Help me too choose AMD or Intel ???

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

dear all,

I plan to by a new system for home
I am a professionanl in software developement ad I would like a computer on
which I will be able to do programming and Multimedia stuff like picture
edition or video editing.

Iknow the reputation of intel processor, they are really good annd fully
proven wth microsoft platform but of course depending of configuration you
request they are expensive

n an other hand I have AMD procecessor system on which I have no experience
at all and would like to help me in that.

The only thing I have notice in configutation comparison AMD price is half
of Intel
but wht about performance and compatibility. Especially with the next coming
longhorn

Thanks for your help
regards
Serge
12 answers Last reply
More about help choose intel
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    I have been running AMD for as long as I can remember..........my very 1st
    machine was Intel and everything after that was AMD.I might not do
    "professional" audio and video but I save TV shows to a HD then edit and
    burn the result to a DVD.
    I also have taken VCR tapes and recorded them to the HD,edited the movie and
    then burned to a DVD...not to mention home movies which were already
    digitally recorded recorded to the HD edited and added a soundtrack.
    This with a AMD Barton 2500 chip, a meg of DDR Ram,an older ASUS A7N8del
    ver2.0
    So you can see its an older chip...........the newer 64bit chips should do a
    comparable job to any Intel chip out there.
    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121074,00.asp
    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118194,00.asp
    http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114546,00.asp

    I would not hesitate to use another AMD chip.
    peterk

    --
    Never trust a computer you can't throw out the window. - Steve Wozniak
    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:114621D3-F44F-47F7-B7E2-9FA5A81651EC@microsoft.com...
    > dear all,
    >
    > I plan to by a new system for home
    > I am a professionanl in software developement ad I would like a computer
    > on
    > which I will be able to do programming and Multimedia stuff like picture
    > edition or video editing.
    >
    > Iknow the reputation of intel processor, they are really good annd fully
    > proven wth microsoft platform but of course depending of configuration you
    > request they are expensive
    >
    > n an other hand I have AMD procecessor system on which I have no
    > experience
    > at all and would like to help me in that.
    >
    > The only thing I have notice in configutation comparison AMD price is
    > half
    > of Intel
    > but wht about performance and compatibility. Especially with the next
    > coming
    > longhorn
    >
    > Thanks for your help
    > regards
    > Serge
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:114621D3-F44F-47F7-B7E2-9FA5A81651EC@microsoft.com...
    > dear all,
    >
    > I plan to by a new system for home
    > I am a professionanl in software developement ad I would like a computer
    > on
    > which I will be able to do programming and Multimedia stuff like picture
    > edition or video editing.
    >
    > Iknow the reputation of intel processor, they are really good annd fully
    > proven wth microsoft platform but of course depending of configuration you
    > request they are expensive
    >
    > n an other hand I have AMD procecessor system on which I have no
    > experience
    > at all and would like to help me in that.
    >
    > The only thing I have notice in configutation comparison AMD price is
    > half
    > of Intel
    > but wht about performance and compatibility. Especially with the next
    > coming
    > longhorn
    >

    Both manufacturer's CPUs work as advertised and will work great. More
    important than the brand of CPU is the brand of RAM, motherboard, and power
    supply. For RAM I use Kingston, Crucial is also good. I personally like
    Gigabyte and Intel motherboards but ASUS is also a good brand. I just don't
    get as good a price on them :-). I use Acepower power supplies. Stay away
    from cheap ones of any brand. Go for the medium to higher priced ones. Those
    three components will make more of a difference to the stability and
    enjoyment of your system than the CPU. Video cards are important as well but
    they are harder to know what is good. The top chipsets are NVIDIA and ATI.
    ATI makes their own cards as well as licencing the chipset to other
    manufacturers. NIVIDIA doesn't manufacturer cards themselves. Don't buy a
    cheap no name clone video card even if it uses a good chipset. Again price
    is often an indication of quality.

    Kerry
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
    news:evp$bQUpFHA.3380@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    > message news:114621D3-F44F-47F7-B7E2-9FA5A81651EC@microsoft.com...
    >> dear all,
    >>
    >> I plan to by a new system for home
    >> I am a professionanl in software developement ad I would like a computer
    >> on
    >> which I will be able to do programming and Multimedia stuff like picture
    >> edition or video editing.
    >>
    >> Iknow the reputation of intel processor, they are really good annd fully
    >> proven wth microsoft platform but of course depending of configuration
    >> you
    >> request they are expensive
    >>
    >> n an other hand I have AMD procecessor system on which I have no
    >> experience
    >> at all and would like to help me in that.
    >>
    >> The only thing I have notice in configutation comparison AMD price is
    >> half
    >> of Intel
    >> but wht about performance and compatibility. Especially with the next
    >> coming
    >> longhorn
    >>
    >
    > Both manufacturer's CPUs work as advertised and will work great. More
    > important than the brand of CPU is the brand of RAM, motherboard, and
    > power supply. For RAM I use Kingston, Crucial is also good. I personally
    > like Gigabyte and Intel motherboards but ASUS is also a good brand. I just
    > don't get as good a price on them :-). I use Acepower power supplies. Stay
    > away from cheap ones of any brand. Go for the medium to higher priced
    > ones. Those three components will make more of a difference to the
    > stability and enjoyment of your system than the CPU. Video cards are
    > important as well but they are harder to know what is good. The top
    > chipsets are NVIDIA and ATI. ATI makes their own cards as well as
    > licencing the chipset to other manufacturers. NIVIDIA doesn't manufacturer
    > cards themselves. Don't buy a cheap no name clone video card even if it
    > uses a good chipset. Again price is often an indication of quality.
    >
    > Kerry
    >
    >
    Intel EM64T CPU's do not support on-die memory controller, nor do they
    support Hypertransport.
    Intel is producing it's EM64T processors by adding the 64 bit extensions to
    the P4 architecture, and they are still hopelessly hobbled to a Northbridge
    chipset for communications to the AGP/PCI/PCI-e/RAM on the motherboard. This
    FSB speed can be either 533 or a clock doubled 400 (which Intel advertises
    as 800MHz, but gets nowhere near that). With Hypertransport, the AMD
    processor can communicate with other devices on the motherboard at 2GHz, and
    communications are duplex, as opposed to simplex for Intel. The
    Hypertransport protocol allows data to be executed "out of order", as it is
    a high speed packed based communications protocol.

    Other factors to consider: If you buy and AMD Athlon64 939-pin based
    motherboard, you can upgrade to an AMD X2 dual core chip when you
    want...since the crossbar, memory controller, dual L2 cache are all on the
    CPU, a simple BIOS upgrade will allow a drop in solution for X2. Can't do
    that with Intel.

    Intel processors produce prodigious amounts of heat. Heat is a significant
    factor in hardware problems, as well as wasting electricity. That is why
    Sony, NEC, and others sell their systems with water-cooling; it's the only
    way to manage the ferocious heat that the newer P4's produce.

    Intel is currently so far behind the game when it comes to producing 64 bit
    CPU's, yet everyone seems to continue to defend them. Every review I have
    read that pits Intel EM64T against AMD Athlon64, the Athlon wins (by a large
    margin).

    If you are savvy, do research, and put you money where the speed, power and
    value are, the only answer is AMD. Perhaps in a year or two, once Intel
    begins selling newer designed chips instead of re-vamped P4J CPUs, they may
    again be "king of the hill". But for now, the smart money is on AMD.

    bobby
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    The current crop of AMD processors (actually for the past 3 years) have been
    every bit as good as those from Intel, and in some cases far superior.

    But this is just troll bait, isn't it?

    --
    Regards,

    Richard Urban
    Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

    Quote from: George Ankner
    "If you knew as much as you thought you know,
    You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:114621D3-F44F-47F7-B7E2-9FA5A81651EC@microsoft.com...
    > dear all,
    >
    > I plan to by a new system for home
    > I am a professionanl in software developement ad I would like a computer
    > on
    > which I will be able to do programming and Multimedia stuff like picture
    > edition or video editing.
    >
    > Iknow the reputation of intel processor, they are really good annd fully
    > proven wth microsoft platform but of course depending of configuration you
    > request they are expensive
    >
    > n an other hand I have AMD procecessor system on which I have no
    > experience
    > at all and would like to help me in that.
    >
    > The only thing I have notice in configutation comparison AMD price is
    > half
    > of Intel
    > but wht about performance and compatibility. Especially with the next
    > coming
    > longhorn
    >
    > Thanks for your help
    > regards
    > Serge
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
    news:%23NejBEVpFHA.4008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

    <SNIP>

    > Intel is currently so far behind the game when it comes to producing 64
    > bit CPU's, yet everyone seems to continue to defend them. Every review I
    > have read that pits Intel EM64T against AMD Athlon64, the Athlon wins (by
    > a large margin).
    >
    > If you are savvy, do research, and put you money where the speed, power
    > and value are, the only answer is AMD. Perhaps in a year or two, once
    > Intel begins selling newer designed chips instead of re-vamped P4J CPUs,
    > they may again be "king of the hill". But for now, the smart money is on
    > AMD.
    >

    While I agree the current crop of AMD CPU's are technically better than
    Intel's in the real world I see little or no performance difference that a
    normal user would notice. I stand by my comments that using good ram,
    motherboard, PSU and video card will make much more of a difference to the
    average end user. System stability and reliability are far more important
    for most people than that last 5% speed improvement. I have seen many
    systems that use the latest CPU only to cheap out on other components and
    have a horrible system that barely runs. The CPU is only one component of a
    system. To take advantage of the Athlon 64 the rest of the components have
    to be up to the task. This negates the price difference between the CPU's
    making the overall system price for an equally performing system very close.

    I agree that if 64 bit is what you want or need then AMD blows Intel away. I
    just don't see that presently, in the real world not in a benchmark, it
    offers that much of a speed advantage over 32 bit chips. By the time the
    software catches up there will be a whole new crop of CPU's out. At that
    time who knows which will be better.

    All that said most of the systems I sell either have a Celeron CPU (word
    processing machine) or a 939 Athlon 64 (game, graphics, or power user
    machine) for desktops. For notebooks Intel has won the advertising war and
    everyone wants Centrino even if they don't know exactly what it is :-)

    Kerry
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    hi,

    Most system I have seen in shops around are providing the following
    configuration
    AMD processor 64 3200
    Embeded graphic cards ATi X300 or NVIDIA turbo cach 6200 256 mB

    200Gb hD 700rpm
    1Gb of DDRAM

    What do you think of that configuration ?

    regards
    "Kerry Brown" wrote:

    >
    > "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:%23NejBEVpFHA.4008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > > Intel is currently so far behind the game when it comes to producing 64
    > > bit CPU's, yet everyone seems to continue to defend them. Every review I
    > > have read that pits Intel EM64T against AMD Athlon64, the Athlon wins (by
    > > a large margin).
    > >
    > > If you are savvy, do research, and put you money where the speed, power
    > > and value are, the only answer is AMD. Perhaps in a year or two, once
    > > Intel begins selling newer designed chips instead of re-vamped P4J CPUs,
    > > they may again be "king of the hill". But for now, the smart money is on
    > > AMD.
    > >
    >
    > While I agree the current crop of AMD CPU's are technically better than
    > Intel's in the real world I see little or no performance difference that a
    > normal user would notice. I stand by my comments that using good ram,
    > motherboard, PSU and video card will make much more of a difference to the
    > average end user. System stability and reliability are far more important
    > for most people than that last 5% speed improvement. I have seen many
    > systems that use the latest CPU only to cheap out on other components and
    > have a horrible system that barely runs. The CPU is only one component of a
    > system. To take advantage of the Athlon 64 the rest of the components have
    > to be up to the task. This negates the price difference between the CPU's
    > making the overall system price for an equally performing system very close.
    >
    > I agree that if 64 bit is what you want or need then AMD blows Intel away. I
    > just don't see that presently, in the real world not in a benchmark, it
    > offers that much of a speed advantage over 32 bit chips. By the time the
    > software catches up there will be a whole new crop of CPU's out. At that
    > time who knows which will be better.
    >
    > All that said most of the systems I sell either have a Celeron CPU (word
    > processing machine) or a 939 Athlon 64 (game, graphics, or power user
    > machine) for desktops. For notebooks Intel has won the advertising war and
    > everyone wants Centrino even if they don't know exactly what it is :-)
    >
    > Kerry
    >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:BD3AFCCA-1F13-4F30-9E17-E08D5012A9F2@microsoft.com...
    > hi,
    >
    > Most system I have seen in shops around are providing the following
    > configuration
    > AMD processor 64 3200
    > Embeded graphic cards ATi X300 or NVIDIA turbo cach 6200 256 mB
    >
    > 200Gb hD 700rpm
    > 1Gb of DDRAM
    >
    > What do you think of that configuration ?
    >

    What brand of motherboard, ram, and power supply? How big is the cache on
    the hard drive? Is this a brand name system like HP, eMachines, etc.? I am
    not a fan of large OEM brand name systems. Although the computers themselves
    are usually of reasonable construction (except the really low cost ones)
    they always install a bunch of trialware and spyware that causes nothing but
    problems and can be very hard to get off the system. Also most brand names
    do not include a Windows install CD but have a hidden partition that will
    restore the computer to the factory state. This limits your troubleshooting
    options in the future. If you want to play the latest games you will
    probably want a separate graphics card rather than an embedded one.

    Kerry
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Yes its mainly HP sysytems

    "Kerry Brown" wrote:

    > "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    > message news:BD3AFCCA-1F13-4F30-9E17-E08D5012A9F2@microsoft.com...
    > > hi,
    > >
    > > Most system I have seen in shops around are providing the following
    > > configuration
    > > AMD processor 64 3200
    > > Embeded graphic cards ATi X300 or NVIDIA turbo cach 6200 256 mB
    > >
    > > 200Gb hD 700rpm
    > > 1Gb of DDRAM
    > >
    > > What do you think of that configuration ?
    > >
    >
    > What brand of motherboard, ram, and power supply? How big is the cache on
    > the hard drive? Is this a brand name system like HP, eMachines, etc.? I am
    > not a fan of large OEM brand name systems. Although the computers themselves
    > are usually of reasonable construction (except the really low cost ones)
    > they always install a bunch of trialware and spyware that causes nothing but
    > problems and can be very hard to get off the system. Also most brand names
    > do not include a Windows install CD but have a hidden partition that will
    > restore the computer to the factory state. This limits your troubleshooting
    > options in the future. If you want to play the latest games you will
    > probably want a separate graphics card rather than an embedded one.
    >
    > Kerry
    >
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Very good.

    But : I have one problem with my AtiX300. I cannot get
    a satisfying image on my TV (using the TV out connection).
    It is monochrome. I have tried every setting available, but
    to no avail.

    On my previous baord with a Nvidia AGP - an inexpensive
    Asus graphic board, everything was perfect. I do not
    know how the version of the Nvidia board you mention
    performs.

    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> a écrit dans le
    message de news: BD3AFCCA-1F13-4F30-9E17-E08D5012A9F2@microsoft.com...
    > hi,
    >
    > Most system I have seen in shops around are providing the following
    > configuration
    > AMD processor 64 3200
    > Embeded graphic cards ATi X300 or NVIDIA turbo cach 6200 256 mB
    >
    > 200Gb hD 700rpm
    > 1Gb of DDRAM
    >
    > What do you think of that configuration ?
    >
    > regards
    > "Kerry Brown" wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message
    >> news:%23NejBEVpFHA.4008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>
    >> > Intel is currently so far behind the game when it comes to producing 64
    >> > bit CPU's, yet everyone seems to continue to defend them. Every review
    >> > I
    >> > have read that pits Intel EM64T against AMD Athlon64, the Athlon wins
    >> > (by
    >> > a large margin).
    >> >
    >> > If you are savvy, do research, and put you money where the speed, power
    >> > and value are, the only answer is AMD. Perhaps in a year or two, once
    >> > Intel begins selling newer designed chips instead of re-vamped P4J
    >> > CPUs,
    >> > they may again be "king of the hill". But for now, the smart money is
    >> > on
    >> > AMD.
    >> >
    >>
    >> While I agree the current crop of AMD CPU's are technically better than
    >> Intel's in the real world I see little or no performance difference that
    >> a
    >> normal user would notice. I stand by my comments that using good ram,
    >> motherboard, PSU and video card will make much more of a difference to
    >> the
    >> average end user. System stability and reliability are far more important
    >> for most people than that last 5% speed improvement. I have seen many
    >> systems that use the latest CPU only to cheap out on other components and
    >> have a horrible system that barely runs. The CPU is only one component of
    >> a
    >> system. To take advantage of the Athlon 64 the rest of the components
    >> have
    >> to be up to the task. This negates the price difference between the CPU's
    >> making the overall system price for an equally performing system very
    >> close.
    >>
    >> I agree that if 64 bit is what you want or need then AMD blows Intel
    >> away. I
    >> just don't see that presently, in the real world not in a benchmark, it
    >> offers that much of a speed advantage over 32 bit chips. By the time the
    >> software catches up there will be a whole new crop of CPU's out. At that
    >> time who knows which will be better.
    >>
    >> All that said most of the systems I sell either have a Celeron CPU (word
    >> processing machine) or a 939 Athlon 64 (game, graphics, or power user
    >> machine) for desktops. For notebooks Intel has won the advertising war
    >> and
    >> everyone wants Centrino even if they don't know exactly what it is :-)
    >>
    >> Kerry
    >>
    >>
    >>
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Actually I think you would be better off and closer to your Audio/video
    editing specs by going to a smaller(Been in Business for a long while)
    computer store explaining exactly what you intend to use the machine for and
    have them build you one.
    You can and should research MotherBoards...Video cards....CPU ....Hard
    drives..cases....cooling..etc ,So that you have some inkling of what they
    are talking about.
    There are also computer stores on the NET that let you build and price one
    online........a tester to see how much it would cost.I usually build mine by
    doing research and then listing the specific parts I want,sending this out
    to a few reputable computer stores and asking for a quote.......build with
    warranty.This way they are all pricing the same thing and I am not comparing
    apples to oranges.
    good luck
    peterk


    --
    Never trust a computer you can't throw out the window. - Steve Wozniak
    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:6396A9DD-1720-471D-B842-44FA6B22E53B@microsoft.com...
    > Yes its mainly HP sysytems
    >
    > "Kerry Brown" wrote:
    >
    >> "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    >> message news:BD3AFCCA-1F13-4F30-9E17-E08D5012A9F2@microsoft.com...
    >> > hi,
    >> >
    >> > Most system I have seen in shops around are providing the following
    >> > configuration
    >> > AMD processor 64 3200
    >> > Embeded graphic cards ATi X300 or NVIDIA turbo cach 6200 256 mB
    >> >
    >> > 200Gb hD 700rpm
    >> > 1Gb of DDRAM
    >> >
    >> > What do you think of that configuration ?
    >> >
    >>
    >> What brand of motherboard, ram, and power supply? How big is the cache on
    >> the hard drive? Is this a brand name system like HP, eMachines, etc.? I
    >> am
    >> not a fan of large OEM brand name systems. Although the computers
    >> themselves
    >> are usually of reasonable construction (except the really low cost ones)
    >> they always install a bunch of trialware and spyware that causes nothing
    >> but
    >> problems and can be very hard to get off the system. Also most brand
    >> names
    >> do not include a Windows install CD but have a hidden partition that will
    >> restore the computer to the factory state. This limits your
    >> troubleshooting
    >> options in the future. If you want to play the latest games you will
    >> probably want a separate graphics card rather than an embedded one.
    >>
    >> Kerry
    >>
    >>
    >>
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Thanks for your all commenst guys
    So if I resume, AMD process are not so bad they are even excellent


    "peterk" wrote:

    > Actually I think you would be better off and closer to your Audio/video
    > editing specs by going to a smaller(Been in Business for a long while)
    > computer store explaining exactly what you intend to use the machine for and
    > have them build you one.
    > You can and should research MotherBoards...Video cards....CPU ....Hard
    > drives..cases....cooling..etc ,So that you have some inkling of what they
    > are talking about.
    > There are also computer stores on the NET that let you build and price one
    > online........a tester to see how much it would cost.I usually build mine by
    > doing research and then listing the specific parts I want,sending this out
    > to a few reputable computer stores and asking for a quote.......build with
    > warranty.This way they are all pricing the same thing and I am not comparing
    > apples to oranges.
    > good luck
    > peterk
    >
    >
    > --
    > Never trust a computer you can't throw out the window. - Steve Wozniak
    > "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    > message news:6396A9DD-1720-471D-B842-44FA6B22E53B@microsoft.com...
    > > Yes its mainly HP sysytems
    > >
    > > "Kerry Brown" wrote:
    > >
    > >> "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    > >> message news:BD3AFCCA-1F13-4F30-9E17-E08D5012A9F2@microsoft.com...
    > >> > hi,
    > >> >
    > >> > Most system I have seen in shops around are providing the following
    > >> > configuration
    > >> > AMD processor 64 3200
    > >> > Embeded graphic cards ATi X300 or NVIDIA turbo cach 6200 256 mB
    > >> >
    > >> > 200Gb hD 700rpm
    > >> > 1Gb of DDRAM
    > >> >
    > >> > What do you think of that configuration ?
    > >> >
    > >>
    > >> What brand of motherboard, ram, and power supply? How big is the cache on
    > >> the hard drive? Is this a brand name system like HP, eMachines, etc.? I
    > >> am
    > >> not a fan of large OEM brand name systems. Although the computers
    > >> themselves
    > >> are usually of reasonable construction (except the really low cost ones)
    > >> they always install a bunch of trialware and spyware that causes nothing
    > >> but
    > >> problems and can be very hard to get off the system. Also most brand
    > >> names
    > >> do not include a Windows install CD but have a hidden partition that will
    > >> restore the computer to the factory state. This limits your
    > >> troubleshooting
    > >> options in the future. If you want to play the latest games you will
    > >> probably want a separate graphics card rather than an embedded one.
    > >>
    > >> Kerry
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    "serge calderara" <sergecalderara@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
    message news:88786F0C-285C-43F2-8117-9493C872D7B2@microsoft.com...
    > Thanks for your all commenst guys
    > So if I resume, AMD process are not so bad they are even excellent
    >

    Yes, AMD processors are excellent. Every system that uses them may not be
    excellent.

    Kerry
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft AMD Windows XP