It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:41 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Old computer power consumption
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
Hi everyone,

Too many unknown variable here, I'm losing count.

I want a low power server up 24/7 for basic needs (file server, torrent box, asterisk, mt-daapd, etc.)

I know this has an environmental impact, but I'd like to keep it the lowest possible.

Should I install a small linux distro on an old P3 or get a new low power computer with a 780G and Sempron LE ?

P3 cons:
-higher power consumption than modern cpus?
-I'll still want to get a new quiet PSU, heatsink and fans to make it more efficient / quiet

Sempron or 4850e cons :
-more e-waste


Questions:
(1) What's the lesser of the evils, environment-wise ? E-Waste or higher power consumption? I tend t believe that the e-waste will be much worse.

(2) If the answer is "go sempron", doesnt that make all the "recycle your old computer and pass it on to others to save the planet" actually a very bad information?

Thanks,



I currently have the following running 24/7 that I would be able to switch off should I get this server up and running:
WRT54GL router
NSLU2 with attached 3.5" HDD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
The old systems could be fine for someone to use occasionally.

A Tualatin (130nm) P3 can be fairly low power, but I wouldn't want to trade my Sempron LE-1250/740G for my old Celeron 1200/440BX. 130nm AMD chips can match the Tualatin for power and can use DDR. AMD's older 180nm K6-2+ and K6-3+ were both low power.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:20 am
Posts: 120
Location: Denmark
My advice: start with the old, if you need to buy something new then make sure it can be re-used in a more modern pc. If the old stuff turns out to be too slow or whatever, buy new and use any old-new parts you may have bought.

That, at least, keeps the e-waste to a minimum ... but it does require you to hope the low-end gear will be okay, or you'll have doubled your amount of work.

_________________
KlaymenDK
-- 010\001\111 --
This is my rig, and how I chose it (2008-12).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
QuietOC and KlaymenDK:

(1) thanks for the replies!

(2) I need something that will be on 24/7, not occasional use.

I really dont need something that powerful CPU wise: ,y 266 mhz NSLU2 with 32 mb ram *almost* does all I need. It's just short on the ram, so I had to slim the asterisk modules. The file serving is also on the slow side. (1 meg/seconD)

This makes me believe that CPU wise, a 800mhz P3 would be more than enough for my needs, so I wouldnt have to do everything twice.

I just dont want to have a 100W computer running where my 10W NSLU2 was almost doing the job.


(3) Can a P3 run on 30-40 W ?
(4) QuietOC : I'm sure this has been discussed before, but might as well give it a try: should I get 740G or 780G for a low power build


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:55 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
I have a 450 MHz Pentium 3, and with a single 3.5" 5400 RPM drive and no expansion cards, it idles at 36 watts AC (since your server will be spending most of its time idle, that's what really matters). Full load is around 56 watts AC, but I doubt your server will hit that very often or for more than a few seconds at a time.

Obviously you'll be drawing more for a SATA card and more drives, but your 180nm chip actually has a lower TDP than my 250nm chip. If you look back at recent SPCR tests of mATX boards and low-powered dual-core chips, you'll see those drawing at least 10 watts more even with a laptop hard drive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
tehcrazybob wrote:
I have a 450 MHz Pentium 3, and with a single 3.5" 5400 RPM drive and no expansion cards, it idles at 36 watts AC (since your server will be spending most of its time idle, that's what really matters). Full load is around 56 watts AC, but I doubt your server will hit that very often or for more than a few seconds at a time.

Obviously you'll be drawing more for a SATA card and more drives, but your 180nm chip actually has a lower TDP than my 250nm chip. If you look back at recent SPCR tests of mATX boards and low-powered dual-core chips, you'll see those drawing at least 10 watts more even with a laptop hard drive.


Great news!
P3 for the win. No e-waste + lower energy consumption = wins it for me. I'll just have to find it quiet fans.

Is there any list of all the CPUs + chipsets TDPs out there?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
morglum wrote:
(4) QuietOC : I'm sure this has been discussed before, but might as well give it a try: should I get 740G or 780G for a low power build

Either, idle power is similar, the 780G has better performance. The 740G cost less, which is why I bought one. You want a low end motherboard with 3 or fewer VRM phases to really get low power.

An 800MHz Coppermine P3 will not be very low power. Use SPCR's archived CPU guide.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
QuietOC wrote:
morglum wrote:
(4) QuietOC : I'm sure this has been discussed before, but might as well give it a try: should I get 740G or 780G for a low power build

Either, idle power is similar, the 780G has better performance. The 740G cost less, which is why I bought one. You want a low end motherboard with 3 or fewer VRM phases to really get low power.

An 800MHz Coppermine P3 will not be very low power. Use SPCR's archived CPU guide.


Thanks for the link!

+ I never hearf of VRM phases --- off to read.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:28 pm
Posts: 1406
Location: USA
QuietOC wrote:
An 800MHz Coppermine P3 will not be very low power. Use SPCR's archived CPU guide.

Where do you get that from? Your link says TDP of 18-31W, which is damn good compared to everything but Atom. Yes modern CPU of higher rated TDP should idle lower due to EIST or CnQ, but you are talking about saving what 10W? That hardly justifies the cost of replacement.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:01 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Posts: 356
Location: Council Bluffs, Iowa
I was getting my numbers from this chart:
http://www.techarp.com/article/Desktop_ ... ntel_2.png

Which can be found in full, along with some other information, on this page.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
jessekopelman wrote:
QuietOC wrote:
An 800MHz Coppermine P3 will not be very low power. Use SPCR's archived CPU guide.

Where do you get that from? Your link says TDP of 18-31W, which is damn good compared to everything but Atom.

Sure, 30W isn't horrible, but its not very low power in my book. Intel was also famous for underestimating TDPs in the P3 era. 800MHz is near the top of the Coppermines, and not all Coppermines were created equal.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:51 am
Posts: 395
Location: The Netherlands (NL)
I always calculate the power consumption of both machines.
If if the new machine earns itself within 3 years on my power bill, I will buy it. If the old machine is cheaper I use an old one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
I ended up getting a LE-1200 + gigabyte 740G.. (100$CAN -that's 70$US shipped) since they seem to be the least power consuming CPU/mobo ever.

Already have a spare case, psu and hdd anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:20 am
Posts: 87
Not trying to be particularly nasty, but why bother asking the question, if you was just going to plump for the Sempron anyroad.

At the end of the day, the energies used in manufacturing computer parts far outweigh any usage in an items lifetime, so if this was based on conscience, which is how you presented it to be, you've made the wrong choice.

Especially considering an old P3 base unit is like £25 or so, would be more than adequate for your needs and will have similar power consumption to the Sempron.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
The Gangrel wrote:
Not trying to be particularly nasty, but why bother asking the question, if you was just going to plump for the Sempron anyroad.

At the end of the day, the energies used in manufacturing computer parts far outweigh any usage in an items lifetime, so if this was based on conscience, which is how you presented it to be, you've made the wrong choice.

Especially considering an old P3 base unit is like £25 or so, would be more than adequate for your needs and will have similar power consumption to the Sempron.


I agree I didnt take the greenest road on that one. I just got mad at people trying to sell me P3's for 100$ (WTF!) and not being able to talk them into understanding this isnt worth 10$.

I'll actually use this "new" computer as the brain of a LTSP network I'm trying to build. If *that* works, I'll be able to do a good job at recycling my libraries's old PC.


---------------

I can't tagree with this " manufacturing computer parts far outweigh any usage in an items lifetime", simply because I have yet to see *any* numbers for this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 8:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:20 am
Posts: 87
As for manufacturing outweighing actual usage, I think it's just a case of common sense really, raw materials need to be mined, then transported, then turned into x composite material which is then cut to shape and on and on etc.

All the water, oil, electricity, petrol etc used must be considerable. How all this breaks down to the single component level, I'm not sure, but I'd imagine the energy use as being much higher than just plugging the thing into the wall.

I agree that numbers would be helpful, but I'm not sure if there are any PC specific studies out there...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
The Gangrel wrote:
As for manufacturing outweighing actual usage, I think it's just a case of common sense really, raw materials need to be mined, then transported, then turned into x composite material which is then cut to shape and on and on etc.

All the water, oil, electricity, petrol etc used must be considerable. How all this breaks down to the single component level, I'm not sure, but I'd imagine the energy use as being much higher than just plugging the thing into the wall.

I agree that numbers would be helpful, but I'm not sure if there are any PC specific studies out there...


Agree with all that.

In another thread a study was mentionned but we couldnt get the link. I'll try and do some more digging later on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 10:30 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:49 am
Posts: 713
Location: Denmark
morglum wrote:
I'll try and do some more digging later on.
Please do. I'm sure alot of SPCR'ers would find a study like that really helpful/exciting.

_________________
I'd rather go synchronize swimming with Angela Lansbury


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:34 am
Posts: 45
Location: ottawa
AuraAllan wrote:
morglum wrote:
I'll try and do some more digging later on.
Please do. I'm sure alot of SPCR'ers would find a study like that really helpful/exciting.


found one!

This 2004 study finds that
Quote:
The total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a desktop computer with 17-in. CRT monitor are estimated at 6400 megajoules (MJ) and 260 kg, respectively. This indicates that computer manufacturing is energy intensive: the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight is 11, an order of magnitude larger than the factor of 1−2 for many other manufactured goods. This high energy intensity of manufacturing, combined with rapid turnover in computers, results in an annual life cycle energy burden that is surprisingly high: about 2600 MJ per year, 1.3 times that of a refrigerator. In contrast with many home appliances, life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production (81%) as opposed to operation (19%). Extension of usable lifespan (e.g. by reselling or upgrading) is thus a promising approach to mitigating energy impacts as well as other environmental burdens associated with manufacturing and disposal.


A Joule is 1 W*s.
--­> 1 W*h = 3600 J
--> 1 J = 1/3600 Wh
--> 1 computer including 17" CRT is = 6400 MJ * (1/3600) Wh/J = 1.77 MWh

A 100W computer running 24/7 for a year = 0,876 MWh.


A 100W computer+17" CRT energy manufacturing cost = about 2 years of 24/7 use @ 100W



EDIT: Same author revisits his article and finds an energy use of 7320 MJ
Quote:
Abstract
Using hybrid assessment that combines process and economic input-output methods, the total energy and fossil fuels used in producing a desktop computer with 17-inch CRT monitor are estimated at 7,320 Megajoules (MJ) and 290 kg respectively. This indicates that the network of industries for manufacturing computers is energy intensive: the ratio of fossil fuel use to product weight for a computer is 12, an order of magnitude larger than the factor of 1-2 for many other manufactured goods. In contrast with many home appliances, life cycle energy use of a computer is dominated by production (83%) as opposed to operation (17%). The yearly life cycle cost of owning a computer is about 3,000 MJ/year, half again that of a refrigerator, a much larger appliance that uses far more electricity in operation. The short lifespan of computers and the variety of computing needs of users suggests that extension of lifespan, for example by promptly reselling to users who need less computing power, is a promising approach to mitigating environmental impacts.

What I dont understand if that he says tgat 83% of energy consumption is production vs 17% operation.. even though that production is 7320 MJ and 1 year use is 3000 MJ (if people keep them for 2 1/2 years then it's about 50-50).

Maybe that's because people dont actually run them 24/7


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2009 2:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 12
Location: Norway
It is more than just the energy made. I shan't say I am not wrong here, but computers also account for a lot of waste in the production process. I think I heard on the radio an UN report said one desktop computer accounted for 1 tonne of waste. Yet I heard another saying 500kg.

Either way, if you want to go for the environment buy used, use well, sell, trade or freecycle. And if you have to buy new, buy ethical or "green" although you should be critical of how green it is. It's like a car manufacturer putting an LED on an SUV and then calling the SUV is green because of the efficiency of the LED.

Further, you'll want to buy things marked with Energy star or rated well by EPEAT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 4:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:46 am
Posts: 12
Location: Norway
P3 cons:
-I'll still want to get a new quiet PSU, heatsink and fans to make it more efficient / quiet

Not such a con if you can order it used. Try finding something in your own state on eBay.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:29 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 4:04 pm
Posts: 167
Hrm. Does a Pentium-M with a PicoPSU sound fine for your needs? I doubt you need a monitor if you log into it remotely. I bought a used mini-ITX off ebay, this time last year, for about $140:

Aaeon EMB-852T motherboard; with onboard CF option
1.6Ghz Pentium M w heatsink and 60mm fan
512MB RAM
Toshiba MK4032GAX 2.5 hard drive
Enhance ENP-2322B Flex ATX 220w PSU
Sharp 15" 1024x768 LCD display model LQ150X1LGN2A
includes inverter board and LVDS connector


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:48 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Finland
Using old P3s can be an economical solution. Their Calculating power per watt is bad but where calculating power is not needed (like fileserving without software RAID) they're about as good as new hardware. Even though they consume more on idle because lack of power saving features, Win98 couldn't probably utilize and power saving features even if they were present so Core2 would consume quite a bit anyway. Or you need to install WinXP but then going for more MHz and especially more RAM would be recommended. Or a stripped down XP. Stock XP settings require at least 512MB to run decently.

If P3 system would consume 10 watts extra compared to bare new low-power system, I don't know which one would have lower power consumption during it's lifetime. It depends on lifespan of the system. If you determine lifespan to be very long, you would end up deciding C2D for usability AND green reasons. But ironically, if you go for really long lifespan in your calculations, you're probably ignoring that there will be something better coming after C2D and C2D wouldn't be most econimical anymore. It could have been better to stick with P3 and skip C2D for the next major architecture.

And there's other waste than carbondioxide: lead, mercury and other poisonous materials, and bulk waste that cannot be recycled and end up in landfil. EU has made a directive regarding handling and recycling of lead and mercury in old computer hardware and banned use of such material in new hardware. USA, selfish bastard bitches as they are, have not (like they have not ratified Kioto convention either). Electronic waste created in EU has to be recycled within EU or at least verified it's recycled acording to EU regulations without harming nature or health of employees. Some "recycling" companies will smuggle broken computers outside EU by claiming them to be in working order and to be used instead of being recycled. They end up in China and Africa to be recycled and it causes severe heath and enviromental impact on locals. This is criminal activity but it goes on under the cover.

The US wants to cut costs so they will not cut CO2 emissions and the WILL NOT recycle lead so ALL electronics end up being hand desoldered without anything to protect employees of recycling "companies" (no ventilation, no masks, no glasses, no gloves). Some of the dismantling is performed by crime gangs and the borderline between legimate corporations and crime organizations is very vague in China.

Retiring a computer (especially in the US, less so in Europe) may well have a bigger enviromental impact than building or using it. So, even if you would buy C2D, I would still be a little hesitant to send it for recycling if I didn't live within EU. Why not store the electronic waste for 10 or 20 year until USA has also noticed the need for proper recycling and has started to perform recycling properly? Yeah, you would end up with a huge mountain of e-waste. At least you would notice what luxury-hogging bitches we are when we upgrade our e-hardware too often (this applies to Europeans as well).

Luckily, Americans have Obama now. I don't believe in miracles but that's at least the first step to ratifying decisions made in environmental conventions and starting to take some responsibility. (And also stop that rape of democracy happening in Guantanamo.)

Sorry for the rant. :p

I sure won't be trashing working systems. I retire them when I cannot make them work. Or sell / gieve them away for free if they work but I don't need them... or leave them sitting on a desk like my Amiga 500, 286, 486, P3 and P4 have ended up like. All are in working condition.

Amiga 500 still is a valuable gaming system (both figuratively and in resale value). Too bad C64 got sold since today it's worth it's weight in gold (ok, exageration: high-purity oxygen free copper maybe?). 486 is good for occasional retro gaming (low end DOS games), so is P3 (high-end DOS games). P3 is also capable being low-duty server if needed (cannot recognize >128GB HDDs though). P4 is good for occasional home theater (excluding all 1080p encodes and most 720p HDTV as well) use and it's rigged for near-silent operation. P3 and P4 can handle office applications well enough, and support USB mass storage to import/export files. 286 is the only one I cannot find any use of... and no-one would probably accept it even if given for to them for free.

_________________
Antec 1200 | HX520W | Commando | Q6600 G0 @ 3.15GHz | Noctua NH-U12F | 8GB of RAM | HD 4670 (passive)
7 TB of storage: 1x 1st gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 2nd gen GreenPower (1TB), 1x 3rd gen GreenPower (2TB), 1x 7200rpm F1, 2x 5400rpm F2 EcoGreen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 3
Location: India
Hello,
I have always bee told that battery charges even when not in use,consume some power.And indeed they tend to get hot even when the device they are supposed to charge in not plugging .Could you try with your cellphone charger or something like that?
Thanks :lol:

_________________
Corporate hosting provided by http://www.marblehost.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 177
Location: Germany
For other people that are interested into something like this: You might consider this.
Specs:
  • 115 x 101 x 27 mm
  • Atom Z530 (1.66 Ghz)
  • 1GB of DDR2
  • optional 160GB HDD (standard 2.5" - can be swapped)
  • No fan
  • US15W chipset [2.3W TDP]
  • supposedly 6W power draw
  • $245+

Other Options include obviously ARM-based products (no HDD, but USB2.0 -> external HDD possible)

whiic wrote:
Using old P3s can be an economical solution. Their Calculating power per watt is bad but where calculating power is not needed (like fileserving without software RAID) they're about as good as new hardware. Even though they consume more on idle because lack of power saving features, Win98 couldn't probably utilize and power saving features even if they were present so Core2 would consume quite a bit anyway. Or you need to install WinXP but then going for more MHz and especially more RAM would be recommended. Or a stripped down XP. Stock XP settings require at least 512MB to run decently.

Have you heard about that thing called... Linux? You might want to read up a bit about it...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
Pretty expensive for what you get.

Speaking of used hardware: Handheld PCs are available fairly cheaply used and a few like the NEC Mobile Pro 880 and 900C even have (very slow) USB host ports. My 900C used 4W max at the wall (with the battery removed and the LCD backlight at max), but its 400MHz Intel XScale PXA255 was pretty slow, and it had no video acceleration at all. Both NECs came with miniVGA ports, but only the 880's VGA output is useful since it outputs the same 800x600x16 resolution as its LCD screen.

It should be possible to turn the $99 WD TV into an ARM-based PC--since that's basicaly what it is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 3:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:18 am
Posts: 78
Location: Hessle
My "server" is a mix of old parts:
- Pentium III 650MHz (Coppermine, 100MHz FSB)
- 768MB PC133 RAM (3x 256MB)
- Biostar M6VCG motherboard
- Toshiba 80GB 2.5" HDD for system
- Hitachi 7K250 250GB IDE for network storage
- Broken Hauppauge WinTV card that I was given for free (dead tuner, screwed EEPROM but S-Video capture works)
- SiS 6326 AGP 8MB
It is completely made from old parts or parts that I've been given by friends and relatives so effectively, it's cost me nothing other than the electricity to run it. The best part - 45W power consumption, rising to ~55W whenever the 7K250 disk is running. Maybe at some point I'll replace that drive with something else such as a GreenPower 1TB with a SATA-IDE adapter.

It's sat in the loft running 24/7 as a CCTV monitor/capture running ZoneMinder on Mandriva 2007.0 (I know it's old, but I have everything configured just how I want it). The CCTV was its initial purpose, but ZoneMinder is so efficient, that even on this old hardware there is plenty of free resources. So I added the 250GB drive and installed WINE + Flashget, so that it can do file downloads overnight. That saves me having to leave my 60W HTPC on to do downloads.

I don't think that I could build a replacement server with lower-power components and ever recover the costs. I wouldn't dream of using this thing as a desktop machine but for its job in my home network, it's perfectly suited.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:48 am
Posts: 4
Location: US
its right to got with the sepron style, its more faster thann ever


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group