« Irony | Main | Highly Recommended »

Thursday, 01 November 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Having many CPU cores is useful for video processing.

I had a friend in college who had the original Mac. We turned in lab reports that just blew our professors away. He actually considered it a portable computer and brought it with him every day! They had a carrying case for it also.

Having spent the last 30 or so years programming on PCs, I just cannot adapt to Macs. My daughter has one and every time she needs me to help her with something I want to tear out what is left of my hair. I guess it is all in what you are used to.

The other factor in image processing is the graphics processor (GPU) and how well the software makes use of it. For some compute-intensive operations like refocusing an image, the addition of a separate GPU can speed up processing considerably. Last time I looked, LR does not use GPU acceleration, but PS does and some features won’t work without a compatible GPU. Integrated graphics do qualify, but since they share mempro and other resources with the main processor the performance is limited.

Ten pages of text per floppy! Those were the days :)

IMac, Retina 5K, 27 inch, 4Ghz Core i7 processor, with 8GB 1867 Mhz DDR3.
AMD Radeon R9 M395X 4GB graphics.
500 GB Flash Drive

External 18 TB RAID 5 drive. Which might be overkill, but I got a good deal.

I'm completely happy with the iMac. My thinking is that I can add more RAM and external storage if required, and it's cheaper through 3rd party than Apple. But you can't easily update the internal storage or processing chips, so think carefully about that. I wanted enough Flash memory to run Lightroom and store the most current photos, then periodically move them to the RAID drive. Edited photos are stored on the RAID.

So are there faster machines? Yes, but raw speed wasn't my primary objective. It doesn't matter to me if processing something takes 4 eye blinks or 5. I sometimes let Lightroom chew on things and go do something else. But that 5K screen!! OMG. It's a joy to work with.

Given your stated uses you will almost certainly be fine with the Mini. To configure it get the faster processor and the correct sized SSD you'll need for the anticipated time you'll own the computer. But you can replace the memory yourself and save some significant money that way. OWC will have tested kits and are cheaper than Apple. You can also get the correct RAM sticks from other suppliers if you know what to buy.

I can confirm that faster clock speed is more important than core count for Photoshop. Cooling is even more important since the CPUs will be throttled to keep temps down if the heat produced can't be removed fast enough. I have one of those expensive MacBook Pros with the top of the line 6 core CPU. It's fast for a bit but quickly get's throttled with heavy Photoshop use. My 3 year old Hackintosh is much faster in real world use, but is not at all portable (which I need for work at times).

You will probably not be able to print with profiles and the iPad Pro. I'm sure there will also be other limitations. In my opinion it's better to stick with a Mac for now and supplement it with an iPad Pro if you feel the need (Photoshop with the Pencil does seem to have potential).

Lenovo Tiny workstations offer a significantly better value than Mini in comparable size. New Mini did not change it. I switched to Windows on desktop computer years ago and have no regrets. With terrible keyboards on laptops that are now spread across all devices I consider moving away from Apple completely.

I would consider something like an iPad pro (which my wife has and is wonderful in many ways). Alas, I can't use a mouse with it, and to me reaching to the screen with a pen or my finger to do things like make photo adjustments or selecting text is annoying after a while.

I'd get the 21.5 inch iMac. But buy it configured with the memory you will need because once it's delivered you can't upgrade it. Same goes for the Mac Mini. I have one, unused, and it's major surgery to upgrade internal components.

Many photographers also do video. An addition to your post would be what hardware is good for, at least, basic video editing. Because I shoot stills and videos of live jazz performances it's pertinent to my work.

Being in the Apple system is nothing to apologize for. I have the 27in Imac for a couple of years now and don't miss the Mac pro it replaced. You gotta have good eyes to use a mini, IMHO.

I have a sort of minimum Dell PC with an Intel i3 chip, with an added NVDIA graphic board. It's plenty good enought for my Photoshop.

For those who live in the PC side (as I do now, after 20+ years as a Mac user), a lesser-known alternative to the Mac Mini is the HP Z2 Mini workstation. After looking at a variety of all-in-one and regular desktop PC's, I bought a custom-configured one from B&H Photo (the older version). This is a full-on workstation class machine in a tiny package.

I got mine with Xeon CPU's, you can also get i5 and i7 processors. Tool-less access to easily upgrade RAM and the 2 SSD slots (regular HD's also available). It's extremely quiet - I've never heard it make any noise regardless of the load I've put it under. It's bombproof. You get high-end workstation class performance in a small package. If you're into gaming, however, the graphics cards are not well suited for that - they are intended for professional design work. But you can drive up to 6 displays at once if you really want to!


(Not trying to persuade Mike or anyone else about switching ecosystems, just letting folks know about the product as a happy customer...)

I love the Mac mini form factor! But once you move from the base model the iMac makes more sense. I have friends who slowly but surely are moving to the iPad from MacBook airs, they already mostly use only their phone. But for those of us who do content creation, (videos, websites, design, photography) it’s either hard, time consuming, or simply impossible to do the same tasks that you do on a computer on a tablet device. When a full version of Photoshop, lightroom, premiere and after effects can run on a iPad pro, with an external monitor conected and a minimal processing power toll, I will consider moving away from the traditional computer paradigm.

I too at this point am thoroughly ensconced in an OS (Windows) but I don't begrudge anyone's choice of OS. Since Macs are now running on Intel processors there are similarities hardware-wise.

I recently built a new computer after much research. In any case just to pass on some general thoughts that I learned from listening to 'the experts' about Intel-based computers and Adobe products.

As your primer link suggests get a fast CPU - higher clock speed is better than more threading.

The rule of having sufficient RAM is still a good guideline. Currently that minimum is at least 16GB RAM.

Install a large-ish solid state drive (my SSD is 1TB). The entire Windows OS is on it, as well as Lightroom. The LR cache should be assigned to use it. All of the previews should be stored there along with the catalog (make sure you back this up regularly). The solid state drive is a serious speed boost. It was probably the best thing I did when I built my new computer.

A good graphics card with 4GB RAM. Photoshop uses GPUs extensively so a good one is essential. Starting with, I think LR5, GPU utilization started to happen so it's worthwhile to have a good graphics card. My read of the experts is you don't need really high end. When someone suggested a good graphics card they meant don't purchase the least expensive graphics card. Try to step up a bit because the cheap components on those inexpensive cards blow their cookies too often.

After a more thorough look over the new Mini, I don't know that it's a solution for me. It gets expensive and, I dare say, overpriced. I have always despised Apple's inflated upgrade prices for RAM and drives. With the new Mini I believe you have no choice on the drive front though RAM remains relatively easy to change.

Mike, one option I've been considering is to buy the smaller iMac and use it as my second screen, with a high-end display as the primary. That would roughly match my current set-up. Downside is where the smaller iMac tops out component-wise.

I know we are in a minority here, but it feels like we're not well served by Apple's lineup.

I've been using a Mac since 1989, not going to change any time soon. I'm really not smart enough to use a PC anyway.

My wife got an iPad Pro last year to replace her laptop for basic household stuff (banking, reading news and books, web and email, that sort of thing.) She gets quite frustrated at times with the iOs ecosystem, but for her requirements it does work. I tried it for some basic photo stuff and it's really not there yet. The file system is too opaque, and working on photos requires a fast connection to upload them to the cloud for storage. Given what and how much I shoot, I need a pretty big internal drive just to download my photos, even if I keep my archive on external drives.

That new Macbook Air is tempting, though. I have a 27 inch iMac at home, the original from 2009, still chugging along. I'd like to replace it with a laptop, but the Macbook Pro is pretty expensive. The Air will save me about $400, almost enough to buy the 24 inch NEC monitor with the calibration puck. That said, the Air with 16GB or RAM and a 512GB SSD is about $2200 delivered. Not inexpensive.

I run Lightroom CC and PhotoShop CC on my 2014 Mac Mini (2 core, i7, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD) which I bought in early 2015. I also run the same LR and PS on my recently purchased 2018 MacBook Pro 13 (4 core, i7, 16GB RAM, 1TB SSD). I have found that for most photo processing such as exposure, contrast, etc. in LR, and local contrast brush operations in PS, both computers work seamlessly and very well, with no apparent benefits to the increased horse power of the 4 core MacBook, because the 2014 Mini works perfectly. (The 16GB RAM is never remotely stressed.)

However, when importing files into LR and simultaneously building standard previews, I find that the old 2 core Mini always works very hard. Activity Monitor shows CPU activity at 350-380% i.e. the 2 core, 2 thread CPU is fully maxed out, and it can take half an hour to load in a days shoot. More importantly, when reviewing shots for sharpness etc. immediately after, the Mini will take a couple of seconds to render each shot when I zoom in, no matter what size previews I have built. By contrast, the 4 core MacBook can ingest the same set of files in about one third or less of the time needed by the Mini, although it only has double the cores. Then when reviewing shots on the MacBook I find that it is faster still: I can move from shot to shot, zooming in and out as I wish, without any noticeable delay as fast as I can go (the fan does get up to speed!). This is much faster than the increase in clock rate or even the doubling the cores would suggest. I assume that the improved GPU (albeit integrated), and faster SSD, and faster RAM are responsible in combination. It makes a world of difference in day to day use.

So my suggestion would be that if you are feeling the need to upgrade at all, then to go with the new Mini at a low end configuration. You will notice a difference. It does cost somewhat, but you are getting a premium set of components, in terms of SSD, RAM, etc. OTOH as they say, if what you do for 6-10 hours each day is 95% writing and some basic photo processing, then you will see only minor improvements, unless there is some other reason to upgrade.

Am definitely not computer friendly. Have two, one for my image/photo work and this one for online. My work computer never goes online. Any update work is done by a computer specialist so I don't screw it up and get online related problems. This one, a cheapie that works for internet.
The work computer - one built for gaming. Fast and works well. No games, no "free" programs on it at all. Just the image related programs after the installed operating system. Then a grahics monitor for it.
Have found these computers designed for gaming have very good graphic cards and that helps with image processing programs.
Got onto it when checking out a purpose built computer system. After looking at what I did the guy put me into a simple, quality Gaming computer rather than do a custom build job. He could build one but the cost would be a lot higher and per him "you don't need it".
So, just as with cameras - I try to use what works.

I suppose it is not complete nonsense to set an iPad pro on a stand next to your monitor and connect it with a USB-C hub to a monitor, keyboard, and mouse.

But also, it doesn't feel all that radical to me that computers come in different form factors? I am not so completely sure, but I doubt the new iPad pro is even twice as fast as the newest iPhone? Almost certainly not more than 4x as fast. And either is comparable to the fastest supercomputer of the mid-late 90s. At one of my recent jobs, the computers were Dell thin clients, which imagine a Mac Mini but Dell makes it. It's laptop guts jammed into a box that doesn't have to fit a keyboard, screen, battery, or mousing device. Phones, laptops, mini-desktops, tablets, they're all just PCs in different form factors subject to various design constraints. Ok, you probably can't shove a video or CAD workstation into tablet, but they're already in biggish laptops.

I can see why a computer hardware designer would prefer to create and market an iPad pro over a laptop. A tablet that is all screen just looks better. But try to do anything with it and you are in the land of accessory keyboard cases.

I'm still not convinced of typing on a tablet case keyboard. A computer is more stable for on-couch use with most of the guts under the keyboard, not behind the monitor. Middle school students, who are issued tablets, when they get asked what they want in order to do their homework, say they want a laptop. Middle schoolers write at most 2-3 page essays, which is what, the length of a long blog post.

"And here's an interesting thought. It's finally at least conceivable that I could go with a highly configured iPad Pro and an iPhone, and dispense with everything else. No more desktop, no more laptop? Radical."

You don't need a camera, either.

Mike wrote, "I'm in the Apple ecosystem and I'm not getting out. It's not a question of just one device—it's how all of them work together."

I'm in the Apple ecosystem too -- Apple watch, Apple iPhone, Apple iPad mini. My Microsoft/Windows Surface fits in quite nicely.

It's no longer either/or, it's mix and match.

Mike, I'm in the same position as you: I have a 2012 Mac Mini that's getting a bit creaky. I had pretty much decided to go all-in and get a 27" iMac (primarily for the screen) and was waiting for the next update (due any minute now). The Mac Mini refresh was refreshing, and caught me by surprise.

So now I'm thinking Mac Mini again. And maybe a third-party 27" 4K monitor (there are nice ones around in the $700 range). Your post has me thinking I don't need to go 6-core. Given that the quad-core version actually has a higher clock speed, that's more incentive (and it's significantly cheaper).

But the purchase options are confusing. There are acutally THREE processors available:
3.6GHz quad-core Intel Core i3
3.0GHz 6-core Intel Core i5
3.2GHz 6-core Intel Core i7

The fastest is the i3. But my old Mac Mini is an i7, so it feels like a huge step down to go to an i3!

If I want to go i5 then I need to go 6 core. What's better? A faster quad-core i3 or a slower 6-core i5? I suspect it will be almost impossible to get a straight answer to that question.

Most likely I'll go with this configuration (prices are Canadian dollars)

3.0 GHz 6-core i5
Price: $2119

Also: upgrade to 32 GB RAM with aftermarket RAM from OWC for $330 US/$430 CDN:
$2119+433 = $2552

Plus that monitor for about $700.
Total: about $3250. But that's still about $400 less than the 27" iMac I'd get.

Ouch. Not so mini.

My computer since 2012 has been a "mid-2011 Mac Mini server" with a quad-core I7 at 2Ghz, 8GB of RAM and a pair of 500GB drives. My monitor is a 30 inch store brand HD TV, which the OS recognized and happily calibrated. It still runs fine and only gets stressed enough to invoke its four additional "virtual" cores when using DXO's prime noise reduction. However, due to the onboard video being out of date it can't be updated to the Mojave OS. I'm taking a serious look at the new Minis, but I think they need additional RAM and storage over the base models.

Coincidences, shmoincidences.... I've been waiting for the Mac Mini announcement as well, and had in fact separately located that same webpage about processors when I was investigating whether or not the i3 CPU would be OK. My conclusion? - yes it will. Not as fast as the 6-core i7, perhaps, but good enough. The big difference with the new machine, of course, is the configurable RAM. I have just 8 Gb in my nearly-5 years old iMac, and Lightroom c-r-a-w-l-s....

But you're right about the cost. By the time I'd configured a new Mac Mini with a large-enough SSD, 32 Gb of Apple's absurdly expensive RAM and added AppleCare, plus a couple of 4k monitors, I was up to almost £2,500. So we will have to be more frugal.

Obviously, the first step is to buy memory from someone - anyone! - other than Apple. Then reduce the size of the internal SSD and supplement that with a cheaper external SSD + caddy. Finally, make do with just one monitor, for now. That brought it down to about £1,700. Still a lot, but do-able. And do I stick with AppleCare? Hmm....

But I do wish they'd announced an upgraded iMac at the same time. That would have been an interesting comparison.

Did you know you can now "stack" multiple MacMini's to make a super computer? ;-)
I'm a Mac user, and kind of stuck as well.
But for your writing, look into a used Thinkpad T430. Everything on that laptop is upgradable (if you wish to change, or if it breaks down), the keyboard is great, and it's very portable with plugin batteries (you can buy extra ones for cheap).

Some very basic considerations I took when I built my Photoshop-centric Windows 64 bit system were as follows. I opted for a water-cooled system to ensure the fast processor would never suffer from a heating issue, as well as multiple fans to cool the case. I installed my OS and apps onto a reserved solid state drive, but keep all data on a different hard drive. The advantage of doing this is if the C drive gets corrupted (or even fails), you can reinstall OS+programs from backup without affecting the other disks. I added a fast video card as opposed to using system video. Finally hard drives - one with 2 partitions dedicated to PS "scratch disc" and Adobe Bridge Cache. The scratch disk is the location Photoshop uses as virtual memory when the physical memory is full. It increases performance to move the scratch disk onto a secondary drive. Even more hard drives in a storage bay with cooling for storage and back-ups! With the additional hard drives and video card, I upgraded my power supply to 750 watts. Finally, a quality monitor that displays Adobe RGB.

The 21.5" iMac is memory-crippled, 16GB RAM maximum. Very easy to use a lot of memory in Photoshop, or even just in Safari.

If you want more memory, you either have to go with the 27" iMac or the new Mac Mini. At least they both have socketed SO-DIMM memory, with 64GB maximum.

I have 24GB in my 27" iMac, and do run out of memory at times, and should upgrade to 32GB, which is the maximum for it's generation.

Sounds like the 3.6GHz Mac Mini is the way to go for you. Only way to get a higher clock rate would be the top-of-the-line 27" iMac.

This is more or less is the how good a cpu is for photoshop chart https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
note number 4

I think I mentioned my experiment in quad Xeon hotrod computing a couple of days ago and that Adobe software as of a few months ago ( please* prove me wrong ) can't take much advantage of more than 4 cores and more than about 16 gig of ram.

I found one exception if you are using lightroom to do some cpu heavy processing on raw files, for example cropping, applying curves, sharpening, and outputting 20Mpix images as tiffs. If you have one batch of 4000 images that takes 2 hours, if you split it into 2 batches of 2000 it will take about an hour. 4 batches of 1000 won't be quite as big a gain but seems to be the sweet spot for my machine where disk IO seems to be the holdup.

From my experience in software development, my guess is that somewhere in the depths of Adobe's code there are or were some race conditions** and some brute force solutions to some of them. Maybe someone who knows could comment?

*really pretty please? I'm at the click on something in photoshop or lightroom and then make a sandwich, come back to the keyboard and eat half of it until something happens level of performance.

** nil cpu and disk activity, yet nothing is happening for loooong stretches, even when I'm only doing one thing at a time.

Agree with Thom. You can’t choose the number of cores or GPU. But you can choose CPU speed, RAM and storage. I spend my money on RAM first.

This Adobe page helpfully titled, "Photoshop CC system requirements" has some useful information. It includes a large section on GPUs.


> If you really want to improve the performance of your editing, get new software

Changing your software and workflow comes with a significant performance impact as one climbs the learning curve to productivity.

It looks like we started on Mac about the same time - I got my first Mac soon after they came out (I can't remember the exact date - but I remember my parents splurged and got me the 512K model), which I then wrote my dissertation on. I remember digitizing figures by copying onto them overhead transperancies which were then taped onto the small screen. BTW I still have my MacOS 1 floppy disc.

Yeah, as others have said, the biggest bottleneck on any computer is a spinning hard drive. If you need to swap memory to the drive, or try and use one as a scratch disk, it will be slooooow.

So, 16GB of RAM to avoid swapping, and a good SSD for a scratch disk.

Next, a half decent GPU - though it doesn't have to be gaming spec - and then just get a regular processor with a decent clock speed. Core i5 or i7 is usually fine.

Apple is using higher TDP (i.e. "desktop" not "laptop") CPUs in the new mini. Note that this is a change from the past.

The features of the 8th generation Intel processors are will *probably* use in the Apple mini have changed too:

Core i3-8100: 3.6 GHz base, 4-core, no turbo boost, no hyperthreading
Core i5-8500: 3.0/4.1 GHz, 6-core, no hyperthreading
Core i7-8700: 3.2/4.6 GHz, 6-core, hyperthreading

Previously Intel differentiated different CPUs by the presence or absence of some features but this time they've shuffled the deck.

See this Ars Technica article for more details on the Intel 8th generation processor changes


The bottom end i3 has no turbo boost (i.e. it always runs at it's rate clock speed except when it gots too hot and the system will back off the clock speed for self-protection). I'm presuming this is one of the reasons they've doubled the airflow across the heatsink (as they mentioned in the presentation).

Keep an eye on the reviews of the mini when it ships because you may need less than you think you need.

They also said the 2018 Mac mini RAM is user replaceable during the keynote.

The presenter mentioned SO-DIMMS, paused for effect, and ...

NOTHING. There was no response from the audience!

I find that odd but perhaps in Brooklyn they don't know one end of a screwdriver from the other?

But do note you will be able to upgrade the RAM in the 2018 mini yourself.

The SSD uses the T2 chip and won't be upgradeable (add external RAIDed storage ... speed is not an issue these days!).

Software other than Adobe's does make use of effective multithreading so YMMV for other applications.

Adobe make use of effective multithreading when rendering for printing (in LR at least and maybe PS?) so if you we're driving a big printer a lot then your optimal machine might be different.

Finally, Apple has been bumping the prices on everything and removing less expensive lower end models across the board this year.

They've moved from being VW to being BMW.

"The computer for the 10% of us"?

Apropos of nothing, I posted this on Youtube about 5 years ago....


[Point taken. Probably nothing to worry about here. I've never had a problem waiting when Photoshop actions took too long. It's only a problem if you do it a lot or all the time. --Mike]

I had PCs from the MS-DOS days. I swapped to the a G4 iMac (the little dome with a screen on a stick) in 1998 when I first went into business for myself. I've been in the mac ecosystem ever since. I generally like OSX, although some incarnations have been better than others. I tend not to use other Apple software - my business software is all MS or Google based, plus Adobe (sigh) for photography. But what I LOVE about Apple is the sheer quality of the hardware. That first G4 is still running perfectly on the original hard-drive (are there computer-years like dog-years? It must be 100 years old or more). Apart from a G5 iMac (the white flat screen thing) which shipped with a faulty power-switch, every other Mac computer (5 more iMacs with the last being 2014 27 inch Retina screen), at least half a dozen laptops of differing descriptions) I've bought over the years is still running from new without any hardware maintenance - abused by friends' kids or parents-in-law mostly - but still running. AnIf only the OSX/iOS were written more concisely so that they worked on older hardware (thank you iOS12), there would have been no reason for me to upgrade at all. (And, for sure, the introduction of the iPhone 3gs and the iPad, along with the internet, of course, changed my life. The former by enabling my business to operate pretty much anywhere, and the latter by making it convenient to do so.) But then where would Apple be?

You don't have to change to Capture One if you don't want to. In the few cases where ACR/Lightroom could do better with your RAF files run them through Iridient X-Transformer first. It costs around $30 and there is a free trial. If you don't use raw then it doesn't matter anyway.

You need that 27 inch monitor. If you go smaller you will regret it. The wonderful looking Retina screens are not good for photography if you print or indeed want your images to look good on other screen types.

Call me stoopid, but I still can not get used to Mac OS.
Sorry about that [well, not really sorry]. In my experience, but that is MY experience, we are just now substituting the old Macs that were there [2, that were kept for normalization and social inclussion, erm..., to ease new colleagues into WinOS as the standard] are going to be donored, and substitute them with Dell workstations.
Because there is heaps of engineering and graphic output, I have to agree that a good processor [Xeon rather than i], a good graphics card [quadro preferred], and then the processor speed are key. The 7 year old Dell workstations were much smoother than the iMacs on photo processing. But we are stuck with the CS6 [not really believing on the pay per month scheme, software is rationalized to be upkept every 3-4 years for the best ROI], so that might have helped.

All in all, for the photo composition and photo development, good RAM, good processor, and a good system will trounce the core situation.

Funny thing - this. I just finished stuffing my new build's case with components & will cable it all up in the next couple of days. So this topic is right in line with where I'm at. (It's been nearly 9 years since I built my last desktop - Windows 7, 32 bit. Ancient by dog years.)

The link to the article (which I had not seen before this) contains an advert for a PS/LR computer that is remarkably close to what I chose for parts, the exceptions being my use of a slightly higher spec'd GPU & CPU.

And as a Fuji X user I have just begun to explore Capture One....

Well between that and adding a network player to my audio system...I hope I'm well prepared for another northern Winter (that's not really possible, in fact).

Lots to explore. (Not to mention that it's been a rather expensive month.)

In the start of the year I asked myself should I upgrade my 5 year old PC. Turns out that since I bought the best CPU at the time, the improvements since have been modest. Everything I read indicated that the GPU benefited Lightroom only with high res screens, 4K at least I don't have that. Lots of people here mention GPUs, but I'd dig out actual numbers what they do in your chosen software; doesn't help if the GPU only speeds up something you're not using. So what I ended up with getting a new SSD. Getting a new computer would have given me an even faster SSD, but the cost and trouble was too great.

This leads me to the recommendation. The i5 Mac Mini looks good. i3 is a bit on the low end, few cores, lower single core performance -- take it only if budget is tight. But what's important is 16 GB of memory and a good SSD. 8 GB can work, but 16 GB is clearly better and also far more future proof. And that's it, that's what I would get and I'm confident that it can serve for years.

There's only one caveat: it's worth checking for first reports on any possible design fault. The new style Mac Pro laptops didn't quite realize the full potential of the CPU due to heat issues. If the Mac Mini has a similar design fault, then part of the money goes to waste and Apple has lately had its share of annoying issues.

Have you seen this? https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/desktop/ A full competitor for $79.99. I have it.

I'll cast my late vote here for the iMac with the 27" 5K screen. The screen is amazing, and perhaps as importantly I have been able to get computer and printer to get along for the first time ever.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007