Moosetek13

So does that mean you are thinking of porting SD games to the Mac? Do you think the Mac gamers would generate enough income to offset the cost to generate a profit? Mac users are, at best, 20% of computer users. How many of those are true gamers? The Mac platform is as good or better for certain things, but gaming has always been a PC thing. Mac's are simply not made for hardware tweaking, and you need that flexibility to build a truly outstanding gaming machine.

[quote]Certainly. But why now? What would they care about Impulse::Reactor? It's not even available to the public. It's not even for end users.[/quote] Yes, well, I didn't catch that part. I just looked up Impulse::Reactor to see what it was. And it seems to me that all the examples you sited were directed at Impulse (the end-user program) - not Impulse::Reactor. Perhaps the posters are as unfamiliar with Impulse::Reactor as I was. So maybe they are not so interested in&n

So does that mean that all the games you can purchase through Valve/Steam will be MAC native apps? If not, what's the point in porting just the delivery system?

There are a few people that have had a bad experience with Impulse. Perhaps they are just spreading the 'gospel' from their own point of view. Personally, I don't think it is such a very bad thing. It could even be good for business because of the exposure. True, it is meant to be negative exposure. But even that can turn to a positive pretty fast if someone (that wouldn't have otherwise) tries it and likes it. And from what I have seen, Impulse has many more friends t

Except that American is a nationality, not a race. 'Human' is a better answer, I would think.

When on a freeway, follow the car in front of you as close as you possibly can.

Seems pretty controversial this time, what with the White House taking it over and the very personal questions it asks (especially the longer survey). Personally, I'll only be answering question #1 - # of people.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=62 That is a comparison of several.

[quote]Where do people get these power numbers? NOTHING any normal person is doing uses anywhere close to 1000W. Even ATI only recommends 750 for a 5970, and the vast majority of people are buying more mid range cards that draw far less then that.[/quote] The card itself can draw nearly 300W, and it can easily be overclocked to take nearly 400W. Add in the rest of the system. If you want to run your PS at near capacity much of the time, go ahead. Me? I'd rather keep it

Personally, I like NVIDIA. They have always seemed to be more compatible, in an all around sense. Yet, my nephew usually has ATI cards in his computer, and he is the more serious gamer. We both have Intel CPU's. Guess what? He never comes to me for graphics card related problems. I say, go with whatever is fastest at the time you are buying - if you have the budget. No matter what, it will still be respectable in a year or two. And right

[quote]You might start out by figuring out when to use "you're" instead of "your" because you clearly haven't mastered that technique.[/quote] Are you getting desperate, becoming a grammar cop? I find it interesting how much time and effort you are putting into your attempt to sway the 'unbelievers'. It almost seems like you are a paid proponent.

[quote]I want overclocking (stock air) potential as well.[/quote] If by that you mean the stock heat-sink/fan combo, it simply won't happen. Overclocking means more heat, and that requires better cooling. The stock solutions are far from adequate even for everyday use, much less gaming. Here is a pretty good comparison of some of the newer cooling options: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=62 &n

There are modding tutorials in the Modding Forum.

You become lost and found and in and out. Your brain turns to mush and your body to slime - only to be fed to the next generation of little tiny, teensy weensy babies - and thus, adding to the great chain of Life.

[quote]Non-smokers have a 1.4%(males)-1.3%(females) chance of developing lung cancer before they kick the bucket. How do you feel about that 20-30% increase now?[/quote] But, doesn't that put it alarmingly close to 1.7-1.8%? That is truly shocking!

I forget. What was the OP about?

What a stupid subject for a dedicated thread. The poor girl is doing her job, and it is no sweat off anyone's brow to show ID. The wallet is already out, after all.

This one might be in order for your needs: http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/notebooks/laptop-studio-1555/pd.aspx?refid=laptop-studio-1555&s=dhs&cs=19&redirect=1 The one with the i5 listed for $899.

Sorry, I guess I had a brain malfunction. I was thinking you were down to 175, not 275, judging by the pictures. Also sorry, but from the photos you don't look like you could still be ~275 pounds - no matter how much muscle or bone. You sure you have an accurate scale? Or are you nearly 7 feet tall?

[quote]Why not just give us the patch now in stand alone?....like everyone else does.[/quote] Not everyone does. [quote]It actually seems a little shady of them not release the patch in stand alone form, this anti pirating reason is really not believable since anyone can very easily bypass it. [/quote] Then why don't you simply bypass it , instead of crying about it?

I agree, you do look slimmer - both in cheeks and neck. But I think another 50 pounds would be a bit much. That would put you at around 125 pounds. Unless you are very short, that would leave you underweight. Maybe another 20, or so.

[quote]But looking at this chart from the Met Office (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/) you can see that on a decade over decade basis we have had increased warming for the last 60 years. Anyone that can look at this chart and say that we aren't warming truly fits the definition of "denier".[/quote] Yet, it is only a total of about 1C from the coldest to the warmest over a 160 year span. Do you have a graph that shows it a bit further back? Perhaps a thousand years or so? Or ten thousand?

[quote]Moosetek, interesting site. Is it legal? Quality is not perfect, but doable I guess.[/quote] No idea. But unless it is taken down it is the best place to watch Star Trek series. The quality is not perfect, as you say. But overall it is very good. The data rate seems to suffer with very bright or fast moving scenes, but it has less stuttering than other sites. Another advantage is, no commercials.

Some of your choices are in the realm of 'whatever floats your boat', as well. I agree with one, however - Doctor Who!

http://wcbstv.com/local/jfk.air.traffic.2.1533423.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/CHILDS-PLAY-AT-JFK-86174177.html Here's a couple.