Question Available memory - Xiaomi Poco F3 / Xiaomi Mi 11X / Redmi K40

Good morning to everyone
I looked at the memory and found that the indications of the mobile compared to the AIDA64 are different. I attach pictures below. Which of the two is correct?

AIDA is correct because an 8GB isnt 8GB, its less than 8GB
for example when you get a 64gb usb, it isnt 64gb is 50 something

I believe you are seeing the ram being used by operating system

You shouldn't really care what is being reported as long as the model you have is the model you paid for.
7.XXXMB = 8gb depending on the app that is reporting.

Related

[Q] Memory Shortage

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this but on the internal memory of my E4T it only has 12GB of available space instead of the advertised 16GB. 4GB may not sound like much but I could really use the space and am trying to hold off on buying a microSD card.
If anyone can help with a solution or give me an answer on why this is it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
I believe it's a norm to falsely advertise storage space in GB now. Our 16Gb is actually 16000mb, which equals to 15.625gb.
2 of that is partitioned as System Memory. If I am not mistaken, the OS takes up the balance.
maxspiderx said:
I believe it's a norm to falsely advertise storage space in GB now. Our 16Gb is actually 16000mb, which equals to 15.625gb.
2 of that is partitioned as System Memory. If I am not mistaken, the OS takes up the balance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. They advertise the unformatted capacity.
And its not just Samsung... Take any flash drive or SD card, or even hard drive, and compare the ACTUAL free space with the advertised capacity. It will always be lower, sometimes significantly.

Galaxy Note II - Storage question

Hi,
I am pretty confident at this point I'll be picking up a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 once it hits the market (presuming it's not banned off the face of the Earth by Apple first, somehow), but I have a question, and, I'm not entirely clear on something:
The Note II comes in three variants, 16 GB, 32 GB and 64 GB. However, what's the point of buying anything other than the 16 GB (maybe 32 GB) if it supports up to 64 GB via micro SDHC? Plus, to my understanding you can install apps directly to the MSDHC as well? I presume this is due to local caching, performance, etc. which is why you would want to use local storage only, but, to that, I ask: if you buy the 64 GB, is there really enough of a reason to require it? The app store just doesn't provide enough interest to need it for apps themselves, music and video can put dumped in the much cheaper MSDHC instead; so why buy the higher storage capacity? I know this is a very subjective thing, so, it's a bit of preference involved, but, I'm curious to know what the leading factors are, so when the time comes to pay the premium I'll know for sure what I'll be picking up internal-storage wise.
Anyone who wants to clear this up for me, please, do, I'm sure I'm missing something fundamental here.
Exino said:
Hi,
I am pretty confident at this point I'll be picking up a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 once it hits the market (presuming it's not banned off the face of the Earth by Apple first, somehow), but I have a question, and, I'm not entirely clear on something:
The Note II comes in three variants, 16 GB, 32 GB and 64 GB. However, what's the point of buying anything other than the 16 GB (maybe 32 GB) if it supports up to 64 GB via micro SDHC? Plus, to my understanding you can install apps directly to the MSDHC as well? I presume this is due to local caching, performance, etc. which is why you would want to use local storage only, but, to that, I ask: if you buy the 64 GB, is there really enough of a reason to require it? The app store just doesn't provide enough interest to need it for apps themselves, music and video can put dumped in the much cheaper MSDHC instead; so why buy the higher storage capacity? I know this is a very subjective thing, so, it's a bit of preference involved, but, I'm curious to know what the leading factors are, so when the time comes to pay the premium I'll know for sure what I'll be picking up internal-storage wise.
Anyone who wants to clear this up for me, please, do, I'm sure I'm missing something fundamental here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Internal NAND is usually orders of magnitude faster. Also, it is less complicated to deal with when you dont have to play the "Which Partition To Use Today" game.
Its not worth getting anything over 16gb as long as you can expand with micro sd. If no external storage is available, that's the only reason to get a 32 or 64 variant.
Plus, that extra storage is WAY over priced. A 32gb micro sd card can be as low as 20 bucks if you shop around. A 64gb can be had for about 50 bucks, so paying an extra 150 for the 64 over the 16 is robbery.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium HD app
Eun-Hjzjined said:
Its not worth getting anything over 16gb as long as you can expand with micro sd. If no external storage is available, that's the only reason to get a 32 or 64 variant.
Plus, that extra storage is WAY over priced. A 32gb micro sd card can be as low as 20 bucks if you shop around. A 64gb can be had for about 50 bucks, so paying an extra 150 for the 64 over the 16 is robbery.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Internal NAND will be faster, bar none, than any SD card on the market. Class 10 or not. Its not a rip off, and it very well could mean the difference between slow loading apps (if they reside on the SD card) and a lagless experience. Just letting you know.
If all you plan to store is media, then by all means go for the minimum and augment with an SD card, but it it NOT robbery to be given far faster storage. It is like the difference between an IDE drive and SATA. No comparison or contest when it comes to board-mounted NAND.
I appreciate all the responses so far. I'm thinking I might just get the 32 GB middle-ground in this case (which is what I did when I bought my to-be-replaced iPhone 4), and it's served me well enough. If the difference between 32 GB and 64 GB ends up being $50.00 I'll likely just pick up the larger one as, at least in Canada, it's a 3-year phone term, so, I might as well add as much life to it as I can up front.
I definitely agree with the NAND vs MSDHC performance. The reason I only question it is that I am, of course, thinking of only doing a media dump on the device. Now, I also plan on loading in direct Blu-ray to 720p files, so, I'm not sure of the performance marker there of pulling 720p content from a MSDHC to the device would be, but I can only imagine my performance would be better realised if I was pulling it direct off the NAND.
I guess it'll come down to price, more than anything. I am not heavy into doing large-media storage, so, I doubt there will be much going on where I really need to hit 128 GB of space, but, you know, having the option is nice, especially when travelling around. At least Samsung didn't decide to get foolish and only offer the internal NAND as options, MSDHC is definitely a very nice feature in a device that's intended to bridge the smartphone and tablet market.
...it will also come down to what AT&T offers!!!!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using xda app-developers app
Exino said:
Hi,
I am pretty confident at this point I'll be picking up a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 once it hits the market (presuming it's not banned off the face of the Earth by Apple first, somehow), but I have a question, and, I'm not entirely clear on something:
The Note II comes in three variants, 16 GB, 32 GB and 64 GB. However, what's the point of buying anything other than the 16 GB (maybe 32 GB) if it supports up to 64 GB via micro SDHC? Plus, to my understanding you can install apps directly to the MSDHC as well? I presume this is due to local caching, performance, etc. which is why you would want to use local storage only, but, to that, I ask: if you buy the 64 GB, is there really enough of a reason to require it? The app store just doesn't provide enough interest to need it for apps themselves, music and video can put dumped in the much cheaper MSDHC instead; so why buy the higher storage capacity? I know this is a very subjective thing, so, it's a bit of preference involved, but, I'm curious to know what the leading factors are, so when the time comes to pay the premium I'll know for sure what I'll be picking up internal-storage wise.
Anyone who wants to clear this up for me, please, do, I'm sure I'm missing something fundamental here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the same game that has been around for decades now regarding storage space and price. The price per unit of storage is always going down and your usage of said storage is always going up. One day you will be wondering how you lived with anything less than an Exabyte of space and laugh at those who paid $100 per terabyte. There are only relative usage profiles for the space and everyone's budget is also relative. For me, I will be rocking the 64GB variant with a 64GB micro SD card and claim 128GB in 2012... but you sir will have the last laugh at my expense
16gb internal with micro sd is better, so all game data will go to internal sd, while all your important file(pics,mp3,vids etc) in your micro sd(whatever size it is) much safer if something wrong happen to internal sd
32gb way to much, better having a large micro sd than internal sd
r4$h1d.f41ru$
If its anything like the S3 you wont be able to move apps to a sd card.
fr8cture said:
If its anything like the S3 you wont be able to move apps to a sd card.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
16gb wont enough?
r4$h1d.f41ru$
robyr said:
Internal NAND will be faster, bar none, than any SD card on the market. Class 10 or not. Its not a rip off, and it very well could mean the difference between slow loading apps (if they reside on the SD card) and a lagless experience. Just letting you know.
If all you plan to store is media, then by all means go for the minimum and augment with an SD card, but it it NOT robbery to be given far faster storage. It is like the difference between an IDE drive and SATA. No comparison or contest when it comes to board-mounted NAND.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweeping comment, TROLLING?? I have seen many Micro SD cards from Sandisk reaching upto 100MBps despite being marketed as Class 10. This is VERY IRRESPONSIBLE comment as there is no holy grail engraved in your beloved "NAND" Flash. Its just a type of flash and doesn't dictate in terms of performance unless Samsung's hardware can not utilize the higher speed Micro SD cards.
One major benefit of having 64GB onboard would be Micro SD card will become more redundant if you live with that space for years. Also, you would have an opportunity to have upto 124GB or so when using 64GB Micro SD cards (I am optimistic though that these new phones may support even higher capacity 128GB or so MSD cards may be after some software tweaks by some of our dev gurus here).
rashid.fairus said:
16gb wont enough?
r4$h1d.f41ru$
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not for me. I ran out of storage already.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using xda premium
Prankey said:
Its just a type of flash and doesn't dictate in terms of performance unless Samsung's hardware can not utilize the higher speed Micro SD cards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All card readers/writers have their throughput limits.
How fast the note 2's is is yet to be determined.
Has anyone determined the max write /read speed of the note 1?
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA Premium HD app

[Q] Storage space?

I got my (allegedly) 16GB Note 2 on Saturday and installed loads of stuff, including some pretty big Gameloft games. When I go into Storage from the Settings it says that my device memory has total space of 10.36GB with 2.98GB of it left. The fact that 7.38Gb is used up is probably about right given all the large games I've got on there, but why is the total space only reporting as 10.36GB when it's a 16GB model I bought? I'd expect some space to be used up by the OS itself and the various protected system partitions that come with it obviously, but does Jellybean really consume the GBs of space that make the difference between the 10.36GB reported and the 16GB that should be on there?
I used a disk info app to see what was going on and have attached a screenshot of it's output. I'm not sure what the difference is between the Data and SD card partitions there. Note that I do have a proper external SD card in the phone but it's only 2GB and so isn't any of those partitions. Anyone know what I'm seeing here and where my 16GB has gone?
Yes, this is the available amount of of space you get in this phone.
Its not just this phone! Any phone you get from market will have less user-available storage.
One X is said to be 32 gb but you can use only 25 gb
Here is a mod whoch can increase your space to around a bit above 11 gb http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1931500
Any 16 gb phone made has around this much user available space rest is OS and other stuff.
HINT: buy a 32 gb memory card? it will replace your internal memory card need exactl as if it was internal memory storage.
How? You can transfer all apps to SD Card using titanium backup so your phone memory and SD card memory is basically unified.
Read this: http://compreviews.about.com/od/storage/a/ActualHDSizes.htm
Partitions of the SGS III (I assume pretty much the same in Note II):
/system: 1G
/data: 11G (shared with /sdcard)
/cache: 1G
Add to this space required by OS and installed apps.
Kiahnlliya said:
Partitions of the SGS III (I assume pretty much the same in Note II):
/system: 1G
/data: 11G (shared with /sdcard)
/cache: 1G
Add to this space required by OS and installed apps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 'Advertised vs actual' factor as described in that article would take just over 1GB away from a 16GB start (70.3 MB x 16 = 1.12GB).
Adding in the Cache, System and Data/SD Card values from my screenshot would take us up to 13-and-a-bit GB. (1.12 GB + 1GB + 1GB + 10GB = 13.12GB)
The System partition hold the OS and any other baked in stuff (as I understand it) so where's the other 2-and-a-bit GB?
I'm sure it's all explainable so I'm just curious to know how this works. I thought I remembered having more free space on my previous Note and the GSII before it (both of which were advertised as 16GB) but perhaps I'm misremembering.
Medulla said:
The 'Advertised vs actual' factor as described in that article would take just over 1GB away from a 16GB start (70.3 MB x 16 = 1.12GB).
Adding in the Cache, System and Data/SD Card values from my screenshot would take us up to 13-and-a-bit GB. (1.12 GB + 1GB + 1GB + 10GB = 13.12GB)
The System partition hold the OS and any other baked in stuff (as I understand it) so where's the other 2-and-a-bit GB?
I'm sure it's all explainable so I'm just curious to know how this works. I thought I remembered having more free space on my previous Note and the GSII before it (both of which were advertised as 16GB) but perhaps I'm misremembering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be interesting to get a clear answer for sure... I have a 64GB SDXC with 30GB free space on it and I can't think of anything else I would need that isn't already on there, I couldn't fill it up even if I tried. Also I still have 8GB free on my internal...
I don't listen to music on my phone, I have a dedicated player for that, so that's why I don't need tons of space... and that's why I don't really reflect on these things, but am a bit curious indeed about why the available space is so much less than 16GB.
Kiahnlliya said:
It would be interesting to get a clear answer for sure... I have a 64GB SDXC with 30GB free space on it and I can't think of anything else I would need that isn't already on there, I couldn't fill it up even if I tried. Also I still have 8GB free on my internal...
I don't listen to music on my phone, I have a dedicated player for that, so that's why I don't need tons of space... and that's why I don't really reflect on these things, but am a bit curious indeed about why the available space is so much less than 16GB.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My usage is pretty much the same as yours (external SD card with a few things on it and separate dedicated mp3 player) so it's not something I'd usually notice either. The only reason I've clocked it this time is because I bought a few GB and bigger sized games in the recent 25p Google Play store all of which I've installed as soon as I set the phone up on Saturday; whereas usually I'd install one 'proper' game and only install a new one when I'd finished the last one. So, as such, this is probably about as full as my phone will ever be and not something that'll cause any problems, but it would be good to understand what's going on here.

32gb or 16gb

Hey guys
I am considering getting the G3 and theres about £50 difference between 32 and 16gb version, is the 3gb/32gb actually worth it? Seen some tests and the difference was hardly noticable...anybody has any experience with both versions and could compare?
Thanks!
I don't have the link handy but a review was done with both versions, and the benchmarks were nearly the same. With microsd support, I'd see no reason just for another 1gb of ram personally.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Every android phone I've ever had from 256kb to 2gb has eventually needed more memory. More memory means you can run more, cache more and be future proof. If your only keeping the phone for a year, then 2gb will probably be fine, if keeping for 2 years then I would get the 3gb version
Not exactly sure what 50 euros is in usd but if it's any where from 50-100 it's well worth it imo, especially since you get a sdcard & ram upgrade.
2gb ram has been the flagship standard for a while now, my HTC one gets pretty close to full ram usage at some points. More ram guarantees smooth performance for heavy usage as well as future proof specs, and don't forget the g3 has that qhd resolution and once higher (than 1080p) resolution videos become more common you'll be glad you went with the extra ram.
well the 16gb version, not sure what batch is it and where is it imported from(assuming Korea) goes for 1950 PLN = 373.8150 GBP according to google while the 32gb version which is imported from Korea goes for 2250 PLN = 431.3250 GBP so yeah not a big difference but still.
The thing is that I dont really play games on a mobile, most of the time I would just use it for browsing, mail, facebook, gps/maps, apps and camera damn, decisions decisions...
cez10 said:
well the 16gb version, not sure what batch is it and where is it imported from(assuming Korea) goes for 1950 PLN = 373.8150 GBP according to google while the 32gb version which is imported from Korea goes for 2250 PLN = 431.3250 GBP so yeah not a big difference but still.
The thing is that I dont really play games on a mobile, most of the time I would just use it for browsing, mail, facebook, gps/maps, apps and camera damn, decisions decisions...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well i never had the choice... Only 16gb was available in UK. I would defo spend another 50 quid to get extra storage... You're planning to spend a lot of money already so extra 300pln is not that bad isn't?
Sent from my LG-D855 using XDA Free mobile app
Personally I would just save the money and buy the 16gb and get a massive SD Card instead. I doubt there is any noticeable difference in performance unless you have a gizillion apps open at the same time. In fact I remember reading an article where an LG employee says the phone is optimised to run on 2GB RAM.
The only reason I can think of to get the 32GB version is if you do not plan on getting an SD Card, then the extra storage is definately worth it. And maybe resale value will be higher...
szqnl said:
Personally I would just save the money and buy the 16gb and get a massive SD Card instead. I doubt there is any noticeable difference in performance unless you have a gizillion apps open at the same time. In fact I remember reading an article where an LG employee says the phone is optimised to run on 2GB RAM.
The only reason I can think of to get the 32GB version is if you do not plan on getting an SD Card, then the extra storage is definately worth it. And maybe resale value will be higher...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the extra on board storage is, now, very important as, in the up to date google builds, moving app data to sd is very restricted.
bobsie41 said:
I think the extra on board storage is, now, very important as, in the up to date google builds, moving app data to sd is very restricted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unless you root...
But even so, internal storage is better than SD card for many reason (ease of use, speed)
I picked the 32GB from Germany, very happy I did so.
Get the one with 3gb ram, I can't believe they are still releasing phones with 2gb ram.
I have a Z1 and since I started using a custom launcher whenever I have some apps open and press the home button the homescreen redraws and it's not nearly as quick as before.
Also some apps don't stay cached when I reopen them.
The G3 with its massive resolution should eat even more ram.
Sent from my Xperia Z1
I've just read a review here http://pclab.pl/art58419-7.html where they've tested the 2gb version and said it lags a lot, the CPU and GPU gets hot a lot, that it would be better if there was full HD than QHD, that the screen dims weirdly and that the screen gets this weird sharpening effect....
christ I dont know what to do :/ z2 is nice but it has a lot of issues, one's camera isnt good enough these days, g3 3gb is probably most future proof but the more I read about it the more doubts I get...
bobsie41 said:
I think the extra on board storage is, now, very important as, in the up to date google builds, moving app data to sd is very restricted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, guess it depends on what you use your phone for. I don't do any gaming so the app data space isn't that large.
If the difference in price is ok then it makes sense to get the 32GB I suppose. Here in Singapore, only the 32GB version is available and only S$755 sim-free which is relatively cheap for a new flagship phone.
I'm still deciding whether to get this or the G2 which is only S$520 now!
I'm planning to buy the 32gb version. What I like to know is if the custom roms will be different or will they all be suitable for this version?
G3 the 16 or 32 GB
cez10 said:
Hey guys
I am considering getting the G3 and theres about £50 difference between 32 and 16gb version, is the 3gb/32gb actually worth it? Seen some tests and the difference was hardly noticable...anybody has any experience with both versions and could compare?
Thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I have got both phones at the moment (Model D855) and I would strongly suggest you spend the the extra few bucks on tthe 32GB phone. Not as much for the ROM but for the RAM. Today I have installed the same apps on both phobes after rooting them and installing TWRP recovery and the difference is very obvious especially when having several apps open in the background. Although many phones could do perefctly with the amount of RAM the 16 GB model offers, I think there is a difference in this phonbes screen specs. This fabulous screen asks a lot of capacity which I think is the reason the 16 GB version gets very leggy. It's better if you reboot every now and then but I recon you'd get very anoyed at having to do that 3 times a day.
The price difference is big enough to go for the 16 GB version. You'll most prbably regret in a few months.
I have the 2 GB version no problem
Screen is good no heating problems
Sent from my LG-D855 using XDA Free mobile app
I have the 16g d855 my phone now runs at 300mb free ram i bought it for 380 euro and the 32gb was for 500+ so the difference was big. So if you have that money go for 32 a test on youtube on benchmarking both versions shows that 32gb is 5-7% faster and the results proofs that.
Sent from my LG-D855 using XDA Free mobile app

UK Won't Get 16GB Ram

So I pre-ordered the 512GB grey model assuming I would get 16GB ram however I read somewhere that the Exynos models would be limited to 12GB ram
Decided to contact Samsung direct and just had them confirm on live chat that UK 512GB models will only have 12GB ram. I can only assume this will be the same for all Exynos models
I myself am extremely disappointed not only because it would have been nice to have the 16GB ram and the bragging rights laugh but disappointed with Samsung for not specifying this and not having the specs listed clearly for this model
Be interested to hear others thoughts and if anyone else has had this confirmation and if anyone else will be changing their pre-order as I am because of this...
Just been into Samsung experience store and confirmed the 512GB ultra WILL have 16GB ram.
bomp306 said:
Just been into Samsung experience store and confirmed the 512GB ultra WILL have 16GB ram.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which one did you go into? Even the specs listed for the new Exynos processor say it can only handle 12gb...
If it does come with 16gb great! But so much conflicting info but evidence is pointing to 12gb...
Trafford Centre, Manchester
honestly you wont need 16GB of RAM - dont even know why they bothered with it!!
as for storage - get 1TB sd for £200 and you will be safe
Was also advised S20 Ultra 512GB has now sold out for release day allocation.
tim2london said:
honestly you wont need 16GB of RAM - dont even know why they bothered with it!!
as for storage - get 1TB sd for £200 and you will be safe
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More ram can hold more apps in the ram. They are also allowing a new app lock so that apps stay in ram all the time. As for storage, I'd rather have more internal than external (for loading purposes and other SD card issues).
yes i get it but what apps are you going to have open in the background that is going to eat thru 10 GB of ram
my laptop has 12GB ram and can run super intensive tasks
tim2london said:
yes i get it but what apps are you going to have open in the background that is going to eat thru 10 GB of ram
my laptop has 12GB ram and can run super intensive tasks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Music app, any game I was playing and had to drop asap, Google maps if I have to make a call or something.
Seems the information on this is very sparse and not specific, I've had many employees from Samsung tell me it comes with 12gb and 16gb, on the phone to them now trying to get clarification but what gives me the doubt is that the only spec sheet I've found for the Exynos 990 (we always get Exynos in the UK) says it's limited to 12gb ram
After a lengthy conversation I was assured the S20 Ultra 512GB comes with the Exynos 990 and 16GB ram
Looks like we will have to wait and see for release day to see if this is correct...
i found this year specs of the phone, when ordering - to be quite limited - it doesnt say anything about 16gb of ram when ordering on the sam website - just colour, model, 4/5g and capacity
honestly looking at my order details it doesnt even say what phone it is - just that i paid 1999+£5 delivery and the order number/shipping address and payment details
tim2london said:
i found this year specs of the phone, when ordering - to be quite limited - it doesnt say anything about 16gb of ram when ordering on the sam website - just colour, model, 4/5g and capacity
honestly looking at my order details it doesnt even say what phone it is - just that i paid 1999+£5 delivery and the order number/shipping address and payment details
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point exactly and that's what's led to the confusion, even Samsung's staff are unsure
Let's wait n see
Pretty sure they would be I trouble for misseling.
https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/galaxy-s20/
Clearly states 12/16GB of RAM
where are u seeing that
i can only see this
Halfway Down the page, under performance
https://s.amsu.ng/Ay7YSmzpPAWN
hmm you must be seeing a different page - i have no performance - just those options shown in the screenshot
the ultra should have 16gb of ram, i think the other models may only get 12.
tim2london said:
yes i get it but what apps are you going to have open in the background that is going to eat thru 10 GB of ram
my laptop has 12GB ram and can run super intensive tasks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Laptops aren't phones and phones aren't laptops, comparing the amount of RAM better the two is as dumb as comparing processor speed.
@_Dennis_ is it so hard to have a clean polite conversation, that there always needs to be someone rude to post replies for the sake of offending someone
everyone participates here with their opinions, there is no good or bad, dumb or smart - they could be correct or incorrect and if they are incorrect please by all means - explain what is incorrect and how is correct, with actual information - dont just bash right and left with no actual contribution
people like you is what makes internet and this world a sadder place
be respectful and be human - no matter where online or in real life - and if you dont have anything good to say - DONT SAY ANYTHING save everyone the time of reading bullying replies

Categories

Resources