OT: New PC

[GuyOfDoom]

dogscoff said:
by the time Vista becomes bearable Direct X 10 will be available on XP anyway...

It was my understanding that DX10 was a unique feature of Vista that wouldn't have worked on previous versions of Windows.

I also vote for more RAM, you can never have too much. My next computer will have 4GB minimum given that soon they will crack the 4GB wall and eventually Vista will rule the world.

[Santiago]

If you're happy with what you got, that's all that really matters. Tho at least you didn't fall for Vista's reign of terror.

As a side note I seen an article talking about the new AMD triple core "Phenom" processor. Usually they're Dual or now Quad cores. Even Intel Ceo Otellini joked " We see a distinct advantage in having all the cores on our dies work". I thought that was funny. But for near 30 yrs cores have been an odd number as for all that time we all had 1 core.

[Arkcon]

Atrocities said:
and the case is ugly.

Oh, c'mon now how ugly can a case be... clicky, clicky, clicky. Ewww...that's not an impressive case at all. It is almost as bad as my Micron case from way back in 1998. Shudder.

... and save 15%. I opted for the discount... I know, I am a sell out.

Makes it all seem worthwhile to me.

[Renegade 13]

I was going to mention the single gig of RAM you have there, but...someone beat me to it! 2 gigs should be your minimum.

[AgentZero]

GuyOfDoom said:
It was my understanding that DX10 was a unique feature of Vista that wouldn't have worked on previous versions of Windows.

Officially yes. Unofficially it's already possible to run DX10 on XP. Unfortunately, it involves some serious shenanigans, and DX10b will probably bork it.


[/quote]I also vote for more RAM, you can never have too much. My next computer will have 4GB minimum given that soon they will crack the 4GB wall and eventually Vista will rule the world.

[/quote]
Or you could get a proper operating system and not worry about this silly 4GB 'wall'. As of kernel version 2.4, Linux OSes will handle up to 64GB. And that's good enough for me.

[Fyron]

Santiago said:
"As a side note I seen an article talking about the new AMD triple core "Phenom" processor. Usually they're Dual or now Quad cores."

It's all about market segmentation and increasing die yields. Consider that the Xbox 360 has a 3-core processor (for improved die yields); any game codeveloped for it and the PC will probably benefit from the 3rd core of a quad core CPU, but not at all from the 4th core. Some gamers might be interested in the performance gains, but not interested in the full price premium of quad core. Offering an option between dual core and quad core will probably net AMD more profits, due to such consumers willing to spend a little extra, but not a lot.

Then, consider that plenty of quad core CPUs are scrap due to random silicon die issues. Every new CPU (and other chips) starts out with really low die yields, which improve over time as manufacturing techniques are refined. Plenty of those processors can still function if the issues cripple one core, but not 3 others (simply burn the paths connecting the bad core, alter a bit of EEPROM, and voila!). Why not try to sell them as a 3-core CPU instead of throwing them away? Not a bad way to pad the bottom line, if you ask me.

GuyOfDoom said:
"It was my understanding that DX10 was a unique feature of Vista that wouldn't have worked on previous versions of Windows."

DX 10 was engineered around the new kernel driver architecture, but there is nothing in DX 10 that couldn't be done with the older XP model. There is nothing technically preventing MS from back-porting DX 10 to XP; it would just be fairly time consuming and expensive to do it, and marketing decided it would be better to make it Vista-exclusive.

[Santiago]

@ Fyron

I agree totally with what you're saying and that seems what AMD is doing altho not Intel. The marketing spin is what's silly imo. In that an even numbered core , Dual/Quad, is the way to go. People forget that 1 core processors are still very much out there and 1 is an odd number.

Even more than the random silicon die issues, is the raw silicon itself. I've had a chance to be at one of the silicon cracking plants that supplies most of the IC and Proc manufacturers and each batch, the quality is slightly different and who gets the purest quality silicon is not always who you think would.

[dogscoff]

It was my understanding that DX10 was a unique feature of Vista that wouldn't have worked on previous versions of Windows.

As has already been pointed out, DX10 being Vista-only was a marketing decision, not a technical limitation. I think MS realised that there is no really compelling reason to down^H^H^H^Hupgrade to Vista, so they manufactured one by making DX10 Vista-only.

Unfortunately for them, it has already been demonstrated by third parties that DX10 will work on XP (and maybe other Windows OSes as well?). See here: http://www.technospot.net/blogs/down...-alky-project/

Or, as AZ suggests (i'm surprised it took this long for the thread to switch to Linux advocacy=-) you could get Linux and run your games under Wine. Apparently some Windows games run faster under Wine than under Windows! http://appdb.winehq.org/

[Randallw]

I don't trust an OS called wine. I expect the more it is used the slower it gets.

Disclaimer: yes, I'm a devoted Teetotaller. Last time I had a breath test I broke the machine. I like to think it didn't know what to think when it detected no alcohol at all.

[dogscoff]

Heh, Wine is not an OS, it's a tool to run Windows software under Linux. Note that it isn't an emulator (it's faster than that.)

Hmmm... Since Wine gets its name from a recursive acronym (Wine Is Not an Emulator), and is it as much not an OS as it is not an emulator, perhaps it would also be legitimate to refer to it as "Wino" (Wine Is Not an OS)..?