andrewbecks
May 2, 08:55 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
SiliconAddict
Nov 16, 07:41 PM
I'd have to disagree with that.
A better statement would be your average user doesn't care about chip brand as long as the computer is relatively fast, and you get good battery life.
if this does happen would apple finaly consider leting there Os's on ur standart hp compaqs etcs ?
No.
A better statement would be your average user doesn't care about chip brand as long as the computer is relatively fast, and you get good battery life.
if this does happen would apple finaly consider leting there Os's on ur standart hp compaqs etcs ?
No.
pdjudd
May 2, 11:54 AM
"Bugs". That's so funny. Like it wasn't something indented by Big Brother, make that Apple. We truly do have a new evil empire now.
I presume you have hard proof of this unfounded claim I hope.
I presume you have hard proof of this unfounded claim I hope.
iJohnHenry
Apr 16, 07:20 PM
I love that video. Cracks me up every time I see it.
First time viewer.
So, Honey Badgers are gay, or what??
First time viewer.
So, Honey Badgers are gay, or what??
more...
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 04:53 PM
This is what I "love" about MacRumors, it's the only Apple fansite where Apple fans, rightly proud of their products, can log on and be TOLD what their opinions should be by rabid fans of other devices, who in turn use the fanboy card to back up their point of view, therefore rendering any reply by an Apple user pointless.
The Android fans are as bad, if not in fact worse, than the iPhone fans on here. The very notion you come to an Apple site to stress your point of view and borderline enforce it to the point of it being accepted as fact, proves as much.
I'm all for people loving their apple products. I love my iPhone too. But unlike some of these apple fans, I don't consider my iPhone to be the holy grail of smartphones.
The Android fans are as bad, if not in fact worse, than the iPhone fans on here. The very notion you come to an Apple site to stress your point of view and borderline enforce it to the point of it being accepted as fact, proves as much.
I'm all for people loving their apple products. I love my iPhone too. But unlike some of these apple fans, I don't consider my iPhone to be the holy grail of smartphones.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 2, 05:40 AM
Let us just stick to the main subject here.
Explain to me why you people feel threatened, harmed or hurt by the DRM?Remember, even if the press is very hung up on DRM, that is not the only principle in queation in the initial complaint. Most important, IMO, is Apple reserving the right to change the terms of the sale after the sale. And that is not only illegal, but very bad business practice... for the consumer, that is... :(
I don't give a toss about DRM on downloadable media in general. Of course if it actually bothered me I wouldn't even have bought the 8 songs I have from iTMS, but it doesn't. I actually think Fairplay is pretty fair... :)
One thing I don't like so called copy-protected CDs because they can hurt your equipment (car stereos, slot loading PCs, etc) by getting stuck, and you don't get an option to buy real CDs of the "copy-protected" albums, but that's for another thread... ;)
Explain to me why you people feel threatened, harmed or hurt by the DRM?Remember, even if the press is very hung up on DRM, that is not the only principle in queation in the initial complaint. Most important, IMO, is Apple reserving the right to change the terms of the sale after the sale. And that is not only illegal, but very bad business practice... for the consumer, that is... :(
I don't give a toss about DRM on downloadable media in general. Of course if it actually bothered me I wouldn't even have bought the 8 songs I have from iTMS, but it doesn't. I actually think Fairplay is pretty fair... :)
One thing I don't like so called copy-protected CDs because they can hurt your equipment (car stereos, slot loading PCs, etc) by getting stuck, and you don't get an option to buy real CDs of the "copy-protected" albums, but that's for another thread... ;)
more...
0010101
Oct 29, 11:57 AM
No, you have it backwards. Software companies don't release products because the hardware is out there. They release because they've added new features and want user to upgrade and new consumers to come. Consumers buy the hardware because the software is available for it. A computer without software is just a really expensive paper weight. It's Adobe's lack of a native Creative Suite than keeps professionals from picking up MacPros - and Apple said just that during their last financial results call.
You think graphic designers aren't interested in getting an Intel Mac and the performance gains that come with it? They get higher performance running Photoshop on the G5's they have now than running it on the Intel Macs under Rosetta. So why spend the money to degrade your production apps?
Adobe has nothing to gain from not releasing a native Creative Suite. I mean, it's not like Apple is going to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce they are going back to IBM chips. This is the future and if Adobe doesn't ship a new Creative Suite they will be no different than the companies that never ported their apps to PPC native versions and stayed with 68k - giving up.
The graphics professionals I know don't scurry out to buy a new Mac everytime apple lifts it's cheek and plops one out.
Software companies make their money by writing their software to the largest audience, and the Intel Mac is currently a very small portion of an already small segment of the general 'computer user' population.
If your argument is that if Adobe were to write a universal version of their software that graphics professionals would run out instantly to buy new hardware, that's just not reality.. not when they're still paying off the G5's they just bought a year or two ago.
The vast majority of people I know who use an Apple computer for a living in the visual arts sector have not made the switch to an Intel Mac, and don't plan to anytime soon, regardless of what Adobe does.
In fact, talk around the campfire seems to revolve around wether Intel Mac native apps will run any better or faster than the new crop of Winblows apps.. with some 'jumping ship' to join the thousands of others who have moved to the Windows platform in recent years.
You think graphic designers aren't interested in getting an Intel Mac and the performance gains that come with it? They get higher performance running Photoshop on the G5's they have now than running it on the Intel Macs under Rosetta. So why spend the money to degrade your production apps?
Adobe has nothing to gain from not releasing a native Creative Suite. I mean, it's not like Apple is going to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce they are going back to IBM chips. This is the future and if Adobe doesn't ship a new Creative Suite they will be no different than the companies that never ported their apps to PPC native versions and stayed with 68k - giving up.
The graphics professionals I know don't scurry out to buy a new Mac everytime apple lifts it's cheek and plops one out.
Software companies make their money by writing their software to the largest audience, and the Intel Mac is currently a very small portion of an already small segment of the general 'computer user' population.
If your argument is that if Adobe were to write a universal version of their software that graphics professionals would run out instantly to buy new hardware, that's just not reality.. not when they're still paying off the G5's they just bought a year or two ago.
The vast majority of people I know who use an Apple computer for a living in the visual arts sector have not made the switch to an Intel Mac, and don't plan to anytime soon, regardless of what Adobe does.
In fact, talk around the campfire seems to revolve around wether Intel Mac native apps will run any better or faster than the new crop of Winblows apps.. with some 'jumping ship' to join the thousands of others who have moved to the Windows platform in recent years.
mdntcallr
Oct 3, 02:26 PM
lets hope for a great keynote:
1- new Mac without display, performance would be better than imac, and not as much $$ as mac pro. basically a mid sized tower good enough for mid level use on graphics, games and much more. something upgradable by the end user.
2- media center to complement the Itv
3- new OS X 10.5 (this is a big deal)
4- adobe news of release
5- new HDTV initiative macs with Blu-Ray available as option. to work with current HD video editing software.
Would like before then:
1- would love a new Macbook Pro. with blu-ray drive, better hard drive( upto 160 gb or maybe 200 gb by then) with core 2 duo.
2- also, love by then the new quad CPU mac pro. maybe only on highest end model.
3- apple to have discovered a way for less expensive ram to be used in the Mac Pro. it's DAMN expensive compared to the rest of whats out there
1- new Mac without display, performance would be better than imac, and not as much $$ as mac pro. basically a mid sized tower good enough for mid level use on graphics, games and much more. something upgradable by the end user.
2- media center to complement the Itv
3- new OS X 10.5 (this is a big deal)
4- adobe news of release
5- new HDTV initiative macs with Blu-Ray available as option. to work with current HD video editing software.
Would like before then:
1- would love a new Macbook Pro. with blu-ray drive, better hard drive( upto 160 gb or maybe 200 gb by then) with core 2 duo.
2- also, love by then the new quad CPU mac pro. maybe only on highest end model.
3- apple to have discovered a way for less expensive ram to be used in the Mac Pro. it's DAMN expensive compared to the rest of whats out there
more...
zioxide
Jan 12, 12:57 AM
Everyone is making comments that suggest that the Gizmodo guys are professionals and have broken some code of ethics.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
Flowbee
Oct 10, 06:44 PM
Well, if Apple's going to do it this year, it will most likely be before the end of October. Much later than that and they'll miss a chunk of the holiday shopping season. Wanna grab people before they've ordered their Wiis and PS3s.
more...
MacRumors
Apr 25, 11:44 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/photo-of-iphone-4s-with-larger-screen/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/123044-ee164ce60334b6df3bb8-LL.jpg
bitter love quotes tagalog
more...
love quotes tagalog. love
.jpg "love quotes tagalog_13")
love quotes tagalog_13
more...
love quotes tagalog version.
sayings tagalog. quotes
more...
emo love quotes tagalog
tagalog wallpaper quote
tagalog funny quotes about
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/123044-ee164ce60334b6df3bb8-LL.jpg
zoetropeuk
Sep 25, 11:42 AM
That is good to know, because 1.1.2 runs like crap on a Quad with a 6800GT and 8GB of RAM. Unacceptable, really. I basically abandoned the workflow and went back to Photoshop. I can actually get work done that way.
Damn then there must be something wrong with you Quad again Gary. I regularly use 1.1.2 on my 1.67 powerbook and I find it perfectly acceptable. And on my G5/X800XT it's super fast.
I think the issue with people finding it slow is there lack of understand of what Aperture is actually doing. And also not really knowing how to use Aperture to it's full potential.
Everybody wants everything to be instant but that will never happen.
I for one find the workflow of cataloguing, correcting and exporting in Aperture far faster and superior then any comparable app.
Damn then there must be something wrong with you Quad again Gary. I regularly use 1.1.2 on my 1.67 powerbook and I find it perfectly acceptable. And on my G5/X800XT it's super fast.
I think the issue with people finding it slow is there lack of understand of what Aperture is actually doing. And also not really knowing how to use Aperture to it's full potential.
Everybody wants everything to be instant but that will never happen.
I for one find the workflow of cataloguing, correcting and exporting in Aperture far faster and superior then any comparable app.
more...
err404
May 2, 11:36 AM
your correct, based on Steve Jobbs response to this which was pure BS we can never trust that the files do NOT get sent out.
Apple has been open about collecting location data. However that does does not come from consolidated.db. The database that everyone is talking about is data sent FROM Apple TO your phone. Why would Apple collect the data that they sent to you?
The issue is that if your phone is compromised by a third party, this DB could be used to infer information about your location (you location is not directly stored in the DB). The changes being made reduce this risk by shortening the cache and encrypting the data.
Apple has been open about collecting location data. However that does does not come from consolidated.db. The database that everyone is talking about is data sent FROM Apple TO your phone. Why would Apple collect the data that they sent to you?
The issue is that if your phone is compromised by a third party, this DB could be used to infer information about your location (you location is not directly stored in the DB). The changes being made reduce this risk by shortening the cache and encrypting the data.
quadrakid
Sep 12, 01:07 AM
it looks slick but really uncomfortable in the hand
more...
gwangung
Jan 12, 05:57 PM
I still don't get the blogger pulls a prank equating to all bloggers everywhere being punished by conference organizers. Seriously, it sounds all Zod evil where they threaten to kill some random guy if Superman doesn't bow down to them.
Seriously, you DON'T????
I can certainly see that. I'd be doing that if I were running a conference.
Seriously, you DON'T????
I can certainly see that. I'd be doing that if I were running a conference.
err404
May 2, 02:17 PM
The kill switch was defective. The new update fixes that so that it works as per the EULA and as per advertised (and common sense).
Common sense to a programmer is not all ways the same same a common sense to a user. :confused:
The code is working as intented, but the design is flawed. A switch that prevents applications from calling a service is functionally the same as disabling the service; except in this case. In this case they intentional left the service running, without considering the consequences of the cache continuing to update.
Common sense to a programmer is not all ways the same same a common sense to a user. :confused:
The code is working as intented, but the design is flawed. A switch that prevents applications from calling a service is functionally the same as disabling the service; except in this case. In this case they intentional left the service running, without considering the consequences of the cache continuing to update.
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 11, 08:48 AM
Also Aero Peek,
control-tab and windows (command key?)-tab offer some cool ways to swap around active applications.
Aero Peek is cool.
MS has done a lot of good work with the UI, in terms of polish and making it look very nice. Apple on the other hand still lacks a complete consistent look and feel. Just look at iTunes and the horizontal traffic lights.
I don't understand. Microsoft has a more consistent UI than Mac OS X? What are you smoking mate? For everything Windows is better, so why do you use SL?
As for iTunes, it has got more UI changes than probably any other software on the planet. iTunes is one software that's tweaked and changed and basically used as a reference point. With every single version you see a tweaked UI. That's intentional and not by mistake.
As for consistent look of the Mac OS, consistent doesn't mean it has to be the same. With respect to FaceTime, the window is all black. That means it is inconsistent, right? No its not.
The sense of operation and understanding still remains the same; which points to consistency and usability.
Apple has a long history of implementing UI guidlines and then breaking them in their own apps. OSX itself exhibits this, though with SL, its gotten better.
As if UI guidelines are a hard and fast rule?
Apple has always been tweaking certain applications to test other UI's. Even I was corrected the other day when I pointed out that UI guidelines are dead. They are not dead; they are evolving. Take it as a constitution which is amended when required and from time to time.
The UI guidelines document are not hard and fast rules which cannot be edited or ignored. Twitter and other apps which out rightly ignore the guidelines were accepted, proving that Apple accepts consistency in understanding and operation rather than in visual appearance.
control-tab and windows (command key?)-tab offer some cool ways to swap around active applications.
Aero Peek is cool.
MS has done a lot of good work with the UI, in terms of polish and making it look very nice. Apple on the other hand still lacks a complete consistent look and feel. Just look at iTunes and the horizontal traffic lights.
I don't understand. Microsoft has a more consistent UI than Mac OS X? What are you smoking mate? For everything Windows is better, so why do you use SL?
As for iTunes, it has got more UI changes than probably any other software on the planet. iTunes is one software that's tweaked and changed and basically used as a reference point. With every single version you see a tweaked UI. That's intentional and not by mistake.
As for consistent look of the Mac OS, consistent doesn't mean it has to be the same. With respect to FaceTime, the window is all black. That means it is inconsistent, right? No its not.
The sense of operation and understanding still remains the same; which points to consistency and usability.
Apple has a long history of implementing UI guidlines and then breaking them in their own apps. OSX itself exhibits this, though with SL, its gotten better.
As if UI guidelines are a hard and fast rule?
Apple has always been tweaking certain applications to test other UI's. Even I was corrected the other day when I pointed out that UI guidelines are dead. They are not dead; they are evolving. Take it as a constitution which is amended when required and from time to time.
The UI guidelines document are not hard and fast rules which cannot be edited or ignored. Twitter and other apps which out rightly ignore the guidelines were accepted, proving that Apple accepts consistency in understanding and operation rather than in visual appearance.
inkswamp
Oct 3, 04:00 AM
Ug, I can't believe I just defended a monopoly.
Bear in mind, there is nothing inherently bad in a company having a monopoly, not even Microsoft. What's bad (and illegal) is when a company in such a position abuses its monopolistic power. I have to remind MS defenders of this fact as many of them don't seem to grasp the nuance here. MS wasn't in trouble for being a monopoly (rightly so--being one is not illegal.) MS was in trouble for abusing that power.
Speaking of MS defenders, is it my imagination or are there an awful lot of Macrumors newbies on the board now who seem to bash Apple pretty quickly and at every turn? What's that all about?
Bear in mind, there is nothing inherently bad in a company having a monopoly, not even Microsoft. What's bad (and illegal) is when a company in such a position abuses its monopolistic power. I have to remind MS defenders of this fact as many of them don't seem to grasp the nuance here. MS wasn't in trouble for being a monopoly (rightly so--being one is not illegal.) MS was in trouble for abusing that power.
Speaking of MS defenders, is it my imagination or are there an awful lot of Macrumors newbies on the board now who seem to bash Apple pretty quickly and at every turn? What's that all about?
quentoncassidy
Dec 10, 07:02 PM
As mentioned, the spawning is terrible. IMO worse than in MW2 (which seemed hard to believe at first)
They shouldn't spawn anywhere near me. I hate spawning near the enemies too and die within 5 seconds of spawning. Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 seconds for a spawning point to open up instead of dying right away.
They shouldn't spawn anywhere near me. I hate spawning near the enemies too and die within 5 seconds of spawning. Personally, I'd rather wait 5-10 seconds for a spawning point to open up instead of dying right away.
PinkyMacGodess
Apr 8, 08:39 PM
This is STUPID!
Yeah, we got them but na na na na na you can't buy one SUCKER!
What possible positive result can be worth this ********?
Huh Steve?
Unless they are being 'held' because of manufacturing flaws... Like the screen glue not drying enough? Hmm...
Yeah, we got them but na na na na na you can't buy one SUCKER!
What possible positive result can be worth this ********?
Huh Steve?
Unless they are being 'held' because of manufacturing flaws... Like the screen glue not drying enough? Hmm...
Poolo
Apr 25, 10:34 PM
Oh sweet. Looks really good, can always do with a bigger screen!!
khrome
Apr 5, 11:51 AM
Well, I appreciate that you've gotten some juvenile responces.
But I have a harsh truth for you: our legal system is all about "stooping to their level" and using technicalities and precedent to get whatever you can (regarding charges and sentencing, rather than evidence). The guy who trys to "play it by the book" gets eaten alive as indicated by your current situation. Just my 2 cents.
Also, if you indicate to the police where you believe your stolen goods are it may take up to 5 business days for them to go search the area, by which time it's long gone. Generally, kids who steal stuff play with it for a minute, then get nervous and sell it. That's why my laptop was already gone... it was the difference in grand theft and petty theft.
I was under the impression if I did the leg work and got all the information together, They just had to show up with badges to question them and happen to look where I knew the stuff was (it was visible from outside the house from a certain angle). Oh no... not even remotely. You have far too much faith that other people care about your well-being, and rectifying your situation.
But I have a harsh truth for you: our legal system is all about "stooping to their level" and using technicalities and precedent to get whatever you can (regarding charges and sentencing, rather than evidence). The guy who trys to "play it by the book" gets eaten alive as indicated by your current situation. Just my 2 cents.
Also, if you indicate to the police where you believe your stolen goods are it may take up to 5 business days for them to go search the area, by which time it's long gone. Generally, kids who steal stuff play with it for a minute, then get nervous and sell it. That's why my laptop was already gone... it was the difference in grand theft and petty theft.
I was under the impression if I did the leg work and got all the information together, They just had to show up with badges to question them and happen to look where I knew the stuff was (it was visible from outside the house from a certain angle). Oh no... not even remotely. You have far too much faith that other people care about your well-being, and rectifying your situation.
Coolerking
Sep 12, 08:37 AM
Yes, you can dream. Dream it you ********** dreamers.
LOL! Nice
LOL! Nice
SevenInchScrew
Nov 14, 05:07 PM
About the footsteps issue, while you may not hear someone else, your own footsteps are almost deafening now. I take the Ninja perk just to NOT hear my own footsteps.
Right, and that was what made it so good in MW2. You were super quiet, and could hear everyone else much better because of that. Now in Black Ops, while your own movements are certainly much quieter with Ninja, everyone else running around makes basically no noise, regardless of their Green perk. Because of that, no one HAS to use Ninja, and can still run around all stealthy, stabbing or shooting you in the back.
In MW2, you could easily hear people coming if you were paying attention, and get a jump on them. In Black Ops, since you can't hear anyone, ever, the game is a constant battle of internet connection and reflexes. What happens now is, you and an enemy both, surprisingly, come around a corner to face each other. What ensues is each person wildly spraying bullets until one of you falls over dead. That isn't very fun.
A new update or patch will be welcome, and I look forward to playing the game despite it's problems. Good fun.
I agree. Even though there are a few issues I have with the game, and a couple are close to game-breaking, the game has a lot of fun in it. With a good update/patch, it could be great.
Right, and that was what made it so good in MW2. You were super quiet, and could hear everyone else much better because of that. Now in Black Ops, while your own movements are certainly much quieter with Ninja, everyone else running around makes basically no noise, regardless of their Green perk. Because of that, no one HAS to use Ninja, and can still run around all stealthy, stabbing or shooting you in the back.
In MW2, you could easily hear people coming if you were paying attention, and get a jump on them. In Black Ops, since you can't hear anyone, ever, the game is a constant battle of internet connection and reflexes. What happens now is, you and an enemy both, surprisingly, come around a corner to face each other. What ensues is each person wildly spraying bullets until one of you falls over dead. That isn't very fun.
A new update or patch will be welcome, and I look forward to playing the game despite it's problems. Good fun.
I agree. Even though there are a few issues I have with the game, and a couple are close to game-breaking, the game has a lot of fun in it. With a good update/patch, it could be great.
No comments:
Post a Comment