I absoloutely would love to see ads more catered to me (my wallet wouldn't) That being said there's a time and a place, I'm a big man on immersion in movies and games, I do not need advertising in these forms of media PERIOD (yes, I know about product placement)
Ultimately though you're right, seeing a commercial for tits and fast food available at the same outlet on TV or my phone would probably sell me:(
In all seriousness though, I want performance from FF, feature wise the latest stable 2.0 releases with the addons I've installed (about 6 iirc) is more than enough for my _current_ needs. I want to see this application pick up in speed, a lot. Sure it's fast now but goddamnit people I (you?) want more - I've got 4gb of ram, I've got dual core processors, I've got fast hard disks but still the web isn't fast enough.
I'm not a developer, I'm an enthusiast, take my posts with as much salt as you like but I've found the speed of opening web pages hasn't particularly improved that much in the past 10 years.
Sure the pages are more complex, no denying it, I'm not completely dopey. We used to open what? 50kb of html / images on dialup 10 years back, now how big is your average page, (I honestly don't know) but based on my bandwidth use, quantity of pages I hit, I think it would surely have to be under 500kb.
See the thing is, I don't find the cache use in any browser clever enough, it just doesn't seem to get hit enough at least that's what I'd theorise.
While I'm at it, the one thing I've found which increased performance massively for me was a small application called 'easy dns' - I believe it's no longer available and either way I can't install it on every machine I browse on, but it was a DNS caching tool, lets you add up to 10 DNS servers, it would chose the best ones AND cache whatever ones it had already opened. When your browser hits/banner.jpg then/sidebar.jpg then/bottom.jpg etc - these hits seemed to be faster, perhaps it's time for something like this to be built into a browser?
This may come across like a big whine but honestly, I think FF is fantastic, the features are rich and it works well but hell, let's keep improving, I'd love to see the web truely, amazingly quick.
While I'm on that note, perhaps some performance tips for FF would be in order, anyone got any?
This game needs a good beat down to drop it down a peg or two, back to reality.
Go ahead, flame, agree, moderate how you like - that's my thoughts on the series (no denying Jack is a cockhat of course) but really this Halo hype kills me, it's a good game at best (the first one) yet it's lauded as the second coming of jebus.
I hear opus is good, I'm a Ztree man myself but the problem is that it's not a stock application. Much like I mentioned with Aero not following you into RDP - I find switching apps / interfaces to do things annoying, this is probably partially the reason I've weaned myself off Xtree and back to Explorer.
I need that consistency, I need to sit at bobs PC or mary's or dad's or mom's - etc etc and they all work the same, besides details view / thumbnails, XP explorer offers this. Well so does Vista - it's built in too but yeah it's just ghastly ugly.
I have 4gb of memory on my desktop, admitedly performance issues are mostly gone there but the interface is still the lingering issues.
Firstly and frankly, fuck clicking the breadcrumbs, - they suck, period. (Breadcrumbs done right on a web page? excellent - implimentation in Vista? feels wrong)
Explorer isn't great - it's cluttered, there's drop downs here, buttons there, it's a convolouted mess of epic proportions. You're speaking to an ex z-tree / xtree user, I need to do shit quick, I use explorer (yes I know Ztree is better) quite often and I just simply find the visual look of vista explorer difficult to get information to my brain fast enough, it's just too messy.
Sidebar off, I know - but it's still useless compared to the apple offering which is actually useful - it's not there at all and it's there instantly when you need it. (I'm in NO WAY a mac fanboy either, far from it)
Aero's live thumnails in the alt tab menu if I recall also suck. Don't quote me on this but iirc a super fast alt tab simply doesn't register, same as the alt tab replacement powertoy for XP. For high speed users swapping BAM one app to another this is very annoying to hold the key that.1 of a second longer.
I actually found several bugs and inconsistencies with the interface when I used it last, an example (may be incorrect - it's been 3 weeks sorry) I like to use details view, with status bar on all folders - I set this but when I click my computer the look and feel on the right in explorer changes - it doesn't show the drive letters on the right (or perhaps I'm thinking of when I click on desktop?) Either way, it wouldn't stay consistent, showing folders, shortcuts and files on the right and in details view always - XP does this.
Also while I'm at it, a small nitpick but the replacement boot loader screws stuff up. Acronis true image and disk director (the new ghost, by far) do not work properly with a vista dual boot drive, cloning the disk simply fails (going into the same machine just diff hard disk)
Ultimately I find Vista begins to clarify what all the linux, mac and general Microsoft haters have been saying over the years. While I sympathise with XP and enjoy it (oh oh!) I really genuinely find Vista's UI to be honestly a mess, as if not only 100's of people worked on it but they didn't discuss it or keep it consistent.
Finally, Windows XP (if you're a Windows user) is reliable and simple, it's fast and frankly, besides DX10 and some other small things, it 'does it all' for most of your users, home and office. Really how is adoption going to pick up when most users need MS Word, IE or Firefox, Printing, Burning, Downloading and connecting their digital camera / playing mp3's - that's all most people need. (it's probably been said before about 2K or 98, I won't deny)
All that said, glad you're enjoying it, page me when it's decent:/
The operating system is getting a very bad reception in the press and from the influential types (us guys) in IT See my thoughts below. (yes, this is a re-post, unreplied to though and obviously on topic)
When I tried Vista it forced my Dell 8600 laptop to run it's fan in stage 2 of 3 instead of 1/3 that XP does, somewhere CPU use was too high, no matter what I turned off (Aero etc) - on battery or powered.
The interface isn't for me, I couldn't possibly care less about a fluffy 3D interface, I've never used XP's Luna theme and I've been using XP since 6 months after release, I need a functional fast operating system with clever powerful features, I don't 'watch' my OS I use it to get stuff done.
Another reason why I don't want Aero is I do a hell of a lot of RDP'ing and you can't get Aero over RDP. I would find switching from Vista classic (or XP classic) to Aero, to classic to Aero when switching in and out of my RDP sessions to be very disorientating.
ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability, sadly I have to admit after using Mac OSX that the whole expose thing is surprisingly awesome and convienient, that operating system truely makes a mouse user damn near as powerful as a good keyboarder (wow!) Aero's flip 3D however was ridiculously bad at actually saving you time and effort.
The widget thing / bar on the right was stupid, it should be like Mac OS - it's there, when you need it, hidden and very easily accessable, NOT a bar stuck on the side (auto hide or not, Mac OS wins that)
The search functionality wasn't as good as locate32, I think in file names, not in contents, if I want my CV I search for *resume*.doc on all drives and I'll find it because I memorise the file name (admitedly locate32 isn't native to XP)
Therefore overall Vista didn't offer me anything that honestly helped me. I used a full retail version of Ultimate and manage to re-produce a bug where connecting to a VPN would instantly blue screen it too (fully patched)
I dislike the smaller 'stylish' min / max / close buttons at the top right, I like them square and easy to find.
Did I mention Windows Explorer sucked? I spend 80% of my time in it, managing files, doing 'stuff' and it's hard to explain but there was a lack of 'lines' and dividers and bars, the data was hard to take in quickly because the interface looked,... weird I couldn't do things quicker with that, the line showing left pane / right pane sucked. I think (don't quote me) it forced that silly task pane on as well, which is on in XP but disable-able - I don't think you can in Vista (don't quote)
I disliked the breadcrumb style address bar in folders at the top of explorer, admitedly just today someone found a home made patch to disable it but it's not a stock option in Vista and wasn't available when I tried it.
When all is said and done, I would STILL use the thing if someone just made a shell replacement that made it look absoloutely 100% identical to XP classic mode but with a Vista 'engine'. I don't hate DX10 nor do I detest the search, I can always use my own, I don't have to use flip 3d but I do CONSTANTLY use Windows explorer and I need it looking nice, simple and clean to do shit fast, - I felt hamstrung:/
If you have a password required to log in to the laptop in the first place.
That's the sad thing, if you lower your security so it just boots up and logs in, your app will likely work and connect to the net, allowing you to track them down, but people can also log straight in and access your data too.
This is slashdot, would a Microsoft apologist come here? I doubt it!
No, I'm a realist.
Vista 32 might be 'usable' in 18 months but then around that time we'll all be starting to genuinely need 64bit, hitting that wall - fortunately Vista 64 is there WAITING to be exploited, patched, bettered and you'll soon see us all using it.
It's like the gamers who went from 98 to Win2k, the first part was hell, but eventually it was all good.
Vista 64 is far superior to XP 64, the driver support and 'stuff ups' are just too many, XP 64 was a failure and will remain so. It will never be properly supported and what support you have now, you can't count on in the future.
Vista 64 however is going to get better, my estimation is within 36 months Vista 64 being virtually identical to Vista 32 in usability, the drivers will be good, stuff will be 'tweaked out' and fixed and it'll work - including those new games and apps which require 4 or more gb.
I will not deny for a second, Vista itself is still total garbage, I really really dislike it and I much prefer XP but if you ARE going 64bit and simply need it, Vista is the better option.
XP 64, like ME is one of those things most of us don't even remember exists.
I've been experimenting with Ubuntu for about 2 years now on and off, I try it each new release.
I've tried every release from 5.04 onwards, each time I've had difficulty getting things working. Initially intel 2200 wireless cards, then after purchasing a new card, getting WPA to work. Now, finally WPA is out of the box on atheros cards however my rt2500, not so much.
Sure in Windows sometimes stuff doesn't work too but in order to get things like this fixed under linux is very very difficult. (I've been using PC's for 16 years this year mind you) I read forums I post on forums, I try my best to figure it out but it just doesn't seem that simple at ALL.
Sure it's free and yes the guys over at the ubuntuforums certainly defy the stereotypical 'rtfm noob!' responses of yesteryear in # ultimately though it's still just crazy hard and I really don't want much (promise)
The latest edition of Ubuntu (7.04 iirc) doesn't work properly on Dell 8600 displays, the driver is dead and glitchy weird scanlines appear on the display (mind you this has never been a problem before) Sure you'll tell me it's a proprietary driver issue or ATI's fault and you'd be right but I'm typing this post from the perspective of a Windows user, I don't care, sorry but I don't - I just want it to work, I'd love to replace Windows.
I want to emphasize I'd be happy to persevere if say my graphics, sound and networking were fine, as long as I can sit on the couch and browse that's a great start, further issues like downloading things, burning dvd's, re-encoding media, manipulating images that is less important than the core functionality (although damned important too)
I do not want to use Windows Vista (don't get me started, terrible stuff) I'm an end user and I'm a gamer but I'm happy to dual boot XP and Ubuntu or if I get sick of my Desktop PC and PC gaming, go entirely 360 / PS3 and Ubuntu on the laptop but... at this rate Ubuntu isn't happening for me, been trying so long with so little luck:/
I've no doubt some will mod this overrated others troll but this is how it is from 'our' perspective over in the Windows / end user camp, we just need it to work, I'll keep on trying eventually it will work, I hope. (note: I am not saying it's all bad, synaptic is a fantastic concept, works well, free is awesome, overall UI doesn't seem too bad either)
There's been far far too many reports 'across the web' claiming the drives are either dead silent or noisy as hell. This would concur with the news post here, I'd say it's the AAM (or is it AMM?) accoustic management stuff.
On top of this there's been more reports of faults than there was with the 7200.9's. (although nothing deathstar esque) If you go on the newegg.com feedback section for the varying 7200.10's you'll see a surprising variety of votes, yet newegg is traditionally filled with 'fanboy' responses - either wildly popular and one or two bad ones, or of course the opposite.
After doing my research and being a picky bastard with noise and performance, I decided to hang up my seagate loyalist hat without having ever owned a 7200.10, I've switched back to WD, the reviews are just as good, the noise is confirmed to be almost as quiet as a 'quiet seagate' but clearly not as bad as the noisy ones. I will miss the 5 year warranty but I have a habit of always selling my disks within about 18 - > 30 months second hand and buying bigger ones anyhow, I like to keep disks with a long warranty in the house.
I may well switch back to seagate but I'm waiting for some decent bloody gigabytes per platter (188gb? please) where is the 250 and 333 (samsung, what's going on?) platters that should be out by now.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you and I also disagree with you :(
:(
I absoloutely would love to see ads more catered to me (my wallet wouldn't)
That being said there's a time and a place, I'm a big man on immersion in movies and games, I do not need advertising in these forms of media PERIOD (yes, I know about product placement)
Ultimately though you're right, seeing a commercial for tits and fast food available at the same outlet on TV or my phone would probably sell me
GREASY TITS mmmmmmmmmmm
What the hell is so wrong with it?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304745&cid=20695969
(rather than re-post and be accused of begging for mod points)
I see I screwed up by quoting 2003 edition but in his case, he's claiming it's fine with 2007 ..... inconsistent results it seems.
(throws chair!)
/banner.jpg then /sidebar.jpg then /bottom.jpg etc - these hits seemed to be faster, perhaps it's time for something like this to be built into a browser?
In all seriousness though, I want performance from FF, feature wise the latest stable 2.0 releases with the addons I've installed (about 6 iirc) is more than enough for my _current_ needs.
I want to see this application pick up in speed, a lot.
Sure it's fast now but goddamnit people I (you?) want more - I've got 4gb of ram, I've got dual core processors, I've got fast hard disks but still the web isn't fast enough.
I'm not a developer, I'm an enthusiast, take my posts with as much salt as you like but I've found the speed of opening web pages hasn't particularly improved that much in the past 10 years.
Sure the pages are more complex, no denying it, I'm not completely dopey.
We used to open what? 50kb of html / images on dialup 10 years back, now how big is your average page, (I honestly don't know) but based on my bandwidth use, quantity of pages I hit, I think it would surely have to be under 500kb.
See the thing is, I don't find the cache use in any browser clever enough, it just doesn't seem to get hit enough at least that's what I'd theorise.
While I'm at it, the one thing I've found which increased performance massively for me was a small application called 'easy dns' - I believe it's no longer available and either way I can't install it on every machine I browse on, but it was a DNS caching tool, lets you add up to 10 DNS servers, it would chose the best ones AND cache whatever ones it had already opened.
When your browser hits
This may come across like a big whine but honestly, I think FF is fantastic, the features are rich and it works well but hell, let's keep improving, I'd love to see the web truely, amazingly quick.
While I'm on that note, perhaps some performance tips for FF would be in order, anyone got any?
This game needs a good beat down to drop it down a peg or two, back to reality.
Go ahead, flame, agree, moderate how you like - that's my thoughts on the series (no denying Jack is a cockhat of course) but really this Halo hype kills me, it's a good game at best (the first one) yet it's lauded as the second coming of jebus.
Mod this guy up, I'm in Australia using Excel 2003 SP2 (11.8117.8107) and it's working fine here.
agreed, it drives me batty.
I hear opus is good, I'm a Ztree man myself but the problem is that it's not a stock application.
Much like I mentioned with Aero not following you into RDP - I find switching apps / interfaces to do things annoying, this is probably partially the reason I've weaned myself off Xtree and back to Explorer.
I need that consistency, I need to sit at bobs PC or mary's or dad's or mom's - etc etc and they all work the same, besides details view / thumbnails, XP explorer offers this.
Well so does Vista - it's built in too but yeah it's just ghastly ugly.
I have 4gb of memory on my desktop, admitedly performance issues are mostly gone there but the interface is still the lingering issues.
.1 of a second longer.
:/
Firstly and frankly, fuck clicking the breadcrumbs, - they suck, period.
(Breadcrumbs done right on a web page? excellent - implimentation in Vista? feels wrong)
Explorer isn't great - it's cluttered, there's drop downs here, buttons there, it's a convolouted mess of epic proportions.
You're speaking to an ex z-tree / xtree user, I need to do shit quick, I use explorer (yes I know Ztree is better) quite often and I just simply find the visual look of vista explorer difficult to get information to my brain fast enough, it's just too messy.
Sidebar off, I know - but it's still useless compared to the apple offering which is actually useful - it's not there at all and it's there instantly when you need it.
(I'm in NO WAY a mac fanboy either, far from it)
Aero's live thumnails in the alt tab menu if I recall also suck.
Don't quote me on this but iirc a super fast alt tab simply doesn't register, same as the alt tab replacement powertoy for XP.
For high speed users swapping BAM one app to another this is very annoying to hold the key that
I actually found several bugs and inconsistencies with the interface when I used it last, an example (may be incorrect - it's been 3 weeks sorry)
I like to use details view, with status bar on all folders - I set this but when I click my computer the look and feel on the right in explorer changes - it doesn't show the drive letters on the right
(or perhaps I'm thinking of when I click on desktop?)
Either way, it wouldn't stay consistent, showing folders, shortcuts and files on the right and in details view always - XP does this.
Also while I'm at it, a small nitpick but the replacement boot loader screws stuff up.
Acronis true image and disk director (the new ghost, by far) do not work properly with a vista dual boot drive, cloning the disk simply fails (going into the same machine just diff hard disk)
Ultimately I find Vista begins to clarify what all the linux, mac and general Microsoft haters have been saying over the years.
While I sympathise with XP and enjoy it (oh oh!) I really genuinely find Vista's UI to be honestly a mess, as if not only 100's of people worked on it but they didn't discuss it or keep it consistent.
Finally, Windows XP (if you're a Windows user) is reliable and simple, it's fast and frankly, besides DX10 and some other small things, it 'does it all' for most of your users, home and office.
Really how is adoption going to pick up when most users need MS Word, IE or Firefox, Printing, Burning, Downloading and connecting their digital camera / playing mp3's - that's all most people need.
(it's probably been said before about 2K or 98, I won't deny)
All that said, glad you're enjoying it, page me when it's decent
The operating system is getting a very bad reception in the press and from the influential types (us guys) in IT
:/
See my thoughts below.
(yes, this is a re-post, unreplied to though and obviously on topic)
When I tried Vista it forced my Dell 8600 laptop to run it's fan in stage 2 of 3 instead of 1/3 that XP does, somewhere CPU use was too high, no matter what I turned off (Aero etc) - on battery or powered.
The interface isn't for me, I couldn't possibly care less about a fluffy 3D interface, I've never used XP's Luna theme and I've been using XP since 6 months after release, I need a functional fast operating system with clever powerful features, I don't 'watch' my OS I use it to get stuff done.
Another reason why I don't want Aero is I do a hell of a lot of RDP'ing and you can't get Aero over RDP.
I would find switching from Vista classic (or XP classic) to Aero, to classic to Aero when switching in and out of my RDP sessions to be very disorientating.
ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability, sadly I have to admit after using Mac OSX that the whole expose thing is surprisingly awesome and convienient, that operating system truely makes a mouse user damn near as powerful as a good keyboarder (wow!)
Aero's flip 3D however was ridiculously bad at actually saving you time and effort.
The widget thing / bar on the right was stupid, it should be like Mac OS - it's there, when you need it, hidden and very easily accessable, NOT a bar stuck on the side (auto hide or not, Mac OS wins that)
The search functionality wasn't as good as locate32, I think in file names, not in contents, if I want my CV I search for *resume*.doc on all drives and I'll find it because I memorise the file name (admitedly locate32 isn't native to XP)
Therefore overall Vista didn't offer me anything that honestly helped me.
I used a full retail version of Ultimate and manage to re-produce a bug where connecting to a VPN would instantly blue screen it too (fully patched)
I dislike the smaller 'stylish' min / max / close buttons at the top right, I like them square and easy to find.
Did I mention Windows Explorer sucked? I spend 80% of my time in it, managing files, doing 'stuff' and it's hard to explain but there was a lack of 'lines' and dividers and bars, the data was hard to take in quickly because the interface looked,... weird I couldn't do things quicker with that, the line showing left pane / right pane sucked.
I think (don't quote me) it forced that silly task pane on as well, which is on in XP but disable-able - I don't think you can in Vista (don't quote)
I disliked the breadcrumb style address bar in folders at the top of explorer, admitedly just today someone found a home made patch to disable it but it's not a stock option in Vista and wasn't available when I tried it.
When all is said and done, I would STILL use the thing if someone just made a shell replacement that made it look absoloutely 100% identical to XP classic mode but with a Vista 'engine'. I don't hate DX10 nor do I detest the search, I can always use my own, I don't have to use flip 3d but I do CONSTANTLY use Windows explorer and I need it looking nice, simple and clean to do shit fast, - I felt hamstrung
I must've spelt it incorrectly, I could've sworn I typed milkbone at wikipedia and nothing came up.
Surely if I'm inferior, you're superior, no?
When I searched Wiki I had no such luck, perhaps you are vastly superior to me?
I'm still playing last gen Xbox 1 games which make me wonder why we needed the PS3 or 360 in the first place?
Both of them launched a year too early in my opinon.
What the hell is a milkbone, wikipedia and urban dictionary are not helping here.
If you have a password required to log in to the laptop in the first place.
That's the sad thing, if you lower your security so it just boots up and logs in, your app will likely work and connect to the net, allowing you to track them down, but people can also log straight in and access your data too.
A double edged sword indeed.
Read the links though, at the forums the posts are on there's many users complaining.
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=dell+8600+glitchy+ubuntu+7.04+lines&btnG=Search&meta=
I mean it wasn't like the 8600 was *the* desktop replacement to buy about 2.5 years ago,......
Well I guess this time they can reduce the FOV to 60! down from 75, those wacky guys!
I do not know my friend, I do not know but it kills me every damn time.
Which model nvidia card did you purchase to replace the ATI? I have exactly the same problem with my Dell 8600.
What's worse is Ubuntu 6.10 was fine but 7 - not so much.
This is slashdot, would a Microsoft apologist come here? I doubt it!
No, I'm a realist.
Vista 32 might be 'usable' in 18 months but then around that time we'll all be starting to genuinely need 64bit, hitting that wall - fortunately Vista 64 is there WAITING to be exploited, patched, bettered and you'll soon see us all using it.
It's like the gamers who went from 98 to Win2k, the first part was hell, but eventually it was all good.
sorry dude but you're wrong.
Vista 64 is far superior to XP 64, the driver support and 'stuff ups' are just too many, XP 64 was a failure and will remain so.
It will never be properly supported and what support you have now, you can't count on in the future.
Vista 64 however is going to get better, my estimation is within 36 months Vista 64 being virtually identical to Vista 32 in usability, the drivers will be good, stuff will be 'tweaked out' and fixed and it'll work - including those new games and apps which require 4 or more gb.
I will not deny for a second, Vista itself is still total garbage, I really really dislike it and I much prefer XP but if you ARE going 64bit and simply need it, Vista is the better option.
XP 64, like ME is one of those things most of us don't even remember exists.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=assembly&hl=en&m eta=n &meta=r ity&hl=en&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=assistance&hl=e
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=password%20secu
etc etc etc
Blanket url filtering are nothing short of frustrating and frankly, stupid.
I've been experimenting with Ubuntu for about 2 years now on and off, I try it each new release.
:/
I've tried every release from 5.04 onwards, each time I've had difficulty getting things working.
Initially intel 2200 wireless cards, then after purchasing a new card, getting WPA to work.
Now, finally WPA is out of the box on atheros cards however my rt2500, not so much.
Sure in Windows sometimes stuff doesn't work too but in order to get things like this fixed under linux is very very difficult.
(I've been using PC's for 16 years this year mind you)
I read forums I post on forums, I try my best to figure it out but it just doesn't seem that simple at ALL.
Sure it's free and yes the guys over at the ubuntuforums certainly defy the stereotypical 'rtfm noob!' responses of yesteryear in # ultimately though it's still just crazy hard and I really don't want much (promise)
The latest edition of Ubuntu (7.04 iirc) doesn't work properly on Dell 8600 displays, the driver is dead and glitchy weird scanlines appear on the display (mind you this has never been a problem before)
Sure you'll tell me it's a proprietary driver issue or ATI's fault and you'd be right but I'm typing this post from the perspective of a Windows user, I don't care, sorry but I don't - I just want it to work, I'd love to replace Windows.
I want to emphasize I'd be happy to persevere if say my graphics, sound and networking were fine, as long as I can sit on the couch and browse that's a great start, further issues like downloading things, burning dvd's, re-encoding media, manipulating images that is less important than the core functionality (although damned important too)
I do not want to use Windows Vista (don't get me started, terrible stuff)
I'm an end user and I'm a gamer but I'm happy to dual boot XP and Ubuntu or if I get sick of my Desktop PC and PC gaming, go entirely 360 / PS3 and Ubuntu on the laptop but... at this rate Ubuntu isn't happening for me, been trying so long with so little luck
I've no doubt some will mod this overrated others troll but this is how it is from 'our' perspective over in the Windows / end user camp, we just need it to work, I'll keep on trying eventually it will work, I hope.
(note: I am not saying it's all bad, synaptic is a fantastic concept, works well, free is awesome, overall UI doesn't seem too bad either)
There's been far far too many reports 'across the web' claiming the drives are either dead silent or noisy as hell.
This would concur with the news post here, I'd say it's the AAM (or is it AMM?) accoustic management stuff.
On top of this there's been more reports of faults than there was with the 7200.9's. (although nothing deathstar esque) If you go on the newegg.com feedback section for the varying 7200.10's you'll see a surprising variety of votes, yet newegg is traditionally filled with 'fanboy' responses - either wildly popular and one or two bad ones, or of course the opposite.
After doing my research and being a picky bastard with noise and performance, I decided to hang up my seagate loyalist hat without having ever owned a 7200.10, I've switched back to WD, the reviews are just as good, the noise is confirmed to be almost as quiet as a 'quiet seagate' but clearly not as bad as the noisy ones.
I will miss the 5 year warranty but I have a habit of always selling my disks within about 18 - > 30 months second hand and buying bigger ones anyhow, I like to keep disks with a long warranty in the house.
I may well switch back to seagate but I'm waiting for some decent bloody gigabytes per platter (188gb? please) where is the 250 and 333 (samsung, what's going on?) platters that should be out by now.