28-Mar-2024 22:19 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[News] Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressionsANN.lu
Posted on 07-Dec-2002 19:27 GMT by Diermar Eilert (Edited on 2002-12-08 02:55:19 GMT by Christophe Decanini)230 comments
View flat
View list
It took place in a large congress room in Aachen's Eurogress. At 16:00, it was pretty crowded in terms of visitors ...

---

Just a few words about the Amiga Retro event today, I've been there for an hour or so this afternoon:

It took place in a large congress room in Aachen's Eurogress. At 16:00, it was pretty crowded in terms of visitors, maybe 100-200 people, but pretty empty in terms of dealers. If you mentally subtract Thendic, who took up 50% of the space, the whole affair would have fitted into a grocery store. Well, I guess that reflects the state of the market.

I saw one Amiga One. Maybe there were more, I didn't look hard. The one I saw didn't do anything to get exited about (a pc-style box, obviously no AmigaOS 4, bulky mainboard).

The Thendic people were at the center of attention, having something exiting to show. I don't know how many Pegasos boxes they had with them, but there were lots of them for trial. Morphos looks great, their Ambient workbench is visually stunning. A large amount of money must have gone into the direction of designers, the icons are all ultra-professional, 3D, 24bit, raytraced. If you are ever going to write software for Morphos and plan to have equally good icons, you have your work laid out for you ;-) The overall design reminds me of NeXt. Nevertheless, everything is still quite basic in terms of operating systems: I didn't see a file manager or other things I would expect with an OS. For example, an equally well-designed "Start" bar would have been nice.

Unfortunately, their boxes only had PPC native software installed or I was too dumb to find regular 68K software. I've tried for twenty minutes to find a bug, cause a crash etc. but no luck: Morphos looks fine to me with that selection of software. I would have rather testet it with "normal" software though.

Some Pegaos boxes were open, you could see the April fix and the small mainboard. It's a micro-atx-sized board, you probably have to see it to realize how small it is. If mainboards were sold on optical merits, the Amiga One would be dead. I don't understand why Tendic choose a big aluminium case for it: yes, it looks nice but if you have such a small mainboard, why not advertise the possibilities of small dimensions ?

Conclusion: Pegasos/Morphos is much more advanced than I though before. If it's all pure PPC, the worst is clearly over for them. They seem to have a nice usable small OS. What's left for them to do is to provide more "middleware" to get rid of the basic feel. I mean the small tools that normally ship with an OS: file manager, calculators, whatever. Nothing complicated.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Kronos07-Dec-2002 18:37 GMT
Comment 2Christophe Decanini07-Dec-2002 18:42 GMT
Comment 3Anonymous07-Dec-2002 18:47 GMT
Comment 4catohagen07-Dec-2002 18:51 GMT
Comment 5me was there too07-Dec-2002 18:57 GMT
Comment 6Anonymous07-Dec-2002 19:18 GMT
Comment 7Anonymous07-Dec-2002 19:41 GMT
Comment 8catohagen07-Dec-2002 19:42 GMT
Comment 9takemehomegrandma07-Dec-2002 20:03 GMT
Comment 10takemehomegrandma07-Dec-2002 20:17 GMT
Comment 11takemehomegrandma07-Dec-2002 20:24 GMT
Comment 12Anonymous07-Dec-2002 20:26 GMT
Comment 13catohagen07-Dec-2002 20:37 GMT
Comment 14coldfire07-Dec-2002 20:40 GMT
Comment 15catohagen07-Dec-2002 20:43 GMT
Comment 16Kronos07-Dec-2002 20:52 GMT
Comment 17takemehomegrandma07-Dec-2002 20:55 GMT
Comment 18Anonymous07-Dec-2002 20:56 GMT
Comment 19Johan Rönnblom07-Dec-2002 21:49 GMT
Comment 20Anonymous07-Dec-2002 22:10 GMT
Comment 21mahen07-Dec-2002 22:24 GMT
Comment 22Mike Bouma07-Dec-2002 22:25 GMT
Comment 23Christophe Decanini07-Dec-2002 22:26 GMT
Comment 24Mike Bouma07-Dec-2002 22:32 GMT
Comment 25mahen07-Dec-2002 22:40 GMT
Comment 26Mike Bouma07-Dec-2002 22:54 GMT
Comment 27Christophe Decanini07-Dec-2002 22:57 GMT
Comment 28Christophe Decanini07-Dec-2002 23:00 GMT
Comment 29Christophe Decanini07-Dec-2002 23:03 GMT
Comment 30Mike Bouma07-Dec-2002 23:06 GMT
Comment 31Diermar Eilert07-Dec-2002 23:22 GMT
Comment 32itix07-Dec-2002 23:37 GMT
Comment 33catohagen07-Dec-2002 23:39 GMT
Comment 34Christophe Decanini08-Dec-2002 00:32 GMT
Comment 35Christophe Decanini08-Dec-2002 00:53 GMT
Comment 36MIKE08-Dec-2002 01:31 GMT
Comment 37amorel08-Dec-2002 01:47 GMT
Comment 38amorel08-Dec-2002 01:58 GMT
Comment 39Lando/Trinity08-Dec-2002 02:28 GMT
Comment 40Kjetil08-Dec-2002 03:56 GMT
Comment 41Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 07:46 GMT
Comment 42Eva08-Dec-2002 08:51 GMT
Comment 43Alkemyst08-Dec-2002 09:27 GMT
Comment 44Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 10:08 GMT
Comment 45Anonymous08-Dec-2002 10:39 GMT
Comment 46takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 10:59 GMT
Comment 47Anonymous08-Dec-2002 11:08 GMT
Comment 48takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 11:12 GMT
Comment 49takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 11:43 GMT
Comment 50Anonymous08-Dec-2002 11:53 GMT
Comment 51Don Cox08-Dec-2002 11:56 GMT
Comment 52Alkemyst08-Dec-2002 11:59 GMT
Comment 53Anonymous08-Dec-2002 12:00 GMT
Comment 54Alkemyst08-Dec-2002 12:06 GMT
Comment 55Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 12:10 GMT
Comment 56mahen08-Dec-2002 12:12 GMT
Comment 57mahen08-Dec-2002 12:14 GMT
Comment 58mahen08-Dec-2002 12:18 GMT
Comment 59mahen08-Dec-2002 12:19 GMT
Comment 60Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 12:36 GMT
Comment 61mahen08-Dec-2002 12:41 GMT
Comment 62mahen08-Dec-2002 12:44 GMT
Comment 63Anonymous08-Dec-2002 12:47 GMT
Comment 64mahen08-Dec-2002 12:51 GMT
Comment 65Anonymous08-Dec-2002 12:53 GMT
Comment 66Anonymous08-Dec-2002 12:54 GMT
Comment 67Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 12:55 GMT
Comment 68mahen08-Dec-2002 12:55 GMT
Comment 69Anonymous08-Dec-2002 12:57 GMT
Comment 70Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:02 GMT
Comment 71Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:03 GMT
Comment 72Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:05 GMT
Comment 73Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:09 GMT
Comment 74mahen08-Dec-2002 13:09 GMT
Comment 75mahen08-Dec-2002 13:11 GMT
Comment 76mahen08-Dec-2002 13:13 GMT
Comment 77Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 13:16 GMT
Comment 78Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:17 GMT
Comment 79Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 13:19 GMT
Comment 80Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:20 GMT
Comment 81mahen08-Dec-2002 13:20 GMT
Comment 82Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:23 GMT
Comment 83mahen08-Dec-2002 13:23 GMT
Comment 84mahen08-Dec-2002 13:25 GMT
Comment 85mahen08-Dec-2002 13:27 GMT
Comment 86Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:30 GMT
Comment 87Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:33 GMT
Comment 88Nathaniel Downes08-Dec-2002 13:33 GMT
Comment 89Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:36 GMT
Comment 90Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:38 GMT
Comment 91Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 13:41 GMT
Comment 92Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:42 GMT
Comment 93Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:44 GMT
Comment 94mahen08-Dec-2002 13:47 GMT
Comment 95Nathaniel Downes08-Dec-2002 13:48 GMT
Comment 96Anonymous08-Dec-2002 13:51 GMT
Comment 97Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 13:51 GMT
Comment 98OcineL/ Morphos icons maker08-Dec-2002 13:51 GMT
Comment 99mahen08-Dec-2002 13:52 GMT
Comment 100mahen08-Dec-2002 14:00 GMT
Comment 101Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:02 GMT
Comment 102Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:05 GMT
Comment 103mahen08-Dec-2002 14:07 GMT
Comment 104mahen08-Dec-2002 14:08 GMT
Comment 105Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 14:11 GMT
Comment 106mahen08-Dec-2002 14:21 GMT
Comment 107Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:23 GMT
Comment 108Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:25 GMT
Comment 109Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 14:29 GMT
Comment 110Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:41 GMT
Comment 111Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 14:43 GMT
Comment 112Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:46 GMT
Comment 113Alkemyst08-Dec-2002 14:50 GMT
Comment 114Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 14:54 GMT
Comment 115Anonymous08-Dec-2002 14:59 GMT
Comment 116Alkemyst08-Dec-2002 15:00 GMT
Comment 117Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 15:04 GMT
Comment 118Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:06 GMT
Comment 119Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 15:09 GMT
Comment 120Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 15:13 GMT
Comment 121Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:14 GMT
Comment 122Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:14 GMT
Comment 123Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:16 GMT
Comment 124Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:16 GMT
Comment 125Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:19 GMT
Comment 126Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:23 GMT
Comment 127Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:24 GMT
Comment 128Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:27 GMT
Comment 129Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:28 GMT
Comment 130Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:29 GMT
Comment 131Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:30 GMT
Comment 132Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:30 GMT
Comment 133Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:33 GMT
Comment 134Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 15:35 GMT
Comment 135Daniel Miller08-Dec-2002 15:42 GMT
Comment 136Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:47 GMT
Comment 137Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 15:47 GMT
Comment 138itix08-Dec-2002 15:49 GMT
Comment 139Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 15:49 GMT
Comment 140Alkemyst08-Dec-2002 15:49 GMT
Comment 141Anonymous08-Dec-2002 15:49 GMT
Comment 142Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 15:58 GMT
Comment 143Anonymous08-Dec-2002 16:01 GMT
Comment 144Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 16:03 GMT
Comment 145Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 16:05 GMT
Comment 146Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 16:10 GMT
Comment 147Emmanuel Lesueur08-Dec-2002 16:13 GMT
Comment 148Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 16:15 GMT
Comment 149Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 16:17 GMT
Comment 150Anonymous08-Dec-2002 16:27 GMT
Comment 151dammy08-Dec-2002 16:33 GMT
Comment 152Christophe Decanini08-Dec-2002 16:39 GMT
Comment 153Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 16:44 GMT
Comment 154Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 16:53 GMT
Comment 155Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 16:55 GMT
Comment 156Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 17:15 GMT
Comment 157itix08-Dec-2002 17:41 GMT
Comment 158Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 17:53 GMT
Comment 159mahen08-Dec-2002 17:58 GMT
Comment 160mahen08-Dec-2002 18:01 GMT
Comment 161Mike Bouma08-Dec-2002 18:05 GMT
Comment 162itix08-Dec-2002 18:25 GMT
Comment 163Olaf Barthel08-Dec-2002 18:39 GMT
Comment 164JoannaK08-Dec-2002 18:47 GMT
Comment 165Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]08-Dec-2002 20:39 GMT
Comment 166Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 20:58 GMT
Comment 167Anonymous08-Dec-2002 21:14 GMT
Comment 168Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]08-Dec-2002 21:25 GMT
Amiga + Retro Computing 2002, first impressions : Comment 169 of 230ANN.lu
Posted by Iggy Drougge on 08-Dec-2002 21:28 GMT
Comparing MorphOS to Amithlon is unjust.
Amithlon, is as we all know, a cut-down Linux kernel running a hacked UAE version, it in turn running AmigaOS 3.x.
MorphOS is a microkernel (Quark) running a reimplementation of AmigaOS as a server.
Quark is not in itself an OS. A microkernel is the very bare essentials needed to implement a microkernel-based OS. In the formal microkernel design, the rest of the OS is implemented as so-called servers on top of the microkernel. The microkernel takes care of basic hardware interaction and inter-server communications.
However, the MK approach to OS design hasn't proved particularly effective performance-wise. Thus, most MK OSes tend to implement a thick, traditional OS design on top of the microkernel. They're not MK OSes in a formal sense, since the rest of the OS basically runs just as one single server on top of the microkernel. One example is various MkLinuxes. Mk as in microkernel, Mk as in Mach, a classic microkernel spawned off Berkeley Software Distribution developments. OS/2 is another Mach-based OS, and so is MacOSX.
MacOSX implements a big (very big) pack of BSD services on top of the microkernel. It also implements OSX-native services on top of of either the BSD environment or Mach (this differs from case to case).
While people like to point out that OSX is MK-based, and thus modern (Mac people don't really know what it means, but Apple says it's cool, so... ;-), it isn't an ideal MK OS. The bulk of MacOS is BSD, on top of Mach. So OSX isn't very micro at all, BSD being a classic monolithic kernel OS (and as a UNIX flavour not very suitable to a pure MK implementation even at its API level, will many attest).
Why this big explanation about MacOS X, you might ask. People use OSX, it's a shipping, major OS, gaining respect and admiration from old Mac convertites as well as UNIX and Windows users (though I don't respect or admire it personally).
As a side note, pre-OSX applications run in a sandbox implemented within OSX. Sandboxes is a concept we all know from MOS briefs.
Let's look at Amithlon for a while as well.
When you run Amithlon on your PC, LILO (the LInux LOader) loads a minimalistic Linux kernel (BTW, no matter how minimalistic it might be, Linux will never be a microkernel) with a minimalistic set of Linux services. This Linux kernel executes a custom version of UAE, the Useless/Universal/Ubiquitous Amiga Emulator. UAE usually emulates a 680x0 processor and the Amiga custom chips. More recent versions also interface to the host OS in various ways, such as mapping the native filesystem to Amiga drives, native networking to a bsdsocket.library wrapper, native graphics to a Picasso96 wrapper driver and in the last few versions even native SCSI to a scsi.library wrapper. All signs of an advanced emulation. Still, only wrappers. Similar things have been done for a long while in Shapeshifter and Fusion. These emulators access API calls in the host OS. The actual hardware is of no concern to the emulated environment, only the CPU is accessed more or less directly by the Mac emulators, for obvious reasons.
Amithlon takes this a step further. For performance reasons, all chipset emulation, save the absolute necessities, is thrown out. The Amithlon UAE implementation also allows specially-compiled code to execute on the actual processor. Workarounds have to be implemented to address the problem of different byte ordering (endians), but this is hardware-related (unlike modern processors, the m68k and x86 series have their byte ordering set in stone).
Even this mutilated, extended UAE running on its mutilated, custom Linux (I think the Amithlon author used similar wording to describe it) is rather sufficient just to run AmigaOS with modern RTG/RTA applications, though. There even exist Amithlon-ported apps running directly on the native X86 processor, including such a vital component (if you like sound output) as AHI, and for what I know, it might even have such vital OS components as colourwheel.gadget running natively.
Nevertheless, Amithlon is basically Linux plus UAE, running a more or less intact AmigaOS 3.x on top of Amithlon/UAE's very optimised 68k emulator. Though Amithlon has reimplemented Elbox's PCI library, hardware access is usually performed through drivers inside the Linux kernel. Wrapper drivers, in other words, not too unsimilar from the usual hosted UAE implementations. The Amiga-side drivers peep through a hole in the emulator out to hooks in the surrounding Linux environment, usually invisible to the AmigaOS. It's UAE equipped with hooks onto the native processor and the host OS.
And on to MorphOS.
Quark is a microkernel (remember?). Quark runs servers, or boxes. The only currently implemented box is the A-box, which implements services requires for AmigaOS. Inside the A-box, something indistinguishable from AmigaOS on most API levels runs. Mind you, this AmigaOS look-a-like is not emulated. Not in the UAE sense. If you do a "List SYS:", you'll see that no file sizes will correlate to any AmigaOS version. This is a reimplementation of AmigaOS, albeit running within the A-box. If we are to trust the intimately involved parties, no AmigaOS code is used, at least not now. And certainly no AmigaOS binaries, AFAIK. Much unlike Amithlon, which runs AmigaOS 3.x as installed from the distribution CD, and won't run much at all without it.
The MorphOS hardware compatibility list is very much different from the Amithlon one. Not just CPU-wise (Amithlon won't run on a Pegasos, and MorphOS won't run on a Taiwanese PC), and not due to different driver coding efforts, but since Amithlon drivers in many cases match the Linux compatibility lists when it comes to graphics and network cards (naturally not one-by-one, since the Amithlon Linux kernel contains a limited amount of drivers). Drivers in MorphOS as we know it now are AFAIK contained in the A-box. CyberGraphX drivers and our beloved DEVS: contents. As much as one might want to, there are no useful graphics and network drivers outside the A-box, much unlike Amithlon, very much unlike plain UAE. Naturally, MOS/A-box is a fresh, native reimplementation of what constitutes AmigaOS. Naturally, it contains a 68k emulator for compatibility purposes. But one should also not forget that a lot of PPC programs (and the Amiga has been marching toward PPC for five years now) run natively on the A-box. Not outside, since a microkernel usually won't run programs in the sense one usually intends. It's just a little dwarf kernel.
As for AmigaOS 4, it is an improved reimplementation of the traditional AmigaOS, running an improved reimplementation of the AmigaOS kernel, Exec, as its most basic component. Exec is neither a microkernel, nor a monolith kernel. Don't ask me what it is, but that's what an AROS developer told me. It's AmigaOS on PPC, nothing more, nothing less, basically implemented in the same way it's been on 68k.
Thus, we may reach a semi-informed conclusion.
Microkernels are not an unorthodox solution nowadays. Sandboxes have become mainstream as well. Pure microkernel OSes are still rather rare. A microkernel is very helpless on its own.
On a scale, UAE is an advanced emulator. Amithlon is an emulator on steroids, equipped with a host OS crutch so as to look like a real OS. MorphOS is a microkernel-based OS running a native reimplementation of AmigaOS as its main task. It's not an emulator. A-box is a compatibility layer, its contents an AmigaOS clone. The only emulator present is the 68k one, and that one will be implemented in OS4 as well.
OS4 is OTOH AmigaOS as we know it, on a basic technological level. All we can say about AmigaOS 3.x can be said about AmigaOS 4.x, with hopefully a lot of added bonuses.
Quark is only of our concern when more boxes are added. And MorphOS is neither an emulator, nor comparable to Amithlon, particularly not with its current (permanent?) state in mind. Amithlon stands out as rather uninspired in comparison to MorphOS, at all levels. Amithlon might, with a lot of effort, turn into something somewhat similar to MorphOS, but it most probably won't, and Linux and UAE is debatably not a good starting point for a MOS equivalent.
If this were the Mac world, MOS would be a kind of OSX, whereas AmigaOS 4 would be a kind of MacOS 10. =)
MOS is no emulator.
Jump...
#183 Daniel Miller #184 Seehund
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 170Johan Rönnblom08-Dec-2002 21:41 GMT
Comment 171Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 21:43 GMT
Comment 172takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 21:44 GMT
Comment 173ikez08-Dec-2002 21:48 GMT
Comment 174Henning Nielsen Lund [Denmark]08-Dec-2002 22:00 GMT
Comment 175Linus G08-Dec-2002 22:01 GMT
Comment 176itix08-Dec-2002 22:06 GMT
Comment 177takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 22:11 GMT
Comment 178takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 22:13 GMT
Comment 179takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 22:17 GMT
Comment 180Alkis Tsapanidis08-Dec-2002 22:18 GMT
Comment 181LinusG08-Dec-2002 22:23 GMT
Comment 182takemehomegrandma08-Dec-2002 22:34 GMT
Comment 183Daniel Miller08-Dec-2002 23:06 GMT
Comment 184Seehund08-Dec-2002 23:36 GMT
Comment 185dammy08-Dec-2002 23:48 GMT
Comment 186Ingot09-Dec-2002 06:49 GMT
Comment 187Don Cox09-Dec-2002 06:54 GMT
Comment 188Ron van Herk09-Dec-2002 07:12 GMT
Comment 189Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 07:44 GMT
Comment 190MIke Bouma09-Dec-2002 07:49 GMT
Comment 191Christian Kemp09-Dec-2002 08:24 GMT
Comment 192Dietmar Eilert09-Dec-2002 08:43 GMT
Comment 193Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 08:46 GMT
Comment 194Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 08:51 GMT
Comment 195Don Cox09-Dec-2002 09:29 GMT
Comment 196Christian Kemp09-Dec-2002 09:37 GMT
Comment 197Andrea Maniero09-Dec-2002 09:49 GMT
Comment 198Daniel Miller09-Dec-2002 09:50 GMT
Comment 199Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 09:54 GMT
Comment 200Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 10:08 GMT
Comment 201Christian Kemp09-Dec-2002 10:09 GMT
Comment 202Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 10:16 GMT
Comment 203Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 10:40 GMT
Comment 204Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 10:57 GMT
Comment 205Christian Kemp09-Dec-2002 11:05 GMT
Comment 206Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 11:39 GMT
Comment 207Diermar Eilert09-Dec-2002 12:25 GMT
Comment 208mahen09-Dec-2002 12:27 GMT
Comment 209mahen09-Dec-2002 12:39 GMT
Comment 210Anonymous coward09-Dec-2002 12:46 GMT
Comment 211Christian Kemp09-Dec-2002 13:35 GMT
Comment 212Mike Bouma09-Dec-2002 13:58 GMT
Comment 213Anonymous09-Dec-2002 14:01 GMT
Comment 214Christian Kemp09-Dec-2002 14:10 GMT
Comment 215dammy09-Dec-2002 14:30 GMT
Comment 216Christophe Decanini09-Dec-2002 14:39 GMT
Comment 217Dietmar Eilert09-Dec-2002 14:53 GMT
Comment 218Ron van Herk09-Dec-2002 15:52 GMT
Comment 219Anonymous09-Dec-2002 17:53 GMT
Comment 220Anonymous09-Dec-2002 17:58 GMT
Comment 221Emmanuel Lesueur09-Dec-2002 18:01 GMT
Comment 222Asemoon09-Dec-2002 18:45 GMT
Comment 223Christophe Decanini09-Dec-2002 19:01 GMT
Comment 224Emmanuel Lesueur09-Dec-2002 19:26 GMT
Comment 225Alkis Tsapanidis10-Dec-2002 16:45 GMT
Comment 226Alkis Tsapanidis10-Dec-2002 16:56 GMT
Comment 227Alkis Tsapanidis10-Dec-2002 17:10 GMT
Comment 228Alkis Tsapanidis10-Dec-2002 17:11 GMT
Comment 229Alkis Tsapanidis10-Dec-2002 17:16 GMT
Comment 230Alkis Tsapanidis10-Dec-2002 17:46 GMT
Back to Top