Might be a graphics driver issue (Flash video is hardware accelerated on recent hardware). What kind of graphics hardware are you running?
Never had an issue like that myself on Youtube (other sites, sure, but not Youtube).
Really? SNES Emulators? You're aware they run on Pentium IV generation Intel graphics, right? I have a Pentium M machine here that gets regular use as an SNES emulator...
Is it really faster though? I haven't gotten much real-time Win8 usage in (mainly because my day-to-day machines are still missing drivers), but the performance seemed pretty much the same during the short time I had it installed on bare-metal hardware (mostly using it in a VM).
What do you perceive as being better performing? Launching applications? Game performance?
Some are unrestricted, but many are limited to 120kph for certain stretches. Also, the speed limits change (they're put up on big LED displays hanging over the highway) depending on traffic and weather conditions...
... self-explanatory really. Just try 'em out. I'd recommend VMWare for Windows clients because the integration feels a bit more polished, but you can't really go wrong with either one.
Now imagine if you'd bought a PC with Ubuntu preinstalled... do you really think there'd be less crapware on it?
Try a clean install of Windows 7. Very little nagging to be found.
Have you been keeping an eye on Cloverfield? The CPU performance pretty much kills the fastest ARM tablet chips, and power usage is similarly impressive - The first early adopters are reporting 10h+ battery life on the Samsung ATIV Smart PC, which seems to be right up there with all the ARM based tablets.
"I have wanted to have a 2560x1600 laptop display on my 15inch for a long time, since before the "Retina Display", but everyone I work with think I am crazy for wanting it. The screen real estate is precious to a developer. Yes the text is small, but I have the screen reasonable close to my face and could easily work on a smaller font if it was crisp enough for reading. I also want a 16 core processor and 64GB RAM in my laptop, at least until the broadband speeds allow me to run a private cloud at home that I can access from anywhere. I use virtual machines a lot and regularly exhaust my 16GB RAM and 8 cores on my laptop anytime I want to run end-to-end testing."
Are you my soul-mate?
Well, since 17" laptops no longer have higher resolutions than 1080p, why not just go with a 15.6" device with a 1080p screen? I'm typing this on a Thinkpad T520 right now, which is more or less what you describe, and has a very standard keyboard as far as laptop keyboards go. Separately grouped F1-F12 keys, grouped Home/End/PgUp/PgDn block and most important: Fully centered due to the lack of a num-block.
The only thing that's missing is the higher-res screen - 2560x1600 on 15.6" at 100% (96DPI) scaling would be AWESOME...
Of course. Ivy Bridge's onboard graphics added support for 4K, IIRC, so anyone with a halfway modern PC should be good to go, even without a dedicated graphics card...
If you're talking about desktop monitors: Low-end 1080p displays cost $100 vs. the $400-500 that low-end 1920x1200 displays used to cost... I'd prefer 1200 pixels height as well, but for the price? I've found it's easier to just use the money saved to buy a third (or fourth) display for portrait mode.
Doesn't run Windows with decent battery life (no working Optimus, and the screen is quite inefficient), no add-on batteries (the slice battery underneath my Thinkpad right now has the same capacity as the Retina MBP's internal battery, and I have another one of the same capacity in the main slot), no trackpoint, easy-to-ding surfaces (who the fuck was it that decided all laptops need sleeves? Fuck sleeves, my Thinkpads look like new without 'em)... it's not really a viable option, unfortunately.
I'm hoping for a drop-in replacement TFT for Thinkpads at 2560x1440... 15.6" with a 40-pin connector would be just dandy. And the pixel density would be just about right for Windows 7 at 100% scaling (1080p on 15.6" is still far from small). Or maybe 3840x2160, though I'd probably need to crank the scaling up to 150% in that case
"Yes, it is true that the fastest chips are made by Intel, but when you look at the cost of typical (not high end) machine, AMD is hard to beat, especially when the graphics in and APU will work fine for you."
Interesting... care to give an example? In most cases, I feel I can spec out an Intel based machine for the same price (also using the IGP) that is fast enough for HTPC use and runs cooler and quieter while using half the power... unless you actually need the extra GPU power or the additional cores AMD likes to throw in at the same price point, what's the point in going with AMD? A Sandy Bridge Celeron/Pentium is more efficient and provides enough processing power for any HTPC I've seen.
I'd actually like to start buying AMD again in order to give them some support, but Intel's where the efficiency bang-for-the-buck is at right now... this may be different for those of you who don't pay your own power bill *cough*mom's_basement*cough*
tp_smapi works just fine. It's included with TLP (which reduces power consumption on Thinkpads significantly, BTW): http://linrunner.de/en/tlp/tlp.html
Try the "Battery maintenance" button in the power manager's Battery tab.
The best way to accelerate a Macintoy is at 9.8 meters per second per second.
