Editing together multiple sources?

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Ed Chilada, Mar 13, 2006.

  1. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Well maybe not in a long time...

    Er.. right... and what's on that stack? How is it used? Why does it
    have to be LIFO in order to handle nesting.. and nesting of what? Have
    you any references for this?

    Sounds to me like you're just throwing a few terms together and hoping
    it'll sound credible. Maybe it will to some. Not me - it's rubbish.

    OK, but your experience is dated and doesn't appear to be Windows
    related (perhaps you learnt OS scheduling years ago and assume Windows
    works the same way?). 'RAD' is certainly an outdated term these days,
    and it's been a long time since I've heard people use the term LIFO
    (and indeed FIFO) - people just talk of stacks or queues/streams.

    It's also typical of an ex Assember coder to go on about so-called
    bloated software - but that's another argument for another group.

    It should handle itself - like most other programs do. Windows
    programmers however, *can* be lazy at this because it quite rare that
    it happens. Windows programmers migrating to smaller platforms
    (perhaps CE or even Symbian based), often struggle dealing with this.

    An application running at the level Studio does is abstracted from
    dealing with VM. This is all done at the OS and CPU level running at
    ring 0 (or protected mode as it's known). Once the memory is
    successfully allocated to a process, it should not have to be
    concerned with when the OS decides to swap it out. All memory pointers
    allocated to a ring 3 application are virtual and remain static even
    if the actual location of the memory is refers to is moved by the OS.
    An application does *not* have to deal with this. VM activity should
    *not* adversly affect an application, unless it's coded in such a way
    as to expect things to happen in certain time frames - which would be
    bad coding of course.

    If you want to explain to me exactly which VM "issues" I have "little
    understand of", please go right ahead. But when you're coming up with
    garbage explanations saying that the OS "task manager stack" fires
    interrupts at applications when VM activity takes too long - which
    causes them to then crash, well.. your claims that *I* have "little
    understanding", is frankly laughable.

    Yes, and in fact I answered this very question in my last reply when
    you last asked it..... It's simply because they know that VM behaviour
    is very detrimental to performance which doesn't look good for their
    app. They specify how much RAM is likely to be needed so that VM
    activity is kept to a minimum.

    I've already told you where it comes from. I know where it comes from
    and why it occurs. It's actually nothing to do with VM behaviour as it

    However, despite me answer your two questions twice now, you failed to
    answer why a program should respond by crashing when it receives one
    of the IRs you talked about?

    This is good advice and extends to any kind of heavyweight activity -
    even if you plan to play a game on your PC.

    Most of which will be benign, as I said. For this reason they're often
    referred to as inconsistences rather than problems.

    I've had v9 and v10 on the same PC, installed alongside each other. v9
    was fine, v10 was rubbish.

    Cheers. I shall have to look into Vegas. It gets mentioned quite a lot
    (not just here), with generally good reviews.
    Ed Chilada, Mar 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Studio is sold to PC World punters at consumer prices. Pinnacle ought
    to realise that these people are hobbyists and they are not about to
    dedicate a powerhouse machine to their video editing. It should not
    therefore be easily affected by not having a clean machine (if that,
    as you imply, is what makes it unstable).

    Ed Chilada, Mar 19, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Oh good god.. Something the size of Studio would probably (guesstimate
    here), take 10 man years to write. I'm hardly about to spend that time
    just to prove a point when I can just as easily point to other
    products being more stable and in fact other versions of Studio being
    more stable on the same hardware to prove my point. I write other
    software for other solutions and I'm paid to do so already thank you.

    If it's buggy, why not? If my software were released like that, I'd
    expect criticism also, and I wouldn't be so pathetic as to roll out
    the old "well you try it then", excuse - as if that justifies
    Ed Chilada, Mar 19, 2006
  4. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Funnily enough, that's exactly the one I use, for a similar reason. I
    found McAfee to just be too full of bells and whistle and was way too
    noticable and had too big a memory footprint for what it was doing.
    Ed Chilada, Mar 19, 2006
  5. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    You have obviously missed the word "since".
    Indeed it does. You really shouldn't believe all the Microsoft hype.
    Microsoft "invented" DLLs, but they were being used in the days of 64K
    segment for program and 64K for data - but then they were called
    APIs, again are nothing new. They were simply called 'libraries' prior
    to Billy Goat's spin.
    ROFL.. And you call yourself a programmer, software developer or
    whatever? Your limit seems to be Microsoft Visual Studio - which is a
    There's more to software engineering than Visual Basic. If you were a
    competent software engineer you would know that there are four types of
    "stack" - but I guess that's a bit beyond you.
    Now I know your limit is Visual Basic. There's a lot of real-time
    applications that are today (and will continue to be) developed at least
    in part in Assembler. Many of the Cisco boxes, for example, are
    developed in C with the time-critical modules written in Assembler.
    Ditto medical monitoring and imaging applications. Ditto many of weapons

    And I'm not talking about days of yore - but today (and tomorrow).
    C/Assembler programmer contractors command premium rates - far more than
    Visual Basic hacks.
    Tony Morgan, Mar 19, 2006
  6. Back to square one... Most other Windows software do not need the
    resources that a package like Studio needs.
    I know enough to tell that the way Windows handles registry,
    libraries and system configuration files is neither robust nor
    flexible enough to allow a *clear* recovery/fix when things go
    It does if the system approaches its limits. That's were even the
    smaller bump can shake your car out of control. Slow down and the
    problems disappear ;-)
    Do you know how many shortcuts are taken by "modern PC games"?
    The main task of their programmers is to avoid the system bottlenecks.
    The same bottlenecks are *unavoidable* for video editing.
    Video editing? Several... Same method for all. One clean boot for them,
    one dirty boot for the rest.
    You have one system resource that is lost, out of your control and
    without your knowledge. Every time you install, run, move data
    etc you may "hit" against this system resource... and loose. Again,
    I picked this up as a particular example. There are many more.
    AFAIK URU has never been linked to particular system failures.
    This does not mean it is not...
    The "usually" is the part I like. What's effecting Studio (and other
    packages) is the "unusual" bit.
    Usually: yes/maybe (see above).
    I had several chats with real experts and came out with a very
    clear statement: sometimes they *cannot* recover a system, even
    if they want/have to.
    But they can make the *operating system* unstable.
    Again, the application or the operating system?

    Roberto Divia` Love at first sight is one of the greatest
    Dep:pH Bat:53 Mailbox:C02110 labour-saving devices the world has ever seen
    Route de Meyrin 385 ---------------------------------------------
    Case Postale Phone: +41-22-767-4994
    CH-1211 Geneve 23 CERN Fax: +41-22-767-9585
    Switzerland E-Mail:
    Roberto Divia, Mar 20, 2006
  7. Good point. The only thing I could add is: what are the resources needed
    by the package? What is built-in and what is add-on? In other words, does
    Premiere run as RT and as open as Studio? "More resource-hungry" is
    relative to the resources themselves...

    Roberto Divia` Love at first sight is one of the greatest
    Dep:pH Bat:53 Mailbox:C02110 labour-saving devices the world has ever seen
    Route de Meyrin 385 ---------------------------------------------
    Case Postale Phone: +41-22-767-4994
    CH-1211 Geneve 23 CERN Fax: +41-22-767-9585
    Switzerland E-Mail:
    Roberto Divia, Mar 20, 2006
  8. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 20:45:13 +0000, Tony Morgan

    Firstly, it speaks *volumes* that you've chosen to snip most of my
    post and deal with the bits you feel you could handle. I notice that
    for a second time you've avoided this question:

    "Why should a program should respond by crashing when it receives one
    of the IRs you talked about?"

    How about you answer that instead of trying to brush it under the

    I also notice that you crumbled and snipped when I quizzed you a
    little more on the purpose of this "OS task manager stack", you talked
    about. Perhaps you can explain it now when I re-quote the question:

    "What's on that stack? How is it used? Why does it have to be LIFO in
    order to handle nesting.. and nesting of what? Have you any references
    for this?"

    And furthermore I notice that you've quickly moved on from discussing
    the VM that you came into this thread on once it was ascertained that
    you were talking crap. I posed this question to you.. perhaps you can
    have another go:

    "If you want to explain to me exactly which VM "issues" I have "little
    understand of", please go right ahead"

    I look forward to seeing your answers.

    Now then, onto the bits that you *did* respond to...
    Er.. that'll be because you didn't say it, Tony. If you want to quote
    where you did, go right ahead.

    What you *did* say was that you "Was [a developer] for a considerable
    time", strongly implying that you are no longer a developer.

    I don't. I believe the technical articles and the books. I also
    believe the results I get when I code using the information in these
    books. FWIW http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0735619174, is
    ideal for the stuff we're discussing.

    "Billy Goat" <sigh> I detect an anti-MS bias which surprisingly often
    seems to result in name-calling of this infantile fashion even in some
    of the smartest of people. It's usually coupled with "Micro$oft".

    Firstly, there's nothing special or clever about DLLs. Secondly, I
    dunno what terminologies you're used to in your sphere of experience
    but in Windows a library is not an API. For a start libraries are
    compiled in, APIs are not.

    Ah... but compared to what? My point relates to the fact that these
    days most languages and dev packages support the sorts of features
    that would make them RAD tools, so much so that they're pretty much
    the norm and therefore the *term* RAD is quite old. VB3 was RAD
    compared to the Visual C of the time, but we're talking what... 10
    years ago? RAD was largely a marketing description, as per 4GL, 5GL.
    All are largely outmoded terms.

    As some sort of metric, I went to www.jobserve.co.uk to see how often
    these terms are used by people looking for workers. Out of the 36664
    roles they appeared to have on their site. Here's what various
    searches returned:

    Visual C++: 4974
    Visual C#: 4404
    Visual Basic: 3870
    Visual Studio: 2833

    RAD: 189 (33 of which were using Excel!!)

    And FWIW:
    Assembler: 79
    Assembly: 54

    I shall be intrigued to see where this is going. Please list & explain
    these four types of stack - being careful of course not to simply list
    four uses of a stack.

    You'd be wholly wrong of course. C++ is my bag, with a little C# these
    days. As it happens VB.NET is a fully-fledged OO language these days,
    hence your apparent scorn is misplaced. Do you know OO?

    Right... er and where exactly did I deny any of that? I didn't for one
    second say that C or assembly isn't in use or that it doesn't have its
    place. I simply said that your comment about bloatware was typical for
    someone of an assembly background (which it is). You seem to have
    misread what I've written and gone off at rather a tangent!

    Let me ask you another question. What do you imagine is in those extra
    'bloat' bytes? Presumably you feel that they're not necessary, so what
    are they? And how would you remove them?

    Well we can see from the figures I posted above, that whatever the
    rates are (searching by rate doesn't really work because rates are
    rarely quoted), there's only a few roles around in assembly anyway
    (and remember that's a UK wide search). However, I realise that older
    technologies *can* command more money simply because the majority of
    coders are not interested in working with it and therefore coders can
    be at a premium. I've known of companies spend presumably huge amounts
    of money updating software to different platforms not for any product
    benefit but mostly because they can then get cheaper and more
    plentiful staff to work on it. (PLM to C being one I personally
    recall, many years ago). As a contractor (and I am), it can be a risky
    business getting yourself into a niche. The gains can be good, but
    then the niches dry up and you find yourself cut adrift with no
    experience of anything recent.
    Ed Chilada, Mar 20, 2006
  9. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Do you know what such programs usually do? They simply allocate a
    *huge* amount of memory, based on how much physical memory is in the
    PC of course - perhaps 85% of the RAM. XP allocates the memory to the
    process but responds by swapping out the memory of everything else to
    VM. This is likely to cause the PC to not respond so well for however
    long it takes (maybe 10 seconds or so?). The program then releases the
    memory again, meaning that all the physical RAM is unused. XP won't
    load programs from VM until they're actually used, so if you then
    switch back to your app, it'll take a few seconds to retrieve from VM,
    but then it'll largely have physical RAM to itself... for a few
    minutes at least. They're often known as memory defragmenters and
    AFAIAC they're snake oil. YMMV.

    It's possible that the program could suspend all processes before
    allocating this amount of RAM, but I'd suspect that was asking for
    trouble and wouldn't really improve the effect.

    You may well see this behaviour quite often. If you minimize a program
    and don't use it for a while whilst using something else, its memory
    will probably get swapped out to VM. This means that when you switch
    back to it, it takes a second or two to appear as the HDD rattles and
    the VM is swapped back in. If you then minimize it again and maximize
    it straight away, it'll appear much quicker.

    Personally, I'd temporarily drop the priority of such a task for a
    while. It'll still get 99% of the CPU time that it's trying to get,
    but as soon as you do something else, it'll take priority and it
    shouldn't be as affected by the sort.
    Ed Chilada, Mar 20, 2006
  10. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Sure.. but is that an excuse for it being unstable? It uses more CPU
    cycles, it uses more HDD space, more RAM... but should that make a
    program more unstable? Not if it's written well.

    As it happens though, I don't believe that Studio really does need as
    many resources as everyone is making out. My copy of Studio 9 says a
    mere P4-800Mhz/256MB is required. The recommended is only a

    In comparison Half Life 2 is 1.2GHz/256MB required and 2.4GHz/512MB
    recommended. Doom 3 is 1.5Ghz required (doesn't list a recommended
    that I could find).

    Sure, there often isn't a one-click solution. That's when you need to
    know what's going on under the hood in order to investigate the

    Computers just don't work like that. Unless there's a hardware issue,
    they don't just fold under pressure and crash. If the system
    approaches speed limits then things simply get slower and slower. Have
    you never tried to play a 3D game on a CPU or GFX card that's simply
    way too slow to run it? Assuming the drivers etc.. are correct then
    the result is something like 1FPS rather than it crashing.

    Literally, no. However, I'd be surprised if they take that many
    because it would be simply idiocy to do so. Stability across the
    millions of permutations of PC hardware is *far* more important. Sure,
    make your code as efficient as possible, but taking shortcuts that are
    risky (calling the Native API for example), are asking for trouble and
    asking for a load of people to be complaining when your software
    crashes a lot. Modern PC games are generally written in C++ and use
    DirectX to interface to the GFX cards via drivers. They could speed
    things up by coding "against the metal", if they knew the hardware
    exactly which of course is why Xbox games can compete despite running
    a P3-700 CPU.

    What sort of bottlenecks and shortcuts are you talking about here?
    Have you an example we can discuss? The bottleneck in my PC might be
    the system bus - in yours it might be the RAM speed, CPU speed, HDD
    speed.. who knows? Certainly not the developers!

    I suspect that most punters would rather buy a faster machine or a bit
    more RAM and install a stable piece of software that wasn't attempting
    to use shortcuts to make it faster, than try and get away with
    shortcutting software on slower hardware that may well be unstable and

    The developers also, surely just up the CPU requirements on the box
    from (say) 1.4ghz to 1.6ghz rather than coding some shortcuts that may
    well mean it doesn't work at all on some computers.

    Any programs. Personally I've only ever felt the need to close down
    any unrequired programs when running Half Life 2 on my PC (the only
    game I've played in recent years). Studio 9 has always been fine and
    performed very well (better in fact, than other reports would have you
    believe). HL2 seemed to require far more grunt than Studio ever has.

    Sure I have no problem with using clean boots (or in fact Tony's
    recommendation of EndItAll), to get you some extra performance if you
    feel you need it. It's just the idea that it's understandable or that
    it makes sense for Studio to crash a lot if you don't do clean boots
    or if the machine is under stress that I find to be totally incorrect
    and unacceptable.

    As a developer I perhaps ought to be delighted that people think it's
    understandable for software to crash now and again if it's having a
    hard time of it. However, I'm also a punter and I don't like other
    people's software crashing on me.

    Which "system resource"? In XP the system resource table is dynamic
    (it was fixed in Win '95 and increased in '98 albeit still fixed), so
    there's no particular resource been taken that means Studio can no
    longer use it. URU hasn't occupied a fixed slot so there's nothing to
    "hit" against.. The only issue would be if Studio particularly has a
    problem with there being this "dedicated disk drive", present - and
    why should it?

    It doesn't make sense as an example, so I'm intrigued to know of one
    or two of your others.

    Hmm.... But more likely that it *isn't* at fault.

    I obviously cannot claim that all entries will be benign, since I
    haven't seen them on your machine - hence "usually".

    They'd have to be investigated on a case-by-case basis but in general
    Studio should not be affected by these. It should not make assumptions
    about what is running, what components are present etc.. Everything
    should be queried or enumerated and handled gracefully if there is a

    I honestly think that **theoretically** any such problem can be fixed
    without a re-format. It's 'simply' a case of figuring out what the
    problem is and making changes to eliminate the problem. If the machine
    worked when you first installed, then it's something that has been
    changed since that's at fault... and it should always be possible to
    undo that change. The trick is to *find* the problem of course. I'm
    sure many real total experts will give up on finding a problem with a
    PC and opt to reformat. But it'll be because they ran out of time and
    decided that reinstalling was actually easier/quicker than persist
    with the investigation, or they simply couldn't figure it out. You
    have a chat with those experts again and see if any of them would
    *guarantee* that at the point they gave up, no-one else could possibly
    have fixed the problem.

    98, yeah sure. XP not so likely. A user process can bring down Windows
    '98. In XP it cannot - the damage has to be done in the kernel or in a
    kernel-mode driver operating a ring 0 (resulting in a blue screen). Of
    course, a user-mode process can hammer a machine so much that it's
    unusable, but that's a different thing to being unstable.

    The application.

    In any case - the OS doesn't have bugs!! ;-)
    Ed Chilada, Mar 20, 2006
  11. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Ed Chilada
    A few quotes from Bill Gates....

    About PC memory:
    “640K ought to be enough for anybody.â€

    About Windows:
    "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning."

    About software copyright:
    “Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana.â€

    About software:
    “If you can't make it good, at least make it look good.â€

    Quotes ABOUT Bill Gales:

    “There never was a chip, it is said, that Bill Gates couldn't slow
    down with a new batch of features.â€
    James Coates.

    “Bill Gates is a very rich man today .. and do you want to know why?
    The answer is one word: versions.â€
    Dave Barry
    Tony Morgan, Mar 20, 2006
  12. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Ed Chilada
    What an absolute load of bollocks. Try running a mem with the C switch,
    before it's run, and then while it's executing. I've just confirmed that
    the exact memory allocation is 107,520 bytes. You can even loop the mem
    in a script, redirecting the output to a file (or your default printer)
    to see what's going on (with any application).

    You could also run a Pages/sec plot window using the Console Root's
    System Monitor to see for yourself that VM doesn't kick-in. You can also
    look at the disk queue status to identify any bottlenecks associated
    with disk access for any application.
    Tony Morgan, Mar 20, 2006
  13. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    I did of course say "such programs usually do". I don't have "PC
    Booster", but before I address the rest of your findings, I'll have a
    go with it to confirm what you are saying. Are we talking about this


    Since there are various other bits and bobs on the net using a similar
    Ed Chilada, Mar 20, 2006
  14. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Of what? The process? And on what OS?

    I've now installed a copy of "PC Booster", and tried it. And much as I
    expected, it does *exactly* what I said and my description was far,
    far from "an absolute load of bollocks". If you weren't trying to
    monitor system performance by repeatedly running a command line DOS
    tool, you'd perhaps know that.

    Try this Tony. Run perfmon.exe. Delete any currently monitored items
    and then Add monitoring for the "Private Bytes" of the PCBooster
    process (Perfmon describes this as: "Private Bytes is the current
    size, in bytes, of memory that this process has allocated that cannot
    be shared with other processes"). Also add "Working Set", too. It
    should by default be updating every second. Then press "Optimize
    Memory" on the PC Booster toolbar thing. What you'll see is a massive
    spike in the "Private Bytes" memory allocated by PC Booster, and also
    in the "Working Set". This will be maintained as the HDD rattles away
    swapping other stuff out to VM. If you (and anyone else) wants to
    easily see this, check out this link - this is what happened on my PC.
    I can recreate this at will.


    This is *exactly* the behaviour I described. You'll see that the
    "Maximum" number of "Private Bytes" that PC Booster allocated for
    itself was 357,965,824 or approximately 341MB. This is on a machine
    with 448MB of physical RAM (a single 512MB DDR in it, 64MB of which is
    taken by the onboard GFX).

    So it allocated a buffer equivalent to about 76% of the physical RAM,
    for a few seconds *just as I said they do* (OK, so I guessed about 85%
    but I was speaking generally about these tools!).

    So now who's talking "absolute bollocks", Tony? You're not having a
    good day are you?
    Ed Chilada, Mar 20, 2006
  15. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest


    I'm rather disappointed that Tony bailed at this stage. No surprised
    of course because most of the above questions were largely rhetorical
    because I knew from the outset he was talking garbage and wouldn't be
    able to come up with a real answer.

    However, I was genuinely intruiged by this bit:

    Since surely Tony wouldn't entirely invent such a bold statement as
    there being "four types of stack". But I've honestly no idea what they
    could be. So I was looking forward to an explanation. I guess he was
    just talking crap again though.

    Ah well.
    Ed Chilada, Mar 27, 2006
  16. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    The very fact that you "guess" so simply demonstrates that you're
    nothing more than a VB hack.

    Holding a discussion with someone who seems to have such limited
    knowledge/experience is a waste of my time, so it's a waste of my time
    continuing - it also bores the pants off others.

    Please don't interpret my reluctance to respond as an admission that you
    know very much - the very fact that you dispute much of what I've said
    simply confirms that it's a waste of time continuing a dialogue with

    Or are you just a troll?
    Tony Morgan, Mar 27, 2006
  17. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    I was being polite WRT the "four types of stack". You'll notice that I
    said "knew", when I said "I knew from the outset he was talking

    And as I've said elsewhere, using VB in this apparently derogatory
    fashion simply shows how little you know and how out of date your
    knowledge is. VB.NET is fully-fledged OO and some *seriously*
    complicated stuff can be written with it.

    LOL! You bailed because you were talking crap and were backed into a
    corner! This is *so* obvious it's untrue and I don't think lying about
    it and denying it is going to fool anyone!

    I dispute it because it's total crap Tony. If it weren't, you'd be
    able to back it up and explain it. I've proven that it's total crap
    and you've bailed as a result. Simple as.

    If you want to prove me wrong, go right ahead - make some explanations
    of the garbage you've posted. Show some references. Perhaps explain
    how PC Booster works if you don't believe it works in the way that I
    proved it to.

    Hell you could have listed your four types of stack in the time that
    you posted this reply.... why not even manage that?

    Aha! The last bastion of someone who can't argue against the points -
    simply brush them all under the carpet and then try to discredit the
    other poster by claiming they're a troll...

    I look forward to seeing your explanations... or how you choose to
    avoid giving them this time...
    Ed Chilada, Mar 27, 2006
  18. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Tony, with respect, your reply (or lack of) can be taken two ways,
    indeed you might well know what you are talking about and are truly
    piss off with "Ed's£ ignorance, indeed I have always accepted that
    you do know a lot about computers and programming, but you could also
    be filibustering because you don't know what you are talking about -
    the only way you are going to prove the former is to challenge "Ed"
    on every point, citing references if needs be.
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 27, 2006
  19. How is any of this now related to video?

    - especially as neither of you seem to fully understand how high level languages
    interact with the OS ;-)



    Stuart McKears, Mar 27, 2006
  20. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    LOL! Awesome word!

    This is sadly the case. I have no doubt that Tony will have known what
    he was talking about some years ago, but what he says is dated and his
    arcitechure knowledge just isn't the way Windows works. Some his
    comments appear to be assumptions/guesswork based on what he does know
    and what he sees.

    Well I'll be here. Yeah, references would be good too - so I'm not
    faced with simply lots more "filibustering", to dispute.

    In the meantime I'll get on with editing the current backlog of videos
    I have..
    Ed Chilada, Mar 28, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.