1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Vista VS XP overclocking

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by leadfoot, Feb 22, 2007.

  1. leadfoot

    leadfoot Guest

    Any one have opinions on which works better as a overclocking operating
    system. And does it make a difference if you have AMD or Intel?
     
    1. Advertising

  2. Wes Newell

    Wes Newell Guest

    On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:23:01 -0700, leadfoot wrote:

    > Any one have opinions on which works better as a overclocking operating
    > system. And does it make a difference if you have AMD or Intel?


    CPU shouldn't matter, but I've heard Vista is a a resource hog mainly to
    do with all the DRM crap imbedded in it and running all the time eating up
    cpu cycles. Personally I couldn't care less. I've never run MS on any of
    my personal machines.

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    http://mysettopbox.tv/knoppmyth.html Usenet alt.video.ptv.mythtv
    My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php
    HD Tivo S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
     
    1. Advertising

  3. Ed Light

    Ed Light Guest

  4. Art

    Art Guest

    "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    news:T1sDh.5493$...
    > It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two, maybe.
    >
    > It's slower than XP.
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    > --


    That's interesting. I upgraded XP on my laptop right after it came out and
    it runs significantly faster. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.

    My laptop:

    Gateway 6421
    AMD Turion 64 ML-32
    1 GB RAM
    100 GB HD
    ATI 200M integrated graphics (it runs Aero and Flip 3d just fine)
    Vista Home Premium Upgrade 32 bit (from XP Media Center)

    I put it on my other home machine:
    AMD 64 X2 4200
    2 GB RAM
    250 GB Sata Drive
    ATI 2006 All-In-Wonder
    Vista Home Premium OEM 32 bit

    Runs great on that one too. The only driver problem I had was with the AIWs
    capture but a quick Google fixed that.

    I just got 2 more licenses from Newegg and am upgrading my wife and
    daughter's computers.

    I like it. It hasn't crashed once. Every program I use runs well on it.
    It shows 50% RAM usage base but I can run alot of stuff on it before it
    budges much above that mark.

    Like I said, guess I got lucky but I like like it much better than XP.

    Art
     
  5. Bob

    Bob Guest

  6. leadfoot

    leadfoot Guest

    "Bob" <> wrote in message
    news:9YLDh.989$...
    > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    > news:T1sDh.5493$...
    >> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two,
    >> maybe.
    >>
    >> It's slower than XP.
    >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    >> --
    >> Ed Light
    >>
    >> Bring the Troops Home:
    >> http://bringthemhomenow.org
    >> http://antiwar.com
    >>
    >> Send spam to the FTC at
    >>
    >> Thanks, robots.

    >
    > Another bunch of tests to ponder:
    > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp


    The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which OS
    provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest FSB


    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  7. Phil Weldon

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'leadfoot' wrote:
    | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which OS
    | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest FSB
    _____

    The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    Nothing at all. In any way.

    The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of memory
    used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say, Windows
    2000 or later.

    Phil Weldon


    "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    news:duSDh.81057$...
    |
    | "Bob" <> wrote in message
    | news:9YLDh.989$...
    | > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    | > news:T1sDh.5493$...
    | >> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two,
    | >> maybe.
    | >>
    | >> It's slower than XP.
    | >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    | >> --
    | >> Ed Light
    | >>
    | >> Bring the Troops Home:
    | >> http://bringthemhomenow.org
    | >> http://antiwar.com
    | >>
    | >> Send spam to the FTC at
    | >>
    | >> Thanks, robots.
    | >
    | > Another bunch of tests to ponder:
    | > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp
    |
    | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which OS
    | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest FSB
    |
    |
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | >
    | >
    |
    |
     
  8. leadfoot

    leadfoot Guest

    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    news:nCSDh.5905$...
    > 'leadfoot' wrote:
    > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which
    > OS
    > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest FSB
    > _____
    >
    > The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    > Nothing at all. In any way.
    >
    > The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of memory
    > used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say, Windows
    > 2000 or later.



    So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???

    You sure about that?


    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    >
    > "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    > news:duSDh.81057$...
    > |
    > | "Bob" <> wrote in message
    > | news:9YLDh.989$...
    > | > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    > | > news:T1sDh.5493$...
    > | >> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two,
    > | >> maybe.
    > | >>
    > | >> It's slower than XP.
    > | >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    > | >> --
    > | >> Ed Light
    > | >>
    > | >> Bring the Troops Home:
    > | >> http://bringthemhomenow.org
    > | >> http://antiwar.com
    > | >>
    > | >> Send spam to the FTC at
    > | >>
    > | >> Thanks, robots.
    > | >
    > | > Another bunch of tests to ponder:
    > | > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp
    > |
    > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which
    > OS
    > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest FSB
    > |
    > |
    > | >
    > | >
    > | >
    > | >
    > | >
    > |
    > |
    >
    >
     
  9. ED

    ED Guest

    "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    news:SpWDh.82852$...
    >
    > "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    > news:nCSDh.5905$...
    >> 'leadfoot' wrote:
    >> | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which
    >> OS
    >> | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    >> FSB
    >> _____
    >>
    >> The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    >> Nothing at all. In any way.
    >>
    >> The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
    >> memory
    >> used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say,
    >> Windows
    >> 2000 or later.

    >
    >
    > So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    > Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
    >
    > You sure about that?
    >

    Unless you want to go into your bios and change the speeds every time you
    boot. Phil is correct in the fact that the OS has nothing to do with your
    fsb speeds. Stability of the OS might be a different matter at OC'd speeds.
    I haven't had enough time with Vista to really give it a good run-through
    when overclocking to know if it is more or less stable than XP. Like Phil
    said, memory used and how it is accessed can make a huge difference in OS
    stability when hardware is overclocked (or not for that matter). Your best
    bet is to get as high as you can and still be stable in both OSs and leave
    it at that.

    Ed
     
  10. leadfoot

    leadfoot Guest

    "ED" <> wrote in message
    news:hh%Dh.1265$...
    >
    > "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    > news:SpWDh.82852$...
    >>
    >> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:nCSDh.5905$...
    >>> 'leadfoot' wrote:
    >>> | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
    >>> which OS
    >>> | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    >>> FSB
    >>> _____
    >>>
    >>> The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    >>> Nothing at all. In any way.
    >>>
    >>> The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
    >>> memory
    >>> used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say,
    >>> Windows
    >>> 2000 or later.

    >>
    >>
    >> So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    >> Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
    >>
    >> You sure about that?
    >>

    > Unless you want to go into your bios and change the speeds every time you
    > boot. Phil is correct in the fact that the OS has nothing to do with your
    > fsb speeds. Stability of the OS might be a different matter at OC'd
    > speeds. I haven't had enough time with Vista to really give it a good
    > run-through when overclocking to know if it is more or less stable than
    > XP. Like Phil said, memory used and how it is accessed can make a huge
    > difference in OS stability when hardware is overclocked (or not for that
    > matter). Your best bet is to get as high as you can and still be stable in
    > both OSs and leave it at that.


    I'm glad someone figured out what I was looking for. I'm not a newcomer to
    overclocking but I haven't posted here for a while. I seem to recall there
    was some controversy over XP over win98 as an overclocking system when XP
    came out so I though that the OS COULD have an impact on FSB stability. My
    guess was that XP would be better due to all the resources being used by
    Vista but I would thing that a few people have done OC in both OS and might
    have an opinion by now.






    >
    > Ed
    >
     
  11. Phil Weldon

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'leadfoot' wrote:
    | So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    | Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
    |
    | You sure about that?
    _____

    Perhaps you might get a more productive answer if you posted what you wish
    to do, rather than ask a somewhat abstract question.

    If you want a USABLE overclock, then pick the fastest overclock setting that
    allows stable operation for YOUR applications and operating system.

    If you want bragging rights, then boot up with DOS and an assembler language
    idle loop.

    If you want fast speed for games or image processing, where occasional
    errors are unnoticeable, then you can get by with a higher speed overclock
    for those applications than for applications that require accuracy at the
    expense of overclock level.

    There are no guarantees in overclocking, so choose overclock levels
    appropriate for YOUR needs.

    To answer you latest question; sure, you can have a dual boot system
    overclocked to FSB 265 for Windows XP and Vista overclocked to 255 FSB. So
    what? That's why it's an abstract question - there's no context.

    Phil Weldon

    "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    news:SpWDh.82852$...
    |
    | "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    | news:nCSDh.5905$...
    | > 'leadfoot' wrote:
    | > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
    which
    | > OS
    | > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    FSB
    | > _____
    | >
    | > The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    | > Nothing at all. In any way.
    | >
    | > The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
    memory
    | > used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say,
    Windows
    | > 2000 or later.
    |
    |
    | So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    | Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
    |
    | You sure about that?
    |
    |
    | >
    | > Phil Weldon
    | >
    | >
    | > "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    | > news:duSDh.81057$...
    | > |
    | > | "Bob" <> wrote in message
    | > | news:9YLDh.989$...
    | > | > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    | > | > news:T1sDh.5493$...
    | > | >> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two,
    | > | >> maybe.
    | > | >>
    | > | >> It's slower than XP.
    | > | >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    | > | >> --
    | > | >> Ed Light
    | > | >>
    | > | >> Bring the Troops Home:
    | > | >> http://bringthemhomenow.org
    | > | >> http://antiwar.com
    | > | >>
    | > | >> Send spam to the FTC at
    | > | >>
    | > | >> Thanks, robots.
    | > | >
    | > | > Another bunch of tests to ponder:
    | > | > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp
    | > |
    | > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
    which
    | > OS
    | > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    FSB
    | > |
    | > |
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > | >
    | > |
    | > |
    | >
    | >
    |
    |
     
  12. Phil Weldon

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'leadfoot' wrote:
    | I'm glad someone figured out what I was looking for. I'm not a newcomer
    to
    | overclocking but I haven't posted here for a while. I seem to recall
    there
    | was some controversy over XP over win98 as an overclocking system when XP
    | came out so I though that the OS COULD have an impact on FSB stability.
    My
    | guess was that XP would be better due to all the resources being used by
    | Vista but I would thing that a few people have done OC in both OS and
    might
    | have an opinion by now.
    _____

    Again, the operating system has nothing to do with a stable overclock. Even
    though the Windows Vista operating system uses more resources than the
    Windows XP operating system , the TOTAL amount of resources required for
    EITHER system can be the same - Prime95 is an example - it is setup to use
    the maximum amount of CPU power available. If anything, a more complex
    operating system using Prime95 might tax the CPU LESS than a less complex
    operating system.

    Be aware that system resources include a lot more than CPU time.

    Phil Weldon


    "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    news:cj1Eh.19027$...
    |
    | "ED" <> wrote in message
    | news:hh%Dh.1265$...
    | >
    | > "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    | > news:SpWDh.82852$...
    | >>
    | >> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    | >> news:nCSDh.5905$...
    | >>> 'leadfoot' wrote:
    | >>> | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
    | >>> which OS
    | >>> | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    | >>> FSB
    | >>> _____
    | >>>
    | >>> The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    | >>> Nothing at all. In any way.
    | >>>
    | >>> The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
    | >>> memory
    | >>> used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say,
    | >>> Windows
    | >>> 2000 or later.
    | >>
    | >>
    | >> So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    | >> Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at
    255FSB???
    | >>
    | >> You sure about that?
    | >>
    | > Unless you want to go into your bios and change the speeds every time
    you
    | > boot. Phil is correct in the fact that the OS has nothing to do with
    your
    | > fsb speeds. Stability of the OS might be a different matter at OC'd
    | > speeds. I haven't had enough time with Vista to really give it a good
    | > run-through when overclocking to know if it is more or less stable than
    | > XP. Like Phil said, memory used and how it is accessed can make a huge
    | > difference in OS stability when hardware is overclocked (or not for that
    | > matter). Your best bet is to get as high as you can and still be stable
    in
    | > both OSs and leave it at that.
    |
    | I'm glad someone figured out what I was looking for. I'm not a newcomer
    to
    | overclocking but I haven't posted here for a while. I seem to recall
    there
    | was some controversy over XP over win98 as an overclocking system when XP
    | came out so I though that the OS COULD have an impact on FSB stability.
    My
    | guess was that XP would be better due to all the resources being used by
    | Vista but I would thing that a few people have done OC in both OS and
    might
    | have an opinion by now.
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    | >
    | > Ed
    | >
    |
    |
     
  13. Andyc

    Andyc Guest

    I'm overclocking a E4300 from 1.8 to 3.0 ghz (9x333) DDR800 in vista home
    premium it's stable up to 3.1, but I backed down due to heat issuses ( will
    do 3 ghz at standard voltage ). Asus P5B - Deluxe, Intel E4300, Vista Home
    premuim OEM, Gskill DDR800, 7200.10 500gb HD, Samsung 183L Sata
    Dvd-rw...etc.. Stable running TAT 12 hours/Orthos 24 hours... till I turned
    them off.

    Andy C

    "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    news:vP1Eh.3510$...
    > 'leadfoot' wrote:
    > | So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    > | Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
    > |
    > | You sure about that?
    > _____
    >
    > Perhaps you might get a more productive answer if you posted what you wish
    > to do, rather than ask a somewhat abstract question.
    >
    > If you want a USABLE overclock, then pick the fastest overclock setting
    > that
    > allows stable operation for YOUR applications and operating system.
    >
    > If you want bragging rights, then boot up with DOS and an assembler
    > language
    > idle loop.
    >
    > If you want fast speed for games or image processing, where occasional
    > errors are unnoticeable, then you can get by with a higher speed overclock
    > for those applications than for applications that require accuracy at the
    > expense of overclock level.
    >
    > There are no guarantees in overclocking, so choose overclock levels
    > appropriate for YOUR needs.
    >
    > To answer you latest question; sure, you can have a dual boot system
    > overclocked to FSB 265 for Windows XP and Vista overclocked to 255 FSB.
    > So
    > what? That's why it's an abstract question - there's no context.
    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    > "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    > news:SpWDh.82852$...
    > |
    > | "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
    > | news:nCSDh.5905$...
    > | > 'leadfoot' wrote:
    > | > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
    > which
    > | > OS
    > | > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    > FSB
    > | > _____
    > | >
    > | > The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    > | > Nothing at all. In any way.
    > | >
    > | > The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
    > memory
    > | > used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and, say,
    > Windows
    > | > 2000 or later.
    > |
    > |
    > | So I can't have dual boot 200FSB stock nForce4 system where WinXP is
    > | Ptime95 stable at 265FSB and a Vista that is Prime95 stable at 255FSB???
    > |
    > | You sure about that?
    > |
    > |
    > | >
    > | > Phil Weldon
    > | >
    > | >
    > | > "leadfoot" <> wrote in message
    > | > news:duSDh.81057$...
    > | > |
    > | > | "Bob" <> wrote in message
    > | > | news:9YLDh.989$...
    > | > | > "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    > | > | > news:T1sDh.5493$...
    > | > | >> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or
    > two,
    > | > | >> maybe.
    > | > | >>
    > | > | >> It's slower than XP.
    > | > | >> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    > | > | >> --
    > | > | >> Ed Light
    > | > | >>
    > | > | >> Bring the Troops Home:
    > | > | >> http://bringthemhomenow.org
    > | > | >> http://antiwar.com
    > | > | >>
    > | > | >> Send spam to the FTC at
    > | > | >>
    > | > | >> Thanks, robots.
    > | > | >
    > | > | > Another bunch of tests to ponder:
    > | > | > http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp
    > | > |
    > | > | The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was
    > which
    > | > OS
    > | > | provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest
    > FSB
    > | > |
    > | > |
    > | > | >
    > | > | >
    > | > | >
    > | > | >
    > | > | >
    > | > |
    > | > |
    > | >
    > | >
    > |
    > |
    >
    >
     
  14. Lenny_Nero

    Lenny_Nero Guest

    Phil Weldon said


    > The operating system has nothing to do with the FrontSide Bus speed.
    > Nothing at all. In any way.
    >
    > The only effect the operating system MIGHT have is in the amount of
    > memory used; but that is a difference you might see between DOS and,
    > say, Windows 2000 or later.
    >
    > Phil Weldon


    Win2000 is better to OC with as XP can get screwed up by messing with the
    FSB, 2k never has, as far as I and a lot of others have found, there is a
    post about this in the rebels haven forums. 2k is also faster, not by
    much, but it is.

    Vista spends so much time checking on the voltage ripple and every other
    thing that you loose any power you might gain from any OC. The best thing
    is to stick with XP or Win2000, Win2000 has the longer support life time.

    L.

    --
    Want to help to keep the best free usenet servers running ?
    http://www.readfreenews.com
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    news:T1sDh.5493$...
    > It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two, maybe.
    >
    > It's slower than XP.
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    > --
    > Ed Light


    I don't know how you figure it's slower than XP. Mine was blazing like I
    don't know what! It could be because it was 64-bit...
     
  16. Phil Weldon

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Guest' wrote:
    | I don't know how you figure it's slower than XP. Mine was blazing like I
    | don't know what! It could be because it was 64-bit...
    _____

    Numbers? Comparisons? Cites?

    Phil Weldon

    "Guest" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    |
    | "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    | news:T1sDh.5493$...
    | > It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two,
    maybe.
    | >
    | > It's slower than XP.
    | > http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    | > --
    | > Ed Light
    |
    | I don't know how you figure it's slower than XP. Mine was blazing like I
    | don't know what! It could be because it was 64-bit...
    |
    |
     
  17. leadfoot wrote:
    > "Bob" <> wrote in message
    > news:9YLDh.989$...
    >> "Ed Light" <> wrote in message
    >> news:T1sDh.5493$...
    >>> It's a bit early to be thinking Vista. After a service pack or two,
    >>> maybe.
    >>>
    >>> It's slower than XP.
    >>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/index.html
    >>> --
    >>> Ed Light
    >>>
    >>> Bring the Troops Home:
    >>> http://bringthemhomenow.org
    >>> http://antiwar.com
    >>>
    >>> Send spam to the FTC at
    >>>
    >>> Thanks, robots.

    >> Another bunch of tests to ponder:
    >> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2096940,00.asp

    >
    > The benchmarks are great information but what I was wondering was which OS
    > provides the highest stable overclock. i.e which one has the highest FSB
    >
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
    > Virus Database (VPS): 000745-2, 05/29/2007
    > Tested on: 5/30/2007 3:42:06 PM
    > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
    > http://www.avast.com
    >
    >
    >

    makes no real difference which os you use, the overclock is done in the
    bios.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 000745-2, 05/29/2007
    Tested on: 5/30/2007 3:42:44 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page