PDA

View Full Version : Mac considering ARM for laptops/Desktops: Your thoughts PowerPC Owners




rjcalifornia
Nov 6, 2012, 05:45 PM
Now that apple is Considering moving away from the intel platform to ARM, what do you guys think about it, since you are still using powerpc like me and struggling with the lack of support like me?



skateny
Nov 6, 2012, 06:09 PM
Now that apple is Considering moving away from the intel platform to ARM, what do you guys think about it, since you are still using powerpc like me and struggling with the lack of support like me?

I read that piece today. It seems to me to be more speculation than anything else. From what I know of their own chips, it will take some time before they can compete on the desktop with Intel. Frankly, with Apple doing much better in computer sales than Windows PCs, it doesn't seem like this is something that would happen very soon. My thoughts are that I hope my iBook remains current up until what isn't necessarily an inevitable switch.

SuperJudge
Nov 6, 2012, 07:11 PM
Now that apple is Considering moving away from the intel platform to ARM, what do you guys think about it, since you are still using powerpc like me and struggling with the lack of support like me?

Highly dubious. Highly, highly dubious. ARM is still a long way from running a full fledged general purpose OS at a speed that would be acceptable to an average end user. Furthermore, I would like to doubt that Apple would risk isolating their OS X user base any further than necessary. I get that their bread and butter is now the iDevice ecosystem, but they're still one of the biggest PC makers around.

Besides, you need not struggle with a lack of support from Apple. The PowerPC Linux community has grown by leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. Lubuntu and MintPPC in particular are quite nice.

wobegong
Nov 6, 2012, 07:39 PM
3% of Apples revenue now is made up of desktop sales (Mini, iMac and Mac Pro).
As laptops need low power, low heat chips I think it's entirely plausable.

http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/25/mac-desktops-are-now-a-very-lonely-3-of-apple-sales/

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 6, 2012, 07:56 PM
Absolutely stupid idea. ARM is like a kid toy compared to Intel chips. Apple jumped to Intel in the first place because they were FASTER and were going to get even better.

rjcalifornia
Nov 6, 2012, 08:34 PM
Absolutely stupid idea. ARM is like a kid toy compared to Intel chips. Apple jumped to Intel in the first place because they were FASTER and were going to get even better.

I know but, I was thinking may be the Macbook Air. Why? Simple. OEM went with Atom to create netbooks. Atom sucks, but it has a great power management. ARM sucks big time, but it has a fair advantage over intel in terms of power management.

May be a new OS for Air will arise, a cut down version of Mac OS, not like iOS, but similar to Chrome OS in terms of 'light' which will be named 'City Lince' :cool:

SuperJudge
Nov 6, 2012, 08:37 PM
I know but, I was thinking may be the Macbook Air. Why? Simple. OEM went with Atom to create netbooks. Atom sucks, but it has a great power management. ARM sucks big time, but it has a fair advantage over intel in terms of power management.

May be a new OS for Air will arise, a cut down version of Mac OS, not like iOS, but similar to Chrome OS in terms of 'light' which will be named 'City Lince' :cool:

Subtle but crucial difference, though: the Atom is fully x86 compatible. An ARM proc is not and will not readily lend itself to emulation. Being able to have binary compatibility or the ability to emulate would be crucial in any processor architecture migration. If you don't have that, you'll alienate your user base.

thejadedmonkey
Nov 6, 2012, 08:39 PM
I've be expecting this for years. The MacBook Air is a perfect low-cost ARM powered PC.

rjcalifornia
Nov 6, 2012, 08:44 PM
Highly dubious. Highly, highly dubious. ARM is still a long way from running a full fledged general purpose OS at a speed that would be acceptable to an average end user. Furthermore, I would like to doubt that Apple would risk isolating their OS X user base any further than necessary. I get that their bread and butter is now the iDevice ecosystem, but they're still one of the biggest PC makers around.

Besides, you need not struggle with a lack of support from Apple. The PowerPC Linux community has grown by leaps and bounds in the last couple of years. Lubuntu and MintPPC in particular are quite nice.

Well, they were isolated with Power PC. And they could isolate again with ARM

Now is more about battery duration rather than power. Look at Sandy after match. People were starving for energy and most were charging cellphones rather than laptops, since cellphones last longer.

Look at us, we are happy with our Power PC because of the power management and durability. May be Apple could release an ARM laptop that matches the Macbook Air, that would be a game changer...

----------

Subtle but crucial difference, though: the Atom is fully x86 compatible. An ARM proc is not and will not readily lend itself to emulation. Being able to have binary compatibility or the ability to emulate would be crucial in any processor architecture migration. If you don't have that, you'll alienate your user base.

Why would you need to emulate Windows? (Copy & Paste User)

Anyone will be excited to own a mac, even an ARM Macbook Air. Marketing will be like 'Air last for 12 hours. A regular PC only last 5 hours on a good day. Get a Mac'

People need to check their email, facebook, twitter, instagram, connect iPhone, etc. The people who makes a product successful just need something that works and lasts. Not a powerhorse

SuperJudge
Nov 6, 2012, 08:55 PM
Well, they were isolated with Power PC. And they could isolate again with ARM

Now is more about battery duration rather than power. Look at Sandy after match. People were starving for energy and most were charging cellphones rather than laptops, since cellphones last longer.

Look at us, we are happy with our Power PC because of the power management and durability. May be Apple could release an ARM laptop that matches the Macbook Air, that would be a game changer...
True, but one of the big selling points of Mac for a large number of users is the ability to run Windows on their Macs, too. That's a possibility that there could be an excellent ARM powered MacBook Air, but it's still a few years off, IMHO.

Why would you need to emulate Windows? (Copy & Paste User)

Anyone will be excited to own a mac, even an ARM Macbook Air. Marketing will be like 'Air last for 12 hours. A regular PC only last 5 hours on a good day. Get a Mac'

People need to check their email, facebook, twitter, instagram, connect iPhone, etc. The people who makes a product successful just need something that works and lasts. Not a powerhorse

You wouldn't need to emulate Windows. You'd need to emulate Mac programs compiled for x86 procs. That's what Rosetta did with PowerPC apps. The use case you're outlining there is the niche the iPad fills. I don't think Apple will want to cannibalize sales from other products of theirs.

wobegong
Nov 6, 2012, 09:59 PM
Absolutely stupid idea. ARM is like a kid toy compared to Intel chips. Apple jumped to Intel in the first place because they were FASTER and were going to get even better.

Most laptop users (especially MB Air users) want a machine with long battery life - I think a combination of a revamped OSX, new generation of ARM chip (remember this is still 2017 speculation, thats 5 years away!) would potentially give a very potent machine. If they sold a 'competitive' performance laptop (not necessarily the fastest) which gave many hours of battery life I'd certainly be interested.

PowerPCMacMan
Nov 7, 2012, 12:01 AM
I really am all for the change over from Intel back to RISC. Whether it be a new improved PowerPC or even ARM, Those processors made us all look different and think different compared to those with Intel machines.

I am not knocking the Intel Macs as I own one myself, currently typing this on my 6-core Mac Pro which could be my very LAST Intel Mac as most of my main every stuff I do on my trusty, yet powerful PowerBook G4 DLSD 1.67.

The PowerPC macs had and still do have a soul and heart with all those who used to own one or continue to do so. The last model PowerMac G5's and PowerBook G4s, along with the mighty dualie 1.25/1.42 + processor upgrades keep the PowerPC torch ALIVE.

As one on here said: If we can't use Leopard anymore, we have a growing support mechanism within the Linux/BSD community. PowerPC will never die so long as there are people who still use the machines.

I am a proud owner of a G4 Pismo 550, PB G4 1.67, and soon to be G5 Quad + my Mac Pro. PowerPC LIVES!!

I am being optimistic that Apple will dump Intel and finally develop a chip in house and call it THEIR OWN.

Here's to the ARM and PowerPC - Brothers in the RISC family!

Wildy
Nov 7, 2012, 09:07 AM
I don't pretend to know much on the inner workings of various architectures, but you can't ignore ARM for much longer - it's definitely not the slow, cumbersome architecture that struggled to run seriously underpowered smartphones a few years ago. With companies now shifting server duties over to multicore ARM chips for the performance/watt ratio I think by 2017 ARM chips will be a serious contender. I'd expect to see another universal binary format introduced - I've never developed anything on ARM, so I'm not sure how hard it would be to port a piece of well-written code from x86 to ARM. But as there are many iOS developers already I'm sure there's plenty of expertise out there.

From what I've read, endian-ness is not an issue, sizeof(int) and sizeof(long) are the same on x86 and ARM, and sizeof(void*) shouldn't be a problem because Apple will adopt 64-bit without a doubt. That's quite nice to know - but not being a real developer I can't say what other incompatibilities may rise.

666sheep
Nov 7, 2012, 09:41 AM
If AMD will adopt A 50 series to their servers, Apple can do it with MBA easily.
http://www.zdnet.com/arm-unveils-64-bit-cortex-a50-server-processors-7000006696/.

rjcalifornia
Nov 7, 2012, 10:57 AM
If AMD will adopt A 50 series to their servers, Apple can do it with MBA easily.
http://www.zdnet.com/arm-unveils-64-bit-cortex-a50-server-processors-7000006696/.

This is a game changer... Not because Apple will buy AMD chips, but because it proves that powerful yet power efficient ARM Processors can be made.

Now onto the app compatibility. Well, Apple will figure out a way. That or Macbook Air (ARM) could have its own App Store. May be it will be a cut down Mac OS? Who knows? I would be buying a Macbook Air that can last up to 14 hours.

Nameci
Nov 7, 2012, 11:39 AM
The apps for iPad/iPod/iPhone were already developed to run on an ARM processor. They already had the OS, it is called iOS. They only need to configure the GUI to suite the MBA.

rjcalifornia
Nov 7, 2012, 11:41 AM
The apps for iPad/iPod/iPhone were already developed to run on an ARM processor. They already had the OS, it is called iOS. They only need to configure the GUI to suite the MBA.

Indeed... I will buy it in no time haha :D

Nameci
Nov 7, 2012, 11:47 AM
It is just a matter of time. Those people that are against it, were either drinking the Intel kool-aid or are afraid of technological innovation and wanted to live under a cave. It doesn't that if it's small it is not powerful enough to do the task.

If a single slow SoC can run a factory then why not a multi-core one?

SuperJudge
Nov 7, 2012, 12:07 PM
The apps for iPad/iPod/iPhone were already developed to run on an ARM processor. They already had the OS, it is called iOS. They only need to configure the GUI to suite the MBA.

I think that's a gross oversimplification. iOS isn't a general purpose OS. You can't install apps that aren't in the App Store without jailbreaking other black magic. We're talking about an apples and oranges comparison.

It is just a matter of time. Those people that are against it, were either drinking the Intel kool-aid or are afraid of technological innovation and wanted to live under a cave.

A move to ARM could be another salvo in the war against general computing. That's what I'm afraid of. Not the hardware, mind you, but the kind of software that goes on top of it. I would be sad to see Apple move entirely away from general purpose computing.

Nameci
Nov 7, 2012, 01:42 PM
I think that's a gross oversimplification. iOS isn't a general purpose OS. You can't install apps that aren't in the App Store without jailbreaking other black magic. We're talking about an apples and oranges comparison.



A move to ARM could be another salvo in the war against general computing. That's what I'm afraid of. Not the hardware, mind you, but the kind of software that goes on top of it. I would be sad to see Apple move entirely away from general purpose computing.

Or general purpose computing would be the one to change and adapt to hardware tech.

seveej
Nov 7, 2012, 02:04 PM
Now that apple is Considering moving away from the intel platform to ARM, what do you guys think about it, since you are still using powerpc like me and struggling with the lack of support like me?

Remember all those presentations Steve held, when Apple was switching to Intel, the guys had had OSX working on x86 from day one, but did not make it public until 2005 (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_414258&feature=iv&src_vid=T1Wd8QycIw8&v=I51EvC0VZgE, about from 4:45 minutes). If Apple has had any sense, they already have a version of OSX running on ARM

That said, I do not want you to switch my MBP's processor from i7 to ARM now, but in five years time, it might make a lot of sense. Everything points to that ARM is really charging forwards in terms of performance. I'm among the first to admit, that they have some ways to go, but if you consider the advance of ARM-power (as signified by the four generations of iPads), they've gone from a geekbench score of roughly 450 in Jan 2010 to roughly 1750 in autumn 2012) the development is highly positive. Extrapolate that five years hence, and those ARM's will be no sloths. Moreover, Intel seems at least to date, to be absolutely incapable of grasping that the world around them is changing.

But in really significant terms (say +15 years), I do not expect the current computational paradigm to last. What I mean is that I not not expect the role and approach of the high-power CPU to be a lasting paradigm.

We've seen some interesting trends in the last 15 years, first through the creation of dedicated GPU's on one hand and later the evolution of SoC (the integration of Intel's GPU's on the CPU die can be seen as a partial admission).

I'm no CPU architect, but a long time enthusiast, and one interesting development has been the development of (what I call) power-on-demand - the fact that clock cycles (and power consumption) now start to really have the ability to react on the level of demand (this is no longer the same as SpeedStep). But still, most computer software is not designed to conserve clock cycles. If the software industry shows itself able to embrace this concept fully, and power-on-demand -techniques continue to advance, then the REAL and USEFUL computations-per-watt values of x86 chips will start edging closer to those presented in Intel roadmaps. That could have an impact.

RGDS,
Pekka

orestes1984
Nov 7, 2012, 02:05 PM
You guys are reading this wrong... It is just like the fact Steve Jobs said in 2007 that the iPhone ran on OS X. It's just like the fact Microsoft has been working on a version of Windows for Arm, now Windows RT which is running on the surface.

ARM will not replace Intel yet, where people need heavy lifting they're going to want an Intel CPU. This is directed by Apple towards an ever expanding range of iOS products and maybe one day if they work out how to scale ARM up efficiently they might introduce an ARM product in the Book or Mini range.

In the long term both iOS and Windows RT are hedges. They are full capable OSs, Microsoft went to great lengths to show the fact that it could run full scale versions of their apps on ARM, but that is not something for the now. Not until, or unless we see Windows RT really take off.

I'm sorry, but the people who are getting scared of a "jump ship" approach now just don't have any clue what so ever about whats coming. We shall see how or whether the Surface and other Windows RT devices go, whether full fledged apps on a tablet OS work or don't work, whether the Windows APIs are a game changer or not then we will see whether Apple needs to respond with a beefed up iOS device.

I've been watching this space for a while now, ARM is a serious contender, otherwise Apple and Microsoft wouldn't be there, but just what sort of contender it is we are yet to see. Microsoft has jumped another level with Windows RT but we will see what, or whether Apple has a response over the next few months and years.

The fact that this has hit most consumers by surprise suggests Microsoft could finally have a real game changer in the mobile market after all these years and after losing the Windows CE/Windows Mobile market by failing to give consumers what they want and by staying with crappy stylus based PDA phones.

I've been watching this space ever since Microsoft stated it wanted a full scale ARM OS because the honest to god truth is we all know how often Microsoft changes CPU archs and the fact it has never gone near anything else for its consumer desktop OSs. If Microsoft thinks this is real, I suggest you all start buying some Microsoft shares.

Poo poo me all you like but the ball is rolling, this is not a 5 year plan.

SuperJudge
Nov 7, 2012, 03:48 PM
Or general purpose computing would be the one to change and adapt to hardware tech.

Maybe, but I just don't know. A lot of the changes in personal computing are moving away from general purpose computing and towards walled gardens that lock you in to a specific marketplace. I really don't see Apple allowing a general purpose OS on ARM.

Maybe I'm paranoid or maybe this is my Linux background talking, but I just can't see this particular change from a vendor like Apple as something positive. I buy and use Apple products for a polished UI that I can then use however I want. I'm tepid on iOS because I can't futz with it much.

I may be in the minority, but I'm telling you this much: general purpose computing is incredibly important to intellectual freedom as a whole.

Nameci
Nov 7, 2012, 03:54 PM
Maybe, but I just don't know. A lot of the changes in personal computing are moving away from general purpose computing and towards walled gardens that lock you in to a specific marketplace. I really don't see Apple allowing a general purpose OS on ARM.

Maybe I'm paranoid or maybe this is my Linux background talking, but I just can't see this particular change from a vendor like Apple as something positive. I buy and use Apple products for a polished UI that I can then use however I want. I'm tepid on iOS because I can't futz with it much.

I may be in the minority, but I'm telling you this much: general purpose computing is incredibly important to intellectual freedom as a whole.

I fully understand and I am with you with it. But we do not belong to the target market most of the time.

Basing on the processor speed growth on the iPad, it is just a matter of time.

I really like a to have real OS not a an iOSified OS on my mac. But the things are going now with the softwares needs to be published and installed from the MAS, I would say it is just a matter of time that you have to JB your mac to install a third party app.

dukebound85
Nov 7, 2012, 03:57 PM
excuse my ignorance but weren't the PPC chips based heavily on RISC? If so, wouldn't this move more or less be a move back to a similar architecture such as PPC?

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 7, 2012, 04:19 PM
I think that's a gross oversimplification. iOS isn't a general purpose OS. You can't install apps that aren't in the App Store without jailbreaking other black magic. We're talking about an apples and oranges comparison.

A move to ARM could be another salvo in the war against general computing. That's what I'm afraid of. Not the hardware, mind you, but the kind of software that goes on top of it. I would be sad to see Apple move entirely away from general purpose computing.
Pretty much how I feel about any kind of move to ARM. An MBA running on ARM with a stripped down OS X or iOS with a pumped-up GUI would just be.... I dunno, I guess I've have to call it a toy.

orestes1984
Nov 7, 2012, 04:48 PM
excuse my ignorance but weren't the PPC chips based heavily on RISC? If so, wouldn't this move more or less be a move back to a similar architecture such as PPC?

About the only thing that's common between ARM and PPC archs is that they're both RISC apart from that they're worlds apart. Either way Intel and AMD are basically MISC these days that is a median between the two. CISC computing is basically dead, there is a real move towards RISC but what shape that comes in, we don't know yet.

InuNacho
Nov 7, 2012, 05:22 PM
Apple had better do one hell of a transition because the PPC to Intel wasn't terribly graceful, luckily for them there were only a fraction of Mac users out there compared to today.

drorpheus
Nov 7, 2012, 05:56 PM
I for one can not wait. PPC and ARM are the same they both run on RISC the ARM's are 32bit and PPC left off at 64bit, that's about the difference. Intel has always ran on x86 and still does to this day.

Apple is not so far behind with RISC considering they coded and support up until 2009 w/Leopard. And they have spent the last 3-4 working on iOS which is RISC based. I wish they'd move back or atleast partner with IBM or SONY and license POWER back. I think they still own by acquiring PA Semi, the IBM POWER patents and licenses IBM sold PA Semi, they just didn't have to pay IBM.

SuperJudge
Nov 7, 2012, 07:47 PM
But the things are going now with the softwares needs to be published and installed from the MAS, I would say it is just a matter of time that you have to JB your mac to install a third party app.
Yeah. I had to make the leap to Mountain Lion when I started my current job about two months ago. I like that ARD is only $80 now, but using the App Store to install it and Server.app (which is another complaint unto itself!) just made me feel really dirty. Like borderline Crying Game shower dirty.

I for one can not wait. PPC and ARM are the same they both run on RISC the ARM's are 32bit and PPC left off at 64bit, that's about the difference. Intel has always ran on x86 and still does to this day.
I scarcely know where to start with this or with the rest of your comment.

PowerPC != ARM.

There are 64 bit ARM procs out there. G5s were 64 bit, but the Mac OS never leveraged that fact.

x86 is so different today from what it was in the 90s it's not even funny.

As orestes1984 noted, CISC is dead for all intents and purposes. RISC has been borrowed from heavily in both Intel and AMD procs since the turn of the century.

Please stop.

Ariii
Nov 7, 2012, 09:11 PM
It sounds nice... it would have a cheaper price, less power consumption, and they could fit it into a smaller case. With NEON (Sort of like AltiVec) being added, and with them at decent speeds around 1.5 GHz with multiple cores, it sounds nice.... I've always wanted ARM to move to the mainstream, and they're using different components than PC's, which is fun :o. What it would mean about the direction Apple is heading though wouldn't be that good in general :(.

drorpheus
Nov 7, 2012, 09:27 PM
I scarcely know where to start with this or with the rest of your comment.

PowerPC != ARM.

There are 64 bit ARM procs out there. G5s were 64 bit, but the Mac OS never leveraged that fact.



So let's see,

PowerPC (Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC Performance Computing)

ARM (Advanced RISC Machine) and (Acorn RISC Machine)

Do you see any words that turn up in both in regards to cpu architecture? I don't know probably not. I mean the probability that the chips run on RISC is like 1 in 2 billion. ARM's currently in the market place are lower power/low watt 32bit RISC chips. Don't be so dense.


x86 is so different today from what it was in the 90s it's not even funny.

As orestes1984 noted, CISC is dead for all intents and purposes. RISC has been borrowed from heavily in both Intel and AMD procs since the turn of the century.

Please stop.


That's super its so different, ITS STILL x86. When Safari crashes on an Intel mac look at the crash log, you'll see x86 or references to it. And again to preserve ignorance Intel has never had any RISC processors outside there Itanium series that flopped because it was behind right out of the gate. Nothing was ever borrowed from Intel, it existed long before Intel. AMD had learned to adapt to multiple architectures, that's why they're in multiple super computers running cross platform today and Intel isn't.

It must be awesome to be so confident, speaking pure ************ like an uninformed child.

Stop.

Wildy
Nov 8, 2012, 03:02 AM
People are forgetting that iOS is derived from OSX. Half the work has already been done in terms of porting the kernel etc. - only the userland tools and frameworks like Cocoa would need to be ported (still a mighty task!)
I don't see any reason why we should be limited to a half-assed OS though, when ARM chips today are more than up to the task of running a full blown OS (Ubuntu 12.10 for example).

Jethryn Freyman
Nov 8, 2012, 03:33 AM
People are forgetting that iOS is derived from OSX. Half the work has already been done in terms of porting the kernel etc. - only the userland tools and frameworks like Cocoa would need to be ported (still a mighty task!)
I don't see any reason why we should be limited to a half-assed OS though, when ARM chips today are more than up to the task of running a full blown OS (Ubuntu 12.10 for example).
I still don't know why people seem to support moving OS X to ARM.

ARM performance is *way* behind Intel - check out the Geekbench scores of the fastest ARM chips vs those from the fastest Intel Xeon chips.

Intel is good, they do a great job, they consistently improve, there's frankly no reason to move.

orestes1984
Nov 8, 2012, 04:04 AM
That's super its so different, ITS STILL x86. When Safari crashes on an Intel mac look at the crash log, you'll see x86 or references to it. And again to preserve ignorance Intel has never had any RISC processors outside there Itanium series that flopped because it was behind right out of the gate. Nothing was ever borrowed from Intel, it existed long before Intel. AMD had learned to adapt to multiple architectures, that's why they're in multiple super computers running cross platform today and Intel isn't.

Stop.

You need to back up a few steps, when Intel lost they basically copied the AMD64 arch and added hyper-threading while reintroducing their turbo boost technology. The AMD64 arch which is what OS X runs on is a happy median between complex and reduced instruction set computing. AMD pioneered and got so far ahead it wasn't funny, they added RISC instructions, on dye memory controllers to reduce latency between the memory controller and Front Side Bus as well as hyper transport technology then Intel basically copied it all and we ended up with Netburst.

We are now neither running IA (Intel Itanium) or x86 architecture no matter what your activity monitor tells you this is incorrect. The correct name for the arch we are now on is AMD64 as AMD were first to the punch. Neither x86 (32bit) or IA (Intel Itanium) is compatible with AMD64. AMD64 is its own arch with some 32bit backwards compatibility that could now basically be dropped.

wobegong
Nov 8, 2012, 04:46 AM
Chip technology all goes in cycles, I remember the AMD K6 chips (bloody awful), then the AthlonXP/MP (bloody good), then the Pentium III Tualatin (only the Tualatin!) bloody good, then the Pentium IV (bloody terrible), Athlon64/X2 (good) then the Core2 (million times better than IV), then the 'i' series (fantastic). ARM is really coming along in leaps and bounds in a market that is by far the fastest growing (portable computing) while the old Goliaths remain in the possibly-soon-to-be-much-reduced old core computing market.

Remember today Apple gets just 3%, yes 3% of its revenue from desktop sales!

I couldnt care less which CPU they use I just hope if they do switch they realise that they have a responsibility to support the previous hardware for a little longer than they did last time.

----------

I don't see any reason why we should be limited to a half-assed OS though, when ARM chips today are more than up to the task of running a full blown OS (Ubuntu 12.10 for example).

Very good point...

SuperJudge
Nov 8, 2012, 06:05 AM
Nevermind.