Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Crysis Performance: v1.0 vs v1.1 vs v1.2

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
April 6, 2008 5:38:43 PM

Quote:





Processor: Intel Core2Quad Q6600 @ 3.2Ghz (355x9)
Motherboard: ASUS P5B-E PLUS i965P Rev.1G
Memory: 2x1GB Kingston Value Ram DDR2-800 @ DDR2-1066 5-5-5-18
Graphics: MSI NX8800GT OC (T2D512E) @ 712/1728/999
Storage: Hitachi 160GB 7.2krpm SATA 3.0Gbps
Power Supply: Coolermaster iGreen 500W
Display: BenQ FP202W 20.1” 1680x1050 8ms

OS: Windows XP Pro SP2 32-bit + DX9.0c
Chipset: Intel INF 8.3.1.1009
Motherboard BIOS: 0627
Graphics: Forceware 171.17 WHQL


Source: http://lly316.blogspot.com/2008/04/crysis-performance-benchmarks-10-vs-11.html

More about : crysis performance

April 6, 2008 5:47:02 PM

Benching Crysis in xp? Pointless, Vista 64 bit or nothing.
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2008 6:44:38 PM

That 'pointless' OS you speak of is used by the VAST majority of gamers.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2008 6:54:07 PM

hes got a point though... to really test crysis you should use vista as its going to be the new os soon and really shows what crysis has... or you could just look up triple c on google, download it, get so much more fps for crysis while it looks a lot better =D
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2008 7:06:53 PM

And shouldnt they be using the 174.47 drivers as well?
April 6, 2008 7:39:14 PM

vista bad
April 6, 2008 8:07:24 PM

vip3569 said:
vista bad


I pity the fool!

Don't you mean 174.74?
a b U Graphics card
April 6, 2008 8:13:00 PM

Maybe its dyslexia. I wnet to the meeting and they were all saying "fellow dyslexians UNTIE"
a c 413 U Graphics card
April 6, 2008 8:56:10 PM

I'll wait for Windows 7.
April 6, 2008 9:40:15 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Maybe its dyslexia. I wnet to the meeting and they were all saying "fellow dyslexians UNTIE"



heh, nah, it just happens wiht time, one hand (generally the hand you use to write wiht) becomes a faster typer than the other oen so you press keys slightly faster wiht it than the other.

lol, windows 7 thats a joke... although, after using vista 64 for some lengthy period of time, i do find it rather nice, small features mainly, like ;'open file location" in the context menu, and the individual volume control per program...

i think it should be benched on vista 64, not because it is what everyone IS using, but because it will be what everyone WILL BE using...
April 6, 2008 10:03:20 PM

I'm guessing that most people will just jump from XP to Windows 7. Vista is basically a Windows 7 Beta IMHO.

Even if Windows 7 sucks, it's not like you have much of a choice. Vista or Windows 7, we'll have to wait and see what the lesser of the 2 evils is. From the pics that I've seen, I'm thinking that Windows 7 is based off of Vista, like XP was based all the way back from Win95.
April 6, 2008 10:05:23 PM

LAN_deRf_HA said:
Benching Crysis in xp? Pointless, Vista 64 bit or nothing.


Your Vista Fanboi opinion is in the minority for good reason. Crysis is similar to Vista in that they are both not suitable for gamers, yet, if ever.

Enjoy your low frame rates.


April 7, 2008 12:10:46 AM

You're the poster child for ill informed. Your mentality is weak, like that of a mac user or anyone else who must follow hollow trends of love to hate or love to buy. Keep your idiocies to yourself and don't burden others with your pathetic opinions and mentalities.
April 7, 2008 1:08:59 AM

Its great that they are making performance improvements as time goes on.

And Vista and XP work great. Vista is much much more secure and its pretty. It also supports DX10 and has never crashed on me. File transfers are slower but oh well.
April 7, 2008 1:31:54 AM

Vista annoys the hell out of me :)  But still i use it, DX10 and constant updates are what made me part with my $.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 4:17:03 AM

Im wondering, will the new FS be on windows 7, and isnt that the main reason why file transfers are that slow?
April 7, 2008 4:39:23 AM

I really love how all these vista haters are planning a direct jump from XP to Windows 7, which all sounds nice and dandy, but it's not going to be like that.

Based on history, please DO tell me when has Microsoft launched an OS in the past 10 years that hasn't sucked to the point of blowing your brains out. Windows 98? SO good they had to release 98 SE to correct all the screw ups. Windows ME? Enough said. Windows 2000? I guess it wasn't THAT bad, but not really worth it. Windows XP? Now it's great. but back then it was getting the same treat as Vista does now.

So please tell me... what makes you think that Windows 7 will be so much better than Vista is...? Honestly all Vista haters are obviously talking out of ignorance or out of stupidity. I would say for regular people they talk out of ignorance, but haters in this forum obviously talk out of stupidity.
April 7, 2008 5:28:13 AM

Good topic idea. But like most here, I'll rather see Vista 64, 4+ gigs RAM, and newest drivers.
BTW, I didn't have any problems with any software after I installed Vista 64 SP1.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 5:34:53 AM

Another thing Im wondering, and havnt read up on it, is will windows 7 be 64bit only?
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 5:34:58 AM

I don't see any mention of the graphical bugs they added in 1.1.
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 5:36:50 AM

LOL
a c 332 U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 5:54:57 AM

emp said:
Honestly all Vista haters are obviously talking out of ignorance or out of stupidity. I would say for regular people they talk out of ignorance, but haters in this forum obviously talk out of stupidity.

But what about those of us who refuse to use Fista out of laziness, stubbornness and plain old tight fisted(ness). :lol: 
a c 332 U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 5:58:41 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Another thing Im wondering, and havnt read up on it, is will windows 7 be 64bit only?

I'm sure I saw mention of a 32bit as well as a 64bit version.
April 7, 2008 6:04:18 AM

LAN_deRf_HA said:
You're the poster child for ill informed. Your mentality is weak, like that of a mac user or anyone else who must follow hollow trends of love to hate or love to buy. Keep your idiocies to yourself and don't burden others with your pathetic opinions and mentalities.


Having a bad hair day? :non: 
April 7, 2008 12:08:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Another thing Im wondering, and havnt read up on it, is will windows 7 be 64bit only?

Windows 7 was 64bit ONLY. Until the eee PC came out. Now Microsoft wants Windows 7 to work off flash based - 32 bit notebooks as well. (can't have people using Linux on those MIDs/UMPCs !!)
I think Microsoft should be working only with 64 bit everything - even 64bit flash based notebooks. Most future (or current) MID, UMPCs, etc are 64bit now anyways.
April 7, 2008 12:44:10 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Another thing Im wondering, and havnt read up on it, is will windows 7 be 64bit only?


Last information is that Windows 7 is the last 32bit and 64bit windows... Why on earth? I don't know...
Maybe they need 32 bit version for hand held computers???
April 7, 2008 1:19:10 PM

I agree, benchmarks should be done in Vista 64bit. If you don’t agree think of it like this. XP is faster, ok that’s great. But you know that you will be doing a little better then whatever the benchmarks is for vista… other than the ability to have better looking games… but who cares about eye candy on this gamer/PC enthusiast forum?
April 7, 2008 1:25:43 PM

I really doubt these benches because I remember when I played v1.0, I was in a hell of Lag, and when I updated it was beaufitul:)  This was Xp at the time. The new patches actually made it playable on Vista!
April 7, 2008 2:04:09 PM

LAN_deRf_HA said:
Keep your idiocies to yourself and don't burden others with your pathetic opinions and mentalities.

Ho, ho, ho, the Irony! :non: 

LAN_deRf_HA said:
You're the poster child for ill informed. Your mentality is weak, like that of a mac user or anyone else who must follow hollow trends of love to hate or love to buy.

I am not going to get into an argument with you, as I see you do a lot to antagonise people on these forums, but let me respond. You're obviously a young teenager, utterly hateful of Mac's because they're different which is really big of you, nice going there! I have one, what you gonna do, shout in my face that I'm WRONG?!
Such an ill-informed opinion of a Windows loveboy. People who do the same to their macs (i.e. "I'm never going to get a virus!", "My Mac is better than any other PC" etc. etc. wind the **** out of me as well, so you're not alone!) so why can't we just play nice?
I would explain as to why I have both a PC (running Windows XP Pro) and a Mac (running 10.5.2 Leopard), but I fear explaining such a concept would be akin to having a conversation with my pen.
a c 131 U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 2:21:48 PM

.
a c 131 U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 2:29:30 PM

mactronix said:
.


I just dont get this blinkered view that testing should be done only in Vista. As has been pointed out the vast majority of people are still using XP. All games should be tested in both, a good reviewing site will include both.
Sure the game looks at its best in DX10 with a top end CPU and GPU but most people just dont have that level of hardware in there rig. A lot of people do care about picture quality and im not sure when this hardware forum became a gamer/PC enthusiast forum ?
Mactronix
April 7, 2008 3:00:29 PM

vip3569 said:
vista bad


Talk about bringing something constructive to a discussion!!!

One thing is true... and it's that the majority of user are still using XP over Vista. But, it's also true that most new computer are sold with Vista. The game is made to be played (altough not with current hardware maybe) with Dx10.

So, tell me, if you want to bench a Dx10 game, why not do it both with XP AND Vista? This way, everybody is happy. I personally use both XP and Vista (64-bit) on a dual-boot system. I play ALL of my game on Vista since I got that system in february 2007... and that include Crysis (partially in Dx10).
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 3:34:26 PM

Ill wait for more DX10 games and only then will I upgrade my gaming rig to Vista. :)  (I do use Vista for low end work, ie. Word,etc)
a c 131 U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 3:48:53 PM

NightlySputnik said:
Talk about bringing something constructive to a discussion!!!

One thing is true... and it's that the majority of user are still using XP over Vista. But, it's also true that most new computer are sold with Vista. The game is made to be played (altough not with current hardware maybe) with Dx10.

So, tell me, if you want to bench a Dx10 game, why not do it both with XP AND Vista? This way, everybody is happy. I personally use both XP and Vista (64-bit) on a dual-boot system. I play ALL of my game on Vista since I got that system in february 2007... and that include Crysis (partially in Dx10).


While its true about the new computers selling with Vista, let me ask this. What percentage of these new computers were sold from a store that had the option to Upgrade to XP ? Im not trying to be funny thats how the option is worded on the few manutacturers sites i have found offering the option.
By any standards Vista has been a failure as far as MS are concerned. The must have DX10 isnt. Enough people have asked for XP rather than Vista on new systems that some stores have bowed to preasure and implemented the option. so its not being forced in that way, thats not including people who installed XP themselves. Recently we have heard that there will be price cuts on vista. And now MS have submitted Windows 7 to the US goverment already. Now if thats not an OS on its way out i dont know what is.
Does anyone know how long the process takes from submitting to release ? I admit i may be jumping the gun on that as im not sure how it works but it has been reported in the press that its earlier than expected.
Mactronix
April 7, 2008 4:30:01 PM

I think overall we would have been better off without vista.Creative sounds cards weren't a problem then.
But i'm sure there are good points about vista.Like seeing more ram.
But if a new windows really has been submitted then I think that speaks volumes about what Vista should have been.
April 7, 2008 5:48:28 PM

Its not Microsoft’s fault that creative will not support a lot of their sound cards with Vista. There was a person who was making drivers for creative cards with vista but creative got threatened because one man did the job that teams couldn’t and shut him down. Not only that, they said out loud in their own forum that they are refusing to support many of their cards with Vista. Why, because they said they have a new card coming out soon.

You can not blame Microsoft for issues that they have no control over. That is like me blaming you that T-mobile are f***tards.
a c 131 U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 6:40:40 PM

spaztic7 said:
Its not Microsoft’s fault that creative will not support a lot of their sound cards with Vista. There was a person who was making drivers for creative cards with vista but creative got threatened because one man did the job that teams couldn’t and shut him down. Not only that, they said out loud in their own forum that they are refusing to support many of their cards with Vista. Why, because they said they have a new card coming out soon.

You can not blame Microsoft for issues that they have no control over. That is like me blaming you that T-mobile are f***tards.


Agreed one thing Microsoft do that they dont really have to is put a lot of effort into fixes and patches to support hardware/software from other companies.
Ok so the more stuff works with the OS the better from a business point of view, but they could just as easy say "Hey its not our problem others can make hardware that works with our OS fix it yourself or you wont sell many units" Truth is they dont tend to leave people in the lurch like that very often.
Mactronix
April 7, 2008 6:52:21 PM

Pfff... They should test this in Windows 7 and DDR3-26000 memory and a 1GB GDDR5 NVIDATIA video card using M-TRON battleship drives
a b U Graphics card
April 7, 2008 8:12:38 PM

NightlySputnik said:

One thing is true... and it's that the majority of user are still using XP over Vista. But, it's also true that most new computer are sold with Vista. The game is made to be played (altough not with current hardware maybe) with Dx10.

So, tell me, if you want to bench a Dx10 game, why not do it both with XP AND Vista? This way, everybody is happy. I personally use both XP and Vista (64-bit) on a dual-boot system. I play ALL of my game on Vista since I got that system in february 2007... and that include Crysis (partially in Dx10).


Exactly, I see no point in talking about patches for XP/DX9 in a game that has alot of focus on the DX10 graphics.

Seriously if it were just about gameplay at lower settings, hey tweakguides has alot of options for you to reduce quality and increase frames, or you could just push the sliders to the left.

Despite all the Vista animosity really for this game, there is little point in talking about XP performance improvements versus possible boost in DX10 Vista performance.

Also, it's Creative's fault they suck in Vista, and they sucked at many things in XP too, Vista and Daniel_K just proved that those 'limitations' were really just marketing tactics, and their policy of blame everyone else (like Blame Bethesda for Oblivion's EchoBuzzing despite being different than bugs on any other audio card [hey my intergrated audio worked fine]).

I don't like Vista or Microsoft for that matter, however I don't blame them for stuff they aren't responsible for, as there's enough reasons to not like both for things they actually did/do/don't.
April 7, 2008 8:42:40 PM

LukeBird said:
Ho, ho, ho, the Irony! :non: 


I am not going to get into an argument with you, as I see you do a lot to antagonise people on these forums, but let me respond. You're obviously a young teenager, utterly hateful of Mac's because they're different which is really big of you, nice going there! I have one, what you gonna do, shout in my face that I'm WRONG?!
Such an ill-informed opinion of a Windows loveboy. People who do the same to their macs (i.e. "I'm never going to get a virus!", "My Mac is better than any other PC" etc. etc. wind the **** out of me as well, so you're not alone!) so why can't we just play nice?
I would explain as to why I have both a PC (running Windows XP Pro) and a Mac (running 10.5.2 Leopard), but I fear explaining such a concept would be akin to having a conversation with my pen.


+1

This thread isn't nearly as informative or interesting as I thought it would be.

Good day, sir. I said good day!
April 7, 2008 8:46:20 PM

LAN_deRf_HA said:
You're the poster child for ill informed. Your mentality is weak, like that of a mac user or anyone else who must follow hollow trends of love to hate or love to buy. Keep your idiocies to yourself and don't burden others with your pathetic opinions and mentalities.


First of all, I hate macs to, not so much the hardware as the system that sells overpriced software and hardware in glossy packages to feeble minded elitists on the merits of being..., pretty... with lies.

Second Vista 64/32 or anything Vista is not the grand daddy of gaming. XP is. DX10 does not add any special magic or effects that DX9 can't replicate at this point. One of these years, programmers will get it worked out and it will surpass the performance of XP DX9 but we aint there yet, so I don't see what your hollering about on that point. I know all this because I happen to run both and on a rig that is likely to blow yours out of the water kid.
April 7, 2008 9:01:47 PM

husky mctarflash said:
+1

This thread isn't nearly as informative or interesting as I thought it would be.

Good day, sir. I said good day!

Why thank you! :D 
warezme said:
First of all, I hate mac's to, not so much the hardware as the concept that sells overpriced software and hardware in glossy packages to feeble minded elitists on the merits of being..., pretty... with lies.
.

You're just as bad!! Once again, I shall put in the caveat, I am NOT here for an argument, just to provide information.
Another Windows loveboy who can't see the wood for the trees! :non: 
"Not so much the hardware" do you even know the contents of a modern mac? Intel CPU, Intel chipset, ATi or Nvidia video card or Intel integrated graphics... Before you start striking out (utterly blindly, on nothing more than a mission to wind people up with your narrow-minded ****!) have a read about them! They are nowhere near as expensive as they used to be, the OS is very well designed. In some ways similar to Windows, in other ways not. Just different, which is seemingly what you and the other guy hate so much. If I am in your eyes (and I won't say I am, because there are people on here who are either mac owners or indifferent with them, so I shall not tar them with the same brush as you) a "feeble minded elitist", so be it, I could care less. As I have said (more than once) if I thought there was any benefit in explaining owning both a PC and a Mac, I would, but explaining to yourself and "LAN_deRf_HA" would be akin to talking to my feet and getting annoyed they don't talk back. Especially so as I have already been pigeon-holed as a "feeble minded elitist" :non:  :D 
April 8, 2008 12:32:06 PM

mactronix said:
Agreed one thing Microsoft do that they dont really have to is put a lot of effort into fixes and patches to support hardware/software from other companies.
Ok so the more stuff works with the OS the better from a business point of view, but they could just as easy say "Hey its not our problem others can make hardware that works with our OS fix it yourself or you wont sell many units" Truth is they dont tend to leave people in the lurch like that very often.
Mactronix


Very true my friend.
April 8, 2008 12:53:22 PM

LukeBird said:
Why thank you! :D 

You're just as bad!! Once again, I shall put in the caveat, I am NOT here for an argument, just to provide information.
Another Windows loveboy who can't see the wood for the trees! :non: 
"Not so much the hardware" do you even know the contents of a modern mac? Intel CPU, Intel chipset, ATi or Nvidia video card or Intel integrated graphics... Before you start striking out (utterly blindly, on nothing more than a mission to wind people up with your narrow-minded ****!) have a read about them! They are nowhere near as expensive as they used to be, the OS is very well designed. In some ways similar to Windows, in other ways not. Just different, which is seemingly what you and the other guy hate so much. If I am in your eyes (and I won't say I am, because there are people on here who are either mac owners or indifferent with them, so I shall not tar them with the same brush as you) a "feeble minded elitist", so be it, I could care less. As I have said (more than once) if I thought there was any benefit in explaining owning both a PC and a Mac, I would, but explaining to yourself and "LAN_deRf_HA" would be akin to talking to my feet and getting annoyed they don't talk back. Especially so as I have already been pigeon-holed as a "feeble minded elitist" :non:  :D 



And so it shall pass the days of the troubles. For he who shalt not care wilt be dealt by the wrath of dust. Now I say unto you, clean yourself and your neighbor of this filth so once again thee shalt live cool in the (deity of your choice) own arms.

Very nice biblical... err.. smart??? sounding post, Lukebird. But as a PC and Mac owner, I prefer my misfit, brown suit warring, slightly out of shape, comical not arrogant PC. Although Apple is a good company and they are somewhat profitable... they are still over priced plastic hulks. Yes, Leoparcy is an okay OS, but being able to be hacked in under 2 minutes is nothing but shameful to that franchise. Ok, before I get too far into the flaws with Apple/Mac, I have to say they are good computers. They are great for instant messaging, web browsing, and... well... that's it. I can do everything else faster and cheaper on my PC.

To this day I still have safari crash on my once a day when looking at web pages... like THG/F for insteance. Itunes is still a resource hog, and although Leopard is nice looking, it is somewhat sluggish when attempting to do anything taxing to the OS. Not only that, as a gamer, on a gamer site, and speaking for other gamers... Mac, you just can't game. Well not yet anyway (but that's not the point right now, the point is I forgot what I am talking about and have been dragging this on for a little while now).... :( 

So for someone who has both, I ask thee to disclaim this feeble passion which the golden idle Jobs hath put forth in your eyes. Repent my son, and thee shall be saved and come unto the glory of the Gates.
April 8, 2008 2:29:59 PM

spaztic7 said:
And so it shall pass the days of the troubles. For he who shalt not care wilt be dealt by the wrath of dust. Now I say unto you, clean yourself and your neighbor of this filth so once again thee shalt live cool in the (deity of your choice) own arms.

Very nice biblical... err.. smart??? sounding post, Lukebird. But as a PC and Mac owner, I prefer my misfit, brown suit warring, slightly out of shape, comical not arrogant PC. Although Apple is a good company and they are somewhat profitable... they are still over priced plastic hulks. Yes, Leoparcy is an okay OS, but being able to be hacked in under 2 minutes is nothing but shameful to that franchise. Ok, before I get too far into the flaws with Apple/Mac, I have to say they are good computers. They are great for instant messaging, web browsing, and... well... that's it. I can do everything else faster and cheaper on my PC.

To this day I still have safari crash on my once a day when looking at web pages... like THG/F for insteance. Itunes is still a resource hog, and although Leopard is nice looking, it is somewhat sluggish when attempting to do anything taxing to the OS. Not only that, as a gamer, on a gamer site, and speaking for other gamers... Mac, you just can't game. Well not yet anyway (but that's not the point right now, the point is I forgot what I am talking about and have been dragging this on for a little while now).... :( 

So for someone who has both, I ask thee to disclaim this feeble passion which the golden idle Jobs hath put forth in your eyes. Repent my son, and thee shall be saved and come unto the glory of the Gates.

I couldn't quite work out whether your post was tongue-in-cheek or not (I'm pissed off at work, so I'm probably reading not enough into it! :D  ) but I appreciate someone who can at least argue a case that OS X is not a good OS (whether it be true or not) by example rather than "over-priced, for feeble minded elitists". I would be more than happy to explain why I have both PC and Mac to someone as yourself. Personally I have found 10.5 to be fine. A few problems, but nothing compared to what I experienced with XP until I understood how to tweak the OS to my requirements.
April 8, 2008 3:32:28 PM

Lukebird, I wasn’t trying to be too serious in my post. I bought an Apple not because I wanted to go and see what was better or not, but I need(ed) to learn how to use it. At work, in our graphical department, they are using PC's right now but are soon moving over to Apples (Why one may ask, the reason is unknown other than the manager of that department was it that way; although non of the works want them because of their previous experience of working with them which is why they have PCs now... wow, that’s a rant to the MAX!). I work IT so I will be fixing them. I need to know my way around the machine and abuse mine so when I break it (on purpose or not) I can learn how to fix it.

We are all a little bias toward one thing or another, it just depends on how educated your mind is that will show how apparent your bias is. Educated in the sense of not how many years of school you completed or how many degrees you have, but the true educated in the ability to explore things you may or may not agree with, to understand new ideas (if you agree with them or not is to be decided by non other than yourself).

I did like that you posted in an old fashion sounding English. To see the works of our father’s time and once before him to bless our screens in what we read with a sense of grace is quite a pleasant change from the short, abbreviated pace of this impatient "civilized" world. I was also trying to comment on the Apple commercials where they try to make out that PC's are bad... or not "in fashion". I would rather have a machine that lets me make it... it then be ruled by a delusional CEO. Not to mention that they are just overpriced trendy paper weights.

Mac 10.X is a good OS. Much, much better than Mac 9 and the versions set down before that. It took them a little more than 10 tries to get it to its current point. Microsoft is only on try 6, they have four more to go to be at the "it just works" stage. While in Vista... they are already there. (Please, if you disagree with me on this comment do so; but only comment if you actually use Vista. Notice use and not used.)

Which in returns to our main topic of the Crysis performance and should we or shouldn’t we use only Vista as the test bed. I will once again say that we should use only vista here. Why you may ask why, my reply is this not an Enthusiast site? Do we not strive to have the newest and the best? Is that not want makes an enthusiast and enthusiast? Why would we being the people we are stay with the old and not accept the change? Why would we be afraid of something new? For the facts that have been given that Crysis is a big hype for DX10, that alone should show it be tested in only Vista. I don't remember seeing XP supported with DX10, nor is it capable of such nonsense (as of right now until there is any other proof shown).
April 8, 2008 4:27:54 PM

spaztic7 said:

I did like that you posted in an old fashion sounding English. To see the works of our father’s time and once before him to bless our screens in what we read with a sense of grace is quite a pleasant change from the short, abbreviated pace of this impatient "civilized" world. I was also trying to comment on the Apple commercials where they try to make out that PC's are bad... or not "in fashion". I would rather have a machine that lets me make it... it then be ruled by a delusional CEO. Not to mention that they are just overpriced trendy paper weights.

Many thanks for your kind words, having been well educated, I try to type in good english as it is far too easy to slip into slang and stay there (I was like that when younger!).
With regard to your points, your eloquence was a match for mine and your points were put across well, but that won't stop me disagreeing with you on the disadvantages of having macs on a network! I find them incredibly easy to network and connecting etc. is far easier than it is on XP. I can't comment on Vista because I haven't used it for long enough to come up with a balanced opinion. I have used it on a friends laptop and ironically enough in Parallels on a Mac! :lol:  But what I found was very intuitive in one sense and then very difficult in another! As I said, once I had learnt XP I knew exactly how to tailor to my needs and requirements, whereas I have felt no reason to delve particularly far into the set-up of 10.5 as I find it fine. Although I am quite open to the fact that it could be a personal choice! For one thing, having my Mac is great as it allows me to leave my PC for heavy CS3 use (which has been infrequent as of late!) and gaming (which as you can see by the spec is why I built it!) hence it can be nois(ier) etc. and not get on my nerves while browsing the net, using MSN and browsing forums! :D 
I think of my PC as a race car, impractical for anything other than its purpose, but perfectly fine for its purpose!
And in a convoluted way I have explained why I have both a Mac and PC and they both serve me well!
I should add, I am very new to the Mac world, I first used one just over a year ago and bought my current (first!) Mac in jan '08. I'm very much happy with it though!
April 8, 2008 4:38:39 PM

bf2gameplaya said:
Your Vista Fanboi opinion is in the minority for good reason. Crysis is similar to Vista in that they are both not suitable for gamers, yet, if ever.

Enjoy your low frame rates.




LOL!!! love the "Enjoy your low frame rates"
April 8, 2008 5:13:02 PM

LukeBird said:

.....,do you even know the contents of a modern mac? Intel CPU, Intel chipset, ATi or Nvidia video card or Intel integrated graphics...


Yes, I know...??? You've made my case for both my not minding the hardware and your feeble mindedness! I rest my case. :kaola: 
April 8, 2008 5:47:21 PM

LukeBird said:
...but that won't stop me disagreeing with you on the disadvantages of having macs on a network! I find them incredibly easy to network and connecting etc. is far easier than it is on XP. I can't comment on Vista because I haven't used it for long enough to come up with a balanced opinion. I have used it on a friends laptop and ironically enough in Parallels on a Mac!...



I do concur that it is easy to set up an Apple on a network, so-be-it as the arrow of Cisco doth not seek to slice the Apple in two. From my usage, I have found that Cisco is a great and powerful company who build nothing but great and powerful devices. The greatness of their own wireless devices seems to sometime be too great for the simple Fruit, causing it to lay dormant on the ground. It has only been until the router has its great security features calmed down some that the Apple are brought to rest on high. Although at the labor yard I have not had the frustrations of this happening yet, I have had the frustrations of Outlook ‘07 and the Apple. The corporate electronic-mailing list will not auto-populate as it does when setting up with a Microsoft Exchange server on a Windows machine. Tis sad... :( 

I do agree that I find my magic electrical box with the Windows very useful for the taxing services and the ability to bring temporary joy of the virtual fun (nothing funny ;)  ) while the glowing white Apple is used for the easy minded activities. Agree, I do, with thee.
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest