AngryCorgi
Apr 7, 08:28 PM
Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)
Actually...did you see the photoshop tech demo on the ipad2? They are getting REALLY close!
:)
Actually...did you see the photoshop tech demo on the ipad2? They are getting REALLY close!
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 12:30 PM
The Mac Pro isn't for most people. It's for professionals and professional applications, which are usally multithreaded, and will take advantage of the capabilities.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It was just a general point, not a whine, so don't get your panties in a bunch. And some of the applications that don't take advantage of multiple cores currently are Adobe Photoshop and Quicktime which both rarely use more than two cores and sometimes only one. Both pretty important to professionals.
If you have a complaint about all these cores and not being able to take advantage of them, then this is not the computer for you. You're probably not using the software that will take advantage of them, so let it go and stop whining about it. For the those of us that do, this is great news.
It was just a general point, not a whine, so don't get your panties in a bunch. And some of the applications that don't take advantage of multiple cores currently are Adobe Photoshop and Quicktime which both rarely use more than two cores and sometimes only one. Both pretty important to professionals.
Lucky736
Apr 7, 10:30 PM
Screwing around is how they lost Macs in the first place. They wanted to only sell certain iMac Colors and Apple said you can sell what we send or not at all, that's why Apple left them in the first place years ago. Then they cam back with the "store in a store" concept.
CaoCao
Feb 28, 10:02 PM
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
Yes, I did agree with that post. What is your point?
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
Heterosexuality is by definition normal (conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected). What percentage of the population is homosexual, what percentage is heterosexual?
Humans by default have four fingers and a thumb on each hand. Am I being mean to people with more or fewer fingers? No, just stating a fact.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
Yes, I did agree with that post. What is your point?
And yet you seem quite certain how the human brain works and what is normal/ not normal. :rolleyes:
My original point was that you made an assertive, sweeping generalization without any backup. Just a very matter-of-fact "Hey, all you humans, here is how your body was designed. All you gays, you are not the default. Trust me, I'm from teh internetz."
It's clumsy and insensitive at best, and just more religion-based trolling at worst.
Heterosexuality is by definition normal (conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected). What percentage of the population is homosexual, what percentage is heterosexual?
Humans by default have four fingers and a thumb on each hand. Am I being mean to people with more or fewer fingers? No, just stating a fact.
Bubba Satori
Apr 6, 08:17 AM
Forget about new Macs! just give us FCS A.S.A.P. :eek:
That makes a lot of sense.
Can't the most profitable corporation in the universe do two things at once?
That makes a lot of sense.
Can't the most profitable corporation in the universe do two things at once?
seenew
Aug 27, 03:40 AM
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
Yamcha
Mar 26, 11:36 AM
Yay, this is what I've been looking forward to, forget iOS devices :P. I'm sorry but I use my computer the most everyday.. Anyway I really hope we see it soon..
BRLawyer
Aug 19, 07:08 AM
I wonder if there is still any Winblows fanboy out there willing to justify the purchase of a PC...horrible OS, slower machine, more expensive...no damn way. The Quad MacPro is THE most powerful desktop in this world...period.
dissdnt
Jun 9, 02:59 PM
Went down to Radio Shack today. They are doing a trade in but you're never gonna get the max price they offer unless it's out of the box new. My 3gs has normal wear over the year so they will only give 230 for it.
And I have a feeling trading in prices will drop when the iPhone 4 drops.
And I have a feeling trading in prices will drop when the iPhone 4 drops.
Hellhammer
Dec 3, 03:06 PM
Do you get a prize car for finishing a series in Aspec races with all gold? Like I just need to finish one more race, but I can't find a used car to get into it. It's the first series of races, beginner I am assuming.
Some of them do but not sure do all of them. I've got several nice rides from those series but they are mainly from higher level series.
Some of them do but not sure do all of them. I've got several nice rides from those series but they are mainly from higher level series.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
bedifferent
Apr 12, 10:02 AM
Difinitely not. I won't say where I'd agree and disagree with for the rest of it, but that last sentence isn't right. Thousands implies a rather low number. Not nearly enough revenue for Apple to keep working on FCS. ;)
Ha ;) I love, too true. Those "thousands" could become a larger number, and not just editors but professionals in general as well as high end consumers who would strongly benefit and pony up for a mid range Pro tower as well as the prosumer grade programs.
Slightly off topic, I always wondered about Apple's initial venture into the mobile market, especially given Apple's failed attempt in partnering with Motorola for the "ROKR" (anyone recall the 2005 TV ads with Madonna shamelessly promoting her "Confessions on a Dance Floor" for a cool $5 million?).
Two years later came the iPhone. Makes you wonder why Apple "tested" the mobile market with the ROKR knowing the iPhone wasn't far away.
Ha ;) I love, too true. Those "thousands" could become a larger number, and not just editors but professionals in general as well as high end consumers who would strongly benefit and pony up for a mid range Pro tower as well as the prosumer grade programs.
Slightly off topic, I always wondered about Apple's initial venture into the mobile market, especially given Apple's failed attempt in partnering with Motorola for the "ROKR" (anyone recall the 2005 TV ads with Madonna shamelessly promoting her "Confessions on a Dance Floor" for a cool $5 million?).
Two years later came the iPhone. Makes you wonder why Apple "tested" the mobile market with the ROKR knowing the iPhone wasn't far away.
Danksi
Aug 15, 01:20 PM
Premiere Pro, for an example, is starting to use GPU-accelerated effects, I think it's a trend that will soon be coming over to FCP.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Good to know. Thanks.
I'd get the 2.6 ghz, then add another graphics card in the future if the current one doesn't suffice.
Good to know. Thanks.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:48 PM
What about TV Show downloads in the UK? Pleeeeaaaase!!! :rolleyes:
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
That would be good-if BBC signs up. Aussie's already have TV shows (for $1.99)-but on the Nine Network's nineMSN (http://ninemsn.com.au)site.
Keeping track of WWDC time-use the Extra-Clocks. Not as accurate as a internet updating clock, but does the job for me.
iPod shuffle-not being updated (because of the nano),but at least Apple gave those owners a volume limit.
Looking foward to these Mac Pros though, my Dad is definatley going to buy one. :D
Thanks, Joe.
That would be good-if BBC signs up. Aussie's already have TV shows (for $1.99)-but on the Nine Network's nineMSN (http://ninemsn.com.au)site.
Keeping track of WWDC time-use the Extra-Clocks. Not as accurate as a internet updating clock, but does the job for me.
iPod shuffle-not being updated (because of the nano),but at least Apple gave those owners a volume limit.
dustinsc
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Assuming this gets out of vaporware status, it looks pretty good. The custom interface also looks good. Apple better have some improvements to the UI (ahem, notifications) in iOS 5
michaelz
Mar 22, 09:32 PM
This seems to me to be good news in 2 ways:
1. It makes a few foolish people think twice about purchasing an iPad 2, so I can get mine a little sooner.
2. It puts the wind up Apple's behind and they work that little bit harder to get us the iPad 3 with the ultra HD display or iPad 2 Retina Christmas Special or whatever else they might call it.
The iPhone 4 display "changed everything" as Apple like to say, and the sooner they get that thing on the iPad, the better. Then my humdrum life will finally be complete.
+1
Seems the tablet competition is really between google's android, webOS and windows 7. Apple already took what it can take. Others are fighting for the leftovers.
1. It makes a few foolish people think twice about purchasing an iPad 2, so I can get mine a little sooner.
2. It puts the wind up Apple's behind and they work that little bit harder to get us the iPad 3 with the ultra HD display or iPad 2 Retina Christmas Special or whatever else they might call it.
The iPhone 4 display "changed everything" as Apple like to say, and the sooner they get that thing on the iPad, the better. Then my humdrum life will finally be complete.
+1
Seems the tablet competition is really between google's android, webOS and windows 7. Apple already took what it can take. Others are fighting for the leftovers.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 12:23 PM
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
It's funny too how a GOP controlled House of Representatives found it so important to spend time debating whether to defund NPR, but couldn't find the time to debate the value of using the military in Libya.
Though, for what it's worth, I'd much rather we returned to the constitutional practice of getting approval from congress before committing ourselves to military intervention.
It's funny too how a GOP controlled House of Representatives found it so important to spend time debating whether to defund NPR, but couldn't find the time to debate the value of using the military in Libya.
Though, for what it's worth, I'd much rather we returned to the constitutional practice of getting approval from congress before committing ourselves to military intervention.
gnasher729
Apr 19, 03:36 PM
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
You made up your mind and you argue accordingly. Consider this: Many people know the name "iPhone" and the way it looks, they may even know the name "Macintosh", but not the name "Apple". They might have talked to someone who used an iPhone and was very happy with it, were convinced to buy one, and go to a shop and pick up the phone that looks exactly like the one they wanted to buy. And end up with a Samsung phone when they actually wanted an iPhone.
Your second argument doesn't really make much sense. Samsung knew what the iPhone looks like, so if the Galaxy looks the same, it is because Samsung decided that it should look that way. Confusion surely goes both ways, so there would be a danger for Samsung that someone wanting to buy a Galaxy ends up buying an iPhone. Samsung had to know and accept this. So obviously Samsung is of the opinion that if people who want an iPhone buy a Galaxy by mistake, and people who want a Galaxy buy an iPhone by mistake, then Samsung will overall benefit. Doesn't seem to say much for the Galaxy, if they try to create this confusion.
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
You made up your mind and you argue accordingly. Consider this: Many people know the name "iPhone" and the way it looks, they may even know the name "Macintosh", but not the name "Apple". They might have talked to someone who used an iPhone and was very happy with it, were convinced to buy one, and go to a shop and pick up the phone that looks exactly like the one they wanted to buy. And end up with a Samsung phone when they actually wanted an iPhone.
Your second argument doesn't really make much sense. Samsung knew what the iPhone looks like, so if the Galaxy looks the same, it is because Samsung decided that it should look that way. Confusion surely goes both ways, so there would be a danger for Samsung that someone wanting to buy a Galaxy ends up buying an iPhone. Samsung had to know and accept this. So obviously Samsung is of the opinion that if people who want an iPhone buy a Galaxy by mistake, and people who want a Galaxy buy an iPhone by mistake, then Samsung will overall benefit. Doesn't seem to say much for the Galaxy, if they try to create this confusion.
kdarling
Apr 6, 02:32 PM
As was pointed out by a previous poster, iOS was developed for tablet use.
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
That's a common misreading of what Jobs said.
iOS was developed for the phone first, although its idea of using a touch UI was not.
As Jobs explained, there was a simple UI demo done on a touch device originally designed to be a keyboard input prototype. That demo gave him the idea to go all touch on the iPhone. That's what he meant by "the tablet came first".
Since we know that during summer/fall the first iPhone UI concepts were done using iPods with wheels, his touch "eureka" moment probably came in late with the UI demo almost certainly done under OSX.
According to all known histories, the actual creation of iOS didn't begin until 2006. Prior to that, some at Apple were still proposing using Linux for the phone OS.
jettredmont
Apr 10, 05:26 PM
Interesting news, but the bit about booting competitors is downright disgusting.
Umm, it's a Final Cut Users' Group, not an Avid user's group. I think they are a little more interested in the next big step in Fincal Cut Pro, moreso than what Avid and Adobe are doing. Apple demanded all stage time, because they have a lot to cover, and want the rest of the meet available to talk about what they demo. Seems completely kosher to me.
Now, if this was Apple going to something like NAB and telling them to boot out all their non-Apple demos, that would be different. But while this is at NAB, it is quite specifically the group of self-identified folks who care more about FCP than anything else. So no big deal.
Umm, it's a Final Cut Users' Group, not an Avid user's group. I think they are a little more interested in the next big step in Fincal Cut Pro, moreso than what Avid and Adobe are doing. Apple demanded all stage time, because they have a lot to cover, and want the rest of the meet available to talk about what they demo. Seems completely kosher to me.
Now, if this was Apple going to something like NAB and telling them to boot out all their non-Apple demos, that would be different. But while this is at NAB, it is quite specifically the group of self-identified folks who care more about FCP than anything else. So no big deal.
QCassidy352
Apr 6, 02:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm not joking when I say this - I held off buying a Macbook for years purely because I didn't want to be associated with these hardcore Apple fanboys who live under Steve Job's bed. It's quite sickening.
I love Apple products, but doesn't mean you have to be blind to the alternatives. It's absolutely amazing how easily people can be brainwashed.
It's a two way street, really. I mean, what would one expect to see/read on a Mac rumor board?
I've been on the other boards, like Android and non-Apple computers and they're just as bad. Some people bash Apple because it's the cool/in thing to do. The Android fanatics are worse in some cases. Their biggest argument is "Open" and "Choice". Sounds familiar...kind of like the Linux crowd back in the day. Where are they now?
In the end, buy what you want and need. It's your money, your choice. If you don't like what someone else bought, get over it. Does it affect you? Does it somehow change how you live? I could give a flying f*&k what my neighbor buys. Whether it's a car, golf clubs, PC, phone, whatever...
Spouting off sounds like jealousy...
Agreed. Basing your buying decisions on who else does or doesn't buy the same product is... How can I put this nicely... Utterly ridiculous.
I'm not joking when I say this - I held off buying a Macbook for years purely because I didn't want to be associated with these hardcore Apple fanboys who live under Steve Job's bed. It's quite sickening.
I love Apple products, but doesn't mean you have to be blind to the alternatives. It's absolutely amazing how easily people can be brainwashed.
It's a two way street, really. I mean, what would one expect to see/read on a Mac rumor board?
I've been on the other boards, like Android and non-Apple computers and they're just as bad. Some people bash Apple because it's the cool/in thing to do. The Android fanatics are worse in some cases. Their biggest argument is "Open" and "Choice". Sounds familiar...kind of like the Linux crowd back in the day. Where are they now?
In the end, buy what you want and need. It's your money, your choice. If you don't like what someone else bought, get over it. Does it affect you? Does it somehow change how you live? I could give a flying f*&k what my neighbor buys. Whether it's a car, golf clubs, PC, phone, whatever...
Spouting off sounds like jealousy...
Agreed. Basing your buying decisions on who else does or doesn't buy the same product is... How can I put this nicely... Utterly ridiculous.
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 07:36 PM
Also, I'm waiting for the RED Scarlet camera to hit the market, and have heard speculation that RED and Apple will release a new highly efficient compression codec based on RED's Redcode called REDRay.
The speculation is that REDRay will be used for everything from 4K DCP playback in movie theaters to a download/streaming version that will be usable for buying up to 4K movies through iTunes.
RED hired plugin developer Graeme Nattress awhile ago and he has been pushing the REDcode science forward with excellent results.
The speculation is that REDRay will be used for everything from 4K DCP playback in movie theaters to a download/streaming version that will be usable for buying up to 4K movies through iTunes.
RED hired plugin developer Graeme Nattress awhile ago and he has been pushing the REDcode science forward with excellent results.
portishead
Apr 12, 02:44 AM
Are you saying you would prefer they give it the ability to use more memory before they give it the ability to use more processing cores? Because that's the only thing 64bit is going to give you.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
Yes, it does most of what I "need", but the competition does most of them better. Final Cut used to be cutting edge, now it's slow, inefficient and buggy.
Naw, memory too. There's probably a lot I left out, it was just a quick list off the top of my head.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 09:03 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
It depends on the architecture, its possible to have 24 1ghz cores being more power hungry than a single 24ghz processor.
Processor manufacturers are having problems increasing the amount of instructions they can execute, intels latest goal is to have the most amount of instructions executed with the least energy consumtion, but given constraints manufacturers are finding it easier to add a second processor than to scale a single processor to deliver the same performance as two "simpler" processors.
It depends on the architecture, its possible to have 24 1ghz cores being more power hungry than a single 24ghz processor.
Processor manufacturers are having problems increasing the amount of instructions they can execute, intels latest goal is to have the most amount of instructions executed with the least energy consumtion, but given constraints manufacturers are finding it easier to add a second processor than to scale a single processor to deliver the same performance as two "simpler" processors.
No comments:
Post a Comment