thetonestarr said:
|
Geldorn said:
thetonestarr said:
What the hell are you talking about? That PC he listed is quite a bit more powerful than any of the gaming consoles, and it vastly outperforms all three of them as well. How on earth can it "lag in capabilities"?
If you're going to hate, at least have the facts straight. Seriously, you're only proving that you're subjectively biased against PC gamers.
Anyhow, you'll never find a gaming PC with blu-ray that costs less than the PS3, & that's because PCs are always designed to do a LOT more than consoles. You're paying more for a mess of extra features. It's foolish to think you'll find one that costs less. Until the PS3 does everything a PC does, you can't expect anything otherwise. |
|
Let me say it again.
You do not need Windows to play Windows games.
Just because "99.9% of gamers use Windows" doesn't mean all gamers need Windows. You can use Linux, which is free, then emulate Windows inside Linux. What this will do is, firstly, allow you to pay absolutely nothing to get the same functions as Windows. And secondly, it allows you to actually have better system performance because Linux uses virtually zero system resources, unlike Vista which practically halves system abilities after all is said and done. Your system will perform immensely better this way. Yes, it requires a lot more know-how, but it's worth it. Why does a PC have to have Windows? Fourteen years ago, nothing required Windows. You used DOS, and that didn't have to be Microsoft's version. It just had to be DOS. Commander Keen, Rise of the Triad, Duke Nukem, Castle Wolfenstein, Epic Pinball, Jill of the Jungle, Prince of Persia, Wacky Wheelz, etc. All great games that existed prior to the Windows conquering of the market. Just because Microsoft makes the operating system that everybody uses just because it's there doesn't mean you have to use it.
This is not exactly true. Nowhere near all Windows games work in that way and even if they do they often require specific versions of said Windows emulation software (or specific hardware) so you can't play all games at the same time. I know this because I a) tried it myself and b) saw a guy who is basically Mr. Linux (works, plays, eats and sleeps the darn thing) install Windows for gaming because using Linux caused far to much headache to be worth it. Though I do admit it was fun to try and play WoW without mouse support and some-shooter at 5FPS because of bugs in the emulation. The Kernel panics where less fun though. Usually these bugs get fixed eventually but it's hardly a convenient approach to gaming.
I do find your 'almost zero system resources' statement funny though. I mean, Linux is in many ways better than Windows but it is not that much better and what's more - the main, overriding complaint about using Linux for gaming I've personally seen on the message boards of Cedega, Wine, WineX etc is that game performance is less than using it under Windows ;)
And if it's an HD movie, it's probably a BDrip. Meaning it is the blu-ray movie, which means it's the exact same quality.
Again, get your facts straight.
So, we're down to more piracy again? That is just a weak excuse - there are no legally available HD movies for the PC in that quality and you damn well know it. So my facts are straight, I just don't condone piracy.
As for being able to download on the consoles, you can download, yes, but you have less compatibility, less variety, less of nearly everything.
Almost all movies are distributed in codecs that work just fine on the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Sorry about the layout of this post - I can't seem to fix in a reasonable timeframe.
