techaccident
About
- Username
- techaccident
- Joined
- Visits
- 31
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 123
- Badges
- 0
- Posts
- 42
Reactions
-
Compared: 2021 16-inch MacBook Pro vs Dell XPS 17
GeorgeBMac said:techaccident said:One runs Windows and the other runs MacOS, a far bigger difference and reason for buying than hardware details. If you like Windows, or the stuff that runs on Windows, well, you do you.Fixed that for you.But don't blame Microsoft for that. Apple uses all the great iPhone apps as a reason to buy iPhone -- and the lack of them was a major reason for the failure of the Windows phone.
I am most fortunate, I have no requirements to run any Windows apps at all and find none the least bit appealing. They were once a big part of my world, but those days are long past.
-
Compared: 2021 16-inch MacBook Pro vs Dell XPS 17
-
Apple releases macOS Big Sur 11.6 with security fixes
-
Nearly 75% of Apple users don't want an 'iPhone 13,' more than half not excited about iOS ...
I was just in a large, high-end condo building in Seattle this weekend. 38 floors, only really 37 because there was no "13" on the elevator. Old superstitions persist, from small things like this to some really big things that are outside this thread! I just hope the people on the 14th floor never figure it out...
I'm fine with 13, it's simply a convenient prime number and people made up numbers. -
Here's what you need to know about lossless Amazon Music Unlimited HD
While I'm sure that this will make Neil Young happy, I don't see much of an audience for this feature for one simple reason: the vast majority of listeners won't notice or be able to detect any difference and thus will not bother to pay for or enable it. Even with "nice" equipment, the audible differences between 256kbps MP3 or AAC and CD-level lossless are very, very small - far too small for a mass audience to care about, IMHO. This is at best aimed at a niche market. Sidebar: Amazon claims to offer this in "HD" and "Ultra HD", the latter being 192kHz/24-bit. That's swell, but how many recordings are natively recorded at 192/24? If a recording was made using 44.1kHz, 48kHz or 96kHz sample rates, then no amount of upsampling helps and you're just wasting data. I wonder what their logic is, beyond "more is better"?