What exactly is crappy about an 8800 GTS? It's still a solid card.
What I'm still looking forward to is a piece of tech that can be equipped with regular RAM modules and connected like a SATA-HD. Think RAM-drive. This would not be double or triple the speed (writing AND reading) of any regular HD, but hundreds of times as fast.
There was an affordable piece of hardware like this some years ago, but only a few hundred pieces were produced, and it also only supported 4 GB total capacity. With todays affordable RAM, I see no reason that would prevent such...
I bet there's a cheat that turns all non-muslims into pigs ;)
Yeah, let's just drop any religion. They are all equally detached from reality.
Yeah it looks nice, and sadly, this is all that counts (remember Bill Gates: If you can't make it good, at least make it look good...he is a genius marketing person). It's not helping to be more productive, but it increases power consumption. Everybody I know that has tried the compiz fluff went back to regular desktop pretty fast. But it's nice to have it ready to impress someone.
So you think it's a good thing that dummies build critical information systems? I don't agree. It takes an engineer to build those systems, and they usually have no problem understanding the technology they apply.
Actually, you can get a refund for a bundled Windows _____, if you send it back to the manufacturer of the machine, along with the certificate of authenticity. A lot of people have already done it. It takes time and perseverance, but it works.
Not before they solve the thermal problems. Imagine the heat one single processor capable of doing general purpose calculations AND graphics processing would generate...and all this heat on a very small surface.
Advanced course could cover EVE:Online, which actually HAS a completely player-based economy (there are supposed to be no NPC sellers, everything is player-produced, they say).
Yeah, especially because the article didn't even mention performance comparisons between DDR2 and DDR3. I guess it still takes almost a year until price/performance ratio is acceptable for DDR3.
I hope your graphics are not rendered in system memory...
It's called change. It means you must let go of old things and embrace the new. There are actually replacements for almost every proprietary program in existence. A few exceptions are games and some specialized business software. Otherwise, GNU/Linux can do everything (to my knowledge), and often better than the proprietary stuff, too.
You don't have to max out Crysis. Crysis on "Killzone 2 settings" (screen resolution, aa, af, texture resolutions, draw distance, etc.) will still get you more FPS. The rest is a matter of artistic style and taste. But the cryengine 2 just performs better. It's actually a shame, if you think of how they can optimize the KZ2 engine, while the cryengine 2 has to run on many different systems.
Realtime raytracing is possible, if you use interpolation instead of tracing every pixel. There was a realtime raytracing benchmark waaaay back in time that actually ran pretty well in small resolutions, even on single-core machines.
Of course, you can't just compare it like that, but what I'm trying to say is that realtime raytracing can be beneficial even if you don't rely on it completely. I imagine it might improve some lighting situations considerably.
What do you mean, another 500$? With 500$, I can upgrade your mommas PC so that it will run Crysis fine on high settings.
And you have proof where? It's actually quite the opposite, the only thing KZ2 has going for it is style. Its engine is far weaker than the CryEngine 2.
KZ2 is still a console game, and therefore miles behind a game like Crysis, in all technical domains (polycount, draw distance, texture resolution, shadow quality, light rendering, etc.). Anyone who denies this simply doesn't know the first thing about 3d graphics.
But artistically, I actually prefer Killzone 2, as many people here do, because Crysis tries to reach realism and fails, while KZ2 has a clearly defined look that just makes you think "wow, that's cool".
The only problem in HL2 (besides the less than spectacular weapons) was the shortness of the levels. Sometimes it felt as if you were mostly staring at loading screens, with only small gameplay periods inbetween.
From the ~ 10 people I know that have tried Vista, only one still got it installed. All the others reverted back to XP. Most had serious problems with some games, showstopping problems, not just some hiccups.
Which version of Vista would you recommend for server use? Do you realize that there is a special server version of Windows (called Windows Server, duh), while there are still three (or more, I don't recall) versions of Vista out there? And those three versions are NOT marketed as server OS at all.
You seem to have no clue about operating systems.