Jump to content

Schuldiner

Members
  • Content Count

    1,039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Schuldiner last won the day on February 26 2008

Schuldiner had the most liked content!

About Schuldiner

  • Rank
    Metal Messiah
  • Birthday 03/11/1986

core_pfieldgroups_99

  • Favourite Football Club
    Manchester United
  • Participating In Following Setups
    English Championship 68, World Championship 374, Continental Challenge
  • Favourite Football Player
    Eric Cantona
  • SM Honours Won
    D2 Champions (Stoke City EC68 S3; River Plate WC374 S3)
  1. Re: Firefox Speed Tweak Just a small tip for any Firefox users who are using (or planning to use) this feature - personally I very rarely use Firefox, but that's just my own preference (Opera's features suit my needs better, that's all). It does work, but it's not as simple as the quoted guide suggests. The first problem is this bit. Firefox is only able to make a maximum of 8 simultaneous requests. That's just the way the browser is designed. You can ask it to make 30... or even 100' date=' but it won't. 8 is the maximum. Also, the higher you set this number, the more likely you are to make your browser crash, so again use 8 as a maximum. Theoretically, even if 30+ requests was possible, you still wouldn't want to set it that high, because you'd probably end up having websites blocking access to your IP for hogging all the bandwidth and slowing down the servers (which could potentially be a big problem if everyone used this trick). Actually, I personally wouldn't set this above 4. Most websites block more than a couple of requests from the same IP anyway, so all you're doing by sending more is clogging up your own broadband connection. Second problem - this bit is totally pointless. All this does is start displaying the information on the webpage sooner. Setting it to 0 does not make your page load faster. Things like blocks of text might appear instantly, but the overall time to load EVERYTHING on the page is the SAME (or actually longer on slower connections). Ignore nglayout.initialpaint.delay. It's only a matter of preference, which doesn't affect overall speed. Summary: 1. Give pipelining a try if you think your internet is a bit slow, but don't listen to the nonsense about massive numbers of requests or nglayout.initialpaint.delay. 2. If you're happy with your speed anyway, it's probably best to leave things alone. You won't get the hassle of anything messing up if you accidentally change anything you shouldn't in the process. Pipelining was more useful 5 years ago when connections were slower. Most people shouldn't need it these days, but good luck if you decide to give it a try.
  2. Re: Anyone know of a good laptop? So roughly £400-750 That's quite a big range, so there are a LOT of options really. I'd say Samsung offer the best value for money at the moment though. I bought one recently myself, so I've looked at quite a lot of laptops around the £500-600 mark. Most other trusted brands (HP, Toshiba, Sony, Dell, Acer etc) were asking around £50 more than Samsung for laptops with the same processors/RAM/hard drives and other things. Well built machines from a reputable company, so they're a pretty safe bet really. There are cheaper options, but only from budget brands like Advent as far as I'm aware, which I'm not really that keen on. When I'm spending £500+ on something, I'd rather not take a gamble on quality and customer service. So basically, look for any Samsung laptop with an Intel Core i3 processor (Core i5 is faster if you can afford it, but i3 should be more than good enough), and at least 4GB of RAM. Here's a few that are for sale on Amazon in case you want to take a look (obviously you can get them from other places too): Samsung R530 Amazon price: £533 (637EUR) RRP: £599 (716EUR) A good all-rounder, for a good price. Intel Core i3 processor and 4GB RAM means it will be more than quick enough for what you want. No bluetooth though for some reason, so if you want to connect to phones/cameras etc, you'll need to use the USB cable. Will run low quality games ok, but the graphics card might not handle much more than that. TAKE CARE: There are cheaper versions of this laptop available with slower processors and/or less RAM. Don't buy the wrong one by mistake. VERDICT: A great laptop that's had some great reviews in various magazines. It's about 200-270EUR cheaper than the highest you want to go, so will save you some money. Personally though, I would spend the extra 30-40EUR (depending on where you buy from) on the slightly faster, bluetooth enabled R540. Samsung R540 Amazon price: £563 (673EUR) RRP: £599 (716EUR) This is essentially the same as the R530 above, but with a slightly faster version of Intel's Core i3 processor, and with bluetooth. The difference in speed is only small, so you might not even notice it much, but being able to connect phones and cameras wirelessly is very handy, especially if you're already using your USB ports for other things. Graphics card still isn't good enough for medium-high quality games though. Not everyone will like the colour (brown, almost wood effect), but some think it looks a bit classier than shiny black or silver plastic. Depends on your taste. TAKE CARE: There are cheaper versions of this laptop available with less RAM. 4GB is the best one to get. VERDICT: This is the laptop I actually bought. Great performance and great value for money. This is the one to get if you decide you'd rather not spend your entire budget. Samsung R580 Amazon price: £660 (789EUR) RRP: £699 (836EUR) This has the same processor as the R530 (slightly slower than the R540, but probably not enough to notice), 4GB RAM (the same as all 3 others), and bluetooth. So performance will be the same as the cheaper laptops. The difference is that this comes with a Bluray DVD drive and a better graphics card. Not good enough to handle the latest games on ultra high settings, but certainly enough for most modern games on medium settings. There are a few different versions of this available for different prices (a cheaper one with a smaller hard drive, a more expensive one with a faster processor etc), but this one offers the best value in my opinion. All of them are good enough for what you need. VERDICT: Good performance again, with the added bonus of a better graphics card. If gaming is more important to you than finding a bargain, you should think about getting this. The R590 is a better choice, but costs a bit more. Samsung R590 Amazon price: £751 (898EUR) RRP: £799 (955EUR) This one is easily the most expensive, but it's also the fastest and the best for gaming, out of the ones I've linked. This has an Intel Core i5 processor, which is faster than the i3 in the other 3 laptops. Not massively faster, but enough to notice some difference. It also has a fairly decent graphics card (a bit better than the one in the R580, and quite a lot better than the R530/R540). This should easily play most of the latest games on medium-high settings (although it will still struggle with the very highest settings). No Bluray drive though for this price - you can get an R590 with one, but it's £100 more expensive. A very good laptop, but you need to decide if the extra speed and gaming capabilities are worth the big price tag. VERDICT: The fastest of the 4 laptops, and the best for gaming, but unless those extra gaming capabilities are essential I'd say save some money and get one of the others. OVERALL: If gaming is a priority and you don't mind spending all your budget, get the R590. If you'd rather get a bargain and have 200EUR (maybe more) left to spend on something else, get the R540 - it is fast, and it will still play games (just on lowish settings) If you want the R540, but don't like the colour or you can't find it cheap enough, get the R530 (more places seem to sell the R530 at the lower prices for some reason). If you want something in between the two, get the R580 - personally, I'm not sure I'd go for this one for that reason, as it's only 100EUR cheaper than the R590, but that's up to you. If you need a Bluray DVD drive, get the R580 - or an R590 if you're willing to go 100EUR over your budget (the one I linked here doesn't have one). Well there's my 2 cents anyway. There's a lot out there in your price range, so someone else may well come along and recommend something totally different, but if you do go for one of these I doubt you'd be disappointed. EDIT: Oh, and if you do need advice, only ask the staff at PC World as a last resort. They only tell you what they think you want to hear. They'll either try to sell you something expensive you don't need, or try and tell you something cheaper is a 'bargain' when it's actually just rubbish (usually when you seem unsure and they're afraid you'll leave and buy from somewhere else, or sometimes because their boss has told them to try and shift a specific product). PC World staff are primarily just typical salespeople. They aren't interested in what you need or even what you buy - they just want you to spend as much as possible, and make sure that what you do buy is bought from them.
  3. Re: Spam's Team Guide to the FIFA World Cup 2010 Maybe the qualification process does seem a bit unfair, but you have to remember it's based on past performances. If African teams started doing well at World Cups, they would have more places in the finals... fact is the ones that DO get beyond the group usually go out in round 2 (not exactly impressive is it?). Personally, I think Africa has about 5-7 teams on a similar level. That's why the competition is tough. Ivory Coast on paper, are considerably stronger than those 5-7 teams, and should in theory win a lot more than they actually do. Unfortunately for them, they choke under pressure too often, so some other teams are made to look better than they actually are... and this shows when World Cups come round. In 2006, 4 out of 5 African teams went out in the group stage (3 of them were absolutely awful). Ghana, who did get through, got hammered by Brazil in the 2nd round. In 2002, 3 out of 4 African teams failed in the group stage. Senegal did ok, but were knocked out by Turkey before they even met a top team in the knockout rounds. In 1998, 4 out of 5 African teams went home at the same stage. Nigeria were thrashed by Denmark in round 2. See a pattern? Competition in Africa might be close, but they're still some distance behind Europe and South America.
  4. Re: Slipknot Bassist Paul Gray Found Dead That's three metal/rock musicians in just the last few weeks that I've heard about then. First, Pete Steele, the Type O Negative frontman/bassist... then the legend that was Ronnie James Dio (Rainbow, Black Sabbath/Heaven & Hell and Dio frontman)... now Paul Gray. I always hated Slipknot, if I'm honest. To me, they're just a symbol of everything that's wrong with metal. Having said that, though, it's never good when anyone dies that young. Sad news indeed.
  5. Re: Spam's Team Guide to the FIFA World Cup 2010 Well yeah' date=' the stats say the host usually does well, but like I said before... there's never been a host anywhere NEAR as weak as the current South Africa team. That 2002 South Korea squad might have been full of unknown players at the time, but if you look back now they were actually pretty strong. S.Korea and Japan both had really weak groups at that World Cup. Also, the Spain team at the time was still collapsing anytime they felt the slightest bit of pressure, and the Italians always leave themselves open to shock results with their '1-0 will do' tactics. It's not like they beat Brazil or Germany is it? Uruguay are maybe not the strongest of the South American teams in the competition, but Forlan and Suarez is a strike partnership that's arguably better than what France can offer these days. Those two, combined with the physical nature of the rest of the team (particularly the defence) should be enough to bully wins out of the more flimsy Mexico and South Africa sides... especially as neither of those two has any obvious goal threat in their own sides, and both seem to be a bit iffy at the back.
  6. Re: Spam's Team Guide to the FIFA World Cup 2010 To me, South Africa are a team that flatter to deceive. I will admit, they've looked ok in recent friendlies (and also to some extent in the Confederations Cup), but when it comes down to it they just don't get results. Just look at their record in ACoN qualifying: 2 defeats vs Nigeria (ok, so that's expected) 1 draw, 1 defeat vs Sierra Leone 2 wins vs Equatorial Guinea If they can only manage to beat Equatorial Guinea in competitive games, and can't manage more than 1 point from 6 against Sierra Leone, how can they be expected to take points off Uruguay and France in a World Cup? Then after that in last year's Confederations Cup, they only team they beat all tournament was New Zealand, with a draw against Iraq being their only other point. Ok, so they didn't exactly get hammered when they played Spain or Brazil, but neither of those teams even broke sweat in that tournament, yet South Africa looked like they were playing out of their skin. Maybe home support will prove to be a bigger factor than I anticipate, and maybe I'll get proved wrong... but at the moment, I just can't see it. A draw against Mexico is a maybe... anything more than that? No.
  7. Re: Spam's Team Guide to the FIFA World Cup 2010 That's true' date=' but you have to remember who the host nations have been in the past. The only 'weak' hosts before now have been USA in 1994, and Japan/S.Korea in 2002... and even they were all far stronger at the time than South Africa are currently. South Africa are ranked 90th in the world (behind Mozambique, Guinea, Haiti, Malawi, Panama, El Salvador etc) for a reason. I really can't see a team who failed so miserably to even qualify for the African Cup of Nations, finishing anywhere other than bottom of the group. France may be under the shoddy management of Domenech, but with this group being so weak compared to most others, even he shouldn't be able to mess things up badly enough to stop them making the 2nd round. Uruguay might win the group if they find good form. Even if they don't, I'd expect them to go through with France. Mexico have a few players to watch out for in the future, but they won't be setting this World Cup alight. The defence is weak, and their biggest goal threat is probably still Cuauhtemoc Blanco (even at 37). The two things they do have in their favour are pace in midfield (i suspect we might see quick counter attacks), and the fact that they have to play against South Africa (9 times out of 10, that's a guaranteed 3 points). [b']Group A Verdict:[/b] France and Uruguay =1st (winner determined by goal difference) Mexico 3rd South Africa 4th Good thread, by the way.
  8. Re: Music Players? The best I know of for sound quality is Creative's Zen X-Fi series. They completely blow iPods out of the water, and they sound quite a bit better than the Sony players I've heard too (and I rate Sony players highly for sound, so it's not like that's an easy achievement). The touch screen version is the Zen X-Fi 2. It's available on the Creative Online Store (link above), and costs £129.99 for the 16GB model, or £169.99 for 32GB. If having a touch screen player isn't essential, there's also the original Zen X-Fi. This comes with slightly better earphones, giving even better sound than the newer X-Fi 2 (although the earphones you get with that are still very good), and is available as a Value Pack for the same price as the player on it's own. Basically thats just a proper mains charger (so you don't have to mess about with those rubbish USB chargers) and an armband. This one is a bit cheaper too, so with the extra stuff you get, it's better value unless you really need a touch screen. £119.99 for 16GB, £159.99 for 32GB (I bought this one a while ago, and it's easily the best mp3 player I've ever owned). They're as simple as anything else to use really. Once you've got used to what goes where in the menus, it's a piece of cake. The only thing I don't know is how easy it is to upload/convert videos (if they need converting, that is), as I've never bothered putting videos on my X-Fi. Unlike most players, these also have SD slots (microSD on the X-Fi 2), so if you run out of space you can whack an SD card in, and have up to an extra 32GB (16GB for the X-Fi 2, as it's microSD and I don't think they make a 32GB microSD card yet). The only down side I can really think of is the software it comes with. It's ok, but not as good as it could be. You don't have to use it though if you don't like it. It's compatible with Windows Media Player (maybe others too, but I'm not sure which ones). Having said that though, iTunes isn't that good and it doesn't seem to stop people buying iPods. There are bigger screen players that are better for videos, but I recommended these as you said you want it mostly for music, so I'm guessing sound quality is more important. That's what I'd get anyway. Hope I helped.
  9. Re: Best Albums of 2009 Not much immediately springs to mind really. I don't remember being blown away by much in 2009. Certainly not as much as 2008 anyway. Plenty of decent albums, just not many great ones. Anyway, here's some off the top of my head (I might come back later with a proper list after I've had chance to think about it a bit more): 1349 - Revelations of the Black Flame The Axis Of Perdition - Urfe Beherit - Engram Blood Tsunami - Grand Feast For Vultures Blut Aus Nord - Memoria Vertusta II: Dialogue With The Stars Drudkh - Microcosmos Hjarnidaudi - Psyko:Stare:Void Marduk - Wormwood Nazxul - Iconoclast Shining - VI: Klagopsalmer Sunn O))) - Monoliths & Dimensions Wolves In The Throne Room - Black Cascade Woods Of Ypres - Woods IV: The Green Album
  10. Re: BREAKING NEWS - Robert Enke Passes Away The ignorance of some people in this thread, quite frankly, is disgusting. If the subject of discussion wasn't a person's death, I might even call it laughable. Clinical depression is a disease just like any other. It's a chemical imbalance that severely and uncontrollably affects your emotions and actions - and sometimes tiny (but significant) changes in brain structure. It's not like you just wake up one day feeling a bit down and decide to top yourself. Now ask yourselves this... had Enke died of a heart attack or cancer, would you still be calling him cowardly for letting his illness get the better of him? No, of course you wouldn't. Assuming his death was suicide, it's no different to that. Whether it was planned in advance, or just a spur of the moment thing, if he was medically well beforehand, it's pretty safe to say he'd still be alive. Now, you may not have known him personally, you may not have watched him play that much, you may not even care that he's no longer among the living... but at least treat this with the slightest hint of respect. Maybe refrain from commenting altogether, eh?
  11. Re: Official Chelsea FC Thread That may be the case on SM (I haven't managed a team for a while, so I don't know exactly how much better it is), but it's not that clear cut in real life. It's all about implementation. Adapting your tactics slightly will probably do you far more good than changing your entire formation just for one single game. If when you lose the ball, the midfield 3 stay really narrow, and the wingers drop deep to make a 4-5-1/4-1-4-1, then the Chelsea midfield will be much less of a problem. Your DM can man-mark the Chelsea AM, and your other 4 then outnumber Chelsea's 3. Also, Chelsea's only threats from wide positions are the fullbacks, so if your own fullbacks are smart enough to play a bit narrower than usual, that suddenly leaves Drogba and Anelka with a lot less space to play in. Then of course when you win the ball back, you have enough of a pace advantage to revert back to 4-3-3, hit Chelsea on the break, and play the numbers game against their defence... and maybe win the odd free-kick from the bullish nature of Essien and Terry. Again, it's less simple in practice than on paper, and I do expect Chelsea to get the 3 points, but if Wenger is smart enough with his implementation of the tactics and strong enough with his discipline, Arsenal definately have the ability to surprise me.
  12. Re: Right now i'm listening to... Is it just me' date=' or has the number of covers being churned out in general shot up in the past few months? I mean I know the numbers have been steadily increasing for years, but recently it seems that pretty much every other song I hear, either in shops, on TV, or on the radio (not that I listen to it by choice) is a cover... and 99% of the time almost [i']identical[/i] to the original. There was a time when cover songs appeared roughly 1 track every 3-5 (ish) albums, and just as a small tribute to an artist the band respects (or occasionally a mickey take at the expense of one they don't ). Anyway, my point is, they were very rarely much more than an afterthought back then (certainly not a main focal point of the album), and didn't get radio play unless it was something really special and/or vastly different from the original. These days, covers are generally nothing more than a cheap, minimum-effort money making tool. Their main purpose is either to get an album immediate attention upon it's release, or squeeze an extra few quid from the gullible masses, after the obligatory 5 (4 too many) singles have been milked. That's how it seems to me, anyway. I may be wrong, but I highly suspect I'm not. Irritating to say the least.
×
×
  • Create New...