| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Snow Leopard just a cheap Windows 7 knockoff? | |
|
||
| Time: 09:48 EST/14:48 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
"Where's the beef?" That's the idiom that jumps to mind as I work my way through Galen Gruman's "The 7 best features in Mac OS X Snow Leopard." I knew the features list would be lean -- Apple has deliberately undersold Snow Leopard by pitching it as a relatively minor release -- but please! Gruman's article reads like a laundry list of borrowed features and derivative works. It's as if someone at Apple grabbed a copy of the Windows 7 beta and simply Xeroxed the release notes. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:04:25 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 8/25/2009 10:19:53 AM |
|
yes, less the security that shipped in Windows Vista nearly three years ago and sans the excellent move to true x64 bit computing Microsoft achieved (OS X 64 will only support a very limited number of their computers initially and on the consumer side, one has to manually press and hold the 4 and the 6 key (while extending their left foot and holding a skate-key in the air during a thunderstorm) in order to boot into a native 64 bit environment.
All this after you consider that the number of devices supported by Apple under this new OS shrank very considerably. What has yet to be discussed at all is what is missing - per Dino Dai Zovi: Real ASLR (address space layout randomization). Library randomization with dyld loaded at a fixed location just doesn’t cut it. Full use of hardware-enforced Non-eXecutable memory (NX). Currently, only the stack segments are enforced to be non-executable. Welcome to the new millennium where buffer overflows aren’t only on the stack. Default 64-bit native execution for any security-sensitive processes. I don’t particularly care that it may waste 5% more memory and a little bit of speed, I want Safari, Mail.app and just about everything else that has security exposure to run as a 64-bit process. Simply because function arguments are passed in registers rather than on the stack, this makes working around ASLR and NX damn near impossible for many exploits. Sandbox policies for Safari, Mail.app, and third-party applications. Code execution vulnerabilities aren’t the only kind of vulnerabilities and good sandbox policies for security-exposed applications can help mitigate the exploitation of code execution and other vulnerabilities in these applications. I love the scheme-based policies, by the way. Mandatory code signing for any kernel extensions. I don’t want to have to worry about kernel rootkits, hyperjacking, or malware infecting existing kernel drivers on disk. Most kernel extensions are from Apple anyway and for the few common 3rd party ones, they should be required to get a code signing certificate. http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1325 |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/25/2009 10:49:25 AM |
|
#1: You must admit that Apple engineers are extremely impressive in how they can supposedly copy Microsoft and then release it first. I remember the same things being said when Vista was about to be released. Apple coped MS but somehow beat them to the punch. And now they're doing it again? Hmm, maybe the cart is before the horse here.
Speaking of Apple, I must admit that I'm very impressed by your ability to know everything about Apple even though they have a tiny market share, you don't use their products, you don't sell their products and you don't like the company. |
| #3 By 23443 (169.200.80.16) at 8/25/2009 10:58:41 AM |
|
#2:
Snow Leopard isn't released yet. Win7 is. How did Apple beat MS to the punch again? Oh, public release. Ok. Never mind that I already have it installed. TD |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/25/2009 11:17:17 AM |
|
#3: AFAIK, Snow Leopard will be available this Friday. When can I buy 7? This October, you say? Ok, thanks.
|
| #5 By 23443 (169.200.80.16) at 8/25/2009 11:25:06 AM |
|
7 is released, but not for sale to the public. Snow Leopard is not released yet. So Apple did not release Snow Leopard before 7. Period.
I understand that you can't buy 7 yet, but it is released. :) TD |
| #6 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 8/25/2009 11:32:24 AM |
|
#2, We study all operating systems and test our software on nearly all of them.
No, we don't like Apple's products. They do not meet our needs. What Apple should have copied (security model, atomicity, parallelism in terms of scaling, they didn't or can't). Their 64 bit implementation is deeply flawed and incomplete and in every regard that matters, they are not as good a value as Windows based PC's. Windows 7 was developed and tested in the open and went RTM before Apple's SL. I am testing and developing on the RTM bits on more than a dozen machines now. Most are x64 bit and each is a better value than any OS X based computer I have. I do have a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro... as well as 7 *nix boxes (though each has died twice!) The Mac notebook we had died also - main board. I run every disty of Xandros, Mint and Ubuntu released and RH on servers. It's been awhile since I had a Solaris box up, but I liked the one I had in between XP and Vista (Mar 2008) when I set out to build a perfect Vista Box. dev interests of late have been on MVC for ASP.NET, which has promise. It's very testable, so distributed dev is easier. Many of our customers' kids have MacBooks of one type or another. We repair them fairly often. We like the kids, think the unibody case is cool, but the rest is shite. The OS ( OS X ) is a joke and do at this point remember, our yongest guy has 20 years in the saddle as a CS and many are cryptographic researchers that came out of the agency. We know where the holes are and exactly how to leverage them. Most of us left the *nix professionally when the national standard technical workstation became, well.... a national standard... built on the NT kernel and for not one, but MANY good reasons. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/25/2009 11:57:23 AM |
|
#5: Now we're playing semantics. I would think that most people consider "released" to mean "available to the general public", and not "available to select insiders". At any rate, it's moot. I've said it a million times here; if the headline asks a question, invariably the answer is "no."
#6: We study all operating systems and test our software on nearly all of them. Well, there is a big difference between researching your competition and having the head of a tech company that doesn't do anything Apple to know particular niche OS features at that granular level. After all these years, I'm still unsure as to whether or not you legitimately have this knowledge or if you're just reading off an anti-Apple point list. I do have a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro... as well as 7 *nix boxes (though each has died twice!) The Mac notebook we had died also - main board. You say that as if to imply that only non-Windows systems have hardware failures. I can assure you that that is not the case. Perhaps you're suffering from Confirmation Bias? I run every disty of Xandros, Mint and Ubuntu released and RH on servers. Xandros is crap. Why Mint? It's basically Ubuntu with some binary blobs. Many of our customers' kids have MacBooks of one type or another. We repair them fairly often. You don't like Apple but now you're an Apple repair depot? How do you manage to get parts? Or do your guys just slap on a scope and reverse-engineer everything to fix them, lacking schematics and access to genuine Apple components? Speaking of Apple, I found these entertaining: http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-top_of_the_line-us-20090824_480x272.mov http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-surprise-us-20090824_480x272.mov |
| #8 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 8/25/2009 12:21:21 PM |
|
Latch,
Yes I really do study them all. Again, it's not just a a profession, it is a joy. That's not just lucky, it was by design. Mint? It's cool and adds in out of the box, many of the restricted packages one would install into Ubuntu anyway. Xandros is my favorite distro and has been for a long time. I think it is better than Ubuntu, which is fine, but slobbered on way too much for my taste. Seems everyone loves to love Ubuntu.. okaaay fine... just not me. You are kidding, right... most Macs die due to main board failures (heat). Fewer are as a result of a bad drive. Many get beat to hell and back and are "soft." We repair latches, hinges, swap out dead MB's from other dead MB's and a few drives - recover a lot of data, etc... it's not a line of business and we do it as a favor to our customers. Finally, there are more common goals inherent to operating systems than you seem to understand. Most companies, including Apple and the Linuces, copy Microsoft and follow their lead. NUMA/Atomicity, are only a couple of examples. Hardware NX support and ASLR for all processes, regardless of invocation, are security features unique to Windows Vista and 7 - they need to be copied by Apple, but they have not been yet. The new spots from Apple aren't even funny any more. They need a new line. They are so 2001. They need to move on. |
| #9 By 13997 (166.129.45.186) at 8/25/2009 1:05:25 PM |
|
OS X Snow Leopard - Or Snow Job?
Ok, here is the deal on OS X. 1) After 5 years of toutin 64bit computing OS X is still a 32bit Operating System and only offers 64bit addressing to applications, reducing all the other benefits of 64bit processing, from actually crunching 64bit chunks of at time to natively passing 64bit chunks of data to and from RAM and via devices. So does Snow Leopard fix this? Kind of... Sort of... Snow Lepard trying to be 64bit is going to hit more device blocks for native 64 bit drivers that users experienced with WindowsXP, and not be even half as smooth as Vista 64bit users. Snow Leopard also is still not going to be fully 64bit, think of it like OS/2 where it was 32bit OS, but some drivers and applications and kernel processes where 16bit thunking. 2) SMP processing - OS X is horrid at SMP processing. When Apple merged the BSD/MACH kernel sets into a XNU fashion (which they took from the OSS world as well), they realized that the kernel level multi-tasking with this configuration was poor. So they did some bandaid to help the performance of multi-tasking on a single CPU, but in the process destroyed multi-CPU and multi-core performance. (Ironically their single CPU multi-tasking performance still falls behind Windows NT and Linux by a large scale, so they didn't gain much.) So what you are left with on OS X is a series of kernel funnel locks with a poor scheduling agent. There is a reason it is quite humorous to see an 8 Core/CPU Xeon Mac Pro and people buying them. Because on OS X, an Application, a driver or OS X itself can 'lock' the OS and other applications from using the additional CPUS. And this is not just a theoretical lock, but one that happens quite often. So this means if you have a pretty 8 Core or 8 CPU OS X machine, most of the time, some process has the other 7 cores 'locked' and NOT available to any process, and they just sit there and do nothing. Even on a single CPU OS X system, the user will maybe notice the system is not multi-tasking very well even though it in theory should do pre-emptive mult-tasking well, but because of the kernel design doesn't, even on a single CPU tends to not handle mutliple threads at the kernel level well. Does Snow Leopard fix this? Kind of... They are trying to shove in a new OSS scheduler for SMP (of course, just like Darwin, they didn't even design the OSS fix for the SMP scheduling issues.) So SMP and multi-core processing should be better under OS X Snow Leopard, but still not stellar and nothing on the level of performance of Linux or the new reduced locked core of Windows 7. (Even Windows NT 3.1 had better single CPU thread scheduling, and SMP scheduling that OS X has.) |
| #10 By 13997 (166.129.45.186) at 8/25/2009 1:06:03 PM |
|
Latch, my friend, it is technical things like this many of us like to laugh at you, as these are real issues, but just on a high enough level that most OS X users will never understand them, and sit there with a pretty multi-core Mac and have OS X using only one CPU or have an application choke the kernel on a single CPU system so a background application becomes less responsive. Funny uh? PS Want more proof on these issues? Well look at the Snow Leopard features Apple is touting where they admit 'multi-core' support because they know OS X sucks at SMP. (Most Linux and Windows users also don't know about the OS X's horrid SMP performance and locking, as it is almost too silly for a Windows user to realize that a modern OS would have this much trouble with something NT and most other *nix kernel models have done well for nearly 20 years.) Also do a search for: Developers OS X applicationn unresponsive OS X Funnel Kernel Locks Apple took the quick way out with OS X and took OSS technology, and even an OSS concept of trying to merge the MACH/BSD kernel when they should have just started with a 'clean slate' and designed a kernel model that would have worked better for the upper level deigns of OS X. And now they are still applying band aids to two old kernel models from the 80s and struggling to get the performance and features out of the 'aged' kernel technoloy. This is why it is again quite humorous to see people say, "Microsoft should re-write Windows like Apple did with OS X and start off fresh." As it was Microsoft that did create a clean and extensible kernel technology from the ground up with NT, that is very extensible to about any new technology you can throw at it. (Like when they strapped on the WDDM in Vista.) The problem is, people that jump to OS X and Linux around the 2000 era, only see Windows as the Win9x platform which has nothing to do with the NT kernel under XP and Vista and Win7 that gives Microsoft a lot of advantage going forward. Advantages over where OS X is with regard to kernel technology, kernel features, and kernel performance. Microsoft is also still ahead of most of the OSS world like Like and even OpenBSD. So as Microsoft with Windows7 is able to increase performance on multi-cpu scaling to where 256 CPUs has little impact on core kernel scheduling, it is again humorous to watch OS X try to get even 8 CPUs running without applications or the OS locking everything to one CPU, and also see as the SMP scales up on OS X the huge drop in performance after you try to get past 4 processors. Linux you can see this curve drop at the 8-16 CPU Range, and on Windows7 you don't start to see much of any drop until 64 processors and then very little up to 256 concurrent CPUs. |
| #11 By 23443 (169.200.80.16) at 8/25/2009 1:09:23 PM |
|
Latch,
You implied by your first post that Apple's Snow Leopard was done before Win 7, and thus could not have been a copy of Win 7 in any way, when that is patently false. Win 7 went Gold before Snow Leopard. It's not semantics, it gets to the heart of your point. TD |
| #12 By 3 (213.81.83.50) at 8/25/2009 2:30:11 PM |
| Just to add that Snow Leopard is actually out - the dev build from over a week ago is the retail code |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 8/25/2009 2:36:45 PM |
|
#10: I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I was talking about the dubious claim that Apple is copying MS, and then you start with particulars about SMP and kernel locking. Back to the article, I did enjoy how the author crowed about how Windows delivered 64-bit before Mac, but (of course) doesn't mention that UNIX/Linux has been doing 64 bit for ages, without the headaches and hassles of Windows x64.
#11: I implied no such thing. What I said, and you can read the words yourself, was that "You must admit that Apple engineers are extremely impressive in how they can supposedly copy Microsoft and then release it first." I use 'release' in the common sense to mean generally available. For all I know, SL was finished months ago. Practically speaking, when two products are being developed side by side, you cannot judge who copied whom based on the finished product, especially when they are finished fairly close together time-wise. |
| #14 By 15406 (99.240.76.72) at 8/25/2009 6:08:49 PM |
| #8: For a while, I was trying to understand why you like the Xandros disty from all the others. Then I realized that Xandros tries hard to look like Windows, and Xandros was one of the very few Linux companies to sign the MS "Deal with the Devil" over bogus IP claims. Then it all made sense. |
| #15 By 1169 (87.194.35.234) at 8/25/2009 6:27:15 PM |
| As for the released or not released issue. 7 has been available to the public at large for free for several months. I am running it, my dad is running it, heck, even my neighbour is running it and has ordered their copy already. 7 has been tested by the user base, a very large user base, not just DEVs. So when it comes to being out there in the hands of thousands and thousands and thousands of users, 7 wins. For 7, going Gold is a formality. |
| #16 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 8/25/2009 8:09:31 PM |
|
#14, Latch, if I may speak for myself....
Xandros (esp Pro 4.x) is sold as a commercial product. It is supported as a commercial product and exists as a solid alternative to Windows desktop OSes in specific environments (say a managed call center (in Tuscaloosa, AL) I am very familiar with). As a commerical product, it doesn't pretend to be anything other than it is - a really solid operating system that benefits from many strengths - including their agreements with Microsoft. On specific (baselines) hardware builds using lower end Intel chipsets and processors and ATi/AMD GPU's, or on-board Intel GPU's, the distro is very solid. Because of their agreements with Intel, ATi/AMD and Microsoft, Xandros works extremely well with mixed back ends - AD join, as only one example, is natively supported, but so is needed call management and auditing SW that runs on a variety of servers - IIS front end and Oracle on RHAS for the DB. Similarly, MS Office may be run on Xandros without any modification. The desktop experience for users is familiar, 3D is fully supported (again with ATi/AMD, or Intel GPU's) and it is largely trouble free. The distro and the company behind it are "adult" and security suites are native to it - meeting compliance requirements and exceeding them. Under the hood, it is still a Linuces, but unlike many distros, there is a blame line and someone to call that will take ownership of the product they are selling. Other support contracts from competing distros aside, Xandros puts their advocacy for OSS behind their support for their customers, which they keep up front. As I said, it's an adult distro that doesn't try to pretend to be non-commerical. I respect that and where applicable, I recommend it. |
| #17 By 23275 (68.117.163.128) at 8/25/2009 8:16:35 PM |
|
#13, the dubious claim that Apple is copying MS
Latch, when Randall C. Kennedy calls out Apple and OS X SL for what it is and what it is not, it stands as a clear red flag that the newest update from Apple is a stinker. Mr. Kennedy not only pans OS X SL, he nailed it to the wall for poorly, or not all, copying important features that have been in Windows for years. Face it, as an OS, OS X has a very long and tough road ahead and while security may be at the head of the line, it's at a ceiling that guys like bvlug and TD and Avenger have been saying for a long time (namely, Mach is a big part of the problem and CS's all over the industry have no idea how Apple can get around the limitations inherent to it - apparently, neither does Apple - given how badly SL seems to have missed its marks). |
| #18 By 13997 (166.135.106.142) at 8/25/2009 8:54:18 PM |
|
#13 See Latch, this is exactly why we find you entertaining, as you don't even realize how silly you sound.
"but (of course) doesn't mention that UNIX/Linux has been doing 64 bit for ages, without the headaches and hassles of Windows x64. " No one was 'crowing' about it Windows being 'first', and yet you shove the straw man argument off to UNIX. Here is the fact. Today OS X IS STILL NOT 64bit, and even the applications it allows to run 64biit are 64bit memory address ONLY, not true 64bit execution. If you think Windows '64bit' was a mess, wait til you get your hands on Snow Leopard, as Apple is having a hell of a time with 64bit drivers, and they have a TINY amount of devices they have to support since they have controlled the hardware. Windows and non-Mac Unix OSes deal with an infiinite amount of devices and hardware, and so a few MFRs fail to do a 64bit driver and you call this a 'mess'? What planet are you from? Really? One other thing before I get to you 'impressive' statement about Apple copying Microsoft. The OS X 64bit issue is one that makes most Computer Engineers 'gag' because Apple put freaking G5s on the TV saying the world's first 64bit desktop computers. Which was false on EVERY level. The hardware was not the first, the desktop 64bit classifcation was not the first. And to top it all off, OS X was and still is a 32bit OS running on the computer making the fact that the CPUs were 64bit WORTHLESS. And to add one more nail to this insanity, when Microsoft was building the XBox 360 which runs on a G5 PowerPC Variant. Microsoft bought G5 Macs, and wiped them and installed a 64bit version of Windows native to the PowerPC G5. So today if you want to see a G5 PowerPC variant actually running a 64bit OS, go buy an XBox 360 - it runs 64bit Windows. Coming from a UNIX perspective, it is INSANE for UNIX fans to run out and buy OS X, as it is horrid when it comes to getting the most performance out the hardware, expecially when you get to heavy lifting and lots of multi-tasking or multi-processor usage. Which is why I brought up the problems with OS X, as they took some SOLID UNIX concepts and murdered them in the OS X kernel, leaving OS X horrible at CPU scheduling. Now on to Apple engineers being 'impressive' #1) They didn't copy Windows7, OS X Snow Leopard doesn't even COMPARE to Windows7. And we could start from the kernel and work our way up to the vector based composer in very specific details of how OS X really sucks and does things poorly or is a band-aid of technology to even get things to work. (Like they Hybrid GPU technology that OS X requires the GUI to be restarted and Win7 on the fly flips between the GPUs without the user or the applications missing a beat.) There are literally 100s of things that Windows7 does and can do that are TECHNICALLY not even possible for OS X Snow Leopard to do now and will never be able to do no matter how it is patched up. #2) Apple engineers basically stole OS X's kernel from the OSS world and the level that they continue to rip off or build from others people's work is extremely sad as they don't steal ideas, they take the actual code, not being able to invent the idea or write the code themsleves apparently. The OS X Kernel is bascially stolen verision of a hybrid MACH/BSD. Apple did nothing impressive with it, and as I tried to explain above, they in fact made it WORSE. |
| #19 By 15406 (99.240.76.72) at 8/25/2009 10:19:20 PM |
|
#18: No one was 'crowing' about it Windows being 'first', and yet you shove the straw man argument off to UNIX.
Sigh. Where did I say that he crowed about MS being first? I don't see that anywhere. From the article at hand (I assume you read it?): "64-bitness: Yippee! Apple finally goes 64-bit -- BFD! As a Windows user, I've been livin' la vida 64-bit for more than three years. Vista was the first mainstream desktop OS to deliver a viable 64-bit experience, and Windows 7 has taken this migration further by making it the preferred flavor for business users." Looks to me like Randall was crowing about it like it was some coup. Here is the fact. Today OS X IS STILL NOT 64bit, and even the applications it allows to run 64biit are 64bit memory address ONLY, not true 64bit execution. If you think Windows '64bit' was a mess, wait til you get your hands on Snow Leopard I don't have a Mac. I'm not a Mac guy. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Mac & OS X. I won't be getting my hands on it. You seem to be operating under the false assumption that I own & use a Mac. You would be wrong. The rest of your screed seems to be about Windows being better than Mac. That wasn't the point of this article or thread of debate. I stated that I doubted OS X copied Windows 7. Next thing I know, you're on me ranting about how inferior Mac is and expect me to be on the defensive. I couldn't care less. Go to ActiveMac to dump your angst. Now on to Apple engineers being 'impressive' I was being facetious, in that they would have to be if they managed to copy from MS and then get it out the door sooner. The OS X Kernel is bascially stolen verision of a hybrid MACH/BSD. Really? Please elaborate on what you mean here. I was under the impression that the BSD kernel was under the BSD license which permits pretty much any free or commercial use. |
| #20 By 2834353 (192.200.105.220) at 10/19/2014 8:16:33 PM |
|
http://www.wmthea.co.uk/nike-air-max-90-ice-c-36/ air max 90 ice
http://www.logosa.co.uk/ nike blazers http://www.buyairjordan1.co.uk/nike-sb-c-11/ nike stefan janoski http://www.adstock.org.uk/ nike roshe run women http://www.nbasiet.co.uk/ toms shoes uk http://www.mnshi.co.uk/ new balance trainers sale http://www.kobjd.co.uk/ nike air yeezy uk http://www.astrainers.org.uk/nike-free-50-c-43/ nike free 5.0 http://www.wmthea.co.uk/ nike air max uk http://www.prezzor.it/ ray ban occhiali http://www.freeog.fr/ nike free run http://www.roshev.es/ vans baratas http://www.max87f.es/ nike running mujer http://www.runforce.es/zapatillas-2014-c-3/ nike free run 2 mujer http://www.mnshi.co.uk/mizuno-wave-c-15/ mizuno running shoes sale http://www.wmthea.co.uk/nike-air-max-thea-c-34/ air max thea womens http://www.roshev.es/salomon-hombre-c-18/ salomon speedcross 3 cs http://www.freeog.fr/nike-roshe-run-c-7/ nike roshe run femme |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 169 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:04:25 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
