Rio Carbon vs iPod

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

itunes fan — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:41:00 GMT

It's biggest fault is that it doesn't work with what really makes the iPod great, and you know that's iTunes. The interface, the store, the ease of use and features. Windows Media player isn't even comparable. From a hardware point of view it looks like a nice bit of kit, but that's where the comparison really ends.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Wayne — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:05:00 GMT

Thanks for the review, Omar.

Question: Are you able to create playlists without using the software on the CD?

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

SuperMatt — Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:37:00 GMT

Yes, but perhaps you didn't read this blogger's post about Playsforsure. He thinks that the iPod and iTunes are inferior to WMP 10 and the "PlaysforSure" logo is the wave of the future. Personally, I think he is nuts, and cannot figure out why he hates iTunes, especially since he admits "it just works" and that his Mom can use it without help. So, if you realize that something that "just works" is actually better than an unproven microsoft technology, you shouldn't be trying to convice this person of that. In other words, why try reasoning with somebody who for an unknown reason is dead-set against Apple's products?

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Al — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:17:00 GMT

'website doesn't promise features that the device can't deliver'

'Rio claims the device gets 20 hrs!!! of battery life. I average half that'

Obviously Rio does make false claims about battery life. They claim double the life you found. What else did they lie about that you didn't point out.

It's all about the entire experience anyway. My new iPod mini was our of the box, fully loaded and playing tunes in less than 15 min. iTunes is the best piece of software on my HP laptop.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

chas_m — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:37:00 GMT

Let me see if I got this right:

1. Can't play anything from the iTunes Music Store
2. Must transcode all non-MP3 files to sucky WMA format
3. Uses slower USB 2.0 instead of faster FW400
4. Misleads wildly on battery life -- reality makes them roughly equal
5. Doesn't work with the iTunes Music Store at all
6. Doesn't work with Audible/audiobook files at all
7. Doesn't do any of the myriad other things the iPod Mini does (games, contacts, reminders, address/phone, add-on extras)
8. Will never be part of the "cool culture" or a "status symbol" the way the iPods are
9. Cannot do any of the add-on hardware things an iPod Mini can do, like voice record, FM radio, broadcast on FM band etc.

... and for all this, you saved ... about $20 over an iPod mini's street price.

Nice work, Einstein.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Tom — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:48:00 GMT

Why is the USB AC adapter worthy of bonus points? Don't iPods came with a similar FW AC adapter?

Also what is the "annoying problem where if you use the headphones ..."? The sentence is incomplete (but seems headed in a dangerous direction since portable music players are often used with headphones!)

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:16:00 GMT

I actually have no idea, as I never create playlists. It appears though that there isn't an easy way to get them on the device.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:18:00 GMT

That's a good point Al, but I never listen to their claims of battery life. Apple claims my iPod get 12 hours and I get 6, so everyone pretty much lies about battery life.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:21:00 GMT

Hi Chas-

1. Correct, I don't purchase anything from the ITMS. Please read my first post on PlasyForSure.
2. I don't have MP3 files because they suck. I have WMA Lossless.
3. Hmmm, sorry you are wrong here. USB 2.0 is technically faster than firewire at 480 MBps. Realisticaly it's about the same.
4. Just like Apple.
5. Who cares?
6. Actually it does.
7. I don't want that crap.
8. I don't want to be cool.
9. Again, don't care.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:22:00 GMT

Tom-

You are right, Apple does the same thing. But OEMs aren't always so smart.

I completed the sentance, thanks for the reminder.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Bob — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 06:27:00 GMT

"Hmmm, sorry you are wrong here. USB 2.0 is technically faster than firewire at 480 MBps. Realisticaly it's about the same"

Actually most real-world tests I have seen say that USB overhead slows it down considerably and FireWire 400 performs consistently faster. That's the other guy's point...on the whole, in real world applications, FireWire 400 is faster, and the real world matters more than the specs.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Jim Gottlieb — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:55:00 GMT

The reason you are getting half the promised battery life on both products is your use of lossless formats. It's the price you pay for the more frequent disc accesses to read the larger files.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

MJ — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 13:43:00 GMT

I think USB2 is good because it is more often on computers than FW. But, FW 400 is much faster and more reliable than USB 2 in the real world. FW delivers its data-rate continuously and on time (isochronous), while USB is a "burst mode" and doesn't "average" near the data rate of FW and doesn't do much consistently--and also, not that it matters too much in this instance, it is processor assisted. So the more USB, the more drag on the processor. Not so with FW.

Need more imformation on playback quality. That is everything.

Crackle would mean that it an audio device is crap.

Doesn't appear that the playlists and the easy of use on the song selection are as quick and easy as the ipod. So it might equal an ipod on a per song basis, but not on a continuous playback basis. $50 less vs. the audio experience is not a good value.

WMA lossless? How small are those files? AAC at 192 kbs is absolutely great. AAC + which should come out any month, will blow away anything out there for size vs. quality, allowing a lot more songs on the miniPod. Unfortuneatly, Microsoft tends to get on these standards committees, steals all the tech, then quits the committee just before ratification so that they can change a few things in the code and release it as their own product. Note the time and similarity of DivX and WiMP 9 format with the release of MPEG 4 (ripoff!). So, anything Microsoft makes me feel a little worse for supporting a pirate and monopolist.

Otherwise, it looks like the best non-ipod mini out there.

Cool is important when gift-giving. Giving the coolest always has a signifigant impact.

But still 2nd best, even with what you say at face value. I would miss the add-ons and the multiple audio formats you are talking about (audio books are important).

Don't give Omar a hard time!

iWill — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:43:00 GMT

I prefer the iPod but Omar gave perfectly good reasons for liking the Carbon.

BTW: Chas, Being part of the "cool culture" has to be the lamest reason for choosing an iPod! Let me guess, you smoke "Camel Lights" too! Grow up!

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Gabe — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:21:00 GMT

Actually, Apple claimed 8 hours for the 3G iPod. 12 hours is the claim for the new 4G iPods.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

sondjata — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:32:00 GMT

1) On the battery front. There are replacements that will give you up to 24 hours of juice.

2) Never made playlists? Then you've never unlocked the real power of either the iPod or iTunes.

but hey..like what you want.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 15:40:00 GMT

Actually all my audio is transcoded from lossless to WMA 128 for the device.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:40:00 GMT

"Crackle would mean that it an audio device is crap."

The crackle doesn't happen with most headphones. And it's easily fixable.

Again, for the millionth time, I don't sync lossless, but I transcode my audio on the fly (a feature of WMP10).

Regarding USB vs FireWire. USB does have some overhead, but all PC's have USB 2.0 now and they can all charge devices. The only company on the planet (that I know of) that ships 6 pin firewire ports on laptops (the only way to charge) is apple.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

James Katt — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:11:00 GMT

The Rio Carbon is a distant, though decent, second to the iPod.

Additional Reasons for iPod:
1. Integration with iTunes and the iTunes Music Store for seamless purchases of music online
2. Ability to share music bought from ITMS with other iPod users - since iPods don't have the DRM for AAC that WMA devices have.
3. Ability of iTunes to share music over local area network with PCs and Macintoshes - Multiplatform capability. This is fantastic for college students in dorms - particularly in colleges which prohibit use of P2P software. You no longer have to use P2P networks to obtain music. This essentially kills use of P2P software such as gnutella, etc., in colleges which encourage use of iTunes - e.g. the University of California, etc.
4. Choice. With the iPod, you are not stuck with the choice of only using a Windows PC. You can use Macs and PCs. You can share with Macs and PCs. You can purchase with Macs and PCs. Unlike WMA, you are given a choice of which computer platform to use.

What the greatest use for Rio Carbon is:
1. Harvesting the internal hard drive for use in other compact flash card devices.

One of the primary reasons for purchasing a Rio Carbon is that you can open up the case and take out the compact flash hard drive in it and use it in your digital camera. It uses a OEM standard compact flash hard drive which is half the cost of the retail version. You can't do this with the iPod since it's compact flash hard drive is specially made to prevent use in removable compact flash card devices.

Think about it: the greatest benefit of the Rio Carbon is in being able to harvest the compact flash card hard drive for half the cost of the retail card, not in its use as an MP3 player.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

John Ripley — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:20:00 GMT

You would get 20 hours of battery life if you used 128kbit MP3, EQ off, moderate headphone level.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

John Ripley — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 17:22:00 GMT

Also, comparing the speed of USB2 vs FW400 is pointless seeing as the hard disks in both the iPod Mini and Carbon have a maximum transfer rate an order of magnitude slower than the wire speed.

Battery life

George the Frog — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:13:00 GMT

If your WMAs are encrypted (even if they are only level 150 'cos you ripped them yourself) then the player will use _a_lot_ more battery playing them than straight WMA files.

I imagine that transcoding from encrypted WMA lossless to WMA would preserve any encryption.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

George the Frog — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 18:35:00 GMT

James Katt wrote "With the iPod you are not stuck with the choice of only using a Windows PC. You can use Macs and PCs"

What makes that not true for any mass storage player such as the Rio Carbon?

A mass storage player does even better than an iPod since it will work on virtually any machine with a USB port nomatter what OS it is running.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Jose — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:09:00 GMT

"9. Cannot do any of the add-on hardware things an iPod Mini can do, like voice record, FM radio, broadcast on FM band etc."

Given that the product includes a built-in voice recorder and FM transmitters are player-independent (i.e., not limited to iPods), the major accessory missing from the Carbon's lineup would (in my book) be Belkin's Media Reader. Of course, there are other more uesless (IMO) accessories that the Carbon may or may not have access to.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Gabe — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:14:00 GMT

"Again, for the millionth time, I don't sync lossless, but I transcode my audio on the fly (a feature of WMP10)"

Is there info on Microsoft's site about this feature? I searched but couldn't find much.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Mon, 01 Nov 2004 19:30:00 GMT

Here is an article that discusses this with PMC.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/mobility/expert/bridgman_PMCwmp10.mspx

see "To select the bit rate for music:"

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Brandon Paddock — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:46:00 GMT

Integration with iTunes is NOT an advantage for the iPod, unless you're an Apple fanboy.

Furthermore, the MSN Music store is vastly superior to Apple's iTMS. For one, because it offers superior audio quality. But more importantly, the DRM system is MUCH more friendly to those of us who change OSes and upgrade or change our computers often.

As for the Carbon, I have it and love it.

The battery life will change depending on how high of a bitrate you use. I get 20 hours easily.

Rio originally was going to market the Carbon as having a 24 hour battery life (because in testing, it does, if you use Apple's formula which includes never switching tracks).

George the frog - I assume by "encryption" you mean DRM? That's not true at all. DRM will have no perceivable effect on battery life. Battery life is mostly determined by the capacity of the cell(s), the frequency of hard drive spin-ups, and the amount of volatile memory on the device (which reduces that frequency).

As for USB 2.0 vs. FireWire 400... USB2 is faster. I don't even think Apple contests this, but many of their fanbase does - what purpose they have I do not know.

FireWire has a peak throughput of 400mbps, USB2 has a peak throughput of 480mbps.

Burst mode doesn't change its throughput. It simply means that USB 2.0 is better suited for copying many small files (like hundreds of music files, coincidentally) and that it doesn't have to wait for a transfer succeeded operation in order to begin the next transfer.

This is why most USB2 players are faster than FireWire players when it comes to transferring files.

The Carbon is not especially impressive in terms of its transfer speed... it's about the same as the iPod on FireWire. But this is due to the design of the device, not the connectivity used.

If you've ever seen a Creative Nomad NX USB2 device copy files, you'll no doubt know that it's an order of magnitude faster than the iPod for transfers (unfortunately it's not exactly a good *player*).

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Brandon Paddock — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:58:00 GMT

I thought I'd also point out some facts that have been mangled by commentors here:

-The Carbon only exhibits the "crackle" mentioned on a few specific headphone designs, and is easily fixable. It doesn't affect the included earbuds (which suck) or my Sony earbuds OR my Koss headphones.

-20 hours battery life is easily attainable if you use ~128k audio and don't manually change tracks too often. I use VBR WMA ~160kbps for the most part (as well as MP3 in some cases) and it is better than my iRiver in this area, which would max at 16. The max on the Carbon is actually about 24 hours.

-The Carbon DOES support Audible.

-The Carbon DOES include voice recording (albeit to PCM, not mp3 like the iRiver devices).

-"2. Ability to share music bought from ITMS with other iPod users - since iPods don't have the DRM for AAC that WMA devices have. "

I don't even know what that means. Most music stores that I know of (including MSN Music) allow transfer to an unlimited number of portable devices.

-"Note the time and similarity of DivX and WiMP 9 format with the release of MPEG 4 (ripoff!). "

Actually VC-9 (WMV 9) is quite a bit different from DivX and MPEG 4. It shares the general level of quality/compression, yes. But it's not nearly as similar as Divx and MPEG 4 are.

-"9. Cannot do any of the add-on hardware things an iPod Mini can do, like voice record, FM radio, broadcast on FM band etc. "

As noted above, the Carbon includes voice recording. It also can be broadcast on FM just as easily as any iPod (with a device like the TuneCast line). The iPod can NOT receive FM radio either.

It's not fair to rag on the device when you don't know anything about it.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

noverflow — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 15:17:00 GMT

All current models of ipods will charge via USB

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

acbw — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:03:00 GMT

re: USB 2.0 v FW400, check out Maxtor's specs on their external drives. Yes USB 2.0 has better maxc transfer rates (480Mb/sec v 400Mb/sec), BUT sustained transfer rates for USB 2.0 is 34MB/sec v FW400's 41MB/sec....

<http://www.maxtor.com/portal/site/Maxtor/?epi_menuItemID=ba88f6d7cf664718376049b291346068&epi_menuID=976d37cd478c5826433f226075b46068&epi_baseMenuID=976d37cd478c5826433f226075b46068&channelpath=/en_us/Products/External%20Hard%20Drives/OneTouch%20Family/Maxtor%20OneTouch%20FireWire%20and%20USB&productview=Specifications>

Battery life calculation, USB2 vs FW400

John Ripley — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:47:00 GMT

DRM does actually cut into battery life very slightly because it takes extra CPU to decrypt the files on-the-fly. However, this is completely dwarfed by the extra CPU it takes to decode WMA compared to an MP3 (at the same bitrate).

The amount of continuous (uninterrupted by user) playback you get is determined almost entirely by (in roughly descending order):

* Bitrate - higher bitrates cause more disk spin ups.

* Codec, e.g WMA takes more than MP3 in general.

* Headphone volume level, if normally low then it would be here in the list.

Again, the 20 hour figure on the Carbon is with CBR 128kbit MP3, volume 15, EQ off.

As for this pointless USB2 vs FW400 thing, it's more complex than just the specs on paper. But regardless of 30MB/sec or 45MB/sec or whatever, the choice between USB2 and FW400 has ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT on the transfer speed you get to micro hard disks. About the only things which have any hope of maxing them out are digital video devices and external 3.5" hard drives. It's not a point which should be used to pick between an MP3 player (unless it means buying a USB2 of FW interface card...)

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Doug Fraser — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 19:59:00 GMT

Is the battery user replaceable?
(like the Muvo 2 ... )

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Paul Chapman — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 03:47:00 GMT

Are there any problems when jogging/running with the RIO Carbon that you are aware of?

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Omar Shahine — Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:37:00 GMT

Battery is not replacable.

I don't run or jog (unless I am being chased)... so I can't really say.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

2n2222 — Fri, 12 Nov 2004 14:20:00 GMT

Seagates specs on the drive in the rio carbon specifically states that it was made to be used while jogging with no ill effects. I ripped out the drive for my PDA, now PMC as well :P

http://www.seagate.com/content/docs/pdf/marketing/Seagate_ST1.pdf

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

k3266 — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 02:47:00 GMT

I got both an ipod mini and rio carbon but I ended up selling my ipod after i got the carbon. I would have to say that my carbon was way more worth the money. *obviously it was better than my ipod* and yes it does work with running. That is what i use it most with. It is a great player and I would have to agree with Brandon Paddok "It's not fair to rag on the device when you don't know anything about it".

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

dchamp — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:56:00 GMT

I own a Rio Carbon (for about 3 weeks now). It's a great player, well worth the money. I love the fact that I don't have to use iTunes or Music Match - I just handle my files manually which is fine by me.
However - there are plugins to allopw you to use it with iTunes - I haven't tried it because I dislike the iTunes interface (I use a 1st gen iPod for 2 weeks). The Carbon gives you the option to use a music manager, or not.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Sonia — Mon, 22 Nov 2004 04:48:00 GMT

Does the carbon come with any sports attachments (ie armband or clip)? I was trying to figure out the best way to take it running, but I can seem to find any good accessories. Any suggestions?

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Persuter — Wed, 24 Nov 2004 05:16:00 GMT

I own a Rio Carbon, and I really like it. Never used an Ipod mini, but the Carbon seems pretty good.

To correct a few misapprehensions in the thread:

Carbon DOES support MP3s, that's all I have.

Carbon can connect to Macs and PCs alike. (Rio releases Mac versions of all its updates.)

I don't know about Omar, but I find that with MP3s, I get pretty much 20 hours. Maybe a little less, but I feel that this device has REALLY good battery life. I work twelve-hour days, and I listen to this little critter almost all the time except when at lunch. Even if I forget to charge it up between days it performs like a champ the next day. (Although it will give out towards evening.) I use the EQ, and I typically keep the volume a little above 15.

As for exercising, I keep it in my pocket while bicycling and I haven't had it skip yet.

So ultimately I'm very happy with my purchase. I've dropped it off a desk and out a car door so far too (yes, I'm clumsy) and it still works fine (and looks fine too, which I suspect is more than you could say of an Ipod dropped three feet onto asphalt).

It does have some responsiveness issues, although I suspect all hard drive players have that to some extent, I can't say whether it's more or less, but if I'm moving through tracks while listening to them, it'll take a few seconds to load the third or fourth one typically.

Worst thing about it is that it will occasionally reboot, like about once every three to six hours. I just upgraded my firmware so I'll have to see if it fixes it. And yes, I don't like that you can't skip to a certain song but continue listening to your whole playlist.

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

Chet — Thu, 25 Nov 2004 02:17:00 GMT

Rio Carbon tolerates jogging well. I have not tried more aggressive exercise(for many reasons).
Many non-rio companies offer cases for this device. (re: previous entry)

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

laz03 — Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:02:00 GMT

I really can't understand why there are such Ipod freaks out there?! I've had an Ipod for two years now and I do not think it is so great! In fact I am actually looking for a new mp3 player because my battery is going crappy on me and I will not pay Apple or anyone else to change it for 90 bucks! I've actually heard some people call it "my baby", talking about pathetic! I've been reading this web page and most people who wrote on it did not have a clue of what they were saying, they either had an Ipod or a Rio. To what I understand the Rio is superior to the ipodmini and offers more, especially to PC user which I am! I was thinking about purchasing an Ipod mini but I read some forums that were very alarming: people loosing their entire playlists(by that I mean all the files on the Ipodmini), I also read that it skips and is very fagile. As for some feature such as FM receiver, it does not work as well as most people would think: it makes my Ipod heavier and bulkier as well as any accessories that you may want to buy for your Ipod! At the end you may have to carry a bag for " Ipod accessories", come on!

re: Rio Carbon vs iPod

dosbox — Sat, 27 Nov 2004 07:16:00 GMT

I'm amused by the members of the Ipod fan club who didn't bother checking the Carbon specs before criticising it. And don't get me started on the "cool culture" deal.

Anyhow, the three features which the Carbon has over the MiniPod:

- Longer battery life
- 1GB more capacity
- Universal mass storage device (i.e. no software required)

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Paid Surveys

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Paid Surveys — Sat, 30 May 2009 00:27:28 GMT

PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=omar-shahine-s-weblog-rio-carbon-vs-ipod

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Outdoor Ceiling Fans

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Outdoor Ceiling Fans — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:44:45 GMT

PingBack from http://outdoorceilingfansite.info/story.php?id=5846

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Wood TV Stand

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Wood TV Stand — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 02:45:19 GMT

PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=15478

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Uniform Stores

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Uniform Stores — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:35:07 GMT

PingBack from http://uniformstores.info/story.php?id=16268

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Wood TV Stand

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Wood TV Stand — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:27:22 GMT

PingBack from http://woodtvstand.info/story.php?id=56666

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Insomnia Cure

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Insomnia Cure — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:24:32 GMT

PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=6100

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Green Tea Fat Burner

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Green Tea Fat Burner — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:42:35 GMT

PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=581

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Toe Nail Fungus

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Toe Nail Fungus — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:17:58 GMT

PingBack from http://toenailfungusite.info/story.php?id=5539

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Quick Diets

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Quick Diets — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:38:25 GMT

PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=10163

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Outdoor Decor

Omar Shahine s WebLog Rio Carbon vs iPod | Outdoor Decor — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:39:27 GMT

PingBack from http://outdoordecoration.info/story.php?id=58