The time to buy a new computer is NEVER

tiger02 · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by ratboycom

That thing is uber fail get.
Is this nerd-speak?

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Can you tell a mac to not have bouncing, annoying animated avatars in the dock? I've never been able to figure out how.
OK I lied, not staying out of it. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. There are no avatars in OS X. The things that bounce in the dock are program icons. AFAIK there is no way to turn the bouncing off, but I will take that over Windows giving me no indication that a program is trying to open.

In my opinion, Finder is at least as big a pain ********** as windows search is, and it also asks you if you want to search for pictures, videos, documents, music, and etc. I don't understand what the criticism of that in Windows is about, when Mac is guilty of the same thing.

Just so we're all on the same page here, the finder is analogous to windows explorer, not search. Apple's search function is Spotlight, the little magnifying glass in the top right corner of the screen. It works in more or less the same way as google desktop--type your search term and it returns the most likely hit at the top of the list and then a list broken down by category. I am 100% convinced that the preference between the finder and windows explorer is due to familiarity. I wish that OS X had a thumbnail view and wish that windows had column view and would tell me how big my folders are.

The problem I have with finder is that it assumes that you are familiar with the OS-whatever file hierarchy - which has never made any sense to me at all. How can the same file be in dozens of different locations at once without being a duplicate or copy? Can someone PLEASE explain that to me? WTF kind of perverted logic comes up with these ideas?

Windows is the same of course--if you don't know how it's organized, you're going to have trouble finding stuff. For instance, I grew up with macs. I had no idea that 'program files' in windows included applications. Then I couldn't understand why windows wouldn't let me look inside that folder without warning me. Then I had to sort through hundreds of files and pick which of the 3 or 4 .exes was actually the correct program and not the uninstaller or an assistant. Again, not sure what you mean by the same thing in "dozens of different locations." There are three or four different finder view options, but that's no different from windows. Do you have an example? The only thing I can think of is that if you're tagging your stuff with keywords, but then you're giving up the filing cabinet metaphor anyway and shouldn't be too worried.

magnus_h · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Second, as it was also pointed out, you don't have to have a "dog". You can choose another animated avatar (of like five different ones you might prefer) or (as I prefer) to not waste system resources and have NO animated avatar, just a search box. Can you tell a mac to not have bouncing, annoying animated avatars in the dock? I've never been able to figure out how.

Click the Apple-menu. From there either open system settings and choose dock settings or choose dock settings from the Dock sub-menu.

Once in there you can turn off any bouncing/growing/shrinking of dock icons and windows being animated when you minimize them.

As for searching, neither spotlight nor searching in Finder windows ask me what type of information I want to search for. They present the results ordered by category neatly and spotlight also puts a "most likely" result at the top.

Perhaps you haven't tried the search facilities on a modern mac (with a decent amount of memory, OS X performs pretty poor on only 512mb)? I don't see how you can say it's even remotely similar to win XP search (haven't tried Vista myself, maybe it's better).

Bouji · Sep 20, 2007

I grew up with PCs and only recently (within the last year) have started using Macs.
There are some things I miss on the PC, but once you get used to OS X, Windows seems like a lot of fuss about nothing.
They both have their disadvantages and advantages, which I will list below:

Mac Advantages:

The OS is clean and works, that is to say, the programs I use most often are in the dock, I just click on that program and all is done. Fine I can put them all on my Windows desktop, but that is messy, and is not quie the same thing.

Spotlight is excllent because its indexing is very efficent. I've heard Windows has recently been improving its indexing, but the last time I used Windows (XP Pro) it was not as if I could just type something in and it would instantly pop up. Windows liked to search my entire hard drive.

It does not slow down - I have 2 Macs, a iMac with a 1.83 GHz C2D and 2GB of RAM, and a Macbook with a 2 GHz C2D and 1 GB of RAM. I've downloaded a lot of 3rd party software and they run as well as the day I bought them. In my experince with Windows if I download a lot of third party apps it slows the machine down A LOT.

Networking, eventualy I got a small domain based network working on my Windows PCs in my home, and the IT department configured the network settings at work. On my Mac, as soon as I had connected it to my wirless router, all of my Windows systems' files showed up, as did all the printers, and my internet was working straight out. Same with my Macbook. I took my Macbook to work, and the second I turned it on it picked up my office's wifi, I typed in the wireless key, and I was on the office network. I got back home, typed in the VPN settings it asked for and I was on my office and home networks both at ones, wirelessly. I had to give my Windows laptop to the IT department for three days to set up VPN on it!

Mac disadvantages:

No quick way to exit a program. Perhaps I'm just used to clicking the cross and I know I am done with the program, but clicking quit (application) reminds me of Windows 3.1...

Lack of software. Mostly one is bound to the Apple apps for basic applications, iPhoto is good, but what is the choice? I bought Aperture, but to me that is a different thing. iTunes is good, but is there any other choice if you are using a Mac? MS Office for Mac is nowhere near as good as the current version for Windows... iWork 08 is good for some things, but far too fancy when I just want to type a letter, for this I use MS Word! At the other end of the spectrum, Safari is far too basic a browser; some may like this because it keeps it simple, I do not.

Windows advantages:

Compatablility, pretty self explanitory, everything can work. A key word here is CAN. I'm anything but biased, and also anything but computer illiterate. However, on a Windows you plug something in, or you install something, and if you're lucky it will work. If not you can mess around with all sorts of settings and eventualy it will work. Mac on the other hand, you plug it in and it will either work or won't work, but if it won't work there is very little chance, no matter how many settings you change, it will never work.

I'm used to it - I can do a alot on Windows machines, it's starting to get that way with Macs, but I it seems that there are more limitations for customisation (of OS) than Windows.

Price, Windows based machines (regardless of the fact that the OS itself is more expensive) are always better value. I do not think that Apple systems look better given the amount of money they cost. For the price of an iMac you can buy a Plasma screen and a cheap desktop, and if you conceal the unit, this looks a lot better than any Mac can look. Perhaps the only exception to this is the Macbook, I have never seen a laptop with such asthetics for Â£600. The Mac Pro is an absolute rip off, if I needed such a powerful Mac system, I would build one myself... (I'm sure there is a way to install OS X onto a self made system ???)

Windows disadvantages:

They ALWAYS slow down over time, in my experince this is certain.

The OS hangs and jams more than OS X. Sure OS X can hang and jam too, but put simply Windows does it more often.

Eveything has to be configured specifically. Networking is a huge pain.

Tokyo Slim · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by tiger02

Just so we're all on the same page here, the finder is analogous to windows explorer, not search. Apple's search function is Spotlight, the little magnifying glass in the top right corner of the screen. It works in more or less the same way as google desktop--type your search term and it returns the most likely hit at the top of the list and then a list broken down by category.

Originally Posted by Apple

In addition to searching on traditional file properties, such as name, text content or file extension, you can use new keywords such as “Document,” “Image” or “Movie” to indicate the kind of file you’re looking for. You can even indicate relative time periods using convenient keywords such as “Today,” “Yesterday” and “Last Week.”
How is this any different than clicking a button? If anything, its slower. If you don't specify what you are looking for, your mac is searching every type of file on your computer to reference the keyword you are searching. If you specifically tell it "picture" your results will be much better. As Bouji noted the mac constantly indexes everything in the background while you are working, which is why Spotlight seems faster. Windows XP will also do this to an extent, but you have to turn the option on it isn't the default. I prefer not to have this done, since it can be an enormous resource hog on either system, plus - I don't use the search function all that often. I just remember where I put things.

I am 100% convinced that the preference between the finder and windows explorer is due to familiarity. I wish that OS X had a thumbnail view and wish that windows had column view and would tell me how big my folders are.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure I've seen both on both systems.

Again, not sure what you mean by the same thing in "dozens of different locations." There are three or four different finder view options, but that's no different from windows. Do you have an example? The only thing I can think of is that if you're tagging your stuff with keywords, but then you're giving up the filing cabinet metaphor anyway and shouldn't be too worried.

No... I mean that OSX physically allows the SAME FILE to exist in multiple locations in your computer, which I have never been able to figure out. They aren't links pointing to the actual program, or copies, there is no designation as to which is the original... or if it matters. You've never seen this?

tiger02 · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

How is this any different than clicking a button? If anything, its slower. If you don't specify what you are looking for, your mac is searching every type of file on your computer to reference the keyword you are searching. If you specifically tell it "picture" your results will be much better.
Fine. While I really dislike the dog, I don't particularly mind telling windows what kind of file I'm looking for. The way spotlight works, it's one click less--type a search terms, choose a result. It's not a big deal. I just don't like the dog.

Not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I'm pretty sure I've seen both on both systems.

Mac OS X column view. Left most column lets you choose your drive plus you can define a few folders for quick access. Then you can easily follow the path running across the screen. I think this was first used in either nExt or Be OS. Note also that the option to create a new folder doesn't move just because you've highlighted a file, but you do have to go into the tools menu to get it.

Thumbnail view. Unless I'm missing something, OS X doesn't do this and windows doesn't do column view without third party add ons.

No... I mean that OSX physically allows the SAME FILE to exist in multiple locations in your computer, which I have never been able to figure out. They aren't links pointing to the actual program, or copies, there is no designation as to which is the original... or if it matters. You've never seen this?

Nope, never seen this, but it might not be such a bad idea for either system. If we stipulate that there are way too many files on a computer to remember where each one is stored, you don't have to remember exact paths. Maybe you have a picture of a 2002 bmw m3 stored in both the "used cars" folder and the "blue cars" folder.

Or do you just mean two files with equivalent checksums existing in different folders? That's no different between the systems.

Artisan Fan · Sep 20, 2007

Fine. While I really dislike the dog, I don't particularly mind telling windows what kind of file I'm looking for. The way spotlight works, it's one click less--type a search terms, choose a result. It's not a big deal. I just don't like the dog.

The dog can't find pdf content yet either...

Brian SD · Sep 20, 2007

How is this any different than clicking a button? If anything, its slower. If you don't specify what you are looking for, your mac is searching every type of file on your computer to reference the keyword you are searching. If you specifically tell it "picture" your results will be much better. As Bouji noted the mac constantly indexes everything in the background while you are working, which is why Spotlight seems faster. Windows XP will also do this to an extent, but you have to turn the option on it isn't the default. I prefer not to have this done, since it can be an enormous resource hog on either system, plus - I don't use the search function all that often. I just remember where I put things.

The Windows XP search function is just slow. I'm not sure about the internal mechanics of it, but it just doesn't work as quickly as spotlight. I just typed in "Art 344" into spotlight and had the exact results I was looking for in less than a second. When I restart into Windows (so this is the same computer here, not a different one), it takes me a good 6 seconds to search for that folder even if I designate the drive to search before hand. If you wanted to argue Spotlight vs. Quicksilver, that's one thing. Quicksilver is a really great application - in fact I think it's better than Spotlight, but I prefer Spotlight's integration slightly. Google Desktop is my preferred way of searching in Windows, but much prefer Spotlight or Quicksilver in OS X. Of course, I try to organize things as best I can and so 99.5% of my computer work is done sans-searching, but sometimes I forget what naming scheme I used for certain projects and I need to search for the folders because I'm not sure if they're in "Photos" or in "Pictures," for instance. BTW, Before you come on saying "Why would Apple confuse their users with both a Photos and a pictures directory?!" The "Photos" folder is one I put in myself (and even made a nifty little icon, omfg) and put it into my favorites so it appears in the left column of the finder, a really neat feature. Yes I realize you can add favorites to Windows Explorer and of course to the start menu, but Windows Explorer isn't organized so efficiently as Finder, and the Start menu is for opening applications.

I had no idea that 'program files' in windows included applications. Then I couldn't understand why windows wouldn't let me look inside that folder without warning me. Then I had to sort through hundreds of files and pick which of the 3 or 4 .exes was actually the correct program and not the uninstaller or an assistant.

This pretty much sums up the general reason why Mac is, to me, a better system. I even grew up on Windows, but when I think about this, I think about a much better design. Ratboy, you're hilarious. C2D and Athlon 64 are not the same thing, nor are they priced anywhere near each other. Macs, especially with a student discount, are BARELY (if at all) more expensive than Sony, IBM, etc. pre-built computers of the same quality - and I use the word "quality" very purposefully, because simply comparing clock speeds is, as anyone who has been curious about computer parts, pretty much pointless. Do you really think there would be a market for these computers if one cost $1500 and the other cost $600 and they had the same hardware? People really aren't that stupid. For reference: here are the specs on the SONY Vaio laptop that most closely resembles my laptop (MacBook Pro):

Series Features: 15.4" widescreen, thin and light, built-in camera and microphone Upgrade Features: Blu-ray Disc™ optical drive, XBRITE-HiColor™ LCD, NVIDIAÂ

GeForceÂ

8400GT graphics, Windows VistaÂ

Ultimate Intel Core™ 2 Duo processor T7250 (2GHz, 2MB L2 cache) Genuine Windows VistaÂ

Ultimate

The cost is $2100. My MacBook Pro (bought earlier this year) has a slightly faster C2D processor, a better video card, a few other nice features such as the iSight camera, a nicer looking body and display (arguable, of course) and it cost me $2200.

Tokyo Slim · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by tiger02

Fine. While I really dislike the dog, I don't particularly mind telling windows what kind of file I'm looking for. The way spotlight works, it's one click less--type a search terms, choose a result. It's not a big deal. I just don't like the dog.
Me neither, I'm glad my OS gives me the option of turning off the parts of it that piss me off.

Mac OS X column view. Left most column lets you choose your drive plus you can define a few folders for quick access. Then you can easily follow the path running across the screen. I think this was first used in either nExt or Be OS. Note also that the option to create a new folder doesn't move just because you've highlighted a file, but you do have to go into the tools menu to get it.

Thumbnail view. Unless I'm missing something, OS X doesn't do this and windows doesn't do column view without third party add ons.

Oh. Thats column view... I hate that interface. Its just a sideways folder tree, except the paths are rather ambiguous and ill-defined. I don't see whats so cool about it. Its the same as MS Explorer, except sideways. And uh... with about three seconds worth of Google searching I found your OSX thumbnail view. http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/2241/...mbnail_preview You're welcome. I think you mac people are just completely inept at using a search engine. Using tools is what separates us from the primates man.

Nope, never seen this, but it might not be such a bad idea for either system. If we stipulate that there are way too many files on a computer to remember where each one is stored, you don't have to remember exact paths. Maybe you have a picture of a 2002 bmw m3 stored in both the "used cars" folder and the "blue cars" folder.

Yeah, its great until you start your computer, want to delete the picture out of used cars but not out of blue cars and get confused. . . Is it the same file? Am I deleting it or just removing it from the folder? I don't know. Why cant it just be a shortcut or a copy? It freaks me out because created systems that don't follow the laws of physics, space, and the natural world are confusing. If you leave your wallet in the back pocket of your work slacks, put on a pair of jeans, and go to the store, you shouldn't be able to reach into your back pocket and pull out your wallet to pay for groceries. If you spend the money in it, will the wallet in your slacks still be full of cash, or will that be gone? What if someone else reaches into their back pocket and pulls out your wallet?

A Y · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

So because its clothed as satire, I am not allowed to question the fact that it aims at denouncing an operating system search function that does exactly what almost every other search function does?

No, just stop taking yourself so seriously and realize that not everyone is out to denounce Windows to boost the Mac.

The only reason it matters is search speed.

Google is pretty damned fast, and it's searching through far more information than just your hard disk. Google desktop search is fast and has only one entry field. BeOS search was pretty damned fast, too, and it searched everything.

Windows is slow because the way it organizes information isn't conducive to search. That's why Google desktop search has to build an index before you can use it. The Be filesystem also organized things in a very different way than what Windows does, which is basically a traditional hierarchical file structure that's been unchanged for over 30 years.

I still fail to see the difference between asking the user what kind of file they are looking for before the search, as in Windows and OSX from asking the same question before OR after the search.as with Google.

Because the common way to search doesn't need 5 or 6 choices before it can return useful results. I'm not saying restrict the user's choices, but the initial interface presented to the user by Windows search is ridiculous. Why should I be forced to remember whether Bob was in a picture, contact or email before I'm allowed to search? Just show me where he occurs on my computer, and then I can decide from there which one I wanted.

Those are the only posts that have any sort of credibility behind them though, because they are the only posts that mention the glaring inconsistencies and fallacies of the original post.

There are no inconsistencies --- not mentioning the ability to turn off the stupid avatar is not a fallacy or inconsistency. The web page is pointing out the stupidity of having the dog there by default, not that you can't turn it off.

And in case you hadn't noticed, the article is not pro-Mac, since it was comparing Windows search against Google.

--Andre

Tokyo Slim · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

No, just stop taking yourself so seriously and realize that not everyone is out to denounce Windows to boost the Mac.
No, I was pretty clear in my accusation that this was out do denounce windows for NO REASON OR PURPOSE, using, insults disguised as humor, partial information, assumptions, and fallacies in lieu of evidence, reason, or fact. I'm not saying that this is necessarily BAD, I'm just saying that it was neither of the two things you advertised it as being when you posted the link. It was neither perceptive, nor cogent. It may have been amusing, it may have been cute, but nearly none of it was true.

Google is pretty damned fast, and it's searching through far more information than just your hard disk. Google desktop search is fast and has only one entry field. BeOS search was pretty damned fast, too, and it searched everything.

Again, you keep going back to the "one entry field" Google point. Which is false. Google has one TEXT entry field same as Windows search, Spotlight, or anything else. It also has Images, Video, News, Maps, Blog, Books, Calendar, Documents, Finance, Groups, Products, and etc. search refinements. If you are looking for a picture of Bob Marley, and you type "Bob Marley" into Google, guess how many pictures you get on the next page? NONE. Why? because Google didn't search for pictures, it searched for text on websites - which is not what you are looking for. Even if you type in "Bob Marley pictures" what does it give you? Websites about Bob Marley pictures. Which is slightly more helpful, but not nearly as helpful as just displaying all the pictures. To do that, you need to tell it what you are searching for, just like in Windows.

Windows is slow because the way it organizes information isn't conducive to search. That's why Google desktop search has to build an index before you can use it. The Be filesystem also organized things in a very different way than what Windows does, which is basically a traditional hierarchical file structure that's been unchanged for over 30 years.

No, Windows is slow because it is the only search function, out of all those you've mentioned that as a default actually does it's full search when you search. As you pointed out, Google is an indexing program. Thats how it works online too - your search isn't conducted in real time, it would take just as long as windows search does. Spotlight is also an indexing program, Yahoo - indexing... Its probably a better way to do it, but it has nothing to do with the file organization. It has to do with the prioritizing of computer resources. At least as far back as Windows 2000, you have been able to "turn on" indexing in windows if you so choose.

Because the common way to search doesn't need 5 or 6 choices before it can return useful results. I'm not saying restrict the user's choices, but the initial interface presented to the user by Windows search is ridiculous. Why should I be forced to remember whether Bob was in a picture, contact or email before I'm allowed to search? Just show me where he occurs on my computer, and then I can decide from there which one I wanted.

The common search in windows takes two steps, 1:select what you want to search for (media files/documents/everything/computers or people) 2:search. Google takes two steps - 1:select what you want to search for (web/images/video/news/maps/Gmail/Blog Search/Blogger/Books/Calendar/Documents/Finance/Groups/Labs/Orkut/Patents/Photos/Products/Reader/Scholar) 2:search. Why would you be searching for something that you don't know what it is? How would you know to search for it in the first place? I really don't get this argument. Do you frequently search for random words, wondering what will come up? If you want to watch a video of your child's first steps, why would you want you computer to search anything but videos? If you are searching Google for pictures of Bob Marley, why would you want to search anything but pictures?

There are no inconsistencies --- not mentioning the ability to turn off the stupid avatar is not a fallacy or inconsistency. The web page is pointing out the stupidity of having the dog there by default, not that you can't turn it off.

OK, so the dog is dumb. Great. WTF does Google have to do with it? If your point is true, and its all about the stupid dog, why is the Google analogy asking dumb questions? Is it bigger than a breadbox? Is is an Animal/Vegetable/Mineral? Hmmm? Windows and Google and Yahoo and Spotlight and BeOS ask for the same information when you search. If this wasn't inconsistent, fabricated, and incorrect, the Google page would be exactly the same, except there would be a cow on it. and all your results would be in a voice bubble. So yeah, it would be marsupialed, but at least you can turn it off!

And in case you hadn't noticed, the article is not pro-Mac, since it was comparing Windows search against Google.

The only reason I mentioned Apple was to point out that its search uses the same exact ideology as Microsoft's, Google's, Yahoo's, and etc. when it comes to narrowing search parameters.

tiger02 · Sep 20, 2007

Can we at least all agree that Yahoo search sucks? Half the time that I search my mail for a specific sender it returns "no matches." Now, it might understand subconsciously that I don't want to read my mom's emails, but at the same time, sometimes I have no choice but to do so. And when that happens, I don't want to have to read any of them other than the one I'm looking for!

A Y · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

No, I was pretty clear in my accusation that this was out do denounce windows for NO REASON OR PURPOSE, using, insults disguised as humor, partial information, assumptions, and fallacies in lieu of evidence, reason, or fact.

Windows search is pretty terrible. That's the point. Obviously you feel differently, and you don't think the points that the author makes are important. Ie. simple direct interface without incessant questioning.

If you are looking for a picture of Bob Marley, and you type "Bob Marley" into Google, guess how many pictures you get on the next page?

NONE.

Wrong. It gives you all results. The news, pictures, video stuff just filters the results for you. Windows forces you to constrain the search before you do the search.

And Google is getting better and more user-centric all the time. For example, have you ever used its units conversion (search "10 lbs to kg" or "10 dollars to euro"), or its calculator (search "2+2") or entered some address or a name of store or restaurant you're trying to find or remember (search "mcdonalds, seattle"). It does the right thing most of the time without the user having to specify any more information than the search string. That's how computers should work. Google's the right direction. Microsoft file search is not.

And that's the important point: I'm not saying Google is superior because it has lots more features. It's superior because it gives you what you're looking for when you tell it things in human terms, not computer terms.

No, Windows is slow because it is the only search function, out of all those you've mentioned that as a default actually does it's full search when you search. As you pointed out, Google is an indexing program.

So you agree that Windows doesn't do anything in particular to assist search, and is therefore slow. But there are other ways to design a filesystem so that search is faster, like the Be filesystem, which maintains its internal database as files are manipulated.

More importantly, I don't care how the backend works or whether it indexes, nor do most users. All they see is that Windows is slow and asks them too many questions when they use it, and that's all that matters. A computer is just a tool. If it's slow or doesn't work well or requires a user to understand its internal design to use it effectively, it's not a good tool.

1:select what you want to search for
(media files/documents/everything/computers or people)

Hmm, where was it that I heard or read that thing about bespoke suits? Was it in my email, or a PDF I downloaded, or maybe a video someone gave me? Why is Windows forcing me to do three separate searches to find this information? What if it's not in any of those kinds of things, and in somewhere else that I can't think of right now?

--Andre

ratboycom · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Brian SD

Ratboy, you're hilarious. C2D and Athlon 64 are not the same thing, nor are they priced anywhere near each other. Macs, especially with a student discount, are BARELY (if at all) more expensive than Sony, IBM, etc. pre-built computers of the same quality - and I use the word "quality" very purposefully, because simply comparing clock speeds is, as anyone who has been curious about computer parts, pretty much pointless. Do you really think there would be a market for these computers if one cost $1500 and the other cost $600 and they had the same hardware? People really aren't that stupid.

For reference: here are the specs on the SONY Vaio laptop that most closely resembles my laptop (MacBook Pro):

The cost is $2100. My MacBook Pro (bought earlier this year) has a slightly faster C2D processor, a better video card, a few other nice features such as the iSight camera, a nicer looking body and display (arguable, of course) and it cost me $2200.

Obviously you did not get the point of the story, that being that I BOUGHT THE COMPUTER 2 YEARS AGO! TWO YEARS AGO= NO CORE2! Yes there were dual cores two years ago, yes the Athalon 64 is a cheaper processor, but at the time it was one of the best on the market and cost a lot more than they do now. I am quite aware of the differences between the two. My point was that the iMac used slow old components, which I mentioned already (old Sata, slow DVD/cd, low FSB).

Dont throw sony in my face saying "Look its just as cheap to buy a MAC" because like you said "student discount." What is a nonstudent to do? Besides that Sony is one of the most overpriced computers on the market, relying on name and ok build quality to justify spending much more for one.

In fact most decent laptops (and a few ****** ones) come with built in webcams nowadays. You even mention that the sony had an integrated web cam, but then mention that your "iSight" was a nice feature, wording it like it was something the Sony lacked. Sure it may not be branded an "iSight" but its still just a crappy low res (VGA) integrated camera. I always thought that Mac commercial was Bullshit talking about how all mac laptops come with webcams, the bullshit being that they act like not a single windows laptop comes with a built in webcam. Of course they will never mention that Apple is the sole manufacturer of Mac computers and therefore there exists no opportunity for another company to come out without a camera. Maybe someone really doesn't need a webcam, or in efforts to offer a inexpensive system a manufacturer leaves it out. NO, Apple gives its customers the big "**** YOU! Thanks for the money" by having a monopoly on what computers can run the OS. Hooray for not even allowing there to be a competitor on the market. 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. I dont want to hear that "MS has a monopoly on the other companies" because realistically a smaller company than HP (like Acer, or cisnet) should not matter much to MS and could decide to build mac based computers, but Apple wont allow such a thing. I know there are plenty of computer users with basic, simple computer needs who maybe would benefit from a mac's frustratingly "user friendly interface," but for a light computer user, dropping $1500-2k on something they dont plan to use much seems like a bit of a stretch.

Tiger, the "Uber Fail Get" is more of net nerd speak than computer nerd speak. Specifically it has to do with a certain forum hitting 40million posts at the time of me typing that message yesterday.

ratboycom · Sep 20, 2007

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

Because the common way to search doesn't need 5 or 6 choices before it can return useful results. I'm not saying restrict the user's choices, but the initial interface presented to the user by Windows search is ridiculous. Why should I be forced to remember whether Bob was in a picture, contact or email before I'm allowed to search? Just show me where he occurs on my computer, and then I can decide from there which one I wanted.
--Andre

This reminds me of the episode of Futurama where Philip (Fry) thinks that his older brother stole his identity/seven leaf clover after he dissapears. The crew is standing around and says Fry every other sentence. The professor then says "My computer heard us saying fry so it found a video about Philip J Fry, it also turned my schedule to Friday, and ordered me some French Fries."

Tokyo Slim · Sep 20, 2007

You are drowning in the kool-aid brotha.

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

Wrong. It gives you all results. The news, pictures, video stuff just filters the results for you. Windows forces you to constrain the search before you do the search.
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.

The time to buy a new computer is NEVER

Militarist

Senior Member

Senior Member

In Time Out

Militarist

Suitsupply-sider

Moderator

In Time Out

Distinguished Member

In Time Out

Militarist

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

Distinguished Member

In Time Out

FEATURED PRODUCTS

Featured Sponsor

Definitely full canvas only

Half canvas is fine

Really don't care

Depends on fabric

Depends on price

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

FOLLOW STYLEFORUM ON: