Why a Mac and not PC

If you bothered to look, all hardware items purchased for a pc come
with warranties..boards, ram, processors, hard drives all have
multi year warranties.

Some people love apple, thats cool, yes they are cool, a lifestyle
statement..great! Some people say they are so much better than a pc
its unreal! Some people say Elvis still lives too!

End of the day its up to everyone what they want/buy....they all do
the same things anyway.........

Crunch 0's and 1's...........
You said I shot myself in the foot saying PCs cost less but Macs are a better value, how did I shoot myself?

Just because initial purchase price of the PC is less than a Mac does NOT mean it is a better VALUE my friend.

As for building the PC part by part - most of my posts refer to "Dell" as the experience with other OEMs will be similar. We can't tell whether the OP will be building or not, but I assumed he would not be building (otherwise he probably wouldn't have come asking for help)

But, I will divulge myself into your DIY approach:

Not ALL parts have multi year warranties. A great deal of HDDs only have 1 year warranties now. If the DIYer purchases OEM products to save money, again the warranties may be reduced. Also the warranty replacement procedures are also a pain - sometimes you'll get denied - and you always end up paying for shipping to return the defective item.

But if you look at my other posts, the reason that I bring up Applecare is because it is SUPPORT as well as a warranty. You are going to have a lot easier time finding out why something won't work on a Mac because there are limited configurations than on a self built PC. If something goes wrong for the DIY and it isn't hardware failure/warranty related, they may not know how to fix it.

Speaking from personal experience, by the time you build a decend box of hardware yourself and put legal software on it you are going to spend as much as you would on a Mac. If that is the case, then compare:

Software - here it is arguable that OS X beats Windows. Plus, you have the added benefits of iLife and other included software.

Resale value - the Mac CLEARLY wins here.

Asthetic value - I myself place no value on this, but since we're "going there" the Mac probably wins as well

Don't forget about value added features such as BUILT IN ISIGHTS, the MAGSAFE adapter, and the APPLE REMOTE.
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
the extension on files coming from mac for them to work on XP, this
seams to be the case with some Tiff files not saved in a PC byte
order.

Just renaming the files usually does the trick.
--
Anders

Some of my pictures can be seen at;
http://teamexcalibur.se/US/usindex.html

event photography and photo journalism
More good info.

I've found that often times you can open the file without putting a suffix if you know what it is (IE: go into photoshop and hit open and select the file).

OS X comes with file names not displayed by default. However you can easily turn them on. This is how I have it on my Macs.
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
It bleeds light around the edges, which is a fact of the 2005FPW
Dell monitors. I knew about it before I bought it, and sure enough
it exists. It is not something that Dell will replace.
My point was that sometimes you pay for better design, not just the
lcd lanel that resides behind the case.
Also, to my knowledge the backlite is different on the Apple monitors.

This is a widely discussed topic on Apple forums :)

Tyler
You're correct.

They have the same LCD panel but different backlights. I've read that the Apple backlights gave it a different hue (if I remember corretly). In fact if you do some Googling there is an article by Ars or TomsHardware that compares the 20" Apple cinema display with the 2005fpw. I believe the Dell "won".

I've owned and used both the Apple 20" and the Dell 2005fpw.

The first Dell I got I had replaced because of uneven backlighting, the replacement doesn't have any issues that affect my work. Luck of the draw it seems to be.
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
Sweet. Thanks for the informative reply.

Now that I think about it, I've done the same thing as you.

Thanks for clearing that up!
I'm pretty sure you can't write to an NTFS partition on another
computer when connected over a network. I mean, it is a limitation
of OS X, not something that is just imposed upon local drives. Am
I wrong?
When you are using a network share, the computer doesn't have
access to the underlying file system - it issues commands, and the
computer hosting the share does that work. The computer accessing
that file share simply knows the network protocol it has to work
with (SMB) and the directory structure (which NTFS and FAT share)
it is navigating. If this were not true, then a Windows machine
would never be able to log into a HFS+ directory shared on an OS X
machine ;)

As such, if you are accessing a remote file share on an NTFS drive
the Windows machine does all of the NTFS-specific stuff - OS X just
tells it what files it wants to work with and sends/receives the
data. Windows then takes those commands and does what it is told
to do (assuming that the remote user has authorization to do what
they are asking). The same thing occurs when doing things the
oposite way (just swap Windows and OS X, and change NTFS to HFS+ in
this paragraph).

All of the partitions on my current Windows workstation are NTFS,
and I regularly transfer files from it's shares to my Macbook Pro
without issue ;) All that I have to do is go to the Network icon
in a finder window, my workgroup appears in the list, I select the
appropriate computer, login and it appears as a mounted volume on
my desktop. I'm then free to upload and download files as
necessary.
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
I dare someone to find me a any of those hardware items that don't work in OSX.
Ok, the Dazzle card readers (CF cards) found at Radio Shack don't
seem to work with OSX. I've had this problem with my iBooks, and
I've seen it with PowerBooks.

That said, I've been a confirmed Mac user for two decades; my
current model is a MacBook laptop. Photoshop could run faster -
it's as fast as it was on my old G4 iBook - while some programs,
like GraphicConverter, run at light speed, and Keynote (for my
purposes) blows the socks off PowerPoint for presentations of my
photographs.
Tyler challenged you, but I know that Dazzle is a brand. But I thought they were something to do with video capture (that would required drivers, which might not be available for OS X).

The reason photoshop doesn't run as fast is because it is being EMULATED on your new Macbook. It is running under Rosetta. The PS code was written for the G4 processor and not the Intel one. The new "universal binary" (software that runs on both PPC and Intel) for PS will be the next released version.

Isn't it amazing though that Photoshop runs emulated as faster as it did natively on the G4s? These new Duo Cores are blazing!
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
Exactly what line of work are you in that you can keep up with me on responses? or is it a slow day off? ;-)
And don't insult me by taking longer than half an hour to reply! :D

Tyler
 
Exactly what line of work are you in that you can keep up with me
on responses? or is it a slow day off? ;-)
And don't insult me by taking longer than half an hour to reply! :D

Tyler
I am a restaurant manager. But we're currently renovating so I'm out of a job for a month and a half! Man it is rough with no income! I'm relying on senior portraits and my eBay business in the meantime (electronics and antiques - go figure!)

It is something I'm passionate about (Macs). I've tried to reply with as much factual information and be as rational as possible! I tought a guy all he knows about Macs, who is about to begin a job at Apple's new "glass cube" store up in Manhattan. I told him he has to return the favor and help me get the job at the Apple Store in Kansas City when I move there next spring!

Like I've said I've spent a lot of tme on both platforms. I began using PCs and later was introduced to Macs when I worked for a promotional products company in the art department. The first Macs I used were the iMac DVs at G3 at 400mhz using OS 9. Man that was a long time ago. I've also ran my own "local computer" shop for a few years as well. I worked with local businesses that had stores distributed across Southeast missouri and was in charge of getting all their tech for them. Also have done a lot of servicing for home users (which, btw, I don't do at all any more if I can help it, too much of a headache!)
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
Pixelbender,

thats tough being out of work whilst the renovation goes on,

i must agree that you have tried hard to provide facts, though your passion for OSX has shown right from the first post and is the only reason i tried to balance the scales a little.

Personally i don't actually care what someone else wishes to use as long as it is fit for purpose.

I've stated a number of time that if OSX is so good and complete then why does a user need then to run windows, surely there is an alternative available software for the Apple OS.

I started with the original Apple Mac then moved to the dark side with an IBM XT for home, due to software requirements. I have periodically used Apple machines but not really kept up with them as i enjoy building my own boxes usually around AMD processors.

I have generally installed the beta of MS latest and greatest as soon as possible and have always had a good experience. Yes some hardware has always ended up being replaced due to lack of drivers.

Does that make me a windows fanatic, well probably, but then i also have a SUSE linux machine and Redhat Linux Server and have a Novell CNE certification.

I must say that some of the eye candy, functionality and software is a match for either XP or OSX.

The ability to have four virtual desktops on a linux desktop can be a benefit for logically grouping your apps.
Exactly what line of work are you in that you can keep up with me
on responses? or is it a slow day off? ;-)
And don't insult me by taking longer than half an hour to reply! :D

Tyler
I am a restaurant manager. But we're currently renovating so I'm
out of a job for a month and a half! Man it is rough with no
income! I'm relying on senior portraits and my eBay business in
the meantime (electronics and antiques - go figure!)

It is something I'm passionate about (Macs). I've tried to reply
with as much factual information and be as rational as possible! I
tought a guy all he knows about Macs, who is about to begin a job
at Apple's new "glass cube" store up in Manhattan. I told him he
has to return the favor and help me get the job at the Apple Store
in Kansas City when I move there next spring!

Like I've said I've spent a lot of tme on both platforms. I began
using PCs and later was introduced to Macs when I worked for a
promotional products company in the art department. The first Macs
I used were the iMac DVs at G3 at 400mhz using OS 9. Man that was
a long time ago. I've also ran my own "local computer" shop for a
few years as well. I worked with local businesses that had stores
distributed across Southeast missouri and was in charge of getting
all their tech for them. Also have done a lot of servicing for
home users (which, btw, I don't do at all any more if I can help
it, too much of a headache!)
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
--
Cheers and best wishes
Phil
Galleries at
http://photos.incanberra.biz/main.php
 
The Macs have a solid base of believers that are not prepared for a reasonable discussion. One example is this 'pixelbender' guy who is actually proud of and trying to 'convert' people to the Mac religion. If he's not paid by Apple he's very scary.

In my view the differences for the average photographer are pretty minor. The programs work the same and 'cost per performance' of the Macs is creeping towards Windows. Granted the notebooks look good&small from the outside but you need loads of external gadgets when you want to connect to anything.

Windows users have more tweaking possibilities, can program easier (Visual Studio) and have an enourmous choise in exsisting programs for almost any task they want. For me that's way more important than the shape of the garbage can. That's why I don't agree with the original statement. However, I think Steve Jobs is more sympathetic than Bill Gates.

Anyway, I'm sorry I let myself be drawn into one of these stupid discussions. I should've known better.

Hope you guys have a nice day and meet your 'converting' target this month (hope you like a joke).
It may need a preface, like "Out of everyone I know...". It is also
probably an over generalization. Personally I have never met anyone
who has spent time really getting to know MacOS and hasn't admired
it more than XP, and either switched or wished they could.

If someone is complaining about mixing up alt and cmd keys they
haven't used an Apple computer long enough. If there only
experience is using a school computer, which are always old,
underpowered, and used by too many hands, they haven't really used
OSX.

Even in this forum I see many people saying they have used WIndows
their whole life and have switched and aint going back (in the
forseeable future).

I know a number of people who have had Apple computers and have
regretable had to change computers due to industry. Engineers lean
heavily on CAD software that doesn't exist in the same fasion under
OSX. Same goes for the medical field (My Dad does as much as he can
on his Apple).

However I have yet, to personally find someone that has spent time
really getting to know OSX, and prefered XP over it.

Cheers,
Tyler
--
Philip
 
Pixelbender,

thats tough being out of work whilst the renovation goes on,
It hurts!
i must agree that you have tried hard to provide facts, though your
passion for OSX has shown right from the first post and is the only
reason i tried to balance the scales a little.
As long as the OP gets a good idea of both sides, all the facts, then our job has been done well.
Personally i don't actually care what someone else wishes to use as
long as it is fit for purpose.
I've stated a number of time that if OSX is so good and complete
then why does a user need then to run windows, surely there is an
alternative available software for the Apple OS.
I've said that 'for the most part' you'll find an alternative for OS X. For things like DVDFab, there is not. Well, there is MactheRipper, but it doesn't work with the latest protection schemes.

The other reason why someone may need to run windows is for a company specific software. There are many companies out there that have in house software built that uses Windows. The reasons why Windows is dominant in the business industry is case for a whole other discussion.

Take myself for example. Here on my Macbook (what I don't use for photography, it is my everyday internet and such computer) I have Tiger installed as well as Vista Beta 2. Why? For one I wanted to see what Vista had to offer. Another is that I enjoy DOS games. Currently the best free way to do that is through DOSBOX. However, there isn't a universal binary released yet (there are some that have been compiled, but they still need tweaking). Thus, I can install Vista for FREE, install Virtual PC 2004 for FREE, and install FreeDOS for FREE, and be able to play my DOS games legally on my Mac.
I started with the original Apple Mac then moved to the dark side
with an IBM XT for home, due to software requirements. I have
periodically used Apple machines but not really kept up with them
as i enjoy building my own boxes usually around AMD processors.
I used to do a lot of computer gaming (mainly because it is much better than console gaming in my opinion). I always built my systems around AMD processors. Started in the days of K-2 up to the current gen. However I quit doing that as it was just too expensive to keep up with the latest and greatest video cards.

It sems with the advent of the Core Duos and in particular the new Core 2 Duos that Intel is on top again, but of course this will always flip back and forth.
Does that make me a windows fanatic, well probably, but then i also
have a SUSE linux machine and Redhat Linux Server and have a Novell
CNE certification.
One of these days I'm gonna install Ubuntu to play around with. I've ran Redhat back in the day but never found Linux to give me a better user experience for what I needed.
I must say that some of the eye candy, functionality and software
is a match for either XP or OSX.
I'm not a big fan of the eye candy. But it seems that Vista is placing a heavy burden on graphics chips for no particularly good reason. The biggest "eye candy" (if you would call it that) feature I like about OS X is expose. I have all my screen corners set to All Apps, App WIndows, Desktop, and Dashboard. I find it very useful and time saving. I'm not a big fan of Apple-TAB.
The ability to have four virtual desktops on a linux desktop can be
a benefit for logically grouping your apps.
Can't this be done with VMWare? I've not used it personally, but was just curious as to the limit of virtuals running.

--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 
Pixelbender,

thats tough being out of work whilst the renovation goes on,

i must agree that you have tried hard to provide facts, though your
passion for OSX has shown right from the first post and is the only
reason i tried to balance the scales a little.
Is passion for an OS a negative thing? Or just something you aren't used to? ;-)
Personally i don't actually care what someone else wishes to use as
long as it is fit for purpose.
I've stated a number of time that if OSX is so good and complete
then why does a user need then to run windows, surely there is an
alternative available software for the Apple OS.
Not always. However What makes a great compouter/OS is not being able to do EVERYTHING, but being able to do what you want it to do. Sometimes there is a trade off. As I mentioned in another post, CAD software on OSX is not up to par, so engineers are almost exclusively Windows as far as work goes.

In the Work enviroment of large businesses Microsoft has some very neat and useful tools for keeping track of computers and organizing data.

Games right now are far more widely avialable for WIndows based machines, and will for the foreseeable future.

However those things don't matter to me and my work, and what does matter my Apple provides for me better than the Windows equivalent.

What I WOULD like a windows box for though is Application Development. I'm a Computer Scientist, and thus need a windows box for compiling windows applications. I can build and compile OSX applications and Unix based application, but not native windows apps. Being able to dual boot into Windows XP would save me a computer, and make all my files easily available on one machine. With some of the Applications that are coming out, that make it possible to run Windows along side OSX life would be even sweeter, though I'm not sure how well that works for my line of work.

Computers are tools. The easier they are to use, the more they do, and the faster they do it the better tools they are. If they don't break the tools around them even better :)

OSX is an amazing tool for me, and one I use for everything outside of a couple work applications on a windows machine at work.

And to answer your question on why Apple should dual boot for the mases. Simple, they hopefully won't be as scared to try out OSX because they can always go back to windows, however once they play around with OSX they will ditch windows. It makes it easier and safer on the mind to buy an Apple computer.
The ability to have four virtual desktops on a linux desktop can be
a benefit for logically grouping your apps.
I love virtual desktops! Personally I use a program called Virtual Desktops, though versiontracker.com yields 25 sum programs.

Wish it were build into OSX, but you can't have the OS taking over every thing... or maybe you can :)

Tyler
 
The Macs have a solid base of believers that are not prepared for a
reasonable discussion. One example is this 'pixelbender' guy who is
actually proud of and trying to 'convert' people to the Mac
religion. If he's not paid by Apple he's very scary.
Proud about an expensive tool that he uses? Are you proud of your Camera? Are you open to discussion about your camera and it's pros/cons vs other cameras? Or do you put down anyone as "religious" whenever they talk about such expensive items with any sort of emotional liking? And don't tell me you came up with the "Mac religion" on your own, you pulled that buzz word right from someone elses mouth.

Pixelblender has made well thought out arguments and discussions while providing facts or his person opinion and experience. You on the other hand don't seem to be making "reasonable discussion" but instead are attacking the user and not even the hardware. The OP asked for Apple Hardware OSX and Windows comparisons from users who have used both extensively, he did not ask for your personal opinion of Mac users.
In my view the differences for the average photographer are pretty
minor. The programs work the same and 'cost per performance' of the
Macs is creeping towards Windows. Granted the notebooks look
good&small from the outside but you need loads of external gadgets
when you want to connect to anything.
For a reasonable discussion I'd like some examples, or at least a better definition of "gadets" that one "needs" to connect these other "devices".

Personally my laptop is plug and play with just about everything known to man, and defintially plug and play with every device I need.

When I'm at home I have one USB 2.0 port filled, a FireWire 400 port filled, the Firewire800 port is also taken.

The DVI connection is taken by a 20" Dell LCD, the 1000base-T internet is connected to our cross platform home network, my PMCIA slot is filled, and when I'm aborad I sometimes use the S-video out port to showcase videos.

The other USB 2.0 port is filled with either by 20D (directly pluged and pictures pulled without 3rd party software).
My wireless card functions well with every network when out around town.

The built in blue tooth even auto syncs contacts with my cell phone, and warns me of incoming calls, displaying caller ID information on my computer screen while pausing any music/movies.

Hopefully my response based on fact(all my laptop can do) and opinion (that it does everything I need it to) doesn't label me as (oh no, say it aint so!) a religious Apple fanatic.
Windows users have more tweaking possibilities, can program easier
(Visual Studio) and have an enourmous choise in exsisting programs
for almost any task they want. For me that's way more important
than the shape of the garbage can. That's why I don't agree with
the original statement. However, I think Steve Jobs is more
sympathetic than Bill Gates.
tweaking possibilities may be important to you, but not to 99.99999% of computer users. That is is I am interpretting "tweaking" correctly, as you give no definition, just that this "tweaking" can be done with greater possibilities(?) than on MacOS... or were you talking about Apple Hardware?

Can program easier? That is a little subjective, and I've like you to point me to something that says what you claim. Visual studio is a very nice application, but depending on the laguage you want to use, it isn't the bees knees. Many Universities don't even use VS to program with, and many many companies don't use it either. None of Apples software is created with VS (dur) and it is touted as some of the best software, both functionally, powerwise, and even asthetically.

So being able to program in VS (wait, do you?) is more important to you than the shape of the garbage can (wtf?). I'm really actually not sure what you are trying to say, as none of that sounded like fact or opinion. I mean you state being able to do those things is more important to you, but you really didn't define what those things are, nor did you say you actually engage in them. I'm not sure how this is either refuting anyones post, adding to information, or helping the OP.
Anyway, I'm sorry I let myself be drawn into one of these stupid
discussions. I should've known better.
You made it stupid. Or just think it is stupid. The rest of us are learning and sharing actual knowledge based on our backgrounds and experiences. What is your background again? Or do you just jump into "stupid" discussions about products, bash the users, and jump again after leaving comments like the above?
Hope you guys have a nice day and meet your 'converting' target
this month (hope you like a joke).
ooo, another jab, clever.

I'm pretty tired of cynical ignorent Windows users who don't understand nor want to understand OSX. They sit back and wail on the Operating system, and failing that they take jabs at the users. Violance is after all the refuge of the incompatent. You don't need to agree with us, but we would ask that you stay civil and be excepting of others ideas and opinions. Disagree logically if you like, make a sound argument to the contrary, but don't jump in and make a post that can pretty much be boiled down to "you're wrong because you are religious about your computer, thus making me right".

Now take care and have a nice day.

Tyler
 
I see that your only other words in this thread come in the form of a No Text post with the title "That's a lie". Now if that's your idea of a "reasonable discussion" than God help humanity.

Begone, Troll.
 
The ability to have four virtual desktops on a linux desktop can be
a benefit for logically grouping your apps.
Can't this be done with VMWare? I've not used it personally, but was > > just curious as to the limit of virtuals running.
Virtual Desktops not virtual machines, with the virtual desktops in the KDE desktop you can seperate your application windows to different desktops and then switch between groups of application windows.

--
Cheers and best wishes
Phil
Galleries at
http://photos.incanberra.biz/main.php
 
I must say that some of the eye candy, functionality and software
is a match for either XP or OSX.
I'm not a big fan of the eye candy. But it seems that Vista is
placing a heavy burden on graphics chips for no particularly good
reason.
It should be noted that Aero glass can be switched off relatively easilly, and isn't an essential part of the OS. If you don't care about the eye candy, simply revert to one of the standard modes and it won't waste any system resources ;)

The concept of the 3D-driven UI is that that hardware is present on these machines anyway, so one might as well make use of it. While a lot of the things they use in the interface would be complicated for a general purpose CPU to perform, it's relatively simple to do with modern GPUs. In theory this takes some of the load off of the main processor, although in practice this effect has been extremely limited in OSes that have gone this route.
The ability to have four virtual desktops on a linux desktop can be
a benefit for logically grouping your apps.
Can't this be done with VMWare? I've not used it personally, but
was just curious as to the limit of virtuals running.
He's talking about virtual desktops rather than virtual machines. Most Unix-based GUIs provide a set of virtual 'desktops' that windows can be placed in (think of them like a set of additional virtual monitors you can switch in and out of). They aren't isolated from one another in any way, they are simply a UI metaphor that helps to keep things organized. By pressing a simple key combonation the user can rapidly switch to the desired desktop.

This allows users to organize their windows in such a way that they can rapidly switch between tasks that might require multiple programs. This allows open programs to be placed into logical groupings so that users can maintain several different simultaneous workspaces. It also means that you can organize windows in a logical fashion and be able to move efficiently between them without ever hiding or minimizing any of them.

This concept never really caught on in mainstream OSes as it isn't always intuitive for many people. Technical users usually take to it pretty well, however, and it's actually a pretty useful mechanism when you're running a whole whack of programs ;)
 
Begone, Troll.
Wow, we're really fortunate to have pro's like you around. Now take care and post all those pics that you edited using your computer operating system. No doubt they look so good because of the name of my computer operating system.... Thanks, that was a real eye opener, I've got so much to learn...

lol

Anyway I use a D100, Nikon Capture 3.5 and W2K for my profession. On this site I'm used to zealots claiming D200, Mac, 5D , 3D, D2xS, NX, Canon or something mark D is waaaaay better. I'm sure it's all true, but when they get angry over nothing I start to wonder...

Relax pal, it's not worth all the trouble... Get your cam and use it...

--
Philip
 
I was just out shopping for a new MacBook Pro. I'm a professional photographe rand I'm looking for a new laptop. I'd also wait as a previous poster said untill the software catches up. Espicially Photoshop, Illustrator ect. As the salesman and Apple told me, there is a performance hit untill Adobe fixes the software. He did tell me there is a version of Windows for Mac for around $200. I told him what's the purpose of having a Mac to run Windows to make Photoshop perform better. I will eventually get a Mac, just not right now. Also, don't let anybody tell you Macs don't crash, they do. According to ZDnet, Mac fixed security problems with OSX last month. Most people use pc's that's why they get viruses. If big corporations used Macs for everything in their business, they'd be getting viruses too. On the other hand, Mac's have a better color management system. It's THE graphics machine. I just wish that for the money, they would give you more ram. 512 meg of ram in a machine that costs close to $2000 just sucks.

I know I'll probably get a bunch of garbage as usual from the hardcore Mac users saying your wrong Mac is the best, you don't know what you're talking about. I did my research with an Apple tech guy live on line and he gave me all the information I asked for. I'm just relaying Apples info, I don't want to get into a psg contest over what's better. A computer is only a tool it's not worth arguing over. Also I'm running a AMD Athalon 3400+ with a gig of ram and never had a blue screen of death or a lockup. I run a really clean machine.
 
That's correct. Ahh the days of using Redhat come back.

It was always confusing for me, as I could never remember which desktop I had stuff on!
The ability to have four virtual desktops on a linux desktop can be
a benefit for logically grouping your apps.
Can't this be done with VMWare? I've not used it personally, but was > > just curious as to the limit of virtuals running.
Virtual Desktops not virtual machines, with the virtual desktops in
the KDE desktop you can seperate your application windows to
different desktops and then switch between groups of application
windows.

--
Cheers and best wishes
Phil
Galleries at
http://photos.incanberra.biz/main.php
--
pixelbender
http://www.brianmueller.com
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top