A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Dell Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old April 17th 09, 02:29 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Kevin Childers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

"Ben Myers" wrote in message
...
Daddy wrote:
RnR wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:18:40 -0400, Daddy
wrote:

Ben Myers wrote:
Daddy wrote:
RnR wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT), "William R. Walsh"
wrote:

Hi!

Really? Tell that to the people who were left with unbootable
computers after the SP3 update. This happened to people who
had primarily HP Desktops
That was quite some time ago, and I believe fixes have since been
delivered.

You highlighted the problem when you said "HP Desktops". (I hate
most
of their computer hardware with a passion.) HP certainly loves
their
preloaded images and crapware. It's not hard to believe (with
regard
to the plethora of system models they have) that someone said "oh
look
here's a good idea to save us the trouble of producing a separate
image for each system" when it wasn't such a good idea. SP3 was
*not*
the problem--someone's stupidity and laziness was.

I don't mean to sound unapologetic or harsh, but people running the
factory installed software on their computer almost have it coming.
Install it yourself and be just that much more certain that it is
done
right--and that only what you want to have is there.

Microsoft's own service pack release notes say to turn off (and
quite
possibly to also update) any anti-virus software prior to applying
the
Service Pack. Now who reads that? :-)

The following questions should always be asked before an upgrade of
this magnitude is performed:

1. Do I have time to troubleshoot this if it doesn't work?
2. Do I have a backup of my information or another computer to work
with if there is a problem?
3. Does this have to happen right now? (In the case of SP3, that
answer is presently "no".)

William
The reason why I try to avoid MS updates with a passion. And anyone
tells me how vunerable I am for doing this will just make me laugh
(not directed at you).
Lol...

The reason you avoid Microsoft updates is because you don't know how
to install them, don't know how or don't want to operate your
computer in a supported manner, don't know how to maintain your
computer, and/or don't know how to keep malware away. These are the
things that cause updates to damage a computer.

As for how vulnerable your computer is without the updates...who
cares? It's not my data that's at risk.

Daddy
Sheesh! Acting out your role as Daddy and scolding a child, or what?

There are two sides to the Windows Update controversy here.

One is that Microsoft has had a lousy track record putting out patches
and updates that mess up a system, and then, Whoops! They put out a
correction. True fact. Happened all too often in the early days of
XP.

The other side is that Microsoft has tried to get better at this patch
process and actually succeeded, although people who update regularly
get harrassed again and again to install Windows Genuine Advantage.
Heavens! There may be a software pirate among us!

Whether to update or not all depends on how much one trusts
Microsoft's technical knowhow and how much personal information is at
stake.

... Ben Myers
My Dimension 4500 is almost nine years old and has received 341 updates
with no problems whatsoever. And I have Windows Genuine Advantage,
which has never bugged me about anything.

No one is saying that Microsoft Update is perfect. But when people
complain about it in newsgroups and online forums, most of the time
they're the author of their own troubles, not Microsoft.

In computing, as in life, there are lots of things you don't like.
(Who's idea was the Alternative Minimum Tax?) But as any Daddy knows,
you can't shirk your responsibilities by blaming your troubles on
everyone else.

Daddy


Daddy, think as you may but simply put, do you feel safer after 341
updates? Will it make you feel safer if you get 342 updates instead?

And do you think it is possible for a person who installs software
each year that the 300+ updates might cause problems eventually. If
you want to trust MS, that's your business. I prefer to live a
simpler, less stressful life.


As you wish, RnR. For the record, I actually do feel safer after all
those updates. And updates give me zero stress, since I know how to deal
with them. Another source of comfort: If an update ever did go badly, I
would simply restore my system partition from that day's image. (For
major upgrades I make an image before upgrading.)

Something else that you might consider: Maybe you don't care if your
computer gets infected - that's your right - but perhaps you would care
about all the other computers that your computer can infect?

Daddy


There are people who practice safe computing without all the updates and
anti-virus and anti-malware and anti-everything else. And they don't even
use a condom while at their computer. There is no substitute for actually
thinking for a bit before responding to that email from the guy wanting to
get millions out of Nigeria or that browser pop-up offering something for
nothing... Ben Myers


Ben

Could you not say that quite so loud? To date, I have no acquired a
half dozen clients who despite repeated warnings and service calls to clean
up their systems, simple can not resist clicking on any "Special Offer
(etc.)" that pops up on their screen, It's the same old drill almost
everytime, but I repeatedly warn them as to what is and is not safe. I feel
I have done my best to teach them how to protect themselves, but to no
avail. In all cases I have exceeded due diligence and still they persist.

On the upside, I get paid and for a few weeks/months their systems run
reasonably well until the gunk builds up or they click on a really bad item.

Last week I actually saw Vostro with 2 Gb of RAM that had so much
ad/malware that you couldn't see the desk top for all of the pop-ups.


  #33  
Old April 17th 09, 04:40 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Ben Myers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,607
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

Kevin Childers wrote:
"Ben Myers" wrote in message
...
Daddy wrote:
RnR wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 20:18:40 -0400, Daddy
wrote:

Ben Myers wrote:
Daddy wrote:
RnR wrote:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:30:16 -0700 (PDT), "William R. Walsh"
wrote:

Hi!

Really? Tell that to the people who were left with unbootable
computers after the SP3 update. This happened to people who
had primarily HP Desktops
That was quite some time ago, and I believe fixes have since been
delivered.

You highlighted the problem when you said "HP Desktops". (I hate
most
of their computer hardware with a passion.) HP certainly loves
their
preloaded images and crapware. It's not hard to believe (with
regard
to the plethora of system models they have) that someone said "oh
look
here's a good idea to save us the trouble of producing a separate
image for each system" when it wasn't such a good idea. SP3 was
*not*
the problem--someone's stupidity and laziness was.

I don't mean to sound unapologetic or harsh, but people running the
factory installed software on their computer almost have it coming.
Install it yourself and be just that much more certain that it is
done
right--and that only what you want to have is there.

Microsoft's own service pack release notes say to turn off (and
quite
possibly to also update) any anti-virus software prior to applying
the
Service Pack. Now who reads that? :-)

The following questions should always be asked before an upgrade of
this magnitude is performed:

1. Do I have time to troubleshoot this if it doesn't work?
2. Do I have a backup of my information or another computer to work
with if there is a problem?
3. Does this have to happen right now? (In the case of SP3, that
answer is presently "no".)

William
The reason why I try to avoid MS updates with a passion. And anyone
tells me how vunerable I am for doing this will just make me laugh
(not directed at you).
Lol...

The reason you avoid Microsoft updates is because you don't know how
to install them, don't know how or don't want to operate your
computer in a supported manner, don't know how to maintain your
computer, and/or don't know how to keep malware away. These are the
things that cause updates to damage a computer.

As for how vulnerable your computer is without the updates...who
cares? It's not my data that's at risk.

Daddy
Sheesh! Acting out your role as Daddy and scolding a child, or what?

There are two sides to the Windows Update controversy here.

One is that Microsoft has had a lousy track record putting out patches
and updates that mess up a system, and then, Whoops! They put out a
correction. True fact. Happened all too often in the early days of
XP.

The other side is that Microsoft has tried to get better at this patch
process and actually succeeded, although people who update regularly
get harrassed again and again to install Windows Genuine Advantage.
Heavens! There may be a software pirate among us!

Whether to update or not all depends on how much one trusts
Microsoft's technical knowhow and how much personal information is at
stake.

... Ben Myers
My Dimension 4500 is almost nine years old and has received 341 updates
with no problems whatsoever. And I have Windows Genuine Advantage,
which has never bugged me about anything.

No one is saying that Microsoft Update is perfect. But when people
complain about it in newsgroups and online forums, most of the time
they're the author of their own troubles, not Microsoft.

In computing, as in life, there are lots of things you don't like.
(Who's idea was the Alternative Minimum Tax?) But as any Daddy knows,
you can't shirk your responsibilities by blaming your troubles on
everyone else.

Daddy

Daddy, think as you may but simply put, do you feel safer after 341
updates? Will it make you feel safer if you get 342 updates instead?

And do you think it is possible for a person who installs software
each year that the 300+ updates might cause problems eventually. If
you want to trust MS, that's your business. I prefer to live a
simpler, less stressful life.
As you wish, RnR. For the record, I actually do feel safer after all
those updates. And updates give me zero stress, since I know how to deal
with them. Another source of comfort: If an update ever did go badly, I
would simply restore my system partition from that day's image. (For
major upgrades I make an image before upgrading.)

Something else that you might consider: Maybe you don't care if your
computer gets infected - that's your right - but perhaps you would care
about all the other computers that your computer can infect?

Daddy

There are people who practice safe computing without all the updates and
anti-virus and anti-malware and anti-everything else. And they don't even
use a condom while at their computer. There is no substitute for actually
thinking for a bit before responding to that email from the guy wanting to
get millions out of Nigeria or that browser pop-up offering something for
nothing... Ben Myers


Ben

Could you not say that quite so loud? To date, I have no acquired a
half dozen clients who despite repeated warnings and service calls to clean
up their systems, simple can not resist clicking on any "Special Offer
(etc.)" that pops up on their screen, It's the same old drill almost
everytime, but I repeatedly warn them as to what is and is not safe. I feel
I have done my best to teach them how to protect themselves, but to no
avail. In all cases I have exceeded due diligence and still they persist.

On the upside, I get paid and for a few weeks/months their systems run
reasonably well until the gunk builds up or they click on a really bad item.

Last week I actually saw Vostro with 2 Gb of RAM that had so much
ad/malware that you couldn't see the desk top for all of the pop-ups.




KC,

I, too, have clients who click before they think. My assumption is that
they are not astute enough to access usenet newsgroups, or maybe just
not graybeards who have known about usenet for a long time.

I didn't mean to undercut your business. Or mine, as evidenced by
computers raining out of the clouds here this week... Ben
  #34  
Old April 17th 09, 04:56 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Ben Myers[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,607
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

Daddy wrote:
wrote:
As I said, we have different philosophies. I just feel more

comfortable not relying on MS for protection and prefer to go to other
multiple sources. Let's face it, MS hasn't been known to be very
secure and your 300+ updates, sorta backs that up. And it is not
because I can't reverse a bad update tho sometimes this is a pain. And
as I said before I do NOT claim I am bulletproof but I feel more
protected my way.

I must say I agree more with your philosophy...than the "blind trust"
one!

Daddy saidI update my operating system because it's the smart thing
to do, not
because I'm a Microsoft-lover.
"Smart" according to whom?


Lol...

"Smart" accordingly to virtually every reputable PC publication.
Oh...you probably don't trust them. They just say that in hopes of
getting advertising from Microsoft, right? Get a life.

Daddy


Having worked for a number of years once upon a time for computer trade
rags, I will state point-blank that there is no Chinese wall between the
ad department and the editorial department. The editorial folk may
claim there is one, but that is another large steaming pile of horse
manure in this business. Consider that Micro$oft spends a major amount
of money on advertising, and then think about how much influence they
have on editorial content. (I am not so sure the Chinese ad-editorial
wall exists for computers even with mainstream media like the WSJ, NYT,
Time, etc.)

I once wrote a review comparing Microsoft C++, Watcom C++, Symantec C++
and Borland C++, complete with well-structured benchmark tests of
compile times and execution times for compiled programs. (This was a
long time ago, in the dark days of MS-DOS!) I had no axe to grind. I
just reported objective results with no preconceived idea as to which
compiler was the best. Well, you guessed it. Microsoft and their PR
flaks at Waggoner-Edstrom went nuts, tried to discredit me, tried to
discredit the tests used, and so on and so on, when their precious
Microsoft C++ compiler was outperformed by other compilers on the tests.
Never mind that its integrated editor-compiler-debugger was great.
They drank their own kool-aid a lot, and their product was better than
any other. How could I dare to show that it was not up to the mark in
other ways?

This is just one of a long series of encounters with Micro$oft during my
journalistic career and beyond that have led me to trust them about as
much as the Russian Politburo, Kim Il Jong, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad and
others of the same ilk. As Mr Reagan used to say in his very best words
of wisdom: "Trust and verify", and that applies to patches, too... Ben Myers
  #35  
Old April 17th 09, 05:05 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

In
,
typed on Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:36:51 -0700 (PDT):
Thanks for any comments.


After following this discussion for some time, I'm shocked that the
following hasn't been brought up.

1) Software developers have been known to play coding tricks to harm
their competitors' products. And in the case of Windows Updates, it has
been shown to break some of Microsoft's competitors' products. Microsoft
isn't the only one doing this, as some of Microsoft competitors' also
done the same thing towards Microsoft as well.

2a) Nobody has mentioned that using Microsoft's EWF (which is free, if
you search for it) which turns a Windows XP install into a read only
environment. Thus no amount of Windows Updates or third party security
software *could* protect you any better. It even protects you against
zero day exploits. Which no Windows Updates or anti-virus software can
protect you against.

2b) If you don't like EWF for some reason, the free Sandboxie also does
a similar thing. As you run all of your Internet applications in a boxed
in environment. Thus protecting the OS and the rest of your hard drive
from evil exploits.

And speaking about Windows Updates, I have found no evidence whatsoever
that an un-updated Windows running an up-to-date anti-virus checker and
anti-malware real time scanners leaves you any less protected. Windows
Updates only protects you if you don't, as far as I can tell.

Also remember that this thread is about whether or not SP3 is worth it.
Yet some argues that you should if you want the Windows security
updates. Well this isn't so either. As SP2 is still receiving security
updates too. At least for a time to come anyway.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2


  #36  
Old April 17th 09, 05:28 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Daddy[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 367
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

Ben Myers wrote:
Daddy wrote:
wrote:
As I said, we have different philosophies. I just feel more
comfortable not relying on MS for protection and prefer to go to other
multiple sources. Let's face it, MS hasn't been known to be very
secure and your 300+ updates, sorta backs that up. And it is not
because I can't reverse a bad update tho sometimes this is a pain. And
as I said before I do NOT claim I am bulletproof but I feel more
protected my way.

I must say I agree more with your philosophy...than the "blind trust"
one!

Daddy saidI update my operating system because it's the smart thing
to do, not
because I'm a Microsoft-lover.
"Smart" according to whom?


Lol...

"Smart" accordingly to virtually every reputable PC publication.
Oh...you probably don't trust them. They just say that in hopes of
getting advertising from Microsoft, right? Get a life.

Daddy


Having worked for a number of years once upon a time for computer trade
rags, I will state point-blank that there is no Chinese wall between the
ad department and the editorial department. The editorial folk may
claim there is one, but that is another large steaming pile of horse
manure in this business. Consider that Micro$oft spends a major amount
of money on advertising, and then think about how much influence they
have on editorial content. (I am not so sure the Chinese ad-editorial
wall exists for computers even with mainstream media like the WSJ, NYT,
Time, etc.)

I once wrote a review comparing Microsoft C++, Watcom C++, Symantec C++
and Borland C++, complete with well-structured benchmark tests of
compile times and execution times for compiled programs. (This was a
long time ago, in the dark days of MS-DOS!) I had no axe to grind. I
just reported objective results with no preconceived idea as to which
compiler was the best. Well, you guessed it. Microsoft and their PR
flaks at Waggoner-Edstrom went nuts, tried to discredit me, tried to
discredit the tests used, and so on and so on, when their precious
Microsoft C++ compiler was outperformed by other compilers on the tests.
Never mind that its integrated editor-compiler-debugger was great. They
drank their own kool-aid a lot, and their product was better than any
other. How could I dare to show that it was not up to the mark in other
ways?

This is just one of a long series of encounters with Micro$oft during my
journalistic career and beyond that have led me to trust them about as
much as the Russian Politburo, Kim Il Jong, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad and
others of the same ilk. As Mr Reagan used to say in his very best words
of wisdom: "Trust and verify", and that applies to patches, too... Ben
Myers


Let's not forget all those commies in the government.

Daddy
  #37  
Old April 17th 09, 10:13 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
RnR[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,394
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:28:31 -0400, Daddy
wrote:

Ben Myers wrote:
Daddy wrote:
wrote:
As I said, we have different philosophies. I just feel more
comfortable not relying on MS for protection and prefer to go to other
multiple sources. Let's face it, MS hasn't been known to be very
secure and your 300+ updates, sorta backs that up. And it is not
because I can't reverse a bad update tho sometimes this is a pain. And
as I said before I do NOT claim I am bulletproof but I feel more
protected my way.

I must say I agree more with your philosophy...than the "blind trust"
one!

Daddy saidI update my operating system because it's the smart thing
to do, not
because I'm a Microsoft-lover.
"Smart" according to whom?

Lol...

"Smart" accordingly to virtually every reputable PC publication.
Oh...you probably don't trust them. They just say that in hopes of
getting advertising from Microsoft, right? Get a life.

Daddy


Having worked for a number of years once upon a time for computer trade
rags, I will state point-blank that there is no Chinese wall between the
ad department and the editorial department. The editorial folk may
claim there is one, but that is another large steaming pile of horse
manure in this business. Consider that Micro$oft spends a major amount
of money on advertising, and then think about how much influence they
have on editorial content. (I am not so sure the Chinese ad-editorial
wall exists for computers even with mainstream media like the WSJ, NYT,
Time, etc.)

I once wrote a review comparing Microsoft C++, Watcom C++, Symantec C++
and Borland C++, complete with well-structured benchmark tests of
compile times and execution times for compiled programs. (This was a
long time ago, in the dark days of MS-DOS!) I had no axe to grind. I
just reported objective results with no preconceived idea as to which
compiler was the best. Well, you guessed it. Microsoft and their PR
flaks at Waggoner-Edstrom went nuts, tried to discredit me, tried to
discredit the tests used, and so on and so on, when their precious
Microsoft C++ compiler was outperformed by other compilers on the tests.
Never mind that its integrated editor-compiler-debugger was great. They
drank their own kool-aid a lot, and their product was better than any
other. How could I dare to show that it was not up to the mark in other
ways?

This is just one of a long series of encounters with Micro$oft during my
journalistic career and beyond that have led me to trust them about as
much as the Russian Politburo, Kim Il Jong, Gaddafi, Ahmadinejad and
others of the same ilk. As Mr Reagan used to say in his very best words
of wisdom: "Trust and verify", and that applies to patches, too... Ben
Myers


Let's not forget all those commies in the government.

Daddy



Daddy, with all due respect, I prefer to trust the masses on the
internet than the few trade mags. Of course you can trust who you
please but when you read a lot as I do on the net and been around a
while (also since the DOS days.... aka Wolverton books from which I
learned from then), you begin to see patterns and learn where to tread
upon and away from. As I said, we just have different philosophies
about this subject.

Going off a little on what Ben spoke of, I was alarmed years ago when
I read that as Ben pointed out, many usenet posters said Consumer
Reports was biased to their advertisers despite what they claimed. Now
I guess you can believe as you please but I figured Consumer Reports
had a reason to claim innocence while I figured why would so many
posters claim otherwise unless they might have some basis to their
opinion. And I'm not just talking of a few posters neither. So Ben
may very well be telling the truth. If you had a magazine to run and
one advertiser paid you lots of money to advertise in your mag, would
you want to rock their boat and see the advertising dollars go
elsewhere??? I know I wouldn't. Unfortunately that creates a
conflict of interest as Ben was pointing out.

And you are probably right... we probably have commies, gays, obese
people and lots of other types in our government. I'm leaving the US
tho when we get a woman for President and I wouldn't be surprised if
that doesn't happen in the next 16 years or so g.
  #38  
Old April 17th 09, 10:45 PM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
BillW50
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,698
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

In ,
RnR typed on Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:13:20 -0500:
Daddy, with all due respect, I prefer to trust the masses on the
internet than the few trade mags. Of course you can trust who you
please but when you read a lot as I do on the net and been around a
while (also since the DOS days.... aka Wolverton books from which I
learned from then), you begin to see patterns and learn where to tread
upon and away from. As I said, we just have different philosophies
about this subject.


Being an electronic engineer, I don't have a lot of respect for
journalists. Most of them seem to just know enough to be dangerous. The
best of both worlds IMHO is an engineer who is also a writer. Although
if they are funded by advertisers, they are almost always biased if they
want to keep their job.

Going off a little on what Ben spoke of, I was alarmed years ago when
I read that as Ben pointed out, many usenet posters said Consumer
Reports was biased to their advertisers despite what they claimed. Now
I guess you can believe as you please but I figured Consumer Reports
had a reason to claim innocence while I figured why would so many
posters claim otherwise unless they might have some basis to their
opinion. And I'm not just talking of a few posters neither. So Ben
may very well be telling the truth. If you had a magazine to run and
one advertiser paid you lots of money to advertise in your mag, would
you want to rock their boat and see the advertising dollars go
elsewhere??? I know I wouldn't. Unfortunately that creates a
conflict of interest as Ben was pointing out.


Wait! What is this about Consumer Reports? They don't accept
advertising. So this shouldn't be a problem. Although my personal beef
with Consumer Reports are they are too amateurish IMHO. As I feel they
need some real engineers.

And you are probably right... we probably have commies, gays, obese
people and lots of other types in our government. I'm leaving the US
tho when we get a woman for President and I wouldn't be surprised if
that doesn't happen in the next 16 years or so g.


I am not too worried about the government. As the US is probably headed
for another civil war and it will straighten itself out in time. I hear
tell that the FBI views anybody who doesn't like what the government is
doing as fanatics and are a danger to National Security. Although I see
these same people as trying to keep the US Constitution alive.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2


  #39  
Old April 18th 09, 12:38 AM posted to alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 226
Default OT/If I Have XP SP2...Is there any "real" need to install SP3?

It would seem here...you need to get a life. And you need to grow-
up...to be daddy you were intended to be.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is "USB-drive time bomb" for real? Danny[_4_] Storage (alternative) 6 March 3rd 09 05:23 AM
When will the Intel "real" quad-core processor come out? phuile General 20 February 9th 07 01:52 AM
The Real Reason "Why To Buy A Dell" almost to funny ( Video-Clip ) [email protected] Dell Computers 5 March 24th 06 04:30 PM
The Real Reason "Why To Buy A Dell" almost to funny ( Video-Clip ) [email protected] Homebuilt PC's 1 March 23rd 06 12:51 PM
The Real Reason "Why To Buy A Dell" almost to funny ( Video-Clip ) [email protected] Storage (alternative) 0 March 23rd 06 07:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.