mario, because I like the classic 8bit of jump man from days long past.
never liked star trek?? I knew you were evil.
Xbox360+Wii or PS3+Wii
This or That (New rule: Only 1post/24h!!! See startpost.)
Moderator: MaxCoderz Staff
xbox360 + Wii.
Who would want to spend all that much money on a gaming system? In fact, I probably wouldn't even get the 360, just the Wii. If I want amazing graphics, I'll just get the game for pc. But nintendo games don't come out for pc, and there isn't any widespread controller for the PC that can do what the Wii controller can.
Star Wars or star trek?
oh, and kv83:
Who would want to spend all that much money on a gaming system? In fact, I probably wouldn't even get the 360, just the Wii. If I want amazing graphics, I'll just get the game for pc. But nintendo games don't come out for pc, and there isn't any widespread controller for the PC that can do what the Wii controller can.
Star Wars or star trek?
oh, and kv83:
repeating questions?leofox wrote: Mario or Sonic?
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy 
-
threefingeredguy
- Calc King
- Posts: 2195
- Joined: Sun 27 Mar, 2005 4:06 am
- Location: sleeping
- Contact:
Doing nothing for silver.
In my school(and probably many others) school has been so easy for the smart students, that they gave up trying, as it wasn't a challenge. I never study for tests, yet wind up getting great grades on them. And half the time I'm playing calc games and not even paying attention in class.
In fact, one year in math I had the highest quiz and test grade in class. However, if that had required me to work hours each night doing homework and studying material, it wouldn't have been worth it. I'd much rather be the person who breezes through with almost the highest test grades than the person who works hard, studying every night and actually doing the homework. What can I say, I'm lazy, and I hate busywork.
CRT or LCD?
I know what I'd pick. It has to do with low price and high image quality, at any resolution, not to mention great color reproduction. Oh, and also no chance of dead pixels, not that I'm trying to influence the choice of the next person.
In my school(and probably many others) school has been so easy for the smart students, that they gave up trying, as it wasn't a challenge. I never study for tests, yet wind up getting great grades on them. And half the time I'm playing calc games and not even paying attention in class.
In fact, one year in math I had the highest quiz and test grade in class. However, if that had required me to work hours each night doing homework and studying material, it wouldn't have been worth it. I'd much rather be the person who breezes through with almost the highest test grades than the person who works hard, studying every night and actually doing the homework. What can I say, I'm lazy, and I hate busywork. CRT or LCD?
I know what I'd pick. It has to do with low price and high image quality, at any resolution, not to mention great color reproduction. Oh, and also no chance of dead pixels, not that I'm trying to influence the choice of the next person.
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy
ice. As was said earlier, there's a limit to how much you can take off, but you can put more on. I'd rather be bundled up on the north pole than burning up in some lava pool.
And CRT are normal computer monitors, not the thin, expensive, generally lower image quality LCD ones.
AMD or intel?
answer this wrong and I'll meet you in the amd intel debate forum.
And CRT are normal computer monitors, not the thin, expensive, generally lower image quality LCD ones.
AMD or intel?
answer this wrong and I'll meet you in the amd intel debate forum.
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy
compwiz rant on amd.
AMD waited until the DDR2 was actually priced at reasonable levels instead of forcing people to buy expensive RAM with their computer. And they get far more than a 6% performance boost when you aren't using some rediculously high latency DDR2 ram. Conroe is a P3 with 64 bit and newer manufacturing process, but still not the far superior SOI or Silicon on Insulator manufacturing AMD is using. Conroe runs into a thermal wall when getting up around 3.5 ghz, Intel machines running around that required liquid cooling. The 65 nm AMD cpu's will blow that away and go much faster than that, all running on normal air cooling. Try getting the market to accept that. Remember the P3? The same thing happened. Intel couldn't raise the clockspeed, and AMD pounded them with much faster Athlons. Using the same architecture means having the same flaws. And AMD not only made the AM2 socket to support DDR2, but also to accept quad core cpu's in the same socket and reverse-hyperthreading. The chances of Intel releasing quad-cores that would work in one of their current motherboards is pretty much non-existant. Their horribly obsolete FSB design struggles with dual core, quad core will really kill it. When K8L comes out, it will kill Intel even more, with a far superior architecture(as if the current far superior architecture wasn't enough). And Intel still won't admit that onboard memory controller and direct connect and hypertransport is the way to go. They're lagging behind with their over-a-decade-old FSB and laggy motherboard memory controller. The reason some benchmarks show conroe with such a big advantage is because their sample data sets fit into the conroe's big cache. Normal, everyday programs will not be able to do this, and will have much lower performance. Also, apparently, Conroe has trouble running RAID. The US government rejected using Intel cpu's because they couldn't even handle a simple RAID configuration. Next gen? hah. How old is raid now? And they can't even use it? Plus, Intel seems to have decided that they will design their new motherboards with only SATA plugs, no PATA ones. So, how do you install Windows? Find a SATA CD drive. Where do you get one of those? Hmm, they're almost non-existant. In fact, the new Blu-ray and HD-DVD drives are only made for PATA, so if you get a new Intel computer, you may not be able to read any optical disks. Stick with a nice floppy install of Windows 3.1. Plus, 3rd party motherboards are generally not very common or very good for intel, as Intel keeps burning the companies that make them. So they have nothing to fall back on when their own motherboards struggle with RAID and have no way of running almost all optical drives.
Come on over to the debate thread and let's really get started.
Jim e just proving the stupidity of Intel fans or not
AMD waited until the DDR2 was actually priced at reasonable levels instead of forcing people to buy expensive RAM with their computer. And they get far more than a 6% performance boost when you aren't using some rediculously high latency DDR2 ram. Conroe is a P3 with 64 bit and newer manufacturing process, but still not the far superior SOI or Silicon on Insulator manufacturing AMD is using. Conroe runs into a thermal wall when getting up around 3.5 ghz, Intel machines running around that required liquid cooling. The 65 nm AMD cpu's will blow that away and go much faster than that, all running on normal air cooling. Try getting the market to accept that. Remember the P3? The same thing happened. Intel couldn't raise the clockspeed, and AMD pounded them with much faster Athlons. Using the same architecture means having the same flaws. And AMD not only made the AM2 socket to support DDR2, but also to accept quad core cpu's in the same socket and reverse-hyperthreading. The chances of Intel releasing quad-cores that would work in one of their current motherboards is pretty much non-existant. Their horribly obsolete FSB design struggles with dual core, quad core will really kill it. When K8L comes out, it will kill Intel even more, with a far superior architecture(as if the current far superior architecture wasn't enough). And Intel still won't admit that onboard memory controller and direct connect and hypertransport is the way to go. They're lagging behind with their over-a-decade-old FSB and laggy motherboard memory controller. The reason some benchmarks show conroe with such a big advantage is because their sample data sets fit into the conroe's big cache. Normal, everyday programs will not be able to do this, and will have much lower performance. Also, apparently, Conroe has trouble running RAID. The US government rejected using Intel cpu's because they couldn't even handle a simple RAID configuration. Next gen? hah. How old is raid now? And they can't even use it? Plus, Intel seems to have decided that they will design their new motherboards with only SATA plugs, no PATA ones. So, how do you install Windows? Find a SATA CD drive. Where do you get one of those? Hmm, they're almost non-existant. In fact, the new Blu-ray and HD-DVD drives are only made for PATA, so if you get a new Intel computer, you may not be able to read any optical disks. Stick with a nice floppy install of Windows 3.1. Plus, 3rd party motherboards are generally not very common or very good for intel, as Intel keeps burning the companies that make them. So they have nothing to fall back on when their own motherboards struggle with RAID and have no way of running almost all optical drives.
Come on over to the debate thread and let's really get started.
Jim e just proving the stupidity of Intel fans or not
Last edited by CompWiz on Fri 07 Jul, 2006 11:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy
opera. Easy. Apparently, Opera is better than firefox, which I know is better than IE. So, like I said, easy. I'll have to get around to switching over to opera soon.
what do you mean by a "dead pixel"? On an LCD, one of the physical pixels doesn't work, or sticks on or something. With a CRT, the pixels are projected on the screen. So, a dead pixel is really impossible. However, a spot on the screen can happen, I guess. So, my previous statement stands. No dead pixels are possible on a CRT. How did you get a spot on your screen?
also, what do you mean by your choice? were you replying to Jim e or me?
Pepsi or Coca-cola
Personally, I don't like either one.
what do you mean by a "dead pixel"? On an LCD, one of the physical pixels doesn't work, or sticks on or something. With a CRT, the pixels are projected on the screen. So, a dead pixel is really impossible. However, a spot on the screen can happen, I guess. So, my previous statement stands. No dead pixels are possible on a CRT. How did you get a spot on your screen?
also, what do you mean by your choice? were you replying to Jim e or me?
Pepsi or Coca-cola
Personally, I don't like either one.
In Memory of the Maxcoderz Trophy
-
Jim e
- Calc King
- Posts: 2457
- Joined: Sun 26 Dec, 2004 5:27 am
- Location: SXIOPO = Infinite lives for both players
- Contact:
Roy, because i have no idea who those people are and roy was shorter to type.
"GBz80 instruction SWAP" or "Real z80 instruction RRD"
Yea, if I wanted to see a fanboy chronically posturbate over his fansim, I'd watch the Final Fantasy dorks, atleast they do the cosplay so I can laugh.Come on over to the debate thread and let's really get started.
"GBz80 instruction SWAP" or "Real z80 instruction RRD"
-
Andy_J
- Calc Master
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:01 pm
- Location: In the state of Roo Fearing
- Contact:
There are phosphors on the inside of the glass; the electron ray gun shoots at these to cause the image to be displayed. It appears that the phosphors in one part of this particular monitor wore out somehow.CompWiz wrote:what do you mean by a "dead pixel"? On an LCD, one of the physical pixels doesn't work, or sticks on or something. With a CRT, the pixels are projected on the screen. So, a dead pixel is really impossible. However, a spot on the screen can happen, I guess. So, my previous statement stands. No dead pixels are possible on a CRT. How did you get a spot on your screen?
