exactally. Most things aren't worth what you actually pay for them - nintendo is making profit off the consoles unlike the competetors. Much like Kellogs makes money because the cost of cereal is lower than what you actually are paying.
The Wii having GC guts instead of newer more expensive hardware like other consoles rings a bell? Lets be honest guys, if Sony or MS did something like this (selling last gen's consoles for even more than those were worth at launch) nobody would even tolerate it, let alone buy one. Hell, I can picture every hardcore and oldschool gamer going straight to the nearest gamestop with a torch in hand screaming "burn them all!":lol: But not with Nintendo, no sir. Is the same with Macs: maclovers can tolerate almost any shit Apple does to them, but if MS leaves just one bug in the last Windows they will write about it over and over again until their fingers start bleeding... PS: I'm all for manufacturers turning a profit, is like this industry should work, but lets cut the crap: theres a reason why some are making money while others are losing it, and is not becos of bad management.
Oh dear lord: the Queen has been bitten by Wii fever and now won't get off Prince William's console. No joke. http://www.nintendoeverything.com/?p=378 EDIT: Anyway, what are you blathering on about Shadowlayer? Everyone knows that Vista is merely Windows Server 2003 with a bit of make-up on and nobody seems to be complaining.
I heard about this, and also that XP was a Server 2000 follow-up, but in Vista's case I refuse to believe it. Vista is not an advancement of WS2003 -- in my opinion the best OS ever -- it is complete turnaround. It is a violation of perfection.
About what? WS2003 being the best OS ever? It is! Never had any probs with it, and it runs beautifully on any machine, not mentioning the compatibility advantages. It's twice as fast as XP. Of course, running DSL for example on an old machine is of course better, but that leads to other problems.
WS2003 is good. XP is also solid now just do not use mcaffee it brings XP to a crawl. Vista on the other hand well I will wait a few more years. Seems M$ doesn't get an OS right, ok better, until after at least rev 3
Everyone have been waiting for SP1, but according to most testers, it does not give Vista the much needed boost. SP3 for XP, on the other hand, is a huge boost, so I don't see one single reason to choose Vista over XP, not now, and not less than a year into the future (with the possible extra boost from SP2, or a killer app (Vista exclusive games)).
XP x64 is pretty damn good. It's based off Server 2003 (Ver. 5.2), but it's all 64 bit, perfectly stable and quick too.
I'm thinking of getting that for my next computer, as I will definitively use 4 GB RAM, and regular XP won't like that... But how's compatibility? Don't most games require a x64 patch?
Nope, virtually all apps run perfectly in 32bit mode. The only compatibility issue that comes to mind is Quicktime crashing whenever its loaded as a plugin, but going into settings and choosing WaveOut only fixed that. You will need x64 drivers for everything though.
If you ask me I'll say use Vista for games, since it runs pretty good. Make a partition and install Vista and the games in one, and XP (or Ubuntu if you really want the best OS out there) in the other with all you everyday apps.
The issue with XP64 is driver support. Many people I know were forced to switch due to lots of issues they found getting all their hardware working. But hey, it's faster than regular XP on a 64-bit machine.
To be honest, there's a theoretical limit before the memory limit becomes hypothetical than practical and then it makes more practical sense to run XP from a memory card than from an HDD.
Sorry - eventually you come to a limit (especially within Windows) where the memory management means that the hard drive is still used for virtual memory even when you have enough real memory spare to fit the entireity of Windows XP permanently in your RAM. Because of this limitation, once you get past a certain point the only way to increase speed is to move Windows onto a faster medium (hard drives can be very, very slow). That's partly why solid-state hard drives are the next big thing and have such a great effect no matter how much RAM you have. A suggestion I've heard is to run your entire Windows XP swap information from a memory stick (akin to Vista's SpeedBoost functionality), however because of there being no concept of SpeedBoost in XP, the solution is to boot off of a high-speed CompactFlash card or USB2 stick holding all of your Windows partition on it.
I've tried booting an OS off of a CF card using a IDE-adapter, but it isn't that fast and alot of BIOS versions don't even support it. However, there's obvious advantages in size, [no] sound, no heat... I'm waiting for a S-ATA CF bootable adapter.
