Unhappy with new "Gaming PC"

aj2703

Would disagree with the windows 7 and gaming comment. The root cause of gaming problems is nearly always the drivers not the Operating System that is running them. My very old Age of Empires run in Windows 7 alon with the newest title Modern Warefare 2. Any problems i used to have running games were down to the ati drivers not the OS.

To the OP my advice send it back. Get a refund.

Also why AMD..? Go Intel

Strider590

64 just isn't stable enough yet + it doesn't run 16 bit applications/tools at all (of which I have a lot).... These two combined make it not worth buying yet and even when I do, it will be dual boot XP/Win7.
Infact..... I also have Ubuntu on another HDD, so I guess it'll be triple boot lol

I would not buy CODMW2, it has already been ruined by hackers and exploiters on the PC version. It uses game lobbies (like on consoles) which makes it hard to form games and breaks apart the tranditional online PC gaming community which used to centre around groups of friends/players on the same server each day, something that L4D2 has done along with eliminating that PC gamer holy grail, the ingame console that we all love for tweaking purposes, from the game lobby preventing you joining your own or custom game servers.

One game that will not run at all in anything but XP is GTA4, unless its been patched recently, but I was under the impression that it was not possible. Not that id run that game on my PC, as it requires MSN live and other random stuff to be running all the time, with MSN being on of the worst memory hungry app you can run on a games rig, second only to Anti-virus software.

busenbust

When will there be a Snow Leopard gaming machine? Or is that now referred to as the Mac Pro

DatabaseError

Strider590 wrote: »

.....make it not worth buying yet ......

joe_pesci wrote: »

I had to reinstall Windows 7 .....

eh? You had to reinstall something that you haven't yet bought?
You are Dr Who and I claim £5

busenbust

You are Dr Who and I claim £5

^^^^:rotfl:

[Deleted User]

Strider590 wrote: »

Because everyone I know, with Win7 64 can't run most of their games on it (and I know a lot of PC gamers from all corners of the globe).

They must be using some pretty old games because in the five years I've been using an x64 operating system, I've only found one that wouldn't work natively.

So, anyway! If your reduced to a 32 bit OS, you simply cannot beat Windows XP and until MS stop building software to cater only for "never used a PC before and don't want to learn anything too conplex" numpties, you will never ever ever ever beat XP for gaming purposes.

XP has already been beat because it only officially supports up to Directx 9. You can get as complicated as you want in Windows, but there's no reason to make things complicated than they need to be by default.

And before you all say "but your limited to 3.3GB of memory", yes this is true... But it's true of ANY 32 bit OS.
Vista and 7 (32bit) may recognise more memory, but don't actually use it

True, which is why there's very little point in using an x86 version of Windows for gaming. 6GB of RAM and 2GB Graphics Cards are becoming more mainstream now, which doesn't leave a lot left over for the user of an x86 operating system to use.

Also, id have to go dual boot anyway because I use a lot of old 16bit applications which simply will not work on a 64bit OS.

That's what Virtualisation is intended for.

busenbust

Clean :cool:

Strider590

True enough, however Win7 was launched as I started to build this PC and as I said, it's not yet proven itself enough for me to trust it as a main OS..... If I hadn't gotten a genuine XP pro for £30 I would have been forced into Win7 before I really wanted it.

I have a choice now, I can afford to monitorWin7's progress and jump in once the bugs are ironed out.

My thinking is much the same as my opinion on solid state hard drives, i'll buy one when I know the technology is 100% stable, but for reasons im not at liberty to discuss, I know the life span and data integrity to be nowhere near that of a traditional HDD...... Give it 6 months to a year, i'll be talking very differently and probably be rigging up 8 SSD's in RAID config for some serious performance

busenbust

My thinking is much the same as my opinion on solid state hard drives, i'll buy one when I know the technology is 100% stable,

Agreed. That said, W7 does perform reasonably well alongside SSDs; OS features allow SSDs to not 'throttle' their performance peaks, especially with regards to cacheing and read/write ('finite'?) integrity - which is a fundamental issue with SSDs atm. :cool:

[Deleted User]

Strider590 wrote: »

True enough, however Win7 was launched as I started to build this PC and as I said, it's not yet proven itself enough for me to trust it as a main OS..... If I hadn't gotten a genuine XP pro for £30 I would have been forced into Win7 before I really wanted it.

Were you part of the giant Windows 7 Beta or Release Candidate programmes?

I have a choice now, I can afford to monitorWin7's progress and jump in once the bugs are ironed out.

What bugs?

My thinking is much the same as my opinion on solid state hard drives, i'll buy one when I know the technology is 100% stable, but for reasons im not at liberty to discuss, I know the life span and data integrity to be nowhere near that of a traditional HDD......

It's no great mystery that a SSD can only endure a certain amount of write cycles before it starts to become unreliable and the performance starts to decay, much the same as CD/DVD-RW media.