nVidia will be dropping their "m" suffice for laptop graphics adapters in this upcoming cycle, putting the GTX 1080, 100, and 1060 in laptops - albeit with some slight tweaks. Interestingly enough, they'll be overclockable (although we'll have to see which laptop brands will allow overclocking).
Currently we know that the major - and seemingly only - difference between the desktop and mobile cores are their base clock speed, with each iteration being clocked down from anywhere between 50-100Mhz below their desktop counterpart - with all of their other specs seemingly being in line. Curiously, no information is available on the Thermal Design Power of the mobile units. Stuffing a desktop GTX 1080 is impressive, but it comes at the cost of size and weight: you're not going to find desktop graphics performance - including 4k support - in an ultra-thin notebook or tablet this year.
nVidia states that the laptop versions of the 10x line of graphics cards will perform "within 10 percent of their desktop GPU equivalents" - which means you're probably going to see some difference between the desktop and laptop versions, but not much.
The only remaining question is: how much power are these beasts going to eat up?
Hey, this is great for those of us that want an all-in-one solution to desktop computing while having the ability to take our computer anywhere without sacrificing the power of a desktop. On the other hand, this is going to be awful for battery life, especially if you game on the road. Unless you're plugged in I predict this is going to be a huge drain on battery power and that you're going t need to micro-mange your power settings in order to use these beasts.
We won't be seeing these in a productivity environment anytime soon, but I'll bet that guys at Twitch are salivating to get their hands on these.
Argh! I'm not on a tablet! Or phone! Nor do I read Arabic or Hebrew!
If the Windows 10 menus keep annoyingly opening to the left, here's how you fix it (just did it to me on a minor windows update! argh! rage!)
Start -> type in run. Press Enter.
In the run dialogue box, enter in this:
In the "Other" tab, click on "Left-handed"
It was bound to happen.
Facebook has taken charge in the "ads vs. adblock" wars, declaring that they will fully integrate Facebook ads into their platform in an attempt to make them unblockable. For many of us, this is quite a big deal as we depend on ad blocking software to not only block ads, but block really annoying web content. Ad blocking, though, is a complicated relationship. While many people use ad blockers to eliminate annoying ads, some of us aren't really against having ads present in the content we consume - after all, I'm not opposed to making a profit; however, that doesn't mean I won't use ad blockers.
My primary purpose for using ad blockers is to eliminate annoying content - be they ads or other really poorly designed pieces of nonsense; for example, those annoying "social media bars' that often appear on the sides of websites, containing simple images for Facebook, YouTube, etc... are one of the first things that I'll block. Other such pieces of content include "floating" windows and annoying pieces of code that break website functionality.
The ad blocking wars have gone on for several years already, and they're heating up again. In my opinion I think moves like this from companies as large as Facebook will, ultimately, lead to ad blockers being pushed more in the direction of Grease Monkey-like products, allowing developers and power users to tweak the user experience of individual websites to their liking, while companies like Facebook will continue to push advertising as normal content, continuing to blur the line between providers and advertisers.
What's your take? Leave a comment below!
Google's installation of gigabit fiber service has been delayed in several Silicon Valley cities as they "secretly" (read: intentionally leaked details to journalists as they play a power game to drive down costs) test gigabit wireless Internet service in the Silicon Valley area.
Mike Fuller, the Mountain View public works director, said of the delay "We didn't expect it because we were working on what was their plan at the time."
What does this mean?
Realistically, this doesn't mean a whole lot. Google is a big company with big idea, but even a company as huge as Google can still feel the sting from multiple fiber roll-outs across the country. Even Verizon sold most of their FiOS installation to Frontier, only keeping their own installations in the Atlantic and New England areas.
Others are speculating that Google will focus more on rolling out Webpass instead of Google Fiber, as Webpass is a point to point wireless technology that avoids the heavy costs of fiber installation in favor of point to point microwave communication. In my opinion, this is the wrong point of view. Google Fiber is a complex subject to tackle, with physical labor and negotiations causing a majority of fiber installation delays. Point to point wireless is a tried and tested technology that has been deployed across the world as an effective communications medium for flat, rural areas - something that fibers expense prohibits.
Is Google suddenly backtracking with Fiber? No. They're experiencing a delay and possibly overhauling plans for their installations in the Silicon Valley area.
Baby you’re all that I want, when that loading screen says “YOU DIED” I’m finding it hard to believe, I’m in heaven. Yeah this broadsword is all that I need, and I found it there on the floor. It isn’t too hard to believe, I’m in heaven
Parody lyrics to be sure, but not far off my impression of the game itself. Dark Souls 3 is a love letter to Miyazaki's ideas, themes, and story elements from what seem to be the three landmark titles in the soulsborne series (Demon’s Souls, Dark Souls, and Bloodborne). One of the most prevalent gripes from the community is a change to the “poise” stat/mechanic. Originally a stat from armor that indicates how heavy a blow a user could take before staggering and canceling their animations, it’s now largely seen as a useless modifier to the hyper armor frames provided by the new weapon art system.
If you play this game to be immersed in a world/universe rich in history, lore, and mystery you’ve come to the right place, this is the perfect place to end the Souls Franchise. Time is convoluted in the world, and elements from your past incursions mix and meld together taking the good with them and folding that into new stories. If, however you came to this game looking for a perfect refinement of PVP “Git Gud” mastery and elegance, perhaps this game will be more of a miss for you. Hackers, bad netcode, host favoring mechanics, etc. make this iteration to be one of the least PVP friendly of the line.
I am an outlier in the Soulsborne fans, I enjoy as little online meddling as possible. I realize it’s a mechanic built into the game, but it’s also a mechanic I have the ability to turn off, and thus ignore. For me this makes the game infinitely more enjoyable, I can explore, read, strategize, and discover at my own pace; not hounded by the fact that at any moment someone whose only reason for playing the game is to halt the progress of others. The bosses of the game follow a good progression of difficulty, each one taking it’s own blend of aggression, caution, and observation to conquer. Bosses are also thematically appropriate for their areas and all serve to tell the tale of a land ravaged by the finality of the cycle of flame-ember-dark.
In conclusion, I have enjoyed this game more than I have any other iteration, for me it was the pinnacle of everything the franchise has come to represent in a gameplay, story, and immersion. I would highly recommend this to anyone willing to put in the effort and thought required to beat a complex and difficult game worthy of the Dark Souls name. Besides, if you get stuck on a boss you could always look for a soapstone sign, and prepare for some Jolly Co-operation.*
Hulu has announced that it will no longer provide free streaming of its popular TV shows. Instead, Hulu and Yahoo have closed on a deal that will allow Yahoo to expand its distribution of free, ad-supported Hulu content, with the five most recent episodes of shows from ABC, NBC, and Fox appearing eight days after broadcast.
Hulu's free service will be completely phased out over the next few weeks while Yahoo ramps up Yahoo View, which will, in essence, be former free Hulu service.
This is an interesting move for Yahoo as they try to position themselves as a leading streaming service provide - against other multi-billion dollar companies such as Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Twitter - while they're in the middle of being acquired by Verizon for $4.8 billion (a deal which is likely to close in the first quarter of 2017).
Meanwhile, Hulu is focusing its business on subscriber growth for its premium services, including their two subscription tiers, as well as a live TV service scheduled to launch "in 2017" and will feature ... something. Hulu hasn't disclosed any details about their live TV service.
Yahoo View is available at view.yahoo.com
Overall this does not impact the value of Yahoo as a unit, and has no impact on the deal with Verizon. While Yahoo is the "preferred partner" of Hulu's free content, that same content is still provided to other competitors, like Comcast's XFinity, Vulture.com, and People.com.
Will this make Yahoo a larger player in the streaming media scene? Probably not - there are far larger and better options for content than Yahoo, but we'll have to wait and see how this plays out. In addition to Hulu, Yahoo also recently announced the creation of original content, which would have a much larger impact on its relevance.