Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 171

Thread: FLASHZIP file Compressor!

  1. #31
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    IN THE NEXT RELEASE NEW FLASH ARCHIVER 1.0!

    With the next version FLASHZIP will become FLASH Archiver 1.0, I hope to launch him/it in version GUI but different from WinTURTLE that suffers from so many problems!

  2. #32
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Question

    Will you be including a command line version as well?

  3. #33
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Hi LovePimple!!

    I think about including an archiver this time + a file exe GUI as NanoZip! I don't want to make the error of Winturtle!

  4. #34
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    YES ! VERY VERY GOOD!

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephan Busch
    I use the TAR'ed sets when a compressor do not support wildcards
    (p.ex. flashzip.exe -m2 -s1 -b5 C:\ofr\*.wav waveforms.zip)

    flashzip -m2 -s7 -b5 compresses all .wav to 473.050.044 bytes
    (each wav in a separate archive). This is a very good result (1 MB better
    than current WinRar).

    The TAR is used not to make the programmers angry but to save time.
    Compressors without wildcard support would require to create each file in separate archive and adding timings.
    No Comment!!!!!

  5. #35
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Hi! simply Flashzip !

    In preview Flashzip 0.92B that will be last version "single file compressor", support file >4GB! improved best compression, 30% BMP and TARGA, 5% WAVE and AIFF.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  6. #36
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Thumbs up

    Thanks Francesco!

  7. #37
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Nice.
    Quick and dirty results:
    BMP:
    Code:
    Flashzip m1 s1 b5	20946145	9.922
    Flashzip m1 s2 b5	20942830	11.500
    Flashzip m1 s3 b5	20948364	14.641
    Flashzip m1 s4 b5	20962015	20.781
    Flashzip m1 s5 b5	20981281	30.594
    Flashzip m1 s6 b5	21008664	48.781
    Flashzip m1 s7 b5	21051591	79.453
    Flashzip m2 s1 b5	20938065	198.813
    Flashzip m2 s2 b5	20933176	228.125
    Flashzip m2 s3 b5	20935571	271.859
    Flashzip m2 s4 b5	20946841	315.235
    All times will get down by a few percent during real tests.

    Interesting that s2 is the strongest...

    Checking other data now.

  8. #38
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    BOOKSTAR:
    Code:
    Flashzip m1 s1 b5	14403109	6.235
    Flashzip m1 s2 b5	13940559	7.516
    Flashzip m1 s3 b5	13435096	8.781
    Flashzip m1 s4 b5	12923412	11.313
    Flashzip m1 s5 b5	12445401	16.406
    Flashzip m1 s6 b5	12042516	26.406
    Flashzip m1 s7 b5	11722799	45.469
    Flashzip m2 s1 b5	14379808	6.969
    Flashzip m2 s2 b5	13909807	8.766
    Flashzip m2 s3 b5	13388880	10.937
    Flashzip m2 s4 b5	12850074	14.907
    Flashzip m2 s5 b5	12328061	23.610
    Flashzip m2 s6 b5	11869077	40.156
    Flashzip m2 s7 b5	11495611	77.641
    
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s1 b5	 14495527	5.672
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s2 b5	 14025705	6.469
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s3 b5	 13509668	7.828
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s4 b5	 12985812	10.282
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s5 b5	 12496826	14.547
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s6 b5	 12086007	22.922
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s7 b5	 11761837	39.141
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s1 b5	 14472336	6.297
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s2 b5	 13994660	7.547
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s3 b5	 13462941	9.672
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s4 b5	 12912494	13.531
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s5 b5	 12379955	20.641
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s6 b5	 11913210	35.485
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s7 b5	 11535822	67.000
    TCUP:
    Code:
    Flashzip m1 s1 b5	 109354423	47.359
    Flashzip m1 s2 b5	 107073296	56.079
    Flashzip m1 s3 b5	 104922585	74.016
    Flashzip m1 s4 b5	 103022608	101.125
    Flashzip m1 s5 b5	 101391727	138.391
    Flashzip m1 s6 b5	 100247612	207.688
    Flashzip m1 s7 b5	  99595075	322.532
    Flashzip m2 s1 b5	 108925950	89.703
    Flashzip m2 s2 b5	 106653040	109.328
    Flashzip m2 s3 b5	 104432270	138.047
    Flashzip m2 s4 b5	 102446576	185.906
    Flashzip m2 s5 b5	 100719896	254.203
    Flashzip m2 s6 b5	  99483190	384.125
    Flashzip m2 s7 b5	  98759181	611.640
    
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s1 b5	 109277446	39.921
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s2 b5	 106980885	47.672
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s3 b5	 104813932	63.141
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s4 b5	 102900598	88.250
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s5 b5	 101259673	122.422
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s6 b5	 100107416	184.407
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s7 b5	  99450106	286.219
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s1 b5	 108853893	72.047
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s2 b5	 106565224	88.313
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s3 b5	 104328593	115.359
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s4 b5	 102330758	157.687
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s5 b5	 100593185	220.656
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s6 b5	  99348525	334.625
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s7 b5	  98618805	530.297
    0.91b times are precise, 0.92b will improve, but I'm pretty sure it will still be slower then the predecessor.

  9. #39
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    I just checked another bitmap, 0.91 isn't great here and 0.92 is worse.
    Code:
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s1 b5	 12316686
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s2 b5	 11933964
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s3 b5	 11412021
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s4 b5	 10802629
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s5 b5	 10233341
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s6 b5	  9839854
    Flashzip 0.91b m1 s7 b5	  9655141
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s1 b5	 12316443
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s2 b5	 11929717
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s3 b5	 11407956
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s4 b5	 10802492
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s5 b5	 10239497
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s6 b5	  9850176
    Flashzip 0.91b m2 s7 b5	  9667851
    Flashzip m1 s1 b5	 12535405
    Flashzip m1 s2 b5	 12127276
    Flashzip m1 s3 b5	 11577950
    Flashzip m1 s4 b5	 10945263
    Flashzip m1 s5 b5	 10363413
    Flashzip m1 s6 b5	  9964563
    Flashzip m1 s7 b5	  9776082
    Flashzip m2 s1 b5	 12537601
    Flashzip m2 s2 b5	 12126824
    Flashzip m2 s3 b5	 11579432
    Flashzip m2 s4 b5	 10951684
    Flashzip m2 s5 b5	 10376920
    Flashzip m2 s6 b5	  9982747
    Flashzip m2 s7 b5	  9797736
    It's a noisy photo, 32 bit color, 19660922 B.

  10. #40
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Hi! @m^2

    the important thing is that on few files BMP doesn't lose as in comparison to the old version and earns a lot instead on many others! on MOC in a test of I check (not official) with the settings - m1 - s1 - b5 has improved of around 17MB in comparison to the version 0.91b with best time of compression! Hi LovePimple , Thanks!
    Last edited by Nania Francesco; 4th February 2009 at 19:08.

  11. #41
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    I just report issues so you can fix them and make Flashzip even better.

  12. #42
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Yes!

    I think that Flashzip as all of my programs can be improved!
    I work on new versions of
    - SR3
    - Packet
    - BZP
    - WinTurtle
    - Rings
    the time miss me and at times I waits for a few because every day I discover new methods of compression that change my perspectives!

  13. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    412
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 64 Times in 38 Posts
    The Testfile db.dmp (Oracle-dump-file) has 648331264 bytes.
    ---
    RINGS v.1.3 (FCM Fast Context Mixing) file compressor. Only for testing
    Copyright ? 2007 by Nania Francesco Antonio (Italy). All rights reserved.

    rings13 c db.dmp c:\tdbri13 compress to 26356464 bytes time= 101.83 s
    ---
    RINGS v.1.5c (FCM Fast Context Mixing) file compressor. Only for testing
    Copyright 2007-2008 by Nania Francesco Antonio (Italy). All rights reserved.

    rings15c c 1 db.dmp c:\tdbri1 compress to 32986358 bytes time= 150.20 s
    rings15c c 2 db.dmp c:\tdbri2 compress to 30505178 bytes time= 104.59 s
    rings15c c 3 db.dmp c:\tdbri3 compress to 28717515 bytes time= 92.70 s
    rings15c c 4 db.dmp c:\tdbri4 compress to 27461544 bytes time= 93.69 s
    rings15c c 5 db.dmp c:\tdbri5 compress to 26580793 bytes time= 89.43 s
    rings15c c 6 db.dmp c:\tdbri6 compress to 25955867 bytes time= 180.32 s
    rings15c c 7 db.dmp c:\tdbri7 compress to 25649655 bytes time= 152.19 s
    ---
    Flashzip v.0.92beta copyright (C) 2009 By Nania Francesco Antonio

    flashzip -m1 -s3 -b3 db.dmp c:\tdbf133 compress to 32545741 time 220 s
    flashzip -m1 -s3 -b5 db.dmp c:\tdbf135 compress to 32379844 time 160 s
    flashzip -m1 -s7 -b5 db.dmp c:\tdbf175 compress to 31307307 time 440 s
    flashzip -m2 -s3 -b3 db.dmp c:\tdbf233 compress to 32338931 time 340 s
    flashzip -m2 -s3 -b5 db.dmp c:\tdbf235 compress to 32262626 time 310 s
    flashzip -m2 -s7 -b3 db.dmp c:\tdbf273 compress to 29930055 time 1850 s
    flashzip -m2 -s7 -b5 db.dmp c:\tdbf275 compress to 29829406 time 3300 s
    ---
    if you really plan a flashzip archiver
    it would be wonderful if you could implement too
    your very good "FCM Fast Context Mixing"-algorithms from rings 1.3 and 1.5c
    ---
    thank you for your work!

  14. #44
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Hi! Flashzip 0.92B !

    METACOMPRESSOR.COM
    file8 image 2400 dpi image scan as bmp 1,718,159,096 Bytes
    Option -m2 -s7 -b5
    Flashzip 0.92B -> 620,324,365
    Flashzip 0.91B -> 778,317,990
    >158MB (25%) of gain!
    Last edited by Nania Francesco; 5th February 2009 at 00:58.

  15. #45
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Hi !

    It causes instability of the preceding version and new improvements in the compression (Special of the images - added assistant recognition of the files PPM) I am forced to release this version 0.93A that will it helps me to understand if the engine is stable !
    VERSION 0.93A in download

    PLEASE ! Help me !

    Signal if in some options doesn't compress well or with errors! ( to specify in the case if AMD or Intel)
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by Nania Francesco; 10th March 2009 at 02:07.

  16. #46
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Test Results

    SFC TEST

    VERSION 0.93A -m1 -s1 -b5
    TEST\1.dic 4067439->825971
    TEST\2.LOG 20617071->646293
    TEST\3.txt 2988578->682883
    TEST\4.doc 4168192->820193
    TEST\5.hlp 4121418->701611
    TEST\A10.jpg 842468->832434
    TEST\AcroRd32.exe 3870784->1425250
    TEST\FlashMX.pdf 4526946->3752210
    TEST\MSO97.DLL 3782416->1881003
    TEST\rafale.bmp 4149414->932474
    Size 53134726->12500322 ENC=3.172000 sec. DEC=3.186000 sec.

    VERSION 0.92B -m1 -s1 -b5
    TEST\1.dic 4067439->864374
    TEST\2.LOG 20617071->657744
    TEST\3.txt 2988578->696485
    TEST\4.doc 4168192->820036
    TEST\5.hlp 4121418->693683
    TEST\A10.jpg 842468->832427
    TEST\AcroRd32.exe 3870784->1433848
    TEST\FlashMX.pdf 4526946->3748100
    TEST\MSO97.DLL 3782416->1890881
    TEST\rafale.bmp 4149414->1172670
    Size 53134726->12810248 ENC=2.953000 sec. DEC=2.766000 sec.
    Last edited by Nania Francesco; 10th March 2009 at 02:22.

  17. #47
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    MOC BMP Test Results

    Version 0.93A
    moc2009\IMAGES\BMP\Apples.bmp 14745654->4968734
    moc2009\IMAGES\BMP\Diced%20Celery.bmp 18048054->5643766
    moc2009\IMAGES\BMP\Fruits.bmp 14745654->6607092
    moc2009\IMAGES\BMP\gingerbread_train.bmp 5760054->2633395
    moc2009\IMAGES\BMP\Gummy%20Drops.BMP 14745654->6591789
    moc2009\IMAGES\BMP\land_shallow_topo_8192[1].BMP100663350->20461056
    Size 168708420 to 46905832
    ENC=14.342000 sec. DEC=17.452999 sec.

  18. #48
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Thumbs up

    Thanks Francesco!

  19. #49
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    New test BMP!

    ALL IMAGES CONVERTED IN BMP FORMAT 24BIT
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...ico%20City.jpg
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...20Memorial.jpg
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...0Sculpture.jpg
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...ed%20Rocks.JPG
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...es/Echidna.jpg
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...s/Seahorse.jpg
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock.../Flamingos.JPG
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...rest%20(1).JPG
    http://www.turbophoto.com/Free-Stock...0on%20Hill.JPG
    TOTAL= 152.685.414 Bytes

    Results:
    FLASHZIP (-m1 -s1 -b5) ->51.393.939 Byte
    FREEARC 0.50 (-r -max) ->54.752.270 Byte
    NANOZIP 0.6A (-co -m512m) -> 58.760.592 Byte
    WINRAR 3.80 (Best-solid) -> 60.807.898 Byte
    WINRAR 3.80 (Best) -> 60.834.522 Byte
    NANOZIP 0.6A (-cD -m512m) -> 63.978.586 Byte

  20. #50
    Member m^2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ślůnsk, PL
    Posts
    1,610
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 65 Times in 47 Posts
    Francesco, testing JPGs only is wrong IMO. First, hardly anybody decompresses them and then compresses lossless. Second, it resembles compressing very noisy real images, but it's hard to tell how well it does and not all images are noisy.

  21. #51
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Yes true ! But ....

    Certainly what you say is true but doesn't want to say that however in terms of Efficiency (size/time) of compression there is not however a clean discrepancy between Flashzip and the other archiver/compressor!
    Last edited by Nania Francesco; 10th March 2009 at 20:23. Reason: Yes true ! But ....

  22. #52
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,583
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 160 Times in 90 Posts

    Flashzip 0.93A

    I confirm the problems with the processors AMD (made a will on Atholon 2400), for this I am forced to release other versions of test using another C++ compiler! continue.....

  23. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    926
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
    For non decompressed jpeg pixtures you might look into the Kodak test suit.

    you can get it from my site here
    www.techcenter.dk/Kodaktestsuit.7z


    these pictures are in png and has never been compressed lossy.

  24. #54
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,593
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 698 Times in 378 Posts
    SvenBent: are you sure? Dmitry Vatolin once said that standard kodak imageset contains images that was previously lossy compressed

  25. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    Wasn't there some scanned Kodak set? ie not photographed work?
    Last edited by Intrinsic; 14th March 2009 at 05:35.

  26. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    926
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 116 Times in 93 Posts
    I've never sure if you ask me (work related mentalt issues )

    anyway i got them from here
    http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/


    The pictures below link to lossless, true color (24 bits per pixel, aka "full color") images. It is my understanding they have been released by the Kodak Corporation for unrestricted usage. Many sites use them as a standard test suite for compression testing, etc.

    Prior to this site, they were only available in the Sun Raster format via ftp. This meant that the images could not be previewed before downloading. Since their release, however, the lossless PNG format has been incorporated into all the major browsers. Since PNG supports 24-bit lossless color (which GIF and JPEG do not), it is now possible to offer this browser-friendly access to the images.
    Thank You, Kodak! -- Rich Franzen
    Thats all my knowledge

    i'll look into them to see if there is jpeg artifacfts

    --- edit ---
    just looked at 3 pictures
    doesn't seem to have jpeg macroblock artifacts
    Last edited by SvenBent; 14th March 2009 at 14:00.

  27. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L?vis, Canada
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Last edited by Mihai Cartoaje; 14th March 2009 at 18:19.

  28. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    325
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
    The Kodak images have no visiable JPEG artifacts, but they have been post-processed using some sort of sharpening filter which has left a few halo artifact.
    And even though many camera's these days can export a RAW image, internally(within the camera) though they'll be saved as a JPEG and as such will be subject to the usual lossy subsampling across the Red(red gets hit very hard compared to blue) and Blue channels. Most software which can save JPEGs don't even offer you the ability to choose the subsampling ratios.

    The absolute best(imo) app for saving JPEGs is this:
    http://xat.com/io/index.html

    Anytime i'm publishing an image up anywhere and want the best quality and complete control over the file size i use that app. It's MagiCompress(crap name) feature is stunningly good.

    Woops, slightly OT ;p

  29. #59
    Programmer Bulat Ziganshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Uzbekistan
    Posts
    4,593
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 698 Times in 378 Posts
    >And even though many camera's these days can export a RAW image, internally(within the camera) though they'll be saved as a JPEG

    LOL

  30. #60
    Programmer osmanturan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Mersin, Turkiye
    Posts
    651
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Printable materials have limited color range due to it's nature. They are bounded by both print devices and CMYK color space. I've worked for period of time in an advertisement agency and still design some printable materials for some companies as a freelancer. I always have to round color values to multiplier of 5 (i.e. instead of 63, I use 65). Because, colors always are not printed as they should be. So, it's better to shot some "views" with a camera into RAW images.

    Edit: Note that, todays' cameras have some post effect capabilities and they are generally turned on by default. They should be turned off for getting true lossless images. But, again you can't get "truely pure" lossless images. Because, both sensors and storage format (even RAW images) uses quantization because of processing discrete signals. But, it's acceptable.
    Last edited by osmanturan; 14th March 2009 at 16:15.
    BIT Archiver homepage: www.osmanturan.com

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. lrzip a file compressor for linux
    By joerg in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 9th December 2009, 15:20
  2. Fpaq0pv3 file Compressor
    By Nania Francesco in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 7th April 2008, 18:20
  3. FLASHZIP new ARI+LZP compressor
    By Nania Francesco in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 5th February 2008, 22:42
  4. CCM file compressor
    By LovePimple in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 22nd February 2007, 02:13
  5. FPAQ file compressor
    By LovePimple in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2nd November 2006, 00:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •