Does Conroe emulate 64-bit or not?

ToastMaster said:
Here's how I recall it:

-AMD anounces AMD64.

-MS is being sued on anti-trust issues. AMD supports MS.

-MS ultimately "rewards" AMD by announcing they'll develop and release a version of Windows XP that supports AMD64 (there is much commentary from around 2003 concerning AMD's support for MS and how MS responded in a friendly way).

-Intel continuously states that the consumer market does not need to move to a 64-bit architecture (a case that can still be argued somewhat today on many grounds)

-Athlon 64s and Opterons outperform Intel's processors upon launch, and many begin heaping praise on AMD.

-Online tech sites make much out of how games of the future will greatly make use of 64-bit, how AMD is leading, and how Intel is behind.

-Intel ultimately announces EMT64, which had been much rumored, saying the technology was in Prescott from the start but not enabled, and will be upon the release of Nocona.

-Intel's early EMT64 reviews show it to be a steaming pile of dong compared to AMD's (a problem Intel ultimately did fix).

<followed by more history up to the present day, but I don't to go on any further> :p

Anyway, the point is that AMD should be greatly appreciated for getting us to the point where we are today. I don't understand why people dislike AMD so much or don't want to give it its due. Some of the fanbo ism on both sides makes me almost as sick as seeing the most diehard of Mac fans go on and on about Windows.

Agreed, thats the way I see things....
 
ryan_975 said:
I was just giving an abridged version. You just added on to what I said. Just to be clear though. I am in no way a !!!!!! of either AMD or Intel, they're both corporate giants that will rob consumers blind given half the chance. I just go with who's got the biggest bang for the buck.


EDIT: wow of all the things I've read on this site, that particular f word gets censored. lol. I always though it was the posters typing it taht way. Learn something new everyday.

they're both corporate giants that will rob consumers blind given half the chance.

Best thing said on the thread so far! I'll say it a again, if I purchased computer parts of moral grounds or who's been good Corporate Citizens, I’d not have a phuggin’computer=P There wouldn’t be anyone worth buying from. This continued AMD loves us and keeps Intel from Raping us is just more AMD Rabid Fanb0y Crap OLA. Intel and AMD take turns ripping folks off and the difference is at least many Intel Fans, Followers and users admit it. AMD Fans seem to think AMD does NOTHING questionable and all is good LOL!

I mean Damn, didn’t the prices of the X2 prove AMD didn’t give a flip about folks here giving biased assed impassioned speeches? Same goes for Intel. Competition is a fracking two way street. The sad part is most of the dingbats don’t understand why. Fans are bad for this market since it is smaller. Folks telling people to rush and buy now are almost EVIL IMHO. Their love for AMD might make them great for AMD, but bad for helping consumers get the best deal for their dollars.
 
I never said AMD wasnt the impetus behind the move to 64-bit on the desktop. They were the driving force behind it...my point was that the whole time Microsoft said they were are developing XP 64-bit and AMD was saying "and we'll power those desktops". But it was oft delayed. It wasn't until after Intel finally released EM64T that Microsoft finally released XP 64-bit.

That would be the timeline...
 
hardwarephreak said:
I never said AMD wasnt the impetus behind the move to 64-bit on the desktop. They were the driving force behind it...my point was that the whole time Microsoft said they were are developing XP 64-bit and AMD was saying "and we'll power those desktops". But it was oft delayed. It wasn't until after Intel finally released EM64T that Microsoft finally released XP 64-bit.

That would be the timeline...


So you're saying Microsoft had a bunch of developers sitting around drinking coffee waiting mnoths for Intel to say "Okay, we'll drop our hat in too." before they started actively working on XP x64? If that's true, then who are they waiting on for being years behind on Vista? Transmeta? VIA? It takes years to develop a releasable product, (not six years mind you (Vista), And a large team of people converting a 32bit product into 64bit product is going to have delays because of conflict in the coding.
 
hardwarephreak said:
I never said AMD wasnt the impetus behind the move to 64-bit on the desktop. They were the driving force behind it...my point was that the whole time Microsoft said they were are developing XP 64-bit and AMD was saying "and we'll power those desktops". But it was oft delayed. It wasn't until after Intel finally released EM64T that Microsoft finally released XP 64-bit.

Because the low volume of A64's on the market didn't warrant MS being in any kind of a rush or hurry to finish it. If you look hard enough, you can find a story where MS said just that. AMD Fans think 500K are a lot of processors. That's peanuts.

Intel did have LV Deerfield and a Yamill versions planned for Desktop and IA 64-32 but it lost the race to AMD. MS said they would only support one version. So Intel had to start over.

X86-64 is AMD's baby but Intel final version or 2nd revision runs just as well and in some cases better=P GamePC, 2CPU, Hexis, HotHardware and others have proven it not matter what AMD Fans say.

People have given AMD Props for X86-64 the problem is Fans. I'll always call it AMD x86-64, not EM whatever. Intel should do the same IMHO. You can post 30 things about AMD. 29 positive and 1 negative, then still be flamed so much for the 1 negative that they forget the 29 positives. It'd matter little if that 1 negative is absolutely true.
 
Donnie27 said:
People have given AMD Props for X86-64 the problem is Fans. I'll always call it AMD x86-64, not EM whatever. Intel should do the same IMHO. You can post 30 things about AMD. 29 positive and 1 negative, then still be flamed so much for the 1 negative that they forget the 29 positives. It'd matter little if that 1 negative is absolutely true.


I find this comment here highly interesting.

If this is suppossed to be a comment about yourself, then it needs to be re-evaluated. I rarely see you give credit where it is due, instead, 99% of the time it's bash time.
 
duby229 said:
I find this comment here highly interesting.

If this is suppossed to be a comment about yourself, then it needs to be re-evaluated. I rarely see you give credit where it is due, instead, 99% of the time it's bash time.

Probaly because I usually argue with 99 AMD fans and one Intel fan LOL!
 
robberbaron said:
No, it's terrible, and IA-64 is terrible.

Aparently, you have never used Itanium. I use it all of the time for the quantum mechanical calculations that I run on the super computer here at UK (often times 32+ Itanium2's, depends on how many of the 64 on the Guassian node are being used, with 2gb of ram a piece, guassian is a memory hog 64gb of ram and still a 500gb-1TB scratch file). They are KILLER for running high power operations that require HUGE amounts of floating point calculations, like modeling and things like that.

Itanium is not and never will be a desktop processor, it was made to be a high end semi-specialized processor whose forte is FP processes.
 
What was that guys name from DEC that went to work for Microsoft than went to AMD to help AMD on 64 bit tech?

Mid day

AMD down 56cents @ $24.25

Intc down 30 cents @ $19.03
 
PedroDaGr8 said:
Aparently, you have never used Itanium. I use it all of the time for the quantum mechanical calculations that I run on the super computer here at UK (often times 32+ Itanium2's, depends on how many of the 64 on the Guassian node are being used, with 2gb of ram a piece, guassian is a memory hog 64gb of ram and still a 500gb-1TB scratch file). They are KILLER for running high power operations that require HUGE amounts of floating point calculations, like modeling and things like that.

Itanium is not and never will be a desktop processor, it was made to be a high end semi-specialized processor whose forte is FP processes.

Itanium is a VERY specialized processor... which is why most think it sucks. The reality is though that it's a loser from a business sense, costing Intel multi millions every year because of that specialized nature. Just not worth it IMHO.
 
PedroDaGr8 said:
Aparently, you have never used Itanium. I use it all of the time for the quantum mechanical calculations that I run on the super computer here at UK (often times 32+ Itanium2's, depends on how many of the 64 on the Guassian node are being used, with 2gb of ram a piece, guassian is a memory hog 64gb of ram and still a 500gb-1TB scratch file). They are KILLER for running high power operations that require HUGE amounts of floating point calculations, like modeling and things like that.

Itanium is not and never will be a desktop processor, it was made to be a high end semi-specialized processor whose forte is FP processes.

Good thing you took that out of context to prove how super duper smart you are.

We were talking, specifically, IA64 on the desktop. Next time read the post or two before so you can then understand the discussion.
 
PedroDaGr8 said:
Aparently, you have never used Itanium. I use it all of the time for the quantum mechanical calculations that I run on the super computer here at UK (often times 32+ Itanium2's, depends on how many of the 64 on the Guassian node are being used, with 2gb of ram a piece, guassian is a memory hog 64gb of ram and still a 500gb-1TB scratch file). They are KILLER for running high power operations that require HUGE amounts of floating point calculations, like modeling and things like that.

Itanium is not and never will be a desktop processor, it was made to be a high end semi-specialized processor whose forte is FP processes.

This is true, but if you follow Intel, then you would know, that it was there intent to have it on the desktop by now. The Netburst architecture was never supposed to be released publicly, it was supposed to be the Itanium that got released to the desktop in it's place.... That didnt happen becouse Itanium got delayed a number of times, so they hobbled togethor Willimette, and released it instead. Then fixed it with Northwood.
 
Poncho said:
Itanium is a VERY specialized processor... which is why most think it sucks. The reality is though that it's a loser from a business sense, costing Intel multi millions every year because of that specialized nature. Just not worth it IMHO.

Try multi-billions. They just got done dumping another ten billion dollars into that pipe dream.
 
Itanic is a very good processor . To bad that software writers aren't up to the task up writing software for it . If it ran X86 software without emulation it would own all.
 
-MS is being sued on anti-trust issues. AMD supports MS. This is so funny its a comedy in itself. Microsoft is more of monopoly than INtel but AMD supports that Monopoly.

By 2010 china will be the number 2 processor manufactor. and more than likely will sell their Cpu's to Developing nations . Plus 4 billion Chinamen and India. . Its really pointless the arguments between AMD and Intel both will be lucky if they survive.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Itanic is a very good processor . To bad that software writers aren't up to the task up writing software for it . If it ran X86 software without emulation it would own all.

Except that it's too expensive and software makers are going to only write stuff for the largest market, unless they can make a GOOD profit for a niche market.
 
OK, yeah thanks for that link. It actually has a bit more information in it then I knew.
 
ryan_975 said:
Are you trying to say that because China did it, it was easy? The Chinese government dumped money into that project to make sure China had a product all of their own that they wouldn't have to be globally responsible for.

Doesn't matter how they did it . They did it. They also have the worlds fastest growing economy.

China belongs in the conversation with its gibbson II 64 bit processor. Sure its slow but it won't take them long to catch up when we are buying a lot of our stuff from them. Fab capabilities are were we really lead but we are helping them out there also LOL.
 
$BangforThe$ said:
Doesn't matter how they did it . They did it. They also have the worlds fastest growing economy.

China belongs in the conversation with its gibbson II 64 bit processor. Sure its slow but it won't take them long to catch up when we are buying a lot of our stuff from them. Fab capabilities are were we really lead but we are helping them out there also LOL.

Hell I could build a 64bit processor given a couple billion in free money, and cheap labor to pull it off.
 
PedroDaGr8 said:
Aparently, you have never used Itanium. I use it all of the time for the quantum mechanical calculations that I run on the super computer here at UK (often times 32+ Itanium2's, depends on how many of the 64 on the Guassian node are being used, with 2gb of ram a piece, guassian is a memory hog 64gb of ram and still a 500gb-1TB scratch file). They are KILLER for running high power operations that require HUGE amounts of floating point calculations, like modeling and things like that.

Itanium is not and never will be a desktop processor, it was made to be a high end semi-specialized processor whose forte is FP processes.

Wouldn't you be better off with a dedicated FP processor? Or does such a thing not exist? I heard that Clearspeed is producing such a beast. Are they the first ones to produce a FP asic?
 
coldpower27 said:

Yup, I saw that. Now since when is they = Intel?

Originally Posted by Poncho
Itanium is a VERY specialized processor... which is why most think it sucks. The reality is though that it's a loser from a business sense, costing Intel multi millions every year because of that specialized nature. Just not worth it IMHO.

Duby said:
Try multi-billions. They just got done dumping another ten billion dollars into that pipe dream.

Sure made it sound like Intel dumped Mulit-billions and "another ten billion" to me. Now if he'd said Intel and some other companies. I say, yup, I saw that.

Itanium isn't going to be dumped when it has backing and folks who use it like what they got. Now Duby may think these compnies are Dumb, but I most certainly DON'T. ;)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/bulletins/longhorn/itanium_bulletin.mspx

Where MS stepped back before, they moved forward this time.
 
Donnie27 said:
Yup, I saw that. Now since when is they = Intel?





Sure made it sound like Intel dumped Mulit-billions and "another ten billion" to me. Now if he'd said Intel and some other companies. I say, yup, I saw that.

Itanium isn't going to be dumped when it has backing and folks who use it like what they got. Now Duby may think these compnies are Dumb, but I most certainly DON'T. ;)

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/bulletins/longhorn/itanium_bulletin.mspx

Where MS stepped back before, they moved forward this time.


Let me see if I can say this politely.....

ummm If you really think that Intel isnt a pressuring force, then you may need to get some help with that. Honestly, look at history. Every single time a chip that was produced that FAILED in the market as BAD as Itanium did, they were ALL canceled.... With the ONLY exception being Itanium...

I never said anyone was dumb... Instead I'm saying that Intel, as per usual, is using there MONOPOLY position to PRESSURE companies into dumping BILLIONS into a FAILURE... ;) ;)
 
duby229 said:
Let me see if I can say this politely.....

ummm If you really think that Intel isnt a pressuring force, then you may need to get some help with that. Honestly, look at history. Every single time a chip that was produced that FAILED in the market as BAD as Itanium did, they were ALL canceled.... With the ONLY exception being Itanium...

I never said anyone was dumb... Instead I'm saying that Intel, as per usual, is using there MONOPOLY position to PRESSURE companies into dumping BILLIONS into a FAILURE...
This is speculation and assumption of course. Just to put things into perspective.
 
Donnie27 said:
And you still don't know!

Opinion. I never claimed to know everything. I just said that article has some information in it, that I wasnt already aware of.
 
coldpower27 said:
This is speculation and assumption of course. Just to put things into perspective.

The first paragraph is absolutely true, the second paragraph is my opinion.
 
duby229 said:
The first paragraph is absolutely true, the second paragraph is my opinion.
The first sentence is still what you believe and not a fact, the second sentence is probably accurate.
 
Donnie27 said:
they're both corporate giants that will rob consumers blind given half the chance.

Best thing said on the thread so far! I'll say it a again, if I purchased computer parts of moral grounds or who's been good Corporate Citizens, I&#8217;d not have a phuggin&#8217;computer=P There wouldn&#8217;t be anyone worth buying from. This continued AMD loves us and keeps Intel from Raping us is just more AMD Rabid Fanb0y Crap OLA. Intel and AMD take turns ripping folks off and the difference is at least many Intel Fans, Followers and users admit it. AMD Fans seem to think AMD does NOTHING questionable and all is good LOL!

I mean Damn, didn&#8217;t the prices of the X2 prove AMD didn&#8217;t give a flip about folks here giving biased assed impassioned speeches? Same goes for Intel. Competition is a fracking two way street. The sad part is most of the dingbats don&#8217;t understand why. Fans are bad for this market since it is smaller. Folks telling people to rush and buy now are almost EVIL IMHO. Their love for AMD might make them great for AMD, but bad for helping consumers get the best deal for their dollars.

Actually, for once I agree fully that AMD ripped customers off for the price of the X2. Actually, I wouldn't say ripped off - they had an inflated price, and people were willing to pay it. Remember, a corporations #1 job is to make as much money as possible, and that includes having the largest possible difference between the cost of your product, and how much people are willing to pay you so that the net income is maximized. Thus, I can't blame Intel if they were to do it, AMD for doing it, basically any company for doing it.

Remember, before Athlon 64, you would be rapped in price on Intel systems generally. It was much worse in earlier years ofc though.

The Athlon 64 forced them to stay competitive via price instead of performance, and now with the relatively low cost of Conroe, it's forcing AMD to cut prices to much more affordable prices. Thus, the "natural balance" of things is working out. :D

I will say though that I can't remember a single Intel fan here every saying that Intel has overcharged on products. :p
 
Donnie27 said:
Because the low volume of A64's on the market didn't warrant MS being in any kind of a rush or hurry to finish it. If you look hard enough, you can find a story where MS said just that. AMD Fans think 500K are a lot of processors. That's peanuts.

Actually, I'm pretty certain that the reason why MS delayed in launching it has more to do with what they felt would happen, and what did essentially happen, vs. waiting for Intel to release a product: low adoption. MS knew, rightly so, that the relatively small amount of Athlon 64s would mean that adoption to a 64-bit Windows XP Professional wouldn't go very fast, just as you said. Even with the release of dozens to hundreds of millions of x86 64-bit systems now, the adoption still is weak. Thus, I honestly don't see MS as having viewed Intel as the "OMG we must have their support" factor. It was coming regardless. Intel helped speed it up some, but the same overall market effect would have occured.

Intel did have LV Deerfield and a Yamill versions planned for Desktop and IA 64-32 but it lost the race to AMD. MS said they would only support one version. So Intel had to start over.

Deerfield was designed for low-powered blade servers. Never designed for the consumer market. I saw some stuff originally about an IA-64 32, but that was in regards to early talk about Merced supposedly fully supporting 32-bit software, which we know in then end is relatively true, except for horrible emulation performance. If you have a link to an article about an actual native IA-64 32 chip, that'd be an interesting read.

And Intel didn't really have to start over, as we saw: they took AMD64, sliced and diced it onto the Pentium 4 line beginning with Prescott, and called it EMT64.

X86-64 is AMD's baby but Intel final version or 2nd revision runs just as well and in some cases better=P GamePC, 2CPU, Hexis, HotHardware and others have proven it not matter what AMD Fans say.[/QUOTE[

I've never actually seen a "64-bit shootout" that shows each very well, as the lack fo 64 bit games is rather great. Have links?

People have given AMD Props for X86-64 the problem is Fans. I'll always call it AMD x86-64, not EM whatever. Intel should do the same IMHO. You can post 30 things about AMD. 29 positive and 1 negative, then still be flamed so much for the 1 negative that they forget the 29 positives. It'd matter little if that 1 negative is absolutely true.

I never see anyone giving props to AMD. Or when one AMD fan mentions it, 10 Intel nuts run in talking about how the world + dog should be worshipping Intel for it. In terms of company glorification, I think the craziest Intel fans are worse than the craziest AMD fans (the worst Apple fans have both beat however)
 
ToastMaster said:
And Intel didn't really have to start over, as we saw: they took AMD64, sliced and diced it onto the Pentium 4 line beginning with Prescott, and called it EMT64.

You think AMD had to start over with K7? 64-bit support isn't nearly as complicated as one may think. Also, since the P4 backend is so radically different from the K8, the work required to support EM64T on a P4 is a totally new engineering problem when compared to AMD64 on a K8.

Saying intel "copied", "emulated" or "sliced and diced" AMD64 onto a prescott is absurd. Just because AMD64 was out first doesn't mean anything. It's like saying any dual SMT implementation post-P4 is a copy.
 
robberbaron said:
Good thing you took that out of context to prove how super duper smart you are.

We were talking, specifically, IA64 on the desktop. Next time read the post or two before so you can then understand the discussion.

In its current form Itanium isn't well suited for desktops.Even at 2 and 4P is has little advantages altough Montecito would make it a lot more competitive.
Big tin is its world.
 
ToastMaster said:
Actually, I'm pretty certain that the reason why MS delayed in launching it has more to do with what they felt would happen, and what did essentially happen, vs. waiting for Intel to release a product: low adoption. MS knew, rightly so, that the relatively small amount of Athlon 64s would mean that adoption to a 64-bit Windows XP Professional wouldn't go very fast, just as you said. Even with the release of dozens to hundreds of millions of x86 64-bit systems now, the adoption still is weak. Thus, I honestly don't see MS as having viewed Intel as the "OMG we must have their support" factor. It was coming regardless. Intel helped speed it up some, but the same overall market effect would have occured.

Deerfield was designed for low-powered blade servers. Never designed for the consumer market. I saw some stuff originally about an IA-64 32, but that was in regards to early talk about Merced supposedly fully supporting 32-bit software, which we know in then end is relatively true, except for horrible emulation performance. If you have a link to an article about an actual native IA-64 32 chip, that'd be an interesting read.

And Intel didn't really have to start over, as we saw: they took AMD64, sliced and diced it onto the Pentium 4 line beginning with Prescott, and called it EMT64.

X86-64 is AMD's baby but Intel final version or 2nd revision runs just as well and in some cases better=P GamePC, 2CPU, Hexis, HotHardware and others have proven it not matter what AMD Fans say.

I've never actually seen a "64-bit shootout" that shows each very well, as the lack fo 64 bit games is rather great. Have links?

I never see anyone giving props to AMD. Or when one AMD fan mentions it, 10 Intel nuts run in talking about how the world + dog should be worshipping Intel for it. In terms of company glorification, I think the craziest Intel fans are worse than the craziest AMD fans (the worst Apple fans have both beat however)

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xpx64&page=1

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=woodcrest&page=1

They've said before that all of the Server Chips are tested with WinXP 64 or similar.

MS knew until Intel Shipped something 64bit meant for the Desktop, they'd get very little marketing from AMD.

Again the only thing I bitched about is X2's High Price. It kicked ass like A64 couldn't when many streaming apps and etc. were thrown in. X2 left NO doubt it was the boss and spanked Intel every chance it was given. Its Volume and Price is the real reason it didn't truely take the market by storm. Look at how many folks here who DON'T own them?

Deerfield was meant for Blades and Workstations=P

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/06/intels_deerfield_chip_goes/

Intel's Deerfield chip goes on sale Monday
HP preps low voltage workstation
By Ashlee Vance in ChicagoPublished Saturday 6th September 2003 14:28

The low voltage version of Intel's Itanium processor will go on sale Monday, making its first appearance in a new HP workstation.

The Low-Voltage Itanium 2 chip - aka Deerfield - arrived a bit earlier than we expected.
 
savantu said:
In its current form Itanium isn't well suited for desktops.Even at 2 and 4P is has little advantages altough Montecito would make it a lot more competitive.
Big tin is its world.

Sure, but anything can be coded for! Appple proved that.
 
Donnie27 said:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=xpx64&page=1

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=woodcrest&page=1

They've said before that all of the Server Chips are tested with WinXP 64 or similar.

MS knew until Intel Shipped something 64bit meant for the Desktop, they'd get very little marketing from AMD.

Again the only thing I bitched about is X2's High Price. It kicked ass like A64 couldn't when many streaming apps and etc. were thrown. X2 left NO doubt it was the boss and spanked Intel every chance it was given. Its Volume and Price is the real reason it didn't truely take the market by storm. Look at how many folks here who DON'T own them?

Deerfield was meant for Blades and Workstations=P

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/06/intels_deerfield_chip_goes/

Oh, I thought you meant that Deerfield was intended for consumer. Sorry, bad interpretation on my part. :)

And thanks for the links. I couldn't really find any when I typed up that response (though I didn't really spend more than a couple of minutes looking, as I was tired :p ).

And I do agree, adoption of the X2s was low due to the high prices - although I'm willing to bet that the amount of people using them jumped considerably when the X2 3800+ was released. I had been planning on forking out the money for a X2 4200+, but once I saw the 3800+ was coming out, I waited.

Now, ironically, I'm debating whether or not $200 more is worth going for the E6700 over the E6600.
 
dmens said:
You think AMD had to start over with K7? 64-bit support isn't nearly as complicated as one may think. Also, since the P4 backend is so radically different from the K8, the work required to support EM64T on a P4 is a totally new engineering problem when compared to AMD64 on a K8.

Saying intel "copied", "emulated" or "sliced and diced" AMD64 onto a prescott is absurd. Just because AMD64 was out first doesn't mean anything. It's like saying any dual SMT implementation post-P4 is a copy.

Um, it's well known that K8 is a heavily-modified, 64-bit K7 (as you yourself just related to).

Now, while P4 may not be identical to the P3 or K7/K8, it is still an x86 architecture. Did it take Intel time to implement it? Yes. However, read any breakdown of the EMT64, and read Intel's own publishings on it, and you will see that they made use of the work AMD had already done. EMT64 is essentially AMD64 modified for the P4, with some instructions designed solely for K8 removed, and replaced with instructions that Intel desired.

I think you yourself need to read up a little on the history of AMD 64 and EMT64.

Oh, and the concept of adapting to 64-bit doesn't seem difficult: the actual taking of a 32-bit x86 architecture, and modifying it for 64-bit is a time-consuming, somewhat difficult feat, especially for a company with at the time a single engineering design team (AMD).

If it weren't difficult, it wouldn't have taken them 4+ years to implement. :)
 
Back
Top