They forgot to mention that flash memory has a lifespan of a certain number of writes, after that it stops working properly and your data is a goner. Flash memory works by using current to open "gates" and let data flow through or "flash" into an area, similar to how a camera flash works, it imprints information which will stay there reliably. The problem is it wears out eventually. You can probably expect a little less life than a standard desktop drive (around 50,000 hours). Enterprise level drives are rated for 24/7 spin time up to 1.2 million hours, as they're meant for servers and reliability. But until flash memory is improved or replaced with something more reliable, I won't be using an SSD for anything other than portable memory that I'll toss out once a year and replace with another one. Sidenote: Access times are non existent with flash, but sustained write speed is quite a bit slower. Hence why longer operations are slower than on conventional drives.
Ive been using high end logitech mice since they've been available, and am using a G5 right now. I was psyched to see the G9's stats, and still am, but reading how small it is I think I will pass. Having medium-large hands that fit the G5 perfectly, I think it would be detrimental to use the smaller G9. Don't forget people, these mice are for enthusiasts and competitive gamers, it's not for the casual gamer who plays a couple hours a week and has trouble finishing single player campaigns on normal difficulty. Expensive mice are for the people that appreciate precision in their control, and for when life and death (virtual) depends on making those reflex shots. These mice are designed for a specific market, and are exceptional to those who need them, but they aren't for everyone.
AMD has made a good step, but it's not enough to route Intel's top position. I agree with the previous two posters, that AMD needs to be here to give Intel some competition, as well as to appeal to less "avid" buyers. However I'm glad Intel is still ahead of the game, as I'm tired of platform jumping.
The card is solid mid-rage competition, which lets face it, is what most gamers will buy. Only a few of us are crazy enough to shell out $800 for a 8800GTX when they were new. Now that DX10s are coming to the 400 range, it's getting affordable for the average gamer. ATI isn't silly, they planned it this way, and you can bet on a 3900 XT or some-such, in the next few months. Then again, Nvidia is no slouch either, and you know they have something up their sleeve.... paper rock scissors..
They didn't make the Xbox version look like crap. The simple fact of it is, you see it in low resolution, but a large television image which blurs (smooths) itself. When you take the same image and view it at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 etc, you see all the flaws. It's like waking up the next morning and realizing that hotty lastnight wasn't so hot.
Here's one for you Matt. In the arena in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. your first few fights are easy enough. Right up until you encounter the 2 Spetznaz guys that are heavily armored, whereas you have some light armor and die quickly. They can easily take an entire clip at close range in the chest, but die if you headshot them at close range. The problem is, just one of them can kill you in less than one second at close range, making you lucky if you take even one of them down.
GunnyHath's comments