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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58447 > unrolled thread

DIMM memory order

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-10 02:11 -0400
    Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-10 15:12 -0400
      Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-10 15:15 -0400
        Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-11 00:27 -0400
          Re: DIMM memory order Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-11 01:26 -0700
            Re: DIMM memory order dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-04-11 19:59 +1000
              Re: DIMM memory order Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-04-11 07:32 -0700
                Re: DIMM memory order dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-04-12 08:34 +1000
          Re: DIMM memory order Dorian Grey <oscar@wild.net> - 2014-04-11 07:25 -0400
            Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-11 14:35 -0400
            Re: DIMM memory order ErikRS <mac-dane@is.invalid> - 2014-04-11 22:32 +0200
            Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-11 17:06 -0400
              Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-16 22:17 -0400
                Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-18 00:25 -0400
                  Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 10:14 -0400
                    Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 12:59 -0400
                      Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-19 05:35 -0400
                        Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-19 09:50 -0400
                          Re: DIMM memory order Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-19 17:15 +0000
                            Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-19 13:27 -0400
                              Re: DIMM memory order JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-19 16:02 -0400
                                Re: DIMM memory order Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-19 20:33 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#58447 — DIMM memory order

I am getting two 8GB sticks today ! Yippie !

My 2009 MacPro will thus have 2* 8GB and 2*4GB sticks.

Looking at the manuals, they provide order of filling the slots (
1, 1-2, 1-2-3, 1-2-3-4) and then state:

"Note: If you install different-size DIMMs in your Mac Pro, follow the
order in the table. If the DIMM configuration you install doesn’t
provide optimized performance, the Memory Slot Utility appears onscreen
and recommends an improved configuration."

Does anyone have any insight on what order I should install them in ?
Somehow, I have to wonder if the Memory Slot Utility will know about 8GB
sticks (snow leopard).

Should it be  8-8-4-4 , 4-4-8-8, 8-4-8-4, or 4-8-4-8 ?

If Memory Slot Utility says it is incorrect, will it actually suggest
the proper order ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#58459

On 2014.04.10, 02:11 , JF Mezei wrote:
> I am getting two 8GB sticks today ! Yippie !
>
> My 2009 MacPro will thus have 2* 8GB and 2*4GB sticks.
>
> Looking at the manuals, they provide order of filling the slots (
> 1, 1-2, 1-2-3, 1-2-3-4) and then state:
>
> "Note: If you install different-size DIMMs in your Mac Pro, follow the
> order in the table. If the DIMM configuration you install doesn’t
> provide optimized performance, the Memory Slot Utility appears onscreen
> and recommends an improved configuration."
>
> Does anyone have any insight on what order I should install them in ?
> Somehow, I have to wonder if the Memory Slot Utility will know about 8GB
> sticks (snow leopard).
>
> Should it be  8-8-4-4 , 4-4-8-8, 8-4-8-4, or 4-8-4-8 ?
>
> If Memory Slot Utility says it is incorrect, will it actually suggest
> the proper order ?

Not espicially.  My iMac came with 8 GB (2 x 4) and I added 16 (2 x 8) 
in the next available slots.

If you go to the memory section in "AboutThis Mac" there is a link to 
Apple support about updating memory (from Mavericks anyway) for your model.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58462

On 14-04-10 15:12, Alan Browne wrote:

> If you go to the memory section in "AboutThis Mac" there is a link to 
> Apple support about updating memory (from Mavericks anyway) for your model.

The Apple documentation for2009 MacPro provides the order to fill the
slots for memory of equal sizes, and suggests using the same order and
letting Memory Slot Utility tell you how to re-arrange DIMMs of
different order.

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

#58475

An update..

My Mac Pro got its spring cleaning today. Reverse vacuum cleaner to
create air spray and flush the dust out.

And then, added the 2 * *GB boards.

8GB 8GB 4GB 4GB.

When I booted, the Memory Slot Utility automatically came out and said
that the memory was in the correct order. (interesting that it noticed
the memory config change).

So I doubled from 12GB to 24GB. (and I have a spare 4GB that will likely
replace a 2GB in my Xserve (they use compatible memory).

Will be interesting to see how quickly the system gobbles up the extra
12GB in the "inactive" part.

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

#58476

On 2014-04-11 04:27:34 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> said:

> An update..
> 
> My Mac Pro got its spring cleaning today. Reverse vacuum cleaner to
> create air spray and flush the dust out.
> 
> And then, added the 2 * *GB boards.
> 
> 8GB 8GB 4GB 4GB.
> 
> When I booted, the Memory Slot Utility automatically came out and said
> that the memory was in the correct order. (interesting that it noticed
> the memory config change).
> 
> So I doubled from 12GB to 24GB. (and I have a spare 4GB that will likely
> replace a 2GB in my Xserve (they use compatible memory).
> 
> Will be interesting to see how quickly the system gobbles up the extra
> 12GB in the "inactive" part.

I am running 4 x 4GB and with a fair amount of stuff open and running 
this Mac will suck up most of what I feed it.
Right now with LR5 & PS CC open, along with Safari, Mail, Unison, 
iTunes, and a few other apps running I currently have 2.75 GB 
available. Once I start into PS with multiple adjustment layers open 
that is eroded quickly.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#58477

In article <201404110126348092-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> I am running 4 x 4GB and with a fair amount of stuff open and running 
> this Mac will suck up most of what I feed it.
> Right now with LR5 & PS CC open, along with Safari, Mail, Unison, 
> iTunes, and a few other apps running I currently have 2.75 GB 
> available. Once I start into PS with multiple adjustment layers open 
> that is eroded quickly.

And, of course, if you did not have all those apps open, the sky might 
fall in. What is it with this world, where everyone wants everything?

-- 
dorayme

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

#58481

On 2014-04-11 09:59:02 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:

> In article <201404110126348092-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am running 4 x 4GB and with a fair amount of stuff open and running
>> this Mac will suck up most of what I feed it.
>> Right now with LR5 & PS CC open, along with Safari, Mail, Unison,
>> iTunes, and a few other apps running I currently have 2.75 GB
>> available. Once I start into PS with multiple adjustment layers open
>> that is eroded quickly.
> 
> And, of course, if you did not have all those apps open, the sky might
> fall in. What is it with this world, where everyone wants everything?

What can I say? I'm sloppy, and Spaces sort of encourages that behavior.
That said, if I am getting down to some serious RAM intensive LR/PS 
work I will quit the distracting stuff.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

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

#58487

In article <2014041107323150868-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2014-04-11 09:59:02 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
> 
> > In article <201404110126348092-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> I am running 4 x 4GB and with a fair amount of stuff open and running
> >> this Mac will suck up most of what I feed it.
> >> Right now with LR5 & PS CC open, along with Safari, Mail, Unison,
> >> iTunes, and a few other apps running I currently have 2.75 GB
> >> available. Once I start into PS with multiple adjustment layers open
> >> that is eroded quickly.
> > 
> > And, of course, if you did not have all those apps open, the sky might
> > fall in. What is it with this world, where everyone wants everything?
> 
> What can I say? I'm sloppy, and Spaces sort of encourages that behavior.
> That said, if I am getting down to some serious RAM intensive LR/PS 
> work I will quit the distracting stuff.

All a matter of cost really, if you are flush with funds, get as much 
ram as you can. Good stuff, ram! Otherwise, you need to live within 
your means.

-- 
dorayme

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

#58478

On 4/11/14, 12:27 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> An update..
>
> My Mac Pro got its spring cleaning today. Reverse vacuum cleaner to
> create air spray and flush the dust out.
>
> And then, added the 2 * *GB boards.
>
> 8GB 8GB 4GB 4GB.
>
> When I booted, the Memory Slot Utility automatically came out and said
> that the memory was in the correct order. (interesting that it noticed
> the memory config change).
>
> So I doubled from 12GB to 24GB. (and I have a spare 4GB that will likely
> replace a 2GB in my Xserve (they use compatible memory).
>
> Will be interesting to see how quickly the system gobbles up the extra
> 12GB in the "inactive" part.
>
>

Just curious-- do you see performance improvement with all that memory?

A few years back I was given some free memory sticks that had the 
correct specs for my iMac. I put them in boosting it from 4GB to 12GB.

Diagnostics said memory was recognized and working properly-- but I 
really didn't see much of a difference in routine day to day use.

-- 
"I am an old man and I have worried much about things that have never 
happened."
			—Mark Twain

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

#58483

On 14-04-11 07:25, Dorian Grey wrote:

> Just curious-- do you see performance improvement with all that memory?

Too early to tell. A freshly booted Mac with freshly started apps don't
occupy a big memory footprint. But given time, Firefox grows, as does
Photoshop (which I am using a lot these days).

One thing about virtual memory and apps:

When an app needs more memory, it asks for it and if not available from
the local pool, the memory functions (such as malloc in C) will ask for
additional memory from the virtual memory system (aka: grow the virtual
memory footprint of the process).

However, when using those functions to release memory (such as when
closing a tab), the freed memory goes to the local pool and not given
back to the system. So the process' memory footprint does not shrink.


When an app releases memory (such as when closing a tab), that memory
goes back to the local pool, it doesn't go back to the virtual memory
system, so the App's memory footprint does not shrink.

With the original 12 gigs, it would start to occupy the 12 gigs fairly
quickly (large chunk in the "Inactive" blue (it isn't really "inactive"
as it contains shared code and other active structures). I would
definitly see performance problems, especially with Firefox trying to
play flash videos.

> Diagnostics said memory was recognized and working properly-- but I 
> really didn't see much of a difference in routine day to day use.

As long as your typical use results in a fair amount of Free (green)
memory available, adding more RAM won't really change much. But when
your typical use uses up all of the green, then adding RAM will make a
difference.

It also depends on whether you quit all apps and restart regularly, or
whether your apps are always running and ready to be used.

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

#58485

Dorian Grey wrote:
> Just curious-- do you see performance improvement with all that memory?
>
> A few years back I was given some free memory sticks that had the
> correct specs for my iMac. I put them in boosting it from 4GB to 12GB.
>
> Diagnostics said memory was recognized and working properly-- but I
> really didn't see much of a difference in routine day to day use.

I don't know what JF Mezei experiences, but I can tell for my own that 
when I upgraded my own MacPro Xeon 4x2,66ghz from 10gb to 16gb both 
speed and performance were increased radically when working with heavy 
audio files...

Example... A one hour RAW audio file edited and ready to be resampled 
and saved. Program used - Amadeus Pro 2.x.
- 10gb RAM, resampled into 320kbps mp3 - apprx. 20 mins.
- 16gb RAM, resampled into 320kbps mp3 - apprx. 12 mins.

And at the same time I can go on editing other files of same sizes 
without losing any kind of speed in the editing processes...

Twice I've seen CPU use raise to 99% and RAM use to apprx. 14gb, - that 
was when I put 10x 1 hour ausio files to resample and save at the same 
time...

Cheers, Erik Richard

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <mac-daneRE@MOVEstofanet.dk>
NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
Openoffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

#58486

On 2014.04.11, 07:25 , Dorian Grey wrote:
> On 4/11/14, 12:27 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
>> An update..
>>
>> My Mac Pro got its spring cleaning today. Reverse vacuum cleaner to
>> create air spray and flush the dust out.
>>
>> And then, added the 2 * *GB boards.
>>
>> 8GB 8GB 4GB 4GB.
>>
>> When I booted, the Memory Slot Utility automatically came out and said
>> that the memory was in the correct order. (interesting that it noticed
>> the memory config change).
>>
>> So I doubled from 12GB to 24GB. (and I have a spare 4GB that will likely
>> replace a 2GB in my Xserve (they use compatible memory).
>>
>> Will be interesting to see how quickly the system gobbles up the extra
>> 12GB in the "inactive" part.
>>
>>
>
> Just curious-- do you see performance improvement with all that memory?
>
> A few years back I was given some free memory sticks that had the
> correct specs for my iMac. I put them in boosting it from 4GB to 12GB.
>
> Diagnostics said memory was recognized and working properly-- but I
> really didn't see much of a difference in routine day to day use.

My prior iMac at 6 GB (maxed) would, when loaded with photography apps 
and large files, and "the usual" other stuff, begin to swap.  At that 
point there are occasional pauses and sometimes dead time while 
something is moved out or into memory.  Beachballs happen.

The OS would take about 1.5 GB of that 6.

This iMac is at 24 GB and I have not seen much swapping at all (actual 
swap "used" is 512 KB as I write this).  Further, the OS takes a lot 
more of the memory (several more GB) and therefore is not loading stuff 
as needed - it's in memory when needed even if seldom.  The file caches 
(presently) is a whopping 10 GB.  (Also have Fusion drives so I assume a 
lot, if not all, of the OS is in SSD further speeding up the system).

And I have another 8 GB of growth available if needed - though I'd end 
up with 8 GB of ram I'd need to sell off (2 x 4 GB).  So far it's not 
needed.

(I also have a large ram disk that I use when downloading stuff.  Unpack 
it there before moving to disk and delete the .tar/.zip (etc.) in the 
ram disk.  The ramdisk can be 'dismounted' and remounted as needed to 
clear up ram.)

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58589

>> Just curious-- do you see performance improvement with all that memory?

it has been a number of days now. Have not had time to do heavy duty
photoshop stuff. And I watched a number of .mkvs on VLC which has a
kernel bug crash when going from one .mkv to another in a playlist (I
suspect poorly enoded .mkvs without a proper ending). So my system
uptime has not been great.

I have see the RAM usage grow to about 15 gigs of 24  (I had 12 before).

Noticeable performance improvement in scrolling, especially with Firefox.

Starting up apps that were started before is also faster (indicating
cache working better).

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

#58616

Did some work on my slides tonight.

Susprised to see memory usage shoot WAY up.

"Active" is now 14.9 gigs
"Inactive: 6 gigs.

Out of 24 gigs, I am now just over 22gigs used with less than 2 gigs of
"green" free memory.

I used to do the same tasks in 12 gigs of memory, so thre would have
been considerable paging.

The "Inactive" title for the "blue" memory in Activity monitor is really
a misnomer as it clearly isn't memory that can be freed when needed by
something else.

Currently running a photoship script to process a whole bunch of images
and it is clearly faster now.


As I typed this message, the free memory ran down to nearly 0, with the
"Inactive" growing to over 7 gigs. (photoshop script will be running for
a while longer).

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

#58624

On 2014.04.18, 00:25 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Did some work on my slides tonight.
>
> Susprised to see memory usage shoot WAY up.
>
> "Active" is now 14.9 gigs
> "Inactive: 6 gigs.
>
> Out of 24 gigs, I am now just over 22gigs used with less than 2 gigs of
> "green" free memory.
>
> I used to do the same tasks in 12 gigs of memory, so thre would have
> been considerable paging.
>
> The "Inactive" title for the "blue" memory in Activity monitor is really
> a misnomer as it clearly isn't memory that can be freed when needed by
> something else.
>
> Currently running a photoship script to process a whole bunch of images
> and it is clearly faster now.
>
>
> As I typed this message, the free memory ran down to nearly 0, with the
> "Inactive" growing to over 7 gigs. (photoshop script will be running for
> a while longer).

Possibly file cache has grown.  You could "flush" from terminal and see 
if it reduces - if temporarily.  On my system monitor (which shows file 
cache in Mavericks) I'm at 7 GB for cache - this is included in used 
memory. - but not reported that way by MenuMeters (shows 9.3 GB used).

Currently:

Phys Mem:	24.00 GB	App Mem:	6.42 GB
Mem Used:	15.28 GB	File Cache:	7.04 GB		
VM:		24.00 GB	Wired Mem:	1.82 GB
Swap:		 1.60 MB	Compressed:	0

eg: MemUsed = AppMem+FileCache+Wired

iStat:
Wired:		1.82
Active:		7.15
Inactive 	5.42
Free:		9.60

And from top:
  5693M resident, 134M private, 2147M shared. PhysMem: 14G used (1864M 
wired), 9821M unused.
VM: 535G vsize, 1080M framework vsize, 0(0) swapins, 0(0) swapouts.

So (recalling the Chinese proverb) it's hard to reconcile all these 
measurements (to be sure they were not at the same instant so there's 
some small errors for that).

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58626

On 2014.04.18, 10:14 , Alan Browne wrote:

> Possibly file cache has grown.  You could "flush" from terminal and see

                                         er, "purge"

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58638

Interesting event tonight in wee hours. While in a pause for work on
photoshop, the Activity Monitor which showed almost no free memory
(24GB), all of a sudden showed a huge chunk of free memory.

Suspect some daily batch job that does system maintenance that purged
the disk cache behind the scenes.

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

#58651

On 2014.04.19, 05:35 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Interesting event tonight in wee hours. While in a pause for work on
> photoshop, the Activity Monitor which showed almost no free memory
> (24GB), all of a sudden showed a huge chunk of free memory.
>
> Suspect some daily batch job that does system maintenance that purged
> the disk cache behind the scenes.

Console doesn't log that AFAICT, but there is a Widget called 
"Maintidget" that will show when maintenance scripts were last run.  By 
default they go at about 3 or 4 in the morning.  (Daily, weekly and 
monthly).

I changed mine to run about 5 minutes after the morning start time (eg: 
after the computer wakes, but before I get to the computer).


-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

#58665

In message <yMWdnTCto8S64s_OnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2014.04.19, 05:35 , JF Mezei wrote:
>> Interesting event tonight in wee hours. While in a pause for work on
>> photoshop, the Activity Monitor which showed almost no free memory
>> (24GB), all of a sudden showed a huge chunk of free memory.
>>
>> Suspect some daily batch job that does system maintenance that purged
>> the disk cache behind the scenes.

> Console doesn't log that AFAICT, but there is a Widget called 
> "Maintidget" that will show when maintenance scripts were last run.  By 
> default they go at about 3 or 4 in the morning.  (Daily, weekly and 
> monthly).

> I changed mine to run about 5 minutes after the morning start time (eg: 
> after the computer wakes, but before I get to the computer).

Maintenance scripts, unlike cron jobs, run opportunistically. If your
computer is off at 3am, and one at 7am, the scripts will run shortly
after 7am without changing them.



-- 
Up the airy mountains, down the rushy glen...  From ghosties and bogles
and long-leggity beasties...  My mother said I never should...  We dare
not go a-hunting for fear...  And things that go bump...  Play with the
fairies in the wood... --Lords and Ladies

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

#58668

On 2014.04.19, 13:15 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <yMWdnTCto8S64s_OnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.04.19, 05:35 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Interesting event tonight in wee hours. While in a pause for work on
>>> photoshop, the Activity Monitor which showed almost no free memory
>>> (24GB), all of a sudden showed a huge chunk of free memory.
>>>
>>> Suspect some daily batch job that does system maintenance that purged
>>> the disk cache behind the scenes.
>
>> Console doesn't log that AFAICT, but there is a Widget called
>> "Maintidget" that will show when maintenance scripts were last run.  By
>> default they go at about 3 or 4 in the morning.  (Daily, weekly and
>> monthly).
>
>> I changed mine to run about 5 minutes after the morning start time (eg:
>> after the computer wakes, but before I get to the computer).
>
> Maintenance scripts, unlike cron jobs, run opportunistically. If your
> computer is off at 3am, and one at 7am, the scripts will run shortly
> after 7am without changing them.

Back at the time I changed them (10.5 or 10.6) they did not run at all. 
  The change I described guaranteed they ran.

-- 
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
  but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
      -Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web