How many have Switched to Mac since OSX

[VaxoP]

Proof PC>Mac

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

ill have to upgrade every 2 years? and mac 4 years according to the study?

ok fine. lets see how mcuh we spend over 8 years

to upgrade, it will cost me initial + 4(upgrades).. or, $800+4($200)=$1600.

you will upgrade every 4 years?

thats initial + 2 upgrades.

or $2500+2($2500) = $7500. do the math then complain please.

ok thx bye

i do not have the time to argue with idiots for hours.. i have work to do.

there is NO way any of you can say that the price of upgrading a pc for 8 years is as much as buying 3 new macs. the cost of upgrading is a motherboard, and a new chip. maybe some ram. total per upgrade is $200-$300 or so. the cost of 3 macs is $7500 - or $15000 if you want to buy the best model available. (which when you upgrade for pc, you can get the newest model)

there are benchmarks to prove the p4 outperforms the mac (newest models) by 40-60%. yes, windows may haev some holes. but the question is, can you not get a firewall? can you not download the patch? are you worried theres a hole in word that someone you dont even know is going to spend hours on trying to get in your computer (someone they dont know) to try and steal your msn contact list? if you are.. then get *nix. thats available for pc too - windows <> pc.

[Wing]

Originally posted by VaxoP

Proof PC>Mac

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

ill have to upgrade every 2 years? and mac 4 years according to the study?

ok fine. lets see how mcuh we spend over 8 years

to upgrade, it will cost me initial + 4(upgrades).. or, $800+4($200)=$1600.

you will upgrade every 4 years?

thats initial + 2 upgrades.

or $2500+2($2500) = $7500. do the math then complain please.

ok thx bye

i do not have the time to argue with idiots for hours.. i have work to do.

there is NO way any of you can say that the price of upgrading a pc for 8 years is as much as buying 3 new macs. the cost of upgrading is a motherboard, and a new chip. maybe some ram. total per upgrade is $200-$300 or so. the cost of 3 macs is $7500 - or $15000 if you want to buy the best model available. (which when you upgrade for pc, you can get the newest model)

there are benchmarks to prove the p4 outperforms the mac (newest models) by 40-60%. yes, windows may haev some holes. but the question is, can you not get a firewall? can you not download the patch? are you worried theres a hole in word that someone you dont even know is going to spend hours on trying to get in your computer (someone they dont know) to try and steal your msn contact list? if you are.. then get *nix. thats available for pc too - windows <> pc.

God, shut up, the processor alone would cost 400.

And shut up about security updates, I DONT WANT TO DOWNLOAD SECURITY UPDATES THAT AMOUNT UP TO THE SPACE OF THE ORIGINAL OS, THANK YOU.

Plus Microsoft is coercing people to agree to clauses in their eula's THROUGH security updates, they already have something in their .NET SDK that says that you didnt have the right to produce GPLed software with .NET.

I remember a nasty clause in a Security update eula, allowing them to download ANYTHING they deem "appropiate" for the "security of your computer"

[Chad]

By the way, the dual 1.25 can be had for 4300 by simply cutting the apple ram down to 512 and buying the rest at crucial. 4300 of course includes ram price. And if I wanted to get some cheapo ram i could get it lower. But this is a quality computer. Not like your hodgepodge pc.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by azazel-

So, you will include benchmarks for systems (Dell, Dual AMD listed) when it's convenient, then talk about how cheap it is to buy some hodgepodge mess off of pricewatch? How convenient.

Oh, yeah...AMD and Intel are SOOO different. AMD didn't move to a cartridge design when Intel did...no, that never happened. And AMD didn't switch right back to a socket format right along with Intel. Nope, that didn't happen either. And that didn't completely *screw* damn near their whole users upgrade path...nope, that didn't happen either. Keep dreaming kiddo.

once again, ill say it again. when upgrading, i said that you WILL PURCHASE A NEW MOTHERBOARD along with the chip. so.. if proof of price (from pricewatch, from macs website), proof of speed, proof of effeciency, proof of which is better is "wrong" to you, i cant help you. you cannot accept facts, its as simple as that. theres clear proof right in front of your eyes about the price of pc compared to mac, and the benchmarks associated with them. the "hodgepdge mess" is $450 on pricewatch for a complete p4 2.4ghz system. i added 50% to that to say it costs $650 for a decent system, which you can of course get for cheaper.

Originally posted by superfula

Typical AMD user. Since when will you amd fan boys learn benchmarks really don't mean squat.

what does this mean?

I have unix. It's called OSX. Unix is platform independant. It works on anything.

typical amd user? you mean - someone who prefers to get a better product for cheaper? ok then. benchmarks dont mean squat? youre quite wrong. benchmarks are proof of the speed, efficeincy and provide the answer to the general "which is better" question. benchmarks show how well something runs on one platform, as compared to another. if proof of how well something is "means squat", what doesnt? how pretty your icons look in mac?

<> means not equal to. as in, windows is not the pc.

[kagaku]

Originally posted by VaxoP

yes, windows may haev some holes. but the question is, can you not get a firewall? can you not download the patch? are you worried theres a hole in word that someone you dont even know is going to spend hours on trying to get in your computer (someone they dont know) to try and steal your msn contact list? if you are.. then get *nix. thats available for pc too - windows <> pc.

The point isn't that you can fix the wholes with 3rd party software, and random patches that are few and far between.. The point is, if Windows was coded right in the first place, we wouldn't need to use firewalls and such to secure our systems..

[Wing]

Originally posted by VaxoP

once again, ill say it again. when upgrading, i said that you WILL PURCHASE A NEW MOTHERBOARD along with the chip. so.. if proof of price (from pricewatch, from macs website), proof of speed, proof of effeciency, proof of which is better is "wrong" to you, i cant help you. you cannot accept facts, its as simple as that. theres clear proof right in front of your eyes about the price of pc compared to mac, and the benchmarks associated with them. the "hodgepdge mess" is $450 on pricewatch for a complete p4 2.4ghz system. i added 50% to that to say it costs $650 for a decent system, which you can of course get for cheaper.

typical amd user? you mean - someone who prefers to get a better product for cheaper? ok then. benchmarks dont mean squat? youre quite wrong. benchmarks are proof of the speed, efficeincy and provide the answer to the general "which is better" question. benchmarks show how well something runs on one platform, as compared to another. if proof of how well something is "means squat", what doesnt? how pretty your icons look in mac?

<> means not equal to. as in, windows is not the pc.

Depending on the enviroment, benchmarks can be accurate or wildly off.

[azazel-]

Originally posted by VaxoP

Proof PC>Mac

the most important thing is performance right??

look at this you ignorant mac loving kiddies:

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07...cw_macvspc2.htm

looks like the p4 2.5ghz was a LOT faster than the mac machine. the mac machine costs $2499, where as the p4 computer would cost $650.

please, wheres your excuse now?

ill have to upgrade every 2 years? and mac 4 years according to the study?

ok fine. lets see how mcuh we spend over 8 years

to upgrade, it will cost me initial + 4(upgrades).. or, $800+4($200)=$1600.

you will upgrade every 4 years?

thats initial + 2 upgrades.

or $2500+2($2500) = $7500. do the math then complain please.

ok thx bye

i do not have the time to argue with idiots for hours.. i have work to do.

there is NO way any of you can say that the price of upgrading a pc for 8 years is as much as buying 3 new macs. the cost of upgrading is a motherboard, and a new chip. maybe some ram. total per upgrade is $200-$300 or so. the cost of 3 macs is $7500 - or $15000 if you want to buy the best model available. (which when you upgrade for pc, you can get the newest model)

there are benchmarks to prove the p4 outperforms the mac (newest models) by 40-60%. yes, windows may haev some holes. but the question is, can you not get a firewall? can you not download the patch? are you worried theres a hole in word that someone you dont even know is going to spend hours on trying to get in your computer (someone they dont know) to try and steal your msn contact list? if you are.. then get *nix. thats available for pc too - windows <> pc.

Listen idiot, if your going to compare the price of 3 Macs to anything, compare it to 3 PC's built by resellers, because that's what people buying high-end systems for the purposes listed in your little benchmarks would be doing. Anyone editing digital video wouldn't be working on some piece of sh!t pricewatch beige machine. They are either going to have a contract with a major PC manufacturer or Mac. Get that thru your head. Your little pricewatch UT2k3 machine doesn't mean squat in this comparison.

And try building me a PC laptop comparable to an iBook or Powerbook for the same price, since you can't ghetto-fabulous a laptop the same way you could from pricewatch. :right:

K thnx bye.

[Chad]

Originally posted by VaxoP

i do not have the time to argue with idiots for hours

no see we are the ones arguing with an idiot...

there is NO way any of you can say that the price of upgrading a pc for 8 years is as much as buying 3 new macs. the cost of upgrading is a motherboard, and a new chip. maybe some ram. total per upgrade is $200-$300 or so. the cost of 3 macs is $7500 - or $15000 if you want to buy the best model available. (which when you upgrade for pc, you can get the newest model)[/b]

First, you would only need to buy 2 macs. Second, I do say that owning a pc over a 4 or 8 year period IS more expensive than Macs. Good luck trying to upgrade a pc for 300. Not going to happen with Intel/Amd switching chipsets. and keep in mind to equal the mac, you need to keep 2 gig in there. Top of the line Mac costs 4300 with 2 gig of ram.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by Wing

God, shut up, the processor alone would cost 400.

And shut up about security updates, I DONT WANT TO DOWNLOAD SECURITY UPDATES THAT AMOUNT UP TO THE SPACE OF THE ORIGINAL OS, THANK YOU.

Plus Microsoft is coercing people to agree to clauses in their eula's THROUGH security updates, they already have something in their .NET SDK that says that you didnt have the right to produce GPLed software with .NET.

I remember a nasty clause in a Security update eula, allowing them to download ANYTHING they deem "appropiate" for the "security of your computer"

$143 is the cost for Athlon XP 2200. a 1500 is moer than enough for any program out there (cost - $53). i dont get your point here. you dont want to download security updates? awww? ok thats fine. i havent downloaded any security updates cause im lazy. i havent been hacked, i wont be hacked into. want my ip? see infobar below? thats my ip. hack me please. i have xp installed rigth out of the box, no security updates isntalled. please, hack me. if you want security, get *nix. im not a deranged maniac like people who put alunimum foil on their heads fearing someone is hacking into their mind. i dont care about security updates cause i already have the security i need. and *nix is for pc. windows is not the only thing for pc brainiac.

superfula: thats nice. $4300 with upgrades costing $4300 a peice compared to $1800. upgrades costing $300 a peice. (peice = needed every 2 years for pc, 4 for mac).

Do the math

[azazel-]

typical amd user? you mean - someone who prefers to get a better product for cheaper? ok then. benchmarks dont mean squat? youre quite wrong. benchmarks are proof of the speed, efficeincy and provide the answer to the general "which is better" question.

That's the difference between you and me. I don't mind paying for something that I think is worth it. I don't need to go looking for deals. I think a Mac is worth the money it costs.

And I can show you benchmarks where a RDram P4 box whips the crap out of any AMD box you can show me...would you say those benchmarks are completely accurate, Mr. "Better Product for Cheaper"?

[Wing]

Originally posted by VaxoP

$143 is the cost for Athlon XP 2200. a 1500 is moer than enough for any program out there (cost - $53). i dont get your point here. you dont want to download security updates? awww? ok thats fine. i havent downloaded any security updates cause im lazy. i havent been hacked, i wont be hacked into. want my ip? see infobar below? thats my ip. hack me please. i have xp installed rigth out of the box, no security updates isntalled. please, hack me. if you want security, get *nix. im not a deranged maniac like people who put alunimum foil on their heads fearing someone is hacking into their mind. i dont care about security updates cause i already have the security i need. and *nix is for pc. windows is not the only thing for pc brainiac.

superfula: thats nice. $4300 with upgrades costing $4300 a peice compared to $1800. upgrades costing $300 a peice. (peice = needed every 2 years for pc, 4 for mac).

Do the math

God you idiot, I DO NOT INSTALL SECURITY UPDATES BECAUSE I VALUE MY FREEDOM.

[Wing]

iBooks are very cheap for the field they are in.

[Chad]

Originally posted by VaxoP

once again, ill say it again. when upgrading, i said that you WILL PURCHASE A NEW MOTHERBOARD along with the chip. so.. if proof of price (from pricewatch, from macs website), proof of speed, proof of effeciency, proof of which is better is "wrong" to you, i cant help you. you cannot accept facts, its as simple as that. theres clear proof right in front of your eyes about the price of pc compared to mac, and the benchmarks associated with them. the "hodgepdge mess" is $450 on pricewatch for a complete p4 2.4ghz system. i added 50% to that to say it costs $650 for a decent system, which you can of course get for cheaper.

um, riiight. Keep dreaming pal. What proof? We have given you accurate prices on how a pc will cost more, then you go back to your "450 p4 pc". Avoiding the issue?

typical amd user? you mean - someone who prefers to get a better product for cheaper? ok then. benchmarks dont mean squat? youre quite wrong. benchmarks are proof of the speed, efficeincy and provide the answer to the general "which is better" question. benchmarks show how well something runs on one platform, as compared to another. if proof of how well something is "means squat", what doesnt? how pretty your icons look in mac?

By typical amd user, I mean someone who settles for cheaply made parts. Amd has never made a better product then anyone. Give me cyrix over amd.

Benchmarks have never been totally accurate. They do no mean real world results at all. How long have you been using computers again? a couple months?

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by Wing

Depending on the enviroment, benchmarks can be accurate or wildly off.

oh? i can give you a site that does 12 different tests, or i can give you 5 sites with the same benchmark. all come out the same way - pc outperforms mac.

Originally posted by azazel-

Listen idiot, if your going to compare the price of 3 Macs to anything, compare it to 3 PC's built by resellers, because that's what people buying high-end systems for the purposes listed in your little benchmarks would be doing. Anyone editing digital video wouldn't be working on some piece of sh!t pricewatch beige machine. They are either going to have a contract with a major PC manufacturer or Mac. Get that thru your head. Your little pricewatch UT2k3 machine doesn't mean squat in this comparison.

And try building me a PC laptop comparable to an iBook or Powerbook for the same price, since you can't ghetto-fabulous a laptop the same way you could from pricewatch. :right:

K thnx bye.

so youre saying, a p4 2.4 ghz chip sold at pricewatch is not the same (somehow made differently or perhaps - manufactured by the store that sells it themself with a pentium tag on it??) as the p4 2.4ghz chip sold at intels website? please. and no, u dont compare 3 macs to 3 pcs. you compare 3 macs to 1 pc with 2 upgrades. for your notebook: http://www.pricewatch.com/menus/m25.htm go there.

Originally posted by superfula

First, you would only need to buy 2 macs. Second, I do say that owning a pc over a 4 or 8 year period IS more expensive than Macs. Good luck trying to upgrade a pc for 300. Not going to happen with Intel/Amd switching chipsets. and keep in mind to equal the mac, you need to keep 2 gig in there. Top of the line Mac costs 4300 with 2 gig of ram.

learn to add. initial (time = 0), middle (time = 4), final (time = 8). thats 3. i can easily upgrade for $300. a amd 1500 costs $53. a new motherboard (if they had changed chipsets) is $100. thats 150 still left - i might spend that on a new video card, or maybe get a 2100 for $100 or so. but a mac upgrade costs you $2500. if i already have 2 gig ram, i dont need to rebuy that 2 gigs, i already have it.

[azazel-]

clicky click

Taken right from the website;

Herein lies the main problem of benchmarking a Mac against a PC (aside from the differing OS issue): The platforms share almost no common applications, let alone one suitable for benchmark comparison.

"

Different programs will perform differently on different operating systems and architectures. A 700mhz PC will be a *lot* slower than a 700mhz Apple. Or is that still a difficult concept for you?

[Wing]

Exactly

Benchmarks cannot be accurate in two completely different architechtures

[Bant Veteran]

if i could build my own mac id be there... until the day comes where i can pick out my mobo, my processor etc, and build a mac myself, ill be stickin with a pc.

[VaxoP]

Originally posted by superfula

um, riiight. Keep dreaming pal. What proof? We have given you accurate prices on how a pc will cost more, then you go back to your "450 p4 pc". Avoiding the issue?

By typical amd user, I mean someone who settles for cheaply made parts. Amd has never made a better product then anyone. Give me cyrix over amd.

Benchmarks have never been totally accurate. They do no mean real world results at all. How long have you been using computers again? a couple months?

proof as in the benchmarks. and when hvae i used the 450 amount? im saying its available at pricewatch, i used the 650 amount. i know, i can buy a p4 2.4 ghz system for 650 at pricewatch. unless that chip is somehow not the same as the one at intels site (explain how if you can please) im gettign a 2.4 ghz computer for 650.

cheaply made parts? hmm.... ive seen dozens of benchmarks where amd outperforms p4 based on the same ram, os, settings, etc. amd per ghz is better than a pentium per ghz, and amd costs less.

[Chad]

Originally posted by VaxoP

learn to add. initial (time = 0), middle (time = 4), final (time = 8). thats 3. i can easily upgrade for $300. a amd 1500 costs $53. a new motherboard (if they had changed chipsets) is $100. thats 150 still left - i might spend that on a new video card, or maybe get a 2100 for $100 or so. but a mac upgrade costs you $2500. if i already have 2 gig ram, i dont need to rebuy that 2 gigs, i already have it.

Learn to add? Lets see. Mac one lasts years 1-4, and mac 2 will last years 5-8. Where does the third one come in. 8/4=2 ya know.

Ok to keep the same stats, you need to buy a dual processor mboard (that has firewire, gigabit ethernet), 2 processors, and 2 gigs of supporting ram. You will spend 118 AT THE MINIMUM on processors, 250 on the motherboard, and anywhere from 500-600 on ram. Geforce4ti is 225. And thats at your precious pricewatch.

About buying another 2 gig. Intel/AMD switch chipsets all the time. Meaning you would need to buy different ram because what you have won't work. You cannot intermix rdram/ddr/pc133 on the same chipsets. They change. If intel or amd decideds to change chipsets (and with the 64 bit coming up, they will) you will need to buy 2 gig of ram that works with the new chipset.

Why is this hard to understand?

[Wing]

Originally posted by superfula

Learn to add? Lets see. Mac one lasts years 1-4, and mac 2 will last years 5-8. Where does the third one come in. 8/4=2 ya know.

Ok to keep the same stats, you need to buy a dual processor mboard (that has firewire, gigabit ethernet), 2 processors, and 2 gigs of supporting ram. You will spend 118 AT THE MINIMUM on processors, 250 on the motherboard, and anywhere from 500-600 on ram. Geforce4ti is 225. And thats at your precious pricewatch.

About buying another 2 gig. Intel/AMD switch chipsets all the time. Meaning you would need to buy different ram because what you have won't work. You cannot intermix rdram/ddr/pc133 on the same chipsets. They change. If intel or amd decideds to change chipsets (and with the 64 bit coming up, they will) you will need to buy 2 gig of ram that works with the new chipset.

Why is this hard to understand?

Mac per ghz more than x86 per ghz

[azazel-]

You are damn near beyond all hope.

so youre saying, a p4 2.4 ghz chip sold at pricewatch is not the same (somehow made differently or perhaps - manufactured by the store that sells it themself with a pentium tag on it??) as the p4 2.4ghz chip sold at intels website? please. and no, u dont compare 3 macs to 3 pcs. you compare 3 macs to 1 pc with 2 upgrades. for your notebook: http://www.pricewatch.com/menus/m25.htm go there.

Listen to me. I'll try to use small words and capitolize them since you just don't seem to grasp this concept -

PEOPLE DOING PROFESSIONAL GRAPHICS IN A GRAPHICS SHOP ARE NOT GOING TO BE USING SOME PIECE OF SH!T HOME-BUILT CRAP FROM PRICEWATCH. THEY ARE GOING TO PURCHASE PRE-BUILT SYSTEMS! YOU KNOW, LIKE FROM DELL, OR GATEWAY, OR APPLE. THEY WANT TECH SUPPORT, HARWARE AND SOFTWARE WARRANTIES, SYSTEM PACKAGES AND SOFTWARE BUNDLES. DO YOU NOT GRASP THIS CONCEPT? IS THIS TOO DIFFICULT FOR YOU? YOU ARE MAKING A COMPARISON BETWEEN A HIGH-END PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATION SYSTEM AND SOME PILE OF CRAP YOU GOT OFF FSCKING PRICEWATCH. YES, THEY ARE THE SAME COMPONENTS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT IS AN UNFAIR COMPARISON BECAUSE ANYONE WITH THE MONEY AND REASON TO PURCHASE A DUAL G4 POWERMAC, LET ALONE SEVERAL OF THEM, WILL NOT WASTE THEIR TIME BUILDING THE SYSTEM THEMSELF. TRY TO FIND ONE MAC USER ON HERE THAT HAS A DUAL G4 1.25 GHZ POWERMAC SITTING IN THEIR LIVING ROOM.

Do you get it now? Has it sunk in yet? Sweet lord...

I feel like I'm trying to explain aerodynamics to Corky from "Life Goes On".

[Wing]

Oh and, I think you can build your own mac.

[VaxoP]

im off to sleep kids, have a lab tomorrow morning.

superfula: theres always the discrepancy of the 8th year, did someone upgrade that year yet or not. but whatever, use 9 years if you like, same result.

if you want to spend 4x more on a mac whose performace (as proved with numerous benchmarks) is worse than a pc, then more power to you. if you want to purchase a system whos security and stabiliy is the same as *nix on a pc, more power to you. if you want to purchase a mac which has 1000x less software available for it, whos market is 10% or less of computers so you cant relate to the majority, use the majoritys apps, more power to you. if you want to buy a mac simply because of its purdy colors or that pc reminds you of microsoft, more power to you. if you are content with buying a brand new machine and throwing out your old stuff every 4 years, more power to you. its your money, its your choice, its your IQ.

whatever.

im off to sleep.

ps: azazel i just caught your point before heading off. do you think that somehow, that chip from pricewatch is not the same as the one intel is selling (maybe the store bought it, smashed it up purposely so they could sell it for less), do you think that geforce is different from nvidias card because of the same reason, do you think that motherboard is any different from the original manufacturers because the store may have "degraded its performance" by removing a transistor, then you need help. its the same thing.

[Chad]

Originally posted by VaxoP

proof as in the benchmarks. and when hvae i used the 450 amount? im saying its available at pricewatch, i used the 650 amount. i know, i can buy a p4 2.4 ghz system for 650 at pricewatch. unless that chip is somehow not the same as the one at intels site (explain how if you can please) im gettign a 2.4 ghz computer for 650.

Where did you use 450? Right here

Originally posted by VaxoP

the "hodgepdge mess" is $450 on pricewatch for a complete p4 2.4ghz system. i added 50% to that to say it costs $650 for a decent system, which you can of course get for cheaper.

cheaply made parts? hmm.... ive seen dozens of benchmarks where amd outperforms p4 based on the same ram, os, settings, etc. amd per ghz is better than a pentium per ghz, and amd costs less.

So because you can open M$ word a second faster its a big deal. You can have your cheaply made processor that can heat a house and sounds like a boenig 747. I'll take a quality product in a P4 anyday.

And do I really have to bring up Mhz means absolutely nothing. It means just as much as your precious benchmarks. Benchmarks do not work on different processors. There is such a thing as optimized benchmarks for one or the other. There is no such thing as an accurate benchmark.

[Wing]

Originally posted by VaxoP

im off to sleep kids, have a lab tomorrow morning.

superfula: theres always the discrepancy of the 8th year, did someone upgrade that year yet or not. but whatever, use 9 years if you like, same result.

if you want to spend 4x more on a mac whose performace (as proved with numerous benchmarks) is worse than a pc, then more power to you. if you want to purchase a system whos security and stabiliy is the same as *nix on a pc, more power to you. if you want to purchase a mac which has 1000x less software available for it, whos market is 10% or less of computers so you cant relate to the majority, use the majoritys apps, more power to you. if you want to buy a mac simply because of its purdy colors or that pc reminds you of microsoft, more power to you. if you are content with buying a brand new machine and throwing out your old stuff every 4 years, more power to you. its your money, its your choice, its your IQ.

whatever.

im off to sleep.

Oh yeah, I know of an app that does everything that infobar does, but better ;)

it's called gkrellm ;)D