16 posts • joined Thursday 18th December 2008 14:46 GMT
I would still go for the Acer Aspire One whilst the limited few are still available. As Chippy says, the price was the best part about it.
If it got damaged you wouldn't be too bothered as long as you have a data backup, and any cosmetic damage isn't anything to worry about. Where as on your £900 laptop, you're probably going to be pretty gutted if it gets damaged even cosmetically.
There are still a few A110 left in Comet and the odd Currys store, but selling out VERY quickly at £180 a pop.
The free upgrade will be for people that buy a new machine running Windows Vista after 1st July 2009.
They did the same when Vista came out, if you had bought a machine running XP within a certain amount of time you qualified for a free upgrade.
I don't know if it counts if you buy an off the shelf retail version of Vista, but if it did then it has to have been after a certain date (stated as possibly being 1st July in this article). If bought before that date then you don't get anything unfortunately.
The last time I used Encarta was way back on Windows 95 and I remember it being great. For many subjects there were video or sound clips, something you don't get with Wikipedia. I know you can get all sorts of videos on YouTube etc now, but it was still cool.
Also as far as I am aware all of the information provided could be considered "fact" (without getting into the debate about it being the winners and not the losers that write the history). With Wikipedia people can reference where they got the information but this doesn't always happen.
Shame they are getting rid of it...but I didn't even know it was still around, so no big loss really.
"The EC could order Microsoft to distribute rival browsers alongside IE when bundled in its Windows operating system. A response from Brussels is expected next month."
Why should Microsoft have to do this? It's their software (Windows) and they should be allowed to just bundle their browser if they wish to. I find it perfectly acceptable that when I want firefox to be installed along side IE I need to download it myself.
How are they supposed to decide which rival browsers to bundle into Windows? Surely if they include one rival browser then they need to include them all? Also whilst they are at it they obviously need to include all rival media players, photo viewing software, and email applications...right?
Usually when rivals complain about Microsofts business practices, they just wish they could be in the same situation, no matter how ethical they claim to be...they are all in business for profit.
I do hate how people stick with IE6 for so long though, people need to let go of it once and for all....please! Hopefully Windows 7 will catch on. I've tried it and think it's great myself.
I don't just love Microsoft either. I just use the software/OS/whatever that I prefer to use and that helps me get my work done on time and also enjoy some entertainment.
Out of interest do Apple bundle rival browsers with their products, or just Safari? This is no way intended to take a shot at Apple. Just that if they don't bundle the rival browsers...shouldn't they have to if Microsoft are forced to?
For me online word processing etc is a no no. Just not reliable or stable enough. What if I want to work on a computer without internet access?
Also its much more likely to crash and burn that MS Office or Open Office when running on the machine itself.
They are also pretty useful if you have a limited amount of space to use the computer, like if you mainly just use it for general web browsing in your front room on the coffee table, you can put it away when you are done and store it somewhere safe.
I see your point about buying them for gaming...It just isn't what they are good for. But I wouldn't agree they are all bottom of the range pieces of crap. You can get decent spec'd ones plenty good enough for most tasks other than gaming.
Of course for the same money you can get a desktop system which is much more up to date for the same money.
It's all down to personal preference. But as I said in my first comment there are a lot of people who buy them just because it is the cool thing to do these days.
Personally I take my computer around with me a lot, but don't use it on trains or anything like that as I drive everywhere. But it is very useful for me to have it to hand. The thing I don't understand is the huge 17"+ laptops.
I see how they are convenient to move around the house if you just want one computer to use in different rooms but you wouldn't want to regularly take one of those around with you ;-)
One of the main advantages of a laptop is the space you save and they generally run cooler which helps if you are using it in a small room that heats up fast!
Where I used to keep my desktop computer it would overheat in the summer months if it was a really hot day because the room would get way too toasty lol. Always found it funny but annoying.
"Apple... is increasingly a notebook company" ??
I agree apple should release a Netbook but it can't be priced any higher, or spec'd any lower than the Dell Mini netbook, and should run some form of OS X. I personally wouldn't buy it but i'm sure a lot of people would be tempted to.
I wouldn't agree with the Silicon Alley Insider that "Apple... is increasingly a notebook company..." Without knowing details of their business I would think it's fair to predict their iPod / iPhone sales are making a rather larger chunk than their notebooks, and of course the iPod has a much larger than 3.2 market share in the MP3 Player Market, It must have atleast around 70%?
To stay more on topic to this article it is obvious to see why notebooks have taken over from Desktops in recent years, part of that being down to the fact it is "cooler" to have a laptop than a desktop computer. Especially for students these days. A lot of them will either buy a new computer / get a new computer bought for them and i'd say 9/10 they will get a laptop.
It has practical reasons too of course, rather than just being "cooler".
Who said anything about re-buying all your movies??...
Who said anything about having to replace your entire movie collection? All Blu-Ray players should play DVD movies no problem, and most probably even upscale them which can make a small difference.
Blu-Ray is very crisp and clean looking compared to DVD's. You can't bash it saying "Well you can expect everybody to go out and replace their entire collection". Why would anybody think you have to do that?
DVD players aren't backwards compatible with VHS....Blu-Ray players ARE compatible with DVD, and it is easy to convert your VHS collection to DVD or store it on a HDD and stream it across your network.
I am also all for digital distribution in addition to Blu-Rays as long as there is no DRM stopping me from using my paid for, downloaded movies etc on any system that I want to. I should be able to take and use it where I want. Once this issue has been overcome it could really take off.
There will be a need for a physical media for a long time to come though, and Blu-Ray is a good successor to DVD. The added storage space is essential.
Also for games consoles, the games will need to come discs, who wants to pay out huge amount for a massive HDD to store all those games. Especially the kind of people who buy tons and tons of games, Considering current gen games on Xbox 360 take up approx 8GB each, with some Blu-Ray PS3 games taking up twice as much space.
You would need to constantly be buying bigger and bigger HDD's over time. You wouldn't want to trust a company to allow you to just stream the movie whenever you wanted from any PC, because if the company you bought the movie / game from went bust or decided to shut down their servers etc, you have lost access to it.
yes if there was no DRM you could just make backups but then you may aswell have just bought the disc in a store then ripped it to your HDD and store away the retail pack.
If you include me in that well i'm not saying Blu-Ray is bad. In fact I think as a media format it is great. Not just for movies but in gaming.
The PS3 is held back a lot by the fact that the Xbox 360 uses a more outdated media for its games. If Blu-Ray was more widely used in the games industry we would see a lot more content crammed into the discs. But a multi-platform game will be the same on the two consoles content wise because they won't bother adding extra content to a Blu-Ray version of the game if they can't sell it for more.
We could have games that were much longer etc with more additonal content on the same disc. A game takes up a similar amount of space if it is released on both the PS3 and 360, so on the Blu-Ray discs they are left with loads of space they could make use of.
I only have two Blu-Rays but not because I think it is rubbish, I just don't really watch many movies at home. I tend to see something at the cinema once and then after that I'm not really interested in viewing it again. Apart from the odd really good films.
I will be buying Quantum of Solace on Blu-Ray and not DVD, and I also just bought the Dark Knight yesterday, Blu-Ray of course.
It's not that I don't like Blu-Ray it is that I don't buy many movies. I do buy games though and HD in general is great. As I say Blu-Ray as a gaming media is held back a hell of a lot by other companies using discs with only 8GB of storage.
It is also kind of down to the developers too though, they aren't making use of it where they could. For example Time Crisis for the PS3 should have included the PS1 and PS2 versions of the time Crisis games, the space was there but obviously not the budget to fit them in.
Games consoles made HD "Mainstream" in the UK...
Blu-Ray is better than DVD, but not worth upgrading to really.
I personally think "HD" for games consoles is a definite improvement, even though I could still play games on much higher resolutions for years on my PC it's nice to be able to kick back and play on a large TV (Even though some games are 720p only).
The main place you see the advantage in video games is the text I think personally. But overall I think that in the UK the whole "HD" idea didn't become mainstream until the Xbox 360 was released and started marketing it as the first High-Def games console.
When they make TV's supporting the next "supa-dupa-ultra-high-def" I will not bother to upgrade. Don't see the point of going above 720p on anything that is 42" or smaller as it doesn't need it to keep the image sharp (in games atleast for sure).
I'm sure the next games consoles will support 1080p as their native resolution, with the newer resolutions being available on some games. Sort of how 720p is the standard in games now, but some support 1080i/p, or they say they do anyway.
For movies, I only have 2 blu-ray movies. One is Casino Royale because it came free with the PS3, the other is called "the condemned" or something and I only got that because it was £4.50 in Asda, it's probably a rubbish film but I haven't been compelled to watch it yet haha.
Anybody else in the UK agree nobody was really bothered about HD (Apart from the hardcore movie lovers) until the Xbox 360 made it more "mainstream"?. I know in the US it has been more of a talking point for years but over here our RGB SCART connections are close to 720p anyway.
People don't realise the difference in lines on the screen is less on a UK TV where we have 500 odd lines for SCART i think as apposed to 420-480 in the USA?? Not sure on the exact numbers lol.
Wordpad has been around for ages...
So surely this Wordpad flaw has been around for many years now? Would they have ever had to change the code for the Wordpad program very much over the years? I'd guess not so it must have been around for quite a while now?
What's the maximum speed of "3.5g" ? I get that on my N95 8GB and also occasionally connect my laptop using it and get really decent speeds for web browsing, and even downloading isn't too bad.
Does WiMax/4G or whatever you want to call it add much in terms of speed?
I find that the 3.5G connection loads web pages easily when connected to my laptop and using a web browser such as Firefox or IE, but feels nowhere near as fast when browsing on my actual mobile.
Sounds pretty good.
Sounds like it does have DivX support from what people have said.
I would be tempted to get one of these if it had WiFi and Ethernet and could act as a wireless/wired media server that a PS3/Xbox 360/PC could connect to from anywhere in the house and access the files on the HDD.
Would be perfect if the PS3 (for example) just picked it up and used its usual PS3 interface, then on your actual TV that the WD is connected to elsewhere in the house you would use the WD menu that's built into the device.
Another useful feature would be if it could pick up shared files from a wireless computer elsewhere in the house and play them directly on the TV.
Would be an easy way of sharing files since it seems to support all the same formats as PC's / Mac's / Games Consoles.
- OHM MY GOD! Move over graphene, here comes '100% PERFECT' stanene
- Lightning strikes USB bosses: Next-gen jacks will be REVERSIBLE
- Google's new cloud CRUSHES Amazon in RAM battle
- Beijing leans on Microsoft to maintain Windows XP support
- 'Big Data' analysis Think Amazon is CHEAP? Just take a look at these cloudy graphs...