Yup, and as the proud owner of one, it'll handle every game on the market right now. It'll even do Crysis decently at High settings.

Just played a little bit of Halo 3 on another person's Xbox 360, and I'm very disappointed. Just like the games in the store, it's not antialiased. The stair step effect is everywhere. I'm sorry, but even my old GeForce 6800 was plenty capable if pulling off 4x AA with most games, and 2x with the most demanding ones (except Crysis, which I wouldn't even try on a 6800).

My 9600 can pull off some AA with everything, and I'm pulling 8x or 16x in some games. I can even pull 2x AA with Crysis and maintain a playable game.

There's simply no excuse for not having antialiasing in games anymore IMHO. If the consoles aren't able to pull it off, then I'm not impressed at all with their supposed graphical "power."



Nope. Online play, especially with MMORPGs, is as popular as ever on the PC. Consoles are brand new to online play, and I think they still have a ways to go before they're competing with PCs in games like MMORPGs.



You can get them as cheap as $20 if you don't want to play recent DirectX 10 games. In addition, I seriously doubt you can afford a console if you can't afford a $100 graphics card.

This reminds me of a small statement that was pinned on the wall in physics class.

"Art is not useless but bakers are much more important. They have to get up really early and bake bread so people can eat. If suddenly all bakers were gone that would be really bad. That's why bakers are much more important then artists."

That statement is art on its own It brilliantly shows that "art" is nothing but a form of entertainment, praised to have some intellectual value which is has not by people that have too much free time on their hand and want to have some argument to thing they are smart because deep down they know that they are not. If they were they would be nuclear physicists or something like that.

It's a little like book clubs. People get together for those book clubs and think themselves to be super smart and intelligent because of it. Here is some news: A lot of people can read. Wow, you can read, too! You are so awesome!

Bottom line: All the fuss behind art is just that - useless fuss. So in a way people claiming that computer games are art are right. It's just the other way around: Art is nothing more then games. It is fun to those who like it but let's be honest: It is no intellectual challenge, there is nothing special about it. It's entertainment for the masses, nothing more. The fact that the old forms of entertainment for the masses (theaters, paintings) are not appreciated any more by most people doesn't make them superior art to the modern entertainment possibilities. That would be like claiming PacMan is superior art to Sins just because it's older and less people like it these days.

That's the beautiful thing about true art, though - the intended meaning given by the creator of that piece doesn't have to have anything to do with your interpretation of it. So the curator is fine to think that it deals with the emasculation of black society, and he's right; just like the painter can make jokes about blow jobs, and he's right.

Don Quijote is tolerable, but I'd rather read Dr. Seuss. You use the same argument everyone else does. It's useless, but I'll convince myself it has deep meaning and people that laugh at my purchases just don't understand. Museums operate off charity for a reason.

A joke, one I suspect is more accurate a description of high art than any attributed by the experts.

A couple attending an art exhibition at the Kentucky Gallery were staring at a portrait that had them completely confused.

The painting depicted three very black and totally naked men sitting on a park bench. Two of the figures had black weinees, but the one in the middle had a pink weinee.

The curator of the gallery realized that they were having trouble interpreting the painting and offered his assessment. He went on for nearly half an hour explaining how it depicted the sexual emasculation of African-Americans in a predominately white, patriarchal society. “In fact,” he pointed out, “some serious critics believe that the pink weinee also reflects the cultural and sciological oppression experienced by gay men in contemporary society.”

After the curator left, a young man in a Kentucky T-shirt approached the couple and said, “Would you like to know what the painting is really about?”

“Now why would you claim to be more of an expert than the curator of the gallery?” asked the couple.

“Because I’m the guy who painted it,” he replied. “In fact, there are no African-Americans depicted at all. They’re just three Kentucky coal miners, and the guy in the middle went home for lunch.”

Integrated graphics?