1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

The time to buy a new computer is NEVER

Discussion in 'Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto' started by Christofuh, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    No shit. Or for that matter, any threads in which Slim gets all hot and bothered.

    I kid I kid [​IMG]


    I am the organic equivalent of the pain gun.
     
  2. ratboycom

    ratboycom Senior member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2006
    Location:
    Nagoya, Japan
    I am the organic equivalent of the pain gun.

    that must make me the organic equivalent of the "slight itch" gun
     
  3. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    By clicking that link to "Image results for mikhail baryshnikov" you are redifining your search, thus proving my point.


    There is an important difference: suppose I didn't know there were images of Baryshnikov before I did my search, then Google just told me something new. In the MS-style of file search, I would have to know before my search that there were images of him.

    As I've said before, I support refining the search results. The difference is where this filtering occurs: before or after.

    --Andre
     
  4. tiger02

    tiger02 Senior member

    Messages:
    3,799
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    If the OS was sooo much better, then Why doesn't Apple allow companies like HP to make a computer running Mac OS, with out an emulator.
    Were. This one's easy: they tried it with Power Computing, they lost a lot of money. They're a hardware company more than a software company, if you follow balance sheets.

    By clicking that link to "Image results for mikhail baryshnikov" you are redifining your search, thus proving my point.
    You asked a question, he answered. The first two results to a web search for "Mikhail Baryshnikov" are direct links to .jpgs. Or even better, to the picture in web page context. At least give him credit for answering your challenge.
     
  5. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    You asked a question, he answered. The first two results to a web search for "Mikhail Baryshnikov" are direct links to .jpgs. Or even better, to the picture in web page context. At least give him credit for answering your challenge.
    Um... what? Ok... congratulations on answering my challenge and proving my point that Google will not display all results for all fields if you only search web pages... I appreciate it. Good work yet again. [​IMG]
     
  6. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    Suppose I didn't know there were images of Baryshnikov before I did my search, then Google just told me something new.
    Again, you miss the entire point. I'm going to attempt reason one more time. If you didn't know that the internet contained pictures of Baryshnikov, why would you be searching for them there? It's called a SEARCH. Not an ACCIDENT. If you DO know the internet contains such pictures, (which anyone who has more than a 40 IQ should know) and you are searching for them, why would you waste your time searching text on web pages? Why not click the Image search function to begin with? Otherwise, you are HOPING that Google is smart enough to figure out what you want, which it might be... and it tells you what you SHOULD HAVE DONE (Search Images) or it might not be, in which case, no prompt to search images will appear, and you will have to sift through as many full web pages as it takes to find a picture that suits your needs because you were too dense, lazy, or incompetent to search where you should have searched in the first place. Yes, Google also lets you type in your keyword, search web pages, and then hit the image/music/map etc link afterwards. Is it that big of a difference between refining the search before or after? I can't believe that would be much of a sticking point for anyone reasonable. You, of course, realize that there are a billion things you can search for on Google that don't bring up the new "image suggestion". It's all based on search popularity. If you are searching for images for something like... oh... a banana, the aforementioned Bob Marley, or something else - you will not get the query on whether you actually intended to search for images or not. I give credit to Google for trying to allow people who don't know how to use a search engine properly the chance to find what they want... but in no way does it "display every result" as you had claimed. it blows my mind that in this day and age, there are people out there who think that searching web based text is the best way to locate image files online. Edit: Oh, and I failed to point out that the original article you posted was published online in 2004 - THREE YEARS before Google would have put up any JPG links on a web text search. [​IMG]
     
  7. Matt

    Matt Senior member

    Messages:
    11,179
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    Sunny Saigon
    my brain hurts
     
  8. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California

    If you didn't know that the internet contained pictures of Baryshnikov, why would you be searching for them there?


    Because I may have been searching for pictures, or maybe a video, or an article. Often I've been surprised at what other pieces of information relate to what I'm finding that's relevant.

    Again I refer you to my example before where I'm trying to remember where I heard or read or saw a discussion about bespoke suits. Was it in a PDF, or a Word doc, or one of my emails?

    Google is not the end goal --- it's a good illustration of some of the points I'm trying to make.

    That makes it all the more perceptive.

    --Andre
     
  9. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    That makes it all the more perceptive.
    Um... it makes the entire "satire" part of the article about the Google "search questions" unfair and untrue. And the speculation as to whether Google could be successful implementing the same "search parameter" ethic as MS a moot question. Thus my entire argument since my first post about this subject. I win. End of story. [​IMG] If when this article was published, there were no pictures/music/maps/etc. brought up on a search, and to get to them, you had to click on the appropriate link (as you still often have to do to get the results you are looking for) Since this was the case, then the satire criticizing MS search for defaulting to the same thing while holding Google up as the gold standard is just dumb. and not in the least bit perceptive. The only difference between MS and Google was that Google defaults to web based text search, allowing you to potentially search the wrong location if you choose, before you narrow your parameters and MS (by default, though you can change this as easily as you can change anything else) asks you to where to search before you search the wrong location. This has been my point the entire time. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be on this point. Either way, the end result is the same. Google just allows you to take an extra step by searching something you may not even be interested in, though its completely unnecessary. If you follow the MS format and define your search parameters beforehand, you are much more likely to find what you are looking for on the first try. If you don't know where you saw something, It's not like MS doesn't give you the option to search all files and folders. You are more than welcome to search all files and folders, or a specific drive where you keep all your personal files, by any full or partial text in a file, the title of any file or folder, or basically when the file was created, modified, or whatever. As I've said before, the fact that it gives you search parameters beforehand is completely optional. If you so desire, you can set you MS search to be like Google, by enabling fast indexing, and going into the search preferences and setting it to advanced search. Yes, I understand that its not the default setting, but not everyone likes surprises in their search results as much as you do, I understand that not everyone wants to buy into the "default way of doing things"... Thats why Windows gives you all the options. Here's a screen shot of my MS search window set up exactly in this way. (it takes precisely two mouse clicks to set your preferences in this way) This is exactly as it comes up now when I push the search button on my keyboard. I don't really have any emails or text files to search on this computer, but it takes less than 1 second to search through roughly 1TB of movie files. [​IMG]
     
  10. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    The only difference between MS and Google was that Google defaults to web based text search, allowing you to potentially search the wrong location if you choose, before you narrow your parameters and MS (by default, though you can change this as easily as you can change anything else) asks you to where to search before you search the wrong location.

    You see it as searching the "wrong location" (which makes no sense anyway since it's indexed already). I see it as searching everything that the computer has access to because it can. It's a user interface failing that MS search is not exploiting the strengths of a computer (brute force repetitive work) and the strengths of a human (post-search qualitative filtering of the results). Instead it reverses the situation by forcing the user to remember where their file or phrase or whatever might be, and then telling that to the computer.

    Even configured the way you suggest, there are still two fields: filename and word or phrase. Why should these two things be differentiated? Just show me all the results, and I can use my brain to quickly filter out the results.

    --Andre
     
  11. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    You see it as searching the "wrong location" (which makes no sense anyway since it's indexed already). I see it as searching everything that the computer has access to because it can. It's a user interface failing that MS search is not exploiting the strengths of a computer (brute force repetitive work) and the strengths of a human (post-search qualitative filtering of the results). Instead it reverses the situation by forcing the user to remember where their file or phrase or whatever might be, and then telling that to the computer. Even configured the way you suggest, there are still two fields: filename and word or phrase. Why should these two things be differentiated? Just show me all the results, and I can use my brain to quickly filter out the results. --Andre
    I must give you credit for stubbornly refusing to use any rational thinking, only relying on your gut instinct that one brand works and one brand doesnt, even when they are essentially exactly the same. Coke and Pepsi are slightly different colas, but they are essentially the same. I'm not saying you can't have a preference, but arguing which is absolutely BETTER - and repeatedly using other people's fabricated viewpoints, faulty reasoning, and poorly thought out and incorrect "proofs" to back up your argument - is getting a little absurd. If you prefer Google, feel free to use it. I know I do. I don't think you are even coming close to using it as intended, or to its potential, assuming that you apparently ONLY actually search for random words in random places hoping that what you are looking for (even if you didn't know you were looking for it) will come up, or search for things you don't know exist instead of using it as a search tool to find specific items . (YOU said it, not me!) I just hope you don't navigate while driving the same way you internet search.
     
  12. Brian SD

    Brian SD Senior member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I really don't understand why there's a debate here. Windows search is such a hassle to use, while Spotlight works like a charm. Searching is an upside-down triangle - you start broad and refine as you go through it. Requiring extra input from the start defeats the purpose and convenience of searching.

    This is one hell of an analogy and a huge stretch, and you've completely missed the point. Spotlight search makes it so you don't have to go looking through the interstate maps in detail in the first place, because it's going to look through it and find only the parts that you might need. So to follow your analogy, it would be like you're looking for "grocery stores," and you find "supermarket, farmers market, convenience store, liquor store," etc. Huge convenience and very friendly to the user.

    The Windows equivalent would be you're looking for "grocery stores," but you have to specify that you're looking for a Ralph's, not an Albertson's, so you're constantly going to be told "it's not here, guess something else and try again."

    Again, this argument just doesn't make sense. Find/Search has always been a weakness of Windows. You'd have to be a rabid fanboy to not see the huge flaws.
     
  13. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    I really don't understand why there's a debate here. Windows search is such a hassle to use, while Spotlight works like a charm. Searching is an upside-down triangle - you start broad and refine as you go through it. Requiring extra input from the start defeats the purpose and convenience of searching.
    A: I was not talking to you. Stay out unless you want some. If you don't understand why there is a debate, you obviously aren't on the same page as everyone else involved. (IE Me - since I'm still not sure that Andre is capable of grasping the concept of logic or reason, and nobody else is really arguing.) I don't know what you are talking about, anyways - MS Search works just as well as spotlight does... at least in my experience. You just have to not be a complete idiot to use it. As I mentioned, it is quite simple to set MS up to do the exact same thing that Spotlight, Google, or any other indexing search engine does if that is your preference. There is no "magic" involved in spotlight. It is an extremely typical indexing search program.
    B: No, it is YOU who have missed the point. My analogy was not in regards to Spotlight, or Google, or Yahoo but to how Andre Yew has stated that he searches for stuff. And I am not defending Windows search. I am insulting that piece of shit anti-MS propaganda bashfest of an article that Andre decided to post as if it were the bible. Butt out unless you want a piece, Mary. I haven't done any Apple bashing in this thread... YET.
     
  14. Viktri

    Viktri Senior member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Christofuhposted a price quote of an $1800 mac that's as powerful as a $1000 Dell laptop with a mag case (search Vostro) =/ well, some love their kiton.. but name brand stuff minus the quality has never been for me.
    < Snort > I was told by a rep ( not some oily salesman ) from Apple that doing A/B spec comparison vis-Ã -vis retail price isn't appropriate due to Macs featuring a different architecture. Therefore any on-paper similiar specs don't suggest comparable performance. Macs are superior ( to PC ) performers which is what commands the price premium. Discuss [​IMG]
    Sorry mate, you can't trust those salesmen. That USED to be true, when Macs have different chipsets than Intels but not anymore. From what I've understood, Macs have had to change alot of their architecture to become compatible with the intel chipset (someone more informed than I can elaborate) and as a result have the design/functions have become closer to PCs than the older Macs.
    By different architecture he meant Intel Chipset right? OH SNAP DAWG! or stupid suck one button mouse
    Looks like it was already covered. (And the one button mouse is really quite silly and is just an example of the stubborness of Apple and how they held off introducing the 2+ button mice for so long; like company like user? not for me to decide) Bouji, look for NEC notebooks [​IMG] They're hot. Btw, if you're having trouble setting up computer parts/software, google it. I'm not a comp sci students like my friends are but I always seem to figure out any computer problems I encounter in a few minutes with a simple search. Instead of sitting around & whining (like some of my friends) waiting for some help from friends, I actually google stuff. Computers won't often fix themselves. Even the Mac has their "genius bar" (lol). Another thing - keep you PC clean and it won't slow down. Fill up your HD and of course it will slow down [​IMG]
    In another story, our beloved Artisan Fan was told ( on a number of occasions ) by the American head ( not some oily salesman ) of Kiton that its jackets were 100% handmade and features 25 - 28 hours of handwork. Discuss. [​IMG]
    hmm are you saying it would be difficult to convince any mac users of anything without tearing apart their macs.. [​IMG] What's wrong with Windows Search function? It's always worked for me perfectly. If you're looking for something, search the name; how hard can it be? I mean, if you don't know what you're looking for I don't see how you can complain the search doesn't work.
     
  15. Artisan Fan

    Artisan Fan Senior member

    Messages:
    32,345
    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    [​IMG]
     
  16. A Y

    A Y Senior member

    Messages:
    5,592
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Location:
    Southern California
    I just hope you don't navigate while driving the same way you internet search.
    +1 --Andre
     
  17. dopey

    dopey Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    14,577
    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    You are drowning in the kool-aid brotha.



    First of all, I never said that I liked MS search. I barely ever use it. I don't have much cause to use any search programs on my computer. I know where everything is already. So you better get your facts straight before accusing me of defending MS search. Something that so far in this thread, I HAVE NOT DONE. In fact, I agreed several times that the dog sucks, and said that the indexing programs are probably better for most people. So... um explaining to me why it sucks is sort of moot. I am not defending the fact that it's slow. I've been pointing out that aside from bitching about the animated avatar, that article you posted is 99% bullshit.

    For web stuff I use Google, and you must use something different altogether, because your comprehension of what Google does and does not do is just plain wrong. Anyone here can simply go to Google and type in "Bob Marley" or whatever and see that you are incorrect, It will bring up exactly ZERO PICTURE FILES. Why? Because you didn't tell it thats what you were looking for. In fact, if you are looking - up in the top left hand corner, you'll see the default setting is for "web". Which means that all the search results are going to be in web page form, and it found the results through a search of searching TEXT. Go ahead and try to find a direct link from that search to a .jpeg. Get back to me when you find one and let me know what page it's on. You can, by the way, save yourself a step and just click on "images" to begin with before you search, like MS makes you do.

    So I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by lying outright and hoping nobody has the balls to call you on it.

    I've said my piece, if you want to continue making yourself look like a ass by spouting falsities to prove whatever point it is that you are trying to make, (do you even have one?) because you cannot conceive nor admit that I made a valid and correct point, be my guest.

    When I clicked on your link I got two pictures of Bob Marley, including the first Google hit.
     
  18. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Senior member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
    When I clicked on your link I got two pictures of Bob Marley, including the first Google hit.
    I'm not sure why... I didn't when I tried it again just now. Can you post a screen shot of what comes up? First result = music search results search link. second result = Bob Marley: The Official Site
     
  19. raphael

    raphael Senior member

    Messages:
    256
    Joined:
    May 20, 2007
    Location:
    California
    The different here is greater than "They both use Intel, so they're practically the same". With a Mac, you are limited in that hardware that Apple lets you select. You can select a couple different Intel CPU's and a couple different RAM, Video card, and Display configurations, but really only a couple of each. You might have a total of 40 different configurations within each product. With a PC, you have millions of different configuration options. It's pretty much limitless. Additionally, once you have configured and purchased your system, you are more likely able to upgrade your system later down the road in many different ways.
    The reality is that the overwhelming majority of people who use or purchase computers never upgrade their computer, laptop or desktop. Heck a large number of people think installing third-party software on their computer is risky like surgery. Laptops are hard to take apart and everything for the most part is soldered on (processor, GPU). Memory and hard drives are the same for Macs and PCs and can be upgraded, if one is so inclined. On the desktop side, manufacturers change card standards (PCI, PCI-e, PCI-x) and processor sockets quite often. If I were to upgrade my desktop PC to a different processor, I'd need a new motherboard and new memory to go along with my new processor. A couple of years ago, I would have needed all that AND a 24-pin "ATX v2" power supply. It is just as expensive to upgrade a PC over time as it is to upgrade a Mac.
     
  20. adversity04

    adversity04 Senior member

    Messages:
    784
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Location:
    DC Metro
    I'm not sure why... I didn't when I tried it again just now. Can you post a screen shot of what comes up?

    First result = music search results search link.

    second result = Bob Marley: The Official Site


    I'm not sure why it happens either, could be platform/browser specific, doens't matter, but sometimes the search returns with "Picture results for X" with a couple pictures and then the normal listings.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by