I'm fed up with Mac Fanboys and their arrogance. But it's easy to see why they feel they can feel that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgzbhEc6VVo
This is a collection of 15 short Mac vs PC ads that Apple created.
Quite frankly, they are annoying, and untruthful. According to these ads, PCs are used for no more than spreadsheets and documents - ie "boring work things". Apparently Macs are better than PCs "life stuff" like pictures, videos, or music.
It's true that Macs aren't as susceptible to viruses as Windows based PCs are, but why would a virus writer create a virus for Macs when they take up less than 10% of all the computers in the world? Wouldn't it make more sense to write viruses for Windows OSs because there is more chance for infection? Sounds logical.
If Macs become more popular, they will contract viruses. I assure you.
Compatability. When was the last time you heard a PC user ask "is this PC compatable?"
Let's not also forget gaming. PC gamers just go pick a game they want, and as long as they have the minimum specs, they install it, and they play it. Can the same be said for Mac users? No.
Macs are also seriously overpriced. Seriously.
If Mac users want to get anything done in the business world, what do they buy? That's right - Microsoft Office. Mind-boggling.
This blog post stems from annoyance at Apple's arrogance and slander.
Microsoft did indeed make some adverts comparing Windows and Mac and Apple got their lawyers on the phone right away. Give me a break, Apple. You're giving yourself far too much bad publicity. Nobody likes this.
I found an interesting comment to a Windows Ad with someone stating how Apple blantantly lie in their adverts:
LIE: - Macs have embedded webcams, PCs don't.
FACT: PCs had embedded webcams way before Macs had any.
LIE: - Macs don't have security vulnerabilities, PCs do.
FACT: Just look at Apple's OS updates and you will find dozens of security holes fixed in each update. The most ironic thing about that ad was that the same month the ad started appearing, a new OSX update was released that had 5x (I think it was 54) security vulnerability fixes in it.
LIE: - Macs have all-in-ones, PCs don't.
FACT: Both PCs and Macs have all-in-one versions. There were many all-in-one PCs (very nice models from Sony, HP and Dell).
LIE: - Macs make better home movies, PCs can't.
FACT: There are far more superior video editing solutions for PCs, let alone the question of "if" they can.
LIE: - Macs have better device support than PCs. (the japanese woman with camera ad)
FACT: This is by far the biggest lie of all. _ALL_ devices have Windows support, only some of them have Mac support. Macs are a closed hardware system, PC world is completely open to new hardware.
LIE: - Macs have automatic backup, PCs don't.
FACT: Windows had automatic backup (in XP) way before Mac had any.
Case closed.
Rant over.
Digiman out.
Wednesday 29 July 2009
Tuesday 28 July 2009
Windows 7 and Chrome OS... and a flashback to Vista...
2009/2010 will be interesting years for Operating System releases. As most people know, Windows 7 is Microsoft's latest OS, available to the public come 22nd October 2009.
As well as that, Google have announced that they are creating their own OS, namely "Chrome OS".
Personally, I'm a little bit excited about both.
I'm excited about the Windows 7 release because when I get a new laptop, it will have Windows 7 on it. Simple as that. I'm in no rush for a new laptop though, I'll probably get it next year, and it would be no bad thing as by then, a Service Pack may have been released.
It's funny when I look back at my initial thoughts about Vista. XP did everything I needed it to do - in fact, present tense... does - as I use it on my laptop every day! I know the ins and outs of XP, so much so that I don't need to be at my laptop when people call asking for advice or how to do something on it.
When people asked me about Vista when it was first released, I was somewhat sceptical - I think we all were a little bit. The BIGGEST annoyance for me, was how places like PC World sold "Vista Capable" laptops with absolutely pathetic hardware capabilites. Celeron processors and 1GB of RAM?! Or less in some cases! Please(!!)
It doesn't take a computer buff to know that if you've 512MB of RAM on XP, 1GB makes a big difference. In fact, on all my XP machines I have at least 2GBs.
So imagine how RAM affects Vista. Vista "capable" meant that it could run Vista... barely. Forget about running Aero on a "capable" machine, by the way - Home Basic only!
On those types of machine, Vista performed just about as well as a rowing boat on a dried-up river.
Working in the IT industry and having 3-month-old laptops brought in for servicing because they were "too slow to use" became very, very irritating. I once even saw a laptop with Vista with 512MB...
However, once the hardware managed to catch up with the requirements of Vista (and became affordable), I started to become more impressed with Vista.
Working with a few Vista machines in the office, I decided to get a copy. By then, SP1 had come out of course!
I got a 64-bit version and installed it on my custom built machine (quad-core, 8gigs, blah blah blah), and with SP2, yes, it runs like a charm. I couldn't be happier.
Vista surpasses XP in every way. I feel daft that I ever resented Vista!
Installing Windows 7 RC1, I can see that it's going to be better than Vista again. Quicker, smoother, easier. I like how it looks like Vista, so it's not as big a jump as XP > Vista, but it's been re-defined, like a well tuned car.
Those "vista capable" laptops could run Windows 7 Home better than they could ever have run Vista.
So, in my world, Windows 7 is a very welcome release.
Now... what about Chrome OS? Well, the reason I'm excited about that, is because it's free.
I'm also a little bit excited, because it's Google, and Google are very innovative. Who knows what they could potentially create?
Once I get my hands on it, I'll be installing it on a Pentium 3 machine, 768MBs RAM, just to see how it runs.
Of course, Google will most likely release minimum specs of say a 1.4Ghz processor, 1GB RAM (or possibly more, depending on how graphically intensive it is), but I wouldn't mind trying it out, even on an older machine.
I have my doubts of course, of whether Chrome OS can provide the same functionality that XP offers.
I've also read that it's to be based on the Linux kernel.
If it IS going to be based on Linux, I hope it's nothing LIKE Linux. If ever I have used a user-friendly OS, Linux was NOT it.
I could barely install the damn thing on my computer without having to resort to support forums and the like!
The Linux mentality appears to be a superior one. This annoys me. No, Linux, I am not a super-geek, I just want to install a functional OS on my PC that will allow me to use the internet, type documents, do my emails, and print things. I know your OS is free, but that's no reason to not make it simple.
This is why I dislike all open-source software. Including Joomla.
I'm not a Windows "fan boy", but I do know a good thing when I use it. It's functional, it's accessable, it's easy to use. It supports nearly every hardware device/software program ever created. My grandparents use XP - they send emails, scan documents, create labels, the works. This is the ultimate test for any piece of sofware - if your grandparents can understand it, anyone can.
Tried to find a driver for *anything* on Linux? In some cases, they actually expect you to write your own driver.
...
My rant is over. I apologise for it, sometimes it's easy for me to get carried away. To summarise, Windows 7 will be what it needs to be, and Google's Chrome OS has a lot to achieve if it wants success.
When it does come out, I'll definitely be installing it for a play. I have high-hopes for Chrome, and I'm sure I won't be disappointed.
Digiman out.
As well as that, Google have announced that they are creating their own OS, namely "Chrome OS".
Personally, I'm a little bit excited about both.
I'm excited about the Windows 7 release because when I get a new laptop, it will have Windows 7 on it. Simple as that. I'm in no rush for a new laptop though, I'll probably get it next year, and it would be no bad thing as by then, a Service Pack may have been released.
It's funny when I look back at my initial thoughts about Vista. XP did everything I needed it to do - in fact, present tense... does - as I use it on my laptop every day! I know the ins and outs of XP, so much so that I don't need to be at my laptop when people call asking for advice or how to do something on it.
When people asked me about Vista when it was first released, I was somewhat sceptical - I think we all were a little bit. The BIGGEST annoyance for me, was how places like PC World sold "Vista Capable" laptops with absolutely pathetic hardware capabilites. Celeron processors and 1GB of RAM?! Or less in some cases! Please(!!)
It doesn't take a computer buff to know that if you've 512MB of RAM on XP, 1GB makes a big difference. In fact, on all my XP machines I have at least 2GBs.
So imagine how RAM affects Vista. Vista "capable" meant that it could run Vista... barely. Forget about running Aero on a "capable" machine, by the way - Home Basic only!
On those types of machine, Vista performed just about as well as a rowing boat on a dried-up river.
Working in the IT industry and having 3-month-old laptops brought in for servicing because they were "too slow to use" became very, very irritating. I once even saw a laptop with Vista with 512MB...
However, once the hardware managed to catch up with the requirements of Vista (and became affordable), I started to become more impressed with Vista.
Working with a few Vista machines in the office, I decided to get a copy. By then, SP1 had come out of course!
I got a 64-bit version and installed it on my custom built machine (quad-core, 8gigs, blah blah blah), and with SP2, yes, it runs like a charm. I couldn't be happier.
Vista surpasses XP in every way. I feel daft that I ever resented Vista!
Installing Windows 7 RC1, I can see that it's going to be better than Vista again. Quicker, smoother, easier. I like how it looks like Vista, so it's not as big a jump as XP > Vista, but it's been re-defined, like a well tuned car.
Those "vista capable" laptops could run Windows 7 Home better than they could ever have run Vista.
So, in my world, Windows 7 is a very welcome release.
Now... what about Chrome OS? Well, the reason I'm excited about that, is because it's free.
I'm also a little bit excited, because it's Google, and Google are very innovative. Who knows what they could potentially create?
Once I get my hands on it, I'll be installing it on a Pentium 3 machine, 768MBs RAM, just to see how it runs.
Of course, Google will most likely release minimum specs of say a 1.4Ghz processor, 1GB RAM (or possibly more, depending on how graphically intensive it is), but I wouldn't mind trying it out, even on an older machine.
I have my doubts of course, of whether Chrome OS can provide the same functionality that XP offers.
I've also read that it's to be based on the Linux kernel.
If it IS going to be based on Linux, I hope it's nothing LIKE Linux. If ever I have used a user-friendly OS, Linux was NOT it.
I could barely install the damn thing on my computer without having to resort to support forums and the like!
The Linux mentality appears to be a superior one. This annoys me. No, Linux, I am not a super-geek, I just want to install a functional OS on my PC that will allow me to use the internet, type documents, do my emails, and print things. I know your OS is free, but that's no reason to not make it simple.
This is why I dislike all open-source software. Including Joomla.
I'm not a Windows "fan boy", but I do know a good thing when I use it. It's functional, it's accessable, it's easy to use. It supports nearly every hardware device/software program ever created. My grandparents use XP - they send emails, scan documents, create labels, the works. This is the ultimate test for any piece of sofware - if your grandparents can understand it, anyone can.
Tried to find a driver for *anything* on Linux? In some cases, they actually expect you to write your own driver.
...
My rant is over. I apologise for it, sometimes it's easy for me to get carried away. To summarise, Windows 7 will be what it needs to be, and Google's Chrome OS has a lot to achieve if it wants success.
When it does come out, I'll definitely be installing it for a play. I have high-hopes for Chrome, and I'm sure I won't be disappointed.
Digiman out.
Saturday 25 July 2009
Overclocking and my fan love affair
Fans. I'm not talking about people who adore you - I'm talking PC fans.
I've never been a huge over-clocker - sorry, let me re-phrase that - I've never been an over-clocker. For those who don't know, over-clocking is pretty much "making your PC work harder than recommended". I always wanted to toy with it, but previously having Athlon processors in my systems, they were already technically over-clocked by AMD, caused the high temperatures that my boards didn't like (except Asus, whose motherboards dealt with it).
I custom-built a quad-core setup just after Christmas, so now, with my Q8200 (2.33GHz per core as stock) I managed to oc it by 5% bringing it to 2.45GHz per core. I'm pretty happy with that - any more than that would be greedy in my opinion. If I knew what I was doing, I might continue (My current board is an Asus P5W). I had it at 2.52GHz per core, but feel slightly uncomfortable with more than 5% at this time...
Using SpeedFan, the temperatures at the moment are ranging from 45 to 55 degrees celcius. My heatsink is an "OCZ tecnology Gladiator" which quite frankly, I think is pretty awesome.
Other fans in my case included a fan at the front bringing air in, a fan on the side of the case, also in, and two fans at the back, blowing out.
What I've recently decided to do, is move the 3 fans on the side/back to join the one at the front. Now I've four fans at the bottom-front, which is great, as they blow nice cool air over my three hard drives.
I am just waiting on my three new fans (blue and red LED - just for fun - as my side panel has a see-through section) which I shall place on the side and back.
I know this is weird, but I'm really excited about having them all in my case!
I've always loved putting in fans in my cases, and I don't know why. I know you can have fan overkill, doing more damage than less fans, but I'm going to thoroughly make sure the air-flow is good before I keep it that way.
My system will be nicely refreshed on a hot summer day now :)
Digiman out.
I've never been a huge over-clocker - sorry, let me re-phrase that - I've never been an over-clocker. For those who don't know, over-clocking is pretty much "making your PC work harder than recommended". I always wanted to toy with it, but previously having Athlon processors in my systems, they were already technically over-clocked by AMD, caused the high temperatures that my boards didn't like (except Asus, whose motherboards dealt with it).
I custom-built a quad-core setup just after Christmas, so now, with my Q8200 (2.33GHz per core as stock) I managed to oc it by 5% bringing it to 2.45GHz per core. I'm pretty happy with that - any more than that would be greedy in my opinion. If I knew what I was doing, I might continue (My current board is an Asus P5W). I had it at 2.52GHz per core, but feel slightly uncomfortable with more than 5% at this time...
Using SpeedFan, the temperatures at the moment are ranging from 45 to 55 degrees celcius. My heatsink is an "OCZ tecnology Gladiator" which quite frankly, I think is pretty awesome.
Other fans in my case included a fan at the front bringing air in, a fan on the side of the case, also in, and two fans at the back, blowing out.
What I've recently decided to do, is move the 3 fans on the side/back to join the one at the front. Now I've four fans at the bottom-front, which is great, as they blow nice cool air over my three hard drives.
I am just waiting on my three new fans (blue and red LED - just for fun - as my side panel has a see-through section) which I shall place on the side and back.
I know this is weird, but I'm really excited about having them all in my case!
I've always loved putting in fans in my cases, and I don't know why. I know you can have fan overkill, doing more damage than less fans, but I'm going to thoroughly make sure the air-flow is good before I keep it that way.
My system will be nicely refreshed on a hot summer day now :)
Digiman out.
Friday 17 July 2009
32" hi-def pc gaming? Yes please!
The main advantage console gamers have, in my humble opinion, is the ability to plug in to a TV.
Giant hi-definition TVs at that.
PC games are limited to your 17" desktop monitor, or your 15.4" laptop screen. You may have a larger widescreen monitor, but nothing compared to the average size of a hi-def TV in living rooms these days.
I've never really been a "gamer" in the true sense of the word, but I always enjoyed playing PC games. In 1998, I got hooked on Command and Conquer - Red Alert, and Tomb Raider II, and in 2002, the same with Roller Coaster Tycoon II.
Since custom-building my own PC, it's been able to effortlessly play awesome games such as GTA IV, FIFA 09, and Street Fighter IV. Great quality, DirectX 10 games on Vista. A lot of the latest games now have better graphics on the PC as opposed to the PS3 thanks to the latest hardware :)
Until recently, larger PC monitors haven't really been made available. A shame really, when you consider the sheer technological advances in the gaming side of things. You'd be hard-pressed to find anything more than a 22" widescreen sitting on someone's desk.
Console gamers meanwhile, sit and play happily on their 42" screens with HDMI inputs...
PC gamers may have to put up with a smaller screen, stuck in their study, but luckily my gaming-rig is nice and snugg in my bedroom.
My PC is a custom-built Quad-Core 2.33Ghz, 8GB RAM, and a 1GB ATI Radeon HD 4670. I'm tempted to get another card for the Crossfire capabilities you know.
The plan? Well, I'd like to get two things actually. I've currently got a 17" TFT monitor (VGA connection to the PC), and a 32" CRT TV in my room as well.
I'm going to upgrade my monitor to a 22" widescreen, and replace my CRT TV with an LCD 32" (possibly 37" if the funds are there).
My TV is just over 5m away from my PC, so I'm buying a 7.5m DVI-HDMI cable to connect it.
Once set-up, the TV and monitor will show the same signal - happy days. I've already got a powered 4-port USB hub under the TV to connect my Xbox-for-Windows controllers.
It's easy - anybody can transform their TV into a PC monitor. You can of course use VGA connectors (most TVs come with a PC input via VGA). All you need is a spare output on your graphics card, and a TV with either a VGA or HDMI input (you can get the appropriate cables and lengths on ebay).
Remember, though - the software for your graphics card needs to support a "clone" configuration, not just "extended desktop" that Windows provides if you want both screens to show the same display.
Sorted. Roll on, my birthday!!
Digiman out.
Giant hi-definition TVs at that.
PC games are limited to your 17" desktop monitor, or your 15.4" laptop screen. You may have a larger widescreen monitor, but nothing compared to the average size of a hi-def TV in living rooms these days.
I've never really been a "gamer" in the true sense of the word, but I always enjoyed playing PC games. In 1998, I got hooked on Command and Conquer - Red Alert, and Tomb Raider II, and in 2002, the same with Roller Coaster Tycoon II.
Since custom-building my own PC, it's been able to effortlessly play awesome games such as GTA IV, FIFA 09, and Street Fighter IV. Great quality, DirectX 10 games on Vista. A lot of the latest games now have better graphics on the PC as opposed to the PS3 thanks to the latest hardware :)
Until recently, larger PC monitors haven't really been made available. A shame really, when you consider the sheer technological advances in the gaming side of things. You'd be hard-pressed to find anything more than a 22" widescreen sitting on someone's desk.
Console gamers meanwhile, sit and play happily on their 42" screens with HDMI inputs...
PC gamers may have to put up with a smaller screen, stuck in their study, but luckily my gaming-rig is nice and snugg in my bedroom.
My PC is a custom-built Quad-Core 2.33Ghz, 8GB RAM, and a 1GB ATI Radeon HD 4670. I'm tempted to get another card for the Crossfire capabilities you know.
The plan? Well, I'd like to get two things actually. I've currently got a 17" TFT monitor (VGA connection to the PC), and a 32" CRT TV in my room as well.
I'm going to upgrade my monitor to a 22" widescreen, and replace my CRT TV with an LCD 32" (possibly 37" if the funds are there).
My TV is just over 5m away from my PC, so I'm buying a 7.5m DVI-HDMI cable to connect it.
Once set-up, the TV and monitor will show the same signal - happy days. I've already got a powered 4-port USB hub under the TV to connect my Xbox-for-Windows controllers.
It's easy - anybody can transform their TV into a PC monitor. You can of course use VGA connectors (most TVs come with a PC input via VGA). All you need is a spare output on your graphics card, and a TV with either a VGA or HDMI input (you can get the appropriate cables and lengths on ebay).
Remember, though - the software for your graphics card needs to support a "clone" configuration, not just "extended desktop" that Windows provides if you want both screens to show the same display.
Sorted. Roll on, my birthday!!
Digiman out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)