This is not a calculator, It is an instrument



#73

I have spending a lot of time with the 34S. Very nice calculator. I could see throwing this calc on the seat of my car.

Then I decided to use my original owner high top key 41C. What a difference. I would not think to throw this on the seat of my car. This is not a calculator. This is a high quality instrument that deserves respect.

Just my thoughts. Great job with the 34S. congrats to all involved.

CJ


#74

Why not? The 41C was built to withstand being thrown on the seat of your car. It can take a lot of abuse.

#75

I wish we had the facilities to create something like this (hardware quality wise) with our firmware in it. Maybe Eric's DIY will come close but I fear the keyboard experience will not be as satisfying (hopefully better than with my cute DM15-CC).


#76

The keyboard of the DIY will be very good. It isn't a mushy membrane keyboard, if that is what you are worried about. It uses tactile switches that contain metal domes, so they have the same kind of action and feel as the HP-41C keys. The switches are rated for hundreds of thousands of operations. Possibly a half million, depending on which of the switches we eventually choose.

The first production model may use a casing machined from aluminum, then black anodized. I'm considering using a mineral glass window to protect the LCD.

We might offer a limited edition in aluminum or steel with a titanium nitride coating, which is a beautiful gold color but *extremely* hard. TiN (not to be confused with tin) is one of the coatings used on machine tools to make the tools more durable.

I wonder if we could sell a very limited edition titanium calculator, not just called titanium by marketing people, like products from The Calculator Company That Should Not Be Named, but actually milled out of titanium. It would be *extremely* expensive; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.


Edited: 9 May 2012, 1:07 p.m.


#77

Hello!

Quote:
... but actually milled out of titanium. It would be *extremely* expensive; if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

It can't be too expensive though (probably depends on the number of units manufactured). There are quite a few affordable - even low-cost - watches on the market with titanium housings. And there is of course my Apple Titanium PowerBook, also made of real titanium. It was not cheap back then, but affordable.
(And there are the Pratt&Whitney engines attached to my "office" whose entire fans are milled from one solid piece of titanium, unlike other jet engines that have individual fan blades. But these are only affordable for my boss I'm afraid.)

But any metal casing is better than plastic whatever metal you choose!

Regards,
max


#78

The number of units manufactured out of titanium will probably be fewer than five, unless there are more people than I expect who are willing to pay a LOT of money for a calculator. The titanium plate that the calculator will be machined from will probably cost more than $500, and the cost of the machining operations will be in the thousands of dollars. Machining titanium is slow and wears out a lot of tools. The price at which the limited edition titanium calculator is offered for sale may be $10K or more. It will be interesting to see whether we can get even a single buyer for that.

The aluminum calculator is *much* less expensive to make. Aluminum is relatively inexpensive, and easy to machine.

#79

Quote:
There are quite a few affordable - even low-cost - watches on the market with titanium housings. And there is of course my Apple Titanium PowerBook, also made of real titanium.

This begs the question of what happens to the device when the
contents obsolete before the housing fails? The use case
for a watch is quite mature, the notebook less so.
For a calculator designed with a long endurance housing
my choice would be one which accommodated
internal upgrades (effectively a wholesale board swap). In one
sense the use case for a calculator can be argued similar to the
wrist watch above. However the prospects generally discussed
here leverage in
large part technology developed to feed the feature escalation
of the handheld <whatever> mass market, which shows no signs
of fizzling out any time soon.
IOW it would be prudent to assure such a housing investment
is preserved w/r/t reusability.

Quote:
But any metal casing is better than plastic whatever metal you choose!

I don't think this is necessarily true. Particularly if you're
intending to coat/color the housing as surface coatings
will wear through, negatively impacting the appearance.
The lowly ABS housing while
obviously structurally inferior to a metal counterpart, provides
a homogeneous color and empirically wears quite well cosmetically.

Even using an uncoated metallic surface, some type of diffuse
surface texture is required to obscure handling
fingerprints as well as the eventual
dings and scratches. While injection moulding polymers allows
an aggressive texture inherent in the forming operation,
getting the same on a hard machined, complex surface is
considerably more involved.
Perhaps some sort of media blasting would work but
experimentation is likely needed here.

There are also similar issues to address for keycap body, keycap
legend, keycap frame legends, etc.. relative to material
choice, wear resistance, and manufacturing cost.

#80

Quote:
But any metal casing is better than plastic whatever metal you choose!

Lead? Rather not. Quicksilver? Even worse;-)

#81

Or think of cadmium, lithium, natrium, uranium, etc. :-I


#82

Quote:
... uranium ...

Depleted Uranium would indeed make the ultimate calculator case! Almost three times the density of steel... if you drop it from your desk, it either hits your foot and breaks some bones inside or it misses and breaks some floor tiles instead :-)

I want one!


#83

If I just wanted it to be dense, I'd rather use tungsten than depleted uranium. Tungsten is denser than uranium, and I can't afford any of the metals that are denser than tungsten.

If you want a calculator machined out of osmium, platinum, iridium, or rhenium, just supply suitable bar stock, and I'll be happy to make it for you.


#84

And keep the shavings for resale :-)

- Pauli

#85

Well, osmium would be a dream - love its bluish color, I have a 2g pellet and it cost *a lot* - but I'd settle for sintered tungsten, it should be more easy to make and *way* more affordable! :)

#86

I could add sodium or potassium to the list of undesirable metals for a calculator case or keyboard.


#87

What about the rest of the Alkali metals? Don't leave out poor lithium, rubidium, cæsium and francium please.

Okay, I'll let you leave out francium given the small quantities that exist at any one time.


- Pauli


#88

Hey folks, lithium and natrium were mentioned above already ;-) Did I tell I have special warm feelings for languages where many names of elements don't match the abbreviations in the periodic table? Think of columbium at worst ;-) (I don't know any language matching them completely, do you?)

Edited: 10 May 2012, 8:32 a.m.

#89

How about moulding the aluminium case by explosive forming?


#90

That would be far more expensive than machining.


#91

but a lot more fun!


#92

Oh yes, production frequency is heard easily (?) in the neighbourhood >|-/

#93

Will we get single keys (real key caps) or a membrane overlay over the switches? AFAIK, the DM15-CC keyboard uses metal domes under the membrane with limited success.


#94

Real key caps, of course.

For more than ten years our prototypes have used tactile switches (where the metal dome is embedded), partly because of the difficulty and expense of doing metal domes with a membrane properly in a low-volume product.

The 3D-printed prototype I have shown has real key caps; the only reason it had an overlay was that the key caps didn't bear legends.

Edited: 10 May 2012, 6:56 p.m.

#95

I vote for anodized aluminum. TiN-coated steel will rust eventually, and is much heavier than aluminum. Aluminum alloys have the highest strength-to weight ratio of any metal that mere humans can afford.

My second choice would be plastic. Not ABS, but the stronger "engineering resins" like what modern power tools are made from.

Definitely a glass window. Corning makes special glass formulations specifically for that purpose.

In any case, I want one NOW!

John


#96

Quote:
Definitely a glass window. Corning makes special glass formulations specifically for that purpose.

It's called "Gorilla Glas" and is used by major tablet and phone manufacturers. You can easily find more about this on the Net.

#97

Quote:
It's called "Gorilla Glas" and is used by major tablet and phone manufacturers. You can easily find more about this on the Net.

You can easily find out more in very general terms. Not much in the way of specifics. Nothing in the way of pricing.

As far as I've been able to determine, there's no way to buy it in small quantities, other than as part of a finished consumer product.

I'm more inclined to use mineral glass, as it is much more readily available. If it's good enough for watches, I'd think it would be good enough for a calculator.

#98

Quote:
I vote for anodized aluminum. TiN-coated steel will rust eventually, and is much heavier than aluminum. Aluminum alloys have the highest strength-to weight ratio of any metal that mere humans can afford.

The problem I anticipate with anodized aluminum, shared by most
other surface coatings on a metallic base, is unsightly
wear-through with handling -- particularly noticeable where other
than a clear surface coating is used. Otherwise from a
fabrication POV there are considerable advantages for
aluminum including the economy to minimize machining via
rough cast blanks.

Another possibility among commodity metals may be a free
machining stainless steel, although while still more costly to
machine it will provide substantially increased surface hardness
over aluminum.

Quote:
My second choice would be plastic. Not ABS, but the stronger "engineering resins" like what modern power tools are made from.

I'd agree assuming the enclosure was to be injection moulded.
Machining can be problematic particularly with reinforced resins.
I suppose unadorned ABS wouldn't be my first choice either,
but a PC/ABS alloy might not be a bad starting point for a
prototype with a glass fiber fill as a production enhancement.


#99

How about a ceramic case as is now being used on some cell phones (such as the upcoming Samsung Galaxy SIII)?

Cheers,

-Marwan


I thought the Galaxy S III was going to be using a plastic case?

Eric


Here is one link that refers to the "Ceramic/metal case." I have seen others. Of course this has yet to be confirmed by a production model.

Ceramic/Metal Case Link

Edit: Removed repetition...

Cheers,

Marwan

Edited: 14 May 2012, 6:00 p.m.

Quote:
stainless steel, although while still more costly to machine it will provide substantially increased surface hardness over aluminum

Anodized aluminum has better surface hardness than stainless steel, and TiN and TiCN coatings are better yet.

Rockwell "C" surface hardness (ISO-6508-1, ASTM E18):

stainless steel: 56
anodized aluminum: 60-65
titanium nitride (TiN): 83
TiCN: off the scale

Edited: 15 May 2012, 8:55 p.m.


Quote:
Anodized aluminum has better surface hardness than stainless steel, and TiN and TiCN coatings are better yet.

Considerable hardness variation exists among available stainless
alloys. Add to this the cold (work) hardening characteristics
when machined, potentially increased by abrasive blasting to
achieve a finish texture. So likely some experimentation is
needed to determine real world performance given the actual
material and process choices.
Even assuming an end user facing stainless alloy finish measurably
softer relative to anodized aluminum, the oxide layer will
typically be a few mils deep and won't have a great influence
on impact deformation.
But otherwise
the hard layer would resist less traumatic abrasion far
better than the core aluminum alone.

Repair due to eventual oxide erosion and dings may be a concern.
In the case of an anodized finish, doing so will likely be
impractical particularly if the oxide is dyed. While
a brushed/matte/blasted raw metallic finish probably
wouldn't be my
first choice aesthetically, maintenance would be far less for
those concerned with such things.

In terms of ABS, personally I don't see an issue for the most
part although newer grades/alloys exist which are worth consideration. PC/ABS seems to be quite popular for portable
enclosures particularly for designs containing thin wall
sections. In general the lower thermal conductivity of
plastics seems (to me at least) more ergonomic compared to
grasping a room temperature cool block of metal.

About the only realistic, functional concern I'd have for a
polymer enclosure would be achieving the required
rigidity in long, thin sections. It may not be possible
to create integral beams within the enclosure of sufficient
depth to withstand design housing flex, subsequently transferred
to the internal pcb and display glass.
This is probably more of an issue for a landscape
footprint where the long display and housing dimensions are
parallel.

There are likely other manufacturability issues to grapple
with in the case of machining ABS relative to metal such as
sufficient fixturing of the work to combat the substantially
increased deflection. Machining accuracy and surface finish
will limit achievable thin sections relative to injection
moulding.
Although for one-off prototypes I might experiment via potting
in a wax filler to temporarily increase rigidity during machining.

Quote:
TiN-coated steel will rust eventually

Do you have any references on that? Part of the reason TiN or TiCN coating is used is for corrosion resistance.

Lately I've been considering TiN or TiCN coated aluminum, depending on whether one wants gold tone or dark grey.

Quote:
My second choice would be plastic. Not ABS, but the stronger "engineering resins" like what modern power tools are made from.

What's wrong with ABS? HP calculators were/are molded from ABS, and I don't recall hearing any complaints about it. Molded ABS is quite durable and has very good impact resistance.


A possible issue for DIY design:

A metal case, particularly a thick one, with sharp edges, with electronics inside, and with a, well, "DIY look" (what else, after all?) will be a big pain at airports security stands.

Just my AR$ 0.10


Quote:
A possible issue for DIY design:

A metal case, particularly a thick one, with sharp edges, with electronics inside, and with a, well, "DIY look" (what else, after all?) will be a big pain at airports security stands.


The other double edged sword of sorts with metallic enclosures
is the inherent Faraday Cage. While beneficial for electrostatic
shielding, it complicates antenna placement for any type of
wireless RF link.

Edited: 18 May 2012, 7:54 a.m. after one or more responses were posted


I'm not planning to have an RF link. Briefly considered Bluetooth, but the cost, impact on battery life, and large amount of required firmware development make it a non-starter.

I'm not planning for a calculator to have either sharp edges or a "DIY look".

I've considered most of these points at length over the years, so here are a few of my thoughts:

Metal has a cool factor to it, but it will scratch and dent as well as prevent RF from getting in or out. While it could certainly be done, I no longer see the logic behind an all metal case design.

I'm not sure why plastic has such a bad rap in some circles. When well executed, plastics can have better durability than metals. A great example of nearly indestructible plastic components are the synthetic parts on my AR-15 rifle. Components such as the stock are made from fiber reinforced Nylon-6.

Aluminosilicate (gorilla) glass is a very cool material, and I would love to see in in a calculator (in fact I've drawn up conceptual art where the entire front plate is gorilla glass.) As other comments have stated it's really geared towards mass production at the moment. On top of that, it has to be purchased in its untreated for cutting and then treated to achieve all of its desirable properties.

Most of my designs include a protective rubber boot to surround everything except the front of the calculator. This seems like common sense to me: look around at anyone carrying a cell phone. How many of those at least have a rubber "bumper" case to give them protection from shock and abrasion in addition to some extra grip?

I'm waiting for some parts to come in from rapid prototyping in the next month or so, should be fun to see what people think. There's never a shortage of opinions around here :)


Quote:
Metal has a cool factor to it, but it will scratch and dent as well as prevent RF from getting in or out. While it could certainly be done, I no longer see the logic behind an all metal case design.

Realistically any practical material in this service will be
subject to scratch and dent trauma. The considerable success
of lowly ABS is in large part due to enduring/hiding the
inevitable scars quite well. Part due to its shock resilience,
and when that fails, the purposeful surface texturing and
inherent homogeneous color.

Quote:
Most of my designs include a protective rubber boot to surround everything except the front of the calculator. This seems like common sense to me: look around at anyone carrying a cell phone. How many of those at least have a rubber "bumper" case to give them protection from shock and abrasion in addition to some extra grip?

I suspect the ubiquitous nature of a cell phone motivates
the use of a boot. IOW I'm unsure if the need is as pressing
relative to the average use case for a calc. I'm sort of on
the fence here, and likely biased as I've seen far too many
poorly designed aftermarket boots. If the boot was relatively
thin, tight to the enclosure (perhaps keyed into the surface),
and scaled back to the corner extremities, it would minimize
the suffocating appearance and objectionable bulk. Another
possibility would be to overmold the enclosure base with
a plastomer, which seems to be fairly popular today. Though
between the two I'd opt for a detachable boot which could be
tossed when either worn or has grown out of favour.

Delrin would be cool. I used to work with all sorts of high grade industrial plastics. I would list a couple of others but so far I have not been able to remember their names.

Some of these plastics are nearly indestructible.

Some of them, if someone asked how much they cost they were laughed out of the building.


Quote:
Delrin would be cool. I used to work with all sorts of high grade industrial plastics. I would list a couple of others but so far I have not been able to remember their names.

Acetal (aka delrin) is indeed durable. However adhesion to it
is complex due to its low surface energy. IIRC it is possible
to chemically etch to improve adhesive performance. But doing
so starts to become specialized manufacturing and adhesive joined
legend plates, surface printing, etc.. may have to be rethought.
Acetal keys would probably work well if they were 2-part moulded.
Although relative to more common plastics, Acetal has some
problematic moulding failure modes.

Have you explored an option such as Kickstarter for funding?

There have been several successful projects in the industrial design vein done there already. Examples:

iPod Nano watch case

Aluminum iPod Dock

A fancy LED clock

E-ink Watch

One of the neatest things about Kickstarter is the the project creator sets the $ amount they need to finance the project, people then "pledge" to buy said item, however people aren't charged unless the funding goal is met.

For example, lets say your budget required a minimum of $50,000 at $100 per calculator to finance the machining, creation of molds, buying parts, and assembly, etc. You'd need 500 people to pledge $100 each to hit your goal.

If you only get 499 people to pledge, the pledge period is considered unsuccessful, and the project does not get funded. But if you hit that magic 500 or above, at the end of the funding period Kickstarter charges everyone and dumps the money into your hands to start production. And if you go way over your minimum, economy of scale starts to kick in, and you can start doing some nifty things just because you can bulk order more for less cost per unit.

They also have the notion of different pledge levels. So you can have your $10,000 titanium calculator as one super upscale level. Indeed, you might want to do $100 plastic, $200 aluminum, and $mega-dollar titanium levels.


i've put money in two projects on kickstarter. no hassles, no problems. from my experience, limited to the buyer's direction, it's an example of something the internet does well. both makers kept us in the loop about progress and timetables, which is easy to do when one note suffices for everyone.


I've just backed my first kickstarter project. An e-paper watch that is bluetooth compatible for iphone and android. Hoping not to be disappointed.

I haven't got the chance to try the WP34S, but I also have my HP41C, bought new. It had been handled somehow, the mainboard is not the one it came with, but it is still there and working fine, thanks.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 5:03 a.m.


Quote:
I haven't got the chance to try the WP34S,...

You can still try the emulator(s) so you will know if you like it or not.

The whole magic about calculators lays in the hardware. The feel of the buttons etc... If that weren't the case, free42 by Thomas Okken and iPhone app by Byron Foster would not leave any breathing space for others.
My admirations for the wp34 s, but it is like 25 years too late.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 7:55 a.m.


Quote:
My admirations for the wp34 s, but it is like 25 years too late.

Most of what we do as enthusiasts is 25 years too late. That's part of the charm. :)

The wp34S shows that a community developed calculator on real hardware is possible. It also shows, once again, how powerful the open source model is. A dedicated and skilled core team supported by a larger community can produce a product far superior to what the market is providing. There's hope for an excellent hardware platform from Eric's DIY project. The hope is that marrying that hardware with the WP34S code, plus classic calculator emulations will produce a machine every bit as worthy of the "instrument" label.

Don't get me wrong. I learned to program on an HP41C. It is my all time favorite computing device. My mind has been permanently warped by RPN and FOCAL. But, alas, I'm unfaithful to her sometimes, and put my hands on other calculators. She always welcomes me back though. :)

Hallo, Marcus.

I surely like it already, reading the threads about the WP34S has just triggered my wish to have one. I have downloaded one of the emulators already (do not recall which one of them) but I did not install it yet. I'm in such a hurry with the daily activities I cannot tell...

Cheers.

Luiz (Brazil)

Agreed, I've got my HP41C on my desk and love it even though I have no real usage for it. I have put CV board in it and wouldn't mind the CL but the price is too high for nostalgic items at this stage.

Anyway, by far the best calculator ever as far as I'm concerned and never to be levelled.

Edited: 9 May 2012, 7:54 a.m.


Quote:
wouldn't mind the CL but the price is too high for nostalgic items at this stage

The CL board is worth every cent and yet much more. Put it on a suitable donor and you'll see all the NEW software written for the 41 system fly as it's intended to: complex numbers, matrices, quaternions, etc... a dream come true and a joy to behold.


Hi Ángel,

agreed with your appraisal of the CL. And I *sometimes* really want one. But, do you know what's distract me to get one until now? (OK, apart from not owing a donor machine so far ;-))? It is not the price (which is more than OK for the gem you get!). It is the fact that if I wish / had the need to have a Calc that can do "everything", I'd go with the 50-series. If I want a 41 I get a 41C, CV or CX but not a CL because to me the CL is indeed a wonderful machine but is *not* an HP-41 anymore. It is just the *casing* of an 41 mithout it's *soul* ... anyway, would like to get a CL sometime :-)

All the best, Juergen


Quote:
It is just the *casing* of an 41 mithout it's *soul* ...




At the core of the NEWT microprocessor is as exact a copy of the CPU in the 41C as I can make. This core is surrounded by logic that supports the larger physical address space and the logic that allows interfacing to the parallel memories on the board. I did the design this way in an attempt to preserve the "soul" of the machine as much as possible. But I understand that not everyone will see it the same way.


I like to think that the 41CL is the machine that could have been, had HP not veered in the direction of the 48 series and RPL.

To me, at least, machines that emulate an instruction set using a generic microprocessor (be it ARM, or whatever) lack the "soul" of an HP mahine.

Just my 2 cents.

Monte, well said! I share your prespective, although I enjoy the new HP-12C and HP-15C LE, I always feel they lack the "soul" by running an emulation on an ARM processor. However 41CL is different, it is rejuvinated with modern ICs retaining its "soul". Which is why won't hessitate to update my HP-41 to "CL". That not only allows me to enjoy this wonderful machine many more years to come with much more memory and power, but also retains the "soul" which I got to like for many years. Thank you for making 41CL a reality!

Hi Monte,

Quote:
I like to think that the 41CL is the machine that could have been, had HP not veered in the direction of the 48 series and RPL.

Agreed! I like your "interpretation". Thinking of the CL of a successor of the 41-C/CV/CX makes absolutely sense to me and makes my reservation of the CL pointless. Surely will try get my hands on the gem sometime :-)

All the Best, Juergen

I found myself seeing "Star Track the Movie": V'Ger

Quote:
At the core of the NEWT microprocessor is as exact a copy of the CPU in the 41C as I can make. This core is surrounded by logic that supports the larger physical address space and the logic that allows interfacing to the parallel memories on the board. I did the design this way in an attempt to preserve the "soul" of the machine as much as possible. But I understand that not everyone will see it the same way.

I think there certainly is value preserving the logic definition
of legacy silicon. Emulators are true to their billing, and
realistically an implementation convenience.

Quote:
To me, at least, machines that emulate an instruction set using a generic microprocessor (be it ARM, or whatever) lack the "soul" of an HP mahine.

Moreover nuances exist in the design of an architecture
(eg: instruction encoding) which soft emulation approaches
may easily gloss over, yet would be obvious with a dedicated
logic design dissecting the instruction stream.
But I'm certainly preaching to the choir here.

For good or ill the absolute, mind boggling flood of ARM
SoCs have so great an engineering investment behind
them, it is effectively impossible for dedicated silicon
to compete from a commercial perspective. However IMHO that
does not diminish the value of doing so in this context.

To this day (and after the HEPAX DISASM fixes) my CL has flawlessly performed all the very many programs, MCODE functions and extensions to the 41 system that I've written or use frequently. This is a serious accomplishment in my book, and surely speaks of "soul retainment" very favorably.

Throw on top of that the superb MMU (which should stand for Magic Made Unreal), the serial interface, the capability to modify the buil-in OS, the 140+ modules library, and you'll see that it's not only about the speed!

41 is superb. A bona fide Hallmark.

I drive a Rolls-Royce Silver Spirit III. Throwing anything on the seat of that car (other than Scarlet Johannson's rear end) is unheard of. But I know what you are saying.

I played with a 34s briefly and was impressed. But I am always impressed with HP.

Your instrument word is spot on. The 41 & 71 are both "instruments" in my book.

In terms of seat throwing, just use a quality case to protect the magnificence of the unit. And try the CL upgrade. The guy who invented that is a genius.

Keep up the good work!!!


I drive a Toyota Sienna and am happy if *all* that ends up in my seats is someone's rear end. My passengers also help with durability testing by pressing calculator buttons, chewing on the units, drooling, placing sticky fingers and crumbs into the keyboard, and all other manner of tortures. :-)

TW


NT

Now HP has outsourced quality control to your kids? Not a bad idea!
Did they test the 35s? <grin>


Nope. 35s was before my time. The 10bII+ went through this testing though.



He already had a taste for RPN though, so it wasn't satisfying.


TW


LOL! Priceless. Just Priceless.

So nice pics Tim !!

HA HA HA HA !
Perfect Tim!

Weak with laughter. :)

You'll have to teach him that Pi isn't edible.


That pi is:


Very nice!

Bruce.

I guess the only keys that work are / and 8


Does the latter always work in London, where the cake is supposed to have been eaten?


Only if it has a red dot, which makes for more expensive icing and therefore puts the cake out of reach of the peasants.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A Serious Scientific Instrument Revisited Walter B 4 526 06-26-2007, 04:32 PM
Last Post: Hal Bitton in Boise
  A Serious Scientific Instrument Walter B 82 4,984 06-07-2007, 01:01 PM
Last Post: bill platt
  HP3810A survey instrument Todd Rockwell 2 377 02-15-2007, 04:30 AM
Last Post: Eric Smith
  Pampered Texas Instrument Calculator users Max 5 584 08-15-2003, 09:26 PM
Last Post: Speck

Forum Jump: