Disciples of Bork 0 Copyright (c) 2010 ExpressionEngine tag:blolol.com,2010:02:24 Hackintosh… tag:blolol.com,2010:forums/viewthread/.2045 2010-02-08T15:54:14Z 0 ScottishGerman I’m sure we’ve all heard the term at one time or another… I want your opinions about embarking on such a project. Have any of you tried something like that?

]]>
Suggestions… tag:blolol.com,2009:forums/viewthread/.2038 2009-12-30T10:53:17Z 0 ScottishGerman I’m thinking of upgrading the video card in my aging G4, which is currently using the Radeon 9000, with something that supports core image and stuff in Leopard. If anyone has any suggestions as to what I should get, please let me know. I know I should just save and get a whole new computer… but if I can find a cheap replacement video card in the meantime, that would be great. I almost had a 9700 Pro for $36.00 (US), but got out bid at the last possible second. :(

Does anyone have any input on the GeForce 6200 series?

]]>
Wow. tag:blolol.com,2009:forums/viewthread/.2036 2009-12-21T14:22:28Z 0 ScottishGerman It has been such a long time since I visited this site. Probably over a year… Gotta say, the front page looks awesome though!

]]>
Technical questions of an iMac’s matte & glossy panel displays tag:blolol.com,2009:forums/viewthread/.2035 2009-12-20T05:45:38Z 0 Rincewind I’ve been pondering of buying a 21” iMac for quite some time to replace my soon to be seven years old 700 MHz eMac. I’ve been worryingly watching at the matte vs glossy-discussions around the internet, because using Aperture 2/Lightroom 3 would be the main use the computer comes for. It seems though that there is a lot of bickering just for the sake of bickering. I got the chance to spend several days with the model at home and compare it to an early 2006 Core 2 Duo iMac with a matte display and a ATi Radeon x1600 and now I’m here to share my thoughts and more importantly, ask some technical questions related to possible reasons for my results. I’m no expert on these, so I’d like to know all the details before deciding on a purchase.

I copied the same photo I took of a city landscape after the sky had gone dark. I chose it to see how much screen glare I’d see on both displays. I tried watching the photo during a cloudy winter day with plenty of light coming through the windows. The glossy iMac was positioned so it had the display facing outward of the window. The matte display was at a 90° angle at the window. Unsurprisingly, the matte display did not look like a mirror, but I was noticing lack of detail compared to the newer iMac’s S-IPS -panel. Is it due to the matte display having an inferior display or does the coating itself smear the image? I also thought that because the native resolution of the matte display’s native resolution is 1680 x 1050 and that the photo, which is at 3024 x 1998 has to be shown in a compressed manner, thus loss of detail happens. On the other hand, the newer iMac’s native res is 1920 x 1080.

Okay, to speak of the devil. Yes, the screen is glossy and yes, you can see yourself in it. However, I have the brightness set very low, because I hate white backgrounds straining my eyes. When I crank up the brightness higher to a level that’s still not uncomfortable, the display becomes much more acceptable to view dark pictures. Screen glare happens with other displays as well. I do remember having to darken the room, when using my eMac, because it has a coating preventing gathering of dust, which causes some mirror-like effects.

I’d like to hear an answer from you to the two details regarding display hardware. You don’t have to comment on my personal experiences on what I think of the two screens, because I know quite many of you hate glossy displays with a passion. Yes, it’s an annoyance, but in my humble opinion not as big an annoyance as some people make it sound like. Mostly I added it to “get the big picture” of the whole experiment. I really like the new iMac and its hardware. Buying an external matte display would mean buying a mac mini, a Mac Pro or a PC, and so far all three other options seem impossible/not enjoyable enough.

I still need to find an answer does the glossy coating screw up using a color calibrator like Spyder3 Pro hmmm

]]>
Let’s have a poll tag:blolol.com,2009:forums/viewthread/.2010 2009-05-03T11:42:56Z 0 Raws Here is some nice filler for this inactive forum. Let’s have a poll to figure out what we should have a poll about!

]]>
Question tag:blolol.com,2009:forums/viewthread/.2006 2009-03-28T22:05:50Z 2009-03-28T22:07:22Z Biablo Is Ross the bastard son of Mark Hamill?

Mark_Hamill.jpg

]]>
Vietnam vacation tag:blolol.com,2008:forums/viewthread/.1993 2008-12-04T19:36:22Z 0 yellow#5 In the tradition of sharing vacation pics, I just got back from 2 weeks in Vietnam.

Pics of the trip are here. All the food I ate is here.

Highlights included eating a semi-formed fetal duck straight from the egg, shooting an AK-47, biking through some relatively remote villages in the Mekong delta, and seeing some crazy temples. Lows included seeing the hugest cockroaches ever (1.5” long, easily) that dwarfed any NYC subway roach I’ve seen, and a total of 32 hours spent flying from Ho Chi Minh City to NYC with layovers.

]]>
SCRREEEEEEEEECCCHHH!!!!!!!! BAM!!! tag:blolol.com,2008:forums/viewthread/.1982 2008-10-20T03:28:14Z 0 ScottishGerman First, I’ll just post this:

http://gallery.me.com/tim.nelson832#100051&bgcolor=black&view=grid

]]>
Microwaving a Baby tag:blolol.com,2008:forums/viewthread/.1965 2008-09-08T13:25:44Z 0 JohnRasko http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/09/08/microwave.baby.ap/index.html

I saw this article and this makes me believe that they should have themselves sown shut because these people are too stupid to have kids to begin with.

]]>
The Size of the Universe tag:blolol.com,2008:forums/viewthread/.1969 2008-09-13T00:16:34Z 0 JohnRasko I also caught this article. I’m having a little trouble understanding this however, since I’ve always been told that the universe is 27.4 billion light years in diameter, and 13.7 billion years old. But 154 billion light years?! That would mean that something in the universe that is causing the expansion is going faster than light. That’s not possible according to relativity.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

]]>