Heres a few suggestions I'd like to make. I'm a fan of certain makes of parts so lol. Vista 64, thats fine and all if you "know" how to work vista. And you "know" everything you have for your computer will work with vista. Yes, vista 64 will recognize 16gb of physical ram, but if thats the only reason, its pointless. Vista has Dx10 but is it worth it with so few games actually using it? Windows XP is entirely better for gamers right now. If you want to view all of your 4gb go 64bit, but tbh, in 32bit it still sees 3.25gb. And it will never use that up. So the 4gb will never be used, but it can be used if needed. The only way I would go with 64bit is if I was going with a quad core. I have 64bit XP for that reason. A Quad core requires a 64bit OS to utilize every aspect of the quad core to maximize performance. Sure, it will work on 32bit, but you will not get as much performance out of it as would a 64bit OS.
Videocard is fine, its better than that ATI that someone "claims" is way better. Sorry to say, the 8800GTS is still the best card out there imo.
So much wrong there it's scary. Horrible, horrible advice
Unless you have proof don't make false accusations.
I try not to go into the Vista part since so many people's IQ's drop 20-50 points as soon as they start talking about it, but I did see that you use the 64bit version which is prone to compatibility issues which is the source of your problems with it. Vista is a very solid OS, and the 32bit version has almost no compatibility issues with games.
You do not need a 64bit OS to properly utilize a quad core processor. I don't know where you got that information, but I wouldn't trust anything you get from that source because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
A 4850 is more powerful than anything in the 8800 series. Nvidia itself has two generations of video cards out that are more powerful, and the new ones from ATI are much more powerful for almost the exact price giving a much better price/$ ratio.
Oh, and if proof is so important why didn't you put any for the crap you posted?
Heres a few suggestions I'd like to make. I'm a fan of certain makes of parts so lol. Vista 64, thats fine and all if you "know" how to work vista. And you "know" everything you have for your computer will work with vista. Yes, vista 64 will recognize 16gb of physical ram, but if thats the only reason, its pointless. Vista has Dx10 but is it worth it with so few games actually using it? Windows XP is entirely better for gamers right now. If you want to view all of your 4gb go 64bit, but tbh, in 32bit it still sees 3.25gb. And it will never use that up. So the 4gb will never be used, but it can be used if needed. The only way I would go with 64bit is if I was going with a quad core. I have 64bit XP for that reason. A Quad core requires a 64bit OS to utilize every aspect of the quad core to maximize performance. Sure, it will work on 32bit, but you will not get as much performance out of it as would a 64bit OS.
Videocard is fine, its better than that ATI that someone "claims" is way better. Sorry to say, the 8800GTS is still the best card out there imo.
So much wrong there it's scary. Horrible, horrible advice
Unless you have proof don't make false accusations.
I try not to go into the Vista part since so many people's IQ's drop 20-50 points as soon as they start talking about it, but I did see that you use the 64bit version which is prone to compatibility issues which is the source of your problems with it. Vista is a very solid OS, and the 32bit version has almost no compatibility issues with games.
You do not need a 64bit OS to properly utilize a quad core processor. I don't know where you got that information, but I wouldn't trust anything you get from that source because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
A 4850 is more powerful than anything in the 8800 series. Nvidia itself has two generations of video cards out that are more powerful, and the new ones from ATI are much more powerful for almost the exact price giving a much better price/$ ratio.
Oh, and if proof is so important why didn't you put any for the crap you posted?
Just so you know, I did, maybe read some of my replies? I never said I used Vista 64. I said I use Vista period on my laptop. I have XP Prof 64 on my desktop. You claim my information is wrong, so how about you prove me wrong and post "reliable" information from a "reliable" source to prove me wrong? The information came from me personally, no one else.
I guess what they teach in the operating systems course is totally wrong. And so is Microsoft. I already posted my proof.
Vista in general has compatibility issues. Old hardware is very unlikely to work due to driver conflicts. As for new games, AoC even had issues with Vista.
I never said not to go with Vista, only to know what it can and cannot do. Make sure it is right for you.
So, n25philly, Either post your source that you claim I am saying wrong, or stop the false accusations.
Without a 64 bit OS you do not have complete access to all four cores. While the performance isn't "that" noticable, It's there. Posted from intel.
Supports 64-bit instructions with access to larger physical address spaces.
Flexibility for 64-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems.
Access to larger physical memory space reduces load on the system.
Faster access to data.
It simply is faster with a 64 bit OS rather than a 32 bit OS.
Heres a few suggestions I'd like to make. I'm a fan of certain makes of parts so lol. Vista 64, thats fine and all if you "know" how to work vista. And you "know" everything you have for your computer will work with vista. Yes, vista 64 will recognize 16gb of physical ram, but if thats the only reason, its pointless. Vista has Dx10 but is it worth it with so few games actually using it? Windows XP is entirely better for gamers right now. If you want to view all of your 4gb go 64bit, but tbh, in 32bit it still sees 3.25gb. And it will never use that up. So the 4gb will never be used, but it can be used if needed. The only way I would go with 64bit is if I was going with a quad core. I have 64bit XP for that reason. A Quad core requires a 64bit OS to utilize every aspect of the quad core to maximize performance. Sure, it will work on 32bit, but you will not get as much performance out of it as would a 64bit OS.
Videocard is fine, its better than that ATI that someone "claims" is way better. Sorry to say, the 8800GTS is still the best card out there imo.
So much wrong there it's scary. Horrible, horrible advice
Unless you have proof don't make false accusations.
I try not to go into the Vista part since so many people's IQ's drop 20-50 points as soon as they start talking about it, but I did see that you use the 64bit version which is prone to compatibility issues which is the source of your problems with it. Vista is a very solid OS, and the 32bit version has almost no compatibility issues with games.
You do not need a 64bit OS to properly utilize a quad core processor. I don't know where you got that information, but I wouldn't trust anything you get from that source because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
A 4850 is more powerful than anything in the 8800 series. Nvidia itself has two generations of video cards out that are more powerful, and the new ones from ATI are much more powerful for almost the exact price giving a much better price/$ ratio.
Oh, and if proof is so important why didn't you put any for the crap you posted?
Just so you know, I did, maybe read some of my replies? I never said I used Vista 64. I said I use Vista period on my laptop. I have XP Prof 64 on my desktop. You claim my information is wrong, so how about you prove me wrong and post "reliable" information from a "reliable" source to prove me wrong? The information came from me personally, no one else.
I guess what they teach in the operating systems course is totally wrong. And so is Microsoft. I already posted my proof.
Vista in general has compatibility issues. Old hardware is very unlikely to work due to driver conflicts. As for new games, AoC even had issues with Vista.
I never said not to go with Vista, only to know what it can and cannot do. Make sure it is right for you.
So, n25philly, Either post your source that you claim I am saying wrong, or stop the false accusations.
Without a 64 bit OS you do not have complete access to all four cores. While the performance isn't "that" noticable, It's there. Posted from intel.
Supports 64-bit instructions with access to larger physical address spaces.
Flexibility for 64-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems.
Access to larger physical memory space reduces load on the system.
Faster access to data.
It simply is faster with a 64 bit OS rather than a 32 bit OS.
thought you said you used vista 64 in another post, my mistake
As for the 64bit use of the processor, you realize you're not looking at the big picture
Supports 64-bit instructions with access to larger physical address spaces. (aka more ram, which has nothing to do with processor utilization)
Flexibility for 64-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems. (just means it works with either 32bit or 64 bit OSs)
Access to larger physical memory space reduces load on the system. (again, the use of more ram, which has nothing to do with processor utilization. Use the same processor on a 64bit os and a 32 os with the same amount or ram in the system and this means nothing)
Faster access to data. (only true if the app is written to use 64bit. If not it's more likely to go slower on a 64bit os. Of course to actually take advantage of any of this it needs more ram available to carry the extra data that needs to go through the processor. The thing is that this is true for any processor that supports 64bit operation, not quad cores. Multitasking can be improved in 64-bit but it's due to software, not hardware.
Study up as you don't know what you're talking about.
Building my first one also, broke down and bought the Coolermaster CM Stacker 830 SE comes with a 1000w power supply got it for $340 go check it out you will see what im talking about i would suggest getting it because of ease of use and upgradeablity.
" Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Those Who Would Threaten It " MAGA
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
why haven't you changed it then? jk
It can be changed by anyone, but in general it's usually on the right track even if a few facts are off. Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own.
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
What facts have you provided here other than a MS link regarding how much memory can be addressed by the differing version of windows. What about addressing your ignorant and unsupported claims of having a 64 bit OS to get the full performance out of a quad core rig? Stop asking others to read when you yourself can't backup your claims.
I won't waste my time searching for answers that cannot be found. Waste you own.
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
What facts have you provided here other than a MS link regarding how much memory can be addressed by the differing version of windows. What about addressing your ignorant and unsupported claims of having a 64 bit OS to get the full performance out of a quad core rig? Stop asking others to read when you yourself can't backup your claims.
I won't waste my time searching for answers that cannot be found. Waste you own.
Considering you cannot read, I won't hold it against you. They have school for that ya know.
Also considering that 90% of my reply to this thead to begin with was addressing memory. And seeing as I posted a reply to that with proof you really should go back and read it.
As for quad cores requiring 64bit OS to perform at maximum.
Explain how a Quad core performs better on 64 bit OSes rnning 64 bit Applications, as opposed to a 32 bit OS running 32 bit Applications.
The quad core is designed for use with the 64 bit architecture. I don't have to prove it, It's a fact. You cannot access all levels of the quad core without a 64 bit OS because its designed for 64 bit applications. Hence: why it performs so much better while using both.
So, again, until you take the time to prove me wrong. Please, shut up and stop the accusations. Without proof, you're accusations are false and sorry to say, in court, you'd be thrown out.
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
What facts have you provided here other than a MS link regarding how much memory can be addressed by the differing version of windows. What about addressing your ignorant and unsupported claims of having a 64 bit OS to get the full performance out of a quad core rig? Stop asking others to read when you yourself can't backup your claims.
I won't waste my time searching for answers that cannot be found. Waste you own.
Considering you cannot read, I won't hold it against you. They have school for that ya know.
Also considering that 90% of my reply to this thead to begin with was addressing memory. And seeing as I posted a reply to that with proof you really should go back and read it.
As for quad cores requiring 64bit OS to perform at maximum.
Explain how a Quad core performs better on 64 bit OSes rnning 64 bit Applications, as opposed to a 32 bit OS running 32 bit Applications.
The quad core is designed for use with the 64 bit architecture. I don't have to prove it, It's a fact. You cannot access all levels of the quad core without a 64 bit OS because its designed for 64 bit applications. Hence: why it performs so much better while using both.
So, again, until you take the time to prove me wrong. Please, shut up and stop the accusations. Without proof, you're accusations are false and sorry to say, in court, you'd be thrown out.
How convenient that all your information is fact, none of which you have proven. I guess I'll have to go through the thread again because I don't remember you posting any proof
Comments
So much wrong there it's scary. Horrible, horrible advice
Unless you have proof don't make false accusations.
I try not to go into the Vista part since so many people's IQ's drop 20-50 points as soon as they start talking about it, but I did see that you use the 64bit version which is prone to compatibility issues which is the source of your problems with it. Vista is a very solid OS, and the 32bit version has almost no compatibility issues with games.
You do not need a 64bit OS to properly utilize a quad core processor. I don't know where you got that information, but I wouldn't trust anything you get from that source because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
A 4850 is more powerful than anything in the 8800 series. Nvidia itself has two generations of video cards out that are more powerful, and the new ones from ATI are much more powerful for almost the exact price giving a much better price/$ ratio.
Oh, and if proof is so important why didn't you put any for the crap you posted?
member of imminst.org
So much wrong there it's scary. Horrible, horrible advice
Unless you have proof don't make false accusations.
I try not to go into the Vista part since so many people's IQ's drop 20-50 points as soon as they start talking about it, but I did see that you use the 64bit version which is prone to compatibility issues which is the source of your problems with it. Vista is a very solid OS, and the 32bit version has almost no compatibility issues with games.
You do not need a 64bit OS to properly utilize a quad core processor. I don't know where you got that information, but I wouldn't trust anything you get from that source because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
A 4850 is more powerful than anything in the 8800 series. Nvidia itself has two generations of video cards out that are more powerful, and the new ones from ATI are much more powerful for almost the exact price giving a much better price/$ ratio.
Oh, and if proof is so important why didn't you put any for the crap you posted?
Just so you know, I did, maybe read some of my replies? I never said I used Vista 64. I said I use Vista period on my laptop. I have XP Prof 64 on my desktop. You claim my information is wrong, so how about you prove me wrong and post "reliable" information from a "reliable" source to prove me wrong? The information came from me personally, no one else.
I guess what they teach in the operating systems course is totally wrong. And so is Microsoft. I already posted my proof.
Vista in general has compatibility issues. Old hardware is very unlikely to work due to driver conflicts. As for new games, AoC even had issues with Vista.
I never said not to go with Vista, only to know what it can and cannot do. Make sure it is right for you.
So, n25philly, Either post your source that you claim I am saying wrong, or stop the false accusations.
Without a 64 bit OS you do not have complete access to all four cores. While the performance isn't "that" noticable, It's there. Posted from intel.
Supports 64-bit instructions with access to larger physical address spaces.
Flexibility for 64-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems.
Access to larger physical memory space reduces load on the system.
Faster access to data.
It simply is faster with a 64 bit OS rather than a 32 bit OS.
So much wrong there it's scary. Horrible, horrible advice
Unless you have proof don't make false accusations.
I try not to go into the Vista part since so many people's IQ's drop 20-50 points as soon as they start talking about it, but I did see that you use the 64bit version which is prone to compatibility issues which is the source of your problems with it. Vista is a very solid OS, and the 32bit version has almost no compatibility issues with games.
You do not need a 64bit OS to properly utilize a quad core processor. I don't know where you got that information, but I wouldn't trust anything you get from that source because they obviously don't know what they are talking about.
A 4850 is more powerful than anything in the 8800 series. Nvidia itself has two generations of video cards out that are more powerful, and the new ones from ATI are much more powerful for almost the exact price giving a much better price/$ ratio.
Oh, and if proof is so important why didn't you put any for the crap you posted?
Just so you know, I did, maybe read some of my replies? I never said I used Vista 64. I said I use Vista period on my laptop. I have XP Prof 64 on my desktop. You claim my information is wrong, so how about you prove me wrong and post "reliable" information from a "reliable" source to prove me wrong? The information came from me personally, no one else.
I guess what they teach in the operating systems course is totally wrong. And so is Microsoft. I already posted my proof.
Vista in general has compatibility issues. Old hardware is very unlikely to work due to driver conflicts. As for new games, AoC even had issues with Vista.
I never said not to go with Vista, only to know what it can and cannot do. Make sure it is right for you.
So, n25philly, Either post your source that you claim I am saying wrong, or stop the false accusations.
Without a 64 bit OS you do not have complete access to all four cores. While the performance isn't "that" noticable, It's there. Posted from intel.
Supports 64-bit instructions with access to larger physical address spaces.
Flexibility for 64-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems.
Access to larger physical memory space reduces load on the system.
Faster access to data.
It simply is faster with a 64 bit OS rather than a 32 bit OS.
thought you said you used vista 64 in another post, my mistake
As for the 64bit use of the processor, you realize you're not looking at the big picture
Supports 64-bit instructions with access to larger physical address spaces. (aka more ram, which has nothing to do with processor utilization)
Flexibility for 64-bit and 32-bit applications and operating systems. (just means it works with either 32bit or 64 bit OSs)
Access to larger physical memory space reduces load on the system. (again, the use of more ram, which has nothing to do with processor utilization. Use the same processor on a 64bit os and a 32 os with the same amount or ram in the system and this means nothing)
Faster access to data. (only true if the app is written to use 64bit. If not it's more likely to go slower on a 64bit os. Of course to actually take advantage of any of this it needs more ram available to carry the extra data that needs to go through the processor. The thing is that this is true for any processor that supports 64bit operation, not quad cores. Multitasking can be improved in 64-bit but it's due to software, not hardware.
Study up as you don't know what you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit
member of imminst.org
Building my first one also, broke down and bought the Coolermaster CM Stacker 830 SE comes with a 1000w power supply got it for $340 go check it out you will see what im talking about i would suggest getting it because of ease of use and upgradeablity.
MAGA
Sorry to say, but coming from someone who uses wiki which can be changed by any number of morons on the internet, I dont find it very "reliable."
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
why haven't you changed it then? jk
It can be changed by anyone, but in general it's usually on the right track even if a few facts are off. Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own.
member of imminst.org
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
What facts have you provided here other than a MS link regarding how much memory can be addressed by the differing version of windows. What about addressing your ignorant and unsupported claims of having a 64 bit OS to get the full performance out of a quad core rig? Stop asking others to read when you yourself can't backup your claims.
I won't waste my time searching for answers that cannot be found. Waste you own.
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
What facts have you provided here other than a MS link regarding how much memory can be addressed by the differing version of windows. What about addressing your ignorant and unsupported claims of having a 64 bit OS to get the full performance out of a quad core rig? Stop asking others to read when you yourself can't backup your claims.
I won't waste my time searching for answers that cannot be found. Waste you own.
Considering you cannot read, I won't hold it against you. They have school for that ya know.
Also considering that 90% of my reply to this thead to begin with was addressing memory. And seeing as I posted a reply to that with proof you really should go back and read it.
As for quad cores requiring 64bit OS to perform at maximum.
Explain how a Quad core performs better on 64 bit OSes rnning 64 bit Applications, as opposed to a 32 bit OS running 32 bit Applications.
The quad core is designed for use with the 64 bit architecture. I don't have to prove it, It's a fact. You cannot access all levels of the quad core without a 64 bit OS because its designed for 64 bit applications. Hence: why it performs so much better while using both.
So, again, until you take the time to prove me wrong. Please, shut up and stop the accusations. Without proof, you're accusations are false and sorry to say, in court, you'd be thrown out.
Around 18-19k.
Mine is 16k and some change. W/8800GTS.
Hmmmm I just bought a new rig and I got 11k and some change.
8400 Wolfdale, 4850, 4 gigs of g. skill ram, but im in xp so its only showin 3.25
While I tend to agree on the validity of a Wiki source when having e-disputes, you have yet to bring up any truth to the ignorant statements made by yourself earlier in this thread.
The industry loves the misinformed such as yourself. Keep up the good work lining their pockets with excess profit margins.
You obviously aren't reading the replies because I have infact, replied with facts with websites to prove them.
"Also not everyone has time to search around the net for tons of proof to satisfy someone that wants credible proof but will insist anything and everything is wrong without providing any of their own."
Same applies here. Try READING? Go and read the replies and stop being ignorant yourself.
You don't have to "search around the net for tons of proof" to prove I'm wrong. Because if I am indeed wrong, you obviously know where to get that information.
I want to know why I'm wrong. Since apparently I am. I want you to prove it to me, to enlighten me.
If not, simply stop replying.
What facts have you provided here other than a MS link regarding how much memory can be addressed by the differing version of windows. What about addressing your ignorant and unsupported claims of having a 64 bit OS to get the full performance out of a quad core rig? Stop asking others to read when you yourself can't backup your claims.
I won't waste my time searching for answers that cannot be found. Waste you own.
Considering you cannot read, I won't hold it against you. They have school for that ya know.
Also considering that 90% of my reply to this thead to begin with was addressing memory. And seeing as I posted a reply to that with proof you really should go back and read it.
As for quad cores requiring 64bit OS to perform at maximum.
Explain how a Quad core performs better on 64 bit OSes rnning 64 bit Applications, as opposed to a 32 bit OS running 32 bit Applications.
The quad core is designed for use with the 64 bit architecture. I don't have to prove it, It's a fact. You cannot access all levels of the quad core without a 64 bit OS because its designed for 64 bit applications. Hence: why it performs so much better while using both.
So, again, until you take the time to prove me wrong. Please, shut up and stop the accusations. Without proof, you're accusations are false and sorry to say, in court, you'd be thrown out.
How convenient that all your information is fact, none of which you have proven. I guess I'll have to go through the thread again because I don't remember you posting any proof
member of imminst.org
There is a good reason why most XFX 8800 GT Alpha Dog series are very cheap. They got a fixed fan speed runing on 100%. - and it is very very laude.
If you dont want to become one of this 17 pages complaines, i'd stay away from that card.
Here something XFX failed to mentioned when they released this cards:
"Here is kind of a lay out of the versions of the 8800GT 512MB
PVT88P is how they all start
PVT88PYDD
PVT88PYDE
PVT88PYDF
Original design and have adjustable fan
PVT88PYDQ
Different fan but still adjustable
PVT88PYHD
PVT88PYHE
PVT88PYHF
PVT88PYHQ
These versions do not have adjustable fans, but cost less the the previous mentioned video cards."