To start you should know two things: I love chromebooks and I have never trusted Acer.
I have never met anyone who would buy a second Acer laptop. They work fine, but they are just not an experience that anyone really recommends. For something that you have to use everyday, it is just not worth it to own one. I was almost tricked into liking them again recently when I was able to test out a touchscreen super thing beautiful thing, that even includes gorilla glass, the almost unbreakable stuff, then Acer had to go make a chromebook.
Chomebooks, if you don't know are relatively inexpensive computers that are everything the average user needs. They only have chrome as a browser and an operating system. Meaning for the people who use the internet, meaning everyone now a days, they are all you need. It takes a while for people to figure out what to use instead of Microsoft Office, but that is the only issue. If you are a photoshopper or programmer it isn't the best, but for most users it is more than they need and beautiful.
The main kicker on why you would want a chromebook are these things: they are inexpensive, they should have solid state drives, they start super fast, they are simple and they look good:
Inexpensive is the only thing Acer did. They made a $200 laptop, which is amazing, but the Samsung one for $50 more is 100% worth it.
Acer did not include a solid state drive, meaning that instead of eight second start up time, it is pushed back to at least 20 seconds. That isn't even a hibernate recovery, that is full boot. I know 12 seconds doesn't seem too long, but it is taking away from the experience. Also if you drop it, the Acer hard drive will scratch making it unusable. Solid state drives are so much more children friendly.
The look of the Acer chromebook is not up to par. The Samsung one just is beautiful without a doubt, reminiscent of a Macbook Air. The Acer chomebook looks like a laptop from the 1990s, with all the ports to boot. It is just ugly.
Mostly I am just sad that Google would put the Acer chromebook in their Play Store. That laptop is just not the experience that people who buy a chromebook should have, and I don't understand why Google would endorse that.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Rave: Join.me
Log me in is a company that has significantly made life easier for a lot of people including me. Their main program is to remote control all of the computers you own. All you have to do is install the program on your computer and you can then access it from any browser no matter where you are in the world. That is convenient.
Hamachi another of their products deserves a huge shout out. It lets you connect two computers as if they were a local connection even if they aren't. It even works on linux though their labs. I used on it a raspberry pi, as well as remote controlling my home computer from work. It is amazing for ssh and not having to find an IP address every time. It is mostly used for Minecraft servers, but it is amazing for so much more.
Now on to the main rave join.me. This site lets you let someone remote view or control your computer after installing a super, super small program. I think it installed in the appdata folder because you don't have to mess with UAC, that super annoying screen that blacks out on windows and forces an administrator to type their password, meaning any user can use it, even if they can't install anything on their computer. This means that when grandma, or a less tech friendly friend, is having technical issues, you can just say "Go to join.me" and then you get to help them with whatever problems they have, hassle free.
Wrap-up: join.me = amazing; thank you LogMeIn for your great products.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Rant: 3D Film Reviewers
Hi. Jace's letting me ghost-write to this blog, even though it's clearly called "Jace's Rants and Raves." I am not Jace. I am a guy with my own blog that Jace is crazy enough to attach his name to. He's a nice guy. When I told him I wasn't sure if this rant was appropriate for my own blog, he just gave me access to his and said, "Rant away!" Anyway, my blog is about 3D movies. Specifically, I talk about the artistic potential of 3D in film, or how the act of being in 3D (or similar technologies, such as HFR) affects the movie going experience.
Here's why I'm ranting: I know my blog isn't up to the potential that it could be. I want to know all the many ways that 3D is important to storytelling. The problem is I don't see anybody else even attempting to do something like that. I look at film reviews (e.g. this one) and all they ever lend to interpreting the 3D in a film is one short paragraph, rarely more than 3 sentences long.
Let me do a hypothetical review of the 3D in Batman: Arkham City. In fact, I'll do a review of one scene in particular: the cut-scene before the confrontation with Mr. Freeze. In case you haven't played that game, I'll describe the scene I'm talking about quick. Also consider this sentence your official spoiler warning.
Early in the game, Batman is poisoned. The majority of the game follows batman's attempts to obtain an antidote that will allow him to survive his poisoning. Mr. Freeze is supposed to know how to build an antidote, but is trying to use that fact to leverage Batman into rescuing his wife. To do that, Mr. Freeze dramatically holds the antidote in front of Batman, with his hand and the antidote extending outside the screen in the 3D version of that cut-scene, after witch he shatters it by squeezing the vial.
Here's how I would review the 3D in that scene: The overarching theme of the game is death. You're meant to feel like the ability to avoid death is just outside Batman's capability. The 3D in this scene is utilized well to effect that emotion. The vial in the scene is held within the reach of the game's player. By all means he should be able to touch it, and is invited to try. My first time through the game I did try, only to have the vial shatter just before I could grab it. My second time through the game I was a bit quicker on the gun, and my fingers slid right through the vial before it shattered. Both instances communicated the message clearly to me. You can try again and again to avoid death, but ultimately that destiny is an inevitability. The message hits strong, and adds an emotional layer to the game not present in the 2D version. As such, I wholly suggest playing the game in 3D wherever 3D access is available.
That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. And that's only a review of one sequence that lasts less than a minute! Imagine how many metaphors, how much emotional impact, or how much visually altering imagery could be described if people were willing to read more into the 3D in an entire film! Yet, film reviewers today limit their discussion to something like, "The 3D effects in The Life of Pi are not really effects at all, in my opinion. They are part of the movie." No discussion, nothing to be able to understand why the 3D is good, and if that would be something to your tastes.
I guess that's what's upsetting me: how empty 3D film reviews are. They give me nothing to go on to understand whether the 3D version is worth spending the money on. They provide no service to anybody but the fans of 2D films. And I can't understand why any film reviewer worth their pay would be satisfied releasing such empty commentary.
</rant>
Here's why I'm ranting: I know my blog isn't up to the potential that it could be. I want to know all the many ways that 3D is important to storytelling. The problem is I don't see anybody else even attempting to do something like that. I look at film reviews (e.g. this one) and all they ever lend to interpreting the 3D in a film is one short paragraph, rarely more than 3 sentences long.
Let me do a hypothetical review of the 3D in Batman: Arkham City. In fact, I'll do a review of one scene in particular: the cut-scene before the confrontation with Mr. Freeze. In case you haven't played that game, I'll describe the scene I'm talking about quick. Also consider this sentence your official spoiler warning.
Early in the game, Batman is poisoned. The majority of the game follows batman's attempts to obtain an antidote that will allow him to survive his poisoning. Mr. Freeze is supposed to know how to build an antidote, but is trying to use that fact to leverage Batman into rescuing his wife. To do that, Mr. Freeze dramatically holds the antidote in front of Batman, with his hand and the antidote extending outside the screen in the 3D version of that cut-scene, after witch he shatters it by squeezing the vial.
Here's how I would review the 3D in that scene: The overarching theme of the game is death. You're meant to feel like the ability to avoid death is just outside Batman's capability. The 3D in this scene is utilized well to effect that emotion. The vial in the scene is held within the reach of the game's player. By all means he should be able to touch it, and is invited to try. My first time through the game I did try, only to have the vial shatter just before I could grab it. My second time through the game I was a bit quicker on the gun, and my fingers slid right through the vial before it shattered. Both instances communicated the message clearly to me. You can try again and again to avoid death, but ultimately that destiny is an inevitability. The message hits strong, and adds an emotional layer to the game not present in the 2D version. As such, I wholly suggest playing the game in 3D wherever 3D access is available.
That's the kind of thing I'm looking for. And that's only a review of one sequence that lasts less than a minute! Imagine how many metaphors, how much emotional impact, or how much visually altering imagery could be described if people were willing to read more into the 3D in an entire film! Yet, film reviewers today limit their discussion to something like, "The 3D effects in The Life of Pi are not really effects at all, in my opinion. They are part of the movie." No discussion, nothing to be able to understand why the 3D is good, and if that would be something to your tastes.
I guess that's what's upsetting me: how empty 3D film reviews are. They give me nothing to go on to understand whether the 3D version is worth spending the money on. They provide no service to anybody but the fans of 2D films. And I can't understand why any film reviewer worth their pay would be satisfied releasing such empty commentary.
</rant>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)