BTW, if you guys ever want to engineer a real music session you'd beter
stop
being so easily offended. This may not be grade school anymore, but
you're
never too old to get a wedgie.

Is talking down to people something you spend time practicing at home?
BRBR

Alright, now I'm impressed. You can still talk with your underwear pulled over
your head.

Scott, it's just shuck and jive. At times I can be as serious and earnest as
anyone--but this isn't one of those times.

I swear I'm not being condescending when I say that your voluminous threads are
information for some and entertainment for others, in the finest r.a.p.
tradition.

-R

As I recall, when I asked you nicely to share simple information, your
response was "And I should do this, why?". When I explained why I was
interested, you dropped out of that branch of the thread. On the contrary,
if you were to ask me to run a test for you with whatever equipment I have
at my disposal for -whatever- reason, I would do it (given enough spare
time)... simply because you or anyone else asked, and so must be interested
in the onfo. BRBR

Well, you know, I do have a job and all. And I like to spend time with my
kids, etc. And if you looked around you'd realize that I have been part of
some tests elsewhere on the internet regarding the relative merits of DAWs,
along with the why and whatfor. In fact you need look no further than two of
the r.a.p. compilation CD's for examples of such testing (the first set of
which I helped instigate, and compiled all the tracks in the interest of
sharing information and music with the group). In doing so I've become
extremely aware of what a time-consuming and rigorous process it is to do any
meaningful comparative tests between DAW's in order to generate data that is
accurate and useful enough to make decisions on. Unlike what you've been
putting forth here.

Furthermore, I did take the time to look up one of my PTHD sessions and itemize
exactly what I did with which plugins and how much power it consumed. Probably
about as "real world" (which seems to be the "benchmark" of these discussions)
as you get. But, of course, anecdotal, as the real world tends to be. In any
case, you're welcome.

-Everyone- is subject to that truth. I am. You are. EggHd is. Somehow, based
on my dealings with EggHd, I have a feeling he understands that a bit better
than you do. BRBR

Egghead, is that true?

-R

As for "music"... without Protools attached, no G4 system in existence could
even play back the mixes I work on. I don't think the resulting silence can
be defined as music unless you are Philip Glass. BRBR

Do you mean John Cage?

-R

Well, you know, I do have a job and all. And I like to spend time with my
kids, etc.

Sure... but what I was asking would have taken far, far less time than
counting the 100 or so plugins you did.

I'm not demanding you help... I certainly can't do that. But "and I should
do this, why?" seemed like a rather abrupt response for a nicely asked
question.

And if you looked around you'd realize that I have been part of
some tests elsewhere on the internet regarding the relative merits of
DAWs,
along with the why and whatfor. In fact you need look no further than two
of
the r.a.p. compilation CD's for examples of such testing (the first set
of
which I helped instigate, and compiled all the tracks in the interest of
sharing information and music with the group). In doing so I've become
extremely aware of what a time-consuming and rigorous process it is to do
any
meaningful comparative tests between DAW's in order to generate data that
is
accurate and useful enough to make decisions on. Unlike what you've been
putting forth here.

What I am suggesting is that as many people as possible contribute whatever
small amounts of information they can... and that the information be
analyzed onlly once there is enough to do so. There seems to be a great
misunderstanding on this group about this. I was very clear in the initial
post about the fact that the information I presented was just the tip of the
iceberg... not enough to draw conclusions from.

Furthermore, I did take the time to look up one of my PTHD sessions and
itemize
exactly what I did with which plugins and how much power it consumed.

True... but since the goal is to make some sort of comparison, the
information you supplied isn't very easy to work with. Many of the plugins
you listed are not available on other platforms... and I have no idea how
the DSP power is distributed. Running one instance of Autotune and noting
DSP% would have taken far less time, and would have been a useful, if small,
piece of the puzzle. That was all I asked.

-Everyone- is subject to that truth. I am. You are. EggHd is. Somehow,
based
on my dealings with EggHd, I have a feeling he understands that a bit
better
than you do. BRBR

Egghead, is that true?

Although I haven't necessarily agreed with EggHd, I have found him to be
reasonable. I don't think he would have answered my request with the same
response you did.

-S

I swear I'm not being condescending when I say that your voluminous
threads are
information for some and entertainment for others, in the finest r.a.p.
tradition.

That's all I ever hoped they were.

-S

Benchmarks are not useless. They are one factor that should be considered of
many. It's all part of the puzzle. In any case... no one here can dictate
whether or not benchmarks are useful to people other than themselves.

That said... the discussion here was not about what the "priorities" are.
Although valid, that's another topic altogeth BRBR

There's the data and there's the evaluation of the importance of the data.
Those aren't two separate issues. In any case, these discussions acquire a
life of their own after a few hundred posts and sometimes even a little light
is shed.

Mr. Krizman has simply gotten to a point where he is seeking out every post
I have in this group lately, and responding simply to respond. A quick
search on what he's contributed lately confirms BRBR

As I peruse the messages, nearly every one is from you, and now directed
against me in a very ad hominem fashion. Are you trying to vote me off the
island or something?

-R

One of the endeavors I am involved in is building DAWs. I am interested to
know how the various platforms compare in order to make the best decisions
in setting up the systems. I'm also interested in perhaps authoring an
article that shows the progress through the years of various DAWs and their
capabilities.

My goal is not to sell anything to anyone here.... if it was, I would have
brought it up several times over.

For those surprised by this... I don't really keep it a secret. A quick trip
to the URL indicated by my email address would tell anyone this.

-S

"R Krizman" wrote in message
...
Scott,. I understand that you are in business
and have an interest in promoting your platform. It's not like you can go
build an Apple, which is one reason why I don't use them, either.
BRBR

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean Scott has some vested interest in all
this?
What business is he in?

Why can't he or you use an Apple?

Is there a subtext to this discussion I've been missing? Usually in this
group
if someone is a dealer or is promoting a particular business agenda they
say
so.

-R

Hmmm... I suppose maybe I do.

-S

"R Krizman" wrote in message
...
As for "music"... without Protools attached, no G4 system in existence
could
even play back the mixes I work on. I don't think the resulting silence
can
be defined as music unless you are Philip Glass. BRBR

Do you mean John Cage?

-R

redred wrote:

As far as my response, I'll say it until the cows come home and get fried -
'Benchmarks mean *nothing nothing nothing* unless you are selling
processors'. And since that's the case, caveat emptor. BRBR

What?

What?!!!

Are you saying Scott is a processor sales weasel and all this is just some
marketing bull****?

Scott, I asked you way back when if you had a business or sales interest in any
of this and I thought you said no.

So, wassup? Fess up m'boy.

-R

There's the data and there's the evaluation of the importance of the data.
Those aren't two separate issues.

They are related... but I am interesting in collecting as much data as
possible and only then deciding its worth. My take is that a lot of the
detractors have jumped the gun unnecessarily.

As I peruse the messages, nearly every one is from you, and now directed
against me in a very ad hominem fashion. Are you trying to vote me off
the
island or something?

Well... now that you are back... your demeaner is a lot easier for me to
deal with, for whatever reason. If the two of us can remain civil like this,
I'll be happy to take any of that back. I definitely prefer being mutually
reasonable to what has been happening.

-S

Where do you draw the line? When is it meaningful and when is it not?

-S BRBR

Very good, now we're getting somewhere. Even you have to admit these are valid
questions.

-R

More specifically... my issue with Apple's approach to comparing audio
platforms is that they could have chosen to use the same plugins in an
attempt to make the comparison meaningful, but they did not. Meaningful
benchmarking is not easy... but Apple could have at least tried a little
harder.

-S

"R Krizman" wrote in message
...
Where do you draw the line? When is it meaningful and when is it not?

-S BRBR

Very good, now we're getting somewhere. Even you have to admit these are
valid
questions.

-R

BTW... if you'd like perspective on this from someone other than myself who
frequents this group... read some of Brian T's posts in the Native/Dedicated
thread. I don't always get along with the guy, but we've encountered each
other enough for him to have a good idea of what I'm about.

-S

"R Krizman" wrote in message
...
Scott,. I understand that you are in business
and have an interest in promoting your platform. It's not like you can go
build an Apple, which is one reason why I don't use them, either.
BRBR

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean Scott has some vested interest in all
this?
What business is he in?

Why can't he or you use an Apple?

Is there a subtext to this discussion I've been missing? Usually in this
group
if someone is a dealer or is promoting a particular business agenda they
say
so.

-R

In article , R Krizman
wrote:

redred wrote:

As far as my response, I'll say it until the cows come home and get fried -
'Benchmarks mean *nothing nothing nothing* unless you are selling
processors'. And since that's the case, caveat emptor. BRBR

What?

What?!!!

Are you saying Scott is a processor sales weasel and all this is just some
marketing bull****?

Scott, I asked you way back when if you had a business or sales interest in
any
of this and I thought you said no.

So, wassup? Fess up m'boy.

-R
You didn't know that scott is pimping his liquid daw machines? that's
why i jumped on him in the first place. he's not doing this fo rhis
health and he's not threatened by the upcoming release of the G5 just
cause he likes wintel. he's a bonified PC DAW builder. thats' why he
jumps on all of these threads.

In article , R Krizman
wrote:

Scott,. I understand that you are in business
and have an interest in promoting your platform. It's not like you can go
build an Apple, which is one reason why I don't use them, either. BRBR

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean Scott has some vested interest in all this?
What business is he in?

Why can't he or you use an Apple?

Is there a subtext to this discussion I've been missing? Usually in this
group
if someone is a dealer or is promoting a particular business agenda they say
so.

-R
Scott builds and sells PC DAWs. thats why he's so freaked by the whole
pro tools / mac/ g5 thing.

R Krizman wrote:
Scott,. I understand that you are in business
and have an interest in promoting your platform. It's not like you can go
build an Apple, which is one reason why I don't use them, either. BRBR

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean Scott has some vested interest in all this?
What business is he in?

He works for a company that sells PCs. Which is fine.

Why can't he or you use an Apple?

The sloping cases are no good because the cat falls off. If you have big
cats, you need monitors with squared-off tops.

Is there a subtext to this discussion I've been missing? Usually in this group
if someone is a dealer or is promoting a particular business agenda they say
so.

The problem is that everybody is promoting unconsious biases all the time
anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

R Krizman wrote:
Scott,. I understand that you are in business
and have an interest in promoting your platform. It's not like you can go
build an Apple, which is one reason why I don't use them, either. BRBR

Whoa, wait a minute. You mean Scott has some vested interest in all this?
What business is he in?

He works for a company that sells PCs. Which is fine.

Why can't he or you use an Apple?

The sloping cases are no good because the cat falls off. If you have big
cats, you need monitors with squared-off tops.

I agree but I find I get better low end response with dogs because of
the added weight. I have two yellow Labs...



Steve

Hi,

In message , Kurt Albershardt
writes
EggHd wrote:

The percentage is also relatively small on the PC side when going
dual-CPU... although it does depend on how the app was coded to some degree.
What Digi says is it takes all the graphics and sticks that on one
processor
and that frees up 15% on the other.

Which tells me (warning: dons EE/systems analyst hat) that the app is
not really coded or compiled for SMP.

Yes, it tells me the same thing. I'm also not clear why the graphics
should take 15% CPU utilisation in the first place. With a modern 64bit
or 128 bit graphics device in the system, with (probably) 64MB of local
RAM, it shouldn't need anywhere near that much host processor time.

--
Regards,
Glenn Booth

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Why can't he or you use an Apple?

The sloping cases are no good because the cat falls off. If you have big
cats, you need monitors with squared-off tops.

My problem right now is that the cat sleeps on the DAW and adds a lot of
heat - the Athlon starts shooting sparks when doing intensive fp operations.
The cat just can't take it, and I've had to replace him every six months or
so.

I've looked into getting a cat that doesn't run so hot, but nobody makes
one.

jb

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1056921564k@trad...

In article
writes:

So how many companies are still making the big inline desks?

Damn few. There would be more, but how many people would buy one,
given the size, the price, and the fact that they think that their
computer is all they need?


A computer may well be all I or anyone NEEDS, but all I need to take a crap
is a hole, some TP and some lime... ask me what I want, and it's a whole
different story.

But there's that size and price thing...

jb

In article ,
"Scott Reams" wrote:


Not the "same" project, once mixed.

What if they used a reverb in Cubase and an EQ in Logic? Would that be a
useful performance comparison?

How about if it was a compressor in Cubase and an EQ in Logic?

How about a mastering EQ in Cubase and a track EQ in Logic?

How about an EQ that is a model of a vintage analog unit in Cubase vs. a
simple filter in Logic?

How do we know the EQ they used in one app isn't ten times as good sounding
(and thus worthy of a lot more CPU usage) as the one used in the other app?
And if so... what do the numbers tell you? Anything at all?

Where do you draw the line? When is it meaningful and when is it not?

-S

I´d say how about having the same audio files and having to mix it to a
finished level
You would end up using reverbs, comps and eq´s. Sure they wouldn´t be
the same ones, but when the song was mixed (and by the same guy) it
would give a ballmark of what you can do on a system with specific
software. It´s no 100% benchmark, but that doesn´t exist. However, all
that counts to me would be someone saying "if I mix on a xxx processor I
use 33% of the power wheas on the YYY processor I use 67%".
I could "assume" (hence making an ASS out of U and ME) xxx was more
powerful.

In article ,
"Scott Reams" wrote:

More specifically... my issue with Apple's approach to comparing audio
platforms is that they could have chosen to use the same plugins in an
attempt to make the comparison meaningful, but they did not. Meaningful
benchmarking is not easy... but Apple could have at least tried a little
harder.

Well, sure! It would be nice of them to be completely unbiased, but they
are in the same game as Intel and AMD etc. Do you think Intel are any
more correct when benchmarking their processors?

Are people going to stop buying houses and live in 8x8 storage spaces?

Isn't that what the compact living tren d a few years was all about?

Tiny, tiny HiFis with tiny, tiny speakers, tiny, tiny microwaves, tiny,
tiny dish washers, etc, etc. And there's also a whole bunch of companies
producing tiny, tiny PCs.

I'm just waiting for the tiny, tiny beds, tiny, tiny bathtubs and tiny,
tiny toilets to start appearing.

/Jonas

When have I "pimped" even once in this group. Show me the post.

-S

"Musikboy" wrote in message
.. .
In article , R Krizman
wrote:

redred wrote:

As far as my response, I'll say it until the cows come home and get
fried -
'Benchmarks mean *nothing nothing nothing* unless you are selling
processors'. And since that's the case, caveat emptor. BRBR

What?

What?!!!

Are you saying Scott is a processor sales weasel and all this is just
some
marketing bull****?

Scott, I asked you way back when if you had a business or sales interest
in
any
of this and I thought you said no.

So, wassup? Fess up m'boy.

-R
You didn't know that scott is pimping his liquid daw machines? that's
why i jumped on him in the first place. he's not doing this fo rhis
health and he's not threatened by the upcoming release of the G5 just
cause he likes wintel. he's a bonified PC DAW builder. thats' why he
jumps on all of these threads.

Deriving as much business as they do from Windows users, I can't see why
they would lie about it in Apple's direction. The G5 may just be for
real.

Absolutely! As I've said before, the G5 may turn out to be the most capable
system in existence upon release.

How capable it is has never been the issue for me. Apple's way of presenting
the G5 has been.

-S

Well, sure! It would be nice of them to be completely unbiased, but they
are in the same game as Intel and AMD etc. Do you think Intel are any
more correct when benchmarking their processors?

Intel and AMD would not have gotten away from comparing unlike plugins. The
rest of the PC world would have had their heads.

-S

They are questions that should be ask once there is enough data to analyze
how meaningful it is. We aren't there yet when it comes to what I initially
proposed.

-S


No, you don't need to know which machine gives you the most hundreds of plugins
to ask the question as to whether it matters that either machine gives you that
many.

I think it's pretty clear that most of these machines will give you a ****load
of plugins, and the ones that don't will in five minutes or so. Furthermore,
there are other discussions elsewhere that seem to be pointing to the fact that
more and more people are becoming unenamored with plugins at all and are trying
to achieve their audio ends by other means (mics, preamps, consoles, hardware
preocessors)

In other words, plugin count is virtually a non-issue, or at least soon will
be. This leaves other factors, such as plugin type, platform stability, ease
and desireablilty of the software, and of course whether or not the case will
support your cat, and many other considerations, as more important factors in
deciding which system to go with.

I'm going to stop beating that drum now.

-R

"Scott Reams" wrote in message .. .
How about an EQ that is a model of a vintage analog unit in Cubase vs. a
simple filter in Logic?

What? and you think they did that? Just because the process was not
written to your specifications?

I think you are missing the point. I don't think they intentionally picked a
particular EQs to make one side look good. What I'm saying is... where is
the line? These plugins -will- be of differing quality. How far apart in
quality do they have to be before the performance comparison doesn't really
mean anything to anyone? I'm just asking you to answer that question.

-S

See, you seem (to me anyway) to be reading into it too much. What
about powered monitor shoot outs? 2 sets, all same signal chain up to
cable tip, same room etc.. but wait, one has xover electronics made in
Korea, the other in China but both are european manufactured,......
WTF!!!! Also, cant make a valid comparison because each used different
brand solder.....WTF!!!!

Whats this world coming to??

I really don't care about G5/P4/AMD.... All are very strong nowadays
easily surpass the cpu's of 5 yrs ago...and them some.

My thoughts on the ad were that is was written for the Apple/Mac/G4
crowd and not really meant for pc users (or non-crossplatform
software) or to be interpeted as a Intel vs G5 "Benchmark"....Like I
said before, they didn't use "PLUGINS" they used 2 DAW's, one -
CubasePC; one - MAc Logic; Mixed comperable Native FX from each
program and ......well showed the results.

No, Not a perfect test in the least.....But....also easily seen to be
invalid as a true "benchmarking" test. Seems to be directed to the
CubasePC users who are looking to crossgrade thier systems to
Logic......Apple does own Logic now right?

Actually. I'd like to see a Benchmark comparison using:
1) G5/Nuendo w/native fx
2) PC/Nuendo w/native fx
3) G5/Nuendo w/waves fx
4) PC/Nuendo w/waves fx

Take one to it's limit then try it with the other....I allways figured
this type of testing to be done after product is released, by some
nuetral party and it isnt released for that yet is it?

See, you seem (to me anyway) to be reading into it too much. What
about powered monitor shoot outs? 2 sets, all same signal chain up to
cable tip, same room etc.. but wait, one has xover electronics made in
Korea, the other in China but both are european manufactured,......
WTF!!!!

It's a listening test. The system tests Apple is running is purely a
performance comparison, not a listening test. Two completely different
animals.

That said... there is one similarity, in that the goal in either case is to
see how well each product delivers the same content. You are going to listen
to the same content when comparing the monitors... and you should compare
the same plugins when measuring the performance of DAWs.

Also, cant make a valid comparison because each used different
brand solder.....WTF!!!!

The solder is a required part of the package with each monitor. Your
warrantee doesn't support you re-soldering in order to even the field. Audio
sequencers, on the other hand, invite the use of 3rd party plugins, making
it -extremely- easy to even the field.

I really don't care about G5/P4/AMD.... All are very strong nowadays
easily surpass the cpu's of 5 yrs ago...and them some.

Sure they are... but there are still plenty of people running into the wall
even with current systems. Understanding what each delivers specifically is
important to some.

I'll say it again... the G5 may turn out to be the fastest system available
for under $5000, but none of us have any idea where it stands until someone
other than Apple tests it.

My thoughts on the ad were that is was written for the Apple/Mac/G4
crowd and not really meant for pc users

?

The fact that Apple leans on performance comparisons with Intel CPUs makes
it very clear that this is aimed at PC users... otherwise, why make the
comparison? Why not show how much faster it is than G4? (this is something
they didn't do even once, interestingly).

(or non-crossplatform
software) or to be interpeted as a Intel vs G5 "Benchmark"....Like I
said before, they didn't use "PLUGINS" they used 2 DAW's, one -
CubasePC; one - MAc Logic; Mixed comperable Native FX from each
program and ......well showed the results.

No, Not a perfect test in the least.....But....also easily seen to be
invalid as a true "benchmarking" test. Seems to be directed to the
CubasePC users who are looking to crossgrade thier systems to
Logic......Apple does own Logic now right?

Yes... but if the goal was to show off Logic, it should have been compared
to Nuendo/CubaseSX on Mac.

Actually. I'd like to see a Benchmark comparison using:
1) G5/Nuendo w/native fx
2) PC/Nuendo w/native fx
3) G5/Nuendo w/waves fx
4) PC/Nuendo w/waves fx

I'd like to see that as well. It would help to give some perspective and
actually make comparing native effects somewhat meaningful. Without a
baseline, it's hard to put any weight on a comparison.

Take one to it's limit then try it with the other....I allways figured
this type of testing to be done after product is released, by some
nuetral party and it isnt released for that yet is it?

Of course not. I always trust 3rd party benchmarking before I trust what the
manufacturer claims... but I still think Apple would have had a lot more
people listening to them seriously if they had done things a bit
differently.

-S

You know, Scott, I'm try to be civil and reasonable here, but it turns out
BT
was right. You really are a putz.

That's right... anyone who's opinion differs from yours must be a putz. I'll
pack up my things and not gather data, as you have instructed me to do,
because the data is unimportant to everyone if it is unimportant to you.

-S

Thats what I meant to say. (I thought I did) Like you, I "do" trust
3rd party benchmarking, it's like... they are the ones who find out if
those who: "walk the walk" will "talk the talk".

Be sure to post your finding and links as you have been. Sorry if I
came off like a shmuk.

Hey... no worries at all. It is actually really a cool thing when people can
get into a heated debate and finally end up with an understanding of each
other.

I think that what both of us were saying was valid... we just needed to find
the common ground.

-S

reddred wrote:

"Scott Reams" wrote:

Is talking down to people something you spend time practicing at home?

This group is pretty harsh, even the friends can just dog the hell out of
one another, on top of the usual usenet BS. Whenever there is a
disagreement, everybody talks down to everybody else. It should be in the
FAQ.

No ****. Us shorter folks sometimes have to go get ladders to do a
little downtalking. It's important to have the "best" ladder for this
work.

--
ha

Willow wrote:

I'm wondering...where is a good group to discuss the technical issues
concerning our trade? Clearly we have a minority of folks who like to talk
testing methodolgy and specs. The responses are less than scientific...in
fact they are down right charged with emotion. Is it possable to post a
technical thread and only (mostly) get technical responses? Most people just
want to talk experience here...there is a time and a place...where are the
scientist?

How amusing shall a dumbass guitar player find it that you're looking to
talk computer science but cannot find your forum _in cyberscape_? This
saloon is about _music_, and while computers are tools that can be used
musically, computers themselves are neither "our trade" nor our focus.
Computers are peripherals, just like whiskey, sex, barbecue and
airplanes.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

EggHd wrote:

Which is
frustrating to you I'm sure because I've read your posts :-) You certainly
could stand to learn EggHd. Nice name, I now understand.

If we take your assumption that I "could stand to learn" and let's assume that
I've read your posts.... What have you added to the thread?

We've discussed that already. Where you been?

--
ha

Willow wrote:

Since I can only add my point of view to the various threads, I find your
clear bias towards Mr. Reams a testament to your unprofessional candor.

While it's nice that Scott copped to his gig and thoughtfully suggested
one might have followed his email addy to the scoop, the process of
revelation strikes me as something less forthright than, say, Fletcher's
proclamations of gear pimpdom.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

x-no archive: yes

reddred wrote:

Why do we need everything?

And should we get it, where will we put it all?

--
ha

Scott Reams wrote:

For just over $12,000 You can get a Dual G5 Fully loaded.
I'm thinking I can build 4-5 dual PC's for the same dough.

To make that comparison fair, you have to factor in the monetary value
of your time rounding up the parts and building them.

Or just buy them from a DAW builder.

Or not, based on one's perception of same right here. Maybe the DAW
builder's time isn't worth much.

--
hank alrich * secret mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

R Krizman wrote:

Are you trying to vote me off the
island or something?

Not to worry. I just discovered we're actually on a peninsula.

--
ha


Where you been bro'?
-R

Hank Alrich wrote:

This
saloon is about _music_, and while computers are tools that can be used
musically, computers themselves are neither "our trade" nor our focus.
Computers are peripherals, just like whiskey, sex, barbecue and
airplanes.


Well, I can only handle barbecue anymore. One out of five ain't real
inspiring. : (

Wayne

Well, I can only handle barbecue anymore. One out of five ain't real
inspiring. : (

Wayne



Well, at least it's barbecue and not computers.

-R