Posted 11/03/2009 at 10:36:30am

What I find curious about people proclaiming Apple to be open-source and stuff is... Why hasn't anyone really spiffed up Mac OS X like they do Linux? Everything but the core elements of OS X are open source, yet... I've never seen anyone flaunt a super-duper hacked OS X. The only thing that's "open" that they've really done recently was create OpenCL. Whether or not AMD or NVIDIA care about this is another thing (like how anyone still cares about OpenGL... And before you start bashing me on that, OpenGL has been in such a train wreck lately that it convinced diehard fan John Carmack to use DX9 for id Tech 5). If you ask me, I think Apple just puts on this facade of open source or open standards just to win points for the team.
In reality, it's already spoken. They're platforms are tightly closed. They're software only plays nice with their products. I refuse to install any Apple software on Windows. iTunes is bloaty and of course, they keep updating it so it only works on iPods/iPhones. And while I'm sure Safari got better, when 3.0 beta was out, I was appaled how the browser would crash if I tried to bookmark a website. Apple, I would certainly love to try OS X, but if that means I have to buy your computer to use it "legally", well screw it.
 Also Apple's track record for humping their own fans in the bum. 

Posted 10/15/2009 at 06:35:21pm

There was a laptop in a 2004 issue of MPC (I think between June-August) that had 3D capabilities, but it did games only. What happened to that?

Posted 10/15/2009 at 10:39:42am

That's surprising considering what they claim.

Posted 10/08/2009 at 11:39:25am

... This is probably just a marketing ploy or something. I've had Windows 7 for two months on a laptop and if there's a linear relationship between a fresh install and that, I should be having 2 minute boot times. That's not the case with me.

Posted 09/24/2009 at 02:25:04am

Well hopefully this wouldn't be any different than Apple. Granted I'm sure upgrading from one version of OS X to another is less painless, all Windows is from here on are updates to NT. Heck, we could say that Windows 7 isn't even a new OS, it's just Vista redone. I mean, Windows 2000 was NT 5.0. Windows XP was NT 5.1 to 5.2. Windows Vista was NT 6.0, Windows 7 is NT 6.1.

As long as Microsoft keeps the core components of Windows similar, upgrading shouldn't be a problem. A good chunk of why Vista was such a hassle for people was that Microsoft redesigned everything to the point where the older versions of NT couldn't use the new components.

Posted 09/23/2009 at 12:12:04am

... double post :D

Posted 09/23/2009 at 12:11:29am

... until the GeForce GTX 380 (just pulling that one out of my ass) or the Radeon HD 5890 comes out. Seriously I hate titles like this.

 Also whoever said 36FPS is unplayable is anal retentive. Seriously. Maybe one should bury himself in 20 years when Crysis is finally "playable" on 1920x1200... only to bitch about the current generation of hardware can't play the current generation of games at "playable" framerates.

Posted 09/18/2009 at 08:58:18am

I don't like the color scheme of the benchmark scores. I'm finding it hard to pick out the best scores (which I know are bolded).

Posted 09/17/2009 at 10:24:26am

No, this is people who file patents and don't do crap about them until someone actually makes a product that makes money off of it. Then they get all whiney, want a piece of the pie, and sue.

Posted 09/11/2009 at 11:35:07am

They need to make a monitor with no borders or very thin ones to make multi monitor usage less obtrusive.