B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6848|Cologne, Germany

shortah wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

well, I am not going to build a new comp before the new windows comes out in summer of 2006, so I am in no hurry. But I like everyone's ideas. Personally, I'd go with the AMD 64 FX-57 if I had to get a new comp now.

In germany, retailers are now shipping standard "off-the-shelves" computers with dual processors. it seems that will be the way to go, even if no one of the standard customers will ever use their PC for something that actually requires two processors.

to me, as far as a dedicated gaming rig is concerned, dual processors don't make sense. the fx-57 can handle anything gaming has to offer these days and for a long time to come.
Its not that nothing requires 2 processors, its that nothing is currently written except for enterprise software that utilizes the 2 processors efficiently.
what I meant was that standard home office users or gamers will most likely not run applications or games in such combinations that would make two processors necessary. And I guess you are right that most software/game cannot make good use of the two processors either.

But my brother works in video editing and he'd love to have a dual processor comp.
Then again, he wants a dual-core Mac G5, but that is out of reach right now.
THA
im a fucking .....well not now
+609|6777|AUS, Canberra
id just go for the 486, plays pga golf on 256 colour like a champ!!
oberst_enzian
Member
+234|6750|melb.au
personally, I recommend the HAL9000 - the world's most advanced Heuristically programmed Algorithmic computer, fully self-aware and self-programming.

Capabilities: telecommunications handling between Earth and Spacecraft, completely automated spacecraft control, extensive speech and hearing capabilities, high Intelligence Quotient.

Plays Chess, likes drawings.

Last edited by oberst_enzian (2005-11-22 16:14:12)

Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6782|Noizyland

New Zealand is being deliberatly held back.

Our computers suck: no doubt about it. They could be good, the technology is right there, but you have to import it and pay freakin' magabucks in tariffs and the like.

Our Cellphone plans are too high: Vodafone and Telecom are cheating us. New Zealand's mobile service costs need to drop by 70% to get us at the OECD average.

Our Internet services suck: The fastest you can get is fucking slow by everyone elses standards, and cost more too. This is again run by Telecom, who Monopolise the networking in New Zealand, while complex laws don't allow them to drop prices so much as to wipe out other competitors.

As far as scenery and, (at the moment,) films like Lord of the Rings and King Kong are concerned, (they constructed a replica New York about eight kilometers from my house,) New Zealand is pretty good, but if shit like this continues we're gonna be left in the stone age... technilogically speaking.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
oberst_enzian
Member
+234|6750|melb.au
and your rank is being held back too:
Next Rank: Staff Sergeant
Score: 6,598 of 5,000. At your historical rate, you should earn 0 in 0.00 days (or 00:00:00 straight). 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Umbra Acciptris
Member
+1|6762
/ horibly overpriced but still
http://www.go-l.com/store/index.htm

L computers was origionaly for making 3d graphics for movies.  Natualy they are quite high power. . .

Last edited by Umbra Acciptris (2005-11-22 17:19:06)

Cronjob
Member
+1|6745|Broomfield, Colorado

ud bslapper wrote:

SO Im coming into a fair amount of cash soon and was thinking whats the ULtimate System ?
Whatever you do, just don't fall for the 64bit trap. Someone will gladly sell you the 64bit chip for $500 ro $900, even though you don't need it.

Here's the short of it. YOU DO NOT NEED OR WANT 64BIT FOR GAMING. There is one game that takes advantage of 64bit. Far Cry. THAT IS IT. PERIOD. And if you look at the screenshots for it, there's not enough difference for it to be even remotely impressive.

Second, no games are QA'd on 64bit. They won't be supported on it. If you are able to find all the drivers for your hardware, you'll still run into crashes and odd behavior with a lot of games since they're not made for the 64bit architecture.

There are almost no consumer applications of ANY SORT on the Windows platform that take advantage of 64bit. If you pay 64bit prices to build a gaming system, you're wasting money you could spend on a second graphics card (SLI) or more RAM. Further, even on the one or two games that now have a 64bit optimized build, the performance increase is negligible and even LESS than on 32bit in some instances.

People who pay for 64bit to game don't understand what 64bit CPU architectures are. They've been around for ages, but they mean nothing if the operating system and the software do not support it and even if the operating system supports it, that's useless if your game/app doesn't support it. Period.

I dont' mean to go on ranting here, but I can't tell you how man times I've heard someone who went out and blew $800 or $1200 extra on a machien just because they thought "64bit" was better than "32bit" becasue "it's a bigger number". Or, worse, sales twits at computer shops who don't know how poor the current state of gaming on 64bit is. Yes, I have multiple 64bit systems, but one is a Solaris box and two are linux boxes. These are systems that take advantage of the architecture. Windows, currently, does not.

Do some research on a good card and decide which you like. I'd reccomend the card I have currently, which is an eVGA Geforce 7800 (256mb). If you can afford it, get an nForce SLI capable board and stick two GeForce 7800s in it (it's a $600 videocard though, so two is overkill). For Battlefield 2, you'd do best to have two gigs of ram. Make sure you get a board with four DIMM slots because you DO NOT want to use 1gb RAM sticks. They incur heavy latency. Use 4x512mb sticks. I'd go with OCZ Platinum. It's really good quality for very little price. Then throw in a CD/DVD ROM. Any brand name will do (such as LITE-ON). If you need a sound card, check out the Audigy 2. You should be able to get the full Audity 2 cards with all the goodies fairly cheap right now, because everyone is trying to push the Audigy 4 line which is, frankly, just the Audigy 2 line with a new number slapped onto it.

Also, if you can afford it, get a 10,000 RPM 74GB Raptor SATA drive. Great speeds. Fast load times. Stick with IDE drives for storage and other things that don't depend on quick access speed (your OS and games should go on the SATA drive).

Another "DON'T".... Do *not* buy Alienware or Falcon Northwest prebuilts. Are they high quality gaming machines? Certainly. Are they overpriced? Absolutely. You will pay twice as much as you would if you just went to your local mom and pop shop (or ordered parts over the internet through Pricewatch.com or somewhere else) and built it yourself - and it'd be exactly the same machine.

Finally - and I don't know how much you have to spend here - get yourself a 30" Apple Cinema Display LCD monitor. I can't imagine playing Battlefield 2 (or Civilization IV) on any other screen. It was $3,200 when I bought it a few months ago but it has dropped down to $2,500 recently. It's just so gorgeous to play on. If you go with this, make sure you get a good graphics card as anything below a GeForce 6600 wont' even pump out enough pixels to run it (the 7800s work smashingly on it though). If you can't afford $2500, go for the 23" or even find someone with the older iteration of the Apple Cinema Displays (the acrylic encased white ones rather than the titanium ones that are out now). I have one of these and you could probably get a used 23" one for $500 or so, if someone is willing to part with it. You could also check other LCD manufacturers for good 23" or larger displays. They'll be cheaper than Apple, but I've stick with Apple for my last two displays because I've had great experiences with them.

Dont' forget to invest in a great headset or 5.1 speaker system (the Logitech e5300 and 5500 is great and around $200). You can get a killer DJ-quality headset for about $60. For a mouse... check out Razer's current lineup (they'll run about $50 to $80). They're the guys who made the original phenomenal "Boombslang" that sold for $200 on eBay after the company stopped making them. You could also get an optical, wireless laser MX1000 for about $50.

Unless you plan to be using your headphones all the time, spend the dough for a good PSU. With the GeForce 7800, Raptor SATA, etc - you're going to need a lot of juice. If you go with two 7800s, you'll need a ton. Go for a 500w PSU minimum. 600w if possible. You might have to spend $150 or $200 for the top of the line, but do so and get a whisper-quiet one. The last thing you want is your PSU going out on you while you're at the office all day and come home to a toasted computer (this has happened to me more than a couple times in my life). The PSU is a seriously undervalued componant.

When you look for a case, get something that is roomy. Maybe a full tower if you have the room. I'd go with something aluminum to dissapate the heat better. For a more quiet system, check if it uses the 120mm fans that they've startes ticking in boxes for the exhaust now. It pumps more CFM due to the size, with a decrease in decibles. Can't believe it took so long for case manufacturers to catch on to that one.

And again - don't get a 64bit system for gaming. There are few reasons and only specific circumstances where you need to go 64bit. Wait another year or two for the gaming world to catch up. Once every game on the store shelf is QAd and geared toward 64bit Windows, go for it and make the investment. Hell, a lot of games flat out WILL NOT run on 64bit at the moment, AT ALL. I believe Spinter Cell: Chaos Theory is one such game.
Cronjob
Member
+1|6745|Broomfield, Colorado

Coolbeano wrote:

my friend just got the best computer. well, best that i've heard of or know personally.

here it is...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+
4gb DDR PC3200 ram
ASUS A8N-SLI Premium Mobo
2x XFX 7800GTX SLi graphics cards
1.2TB 7200rpm SATA drives in RAID-0 configuration. (4 drives total)
Creative X-fi Fata1ity sound card
Reserator passive watercooling (silent)
Enermax Noisetaker 600W PSU

wowzers. dunno how much that shit costs though
The only things I would change about your friends machine are:

2GB DDR PC3200 instead of 4GB. That means he's using 4 1gb sticks and the larger the stick's capacity, the more latency you get. The sweet spot is around 512mb right now.

Ditch AMD Athlon 64bit. No games use 64bit. No apps really use 64bit. Why trade the decent gaming stability of 32bit XP for 64bit when you have ZERO performance gain?

The PSU is great, though. I put the same one in my system and it's a beauty.

Oh - and I'd probably go with RAID-1 on a gaming system. You should get the same speed increase of multiple SATA drives reading and writing data simultaneously, but you also get the benefit of redundancy. With a RAID-0, he gets more speed but when the drives go tits-up, he's fucked.

As far as the SLI direction - I dropped out of that because of the sucky performance. Hopefully better drivers on both the motherboard manufacturer's end and NVIDIA's will change my mind again soon, but in the meantime, I'd rather spend that $600 (for the second 7800) on something else and then grab the second card when the price drops and the performance increase.

Then again, I'm running it on a 64bit system that I dual-boot for gaming and the occasionally fast linux compile, so it's probably more reliable for 32bit implementations. The 512mb 7800s should be out soon if they're not already, too. Who knows what the tag on those will be. Probably $750 or more.
slidero
points
+31|6783
Ditch AMD Athlon 64bit. No games use 64bit. No apps really use 64bit. Why trade the decent gaming stability of 32bit XP for 64bit when you have ZERO performance gain?
Hahaha, what?  Of course no games use 64 bit and 64 bit XP isn't used at all but those chips perform excellent at games.  Way better than single-core intel chips and cheaper, too.
Cronjob
Member
+1|6745|Broomfield, Colorado

Leatherface-TCM wrote:

Go here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 … 730,00.asp

almost $7000.00 of glory for you to waste your money on!
Meh. Chump change. That $7,000 includes the monitor! My monitor cost half of their entire budget alone!

One problem people keep making is that they're equating the most power and the most cost with the best gaming rig. Certainly not the case. Not much point for dual processors when you're gaming (unless you're running the game server like hosting a counterstrike server on linux or something). Not much point for 4gb of ram (in fact, go lower for better latency like I've said a dozen times now) and not much point in 64bit architecture (nothing uses it - it's like paying for a mansion when you never leave your shack). Build the best GAMING machine rather than the best GENERAL system and you can save a crapload and get more performance and stability out of it.

And yeah, my setup breaks all those rules, but it's a gaming system only secondarily and I make my living in the industry, so I build a new system a couple times a year and junk the old ones by about the time they're hitting everyone else's price-break-point.

The only reason I'd go 64bit AMD right now is for the dual cores in the smaller space. But the performance gain doesn't seem enough to justify spending ~$1,000 for a 64bit chip that you could get the same performance (gamewise) out of on a regular 4ghz (or whatever the current highest speed is) Athlon for $200 or so.

Then again, what do I know. I've only been building these things for 18 years.
Cronjob
Member
+1|6745|Broomfield, Colorado

slidero wrote:

Ditch AMD Athlon 64bit. No games use 64bit. No apps really use 64bit. Why trade the decent gaming stability of 32bit XP for 64bit when you have ZERO performance gain?
Hahaha, what?  Of course no games use 64 bit and 64 bit XP isn't used at all but those chips perform excellent at games.  Way better than single-core intel chips and cheaper, too.
Not true.

For one thing, there is extra overhead in running a 32bit application in a 64bit environment. I'm not a Microsoft guy, but typically it'll involve wrapping every call and function with an extra "instruction" bit. The difference isn't huge, though. This is wh you want native 64bit optimizations.

Unfortunately, there are only two 64bit optimized games right now. Far Cry and Unreal Tournament 2004.

If you check out a number of benchmarks online, you will see that in many situations, the 64bit system is inferior to the other systems. In some situations, the 64bit system outperforms in certain parts by up to as much as 5%. I don't know about you, but it isn't really worth double the hardware cost for a measely 5% performance boost.

I can't think of any specific places I've seen these benchmarks, but HardOCP, Tomshardware and Anandtech strike me as likely first places to check out.

Invest that money elsewhere and check back on 64bit in another year or two after the market has matured. 64bit Windows has only been out for a few months as it is. It's not a place the average user should be. And even the advanced gamer shouldn't really be there since there's little if any improvement and he could more wisely spend that extra $1,000 on mountain dew and fritos.
Cronjob
Member
+1|6745|Broomfield, Colorado

B.Schuss wrote:

what I meant was that standard home office users or gamers will most likely not run applications or games in such combinations that would make two processors necessary. And I guess you are right that most software/game cannot make good use of the two processors either.
To use both CPUs, the OS and applications have to be capable of it. I'm a unix guy, so I could be wrong here, but I don't think Microsoft even had a consumer OS that handled SMP until just this year, right?

Dual CPUs are like 64bit CPUs. They have awesome potential, but no useful implementation on the software side just yet. I wish game developers would get off their asses and change that. Dual 64bit processors for Battlefield 2 would be crazy. Just imagine how involved it could be and the intense level of detail they could achieve with that kind of power to play with.

Actually, I have a hard time imagining how much more involved/detailed Battlefield 2 could even possibly get at this point. It has pretty much answered every one of my late night "wouldn't it be cool if..." comments/wishes made during long durations of CounterStrike play
slidero
points
+31|6783

Cronjob wrote:

words
So... what would you suggest for a gaming PC right now?  Intel?  A 3200+/3500+ would perform great at a cheap price even if you NEVER run it in 64 bit mode.
Ballistix5
Member
+36|6782|Forster NSW
use your money for the following

Cheap 2.4GHZ computer
Ati Radeon X850 Video card or Nvidia 7200GT
And 1024MB of Ram

Simple

Left over money = Joystick OR MX518 Mouse OR Logitech Headset

Thats what I did anyway and It runs great
but its your money u gotta work out what u want to do with it
Nehil
Member
+3|6738|South Sweden (NOT SWITZERLAND)

Cronjob wrote:

2GB DDR PC3200 instead of 4GB. That means he's using 4 1gb sticks and the larger the stick's capacity, the more latency you get. The sweet spot is around 512mb right now.

Ditch AMD Athlon 64bit. No games use 64bit. No apps really use 64bit. Why trade the decent gaming stability of 32bit XP for 64bit when you have ZERO performance gain?
Haha, that's the most stupid thing I've seen. Ditch the A64? Ditch the Intel fanboy I say. Take a loot at this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/28cpu-games/bf2.png yes I see now how much the 64bit sucks
Buy a X2 3800+ I say and OC to 4800+ performance.
ud bslapper
Member
+0|6784
HOLY Smoke this is turning out to be a great thread ok heres what i already have
Athlon 64 bit 3800 939
2mg mem
Raedon x850 XT
Z board must say it really sux learing it
Crap mouse
Average AOC 17
Thermtake quad xfire case
Im so not a pc geek and Mrtnz Builds my pc, only play BF2 thats all
As for the Money issues well hopefully in a year my business p[artner and i sell my idea to a Blue Chip company in Netherland and ill also be getting my Aston Marton Vanquish thanks very much so ill make sure i get the best but as i live in NEw Zealand  we are a little behind in Technology hahaha
THANKS so much for the ideas  keep em rolling in and let see what we end up with.
As the norm with ALL technology it will be outdated in a  month and ill loose 40% value  lol
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|6848|Cologne, Germany

Cronjob wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

what I meant was that standard home office users or gamers will most likely not run applications or games in such combinations that would make two processors necessary. And I guess you are right that most software/game cannot make good use of the two processors either.
To use both CPUs, the OS and applications have to be capable of it. I'm a unix guy, so I could be wrong here, but I don't think Microsoft even had a consumer OS that handled SMP until just this year, right?

Dual CPUs are like 64bit CPUs. They have awesome potential, but no useful implementation on the software side just yet. I wish game developers would get off their asses and change that. Dual 64bit processors for Battlefield 2 would be crazy. Just imagine how involved it could be and the intense level of detail they could achieve with that kind of power to play with.

Actually, I have a hard time imagining how much more involved/detailed Battlefield 2 could even possibly get at this point. It has pretty much answered every one of my late night "wouldn't it be cool if..." comments/wishes made during long durations of CounterStrike play
well, I could imagine two or three things that were left out of BF2 right now for performance reasons:

1. possibility to go inside every building ( map detail  basically )
2. weather effects ( rain, snow, wind, day/nightshifting on larger maps )
3. more destructable environments. why won't a palm tree be destroyed if I fire a 90mm cannon at it ? Also,
I am thinking about artillery impact ( craters, burning buildings, etc.. )

I guess with right implementation of dual-core processing and 64bit architecture this could all be done.

I know of course that some of that could have been done already but wasn't done because EA/Dice wanted to make sure that BF2 would be running fairly smooth on the majority of their customers' rigs, even those with not up-to-date hardware. surely, not every 14-year-old can afford $2500 for a top of the line gaming rig.

Moreover, not everyone has a good internet connection and netcode is also an issue. if you want to allow a lot of people to play online, you need to keep the number of packets and packet size fairly small.

what's your opinion on the next Windows ( is it Vista ? ). Will it be based on a 32bit architecture or on 64bit ?
I am not planning to build a new system before Vista comes out next year.
Coolbeano
Level 13.5 BF2S Ninja Penguin Sensei
+378|6770

Cronjob wrote:

Ditch AMD Athlon 64bit. No games use 64bit. No apps really use 64bit. Why trade the decent gaming stability of 32bit XP for 64bit when you have ZERO performance gain?

Oh - and I'd probably go with RAID-1 on a gaming system. You should get the same speed increase of multiple SATA drives reading and writing data simultaneously, but you also get the benefit of redundancy. With a RAID-0, he gets more speed but when the drives go tits-up, he's fucked.
About the 64, he thought about that and found pretty much everything he uses in a 64bit version. He's pro-pro-linux. Even has pics of him burning a brand new XP box. Funny stuff, hehe.

And I said the same thing about changing it to RAID-1, but he said he reformats every two or so weeks (i don't see the point with more than a TB of space) so he'd rather go with -0.
luckybaer
Member
+10|6781| Going Feral

Leatherface-TCM wrote:

4lter_3go wrote:

i prolly got one of the best comps. *not prebuilt*

1 300GB SG HDD SATA (Dont like raptors{not worth it for amount of space} or raid{one goes bad ur fucked})
Clearly you have no clue how RAID works - if you stripe and mirror you get the redundancy - which is exactly why you RAID - so if one goes bad who gives a fuck - keep playing and when you have time go buy a new one.
Would that be RAID 0+1?

I know RAID 0 is striping, so if you lose one, you're toast (of course, you should back stuff up).  RAID 0 is supposed to be faster.

RAID 1 is mirroring, right?  No speed gain there, just redundancy?

I think the guy was talking about RAID 0.  BUt it is funny that he sticks with 1 HDD, so that if that goes, he's still toast.
luckybaer
Member
+10|6781| Going Feral

Cronjob wrote:

Leatherface-TCM wrote:

Go here: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1 … 730,00.asp

almost $7000.00 of glory for you to waste your money on!
Meh. Chump change. That $7,000 includes the monitor! My monitor cost half of their entire budget alone!

One problem people keep making is that they're equating the most power and the most cost with the best gaming rig. Certainly not the case. Not much point for dual processors when you're gaming (unless you're running the game server like hosting a counterstrike server on linux or something). Not much point for 4gb of ram (in fact, go lower for better latency like I've said a dozen times now) and not much point in 64bit architecture (nothing uses it - it's like paying for a mansion when you never leave your shack). Build the best GAMING machine rather than the best GENERAL system and you can save a crapload and get more performance and stability out of it.

And yeah, my setup breaks all those rules, but it's a gaming system only secondarily and I make my living in the industry, so I build a new system a couple times a year and junk the old ones by about the time they're hitting everyone else's price-break-point.

The only reason I'd go 64bit AMD right now is for the dual cores in the smaller space. But the performance gain doesn't seem enough to justify spending ~$1,000 for a 64bit chip that you could get the same performance (gamewise) out of on a regular 4ghz (or whatever the current highest speed is) Athlon for $200 or so.

Then again, what do I know. I've only been building these things for 18 years.
You can get 64-bit AMD's for $150.  What are you talking about $1,000?  The only $1,000 AMD consumer-oriented chip I know of is the FX-57, which was about $1,011 at www.newegg.com the last time I checked. 

$150 A64 chip:  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a … 6819103535
Leatherface-TCM
The Saw is Family
+0|6828

luckybaer wrote:

Leatherface-TCM wrote:

4lter_3go wrote:

i prolly got one of the best comps. *not prebuilt*

1 300GB SG HDD SATA (Dont like raptors{not worth it for amount of space} or raid{one goes bad ur fucked})
Clearly you have no clue how RAID works - if you stripe and mirror you get the redundancy - which is exactly why you RAID - so if one goes bad who gives a fuck - keep playing and when you have time go buy a new one.
Would that be RAID 0+1?

I know RAID 0 is striping, so if you lose one, you're toast (of course, you should back stuff up).  RAID 0 is supposed to be faster.

RAID 1 is mirroring, right?  No speed gain there, just redundancy?

I think the guy was talking about RAID 0.  BUt it is funny that he sticks with 1 HDD, so that if that goes, he's still toast.
You are correct RAID 0+1 (lots of overhead but you get speed and safety net) and your correct - if he does RAID 0 or 1 HDD he is "still toast"
vjs
Member
+19|6778
Sorry there are just too many poor suggestions here to actually weed through whats good and bad.

So good info in there seriously. Let me just make a few comments....

DON"T RAID unless your going to use a raid controller card with on-board processor.

Personally I'd suggest 15K SCSI with an adaptec card for the O/S and games. I'd stay away from raid-0 or go with raid 0+1 but it takes 4 drives and produces alot of noise and heat. One 15K drive is as good as a 2xraptor raid-0.

Invest the most money you can into the motherboard.
I'd say SLI dual processor dual core AMD tyan makes a good board with onboard u320 and sli with 2x 16x pcie.
Dual processor are great but you don't need it, a dual core single processor board is just fine.
I'd buy SLI but I wouldn't buy two cards yet. Get the 512MB version of whatever card just get the 512MB I like the 7800.

MEMORY best you can buy fastest timings you only need 2x1G sticks (2G total).

Sound card is up to you just get a nice headset.
smefeman
Member
+0|6757
ok you guys have no idea wtf is going on.  first of all whoever said get a socket 754 is dumb, socket 754 doesnt have as much bandwith in the procssor as sock 939's do.  dont bother getting any FX series beacuse the processor can be easily overclocked to that speed  don't get dual core, its not ment for gaming and its much more expensive.  dont get a server processor its not ment for gaming.  dont get 2 gigs of memory its not going to help, get one gig and overclock it.  dont waste money on 10k SATA drives because they hardly make a difference and cost A LOT MORE.  get a DFI board.  they are very good at overclocking and for reference on what parts to buy and tech talk go to www.dfi-street.com, they have many articles on system components
Coolbeano
Level 13.5 BF2S Ninja Penguin Sensei
+378|6770

you know, we do spend time using our computer on things other than games. "The MOST KICK ass PC built". no game there.
Bubkin
Pay It Forward
+8|6788

Nehil wrote:

4lter_3go wrote:

i prolly got one of the best comps. *not prebuilt*

0h yea, almost forgot............TOTAL CO$T $3,100
and im only 18
Yes, Oh my God. You are rich, you now won the Internet! (Why brag on the internet when you won't probably ever meet one of us?)
What he forgot to mention is that he works at a fast food joint making $6.50 an hour, put it all on his shiny new credit card and won't pay it off for the next 5 years.

... well... that's what I did when I was his age...

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard