f



Partition Magic can't see XP's partitions

I am running XP Pro + SP1.  My BIOS supports hard drives only up to 
137 MB.

Using XP's Disk Management I created several partitions on a 160 GB 
hard drive (132 GB, 8 MB, 8 GB, 19 GB and 15 GB unallocated).  

All seem to work alright.

For some reason Partition Magic 8 can not see any partitions on that 
hard drive and it says the whole drive is "bad".

I feel pretty certain that PM8 was previously able to show me the 
partitions on this 160 GB hard drive until I deleted them and re-
created another set of partitions.

Is it important or significant that PM8 currently can't see any of 
the partitions?
0
Mark
11/20/2003 8:17:52 AM
comp.pc.hardware.storage 8701 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

11 Replies
372 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 6

Adding the partitions gets 182.
-- 
Ron Sommer

"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:94395469752053A75@130.133.1.4...
> I am running XP Pro + SP1.  My BIOS supports hard drives only up to
> 137 MB.
>
> Using XP's Disk Management I created several partitions on a 160 GB
> hard drive (132 GB, 8 MB, 8 GB, 19 GB and 15 GB unallocated).
>
> All seem to work alright.
>
> For some reason Partition Magic 8 can not see any partitions on that
> hard drive and it says the whole drive is "bad".
>
> I feel pretty certain that PM8 was previously able to show me the
> partitions on this 160 GB hard drive until I deleted them and re-
> created another set of partitions.
>
> Is it important or significant that PM8 currently can't see any of
> the partitions?

0
Ron
11/20/2003 11:43:10 AM
> "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I am running XP Pro + SP1.  My BIOS supports hard drives only
>> up to 137 MB.
>>
>> Using XP's Disk Management I created several partitions on a
>> 160 GB hard drive (132 GB, 8 MB, 8 GB, 19 GB and 15 GB
>> unallocated). 
>>
>> All seem to work alright.
>>
>> For some reason Partition Magic 8 can not see any partitions on
>> that hard drive and it says the whole drive is "bad".
>>
>> I feel pretty certain that PM8 was previously able to show me
>> the partitions on this 160 GB hard drive until I deleted them
>> and re- created another set of partitions.
>>
>> Is it important or significant that PM8 currently can't see any
>> of the partitions?


"Ron Sommer" <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote:
>
> Adding the partitions gets 182.
>


Actually it sums to 174.  That "8 Mb" I wrote was not a typo.

WinXP's Disk Management reports the disk as having 173.46 GB 
capacity.  

160 GB x 1.07377 = 171.8.  [1 binary GB = 1.07377 decimal GB.]

Seems to me that Samsung rate their hard drives in binary GB.
0
Mark
11/21/2003 2:52:41 PM
Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in message news:943A9759427DB3A75@130.133.1.4...
>> Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote

>>> I am running XP Pro + SP1.  My BIOS
>>> supports hard drives only up to 137 MB.

>>> Using XP's Disk Management I created several partitions on a 160
>>> GB hard drive (132 GB, 8 MB, 8 GB, 19 GB and 15 GB unallocated).

>>> All seem to work alright.

>>> For some reason Partition Magic 8 can not see any partitions
>>> on that hard drive and it says the whole drive is "bad".

Cant say I have bothered to use it on an XP prepared drive.

When I do want to do some minor adjustments
to partition sizes I just use Drive Image 2002.

>>> I feel pretty certain that PM8 was previously able to
>>> show me the partitions on this 160 GB hard drive until
>>> I deleted them and re- created another set of partitions.

>>> Is it important or significant that PM8
>>> currently can't see any of the partitions?

Nope, likely just some stuffup in PM8


> Ron Sommer <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote

>> Adding the partitions gets 182.

> Actually it sums to 174.  That "8 Mb" I wrote was not a typo.

> WinXP's Disk Management reports
> the disk as having 173.46 GB capacity.

> 160 GB x 1.07377 = 171.8.  [1 binary GB = 1.07377 decimal GB.]

> Seems to me that Samsung rate their hard drives in binary GB.

Nope. Certainly doesnt with my 120GB Samsung drive.

XP shows the total capacity of the 3 FAT32 partitions
as 111.6GB in My Computer. And the physical drive
as 114495 MB in the propertys of that drive.


0
Rod
11/21/2003 11:27:45 PM
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Cant say I have bothered to use it on an XP prepared drive.
> 
> When I do want to do some minor adjustments
> to partition sizes I just use Drive Image 2002.
> 
>>>> I feel pretty certain that PM8 was previously able to
>>>> show me the partitions on this 160 GB hard drive until
>>>> I deleted them and re- created another set of partitions.
> 
>>>> Is it important or significant that PM8 currently can't see
>>>> any of the partitions? 
> 
> Nope, likely just some stuffup in PM8
> 
> 
>> Ron Sommer <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote
> 
>>> Adding the partitions gets 182.
> 
>> Actually it sums to 174.  That "8 Mb" I wrote was not a typo.
> 
>> WinXP's Disk Management reports the disk as having 173.46 GB
>> capacity. 
> 
>> 160 GB x 1.07377 = 171.8.  [1 binary GB = 1.07377 decimal GB.]
> 
>> Seems to me that Samsung rate their hard drives in binary GB.
> 
> Nope. Certainly doesnt with my 120GB Samsung drive.
> 
> XP shows the total capacity of the 3 FAT32 partitions
> as 111.6GB in My Computer. And the physical drive
> as 114495 MB in the propertys of that drive.

Using XP's Disk Management tool, I see these results on the same 
display:

Seagate Barracuda 60 GB comes up as 55.90 GB
Seagate Barracuda 120 GB comes up as 111.79 GB
old Samsung 20GB comes up as 19.01 GB
Samsung 160 GB comes up as 173.46 GB.

Maybe it's a glitch in XP but as I calculated above, the difference 
for the 160 GB drive is almost exactly the difference between decimal 
and binary GB.

However, the strange thing is that those "smaller than specified" 
values for the other three hard drives are presumably beig shown in 
*binary* GB.  Whereas the "larger than specified" value for the 160 
GB Samsung is presumably in *decimal* GB.
0
Mark
11/22/2003 12:23:11 AM
"Ron Sommer" <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote:

> 
> "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:943A9B97D18A03A75@130.133.1.4...
>> Alex Nichol <alexn.mvpdts@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>I am running XP Pro + SP1.  My BIOS supports hard drives only
>> >>up to 137 MB.
>> >>
>> >>Using XP's Disk Management I created several partitions on a
>> >>160 GB hard drive (132 GB, 8 MB, 8 GB, 19 GB and 15 GB
>> >>unallocated). 
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>All seem to work alright.
>> >>
>> >>For some reason Partition Magic 8 can not see any partitions
>> >>on that hard drive and it says the whole drive is "bad". 
>> >
>> > To have achieved that you have set the drive up using 48 Bit
>> > LBA - including in the partition tables.  You probably
>> > previously only had the first part partitioned, using 28 bit
>> > LBA.  PM 8 does not know about 48 bit, so is trying to
>> > mis-interpret the records in the table 
>>
>>
>> My BIOS can not be upgraded to 48 bit.
>>
>> Is it ok to use the 160Gb hard drive provided I access the
>> partitions via WinXP?  (XP Pro + SP1 in fact)
>>
>> Or am I likely to hit addressing problems at some later time?
> 
> If the Bios can't see all of the drive, then XP shouldn't be
> able to see it either.

Ron, I think that if you have XP + SP1 then even if your BIOS is not 
capable of 48 bit addressing, you can still see above 127 GB.

Have a look at the subthread starting with my posting.  Ignore the 
banter.  :-)


    From: Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk>
    Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage
    Subject: Re: Installing a DDO... HOW!?! Please help
    Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:57:34 +0100
    Message-ID: <news:B245ED363A75@130.133.1.4>

0
Mark
11/22/2003 12:30:52 AM
Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
in message news:943B3EEC20A73A75@130.133.1.4...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

> > Cant say I have bothered to use it on an XP prepared drive.
> >
> > When I do want to do some minor adjustments
> > to partition sizes I just use Drive Image 2002.
> >
> >>>> I feel pretty certain that PM8 was previously able to
> >>>> show me the partitions on this 160 GB hard drive until
> >>>> I deleted them and re- created another set of partitions.
> >
> >>>> Is it important or significant that PM8 currently can't see
> >>>> any of the partitions?
> >
> > Nope, likely just some stuffup in PM8
> >
> >
> >> Ron Sommer <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote
> >
> >>> Adding the partitions gets 182.
> >
> >> Actually it sums to 174.  That "8 Mb" I wrote was not a typo.
> >
> >> WinXP's Disk Management reports the disk as having 173.46 GB
> >> capacity.
> >
> >> 160 GB x 1.07377 = 171.8.  [1 binary GB = 1.07377 decimal GB.]
> >
> >> Seems to me that Samsung rate their hard drives in binary GB.
> >
> > Nope. Certainly doesnt with my 120GB Samsung drive.
> >
> > XP shows the total capacity of the 3 FAT32 partitions
> > as 111.6GB in My Computer. And the physical drive
> > as 114495 MB in the propertys of that drive.
>
> Using XP's Disk Management tool, I see these results on the same
> display:
>
> Seagate Barracuda 60 GB comes up as 55.90 GB
> Seagate Barracuda 120 GB comes up as 111.79 GB
> old Samsung 20GB comes up as 19.01 GB
> Samsung 160 GB comes up as 173.46 GB.

> Maybe it's a glitch in XP

Yeah, most likely. Likely its no coincidence that that drive is over 128GB.

> but as I calculated above, the difference for the 160 GB drive
> is almost exactly the difference between decimal and binary GB.

Yeah, but you can see from the Samsung web site
that they do use decimal GBs just like everyone else.

Very explicit on the bottom of
http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/SpinPointPSeries/HardDiskDrive_SpinPointPSeries_SP1614N.htm

> However, the strange thing is that those "smaller than specified" values
> for the other three hard drives are presumably beig shown in *binary* GB.

Yep.

> Whereas the "larger than specified" value for the
> 160 GB Samsung is presumably in *decimal* GB.

Nope. Samsung says that drive is 160GB using decimal GBs.
There must be some other reason for the size XP states.


0
Rod
11/22/2003 1:12:43 AM
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Using XP's Disk Management tool, I see these results on the
>> same display: 
>>
>> Seagate Barracuda 60 GB comes up as 55.90 GB
>> Seagate Barracuda 120 GB comes up as 111.79 GB
>> old Samsung 20GB comes up as 19.01 GB
>> Samsung 160 GB comes up as 173.46 GB.
> 
>> Maybe it's a glitch in XP
> 
> Yeah, most likely. Likely its no coincidence that that drive is
> over 128GB. 

And there I was thinking that XP + SP1 was able to properly handle 
hard drives over 128 GB without BIOS support.  Guess XP must still 
have glitches when it tries to do this.

 
>> but as I calculated above, the difference for the 160 GB drive
>> is almost exactly the difference between decimal and binary GB.
> 
> Yeah, but you can see from the Samsung web site
> that they do use decimal GBs just like everyone else.
> 
> Very explicit on the bottom of
> http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/SpinPointPSeries/Ha
> rdDiskDrive_SpinPointPSeries_SP1614N.htm 

Very true.  

> 
>> However, the strange thing is that those "smaller than
>> specified" values for the other three hard drives are
>> presumably beig shown in *binary* GB. 
> 
> Yep.

That is a bit worrying for me because I don't want to find there is 
some another (perhaps unannounced or currently unknown) glitch in XP 
which screws up the partition boundaries on that hard drive on 
account of XP doing some miscounting somewhere.

Maybe what I should do is partition this 160 GB drive with a 128 GB 
partition (just to be safe) and then have the remainder just used for 
non-critical data

>> Whereas the "larger than specified" value for the 160 GB
>> Samsung is presumably in *decimal* GB. 
> 
> Nope. Samsung says that drive is 160GB using decimal GBs.
> There must be some other reason for the size XP states.

I can't be the first person to hit this so I guess that somewhere it 
must be known.  

To be fair to Microsoft they do say explicitly in their article 
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013 that a 
48 bit BIOS is necessary.

Folkert seemed to believe (see ref below) that 48 bit BIOS support is 
not really necessary despite Microsoft's words in that document.  In 
a sense he is right because it seems my XP can access all the 160 GB 
without a 48 bit BIOS.  But maybe XP needs the 48 bit BIOS support 
for other drive support functions such as displaying decimal/binary 
values correctly.  I guess its possible that these other functions 
might turn out to be important.

Maybe I should ask Samsung direct.

----

Subject: Re: Installing a DDO... HOW!?! Please help
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:57:34 +0100
<news:941D5B245ED363A75@130.133.1.4>
0
Mark
11/23/2003 12:08:59 PM
"Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:943C7B983A8523A75@130.133.1.4...
> "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Using XP's Disk Management tool, I see these results on the
> >> same display:
> >>
> >> Seagate Barracuda 60 GB comes up as 55.90 GB
> >> Seagate Barracuda 120 GB comes up as 111.79 GB
> >> old Samsung 20GB comes up as 19.01 GB
> >> Samsung 160 GB comes up as 173.46 GB.
> >
> >> Maybe it's a glitch in XP
> >
> > Yeah, most likely. Likely its no coincidence that that drive is
> > over 128GB.
>
> And there I was thinking that XP + SP1 was able to properly handle
> hard drives over 128 GB without BIOS support.  Guess XP must still
> have glitches when it tries to do this.
>
>
> >> but as I calculated above, the difference for the 160 GB drive
> >> is almost exactly the difference between decimal and binary GB.
> >
> > Yeah, but you can see from the Samsung web site
> > that they do use decimal GBs just like everyone else.
> >
> > Very explicit on the bottom of
> > http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/SpinPointPSeries/Ha
> > rdDiskDrive_SpinPointPSeries_SP1614N.htm
>
> Very true.
>
> >
> >> However, the strange thing is that those "smaller than
> >> specified" values for the other three hard drives are
> >> presumably beig shown in *binary* GB.
> >
> > Yep.
>
> That is a bit worrying for me because I don't want to find there is
> some another (perhaps unannounced or currently unknown) glitch in XP
> which screws up the partition boundaries on that hard drive on
> account of XP doing some miscounting somewhere.
>
> Maybe what I should do is partition this 160 GB drive with a 128 GB
> partition (just to be safe) and then have the remainder just used for
> non-critical data
>

If the Bios doesn't support the 160GB drive, then you won't have a remainder
to work with.
-- 
Ron Sommer


> >> Whereas the "larger than specified" value for the 160 GB
> >> Samsung is presumably in *decimal* GB.
> >
> > Nope. Samsung says that drive is 160GB using decimal GBs.
> > There must be some other reason for the size XP states.
>
> I can't be the first person to hit this so I guess that somewhere it
> must be known.
>
> To be fair to Microsoft they do say explicitly in their article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013 that a
> 48 bit BIOS is necessary.
>
> Folkert seemed to believe (see ref below) that 48 bit BIOS support is
> not really necessary despite Microsoft's words in that document.  In
> a sense he is right because it seems my XP can access all the 160 GB
> without a 48 bit BIOS.  But maybe XP needs the 48 bit BIOS support
> for other drive support functions such as displaying decimal/binary
> values correctly.  I guess its possible that these other functions
> might turn out to be important.
>
> Maybe I should ask Samsung direct.
>
> ----
>
> Subject: Re: Installing a DDO... HOW!?! Please help
> Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:57:34 +0100
> <news:941D5B245ED363A75@130.133.1.4>

0
Ron
11/23/2003 1:09:57 PM
"Ron Sommer" <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote:

>> Maybe what I should do is partition this 160 GB drive with a
>> 128 GB partition (just to be safe) and then have the remainder
>> just used for non-critical data
>>
> 
> If the Bios doesn't support the 160GB drive, then you won't have
> a remainder to work with.


Ecen though my BIOS does not have 48-bit support my copy of XP (XP 
Pro + SP1) seems to allow me to partition and use the whole of the 
160 GB.
0
Mark
11/23/2003 7:51:01 PM
Mark M <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote in message news:943C7B983A8523A75@130.133.1.4...
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> Using XP's Disk Management tool,
>>> I see these results on the same display:

>>> Seagate Barracuda 60 GB comes up as 55.90 GB
>>> Seagate Barracuda 120 GB comes up as 111.79 GB
>>> old Samsung 20GB comes up as 19.01 GB
>>> Samsung 160 GB comes up as 173.46 GB.

>>> Maybe it's a glitch in XP

>> Yeah, most likely. Likely its no coincidence
>> that that drive is over 128GB.

> And there I was thinking that XP + SP1 was able to properly
> handle hard drives over 128 GB without BIOS support.

The MSKB article says very explicitly indeed that
you need BOTH the SP and support in the bios.

> Guess XP must still have glitches when it tries to do this.

Or that MS never claimed it would work
without bios support for those drives.

Maybe its just cosmetic too in the sense
that its the reported size thats wrong.

>>> but as I calculated above, the difference for the 160 GB drive
>>> is almost exactly the difference between decimal and binary GB.

>> Yeah, but you can see from the Samsung web site
>> that they do use decimal GBs just like everyone else.

>> Very explicit on the bottom of
>> http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/SpinPointPSeries/Ha
>> rdDiskDrive_SpinPointPSeries_SP1614N.htm

> Very true.

>>> However, the strange thing is that those "smaller than
>>> specified" values for the other three hard drives are
>>> presumably beig shown in *binary* GB.

>> Yep.

> That is a bit worrying for me because I don't want to find there
> is some another (perhaps unannounced or currently unknown)
> glitch in XP which screws up the partition boundaries on that
> hard drive on account of XP doing some miscounting somewhere.

Yeah, but you've always been a worrier |-)

> Maybe what I should do is partition this 160 GB
> drive with a 128 GB partition (just to be safe) and
> then have the remainder just used for non-critical data

I'm not convinced that that would guarantee no problem is possible.

>>> Whereas the "larger than specified" value for the
>>> 160 GB Samsung is presumably in *decimal* GB.

>> Nope. Samsung says that drive is 160GB using decimal GBs.
>> There must be some other reason for the size XP states.

> I can't be the first person to hit this so I
> guess that somewhere it must be known.

Very likely. Tho most may well just ensure that the bios is 48 bit capable.

> To be fair to Microsoft they do say explicitly in their article
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013
> that a 48 bit BIOS is necessary.

Precisely.

> Folkert seemed to believe (see ref below) that 48 bit BIOS support
> is not really necessary despite Microsoft's words in that document.

Yeah, but that fool is so stupid that he cant even manage to
work out that read ahead at the OS level wont necessarily
be reading contiguous sectors at the platter level of the drive.

> In a sense he is right because it seems my XP can access
> all the 160 GB without a 48 bit BIOS.  But maybe XP needs
> the 48 bit BIOS support for other drive support functions
> such as displaying decimal/binary values correctly.

Yep, there have been a few examples where MS OS
components have had significant brain farts at particular
boundarys when reporting drive capacity. Most obviously with
fdisk reporting the size over 64GB with drives bigger than that.

> I guess its possible that these other
> functions might turn out to be important.

Maybe.

> Maybe I should ask Samsung direct.

Nothing to do with Samsung.

> ----
>
> Subject: Re: Installing a DDO... HOW!?! Please help
> Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:57:34 +0100
> <news:941D5B245ED363A75@130.133.1.4>


0
Rod
11/23/2003 8:00:26 PM
"Ron Sommer" <rsommer@nospam.ktis.net> wrote in message news:%23JUlZMcsDHA.1876@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mark M" <MarkM_csiphsCANT_RECEIVE_MAIL@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:943C7B983A8523A75@130.133.1.4...
> > "Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Using XP's Disk Management tool, I see these results on the
> > >> same display:
> > >>
> > >> Seagate Barracuda 60 GB comes up as 55.90 GB
> > >> Seagate Barracuda 120 GB comes up as 111.79 GB
> > >> old Samsung 20GB comes up as 19.01 GB
> > >> Samsung 160 GB comes up as 173.46 GB.
> > >
> > >> Maybe it's a glitch in XP
> > >
> > > Yeah, most likely. Likely its no coincidence that that drive is
> > > over 128GB.
> >
> > And there I was thinking that XP + SP1 was able to properly handle
> > hard drives over 128 GB without BIOS support.  Guess XP must still
> > have glitches when it tries to do this.
> >
> >
> > >> but as I calculated above, the difference for the 160 GB drive
> > >> is almost exactly the difference between decimal and binary GB.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but you can see from the Samsung web site
> > > that they do use decimal GBs just like everyone else.
> > >
> > > Very explicit on the bottom of
> > > http://www.samsung.com/Products/HardDiskDrive/SpinPointPSeries/Ha
> > > rdDiskDrive_SpinPointPSeries_SP1614N.htm
> >
> > Very true.
> >
> > >
> > >> However, the strange thing is that those "smaller than
> > >> specified" values for the other three hard drives are
> > >> presumably beig shown in *binary* GB.
> > >
> > > Yep.
> >
> > That is a bit worrying for me because I don't want to find there is
> > some another (perhaps unannounced or currently unknown) glitch in XP
> > which screws up the partition boundaries on that hard drive on
> > account of XP doing some miscounting somewhere.
> >
> > Maybe what I should do is partition this 160 GB drive with a 128 GB
> > partition (just to be safe) and then have the remainder just used for
> > non-critical data

> If the Bios doesn't support the 160GB drive,
> then you won't have a remainder to work with.

He clearly does tho.

> > >> Whereas the "larger than specified" value for the 160 GB
> > >> Samsung is presumably in *decimal* GB.
> > >
> > > Nope. Samsung says that drive is 160GB using decimal GBs.
> > > There must be some other reason for the size XP states.
> >
> > I can't be the first person to hit this so I guess that somewhere it
> > must be known.
> >
> > To be fair to Microsoft they do say explicitly in their article
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;303013 that a
> > 48 bit BIOS is necessary.
> >
> > Folkert seemed to believe (see ref below) that 48 bit BIOS support is
> > not really necessary despite Microsoft's words in that document.  In
> > a sense he is right because it seems my XP can access all the 160 GB
> > without a 48 bit BIOS.  But maybe XP needs the 48 bit BIOS support
> > for other drive support functions such as displaying decimal/binary
> > values correctly.  I guess its possible that these other functions
> > might turn out to be important.
> >
> > Maybe I should ask Samsung direct.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Subject: Re: Installing a DDO... HOW!?! Please help
> > Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:57:34 +0100
> > <news:941D5B245ED363A75@130.133.1.4>
>


0
Rod
11/23/2003 8:01:24 PM
Reply: