Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

New Gaming System Build


  • Please log in to reply

#16
zestron

zestron

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts
So after talking about all of that, all I need to change is nothing?
:whistling:
  • 0

Advertisements


#17
zestron

zestron

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts

What I'd do is get a relatively cheap but powerful graphics card. For around $110, get the X1600 Pro. Its quite a powerful card for a relatively cheap price, and will last you until DX10 comes out. Unless your not going for Vista.


I'm not getting Vista I don't think because I still live with my family and, I will only use it if he buys it probally. I'm going to get my computer by working this summer by scraping and priming and painting the house. I get payed $8.50 (CA) per hour of working on anything. So if I worked for 2.8 days straight, I could pay off my computer!

Anyways... Vista is just not needed right now, but will soon unfortunetly.
Could someone tell me why Vista will be good for gaming?

Edited by zestron, 10 July 2006 - 06:23 AM.

  • 0

#18
Anton1382

Anton1382

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
I tested Vista Beta-2 for about 2 weeks. It had good features and the layout was great but it was a BIG memory hogger. Just by looking at the desktop, it used 63% of my memory. When I went online..73%, and when I played BF2...99% and then it froze and shut down. My advice, get more memory before you get Vista. Other than that gaming on Vista is almost the same as gaming on XP, but DX10 is on Vista (not yet) and that is the only gaming difference.
  • 0

#19
klogg

klogg

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
If you're really that bleeding-edge of a gamer who wants new tech, wait around. I'm just waiting for the new Intel processors, than I'm gonna go ahead with my plans to build a new PC. I'd rather just stick with current technology I have to play present/older games much nicer and stick with the consoles (PS3 mmmm) for gfx. Thanks but no thanks Vista. I've never really been all about PC gaming anyways, but that's just me. :whistling:
  • 0

#20
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Im sick of people talking like beta 2 like its anywhere near the finished OS especially people that dont even test all the features or even know of there existance.

Dx10 is the biggest advantage Vista has for gmaing but it has some other features like a dedicated gaming folder with ESRB and integrating into the microsoft gaming network kinda like the way valve use steam but built into the OS, Vista will use alot of memory compared to say XP but it wont be anywhere near as much in the final version as beta 2 uses the betas arent optimised they are BETAs people really need to understand what beta software is, TESTING software not primed for release if you look at the differences between the optimisation in the beta put out and the latest build for MSDN subscribers there is a fair difference in optimisation, RC1 will be more optimised and will have more features the Direct X should also be finished by then or at least the new DX9 will be. Vista also has alot of new networking features making setting up home networks and streaming media between systems pretty much idiot proof hopefully, its taking alot of thins they tried on the consoles OS and little XP projects and putting them in the new OS.

Consoles are pretty sucky if you are serious about games and of course want them to look good, theres a brief period where consoles are sometimes better but it rarely lasts PCs have more games, cheaper games and better gfx hence the reason we spend so much money on the things.

Also Anton there would seem something wrong with your copy of Vista or how you installed it because that behaviour isnt normal, you probably should report it to MS.

Vista isnt needed know either because its not out yet, it doesnt come out till NEXT YEAR. If you are lucky you might get it December. When it comes out if you want to play games you should really get it, you should probably get it on most relativley new systems anyway to take advantage of the better security.
  • 0

#21
Anton1382

Anton1382

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
I did report it to Microsoft. Then I reported it to Bill Gates. Microsoft wrote back and said that there was something wrong with the copy. They did send me another one but the same thing happend. I might have installed the wrong version.
  • 0

#22
zestron

zestron

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts
How come DX-10 Will only be for Vista.
And my old Q that no one answered...
So after talking about all of that, all I need to change is nothing?

Edited by zestron, 10 July 2006 - 12:01 PM.

  • 0

#23
MNOB07

MNOB07

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts

How come DX-10 Will only be for Vista.

Because is it exclusive to it. It's been changed a lot or something.

And my old Q that no one answered...

What question haven't we answered?

So after talking about all of that, all I need to change is nothing?

I dunno you've been talking so much about Vista, have you looked at our suggestions about Conroe, and 2GB of memory instead of 1GB?
  • 0

#24
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Dx10 was designed pretty much by MS and ATI in order to achieve what they wanted it had to be integrated into the OS to get the performance boost to make it what we are all drooling about. To put it in XP would be so difficult and expensive as to make it commercially unviable and really just a pain. Instead they have made a new version of DX9 for XP that has some of the features of 10 that they can get to work and allows thedx9 hardware to play dx10 games without the dx10 effects.
  • 0

#25
zestron

zestron

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts
I still don't understand the Conroe thing, like what is better in it and why I sound get it.
  • 0

Advertisements


#26
warriorscot

warriorscot

    Member 5k

  • Retired Staff
  • 8,889 posts
Its faster, by a big margin. And its reasonably priced.
  • 0

#27
zestron

zestron

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts
Okay, well now I can't think of anything else I can ask.
Thanks guys... I'll post more if I need anything answered
:whistling:

Edited by zestron, 10 July 2006 - 08:18 PM.

  • 0

#28
zestron

zestron

    Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 323 posts
Oh, one more thing, I asked MysteryByte and they said that they will stock the new computer parts.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP