Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Hev wrote:
Scott. I really value your opinion on a wide array of topics on r.a.p. But I have to say with the latest versions of XP (ie XP Home and Pro) I have run into few problems with the OS even after years of running the same installation. My opinion had nothing to do with how many problems you have. My opinion had only to do with _what_ you do when you have problems. No matter what you do, all systems fail sooner or later. The issue is what happens when they do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Logan Shaw wrote:
I could claim that until one day a few years ago when my laptop decided to just spontaneously eat the registry for dinner and leave no trace of it behind. I didn't do anything, install any software, etc., etc., but one day I booted up and FWOOOM, no registry. I ran regedit (just to view it, not to change anything), and it was gone. My wife's machine came with ME on it, so when it deleted all of its device drivers one day, we put XP on it. That lasted until XP ate its partition table. Now she has a Mac, and her old computer is serving our web pages running Apache on 2000. It only freezes (not BSOD) sometimes when dragging a scroll bar looking at text in Notepad. Good enough. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... Hev wrote: Scott. I really value your opinion on a wide array of topics on r.a.p. But I have to say with the latest versions of XP (ie XP Home and Pro) I have run into few problems with the OS even after years of running the same installation. My opinion had nothing to do with how many problems you have. My opinion had only to do with _what_ you do when you have problems. No matter what you do, all systems fail sooner or later. The issue is what happens when they do. You showed me to give a complement! g -- -Hev remove your opinion to find me he www.michaelYOURspringerOPINION.com http://www.freeiPods.com/?r=14089013 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"Jay Kadis" wrote in message ... In article . com, wrote: [snip] I know nothing about Macs and I don't conjecture about how reliable they are. But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. And Macs can be 100% reliable in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing. Maybe that's the difference? So we should encourage people to continue not knowing what they're doing ? geoff |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message The problem, to be honest, is that nobody really knows very much about Windows. Everything is a black box. If an application isn't working, you can't single-step through it. You can't truss it and watch all the system calls it makes. You can't do anything, really. You can't look inside the operating system, you can't really see what is going on, you just have to hope for the best, and, when in doubt, reinstall. I think you are wrong on just about every count there Scott. Of course the average user can't do these things, which is probbably just as well... geoff |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article znr1108584738k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote: In article . com writes: You obviously don't know as much about Windows as you do about Macs. I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it, let alone eight times. I don't know much about Windows, but I know that several times when I've run into a little problem, the suggestion has been "reinstall Windows." I've never done it, and I hope I never really have to. I think this "remedy" is prescribed far too often. The problem, to be honest, is that nobody really knows very much about Windows. Everything is a black box. If an application isn't working, you can't single-step through it. You can't truss it and watch all the system calls it makes. You can't do anything, really. You can't look inside the operating system, you can't really see what is going on, you just have to hope for the best, and, when in doubt, reinstall. Software developers can debug their own programs, including single-stepping into Windows. I've been inside NTDLL.DLL countless times, usually Wait(ing)ForSingleObjectEx. I've looked at it from the inside, had to work around stuff it didn't do as advertised, and, particularly troubling, seen lots of evidence of just plain really sloppy coding and obviously untested "features". I refuse to tolerate it any longer. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"S O'Neill" wrote ...
The Mac is still far more stable. I've been forced to reinstall Windows about eight times to, ah, zero times for OSX. Lots of little crap on Windows (I mean NT, XP, 2000, *and* 2003; ME and 9x lose hands down) just plain doesn't work right, and it varies what that may be from day to day or machine to machine; I finally just learned to grin and call it "entertainment" when Windows pulls some new stupid ****. I even got my parents a Mac because I was tired of the weekly phone calls (their first computer ran CP/M, never got support calls for that, either). If you had to reinstall Windows 8 times, I agree, you should be a Mac owner. I've never heard of anyone re-installing Windows more than once and I have been involved with PCs since I built my own CP/M machines. I currently run 150 PCs that get heavy use by random users and I've NEVER had to re-install Windows except when the hardware fails. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
"Trevor de Clercq" wrote ...
What kind of application are you going to be doing that any of this makes a difference? The average high-end PC and the average high-end Mac are both going to be good enough for almost anything if you know how to use the machine properly (and someone's written a good piece of software for it). And all else being equal, you get more bang for your buck with "Wintel" vs. Mac simply for the economic reasons of open-system (i.e. free-market competition) vs. the closed-system, proprietary, single-vendor Apple monoply. It is fascinating how much rabid "progressives" are attracted to such a big-corporation monopoly. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Trevor de Clercq" wrote ... What kind of application are you going to be doing that any of this makes a difference? The average high-end PC and the average high-end Mac are both going to be good enough for almost anything if you know how to use the machine properly (and someone's written a good piece of software for it). They are somewhat different or nobody would buy them. You're right. And all else being equal, you get more bang for your buck with "Wintel" The point is that not all things ARE equal or there would be no difference. Why buy a Lexus when there are Toyotas? vs. Mac simply for the economic reasons of open-system (i.e. free-market competition) vs. the closed-system, proprietary, single-vendor Apple monoply. Apple does monopolize the Apple market, but not the PC market in general. And the USDOJ even knows what happened with that. It is fascinating how much rabid "progressives" are attracted to such a big-corporation monopoly. So far, you're first. That's an important fact. This is headed where I don't think we should go. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
*snip*
just an aside, IME "mac people" tend to be very, let's say "defensive" of their platform of choice, almost in a religious sense as if they have something to prove..."don't question it! just have faith in it's supreme dominance!".... anyone who dares question apple's superiority will incur the wraith of a whole legion of mac geeks.....whereas "PC people" really don't give a damn who agrees with them. Anyway, now that i've berated PT AND Mac let the flames begin! Thank you! I was just about to post something that said that exactly. I also find Logic users to be a bit like that too. I never really hear anyone who uses a PC getting defensive, but i often hear this crazy overreaction about Logic/Mac use. Oh well. Roach |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Steven Sena wrote:
I have a Mac with Pro Tools and a PC with Cubase. The PC with Cubase is a joke and the Mac with Pro Tools actually works... I have a PC with Cubase that works, and use a Mac with Logic that doesn't. Go figure. Too many variables... Roach |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Richard Crowley wrote:
And all else being equal, you get more bang for your buck with "Wintel" vs. Mac simply for the economic reasons of open-system (i.e. free-market competition) vs. the closed-system, proprietary, single-vendor Apple monoply. It is fascinating how much rabid "progressives" are attracted to such a big-corporation monopoly. Well, you basically get to choose between monopolies when you choose Mac vs. Windows. Mac: * monopoly on making the final hardware product (the computer) * mostly an OS monopoly (Apple), although the Unix part (Darwin; see http://www.opendarwin.org/ ) is an open-source project based on Unix (also pretty open). * processor (PowerPC) made according to published, open standards (as used to be used by the consortium of Apple, IBM, and Motorola), but made by IBM. Although older ones were made by Motorola. * firmware is OpenBoot, which is very open; used by Apple for the Mac, but also used by Sun for the SPARCstations, etc., etc. Windows: * no monopoly on the final hardware product (the computer) * total OS monopoly; the OS has very little connection to any other OS, and all its interfaces are proprietary and unlike anything not made by Microsoft (with the exception of now-defunct IBM OS/2) * processor (x86) was an Intel monopoly, and is only now not a monopoly because AMD managed to make a truly-compatible processor through reverse-engineering. * firmware is the BIOS; this is open in the sense that the interfaces are open, but there is no open implementation, and as a practical matter, PC manufacturers must license a BIOS from one of 2 or 3 BIOS manufacturers (AMI, Award, Phoenix) unless they wish to write their own from scratch. So basically, if you choose either, you have to put up with some monopoly action. The closest thing to not having any form of monopoly on your computer would be to run Linux or a BSD (or some other open OS) on a PC. Or, build yourself a project computer (maybe based on the ARM processor, which is another open processor architecture like PowerPC) and run Linux on that; that could actually be a truly open system. - Logan |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
S O'Neill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: The problem, to be honest, is that nobody really knows very much about Windows. Everything is a black box. If an application isn't working, you can't single-step through it. You can't truss it and watch all the system calls it makes. You can't do anything, really. You can't look inside the operating system, you can't really see what is going on, you just have to hope for the best, and, when in doubt, reinstall. Software developers can debug their own programs, including single-stepping into Windows. I've been inside NTDLL.DLL countless times, usually Wait(ing)ForSingleObjectEx. On most Unix systems (including Solaris, which is what I assume Scott is referring to when he mentions "truss"), ANYONE can trace the system calls any program makes, even if they are not the developer and they don't have the source code to squat. And the tool to do it comes with the OS. Which is not to say it's impossible to look inside stuff on Windows, but the attitude seems to be that only a developer would want to. The assumption on Unix is that a user wants to know why something went wrong when it did. Error messages are not simplified to avoid confusing the user, etc., etc. It's sort of the Total Quality Management approach to computing. - Logan |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff Wood wrote:
So we should encourage people to continue not knowing what they're doing ? Do I want to record something, or build computers? (I expect you already know my own answer. g) And honestly, in the mass market sense, most PC users have little idea what's under the hood or how to keep it working, based on watching the world around me. -- ha |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rocha wrote:
*snip* just an aside, IME "mac people" tend to be very, let's say "defensive" of their platform of choice, almost in a religious sense as if they have something to prove..."don't question it! just have faith in it's supreme dominance!".... anyone who dares question apple's superiority will incur the wraith of a whole legion of mac geeks.....whereas "PC people" really don't give a damn who agrees with them. Anyway, now that i've berated PT AND Mac let the flames begin! Thank you! I was just about to post something that said that exactly. I also find Logic users to be a bit like that too. I never really hear anyone who uses a PC getting defensive, but i often hear this crazy overreaction about Logic/Mac use. Oh well. I'm going to have to chalk that BS up to the company you guys choose. I hang with folks who use whatever and could give a **** whatever else somebody else uses. -- ha |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Vin ha scritto:
i can understand where macs had the obvious advantage in the win95/98/me days of totally instablility and unreliability.. but windows 2000/xp are extremely stable, pcs are cheaper.. is mac hardware more powerful for audio processing? whats the story? two people i know bought macs because they wanted to do some 'serious' recording but neither of them can really explain why they couldn't have done it with a pc.. seems silly to learn a whole new OS if there's no actually benefit.. Just don't consider yourself "limited" in any way using a mac or a pc. You can do EXACTLY the same things with both platforms. Quality of audio is a matter of applications and audio hardware, not platform. If you are a pc user you don't have real reason to change. If you are a mac user you don't have real reason to change. If you plan to become a computer user from scratch, simply start with the platform used by the peoples close to you, this will help a lot, for tips, suggestions and explerience sharing. Don't get blinded by the marketing statements of whom want to enslave you as a "target user". Refuse stupid assioms like "mac IS for audio" or "mac is for serious recording". Mind that most software houses involved in thick audio projects are "porting" their apps on both platform, except those owned by microsoft or apple. Sadly, on the linux platform, great audio stuffs are not already done so you have to choose between win and osx. May be in the future... bye |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
J Paul wrote:
I am pretty sure that the SE/30 I installed as an Appleshare fileserver in 1989, was still running in Y2K, serving a casino entertainment department. I know for sure that the SE/30 I installed as an Appleshare fileserver in 1990 was still running in 1999, serving a retail store and restaurant. To be fair, they did replace a couple of hard drives during that period--as much for capacity increases as anything else. I can't imagine a Wintel machine providing 10 years of 24/7 service. I know of a couple. OTOH I know of *many* Intel systems running Banyan Vines or OS/2 1.x with 10+ years of reliable service (with similar hard drive upgrades in all but two cases.) I also used an SE/30 ... Those were smokin little Macs. Maybe the best of Apple's early machines. Agreed. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote:
Kurt Albershardt wrote: Pick the software that suits your needs and workflow pattern best. Pick the OS that runs that SW. Pick the hardware that runs that OS. And that's the totality of the story. -- ha YAY End of discussion.....no? That's why many have both platforms. I know which one I prefer, but they are both useful. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Kurt Albershardt ha scritto:
J Paul wrote: I am pretty sure that the SE/30 I installed as an Appleshare fileserver in 1989, was still running in Y2K, serving a casino entertainment department. I know for sure that the SE/30 I installed as an Appleshare fileserver in 1990 was still running in 1999, serving a retail store and restaurant. To be fair, they did replace a couple of hard drives during that period--as much for capacity increases as anything else. I can't imagine a Wintel machine providing 10 years of 24/7 service. I know of a couple. OTOH I know of *many* Intel systems running Banyan Vines or OS/2 1.x with 10+ years of reliable service (with similar hard drive upgrades in all but two cases.) I also used an SE/30 ... Those were smokin little Macs. Maybe the best of Apple's early machines. Agreed. Yeees, may be. But i don't know people using the same machine as daw for more than 4 or 5 years. Computers get old very soon and perfectly woking ones are soon replaced with newer ones. this is the reason because computers don't break! The constructor company will re-sell one new to you without the need of hardware malfunction. And in this very long life (for a computer) of 5 years, peoples replaced many components as cd burner, ram, hd, monitor and so on. A file server is much different as home computers, because on the latter you continuosly install and remove thousands of programs and the server just run as is. This will lead soon to system problems for home computers but not for servers. I got an intel P166 machine up 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, running a linux server since 1998, seven years. This machine is providing me with http server, smtp and imap server, file server and, in the last 3 years, adsl connection and edonkey net download service. I replaced 2 disks and a fan during this seven years. At the time i purchased, the cost was 1/4 as the contemporary mac! matter of taste. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
S O'Neill wrote:
The Mac is still far more stable. LOL. I've been forced to reinstall Windows about eight times to, ah, zero times for OSX. Lots of little crap on Windows (I mean NT, XP, 2000, *and* 2003; ME and 9x lose hands down) just plain doesn't work right, and it varies what that may be from day to day or machine to machine; Then you were using an internet machine. I run PT on a Dell laptop flawlessly - because I use it for audio only. And, it didn't cost me a silly amount of money like a mac would. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
hank alrich wrote: huwgarethwrote: I know a lot about Windows, and therefore never have to reinstall it I know quite a few IT folks who are beyond just Windows saavy, but I have never heard one claim that! -- ha I can't reply to all the pro-Mac people in here, and I'm not going to try to. But I have Windows servers running applications that I have developed that have run 24/7 for 5+ years without a rebuild (generally, the turnover will be faster than that for business reasons). Out of the dozens of servers that I have used, I haven't had one just fail on me, though we do have procedures in place to deal with this situation if it arises. I probably use higher quality machines than most of you do; my typical server cost is over $10K. I also have never had to rebuild my DAW, though I have only had it 3 years. It isn't connected to the internet - if I want to transfer files to it I copy them to a CD. Most the people complaining about having to rebuild their machines use them for net surfing as well, so it is easy to see why they fail. My previous music computer (MIDI-only, used to sync recorders and keyboards, and do some sequencing) was running Windows 3.11 until I replaced it 3 years ago, which gives you some idea of how long that machine ran without problems. As far as the Apple server goes; good for them that they've got it. But as far as I can see, for enterprise-level systems it has no penetration whatsoever. I'm certainly not interested in it; I'm not going to change my purchases, and go through the man-months or years of due diligence just because yet another server manufacturer is on the market. I buy my Wintel machines from IBM and Unix boxes from Sun; and as long as they continue to work as well as they have I'm not going to change. I think that, as usual in this debate, most people missed at least the point that I was trying to make. I am not saying that PCs are more reliable than Apples - I have no interest in that question. What I was saying was that PCs can be perfectly reliable, and that my organization and many others run businesses far larger than the music business based on them. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
wrote: I think that, as usual in this debate, most people missed at least the point that I was trying to make. I am not saying that PCs are more reliable than Apples - I have no interest in that question. What I was saying was that PCs can be perfectly reliable, and that my organization and many others run businesses far larger than the music business based on them. And I was saying that _neither_ PCs nor Macs are perfectly reliable, but they're getting better. I suppose it all depends on what you consider reliable. $ uptime 10:09am up 462 day(s), 1:44, 11 users, load average: 1.00, 1.01, 0.91 --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
In article znr1108643102k@trad, Mike Rivers wrote:
I'll stand behind Scott's contention that few people really know what's going on. Those who do are not practically accessable to me. I really don't want to spend $5K on a hotshot consultant for this job. My complaint is that I have talked with $5k hotshot consultants who didn't know any more than I did about what was inside. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Geoff Wood"
wrote: "Jay Kadis" wrote in message ... In article . com, wrote: [snip] I know nothing about Macs and I don't conjecture about how reliable they are. But I do know that PCs can be 100% reliable when deployed by people who know what they are doing. And Macs can be 100% reliable in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing. Maybe that's the difference? So we should encourage people to continue not knowing what they're doing ? geoff Hey, it works for Bush! -Jay -- x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
So is all this "don't use internet apps on an audio computer" derived
from problems on a PC? Because I've got internet and FTP and web development tools on my Mac as well as ProTools, Reason, Finale, and Mach Five plus a DVD player and games and I've never had a problem due to some internet/audio or other app conflict. In fact, the studio I used to work at had EVERY TDM ProTools rig connected to the internet. OK, I'll admit that we didn't surf the web while recording an orchestra date to 48 tracks of PT 24-bit, but I know of a lot of instances where the engineer would get bored sometimes while people were working out "verses" in the "vocal" while listening to the "beat" and would browse the web with ProTools open and in input. They would even record sometimes with the internet on in the background. We never had a problem. So if I factor in the cost of buying TWO PC computers (one for audio, one for internet), then the cost of my Mac seems lower than the PC. What does it say about a computer OS that you have to strip it down such that you can only run a few applications before they start to potentially conflict with each other? Cheers, Trevor de Clercq atlasrecrd wrote: S O'Neill wrote: The Mac is still far more stable. LOL. I've been forced to reinstall Windows about eight times to, ah, zero times for OSX. Lots of little crap on Windows (I mean NT, XP, 2000, *and* 2003; ME and 9x lose hands down) just plain doesn't work right, and it varies what that may be from day to day or machine to machine; Then you were using an internet machine. I run PT on a Dell laptop flawlessly - because I use it for audio only. And, it didn't cost me a silly amount of money like a mac would. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Rivers wrote:
When you re-install Windows, does it build a new registry based on the programs that are currently installed? My greatest fear about re-installing Windows is that things that used to work will become invisible or won't work. I never install an operating system on top of itself, and I never do OS upgrades (i.e. "run this and it will upgrade your OS") either. The reason is, both of these are very complex processes. Installing the OS onto a clean system has been done a zillion times and is very well tested. The other two are done less often and are tested less, therefore I expect them to be less reliable. For something as critical as the OS (on which the reliability of everything else I ever do with the computer depends), I don't trust untested processes. You can tell I'm a little paranoid, right? Well, that's what years of working with computers does to you. Oftentimes I am still not convinced I am paranoid *enough* yet. - Logan |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
S O'Neill wrote:
huwgareth wrote: Most the people complaining about having to rebuild their machines use them for net surfing as well, so it is easy to see why they fail. I rest my case. My car never gets stuck as long as I drive on pavement? g -- ha |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
atlasrecrd wrote:
And, it didn't cost me a silly amount of money like a mac would. Again, everytime in rec.audio.pro someone has run the numbers for machines as closely matched as could be done, there isn't enough money difference to support your contention. And I'm sorry if you have to not use your machine for anything else. The same TiBook here can simultaneously run the MIO via Firewire, Logic Pro, and be on the 'net downloading a file. So you're claiming your machine is cheaper, but I'm noticing you need another machine to hit the Internet, and I don't need another machine to do that. My cost for one Mac might be less tahn your cost for two of them other compooters. There are some differences. What matters to one person may well be irrelevant to another. -- ha |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Scott Dorsey wrote:
And I was saying that _neither_ PCs nor Macs are perfectly reliable, but they're getting better. I suppose it all depends on what you consider reliable. $ uptime 10:09am up 462 day(s), 1:44, 11 users, load average: 1.00, 1.01, 0.91 --scott You've got me beat; I'm only at 104 days on my main Unix machine, having last rebooted on 11/5/2004. Looking back on the output of "last", it appears that I rebooted 5 times during 2004, so 104 days is actually a bit above average. Still, all the reboots since I installed the OS in May 2000 have been voluntary except: * one time I did something "experimental" just to see what would happen, like trying to move a snapshot backing store file onto the filesystem that was using for a snapshot while it was in use. * one time I did something obviously stupid and had to restore some important files from backups. * the time a houseguest was sleeping in the office (a/k/a computer room a/k/a guest room) and he decided the noise of my nightly backups was annoying, so he hit the power button right in the middle of the backups every night until I noticed that computers had been rebooted and asked why. grrrr.... So basically, one crash in 5 years, and it was because I was doing something I knew could lead to a crash, but did it anyway. - Logan |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Trevor de Clercq wrote:
So is all this "don't use internet apps on an audio computer" derived from problems on a PC? Because I've got internet and FTP and web development tools on my Mac as well as ProTools, Reason, Finale, and Mach Five plus a DVD player and games and I've never had a problem due to some internet/audio or other app conflict. In fact, the studio I used to work at had EVERY TDM ProTools rig connected to the internet. OK, I'll admit that we didn't surf the web while recording an orchestra date to 48 tracks of PT 24-bit, but I know of a lot of instances where the engineer would get bored sometimes while people were working out "verses" in the "vocal" while listening to the "beat" and would browse the web with ProTools open and in input. They would even record sometimes with the internet on in the background. We never had a problem. So if I factor in the cost of buying TWO PC computers (one for audio, one for internet), then the cost of my Mac seems lower than the PC. What does it say about a computer OS that you have to strip it down such that you can only run a few applications before they start to potentially conflict with each other? You don't--unless you're pushing the absolute limits of the machine (in which case it becomes true on either OS.) I've had my Win32 audio machines (3 of them now, covering 5+ years) in daily use for email and browsing and finances and the like without a single infection or meltdown of any kind. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Logan Shaw wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote: When you re-install Windows, does it build a new registry based on the programs that are currently installed? My greatest fear about re-installing Windows is that things that used to work will become invisible or won't work. I never install an operating system on top of itself, and I never do OS upgrades (i.e. "run this and it will upgrade your OS") either. The reason is, both of these are very complex processes. Installing the OS onto a clean system has been done a zillion times and is very well tested. The other two are done less often and are tested less, therefore I expect them to be less reliable. For something as critical as the OS (on which the reliability of everything else I ever do with the computer depends), I don't trust untested processes. Besides--hard drives are continuously getting cheaper, faster, and bigger. My advice (which applies to Macs, PCs, and *nix variants alike) is always to buy a new hard disk, replace the existing one with it, update the OS to current patch levels, install your major apps--and only then to reinstall the old disk as a secondary drive. This method has proven itself quite well over 20 years. |