rumorguy
Apr 4, 05:08 PM
To the left of Steve is a reflection in the window, you see two men--one is holding a reader board--probably the scrip that Steve is using. Or is it Woz, with his new Ipad? :apple:
DakotaGuy
Apr 8, 09:30 AM
That's so disgusting.
Why? Everyone needs to be taking cuts including PPH. I am a Democrat, however I know if it were not for the Republicans controlling the House right now the talk would be of increasing spending instead of cutting spending.
I think everyone can agree that we need to get spending under control and every department and entitlement program should be looked at and take cuts if necessary. What I would really like to see is an across the board 10% cut if I had it my way. That won't get rid of the deficit, but it would help.
Why? Everyone needs to be taking cuts including PPH. I am a Democrat, however I know if it were not for the Republicans controlling the House right now the talk would be of increasing spending instead of cutting spending.
I think everyone can agree that we need to get spending under control and every department and entitlement program should be looked at and take cuts if necessary. What I would really like to see is an across the board 10% cut if I had it my way. That won't get rid of the deficit, but it would help.
SteveLV702
Mar 24, 02:57 PM
ya probably still require the mifi adaptor and 2 year contract which then makes deal not to tempting :)
bullrat
Sep 14, 09:16 AM
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
more...
nixd2001
Sep 14, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
amols
Sep 25, 11:34 PM
Correct. Wikipedia has a good list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks) of generic (almost certainly no longer enforceable) trademarks and genericized (commonly used generically but regarded as defendable) trademarks.
Apple let this go and next thing they'll find themselves defending is a term 'iPod', because it has become as generic as Walkman. Frankly, not many guys know that there is a computer company called Apple which is the only manufacturer of iPod. I showed my new iPod to couple of my friends and they asked whether it is from Sony or HP :eek:
Apple let this go and next thing they'll find themselves defending is a term 'iPod', because it has become as generic as Walkman. Frankly, not many guys know that there is a computer company called Apple which is the only manufacturer of iPod. I showed my new iPod to couple of my friends and they asked whether it is from Sony or HP :eek:
more...
mdntcallr
Sep 27, 01:37 PM
I'm hoping to see those OpenGL improvements significantly boost my Quake 1 fps on my MacBook.
hah! you are ridiculous, trying to play quake on an integrated graphics chip.
shoulda bought a macbook pro.
that said, for the money apple is charging, they could have definitely picked a low end dedicated graphics chip from ati or nvidia. shame on apple
hah! you are ridiculous, trying to play quake on an integrated graphics chip.
shoulda bought a macbook pro.
that said, for the money apple is charging, they could have definitely picked a low end dedicated graphics chip from ati or nvidia. shame on apple
iMrNiceGuy0023
Jan 6, 11:37 PM
I updated...but the app store is still telling me I have a facebook app update....anyone else have this issue?
more...
macinside
Apr 18, 05:32 PM
There was a study a bit ago that showed that complexity drastically reduced participation in altruistic activities, while simplicity -- especially exact instructions on how to participate -- drastically increased participation.
I think that's applies here. Using a Mac is so simple, generally speaking, that the folding@home pages seem obtuse in comparison. The pages are all ugly, and instructions are unclear, and files seem to be missing that instruction pages reference.
To increase participation I recommend that a very clear communicator make a new thread (perhaps a sticky) with *dead simple* step by step instructions w/screenshots on how to install and turn it on (circa 2010). Maybe even a screen flow that just shows exactly how to it, hosted on a service with crystal clear video like vimeo.com. Get our mirror neurons goin', yaknow?
Case in point, I'm having my own issues. Where exactly is the screen saver? On http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/OSX/OSX.html, it talks about it, and say to grab it off the download page, but I just can't find it. Makes me feel dumb, which is hardly what you want in a social endeavor.
Beyond my notebooks, I also have 2 8 Core Mac Pro's I'd like to put into the game, but I really only want the processor power being used when they're idle. I need that power to myself at the other times. Screen saver or idle time processing is perfect.
Second, I did install just the basic install of http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/release/Folding@home-OSX10.5-6.29.3.pkg.zip in the meantime. Activated the client in System Preferences, and hit the enable button. When does this thing activate? It's not showing any activity in Activity Monitor yet. I guess maybe this does idle time processing w/o any visual feedback?
I think that's applies here. Using a Mac is so simple, generally speaking, that the folding@home pages seem obtuse in comparison. The pages are all ugly, and instructions are unclear, and files seem to be missing that instruction pages reference.
To increase participation I recommend that a very clear communicator make a new thread (perhaps a sticky) with *dead simple* step by step instructions w/screenshots on how to install and turn it on (circa 2010). Maybe even a screen flow that just shows exactly how to it, hosted on a service with crystal clear video like vimeo.com. Get our mirror neurons goin', yaknow?
Case in point, I'm having my own issues. Where exactly is the screen saver? On http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/OSX/OSX.html, it talks about it, and say to grab it off the download page, but I just can't find it. Makes me feel dumb, which is hardly what you want in a social endeavor.
Beyond my notebooks, I also have 2 8 Core Mac Pro's I'd like to put into the game, but I really only want the processor power being used when they're idle. I need that power to myself at the other times. Screen saver or idle time processing is perfect.
Second, I did install just the basic install of http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/release/Folding@home-OSX10.5-6.29.3.pkg.zip in the meantime. Activated the client in System Preferences, and hit the enable button. When does this thing activate? It's not showing any activity in Activity Monitor yet. I guess maybe this does idle time processing w/o any visual feedback?
mrbrown
Feb 18, 10:45 PM
Neither is Zuckerberg. He is not legally allowed to yet.
What country are you from exactly? Zuckerberg (26) is well above the legal drinking age in the US...
What country are you from exactly? Zuckerberg (26) is well above the legal drinking age in the US...
more...
whooleytoo
Mar 23, 02:17 PM
It probably makes a lot of sense for Pioneer to pay the $4, as it gives them a USP. "One of the few (only?) receivers to which an iPhone/iPad can stream".
If it becomes more widely licensed, it's no longer a USP. It's probably not worth $4 any more, and competing standards will become more common.
If it becomes more widely licensed, it's no longer a USP. It's probably not worth $4 any more, and competing standards will become more common.
kingdonk
Mar 2, 12:20 AM
Is this a new webmail?
more...
aced411
Mar 5, 10:03 AM
Actually you'll get the best performance with the single CPU Mac Pro. Logic doesn't do a good job of multiprocessing. It's beats up one core for most tasks. There is supposedly a way to leverage other cores/cpu's by routing tracks through different buses or something to that effect, but that's a ridiculous solution. I'd really only recommend the multi cpu pro's for those using Final Cut Pro, Adobe After Effects or if you're doing a lot of encoding.
On a 2009 Mac Pro single quad, I've had 45+ tracks (combination of audio and virtual instruments) all with multiple plugins running and it doesn't even flinch.
On a 2009 Mac Pro single quad, I've had 45+ tracks (combination of audio and virtual instruments) all with multiple plugins running and it doesn't even flinch.
jefhatfield
Sep 15, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by iGAV
I don't think the situation will arise where we are comparing the speed of the G4 Vs the P5 actually...... ;)
i hope by the time pentium 5 hits the shelves, there will be a G5 on the shelves
btw, igav, i see that you are on akira's site...i should go there and join up and give the old alphatech a hard time...i miss alphatech and his intelligent comments...even when he gets unintelligent and flames newbies:eek: :p ;)
I don't think the situation will arise where we are comparing the speed of the G4 Vs the P5 actually...... ;)
i hope by the time pentium 5 hits the shelves, there will be a G5 on the shelves
btw, igav, i see that you are on akira's site...i should go there and join up and give the old alphatech a hard time...i miss alphatech and his intelligent comments...even when he gets unintelligent and flames newbies:eek: :p ;)
more...
s.hasan546
Apr 11, 09:54 AM
Is this really bump worthy?
didn't see how old it was sorry :(
didn't see how old it was sorry :(
spazzcat
Aug 19, 12:14 PM
I do not have the p on my phone, but I have email on my phone. And when someone messages me on fb it sends a notice to my email.
more...
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince
above Queen Elizabeth II.
queen elizabeth ii young woman
more...
SJSpike
Nov 20, 07:02 AM
Steve Wozniak bought White iPhone kit, interview on Dutch website:
http://nos.nl/video/199423-wozniak-wil-witte-iphone.html
http://nos.nl/video/199423-wozniak-wil-witte-iphone.html
Padraig
Nov 2, 10:12 AM
I wonder if this increase is an accurate reflection of the market. PC sales always tend to drop off hugely in the run up to a new windows release.
iJohnHenry
Apr 6, 07:37 AM
I support increasing gas tax 1�/month
Oh, dream time?
I support a return to paying a $1 per annum honorarium to political office holders. :rolleyes:
Oh, dream time?
I support a return to paying a $1 per annum honorarium to political office holders. :rolleyes:
kjs862
May 5, 12:03 PM
ya, with a pricetag like that I wouldn't accept any flaws in the monitor at all. definitely take it back.
Taking it back right now, tomorrow is the last day to return it so better today then tomorrow!
Taking it back right now, tomorrow is the last day to return it so better today then tomorrow!
zivilist
May 7, 04:09 AM
Runs smoothly with max resolution (1680x1050) and minimum details on my iMac:
iMac (late 2006), 20", C2D 2,16 GHz, 3 GB RAM, X1600 128 MB, 250 GB HDD, Mac OS X 10.6.3
iMac (late 2006), 20", C2D 2,16 GHz, 3 GB RAM, X1600 128 MB, 250 GB HDD, Mac OS X 10.6.3
gregorsamsa
Nov 5, 05:56 AM
From Macworld, Oct. 19th 2006..
According to IDC’s report, the growth puts Apple’s market share at 5.8 percent (fourth place overall), ahead of Toshiba at 4.2 percent. Dell topped the U.S. market with 31 percent, but suffered a negative growth rate of -6.7 percent. The top 5 is rounded out by HP with a 22 percent share and Gateway with a 6 percent share.
Apple's 5.8% marketshare would be far higher if it wasn't for the corporate bulk-buying of PCs for business; plus all the end of line, bargain-basement PCs that may figure in any such report.
According to IDC’s report, the growth puts Apple’s market share at 5.8 percent (fourth place overall), ahead of Toshiba at 4.2 percent. Dell topped the U.S. market with 31 percent, but suffered a negative growth rate of -6.7 percent. The top 5 is rounded out by HP with a 22 percent share and Gateway with a 6 percent share.
Apple's 5.8% marketshare would be far higher if it wasn't for the corporate bulk-buying of PCs for business; plus all the end of line, bargain-basement PCs that may figure in any such report.
sebastianlewis
May 12, 07:56 PM
Hmm, I'm still going around the Guides getting used to the layout and it is kind of all over the place, too many categories and subcategories, and neither of them is particularly strong either, and it follows the exact layout of Wikipedia (same software of course) for categories which is just poorly designed.
For one thing you should never aim to have a single category for miscellaneous articles, it's poor form, and while it makes for a nice organization tool until something can be categorized, it would make more sense to just categorize something at the articles creation.
Gaming is a subset of software in this case, games themselves are just software after all, having a subcategory for gaming maybe, but Apple has 0 dedicated hardware for gaming, gaming is just another feature in the case of the iPod or something that their hardware is capable of running such as with the iPhone or Mac OS X.
The thing that's getting in the way of my ideas for organization is the distinction between Apple's platforms, Macs, iPhones, and iTunes. So I propose they be grouped together to cut down on more useless categories since some of those articles might apply to both Macs and iPhones or both iPhones and iTunes.
How about this:
Hardware— Mac, Server, iPhone, iPod
You propose subcategories for Laptops and Desktops but Apple's entire Hardware lineup currently consists of 6 computers, 3 Desktops and 3 Laptops. If you want to count in past models then it starts to make more sense, but not enough to call for a distinction between the two, especially since there's no need for separate articles consisting of every single model ever released, so for example, the PowerMacs could be grouped together, the iBooks grouped together, the iMacs grouped together, and all the others. Maybe one more subcategory for accessories but that doesn't draw a clear enough line between Mac accessories and iPod accessories, so stuff like Cinema Displays should just be categorized with Macs and FM transmitters with the iPod category. The Apple TV of course would also go under iPod.
Software— Mac OS X and Operating Systems, iPhone OS, Developer, Games
Mac OS X can cover Mac software, UNIX programs, and Server software, it's kind of a lot to cover though so maybe either UNIX or Server could be broken out into a new subcategory if the Mac OS X category started growing too large. In comparison, the iPhone OS category will probably be much smaller, at least for now, but as a bonus it can also encompass some Web Apps as well. Games should be its own subcategory and cover Mac OS X, iPod, and iPhone games.
Services
I don't think this one really needs any subcategories, iTunes might prove large but if it's covering up too much of the category then it might be reconsidered to be broken out into a new subcategory. Otherwise it should be just fine stacking Apple's Services and Services for Mac users in here. Retail would also go here.
Networking
Really covers both hardware and software, including Airport, and is basically independent of the barriers between any of Apple's platforms. Can also cover Internet services I guess but that would be pushing it.
People and Organizations
Sorry to be so critical but I deeply care about layout and organization in everything, and the guides should be as easy as possible for users to navigate with as few categories and subcategories as we can get away with.
Sebastian
For one thing you should never aim to have a single category for miscellaneous articles, it's poor form, and while it makes for a nice organization tool until something can be categorized, it would make more sense to just categorize something at the articles creation.
Gaming is a subset of software in this case, games themselves are just software after all, having a subcategory for gaming maybe, but Apple has 0 dedicated hardware for gaming, gaming is just another feature in the case of the iPod or something that their hardware is capable of running such as with the iPhone or Mac OS X.
The thing that's getting in the way of my ideas for organization is the distinction between Apple's platforms, Macs, iPhones, and iTunes. So I propose they be grouped together to cut down on more useless categories since some of those articles might apply to both Macs and iPhones or both iPhones and iTunes.
How about this:
Hardware— Mac, Server, iPhone, iPod
You propose subcategories for Laptops and Desktops but Apple's entire Hardware lineup currently consists of 6 computers, 3 Desktops and 3 Laptops. If you want to count in past models then it starts to make more sense, but not enough to call for a distinction between the two, especially since there's no need for separate articles consisting of every single model ever released, so for example, the PowerMacs could be grouped together, the iBooks grouped together, the iMacs grouped together, and all the others. Maybe one more subcategory for accessories but that doesn't draw a clear enough line between Mac accessories and iPod accessories, so stuff like Cinema Displays should just be categorized with Macs and FM transmitters with the iPod category. The Apple TV of course would also go under iPod.
Software— Mac OS X and Operating Systems, iPhone OS, Developer, Games
Mac OS X can cover Mac software, UNIX programs, and Server software, it's kind of a lot to cover though so maybe either UNIX or Server could be broken out into a new subcategory if the Mac OS X category started growing too large. In comparison, the iPhone OS category will probably be much smaller, at least for now, but as a bonus it can also encompass some Web Apps as well. Games should be its own subcategory and cover Mac OS X, iPod, and iPhone games.
Services
I don't think this one really needs any subcategories, iTunes might prove large but if it's covering up too much of the category then it might be reconsidered to be broken out into a new subcategory. Otherwise it should be just fine stacking Apple's Services and Services for Mac users in here. Retail would also go here.
Networking
Really covers both hardware and software, including Airport, and is basically independent of the barriers between any of Apple's platforms. Can also cover Internet services I guess but that would be pushing it.
People and Organizations
Sorry to be so critical but I deeply care about layout and organization in everything, and the guides should be as easy as possible for users to navigate with as few categories and subcategories as we can get away with.
Sebastian
drumpat01
Mar 11, 07:47 AM
Hey all you Fort Worth people, thanks for coming out so early, all of us employees are very happy to see you guys care so much.
No comments:
Post a Comment