Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Just to save a few bucks.. (Score 1) 244

by Ross R. Smith (#37094792) Attached to: Sandy Bridge-E CPUs Too Hot For Intel?
There will be a few groups that may require the cooler temporarily but that is definitely in the minority of the intended market.

Those that use the processor in a custom workstation who perhaps don't want the problems with upkeep in a watercooler or the cost of a good air cooler, for groups like these the stock heatsink may be useful.

A few may also want to use it for testing - I just don't understand why Intel are releasing it like this right now.

There has always been the option of Retail (CPU Boxed with Cooler) or OEM (CPU and non-branded packaging). The change may affect a small minority, but again as I said in my original post as it's an Extreme chip they have made the logical assumption that a third-party cooler will be used.

Comment: Just to save a few bucks.. (Score 4, Insightful) 244

by Ross R. Smith (#37093560) Attached to: Sandy Bridge-E CPUs Too Hot For Intel?
This is just Intel trying to increase their profit margins even more.
Most custom builders/modders don't even contemplate using the Intel stock cooler so it just sits there doing nothing.

If most, if not all, of the intended market will use an aftermarket air cooler/watercooling loop is there really any reason to include the stock heatsink/fan?

The 'Extreme' chips are very high end and generally not intended for Joe Public to just pick up - more of an enthusiast chip, Intel is just cashing in on this by not shipping with the stock cooling but keeping the price the same. It's also been said on the grapevine that Intel intend on releasing some of their own cooling solutions in the not so distant future.

Comment: Netbook vs Tablet (Score 1) 398

by Ross R. Smith (#36553848) Attached to: Who Killed the Netbook?
I personally don't think that the netbook is dead whatsoever.

For proper use a netbook is leagues better than using a tablet, purely having the keyboard makes working on them much easier for anything other than browsing the web or streaming video. The netbook was for a niche market originally, not as desktop replacement as some end users are trying to use them as and seeing them as 'crap' and moving on to the next fad.

Tablets, although nice and pretty, for the majority of things are just clumsy and illogical compared to the keyboard. The only thing lacking for many is the poor resolution on screens (although you do get some decent resolutions, you'd be as well as buying a laptop for the price) and the price ( Many are priced similarly to laptops, which for many is a better choice)

The netbook is meant to be a cheap, portable station for you to use and for that, it still fits the bill perfectly. Although since the netbook hit mass popularity with the general public the quality has been dwindling and the use of HDD over SSD has become a lot more prevalent which is certainly a worse choice, people see the larger amount of storage and automatically assume it's better although then SSD is a lot more practical in portable system.

For what tablets are trying to be for many (A replacement for netbooks) they just aren't anywhere near yet. They are more or less as powerful, have less storage, and most likely have to be tethered to some sort of plan to be able to access the internet. For the price, they are far from practical and the only real reason I can personally see for buying one at this moment in time is

a) You have disposable income and wish to use it for watching movies/casual web browsing
b) Everyone else has one so they must be good
c) You have some specific work use for them

For the price, netbooks are very good, although resolution + HDD could be sorted.
Tablets are just too expensive to be a sensible replacement for a netobok.

Comment: Move along, nothing to see here. (Score 2) 432

by Ross R. Smith (#36526074) Attached to: Women Remain the Ignored Audience In Gaming
Without being sexist, there are definitely games out there that are more suited to either males or females, but they don't outright say it on the box. From my experience, more males seem to have embraced playing games such as Football(soccer) games, FPS games and heavy RTS and other strategy games, females are definitely more prevalent on other types of games such as MMORPGs (In a decent sized guild, a large section of the playerbase are normally women), Simulators such as The Sims and Farmville and adventure type games.

It's the content of the games that is the problem. The majority of women are not interested in guns and tanks and explosions such as the large majority of men really wouldn't care to design and build a farm. I definitely don't think that any man or woman wouldn't play a game purely because it wasn't designed specifically for them, that's just silly.

There are games where women, by design, aren't featured in games (Such as WW2 and other war games where women in the army were either non-existent or low in numbers). I don't think because of this women would just stop playing it, it doesn't work like that, I've talked to quite a few females while playing RTS games, that's just what type of games they like.

There are many games with a female hero/antagonist but going further than that to specifically tailoring it to women would alienate a large portion of the fanbase. I am aware that it notes female gamers as being 50% of all gamers but I personally don't see playing the occasional browser-based flash game as 'gaming' and a 50:50 share is definitely not prevalent in the majority of games online.

"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming

Working...