Installed 200GB Seagate, now booting takes forever...

RickyJ · Apr 18, 2005

I installed a new ATA100 Seagate 7200.7 200GB drive recently. After POST, the computer sits idle for ~2 minutes before XP boots. No evidence of HD activity or anything during that time. I am using an 80GB Maxtor DM9 drive for boot, the same one that's been going strong for the last 2 years.

I had no problem with the size of the disk, and I backed up my data onto the Seagate without an issue. I formatted the Maxtor and put a fresh install of XP and SP2 onto it. I still had the booting issue, and it stayed when I disconnected the Seagate.

I reformatted again and installed SP2 with the Seagate disconnected, and the booting was normal. I hooked up the Seagate and the boot issue was back. I flashed the mobo BIOS to the newest release, and the problem is still there. BIOS shows 200GB, XP shows 200GB, there's no lag when using the drive, etc.

Is there something I'm missing here? Both drives are jumpered to Cable Select, and the cable is hooked up correctly. I've never heard of this happening, so I'm hoping that someone here has.

shaihulud · Apr 18, 2005

you never ever should use cable select, even if you have the proper cable for that protocol of selection! change to the proper master slave relationship, and all should be fine.

RickyJ · Apr 18, 2005

Thanks, I'll give it a shot right now.

RickyJ · Apr 18, 2005

I was wrong about being on CS. I initially had it there but switched it to manual master/slave thinking that it would solve the problem when it first came up.

shaihulud · Apr 18, 2005

just the seagate and the maxtor on the first channel? round or flat cables? no other hard drive, specially western digital? are you using the mcp nforce ide drivers or microsoft's?

slamgoku · Apr 18, 2005

shaihulud said:
you never ever should use cable select, even if you have the proper cable for that protocol of selection! change to the proper master slave relationship, and all should be fine.

i always use cable select. it removes all possibility of a jumper issue.

lithium726 · Apr 18, 2005

your BIOS could have an issue with booting with 48-bit LBA drives. when i booted off a 200gb maxtor drive, my computer would hang exactly like yours... a bios update fixed it, but maybe that has something to do with what is going on... i know you arent booting from it, but it still coul dbe causing the issue.

i always use cable select. it removes all possibility of a jumper issue.

i never use cable select. cable select is for the lazy - id rather know for sure my drivers are set the way i want them.

RickyJ · Apr 18, 2005

shaihulud said:
just the seagate and the maxtor on the first channel? round or flat cables? no other hard drive, specially western digital? are you using the mcp nforce ide drivers or microsoft's?

Yeah, only the 2 drives on the primary IDE channel. I did round my cables, but there's never been an issue before (doesn't rule it out though). I am using nVidia's IDE drivers from the newest driver package.

I did suspect the BIOS, but I'm now using the newest 1010 release from Asus (adds Sempron support, so it's not old), and it recognizes the drive properly (even my old hacked 1007 BIOS did). I've looked through the BIOS, and it doesn't explicitly say 48-bit, but there's a few selections for the drive and it's on Auto.

For the record, I did previously blow my XP install on a max-FSB test (before the Seagate), after my Vdd mod (stable at 9.5x250, but blew up at 10x250; CPU bootable to nearly 2.6GHz and stable at 2.5GHz). A reformat got everything back to normal. This MIGHT be an effect of some hidden damage, but I'd like to leave that reason as a last resort.

Thanks for the help so far guys, hopefully we can get this one licked.

edit: Lithium, did you have that problem on your A7N8X?

lithium726 · Apr 18, 2005

yeah, i didnt see you were using an a7n8x series(i had the deluxe), the 1010 should support it. my bad

edit: yeah, i did. as soon as i updated the bios the problem was gone though (i beleive this was 1008) and it only happened when i would boot from teh 200 giger, when i booted from my 60gb maxtor, it was fine wtih the older bios revisions... and it couldve been something that only affected sata - still, thought it might be something - guess not since you are using 1010

shaihulud · Apr 18, 2005

i always use cable select. it removes all possibility of a jumper issue.

that can be comprehended as a bad thing on your part! you have to note that cable select will only work correctly if using a cable select type cable. since, most do not know this and purchase such, it is not recommended. why pay anyways when it is a selection between two, except western digital which is three? sata there is not selection since it is point to point.

your BIOS could have an issue with booting with 48-bit LBA drives.

i saw that he had a 48bit lba capable bios. however, his sig was not verbose about other hardware.

Yeah, only the 2 drives on the primary IDE channel. I did round my cables, but there's never been an issue before (doesn't rule it out though). I am using nVidia's IDE drivers from the newest driver package.

i would at least try this: honestly, rounded cables are out of spec, and they can be a problem more than people know. just for sake of cable 101, try a regular cable that is in spec. make sure in the bios, that the channel has both master, and slave to auto.

something to be advised about: i would not recommend the nvidia mcp ide driver at all. there is too much of a record for issues with them. however, removing them is not that easy. what you are exhibiting has been noted by others when using them, long delay boot time after post.

question: post completes, correct? so your delay is after post, not during, or at ide detection? have you tried without the overclock?

RickyJ · Apr 18, 2005

Yes, post completes quickly as usual. Then the screen goes blank like it's going to bring up the XP loading screen, but it sits idle for 2 minutes before bringing up the load screen. I don't run the computer at a high clock speed normally, just 2.2GHz while installing important stuff (XP for example), and 2.3GHz for playing around.

I know that rounded cables aren't that great. The only spare cable I've got sitting in my desk has ATA-66 printed on it, so I'm not too keen on trying it out. I can pick up a new cable though.

I haven't updated my sig in a while, and it's not verbose so I can fit stuff in. Here's a more readable listing of the non-cooling related components:
XP2500+ unlocked non-mobile
Asus A7N8X-X (bios 1010)
OCZ PC3200 EL Rev2 Platinum (Samsung TCCD)
ATI 9800Pro (XT flashed)
Creative SB Live! Value sound card
Pioneer DVD-109 dvd burner
Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 9 80GB ATA133 8MB as master drive
Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 200GB ATA100 8MB as slave drive
Zalman 400W psu

So the nVidia IDE drivers might be a problem then? Have these problems been happening for smaller drives as well, or just the larger drives? Is there a guide for replacing the drivers with the standard XP drivers?

Thanks for the replies, guys!

TLS2000 · Apr 18, 2005

lithium726 said:
i never use cable select. cable select is for the lazy - id rather know for sure my drivers are set the way i want them.

Master is ALWAYS on the end of the cable, slave is ALWAYS in the middle. It's not lazy, it's just elimination of a needless step. I find that most people do what they prefer anyway. The only problem with cable select is that some drives had issues with it. This is a manufacturer problem, not a problem with cable select. I always used cable select after I switched to ATA100 drives. My DVD-RW's use it right now. My HDD's are all on SATA, which eliminates that problem.

shaihulud said:
that can be comprehended as a bad thing on your part! you have to note that cable select will only work correctly if using a cable select type cable. since, most do not know this and purchase such, it is not recommended. why pay anyways when it is a selection between two, except western digital which is three? sata there is not selection since it is point to point.

Cable Select is supported by ALL 80 conductor cables.

shaihulud · Apr 18, 2005

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/if/ide/confCS-c.html

But the biggest reason why cable select never caught on was the cable itself. From the very beginning, all 40-conductor IDE/ATA cables should have been made so that they would work with cable select. There's actually no need to have different cable types, because if you set a drive to "master" or "slave" explicitly, it just ignores the CSEL setting. So a cable select cable can be used either way: regular jumpering or cable select.

Unfortunately, regular 40-conductor IDE/ATA cables don't support cable select. (Why this came about I do not know, but I suspect that some bean counter determined they could save five cents on each PC by doing this.) So to use cable select you need a special cable, and these are of course non-standard, making them a special purchase. Also, many people don't understand cable select, nor do they realize it needs a special cable. If you set both drives to "CS" and then use them on a regular (non-cable-select) IDE cable, both drives will configure themselves as "master", causing a configuration conflict.

Making matters worse, the 40-conductor IDE/ATA cable select cables have the "master connector" as the middle device and the "slave connector" as the device at the end of the cable, farthest from the host. For signaling reasons, it's best to put a single drive at the end of a cable, not put it in the middle leaving a "stub" of wire hanging off the end of the channel. But if you do this, that single drive sets itself as a slave with no master, a technically illegal configuration. Worse, suppose you do this, and your hard disk sets itself as a slave, and the system boots from it without problem, as most would. Then, you decide to add a new hard disk. You set it to cable select and attach it to the middle connector. The new drive then becomes the master, and thus moves ahead of the old drive in precedence! The system will try to boot from it instead of your old drive (which some people might want, but many do not.)

To get around this problem, a second type of 40-wire cable select cable was created, the so-called "Y-shaped" cable. On this one, the connector to the system is in the middle, and the slave and master connectors are on the two opposite ends of the cable. This certainly makes things less confusing, but has its own difficulties. For starters, IDE/ATA cables are very limited in length, which means this "Y-shaped" cable was hard to use in large tower systems. All your drives had to be mounted very close to the motherboard or controller card so the cable would reach. And again, the cable was a special item.

As you can see, the traditional way of doing cable select was a total mess, which was why it was never widely adopted. The key reason for this mess was--once again--lack of standardization. I rather expected cable select to eventually wither away. However, when the 80-conductor Ultra DMA cable was introduced, the cable select feature was much improved, changing the potential of this feature. The two key changes were:

* Drive Position: Unlike the old cables, with the 80-conductor cable, the master connector is at the end of the cable, and the slave is in the middle. As I explained above, this is a much more sensible arrangement, since a single drive placed at the end of the cable will be a master, and a second drive added in the middle a slave.
* Universality: All 80-conductor IDE/ATA cables support cable select (or at least, all of the ones that are built to meet the ATA standards). This means there's no confusion over what cables support the feature, and no need for strange "Y-cables" and other non-standard solutions.

These two changes mean a world of difference for the future of cable select. Since these cables will eventually completely replace all of the 40-conductor cables, all systems will be capable of running cable select without any special hardware being needed. As I mentioned before, you can still explicitly set drives to master or slave if you want to, and the CSEL signal will be ignored by the drives. So the bottom line is that these cables work either way, cable select or not. What will finally make cable select catch on? If drive manufacturers and systems integrators widely agree to use it, and the manufacturers start shipping drives with the "CS" jumpers on by default. We'll have to see if this happens.

Cable Select is supported by ALL 80 conductor cables

yes, i do understand this, as this is the "standard." however, it is still an issue, even though all 80 conductors are cable select capable. till tested and verified, it is a specific acquirement. although, the cable you would get at compusa, or motherboard swag would work just fine, in theory. you still have one more hurdle, is the hardware compliant. go to storage review and you can search for those that have cable select issues with moden systems. did i show my age in computerdom, by saying you need to get a specific cable, even though i meant such in a different context?

The only spare cable I've got sitting in my desk has ATA-66 printed on it

it is ata-100 and 133 capable. although, the timing of the protocol changed, not the cable required. all that is necessary is 40pins/80wire for the higher dma protocols. ice has a good comment on a recent post about cables. http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=893407

placing the shunt in the operating location does not take that long, and is not difficult compared to the probablility of cs not working. even though modern cables, and drive support it. there is still issues of it not working acorrdingly.

back in the day when i had an nforce2 core logic, i stumble upon this: http://www.nforcershq.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39060 this issue has been around for a long time.

TLS2000 · Apr 19, 2005

While I agree with you that CS may be a problem in some hardware configurations, I have never had a bad experience using it. I have an opinion, a personal one, that CS should be used unless there is a problem later.

I understand that it takes only a second to set the jumper for most people, but a good chunk of noobies don't have a clue as to what a Master/Slave relationship is. I will point out to them to use Master/Slave if CS doesn't work.

The problem really is the fact that there is two different systems set up to do the same thing. Some people use one system. Some people use the other.

Master/Slave doesn't always work out for the best either. WD drives have had problems with any normal jumper configuration in the past, if there was only the one drive on the system.

lithium726 · Apr 19, 2005

TLS2000 said:
While I agree with you that CS may be a problem in some hardware configurations, I have never had a bad experience using it. I have an opinion, a personal one, that CS should be used unless there is a problem later.

on the contrary, ive had quite a few odd things happen with CS, and i just dont bother with it anymore becuase of them.

I understand that it takes only a second to set the jumper for most people, but a good chunk of noobies don't have a clue as to what a Master/Slave relationship is. I will point out to them to use Master/Slave if CS doesn't work.

dude, if a noob doesnt know what a master/slave relationship is, they shouldnt be working on a computers. you need to have a certain level of theory before you open these things up, and even an idiot can put together two and two and say "i have two drives. there is a setting for a master and a setting for a slave. the master must go first"

The problem really is the fact that there is two different systems set up to do the same thing. Some people use one system. Some people use the other.

not really a problem, EIDE is going the way of the dinosaurs

Master/Slave doesn't always work out for the best either. WD drives have had problems with any normal jumper configuration in the past, if there was only the one drive on the system.

ugh, i hate WD drives. they are the only ones that have to make this difficult. there are two settings on them: master with a slave and master wtihout a slave. you have to set it to master wtihout a slave if its the only drive in the system. why? no fucking clue... i dont really care, as WD drives have the highest failure rate with me, and i never buy them anymore.

shaihulud · Apr 19, 2005

i always use cable select. it removes all possibility of a jumper issue.

that is a contradiction, due to the fact that placing the shunt to cs is the very same for master, and slave. however, it becomes one more issue if cs does not work, making cs possibly more complicated!

understand that it takes only a second to set the jumper for most people, but a good chunk of noobies don't have a clue as to what a Master/Slave relationship is.

Master/Slave doesn't always work out for the best either. WD drives have had problems with any normal jumper configuration in the past, if there was only the one drive on the system.

gotcha in a noob moment !

they never had issues!! you, and the others, had a problem because you never read the documentation!!!!!! note, my previous post western digital will have three settings when configuring master/slave relationship. i dont care if you have been doing this for 30 years, you should always consult, and confirm the documentation. i really do think that many diy's should work in the medical field for 5 years before computerdom. it would change their paradigm.

my previous post:
selection between two, except western digital which is three

ricky, give an update!

RickyJ · Apr 19, 2005

Wow, lots of CS discussion around here!

I replaced my IDE cables with flat cables, and the delay is still there. Where can I get the MS drivers to replace the nVidia drivers? How else can I do it?

shaihulud said:
ricky, give an update!

I just replaced the cables, booted, and replied to the thread.

lithium726 · Apr 19, 2005

if, after a clean reformat, it still did this - before you installed teh nforce drivers - then its not a problem with teh nvidia IDE drivers...

do this - put your windows CD in teh drive and tell teh bios to look at the rom drive before the HDD's. when teh "press any key to contenue..." thing comes up, just let it sit and let it go to teh next device in line. it might boot right up, it might not.when i was having this problem, it would boort right up after it had looked at the CD.

have you tried putting the drive on the secondary chanel?

RickyJ · Apr 19, 2005

I suppose I could just reformat again and say no to the nVidia IDE drivers. I don't have that much installed yet.

I've got my dvd burner on the secondary channel, and it's too far away from the HDD to fit a cable. Can run without the burner for testing, but then what's the point?

After my first attempt at this with a fresh format, it booted from the XP cd just fine.

Ok, time to reformat my boot partition. I'll leave the Seagate disconnected again, just to take it out of the equation. Hopefully it works this time.

RickyJ · Apr 19, 2005

Ok, steps taken:
-disconnect Seagate
-fresh format and XP install on boot partition of Maxtor
-network install package of SP2
-other XP updates
-nForce drivers except IDE and audio drivers
-couple reboots to clean stuff up (no delays)
-reconnect Seagate

Same problem. Next step is to remove the DVD burner from the secondary channel and connect the Seagate to the secondary.

Any other suggestions?

lithium726 · Apr 19, 2005

use it as an excuse to upgrade to a64?

slamgoku · Apr 19, 2005

shaihulud said:
that is a contradiction, due to the fact that placing the shunt to cs is the very same for master, and slave. however, it becomes one more issue if cs does not work, making cs possibly more complicated!

gotcha in a noob moment ! they never had issues!! you, and the others, had a problem because you never read the documentation!!!!!! note, my previous post western digital will have three settings when configuring master/slave relationship. i dont care if you have been doing this for 30 years, you should always consult, and confirm the documentation. i really do think that many diy's should work in the medical field for 5 years before computerdom. it would change their paradigm.

ricky, give an update!

you take pc's a little too seriously if ur comparing it to something that can potentially end a life if not followed 100% properly.

shaihulud · Apr 19, 2005

Same problem. Next step is to remove the DVD burner from the secondary channel and connect the Seagate to the secondary.

only if i can look at it. hmn, you do not have PXE, preboot execution, set in the bios (boot from network)? if i recall, the nvidia mac does not support this, however the option may still be there. downloading the manual, and waiting for your reply. it is a possiblitiy that there can be something more to this, but not working with the physical system is difficult, for i only have you to decribe all that is.

you take pc's a little too seriously if ur comparing it to something that can potentially end a life if not followed 100% properly.

how ignorant of a statement! no, i do not take it seriously, in all honesty. i have done it too long that it is instinct. however, i do what is in my power from my education to apply my skillsets, and abilities to the job at hand in the correct manner of its fullest extent possible. which is intelligent, and considerate.

[OT] on your note of seriousness, many people are hurt because people do not take into proper consideration what needs to be taken seriously. if you have not figured this out by now, maybe you should go to medical school, and learn about liability. at least you may learn skillsets that are intrinsic to troubleshooting, procedures, methodologies. i worked on pc's for many a years before my medical education. i learned more from my medical professsion/education that can be applied to computers, than my education for computers!

slamgoku · Apr 19, 2005

shaihulud said:
only if i can look at it. hmn, you do not have PXE, preboot execution, set in the bios (boot from network)? if i recall, the nvidia mac does not support this, however the option may still be there. downloading the manual, and waiting for your reply. it is a possiblitiy that there can be something more to this, but not working with the physical system is difficult, for i only have you to decribe all that is.

how ignorant of a statement! no, i do not take it seriously, in all honesty. i have done it too long that it is instinct. however, i do what is in my power from my education to apply my skillsets, and abilities to the job at hand in the correct manner of its fullest extent possible. which is intelligent, and considerate.

[OT] on your note of seriousness, many people are hurt because people do not take into proper consideration what needs to be taken seriously. if you have not figured this out by now, maybe you should go to medical school, and learn about liability. at least you may learn skillsets that are intrinsic to troubleshooting, procedures, methodologies. i worked on pc's for many a years before my medical education. i learned more from my medical professsion/education that can be applied to computers, than my education for computers!

just dont tell people they need to go to medical school. its pretty insulting to tell someone that. you phrased it to where u essentially said i should go to medical school just to learn knowledge i can use with pc's. That in my opinion is taking it too seriously and is not an ignorant statement.

shaihulud · Apr 19, 2005

just dont tell people they need to go to medical school. its pretty insulting to tell someone that. you phrased it to where u essentially said i should go to medical school just to learn knowledge i can use with pc's. That in my opinion is taking it too seriously and is not an ignorant statement.

i did not tell, i commented, how you took it as condescending is part of your comprehension, and own issue. i think that you are being defensive due to the rebuttals i have made. which is, psychologically, a typical reaction. now, i would suggest you keep this on topic, and help, or leave for you are doing nothing constructive.

my statement:
i really do think that many diy's should work in the medical field for 5 years before computerdom. it would change their paradigm.

slamgoku · Apr 19, 2005

shaihulud said:
i did not tell, i commented, how you took it as condescending is part of your comprehension, and own issue. i think that you are being defensive due to the rebuttals i have made. which is, psychologically, a typical reaction. now, i would suggest you keep this on topic, and help, or leave for you are doing nothing constructive.

so u should heed ur own advice.

RickyJ · Apr 19, 2005

There is an option to boot from a LAN, but it's not selected. The only device I have selected for the booting sequence is HDD-0, which is the Maxtor drive.

I am a bit reluctant to move the Seagate to my secondary channel, as the cable will not extend to my dvd burner at the same time. Switching them as necessary will be a real pain, as my watercooled case is pretty packed.

I know that troubleshooting over the phone/net is really tough. I grew up in my parent's VW shop, and all my friends ask "my engine is making a noise, what's wrong with my car?" I only really got deep into computers about 3 years ago, since I was too busy building my own VW race car. I'm in my final year of electrical engineering at the university here, so I've managed to bash my way through almost all of the technical/mechanical aspects of computers in my spare time. This current problem stumps me though, as I'm not sure what variables are left (except my FSB experiment might have borked certain parts of this board).

The plan was to do a complete system upgrade to a DFI + Venice PCI-e setup this summer. Unfortunately, I worked too hard at my co-op job this term and ran out of work...and got laid off. Funds are significantly tighter now than they should have been, so the upgrade will have to wait.

[/life story]

I still got my fingers crossed. I'll try moving the Seagate to the secondary channel right now, just to test it out.

edit: It's sure nice to see intelligent arguments, rather than the childish behaviour I've witnessed in other sections of [H].

RickyJ · Apr 19, 2005

Ok, with the Seagate as master on the secondary channel, and the dvd burner disconnected, the system boots up without the delay.

Now I just gotta figure out how to get the burner connected again...

Could the primary channel be overloaded? Could having an ATA100 and ATA133 device on the same channel cause a problem?

lithium726 · Apr 19, 2005

maybe try using the cable you had on teh dvd burner on the two drives, and put them both on teh secondary channel?

It's sure nice to see intelligent arguments, rather than the childish behaviour I've witnessed in other sections of [H].

ah, yes. video cards. i try and avoid that place at all costs...

RickyJ · Apr 20, 2005

The two drives are on the secondary channel now, and the burner is on the primary channel. There is still a delay on boot.

I think we're running out of options here.

RickyJ · Apr 20, 2005

I just noticed that XP isn't recognizing my Seagate on the secondary channel. It showed up correctly under BIOS.

lithium726 · Apr 20, 2005

got any old motherboards around (perhaps that you have upgraded from over the years)?

it could be the drive, it could be the board... lets hope its the one that costs less

i think both seagate and asus have an advanced RMA service though.

BillR · Apr 20, 2005

Actually there have been numerous posts in here with conflicts between various DVD drives, MOBOs and Hard Drives.

Why not try a different optical drive on your secondary? Doesnt even have to be a DVD, just any CD ROM will do to help diagnose the problem.

Just a thought

RickyJ · Apr 20, 2005

Removed the dvd burner from the mobo, and the delay is still present.

Hooked Seagate up to my parent's XP2400+ (MSI KM2M Combo-L mobo), with a Maxtor drive as boot (same as my Maxtor, and bought together). Boots just fine, no problems at all.

There's no way my Asus mobo will get accepted for RMA. Volt-mods, lapped NB, SB and mosfet sinks glued on...

I guess if there's nothing else to try, I'll have to put up with the delay and hope that the data doesn't get garbled.

shaihulud · Apr 20, 2005

curious, go into the bios. select the primary channel master, and latter slave for modification and setup. at the "ide auto detection" value hit enter to detect the drive. repeat this step for the slave. what was the output for the segate drive after detection has been executed? it can be detected in this manner? there are not any ASCII character in the name of the device [seagate] after doing such?

go over jumpers one more time. make sure that the cable is in correct orientation, and that the drives are configured for thier proper termination-master/slave.

http://www.seagate.com/support/ts/ata/hardware/01_jumper.html
http://service.maxtor.com/rightnow/images/maxtor_quantum jumpers.htm (CLJ is cylinder limitation jumper, this does not need to be set for your system)

cable orientation: 40pin(master).............40pin(slave).............................................40pin(motherboard)

RickyJ · Apr 20, 2005

-Cable is correctly connected as master/slave
-jumpers are correct
-auto-detection in BIOS returns same values ("Maxtor 6Y080P0" and "ST3200822A")
-same delay

shaihulud · Apr 20, 2005

If it does operate properly on your parents machine, isolating the issue to your machine, then it can very well, be a none specific issue. dont know what else to say, since i can not look into your chasis. wish i could be more helpful beyond what i have done so far. you may resolve it later, finding it was somethign so small that another perspective could have seen.

RickyJ · Apr 20, 2005

Thanks for all the help, everyone!

I'll just put up with the delay until upgrade time.

lithium726 · Apr 20, 2005

you know - you could get an external enclosure for the drive, or a 5 1/2 bay mounting kit for the drive and put it on the IDE channel with the optical...

RickyJ · Apr 20, 2005

lithium726 said:
you know - you could get an external enclosure for the drive, or a 5 1/2 bay mounting kit for the drive and put it on the IDE channel with the optical...

This is true. I have no room for it in my 5.25" drive cage (rad and fans take up a lot), so I'll check out some cheap USB2.0 enclosures.

Installed 200GB Seagate, now booting takes forever...

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

Gawd

Weaksauce

Gawd

Weaksauce

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Born Again Cynic

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Gawd