Why macOS Mojave requires Metal -- and deprecates OpenGL

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 133
    nhtnht Posts: 4,228member
    wizard69 said:
    It is built in obsolescence. Windows will run on 15 year old computers while Mac OS will refuse to run on any Mac built more than six years ago. There is really no technical reason why Mac OS could not run on a 2010 Intel CPU. These are decisions made at the top of the company. Apple does what is best for Apple and not for its customers. The reason developers are not up in arms about Apple dropping OpenGL and OpenCL is that it really happened years ago when Apple stopped updating it. Mac OS is now about five years out of date. When you look at the extremely poor library of AAA games available on the Mac, know that it is Apple's poor hardware features and lack of cross platform software support that is the major reason. Of course people don't buy Macs to play games. Pretty soon people won't buy Macs at all.
    I've been hearing this for 15 years, and yet, here we are.

    When does "pretty soon" arrive?
    Actually for me "pretty soon" arrived this year in January.   Not so much because of Metal but rather due to Apples apathy with respect to the Mac lineup.  That is the hardware is either so outdated or of such low quality that my money for a new laptop went someplace else.    I really hated to do that because there is a lot to like about Mac OS.  The problem is i can program in Python on just about any machine these days and my other uses only occasionally leverage the full potential of the systems. Notably this is delivered on a laptop with modern hardware (better CPU, far better GPU, ports that keep my legacy hardware usable, a great screen &etc), all on a laptop that is $700 less that Apples solutions.  

    So yeah "pretty soon" is already here.   Yeah Windows sucks, there is no debate there but Linux can be a good alternative.   All i can say is that Apple must start updating its hardware because software is only part of the machine.  It has been more than a decade since Apples machines have been such a pathetic value.   I really cant tolerate price increases on such poor machines either.    So yeah there are problems in Mac land.  
    Rubbish. I bought a rMBP a few years ago and it's a kickass machine, making your claims of "pathetic value" quite absurd. Just more foot-stomping from the crowd that wants it noooooowwww.
    Pretty soon he's going to be Avon...no new Apple gear in a decade but somehow thinks that his opinion matters about how terrible Apple is.
    williamlondonfastasleepwatto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 42 of 133
    wizard69 said:

    mjtomlin said:
    tylersdad said:
    This still makes no sense at all. There is no reason why Apple can't support their native SDK (Metal) and OpenGL. Microsoft has been doing this for decades with DirectX.

    The majority of game developers won't bother with creating Metal versions of their rendering engines. There won't be enough customers to justify it.

    Two things...

    First, Apple hasn't updated OpenGL for a while now. Probably when they starting pushing Metal. So the OpenGL implementation included with iOS and macOS are fairly old, I think it's at 2.1, while the latest is 4.6. So there really is only a limited amount of "cross platform" compatibility for developers.

    Second, the entire industry is moving away from OpenGL. There is now a Khronos project, Vulkan, that is meant to replace OpenGL and OpenGL ES. And there is a version that "runs" on top of Apple's Metal called MoltenVk, so if developers must have cross platform compatibility, then they can move to it, instead of Metal.
    It is my understanding that Vulkan and Metal are very similar, possibly developed from the same code base.    Im not a 3D graphics programmer so i can't say from experience from using the 2 APIs.  If true there is very little in the way of shimming required.  

    As for OpenGL the problem there is that CAD and engineering software businesses depend upon it and had enough control over the development process to prevent OpenGL modernization.   The gaming industry on the other hand rushed to leave OpenGL behind.    This is almost completely due to performance issues with OpenGL, basically game developers want as much performance as they can get.  

    On the otherhand developers of engineering and visulization software are more concerned about stability, correctness and other issues.   I suspect that most of these developers will leave OpenGL behind for Vulkan at some point.   They simply are not in a rush and frankly Vulkan needs to stabilize.   So what im saying here is that i expect Vulkan to be the industry standard moving forward.   That means API translation libraries for Apples Metal for non game related apps.  

    ...
    And OpenGL is not wiped from macOS yet. It's just been officially deprecated after years of neglect. It's still in Mojave.
    There are already reports that Autocad 2018 works fine on Mojave beta. Whether this is because OpenGL is still in Mojave as Mike said, or they are already supporting Metal, I don't know. Autodesk has announced a "One AutoCAD" strategy when AutoCAD 2019 was released (Windows only for now), so I think (hope) Autodesk is keeping an eye on the future, and cross-platform compatibility (incl. web and mobile platforms).

    PS: Mac releases of AutoCAD are of necessity tied to Apple's macOS releases, so we might not see the Mac 2019 version until...2019?
    edited June 28 watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 133
    smalmsmalm Posts: 653member

    Such has me asking further why the cutoff based on geekbench OpenCL ratings:

    5448 Intel HD 4000 (2012 supported, integrated GPU ie. RAM based & slow?)
    7338 AMD Radeon HD 6630M (2011 mini unsupported, independent GPU)
    7863 ATI Radeon HD 5750 (2010 imac unsupported, independent desktop GPU)
    browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

    Obviously Apple didn't want to support AMD's TeraScale GPUs.

    Some people have a very short memory: There was no Vulkan when Apple released Metal, there was only Mantle, a proprietary AMD technology.
    And btw. AMD doesn't support their TeraScale GPUs in Vulkan too...
    tmaywatto_cobrapropod
  • Reply 44 of 133
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member
    shell3000 said:
    Sorry, not helpful, as long as there is no list of "Metal-capable graphics cards" ...
    There is. AMD chips since the R9 family and nVidia chips since the 700 family support Metal. Theoretically.
    Mac OS will refuse to run on any Mac built more than six years ago.
    2009 Mac Pro here. 10.13 runs like a dream. There was no excuse for Apple to cut support. I’m hearing that 10.14 will also run perfectly well with my updated graphics card, after a bit of a twist in installing it. That will likely be it, though. So 10 years of software updates. And that’s just for my model. 
    libertyforallelijahgwatto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 45 of 133
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,220member

    It is built in obsolescence. Windows will run on 15 year old computers while Mac OS will refuse to run on any Mac built more than six years ago. There is really no technical reason why Mac OS could not run on a 2010 Intel CPU. These are decisions made at the top of the company. Apple does what is best for Apple and not for its customers. The reason developers are not up in arms about Apple dropping OpenGL and OpenCL is that it really happened years ago when Apple stopped updating it. Mac OS is now about five years out of date. When you look at the extremely poor library of AAA games available on the Mac, know that it is Apple's poor hardware features and lack of cross platform software support that is the major reason. Of course people don't buy Macs to play games. Pretty soon people won't buy Macs at all.
    Patenty false garbage. I'm currently running the latest macOS on my 2011 -- a seven-year-old system. And it runs very well (I'm a software dev and this is my desktop machine). I have not had the same pleasant experience running Windows on seven-year-old hardware. Have you?

     I wouldn’t know; I’ve never had a Windows laptop last that long. 
    macxpresswilliamlondonwatto_cobraAlex1Nargonaut
  • Reply 46 of 133
    netroxnetrox Posts: 661member
    It would be nice if Apple spends more time focusing on improving the scalability of UX using Metal. I have 5K and if I use native resolution, it is really tiny but with its "default" resolution, the "resolution" are reduced by 2x but here's the thing, when you select other resolutions, the elements of UX don't really scale well and as a result, performance is reduced. I am not sure why Apple hasn't bothered with that as we will have more and more hiDPI monitors of different sizes. With hiDPI monitors, the UX has to scale well to a user's needs and perform natively. Also, if you use "default" resolution, the OSX will display images in applications matching to DPI of monitor BUT if you open them in other resolutions and not native resolution, the image is not corresponding to the actual DPI of monitor!
    Alex1N
  • Reply 47 of 133
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 47member
    cashxx said:
    Here is the kicker though!  10.13 isn't supposed to run on the 2009 Mac Pro, but runs perfectly fine!   If you flash the 2009 Mac Pro with the 2010 Mac Pro firmware, it runs it fine.  (Yes, the 2010 firmware allows you to flash the 2009 model)

    No reasons they can't give support for the 2009 model as well, it runs it fine!  They have a GT120 card that I don't think supports Metal.  But the OS runs great, no lag, etc.  I did upgrade to an SSD though to help with speed.
    Supported and runs on are two different things. I believe I read there will be a software hack to make 10.14 run on older Mac's.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 133
    mknelsonmknelson Posts: 245member
    tylersdad said:
    This still makes no sense at all. There is no reason why Apple can't support their native SDK (Metal) and OpenGL. Microsoft has been doing this for decades with DirectX.

    The majority of game developers won't bother with creating Metal versions of their rendering engines. There won't be enough customers to justify it.
    The Unreal Engine already supports Metal. So does the Foundation engine, Blizzard's engine for WoW, the Ego Engine, Glacier, Dawn, and Unity 5.
    Plus, there are at least two projects that allow developers to write for Vulkan, the OpenGL successor, and link to Metal. Some of the early demos had pretty nice frame rate improvements vs. OpenGL.

    And, I'm pretty sure it's the GPU vendors that are writing the OpenGL on Windows.
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 49 of 133
    It is built in obsolescence. Windows will run on 15 year old computers while Mac OS will refuse to run on any Mac built more than six years ago. There is really no technical reason why Mac OS could not run on a 2010 Intel CPU. These are decisions made at the top of the company. Apple does what is best for Apple and not for its customers. The reason developers are not up in arms about Apple dropping OpenGL and OpenCL is that it really happened years ago when Apple stopped updating it. Mac OS is now about five years out of date. When you look at the extremely poor library of AAA games available on the Mac, know that it is Apple's poor hardware features and lack of cross platform software support that is the major reason. Of course people don't buy Macs to play games. Pretty soon people won't buy Macs at all.
    BULLCRAP. When Vista came out it barely ran on one year old machines. Windows 7 increased that to about 2 year old machines and Windows 8 got to 5 year old machines. The only machines that run Windows after fifteen years were machines that when new would have cost close to $10,000(NZ) due to beefy graphics cards and CPUs but your average home computer barely ran XP with any performance.

    I know this because trying to get two year old machines to run Windows 7 was a freaking nightmare because manufacturers decided that they didn’t want to write drivers for the new OS they preferred people to buy new machines. The headaches I had trying to get some big name machines running even Windows 10 was more than Neurofen could even handle.

    My Early 2011 MBP has been running the latest OS all that time which is great for a machine that is 7 years old and it’s actually nice to know that the only reason it won’t run Mohave is literally because of a hardware limitation.
    watto_cobramcdaveAlex1Nargonautmacplusplus
  • Reply 50 of 133
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,289member
    There are already reports that Autocad 2018 works fine on Mojave beta. Whether this is because OpenGL is still in Mojave as Mike said, or they are already supporting Metal, I don't know. Autodesk has announced a "One AutoCAD" strategy when AutoCAD 2019 was released (Windows only for now), so I think (hope) Autodesk is keeping an eye on the future, and cross-platform compatibility (incl. web and mobile platforms).

    PS: Mac releases of AutoCAD are of necessity tied to Apple's macOS releases, so we might not see the Mac 2019 version until...2019?
    I can't answer any in-depth technical questions on this topic, but I can say that I've had zero issues with AutoCAD 2018 running on Mojave. I never have high hopes for it because it doesn't look like a typical Mac app, and yet it seems to always work, so props to AutoDesk.
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 51 of 133
    I wonder why Metal cannot be back ported to the High Sierra Macs being left out...
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 133
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 626member
    georgie01 said:
    kbee said:
    Moving away from OpenGL (and not moving to Vulkan) is one of Apples biggest mistakes:
    - OpenGL and it's successor Vulkan are industry standards, Metal is a proprietary Apple technology (the way Microsoft would have done it).
    - Lots of technologies are built on top of industry standards, all software developers developing cross platform applications rely on industry standards.
    - Embedded systems ship with OpenGL (with Vulkan being not available right now on most platforms).
    - Famous frameworks like Qt are build on top of OpenGL and offer a little bit of Vulkan.
    - Famous tools like Blender are built on top of OpenGL and don't care about Metal.
    - Not a single Linux platform supports something like Metal or DirecxtX (to name both proprietary technologies in a single sentence).
    - The Web is build on top of standards - ever heard of WebGL? There won't be a WebMetal or WebDirectX.

    Game engines:
    Yeah! Game engines support Metal! But if we have a closer look, a lot of this game engines use frameworks like MoltenVK to map their Vulkan calls to Metal.
    Shame on you Apple! There is a good and open standard and Apple doesn't support it!

    Apple custom GPU:
    So why is Apple moving in the direction of Metal? Cause Apple is building it's own custom GPU and so Apple doesn't have to implement OpenGL or Vulkan functionalities! Makes sense from Apples point of view but it maybe breaks compatibility with Vulkan/OpenGL in the future.
    No one knows if the next Vulkan version will be supported on the next Apple GPU version cause Apple just doesn't care.

    What Apple should have done is replacing OpenGL with Vulkan. A lot of developers including myself are turning away from Apple. Slow GPU, bad hardware, bad keyboards, everything soldered and glued, no ports, not replaceable SSD/RAM, no powerhorse Mac Pro - and the best no more OpenGL/Vulkan support in the future.

    Goodby Apple

    P.S.
    This was my first post in 12 years Appleinsider. It was always fun to read the articles but in the past Appleinsider articles read like Apple press releases.
     

    Oh, and btw, I have yet to see an app based on Qt that doesn’t have a sucky UI/UX. It’s a framework for developers who either don’t have the resources to produce a proper UI for different platforms or who lack taste or understanding. That’s not a good example to be using to support your point.
    So it's better to have no application at all vs one with a sucky UI?
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 53 of 133
    smalm said:

    Such has me asking further why the cutoff based on geekbench OpenCL ratings:

    5448 Intel HD 4000 (2012 supported, integrated GPU ie. RAM based & slow?)
    7338 AMD Radeon HD 6630M (2011 mini unsupported, independent GPU)
    7863 ATI Radeon HD 5750 (2010 imac unsupported, independent desktop GPU)
    browser.geekbench.com/opencl-benchmarks

    Obviously Apple didn't want to support AMD's TeraScale GPUs.

    Some people have a very short memory: There was no Vulkan when Apple released Metal, there was only Mantle, a proprietary AMD technology.
    And btw. AMD doesn't support their TeraScale GPUs in Vulkan too...
    My bad - both are ATI (6630M), and so no Apple support...?  I guessed maybe it related to legacy ports in a broader support decision :(  (the mini i7 turbo boosts to 3.4Ghz) or the other models in the same year being less capable, yet with decent SSD & 16GB of RAM seems pretty capable hardware that offers two 1440p and a third 1080p display built in, matched dual drive bays (SSD raid anyone ?) as well as Thunderbolt...  Storage nor ram is locked down 'onboard' so it can be adapted as the paying owner/customer might wish for effective use...  A remarkable SJ era forward thinking design and the kind of hardware that impressed me vs today, at least from my perspective... Yet no Mojave.

    I have ZERO interest in today's locked down mini offerings, and have stopped buying what appears a confused and inefficacious matrix of isolated hardware patchwork that seems the current offerings... It used to seem a coherent 'system'...  Even AI panned the touchbar - is it a forced and assumed costly ransom for a discrete GPU Macbook Pro, yet not available for any desktop macs ?  How much software overhead is needed to support that isolated hardware ?  No. No thanks... The current management clearly has many strengths, and yet I increasingly ask about hardware design judgement...
    edited June 28 elijahgcgWerksAlex1Nargonaut
  • Reply 54 of 133
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,289member
    I wonder why Metal cannot be back ported to the High Sierra Macs being left out…
    Can't or not worth Apple's time when they've made Mojave support so many older Macs and Apple customers are quick to update their OSes?
    watto_cobraAlex1N
  • Reply 55 of 133
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 900member
    wizard69 said:

    mjtomlin said:
    tylersdad said:
    This still makes no sense at all. There is no reason why Apple can't support their native SDK (Metal) and OpenGL. Microsoft has been doing this for decades with DirectX.

    The majority of game developers won't bother with creating Metal versions of their rendering engines. There won't be enough customers to justify it.

    Two things...

    First, Apple hasn't updated OpenGL for a while now. Probably when they starting pushing Metal. So the OpenGL implementation included with iOS and macOS are fairly old, I think it's at 2.1, while the latest is 4.6. So there really is only a limited amount of "cross platform" compatibility for developers.

    Second, the entire industry is moving away from OpenGL. There is now a Khronos project, Vulkan, that is meant to replace OpenGL and OpenGL ES. And there is a version that "runs" on top of Apple's Metal called MoltenVk, so if developers must have cross platform compatibility, then they can move to it, instead of Metal.
    It is my understanding that Vulkan and Metal are very similar, possibly developed from the same code base.    Im not a 3D graphics programmer so i can't say from experience from using the 2 APIs.  If true there is very little in the way of shimming required.  

    As for OpenGL the problem there is that CAD and engineering software businesses depend upon it and had enough control over the development process to prevent OpenGL modernization.   The gaming industry on the other hand rushed to leave OpenGL behind.    This is almost completely due to performance issues with OpenGL, basically game developers want as much performance as they can get.  

    On the otherhand developers of engineering and visulization software are more concerned about stability, correctness and other issues.   I suspect that most of these developers will leave OpenGL behind for Vulkan at some point.   They simply are not in a rush and frankly Vulkan needs to stabilize.   So what im saying here is that i expect Vulkan to be the industry standard moving forward.   That means API translation libraries for Apples Metal for non game related apps.  

    ...
    And OpenGL is not wiped from macOS yet. It's just been officially deprecated after years of neglect. It's still in Mojave.
    There are already reports that Autocad 2018 works fine on Mojave beta. Whether this is because OpenGL is still in Mojave as Mike said, or they are already supporting Metal, I don't know. Autodesk has announced a "One AutoCAD" strategy when AutoCAD 2019 was released (Windows only for now), so I think (hope) Autodesk is keeping an eye on the future, and cross-platform compatibility (incl. web and mobile platforms).

    PS: Mac releases of AutoCAD are of necessity tied to Apple's macOS releases, so we might not see the Mac 2019 version until...2019?
    Modern OpenGL made lots of things useful for CAD/CAE legacy, such as line thickness, so writing has been on the wall for a while. They have pushed the market to except everything can be done 3D and "2D drawings" aren't needed while this has lead to some improvements it really just served to highlight when the flat drawing presentation has clear value.

    AutoCad have most of the app running on iPad already. Which suggest the core 2D graphics can run on OpenGL ES (so modern core GL) where many vendors still need OpenGL 2.0 support in their 2D drawing but most are in the process of modernising as they don't get the benefits of new hardware without it. So hardly a surprise the beta runs Ok on Mojave.

    cgWerksAlex1N
  • Reply 56 of 133
    Soli said:
    I wonder why Metal cannot be back ported to the High Sierra Macs being left out…
    Can't or not worth Apple's time when they've made Mojave support so many older Macs and Apple customers are quick to update their OSes?
    Did Apple move to an annual schedule since SJ...?  Design decision?  Mr. Cook?  Are we are now in constant public beta my last bug report response 'if it happens in 10.14.x let us know' - well no I have real work to do in Sierra thank you very much and losing data isn't part of my expectation...

    Moral of the current Apple landscape from my perspective ? If one absolutely needs new (locked down storage) hardware buy it before the typical fall macOS release, and ideally an older leftover macOS 'new' stock (or refurb) on an older macOS that can be Applecare supported with whatever remains of a somewhat debugged operating system (was RAID support ever restored to El Capitan?) that has been left behind...
    edited June 28
  • Reply 57 of 133
    Soli said:
    There are already reports that Autocad 2018 works fine on Mojave beta. Whether this is because OpenGL is still in Mojave as Mike said, or they are already supporting Metal, I don't know. Autodesk has announced a "One AutoCAD" strategy when AutoCAD 2019 was released (Windows only for now), so I think (hope) Autodesk is keeping an eye on the future, and cross-platform compatibility (incl. web and mobile platforms).

    PS: Mac releases of AutoCAD are of necessity tied to Apple's macOS releases, so we might not see the Mac 2019 version until...2019?
    I can't answer any in-depth technical questions on this topic, but I can say that I've had zero issues with AutoCAD 2018 running on Mojave. I never have high hopes for it because it doesn't look like a typical Mac app, and yet it seems to always work, so props to AutoDesk.
    Good to hear yet another report of AutoCAD 2018 for Mac running on Mojave...

    I first started trying AutoCAD on macOS around four or five years ago. Coming from many years of experience with AutoCAD on Windows, I thought one of the problems with the Mac version was that Autodesk was trying too hard to "Mac-ify" the UI. This might be all well and good for a novice with no experience with AutoCAD, but it seemed to me most people seriously interested in running AutoCAD on Mac would be coming from the Windows world. So the more it looked like, and the more features it shared with the Windows version the better, making switching from Windows to Mac that much easier. The first couple of Mac versions I tried made going back and forth between platforms inconsistent, and they weren't as stable either. It wasn't until maybe 2016 that we started getting closer to feature/UI parity and greater stability. I work in a shop where some AutoCAD users are on Windows and some are on Mac, so for me, I don't have a problem if it doesn't look like a typical Mac app, as long as it is laid out reasonably well and is consistent across platforms.
    Alex1Nmacplusplus
  • Reply 58 of 133
    Quad849Quad849 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    OpenGL sucks, get over it, no one ones that caveman technology, is not even wanted in windows where graphic intensive environments are common. You have to use a very outdated mindset to even think about building anything using OpenGL 

    Not because it's open source it's good  and openGL is a example of this  DirectX as closed it is has surpassed in performance and utility to OpenGL and Vulcan seems to be a better alternative, no one is looking to OpenGL 
  • Reply 59 of 133
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,289member
    Soli said:
    There are already reports that Autocad 2018 works fine on Mojave beta. Whether this is because OpenGL is still in Mojave as Mike said, or they are already supporting Metal, I don't know. Autodesk has announced a "One AutoCAD" strategy when AutoCAD 2019 was released (Windows only for now), so I think (hope) Autodesk is keeping an eye on the future, and cross-platform compatibility (incl. web and mobile platforms).

    PS: Mac releases of AutoCAD are of necessity tied to Apple's macOS releases, so we might not see the Mac 2019 version until...2019?
    I can't answer any in-depth technical questions on this topic, but I can say that I've had zero issues with AutoCAD 2018 running on Mojave. I never have high hopes for it because it doesn't look like a typical Mac app, and yet it seems to always work, so props to AutoDesk.
    Good to hear yet another report of AutoCAD 2018 for Mac running on Mojave...

    I first started trying AutoCAD on macOS around four or five years ago. Coming from many years of experience with AutoCAD on Windows, I thought one of the problems with the Mac version was that Autodesk was trying too hard to "Mac-ify" the UI. This might be all well and good for a novice with no experience with AutoCAD, but it seemed to me most people seriously interested in running AutoCAD on Mac would be coming from the Windows world. So the more it looked like, and the more features it shared with the Windows version the better, making switching from Windows to Mac that much easier. The first couple of Mac versions I tried made going back and forth between platforms inconsistent, and they weren't as stable either. It wasn't until maybe 2016 that we started getting closer to feature/UI parity and greater stability. I work in a shop where some AutoCAD users are on Windows and some are on Mac, so for me, I don't have a problem if it doesn't look like a typical Mac app, as long as it is laid out reasonably well and is consistent across platforms.
    No argument here. My comment is more about how some apps seems to be built using a standard base and then ported (poorly) to the Mac, like countless Java apps I've seen. Those apps seem to be easily foiled by any hiccups with OS changes.

    Despite not looking or feeling like the average Mac app it's had none of those issues that I've experienced from other vendors so I'd wager AutoCAD isn't a WORA app. For an app like AutoCAD I fully understand why they want as much OS parity as possible.
    edited June 28 elijahgroundaboutnowAlex1N
  • Reply 60 of 133
    MacProMacPro Posts: 17,588member
    wizard69 said:
    MacPro said:
    Very informative, thanks.

    Question, what is the impact on the latest Macs running Windows 10 and beyond under Boot Camp, I assume none and Window will just continue as is, even on the latest Macs?
    It shouldnt make any difference on current models.   There might be issues if Apple starts to put Apple designed GPUs in the Macs.  
    Yes, that was what I was thinking too, which is why I was careful in wording the question.  Mike states 'None' categorically, so perhaps he knows something we don't.
    Alex1N
Sign In or Register to comment.