 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
About Prescott... Prescott is being designed to be 64-bit (using x86-64), but Intel doesn't want everyone knowing about it. |
So how do you know?
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Intel doesn't want the market to adopt x86-64, and instead wants them to wait a couple years and ditch x86 completely and use Intel's new IA-64 (which the Intel Itanium and Itanium 2 chips use). So depending how "vital" they see 64-bit consumer chips at the time it comes out, they may or may not enable it. |
Prescott, as far as I can tell, is your basic FUD. Intel is basically saying, "Hey lookie here, we have this CPU here that is way better than that pathetic AMD Hammer. Way, way better. What? You want specs? None can do, it is top secret. Sorry."
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The main problem is AMD's upcoming Hammer series of chips run x86-64, which would mean Intel would have a 32-bit consumer chip for 1-2 years while AMD had a 64-bit on the market. (Note that 64-bit isn't inherently faster than 32-bit, it just supports larger system RAM and integer precision, which Intel argues isn't needed for the desktop yet) |
What have you been smoking? Given that all else is the same, with a data path twice the size twice as much data can be moved in the same amount of time, giving better peformance at the same clock speed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
So how do you know? |
Because it's been leaked. It's called Yamhill. Intel is now trying to cover it by officially "canceling" the project, but it doesn't take much to see they'd continue doing it because it's not difficult to add to the existing core (minimal increase in die size), and if they gambled incorrectly they'd give the market away to AMD. They'll still keep it as a backup plan.
quote:
Prescott, as far as I can tell, is your basic FUD. Intel is basically saying, "Hey lookie here, we have this CPU here that is way better than that pathetic AMD Hammer. Way, way better. What? You want specs? None can do, it is top secret. Sorry."
|
The specs have been leaked, just like Hammer's. Hammer is far closer to release (by at least 4 months), but Prescott's specs are generally accepted to be 800MHz system bus, 1MB L2 cache (or more), and Yamhill, as well as SMT (which is already in all P4s, just not enabled, and is allowed to be enabled in P4 Xeons).
quote:
What have you been smoking? Given that all else is the same, with a data path twice the size twice as much data can be moved in the same amount of time, giving better peformance at the same clock speed. |
The data paths have already been wide enough for up to 80-bit numbers in the CPUs. SSE2 can handle 64-bit floats, x87 can handle up to 80-bit floats. Adding "64-bit compatibility" to a chip just means increasing memory addressability and increasing integer precision from 32 to 64-bits. In this case they also did some other modifications to try to fix lots of x86's shortcomings (ie, more registers), but those are all trivially added and don't result in performance increases in and of themselves.
Just because a couple integer data paths go from 32 to 64-bits doesn't change the fact that the ALUs don't process 32-bit numbers in pairs, so when dealing with those 32-bit ints you're only using half of the data pipe. It's a fact of life. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The problem is using x86-64 is the cheap/lazy way to go about getting 64-bit chips. x86 is way too old, and huge chunks of modern x86 processors exist just to get around the limitations of x86 itself. It was never meant to last this long, and technology has advanced so much that we need a clean break from x86 (IMO). |
It's not that the x86 is way too old but it is an inherent problem with CISC machines. AFAIK, there is no special problems to this particular instruction set.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Intel and HP spent the last ten years developing something called IA-64, which is a totally and completely new instruction set and design philosophy that actually significantly outperforms Apple's G4 at the same clockrate (the 1GHz Itanium 2s score 8-10x higher in the SPEC benchmarks than Apple's G4). |
Correction: HP has abandoned development of EPIC for something like 5 years.
Correction 2: VLIW is not a new design philosophy. It really is just modified RISC architecture.
Just curious though, by supporting EPIC, are you admitting that RISC is superior to CISC?
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The problem is, the technology is still being "perfected" in the high end server and workstation market, and it's not expected to trickle down to the consumer market for a couple more years. |
There are two big problems. One, Intel created a monster that not even it can control in the form of x86. There is just way too much invested in software and hardware to break away from it.
Think COBOL. It was supposed to last for 5 or 10 years only. Five decades later, it is still widely used.
The second problem is with the ubercompilers that Itanic relies upon. They don't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It is also pretty slow emulating old x86 programs right now, which is a main problem for consumer PCs as well. |
This is not a big problem. Most people just won't notice because of the excessive power current Wintel boxes have.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
AMD lost $9M in that same period.
Intel made $936M in that same period. 
AMD doesn't have much of an idea on how to run a business. It's a shame, really, since they finally have decent engineers. |
Poor form. Most businesses lose money during lean periods. That doesn't mean anything.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
Monolith,
Entirely possible.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Because it's been leaked. It's called Yamhill. Intel is now trying to cover it by officially "canceling" the project, but it doesn't take much to see they'd continue doing it because it's not difficult to add to the existing core (minimal increase in die size), and if they gambled incorrectly they'd give the market away to AMD. They'll still keep it as a backup plan. |
Sure it has been "leaked," that is one way of making disinformation look official. We have all seen this haven't we? It is not unusal for a company to arrange for certain information to be carefully "leaked."
Certainly it doesn't surprise me that Intel has a backup plan just in case EPIC doesn't work out.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
The specs have been leaked, just like Hammer's. Hammer is far closer to release (by at least 4 months), but Prescott's specs are generally accepted to be 800MHz system bus, 1MB L2 cache (or more), and Yamhill, as well as SMT (which is already in all P4s, just not enabled, and is allowed to be enabled in P4 Xeons). |
Hammer is now officially out. You can find out the specs easily.
As for SMT, it can be interesting but the benefits are highly theoretical for Wintel boxes since the systems weren't designed around it. Neither was P4, as a matter of fact. Glueing on extra pieces isn't going to work well, if at all.
Windows needs also be modifed.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Just because a couple integer data paths go from 32 to 64-bits doesn't change the fact that the ALUs don't process 32-bit numbers in pairs, so when dealing with those 32-bit ints you're only using half of the data pipe. It's a fact of life. |
You are right if all the ALU's are fully utilised every clock cycle. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. The main problem with fast CPUs nowadays is the ALU's sit idle waiting for data (both opcodes and oprands) to arrive. Going with a 64-bit wide data bus goes a long way of solving the problem.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Correction: HP has abandoned development of EPIC for something like 5 years. |
They did?
http://www.hp.com/products1/itanium/
quote:
Correction 2: VLIW is not a new design philosophy. It really is just modified RISC architecture.
Just curious though, by supporting EPIC, are you admitting that RISC is superior to CISC? |
RISC is superior to CISC, it's time to move away from CISC. CISC had its heyday. Modern CISC CPUs become RISC after they spend 1-2 pipeline stages decoding the CISC instructions into RISC-esque micro-ops anyway, that's the only reason they're fast.
quote:
There are two big problems. One, Intel created a monster that not even it can control in the form of x86. There is just way too much invested in software and hardware to break away from it.
Think COBOL. It was supposed to last for 5 or 10 years only. Five decades later, it is still widely used. |
This would be a problem if IA-64 could not run x86 code. Alas, it can, just not very fast (for now). When Intel moves it to the desktop, you can bet on them having equivalent x86 performance to the top end x86 chips, as well as supporting IA-64. Otherwise no one would buy it. There's even speculations of Intel shrinking down the P3-T core with improvements even further and integrating it inside the IA-64 desktop version. CMP.
quote:
The second problem is with the ubercompilers that Itanic relies upon. They don't exist. |
Ah, this still is a problem, but not as big as one two years ago. Or one year ago. Until last year there wasn't any IA-64 hardware to compile to, now there is. Compilers are definitely becoming smarter and better as more applications and more fine-tuning is going on for the compilers. Look at the Itanium 2 SPEC benchmarks for how a good compiler can work.
quote:
This is not a big problem. Most people just won't notice because of the excessive power current Wintel boxes have. |
It is for the enthusiast market, which is the first group of people who embrace new technology such as this.
quote:
Poor form. Most businesses lose money during lean periods. That doesn't mean anything. |
I was making a point to Gianny who was talking about how much of an example AMD was compared to Apple, when AMD lost money during that period while Apple still turned a profit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Monolith,
Entirely possible. |
So you refuse to believe that Intel is making Prescott/Pentium 5?
quote:
Sure it has been "leaked," that is one way of making disinformation look official. We have all seen this haven't we? It is not unusal for a company to arrange for certain information to be carefully "leaked."
Certainly it doesn't surprise me that Intel has a backup plan just in case EPIC doesn't work out. |
Well, considering certain websites (*cough*thereg*cough*) have talked to Intel engineers who have worked on it, I'd assume that it's true. Unless you're implying The Register intentionally lies?
quote:
Hammer is now officially out. You can find out the specs easily. |
Hammer is not out at all, it's officially public if that's what you mean. It's also supposed to come out by December, whereas Prescott is due out around June next year. That's why Prescott's not public yet.
It's curious to note how badly AMD's promotion of hammer is hitting its Athlon line now. Sales have plummeted, they keep saying "wait for K8" now...
quote:
As for SMT, it can be interesting but the benefits are highly theoretical for Wintel boxes since the systems weren't designed around it. Neither was P4, as a matter of fact. Glueing on extra pieces isn't going to work well, if at all. |
On the contrary, the P4 was designed for SMT. Why do you think it has a 20-stage pipeline? It wasn't all for marketing. SMT benefits from a highly superscalar processor.
quote:
Windows needs also be modifed. |
It already has been from Windows XP on.
quote:
You are right if all the ALU's are fully utilised every clock cycle. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case. The main problem with fast CPUs nowadays is the ALU's sit idle waiting for data (both opcodes and oprands) to arrive. Going with a 64-bit wide data bus goes a long way of solving the problem. |
But there is simply no cache for it to be stored in, UR. 64-bit wide data bus does nothing when the ALU is expecting a 32-bit integer (this is still dealing with regular x86 legacy code). The ALU doesn't simply accept 2 integers and cache it for later. You'd need to have highly linear code for that to work anyway, and a prediction of what it'd need next.
ALUs only work on one number at a time, having a pipe that can send it two is useless. It's the same reason why the PPro core was faster in 32-bit and slower in 16-bit than the original Pentium. The PPro couldn't send 2 16-bit numbers on the 32-bit pathway and get performance increases...
I can see where you're trying to go, though, and your whole basis is on the assumption that there's a lack of internal bandwidth in the chip to move data around, which is certainly not the case with the Pentium 4/Athlon. The ALUs only sit idle because they're single-threaded. On P4 Xeons/P5s, the ALUs are idle less often because it can multithread, this has nothing to do with internal bandwidth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
--"if you were to compare Motorola to those other chip-makers that would be..."
There's not really any point in comparing Motorola to AMD or Intel. Motorola is more interested in desgning embedded chips than desktop CPUs. This is one of the reasons Apple has fallen so far behind, they simply can not drive the CPU design.
--"Intel and HP spent the last ten years developing something called IA-64"
True, but this is not the unqualified good thing you seem to think. For one, it requires a major programming shift, and I'm not just talking about waiting for decent compilers.
You're also forgetting something called an "installed code base". IA-64 has basically zero backwards compatibility (it is so slow with x86 that even Intel has stopped marketing the emulation). No matter how good the technology may or may not be, this means it simply will not be adopted quickly, and this by itself could kill it. Even with Intel's muscle behind it.
You have to consider just when IA-64 was initiated. It was before AMD was a threat, and Intel had their monopoly. At the time they could push basically anything they wanted through. Unfortunately for them, by the time they finished the design, the market had changed. As Rambus shows, they can no longer unilaterially declare standards. AMD's Hammer is a much better design for the market needs.
--"Though I can't wait until home electronics actually use that BlueTooth"
I can. I'll wait until someone actually attempts to design a secure wireless protocol...
--"But if you prefer stability and ease of use over performance and affordability"
Funny thing about that... I get performance, affordability, stability and ease of use out of my PC...
--"Because it's been leaked. It's called Yamhill."
Yeah, that's one of those interesting "now you see it now you don't" rumors. We'll have to wait and see how exactly this plays out. I wouldn't be surprised if they were working on such a thing, or that they don't want to admit it.
--"There's even speculations of Intel shrinking down the P3-T core"
The sad thing is, this may be the only way to get decent x86 performance on the chip. What this will do to die sizes and yeilds is another thing altogether. I doubt it will happen, it just does not seem at all economical for desktop level chips.
--"Look at the Itanium 2 SPEC benchmarks for how a good compiler can work"
SPEC isn't a very good benchmark of anything other than memory bandwidth, sadly.
--"On the contrary, the P4 was designed for SMT."
No, it wasn't, and the length of the pipeline has nothing to do with suitability for SMT. The P4s are weak in a number of areas, all releated to keeping that pipeline fed (not "internal bandwidth"). For an already resource-starved chip, adding SMT doesn't help much.
Have you seen the benchmarks? Some apps it helps (mostly int-heavy apps, server side stuff), but in some it actually decreases performance. P4 Xeon workstations are shipped with it disabled by default, and for good reason. We've got several of them in the test lab I'm working at now, and SMT on the Xeons has not been impressive.
Wraith
"Forget Mother Mirabel, this crowd needs Father Thorazine. What the hell are you looking at?"
-- Duckman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wraith
The sad thing is, this may be the only way to get decent x86 performance on the chip. What this will do to die sizes and yeilds is another thing altogether. I doubt it will happen, it just does not seem at all economical for desktop level chips. |
By the time it's on the 0.10 process, it'd probably end up being 40-50mm^2, which is not that large and would definitely help Intel with getting x86 up to acceptable levels.
quote:
No, it wasn't, and the length of the pipeline has nothing to do with suitability for SMT. The P4s are weak in a number of areas, all releated to keeping that pipeline fed (not "internal bandwidth"). For an already resource-starved chip, adding SMT doesn't help much.
Have you seen the benchmarks? Some apps it helps (mostly int-heavy apps, server side stuff), but in some it actually decreases performance. P4 Xeon workstations are shipped with it disabled by default, and for good reason. We've got several of them in the test lab I'm working at now, and SMT on the Xeons has not been impressive. |
The performance hit you see with SMT enabled is because those programs simply aren't designed to use it properly. You can also get a performance hit with SMP systems if they're not designed properly due to the overhead as well. That's why you can toggle SMT on/off in the BIOS.
The 20-stage pipeline of the Pentium 4 means that at any clock, certain parts of the chip are more likely to be idle than others, which means it has a better chance for SMT to be effective.
I've seen 5-20% increases with SMT used on software designed for 2 processors, and it could probably be higher once it's designed for SMT in mind. On software designed mainly for 1 CPU, SMT results in a performance hit due to the overhead and the fact that there's not more than one thread running on the CPU.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FlameFlash
|
 |
Minnesota, USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
It's not that simple, the stability comment is jibberish. And if you really have problems using a PC still, one has to wonder just how bright one is.  |
Actually, with as many problems as my cousin has been having with his XP box, I'm not too sure the stabillity comment is gibberish.
Likewise, however, OS X isn't as stable as Apple would like you to believe... in this case I suppose the grass is always browner on the other side of the fence.
(And since I know you'll ask, Asher, he's having driver problems... XP isn't properly auto-recognizing some of his devices... his sound card, and v.92 modem are the two causing him problems driver wise. He's having to reinstall the OS.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FlameFlash
|
|
Minnesota, USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cloud9
Ah, that's gibberish! Just listen to what all the Mac users out there have to say about the stability of Macs.  |
Going to have to disagree with you on that one... I don't know how many times a day I have to hit command-option-esc (for those of you who don't know, in Wintel speak that's control-alt-delete... didn't know Mac had a force quit key combo did you? )
Also, Mac OS X is just as laughable as Windows XP as far as almost everybody saying the OS is flawless, yet sometimes things happen.
They're computers, designed by human beings, built by humans (or human created robots), operated by humans, therefore they will be flawed and not perfect.
OS X.0 and X.1 are still rather dummied down versions... X.2 and I'll be ready to buy because it has the features I want, etc.
X.0 is so unstable that it's not even funny.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
FlameFlash
|
|
Minnesota, USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
Windows 2000 Pro.?!?!
You've got to be kidding me! The only thing that OS was good for was if you were a college student you could hack into your school's system no problem (at my school.) They guy that used to have that computer, guess what he owns now: an iBook!
The MHz myth does go a long way when all somebody is using to say that one type of computer is better than another is speed and cost. We've argued all of that already, try bringing something new to the table.
We've already pointed out that the PC Industry has the deeper pockets (and Motorola, an imbedded chip maker, has no desire to R&D faster G4 chips).
It all depends on what you're wanting to do. I mean, the guy that was using Windows 2000 switched because the iBook could do everything he wanted to do, mobily and fast enough.
Here's another part of the MHz myth you might not be aware of: some people don't care!
Take myself as an example, I chose Mac because I already have hundreds-thousands dollars invested in software... there's no sense in my ever switching to a PC because I've grown up on Macs... all my files are Mac files, all my software are Mac OS ported softwares... it would actually be more expensive for me to build my own Windows box (XP, or otherwise) because then I'd have to go out and buy all new software as well.
The one main Mac vs. PC war item everybody seems to forget is that you can't easily switch. It is, however, easier to switch from Windows to Apple thanks to emulation software, but even emulation software only goes so far... and if you're wanting to emulate Windows, why not just buy a Windows machine?
ugh...  I'm falling for the anti-Mac troll again... as I said before, bring something interesting to the table or go play somewhere else, we're trying to actually talk tech now, it seems, and I'm learning a lot from the discussion (minus your contributions.) The thread has officially be hijacked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Giancarlo
|
 |
Los Angeles
Apr 2000
time: 02:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FlameFlash
Windows 2000 Pro.?!?!
You've got to be kidding me! The only thing that OS was good for was if you were a college student you could hack into your school's system no problem (at my school.) They guy that used to have that computer, guess what he owns now: an iBook! |
It is a stable operating system and goes a long way. It works with most games and is stable when running a LAN interface as I am doing right now. You see I need it for other reasons: Stability, and easy to use network interface.
quote:
The MHz myth does go a long way when all somebody is using to say that one type of computer is better than another is speed and cost. We've argued all of that already, try bringing something new to the table. |
And what does that prove about this argument? Nothing. Mac is worse, PC is better. Simple.
quote:
It all depends on what you're wanting to do. I mean, the guy that was using Windows 2000 switched because the iBook could do everything he wanted to do, mobily and fast enough. |
Windows 2000 is definitely fast enough and very stable for anyone. Anybody that would upgrade to an iBook in my mind is insane.
quote:
Here's another part of the MHz myth you might not be aware of: some people don't care! |
Apparently 3% of people don't care. The other 97% do. That is why 97% of the people use PC.
quote:
Take myself as an example, I chose Mac because I already have hundreds-thousands dollars invested in software... there's no sense in my ever switching to a PC because I've grown up on Macs... all my files are Mac files, all my software are Mac OS ported softwares... it would actually be more expensive for me to build my own Windows box (XP, or otherwise) because then I'd have to go out and buy all new software as well. |
Good for you. And I respect that. I am not forcing you to do anything.
quote:
The one main Mac vs. PC war item everybody seems to forget is that you can't easily switch. It is, however, easier to switch from Windows to Apple thanks to emulation software, but even emulation software only goes so far... and if you're wanting to emulate Windows, why not just buy a Windows machine? |
Apple sucks trash... so why would I want to switch? This PC I have, is serving me loyally. No crashes, nothing like that.
quote:
ugh... I'm falling for the anti-Mac troll again... as I said before, bring something interesting to the table or go play somewhere else, we're trying to actually talk tech now, it seems, and I'm learning a lot from the discussion (minus your contributions.) The thread has officially be hijacked. |
And that is why I recommend Windows 2000 if you want stability in a PC. You talk trash about it because of your own stupid little agenda against Microsoft.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FlameFlash
We've already pointed out that the PC Industry has the deeper pockets (and Motorola, an imbedded chip maker, has no desire to R&D faster G4 chips).
|
Firstly, I believe that IBM owns the intellectual property that is referred to as RISC 6000 - which is what the G4 is based on.
Secondly, Motorola are licensed to produce chips and to adjust the design for specific applications subject to IBM approval.
Thirdly, IBM sells a supercomputer based on 256 RISC 6000 chips per box. The chips however are not the same as the chips in the Apple computers. They are engineered to IBM standards for the supercomputer marketplace and are a little bit more expensive.
But then again, I could be wrong. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FlameFlash
|
|
Minnesota, USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fez
It is a stable operating system and goes a long way. It works with most games and is stable when running a LAN interface as I am doing right now. You see I need it for other reasons: Stability, and easy to use network interface. |
Right... most games... he was mainly a gamer and LAN hacker... he loved it for the LAN stuff, but couldn't get any of the Tom Clancy series to play worth anything... along with most of the other real-time strategy games he played... just could never convince him to get CtP or any of Sid family games... *sighs*
quote:
And what does that prove about this argument? Nothing. Mac is worse, PC is better. Simple. |
I could ask you the same thing about the above quote... it's nothing simple about it, you're just reporting biased information via your egoist viewpoint on the matter. Apple sucks from your POV so therefore it sucks overall... egoist, and incorrect logic circuits: trolling point 1.
quote:
Windows 2000 is definitely fast enough and very stable for anyone. Anybody that would upgrade to an iBook in my mind is insane. |
Again, another egoist statement... he switched because it filled whatever needs he was looking for, likewise, you continue to use Windows 2000 because it still fills your needs. Nothing insane whatsoever, and being that you're taking the egoist POV on this arguement it just makes you hypocritical: trolling 2.
quote:
Apparently 3% of people don't care. The other 97% do. That is why 97% of the people use PC. |
I'm remembering a movie that had almost this exact quote in it: Contact. "Around 97% of the people in the world beleive in a higher being... are you going to tell me that the 3% of you out there think they're all wrong?" (okay, so not exact quote, but it gets the point across.)
Just because they're an incredibly small minority still doesn't make them second-class computer users. They deserve as much respect as any PC user, attack the computer, not the user: trolling point 3.
quote:
Good for you. And I respect that. I am not forcing you to do anything. |
And they must have just predicted snow in you know where... finally, some human decency... we're here to discuss not argue. Listening to other people's POVs is essential for that. Have I ever said anything, on this thread, actually against Asher because he's corrected me at multiple points? Didn't think so. Because he's using facts and figures as opposed to feelings and presumptions. Again, that's why I've been calling for you to actually bring something to the table. I know I appreciated the old TIME article to try and prove your point... but it was still facts and figures instead of "I think Macs suck, so they do."
That kind of statement isn't what we're looking for and just causes (insert my) tempers to flair: trolling point 4.
quote:
Apple sucks trash... so why would I want to switch? This PC I have, is serving me loyally. No crashes, nothing like that. |
I'll start repeating myself, it seems. Egoist example again: trolling point 5. Saying that Apple doesn't fill your needs and that your PC does everything you need to do so there's no point for you to switch would have been the enlightening way to put it.
quote:
And that is why I recommend Windows 2000 if you want stability in a PC. You talk trash about it because of your own stupid little agenda against Microsoft. |
There, that I can understand again. But you're putting words in my mouth. I "talked trash" from an egoist perspective, my apologizes, but you do infuriate me to no ends for some reason. And what I said about that OS you directly quoted and responded to... I've now countered with my experiances again... proving why it doesn't fill the needs of the friend who switched, but why it still fills your needs. Therefore it wasn't "talking trash" but simply telling you my experianes with the OS... as opposed to just blanketly stating that an OS sucks and not giving your reasons (oh, excuse me, you used lack of speed and performance).
I'd like a few more than that though, I know I'm trying to give more than just that regarding why I don't work with Windows.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-07-2002 22:15
|