Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-20-2013, 03:27 PM   #76
coffeejunkee
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,087
Default

How do you find your way between all those tabs? Why would you want to preserve 2 weeks of browsing activity? Do you often have to bookmark 100 sites at a time?
coffeejunkee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 03:35 PM   #77
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolution 11 View Post
I agree with Homeles, browsing with 100 tabs is not silly. And more RAM is always appreciated when you have many tabs open.

I get to 100 tabs quite often, large amounts of tabs preserves up to 2 weeks of browsing activity, bookmarking into a single folder is much easier, etc, etc. Best record yet is 271 tabs.
That's a fringe case and not something nearly everyone else on the planet will need or even want to contend with.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 04:21 PM   #78
Turbonium
Golden Member
 
Turbonium's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeejunkee View Post
I ran Vista 32-bit for years on a E4300 C2D with 2GB ram and well, it did fly actually. So I blame the cpu in your case, not the amount of ram. And likely a slow storage system as well.
I see.

I have a Core 2 Duo T5470 with 2GB of RAM running Vista 32-bit (the system I mentioned before). I really don't think it flies, but maybe we have different definitions of that. It's kinda subjective I guess. It's fast, yes, but it doesn't fly. Especially with a few heavy apps open.

In my case though, I was concerned about longevity without needing to upgrade at all in the next 5+ years (not my system). I figured now was a good time to build, because even if I maxed out the P4 system, it would barely get by even now, let alone a few years from now. But yea, the CPU looks like it was the bottleneck more than the RAM was, but imo only just (2GB being the max).

Btw, if it matters, the HDD was an 80GB WDC SE (8MB cache), so it was a bit more recent than the system itself. Also, it had a 9600 Pro, though I'm not sure how much this matters, if at all (I figure things like Flash are all handled by the CPU - are they?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeejunkee View Post
How do you find your way between all those tabs? Why would you want to preserve 2 weeks of browsing activity? Do you often have to bookmark 100 sites at a time?
I can't imagine having that many tabs open on a regular basis. It's just messy, not to mention I don't find Firefox stable enough to handle it. All it takes is one tab to screw up, and the whole program can come crashing down afaik. Chrome may be better; I don't know, I've never used it.
__________________
For Sale thread
WTB thread

Last edited by Turbonium; 01-20-2013 at 04:28 PM.
Turbonium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 04:42 PM   #79
Revolution 11
Senior Member
 
Revolution 11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeejunkee View Post
How do you find your way between all those tabs? Why would you want to preserve 2 weeks of browsing activity? Do you often have to bookmark 100 sites at a time?
I don't usually find my way but the tabs are grouped in how I went from one link to another (topics). One example is massive wiki walks, and I just bookmark all the tabs either for later consideration/sorting/culling or for storage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
That's a fringe case and not something nearly everyone else on the planet will need or even want to contend with.
Never said it wasn't a fringe case. But I am sure that there are others who do this, it certainly isn't "silly".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbonium View Post
I can't imagine having that many tabs open on a regular basis. It's just messy, not to mention I don't find Firefox stable enough to handle it. All it takes is one tab to screw up, and the whole program can come crashing down afaik. Chrome may be better; I don't know, I've never used it.
Firefox is not that stable, I will admit and it is getting worse over time. Some crashes will even wipe out the stored tabs, a big pain. It might be the 20K bookmarks I have stored as well. To make it worse, I use version 3.19

Last edited by Revolution 11; 01-20-2013 at 04:46 PM.
Revolution 11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 04:45 PM   #80
2is
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 2,608
Default

Well the silly part (for me) is basing an entire premise of RAM being the limiting factor on older platforms on fringe cases such as this.
__________________
Intel i7 3770K|240GB Intel SSD 520|Asus P8Z77-V Pro|2x GTX 680 SLI (2GB)|180GB Corsair Force SSD|Corsair TX750|2x8GB DDR3 1600 (1.35v)
2is is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 05:50 PM   #81
Homeles
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2is View Post
Well the silly part (for me) is basing an entire premise of RAM being the limiting factor on older platforms on fringe cases such as this.
Someone said that they didn't see web browsing taking up a lot of memory. I was arguing that it definitely can. That's the context for this.

Yes, it's a fringe case, but web browsing can be rather memory intensive. 40 tabs uses anywhere from 1 to 2 GB of RAM, and I'd argue that 30-40 tabs is not all too uncommon.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,3108-13.html

Last edited by Homeles; 01-20-2013 at 05:56 PM.
Homeles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 09:55 PM   #82
fuzzymath10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 464
Default

I think it's reasonable to expect maybe 10-20 tabs for the typical user at the most, but as enthusiasts/power users we are a little different

It also doesn't change the fact that older CPUs will have a tough time handling even 10 tabs not because of a lack of memory, but because the various scripts and plugins today's pages use will bog everything down. Loading 20 tabs of geocities pages would be no problem
__________________
Antec NSK-1480: stock i5 2400 @ 1.04v, 4x4GB Mushkin Silverline, 160GB X25-M G2, Dell U2412M + U2211H
Lian-Li A04: stock Q8200 @ 0.98125v, 2x2GB Mushkin Silverline, 80GB X25-M G1, 1+1.5TB Caviar Green, 2x3TB Caviar Red, 1.5+2TB+3TB Barracuda, 1GB HD 5750 (passive), Sony BWU-100A BD-RE, all on Seasonic X460, hooked up to Sony 40" EX620 + KEF 2005.3 + Yamaha RX-V667
fuzzymath10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 10:11 PM   #83
tynopik
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,481
Default

what really hit the ram limit for me was virtualization

if running VMs of some sort becomes more mainstream somehow . . .

(but also file/directory caching, i tend to work with tons files/directories all day long, and the ability to keep more in memory longer has been a great help)

Last edited by tynopik; 01-20-2013 at 10:28 PM.
tynopik is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2013, 11:30 PM   #84
Homeles
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,510
Default

There are quite a few college students that run VMs. That's what they get for buying a Mac.
Homeles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 10:40 AM   #85
coffeejunkee
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revolution 11 View Post
I don't usually find my way but the tabs are grouped in how I went from one link to another (topics). One example is massive wiki walks, and I just bookmark all the tabs either for later consideration/sorting/culling or for storage.



Never said it wasn't a fringe case. But I am sure that there are others who do this, it certainly isn't "silly".



Firefox is not that stable, I will admit and it is getting worse over time. Some crashes will even wipe out the stored tabs, a big pain. It might be the 20K bookmarks I have stored as well. To make it worse, I use version 3.19
Ok, I take that back, please use your pc as you wish.

But as a little test I opened about 130 tabs, some youtube and many sites with flash adverts as well. Memory used: 4,9 out of 7,7 total. So you will probably need 16GB for 271 tabs but it's still far from the 32GB system limit.

Which brings me back to OP's topic, lets take a look at memory limits and the actual amount of ram installed by most people over the years:

Pentium 4: 2-4 GB, most people had 512MB, some 1GB
Core 2: 4-8 GB, most people had 2, some 4 GB
Bloomfield: 24GB, most people had 6, some 12GB
Lynnfield: 16GB, most people had 4, some 8GB
Sandy Bridge: 32GB, most people have 8, some 16GB
SB-E: 64GB, most people have 16, some 32GB

Now there will always be a small percentage of users that will never have enough ram but the vast majority of people never came close to maxing out their memory system. And it's also becoming less relevant in many areas. I do a lot of photoshopping and other multimedia work. I remember years ago I had to go to our server which had a whopping 256MB of memory just to open a file because my workstation couldn't handle it. And yes, we maxed out the ram on our systems and got more memory every time we upgraded. But at the same time there was also a need for more cpu power. Now I have 8GB and for my usage it's plenty.
coffeejunkee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 11:43 AM   #86
sm625
Diamond Member
 
sm625's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,671
Default

I would rather have 2 GB of RAM and an SSD than 8GB of RAM and a 5400rpm HDD. So what if I have to close programs more often? They will open up so much faster. Not to mention hibernate works so much faster as well.
__________________
I am looking for a cheap upgrade to my 3 year old computer.
AT forum member #1: Buy a 4790k

I am looking for a way to get 10 more fps in TF2.
AT forum member #2: Buy a 4790k
sm625 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2013, 07:02 PM   #87
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sm625 View Post
I would rather have 2 GB of RAM and an SSD than 8GB of RAM and a 5400rpm HDD.
I certainly wouldn't. An SSD is fast, but RAM is still WAY faster.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 05:10 AM   #88
PrincessFrosty
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,417
Default

Disagree with this completely, every motherboard I've ever had has always had a high enough RAM limit to not need to worry about it, the CPU always becomes too slow for gaming and other high end tasks before you hit the RAM limit.

But then I've always bought good motherboards and lots of RAM, right now I'm running 16Gb and never exceed about 6Gb usage, RAM sizes have balooned recently, I see RAM as somewhat a solved problem, we have way more than we need for almost all tasks, certainly in the user space.
__________________
Intel 2600k @ 4.9Ghz || ThermalRight TRUE Spirit 140
16Gb PC3-12800 || 2x MSI GTX580 Twin Frozr II in SLI
Dell 3007 WFP-HC 30" || BenQ XL2420T 24" 120hz
PrincessFrosty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 09:41 AM   #89
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,580
Default

The bigger reason I have seen to upgrade to a new system is cost, instead of capacity. Look at those who had C2D (DDR2) systems when SB was released. They could get 16GB of DDR3 RAM for the same price as decent ~4GB DDR2 RAM.

After the industry moves on to a new RAM standard, the old gets expensive and more difficuly to find. Plus, the capacity limits per DIMM are never increased. If companies had released 4GB DIMMs for DDR2 at a decent price, you can bet a lot of people would have upgraded their old systems to 2x4GB and kept it chugging for a while. MB makers though, have little incentive to make those backward changes. They want new sales.
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My Rig:
4670K @ 4.0 Ghz w/ CM 212
GTX 970 @ ????/???? [In transit]
3440x1440 LG 34UM95 QHD Display
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 01:01 PM   #90
nenforcer
Golden Member
 
nenforcer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,467
Default

I buy almost exclusively Crucial Ballistix and it appears they have begun phasing out "enthusiast" or high performance 2GB DIMMS since this past holiday shopping season. They had discounted the 2GB Ballistix Elite DIMM's to $7.99 a piece to clear out inventory and now the only way to get this capacity is to buy in double, triple or quadruple kits.

It appears 4GB and 8GB DIMM's are the preferred quantities going forward.
__________________
nForcer 2
======
AMD Sempron 3300+ @ 2.2GHz Barton Sock A 512Kb L2
ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe nForce 2 MB
Seagate 7200.10 7200 RPM 250GB IDE w/ 8MB Cache Perpendicular
EVGA Geforce 7800GS 256MB AGP 8X
BFGTech Ageia Physx 128MB PPU PCI
1GB (512MBx2) Crucial Ballistix DDR400 4-4-4 Dual Channel
nVidia Soundstorm Dolby Digital Coaxial
Sony CPD-E540 21" CRT Monitor 1600x1200 85Hz VSYNC Off
Windows XP SP3
nenforcer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 01:21 PM   #91
grkM3
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,398
Default

The p3 is holding back not being able to support more ram,it is a 32bit cpu and you are limited to a 32bit os that will only support up to 4gb of ram.

You could not run over 4gb on a p3 even if the board supported it,Id like to see you run 64bit code on that cpu lol
__________________
Main rig
2600k@4.8 24/7 1.415 WC
ASUS P67 MIVE
8GB Gskill 2200 7-10-7-1t
Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD
2 GTX 560TI in SLI
grkM3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:25 PM   #92
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grkM3 View Post
The p3 is holding back not being able to support more ram,it is a 32bit cpu and you are limited to a 32bit os that will only support up to 4gb of ram.

You could not run over 4gb on a p3 even if the board supported it,Id like to see you run 64bit code on that cpu lol
Umm, the Pentium III supports PAE, just because Windows 32-bit has that limitation, does not mean that the CPU has that limitation. 32-bit Linux kernels can use a lot more than 4GB of RAM, given a hardware platform that physically supports more.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:32 PM   #93
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExarKun333 View Post
The bigger reason I have seen to upgrade to a new system is cost, instead of capacity. Look at those who had C2D (DDR2) systems when SB was released. They could get 16GB of DDR3 RAM for the same price as decent ~4GB DDR2 RAM.

After the industry moves on to a new RAM standard, the old gets expensive and more difficuly to find. Plus, the capacity limits per DIMM are never increased. If companies had released 4GB DIMMs for DDR2 at a decent price, you can bet a lot of people would have upgraded their old systems to 2x4GB and kept it chugging for a while. MB makers though, have little incentive to make those backward changes. They want new sales.
There were 4GB DDR2 unbuffered DIMMs for a brief while at nearly price parity per GB with 2GB DIMMs. But only the P45 mobos could handle 4GB DIMMs. P35 and X48 could not, AFAIK.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 02:43 PM   #94
grkM3
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualLarry View Post
Umm, the Pentium III supports PAE, just because Windows 32-bit has that limitation, does not mean that the CPU has that limitation. 32-bit Linux kernels can use a lot more than 4GB of RAM, given a hardware platform that physically supports more.
Right because people used over 4gb running Linux back when p3 were out and the fact that you even use Linux as a way to justify that the board makers were holding back when 99.999% of pcs sold were windows based and were running 32bit.

everything we did back in the p3 days did not need more then 4gb ram and still today pcs run fine with just 4gb

the cpus of today have gotten so fast that real world performance makes it impossible to tell a system running 1600DDR 3 or 2600 DDR3 and using quad channel doesn't matter either.

I can put a 2500k,2600k and 3770k in front of you with the same exact boards and the only difference being the ram and you could not tell a difference with a machine running 8gb,12gb or 16gb in 90 % of what people use pcs for and forget about being able to see a real difference between 1600,2133 and 2800mhz ram also.

IM running 8gb ram now and don't NEED anymore and have been running 8gb for the last 5-6 years and its not holding me back.
__________________
Main rig
2600k@4.8 24/7 1.415 WC
ASUS P67 MIVE
8GB Gskill 2200 7-10-7-1t
Corsair Force GT 120GB SSD
2 GTX 560TI in SLI

Last edited by grkM3; 01-22-2013 at 02:52 PM.
grkM3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 03:36 PM   #95
exar333
Diamond Member
 
exar333's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 6,580
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualLarry View Post
There were 4GB DDR2 unbuffered DIMMs for a brief while at nearly price parity per GB with 2GB DIMMs. But only the P45 mobos could handle 4GB DIMMs. P35 and X48 could not, AFAIK.
Agreed, but now your talking $150-200 for 8GB of DDR2 800 RAM. You could get a G-Series Celeron + MB + 8GB for that...crazy.
__________________
My Cars:
-2011 DGM WRX Limited
My Rig:
4670K @ 4.0 Ghz w/ CM 212
GTX 970 @ ????/???? [In transit]
3440x1440 LG 34UM95 QHD Display
exar333 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 03:47 PM   #96
Sheep221
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 1,148
Default

I get your point, obviously it's not really how it works, the CPU also plays major role in system's overall speed and responsiveness, same as HDDs. It is not really felt in CPUs 1-2 generations older, but P3 would lag Win7 pretty badly, even if it would had 4-8 Gigs of RAM and therefore being 64bit.
RAM was really an issue in the past, more than processor speed but it really has changed, the RAM no longer has performance wall, same as motherboards don't.
__________________
i5-2550K/16GB HyperX/HD5670/P67 Pro3/Agility3
Sheep221 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 04:28 PM   #97
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheep221 View Post
RAM was really an issue in the past, more than processor speed but it really has changed, the RAM no longer has performance wall, same as motherboards don't.
I wasn't talking about a RAM performance wall, per se, but a capacity wall, that limits overall system performance with newer, more memory-hungry software, because it limits the working-set of the computer.

Forget the P3 example, what about Core2Duo/Quad? Those certainly have enough CPU power for "serious" web browsing, but the vast majority of mobos limit you to 4x2GB of DDR2.

If one needed, as some have claimed in the thread, some 200+ tabs open at once, then those Core2 rigs may be crippled by lack of memory.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 04:34 PM   #98
moonbogg
Diamond Member
 
moonbogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,453
Default

See end thread posting below:

More ram won't make crappy CPUs work for new stuff.

/thread
__________________
3930K @ 4.3 - 16GB DDR3 @ 1600 - 2X GTX 670 SLI(2GB) - SAMSUNG 830 SSD - 1920X1080 @ 120HZ - WINDOWS 8.1
moonbogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 04:46 PM   #99
VirtualLarry
Lifer
 
VirtualLarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moonbogg View Post
See end thread posting below:

More ram won't make crappy CPUs work for new stuff.

/thread
I disagree. How often have you found yourself CPU-limited, in the last five years, for non-gaming tasks?

How many people are familiar with putting an older, once top-of-the-line rig,'out to pasture" as a hand-me-down rig for web browsing to someone that wasn't going to play games. Including upgrading the OS to something more modern. What is necessary to do that, most times? Usually, it requires more RAM than the computer originally came with.
__________________
Rig(s) not listed, because I change computers, like some people change their socks.
ATX is for poor people. And 'gamers.' - phucheneh
haswell is bulldozer... - aigomorla
"DON'T BUY INTEL, they will send secret signals down the internet, which
will considerably slow down your computer". - SOFTengCOMPelec

Last edited by VirtualLarry; 01-22-2013 at 04:50 PM.
VirtualLarry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2013, 05:03 PM   #100
moonbogg
Diamond Member
 
moonbogg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtualLarry View Post
I disagree. How often have you found yourself CPU-limited, in the last five years, for non-gaming tasks?

How many people are familiar with putting an older, once top-of-the-line rig,'out to pasture" as a hand-me-down rig for web browsing to someone that wasn't going to play games. Including upgrading the OS to something more modern. What is necessary to do that, most times? Usually, it requires more RAM than the computer originally came with.
Single core systems are too slow for today's web browsing and typical daily tasks. Dual core systems are capable of supporting enough ram for web browsing and typical, daily tasks as well as gaming. Any dual core system of any age can handle modern daily tasks.
__________________
3930K @ 4.3 - 16GB DDR3 @ 1600 - 2X GTX 670 SLI(2GB) - SAMSUNG 830 SSD - 1920X1080 @ 120HZ - WINDOWS 8.1
moonbogg is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.