Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #5350 > unrolled thread

Monitors

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Monitors Steve <tinker123@gmail.com> - 2012-05-20 05:52 -0700
    Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-20 17:29 +0200
      Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-20 15:35 +0000
        Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 17:17 +0000
          Re: Monitors Patrick <Patrick@none.com> - 2012-06-01 18:58 +0000
            Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-01 19:09 +0000
              Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:35 +0000
              Re: Monitors Patrick <0001patrick@gmail.com> - 2012-06-01 23:47 +0000
            Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-01 15:11 -0400
              Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 19:00 +0200
                Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 14:01 -0400
                  Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-06-03 23:10 +0200
                    Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-03 19:06 -0400
          Re: Monitors Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2012-06-02 04:51 +0000
            Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-02 05:36 +0000
            Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 10:41 +0100
            Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 14:27 +0000
              Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 17:23 +0200
                Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 15:31 +0000
                  Re: Monitors David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-06-05 09:14 +0200
                    Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-05 15:46 +0000
                Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-06-04 15:41 +0000
                  Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-04 18:27 +0200
                    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 17:00 +0000
                    Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 14:14 -0400
                    Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 18:17 +0000
                      Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-04 18:58 +0000
                      Re: Monitors Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2012-06-04 16:33 -0400
                        Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-04 21:17 +0000
                      Re: Monitors Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> - 2012-06-04 20:52 +0000
          Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 12:36 +0000
            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 11:59 -0400
              Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-02 17:34 +0000
                Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-02 15:40 -0400
                Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:45 +0100
                  Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:46 +0200
                    Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-02 23:52 +0100
                      Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 00:54 +0200
                        Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 00:08 +0100
                          Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 02:52 +0000
                            Re: Monitors The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-03 13:08 +0100
                              Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 13:10 +0000
                                Re: Monitors Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-06-03 09:57 -0400
                                  Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-06-03 14:25 +0000
                          Re: Monitors Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-03 10:05 +0200
                            Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-06-03 08:00 -0400
                            Re: Monitors unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2012-06-03 18:16 +0000
      Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-24 11:10 -0400
        Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-24 19:32 +0200
          Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-25 20:09 -0400
            Re: Monitors J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2012-05-26 09:35 +0000
              Re: Monitors TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2012-05-26 08:07 -0400
                Re: Monitors David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2012-05-26 19:49 +0200
              Re: Monitors Allodoxaphobia <knock_yourself_out@example.net> - 2012-05-26 16:42 +0000
    Re: Monitors notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2012-05-26 00:32 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#5513

On 2012-06-05, David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2012 17:31, Stan Bischof wrote:
>> Peter K?hlmann<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>>
>> Sure- there's quite a few. All are still expensive. For instance
>> see the Sony Trimaster series. Most major manufacturers are
>> getting into the LED game so that they won't be left high-and-dry
>> when LCD's become passe.
>>
>> Stan
>
> It will be at least a few years before OLED monitors become common even 
> at the high end - they are just too expensive at the moment (ten times 
> the price of an LCD), and the benefits (brighter and sharper picture, 
> and greater colour consistency over all angles) don't outweigh the other 

LCD already have greater colour consistency over all angles. My TV for
example does not change colour over the 180 degree viewing angle. 

Probably their biggest disadvantage for computers is their behaviour in
bright light (unreadable) but for laptops, the power is a far bigger
issue. 



> disadvantages (size, thickness, weight and power) for most users.
>
> Maybe they will become a realistic choice, but don't bet too much on it 
> - if LCD gets better faster than OLED gets cheaper, then there will be 
> no point in OLED displays.  And perhaps other technologies such as 
> electronic ink will take over instead.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5499

On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter Köhlmann asked:

> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?

But you will not like the price.

<http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-budget-monitor-line-video/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5500

J G Miller wrote:

> On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter Köhlmann asked:
> 
>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
> 
> But you will not like the price.
> 
> <http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-
budget-monitor-line-video/>

Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5501

On 2012-06-04, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

heh heh....

I can sympathize, their low end stuff worse than Walmart junk.  OTOH,
some of their products are quite good.  Their old Trinitron CRTs, when
good, were awesome.  I say "when good" cuz their 17" trini mons had a
failure rate of one in three!  

My mom has a whole wall of Sony junk.  VCRs, cassette decks, CD
players, equalizers, amps, DVD, etc.  All dead!!  Only the 30" trini
TV and the vaio desktop computer (17" trini mon) still work like they
are brand new.  Both at least a decade old.  This computer is a Sony
Vaio.  Of course it's all Asus mobo and other components, the lone
installed Sony DVD player having died.  Still have a Sony digital vid
camera that works.  And a 20 yr old steel cased D15 Sony CD player.
All the rest is junk.

Overall, I wouldn't buy Sony anything, either.  Then again, most
Japanese electronics is no better.  It's a crap shoot.  By the turn of
the century, I had a garage full of expired Japanese electronics junk
from stereo systems to cameras to TVs, etc.  Most barely made the
warrantee period.  Anymore, I buy the cheapest piece of junk from
Walmart that will do the job.  So I hafta replace it in two yrs.
Cheaper than replacing high priced junk.  ;)

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5502

Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> writes:

> J G Miller wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter Köhlmann asked:
>> 
>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>> 
>> But you will not like the price.
>> 
>> <http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-
> budget-monitor-line-video/>
>
> Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

Their XBR TVs are pretty much top of the line.
I bought one that started to fade AFTER the warranty period.
They became aware of the defect and extended the warranty to
cover it.

Sent a repairman to our home and repaired it.

They're still on my good side.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5503

On 2012-06-04, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> J G Miller wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter K??hlmann asked:
>> 
>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>> 
>> But you will not like the price.
>> 
>> <http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-
> budget-monitor-line-video/>
>
> Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price

?? I did not know you were looking to buy one in the first place. Plus,
the led monitors were advertised in this group as being the monitors
that had a far wider viewing angle than LCD monitors. My LCD monitor has
a viewing angle of about 180 degrees. (It is hard to test around 180
degrees). This led monitor has a viewing angle of 89 degrees (89??? how
the hell do they get single digit accuracy in the viewing angle?)  which
is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
viewing angle? And how is this monitor an advertisement of the fact that
LED monitors have a larger viewing angle than LCD monitors?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5504

On 2012-06-04, unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:

> the hell do they get single digit accuracy in the viewing angle?)  which
> is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
> anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
> viewing angle? And how is this monitor an advertisement of the fact that
> LED monitors have a larger viewing angle than LCD monitors?

Damn, unruh.  There you go using that dang unassailable logic again.
Not fair!  ;)

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5506

unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:

> On 2012-06-04, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>> J G Miller wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter K??hlmann asked:
>>> 
>>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>>> 
>>> But you will not like the price.
>>> 
>>> <http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-
>> budget-monitor-line-video/>
>>
>> Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
>> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price
>
> ?? I did not know you were looking to buy one in the first place. Plus,
> the led monitors were advertised in this group as being the monitors
> that had a far wider viewing angle than LCD monitors. My LCD monitor has
> a viewing angle of about 180 degrees. (It is hard to test around 180
> degrees). This led monitor has a viewing angle of 89 degrees (89??? how
> the hell do they get single digit accuracy in the viewing angle?)  which
> is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
> anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
> viewing angle? And how is this monitor an advertisement of the fact that
> LED monitors have a larger viewing angle than LCD monitors?

I was scratching my head at 89 too.
But you mentioning, turned on the light.

They're using a scale from zero to 90.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5508

On 2012-06-04, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> writes:
>
>> On 2012-06-04, Peter K??hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>> J G Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, June 4th, 2012, at 17:23:58h +0200, Peter K??hlmann asked:
>>>> 
>>>>> Can you name a single "real LED" monitor?
>>>> 
>>>> But you will not like the price.
>>>> 
>>>> <http://www.engadget.COM/2011/04/12/sony-keeps-oled-hope-alive-with-
>>> budget-monitor-line-video/>
>>>
>>> Well, it is a Sony. Not interested.
>>> That company will never again sell anything to me. At any price
>>
>> ?? I did not know you were looking to buy one in the first place. Plus,
>> the led monitors were advertised in this group as being the monitors
>> that had a far wider viewing angle than LCD monitors. My LCD monitor has
>> a viewing angle of about 180 degrees. (It is hard to test around 180
>> degrees). This led monitor has a viewing angle of 89 degrees (89??? how
>> the hell do they get single digit accuracy in the viewing angle?)  which
>> is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
>> anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
>> viewing angle? And how is this monitor an advertisement of the fact that
>> LED monitors have a larger viewing angle than LCD monitors?
>
> I was scratching my head at 89 too.
> But you mentioning, turned on the light.
>
> They're using a scale from zero to 90.

Except of course the article goes on to talk about Film people must
liking to cozy together to look at the rushes on that monitor, implying
that the angle is much less than on the more expense one. And it is hard
to have greater than 90+90
Also this monitor is much cheaper than their other offering and the
reason according to the article, is the restricted viewing angle. And I
would hope that they would not regard 89 degrees a sizable restriction
from 90 degrees. 
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5507

unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> wrote:
> is far far less than that of a good LCD monitor. Why exactly would
> anyone buy a monitor that cost 10-20 times as much and has half the
> viewing angle? > 

You obviously aren't an early adopter...

When young LCD picture quality was horrible and very expensive
compared to CRT.

Same with Plasma.

CRT is dead, Plasma is still kicking, LCD is at its height.

LED will supplant LCD in time since it is much thinner/lighter,
far more energy efficient, much better color rendition,
much faster response time, much much higher contrast ratio.
Cost will come down in time.

I'd bet that in 5 years LCD will no longer dominate.

Stan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5457

On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof <stan@worldbadminton.com> wrote:

> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
> than plasma or LCD

I jes bought my first LCD monitor from Walmart, an 23"W Acer cheapo
(S230HL).  Still playing with drivers, but happy as a clam, so far.
Factory specs say viewing range is:

160° horz
170° vert

How much more does a body need?  I didn't buy it to view from dead
astern.  ;)

nb


-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5458

On 06/02/2012 08:36 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-01, Stan Bischof<stan@worldbadminton.com>  wrote:
>
>> LED screens can approach 180 deg viewing angle- far more
>> than plasma or LCD
>
> I jes bought my first LCD monitor from Walmart, an 23"W Acer cheapo
> (S230HL).  Still playing with drivers, but happy as a clam, so far.
> Factory specs say viewing range is:
>
> 160° horz
> 170° vert
>
> How much more does a body need?  I didn't buy it to view from dead
> astern.  ;)
>
> nb
>
>
Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170 
horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and 
more recently, Mageia 2.

TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5459

On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:

> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170 
> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and 
> more recently, Mageia 2.

My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
functionality at that res w/o DVI.  

I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.    

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5462

On 06/02/2012 01:34 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, TJ<TJ@noneofyour.business>  wrote:
>
>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
>> more recently, Mageia 2.
>
> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>
> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>
> nb
>
Mine's not quite that old, I guess - but it's old enough. I have an AGP 
8x Geforce 6200 card, with both VGA and DVI outputs. It does the job...

TJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5463

notbob wrote:
> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
> 
>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170 
>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and 
>> more recently, Mageia 2.
> 
> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
> functionality at that res w/o DVI.  
> 
> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.    
> 
> nb
> 
video cards are cheaper than monitors


-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5464

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> notbob wrote:
>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>> 
>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
>>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
>>> more recently, Mageia 2.
>> 
>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>> 
>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>> 
>> nb
>> 
> video cards are cheaper than monitors
> 
> 

Not always.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5465

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> notbob wrote:
>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed - 170
>>>> horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia 1 and
>>>> more recently, Mageia 2.
>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>
>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>
>>
> 
> Not always.
The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor 
is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.




-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5466

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed -
>>>>> 170 horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia
>>>>> 1 and more recently, Mageia 2.
>>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>>> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>>
>>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> Not always.
> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
> 

Thats right. 
On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers) which 
cost more than the rest of the computer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5467

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-06-02, TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. My Samsung P2350 has the same specs, except reversed -
>>>>>> 170 horizontal, 160 vertical. Have been very happy so far using Mageia
>>>>>> 1 and more recently, Mageia 2.
>>>>> My problem is my ancient hardware, specifially on old VGA TNT vid
>>>>> card.  The Acer does VGA, and will give me 1920x1080, but it loses
>>>>> functionality at that res w/o DVI.
>>>>>
>>>>> I may take a look at Mageia, it already having zoneminder installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> nb
>>>>>
>>>> video cards are cheaper than monitors
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Not always.
>> The cheapest video car which will certainly drive that scale of monitor
>> is certainly cheaper than a monitor of that resolution.
>>
> 
> Thats right. 
> On the other hand, there are video cards out there (mostly for gamers) which 
> cost more than the rest of the computer
Hardly relevant in the context of
"My problem is my ancient hardware"

-- 
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5468

On 2012-06-02, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Hardly relevant in the context of
> "My problem is my ancient hardware"

Even less relevant in the context of my financial resources.

The old card still works.  The old monitor doesn't.

nb

-- 
vi --the heart of evil!
Support labeling GMOs
<http://www.labelgmos.org/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web