[[email protected]]

Ok...please indulge me guys... since '97 I've stuck with Cubase VST
3.7.... but technology

and my old puters are almost done,so.. I need some advice. I have a
Dell XPS 420 with Intel

Pentium Dual core(4) running at 2.4 Ghz each, with 4 gb of Ram, 1
Terrabyte of hard drive

space... I'm considering buying Cubase 4. I have already bought Peavey
revalver Mark 3, and

considering an Edirol UA101 interface for the firewire connection...
will the *on-board*

soundcard be a problem?? or do I need to upgrade.. if so which might
be best?? and lastly,

but most importantly.... my PC is running Vista.. will all this be
compatible? any

suggestions positive or negative will be greatly received, thankyou in
anticipation guys...

John.

[Mike Rivers]

wrote:

... I'm considering buying Cubase 4. I have already bought Peavey
revalver Mark 3, and
considering an Edirol UA101 interface for the firewire connection...
will the *on-board*
soundcard be a problem?? or do I need to upgrade..

Why are you concerned with upgrading the on-board sound card if you're
getting the Edirol UA101? You might consider disabling the on-board
sound card (that's one of the popular "Windows tweaks") but if it
doesn't give you any trouble, you can leave it for playing games and
Windows noises.

.... my PC is running Vista.. will all this be compatible?

That's something that you can best determine from a Cubase forum, but
generally Steinberg keeps up with these things. I don't know about the
Edirol. Check with the manufacturer. Don't wait for a promise. If it's
not compatible now and if people aren't using it with Vista now, look
for something else. Or considering crossgrading your copy of Vista to XP
if it's eligable (anything but the Home versions, I think). But don't do
that immediately. Vista apparently works OK as long as you're running
compatible software and hardware, and it doesn't if you're not.


--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Eeyore]

" wrote:

but most importantly.... my PC is running Vista..

Downgrade to XP immediately. If you like the Vista look you can get an XP
pack to mimic it.

Graham

[Laurence Payne[_2_]]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:39:39 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

but most importantly.... my PC is running Vista..

Downgrade to XP immediately. If you like the Vista look you can get an XP
pack to mimic it.

But if you like the Vista functions you can easily turn off the
annoying eye candy!

It's really getting about time to stop knee-jerking against Vista.
Sure, if you've got older gear lacking Vista drivers, stay put.
Otherwise it's OK.

[Don Pearce]

Laurence Payne wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:39:39 +0000, Eeyore
wrote:

but most importantly.... my PC is running Vista..
Downgrade to XP immediately. If you like the Vista look you can get an XP
pack to mimic it.

But if you like the Vista functions you can easily turn off the
annoying eye candy!

It's really getting about time to stop knee-jerking against Vista.
Sure, if you've got older gear lacking Vista drivers, stay put.
Otherwise it's OK.

Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or better?

d

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?

It gives MS and their new Hollywood friends DRM.
I'm still waiting to hear any significant advantage for
the end-user.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or better?

Sell new stuff. If Microsoft actually wanted to build a stable system that
actually did work and didn't crash, they'd have done it years ago. The
technology to do so dates back to the early 1970s. But they aren't in
business to do that, they are in business to make money for their shareholders
and selling new products with new bugs are how they do that.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or better?

Sell new stuff. If Microsoft actually wanted to build a stable system that
actually did work and didn't crash, they'd have done it years ago. The
technology to do so dates back to the early 1970s. But they aren't in
business to do that, they are in business to make money for their shareholders
and selling new products with new bugs are how they do that.
--scott



I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.

d

[Mike Rivers]

Don Pearce wrote:

Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or better?

Allows the computer to use more memory than you can possibly afford, or
that a reasonable application can ever use. It apparently has some
better utility tools (search perhaps?) that are faster and more
efficient than XP. There are bound to be some things that it just does
better. But since Microsoft only assures that a new OS will work with
mainstream applications (mostly Microsoft's own) and there's not yet,
thank goodness, a Microsoft DAW and Microsoft audio interface, all
support for "our" applications is from a third party or their
subcontractors. They have to learn a lot before they can get to work,
and the more they know, the better job they can do if allowed the time
and money.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[Arny Krueger]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...

Don Pearce wrote:

Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?

Allows the computer to use more memory than you can possibly afford, or
that a reasonable application can ever use.

Sure, XP can use huge amounts of RAM 4 GB. Like any competitive OS
including Vista, you have to go to a 64 bit version in order to do that. XP
64 has been around for years - forms of it were delivered back in 2003.

[Don Pearce]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?

Allows the computer to use more memory than you can possibly afford, or
that a reasonable application can ever use. It apparently has some
better utility tools (search perhaps?) that are faster and more
efficient than XP. There are bound to be some things that it just does
better. But since Microsoft only assures that a new OS will work with
mainstream applications (mostly Microsoft's own) and there's not yet,
thank goodness, a Microsoft DAW and Microsoft audio interface, all
support for "our" applications is from a third party or their
subcontractors. They have to learn a lot before they can get to work,
and the more they know, the better job they can do if allowed the time
and money.


Interesting - of course we all turn off indexing (I'm sure) so the
Microsoft search thing won't work properly anyway. And then we add a
third party search tool like Copernic that actually does useful stuff.
Luckily that also works with Vista.

I have yet to find anything that is faster on Vista than XP. Vista
appears to be designed as a counter to Moore's Law.

d

[Romeo Rondeau[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?

Sell new stuff. If Microsoft actually wanted to build a stable system
that
actually did work and didn't crash, they'd have done it years ago.
The technology to do so dates back to the early 1970s. But they
aren't in business to do that, they are in business to make money for
their shareholders
and selling new products with new bugs are how they do that.
--scott



I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.

d

Where did you hear this?

[Don Pearce]

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?

Sell new stuff. If Microsoft actually wanted to build a stable
system that
actually did work and didn't crash, they'd have done it years ago.
The technology to do so dates back to the early 1970s. But they
aren't in business to do that, they are in business to make money for
their shareholders
and selling new products with new bugs are how they do that.
--scott



I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.

d

Where did you hear this?

Can't remember, but I seem to have a picture in my head of Bill Gates
looking sheepish when confronted.

d

[Arny Krueger]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.

Where did you hear this?

Can't remember, but I seem to have a picture in my head of Bill Gates
looking sheepish when confronted.

Can't be true.

What is true that MS probably runs more Linux by accident than most run on
purpose, what with competitive studies and all.

There might be over 15,000 people working on XP, Vista, and the new system.
They have to be running what they are programming if for no reason but
testing. Once you have even a barely functional new OS, that is what you
run because it optimizes your debugging of it. There are *only* about
30,000 MS people in Redmond, so "almost entirely Linux" just can't be true.

[Don Pearce]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
et...
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.

Where did you hear this?

Can't remember, but I seem to have a picture in my head of Bill Gates
looking sheepish when confronted.

Can't be true.

What is true that MS probably runs more Linux by accident than most run on
purpose, what with competitive studies and all.

There might be over 15,000 people working on XP, Vista, and the new system.
They have to be running what they are programming if for no reason but
testing. Once you have even a barely functional new OS, that is what you
run because it optimizes your debugging of it. There are *only* about
30,000 MS people in Redmond, so "almost entirely Linux" just can't be true.




No, I'm not talking about product development - of course they need to
be running the product itself. I'm talking about the the company -
accounting, databases, all that sort of stuff that runs the business;
that is what the interview was about.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?

Sell new stuff. If Microsoft actually wanted to build a stable
system that
actually did work and didn't crash, they'd have done it years ago.
The technology to do so dates back to the early 1970s. But they
aren't in business to do that, they are in business to make money for
their shareholders
and selling new products with new bugs are how they do that.

I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.

Where did you hear this?

Can't remember, but I seem to have a picture in my head of Bill Gates
looking sheepish when confronted.

You are thinking of the silliness about MSN, not Microsoft corporate.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Romeo Rondeau wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Serious question - what does Vista do that XP doesn't do as well or
better?
Sell new stuff. If Microsoft actually wanted to build a stable
system that
actually did work and didn't crash, they'd have done it years ago.
The technology to do so dates back to the early 1970s. But they
aren't in business to do that, they are in business to make money for
their shareholders
and selling new products with new bugs are how they do that.
I believe they are almost entirely Linux at Redmond - they wouldn't
touch Windows with a bargepole.
Where did you hear this?
Can't remember, but I seem to have a picture in my head of Bill Gates
looking sheepish when confronted.

You are thinking of the silliness about MSN, not Microsoft corporate.
--scott



Do you reckon Microsoft Corporate runs its business on Windows boxes?
Forgive me if I doubt.

d

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Do you reckon Microsoft Corporate runs its business on Windows boxes?
Forgive me if I doubt.

The factories that develop and manufacture the CPU chip you likely
have in your computer run on MSwin (formerly on various flavors of
Unix/Linux/***x). In an application where downtime costs US$2M
per hour, not a decision taken lightly.

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
I have yet to find anything that is faster on Vista than XP. Vista appears
to be designed as a counter to Moore's Law.

The common rant at the office is that the faster we make the CPUs,
the more of the performance is sucked out by the guys in Redmond.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Do you reckon Microsoft Corporate runs its business on Windows boxes?
Forgive me if I doubt.

The factories that develop and manufacture the CPU chip you likely
have in your computer run on MSwin (formerly on various flavors of
Unix/Linux/***x). In an application where downtime costs US$2M
per hour, not a decision taken lightly.

The factory that developed and manufactured the CPU chip I have in my
computer was in Hudson, MA, and shut down in 2003.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Do you reckon Microsoft Corporate runs its business on Windows boxes?
Forgive me if I doubt.

The factories that develop and manufacture the CPU chip you likely
have in your computer run on MSwin (formerly on various flavors of
Unix/Linux/***x). In an application where downtime costs US$2M
per hour, not a decision taken lightly.

The factory that developed and manufactured the CPU chip I have in my
computer was in Hudson, MA, and shut down in 2003.

The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...

"Don Pearce" wrote ...

I have yet to find anything that is faster on Vista than XP. Vista
appears to be designed as a counter to Moore's Law.

The common rant at the office is that the faster we make the CPUs,
the more of the performance is sucked out by the guys in Redmond.

Sounds like a mutually beneficial situation. ;-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
Do you reckon Microsoft Corporate runs its business on Windows boxes?
Forgive me if I doubt.

The factories that develop and manufacture the CPU chip you likely
have in your computer run on MSwin (formerly on various flavors of
Unix/Linux/***x). In an application where downtime costs US$2M
per hour, not a decision taken lightly.

The factory that developed and manufactured the CPU chip I have in my
computer was in Hudson, MA, and shut down in 2003.

The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)

Shameful. That's all I can say.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)

Shameful. That's all I can say.

Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
"Richard Crowley" wrote ...
"Don Pearce" wrote ...
I have yet to find anything that is faster on Vista than XP. Vista
appears to be designed as a counter to Moore's Law.

The common rant at the office is that the faster we make the CPUs,
the more of the performance is sucked out by the guys in Redmond.

Sounds like a mutually beneficial situation. ;-)

But in both the case of the CPU and the OS, the customer has the
ultimate choice. If AMD offers more bang-per-buck, then they
flock over there, and vice-versa. And if you have an application
that will run on Linnux/etc. then you can skip the MS bloatware.

I thought MS was supposed to be working on an efficient, non-
bloatware OS variety, but I haven't heard about it recently.

[Carey Carlan]

Don Pearce wrote in
et:

I have yet to find anything that is faster on Vista than XP. Vista
appears to be designed as a counter to Moore's Law.

The two items that run faster on Vista are Microsoft's and Intel's cash
intake.

[Scott Dorsey]

Chris Hornbeck wrote:
Call me cynical (been listening to too much Hank Williams lately,
maybe) but Intel's been making some cool new processors aimed at
subverting the Main Path. They have a 2.5 watt 1.6GHz processor
called an "Atom" that Asus, maybe among others is selling in some
really impressive little (10" screens, and smaller... Oy! - I hate
young people) laptops called EeePC's and in tiny desktops called
Eee Box's.

If it's an x86, it's not cool.

Intel HAS made some really cool processors, including the i860 and i960.
And I still think the 8051 is cool, and there's probably one in your
TV set or toaster.

Both come with usable amounts of memory and! TADA! Windows XP. And
for very small bux. It's a whole Second Front.

The x86 is just not a very elegant architecture overall, but we're stuck
with it, and such huge amounts of money have been put into getting the
best possible speed out of it that it's driven everything else out of the
market. I think that's a shame, but it _is_ fast and cheap anyway, and
there is a lot to be said for that.
--scott

The itanium2 COULD have been cool, but some things seem to have gone wrong
somewhere along the way. It's interesting, though, and I have kind of liked
it although I think adding the x86 compatibility mode was a bad idea. It
leads people to believe they can actually run x86 code, when in fact it's
so slow they can't really.
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 29 Oct 2008 20:47:36 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

If it's an x86, it's not cool.

Intel HAS made some really cool processors, including the i860 and i960.
And I still think the 8051 is cool, and there's probably one in your
TV set or toaster.

My TV set was made in 1986, but it does have an internal processor.
I can actually see the pins; that's how old it is. 8051's have been
around a pretty long time though - could be literally true (it,
typically, has a proprietary marking). (IIRC - been more than a
decade.)

No toaster, but someday... arf!


Both come with usable amounts of memory and! TADA! Windows XP. And
for very small bux. It's a whole Second Front.

The x86 is just not a very elegant architecture overall, but we're stuck
with it, and such huge amounts of money have been put into getting the
best possible speed out of it that it's driven everything else out of the
market. I think that's a shame, but it _is_ fast and cheap anyway, and
there is a lot to be said for that.

The stuff for which I need a portable computer (pardon my participle)
tends to be software from smaller manufacturers who aren't into Vista
yet, and don't expect to be soon. It's day-job stuff, but probably not
too different a case from recording (by anybody bold enough to record
to a laptop - and I might soon; what tangled webs).

So, for my gig, it's XP or go home, and x86 or an exact simulation. As
enamored as I am of elegance, possibly even as much as you are, above
some threshold we can move to another level of compulsion.


This Summer I spent more money than I shouldda on a nice Lenovo
laptop, custom configured, yada-yada, days under the wire to get
one with XPpro factory installed. I really love it, but I dread
carrying it around, using it as a laptop! It mostly sits in its fancy
Lenovo dock, digitally connected to its fancy Lenovo 22" monitor
(so I can see it! - otherwise can't) with a real keyboard and a
real mouse.

Short story long, been trending towards a less compulsion-inducing
consumer product. It's mostly (well, almost entirely...) just me,
but we peasants do have very different interactions with three-figure
as opposed to four-figure widgets.

Peasant stock, like me, have considerable trouble with the latter.
(Even cars! arf). The Asus widgets worsen our guilt, but raise our
hopes for the next generation. "We are peasants; they'll be doctors."
As it has been, so shall it ever be - but I hope not guiltily forever.
Arf.

Much thanks, as always,
Chris Hornbeck

[Steve L.[_3_]]

"Richard Crowley" so you saynews:6ms32aFins5pU1
@mid.individual.net:

I thought MS was supposed to be working on an efficient, non-
bloatware OS variety, but I haven't heard about it recently.


They just released a few details about Windows 7. It's suppossed to come in
different or configurable flavors depending on your need for bloat.

[Scott Dorsey]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)

Shameful. That's all I can say.

Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.

I don't think it is any harder to find competent Windows people... I think
it's just that there are a lot of people out there who know enough Windows
to get by. In a lot of environments, that's enough, but I would hope for
better in an embedded control environment.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)

Shameful. That's all I can say.

Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.

I don't think it is any harder to find competent Windows people... I think
it's just that there are a lot of people out there who know enough Windows
to get by. In a lot of environments, that's enough, but I would hope for
better in an embedded control environment.

Perhaps, but there are these significant factors (and likely others)....
1) A single OS (and version) vs. a nearly infinite number of Unix/
Linux/Sunos/et.al. brands, flavors, distributions, versions, and builds.
2) A single target for vendors to interface with (vs. #1 above)
3) Fairly rigorous certification in many specific areas of competency.
4) Real support from a commercial vendor. (Granted, only when one
is a huge multi-national corp with lots of $$$, but then as you say,
there is a lot at stake.)

I must admit that the reliability appears to be significantly up since we
emigrated from the balkanized Unix/Linix/Sunox/et.al. landscape.

[Dirk Bruere at NeoPax]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote...
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)
Shameful. That's all I can say.
Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.
I don't think it is any harder to find competent Windows people... I think
it's just that there are a lot of people out there who know enough Windows
to get by. In a lot of environments, that's enough, but I would hope for
better in an embedded control environment.

Perhaps, but there are these significant factors (and likely others)....
1) A single OS (and version) vs. a nearly infinite number of Unix/
Linux/Sunos/et.al. brands, flavors, distributions, versions, and builds.
2) A single target for vendors to interface with (vs. #1 above)
3) Fairly rigorous certification in many specific areas of competency.
4) Real support from a commercial vendor. (Granted, only when one
is a huge multi-national corp with lots of $$$, but then as you say,
there is a lot at stake.)

I must admit that the reliability appears to be significantly up since we
emigrated from the balkanized Unix/Linix/Sunox/et.al. landscape.

I imagine that the Balkans will eventually be overpowered by the Chinese


--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)
Shameful. That's all I can say.

Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.




Sometimes it's cheaper to fix things than let them run as they are....

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)
Shameful. That's all I can say.

Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.

Sometimes it's cheaper to fix things than let them run as they are....

The last I looked, that facility was running lots of RT-11 and VaxELN....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in ...
Richard Crowley wrote:
The former DEC fab in Hudson is now Intel Fab 17 and is still running
(on MSwin, now :-)
Shameful. That's all I can say.
Easy for you to say. You are not only a one-man-band but you also
run your own computing "infrastructure". It was becoming increasing
difficult to find competent employees to support the 20 different
flavors of Unix on the 10s of thousands of systems that run the factories.
Sometimes it's cheaper to fix things than let them run as they are....

The last I looked, that facility was running lots of RT-11 and VaxELN....
--scott

I had to look both those up. I don't feel too bad for remembering pSOS
so fondly now....

--
Les Cargill