nvidia has a history of buying competitor like 3dfx and ULi Technologies and simply let their products die.
have you ever seen a graphic card supporting the next versions of the software apis through some kind of update?
Buying a directx9 card later supporting directx10 ? It's nvidias interest to sell every year a new graphic card to gamers.
there will be more games for that card... software currently in development will continue to use it for now, remember from start to release of a computer takes often years.
Not concerning WoW, but it will be interesting to see what NVidia will come up with now that they bought Ageia. They did say that support for GPU physics will come asap. I think that this can make SLI setups more interesting for the future. Like going for 2 somewhat less expensive cards instead of a single expensive one.
they plan to do physics over gpu for years. They only bought Ageia to let their product die.
Could I ask you, what are the full specs (and OS) you're using? (THough based on your posts, I think you have Vista 64)
Yes .. I have vista64 now.. before that I had vista32. It's on a intel e6600 dual core.. it's a bit older and I'm currently thinking about a Q9450 quad when they are finally out :) I have currently 2x2gb ram, but thinking about getting another 2x2gb since they are really cheap right now ;)
At work I have a dualboot with ubuntu 7.10 and xp64 ... but 99% of the time it's booted in linux.
Poor support or not, XP64 is still a much better option than Vista64.
nope. We have some xp64 boxes at work and it's causing trouble all day. For example it's funny when my boss wants to install itunes for his ipod. The 32 bit installer says that this is a 64 bit operating system and that you should get the 64bit installer. No CD-Burning or ripping possible with iTunes. The 64 bit installer then says: "Sorry.. this installer works only on Vista64".
The problem is: xp64 needs special drivers. xp drivers are not working. vista drivers are not working. most manufacturer are not interested in creating drivers for it since there are still more people using windows nt then windows xp64. It won't even get the sp3 that was released for the 32bit edition.
xp64 was a barrel burst. It had a superior kernel (based on windows server 2003 instead of windows 2000) but ram was still to expensive so there was no real need for it and there where no driver.
Everything I read said to wait until the next version of Windows to make the 64 bit jump.
Where did you read that and when? I switched to 64 bit some time ago because ram is so cheap and even my oldest piece of hardware (an old canon printer you can still refill yourself) was no problem.
If you do buy Vista 64 though, be very careful which version you get. The cheaper ones do not support nearly as much RAM as the more expensive versions.
Uhm.. I don't think that's a problem. Most workstation and gamer boards can't handle more then 8gb ram.. and that's what the cheapest version supports:
Home Basic: 8 GB
Home Premium: 16 GB
Ultimate: more then 128 GB
Business: more then 128 GB
with dual/quad, is xp32 or xp64 best?
That has nothing to do with the processor. If you want to use more then 2gb of ram you should use a 64bit operating system because 32bit os can only use 2.8gb of ram effective. (Some even only 2.3gb because some pci hardware and stuff need also address space)
Currently I'm logged into wow waiting if I'm needed in the raid, have some firefox windows open, watch the last episode of house and 2,85gb ram are used, the rest is used as hard drive cache. I don't want xp or 32bit back :)
the thread thing means that, easy spoken, wow runs 22 sub programs that do things like playing music, rendering graphics, loading files from disk. If you have a dual core it can run 11 of those sub-processes on the one core, and the other 11 on the other core, so it is taking advantage of both.
Many games do everything in one process/thread.. so they can only use one core of the cpu. That's of course very simplified spoken.
I don't think vista is slower then xp with games if you got enough memory that it don't need to swap and don't use aero, which is rendered by directx.
i can run two instances of wow without any problems .. and if you are doing stuff besides wow like looking video files, or raring files and stuff I think 4gb is better then 2gb :9
I don't think you can examine threads in the normal task manage, but I'll try to find a tool that can .)
sorry.. but since a few patches wow is optimized to run on multicore ... when I start wow it is using 22 threads.
I'm not sure how good they get dispatched on a quadcore, but they are quite balanced on a dualcore.
Of course there are heavy threads like the main rendering that will always run on one core .. but there are other tasks that can get distributed. If you plan to use fraps for example more cores make sense.
When you set your WoW to "Windowed Mode" and "Maximized" it will look like you run it in full screen.. but you can put small windows ontop of wow and move the mouse to the second monitor without problems and you can switch to a browser without wow is getting minimized .. but it costs about 10 fps in contrast to real fullscreen.
Since ram is cheap I suggest getting 4 gb of ram .. and therefor a 64bit operating system. I would suggest vista 64bit over xp 64bit since the xp-64 bit edition was a poor cousin of xp, based on a windows server 2003 kernel.. and getting drivers for it is harder then getting them for vista.