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 > Alternative Operating Systems > Quad core not all active in XP

Quad core not all active in XP
Thread Tools
cgc
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2006, 09:25 PM
 
I have a quad core Mac Pro and have installed Boot Camp. I have Windows XP Professional installed which reports me as having "ACPI Multiprocessor PC" in Device Manager, and Device Manager also reports four Intel 5150 processors each at 2.66GHz, and Task Manager shows four CPUs. The problem I'm having is even when Windows is crunching something significant Task Manager never goes over a total of 25% CPU utilization (total). It hovers at 24-25%. The system doesn't seem quick at all during the process which makes me think only one core is active.

I did a Cinebench 9.5 test and that got all four cores revving to finish with a score of 1347 (I got 1389 in OS X). BTW, I'm using BootCamp 1.1 drivers.

Am I running on one core? Are there any patches that need to be applied or is there a CPU Preference Pane like in 10.4.7? How to I enable all cores?

Thanks in advance!
( Last edited by cgc; Sep 5, 2006 at 09:38 PM. )
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2006, 10:27 PM
 
I reran two of the Cinebench 9.5 tests: single-core render and multi-core render but this time I had Task Manager running. The single-core render had 25% CPU utilization and the multi-core render had 100% CPU utilization. This means my current configuration of Windows Professional XP SP2 does not take advantage of multiple cores.

Is there a way to enable all cores?
     
Dorkington
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 5, 2006, 11:17 PM
 
AFAIK XP only supports two processors/cores.. unless something changed recently.
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dorkington
AFAIK XP only supports two processors/cores.. unless something changed recently.
From The Horse's Mouth:
Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:26 AM
 
Yet another reason to use XP Pro over Home... Good catch, Moose.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Yet another reason to use XP Pro over Home... Good catch, Moose.
Except:

Originally Posted by cgc
I have a quad core Mac Pro and have installed Boot Camp. I have Windows XP Professional installed
So. I dunno what the problem is (unless the EFI->BIOS shim's representing each core as a physical processor).
     
hookem2oo7
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anson, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:44 AM
 
XP doesn't distribute load across multiple cores unless the program is written to do so. so let's say I load up an appllication that is not written to take advantage of multithreading and let it do whatever it is that it does. It's only going to put 100% load on whichever core XP assigns to it. You can assign which core gets the load (affinity) under the XP task manager, but there is no way to make it distribute the load evenly.
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by hookem2oo7
XP doesn't distribute load across multiple cores unless the program is written to do so. so let's say I load up an appllication that is not written to take advantage of multithreading and let it do whatever it is that it does. It's only going to put 100% load on whichever core XP assigns to it. You can assign which core gets the load (affinity) under the XP task manager, but there is no way to make it distribute the load evenly.
Macintouch called from 2002. Ric wants his talking points back.

With multiple cores/processors, more than one application can execute at a time; even if the individual applications aren't multi-threaded, the underlying OS is.

So if you're not using multi-threaded applications, it's not SUPER LUCKY BEST SPEED, but it's better than just the one execution unit.
     
hookem2oo7
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anson, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 11:14 AM
 
??? confused

didn't you just say what i said?

     
Art Vandelay
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 12:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Moose
This is only talking about licensing, not whether XP actually makes use of multiple processors/cores efficiently.
Vandelay Industries
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by hookem2oo7
didn't you just say what i said?
Yeah, I didn't notice that you were replying to the original question.

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay
This is only talking about licensing, not whether XP actually makes use of multiple processors/cores efficiently.
Look again at what I quoted:

Originally Posted by Dorkington
AFAIK XP only supports two processors/cores.. unless something changed recently.
It was a licensing statement. I clarified the terms of the license.
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:12 PM
 
I have XP Pro installed and all CPUs are utilized each at 25% for a total of 100%. But that's still only using 1/4 of the available CPUs. Maybe something's wrong with my license...
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc
Maybe something's wrong with my license...
Unlikely.

As hookem2oo7 said, unless your software is multithreaded, you're not going to see a gigantic leap in performance (but you'll be able to run multiple CPU-hungry applications more efficiently).

You yourself said that you were able to get them all going:

Originally Posted by cgc
I did a Cinebench 9.5 test and that got all four cores revving to finish with a score of 1347 (I got 1389 in OS X). BTW, I'm using BootCamp 1.1 drivers.
So the issue isn't Windows licensing.
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 02:19 PM
 
Ok...thanks... Seems ironic that Windows can't efficiently make use of Intel's multi-core CPUs but I get better usage through OS X.
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by cgc
Ok...thanks... Seems ironic that Windows can't efficiently make use of Intel's multi-core CPUs but I get better usage through OS X.
It's not Windows. It's your software.

What software are you running that only seems to use the one core?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:05 PM
 
Windows is not WRITTEN to take advantage of more than two cores, and the OS expects the application to actively tell the OS "there are multiple, independent threads of execution here-schedule them for me."

The 64-bit version of XP may handle more than two cores, but I don't know... But it still expects the app to notify it of multiple threads, or it will run them all on one core.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:43 PM
 
The 64-bit version, i'm nearly 100% only supports 2 cores/procs, the only versions to support more are the server versions and even then only the more pricy ones.
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
Moose
Senior User
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 03:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by indigoimac
The 64-bit version, i'm nearly 100% only supports 2 cores/procs
Okay.

Let's all turn back to page 32 in your hymnals and re-read (pertinent part in bold):
Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.
In case you missed it in the quote, here it is outside of the quote. In bold.

Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor.

Please do not continue referring to a "core" and a "processor" as being interchangeable when you're talking about licensing, because that isn't always the case.

(Yes, not all software can take advantage of multiple processors, but please don't blame it on Windows.)
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 04:29 PM
 
The last time I checked Moose, XP Pro and the botched 64-bit edition were not quite the same and therefore the licensing differs, though I believe that they both only support TWO PROCS, that said I don't believe that any consumer version of XP will use more than TWO CORES, nor will any software running on it, multithreaded or not, I don't believe that XP is capable of seeing more than TWO CORES, and thus is not capable of distributing commands to more than TWO CORES.

Though I could be wrong!

The original reason I used the "core/proc" thing is because the concept of a "Dual-core" is relatively new, and that I wasn't really referencing licensing, but rather ghporter's question which I interpretted as asking whether or not the OS itself would take advantage of more than TWO CORES or PROCS.

Also, this thread really had nothing to do w/ licensing, but rather the manner in which XP distributes instruction.
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 04:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Moose
It's not Windows. It's your software.

What software are you running that only seems to use the one core?
1. Windows XP Pro
2. Winzip
3. Windows Media Player
4. Adobe Photoshop CS 2 (version 9.03 I think)
5. Firefox 1.5
6. IE 6
7. Komodo

You know, the ONLY program I have used in Windows XP Pro that did use more than 25% of the total available CPU was Cinebench 9.5. The Task Manager shows EACH CORE running at 25% utilization for a total of 100% utilization during CPU-intensive tasks. I would have expected Windows to only use one CPU (and one core of that CPU) at 100% with the other cores idle. That is what throws me off.

When I get home I'll try Quicktime, iTunes, America's Army, and some other things.

I appreciate all your advise but it seems that windows is really not good (or able) to make use of more than one core.
     
indigoimac
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:16 PM
 
I wonder if there is just a windows glitch w/ the new Xeon procs?
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz i7 4GB RAM 6490M 120GB OWC 6G SSD 500GB HD
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz C2D 2GB RAM 8600M GT 200GB HD
17" C2D iMac 2.0GHz 2GB RAM x1600 500GB HD
     
hookem2oo7
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Anson, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 07:57 PM
 
the only programs i could run that would use both cores on an A64 x2 (dual core) box i built were video encoding/editing type programs...nothing else was written to take advantage...
     
Tomchu
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 6, 2006, 08:08 PM
 
A lot of people here seem to misunderstand licensing issues, SMP issues, and multi-threaded application issues.

If XP sees 4 processors, and shows you 4 graphs in Task Manager -- you're good to go. Many portions of XP itself are multi-threaded, so you'll get an overall boost in performance going to 2 processors vs. 1 (going up to 4 is probably useless with XP alone). A single-threaded application will only be able to take advantage of one core at a time. It has nothing to do with OS limitations.
     
MacPC
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 7, 2006, 11:38 AM
 
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
lllab
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2006, 07:52 AM
 
Hi all,

i am a windows user who just bought a mac pro:-)

to clear some things: winxp is for2 cpus with 4 cores total working. i have it installed on my new macpro without problems.

all 4 cores work at 100% when i use a multithreaded app like cinema 4d or final render.
in windows as in osx a app has to be multithreaded to take advantage over the multicores.

the mac pro is running fine execpt the pios mode problem with harddisks under winxp, which can be solved during first installation with new win drivers. all 4 cores are used also under winxp.

i am very positive impressed by the macpro, it is a lot faster than my quad opteron275:-),
but was less expensive....

cheers
Stefan
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 9, 2006, 06:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by lllab
Hi all,

i am a windows user who just bought a mac pro:-)

to clear some things: winxp is for2 cpus with 4 cores total working. i have it installed on my new macpro without problems.

all 4 cores work at 100% when i use a multithreaded app like cinema 4d or final render.
in windows as in osx a app has to be multithreaded to take advantage over the multicores.

the mac pro is running fine execpt the pios mode problem with harddisks under winxp, which can be solved during first installation with new win drivers. all 4 cores are used also under winxp.

i am very positive impressed by the macpro, it is a lot faster than my quad opteron275:-),
but was less expensive....

cheers
Stefan
Here's a screenshot that should either (in my opinion) have one CPU running at 100% or all CPUs running near 100%. I am using StuffIt 10 on my MacPro. The fact that all four CPUs are utilized at only 25% each leads me to think something is disabled for some reason. Obviously, StuffIt is capable of using all the CPUs (cores) but why only 25% each?

     
lllab
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2006, 08:25 AM
 
well the you use a sofware that isnt fully multi threaded.
at my machine all 4 are at 100%....

your software seems to use just one, it can be that winxp shows thsi wronglx as 4x25%

cheers
stefan
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2006, 01:58 PM
 
I just find it odd that even Photoshop CS2 doesn't use the 4 cores any differently. Are there any programs on Windows XP that make use of all four cores (besides CineBench or other benchmarking programs)?

Also, my CPU utilization will NEVER go above 25% per CPU and during processes that should utilize the CPU a lot I peg at 25% per CPU. I think some of the bottleneck may be attributable to the slow disk access (reference: Macworld: Mac Pro + Boot Camp = slow XP disk performance? and Apple - Support - Discussions - MAC PRO - Still Stuck in PIO mode ...)

I benchmarked my dhard drive and got about 4MB/s which is ludicrous. Coupled with "only" having 1GB leaves the system to use virtual memory and slow it down. However, simple tasks like zipping a load of stuff, converting .mp3 files, installing programs, or whatever still leaves my computer pegged at 25% per CPU.

I think there's something else wrong here... After I finish a time-sensitive training course (must be done in XP) I'm going to reinstall.
( Last edited by cgc; Sep 10, 2006 at 03:10 PM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 10, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
I think there's a reason for an app not using all of the available cores within the app-I think that most apps do not take into account the possibility of multiple CPUs, even if they're written to multithread. So in a typical single processor environment, the CPU would switch between the threads of execution and get the job done. But in a multiprocessor environment, I think it takes explicitly stating that a thread can use another processor to make Windows make that happen.

This is speculation-I stopped reading that level of programming articles a while back.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
lllab
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 11, 2006, 04:23 PM
 
software that uses all 4 cores at 100% which i tested under winxp bootcamp:

cinema 4d
final render
3d max
maxwellrender
after effects

a lot more should be multithreaded too...
cheers
stefan
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2006, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
I think there's a reason for an app not using all of the available cores within the app-I think that most apps do not take into account the possibility of multiple CPUs, even if they're written to multithread. So in a typical single processor environment, the CPU would switch between the threads of execution and get the job done. But in a multiprocessor environment, I think it takes explicitly stating that a thread can use another processor to make Windows make that happen.

This is speculation-I stopped reading that level of programming articles a while back.

Windows XP Pro itself makes no use of additional cores.
     
MANDAIQUIRI
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2006, 10:48 PM
 
How much ram do you have. Do not say 2gb.
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2006, 10:18 AM
 
1GB...I think the problem lies with my copy of XP. I'm going to reinstall and see if that helps since Windows Genuine Advantage (or whatever it's called) says my license isn't legitimate (?). Problem is I am taking a mandatory course for work and MUST have it done by December but I'll be deployed (I'm in Air Force) to a region where there are no Test Proctors so I have to finish by end of October. When I'm done with this course I'll reinstall and see if that helps.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2006, 11:39 AM
 
Please don't tell me you're taking the Senior NCO Academy correspondence course! That one is particularly nasty. I took the original disc-based version and lost count of the ways they violated exportable training rules, teaching rules, even rules of plain English!

Anyway, as long as the course you're taking is working, get it done before you worry about XP. Where did you get the copy of XP you're using? I have a number of copies from a variety of sources, including one site-licensed copy, and all of them are reported "legal" by WGA. I can probably point you to a decent source (at the very least Egghead) if there's a problem with the place you got the current disc from.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2006, 07:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Please don't tell me you're taking the Senior NCO Academy correspondence course! That one is particularly nasty. I took the original disc-based version and lost count of the ways they violated exportable training rules, teaching rules, even rules of plain English!
Actually, I am taking that wonderful SNCO PME Course (aka "Course-12" which has just been replaced by "Course-14"). I have done 4 of 5 modules in about 6 weeks but it's harder than it should be. It amazes me how this course in part explains how to improve communications skills yet is riddled with poorly enunciated voice-overs, misspellings, and typos throughout...hardly a good example of what they're trying to teach. So you're retired?
     
badsey
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2006, 08:04 PM
 
#1. Take a look at your memory utilization also = 1GB may not be enough for you.

if that doesn't help

#2. Why don't you try Parallels instead of Bootcamp. = go VM Windows. (only until you find a solution?)
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2006, 05:19 PM
 
I reinstalled XP Pro and now the CPU utilization exceeds 25% fairly regularly...that was frustrating but I'm glad it's worked out. BTW, I will be buying 2GB memory when I return from yet another (extended) business trip (TDY) to a remote part of the world. Thanks for all the advice!
     
tavin64
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2006, 08:03 PM
 
With the introduction of dual core MS changed the licensing on XP Pro to number of sockets and not CPUs. So XP Pro supports a total of 2 sockets regardless of how many cores are on each cpu. With the intro of kentsfield and quad core you will be able to intstall XP pro even with 2 kentsfields for a total of 8 cores because it will occupy 2 sockets.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2006, 08:58 PM
 
You can view the number of threads for each process using 'Task Manager' in WinXP. This will tell you if the application is multithreaded. By default, the 'thread' category is not displayed - enable the checkbox under "View / Select Columns".

Total active threads are shown in 'Task Manager' under the 'Performance' tab.

I'm doing not much at all with my machine and there are 364 threads.
     
Mondoslug
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 02:48 AM
 
So what's the verdict...XP Home - 1 processor/2 cores & XP Pro 2 processors/4 cores?

I just got a Mac Pro and am using Pro Tools Audio software which shows you how many cores you're using. On the Mac side it shows 4 on the Boot Camp XP Home side it only shows 2 which has been driving me nuts until I found this place.

So do I need XP Pro to access all 4 cores? TIA!
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2006, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mondoslug
So what's the verdict...XP Home - 1 processor/2 cores & XP Pro 2 processors/4 cores?

I just got a Mac Pro and am using Pro Tools Audio software which shows you how many cores you're using. On the Mac side it shows 4 on the Boot Camp XP Home side it only shows 2 which has been driving me nuts until I found this place.

So do I need XP Pro to access all 4 cores? TIA!
I think so. I have XP Pro on my Mac Pro and all 4 processors are used (finally) under XP (and Mac as well).
     
Mondoslug
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 12:25 AM
 
Thanks. Yeah I went & bucked up for XP Pro and all 4 are going now on the XP side. Nice machine ain't it?
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 01:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by badsey
#2. Why don't you try Parallels instead of Bootcamp. = go VM Windows. (only until you find a solution?)
Why? Then he'll be certainly down to one core, with no graphics acceleration, running slower under a VM which doesn't sound like a good idea for the applications he is running under WIndows.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
cgc  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Down by the river
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2006, 09:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mondoslug
Thanks. Yeah I went & bucked up for XP Pro and all 4 are going now on the XP side. Nice machine ain't it?
Yeah, XP Pro running on a Mac Pro is sweet. I got 12 seconds in the Photoshop Benchmark thread which is ludicrous (http://forums.macnn.com/65/power-mac...mark/new-post/
( Last edited by cgc; Mar 28, 2007 at 10:58 PM. )
     
   
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 09:06 PM.
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.,