Don't forget most current Bluray players, and most televisions. By some definitions of PC, we're pretty much awash in them, making the term all-but useless.

So anything with a CPU and some flavor of user interface is now a PC? Don't forget most DVD or Bluray players, and most televisions too (our televisions all have a nice GPL notice in the back, viva Linux).

This TFA is pretty stupid. I love my Nexus 7 (10" Transformer less so), but I wouldn't consider it a PC. I see PCs as general computing devices, with their primary attribute being the term "general". Right now there is a very large amount of things that I just can't do on my tablet, or phone that I can do on my PC. Further, PCs are expandable, and extensible (both of these being somewhat prerequisites to "general"). Sure, some computers have limited, and mostly unacceptable, hardware (Macs), but even then there is a very large pool of peripherals, and they still have a very large ability to modify the software for almost any task. Tablets don't really do this, there are abilities that they are not going to really support, either by design or intrinsic factors.

My Nexus is a toy computer. I love it, but it isn't an actual PC.

Yes, being literal, it would be a PC, since it computes, as in crunches numbers, and it is personal, as in I own one. I think the term has evolved beyond this though.

Even dumber, considering a Kindle a PC is just... I don't even have words. A Kindle, a normal Kindle, is a dumb device that is only good for a single purpose. A Fire, or the various Nook flavored bargain tablets, might be PCs, if we accept full tablets as PCs.

I have an original DS (for backward comparability with GBA games), but I almost never use it either. For some reason it feels bad to use it at home, and on the go my phone is more convenient than dragging another gadget with me. It does sit on a shelf mocking me though, since I spend a good amount of time and money getting every Final Fantasy and Zelda game for it, and never really use it.

I hate gaming on my phone. I do, but only games that are very quick and casual, and only when I'm someplace without anything else to keep me amused. My 10" tablet is a bit better, but still not as useful as a PC or console, touch controls suck for 90% of games. I generally use my phone of tablet for games, not because they are good, but because they are there.

Having a good, big, screen and a proper input method is what is attractive.

You can get that with a console, but I'm probably not going to spend $400-500 for the next generation, hell I can't even justify spending $200-300 for the current 10 year old hardware (why bother, I have a good PC already).

I'm getting one so I can emulate old games, on my actual TV, with a real input method. Also for streaming via Plex and Netflix.

Why would you buy a full new TV, when you could buy a $100 box?

Also TV OSs are generally locked down crap.

If good practices involves planned crashes for innocuous user behavior, I'd hate to see what bad ones are.

I live in a very large, sprawling (17,000 sq. mi according to Wikipedia.), city. I know less than 20% well enough to know exactly where I am going without looking it up. We like to go new places, and eat at new restaurants, so I generally have my phone's GPS sitting around when we go places. Even when I know roughly where something is, by cross streets, I often use GPS for the exact location. So, around twice a week, we do use GPS. A couple of times a year, we also travel, and we use GPS almost 100% of the time when doing so.

People use GPS more than you think.

I'm not saying that your wrong, people will use it for idiotic reasons. Hell, my mind is still boggled that people are allowed to have TVs in the front of their cars. People do all sorts of idiotic things while driving. I've almost been killed by several women doing their make up, a guy reading the paper, and god knows how many people texting or reading on their phones. A HUD won't really be any worse than what we have.

No one ever plans a product around caps. Developers tend to completely ignore that they exist.

I'm lucky that my home internet (Cox) doesn't have a cap. But my mobile provider (Verizon) sure does, which they inflicted on me the second I signed a new contract. This means pretty much all the cool new "cloud" stuff isn't usable to me or many other people, unless we're okay with massive overage fees, or coughing up an extra decent amount of change monthly.

Hell, Steam goes on, even with much of the East Coast (I think) running with caps.

He might be... But I wouldn't be surprised if Apple eventually hits the very profitable, yet minority, share in mobile, that they have in desktops. Apple will have a nice 10% of the market, and make 25% of the cash, and the various Android manufactures will own 80%, with the rest (MS, RIM, whatever else) will sit with an a small minority.

Apple only really dominates a single market (the US), and has been falling in the the global share for awhile now.

Apple probably won't die. And probably won't stop making good profits. But they probably won't be #1 after short while.

Outside of specialized contexts, you are correct. You have to admit that 70mm is a bit unusual for that purpose though. I'm not judging, all that matters, in the end, is the results. And a good-excellent tele will always be better bad-standard wide.

I admit, going through my catalogs, my most used lens for landscapes is actually my 100mm macro. I'm mainly a macro shooter, so its the lens on my camera, and thus I use it. I like the 24mm better, since it doesn't compress backgrounds as much, and has less of a finicky focus (its a macro so focusing over macro distance is a bit of a pain). I'm not a fan of carrying a whole lens bag with me when I go on walks, so I generally stick to whatever ends up on the camera.

I wish there was a good zoom that could go wide, and do tight macros, without sacrificing the quality of a good prime. Someday there will be an 18-100 that can do 1:2, is fast enough, and has good IQ (and costs under 10 grand). We'll all probably be dead by then, but my children will be happy.

Oddly, a long time ago I went to a Gateway store in San Diego, and it looked very much like an Apple store, before there were Apple stores.

Why are you using a tele for landscape? I generally use my 24mm 2.8 (ancient manual Sigma) for landscape, and I've had my eye on a 15mm prime for a bit too. For landscape you want wide (or ultra wide), for models you want tele, for street shooting you want "normal" (40-50mm, though I prefer 24-28mm for this too).

Fringing depends on the lens, not how large the aperture is. Worst case, you have to stop the 1.4 down to 2.8, to clean up the picture and regulate CA, and generally a fast lens hits the sweat-spot before the largest aperture of a comparable slower lens. Faster also give you more options, and more versatility. I might never want to go to 1.4, but its there just in case.

I agree with your sentiment though. Speed isn't the be-all-end all, the quality of the glass is. I'm a Pentax shooter, and they have two (three now) recent 50's, a 1.4 and a 1.7. I own the slower lens, and had to hunt for it a bit since it takes pictures I find more aesthetic than the 1.4 (better contrast, renders a bit warmer, sharp wide open, where the 1.4 needs to be stopped down a bit). And old Leica 50mm 2.0, or a Zeiss Jenna 2.8 will probably take better pictures, and have better glass, than my 1.7 or the 1.4. Sadly the Leica and the Zeiss cost 10x what I paid for my lens. Some lenses are almost mythic in their quality, seek these out instead of hunting for mere numbers.

  Lens porn aside, you want to compare actual images (RAWs if you can find them), and read both subjective and objective reviews.

Have you used a pro, or even semi-pro camera lately?

Image quality is more than just megapixels.

God bless the internet. The crack works on purchased copies right?

Was that just a beta thing, or are they really limiting it to a one size, small, map? Not having map sizes, or having tiny map sizes, would be deal breaker. It would kill megatropolises, and planning suburbs, which was a major part of the fun (for me). Not having a terrain editor also scares me a bit. I hardly ever used it, but it was a nice thing to have for custom maps, and for people going for real cities.

I'm hoping that it isn't as bad as it seems. I'm going to be reading/watching every review I find after release...