Posted 11/17/2009 at 02:13:31pm

"Since when is common sense a deterrent to greed." - Amen to that.

Posted 11/15/2009 at 04:35:01pm

It will install fine. You don't have to use a crack.

Posted 11/15/2009 at 04:34:27pm

Wrong Place

Posted 11/03/2009 at 11:20:59am

If you are installing 64 bit Vista from a disc that does not have at least SP 1 that would be the problem. SP1 fixed an issue where having 4 gigs during install would fail. The solution is exactly as the doctor said. Remove all but 2 gigs, install vista, and then install the rest of the ram.

Posted 10/23/2009 at 01:05:32pm

I definintely think that a 2TB drive that keeps up with a VelociRaptor deserves a 10.

Posted 09/23/2009 at 09:43:36am

Before I read this article's comments I was already under the impression that movies run at 24 fps so the human eye must not be able to detect choppiness at 24 fps. So video games should look fine at 24 fps right. Then reading the comments I started getting irritated with the guys saying the video games were different from video. So I started trying to find some information to back up this post. What I found surprised me. Frame rates depend on both the medium and the action. A video camera opens a shutter (or virtual shutter) for a small window in time. If the image is stationary (like a brick wall with the camera on a tripod) that frame will be a sharp image. With the brick wall example you wouldn't notice a difference between 1 fps and 60 fps, because nothing is changing. On the other end of the spectrum, lets say you have some fast movement in the frame, like a car flying by. During the time the shutter is open, there is a visual difference in the location of the car, so the image gets a blur to it (to test this pause a movie during a fast scene). Now if this is played at 24 fps it looks smooth because the blur helps the human eye interpret between the frames. Here comes the kicker. Video games do not have that same blur. Sure Crysis has motion blur, but I don't think (and this is just my opinion) that it makes a tremendous difference when it comes to helping the eye interpret. Video games render (for the most part) a static sharp image every frame, so it takes a higher frame rate to achieve that fluid look during a fast video game sequence. Even having said that, I found that many console games have a locked rate at around 30 fps. Even some PC titles have locked rates like GTA: San Andreas is locked at 25 fps. I’ve never noticed any choppiness in my console games, so is 30 fps high enough. After all this, I don’t know. I can see how during a FPS, turning fast could create a fast enough image that you could see choppiness. I guess it depends on your style of play. If you are a twitchier FPS player, you might need a higher frame rate, and if you are a more methodical, smooth player, you may never notice a low frame rate. I think this truly depends on the eye of the beholder.

Posted 09/22/2009 at 12:02:04am

If you investigate the FCC a little, you'd find that they are the Federal Communications Commition. I think that internet falls somewhere under communication. Of course they have authority over ISPs. One of the problems with ISPs regulating themselves is that they want to regulate how much data you use, to stop you from being able to access free content over the internet. Most broardcasting corporations now have all their shows avaliable online. When Time Warner or Comcast sells cable tv and internet, do you think they want you to just get internet and stop buying cable. Of course not. They want to stop you from streaming video. They also don't want to spend the money the promised they would to update the infrastructure. If they can keep user bandwidth down they can stall the upgrades and line their pockets more thoroughly.

And telecos say that if users don't like it they can switch to another carrier. Most places don't have many options. I have a 12Mbps/756kbps connection through TWC. Other than how miserably slow the upload speed is, there is no other ISP in Charlotte, NC that can offer similar speeds. I might be moving to Atlanta soon, and I was researching the ISPs there, and low and behold, the only one I could find was Comcast. A buddy of mine later told me that he had AT&T U-Verse in ATL, but hell thats still only two providers. If they want to screw over customers, they have no choice but to either take the abuse or switch and have their service severly effected.

And its not like its easy to start up a ISP company in the first place. All the major telecos are holding all the keys. And you have to pay them to get access. I can't remember the exact number but I think the vast majority of the nations internet backbone is owned by either Verizon or AT&T. So if one ISP is availible in an area and their service sucks, you have a vaccuum that a new ISP could fill. But no one can afford to pay for access to the backbone, and to lay the infrastructure they need to service all their new clients, it is just not feisable. Its kind of like energy, you can only have one company supply you with energy, there is no competition. To keep that company from becoming corrupt, and abusing its monopoly, the government regulates energy. The same thing needs to happen here.

Posted 09/08/2009 at 08:40:39am

Page 6 you listed GA-EX58-UDR3 as LGA1156 instead of LGA1366

Posted 08/28/2009 at 03:01:13pm

Me either.

Posted 08/28/2009 at 02:58:47pm

It did say "$8k" when talking about the paint job blemishes.