MorphOS on AmigaOne X5000?
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10264 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > the choice of the P1022 was made due to availability at the time A-Eon's choices
    > had to be made. Hindsight is always going to look better and sometimes, the
    > choice made may not turn out to be the best available when looking backward.

    I wouldn't say it is a hindsight 20/20 thing in this case. In hindsight, the choice of the PA6T for the X1000 probably wasn't the best one (bad availability, too expensive, weaker than expected), but it was the most sensible choice back when the decision was made. With the e500v2-based P1022 I can't think what came over them as the technical implications of attempting to run legacy code on this core had been discussed before (see e.g. UltimatePPC fiasco).

    > It is always a gamble [...] when committing to purchase in quantities such as [...]
    > 1,000 units for the [...] P1022 CPU's.

    Purchasing a fully compatible Applied Micro CPU or waiting for sample availability of the fully compatible Freescale QorIQ T1 would have been much less of a gamble in my opinion.
  • »20.10.15 - 23:11
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10264 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > what about the PCIe slot? Pavlor say it's v1.0 (250MB/s per lane).

    Yes, that's what Freescale says:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=site:freescale.com+p1022+pcie+1.0a

    Interestingly, AmigaKit claims the following:

    "the A1222 has [...] Gen 2 PCI Express."
    http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=40622&forum=2&start=840#772338

    How that could be possible I don't know.


    Edit:
    The press release at http://www.a-eon.biz/news/News_Release_A1222.pdf correctly mentions "PCIe gen 1".

    [ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 02.11.2015 - 00:29 ]
  • »01.11.15 - 21:24
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1055 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    Quote:

    Unfortunately, he didn't reveal the specific benchmarks he used nor any relative or absolute figures.


    If you want I can run some specific ones on my X5000, but only under MorphOS control.
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »14.01.16 - 10:51
    Profile Visit Website
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1055 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    dnetc:

    Code:

    [Jan 16 14:59:34 UTC] Automatic processor type detection did not
    recognize the processor (tag: "MOS:0x8024")
    [Jan 16 14:59:34 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar).
    [Jan 16 14:59:53 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
    0.00:00:16.41 [19,317,474 nodes/sec]
    [Jan 16 14:59:53 UTC] OGR-NG benchmark summary :
    Default core : #-1 (undefined) 0 nodes/sec
    Fastest core : #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar) 19,317,474 nodes/sec
    [Jan 16 14:59:53 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 2-pipe).
    [Jan 16 15:00:12 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 2-pipe)
    0.00:00:16.09 [5,160,960 keys/sec]
    [Jan 16 15:00:12 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (KKS 2-pipe).
    [Jan 16 15:00:31 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (KKS 2-pipe)
    0.00:00:16.73 [5,253,923 keys/sec]
    [Jan 16 15:00:31 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (KKS 604e).
    [Jan 16 15:00:50 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (KKS 604e)
    0.00:00:16.38 [5,362,198 keys/sec]
    [Jan 16 15:00:50 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (MH 1-pipe).
    [Jan 16 15:01:08 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (MH 1-pipe)
    0.00:00:16.08 [5,042,926 keys/sec]
    [Jan 16 15:01:08 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e).
    [Jan 16 15:01:26 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e)
    0.00:00:16.38 [4,950,576 keys/sec]
    [Jan 16 15:01:26 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
    Default core : #-1 (undefined) 0 keys/sec
    Fastest core : #2 (KKS 604e) 5,362,198 keys/sec
    [Jan 16 15:01:26 UTC] Compare and share your rates in the speeds database at
    http://www.distributed.net/speed/
    (benchmark rates are for a single processor core)


    AmigaMARK:

    Memory: http://morphos.me/benchmarks/AMX5000.txt
    CPU: http://morphos.me/benchmarks/AMX5000-CPU.txt

    nbench:

    Code:

    BYTEmark* Native Mode Benchmark ver. 2 (10/95)
    Index-split by Andrew D. Balsa (11/97)
    Linux/Unix* port by Uwe F. Mayer (12/96,11/97)

    TEST : Iterations/sec. : Old Index : New Index
    : : Pentium 90* : AMD K6/233*
    --------------------:------------------:-------------:------------
    NUMERIC SORT : 608.07 : 15.59 : 5.12
    STRING SORT : 77.587 : 34.67 : 5.37
    BITFIELD : 2.0708e+08 : 35.52 : 7.42
    FP EMULATION : 69.667 : 33.43 : 7.71
    FOURIER : 29189 : 33.20 : 18.65
    ASSIGNMENT : 14.151 : 53.85 : 13.97
    IDEA : 3644.6 : 55.74 : 16.55
    HUFFMAN : 1055 : 29.25 : 9.34
    NEURAL NET : 15.468 : 24.85 : 10.45
    LU DECOMPOSITION : 487.91 : 25.28 : 18.25
    ==========================ORIGINAL BYTEMARK RESULTS==========================
    INTEGER INDEX : 34.345
    FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 27.523
    Baseline (MSDOS*) : Pentium* 90, 256 KB L2-cache, Watcom* compiler 10.0
    ==============================LINUX DATA BELOW===============================
    CPU :
    L2 Cache :
    OS :
    C compiler : gcc version 2.95.3 20020615 (experimental/emm)
    libc :
    MEMORY INDEX : 8.223
    INTEGER INDEX : 8.840
    FLOATING-POINT INDEX: 15.265
    Baseline (LINUX) : AMD K6/233*, 512 KB L2-cache, gcc 2.7.2.3, libc-5.4.38
    * Trademarks are property of their respective holder.


    Stream:

    Code:

    -------------------------------------------------------------
    STREAM version $Revision: 5.10 $
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    This system uses 8 bytes per array element.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Array size = 10000000 (elements), Offset = 0 (elements)
    Memory per array = 76.3 MiB (= 0.1 GiB).
    Total memory required = 228.9 MiB (= 0.2 GiB).
    Each kernel will be executed 10 times.
    The *best* time for each kernel (excluding the first iteration)
    will be used to compute the reported bandwidth.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Your clock granularity/precision appears to be 1 microseconds.
    Each test below will take on the order of 122644 microseconds.
    (= 122644 clock ticks)
    Increase the size of the arrays if this shows that
    you are not getting at least 20 clock ticks per test.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    WARNING -- The above is only a rough guideline.
    For best results, please be sure you know the
    precision of your system timer.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Function Best Rate MB/s Avg time Min time Max time
    Copy: 1288.1 0.124860 0.124212 0.126170
    Scale: 1370.1 0.116996 0.116783 0.117207
    Add: 1802.0 0.133600 0.133185 0.134047
    Triad: 1804.1 0.133476 0.133031 0.133839
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    Solution Validates: avg error less than 1.000000e-13 on all three arrays
    -------------------------------------------------------------


    monolith:

    Code:

    Result: 829 objects at 25.0 fps


    RageMem doesn't work atm.
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »16.01.16 - 14:08
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10264 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > dnetc: [...]
    > AmigaMARK: [...]
    > nbench: [...]
    > Stream: [...]

    Thank you very much for running these benchmark tests for me.
    I prepared a relative comparison with my 1.5 GHz Mac mini G4. The following list shows the performance of your 2.0 GHz X5000/Cyrus/P5020 compared to my 1.5 GHz Mac mini/MPC7447A (=1.00) at the leftmost position, then the scaled per-clock performance comparison, and the name of the specific test at last position.
    (NOTE: updated results with more recent MorphOS beta on X5000 here)


    dnetc

    1.27 | 0.96 : KOGE 3.1 Scalar
    0.90 | 0.67 : MH 2-pipe
    0.93 | 0.70 : KKS 2-pipe
    0.93 | 0.70 : KKS 604e
    0.96 | 0.72 : MH 1-pipe
    0.95 | 0.71 : MH 1-pipe 604e

    AmigaMARK CPU

    1.29 | 0.96 : BogoMIPS ppc-assembler inline
    1.18 | 0.88 : Dhrystones
    1.30 | 0.98 : 40th Fibonacci number
    1.13 | 0.85 : FPU query [Double Precision] - Al Aburto
    1.26 | 0.95 : LibJPEG - libjpeg [v6b]
    1.12 | 0.84 : Mars chiper
    1.44 | 1.08 : MD5 checksuming (RFC 1321) L. Peter Deutsch
    1.11 | 0.84 : MP3 -> CDDA [mpega.library]
    1.28 | 0.96 : Serpent chiper
    1.35 | 1.01 : ZLib functions [v1.1.4]
    1.14 | 0.85 : TOTAL CPU

    AmigaMARK Memory

    1.28 | 0.96 : Read CPU-Cache
    2.18 | 1.64 : Read FAST byte [8]
    1.98 | 1.48 : Read FAST word [16]
    2.00 | 1.50 : Read FAST long [32]
    2.01 | 1.51 : Write FAST byte [8]
    2.01 | 1.51 : Write FAST word [16]
    2.07 | 1.55 : Write FAST long [32]
    0.98 | 0.73 : Copy FAST 2 FAST
    1.67 | 1.25 : Allocate Memory FAST
    1.37 | 1.03 : Initialize Memory FAST
    1.59 | 1.19 : TOTAL MEM

    nbench

    1.05 | 0.79 : NUMERIC SORT
    1.86 | 1.39 : STRING SORT
    0.96 | 0.72 : BITFIELD
    1.02 | 0.77 : FP EMULATION
    1.26 | 0.94 : FOURIER
    1.00 | 0.76 : ASSIGNMENT
    0.99 | 0.75 : IDEA
    0.99 | 0.74 : HUFFMAN
    1.09 | 0.82 : NEURAL NET
    1.05 | 0.78 : LU DECOMPOSITION
    1.10 | 0.82 : INTEGER INDEX
    1.13 | 0.85 : FLOATING-POINT INDEX
    1.22 | 0.91 : MEMORY INDEX
    1.02 | 0.76 : INTEGER INDEX

    stream

    2.64 | 1.98 : Copy
    2.90 | 2.17 : Scale
    3.25 | 2.44 : Add
    3.20 | 2.40 : Triad


    As expected, one can see that in the memory performance tests (AmigaMARK Memory, stream), the X5000/Cyrus clearly outdoes the Mac mini G4. However, regarding the measured CPU performance (dnetc, AmigaMARK CPU, nbench) I must confess I'm disappointed by the QorIQ P5's e5500 core. In almost all tests, its per-clock performance is below that of the 7447A/e600, which is honestly not what I had expected. Only thanks to its faster clock rate, the P5/e5500 comes out as winner in absolute comparison in the majority of tests (except dnetc).

    > monolith: [...]

    Comparison result here is: 2.32 | 1.74. I'm not sure what to think of this CPU performance test.

    > RageMem doesn't work atm.

    Is there a general problem with OS4Emu on Cyrus?

    [ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 26.04.2017 - 12:54 ]
  • »17.01.16 - 07:57
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    takemehomegrandma
    Posts: 2552 from 2003/2/24
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:

    dnetc

    1.27 | 0.96 : KOGE 3.1 Scalar
    0.90 | 0.67 : MH 2-pipe
    0.93 | 0.70 : KKS 2-pipe
    0.93 | 0.70 : KKS 604e
    0.96 | 0.72 : MH 1-pipe
    0.95 | 0.71 : MH 1-pipe 604e

    0.94 | 0.705 : Median


    Quote:

    AmigaMARK CPU

    1.29 | 0.96 : BogoMIPS ppc-assembler inline
    1.18 | 0.88 : Dhrystones
    1.30 | 0.98 : 40th Fibonacci number
    1.13 | 0.85 : FPU query [Double Precision] - Al Aburto
    1.26 | 0.95 : LibJPEG - libjpeg [v6b]
    1.12 | 0.84 : Mars chiper
    1.44 | 1.08 : MD5 checksuming (RFC 1321) L. Peter Deutsch
    1.11 | 0.84 : MP3 -> CDDA [mpega.library]
    1.28 | 0.96 : Serpent chiper
    1.35 | 1.01 : ZLib functions [v1.1.4]
    1.14 | 0.85 : TOTAL CPU

    1.26 | 0.95 : Median


    Quote:

    nbench

    1.05 | 0.79 : NUMERIC SORT
    1.86 | 1.39 : STRING SORT
    0.96 | 0.72 : BITFIELD
    1.02 | 0.77 : FP EMULATION
    1.26 | 0.94 : FOURIER
    1.00 | 0.76 : ASSIGNMENT
    0.99 | 0.75 : IDEA
    0.99 | 0.74 : HUFFMAN
    1.09 | 0.82 : NEURAL NET
    1.05 | 0.78 : LU DECOMPOSITION
    1.10 | 0.82 : INTEGER INDEX
    1.13 | 0.85 : FLOATING-POINT INDEX
    1.22 | 0.91 : MEMORY INDEX
    1.02 | 0.76 : INTEGER INDEX

    1.05 | 0.785 : Median


    Quote:

    As expected, one can see that in the memory performance tests (AmigaMARK Memory, stream), the X5000/Cyrus clearly outdoes the Mac mini G4.


    Indeed expected, bottlenecks are well known. But compared to contemporary desktops/workstations, I wouldn't call this particulary fast either. For example, according to this page, decade old Apple G5 Macs compares/beats the X5000 in Stream.


    Quote:

    However, regarding the measured CPU performance (dnetc, AmigaMARK CPU, nbench) I must confess I'm disappointed by the QorIQ P5's e5500 core. In almost all tests, its per-clock performance is below that of the 7447A/e600, which is honestly not what I had expected. Only thanks to its faster clock rate, the P5/e5500 comes out as winner in absolute comparison in the majority of tests (except dnetc).


    I'm disappointed as well, I didn't expect a lot to be honest, but I expected *more*. For me, the key question (if considering an upgrade) would be if the new HW could do things noticeably better. Real things. A few percents increase in benchmark numbers doesn't cut it. For example, I have a Mac Mini G4 as well. It can play most x.264 720p streams. Anything below 1080p from some new HW would leave me in the same spot as before, hence not really an upgrade in that regard. That was just one area of mearsurement of course, just to illustrate the point.

    It would be interesting to see some MorphOS PowerMac G5 results from these benchmarks as well in comparison, but it should outrun this one, because of the higher clocks if for no other reason (and Altivec and stuff really helps in some areas), right? AFAIK you can play 1080p x.264 streams in SW on G5's.

    Well, I feel that this kind of confirms my earlier assumption that the X5000 is not really an upgrade, but more of a sideways move, all in all. And at an entry price tag of ~€2,220 (for Europeans paying the 20% UK VAT), who is really up for a sideways move?

    Had the X5000 been released in 2004 or 2005 it would have made more sense. It would be ahelluvalot more expensive than the Pegasos 2, but it would also have been more powerful (more than twice as powerful?). The Power Macintosh G5 2.0 DP (PCI) was a 2.0GHz Dual CPU computer introduced in early 2005. Apple PowerMac has always been premium priced, and this one was introduced at $1,999 in the US. The G4 Mac Mini 1.5GHz Silent Upgrade we are talking about here, was introduced late 2005 at a price of $599 (combo drive model).

    Now it's 2016. The Mac Pro is today what Power Mac was back in 2005. The entry model has a 3.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon E5 processor, 12GB 1866MHz DDR3 ECC memory, Dual AMD FirePro D300 with 2GB GDDR5 VRAM each, 256GB PCIe-based flash storage. It starts at $2,999.

    This while the "new" top of the line PPC HW for the Amiga NG market is moving sideways in 2005 territory performance wise, but at contemporary Premium Mac Workstation prices.

    I'm happy to draw the following conclusions:

    1. The MorphOS Team did the right thing to support the old Apple lines of computers.
    2. The MorphOS Team did the right thing to start a migration process away from PPC towards contemporary desktops/laptops.

    All in all, MorphOS is Amiga done right! :-)
    MorphOS is Amiga done right! :-)
    MorphOS NG will be AROS done right! :-)
  • »17.01.16 - 12:06
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Zylesea
    Posts: 1886 from 2003/6/4
    Interesting numbers. Seems rather disappointing indeed. But let's see some real life tests to draw more conclusions.
    I _could_ consider an X5000 myself if it provided more than a top PMG5 on average while staying cool - the energy uptake of the PMG5 and the big (albeit stylish) case is still the show stopper for me to upgrade to a G5. But these first values are not too promising.

    Hoping for MorphOS x64.
    --
    http://www.via-altera.de

    Whenever you're sad just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as David Bowie.
    ...and Matthias , my friend - RIP
  • »17.01.16 - 23:07
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10264 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > It would be interesting to see some MorphOS PowerMac G5 results from these
    > benchmarks as well in comparison

    Indeed, preferably a 2.0 GHz model.

    > AFAIK you can play 1080p x.264 streams in SW on G5's.

    On the 2.7 GHz ones as I've read, not sure about the slower ones.

    > I feel that this kind of confirms my earlier assumption that the X5000
    > is not really an upgrade, but more of a sideways move, all in all.

    I think in terms of CPU performance nobody suspected it to be an upgrade from any 2+ GHz G5, but I thought it to be more of an upgrade from a 1.5 GHz G4. I'm also eager to see any hard numbers comparison with X1000/Nemo/PA6T, as other benchmarks showed the PA6T performing like a slightly lower clocked G4.
  • »17.01.16 - 23:45
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    These figures are rather disappointing.
    If the G5 has a significant advantage, then all the X5000 represents is a chance to buy new hardware.
    I'd like to see how it compares to a 2.3 GHz PCIe Dual core G5.
    I have one of those sitting around right now (and it cost me a small fraction of what an X5000 would).
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 14:06
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Yasu
    Posts: 1724 from 2012/3/22
    From: Stockholm, Sweden
    You could play h264 1080p movies on my 2.7 GHz G5 with about 80% CPU usage or lower. You rarely passed 90%, so I imagine slower G5:s can also play such movie files with no fuss (but with fan going at full speed).
    AMIGA FORUM - Hela Sveriges Amigatidning!
    AMIGA FORUM - Sweden's Amiga Magazine!

    My MorphOS blog
  • »18.01.16 - 14:26
    Profile Visit Website
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    Yasu wrote:
    You could play h264 1080p movies on my 2.7 GHz G5 with about 80% CPU usage or lower. You rarely passed 90%, so I imagine slower G5:s can also play such movie files with no fuss (but with fan going at full speed).


    Since the 2.3 GHz dual core cpu in my PCI-e G5 can be replaced with a single 2.5 GHz dual core cpu module from a quad G5, and the PCIe models bench higher than the AGP models, I'd expect the system I have on hand would be a close match with the system Yasu has mentioned 9but with the added benefit of PCIe expansion slots).

    If the 2.3 and 2.5 GHz G5 PCIe systems match or beat X5000 performance, we may not need an expensive upgrade.

    And, as I have mentioned before, if we really wanted an upgrade we would be looking at an e6500 cored system.
    While running at a lower clock speed, this would have a definite advantage, especially if SMP were enabled.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:36
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:36 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:36
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:36 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:36
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:37 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:36
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:37 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:36
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:37 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:36
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:38 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:37
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:38 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:37
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:38 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:37
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:39 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:37
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4744 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    glitch resulted in multiple posts


    [ Edited by Jim 18.01.2016 - 12:39 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »18.01.16 - 16:37
    Profile