And what -- sit by and never be able to handle Word documents? Unfortunately, there are still a good number of people who want to see, for example, resumes in Word format. (Even tech HR people sometimes insist on that, though I'm inclined to write them off as clueless...)
It's like being a Mac user or, I don't know, a non-American. Your average Mac can read a PC disk, but it doesn't usually go the other way. Meanwhile, your average USian speaks English and *maybe* Spanish, which means the rest of the world has to learn English to communicate with us. Good, bad, it's the reality -- it's great that Sun eats its own dogfood by using StarOffice internally, but file exchange is pretty important, and MSWord is the number one format to translate.
If Microsoft had any interest at all in interoperability there'd be a.doc file standard on the shelf next to Adobe's PDF definition. This is like Samba -- Andrew Tridgell wrote the original using a packet-sniffer on a DEC Pathworks server, as I recall. That's reverse-engineering for you.
Another point -- are we talking filtering one way or both? I'm thinking the cleanest way to go back is RTF export (which presumably already exists on all platforms) but where can you get an rtf->Word filter (probably to Word 97?)?
Except that XML does seem to be an actual up-and-coming standard. OpenOffice is building their doc format off of it (thus my choice of XML as a hypothetical), Apple's using it to write config files for Darwin, Mozilla's UI is built using an XML variant (or so I've heard)... you get the general idea.
It's a question of where the nucleation sites develop -- WML is out there, but there's no call for it since the Wireless Web is a nonentity (at least in my social circles -- for all I know it might be vastly different in, say, Finland). And we've had browser implementors shoving extensions down our throat, but realistically... when was the last time you saw a tag?
So I think assuming XML is heading in the right direction. It won't show up everywhere it *should* (I remember someone on/. wondering why RFC2821 (new generation SMTP, in case I got the number wrong) wasn't XML-based, which is the Right Thing for the most part but would break every MTA in existence) but I think it will show up everywhere it *can* for the near future.
(I do think XML is a bit skanky, btw, but it's like C -- it's there, it works, and it's a good starting point for future designs.)
Only reason I picked XML is that it seems to be the best choice for an intermediate language anyway.
What is needed, though, is documentation on the current MSOffice formats. (Reverse engineering for interoperability...) Probably using OpenOffice's formats would be better, but ymmv.
And you're right about not needing to be involved in the projects; all you need is a way of forcing them to use your intermediate language at gunpoint:-)
I thought it was a bit strange that he was talking about separate character spaces for each language in the standard. I mean, I realize there's substantial differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean ideographs, but I'm reading and thinking, doesn't Unicode have an overlap space? (Which, as someone pointed out upthread, indeed it does.)
What bothers me about articles like the original is that the guy doesn't seem to quote chapter and verse, but he's slick enough to make the casual reader think he knows what he's talking about anyway. But we see so much of that anyway that it goes right past the bullshit filter nine times out of ten...
This actually makes a lot of sense, especially when file formats are starting to move to XML-based formats (see OpenOffice) -- just translate the Word format to XML (or whatever) as an intermediate format.
Come to think of it, this would make a great project; anyone know what would be needed to write msw2xml(1)? My perl skills are becoming a bit rusty...
Fads and Fallacies by Martin Gardner. It's an ancient book (1953) but a great read for the student of psychoceramics (of which I have been, on and off, for several years now).
I also wish to point out two things:
"'They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus...' 'They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'" Traditionally attributed to Carl Sagan, but I suspect he wasn't the first.
Schopenhauer was flat-out wrong. Plenty of truth gets accepted with no struggle at all, and the only people who quote that particular statement seem to be those with axes to grind anyway.
I actually think this is a good interview for Slashdot because it serves as a reality check. We do need to be familiar with these sorts of people less we lose the logical edge that made us geeks in the first place...
/Brian
Re:I bought my car -- and now I have to buy gas?
on
TiVo Upgrade Isn't
·
· Score: 2
Besides, an OpenTiVo thing can't be that hard to build anyway -- I'm pretty sure it's been done.
/Brian
Re:There will NEVER be a Tivo-Lookalike. Ever.
on
TiVo Upgrade Isn't
·
· Score: 2
Uh... UltimateTV is a TiVo ripoff, and ain't no way in hell that MS would ever sell a Linux-based product. I'd say it's an excellent chance that your average UltimateTV unit is running WinCE.
Laissez-faire is as idealistic and non-workable as pure socialism. All I'm saying is that Microsoft would be much nastier in such an environment (that is, if it could get around IBM in the first place).
Actually, the reason Apple switched from DPS to Quartz was precisely to get out of paying Adobe for the privilege of using Adobe code. AFAIK Quartz was a PDF renderer that was developed in house.
You might want to read the licensing clause in the front of the PDF and PostScript definitions, btw. It's rather interesting -- it reserves trademark rights but essentially allows both definitions to be mostly public domain. Apple IMHO could have done the same thing in implementing their own DPS engine; I presume there was a touch of politics involved, though.
As for Quicktime... Hmm. I think the thing with Quicktime is that it is, more than even the MacOS or the hardware, *the* crown jewel of Apple's intellectual property. Nobody has created a better version of what Quicktime does and Apple feels the need to keep that going as a potential revenue stream. You may like it, you may not, but that's how it is. (Though I think the real reason they don't open source has a lot more to do with the Sorenson codec than it does anything else...)
It's out there, on hard drives, fully compilable. I'd say it's safe.
But I have to agree that Netscape as we know it is dead, has been for a while. AOL has the code, but so does the rest of the world, and we already have one spinoff (Galeon). I don't think the Netscape name is even worth much of anything anymore.
So my thought -- use Mozilla if you want, and if you don't feel free to strip the body for parts.
First off, Jon was using "CEO" in a metaphorical sense. I personally don't believe that Steve Ballmer picks his own nose without some kind of authorization from BillG anyway.
Second, though Katz' article is a bit of a jeremiad, I don't think it's too far from what could become the truth. I used to work for Starbucks and had an inside view of a company that, while not as rapacious as its reputation, still suffered from a lack of internal dissent. Microsoft seems to be the same, only with a much more vicious attitude towards the rest of the world. A company of yes-men will not keep itself in check, and if the antitrust case collapses, than there will be nothing to do so at all.
In that light I think Katz is overstating his point, but it's not a hopelessly unreasonable way of looking at it.
Besides, this isn't about capitalism. This is about hijacking capitalism to support one company's aims and then hiding behind "right to make a buck". This is why laissez-faire can't work -- it's too likely to degenerate into, well, this.
/brian
Re:Uh, who would actually *BUY* Photoshop?
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 2
Time for an open-source color manager, I suppose. I'd be inclined to think that Apple couldn't bitch about a clean-room implementation. I think what's needed is a quick-and-dirty algorithm (there *must* be one out there) with some kind of fudgespace to account for differences between devices.
I think the easiest way to do it would be to consider the CMYK output as a rough value (and possibly the input as well); the end result is that you actually have to do three color conversions at once. The curious thing is that an RGB color sep should be trivial, but how does one convert R->C (or is that even the correct conversion?).
Well... KDE actually does give you that option, but it's a bit sloppily done and I got rid of it about ten minutes after I started trying it out. I agree that it's not a great solution, but I stand by the idea that MDI is not much of an improvement. You do lose the layout flexibility when you have all your windows corraled in one gigantic window -- it's a waste of screen real estate.
Now if that's what you're used to, that makes it somewhat different. But it wouldn't be to *my* taste.
MDI is just a sloppy bandaid for not putting the menu bar at the top of the screen the way the Mac did it (debate it if you will, but it was the Right Thing on the original toaster screens back in 1984, and it does have the advantage of being easier to aim at...). I actually find the GIMP's interface to be a rather silly but (just barely) adequate compromise, though it does take a bit longer than it should to get used to.
MDI is ugly. It tends to restrict your ability to manage your screen space; its only valid purpose is to keep your taskbar/dock from getting too cluttered:-) I don't consider myself too dogmatic about it though; the occasionally confusing window clutter of a multitasking OS that doesn't speak MDI (i.e. MacOS since 1991 and System 7) is another issue entirely...
/Brian
Re:Uh, who would actually *BUY* Photoshop?
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 2
True. But there's no reason, now that GIMP is officially on the Mac platform, that some of those high-end features might make it to the GIMP. Color sep, for example. Most people don't need it, but it seems like the sort of thing that would actually be pretty trivial to do with a canned RGB->CMYK conversion algorithm. You can bet that it will be added one of these days.
Hey, if you're going to talk like that at least have the decency to mention Fatboy Slim instead of Britney:-)
But this is true -- I've never really understood how SDMI could be made a selling point...
(At some random convention. Prospective Shopper is looking at MP3 players and approaches Hardware Company Suit.)
PS: So explain this SDMI thing to me you're pushing.
HCS: Well, this is a great feature! It allows you to be sure your music is secure!
PS: What do you mean? Like someone sticking a virus in an MP3 file?
HCS: No, that can't happen.
PS: So why exactly am I concerned about it being secure?
HCS: Well, you wouldn't want to be getting software from some source that might have attached a virus to it, right?
PS: Uh, no...
HCS: Well, SDMI just makes sure that the music you play on one of our systems comes from a source you can trust.
PS: Wait, I don't get it. It's just music...
HCS: All I'm saying is that you don't want to get your music from a source you can't trust...
PS: I'm sorry, I just don't see the point...
And the conversation goes on in this vein, the Hardware Company Suit beating around the bush in hopes of snowjobbing the Prospective Shopper. The sad part is that there might actually be someone who falls for this line, but I think the SDMI folks are realizing there aren't enough.
This may be true (though I'm not quite sure about the "licensed" part anymore). But AMD did something a lot of chipmakers could only dream about: they knocked the king off the top. Intel is still #1, but AMD has a slice of the mass-market processor pie that Motorola can only dream of.
Admittedly Intel gave them the leeway; if the P3 mess hadn't gone down the way it did I suspect Athlon would be the Amiga of PC chips: everyone knows it's better, but nobody important wants to take the chance. But AMD also has a quickness on the draw that companies like Intel can't really match -- Transmeta wasn't ready (and Crusoe, let's face it, isn't even close to being a competitive product on the desktop -- it just doesn't have the speed to leave the laptop world behind yet) and Apple wasn't prepared to capitalize on the PC market vacancy (should have been, but cloning...). AMD did to Intel what nobody yet has been able to do to the Intel of software (Microsoft) -- they forced them to play with others.
The end result -- AMD is moving into the dedicated-server market, and nVidia has decided that they can get away with ignoring Intel. I'd say AMD is more than a ray of hope -- it's a good-sized chunk of the (dear Lord, am I really about to say this?) Hope Sun itself.
/Brian
Re:Why haven't others used wood?
on
Hardwoodware
·
· Score: 2
This *is* true, but...
I think the author's point should be taken to heart. I have several computers at home right now. I would never do a thing to any of the Mac cases (except for the decommissioned Classic that I'm currently thinking about fishtanking); with the exception of the 4400 and the Q850/9500-style cases I don't think Apple has ever created a really ugly piece of hardware. But I have a boring HP Vectra and a hideous Compaq Prolinea pizzabox that just scream for some kind of flashiness.
Why not a nice wooden case, though? Yes, it would be quite the luxury item (I'd probably expect $300-$400 per case for a plain old ATX minitower enclosure), but it isn't all that bad an idea at all. You might have to rethink some furniture construction norms, though -- it would be significantly bigger than a normal case to enhance airflow, for example, and jointing techniques would probably be vastly different from normal furniture (I'd think some variation on the post-cam construction in some cheap shelves I bought a couple of months ago), but it would definitely sell, if only in smallish numbers.
The big question is who would build it, though. If you're going to do something like this, do it right, right? That means no sawdustboard prefabs, and no cheezy stick-a-case-in-a-cabinet copouts.
See, what you do is you take the guts out of a CD mechanism and put the metal case into the drive bay nearest the CPUs. Then you get a shingle or a small pizza peel and you have an easy way to make lunch in your server. Make sure you leave the back on the drive case, though, and you might want to put a thin layer of firebrick (can probably get that at a model railroad shop) on the bottom of the case so it holds the heat; otherwise all you've got is an easy-bake oven and that's no fun except for cookies.
Actually, I kind of like that mobo design. The CPU sockets are staggered so you can actually put ovens in two different drive bays. Twice the pizza, twice the fun -- perfect for a LAN party...
An AMD sympathizer (stuck with Intel) just resurrecting an old Mac addict joke from the early Pentium days...
Slashdot Mirror
And what -- sit by and never be able to handle Word documents? Unfortunately, there are still a good number of people who want to see, for example, resumes in Word format. (Even tech HR people sometimes insist on that, though I'm inclined to write them off as clueless...)
It's like being a Mac user or, I don't know, a non-American. Your average Mac can read a PC disk, but it doesn't usually go the other way. Meanwhile, your average USian speaks English and *maybe* Spanish, which means the rest of the world has to learn English to communicate with us. Good, bad, it's the reality -- it's great that Sun eats its own dogfood by using StarOffice internally, but file exchange is pretty important, and MSWord is the number one format to translate.
/brian
And monkeys *might* fly out of my butt...
.doc file standard on the shelf next to Adobe's PDF definition. This is like Samba -- Andrew Tridgell wrote the original using a packet-sniffer on a DEC Pathworks server, as I recall. That's reverse-engineering for you.
If Microsoft had any interest at all in interoperability there'd be a
/brian
That might be a start...
Another point -- are we talking filtering one way or both? I'm thinking the cleanest way to go back is RTF export (which presumably already exists on all platforms) but where can you get an rtf->Word filter (probably to Word 97?)?
/Brian
"last time you saw a tag" -- if you view source on this you'll see buried in there. This post guaranteed illegible on MS Internet Exploder... /brian
Except that XML does seem to be an actual up-and-coming standard. OpenOffice is building their doc format off of it (thus my choice of XML as a hypothetical), Apple's using it to write config files for Darwin, Mozilla's UI is built using an XML variant (or so I've heard)... you get the general idea.
/. wondering why RFC2821 (new generation SMTP, in case I got the number wrong) wasn't XML-based, which is the Right Thing for the most part but would break every MTA in existence) but I think it will show up everywhere it *can* for the near future.
It's a question of where the nucleation sites develop -- WML is out there, but there's no call for it since the Wireless Web is a nonentity (at least in my social circles -- for all I know it might be vastly different in, say, Finland). And we've had browser implementors shoving extensions down our throat, but realistically... when was the last time you saw a tag?
So I think assuming XML is heading in the right direction. It won't show up everywhere it *should* (I remember someone on
(I do think XML is a bit skanky, btw, but it's like C -- it's there, it works, and it's a good starting point for future designs.)
/Brian
Only reason I picked XML is that it seems to be the best choice for an intermediate language anyway.
:-)
What is needed, though, is documentation on the current MSOffice formats. (Reverse engineering for interoperability...) Probably using OpenOffice's formats would be better, but ymmv.
And you're right about not needing to be involved in the projects; all you need is a way of forcing them to use your intermediate language at gunpoint
/Brian
Hmp. Does make sense, doesn't it?
I thought it was a bit strange that he was talking about separate character spaces for each language in the standard. I mean, I realize there's substantial differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Korean ideographs, but I'm reading and thinking, doesn't Unicode have an overlap space? (Which, as someone pointed out upthread, indeed it does.)
What bothers me about articles like the original is that the guy doesn't seem to quote chapter and verse, but he's slick enough to make the casual reader think he knows what he's talking about anyway. But we see so much of that anyway that it goes right past the bullshit filter nine times out of ten...
/brian
This actually makes a lot of sense, especially when file formats are starting to move to XML-based formats (see OpenOffice) -- just translate the Word format to XML (or whatever) as an intermediate format.
Come to think of it, this would make a great project; anyone know what would be needed to write msw2xml(1)? My perl skills are becoming a bit rusty...
/Brian
Fads and Fallacies by Martin Gardner. It's an ancient book (1953) but a great read for the student of psychoceramics (of which I have been, on and off, for several years now).
I also wish to point out two things:
"'They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Columbus...' 'They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.'" Traditionally attributed to Carl Sagan, but I suspect he wasn't the first.
Schopenhauer was flat-out wrong. Plenty of truth gets accepted with no struggle at all, and the only people who quote that particular statement seem to be those with axes to grind anyway.
I actually think this is a good interview for Slashdot because it serves as a reality check. We do need to be familiar with these sorts of people less we lose the logical edge that made us geeks in the first place...
/Brian
Besides, an OpenTiVo thing can't be that hard to build anyway -- I'm pretty sure it's been done.
/Brian
Uh... UltimateTV is a TiVo ripoff, and ain't no way in hell that MS would ever sell a Linux-based product. I'd say it's an excellent chance that your average UltimateTV unit is running WinCE.
/Brian
Laissez-faire is as idealistic and non-workable as pure socialism. All I'm saying is that Microsoft would be much nastier in such an environment (that is, if it could get around IBM in the first place).
/Brian
Actually, the reason Apple switched from DPS to Quartz was precisely to get out of paying Adobe for the privilege of using Adobe code. AFAIK Quartz was a PDF renderer that was developed in house.
You might want to read the licensing clause in the front of the PDF and PostScript definitions, btw. It's rather interesting -- it reserves trademark rights but essentially allows both definitions to be mostly public domain. Apple IMHO could have done the same thing in implementing their own DPS engine; I presume there was a touch of politics involved, though.
As for Quicktime... Hmm. I think the thing with Quicktime is that it is, more than even the MacOS or the hardware, *the* crown jewel of Apple's intellectual property. Nobody has created a better version of what Quicktime does and Apple feels the need to keep that going as a potential revenue stream. You may like it, you may not, but that's how it is. (Though I think the real reason they don't open source has a lot more to do with the Sorenson codec than it does anything else...)
/Brian
It's out there, on hard drives, fully compilable. I'd say it's safe.
But I have to agree that Netscape as we know it is dead, has been for a while. AOL has the code, but so does the rest of the world, and we already have one spinoff (Galeon). I don't think the Netscape name is even worth much of anything anymore.
So my thought -- use Mozilla if you want, and if you don't feel free to strip the body for parts.
/Brian
First off, Jon was using "CEO" in a metaphorical sense. I personally don't believe that Steve Ballmer picks his own nose without some kind of authorization from BillG anyway.
Second, though Katz' article is a bit of a jeremiad, I don't think it's too far from what could become the truth. I used to work for Starbucks and had an inside view of a company that, while not as rapacious as its reputation, still suffered from a lack of internal dissent. Microsoft seems to be the same, only with a much more vicious attitude towards the rest of the world. A company of yes-men will not keep itself in check, and if the antitrust case collapses, than there will be nothing to do so at all.
In that light I think Katz is overstating his point, but it's not a hopelessly unreasonable way of looking at it.
/Brian
Besides, this isn't about capitalism. This is about hijacking capitalism to support one company's aims and then hiding behind "right to make a buck". This is why laissez-faire can't work -- it's too likely to degenerate into, well, this.
/brian
Time for an open-source color manager, I suppose. I'd be inclined to think that Apple couldn't bitch about a clean-room implementation. I think what's needed is a quick-and-dirty algorithm (there *must* be one out there) with some kind of fudgespace to account for differences between devices.
I think the easiest way to do it would be to consider the CMYK output as a rough value (and possibly the input as well); the end result is that you actually have to do three color conversions at once. The curious thing is that an RGB color sep should be trivial, but how does one convert R->C (or is that even the correct conversion?).
That's the challenge for the GIMP, though.
/Brian
Well... KDE actually does give you that option, but it's a bit sloppily done and I got rid of it about ten minutes after I started trying it out. I agree that it's not a great solution, but I stand by the idea that MDI is not much of an improvement. You do lose the layout flexibility when you have all your windows corraled in one gigantic window -- it's a waste of screen real estate.
Now if that's what you're used to, that makes it somewhat different. But it wouldn't be to *my* taste.
/Brian
MDI is just a sloppy bandaid for not putting the menu bar at the top of the screen the way the Mac did it (debate it if you will, but it was the Right Thing on the original toaster screens back in 1984, and it does have the advantage of being easier to aim at...). I actually find the GIMP's interface to be a rather silly but (just barely) adequate compromise, though it does take a bit longer than it should to get used to.
:-) I don't consider myself too dogmatic about it though; the occasionally confusing window clutter of a multitasking OS that doesn't speak MDI (i.e. MacOS since 1991 and System 7) is another issue entirely...
MDI is ugly. It tends to restrict your ability to manage your screen space; its only valid purpose is to keep your taskbar/dock from getting too cluttered
/Brian
True. But there's no reason, now that GIMP is officially on the Mac platform, that some of those high-end features might make it to the GIMP. Color sep, for example. Most people don't need it, but it seems like the sort of thing that would actually be pretty trivial to do with a canned RGB->CMYK conversion algorithm. You can bet that it will be added one of these days.
/Brian
Hey, if you're going to talk like that at least have the decency to mention Fatboy Slim instead of Britney :-)
But this is true -- I've never really understood how SDMI could be made a selling point...
(At some random convention. Prospective Shopper is looking at MP3 players and approaches Hardware Company Suit.)
PS: So explain this SDMI thing to me you're pushing.
HCS: Well, this is a great feature! It allows you to be sure your music is secure!
PS: What do you mean? Like someone sticking a virus in an MP3 file?
HCS: No, that can't happen.
PS: So why exactly am I concerned about it being secure?
HCS: Well, you wouldn't want to be getting software from some source that might have attached a virus to it, right?
PS: Uh, no...
HCS: Well, SDMI just makes sure that the music you play on one of our systems comes from a source you can trust.
PS: Wait, I don't get it. It's just music...
HCS: All I'm saying is that you don't want to get your music from a source you can't trust...
PS: I'm sorry, I just don't see the point...
And the conversation goes on in this vein, the Hardware Company Suit beating around the bush in hopes of snowjobbing the Prospective Shopper. The sad part is that there might actually be someone who falls for this line, but I think the SDMI folks are realizing there aren't enough.
/Brian
It's called a one-time pad, folks. And I won't get into details here.
/Brian
This may be true (though I'm not quite sure about the "licensed" part anymore). But AMD did something a lot of chipmakers could only dream about: they knocked the king off the top. Intel is still #1, but AMD has a slice of the mass-market processor pie that Motorola can only dream of.
Admittedly Intel gave them the leeway; if the P3 mess hadn't gone down the way it did I suspect Athlon would be the Amiga of PC chips: everyone knows it's better, but nobody important wants to take the chance. But AMD also has a quickness on the draw that companies like Intel can't really match -- Transmeta wasn't ready (and Crusoe, let's face it, isn't even close to being a competitive product on the desktop -- it just doesn't have the speed to leave the laptop world behind yet) and Apple wasn't prepared to capitalize on the PC market vacancy (should have been, but cloning...). AMD did to Intel what nobody yet has been able to do to the Intel of software (Microsoft) -- they forced them to play with others.
The end result -- AMD is moving into the dedicated-server market, and nVidia has decided that they can get away with ignoring Intel. I'd say AMD is more than a ray of hope -- it's a good-sized chunk of the (dear Lord, am I really about to say this?) Hope Sun itself.
/Brian
This *is* true, but...
I think the author's point should be taken to heart. I have several computers at home right now. I would never do a thing to any of the Mac cases (except for the decommissioned Classic that I'm currently thinking about fishtanking); with the exception of the 4400 and the Q850/9500-style cases I don't think Apple has ever created a really ugly piece of hardware. But I have a boring HP Vectra and a hideous Compaq Prolinea pizzabox that just scream for some kind of flashiness.
Why not a nice wooden case, though? Yes, it would be quite the luxury item (I'd probably expect $300-$400 per case for a plain old ATX minitower enclosure), but it isn't all that bad an idea at all. You might have to rethink some furniture construction norms, though -- it would be significantly bigger than a normal case to enhance airflow, for example, and jointing techniques would probably be vastly different from normal furniture (I'd think some variation on the post-cam construction in some cheap shelves I bought a couple of months ago), but it would definitely sell, if only in smallish numbers.
The big question is who would build it, though. If you're going to do something like this, do it right, right? That means no sawdustboard prefabs, and no cheezy stick-a-case-in-a-cabinet copouts.
/Brian
See, what you do is you take the guts out of a CD mechanism and put the metal case into the drive bay nearest the CPUs. Then you get a shingle or a small pizza peel and you have an easy way to make lunch in your server. Make sure you leave the back on the drive case, though, and you might want to put a thin layer of firebrick (can probably get that at a model railroad shop) on the bottom of the case so it holds the heat; otherwise all you've got is an easy-bake oven and that's no fun except for cookies.
Actually, I kind of like that mobo design. The CPU sockets are staggered so you can actually put ovens in two different drive bays. Twice the pizza, twice the fun -- perfect for a LAN party...
An AMD sympathizer (stuck with Intel) just resurrecting an old Mac addict joke from the early Pentium days...
/Brian