Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Thunderbolt (Lightpeak) Unveiled  (Read 26821 times)
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2011, 02:46:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve:  It took a bit of checking, but the Macbook 2010 and 2011 use the same Intel Series 3400 USB chipset.....

I largely agree with you regarding "pushing the envelope" in an artistic way - this particular issue is purely technical however.  Honestly, dragging around a 45' cable with at least 4 flaky connectors is not my idea of enhancing my creativity - personally I'd go wireless.....

http://www.cablesunlimited.com/products/Prod_Individual3.aspx?groupcode=I4098


Now I'm getting really curious.. if not the chipset then the BIOS or a driver maybe?  It would be interesting to know.

Sure, cables can be inconvenient and sometimes even dangerous.  Wireless, imo, is always better provided it works as fast and with the same level of reliability.  But I find this level of wireless expensive.  And in the case of the unit you linked it's limited to a 30 foot max.. which side of the 30 foot range it operates on under different conditions is an unknown.  Have you used this one, and do you have any idea of it's actual range and speed?  These devices just keep getting better and better, but as you probably know wireless device output power is perhaps the most significant limiting variable and the FCC allowed levels in the frequency range haven't increased since the band was established and I doubt it ever will.  Increasing power results in a host of other issues such as cross-band interference, power supplies must be larger, more heat, etc.. so I'd guess it will be small tweaks with technology resulting in small performance gains, vs. a significant increase in power for real speed/range changes.  The same reason in-home wifi range hasn't grown by much over the years if anything, though we have seen different schemes result in faster speeds.

I keep hoping for an effective wireless solution for my HDTV too..

Speaking of wifi.  With all the wifi technology out there, all the devices, etc.. I still find regular LAN cables the fastest (by far) and more reliable (how much varies), and they have the best range.  A PIA for sure, but once in place there's nothing better.  I'm moving from Thailand to the USA and a new home this week.. already bought the home.. and researched quite a bit trying to find a wireless solution that could handle blue-ray level data streams..  I didn't find anything so it looks like I'll be making and running cables.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1624


WWW
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2011, 05:41:04 PM »
ReplyReply

As much as it is a pain, hard cables are still the best solution for that kind of bandwidth, Steve - totally agree. 

It is interesting that the chipsets are the same.  It would be interesting to sample a larger number of the offending 2010 MBPs to see if the problem was consistent.

Concerning interpretation of messages in forums?  Yes, that's true, but I think it all comes back to the old Fidonet (for those who remember that) rule (perhaps even axiomatic?) of, "Don't be excessively annoying. Don't be excessively annoyed."
Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2011, 07:05:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve:  It took a bit of checking, but the Macbook 2010 and 2011 use the same Intel Series 3400 USB chipset.....

I largely agree with you regarding "pushing the envelope" in an artistic way - this particular issue is purely technical however.  Honestly, dragging around a 45' cable with at least 4 flaky connectors is not my idea of enhancing my creativity - personally I'd go wireless.....

http://www.cablesunlimited.com/products/Prod_Individual3.aspx?groupcode=I4098


It not a 'pain' at all.  On a GOOD day I might make  5 or 6 images from the same product. Cables (USB and extended shutter release) only get moved once or twice.  BTW the 60 foot of shutter release is for using mirror lockup.  Neither EOS capture nor DSLR remote allow MLU.

Wireless.  Well I work mostly in factories and my computer is outside of a 30-40 foot boat or a large RV and the camera is deep inside. 



I'm not sure wifi would be a good fit. Maybe or maybe not. The long cables have worked flawlessly for years now.  In fact I'm still using the same set of cable I first bought right after the intro of the 1DSMKIII.  Never touched the backup set.  Ever.  Now I  have TWO sets of backup.

Is this a creative issue?  Of course!  For example its pretty hard to be creative when you are stuck on a scissor lift 25 feet in the air and the stylist and AD are down on the ground at the monitor.  Makes collaboration kinda difficult.  Now mount that camera on the lift after correctly framing, measure the exact height, and come on down.  Now the cables make the creativity happen since you can interact at the monitor. 






Same thing inside a boat or in  an RV...





I NEED pixel level registration from bracketed exposures. I NEED reliable connectivity.  I NEED easily available and cost effective replacements.  All of these are creative needs not technical.

In fact I really  don't care a hoot for specs. I'm an artist not an IT guy, even though I play one.   I want to plug my camera in and have it send data to  my computer.  If something works for years over a broad range of systems, in my book its a reliable system.  I'm really quite impatient when things don't work. Even more so when they have worked so well in the past.

Until I bought my first new Mac (since a very old and used crt Imac) everything always worked flawlessly, specs be damned. And that's all I want (and have now).  Something that works so I can create.


Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



« Reply #83 on: April 29, 2011, 05:00:05 AM »
ReplyReply

*crickets*

      Wink
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #84 on: May 16, 2011, 06:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Curious as to just what it is you are trying to hook up? By 'same hardware I've used for years', are you refering to parallel/serial?

I've got a lovely IBM R52 I'll trade you for the MBP.

Now HP selecting USB 3.0:

http://www.macworld.com/article/159906/2011/05/thunderbolt_usb.html

The first months of Thunderbolt are predictably tough. :-(

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #85 on: May 17, 2011, 12:01:29 AM »
ReplyReply

agreed!  Asus has first copies of Intel's x68 chipset available - no thunderbolt Sad    I'm waiting on Intel's "reference" implementation (foxconn) - presumably next fall when 22nm Ivy Bridge ships....
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2011, 06:57:35 PM »
ReplyReply

More USB 3.0 news...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11051905lexarreader.asp

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7761



WWW
« Reply #87 on: June 01, 2011, 04:19:22 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4406/correction-ivy-bridge-and-thunderbolt-featured-not-integrated

So so news about thunderbolt... it will in the end not be integrated in the Ivy Bridge while USB3.0 will be.

This should end this conversation for good, we have a new firewire.  Angry

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 02, 2011, 07:47:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I am willing to make a bet on that one :-)

USB 3.x will be ubiquitous, 3-4 years after it was announced, as the el-cheapo connection. It will, of course, perform well below spec, but that will be enough for a lot of daily things. But that certainly doesn't mean lightpeak will not be used... The developer's kit should be available this quarter. You can't expect peripherals to precede development kits....
Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



« Reply #89 on: June 04, 2011, 05:19:36 AM »
ReplyReply

USB 3.x will be ubiquitous, 3-4 years after it was announced, as the el-cheapo connection. It will, of course, perform well below spec, but that will be enough for a lot of daily things. But that certainly doesn't mean lightpeak will not be used... The developer's kit should be available this quarter. You can't expect peripherals to precede development kits....

I agree. USB is cheaper to implement, and mass-market PCs depend on low-cost components to have any chance in the eternal race to the bottom.

BUT, USB is still CPU-dependent as far as I know, and will be handily eclipsed in speed by TB; Mac folks who need it will use it, along with USB adapters (on the other end of the chain) for lesser peripherals if/when USB support is removed from Macs. And PC folks who need it will be able to buy motherboards/computers with TB. The situation will resemble the USB/FireWire competition (with the addition of SATA of course).
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
DeanChriss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 268


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 05, 2011, 07:36:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a note... No mechanical hard drive comes close to being able to use the bandwidth provided by USB 3.0 or TB, so the speed will be the same with both interfaces, and SATA III for that matter. It's a different story for the fastest SSDs, but these are typically not used for storing large amounts of data (yet) anyway, so it doesn't make much difference at the moment.

If you look at the data rates, only the burst rates (which involve small amounts of data directly from cache) come close to maxing out SATA III. For the transfer of large amounts of data, which is where this really matters, the sustained data rates of SATA III mechanical hard drives don't even max out SATA II bandwidths. 
Logged

- Dean
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #91 on: July 14, 2011, 09:09:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Promise Raid Pegasus R6 test.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4489/promise-pegasus-r6-mac-thunderbolt-review

Performance is.... well... interesting.
Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #92 on: July 19, 2011, 11:28:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Heres's a real world implementation - replacing a Mac Pro.....

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/new-thunderbolt-raid-imac-lessons-learned/1444?tag=content;selector-blogs
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #93 on: September 02, 2011, 04:39:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The beginning of the end to Thunderbolt?  (rhetorical question, I know it's too early to say)  Link..

Report: Apple Preparing to Finally Catch up With PCs by Adding USB 3.0
Jason Mick (Blog) - September 2, 2011 4:40 PM
   
A publication claims that USB 3.0 could at last hit Macs.

The addition would allow Apple customers to ditch their $50 premium cables -- and, more importantly, gain access to many more peripherals.  (Source: iFixIt)
Move could alleviate Apple owners' woes of limited peripheral selection

These days USB 3.0, an extra-speedy connectivity technology is supported by an increasing number of peripherals like external hard drives or thumb drives.  And it's become quite mainstream in the PC market, even showing up in mid-range models like the Micro-Star International Comp., Ltd.'s (TPE:2377) $700 MSI FX603 notebook.

But customers of Apple Inc. (AAPL) -- the third largest computer-maker in the U.S. -- are willing to settle for paying as much $3,000 or more for some high end "fully loaded" notebooks or $5,000 on some desktops without a scrap of USB 3.0 support.

Ex-CEO Steve Jobs claimed customers didn't care about USB 3.0 and it wasn't time for them to be allowed to get it, anyways.  Apple instead offers customers Thunderbolt, an early copper-based implementation of Intel Corp.'s (INTC) upcoming fiber-optic "LightPeak" technology.

LightPeak offers 20 Gbit/s bidirectional data transmission versus up to 5 Gbit/s with USB 3.0.  While that sounds like a favorable trade, one relatively minor downside to this arrangement is that Apple customers have to pony up a whopping $50 USD per cable, thanks to the slew of microchips inside the complicated design.  Further, while an extra $50 on a $5000 computer may not seem that bad, the lack of selection in terms of ThunderBolt peripherals offers a far more pressing issue for Apple computer users.

Now with a new CEO at the head of Apple the rumor has popped up yet again that the company will finally catch up to PCs in hardware by offering its customers USB 3.0. 

VR-Zone writes, "A lot of people have been disappointed over Apple's lack of interest in the USB 3.0 standard, but thanks to a little bird, VR-Zone has heard that the company is still looking at USB 3.0 as a potential feature to add on future products. As to when and how this might happen is not something we know, but from our understanding it'll happen before Intel integrates USB 3.0 support into its chipsets."

The important word in that comment is "before".  Intel is supposed to drop in support for the USB 3.0 standard in its Ivy Bridge CPU series, which will launch in 2012.  If VR-Zone's source is correct Apple could be preparing to deliver USB 3.0 slightly ahead of schedule in late 2011.

If Apple does that it'd probably have to go with a third party chip to add compatibility to its stock Intel chipset.  That wouldn't be the first time Apple has done this -- its a well known secret that back in 2010 it hacked at the stock chipsets to allow graphics switching (similar to Optimus) between the integrated GPU in the Intel CPU core and the dedicated onboard NVIDIA Corp. (NVDA) GeForce GPU.

Hopefully the rumors are true, after all, from our perspective there's little excuse to be peddling a $5,000 computer that lacks USB 3.0 support found in $700 Windows PCs.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



« Reply #94 on: September 02, 2011, 09:57:18 PM »
ReplyReply

By TEAMSWITCHER on 9/2/2011 8:20:31 PM , Rating: 1
USB 3 can't can't drive a external display but Thunderbolt can and much, much, more. Thunderbolt is a versatile docking solution for Apple laptops, and that was really the point of it. The new Apple Thunderbolt displays have a MagSafe power plug and a Thunderbolt cable. It charges your MacBook, is a port replicator, and external 27" IPS display all at the same time. Thunderbolt is more expensive to implement than USB 3 but not more difficult - any device that can connect to a PCI Express bus can connect to Thunderbolt, it's already compatible with existing technologies, even USB 3. I sure hope PC manufacturers don't dismiss Thunderbolt to save a few dollars on their designs, it's fantastic technology that when mature could lead to exciting new computer designs. USB 3 is just a faster USB port, it is useful, but isn't the game changer Thunderbolt is.

From the story cited in the last post
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #95 on: September 03, 2011, 03:20:48 PM »
ReplyReply

By TEAMSWITCHER on 9/2/2011 8:20:31 PM , Rating: 1
USB 3 can't can't drive a external display but Thunderbolt can and much, much, more. Thunderbolt is a versatile docking solution for Apple laptops, and that was really the point of it. The new Apple Thunderbolt displays have a MagSafe power plug and a Thunderbolt cable. It charges your MacBook, is a port replicator, and external 27" IPS display all at the same time. Thunderbolt is more expensive to implement than USB 3 but not more difficult - any device that can connect to a PCI Express bus can connect to Thunderbolt, it's already compatible with existing technologies, even USB 3. I sure hope PC manufacturers don't dismiss Thunderbolt to save a few dollars on their designs, it's fantastic technology that when mature could lead to exciting new computer designs. USB 3 is just a faster USB port, it is useful, but isn't the game changer Thunderbolt is.

From the story cited in the last post

Hmm..

1.  Wait a minute.. the first three pages of this thread were spent telling us Thunderbolt was made by Intel and therefore was designed for all PC's..

2.  So does a 98 cent extension cord..

3.  Thinking back to all the discussions I've had about computers.. and I've never, not once, heard someone say "I really need a super magsafe power handling superspeed interface.."   But what I've heard a million times is "I wish they could speed up USB.."   

Seriously, an HDMI cable isn't convenient already?  Will incorporating the power into the cable really make a significant difference?  It sounds nice, but it's no big leap because we already have HDMI, DP, DVI, doing the job.  Thunderbolt won't give us better or even faster monitors.  It could, but it won't because no one needs them.

A 20gbps interface is great, but why pay $50 for a 20gbps cable when a $1 5gbps cable is available and already maxes out any storage device currently made or even announced?  What peripheral do we need, or even want, that requires more than 5gbps?  Sure, there are some exotic RAID SSD's like the Revo3x2's out there, but that's a very niche market.. Such devices are far from being mainstream.

I don't use Mac's (yet, thinking about it though), but I'd be really pissed to buy a $3000 MBP and not have USB3 available.  USB3 devices are just now coming on line in force, and I suspect soon any device which can take advantage of USB3 speeds will come with one.. because the USB3 port and cables add a dollar to the cost of a PC and not $50..  Did you see the picture at that link of the thunderbolt cable's circuitry exposed?  Just the site of it makes me think of unreliable and incompatible cables..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 674



« Reply #96 on: September 03, 2011, 09:39:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I repeat [sigh]:

I agree. USB is cheaper to implement, and mass-market PCs depend on low-cost components to have any chance in the eternal race to the bottom.

BUT, USB is still CPU-dependent as far as I know, and will be handily eclipsed in speed by TB; Mac folks who need it will use it, along with USB adapters (on the other end of the chain) for lesser peripherals if/when USB support is removed from Macs. And PC folks who need it will be able to buy motherboards/computers with TB. The situation will resemble the USB/FireWire competition (with the addition of SATA of course).

Carping on the cost of a cable by folks from one of the wealthiest nations provides a dissonance that I find incongruous.

If you [cf. anybody] want to use USB3 and its peripherals, do so.

If you [cf. anybody] want to use Thunderbolt, likewise do so.

Simple as that.

To channel Bette Midler channelling Sophie Tucker, ďUSB3 goes into Thunderbolt a hell of a lot better than Thunderbolt goes into USB3Ē.

Thunderbolt has a number of advantages over USB3, already elucidated, with two disadvantages, present implementation cost and limited availability of devices and adapters. Costs will come down over time, and the range of compatible hardware will improve. USB will still be USB, an older host-based technology that has improved with improvements.

If users donít edit much HD video, donít require the fastest available scratch disks for editing large digital camera files, and donít use external HDDs as boot disks, including computers operating in Target Disk mode, then USB3 will be quite adequate for them.

Horses for courses Ö
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #97 on: September 03, 2011, 10:42:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I repeat [sigh]:

Carping on the cost of a cable by folks from one of the wealthiest nations provides a dissonance that I find incongruous.

If users donít edit much HD video, donít require the fastest available scratch disks for editing large digital camera files, and donít use external HDDs as boot disks, including computers operating in Target Disk mode, then USB3 will be quite adequate for them.

Horses for courses Ö

1.  Watch the flies..

2.  You're really going to pull that "wealthiest nation" argument?  Really?  I've heard that somewhere before.. Ah yes, every time they want to raise our taxes.     $50 a CABLE.. not to mention interfaces on the devices.  You really don't see a problem with that from a manufacturing and marketing standpoint?  I'm sure the price will go way down when/if thunderbolt will go mainstream, but even costing 2-3x as much as USB is a huge problem.

3.  What are some of these "fastest available" devices you're referring to?  And we are talking external devices right?  Who's using external boot and scratch disks on their laptops?  And of those, who's using devices that exceed USB 3.0 speeds?

Look, I'm not saying that 'some day' there won't be such devices.  Maybe even as soon as 2-3 years down the road.  But 2-3 years down the road most everyone worried about having the fastest devices will also be worried about having the fastest PC.. which means the current crop of MBP's with Thunderbolt will go on the used market never once using Thunderbolt.  Meanwhile, we have many USB 3.0 choices you can order from Newegg or Amazon this evening if you'd like.   Unfortunately those of you with the latest MBP's.. well.. you can't use them.  Your fastest external storage devices are USB 2.0.  Where's the utility in that?

You've gotta wonder, in that same 2-3 years will Intel find an even faster interface than Thunderbolt that doesn't require $50 cables?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #98 on: September 04, 2011, 04:39:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve: If you look at the Promise Thunderbolt Cabinet's performance, offering SAS performance, using it for swap and scratch actually makes a lot of sense.

I don't see Thunderbolt / USB3.0 competing, anymore than I see SATA or SAS competing - sure there's overlap - choices are *good*.....

Whats frustrating (to me anyway) is the lack of information coming out on the Intel/PC side.  I now understand that up until July, Apple had exclusive control of the "Thunderbolt" moniker - they have now relinquished that to Intel.  I still hope for Thunderbolt I/O on the upcoming socket 2011 offerings (obviously it will be on the Mac Pro)

The cables are expensive precisely because they offer so much bandwidth (they are actually active).  SAS cables are about the same cost.  Remember that Thunderbolt is simply a copper implementation of Intel's LightPeek technology; there is nothing preventing future optical implementations, which would drive cabling costs down.  In any case the "heavy lifting" of defining the bus has already been accomplished and exists in available hardware.

Consider an I7 powered MacBook Pro, a Promise Cabinet populated with 6 spindles - 2 in RAID-0  for swap/working, the other 3-4 in RAID-5/10  for storage.  Now, lets add a Black Magic Design UltraStudio 3D for Video Capture/Playback*.  A formidable Portable Video Edit Suite.

*BMD does offer a similar USB 3.0 device - similar specs, but not enough bandwidth available for direct HDMI capture
« Last Edit: September 04, 2011, 05:01:17 PM by John.Murray » Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #99 on: September 04, 2011, 06:28:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve: If you look at the Promise Thunderbolt Cabinet's performance, offering SAS performance, using it for swap and scratch actually makes a lot of sense.

I don't see Thunderbolt / USB3.0 competing, anymore than I see SATA or SAS competing - sure there's overlap - choices are *good*.....

Whats frustrating (to me anyway) is the lack of information coming out on the Intel/PC side.  I now understand that up until July, Apple had exclusive control of the "Thunderbolt" moniker - they have now relinquished that to Intel.  I still hope for Thunderbolt I/O on the upcoming socket 2011 offerings (obviously it will be on the Mac Pro)

The cables are expensive precisely because they offer so much bandwidth (they are actually active).  SAS cables are about the same cost.  Remember that Thunderbolt is simply a copper implementation of Intel's LightPeek technology; there is nothing preventing future optical implementations, which would drive cabling costs down.  In any case the "heavy lifting" of defining the bus has already been accomplished and exists in available hardware.

Consider an I7 powered MacBook Pro, a Promise Cabinet populated with 6 spindles - 2 in RAID-0  for swap/working, the other 3-4 in RAID-5/10  for storage.  Now, lets add a Black Magic Design UltraStudio 3D for Video Capture/Playback*.  A formidable Portable Video Edit Suite.

*BMD does offer a similar USB 3.0 device - similar specs, but not enough bandwidth available for direct HDMI capture

You make good points, and you came up with an actual device which would benefit from thunderbolt.  Most people can't.  They're just buying the line that thunderbolt is necessary and an alternative to USB3.0 and that they'll need it for their single drive external. 

Here's the thing.   USB3.0 is what the masses will use.  Devices are already out supporting USB3.0.  Thunderbolt is what the specialist will use and there will be very few of them willing to spend on the fastest RAID's.  I see Apple as including Thunderbolt and not USB3.0 as a huge mistake and a disservice to Mac customers.  Apparently I'm not the only one. 

If they included both, which the post I linked suggested is a possibility for the future, I never would have blinked an eye.  But they didn't, they're trying to promote an expensive interface 2-3% will use (I think I'm being generous with 2-3%) at the expense of a much cheaper interface 60-70% (of computer buyers) will use.  To me this is just wrong, wrong from a business standpoint, and wrong from a people standpoint.

And sure, they do overlap but they're not exclusive.  Your example of SATA vs. SAS is excellent.  Imagine if a computer maker didn't make SATA available and instead only equipped their computers with SAS interfaces?  This is essentially what Apple has done.

And where are you buying your SAS cables?  I'll sell you all the $40 SAS cables you want.. Smiley

Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad