scumbag printer. . i see ynu' re trying to print wit '.,' wows computer prints nothing but code and diesn' t stop. windows 7 is best windows.
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

scumbag printer

i see ynu' re trying to print
wit '.,' wows computer
prints nothing but code
and diesn' t stop
...
+361
Views: 22345
Favorited: 4
Submitted: 06/23/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to hahdumbbirch E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(113):

 
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #31 - grandmabetty (06/24/2013) [-]
If Microsoft bring back the old Start menu like everyone wants then I'll consider wanting it. Oh and the return of Aero would be nice - it's better than looking at a ****** , flat, half-arsed, boring UI. If Vista was good for one thing it was making things look a little more dynamic and interesting.
#29 - frannyjunkfantolv (06/24/2013) [-]
I have had Vista for 5 years. I don't see why people hate it so much.
I have had Vista for 5 years. I don't see why people hate it so much.
#30 to #29 - Spikeydeath (06/24/2013) [-]
it was just so buggy for me
#26 - anonymous (06/24/2013) [-]
look a post about tards who cant use technology
#23 - fuckedbyapony (06/24/2013) [-]
Hi my name's Jason and Windows 8 was definitely not my ******* idea
User avatar #17 - kikkilinu (06/24/2013) [-]
To those people who happen to have Windows 8 and don't like it, worry not.

I have Windows 8 installed on my laptop and Windows 7 on my desktop. Windows 8 was the only choice I have, but all you gotta do is just install "Classic Start Menu" and then it works exactly like the previous gen Windows start menu's, just with a lot more customization.

I don't know if you guys know about Ninite. Basically a website from which you can install a lot of programs you might want/need in one go, and you just check the boxes you want, click on "get installer" run the installer, and it just does it all for you in one go. Super easy.

Classic Start Menu is the last option on the "Utilities" list. It's what I used on my laptop. Took all of 10 minutes.
#18 to #17 - kikkilinu (06/24/2013) [-]
That's what it looks like, and that's what you can download from there.
User avatar #16 - dankenstein (06/24/2013) [-]
THIS HAPPENS TO ME HOW DO I MAKE IT STAHP
User avatar #28 to #16 - scorponok (06/24/2013) [-]
Delete system 32
User avatar #40 to #28 - dankenstein (06/24/2013) [-]
Wow, everything works great on my computer now, thanks! it's way faster, never freezes, and now gives me automated ******** ! I heard from a friend if you microwave your laptop it will kill all the viruses in it, i might try that next!
#13 - anonymous (06/24/2013) [-]
Loved Windows 8 so far and by downloading drivers my old printer works just fine
#10 - canadianguyeh (06/24/2013) [-]
windows 7 is best windows.
windows 7 is best windows.
User avatar #19 to #10 - bronynexgen (06/24/2013) [-]
As an user of the beta even before Win8, I would love to see what Microsoft is going to do with Windows 8.1 (codenamed Windows Blue). Hopefully make it more stable, and clean up the code to make it more compact.
#12 to #10 - lordlolland (06/24/2013) [-]
I respectfully disagree.
#27 to #12 - yunnie (06/24/2013) [-]
**yunnie like windows 98 better**
User avatar #32 to #27 - lordlolland (06/24/2013) [-]
The number 95 is aesthetically superior to the number 98.
User avatar #8 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
Windows 8 was make to sell 'ultrabooks' and tablets because there is more money to be made selling a piece of crap with ****** parts that's been marked up because customers assume it's expensive to make rather than selling actually expensive hardware.

I hate companies that stop caring about creating the best product possible for their customers and instead focus on how they can get more money from their customers, even and especially if that means screwing them.
User avatar #20 to #8 - bronynexgen (06/24/2013) [-]
Ultrabooks are so expensive because they are so small. Each ultrabook has to combine portability, long battery life, and power, so each part is basically custom-made to fit into the tiny case of the machine. Think of it as a more powerful tablet with a keyboard.
User avatar #33 to #20 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
So you're paying for the design, and not the parts. As I said.

Every single time you pay for labor over resources labor will end up far cheaper for the company. You can either buy a gold brick or a custom designed gold necklace for the same price... but which is really worth more?
User avatar #37 to #33 - bronynexgen (06/24/2013) [-]
Except to perfect that design takes a bunch of time and resources. The price is for a design that has to be made near perfect in almost every single way in order for the machine to not overheat, and still be powerful enough to do most things you'll need of it.
User avatar #38 to #37 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
A monkey with an engineering degree can put the puzzle pieces together idiot. They're already paying these people... their time is a resource that is going to be spent one way or another inside the company.

So the most 'bang for buck' isn't to ask these engineers and graphics designers to build a computer with the best and most expensive parts, because in order to turn a profit they'll need to mark those parts up so high it'd be rediculous. Much better to take a part worth nothing and find a way to make it worth 10x it's value, and only at the cost of a couple days labor. Once you spend money on labor for a design you'll never have to spend that labor ever again.... but the parts that go into each ultra book are a recuring expense.

Think about it dude, and educate yourself. Go watch a video on how to build your own system. Be a man.
User avatar #39 to #38 - bronynexgen (06/24/2013) [-]
Here's the problem. The guys need to make these parts small, very small, and very efficient. That's an investment, and once these small, efficient parts are out, the company needs to get that investment back, so they mark up the price. Also, to make these parts small, they have to use more expensive stuff and more expensive tools, and that's another investment.
User avatar #42 to #39 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
This is why the 3rd gen chips from intel are so interesting. They litterally sip on power, so cooling is much more manageable, and they have a built in (though extremely ****** ) gpu.

The gpu is basically a speciallized processor that can handle a lot of **** all at once. The cpu is best at doing one thing really fast. The GPU can do a million things reasonably fast... but because it's doing it all simultaneously it can actually process several orders of magnitude more data than a cpu if the data is optimized for the gpu (like most videogames are).

The problem is that a gpu is usually a very large slice of the cost of a good computer, and it's also the primary source of heat. Nowadays chips, like 3rd gen i3's and i5's are so efficient they're practically cold blooded.... but if you wanted any sort of decent guts in your computer you'll still need a gpu, and those are absolutely hot-blooded little ******* .

So what do these ultrabook ******* do? They throw out the gpu! There: they just lost the majority of powerconsumption and heat generation in the laptop. On top of that, they just decreased the cost to build the laptop by about $100-$200... but they'll still charge you that money and then some. Making the computer light and thin after that? Childs play! The parts are already that ******* light and thin! Now we just need to tweak the processor so that it no longer produces any heat at all either and we're in business! Who cares if it can't even run twenty year old game titles?
User avatar #41 to #39 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
Small and efficient cores are a natural part of the evolution of processors. While the 'regular' one's double the transistor count every 6 months, this also means that a less powerful and less competitive chip can be made very small.

Do you know how small chips are? The biggest ones for consumer processing are usually less than 2 cm square. The things that take up space are:

1). The motherboard
2). The cooling system.

Therefore, the weaker the chip the less impressive a motherboard and cooling system. In order to make a thin computer all that ever happen is they decrease the wattage flowing through a chip until the damn thing stops overheating.

You could put an i7 core into an ultrabook. It would fit just as well as any other chip... but the power demands (usually in excess of 100W) and the chips need for powerful cooling would mean that the engineers would need to cut it's power intake by 1/5 (cutting it's performance in 1/5).... and then all you've got is an expensive chip that is outperformed by just about every other chip currently on the market.
User avatar #46 to #41 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
actually, they don't under-volt standard chips..... They use ULV chips which are physically smaller, produce less heat and use less power for a similar amount of throughput. They are however much more expensive than the non ULV equivalent or the desktop equivalent

You should actually do some research... you'd look less like an idiot
User avatar #49 to #46 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
A thin laptop to me is just another way to advertise that it'll suck, and I won't get my money's worth out of it. If I wanted a light and portable computer I'll use my phone and a bluetooth keyboard.
User avatar #48 to #46 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I was making a point. Chips are all small ******* things. It's the heat that's the problem.

The only obstacle to thin designs is heat management, and the best way to manage heat is to decrease performance.

Of course nobody in their right ******* mind would underclock a chip. That's retarded.
User avatar #52 to #48 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Actually underclocking has some awesome properties, but I've only ever seen it done by an OEM on the original eeepc701, they had a 900mhz cpu underclocked to 700, for heat and battery reasons.

By the way, good luck running x86 applications on your phone. I personally like using the actual ms office suite instead of ****** clones like polaris office. But each to their own. For me that wouldn't suit my purpose because I do actually need to run x86 binaries. I also need to be able to connect to devices via serial and ethernet, something that phones don't support very well right now.
User avatar #56 to #52 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Scratch that analogy... over in Europe they're all gay for small cars and rather snobbish about mustangs.

To me it seems an obvious choice, but I guess the world is full of morons who don't understand technology nor cars, and will chose the one that looks better and pay more for the privilege... even if the other choice is better in every single conceivable way.
User avatar #62 to #56 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
I don't find mustangs particularly impressive... Sure, heaps of torque but if you're living in the suburbs you'll never get a chance to use it and you'll be paying more in fuel each week for that privillage.

Now I'm not much of a car nut, so you could probably enlighten me as to why I should choose the mustang, but I don't really care
User avatar #54 to #52 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I'm saying that an ultrabook does a ****** job of being a computer. Same goes for tablets. A touch screen is a great tool, but it makes for a ****** interface.

an extra centimeter and an extra five pounds, to me, is worth the infinitely greater performance for zero extra cost.

It boggles my mind how they sell. It's like saying: you can have this compaq car whose sole bonus is that it's easier to fit in your garage.... or you could have this mustang for the same cost.

Which would you rather have?
User avatar #59 to #54 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
the one that suits my needs better. (which will most likely be the compact car depending on the circumstances)

I don't see what's so bad about ultrabooks, you really aren't explaining your reasoning that well.

They're perfect for anyone who needs portability, battery life and doesn't need much computational power. Seriously man, you don't need that much computational power for word processing, I do it on my eeepc win win 7 (1.6 dual core 1gb ram).

From what I can tell, you're having a cry about because it doesn't play games as well as a computer built for playing games... well duh.

Lets go back to the car analogy, You wouldn't use streetracing wheels while doing an offroad rally, and vice versa. Different tool for a different job.

I've got a desktop, an i5 lappy, and an netbook. each has a different purpose.
User avatar #11 to #8 - billybong (06/24/2013) [-]
I dunno, some ultrabooks are pretty good, IMO. If you needed portability and battery life but don't need an awesome cpu or gpu they're much better for typing than on a netbook or tablet.

I'm not going to say they aren't overpriced, but since they usually include an SSD and at very least an i3, it's not that bad for a computer so small. Plus 8 hours on battery for a laptop is awesome for those who need it. (I personally don't care for touchscreens much, but it's a nice feature to have as well)

However, my point is, it's you can't really compare an ultrabook to a desktop, or even just a regular chunky laptop. It's because of their size which prevents the use of normal parts, they really are in a class of their own. You're paying for the combination of portability and power, not just power like when buying a desktop, or desktop replacement laptop.

You are right however that win 8 was released to directly compete with other tablets/ultrabooks with touchscreens... obviously apple/google
User avatar #35 to #11 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
I have a friend who uses a windows 8 ultrabook. It's very cool looking, but for $900 ******* dollars she gets what? An i3, a pathetic amount of ram, no graphics card to be seen, especially ****** and expensive hard-drive, and a touch screen that has to be cleaned every couple minutes if you want to see what you're doing unless you decide to not use it... but lets be honest: windows 8 sucks tits to navigate without using a touchscreen.
User avatar #36 to #35 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
I bought a $750 laptop earlier this year. Guess what it's got?

An i7 turboboosted processor.
A very nice graphics card (2gb mem and lots of teraflops)
1tb hd
8gb ram
********* of ports like usb 3,0 and hdmi.
High def sound. A very sharp screen resolution. And ******* windows 7, which was the biggest selling point for me.



This is a last generation ******* notebook, and it's still so far ahead of the curve it's sick. I'm saddened by todays technology going backwards.
User avatar #45 to #36 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
But you completely ignored the points I made?

Your $750 i7 lappy is at least double the weight and size of an ultrabook. Try lugging a phat laptop like yours around every day for uni and you'll get tired of it very quickly.

If you're going for a desktop replacement laptop, why not just get an actual desktop with more power for cheaper and be done with it? Funnily enough, the desktop equivillent of an i7 would **** all over your laptop, unless you just happen to have a desktop CPU (which i highly ******* doubt in a $750 lappy)

Your friend's ultrabook is portable, easy to type on, and fast enough to run modern applications while on battery. No it's not for gaming (but the best game is diablo 2 and it can play that) It's for students and businessmen who don't need 3d acceleration

By the way, teraflops is a measure for computational power, and has nothing to do with ram access speeds, and installing any OS is piss easy, you seem to be a bit of a n00b for letting that dictate your choice of laptop. Both of those things just scream to me that you don't really know what you're talking about as well as you'd like to think
User avatar #66 to #45 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Pay for two OS's you say? Why would I buy windows 8 if I'm just gonna delete it.

Are you sure you're not retarded?

The more I talk to you the more it feels like I'm talking to a moron.
#69 to #66 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Pay for an OS, are you retarded?

Aside from the included OEM copy of windows of course which is usually unavoidable (and is worth less than $75). It's very rare that you can buy a Laptop without paying for an OS at all.

I have never let a pre-installed OS change my decision of purchasing a computer.... ever
User avatar #71 to #69 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
You bumbling idiot.
User avatar #70 to #69 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Which is why you either buy a computer with the os you like or build one from scratch.
User avatar #73 to #70 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
just build an ultrabook, sure I'll get on that once clevo starts selling a model I'd like to build. (since as far as I know they're one of the only DIY laptop suppliers)
User avatar #78 to #73 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I'll bet I could build an 'ultrabook' from scratch right now for less than what a namebrand one would cost.
User avatar #80 to #78 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
well if you happen to have a 3d printer to print the chassis as well as a really good hand for soldering your own motherboards, then sure.

Otherwise no.

But on a serious note, if you did actually want to build your own, that wasn't a useless hunk of **** , check out these guys.
You need to login to view this link
User avatar #84 to #80 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Hell, it'd probably look insanely bad ass.... I'll need to add building a sheet-metal laptop from scratch to my list of things to do.
User avatar #85 to #84 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
And I could just double up the batteries since I personally could care less about weight and size. I'll just make it a briefcase portable computer or something. Weld a handle to it's top. Rofl.
User avatar #83 to #80 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
autocad for the ******* win by the way. All I would need to do is minimal amounts of welding and bending.
User avatar #82 to #80 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I was thinking along the lines of fabbing it out of sheetmetal...

But honestly, if I'm going to build myself a laptop I'm not gonna waste my time trying to figure out how I can get away with not putting in a cooling system or gpu.
User avatar #86 to #82 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
good luck with that, flex the classis slightly and then short the entire motherboard (which you haven't even thought about designing)
User avatar #88 to #86 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Gonna need places to dock the parts anyway, so support strips would be part of the design.

It's called engineering for a ******* reason you idjit.
User avatar #90 to #88 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Like I said, good luck with your sheet metal laptop/ultrabook. You're going to need it lmao

But if you are even slightly serious... you are in for one hell of a learning curve ...
User avatar #91 to #90 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Nah, I fab my own **** constantly. Built a hammock in my dorm room for only $20 in lumber when the cheapest thing at wallmart that does the same thing costs $150. I do all my own work on my Jeep and I can't tell you how much that saves. I'm part of a design team for a life-sized trebuchet. I once did the motor-work and all of the welding on a project to build an electric and solar powered motorcycle. I want to some day create a motorcycle with wings and a chain driven propeller that flies.

I have no doubt that I could fabricate a chassis that would be 10x stronger than todays laptops, as well as being more powerful in terms of what I put into it and the cooling. It would be a frankenputer.
User avatar #94 to #91 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
You sound like a jack of all trades, yet a master of none. I wish you luck on your project, and your coming learning curve when it comes to microelectronics and practical laptop design.

Got any plans for the motherboard? Or plan to use an already existing one and make your chassis fit around it?
User avatar #95 to #94 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I'll probably salvage one from the nearby computer place that buys broken computers and parts them out.

I'm not a jack of all trades... I just happen to go to an engineering school and have friends and professors that let me use the lab equipment. I'm no slouch when it comes to programming code either. All that said, I'm just a lowly physics major, and math is my true calling.

If you had access to the proper tools you'd realize that all these 'hard' and 'expensive' things you're talking about are all actually quite quick and easy to do.
User avatar #96 to #95 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
I didn't say any were hard or expensive. But I don't have access to any metal fabrication equipment.

I did say that making a laptop chassis out of sheet metal is idiotic
User avatar #111 to #96 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Well not 'free' freefloating. It'd be more held in place than that. I just mean not touching the top or bottom of the container directly.
User avatar #110 to #96 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Simply by welding 'dividers' of metal across the bottom would make the whole thing strong enough I think... and it's not like I'm gonna attach the components to teh bottom. I'm thinking more along the lines of having hte parts free-floating inside the chasis.
User avatar #109 to #96 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I always do. I'm sure that if I can build bridges out of plumbing then I can build a box out of sheetmetal that would be rigid enough for the job. It's all about how you use the material. In terms of flexing.... plastic flexes far more than steel. Usually in laptops they build them out of aluminum internals and cover it up with plastic.
User avatar #104 to #96 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
brb, gotta take care of buisness.
User avatar #102 to #96 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
refer to comment 102
User avatar #107 to #102 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Can't reply to #103 (thread is probably nested too deep)

I've worked with sheetmetal a bit, If it's flat it flexes, You need to put a ********* of groves and folds to prevent that, which will make the chassis thicker than what can be made with a plastic chassis.

Unless you happen to have a press made for it, I expect it will take hours to make the shapes required for rigidity

(And I don't care what you make, have fun doing it)
User avatar #103 to #102 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
You have never worked with sheetmetal.... have you.
User avatar #99 to #96 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Works just fine for towers... why not a laptop.

I think you underestimate how versatile sheetmetal is.
User avatar #100 to #99 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Please re-read comment #90 for more info on this topic
User avatar #65 to #45 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Raw GPU processing power can be accurately judged by the teraflops it can maximally achive.
User avatar #67 to #65 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
aah misread the teraflops reference..

but whether an ultrabook is suited to you is irrelevant. I'm saying that they have a valid purpose for those who need it. Not everyone can get access to a power point all the time. Some people actually do a lot of walking, so 5 pounds makes a world of difference. And believe it or not, most people never even use their graphics card since all they do is browse the net.
User avatar #68 to #67 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
But why would they spend the same price point as a top of the line laptop is what gets me. Ultrabooks are in a weird middle ground where they neither have power nor notable portibilty/battery life. The only 'big' deal about them is the optional touch screen, which is expensive. They usually have rather crappy keyboards too... although I'm probably biased on that point as I've broken my fingers into my own keyboards.
User avatar #72 to #68 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
okay, I'm going to recite this one last time.

Parts are more expensive to begin with.

Then the cost of paying engineers to integrate those parts into a small product takes more time (and money) since the chassis and motherboards for ultrabooks are custom made for the model.

Finally, among the included expensive parts are usually SSD's or mSSD cache's which aren't cheap either. As well as ULV CPU's which as previously stated are expensive also.

Finally, after they've made a prototype, it needs to be tested more thoroughly than regular laptops since ultrabooks are regarded as each brand's premium laptops.
User avatar #76 to #72 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Soooo you're paying more and getting less.
User avatar #77 to #76 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
if you'd call a smaller and more portable version of virtually the same product less, then sure.

Otherwise no, and you're simply misunderstanding me deliberately for the sake of an argument
User avatar #79 to #77 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Imagine you want to buy a truck. Chevy has two models. One's got a big motor. The other has a smaller motor.

The smaller motor chevy costs more, but they market it as being more fuel efficient and more compact and more thoroughly engineered. The consumer eats it up, and buys the chevy with the smaller engine and pays a premium for it.

That's what it looks like to me. I cannot, for the ******* life of me, understand it.

User avatar #87 to #79 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Dude, I'm not sure what you're not understanding about this.

People aside from you have different requirements. Portability, and power are different.

You want as much power as you can get for your dollar, that's cool most people what that too. I do it too when I'm buying a desktop.

But some people actually have other considerations when buying laptop hardware. Some people don't need much storage. Some people don't need a GPU any better than integrated. Some people need the lightest & most powerful. Some need the lightest with best battery life.

Some (like you) just want as much power as you can fit in, and weight isn't a concern.

That's awesome for you, but my suggestion is, don't buy an ultrabook and be quiet until you do some research and know what you're on about.
User avatar #89 to #87 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
You get half a battery, an underpowered cpu, zero gpu, half the ram, half the hdd, and all of it you pay extra for, as if you were getting the full sized everything and then some. Pisses me off.

If ultrabooks were cheap, it'd be fine. I wouldn't care. It's these crazy ass idiots who know nothing about computers and never will who are being robbed when they look at a 900 dollar ultrabook and think they'll be able to do anything on it.
User avatar #92 to #89 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
You get half a battery - which means half the battery weight, and since the power usage is low, it still gets great battery life

an underpowered cpu - for bettery battery life, yet the computational power is similar. Downside is the chip is more expensive.

zero gpu - Actually the GPU is inbuilt to the CPU and not including it keeps the cost,weight,price,heat produced and power drain low. If you had no GPU you'd never see a picture onscreen

half the ram - It's an ultrabook, you don't need 16gb of ram to run MS office and browse the net, you barely need 2gb

half the hdd - But it's a ************* SSD, and it has triple the access speeds with 1/10th of the access time. It also draws less power and is more durable.

If you want cheap, get a netbook, that is what you described. An ultrabook is a much more useful product with more time and energy put into making it exist
User avatar #93 to #92 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
That built in gpu is so underpowered that it's a joke, especially considering how much it raises the cost of the chip. Never before has anyone willingly paid so much for so little.

Usefull you say? It's the ******* opposite.

The entire premise is that consumers care more about how their laptop looks and feels rather than how it performs and what it can/cannot do. That the 2 pounds shaved off by not including a full battery is worth more than having hte battery in the first place.

It's maddening.... and I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't taking the industry in this waky direction where ultrabooks promise high profit margines because of idiots like you. I'd much rather intel working on bumping up their processors speeds or their number of cores rather then trying to figure out how they can make computers slower.
User avatar #97 to #93 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
"That built in gpu is so underpowered that it's a joke" - For displaying a desktop environment, windows, and decoding HD videos, it's more than enough

especially considering how much it raises the cost of the chip" - It's actually built into every single chip, whether the chipset supports it or not. no cost difference.

Maybe you don't know, but unless you're planning on playing games a discrete GPU servers no purpose. And this is an ultrabook, so no, it's not designed for games.

"I'd much rather intel working on bumping up their processors speeds or their number of cores rather then trying to figure out how they can make computers slower." - What is it you don't understand, Intel are going for efficiency with this ULV product. The very fastest CPU's are in a completely different classification.

Okay, lets go back to cars since it's the only computer analogy people understand. Lets say you live in the city, alone, and need to comute short distances every day but you expect daily traffic jams. Would you get an SUV or a compact car?

Unless you're raking in the dough, you're probably going to go with a compact for fuel efficiency to save you money.

Yet if you were doing a 2 hour drive on the freeway every day, and you needed to take half a tonne of cargo a day, you might consider a large van or truck....

Ie, Hardware for purpose. If you are actually an engineer, that concept should make perfect sense to you.... if that confuses you in any way, change your studies and stick with the sheet metal working ASAP
User avatar #101 to #97 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
by definition, a chipset with a built in gpu is all about making computers slower and for more money, as determined by this ultrabook **** .

It costs more money to build a gpu into a chipset than it would otherwise, if for no other reason than it wastes silicon and the engineers time.

The integrated gpu is also meant to replace the need for a real gpu. Thus, the integrated gpu's only purpose is to build a slower computer. It's crazy.
User avatar #105 to #101 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
"a chipset with a built in gpu is all about making computers slower and for more money" - elaborate on this, because the performance drop on a cpu when using integrated graphics is pretty small. (Unless you are trying to render 3D stuff which We both know won't work)

"It costs more money to build a gpu into a chipset than it would otherwise, if for no other reason than it wastes silicon and the engineers time. " - It's already in there, It's built into the chip, It's built into all of the recent intel chips (Except xeons) What are you comparing the cost to since it's in every ******* chip you could possibly use?

"The integrated gpu is also meant to replace the need for a real gpu. Thus, the integrated gpu's only purpose is to build a slower computer. It's crazy." No... it's meant so you don't have to waste power on yet another component in a laptop designed for minimum power usage. the performance drop from displaying the frames via the Integrated GPU is unnoticable.

On a very related subject; have you ever had a play with Nvidia Optimus technology? It's Nvidia making use of both a discrete graphics, as well as intel's integrated graphics. I've got it in my laptop and when I switch to the integrated graphics, there is no performance drop for non 3d applications, and my battery life doubles once the GPU is turned off. Not having a GPU in a Ultrabook makes a massive difference to it's battery life, with very little limitation on what can be run on the laptop (apart obviously from 3d applications)
User avatar #106 to #105 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
That's my point. It's built into all these processors when it really shouldn't be. It's a waste of my time and money.

If you'd like a small gpu it should be sold seperate.
User avatar #112 to #106 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
my point was that there's no noticable difference between discrete and integrated gpu's when it comes to non 3d applications. which is completely the opposite of what you've been arguing.

Furthermore, the reason that the GPU isn't separate is because having it integrated means that there isn't yet another device to power up. Reducing power draw and increasing battery life. (I can't be bothered counting how many time I've told you)

By the way, I give up on discussing this with you, this is my last post to you. You "win" and I can't help you. You 're way too stubborn when it comes to thinking of new ideas and don't seem to be able to think of any situation or requirement apart from your own. You might be great with working with your hands, but you lack some basic communication skills essential to engineers. Good luck in life etc.

No hate at you or anything dude. Just excessive frustration at your combination of ignorance, stubbornness and arrogance

(by the way, if you actually do make your own lappy, put pics here on FJ. Peeps would love to see it. And remember, pics or It didn't happen)
User avatar #98 to #97 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
meh, It's late here and I think I derped my analogy.
User avatar #113 to #98 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Still don't like it... Nya.

A small seperate gpu shouldn't use more power than a small integrated gpu. Same amounts of processing taking place.

My biggest beef with small gpu's is that you'll see these computers with great big powerful cpu's.... coupled with the ********* gpu that money can buy. It's like having a corvette with skinny tires. Pisses me off, and it feels like they're wasting resources on purpose.

If you're gonna have a tiny gpu, put it next to a tiny cpu. No need to beat around the corner and try to pretend that the computer you bought will ever be capable of doing anything other than open text documents.
User avatar #114 to #113 - billybong (06/26/2013) [-]
you seem to have forgotten already That unless you are rendering 3d images, the inclusion of a dedicated gpu or an integrated gpu makes no difference in app performance.

A small seperate GPU does use more power than one integrated into the cpu. Because it is more electronics to power up. It doesn't matter if it's the same processing power, it doesn't matter if it's the ********* Nvidia, or the best ATI card ever (both brands are fine by me) but both will use more power than one inside the already powered on cpu's gpu chip

Now I totally agree with you and it makes me sad to see pc/laptop rigs sold as "gaming powerhouses" and they include an i7, but then they stick in something stupid like a Nvidia 6100. Those manufacturers should be shot for deceiving the less computer savy public

But what's the point of putting in a videocard in an ultrabook that wastes power when the user is likely to only run MS office, and a web browser? The dedicated videocard won't make any difference with those apps and only adds to the weight, size price, and reduces battery life.

Sure it'd let you play games, but if you want games... you should be looking at another product...

TlR you only need a videocard for games or 3d renderring.
User avatar #115 to #114 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/26/2013) [-]
Ram's also a rather important thing nowadays, and I honestly couldn't get buy without at least a TB of memory. I've filled up two 2TB external harddrives with random movies and stuff already.

If all you want and need is a web browser then you can pick up one of the $250 chrome books. Heck, even a really cheap $500 ultrabook would be fine. It's the people that spend rediculous money for no gain that bug me and tempt the manufacturers into creating more and more expensive and useless products.
User avatar #108 to #98 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
gotta run too, things to do. Been rushing to finish things here before I jet. Not here here, the internet here.
User avatar #81 to #79 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Oh,, and I forgot to mention more lightweight.
User avatar #64 to #45 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Personally though, I've never even used my battery much. It'd just waste it. I always plug in when I can and live next to the outlet.
User avatar #63 to #45 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
I do. I usually keep it in my backpack, where it fits perfectly, but I also have a shoulder-bag that keeps it and my papers and pens and even a book or two all conveniently in place when a backpack isn't appropriate.

Another great thing about my laptop is that it's sturdy as **** . Can't tell you how many time's I've dropped it, tossed it, sat or steped on it.. .and the worse it's got is a chip int he corner of it's plastic.

my friends ultrabook is no more portable than my laptop. It actually weighs about the same and is of similar thickness. They're both heavy.

The only two ways it out performs mine is that it runs cooler... and it has slightly better battery life, although that all depends on what we're running now doesn't it? Honestly though, it has almost too big and too bright of a screen... and I'm pretty sure without it the damn thing would see a two or three hour jump in battery life.
User avatar #34 to #11 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/24/2013) [-]
Then I would rather buy a fat-ass laptop with a cellphone processor and 100 hours of battery life, if using word docs and surfing the web were all I wanted to do with my computer.

You're paying for aesthetics... and aesthetics are cheap as ******* dirt. You're dressing up ****** performance in a shiny shell and advertising it as 'fuel efficient'. Doesn't matter to me, you still used a $10 processor and charged me $200 for the privilege.
User avatar #61 to #34 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
sounds like this is pretty much what you want

www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/devices/acer-c7-chromebook.html#specs
0
#60 to #34 - billybong has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #47 to #34 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
What $10 chips are you talking about? 29nm ULV i3's start at $225 RRP, 29nm ULV i7's start at $346

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Ultra-Low_Voltage#Core_i7_.2822_nm.29

Hell even atom CPU's were never as cheap as $10, remember this is intel we happen to be referring to, they don't do anything cheap.
User avatar #50 to #47 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
You need to login to view this link

You're looking at all the wrong places, dude, if you can't find cheap microchips. They're dimes a dozen if you're fine without the latest and greatest.
User avatar #51 to #50 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
User avatar #53 to #51 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
Aw jeez, I wonder why they're so cheap. Maybe it's because they're both 10 years old single core chips designed for sockets that aren't even made anymore and therefore there's no demand for them? By the way, the pentium M was **** when it was released, it was the worst of all worlds, terrible performance, lots of heat created and massive power draw. Dunno a lot about the AMD's but apparently they had the performance crown during that era
User avatar #55 to #53 - billybong (06/25/2013) [-]
the AMD isn't even for a laptop you retard
User avatar #58 to #55 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
Well then that's even worse.... you're paying extra money for less power. That's like going to eat in a 5 star restaurant and getting food portions that wouldn't satisfy a child.
User avatar #57 to #55 - PgFalcon ONLINE (06/25/2013) [-]
=p
User avatar #6 - billybong (06/24/2013) [-]
You just have the wrong drivers

You can do it on any OS with an incorrectly set up printer driver
User avatar #7 to #6 - hahdumbbirch (06/24/2013) [-]
I have it directly connected to the computer.

I don't use wireless.
User avatar #14 to #7 - KillinTime (06/24/2013) [-]
clearly doesn't understand how computers work.
User avatar #75 to #14 - hahdumbbirch (06/25/2013) [-]
i can't computer.
User avatar #9 to #7 - billybong (06/24/2013) [-]
still needs the right drivers.
#1 - anonymous (06/23/2013) [-]
no, the printer is doing the right thing. windows 8 should not be run on anything with more power than a first gen smart phone. it does not deserve to ruin good computers. use 7 it already beats windows 9, after all 7 ate 9
User avatar #116 to #1 - mattyixiriva (10/25/2013) [-]
I think this has to have the best string of comments about Windows 8 not being tottally bad!
User avatar #4 to #1 - mattyixiriva (06/23/2013) [-]
Windows 8 works pretty much like Windows 7/Vista if anything I can find my stuff faster.
#3 to #1 - anonymous (06/23/2013) [-]
I have windows 8 but it wasn't my choice. I hated it first but you cope with what you have. I think it's okay and with some updates, it could be great. You should try something before hating it. Oh, unless you're one of those dickheads who get their kicks on hating random stuff just to raise a ********* ..

If so, have a good day, you're a lost cause
#5 to #3 - chudboy (06/24/2013) [-]
Remember that 8.1 is coming soon, and should get rid of some problems.
User avatar #22 to #5 - bronynexgen (06/24/2013) [-]
Woops, scratch that, it's only for Windows users, never mind. I misread something very important.
#25 to #22 - chudboy (06/24/2013) [-]
Oh yeah, free upgrade for Windows 8 users.
User avatar #21 to #5 - bronynexgen (06/24/2013) [-]
Windows 8.1 will also add some more customization, and is free to download even for non-windows users. At least that's what I heard from this site.

You need to login to view this link

"Windows 8.1 will be launched at the Microsoft Build developer conference in San Francisco on June 26 and the final version will be available as a free downloadable Windows 8 update"
#24 to #21 - chudboy (06/24/2013) [-]
Yeah it'll be free. It's essentially an apology for people who bought Windows 8, and to keep them using it. But Windows 8 was cheap as **** to upgrade to from 7, something like 15-20 pounds. Though I got it free through the University. I think it's a good OS, it's just that habit of people jumping on the band wagon and not actually giving it a try. Or their too stupid to figure out how stuff works, get frustrated, call it **** and eventually buy a Mac.
User avatar #2 to #1 - therealtjthemedic (06/23/2013) [-]
This is what they said about xp, too.
Every new ******* OS.
I'm using 8 now, and it's great.
 Friends (0)