SL Speed Showdown: Linux Tops Windoze

by Pixeleen Mistral on 15/07/07 at 3:05 pm

Tests show Linux outperforms Windows Vista for Second Life

by Stef Wade, courtesy of Das SecondLife-Blog

SpeedI spent 10 months in Second Life logging in with my P4-Laptop, speeding through the grid with some 10 FPS. Last week, I bought a new computer. Not top of the shelf, but much better than what I had. So I wanted to see how it handles the SL client.

The HP Pavillion (1GB RAM, Intel Core Duo (T2250@1.73GHz) “Viiv”, Windows-Performanceindex 3,4 – whatever that means) came with Vista home premium installed. As a Linux-guy, I also installed the current flavor of Ubuntu-Linux.

Of course, I wanted to know which OS would run Second Life faster. So I installed SL for Windows and for Linux. Although declared “alpha-software”, the linux client did feel faster – but I wanted some numbers.

Exact benchmarking is very hard to do in Second Life (probably impossible), so I decided to measure the framerate in two different locations at “the same time” (which means in the 16 minutes between 1:44am and 2:01 am, July 14th, 2007)

I used the default settings in both SL-clients, except that I set the drawing distance to 256 meters, which is more appropriate for a new box than the 96 meters default :) Vista used the new decorations “Aero-Glass”, and on Ubuntu ran Beryl, so both operating systems wasted some of their power on “wow-grade eye candy”

The sims I measured the performance were Dublin and Pixel Expo II. I chose them for no particular reason: I logged into Dublin because my last visit to SL ended in the irish pub “Blarney Stone”, and the other locations contains a german SL-Tutorial with a sandbox which I happen to visit quite often, so the landmark was at hand.

I spend some time in both locations to let them rez, and then I walked up and down a little before I took a screenshot with the FPS-reading. Since the framerate is heavily influenced by the buildings you are looking at, I tried to look into the same directions for the measurement. The screenshots were taken using the system’s default functions by pressing the “print screen” key.

In the Pixel Expo II sim, Vista managed between 10 to 20, while Linux got 14 through 40 frames per second. You can feel that difference in speed.


Vista on the left vs. Linux on the right in the Pixel Expo II showdown

In Dublin, both systems were slower: Vista from 7.5 through 10 and Linux from 9 through 20 FPS. Not as much as in the other location, but still visible.


Vista on the left vs. Linux on the right in the Dublin showdown

Conclusion: Don’t change your OS because of Second Life

This was not a scientific study – only a small test which confirmed what I thought I had “felt” already while using Second Life on my new PC.

The difference in FPS is not so big that a change to Linux would be worth it, if you are not already using it for other reasons. But now I have enough “evidence” that for me as a linux-user there is also no reason to boot into windows just to speed up Second Life. The missing voice support may become a reason, but I have to see if that will be important enough for me…

It would be great if someone ran some tests like these on a Intel-Mac, which is able to run all three suported platforms: MacOS, Windows, and Linux. If anybody sponsors the hardware, I’d do it myself :)

31 Responses to “SL Speed Showdown: Linux Tops Windoze”

  1. KMeist Hax

    Jul 15th, 2007

    I never did try out SL on a capable Linux box. My Linux box is a seven-year-old Compaq, actually. My Vista box is a custom-built unit, bought at a computer show. It does run SL faster, but sim lag is still a big problem.

    What I’m wondering is, why are sims so laggy when you get a croud in them? The magic number seems to be ten… where is the bottleneck?

  2. Reality

    Jul 15th, 2007

    Any windows based application is hindered by a whole host of settings – some hardware and some software. it is even hindered by the settings within the program you wish to use.

    That said I myself can get that same performance using my Windows XP (Media Center) system. It all boils down to the settings being used …

    Other Operating Systems may not have as many settings but they also face the same issues. In the end it is not your OS, it is the settings you use.

  3. anon

    Jul 15th, 2007

    lol, no shit

  4. Sim Lag

    Jul 15th, 2007

    “What I’m wondering is, why are sims so laggy when you get a croud in them? The magic number seems to be ten… where is the bottleneck?”

    Well, I can’t say it with certainty, but my guess is that the bottleneck is exactly what you say is the reason. People.

    A building, with furniture, would be, what .. 500 prims … 600 prims? Altogether that is. I’m sure you can go bigger and badder. But I have seen furnitured houses use as little as 300 prims and still look good.

    Most avatars have 100-200 prim hair. Jewelry. Bling. An attachment here. An attachment there. Then don’t get me started yet on robot/furry/monster/… avatars which are completely prim based. In short, 2-3 avatars would use up the same resources as an entire building.


  5. Ordinal Malaprop

    Jul 15th, 2007

    Vista be damned – what is the comparison with XP?

  6. Prokofy Neva

    Jul 15th, 2007

    What I always find hilarious about geeky Linux types who should be steeped in the scientific method of inquiry is that they’d think that a 17-minute, 1-time test at 2:00 am when log-ons aren’t very high constitutes “a test”. At the very least, you’d think they’d try to make it more reliable by testing it, say, 25 times at different times of day; 25 times at the same time of day or something/

    And they also imagine that it wouldn’t be a huge, cumbersome, gawky, stupid, experience to have to install Linux on your system and try to overcome all its geekiness just to get your game running. Sorry, no sale.

  7. anon

    Jul 15th, 2007

    I’ve been running SL on Linux for quite some time. While the speed is an obvious bonus, there are many other factors. For one, what you see in winblows an linux are two different things on the same hardware. Thus when I create content, it’s done in winblows and tested there first.

    Recently I created a product that looked great in linux, was created in linux, and when reviewing in windows found that the colors, shinyness, and overall look were not at all the same.

    In terms of stability, well linux wins hands down. Far fewer lockup problems.

    I’ve used Linux as my primary operating system for years. Linden has not done anything to improve the client to a point of being able to use it for full time production. But then again, what in Second Life is ready for production use?

  8. Anonymous

    Jul 16th, 2007

    Yeah, sorry that linux is too hard for a 40 year old crazy cat lady.

    Yanno, despite ubuntu being easier than windows.

    Hell, you know all I had to do to get it running? downloaded it, unzipped it (isn’t the proper term but big words scare you.) ran the binary, had to tweak some values because it is a test release, but I had no problems with all the features turned on like some non-nvidia owners have. I use it as much as possible, I can also use it while running beryl, with no lag. If linux is a cumbersome experience for you, I wouldn’t be calling IT stupid if I were you. You just showed your own lack of intelligence or coherence. I bet 5 years ago you probably thought the mouse was the “internet button.”

    Do us all a favor and stop talking about things you know nothing about, prok.

  9. Inigo Chamerberlin

    Jul 16th, 2007

    Hmmm, I REALLY don’t think comparing any version of Linux to Vista is relevant. Try doing that with XP instead. Try doing it with 2Gb too – to ensure both OS’s have a bit of ‘headroom’.

    And if you want to see a REAL difference between two OS’s performance on very similar hardware, beg, borrow or steal a Core2Duo MacPro Laptop running Tiger and compare THAT to a PC laptop with the same hardware spec! Use a Vista PC if you like. You won’t THINK the Mac’s running SL slowly – you’ll have no doubt at all.

  10. Johnny Ponte

    Jul 16th, 2007

    Prokofy Neva,
    what are you saying? that makes no sense. really no sense.

  11. Signore Iredell

    Jul 16th, 2007

    I can confirm, by 11 months of using Second Life with both Windows XP and Linux Ubuntu on the same hardware, that the Second Life client runs faster and smoother on Linux on my system [].

    This has been confirmed to me by other residents that use both Windows and Linux on the same computer.

  12. Melissa Yeuxdoux

    Jul 16th, 2007

    While there are still hardware makers who refuse to either support Linux or release sufficient information to allow the creation of Open Source drivers for their products, calling the installation of Linux a “huge, cumbersome, gawky, stupid, [sic] experience” displays massive ignorance of current Linux distributions.

    Strictly controlled experiments would be best, and perhaps someone will go to the trouble to do them. It won’t be easy; I’m not sure anyone other than Linden Labs could really do it. Even if you have a whole sim to yourself for a client-testing “obstacle course,” an individual can’t keep everyone else off the asset server while the tests run. All the anecdotal evidence I’ve heard agrees with Ms. Wade, for what that’s worth.

  13. Melissa Yeuxdoux

    Jul 16th, 2007

    Oops… apologies to Herr Wade for assuming “Stef” is short for “Stephanie.” *blush*

  14. Coincidental Avatar

    Jul 16th, 2007

    Has the Linux client been compiled more specifically for the CPU?

    “What I always find hilarious…”

    I think that too much “fun” is a good telltale of insanity. Windows is generally slower than Linux because of compatibility requirements between various Windows platforms. Zero testing is needed to find out that.

    Though, if the compatibility requirements can be thrown out of window(s), and runtime profiling and global optimization is being used in Windows, I think that the resulting binary is fast. I don’t know if Linux has equally powerful compiler tools. I assume that Linden Lab doesn’t use these power tools while delivering their client SW.

    LL client has probably the worst performance amongst competing products. At least those which I have tried run 2-4 times faster. 60 FPS is normal, but 350 FPS is reserved for demo versions. Nobody needs faster frame rates than the refresh rate of their screen. And in practice refresh rates over 30 are waste of electricity and your computer. Consuming more your computer resources breaks it earlier.

  15. Aya

    Jul 16th, 2007

    I run SL on Debian GNU/Linux, before i was playing sl with ubuntu, with debian you can win 10-15 more fps ;) .
    I never used windows, so i don’t know how it’s…

    My conclusion is: don’t buy new computer, optimise your old one ;) .

  16. Aetuneo Novi

    Jul 16th, 2007

    Linux running faster than Vista? This isn’t news, it’s life. Vista running faster than Linux, on the other hand, would be pretty major news – and a pretty major insult to everyone who uses Linux (I’ve heard that Vista takes up to 4 minutes to be usable after the desktop appears. Claiming that that’s faster than Linux would be a huge insult.)

  17. Katiahnya Muromachi

    Jul 16th, 2007

    When Vista came out, I actually began a SL Benchmark project where I tested Second Life on 7 of my most powerful computers (running a wide variety of single and multi-core AMD and Intel processors at different clock speeds under a variety of ATi and nVidia videocards, also at different clock speeds). In the study, I clean-installed XP 32bit / 64bit, as well as Vista 32bit / 64bit, and then took benchmarks where I loaded the SL client as well as the First Look client. I made sure to record scores with dual-cores turned both off and on, as well as OpenGL Vertex Buffer Objects turned on and off.

    Due to the length of time it took to record the data, it was a little hard keeping a universal test platform. All computers ran under the same graphics settings, and I found an empty, unused sim (which shared a server with another unused sim) as my test platform. I recorded all data during the same time of day, and made sure Online Users were within +/- 1,000 away from 30,000. I stood in the exact same spot, fielded my camera to the exact same position, made sure the current sim dilation/fps/scripts/etc.. were the same, and started to record an FPS mean average after 3 minutes of idling.

    Unfortunately I couldn’t finish collecting my data because I was getting too tired of waiting for nVidia to release nTune for Vista. By the time nTune finally came out, people had started changing things around the sim I was using as a test platform, so my benchmark project went down the drain. :( I still have pages and pages of recorded data from it, and if my memory serves me correctly (I’m at work right now, so I can’t check my books), XP ran SL anywhere from 5-15 FPS faster than Vista. I should try reviving the project one day and also add in MacOSX and Ubuntu into the mix. If only Ubuntu wasn’t a *$#@%@$% pain in the ass for getting graphics cards, 3d acceleration, and monitor settings adjusted properly..

  18. dandellion Kimban

    Jul 16th, 2007

    “And they also imagine that it wouldn’t be a huge, cumbersome, gawky, stupid, experience to have to install Linux on your system and try to overcome all its geekiness just to get your game running. ”

    Of course that nobody installs new OS just for making one game running. People use GNU/Linux to see how really their hardware is fast and stable. And yes, because installing Ubuntu or similar user-oriented distro is much easier and faster than installing Windows.

  19. Lucinda Obviate

    Jul 17th, 2007

    I for one can say I find running SL a joy on Ubuntu Linux. It’s slick, it’s fast and the direct open GL render looks much better then when I run SL on Windows. (For point of reference a fast run down of my rig’s specs. abit mother board, amd 64bit 2.4ghz processor, xfx6600 nivida graphics card w/512mb on-board ram, 2gig Kingston ram.) I also notice when others get tangled in mass booting due to a laggy sim, I am often left still just fine wondering where everyone went. I often can walk while others are doing the lag dance. Of coarse speed on Ubuntu is not exclusive to just SL client, but Linux is not bogged down by all the interlaced programs, and things like virus protection or malware blockers that windows has. I will admit this I do have dual boot system, I have xp on another petition of my drive. The only reason is I have few art programs, photoshop CS3 and Zbrush, that have not been ported to Linux reliably ,YET.

    Back to SL client specificly, there are few disadvantages to the Linux client, LL, support of Linux has been some what lack luster though I do give the bonus points for porting to Linux when lot games and program makers haven’t. Part of lack of support is they are moving very slowly on getting a Linux voices client working. From what I hear on the forums it’s actually a hold up at the company that is provideding the chat programing , Vivox, has not sent the nescary data to LL to get the Linux voice client working. So LL is not totally to blame though I think they were bit short sighted to get in bed with company that is moving so slowly on getting all the needed programing data to them to services all their customers. Yes Linux users are customers too you know. *winks*

    The issue of installing has been brought up. Now I am sure your hardware can make difference here. But my experience was a total breeze. As matter of fact installing Ubuntu was about 4to6 times faster. Ubuntu found and recognized ALL of my hardware the only driver I had to install was my nVida driver. That involved clicking a button that Linux popped up saying it need to search the driver database at nvida for the driver. It searched it for me found what needed, and then the really hard part I had to click ‘install’. OOOooooOOooo my finger may never be the same *winks* The flip doing the re-install of XP, I had to find and update drivers for pretty much every piece of hardware I had. Then of coarse there was the 72+ updates and patches I had for my servies pack 2 xp, another hour or so down the drain. True Ubuntu had some updates as well, about the same number, but it took maybe 10 to 15 min at the most to get them handled.

    All this being said it’s true you shouldn’t switch OS just to run SL. Of coarse if you are tired of the constant money drain and problems Windows is offering you might consider taking the plunge and try Ubuntu for free, or drop ton money on a Mac. Of coarse you don’t even have to install Ubuntu on your hard drive to try it, you could always run it off something called live CD version. It’s great way to check it out and see if you like it. Yes that’s right you can run Linux OS off a cd….pretty cool huh?! Which by the way I recommend creating a live cd of Linux, for the simple fact if your Windows takes full on digger and is rendered useless by one the countless virus or malware programs targeted at windows…that yes often get past all the protections you run. You will be able to boot using the live cd and save data like photos and documents that might have other wised lost.

    One last thing to qualify some things about me the user making these statements. I learned to use a computer on Windows, it’s all I knew, it’s what I was used to. And after the increasing problems I was having with windows I finally got feed up with dealing with it. So as of about 2 months ago I became a Ubuntu chic. If I didn’t have those few art programs, I wouldn’t even bother with having windows on my drive. If I can make the change anyone can. Was there learning to be done of coarse, but you had to learn with windows at some point to didn’t you? Plus Ubuntu and Linux users have vibrant helpful forums, and IRC chats loaded with people that can help you with just about any issue you run into. OH yeah did mention all of this is for FREE! Wow it’s true some the best things in life really are free. Cheers and be well!

  20. Jorus Xi

    Jul 17th, 2007

    “What I always find hilarious about geeky Linux types who should be steeped in the scientific method of inquiry is that they’d think that a 17-minute, 1-time test at 2:00 am when log-ons aren’t very high constitutes “a test”. At the very least, you’d think they’d try to make it more reliable by testing it, say, 25 times at different times of day; 25 times at the same time of day or something/

    And they also imagine that it wouldn’t be a huge, cumbersome, gawky, stupid, experience to have to install Linux on your system and try to overcome all its geekiness just to get your game running. Sorry, no sale.”

    I semi agree with you that this benchmark is only semi on the level. And this is coming from a geeky linux guy with years of Sysadmin experience. Even the latest flavor of ubuntu is probably several times more advanced testing and updatewise than Vista, I’d rather see a comparison vs a windows XP system considering XP is the faster OS at the moment, and more common in household applications.

    Also his ubuntu shell is probably stripped down, nothing runs on linux that you don’t explicitely tell to run. On a fresh factory install of vista from a store bought source ala HP you have a lot of bullshit software running from HP. For proper benchmarking you’d need to do a home install of vista or XP and only load drivers and programs you will be running. HP Smartcenter or whatever they are calling their shit canned software that eats up all your memory in the background needs to go. It isn’t running in ubuntu, so for benchmarking purposes it shouldn’t be on his vista install either.

    I’d also like to point out that for most linux geeks, if you spent as much time tweaking winblowz as you did linux you would have your copy of XP purring like a kitten every time you touched it. Take it from a guy who has regular 3-5 months of uptime on his windows box, running everything from WoW to SL, bittorrent, SAM Broadcaster, and of course all the other geek shit you know and love, it just takes a little effort.

    Oh and Prok? I hate to break it to you, but installing linux these days, especially with the latest fedora project CD’s et al is actually less of a major pain in the ass than doing a fresh windows install, especially when setting up the network. The days of having to completely geek out and compile a driver for every wet fart your PC wants to make are over. Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and several others all now come “off the CD” with similar functionality to a stock install of windows.

    We’re at the point now where its a preference between the two environments. For simplicities sake and because I am very familiar with tweaking windows to do what I want with game style applications I tend to stick with windows. I could probably get an ubuntu gaming box up in a day, and mind you I have no real experience with this particular application of linux. So it would be fresh territory for me.

  21. Anonymous

    Jul 18th, 2007

    “I used the default settings in both SL-clients, except that I set the drawing distance to 256 meters,”

    The sticky in the linux alpha forum says that the default settings for the client have many of the rendering effects disabled. Put both at the settings for your regular usage and benchmark the clients at those.

  22. Coincidental Avatar

    Jul 18th, 2007

    I emphasize that the performance difference between Windows/Linux is meaningless compared to the performance difference between SL client and the clients of competitors.

    The OpenSim etc. projects provide occasional performance improvement up to 10 times compared to LL creations.

    [Note that there are paid and unpaid developers in the open source crowds around SL. And it is deliberately opaque.]

  23. Prokofy Neva

    Jul 19th, 2007

    Since people are charging me with merely showing up her to put eyes on myself again, let me reiterate that I’ve asked the common-sense and really only penetrating scientific question here, alone as a non-scientist, to people purporting to be scientists (or at least technicians):

    Why don’t you have a real, authentic scientific test? Multiple times for log-in, multiple times for the test itself, multiple sim settings, not just one 7-minute test on one log-on, on one sim. My word, that ought NOT to be brain science. I don’t see how you could even be such a lazy thinker to even imagine that one test like that run once would be enough for a post! Run it at least 2-3 times, my God!

    Not a single person here is following through on this problem. We heard some long-winded thing from Katiahnya Muromachi saying she couldn’t finish the test due to Nvidia; we heard another person say Linux installation is a dream except problems with Nvidia drivers; somebody else mentions Nvidia.

    Sorry, but that’s one of only two graphic cards stipulated to run with SL. So if Linux can’t work with it, even if “through no fault of its own,” it’s a show-stopper.

    For anyone starting from scratch, having to install Linux and risk messing up all their applications they need for work, AND not being able to solve graphic card compatability, it’s a show-stopper. Ardent, religious proseltyzing to the effect of “but I’m a geek and it’s easy to me” mean nothing.

    If Linux was the dream everyone imagines, it would have spread like wildfire and everybody would have it. But it didn’t, and they don’t. And then the Linux cultists begin blaming Windoze and Microsoft tyranny for the problem. If making things Linux compatible was a breeze, it would spread, again — it doesn’t.

    If you want to make a statement about Linux running SL faster than XP or Vista, don’t go off on a side trip determining whether XP or Vista run faster, or go off bitching about Linux and video cards. Run the test under proper scientific conditions, and keep an open mind, the same open mind you imagine Microsoft doesn’t have, and which you imagine you have merely by being Linux cultists.

  24. DaveOner

    Jul 19th, 2007

    “This was not a scientific study – only a small test which confirmed what I thought I had “felt” already while using Second Life on my new PC.”

    No one was claiming to be scientific. Your crusade for science was misguided, Dr. Zaius. At least people in another section of the Herald are paying attention to you for a moment, though!

    Back to the subject..I’ve often debated trying Linux out, if nothing else, out of frustration with Windows. However, among other things I make music and everything I’ve seen indicates this would be a step backwards as far as useability and adaptability for music programs and recording. What I’ve seen indicates a Mac would be the best of the 3 for that, but I prefer real computers that can be upgraded and are for more advanced users…even if there is less stability to be had with Windows.

    If I’m wrong and Linux is actually compatible with the majority of music hardware/software out there then someone please tell me and I’ll dig further! I’m not interested in having to go back and fourth between OS’s”s’s', though.

  25. Coyote Momiji

    Jul 25th, 2007

    This isn’t news to me; I’ve been running Ubuntu on my system since my WinXP install got corrupted this March. The difference has been astounding. Lag isn’t something I have to put up with much anymore; even at the recent concierge party, I was getting about 15FPS while my partner was getting 2 to 3.

    It was excruciatingly easy to set up, smooth as silk to operate and I don’t have to worry about misplacing my serial code for the installation disc – or the disc, for that matter.

  26. Danyel

    Mar 9th, 2008

    I am romanian but i speak english

  27. DMFH

    Apr 24th, 2008

    … I read this article with interest, even though from 2007, since I was considering taking some older laptop hardware headed for the recycle bin and making an “SL box” to SL @ work (some of my daily RL business involves SL). I’m a network engineer, sysadmin, coder, and general compute performance geek, having designed super-compute plants for financial houses, and I wanted to add a few comments about the OS thing in general:

    - Microsoft OS’s have better overall hardware support, obviously, and the GPU manufacturers make and tune drivers for their OS’s much more than they do for any other platform, this makes a higher FPS rate plausible on Microsoft OS’s.

    - Microsoft has the *worst*, the absolute *worst* OS scheduler in existence. The scheduler is the part of the operating system that determines what gets CPU processing time at each interval. This is why you don’t see Microsoft OS’s doing too many “real-time” things, such as, the back end servers for stock trading, etc. This affects users by allowing other processes to steal CPU cycles away from what you are actually trying to do on the user interface. Many components in Microsoft OS’s are single-threaded, meaning they are capable of hogging the CPU – Outlook is a good example of this.

    - The way MS manages OS configuration is through Registry Keys. Other OS’s usually use some combination of flat files with formatted text in them, for example, OS/X uses flavors of XML in configuration files called plists. Many MS users complain their systems “get slow” and this triggers a purchase to a new system. Sure, software is getting more demanding, but if you compare the size of a Registry after install, and after usage? There’s so much garbage in there over time, it slows system performance down. From a computer science perspective, it’s very broken to burden an OS with writing tiny values to disk each time you mouse click or move a window.

    - In order to game (or run SL), there’s DirectX, which, for the most part is moving the Microsoft OS “out of the way” of the gaming code to get “direct” access to hardware, speeding things up greatly. In the UNIX world, this is a given – you can write programs and drivers directly to the hardware level if you desire – it’s “right there” for you to do if you want as a programmer, there’s nothing to “move out of the way”. This single simple differentiating feature makes non-MS OS’s very attractive to folks who want to do real-time work.

    What’s always best to use it what suits most or all of your needs best. :)

  28. Noisey Lane

    Oct 28th, 2008

    I can confirm Second Life runs much faster using Linux Ubuntu on the same machine/hardware than Windows XP.
    I keep both OS’s updated (XP SP3) and use both the RC and Main Client of SL.
    I also shut down or disable any unnecessary services and apps before I start.
    This was tested on a Pentium 4 with a Nvidia Ge440 GPU with 2Gb RAM so my FPS were not huge in either OS.
    Average FPS in Linux a paltry 11.2 but compare that with XP at 4.8.
    I can’t believe I put up with this for nearly 2 years in SL!!
    I tested it over several days in all kinds of SL conditions (busy and/or prim-heavy Vs empty sims).

    I’ve just upgraded to an Intel Quad Core with a single 9800GTX+ 512Mb GPU and 3Gb RAM and reaching frame rates of up to 70FPS in XP. (20FPS is the lowest I have observed in a club with 60+ Avatars).
    The P4 recommended graphics settings in SL is ‘Low’ and the Quad is ‘High’ so even with the shiny bling and pretty water, it screams along.
    I haven’t installed Linux on it yet and probably won’t as I want to keep this box lean and mean for SL and other games plus Linux won’t recognize my Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi audio card.

    I did try Vista on the P4 for about a week before I tore it out and reinstalled XP. It gave comparable FPS to XP but it royally sucked as an OS.
    The P4 is still a good office machine running email, web, tv and the usual plethora of junk very well but it’s certainly not a gaming setup – unless I get kicked off the Quad by my daughter who has just discovered the joys of SL!!

  29. Tramadol.

    Dec 14th, 2009

    Tramadol 50mg.

    Tramadol soma zoloft prozac Tramadol hcl. Tramadol c.o.d.. Tramadol hcl 50mg. Tramadol.

  30. Tramadol dog.

    Dec 16th, 2009


    Tramadol soma zoloft prozac Buy tramadol. Tramadol fda. Tramadol tablets. 100 tramadol.

  31. Percocet.

    Dec 17th, 2009


    Soldier s percocet addiction.

Leave a Reply