Posted 03/18/2010 at 03:43:07pm

Cool article, answers a few questions I've had, but, if you could, I would like to see a study of who actually gets caught for this type of stuff.

Posted 03/16/2010 at 10:25:24am

I think it looks pretty cool. If I every built a dream machine I'd defiantly use this case, or the NZXT Tempest EVO. Plenty of room in each.

Posted 03/16/2010 at 10:13:55am

Looks like a rip off of the wii controller only more bulbous and studpid looking. Just another example of how Sony isn't innovative at all. I mean 3 versions of the playstation 2 versions of the PSP? Make a different console already, or at least a different controller.

Posted 03/15/2010 at 05:06:03pm

Personally I don't like Intel very much, first because they overprice their CPUs, and they manipulate the public into thinking that they're the ONLY CPU company. Think about it have you ever seen an AMD commercial on TV?And yet people don't know that they can pay half for the same performance.

I'd like to see Intel motherboards not being able to do SLI for a little while, just until they understand that they're just a CPU manufacturer, and that they desperately need Nvidia.

It would be nice for once to see AMD and nvidia hook up sometime. They're both excellent companies.

Posted 03/15/2010 at 07:56:51am

Who actually wants to pay so much just to overclock, and who knows if it's even stable. I'd rather spend my money on a processor with a high (and stable) default clock, instead of paying an extra thousand just for overclocking "potential".

Because not only do you have to pay a lot for the processor but all the cooling equipment as well. And even then, whenever you overclock everyone knows that it decreases the life of the proc.

Thanks but I think I'll wait for that $200 (or less) AMD proc that has a 4.0 GHz default clock. And while I wait I think 3.6 GHz does fine running Crysis as well as computing massive amounts of data.

btw I only paid about $130 for than much speed (including cooling). $1,044 for .7GHz more? Doesn't make sense. But I suppose that there are some PC builders out there that are willing to pay to have bragging rights ;-)

Posted 12/01/2009 at 03:35:32pm

My current, outdated, PC is running XP. But I'm throwing together a freakin' awesome new one, that's going to rock a windows 7 32bit OS. I decided to switch to 7 cause it may use more resources than XP, but performance difference isn't that much. Even though the requirements say 1gb ram, that's the MAX amount that it can use, usually it uses around 500 or 750mb. I've heard of people installing it on PCs that don't even meet the recommended requirements and it still works fine.

Posted 11/23/2009 at 10:23:29am

Why waste money on a laptop, when you can do the same things with a much cheaper ipod touch (if you have wi-fi), or a cell phone. The only kind of person that I can invision using this OS, is some very old (or very, very young) person who has an old, piece of crap laptop, has high-speed wi-fi, is obsessed with the internet, (somehow) stumbled upon the chrome OS, and knows how to install a new operating system. And if you look around, that's close to 0% of the world's population.  If you say that the majority of the people using the Chrome OS are not "Power Users" how can they even figure out how it works or how to install it?

 I'm just saying, It doesn't make sense for google to make this OS, when the people that it's geared towards (that is, not very tech savy individuals), won't even learn about it, let alone be able to install it and understand how to use it. Besides, with chrome, you have to be connected to the internet anytime you want to use it, which could get to be very frustrating.

 It could have potential though, if people used it for public computers at libraries and colleges, but besides that, it's not too practical for everyday users.

Posted 11/20/2009 at 03:59:47pm

Obviously this OS is for dumb people who don't know how to use a PC correctly. And from the video, the google executives are some of those dumb people. ;-)