It can be said that Windows Vista is a "tech tripping" because right from the start it has been assigned by the tech community to be bad, slow, complicated and consume unnecessary resources.
When Windows 7 was born, everything was completely opposite. People praised it and quickly believed it, used it. But mechanical tests have produced different results.
In the "test" called WorldBench, Windows 7 proved to be quite superior in the operations related to the drive's operations such as write speed with Nero software 2 to 2.5 times faster than when implemented on Windows Vista operating system (with the same system configuration). Or Windows 7 laptops have a slightly longer battery life.
However, when working with applications, sometimes Windows 7 appears to be slower than its 'siblings'. For example, when starting Photoshop CS4, Windows Vista only takes 2.7 seconds but Windows needs 9.6 seconds .
Overall, Windows 7 is definitely faster than Vista, but the difference is not as big as we thought.
Every smartphone can lose wave like iPhone 4
Apple and General Manager Steve Jobs tried to prove that other smartphones could lose the wave when the user gripped and sealed the antenna set on the camera body. But the reality is that other phone models also have an effect (reducing the wave intensity, the data access rate is lower, the call quality is lower), but none of the models lost the wave completely like iPhone 4.
The conclusion is: If you don't have an iPhone 4, you don't need to worry about antenna issues.
Desktop is dead?
Nobody can deny that laptops have become very cheap and powerful today just like bulky desktops. If you say that the generation of the desktop is dead, it is completely wrong because with desktop computers, users can upgrade each part without worrying about the cost because they only need to spend money for That component is instead of a laptop like a laptop. For example, if you want a Blu-ray drive, want a more powerful graphics processor or a 3D screen . you won't need to "dispose" of the entire computer.
More expensive HDMI cable is better?
When you have accepted to spend tens of millions to buy a HD TV screen, add a few million more to buy a Blu-ray player . the seller will easily convince you to buy an extra piece of cable HDMI brand for millions more and you believe that there must be that string, the image on your home TV is 'picturesque'. If so, condolence because you have spent a useless amount of money because in fact, a piece of signal cable costing $ 150 is no different than a price tag of $ 30.
In technology, if the audio and video signals move from one device to another in the same standard (analog), there will be a signal loss that occurs and that degrades quality. when they are reconstructed at the display device (TV screen). In order to reduce this loss, manufacturers have introduced improved signaling materials and technologies.
But with modern devices today using digital (digital) technology such as HD TVs, DVD players, Blu-ray . the signal is encoded in the form of only including characters 0 and 1 (binary system) manure, commonly used in computer technology) and when it comes to the display device, all of these signals are fully recreated, exactly as they are on the player. Losses cannot occur because if there is a single 'small segment' of codes 0 and 1, the signal cannot be reproduced. This is why a $ 150 HDMI cable is no different from a $ 30 cable because they have only one task to transmit signals.
However, with the distance from the transmitter to the display device over 8 meters, the loss of signal is at risk and at this time, the quality of the wire plays its role.
Conclusion: If you intend to set up a home theater system and the distance from the player to the TV screen, speakers . below 8 meters, choose to buy a cheap signal cable.
Source: PCW (more)