Other Starting to appreciate some bits of the Intel-Mac era.

[eyoungren]

I really don't get this post. I don't get the nostalgia. They were bad computers compared to what we have now.

This entire thread resides in the Early Intel Mac subforum. I do not recall you ever posting in the EIM subforum of MacRumors - so that is probably the reason you don't get the nostalgia or the thread. You probably don't go in here on purpose.

 

[eyoungren]

Do intel fans remember the sound of the fans on their 15/16" MBPs running like crazy for the simplest tasks?

The only thing I miss about Intel is being able to run a proper Windows VM in x86. I don't miss the heat or the throttling.

I vaguely remember with one MBP I still have, a 2006 MBP purchased in 2015 I think. My first Intel Mac - but not my primary Mac. A 2008 MBP came in 2018 and performed better, but again not my main Mac.

My primary Mac was a PowerMac G5 Quad from 2017 to 2020. Before that it was a 2.3DC PowerMac G5 and before that it was a PowerMac G4 Quicksilver. Before that it was a 2001 TiBook 400 and before that it was homebuilt tower PCs from 1990 to 2001. Before that it was a Commodore 128 and a Commodore 64 and before that a TRS-80 back in 1980-1982. So you can see the length of my time with Intel Macs versus other computers.

Since May 2020 my primary Mac has been a 2009 MacPro. You see, you probably remember all this because you use MBPs as your primary Mac.

I use towers. Desktops. MacPros and PowerMac G4/G5s.

So, I'm not really sharing your experience here. And just because the fans on MBPs of this era happen to annoy you, you cannot compare that to my desktops. Not the same experience. Not everyone uses (or likes) laptops.

PS. This post typed in on a 2023 M2 13" MBP - used because it's assigned to me by my company for work. I don't use it outside of work (outside of work I use my 2009 MacPro). But I mention it because it's connected to two Aluminum 30" Apple Cinema Displays with a wired keyboard and wired Mighty Mouse for a 'desktop' experience.

If I have to use a laptop, I'm going to use it like a desktop.

 

[leman]

Have worked in enterprise IT for 20 years, number of machines the companies I have worked for have upgraded instead of replaced: approximately 1 percent.

Anyone who upgrades is an edge case in the scheme of things. Its why non-upgradable machines have continued to sell, and why laptops outsell desktops by a massive margin.

Because, as I originally stated: most of the time, unless you really screwed up with your original spec and skimped out massively on something - by the time you upgrade part of the system the rest of the supporting hardware is well out of support/warranty/performance anyway. Whether it is intel, AMD, Apple Silicon or whatever.

Pretty much this. Upgradeability matters only to a very small vocal minority. It’s really a shame that this minority feels entitled enough to try to make computing objectively worse for everyone else.

 

[davigarma]

The "Early Intel Macs" thread attacked without any mercy. The world has become very aggressive. I've been working with my 2008 for 15 years and I'm not going to change it. I don't have any need to do it, I'm retired and I'm happy 😅. In Spanish there is a proverb that says: "the habit does not make the monk"

 

[eyoungren]

It’s really a shame that this minority feels entitled enough to try to make computing objectively worse for everyone else.

Just for clarification, are you saying those who want upgradeable computers are making it worse for everyone else (i.e., you)?

If so, just know that an Apple Silicon Mac is not in my upgrade path. I prefer towers and I can keep my 2009 MacPro going for quite a few years now with OCLP. My plan after that was to switch to Linux. I used to build PCs in the 90s so going back to being able to build PCs to run Linux won't be entirely alien to me. I prefer desktops over laptops largely because I can upgrade components. And I like the look better and the fact that failed parts can be replaced.

But I'm a home user, not a business so I can upgrade whenever I feel I need to.

You get what you want, I get what I want.

 

[crazy dave]

Sure didn’t! But this discussion, on this forum, is one of upgradeability; parts replacement; and design durability.

There remains a significant share of pre-2014 Macs in use to this day. And since this here is a forum for those Macs, this is the place to review how durability, when maintained over time, does come out ahead in terms of CO2e footprint.



Again, consider where you are right now. Consider that this thread was started by a Mac user re-discovering what could be done with a Mac product Apple deem obsolete and unsupported. Consider what we do on here: we maintain, we tweak, we work to upcycle and divert from waste streams because, in some part, the raw materials and assembly CO2e footprint for these older Macs are long since baked in, back when they were assembled. And even though that baking in was long ago, these machines still have remarkable utility right now.



A strawman argument comes from positing a counterpoint, an opposition which doesn’t exist — or, in general, isn’t something liable to be found with any regularity. This criterion is not met here. You know, I know, and we all know that it became less practical to maintain Macs whose components can‘t be repaired for a reasonable price. The criterion is not met in this discussion with respect to a gaggle of uninvited, aggrieved, Silicon-cheering Mac visitors to the EIM forum (and I quote another EIM regular from earlier in the discussion) “to crap on” what brings EIM regulars together on here; what we work on and share; and how we support each other with respect to maintaining components and utility for a series of Apple products (we believe are) worthy of being maintained and used to the best of their capabilities.

The strawman argument you advance, at least here, fails. With notable (and notorious) exceptions, many of the Mac models falling under the purview of “Early Intel Macs”, 2006–2013, give or take, can and are still in use today, in no small part because parts which do wear out could be replaced, and in no small part because the models, especially portables, were built to be, truly, tough.




Again, read the room. Read the forum. If this doesn’t comport with you, you have a score of other forums to explore. And as noted earlier, many of the EIM regulars also have a Silicon Mac in their ownership.

Everything above here though is completely and utterly irrelevant to the point you were making. That this is your inner sanctum doesn't change that the arguments you made are wildly unsupported. That other people like those arguments here isn't a good reason to make them. And for the record, I don't think people should be trollish to the OP or to the hobby of keeping old computers up and running or to the daily driver of keeping old computers up and running. As I said, I'm on one. I also build computers, well not recently no time, it's fun or it was fun when I was able to it. One of my favorite posts from a couple of years back was someone gutting an old flower iMac and sticking a modern M1 in it for the fun and getting it all working. It was a fantastic series of posts and really interesting! But again, your arguments don't hold water and that this is an EIM forum doesn't change that.

You could. You haven’t, but you could.

Even if you did, you’d be overlooking the thesis presented in making a side-by-side CO2e table: the older gear, when maintained (which, all things being equal, isn’t difficult for the 2011 crop of MBPs, MBAs, and Mac minis), is durable enough to survive (and even thrive throughout) eleven years of daily usage.

Of course, you’re right: we can’t know empiricially, short of engineer-testing for accelerated wear÷usage in a compacted window of time, how well a Silicon Mac will hold up in eleven years. But from the features carried over from the Touchbar and retina eras of MBPs, we can extrapolate how things will go for the Silicon Mac, and with a reasonable confidence that, absent cryptographic pairing/locking of components and/or Apple blocking third-party sale of replacement components notwithstanding, any single point-of-failure for the current crop of Macs will, just after Apple “obsolete” them (including in extended jurisdictions like California and, I think, Turkiye), render them as either hobbled or as dead bricks.




Neat. Check my signature. I own a 2013 iMac, unmodified, and it does stuff just fine. But it’s also not a portable. Even so, if you or I chose to, we can open and upgrade the RAM and the storage (provided you have a Fusion setup or don’t have the base, 2.7GHz variant, you can have both a SATA SSD and an NVMe SSD concurrently). The 2023 iMac M3? There’s nothing within which can be upgraded, repaired, or replaced (at the age which your — and my — 2013 iMacs are now).

RAM yes of course easily. Even done it, again not since 2013 when I first got it refurbished and refused to pay Apple upgrade prices for RAM. Storage? Technically yes. But practically, would I actually go through the 27" monitor? No. Way too ****ing clumsy with a 27 inch pane of glass.

I invite (and invited) others to consider Silicon replacements at different intervals, such as four years, or even five years, if they want to see the figures calculated. I’m sure a developer could assemble an algorithm to let a user plug in replacement-interval time variables and the like and set it up as a simple tool for calculating different scenarios using different Macs across different spans of time. (Sorry, I’m not a developer.)




I am very much aware of the way Apple have moved/expanded/extended AppleCare toward a subscription-based model of extended warranty care. (A discussion on the merits and detriments of so-called “extended warranty” plans — is it “product insurance” or is it “new revenue stream for the company”? — is beyond this discussion’s remit.)

If you read the post with the CO2e table I set up, I did make note of how AppleCare is stingier and more restricted than ever; if there’s even a hint that a component failure is in the least bit due in part on the user-owner, then AppleCare, even on a subscription-based AppleCare plan, won’t get near it. You can pay Apple full pricing for parts and labour to replace what failed, but you’re still on your own. (Fixing it elsewhere is harder these days since replacement parts are either impossible to come by or require Apple — and only Apple — to cryptographically re-pair replacement components). That wasn’t always the case. But those are variables to consider when making those CO2e and “product lifetime/turnaround” considerations.




If you can replace a part in your own Silicon Mac — any part, in any Silicon Mac, M1, M2, M3, etc. — then I invite you to share with us how you DIY’d it without Apple’s aforementioned roadblocks. That’s part of the bigger point raised earlier.




Sorry, not “he”, but “she”. Thank you.

Apologies tried to keep it gender neutral elsewhere but I missed that one. I'll fix it. Will respond to the rest of the above below.

You are completely welcome to plug in different variables to calculate CO2e footprints — minding how most EIM models have user-replaceable/repairable parts. You will, indeed, come up with different CO2e mass values. I invite you to share them. But you will still need to account for how a single-point-of-failure in a Silicon Mac (or even some T2-equipped late Intel Macs) will undermine longevity (especially when said single-point-of-failure occurs in the hands of the owner, AppleCare or no, and Apple determine the owner is culpable/liable for the failure, even when the owner didn’t actually invoke it).

Sure but the point everyone was trying to make to you was that you just took the two most extreme options deliberately to make the AS Mac look as bad as you could. Well I suppose you could've have had them throw away a computer every 6 months regardless whether or not there was even a new model available. But people not unreasonably objected and yeah unfortunately a lot of posts here get worded ... curtly, especially once things get going. The point that I and others are trying to make is that 1) we don't know what the average user upgrade cycle will be for AS Macs or how it will evolve over time. 2) It is, sadly for the environment, going to be substantially shorter than the full lifecycle of the Mac because the available data shows that it always was even when people had the opportunity to keep their computers for longer and repair/upgrade parts. 2a) That means it's likely very similar if not identical in terms of upgrade cadences. Sure I could make my own tables, but my point was it was pointless to do so. I almost could just flip your tables around and make the Apple Silicon Mac have half the carbon footprint by upgrading the EIM every X years and keeping the AS steady. It's pointless without data to back up what the average cadences were/are/will be and we don't know the will be.

I mean a lot of this is you and others talking past each other. You want the discussion to be about how for your use case Apple Silicon Macs will likely have a larger carbon footprint than an Early Intel Mac. But let's be clear: you worded it as though this was a truism for everyone and it's definitely not. For the way the vast majority of people upgrade their devices, the new Apple Silicon Macs are almost certainly just as good and likely better given their efficiency because the research and market shows people just buy new (or at best used/refurbished). The kind of user who behaved the way you describe in your post, they did that in the EIM era too.

Look I get it, the title and content of the opening post was provocative*, which was people came in here and everyone started fighting and once a forum thread goes on the front page it's no longer really part of any individual subforum. *I'm certain that was not @TheLion01 's intent but it's Macrumors and that's what happens all the time on these forsaken forums. But the palliative to that isn't making frankly outlandish arguments.

Truthfully I broke my own rules not to post here anymore. So I'm going to go back to that. I wish you the best.

 

[ojfd]

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far is that there are tons and tons of software that hasn't been ported to Silicon and never will. Many developers, especially those that did cross-platform, stopped developing for Mac when Apple moved to ARM. Many companies left the scene forever.
As I mentioned before, you can't even calibrate your display properly on Silicon macs, because of lack of software and Apple's way of doing things. What's out there is a joke compared to what is (was) available for Intel.

 

[JinxVi]

Apple Silicon Mac's are an amazing piece of engineering and are better in every way on performance and energy-efficiency than Intel Mac's ever were. I just don't understand why it is not appreciated by many forum members to point out (in my opinion justified) disadvantages of the architecture.

Because an architecture is a package, you get the good with the bad. When you compare one set of advantages and disadvantages with another such set, there will be a clear winner. Unless you value performance and energy-efficiency really low, the winner will be Apple Silicon. Nobody will disagree when you simply point out lack of repairability as a disadvantage. But you used it to declare your appreciation for a decade old Macs. And that's where I don't follow. It would be great if we could upgrade modern Macs, but obsolete Macs aren't great, only because you can upgrade their HDD and RAM.

And I know, these points of lack of modularity/upgradability do not only apply to Apple Silicon, they do also apply to later Intel-Mac's, especially the ones with the T2-chip.

Later Intel Macs combine the disadvantages of both architectures. Already soldered down, but not yet integrated systems on a chip. And yet people bought them, because faster Intel CPUs and Retina displays provided their own advantages.

I just think it's good to ask ourself every now and then what the costs and benefits of a particular technological development are and if there is another way to make the technology possible with social and environmental issues in mind.

Asked and answered. Only very rarely modularity creates opportunities to meaningful upgrade a system. SATA SSDs were about the only time when you could blow new life into an old computer. Going forward a faster drive requires a faster system bus and a new SoC.

We need to recognize that there is a trend in the tech industry where longevity is no longer an important concern.

That's not true. Modularity and Repairability become less of a concern. Longevity becomes more important the faster computers are. The solution is to reduce wear and tear in the first place by eliminating moving parts and reducing the heat in the system. Chemical batteries will always age, that's why we need political right to repair initiatives.

Big win for right to repair with new EU rules for batteries – but legislators must get the implementation right

AirPods are also an example of this. They are great devices but the environmental impact is significant the way they are developed now.

Not that great. I'm not sure if wireless even justifies the huge price increase. I wish the iPhone still had a Headphone Jack.

It sometimes feels like I made a weird step selling my M1 Mac mini and the intention of my post was to know if there were other people who did this and what their reason was, hence why I posted this in the Early Intel Mac forum.

You made a weird decision by buying a Mac mini in the first place. It has no battery, doesn't sit on your lap and has the same form factor since 2010. It's the device with the least benefits of a new chip architecture. If you had sold a 2020 M1 MacBook Pro only to buy a second-hand 2013 i5 MacBook Pro, I would've questioned your sanity. But switching from a desktop to a laptop comes with a whole new set of benefits. You now have an integrated display, speakers, webcam, microphones, backlit keyboard and trackpad. Apparently all these things are more important to you. You didn't base your decision on the merits of the CPU at all, so why do you ask us to comment on selling the M1? It's clearly unimportant to you.

 

[nathansz]

Second upside: you have all the other operating environments from which to pick and which will be maintained, particularly Linux and BSD.

Fourth upside: it outperforms the apple silicon Mac Pro at a fraction of the cost

Apple can’t even beat an intel/amd box at its own metal api!

Is apple ever going to make another desktop computer? Is the Mac truly and finally dead outside of mobile?

 

[eyoungren]

Is apple ever going to make another desktop computer? Is the Mac truly and finally dead outside of mobile?

If all the future holds for Apple is laptops, then yeah…I'm out. I figured I was out anyway considering how things were going, but I've had some form of 'desktop' computer since 1980.

I'm not giving up the form factor now.

PS. I find Mac Minis to be a great compromise. Upgradeable, still a 'desktop' type Mac but can be placed just about anywhere. I own five of them now, LOL.

 

[nathansz]

PS. I find Mac Minis to be a great compromise. Upgradeable, still a 'desktop' type Mac but can be placed just about anywhere. I own five of them now, LOL.

Yeah the 2012 Mac mini was the last new Mac I bought. Once that and my 2011 iMac were past their prime (after multiple upgrades to both, including metal gpu for the imac) I started building my own.

I almost exclusively use macOS

The old mini is still chugging along as our household server

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Pretty much this. Upgradeability matters only to a very small vocal minority. It’s really a shame that this minority feels entitled enough to try to make computing objectively worse for everyone else.

Yes and no.
There is definitely something to the fact that you can’t really make the M2 MacBook Air as good of a value as it is right now, with fully upgradable components. It would be thicker, heavier, slower, and for most people a worse computer.

However, Apple could absolutely make certain parts (like the storage) replaceable without changing much about the computer, and they just… Don’t.
They might have reasons for it, maybe the removable storage is less reliable on a portable computer. They could probably come up with any number of excuses, but it doesn’t change the fact that they *could* improve sustainability with their laptops and for whatever reason they don’t.
If the storage fails on a MacBook, the MacBook fails.

However, this really shouldn’t be as big of a concern as people are making it out to be. Its how the iPhone and iPad have operated their entire lives.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

What hasn't been mentioned in this thread so far is that there are tons and tons of software that hasn't been ported to Silicon and never will. Many developers, especially those that did cross-platform, stopped developing for Mac when Apple moved to ARM. Many companies left the scene forever.
As I mentioned before, you can't even calibrate your display properly on Silicon macs, because of lack of software and Apple's way of doing things. What's out there is a joke compared to what is (was) available for Intel.

Same things were said about Classic Mac OS,power PC, and 32 bit.
Somehow, people moved on.

 

[JinxVi]

Also bought a 2nd hand 2013 21,5" iMac a few days ago. Really loving the idea that the Mac's ... can be made better computers without buying a total new one and by getting more life out of them, they don't end up becoming e-Waste so quickly.

2013 iMac: 1920×1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
2021 iMac: 4480×2520 = 11,289,600 pixels

A second-hand M1 iMac can be bought everywhere for a thousand bucks. Personally I wouldn't want to pay anything for an old Intel iMac with ~81.6% fewer pixels. If you already own one or can get one for free, go make the most of it.

 

[eyoungren]

Same things were said about Classic Mac OS,power PC, and 32 bit.
Somehow, people moved on.

True, to a point.

I worked for a company once that used Quicksilvers for their production machines. At the time Panther was out, but they were stuck on OS X 10.2.3. There was some app they used that required them to be on that OS and no higher or it would break.

A couple years after that job I came back for some part time work in addition to my other job. Still Quicksilvers and still all stuck on 10.2.3. Tiger and Leopard were the current OS at that point.

I heard later (like about 10 years later) that the company had folded. It wasn't a small company either, they provided graphic services for all those Sav-On Drugs coupon/fliers that used to be bundled with newspapers.

In the job I had before the one I have now the person who did the Classified ads was stuck on OS9 because the company that made the product for the ads stopped making the product. We eventually just switched to someone else doing the ads all inside a Word document. They gave that to me to 'format' for the newspaper.

So yeah, somehow people move on. But it's not necessarily smooth or easy and often simply involves the death of a company or a product. And sometimes what replaces the thing you used before is worse.

 

[eyoungren]

2013 iMac: 1920×1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
2021 iMac: 4480×2520 = 11,289,600 pixels

A second-hand M1 iMac can be bought everywhere for a thousand bucks. Personally I wouldn't want to pay anything for an old Intel iMac with ~81.6% fewer pixels. If you already own one or can get one for free, go make the most of it.

I don't have $1000. If I did, a lot more of my bills would be paid (particularly my mortgage) and I wouldn't be driving a 10 year old and 27 year old car.

In 2020, the price of my 2009 MacPro was $250. That I could afford (at that time).

 

[JinxVi]

I don't have $1000.

buy a new MacBook Pro 2013
buy a larger NVMe SSD
sell MacBook Pro 2013
buy a new M1 Mac mini 2020
buy a new Windows 11 ThinkPad
sell M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacBook Pro 2013
buy second-hand iMac 2013
going to buy upgrades for three computers

Somewhere in there you spend more than $1000 in total and you still don't have a new computer with a Retina display. You buy too often and too many computers. You not always buy second-hand, but when you do, you choose models which are already obsolete. I think you could use your funds more strategically.

 

[leman]

Just for clarification, are you saying those who want upgradeable computers are making it worse for everyone else (i.e., you)?

Not at all. I believe there are plenty of different user groups with different needs to justify and celebrate all kinds of explorations of the computer design space. For example, I couldn’t care less about designs like the Framework Laptop and I am not interested in owning a computer like that, but I think it’s great that it exists as an option and enjoys some financial success.

At the same time, technology does not stand still. For example, upgradeable memory is being slowly but surely phased out for reasons such as performance, power efficiency, and cost. And there is no way around it. With data transfers becoming more of a bottleneck with every day we need wider memory interfaces and in-memory processing - and you can’t have these things in a modular design, not if you care about cost and size at least.

And yet we observe very vocal activists who appropriate the (ultimately noble) right to repair ideology to push forward their own marginal agenda. This is not ok with me. I am a tech enthusiast, I want the technology to evolve in a meaningful way instead of stagnating.

If so, just know that an Apple Silicon Mac is not in my upgrade path. I prefer towers and I can keep my 2009 MacPro going for quite a few years now with OCLP. My plan after that was to switch to Linux. I used to build PCs in the 90s so going back to being able to build PCs to run Linux won't be entirely alien to me. I prefer desktops over laptops largely because I can upgrade components. And I like the look better and the fact that failed parts can be replaced.

And that’s perfectly fine. Your tastes and preferences are your own. I don’t think your decision are rational, but matters of tastes rarely are.

 

[TheLion01]

buy a new MacBook Pro 2013
buy a larger NVMe SSD
sell MacBook Pro 2013
buy a new M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacPro 2009
buy a new Windows 11 ThinkPad
sell M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacBook Pro 2013
buy second-hand iMac 2013
going to buy upgrades for three/four computers

Somewhere in there you spend more than $1000 in total and you still don't have a new computer with a Retina display. You buy too often and too many computers. You not always buy second-hand, but when you do, you choose models which are already obsolete. I think you could use your funds more strategically.

You’re mixing up the story of two forum member. Please keep me out of the money discussion. I wansn’t bringing it up and I do not have a Mac Pro.

—

I also want to set something straight about the title of the topic. It said "Appreciating the Intel-Mac era more." That "more" was wrong (because of the translation). I don't appreciate Intel more than AS. I was glad we got rid of Intel after the switch to Apple Silicon. 3 years after the transition, the appreciation for the few advantages there were in the intel era is growing a bit.

 

[eyoungren]

buy a new MacBook Pro 2013
buy a larger NVMe SSD
sell MacBook Pro 2013
buy a new M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacPro 2009
buy a new Windows 11 ThinkPad
sell M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacBook Pro 2013
buy second-hand iMac 2013
going to buy upgrades for three/four computers

Somewhere in there you spend more than $1000 in total and you still don't have a new computer with a Retina display. You buy too often and too many computers. You not always buy second-hand, but when you do, you choose models which are already obsolete. I think you could use your funds more strategically.

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

I don't own nor did I buy anything you listed. That has to be someone else.

I do own 5 Mac Minis (Intel: 3x 2006 and 2x 2009) a 2009 MacPro, a 2006 MBP, a 2008 MBP and a whole bunch of PowerPC Macs. Oh and I do own a Thinkpad. A 2007 version with Windows 7. I got three of them at once in 2009 for around $500 because family members needed PC laptops for school.

 

[JinxVi]

.

 

[B S Magnet]

buy a new MacBook Pro 2013
buy a larger NVMe SSD
sell MacBook Pro 2013
buy a new M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacPro 2009
buy a new Windows 11 ThinkPad
sell M1 Mac mini 2020
buy second-hand MacBook Pro 2013
buy second-hand iMac 2013
going to buy upgrades for three/four computers

Somewhere in there you spend more than $1000 in total and you still don't have a new computer with a Retina display. You buy too often and too many computers. You not always buy second-hand, but when you do, you choose models which are already obsolete. I think you could use your funds more strategically.

I think you could do less with giving unsolicited — and frankly, non-constructive — advice to people who didn’t request for it. 🙋‍♀️

 

[nathansz]

Pretty much this. Upgradeability matters only to a very small vocal minority. It’s really a shame that this minority feels entitled enough to try to make computing objectively worse for everyone else.

How does upgradeability make computing worse for everyone else?

 

[ojfd]

Same things were said about Classic Mac OS,power PC, and 32 bit.
Somehow, people moved on.

Average consumer, yes. But not all.
In fact, I know of some professional audio facilities that still run OS9 + specific software/hardware that is used to churn out sh*t that most of youngsters listen to every day.
Same applies even more to 32 bit apps - still in use daily, still are used to bring food to the table.

There was that saying - buy the computer for the software you want to run, not the other way round.

 

[TheLion01]

Changed the topic title to better reflect my feeling. Cheers everyone!