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 > Community > MacNN Lounge > According to CNET: Apple switching to Intel x86

According to CNET: Apple switching to Intel x86 (Page 12)
Thread Tools
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 03:43 PM
 
Spanish Sportcaster Guy: GOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL!

I feel pretty damn good about the future of Apple.

This is a very good thing.
     
BasketofPuppies
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by driven
I would rather have seen AMD. Oh well ... so long as OSX stays a viable solution and Apple continues to build high-quality hardware then all is not lost. :-)
Surely at some point Apple will use AMD processors in at least one of its systems if only to get better pricing from Intel.

Works for everyone else.
inscrutable impenetrable impregnable inconceivable
     
KeyLimePi
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Baltimore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 03:53 PM
 
Transition = Uncertainty.

Uncertainty = Sales Slump.

There will be a lot of people who don't buy Powermacs now because of the inevitable bad information that will start coming out. It might even spill over into the iMacs/eMacs.

     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by KeyLimePi
Transition = Uncertainty.

Uncertainty = Sales Slump.

I whole-heartedly agree. As it looks now, Apple will be a company forever in transition. What happens to Apple when the x86 platform finally does run out of steam (as many technically knowledgeable folks continue to predict)? What if IBM gets over the hump that is holding production back between now and 2007? What if Apple switches and nothing changes significantly, with either IBM or Intel?

At some point, Apple is going to have to choose a position and stick with it. It is still hard for me to believe that Apple (Steve) would make such a drastic move... the benefits are so few, in my view, that I can only imagine that Apple did this to spite IBM and Freescale (and publicly, no less). But, to be fair, if a supplier of a component integral to my product were as woefully inadequate at delivery as IBM and Freescale/Moto was/is, I'd consider another supplier as well... just not a wholesale platform shift.

So, since Apple apparently has so little faith in the PPC platform, what do you all suppose they will do with their share of the PPC property?
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
nforcer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Phil Schiller
We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac
That blows hard. They should have gone over to the other side completely, ie, I could purchase a Dell and run OS X on it. Like I previously suggested, with that approach Apple could still sell their (overpriced) hardware with pretty cases or complete setups (because a market exists for both) and probably maintain similar hardware sales that they have now - we would just have more options on where to run our OS of choice.

That would have increased potential OS X marketshare. Increased the rate of switchers (since PC users with modern hardware could then try OS X without having to spend money on new hardware). Made the platform more enticing to develop for.

Instead we will lose some users in the transition and have no compelling reason to purchase Apple hardware until the Intel stuff is available.

On the upside, they are not going to do anything to prevent Windows from running on Intel-based Macs. However I have doubts that Intel-based Macs will be supported by MS, so everything will be a hack. Still, my dream of a "One box, 2 native OS setup" seems more possible with this announcement.

Now that Apple is working with mainstream hardware I hope their hardware prices will drop somewhat. But I'm not counting on that.
Genius. You know who.
     
asdasd
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Clara
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:13 PM
 
On the upside, they are not going to do anything to prevent Windows from running on Intel-based Macs. However I have doubts that Intel-based Macs will be supported by MS, so everything will be a hack. Still, my dream of a "One box, 2 native OS setup" seems more possible with this announcement.
They should really encourage - and produce - dual booting machines. I have no idea why they did not do that.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:13 PM
 
No. Running OSX on any computer, such as Dell, would indeed be the death of Apple.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:15 PM
 
dual boot seems very very likely. i would bet some enterprising software dudes will do a virutal PC that runs at full speed though soon after intel macs ship/
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Randman
No. Running OSX on any computer, such as Dell, would indeed be the death of Apple.
maybe, but mike dell would hate it more
     
klinux
Senior User
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: LA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Intel is not superior to PPC. It is cheaper, but you are getting what you pay for; the architecture is utter junk.

I am strongly considering moving to Linux if Apple goes X86.
Intel is a company. PowerPC is a chip architecture. What you just said is like saying Toyota is not superior to a V6. Please try to make a coherent argument.

So, I assume you mean x86? So the many PhD man-hours and the billions in dollars being spent today is for naught due to some insights you have that all x86 manufacturers (Intel, AMD, VIA, etc) somehow do not have? I do not see how you can dismiss a whole architecture outright with any supporting arguments.

And if you are switching to Linux, go. No need to announce to the would that you are considering to switch. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by krove
The PowerPC still has much leg room to work with with IBM touting its Power5 and Power6 in coming years, whose technologies certainly would filter down into a processor used by Apple
Yawn. Of course x86 has no room to grow, like the Pentium-M, which clockspeed for clockspeed is faster and cooler than P4, or dual core from either AMD or Intel, or VIA C7-M in an amazingly small nanoBGA2 package?

I realize we are all Mac fans here but making such general sweeping statements make Mac users look like idiots. It is like saying Toyota is junk compared to Honda or west coast is better than the east cost and salmon is better than halibut. Sure, great for flamebaiting to get a thread going but what then?

Oh yeah, forgot we are on Macnn.

Originally Posted by himself
What happens to Apple when the x86 platform finally does run out of steam (as many technically knowledgeable folks continue to predict)?
Prediction = opinion = a55holes = everbody has one. x86 is going not going to be gone anytime soon and even if so, the technology world has something else more imporant to worry about beyond Apple's CPU roadmap. To ask the question is like saying what if there is a a sudden silicone shortage and we can't make chips and breast implants and as a result the entire California economy implodes and Schwarzenegger reveals that he knew this was going to be happen because he is actually THE Terminator - what happens?
One iMac, iBook, one iPod, way too many PCs.
     
terrancew_hod
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by powertrippin
That video tickled me to no end!


I guess i'll be purchasing a mobile Anakin G6 next year!

Terrance
15.2" 1.25GHz Powerbook G4
(First official mac)

My Ghetto Hot Mess
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 05:52 PM
 
I'm a lil bit nervous about this emulation layer for PPC stuff on x86... but I've realize now, if Xcode 2.1 and on REQUIRE building Fat Binaries there might still be reason to buy a new Mac even right now. Though at the same time they will be having brand new products soon... the question is... do we want to see what Apple can design with Intel based chips... and see if they're sexier than the PPC stuff... or do we want to get all our G5s, and G4s now while the getting is good?
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:20 PM
 
All I can say is:

I fear that Apple may not survive this transition - in a couple of years, Apple may have to change its name to iPod, Inc...

What a completely insane, bizarre, and surreal thing to do.

Anyway, since I just bought an iMac G5 and won't be able to get a new machine for many years, I guess I'm not going to be able to make my apps compatible with the new architecture until long after the fact. This sucks.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS
All I can say is:

I fear that Apple may not survive this transition - in a couple of years, Apple may have to change its name to iPod, Inc...
No, it won't happen. Apple should be able to survive this transition, just as they always have.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Person Man
No, it won't happen. Apple should be able to survive this transition, just as they always have.
This transition is completely unlike any they have ever done.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS
This transition is completely unlike any they have ever done.
True, but that ~$5 billion reserve should help... They didn't have that when they transitioned from 68K to PPC...

Besides, it's still WAY too early to tell... we may see the first new low end machines coming out by the end of the year, and that's only 6 months away. They may be in for 2 or 3 really bad quarters from a Mac computer standpoint, but as they release more of the new Intel-based machines each quarter will be a bit better than the last. I don't think we'll see quarter after quarter after quarter after quarter, and so on, of bad sales, like they had in the days before Jobs came back to the company.

Let's wait to hear from the developers coming out of WWDC after they've had 5 days to play with OS X on Intel...

Besides, this Rosetta (i.e. Transitive) thing sounds like it was the key to being able to make the switch in the first place.
     
iBabo
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: here and there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 06:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS
All I can say is:

I fear that Apple may not survive this transition - in a couple of years, Apple may have to change its name to iPod, Inc...
Dont you get it? Apple is tired of being marginalized as "the 5%" company. thanks to the iPod, Apple as a brand is in the mainstream. this might acctauly be a great time for apple to make this kind of switch. at the end of the day, switchers switch to the mac because their tired of windows and they fall in love with OS X. ya the hardware is great, but it will always be great PPC or intel, cuz apple is a hardware company. cmon guys, have a little bit more faith in OS X. besides, it seems like its gonna be a pretty seamless transition. as for those of you who are saying the x86 has no more room to grow, well in that case, the entire computing industry is gonna have to figure this one out, not just apple. ... having their platform (OS and applications) working on both, is the best way for apple to make sure their safe with all of that.
smile like you mean it.
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:11 PM
 
I just watched the keynote again, and I'm feeling a little more optimistic about the situation than before... I'm still not totally thrilled about it. If anyone can pull this type of thing off, it would be Steve (just looking at how he is able to sell it to the audience, and gather executives from the bigger developers onstage). And if there is anytime to do it, it would be when the platform is experiencing significant growth.

I'm willing to bet that Apple survives this, but I doubt it will be nearly as smooth as the previous two transitions. My main concern is Apple backing itself into a corner with x86 tech. Do they have yet another "just in case" exit strategy in this event? (it is good to have a plan B, it is not good to put yourself in a situation where you will be more likely to resort to it) Will the developers be asked to continue producing "Universal Binaries" after the transition to intel is complete, "just in case?" Will Quark ever release another version of Xpress?

Also, a lot of folks are assuming that this will automatically lead to cheaper Macs, because Intel chips are naturally cheaper or something. From what I understand, the G5 is cheaper to produce and is less expensive for Apple than any comparable Intel chip. Unless Intel is willing to cut Apple a favorable deal on the chips, or Apple buys on a scale equal to Dell, I don't see the hardware being any cheaper.

The situation still makes little sense to me, even with it being out in the open. Knowing Steve Jobs, I'm obliged to think this is primarily about publicly humiliating IBM and Freescale. I hope it doesn't backfire.
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:23 PM
 
There certainly aren't as many rumours left to report these days. In the space of a year or so we've seen the Headless Mac, the Sub-$100 iPod, and the Macintel. That leaves us with nothing to obsess over except for the Video iPod and the Rebirth of Newton/Tablet rumours.
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by himself
My main concern is Apple backing itself into a corner with x86 tech. Do they have yet another "just in case" exit strategy in this event? (it is good to have a plan B, it is not good to put yourself in a situation where you will be more likely to resort to it) Will the developers be asked to continue producing "Universal Binaries" after the transition to intel is complete, "just in case?" Will Quark ever release another version of Xpress?
Why not continue with universal binaries forever? If IBM makes a kick ass chip, go with that. If AMD is on top, pop that in the new lines, if Intel is king, go with intel.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by theolein
I think all those people claiming that people will be able to run Windows natively on an Intel powered Apple machine forget that Apple uses a completely different firmware to Intel machines. Macs have no BIOS. Instead they have Open Firmware. OF is very flexible and I doubt that Apple would suddenly drop it as it would cause a lot of hardware headaches.
Apple released a document today titled "Universal Binary Programming Guidelines". It states:

"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands."

So Open Firmware is gone. These are going to be interesting times indeed.

Chris
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by iBabo
Dont you get it? Apple is tired of being marginalized as "the 5%" company. thanks to the iPod, Apple as a brand is in the mainstream. this might acctauly be a great time for apple to make this kind of switch. at the end of the day, switchers switch to the mac because their tired of windows and they fall in love with OS X. ya the hardware is great, but it will always be great PPC or intel, cuz apple is a hardware company. cmon guys, have a little bit more faith in OS X. besides, it seems like its gonna be a pretty seamless transition. as for those of you who are saying the x86 has no more room to grow, well in that case, the entire computing industry is gonna have to figure this one out, not just apple. ... having their platform (OS and applications) working on both, is the best way for apple to make sure their safe with all of that.
Good point. In the last year Apple has produced many of the things non-Mac users have complained about missing: a cheap, entry-level Mac, a cheap, headless Mac, lower cost iPods, etc. Assuming that most of Apple's current customers remain, Apple has a chance to pick up market share.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:33 PM
 
Hate to say it, but I told you so.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=258725&page=3

Apple didn't switch to the Intel chip because they were better than PowerPC. It's for other reasons.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
Apple released a document today titled "Universal Binary Programming Guidelines". It states:

"Macintosh computers using Intel microprocessors do not use Open Firmware. Although many parts of the IO registry are present and work as expected, information that is provided by Open Firmware on a Macintosh using a PowerPC microprocessor (such as a complete device tree) is not available in the IO registry on a Macintosh using an Intel microprocessor. You can obtain some of the information from IODeviceTree by using the sysctlbyname or sysctl commands."

So Open Firmware is gone. These are going to be interesting times indeed.

Chris
Apple is going back to Boot ROMs for Intel Macs, so it won't run on Intel PCs.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Kilbey
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by powertrippin
I thought you were a man of your word? I guess you lied.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit
Apple didn't switch to the Intel chip because they were better than PowerPC. It's for other reasons.
I'm pretty sure Steve said Intel was better than PPC
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit
Apple is going back to Boot ROMs for Intel Macs, so it won't run on Intel PCs.
You could very well be right. But I would think there would be other ways than putting code onto the motherboard.

Chris
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
I'm pretty sure Steve said Intel was better than PPC
Steve said the Intel roadmap was better which, given IBM's inability to hit high speeds and low power consumption, looks to be true.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak
I'm pretty sure Steve said Intel was better than PPC

That's what Steve wants you to believe, but that's the reason why Apple switched over to Intel chips. PowerPC is a better chip. AMD has a better chip than Pentium, with 64bit and dual core. Hell, even Intel has better chips that their Pentium line. By switching to Intel chips, all existing OS X software will run slower on Intel. Remember, Intel doesn't have Altivec. Lots of multimedia software are optimize with Altivec. So switching to Intel chips is not about speed.

The main reason is to bring back CHRP, red box, yellow box, and blue box. Imaging running MacOS X and Windows apps on one system simultaneously. Running Windows application at 80% speed on MacOS X, kind of like how MacOS Classic ran on MacOS X, but now Windows is in place of cCassic!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales
I think some of us may be parting ways if this turns out to be real. Anyway here's my take on it .
Do ya need to link to your blog in every posting?

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
Don Pickett
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New York, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit
That's what Steve wants you to believe, but that's the reason why Apple switched over to Intel chips. PowerPC is a better chip. AMD has a better chip than Pentium, with 64bit and dual core. Hell, even Intel has better chips that their Pentium line. By switching to Intel chips, all existing OS X software will run slower on Intel. Remember, Intel doesn't have Altivec. Lots of multimedia software are optimize with Altivec. So switching to Intel chips is not about speed.

The main reason is to bring back CHRP, red box, yellow box, and blue box. Imaging running MacOS X and Windows apps on one system simultaneously. Running Windows application at 80% speed on MacOS X, kind of like how MacOS Classic ran on MacOS X, but now Windows is in place of cCassic!
Dude, did you watch the keynote? Have you been paying attention to the lack of development from IBM lately? Where are the G5 Powerbooks? Where are the 3 GHz G5s we were promised a year and a half ago? Where are the dual core G5s? Jobs clearly said that the future of the Intel roadmap looks better than the PPC, and it does it you look at the Pentium-M, which is a very fast, low-power usage chip.

Apple has been screwed by PPC manufacturers twice now, first my Moto and now by IBM. I'll bet money that, within the next few weeks, we find out that IBM told Apple the low power and higher speed G5s were not going to happen – IBM is all about their core big iron market and console chips now. Making two or three million processors for Apple (2% of their income) doesn't interest them.

Apple was faced with two choices: slowly starve to death for lack of CPUs or switch processors. Fortunately for us, Apple management has been aware of this for a while and have been developing concurrent PPC and x86 versions of OS X. If there is to be a future for the Mac, a new processor is a must.
     
powertrippin
Baninated
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kilbey
Pot, meet kettle.
     
Kilbey
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2005, 11:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by powertrippin
At least I can be a man and admit I broke my word.

Denial is not a river in Egypt.
     
Gavin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by :XI:
Originally Posted by Gavin
The timeframe of any switch will be the next 4 or 5 years
XI:
"Starting in 2006 with the Mac Mini and the Powermac in 2007." Your math is off.
I'm thinking user base / developer switchover not marketing timeframe.
Mid 2007 is when apple stops selling ppc but lots of people will still have them so it will still be a couple of years after that before it all shakes out. Companies were still selling stuff for OS 9 for a while after X came out. And we have to remember that an updated version of Quark will only be available around 2011
     
Gavin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 06:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Stradlater
This shall now be referred to as the "foot-in-mouth" thread.
Gonna need a big oven for all that crow.
( Last edited by Gavin; Jun 8, 2005 at 07:02 AM. )
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 06:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Randman
Do ya need to link to your blog in every posting?
Why not? Not like your sig. isn't a link to your blog or anything, right?...
( Last edited by Gamoe; Jun 8, 2005 at 06:58 AM. )
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2005, 07:16 AM
 
Touché.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
 
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 07:03 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.,