Question, need expert help pre-loading images properly (IE + FireFox), thank you :)

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by SaraLeePerson@gmail.com, Oct 25, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Dear group,

    I am seeking a easy to maintain and more importantly *working* way to
    pre-fetch images, so the pages I develop load smoothly without seeing
    the images kick in flicker as they usually do. Important - I need
    this to work on Internet Explorer 6.0+ and FireFox.

    I am presently using at the head of the page,

    pic100= new Image;
    pic100.src="./imageme.gif";

    However, it doesn't seem to work on FireFox at all. I've tried
    different combinations with the URL path, but I don't know what I am
    doing wrong. Can someone please assist me with this boggle?

    Thank you very much in advance for any assistance.:)

    Best wishes, Sara.
    , Oct 25, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Stevo Guest

    Re: Question, need expert help pre-loading images properly (IE +

    wrote:
    > pic100= new Image;
    > pic100.src="./imageme.gif";
    > However, it doesn't seem to work on FireFox at all. I've tried
    > Thank you very much in advance for any assistance.:)


    I could be wrong and using new Image; is just fine, but I've always used
    new Image();

    You didn't mention how you use pic100 so that's all there is to go on.
    Stevo, Oct 25, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest


    > I could be wrong and using new Image; is just fine, but I've always used
    > new Image();
    >
    > You didn't mention how you use pic100 so that's all there is to go on.


    Hi :)

    Presently, the configuration for FireFox and IE I have is

    <script>
    pic100= new Image;
    pic100.src="./imageme.gif";
    </script>

    <img src=./imageme.gif>
    , Oct 25, 2007
    #3
  4. Re: Question, need expert help pre-loading images properly (IE +

    wrote:
    > I am seeking a easy to maintain and more importantly *working* way to
    > pre-fetch images, so the pages I develop load smoothly without seeing
    > the images kick in flicker as they usually do.


    Please don't.

    > Thank you very much in advance for any assistance.:)


    You're welcome.


    F'up2 cljs

    PointedEars
    --
    var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
    ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 25, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest


    >
    > Please don't.
    >
    > > Thank you very much in advance for any assistance.:)

    >
    > You're welcome.
    >
    > F'up2 cljs
    >


    What?
    , Oct 25, 2007
    #5
  6. Stevo Guest

    Re: Question, need expert help pre-loading images properly (IE +

    wrote:
    > <script>
    > pic100= new Image;
    > pic100.src="./imageme.gif";
    > </script>
    >
    > <img src=./imageme.gif>


    OK, you're expectations are too high. That pic100.src *is* starting to
    preload the file, but your img tag is going to start using it long
    before it will be finished loading. What people usually do in cases like
    this is to set the img src to a blank image, and only when pic100.src
    has finished loading, do you then change the src of the img to point to
    it. If you google "preload images javascript" you'll find lots of
    ready-coded examples.
    Stevo, Oct 25, 2007
    #6
  7. David Mark Guest

    On Oct 25, 5:45 pm, wrote:
    > > Please don't.

    >
    > > > Thank you very much in advance for any assistance.:)

    >
    > > You're welcome.

    >
    > > F'up2 cljs

    >
    > What?


    Follow up to comp.lang.javascript.

    As for the original question, if these images are displayed initially
    without user interaction, then trying to preload them is a waste of
    time. The page will continue to render, regardless of whether the
    images have finished loading. This is a good thing.

    I don't know what you mean by "flicker", but if your layout twitches
    during load, you likely forgot the height/width attributes on the
    images.

    Or perhaps they are interlaced GIF's and you don't like that effect.
    If so, make them non-interlaced.

    If it is the placeholders that bug you and these images are just
    decorations, use CSS to make them backgrounds.
    David Mark, Oct 25, 2007
    #7
  8. On Oct 25, 11:50 am, wrote:
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I am seeking a easy to maintain and more importantly *working* way to
    > pre-fetch images, so the pages I develop load smoothly without seeing
    > the images kick in flicker as they usually do. Important - I need
    > this to work on Internet Explorer 6.0+ and FireFox.
    >
    > I am presently using at the head of the page,
    >
    > pic100= new Image;
    > pic100.src="./imageme.gif";


    I'm rewriting some old preload code to try to reduce server
    connections. For some reason, after the window.onload event, each use
    of the following code

    var img = new Image();
    img.src = someUrl;

    causes a new connection to the server (Apache). Because many (~100)
    images now need to be preloaded, this is causing Apache grief. (I
    didn't write the specs on this page. It is legacy and needs a quick
    fix until I have time for a real solution.)

    If the same many images are just written into the page with <img
    src="someUrl"> the same initial connection is being used to get all
    images. I believe this is Apache's pipelining feature at work to
    conserve connections.

    Does anyone know about this situation and is their a standard
    solution?

    I have a few ideas to try when the server admin is available but I
    thought I'd ask since the topic has appeared.

    Thanks,
    Peter
    Peter Michaux, Oct 26, 2007
    #8
  9. SAM Guest

    Re: Question, need expert help pre-loading images properly (IE +

    Peter Michaux a écrit :
    >
    > I'm rewriting some old preload code to try to reduce server
    > connections. For some reason, after the window.onload event, each use
    > of the following code
    >
    > var img = new Image();
    > img.src = someUrl;
    >
    > causes a new connection to the server (Apache). Because many (~100)
    > images now need to be preloaded, this is causing Apache grief.


    And post-writing css rules (or post-writing a call to a *.css) for this
    100 images as backrground of the same transparent image opened in the page ?
    (probably they won't appear in order)

    --
    SM
    SAM, Oct 27, 2007
    #9
  10. Bone Ur Guest

    On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:25:53 GMT Peter Michaux wrote:

    >> I am seeking a easy to maintain and more importantly *working* way to
    >> pre-fetch images, so the pages I develop load smoothly without seeing
    >> the images kick in flicker as they usually do. Important - I need
    >> this to work on Internet Explorer 6.0+ and FireFox.
    >>
    >> I am presently using at the head of the page,
    >>
    >> pic100= new Image;
    >> pic100.src="./imageme.gif";

    >
    > I'm rewriting some old preload code to try to reduce server
    > connections. For some reason, after the window.onload event, each use
    > of the following code
    >
    > var img = new Image();
    > img.src = someUrl;
    >
    > causes a new connection to the server (Apache). Because many (~100)
    > images now need to be preloaded, this is causing Apache grief. (I
    > didn't write the specs on this page. It is legacy and needs a quick
    > fix until I have time for a real solution.)
    >
    > If the same many images are just written into the page with <img
    > src="someUrl"> the same initial connection is being used to get all
    > images. I believe this is Apache's pipelining feature at work to
    > conserve connections.
    >
    > Does anyone know about this situation and is their a standard
    > solution?
    >
    > I have a few ideas to try when the server admin is available but I
    > thought I'd ask since the topic has appeared.


    You can j/s preload sequentially: ie, not starting the following preload
    until the previous is finished. I've done that and it works. But a
    better idea (I think) is just to make a position:absolute;
    visibility:hidden; div "layer" encompassing all the images which won't
    show because of the css.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have stronger pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Oct 28, 2007
    #10
  11. David Mark Guest

    On Oct 27, 10:02 pm, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:25:53 GMT Peter Michaux wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > >> I am seeking a easy to maintain and more importantly *working* way to
    > >> pre-fetch images, so the pages I develop load smoothly without seeing
    > >> the images kick in flicker as they usually do. Important - I need
    > >> this to work on Internet Explorer 6.0+ and FireFox.

    >
    > >> I am presently using at the head of the page,

    >
    > >> pic100= new Image;
    > >> pic100.src="./imageme.gif";

    >
    > > I'm rewriting some old preload code to try to reduce server
    > > connections. For some reason, after the window.onload event, each use
    > > of the following code

    >
    > > var img = new Image();
    > > img.src = someUrl;

    >
    > > causes a new connection to the server (Apache). Because many (~100)
    > > images now need to be preloaded, this is causing Apache grief. (I
    > > didn't write the specs on this page. It is legacy and needs a quick
    > > fix until I have time for a real solution.)

    >
    > > If the same many images are just written into the page with <img
    > > src="someUrl"> the same initial connection is being used to get all
    > > images. I believe this is Apache's pipelining feature at work to
    > > conserve connections.

    >
    > > Does anyone know about this situation and is their a standard
    > > solution?

    >
    > > I have a few ideas to try when the server admin is available but I
    > > thought I'd ask since the topic has appeared.

    >
    > You can j/s preload sequentially: ie, not starting the following preload
    > until the previous is finished. I've done that and it works. But a
    > better idea (I think) is just to make a position:absolute;
    > visibility:hidden; div "layer" encompassing all the images which won't
    > show because of the css.


    That will mess up the semantics of the page and will look strange when
    style is disabled. For the scriptless approach, it is better to use
    background images.
    David Mark, Oct 28, 2007
    #11
  12. Bone Ur Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:57:45 GMT
    David Mark scribed:

    >> You can j/s preload sequentially: ie, not starting the following preload
    >> until the previous is finished. I've done that and it works. But a
    >> better idea (I think) is just to make a position:absolute;
    >> visibility:hidden; div "layer" encompassing all the images which won't
    >> show because of the css.

    >
    > That will mess up the semantics of the page and will look strange when
    > style is disabled. For the scriptless approach, it is better to use
    > background images.


    Background images don't always load as one might wish, though. The
    styling-disabled is a valid concern, but despite conventional mythology,
    styling is necessary nowadays and anyone who disables it except for testing
    is a moron. As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have correct
    semantics, anyway, and a sequential list of links in a "layer" will
    certainly not mess them up if they are correct.

    --
    Bone Ur
    Cavemen have stronger pheromones.
    Bone Ur, Oct 29, 2007
    #12
  13. David Mark Guest

    On Oct 29, 4:25 am, Bone Ur <> wrote:
    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 08:57:45 GMT
    > David Mark scribed:
    >
    > >> You can j/s preload sequentially: ie, not starting the following preload
    > >> until the previous is finished. I've done that and it works. But a
    > >> better idea (I think) is just to make a position:absolute;
    > >> visibility:hidden; div "layer" encompassing all the images which won't
    > >> show because of the css.

    >
    > > That will mess up the semantics of the page and will look strange when
    > > style is disabled. For the scriptless approach, it is better to use
    > > background images.

    >
    > Background images don't always load as one might wish, though. The


    I don't know what you mean by that. But the typical need for
    preloading is for rollovers and the like, so it isn't a catastrophe if
    the images fail to preload.

    > styling-disabled is a valid concern, but despite conventional mythology,
    > styling is necessary nowadays and anyone who disables it except for testing


    That is only part of it. Some agents don't support style at all.

    > is a moron. As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have correct


    It is not the users' fault if a document is poorly designed.

    > semantics, anyway, and a sequential list of links in a "layer" will


    Very few pages are written by competent Web developers.

    > certainly not mess them up if they are correct.


    What list of links? The suggestion was for a "layer" with hidden
    images. Search engines, screen readers, style-challenged agents, etc.
    will have no idea what to make of such a thing.
    David Mark, Oct 29, 2007
    #13
  14. Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:34:51
    GMT David Mark scribed:

    >> >> You can j/s preload sequentially: ie, not starting the following
    >> >> preload until the previous is finished. I've done that and it
    >> >> works. But a better idea (I think) is just to make a
    >> >> position:absolute; visibility:hidden; div "layer" encompassing all
    >> >> the images which won't show because of the css.

    >>
    >> > That will mess up the semantics of the page and will look strange
    >> > when style is disabled. For the scriptless approach, it is better
    >> > to use background images.

    >>
    >> Background images don't always load as one might wish, though. The

    >
    > I don't know what you mean by that. But the typical need for
    > preloading is for rollovers and the like, so it isn't a catastrophe if
    > the images fail to preload.


    No, of course not. But I seem to remembering seeing in the past
    background images sometimes loading last (-in ie, I think) and that sort
    of goes counter to the whole idea. And neither is it a catastrophe if
    one adds a hidden layer with regular images.

    >> styling-disabled is a valid concern, but despite conventional
    >> mythology, styling is necessary nowadays and anyone who disables it
    >> except for testing

    >
    > That is only part of it. Some agents don't support style at all.


    No, but I'll bet 99%+ used actively on the Web today do. A real
    consideration might be the useragents of ipods, picture phones and the
    like.

    >> is a moron. As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have correct

    >
    > It is not the users' fault if a document is poorly designed.


    Who said it was? We are discussing the viability of an additional layer
    for a specific purpose.

    >> semantics, anyway, and a sequential list of links in a "layer" will

    >
    > Very few pages are written by competent Web developers.
    >
    >> certainly not mess them up if they are correct.

    >
    > What list of links? The suggestion was for a "layer" with hidden
    > images. Search engines, screen readers, style-challenged agents, etc.
    > will have no idea what to make of such a thing.


    I meant "list of images". Why would search engines have a problem? As
    for screen readers, it may cause some confusion but I don't evaluate this
    anywhere near reason enough to avoid the technique. Unquestionably, it
    will work and work well. Background images may also work, but there is
    some doubt. And lastly, I'm not one of those who subscribe to the "least
    common denominator approach" to web page creation just to strictly
    satisfy certain concepts which are arguable to begin with.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
    Neredbojias, Oct 29, 2007
    #14
  15. David Mark Guest

    On Oct 29, 7:55 am, Neredbojias <> wrote:
    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:34:51
    > GMT David Mark scribed:
    >
    > >> >> You can j/s preload sequentially: ie, not starting the following
    > >> >> preload until the previous is finished. I've done that and it
    > >> >> works. But a better idea (I think) is just to make a
    > >> >> position:absolute; visibility:hidden; div "layer" encompassing all
    > >> >> the images which won't show because of the css.

    >
    > >> > That will mess up the semantics of the page and will look strange
    > >> > when style is disabled. For the scriptless approach, it is better
    > >> > to use background images.

    >
    > >> Background images don't always load as one might wish, though. The

    >
    > > I don't know what you mean by that. But the typical need for
    > > preloading is for rollovers and the like, so it isn't a catastrophe if
    > > the images fail to preload.

    >
    > No, of course not. But I seem to remembering seeing in the past
    > background images sometimes loading last (-in ie, I think) and that sort
    > of goes counter to the whole idea. And neither is it a catastrophe if
    > one adds a hidden layer with regular images.
    >
    > >> styling-disabled is a valid concern, but despite conventional
    > >> mythology, styling is necessary nowadays and anyone who disables it
    > >> except for testing

    >
    > > That is only part of it. Some agents don't support style at all.

    >
    > No, but I'll bet 99%+ used actively on the Web today do. A real


    For the sake of argument, say it is 0.1%. Multiply that by the number
    of users on the Web today and you get a fairly substantial number.

    > consideration might be the useragents of ipods, picture phones and the
    > like.
    >
    > >> is a moron. As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have correct

    >
    > > It is not the users' fault if a document is poorly designed.

    >
    > Who said it was? We are discussing the viability of an additional layer
    > for a specific purpose.


    You said that those who disabled style were morons. If the document
    doesn't work in that case, does it reflect poorly on the user or the
    author?

    >
    > >> semantics, anyway, and a sequential list of links in a "layer" will

    >
    > > Very few pages are written by competent Web developers.

    >
    > >> certainly not mess them up if they are correct.

    >
    > > What list of links? The suggestion was for a "layer" with hidden
    > > images. Search engines, screen readers, style-challenged agents, etc.
    > > will have no idea what to make of such a thing.

    >
    > I meant "list of images". Why would search engines have a problem? As


    Do you mean a series of images. An HTML list would further complicate
    the semantics.

    > for screen readers, it may cause some confusion but I don't evaluate this
    > anywhere near reason enough to avoid the technique. Unquestionably, it


    Why would you want to confuse the sight-impaired for the sake of
    faster rollovers?

    > will work and work well. Background images may also work, but there is


    It will work for users with CSS support and without impaired vision.

    > some doubt. And lastly, I'm not one of those who subscribe to the "least
    > common denominator approach" to web page creation just to strictly


    I don't see what this has to do with an LCD approach.

    > satisfy certain concepts which are arguable to begin with.


    It is arguable whether the images will load faster as inline or
    background images. So why use a technique that may or may not
    slightly improve the load time of rollovers, when it will definitely
    have other negative implications?
    David Mark, Oct 29, 2007
    #15
  16. dorayme Guest

    In article <Xns99D8320D183FDnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.62.108>,
    Neredbojias <> wrote:

    > And lastly, I'm not one of those who subscribe to the "least
    > common denominator approach" to web page creation just to strictly
    > satisfy certain concepts which are arguable to begin with.


    Presumably "just to satisfy certain concepts" indicates you think
    it a dumb trivial clerical obsessive motive. Otherwise why use
    these words?

    The web author who tries hard to make his pages as assessable as
    possible, including the crucial 'degrading well' property, is not
    necessarily exhibiting a psychological fault. He could be
    motivated by a desire to make his pages as assessable as
    possible. There is a crucial difference. One is a rational thing,
    the other a irrational one.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Oct 29, 2007
    #16
  17. Bergamot Guest

    Re: Question, need expert help pre-loading images properly (IE +

    Bone Ur wrote:
    >
    > The
    > styling-disabled is a valid concern, but despite conventional mythology,


    mythology?

    > styling is necessary nowadays and anyone who disables it except for testing
    > is a moron.


    You might be surprised how many sites I have to disable CSS on just so I
    can read them, including many big-name sites. I'd be a moron if let
    stupid deeziners tell me how I must set up my PC or how I must view a
    web page.

    > As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have correct semantics,


    That's irrelevant. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that.

    --
    Berg
    Bergamot, Oct 29, 2007
    #17
  18. Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:33:33
    GMT David Mark scribed:

    >> > That is only part of it. Some agents don't support style at all.

    >>
    >> No, but I'll bet 99%+ used actively on the Web today do. A real

    >
    > For the sake of argument, say it is 0.1%. Multiply that by the number
    > of users on the Web today and you get a fairly substantial number.


    How many atoms are in a thimble? And what is that thimble to the planet?

    >> consideration might be the useragents of ipods, picture phones and
    >> the like.
    >>
    >> >> is a moron. As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have
    >> >> correct

    >>
    >> > It is not the users' fault if a document is poorly designed.

    >>
    >> Who said it was? We are discussing the viability of an additional
    >> layer for a specific purpose.

    >
    > You said that those who disabled style were morons. If the document
    > doesn't work in that case, does it reflect poorly on the user or the
    > author?


    Could be either or both. But if the document works well with authored
    styles and not well without them, who's the moron?

    >> >> semantics, anyway, and a sequential list of links in a "layer"
    >> >> will

    >>
    >> > Very few pages are written by competent Web developers.

    >>
    >> >> certainly not mess them up if they are correct.

    >>
    >> > What list of links? The suggestion was for a "layer" with hidden
    >> > images. Search engines, screen readers, style-challenged agents,
    >> > etc. will have no idea what to make of such a thing.

    >>
    >> I meant "list of images". Why would search engines have a problem?
    >> As

    >
    > Do you mean a series of images. An HTML list would further complicate
    > the semantics.


    Yes, a series of images. -Used "list" in the common generic form.
    ("Form", too.)

    >> for screen readers, it may cause some confusion but I don't evaluate
    >> this anywhere near reason enough to avoid the technique.
    >> Unquestionably, it

    >
    > Why would you want to confuse the sight-impaired for the sake of
    > faster rollovers?


    I invariably optimize my pages for the visual audience. So do most
    people. Html is primarily a visual medium despite the bs.

    >> will work and work well. Background images may also work, but there
    >> is

    >
    > It will work for users with CSS support and without impaired vision.
    >
    >> some doubt. And lastly, I'm not one of those who subscribe to the
    >> "least common denominator approach" to web page creation just to
    >> strictly

    >
    > I don't see what this has to do with an LCD approach.


    -Blindly following the standards because they are standards and
    "recommended". Sometimes you have to think for yourself.

    >> satisfy certain concepts which are arguable to begin with.

    >
    > It is arguable whether the images will load faster as inline or
    > background images. So why use a technique that may or may not
    > slightly improve the load time of rollovers, when it will definitely
    > have other negative implications?


    Because the other negative implications are not as negative as doing
    without the method under discussion - at least in some instances.
    Furthermore, the other negative implications can be eliminated or reduced
    with authoring care.

    This is an old argument, hashed and rehashed to death. You have every
    right to believe what you want, but I maintain the same right for myself.
    A lot of the so-called wisdom relating to markup is just pedantic crap or
    something over-exaggerated to make a point. In short, if it works for
    99%+ of the browsing population, it works. Period.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
    Neredbojias, Oct 29, 2007
    #18
  19. Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:32:36 GMT
    dorayme scribed:

    >> And lastly, I'm not one of those who subscribe to the "least
    >> common denominator approach" to web page creation just to strictly
    >> satisfy certain concepts which are arguable to begin with.

    >
    > Presumably "just to satisfy certain concepts" indicates you think
    > it a dumb trivial clerical obsessive motive. Otherwise why use
    > these words?
    >
    > The web author who tries hard to make his pages as assessable as
    > possible, including the crucial 'degrading well' property, is not
    > necessarily exhibiting a psychological fault. He could be
    > motivated by a desire to make his pages as assessable as
    > possible. There is a crucial difference. One is a rational thing,
    > the other a irrational one.


    An author _should_ try to make his pages as accessible as possible, but
    sacrificing popular and versatile utility for coverage of uncommon
    conditions and situations is just plain dumb. Do you still consider
    Netscape 4.xx in your work? I'm sure there's still a few diehards out
    there...

    The real idea is you do what you can. If I have to concede a little
    semantics to a page-enhancing preload, it would be totally idiotic not to
    do so.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
    Neredbojias, Oct 29, 2007
    #19
  20. Neredbojias Guest

    Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:00:51
    GMT Bergamot scribed:

    > mythology?
    >
    >> styling is necessary nowadays and anyone who disables it except for
    >> testing is a moron.

    >
    > You might be surprised how many sites I have to disable CSS on just so
    > I can read them, including many big-name sites. I'd be a moron if let
    > stupid deeziners tell me how I must set up my PC or how I must view a
    > web page.


    Not relevant. I'm talking about a site where you _don't_ have to disable
    styling and will suffer a negative impact if you do. This, btw, is most
    sites.

    >> As for semantics - phffft! Very few pages have correct semantics,

    >
    > That's irrelevant. 2 wrongs don't make a right and all that.


    - The lesser evil and all that. If the nerds would just wake up and use
    some real-world logic instead of their house-of-class deductive pseudo-
    logic, the problems with markup, etc., wouldn't be half so bad to begin
    with.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
    Neredbojias, Oct 29, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Miguel Dias Moura
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    390
    =?Utf-8?B?QmlsbCBCb3Jn?=
    Apr 1, 2004
  2. Miguel Dias Moura
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    406
    Lars Netzel
    Jun 18, 2004
  3. shapper
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    301
    shapper
    Feb 27, 2007
  4. Replies:
    27
    Views:
    759
    Andy Dingley
    Oct 31, 2007
  5. shapper
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    107
Loading...

Share This Page