Here in the UK, we have "PC World". From what I can tell, it's pretty similar to places like Best Buy, except that it only deals with PCs, peripherals and electronic equipment.
Anyone who works with computers over here will tell you that PC World is pretty much never a good place to go to buy hardware, as they will of course charge you more than mail order to cover their overheads, and their staff are (in general) pretty clueless.
There is one exception to this rule. On their website, you can reserve items for collection from your local store. This can be done pretty instantly - make the reservation, wait half an hour or so and then head over to the store. It tells you live stock numbers so you're guaranteed to get your item, and you can usually collect it from the customer service point and pay there and then. Nothing really that remarkable about that, but it's a useful service if you need (or want) something in a hurry.
However, quite a lot of items on the site have a special "online" price next to them, which is what you pay if you get the items through their mail order service, rather than buying at the store. What's great is that they honour these prices in-store - I have been in a situation before where an item is £49.99 on the shelf in a store, but is £31.99 if you buy online. That offers a 35% saving, and you can get your item on the same day. It seems utterly stupid, as I am still going to the store and picking the exact item up off a shelf, and it takes all of three minutes for me to reserve the item I want on the web and get a confirmation number.
This is the only reason I ever go to PC World. Well, that and the fact that if I ever want to have a really geeky laugh at something, I just have to eavesdrop on one of their sales assistants trying to put the hard sell on someone.
That's entirely belivable. My mother bought a laptop a while ago which gets stupidly hot when it runs - you can actually burn your wrists if you use it for a period of time.
I think it might actually have a full Pentium 4 inside it, as opposed to one of the "Mobile" versions. The battery lasts all of about 20 minutes when it's not on the mains. It's a Fujitsu, or something like that.
It does run World of Warcraft though, which is nice.
FYI, it actually pulls them via HTTP (rather than FTP) from Blizzard's servers. The problem is that on patch day (or anything up to about two weeks after it) the HTTP servers get massively overloaded, so if you can't use BitTorrent then it will take an absolute age to download a patch.
This is why people started downloading the patches and then putting them on HTTP mirrors. It's quite often a much better way of getting a patch, particularly considering that Blizzard's download client doesn't seem to pay much regard to your upstream speed, and therefore frequently saturates your connection to the point where the patch download actually slows down.
Oh come on, mods - the guy gets modded +4 informative for posting a link to a tired Bash quote that any Slashdotter worth his salt has read many times in the past? What is this?!
You're saying that you wouldn't stand around and gawp a bit if you saw a girl outside the bank wearing only a buccaneer's shirt and her undies...?
You're a disgrace to the name of Slashdot!
Alternatives
on
Ask Rob Malda
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
Other than Slashdot, what are the websites you most enjoy spending time on, and why?
...I'd come up with the idea myself. I must have thrown out so many computers in my time that could have been converted to the Linux cause with just a tiny bit of work. I applaud this guy, not only for spreading Linux to as many people as possible but also for kicking the drugs. Way to go.
Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the truth is essentially that politicians care about one thing and one thing only - and that is votes. Yes, they are scared about what the public think of them, so much so that they will go to any length to keep themselves the positions of power that they hold so dear. This is why they will lie, cheat and deceive in any way possible just to make themselves look good, or at least better than their rivals.
There is no "none of the above" option on poll cards. What are you supposed to do if you want to vote, but despite the things they say you know that all the candidates are driven by the same greed and lust for power?
So the British government is trying to cover something up... quelle surprise.
Actually, I shouldn't be shocked. They've lied about funding, the health service, taxes and just about everything else... they'd be the first to try and protect their own livelihoods when it came to the crunch.
Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs? Or is it just that there is no such thing as an honest politician?
Agreed - it's hardly surprising that someone who had a similar sort of idea, but was clearly not as talented a writer as JK Rowling, would try and cash in on the success of the Harry Potter books just because Rowling is now loaded and "NK Stouffer" (also some form of rip-off of Rowling's style of name) is not.
The thing is that you are probably right. It's said in one of the earlier books that both Harry and Voldemort are inexplicably linked due to the backfiring Avada Kedavra curse (shown by the scar on Harry's forehead) and as such, when one of them dies, the other will too.
Maybe the two people that die are Harry and Voldemort.
Nobody wants to hear any more about the war in Iraq - we in the UK didn't want to be part of it in the first place, and yet we didn't get the choice because our leader is a spineless creep. I think that near Christmas, a novelty story about the title of the newest Harry Potter book is probably just what people would like to see, rather than endless bollocks about things that have happened due to an idiot politician trying to secure supplies of oil.
I have only just realised that Bootcamp is available and it is making me think quite seriously about whether or not I want to have PCs from now on. I love the style of OS X (mainly because of Aqua) and a lot of Apple's software, but the main turn-off has always been that some of my favourite games and applications wouldn't work. To find out that you can now run both XP and OS X on the same computer is quite exciting.
When it gets past lunch, kids can't be bothered any more because it's the downhill stretch of school rather than the uphill morning stretch. They just know that in a few lessons' time it's going to be home time and they can go watch TV or play on their computer.
(I would add "play football" or "ride their bike" to the list, but let's face it - actual "active" pursuits have kind of died a death amongst a lot of teenagers. This is the main reason that obesity has become such a problem.)
I agree with blocking everything except Google ads. They're very small, unobtrusive and above all they're text, so virtually no extra overhead for dialup or fussy broadband users. I don't object to things that don't get in my face - it's just when I get three popups telling me to click the ant to win a prize or join the Jamster ringtone club that steam begins to emerge from my ears.
Using Flash means that the majority of layman Windows & IE users (ughh, IE) will be able to watch their videos because if they have Flash installed, it just works, and if they don't, it'll give them a popup to install it and then they can watch it 30 seconds later.
I'm sure Youtube are very sorry that they've catered for 85% of computer users rather than the odd 15% who insist on Linux and then whine that it doesn't work properly.
I used to use one of those files until I discovered that I actually couldn't visit some sites I wanted to. For example, I couldn't download any MSN Messenger-related programs from http://www.mess.be/ [mess.be] because they routed their download requests through an adserver before it served me the file. Now while I understand that's the site's fault for being money-grabbing fools and wanting everyone to view their rubbish adverts, it doesn't change the fact that I didn't get the software I wanted. Installing Adblock was just a better solution to the whole thing - at least the 1% of the time that you actually want to "see" an advert, you get to choose.
Sorry, you said "upgrade"? I was under the impression that 2000 was somewhat older than XP and therefore would be a "downgrade". This also doesn't take account of the fact that 2000 is a nightmare when it comes to installing my Bluetooth software and various other things that clearly state I *MUST* have XP in order to install them.
It is almost tempting to do just to get WGA to sod off, though.
The fact that Microsoft are making DX10 only for Vista doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Yes, it's because the whole driver structure has been changed... but it is also rather convenient for them.
Microsoft: "You must upgrade to Vista because DirectX 10 will not work with Windows XP, due to a new driver architecture."
Me: "I see... but surely that means you're just attempting to pull more money out of me and other Windows users by our eyeballs. After all, I wouldn't upgrade to Vista otherwise because I've used the beta and it was slow as hell. It concentrated so much on "pleasing" visual effects and transparency that it took twice as long as XP to do even the most menial tasks. My computer is not below average by any means, would you care to explain why I'd buy a new operating system that would slow my computer down rather than keep the existing one which works just fine for everything I want to do?"
Microsoft: "Uh... well, it'll be more reliable."
Me: "I've had uptimes on Windows XP of three weeks before now without rebooting. In fact the only reason I reboot at all is to install new drivers for a piece of hardware or something like that. That's quite reliable enough thanks, given that the majority of people (not slashdotters, naturally) turn their computers off every night so don't even need that extended uptime."
Microsoft: "Oh. Well you won't be able to play new games like Halo 2 without Windows Vista."
Me: "That doesn't concern me. Why should I upgrade?"
Microsoft: "Because it'll put another £100 in Bill Gates' coffers."
Me: "I thought so!"
The Vista beta was horrific. Yeah, sure, they're going to fix some of the problems before the final release, but the truth is that it rated my computer 3/5 for hardware performance when I have a 256mb Geforce 6600GT, 1GB of RAM and an Athlon XP 2800+ processor. My computer runs faster than anyone else's I know, even those with faster processors and the same amount of RAM. What the hell do you need to get 5/5?
I'm digressing, but the point is that Microsoft are just attempting to grab our money. They won't be getting mine, that's a sure fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the UK, we have "PC World". From what I can tell, it's pretty similar to places like Best Buy, except that it only deals with PCs, peripherals and electronic equipment.
Anyone who works with computers over here will tell you that PC World is pretty much never a good place to go to buy hardware, as they will of course charge you more than mail order to cover their overheads, and their staff are (in general) pretty clueless.
There is one exception to this rule. On their website, you can reserve items for collection from your local store. This can be done pretty instantly - make the reservation, wait half an hour or so and then head over to the store. It tells you live stock numbers so you're guaranteed to get your item, and you can usually collect it from the customer service point and pay there and then. Nothing really that remarkable about that, but it's a useful service if you need (or want) something in a hurry.
However, quite a lot of items on the site have a special "online" price next to them, which is what you pay if you get the items through their mail order service, rather than buying at the store. What's great is that they honour these prices in-store - I have been in a situation before where an item is £49.99 on the shelf in a store, but is £31.99 if you buy online. That offers a 35% saving, and you can get your item on the same day. It seems utterly stupid, as I am still going to the store and picking the exact item up off a shelf, and it takes all of three minutes for me to reserve the item I want on the web and get a confirmation number.
This is the only reason I ever go to PC World. Well, that and the fact that if I ever want to have a really geeky laugh at something, I just have to eavesdrop on one of their sales assistants trying to put the hard sell on someone.
That's entirely belivable. My mother bought a laptop a while ago which gets stupidly hot when it runs - you can actually burn your wrists if you use it for a period of time.
I think it might actually have a full Pentium 4 inside it, as opposed to one of the "Mobile" versions. The battery lasts all of about 20 minutes when it's not on the mains. It's a Fujitsu, or something like that.
It does run World of Warcraft though, which is nice.
FYI, it actually pulls them via HTTP (rather than FTP) from Blizzard's servers. The problem is that on patch day (or anything up to about two weeks after it) the HTTP servers get massively overloaded, so if you can't use BitTorrent then it will take an absolute age to download a patch. This is why people started downloading the patches and then putting them on HTTP mirrors. It's quite often a much better way of getting a patch, particularly considering that Blizzard's download client doesn't seem to pay much regard to your upstream speed, and therefore frequently saturates your connection to the point where the patch download actually slows down.
Why should we? We're not all simple-minded Americans who get caught sharing music on Kazaa.
Oh come on, mods - the guy gets modded +4 informative for posting a link to a tired Bash quote that any Slashdotter worth his salt has read many times in the past? What is this?!
You're saying that you wouldn't stand around and gawp a bit if you saw a girl outside the bank wearing only a buccaneer's shirt and her undies...? You're a disgrace to the name of Slashdot!
Other than Slashdot, what are the websites you most enjoy spending time on, and why?
...I'd come up with the idea myself. I must have thrown out so many computers in my time that could have been converted to the Linux cause with just a tiny bit of work. I applaud this guy, not only for spreading Linux to as many people as possible but also for kicking the drugs. Way to go.
Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the truth is essentially that politicians care about one thing and one thing only - and that is votes. Yes, they are scared about what the public think of them, so much so that they will go to any length to keep themselves the positions of power that they hold so dear. This is why they will lie, cheat and deceive in any way possible just to make themselves look good, or at least better than their rivals. There is no "none of the above" option on poll cards. What are you supposed to do if you want to vote, but despite the things they say you know that all the candidates are driven by the same greed and lust for power?
Actually, I shouldn't be shocked. They've lied about funding, the health service, taxes and just about everything else... they'd be the first to try and protect their own livelihoods when it came to the crunch.
Is it just me, or is my country going to the dogs? Or is it just that there is no such thing as an honest politician?
I like that a lot.
Agreed - it's hardly surprising that someone who had a similar sort of idea, but was clearly not as talented a writer as JK Rowling, would try and cash in on the success of the Harry Potter books just because Rowling is now loaded and "NK Stouffer" (also some form of rip-off of Rowling's style of name) is not.
The thing is that you are probably right. It's said in one of the earlier books that both Harry and Voldemort are inexplicably linked due to the backfiring Avada Kedavra curse (shown by the scar on Harry's forehead) and as such, when one of them dies, the other will too. Maybe the two people that die are Harry and Voldemort.
The dead horse gag wasn't funny the first time, but you've just totally ruined it. I hope you're proud of yourself.
Nobody wants to hear any more about the war in Iraq - we in the UK didn't want to be part of it in the first place, and yet we didn't get the choice because our leader is a spineless creep. I think that near Christmas, a novelty story about the title of the newest Harry Potter book is probably just what people would like to see, rather than endless bollocks about things that have happened due to an idiot politician trying to secure supplies of oil.
"by the crown", actually... cerveza != corones != cojones
*goes away to contemplate Mac purchase*
(I would add "play football" or "ride their bike" to the list, but let's face it - actual "active" pursuits have kind of died a death amongst a lot of teenagers. This is the main reason that obesity has become such a problem.)
Well, I don't think a Windows user would sit there and make a comment exactly saying that, do you?
Get over yourself, for goodness sake. It's fools like you who make all Linux users look like haughty Windows-hating snobs.
I agree with blocking everything except Google ads. They're very small, unobtrusive and above all they're text, so virtually no extra overhead for dialup or fussy broadband users. I don't object to things that don't get in my face - it's just when I get three popups telling me to click the ant to win a prize or join the Jamster ringtone club that steam begins to emerge from my ears.
I'm sure Youtube are very sorry that they've catered for 85% of computer users rather than the odd 15% who insist on Linux and then whine that it doesn't work properly.
I used to use one of those files until I discovered that I actually couldn't visit some sites I wanted to. For example, I couldn't download any MSN Messenger-related programs from http://www.mess.be/ [mess.be] because they routed their download requests through an adserver before it served me the file. Now while I understand that's the site's fault for being money-grabbing fools and wanting everyone to view their rubbish adverts, it doesn't change the fact that I didn't get the software I wanted. Installing Adblock was just a better solution to the whole thing - at least the 1% of the time that you actually want to "see" an advert, you get to choose.
Sorry, you said "upgrade"? I was under the impression that 2000 was somewhat older than XP and therefore would be a "downgrade". This also doesn't take account of the fact that 2000 is a nightmare when it comes to installing my Bluetooth software and various other things that clearly state I *MUST* have XP in order to install them. It is almost tempting to do just to get WGA to sod off, though.
Microsoft: "You must upgrade to Vista because DirectX 10 will not work with Windows XP, due to a new driver architecture." Me: "I see... but surely that means you're just attempting to pull more money out of me and other Windows users by our eyeballs. After all, I wouldn't upgrade to Vista otherwise because I've used the beta and it was slow as hell. It concentrated so much on "pleasing" visual effects and transparency that it took twice as long as XP to do even the most menial tasks. My computer is not below average by any means, would you care to explain why I'd buy a new operating system that would slow my computer down rather than keep the existing one which works just fine for everything I want to do?" Microsoft: "Uh... well, it'll be more reliable." Me: "I've had uptimes on Windows XP of three weeks before now without rebooting. In fact the only reason I reboot at all is to install new drivers for a piece of hardware or something like that. That's quite reliable enough thanks, given that the majority of people (not slashdotters, naturally) turn their computers off every night so don't even need that extended uptime." Microsoft: "Oh. Well you won't be able to play new games like Halo 2 without Windows Vista." Me: "That doesn't concern me. Why should I upgrade?" Microsoft: "Because it'll put another £100 in Bill Gates' coffers." Me: "I thought so!"
The Vista beta was horrific. Yeah, sure, they're going to fix some of the problems before the final release, but the truth is that it rated my computer 3/5 for hardware performance when I have a 256mb Geforce 6600GT, 1GB of RAM and an Athlon XP 2800+ processor. My computer runs faster than anyone else's I know, even those with faster processors and the same amount of RAM. What the hell do you need to get 5/5?
I'm digressing, but the point is that Microsoft are just attempting to grab our money. They won't be getting mine, that's a sure fact.