• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

LCDs fine for gaming?

Man... you guys are rediculous. I always hated LCD monitors until I bought one. I am a serious gamer and spend at least half of my free time playing PC games. First person shooters, RTS, MMOs... whatever. I could never go back to a CRT. Ive been around some very expensive CRTs. There is a room down the hall (I am in my college right now) that has a ton of nice big CRTs for graphics design... I would NEVER take one of those, or any CRT I have ever seen, over my monitor. I dont even have an amazing one anymore! I have a BenQ fp937s (12ms) so Im sure these 4ms monitors are outstanding even compared to mine.

I see virtually nothing when playing a game except crisp vibrant colors and a nice sharp image. Looking at ANY nice CRT it all seems "washed out". We need to build a fence around these type of threads to keep out the trolls...
 
Tengis said:
Man... you guys are rediculous. I always hated LCD monitors until I bought one. I am a serious gamer and spend at least half of my free time playing PC games. First person shooters, RTS, MMOs... whatever. I could never go back to a CRT. Ive been around some very expensive CRTs. There is a room down the hall (I am in my college right now) that has a ton of nice big CRTs for graphics design... I would NEVER take one of those, or any CRT I have ever seen, over my monitor. I dont even have an amazing one anymore! I have a BenQ fp937s (12ms) so Im sure these 4ms monitors are outstanding even compared to mine.

I see virtually nothing when playing a game except crisp vibrant colors and a nice sharp image. Looking at ANY nice CRT it all seems "washed out". We need to build a fence around these type of threads to keep out the trolls...
Click to expand...

I swear to God we need seperate CRT and LCD forum's for this exact reason but Kyle seems to enjoy the "melting pot" and its end results. :rolleyes:
 
Chances are most people who are LCD naysayers have never used a good LCD before.
 
The only reasons I can think of that someone would not want to use an LCD are low refresh rates causing ghosting, and color quality as previously stated in this thread with the "washed out blacks".

Well the ghosting you get used to. At least I do :p I have a 12ms 19" LCD and while I'm running around in an FPS I don't even notice it. Sometimes I might but it does not affect my gameplay in any way. Ghosting on my monitor is not bad at all imo.

And some people think dead pixels might be a problem. But it really isn't. My monitor is 1280x1024 and I have 3-4 dead pixels. I can't even remember how many there are, because I have NEVER noticed them, aside from the one time I checked for them when I just got my monitor. If I had never checked using those programs, I would probably think I have 0 dead pixels.
But I guess there are some cases where it might be noticable. My dead pixels are located closer to the edges of the monitor, but even if they were in the middle I doubt I'd notice them since the pixels are so small.

LCD's take up much less space, produce a lot less heat and images appear to be sharper compared to the CRT's I've used. They also don't flicker :)

CRT's would be better for photo/image editing since they have better color quality, but gaming can go either way. I'd still prefer to use an LCD because of the size and heat issue, and that they don't flicker at all.
 
Im using a 17 inch LCD right now(at work)... the [H] background is blacker then anything in this room. (and Im in an IBM server room). all the images seem a lot clearer to me then my CRT back home. and its one of the reason's im about to switch to LCD.

-portability - went to a lan party... made 3 trips lugging my xaser3, and my 17 inch CRT, and the rest of my stuff... friend who just got an LCD could cary his mid tower in one arm and his LCD in the other....with a bag slung over his shoulder with all his stuff in it... 1 trip!

- less space- I don't have a big desk...

- looks good to me( I watched my friend play on his LCD and didn't notice anything excepth mine was a little more vibrant.
 
my 24" dell ghosts all over the place, and I game all the damn time, but I've totally gotten used to it and just don't care anymore. No I'm not a pro-gamer wanna-be like the kids in this thread putting down lcd's, but I'd personally rather have 24" goddamn inches of screen, that's MUCH sharper and brighter than my 19" bulky CRT... yeah it's all personal preference which makes threads like this pretty pointless
 
Alot of people also mistake tearing for ghosting/LCD problems...

First off. If your game is tearing TURN ON VSYNC. The only game I notice tearing in is CS Source because I get like a bajillion FPS over my monitors capabilities and it cant keep up. Turn on vsync and its a constant beautiful 75 fps.
 
I've used both, I like LCDs better...CRT's still have their pros...

but, if your a lanner you should have at least one LCD to save you from carrying that heavy monitor around.
 
Also... people always seem to mention colors look better on CRTs... are you people blind? Comparing my monitor to my Trinitron I had before, this one is just amazing. I was blown away when I first turned it on and saw how vibrant the colors were. Really, for any situation, I just couldnt recomend a CRT to anyone... LCDs are only going to get better from here on out.
 
Wow, big bump :eek:

Anyway, what LCD would you all suggest to me? I don't need anything big, just 15-17 inch. I'd like to keep it under or around $200, but if it means much better quality I could spend more.
 
NightWind said:
Go away troll.
Click to expand...

Yes my opinion is different than yours so I am a troll. Even though others have posted in this thread that have gone back to CRT after using LCDs.

Ever since LCDs hi the market I have tried different ones. I always have people every couple of months say "I just got this new LCD and there is no LCD-weirdness at all, I love it for gaming." Then I go try it and throw a nade and spin a bit in CS:Source and the same thing always happens. It is kind of streaky and just plain weird.

Have I used every single LCD there is? No, but I have played on some of the newest LCDs released in the last year.

The technology just isn't there yet.
 
Svperstar said:
The technology just isn't there yet.
Click to expand...
That's where I have to disagree. If you shop around and buy one of the better LCDs, the technology is there. Just because a certain LCD offers a low response time, doesn't suddenly make it good for gaming, and I think a lot of people don't realize it. I have an Acer 19" LCD that's a 12 ms monitor and the HP f1905 in my sig that's rated at 16 ms....and the HP is clearly a better monitor. Absolutely zero ghosting in CoD2.

There's also another factor. I can't look at a CRT for more than 30 minutes or so, regardless of it's refresh rate. I don't get the same headaches and eyestrain when using an LCD.
 
djnes said:
There's also another factor. I can't look at a CRT for more than 30 minutes or so, regardless of it's refresh rate. I don't get the same headaches and eyestrain when using an LCD.
Click to expand...
20 minutes for me infront of an LCD and I have a headache.

I use a Viewsonic E90f, I run 1600x1200@60hz, I don't get a headache from it.

Everyone is different people, if you want to know which type of monitor to get, go check them out for yourself.
 
Tengis said:
Are you people blind? Comparing my monitor to my Trinitron I had before, this one is just amazing. I was blown away when I first turned it on and saw how vibrant the colors were..
Click to expand...
Sigh, another person who compares one new LCD to one old CRT and thinks they understand the situation..

LCD's are generally much brighter than CRTs, and have a totally different color profile. So if oversaturated, extremely bright colors look good to you, you'll love LCDs. Of course, you can tune a good CRT to a similar color profile...but most people don't do that, even if they knew how. CRTs, however, display more color _detail_. Subtle shade variances that LCDs don't, due to their tendency to crush color scales. If you don't notice it, more power to you. It's still there.

Whether or not colors "look better" on LCDs vs. CRTs is a personal opinion. What's NOT a personal opinion is that color accuracy is far higher on CRTs. The variance in LCD color rendition-- both by viewing angle and on-screen location-- is far too high for anyone who needs precise colors. This is easily proven by simple use of a colorimeter.

Another issue _not_ option to personal opinion is black levels. If blacks on your LCD monitor appear black-- fine. They're still about 20-30 TIMES brighter than they are on a good CRT. Most CRTs easily hit 0.01 cd/m^2. The average LCD runs around 0.25 nits...and thats at minimum backlight levels.

By all means, pick whichever monitor you prefer. But claiming LCDs are as good or better at black levels or color rendition is a fraud. LCDs certainly have their advantages...but not in these two areas.
 
Honestly, I have played FPS games since Rise of the Triad/Wolfenstein/Doom days. Since around 1996/7 I have been hardcore FPS gaming and started to play online hardcore. Lately, LCD's IMO might not be as good on paper, but to me in person they have a richer picture and I can see everything a whole lot better in comparison to my LCD. Even on my brothers mediocre 19" Dell LCD (not he ultrabright series, the one below it) it still looks great to me and I really don't see the ghosting. You would think someone like me who has play FPS games shown in OpenGL for nearly a decade would notice some ghosting, but I didn't.

I really just think they provide a better picture. On my CRT it's hard to make out a dark object on a dark object, which is bad in gaming online. The LCD distinguishes the two objects as two different objects and I can easily see the person in the corner or at a distance, unlike the CRT which melds the two objects together and I can't tell what I am looking at.
 
1. YES. blacks indeed are still better on a good CRT. Period. Does it matter? Not to me, my LCD is pretty nice and I am not anal. nor do I do graphic design for a living...

2. COLORS are indeed very bright on an LCD, but you have to TUNE the darn thing a bit too...I do not run my brightness or contrast real high, around 50 for both...at 60+. the darn thing is a beacon :) Once tuned a bit, it is absolutely great and satisfies me for everything I do...

3. For going to LAN's, the LCD smokes the CRT in every possible way....not to mention in my house, the LCD fits better, has less heat output, and looks nice....period.

4. TEXT on a GOOD LCD is much crisper than any CRT out there, as long as you are at the native resolution of the display. AND provided you tune the LCD to work properly....

5. Even a VERY good gamer can STILL ruin his opponents on a properly tuned LCD...if you suck using an LCD, don't blame the LCD itself....you'll still suck on a CRT....the days of claiming a CRT is an edge is over....

It's all personal preference folks....personally, seeing 60hz on a CRT kills my eyes....a GOOD LCD is plenty for my needs, but I certainly don't begrudge nor flame a CRT affacionado...
 
threedd97 said:
On my CRT it's hard to make out a dark object on a dark object, which is bad in gaming online.
Click to expand...
Then your gamma is set incorrectly, or your aged CRT tube is emitting weakly. Black detail is higher on CRTs than LCDs. If not, then something isn't setup right.
 
I went from this CRT:
http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/aseries/a90fplus/

to this LCD using DVI:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014090

And will never ever own another CRT.

I play DoD:S, AOE 3, create maps with ArcGIS, watch movies, and browse the internet.

Games have no ghosting whatsoever, it has no dead/stuck pixels, weighs roughly 1/14 of the CRT, and takes up less than 1/5 of the desk space.

To get any respectable desktop space on my 19" CRT, I'd have to use 1280x1024 and up. Text was eye-killing, and the corners of the screen were beyond shitty. I have more viewing space now, and crystal clear text. Since the 'shitty blackness' argument, I'm sitting here looking at this text box right next to the black border, and challenge anyone to call this not black. Even if the CRT looks 'blacker', whoopty fuckin doo. 1 plus for the million negatives.

IMO, quality LCD are better than any quality CRT at all aspects. The one exception for people who play with pictures and video for a living, and say there aren't enough colors... but even then, I'll have to use the age old expression, "I'm from Missouri, SHOW me." I watch movies all the time, and find it way past acceptable.
 
Tengis, same here. I always hated LCDs's and the way there was certain viewing angle that you had to sit at for images to "look right", and I thought that the picture wasn't as good. I have an LCD now and I would not go back to a CRT ever. The space it saved is awesome, and the picture quality is great. Gaming took a little getting used to at first because the screen is farther away, but all is good now.
 
Tengis said:
Alot of people also mistake tearing for ghosting/LCD problems...

First off. If your game is tearing TURN ON VSYNC. The only game I notice tearing in is CS Source because I get like a bajillion FPS over my monitors capabilities and it cant keep up. Turn on vsync and its a constant beautiful 75 fps.
Click to expand...

Turning on vsync kills performance in many many games (COD2 is a good example), I prefer to run with a high refresh rate (to reduce the screen tearing effect to a minimum) & no vsync for max performance, Disabling vsync on an LCD looks awful compared to a CRT, even when both are running the same refresh rate (I used to run a CRT & LCD side by side).

But as mentioned before its all a matter of preference, personally I'll take my heavy , takes 30 minutes to warm up' power consuming 24" Widescreen CRT over any LCD Ive seen on the market..Overall Image quality ,Resolution flexibility ,True black levels & Fluid response time are my priorites. ;)
 
the viewing angle shouldn't even really matter for any decent lcd that's out today.
 
I can see both sides of the argument. I have a 21” Trinitron as my main monitor and I have no plans to replace it any time soon as I really love the picture, the black levels, and the ability to change resolution. The LCD I use for LANs is a Gateway 15” DVI LCD from 1999, lol. Even with that relatively ancient piece of hardware, I can still game on it just fine.
 
masher said:
Then your gamma is set incorrectly, or your aged CRT tube is emitting weakly. Black detail is higher on CRTs than LCDs. If not, then something isn't setup right.
Click to expand...

Yep gamma is very important if you have a CRT. Whenever i come across a dark photo or game a quick gamma increase always does the trick..

http://www.photoscientia.co.uk/Gamma.htm
 
mathesar said:
Turning on vsync kills performance in many many games (COD2 is a good example), I prefer to run with a high refresh rate (to reduce the screen tearing effect to a minimum) & no vsync for max performance,
Click to expand...

Dude, without vsync your framerate just soars up and down... vsync simply holds it steady at a lower FPS that your video card can maintain. I'll take 45 FPS steady any day over 35-120...
 
mdameron said:
Dude, without vsync your framerate just soars up and down... vsync simply holds it steady at a lower FPS that your video card can maintain. I'll take 45 FPS steady any day over 35-120...
Click to expand...

Vsync causes framerate drops & stutters that dont occur with Vsync disabled in a lot of games..In fact its also known to cut the framerate in half based on your current monitor Refresh rate.. This isnt a new discovery its been known for ages. The screenshots below show what I mean:

Vsync enabled, Monitor refresh rate set at 85hz..as you can see the framerate sits at 43fps..Basically half the refresh rate, I let it sit there for about 15 seconds and it stayed right at 43fps the entire time:
COD2_Vsync_Enabled.jpg


Now with Vsync disabled @ 85hz,No other settings where changed, I get a noticeably smoother framerate and since the game doesnt run above 85FPS very often I see no screen tearing from the lack of Vsync (screen tearing occurs when the framerate exceeds current refresh rate):
COD2_Vsync_Disabled.jpg


From what I understand the only time Vsync doesnt cut framerates in half is if the game has Triple Buffering support (I honestly dont know why ALL of them do if this is the case) and for the games that dont have Triple Buffering support (such as COD2) your PC has to be able to run the game at your monitors refresh rate all the time or the framerate gets cut in half.
 
To the person that made the comment about me switching from a Trinitron...

Ive used many different CRT monitors to compare LCDs too... including those nice CRTs that are in my college for the graphics design students. I dont know the model number or anything but I will try to get ahold of it. I would take my LCD over them anyday simply because the picture is so much more crisp and defined. Ive seen alot of crappy LCDs as well as CRTs... so its understable if people run into a bad one and get scared to purchase a nice one.

Here is my arguement:

For the price you cannot get a better looking display. 200-300 for a fairly decent 19inch LCD with DVI... crisp image, vibrant colors, even great for gaming.
 
The other thing I should have mentioned in my previous post is if you are not running DVI, don't bother with LCD's. I know some people will bitch and moan on this one, but it is clear with the same video card, just using the alternative 9 pin vs the DVI, that the colors, crispness and overall clarity is enhanced by about 50%. I used one of the twin LCD's below on a unit that only had 9 pin for a while and broke down and upgraded to a higher end AGP card that had DVI. The two screens now are crisper then most 15-17inch LCD's I've seen and as I mentioned previously much crisper then the 19inch Pro Series Viewsonic I used to run at the same exact resolution!

I guess one other thing... make sure whatever LCD you get that you are going to run it, IE play games, desktop, etc at that resolution. My screens below are native 1600x1200, at 1024x768 they look like crap!

Two additional things to keep in mind when selecting LCD over CRT!!!
 
I was pleased with the FPW2405 when it arrived in comparison to my old 21" pro-grade Trinitron. However a few months after it arrived my wife decided to hold it hostage (use it for her work on her PC) and so I ended up going back to the old CRT connected to my PC.

From having seen both, I prefer the CRT for gaming, the LCD did ghost, but the LCD I absolutely loved for desktop (excel, word) work for its clarity, legibility & widescreen. As I spend more time playing on my PC and my wife spends more time working on hers, I figure we've got things the right way round.

If I had to make the 2405 purchase decision again, I think I'd have held off and waited a couple more generations of technology, because IMHO LCDs are not better by all measures at the moment.
 
Tengis said:
To the person that made the comment about me switching from a Trinitron...I would take my LCD over them anyday simply because the picture is so much more crisp and defined.
Click to expand...
You've finally identified the one area where LCDs actually do trump CRT picture quality. Crispness on a static or slow-moving image.

What you said earlier, however, was something different entirely.
 
I've posted in this thread before, but since then I've had more time with my FW900, and I can only say things have gotten even better after some additional tweaking. I vastly prefer it to the Samsung 940B I owned for a week. Thoughts:

  • Color. Definately, definately better on my FW900. Both monitors needed considerable tweaking, but at their optimal settings, FW900 is quite superior. Specs back this up of course.
  • Black levels. Never felt quite right on my 940B; it felt like dark spots were some kind of plastic outline to the rest of the picture. It ws just weird. FW900 looks perfect while gaming, although if I hold something pitch black up in front of the screen, I can tell it's not quite there.
  • Eye comfort. My old CRT at 60hz would give me eye strain after extensive use. I had 0 problems with my LCD for the first few days, but then a couple days in a row later I got eye strain from it. I wasn't really sure it was from the monitor, so it wasn't a factor in my switch back to CRT. I run my FW900 at 1920x1200@96hz and get 0 eye strain even after very lenghty gaming sessions.
  • Text. Very setting dependant. It looked great most of the time on my 940B, loved the DVI, but there were also a noticeable number of times when certain fonts still just didn't look right. Plus, white font on black backgrounds flickered badly when scrolling. I use dark cleartype on my FW900 and it looks f'ing excellent (I know it sounds like an odd setting, but it works when properly adjusted with the windows powertoy).
  • Response time. Gee, guess which one I prefer? The 940B did not have blatant blurring, but it was noticeable enough, both in gaming and in regular use. It was disconcerting to turn too fast in a forest in Far Cry, although I think this has to do with where the user is focusing on the screen. Movement is super clear on the FW900.
  • Resolutions. An LCD can look good at one res. I run my FW900 at 1920x1200, 1680x1050, 1440x900, 1600x1200 depending on which games/aps I'm using. I couldn't imagine how much of a hassle it would have grown to be running at 1280x1040 *all the time*. Plus, that's not much detail considering the space on the screen.
  • Viewing angle. My 940B looked fine looking directly at it. If I slid my chair several feet to the side, it still looked fine. Who cares anyways, i'm not going to slide over that far while using it. But if I slumped down in my chair... the colors seemed to get darker on the top of the screen. >_<.
That's all the image quality issues that come to mind right now. As far as extraneous stuff goes, I simply cannot understand how so many people can just go "Oh wow my monitor takes up so little room and it's so light, oh and it blurrs a little but I don't notice it who cares." You're compromising the monitor's main purpose for less important things. If you lan constantly and can only afford a single monitor, LCD is a good choice, but aside from that, size/weight doesn't matter too much. A brand new roomy/sturdy desk is much cheaper than the price difference between CRTs and LCDs of comparable screen size. As for power, that's just another thing noone really cares about, and only uses as a justification for their LCD. I'll have to end on this note, since the bell's about to ring... if I think of more to say I'll say it later.
 
I went from an Iiyama 19inch CRT to a Samsung 930BF 4ms job. I moved up about 200 miles so I gave it to my bro who was on a 17. Fairly happy with the screen but games default to 60hz when it will do 75 hz :( is there way to force it?

I have a nice setup atm so I wouldn't mind a nice big CRT that will do gd hz at high res, but I just got a 32inch LCD TV so cant justify it. btw NFS-MW looks the bollocks on the hdtv :D
 
I just bought the Samsung 930B, which is 8ms, and I can tell you if you are sensitive to such things, you WILL see blur and tearing, these people who endlessly say "no you wont, etc etc" just cannot accept the fact that others simply SEE better than they do. Some people see it, some dont. That said, I bought the monitor primarily for windows usage and am very happy with its performance in anything other than gaming, blacks are freaking black. I was utterly shocked.
 
mathesar said:
Vsync causes framerate drops & stutters that dont occur with Vsync disabled in a lot of games..In fact its also known to cut the framerate in half based on your current monitor Refresh rate.. This isnt a new discovery its been known for ages. The screenshots below show what I mean:

...

From what I understand the only time Vsync doesnt cut framerates in half is if the game has Triple Buffering support (I honestly dont know why ALL of them do if this is the case) and for the games that dont have Triple Buffering support (such as COD2) your PC has to be able to run the game at your monitors refresh rate all the time or the framerate gets cut in half.
Click to expand...

You have it partially right. All Vsync does is sync the framerate to the highest fraction of your monitor refresh, your computer can render

If you vsync at 85 and your computer is fast enough to give you 85+fps, your game will run at exactly 85fps.

However, as soon as your computer drops below 85fps, it will sync to every other frame, instead of every frame, so your framerate will drop to 42,5fps. Should your computer be unable to handle 42.5fps, it will drop to 85/3 = 28.33 fps, etc. etc...

In other words, if you have a fast enough computer, vsync isnt a bad thing. I like vsync. I used to use it all the time when I played pre-steam Counter-Strike, cause my computer was fast enough to sync 1280x960 at 100hz. These days when I no longer care to ahve the fastest computer on the block, and games are more demanding, I can't vsync anymore... :(
 
Tutelary said:
I just bought the Samsung 930B, which is 8ms, and I can tell you if you are sensitive to such things, you WILL see blur and tearing, these people who endlessly say "no you wont, etc etc" just cannot accept the fact that others simply SEE better than they do. Some people see it, some dont.
Click to expand...

/thread

Seriously, certain people just don't notice and will never notice image quality problems. Hell back in 1999 my stepdad didn't notice that his new 64" TV was slightly blue in scenes where it was supposed to be completely black, I never should have pointed this out though, since he went mad trying to tweak it endlessly.......
 
Tutelary said:
I just bought the Samsung 930B, which is 8ms, and I can tell you if you are sensitive to such things, you WILL see blur and tearing, these people who endlessly say "no you wont, etc etc" just cannot accept the fact that others simply SEE better than they do....
Click to expand...
Amen. I've had people tell me their black levels are "absolutely, totally perfect" and post pictures with shiny gray backgrounds to prove it.
 
masher said:
Amen. I've had people tell me their black levels are "absolutely, totally perfect" and post pictures with shiny gray backgrounds to prove it.
Click to expand...

Do you have to try hard to be a jerk or does it come natural?
 
I'm switching from a KDS19 " CRT to a ViewSonic 1440X900 8ms 19" LCD.
( http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/aseries/va1912wb/ )
My PC is a gaming machine, however my company just replaced all of our CRTs with Dell 18" LCDs ( > 20K units) and I am seeing a lot less strain/fatigue. Now the game that takes up the most of my time should see improvement WoW is bright colors and scenery where blur is not that much of an issue.

I will see if CS:S is completely ruined by blur that you must concentrate to see, but I'm not Fatal1ty, hell I'm old enough to be his dad. I want my games to work, I want a crisp bright screen, and I want good performance. This LCD at $299.00 should deliver if all the egg reviews are correct
 
NightWind said:
Do you have to try hard to be a jerk or does it come natural?
Click to expand...
It comes natural. Now a question for you? Do you think personal attacks somehow build your credibility on the subject? Or are you doing it simply to grow your e-Wang?
 
RagingSamster said:
I'm switching from a KDS19 " CRT to a ViewSonic 1440X900 8ms 19" LCD.
Click to expand...
Congrats, and I'm sure you'll be very happy with the change. However, I do want to point out that upgrades like this are one of the primary reasons people get false ideas about CRT vs. LCD image quality. Upgrading an older CRT from one of the worst manufacturers out there to a new display from an above-average maker is no comparison whatsoever.
 
masher said:
Upgrading an older CRT from one of the worst manufacturers out there to a new display from an above-average maker is no comparison whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Maybe for you! =) but it's all good news for me! and just because I bought those for 139.00 4 years ago doesn't mean they're crap - well actually it does, but that will just serve to enhance my delight at the new LCD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top