Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables (Apple) Apple IT Technology

Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Has Significantly Slower SSD Speeds (macrumors.com) 85

Posted by msmash from the PSA dept.
Following the launch of Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pro with the M2 chip, it has been discovered that the $1,299 base model with 256GB of storage has significantly slower SSD read/write speeds compared to the equivalent previous-generation model. From a report: YouTube channels such as Max Tech and Created Tech tested the 256GB model with Blackmagic's Disk Speed Test app and found that the SSD's read and write speeds are both around 1,450 MB/s, which is around 50% slower reading and around 30% slower writing compared to the 13-inch MacBook Pro with the M1 chip and 256GB of storage.

Disk Speed Test app numbers shared by Vadim Yuryev of Max Tech:
13-inch MacBook Pro (M1/256GB) Read Speed: 2,900
13-inch MacBook Pro (M2/256GB) Read Speed: 1,446
13-inch MacBook Pro (M1/256GB) Write Speed: 2,215
13-inch MacBook Pro (M2/256GB) Write Speed: 1,463

Yuryev disassembled the new 13-inch MacBook Pro and discovered that the 256GB model is equipped with only a single NAND flash storage chip, whereas the previous model has two NAND chips that are likely 128GB each. This difference likely explains why the new model has a slower SSD, as multiple NAND chips allows for faster speeds in parallel.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Has Significantly Slower SSD Speeds More

Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Has Significantly Slower SSD Speeds

Comments Filter:

  • Off topic slashdot post (Score:4, Funny)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday June 27, 2022 @12:28PM (#62654752) Homepage Journal

    What does this have to do with crypto?

    • Well, it's Apple and as we all know Crypto and Apple drive the content here.

      I hear the new flash is made from ground up gnomes to save on silicone costs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fyngyrz ( 762201 )

        I hear the new flash is made from ground up gnomes to save on silicone costs.

        By the plastic surgeons, right? After all, they have to do something to stay abreast of silicone demand. Those are the two points I wanted to make today.

        I'll see myself out. Try the veal.

    • If you're an apple fan, apple can do no wrong. The slower ssd isn't a bug or just apple being cheap, it's a feature to allow you more time to reflect on how much apple has improved your life.

      Similar to previous narratives we've seen. For example when macbooks had overheating GPUs, apple fans had to remind everybody that the GPUs are so powerful that they just produce a lot of heat, and to make them run as cool as possible, apple needed to really stuff extra thermal paste into it, because thermal paste keeps

      • If you're an apple fan, apple can do no wrong. The slower ssd isn't a bug or just apple being cheap, it's a feature to allow you more time to reflect on how much apple has improved your life.

        Similar to previous narratives we've seen. For example when macbooks had overheating GPUs, apple fans had to remind everybody that the GPUs are so powerful that they just produce a lot of heat, and to make them run as cool as possible, apple needed to really stuff extra thermal paste into it, because thermal paste keeps things cool, and you can never have too much.

        Did any of that pertain to this issue?

        Didn't think so.

    • The Apple SSD controller provides the encryption, with the key derived from the machine, and if FileVault is turned on, from whatever user passwords are used. It isn't crypto-currency related, but falls under crypto generally. Is it good enough to pass an audit? Good enough for that.

  • why can't apple just use m.2 and stop the extreme markup for there hardware.

    • They won't stop the markup as long as people keep paying it.

      People will keep paying it so long as the other big alternatives suck worse.

      Personally I prefer Android to iOS, but when it comes to desktops and workstations it has to be acknowledged that Windows is terrible and Linux has its own big problems. I use both, so I get to suffer in different ways at different times of day.

      • This! There's no incentive to change for them. People keep buying their stuff regardless of what they do with it. Granted, the new hardware is no slouch but in reality does a 13" macbook need all the horsepower?

        • Apple machines generally ladt a long time. My Macbook Pros are both more than ten years old and work better than when they were new. So Apple HW are not over priced.

          • people are happy with them, I can understand that. They have a loyal, some would say rabid following.

            • Re: why can't apple just use m.2 and stop the mar (Score:5, Informative)

              by rpnx ( 8338853 ) on Monday June 27, 2022 @04:08PM (#62655582)
              I used to not understand it, then bought a macbook pro from 2010 ish for testing my multiplatform code on MacOS. Somehow this $200 almost 10 year old laptop had better screen, speakers, and touchpad than my Windows laptop bought just 1 year ago at the time. It's still better in every one of these ways than a new Framework laptop I spent over $2k for. I am now also an owner of an M1 MacBook Air. They aren't overpriced, the money just goes into stuff like keyboard, screen, touchpad, speakers, etc. Anyone who thinks these machines are overpriced has never actually used one. You might think your trackpad is good, but you think that until you actually try using a MacBook trackpad and realize that these things are so good you basically don't even need a mouse. Does your trackpad have force touch? Your screen have a 180 degree viewing angle? True Tone (or something similar that's not an Apple trademark) for the display? A webcam built into the lid that doesn't make you look like you're from Minecraft? A mic array that makes you able to be heard clearly and not need to buy an external mic? Speakers that are crisper and sound better than $80 stand alone external speakers I bought on Amazon for my desktop? A literal 12 hour battery life doing normal tasks? Being able to be kept in a backpack for a week without running out of charge? CPU speed mostly matters for gaming and code compiling, which is not what most people use a laptop for. MacBooks are better value for most people because cpu-speed/$ doesn't capture the value proposition well. These machines are well optimized for "normies". And I say that as someone who had used Linux as their ONLY desktop operating system for around 3 years. Regardless of what you think of the locked down ecosystem, I think you cannot be sane if you claim Apple sells bad hardware. It's not all about the CPU and memory.

              • I think you just buy crap windows laptops. No 180 degrees monitor? I make sure to buy IPS laptops since before 2010... The fact that you could buy crap TN laptops outside the Apple world did not mean you should.
                I always work mainly on a Macbook Pro supplied from work, and I get a Thinkpad as an extra personal machine - usually slightly used so I can get top of the line cheap. The Thinkpads I choose usually feel like higher quality machines - the magnesium alloy seems higher end, they are light without sacri

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by jaa101 ( 627731 )

                  Generally consumers don't know to buy IPS screens on their laptops and you have to dig for those specs. And that's just one of many, many aspects of laptops that go towards making a quality package that most people aren't aware of. They're paying the extra money to Apple in part so they don't have to worry (so much) about having a good, all-round machine. Which isn't to say that Apple doesn't screw up occasionally. The other part is that the machines do last longer on average. Saying M2 laptops are ove

                  • The other part is that the machines do last longer on average.

                    Sorry, don't buy it. Sure, if you compare a $4000 apple to a $900 shitbook, but I've got a truly obscene amount of money in Mac and PC laptops within walking distance of me right now, and I wouldn't say there has been any observable difference in longevity (except my old MBP, which I got rid of because I was pretty sure it was going to burn my fucking house down one of these days)

              • They aren't overpriced, the money just goes into stuff like keyboard, screen, touchpad, speakers, etc. Anyone who thinks these machines are overpriced has never actually used one.

                Sorry but no. Sounds like you're comparing Macbooks to any shit you picked up off the shelf and declared that to be representative of the PC market.

                I've used both. I own both. Notice how I used the past tense in the first sentence? There's a reason my 5 year old (to say nothing of whatever 10 year old think you use) Macbook is gathering dust at the bottom of some shelf.

                You don't speak for everyone. You like your Macbook, congrats. That doesn't mean that people who don't think like you "haven't used one".

              • I've got a ZenBook Pro Duo, an M1 MacBook Air, and an M1 Max MacBook Pro.

                As far as the Air goes, ya, that thing isn't overpriced. It's fucking phenomenally priced.
                My MBP? Hideously overpriced. Spent $7100 on it all told. Don't get me wrong. I love the machine. But when you get to dollar amounts that high, you're competing against workstations, and the only thing the MBP has on them is a sub-par screen and fantastic battery life.

                Now back to your bizarre PC vs Mac comparison.
                My ZenBook has a better scre

              • > It's not all about the CPU and memory.

                It's all about the pentiums:

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        • This! There's no incentive to change for them. People keep buying their stuff regardless of what they do with it. Granted, the new hardware is no slouch but in reality does a 13" macbook need all the horsepower?

          WTF, over?!?

          First it's "Macbooks are just underpowered toys, with outdated hardware." Now it's "Why does a 13" MacBook need all the horsepower?"

          So, just exactly how much "horsepower" would Goldilocks find "Just Right"?

          As I said: WTF, over?!?

          • I never said they were underpowered; the article was complaining of SSD speed which is one metric. I just find 13" too small for my own use both in terms of physical keyboard size and wanting to keep my eyesight. My last 5 laptops are 17".

            As for Apple, they know their customers, they make a product that they think will meet the customer's needs complete with hard-wired flash drives built to a specification set out in terms of pricing, durability and reliability.

            There's always trade-offs.

            • I never said they were underpowered; the article was complaining of SSD speed which is one metric. I just find 13" too small for my own use both in terms of physical keyboard size and wanting to keep my eyesight. My last 5 laptops are 17".

              As for Apple, they know their customers, they make a product that they think will meet the customer's needs complete with hard-wired flash drives built to a specification set out in terms of pricing, durability and reliability.

              There's always trade-offs.

              You never said Macbooks were underpowered; but you have to admit, it has been a common refrain from the Apple Hating crowd here on Slashdot, and other places.

              I get you about eyesight. I constantly use the Zoom feature on my 15" MacBook Pro; or just end up using my 24" external monitor fir most work. I'd love to get a 16" MBP; but that's just not in the cards right now. . .

    • m.2 doesn't have read-write speeds like we see from the Apple drives. My current MacBook Pro did Write: 7292 MB/s Read: 5519 MB/s

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Junta ( 36770 )

        M.2 at PCIe Gen4 can comfortably do 8 GB/s full duplex. M.2 at PCIe Gen5 allows for 16 GB/s full duplex.

        • M.2 at PCIe Gen4 can comfortably do 8 GB/s full duplex. M.2 at PCIe Gen5 allows for 16 GB/s full duplex.

          That is, if you can actually find one with a gen4 SSD, let alone gen 5.

          https://www.thessdreview.com/h... [thessdreview.com]

          And if you do, it sure as hell isn't going to be coming with a 20 hour battery life.

          It also doesn't look like TRUE PCIe gen5 SSDs will be coming to Laptops any time soon:

          https://www.notebookcheck.net/... [notebookcheck.net]

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Junta ( 36770 )

            The issue is whether Apple had to resort to a proprietary form factor to get the performance cited. They did not. Maybe they wouldn't easily find one off the shelf, but if they go to the trouble of a proprietary form factor, they could have commissioned a similarly bespoke component but standards based instead.

      • While I'm not at the leading edge of this spear, I have an M.2 drive that runs ~5000 MB/s and ~4400 MB/s. So it is still way better than the number in TFS. So how much money is the consumer saving with Apple's design change?

      • m.2 doesn't have read-write speeds like we see from the Apple drives. My current MacBook Pro did Write: 7292 MB/s Read: 5519 MB/s

        That's a very good and incredibly off topic response to a story about Apple's drive only reaching a pathetic speed that could be matched by a single older Gen3 NVMe drive, to say nothing of Gen4.

        Mind you with the M1 Max to get comparable storage space on an M.2 SSD you can simply use multiple slots (after all Apple have stacked a shitton of the chips in the M1 Max so why artificially limit the M.2 option other than to stack the argument dishonestly in your favour?), and sorry to say that if you treat those

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 )

      why can't apple just use m.2 and stop the extreme markup for there hardware.

      Why can't people learn the difference between "there" and "their"?

    • It is a completely different storage concept from m.2 NVMe. The NAND controller is in the SoC itself, along with the encryption keys. The NAND chips are just raw flash.

  • SSDs were too fast, anyway (Score:5, Funny)

    by gillbates ( 106458 ) on Monday June 27, 2022 @12:53PM (#62654848) Homepage Journal

    Honestly, I was thinking that SSD speeds had gone a bit insane lately. Thankfully Apple reigned them in to a more reasonable rate, and I can relax without having to worry about how fast my SSD is going.

    Sorry if you can't afford an Apple - you know, maybe you could like do some insider trading or something to get more money. Till then, you'll be stuck with your blazing fast SSDs.

    Chill.

    • Honestly, I was thinking that SSD speeds had gone a bit insane lately.

      What do you mean too fast? It's still orders of magnitude too slow. When they match system RAM and allow us to simplify our computer architectures without this backwards and forwards between disk > RAM > cache etc, then and only then will they be fast enough.

      Unlike you I don't celebrate the slowest component in my PC.

  • We fixed the glitch. (Score:2, Informative)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 )

    Bob Slydell: We couldn't find any reason for the MacBook to be so fast.
    Bob Porter: I talked to the folks down in engineering, and it turns out that the MacBook wasn't designed to be as fast as the MacBook Pro. It was just a glitch caused by having to use multiple smaller parts to get the capacity high enough at a particular price point.
    Bob Slydell: So we fixed the glitch.
    Bill Lundberg: Great.
    Dom Portwood: So, um, you made the MacBook Pro faster now?
    Bob Slydell: Well just a second there. We uh, we fi

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      Corrected because this is a Pro.

      Bob Slydell: We couldn't find any reason for the cheapest MacBook Pro to be so fast.
      Bob Porter: I talked to the folks down in engineering, and it turns out that the base model MacBook Pro wasn't designed to be as fast as the top-end MacBook Pro. It was just a glitch caused by having to use multiple smaller parts to get the capacity high enough at a particular price point.
      Bob Slydell: So we fixed the glitch.
      Bill Lundberg: Great.
      Dom Portwood: So, um, you made the high-end MacBook Pro faster now?
      Bob Slydell: Well just a second there. We uh, we fixed the glitch. So the base MacBook Pro won't be as fast anymore, so sales will just work themselves out naturally.
      Bo Porter: We always like to avoid unnecessary press coverage whenever possible. Problem solved from your end.

  • Implications, buy more storage? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday June 27, 2022 @01:12PM (#62654916)

    the 256GB model is equipped with only a single NAND flash storage chip, whereas the previous model has two NAND chips

    So wait, does this mean if you double the storage on an M2 MacBook Pro to 512GB, storage speed will double because you'd get two chips instead of one? Or would it just be a larger, single chip? It seems like at some point there's a size where you'd get two chips and thus improve the performance... important to know for anyone ordering.

    • Re:Implications, buy more storage? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Junta ( 36770 ) on Monday June 27, 2022 @01:16PM (#62654934)

      This is why memory capacity expresses the geometry of the DIMM, not just the capacity.

      Unfortunately, SSD marketing has 'kept it simple' and generally doesn't make this information plain, generally sticking with capacity and hypothetical interface rate, with no indication of the realistic performance expectations.

    • the 256GB model is equipped with only a single NAND flash storage chip, whereas the previous model has two NAND chips

      So wait, does this mean if you double the storage on an M2 MacBook Pro to 512GB, storage speed will double because you'd get two chips instead of one? Or would it just be a larger, single chip? It seems like at some point there's a size where you'd get two chips and thus improve the performance... important to know for anyone ordering.

      If the theory is true, then you may have a good idea there.

      • Re:Implications, buy more storage? (Score:4, Informative)

        by NoMoreACs ( 6161580 ) on Monday June 27, 2022 @03:55PM (#62655532)

        Sorry to Reply to my own Post; but, upon further research, I found that this truly is an issue only with the base model. Yes, TFA makes this clear; but that fact seems to be getting lost in all the Apple Hate. To wit:

        "It appears that only the base model 13-inch MacBook Pro with M2 chip has a slower SSD. As noted in the MacRumors forums, Aaron Zollo ran the Disk Speed Test app on the 512GB model and the SSD's read/write speeds were similar to all M1 models"

        https://www.macrumors.com/2022... [macrumors.com]

        So, all Apple has to do is rev. the BOM and build program for the base model, and all is fixed. Probably just a last-minute Production Change that didn't get vetted properly before someone signed-off. Not wonderful; but easily fixed as a running-change without a board rev., and all that that entails.

        • Thanks, good points - hopefully they do rev the lower end to include two chips, and glad to hear more storage does indeed affect the problem... I would be hesitant to buy any laptop with just 256GB storage anyway.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

            Thanks, good points - hopefully they do rev the lower end to include two chips, and glad to hear more storage does indeed affect the problem... I would be hesitant to buy any laptop with just 256GB storage anyway.

            Doubt it.

            It's easier to build a 256GB unit using 1x 256GB chip and a 512GB unit with 2x 256GB chip than using 2x 128GB and 2x 256GB chips.

            The former method requires stocking only one flash part and your order from Samsung or whoever makes it only has that one flash part. That flash part is cheaper

            • This is really easy to do on the manufacturing line as one chip is always added, and the second chip can be added optionally depending on the mix of boards they want to produce. So if I look at the order sheet and see that 10% are the 512GB model and 90% are the 256GB model, I can tell Foxconn to populate the extra flash chip on 10% of the boards, and to make the rest without it. Whereas if I used two different flash chips, I'd have to tell Foxconn to run the production with one flash chip, then halt the line, change to the other flash chip, and continue production.

              Or, considering that the Flash Storage is (IIRC) the only BTO Option, you could just build Subassemblies with everything But the Flash Stuffed, then do batches of essentially to-Order Final Assemblies, each with the amount of Flash that was Ordered. Retail Channels would be kept fed with Batches of Configurations based on Historical Sales Data you talked about, refined with current real Sales trends. Nothing's perfect; but this keeps Apple's Contract Manufacturer from having to rework boards to change-out F

          • Thanks, good points - hopefully they do rev the lower end to include two chips, and glad to hear more storage does indeed affect the problem... I would be hesitant to buy any laptop with just 256GB storage anyway.

            Agreed. 256 GB just isn't enough.

            • Agreed. 256 GB just isn't enough.

              [voice of figure from the past] 64 TB should be enough for anyone.

        • So, all Apple has to do is rev. the BOM and build program for the base model, and all is fixed. Probably just a last-minute Production Change that didn't get vetted properly before someone signed-off. Not wonderful; but easily fixed as a running-change without a board rev., and all that that entails.

          It's nothing of the sort. It's a very simple case of the lowest spec'd model only having one NAND chip. It's common knowledge that Apple treats NAND chips essentially a bit like a RAID array. The M1 256GB model had 2x128GB chips. The M2 256GB model has 1x256GB.

          I don't expect them to "fix" anything as it very likely means sourcing slower previous generation NAND chips in order to put two on the board. That removes economies of scale. One way or the other the model with 512GB is going to be faster with no eas

          • So, all Apple has to do is rev. the BOM and build program for the base model, and all is fixed. Probably just a last-minute Production Change that didn't get vetted properly before someone signed-off. Not wonderful; but easily fixed as a running-change without a board rev., and all that that entails.

            It's nothing of the sort. It's a very simple case of the lowest spec'd model only having one NAND chip. It's common knowledge that Apple treats NAND chips essentially a bit like a RAID array. The M1 256GB model had 2x128GB chips. The M2 256GB model has 1x256GB.

            I don't expect them to "fix" anything as it very likely means sourcing slower previous generation NAND chips in order to put two on the board. That removes economies of scale. One way or the other the model with 512GB is going to be faster with no easy fix in sight, and given Apple's history of just saying "hahahah fuck you" to complainers I doubt they will do anything at all to change the current bottom of the line M1's speed (not the least as this would open them up to a lawsuit or a recall from existing owners).

            What did you think I meant when I said "rev. The BOM and build program?"

            I meant, assuming (likely) Apple still has a source for the 128 GB Flash chips, and since they already have an empty spot for a second Flash chip on the motherboard (see below), they really can fix this as easily as I described (by taking advantage of their "RAID-like" parallel Accesses using the two 128 gig Flash chips, that you pointed out). The only sticky widget is what to do about any units already produced. Any purchasers past the

            • I meant, assuming (likely) Apple still has a source for the 128 GB Flash chips

              I wouldn't be so sure. With generational changes often come changes in architecture, often minor. Apple definitely still has source for the 128GB Flash chips, the real question is if they are a drop in replacement or not. You can see from the teardown BOMs that they are a different series from the manufacturer, not simply larger chips from the same line as the previous M1 models which did have 128GB and 256GB chips (which are also different from these ones in the M2).

              BTW, Apple is smart enough to know that any pennies that are saved by stuffing one 256 GB chip instead of two 128 GB ones, are more than lost in form of bad Reviews

              No. Apple is smart enough to know that p

              • I meant, assuming (likely) Apple still has a source for the 128 GB Flash chips

                I wouldn't be so sure. With generational changes often come changes in architecture, often minor. Apple definitely still has source for the 128GB Flash chips, the real question is if they are a drop in replacement or not. You can see from the teardown BOMs that they are a different series from the manufacturer, not simply larger chips from the same line as the previous M1 models which did have 128GB and 256GB chips (which are also different from these ones in the M2).

                BTW, Apple is smart enough to know that any pennies that are saved by stuffing one 256 GB chip instead of two 128 GB ones, are more than lost in form of bad Reviews

                No. Apple is smart enough to know that people bitching and moaning amounts to nothing, and they get sales anyway. Even with their fucking horrible butterfly keyboards, and their stupid touch bar both of which got absolutely slammed in reviews they were making money hands over fist. Apple is a company that is very much the king of profit margin. They do a lot to optimise their product series to extract every last cent out of manufacturing without resorting to shipping plastic trash like many of their competitors.

                You are correct that the board may no longer be layed-out for the original 128 GB chips. But if not, I am 99.9% sure that anyone who sells a 256 GB Flash Chip has a binned version that has one bad bank disabled and marked and sold as a 128 GB version.

                Worst case, Apple can kludge up a daughter board with whatever 128s they can dig up, that can be stuffed onto the logic board layout until they get a new logic board rev. Through layout and qualification. I'm pretty sure Apple would rather do that than shitcan

    • Yes according to the article.

      It appears that only the base model 13-inch MacBook Pro with M2 chip has a slower SSD. As noted in the MacRumors forums, Aaron Zollo ran the Disk Speed Test app on the 512GB model and the SSD's read/write speeds were similar to all M1 models, but getting these speeds will require spending at least $1,499. This likely means that the 512GB model remains equipped with two 256GB flash storage chips.

  • My 2015 MacBook Pro is still chugging along - although I did replace the SSD with a Sabrent NVMe drive a few years ago.

    I've got an M1 Air from work. I can't say that the 2015 feels any slower than the M1, although realistically it must be (at least by the benchmarks).

    • This is kinda my experience with SSDs. The raw throughput offered by a top end m.2 is nice and all, but mostly programs are written such that reading and writing files involves a whole lot of single threaded processing. Your system got a whole heck of a lot faster moving from a mechanical to a SATA SSD largely due to the very low to non-existent "seek" times, but moving from the SATA to the m.2 doesn't yield much over the course of the day. Still, apple should have to warn customers that there's a large per

  • Just upgrade the SSD on your own, the way you can with every other laptop in the world.

  • How can you call something "Pro" if it only has 256G of storage?

    • Why not? What kind of a "Pro" keeps data on their laptop? Are you one of those people who still use their computer like it's 1998 or something?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If you had two brain cells you'd realise that some pros spend time working 'on location' where internet connectivity may be limited or non-existent.

      • Why not? What kind of a "Pro" keeps data on their laptop? Are you one of those people who still use their computer like it's 1998 or something?

        A "pro" isn't just sitting around a hotel room watching Netflix on their laptop.

        • Of course not. But what does internal storage have to do with Pros in the world of ultra fast high capacity thunderbolt SSDs?

          A "Pro" by your definition is hardly going to be satisfied with a 1TB internal SSD either.

  • Why do you never need local storage? Thin clients for everyone!
  • It's sad to see that Apple cheaped out on that SSD. One of the redeeming graces of Apple's products has been that they generally don't do that; you're stuck with the built-in SSD, for example, but at least it's a good one.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Close