Searching \ for '[PIC] Suggested inexpensive programmer?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devprogs.htm?key=programmer
Search entire site for: 'Suggested inexpensive programmer?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[PIC] Suggested inexpensive programmer?'
2011\10\26@130617 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
I'm looking to buy 20 or so inexpensive programmers for the PIC32. What
does the group suggest?

THANKS!

Harold



-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2011\10\26@132115 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face
Define "inexpensive".

PICkit3 ?


Harold Hallikainen wrote 2011-10-26 19:06:
> I'm looking to buy 20 or so inexpensive programmers for the PIC32. What
> does the group suggest?
>
> THANKS!
>
> Harold
>
>

2011\10\26@132759 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Harold Hallikainen
<spam_OUTharoldTakeThisOuTspamhallikainen.org> wrote:

> I'm looking to buy 20 or so inexpensive programmers for the PIC32. What
> does the group suggest?

I think the most direct answer would be a serial bootstrap loader and
a TTL serial port.  If the PIC32 doesn't support BSL out of the box,
you would need one higher-level programmer to install the BSL code.

I have a similar question, but I am interested in debugging as well.
If I understand correctly, the PicKit 2 (whose clones are quite cheap)
can program some/many/all PIC32s, but cannot debug any of them,
whereas the PicKit 3 can program and debug all of them.  Any
recommendations on a cheap PicKit 3 clone, or is it best to just stick
with the genuine MicroChip product here?

-p

2011\10\26@134656 by peter green

flavicon
face
Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> I'm looking to buy 20 or so inexpensive programmers for the PIC32. What
> does the group suggest?
>
> THANKS!
>
> Harold
More background is needed to give the best answer to questions like this.

What is this for? Dev? production? teaching?
Is debug support desirable?
What boards will you be using? if the boards already exist how much is not having to screw arround with adaptors worth to you?
If it's for teaching and you haven't decided what boards to use yet have you considered the microchip demo boards with built in programmers?
Just how inexpensive does it need to be

2011\10\26@160417 by Matt Bennett

flavicon
face
On Wed, October 26, 2011 12:06 pm, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> I'm looking to buy 20 or so inexpensive programmers for the PIC32. What
> does the group suggest?
>
> THANKS!
>
> Harold

A bargain when it comes to the PIC32 is DM320003-2 - PIC32 USB Starter Kit
II- it is a self contained PIC32 built in programmer/debugger (similar to
the PICKIT3), but it can be powered by the same USB connection as the
programmer/ debugger. $55 US ea. The lowest cost programmer from Microchip
is the PICKIT3. By itself, the PK3 is $45 US ea. (List prices on
MicrochipDirect, DigiKey, etc are similar).

The USBSKII has 3 pushbuttons, 3LEDs and a USB OTG and USB Host
connections that connect directly to the PIC32.  Digikey has a pretty low
cost ($30 US) board that pulls out the IO from the USBSKII's connector:
876-1000-ND.

Matt Bennett
Just outside of Austin, TX
30.51,-97.91

The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large
multinational corporation that you are familiar with

2011\10\26@165542 by William Bulley

picon face
According to Matt Bennett <.....mattpiclistKILLspamspam@spam@hazmat.com> on Wed, 10/26/11 at 16:04:
>
> A bargain when it comes to the PIC32 is DM320003-2 - PIC32 USB Starter Kit
> II- it is a self contained PIC32 built in programmer/debugger (similar to
> the PICKIT3), but it can be powered by the same USB connection as the
> programmer/ debugger. $55 US ea. The lowest cost programmer from Microchip
> is the PICKIT3. By itself, the PK3 is $45 US ea. (List prices on
> MicrochipDirect, DigiKey, etc are similar).

Hey Matt,

I am struggling to understand which device and which programmer to use
etc.  Does the PICKIT3 replace the PICKIT2?  What is the MicroChip low
cost solution for programming the PIC24 line?  And here is another one:

I read on the product page of the PIC18F2620 that it has some sort of
extended something that allows it to have a flat address space and some
optimizations for C compilers, etc.  Somewhere (likely on this list) I
recall reading that this is true of all 18F parts, but I may have that
wrong.  It certainly seems to be the case for the 18F2620 however.

If true, then the 18F product line is a sure winner over the older 16F
product line with the program memory banks and the bank registers.

Lastly, is there a PDF document that explains/summarizes the machine
language of the 18F (or the 24F) product line assuming the device PDF
documents don't describe the programming model (not the Flash programming
model - that _is_ in there)?  I seem to recall that the older 16F parts
had such a programming document separate from the device PDF documents
where all they have was an alphabetical list of the assembly op-codes
and which flags were affected.  I assumed there would be a similar PDF
document for the 18F (and 24F?) product line, but so far I have been
unable to locate such on the MicroChip website using their search engine.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

web...

-- William Bulley                     Email: webspamKILLspamumich.edu

72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->

2011\10\26@174632 by Jan-Erik Soderholm

face picon face


William Bulley wrote 2011-10-26 22:55:
> According to Matt Bennett<.....mattpiclistKILLspamspam.....hazmat.com>  on Wed, 10/26/11 at 16:04:
>>
>> A bargain when it comes to the PIC32 is DM320003-2 - PIC32 USB Starter Kit
>> II- it is a self contained PIC32 built in programmer/debugger (similar to
>> the PICKIT3), but it can be powered by the same USB connection as the
>> programmer/ debugger. $55 US ea. The lowest cost programmer from Microchip
>> is the PICKIT3. By itself, the PK3 is $45 US ea. (List prices on
>> MicrochipDirect, DigiKey, etc are similar).
>
> Hey Matt,
>
> I am struggling to understand which device and which programmer to use
> etc.  Does the PICKIT3 replace the PICKIT2?  What is the MicroChip low
> cost solution for programming the PIC24 line?

Both have detailed "supported device lists" online.

> I read on the product page of the PIC18F2620 that it has some sort of
> extended something that allows it to have a flat address space and some
> optimizations for C compilers, etc.  Somewhere (likely on this list) I
> recall reading that this is true of all 18F parts, but I may have that
> wrong.  It certainly seems to be the case for the 18F2620 however.
>

PIC18 has a different arhitecture then PIC16, yes. It is a bit more
C-friendly. But note that *that* is primarily an issue for those
actualy writing C-compilers, not for those writng C-code *using*
the compilers.

Then, apart from that, some newer PIC18 has also some "extended"
instructions to further help the compiler writers. I guess it is
more or less all PIC18's that are "current" today.


> If true, then the 18F product line is a sure winner over the older 16F
> product line with the program memory banks and the bank registers.
>

Not also that the newer PIC16's (the "Enhanced Mid-Range Architecture")
some some features like linear/flat adressing of memory, also to make
writing of compilers easier. But it also helps when coding in assembly.


{Quote hidden}

All datasheet for specific PIC16 or PIC18 has the instruction set.

Then there are a litle more detailed description in section 29 of
the "Mid-Range MCU Family Reference Manual" :
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/33023a.pdf


There was/is also a "PICmicro 18C MCU Family Reference Manual" but
I can not currently locate it on-line.

And I'm sure that the Ref Manuals for the PIC24 also has all
details needed to use them.

Like the "Programmer Ref Manual:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/Prog_Ref_Manual.pdf

All this found using a few minutes on the MC site.



> Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> web...

2011\10\26@183900 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Jan-Erik Soderholm
<EraseMEjan-erik.soderholmspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTtelia.com> wrote:

>> I am struggling to understand which device and which programmer to use
>> etc.  Does the PICKIT3 replace the PICKIT2?  What is the MicroChip low
>> cost solution for programming the PIC24 line?
>
> Both have detailed "supported device lists" online.
> All this found using a few minutes on the MC site.

Unfortunately, the website doesn't really get into the differences
between the PicKit 2 and 3.  However, there are a number of reviews
which compare the two.  I am still using an ICD-2, but what follows
summarizes what I have read of the PicKits:

The PicKit 2 was designed by a clever individual or a very small
group.  It adds a lot of features in addition to basic programming
without increasing hardware costs, and includes some very convenient
command-line tools.  As a result, it became very popular.  When it
came time to upgrade the PicKit 3, it was clearly done by committee.
The PicKit 3 loses many of the cool features of the PicKit 2, the nice
command-line tools, and while it uses a more powerful MCU it is
actually slower to program.  The PicKit 2 can program (some) of the
32-bit PICs, but cannot debug them.  MicroChip makes no guarantees
that it will support any future chips with the PicKit 2.

If you do not plan to use the 32-bit PICs, you are probably better off
with the PicKit 2.  If you want to program and debug 32-bit PICS or be
guaranteed support of the latest chips, go with the PicKit 3.

-p.

2011\10\26@190210 by William Bulley

picon face
According to Jan-Erik Soderholm <jan-erik.soderholmspamspam_OUTtelia.com> on Wed, 10/26/11 at 17:46:
>
> Both have detailed "supported device lists" online.

Okay, fair enough answer.  So one assumes that they are both available
and "in production" from MicroChip?

> PIC18 has a different arhitecture then PIC16, yes. It is a bit more
> C-friendly. But note that *that* is primarily an issue for those
> actualy writing C-compilers, not for those writng C-code *using*
> the compilers.

Okay.

> Then, apart from that, some newer PIC18 has also some "extended"
> instructions to further help the compiler writers. I guess it is
> more or less all PIC18's that are "current" today.

That is what I was getting at.  There seems to be this dichotomy within
the 18F product line.  Some are "more linear" and/or "more advanced"
than others.  This is confusing to new-comers to the 18F devices.  And
short of reading several device data sheets, is there a better resource
for this kind of "meta knowledge" than this mailing list?

> Not also that the newer PIC16's (the "Enhanced Mid-Range Architecture")
> some some features like linear/flat adressing of memory, also to make
> writing of compilers easier. But it also helps when coding in assembly.

Yep.  I am looking for the "advanced" linear (no longer banked) memory
address space in chips from MicroChip, and not knowing where to start
since there are so many variants (understandably) of both the 18F and
24F product lines.  This is not because I plan on writing any compilers
any time soon!  But because in the 21st century there is no reason we
have to deal with "clunky" bank schemes of the past.

I recall last century's 8080/8086 instruction set complexity compared
to the pure and streamlined comparison with the contemporaneous Z80/Z8000
and M6800/M68000 competitors.  Clearly the market has spoken on those
match-ups, but I prefer the liner address space when there is a choice.

> All datasheet for specific PIC16 or PIC18 has the instruction set.

Yes, any that is what I was getting at with my precious post.  This
treatment of instruction set is device specific.  I was hoping to
find a broader document that would address the instruction set and
programming (not flash) aspects of the entire 18F (not 18C unless
that is a distinction without a difference, I dunno) and 24F lines.

> Then there are a litle more detailed description in section 29 of
> the "Mid-Range MCU Family Reference Manual" :
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/33023a.pdf

Okay, but isn't that a rather ancient document (i.e., for the 16F
devices)?

> There was/is also a "PICmicro 18C MCU Family Reference Manual" but
> I can not currently locate it on-line.

Try here:

  http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/39500a.pdf

976 pages in PDF format!  Ouch!

I did find the same (allegedly) kinds of information for the 24F line
here:

  http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=2575

but this is a page with forty (40+!) some links to distinct PDF
documents rather than one PDF document as above for the 18F product
line.  Why the difference in presentation?

> And I'm sure that the Ref Manuals for the PIC24 also has all
> details needed to use them.
>
> Like the "Programmer Ref Manual:
> http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/Prog_Ref_Manual.pdf

Thanks!  That is the ticket for the 24F product line!!!  It is some 460
pages in PDF format, but I'm not sure (short of reading it and comparing
it to the above page with 40+ links) if it is what I'm looking for or
the 40+ links (combined) are what I'm looking for.  I'll have to see.

For now, I think I'm satisfied with the 39500a.pdf document for the 18F
family and the Prog_Ref_Manual.pdf for the 24F product line.  Thanks
for all your help.   :-)

> All this found using a few minutes on the MC site.

Yep, but it is just a bit harder when you are not sure what you are
looking for, but you know a bit what you think is there, and not sure
how to look for it.  You've been very helpful.

My point, I guess, is that this mailing list is most helpful for these
kinds of meta-knowledge which is orthogonal to the pure datasheet kinds
of information found on the MicroChip website.  Thanks again.  :-)

Regards,

web...

-- William Bulley                     Email: @spam@webKILLspamspamumich.edu

72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->

2011\10\26@190513 by William Bulley

picon face
According to Peter Johansson <KILLspamrockets4kidsKILLspamspamgmail.com> on Wed, 10/26/11 at 18:38:
{Quote hidden}

Thank you for that most thoughtful and most helpful reply!  :-)

This is the kind of meta-knowledge I was looking for.  As long as the
"superior" PicKit 2 remains available, this is the one I will settle
on since I have no plans at present to veer into the 32-bit realm.

Regards,

web...

-- William Bulley                     Email: RemoveMEwebTakeThisOuTspamumich.edu

72 characters width template ----------------------------------------->

2011\10\26@210333 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Harold Hallikainen wrote:
>> I'm looking to buy 20 or so inexpensive programmers for the PIC32. What
>> does the group suggest?
>>
>> THANKS!
>>
>> Harold
> More background is needed to give the best answer to questions like this.
>
> What is this for? Dev? production? teaching?
> Is debug support desirable?
> What boards will you be using? if the boards already exist how much is
> not having to screw arround with adaptors worth to you?
> If it's for teaching and you haven't decided what boards to use yet have
> you considered the microchip demo boards with built in programmers?
> Just how inexpensive does it need to be?

This is for field updating of a bootloader in a product (which should
never need updating, but it does). The device is a PIC32. Cost is to be
the lowest that will reliably do the job. No debug capability is needed.
Techs doing the updating will be using Windows 7 laptops. I plan on
providing a hex file or could also provide a PM3 environment, but I don't
want to buy that many PM3s (we have several for use in production).

THANKS for the comments!

Harold



-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2011\10\27@042018 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> This is for field updating of a bootloader in a product (which should
> never need updating, but it does). The device is a PIC32. Cost is to be
> the lowest that will reliably do the job. No debug capability is needed.
> Techs doing the updating will be using Windows 7 laptops. I plan on
> providing a hex file or could also provide a PM3 environment, but I don't
> want to buy that many PM3s (we have several for use in production).
>
> THANKS for the comments!
>
> Harold

I believe one of Olin's programmers can be used standalone for field upgrades, i.e. load the programmer with a copy of the upgrade, then take it away and connect it to t=each system that needs upgrading, in turn. IIRC his prices were also pretty good.


-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\10\27@045044 by peter green

flavicon
face
William Bulley wrote:
{Quote hidden}

All 18F chips have banked memory. Afaict the "extended mode" introduced on newer 18F chips is mostly about making access to local variables faster.

I dunno about the 24F, i've never used that family (though i've considered using it)

2011\10\27@061346 by Forrest W Christian

flavicon
face
There's also the CCS load-and-go programmer which also doesn't require a laptop at all....

-forrest

On 10/27/2011 2:20 AM, TakeThisOuTalan.b.pearceEraseMEspamspam_OUTstfc.ac.uk wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>

2011\10\27@084126 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

>> This is for field updating of a bootloader in a product (which should
>> never need updating, but it does). The device is a PIC32. Cost is to be
>> the lowest that will reliably do the job. No debug capability is needed.
>> Techs doing the updating will be using Windows 7 laptops. I plan on
>> providing a hex file or could also provide a PM3 environment, but I
>> don't
>> want to buy that many PM3s (we have several for use in production).
>>
>> THANKS for the comments!
>>
>> Harold
>
> I believe one of Olin's programmers can be used standalone for field
> upgrades, i.e. load the programmer with a copy of the upgrade, then take
> it away and connect it to t=each system that needs upgrading, in turn.
> IIRC his prices were also pretty good.
>

Thanks! What's Olin's website URL?

Thanks!

Harold




-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2011\10\27@084532 by Matt Bennett

flavicon
face
On Wed, October 26, 2011 6:05 pm, William Bulley wrote:
{Quote hidden}

In terms of support, MPLAB8 has a selection guide within it that will tell
you what programmers support the device you've selected- is you select
'configure' -> 'select device' and choose a part, if the bubble by the
programmer or debugger is green, that programmer is fully supported. Yellow means maybe - it is beta, not fully production tested.

PICkit2 is a cool device, but it is rapidly running out of steam- part of
the power behind it is that most of the work is done on the PC, but when
programming or debugging larger parts, it becomes a chore and pretty slow.
However, since most of the work was done on the PC, there were some cool
applications you could do, such as a very simple logic analyzer.  The
PICkit3 offloads more to the programmer, but is still limited by a USB
full speed connection- which really isn't a problem if you aren't
programming a smaller part, but you will start to notice as the parts you
program get bigger- the ICD3 and RealICE are USB High-speed and can send
data that much faster.

The real long-term advantage of the PICkit3, ICD3, and RealICE is that
they share a very similar low level interface to the PC, making the job of
supporting new devices much simpler and easier to test- which means an
overall higher quality tool. Microchip tries to differentiate itself by
making one IDE for all parts (MPLAB), and one set of tools for all parts
(PICkit3, ICD3, and RealICE) [yes, these are goals... don't try to confuse
me with reality!].  For the majority of PICs out there- it doesn't really
matter how many bits the processor has, it is all about what it can do.

(MY OWN OPINION!) I think the PICkit3 is a better long term choice. The
cool things (non-programmer/debugger) you can do with the PICkit2 are
great, but there are better solutions for that at non-extraordinary costs.

Matt Bennett
Just outside of Austin, TX
30.51,-97.91

The views I express are my own, not that of my employer, a large
multinational corporation that you are familiar with

2011\10\27@090008 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> > I believe one of Olin's programmers can be used standalone for field
> > upgrades, i.e. load the programmer with a copy of the upgrade, then take
> > it away and connect it to t=each system that needs upgrading, in turn..
> > IIRC his prices were also pretty good.
> >
>
> Thanks! What's Olin's website URL?

This one has there 'standard products'

http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm


-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\10\27@091342 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:59 AM,  <alan.b.pearceEraseMEspam.....stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> > I believe one of Olin's programmers can be used standalone for field
>> > upgrades, i.e. load the programmer with a copy of the upgrade, then take
>> > it away and connect it to t=each system that needs upgrading, in turn.
>> > IIRC his prices were also pretty good.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks! What's Olin's website URL?
>
> This one has there 'standard products'
>
> http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm
>


Sorry, none of Embed's programmers can store firmware for field upgrades.

-- Martin K

2011\10\27@092451 by alan.b.pearce

face picon face
> >> > I believe one of Olin's programmers can be used standalone for field
> >> > upgrades, i.e. load the programmer with a copy of the upgrade, then take
> >> > it away and connect it to t=each system that needs upgrading, in turn.
> >> > IIRC his prices were also pretty good.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Thanks! What's Olin's website URL?
> >
> > This one has there 'standard products'
> >
> > http://www.embedinc.com/products/index.htm
> >
>
>
> Sorry, none of Embed's programmers can store firmware for field upgrades.

Ah, I didn't check down his list, but thought he had done that. OK.


-- Scanned by iCritical.

2011\10\27@113347 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

{Quote hidden}

I didn't see any that support PIC32.

THANKS for the suggestions!

Harold



-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2011\10\27@130420 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 04:38 PM 10/26/2011, Peter Johansson wrote:

>Unfortunately, the website doesn't really get into the differences
>between the PicKit 2 and 3.  However, there are a number of reviews
>which compare the two.  I am still using an ICD-2, but what follows
>summarizes what I have read of the PicKits:
>
>The PicKit 2 was designed by a clever individual or a very small
>group.  It adds a lot of features in addition to basic programming
>without increasing hardware costs, and includes some very convenient
>command-line tools.  As a result, it became very popular.  When it
>came time to upgrade the PicKit 3, it was clearly done by committee.
>The PicKit 3 loses many of the cool features of the PicKit 2, the nice
>command-line tools, and while it uses a more powerful MCU it is
>actually slower to program.  The PicKit 2 can program (some) of the
>32-bit PICs, but cannot debug them.  MicroChip makes no guarantees
>that it will support any future chips with the PicKit 2.

I keep reading and hearing about how the PICkit3 is somehow much worse than the PICkit2 - and I just don't get it.

My coworker and I have been using both the 'kit2 and 'kit3 and we both much prefer the PICkit3.  Its much more stable with MPLAB under Window XP - we don't get any of the flakiness that the PK2 occasionally has..

Keep in mind that many of the people who don't like the PK3 are using a non-Windows platform.  I can definitely understand their frustration with the PK3 - many of the cool apps written for the PK2 just aren't available for the PK3 - yet.

However, if you are using MPLAB with a Windows platform, I think that the PK3 is the better way to go.

dwayne

-- Dwayne Reid   <EraseMEdwaynerspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2011\10\27@140720 by Peter Johansson

picon face
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Dwayne Reid <RemoveMEdwaynerEraseMEspamEraseMEplanet.eon.net> wrote:

> My coworker and I have been using both the 'kit2 and 'kit3 and we
> both much prefer the PICkit3.  Its much more stable with MPLAB under
> Window XP - we don't get any of the flakiness that the PK2 occasionally has.

I am glad to hear this.  The recent announcement that the PIC32 will
be offered in DIP has inspired me to get into PIC32 development, which
pretty much means going with the 'kit3.  I looked at MPLAB-X briefly
about six months ago, and I am looking forwards to full support
natively under OS/X -- if not today, then someday relatively soon...

-p.

2011\10\27@141230 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
Thanks to all that responded! I'm going to get a PicKit3 to try out. I use
a RealICE for my development work, but was looking for something to do
some field updates.

THANKS!

Harold



-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available


'[PIC] Suggested inexpensive programmer?'
2011\11\02@225124 by Harold Hallikainen
face
flavicon
face
I just got a PicKit3 to try out. A nice feature is it can be preloaded
with the code that we want to field program chips with. Connect power,
connect to target, and push a button. It programs the part. It'd be great
if it could be powered by the target, but that seems unlikely.

Harold



-- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available

2011\11\02@230142 by PICdude

flavicon
face
Hmmm... I have a couple Pickit2's and they can do this too.  And  Microchip has a doc that explains how to do this, including using a  USB cell-phone charger to power the Pickit2 in the field.  I'd be  surprised if you couldn't do the same with the Pickit3...

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/PICkit%202%20Programmer-To-Go%20User%20Guide%20b.pdf

Cheers,
-Neil.



Quoting Harold Hallikainen <RemoveMEharoldspam_OUTspamKILLspamhallikainen.org>:

{Quote hidden}

>

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2011 , 2012 only
- Today
- New search...