27-Apr-2024 01:05 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 31 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
[News] MorphOS 1.4ANN.lu
Posted on 27-Jul-2003 15:28 GMT by takemehomegrandma381 comments
View flat
View list
BBRV talked very briefly about MorphOS 1.4 on #MorphOS today ...

"yesterday we played a movie, then we open FIVE "Zoom" windows (new 1.4 feature) at differnt zoom levels and then we moved the curser around...alll this while the second desktop was running ImageFX...then we launched the CPU meter [also a new 1.4 feature] and it read between 70 and 95% -- flashing for a second sometimes at 100%...that was all done on a G3"

I asked: "Did TCP and JIT make it into the 1.4 release?"

"JIT yes, TCP/IP no, but license is signed and integration is being done" ... "we might release it without the GUI...we will think about it"

Apparently, there will be a demonstration of MorphOS 1.4 around 11:30 local time. Now, where were those streaming servers again ... ;-)

MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 351 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 30-Jul-2003 13:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 337 (samface):
First off, Sammy, as I'm sure this discussion is winding down, let me thank you for an interesting exchange. As a result we may not see eye to eye any more than we started, but perhaps we both got some new insight and ideas.

>Which is why I'm trying to explain that it is not similar even if it does
>seem that way. I would do the same if you were a Lindows user that believes
>that his computer is a Windows computer.

Well, perhaps the world needs people like you then. The purists. :-) I've made my point regarding generic terms and how they are born (an interesting tidbit the Apple vs. UNIX legal battle in this thread, I had forgotten about that - makes my point even more poignant, I'm interested to see how that plays out!). Whether or not that happens to Amiga, I don't know, all I know is that many people see legitimate (not a legal reference) reasons to call things "Amiga", that are exactly not that. This is how trademark degeneration probably often starts. You are certainly choosing your camp by volunteering to fight for it, and I wish you well in your quest. I'd leave it up to the companies, though.

>The term Amiga never was and should not be turned into a generic term,
>otherwise people will never be able to tell the difference between an
>offically licensed AmigaOS4 computer and a computer that won't even run the
>AmigaOS to begin with.

Well, trademarks don't guarantee customer clarity any more than generic terms do. Even Amiga is pretty much "abusing" the name with their technologies making consumers quite confused I'm sure - all in the name of marketing. They have the legal right to do that, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that them doing so directly makes them guilty of doing exactly the same thing (if not worse) than what someone would do by calling Pegasos an Amiga from a technology point of view. Amiga calls AmigaDE software Amiga software and vice-versa and inter-mingles the technologies in their marketing material in all kinds of ways... Yet AmigaDE doesn't run AmigaOS software, nor does AmigaOS run AmigaDE or its software (at this time).

>If Genesi would want their computer to be an Amiga clone, they are free to
>sign up for the AmigaOS4 licensing terms any day. The same goes for anyone
>wanting to market their product as an Amiga clone.

What if Genesi licensed the name Amiga from Amiga Inc. for MorphOS? What if Amiga were to license the name for MorphOS? Just hypothetically. Like they gave the name Amiga to the system they are building on top of TAO's system. Would this in any way add to consumer confidence? No. Official or not, names can be used in many and often misleading ways. This actually is one of the bigger problems with Amiga's brand image today in my opinion, it is far from clear what "Amiga" means even from an official standpoint. The unofficial technologies make it even more blurry.

Nothing wrong, per se, with a diverse brand image. All I'm saying is that calling something "Amiga" doesn't guarantee compatibility. Like I said, not even all Amiga 500 software ran on Amiga 1200.

>However, from the customer's point of view, it should be Genesi's obligation
>to inform the customer about this and the customer is always right, right?

I believe Genesi's current information policy regarding this is quite all right. As I said, I do think some mistakes were made along the path earlier on.

>About the product labeled with that brand, yes. However, that doesn't justify
>why it would be correct to label another company's product that has a brand
>of it's own with another company's brand. That is per definition a trademark
>infringement.

Obviously. And that is not what I am suggesting. But you know, that doesn't have to be how degeneration of trademarks happens. There doesn't have to be anything malicious about it. It may just happen... like the adoption or changing of meaning for any word in our vocabulary.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 352 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 14:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 351 (Janne):
Well said.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 353 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 16:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 349 (- GALAXY -):
I have a girlfriend and we live together. However, I don't see why this would be relevant nor any of your business to begin with. Let's just say that I have quite alot of spare time right now and that I find this discussion rather interesting. That's far more than what you need to know.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 354 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 16:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 350 (cahva):
Syntax error. Suspend or reboot? ;-)
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 355 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by - GALAXY - on 30-Jul-2003 16:55 GMT
> I have a girlfriend and we live together.

Of course you live together, the question is rather is it the left or the right hand :)

No really, don't you think that your way of getting 'attention' is a stupid way ? You give people really the impression that you are some sort of 'loon' rather than living together with someone that you can pump up every night.

Not that I should care, which you are right but you have filled this entire thread with a lot of bullshit and people on certain other places (namely IRC channels) make funny jokes about you already. I am a fair person thus I'm telling you.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 356 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 17:16 GMT
In reply to Comment 353 (samface):
Just don't call her your 'Amiga' or you'll be guilty of trademark infringement.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 357 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 17:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 351 (Janne):
I'm sorry but these issues is where I disagree:

1. Beeing "brand-aware" does not make me a purist. It's perfectly normal to use brands for seperating the well-known products by well-known companies from the not-so-well-known products by not-so-well-known companies.

2. Claiming that the word "Amiga" would be a generic term for anything resembling Amiga products is rather far fetched if you ask me. I mean, there are maybe a couple of thousand people out there that has even heard of any Amiga alternatives at all, while there are not more than a few hundred former Amiga users that actually owns an Amiga alternative. Compare that with the fact that there are atleast a million former Amiga users out there that is prepared to confirm that there only is one Amiga and that it is not some form of a generic term for anything resembling it. I know, no rules without exceptions, but I think you get the idea.

3. A brand is a certification that the product is an authentic product from the owner of the brand rather than a term for defining a specific technology, functionality or compatibility. There is nothing odd about putting the same brand name on different kinds of products as long as the products are authentic products from the owner of the brand or if the products has been granted a license from the owner of the brand. However, for seperating such products you give each product it's own model name. For example, there are no Amiga models named simply "Amiga", all models has their own model name in combination with the brand, such as "Amiga4000" or "AmigaOne". Like you said yourself; there has been several Amiga products in the past that doesn't share the same technology, functionality nor compatibility. Different versions of their products has always had a few incompatibility issues, introduced new functionalities and technologies, etc. In other words, the AmigaDE is not unique in this regard and will soon be considered a standard part of the AmigaOS.

4. A clone is a product that is made to be compatible and function in the same way as another product per definition, otherwise it's not a clone to begin with. The original, on the other hand, has no obligations to be compatible with anything since it is the original and dictates it's own standards. That makes the argument that Amiga Inc. would be "abusing" their own brand rather irrational.

5. Even if certain parties are doing their best to make the definition of the term "Amiga" seem blurry, there is actually nothing blurry about it. The Amiga brand is nothing but a brand and it belongs to Amiga Inc. The fact that a few former Amiga users has problems with realizing this does not change anything.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 358 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 17:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 355 (- GALAXY -):
It's actually nice to hear that I can be the source for a few laughs. Can I tell you a secret? I crack a few jokes about delusional former Amiga users too once in a while. Example: "Wow, this computer runs classic 68k Amiga applications on PPC, it must be an Amiga! I have to thank that honest gentleman Bill Buck for showing it to me." ;-)

Anyway, could I ask you to please restrain yourself from insulting my girlfriend? She has nothing to do with this and I'm the one you're actually aiming at, are you not?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 359 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 17:55 GMT
In reply to Comment 356 (Anonymous):
My girlfriend is not a commercial product, thank you very much. Please, no more jokes about her and I will not joke about your mother, ok?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 360 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 30-Jul-2003 18:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 359 (samface):
The joke wasn't about her. The joke had her in it but the joke was about your use of the term Amiga.

Go ahead and joke about my Mom. I've seen her slap guys before you won't be the first.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 361 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 30-Jul-2003 18:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 360 (Anonymous):
Calling my girlfriend an Amiga would only be a trademark infringement if she was commercial product. That kind of took the edge off your joke and turned it into an insult.

Anyway, I will do my best to try avoiding your mom's fists.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 362 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 31-Jul-2003 13:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 358 (samface):
Call me a former Amiga User again and I'll post 1000 jokes about your girlfriend. You f*****g a*****e...
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 363 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 31-Jul-2003 14:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 362 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Of course you're not a former Amiga users if you still own and use Amiga products. Furthermore, you really need to grow up, Alkis.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 364 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 31-Jul-2003 14:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 357 (samface):
>1. Beeing "brand-aware" does not make me a purist.

No, it alone does not. However, the excessive brand loyalty does. Really, you do seem very much a purist to me, but lets not go down that road. We have had enough discussions about the definition and meaning of words, we don't need to do purist too. I can agree to disagree on that one.

>2. Claiming that the word "Amiga" would be a generic term for anything
>resembling Amiga products is rather far fetched if you ask me.

OK, I'll live that. But for many people (relatively speaking), it doesn't seem so far fetched.

>3. A brand is a certification that the product is an authentic product from
>the owner of the brand rather than a term for defining a specific technology,
>functionality or compatibility.

Well, something like that. Brand is really no guarantee of anything. It can just be any product that has been branded as such. But sure, branding is a certification that the product has been branded by the owner of the brand (unless fake). :-)

>Different versions of their products has always had a few incompatibility
>issues, introduced new functionalities and technologies, etc.

OK, but please, AmigaDE started out quite differently than most technologies bearing the name Amiga or being a part of it. It wasn't originally even meant to become a part of the AmigaOS, it was to replace it. Not that this matters, really, but it does make the brand-image fuzzier in my books at least.

>4. A clone is a product that is made to be compatible and function in the
>same way as another product per definition,

Sure, a clone starts out as a clone, but from there it can go anywhere. It is not unheard of for originals to end up cloning clones in some regards. See the UNIX variants for example. They are still called UNIXes by many people even if they are different too in many regards. The name simply fits!

>The original, on the other hand, has no obligations to be compatible with
>anything

Neither does the clone. All that matters is how people receive it, which is more viable, etc. If enough people buy into the clone, perhaps the original would benefit from following the lead and getting back some customers through compatibility with the clone. This is not unheard of and something that does happen under the seemingly generic term UNIX. It could happen for "Amiga". I'm not saying it will, but it could.

>That makes the argument that Amiga Inc. would be "abusing" their own brand
>rather irrational.

Whatever. But many owners of Amiga have decided to ditch the old technology and build something new. See Gateway, see Amiga Inc.'s original plans of using just the AmigaDE. It was about using the name to get the attention. It was about calling something Amiga that in no way was Amiga (as we had used to know the term and its meaning). I call that "abusing" (in quotes because I don't mean to imply anything illegal or even morally wrong), you can call it what you like.

>5. Even if certain parties are doing their best to make the definition of the
>term "Amiga" seem blurry, there is actually nothing blurry about it.

Hey, many people are not doing their best to make it blurry, for them it just is blurry. You can deny it all you want, but it won't make the opinion go away.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 365 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 31-Jul-2003 20:30 GMT
In reply to Comment 363 (samface):
Many of us have waster 10 years waiting, we WILL NOT take such claims easily.
Believe me in that. Don't you think that you're smart with your little arguement
around here. You've got your opinion, which I disagree with, do NOT enforce them
to others as you do, it does not work. Now stop it.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 366 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 31-Jul-2003 21:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 364 (Janne):
>4. A clone is a product that is made to be compatible and function in the
>same way as another product per definition,

----
But a clone does not mean it's 100% compatible in all aspects. PC 'clones' of today are not 100% compatible with the 286 of yester year. Clones are compatible in enough aspects to warrant the similarities.

Heck - Dolly the cloned sheep wasn't a 100% clone. While the DNA was replicated the RNA was from the donor cell. RNA has determining factors for a life form. While Dolly was still a 'clone' she wasn't a true 100% clone. There were differences between her and the donor sheep and you could tell them apart on the macro and microscopic levels.

Thus, clone doesn't mean 100% compatible but more of a close enough representation that it's easier to refer to these agents as duplicates of each other.

IE UAE, Amiga Forever, Draco, Amithlon are close enough to the original Amiga that some people do allow these items to be referred to as Amiga clones. In some aspects some people, not Samface, but others refer to the MorphOS as a Amiga clone because it allows the execution of Amiga software w/o the need for a recompile/rebuild of the application.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 367 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 01-Aug-2003 05:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 364 (Janne):
>>1. Beeing "brand-aware" does not make me a purist.
>
>No, it alone does not. However, the excessive brand loyalty does.

I'm not "loyal" to any brand nor company, I'm merely a consumer with an interest in a specific brand from a specific company. That makes me a hobbyist or fan rather than a "purist". This is no more odd than Harley Davidson motorcycle hobbyists, for example. Please restrain yourself from degrading me simply because I care about authentic Amiga products rather than cheap copies.

>Sure, a clone starts out as a clone, but from there it can go anywhere. It is
>not unheard of for originals to end up cloning clones in some regards. See the
>UNIX variants for example. They are still called UNIXes by many people even if
>they are different too in many regards. The name simply fits!

But the thing is, MorphOS and the Pegasos didn't even start out as a clone to begin with. The idea was and always has been to do a completely new PPC based OS and hardware, the fact that they are providing former Amiga users with features that will make their transition to this new platform a bit more convinient doesn't change this.

As for the rest, I agree to disagree.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 368 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 01-Aug-2003 08:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 365 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
Alkis, the extent of something that used to be does not effect it's present status. It's admirable that you used to wait for such a long time, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not waiting anymore. Why you get so offended by me saying this is beyond me. I mean, if you really care so much about belonging to the Amiga user community, why did you give up on waiting in the first place? You obviously prioritize getting a new computer above having a real Amiga and I don't condemn you for that. However, you can't have the cake and eat it at the same time. Is there something wrong with belonging to the Pegasos/MorphOS user community? I mean, the Pegasos/MorphOS community is where you will find people with the same interest and valuations as you, why bother with us BAF's? Shouldn't you be glad to be rid of the likes of me?
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 369 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Janne on 01-Aug-2003 09:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 367 (samface):
>I'm not "loyal" to any brand nor company, I'm merely a consumer with an
>interest in a specific brand from a specific company.

If you say so. But your actions do feel extremely loyal to the brand, for whatever reason - perhaps that reason being the interest you hold in the success of said brand, but given that I see no other reason for you to have such a strong and specific interest, other than fandom - I call it loyalty. Loyalty alone does not make one purist, of course. The way you choose to disregard other alternatives and their relevance to the Amiga community and especially the use of words to describe that, well, all this combined really makes you look like a purist to me. Much like a UNIX purists disregard Linux when discussing "UNIX".

Look it up:

"purist - one preoccupied with the purity of a language and its protection from the use of foreign or altered forms" (Merriam-Webster)

In this context the shoe simply fits.

>Please restrain yourself from degrading me simply because I care about
>authentic Amiga products rather than cheap copies.

See the definition above. Your defence of the word Amiga simply makes you a purist in my opinion within this context. It was not meant as degrading, it was meant as... well, calling it like I see it.

Oh, and all this "cheap copies" stuff. Please stop it for the sake of balanced discussion. That only stirs up flames! And that IS degrading. There has been nothing cheap about the making of MorphOS, unlike making knock-off handbags from cheap materials or something. You don't (at least you shouldn't) call Linux a "cheap copy" of UNIX just because it is free... You know the difference. This is not about the purity of language or the proper use of words - your attempt to degrade MorphOS with that comment is apparent. Just like it was before when you called it cheap knock-off or something like that.

>But the thing is, MorphOS and the Pegasos didn't even start out as a clone to
>begin with. The idea was and always has been to do a completely new PPC based
>OS and hardware,

Well, MorphOS was certainly to follow, and most likely will follow, the path its designers foreshaw as the best for the future. They were using a familiar foundation to get things started, because that is where these people came from - that is the background they cared for, about, and one they saw had a lot of good in it - I presume. AFAIK the box model came into being to prepare for getting rid of some of the more nagging limitations of AmigaOS.

So, while I am in no way in disagreement over what you said there, the fact is that MorphOS did end up much like a clone. It didn't get licensed parts from AmigaOS so a new OS was built that cloned the entire OS 3.1 API. Today it is mostly a clone. Where it will go from there, I have no idea. Time will tell!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 370 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Aug-2003 09:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 367 (samface):
Please restrain yourself from degrading me simply because I care about authentic Amiga products rather than cheap copies.
---
It's not cheap just less expensive.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 371 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Aug-2003 09:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 367 (samface):
But the thing is, MorphOS and the Pegasos didn't even start out as a clone to begin with.
---
As you see it no. As others see it yes. It clones the necessary foundation to allow Amiga Applications to execute w/o a recompile.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 372 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Aug-2003 10:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 369 (Janne):
So, while I am in no way in disagreement over what you said there, the fact is that MorphOS did end up much like a clone. It didn't get licensed parts from AmigaOS so a new OS was built that cloned the entire OS 3.1 API. Today it is mostly a clone.
----
While I don't expect SamFace to agree with you I do.

A clone is a 'multiple identical copies of ' an item. However while a great philosophical purist sense of the word the actual use of the word clone is more typically 'closely resembles another, as in appearance or function'. I'd argue that in the computer sense and in the 'clone' of an organism sense this is the standard definition. MorphOS can be considered an AmigaOS clone because it closely resemebles the AmigaOS in function. It allows Amiga Applications to function.

Samface doesn't want to accept this as a definition of clone and wants to exclude MorphOS users as Amiga Users and wants to not allow people who run MorphOS to run Amiga software as part of the Amiga Community.

Samface wants to keep the brand loyality in place and unless it has the AmigaTM stamped on it he doesn't want to hear of it. Unfortunately Amiga Inc. has broken this in some ways. They've allowed AmigaOS and AmigaDE. I'd argue that the way AmigaOS and AmigaDE are GREATLY less then the way AmigaOS and MorphOS are like each other. While, the use of the term Amiga isn't a general purpose word. I think it's much more fair to characterize the MorphOS function to be an Amiga then the AmigaDE. He likes the 'brand' or stamp of approval. Fine.

What I say is we all denote Samface's view and move on. If it doesn't have the Amiga stamp then it's not an Amiga to him. Fine. We all know others have a broader definition for the term Amiga.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 373 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by hooligan/dcs on 01-Aug-2003 14:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 372 (Anonymous):
Amen.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 374 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 01-Aug-2003 18:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 372 (Anonymous):
You're so far off the mark that it's scary. AmigaOS4 is more Amiga because it is based on the actual AmigaOS sources which is far more of an Amiga than an "A/Box" ontop of the Quark kernel could ever be. Furthermore, the AmigaDE is NOT a replacement of the AmigaOS but something that will be an added functionality. How could added functionality ever make the OS less original? I mean, MorphOS will have it's own Java implementation in the future, right? Why would this be any different from AmigaOS having support for TAO's virtual processor?

I have many reasons for supporting the official path, the brand is probably the most insignificant.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 375 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 01-Aug-2003 20:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 374 (samface):
You're so far off the mark that it's scary. AmigaOS4 is more Amiga because it is based on the actual AmigaOS sources
----
Don't think I'm off the mark. I never said AmigaOS4 wasn't Amiga like so I'm not sure where you got that idea. I did say that AmigaDE isn't Amiga like. I'd fully agree with you that AmigaOS4 will probably be more Amiga like then MorphOS. But, we'll see once Amiga ships a final product.


the AmigaDE is NOT a replacement of the AmigaOS but something that will be an added functionality
----
Yeah and your point?


How could added functionality ever make the OS less original?
----
Didn't say it wouldn't.

I did say that AmigaDE is not like AmigaOS. They both use the Amiga brand name and I'm sure users of both could claim they are Amiga Users. I think few people here would interwine the 2 products in their current state. My statement is that MorphOS and AmigaOS have more things similar then AmigaDE and AmigaOS.


I have many reasons for supporting the official path, the brand is probably the most insignificant.
---
Great. I hope Amiga Inc. ships an OS that meets your expectations.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 376 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Aug-2003 04:25 GMT
In reply to Comment 368 (samface):
Why did I give up waiting? Cause of *ssh*l*s like you... And Amiga Inc
is in that list... Yes, believe it or not, THAT was the reason I gave
up waiting. I still wait for OS4 but I moved on, I use something that
did everything my Amiga did, the way my Amiga did with the software
my Amiga did what it did. Confusing huh? :-) Now go away... Get
lost...
Fuck Off, how can I say that? You're a never ending nightmare.
People call me a troll cause I speak pretty harshly but it's not me
that starts 350 or even 700 comment threads... It's you... and it's
you who fills the threads with all there messages. GET LOST GOD DAMN
IT!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 377 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Aug-2003 07:13 GMT
spamface


LOL!!!
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 378 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 04-Aug-2003 04:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 376 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
That's right, I'm your worst nightmare. :-P
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 379 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 04-Aug-2003 14:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 378 (samface):
Alkis Tsapanidis --- I have to agree with samface on this one. You give him far too much credit.
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 380 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by r sole on 06-Aug-2003 10:04 GMT
still too buggy. cmon qbox, lets ditch miggybox
MorphOS 1.4 : Comment 381 of 381ANN.lu
Posted by aa on 06-Aug-2003 11:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 380 (r sole):
BETA = Buggy
Anonymous, there are 381 items in your selection (but only 31 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 200] [201 - 250] [251 - 300] [301 - 350] [351 - 381]
Back to Top