George Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 http://newsletter.alphasoftware.com/nw146.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth2k1 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Very interesting article. Although given the requirements, some of those plug ins don't seem to be necessary and may be accomplished with regular FM functionality. But that is speculation because the requirements are brief. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Knippel Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 That article has some SERIOUS problems and seems to be seriously skewed in favor of Alpha Five for alot of bogus reasons. First this completely omits any kind of development costs. The difference between the two is completely unknown at this point, although I have never heard of anyone able to compete with Filemaker on development costs. Then the outlay of products: the purchase of Filemaker Server and Filemaker Unlimited will basically mean that this whole solution is web based. This means that the author left out the web development from the equation, which in the case would be a negative against Filemaker. The other option is the licensing of Filemaker Pro software, which would generally be offset by the loss of the web development efforts. In general this is a negative for Filemaker. Next is performance: The author then ignores the whole performance issue of Alphas Five, which is not server based, but peer-to-peer (at least it appears that way from the article) and with potentially hundreds of users across multiple continents this is a HUGE issue. If this is the case, then this is a gigantic benefit of Filemaker, which is a true client-server RDBMS. Finally there is the licensing agreement: The author makes note of the extremely liberal developer licensing agreement for Alpha Five, which from the sound of it, I would not expect to stay that way (Filemaker 3 had an equally liberal policy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 While I have occassionally slammed FMI for their incredible sloppiness and stupidity, the product has a lot going for it. I just checked the Alpha website and what I concluded about pricing is: To do unlimited runtimes with FM (purchasing the developer version) is in the $400 range. To do the same with Alpha 5 you need a licenced copy of AL 5 ($349) and the developer's version ($1500)...not all that CHEAP. Without doing much more analysis, I can't tell whether we're comparing apples to oranges, but I for one am not impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonwood Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 this completely omits any kind of development costs This looks like it was done by someone who is employed by a company to manage their database system. In this position of course it is in the individuals best interest to use a system that requires a lot of development time (think job security), and a low purchase price (for presentations to management). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Hey guys - I have been an FM develeloper since ver 3 and no I dont work for Alpha. 1. The plugins were required for the management system, I simply did not list all the specs in the overview. 2. FM is not a client server DB. It is a flat file system and only operates as a front end just like Alpha. In fact it is Alphas distributed shadow client capability that makes it more suitable for corporate enterprise distribution. 3. FM Developer is nothing but a copy of FM standard bundled with the developer tool. I own and use all these FM tools. I fully expect people to be religiously attached to FM. I was for many years. But I also have been burned too many times on large $$$ FM projects to not recognize a better solution when I see it. While FM still has a few advantages for smaller workgroup solutions. The Alpha company is fast closing the gap. And I wasn't kidding when I said the Alpha product is easier and faster to use with stronger features - most of which are not even included in FM. Go ahead and beat me up if you want but you would do yourself a favor by getting familiar with Alpha. Marc King www.kingsrealm.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatoli Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Maybe if the Alpha site was nicer... Anyway -- is Alpha also for Macs? And although FM is sort of Flat file it is the easiest relational database system around. FM is also full Server-Client, because the client is doing processing and the server just supplies the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Hey Anatoli, Yes FM is it for Mac But Easier is just not true. You have to try it to believe it. Also - no such thing as a sort of client server. True client server systems(SQL, Oracle) use a thin client and a software managed hand shake to parse out thousands of simultanious user requests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 In the January 2003 issue of PC Magazine, they concluded that there were a number of important features missing from Alpha (web publishing for one), and it also had an inconsistent interface. Their choice for ease of use and power...Filemaker 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 True but... did you read their plans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Knippel Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 2. FM is not a client server DB. It is a flat file system and only operates as a front end just like Alpha. In fact it is Alphas distributed shadow client capability that makes it more suitable for corporate enterprise distribution. Filemaker is a client-server RDBMS. Filemaker Server and Filemaker Pro client make a client-server system. While Filemaker (as of v2.1) used to be flat-file, all versions since have been fully relational. While I do not know enough about Alpha's system to comment, it seems to me that it is more thier licensing agreement that make is so suitable to your needs. In general your comments show a serious lack of knowledge of Filemaker, while this may or may not be true, what you have stated thus far indicates this. Go ahead and beat me up if you want but you would do yourself a favor by getting familiar with Alpha. We are not beating you up, but your "article" which was seriously lacking in objectivity. Alpha may indeed be perfect for your needs, but your article positioned it as the ultimate Filemaker killer, which it clearly is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Knippel Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Also - no such thing as a sort of client server. True client server systems(SQL, Oracle) use a thin client "SQL" is not a system. SQL is a standardized language used in many different types of database and database-like systems. I am sure that you meant M$ SQL Server which is a RDBMS by Micro$oft. Client-server computing does NOT require a "thin client" and most RDBMS do not use thin clients. Those are mainly used by main-frame and mini-computer based systems. Most Mac/Win RDBMS use a fat client, whether it is a custom written application or an off-the-shelf product (like Filemaker). a software managed hand shake to parse out thousands of simultanious user requests This is a very simplistic statement and not very accurate either. Different RDBMS use diffent schemes to accomplish thier tasks. With some the server does alot of the processing, others make the client do the processing, some use a combination. To give you a little perspective, I was working with database systems long before I ever started with Filemaker. I have worked with dBase, M$ SQL Server, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, AS/400, M$ Access, Paradox and a wide variety of languages and applications which communicate with those systems. No Filemaker is not the right choice in all situations, but you clearly have alot to learn about Filemaker, RDBMS and client-server computing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 There is more missing than the web stuff..."can't import XML documents. Can't directly import files saved in recent versions of Excel: except via ODBC. No mobile version.... inconsistent interface..." And, you ignored responding to Alpha's $1830 cost for their developer version versus FMI $450. The real question is: Why are you trying to push it on a web site that is devoted to Filemaker?:?: I can't help but believe you have some businness or financial relationship with Alpha (regardless of your statement above). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Knippel Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 I am sure that George is legit, since he has 109 posts on FMForums, only the last couple of which are involved in this Alpha Five discussion. I am sure that he was sincere in his efforts to share his own experiences with the Forums. Sorry, I am confusing myself. George started the thread, but did not write the article. Marc King wrote the article, but I stand by the above statements on both parties. Although to be accurate Marc has only joined us since this thread started. I have also been in contact with Richard Rabins of Alpha Software, Inc and we should have an exciting announcement very soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Thanks for the clarification on MSSQL "that is what I meant" Yes your right Not Flat-file but File-server refers to the data storage and retrieval method used by Access, FM, and Alpha. The two general Data base technologies are Client-Server and File-Server - both are fully relational. http://www.qview.com/support/version4/faq0009.htm As to the point about development time: I dont bill hourly, All my projects are Corporate, Industrial, or Government. The process is simple - I bid, they budget, and I deliver a finished product. So my time costs them the same no matter what data base I use on the job. Alpha took less time than FM on the project - That in itself says a lot about Alpha's ease of use. All the comments are welcome and in some circumstances may be true. I however have found in actuall development practice that the features and deployment issues I need resolved are better served by Alpha in terms of cost, time, and scalability. Some points to consider: The unlimitted Runtime is $1599 yes but once you own it you can freely distribute license free, networkable, customizable, unlimitted multi-user commercial software to all your clients going forward. The Alpha company has been in business for 20 years so this was, is, and will be their licensing policy - By developers for developers. Alpha has only 18 employees but over one million customers - you can contact the CEO, CMO, and lead developers personally anytime and get a real response almost always within 24 hours. Ask for a product feature enhancement and get an upgrade feature patch distributed to the entire userbase in the same week. Try that with FM!!! FM is a fine product and I still service FM clients - But Alpha is fast becoming my product of choice for the serious development projects I get. Dont believe me. Take a look for yourself http://www.alphasoftware.com/products/a5v5/overview.asp Marc King www.kingsrealm.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Knippel Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Marc, The above post was far superior in thought and statement than the original article. I do hope that you stay on board the FMForums and participate, you definately seem to have something worthwhile to contribute. Welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Thanks, I will As to the tone of the original article - It was a reaction to my clients needs and budget constraints versus my need to make a living. After many attempts to get the attention of Filemaker (The Company) for developer support - creating pluggins - needed features - Licensing Alternatives, I just wanted them to get the message that some of us are not gonna take it anymore. By virtue of their greedy business model they have left themselves vulnerable to competing products. Personally I would like to see them get their act together and really support their developer community but I think their motives are pretty clear. All profit - no gain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Kurt, you are right as to my membership here. I began using Filemaker at ver3 and helped to co-write a point of sale app in Alpha Four (DOS). I have an appreciation for both programs but, don't like the plug-in "patch work" that Filemaker has continued to force down it's userbase. You know as well as most users of this forum the numerous requests/rants about each FM ver release being lite on past developer tool wishes by users. I applaud the fact that you can SEE posts of Alpha's management personel contributing to Alpha's company maintained message board! Where is this userbase communication out of Filemaker? Being a user of both products, I am meerly posting my discoveries of strengths of a database product which I wanted to share with a forum of other developers. I have actually been excited in the past around the month of May hoping that Filemaker's next release will contain some of the simple features requested many times on this board. This forum and thread are providing all members a benefit. What's to harm in trying the free trial offer of Alpha? My best to all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I agree that FMI is greedy and non-responsive, BUT... How can I convert my FM kiosk to Alphaworks without re-inventing the wheel? Until there is some sort of conversion facility (even if it isn't perfect), I don't have the time to invest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I fully agree - I have some Filemaker apps that have been a year in development. But I will tell you, The Alpha learning curve for me only took one week and I can now reproduce major systems in a matter of days that took weeks in FM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWeaver Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 History shows that software companies don't make much effort to improve their product until a competitive product comes along and gives them a serious scare. Maybe this is what FMI needs to smarten up a bit and start putting some new features into Filemaker without having to go the plug-in route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonwood Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 History shows that software companies don't make much effort to improve their product until a competitive product comes along and gives them a serious scare. Maybe this is what FMI needs to smarten up a bit and start putting some new features into Filemaker without having to go the plug-in route. My thoughts exactly. This could be verrrrry good for us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 If you want action be proactive! FMI has recently polled me regarding my use of e-mail in applications presumably testing the waters. My article has a send to friend link at the bottom. Send it to some FM executives and get them squirming. http://newsletter.alphasoftware.com/nw146.htm Not words but Action creates change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 From FMI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 Given the facts of the above software license purchase requirements to distribute ones application to their respective clients, the math seems to show who is really giving the developer the potential for profit. Additional objectivity from this link: Hi Randell, You do not say what you mean by a large project. I assume you mean in terms of numbers of tables, scripts, forms, reports etc rather than record numbers. Either way, I built, in FileMaker 4.2 (FMP), what I consider to be a large project under both definitions and while I am certain there will be new features in version 6, I can give you a few specifics to look at that caused me major problems. 1. SCRIPTS In FMP, scripts are written within a specific table. They are also exactly that - scripts - so you can't cut & paste them in whole or in part. They can be duplicated within a table and you could clone the entire table to get all its scripts to a new table, but now you have two tables with two scripts that need updating every time you make a change. As the number of tables proliferates ( and it will) this becomes a MAJOR problem. I tried to get round it by making scripts global but it's a poor man's implementation compared to A5. FMP does have global variables but they are actual fields you have to pre-define in a table somewhere, rather than the dynamic spaces in memory you set aside with A5 and all other programming languages I've seen. This means that not only do you need to think about everything you'll need in advance (as you can't create additional fields while you have any users logged in) but also, all such variables have to be written to and read from fields, rather than just existing and being manipulated in memory as in A5. Since reading & writing to memory is hundres of times faster than to disk, so your scripts will be much faster in A5. 2. TABLES & DATA STORAGE FMP uses a proprietary file type whereas A5 uses the very widely used .dbf format. Since FMP does not have dynamic ODBC either, this means that if you want to run all sorts of third party goodies such as data cleaning software, knowledge management etc, you cannot run it on the 'live' database but must export the data, run the goodie and then re-import the data. Either you'll have to do this at night when no-one else is changing any data, or you've got to match up all the incoming data to the right fields/records. You'll have fun with that one! Also, when you want to update the database, you can make new layouts (forms) while other folks are working and can make scripts, but you can't add any fields. Since you often have to do this, what tends to happen is that you'll work on a copy of the database somewhere and then update the main one at lunch or after hours. All well and good except that the data and structure file are one and the same in FMP which means you can't just take the file you've been working on and put it up for users as you need to import all the live data that they've updated while you were working on the structure. Not a problem if you have only a small number of records/fields & not too many tables, but it was no fun doing it with a big system. I use a standalone A5 system so I don't know what the deal is on this for A5. Perhaps someone else can comment on that. 3. LEARNING CURVE FMP has a shorter curve but only because there is considerably less depth to the program. I would say that if you limited yourself in A5 to only those features available in FMP, the two products are probably about the same. Think of A5 as Access power but with FMP usuer friendliness. 4. FORMS (LAYOUTS) If I had a gripe about A5, it would be that the form layout tools do not follow the FMP/Powerpoint/other program standards of hold shift to constrain movement to vertical & horizontal only, hold ctrl & drag to duplicate an object. Also undo has only one level and is not Ctrl-Z like almost every other app on then planet. They also need to work on aesthetics a little as some bits of the app look like a hangover from the early '90s and while it certainly is a very professional and powerful system, I think if it looked a little more polished and helped developers create apps that are, it would probably help convey that power to management and users (and hence help it sell!). Specifically, they need a few more professional looking stylesheets, a significantly bigger library of professional looking pre-built icons and more professional looking drawing tools for layouts. A5 has more options for how you display data (ie controls) and you can control in code whether an object should display or not. This is GREAT. In FMP, to hide things staff shouldn't see but management should required me to use multiple nearly identical layouts. This was a real pain with mulptiple departments & levels of management and it meant a lot more work every time someone wants something changed on a layout. A5's implementation of this could be a little more intuitive (ie having layers on forms) but it's vastly better than FMP. Lastly on layouts, two major hassles in FMP were... first, people changing the font attributes in a record. There's no way to stop them doing this so you end up with a mish-mash of font sizes & attributes in different records for the same field. The only practical way to get fix it was to export all the data to a text file & re-import it. Naturally you can't do that when other folks are working so more late nights for you. Second, there are no masking capabilities in FMP so you can't restrict what characters folks can enter in a given field. Have fun with 0 and O and the number '1' & the letter 'l' for example. Now you know why you need that data cleaning! 5. OTHER E-mail FMP required a third party plug-in to get e-mail. It's built in in A5 Data encryption None in FMP. A5 has it for data within A5 but I don't know how you'd handle this for users on PDAs. Hopefully the folks at Alpha will produce a version of Alpha for the Palm & Win CE that uses the same encryption so you'd have an end-to-end solution. Note that FMP does have a version of its database for handhelds. CONCLUSION There's a lot more I could write but I expect you're convinced already and I have to get on with other stuff. I have not been using Alpha all that long yet but I certainly don't feel the sense of anticipation I did with FMP that any time soon I'm going to hit a wall and find out that what I've been working on all day/all week actually can't be done (ie not 'I haven't got the skills to do it' but 'it can't be done'). Even if you do have difficulties in A5, the folks on this forum are very good about helping out, you CAN cut & paste their scripts to your app and the folks at Alpha are great about responding to problems. So to close, I would say that Alpha is considerably more powerful and if I re-did the project there's no way I'd use FMP unless I was forced to. We had to as the company had a large number of Mac users but I spent far too many late nights fixing stuff that the software should've handled but didn't. END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatoli Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Yes your right Not Flat-file but File-server refers to the data storage and retrieval method used by Access, FM, and Alpha. According to your link ( http://www.qview.com/support/version4/faq0009.htm ) Because all data in the database file must be sent from the server to the workstation, network traffic is increased (see Figure 1) That is absolutely not the case with FileMaker. Yes the client is processing everything, but ONLY the data what is needed. In case of modern FM design with data and interface separated, I am getting fantastic response time through 128k connections. Only the actual data, displayed or processed in "remote" Client is traveling from server. As is described "In a client/server configuration..." The workstation does not request data at the file level but sends a high-level request to the server to execute a specific query and return its results. I am fine with your love with Alpha. I do not like FM attitude towards developers single bit. But I wouldn't lie about FileMaker and I wouldn't publish misinformation. FileMaker is maybe not working in a way as your logic is developed. I like FM and GoLive for example. FMI is not supporting the product well. What is there is there and it is great, but don't ask question. I do not like Adobe single bit and their attitude towards customers stinks. I've received complimentary copy of MM DreamWaver and I was trying hard to work with that. But my mind is tuned to FM, Lasso, WC, GoLive logic and also from past to dBase. I couldn't move with DW an inch. That interface is from another world -- for me. What I saw in Alpha (on their website) looks strange and alien to me. My 2p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Not to belabour the point but I think the File-Server issue refers to the fact that since calculations occur on the client machine all the needed data to perform the calc is pulled from the server to the client thus creating creating more network traffic. On Client-server systems you only submit a single query command and all processing stays on the server. Thus the term Thin-Client (No Processing capability) Incidentally if you are programming Lasso with an FM interface you may well be building a Client-Server model. But this is Lasso and not FM giving you Clent-Server capability. In in first case your not going to notice a difference in speed until you get hundreds of users accessing your system. This difference becomes insurmountable when you start talking about millions of users (Yahoo, MSN) where Client-server is the only option. MS comments are in reference to an older version of FM. To be fair I know that Scripts can be copied between DBs in Version 6 although it is a bit clunky as it adds text ("copy1") to the script names which effectively breaks your code until you rename them. There is also some field validation that can be scripted in ver 6. Though not as deep or easy as A5 I agree with you on Adobe, looks like they have now shelved any future plans for LiveMotion. Golive is cool but is buggy and unstable on my XP machine. I hope they upgrade to a version 7. I am an old hand with DWMX so I have gone back to using it for most web work. Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatoli Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 Hmm it depends. The main advantage of FM Client/Server is that FM server can focus on processing data and indexes. If server is processing something, it needs more power and we are near to mainframe and terminals. On the most powerful IBM mainframe, purchased for the sole Petrol Company in Czech Republic "Benzina" some requests took 30 and more minutes to process. I can beat them with FM server and the same number of clients hands down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 8, 2003 Share Posted February 8, 2003 That is possible, though it sounds like a hardware issue. There are other concerns as well - data security being the most crucial. You dont want peoples personal or financial data flying back and forth across the network with every update. Anatoli, we have chatted for a long time on Adobe forum and others. Please take the free copy of Alpha5 they are offering - Yes it is a very different interface - I will help you get started and you will see many things that will open new opportunities for you. some things you can do in A5 with one or two clicks: Pop calendar date fields Pop Calculator numeric fields Memo fields give you a pop up full function text editor The integrated Mail client is amazing as well A whole range of field rules and functions that FM has never had Complete Custom Menu control - right click and main toolbar Simple genies let you Click to add hundreds of complex functions and events that all have to be hand coded in FM You also have full programming languages Xbasic and Xdialog for power programming. In fact the Application is written in these languages so you can fully customize the app with your own functionality. It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatoli Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Thanks for the offer I really don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWeaver Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 I thought someone had said Alpha Five is cross-platform. I just checked out their website and there is definitely no mention of a Mac version. That instantly rules it out for me and a lot of my clients. No matter how user friendly and easy to develop it is, I'd rather rot in Hell than work in Windows. They can keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Thats pretty harsh - My Mac doesn't feel lonely next to my PC. I can definitely depend on both to get me where I need to go. Side by side its amusing how some folks are so accepting of the sometimes trials and tribulations of OS9 and OSX while XPpro has been just as solid and simple to manage and network from day one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltSky Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Hmmn - interesting thread... I'd guess that for many developers, the big issues in choosing a database development environment pan out something like this: 1. Scalability to server level. 2. Web implementable. 3. Cross platorm capability. 4. Rapid application development. 5. Responsive developer support. Then once you've addressed the main issues, there are issues of functionality and market penetration vs price. But comparisons of the latter don't have much meaning unless you've already established broad equivalence in relation to the primary considerations (ie you're then comparing players in the same field, so to speak). It is a matter for considerable regret that FMI have not thus far chosen to be more responsive to developers. It is equally to be regretted that Alpha have as yet only addressed only the latter two of the 'big five'. I look forward to advances on both fronts, from both vendors. But as things stand at present, comparisons on price and/or the specific feature set are not particularly useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsrealm Posted February 11, 2003 Share Posted February 11, 2003 Hi Ray All very good points. While I'm sure that Mac will never be supported by A5 - One of the advantages of having true developer support is that Alpha has already anounced what will be in the next version. This frees them to regularly add user requested upgrades to the product without interfering with release plans. Also, though it requires a different style of system planning there are advantages (mainly networked distributed client full applications) in the shadow client to central file-server model. That's what a real unlimitted runtime like A5 will give you. Alpha has already announced that the next version of Alpha Five will feature: 1. Full ADO integration to allow you to create and manage MSSQL tables and forms within the control panel just like any other table - This will enable you to build true enterprise class client server software systems. 2. A fully integrated Web Application Server. 3. Extended ActiveX control to complete the full integration of MS Office and VB ActiveX application objects. Thanks Your the best Marc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 7750 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now