Related
The HD2 does, and isn't the EVO pretty much the HD2 with the addition of the front facing camera and android?
Id like to try WP7 for a few days or weeks and see if its worth switching over, but I dont really see it happening.
phatmanxxl said:
Id like to try WP7 for a few days or weeks and see if its worth switching over, but I dont really see it happening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
why you say that
Because microsoft is the devil and posting ROMS that run microsoft software would be considered warez imo.
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
phatmanxxl said:
Id like to try WP7 for a few days or weeks and see if its worth switching over, but I dont really see it happening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You'd have to pay for a windows OS license to use it on your phone.
huskerpat said:
You'd have to pay for a windows OS license to use it on your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hasn't [stopped] the HD2.
Award Tour said:
Hasn't the HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has, except you pay for it when you buy the phone since it comes with WP7
mrono said:
It has, except you pay for it when you buy the phone since it comes with WP7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Under your reasoning I should be able to upgrade to Windows 8 for free.
Edit: Maybe you didn't realize that it comes with WinMo 6.5 and not WP7.
There's an app called "Windows Phone Android" that lets your try out the WP7 OS as a launcher.
It sucks... IMO
Android=Free, IOS+WM=$$. This is how it looks, Google made android and just threw it out on the streets and periodically supports it, Windows and Apple have thier OS's in their basement under lock and key, with an armed guard sitting on a stool.
the reason is that only android is open source. Most of the multi OS phones are there native (iOS or WinMO) and android. this can be done because they get the code for android and it is open source. Since iOs and Winmo dont release the info it is much much much harder to actually get the thing up and running on a non-native phone.
HD2 was a winmo native phone so it has winmo and people have made it so it can run android. Evo is an android native phone ... thus it runs android.
Additionally as stated there would be licensing issues as well and most respectable sites would not allow it to be posted since it would be warez.
Yep, so not gonna happen.
I would like to try WP 7... I wouldn't give up my 4G to test it, though. But I think WP 7 looks sexy
rstuckmaier said:
There's an app called "Windows Phone Android" that lets your try out the WP7 OS as a launcher.
It sucks... IMO
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mis-information that is not the OS just a "mock-up" of it. It is a today launcher just like sense or any other launcher.
Righteous Joe said:
Android=Free, IOS+WM=$$. This is how it looks, Google made android and just threw it out on the streets and periodically supports it, Windows and Apple have thier OS's in their basement under lock and key, with an armed guard sitting on a stool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not really .... ask cyanogen about his early exlpoits with android.
omegasun18 said:
the reason is that only android is open source. Most of the multi OS phones are there native (iOS or WinMO) and android. this can be done because they get the code for android and it is open source. Since iOs and Winmo dont release the info it is much much much harder to actually get the thing up and running on a non-native phone.
HD2 was a winmo native phone so it has winmo and people have made it so it can run android. Evo is an android native phone ... thus it runs android.
Additionally as stated there would be licensing issues as well and most respectable sites would not allow it to be posted since it would be warez.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mis-information .... android is open source but that is not where porting for a touch-pro2 come in at, someone has to write the code and drivers for that port to work right... also there are some OS ports done on android phones like the nexus 1 and 2 .... and WP7 is definately not open source but is running fine on the HD2 so really its just up to some to develop the software needed for said OS ports.
jakdillard said:
Mis-information .... android is open source but that is not where porting for a touch-pro2 come in at, someone has to write the code and drivers for that port to work right... also there are some OS ports done on android phones like the nexus 1 and 2 .... and WP7 is definately not open source but is running fine on the HD2 so really its just up to some to develop the software needed for said OS ports.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not mis-information. writing the codes and drivers with out the source is vastly more difficult then writing it with the source. I did not say it was not possible i just said that a big reason you see android on iOS and WINMO phones is because android is open source. this is true since having the source code makes writing the drivers much easier and very few people have the ability or drive to write drivers for an entire phone to work with a new os. in the case of WP7 it is likely that many of the drivers designed with previous versions of WinMO work in the new version as is or with very very slight modifications which would again make this much easier then creating a new driver from scratch for a closed source os.
If you honestly think android being open source isnt a huge contribute to the reason that most other os phones get android and most android phones do not get the other os then i dont know what to tell you.
jakdillard said:
not really .... ask cyanogen about his early exlpoits with android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cyan's headaches/hiccups were with the NON-open Google Apps, not with the OS itself.
PS: learn to "multi-quote" instead of posting 3 times rapid fire.
Award Tour said:
Hasn't [stopped] the HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think there's a very real possibility a cease and desist order is in the draft folder of some MS lawyer's email.
Ubuntu?
10 chars
I don't understand how if Android is Opensource and borrows code from Linux kernel and other OpenSource projects, how Google can legally hold back the honeycomb sourcecode?
I'm not really interested in Honeycomb source myself, nor the OS dev scene, but what I DO care about, is that some of my favorite apps are broken on my Tablet, and the developers all point the finger at Google, saying the flash API changed in Honeycomb, and they need the source to get it working.
The biggest broken apps for me are:
Opera Mobile 11
BBC iPlayer App
Opera even come out and tell us why Flash does not work on Opera Mobile 11 on Honeycomb:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.opera.browser&feature=search_result
(What's New Tab)
"Flash not supported on Android 3.x due to Google not releasing necessary platform code"
"Open source" doesn't mean what you think it means.
The Linux kernel source is available under the GPLv2, this mean that is you ship a product you must provide the source, hence its the device manufacturers responsibility to give us the kernel source because it's them we buy the product from.
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
All the API's that people _should_ be using are documented, the problem is that the products you mention are trying to mimic the native browser and use internal only method calls, if you step out of the approved API box then you have problems like this.
Why BBC iPlayer needs flash I don't know, all 3.1 tablets can play the flashhigh and flashhd (h.264) iPlayer streams natively I use get-iplayer and transfer the files to my Transformer for viewing and it works beautifully. I guess the Android app team are just lazy (or iPhone developers who don't know Android very well)
SilentMobius said:
The Android framework and the Dalvik virtual machine are all available under an Apache licence, this allows anyone to take the source code and make a closed proprietary product and/or addition (Like Blur/Sense/Touchwiz) without this Android would not have caught on anywhere near as fast, but it also means that there is no requirement for future derivative products to have source code released. Even if the person doing that is Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
brunes said:
While this is true, it is not the real reason why Google can hold back the souce code. Google owns the copyright to DalVik and the Android platform. All contributions checked into the Android tree in the end have their copyright assigned to Google, regardless of who wrote them.
Because they own the copyright, they can do whatever the heck they want with the code, whenever they want. A copyright owner can not violate their own license, the license is only applicable for other people (who have no copyright to the code) to use it in their projects.
It's a subtle but very important distinction, because even if Android was all GPL they still would not have to be releasing any changes, because they own it.
The only part of the code Google is obligated to release, is their kernel changes (because it is Linux, which is GPL and they don't have the full copyright to) - and they do release these, always.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
seshmaru said:
Actually no, just because they hold the rights doesn't mean they don't have to obey the license. It's just that Android is released under the Apache license which states that source must be released, but doesn't say WHEN the source has to be released, so they can hold it back as long as they deem fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
foxmeister said:
Actually, no!
The ASL is not a copy left licence, so if Google so wish they do not have to release the source code for Honeycomb ever. In much the same way, I can download Android code from AOSP, create my own unique version, and I don't have to contribute my code back to AOSP, nor do I need to supply it to anyone on demand (with the exception of GPL'd kernel code of course).
Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's correct that it is not copyleft, and I was aware of this. All android releases however are released under the Apache license, which means the source for android itself has to be there, but any further modifications can use whatever they want. So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
seshmaru said:
So yes google has to make Honeycomb open source eventually since it was released under the Apache license. Any derivatives of honeycomb wouldn't need to provide the source though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they don't! That is the *whole* point. Honeycomb, at this point in time, is *not* an open source project because no source has been released, and the license of its antecedents is not a copyleft licence.
Honeycomb is, broadly speaking, a derivative of an earlier Android build (Froyo/Gingerbread whatever), and in this respect it is no different to say HTC's Sense builds which are also not open source.
Regards,
Dave
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Have also wondered this myself.. but reading all of this has made me more confused than I was before.. who's right? :S
It's correct that Google hold the copyright for the bulk of the android framework, and as the copyright owners they are not subject to license terms, so they don't need to release anything but that only works for Google products. If the licence had been GPL then manufacturers would need to supply source with their products, not Google but ASUS/Samsung/HTC/etc/etc.
Short version: Google don't need to release anything, app developers shouldn't use internal APIs and rely on having platform source to make things work.
That said I want to change some of the browser behaviour and plumb back in handling for the .mkv file extension (because the container parsing is already in there) So I'd love to get my hands on the HC source, no matter how messy.
david279 said:
Hey ice cream will be open sourced. I don't think they want honeycomb plopped onto phones so they won't push it to aosp. Ice Cream will be a hybrid.
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Divine_Madcat said:
And yet, it didn't seem to worry them when the first flurry of tablets came out with a phone (Froyo/GB) OS. Sorry, but to me, that excuse doesn't fly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually they did worry, that's exactly why they made honeycomb you derptard and exactly the reason they aren't releasing the source to honeycomb.
And yes they don't want manufacturers shoehorning a tablet OS into a phone just so they can say OH OUR PHONE HAS ANDROID 3.0 INSTEAD OF 2.3.
Derptard... certainly a new one for the books. haha
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
your right,I almost forgot about legal stuff! +1 for pointing this out!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Microsoft does have Windows 8 running on ARM, the only thing they haven't done is release a dev build. We'll either get it at a later date or we'll have to wait for the beta.
NikolaiT said:
There won't be ports to say, the Motorola Xoom or the HP TouchPad. Let me explain:
1. In it's current state, Windows 8 doesn't support ARM architecture, although it will later, so I suppose this is only a semi-valid point.
2. and 3. Windows 8 isn't open source, so any ports would be illegal and without source, it's basically impossible.
Please don't fill this subsection with questions concerning if it'll ever come to your tablet/phone/etc., because it won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Nitro_123 said:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4811/windows-8-tablets-running-on-ti-qualcomm-nvidia-amd-intel-silicon
???????
i guess we can be confident that 1. will happen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While it will support ARM, I'd say it's doubtful that it would be released on a disk that you could just load onto your existing device, it will probably only come preloaded on devices by OEMs.
Saljen said:
Not being open source didn't stop the HTC HD2 from recieving Windows Phone 7
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Traditionally MS haven't been worried about piracy of their mobile OS's. Their mobile OS efforts have mainly been about keeping people in the Windows eco-system, and to a much lesser degree selling licenses for CE to OEMs making embedded devices. In most cases of mobile OS roms being posted, they've just been updated/enhanced roms for existing Windows mobile devices and so haven't really cost sales and have possibly enhanced the ecosystem.
They're generally much much more concerned about piracy of their main OS. It remains to be seen how they will react to people trying port the ARM version of Windows 8, but they could easily react as strongly as they would for a normal x86 windows.
NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's never stopped developers from porting anything before...
I think at this point the largest hurdle is getting a build from an ARM dump. And drivers...can't forget about drivers.
NikolaiT said:
Mobile OSes are less work than a full fledged operating system, plus, you need to consider legality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
dhiral.v said:
Why would the legality be an issue? As long as you have a valid licence and key, when it officially becomes for sale, wouldn't it be ok?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It most likely won't.
ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
dhiral.v said:
Why not?
If you've paid for the license, I am free to put it on which ever device I own be it my laptop, desktop or tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I mean the arm copy...it'll most likely never be sold as a seperate product. Just built in
1. WinMo wasn’t open source either. Unlike WinMo, Windows licenses can be purchased.
2. Considering the fact that Intel and Google are now working together, the likelihood of cross compatible hardware specs are high for both Arm and Intel chips
3. This OS if it stays in close to current form will be a sort of hybrid of mobile/desktop OS. The mobile side will create a need for sideloaded apps, tweaks, reg hacks etc.
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
TechJunkiesCA said:
4. It is almost certain that Windows Phone will converge with this os down the line and I would argue that this forum has potential to be the most used forum of the site so the earlier the devs get started the better!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This porting work will indeed happen. Just not on this forum aparently/unfortunately. Discussions about illegal software is a far cry from hosting illegal software. Developers often experiment with breaking laws for learning about a system. exe - tutorials about changing esn # with specific notes that you should not do it. It's just an experiment.
My question is it against the rules to discuss or link to other sites that house these ports? It used to be at least overlooked. See example below and there are countless others in the older stuff.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=362344&page=3
In the past XDA was much more loose about this type of stuff and was my first place to look for the dream goal of putting a desktop class OS on a PDA.
ugothakd said:
It most likely won't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point...people will try. But the bootloaders are most likely different. Maybe devices with hacked bootloaders (captivate) would be possible.
sent from my epic 4g. with the key skips.
You are 100% right NikolaiT...
If you own a valid license it can't be illegal anyways be it ARM version or not.
We'll see how microsoft releases the product and how many different versions there are in what form.
Indeed, i think we need to leave the legalities aside, and use the assumption of....
You have your Legal and valid licence key, this is how you can get it working on x y and Z
Of course, if it is only Sold as OEM then legally you dont have leg to stand on, OEM copies are for the sole use on the hardware in which is was purchased with, i think the licence says it allows a number of hardware upgrades but you are not intitled to rip it off one PC and dump it on another one. (assuming its the same as a Win 7 Licence), yes people do do it, but that doesnt make it legal or condonable, so if thats the case the XDA couldnt allow anything to do with it
But lets say it can be brought as a retail package, then there is nothing to stop us from attempting to install it on anything we like, infact it may even be easier than we think given that MS usually gives a shed load of drivers, the tricky bit will be getting the bootloaders to allow it.
eXecuter.bin said:
But do you honestly think anyone will care much about it?
Take Mac OS X for instance. It clearly states in the EULA that installing the software on unapproved/non-Mac hardware are illegal, and yet there are tons of people with dedicated forums hacking away at it to make it run on various PC hardwares, and still ongoing for years.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forbidden, not illegal. The EULA doesn't really have any legal basis whatsoever. Apple can deny you support on your product if you break the EULA though.
Just wanted to know if this os is open source or not
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I think the OS is based on MER/NEMO which is open source, but the UI and OS application layers that allow running of jolla and android apps are not. Native apps will be QT based which is open source.
Actually the Android compatibility layer is Open Source. Ubuntu mobile is also using it. The ui is currently closed. There were earlier comments from Jolla that they'll open it after the phone gets released
Sent from my Xperia Neo using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
But the native Jolla application will be compatible with Mer/Nemo OS? Or they're will be running only on Jolla UI?
Deedend said:
But the native Jolla application will be compatible with Mer/Nemo OS? Or they're will be running only on Jolla UI?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Native Jolla app should use sillica components. If you install sillica components on Mer/Nemo it will be sailfish os.
Disharmonic said:
Actually the Android compatibility layer is Open Source. Ubuntu mobile is also using it. The ui is currently closed. There were earlier comments from Jolla that they'll open it after the phone gets released
Sent from my Xperia Neo using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Careful with that. "Android Compatibility Layer" is a product of OpenMobileWorldWide and is not Open Source. It's vaporware that was promised to MeeGo users (and many others), but was never delivered. ACL is most definitely Closed Source. To date, they have not delivered one product to the market. They do claim to be close to a release for the webOS powered TouchPad.
I've been using Ubuntu Touch since almost day one... There is not now, nor has there been announced so far as I know, ANY plans to make Android Apps run on Ubuntu Mobile. Certainly not with ACL. Ubuntu Touch promotes Web Apps and Open Source, easily tailored to any OS native Apps built with Open Source languages such as QT and HTML5.
It's my understanding that Jolla is using Myriad Group's Alien Dalvik (Android Runtime) to translate Android Apps into their environment.
RumoredNow said:
Careful with that. "Android Compatibility Layer" is a product of OpenMobileWorldWide and is not Open Source. It's vaporware that was promised to MeeGo users (and many others), but was never delivered. ACL is most definitely Closed Source. To date, they have not delivered one product to the market. They do claim to be close to a release for the webOS powered TouchPad.
I've been using Ubuntu Touch since almost day one... There is not now, nor has there been announced so far as I know, ANY plans to make Android Apps run on Ubuntu Mobile. Certainly not with ACL. Ubuntu Touch promotes Web Apps and Open Source, easily tailored to any OS native Apps built with Open Source languages such as QT and HTML5.
It's my understanding that Jolla is using Myriad Group's Alien Dalvik (Android Runtime) to translate Android Apps into their environment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My bad, you are right. I somehow got confused and was thinking about libhybris, the library that allows Sailfish and Ubuntu Touch to run android device drivers. I wasn't even aware of the ACL product/vaporware, though.
Disharmonic said:
My bad, you are right. I somehow got confused and was thinking about libhybris, the library that allows Sailfish and Ubuntu Touch to run android device drivers. I wasn't even aware of the ACL product/vaporware, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah... libhybris appears to be the Philosopher's Stone of Open Source porting. I'm hoping it allows Sailfish to get ported to my Nexus 4 very soon.
Yes it is partly open. On talk.maeomo.org there is a list of the packsges that are open and the ones that are closed source.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
byblt said:
source closed ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The source code for the OS is on the mer website, The "Sailfish OS" part is the UI, and the App Store, which are closed source, for now.
RumoredNow said:
I've been using Ubuntu Touch since almost day one... There is not now, nor has there been announced so far as I know, ANY plans to make Android Apps run on Ubuntu Mobile. Certainly not with ACL. Ubuntu Touch promotes Web Apps and Open Source, easily tailored to any OS native Apps built with Open Source languages such as QT and HTML5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe it was during the last UDS, and I think it was Mark who hinted that they are now open to the idea of making Android apps run on Ubuntu but it is not a current priority.
Edit: Found it
According to wmpoweruser.
Microsoft Windows 10 mobile update to Windows Phone brings with it a lot of new features to the OS, including a very controversial feature – the Android subsystem that allows Windows Mobile to run Android apps.
While a few people theorized that this could lead to security issues with Windows Phone which is as secure as Android is insecure Microsoft’s strict restrictions on the use of system APIs helped squash those fears. Today, WMPU learned from certain individuals that it is possible to install and run Android on a Windows 10 mobile device using a bug in the Android .
it is possible? n how?
link;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=MouhB95QmU4
Looks like a fake
Running google apps services is still not possible as far as I know...
wmpoweruser doesn't give any source or explanation of the issue so .....
DarkAngelFR said:
Looks like a fake
Running google apps services is still not possible as far as I know...
wmpoweruser doesn't give any source or explanation of the issue so .....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i think so....but any chances..:laugh:
A AJAY said:
i think so....but any chances..:laugh:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None at all. I'd see some credibility if they had the instructions, but the latest build of W10M only is using Android 4.4.4.
thals1992 said:
None at all. I'd see some credibility if they had the instructions, but the latest build of W10M only is using Android 4.4.4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ok....done..its good::i think wmpoweruser make a video..:angel:
Only a joke