Yup. And, seriously, I can't be the only one pissed off that they're getting 2gbps for the same price as most of us are paying for 10mbps. That's absurd. And I get nastygrams from the cable company when I watch too much Netflix (sorry, can't justify paying an extra $70 for a bunch of channels I don't want and a cable box).

I agree, this is nothing but a news site trying to make news. If you want the real story, do an article about how people no longer use computers at home because their cell phone does everything they really need. Unless you're a student or a creative type, you're probably only turning on your computer a couple times a month to write an e-mail, print coupons, or edit a photo. And, for the typical uses, an old computer works just fine.

People don't upgrade their computers for a new OS, they upgrade their computer because it's broken, painfully slow, or there's something it can't do. There hasn't been any real NEW functionality added to computers in AGES. People would rather take that money and buy gadgets (aka, tablets and cell phones) rather than upgrade a computer they barely use. While gaming rigs are on the rise (because the PC gaming market is improving quite a bit) and Mac sales are on the rise (it doesn't take much to improve sales of niche products), the home PC market is receding because people just don't need them. Heck, desktops are fairly close to becoming extinct.

They're not talking about the triggers, they're talking about the 4 face buttons...

Sound is more than numbers. You realize that just as much of the sound of a record comes from the cartridge than comes from the record itself, just like a cd will sound different dependant on the DAC it's run through. Also, if you're getting surface noise on your LPs, you're doing it wrong.

I'm not one of those people who think that vinyl is better than cd, it's just different. To be honest, the main reason I'm into vinyl is because there's so much pre-90s music that just sounds crap on cd because of trends in mixing and mastering. As someone with a high end rig, there's advantages and disadvantages to each format.

You did read the part where they said it was a suicide mission, right?

The biggest issue for AMD is that consumers don't understand the market, and there's little AMD can do to change the opinion at this point. Are Intel processors, as a whole, faster than AMD? You bet. They're also pretty efficient as well. People know this, they're not dumb. But what they don't understand is that when they're buying that low end $400-500 laptop, it's not all about processor power. AMD's line of APUs are a phenominal value to the consumer. It gives the low end buyer all the CPU they need and great baked in graphics to boot. In the long run, the extra boost in graphics over the Intel HD3000/4000 line makes a pretty significant difference.

Lets face it, unless you're doing extreme gaming or doing a lot of audio/video work, you just don't need an i7. Or even i5. An i3 or AMD chip is going to be good enough. If people knew they could save money, go AMD, and actually have a reasonable chance of being able to play modern games, I think the choice would be obvious. Unfortunately, those Intel vs AMD benchmarks are all most consumers know to look at.

I feel the same way. I can pay them $8 a month for the privilege of streaming free Hulu content over my Xbox/Blu-Ray player, yet when I actually GIVE them money for this privilege, they take away access to half the crap I wanted to watch. Really?

Fortunately, Hulu realizes this is a problem (bad forsight on negotiating contracts on their part) and they're working to make all content available on all platforms. It still kinda irritates me that the $8 will still only be a courtesy fee for using their content on certain devices and slightly outrages me that I still have commercials. For the time being, I'll just hook my laptop up to the tv.

Don't look at yr junk unless you want the truth.

Ehh, Matt Smith is more like Tennant's quirky, ugly brother. They're not too far apart in acting styles, although Smith does get a little more introspective than Tennant did. The only way Smith is more like the old Doctors is the fact that he dresses more like an old Doctor.

We're talking about Gimp and OpenOffice not cutting it. Gimp is an exercize in frustration due to it's absurd GUI. OpenOffice is a fantastic product, but if you're dealing with heavy formatting with multiple authors, it doesn't always work out so well...

But, let's be real. If Open Office doesn't cut it for you, you're going to want MS Office. If Gimp isn't cutting it, you're going to want Adobe Photoshop/Illustrator. I recognize that there are commercial software packages for Linux, some of them very good, but few of them for mainstream users.

And, of course, you can dual boot or even use Wine to run some Windows programs on Linux, but this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about Linux for the mainstream. And, to my original point, most of these free ware Linux packages are open source and are available on Windows. I know because I use a lot of them on Windows on a daily basis.

Actually, I wish more project managers understood this. GUI tasking usually goes to graphic designers, who are the worst possible people for the task. They're most concerned about aesthetic than functionality. If the project is small enough where you can't hire a dedicated UI person (someone with a background in UI and/or psychology), then give the task to a tech writer. The tech writer is usually the one person on a project who sees the whole picture because they have to document the entire thing and share in the end users frustration.

To be fair, most of those 50 or so software packages you speak of are also available on the Windows platform for free. The difference is that if you decide you need a more robust solution, you can buy a more robust solution. On Linux, you're basically stuck with that free software package.

1) Mobile devices sell games to a different audience, people who want distractions on their mobile devices. Consoles sell games to people who want an immersive experience.
2) Of course mobile devices sell more games than consoles. Everyone has a cell phone these days and games range from free to $10. In other words, you're bored on your couch or the doctors office, you impulse buy cheap distractions. Console games cost much more, but also offer much more. While a mobile user might buy 3 games every month or so, a console owner might only buy a new game every few months. With games that take upwards of 40 hours to beat, they last a while. Not to mention the most popular console games now are online games with huge replay value.
3) There is plenty of room on the market for portable consoles. The iPhone isn't going to kill them. Gamers want games with depth, your average mobile user wants a distraction. Completely different audience.

I don't know why people can't wrap their heads around the fact that mobile users and gamers are two different audiences. Remember, core distinction: distraction vs. game with depth.

Right. And Google really doesn't care if any of these ideas actually work and get implemented, as long as they patent all the work and eventually troll patent cash down the line for unfinished research. If you think that Google's in 95% of these projects for anything other than the patents they'll churn out as the result, you're sorely mistaken.