Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

IBM's new G5 CPU

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 25, 2003 2:52:01 PM

I just saw two realworld demos where the new top-of-the-line PowerMac ($3,000) stomped the best top-of-the-line Dell ($4,000). And I mean STOMPED. I can't wait to see what info Thomas Pabst can put together on this! I love Tom's Hardware!

More about : ibm cpu

June 25, 2003 3:40:55 PM

Mac are useless overpriced junk, sorry but it's true. Name one thing you can do on a Mac a PC cannot do. Most if not all programs have their equivalent on PC.
Related resources
June 25, 2003 5:26:16 PM

Name just one thing an Apple PC can do that any non-Apple PC can't? That's as easy as breathing. I left the non-Apple PC world two years ago. Here are a few of the things my Macs can do that non of my other machines could: Non of my Macs have ever shutdown improperly. I have never seen the blue screen of death. I have never had the mouse cursor hang or vanish. Two years going, and I haven't had a single system crash on either my iBook or Flat- panel iMac. In the end, it is very simple: On the Macs I spend time getting work done. On my non-Apple PCs I spend time working on keeping them running. Oh yeah, no registry! I sure am glad that nightmare is over. Also, my iBook cost less than the last non-Apple laptop I bought and the Flat-panel iMac I bought cost less than the last non-Apple PC desktop that I bought. . . . but you just wanted one thing didn't you . .. sorry, had to share.
June 25, 2003 5:44:07 PM

Funny. None of my PCs have shut down improperly in over three years, and one of them runs 24/7/52. None of them have crashed in that time either. I have never seen the BSOD on these systems. I have never had the mouse cursor hang or vanish. And both of these PCs cost about half of the price of an equally-performing and featured Mac.

ulfhednar, I don't know where you shop, but here in the <i>real</i> world we can configure PCs that are stable with relative ease and you get a <i>lot</i> more performance and features than an equally-priced Mac.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 25, 2003 5:46:58 PM

Quote:
Mac are useless overpriced junk, sorry but it's true. Name one thing you can do on a Mac a PC cannot do. Most if not all programs have their equivalent on PC.

Just a month ago I would have fully agreed. However with the G5 this will do a LOT to put Macs back on line with PCs.

They'll still cost a a lot more than an equivalent PC, but at least now they will get the same performance and features for that insanely high price. ;) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 25, 2003 5:55:09 PM

things I don't like about macs:
1. keyboard is too small (typing on a G3 right now - my hand is cramping up)
2. mouse also hurts my hand and only has one button
3. monitor takes up way to much room
4. designed to look pretty instead of be the most functional it can be
5. I can't build my own mac
6. I can't play all the games I want to play on a mac
7. For an equally performing mac (vs a pc) I'm going to have to spend more money
8. I can't easily update all of the hardware on a mac (kind of goes along with the fact that I can't build one)
9. mac lies
10. even though OS X looks cool (and seems to be stable) it wastes valuable clock cycles "looking neat-o"

that is about all I have for now - while windows has its problems (I'll be the first to admit that - I really hate it) I find it much easier to use and navigate around. If linux had the driver and gaming support that windows does I would be using that. The best thing I can say about a Mac is the OS - it seems to be pretty solid but I don't see much else that I like. When my PC starts to get old I can update a few parts for maybe 400 bucks and have an up-to-date rig without much waste (can probably build another cheaper PC with leftover parts) but when a MAC gets old I would be left with a teal and clear plastic paperweight.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 25, 2003 6:00:19 PM

I also find this to be generally true. The only time my PC becomes unstable is when I do something dumb because I'm trying to do something that the ordinary user wouldn't do. I'm working on breaking this G3 right now - I'll keep you guys updated.

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 25, 2003 6:03:58 PM

11. if i'm clicking and dragging its hard because its like the whole mouse is one button so if I run out of space and have to lift up the mouse it takes some talent to hold that button down. Who engineered this stuff??

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 25, 2003 8:32:40 PM

Yes. I mean, Mercedes are safer than Toyotas after all, too, right? They just cost 3 times as much, that's all. So I guess if you've got that kind of money to blow, knock yourself out. And they look so nice.

And if anything goes wrong and needs to be fixed with that overpriced hunk of metal, you have to go crawling back to the dealer whose going to take a look at what your credit limit is before he turns you over and takes whatever he wants. Super!!!

I'm pretty sure that not that many people who are interested in getting a good power vs. cost deal are going out to buy overpriced/underperforming Dells anyway.

What is it with Mac people who have to bash the pc hardware platform. If it's Windows you don't like, then just use your Mac and be happy.

I think the smartest thing Steve Jobs could ever do is port the OS over to fully compliant pc hardware. I even read an article the other day mentioning that apple executives have been putting pressure on him for some time to do so. I was a strictly mac user for years until I realized that I was getting a *little bit* easier to use software with hardware performance that just didn't compare for the price. Imagine if you could get a 3.2 P4 setup with all the trimmings and then be able to toss on either a Mac OS or a Windows OS. That would be attractive to me. Especially if the software I like to use was available/compatible on either.

It also seems to amaze me that Maczealots don't take into consideration what some else said, that basically Mac has a monopoly on the chip and the OS (and the hardware to a certain extent). Can you imagine what it would be like if one company controlled both the PC chip and the PC OS market exclusively? Well there wouldn't be very much pressure to evolve, compete, and drive down prices, would there? Wait! It's Mac.

hoosierdaddy?
June 26, 2003 4:01:35 AM

Yep, since Windows XP, I haven't had blue screens of death, improper shutdowns or loss of cursor, etc. Those were common with Windows 98, but looks like that stuff is mostly a thing of the past.
-Brett
June 26, 2003 4:39:14 AM

ALL LIES!!! Macs are the worthless hunks of junk that are the source of all evil on this planet. Several weeks ago I had to transfer video from a vhs to a dvd and a few cd's. I don't have a tv in, but my friend who does video editing does, but he uses a mac. Fine, these things are supposed to be all stable and user friendly, right? They are SO user friendly that they don't allow you to do anything. When I want to set a system setting, there's no option cause apparently mac users shouldn't be allowed to change their system settings, cause I mean, who needs to tailor their comp to their needs, right? Next, the POS (o, it's a G4 btw, running the a bunch of os's from 9.0 to os X) managed to crash three times, yes ladies and gentlemen, not one, not two, but three motherfarking times while I was transferring the video. [-peep-] editing video on that, too slow and unstable. Great, I'll just zip the uncompressed files, save $15 by burning the zipped files onto cd instead of DVD right? Wrong. The first zipping program I downloaded crashed the comp twice when I tried to run it. Next. That crashed it too. At this point the vein on my forehead and neck was bulging quite a bit, so I went outside for a few mins to beat the hell out of a tree and buy dvd's. Came back, burned em after 2 crashes, o, and of course my favorite part- it had to check the files 3 times, not once, 3 times. You have any idea how long that takes???? And of course there was no way to disable that option. So a burning operation that should have taken 30 mins tops took 2 hours. In conclusion, an operation that was supposed to take 2-2.5 hours took 8.5 hours because of idiocy, stupidity, inanity, foolishness, foolhardiness, and an overall lack of common sense on Apple's part. You will never make me touch a hunk of junk like that again, except with a hammer or a chainsaw.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 26, 2003 5:09:30 AM

You guys are all fanboys. I'm really interested to see how this thing does. It would be nice if Apple was competative again.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 5:16:34 AM

Hey, if the thing performs well in fpu, I'd be all for it, as long as it's not on a mac os.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 26, 2003 5:50:39 AM

See the thing is that I used a Mac for 11 years and I never ever had a problem with them. Ever. I only moved to the PC platform since games were becoming limited for the Mac. So when someone like you or the guy who wrote the article at amdzone starts going off, I immediately think "fanboy". In his case he was just a bitter person, in your case I'm not so sure you really WANT to use a mac. People complaining about stupid things like the mouse are just not used to it. Do you guys have any idea how ridiculous I found the 2 or 3 button mouse at first? I constantly was wondering why they needed more than one button to do exactly what I could do with one button. Now I think I'd have just as hard a time going back to one button.

Me moving to the PC was a step backwards. Yes it was really fun to have a bunch of games to play, but can you imagine my horror when I had to use Win98? I couldn't believe the crap that I had to go through. That computer crashed so much that any sane person would have gone back to the Mac...if it wasn't for the lack of games. And then can you imagine my horror when they release what they call an improved OS only to find out it's WinME? Or what about the hoards of AOL users that made up the PC internet world? Come on everyone, raise your hand if you were using AOL back in 1995. Yeah, that's what I thought: All of you. The PC wasn't that great for me until I learned to take it apart and play with it. Thus, why I'm here.

Granted I have no plans to go back to the Mac, but if they became competative it would be good for all of us. I realize that I can't speak on behalf of Macintosh computers over the last handfull of years, but I feel that I have enough time with them to be able to say that they made damn good computers. I like WinXP, but it nonetheless has little issues here and there. For example my explorer.exe task is always trying to hog up all the cpu cycles. It's slowing the computer to a crawl. I never had problems like that with a Mac.

Do I need to go on, or do you want to judge the macintosh based on your measly 8.5 hours?

Stop being fanboys and pray that they do well. We need Apple to be competative.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 7:01:18 AM

It's funny that you would call everyone who doesn't share your opinion fanboys. Practically everything you've presented was a subjective experience. Unless you have some emperical data to back it up. And your attitude implies you're perfectly willing to deem WinXP "inferior" to the great MacOS's (even though OS 7-9 had worse memory management than even win95, and that's saying something). Behind every person who praises the Mac is someone who likes it because of subjective reasons (the pretty colors, the sounds, who knows) and then turns around and makes fun of people who don't like it for the same reasons.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
June 26, 2003 7:08:16 AM

Apple will only be competitive when they get rid of Jobs, lower their prices, and allow people to make clones (or even build their own) again.

I like Macs too, but I hate the prices and the way Apple uses lies and anti-PC propaganda as its main marketing strategy.
June 26, 2003 7:17:01 AM

DH, this hasn't been my one experience with macs, this was just the most recent. Yes it was full of aggrivation, but when u've got finals, a paper, and a project all due in 2 days and u expect something to go smoothly as it would on my pc and it doesn't and wastes a day, well you're ready to kill things. From previous experience where I had to fix macs and use em (again some were for video editing and it kept crapping up as well as on other tasks) I just find they are worse than when I config my own comp. I'll spend several hours if necessary tweaking windows this way and that, but I'll get it right so it won't crash. Using win98 I could go a year+ w/o crashing. Then I discovered win2k and xp and they don't need much tweaking to work nicely. Simply put, macs r slow and their os is unstable though it claims stability while the attempts to make it user friendly have turned into a horror where many of the customizeable options one has on pc are not there. To me that makes a worthless computer.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 26, 2003 7:31:49 AM

I have many years on both platforms. Calling one a peice of shite is simply not true.

I have never seen a single person on Earth who could go a year or more on Win98 without crashing. I don't even think Crashman would claim that.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 8:49:46 AM

i dont get why people always complain about win98.. ive been using it for years now and apart from one oc experiment that went wrong and one dead hdd i dont recall a single crash, freeze, restart or bsod. i dont tweak the os ive never needed to just install it and off it goes. maybe im one of the lucky ones *shrug*...
June 26, 2003 1:18:52 PM

I <i>like</i> windows 98. It lets you fiddle with what you want, and is quite happily stable once you've got it all set up.

Oh, and just to add my voice: I hate Macs too. They're for girls and stoned art students, more concerned with how their computer looks on the desk than whether it even works.... :lol: 

Just bored, thought I'd try and annoy some people.... :smile:

---
:smile: :tongue: :smile:
June 26, 2003 2:06:31 PM

One big advantage of a Mac over a IBM clone is the resale value!

Pris

I'm not a number, I'm a free man! :mad: 
June 26, 2003 2:21:33 PM

Just personal opinion, I am afraid that Macs are just expensive toys for the riches like Ferrari. It looks good and have good performance but for the price you pay you could buy many NSX or GTR, etc.
June 26, 2003 2:26:41 PM

No right-clicking = Death for me.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 26, 2003 2:29:28 PM

It's even worse when I tried a day at my college in 3d Rendering. It took an eternity to render.

And when asked if they ever will upgrade their comps, they told me (the faculty) they were out of budget.
HINT HINT
Seriously, these things cost 5000$ CDN. If they chose a PC, they could build 2 computers using DUAL PROCESSORS from Intel's best, and we could achieve twice the speed the current Macs are rendering at. I find this sad.
If you need to pay 5000$ CDN just to know how to open Internet Explorer with no searching on your desktop, you are a serious idiot.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 26, 2003 2:32:41 PM

MAC OSX is nice. I won't deny it. It's a very advanced OS interface and I lieked it a lot.
But when it came to searching inside, I felt like you cannot access your computer's private data. I cannot stand such environment. In Windows I can find anything, from system data to registry info and be able to have it work MY WAY.

The HARD NEWS on THG <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html#084532" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html#084532&...;/A>
shows just how much Apple is now turning into the nVidia and ATi battle, immature claims, utter lies.
The PC industry has really sunk. Omid, RANT!

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 26, 2003 3:10:02 PM

Geeze dhlucke, you really have one hell of a chip on your shoulder. Perhaps you should learn to not generalize so much. The word 'all' encompasses everyone you know...

Quote:
You guys are all fanboys. I'm really interested to see how this thing does. It would be nice if Apple was competative again.

<i>All?</i> Uh huh. That's why I've been saying things like "<i>However with the G5 this will do a LOT to put Macs back on line with PCs.</i>", because I'm a fanboy.

Quote:
Come on everyone, raise your hand if you were using AOL back in 1995. Yeah, that's what I thought: All of you.

Again, <i>all</i> of us? Besides the fact that anyone under eight years old can't even fit into 'all' without having done some time travel, there is also the fact that in 1995 <i>I</i> wasn't even on the internet. For the first half of the year I was still using local BBSs, most of which were run by friends. For the second half of the year I was in the military and never even saw another modem again until the summer of '96 when I bought my Pentium 133 box.

Quote:
I have never seen a single person on Earth who could go a year or more on Win98 without crashing. I don't even think Crashman would claim that.

I've had my Celeron 500 box running Win98SE for almost two years straight now without so much as a crash, BSOD, or shutdown problem. It has good drivers. (Despite being mostly comprised of crap hardware.) It has a more than adequate power supply. It has great cooling for it's heat output. (Even if I did have to drill holes in the case and cut away a little plastic for the front intake fan because the case was crap and had no place for a front fan.) It has been one of the most stable PCs that I've ever owned.

And before that my Pentium 133 box was incredibly stable for years and years too. Except for when playing Earthsiege (which had a bug in it that would occasionally reboot a PC no matter what OS it ran under) it never had any BSODs or crashes when it ran DOS6 or Win95b. The only problems that I ever had with it was it stopping in the middle of a shutdown, which didn't really matter since it was before shutting down turned the PC off on it's own, so I always had to manually power it down anyway. It's a shame that the hardware finally deteriorated into multiple components breaking down and it becoming a waste of money to keep running.

But basically nine out of ten of the problems that I've ever helped people with regarding 'Windows' instability is actually either bad drivers, an insufficient or flaky power supply, insufficient cooling, or dust buildup. And none of those have anything to do with M$'s OS. They're hardware and firmware problems. Windows itself has been a pretty stable product.

Quote:
Don't put words in my mouth.

Why not? You put words into our mouths. Turnabout is fair play.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 26, 2003 4:18:03 PM

No right click means u either have to go to the menus and select from there or hold down some mac key till it activates right click. No thanks- that costs me an extra 15 seconds every time I need to do something.

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 26, 2003 4:21:46 PM

I have 4 buttons and a wheel on both my work mouse and the one I use at home, and yes, I do use ALL of them. I'd go insane with only the one button.

---
:smile: :tongue: :smile:
June 26, 2003 4:25:48 PM

Quote:
Windows itself has been a pretty stable product.


I find it amazing how in a Macintosh thread everyone suddenly has flawless installations of Win98.

Their OS's were not good until Win2000 and WinXP. Even then it took some time for Win2000 to become mature enough to use since there were no drivers in the begining.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
June 26, 2003 5:47:20 PM

indeed - no right-clicking does = death...drives me insane

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 26, 2003 6:00:22 PM

i'll take win98 over a mac anyday, Macs are soooo expensive. And slow....and ppl use Internet explorer and office on mac anyway so what's the point ?
June 26, 2003 6:01:44 PM

how similar is the ibm proc that is in the G5 to an intel or AMD product?

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 26, 2003 6:52:04 PM

Not similar at all, the G5 processor is basically a cut down version of a strictly server processor
June 27, 2003 9:15:54 AM

win98 is a stable os.. just becuse you may have had problems with drivers or hardware that you couldnt trace doesnt mean it was the os. i tried winxp for6 months and a few months ago i switched back to 98se. why? because winxp wasnt as stable 98se IN MY OPINION.
June 27, 2003 9:57:24 AM

yeah - my experience of XP is the same. Although I have mostly used it on Compaq Pcs, so it's probably more the pc than the os..

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.
June 28, 2003 5:19:35 AM

<A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/eyeonwinhec/64bita..." target="_new">END OF 2003</A> So what does this mean for Athlon 64? Opteron is not a desktop processor, no one is running out to buy them. That <A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296" target="_new">linked article</A> is a joke right?

The article wreaks of BS, Windows 64bit 2003 is <A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com/catalog/display.asp?subid=22&s..." target="_new">available now</A>, it does not support Opteron. Read above link and it tells you that SP1 will have the 64 bit enhancements for Athlon 64 and Opteron. <A HREF="http://www.amdzone.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1296" target="_new">Here it is spelled out.</A>

AMD Zone known for such well written crap?

<b>"Granted I dont own a P4. But I read enough stuff and waste enough time on forums newsgroups IRC and computer news sites that I proberly know more then if I DID own a P4." -vk2amv</b>
June 28, 2003 5:41:07 AM

how you doin, haven't seen ya in some time. Man, this amd sh!t with the bs pr system is turning me off from them. I'm beginning to reconsider the dual to quad hammer system setup as well to be honest. Need a great fpu tho...

All the things I really like to do are either illegal, immoral, or fattening.
June 28, 2003 9:11:04 AM

Win98 is not stable. Win98se is a lot better, but it is still not stable. I hear that the lite version is a bit better but I haven't tried it. WinME is a joke. WinXP Pro is stable. It's not perfect, but it is stable. Same goes for Win2000.

Hey, we're all here to give our opinions. I'm sorry that you couldn't get WinXP to work on your system. I've gotten it to work on every system I've installed it. I only had to go back to Win98se on one system since the damn printer didn't have any drivers that would work in XP. Canon decided that they wouldn't support the printer and the 2000 or hacked drivers on the net didn't work for me. Oh well. I wasn't about to buy a new printer just because of the OS.


<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=38..." target="_new"><font color=red>dhlucke's system</font color=red></A>

<font color=blue>GOD</font color=blue> <font color=red>BLESS</font color=red> <font color=blue>AMERICA</font color=blue>
June 28, 2003 3:32:29 PM

Get an Itanium 2!
You got money no?
I heard the next compiler has excellent x86-32 (IA32) support so you can try to run the 32-bit apps in there and use the world's most powerful FPU at your hands.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 28, 2003 3:35:51 PM

Apple crippled the P4 systems to come out on top. Just skip past all the AMD biased crap.
Quote:
The article wreaks of BS, Windows 64bit 2003 is available now, it does not support Opteron. Read above link and it tells you that SP1 will have the 64 bit enhancements for Athlon 64 and Opteron. Here it is spelled out.

I <i>think</i> they meant that 64-bit support for Opteron is in a beta version of 64-Bit Windows Server 2003; not that 64-Bit Windows Server 2003 is in beta. Perhaps I'm giving them too much credit though.
June 28, 2003 3:56:43 PM

it not a compiler but a emulator.Most of Risc base corp were working on emulator for the machine alpha and HP was trying to reach a level of 80% of native code.Now bolt are working on for IA-64.The point is for smaller workstation will be able there primary software on native mode and run the rest of there software at a good speed but a IA-64 OS will be need and driver for IA-64 will be need.

They dont have reach yet the ability to go down much in the market.

If the itanium team cannot reach manufacturing process equal of XEON there doom to stay at server market all thee life.ON 0.65 they should make transition about at the same time that were intel got it chance they cannot keep 8 team running.

The intersing part is Itanium 2 core is 70% (excluding IA-32 converter) of size of willimete but have 6 ALU and 4 FPU 2 load 2 store and larger L1.Maybe 15% must be add for SMT purpose

[-peep-] french
June 30, 2003 10:18:24 AM

i did get winxp to work on my system.. it just didnt feel as solid as 98se. the odd program would hang internet explorer would crash watever.. altho i never got a fatal crash that needed a reboot these irritating little probs turned me off xp. im sorry you cant get win98se to work on your system but i have installed it on countless machines and never been called back once for anything more than routine maintenence ie defragging etc
lets just agree to differ on this one ok. u like xp i like 98se. leave it at that
June 30, 2003 7:59:07 PM

Wow and I thought AMD fanboys were the worst to grace the Earth! :eek: 

Mac fanboys need to die, IMO, they have no reason to live based on such comments.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 30, 2003 8:01:30 PM

I think the AMD fanboy desperation level is at about a 3 while the MAC fanboy desperation level is at about a 10 so the behavior follows accordingly....

"Don't question it!!!" - Err
June 30, 2003 8:12:43 PM

Unbelievable trash.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 30, 2003 10:26:57 PM

Sadly, I agree. I've learned something here.

Honey, what's that smell? Don't bother me now I'm working on my computer! OOPS!
July 1, 2003 1:30:35 AM

What have you learned? (aside from AMD fanboys sounding like a feather compared to the Apple fanboys)

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
!