Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intels overpriced products bemusing!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2003 9:16:21 AM

Why are the AMD chips such a much more attractive deal than the current intel chips a going around. Intel have there celerons price to compete with AMDs XP range. From what i've heard the XP range is as good if not better than Intels top of the range chips. Is there something i'm missing or are intel charging a premium because they have a larger market share and can afford to, do they only need to add some hyper threading and a bogus FSB to double their price. Anyone!!

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
October 11, 2003 3:14:16 PM

I'm sure nobody cares.
October 11, 2003 3:28:28 PM

Although I deffinetely prefer AMD more than Intel, I beg the administrators to delete this topic. It's obvious this guy simply wants to start a flame war. Either that, or this guy lives in a world of its own.
Related resources
October 11, 2003 5:03:28 PM

Its intels marketing at their best. AMD just needs to kidnap their marketing crew and they would be in the big bucks too, however AMD chips would eventuall be overpriced too.

F-DISK-Format-Reinstal DO DA!! DO DA!!
October 11, 2003 6:59:15 PM

Quote:
From what i've heard the XP range is as good if not better than Intels top of the range chips.

Erm... Earth to rramjet? XPs faster than P4Cs? :eek: 

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 11, 2003 7:08:17 PM

Well the AMD-FX's are:) 

The one and only "Monstrous BULLgarian!"
October 11, 2003 7:36:46 PM

and they are fvcking expensive and need registered ecc ram.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
October 11, 2003 7:37:51 PM

What about hyperthreading?

What about intels bogus fsb? Doesn't amd do the same thing? I have explained this to you before...


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
October 11, 2003 9:13:17 PM

Yes, maybe, but they're overpriced as hell...
And: "FX" is not equal to "XP"... as he said.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 11, 2003 9:21:40 PM

Actually, the FX is priced according to its performance. If the P4 EE is sold for less money than the FX, then you can come saying that it is overpriced.
October 11, 2003 9:33:36 PM

by the time you buy a mobo and memory it costs the same as an ee system, if not more.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
October 11, 2003 9:37:41 PM

In Switzerland it's the 'low' price intels that are over-priced. A 2.4B costs 280 chf. the exact same amount as a 2800+ Barton. A 3.0C on the other hand is LESS expensive by a whole 100 chf than the 3200+ Barton.
A celeron 2.2 is more expensive than a 2400+ btw.

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>
October 11, 2003 9:37:56 PM

exactly. FX still requires a special mobo and registered memory... this will probably take its price to new heights.

Not a good time to buy the latest techs, I guess... they're overly expensive...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 11, 2003 9:39:20 PM

funny things can happen with these prices indeed... The 3.0C costing less than the 3200+ just shows what a waste of money the 3200+ Barton still is... And Celeron sucks, as always... :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 11, 2003 9:46:19 PM

Sure is. Especially since the 3000+ Barton is more than twice as cheap, and you should buy intel for high-end systems anyway.

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>
October 11, 2003 10:20:40 PM

Untill recently that is. Now you should wait untill things settle down before buying anything.

<font color=blue>
<i><font color=black>Faithless</font color=black></i> is he that says farewell when the road darkens.
J. R. R. Tolkien
</font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
October 11, 2003 11:17:19 PM

Bogus FSB was started by AMD. AMD invented it all the way back at the release of the first Slot-A Athlon, with a "200MHz FSB" running at 100MHz. Their lie was so successful Intel was forced to follow suit, as did memory makers.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
October 12, 2003 12:06:13 AM

I disagree that either FSB is bogus, since the advertized number is the effective clock rate. A "400 MHz" P4 FSB provides 4x the bandwidth of a "100 MHz" P3 FSB and 2x the bandwidth of a "200 Mhz" Athlon FSB and that is what matters IMO.
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2003 12:47:07 AM

Disagree all you want, Hz is a measurement of cycles per second of a wave. So MHz of a signal wire is a measurement of millions of wave cycles per second. Whenever MHz is used, it's not a performance equivalent, it's a quantified measurement of wave cycles. They don't call it QDR400 and DDR200, they call it 400MHz and 200MHz, which are both lies because those numbers aren't based on waves, and Hz is.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
October 12, 2003 1:08:50 AM

aha, this is something like interesting, can u explaine it in details please, i just wana now. ok i understand the mhz in cpu's , but the rams why its a lie?????????????????? i now that fsb 800mhz is not 800mhz but 800MT, but i didn't get the rest.
October 12, 2003 1:10:53 AM

please if u can explain it again, or link me to the post, cos i wana now more about that.
October 12, 2003 1:31:37 AM

you mean why do memory manufactuers lie about the speed given?

Probably because AMD did it and they just followed suite. The basis behind the "lie" is that ddr ram transfers 64bits per clock cycle while SDR sdram only transfers 32 bits per clock cycle. A dual channel ddr system transfers 128 bits per clock cycle.

So essentially ddr ram can transfer up to 2x more data than standard sdram so they inflate the clock speed by 2x. Amd increases their fsb rating by 2x (because they use a 64 bit front side bus, aka DDR) and intel icnreases their fsb rating by 4x because they use an 128bit fsb (aka QDR).


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2003 3:32:53 AM

Quote:
Amd increases their fsb rating by 2x (because they use a 64 bit front side bus, aka DDR) and intel icnreases their fsb rating by 4x because they use an 128bit fsb (aka QDR).


Hehe, remember the "per cycle" part. Also, modern processors have a 64-bit bus to the chipset. Except for the A64, which has a 64-bit bus direct to RAM, and the Opteron/A64 FX, which has a 128-bit bus direct to RAM.

But yes, 64 bits per cycle SDR, 128 bits per cycle DDR, 256 bits per cycle QDR. And then their's dual channel, to double DDR SDRAM from 64 to 128 bits wide, 256 bits per cycle. And dual channel for RDRAM...etc.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
October 12, 2003 4:26:41 AM

Lol, pitsi begging admin to delete a post, thats quite funny. Your a jerk pitsi, either that or you one of those real self important type, like no one cares what you think.

Anyway the FSB moves data two and from the cpu, i htink, so are some cpus limited by FSB and vise versa? Like the 2.4 400mhz vs the 2.4 800mhz intel chips. if the 800mhz version is not twice as fast is that due to the increased FSB not been utilzed 100%, my question being was the 2.4 being limited by the 400mhz FSB and if so then the XP range must be limited by there slower FSB. mmm i just reread that and im not sure it makes sense. Anyway my theory should see intel utilise the higher FSB more eficiently with faster chips, technically we should see twice the speed of the 2.4 400mhz out of the newer 800mhz chips, no!!

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
October 12, 2003 5:18:43 AM

I am the jerk? Hey [-peep-], in what world do you live?

Quote:
Why are the AMD chips such a much more attractive deal than the current intel chips a going around.

In my opinion, the most attractive chips right now are the 2.4c and the 2.6c which you can overclock to 3+GHz. Besides the 2500+ I don't see anything else "attractive" on AMD's site. So, explain this to me!

Quote:
Intel have there celerons price to compete with AMDs XP range.

Today at Newegg the 2800+ costs $185 and the 2.6c $205, offering the same performance in games and with the Pentium dominating in multimedia benchmarks.

Quote:
From what i've heard the XP range is as good if not better than Intels top of the range chips.

This is not some info you "hear" about, it's something you search by yourself. Anyway, go check THG benchmarks and come back again saying that the XPs are better than Intel's topo of the range chips. Hey, why don't you check the 3.2c Vs 3200+ review?


Now, if you said that about A64 is a whole different story but you are talking about Athlon XPs here. It's obvious that you lost your touch with reality! And I am sick and tired of Intel vs AMD topics. If you are so stupid that you are willing to spend your money on a product based on the label it carries and only that, then that's your own personal problem. You are probably one of those guys saying that the 2.4c is equal to the 2400+. Anyway, I couldn't really care less. It's your money, you do whatever you want with it.
October 12, 2003 5:54:22 AM

PIII_Man that's a false statement that Intel uses a 128-bit front side bus.

It's still 64-bit, with quad-pumping.

Let's do the math:
64-bit times 4= 256-bit. 32-bytes times 200MHZ clock= 6.4GB/sec for bus.

For DDR it's of course 128-bit or 2*64-bit DDR, thus 16-bytes times 200MHZ= 3.2GB/sec, times 2 for Dual-Channel.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 12, 2003 3:02:50 PM

Quote:
Disagree all you want, Hz is a measurement of cycles per second of a wave. So MHz of a signal wire is a measurement of millions of wave cycles per second. Whenever MHz is used, it's not a performance equivalent, it's a quantified measurement of wave cycles. They don't call it QDR400 and DDR200, they call it 400MHz and 200MHz, which are both lies because those numbers aren't based on waves, and Hz is.

I'm sorry, Crashman, but Hz is not at all limited to waves. It is not limited at all; it merely denotes frequency for <i>anything periodic</i>, i.e. anything that repeats itself! For instance, your car's engine is not a wave at all, yet you could write its rpm as: 60rpm = 1Hz. Therefore, if you say that it is an 800Mhz DATA bus (Intel does that in ads, I've checked), then this is by all means <i>not wrong at all</i>. In fact, it is strictly correct! Data gets transfered 800 million times every second! This <b>is correct</b>! Hz is only a measure of how often something occurs within a second.
Quote:
Whenever MHz is used, it's not a performance equivalent, it's a quantified measurement of wave cycles.

No. Whenever Mhz is used, it is of course not a performance equivalent, but rather a measurement of how often something happens. Nothing to do with waves, but waves are the most immediate application thereof.
Quote:
They don't call it QDR400 and DDR200, they call it 400MHz and 200MHz, which are both lies because those numbers aren't based on waves, and Hz is.

No, it's not. This is not a lie. 800Mhz Data Bus is fine.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 12, 2003 6:00:05 PM

I'd call you an idiot, rramjet... but I'm afraid I'd be insulting idiots if I did.

:smile:

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
October 12, 2003 6:18:40 PM

Thats very good zoron, what great wit you have.

If he doesn't die, he'll get help!!!
October 12, 2003 7:16:38 PM

Mephisto, that's why we use 800 <b>MT</b>.
If you state 800MHZ raw, you're lying in all aspects. The clock does not work 800 million times a second inside, it works with 800 million transfers, made by 200 million times of waves!

While I see some of your point on "data bus", I still can't be brought to agree. I feel Crash has the point all the way here. Unless you say 800MT, 800MHZ is a lie in itself.

Did you see now how it is used in GFX cards? Samsung outright stated in a press release "1GHZ of memory bandwidth"! Freaking lie! 500MHZ DDR! It does not run at all at a clock of 1 billion ticks.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/13/03 01:33 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 12, 2003 9:04:37 PM

Sorry, Eden. While you can't be brought to agree with me, I most certainly won't agree with you... 1Ghz data transfer bus is OK. 800Mhz Data bus is OK. Stop thinking that Hz has some sort of relation to a wave! It does not! Your heart usually beats at a frequency of around 1-2Hz, and I can assure you, there is no wave there. It's just something that repeats itself.

If you don't buy this, then I think I don't really care. The logistics through which the bus transfers data at a frequency of 800Mhz is completely irrelevant; the point is that it does tranfer data 800 000 000 times a second. And "800 000 000 times a second" is 800Mhz. You can't say no to this last statement.... can you?

The deal here is that Hz simply means "<i>times a second</i>". It does <b>not</b> mean "waves per second", or whatever. I realize how this must <i>feel</i> weird, but I guarantee, this is so. What about engine rpm? This can be given in Hz. Any frequency can.

I'm ranting a bit here, but this is why mathematically, frequency in [Hz] is equivalent to [1/s]. That's inverse time. Nothing to do with waves.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
a b à CPUs
October 12, 2003 9:50:41 PM

I agree! Except for the math, correctly 60RPM=1 cycle per second. But what you're refering to is frequency, and not all frequency is refered to in Hz. I'll accept your attempt to apply this term to the frequency of transfers. But even then it only serves to confuse people. How many people have you seen asking "Why can't my processor run at 266MHz bus? I can't seem to push the bus past 145MHz before my system locks up!"

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
October 12, 2003 10:08:44 PM

Quote:
Except for the math, correctly 60RPM=1 cycle per second.

Ouch! That's obviously what I mean. I'm very sorry about that! Funny mistake :lol:  . It has been corrected now.
Quote:
But even then it only serves to confuse people.

I'm very sorry about any confusion this may cause to the laymen (not us), but we can't oversimplify things beyond what they are. We cannot skew things so they become understandable to any laymen, if they lose their meaning in the process... This is my opinion, anyway.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 12, 2003 10:25:33 PM

eden was right, and he's not talking about waves here, what he wants to tell is that the fsb is 200mhz, and not 800mhz, so the transfer of data will run at 200mhz, that means 200million times a second, and with the case of intel pentium 4 c , this cpu is quad pumped, and can deliver four times the amount of data at the same time, but the frequency of it stills 200mhz, so it gives u 800MT, not 800MHZ (200mhz * 4times the data), for athlon XP , the cpu is dual pumped, so its 400MT not 400mhz.
I wish u got it.
October 13, 2003 12:39:38 AM

Ya i screwed up i relised a couple of my numbers are a little off because as crashman said i forgot the per physical clock cycle part.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
October 13, 2003 2:08:52 AM

Yeah intels products are steep, but high end AMD chips arnt exactly cheap either.

Gone are the days it seems of the amazing price wars.

I would like to update my epox 8K3A+ (KT333) mobo with a XP3000+ or something similar... but they cost just too much!

Hopefully after christmas the A64/FX will become more common, and push down the prices of the older XP chippies.
Im trying to keep my mobo compeditive for as long as possible before i have to do my next major upgrade.

<b>I am not a AMD fanboy.
I am not a Via fanboy.
I am not a ATI fanboy.
I AM a performance fanboy.
And a low price fanboy. :smile:
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
October 13, 2003 5:41:52 AM

I did not state waves nor made it to be related to it, but because Hz in electronics like processors works with waves, then yes we go by it.

You should know by now that the way pumping ratio works is that on each clock WAVE, the data is transfered 4 times. Therefore YES there is 800 million transfers, but there is NOT 800 million waves carrying data. Not when 4 ride per clock. On the DDR side, it was on the rise and fall of the clock.

I think you're wrong here. Most sites have shown it, very well in fact with graphs. You have physically 200 million beats, where each beat contains 4 or 2 packs of data. Running at a true 800MHZ would be disastrous for EMI and other electrical problems.

Again Samsung did not even specify data bus (to my recollection), they simply said it ran at a clock speed of 1000MHZ or 1GHZ. That's an outright lie no matter what. It runs an effective 1GHZ speed, but NOT a real 1GHZ clock.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 13, 2003 5:45:31 AM

Quote:
The deal here is that Hz simply means "times a second". It does not mean "waves per second", or whatever. I realize how this must feel weird, but I guarantee, this is so. What about engine rpm? This can be given in Hz. Any frequency can.

Now this thing I can understand. And yes I DO SEE YOUR POINT about DATA BUS at 800MHZ and you are right on the fact Hz has just a "times per second" reference.

But why would then Intel or anyone attempt to create TWO KINDS of Hertz measurements for their CPUs? Why do sites like THG specify that the hardware does not run at a 400MHZ but 200MHZ DDR? (take Lars' graphics cards articles for example). This isn't right and it's why I wholeheartedly disagree with the industry's marchitecture on this and the way they sometimes even LIE. Putting two kinds is not logical. To me it has always been that the usual Hz kind used is in reference to waves. Using 800MHZ only puts you in the markitecture sucker. Hate to see that. The bus still runs at 200MHZ clock speed but transfers 4 times per clock.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/13/03 01:52 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 13, 2003 11:25:13 AM

No one is lying. 800 MHz datarate FSB is a perfectly valid description, and it is much more telling to a layman than a "200 MHz QDR bus". Its both common practice in the industry, its reasonable and technicaly correct, so what is the point of bashing it ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 13, 2003 2:48:50 PM

Since it is not physically 800mhz it is decieving, wheather or not to the end consumer it is a good thing, i really cant say, however many of my freinds look at the athlon and see 400mhz fsb and say ugh! but really the archetectures are so diffrent you cannot compare the fsbs of an athlon to a p4 anyhow.


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
October 13, 2003 4:41:48 PM

I have to say i agree with eden on this. The reference of Hz is how many clock cycles the chip has per second. This is irrelevent to how the technology works to transfer data 2 or 4 times per clock cycle. If intels fsbs can work 4x per clock cycle that is great, but it is 800 mhz effective (even using that effective is debatable), not actual. That distinction is important. The fact is, the processor cycles a certain number of time per second, and that is its mHz rating.
With that said, i think it is okay at time for intel and amd and memory manufacturers to use this "lying" system. For the average person, (not us here) they do not need to know the inner workings of the technology, just the final result. In this case, they do not need to know that p4c buses actually cycle 200 times a second, just that they can provide 6.4 GBps of bandwidth, which is an <b> effective</b> 800 mhz. Same with ddr ram. THis is just another problem that has been encountered (hdd manufacturers anyone?) by people making uninformed decicions about computers. The average person who knows about this 800mhz bus thinks they understand how it works, but since they are not really knowladgeable about it, it is up to the hardware manufacturers to compensate for the end user's lack of understanding.
October 13, 2003 6:16:59 PM

You guys realize we're just talking semantics here, right? :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
October 13, 2003 6:25:02 PM

Mephisto, if there is one gripe I have with you is that you're a mood swinger all the time.

Your reply to me featured a lot of "indifference" and some grumpiness. Later on you start with smileys. This isn't the first time you did that. You did that to Flamethrower as well, and once he explained himself on his quantum physics studies, you were all smiley faced. This isn't though like people who jump on uninformed though, don't mix the two scenarios (I'm guilty of doing that hehe)!

It's not to insult you or anything. I have much respect for you and consider you a great forum resident, but when you get grumpy and moody sometimes on people who never had anything against you, it becomes just a tad depressing!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 13, 2003 6:28:44 PM

This is just what I was trying to say.

We have always measured computer components by their clock speed in Hz, therefore the amount of beats. Physically the bus has 200 million beats. I would never accept a new system measurng on megatransfers. That would mean even processor clock speed itself may need to change to become something like IPC*Clock, if you get what I mean.

That's all I wanted to debate. That sometimes they even use it as the real physical MHZ and that is a lie, or sometimes they just switch to their own system of "semantics", which is just confusing to everyone. It's an annoyance having to sidetrack from standards.

And I do agree though with Mephisto's Hz explanation as well as the 800MHZ Data bus, but I've explained why it isn't a good thing to be used. It's also debatable in my eyes as well, like the "effective" claim. We need one standard, and it's waves per second or beats PS, for computer components.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
October 13, 2003 6:33:23 PM

Heck, I see it more cool to say "200MHZ Quad-Pumped" in adds! :smile:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
October 14, 2003 9:55:28 AM

>Since it is not physically 800mhz it is decieving

It is 800 MHz "physically" depending what "it" refers to. If "it" refers to data transfers, then it is correct, even physically. If "it" refers to clockcycles, then it isnt. For RAM memory or FSB's, its datatransfers per second that matter, clock is pretty much irrelevant, so I don't see the problem. Consider this; if someone makes a FSB that run at 10 GHz, but only transfers data every twelve clockcycles, would you consider it usefull to call this a 10 GHz bus ?

One more thing, older 486 and pentium boards generated their clock from a 37 Khz crystal (Im not sure how it works these days). So, should these have been referred to as 37 Khz cpu's with 37 Khz fsb's, just because they used some multiplicator to generate different dataspeeds ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
October 14, 2003 2:50:16 PM

If that were the case we would call current systems 14.7mhz systems, because all current systems use a 14.7xxx mhz Crystal to give the refrence frequency to their PLL. This is a bad analogy because this frequency has nothing to do with data transfer, it is just a refrence clock.

I just think it is deceiving, what is so bad about saying a 256 bit 200mhz bus. In terms of data transfer frequency alone is a very deceiving number, it is like stating horsepower on a car without the rpm at which it was atained. True intel/amd/memory manufactuers are not really lying but i just see it as unnecissary and purley marketing (wow factor).


If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
October 14, 2003 4:27:04 PM

Indeed.

Heck, saying 800MHz data bus to me now sounds a bit uncomplete. It can represent perhaps the "Data" bus, inclining there is an "Instruction" bus, if you get what I mean. It could mean other things really.

To me it would have to be "800MHZ <b>of</b> Data" bus to make sense. Then saying 800 million actions of data works pretty well like MT.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/14/03 12:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 15, 2003 4:15:34 PM

Quote:
grumpy and moody sometimes on people who never had anything against you

Hm... maybe you're right. I'll consider what you said. I think it has to do with technical things... I might get a little moody with that. So I'll try to be less pedantic... Sorry if I offended anyone! :smile:

<i>Oh, and I guess I swing moods whenever not even I can't handle my own grumpiness... then I just say, "hey, let's take a break" and such...</i>

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
!