I don't know about others, but most of my friends run 3+ yo computers and laptops based on Sandy Bridge.

This CPU architecture was so good, or maybe Intel stopped innovating in the absence of competition, so today, more than three years later, I have zero urge to upgrade my PC. The only updates that I've made are: I updated my GPU a year ago and installed NVIDIA Kepler. Also, initially I had just four gigs of RAM in 2x2GB configuration and now I have sixteen gigs in 4x4GB configuration. Everything else is from 2011.

I remember ten years ago, when you didn't update your computer at least once every two year, it became horribly outdated, slow and just unpleasant to use.

I prefer KDE, but not what KDE4/5/plasma are.

I still use KDE 3.5.10, the sanest, the most customizable, and the most convenient KDE that has ever existed. XFCE is my second favourite (the only sane option in new distros).

We can now totally forget about Nokia phones running Android or any other alternative OS - and no matter what people say or how much they dislike Windows Phone, Nokia's hardware is still excellent - it could have been a perfect match for Android, Firefox OS, Ubuntu OS, etc.

Game developers surely won't be convinced as most people still run (and will keep on running) the greatest common divisor which is Windows 7.

So I believe very few games will have features unique to DirectX >= 11.1. It just doesn't make sense to invest your money into something most people will be unable to use.

That is where I want room-temperature superconductors first of all.

100% computational efficiency, 0% heat release, no fans/ventilators/etc, almost completely quite computer (except for rotational HDDs and PSUs).

As it often happens on /. the summary is not correct.

In the linked article: "Bing's freshness -- search quality in terms of freshness -- is at least on par with Google" and "Shum believes that Bing has finally reached a point where it can compete with Google on a technical level".

Google still indexes a lot more websites (enter some rare keywords and Google will give you up to five times more results than Bing), and it allows quoted queries which sometimes allow you to find information much much faster.

I've read at least twice that throughout its latest history (the last ten years) AMD managed to create only two new CPU architectures, K8 and Bulldozer.

All AMD CPUs between K8 and Bulldozer are more or less the same design, and that fact alone explains that even Phenom2 CPUs offer modest improvement in IPC and power consumption over original Athlon64 CPUs which were released over 8 (!) years ago. All these CPUs share the same functional blocks, the same cache hierarchy, the same number of core blocks, etc.

Meanwhile during this time Intel has gone through Merom, Conroe, Wolfdale, Kentsfield, Arrandale, Clarkdale, Lynnfield ... the list goes on and on. Every 2-3 years Intel offers some radical improvements which made Intel the king of the hill since the advent of the Core 2 architecture.

Also we have to bear in mind that Intel's R&D's budget equals AMD's entire revenue, and since the x86 architecture is one of the most complicated computing architectures (at least from what I've heard), maybe the fact that AMD is always trailing Intel CPUs is that AMD just lacks resources to innovate and invent (actually resources are there but senior managers in AMD have indiscreet bonuses and salaries which means they don't have as many talented engineers as e.g. Intel can easily afford).