Paul G. Allen wrote: > Doug LaRue wrote: >> >> If you don't know, I really don't "do Windows" but I tend to follow >> some of >> what goes on in that off-world plant. I just searched for DX10 and XP and >> the first 7 returned links point to installing DX10 on Windows XP. So >> there >> is no reason to have waited for Vista to play games if they are just >> depending >> on DX10. > > I actually didn't wait for Vista. The offer was made to exchange a > system for a couple of days admin. work, so I took it. Vista was > purchased for it in order to be compatible with the latest games. > >> >> BTW, is there a reason such a "gamer" as yourself is not using a new >> console >> instead of a general purpose PC for video games? > > I HATE the stupid controls. Did I mention I HATE the controls? I also at > times do some game and 3D development, and that's kinda hard to do on a > console. > > I'm also getting a lot more from this $690 system than I could from a > $500+ console system. > >>> >>> MoBo: Intel® Desktop Board DG35EC >>> CPU: Intel® Core 2 Duo E6750 >>> RAM: 4GB DDR2 Dual Channel 800MHz >>> Video: NVIDIA 8800 GS SLI 384MB >>> HDD: Brand? 300GB SATA II >>> DVD: Phillips DVD RW >>> P/S: 550W >>> Misc: 10 USB, 2 1394a, Realtek 6 channel audio built-in, Intel >>> Gigabit LAN >> >> I didn't even look to see what is supported by the latest Linux systems >> but that is a pretty hefty system for a desktop. 4GB of 800MHze RAM, >> dual core witha 1.3GHz FSB. Holy lickity splits Batman. You probably >> blink slower than the difference in running Linux in a VM or inside of >> the >> NTFS filesystem compared to running it on the native hardware. > > It's actually mid-range for games.
How would you spec out a gamer's dreambox? Regards, ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
