"Built to Last" and this stupid idea of "futureproof" are 2 completely different concepts. "Built to Last" implies high quality, period. Doesn't mean that technology won't advance beyond it, just simply that it was built to be functional for a longer period of time. "Futureproof" on the other hand, implies that something will never be surpassed by technology. At one time, computers were actually "built to last" as they were very expensive compared to the average wages of the time. People weren't expected to "upgrade" at a regular pace as they are now, so computers were built using high quality components to give the longest possible working lifespan. Now, components are selected to give the manufacturer the most profit with little regard for the product lifespan. It's become an accepted belief that the average lifespan of a computer is 3-5 years. Obviously, those of us that upgrade regularly don't fall into the "average" category, but that's the premise that computer components are built based on.
LOOOOOL. he did not say athlon xp is faster than phenom 2, he said that pc booted up faster than his 955 pc.. you sir are an idiot who does not know what hes talking about Oh, just like you compare your OLD slow 8800GTS to a gtx 470 LOL. remember that thread? hahaha and that time you said windows would not install on a drive smaller than 30gb, and the time that you said all thermal pastes are conductive.. TROLOLOL we must all be victims of a troll or a really stupid person.. not sure which. stop posting please. @pill monster, when will you learn, he will never admit defeat and will continue to post nonsense.
So thats your only response? You asked for this. Not me. Im not the one who is mad that technology is once again moving forward as it always has and always will. Funny. Now we are trying to redefine "built to last" and "futureproof". This place is so entertaining. I just hope you guys dont seriously think that hardware from 2003 is still good. That would be even better.
^^^hope you do not think video cards from late 2005ish is still good. good god man give it up already
Yea dude. My GF3 and my 2000+ Athlon XP can still hang with the big boys. I mean, it struggles a bit in Crysis when I go to 1920x1080 but the fact that my GF3 can produce DX10 graphics is just sweet!
Lol tommy he cant defend his slow old hardware, hes trying to troll us and make us rage :nerd: and GF3? GF3 =s geforce 3 which only had DX8 support Lol
Nah way man. With the new drivers, it totally can support DX10. And its PCI-E 16x which is a rare model.
Almost as bad as the false information you guys like to spread All this about the FX5900 being a good graphics card in 2006. Athlon XPs still being fast. Windows 7 only using 6GB. Games using 4GB of RAM. Crazy stuff man!
Lets go back a page or 2 here....where you claim Diamonds are electrically conductive.... Yep.....there's the claim that Diamonds are conductive....yet, Diamonds are an electrical insulator.... Again, AS5 is capacitive, not conductive....and since diamonds are non-conductive, non-capacitive, IC Diamond is the same....
I remember the days when 1GB of ram would of cost a cool £1000+ roughly £1 per megabyte(1995) and they were almost double that around 1991!!,Todays prices are nothing in comparison.
You do realize that from now on nobody on this forum is going to give a shlt about anything you have to say, right? Your views/opinions/advice etc, will be ignored....but you're prob used to people ignoring you right?
My thoughts exactly! Going through some of my old magazines in 2000 512MB of SDR cost upwards of $800 !
Personally, I don't see him trolling like I see some of you doing it. He may be arguing back with you guys, but I mostly see other members throwing the insults around. But that did give me a good idea. Anyone after this post that wants to add onto what happened above will have a quick temp ban.