Content Preview: rss
530 days ago
I'm a tough critic, let's face it. I tend to really beat on things and I know it. I'd like to say this would be different but it's not. This is my review on the Macbook Air. As with most I'll organize it into categories, usefulness, power, hardware quality, software quality, price, and features. Let's jump right into it. Power: The Macbook air is of course the smallest laptop in the world (well, was until the Eee PC), but don't let it's size fool you, it's just as powerful as far as Processor speed and RAM as the standard MacBook. The Air does lack on one major feature though, harddrive space, in a day when 160 gigs in a laptop are standard, the Air is short changed at an 80 gigabyte standard or a 64 gigabyte solid state drive. The solid state saves power but sacrifices room and it's a 1000 dollar "upgrade." The reason I'd avoid it is because solid state drives are not all they are cracked up to be, they have a very fast random seek time, meaning they find files very fast, ...
541 days ago
Yep, I'm finally ready to make a review on Zune. Zune has been the object of ridicule since it's release back in the long past days of 2006. Back in the day Ipod users where very critical of the Zune dismissing it as just a lame copy. But in reality the Zune as of the Version 2 firmware update and software release is easily able to fend for itself in my mind. The zune is actually not a copy of the ipod but an OEM version of the Creative Gigabeat. I has all of the same features plus some. Here are some of the features I feel need to be mentioned an I'll go over each one on their own. 1. Wireless sharing and sync 2. Podcast support 3. Radio 4. Apple format support 5. Zune software 6. Zune Marketplace 7. Zune social 1. Wireless sharing and sync. This is the most noticeable feature added to the Zune. Taking from the idea that music is a social thing, Microsoft has given zune users the ability to share music Zune to Zune. It is really a neat idea, as the song is sent to a ...
569 days ago
Wow, I haven't been on in almost a whole month. Perhaps I should visit more O.o. Anyhow these are just some of my collective thoughts in the past five minutes, that OneCare should not cost what it does. It is just way overpriced. Okay first of all, many people are thinking "why would I buy a security suite from MS of all companies?" Well in reality this program works very well and has a small impact on the system, and is well added into the system. Okay, it offers a Firewall, Antivirus, antispyware, tune ups, and backup/restore and they all work well. Here is the part that urks me, Firewall core=Windows Firewall, Antispyware engine=Windows Defender, Tune ups=Defragmenter/Disk Cleanup, Backup/restore=Windows backup and restore center. OneCare uses all these programs as the core of all but one of it's features. Even antivirus, all it does is add Virus definitions to the Windows Defender scanning engine. So my question is *why* does it cost as much as it ...
596 days ago
No that is not my opinion :P. But honestly does anyone see an issue with this equation. Okay unless you've been living under a rock, you know about Microsoft's offer to buy out the fading web icon Yahoo. If you share the same opinion as I do about Yahoo, you couldn't care less right? Uhm, no. Yahoo is currently the under dog and simply is going to get bought by someone. The question is who and what would be the outcome. Well lets examine the Giant Juggernaut first. Over the past year or so (since Vista's launch) the new MS OS has been failing despite being the Windows system with the fastest selling licence, that statistic that MS is trying to say is a positive spin is falsified for a few simple reasons. 1. There are far more computers in the world today then in 2001 with XP's launch so of course there are going to me more sales. 2. MS doesn't say anything about that Vista is the most downgraded system since the flop that was ME. Okay, back to my point, with Vista's launch they also ...
606 days ago
What in the world is CNET thinking. Okay, yes I do see some of the issues they outlines in Norton IS 2008 (I'm using it as we speak), but the whole time they kept comparing it to Mcafee Total Protection which is a completely different animal. Mcafee Internet Security is the program that would be comparable, not Total Protecton. If they compared Total Protection to anything, it should have been Norton 360. They said pretty much that Mcafee for a lower price also has system cleaning tools and all this yammer. Well that's true it does, but that's Total Protection, Norton Internet Security is just that, Internet security, that's all it does and it's designed to do it very well (and does, it works fine). Norton 360 is the Symantec program that has system tools, backups, and all the extras. All I can say is I know who is paying CNET this year. 06=Kaspersky, 07=Symantec, 08=Mcafee.
