Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is exactly the point where we differ. Your
> approach is the system that offers maximum
> capability and flexiblity for tomorrow.
In many ways today is tomorrow. I don't mind looking around and making sure something I'm about to purchase will work with what I have though. Most of programs I use are bordering on ancient, and that's as much of a concern as is what's around the corner.
Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would appreciate that you would be a bit more
> accurate in your reading and interpretation of my
> posts, and your own replies. Where did I say I
> would buy a modest Athlon64 and X800 Pro? I didn't
> did I? Where did I say that you could build a rig
> now and play all games in the next 12-18 months? I
> didn't did I. I was talking of the present
> moment.
I never mentioned 12-18 months. I was merely using examples given an average gaming system today, using your post as a lever. It's not about you and I. There's millions of us.
Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There will NEVER be a system that won't leave you
> suffering somewhere at the end of its life cycle.
> It is as simply as that. The industry lives off
> telling people that with proper choices and extra
> cash, they can somehow proof themselves against
> this reality. That's the hype. Don't believe it,
> and save the cash. Being 6 months behind the
> version of "the Jones" that have a uncontrolable
> technological fetish won't kill you.
I don't know where this obsession with the hype is. I am in the industry, I read the roadmaps, I know exactly where things are heading, when it is, and what is required if I choose to follow it. Standing against that is where my first post in this thread came in.
Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rounding off, I severely doubt we will come to any
> sort of agreement here, and I am not seeking a
> large debate, nor a convert. Keep your point of
> view. I just wanted to give mine to someone that
> asked, because I thought yours was over the top.
My point was that the specification suggested was over the top, so in that sense, we agree to a point.
Anyway, you're right - we'd probably never come to a common point, and we're drifting aimlessly away from the thread, so I'll leave it at this.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2006 02:54PM by gav.