• latest news
  • Car tech
  • Cell phones and smartphones
  • Computers and hardware
  • Digital photo and video
  • Gadgets
  • Gaming
  • Green tech
  • Home theater
  • MP3 and portable video players
  • Televisions
• awards
  • Best of CES
  • People's voice
• video
• photos

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 11

My comments

• On a daily basis I use both Firefox (now using ver3) and Safari, I have both open right now. I do think Safari is faster, I don't know how anyone could question it as its very noticeable to me but Safari is also a memory hog (&CPU) and god help you if you are doing something intensive in the background like using Handbrake.
  
  I like Opera, but I have found it annoying recently as my own website has a rendering problem I just cannot fix in Opera which is driving me nuts, yet Firefox 2 & 3, Safari and even IE 6 & 7 all display the page perfectly. Opera has some good idea's sometimes but they don't have the resources and I think they are so good at Opera Mini they'd be better off concentrating on that.
  
  There are things I like about each browser. I like the new design on FF3, just a few of the add-ons of FF2, and the 'Find' and speed of Safari. While I think Safari on Mac's will always have a good future, I just can't see if taking a lot of share with pc users - I mean OS X is a more advanced OS yet more people use XP/Vista still, so I guess its the devil you know sort of situation. On both my mac and windows boxes I uses both Safari and FF and am quite happy with them - strangely I haven't used IE for browsing in so long I can't remember the last time, except for checking my site for those users. In reply to: "Is Safari versus Firefox a fair fight?"

  March 20, 2008

  1 reply

• I don't know if you read the comments, but I was just asking you to do this Steve in my comments two stories ago, so thank you. I appreciate you've listed a couple of options there and I know you don't use this forum as review column, but any other speakers you've heard hooked up to the computer that are decent would help. I need to replace my old Monsoon's and all the speakers I can hook up to my computer have sounded terrible so far. I was looking at the M-Audio AV40 which is a weird coincidence, but then they seemed to get luke warm comments from people, but I personally think people equate huge bass with good sound these days so am a bit wary of comments left by most people.
  
  I think I will order them to try out. I find it astonishing that there just aren't any decent quality speakers that can be hooked up to your computer - even if they are a little larger than normal and need to be placed on stands next to your computer, some company out there surely must realize there are a few people who want quality. Even if they took some good but basic quality JBL or Polk (big name would get better sales presumably) and give them an internal amplifier so we can use them with the computer directly, if would probably help no end. I do thank you for writing about it, as I too find it very annoying. I love my B&W speakers in my living room, but I want something that's atleast decent to listen to all the thousands upon thousands of albums I have saved pristinely (mostly lossless format) on my computer whilst I sit at it for hours on end working each day. In reply to: "The future is here, and all I got were these awful little speakers"

  March 4, 2008

  0 replies

• First off, for the first comment, for god sake relax - were you never a kid? As if that's anything that needs any serious thought, there are far more pressing things to comment on and these blogs are not apart of CNET apparently, which probably makes them better for not having the restrictions.
  
  As for the article its a great suggestion and I do listen to friends iPods every once in a while to find new music and do quite often find something that I never knew about. I guess its inevitable, but for somebody who doesn't really like iPods and the low quality music it seems, the item is often mentioned. Can I ask though, you've often said how we listen to music on tiny little speakers hooked up to our computers which is true. I've searched and searched for good quality speakers to hook up to my Mac to no avail. My last pair was a set of Monsoon which to me are still the best sounding on their type but they are old now and need replaced and Monsoon no longer exists it seems. Can you please give us some examples of top quality speakers you would hook up to a computer as nobody (including CNET who concentrate on tiny and cheap) is writing about the best thats available to listen to music on - either 2 or 2.1 speakers. It would be very helpful as there must be something decent out there In reply to: "iPod swapping? A great way to find new music"

  February 16, 2008

  2 replies

• I didn't think of it at the time when I responded to your poll, but the earphones were the very first thing I got rid of when I got an iPod because they do sound absolutely terrible - not to mention uncomfortable, although many are to me so perhaps I have strange ears.
  
  I bought a pair of Sure e3c, I think that was its name, I remember them costing about $150 at the time and I've been very happy with them and still use them and its been over 4 years now. I prefer listening to music on them than through the rather expensive speakers I have on my desk (although as you've been pointing out recently, expensive they may be, but they are still small - I've looked and looked for a good set of speakers for my Mac but to no avail, there is nothing decent at all which I find amazing as there must be a market). The only thing I don't like about the Sure in ear phones is the constant nuisance of having to buy new foam/plastic tips and wax guards as they are not that easy to get, though i've found a good supplier now. I am thinking about getting custom made earphones from Ultimate Ears. In reply to: "iPoll results: iPod owners' raves, rants, pans"

  January 26, 2008

  0 replies

• First mp3 player was an archos 20GB mammoth thing by today's standards, so I used it as a USB disk for a while but stoped a few years ago due to it being too small storage wise. I bought my 1st iPod just after switching to Mac a few years ago, it was the 3rd generation model. Since then I've had a 30GB 5th generation and in November I got an iPhone which is the only model I use now as I gave the 30GB version to my mother to use with dock speakers I got her for work and she loves it. Of the 11,732 songs I have on the computer the vast majority were ripped from a CD, I've bought/claimed about 350 songs from iTunes and before the Russians decided it was illegal after all, I bought a few songs from allofmp3. I did use Napster a few times back in the day, but gave up on it almost immediately due to the poor quality of the files and slow connection back then. I have also bought 7 of the 128 movies I have on my computer from iTunes and the rest were ripped as I like them to be very good quality so do it myself and it works great with the AppleTV box. In reply to: "iPoll: How many iPods have you owned?"

  January 20, 2008

  0 replies

• This sounds really interesting, but reading that story above it seems expensive and not really taking advantage of all the power it would afford. It reads like a good(ish) computer to run an average stereo and video player in car when you can do that a lot more cheaply with a lot less computer power now. Now, if they've managed to get great quality 5.1/7.1 surround sound for audio/video, built-in GPS and built-in internet connectivity to use with Wi-Fi when in the car, then it starts looking a lot more interesting and the $2700 starts to look more doable, but going by the above its an over-priced computer in a small form factor doing things that can be done better and cheaper with technology we've had for a few years now. Could be interesting, have to wait and see where it goes....... In reply to: "Azentek builds a PC for your car"

  January 10, 2008

  0 replies

• funny, but not really CNET stuff
  Living in the UK for the next few months more at least, I find it funny how several times a week I see an outlet from home, CNET/CNN or whatever comment on one of these ridiculous stories from these papers that are apparently from here but I've never once heard of and certainly haven't seen in a newspaper outlet which are all over the place here for some reason.
  It would be like commenting on every stupid story the National Enquirer put out like it was fact when at best its light entertainment; but any way you cut it isn't a newspaper. Except the National Enquirer is widely know, so its not even a direct comparison there as its probably some no name new rag trying to get attention which you've now given them, it is not news - its not even from one of the semi-news tabloids like the Sun/Mirror never mind one of the 7 national daily real papers. I can't even find that rag listed in the regional papers list I found, although I don't doubt it exists somewhere. So I have no idea why you've put it here. Silly story with obvious fact errors, not CNET content really and from an un-known paper, why have you put another story like this here. Its just odd In reply to: "Report: Her Majesty may become a 'Nintendo addict'"

  January 10, 2008

  0 replies

• Some what happy with the news
  As somebody who has been waiting for this to be finally sorted out, I'm happy one of the two camps has come close to killing the other off so that we can get past this mess of theirs. If I'm being honest though, I kinda wanted HD-DVD to win because of the no region thing, cheaper players and I do find all this talk of unstable Blue-ray players a little disconcerting; plus the storage issue didn't seem to be big enough to worry about. News has it that Apple is about to jump in and install Blue-Ray into their computers so to me as an Apple computer user for 2 years now, that is of the most consequence. If that's true its done and dusted and I'll finally get a Blue-Ray player - but a little part of me still wishes HD-DVD could have one this one. In reply to: "Warner goes Blu-ray exclusively, delivering crushing blow to HD DVD"

  January 6, 2008

  0 replies

• Its about time. As the above comment said, I wouldn't even mind an odd commercial if they'd finally embrace it and let us download and watch what and when we want easily which bitTorrent is the only way to do conveniently now - even with all the spoof's and tracking. I just have so little sympathy for these idiots still going to war with their own customers this many years after the digital/broadband huge changes. Like NBC fighting with Apple, whats up with that and then iTunes giving in and the studio's charging $15 per movie when there is no manufacturing/shelf space/plastic and all the other things that go into a movie you buy at Best Buy etc which is often cheaper than $15 anyway, what delusional state are they in.
  
  I will also add since I'm currently living in the UK, while I suppose the above is technically true on the surface, only the BBC is funded that way and they only have 4 tv channels if you include the 2 on cable/satellite. My satellite package includes 597 channels and 593 are supported via advertising or the movie channels are premium and you pay upfront like HBO. It is weird though needing a 'license' for tv whether you want BBC or not, especially since they are so not needed anymore for their original purpose with so much choice but I suppose they do have good news coverage. ITV,4 & 5 are also free over the air national broadcasters (like NBC, CBS etc) are they all have to support themselves with ads. In reply to: "Piracy as a leading indicator of sales"

  December 15, 2007

  0 replies

• I wasn't surprised to see Garmin coming out tops on this list. I started with Garmin products which I liked a lot and now use TomTom which I also like. I would add though, that I think in general Garmin has better US maps/features and now that I'm in the UK for a while, I think TomTom has better Europe maps, or at least here in the UK which makes sense as I think TomTom is based in Europe and Garmin is based in the US. The only thing that annoys me about Garmin is the confusing mess of map options they have when you want to upgrade or add extra maps, there are too many choices all offering seemingly the same coverage - plus their maps are often more expensive than TomTom's. Their website also has far too many & too similar GPS products listed as well, they need to trim the fat or at least get rid of the old models to make it easier to find what you need/want.
  
  That being said, I did have to return my first TomTom product after a month as it stopped working, but I've had the replacement 910 now for over a year and its still working very well. I also like the TomTom desktop software on my iMac, it works great and I love the frequency of the speed camera updates which are free and easy to update on the unit. Bluetooth phone connections are good too with all 3 phones I've tried working straight away including iPhone, however mp3 player is totally useless though as it doesn't recognize playlists despite claims, but that doesn't bother me as I didn't buy it for that anyway. Can't comment on the other companies as I've never used them. In reply to: "Survey says: Garmin GPS No. 1 in consumers' hearts and minds"

  November 28, 2007

  0 replies