Does the Mordor expansion affect low level play if you purchase it before hitting L100+?

[Ealdrid]

I am a VIP player that returned from hiatus just before the Mordor expansion was released and only know what the FAQ says about it. I have done some forum browsing but, as you would expect, most people are discussing the L100+ aspects.

I have all the other expansions from my prior play, which I bought on sale back when. My characters are mostly in the L30s so I won't reach the Mordor expansion any time soon.

I lean towards picking up the Mordor expansion [base level, lowest price] now but... if I wait for a big sale later in the year, will I be missing anything?

I suspect the new expansion will not affect the L30 range. I assum it will be at the old level maximum before any difference is seen.

Are my assumptions correct?

Even if you don't know, I OK with educated guesses from the folks who have been around for years .

[Nosdracir]

Don't expect it to go on sale. SSG has not been putting xpacs on sale like Turbine used to. It will get a bit cheaper when they start selling it for LOTRO Points at the end of the year.

If you buy the cheapest ($40 USD) package you will get an item that will boost one character to level 105. This would affect a low level player in that it gives you one high level character. You can also just stash this in your shared vault for use later. Maybe get one character to 105 and then boost a second one there. This item will not be in the expac you buy for LP at the end of the year.

Hope that helps.

[Endoloose]

I don't really see the idea of buying Mordor now (except supporting SSG)

You're level 30 and unless you plan to use the Aria of the valar character boost on one of your characters (or a newly created) it won't make sense purchasing even the base edition of Mordor.
Mordor won't change anything in your current level at all, if you buy the base pack. If you want to play the High Elf character now, you need to buy the Collector's bundle
When Update 22 get released it'll be possible to purchase the Mordor expansion for ??2495?? Lotro points (iirc) and the High Elf for 1000 Lotro points.

If you reach level 105 before update 22, then reconsider if you want to buy Mordor, or level one of your alts while waiting..

***Guess*** Update 22 will be out between December 2017 and and March 2018.

Welcome back btw

[Ealdrid]

Well, that is pretty much what I expected. I am toying with the idea of buying the basic package [$40] sooner rather than later just to support/encourage SSG. The $40-$50 range is what I am used to paying for games but $80 or $130 is more than I want to spend.

I read the Lord of the Rings trilogy for the first time back in the 1970s and several more times since then, so I am quite fond of the story. I played WoW for about 6 years but bailed when they introduced Pandas [that exceeded my ability to suspend disbelief] and was really pleased to find a home in LOTRO. I played LOTRO for a while [way too many alts] but ceased playing shortly after the realm consolidation. I have more spare time now so I have picked up where I left off.

Thanks for the replies.

[maartena]

Don't buy Mordor yet.

If you can wait, wait till the "black friday" sales event at the end of November around Thanksgiving. Now that SSG is boss there is a chance they don't do it, but last year you could get all expansions and quest packs (except for the last one or two) for a staggering 75% off.... I loaded up a 2nd account up with everything through Rohan for like $22.50 or something silly like that.

Since you are level 30-ish, and you have VIP, I would recommend to purchase the "Quad Pack" here: $39.99

http://store.turbine.com/store/turbi...oryID.58516200

The "Quad Pack" includes Moria, Mirkwood, Isengard, and Rohan and will get you through all content up to level 85-90-ish before having to consider Helms Deep and Mordor, and both of those might have gone on sale by the time you get past 85.....

[LagunaD2]

If you buy the most expensive edition, the +25% XP earring will slightly accelerate your progress at all levels up to and including 105.

[Ealdrid]

Don't buy Mordor yet.

If you can wait, wait till the "black friday" sales event at the end of November around Thanksgiving. Now that SSG is boss there is a chance they don't do it, but last year you could get all expansions and quest packs (except for the last one or two) for a staggering 75% off.... I loaded up a 2nd account up with everything through Rohan for like $22.50 or something silly like that.

Since you are level 30-ish, and you have VIP, I would recommend to purchase the "Quad Pack" here: $39.99

http://store.turbine.com/store/turbi...oryID.58516200

The "Quad Pack" includes Moria, Mirkwood, Isengard, and Rohan and will get you through all content up to level 85-90-ish before having to consider Helms Deep and Mordor, and both of those might have gone on sale by the time you get past 85.....

AFAIR, I bought the the quad-pack back when [May of 2015] I first started to play. I have prowled around the Turbine/SSG website & the Turbine folder on my PC trying to verify this but I have not found any way to do so.
Can anyone give me a clue on how to see what I have?

I am planning a major upgrade for my PC "soon"... [motherboard/processor, SSD, Memory, Video card] so I am focused on that near term. Once that is done, I'll look into picking up Mordor and any expansions I may have missed [IF I can figure out what I have and do not have].

I just advanced my first character to Evendim and I want to say the Oakbarton quest hub was a painful experience. I suppose by the time I run another alt or two through it, I'll know how it is laid out and all will go smoother.

Thanks to all who offered advice, I appreciate it.

[Ghorbash]

AFAIR, I bought the the quad-pack back when [May of 2015] I first started to play. I have prowled around the Turbine/SSG website & the Turbine folder on my PC trying to verify this but I have not found any way to do so.
Can anyone give me a clue on how to see what I have?

I am planning a major upgrade for my PC "soon"... [motherboard/processor, SSD, Memory, Video card] so I am focused on that near term. Once that is done, I'll look into picking up Mordor and any expansions I may have missed [IF I can figure out what I have and do not have].

I just advanced my first character to Evendim and I want to say the Oakbarton quest hub was a painful experience. I suppose by the time I run another alt or two through it, I'll know how it is laid out and all will go smoother.

Thanks to all who offered advice, I appreciate it.

You can see what expansion packs you have by logging into your account on the game start up/log in screen. At the top row is Community Account Support. Long into your Account from that tab and you should be able to see your expansions.

[Yarbro]

AFAIR, I bought the the quad-pack back when [May of 2015] I first started to play. I have prowled around the Turbine/SSG website & the Turbine folder on my PC trying to verify this but I have not found any way to do so.
Can anyone give me a clue on how to see what I have?

I am planning a major upgrade for my PC "soon"... [motherboard/processor, SSD, Memory, Video card] so I am focused on that near term. Once that is done, I'll look into picking up Mordor and any expansions I may have missed [IF I can figure out what I have and do not have].

I just advanced my first character to Evendim and I want to say the Oakbarton quest hub was a painful experience. I suppose by the time I run another alt or two through it, I'll know how it is laid out and all will go smoother.

Thanks to all who offered advice, I appreciate it.

Just remember that LOTRO doesnt work very well with modern cpus that prioritise multiple threads over cpu cycles; and cpus that have smaller cpu RAM caches also seem to suffer over older, slower cpus with bigger caches. I suspect it is the way the original game engine was coded.

[Hurin]

Just remember that LOTRO doesnt work very well with modern cpus that prioritise multiple threads over cpu cycles; and cpus that have smaller cpu RAM caches also seem to suffer over older, slower cpus with bigger caches. I suspect it is the way the original game engine was coded.

Translated: Go for GHz over cores where LotRO is concerned. Which is true.

As for older, slower CPUs running LotRO better. . . it's astounding to me that this claim is still being made based upon uncorroborated, isolated, anecdotal observation. Prior, it was asserted that different instruction sets between the generations accounted for some imagined advantage on the part of the older CPU while playing LotRO. Now, it seems, the culprit is imagined to be cache sizes. . . and yet the very claim that a new CPU "suffers" compared to an older one has been thoroughly debunked and the results documented here.

Nobody should be looking to purchase older CPUs (or otherwise putting undue emphasis on larger caches vs modernity) in order to run LotRO better. Just as nobody should have been looking on eBay for Core 2 Duos (with "special sauce" instruction sets) to somehow improve LotRO performance when this claim was originally made (and debunked).

--H

[Yarbro]

Translated: Go for GHz over cores where LotRO is concerned. Which is true.

As for older, slower CPUs running LotRO better. . . it's astounding to me that this claim is still being made based upon uncorroborated, isolated, anecdotal observation. Prior, it was asserted that different instruction sets between the generations accounted for some imagined advantage on the part of the older CPU while playing LotRO. Now, it seems, the culprit is imagined to be cache sizes. . . and yet the very claim that a new CPU "suffers" compared to an older one has been thoroughly debunked and the results documented here.

Nobody should be looking to purchase older CPUs (or otherwise putting undue emphasis on larger caches vs modernity) in order to run LotRO better. Just as nobody should have been looking on eBay for Core 2 Duos (with "special sauce" instruction sets) to somehow improve LotRO performance when this claim was originally made (and debunked).

--H

Perhaps,, but I have still been digging into why the AMD FX range of cpus are so bad at LOTRO, I already knew about the halved memory channels, but what I HADNT noticed was that the FX (and the post Core 2 Intel chips), have VERY small on-chip cache sizes compared to the cpus around when the LOTRO game engine was developed. The new Rizen also features much smaller L1 cache than the old Phenom series, so I am waiting to hear how the game plays on the new chips - but I am guessing no better, as various test reviews of the chips give wildly varying results on different test types.

I KNOW you did your tests, but that was only matching cpu speed to the older chip, you couldnt allow for cache and internal design changes; you also made a basic error in reporting FPS speeds that I was too weary to point out at the time; have YOU figured it out yet??

YES, raw GHz improves the game, but it doesnt explain why I have to O/C an FX cpu by more than a GHz over the equivalent Phenom II chip to get the same results, when they have almost identical base GHz speeds (PII = 3.2 v FX = 3.4).

[Hurin]

Perhaps,, but I have still been digging into why the AMD FX range of cpus are so bad at LOTRO, I already knew about the halved memory channels, but what I HADNT noticed was that the FX (and the post Core 2 Intel chips), have VERY small on-chip cache sizes compared to the cpus around when the LOTRO game engine was developed. The new Rizen also features much smaller L1 cache than the old Phenom series, so I am waiting to hear how the game plays on the new chips - but I am guessing no better, as various test reviews of the chips give wildly varying results on different test types.

I KNOW you did your tests, but that was only matching cpu speed to the older chip, you couldnt allow for cache and internal design changes; you also made a basic error in reporting FPS speeds that I was too weary to point out at the time; have YOU figured it out yet??

YES, raw GHz improves the game, but it doesnt explain why I have to O/C an FX cpu by more than a GHz over the equivalent Phenom II chip to get the same results, when they have almost identical base GHz speeds (PII = 3.2 v FX = 3.4).

Until you can come up with numbers in an apple-to-apples, controlled environment, all we've seen from you so far is something along the lines of: "My daughter's PC feels faster than my PC" or things of that nature. . .

I can't stop you from posting such things. Just as I couldn't stop you from posting that a smaller C:\windows folder results in a faster computer (because it "constantly scans itself"). . . or so many other things that are just demonstrably incorrect. But I reserve the right to save people from bad advice. Or muddying up a straight-forward conversation with bizarre tangents about imagined/misunderstood information.

So, carry on. . .

--H

[Yarbro]

Until you can come up with numbers in an apple-to-apples, controlled environment, all we've seen from you so far is something along the lines of: "My daughter's PC feels faster than my PC" or things of that nature. . .

I can't stop you from posting such things. Just as I couldn't stop you from posting that a smaller C:\windows folder results in a faster computer (because it "constantly scans itself"). . . or so many other things that are just demonstrably incorrect. But I reserve the right to save people from bad advice. Or muddying up a straight-forward conversation with bizarre tangents about imagined/misunderstood information.

So, carry on. . .

--H

I will admit that I cannot find any references for the continual scanning for a Win OS after XP; however there are other issues with having folders containing multi-thousand files, of which the c:/Windows folder is a prime example of; so trimming the registry, moving files off of the desktop (which is stored inside the Windows folder), out of My Documents, My music etc (ditto), spreads the files out into a more even file tree and speeds things up - it also stops you losing large chunks of files if you perform a system restore - as Windows often wipes the "My" folders blank in my experience.

Have a read of this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...nd-directories

And then you might understand why reducing the size of the Windows folder can speed up how your system runs.

BTW, there are plenty of other people claiming the same; I came across dozens before stumbling on to this, which I think explains it best.

[Hurin]

I will admit that I cannot find any references for the continual scanning for a Win OS after XP; however there are other issues with having folders containing multi-thousand files, of which the c:/Windows folder is a prime example of; so trimming the registry, moving files off of the desktop (which is stored inside the Windows folder), out of My Documents, My music etc (ditto), spreads the files out into a more even file tree and speeds things up - it also stops you losing large chunks of files if you perform a system restore - as Windows often wipes the "My" folders blank in my experience.

Have a read of this https://stackoverflow.com/questions/...nd-directories

And then you might understand why reducing the size of the Windows folder can speed up how your system runs.

BTW, there are plenty of other people claiming the same; I came across dozens before stumbling on to this, which I think explains it best.

Literally, almost everything above is factually incorrect or misapplied.

But first, we'll just skip over how you moved the goalposts from a claim of "constantly scanning c:\windows" to the entirely different concept (in both kind and degree) of scaling performance/limitations in NTFS. Which, contrary to your assertions but documented by the very link you provided, are incredibly unlikely to ever affect the average Windows user. Or even power users. Or even the vast majority of sysadmins. Yet you pretend otherwise to suit your rhetorical needs of the moment.

I will admit that I cannot find any references for the continual scanning for a Win OS after XP

XP didn't "constantly scan" c:\windows either.

however there are other issues with having folders containing multi-thousand files

No, there aren't. And, as I mentioned prior, the link you provided to document this explicitly undermines your case: "If you're looking at 100K entries, no worries. Go knock yourself out." Your cited source discusses performance issues only in the range of "tens of millions." You are really grasping at straws here.

moving files off of the desktop (which is stored inside the Windows folder)

The desktop is not stored in the C:\windows directory. It's stored in your c:\users\username\desktop directory.

BTW, there are plenty of other people claiming the same; I came across dozens. . .

Yes, indeed. There are a lot of people on the internet who believe things that aren't true. In this case, I'm giving you, once again, the opportunity to stop believing something that isn't true so that you can stop giving bad/irrelevant tech advice.

Look, I chose your claim about the C:\windows folder (and Windows "constantly scanning it") as merely one example (there are certainly others!). You and I occasionally butt heads in technically-oriented threads because you have a penchant for finding an edge case and then extrapolating wildly.

In the case of the "old CPUs run LotRO better" claims, you stumbled across a phenomenon that you couldn't explain, and instead of methodically running down your findings in a controlled environment or detailing your environment and testing methodologies so that others could do so, you just assumed that your counter-intuitive findings were not only sound, but representative of what others would experience. . . even across other brands of CPUs. Rather than saying "I have noticed something that doesn't make sense". . . you said "GHz for GHz, the older Core2 era chips work better for LOTRO than newer AMD OR Intel cpu designs."

And even in the face of documentation proving otherwise, you still persist instead of accepting the fact that you're observing an edge case and not the norm.

--H

[Ealdrid]

You can see what expansion packs you have by logging into your account on the game start up/log in screen. At the top row is Community Account Support. Long into your Account from that tab and you should be able to see your expansions.

Thanks!

My expansions are:
Game Version History
Shadows of Angmar™ Trial
Mines of Moria™ Standard
Shared Storage
Shadows of Angmar™ Standard
Siege of Mirkwood™
Shadows of Angmar™ Guest
Rise of Isengard™
Riders of Rohan™
Helm's Deep™

I am a little concerned about the Shadows of Angmar expansion marked "Standard", "Trial" and "Guest". In the long term, I guess I'll find out when I get to them whether I have a problem or not. In the near term, I'll submit a support ticket asking about it.

[Ealdrid]

As far as my planned PC update goes, I am going to switch to the Intel with the fastest GHz. I currently have an Intel I5 running at 3.4 GHz. I am looking at either an I5-7600 [4.2 GHz] or the I7-770K [also 4.2 GHz].

I also play a flight simulator [WW 1] that is a older, single threaded, design. The developers & other players recommend the highest GHz processor since the simulator only runs on one processor in a MP chip.

I also plan to step up my Nvidia GTX660 2GB of to an Invidia GTX 1060 6GB, or, money permitting, GTX 1070 8GB.

If money is available, I'll add an SSD.

I don't do overclocking or water cooling.

[Nosdracir]

Thanks!

My expansions are:
Game Version History
Shadows of Angmar™ Trial
Mines of Moria™ Standard
Shared Storage
Shadows of Angmar™ Standard
Siege of Mirkwood™
Shadows of Angmar™ Guest
Rise of Isengard™
Riders of Rohan™
Helm's Deep™

I am a little concerned about the Shadows of Angmar expansion marked "Standard", "Trial" and "Guest". In the long term, I guess I'll find out when I get to them whether I have a problem or not. In the near term, I'll submit a support ticket asking about it.

There's no problem with having the three entries for Shadows of Angmar. Before Free to Play those were access keys that gave you different amounts of game time. Trial and Guest were from the 7 (or 10?) day free trial and a limited term guest pass from a friend, respectively. You got a short time playing and then had to subscribe to continue. Standard was the 30 day sub that came with the SoA box. Perhaps you started with a free trial, tried to extend it with a guess pass (which may not have worked), and then found a cheap boxed edition on the internet that gave you another 30 days. Just history at this point. Any one of the three will work to get you into the game to play for free nowadays.

[Yarbro]

I am building a File-Structure to host up to 2 billion (2^32) Files and performed the following Tests that show a sharp drop in Navigate+Read Performance at about 250 Files or 120 Directories per NTFS Directory on a Solid State Drive (SSD):

Yeah there is a lot of miss-information, I dont subscribe to any really techie forums any longer, as I am too ill to keep up, but since the source code is also there, why dont you give it a try and see if you can prove or disprove his findings.

As For Desktop, I agree that is where the directory points, but go look yourself, the actual data ISNT there. My User folder claims to be 2.4GB in size, but if you actually total up the contents of each folder, there are less than 20Mb of data, most of which relates to LOTRO.

SO, where are the

8,711 Files, 1,339 Folders

Explorer reports??

My User Folder is particularly small as I dont trust the "My" Folders, having lost everything in them during an automated "repair" in the past; all my documents, music, photos and videos get sent to folders outside of the Win install directory, then duplicated across 2 HDDs, then later across my network to a back up.

[Hurin]

Yeah there is a lot of miss-information, I dont subscribe to any really techie forums any longer, as I am too ill to keep up, but since the source code is also there, why dont you give it a try and see if you can prove or disprove his findings.

*sigh*

"I am building a File-Structure to host up to 2 billion (2^32) Files and performed the following Tests that show a sharp drop in Navigate+Read Performance at about 250 Files or 120 Directories per NTFS Directory on a Solid State Drive (SSD):"

You are misreading (or willfully misrepresenting) what he is writing. He is noticing those performance drops with that folder arrangement/structure while hosting billions of files in total. Again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent. . . instead of just conceding a point. You've blithely gone from "delete files from C:\windows because it constantly scans itself" to "NTFS will get slower if you host billions of files" and yet don't see any need whatsoever to concede anything. Instead, you thing googling up irrelevancies like the latter somehow makes it okay to have stated the former.

As For Desktop, I agree that is where the directory points, but go look yourself, the actual data ISNT there.

Yes. It is.



Items stored on your desktop are stored (by default) in c:\users\username\desktop\. But, of course, you can remap that location. I suspect you have done so. And, for that reason or perhaps for others, you are now once again asserting that an edge case observation you have created is the norm for others.

Personally, I move/remap my Documents, Photos, and Videos folder to my D: drive since they are not performance sensitive and need not be hosted on my SSD. The difference, though, is that I understand and remember what I did, so I'm not going to come on these forums and tell people that their Documents, Photos, and Videos folders aren't stored in their c:\users\username folder.



Note: When you do this "move". . . checking the size of your c:\users\username folder will follow the junctions/symbolic links that such a procedure creates and report the aggregate size of your remapped folders as well as what is physically in c:\users\username. However, if you go into c:\users\username and total up what's now physically in there, you will come up short (what has been "moved"/remapped out will not appear in the total). This is almost certainly what is confusing you. But, again, this behavior is only present after someone has mucked about with things. By default, Desktop, Documents, Photos (etc.) are all stored physically in c:\users\username.

My User Folder is particularly small as I dont trust the "My" Folders, having lost everything in them during an automated "repair" in the past; all my documents, music, photos and videos get sent to folders outside of the Win install directory.

Can't be any clearer than this: Nobody's documents, music, photos, or videos directories are stored in the c:\windows directory unless they have explicitly done something stupid to have them stored there. And, to be blunt, someone who can't acknowledge that has no business giving technical advice to anyone.

Jeez. . . even going back to XP they were never stored in c:\windows (they were stored in c:\documents and settings).

Again, I only correct you because otherwise you insist on regularly giving demonstrably bad technical advice.

--H

[Yarbro]

No, I havent remapped it, nothing gets written to it if I have a choice on where the files are located.

Explorer says it contains 2.41GB of data as quoted, but opening the folder and going through each and every sub-folder shows that most of them are empty or contain only Kb of data; the LOTRO folder contains 14MB, none of the others holds as much as 1KB.

OK, weird time. I went to do a screen shot of the folder, and although Explorer says 2.4GB, the pop-up box says 194MB; but having gone through everything and added it up manually, I know both are wrong.

I also then remembered my old cloud storage doesnt allow link sharing any longer, bummer, I need a new online store for stuff like this.

Nobody's documents, music, photos, or videos directories are stored in the c:\windows directory

BTW, I didnt say they were part of /users, I said they are part of the windows directory.

I have not tried since early into Win7, but if you did a system restore, any files in the "My" folders were overwritten, even though you were "restoring" only Windows files; so although the file structure shows them as outside, the OS considers them part of the windows directory. Files and folders user created on the same partition, but outside of those folders were not damaged. The same used to happen with 95, 98, ME, XP and XP64, so I think it is reasonable to infer that Win8 - 10 will be written using the same illogical coding.



Windows (and M$DOS), is screw-up written on top of screw-up; which is why I held out for so long before building my first Winbox back in the late 90's, it seemed so ###### next to AmigaDOS and WorkBench; my opinion hasnt improved over the years.

No more replies, this isnt the thread - and I have a new water cooling rig to finish building and transfer this PC into.

[Hurin]

No, I havent remapped it, nothing gets written to it if I have a choice on where the files are located.

Explorer says it contains 2.41GB of data as quoted, but opening the folder and going through each and every sub-folder shows that most of them are empty or contain only Kb of data; the LOTRO folder contains 14MB, none of the others holds as much as 1KB.

OK, weird time. I went to do a screen shot of the folder, and although Explorer says 2.4GB, the pop-up box says 194MB; but having gone through everything and added it up manually, I know both are wrong.

I also then remembered my old cloud storage doesnt allow link sharing any longer, bummer, I need a new online store for stuff like this.

You are aware, I hope, that the folder contains hidden folders such as c:\users\username\appdata, (etc.). Right?

BTW, I didnt say they were part of /users, I said they are part of the windows directory.

And if you are referring to the (formerly "My") Documents, Photos, and Music directories, that's even more wrong. They are not stored in the c:\windows directory. Nor are they "considered" to be so. They are stored in c:\users\username\ unless the user screws around with them.

Surely, by now, you are finally willing to concede that that neither the Desktop (your original claim) nor any of those other folders (Documents) are stored within c:\windows but are actually stored in c:\users\username. . . pretty please?

I have not tried since early into Win7, but if you did a system restore, any files in the "My" folders were overwritten, even though you were "restoring" only Windows files; so although the file structure shows them as outside, the OS considers them part of the windows directory. Files and folders user created on the same partition, but outside of those folders were not damaged. The same used to happen with 95, 98, ME, XP and XP64, so I think it is reasonable to infer that Win8 - 10 will be written using the same illogical coding.

That would all depend on the type of restore you performed.

No more replies, this isnt the thread - and I have a new water cooling rig to finish building and transfer this PC into.

Good luck. Unfortunately, given your bizarre beliefs about how Windows works and how it structures its file system, I expect you to have many, many issues. Now and in the future.

--H

[Yarbro]

You are aware, I hope, that the folder contains hidden folders such as c:\users\username\appdata, (etc.). Right?

First thing I do on a new install for myself is set all hidden and system files to "visible", then make sure no program tries to store more than the bare minimum in the above*; but just to be sure, yesterday I went back and checked - which is when I spotted the pop-up size and the Explorer size dont tally. I suppose I could dig out a Linux live disk and some tools and see what they say; but TBH, I cant be arsed.

The new rig construction had barely got under way when we had visitors turn up, so it all had to come off the dining table JUST as I had finished laying it all out to start; I have to stay in Monday morning for a large, international parcel delivery and then EON** to grace my door, so I will make a fresh start then; although it will not get finished then as a/ I will need to perform a full 24hr leak test before slotting in the mobo, and b/ SWMBO will need the table for parcel sorting mid-afternoon, so the leak test will be performed with the new case underneath the fold-up treadmill - and I just hope she doesnt decide she wants to go jogging, as there isnt much space with the building work going on in the front of the house.

* One DVD Ripper program tries to store the ripped files in there!!!!

** They keep screwing up my meter readings, so are sending someone a bit more senior to read it.