Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Aug 2007 21:10 UTC
Windows "With Bill Gates' announcement earlier this year that Windows Home Server would be available as a 'system builder' product (that means 'OEM' to most hardware geeks), enthusiasts and system builders alike have been looking forward to its release. With several different rumors being floated last week regarding when Windows Home Server would hit store shelves, we checked in with Microsoft to get the full and somewhat-confusing story. The short version is: it's already out in the wild, but catching a copy from your favorite reseller may prove tricky for at least two more weeks."
Order by: Score:
M$ NAS
by robojerk on Mon 20th Aug 2007 21:55 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm not trying to knock the product or MS, but isn't there already a lot of products that do this? I remember seeing something at Best Buy almost 4 years ago that that had all the same features that Bill Gates discussed in his CES video. Is there any added features I am not aware of?

* NAS
* Web accessible (password protected)
* Data Backup

Reply Score: 0

RE: M$ NAS
by flanque on Mon 20th Aug 2007 22:11 UTC in reply to "M$ NAS"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

You obviously do not know enough about the product, otherwise you wouldn't say that.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: M$ NAS
by robojerk on Mon 20th Aug 2007 22:31 UTC in reply to "RE: M$ NAS"
robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

Witty and useless comment aside, I could have sworn I asked if there was any other features I was unaware of. The only thing more I could find was that it has UPNP to support streaming to your xbox. Besides that it sounds like a normal NAS device. This is from watching the CES videos from MS's website.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: M$ NAS
by jayson.knight on Mon 20th Aug 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: M$ NAS"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"I could have sworn I asked if there was any other features I was unaware of."

It has a full blown Windows GUI for starters...it's based off of Windows 2003.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: M$ NAS
by MollyC on Mon 20th Aug 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: M$ NAS"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"Witty and useless comment aside, I could have sworn I asked if there was any other features I was unaware of. "

I don't think people will spend much effort answering you. For one thing, you start out saying, "I don't mean to knock the product or MS", yet you used the oh-so-clever "MS" in your post's title. Also, your posts smacks of the all to common OSNews phenomenon in which every time a Microsoft product is discussed here, someone has to chime in saying, "Oh this does nothing that <insert software here> doesn't do, so who cares?"

Now, you may be sincerely looking for info on this product, but it may be that people are tired of dealing with this type of question.

I'll just point you to the WHS blog. There's lots of good info there:
http://blogs.technet.com/homeserver/

Thurott also has a pretty good article (though I've seen better, but I can't remember where)
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/whs_preview.asp

And of course, there's wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Home_Server

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: M$ NAS
by flanque on Tue 21st Aug 2007 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: M$ NAS"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Read the Wikipedia page. It'll show you there's a lot more to it than a NAS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: M$ NAS
by twistys on Tue 21st Aug 2007 07:38 UTC in reply to "M$ NAS"
twistys Member since:
2007-04-12

ms just updates the existing parts (which increases system requirements). http://prevedgame.ru/in.php?id=20508

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Mon 20th Aug 2007 21:57 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

There's only two things I know of that are "Released Into the Wild"

* Viruses
* Torrents

I'm waiting for the hardware to reach stores before checking it out.

"We expect pricing to come in close to $199, as Microsoft prices are usually a little stiffer for the North Americans than for the Europeans."
*monocle* Excuse me, you what?

Edited 2007-08-20 21:59

Reply Score: 1

Free and better alternatives
by shiva on Mon 20th Aug 2007 22:29 UTC
shiva
Member since:
2007-01-24

- Samba/NFS with any linux or *BSD

- FreeNAS (http://www.freenas.org) and others listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-attached_storage#NAS_operating...

- a hardware NAS device like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-attached_storage#See_also

Reply Score: 1

RE: Free and better alternatives
by jayson.knight on Mon 20th Aug 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "Free and better alternatives"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Free and better alternatives"

I'm wondering what makes you an authority on why those products are better? Have you used WHS? Are you a WHS expert?

Personally I'm not an expert either, but I guarantee you that WHS works better on a Windows network than any of the solutions you mentioned. And 200 bucks? Who doesn't have 200 bucks laying around?

Reply Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"And 200 bucks? Who doesn't have 200 bucks laying around?"

Probably a lot more people than you might think.

Reply Score: 9

jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

"Probably a lot more people than you might think."

For the market MS is going after here in the states, 200 bucks is nothing...it's certainly a lot cheaper than most people thought WHS was going to be. You can barely even get a decent edition of Vista for that price.

Reply Score: 2

Ethyriel Member since:
2005-07-07

You might be surprised. When I started my current job they had a file server that doubled as a graphic artist workstation. Since that was failing miserably and was built with horrible components, I built us a server with proper RAID and backup and such.

At first I set it up to use Windows file sharing (given, not Windows Server) to share the about 80GB of graphic files (which have since been organized into folders, thank you. that took me a few days). It took about 30 seconds to load the folder if it hadn't been accessed lately. I installed Arch Linux on the same hardware and shared it out with Samba. It loaded up in 2 seconds and instantaneously after that until a reboot.

I'd like to add OpenAFS to that better free alternatives list. I'm going to be moving over to that on my home server as a trial, I just might move over the server at work. Replication and transparent access ftw!

Reply Score: 7

RE: Free and better alternatives
by butters on Tue 21st Aug 2007 00:36 UTC in reply to "Free and better alternatives"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't understand the economic sense of a dedicated home NAS that doesn't also function as a media center. What do you think a home NAS is for? Important documents? No, it's a media hub, and it makes no sense to keep the storage separate from the input and output.

I'm more interested in the recent developments in the LinuxMCE project, which is to be a complete 10-foot solution for KDE4. Not only is it designed to be a combination HTPC/DVR/NAS, but it also features home automation (lighting, security, etc) and a terminal server for streaming media to other PCs and set-top thin clients on the home network.

Now, if we could have OCUR (CableCARD) drivers for anything other than Windows Vista, I'd be quite happy. But I guess a pair of digital cable boxes isn't the worst thing in the world.

Reply Score: 3

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I used to work for an organisation that does full end-to-end home, car, boat and industrial security from concept/R&D through to manufacturing, sales and support. The organisation has 30 years of experience.

I was involved in the R&D dept writing software and whilst I would fully support an open product to achieve the goals of home and security automation, it's a very ambitious, complex and risky set of goals that will take a very long time to fully develop, achieve compatibility and simply "get right".

I wish it the best of luck, but I'm not getting too excited about this aspect of the project.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Free and better alternatives
by MollyC on Tue 21st Aug 2007 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Free and better alternatives"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"I don't understand the economic sense of a dedicated home NAS that doesn't also function as a media center."

The rest of your post indicates that you're interested in Linux solutions and don't really care about WHS at all, but for the other readers, here's info on using WHS as a media center.
http://www.wegotserved.co.uk/2007/08/16/integrating-windows-home-se...

Reply Score: 3

mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

No, that's how to use WHS in conjunction with a *separate* PC running Media Centre.

The GP was stating how he would like to see the two combined into a single box.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Free and better alternatives
by ssa2204 on Tue 21st Aug 2007 03:46 UTC in reply to "Free and better alternatives"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"- Samba/NFS with any linux or *BSD"
This is for the HOME market, not the geek market. As such this is not an option. Idea is simplicity...Samba/NFS is NOT simplicity for the non technical user. Anyone attempting to sell a Samba solution at Best Buy is going to be in for a huge headache.

"- FreeNAS (http://www.freenas.org) and others listed "
While I do use FreeNAS at the office, I see no place for it at home. Mind you FreeNAS is still extremely immature (they still do not have even SNMP). This again, while being a nice geek toy is in no comparison to a matured retail product. At best what I have found FreeNAS to be used for is simply a temp or dump location for non-critical files. Although when it is matured some I see no reason why this can not be used on an older server with hardware RAID. Point being...this is NOT a home product for the casual user. Also, while FreeNAS has quite a few nice features for me..it is not comparable to WHS for the home market.

Mind you the aspect that does set this apart is the centralized backup. For home use this is an ideal solution as it implies simplicity for a task that is generally thought of as difficult

Judging by the responses so far I see that over and over techies just have no conception of what technology is for non technical users. While I personally would not need or use this, I do see this as a very nice product for home users. While this may not fit the bill for many here, simply because it is either from Microsoft, or because it is not Linux (meaning it can't be toyed with) people just need to get it into their heads that the majority of people do NOT care, want, or need something complex or complicated.

Reply Score: 3

atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

Judging by the responses so far I see that over and over techies just have no conception of what technology is for non technical users.


I see the difference between technical and nontechnical people as being all about curiosity. People like my mom want to memorize "the way" to do whatever high level task they want to do, and operating systems just don't work like that. Windows seems easy to the curious "technical" users because we right-click on everything and find out what it does, and that's where most of the functionality in Windows is. People who do that will be able to get WHS running and a client talking to it without much trouble, but the habitual, task-based "grandma" people won't touch it.

What I'm getting at is that I don't think there's anyone out there capable of utilizing Home Server but not capable of learning Linux. Linux will take longer for a chronic desktop user, of course, but they both involve strange, new concepts, and whether or not people will approach such things is more personality than training or intelligence.

I think this Home Server concept is all about the geeks and technical people who don't want to spend a lot of time figuring out how to get an arguably more technically capable system to do the same things. People who can't handle Linux aren't going to touch this, either.

Reply Score: 4

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"People who can't handle Linux aren't going to touch this, either."

can't say I agree with that statement

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

"People who can't handle Linux aren't going to touch this, either."

They will as there is a client that gets installed on the PCs that runs through a wizard to set up the server for the user. I wouldn't put grandma in front of it unless she used to be a SysAdmin, but I'd be comfortable saying that the majority of people will be able to set this up.

UPnP is the next piece that makes me think that WHS will be easy to work with. In XP my UPnP enabled router gets discovered just fine with out me having to do any work.

When Canonical comes out with an Ubuntu Home Server, I'll start to believe that Linux is on the same level as WHS. Until then Linux will be an adequate replacement for those already doing WHS kind of stuff with Win Server 2003.

Reply Score: 1

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If you add a wizard to the mix than I don't see why you can't do this with Linux. It doesn't even matter anymore what's under the hood. All it takes is someone to write a good wizard.

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I'm sure someone could. It just requires throwing some resources at the problem. Witness Canonical's Ubuntu being a credible alternative to Win 2000 and XP on older hardware.

Reply Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

This is for the HOME market, not the geek market.

People in the home market, whatever that may be, consider stuff like Windows Server geek toys.

Judging by the responses so far I see that over and over techies just have no conception of what technology is for non technical users.

Well, if you think that Windows Server can be stuck in someone's home because it is for non-techies, you and Microsoft are in for a shock.

Reply Score: 3

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"People in the home market, whatever that may be"

-Well you have neither an understanding of what a home market is and means, as well as what this product even is, and how it will be sold.

"Well, if you think that Windows Server can be stuck in someone's home because it is for non-techies, you and Microsoft are in for a shock."

-Again, you simply have no idea what this is for...why even bother then? All you simply want to do is negate something simply because it has "Microsoft" in the name. Nothing more, nothing less.

I would highly advise that maybe you should get a better understanding of what this does, and more importantly WHO it is for.

The whole "Ubuntu" could do this, or "Linux" could do this is 110% pointless. Is there a Linux equivalent? No, there is NOT. Until Ubuntu comes out with their own "Home Server" is there really any point to even mention Linux or Ubuntu?

It seems people who have not bothered to even look at what this is, either think it is a simple NAS, or they think this is some complicated high end server like Exchange, AD,or Sharepoint.

Reply Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Well you have neither an understanding of what a home market is and means, as well as what this product even is, and how it will be sold.

I'm sorry sunshine, but no one is going to run an appliance for the home just because it runs Windows. People expect to be able to plug the thing in without even looking at a GUI, and there are dozens of appliances already on the market that can do just that.

An appliance in the home is an entirely different ball game.

Again, you simply have no idea what this is for...why even bother then? All you simply want to do is negate something simply because it has "Microsoft" in the name. Nothing more, nothing less.

Spare me the anti-Microsoft crap will you? Stamping your feet about it isn't going to make WHS any more successful, or relevant.

The whole "Ubuntu" could do this, or "Linux" could do this is 110% pointless. Is there a Linux equivalent? No, there is NOT.

Yes, there are. There are dozens of NAS and file server boxes around where people don't even know that the box is running Linux, pre-setup with a web front-end, and an absolute ton of backup software that people are already using quite successfully. These NAS boxes also do mass storage, RAID and redundancy infinitely better than the amateurish attempts at RAID and LVM in WHS. There are also quite a few media boxes that happen to run Linux these days. People expect to be able to rely on this box, and not to have to do anything with it.

For those wanting a media centre, they have a Tivo, a Sky+ box or some other box under the television to do just that. No one is going to buy WHS just to act as some server for the Xbox.

Reply Score: 2

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Instead of a long winded response..let me just ask you this:

Can you name ONE product on the market, for home use, that is the EQUIVALENT to WHS?

Before you answer, please do read up on what this device does, what its intended role is, and more importantly WHO it is for. Then please go back to the first question.

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Can you name ONE product on the market, for home use, that is the EQUIVALENT to WHS?

Sorry, but WHS does absolutely nothing that people aren't already doing. WHS merely does what everyone who can is already doing, and doesn't do anything that would make the effort remotely compelling to everyone else.

Consumers have already got this functionality - for less money. They have cheap NAS boxes, they already have cheap backup software, they already have Tivos, Sky+ and other cheap media boxes they can put under their TVs. There's simply nothing compelling to shell out several hundred dollars for.

The only compelling thing in WHS is streaming media, which you have to configure, and no one is going to buy WHS just to stream to a Xbox. It doesn't do TV recording and it doesn't do anything like what something like MythTV does, which really would impress people.

Before you answer, please do read up on what this device does, what its intended role is, and more importantly WHO it is for. Then please go back to the first question.

I'm sorry, but I think you want to go and do that yourself because you seem to believe that WHS does something special. WHS does nothing that those doing file serving, network backup and media streaming are not already doing. Those not doing those things get separate cheap, specific products that they just plug in, with no configuration and leave for the next five years without touching - like they have always done with TVs, DVD players etc.

No one wants to do proper network set up or maintenance, which is what you need to do to get the most out of WHS (which isn't much anyway), and those doing that already have solutions for themselves.

Reply Score: 2

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

Consumers have already got this functionality - for less money. They have cheap NAS boxes, they already have cheap backup software, they already have Tivos, Sky+ and other cheap media boxes they can put under their TVs. There's simply nothing compelling to shell out several hundred dollars for.

It's not always about the features but also about how it's all packaged together. I think Apple has proven that quite a few times.

If people can already do X, Y and Z via separate products/solutions but a new product does X, Y and Z all itself and makes it easier and less work to setup, THAT is compelling for consumers.

Reply Score: 3

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Wow, such anger over a product you have no intention of using. Oh, now I see, it's not "anger" but "fear". There's no need to be frightened, really. Just calm down. I'm sure that if you pray hard enough, this product will fail for those that would like to use it, and those that never intended on using it can gloat at their expense.


"Spare me the anti-Microsoft crap will you? "

Oh please. If WHS's label said "Unbutu" or "Google" rather than "Microsoft" you'd have a completely different take on it. We are not idiots.

But in the end, your right. WHS is utter garbage. Better for it not to exist. *rolls eyes*

That was sarcasm. Read the reviews of this product, and you see nearly universal praise, even from Microsoft bashers (the reviews from them normall start out with something along the lines of "I fully expected this to suck, but much to my surprise ...").
Saying over and over to yourself, "please let WHS suck, please let WHS suck, please let WHS suck" doesn't mean that it sucks in reality.

Edited 2007-08-22 16:55

Reply Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Wow, such anger over a product you have no intention of using.

Yawn. Might I suggest a psychologist who can teach you what anger looks like? Sadly, I'm afraid you know that wasn't anger, but a pretty firm rebuttal of a product you desperately want everyone to praise.

Oh, now I see, it's not "anger" but "fear".

Nope, I'm sorry. WHS still isn't going anywhere, nor can I see any justification for it anywhere from you.

You have a habit of taking cheap shots, and running like the wind when you see a comment you really can't reply to.

That was sarcasm.

Was it really? Pity you're not very good at it.

Read the reviews of this product, and you see nearly universal praise

I'm not interested in reviews of universal praise or *insert Microsoft phrase here*. I'm interested in discussing what's in it and what it actually does. That is after all, why we're actually here.

But then I forget. All you're capable of is quoting other people, and with much of what they write you haven't got the faintest idea what it means.

Saying over and over to yourself, "please let WHS suck, please let WHS suck, please let WHS suck" doesn't mean that it sucks in reality.

How old are you?

If you're going to post a step-by-step discussion of the features and what they actually do over and above anything else anyone can buy, and the stuff people have already bought, I'm all ears. I'm not holding my breath.

Home users are an entirely different bunch of people when it comes to technology, and I'm afraid posting desperate comments in reply to points people have made on a news site is not going to alter that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Free and better alternatives
by BluenoseJake on Tue 21st Aug 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "Free and better alternatives"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Home server is designed to be very easy to use. Samba/NFS with any linux or *BSD is not that easy to configure or use for a newbie, and having to learn a whole new interface (gnome or KDE) is rather daunting, and for most normal users, the CLI is out of the question. I use Debian and FreeBSD at home, but I could see a definite market for this product.

FreeNAS is a good product, but I don't see anything about automated backups, the user would have to set that up manually, and that could be quite the chore for Joe sixpack.

A hardware NAS is more expensive than that old p4 sitting in the closet, just waiting to be resurrected. Let people choose the best tool for them, don't try to dictate what's best for everyone.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Free and better alternatives
by rajj on Tue 21st Aug 2007 19:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Free and better alternatives"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

Unless all or most of the logic is implemented in silicon, it's not a "hardware" NAS anymore than the old p4 is. Putting the software on compact flash doesn't an ASIC make.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Never said is was a hardware NAS

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Free and better alternatives
by opkool on Wed 22nd Aug 2007 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Free and better alternatives"
opkool Member since:
2006-02-13

In any modern desktop Linux distro, you get a nice Control Center with wizards for setting up servers.

For example, with a few clicks, I set up folder sharing on my Mandriva Spring. Easy-peasy.

This is no 1999 anymore.

All this "Samba/NFS is very complicated bla bla bla" is just not true for a home environment.

If you want to set up an advanced file sharing system on a domain server for a business environment, Samba/NFS could be as complicated as you want.

But not on a home environment: 4 clicks and you are done.

Peace.

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"All this "Samba/NFS is very complicated bla bla bla" is just not true for a home environment."

Uh, I run Debian and FreeBSD at home, I know how to configure Samba and CIFS, and it's hard for normal users, even if we find it easy.

Reply Score: 2

.......
by islander on Mon 20th Aug 2007 22:38 UTC
islander
Member since:
2007-04-11

I always had a sneaky feeling there would be no official release date.This article confirms it and I wonder why.

Reply Score: 1

point and click
by PipoDeClown on Tue 21st Aug 2007 04:56 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

Because the Linux community (or any other OS for that matters) is way toooo slow and tooo divided to create a userfriendly - point and click - operating system/distribution, Microsoft took this chance...

Reply Score: 0

Integration
by zlynx on Tue 21st Aug 2007 06:32 UTC
zlynx
Member since:
2005-07-20

What makes it good is the integration of all the parts. Sure, open source and/or Solaris has done all of this for years. But the good part about this is the automation.

Add another drive for more space? Automatic format and extend.

Replace a failed drive? Automatic array rebuild.

Etc.

Sure, Linux *can* do these things, but no system I ever used was set up with the scripting for it. It was all about typing "lvextend" and "twcli maint rebuild c0 u0" (or whatever).

Some of the little boxes that are sold at Best Buy do some of this, but in my experience they tend to be slow. I always preferred a "real" fileserver or stuff like NetApp (not when I am paying for it personally though!).

Reply Score: 2

too little to late
by netpython on Tue 21st Aug 2007 08:10 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

This whole home server from MS simply is to little too late. The home server site nowhere mentions wisely that it might be necessary to map some routes from the wan to the lan in order for the home server be accessible as any other server(whereis point and click here?). I don't see where WHS is different in this aspect. In addition you still have to aquire a FQDN (whereis point and click here?). Furthermore nowhere the streaming of propietary formats is highlighted. I will stand corrected if necessary but the strenght of linux and other unixen has allways been the server by design part. I think most enthusiasts have explored linux and variants allready and implemented it.

Edited 2007-08-21 08:14

Reply Score: 6

RE: too little to late
by ssa2204 on Tue 21st Aug 2007 09:26 UTC in reply to "too little to late"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

There is absolutely no need whatsoever for a domain name, much less access from the outside world. Again, this is a HOME SERVER for people to share files, store videos and music, backup their desktops and laptops..etc.

Where do you even begin to think that these would be necessary?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: too little to late
by netpython on Tue 21st Aug 2007 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE: too little to late"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Where do you even begin to think that these would be necessary?

Well according to the official WHS web site:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/windowshomeserv...

"Share your photos, music, movies, and other files from a single, central location that everyone in your home can get to. Friends and family can see and share any files you want, whether they're in another room or another country."

Easily share from anywhere

"You can share your favorite birthday pics or home movies with anyone who has an Internet connection."


I hope you don't have to send an e-mail first similar to remote help in windows XP. That isn't a server but more a kind of IM functionality.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: too little to late
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 21st Aug 2007 14:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: too little to late"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

WHS's remote functionality is meant to hook into a Windows Live URL. It's similar to the Dynamic DNS service in that it maps a static DNS name to a dynamic IP address, or static if you prefer that.

It's an always on functionality.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: too little to late
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 21st Aug 2007 14:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: too little to late"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Also as far as mapping routes goes, UPnP will take care of that on it's own.

Reply Score: 1

v Another steaming turd from redmond
by sargek on Tue 21st Aug 2007 13:19 UTC
RTM copy?
by kamil_chatrnuch on Tue 21st Aug 2007 14:51 UTC
kamil_chatrnuch
Member since:
2005-07-07

do you know if the betatesters will get a copy of the RTM?

Edited 2007-08-21 14:51

Reply Score: 2