Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #53946 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-12-28 09:21 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-12-29 14:45 -0800 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 68 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-28 09:21 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation William Hanna <whanna@invalid.invalid> - 2013-12-28 09:44 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-29 09:37 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 10:08 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation android <here@there.was> - 2013-12-29 19:15 +0100
Re: External HD Recommendation billy@MIX.COM - 2013-12-28 20:21 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-28 14:59 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-28 15:28 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 20:17 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-28 17:34 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-28 21:06 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 04:18 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 04:38 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 21:36 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2013-12-30 01:58 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 10:20 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-31 07:32 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-31 11:46 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 09:37 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 18:07 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-30 13:13 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 10:27 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 14:15 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 22:43 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-12-30 18:09 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-30 22:34 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-30 13:54 -0600
Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-30 13:14 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2013-12-30 14:49 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-30 18:01 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 03:59 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-12-29 07:47 -0600
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-28 17:52 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Earl Grey <earl@t.net> - 2013-12-29 10:06 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation yellow label <here@there.was> - 2013-12-29 17:01 +0100
Re: External HD Recommendation John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2013-12-29 16:27 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2013-12-29 21:29 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation claudel@sonic.net (Claude V. Lucas) - 2013-12-30 12:36 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-30 08:55 -0600
Re: External HD Recommendation John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> - 2013-12-30 10:29 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2013-12-30 19:56 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2013-12-31 19:18 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-12-31 15:30 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> - 2013-12-31 07:34 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:51 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2014-01-01 10:14 -0600
Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-01 17:39 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 11:54 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-02 01:09 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-01-01 20:38 -0700
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-02 16:47 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-09 08:13 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-08 21:19 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-01-02 02:35 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-01 17:47 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 02:24 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 02:38 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2014-01-01 13:34 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-01-01 19:01 -0800
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 09:45 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-01-02 02:28 +1100
Re: External HD Recommendation Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-01-01 15:36 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500
Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-29 16:00 -0600
Re: External HD Recommendation Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-12-29 22:01 +0000
Re: External HD Recommendation TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> - 2013-12-29 16:19 -0600
Re: External HD Recommendation Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> - 2013-12-29 14:45 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-01 09:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlc7otm.n71.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #54176 |
In message <vce7c9tm8fa2n7g9rngpbms9e5ldag67n8@4ax.com> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: > On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:30:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>In message <1dv4c95dm2154g4o96634f865ut6sktgmv@4ax.com> >> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: >>> On 30 Dec 2013 19:56:41 -0800, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford >>> daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> J Burns wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > I've come to like 2.5" disks. Are there advantages to 3.5" disks? >>>>> >>>>> That's a very good question. >>>>> >>>>> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5" >>>>> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where >>>>> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is >>>>> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to >>>>> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject. >>>>> >>>>> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet. >>>> >>>>We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months. We use them >>>>in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we >>>>haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored. They (or >>>>some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such >>>>as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD >>>>in my laptop. >> >>> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing. >> >>That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than >>spinny discs, and much faster. > SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem Certainly not true. SSDs are used all the time in servers because they are faster and more reliable than spinny disks. Unless you need a lot of space it would be foolish not to use SSDs. A company I work with has a web server with 6 120GB SSDs in a RAID-6. That machine screams. Your information on wear problems is woefully out of date. > thought I did > see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs > using very high temperatures. Next generation SSDs, if the heat mechanisms can be made to work reliably, should have read/write cycles in the billions (at least) making them the hands-down most reliable storage medium we’ve invented so far. Current SSDs are in the hundreds of thousands of cycles. -- "Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?" - Huckleberry Finn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-02 02:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <jtc8c9l0mk15f8329chrngtg25ec9otsm6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #54185 |
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 09:45:26 +0000 (UTC), Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >In message <vce7c9tm8fa2n7g9rngpbms9e5ldag67n8@4ax.com> > Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:30:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis >> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > >>>In message <1dv4c95dm2154g4o96634f865ut6sktgmv@4ax.com> >>> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: >>>> On 30 Dec 2013 19:56:41 -0800, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford >>>> daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>>John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> J Burns wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I've come to like 2.5" disks. Are there advantages to 3.5" disks? >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a very good question. >>>>>> >>>>>> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5" >>>>>> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where >>>>>> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is >>>>>> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to >>>>>> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet. >>>>> >>>>>We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months. We use them >>>>>in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we >>>>>haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored. They (or >>>>>some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such >>>>>as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD >>>>>in my laptop. >>> >>>> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing. >>> >>>That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than >>>spinny discs, and much faster. > >> SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem > >Certainly not true. SSDs are used all the time in servers because they >are faster and more reliable than spinny disks. Unless you need a lot of >space it would be foolish not to use SSDs. > >A company I work with has a web server with 6 120GB SSDs in a RAID-6. >That machine screams. > >Your information on wear problems is woefully out of date. > >> thought I did >> see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs >> using very high temperatures. > >Next generation SSDs, if the heat mechanisms can be made to work >reliably, should have read/write cycles in the billions (at least) >making them the hands-down most reliable storage medium we’ve invented >so far. Current SSDs are in the hundreds of thousands of cycles. Good enough for domestic use but according to a recent article I saw the wear problem does not make them suitable for use in servers. ================> If you don't like what I say you can go know yourself!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-01 15:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnlc8dg3.oqs.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #54190 |
In message <jtc8c9l0mk15f8329chrngtg25ec9otsm6@4ax.com> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 09:45:26 +0000 (UTC), Lewis > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >>In message <vce7c9tm8fa2n7g9rngpbms9e5ldag67n8@4ax.com> >> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: >>> On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 15:30:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis >>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> >>>>In message <1dv4c95dm2154g4o96634f865ut6sktgmv@4ax.com> >>>> Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: >>>>> On 30 Dec 2013 19:56:41 -0800, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford >>>>> daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> J Burns wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I've come to like 2.5" disks. Are there advantages to 3.5" disks? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's a very good question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My take (and it could certainly be wrong): I'm thinking that 2.5" >>>>>>> drives have come a long way, in that they've reached a point where >>>>>>> they may actually be "more rugged" than 3.5" drives. My rationale is >>>>>>> that 2.5" drives are designed to go into laptops, and designed to >>>>>>> endure the jolts and bumps to which laptops are subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've had 3.5" drives fail. But I haven't had a failed 2.5" drive yet. >>>>>> >>>>>>We've had a few 2.5" drives fail in the last few months. We use them >>>>>>in mirror pairs to hold the OS on some of our fileservers, so we >>>>>>haven't lost any data since the failed ones were mirrored. They (or >>>>>>some of them anyway) may indeed be better at withstanding bumps such >>>>>>as those a laptop suffers, though I feel a whole lot safer with an SSD >>>>>>in my laptop. >>>> >>>>> SSDs wear out and are slower especially when it comes to writing. >>>> >>>>That takes decades with modern SSDs. They are MUCH more reliable than >>>>spinny discs, and much faster. >> >>> SSDs are not used in servers due to the wear problem >> >>Certainly not true. SSDs are used all the time in servers because they >>are faster and more reliable than spinny disks. Unless you need a lot of >>space it would be foolish not to use SSDs. >> >>A company I work with has a web server with 6 120GB SSDs in a RAID-6. >>That machine screams. >> >>Your information on wear problems is woefully out of date. >> >>> thought I did >>> see an article where someone was claiming to b able to recover SSDs >>> using very high temperatures. >> >>Next generation SSDs, if the heat mechanisms can be made to work >>reliably, should have read/write cycles in the billions (at least) >>making them the hands-down most reliable storage medium weve invented >>so far. Current SSDs are in the hundreds of thousands of cycles. > Good enough for domestic use but according to a recent article I saw > the wear problem does not make them suitable for use in servers. What article you saw where and how recent? And whatever article it was, was wrong. -- -=> <http://xkcd.com/241/> <http://xkcd.com/304/> <http://xkcd.com/635/> <=-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-01-01 11:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <010120141155043875%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #54190 |
In article <jtc8c9l0mk15f8329chrngtg25ec9otsm6@4ax.com>, Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote: > Good enough for domestic use but according to a recent article I saw > the wear problem does not make them suitable for use in servers. the article is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 16:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <bibkc0FsnboU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #53946 |
On 2013-12-28 17:21:46 +0000, Otto Pylot said: > Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up > to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim, > what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just > backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up > with CCC, and then the occasional back up. The drive needs to be > bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to > keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011 > MacBook Air. Thanks. I've had extremely good lluck with SuperDuper! backing up to a LaCie Porsche Design hard drive. As an amusing aside, on those occasions where I've saught advice from the Genius Bar at the Apple store I've taken the LaCie drive instead of my iMac, booting onto an iMac already in the store. If any changes are made it is easy to boot from the LaCie drive when I'm home, using SuperDuper! to update the internal drive on my iMac. -- James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bibkdlFsnbmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #54020 |
On 2013-12-29, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > On 2013-12-28 17:21:46 +0000, Otto Pylot said: > >> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up >> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim, >> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just >> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up >> with CCC, and then the occasional back up. The drive needs to be >> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to >> keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011 >> MacBook Air. Thanks. > > I've had extremely good lluck with SuperDuper! backing up to a LaCie > Porsche Design hard drive. As an amusing aside, on those occasions > where I've saught advice from the Genius Bar at the Apple store I've > taken the LaCie drive instead of my iMac, booting onto an iMac already > in the store. If any changes are made it is easy to boot from the LaCie > drive when I'm home, using SuperDuper! to update the internal drive on > my iMac. I'm surprised they allow that! Cool. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 16:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <biblerFsugjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #54021 |
On 2013-12-29 22:01:25 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > On 2013-12-29, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: >> On 2013-12-28 17:21:46 +0000, Otto Pylot said: >> >>> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up >>> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim, >>> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just >>> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up >>> with CCC, and then the occasional back up. The drive needs to be >>> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to >>> keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011 >>> MacBook Air. Thanks. >> >> I've had extremely good lluck with SuperDuper! backing up to a LaCie >> Porsche Design hard drive. As an amusing aside, on those occasions >> where I've saught advice from the Genius Bar at the Apple store I've >> taken the LaCie drive instead of my iMac, booting onto an iMac already >> in the store. If any changes are made it is easy to boot from the LaCie >> drive when I'm home, using SuperDuper! to update the internal drive on >> my iMac. > > I'm surprised they allow that! Cool. Actually I've received remarks from a Genius such as "That's certainly the way to let us address a problem!" -- James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Otto Pylot <otto@bogus.address.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-29 14:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <291220131445470030%otto@bogus.address.com> |
| In reply to | #54022 |
In article <biblerFsugjU1@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > On 2013-12-29 22:01:25 +0000, Jolly Roger said: > > > On 2013-12-29, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote: > >> On 2013-12-28 17:21:46 +0000, Otto Pylot said: > >> > >>> Ok, it's a new subject related to my previous question about backing up > >>> to a bootable external. With the exception of the WD My Passport Slim, > >>> what would you all recommend for an external HD? Needs are simple, just > >>> backing up my HD before installation of Mavericks, probably backed up > >>> with CCC, and then the occasional back up. The drive needs to be > >>> bootable and the capacity could be as low as 500GB. I'd also like to > >>> keep the cost at $100 or lower. The primary laptop is a mid-2011 > >>> MacBook Air. Thanks. > >> > >> I've had extremely good lluck with SuperDuper! backing up to a LaCie > >> Porsche Design hard drive. As an amusing aside, on those occasions > >> where I've saught advice from the Genius Bar at the Apple store I've > >> taken the LaCie drive instead of my iMac, booting onto an iMac already > >> in the store. If any changes are made it is easy to boot from the LaCie > >> drive when I'm home, using SuperDuper! to update the internal drive on > >> my iMac. > > > > I'm surprised they allow that! Cool. > > Actually I've received remarks from a Genius such as "That's certainly > the way to let us address a problem!" Thanks again everyone for the input. My bro-in-law just dropped off a 500GB WD (model WD500H1U-00) USB2.0 Bookend drive. He gave it to me so that should get me where I want to go at zero cost, for now. It uses a power adapter but that's not a big deal. I'll just reformat it with Disk Utility now and then use CCC to clone the Air tomorrow. -- Deja Moo: I've seen this bullshit before. Please respond to: scasse@invalid.net replacing invalid with sonic.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web