Agreed its a good article to get an understand about the different forms of AA.

trolling?

This person is not trolling! He/she is telling the truth so stop being a little hateful console fanboy.

I played Crysis 2 on the Ps3 and 360 on sunday(all platform Lan Party) and what a horrible display of jaggies (washed out colors, low draw distances, blur, and bad graphics in many areas) when i compare it to the PC version.

The consoles have good looking games but going from 8xAA or even 4xAA at 1920 x 1080p down to whatever consoles do, the consoles look like shit! adjustable AA will be on next gen consoles but for right now the amount of jaggies is horrible.

Actually it depends on distance from the display AND the size of the display. A 1080P monitor at 24inches has very tiny pixels, but sitting 3 feet from it, you can see those pixels. Considering most console games run at 720P, a 1080P TV uses multiple pixels to make 1 dot (scaling) and that dot is bigger. AND the fact most people game on consoles with a 32-65inch TV, those pixels are even larger.

Personally, I game on my TV with both console and my PC and 1080P barely needs AA. 4xAA at 1080P on my 46inch watching from my couch COMPLETELY eliminates jaggies. While high levels of AA helps console games at 720P, it is still 720P though so it looks less detailed and less sharp than a true 1080P game (If you calculate it, 720 is almost exactly half the resolution of 1080P).

Proper forms of AA help image quality but is no substitute for higher resolution.

Ridiculous. If "AA is AA no matter how you do it" then we wouldn't have multiple "how"s to do it by. It'd just be "AA". The distinction between the different types is clearly explained in this article so I see no reason to recount that information in this comment, but to put it briefly, different methods of AA are more efficient than others but produce different results in terms of the quality of the image. Some are more processor intensive but yield a better image, others are less intensive but the image is either not as effectively anti-aliased or becomes more blurry.

Because it is more complex than you are making it out to be?

Super Sampling AA
Subpixel data preserved and works on every surface and has no adverse effects besides HUGE performmance hit. This is the best quality AA method. Has different sample choices to choose performance/quality.

Multisampling AA
Subpixel data preserved and works on ALMOST all surfaces (alpha tested surfaces do not benefit, neither does "shader" aliasing on surfaces). Much lower performance hit than SSAA. Has different sample choices to choose performance/quality. There are variations of this with CSAA and transparency AA that can be couple with it to solve alpha testing issues.

MLAA
Postprocissing AA so there is NO subpixel data preservation which leads to shimmering or "pixel popping" when the image is moving. Does smooth alpha tested surfaces (foliage and fences) but since there is no subpixel data, pixel popping is noticable. Smoothing is excellent and effects all surfaces. Has been shown to blur textures a small amount but is not too noticable. Performance hit is less than MSAA in most cases

SRAA/FXAA - New Nvidia AA methods not yet available (to my knowledge), I don't know much about them except that FXAA is similar to MLAA but does have subpixel data. SRAA seems to be similar but better? I have to do more reading.

Anyways, AA is quite complex and there are all sorts of ways to do it with pros and cons. There are more than this, but these are popular/coming soon.

To put it in your words, there are different ways to milk a cow but some ways are going to get the milk out slow while other ways gets you milk fast but not particularly good milk...

I did before and after comparisons with AA in some games and see barely any difference.. But i sit quite far away from the screen as I use a controller..

If your PC has the muscle go for SSAA it's the best but 4x MSAA at 1920 x 1080p is very very effective and provide super high quality visuals with a conservative hit on performance.

The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.

Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.

15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.

Let me be clear. This is sarcasm