[quote]If you need Product X to use Product Y, and Product X has no viable uses without Product Y, then Product X is clearly just a component of Product Y. Therefore it makes sense to include the price of X in the cost of getting Y.[/quote] Except you don't actually need a brand new X to use product Y. You might already have product A from old system B (my case), or you might have a KVM switch (my work's case), or you might even be able to use product Y with your home entertainment cent
CobraA1
[quote]A monitor ultimately is for a computer. It has little value outside of that. By contrast, a home theater system has many uses; it is valuable outside of the context of an individual console.[/quote] The point I'm making is that including the monitor in the price for a computer but not including a TV for an Xbox is not a fair comparison. [quote]Yes, if you can upgrade your PC at all.[/quote] That's still a whole lot better than trying to upgrade consoles. Console
[quote]True, but most people already have at least a TV and perhaps even a sound system in their home, so it's not necessary to buy those, whereas if you're buying a PC from scratch,[/quote] In which case, it's a completely unfair comparison - you're talking about making one system from scratch, as opposed to another system with already existing parts. Of course the system using already existing parts is going to be cheaper. A person with an old PC could likewise use the same m
[quote]On the other hand, its easier to make a graphically astounding game than to come up with innovative, well-crafted gameplay[/quote] Well, games like GalCiv 2 and Sins require a lot of talent, but games like Crysis require a lot man hours. A game like GalCiv 2 is like a small shop filled with innovative people, while a game like Crysis is more like a large factory. The small shop is a lot more flexible and changing and can create lots of innovation, but the factory can out
[quote]even so with an hd tv many xbox games outperform my pc when you look at it on a cost basis and even graphical basis.[/quote] Well, HD TVs can be expensive, especially if you're shooting for 1080p. You're now looking at getting a TV in addition to just the console. "HD" essentially means "we finally got out of the TV equivalent of 640x480 and moved up to high resolutions that are similar to PC resolutions." [quote]even so with an hd tv many xbox games outperform
[quote]7.1 Sound Card $100 (completely optional)[/quote] Nobody needs to spend money on a sound card - most motherboards have 5.1 built in, and 7.1 may be nice but not necessary. In fact, I barely use my speakers at all. My ears aren't that good, so I don't really rely on sound at all when I play. If people want to spend money on sound, fine, but I don't thinks it's really necessary. With the rise of MMORPGs, I'm usually on a headset with Skype or Ventrillo and having
[quote]A lot of slow downs arent even graphical really. Sometimes it's physics, AI or poor coding. That's when it pisses me off[/quote] What drives me absolutely nuts is when some game uses software to paint shadows and uses older and slower algorithms to do it with. There are some very slow shadow painting algorithms that use a lot of CPU and create blocky looking shadows, which can cause even modern computers to choke. It's amazing that they're still used, and that companies don't rea
[quote]xthetenth its not resolution, example i own cod4 for the pc, i have to play wih most settings turned off but it still looks decent, ive played it on the xbox and it looks 10 times better especially if played in hd.[/quote] Probably your computer's hardware. Your performance will depend greatly on the hardware you are using. I'm pretty sure I could outperform the 360 with my own computer. [quote]I personally think all this "PC vs. Consoles" argument is bunk; neither one i
[quote]My system being at best about 5 years old can still run most anything atleast on minimal settings, but I do find myself turning down a lot more Gfx options than I used to for most.[/quote] Yeah, I was running on a 6800 not too long ago myself, and it could run pretty much everything on the market decently until very recently. [quote]Consoles need to be replaced less often than pc parts.[/quote] Not really, as I've said I was running a 6800 not too long ago - it'
[quote]That is a good thing but I am starting to notice that with the better graphics comes at the cost of needing a better computer or graphics card.[/quote] You have [b]just[/b] noticed that? That has been true for decades. There have always been games that when first released push a card to its limits, only to be considered mediocre when new cards come out. In my opinion, there will always be games that push cards to their limits, and those that work on all machines. Games
[quote]Last year, PC Gaming generated less then one-tenth (~7%) of the gaming industry's game sells[/quote] Can you cite a source for your numbers, please?
[quote]The free ones I'm talking about are very much high quality.[/quote] That's nice. There are also commercial libraries that are high quality as well. You missed my point. [quote]99% of the computers are not part of the computer game industry.[/quote] And most statistics are made up on the spot. [quote]it's the PC game industry that is a niche market of the larger game industry as a whole.[/quote] I seriously doubt it. There is no shortage of PCs
[quote]After all my hard work i restarted and started to clean up my drives, moving things where i wanted them only to have Vista freeze on me everytime it moved a file larger than 300mb...[/quote] That has been fixed in SP1. [quote]ista is all cosmetics and it doesnt use any new features really exept UCA (witch is meant to me annoying) and the indexing thingie). Thats the only two things you notice is new. [/quote] There's also new troubleshooting tools, Flip 3D,
[quote]I hope all you people using more that 4GB of RAM are running the 64bit version.[/quote] Yup, I'm running 64 bit. [quote]But, what runs on the 64bit version?[/quote] The better question is what [b]can't[/b] run on the 64 bit version. Other than a couple of drivers that weren't WHQL (and all of those have since been fixed and certified), I've yet to see software that won't run on 64 bit Vista. I've thrown pretty much every game and program I've got at it, and it h
[quote] No, it is not. Well, not in the real sense of the program using less memory. [/quote] Actually, yes in the case of Java. A Java application can only allocate so much memory, and the user has to explicitly run the JVM with certain command line parameters to allow it to use more memory. A memory leak is not allowed to continue indefinitely in Java. And, of course, the whole thing is always cleared when the program terminates. [quote]Yes, but there are free ones (in bo
[quote]Arbitrary release dates.[/quote] Totally agreed. The most buggy projects are the rushed products. [quote]Born-again template or OOP or whatever paradigm-of-the-week coders fall victim to this.[/quote] There are good and bard parts of OOP. If used properly, it's a very good way to structure software. If used improperly, however, the overhead and poorly thought out dependencies can kill code. [quote]No testing. Most software products don't even do basic t
Let me be honest with you: The amount of memory you have is going to be one of the largest factors affecting how your OS performs, no matter that the OS. The biggest killer of performance is whenever the OS has to swap an application between the memory and the hard drive. Not only will this depend on the OS a bit, it also depends on what type of applications you use, how they are designed, and how you use them. There has been a trend towards caching (pre-loading) more stuff in
[quote]I'd only use 4 gigs or greater for Vista.[/quote] Vista isn't [i]that[/i] bad. 2 GB works great for the vast majority of uses. You only need 4 GB or more if you're doing memory intensive tasks like multimedia editing. [quote]My PC goes up to 1440x900 on XP, I'm not going to Vista to have 320x240 on a 17 inch screen for everything I do.[/quote] This is utter nonsense. In no way, shape, or form do you have to turn down your resolution for Vista.
[quote]They're all crap, as far as I've seen. Whether it's MMORPGs, MMOFPS, or whatever.[/quote] I suppose that's a matter of personal taste. [quote]So, buying a product that might or might not work is acceptable?[/quote] I've had very few software products that are so bad they are nonfunctional. And you bet I complain if I receive a product in such a poor shape. [quote]This is the thinking of someone who has been trained to expect games (or other things) to n
Just ran their little PC evaluation test, and my Core 2 Quad with 6 GB of RAM and a GeForce 9600 easily passed all three tests, including "Best." My older setup with a 256 MB card and 2 GB RAM probably would've made "better." . . . and I just realized, my older AMD processor, even though it was 2 GHz and worked fine for games, wouldn't have even made "good" on the list - of all ironies, it was upgrading to an Intel system that pushed my system to "best!"
[quote]http://game.amd.com/us-en/amdgame_testedconfigurations.aspx?p=1[/quote] Interesting concept. Obviously, it's all AMD/ATI. If they really want to be serious about standardizing game systems, they will have to suck up some pride and market share, and be willing to cooperate a bit and include some of their competitors. I doubt you're going to convince a long time nVidia or Intel fan to buy one of those systems. Problem is, they can't really enforce it, so we developers stil
Well, Microsoft does seem to claim they've overhauled everything, including the network stack. Yeah, the older OSes were very insecure when it comes to file sharing, practically by design. The security holes you see are likely Microsoft trying to maintain backwards compatibility with older OSes - I'm sure Microsoft is aware of the problems. I think there's an option somewhere to increase network security at the cost of compatibility. I know that in my networking options I can tell the system to
[quote]I think it's supposed to be. MMO's not really a correct term. It has to be MMOG.[/quote] In any case, this is the second generation of consoles to really support online access, and although online play is becoming more popular, it's still pretty young for the platform. The PC has had it a lot longer, and there are a large number of online games available for the PC. The future of online games, especially for consoles, should be interesting. [quote]Yeah, but if you get a
Windows has supported multiple user security since NT, but the problem is convincing users they want it, and convincing developers to avoid writing code that requires administrative access. A [b]lot[/b] of users are doing the equivalent of logging into *nix as root all of the time and ignoring user accounts altogether. Windows is perfectly capable of running in a manner similar to *nix if it's set up properly. I advise people in XP to have separate user and administrative accounts all t
[quote]Try finding a good MMO on PCs.[/quote] I'm not sure I follow: Isn't MMORPG a subset of MMO? [quote]There's evidence going back decades of initial releases of PC software being essentially unplayable until the first patch. I have yet to see a single console game that shipped in a fundamentally unplayable state, one that needed a day-one patch just to play it.[/quote] Okay, maybe this is a weakness of PC games - but not really enough to prevent PC owners from buyi