backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 51 comment(s) - last by KuhnKat.. on May 14 at 1:12 PM

A wide variety of boot problems have been reported with Windows XP SP3, fortunately many of them are very fixable

Windows XP remains a standard throughout much of the IT community, and remains popular among consumers as well.  Thus many consumers are pleased that Windows XP Service Pack 3 is back in action, after being pulled a week for a software fix.  The new service pack provides additional useful features, numerous bugfixes, and minor performance improvements.

Unfortunately some users are also finding that it provides their computer with an endless reboot loop.  First, to dispel a common misconception, the reboot itself has nothing to do with a problem with XP SP3.  Rather, the problem is during the boot, which results in a crash.  In the case of the crash, Windows XP behaves correctly -- it reboots the computer and asks the user if they want to boot into safe mode, defaulting to a normal boot if no option is selected.

Users are not happy about the developments.  Michael Faklis posting on the Windows XP discussion board, vents, "My external disks are having trouble starting up, which results in Windows not starting up.  After three attempts [to install XP SP3] with different configurations each time, System Restore was the only way to get me out of deep s**t."

The source of many of the problems has been traced to manufacturers, which takes a bit of heat off Microsoft.  Perhaps the single biggest problem appears to be caused by Hewlett Packard's configuration choices.  By default HP deploys the driver intelppm.sys on all their computers, including those with AMD processors.  The driver provides power-management, but only for Intel machines.  On AMD machines a second driver, amdk8.sys is also added, which performs the same functionality for AMD processors.

If your machine's HP part number ends in a 'z', you probably have an AMD processor.  Or you could just peek inside.  Either way, if you have an AMD machine, you will likely experience crashes when you install Windows XP SP3.  This is really not Microsoft's fault as HP is installing an unsupported configuration by adding both drivers.  To fix the problem, if you haven't added SP3 yet, just type "disable intelppm" in the command prompt or run "sc config intelppm start= disabled" if you already installed it and can only boot to safe mode.

Another problem seems to occurring on certain motherboards, which affects USB devices.  Users found a simple fix to this problem -- some report that by plugging in a USB storage device their computer will boot normally, but without the device attached it will crash.  For non-AMD/HP users, this remains an option if dealing with crashes.  Also some have found that switching the mouse from USB to PS/2 port (via the adapter to the round PS/2 port) fixes the problem, indicating it may be an issue with USB mouse drivers.

Additionally, users of AMD's Catalyst 8.4 drivers have also reported some crashes.  To see if the video driver is the issue, boot to VGA mode.  If it works, the video driver may be to blame.  One isolate report of an NVIDIA related crash also occurred, but it was unreported what driver was used.  Other miscellaneous crashes appear to be due to systems with multiple hard disks. 

A very helpful resource to deal with the problems is provided by Microsoft MVP in Windows Security, Jesper Johansson, who offers additional helpful details to these and other potential problems and their fixes on his blog.

As Johansson points out, the most extreme solution when none other can be found is simply to uninstall XP SP3.  To do this, refer to the Microsoft Knowledge Base article on the topic.

While Windows XP is receiving some bad press due to the crashes, again, it appears that most of the crashes are due to hardware issues stemming from unsupported configurations, and thus the blame fall largely to the PC manufacturers, and the makers of component drivers. Fortunately, the majority of the problems have easy fixes that do not even requiring uninstalling the Service Pack.

Similar problems occurred with Windows Vista SP1, though in that case the blame ended up resting with a Microsoft pre-install update.  It is fairly typical for a Service Pack to take some computers out of commission, particularly one for an OS with as large an operating base and as varied a hardware environment as Windows XP.  Nonetheless, such problems are serious concerns for users affected, and those potentially at risk.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

My findings
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2008 10:21:43 AM , Rating: 3
I had to remove SP3 because it messed up my Windows extender to stream things to my 360. I tried to reinstall the extender software but it isn't compatible with SP3.




RE: My findings
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2008 10:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
There wasn't any issue with me having 5 hard drive though.

Could be an issue with a certain chipset.

I haven't installed it on my main desktop yet though. It has the Catalyst 8.4 drivers installed so maybe tonight I'll install it there and see what happens. It also has 5 hard drives.


RE: My findings
By oab on 5/12/2008 12:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have catalyst 8.4 drivers installed on my "game" desktop and SP3 installed without any problems.

Core2 Duo
Asus P5B-E
ATI Radeon x1900
no-name wireless lan card


RE: My findings
By StevoLincolnite on 5/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: My findings
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2008 10:42:50 AM , Rating: 3
There will always be bugs in a product as massive as an OS. It's just a fact.


RE: My findings
By StevoLincolnite on 5/12/2008 10:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
Any large product can introduce bugs, even your Graphics cards have had bugs in the past, which required a re-spin of the silicon, or the feature blatantly disabled.

But what I don't understand is how could they miss something like USB Mice compatibility?
I'm sure they have an army of 50 thousand strapping lads testing everything as soon as they are given it.


RE: My findings
By virtuallyserved on 5/12/2008 11:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
Acknowledging that OS's have bugs and any large installed base will introduce some issues, it does seem that code produced by Microsoft in the post Vista era seems to be very underwhelming, even if it all isn't Microsoft's fault. Yet and still, they seem to be missing simple things that affect the largest number of people.

Even after looking at Server 2008 reviews (in particular the Powershell implementation) I'm not terribly impressed. Some of the features seem compelling, self healing NTFS, and maybe their new hypervisor (when it is finally released), but it does seem as if staying on what some consider legacy operating systems is the way to go for now.


RE: My findings
By mikefarinha on 5/12/2008 11:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
Although I can't claim this as fact, it reminds me of when Microsoft introduced better HTML and CSS compatibility in IE7.

There were many web sites that would detect IE and use workarounds due to flaws in IE6. Once IE7 was introduced, many of those flaws were fixed... but subsequently screwed up web sites that depended on the flaws in IE6 to render properly.

This could be a similar phenomenon with XP SP3 and Vista. Applications that weren't necessarily developed using best practices get bent out of shape when bugs are fixed.

I do know this is true with applications that were developed with poor security are run on Vista. Since Vista was developed from the start with security in mind; applications and drivers that disregarded security had major issues with Vista... however most problems seem to be fixed now.


RE: My findings
By Omega215D on 5/12/2008 9:52:20 PM , Rating: 1
Yet the annoying Apple commercials make their return. The recent one is where PCs were living with Vista with them going how it's not working how it should. What a load of garbage.

I have a MacBook and it runs Vista just fine and my XP SP3 installation hasn't had a problem yet.


RE: My findings
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2008 10:42:58 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct but given the complexity of Windows (I hate to admit it but windows IS very complex), any time you introduce new code to an already extremely large base of code, you are bound to introduce many new and often unintended bugs.

I think I'll just sit back and use SP 2 for the time being and let the rest of people test out SP 3.


RE: My findings
By StevoLincolnite on 5/12/2008 10:52:20 AM , Rating: 1
I understand this, as I did state windows was "Complex". However, I was reading the long list of bugs that were fixed, which actually amazed me to some extent, It should all become fine in the following weeks, as I remember Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2K had there share of Service pack issues. (Most notable ME).


RE: My findings
By thornburg on 5/12/2008 11:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2K had there share of Service pack issues. (Most notable ME)


Ummm... There never were any Service Packs for ME. I think there were even any Service Releases (basically an update-rollup that came slipstreamed on an installation disk).

Windows ME was horrid, but Service Pack issues were not involved. Now NT on the other hand...


RE: My findings
By mikefarinha on 5/12/2008 12:03:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ummm... There never were any Service Packs for ME.


Correct.

There were never any service packs for the 16-bit/32-bit hybrid Windows OSes... Win95, Win98, or WinME.

Service packs were only for the NT based version of windows (NT, 2k, XP, ,2003, Vista). However there has been service packs for various Microsoft applications such as IE and Office.

I think the youngsters get confused and think there were service packs with Win98 and WinME because there were IE service packs released when these OSes were still around.


RE: My findings
By Bender 123 on 5/12/2008 1:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
You mean back in the old days? When the BSD was clean and pure and we had to manually configure jumpers on boards to get the darn computers to do what we wanted. Back then service packs would have driven me insane...I was just happy when my system would POST and Windows would boot without death spiraling.
I still have nightmares about updates from back then...It was always a crapshoot, hoping a driver change/security fix/update did not screw with your carefully configured IRQs and boot sequence.

I actually think (not certain) that you could consider 98/ME to be "Service packs" for the base OS in 95. Check me if I am wrong, but aren't they even the same version number, Windows 4.x?


RE: My findings
By Bender 123 on 5/12/2008 8:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
Just to reply to myself/add on...
95/98/ME were all version Windows 4.x. Despite the changes, they all seemed to follow the same basic incremental steps of what is now service packs.

I have not needed to look at those numbers in a looooooooong time.


RE: My findings
By Devo2007 on 5/12/2008 1:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
While they weren't called "Service Packs" they still did exist.

Windows 95 OSR2, OSR2.5
Windows 98 Second Edition

...though I don't think there was any for Windows ME.


RE: My findings
By darkpaw on 5/12/2008 1:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
Nope there weren't, ME really was a paid beta test product for some of the new features that made it into XP like system restore. I'm generally a pro MS guy, but ME was probably the single worst product they ever released (well Bob might have been worse, but at least it wasn't sold long).


RE: My findings
By mikefarinha on 5/12/2008 2:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While they weren't called "Service Packs" they still did exist.

Windows 95 OSR2, OSR2.5
Windows 98 Second Edition


The difference here was you couldn't buy Win98 and then download the updates to get Win98SE. The same goes for Win95a Win95b, and Win95c. You had to buy the updated CD to get the updated version of windows.

I believe the big brouhaha with Win95c was that it had USB support.

Also Win95c was often referred to as Win97.


RE: My findings
By djc208 on 5/12/2008 10:58:34 AM , Rating: 2
It installed fine on my laptop and my HTPC. Only one I had issues with is my gaming rig and that was due to some service being locked out so SP3 would try to install a new file and return an error. It would then uninstall the update and reboot.

Tried clean boots and safemode but same error. A little searching turned up a MS help file that had you run a script to edit permissions in the registry (took a while, looked kind of scary) but it worked.

Otherwise no major issues so far on any of the three.


RE: My findings
By eye smite on 5/12/2008 12:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
and this is why I'll be waiting til the end of this year to attempt SP3 on any of my xp systems. lol


OEMs are good at screwing up Windows
By darkpaw on 5/12/2008 10:51:00 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not the least bit surprised that the majority of the issues are due to OEM driver setups. OEM's are mostly to blame for Vista's negative image too.

I've been using Vista since beta on self installed machines and absolutely loved it. I recently got a new, very nice Lenovo laptop (TP61p, T9300 with 4gb of RAM) with a preinstall of Vista Business 64 and it ran like absolute crap. It really did perform poorly as many people say about Vista, but it wasn't Vista's fault at all. It was all the crap and drivers installed by the OEM. A fresh install of Vista and it performed like I've come to expect and was about twice as fast.

I bet half the misconception of Vista sucking is from OEM issues, ten percent is actual problems, and the rest is just FUD.




By VahnTitrio on 5/12/2008 10:58:34 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, when people had similar issues with Vista sp1 it was "Vista sucks" etc, etc. I don't see any XP sucks comments in this article. The truth is it's not worth it to pay to upgrade to Vista or even really take the time do so. However if you are building a new system you might as well start it out on Vista.


RE: OEMs are good at screwing up Windows
By StevoLincolnite on 5/12/2008 10:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
I ran Vista on a 4 year old machine consisting of a Pentium M 1.6ghz, 1024mb of memory and a Mobility Radeon 9700pro, origionally it came with XP, as back then Microsoft hadn't started the huge Vista Advertising Campaign of "Vista Capable". - Anyway I read far to many horror stories on how it performed on systems with specs that were twice that of my old machine, To my Surprise I installed the Operating System, Boot times were slightly longer, but that was hardly a cause for concern, the machine was never turned off anyway.

I loaded up OldOblivion and it ran perfectly fine, I lost about 1-2fps but that was about it, nothing that a low-poly-grass mod couldn't fix and then some.
I never understood the bad performance of Vista in 3D gaming that everyone proclaimed about, it isn't all that dramatic, if there is large performance decreases then check how your drivers and other software are set-up.


By darkpaw on 5/12/2008 11:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
That was very similar to my Vista beta system, I was running it on a Athlon 64 3200 DTR, 1gb ram, with a 9600Pro Mobility custom laptop. It ran pretty much flawlessly on that system. The new Lenevo actually ran worse then that several year old system. Boot up times and suspend/hibernate times were abysmal (3+ minutes) when I was quite used to the nearly instant suspend/resume on my other Vista systems.

The other OEM Vista system I have is a Dell XPS M2010, and it was also slower then my own builds, but not nearly as bad as the Lenovo. I never did bother reinstalling this one since I don't use it as a day to day system and other then boot times seems to perform as good as my other machines.


By Diesel Donkey on 5/12/2008 2:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
I think most of the Vista gaming issues were due to poor Nvidia drivers, not Vista itself. Since you have an ATI card, it wouldn't have been as much of an issue for you.


By Foxbat121 on 5/12/2008 3:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
I've a HP PC with AMD processor and when I tried a few weeks ago with the final release of SP3, I encountered the exact problem as described and had to use system restore to back it out.

To be fair, my HP PC is cheaply made and loaded with crapware out of box. However, now HP is #1 PC maker, it's just unbelievable MS didn't test it in any AMD HP PCs.

I'd say the blame is with MS for not testing thoroughly. After all, SP2 works just fine with same configuration.




By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2008 6:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd say the blame is with MS for not testing thoroughly. After all, SP2 works just fine with same configuration.


By " thoroughly " you mean every single possible hardware/software configuration on the planet. I suggest that if MS took the time to do this, NO software would get released in any reasonable amount of time. Ever.


By Foxbat121 on 5/12/2008 8:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
Please read me comments again. HP is #1 PC maker and makes a lot of AMD desktops in the past (unlike Dell). So a HP desktop with AMD processor is hardly a rare configuration.


By mindless1 on 5/13/2008 3:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Tech geeks seem too often forgetful that the majority of XP systems are OEM, it is the target market for MS.

The blame isn't necessarily MS' though, assuming SP3 testing was underway at the OEMs then it was the OEMs who missed the problem, failed to report it to MS in time to make the needed correction. Either that or MS internal communication about it was bad or they decided not to correct it at the time.


Pretty Pathetic
By grampaw on 5/12/2008 4:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty pathetic when you have to know NOT to download and install SP3 when it shows up as a Ho Hum, normal, security update during the May 6, first Tuesday of month, Microsoft patch day. I'm not about to install anything like a service pack right out of the gate, given Microsoft's abysmal track record. The updater nagged me to install it about 4 times before giving up, until, I assume until next month's Tuesday Update.

Problem is I'm not that technically competent, even though I have 5 computers, each with a different configuration on my home LAN. I have to wait for Dailytech with this article, and other Tech sites, to identify the problems. Only then will I do anything like add a Service Pack, that Microsoft cavalierly states "... shouldn't change your computer experience."

You'd think Microsoft would at least suggest one might want to set a restore point before embarking on this non-trivial update. Don't mean to sound hostile, however, ALL my future computers are going to be Apple products.




RE: Pretty Pathetic
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2008 4:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and then you can enjoy paying for said Service Packs in addition to any problems that they might cause.


RE: Pretty Pathetic
By Reclaimer77 on 5/12/2008 6:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't mean to sound hostile, however, ALL my future computers are going to be Apple products.


Ok let us know how thats working out for ya.


RE: Pretty Pathetic
By mindless1 on 5/13/2008 3:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
The basic problem is the basic illogical assumption one should update, patch, etc, things that aren't broken.

If your system has a problem due to the OS, you have already established the producer of that OS is not foolproof - and nobody is, it stands to reason that there will always be a certain % of problems that go undetected so any patching at this scale will cause new problems.

The only other detail some forget is that since they aren't using their system in exactly the same way, they may never discover or at least not right away like a failure to boot, what new bugs were introduced.


The point
By viperpa on 5/12/2008 1:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
People say you can't put sole blame on Microsoft. This maybe true but isn't it up to Microsoft to talk with the PC manufacturers to make sure the update works on the pc's? Seems like they are not all on the same page.




RE: The point
By darkpaw on 5/12/2008 2:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
MS could talk to them all they want, doesn't mean they'll listen.

HP, Dell, et al don't give a damn about the systems after they are out (especially ones that are out of support). Hell, the best thing that could happen for the OEM is a full system failure so the customers buy a new system they don't need. Half the issues come from them being too cheap to make separate Windows images for separate machines to begin with, it'd be hard to expect they'd actually provide real support after the sale.


No beta period?
By DXRick on 5/12/2008 3:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
MS did not have a beta period where OEMs, software companies, and daring users could download SP3 and test it with their drivers, software, and systems?

The company I used to work for had the same problems when installing upgrades to the mainframe OS. A bug fix would break other software that was coded to work around the existing bug. Other bugs would pop up that for what ever reason weren't noticed before the upgrade. Obviously, it was important to test the upgrade in a test environment, before loading it on the production system.

It is totally unprofessional (and idiotic) for MS to not have a beta period during which problems could be found and fixed BEFORE subjecting the world to it! If there was a well publicized beta period, the OEMs are to blame.




RE: No beta period?
By darkpaw on 5/12/2008 4:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
The beta was about 6 months long, give or take.


Network issues
By Chadder007 on 5/12/2008 1:27:53 PM , Rating: 2
Im having network issues. Seemingly dropped packets over ethernet on 1 PC and the same over wireless on a laptop.
The laptop you have to take the card out and put it back in to connect to the network, the PC you have to sometimes refresh a site to get it to come up.....just kinda strange but Ive been putting up with it.




makes me glad I waited
By tastyratz on 5/12/2008 2:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
sp3 has been so tempting to install, but I had to wait to see these things hit the floor, there's always a wave of bugs on first service pack launches then it gets ironed out. I run a custom built sys. so no OEM issues but I have almost 10 hard drives and complex raid array setups. I prefer the refresh rate of usb mouse vs ps2 for gaming so I don't want to run into that. Maybe Ill give it a few more weeks




Hardware?
By letgomyeggroll on 5/12/2008 3:36:30 PM , Rating: 2
It really bother me when some of you are pointing finger at the hardware instead of Microsoft. My computer was running fine like everyone else was until I installed the SP3. I do have an AMD 939, multi hard drive, Nvidia video card and chipset. My computer had the reboot problem with a quick flash of blue screen of death. I was able to do the F8 and chose another safe mode, and got my system running before SP3 upgrade. But this is after I moved my secondary hard drive which for medias and files only. So why are you blaming on the company that make the driver for their based on the current SP hardware? Which all the driver that have issues now was working before the update. Microsoft knew this and they should tested before releasng the update. They are making the same mistake when they did with Xbox. Like always they will blame others for their problems that they created. I'm back using the SP2 until the fix the issues.




By dgingeri on 5/12/2008 3:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
I installed it 5 times, on fresh installs of Windows XP with SP2 on 2 different machines. As soon as SP3 installed, Automatic Updates would just download the updates and quit, saying that the updates just downloaded were not installed. No error messages. No reasons. Just wouldn't go. The first 2 attempts were with no other patches past SP2 were installed. The next 2 were on a different machine, and the last one was with all the other updates other than Media Player 11 installed. I could manually install further updates, but Automatic Updates just failed.




Hmmph
By Freezetronius on 5/12/2008 5:03:06 PM , Rating: 2
No problems here with 1 week into using SP3, so you can take away my XP after M$ makes a decent OS after Vista. Till then, forget it.




One minor problem so far
By flydian on 5/12/2008 7:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Everything seems to be working fine on my computer so far except for the wireless controller software for my wireless card. The adapter is fine, and I have network connectivity with no issues. But I get errors related to not being able to load that software when Windows loads, cannot reinstall it, and cannot uninstall it.

Bugged? Sure, but it doesn't break anything, except my overzealous sense of order. =D




HP Notebooks
By KuhnKat on 5/14/2008 1:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
I have 3, ZV5424US, ZV5201US, DV9410US (2 semprons and a dual core AMD). I had reinstalled XP on all 3 using the latest supported drivers from the manufacturers (not necessarily HP) including the appropriate AMD and ATI drivers from their site.

None of these laptops have exhibited any problems during, or since, the upgrade to SP 3. I think this reflects that HP does NOT configure their laptops well. They, as many others, also do not give much continuing support for driver issues unless it is a major problem. Video performance especially is nothing to rave about, yet, they make it difficult to get upgraded drivers from ATI!!

Lesson, make sure you have the correct drivers from the chipset manufacturers before upgrading to SP 3.




Oh Man
By SavagePotato on 5/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Oh Man
By rippleyaliens on 5/12/2008 1:32:47 PM , Rating: 1
tisk Tisk Tisk...
IT- Computer guy,/ common sense. Before doing any Service Pack's, you back up the system.
Horror stories from WAYYYYY back from 1996. IE NT sp 1..
Not a Microsoft Bug, but it is.
If you install any version of windows in a NT machine, xp, 2000, etc.. and ANY service pack.. they all work!!! period..
BUT since now, we have usb this, usb that, IE this IE that, amd this intel that, nvidia amd thisthat too...
Service packs are always a gamble.

Hence the popularity of Windows. IT works, drawback- toooo many different hardware / software configurations, that there is bound to be something that breaks it. Apple - Sweet, cept, there is only 1 maker, APPLE. ie you are stuck with the expensive hardware. (unless you can get the clone)..
Linux sweet.. Cept, that is all it is. If you have 2 linux machines made by same person, they wont be identical, let alone in a corporate world. + lack of games..(gotta admit, games drives processors and video cards)

XP sp3.. Yah, it got a few of my friends as well.
Funny thing is. That with their Amd systems, + nvidia drivers= UH OH.. But Amd's with OLD nvidia drivers were flawless..
WORSE.. AMD+new Nvidia- new installs= Flawless. (ie new built systems)..
AMD+Nvidia+2 weeks of use with accessories= BOOM....
Intel= well, same thing, depends on what drivers are installed, what MB, etc...

Acronis for the win. Well worth the $49 as it WORKS.. FLAWLESS!!!


And in other news
By 306maxi on 5/12/08, Rating: 0
SP3
By billg1745 on 5/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: SP3
By FITCamaro on 5/12/2008 1:45:48 PM , Rating: 3
Go drink the Koolaid.


RE: SP3
By Spivonious on 5/12/2008 4:17:19 PM , Rating: 1
Go back under your bridge.


RE: SP3
By mindless1 on 5/13/2008 3:37:00 PM , Rating: 1
Careful now, the fanboys are offended that you dare have an opinion different than theirs.

You may be quite right, for your use and criteria which seems different than that of others. THAT is what is most wrong with windows, that the monopoly limits almost to the point of preventing people from having the OS that best suits their own subjective needs. Fanboys think windows is great merely because it's market hold has prevented them from having much to compare it to, they lack the vision to understand variety and competition are good for the consumer in OS as well as practically anything else.

Windows is great for the masses given the present alternatives but this is still the infancy of personal computing. Similarly, automobiles were pretty bad in the 1920's compared to today.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki