Jump to content
IGNORED

The Amiga: Why did it fail so hard in the United States?


empsolo

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Keatah said:

Despite the Amiga having some advantages in video production. All of that was on the professional level. No regular consumer could really afford the rest of the necessary equipment - which advertising conveniently glossed over. Or downright ignored.

 

Additional stuff would have included. 2 tape decks, a heavy and expensive camera, genlocking device / toaster, a lot of interconnecting cables, a second monitor. Maybe even some sort of mixing board. Not forgetting specialty software and the Amiga itself equipped with extra memory, hard drive space, and extra MHz from an accelerator.

 

Personal digital video never really came into its own until the decline of the desktop personal computer, the rise of the smartphone.

Absolutely. The Amiga was gangbusters for era-specific video production and the ST series was good at music production, but none of that stuff was anywhere near mainstream at the time. The Mac did well in the burgeoning desktop publishing sector, which was certainly one of the factors in the platform's eventual survival. The PC of course pretty much had the rest of the business software market to itself, among its many other advantages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another not-talked-about advantage of the PC, obvious or not, was that its development cost was spread among hundreds of companies. Anyone could introduce a standard and if it was done right it would gain acceptance.

 

Consider basic things like graphics. You had 3DFx, nVidia, ATI, S3, TSENG Labs, CirrusLogic, AMD, Intel, Rendition, 3DLabs, Matrox, and more, all working and experimenting and introducing new technologies. All at the breakneck pace of throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

 

Repeat for sound cards, hard drives, motherboards, cases, i/o peripherals, memory, and to a lesser extent even the processors themselves.

 

There'd be no way for a single company to explore anything, any sub-system, with that kind of intensity or diversity.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bill Loguidice said:

This is an excellent point. I wonder if more thoughtful consideration could have been made in this area, like just make text-based stuff more friendly with only select visual elements and full mouse functionality. Of course, the superficial sells, so it probably wouldn't have been a wise business decision to keep it low frills and faster versus superficially attractive but slow. I mean, on PC DOS the expectation was "business" and "sedate," so you could get away with text-based stuff before Windows really took off, while the ST/Amiga/Macintosh were cultivating a very different image from day one.

It's funny-  The Atari 8-bit line showed how you could have a system that mixed graphics modes and text modes on the same screen,  and if you add in hardware sprites, you could create a mouse pointer that behaves the same whether it is over graphics or text.

 

If you did something like this on the 16-bit systems, you could create a text mode that still had the GUI menu on top and graphical GUI elements around the text box, but inside the box itself would run at the full speed of a character mode.

 

Also it's not like these systems ran in GUI mode all the time.   The ST would switch to text mode whenever you ran a .TOS or .TTP program,  and text mode on ST was horrible--  it was still bitmapped and slow.  Worse, the ST text rendering routines were not optimized,  there were 3rd party programs that would replace the OS text routines with custom ones that were much faster.   When you ran these, it felt like a much faster computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much stuff - circuitry, firmware routines, bus arbitration, the program itself, got in the way of crisp fast text on those bitmapped machines.

 

The first Mac, having no graphics chip, felt totally different and faster. Even if it was slower by the numbers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, zzip said:

Workers of the 80s and 90s weren't nearly as tech savvy as people today.  A lot of them were pretty technophobic, and if anything didn't go exactly as they'd expect, they'd panic.   I know, I had to support these people :)

 

 

You just described the people I work with in 2020 :)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Keatah said:

Another not-talked-about advantage of the PC, obvious or not, was that its development cost was spread among hundreds of companies. Anyone could introduce a standard and if it was done right it would gain acceptance.

 

Consider basic things like graphics. You had 3DFx, nVidia, ATI, S3, TSENG Labs, CirrusLogic, AMD, Intel, Rendition, 3DLabs, Matrox, and more, all working and experimenting and introducing new technologies. All at the breakneck pace of throw shit at the wall and see what sticks.

 

Repeat for sound cards, hard drives, motherboards, cases, i/o peripherals, memory, and to a lesser extent even the processors themselves.

 

There'd be no way for a single company to explore anything, any sub-system, with that kind of intensity or diversity.

 

 

Very true.  Also when companies like Epson and Packard Bell joined the fray, they did so with IBM PC compatibles.  It made it difficult for companies like Apple, Atari, and Commodore to not only fight other companies for market share, but having to fight against the growing PC standard(s) as well.  It, in the end, was just too much to overcome.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hwlngmad said:

Very true.  Also when companies like Epson and Packard Bell joined the fray, they did so with IBM PC compatibles.  It made it difficult for companies like Apple, Atari, and Commodore to not only fight other companies for market share, but having to fight against the growing PC standard(s) as well.  It, in the end, was just too much to overcome.

Although how much of that is chicken/egg stuff.

Those companies jumped on PCs because there were a LOT of PCs sold.  As a result, PCs sold even more.

If the Amiga (or ST) sold more initially, would those companies have started producing hardware for them as well?

 

Of course, the problem with my theory there is that the Amiga (ST) weren't as OPEN systems.

Now, by that I don't mean hardware companies couldn't make hardware for them.

The big box Amigas had slots.  There was hardware.

 

The problem was the smaller Amigas (which there were more of...).  There were a LOT of Amiga 500s/600s/1200s and it was not as easy to develop hardware for them, especially video hardware...

 

I realize that the smaller Amigas are part of what SOLD them.  But they were also part of what kept the line from progressing.

Even when the AGA machines came out, how many games released after that never used AGA?  Most.

If there was a simple (ish) way to upgrade the A500 video, I think that would have been a game changer.

The sidecar and internal slot were probably fine for RAM/CPU/Hard drives.

But no video upgrades was a killer.

 

Also, you could say the same about sound, but I think the Amiga original sound was good enough to carry it much farther than the original video...  Eventually tho, that would have been problematic as well...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hwlngmad said:

Very true.  Also when companies like Epson and Packard Bell joined the fray, they did so with IBM PC compatibles.  It made it difficult for companies like Apple, Atari, and Commodore to not only fight other companies for market share, but having to fight against the growing PC standard(s) as well.  It, in the end, was just too much to overcome.

Choosing to fight against the growing PC standard was of course a company's choice. They didn't have to fight against anything. Just implement whatever standard and be done.

 

Now. Another thing I never heard mentioned is the progression of standards. The juggernaut PC being the technologically inferior slow machine that it was, actually had another advantage in disguise. The huge size of the ecosphere placed a real limit on how fast standards could evolve and change. A limit on how fast they came into being, and how fast they became obsolete.

 

This slower pace allowed for many to be in play at the same time. Let us consider external storage - my self-proclaimed area of expertise. And let us begin with floppy drives a few iterations into the game, 3.5" 1.44MB and 5.25" 1.2MB models.

 

My first PC came with those. A step up from the 360KB and 720KB sizes from just a few months earlier. But they were backward compatible enough to allow users to migrate their software forward from the 8086's, 286's and 386's. Fine. And 3.5" drives were becoming more popular. More and more software was being published on them. (Never mind their touchiness with choice of media manufacturer.) I migrated most of my stuff to 3.5 in good time.

 

When I needed MORE space I found myself getting an Iomega Zip drive. 100 frakking MegaBytes babycakes! In a removable cartridge-like disk. And it interfaced via parallel port. How cool was that? Very! I used it for several years and was pleased with it overall.

 

Sometime later in the late 90's I got into a Pentium II machine. It's motherboard had a parallel port on it. I could use the Zip Drive! Yay! And it also had USB 1.0 ports (what's that?).. And it still supported 5.25" and 3.5" drives. Great. All these options.

 

I used the Zip drive to transfer my 486 stuff to my spiffy Pentium II. And started giving up frapping with floppies. FireWire and USB came next. And I migrated to FireWire, a mistake on my part. But I quickly backtracked and went with USB 2.0. My next motherboard still had all these ports, but would only support one floppy disk. And my next one dropped FireWire and Parallel support. And so on.. Soon enough I got a board that had seemingly thousands of USB 2 and 3 ports.

 

So you see, there was plenty of overlap allowing one to migrate and move up at their own pace. And not having to leave your data trapped in last-year's machine. No esoteric specialty solutions needed.

 

This didn't happen much (if at all) with machines from Atari or Commodore. You couldn't play games from a 1982 C-64 on the Amiga. And you couldn't play Atari 400/800 games on the ST series. But you could use games and productivity software from the first PC's to way past the Pentium II. Thanks to standards that were additive and backwards compatible.

 

Another example is the Riva-128 graphics chip. It did all the early graphics modes while adding Windows Direct3D and DirectDraw.

 

I do have to mention that Apple put some small effort into easing migrating to Macs via the Apple //e card that gave the Mac //e compatibility on a hardware level. While sharing disk drives too. So there's that. I don't recall anything like that for the Amiga or ST though.

 

In a sense Commodore and Atari were fighting themselves on this aspect.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, desiv said:

The problem was the smaller Amigas (which there were more of...).  There were a LOT of Amiga 500s/600s/1200s and it was not as easy to develop hardware for them, especially video hardware...

 

I realize that the smaller Amigas are part of what SOLD them.  But they were also part of what kept the line from progressing.

Small aspirations = small results. Especially with all the cost-cutting in the design of these machines. It was next to impossible to "splice in" new interfaces or technologies. And even if it was done, system-wide bus speeds put the brakes on the whole shebang.

 

All the ranting and raving about how slick the custom chips were, and how many new features they bought to the table. But they never told you they were NOT upgradable. They never told you that you would be locked into that motherboard. The same motherboard that had RAM soldered onto it. And might as well have had the CPU soldered too, for there were no real upgrade paths via chip swapping.

 

With PC you could go through several upgrades of graphics/sound/io chips on one motherboard+processor+memory combo if you needed to. It was even feasible to just upgrade the motherboard to gain some new I/O capability or bus speed increase. And considering that a PC motherboard houses the chipset, you were getting that new custom chip so to speak. So. Yes. You could get a new bus and backplane for about $120. But of course best results were had when everything was matched. Blahh blahh one big melting pot of parts and upgrades! Yes!

 

And sometimes it was even fun selling my old parts on ebay - to someone just coming into the fray.

 

3 hours ago, desiv said:

Even when the AGA machines came out, how many games released after that never used AGA?  Most.

I never got excited about AGA. It meant I would need to buy a whole new machine.

 

3 hours ago, desiv said:

If there was a simple (ish) way to upgrade the A500 video, I think that would have been a game changer.

The sidecar and internal slot were probably fine for RAM/CPU/Hard drives.

But no video upgrades was a killer.

I don't think a video upgrade alone would have made any difference. After about 3 or 4 generations of graphics chips, you'd need to start upgrading other parts to get a faster machine to feed that graphics chip.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Keatah said:

I don't think a video upgrade alone would have made any difference. After about 3 or 4 generations of graphics chips, you'd need to start upgrading other parts to get a faster machine to feed that graphics chip.

Totally agree.

The only thing I meant about the video upgrade being needed was that you could already upgrade RAM and CPU on the A500/A600/A1200.

Now, at some point in time, there would have been an issue if the big box Amiga 4000 and 1200 because of their 32 bit bus would perform better than an older Amiga, but if it would run, but just be slower, I think that would be OK.

Perhaps there even could have been a motherboard upgrade option.  So people could keep the investment they have in the graphic card upgrade...

Of course, the problem with that is that the A500 RAM/CPU upgrade slot is different than the A600 RAM/CPU upgrade slot and this is different than the A1200 and they are all different from the big box Amigas.  So even if they shared a video card slot/socket upgrade option, you'd need not just a new motherboard but possibly other items as well.  (Unless the new motherboard was already better than the upgraded A500 CPU/RAM wise.???

Oh well, this is back in the what if arena... <sigh>

I was thinking this might have been the Commodore influence, but even the A1000 had the custom chips on the board.  I think they planned for RAM and storage upgrades, but that was it.

I wonder if they ever even considered sockets/slots for those?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, desiv said:

Oh well, this is back in the what if arena... <sigh>

IMHO that's still a lot of dependencies. Or it sounds that way. Despite the PC having had 1000x that much hardware available I don't recall hussing and fussing over upgrades. Most fuss was about price and where to get something the cheapest.

 

12 minutes ago, desiv said:

I was thinking this might have been the Commodore influence, but even the A1000 had the custom chips on the board.  I think they planned for RAM and storage upgrades, but that was it.

I wonder if they ever even considered sockets/slots for those?

 

I think both my A500 and A1000 machines had sockets for the custom chips and CPU and ROM. But not the RAM.

 

Sockets are a mixed bag. You need to consider cost, convenience, repair, and reliability. The first Apple II units had all sockets for all 100 or so chips. That meant like 1000 contact points. The last Platinum //e had maybe 7 or 8 sockets tops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Keatah said:

 

I never got excited about AGA. It meant I would need to buy a whole new machine.

 

 

In fairness, it's not like A1200 was so expensive. It costed like 1/3rd of average gaming PC. It would have costed about a same to buy new video card, sound card and extra memory for your gaming PC.

 

OTOH, you got what you paid for. That bog-standard A1200 had no hard drive and was inferior in most other respects too.

 

12 hours ago, Keatah said:

Choosing to fight against the growing PC standard was of course a company's choice. They didn't have to fight against anything. Just implement whatever standard and be done.

Well, whole point of Amiga was to offer something different from PC. If they couldn't do it, then what's the point? Just make IBM compatibles or design new hardware for them.

I suppose they could have done same as Mac and just put adopt the OS for PC hardware.

 

12 hours ago, Keatah said:

This didn't happen much (if at all) with machines from Atari or Commodore. You couldn't play games from a 1982 C-64 on the Amiga. And you couldn't play Atari 400/800 games on the ST series. But you could use games and productivity software from the first PC's to way past the Pentium II. Thanks to standards that were additive and backwards compatible.

 

Another example is the Riva-128 graphics chip. It did all the early graphics modes while adding Windows Direct3D and DirectDraw.

 

I do have to mention that Apple put some small effort into easing migrating to Macs via the Apple //e card that gave the Mac //e compatibility on a hardware level. While sharing disk drives too. So there's that. I don't recall anything like that for the Amiga or ST though.

 

In a sense Commodore and Atari were fighting themselves on this aspect.

 

Though, I don't think games are good example of this. I don't think many people who had Amiga missed their C-64 games. Most games became obsolete too quickly. Uridium was great on C-64, but when you can play Xenon on Amiga, would you really load up C-64 version of Uridium even if you could?

 

In general, story of the gaming machines seems to be that they can sell a lot quickly but have much less staying power. Lot of the very popular gaming machines became quickly outdated and had their sales collapse nearly overnight. Ability to 'migrate' seems much less relevant there than in serious work. Maybe you want to be able to read your old text or CAD files many years later in your new machine, but do you really need to migrate your save points from Pool of Radiance you played 5 years ago? Probably not (unless you're me). If you look at history of ST, most of them were sold as gaming machines, but in 'serious' niche roles it survived much longer. You could still see them in studios well into '2000s, and last TOS version of Calamus came out, what, 2015 or so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chepe said:

Well, whole point of Amiga was to offer something different from PC. If they couldn't do it, then what's the point? Just make IBM compatibles or design new hardware for them.

I suppose they could have done same as Mac and just put adopt the OS for PC hardware

I believe members of NewTek did something like that, the makers of Digi-View and VideoToaster/Flyer. They formed a company called Play, Inc. and made their Amiga peripherals for the PC.

 

There was a product in the 90's, for the PC, called Snappy. It was like Digi-View for the PC. Used the parallel port and everything. Used the same technique of scanning the signal. Had a really high resolution for its time.

 

I don't think it was too popular because it still required bulky portable videocameras. Even VHS-C was/is considered big by today's standard. Monstrous even. Scanners were just becoming popular at the time and digital cameras were just getting underway. So lots of competition from other emerging technologies. Technologies that eventually won because they were so much easier to use. So much more practical.

 

I also vaguely recall they made a Toaster for the PC, too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Keatah said:

Now. Another thing I never heard mentioned is the progression of standards. The juggernaut PC being the technologically inferior slow machine that it was, actually had another advantage in disguise. The huge size of the ecosphere placed a real limit on how fast standards could evolve and change. A limit on how fast they came into being, and how fast they became obsolete.

To me, it seemed to have the opposite effect,  standards moved very fast in the PC world:

Video: EGA- 1984  VGA- 1986  SVGA- 1988

Sound Adlib: 1987   Soundblaster 1.0: 1989  Soundblaster 16: 1992   Soundblaster AWE32: 1994  AWE64: 1996     AC97:  1997

Speeds:  I remember how fast 286 PCs went from 8mhz, to 10mhz to 12, to 16 to 25mhz

Storage:  3.5" DD - 1984  (360K SS  720K DS)   3.5" HD - 1986 (1.44Mb)   3.5" ED - 1988 (2.88Mb)

 

In 1985 the Amiga and ST had video capabilities somewhere between EGA and VGA,  the ST had sound not up to adlib standards,  8mhz and  Double Density floppies   -  so they were pretty state of the art in 1985.

 

Four years later in 1989, the STe came out.   It had the same 8mhz CPU, improved graphics, but still not VGA standard.  Same DD floppy and sound was roughly equivalent to SB1.0 standard

 

This was released into a PC world of 386's, brand new 486s  1.44Mb floppies,  internal hard drives becoming common

 

The rapid rate of PC innovation left Atari and Commodore in the dust.  I suppose the reason they didn't just adopt PC standards was they had to maintain backwards compatibility with the custom solutions for sound and graphics they introduced.   I have no idea why it took Atari so long to adopt 1.44mb floppies though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Keatah said:

Small aspirations = small results. Especially with all the cost-cutting in the design of these machines. It was next to impossible to "splice in" new interfaces or technologies. And even if it was done, system-wide bus speeds put the brakes on the whole shebang.

They were between a rock and a hard place here.    Make the machines too expensive, and people were going to ask why they should buy them instead of a PC?    The success of the Amiga 500 showed that Commodore needed to cost-reduce the Amiga to make it successful.   These companies tried building high-end models for other markets, but the only market they realistically had a chance was the one that made the C-64 a massive success.   But I don't ever think these 16-bit machines were priced low enough to let that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Keatah said:

There was a product in the 90's, for the PC, called Snappy. It was like Digi-View for the PC. Used the parallel port and everything. Used the same technique of scanning the signal. Had a really high resolution for its time.

 

I don't think it was too popular because it still required bulky portable videocameras. Even VHS-C was/is considered big by today's standard. Monstrous even.

 

Yes, but the Snappy didn't require cameras.  It worked with any composite video input.

The most common form for most Snappy users I believe was the VCR.  I remember at the time there was a lot of talk about the advantage of some VCRs because they had much better pause/freeze frame modes.

I still have a Snappy around somewhere, tho I don't think I have any real parallel port PC to run it with.  ;-)

You could use a VCR with the DigiView also, but the big advantage of the Snappy was that it was color.

DigiView was monochrome.  That was why they included the "color wheel."  Most people used them not with expensive bulky cameras, but with smaller b/w security cameras.  You would scan using the color wheel 3 times and the software would merge it for a great looking color image.

I had an ECS (Electronic Color Splitter) for mine back in the day, so I could use a VCR.  Still had to scan 3 times, and my ECS had a dial for either R, G, or B.

Snappy was just color out of the box.

More like the DCTV scanner for the Amiga.

I think I still have a DigiView (no B/W camera tho) and I also have a DCTV for my Amiga, which is awesome.  (not just a grabber, but also give the Amiga more colors...)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/7/2020 at 10:24 AM, desiv said:

Yes, but the Snappy didn't require cameras.  It worked with any composite video input.

The most common form for most Snappy users I believe was the VCR.  I remember at the time there was a lot of talk about the advantage of some VCRs because they had much better pause/freeze frame modes.

I still have a Snappy around somewhere, tho I don't think I have any real parallel port PC to run it with.  ;-)

You could use a VCR with the DigiView also, but the big advantage of the Snappy was that it was color.

DigiView was monochrome.  That was why they included the "color wheel."  Most people used them not with expensive bulky cameras, but with smaller b/w security cameras.  You would scan using the color wheel 3 times and the software would merge it for a great looking color image.

I had an ECS (Electronic Color Splitter) for mine back in the day, so I could use a VCR.  Still had to scan 3 times, and my ECS had a dial for either R, G, or B.

Snappy was just color out of the box.

More like the DCTV scanner for the Amiga.

I think I still have a DigiView (no B/W camera tho) and I also have a DCTV for my Amiga, which is awesome.  (not just a grabber, but also give the Amiga more colors...)

I Loved my DCTV! My dad and I each had one on our respective Amiga's. I used to use a program called ADAM to make '24-bit-ish' DCTV .Anim's from the likes of Scenery Animator, and Lightwave, etc.

 

I really like this thread, even if it's a little depressing..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2020 at 4:04 AM, Hwlngmad said:

Very true.  Also when companies like Epson and Packard Bell joined the fray, they did so with IBM PC compatibles.  It made it difficult for companies like Apple, Atari, and Commodore to not only fight other companies for market share, but having to fight against the growing PC standard(s) as well.  It, in the end, was just too much to overcome.

Dave Haynie was designing the next system architecture in such a way that make would make the next system more modular. That is, separate the graphics from the audio and then I/O. He designed a custom bus that would solve those problems however, PCI came out which solved that problem and did it much better than he did.

 

Commodore actually loved to use standards as long as they weren't rubbish. The next generation Amigas would have had a PCI bus, graphics would have lived on PCI and there would have also been a PCI to Zorro III bridge. Dave had already speced out PCI interface to AA and AAA so the gfx would have lived on a card eventually.
 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

One thing that definitely hurt the Amiga's chances were the lack of upgrade options (especially for the A500) and the price of the options that were available. I think that ultimately, it wasn't IBM or Microsoft that doomed the Amiga, but instead it was Creative (Sound Blaster) and S3 (911 GPU chip).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 12:18 AM, shoestring said:

Dave Haynie was designing the next system architecture in such a way that make would make the next system more modular. That is, separate the graphics from the audio and then I/O. He designed a custom bus that would solve those problems however, PCI came out which solved that problem and did it much better than he did.

I consider the modular graphics and sound problem solved with the ISA bus and its descendants. Years before PCI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, EmuDan said:

One thing that definitely hurt the Amiga's chances were the lack of upgrade options (especially for the A500) and the price of the options that were available.

When I had my A1000 and A500, there was literally actually nothing for the side slots available within my hometown city or even state. And at a time when those PC computer superstores exploded all over the country. 286 and 386 eras.

 

6 hours ago, EmuDan said:

I think that ultimately, it wasn't IBM or Microsoft that doomed the Amiga, but instead it was Creative (Sound Blaster) and S3 (911 GPU chip).

SoundBlaster and generic graphics chips that sat on the PC's modular bus were only parts of the reason why the Amiga bombed in the U.S. And there were certainly more than one PC graphics chip. There were hundreds!

 

There was way too much bickering going on between the engineers and Commodore and parts of Commodore itself. Stability was needed. Apple and IBM were able to create it. The Apple II lived on from 1977 through 1993. And the PC clone industry was an unstoppable juggernaut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Keatah said:

And the PC clone industry was an unstoppable juggernaut.

This is the real reason for everything. No amount of magic bullets would have helped Amiga, because it was a closed ecosystem. Apple which had done everything right in this model has barely survived...at best Amiga could replace them, but would I really want that? Nope.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...