This is Signal vs. Noise, a weblog by 37signals about entrepreneurship, design, experience, simplicity, constraints, pop culture, our products, products we like, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago.

Thomas 24 Oct 05

It seems they listened to you:

“Thank you for your interest in Google Web Accelerator.
We have currently reached our maximum capacity of users and
are actively working to increase the number of users we can support.”

Eddie 24 Oct 05

I’m new to this subject, but after reading your first post from May- I would have to wonder how anyone could have thought that was a good idea? How could you miss that? So this new version still has the same problems with ignoring the confirmations/protective measures et. all while removing the prefetch header? Sounds like some serious oversite.

Dave 24 Oct 05

They probably wreaked havoc on some g-mail inboxes and realized something might be wrong with the concept.

Eddie 24 Oct 05

What about this from the FAQ; does it make a difference? (I don’t know much about this..)
3. Which links are, and aren’t, prefetchable?
Google Web Accelerator only prefetches links that should have no side effects. According to the HTTP 1.1 specification, the GET method is defined as a Safe Method which “SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval.” In practice, Google Web Accelerator does not prefetch links which have query parameters (i.e. have a “?” in the URL) and encrypted pages (i.e. URL starting with https://).

Rabbit 24 Oct 05

WHAT THE FUCK!?!

Amen, and, I love this place. :)

Anonymous Coward 24 Oct 05

It sounds like a great idea to me. I thought everyone knew not to put POST behavior in a GET. I guess not. Rather than stressing about how to block it, why not take some time to correctly design your site?

Eddie 24 Oct 05

Also- the FAQ also states that the prefetch header is still there…
What Webmasters Need To Know About Google Web Accelerator ..has this not been updated? Or is it wrong?

Darrel 24 Oct 05

What about this from the FAQ; does it make a difference?

In theory. In reality, there is more bad web software than good, so there’s no doubt this will wreak serious havock everywhere.

Dr_God 24 Oct 05

I agree with “Anonymous.” If it only “clicks” on links, it should have no damaging effects on any properly designed web app outside of screwing up the site’s web stats a little.

Jim Jeffers 24 Oct 05

Well I’m glad you said something about it David!

Tom 24 Oct 05

“it should have no damaging effects on any properly designed web app outside of screwing up the site’s web stats a little.”

What about the unnecessary extra load on the server?

Jamis Buck 24 Oct 05

It sounds like a great idea to me. I thought everyone knew not to put POST behavior in a GET. I guess not. Rather than stressing about how to block it, why not take some time to correctly design your site?

Nice in theory. But it’s like saying “well, it’s faster to enter and exit a house if there are no doors, and since everyone in the world is supposed to be obeying the law, let’s just start building houses without doors.” There are specifications, and then there is reality. And I don’t say that just to justify our applications (we are in the process of converting destructive GET requests to POSTS, even as I type this). There is a lot of software out there that uses GET destructively, and whether that is “right” or “wrong”, Google is wreaking havoc by assuming everyone is doing things “right”.

Chris Johnston 24 Oct 05

I have to agree with others, if all that the Google Accelerator does is follow clickable links, i.e., follows GET requests, then any damage that that will do the website is the fault of the developer and not of Google. GET is suppose to be used for requests that do not change state. So downloading a bunch of pages so be fairly benign.

Any admin sections to websites should be safely hidden away behind a login form being submitted using POST along with any other links that alter state.

I don’t see the problem, which probably means I am missing something.

Brady 24 Oct 05

How do you know they are denying further sign-ups due to a reason other than what is stated?

Also, I could see the alternative argument for this type of application prefetching using this method. Just like you guys ditch support for browsers over time to move things forward, other companies may ditch worrying about programmers that don’t adhere to standards.

That said, I certainly feel for any user affected. Not sure who deserves the blame.

Anonymous Coward 24 Oct 05

I have to agree with others, if all that the Google Accelerator does is follow clickable links, i.e., follows GET requests, then any damage that that will do the website is the fault of the developer and not of Google. GET is suppose to be used for requests that do not change state. So downloading a bunch of pages so be fairly benign.

Tell Gmail that. They aren’t following the “rules” either.

Scott 24 Oct 05

For you knee-jerkers who like to go on about how it is the fault of the application designer and cite the HTTP 1.1 Spec (RFC 2616) where it says “[…] GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval.”, you might also want to familiarize yourselves with RFC 2119, “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”. You will see that SHOULD NOT is distinctly different from MUST NOT, and if Google ignores that fact and doesn’t provide ways for “violators” to stop them, then poopoo on them.

Darrel 24 Oct 05

“it should have no damaging effects on any properly designed web app outside of screwing up the site’s web stats a little.”

That’s very true. Now, what about all the poorly designed web apps? ;o)

not my real name 24 Oct 05

how anyone can think this is a good idea these days, where things like http://someadvertiser.com/referrerIDHere/productIDHere/whatever/etc.html and http://something.com/forum/logout.php are common, must have their heads up their asses.

frankly the whole idea seems pretty darned antiquated to me.

Peter Cooper 24 Oct 05

Remember that according to the RFCs “SHOULD” does NOT mean “MUST”..

In any case, what’s the best way of making a regular text link do a POST request, yet still remain compatible for older clients? Oh, yes, you need to add intermediate pages.. nah, not acceptable. I’ll stick to using GET and if people want to run GWA, it’ll be their loss, as we can’t turn every single link in an app into a form button, alas.

Peter Cooper 24 Oct 05

Oops, sorry for repeating your point Scott :)

Scott 24 Oct 05

Hmmm…everyone seems to be ignoring Eddie’s second response about URLs with query parameters. Wouldn’t just adding a “?” to urls that don’t have query parameters (or “?prefetch=false” if you want the intent documented) stop Google’s prefetch? That seems like a much cleaner way to handle the situation than a bunch of header checks because it doesn’t have to be conditional per request.

David Heinemeier Hansson 24 Oct 05

If you’re using Rails, you can now do links like: link_to “Destroy!”, :action => “destroy”, :post => true. That’ll create a link with an onclick that uses POST for submit. If the user has js turned off, a GET will still be send. On the server-side, you can then use verify :destroy, :method => :post.

Yeah, it’s a bit cumbersome, but at least it’s there.

Brendan Baldwin 24 Oct 05

Okay seriously — Granted that some web apps are designed poorly and that some web apps use regular A HREF= links to perform actions, but I don’t really care about those as much as I care about my site getting pummeled by browsers hopped-up on prefetch steroids.

It just doesn’t seem like a very Googley premise to begin with. I guess this is the downside of their 20% rule at Google. Somebody’s pet project that has nothing to do with the business goes ahead and turns into a monster precisely because they work at Google and it gets the brand attached to it.

It’s just really kind of dumb for 2005 to have something like this. It’s definitely not very Web 2.0 (*coff*) The only place where something like this would even be remotely useful is prefetching all video-preview pages with those slowly downloading still images on heavily trafficed mature-content sites, but you still have to wait anyways while your bandwidth is tied up downloading 50 mpegs anyways so I don’t even get where the need for something like this comes from.

I guess all that Googles is not gold.

Raymond Brigleb 24 Oct 05

Profanity is warranted.

Darrel 24 Oct 05

how anyone can think this is a good idea these days, where things like http://someadvertiser.com/referrerIDHere/productIDHere/whatever/etc.html and http://something.com/forum/logout.php are common,

Hmm…not to mention everyone that uses URL rewriting. They wouldn’t even have querystrings visible for Google to know ‘not to index’.

Eric 24 Oct 05

This is pretty fundamental, folks. Follow the standards and you won’t have a problem. Excuses like, “but I’m so cutting edge,” just don’t, well, cut it.

And why didn’t you learn your lessons after GWA version 1 taught it to you!? You hid behind a trick rather than addressing the fundamental issue. Sounds like something Microsoft would do.

This idea that “should not” is not the same as “must not” is silly; it’s trying to hide evil webapp behavior behind some strained bit of legalese. You shouldn’t do that. And you mustn’t either!

The only legitimate complaint that I see above is the traffic generated by pre-fetching. But even there, if the content is static (i.e., it has no URL encoded parameters) then I would suspect that Google can cache one load for many users, especially if the HTTP expires field is appropriately set.

josh 24 Oct 05

oh, so now GETs have to be static?

Tim Connor 24 Oct 05

The difference between SHOULD and MUST is pretty fundamental in the specs, though, Eric. And you can’t really deal with the W3C specs without dealing with strained legalese. ;)

Anyways, you can have quasi-stateful retrieval of info that falls between the cracks on that one - maybe not in a site I’d build, but I can imagine some cases where a true action might not be taken, but something like only 5 free downloads are allowed. Yes it’d be easy to circumvent, but I was trying to invent a possibility off the top of my head.

And the slamming a server unneccessarily is an interesting one too.

Cameron Fleming 24 Oct 05

Eric: the issues of how GETs should be used and how Google Web Accelerator behaves are actually separate. GWA works on the Web as it is, not the Web as it should be.

Anonymous 24 Oct 05

This is pretty fundamental, folks. Follow the standards and you won’t have a problem.

Chris Johnston 24 Oct 05

HTTP 1.1 Spec (RFC 2616) where it says “[…] GET and HEAD methods SHOULD NOT have the significance of taking an action other than retrieval.”, you might also want to familiarize yourselves with RFC 2119, “Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels”. You will see that SHOULD NOT is distinctly different from MUST NOT,

As I said in my post, I must be missing something and the above paragraph was what I was missing. Thank you. After reading through all the comments, I definitely see where this is a problem and I am truely surprised that Google would do something like this.

However, more and more I am hearing rumours, comments, and opinions that Google is becoming the new bad buy. Somewhere along the line their “do no evil” motto got lost.

Anonymous Coward 24 Oct 05

And so we should make all of our webapps less usable just because of some Google utility? Yeah right. You go and try tack on POST’s to every single link in your webapp and keep it just as usable.

There is a good reason people have ignored the *SHOULD NOT* requirement in the spec. Some people need to live in the real world.

Michael K. Campbell 25 Oct 05

Seriously.

The GET story is a big one, and a major concern for lots of sites, rightly so.

But the whole url-rewrite story (as well as combining session into the URL) is trashed.

Time to let Google know that this is unacceptable. Here’s a link to tell them what you think:
http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py

I’m definitely giving them a piece of my mind.

Anonymous 25 Oct 05

“The difference between SHOULD and MUST is pretty fundamental”

There’s also a fundamental difference between SHOULD NOT and HEY COOLGUY FRAMEWORK DESIGNER—LET YOUR FREAK FLAG FLY.

Please…the loyalty is admirable, but stop bending the truth.

Aristotle Pagaltzis 25 Oct 05

RFC2119 says:

SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase “NOT RECOMMENDED” mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label.

SHOULD NOT means “you may do this, but expect interoperability problems if you do.”

You did what you SHOULD NOT. Now you have interoperability problems. Stop acting surprised or disgusted.

Aristotle Pagaltzis 25 Oct 05

And as always, Mark Pilgrim forstalled this discussion long ago:

Besides the run-of-the-mill morons, there are two factions of morons that are worth special mention. The first work from examples, and ship code, and get yelled at, just like all the other morons. But then when they finally bother to read the spec, they magically turn into assholes and argue that the spec is ambiguous, or misleading in some way, or ignoreable because nobody else implements it, or simply wrong. These people are called sociopaths. They will never write conformant code regardless of how good the spec is, so they can safely be ignored.

Mark may have been writing in another time, about another war, but his piece has proven again and again to transcend time and topic.

Jerome 25 Oct 05

Eric,
The only legitimate complaint that I see above is the traffic generated by pre-fetching. But even there, if the content is static (i.e., it has no URL encoded parameters) then I would suspect that Google can cache one load for many users, especially if the HTTP expires field is appropriately set.
Why assume they would cache it? Until stated, it is not a given (a wise stance particularly as standards are not being followed)…

Also, dynamic content does not always have URL encoded parameters. This is based on the CMS. Is Google going to recognize who is whom? Can they program death-by-overload on CMS providers they do not like?

pre-fetching links is based on the idea that there is unlimited ressources in disk space and bandwidth. It’s darn cheap, but not free, nor unlimited. Thus the concept is wrong on its face.

Meanwhile bandwidth does grow get faster and is in the hands of the user; thus s/he decides on the use of it by clicking on the link when needed; no need to share the client or server’s bandwidth on other wasted requests. The concept is dead wrong on its back side.

JH 25 Oct 05

Aristotle:

“SHOULD NOT” means it can legally be done.

“SHOULD NOT” means that if you wrote an app which doesn’t allow for the fact that some people *will* do it (and legally), you have a bug.

“MUST NOT” doesn’t.

Sérgio Nunes 25 Oct 05

Web 2.0 apps are being badly developed, not following standards thus not interoperable. Why not use POST buttons and style them with CSS to look like ordinary links?

annoyed 25 Oct 05

When did “Web 2.0” enter this discussion? This is so web 0.1 as it GET’s.

Martin 25 Oct 05

If you’re using Rails, you can now do links like: link_to “Destroy!”, :action => “destroy”, :post => true. That’ll create a link with an onclick that uses POST for submit. If the user has js turned off, a GET will still be send. On the server-side, you can then use verify :destroy, :method => :post.

David, please correct me, if I get this wrong:

A user with JS on clicks the link and triggers a dynamic, invisible form creation which is then submited with POST. Method is verified as POST, and the proper methods get executed.

A user with JS off, which includes the Google thingy, still submits the request as GET. The check for POST method on the server side fails, the script bails out.

Not very degradable it seems. Or do I miss something?

l.m.orchard 25 Oct 05

My momma always said: You SHOULD NOT walk around outside without a coat when it’s cold out. I mean, if you just have to run to the car really quick, I suppose you’ll be okay. But if you catch a cold, whose fault is that?

C 25 Oct 05

David, if you need it to test with you can still download it at

http://webaccelerator.google.com/dc.html

Antony Melvin 25 Oct 05

If a workaround of ?nogoogleprefetch=true stops the prefetch then apart from the work involved it comes down to whether you can ignore the GWA or not.

It’s the same argument as when we coded NN4/IE4 DHTML and you had to reference page objects differently for the different browsers. It’s a case of coding defensively and constant rework of code that breaks - for whatever reason.

I have coded a number of AJAX apps sometimes streaming data with ado stream (which MS then took steps against) sometimes posting XML to a listening page. No doubt GWA would break this by hitting the anchor links but it is on an intranet where you can push the envelope a little more.

The web is a lowest common denominator playground. A lot of code breaks as browsers have add ons and a lot of sites that were once rock solid are now buggy - this is just the way it is.

David Heinemeier Hansson 25 Oct 05

I’ve written about the Rails protections on How Rails is prepared for GWA II: Vengeance.

Brad 25 Oct 05

Well at least you’re getting your message out. This post comes up third (and fourth) for a google search of “google web accelerator”

Colin 25 Oct 05

Google should have stayed as a search engine… Their new software and data mining practises are exactly as you have described.. Google is becoming the Dark lord of the internet. I seriously doubt they have made any error or oversight with this software. It all looks deliberate and calculated to me..

Anonymous 25 Oct 05

Though shalt not kill.

Hey, it didn’t say must not!

Mark Baker 25 Oct 05

The issue is not about “SHOULD NOT” versus “MUST NOT”. If you’d read just a little further in the spec, you’d see the important part;

Naturally, it is not possible to ensure that the server does not generate side-effects as a result of performing a GET request; in fact, some dynamic resources consider that a feature. The important distinction here is that the user did not request the side-effects, so therefore cannot be held accountable for them.

And one more thing. Consider that search engines couldn’t exist unless they could make the assumption that they wouldn’t be held responsible for any mutations on a GET.

flash 25 Oct 05

Here we go again. GWA is not the only caching proxy server on the web, it just happens that google is big enough to cop some tall poppy syndrome now.

Pro-tip: If you are generating dynamic content use the right headers, this isn’t a new problem.

l.m.orchard 25 Oct 05

Speaking of following links being the only way search spiders could exist… I don’t suppose the GWA obeys the rel=”nofollow” on hyperlinks, does it?

Tman 25 Oct 05

Won’t this also be a big waste of bandwidth and doesn’t bandwidth cost money?

Sean Forman 25 Oct 05

If this gets into a lot of hands, I may be out of business due to bandwidth charges. My website has hundreds of links on each page, mostly to static pages, but those pages do change on occasion, so caching may not be a legitimate option.

For example,

http://www.bb-ref.com/teams/ARI/2005_sched.shtml

Wouldn’t this software also destroy a site like wikipedia? Each person with gwa in effect has 100x the usage of a normal person.

ted 25 Oct 05

> ?nogoogleprefetch=true

It seems part of google’s new optout philosophy. We can do whatever we want and it’s your responsibility to opt out. They want do it in the publishing realm where people have clear copyrights.

We don’t care for this philospohy when telemarketers do it.

Sean Forman 25 Oct 05

From my point of view, this is a robot and we ought to be able to disallow it using the robots.txt file.

User-agent: PreFetch
Disallow: /

That should some the problem, in my opinion.

Justin Reese 25 Oct 05

Hmm. Now I’m wondering whether eMusic uses POST or GET… because sites that offer limited downloads or other click-related limits could see some mighty unhappy customers.

Alexander S. 25 Oct 05

So once a page is cached by Google, if a user has the GWA when they attempt to view your site you won’t get the traffic, right? It’s just served up from Google’s cache. Goodbye relevant stats tracking.

And what about links that are ‘safely hidden away’ behind a login page? If someone logs in, GWA now has access to those links unless everything is behind an HTTPS connection. Of course that’s the way it should be, but that’s not the way it is.

Google’s been growing too fast to keep an eye on what they’re publishing, eventually this is going to come back and bite them hard.

Scott 25 Oct 05

Mark:

The difference is that normal search engine operations cannot get into your authenticated areas, thus they cannot trigger actions with side-effects. This is why we have authentication controls — to keep out people (and things) who are not authorized to change the data.

GWA does not adhere to this.

kael 25 Oct 05

Why searching for links pointing to this post via Google Blog Search returns no results ?

Christiaan 25 Oct 05

Actually I am VERY surprised that everyone is focusing on the GET/POST and header issues… instead of focusing on the content issue.

Google should have no right in changing site content or directing people to stuff they feel is right. Maybe you don’t have links over words because you don’t want it that way.

A website is my property, not someone elses and Google shouldn’t be changing that. That is the core issue with this system.

At what point do they just start altering all websites to fit the content they feel is “right.”

This should be the focus and push as to why to stop this application.

Hans Gerwitz 25 Oct 05

I like standards generally, and require compelling reasons to work outside of published, open specifications.

But all this SHOULD vs. MUST discussion all seems quite pedantic in the context of the web. The IETF specs for HTTP certainly makes it clear that GET is for fetching resources and should be “idempotent,” leaving only POST seeming appropriate for modifying server state.

Meanwhile, the W3C’s HTML specs and browser implementations render that intent moot by treating POST and GET as equally viable targets for submission of structured, user-supplied information, and linking only via GET, implying that any request that does not submit user information is best left to GET (it’s unwieldy to use a button or image for simple things like “log out” and “remove this line”).

I’ve always felt the HTTP spec had a functional gap here that is exposed by HTML: I often want to request the server perform a non-idempotent operation without supplying user information. Often session-based (e.g. via the Cookie extensions) or page context (e.g. a “flag” link next to each item in a list) are quite sufficient.

Of course, I also thought worrying about this was unnecessarily pedantic and it’d never be an issue.

Tim Lesher 25 Oct 05

Google should have no right in changing site content or directing people to stuff they feel is right.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here—the double-underlining of already-cached links?

If that’s the case, you must really be upset that Firefox and Opera allow users to apply their own stylesheets to your proprietary websites. The horror!

Rich 25 Oct 05

A point nobody seems to have picked up yet is how this is going to affect site stats. You can no longer assume that each hit for a page is because somebody chose to read that page and actively requested it.

This is a particularly big problem for more sophisticated web applications that try to adapt themselves to your use of the site eg Amazon’s recommendations that are based on the links that you clicked on.

And for advertisers this could be a huge problem too. They’ll be serving up (and paying for) ads for a page that nobody ever looks at.

More importantly though, it justs seems massively antisocial to request resources that you may not need. Sure, it helps satisfy our consumer need to get everything immediately but if GWA doubles the number of hits on a website that means someone will have to buy, maintain and power double the number of servers (with all the environmental consequences that that entails).

Aristotle Pagaltzis 25 Oct 05

Alexander S.:

if a user has the GWA when they attempt to view your site you won\u2019t get the traffic, right? It\u2019s just served up from Google\u2019s cache. Goodbye relevant stats tracking.

what web do you live in where stats tracking is reliable? Welcome to reality.

eric 25 Oct 05

“GWA works on the Web as it is, not the Web as it should be.”

and if we were happy with the web as it is we wouldn’t have books like Defensive Design for the Web, right?

Chris Holland 26 Oct 05

I’m toying around with a few ways to generate links more impervious to the Google Web Accelerator.

Joerg 26 Oct 05

Maybe this is the kick-in-the-ass the web needs to clean itself up, paving the way for better things to come. (Like separating styling from content using CSS.) Somebody’s gotta do it.

pwb 26 Oct 05

You can no longer assume that each hit for a page is because somebody chose to read that page and actively requested it.
No longer? I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

AlmaOscura 26 Oct 05

Try with http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:cIEUjrVqfQcJ:webaccelerator.google.com/dc.html++site:webaccelerator.google.com+Google+Web+Accelerator&hl=en

AlmaOscura 26 Oct 05

It’s available…

vivek 26 Oct 05

Here is URL
http://webaccelerator.google.com/GoogleWebAcceleratorSetup.msi

I can still get it but I’m using Linux box so I have no use of this tool :P

thewebguy 26 Oct 05

hold the phone, everybody just calllm the fuuuck doown.

if gwa isn’t following the any of these:
- links with ? parameters
- POST links
- onclick events

then what do we have to worry about? unless you are using chmod to have clean urls, which is not really the best idea as we all know, then you shouldn’t really have anything to worry about.

i’m sure there COULD be a few situations that this might not work so well in, but maybe we should see some real results before we go insane.

Matt Wilcox 26 Oct 05

“if gwa isn’t following the any of these:
- links with ? parameters
- POST links
- onclick events”

What about tidy URLs which don’t use a ? parameter?

I don’t mind it doing what it does on a technical level, I mind it because the user won’t be hitting my server, nor seeing the latest content, but will instead be hitting googles server.

It’s like authoring a book, and then some guy you never saw before starts giving people copies, but the copies are not the most recent ammended copy. And doing it in such a way that you never knew anyone else was interested in your book.

Zack` 26 Oct 05

Yes, bad for hosts and website designers. Good for the people.

What good is GWA to us if every website blocks it? It’s no good.

A rough comparison… buying a $250,000 Ferrari and being banned from race tracks and only being able to use it on public, speed limited roads. What good is it if you can never fully use it?

I say good job Google. From someone that actually wants to use those features you provide, webmasters be damned, thank you.

NtroP 26 Oct 05

We have an internally developed web app that, after authentication and by using session and state variables, uses many GET requests for “destructive” purposes (ie. Reset Password, Edit, Delete, Logout, etc.). There are many reasons why we do this, but it is primarily due to the fact that, with a simple link we can use CSS to very effectively fit a lot of controls into a small, ergonomic area and have it work cross-browser. Many browsers don’t react well to having an image as a button or having buttons manipulated by CSS.

Can you imagine a page with a long list of items, each actionable, with several actions, all displayed by big ugly buttons (*cough* Safari *cough*). It’s just much simpler to represent each action as a link conssting of small text or an image.

Now, most of our links use the form action.php?foo=bar, etc., but not things like “Reset Password” or Logout. Would it be hard to add a “?” to those links as well? No, we own the source code. But consider this: we are purchasing a large and complex canned J2EE package that we don’t have access to the the source… Are there any destructive GETs in there? I have no idea. I never thought it would be an issue. I do know that getting the company to change its behavior will be non-trivial, though.

I’m all for following standards. But until all browsers follow those standards, and until we have access to all the source code for all the software we run that might be impacted by this, I think this is a BAD idea.

Franco 26 Oct 05

I Agree that this app is a bad idea, I agree that we cant hide behind the Must vs The Should, I agree that everone should code as per spec, but havent any of you noticed? It used to be that to publish HTML on the WWW required that everything be hand coded, and You had to be an Ubergeek just to know what HTML was, but do you really think we are the majority of web publishers any more? Face it guys, we the technoweenie elite with our HTML specs and demand for consitent coding as per specs are the minority now. Now billy-bob and his hillbilly buddy are making web pages to show thier dog’s frizbee catch. Do you think they know a POST from a GET? you think they spend 100s of $ on a Web app Development environment that codes correctly for them? Come on. Its just not like that, amatures are publishing more and more and they dont even know what a spec is. so a smart app developer would know this and realize that this alone would make thier applications disfunctional and prone to failure.

Just my 2 cents.
Thanks this is a great site :)
F

Anonymous Coward 26 Oct 05

The lack of x-moz: prefetch is a bug: http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000530.html
also I’m drunk and have won shitty quiz night prizes

Paul 26 Oct 05

Won’t this skew website stats as well since links that may not get visited will still get hits?

Mark W 26 Oct 05

WHAT THE FUCK, yes! Shocking Indeed.

Anonymous Coward 26 Oct 05

Chill out, you freak! It is beta and in their laboratory.

Ralfoide 26 Oct 05

What if some malware, say whatever virus or trojan around, was purposely crawling the web to find these non-idempotent GET links? Wouldn’t they become security issues then and get fixed ASAP? Sure they would. And as a user, I would complain the web app has security flaws and expect it to be fixed. I wouldn’t blame it on the malware but really on the designer of the web app.

So quite frankly pointing fingers at GWA when the same damage could be done by any search engine or even malware is clearly just a dismissal of responsibility from the part of web designers.

David Heinemeier Hansson 26 Oct 05

Ralfoide: Please read the facts first. The problem with the GWA is not that it crawls the web like all spiders do, but that it piggy-backs behind authenticated walls to hit links that were never part of the public web.

Robert Watkins 26 Oct 05

The web stats issue is a furphy… caching proxy servers (and browser caches) have meant that you can’t rely on hits == page views for a long time now.

How to avoid it? Well, you could use HTTPS - the GWA doesn’t affect those. Query parameters are also used to recognise links not to follow (and yeah, this would probably screw up Rails with its habit of putting the id of an object in the path rather than as a parameter)

Also, this is not unique to Google…. There have been prefetching tools for most modern browsers (a lot of those “web accelerator” tools for IE rely on link prefetching)

Anonymous Coward 26 Oct 05

All this might sound fairly bleak. The real situation isn’t that bad. Just follow one simple rule when you design your site, and you’ll avoid all these issues.

Web Health Warning Put All Destructive Actions Behind a POST Request

From Agile Web Development with Rails, Dave Thomas, David Heinemeier Hansson, et. al.

ralfoide 26 Oct 05

David, when you say “that it piggy-backs behind authenticated walls to hit links that were never part of the public web”, you’re exactly point out the weakness in the web apps you defend. If it was in their interest, malware would be able to do the same thing. My point is not whether GWA is good or bad but more that your reaction is inappropriate. If some malware was doing the same, it would be a security issue and people like you would not dismiss it and you would probably instead encourage web designers to fix their apps.

You think this idea of malware is too extreme? I sure hope it is. On the other hand I’ve seen client-side extensions for browser that precache pages, for example to display thumbnail previews on link hovers. They would have the exact same nasty behavior. Is the tool wrong? Definitely not.

I mean, come on, be serious here. The answers here just try to hide the dust under the carpet: hiding being HTTPS, refusing serving pages by filtering on headers. All very bad ideas. Instead of spending time doing just hacks, what’s wrong with just actually fixing those web apps and actually encouraging web designers to do so instead of dismissing the problem?

Does it hurt when you hit your head against the wall? :-)

Robert Warlov 26 Oct 05

Dear David;

If you mean to reach large numbers of people and hope also to make a positive difference in their lives, you might consider making use of some helpful hints in communicating through the written page.

I did not read your entire entry and I wont because I got confused early on.

What, I said to myself, does GWA stand for? It seems you neglected to write ‘Google Web Accelerator’ with ‘GWA’ in parenthisis behind it. If you had, it would have told your readers of your intent to use ‘GWA’ in place of the words ‘Google Web Accelerator’ from that point on.

Us old fart writers learned many of these tricks early on and use them still. I highly recomend them.

I hope this helps

Thanks for your consideration.

Robert Warlov
Poetzzz@yahoo.com

Blog— To the internest egress
internestsegress.blogspot.com

Yusuf 27 Oct 05

Can be downloaded here

http://webaccelerator.google.com/index.html

Foo 27 Oct 05

Obsolete and incorrect web applications and clients must die. A catastrophe like GWA will exterminate a few more of them, so it is a good thing.
Promoting standards is good in itself, and it has pleasant side effects for more evil interests: for the greedy consultant, updating old trash to comply with standards is a lucrative professional opportunity; and for the inflexible standard fanatic it’s time to gloat over the agonizing competitors and profit from their crisis.

Regarding the technical point of SHOULD NOT, destructive GET effects need a damn good justification, and it’s very difficult to come up with one.
Using a special header to mean “GET, but not in earnest, only if you aren’t too broken” is a perversion against the intent of the HTTP spec.
Inadequate browser support is not an excuse for misusing GET; the countless bad applications we have accumulated are an huge technical debt that we are just starting to acknowledge pay with more correct approaches like XForms and REST architectures.

David Heinemeier Hansson 27 Oct 05

ralfoide: Malware could just as easily trigger POSTs if its intentions were to be destructive.

Chris 27 Oct 05

Alexander wrote:

So once a page is cached by Google, if a user has the GWA when they attempt to view your site you won’t get the traffic, right? It’s just served up from Google’s cache. Goodbye relevant stats tracking.

It looks to me like Google issues a HEAD request for content it has cached. I can still log and count requests, but I don’t have to pay for bandwidth to serve static content, whooo! Thankyou GWA.

Chris

ralfoide 27 Oct 05

David wrote:
“ralfoide: Malware could just as easily trigger POSTs if its intentions were to be destructive.”

And you are correct. Switch to the browser-side preemptive caching if you wish. Yet you fail to comment on the important part of my post. Selective reading or complete denial that maybe, just maybe, encouraging web designers to accept their design mistakes and fix them makes more sense than pointing finger at those who dare breaking web pages when navigating them?

Chris Vance 27 Oct 05

ralfoide wrote: Does it hurt when you hit your head against the wall?

Clearly, the wall is too hard. Walls SHOULD NOT be that hard. The correct fix is to soften the walls. After the fix is rolled out, users can continue their behavior without pain.

But seriously, these web applications should be fixed. I’ll try to make sure my work isn’t vulnerable.

Christiaan wrote: “Google should have no right in changing site content or directing people to stuff they feel is right.”

Tim wrote: “I’m not sure what you’re talking about here—the double-underlining of already-cached links?”

I think this has something to do with the maps links which the IE Google toolbar provided at one point recently? As in, if the toolbar saw an address, it would add a link to Google Maps. Sort of an Internet version of Microsoft SmartTags.

Toolbar autolink links:
http://astranet.blogsome.com/2005/10/23/google-toolbar/
http://www.silverwords.net/?p=344

Counsel 03 Nov 05

I think it would be better if everyone followed the published specs and recommendations.

However, I think arguing that ‘should not’ is different than ‘must not’ is not needed since the two phrases are completely different—trying to say it is ‘legalese’ muddles the accepted use in (U.S.) English. The two terms (‘should’ and ‘must’) are different, and I don’t think we should argue differently.

How about offer a constructive solution to the problem rather than rail against the machine? :) Railing doesn’t always work, and constructive solutions are almost always welcome. A post with a well-thought out solution would be linked to MANY times…imagine the potential revenue…

However, discussion is better than silence. Thanks for pointing out the errors!

abobelo 04 Nov 05

edtgse

Scott Wilson 11 Nov 05

work around, maybe it was posted. didnt feel the need to read all the dribble from post 1-post xx

click link, get msg about max users, click “help” at bottom of page, this takes you to the help page, click “download webaccelerator” link in left frame.

Daniel 11 Nov 05

Scott: That doesn’t work..

Tucson Web Design 12 Nov 05

We’ve been warning clients again downloading the accelerator but it seems that everyone has to Google bug and as soon as they hear about a “great new product” that has anything to do with Google they have to get it right away.

Nice article exposing this issue. I’ve been sending many clients you way to show them the truth.

Dan Brickley 23 Nov 05

There are good social reasons why we should keep HTTP GETs reliably harmless; it’s not just standards pedantry. For example, Internationalisation . In a World Wide Web, those who use a site or service may not be very familiar with the natural language used in the HTML. Not everyone knows English, or Spanish, French, Japanese, …. Making ordinary hyperlinks have side-effects discourages use of the Web, particularly by those who may have great need of it - eg. immigrants. People shouldn’t have to know a dozen synonyms just to able to rummage around in some Web database. Buy/purchase/confirm/delete/erase/reset/clear/ … are operations that should be associated with an html form, so that users know when to get out their dictionary or check Babelfish, versus when they can safely and speculatively explore. I’d love for RoR to make it easy for developers to do the right thing here…

Arthur Abon 23 Nov 05

Aheh. At least they listened to you somewhat and shut the service for some time.

So now we wait until the next incarnation of GWA-Chtulhu awakens!

Mereila 06 Dec 05

Since Jagger, our well constructed sales sites with unique content, more or less half a page or more of handmade descriptions on each products, has lost 80% of business. Due to the lousy results showing up when you search google switzerland for example: sonnenschirm

You’ll find within the first results Rivella - a soda company - with one single page and virtually no text - no PR and no link to the main page. Also, all results won’t satisfy a search for umbrellas!

I am convinced that Google has manipulated their engine to display sites which are poor results, since they want to force people searching their index to click on those paid Google Adsense. Which is after going through the first 20 pages of lousy results your only choice.

Why nobody has made this public is irritating me. Google has programs running on German TV where they advertise their search technology and put others down. In reality Google is a big cheat since it’s IPO. Profit maximizing and milking the cash cow. Why does nobody make it public?!

Google is history! Go and use search.ch as an alternative and you’ll find well arranged search results. And no, we are not right among the first results, but at least you won’t be tricked into Google Adsense, which in turn make your purchase more costly.

Let me express me deepest regret in supporting Google as a search engine for such a long time. Google is history and soon we’ll be going down with them.

Vitaliy 08 Dec 05

Web Accelerator is bed idea!!!

Pete 11 Dec 05

Great, let’s excel back to stone age…

POST-buttons instead of GET-links look so great. It’s great that visual appearance does not matter to a web application at all. POST-buttons all over the screem is just a GREAT idea. not to forget the loads of useless traffic that bloats up the lines. In former times people were killed for having mail signatures longer that 5 lines (and this was a good thing). now f&** crap-prefetchers load a dozen of images in advance….

Adams.Wong 11 Jan 06

What do you guys know about Google? no more this kind of fucking comments! Yes,at present,there are great many of shortcomings for Google to mend but as a new stuff we can’t be so hard on it,give it the time necessary and give your great comments a little bit afterwards……

some1else 12 Jan 06

Pete, I agree. Since there is no way to put graphics on input elements. or even style them consistently accross browsers, web designers and developers often must resort to anchors for increased usability and user experience.

Thank god for the new link_to :action and veryify :method implementation in RoR.

iper2.com 21 Jan 06

iper2.com

Gustavo Dourado 24 Jan 06

Google
Weblog
Logus
Blog-se
Alem Gog Magog
Googol:
Google…

Jin 22 Feb 06

Can’t wait ‘till Google Accelerator v3 ;p

Anonymous7 09 Mar 06

I would just like to know what is going to happen to the Google ads on the original page. What will GWA show to end users and who will now get the revenue???

Hx02 06 Apr 06

Google rocks

FRANK JOHNSON 15 May 06

Hello Buyers.
These is Frank jonhson of (FRANK CITY TALKS INC).I have a good news for you.I want you to buy your phones,ipod,mp3 player,laptop at a very cheap price .If you have interest mail me at (frankcitytalks@yahoo.co.uk).The goods price are place bellow
thanks for you inquiry.
Best regard
Franks

mp3 player
Mp3 Player Price List
iRiver IFP-790T MP3 Player = $80
H10 6GB MP3 Player = $120
Sonic Impact Technologies 512MB MP3 Player w/ Flash Drive & Voice = $85
iriver H10 5GB MP3 Player, Gray = $110
YP-MT6X Yepp 512MB Portable Compact Digital Music MP3 Player = $70
Zen Micro 5 GB MP3 Player - Dark Blue [ Creative Labs = $100
iRiver 5 GB MP3 Player (Silver) = $110
Creative Labs NOMAD Jukebox Zen Xtra 30 GB MP3 Player = $90
Sony MZ-NH600D 1GB MP3 Player Hi-MD Walkman Digital Music Player = $90
Network Walkman NW-HD1 20GB MP3 Player = $150
Cowon iAudio X5 20GB MP3 Player = $110
Digital Audio Players from Motorola: Audio MP3 Players, Digital = $70
Gigabeat Meg-F60S 60GB MP3 Player - Gray = $155
Sony 1GB Personal MP3 Player, Network Walkman = $100
Creative Zen Micro 6GB MP3 Player (red) = $125

laptops
SONY VAIO A217S— 100GB— 512MB RAM— XP HOME——————-$300
SONY VAIO B1VP— 40GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO———————$330
SONY VAIO T370P/L— 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————$200
SONY VAIO A215Z 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP—————————$2450
SONY VAIO A397XP— 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————$300
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$250
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$400
SONY VAIO FS295VP 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$350
SONY VAIO FS215Z 100GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$350
SONY VAIO A417M 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————-$450
SONY VAIO B1VP— 40GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO——————-$200
SONY VAIO T370P/L— 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO—————$400
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN-A117S———————-$400
phones
Nokia N91 220$
Nokia 6060 145$
Nokia 6111 132$
Nokia 6270 125$
Nokia 6270 115$
Nokia 6280 125$
Nokia N90 115$
Nokia N70 115$
Nokia Vertu 155$
Nokia 5140i 125$
Nokia 6230i 115$
Nokia 8800 105$
Nokia 6021 105$
Nokia 6030 115$
Nokia 6680 125$
Nokia 6681 120$
Nokia 6101 110$
Nokia 6822 110$
Nokia 7710 110$
Nokia 6170 145$
Nokia 6260 145$
Nokia 3510i 95$
Nokia 6630 120$
Nokia 9300 110$
Nokia 7260 120$
Nokia 7270 110$
Nokia 7280 120$
Nokia 6670 110$
Nokia 6020 120$
Nokia 3220 65$
Nokia N-GAGE QD 75$
Nokia 7610 120$
Nokia 9500 145$
Nokia 5140 85$
Nokia 6610i 120$
Nokia 7200 133$
Nokia 6230 145$
Nokia 6820 120$
Nokia 7600 105$
Nokia 6600 120$
Nokia 6800 105$
Nokia 6220 120$
Nokia 6620 120$
Nokia 7250i 65$
Nokia 8910i 120$
Nokia 6100 95$
SAMSUNG D600 155$
SAMSUNG P860 165$
SAMSUNG P850
sidekick 1 $110
sidekick 2 $100
Sony Ericsson K500i…..130 USD
Sony Ericsson P800……200 USD
Sony Ericsson P900……260 USD
Sony Ericsson P910i…..270 USD
Sony Ericsson T230……80 USD
Sony Ericsson T310……80 USD
Sony Ericsson T610……100 USD
Sony Ericsson Z1010…..180 USD
Sony Ericsson Z200……90 USD
Sony Ericsson Z600……130 USD
Sony Ericssson T630…..130 USD
Sony Ericsson S700i…..170 USD
Sony Ericsson S750i…..170 USD
9806LL/A) MP3 Player = USD$110
Motorola A388C……170 USD
Motorola A760…….250 USD
Motorola A768…….260 USD
Motorola A768i……200 USD
Motorola A780…….290 USD
Motorola C550…….90 USD
Motorola C650…….100 USD
Motorola E365…….100 USD
Motorola E398…….120 USD
Motorola E680…….240 USD
Motorola RAZR V3….270 USD
Motorola V220…….170 USD
Motorola V303…….100 USD
Motorola V400…….150 USD
Motorola V500…….150 USD
Motorola V501…….200 USD
Motorola V525…….150 USD
Motorola V600 (OEM) w/ Bluetooth Headset..260 USD
Motorola V600 OEM…180 USD
Motorola V690…..170 USD
Motorola V750…..180 USD
Motorola V80……200 USD
Motorola V80 with Bluetooth…260 USD
Motorola V872…..200 USD
Motorola V878….180 USD
Motorola V300….150 USD
Samsung D500…240 USD
Samsung E600…140 USD
Samsung E800…180 USD
Samsung P510…120 USD
Samsung SGH-D410.200 USD
Samsung SGH-D500..270 USD
Samsung SGH-E700..150 USD
Samsung SGH-E715..170 USD
Samsung SGH-P100..130 USD
Samsung SGH-P400..95 USD
Samsung SGH-P408..240 USD
Samsung SGH-P730..150 USD
Samsung SGH-S200..90 USD
Samsung SGH-S300..70 USD
Samsung SGH-S300M..100 USD
Samsung SGH-S500…100 USD
Samsung SGH-V200…110 USD
Samsung SGH-X400…100 USD
Samsung SGH-X430…100 USD
Samsung SGH-X600…100 USD
Samsung X450…….100 USD
ipods
Apple iPod from hp 40GB = USD$150 Apple iPod from HP 20GB = USD$120 Apple iPod U2 Special Edition 20GB = USD$130 HP Apple iPod / 40GB / Click Wheel / MP3 Player = USD$170 Apple iPod MP3 Player, 20gb = USD$115 Apple iPod Shuffle1GB MP3 Player = USD$85 Apple iPod for Windows - Digital player - 10GB Hard Drive = USD$130 Apple iPod 40GB 3rd Gen M9245LL/A A1040 = USD$140 Hewlett Packard Apple iPod from HP 20GB With Click Wheel = USD$95 Apple Ipod 20GB 4th Generation = USD$130 APPLE iPod mini Player 4G Light Blue Model M9802ZP/A = USD$93 Kingston Apple iPod from hp 40GB with Click Wheel = USD$140 iPod Mini 6GB = USD$145 iPod 60GB = USD$170 iPod Mini 4GB = USD$105 Apple iPod shuffle (512 MB - M9724LL/A) MP3 Player = USD$80 Apple iPod mini Green Second Gen. (4 GB - M9806LL/A) MP3 Player = USD$110

Projects 01 Jun 06

Beware - read http://webaccelerator.google.com/privacy

felix alan 10 Jun 06

Dear Buyers,
Buy Nokia,N70,N80,N90,N91,N92,6600,6680,8800,9300,9500,Motorola Razr V3, Nextel i930. And Manymore At Very Low Price.Ok
Nokia 1261 Nokia 2100 Nokia 2220 Nokia 2260 Nokia 2300 Nokia 2300a Nokia 3100 Nokia 3100b Nokia 3108 Nokia 3200b Nokia 3210 Nokia 3285 Nokia 3300 Nokia 3300b Nokia 3310 Nokia 3315 Nokia 3320 Nokia 3330 Nokia 3350 Nokia 3360 Nokia 3390 Nokia 3395 Nokia 3410 Nokia 3510 Nokia 3510i Nokia 3520 Nokia 3530 Nokia 3560 Nokia 3585 Nokia 3590 Nokia 3595 Nokia 3600 Nokia 3610 Nokia 3620 Nokia 3650 Nokia 3660 Nokia 3810 Nokia 5100 Nokia 5100a Nokia 5110i Nokia 5120 Nokia 5125 Nokia 5130 Nokia 5148 Nokia 5160 Nokia 5180 Nokia 5185 Nokia 5190 Nokia 5210 Nokia 5510 Nokia 6090 Nokia 6100 Nokia 6108 Nokia 6110i Nokia 6120 Nokia 6130 Nokia 6138 Nokia 6150e Nokia 6160 Nokia 6162 Nokia 6185 Nokia 6188 Nokia 6190 Nokia 6200 Nokia 6210 Nokia 6220 Nokia 6250 Nokia 6310 Nokia 6310i Nokia 6340 Nokia 6340i Nokia 6360 Nokia 6500 Nokia 6510 Nokia 6560 Nokia 6590 Nokia 6590i Nokia 6610 Nokia 6650 Nokia 6800 Nokia 6800a Nokia 6810 Nokia 6820 Nokia 6820b Nokia 7110 Nokia 7160 Nokia 7190 Nokia 7200 Nokia 7210 Nokia 7250 Nokia 7250i Nokia 7600 Nokia 7650 Nokia 8110i Nokia 8146 Nokia 8148i Nokia 8210 Nokia 8260 Nokia 8270 Nokia 8290 Nokia 8310 Nokia 8390 Nokia 8810 Nokia 8850 Nokia 8855 Nokia 8860 Nokia 8890 Nokia 8910 Nokia 8910i Nokia 9210i Nokia 9250 Nokia N-Gage
w full detailsco Looks like Nokia’s announced their new E60, E61, and E70 3G (WCDMA) phones with WiFi and mobile mail targeting mobile business users (yes, it’s got GoodLink, Nokia Business Center, Seven Always-On, Visto Mobile, and BlackBerry Connect support). All the Series 60 Es run on Symbian OS 9.1 and will support advanced voice services such as Push-To-Talk and SIP allowing companies to integrate these phones into their Avaya or Cisco IP PBX (think 4-digit dialing and assisted call answering). The E60 candybar is optimized for voice and targets GSM 900 / 1800 / 1900 and WCDMA2100 networks while the E61 takes a shot off the Motorola Q’s bow and includes all the IP telephony functions but is optimized for mobile email and operates in quad-band GSM and WCDMA 2100 networks. The E70 is their enterprise all-in-one messaging device and will be released in two flavas: one for Europe and Asia and another for the Americas. Available in the first quarter of 2006 worldwide priced nquiries Please Contact The Following Blow:
Tel:+2348060272599Email: unleletronicsltd@yahoo.ca unleletronicsltd@yahoo.ca
Thanks And God Bless
Mr.felix alan
__________________________________________________

Find in Forums 11 Jun 06

That’s anothr interesting feature from google, usually once it was released the aximum capasity was reached

peter 23 Jun 06

Hello,
We are (PETERPHONES LTD.) accredited wholesalers of
PRODUCTS/MERCHANDISE such as mobile phones, computers, laptops, DVDs,Plasma Tv Etc.
CURRENT UNIT PRICE LIST OF SOME PRODUCTS/MERCHANDISE IN STOCK
LAPTOPS:
Toshiba Qosmio G15——-$300.00
Samsung Q30——————$300.00
Toshiba Portege R100—-$300.00
IBM ThinkPad T42 2373—$400.50
Acer Ferrari 3400LMi—-$300.50
MOBILE PHONES
NOKIA
NOKIA N91 $300.50
NOKIA N90 $300.50
NOKIA N70 $300.50
NOKIA Vertu $650.00
NOKIA 6230i $100.00
NOKIA 8800 $200.00
NOKIA 6021 $75.00
NOKIA 6030 $75.00
NOKIA 6680 $200.00
NOKIA 6681 $220.00
NOKIA 6822 $75.99
NOKIA 7710 $200.00
NOKIA 6170 $100.00
NOKIA 6260 $100.99
NOKIA 3510i $50.00
NOKIA 6630 $200.00
NOKIA 9300 $120.99
NOKIA 7260 $100.00
NOKIA 7270 $120.00
Nokia 8310 $20.00
NOKIA 7280 $130.00
NOKIA 6670 $130.00
NOKIA 6020 $80.00
NOKIA N-GAGE QD $100.00
NOKIA N-GAGE $100.00
NOKIA 7610 $175.00
NOKIA 9500 $300.00
NOKIA 5140 $100.00
NOKIA 6610i $100.00
NOKIA 7200 $150.99
NOKIA 6230 $150.00
NOKIA 6820 $150.00
NOKIA 7600 $100.00
NOKIA 6600 $100.00
NOKIA 6800 $75.00
NOKIA 6220 $85.00
NOKIA 6620 $150.00
NOKIA 8910i $200.00
NOKIA 6100 $75.00
ETC…
Motorola Razr V3 $135.00
Motorola MPx 300 $120.50
Motorola Mpx 200 $110.50
ETC….
SAMSUNG P400 $180.00
SAMSUNG S300 $110.50
SAMSUNG S200 $140.50
SAMSUNG D600 $160.00
SAMSUNG D500 $150.00
SAMSUNG E720 $170.50
SAMSUNG E715 $150.00
ETC….
SONY ERICSSON P910i $190.00
SONY ERICSSON K750i $160.00
SONY ERICSSON K608 $110.00
ETC….
Nextel i930 $135.00
Nextel i730 $110.00
Nextel i830 $105.00
Nextel i860 $110.00
Treo 650 $160.00
Treo 600 $120.00
Delivery Time:
We delivery the products purchased directly to your doorstep 2-3days
after the confirmation your payment! We ship the consignment via
DHL/FEDEX/TNT/UPS or any other courier services. We shall send you the tracking
number as soon as we ship for you to be able to trace/track it online.
We do shipment to anywhere in the world, all we need is your full and
direct shiping detailed information.
Once again, we want you to know that all this products are BRAND NEW
and with This prices, we hope you will find out that we have the best
thats it takes to be. We would love to keep a very strong business
relationship with you as we await your product purchase update list.
Thanks and best regards as you get back to us with your purchase order
update,you can reach us on mail address……peterphonestore@outgun.com.

more 23 Jun 06

Dear customers,
We are importer ^ exporter of laptops and mobile phones. We deals on all New and Used brands and models of Digital Cameras ,laptops ^ mobile phones such as Nokia,Motorola,Samsung, and many more at very cheap price, We ship from london {uk} and we use FEDEX,UPS or DHL courier services for shipment.We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones, Laptops, Digital Cameras. Do kindly reply back if you are intrested and as you do may God bless you . so you can contact us at morephones4000@yahoo.com OR morephones5000@yahoo.com
FOR SELL MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 $130USD
FOR SELL SAMSUNG D500 $160USD
FOR SELL NEXTEL I930 $130USD
FOR SELL NEXTEL I860 $112USD
FOR SELL NOKIA 9500 COMMUNICATOR $190USD
FOR SELL MPX 220 $129USD
FOR SELL Sony Ericsson P900 ..$143usd
FOR SELL Sony Ericsson P910i …$167usd
FOR SELL MOTOROLA RAZOR V3 AT JUST… $150USD
FOR SELL MTOROLA MPX 300 AT JUST …..$130USD
FOR SELL MOTOROLA MPX 200 ……..$125USD
FOR SELL NOKIA 9500 AT JUST /………$200USD
FOR SELL NEXTEL I860 AT JUST ……$110usd
FOR SELL NEXTEL I930 AT JUST …..$130
FOR SELL NOKIA 8850 SPECIAL EDITION— US$150
FOR SELL NOKIA 8850 GOLD EDITION— US$126
FOR SELL NOKIA N90 …………..US$240
FOR SELL NOKIAN90……………..US$220
SO YOU CAN CONTACT US BY EMAIL……..morephones4000@yahoo.com OR morephones5000@yahoo.com
OK THANK AND GOD BLESS.

domain1.name 25 Jun 06

domain1.name

collins 01 Jul 06

ello,
i am highly interested in purchasing your items…(mobile phones)in a large quantity but before i do i will want you to get to me for both of us to discuss on the payment i have and the one you are taking….thanks.
Email……..collinsluke10@yahoo.com

Mr Collins,
G.M.

Michael 04 Jul 06

Hi,

I was wondering say for example I have an internet speed of 56-64k, does that mean that my internet speed will be boosted once I install the Google Web Accelerator.

Also is there a possibility that say for example I am looking at a clip on the internet will it load faster once I install the Google Web Accelerator.

Hope that someone can tell me this.

mobert bill 21 Jul 06

BEST OFFER
We are importer ^ exporter of laptops and mobile phones. We deals on all New brands and models of Digital Cameras ,laptops ipods, ps 2, ps 3, xbox 360, and mobile phones such as Nokia,Motorola,Samsung, and many more at very cheap price, We do ship international and we use ( FEDEX and DHL ) for shipment.We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones, Laptops, Digital Cameras. Do kindly reply back if you are intrested and as you do may God bless you . so you can contact us at via……………………………………… MOBERT_CAMP@HOTMAIL.COM
NOKIA FOR SALE
Nokia N93……..$250USd
Nokia N92…….$200USD
Nokia N83…….$175USD
Nokia N91…….$180USD
Nokia N90…….$170USD
Nokia N70…….$150USD
Nokia N71…….$155USD
Nokia N72……..$160USD
Nokia N73……..$165USD
Nokia 7360…….$165USD
Nokia 7380……..$175USD
Nokia 7370……..$170USD
Nokia 8800……$140USD
Nokia 8801…….$145usd
Nokia N80…….$160USD
Nokia 7710…….$145USD
Nokia 7610…….$120usd
Nokia 9300……$145USD
Nokia 9500……$170USD
NEXTEL FOR SALE
Nextel i930………$130usd
Nextel i870………$120usd
Nextel i860………$110usd

SONY ERICSSON FOR SALE

Sony Ericsson w900i….$140usd
Sony Ericsson W800i….$135usd
sony Ericsson w700…..$130usd
sony Ericsson w600i….$125usd
sony Ericsson w300…..$120usd
sony Ericsson w950…..$160usd
Sony Ericsson p990i….$145usd
Sony Ericsson m600i…..$175usd
sony Ericsson m600…..$170usd
Sony Ericsson p990…..$140usd
Sony Ericsson p910i….$125usd
TREO FOR SALE

Treo 700……………$200usd
Treo 600……………$150usd
Treo 650……………$160usd

MOTOROLA FOR SALE

Motorola razor v3………$130usd
Motorola razor v3 pink edition….$130usd
Motorola v3X……………….$140usd
Motorola MPX300.,…$150usd
Motorola V3i……….$150usd
Motorola L7……….$140USD

SAMSUNG FOR SALE

Samsung D800……….$210USD
Samsung D820……….$220USD
Samsung D500………$160usd
Samsung d600………$170usd
SIDEKICK 2……….$120USD
SIDEKICK 3……….$200USD
I-MATE JASJER…….$260USD

IPODS FOR SALE

Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A ……40 USD
Apple 40 GB iPod photo………………..40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A ….40 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A……….60 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod photo ……………….55 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A……….50 USD
Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player……40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A…….45 USD
Apple 2 GB iPod Nano………………….50 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Nano………………….60 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Vidoe……………….110 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Vidoe……………….150 USD
X box premium console ……………… 190usd
Ps3 …………………………………220usd
Ps2 …………………………………..160usd
SIDEKICK II AT JUST $120usd
Mitac MIO 8930……$280usd

TELEVISION FOR SALE

DVD FOR SALE
DVD Panasonic DVD-LS5 DVD Player…$150USD
Mintek MDP-5860 DVD Player…..$90USD
Panasonic DMR-E50S DVD Recorder…$190USD
Samsung DVD-L200 DVD Player….. $150USD
TELEVISION Panasonic TH-42PD50U Television…..$600USD
Panasonic TH-42PX50U Television…..$1000USD
Panasonic TH-50PX50U Television…..$1500USD
Panasonic TH-42PWD6UY Television….$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PD25U/P Television…$400USD
Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Television….$450USD
Panasonic TH-65PHD7UY Television….$2500USD
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television…….$1000USD
Panasonic TH-37PX50U Television….$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PX500U Television…$800USD
Sony KLV-32M1 Television………$400USD
Sony PFM-42V1/S Television………$500USD
Sony KDE-61XBR950 Television……$5000USD
Sony KDE-42XBR950 Television……$1000USD
Sony PFM-42X1/S Television…….$500USD
Sony KDE-42XS955 Television……$550USD
Sony FWD-50PX1/S Television…..$1200USD
Samsung HP-R4252 Television……..$500USD
Samsung LN-R328W - LCD TV - 32….$500usd
Samsung LN-R408D - LCD TV - 40….$800usd
Samsung LT-P326W - LCD TV - 32….$650usd
Samsung LTM 225W - LCD TV - 22….$500usd
Samsung PPM63H3-plasma panel 63…$2000usd
Samsung HP-P5071 50-inch 1366X768 HD Plasma TV Ref…..$800usd
Samsung HPP5031 - plasma panel - 50…$1000usd
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television…….$1000USD
Sharp 32” Aquos HD-Ready LCD TV….$500usd.

LAPTOP FO SALE

LAPTOPS Dell Latitude C640 1.8GHz P4 Laptop w/CD-RW……$350USD
Dell Inspiron XPS M140 Notebook Computer for Home…..$480USD
Sony VAIO FS540P - Pentium M 730 1.6 GHz - 15.4” TFT…$500USD
Sony Intel Pentium M 100GB Notebook Computer with DVD+/-R/RW Drive…$550USD
ThinkPad G40 2389 - C 2.5 GHz - 14.1” TFT IBM…..$580USD
Panasonic Toughbook 18 Touchscre……$500USD
HP Compaq Business Notebook nc8230 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4” TFT…$950USD
HP Compaq Mobile Workstation nw8240 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4” TFT…$780USD

OFFICE EQUIPMENT

PLV-80 16:9 Widescreen WXGA Home Theater Multimedia Projector….$10,000usd
magicolor 2430DL Color Laser Printer (20 PPM, 2400x600 DPI, Color, 32MB,
PC/Mac)…$150usd

Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV - film scanner (35 mm)…..$100usd
EP7120 DLP Projector (1024x768, 1600:1)……$400usd
Optoma H 31 - DLP projector……$400usd
110” Velvet Wrapped Luxurious Sensation Series DT1100 HDTV Fixed Projection
Screen…$350usd
PowerLite Home 10+ Ultra-Portable Multimedia Projector…..$500usd ScreenPlay
4805 Projector by InFocus………$550usd
Panasonic PT LB30NT - LCD projector……..$800usd
PIXMA MP950 PHOTO MLTFUNC AIO 22/29PPM P/C/S…….$150usd
Elite Screens VMAX120UWH 121in 16:9 Electric Projector…..$150usd
Da-Lite Cinema Contour 144 x 192-in Pearlescent…….$500usd
MP610 DLP Projector (800x600, 2000 Lumens, 2000:1)…..$300us

LAPTOP FOR SALE

SONY VAIO A217S— 100GB— 512MB RAM— XP HOME——————-$500
SONY VAIO B1VP— 40GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO———————$430
SONY VAIO T370P/L— 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————$400
SONY VAIO A215Z 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP—————————$6450
SONY VAIO A397XP— 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————$700
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$450
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$600
SONY VAIO FS295VP 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$550
SONY VAIO FS215Z 100GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$650
SONY VAIO A417M 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————-$650
SONY VAIO B1VP— 40GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO——————-$300
SONY VAIO T370P/L— 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO—————$600
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN-A117S—————————————————$600
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN-S1XP——————————————————$800
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP————————————$330
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 15 INCH DISPLAY—$700
APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.0GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER——————-$700
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 17 INCH DISPLAY—$600
APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.5GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER————-$100
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— P20-102—————————————$500
APPLE 5GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 20 INCH MONITOR-$4500
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— P10-803——————————————-$500
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP————————————$350
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP PACK WIFI VERSION-$400
OQO MODEL 01 ULTRA PERSONAL COMPUTER (XP PRO)———————$450
TOSHIBA SATELLITE PRO A60 40GB— C2.8GHZ— 15INCH— DVD/CDR$450
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (BLACK)——$550
FUJITSU SIEMENS LIFEBOOK P7010 60GB— P4 1.1GHZ— 10.6INCH— DVD/CDRW
$600
ASUS A4744K-LH AMD64 POWER WORKSTATION LAPTOP————$450
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (RED)———$610
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (BLUE)——-$500
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP————————————$300
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (YELLOW)—$500
TOSHIBA TECRA M2 40GB— PM 1.5GHZ— 14INCH— WIFI— DVD-CDRW——$500
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (SILVER)—-$500
TOSHIBA PORTEGE R100 40GB— 512MB— XP PRO—————————$500
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— M30-742———————————————-$550
APPLE G5 POWERMAC 1.8GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER———————$500
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZD7145EA—————————————————-$500
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZD7255EA—————————————————-$500
APPLE CINEMA HD 23-INCH TFT LCD MONITOR——————————-$500
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN PCGK21 5Z——————————————$500
SAMSUNG LAPTOP— X30 LWC 1500————————————————$500
G4 POWERBOOK 1.33GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 12 INCH DISPLAY-$600
SONY VAIO PCVW2 DESKTOP——————————————————-$450
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZX5151EA PHOTOSMART—————————-$400
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— M30-832——————————————$400
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZT3215EA—————————————————$550
SAMSUNG LAPTOP— M40 HWM 745————————————————$500
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.3GHZ COMBO WITH 15 INCH DISPLAY-$700
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— P20-801——————————————-$500
APPLE GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 20 INCH MONITOR$450
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZX5275EA—————————————————$400
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN PCGK21 5S—————————————-$400
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZT3350EA—————————————————$400
SAMSUNG LAPTOP— X15PLUS HZM————————————————$350
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.33GHZ COMBO WITH 12 INCH DISPLAY$550
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— PCGK215M————————————————-$400
SONY VAIO DESKTOP— RS504——————————————————-$400
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZX5030——————————————————$400
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— M30-106——————————————$400
HP MEDIA CENTER DESKTOP COMPUTER— M1080 PHOTOSMART—-$400
APPLE IBOOK 1.2GHZ COMBO WITH 14.1 INCH DISPLAY————-$400
CONTACT US VIA………………………MOBERT_CAMP@HOTMAIL.COM OR
CONTACT US VIA………………………LAPTOPSTOREDEPOT@HOTMAIL.COM

mobert bill 21 Jul 06

BEST OFFER
We are importer ^ exporter of laptops and mobile phones. We deals on all New brands and models of Digital Cameras ,laptops ipods, ps 2, ps 3, xbox 360, and mobile phones such as Nokia,Motorola,Samsung, and many more at very cheap price, We do ship international and we use ( FEDEX and DHL ) for shipment.We are using this medium to look for buyers of mobile phones, Laptops, Digital Cameras. Do kindly reply back if you are intrested and as you do may God bless you . so you can contact us at via……………………………………… MOBERT_CAMP@HOTMAIL.COM
NOKIA FOR SALE
Nokia N93……..$250USd
Nokia N92…….$200USD
Nokia N83…….$175USD
Nokia N91…….$180USD
Nokia N90…….$170USD
Nokia N70…….$150USD
Nokia N71…….$155USD
Nokia N72……..$160USD
Nokia N73……..$165USD
Nokia 7360…….$165USD
Nokia 7380……..$175USD
Nokia 7370……..$170USD
Nokia 8800……$140USD
Nokia 8801…….$145usd
Nokia N80…….$160USD
Nokia 7710…….$145USD
Nokia 7610…….$120usd
Nokia 9300……$145USD
Nokia 9500……$170USD
NEXTEL FOR SALE
Nextel i930………$130usd
Nextel i870………$120usd
Nextel i860………$110usd

SONY ERICSSON FOR SALE

Sony Ericsson w900i….$140usd
Sony Ericsson W800i….$135usd
sony Ericsson w700…..$130usd
sony Ericsson w600i….$125usd
sony Ericsson w300…..$120usd
sony Ericsson w950…..$160usd
Sony Ericsson p990i….$145usd
Sony Ericsson m600i…..$175usd
sony Ericsson m600…..$170usd
Sony Ericsson p990…..$140usd
Sony Ericsson p910i….$125usd
TREO FOR SALE

Treo 700……………$200usd
Treo 600……………$150usd
Treo 650……………$160usd

MOTOROLA FOR SALE

Motorola razor v3………$130usd
Motorola razor v3 pink edition….$130usd
Motorola v3X……………….$140usd
Motorola MPX300.,…$150usd
Motorola V3i……….$150usd
Motorola L7……….$140USD

SAMSUNG FOR SALE

Samsung D800……….$210USD
Samsung D820……….$220USD
Samsung D500………$160usd
Samsung d600………$170usd
SIDEKICK 2……….$120USD
SIDEKICK 3……….$200USD
I-MATE JASJER…….$260USD

IPODS FOR SALE

Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Pink M9435LL/A ……40 USD
Apple 40 GB iPod photo………………..40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Silver M9160LL/A ….40 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Photo M9830LL/A……….60 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod photo ……………….55 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Photo M9829LL/A……….50 USD
Apple 512 MB iPod Shuffle MP3 Player……40 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Mini Blue M9436LL/A…….45 USD
Apple 2 GB iPod Nano………………….50 USD
Apple 4 GB iPod Nano………………….60 USD
Apple 30 GB iPod Vidoe……………….110 USD
Apple 60 GB iPod Vidoe……………….150 USD
X box premium console ……………… 190usd
Ps3 …………………………………220usd
Ps2 …………………………………..160usd
SIDEKICK II AT JUST $120usd
Mitac MIO 8930……$280usd

TELEVISION FOR SALE

DVD FOR SALE
DVD Panasonic DVD-LS5 DVD Player…$150USD
Mintek MDP-5860 DVD Player…..$90USD
Panasonic DMR-E50S DVD Recorder…$190USD
Samsung DVD-L200 DVD Player….. $150USD
TELEVISION Panasonic TH-42PD50U Television…..$600USD
Panasonic TH-42PX50U Television…..$1000USD
Panasonic TH-50PX50U Television…..$1500USD
Panasonic TH-42PWD6UY Television….$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PD25U/P Television…$400USD
Panasonic TH-42PHD8UK Television….$450USD
Panasonic TH-65PHD7UY Television….$2500USD
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television…….$1000USD
Panasonic TH-37PX50U Television….$500USD
Panasonic TH-42PX500U Television…$800USD
Sony KLV-32M1 Television………$400USD
Sony PFM-42V1/S Television………$500USD
Sony KDE-61XBR950 Television……$5000USD
Sony KDE-42XBR950 Television……$1000USD
Sony PFM-42X1/S Television…….$500USD
Sony KDE-42XS955 Television……$550USD
Sony FWD-50PX1/S Television…..$1200USD
Samsung HP-R4252 Television……..$500USD
Samsung LN-R328W - LCD TV - 32….$500usd
Samsung LN-R408D - LCD TV - 40….$800usd
Samsung LT-P326W - LCD TV - 32….$650usd
Samsung LTM 225W - LCD TV - 22….$500usd
Samsung PPM63H3-plasma panel 63…$2000usd
Samsung HP-P5071 50-inch 1366X768 HD Plasma TV Ref…..$800usd
Samsung HPP5031 - plasma panel - 50…$1000usd
Pioneer PDP-5050HD Television…….$1000USD
Sharp 32” Aquos HD-Ready LCD TV….$500usd.

LAPTOP FO SALE

LAPTOPS Dell Latitude C640 1.8GHz P4 Laptop w/CD-RW……$350USD
Dell Inspiron XPS M140 Notebook Computer for Home…..$480USD
Sony VAIO FS540P - Pentium M 730 1.6 GHz - 15.4” TFT…$500USD
Sony Intel Pentium M 100GB Notebook Computer with DVD+/-R/RW Drive…$550USD
ThinkPad G40 2389 - C 2.5 GHz - 14.1” TFT IBM…..$580USD
Panasonic Toughbook 18 Touchscre……$500USD
HP Compaq Business Notebook nc8230 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4” TFT…$950USD
HP Compaq Mobile Workstation nw8240 - Pentium M 760 2 GHz - 15.4” TFT…$780USD

OFFICE EQUIPMENT

PLV-80 16:9 Widescreen WXGA Home Theater Multimedia Projector….$10,000usd
magicolor 2430DL Color Laser Printer (20 PPM, 2400x600 DPI, Color, 32MB,
PC/Mac)…$150usd

Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV - film scanner (35 mm)…..$100usd
EP7120 DLP Projector (1024x768, 1600:1)……$400usd
Optoma H 31 - DLP projector……$400usd
110” Velvet Wrapped Luxurious Sensation Series DT1100 HDTV Fixed Projection
Screen…$350usd
PowerLite Home 10+ Ultra-Portable Multimedia Projector…..$500usd ScreenPlay
4805 Projector by InFocus………$550usd
Panasonic PT LB30NT - LCD projector……..$800usd
PIXMA MP950 PHOTO MLTFUNC AIO 22/29PPM P/C/S…….$150usd
Elite Screens VMAX120UWH 121in 16:9 Electric Projector…..$150usd
Da-Lite Cinema Contour 144 x 192-in Pearlescent…….$500usd
MP610 DLP Projector (800x600, 2000 Lumens, 2000:1)…..$300us

LAPTOP FOR SALE

SONY VAIO A217S— 100GB— 512MB RAM— XP HOME——————-$500
SONY VAIO B1VP— 40GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO———————$430
SONY VAIO T370P/L— 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————$400
SONY VAIO A215Z 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP—————————$6450
SONY VAIO A397XP— 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————$700
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$450
SONY VAIO B100B08 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$600
SONY VAIO FS295VP 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$550
SONY VAIO FS215Z 100GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP———————-$650
SONY VAIO A417M 80GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP————————-$650
SONY VAIO B1VP— 40GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO——————-$300
SONY VAIO T370P/L— 60GB HD— 512MB RAM— XP PRO—————$600
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN-A117S—————————————————$600
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN-S1XP——————————————————$800
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP————————————$330
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 15 INCH DISPLAY—$700
APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.0GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER——————-$700
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.5GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 17 INCH DISPLAY—$600
APPLE G5 POWERMAC 2.5GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER————-$100
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— P20-102—————————————$500
APPLE 5GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 20 INCH MONITOR-$4500
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— P10-803——————————————-$500
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP————————————$350
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP PACK WIFI VERSION-$400
OQO MODEL 01 ULTRA PERSONAL COMPUTER (XP PRO)———————$450
TOSHIBA SATELLITE PRO A60 40GB— C2.8GHZ— 15INCH— DVD/CDR$450
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (BLACK)——$550
FUJITSU SIEMENS LIFEBOOK P7010 60GB— P4 1.1GHZ— 10.6INCH— DVD/CDRW
$600
ASUS A4744K-LH AMD64 POWER WORKSTATION LAPTOP————$450
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (RED)———$610
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (BLUE)——-$500
ALPHASMART DANA PALM POWERED LAPTOP————————————$300
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (YELLOW)—$500
TOSHIBA TECRA M2 40GB— PM 1.5GHZ— 14INCH— WIFI— DVD-CDRW——$500
FLYBOOK NOTEBOOK - WI-FI— GPRS— BLUETOOTH— 1GHZ (SILVER)—-$500
TOSHIBA PORTEGE R100 40GB— 512MB— XP PRO—————————$500
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— M30-742———————————————-$550
APPLE G5 POWERMAC 1.8GHZ DESKTOP COMPUTER———————$500
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZD7145EA—————————————————-$500
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZD7255EA—————————————————-$500
APPLE CINEMA HD 23-INCH TFT LCD MONITOR——————————-$500
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN PCGK21 5Z——————————————$500
SAMSUNG LAPTOP— X30 LWC 1500————————————————$500
G4 POWERBOOK 1.33GHZ SUPERDRIVE WITH 12 INCH DISPLAY-$600
SONY VAIO PCVW2 DESKTOP——————————————————-$450
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZX5151EA PHOTOSMART—————————-$400
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— M30-832——————————————$400
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZT3215EA—————————————————$550
SAMSUNG LAPTOP— M40 HWM 745————————————————$500
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.3GHZ COMBO WITH 15 INCH DISPLAY-$700
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— P20-801——————————————-$500
APPLE GHZ SUPERDRIVE DESKTOP COMPUTER WITH 20 INCH MONITOR$450
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZX5275EA—————————————————$400
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— VGN PCGK21 5S—————————————-$400
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZT3350EA—————————————————$400
SAMSUNG LAPTOP— X15PLUS HZM————————————————$350
APPLE G4 POWERBOOK 1.33GHZ COMBO WITH 12 INCH DISPLAY$550
SONY VAIO LAPTOP— PCGK215M————————————————-$400
SONY VAIO DESKTOP— RS504——————————————————-$400
HP PAVILION LAPTOP— ZX5030——————————————————$400
TOSHIBA SATELLITE LAPTOP— M30-106——————————————$400
HP MEDIA CENTER DESKTOP COMPUTER— M1080 PHOTOSMART—-$400
APPLE IBOOK 1.2GHZ COMBO WITH 14.1 INCH DISPLAY————-$400
CONTACT US VIA………………………MOBERT_CAMP@HOTMAIL.COM OR
CONTACT US VIA………………………LAPTOPSTOREDEPOT@HOTMAIL.COM

james 21 Jul 06

We are mobile phones wholesalers and we do sale in pieces to enhance
our sales.We deals on all brands and models of mobile phones such as
Nokia,Motorola,Samsung,Sony Ericsson,Sagem, Nextel,Sidekick
II,Sprint,Ipods, Laptops, Mp3 players etc at very cheap prices.Also, this is to reach
our customers globally that its the season of BUY TWO GET ONE FREE.
We are using
this medium to reach interested buyers of mobile phones.Do kindly reply
back if you are interested. THE KINDS OF MOBILE PHONES ARE LISTED BELOW.
US$60 Nokia 3100— US$65 Nokia 3108-
US$60 Nokia 3200— US$75 Nokia 3230
US$95 Nokia 3300 - US$85 Nokia 3310— US$25 Nokia 3315— US$29 Nokia 3330— US$30 Nokia 3350— US$35 Nokia 3410— US$35 Nokia 3510— US$40 Nokia 3510i— US$45 Nokia 3530— US$50 Nokia 3595— US$45 Nokia 3610— US$55 Nokia 3650— US$185 Nokia 3660— US$195 Nokia 5100— US$65 Nokia 5140— US$110 Nokia 5210— US$40 Nokia 5510— US$105 Nokia 5550— US$50 Nokia 5170iR— US$39 Nokia 6020— US$130 Nokia 6670— US$105 Nokia 6630— US$175 Nokia 6100— US$80 Nokia 6108— US$90 Nokia 6220— US$105 Nokia 6230— US$110 Nokia 6260— US$135 Nokia 6310— US$69 Nokia 6310i— US$70 Nokia 6500— US$60 Nokia 6510— US$60 Nokia 6600— US$135 Nokia 6610— US$80 Nokia 6630— US$175 Nokia 6170— US$145 Nokia 6650— US$82 Nokia 6800— US$105 Nokia 6820— US$110 Nokia 7200— US$185 Nokia 7210 Turquoise— US$100 Nokia 7230— US$120 Nokia 7250— US$120 Nokia 7250i— US$120 Nokia 7260— US$135 Nokia 7280— US$155 Nokia 7600— US$165 Nokia 7610— US$195 Nokia 7650— US$160 Nokia 8250— US$65 Nokia 8310— US$90 Nokia 8910 Titanium— US$160 Nokia 8910 Black— US$165 Nokia 8910i— US$185 Nokia 8890— US$115 Nokia 8850 Special Edition— US$105 Nokia 8850 Gold Edition— US$110 Nokia 8800 —————— US$430 Nokia 6680……US $270 Nokia 6681……US $220 Nokia N90……US $300 Nokia N91……US $320 Nokia N70……US $250 Nokia 6060……US $230 Nokia 6111……US $260 Nokia 8855— US$100 Nokia 9210 Communicator— US$195 Nokia 9210i Communicator— US$195 Nokia N-Gage— US$110 Nokia 9500 (communicator)— US$210 Nokia 9500 (communicator)— US$200 Sony Ericsson P800— US$155 Sony Ericsson P900— US$205 Sony Ericsson P910i— US$210 Sony Ericsson T20e— US$35 Sony Ericsson T20s— US$39 Sony Ericsson T28s— US$39 Sony Ericsson T28 World— US$45 Sony Ericsson T29s— US$49 Sony Ericsson T100— US$30 Sony Ericsson T105— US$35 Sony Ericsson T200— US$45 Sony Ericsson T230— US$55 Sony Ericsson T300— US$55 Sony Ericsson T310— US$50 Sony Ericsson T600— US$69 Sony Ericsson T610— US$130 Sony Ericsson T630— US$135 Sony Ericsson T68i— US$105 Sony Ericsson T68m— US$110 Sony Ericsson Z200— US$100 Sony Ericsson Z600— US$170 Sony CMD-J5— US$30 Sony CMD-Z7— US$35 Sony CMD-J7— US$40 Sony CMD-J6— US$40 Sony CMD-Z5— US$90 Sony CMD-MZ5— US$155 Sony Ericsson R520m— US$100 Sony Ericsson R380 World— US$90 Sony Ericsson R380s— US$105 Sony Ericsson R600— US$35 Sony Ericsson S700— US$175 Sony Ericsson K500i— US$180 Sony Ericsson K700i— US$189 Sony Ericsson K750i— US$200 Samsung SGH A200— US$50 Samsung SGH A300— US$40 Samsung SGH A500— US$70 Samsung SGH A800— US$70 Samsung SGH C100— US$85 Samsung SGH E400— US$125 Samsung SGH E600— US$129 Samsung SGH E700— US$130 Samsung SGH E715— US$155 Samsung SGH-E810— US$140 Samsung SGH-E820— US$150 Samsung SGH-E800— US$155 Samsung SGH-E850— US$140 Samsung SGH D410— US$150 Samsung SGH D500— US$155 Samsung SGH P400— US$135 Samsung SGH P510— US$139 Samsung SGH N188— US$110 Samsung SGH N288— US$60 Samsung SGH N500— US$60 Samsung SGH N620— US$60 Samsung SGH M100— US$45 Samsung SGH P400— US$140 Samsung SGH P410— US$145 Samsung SGH P500— US$155 Samsung SGH Q105— US$40 Samsung SGH Q300—- US$70 Samsung SGH R220— US$30 Samsung SGH R225— US$25 Samsung SGH S100— US$90 Samsung SGH S200— US$100 Samsung SGH S300— US