Engadget - Comments for

Comments on

justfpsp — Mar 25th 2009 10:45PM

God look at those cards

Comments on

ImaYam — Mar 25th 2009 10:55PM

I wish engadget made fair newsof all things, both windows and mac.
$0.67 says theyll never post this story about how "god-like" macs are.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9130468&intsrc=hm_list

Comments on

murmermer — Mar 25th 2009 11:28PM

@ ImaYam

your such a TOOOOOOOLLLLLLL!

Comments on

Josh Ladella — Mar 25th 2009 11:30PM

ATi Radeon HD 4870 X2

Comments on

Josh Ladella — Mar 25th 2009 11:33PM

Uhhh, did engadget ACTUALLY TRY to comprehend my fake HTML?

I wrote the following (without periods)

..

.A.T.i. .R.a.d.e.o.n. .H.D. .4.8.7.0. .X.2.

..

Comments on

Josh Ladella — Mar 25th 2009 11:34PM

Wow, it did it again

I'm going to shut up now.

Comments on

Setnev — Mar 25th 2009 11:37PM

Yeah looking on the read link of all of them just thrown into a pile makes me sick. Why would you subject the cards to that type of abuse. I mean, if you're just gonna throw them into a pile, you can send one or two my way and they would be put to good use instead of being a paperweight worth over a grand.

Comments on

RoboDan — Mar 26th 2009 1:07AM

Who cares about Win7Beta?

Tell me how Windows 7 RC1 compares to Vista SP1 (or SP2 RC1) - and yes, you can get them through both official and unofficial channels

Comments on

John Strickland — Mar 26th 2009 12:00AM

Setnev: Retail prices vs actual value are for electronics and pretty much everything is insanely different.

From IBM you could pay up to 2,000 for a blade server. When you are are a VAR you can buy a pallet of 100 for about $20,000...

I have piles of crap at my work that I don't give two sheets for, yet some idiot is willing to pay top dollar for it. We buy one kind of Risc server for literally $20 a pop, put some paint on it and clean it and sell it to some vendor for $1,000ea, and they RESELL it to hospitals.

Don't worry about how much you are expected to pay... remember, the consumer doesn't matter.

Comments on

John — Mar 26th 2009 12:00AM

use > (>) and < (<) instead.

Comments on

Hamidxa — Mar 26th 2009 12:09AM

ImaYam,

Well said: "Macs plummet in Rescuecom reliability ranking
Loses more than 50% of its '08 score, now trails Asus and Lenovo"

Murememer, why is he such a tool?
Because he is exposing Apple as being a low quality computer dealer, or because he is exposing Engadget's unwillingness to post information to that end?

Comments on

ImaYam — Mar 26th 2009 12:17AM

Im going got keep posting this link on engadget to spread some real truth around here. That atta sock it to em!

Comments on

Jon Doe. — Mar 26th 2009 1:01AM

ImaYam,

God wouldn't be caught using a limited as shit Mac. You want something small, thin, trendy, one of the worst warranties in the industry, and has shit for upgradability? Get a Mac. You want something that can have its HD upgraded (Something the rest of the ind has been doing since the 90's.), RAM upgraded, CPU upgraded, and in some cases GPU upgraded down the road and COULD run any OS on the market if Apple wasn't the douchebag of the industry (Woo hoo for artificial limitations put in place by Steve I'm-a-Douchebag Jobs)? Get anything else. The Mac is to the computer industry as a blond binbo trophy wife is to the jet set. Read: Its great on the surface. But once you get to know her she's boring as hell, and offers nothing of real value beyond her looks.

PS- This is coming from someone who sold his 2.3Ghz MBP last Nov after 3 torturous years under the Mac logo. I will NEVER go back to a Mac.

Comments on

Kevlar — Mar 26th 2009 1:54AM

Um, I've upgraded both my HD and my RAM on my 15" MBP. I'd like to see you upgrade your CPU and graphics card in a comparable notebook, while you're in the business of calling out Macs. (Say, one of those Dell Studio XPSs?).

Honestly, I don't care for either Mac or PCs. Both have their merits and limitations. Just pick what works for you, and use it. Saying that Macs can't be upgraded is like a Mac fanboy trolling about how your Windows computer can't run Final Cut Pro. In context, it's stupid for both parties. Out of context, it makes no FREAKING SENSE.

So yeah. Obviously, you prefer a Windows machine. It's nice to share your opinion. It won't make me, or anyone else suddenly change my mind.

I use a combination of Windows, OS X and Ubuntu, in situations where they are most useful. I'm both a developer of iPhone applications, and Xbox Games, as well as various Windows, Mac and Linux applications. I've had a detailed look at the workings of all three operating systems, and a deep understanding of the software features and limitations of each.

The door is that way, please don't forget to grab your misconceptions on the way out.

Comments on

ImaYam — Mar 26th 2009 6:26AM

Umm Kevlar, I have no idea what you are talking about.

I never pointed out that I prefer Windows over OSX. I dont even know where anyone mentioned this, so what is the point of bringing it up?

Secondly, I was pointing out how Engaget would never post an article about the staggering quality of a mac COMPUTER. Nobody has mentioned OSX but you.

Comments on

Shinigami — Mar 26th 2009 7:50AM

The news is misleading since I was unable to find where 7 wins over Vista, but found lots of results when 7 loses to Vista.
In MAX cards of course. I won't settle with anything less than the best.

Comments on

OneLove — Mar 26th 2009 11:46AM

How much they MSFT pay them for that result. Nvidia fix your windows7 drivers!!!

Comments on

Aguiluz — Mar 25th 2009 10:46PM

Now, pit it against the legendary Windows XP!

Comments on

Setnev — Mar 25th 2009 11:41PM

If Legendary = Old then ok. And i believe they did benchmark XP to 7 and it fared good in almost every category putting XP in number 2. Legends aren't #2 material.

Comments on

Jon Doe. — Mar 26th 2009 12:50AM

Yah and if you could run Windows 95 on a modern system it would probably kick the crap out of Win XP and DOS on a modern system would kick the crap out of 9x. Modern OS's require more horsepower. That is a simple fact. I take an 8 year old laptop and slap a current Linux distro that wasn't specifically tailored for ultra old shit and it would run, but it wouldn't be happy. And no, MS can't, and frankly shouldn't cater to old ass hardware. Win XP is 8 years old.Support for modern hardware is very much shoehorned into the OS at this stage. Its time to let the thing die, move on, and let Windows 7 mature into a speedy replacement for XP that supports all the current bells and whistles. And due to its more modular nature should be dramatically easier to impliment newer tech in the coming years, vs. XP where it was a massive PITA.

Comments on

Charles — Mar 26th 2009 1:42AM

Jon, the difference is that Windows 95 was unstable and lacked functionality while XP is very stable and delivers all the features most users need. Vista and 7 have offered no compelling reason to upgrade and represent a decline in terms of speed and stability. Why upgrade your hardware and pay a hefty licence fee for a new operating sytstem that delivers no tangeable benefits? There's no point buying something just becuase it's new.

Comments on

superhobo — Mar 26th 2009 4:49AM

XP just isn't as secure as Vista/7.

You need to have a third party firewall running all the time to prevent spyware from making a home in your OS.

Comments on

Andir3.0 — Mar 26th 2009 8:19AM

"You need to have a third party firewall running all the time to prevent spyware from making a home in your OS."

If you believe that, you're ignorant. Sure... by adding a first party firewall. Outstanding security there. It's still not going to stop some kids mom from installing Buddy, the Internet shopping helper (now with built in phishing support!)

Comments on

iphonerulez — Mar 25th 2009 10:46PM

Vista must have really been one pig of an OS when it came to speed and resources. I'll be interested in trying Windows 7 when it comes out and see how it runs under VMWare Fusion.

Comments on

Aguiluz — Mar 25th 2009 10:50PM

I agree, Windows 7 blows away Vista in everything. If it comes out I'll buy it (hope it's not expensive). I tried the Beta by getting rid of my OEM Genuine Vista. However I was a bit alarmed by the bugs so I got rid of it.

Now, I currently run a torrented XP. Shame I know, but just holding on it until 7 comes out!

Comments on

Swimatm — Mar 25th 2009 11:27PM

I think Boot Camp would be better.

Comments on

Hamidxa — Mar 26th 2009 12:18AM

Umm, no Fanboy.

No one is disputing Windows 7's greatness, but take a look at the benchmarks instead of blindly spouting your ignorant rhetoric.

Vista and 7 were neck and neck in virtually all of the benchmarks, with usually < 2 fps separating them.

Comments on

ZaxCG2 — Mar 25th 2009 10:49PM

Good read.
Now this guy seriously needs to give that GTX 295 to me.
Whoever has 7 graphics cards lying around like that just makes me want to break a face.

Comments on

Ignatius — Mar 25th 2009 10:58PM

Most of the time, they're loaned hardware from companies to test them and compare them to other competitors.

Comments on

rcarm — Mar 25th 2009 10:59PM

windows 7 beta = free
windows vista = ugh, not free

Comments on

Swimatm — Mar 25th 2009 11:27PM

Windows 7 final release: not free.

Comments on

Alex — Mar 25th 2009 11:02PM

It's too bad my Win 7 64-bit beta can't run Punkbuster, or Daemon Tools for that matter (not essential for running games, but useful).

Comments on

Joe — Mar 25th 2009 11:08PM

"Not essential"? Yeah right! :p

Comments on

digitallysick — Mar 26th 2009 12:33AM

Magic Iso works for now (to mount iso images)

Comments on

Information Central — Mar 26th 2009 2:35AM

It's "ISO". See, abbreviations are capitalized.

Comments on

tcc3 — Mar 26th 2009 6:52AM

And pedantic assholes are annoying.

Comments on

Corey — Mar 25th 2009 11:08PM

I want one of those cards

Comments on

kal326 — Mar 27th 2009 10:03AM

I want all of those cards, its like a computer hardware porn shoot. However I would settle for 2 of the 295 or 4870X2's for some SLI/Crossfire lov'n on the X58...

Comments on

Erv — Mar 25th 2009 11:09PM

If its faster than Windows 95 then I'll upgrade

Comments on

Setnev — Mar 25th 2009 11:39PM

If your hardware is running Windows 95, i think its time for an upgrade regardless if 7 comes out or not.

Comments on

Andir3.0 — Mar 26th 2009 8:22AM

Why... if it works for them, why should they be forced to upgrade?

Comments on

nonamo — Mar 25th 2009 11:13PM

Which build is this though? I hear the most recent leaked build 7057 (which i'm using right now) has been causing crashes for ppl with nVidia, but build 7048 was fine and much faster than the public beta 7000.

7057 runs great though for me though (pre RC1 build).

Comments on

wooties — Mar 26th 2009 12:25AM

i had crashes before ATI released it's Win7 drivers.. since then, it's been pretty smooth. I upgraded a Vista x64 box with all my games on it and i'm really impressed. Running it on all my boxes now.

Comments on

Hamidxa — Mar 26th 2009 12:07AM

Windows 7 is bound to be the greatest OS ever released.
Already in Beta form it stands head and shoulders above every other OS out there.

Comments on

ddub — Mar 26th 2009 12:10AM

my windows 7 install absolutely died. won't boot consistently, when it boots its' full of errors. don't understand why just went all windows ME on me.

Comments on

Hamidxa — Mar 26th 2009 12:19AM

Bad HD sector.
RAM dying.
Lots of reasons, not necessarily OS related.

My 7 has been working beautifully for 2 months now.

Comments on

Andir3.0 — Mar 26th 2009 8:23AM

Ahhh, "Works on my machine! You must have bad hardware. Software never fails!"

Comments on

TREX6662k5 — Mar 26th 2009 9:36AM

Especially beta software. Tough as Ares himself.

Comments on

MPAMPIR — Mar 26th 2009 10:58AM

i have to say that truth is somewhere at middle. i use win 7 64bit at my laptop, and i agree, that they have solved many, many issues that XP just crashed. Not a single problem with drivers/devices (as i had with suse and ubuntu for example) and i ve seen almost 10% more FPS at WoW (the only game i play tbh :) ). Use it for almost 2 months now (since day 1 of beta release) and except some silly beta problems i ll not change them.

BUT

At desktop PC (1 with C2D 8400@3.5GHZ /4 GB black dragon SE/ 295GTX / raid 5) the problems were too many. Raid was just too slow to work with (2MB/sec!!!!) , 295 was not working properly (even with win 7 nvidia drivers) , and the one problem was coming after other. Same with another desktop i have (C2D 6600 / 4GB muskin 5/5/512 / OCZ 8800GTX) that neither pci-e wifi recognised (with any driver i ve tried), nor the ethernet controlers!!! (this has ubuntu on now).

Tbh , win 7 are the most promising (imo) windows i ve ever seen, and i hope they ll remain as stable as they are now. Coz even Vista at beta were nice, but as final product, they were the worst M$ product ever. ok.. maybe not ever, but since win Millennium! :PPPP

Comments on

Loren — Mar 26th 2009 8:31PM

graphics cards are the bastard childs of electronics. Everything else gets smaller and sleeker while my 8800 GTX is as big as a lunch box.