T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Message

bluetomgold · #31 Post by **bluetomgold** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:45 pm

ZaZ wrote:I had a Shuttle PC, which I hated. I was using it as a HTPC, which suited it well, but after six months or so the fan came on somewhat loudly and nothing I did could cure it. Shuttle support was useless and I gathered later this problem was not uncommon.

Mixed feelings about my Shuttle, but over all it has served me well. I bought it new (in parts) probably 12 years ago, specced the best components I could afford, and upgraded along the way. I also had issues with a noisy fan, but a cheap new one cured that. Right now the PSU is on its last legs (takes a few minutes to power up from cold) but in spite of that it is still in regular use and runs Windows 7 nicely. It is no longer quiet, I suspect partly because the PSU is in a bad way, and partly because the graphics card generates quite a lot of heat, but back in the day it was near silent. I bought it for primarily for audio production, have mixed and recorded quite a few albums on it, used it as an HTPC for a few years and even cut a feature length movie on it at one stage. Certainly there is classier hardware out there, but I can't really complain for what it cost me.

WizardOfBoz · #32 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:48 pm

Well, I found a reference for discontinued Lenovo models. You all may be aware of it, but I wasn't:
http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/ltwbook.pdf

The above covers a specific time frame, which may not cover your model. If not, look here for the relevant time frame of your Lenovo:
http://psref.lenovo.com/WithdrawnBook
The W520 specs are on page 449 of 709 of http://www.lenovo.com/psref/pdf/ltwbook_2013.pdf

As a matter of interest, the first reference states that on some models of the 2441, the ultrabay dock came with:
Some: Solid State Drive (SSD) / SATA 6.0Gb/s, 2.5" wide, 7mm high
Some: HDD / SATA 3.0Gb/s, 2.5" wide, 7mm or 9.5mm high, Active Protection System (TM)

So I think the ultrabay must be SATA3 (6Gb/s) capable, as Crystal Disk Mark, Samsung Magician, the published lenovo spec, the QM77 chipset published spec, and several experts in other forums have stated.

I've pulled my other disk out and put it in the ultrabay so many times that I have no energy left for removing it from W530 (2), putting it in the ultrabay, figuring out how Crystal Diskmark works, and and testing it. Anyone who has a W530, an ultrabay caddy, and an SSD is welcome to prove me wrong.

I hope these references are useful.

ajkula66 · #33 Post by **ajkula66** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 4:04 pm

WizardOfBoz wrote:
So I think the ultrabay must be SATA3 (6Gb/s) capable, as Crystal Disk Mark, Samsung Magician, the published lenovo spec, the QM77 chipset published spec, and several experts in other forums have stated.

(emphasis in the quote above is mine) Where *exactly* does Lenovo state that the *30 series UltraBay is capable of running at SATA III speeds? Not of accepting SATA III drives, which we all know it is.

I've pulled my other disk out and put it in the ultrabay so many times that I have no energy left for removing it from W530 (2), putting it in the ultrabay, figuring out how Crystal Diskmark works, and and testing it.

But you do have the energy to repeat your unproven presumption time and time again. Not to mention the fact that the first quoted statement references CDM while the second one clearly implies that you don't know how to use it.

WizardOfBoz · #34 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:13 pm

ajkula66 wrote:But you do have the energy to repeat your unproven presumption time and time again.

As I see it, we are both asserting a position. I am asserting that the W530 Ultrabay is SATA3 capable, with the right drive. You are, by constantly questioning, implicitly asserting it is not. I have provided supporting facts, such as:
1) Samsung Magician states that the port is SATA 6Gb/s (SATA3) on both my main and ultrabay slots.
2) You suggested cdm. I downloaded it. I opened it. In the general area, it stated that both main and ultrabay drives were SATA/600 current/SATA 600 capable.
3) I provided a quote to a Lenovo spec-sheet that said that a SATA 3 SDD was an option in the Ultrabay (it also said you only get SATA performance if you use an HDD).
4) I provided a link to the the Intel QM77 chipset spec, which states that two SATA 3 ports are supported. Presumably, Lenovo hooked both of these up to something - they didn't waste an expensive SATA3 port.
5) I have provided links to other experts stating that the main and ultrabay drives ports in the W530 are SATA3, and the mSATA port is SATA 2.

You have not offered any measured data at all. You have ignored facts, mfrs data sheets, and logic. You have used ad hominem arguments to belittle others who have offered an honest opinion, which they've backed up with facts. Isn't it you who is offering an "unproven presumption" that the W530 Ultrabay port is not SATA 3? Now, you may well be right. You may have tests, using an SDD in the ultrabay slot, showing that one only gets SATA I or II rates. If so, pony up and share 'em. If not, I suggest you stop repeating unproven presumptions, and for heavens sake stop accusing me of doing the same. Repeating an assertion for which you repeatedly offer no support makes your notes look foolish.

In other words, put up (data, or at least a valid, non-ad-hominem counterargument), or shut up.

ajkula66 wrote: Not to mention the fact that the first quoted statement references CDM while the second one clearly implies that you don't know how to use it.

Dude, I'd never heard of cdm before you mentioned it. I downloaded it. Opened it. It gave me some data I was interested in. I closed it. And quite frankly, part of the reason I'm not interested in learning to use it is the passive/aggressive arrogance of your notes makes you a downer to communicate with. More interested in showing you are right than helping. I'll tell you what. I'm going to learn how to do a cdm bandwidth test. I'm going to do it and definitively will know what the Ultrabay SATA spec is. AND I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU THE RESULTS.

#35 Post by **rkawakami** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:44 am

@WizardOfBoz:

No need to get snotty or juvenile about this. If you do get the data and it supports your assertion that the Ultrabay is SATA III capable, then I'm sure that everyone here would benefit from that knowledge. By the same token, if it turns out that the Ultrabay does NOT attain SATA III speeds, then I hope you'll be honest enough to admit it and then we can all move on. It would also help to post screenshots of the Samsung Magician and CrystalDiskMark results; I'm not from Missouri but in this case, you'll have to show me some hard data. If you don't have any way to post the images, PM me and I'll let you know how to get them to me.

If I had a W530 I would run the test myself just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Also, words of wisdom, or at least I hope they are (I'm not talking as an admin here)... you can take it or leave it... Written communications like that here in the forums is a poor replacement for face-to-face discussions but that's what we're stuck with. The lack of body language and speech inflections sometimes makes it hard to get the "feel" of the conversation. Each person also has their own style of posting. Some are brief, while others (like me for example) are sometimes TOO wordy. I don't know your background, nor how long you've been around forums like this one but responding to an argument/disagreement with an aggressive tone is not going to win you any points. From what I've seen of your posts up to the last one, you've taken the correct course in gathering data and documenting this issue.

WizardOfBoz · #36 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:35 am

Ray,

Thanks for your very even-keeled effort to maintain civility and a commodious, collegial exchange here. I like the site, and if my last post detracted, I do apologize.

The thing is, after several of my posts offered facts, data, other expert opinion, results from tests I had run, and several responses were received that, frankly, convinced me that their author was more interested in showing off their knowledge than in helping in any material way, the last line of my last note was pretty much saying "I don't have any use for your lack of helpfulness and disrespectful postings, let's agree to not chat anymore in the future". It was hyperbole, intended to be direct to the addressee and mildly amusing to others. I guess it was less amusing than I intended! Sorry. You've noted that "From what I've seen of your posts up to the last one, you've taken the correct course in gathering data and documenting this issue." Thanks. That's what I've tried to do from the start.

Regarding the issue at hand, as to whether the 2nd QM77 SATA3 channel is hooked up to the ultrabay or not, I actually considered the matter settled, at least for now. It is connected. Period. Perhaps that bald statement will motivate others to actually do the test. I don't have time to swap out the SSD in W530 number 2 into W530 number 1 (again*) to do the test, but when I receive today the new memory I ordered I'm going to redeploy the 500Gb SATA3 SSD in W530 number 2 into the ultrabay of W530 number 1. Perhaps then I can learn how to use cdm.

Again, your efforts to maintain civility and commodious interaction are admirable and appreciated.

Jim

* I hate those little screws on the caddy

brchan · #37 Post by **brchan** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:55 pm

I have a W530, HDD ultrabay, and a SATA III Samsung 840 PRO SSD. Unfortunately, the W530 is about 1000 miles away, since I did not bring it with me to campus

. If the issue of whether or not the ultrabay in the W530 is Sata III is not solved, I would be willing to bench the drive in the ultrabay and show you the results. That would be in about 6 weeks though.

WizardOfBoz · #38 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:11 pm

brchan,

Your offer is a nice one. Although I must say that if a W530 wasn't good enough to make the cut and travel to campus with you, you must be in a really terrific program! Wow! What are you using at school? Do I take it correctly you are at Purdue? I'm a Big Ten engineer myself (Wisconsin, Chem. Eng.).

If you look back, a forum member stated that the Ultrabay was SATA II. I had just read about this on other forums. In the other forums, experts gave facts (mainly, that the QM77 chipset supports 2 SATA3 channels), and test results that their mSATA spot did not support SATA3. Also, I had just had the system disk from one W530 (an 850 Pro 512Gb) in an Ultrabay in another W530, and my recollection was that the transfer (I was migrating ~200Gb) absolutely screamed. Much faster than I was used to. I had put the 850 Ubay SDD back into my first W530 as the system disk. And then I posted here that I suspected that the Ubay drive was SATA III. There was pushback (no data, just pushback). So I swapped drives (again), and ran Disk Magician. It said SATA 3 for both main and Ubay drives. Replaced the drive in my first W530. Posted these results. Got pushback (no data, just pushback) and a suggestion to use "cdm". After an exchange, cdm was clarified: Crystal Disk Maker. So I installed cdm, swapped disks into the Ubay, and opened the program. The cdm general screen said that both the main and Ubay channels were SATA 600 current and SATA 600 supported. The cdm options were 150,300, and 600, which I assumed were the 1.5, 3, and 6Gb/s, or SATA, SATA2 and SATA3. So, having cdm tell me this, I posted results. I also posted some spec sheets from Lenovo that said that they offered a 6Gb/s SSD in the Ubay drive. I felt that this was getting near definitive, and so I swapped the drives back. Again, I got pushback with no supporting data. In fact, the poster accused ME of "repeated unsupported assumptions". As the fellow had done absolutely nothing to support his assertion, and was implicitly telling me to do the legwork by running the bandwidth tests. So I gave up on him publicly. My point was not to give up on you, Ray, or other forum members.

I use my laptop to model disease and drug action. Right now modeling growth and development of infants for a charitable foundation. I need a pretty good rig. Even as I write, I'm awaiting the UPS man who should be bringing me 32Gb of DDR3, PC3-14900 XMP memory. When I get this installed, and the 6205 swapped out for the 6300 WLAN lying on my desk, I'm going to back everything up, and then repurpose the 850 Pro 512Gb I have in the first W530. My work rig will then have two 850 Pro 512Gb (main and Ubay). The other machine will get a 256Gb 840 Evo, and I'll load it up with Win 7 Pro SP1 and sell it.

When all that's done, I should be able to do the cdm test pretty easily myself without having to undock, swap disks, etc. Happy to do so, and I'll be sure to share the results with you.

WizardOfBoz · #39 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:05 pm

brchan,

The new memory arrived, has been installed, and works. Memory speed reported at 933MHz. DDR3 is double data rate, so that's 1833MHz front side bus speed. Woohoo!

Also, the Intel 6300 Ultimate N 3x3 WLAN adapter I picked up cheap on ebay was installed, and it worked and did not generate an 1802 error. Couldn't find the cable wiring allocation, but as I say it works, so I must have guessed right.

This will allow me to start cleaning stuff off other machines, and I'll be able to sell my other W530 (3820QM, 16Gb, K1000, the high res screen, and will have the 6205 2x2 WLAN and Bluetooth installed, probably with a 256 Gb Samsung 840 Evo, and a clean install of Win 7 64 Pro and a legit version of Office 2010, with CDs). Plus, I'll be selling two T61ps, both with 8Gb, one T9500 and one T9300, each with a 1Tb Seagate Hybrid drive on which a clean install of Win 7 pro 64 will be installed. IF it's Kosher, I'll announce when it goes on eBay. If that's not Kosher, look for these in the next few weeks.

The point is, one part of this will be to wipe the Samsung 850 Pro system disk currently in the "for sale" W530. Once that's done, it will be easy enough to do the cdm benchmark.

I know we all wait with bated breath...

#40 Post by **JaneL** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:53 pm

WizardOfBoz wrote: You have not offered any measured data at all. You have ignored facts, mfrs data sheets, and logic. You have used ad hominem arguments to belittle others who have offered an honest opinion, which they've backed up with facts. Isn't it you who is offering an "unproven presumption" that the W530 Ultrabay port is not SATA 3? Now, you may well be right. You may have tests, using an SDD in the ultrabay slot, showing that one only gets SATA I or II rates. If so, pony up and share 'em. If not, I suggest you stop repeating unproven presumptions, and for heavens sake stop accusing me of doing the same. Repeating an assertion for which you repeatedly offer no support makes your notes look foolish.

In other words, put up (data, or at least a valid, non-ad-hominem counterargument), or shut up.

I'm not as nice as Ray. The next time you call someone here foolish or tell anyone here to shut up, you'll be gone.

FWIW, George has probably forgotten more about ThinkPads than you'll ever know.

#41 Post by **BillMorrow** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:47 pm

if i may..?!
jane and ray have the authority to do whatever is required to keep things running smoothly..
i have not been watching as closely as i should recently.. had some sort of flu bug.. nasty thing..!

a good rule to observe for forum members is: DO NOT POKE THE BEAR with a stick..!

or the bear WILL poke you back and her stick has a delete button attached..

this place is a place for discussion, NOT a modern day war of he roses and you can see, from current events in england, how that turned out for one notable member of the house of lancaster..

Cordially,

WizardOfBoz · #42 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 11:12 am

Guys, I guess I just took offense at being told I was "repeating unsupported assumptions" after spending a week of swapping disks in and out and doing some of the very tests that had been suggested by ajkula66. As a practicing engineer, "repeating unsupported assumptions" is about as negative a thing as you can say and, well, them's fightin' words. Bill, to use your analogy, there's more than one bear in the woods that felt like it was getting poked.

But a wise bear knows when to stop snapping at the guy with a stick. As I've been gently counseled and fairly upbraided by three moderators who are all very temperate and even-keeled in their wording, allow me to apologize for anything I've said that's unfair or intemperate. To the moderators, and to ajkula66. My goal was to find an answer to a question, and to offer facts and information to the forum members. I think I've done that, but the distracting stuff has reduced its value.

Bill, I've put my stick down. Thanks for your note.

Also, allow me to say I hope you feel better. I got a flu shot myself, but in the interesting health care world of today, my provider only paid for a trivalent,and not a quadrivalent shot. So, I ended up going through a bout of flu myself this season. Meh.

bluetomgold · #43 Post by **bluetomgold** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:32 pm

Arguments aside (and I can see both sides here) I appreciate the advice I got from all posters. I've now got my W520 and have started the process of getting it how I like it. Unfortunately the clean OEM install of Window 7 Pro supplied with the machine seems to come with loads of ThinkBloat, most of which I am sure I could do without, just need to sift through and find out what I need and what I don't - in a way I feel that it would be easier to start again, but I've started this way so will continue...tips welcomed!

First impressions were good - it's a ThinkPad! Keyboard is great, but I have to say I prefer the trackpad (and buttons) on the T61. Also, although the screen is very sharp and bright, the T61 is easier on the eye. So far subjective performance is marginally better. I ran the T61 without antivirus, generally kept networking switched off, and filled it with fast ram. With a minimal install of Windows 7 (albeit 32 bit) the T61 is still a snappy machine for its years. However it should be an advantage being online and I suspect that once I put the W520 to serious work it's processing power will make itself known. Plus it's got room for more ram, and faster disks.

I was surprised that the Windows experience rating was marginal between the machines - in both cases limited by graphics performance for Aero - 4.1 on the T61 and 4.9 on the W520 - I was expecting more of a boost in this area, I wonder if I am using the wrong drivers...

theterminator93 · #44 Post by **theterminator93** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:27 pm

Check the nVidia Optimus settings. It may be "giving" the Windows Performance Assessment executable the integrated HD Graphics instead of the nVidia.

WizardOfBoz · #45 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:06 pm

theterminator93 wrote:Check the nVidia Optimus settings. It may be "giving" the Windows Performance Assessment executable the integrated HD Graphics instead of the nVidia.

+1

I think you can select "discrete" (the nVidia kX000, as opposed to the "integrated" Intel or the "Optimus" which automagically selects) graphics in bios. I'm able to load the direct nVidia driver for my K2000M (in a W530), it is version 9.18.13.4788, dated 3/15/15. If you download the nVidia driver from their site, you may have problems with sound. I did. I found that the said driver installed nVidia sound drivers which interfered with RealTek HD and Jabra (bluetooth phone headset) drivers. I figured the least disruptive thing to do was to disable the nVidia drivers. I did, and my sound came back.

theterminator93 · #46 Post by **theterminator93** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:24 pm

You can also select "High-performance nVidia Graphics" in the "Preferred Graphics Processor" setting from the nVidia 3D settings control panel. At least - that's what I did. My WPA score for GPU on my T420 went from 4.6 to 6.5. Of course, your score should be higher again compared to my NVS 4200m's...

WizardOfBoz · #47 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:50 pm

Is that the same as selecting the PhysX processor, terminator?

BTW, I just went from a T61p to a W530. Strangely, I don't notice much difference in how fast I can type in MS Word...*

I mention this because, even with the K2000M graphics processor, my WEI graphics score is only 6.9. My memory and hard disk operations are 7.9 (the max) and my CPU ops per second is 7.8. So, apparently, MS thinks my graphics processor is dragging me down. Plenty fast for me, though.

*To be honest, I do notice a faster results when I run Matlab, R, and other (even compiled Fortran!) programs.

theterminator93 · #48 Post by **theterminator93** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 5:53 pm

It's under "Manage 3D Settings." Here's a little write-up of it...

http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/Nvidia.htm

bluetomgold · #49 Post by **bluetomgold** » Wed Apr 08, 2015 3:08 pm

theterminator93 wrote:It's under "Manage 3D Settings." Here's a little write-up of it...

http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/Nvidia.htm

Thanks! Unfortunately not having much luck with that guide, the settings are slightly different with the later driver. I've set the Nvidea as the preferred card in my base profile, but it seems that the onboard Intel processor is still doing most of the hard work. Still scoring 4.7 for Aero, but 6.7 for 3D.

In the program settings lots of stuff won't allow me to select the Nvidia card (e.g. Windows explorer). Am I missing a trick or is this the best I will get?

WizardOfBoz · #50 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Fri Apr 10, 2015 9:38 pm

I don't know what the algorithm is for switching between Intel and nVidia GPUs, but is there a reason you don't want to set the processor to discrete in bios? It will have an effect on battery life, but other than that, what is the downside? Or, looking at it in the opposite way, are there issues with graphical performance that make you need the faster speed?

I guess if you are a road warrior, away from power connections (on the plane, etc) a lot, and you have some programs that need the nvidia GPU's power, you could select Optimus. I set my BIOS to "discrete". If battery were the sole issue, I'd select "integral".

The benchmarks are useful, but they can drive you crazy and may not reflect what happens when doing actual work.

bluetomgold · #51 Post by **bluetomgold** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:27 pm

WizardOfBoz wrote:I don't know what the algorithm is for switching between Intel and nVidia GPUs, but is there a reason you don't want to set the processor to discrete in bios? It will have an effect on battery life, but other than that, what is the downside? Or, looking at it in the opposite way, are there issues with graphical performance that make you need the faster speed?

I guess if you are a road warrior, away from power connections (on the plane, etc) a lot, and you have some programs that need the nvidia GPU's power, you could select Optimus. I set my BIOS to "discrete". If battery were the sole issue, I'd select "integral".

The benchmarks are useful, but they can drive you crazy and may not reflect what happens when doing actual work.

I suppose I'm just going on the fact that it doesn't feel significantly more responsive than the T61. Was wondering if better performance for Aero would help. I'm not bothered about power usage, am usually plugged in.

Have also had some bugs with the display especially when splitting a window across two monitors - I think the machine uses the nvidia gpu for the VGA output. In fact, I've lost conmmunication with my firewire audio interface a couple of times when using the mixer software - it seems to be a graphics issue as the mixer display bugs out when it's displayed on the laptop's screen - no issues when it's on the second monitor (nvidia gpu).

I did attempt to disable the Intel GPU, but I'm embarrassed to admit that I couldn't work out how to get into bios. I disabled it in the device manager, but then lost the display, had to reboot twice and reset it in safe mode.

brchan · #52 Post by **brchan** » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:38 pm

Changing to discrete graphics is under "config->Display" in the BIOS. For the "graphics device" option, change it to "discrete graphics". After, I would uninstall the intel graphics driver and reinstall the NVIDIA driver from NVIDIA's drivers web page.

You shouldn't notice much performance difference when typing MS word on the machines. But when you get to more heavy javascript web pages or do any media or computation work, the difference is very noticeable.

bluetomgold · #53 Post by **bluetomgold** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:38 pm

Well, I've set the graphics to discrete mode in bios and windows has installed a new driver for me. Interestingly, performance seems the same, windows experience is still reporting 4.7 for aero, but actually reporting a slightly lower figure for gaming (6.6) than with the previous setting.

Under "manage 3d settings" some programs are apparently still using the integrated graphics, which is weird.

Oh, and I'm not sure if it's correct but I've read that since changing the bios settings I will no longer be able to use dual monitors!

Maybe I need to install the driver manually. What am I looking for?

brchan · #54 Post by **brchan** » Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:54 pm

I forgot to add that you should set "os detection for nvidia optimus" to disabled. It is in Config->Display. Don't use the drivers that Windows installs. Uninstall all display drivers and install the nvidia driver from here http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us. Make sure to select "quadro" for series, and "quadro series (notebooks)" for product series. The rest you should be able to fill out.

The nvidia card is able to output to 3 displays: internal lcd, mini display port, and vga

This has been proven here https://forums.lenovo.com/t5/W-Series-T ... -p/1869812

WizardOfBoz · #55 Post by **WizardOfBoz** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 8:21 am

I agree with brchan (or at least I did what he suggests: I loaded the latest nVidia drivers for the K2000M.)

If you run the passmark benchmark, or the Windows experience tests, I'd be interested in knowing if you get a better result undocked or docked. My hypothesis is that there is some bandwidth used up when the native 1920x1080 is translated to my old Dell's 1600x1200. But my free trial period has timed out for passmark, so answering that question will cost me 25 bucks to buy the sw.

I think I stated this before, but in my case the nVidia install also installed nVidia HD audio drivers. In the "sound" program, you can disable these. I didn't have sound until I did that.

bluetomgold · #56 Post by **bluetomgold** » Wed Apr 15, 2015 7:21 pm

Got new driver working - thanks guys. WEI rating now 5.2. Intel integrated graphics still showing up in device manager.

bluetomgold · #57 Post by **bluetomgold** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:19 pm

The intel integrated graphics just won't go away...

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7672/169 ... 3352_b.jpg

MOD edit: picture way too big, tags removed. Max 50KB allowed. Please read the Forum Rules, especially Section 5.

brchan · #58 Post by **brchan** » Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:29 pm

Did you set optimus detection to disabled in bios and uninstall ALL nvidia (includes optimus driver) and Intel HD drivers, then install the nvidia driver (non optimus version from nvidia website)?

T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Re: T61 user - time for an upgrade?

Who is online