dougny
Nov 29, 03:50 PM
I only registered to respond to this idiot "dougny". I usually just lurk and read what everyone else has to say on here.
You have no clue what your talking about, all your statistics are wrong and I feel really sorry for whatever artists you represent.
Your a f_ck_ng moran.
Anyway, to everyone else....
Here is the deal. The money Universal got Microsoft never EVER touched the hands of any artists.. it went straight into some very deep pockets. This is exactly what is going to happen with Apple's loot if this little deal goes through.
Total revenues in the MI (music industry) have actually been UP, and consistently so. More people are going to concerts than ever before, download sales are so large that they are numbing, and BEST OF ALL indie labels are thriving. Yes, people do still buy CD's, and DVD's.
Wow, you logged on just to show everyone you are an idiot. You actually think because paid downloads are on the rise that record companies are making more money? You are flat out wrong. Also, record companies don't share in concert ticket sales (which are also down BTW).
Dumbass
You have no clue what your talking about, all your statistics are wrong and I feel really sorry for whatever artists you represent.
Your a f_ck_ng moran.
Anyway, to everyone else....
Here is the deal. The money Universal got Microsoft never EVER touched the hands of any artists.. it went straight into some very deep pockets. This is exactly what is going to happen with Apple's loot if this little deal goes through.
Total revenues in the MI (music industry) have actually been UP, and consistently so. More people are going to concerts than ever before, download sales are so large that they are numbing, and BEST OF ALL indie labels are thriving. Yes, people do still buy CD's, and DVD's.
Wow, you logged on just to show everyone you are an idiot. You actually think because paid downloads are on the rise that record companies are making more money? You are flat out wrong. Also, record companies don't share in concert ticket sales (which are also down BTW).
Dumbass
The Beatles
Apr 25, 03:16 PM
Asinine
how did they think the location based features on any app worked? This is just a cashed file for those purposes.
And what about all the location based advertising? So it takes this to make people understand that the world has changed? This is old news and ridiculous that people are now making a scene about it. How about signing electronically at a credit card purchase machine. How about giving someone a check with your account number on the bottom of it. How about electronically giving your personal and sensitive info over the internet.
This is how it is people. You bought in to it a long time ago. Its what it takes to move forward. And the only reason why this is a bad thing is because people fail to police themselves. Including the people that attain this info, and thats why we will eventually have some negative repercussion from this collection of data.
But to pin point apple and create a federal case out of something that the government already new was happening is ridiculous.
how did they think the location based features on any app worked? This is just a cashed file for those purposes.
And what about all the location based advertising? So it takes this to make people understand that the world has changed? This is old news and ridiculous that people are now making a scene about it. How about signing electronically at a credit card purchase machine. How about giving someone a check with your account number on the bottom of it. How about electronically giving your personal and sensitive info over the internet.
This is how it is people. You bought in to it a long time ago. Its what it takes to move forward. And the only reason why this is a bad thing is because people fail to police themselves. Including the people that attain this info, and thats why we will eventually have some negative repercussion from this collection of data.
But to pin point apple and create a federal case out of something that the government already new was happening is ridiculous.
Cowinacape
Jul 27, 03:56 PM
How about a new Mac at WWDC?
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
You da man Dan :D I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
You da man Dan :D I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.
admanimal
Apr 11, 12:03 PM
Where are all these bs claims coming from? Why wouldn't Apple release it in June as always?
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
amols
Aug 27, 02:28 AM
I don't give a rat's A** about Santa Rosa. What I do give a Rat's A** about is that Easy Access HD Bay. The ability to have multiple 160 GB HDs standing by for different field purposes can make for revolutionary work flow procedures.
Exactly!! I did swap my MBP HD from 100GB (Seagate 5400.2) to 160GB (Seagate 5400.3) and almost cracked the top cover, not to mention destroyed the warranty (which I don't mind anyway). Its really funny that we can easily swap HD in MB but not in MBP. I hope they fix this in next release instead of silly Merom updates.
Exactly!! I did swap my MBP HD from 100GB (Seagate 5400.2) to 160GB (Seagate 5400.3) and almost cracked the top cover, not to mention destroyed the warranty (which I don't mind anyway). Its really funny that we can easily swap HD in MB but not in MBP. I hope they fix this in next release instead of silly Merom updates.
shamino
Jul 20, 09:58 AM
No I think you are confused. :) I meant "Is having more cores, lets say 8, more efficient than one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores?"
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
First of all, you assume that it is possible to make "one big core equal in processing power to the 8 cores". I don't think it is possible to do this (at least not with the x86 architecture using today's technology.)
But assuming such a chip exists, the answer depends on what kind of efficiency you're thinking of.
If you mean computational efficiency (meaning the most useful processing per clock-tick), then a single big core will do better. This is because single-threaded apps will be able to use the full power (whereas multiple threads are needed to take advantagte of multiple cores.) Also, the operating system can get rid of the overhead that is needed to keep software running on the multiple cores from stepping on each other.
If you mean energy efficiency (amount of processing per watt of electricity consumed), then it could go either way, depending on how the chips are made. But given today's manufacturing processes and the non-linear power curve that we see as clock speeds are increased, the multiple-core solution will almost definitely use less power.
dgree03
Apr 6, 02:45 PM
You list ONE issue with the iPad, that it looks too much like the iPhone, and then go on to a laundry list of issues on the Xoom that culminates in a tech support call and THAT is your preferred device?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
If you want I can give you a laundry list of things wrong with the ipad.. it will surely be longer than my xoom cons?
Rock on winner. I have a bridge I want to sell you.
If you want I can give you a laundry list of things wrong with the ipad.. it will surely be longer than my xoom cons?
epitaphic
Aug 18, 06:22 AM
Apps already capable of saturating 4 cores need more cores to run simultaneously without compromising speed.That is what has already happened. You were unaware of that fact. So yes, it is a whole different ballgame already. :eek:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
twoodcc
Aug 5, 04:42 PM
i just wish Monday would just get here already......
cbronfman
Apr 11, 06:44 PM
Doesn't this make sense? I think I'm close, I'm sure I forgot something / not perfectly accurate, but this seems like what Apple is shooting for. Makes sense to me...
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
Jan: iPhone (like original)
Mar: iPad
May: iMac/MacPro
June/Jul: Software
Sept: iPods
Nov: Laptops
The original iPhone which I purchased was released on June 29th, 2007 (I guess - wow that's a while ago) although it was announced much earlier.
Erasmus
Aug 27, 02:58 AM
I already have those stats, I want to see them drop in a high-end Conroe (~3GHz) so I would know that I could feasibly upgrade my 2GHz Core Duo in the future. It's possible, isn't it? I mean, the G5's were really hot, and the iMac enclosure could handle that, wouldn't the new Intel ones be able to handle the Conroe Extremes?
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
See Apple???
Yet another potential customer for iMac Ultra. We Want C2DE + X1900 and a 23" screen!
It has been demonstrated an iMac can take large amounts of heat. I should expect (With almost certainty) that iMac will get at least 2.4 Conroe, which should be quite a significant increase on its own, and possibly higher. 2.4 on the low end 17" model, 2.66 in 20" and the option of 2.93 or 3.2 in iMac Ultra! (Then Apple can gift me with one for coming up with such a great idea)
X1800's for the 17 and 20 inches, and X1900 for the 23".
Sounds good to me.
Extra space due to 23" could be used for the cooling of the twin fires of CPU and GPU.
ugp
Jun 10, 07:21 AM
I've always called Wal-Mart Wally World.
BWhaler
Aug 26, 11:36 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
I agree. The practical differences between the Core Duo and the Core 2 Duo in real world tests are tiny.
But a serious bump to the GPU, HD, and the other enhancements you mention certainly would make the upgrade worthwhile.
I Just Hope Apple Joins The Rest Of The Manufacturers In This Mass Announcement. In this case, I wish they wouldn't "Think Differently".
I hope you are right. I would love to buy a MBP next week.
Expect new Merom-based macs, and a new iPod, on September 18th.
I suspect you are correct, but I hope you are wrong. I'd love to get a new MBP in the next couple of weeks before my next international trip. But to your point, I am not optimistic.
Lollypop
Jul 20, 09:03 AM
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
It depends on the architecture, its possible to have 24 1ghz cores being more power hungry than a single 24ghz processor.
Processor manufacturers are having problems increasing the amount of instructions they can execute, intels latest goal is to have the most amount of instructions executed with the least energy consumtion, but given constraints manufacturers are finding it easier to add a second processor than to scale a single processor to deliver the same performance as two "simpler" processors.
It depends on the architecture, its possible to have 24 1ghz cores being more power hungry than a single 24ghz processor.
Processor manufacturers are having problems increasing the amount of instructions they can execute, intels latest goal is to have the most amount of instructions executed with the least energy consumtion, but given constraints manufacturers are finding it easier to add a second processor than to scale a single processor to deliver the same performance as two "simpler" processors.
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:00 PM
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:43 AM
Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:37 PM
Oh, so that's why you want Handbrake fourfold, I was going to ask wether you had 4 optical drives.I have way more than 4 optical dirves. But multiple DVD/CD duplication is not my thing. Moreover, running a bunch of copies of Toast to burn DVDs or CDs is not processor intensive at all and does not recquire more than one core.
Macnoviz
Apr 12, 11:36 AM
There have been live streams in the past but last I heard Apple killed it for this meeting.
Lethal
well, if they were planning on doing a livestream, and all of the sudden they make it into a semi-stevenote, the extra traffic would probably kill the stream anyway
Lethal
well, if they were planning on doing a livestream, and all of the sudden they make it into a semi-stevenote, the extra traffic would probably kill the stream anyway
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:20 PM
It really depends on your application.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
On the desktop, if you're a typical user that's just interested in web surfing, playing music files, organizing your photo collection, etc., more than two cores will probably not be too useful. For these kinds of users, even two cores may be overkill, but two are useful for keeping a responsive UI when an application starts hogging all the CPU time.
If you start using higher-power applications (like video work - iMovie/iDVD, for instance) then more cores will speed up that kind of work (assuming the app is properly multithreaded, of course.) 4-core systems will definitely benefit this kind of user.
With current applications, however, I don't think more than 4 cores will be useful. The kind of work that will make 8 cores useful is the kinds that requires expensive professional software - which most people don't use...
Cluster computing has similar benefits. With 8 cores in each processor, it is almost as good as having 8 times as many computers in the cluster, and a lot less expensive. This concept will scale up as the number of cores increases, assuming motherbaords can be designed with enough memory and FSB bandwidth to keep them all busy.
I think we might see a single quad-core chip in consumer systems, like the iMac. I think it is likely that we'll see them in Pro systems, like the Mac Pro (including a high-end model with two quad-core chips.)
I think processors with more than 4 cores will never be seen outside of servers - Xserves and maybe some configurations of Mac Pro. Mostly because that's where there is a need for this kind of power.I strongly disagree. I could use 16 cores right now for notihng more than simple consumer electronics video compression routines. There will be a Mac Pro with 8 cores this Winter 2007.
You are completely blind to the need for many cores right now for very simple stupid work. All I want to do is run 4 copies of Toast while running 4 copies of Handbrake simultaneously. Each wants 2 cores or more. So you are not thinking of the current need for 16 cores already.
This is not even beginning to discuss how many Final Cut Studio Editors need 16 Cores. Man, I can't believe you wrote that. I think you are overlooking the obvious - the need to run multiple copies of today's applicaitons simultaneously.
So as long as the heat issue can be overcome, I don't see why 8 Cores can't belong inside an iMac by the end of 2008.
I apologize if I read a little hot. But I find the line of thought that 4 or 8 Cores are enough or more than enough to really annoy me. They are not nearly enough for those of us who see the problem of not enough cores EVERY DAY. The rest of you either have no imagination or are only using your Macs for word processing, browsing and email.
I am sincerely frustrated by not having enough cores to do simple stupid work efficiently. Just look at how crippled this G5 Quad is already only running three things. They can't even run full speed due to lack of cores.
myemosoul
Jun 14, 07:25 PM
I'm in the same exact boat Ronbo. I live in NJ too by the way.
I traded my 16GB 3GS to Radio Shack on 6/9 for a 184 dollar credit to use on iPhone4 and i got a call from the store manager an hour and a half ago telling me that they're not allowed to take pre-orders but i can come tomorrow at 1pm and get a pin number that DOESN'T even guarantee me a phone on the 24th?
I'm probably going to pre-order on apple's website tomorrow and spend my 184 dollar credit on a vcr/dvd recorder combo instead.
UGH, i knew i shouldn't have done this, and the icing on the cake is that I have to use my Razr V3 until the 24th which is killing me, and all for nothing.
I traded my 16GB 3GS to Radio Shack on 6/9 for a 184 dollar credit to use on iPhone4 and i got a call from the store manager an hour and a half ago telling me that they're not allowed to take pre-orders but i can come tomorrow at 1pm and get a pin number that DOESN'T even guarantee me a phone on the 24th?
I'm probably going to pre-order on apple's website tomorrow and spend my 184 dollar credit on a vcr/dvd recorder combo instead.
UGH, i knew i shouldn't have done this, and the icing on the cake is that I have to use my Razr V3 until the 24th which is killing me, and all for nothing.
Silentwave
Aug 20, 12:54 AM
That's okay. No worries. I just get a little defensive when I spend $5000 on a new system, and then see you posting about how it'll be better with Clovertown. But that's my problem I guess. :rolleyes:
Anyway, it's all cool.
but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)
Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D
Anyway, it's all cool.
but it might not! First the programs have to be made to use all 8 cores, then you have to combat the slower FSB and RAM (533 FBD instead of 667)
Tigerton is a totally different story of course ;) :D
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:00 PM
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
msb3079
Apr 7, 10:59 PM
Obviously you know little about retail and accounting.
I was a manager at Circuit City for several years and I could not disagree any more.
The quicker you move stock, the better.
Obviously, you DON'T know.
I was a manager at Circuit City for several years and I could not disagree any more.
The quicker you move stock, the better.
Obviously, you DON'T know.
Benjy91
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
Lol, the fragmentation that "doesnt exist".
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
I knew it would bite them in the ass someday.
