XP SP-2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?

Rick
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I've had it since the public beta. I now have it on my two desktops & one
laptop. No issues beyond having to update Norton.

Do a good backup & smoke test it!

--
Steve
OldManCompute

"Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
> Rick
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Steve and Peter,

I have three home/office computers running XP Home and one laptop running XP
Pro. Should I download SP2 from this site:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en

Halfway down the page it says:
DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more
appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update. To receive
this download, turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP to
receive an optimized download of SP2. Please visit Protect Your PC for more
information on receiving Windows XP SP2.

All my PCs are connected via a network, so it seems more efficient to
download SP2 once and copy the installation file to the other PCs rather
than run Windows Update four times.

What do you think? Am I asking for trouble downloading the installation
file that is supposedly for IT professionals only? (I am definitely not an
IT professional.)

Thanks!

John



"Steve Colburn" <colddayDEL@MEgci.net> wrote in message
news:10i85j8pkcr22cf@corp.supernews.com...
> I've had it since the public beta. I now have it on my two desktops & one
> laptop. No issues beyond having to update Norton.
>
> Do a good backup & smoke test it!
>
> --
> Steve
> OldManCompute
>
> "Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> > Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:40:46 -0400, "Rick & Darlene"
<Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote:

>Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
>Rick
>

It has reduced performance on two systems of mine (noticably, but not
tremendously).

I turned the firewall off since I have a NAT gateway that only lets
limited traffic through anyway.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

John Blaustein wrote:
> Steve and Peter,
>
> I have three home/office computers running XP Home and one laptop running XP
> Pro. Should I download SP2 from this site:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en
>
> Halfway down the page it says:
> DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more
> appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update. To receive
> this download, turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP to
> receive an optimized download of SP2. Please visit Protect Your PC for more
> information on receiving Windows XP SP2.
>
> All my PCs are connected via a network, so it seems more efficient to
> download SP2 once and copy the installation file to the other PCs rather
> than run Windows Update four times.
>
> What do you think? Am I asking for trouble downloading the installation
> file that is supposedly for IT professionals only? (I am definitely not an
> IT professional.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> John
>
>
I downloaded the huge copy, it makes for a better slipstream, in case I
have to re-install any stations.

Oh, and just FYI, it b0rks NERO Ultra Edition, I had to download an
update to make it work again (how does firewalling and DEP affect a burner?)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"singha_lvr" <singha_lvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:m5f8i0lrtjptfqd9c2dvqo30kij5avq9a6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:40:46 -0400, "Rick & Darlene"
> <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
> >
> >Rick
> >
>
> It has reduced performance on two systems of mine (noticably, but not
> tremendously).
>
> I turned the firewall off since I have a NAT gateway that only lets
> limited traffic through anyway.

You should be running other software firewall software in that case as a NAT
gateway only stops incoming traffic.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
> Rick
>
>

I have it on two different machines(Intel/AMD) and it works fine.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I installed the SP2 RC-2 we get on CD and everything's fine.

"Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> ¦b¶l¥ó
news:lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com ¤¤¼¶¼g...
> Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
> Rick
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I haven't downloaded it yet and think I will wait till I hear positive
comments. If you are a gamer this link may cause you to wait like me. 🙂

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/warcraft3reignofchaos/news_6104980.html

--
Tip
www.gotips.net

"Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
> Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
> Rick
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

IBM Huh? I read the "IBM" Statement too and it was an admission that they
had not bothered to do any internal testing of their own software for their
own internal systems when they had many months in which to do that testing.
Further it was an admission that the person that made the statement was a
pillock. I wouldn't be surprised to find he is now unemployed for slating
all those he worked with. IBM may not be my favourite company, but I am
quite sure they have an enormous number of capable people working for them
and not all of them would agree that it was appropriate to release the
statement referred to.

Do you have a reference to this next claim? I have such a list and it is not
very long at all.

"The list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
apps."
_______________________________________________________________
How many MS Windows Apps are there?

I think the answer to the above equation is very close to ZERO. If you cross
reference the above supposed LONG list with the list of software products
that need firewall configuration (Q842242) , you will find there are
specific issues and fixes for many of them.

You need to do a little bit more research.

I get seriously pissed off when something good comes along such as SP2 and
uninformed people regurgitate erroneously and out of context often
misreported information that has little if any bearing on reality. The
reality is that daily many many thousands of people are deploying SP2
without issue. The biggest single source of problems would be systems that
are already stuffed with virii and worms. Quite frankly I think it is
downright irresponsible to express an opinion that is flawed as Pete D has
that will discourage users from installing a much needed service pack which
will help protect them *and others* from the scum of software writers.

- Tim



"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:MOXUc.710$F7.334@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I have installed on two machines, it totally borked one but the other is
> running fine. If really need to ask yourself if you need SP2, IBM I
> understand has put out a request too all there customers not to use it.
> The
> list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
> apps.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884130
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:cg1rof$j68$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> IBM Huh? I read the "IBM" Statement too and it was an admission that they
> had not bothered to do any internal testing of their own software for
their
> own internal systems when they had many months in which to do that
testing.
> Further it was an admission that the person that made the statement was a
> pillock. I wouldn't be surprised to find he is now unemployed for slating
> all those he worked with. IBM may not be my favourite company, but I am
> quite sure they have an enormous number of capable people working for them
> and not all of them would agree that it was appropriate to release the
> statement referred to.
>
> Do you have a reference to this next claim? I have such a list and it is
not
> very long at all.
>
> "The list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of
Microsoft
> apps."
> ______

Encarta Enzyklopädie 2002 Microsoft
Age of Empires II: Age of Kings --- Microsoft
Application Center 2000 SP2 --- Microsoft
BizTalk 2004 --- Microsoft
CMS 2001 Microsoft
Combat Flight Simulator 3 1 Microsoft
Excel 2003 Microsoft
Halo Combat Evolved (Arabic and Hebrew) Trial Microsoft
MapPoint Europe 2004 Microsoft
Microsoft Operations Manager 2000 SP1 Microsoft
MS License 3.7 Microsoft
MSBN --- Microsoft
MSN 7.02 Microsoft
MSN 9 QFE1 and 9.1 beta 9 Microsoft
Office 11 Microsoft
Office - Power Point 2002 (German) 2002 Microsoft
Office Access 2002 2002 Microsoft
Office System - Power Point 2003 Microsoft
Office XP Access 10 Microsoft
Office XP Professional Excel 10.0 SP2 --- Microsoft
Office XP SP2 - PowerPoint 11 Microsoft
Office XP Standard 10 Microsoft
Outlook 2000 9 Microsoft
Outlook 2002 10 Microsoft
Outlook 2003 11 Microsoft
Outlook Web Access x Microsoft
Revenge of Arcade v1.0 Microsoft
Server Administrator Tools --- Microsoft
SMS 2.0 SP5 Microsoft
SMS 2.0 SP5 Microsoft
SMS 2003 RC2 Microsoft
SMS 2003 RTM Microsoft
SMS --- Microsoft
SNA Server 4.0 SP4 --- Microsoft
SQL --- Microsoft
SQL 7 Microsoft
SQL 2000a SP3 Microsoft
TaxSaver 1999 Microsoft
Virtual PC 2004 Microsoft
Visual Basic 6 Microsoft
Visual C++ (16-bit) 2 Microsoft
Visual Studio 7 Microsoft
Visual Studio 97 Microsoft
Visual Studio .NET Enterprise 2003 --- Microsoft
Visual Studio 98 6 Microsoft
Windows Sharepoint Services 2 Microsoft
Windows Sharepoint Services --- Microsoft
Word XP Microsoft
Works Suite 2004 2004 Microsoft
WSS 2 Microsoft



_________________________________________________________
> How many MS Windows Apps are there?
>
> I think the answer to the above equation is very close to ZERO. If you
cross
> reference the above supposed LONG list with the list of software products
> that need firewall configuration (Q842242) , you will find there are
> specific issues and fixes for many of them.
>
> You need to do a little bit more research.
>
> I get seriously pissed off when something good comes along such as SP2 and
> uninformed people regurgitate erroneously and out of context often
> misreported information that has little if any bearing on reality. The
> reality is that daily many many thousands of people are deploying SP2
> without issue. The biggest single source of problems would be systems that
> are already stuffed with virii and worms. Quite frankly I think it is
> downright irresponsible to express an opinion that is flawed as Pete D has
> that will discourage users from installing a much needed service pack
which
> will help protect them *and others* from the scum of software writers.
>
> - Tim
>
>
>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:MOXUc.710$F7.334@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >I have installed on two machines, it totally borked one but the other is
> > running fine. If really need to ask yourself if you need SP2, IBM I
> > understand has put out a request too all there customers not to use it.
> > The
> > list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
> > apps.
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884130
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Microsoft-Lists-XP-SP--Problems&story_id=26344&category=entcmpt


"Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:cg1rof$j68$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> IBM Huh? I read the "IBM" Statement too and it was an admission that they
> had not bothered to do any internal testing of their own software for
their
> own internal systems when they had many months in which to do that
testing.
> Further it was an admission that the person that made the statement was a
> pillock. I wouldn't be surprised to find he is now unemployed for slating
> all those he worked with. IBM may not be my favourite company, but I am
> quite sure they have an enormous number of capable people working for them
> and not all of them would agree that it was appropriate to release the
> statement referred to.
>
> Do you have a reference to this next claim? I have such a list and it is
not
> very long at all.
>
> "The list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of
Microsoft
> apps."
> _______________________________________________________________
> How many MS Windows Apps are there?
>
> I think the answer to the above equation is very close to ZERO. If you
cross
> reference the above supposed LONG list with the list of software products
> that need firewall configuration (Q842242) , you will find there are
> specific issues and fixes for many of them.
>
> You need to do a little bit more research.
>
> I get seriously pissed off when something good comes along such as SP2 and
> uninformed people regurgitate erroneously and out of context often
> misreported information that has little if any bearing on reality. The
> reality is that daily many many thousands of people are deploying SP2
> without issue. The biggest single source of problems would be systems that
> are already stuffed with virii and worms. Quite frankly I think it is
> downright irresponsible to express an opinion that is flawed as Pete D has
> that will discourage users from installing a much needed service pack
which
> will help protect them *and others* from the scum of software writers.
>
> - Tim
>
>
>
> "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> news:MOXUc.710$F7.334@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >I have installed on two machines, it totally borked one but the other is
> > running fine. If really need to ask yourself if you need SP2, IBM I
> > understand has put out a request too all there customers not to use it.
> > The
> > list of affected software is very long and includes a lot of Microsoft
> > apps.
> >
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;884130
> >
> >
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Yes, it's been out for over a week (came out last Tuesday). You can get
it here:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en

In my opinion, the update itself is near perfect and bug free.
Basically all of the issues fall into one of two categories:

1. The firewall blocks ports needed by some applications. However it's
easy to unblock them, and they are unblocked only for that application.

2. A few -- very few -- programs truly have issues, but from what I've
seen, the bugs are in those programs, not the service pack, and updates
for those programs are being released very, very quickly (most are
already out).

The link above is to the FULL SP2 update. It's bigger than most people
will need, but it is the final "gold" release. What's not out yet are
both various distribution channels (e.g. you can't get the update
"delivered" via Windows Update -- yet), and the "breakdown" smaller
versions of the service pack for only specific versions of Windows (only
Home, only Pro, only Tablet PC, only Media PC, etc.). However the link
above has EVERYTHING, and will update an original Windows XP (without
even SP1) to SP2 with every security patch and update (including
DirectX, Windows Media Player and IE) as of last week. It also works
for any version of Windows that had been fully or partially updated. In
short, it's the one you want when you want the very best [all of the
scary "network and system administrator only" warnings at the microsoft
downloage page above not withstanding].



Rick & Darlene wrote:

> Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
> Rick
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

I can only tell what happened to me...I used that version and installed it
seperately on 2 networked computers...one was fine the other was not.The version
that will be on the XP update site will not be as large ....as it will see what
you have and then only update what you are missing....but I wanted a copy to
keep for future use.
I believe the failure rate is very very small if you follow most of the
instructions.Something on my 2nd system did not agree with SP2..maybe my
overclock...maybe the version of ZoneAlarm I was running...who knows.
I would download it again from that site if needed ..it doesn't matter if you
are installing for a network or stand alone system.
peter
"John Blaustein" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:xv-dnZwHhdfXh7ncRVn-gA@lmi.net...
> Steve and Peter,
>
> I have three home/office computers running XP Home and one laptop running XP
> Pro. Should I download SP2 from this site:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=049C9DBE-3B8E-4F30-8245-9E368D3CDB5A&displaylang=en
>
> Halfway down the page it says:
> DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more
> appropriate download will be available soon on Windows Update. To receive
> this download, turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP to
> receive an optimized download of SP2. Please visit Protect Your PC for more
> information on receiving Windows XP SP2.
>
> All my PCs are connected via a network, so it seems more efficient to
> download SP2 once and copy the installation file to the other PCs rather
> than run Windows Update four times.
>
> What do you think? Am I asking for trouble downloading the installation
> file that is supposedly for IT professionals only? (I am definitely not an
> IT professional.)
>
> Thanks!
>
> John
>
>
>
> "Steve Colburn" <colddayDEL@MEgci.net> wrote in message
> news:10i85j8pkcr22cf@corp.supernews.com...
>> I've had it since the public beta. I now have it on my two desktops & one
>> laptop. No issues beyond having to update Norton.
>>
>> Do a good backup & smoke test it!
>>
>> --
>> Steve
>> OldManCompute
>>
>> "Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
>> > Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>> >
>> > Rick
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Well, since we all need or will contemplate getting it, it has everything to
do with this group! If you are running XP....nuff said!!! (However, I did
not think it would generate this much interest!)

Rick

"Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
news:41253aab$0$51061$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> What has XP SP2 got to do with this group??
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Re: "The version that will be on the XP update site will not be as large"

That's not exactly right.

The windows update version will download a 1.6 MB program that will
examine your system and then further download only and exactly what your
system needs.

The 270 MB version has everything in it that ANY system might need. All
files that the 1.6 MB program might possibly download and install.

BUT, what actually ends up getting installed on any given system under
these two installation schemes is EXACTLY the same, in the end. There
is no difference.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

As I understood the size thing ...if you are up to date on your updates it will
not be as large an update as the 270mb that you download
which has all the updates in it since SP1
?????
peter
"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4125635C.6040705@neo.rr.com...
> Re: "The version that will be on the XP update site will not be as large"
>
> That's not exactly right.
>
> The windows update version will download a 1.6 MB program that will examine
> your system and then further download only and exactly what your system needs.
>
> The 270 MB version has everything in it that ANY system might need. All files
> that the 1.6 MB program might possibly download and install.
>
> BUT, what actually ends up getting installed on any given system under these
> two installation schemes is EXACTLY the same, in the end. There is no
> difference.
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

ALL need it?
that remains to be seen.
I heard that when SP1 came out...........
I never bothered with it and I never had any problems
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:40:46 -0400, in
<lqKdnZQf9uu0jrncRVn-sw@comcast.com> (alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus)
"Rick & Darlene" <Bluemagic@comcast.net> wrote:

> Anyone get the SP-2 update for XP? "Is it safe yet"?
>
> Rick

I have the administrative (full 250Mb) version, and have applied it to
four machines (two PIIIs, an AMD XP 1900+ and an AMD 64 3400+) without
noteable incident.

It will complain if you don't have XP Firewalling turned on, or if it
can't detect your Antivirus Software's active status. I have an IPCop
firewall that covers my LAN, and I always disable autoprotect before
applying things like this service pack, so I told it as much and it
became happy.

It closes a load of ports that should have been closed by default
before, so many things that relied on open ports will complain. It
will also reset some security related settings to a more secure
default, which may change the behaviour of some apps. All of these
things are configurable however - this won't surprise you if you have
Read TF Manual, but has caused a number of the Microphobes to froth a
little.

In conclusion I would say that it makes the OS safer, and is a sound
update. Of course, any tool is potentially limited by whoever wields
it :)

Cheers


--
Charlie
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Depending on where you were up to: no SP, SP1, RC1, or RC2, the further back
in time, the more will be downloaded. For my system it was about 35MB, for a
normal up to date SP1 I believe it is 60 - 80 MB so is achievable via dial
up as the downloader will resume interupted downloads from the point where
it last stopped & use spare bandwidth.

- Tim


"peter" <peter@telus.net> wrote in message
news:treVc.33065$X12.30118@edtnps84...
> As I understood the size thing ...if you are up to date on your updates it
> will not be as large an update as the 270mb that you download
> which has all the updates in it since SP1
> ?????
> peter
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4125635C.6040705@neo.rr.com...
>> Re: "The version that will be on the XP update site will not be as large"
>>
>> That's not exactly right.
>>
>> The windows update version will download a 1.6 MB program that will
>> examine your system and then further download only and exactly what your
>> system needs.
>>
>> The 270 MB version has everything in it that ANY system might need. All
>> files that the 1.6 MB program might possibly download and install.
>>
>> BUT, what actually ends up getting installed on any given system under
>> these two installation schemes is EXACTLY the same, in the end. There is
>> no difference.
>>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <_YnVc.161173$J06.147867@pd7tw2no>, callanca@shaw.ca says...
> There have been less than 20 *nix viruses, and Windows/DOS account for
> more than 60,000

But there are new holes found in applications that run on Nix boxes
every month, many of which give the attacker root access - just look at
all the postings from HP about HPUX and the apps that run on it.

There is no such thing as a secure platform.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Leythos wrote:
> In article <_YnVc.161173$J06.147867@pd7tw2no>, callanca@shaw.ca says...
>
>>There have been less than 20 *nix viruses, and Windows/DOS account for
>>more than 60,000
>
>
> But there are new holes found in applications that run on Nix boxes
> every month, many of which give the attacker root access - just look at
> all the postings from HP about HPUX and the apps that run on it.
>

Yes, but unlike in Windows, its not a security advisory for a whole
FAMILY of products, like 9x/ME or 2K/XP kernel, then an exploit hits 95,
98, 98se, me etc, where in *nix a virus is too dependant on require very
specific versions of programs to exploit.

/Most/ of the security advisories for *nix machines that are local root
exploits, assume that a person has an account already, and is within
your firewall, /AND/ runs that precise version of a service.

So a vulnerability in sendmail version 1.5.1 cannot be hit on 1.5.0 or
1.5.2 normally, it is this diversity and not a monoculture that has
stopped *nix viruses from becoming larger than they are, there is not as
many vulnerable machines to exploit, and even if you hit every box
running said version of a service, it's still a dead end, as you have no
more to infect, the rest aren't able to be infected.

If you can't trust people on the internal net, no OS will save you.

Infecting *nix from the outside is a lot harder than Windows where
everything is executable.

> There is no such thing as a secure platform.
>

Agreed, but *nix and its model is inherently a better security model for
a NETWORKED os, which is pretty much a requirement for most devices
nowadays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom