DeletThis

Perfect example of a "closed minded" person right here ^^^

There you go again taking things out of context. "Hating on soundcards" is not the same as "hating soundcards" - the former of which we definitely do a fair amount of around here.

And this beautifully elegant post is based on...? what, exactly?
 
IE 11 doesn't suck. Period. Certainly there are advantages to each browser at this point. That includes Firefox, chrome, and yes... IE 11 too. IE 11 is so massively different, both from a user perspective as well as a technical perspective, from the utter crap that was IE 6 to 8. And even 9 and 10 weren't the best. But IE 11 is a beast, and is quite competitive with the other 2 major browsers.
 
I'd certainly use IE 11 over Opera (glorified reskin of chrome these days) or Safari.
 
Please post something more substantial to back up your claim, or edit your post to say "in your opinion". Because that's exactly what you wrote, just your opinion and nothing more.

People thing that trashing the browser is funny, and keep the browser back and promote ignorance.
Seriously after IE 11 stuff changed a LOT, and on mobile the browser is a beast. IE 11 and higher is a completely valid choice for an Internet user today, we are long past the IE 6 times.
 
I will miss the name if Microsoft changes it.

The renaming is not going to change the haters opinions, people will stay ignorant.

Not accurate. They constantly have to keep spending more and more money on R&D and on investing in new technology. Every time TSMC shrinks a die size, it gets more and more expensive to do so. Largely because they are quickly reaching the point where it will become impossible to go any smaller. Once they reach that point it will require a whole new way of making chips, likely without silicone, which will again make things more expensive.

As games grow more demanding, the hardware necessary to play those games will become more demanding, and that means more expensive too. Thats all they're saying.

Yeah,because people using GoPros have nothing better to do but to constanly manage their camera...

Source: http://gizmodo.com/new-microsoft-project-makes-shakey-timelapse-video-watc-1619160435?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Project page: https://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/hyperlapse/
 

 
 
I think this is one of the most stunning technological advancements I've ever seen. That may be stretching it a bit, but it's still really freaking cool. I never thought it would be possible to make such shaky time-lapse videos look so butter smooth, but Microsoft has done it! This will soon (hopefully, please) be released as a Windows app (I'm *assuming* that it will be a Windows 8.1 exclusive), and I can't wait to try it out for myself.
 
So how does it all work? Read this quote from Microsoft:
 

Yeah i see what you mean. just remember though, a massive part of halo, just like quake, is map control. but obviously in a different style of gameplay.

Well I don't trust Huddy at all (I trust him just as much as a spokes person from Nvidia talking about their products). I can't find any other source than what Faa linked though. I took a second look at the windmill demo and sure enough, the frame rate is static. There is less than a 1 fps variation in the demo. The other demos I could find did not show any FPS, refresh rate or rendering time for the frame. So right now, the only test AMD actually gave us hard numbers on was static refresh rate and FPS.
 
Anyway like I said before, we will just have to wait and see how it will turn out once monitors are starting to ship. What I am a bit worried about is that it seems to me like AMD knows that it will cost quite a bit, and is now making it so that the consumers will blame the monitor manufacturers when the expectations they created are not met. Here is what I think happened.
"Freesync will cost next to nothing!" -AMD
*Time passes*
"Oh crap, it will cost 100 dollars to implement this dynamic refresh rate in monitors properly." -AMD
"How much will it cost to implement the absolute lowest grade version of it?" -AMD
"About 10-20 dollars I think" -AMD
"Oh okay, then we will just tell everyone that it will cost 10-20 dollars to implement". -AMD
*Make this announcement*
"Woho Freesync will only cost 10-20 dollars to implement!" -Consumers
*Time passes and monitors with a ~100 dollar price premium are released*
"What the hell? Why is this monitor 100 dollars more expensive even though AMD said it would only cost 10-20 dollars. I bet the monitor manufacturers are trying to overcharge for it!" -angry consumer
*Monitor manufacturers get the blame for the unrealistic expectations created by AMD*
 
That is what I think will happen. I recommend everyone to expect them to have the same premium as G-Sync monitors. If they are cheaper then great! You get a glad surprise. It's better to set your expectations very low and then get a glad surprise, than to set them too high and be disappointed.
I am not saying having different tiers is bad, but I dislike how AMD isn't clear about it. We still don't know if there will be different tiers or not, or what the potential tiers will be.

You're confusing the average price of goods dropping due to improvements in technology/manufacture over time and the comparison of product cost and the features/quality of each at any one given time.

You know there is a heavy dose of marketing behind a product/project when despite the best efforts you read a lot of the following statements in discussion:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I hope it all works out the way it's presented,  but obviously there is not a lot of concrete information from AMD. 

Gsync already exists as a consumer usable marketplace item.
Freesync does not. And like mantle support "is coming"
 
 
Enough said.

That's nice, but my point still stands, every time someone says company A is better than company B and post a graph we end up with pages of graphs and no real insight into the topic at hand.  It just results in a fanboy war.  There was nothing wrong with what LawLz said, If he wants to wait for monitors to actually hit the market and know the price instead of just believing what AMD will tell us then that's not only his prerogative but it's quite a mature approach to take, especially considering how volatile the industry can be.   He wasn't saying it will be shit, he wasn't outright calling it a lie and saying it won't happen, he simply said he'll wait for it to happen before he believes it. And to be quite honest I am in the same boat,  there has been a lot (and I mean a LOT) of talk from AMD over the last 5 years, so far we have a handful of cheaper GPU's and maybe an API.  Until freesync actually resolves itself into something tangible what's there to get excited about?  In my experience (more than 30years) you get what you pay for.  I happy to be proven wrong but that hasn't happened yet.

Please, why must people always resort to picking and posting these graphs?  they mean hardly anything because you can always find a graph that says the opposite.  Whats wrong with letting people be skeptical of marketing claims?  9 times out of 10 products aren't as grandiose as the companies make out. 

That's what it sounds like to me:
This sentence implies that there will be different tiers of implementations. Some which are more limited than others. The way the 7XXX series supports FreeSync also indicates that there will be different tiers. Some which just locks at different refresh rates, and some that dynamically changes them.

@Fooshi: So...every large company has tape backups. Google and amazon...I'm not so sure. But Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Fidelity, Walmart, Target, JCPenny, Autozone, etc. All of these companies have tape backup. Why? Three reasons. Friction (from management and 'the way it was previously done'), cost (even at 5¢ per GB for SATA, the storage arrays you'd need, power and cooling, floor space, etc, make it prohibitively expensive), and regulations (government rules on data retention).
 
Most IT orgs whose heads aren't shoved so far... destage backup data to hard drives as an intermediate step. So...around 6PM at night, assuming 6pm-6am is their slower time for business, the backup jobs kick in and start writing the backup data for that night to spinning disk. There are a few companies that sell solutions for this, Data Domain is the only one I can name off the top of my head. Anyway, you destage the data to disk because it's WAY faster than writing directly to tape and then you write from those disks to tape over the next 23 hours (it shouldn't take 23 hours, but that's your window before the next day's backups start).
 
As for why use tape? Because it is, bar none, the most dense form of digital storage available. It's also cheap. The tape head unit (read/writer) costs $7000-15000, depending on what you are buying, and yes you have a storage array that has 12 or 24 or them, but really, 200K, and another $100-300 per tape, to get something saved that will last you at LEAST 50 years sitting on a shelf? Yes please?
 
Tape *is* innovative. The innovation just isn't as whiz bang as iphones or new multicore CPUs. The innovation is on the magnetic layer, how the heads write the data to the tape itself (the physical layout of bits to maximize density). New amplifier and high-gain antennae designs to read ever-fainter magnetic fields. New materials for making the tape out of that not only allow for tighter magnetic fields, but also weaker ones (the weaker the field, the more closely together you can pack the bits).
 
I understand *why* you think tape is a dinosaur, but you are sadly mistaken. Tape is still very much needed by corporate business. Small mom&pop shops don't need tape because tape becomes cost effective past a certain economy of scale. Once your company has a PB or more of data, tape is generally a *very* attractive backup option from a cost perspective. Possibly even sooner, depending on retention rules for the specific data you are saving.
 
edit: Also, yes, a fair bit of work does go into ensuring that the new tape read/write units can read the previous format or 2 of data, giving you time to migrate your data on older tapes to newer ones, just in case you need that data and the read/write units aren't made anymore.

1. Marketing (Ads, Press Conferences, Events, Hoardings, Booths in malls and where not, it all costs money)
2. Labour and Production costs. Not to mention the training costs for new labours. Employees Sallary and all the production forces working behind to make phones possible.
3. License costs for Google Play Services, Additional subscriptions and for some bloat softwares.
4. Research and Development : AMOLED displays took a lot of R&D to come to where they currently are. Few years ago, Samsung were unable to produce even AMOLEDs of retina PPI. This is where R&D came into factor. Also this applies for lots of other stuff.
5. Shipping and Transporting charges.
 
6. They also have to make some profit, so after all this they barely get about 25-30% of the profit which I believe is well worth for keeping the company alive and bringing more devices to the market.

I see you haven't actually researched the Galaxy S 5. I suggest you do so before trying to talk crap about it.
 
 
As for why they are so expensive, supply and demand. If people stopped buying them at such ridiculous prices then they would drop in price.
Don't get me wrong. The Galaxy S 5 is still overpriced, but other companies are just as guilty of this. Actually, the Galaxy S 5 is very expensive to manufacture compared to other phones.
I really hope Google continues to release cheap yet high end phones.
 
 
Metal is pretty damn cheap (especially aluminum). What's pricey are the CNC machines but you just have to make that investment once. There are A LOT of plastics that are more expensive than aluminum. Not only is it one of the most common materials on earth, but a lot of it used in phones and such are literally recycled soda cans. Aluminum is not expensive or luxurious, just like drinking from a soda can is not expensive or luxurious.
 
Your second point is valid. There are some other differences though (like better manufacturing process) but yeah, it shouldn't really cost more than the old Snapdragon 800.
 
The screen is not oversaturated anymore, compared to other phones. The M8 is just barely more saturated, the LG G2 is the same, the Moto X is far more saturated. Color accuracy is even better than the M8. White temperature is fantastic (the best of any phone on the market by far). Power usage has dramatically gone down. Brightness is up quite a bit and the reflectiveness of the screen is down (both helps improve outdoor visibility).
The burn in problem still exists but I don't get how you could get it on the Galaxy S 4 and note 3 though. Both of them have transparent taskbars for this exact reason. I noticed a slight burnin on my Galaxy S 2 after ~2 years of usage, but I am going to have to call bullshit on you getting burn in on a recent SAMOLED device after only 3 months (unless you had the screen on for basically the entire 3 months).
 
About the camera. The camera is actually really good, and it is fairly complex. It uses a brand new camera architecture. HIS estimate the cameras to cost about 19 dollars. That's quite a lot compared to the iPhone 5S which has cameras that costs about 13 dollars. I suspect that the HTC One lands at around 20 dollar combined as well.
19 dollars is quite a bit of money in a 250 dollar device. 256 dollar BOM is actually very high for a phone. The iPhone 5S for comparison costs under 200 to build.

The Golden Rule of PC.

When something new launches, never jump on it immediately.

Oh my bad. I have seen people with 7xxx cards and it doesn't seem to be that optimized as people are getting stuttering and lower fps. But once they optimize and tweak it I think it will be a great.

Good, now Slick won't be able to eat.

I heard the same uproar when the first 720p phone screens were released but then a few months later, if a phone didnt have 720p, it got trashed by every consumer and reviewer. Then once again when 1080p phones were released, the same thing happened. And now, once again, its happening with 1440p. Idk, maybe I'm starting to see a pattern here But what do I know. I mean, phones only need 480p screens, and 5 mp cameras are good enough and no one needs LTE Advanced while HSPA+ is plenty fast, right? These same arguments of "we don't need *insert name of new technology or better spec here* " comes along every single time something new happens in the industry, and then a month later, the people who opposed these things somehow turn into their biggest proponent.

LOL really? How often are people actually talking about the original Xbox instead of the newest console...