T43 or T42?

I have a Dell Inspiron 9200, and hate it. I hate the 17" widescreen. So I am getting something smaller. My dad has an IBM T40, so I am pretty set on getting a IBM.

I need something small and thin. I use my lappy for word proccessing, email, IM, web browsing, and a little gaming.

I had my heart set on getting a Z60T, but when I saw one up close today, I had no problem changing my mind to the T43 sitting right next to it. The Z60T is a flimsy piece of crap. But I am failing to see the difference between the T43 and the T42.

So help me out? Which one should I get?

Thanks in advance.

 

Very little difference in terms of performance and features. We've had quite a few threads like this in the past. Run a forum search if you want indepth info.

 

Performance on the T43 will be a little better. The T42 runs cooler and quieter. They are not that much different.

 

But if you consider the graphics card between the two.

The R9600 > x300

I THINK!!!

 

Which has which?

 

T42 - 9600
T43 - X300

 

Does the T42 get very hot?

 

Not hot at all. Barely warm. T43 is a bit hotter, but still far from very hot.

 

The 9600 is only on the SXGA screens. They XGAs come with the 7500.

 

Which graphics is more powerful, the X300 or 9600 (T42). How much dedicated RAM for each?

 

Both have 64MB and I say they are pretty much on par, possibly with the 9600 being a bit better.

 

Hmmm, I see. Some dedicated is better than nothing I suppose.

 

Something nobody here has considered between the T42 & T43. Ram, DDR vs. DDR2. Obviously DDR2 is a bit faster. The biggest difference between the T42(DDR) T43(DDR2) is the price of a stick of ram.

DDR2 ram is almost half the price of the slower DDR ram. 1GB stick of DDR2 $65. 1GB stick of DDR $110+.

The price difference on ram alone could easily push somebody toward a T43 by itself.

 

Hmm, very interesting indeed. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

If I am paying $1500 for a notebook, an extra $50 for the memory is not going to sway me one way or the other.

 

In addition to the money saved from cheaper DDR2 ram offered by the T43 also consider for the significant decrease in ram decrease in ram voltage. DDR2 ram runs at 1.8v vs. DDR 2.5v.

This difference is significant and I you enjoy using your laptop unplugged for any significant know that the T43 requires less juice in the ram department.

I would also recommend the 14.1" screen over the 15" for extra battery savings. Both options are good.

T43 is the way to go unless you want the widescreen option of the z60.

 

So what? The T42 is still going to have better overall battery life due to the increased power consumption of the 533MHz Dothans over the 400MHz Dothans.

 

dr st,
You are giving complete misinformation. The T43 has a longer battery life than a T42 slightly. There have been several reviews by published magazines that state the longer battery life of the T43.

In your post above you also assume that a faster front side bus will increase the power consumption of the processor. The difference between 400 and 533 is neglible at best. The newer Pentium M's do not consume more energy, they simply run slighly warmer than the previous model.

You also stated in a previous post that you believed the ATI 9600 outperforms the X300 slightly. This is completely wrong. The X300 is very similar to the 9800 in performance. The 9600 is an ancient card. The performance of the X300 is significantly superior to the 9600.

Too many posters claim to be experts on computers. I have both a T42 and a T43. I like them both. It seems as if T42 owners defend their T42 simply due to the fact that they don't want to feel outdated. The fact is you and your T42 are outdated.

 

Hahaha, thanks for the info all...

 

You seem to be trying very hard to convince yourself that your T43 really is better than a T42.

Firstly, on the subject of battery life: I had a T42. I was able to squeeze out about 5 hours or more from a 6-cell battery. I now have a T43. I am able to squeeze out about 4 hours from an identical 6-cell battery. How are you going to convince me that 5<4?

Now, granted, the T42 had the Mobility 7500, and I don't know how much of an effect the Mobility 9600 has on battery life, but I doubt it's enough to overcome the increased power draw of the Sonoma chipset.

Now on to the power consumption. Your claim doesn't even make sense. If the 533MHz FSB models run *warmer* than their 400MHz FSB counterparts, how can they not draw *more* power? It should be obvious that an increase in waste heat must be accompanied with an increase in power draw.

And, finally, do have anything at all to support your claim that the X300 is so much better than the 9600? Nothing I've seen indicates that they are anything but fairly closely matched, and considering that, from what I've seen, an X700 Pro runs just a bit faster than a 9800 Pro, I find it extremely hard to believe that an X300 is equivalent to a 9800.

In fact, here is a thread about this very issue, with benchmarks that show the two cards performing reasonably similar: http://www.notebookforums.com/showthread.php?t=71767&page=3

There are really no major performance differences between most T42s and most T43s, and either one is a fine choice. Personally, OP, I would let price be the deciding factor between the two.

 

Do provide links to them, please. And I'm talking about fair comparisons (NOT a 14.1" XGA T43 with a 9-cell again a 15" Flexview T42 with a 6-cell). Because any reviews I have read, both published and from users have stated the opposite.

The official specs by Intel clearly state that the newer models have higher maximum energy consumption (I think 27W against 21W). That also generates more heat, but there is no smoke without fire.

A piece of history for you - while the 9800 is faster than the 9600, it's also older than it. So you "ancient" remark is clearly stupid. But it's all irrelevant.

I only mentioned that I believe the 9600 to be slightly superior to the X300, because many of the people in these forums told me on multiple occasions that they believe it to be superior, sometimes FAR superior. However, specwise the 9600 and the X300 are the same, and since I have seen no fair comparisons between them, I had to conclude that they are roughly equal, with the 9600 _maybe_ being a bit better. Your claim that X300 is close to the 9800 is completely made up, with no grounds and no connection to anything.

Gotta agree with Trippytiger here - it seems that it is you who are trying to convince yourself that your T43 is so much better and the T42 is outdated (kinda like your claim that the T43 puts the R52 to shame, even though objectively the only difference is weight and width). But you are what you are and it's pointless to argue with you.

To the people who actually care to listen - everything has already been said many times.

The biggest advantage of the T43 over the T42 is that it comes with DVD Multi Burner Plus by default, which burns all DVD formats, unlike the Multi Burner of the T42 which only burns -R/RW and -RAM. Everything else is negligible, and the T43 has some disadvantages too - runs warmer, more susceptible to the fan noise problem due to that.

 

It nice to know that the internet has created mountains of experts when it comes to computers in general. Including the admission by Dr. St.
Dr. St.
A piece of history for you - while the 9800 is faster than the 9600, it's also older than it. So you "ancient" remark is clearly stupid. But it's all irrelevant.

When has a grahics card company ever released a card with a lower number 9600 that was supposedly released after an older card 9800??? This is lunacy in itself

The 9700pro mobile came after the 9600 and the 9800pro mobile came after the 9700pro mobile.

Dr. St also indicates through heresay that the x300 is outperformed by the 9600. How can you verify the performance based on heresay??

The x300 is a PCI express card while the 9600 is an AGP card. I don't think the motherboard supports both cards. Considering the x300 is two generations newer than the 9600, it would be stupid to think that a card two generations newer than a 9600 would perform at or below to the 9600. The 9700 and 9800 both arrived after the x300.

I have been building desktop computers for 4 years. I overclocked graphics cards when grahics card manufacturers used to claim overclocking voided the warrranty and shortened the life of the graphics card.

Today Nvidia in particular overclocks most of their cards. the 6800ultra in particular. The same could be said for CPU manufacturers. Obviously overclocking is not something that laptops need or would benefit greatly from. However, I would suggest people just get the integrated Intel 900 grahics card and max out their ram to 2gb. You can buy a 1gb stick of DDR2 for $65. The 256mb of system ram allocated for graphics seems small with 2gb of system memory.

I don't think graphics artists use laptops for creating graphic intensive projects. Anybody buying a T42/3 is probably a business traveler anyway. Size is the most important objective. Not to mention fingerprint recognition for added security. Let's not forget the IBM integrated security suite. The more I think about my argument, I start to think that I am arguing with college kids or men who live in their mothers basement.

How many IBM owners on this forum actually have a suit? The Thinkpad T series is designed for business travelers. Those who believe the thinkpad fingerprint reader is a gimmick obviously don't travel. Most business travelers have social security numbers and proprietary information that is top secret.

I'm obviously wasting my time arguing with children or when who act like they're still 10. I just don't like reading misinformation.

Here is one link to a review by PCworld.com
"The other big improvement: even better battery life than the T42 we reviewed last September, which endured for 4 hours, 9 minutes on one charge; the T43's standard 6-cell battery lasted a little over 5 hours."

http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,120923,00.asp

I can provide more reviews regarding batter life. Remember, you can adjust the performance of the T43 to reduce the heat and fan usaged by selecting maximum battery performance.

 

It happens all the time.

Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_9700_core

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_X_Series

And this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_6_Series

I can't. If you read carefully what I wrote, you'd see that I don't claim it to be so.

Again you show your ignorance.

How wrong you are.

Your complete misconception about the type of people who buy Thinkpad T laptops is just that - complete misconception. It's also totally irrelevant to the argument here.

But you seem to be enjoy writing it.

You can do the same on the T42. And I can also provide reviews about battery life which state the opposite, like this:

http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/ThinkPad_T43/4505-3121_16-31312127.html

 

How am I providing misinformations? You take one of my typo's and claim that I am giving misinformation. The 9600 card is 3 generations older than the x300. The 9600 card came before both the 9700 and 9800.

IBM's own marketing model states that the T series is for business users and travelers. The R series is for consumer use. You think I give misinformation?

You take single sentences instead of the whole response and input once sentence response to very short quotes.

Is the 9600 not an AGP card? The X300 is a PCI Express card. You take totally different GPU products and assume that lower numbers happen. There is no "x" in front of 9600. There is an "x" in front of 300 suggesting this card is from a different family. The GPU architecture is completely different.

The link I provided from PCworld.com claims the T43 has a longer lasting battery than the T42. The T43 tested had a 6-cell battery.

 

I'm not sure you understand much about video cards, despite what you say. Yes, the 9600 and X300 are from different generations, with different cores. That doesn't mean the performance is going to be radically different. A 6600 Go is quite different from a Mobility X700, and yet, they perform quite similarly!

All modern (discrete) video cards still share the same fundamental traits; they all have processors, they all have pixel and vertex pipelines and texture-mapping units, most have onboard memory, et cetera. All of these play a role in performance.

The X300 and 9600 both have the same number of pixel shaders and vertex shaders. This alone indicates that they will probably perform similarly. I can't speak to clock speed and memory speed because those are, of course, ultimately determined by IBM and I don't know which speeds were chosen, but according to ATi, both chips run at fairly close speeds (the X300 has a 50MHz faster core speed and a 100MHz faster memory speed), so there's no reason to expect the massive performance differences that you seem to think exist. Personally, I would give the nod to the X300, but not by much.

And something else that's interesting about the 9600 is that it uses the R350 core. I have a 9800 Pro in my desktop that uses the R350 core too. The two cards are from the same generation; the 9600 simply has fewer pixel pipelines, less memory, a smaller memory-bus width, and lower core and memory speeds. You need to learn that model numbers denote relative performance within one line of cards, and have nothing to do with the chronological order in which they were released.

Feel free to actually read my previous post and check out the link I included to a person who has actually done benchmark tests of both cards, and you'll see that there's no huge difference. I'd be happy to run my own benchmarks, once I get back from Mexico, but we'll need someone with a 9600 to compare those results against.

Of course, you're right that the T-series line of laptops is targeted at business users, but what the hell did that have to do with this discussion? You just went off on a tangent in the middle of your post. I can't see what your point is. FWIW, I'm an engineering student. I don't own a suit.

Finally, I find it extremely difficult to believe the battery tests you linked to. I know I've never seen anywhere near 5 hours with this machine, and I've put a lot of work into lowering power consumption as much as possible.

 

I have a 9700pro and a 9800pro in both of my desktops. The 9800 series is based on a 150nm silicon chip. The x300 is based on a 90nm silicon chip. You cannot compare the core clock speeds of completely different cores and expect the same performance.

If that were the case, a Pentium M operating at 1.73ghz would be outperformed by a Pentium 4 running at 3.2ghz. The Pentium M chips do far more work per clock cycle vs. the Pentium 4 3.2ghz thus their performance is quite similar.

A new review just arrived for dual core Pentium running on the 65nm core. These chips perform much better than their 90nm indentical dual counterparts. There is much less heat loss and lower power consumption on Intel's new 65nm fabrication.

The previous posters compared an ATI graphcis card to an NVidia card. "6600go" because the archetectures are different, you cannot assuem the core GPU running at the same mhz will perform the same using products from different manufacturers. Benchmark tests will determine who's is superior.

It nice to see that somebody agrees with me regarding the target audience for the T series Thinkpad. I assume Lenovo is not offering the 6880 or 7800 Nvidia cards or the x800 or x700 from ATI because this is a business laptop and most users are creating PowerPoint presentation instead of a a full length feature film.

I don't know why IBM offers the 9600 still. This card is older than the 9700 moblie and 9800 mobile. My assumption is that the 9700 and 9800 cards take too much power to place into a Thinkpad T series.

The X300 offers similar performance to a 9800pro. I will look for old reviews showing the x300 benchmark results. I can assure you the 9600 performace is far below that of the x300.

 

intel integrated chip is pretty cool

 

I have a 9600 in my T42. I'd be happy to run some benchies to compare with you. Contact me if you wish to do so.

Anxiously waiting.

 

I've got the same 9600 in my T42 as well and I still say that it sucks

 

You're clueless, we know that already.

 

That's right. I've got a T42 and a T43 and I say the 9600 card is worthless. I get the same performance out of my Intel integrated graphics card. As long as you have 1gb of ram.

 

I want to see your 3DMark05 results.

 

I will provide screen shots tomorrow of both the T42 and T43. This will be a special treat.

 

I've owned a T42 with the 9600, and a desktop with 1gb ram and Intel extreme graphics 2. When running Battlefield 1942. the game is slow and laggy on the desktop, and required me to reduce the number of bots, and lower some of the settings to medium. On the T42, I was able to play comfortably at high settings, and near max number of bots (400 is the max). At max, the game occasionally lags when too many are on screen, but it can still handle it.

 

Karl, your arguements are a joke. They hold no water, as has already been proven and stated by Doc and others.

The 9800 in general will destroy an X300. There is no comparison. I have a 9800XT in my desktop, which is a little faster than the 9800PRO. I get 3,247 in 3DMark05. The X300 can barely manage one-third of that. My 9800XT is coupled with a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 Northwood and 2GB Corsair XMS, just for your information.
Also, the X300 and the 9600 share the same architecture - the X300 is not 'two generations newer'. Maybe it was released two generations later, but it is not that different from a 9600.

If you're playing games and just posting ridiculous stuff just to amuse yourself, I'm going to ask you to cease doing that.

 

Alright Chaz,
While you are playing Star Wars and taking everything out of context. At no time did I compare the 9600 to the 9800 in desktops. I'm not stupid enough to compare the integrated GMA900 to the 9600 either. However, the previous poster seemed to think I compared the integrated graphics with the 9600. I did not.

Chaz, when did comparing desktop computers to laptops? I've said that Thinkpads are not a gaming machine. Anybody trying to play battlefield 2 on any thinkpad is crazy.

If you play games and have anything other than an AMD processor, you're crazy. You do. Northwood processors do not compare to the AMD chips for gaming.

I simply stated that the 9600 is old and outdated. So outdated that ATI released the 9700 and 9800 mobile processors for gaming machines.

 

Again you take this thread to completely irrelevant discussions, instead of providing the screenshots that you promised, but OK. It's fun.

No, but you did claim that the X300 performs close to the 9800. Sure you meant laptops, but the performance differences between mobile GPUs aren't far from the differences between the corresponding desktop GPUs, where X300 and 9800 are worlds apart.

When you write something like " I've got a T42 and a T43 and I say the 9600 card is worthless. I get the same performance out of my Intel integrated graphics card." it sure seems that you do.

Again, nonsense in commercial quantity. That's like saying that playing games on any CPU other than the Athlon FX-57 is crazy, because no processor can match. For games, Athlon64 CPUs are a tad more efficient than the Pentium4s they compete against, that's it. Northwoods are excellent CPUs. When the 800MHz HT-enabled Northwoods were released, AMD had NOTHING to match their performance. Only later did the Athlon64s appeared. Just another piece of history for you.

That's true, the 9600 is old. And regarding mobile GPUs, you are right - the 9700/9800 were released after the 9600. And they are faster. But that's not the point. The point is that the X300 on the T43, despite being newer than the 9600 isn't any better. At least that's what everybody thinks and what I pick up from the few benchmarks I got to see, and so far you haven't been able to provide any piece of evidence that shows otherwise.

 

I have been using a Northwood Pentium 4 3.2Ghz for gaming for over two years. No problems, and agreed that they are an excellent CPU. In my opinion, they are better than the Prescotts, because they only offer minimal if any performance increase, with much increased heat. Intel still cannot explain why that is.

Also, an AMD is not the only gaming capable processor out there. The Pentium M overclocked will beat even the mighty Athlon X2 4800+:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pm780&page=6

And here:
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=pm780&page=7

I compared my desktop's 9800 performance to the X300's because, unless you're comparing the Dell Inspiron XPS Gen. 1's performance with the 256MB Mobility Radeon 9800, which was the only notebook ever to have that card, then you are comparing performance against desktops. You may not have directly stated that you are comparing the cards, but when you make comments regarding their performance and how they perform, it's borderline.

No personal remarks will be tolerated against anyone. I think you can still redeem yourself.

 

I have a Dell Inspiron 9200, and hate it. I hate the 17" widescreen. So I am getting something smaller. My dad has an IBM T40, so I am pretty set on getting a IBM.

Just to get back on topic here, I wanted to give you my two cents. I own a T42 15" screen with the ATI Radeon 9600 mobile card (64mb). I'm a law student and got it mainly for work and the occasional game. I have several friends who own a T40 14" or T41 14" and they are about an inch thinner, and a little less wide than the 15" I own (of course).

I need something small and thin. I use my lappy for word proccessing, email, IM, web browsing, and a little gaming.

Before talking about the specific model, I would recommend a 14" if you really need the portability. I, however, prize the workspace I get from the 15" screens and went with that. After I got a nice laptop bag (www.spireusa.com) complete with boot, I really didn't notice the size.

As far as gaming, let me give you an idea of what I have put my poor T42 through (though not during finals). I play Half-life 2 (it loads kind of slowly though with medium details settings), Day of Defeat:Source, GuildWars (very pretty game that doesn't require a monster machine to run well), Sacred: Gold, Max Payne 2, Diablo II (runs easily of course), Warcraft III (runs fine with full effects), Medal of Honor Warchest (runs fine- lower detail than the newer Pacific Assault), Medal of Honor: Pacific Assault (runs horribly- I need more memory and a faster video card to run this smoothly), Brothers in Arms 1 (ran well enough).

The bottom line is, most games run ok if you work with the detail settings (and they're compatible, unlike Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory .

Models
I liked the T series for the nice compromise between thin-and-light and power. It's really a jack of all trades and I haven't heard anyone regret their decision to get a T. However, if you prize mobility more than power, I would consider getting an X series for sheer portability. If you want to get a tablet, there's always the IBM tablet, but I would wait for the next gen (although all the reviews I have read are very favorable regarding it).

Now, I have read a bit about the T42 and T43. Aside from talk of the battery life (I have my plugged in all the time anyway) I think you'll just have to decide on the parts. Does it really matter to you if you can open Microsoft Word in 1 second or 2 seconds? Or perhaps whether you can run a major Access database or Excel spreadsheet side by side with Dreamweaver? Everyone's usage habits are different. Seems like you are in the 75% of "casual to intermediate" users that need a little of everything but aren't planning on presenting the next multimedia presentation at ComDex or CES or something.

That said, I don't think you can go wrong with either. I don't know how much T42 prices have dropped since the release of the T43 (if at all) but common sense dictates that with the T42 being the older model, you should be able to find it for a little cheaper. I got an educational discount on mine (in Ohio) so I lucked out a year and a half ago. Check to see if your school/state has something similar- a dollar saved is a dollar in your pocket.

Oh, and I don't feel outdated. I like my machine better and better with every passing day. Besides, I don't need a fingerprint reader on my T42- I got a nice cheap APC one on clearance ($20 below retail price = $35) which I thought I would use but never use anyway. And I am content with my purchase

Cheers and good luck on your decision!

 

The original Prescotts (Pentium 4-E) were actually, on average, slower clock-for-clock than the Northwoods (Pentium 4-C) that ran on the same chipsets.

The Athlon X2 4800+ isn't quite the top-of-the-line gaming CPU. At this point, I believe no Pentium-M can match the performance of the FX-57 (which you can also overclock), but so what?

 

AFAI can see you have some hot partly much OT discussions here. Well, I'am not going to dive into these much irrelevant discussions about desktop CPUs etc. since this is first of all a notebook forum.

However, I saw a bunch of misleading informations here about notebook GPUs and their assumed performance in relation to each other, so I post you here some approved lab-measured average 3DMark values for most in notebooks used GPUs...



GPU-Model = 3DMark 2001

SiS M661FX = 1300
ATI IGP 320/340/350 = 1630
Intel i852GM/i855GM = 1899
XGI Volari-XP5 SE = 2181
Intel GMA 900 = 4355

ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 = 6734
Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5200 = 6960
ATI Mobility Radeon X300 = 7080
Nvidia GeForce Go 6200 = 8875
Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5600 = 9173
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 = 9255
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 = 10580
Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5700 = 11550

ATI Mobility Radeon X600 = 11200
Nvidia GeForce Go 6600 = 13935
ATI Mobility Radeon X700 = 16730
ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 = 17940
ATI Mobility Radeon X800 = 19162
Nvidia GeForce Go 6800 = 19373
Nvidia GeForce Go 6800 Ultra = 23858



GPU-Model = 3DMark 2003

SiS M661FX = -
ATI IGP 320/340/350 = 89
Intel i852GM/i855GM = 100
XGI Volari-XP5 SE = 304
Intel GMA 900 = 940

ATI Mobility Radeon 9200 = 1026
Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5200 = 1160
ATI Mobility Radeon X300 = 1909
Nvidia GeForce Go 6200 = 2366
Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5600 = 1911
ATI Mobility Radeon 9600 = 2555
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 = 2755
Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5700 = 2920

ATI Mobility Radeon X600 = 3052
Nvidia GeForce Go 6600 = 4870
ATI Mobility Radeon X700 = 5835
ATI Mobility Radeon 9800 = 6546
ATI Mobility Radeon X800 = 8611
Nvidia GeForce Go 6800 = 9095
Nvidia GeForce Go 6800 Ultra = 11171
Nvidia GeForce Go 7800 GTX = 15000


http://img384.imageshack.us/my.php?image=grakatest7eq.jpg


...as is obvious when comparing the measured values for the Intel GMA900 and ATI X300/9600/9700/X600/X700/9800/X800 GPUs, the Intel GMA900 is the poorest for 3D gaming, followed by the ATI X300 and then the rest of the ATI pack in order.

Note however that the ATI X600 is here slightly more performant than the ATI 9600 or 9700. Note also that the ATI X600 and X700 are not as performant as the rare ATI 9800 notebook GPU, which is/was the fastest AGP GPU so far.

The crown of 3D GPU performance does nowadays actually take the Nvidia GeForce Go 7800 GTX, which easily outperforms an ATI X800 and also the Nvidia GeForce Go 6800 variants.


Personally I'am usually not a big friend of too huge GPU power in notebooks and don't need myself much GPU power at all, since those more powerful dedicated GPUs additionally drain the batteries much quicker and also produce some additinally great amount of heat inside notebooks. So all in all more powerful dedicated GPUs make it difficult to build an overall good thermal notebook design and also to handle the noise and heat level at lower sides.

Also I believe that the usual business users won't have a need for much GPU power and would instead be more happy with quieter and longer time running notebooks.

 

Thanks for a very useful post, vkyr. I've been waiting for something like that for a while.

 

Well I was only proving the point that AMD's are not the only gaming-capable CPU's.

Anyways, this is a really ridiculous thread from what I am seeing...and yes, I do add to it, not ashamed of that, but I think that we need to focus on the actual topic of this thread now... Thanks.

 

Actually, this thread just needs to be closed, as there is nothing more to say on the actual topic, it has been beaten to death.