Why champion for slower storage protocols? SATA is 6 Gbps at best whereas TB2 is 2 channels of 20 Gbps each and USB 3.0 is 10 Gbps. PCIe SSDs are nearly the speed of TB2. For a general purpose PC, that kind of performance doesn’t matter as much as it would a professional editing video which is what a person buying a Mac Pro would do.
You understand that there is no such thing as a thunderbolt SSD. They are either SATA or NVME internally, along with a TB bridge, generally within an (overpriced) external drive enclosure.
If you need a 4 drive external enclosure, chances are you should have chosen a desktop computer instead of an all-in-one with no room for expansion.
You do understand that for high performance workloads like editing professional video (which is a primary market of a Mac Pro), PCIe SSDs have a huge advantage over SATA SSDs? For external storage I have rarely seen where these pros are using external SATA drives preferring TB drives in the case of a few users to dedicated NAS servers for many users.
You do understand that for high performance workloads like editing professional video (which is a primary market of a Mac Pro), PCIe SSDs have a huge advantage over SATA SSDs?
Yes. By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro. The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
For external storage I have rarely seen where these pros are using external SATA drives preferring TB drives
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money com
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
The specs on the iMac Pro [wikipedia.org]. Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money compared to that ugly TB enclosure.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
I'd prefer a drive maxing the SATA cable over a 10 gigabit Ethernet NAS. I believe it is faster for most use cases (especially latency), despite the fact that the theoretical bandwidth of Ethernet is a little faster.
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math
The math is simple. The TB bridge can't make the drive go faster. It can only make it slower. It's an additional middle man, which hopefully delivers close to 100% of the speed.
. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
It doesn't increase the drive speed. Bandwidth isn't shared be
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
But you didn't. So let me see if I understand you: You changed the subject without mentioning you were changing the subject even though the OP and I were talking specifically about the Mac Pro.
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
Whether we were talking about the Mac Pro 2013 or the iMac Pro, there was no internal room for additional SATA drives. Again, the workload of professional video editor is that they do not store all of their files locally. They store them on a separate drive for redundancy. Like a TB drive. Like a NAS. They copy files
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Finally a desktop CPU is so fast, especially compared to a NAS CPU, that gigabit network transfers won't affect it that much (say, 10% of one core).
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me. Your math is terrible. Once again, a single SATA III cable has a max of 6Gpbs. A single TB2 cable can handle 20Gbps or 3.5 x SATA. To use multiple drives in a RAID you have to have the space which neither the Mac Pro 2013 nor iMac Pro had for 2 disks much less 3 or more.
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Dude you seriously need to brush up on your IT. A NAS [wikipedia.org] isn’t a just a desktop that shares its drive. These are highly specialized and optimized machines with hardware an
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me.
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive. If your TB box has 4x SATA ports, then it can only be slower (or equal) than if you connected those same 4 drives directly inside your desktop using 4x SATA cables. Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive.
Dude, you are missing the whole point again. Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives. The Mac Pro used their own PCIe standard before NVMe became the standard. The iMac Pro uses NVMe. At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally. You do understand this right? Externally they use TB. They don’t use eSATA as an external connector for all the reasons above. You do understand the difference between internal and external right?
Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally
Oh I get that. They are only limited by the 6 Gbps SATA externally. Because SATA is used in the NAS or the TB box.
Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives.
My point is that the NAS or TB box can only be slower than if the drives were attached directly, with a SATA cable, to the motherboard of the desktop computer. Obviously it rules out any computer which doesn't have any SATA connector.
When I’m talking about TB as an external connector and you champion SATA, what the hell are you talking about?
What kind of connection is used inside your TB box to connect hard drives? That's right, SATA. Just because you put the hard drive in an external TB enclosure will
Dude, give it up. You called a server "a dumb desktop". That tells me you have no clue about what you're talking about. I can literally dismiss everything you are going to say.
Failed understanding skills until the end. I was not talking about a server (full fledged computer), but a NAS device. A NAS is indeed a dumb, or stripped down, computer. Since that computer is not portable or battery powered and doesn't have a display, I call it a desktop but we could call it a server just as well if you prefer.
You called a server a “desktop, dumbed down”. You called a Pro workstation with Pro hardware, a “toy”. You don’t know at a NAS is. Please do your research further commenting as you’re only making yourself look dumber.
They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
This part tells me you don’t know what a “server” is. A server doesn’t mean a high end CPU and lots of RAM. No audio, no GPU, and fewer peripherals is characteristic of every single server I’ve worked with from big iron to web servers to enterprise databases. Most of Google’s web crawling servers are low power and low performance CPUs. Many big iron mainframes don’t have the fastest CPUs either but focus on processing a high number of transactions.
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices. Understanding failure. I point it to you. And yet, you keep not wanting to re-read or even accept there could have been a confusion.
So you called two machine with Xeon processors, ECC RAM, Pro GPUs, PCIe SSDs, and TB “toys.”
I knew you would bite. Just because you put over expensive CPUs or RAM in a computer doesn't automatically makes it good for all types of work. For professional video editing, you often need multiple drives. You don't need to save a little bit on space on your de
So it seems that you spent days not knowing the a NAS by definition is a server. Not only that you’ve argued vehemently in a topic area you seem to know nothing about.
They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
From the very beginning I told you to research what a NAS is. It appears you didn't do so. It appears it took you almost a week to realize that a NAS is a server. If you didn't know a NAS was a server then what other knowledge are you lacking? Because many of your arguments look nonsensical if you didn't know that a NAS was a server. Like the statement above makes you look like an idiot. A NAS was never designed to be a desktop and you called them "cheap desktop comp
I knew what a NAS was. Probably a lot more than you, but whatever.
A NAS can be a dumbed down desktop computer. Again, by desktop, in this sentence, I meant non-laptop. So this includes servers. I already explained all that. A desktop computer can be a server. A server doesn't have to be a 1U form factor. It can be a mid tower.
And yet, you stick to your stupid point. So let's make this clear again: I never said a NAS isn't a server.
On the topic of a Mac Pro or iMac Pro, they are workstations and specifically not toys. Learn what a workstation is.
You specially said that you were talking about servers and not a NAS. Again we can scroll up or are you going to lie about that? By definition, Mac Pro and iMac Pro are workstations as is a Dell Precision. Again you show a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance at the same time. If you can’t basic definitions right, how bad must your conclusions be.
You specially said that you were talking about servers and not a NAS.
I've talked about both. But when I said that NAS are dumbed down desktop computers, I was not talking about servers in general. Even you understood that right in your post https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Again we can scroll up or are you going to lie about that?
Please do. Either you won't find what you are looking for, or I will have to point out yet again how you badly understood a basic sentence.
By definition, Mac Pro and iMac Pro are workstations as is a Dell Precision. Again you show a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance at the same time. If you can’t basic definitions right, how bad must your conclusions be.
Again you fail at logic/understanding. Workstations are desktops computers. Not all desktop computers are workstations. I never said the Mac Pro isn't a workstation, y
I've talked about both. But when I said that NAS are dumbed down desktop computers, I was not talking about servers in general. Even you understood that right in your post
You lie. These are your words.
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices.
Please do. Either you won't find what you are looking for, or I will have to point out yet again how you badly understood a basic sentence.
Please read up above where your own words contradict you. Liar.
Again you fail at logic/understanding. Workstations are desktops computers. Not all desktop computers are workstations. I never said the Mac Pro isn't a workstation, yet, you seem to claim otherwise.
No you called them toys because you don't seem to understand what a workstation is and now you're desperately trying to cover up for that.
When I qualified them as toys, I meant that they have some serious shortcomings for many types of work. They are made to be small and stylish, as most Apple products.
Please are you now going to lie even more about what you meant. You just dig yourself more and more into a hole because you didn't know something basic and are trying to lie your way out of it now.
Give it up. You’ve been caught lying. From the beginning you were insistent about talking the iMac even though no one was taking about it. The you compared SATA which is an internal connector to TB2 which is not remotely the same. Then you said a NAS wasn’t a server. All you called Pro workstations as toys. When pointed out all this idiocy you just doubled down and insisted that’s not what you meant. You tried to explain the “toys” comment as meaning that workstations can
Bahahaha. You didn’t know a NAS was a server. You didn’t know TB was external. You didn’t know what a workstation is. Please tell me what a workstation is because your answer will show you that you’re an idiot.
The faster I go, the behinder I get.
-- Lewis Carroll
SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro (Score:3)
SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro.
As they don't seem to be moving forced T2 or higher locked pci-e storage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You understand that there is no such thing as a thunderbolt SSD. They are either SATA or NVME internally, along with a TB bridge, generally within an (overpriced) external drive enclosure.
If you need a 4 drive external enclosure, chances are you should have chosen a desktop computer instead of an all-in-one with no room for expansion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that for high performance workloads like editing professional video (which is a primary market of a Mac Pro), PCIe SSDs have a huge advantage over SATA SSDs?
Yes.
By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro. The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
For external storage I have rarely seen where these pros are using external SATA drives preferring TB drives
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money com
Re: (Score:2)
By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro.
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
The specs on the iMac Pro [wikipedia.org]. Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money compared to that ugly TB enclosure.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
I'd prefer a drive maxing the SATA cable over a 10 gigabit Ethernet NAS. I believe it is faster for most use cases (especially latency), despite the fact that the theoretical bandwidth of Ethernet is a little faster.
Do you and all of your
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math
The math is simple. The TB bridge can't make the drive go faster. It can only make it slower. It's an additional middle man, which hopefully delivers close to 100% of the speed.
. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
It doesn't increase the drive speed. Bandwidth isn't shared be
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
But you didn't. So let me see if I understand you: You changed the subject without mentioning you were changing the subject even though the OP and I were talking specifically about the Mac Pro.
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
Whether we were talking about the Mac Pro 2013 or the iMac Pro, there was no internal room for additional SATA drives. Again, the workload of professional video editor is that they do not store all of their files locally. They store them on a separate drive for redundancy. Like a TB drive. Like a NAS. They copy files
Re:SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro (Score:2)
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Finally a desktop CPU is so fast, especially compared to a NAS CPU, that gigabit network transfers won't affect it that much (say, 10% of one core).
Re: (Score:2)
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me. Your math is terrible. Once again, a single SATA III cable has a max of 6Gpbs. A single TB2 cable can handle 20Gbps or 3.5 x SATA. To use multiple drives in a RAID you have to have the space which neither the Mac Pro 2013 nor iMac Pro had for 2 disks much less 3 or more.
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Dude you seriously need to brush up on your IT. A NAS [wikipedia.org] isn’t a just a desktop that shares its drive. These are highly specialized and optimized machines with hardware an
Re: (Score:2)
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me.
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive.
If your TB box has 4x SATA ports, then it can only be slower (or equal) than if you connected those same 4 drives directly inside your desktop using 4x SATA cables. Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
Is it obviously even slo
Re: (Score:2)
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive.
Dude, you are missing the whole point again. Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives. The Mac Pro used their own PCIe standard before NVMe became the standard. The iMac Pro uses NVMe. At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally. You do understand this right? Externally they use TB. They don’t use eSATA as an external connector for all the reasons above. You do understand the difference between internal and external right?
Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
Nobody b
Re: (Score:2)
At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally
Oh I get that. They are only limited by the 6 Gbps SATA externally. Because SATA is used in the NAS or the TB box.
Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives.
My point is that the NAS or TB box can only be slower than if the drives were attached directly, with a SATA cable, to the motherboard of the desktop computer. Obviously it rules out any computer which doesn't have any SATA connector.
When I’m talking about TB as an external connector and you champion SATA, what the hell are you talking about?
What kind of connection is used inside your TB box to connect hard drives? That's right, SATA. Just because you put the hard drive in an external TB enclosure will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Failed understanding skills until the end. I was not talking about a server (full fledged computer), but a NAS device. A NAS is indeed a dumb, or stripped down, computer. Since that computer is not portable or battery powered and doesn't have a display, I call it a desktop but we could call it a server just as well if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You called a server a “desktop, dumbed down”.
No I didn't. You fail to understand basic sentences again.
You don’t know at a NAS is.
Of course I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Your exact words:
They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
This part tells me you don’t know what a “server” is. A server doesn’t mean a high end CPU and lots of RAM. No audio, no GPU, and fewer peripherals is characteristic of every single server I’ve worked with from big iron to web servers to enterprise databases. Most of Google’s web crawling servers are low power and low performance CPUs. Many big iron mainframes don’t have the fastest CPUs either but focus on processing a high number of transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices.
Understanding failure. I point it to you. And yet, you keep not wanting to re-read or even accept there could have been a confusion.
So you called two machine with Xeon processors, ECC RAM, Pro GPUs, PCIe SSDs, and TB “toys.”
I knew you would bite. Just because you put over expensive CPUs or RAM in a computer doesn't automatically makes it good for all types of work.
For professional video editing, you often need multiple drives. You don't need to save a little bit on space on your de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A NAS is a server. But a server is not necessarily a NAS.
Re: (Score:2)
They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
From the very beginning I told you to research what a NAS is. It appears you didn't do so. It appears it took you almost a week to realize that a NAS is a server. If you didn't know a NAS was a server then what other knowledge are you lacking? Because many of your arguments look nonsensical if you didn't know that a NAS was a server. Like the statement above makes you look like an idiot. A NAS was never designed to be a desktop and you called them "cheap desktop comp
Re: (Score:2)
I knew what a NAS was. Probably a lot more than you, but whatever.
A NAS can be a dumbed down desktop computer. Again, by desktop, in this sentence, I meant non-laptop. So this includes servers. I already explained all that. A desktop computer can be a server. A server doesn't have to be a 1U form factor. It can be a mid tower.
And yet, you stick to your stupid point. So let's make this clear again: I never said a NAS isn't a server.
On the topic of a Mac Pro or iMac Pro, they are workstations and specifically not toys. Learn what a workstation is.
I see I insulted your religion. Not sorry.
Re:SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro Please (Score:2)
You specially said that you were talking about servers and not a NAS. Again we can scroll up or are you going to lie about that? By definition, Mac Pro and iMac Pro are workstations as is a Dell Precision. Again you show a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance at the same time. If you can’t basic definitions right, how bad must your conclusions be.
Re: (Score:2)
You specially said that you were talking about servers and not a NAS.
I've talked about both. But when I said that NAS are dumbed down desktop computers, I was not talking about servers in general. Even you understood that right in your post https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Again we can scroll up or are you going to lie about that?
Please do. Either you won't find what you are looking for, or I will have to point out yet again how you badly understood a basic sentence.
By definition, Mac Pro and iMac Pro are workstations as is a Dell Precision. Again you show a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance at the same time. If you can’t basic definitions right, how bad must your conclusions be.
Again you fail at logic/understanding. Workstations are desktops computers. Not all desktop computers are workstations. I never said the Mac Pro isn't a workstation, y
Re: (Score:2)
I've talked about both. But when I said that NAS are dumbed down desktop computers, I was not talking about servers in general. Even you understood that right in your post
You lie. These are your words.
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices.
Please do. Either you won't find what you are looking for, or I will have to point out yet again how you badly understood a basic sentence.
Please read up above where your own words contradict you. Liar.
Again you fail at logic/understanding. Workstations are desktops computers. Not all desktop computers are workstations. I never said the Mac Pro isn't a workstation, yet, you seem to claim otherwise.
No you called them toys because you don't seem to understand what a workstation is and now you're desperately trying to cover up for that.
When I qualified them as toys, I meant that they have some serious shortcomings for many types of work. They are made to be small and stylish, as most Apple products.
Please are you now going to lie even more about what you meant. You just dig yourself more and more into a hole because you didn't know something basic and are trying to lie your way out of it now.
Re: (Score:2)
You lie. These are your words.
Please read up above where your own words contradict you. Liar.
And? Where is the contradiction? I don't see what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take that you can't even explain where I contradicted myself. Let alone "lied".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed it out already.
You didn't. You pointed out two statements with no contradictions.
I take it you still don’t know a workstation is because your statement is idiotic.
And you are wrong once more but who cares at this point.
Re: (Score:2)