet.

Quote, Originally Posted by Simon (Post 3336509)
when Apple debuts the new iMac it will likely be running SR with the same dual-core Merom it is running today (possibly at a higher clock though)
It will be at higher clock, albeit not much higher. As you are aware CPU speed is related to the memory speed. Memory on the current machines is 667 MHz, but memory with Santa Rosa is 800 MHz. Thus, I expect the top of the line iMac to be 2.4 GHz when released.

I will consider buying a 2.2 GHz 20" iMac, assuming I like the new design (if there is one) and if there is a price drop. (2.2 GHz since it is cheaper.)
 
Pierre B. Mar 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Eug (Post 3336653)
Indeed. I was a little disappointed in Apple's choice of the mobile chips for the iMac, but OTOH, I'm constantly impressed as to just how quiet this thing is. Even at full tilt (for days, encoding video), it's dead quiet.
:eek:
Is it really THAT quiet under load? I had the impression that after some time the fans would make you notice them.
 
Eug Mar 25, 2007 12:16 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Pierre B. (Post 3336682)
:eek:
Is it really THAT quiet under load? I had the impression that after some time the fans would make you notice them.
Yes... Vewy, vewy qwiet!!! ;)

http://home.comcast.net/~cheetah24/wabbit.jpg

I have the 24" 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac. This is my machine after 2.5 days of video encoding, and still quiet:

http://www.eugbanana.com/files/Apple/2.5DayEncode.jpg

This is in stark contrast to my G5 iMac. The 2.0 GHz G5 20" was quiet at idle and pretty quiet with light usage, but the fans would rev up moderately under heavy load.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2