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 > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > What is your default browser?

View Poll Results: What is your default web browser?
Poll Options:
Safari 65 votes (55.56%)
Camino 15 votes (12.82%)
Firefox 24 votes (20.51%)
Opera 1 votes (0.85%)
Shiira 0 votes (0%)
Flock 0 votes (0%)
Internet Explorer 0 votes (0%)
OmniWeb 12 votes (10.26%)
Other (Please state and explain) 0 votes (0%)
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll
What is your default browser? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
What does "function like an OS X app" mean?
Edit: Damn - I just noticed that you had noticed that I posted my reasons already
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
This seems to be an issue regardless of the OS. Opening up multiple tabs is more or less the same as opening multiple windows. Any browser is going to sh!t itself if you have 53 instances open at once. Windows has the same problem with Firefox, Opera, and I'm guessing IE7. It's a shame, but it seems unavoidable at this point in the progress of technology.
This is absolutely true - I have to quit and restart Firefox a lot on my PC as it hogs RAM eventually. Ditto OmniWeb on my Mac.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
<snip>
All the things you bring about Firefox's checkboxes, dialogs, preference panes, etc are moot points. Firefox looks the same way in EVERY OS. It's part of its skinning engine - different themes will make the dialogs and whatnot appear differently. I'm guessing there's at least one Aqua theme available that will make your buttons and form elements look like standard OS X elements, if that's really so important to you.
</edit>
Nope, there is not. The fact that Firefox uses the same fugly checkboxes etc on all platforms is hardly a selling point for the browser either

Edit: and wrt to dialogues etc, it isn't just about how they look but about how they work.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 06:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
This seems to be an issue regardless of the OS. Opening up multiple tabs is more or less the same as opening multiple windows. Any browser is going to sh!t itself if you have 53 instances open at once. Windows has the same problem with Firefox, Opera, and I'm guessing IE7. It's a shame, but it seems unavoidable at this point in the progress of technology.

It's not just the process of opening up a new tab (although OS X seems much less responsive than other OSes doing this), but the fact that having these tabs open really bogs down the browser as a whole. I just haven't experienced this sort of sluggishness on my Ubuntu machine at work.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by JKT View Post
Nope, there is not. The fact that Firefox uses the same fugly checkboxes etc on all platforms is hardly a selling point for the browser either

Edit: and wrt to dialogues etc, it isn't just about how they look but about how they work.

Regardless, this is all icing. There are more important priorities in choosing a web browser, I think, such as compatibility, features, performance, and the other things I listed earlier. If Safari had all of these basis covered, we could get this picky, but it doesn't.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by JKT View Post
For OmniWeb, the answers to all those questions are the same for me as they are for Firefox, except that the features I love about OmniWeb are seriously lacking in Firefox (due to bugginess or poorer implementation in the available extensions that replicate those OmniWeb features).
No they aren't. OmniWeb is based on Webkit, right? So, any site that does not work with Safari will not work with Omniweb. We could also argue features given the plethora of FF extensions, but I'll let that go...


What I want to know is why people in here claim that text looks better in Safari? Doesn't Safari use Quartz just like any other OS X app for rendering text?
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2007, 09:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Regardless, this is all icing. There are more important priorities in choosing a web browser, I think, such as compatibility, features, performance, and the other things I listed earlier. If Safari had all of these basis covered, we could get this picky, but it doesn't.
...but I don't use Safari, I use OmniWeb. In terms of the features that OmniWeb has that I use all the time, Firefox simply is inferior and is dependent on third party extensions for those features. Those extensions are not only buggy, they just do not work as well as the built-in features of OmniWeb, with the exception of a few aspects where they supersede OmniWeb (but not enough to make me switch).

In terms of the number of features on offer in Firefox due to its extensibility, then yes, it is going to win any shooting match... just as Windows does in terms of software availability. However, much like Windows software, 99% of the extensions for Firefox are irrelevant to me personally because (a) they are replicating features I already have in OmniWeb or the OS, or (b) I don't have the time to try each of them out to find which does what best, or (c) I neither want nor need the feature they offer anyway, or (d) they are just too buggy to be usable.
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
No they aren't. OmniWeb is based on Webkit, right? So, any site that does not work with Safari will not work with Omniweb.
Although both are based on WebKit, OmniWeb 5.5.x and the 5.6 test versions are built on a newer version than Safari 2.x and therefore, the incompatibilities are fewer and different (when Safari 3 goes final, both will be closer in terms of the WebKit they use). There are also a few issues with some sites serving OmniWeb different pages due to the stupidity of their browser sniffing.

Fwiw, my point was more that, for the sites I visit, there are no compatibility issues that I experience with OmniWeb, and not that WebKit/OmniWeb is as broadly compatible as Firefox in general. That is, for me personally, the purported greater compatibility of Firefox is also irrelevant, because I don't get to see or experience it. So the answer to those 5 questions is similar for OmniWeb for me.
What I want to know is why people in here claim that text looks better in Safari? Doesn't Safari use Quartz just like any other OS X app for rendering text?
Historically, Firefox didn't originally use Quartz but this isn't true anymore. However, where text rendering in WebKit can be more visually appealing is through its support for CSS text shadows, and viewing a page that makes use of this spec (which equates to many - if not the majority of - Mac-focussed sites) in Firefox does make it look like arse.
( Last edited by JKT; Jul 28, 2007 at 09:58 PM. )
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 12:44 AM
 
Firefox: It's Open-Source, it's on all three major platforms (Mac, Linux and Windoze) so I can use the same browser throughout, it supports lots of useful extensions and is easily customizable, it's got tabs (though now most other browsers do too), and it renders pages better than a lot of browsers, including the more advanced CSS stuff.

Safari is a good browser too, however, and I keep it around as my secondary browser. Sometimes it can render correctly what Firefox cannot and visa-versa.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 09:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by JKT View Post
...but I don't use Safari, I use OmniWeb. In terms of the features that OmniWeb has that I use all the time, Firefox simply is inferior and is dependent on third party extensions for those features. Those extensions are not only buggy, they just do not work as well as the built-in features of OmniWeb, with the exception of a few aspects where they supersede OmniWeb (but not enough to make me switch).

In terms of the number of features on offer in Firefox due to its extensibility, then yes, it is going to win any shooting match... just as Windows does in terms of software availability. However, much like Windows software, 99% of the extensions for Firefox are irrelevant to me personally because (a) they are replicating features I already have in OmniWeb or the OS, or (b) I don't have the time to try each of them out to find which does what best, or (c) I neither want nor need the feature they offer anyway, or (d) they are just too buggy to be usable.

Although both are based on WebKit, OmniWeb 5.5.x and the 5.6 test versions are built on a newer version than Safari 2.x and therefore, the incompatibilities are fewer and different (when Safari 3 goes final, both will be closer in terms of the WebKit they use). There are also a few issues with some sites serving OmniWeb different pages due to the stupidity of their browser sniffing.

Fwiw, my point was more that, for the sites I visit, there are no compatibility issues that I experience with OmniWeb, and not that WebKit/OmniWeb is as broadly compatible as Firefox in general. That is, for me personally, the purported greater compatibility of Firefox is also irrelevant, because I don't get to see or experience it. So the answer to those 5 questions is similar for OmniWeb for me.

Historically, Firefox didn't originally use Quartz but this isn't true anymore. However, where text rendering in WebKit can be more visually appealing is through its support for CSS text shadows, and viewing a page that makes use of this spec (which equates to many - if not the majority of - Mac-focussed sites) in Firefox does make it look like arse.

My opinion: CSS3 text-shadows is a gimmicky feature that for now is mostly useless to depend on.

Regarding the rest of your post: cool that the sites you use work with Omniweb, but there are several sites and web applications that I use that don't work with Webkit yet, including 3, although I admit that this list is growing shorter, especially with the TinyMCE toolbar fixes in there now.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
My opinion: CSS3 text-shadows is a gimmicky feature that for now is mostly useless to depend on.
I beg to differ. Used correctly it provides a useful means of either emphasising particular items of text or of providing a subtle visual distinction between text and background. In the case of the latter, it allows the site designer to use a broader palette of colours for text on their pages than is otherwise possible as it adds contrast in manner that would otherwise be impossible to achieve without the use of a bitmapped image of text:

Firefox:


WebKit:


It isn't so obvious in those screenshots, but the text in Firefox, as well as looking chunky, bleeds into the background whereas that in WebKit does not.

However, used incorrectly (e.g. Appleinsider's heavy-handed shadow on their text headings) it is a gimmick.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 05:00 PM
 
It looks fine, I'm just saying that to *depend* on it is silly since this part of the spec just isn't wildly supported yet. By "depending on", I was thinking about putting the text next to a graphic with a drop shadow so that they would match, but I guess that's a retarded example and that there is not really an instance where such a thing would be depended on, so... never mind
     
Taylor C
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 05:03 PM
 
I absolutely love Safari. It's fast, lean, and secure. With Saft for shortcuts (I can type "mnn" in my address bar, for instance, and it'll take me to macnn.com. I LOVE this feature in Firefox), adblocking and other features, combined with Inquisitor and SafariStand for enhanced tab performance, it's perfect. Links only open in new tabs, and it's just a joy to use when compared with other alternatives. In addition, the user interface just can't be beat.
15" MacBook Pro - 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo - 2GB - 7200RPM 160GB HD
20" iMac - 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo - 1 GB - 250GB
8GB iPhone
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Taylor C View Post
I absolutely love Safari. It's fast, lean, and secure. With Saft for shortcuts (I can type "mnn" in my address bar, for instance, and it'll take me to macnn.com. I LOVE this feature in Firefox), adblocking and other features, combined with Inquisitor and SafariStand for enhanced tab performance, it's perfect. Links only open in new tabs, and it's just a joy to use when compared with other alternatives. In addition, the user interface just can't be beat.

I used to love Safari with these sorts of add-ons too, specifically Saft and PithHelmet, but I eventually grew tired quickly of plug-ins no longer working once I updated Safari, having to monitor the author's site, and manually downloading and installing the update. I wish that Apple would make it easier for people like yourself to do this sort of thing, assuming that these add-ons also necessitate updates as I've described.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 06:43 PM
 
Have things changed much as far as the seemingly neverending back and forth between Apple and the plug-in developers?

Apple: "here's a (possibly unannounced) update, your plug-in is broken now/needs an update."

Developer: "okay, I'll go fix it now... "

Apple: "here's another update..."

Developer: "*sigh* I know the routine..."


I never quite understood why things worked this way. Since Webkit is open, wouldn't it be easy for Apple to announce to the list that some major changes are in store, prepare your plug-ins for the next Safari update, something of this nature? It seems like there must be *some* way for plug-in developers to stay ahead of the game.

Then again, I'm not really sure what warrants plug-in updates between bug fix/security releases.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 06:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It looks fine, I'm just saying that to *depend* on it is silly since this part of the spec just isn't wildly supported yet.
Just to make it clear - I brought this up as a reason why some people could think that rendering of text in WebKit is still superior to Firefox even though they now both use the same OS tech to do it - the CSS text shadow attribute can make it seem as though WebKit is rendering fonts in a much nicer way than Firefox, as my screenshots demonstrate.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by JKT View Post
Just to make it clear - I brought this up as a reason why some people could think that rendering of text in WebKit is still superior to Firefox even though they now both use the same OS tech to do it - the CSS text shadow attribute can make it seem as though WebKit is rendering fonts in a much nicer way than Firefox, as my screenshots demonstrate.
Oh, I see...

Well, I would imagine that the vast majority of sites do not use this CSS attribute at all, and if they do, on text over a certain point size. I'm assuming that when people talk about text being sharper they are referring to body text on a page at a standard reading size.

Good point though, this could be what they notice in some instances...
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, I would imagine that the vast majority of sites do not use this CSS attribute at all
However, the majority of the sites that do use it extensively are Mac-specific ones - which is why the audience here will bring it up
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 07:22 PM
 
Just for balance, here is an example of how not to use the text shadow attribute:

WebKit rendering an AI heading:


Firefox:
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 07:24 PM
 
That isn't even a gimmick — it's just ugly.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Taylor C
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2007, 07:35 PM
 
I used to be a die hard Firefox user, but as I've said, I'm enjoying Safari a lot more now. I'm not using 3 due to incompatibilities with some plugins, but it's going to be a great browser once it's out of beta.
15" MacBook Pro - 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo - 2GB - 7200RPM 160GB HD
20" iMac - 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo - 1 GB - 250GB
8GB iPhone
     
iREZ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles of the East
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 31, 2007, 02:29 PM
 
i was an avid safari user...then i came across pithhelmet and LOVED browsing without ads but i didn't wanna shell out 20 bucks, so i started using firefox with adblocker...only reason its my default now. had safari had a free adblocker thats easy to use, id still be using that instead.
NOW YOU SEE ME! 2.4 MBP and 2.0 MBP (running ubuntu)
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 1, 2007, 05:21 PM
 
I haven't looked at Safari in a long while, but I thought it supported the use of a custom style sheet? If so, you have a free ad blocker built-in, just not one that is user friendly to customise.
     
Homer1946
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arlington, Tx
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2007, 02:35 AM
 
I have to amplify the 'its not that is it pretty, but that it works well with the OS' comments. I sense a little belittling of some users opinions about why they choose their browser because they don't correspond with others opinions about what is important.

For many of us how the browser feels, holistically, is very important, and for our use we are not experience lots of compatibility problems with Safari. I regularly check out all the browsers but I always come back to Safari. It just feels better and seems to work better and I have few compatibility problems for the sites I visit. Generally when I do have compatibility problems then Firefox does not fix them (usually an IE requiring site), although it does sometimes.
-R

I know I have no life and I can prove it at http://slicedapple.ath.cx/
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2007, 02:40 AM
 
In case anybody's interested, I came across my first site in a while that works with Firefox but not Safari — the new World of Warcraft expansion site. All I get in Safari is the background, for whatever reason.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2007, 04:03 AM
 
Most of the content is Flash based - are you blocking flash somehow?
     
Synotic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2007, 04:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
In case anybody's interested, I came across my first site in a while that works with Firefox but not Safari — the new World of Warcraft expansion site. All I get in Safari is the background, for whatever reason.
Are you using Safari 2? It works fine for me in the beta.

Besson: I feel as if there's a bit of FUD with your arguments against Safari. When Safari was first starting out, it wasn't the best at rendering pages, but these days it's pretty damn good. I use it almost exclusively and the only recent site I've had a problem with is Amtrak.com. It seems to just keep reloading itself. On the other hand, my bank, my other travel sites, and all the fancy Web 2.0 apps I'm using work perfectly.

Although you might think that Apple's choice of rendering engine (which they chose because it was small, quick, and efficient, which are incidentally good qualities for a mobile browser) was a poor one, its highly talented full-time staff, corporate backing, and open source community make it a very important force towards the push for better web standards and a better web experience all around.

Its benefit in this respect far outweigh any minute rendering differences between browsers. Heck most websites don't function or render perfectly in any browser. The level of rigor in web development just isn't there yet.

It may or not be relevant, but this was a comment I made on Digg about a week back, and it talks about the whole Safari vs. Firefox debate. It was a little more heated there, and I've simplified a lot of the definitions for the audience, but it hopefully gets my point across:

About Safari's "leakiness," Firefox and Safari both utilize (as in "make practical and effective use of", not simply "use") memory in much the same way, although Safari to a greater degree, a carryover from how Mac OS X works. If you want, you can look up "Firefox memory leaks" and find just as many articles talking about the problem as articles debunking the myth. The key here is this: unused memory is wasted memory. Firefox caches the last 8 pages viewed so that when you go back and forth, pages load more quickly, rather than refetching them, or storing the cache on disk immediately. Safari does this more aggressively, caching everything where possible (like parts of a page you just saw on a large document). A cursory look at your RAM statistics show that both programs "eat up" quite a lot of memory. The hallmark, then, of a quality program is not how much memory it takes advantage of, but rather how much it --shares-- its memory. If Safari takes up 300 MB of your memory, and then you open a few applications, it ramps down its usage, freeing up its ram, and using less in the future. As soon as more memory is available, it does the reverse and uses more RAM. Firefox, again, does much the same. There's another issue: Does a browser free all of its memory (related to browsing) when a window or tab is closed? In the past, Firefox has had problems here. I'm sure it's a lot better these days, but of course all programs of any complexity leak memory (Safari included). Still, the situation's getting better. If we want to use this long-dead myth of memory hogs, we could claim that Internet Explorer is the best browser: rather than using any sizeable cache, it opts to refetch or store things on disk. The has the "benefit" of using less RAM, but the result is a slower application and wasted RAM. Where a program refuses to free its RAM when it's done, or refuses to share its RAM when more applications need it, then that's a problem.

Your comparison of Safari's security to IE6's is hyperbole and unfounded. All programs have security issues. Safari's are simply more publicized. Firefox has its issues (Mozilla Foundation Security Advisories). Nobody ever disputed this. The fact is that Firefox and Safari --together-- are far superior when it comes to security than Internet Explorer. That said, all three vendors, Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft have a good track record of taking care of fixing security issues these days. It's IE's architecture that's the problem.

What I am tired of is this constant Firefox vs. Safari fight. The funny thing is that it only exists at the user level. There isn't any animosity between the developers. What some people don't understand is that browsers like Firefox, Safari, and Opera, collectively, are furthering the push to better standards adoption. Safari's foundations, WebCore and WebKit are being used in Nokia phones and the iPhone. Opera mini is used in other mobile devices. This is a good thing. The fact is, Firefox, Safari, and Opera are all -excellent- browsers. Safari's had a bit of a bad rep because of the popularity of Firefox, but it's largely unfounded. If you're going to make a decision between the two, it should be on features and speed. Memory usage and security simply don't play a factor. That's the benefit of having --good options--. The WebKit community is absolutely phenomenal and is constantly doing their best to be good web citizens while pushing the envelope (the introduction of the canvas element, which was quickly ratified and later adopted by Firefox). In the interest of full disclosure: I use Safari on a regular basis. I used OmniWeb for a long time before that, because I'm a big fan of its visual tabs, its speed, its ad blocking and its powerful features. I started using Safari again for a bit and kept with it, largely for its simplicity, but also because it's what I --felt like using--. They're both that good. I didn't have to worry about low-level problems like leaks or rendering. At work, I develop for MSIE, Firefox and Safari. Firebug is top notch, and I keep Firefox open for JavaScript debugging. Why don't I use Firefox? Personal preference. Safari is faster on the computers I use, launches more quickly, and display web pages more nicely. Are these all matters of opinion? Sure. But that doesn't matter. I have the --luxury-- of choosing between several great browsers. Firefox is one of them. Here's a fun fact: Dave Hyatt (Dave Hyatt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), the co-creator of Firefox is a lead developer of Safari, which should further put to rest the idea of any competition or ill will between the two. It will be a sad day when either of the big three standards-based browsers die away (Firefox, Safari, Opera). No matter the Firefox to Safari usage ratio, as a whole, this trio of browsers are in the far minority, and it's a collective effort. We need all the help we can get.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2007, 04:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by JKT View Post
Most of the content is Flash based - are you blocking flash somehow?
Originally Posted by Synotic View Post
Are you using Safari 2? It works fine for me in the beta.
That's no to both. But I have figured out what's going wrong, if not why. I'm using Safari 3.0.3. If I just access the page normally, without any special user agent or anything, it gets the address of most of the flash content wrong — instead of the flash files being in "/wrath/flash/global", the Safari is told to look in "/wrath/flash/global/flash/global". If I change my user agent to Safari 2 (or actually anything other than Firefox, for whatever reason), then it comes through correctly. Looks like some kind of ****ed-up user agent sniffing.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:13 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,