Just to clarify, something is worth what someone will pay for it.
The point is that used mac values aren't so much of a feature, but a fault. Who cares if you can sell it for $500 on ebay if a replacement costs $3000?
That's nice, but the fact is that that old installed base is running MacOS 9 and isn't buying new software. So, it's basically "dead" for everything but bragging purposes.
And face it, the longer those people sit on their ancient Macs, the more likely it is that they will be assimilated into the PeeCee ecosystem -- I've seen happen to a few friends of mine.
The cool thing about the original iMac was that it got all those old ass Mac users into the store to buy a new Mac. And that drove software and perpherial sales and made apple lots of $$$. It did this because it was price & speed competitive with home PCs of the day.
Apple really needs to get a product out to encourage people to upgrade, rather than pointing to worthless installed base numbers.
Well, the used Mac market only reflects how out-of-wack the new Mac market is. If Apple introduces a 2Ghz "G5 Mini" for $1000, as discussed on the rumor sites, those old PMacs would cost $200 just like the old PC workstations.
Also, Mac buyers on ebay are completely insane -- a CDRW drive for my 6 year old powerbook goes for like $400. You could buy a whole fuckin PC to burn CDs for that.
> If you need or want to stay in the "top end", then you cannot be buying "cheap machines" every year.
Well, in the PC world, you are usually paying a premium for things like SCSI/SATA and huge cases -- the machines aren't priced by CPU speed.
Given enough memory, XP is faster than 2K is faster than NT4. The difference isn't as dramatic as with OS X improvements, but 10.0 and 10.1 were half-baked.
OK -- I have a 333mhz G3 Powerbook. At my old job, I had a 300Mhz PII ThinkPad. They were about the same -- If anything the ThinkPad was faster than the PB, especially under OS X. For web/mail/office stuff, the ThinkPad still works great.
If you can do your job on a X year old $Y Mac, you can do it on a X year old $Y PC. Period.
However, you can replace the PC for cheaper and get a hugely faster machine, which still isn't true for Macs, except at the top end. I'd buy a new Mac, but the low-end of their laptop line isn't very appealing.
(Most AMD K6 machines were junk, sorry. We could ask how long Performa 6200s lasted as well.)
Objectively, how is a five year-old 2x500Mhz Mac any better in 2004 than a five year-old 2x500Mhz PC?
It's not really. Just that Mac advocates typically engage in the intellectual dishonesty of comparing $3000 Macs with $1000 PCs.
Furthermore, it's pretty clear that G4 have had a pretty long lifespan because PowerPC development was so retarded. Until the G5s came out there really wasn't a compelling upgrade for PMac G4 users.
I'm not sure if the long shelf-life of Macs really help anyone. Mac users have to wait until they've saved up another $2000+ to upgrade, and in the meanwhile they're stuck wtih old machines, and Apple is getting no revenue. A PC user might pay less to replace a cheap machine every year and always have top-end kit.
I can tell you read an article in "PC Magazine" 10 years ago and are misremembering the details.
The Pentium Pro kicked the regular Pentium's ass. It was even faster than the current Alpha chip on release. It was a great server/workstation chip, and had enough legs that Intel just released a 2.0 Ghz P6 chip today and is going to the core for its mainstream desktop line.
The only problem was that the PPro was not as fast with 16-bit DOS/Win3.1 code. Not slower. So the mags said that for ordinary users, it wasn't worth the price.
If you were to consider it a business, could you deduct a fair hourly wage as loss?
No. You will be smacked down hard. (Think about it: nobody would pay any taxes if you could get away with this, because they would pay themselves to watch TV.)
However, You can structure your OSS Hobby as a business, and that allows you to write off all your computer equipment. DSL line, hosting, etc. This will last for a few years until the IRS shuts you down for being unprofitable. This works even better if you are actually a contract programmer.
If you're planning to do this, get an tax accountant. As mine says "Make your life a business."
6-7 years ago, I would've agree that Powerbooks were the best in the biz at power management. However, now days basically any name brand PC laptop has caught up -- none of your feats is going to bowl over any peecee users here. Plus the Centrinos have better battery life nowdays.
Also, I have a Lombard G3 and the power management support under OS X is sorta half-assed and was terribly buggy until 10.2. Even under 10.3 it's less reliable than my PC laptops (video corruption on wakeup sometimes). Its' not the gold standard it was under MacOS.
the whole project was trashed for a combination of political and hopefully basic logical issues
Probably mainly for marketing reasons -- having two different office suites on the market would be confusing. There was a lot of press on this project, BTW -- it was called NetDocs or something.
I worked at an IBM business partner and saw this "new" Lotus Workspace software about 5 years ago, and it was the same problem -- It wasn't Notes, it wasn't SmartSuite. What is it? It's a lot easier to do this stuff when extends an existing product (like MS's webified version of Project).
In those days, it was being mainly pitched towards "NC" thinclient customers.
Someone who has taken the time and been a reliable seller and built up a ton of good feedback - what straits would they have to come to to decide that ripping people off would serve them better long-term as a business model?
Something to consider is that most people are pretty bad decision makers, thinking short term only, and (especially on ebay) they are not good Business Men.
People get sick, they lose their jobs, they get in debt, they need to move, they get in with bad company. And all of a sudden, they've got a few hundred bucks in cash in their hands from faceless Internet people. They might be a "good person", but...
You have to understand that it's really easy for someone wondering how to make their rent to screw their eBay Feedback and go for the cash. Yeah, it's illogical, but most people are illogical about money.
I'm trying to figure out where I could have sprinkled in more "could"s and "would"s and "if"s and "assumptions" in my post to make them less extreme and matter-of-fact.
Now if Jeep had just cancelled their entire line of SUVs due to the high cost of fuel, predicting that they might go into economy vehicles isn't entirely off the wall, is it? This Intel announcement is a pretty big deal, and I haven't heard any other compelling theories of what their strategy might be, so I'll stick with "price war with AMD". I'm certainly open to other ideas tho.
About the $50 computer -- that was just a response to your implication that current computers cost $200 ($800 is probably a better current average). Just a "nighmare scenario".
However, I do believe that computers could get as cheap as $100 by the end of the decade -- little box, minimal expansion, 'low-end' low-power CPU. Without apps driving the CPU market, the bottom's the limit for corporate and home machines. The industry adjusted to $500 computers, they'll adjust to $100 ones.
I think you make some very good points on why AMD will be competitive -- and I never thought they wouldn't be. But if Intel comes at them on price, they're going to have to make some big adjustments (rev up K7 again, get K8 as cheap as possible, etc.)
To go back to the point that Intel has just cancelled their ENTIRE next-gen line of high-end x86 CPUs. Unprecedented. They've got to have something up their sleeve -- either a pricewar and/or a cheap, fast Itanium. They aren't going to roll over.
Look man, it's just a theory to explain the day's events. I honestly have no idea how I enraged the AMD Hitler Jugend. I'm basically arguing that AMD is going to own the high end. Is implying that Intel, the worlds largest and most powerful semi firm, is not just going to swirl down the toilet really so controversial to you guys? I guess so, as I'm a trolling astroturfer.
Anyway, read the other post. Two P-Ms are smaller than a single A64. Combine that with Intel's manufacturing superiority and draw your own conclusions.
Sure, prescott sucks, but if Intel wanted to they could peddle 6ghz water-cooled beasts. I don't know how you can assume that P-M would be unprofitible. Corny business saying: when given lemons, make lemonaid.
No, the K7 failed because it didn't make AMD any money. Everyone who replies seems to be confusing emotional attachment to their "sexier" Athlon with a successful business strategy. Yeah, AMD RULEZ D00DZ, that guy is just a trolling Intel astroturfer, whatever.
AMD still has cheaper faster processors than P-M
What I tried to do was provide an explaination for Intel's new desktop strategy that made sense competitively and profit-wise. Intel pushes out super-cheap, profitible, 'fast-enough' chips; AMD has to either retreat to the high-end or get into a price war they can't win.
Pushing back: If what you say is true, why would Intel go the route they're going?
Huh? If the costs of PCs decreases by a couple of hundred bucks, they will be free.
Why not $50 computers? There's a lot of things in this world where the assembly cost is basically nothing, and you're paying for marketing, packaging and support. I think Bill Gates already predicted this. Not for everyone of course, but the people who need speed will pay for it.
That's a big assumption.
More like a small assumption. Compare the die sizes: K8 - 193mm^2, Northwood 127mm^2, Pentium-M - 83mm^2. Intel is reputed to have the best process technology. Also, there's been some reporting on The Inq to the effect of Intel wanting to drive down costs. There's a reason Prescott is dead end.
My Athlon XP 2600+ was $84...
Yeah, and they sold it to you while losing money because they're such nice guys. Look, the OLD AMD tried the value angle, and failed. The NEW AMD is trying to reposition themselves as a high-end provider, and it's working very well. The question is if the market is going to go in the ultra-value direction or not, and if it does, the P-M is probably the best positioned.
Sorry to reply twice, but I wanted to point something out. You are operating on the "Trickle Down" theory of CPUs. As seen in the 1990s, Intel would introduce the Pentium XXXmhz as a high end chip, and then move it down the price scale until the Pentium XXXmhz was a lowend chip.
A better model might be 1980s computing -- when "high end" and "low end" systems used completely different cores.
Sorry, I'll try to sound more like an AMD Fanboy: AMD IS TEH BEST I SAVED $38 AND GOT THE BIGGORZ FPS LOL. Better?
In fact, they're doing a great thing by pushing new technology, guaranteeing that in a year 64-bit chips will appear at the low-cost, low-end of the market.
I think you are confusing how expensive it is to make the chips versus how expensive it is to buy the chips. Assumption: Intel can make Pentiums cheaper than AMD can make K8s. The P-M is even cheaper to make than the P4. Intel can also demand a much higher profit margin.
If Intel drive the cost of PCs down a couple hundred bucks, AMD will be marooned in the high end workstation market, or be forced to sell at a loss (which they've done before). It would be interesting to see AMD as the high end vendor, but Intel might make the big profits out of the deal.
The other aspect that few people are discussing is the cost to build the chip and the profitability.
The overall trend for desktop computers is "fast enough" and "cheaper" -- In a year or two, you could be looking at $250 Dell machines. Obviously in such a situation, the volume CPU has got to be cheap to build and not require a huge power supply and tons of cooling.
It's ironic that just as AMD has gone for the high-end with their big, complex, and presumably expensive Athlon-64 chips, Intel has jumped on the lowend with the Pentium-M. AMD could win the dicksize war, but Intel might have out-maneuvered them again.
Another possibility is that Intel is trying to kneecap the Pentium in order open up some marketspace for the Itanium in high-end desktops and low-end servers.
GNU/Linux itself is more or less a remake of Unix. MySQL reimplemented SQL. Samba emulates Microsoft's protocol, etc.
I think a better way of looking at this is that Open Source is good at implementing infrastructre programs, and not so good at implementing end user programs. There's tons of examples of open source projects that aren't direct copies of something else, but they are usually limited to programmer tools and the like.
here are a shitload of people who with a bit of education wouldnt have a problem with it. How many people still swear about the good old days of Wordperfect 5.1
Hardly any. Seriously -- the market for desktop computers is at least 100x larger now than in the bad ol WordPerfect days, and not everyone was in love back then.
(Even when I used WordPerfect, I hated it. Because I'd already "seen the light" of Word for Macintosh.)
Also, people used to educate themselves in DOS Archana because they had to -- there's no reason for people to voluntarily do so if there's stuff out there with an easier learning curve. It is that not completely obvious?
Both platform companies that had a lot of trouble finding application developers.
Keep in mind, at this time, Lotus and Borland were much larger companies that Microsoft. Neither supported Mac/Amiga. (Well, Lotus actually beat Microsoft to market with a Mac office suite called "Jazz" -- but they forgot about it after a year.)
Microsoft got its market share because... Bill Gates and his mother wrote a contract that outsmarted all of IBM's team of super-lawyers
Having a very simplisitic view of history must be nice for you. Bill Gates & IBM signed a contract. The End. How nice and easy for small minds to understand.
Unfortunately, the reality was a lot more complex: Microsoft betting on GUI apps when nobody else would; Microsoft outmarketing a giant ten times their size with OS/2; Microsoft pounding Novell and it's LAN monopoly; Microsoft scaring the UNIX Workstation market into virtual sucide; Microsoft credibly taking on Oracle and IBM for mail and database services; etc etc.
Now, I'm not saying they aren't monopolistic bastards, but even the the most simplistic account should contain a lot of things that they did right since 1981.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clarify, something is worth what someone will pay for it.
The point is that used mac values aren't so much of a feature, but a fault. Who cares if you can sell it for $500 on ebay if a replacement costs $3000?
"Prestonia" (current Xeon CPU) is missing from the list -- is that a street in Portland as well? Google only finds a town in Kentucky.
That's nice, but the fact is that that old installed base is running MacOS 9 and isn't buying new software. So, it's basically "dead" for everything but bragging purposes.
And face it, the longer those people sit on their ancient Macs, the more likely it is that they will be assimilated into the PeeCee ecosystem -- I've seen happen to a few friends of mine.
The cool thing about the original iMac was that it got all those old ass Mac users into the store to buy a new Mac. And that drove software and perpherial sales and made apple lots of $$$. It did this because it was price & speed competitive with home PCs of the day.
Apple really needs to get a product out to encourage people to upgrade, rather than pointing to worthless installed base numbers.
Well, the used Mac market only reflects how out-of-wack the new Mac market is. If Apple introduces a 2Ghz "G5 Mini" for $1000, as discussed on the rumor sites, those old PMacs would cost $200 just like the old PC workstations.
Also, Mac buyers on ebay are completely insane -- a CDRW drive for my 6 year old powerbook goes for like $400. You could buy a whole fuckin PC to burn CDs for that.
> If you need or want to stay in the "top end", then you cannot be buying "cheap machines" every year.
Well, in the PC world, you are usually paying a premium for things like SCSI/SATA and huge cases -- the machines aren't priced by CPU speed.
Given enough memory, XP is faster than 2K is faster than NT4. The difference isn't as dramatic as with OS X improvements, but 10.0 and 10.1 were half-baked.
OK -- I have a 333mhz G3 Powerbook. At my old job, I had a 300Mhz PII ThinkPad. They were about the same -- If anything the ThinkPad was faster than the PB, especially under OS X. For web/mail/office stuff, the ThinkPad still works great.
If you can do your job on a X year old $Y Mac, you can do it on a X year old $Y PC. Period.
However, you can replace the PC for cheaper and get a hugely faster machine, which still isn't true for Macs, except at the top end. I'd buy a new Mac, but the low-end of their laptop line isn't very appealing.
(Most AMD K6 machines were junk, sorry. We could ask how long Performa 6200s lasted as well.)
Objectively, how is a five year-old 2x500Mhz Mac any better in 2004 than a five year-old 2x500Mhz PC?
It's not really. Just that Mac advocates typically engage in the intellectual dishonesty of comparing $3000 Macs with $1000 PCs.
Furthermore, it's pretty clear that G4 have had a pretty long lifespan because PowerPC development was so retarded. Until the G5s came out there really wasn't a compelling upgrade for PMac G4 users.
I'm not sure if the long shelf-life of Macs really help anyone. Mac users have to wait until they've saved up another $2000+ to upgrade, and in the meanwhile they're stuck wtih old machines, and Apple is getting no revenue. A PC user might pay less to replace a cheap machine every year and always have top-end kit.
I can tell you read an article in "PC Magazine" 10 years ago and are misremembering the details.
The Pentium Pro kicked the regular Pentium's ass. It was even faster than the current Alpha chip on release. It was a great server/workstation chip, and had enough legs that Intel just released a 2.0 Ghz P6 chip today and is going to the core for its mainstream desktop line.
The only problem was that the PPro was not as fast with 16-bit DOS/Win3.1 code. Not slower. So the mags said that for ordinary users, it wasn't worth the price.
If you were to consider it a business, could you deduct a fair hourly wage as loss?
No. You will be smacked down hard. (Think about it: nobody would pay any taxes if you could get away with this, because they would pay themselves to watch TV.)
However, You can structure your OSS Hobby as a business, and that allows you to write off all your computer equipment. DSL line, hosting, etc. This will last for a few years until the IRS shuts you down for being unprofitable. This works even better if you are actually a contract programmer.
If you're planning to do this, get an tax accountant. As mine says "Make your life a business."
6-7 years ago, I would've agree that Powerbooks were the best in the biz at power management. However, now days basically any name brand PC laptop has caught up -- none of your feats is going to bowl over any peecee users here. Plus the Centrinos have better battery life nowdays.
Also, I have a Lombard G3 and the power management support under OS X is sorta half-assed and was terribly buggy until 10.2. Even under 10.3 it's less reliable than my PC laptops (video corruption on wakeup sometimes). Its' not the gold standard it was under MacOS.
the whole project was trashed for a combination of political and hopefully basic logical issues
Probably mainly for marketing reasons -- having two different office suites on the market would be confusing. There was a lot of press on this project, BTW -- it was called NetDocs or something.
I worked at an IBM business partner and saw this "new" Lotus Workspace software about 5 years ago, and it was the same problem -- It wasn't Notes, it wasn't SmartSuite. What is it? It's a lot easier to do this stuff when extends an existing product (like MS's webified version of Project).
In those days, it was being mainly pitched towards "NC" thinclient customers.
Someone who has taken the time and been a reliable seller and built up a ton of good feedback - what straits would they have to come to to decide that ripping people off would serve them better long-term as a business model?
...
Something to consider is that most people are pretty bad decision makers, thinking short term only, and (especially on ebay) they are not good Business Men.
People get sick, they lose their jobs, they get in debt, they need to move, they get in with bad company. And all of a sudden, they've got a few hundred bucks in cash in their hands from faceless Internet people. They might be a "good person", but
You have to understand that it's really easy for someone wondering how to make their rent to screw their eBay Feedback and go for the cash. Yeah, it's illogical, but most people are illogical about money.
I'm trying to figure out where I could have sprinkled in more "could"s and "would"s and "if"s and "assumptions" in my post to make them less extreme and matter-of-fact.
Now if Jeep had just cancelled their entire line of SUVs due to the high cost of fuel, predicting that they might go into economy vehicles isn't entirely off the wall, is it? This Intel announcement is a pretty big deal, and I haven't heard any other compelling theories of what their strategy might be, so I'll stick with "price war with AMD". I'm certainly open to other ideas tho.
About the $50 computer -- that was just a response to your implication that current computers cost $200 ($800 is probably a better current average). Just a "nighmare scenario".
However, I do believe that computers could get as cheap as $100 by the end of the decade -- little box, minimal expansion, 'low-end' low-power CPU. Without apps driving the CPU market, the bottom's the limit for corporate and home machines. The industry adjusted to $500 computers, they'll adjust to $100 ones.
I think you make some very good points on why AMD will be competitive -- and I never thought they wouldn't be. But if Intel comes at them on price, they're going to have to make some big adjustments (rev up K7 again, get K8 as cheap as possible, etc.)
To go back to the point that Intel has just cancelled their ENTIRE next-gen line of high-end x86 CPUs. Unprecedented. They've got to have something up their sleeve -- either a pricewar and/or a cheap, fast Itanium. They aren't going to roll over.
My P-M die size number came from here
Look man, it's just a theory to explain the day's events. I honestly have no idea how I enraged the AMD Hitler Jugend. I'm basically arguing that AMD is going to own the high end. Is implying that Intel, the worlds largest and most powerful semi firm, is not just going to swirl down the toilet really so controversial to you guys? I guess so, as I'm a trolling astroturfer.
Anyway, read the other post. Two P-Ms are smaller than a single A64. Combine that with Intel's manufacturing superiority and draw your own conclusions.
Sure, prescott sucks, but if Intel wanted to they could peddle 6ghz water-cooled beasts. I don't know how you can assume that P-M would be unprofitible. Corny business saying: when given lemons, make lemonaid.
No, the K7 failed because it didn't make AMD any money. Everyone who replies seems to be confusing emotional attachment to their "sexier" Athlon with a successful business strategy. Yeah, AMD RULEZ D00DZ, that guy is just a trolling Intel astroturfer, whatever.
AMD still has cheaper faster processors than P-M
What I tried to do was provide an explaination for Intel's new desktop strategy that made sense competitively and profit-wise. Intel pushes out super-cheap, profitible, 'fast-enough' chips; AMD has to either retreat to the high-end or get into a price war they can't win.
Pushing back: If what you say is true, why would Intel go the route they're going?
Huh? If the costs of PCs decreases by a couple of hundred bucks, they will be free.
Why not $50 computers? There's a lot of things in this world where the assembly cost is basically nothing, and you're paying for marketing, packaging and support. I think Bill Gates already predicted this. Not for everyone of course, but the people who need speed will pay for it.
That's a big assumption.
More like a small assumption. Compare the die sizes: K8 - 193mm^2, Northwood 127mm^2, Pentium-M - 83mm^2. Intel is reputed to have the best process technology. Also, there's been some reporting on The Inq to the effect of Intel wanting to drive down costs. There's a reason Prescott is dead end.
My Athlon XP 2600+ was $84...
Yeah, and they sold it to you while losing money because they're such nice guys. Look, the OLD AMD tried the value angle, and failed. The NEW AMD is trying to reposition themselves as a high-end provider, and it's working very well. The question is if the market is going to go in the ultra-value direction or not, and if it does, the P-M is probably the best positioned.
Sorry to reply twice, but I wanted to point something out. You are operating on the "Trickle Down" theory of CPUs. As seen in the 1990s, Intel would introduce the Pentium XXXmhz as a high end chip, and then move it down the price scale until the Pentium XXXmhz was a lowend chip.
A better model might be 1980s computing -- when "high end" and "low end" systems used completely different cores.
Sorry, I'll try to sound more like an AMD Fanboy: AMD IS TEH BEST I SAVED $38 AND GOT THE BIGGORZ FPS LOL. Better?
In fact, they're doing a great thing by pushing new technology, guaranteeing that in a year 64-bit chips will appear at the low-cost, low-end of the market.
I think you are confusing how expensive it is to make the chips versus how expensive it is to buy the chips. Assumption: Intel can make Pentiums cheaper than AMD can make K8s. The P-M is even cheaper to make than the P4. Intel can also demand a much higher profit margin.
If Intel drive the cost of PCs down a couple hundred bucks, AMD will be marooned in the high end workstation market, or be forced to sell at a loss (which they've done before). It would be interesting to see AMD as the high end vendor, but Intel might make the big profits out of the deal.
The other aspect that few people are discussing is the cost to build the chip and the profitability.
The overall trend for desktop computers is "fast enough" and "cheaper" -- In a year or two, you could be looking at $250 Dell machines. Obviously in such a situation, the volume CPU has got to be cheap to build and not require a huge power supply and tons of cooling.
It's ironic that just as AMD has gone for the high-end with their big, complex, and presumably expensive Athlon-64 chips, Intel has jumped on the lowend with the Pentium-M. AMD could win the dicksize war, but Intel might have out-maneuvered them again.
Another possibility is that Intel is trying to kneecap the Pentium in order open up some marketspace for the Itanium in high-end desktops and low-end servers.
GNU/Linux itself is more or less a remake of Unix. MySQL reimplemented SQL. Samba emulates Microsoft's protocol, etc.
I think a better way of looking at this is that Open Source is good at implementing infrastructre programs, and not so good at implementing end user programs. There's tons of examples of open source projects that aren't direct copies of something else, but they are usually limited to programmer tools and the like.
here are a shitload of people who with a bit of education wouldnt have a problem with it. How many people still swear about the good old days of Wordperfect 5.1
Hardly any. Seriously -- the market for desktop computers is at least 100x larger now than in the bad ol WordPerfect days, and not everyone was in love back then.
(Even when I used WordPerfect, I hated it. Because I'd already "seen the light" of Word for Macintosh.)
Also, people used to educate themselves in DOS Archana because they had to -- there's no reason for people to voluntarily do so if there's stuff out there with an easier learning curve. It is that not completely obvious?
Both platform companies that had a lot of trouble finding application developers.
Keep in mind, at this time, Lotus and Borland were much larger companies that Microsoft. Neither supported Mac/Amiga. (Well, Lotus actually beat Microsoft to market with a Mac office suite called "Jazz" -- but they forgot about it after a year.)
Microsoft got its market share because ... Bill Gates and his mother wrote a contract that outsmarted all of IBM's team of super-lawyers
Having a very simplisitic view of history must be nice for you. Bill Gates & IBM signed a contract. The End. How nice and easy for small minds to understand.
Unfortunately, the reality was a lot more complex: Microsoft betting on GUI apps when nobody else would; Microsoft outmarketing a giant ten times their size with OS/2; Microsoft pounding Novell and it's LAN monopoly; Microsoft scaring the UNIX Workstation market into virtual sucide; Microsoft credibly taking on Oracle and IBM for mail and database services; etc etc.
Now, I'm not saying they aren't monopolistic bastards, but even the the most simplistic account should contain a lot of things that they did right since 1981.