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 > New Retina MBP Unrepairable

New Retina MBP Unrepairable (Page 3)
Thread Tools
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 02:07 PM
 
True. For this one box.

But RAM + SSD is $3000 at time zero. Not acceptable for a laptop in 2012, and more importantly totally unnecessary if upgradability is maintained.

-Allen
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 02:10 PM
 
What other boxes are there where this is a problem?
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 02:12 PM
 
Future boxes if non-upgradability is Apple's new policy.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
True. For this one box.

But RAM + SSD is $3000 at time zero. Not acceptable for a laptop in 2012, and more importantly totally unnecessary if upgradability is maintained.
So basically, you're not really complaining about the memory upgrade price, which is only 200 bux. You're complaining about the $2800 price for the top end 8 GB model, which is only 6.7% cheaper than the 16 GB model.
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Future boxes if non-upgradability is Apple's new policy.
This does point towards Apple's future direction, in the name of thinnest and lightest.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Future boxes if non-upgradability is Apple's new policy.
You don't know what the pricing will be on future boxes.

You've already said that it's not a problem on this one box.

It may quite possibly not be one in the future, either.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
But RAM + SSD is $3000 at time zero. Not acceptable for a laptop in 2012, and more importantly totally unnecessary if upgradability is maintained.
The TNG Pro Book (I love the moniker, by the way) is offered alongside the traditional MacBook Pro. It will come down in price, and I expect that in two, three years' time, all portable Pro machines will be like it.

But even right now, the Retina MacBook Pro isn't significantly expensive if you spec the regular (»old«) 2012 MacBook Pro with a similar processor, an SSD and the same amount of RAM. If I add 4 GB of RAM and a 256 GB SSD to a 15" non-Retina MacBook Pro, it comes out to $2,399. Going with third-party upgrades, you can save quite a bit, but the point is that you come out at the same price (which is an amazing feat in my eyes). So price-wise, while the 15" Retina MacBook Pro is expensive, it's expensive in the same sense a Mac Pro is expensive: you get the best Apple can offer. And SSD storage simply is significantly more expensive than the same capacity with old-school spinning platter drives.

Regular personal computers have approached specs that are way more than enough for most people, also professional users (whatever they are). So internal upgradability becomes less and less important. On the other hand, thanks to Thunderbolt, you can connect PCIe cards at no speed loss. The Retina MacBook Pro, for instance, offers two much faster Thunderbolt connections.

The release of the TNG MacBook Pro marks a transition towards computers where some parts are less upgradable, but others are in fact more upgradable (Thunderbolt). It's similar to cars: 20-30 years ago, when you opened the hood, you could see all the different parts. Nowadays, most engines are covered by a piece of plastic with a few openings for oil and water for the windscreen wipers.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I still have my 13" 2009 MacBook Pro, and was able to extend its life by adding an SSD to it, but I'm still itching to upgrade... for a retina screen, USB 3, and 802.11ac when it comes out. My MBP doesn't support Thunderbolt either.
If I were you, I'd try to resist the urge until Haswell comes out (the successor to Ivy Bridge). It is designed to run cooler (Intel plans to reduce TDP of the mainstream parts) and is expected to feature a much more powerful GPU. Which seems to be necessary to drive the insane amount of pixels the Retina display has.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2012, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If I were you, I'd try to resist the urge until Haswell comes out (the successor to Ivy Bridge). It is designed to run cooler (Intel plans to reduce TDP of the mainstream parts) and is expected to feature a much more powerful GPU. Which seems to be necessary to drive the insane amount of pixels the Retina display has.
Yeah, if I upgrade it won't be to a 15" anyway, since I find 15" too awkward. It'd likely be to a 13" TNG MBP at 2560x1600 or possibly even say an 11" Pro 2048x1280 if they ever release one.

And since none of those exist, and probably won't until 2013, I'll be waiting until at least then anyway. So...

Haswell in 2013 or else Broadwell in 2014
802.11ac
USB 3
Thunderbolt
Maybe even HDMI
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Pacific Northwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2012, 12:18 PM
 
You know, I've used nothing but Corsair in every machine I've owned or purchased, aside from OCZ in my main desktop before I upgraded the mobo. I have a box with at least 50 DIMMs in it, most of which are Corsair and none of which have failed.

On the other hand, I certainly saw my fair share of failed Crucial/Micron and Hynix OEM DIMMs in machines at the Apple Store.

I know you want to believe that Apple is using nothing but "superior components" that "don't fail", but the fact is that most computer components today are only manufactured by a small handful of companies. The OCZ RAM you're so convinced is inherently inferior uses the same silicon chips as Hynix RAM. The displays in just about every Intel Mac have been Samsung - just like every other computer OEM. Same with hard drives, optical drives, chipsets...

The hardware failures I saw at Apple were never once related to third party RAM, and I don't think I saw failed third party RAM in a Mac more than once or twice in the year I worked there.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2012, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
You know, I've used nothing but Corsair in every machine I've owned or purchased, aside from OCZ in my main desktop before I upgraded the mobo. I have a box with at least 50 DIMMs in it, most of which are Corsair and none of which have failed.

On the other hand, I certainly saw my fair share of failed Crucial/Micron and Hynix OEM DIMMs in machines at the Apple Store.

I know you want to believe that Apple is using nothing but "superior components" that "don't fail", but the fact is that most computer components today are only manufactured by a small handful of companies. The OCZ RAM you're so convinced is inherently inferior uses the same silicon chips as Hynix RAM. The displays in just about every Intel Mac have been Samsung - just like every other computer OEM. Same with hard drives, optical drives, chipsets...

The hardware failures I saw at Apple were never once related to third party RAM, and I don't think I saw failed third party RAM in a Mac more than once or twice in the year I worked there.
I tried overspec'd Corsair RAM for a MacBook and it wouldn't even bootup, because the SPD entries for slower speeds weren't included in the Corsair RAM. To me, that's just braindead. If you bought similarly overspec'd Micron/Crucial RAM, it'd work perfectly, because the proper SPD entries were present, which the MacBook would see and thus it would boot up properly.

Furthermore, if you think RAM is all the same because they use the same chips, you should rethink what QA means. El cheapo noname RAM also often use the same chips, but they are cheap for a few reasons, not the least of which is crappy QA. Similarly, Foxconn makes Apple products, and it also makes all sorts of bargain basement PC products. That is not to say that good quality RAM is perfect. Far from it. It's just that well-respected name-brand RAM usually has much better QA.

I think one glaring example of the importance of QA is OCZ Sandforce and even Corsair SF-2281 drives vs. Intel Sandforce SF-2281 drives. They use the exact same controller, but Intel refused to sell their drive until they had done a proper QA test of their product, and found a serious bug that they corrected that nobody else did at the time, despite the fact that the others had had their SF-2281 drives out for much longer.
( Last edited by Eug; Jun 30, 2012 at 02:05 PM. )
     
gooser
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 09:48 AM
 
i wonder if apple will be forced to cut some corners when they start offering these units as refurbs. (i really have no idea what goes into their refurb process.)
imac g3 600
imac g4 800 superdrive
ibook 466
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 10:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by gooser View Post
i wonder if apple will be forced to cut some corners when they start offering these units as refurbs. (i really have no idea what goes into their refurb process.)
What do you mean by "cut corners"? A refurb has the same components and specs as a new machine, and the corners have the same shape.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 10:38 AM
 
I've had excellent results with Mac refurbs. All of mine have looked brand new.

hat said, I know of at least one person here who got a refurb which was dirty, but then again, he was able to return it for replacement refurb.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 11:04 AM
 
Components returns rates (6) (page 7: SSDs) - BeHardware

- Crucial 0.82% (as against 0.8%)
- Intel 1.73% (as against 0.1%)
- Corsair 2.93% (as against 2.9%)
- OCZ 7.03% (as against 4.2%)

Crucial has taken top spot from Intel thanks to a notable increase in Intel’s returns rate. We should say that this time, the Intel sample is only just above the minimum required and that some of the Intel returns are linked to the 8MB bug which has since been resolved. The OCZ rate has got a lot worse, going up to 7%, and only OCZ has models with rates of above 5%:

- 15.58% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 240 GB
- 13.28% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 160 GB
- 11.76% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 80 GB
- 9.52% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 120 GB
- 8.57% OCZ Vertex 3 Series 120 GB
- 7.49% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 60 GB
- 6.61% OCZ Vertex 2 Series 3.5" SSD 120 GB
- 6.37% OCZ Vertex 3 Series 240 GB
- 6.37% OCZ Agility 3 60 GB
- 5.89% OCZ Vertex 2 Series SSD 100 GB

The Vertex 2s have the worst scores but the Vertex 3s have nothing to be proud of either. Note that over the coming period, the Vertex 3s are doing much better thanks to developments in the firmware, with a rate of just 1.01% for the Vertex 3 120 GB as things stand.


---

Components returns rates (6) (page 4: RAM) - BeHardware

- Crucial 0.23% (as against 0.4%)
- Kingston 0.40% (as against 0.5%)
- G.Skill 1.10% (as against 1.4%)
- Corsair 1.44% (as against 1.6%)

Crucial keeps top spot and, like the other manufacturers, improves its rate in a welcome overall downwards trend. Just two models have rates of over 5%, compared to 8 last year:

- 12.87% Corsair Dominator 4 GB (2x 2 GB) DDR3 1333 MHz CL9 - TW3X4G1333C9D
- 5.53% Corsair XMS2 2 GB DDR2 800 MHz CL5 – CM2X2048-6400C5

The worst Crucial model has a rate of 1.25%, the worst Kingston 2.1% and the worst G.Skill 3.14%.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 04:41 PM
 
Ah! So the Crucial SSDs, which are nearly as cheap per GB as the OCZ SSDs, are the best in town. Well, that really bolsters your point!

(Not that that's any surprise to me; as I said before, I've got a Crucial SSD in my MBP, and it's great.)

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Ah! So the Crucial SSDs, which are nearly as cheap per GB as the OCZ SSDs, are the best in town. Well, that really bolsters your point!
I already said Crucial was a good brand, and OCZ isn't, which is the point. Don't buy OCZ, because their QA sucks.

OCZ are generally indeed cheaper in the 240 GB and smaller size, although not always. For the 512 GB size, Crucial has been having a fire sale. Lots of great deals everywhere specifically on that 512 GB model. I was almost tempted to buy one a couple of weeks ago, just because I could get one for CAD$350. However, I resisted, because I don't need it.

If I could swap the drive in my iMac easily, I'd have bought 512 GB Crucial model for sure though.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 05:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
I already said Crucial was a good brand, and OCZ isn't, which is the point. Don't buy OCZ, because their QA sucks.
I was lamenting the loss of the ability to inexpensively upgrade the SSD in a machine. Your response was that a SSD can only be found at a price accessible to mere mortals if it sucks, and therefore stratospherically priced units that even Donald Trump would probably hesitate before purchasing were the only way to go. This is clearly not the case.

I brought up OCZ to demonstrate how overpriced OWC's SSDs (the only option available for the new machines) are. I was originally going to compare against Crucial, but I decided to go with a SandForce-based maker in order to compare apples to apples, both drives being SandForce-based, and thus preempt a possible objection. I really, really, really wish I hadn't. Can we please drop the OCZ derail now?

OCZ are generally indeed cheaper in the 240 GB and smaller size, although not always.
Crucial has always been among the lowest-priced SSDs available, at least in the last two years since I got my C300. And they still are, at pretty much all sizes. Right now the M4 is about $10 more expensive than the Vertex 3. Big deal.

For the 512 GB size, Crucial has been having a fire sale. Lots of great deals everywhere specifically on that 512 GB model. I was almost tempted to buy one a couple of weeks ago, just because I could get one for CAD$350. However, I resisted, because I don't need it.
I've been usually seeing around USD$389, but regardless, it's a great deal. If it weren't for the fact that I don't know how much longer I'll be hanging on to this 4-year-old MBP, I'd probably get one myself.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
exca1ibur
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oakland, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 05:36 PM
 
I have had an OCZ Vertex3 120 SSD in my windows desktop for over a year and never had a problem and it's damn fast. OCZ ram I've used for the last 6 years in various systems I've built and never had a problem there either. In my Macbook I run the crucial 512 which I've had no issues with as well. I guess as with all products, your milage will vary.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 06:54 PM
 
I suspect OCZ is fine for Windows, their Mac QA might be a bit behind.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2012, 08:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by exca1ibur View Post
I have had an OCZ Vertex3 120 SSD in my windows desktop for over a year and never had a problem and it's damn fast. OCZ ram I've used for the last 6 years in various systems I've built and never had a problem there either. In my Macbook I run the crucial 512 which I've had no issues with as well. I guess as with all products, your milage will vary.
That's the thing...

If you have a 10% failure rate, that means 90% is fine over the period tested.
However, if you have a 2% failure rate, that means 98% is fine over the period tested.

The question is if you're willing to spend the extra $ for that extra 8%.

And who knows if that 90% and 98% become 80% and 96% if you keep the device twice as long.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2012, 09:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by msuper69 View Post
That's why I got AppleCare. If anything breaks in the first 3 years, it's covered.
Actually the FREE warranty covers year one, which is when warranty-type issues mostly happen.

AppleCare for very high price only covers years 2 and 3. Meaning one pays $249-$349 to cover warranty-only items on a box that is already 13-35 months old. No coverage of damage of course.

Note that repair/replacement timing is the same in any event, the only thing that AppleCare changes is who pays.

Anecdotal incidents notwithstanding, from a life-cycle cost basis buying AppleCare is ridiculously cost-ineffective. Becoming a bit less cost-ineffective as Apple makes it increasingly difficult to self-service the boxes.

-Allen
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2012, 10:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Actually the FREE warranty covers year one, which is when warranty-type issues mostly happen.
AppleCare for very high price only covers years 2 and 3. Meaning one pays $249-$349 to cover warranty-only items on a box that is already 13-35 months old. No coverage of damage of course.
Note that repair/replacement timing is the same in any event, the only thing that AppleCare changes is who pays.
Anecdotal incidents notwithstanding, from a life-cycle cost basis buying AppleCare is ridiculously cost-ineffective. Becoming a bit less cost-ineffective as Apple makes it increasingly difficult to self-service the boxes.
-Allen
Those whose philosophy of life encompasses insurance, those folks will buy insurance. Don't even try talking them out of it...

And with the RMBP being unrepairable, having insurance may not be a bad thing. Let's see what kind of reliability track record it has.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2012, 08:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Actually the FREE warranty covers year one, which is when warranty-type issues mostly happen.
AppleCare for very high price only covers years 2 and 3. Meaning one pays $249-$349 to cover warranty-only items on a box that is already 13-35 months old. No coverage of damage of course.
Note that repair/replacement timing is the same in any event, the only thing that AppleCare changes is who pays.
Anecdotal incidents notwithstanding, from a life-cycle cost basis buying AppleCare is ridiculously cost-ineffective. Becoming a bit less cost-ineffective as Apple makes it increasingly difficult to self-service the boxes.
Well, I've had several Mac issues requiring repairs, some of which have been in years 2 or 3. So, since I get the educational discount on AppleCare, I consider getting it on my high dollar Macs. These days that just means the iMac for me though, since when I get a Mac laptop I never get an uber high dollar one anymore, as laptops are always my secondary machines.

Also, often I will sell the Mac about 2-3 months before the 3-year AppleCare is up. I find it easier to sell for a good price with that AppleCare present. I'd guess that 2-month warranty alone is worth about $50.

Note:
Regular AppleCare on an iMac is CAD$199. Educational AppleCare on an iMac is only CAD$139, which is think is reasonable for a higher priced iMac. Not so much for a low priced iMac.
Regular AppleCare on a MBP:TNG is CAD$379. Ouch! Educational AppleCare is $259, which is still expensive. However, I won't pay those prices for a MBP anyway.

BTW, my MacBook Pro's fan went a few months back, in year 3. I did not have AppleCare on it because it was a lower priced model, and AppleCare on Mac laptops is more than on iMacs. It's usually CAD$199 educational on the MBPs (but higher for TNG). Replacement fans through a service centre likely would have been around $100-150 or so installed. Luckily I found the exact model on eBay for $12 so I ordered that. Unfortunately, one of the screws wouldn't come out, so I ended up drilling it out. That's something I don't like doing with a laptop. So, now it's repaired, but missing a screw, which costs about $10 on eBay. It would have been a lot easier to have taken it to the shop under warranty and have them deal with it. And with an iMac I wouldn't really even have had the option to service it myself. Much harder.
     
amazing
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2012, 08:30 AM
 
Kudos to you for doing your own repairs.

You could also buy with a credit card that doubles the manufacturers warranty. AmEx?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2012, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Actually the FREE warranty covers year one, which is when warranty-type issues mostly happen.
AppleCare for very high price only covers years 2 and 3. Meaning one pays $249-$349 to cover warranty-only items on a box that is already 13-35 months old. No coverage of damage of course.
Note that repair/replacement timing is the same in any event, the only thing that AppleCare changes is who pays.
Anecdotal incidents notwithstanding, from a life-cycle cost basis buying AppleCare is ridiculously cost-ineffective. Becoming a bit less cost-ineffective as Apple makes it increasingly difficult to self-service the boxes.
-Allen
Actually, there is more to AppleCare than you see: for instance, it extends your warranty (including the first year) to a world-wide warranty. That has proven very helpful to me, I've had my logic board replaced during a stay in Japan and gotten a new power adapter while doing research in the US. Depending on how long you keep machines, it also allows you to sell Macs more easily.

AppleCare to me is a no-brainer. Even though I'd prefer them to cover accidents as well (my sister's extended warranty from HP did cover that, I think), it's a must-have to me when purchasing a new Mac.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 11, 2012, 11:51 PM
 
Apple's regular warranty is world-wide.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2012, 06:02 AM
 
I don't think it's still true, but extended AppleCare offered in-home iMac repairs. IIRC that wasn't offered on the regular warranty, but I may be mistaken.

My iMac G5 was repaired in my living room. I called about having too many stuck pixels and a couple of weeks later a tech showed up at my door with a screen in hand to replace my screen.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2012, 09:31 AM
 
Interesting the different attitudes. In my case I see (statistically unlikely) minor repairs two years out as something that are cheap enough to do, and often done with newer/cheaper/better parts (like HDDs, SSDs, RAM). If major repairs (statistically very unlikely) present two years out I would be ready for a hardware upgrade anyway at that point and just part out the old box.
     
romeosc
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Memphis, Tn. USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2012, 11:13 AM
 
Applecare only covers "Manufacturer's Defects".....their call..... If it has ever been dropped or near a rainy day ....GOOD LUCK!

I bought the 2012 MBP with 500GB HD.... increased ram to 16 GB (Apple only sales 8) and will later replace DVD drive with the HD and install SSD in it's place.

Maybe by then prices will continue to drop and other upgrades will become possible!
     
 
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 01:42 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.,