Gameguru Mania Updated:01:04 PM EST Dec,12
SPONSORS:
Binary Option Robot & Bot
best rated online slots
Best Deals Online

play for free at ceskecasino
Winga Roulette

Dazzle Casino
Mobile Slots
Anytime Casino
Puzzle Games
Anagram Solver
best e cigarette

free spins no deposit uk

You'll find everything you need to know about bonuses in Swedish at bonuscash.nu

Casino, or カジノ, as they say in Japan is one of the hottest trends in online gambling in Japan
casinodb.com
moviestarplanet hack
Casino Sites

Find today's best video game promo codes on Dealspotr

CHAT TOPICS
Lost Soul Aside PS4 Gameplay
MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries R
+16 Trainer for Spellforce 3
TechNews - Toshiba's 14TB HD
Fade to Silence Announced
Nvidia launches $3000 Titan
Bethesda Wants to Save Singl
SpellForce 3 Released
Official Shadow of War Onlin
Battlezone 2 is getting rema
Fallout 4 New Vegas Announce
Dragon's Crown Pro Looks Gor
Unity 5 Adam tech demo gets
DOOM VFR Launch Trailer
SpellForce 3 - Gameplay Trai
Electronic Arts Loses $3 Bil
Windows 10 Experiment: Runni
Get Flight Unlimited 2K16 fo
SpellForce 3: The Elves of F
Wolfenstein II: The New Colo


Please e-mail us if you have news.

(c) 1997-2017 Gameguru Mania
Privacy Policy statement
 Gameguru Mania News - Jul,29 2012 -  
Make Skyrim look gorgeous! - mod&map
(hx) 03:17 PM EDT - Jul,29 2012 - Post a comment / read (38)
This mod simply overhauls Skyrim's visual and graphics with a reasonable performance loss.

last 10 comments:
Csimbi(06:38 PM EDT - Jul,29 2012 )
Skyrim should not have been about the looks.

Thudo(01:01 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Uhmm where have you been for oh.. a decade? The entire game industry like, courting the opposite sex, is ALL about image and attraction. Thats what generally interests you to play the game or date that hot sex. Superficial? Absolutely! Is it natural? Fcuking Y-E-S!

The game industry for a long time has always been about the bling and blang.. substance? Bahah.. yeah hardly.. those days where dev did ALOT with SO MUCH LESS are long gone. Now they have WAYY too much bloat and tools and actually do less but use the proverbial "golden shovel" and pile on the freshly-scented turd into one heck of a gorgeous looking poo mountain! :D

Is it wrong to like what you see rather than more respect whats really under the hood? Nah.. its human.. we're inherently pathetic and debased so we gravitate to games that look amazing then rather quickly peel-away the superficial to reveal the steaming turd it was. Of course, some games are gems but man thats a rare find these days. :x

gx-x(01:15 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
screw the looks if they put your FPS to a crawl. Let's face it, ENB makes it look a bit better in some segments, and worse in some others but it halves the FPS in all. 1920x1080, 2xAA, ENB mod, gtx 670 and i5 avg fps ~30. It's a joke, bad code from the start to work with, than you add badly coded ENB on top of that, put it on your 300$ GPU and cry...

Thudo(01:33 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Pah.. get a better system cheapskate! :P Unlike a console you can re-invest in the PC into actually making you coin like I do being incorporated ;)

th4t1guy(02:19 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
A mod that adds color to a game that's essentially black and white halves the FPS?

gx-x(10:29 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Thudo> Pah.. get a better system cheapskate! :P Unlike a console you can re-invest in the PC into actually making you coin like I do being incorporated ;)

better system? whats wrong with gtx670?
edit: it's not even my system, I was building it for a customer and while testing it I gave Skyrim +ENB a go to see what it looks like and how does it work)

gx-x(10:34 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
th4t1guy> A mod that adds color to a game that's essentially black and white halves the FPS?

ENB mods are complete graphics overlays solely doing post-processing effects, and that is pretty intensive and on top of the game's engine

Thudo(11:16 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Probably better in the long run to get a lower GPU but SLI/Crossfire em. Keep costs slightly above/below but have the advantage of performance. If it were the rational of the console where you can only do certain things then sure upgrade is not viable BUT since PCs do wayyy more than just gaming.. ;)

gx-x(11:29 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Thudo> Probably better in the long run to get a lower GPU but SLI/Crossfire em. Keep costs slightly above/below but have the advantage of performance. If it were the rational of the console where you can only do certain things then sure upgrade is not viable BUT since PCs do wayyy more than just gaming.. ;)

I have no clue what are you talking about :) for the price of gtx670 you can't get 2xlower spec cards in SLi that will work better, besides, Sli/CF often work worse than single card until proper profiles are released.

edit: besides, in the long run you are only going to have twice the problem of ditching the old cards and getting decent value for them. ;)

Thudo(11:34 AM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
I haven't seen benchmarks done in common games that would state otherwise. I'm still debating on whether to go dual card or a 690GTX (my treat of course). Cash to burn perhaps but hey.. I'm a corporation :) It pays to be at tax time. :D

gx-x(01:31 PM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Thudo> I haven't seen benchmarks done in common games that would state otherwise. I'm still debating on whether to go dual card or a 690GTX (my treat of course). Cash to burn perhaps but hey.. I'm a corporation :) It pays to be at tax time. :D

but 690 is dual gpu card, I wasnt debating that lol. I was debating that 2x150$ cards arent faster than one 300$ one. Never were, never will be.

besides, most POS games these days dont deserve more than gtx460/6850, especially not Skyrim.

Thudo(01:40 PM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Most games are built regrettably for console specs :| We need devs that can take more risks like they used to a decade ago but fear those days are long gone. All we got now are pretty McGames..

gx-x(02:09 PM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
Thudo> Most games are built regrettably for console specs :| We need devs that can take more risks like they used to a decade ago but fear those days are long gone. All we got now are pretty McGames..

exactly. When they do build it for PC they run fine. Look at Rage or first Crysis and Crysis Warhead...GTX460 is more then enough if you know what I mean.

Stumpus(02:43 PM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
I've never owned a pc game in 20 years that utilised the FULL horsepower of my graphics card, before the next graphics card came out that did blah,blah....fps,triangulations,polygons.... Utter bloat. That's the idea of owning a pc or custom building one. The next game will supercede your beloved graphics card/CPU combo. It's a hardware driven exploit. Your perfectly good gpu and CPU will never be used to its full due to bad coding and poor optimisation. You will continue to chuck in the next card and CPU to eek out a dozen more fps.
Why do you think they throw in an optimised game with your new gpu? It's to suck you in and believe you own a $hit hot card, till 3 new games down the line and it ain't as appealing as it was...
Consoles as an excuse is a load of shit..
SDK kits are out there for each platform. It's just that coders today can't write a pc game if their life depended on it! They cut their teeth on consoles and no longer dedicate to the pc. Money is to be made on mulitplatform, that is life and what funds their business.

gx-x(03:51 PM EDT - Jul,30 2012 )
sure but it's a choice. GFX cards usually last me one year, then I sell them, add 50-80 euro and get the next gen one. No big deal. CPU is even more durable. I ran e8200 c2d oc'ed @ 4ghz for over 3 years. I payed ~140 eur for it. I sold it for 70 eur 3 years later lol, bough intel i3 for 100 eur. So it's not that bad if you put some thought into your rig. If you have to own everything best out there, or something like that, then sure, you are going to spend a lot but that goes for pretty much any hobby / habit...

Tom(11:54 AM EDT - Jul,31 2012 )
Didn't you just say you had an i5? Now you are saying you have an i3? Huh?!

I am still running my quad core I bought years ago and got it for cheap. Still see no need to replace it.

gx-x(12:03 PM EDT - Jul,31 2012 )
Tom> Didn't you just say you had an i5? Now you are saying you have an i3? Huh?!

I am still running my quad core I bought years ago and got it for cheap. Still see no need to replace it.


I have i5 rig here besides mine. I built it for sale, it was ordered last week and customer is picking it up today. It's i5 2500K with evga gtx670 so naturally, I was messing around with it, testing some games and apps and so on :)

as far as older intel quads go (e9400 for instance), they are still ok. I wouldn't change that for an i3 that's for sure even thou i3 is usually faster for gaming it is still slower for everything else.

Tom(05:50 PM EDT - Jul,31 2012 )
Ah ok. My quad is nearly the same as the 2500 actually. I have 2 gaming rigs and my testing shows next to no difference between the two of them. Never seen my Q9400 break a sweat yet. Even my 560 GTX OC is more than fine for anything including Skyrim. I don't know the fps but I'd probably notice tearing and slowdowns, which I never had. BF3 I run full tilt at 1600x900 maxed out too, fluid as can be. Of course I have kick ass mushkin ram (16gb) too so that probably is helping.

gx-x(06:19 PM EDT - Jul,31 2012 )
Tom> Ah ok. My quad is nearly the same as the 2500 actually. I have 2 gaming rigs and my testing shows next to no difference between the two of them. Never seen my Q9400 break a sweat yet. Even my 560 GTX OC is more than fine for anything including Skyrim. I don't know the fps but I'd probably notice tearing and slowdowns, which I never had. BF3 I run full tilt at 1600x900 maxed out too, fluid as can be. Of course I have kick ass mushkin ram (16gb) too so that probably is helping.

I have i3 and gtx 560 (can oc it but no need really). amount of ram can help but 8GB is more than enough for games *since they are 99% 32bit coded and cant use more than 2GB of ram (max for applications in 32bit addressing space)), and 1333/1600 cas 7 cas 11 makes no difference trust me. It only shows in synthetic tests.
As for i5 vs c2q, load doesn't matter, architecture itself gives the fps boost (faster execution of instructions), take a look here for example: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/20

Baconnaise(04:27 AM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
I just got rid of my old intel quad extreme qx cpu that was a 3.2 quadcore. Sucker ran hot and was one of the first gen ones. I run an i5 since the beginning of the year (good deals couldn't pass up). Tom is spot on about not needing to upgrade really. I'm still using gtx 460/465 cards. They run all the games just fine at 1920x1200. My older cards 7800gtx 512mb and two 8800gtx cards all died. The 460 and 465 are still going strong with less heat and noise :p. I don't plan on getting a high end card again after experiencing the way gaming has been for the last few years. Mid range cards like the 460 or the 500 series on a good deal can be had in the 100-180 dollar range depending on circumstance. One of my ocz ssd sata 6 drives failed recently. It wasn't even a year old :(. SSD's are cheaper now though which give me the biggest improvements.

gx-x(05:38 AM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
SSD does nothing for FPS thou, it also does nothing for storage capacity and still costs arm and a leg compared to HDD. weather my control panel or start menu opens in 0.5 seconds or 0.05 seconds is not an issue for me because I honestly don't even care, I don't have any speed issues with HDD, everything loads fast enough that it doesn't bother me. I honestly don't think I will be interested in SSD until it fully replaces HDD, in every aspect.

Tom(12:00 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
gx-x>
I have i3 and gtx 560 (can oc it but no need really). amount of ram can help but 8GB is more than enough for games *since they are 99% 32bit coded and cant use more than 2GB of ram (max for applications in 32bit addressing space)), and 1333/1600 cas 7 cas 11 makes no difference trust me. It only shows in synthetic tests.


gx-x not totally true about memory. Ever heard of Large Area Awareness (LAA). Allows them access up to 4GB. Games are using this more and more now such as Sims, Crysis 2, Civ 5. There is a utility you can get to enable this too.

gx-x> SSD does nothing for FPS thou, it also does nothing for storage capacity and still costs arm and a leg compared to HDD. weather my control panel or start menu opens in 0.5 seconds or 0.05 seconds is not an issue for me because I honestly don't even care, I don't have any speed issues with HDD, everything loads fast enough that it doesn't bother me. I honestly don't think I will be interested in SSD until it fully replaces HDD, in every aspect.

Not true. BF3 for example, maps load a hell of a lot faster. If you never even had one running, running games then how would you know? lol. I had another ssd temp and I specifically tested games and with them on SSD rather than a HDD, it was much faster. SSD's are coming down in price too. I plan to get a 240gb for just over $100. As for Windows, I can cold-boot windows to desktop (loading and tray complete) in ~ 20 seconds.

Thudo(12:05 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
@GX-X: you haven't then installed/used an SSD to understand how after 20years the HDD is BEYOND ANCIENT tech. As a boot and app/game drive it makes EVERYTHING run 10x faster than an HDD thus making a HUGE impact on the OS, Apps, and Games. Just the LOADING part is utterly massive. Its worth the $200-300 investment for a 128+Gb SSD.

Tom(12:10 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Thudo> @GX-X: you haven't then installed/used an SSD to understand how after 20years the HDD is BEYOND ANCIENT tech. As a boot and app/game drive it makes EVERYTHING run 10x faster than an HDD thus making a HUGE impact on the OS, Apps, and Games. Just the LOADING part is utterly massive. Its worth the $200-300 investment for a 128+Gb SSD.

Yep, he definitely doesn't know. SSD's are coming down in price pretty good though. I've got an OCZ AG3 and it #$@@@!@# rocks.

Thudo(12:14 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Back in 2008-09 man they were NOT too much an option (too expensive, low capacity, unreliable). Now they are REALLY becoming a fantastic option and make HDDs simply look like stone knives and bare skins. *HUGE* diff in everything you do on a PC and laptop. NO DEBATE!

gx-x(12:48 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Thudo> @GX-X: you haven't then installed/used an SSD to understand how after 20years the HDD is BEYOND ANCIENT tech. As a boot and app/game drive it makes EVERYTHING run 10x faster than an HDD thus making a HUGE impact on the OS, Apps, and Games. Just the LOADING part is utterly massive. Its worth the $200-300 investment for a 128+Gb SSD.

10x slower is fast enough for me, thanks ;) Loading maps is not frames per second :P And like I said - I am not in a rush. Most of my friends have SSDs so I pretty much know all I need to know. I've built rigs with SSDs in them so I have first hand experience. the "wow" effect lasts few days then you forget that you even have SSD. And no offense but NOTHING except loading/saving runs faster with SSD :) with 8+ GB of ram there is very little of both going on in the system so yea, I don't really need it and no one here is going to convince me otherwise. My closest friends failed at that, what chance do you guys have? :)

quote:

*HUGE* diff in everything you do on a PC and laptop. NO DEBATE!


Well, I guess I don't do that much on my PC. I load up Firefox once in 10 days and it stays open, like the rest of my apps. For work I load illustrator or photoshop, that takes few seconds and I'd rather buy 2TB of storage for 100$ then 120GB SSD to shave of a few seconds in loading once in a while.

Thudo(12:54 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Uhmm except EVERYTHING everywhere loads faster thus drastically increasing the overall positive experience There is no debate.. the ONLY caveat you might have is Reliability but thats much better now these days. HDDs still hold the cost/GB crown and some reliability but thats melting away now.. Thank gawd.. HDDs represent decades old has-been tech and needs to move out like the floppies.

Tom(01:05 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Wow factor is enough, 20 seconds to boot up windows fully functioning. No HDD can do that, not a chance. I'll never run my windows on a slow as shit HDD. Everything on that SSD flies. Eventually my key games will run on SSD too.

gx-x(01:31 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Tom> Wow factor is enough, 20 seconds to boot up windows fully functioning. No HDD can do that, not a chance. I'll never run my windows on a slow as shit HDD. Everything on that SSD flies. Eventually my key games will run on SSD too.

I beg to differ. I takes 18-19 seconds on mine, and yes, I get all desktop things, can start loading up browser etc. I takes ~30-40secs to load everything up, but I am at desktop in 18 sec. :) It just takes managed windows with no bloatware and unnecessary apps. I have 39 processes after boot up, including processes from 3rd party firewall and AV.

Anyway, look at it like this - gtx690 is way way faster then gtx 560 but I am just fine with gtx560, really. :) I don't have a need to utilize gtx690. I don't know how else can I put it for you guys. Besides, SSD is way to expensive to put games on it. And be real - how many games can you put on it? MAxPAyne 3 - 30GB, crysis 2 25GB and you are pretty much done with 120GB SSD since you have your OS and need to keep 20% of drive empty so it can retain performance. That's 20% of it's cost you are throwing away for nothing, and that would bother me pretty much.

PS. I don't restart my Seven unless I have to, and that is usually once a month if I don't fiddle with hardware.

PPS. Yes, I know how fast SSDs are, I never said that you guys are wrong, I just said that I don't need it, I don't want it even. I'll pick one up for myself when it's 100$ for 1TB, not before. I can't be bothered to migrate everything and change my organization of files and habits that I built over years. I keep my whole system system mirrored in case something should happen, that's how much I can't be bothered :D

Thudo(01:51 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
quote:
I beg to differ. I takes 18-19 seconds on mine, and yes, I get all desktop things, can start loading up browser etc. I takes ~30-40secs to load everything up, but I am at desktop in 18 sec. Smile It just takes managed windows with no bloatware and unnecessary apps. I have 39 processes after boot up, including processes from 3rd party firewall and AV.
HDD or SSD? If the former, expect a fraction of time on SSD.

quote:
Besides, SSD is way to expensive to put games on it. And be real - how many games can you put on it? MAxPAyne 3 - 30GB, crysis 2 25GB and you are pretty much done with 120GB SSD since you have your OS and need to keep 20% of drive empty so it can retain performance. That's 20% of it's cost you are throwing away for nothing, and that would bother me pretty much.
Well yeah the old argument. PC Games are fcuking bloat these days.. 30Gb games.. Gahhh!! Anyway, I put the games I really want speed with on a 256Gb drive.. 128Gb is ghey.. more an SSD has higher capacity, the faster it is.. Done! Anyway, SSD is farr more than gaming.. In the daily use of the PC its the boot/OS drive that needs to be the most nimble. That in itself will greatly make your PC use a far more positive experience in the long run.

quote:
I can't be bothered to migrate everything and change my organization of files and habits that I built over years. I keep my whole system system mirrored in case something should happen, that's how much I can't be bothered
Need whole system refreshes every 4-5 years for me. Clean slate.. OSes become stale after a while with all the add/removing of crap on them so sometimes its better to just start with a fresh new canvas.

gx-x(04:14 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Thudo> HDD or SSD? If the former, expect a fraction of time on SSD.



actually, SSD takes a little less time since OS booting is often waiting for things to get crunched in and out of RAM so SSD doesn't help as much there. Only after the desktop is loaded is when SSD is much faster then HDD for completing the rest of the boot. My best friend has almost the system as I do but he uses kingston 256GB SSD and I didn't notice his OS booting faster. Actually, nothing special, sure, things open faster but it's not like I need to wait 1 minute for something and would be done in a second with SSD. It's more like it needs 5 seconds with HDD and 1 sec on SSD. And that's the extrme case of, for instance, adobe illustrator loading. Firefox loads up in ~2 secs on HDD, instant on SSD, it's great, but I don't care really, like I said, I am in no rush :P

Anyway, we went quite a bit of topic, my sole point was that SSD won't improve framerate in games and we were taking about that :)

Thudo(04:20 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
- How long was the OS installed on the SSD? Kingston SSD? Pah.. that slow PoS? There are much faster SSDs which won't break the bank. Even the new Plextors SATA3s are quite nice. :D
- You do realize that each second adds up to considerable lost productivity over time? One lost 1-6 seconds here and there quickly adds up to MANY LOST HOURS ;)
- Off-topic, yeah, but the media type used gets you into your games quicker and ESPECIALLY reduces the transition between loading scenes. Its total win-win. Whats the point of higher frames but being denied getting to and within the game quicker and more nimble?

gx-x(10:16 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Thudo> - How long was the OS installed on the SSD? Kingston SSD? Pah.. that slow PoS? There are much faster SSDs which won't break the bank. Even the new Plextors SATA3s are quite nice. :D
- You do realize that each second adds up to considerable lost productivity over time? One lost 1-6 seconds here and there quickly adds up to MANY LOST HOURS ;)
- Off-topic, yeah, but the media type used gets you into your games quicker and ESPECIALLY reduces the transition between loading scenes. Its total win-win. Whats the point of higher frames but being denied getting to and within the game quicker and more nimble?


oh cmon now, srsly? :) OS installed on SSD ? Time of install depends on the carrier of the installation doesn't it? :) If you use microsofts DVD for installation, no SSD or raid is going to speed things up. If you use flash (usb pen drive or something) as install carrier you are going to be done in 12 mins on HDD and 10 mins on SSD (ditto).

quote:
- You do realize that each second adds up to considerable lost productivity over time? One lost 1-6 seconds here and there quickly adds up to MANY LOST HOURS ;)

don't, please. I dring like 40 beers a week. You know how many hours of POTENTIAL productivity I loose? Can you gurantee me me that I wouldnt have a nervous brake down if i didnt do it?
please, skip this "IF LOOP" scenarios, thank you :) When I load up my photoshop, it's all in RAM and I make at least 10$, SSD or no SSD. ;)

Thudo(11:09 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
quote:
oh cmon now, srsly? Smile OS installed on SSD ? Time of install depends on the carrier of the installation doesn't it? Smile If you use microsofts DVD for installation, no SSD or raid is going to speed things up. If you use flash (usb pen drive or something) as install carrier you are going to be done in 12 mins on HDD and 10 mins on SSD (ditto).
Uhmm no I was talking about how LONG the OS existed on that drive in question.. not time of installs (not relevant). If the OS has existed on any kind of media and gets pummeled over the years then yeah it generally slows down the OS over time. A full refresh cleans out all the crap and it runs well (until more crap shows up).

quote:
don't, please. I dring like 40 beers a week. You know how many hours of POTENTIAL productivity I loose? Can you gurantee me me that I wouldnt have a nervous brake down if i didnt do it?
Simple logic..

quote:
please, skip this "IF LOOP" scenarios, thank you Smile When I load up my photoshop, it's all in RAM and I make at least 10$, SSD or no SSD.
Uhmm no.. I'm talking about first run NOT subsequent re-runs (cached in memory). Stuff has to access the SSD/HDD first then puts it in memory obviously.

gx-x(11:33 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Thudo> quote:
oh cmon now, srsly? Smile OS installed on SSD ? Time of install depends on the carrier of the installation doesn't it? Smile If you use microsofts DVD for installation, no SSD or raid is going to speed things up. If you use flash (usb pen drive or something) as install carrier you are going to be done in 12 mins on HDD and 10 mins on SSD (ditto).
Uhmm no I was talking about how LONG the OS existed on that drive in question.. not time of installs (not relevant). If the OS has existed on any kind of media and gets pummeled over the years then yeah it generally slows down the OS over time. A full refresh cleans out all the crap and it runs well (until more crap shows up).

quote:
don't, please. I dring like 40 beers a week. You know how many hours of POTENTIAL productivity I loose? Can you gurantee me me that I wouldnt have a nervous brake down if i didnt do it?
Simple logic..

quote:
please, skip this "IF LOOP" scenarios, thank you Smile When I load up my photoshop, it's all in RAM and I make at least 10$, SSD or no SSD.
Uhmm no.. I'm talking about first run NOT subsequent re-runs (cached in memory). Stuff has to access the SSD/HDD first then puts it in memory obviously.


so obviously I agree and I can go back to my drinking problem?

Thudo(11:55 PM EDT - Aug,01 2012 )
Absolutely! I'll gladly join ya! :D

gx-x(01:20 AM EDT - Aug,02 2012 )
Thudo> Absolutely! I'll gladly join ya! :D

cheers! :D

Baconnaise(04:50 AM EDT - Aug,02 2012 )
I've had xp64 boot in the same or just fast as any ssd with w7 on it. Vanilla install with nothing else. Pretty sure I had two sata drives striped as boot though.

SSD's aren't as cheap for the space in comparison but they are much cheaper than they were a year or two ago and faster. You can pick one up depending on deals for anywhere between 30-60 dollars for a boot drive.

All comments

 Add your comment (free registration required)