Advice please-computer, video card, & games

[...D.]

This message is crossposted to 3 newsgroups I just subscribed to:
-microsoft.public.games.discussion-, -alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati-, &
-alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia-

I have several questions. I have become hooked on computing in a big way,
restarting with a computer over a year ago. (I used to compute back in the
mid 90s, but nothing like now, and not as devoted as I have become.)

I need some overall advice. I want to know if my computer is even worth
upgrading to get into some of the newer more CPU & video card demanding
games. . I've gotten into everthing else computer-wise in the last year,
and now am ready to get in some gaming. I used to have video game
consoles, but got away from it. Getting a bit older = perhaps a more
sopphisticated game I can get into.

I have an Athalon 3200+ computer, 160 BG HD, DVD read & write, and a
separate CD read.. 758 MBs RAM (a 256 & a 512 MB sticks, & are pc2700).
The 3200+ is an AMD processor. These processors are poor-mans P4s - they
run at what are considered to be slow speed.GHz-wise, but are supposed to
work differently than a P4. The 3200+ runs at 2.2 GHz, but because of the
way they handle things, are supposed to run comparable to a P4 at the
speed you see - so, a 3200+ should = a P4 @ 3.2 GHz (non hyperthreading).
I think they fudge some, but anyway, this mimicking of speed applies to
"most regular programs". I think I have read that Athlons handle games
well.

Now with the above set-up,.I was just wondering what you gamers and video
card gurus have to say about this.. Am I going to be able to run some of
the demanding games that are out or are coming out? If so, I'll need to
upgrade my video capabilites.

Video - I also know my 64 nVidia GeForce on-motherboard chipset that
steals 64 MBs of RAM, is not very good for the more advanced games. I
want to know first - is my computer worth investing in a good video card?

OK - if it is worth it, can my computer take advantage of a very good
video card, like the Raidons I see? Or should I invest in a cheaper
nVidia 256 MB card ( I see for less than $100), because my computer won't
be able to utilize the real good one? Any recommendations about this
please - and recommendations of a good $200 card vs a good $350 card?
Don't want to get up to $500.

And.. hey, not done - if all is Ok and I do buy a video card - are they
all DVI capable - and if so - does it make a big difference to have a DVI
capable monitor rather than a regular anlaog monitor? I have a 21 inch
Dell trinitron P110 - an oldie but a goodie - .24 dp, flat square face.
If it matters, I will sell it and buy a similar model Sony model that has
a DVI input - if it matters. (they made one DVI capable model I think).
----------------
Finally, but a completely different thread - anyone have any experience
with EA's Madden 2005? I just bought this, along with a 20 USB gamepad
with the two extra little thumb-joysticks built-in that it recommended. I
have yet to play it - but I have fired it up and let it run like a movie.
I noticed a bit of choppyness here and there as it played - I think
because it is reading from the CD - which brings me to this - are the new
games all wanting to have to insert the CD-1 in the CD to be able to play
the damned thing?

This inserting an un-copyable CD (I tried) is like the old days of
copy-protection. Got away from it, because a lot of complaints, and also
copy protection breaking programs and what-not.. Sucks. The 3 CD game
loads a couple of gigs on my hard drive.. I have room on my hard drive to
load the whole game - all 3 CDs. Can I do this? I just hate having to
insert a CD to play. It sure seems that the game reading from the CD is
holding back - at least in movie mode. I believe my computer is fast
enough for this game..

EA pisses me off for not giving me the option of loading the whole game on
board. I hope the new lawsuit gets to them (overworking game programmers
without compensation).

Any and all comments will be read by me. Thanks.


...D.

...D.

 

[Blaedmon]

With regards to the AMD 3200+ - its a dam fine processor for what you're
wanting it for. The AMD range consistantly out-perform Pentium on floating
point calculations, meaning games, basically. AMD just do their stuff more
efficiently, running slightly hotter in the process, but also cheaper. I
would only go Pentium if I was using applications seriously. Are you? Or are
you playing games? Amd it is, then
The only real world flaw in your system is, as you may have already guessed,
the videocard. With price in mind, you may want to check out a 9800pro
256-bit which are excellent cards for the money. If youre looking to kill
every game out there and in the future 3 years, you should look at the x800
6800gt oc, etc etc, ranges. Theyre all ninjas.
With DVI, the higher end cards like the above mostly all have it built in as
standard, youll have to check which models offer it. And with monitors - if
youre going to be gaming, do NOT get anything but CRT unless you plan to pay
a pretty penny on a decent LCD or so. Standard CRT, at the moment, are the
only displays which can keep pace with todays games refresh rates.

 

[cowboyz]

This message is crossposted to 3 newsgroups I just subscribed to:
-microsoft.public.games.discussion-,
-alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati-, &
-alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia-

I have several questions. I have become hooked on computing in a big
way, restarting with a computer over a year ago. (I used to compute
back in the mid 90s, but nothing like now, and not as devoted as I
have become.)

I need some overall advice. I want to know if my computer is even
worth upgrading to get into some of the newer more CPU & video card
demanding games. . I've gotten into everthing else computer-wise in
the last year, and now am ready to get in some gaming. I used to
have video game consoles, but got away from it. Getting a bit older
= perhaps a more sopphisticated game I can get into.

I have an Athalon 3200+ computer, 160 BG HD, DVD read & write, and a
separate CD read.. 758 MBs RAM (a 256 & a 512 MB sticks, & are
pc2700). The 3200+ is an AMD processor. These processors are
poor-mans P4s - they run at what are considered to be slow
speed.GHz-wise, but are supposed to work differently than a P4. The
3200+ runs at 2.2 GHz, but because of the way they handle things, are
supposed to run comparable to a P4 at the speed you see - so, a 3200+
should = a P4 @ 3.2 GHz (non hyperthreading). I think they fudge
some, but anyway, this mimicking of speed applies to "most regular
programs". I think I have read that Athlons handle games well.

ok. good machine so far. BTW. the XP "rating" is compairing against the
old AMD CPUs - not the P4's. It was required because the older Athlon
1400 -1500 (going off top of my head - someone will correct me) run at the
same (Mhz) speed as the XP1600/XP1700's.
Same as today really. There is not alot of difference between a XP2800 and
XP3200 in Mhz rating which would be more misleading if they represented
their CPUs via Mhz rating.

Now with the above set-up,.I was just wondering what you gamers and
video card gurus have to say about this.. Am I going to be able to
run some of the demanding games that are out or are coming out? If
so, I'll need to upgrade my video capabilites.

Video - I also know my 64 nVidia GeForce on-motherboard chipset that
steals 64 MBs of RAM, is not very good for the more advanced games. I
want to know first - is my computer worth investing in a good video
card?

I'm going to wager a bet you are running on a Nforce 2 board. So you haev
a GeForce 4MX onboard. Any carda above a FX5900 or Radeon 9700 is going to
give you a MASSIVE boost in performance. I would go 9800pro if it was me
but depends on what you want to spend and how loyal you are to Nvidia.

OK - if it is worth it, can my computer take advantage of a very good
video card, like the Raidons I see?

Put whatever card you want in it. Your computer will take advantage of it.

Or should I invest in a cheaper
nVidia 256 MB card ( I see for less than $100), because my computer
won't be able to utilize the real good one? Any recommendations
about this please - and recommendations of a good $200 card vs a good
$350 card? Don't want to get up to $500.

9800pro is a good ~$200 card.
Depends on your area and where you want to shop.

And.. hey, not done - if all is Ok and I do buy a video card - are
they all DVI capable - and if so - does it make a big difference to
have a DVI capable monitor rather than a regular anlaog monitor? I
have a 21 inch Dell trinitron P110 - an oldie but a goodie - .24 dp,
flat square face. If it matters, I will sell it and buy a similar
model Sony model that has a DVI input - if it matters. (they made
one DVI capable model I think). ----------------

I would keep your current monitor

Finally, but a completely different thread - anyone have any
experience with EA's Madden 2005? I just bought this, along with a
20 USB gamepad with the two extra little thumb-joysticks built-in
that it recommended. I have yet to play it - but I have fired it up
and let it run like a movie. I noticed a bit of choppyness here and
there as it played - I think because it is reading from the CD -
which brings me to this - are the new games all wanting to have to
insert the CD-1 in the CD to be able to play the damned thing?

some do some dont

This inserting an un-copyable CD (I tried) is like the old days of
copy-protection. Got away from it, because a lot of complaints, and
also copy protection breaking programs and what-not.. Sucks. The 3
CD game loads a couple of gigs on my hard drive.. I have room on my
hard drive to load the whole game - all 3 CDs. Can I do this? I
just hate having to insert a CD to play. It sure seems that the game
reading from the CD is holding back - at least in movie mode. I
believe my computer is fast enough for this game..

Few games do not have a "complete" install option. However these games may
require the CD in the drive when you load it because it does a small check
on the disc. It doesn't use the disc when playign the game. Your game
would have been stuttering because of the GF4MX gfx - not your CD .

 

[MikeC]

With regards to the AMD 3200+ - its a dam fine processor for what you're
wanting it for. The AMD range consistantly out-perform Pentium on floating
point calculations, meaning games, basically. AMD just do their stuff more
efficiently, running slightly hotter in the process, but also cheaper. I
would only go Pentium if I was using applications seriously. Are you? Or
are
you playing games? Amd it is, then
The only real world flaw in your system is, as you may have already
guessed,
the videocard. With price in mind, you may want to check out a 9800pro
256-bit which are excellent cards for the money. If youre looking to kill
every game out there and in the future 3 years, you should look at the
x800
6800gt oc, etc etc, ranges. Theyre all ninjas.

6600GT is a better card than the 9800Pro and a helluva lot cheaper. It's
probably the best bang for your buck card out there right now.

 

[MJ]

There are also many No-CD fixes on the internet. Just google it. Download
the file and usually you replace the original .exe with the new one. it will
bypass the cd check, then you don't need the cd in the drive to play it.

mj

 

[J. Clarke]

This message is crossposted to 3 newsgroups I just subscribed to:
-microsoft.public.games.discussion-, -alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati-, &
-alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia-

I have several questions. I have become hooked on computing in a big way,
restarting with a computer over a year ago. (I used to compute back in the
mid 90s, but nothing like now, and not as devoted as I have become.)

I need some overall advice. I want to know if my computer is even worth
upgrading to get into some of the newer more CPU & video card demanding
games. . I've gotten into everthing else computer-wise in the last year,
and now am ready to get in some gaming. I used to have video game
consoles, but got away from it. Getting a bit older = perhaps a more
sopphisticated game I can get into.

I have an Athalon 3200+ computer, 160 BG HD, DVD read & write, and a
separate CD read.. 758 MBs RAM (a 256 & a 512 MB sticks, & are pc2700).
The 3200+ is an AMD processor. These processors are poor-mans P4s - they
run at what are considered to be slow speed.GHz-wise, but are supposed to
work differently than a P4.

They are not "poor man's" _anything_. They are Athlons, they are not
imitation P4s. For many purposes their performance is superior to that of
the P4.

The 3200+ runs at 2.2 GHz, but because of the
way they handle things, are supposed to run comparable to a P4 at the
speed you see - so, a 3200+ should = a P4 @ 3.2 GHz (non hyperthreading).
I think they fudge some, but anyway, this mimicking of speed applies to
"most regular programs". I think I have read that Athlons handle games
well.

Athlons are the preferred processor for gaming.

Now with the above set-up,.I was just wondering what you gamers and video
card gurus have to say about this.. Am I going to be able to run some of
the demanding games that are out or are coming out? If so, I'll need to
upgrade my video capabilites.

The only worthwhile step up from where you are would be to go to a 64-bit
Athlon.

Video - I also know my 64 nVidia GeForce on-motherboard chipset that
steals 64 MBs of RAM, is not very good for the more advanced games. I
want to know first - is my computer worth investing in a good video card?

OK - if it is worth it, can my computer take advantage of a very good
video card, like the Raidons I see?

Yes, it can. Just remember that there's a new video board interface out
that your board won't support, "PCI Express"--be careful to get an "AGP"
board, not a "PCI Express" board. There's no real-world performance
difference between them.

Or should I invest in a cheaper
nVidia 256 MB card ( I see for less than $100), because my computer won't
be able to utilize the real good one? Any recommendations about this
please - and recommendations of a good $200 card vs a good $350 card?
Don't want to get up to $500.

And.. hey, not done - if all is Ok and I do buy a video card - are they
all DVI capable

All the better ones are with the exception of the Radeon 9600 All-In-Wonder
(which is different from the regular Radeon 9600)

- and if so - does it make a big difference to have a DVI
capable monitor rather than a regular anlaog monitor?

If you are using an LCD display then running it on DVI at its native
resolution will give you the best results. If you have a CRT then there is
no benefit.

I have a 21 inch
Dell trinitron P110 - an oldie but a goodie - .24 dp, flat square face.

If you like it stick with it.

If it matters, I will sell it and buy a similar model Sony model that has
a DVI input - if it matters. (they made one DVI capable model I think).

DVI on CRTs generally does not perform as well as the regular analog inputs.

 

[Josh Beck]

This message is crossposted to 3 newsgroups I just subscribed to:
-microsoft.public.games.discussion-, -alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati-, &
-alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia-

I have several questions. I have become hooked on computing in a big way,
restarting with a computer over a year ago. (I used to compute back in the
mid 90s, but nothing like now, and not as devoted as I have become.)

I need some overall advice. I want to know if my computer is even worth
upgrading to get into some of the newer more CPU & video card demanding
games. . I've gotten into everthing else computer-wise in the last year,
and now am ready to get in some gaming. I used to have video game
consoles, but got away from it. Getting a bit older = perhaps a more
sopphisticated game I can get into.

I have an Athalon 3200+ computer, 160 BG HD, DVD read & write, and a
separate CD read.. 758 MBs RAM (a 256 & a 512 MB sticks, & are pc2700).
The 3200+ is an AMD processor. These processors are poor-mans P4s - they
run at what are considered to be slow speed.GHz-wise, but are supposed to
work differently than a P4. The 3200+ runs at 2.2 GHz, but because of the
way they handle things, are supposed to run comparable to a P4 at the
speed you see - so, a 3200+ should = a P4 @ 3.2 GHz (non hyperthreading).
I think they fudge some, but anyway, this mimicking of speed applies to
"most regular programs". I think I have read that Athlons handle games
well.

Now with the above set-up,.I was just wondering what you gamers and video
card gurus have to say about this.. Am I going to be able to run some of
the demanding games that are out or are coming out? If so, I'll need to
upgrade my video capabilites.

The new games that are coming out tax the shit out of your computer.
You'll need a good motherboard and Chip for sure. 758 megs of ram is good.
The new 64-bit processors are a good way to go right now. They require
pc3200 ram, but they are the cutting edge at the moment.
-I run:
-AMD64 3000
-1.5 Gigs PC3200
-Asus k8v se deluxe mobo (Excellent Motherboard.)
Even with this, as I'll mention below, I've had problems running the newest
games. The motherboard + chip runs something like 200-250 dollars.

Video - I also know my 64 nVidia GeForce on-motherboard chipset that
steals 64 MBs of RAM, is not very good for the more advanced games. I
want to know first - is my computer worth investing in a good video card?

Video Card:
I have spent the last week going back and forth to Best Buy swapping
out video cards. Here is what I found out:
-The Radeon series 9800 pro is a good buy between 200-250 dollars.
It will kick the hell out of about any video game. I had linux compatibility
problems.
-The GeForce 6800 OC ran me 300 dollars, but man oh man does it
do the job right. Runs right on linux. Truly Awesome performance.

-The geForce 5900 is decent I've heard

-Don't waste your money on anything less than what these cards
can provide I think. A 100 dollar video card will run older games,
but it won't touch most of the new stuff.

Lower End Models:
The Radeon 9550, 9600 models beat the GeForce 5500, 5700
models. (Once again, linux compability issues.)

OK - if it is worth it, can my computer take advantage of a very good
video card, like the Raidons I see? Or should I invest in a cheaper
nVidia 256 MB card ( I see for less than $100), because my computer won't
be able to utilize the real good one? Any recommendations about this
please - and recommendations of a good $200 card vs a good $350 card?
Don't want to get up to $500.

Intel Celeron processors won't game for you. P4 and AMD will do a better
job. If you are running an AMD 3200, I believe you'll do ok with the
GeForce 6800. (Be sure you can exchange it I guess.)

And.. hey, not done - if all is Ok and I do buy a video card - are they
all DVI capable - and if so - does it make a big difference to have a DVI
capable monitor rather than a regular anlaog monitor? I have a 21 inch
Dell trinitron P110 - an oldie but a goodie - .24 dp, flat square face.
If it matters, I will sell it and buy a similar model Sony model that has
a DVI input - if it matters. (they made one DVI capable model I think).
----------------

All the cards I tested this week have both 15 pin and DVI inputs

Finally, but a completely different thread - anyone have any experience
with EA's Madden 2005? I just bought this, along with a 20 USB gamepad
with the two extra little thumb-joysticks built-in that it recommended. I
have yet to play it - but I have fired it up and let it run like a movie.
I noticed a bit of choppyness here and there as it played - I think
because it is reading from the CD - which brings me to this - are the new
games all wanting to have to insert the CD-1 in the CD to be able to play
the damned thing?

Yes, they want the cd in the drive, but I think it is more for
security purposes. They want the cd with the cd-key match. I wouldn't know.

This inserting an un-copyable CD (I tried) is like the old days of
copy-protection. Got away from it, because a lot of complaints, and also
copy protection breaking programs and what-not.. Sucks. The 3 CD game
loads a couple of gigs on my hard drive.. I have room on my hard drive to
load the whole game - all 3 CDs. Can I do this? I just hate having to
insert a CD to play. It sure seems that the game reading from the CD is
holding back - at least in movie mode. I believe my computer is fast
enough for this game..

EA pisses me off for not giving me the option of loading the whole game on
board. I hope the new lawsuit gets to them (overworking game programmers
without compensation).

Any and all comments will be read by me. Thanks.

I hope I helped.
Josh Beck

 

[Lachoneus]

6600GT is a better card than the 9800Pro and a helluva lot cheaper.

The 9800 Pro is cheaper for the moment. And it will probably stay
cheaper as long as it stays available. ATI has positioned it against
the 6600GT AGP.

 

[Tod]

AMD chips are just as good as Intel chips.
A high end card with 128mbs of memory is better
then a low end card with 256mbs memory.
The new 6600 AGP sounds like a good bang for the buck card.
Keep your current monitor.

 

[Rick]

AMD chips are just as good as Intel chips.
A high end card with 128mbs of memory is better
then a low end card with 256mbs memory.
The new 6600 AGP sounds like a good bang for the buck card.
Keep your current monitor.

AMD chips are demonstrably better than Intel chips across the board.
Ten years ago Intel had the edge but, not now

 

[Eyal Teler]

This message is crossposted to 3 newsgroups I just subscribed to:
-microsoft.public.games.discussion-, -alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati-, &
-alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia-

Crossposting is generally not considered polite, but never mind.

I'll chime in with the others about the Athlon being a good CPU --
although assuming that it's not an Athlon 64, then it's a little
behind the times -- still decent, though. I'm running an Athlon XP
2100+, and it performs pretty decently in games (although naturally
far from the top processors do).

Regarding a graphics card, like others, I also largely agree with the
others -- Radeon 9800 Pro or GeForce 6600 are good. I'd lean toward
the GeForce, as it's a more modern architecture, but neither of them
are bad (I have a Radeon 9800 Pro). Skip the GeForceFX 5xx0 family, as
it's not very good for modern games (though they are okay for some).
I'd say that even going for a Radeon 9600 Pro or such will not be too
bad, if you want to save some money. You won't be able to reach the
same resolutions at good frame rates, but will still be able to run
the latest games decently.

You could go to www.digit-life.com. They have comparisons of many
graphics cards with quite a few games. This should give you an
indication of the relative power of the various cards. (Although the
latest roundup doesn't include Half Life benchmarks, and this is a
high profile game that you might want to get -- a web search will
likely find you such benchmarks.)

Regarding LCD screens, the best of them are decent for gaming these
days, but many aren't. CRTs are generally better for gaming, and as
someone said, DVI doesn't benefit you with them.

I hope this helps,

Eyal

 

[...D.]

I have an Athalon 3200+ computer,
Video - I also know my nVidia GeForce on-motherboard chipset that
steals 64 MBs of RAM, is not very good for the more advanced games.

Hey thanks all of you for answering. I know now that my computer is a
good enough gaming machine if I add the right video card. It looks like
the Radeon 9800 Pro is the way to go.

However I found a site that compared.. I didn't know more than one
company made the Radeon 9800 Pro video cards. There are at least 6 it
looks like. This site ran all kinds of tests. There were some
differences between them. Most desirable is something I think called a
Powercolor 9800 Pro. But the most expensive too. The choices below that
it recommended were either the HIS or the Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro.
ATI did not do as well as most others. But still any would be OK I
suppose.

What I am wondering is then why is the ATI so dominant? Were they just
the first? I have just looked online at all of the major store chains
around here (San Jose, Ca), and you would think a "tech capital" (ha - as
the mayor wants you to believe just because of silicon valley, yet parts
of the city still have no Internet cable or DSL) would have stores that
offered more than the one brand of ATI, wouldn't you?

Am I going to have to buy a Sapphire online then, or do any of you happen
to be from around here (San Fran bay area, Ca) and know of any places I
might be able to buy?
...D.

 

[...D.]

Hey thanks all of you for answering. I know now that my computer is a
good enough gaming machine if I add the right video card. It looks like
the Radeon 9800 Pro is the way to go.

Upon further review (ahaaa) I guess in the nVidia newsgroup, I see the
6600GT is a heck of a card too. Since my computer is full of nVidia
(audio.video, controllers even). I looked on Newegg, and there were about
10 different models. 5 were under 4200, a couple had Doom 3 as part of
their bundle. However the most expensive, and the only one that had it,
because someone touched on it in a few posts, was the AGP bus, not the
other PCI-Express buses all had. The AGP was $245. Ok. still
affordable. (by XFX, who also had the cheapest PCI Express at $182)

Ok I know I should get the AGP bus card. Someone care to explain a bit
more about AGP vs PCI Express so I can learn? Why is the AGP bus so much
better than the PCI-Express bus?
...D.

 

[J. Clarke]

Upon further review (ahaaa) I guess in the nVidia newsgroup, I see the
6600GT is a heck of a card too. Since my computer is full of nVidia
(audio.video, controllers even). I looked on Newegg, and there were about
10 different models. 5 were under 4200, a couple had Doom 3 as part of
their bundle. However the most expensive, and the only one that had it,
because someone touched on it in a few posts, was the AGP bus, not the
other PCI-Express buses all had. The AGP was $245. Ok. still
affordable. (by XFX, who also had the cheapest PCI Express at $182)

Ok I know I should get the AGP bus card. Someone care to explain a bit
more about AGP vs PCI Express so I can learn? Why is the AGP bus so much
better than the PCI-Express bus?

AGP isn't better. The price difference is because (a) with the chipset used
in the 6600 they have to add an additional chip to support AGP and (b)
there are a lot more machines out there with AGP than with PCI Express, so
anticipated demand is higher.

The deal with PCI Express is that it has a higher transfer rate than AGP or
regular PCI and in theory it's cheaper to make machines with PCI Express
than with PCI-X or AGP, the two real alternatives. In practice there's not
much out there that needs the higher bandwidth--the only place it would be
really useful right now is in servers that have enough disk performance to
fill a gigabit pipe, and PCI-X is already well-established there. It's
becoming popular mainly because Intel quit making chipsets with AGP and
started making them with PCI Express and kind of put the computer
manufacturers over a barrel--they could either abandon Intel or abandon AGP
and most of them decided that they needed Intel more than they needed AGP.

So, which you go with is not really a performance issue, it's a matter of
which fits the machine you have.

 

[Eyal Teler]

Ok I know I should get the AGP bus card. Someone care to explain a bit

more about AGP vs PCI Express so I can learn? Why is the AGP bus so much
better than the PCI-Express bus?

PCI Express is a newer bus. It's supposed to be better for graphics,
and newer cards, like the GeForce 6600, are designed for it, and
retrofitted back to AGP. It's kind of like PCI graphics cards, which
are more expensive than AGP, because the bus is older (although market
rationale is a little different here). The PCI Express version of the
6600 preceded the AGP version, and I imagine that given a bit more
time, there'd be more AGP cards and lower prices.

Eyal

 

[...D.]

Crossposting is generally not considered polite, but never mind.

Actually I always heard that do not post individually in several
newsgroups - cross-post if you are going to put it out into more than one
newsgroup.

...D.

 

[...D.]

6600GT is a better card than the 9800Pro and a helluva lot cheaper. It's
probably the best bang for your buck card out there right now.

Just found this in another post. Those that were waiting for the $249 AGP
model to come down, here you go. If true, a 6600 GT for $149:

http://tinyurl.com/5p4tn

...D.

 

[Eyal Teler]

Crossposting is generally not considered polite, but never mind.

Actually I always heard that do not post individually in several
newsgroups - cross-post if you are going to put it out into more than one
newsgroup.

That's true. However, it's better to pick just one relevant group in
the first place, and post to others only if you don't get a
satisfactory answer. This can lead to less clatter. I can see why you
chose to post to all these groups, though.

Eyal

 

[CapFusion]

That's true. However, it's better to pick just one relevant group in the
first place, and post to others only if you don't get a satisfactory
answer. This can lead to less clatter. I can see why you chose to post to
all these groups, though.

Eyal

Ok
Cross post when the content is related to the group(s).
Reason - it will save time for individual that reading / answering that post
/ follow-up.



Not Ok
Individual post to all group that is related.
Reason - Waste time for those reading the post and those have answer to the
post.
Cross-posting with content that do not apply or related to the group.
Reason - Certain user will consider rude / trolling / spam.

CapFusion,...