Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads
Recommended Download



Welcome to the Microsoft Windows Vista Community Forums - Vistaheads, YOUR Largest Resource for Windows Vista related information.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so , join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Driver Scanner

Allocation units

microsoft.public.windows.vista.file management






Speedup My PC
Reply
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-17-2009
mazorj
 

Posts: n/a
Allocation units
In Vista 64 home premium SP1, in running chkdsk for C: at the end it states that there are 85,144,492 "total allocation units on disk" but the next line says there are 187,552 "allocation units available on disk". No disk errors were found.

1. What are allocation units and why are they there?

2. Does this mean I'm running out of allocation units? If 187,552 represents 0.22% of the 85,144,492, then are 99.78% of the total allocation units on the disk already in use and therefore not available for writing new files in the directories?

3. Will I hit some kind of brick wall here? If so, is there some way to free up allocation units before that happens?

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-17-2009
Ken Blake, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:04:14 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
wrote:

> In Vista 64 home premium SP1, in running chkdsk for C: at the end
> it states that there are 85,144,492 "total allocation units on disk"
> but the next line says there are 187,552 "allocation units
> available on disk". No disk errors were found.
>
> 1. What are allocation units and why are they there?



Space is allocated on the disk in units called "clusters" or
"allocation units." If your drive is NTFS, the default size of
allocation units is 4KB.

So if you have a file that's exactly 40KB in size. It uses 10
allocation units. If the file is 40KB plus one byte in size, it will
use 11 allocation units.

You apparently have a drive that's about 350GB in size. I got that
number by multiplying 85,144,492 by 4096. If you have 4K allocation
units the statements "you have 85,144,492 allocation units" and "you
have a 350GB drive" are equivalent.


> 2. Does this mean I'm running out of allocation units?



No, not really. It means you are running out of disk space.


> If 187,552 represents 0.22% of the 85,144,492, then are
> 99.78% of the total allocation units on the disk already
> in use and therefore not available for writing new files
> in the directories?



You are running out of disk space.


> 3. Will I hit some kind of brick wall here?



You are running out of disk space.


> If so, is there some way to free up allocation units before
> that happens?



If you delete files you don't need, or make some of them smaller, you
will use less disk space and therefore fewer allocation units.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-17-2009
mazorj
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:2ceg359nm8pbhijq424bjukadk6cmfp34q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:04:14 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In Vista 64 home premium SP1, in running chkdsk for C: at the end
>> it states that there are 85,144,492 "total allocation units on
>> disk"
>> but the next line says there are 187,552 "allocation units
>> available on disk". No disk errors were found.
>>
>> 1. What are allocation units and why are they there?

>
> Space is allocated on the disk in units called "clusters" or
> "allocation units." If your drive is NTFS, the default size of
> allocation units is 4KB.


Got it. Why didn't they just say "clusters"? Almost anyone from
pre-Vista days knows what those are.

....
> You apparently have a drive that's about 350GB in size. I got that
> number by multiplying 85,144,492 by 4096. If you have 4K allocation
> units the statements "you have 85,144,492 allocation units" and "you
> have a 350GB drive" are equivalent.


Close, the C: partition reports a usable size of 324 GB.

>> 2. Does this mean I'm running out of allocation units?

>
> No, not really. It means you are running out of disk space.


Yes! I just checked the drive on the Computer window. It was down to
1.4 Gig free space. No way!

However, in a 6/12/09 post to the vista.general newsgroup ("Capturing
scrolled command line text") I asked about this. The only reply
addressed question #1 (capturing the boot scrolls) so I'll repeat the
rest here (minus #1) in hopes that someone can address the bigger
questions I posed:

"...after the June 10 MS downloads, on reboot I
saw something new to the effect that the OS could not resolve the
following drives - each of which was named with one of those long
gibberish filenames instead of drive letters. There were no error
messages for existing lettered drives... So,

"2. Does anyone know what's happening with these odd drive error
messages and whether I need to worry about it? [And could this be
a factor in the "disappearing" HD space on C:?]

"3. After the downloads and reboot (not immediately but a few hours
later), I started getting messages that my C: drive had zero available
bytes. Explorer also reported zero available bytes and so did
PowerDesk. Deleting files had no effect. Fortunately, the issue has
disappeared for now after a cold boot but what was that all about?
Anyone else get this after a recent batch of updates?"

This time (tonight) a cold boot did *not* clear up the drive space
issue. After some cleaning up, I'm still down to ~2.6 GB. Help!!!

TIA for any help on these two questions.

....
> If you delete files you don't need, or make some of them smaller,
> you will use less disk space and therefore fewer allocation units.


Prior to the onset of this problem, my HD was only about 1/3 full so
whatever is eating up disk space all of a sudden is doing it at a
prodigious rate - in days or even hours.

Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could possibly eat
up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days??? (It took more than a year for
me to use up the first 1/3 of the HD space.) Even if it is shadow
files, I'm reluctant to use the routine that deletes all but the last
back-up/restore point because I may have to go further back than the
last one. Why doesn't Vista allow selective deletion of just some
of the previous restore points to free up space?

Is there anything I can look for on the C: drive to delete WRT big
back-up/restore files that may be the cause of filling my HD space?

Or is my only hope to do the restore point prior to the 6/10/09 MS
downloads and hope that cures it?







Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-17-2009
Ken Blake, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units
On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:39:53 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:2ceg359nm8pbhijq424bjukadk6cmfp34q@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:04:14 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In Vista 64 home premium SP1, in running chkdsk for C: at the end
> >> it states that there are 85,144,492 "total allocation units on
> >> disk"
> >> but the next line says there are 187,552 "allocation units
> >> available on disk". No disk errors were found.
> >>
> >> 1. What are allocation units and why are they there?

> >
> > Space is allocated on the disk in units called "clusters" or
> > "allocation units." If your drive is NTFS, the default size of
> > allocation units is 4KB.

>
> Got it. Why didn't they just say "clusters"? Almost anyone from
> pre-Vista days knows what those are.



I'm with you here. Unless the old name is really terrible, I'm almost
against changing the name of anything. Doing so results in confusion.


> ...
> > You apparently have a drive that's about 350GB in size. I got that
> > number by multiplying 85,144,492 by 4096. If you have 4K allocation
> > units the statements "you have 85,144,492 allocation units" and "you
> > have a 350GB drive" are equivalent.

>
> Close, the C: partition reports a usable size of 324 GB.
>
> >> 2. Does this mean I'm running out of allocation units?

> >
> > No, not really. It means you are running out of disk space.

>
> Yes! I just checked the drive on the Computer window. It was down to
> 1.4 Gig free space. No way!
>
> However, in a 6/12/09 post to the vista.general newsgroup ("Capturing
> scrolled command line text") I asked about this. The only reply
> addressed question #1 (capturing the boot scrolls) so I'll repeat the
> rest here (minus #1) in hopes that someone can address the bigger
> questions I posed:
>
> "...after the June 10 MS downloads, on reboot I
> saw something new to the effect that the OS could not resolve the
> following drives - each of which was named with one of those long
> gibberish filenames instead of drive letters. There were no error
> messages for existing lettered drives... So,
>
> "2. Does anyone know what's happening with these odd drive error
> messages and whether I need to worry about it? [And could this be
> a factor in the "disappearing" HD space on C:?]
>
> "3. After the downloads and reboot (not immediately but a few hours
> later), I started getting messages that my C: drive had zero available
> bytes. Explorer also reported zero available bytes and so did
> PowerDesk. Deleting files had no effect. Fortunately, the issue has
> disappeared for now after a cold boot but what was that all about?
> Anyone else get this after a recent batch of updates?"
>
> This time (tonight) a cold boot did *not* clear up the drive space
> issue. After some cleaning up, I'm still down to ~2.6 GB. Help!!!
>
> TIA for any help on these two questions.
>
> ...
> > If you delete files you don't need, or make some of them smaller,
> > you will use less disk space and therefore fewer allocation units.

>
> Prior to the onset of this problem, my HD was only about 1/3 full so
> whatever is eating up disk space all of a sudden is doing it at a
> prodigious rate - in days or even hours.
>
> Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could possibly eat
> up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days???



Spyware infection. What anti-spyware programs do you use? Are they
kept up to date?


> (It took more than a year for
> me to use up the first 1/3 of the HD space.) Even if it is shadow
> files, I'm reluctant to use the routine that deletes all but the last
> back-up/restore point because I may have to go further back than the
> last one. Why doesn't Vista allow selective deletion of just some
> of the previous restore points to free up space?



Because restore points are not complete. They build on their
predecessors. To use one, you also need previous ones.


> Is there anything I can look for on the C: drive to delete WRT big
> back-up/restore files that may be the cause of filling my HD space?
>
> Or is my only hope to do the restore point prior to the 6/10/09 MS
> downloads and hope that cures it?



A restore point will not solve this problem; it essentially does very
little besides restoring the registry to a previous state. Look into
spyware, and also examine your drive very carefully looking at the
space used by each folder to see where the problem is.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-17-2009
Jeff Richards
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units
"Allocation units" is the term that has been used since the earliest
versions of CHKDSK for DOS 2. I think that's the only application that uses
the term - FORMAT uses clusters, and, like you say, everyone knows them as
clusters.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

"mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uHPE47x7JHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> snip <
>
> Got it. Why didn't they just say "clusters"? Almost anyone from
> pre-Vista days knows what those are.
>



Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2009
mazorj
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:c9vh35ld027kvgpi4h35oia1k3jpeec1uo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:39:53 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
>> message
>> news:2ceg359nm8pbhijq424bjukadk6cmfp34q@4ax.com...
>> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:04:14 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
>> > wrote:

....
>> >> 2. Does this mean I'm running out of allocation units?
>> >
>> > No, not really. It means you are running out of disk space.

>>
>> Yes! I just checked the drive on the Computer window. It was down
>> to
>> 1.4 Gig free space. No way!


Scrubbing readily accessible unneeded files (including several
thousand posts from the MSC newsgroups!) have kept me between 1.0 -
2.5 GB of free space but for the life of me I cannot find what quickly
ate up and continues to eat 200+ GB on the C: drive. I downloaded
Agent Ransack and use it to see what files are being modified but
couldn't spot any unusual recent disk writes.

>> However, in a 6/12/09 post to the vista.general newsgroup
>> ("Capturing
>> scrolled command line text") I asked about this. The only reply
>> addressed question #1 (capturing the boot scrolls) so I'll repeat
>> the
>> rest here (minus #1) in hopes that someone can address the bigger
>> questions I posed:
>>
>> "...after the June 10 MS downloads, on reboot I
>> saw something new to the effect that the OS could not resolve the
>> following drives - each of which was named with one of those long
>> gibberish filenames instead of drive letters. There were no error
>> messages for existing lettered drives... So,
>>
>> "2. Does anyone know what's happening with these odd drive error
>> messages and whether I need to worry about it? [And could this be
>> a factor in the "disappearing" HD space on C:?]


I guess no one is able to address this question?

....
>> > If you delete files you don't need, or make some of them smaller,
>> > you will use less disk space and therefore fewer allocation
>> > units.


Already done.

>> Prior to the onset of this problem, my HD was only about 1/3 full
>> so
>> whatever is eating up disk space all of a sudden is doing it at a
>> prodigious rate - in days or even hours.
>>
>> Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could possibly
>> eat
>> up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days???

>
> Spyware infection. What anti-spyware programs do you use? Are they
> kept up to date?


Have scanned with Norton (daily updates), SuperAntiSpyware, plus one
other whose name escapes me. Not a peep or a burp from any of them.

>> (It took more than a year for
>> me to use up the first 1/3 of the HD space.) Even if it is shadow
>> files, I'm reluctant to use the routine that deletes all but the
>> last
>> back-up/restore point because I may have to go further back than
>> the
>> last one. Why doesn't Vista allow selective deletion of just some
>> of the previous restore points to free up space?

>
> Because restore points are not complete. They build on their
> predecessors. To use one, you also need previous ones.


Okay, but then why does Vista offer to delete all but the last restore
point?



Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-21-2009
Ken Blake, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:26:36 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
wrote:

> >> Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could possibly
> >> eat
> >> up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days???

> >
> > Spyware infection. What anti-spyware programs do you use? Are they
> > kept up to date?

>
> Have scanned with Norton (daily updates), SuperAntiSpyware, plus one
> other whose name escapes me. Not a peep or a burp from any of them.



In my view, and that of many of us here, Norton is the *worst*
anti-virus program available. I wouldn't rely on what it tells you.

SuperAntiSpyware, on the other hand, is one of the best anti-spyware
programs available. However, I would recommend that you download and
run the free Malwarebytes program, which is the best anti-spyware
program available today.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2009
mazorj
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:d4hs35h9nviutigmuj4gn9k5r6vvtegqnu@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:26:36 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> >> Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could
>> >> possibly eat
>> >> up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days???
>> >
>> > Spyware infection. What anti-spyware programs do you use? Are
>> > they
>> > kept up to date?

>>
>> Have scanned with Norton (daily updates), SuperAntiSpyware, plus
>> one
>> other whose name escapes me. Not a peep or a burp from any of
>> them.

>
> In my view, and that of many of us here, Norton is the *worst*
> anti-virus program available. I wouldn't rely on what it tells you.


How current is that view? There was a time when Norton was indeed
mediocre after resting on their laurels but they seem to have gotten
their act together lately. No single program can catch everything
but, knock on wood, I'm not aware of any malware on my system since it
came with my HP desktop. And my e-mail and Web security practices
could be described as being at the Paranoia +1 setting so it's not
like I'm flirting with known security risk behaviors.

> SuperAntiSpyware, on the other hand, is one of the best anti-spyware
> programs available. However, I would recommend that you download and
> run the free Malwarebytes program, which is the best anti-spyware
> program available today.


I've been scanning with all 3 (Malwarebytes is the third one I
mentioned but couldn't remember the name of). If all 3 of these are
reporting no malware then either my system is clean, or I've been
zapped by malware so undetectable that probably only a complete system
re-install can cure it. Backing up data files is not a problem, but
I'd rather have my appendix removed with a butter knife and no
anesthesia than recreate everything on a machine with dozens of
software titles and years of tweaking. :-(

I'm barely hanging on today at 1.06 GB but it's hard to figure what's
going on. In the second or two that it takes to check the C: drive
properties, close it, hit Refresh and reopen it, I get very fast
fluctuations of +/- 200,000 bytes of free space. Occasionally the
number doesn't change for several readings but Task Manager doesn't
show any processes making those kinds of disk writes. Only the usual
programs show any CPU usage and nothing is above 3% and only for a few
seconds. All that may be incidental to my problem of what happened to
200 GB of free space but it's still weird.

CHKDSK reports the same disk size and the same paltry empty space
available as the Computer window icon for C: drive, so there's no
mis-match there.

I don't think anyone else is going to offer a solution so my next step
is doing a restore to just prior to the June 10 batch of downloads,
which is when this problem cropped up. Even if a restore point isn't
necessarily a logical choice of action, barring an undiscovered
miraculous solution, I've been reduced to either this, a complete
system restoration, or waiting for the end - be it with a bang or a
whimper.


Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-22-2009
Ken Blake, MVP
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:34:39 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:d4hs35h9nviutigmuj4gn9k5r6vvtegqnu@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 02:26:36 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> >> Shadow files may be eating up some space, but what could
> >> >> possibly eat
> >> >> up 2/3 of a 324 GB HD in a few days???
> >> >
> >> > Spyware infection. What anti-spyware programs do you use? Are
> >> > they
> >> > kept up to date?
> >>
> >> Have scanned with Norton (daily updates), SuperAntiSpyware, plus
> >> one
> >> other whose name escapes me. Not a peep or a burp from any of
> >> them.

> >
> > In my view, and that of many of us here, Norton is the *worst*
> > anti-virus program available. I wouldn't rely on what it tells you.

>
> How current is that view? There was a time when Norton was indeed
> mediocre after resting on their laurels but they seem to have gotten
> their act together lately.



They are, in general, a lot worse than mediocre.

However, bear in mind that the latest version, AntiVirus 2009, has
gotten much better reports from several people, several of whom I
trust. However I have no personal experience with it, and I am not
willing to use it myself, nor even to yet recommend it to anyone else.


> No single program can catch everything
> but, knock on wood, I'm not aware of any malware on my system since it
> came with my HP desktop. And my e-mail and Web security practices
> could be described as being at the Paranoia +1 setting so it's not
> like I'm flirting with known security risk behaviors.
>
> > SuperAntiSpyware, on the other hand, is one of the best anti-spyware
> > programs available. However, I would recommend that you download and
> > run the free Malwarebytes program, which is the best anti-spyware
> > program available today.

>
> I've been scanning with all 3 (Malwarebytes is the third one I
> mentioned but couldn't remember the name of). If all 3 of these are
> reporting no malware then either my system is clean, or I've been
> zapped by malware so undetectable that probably only a complete system
> re-install can cure it.



I don't know what your situation is, but it *is* possible that you are
infected with malware that none of the above can catch.



> Backing up data files is not a problem, but
> I'd rather have my appendix removed with a butter knife and no
> anesthesia than recreate everything on a machine with dozens of
> software titles and years of tweaking. :-(



I understand. It's a substantial effort, and one that I would
recommend only as a last resort.


> I'm barely hanging on today at 1.06 GB but it's hard to figure what's
> going on. In the second or two that it takes to check the C: drive
> properties, close it, hit Refresh and reopen it, I get very fast
> fluctuations of +/- 200,000 bytes of free space. Occasionally the
> number doesn't change for several readings but Task Manager doesn't
> show any processes making those kinds of disk writes. Only the usual
> programs show any CPU usage and nothing is above 3% and only for a few
> seconds. All that may be incidental to my problem of what happened to
> 200 GB of free space but it's still weird.
>
> CHKDSK reports the same disk size and the same paltry empty space
> available as the Computer window icon for C: drive, so there's no
> mis-match there.
>
> I don't think anyone else is going to offer a solution so my next step
> is doing a restore to just prior to the June 10 batch of downloads,
> which is when this problem cropped up. Even if a restore point isn't
> necessarily a logical choice of action, barring an undiscovered
> miraculous solution, I've been reduced to either this, a complete
> system restoration, or waiting for the end - be it with a bang or a
> whimper.
>


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-23-2009
mazorj
 

Posts: n/a
Re: Allocation units

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:2htv35dmjv1ismeg55v38btbgvbf55obvm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:34:39 -0400, "mazorj" <mazorj@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
>> message
>> news:d4hs35h9nviutigmuj4gn9k5r6vvtegqnu@4ax.com...


....
>> > In my view, and that of many of us here, Norton is the *worst*
>> > anti-virus program available. I wouldn't rely on what it tells
>> > you.

>>
>> How current is that view? There was a time when Norton was indeed
>> mediocre after resting on their laurels but they seem to have
>> gotten
>> their act together lately.

>
> They are, in general, a lot worse than mediocre.
>
> However, bear in mind that the latest version, AntiVirus 2009, has
> gotten much better reports from several people, several of whom I
> trust. However I have no personal experience with it, and I am not
> willing to use it myself, nor even to yet recommend it to anyone
> else.


I'm using NIS 2009. NIS 2008 came with the machine but I checked
reviews before renewing my subscription and updating it. Almost
everyone seems to agree that it's much improved over the old Norton
with its well-deserved poor reputation. It may not be everyone's #1
pick, but there's no reason to shun it as in the past. If it comes
bundled, it's certainly good enough as your starting point.

However, I'm a belt and suspenders type on security. No reason why
you cannot and should not have an arsenal of several security
sweepers. I had SpySweeper and ZoneAlarm running on my XP machine
back when Norton was sucking wind in the security apps market. (Just
don't run two firewalls at once.) And yes, theoretically I might
still have malware even though three separate, reputable sweepers
couldn't find anything, and theoretically there might be one obscure
program out there that could catch it; but with three sweepers in
action, I'm already verging into diminishing returns. If my 200 GB
"vanishing unused disk space" problem is due to malware rather than
some obscure process run amok, I'll never find it.

Anyway, thanks for the comments.


Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Partition allocation Sangs microsoft.public.windows.vista hardware devices 4 01-19-2008 16:15
CPU and Memory Allocation Miles Emerson microsoft.public.windows.vista.performance maintenance 3 10-04-2007 17:00
hardrive allocation marty microsoft.public.windows.vista.general 2 09-14-2007 20:06




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 21:02.




Driver Scanner - Free Scan Now

Vistaheads.com is part of the Heads Network. See also XPHeads.com , Win7Heads.com and Win8Heads.com.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin for phpBBStyles.com.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120