Rumor: Disaster at MWNY... :( - Page 3

[quote]Originally posted by yurin8or:
<strong>

...i'd wait for some benchmarks before assuming a "substantial" speed improvement. given the xserve's DDR supprt the improvement is likely to be minor.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Here is the basis for my assertion that dual 1.2 w/ DDR would be "substantially" faster than the current 1.0 ghz duals (the simple version being that the dual 1ghz Xserve is "substantially" faster than the dual 1ghz Powermac in these benchmarks.

<a href="http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html</A>

[edit-- duplicate post]

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Gamblor ]</p>

Wow, good timing.... the same link at the same moment!

sizzle chest: Nope. Beat you by two minutes.

[quote] Obviously to me, unless I'm mistakin the 1.6GHz Power PC 7455 @ 1600 is out and they're cranking away. My source is from distributed.net. Here is the page where they post their speeds for the rc5 projects. The info most likely should be under NDA, but woops. Scroll down the list of PPC until ...Bingo! <hr></blockquote>

Uh, you should probably look <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M98653" target="_blank">here.</a> There's no such thing as a 1600MHz 7455. There's no such things as 733, 800, 867, 933, or 1066MHz 7400's, either. There's something seriously wrong with that list...

[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>Uh, you should probably look <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M98653" target="_blank">here.</a> There's no such thing as a 1600MHz 7455. There's no such things as 733, 800, 867, 933, or 1066MHz 7400's, either. There's something seriously wrong with that list...</strong><hr></blockquote>

But there is a 2 x 800, a 2 x 533, and getting the 7400/7450 distinction mixed up wouldn't surprise me at all. No surprises here, folks.

[quote]Uh, you should probably look here. There's no such thing as a 1600MHz 7455. There's no such things as 733, 800, 867, 933, or 1066MHz 7400's, either. There's something seriously wrong with that list... <hr></blockquote>

We will see soon enough.

[quote]Originally posted by The All Knowing 1:
<strong>

Someone want to tell me what in the heck this guy is talking about?

Sorry for being a dick....I'm just totally lost as to the point of your post...and 2x 1000 Mhz not equal 2000 Mhz, btw.

[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: The All Knowing 1 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would have previously agreed that 2x 1000 MHz does not equal 2000 MHz, and frankly I don't see how it could in reality but then I saw this on distrubited.net:
[quote]... the keyrate of any individual processor within a multi-processor machine will generally be comparable to that of identical MHz single-processor machine. As such, the overall speed for a multiprocessor machine is generally merely the speed of one processor multiplied by the number of processors within that machine. <hr></blockquote>
perhaps someone can put this in perspective.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>

<a href="http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html" target="_blank">Not necessarily...</a></strong><hr></blockquote>

Nice find, Gamblor. Interesting results, too.

[quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
<strong>

Here is the basis for my assertion that dual 1.2 w/ DDR would be "substantially" faster than the current 1.0 ghz duals (the simple version being that the dual 1ghz Xserve is "substantially" faster than the dual 1ghz Powermac in these benchmarks.

<a href="http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.xinet.com/benchmarks/benchmarks.2002/index.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>


Note that these are benchmarks of I/O intensive operations, at which the Xserve will be clearly superiour to the (current) PowerMac.

[quote] But there is a 2 x 800, a 2 x 533, and getting the 7400/7450 distinction mixed up wouldn't surprise me at all. No surprises here, folks. <hr></blockquote>

Right, but there's no dual Gig Mac (2000) on the list. I find it kinda difficult to believe that no one with a dual Gig machine is interested in distributed.net.

[edit-- then again, there's only one person with a dual 800 interested, so who knows.]

What all this means is that the criteria for entries in the list is poorly defined. It really shouldn't be used as an accurate benchmark.

[quote] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... the keyrate of any individual processor within a multi-processor machine will generally be comparable to that of identical MHz single-processor machine. As such, the overall speed for a multiprocessor machine is generally merely the speed of one processor multiplied by the number of processors within that machine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


perhaps someone can put this in perspective. <hr></blockquote>

I'd imagine it's because the code + data for RC5 is small enough to fit entirely within the cache of a modern processor. Since the processes wouldn't have to frequently access the bus, there's little chance of them bumping into each other for access to memory/disk.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Gamblor ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

But there is a 2 x 800, a 2 x 533, and getting the 7400/7450 distinction mixed up wouldn't surprise me at all. No surprises here, folks.</strong><hr></blockquote>
well it doesn't seem to be a case of a simple mistake, distributed.net has a seperate page for multi-processor speeds
[quote] Power PC 7450/7455 G4\t1333\t(2xcpu)\t rc5\t 27,864,728\t <hr></blockquote><a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=all&contest=all&multi=1 " target="_blank">multi-processor speed page</a>
Could these be over-clocked "standard issue" processors? No, I don't think you could overclock a 1Ghz to 1.6 GHz? The site itself doesn't seem to be bogus, but they rely on info from users. Could someone be giving them bad info, and they have yet to catch it? You can probably tell this is really bugging me- huh?

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>

Yup. And apparently someone is running a quad proccessor G4 at 866MHz, on OS 9. Pretty neat trick.

[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>sizzle chest: Nope. Beat you by two minutes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oops, I saw your 2nd post but not the earlier one!



[quote]Originally posted by Gamblor:
<strong>
Uh, you should probably look <a href="http://e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/taxonomy.jsp?nodeId=03M943030450467M98653" target="_blank">here.</a> There's no such thing as a 1600MHz 7455. There's no such things as 733, 800, 867, 933, or 1066MHz 7400's, either. There's something seriously wrong with that list... </strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe the Distributed.net benchmarks page lists USER-REPORTED cpu data. In other words, if you report your CPU to them and say it's a G5 2.4ghz, then I guess that's what they list on their chart.

Ha-ha, what a fuss/FUD has Programmer made!

It seems to me, guys, you mix up several incompatible, or, rather, irrelevant notions here.
1) MHz paranoia. Surely (and it's already a proved fact) performance is not only CPU clock speed. In this sense Apple is much less lagging behind, if at all, than most people on earth think.
2) Mhz paranoia. Since even a 3-yo child knows that 1 GHz is less than 3 GHz (as most people on earth believe), WIntel's sales are doing well. They inspire the MHz rush by making you think that your 1GHz box is out-of-date just because Windows 2003 will require at least a 3GHz box. Yeah, from the sales point of view, Apple has a more difficult task to convince users that Steve's RDF is closer to reality than Intel's. Because in the Wintel world MHz rise faster.

So, guys, your FUD is justified in the sense of marketshare, profit and Apple's commercial future, while it's obvious to me that in the sense of the future of computing and technology all is not lost for Apple.
Perhaps, it's one of the reasons why Apple feeds us the recent Switch ads.

I was more amazed at the quad 604e. Ok aathat could theoretically exist in non Apple hardware and so could the others but the 1.6... Oh hell, I give up -back to reality I just wanna believe .

Who gives a $%£% about cpu speeds anyway?

I thought we'd all come to the conclusion that the OS & the motherboard are more deserving of attention than a c. 100mhz speed shift?

Upgrading the motherboard significantly will make a FAR bigger difference than simply speeding up the cpu.

The OS will be tweaked to near-perfection and mhz won't be an issue.

Don't blame Apple for the Mhz cock-up anyway - blame Motorola.

[quote]Originally posted by tink:


Once again, if anyone can shed some light on what these tests are, etc.

Thanks

<hr></blockquote>

Dslreports RC5 team here - the speed listings are submitted by users. The "1600" guy just submitted his dual 800 as 1600 - there is no 1600 CPU. He added the 2 800's in the dual 800 together, as advised by the instructions on the page.

The number is correct, though (16 million keys/sec). My dual gHz QuickSilver gets about 19 million keys per second.

You can download the client from <a href="http://www.distributed.net/download/clients.html" target="_blank">http://www.distributed.net/download/clients.html</a>

Follow the instructions. You can also run it from the Terminal in X with the "-bench" flag, e.g.

./dnetc -bench

and it will do its own benchmark. If your processor is a G4, it will absolutely WASTE any x86 processor, as the Mac client has hand-coded highly optimized Altivec code.

Just to point this out... the quad 604e is real. I don't remember exactly who the company that made those was... all I remember is it was during the Clone Era and I have an old MacWorld on my shelf with a full-page ad for the guys. Talk about a kickin machine for it's time...

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

Didn't Daystar make a power crazed 4 processor 604 machine?

[quote]Originally posted by keyboardf12:
<strong>if the dual thing is true...if...what if its because the new iron was delayed by 3 months (i think moki said he heard a rumor that the ddr mobo slipped</strong><hr></blockquote>

I said that a specific DDR mobo had slipped (again), something I heard from a few people I know -- and that you're likely to see another less ambitious DDR mobo. Topping out at 1.2ghz looks likely, but with a 166mhz bus and DDR.

In terms of real world performance, an improved memory subsytem -- especially given OS X's propensity for shuffling around huge amounts of data -- will make a huge difference.

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>Okay guys, I have to apologize. I sent that rumour to spymac, knowing that they'd publish it shamelessly. I was just hoping to bring everyone's expectations in line for MWNY, rather than letting them go wild like at MWSF. Its a good bet that we'll get at least a 0.2 GHz bump, and if the prices of the 1 GHz units have dropped enough for the accelerator companies then Apple might be able to afford putting two in every PowerMac. I didn't expect to cause such a ruckus here. I'm truly very sorry for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, but you're a giant idiot (I know you're probably a decent person in real life, so no offense!). But why would you do this?

I mean, you guys complain about how made up all the rumor sites are and how they just fake everything. Well look at this, they don't have to! We have people with too much time on their hands who will submit fake information to them!!!!!!!! WHY? If no one sent fake info then we would all be able to trust the places more.

And they did not "shamelessly" publish it. They admit it's from anonymous sources and they make it sound like they got more than one mail saying this, so hopefully you just got lucky and sent in something that is true.

Anyway, this whole thread makes me mad. You guys bash spymac (probably my fav site, I admit my bias) and what are you stuck with? A piece of crap msg board w/o a front page?

Get a life, stop sending **** to rumor pages.. Oh wait, then you losers would have nothing to talk about.

Junkyard and a few people are the only decent people here.

Thanks Moki
Because of evil Programmer I had started to believe the disaster at MWNY was gonna be quad 604e's in a George Forman Grill !

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pey/coy-ote ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by The All Knowing 1:
<strong>

The difference being that AI already had a decent amount of credibility when the Disney thing came out. But most of us always took AI with a grain of salt anyways. Spymac did their fake and went ALL OUT in the ultimate visitor-attractive hoax ever. Spymac lured all the visitors there, and note how they now have a lovely store. They are out there to make money. Sure we all are in some way, but thats lame what Spymac represents.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, Spymac is lame.. let's see why:
They have one of the most active mac forums around
They give free email accounts
They give you a bunch of space to upload your pictures
They give you a bunch of free icons
They have no advertisements on their page
They have a small store that you are not forced to buy anything from

Real lame, I know I'm never going there again. I'd rather hang out here with all you Apple zombies.

Yeah! where's my G.D. free email space???

I'm goin to spymac!!!

someone, or actually most of you have obviously lost the connection to reality a bit...
If you look at industry practice a bit, you'll quickly notice that cpu companies never release the fastest cpu the can make, until they can make it at least one step faster. Intel has continuously updated its chips by HALF a system clock speed, from upgrade to upgrade...that was 33 then 50, then even less, namely a QUARTER of the speed: 100Mhz.
Apple is in fact the only company that boosted speeds by a factor of 1.5x the bus speed once already (going from 533 to 733). going up 400 MHz would be possible, assuming they'd implement a faster system bus...but those of you, who thought about 1.6-2.0GHz..what have YOU been smoking?

Apple is never going to double the MHz on a machine with the same generatio of CPUs in it, NEVER.

So, while a 200MHz bump is dissapointing, it's also perfectly in line with all the past upgrades, which were all dissapointing too, at least to some of you, obviously. However, I think, if the 166MHz bus is coming, 1200Mhz is an unlikely clockspeed..
1166 or 1250 are more likely. On the other hand, 1200/200 is perfectly reasonable (but unlikely from a DDR-RAM point of view).

G-News

In a way i hope Apple doesn't ship a new board in July. PC boards coming out next month will have DDR400 support, Serial ATA (some up to 12 connectors) and USB 2.0. If Apple ship a new board in July it will likely not have these features and it may be a long long time untill a new board ships with such components. Perhaps Jan next year would be a better time for a new board. That way Apple have plently of time to implement the said features.

[quote]Originally posted by Da sinister:
<strong>by the way does any one know how many gigaflops P4 does, ive never been able to find that one out
</strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://www.apple.com/scitech/physicalscience/VE102501.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/scitech/physicalscience/VE102501.pdf</a>

The new era for compters is about functionality... Ask not where your computer came from, but what your computer can do for you!

My little dual 450 G4 still runs all the apps that I need and pphotoshop (which is what I use mostly) better than most PCs right on up to ~2GHz... that's what I care about.

the way i look at things:
I have 2 machines:
PIII-700/512/WinXP
Beige G3-266/384/9.2.2

i use the G3 for all the print work (FH10, PS7) and the P3 for the video (cos i gotta DV500 board)

all my apps work faster on the PC but i get more done on the mac cos it crashes less and while i am resizing a 200Mb PS doc i can still do other things. Premiere bearly runs on the PC but i get realtime video thx to the board. Only problem is .. i can't even play mp3's properly while doing any video and the OS craaaaaaaawls

We recently got 2 Dual 1Ghz G4's and they are ****-fast compared to my dinosaur. so when i get my new 1.6Ghz P4 PC i will let you know how much faster & stabler it is.

At the moment it is no contest. Up-time far outweighs the initial speed boost of the PC.

[quote]Originally posted by Ketracel:
<strong>In a way i hope Apple doesn't ship a new board in July. PC boards coming out next month will have DDR400 support, Serial ATA (some up to 12 connectors) and USB 2.0. If Apple ship a new board in July it will likely not have these features and it may be a long long time untill a new board ships with such components. Perhaps Jan next year would be a better time for a new board. That way Apple have plently of time to implement the said features.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It goes without saying that just because PC motherboard manufacturers are producing something it doesn't really mean anything. DDR-400 won't be really appearing until around first half 2003. AMD only plans support for DDR-333 at the release of its hammers.

There are a variety of options Apple can take depending on how much they want to spend on development and what they are aiming to do. My expectation would be Apple would release a motherboard revision at MWNY this year to encompass DDR RAM, Firewire 2 and likely USB 2.0. I would anticipate something relatively boring.

As much as everybody will complain I believe you will find the performance gain sizeable all the same.

Depending on what Apple's timeline for other release schedules are there are a lot of other options in the future.

What I will be interested in seeing is how quickly Apple switches to DDR II (probably MWNY 2004 but I would hope for MWSF 2004). I don't expect they will bother with DDR-400 but it will be interesting to watch how they handle bandwidth constraints in the time ahead.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>

What would be bad about ~$1500 for a DP 800?

If there is enough excess of 1GHz for upgrades, there is sure to be ~1.5GHz CPUs able to be fabbed.

There will be DDR RAM. IMHO it will be Xserve-chipset, desktop form-factor. If the parts are ready...

Barto

Nah, you're all wrong. Moto is so pissed with Steve's constant badgering about their PPC dev, that they've decided to sell G4's to 3rd party at a better price than they give to Apple. Apple is downgrading their QS machines to original QS spec, and everyone will have to buy a 3rd party card to bring PowerMacs back up to top speed. There's your worst case scenario. Remember, Apple has tried both spec drops and price bumps before.

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>Okay guys, I have to apologize. I sent that rumour to spymac, knowing that they'd publish it shamelessly. I was just hoping to bring everyone's expectations in line for MWNY, rather than letting them go wild like at MWSF. I didn't expect to cause such a ruckus here. I'm truly very sorry for this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Come home, all is forgiven!

And, I'd like to thank JD for sharing his drink - I mean, his "bad news" with us, and for demonstrating his true worth in this forum <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> .

Keep up the good "work", Dawg - you're the best troll we have!

The SpyMac rumor is idiotic. It says that a salesman told people to buy the highest-priced computer that his company sells. If he said something else, he wouldn't be a SALESMAN! Yes, the fact that a salesman is doing his job selling high-margin machines means that Apple is going to be selling dual-processors in all machines.

Further proof!
Apple has dual processors in its highest-end machine (Dual 1GHz powermac) and its lowest-end machine (iPod). It's obvious they're working their way towards the middle. Can't you see it?

Matthew

[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>Worst case scenario would be a 2 GHz G5, DDR333 w/ RapidIO machine that is only 10% faster than the current machines. That would be bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You got THAT right: massive changes amounting to nothing would slap into place the final bricks in the wall around the 'Mac ghetto'.

But I expect we're looking at a bigger release rather than smaller, and I expect the new PMs will ship mid-Sept. w/ Jaguar installed.

I'll be expecting the first one @ my house!

[quote]Originally posted by Capt. Obvious:
<strong>

You got THAT right: massive changes amounting to nothing would slap into place the final bricks in the wall around the 'Mac ghetto'.

But I expect we're looking at a bigger release rather than smaller, and I expect the new PMs will ship mid-Sept. w/ Jaguar installed.

I'll be expecting the first one @ my house! </strong><hr></blockquote>

Possibly but everyone says this leading up to every show an Apple disappoints you all without fail. We like to think big things are on the way but personally im not too excited until i see something. The last two years have been an utter disappointment. More major misses than Minor hits..thats our Apple now days.

[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>

It goes without saying that just because PC motherboard manufacturers are producing something it doesn't really mean anything. DDR-400 won't be really appearing until around first half 2003. AMD only plans support for DDR-333 at the release of its hammers.

There are a variety of options Apple can take depending on how much they want to spend on development and what they are aiming to do. My expectation would be Apple would release a motherboard revision at MWNY this year to encompass DDR RAM, Firewire 2 and likely USB 2.0. I would anticipate something relatively boring.

As much as everybody will complain I believe you will find the performance gain sizeable all the same.

Depending on what Apple's timeline for other release schedules are there are a lot of other options in the future.

What I will be interested in seeing is how quickly Apple switches to DDR II (probably MWNY 2004 but I would hope for MWSF 2004). I don't expect they will bother with DDR-400 but it will be interesting to watch how they handle bandwidth constraints in the time ahead.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</strong><hr></blockquote>


Why doesn't it mean anything? And who does it mean nothing to?

Dude i bought some DDR 400 1 week ago, Corsair XMS3200. MSI, Abit and Gigabyte will have boards based on the new Via KT400 chipset very soon. The Hammer chipsets will likely have DDR400 support now, this is getting revised as we speek. As for DDR II, mid next year for the ram companies the word is as for Apple's adoption? god knows. We know that in classical Apple form they adopt these standards 1-2 years after the rest of the industry..USB 1 being the exception.

I agree however, that Apple will likely do the DDR move this July, DDR266 i would imagine-(6 months after the rest of the industry has moved on the the next best thing).

As i mentioned tho, it would probably be wiser if Apple just pulled a CPU bump at july an a full board job at SF using the very latest tech avialable at the time. That way they can ride the current hardware for a while longer instead of adopting stuff 2-3 generations behind. and milking it for 5 times longer. We all know everyone will complain like mad and i dont think Apple can afford to continually offer dated machines. I think the days when the Mac users where said to be clueless in relation to hardware saavyness are gone. They, (Apple) have a customer base that are far more knowledgable about hardware and thus can't easily be convinced by a few photoshop demos. Maybe im wrong......Maybe ppl still believe whatever Steve tells them. I fear for us all if thats the case. But reading this place an others, its clear most users now are pretty well informed thus they can see when the wool is gettin pulled over thier eyes.

Lets just wait an see what happens. Apple needs us to spend our money but we need the fastest best value products for that money.....we havent been getting that over the past few years.

[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Ketracel ]</p>

&lt;sigh&gt;

You guys really miss the point... the SpyMac rumour is reasonable. You're winding yourselves up into a frenzy again based on no real evidence. And no, I didn't send anything to SpyMac, my point was that even they admitted that anybody could have.

Listen to Moki -- he's the only one around with anything close to credibility. A 20% processor performance boost with a 25+% memory bandwidth boost plus Jaguar will deliver machines that are significantly faster than the current PowerMacs. If they are all duals then these machines will be blisteringly fast in practice (although not in most benchmarks since most benchmarks don't test cases where the PowerMac & MacOSX does well).

There will be new technology coming from Apple, but we don't have a timeline on it so predicting a MWNY debut is optimistic. By definition, optimists are disappointed, pessimists are surprised. Take your pick. Personally I'm not even convinced of the 166 MHz bus. Given the Xserve's DDR desgin and the sudden arrival of 1 GHz upgrades, a 20% clock rate bump seems realistic.

And if this "disaster" comes to pass, it is not a disaster. A 20% clock rate jump, improved memory bus (i.e. DDR and maybe 166), (possibly) duals, (possibly) improved I/O... that's quite a bit of new stuff. Apple's sales aren't the only ones down -- this is an economic slump throughout the PC industry. New super Apple machines would most likely follow the LCD iMac's trend line, i.e. a solid burst of first adopters trailing off to disappointing numbers once they get production up to speed.

Get over it. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

[quote]Originally posted by TimJakes:

Sorry, but you're a giant idiot (I know you're probably a decent person in real life, so no offense!). But why would you do this?
You're a moron. No Offense! Oh, and I would guess you work for SpyMac, your English is quite good however! Remember, NO Offense!

I mean, you guys complain about how made up all the rumor sites are and how they just fake everything. Well look at this, they don't have to! We have people with too much time on their hands who will submit fake information to them!!!!!!!! WHY? If no one sent fake info then we would all be able to trust the places more.

No they probably would make it up themselves or not post at all.WHat would they post without all their "sources".

And they did not "shamelessly" publish it. They admit it's from anonymous sources and they make it sound like they got more than one mail saying this, so hopefully you just got lucky and sent in something that is true.
Of course, they got duplicates of the message Programmer just made up. Come on! It sounds more credible if you claim multiple sources, so most rumor sites do and/or overstate the qualifications and prediction accuracy of their sources. But of course, SpyMac, being peopled with persons of remarkable, even unusual integrity, is different!

Anyway, this whole thread makes me mad. You guys bash spymac (probably my fav site, I admit my bias) and what are you stuck with? A piece of crap msg board w/o a front page?
Some folks realized the Worker bee, leaky Apple era is over and moved on, others decided to try to keep the magic going long after the show is over and make crap up and post stupid things people make up. AI's orignal name was "Reality" and I think they still have a better grip on reality than the other rumor sites (which in this case, for good or ill, means the rumor business is mostly dead)

Get a life, stop sending **** to rumor pages.. Oh wait, then you losers would have nothing to talk about.
And what exactly would you "winners" over at SpyMac have to talk about if your "sources" dried up? Wait I know, they can make something up (which I have to admit they exert more effort on than others) but with all the Work it takes to make an iWalk video they won't have new "dirt" to chew on real often

Junkyard and a few people are the only decent people here.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Go home, twit. Oh, BTW, No offense!

[/QB]<hr></blockquote>