Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro vs. Hackintosh

dagomike said:
You must have not been around during the PowerPC days. :)
Click to expand...

This. In addition to other issues, Apple was still pushing the G4 in laptops the last few years because they couldn't get a mobile G5. The G4 was embarrassingly outdated compared to the Pentium M. Less energy efficient, slower clock rate, slower system bus...

If Apple had allowed the Pentium M to make it to 64 bit before they switched, it just would have been game over.

Pretty much anything sold with a G4 from 2003 on was outdated the moment it hit the market. You could tell even Apple knew it when they stopped benchmarking the G4s against PCs.

(The Macbook Pros were wicked fast though.)
 
Different Strokes For Different Folks - Each has pros and cons.

Some like only OSX on Macs. Some like only Windows on a Mac. Some like only OSX and Windows on a Mac. Some like only Macs running any OS that pleases them. Some like only Windows on a PC. Some like only OSX on a PC. Some like only OSX and Windows on a PC. Some like PCs running any OS that pleases them. Some like only OSX on a Mac and only Windows on a PC. Some like Macs running any OS that pleases them and PCs running any OS that pleases them. I prefer running whatever software I need for the task at hand on any system I choose. Some may fall into other categories. I don't believe that anyone's preference regarding system or OS makes them or their choice of system or OS any better than anyone else('s) who has a different preference. Everyone is entitled to their preference because it suits what they perceive as their needs.

I have spent as much, if not more, time tweaking a Mac as I have spent building and tweaking a PC. Admittedly, I'm a tweaker. Other Mac only owners are tweakers, and some probably tweak their Mac as much, if not more, than I do mine. That may explain those EFI Hacs for Mac Pro owners and the early use in Mac Pro's of non-Apple-sanctioned GPUs and CPUs. PC owners fall into these similar categories. Some tweak for perceived need only. Some tweak for pure pleasure. Some tweak for pleasure and perceived need. Some don't tweak their systems at all, whether Mac or PC. Again, I don't believe that anyone's preference regarding whether and how much to tweak whatever system or OS they possess makes them or their system any better than anyone else('s) who has a different preference.

Every option has its pros and cons. However, it is a fact that self-built PCs can generally be more tweakable than are Macs. It is also a fact that building a system and tweaking it takes knowledge and time. It is also a fact that a self-built system can (for one who has the knowledge, or proper assistance, and the free time to build and tweak) require less out of pocket cash for a faster system that runs just as stably as a retail PC or Mac. Additionally, Apple's ways of managing Mac Pro hardware updates, pricing options and providing GPU/CPU options and EFI-tick/tock upgrades tends to breed doubt, frustration and purchasing the lowest price system with the intent to self-upgrade; whereas parts resellers just want to get the item in stock, get your order, charge your card and get the item shipped out of inventory as fast as possible; and whereas some PC retailers give faster notification of what's in process or to come and the vast majority allow more configuration options. Moreover, the warranty on individual parts is often longer than the standard system warranty. When a Mac or retail PC malfunctions, you mainly have only one source at which to lodge a repair request; with a self-built system you'll have many and you'll have to use some of your own labor and knowledge. Building your own system requires that you learn more about it than a retail purchaser is required to know. Retail PCs are generally slightly more tweakable than are Macs because of the greater abundance of compatible options and drivers. Only a few retail PCs expose their bios for a little tweaking. Whether a self-built system is better than a retail PC or Mac can be argued either way until the end of the day because in the end we're just talking preference. Right at this moment I prefer up-to-date Mac Pros, up-to-date retail PCs and up-to-date self-built systems, each running whatever software that I need for the task at hand. But at times I also prefer vintage Mac, Amiga and Atari systems because they run software that I got to know well and appreciate their usefulness. A computer system is just a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The "vs." in the thread name implies making a choice that I choose not to make. I'm just thankful that we now have so many options for which we can choose to go to battle, if we feel the urge to joust with one another.
 
Last edited:
Tutor said:
Some like only OSX on Macs. Some like only Windows on a Mac. Some like only OSX and Windows on a Mac. Some like only Macs running any OS that pleases them. Some like only Windows on a PC. Some like only OSX on a PC. Some like only OSX and Windows on a PC. Some like PCs running any OS that pleases them. Some like only OSX on a Mac and only Windows on a PC. Some like Macs running any OS that pleases them and PCs running any OS that pleases them. I prefer running whatever software I need for the task at hand on any system I choose. Some may fall into other categories. I don't believe that anyone's preference regarding system or OS makes them or their choice of system or OS any better than anyone else('s) who has a different preference. Everyone is entitled to their preference because it suits what they perceive as their needs.

I have spent as much, if not more, time tweaking a Mac as I have spent building and tweaking a PC. Admittedly, I'm a tweaker. Other Mac only owners are tweakers, and some probably tweak their Mac as much, if not more, than I do mine. That may explain those EFI Hacs for Mac Pro owners and the early use in Mac Pro's of non-Apple-sanctioned GPUs and CPUs. PC owners fall into these similar categories. Some tweak for perceived need only. Some tweak for pure pleasure. Some tweak for pleasure and perceived need. Some don't tweak their systems at all, whether Mac or PC. Again, I don't believe that anyone's preference regarding whether and how much to tweak whatever system or OS they possess makes them or their system any better than anyone else('s) who has a different preference.

Every option has its pros and cons. However, it is a fact that self-built PCs can generally be more tweakable than are Macs. It is also a fact that building a system and tweaking it takes knowledge and time. It is also a fact that a self-built system can (for one who has the knowledge, or proper assistance, and the free time to build and tweak) require less out of pocket cash for a faster system that runs just as stably as a retail PC or Mac. Additionally, Apple's ways of managing Mac Pro hardware updates, pricing options and providing GPU/CPU options and EFI-tick/tock upgrades tends to breed doubt, frustration and purchasing the lowest price system with the intent to self-upgrade; whereas parts resellers just want to get the item in stock, get your order, charge your card and get the item shipped out of inventory as fast as possible; and whereas some PC retailers give faster notification of what's in process or to come and the vast majority allow more configuration options. Moreover, the warranty on individual parts is often longer than the standard system warranty. When a Mac or retail PC malfunctions, you mainly have only one source at which to lodge a repair request; with a self-built system you'll have many and you'll have to use some of your own labor and knowledge. Building your own system requires that you learn more about it than a retail purchaser is required to know. Retail PCs are generally slightly more tweakable than are Macs because of the greater abundance of compatible options and drivers. Only a few retail PCs expose their bios for a little tweaking. Whether a self-built system is better than a retail PC or Mac can be argued either way until the end of the day because in the end we're just talking preference. Right at this moment I prefer up-to-date Mac Pros, up-to-date retail PCs and up-to-date self-built systems, each running whatever software that I need for the task at hand. But at times I also prefer vintage Mac, Amiga and Atari systems because they run software that I got to know well and appreciate their usefulness. A computer system is just a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The "vs." in the thread name implies making a choice that I choose not to make. I'm just thankful that we now have so many options for which we can choose to go to battle, if we feel the urge to joust with one another.
Click to expand...

You GO Tutor - Preach it !!! :cool:
 
Tutor said:
Right at this moment I prefer up-to-date Mac Pros, up-to-date retail PCs and up-to-date self-built systems, each running whatever software that I need for the task at hand. But at times I also prefer vintage Mac, Amiga and Atari systems because they run software that I got to know well and appreciate their usefulness. A computer system is just a tool, nothing more and nothing less. The "vs." in the thread name implies making a choice that I choose not to make. I'm just thankful that we now have so many options for which we can choose to go to battle, if we feel the urge to joust with one another.
Click to expand...

Well said. This is why I hold on to old PowerPC Macintoshes, I may have a faster Intel-Macintosh, but at times, it's just fun to power up an old iMac G3 and take it for a spin online. There's just something to these old "tools" (to use your example).
 
Tutor said:
Some like only OSX on Macs. Some like only Windows on a Mac. Some like only OSX and Windows on a Mac. Some like only Macs running any OS that pleases them. Some like only Windows on a PC. Some like only OSX on a PC. Some like only OSX and Windows on a PC. Some like PCs running any OS that pleases them. Some like only OSX on a Mac and only Windows on a PC. Some like Macs running any OS that pleases them and PCs running any OS that pleases them. I prefer running whatever software I need for the task at hand on any system I choose. Some may fall into other categories. I don't believe that anyone's preference regarding system or OS makes them or their choice of system or OS any better than anyone else('s) who has a different preference. Everyone is entitled to their preference because it suits what they perceive as their needs.
Click to expand...

Right, I think the issue is that when someone mentions that Hackintoshes have their cons, the Hackintosh user get all up in arms and insist Hackintoshes are perfect.
 
goMac said:
Right, I think the issue is that when someone mentions that Hackintoshes have their cons, the Hackintosh user get all up in arms and insist Hackintoshes are perfect.
Click to expand...

This.

A Hackintosh is a fine machine. It is not however a fine machine for all purposes all the time.
 
goMac said:
Right, I think the issue is that when someone mentions that Hackintoshes have their cons, the Hackintosh user get all up in arms and insist Hackintoshes are perfect.
Click to expand...

Of course they're not perfect, but to me Hackies are FAR BETTER performers when it comes to rendering power. That (to me) is the killer of it all, as Apple keeps preaching (or has in the past) that Mac Pros are rendering powerhouses. All I did (as well as others on here) was to prove otherwise with less expensive (and just as reliable) PC parts AND they're FASTER. But they too do have their glitches from time to time. That goes with any Mac or PC. I still have my Dual G5 PowerPC Mac Pro from when I purchased it 7 years ago and it still works just fine. Slooowwww , but just fine... ;)
 
goMac said:
Right, I think the issue is that when someone mentions that Hackintoshes have their cons, the Hackintosh user get all up in arms and insist Hackintoshes are perfect.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I know anyone that insists a Hackintosh is perfect. A real Mac offers a near-perfect out of box experience--just plug it in and it works. This has generally been true for software upgrades and installation (although it seems to be getting worse, ironically, not better, as the platform matures). This is one of the reasons many Mac users are often more abstracted from the technical aspects of their computers than a comparable PC user.

The Hackintosh offers far from perfect, but nearly unlimited, customization while sacrificing the seamless consumer experience originally offered by an Apple Mac. However, having now built my own, I vastly prefer it over my Mac Pro (coming soon to eBay!). Why? It's exactly what I want (or perceive to need). I can upgrade (or downgrade) anything at anytime. Is it for everybody? Obviously not.
 
SR2Mac said:
Of course they're not perfect, but to me Hackies are FAR BETTER performers when it comes to rendering power.
Click to expand...

They're not when it comes to the i7s. Two processors are always better than one.

Value, maybe? Overall speed? No. My Mac Pro can destroy any Core 2 Duo from the same era. Same holds with the new Mac Pros and i7s. Again, more expensive, but to me, worth it.

Faster computers are more expensive. Shocking.
 
Tweaking's in my DNA.

goMac said:
Right, I think the issue is that when someone mentions that Hackintoshes have their cons, the Hackintosh user get all up in arms and insist Hackintoshes are perfect.
Click to expand...


I've been tweaking since the mid 1980's, swapping timing chips and installing faster CPUs in Mac, PC, Amiga and Atari systems. None of them were perfect, but they were faster than others' systems. I have two friends in Atlanta, Georgia - One was an Apple Dealer, the other a dealer for Atari, then later Amiga systems. My routine was to visit one on Friday and the other on Saturday. Each would give me systems that they thought were trash. No sooner than I got the gift home would I press the start button (and in a few cases repair a circuit) and be greeted by what we call, "The Desktop." After I let it be known that the gifts were fully operational, the gifts stopped coming. Instead, they would invite me into the repair area to "touch/repair the systems." Since they provided me with food and drink, I had no problem getting what they had condemned as trash, to work again. Sadly, both businesses no longer exist - one because of the demise of Atari and later Amiga and the other because of the advent of the Apple Store. I'm still not perfect. In 2009, I bought a refurb 8-core 2.26 GHz Mac Pro. Immediately, I swapped the CPU's successfully and tweaked a few other things, then geekbenched it and forgot about what I had done until one of my friends pointed out to me that he had heard about my machine on PC World's web site [ http://blogs.computerworld.com/geekbench_reveals_next_3_3ghz_mac_pro_update ]. Then folks on this forum picked my brain to do the same with theirs and since then it's being done with the later generation (2010) systems also. I continue to tweak that 2009 refurb such that it is now a 12-core system. None of those systems can be perfect because I am not perfect. In 2010, I built a self-built PC which I first called FrankHacWinTosh (later FrankMacWinTosh - "Frank" is in memory of one of my favorite childhood villains - Frankenstein- and because I first housed it in a custom built Mac IIfx case that I got from my buddy in Atlanta) and now it's called, "WolfPack1." A self-built PC can only be perfect if the builder is perfect. I'm not perfected yet. So my self-built PC and tweaked Mac Pros can't be perfect. Apple (and their manufacturer) isn't perfected either, so the Mac Pro isn't perfect. I am a perfectionist, however. So my systems are perfectionistic. As I continue to strive for perfection, I hope that my builds follow suit. I've also been blessed because those early tweaked systems still run as they did immediately after I first acquired them and later tweaked them. Some are over 20 years old. Tweaking is not for everyone. To tweak the best, you have to meld all that you know (and thirst to know more) into the tweaking process.
 
Last edited:
goMac said:
They're not when it comes to the i7s. Two processors are always better than one.

Value, maybe? Overall speed? No. My Mac Pro can destroy any Core 2 Duo from the same era. Same holds with the new Mac Pros and i7s. Again, more expensive, but to me, worth it.

Faster computers are more expensive. Shocking.
Click to expand...

Surely you don't mean (after reading this thread) that all Hackintoshes are one processor machines? As SR2Mac and Tutor beg to differ, and so do I shamelessly showing off http://www.overclock.net/t/1238540/...t-case-labs-mh10-water-cooled-evga-sr-2-build

Two cores aren't always better than one, even on Mac Pros. Depends on the usage, for example http://www.macperformanceguide.com/Mac-Upgrade-MacPro-CPU.html
 
gnasher729 said:
Actually, you can't "violate the EULA". The EULA tells you what copies you are allowed to make and which copies you are not allowed to make, and installing MacOS X on a non-Apple branded computer is not allowed, therefore it is _copyright infringement_. And if you compare the price of Lion and a comparable Windows version, it's obvious that the price is designed to keep Mac users happy when Apple made good money on the hardware sale.

There is also an automatic DMCA violation, so you better don't do anything that would upset Apple. Psystar was ordered to pay $2,500 per copy of MacOS X that they made.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we're all violators of multiple EULA. They've turned into a tool of the devil.

As long as the software is purchased, getting all righteous about EULA to end-users it a bit much, IMO.
 
braindeadfool said:
Surely you don't mean (after reading this thread) that all Hackintoshes are one processor machines? As SR2Mac and Tutor beg to differ, and so do I shamelessly showing off http://www.overclock.net/t/1238540/...t-case-labs-mh10-water-cooled-evga-sr-2-build

Two cores aren't always better than one, even on Mac Pros. Depends on the usage, for example http://www.macperformanceguide.com/Mac-Upgrade-MacPro-CPU.html
Click to expand...

You've got mail. How about this one 6-core that hasn't been Hacked yet?

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/562206
 
braindeadfool said:
Surely you don't mean (after reading this thread) that all Hackintoshes are one processor machines? As SR2Mac and Tutor beg to differ, and so do I shamelessly showing off http://www.overclock.net/t/1238540/...t-case-labs-mh10-water-cooled-evga-sr-2-build
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply that. That's why I specifically called out the i7. :p

braindeadfool said:
Two cores aren't always better than one, even on Mac Pros. Depends on the usage, for example http://www.macperformanceguide.com/Mac-Upgrade-MacPro-CPU.html
Click to expand...

True, but if your software doesn't scale for a number of cores, you probably should just be buying a bottom end machine period. Even an i7 is going to be overkill there.

You should also probably buy better software. :p (And yes, I qualify Photoshop as badly written software.)

I do software development, so the XCode benchmark you attached is a great example of why when people tell me i7 Hackintoshes are faster anyway I look at them like they're a few french fries short of a happy meal.
 
goMac said:
They're not when it comes to the i7s. Two processors are always better than one.

Value, maybe? Overall speed? No. My Mac Pro can destroy any Core 2 Duo from the same era. Same holds with the new Mac Pros and i7s. Again, more expensive, but to me, worth it.

Faster computers are more expensive. Shocking.
Click to expand...

Hey goMac, I'll just stick with the facts; at least from my professional experience using Mac Pros (which BTW, are great). When I initially got into all of this I wasn't expecting the end result that my Mac Hak Pro to be better than my friends new Dual CPU Mac Pro at he just purchased at the same time I purchased mine. (Now this test was done about the time when the new 6 cores just came out) and we didn't use GeekBench or any other rendering test app; just Photoshop & Final Cut Pro. I can tell you I was shocked. My ONE W3680 (same as i7 980X) CPU (OC'd comfortably to 4.2GHz), 12GB Corsair 1600MHz RAM, Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD7 rev.1 Mobo, & Corsair H100 Watercooling CPU block, & XFX Radeon HD 6870, BEAT his two 2.66 GHz 6-core Xeon X5650 (same as running 2 non-OC'd i7 970) CPUs in our rendering tests.

Mind you he spent close to $6,000 for his Mac Pro, while I spent only $1,600 mine - a 73% savings. The amazing part about this is I could have paid another $1,600 to create the same machine and linked them to create a mini rendering farm. In fact I could have built 3 of these Hackies and linked them together to make them 3 times faster, and my cost would've only been $4,800; with $1,200 left over for a nice 8TB NAS to back up all my rendered vids.

Now we can go back and forth, but I have personal proof of what I experienced because of actual testing, where you on the other hand... well... whatever... (Don't like it when I say it like that, do you?). "Shocking." Nobody does, so I hope the demeaning comments will stop now...

Now going into rendering test scores to keep things fair. Respectively, this is where I rely on GeekBench (GB) v2.2.6 or higher. Now are they the end all of rendering test apps? No, but it's by far the best one out there along with NovaBench 1.1. But lets stick to one rendering test app - GB. To say that I'm now on page 2 (as one of the top performers out there) at 34771 while others are out there dangling on page 50 in the 20,000's (like I was before) says a lot. So when you say that a Mac Pro can "destroy" certain i7 CPUs, you should rethink that first then just coming up with comments that aren't helpful.

Lastly, I can confidently put up my SR-2 setup with with my Underclocked X5690's up against ANY top of the line Mac Pro out there and my machine (and any one else's SR-2 for that matter if it tweaked correctly) will simply do better (thanks to Tutor and many other mentors out there like him). It's a matter of having the ability to tweak your system, not just put it together. Even keeping everything at stock speeds, my system was right there at 24,000+ when it came to GB scores. The same that you would find on the most current Maxed out Mac Pro out there, and I only (again as I said before) only spent $4,000 compared to the $11,000 that you'd have to spend to still not come close to rendering power of my SR-2 setup.

So there's really not much more else to say on this except that I'm grateful for the ability to build a wonderful unit that I can use and the experience that comes with it... Later... :cool:
 
goMac said:
I didn't mean to imply that. That's why I specifically called out the i7. :p

True, but if your software doesn't scale for a number of cores, you probably should just be buying a bottom end machine period. Even an i7 is going to be overkill there.

You should also probably buy better software. :p (And yes, I qualify Photoshop as badly written software.)

I do software development, so the XCode benchmark you attached is a great example of why when people tell me i7 Hackintoshes are faster anyway I look at them like they're a few french fries short of a happy meal.
Click to expand...

Despite Photoshop (and even Final Cut Pro at times) being poorly written software, they are still the standard when it comes to using them in the real world. That being said, I can tell you from personal testing and actual comparing tests, that my 24 virtual core SR-2 just performs better than any TOP Mac Pro out there - period. Again, this is coming from actual experience. So enjoy eating those french fries that are missing... ;)

Plus, building it yourself is so much better and sweeter to look at. Here's a perfect example of one (or two for that matter) from a first time PC builder:

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1227850&mpage=1#1227850
 
SR2Mac said:
Despite Photoshop (and even Final Cut Pro at times) being poorly written software, they are still the standard when it comes to using them in the real world. That being said, I can tell you from personal testing and actual comparing tests, that my 24 virtual core SR-2 just performs better than any TOP Mac Pro out there - period. Again, this is coming from actual experience. So enjoy eating those french fries that are missing... ;)

Plus, building it yourself is so much better and sweeter to look at. Here's a perfect example of one (or two for that matter) from a first time PC builder:

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.aspx?high=&m=1227850&mpage=1#1227850
Click to expand...

Again, while that's all great, i7s being faster than Mac Pros is not universally true. If you're a video editor, audio editor, or developer, a Hackintosh is significantly slower.

If all you do all day is use Photoshop, then a Hackintosh could be more price effective. Although given that Photoshop barely uses the GPU, an iMac or a Mac Mini also becomes a very good option, because as I mentioned, an i7 is also overkill for a program that is not multicore.

And again, I'm happy for you and your Xeon but I'm specifically talking about Core i7s here. As I mentioned previously. :p

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you ever say an i7 Hackintosh isn't competitive in all situations (which it isn't) everyone gets all hot and bothered.

And while a Xeon hackintosh is great, it's so expensive you might as well consider the Mac Pro. The only reason your's is faster is because Apple hasn't rev'd the Mac Pros yet. Once/if they do, it'll be the same speed as any other Mac Pro.
 
goMac said:
Again, while that's all great, i7s being faster than Mac Pros is not universally true. If you're a video editor, audio editor, or developer, a Hackintosh is significantly slower.

If all you do all day is use Photoshop, then a Hackintosh could be more price effective. Although given that Photoshop barely uses the GPU, an iMac or a Mac Mini also becomes a very good option, because as I mentioned, an i7 is also overkill for a program that is not multicore.

And again, I'm happy for you and your Xeon but I'm specifically talking about Core i7s here. As I mentioned previously. :p

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you ever say an i7 Hackintosh isn't competitive in all situations (which it isn't) everyone gets all hot and bothered.

And while a Xeon hackintosh is great, it's so expensive you might as well consider the Mac Pro. The only reason your's is faster is because Apple hasn't rev'd the Mac Pros yet. Once/if they do, it'll be the same speed as any other Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

It's not really about cost, never has been. Pride of building and more flexability are generally why.
 
throAU said:
It's also not exactly legal.
Click to expand...

Here we go again, with the "legal" comment thing. I bought the PC parts and I purchased a LEGAL digital copy of Mac OS X, so what I do with it is my business as long as I'm not sharing it and it's on my personal machine. I also don't mind losing the Apple customer service that's supposed to come with it as I don't need it.

Plus, Macs are nothing more than PC parts anyway. All those recent laws that were written stating that you can't install Mac OS X on non-Mac products is doing that because others are finally catching on that you don't need to spend $7,000 for a Mac Pro when you can spend $1,600 (or less) to get the same performance. It goes back to the old saying:

"Those that have the gold, make the rules."

But that's coming from the same bunch of guys (Jobs and Gates) who (back in the day) BROKE those rules before creating their own. Flat out HYPOCRISY.
 
goMac said:
And while a Xeon hackintosh is great, it's so expensive you might as well consider the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Did you not read how much I spent on my SR-2 Setup? I spent ONLY $4,000. Compare that to a TOP OF THE LINE (TOTL) Mac Pro for $10,750. so NO they are NOT as expensive. I saved 62% !!! How about this, if you still don't think it's a savings, then please PayPal me remaining amount that I "didn't save" of $6,750 and I'll agree with you - LOL !!!

goMac said:
The only reason your's is faster is because Apple hasn't rev'd the Mac Pros yet. Once/if they do, it'll be the same speed as any other Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it. They CAN'T "REV" THEM UP, that's called Overclocking !!! You can only do that on a PC, NOT a Mac. BTW, they are using the same Xeon CPUs (X5670s). Now mind you they may not be using X5690's, but even if I was using a pair of X5670's, I'd still outperform any TOTL Mac Pro out there, because YOU CAN'T OVERCLOCK OR UNDERCLOCK THEM as you an with a PC. Plus, even if they did come up faster Mac it's STILL going to be nearly 60% to 70% more expensive for the SAME performance as you'd get with PC parts that you can put together yourself.

Talking to you about this is like saying that Bilderberg Group doesn't exist and that they don't meet together once a year, and then someone shows you video proof that they do and you still would say, they don't exist. LOL !!! You should write a program to help you understand things better... :roll eyes:

I gotta stop doing this as it's getting late and I have a lot to do tomorrow. Thanks for the laughs - LOL !!! :D
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back