×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell's XPS 730x Core I7 Gaming System Reviewed

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the it's-always-time-to-upgrade dept.

171

MojoKid writes "Shortly after Intel released their new Core i7 processors about a month ago, Dell announced a new update to the XPS 730 with Core i7 tech under the hood. The new Dell XPS 730x is first and foremost a technology update but the chassis has also been buffed up a bit. The Intel Core 2 processor and NVIDIA 790i Ultra SLI chipset powering the original XPS 730 line have been swapped with the new Core i7 processor and an Intel X58 Express chipset based motherboard. The XPS 730x retains the original 730's ability to support both Crossfire and SLI multi-GPU graphics. Like all XPS 700 series machines since the XPS 710, the XPS 730x is available with optional factory overclocking and a H2C edition featuring a two-stage liquid cooling system. And yes, it rips through Crysis quite nicely and puts up rather impressive benchmark numbers."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

171 comments

1st post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205381)

oh yeah!

Re:1st post (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205999)

XPS 730x H2C = Intel® Coreâ i7-965 Extreme - Level 2 (Factory O/C'd to 3.73GHz), Genuine Windows Vista® 64-bit Ultimate (English) Service Pack 1

Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium

No speakers (FAIL)

PS: I am not kidding they don't give you any speaker options on their most expensive XPS 730x H2C.

Re:1st post (4, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206163)

No speakers (FAIL)

Yeah. You're paying tons of cash for the best hardware out there, and then route the audio trough crappy active PC speakers? That's like those people who buy an expensive car, and then can't afford the fuel for it.

If you have an expensive display, or sound card, don't be cheap on the sound. Everybody I know, who has a decent system, has it connected to his hi-fi system. I have only one output on my system: Real-time encoded AC-3 trough a fiber glass cable... It's better to let your amplifier do the D/A-decoding, instead of the cheap decoders in your sound card.

At least I don't have to tell my fellow Slashdotters, that the keyboard is very important too. :)

Re:1st post (1)

uniquename72 (1169497) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206177)

Serious question: Are there any laptops speakers that don't suck? That is, are there any laptop speakers that don't make you instantly run for your headphones?

(My laptop is 5 years old, and the speakers are unlistenable. Just curious if the situation has gotten any better.)

Re:1st post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206329)

The Altec Lansing speakers mounted in some Hewlett Packard laptop series (the Pavilion TX2000 series for instance) are pretty decent IMHO. Pretty decent for laptop speakers, that is.

Re:1st post (1)

Starayo (989319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206333)

I have a two year old laptop, and my dad has a three month old laptop, and they both have absolutely terrible speakers.

Re:1st post (2, Informative)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206505)

FTFA: "Also included are a few freebies. Every XPS 730 system comes with a free tool kit with all of the various screwdrivers you would need to tinker with your system, a free Dell XPS metal mouse pad and a free set of XPS branded Turtle Beach Ear Force HPA2 surround sound gaming headset."

Oblig. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205415)

Maybe it will actually run Vista!

Re:Oblig. (4, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205467)

News for nerds: Throwing a ridiculous shitload of money at a vendor will buy you a fast machine. Film at 11.

Re:Oblig. (1)

mad_cat_elite (1058276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206531)

Believe it not, nerds may be the target audience, but nerds don't buy these kinds of computers. Generally it is old people who buy these kinds of computers.

Basically it comes down to, the more money a computer it is, the assumption that there will be less wrong with it. Unfortunately, the opposite is true when it comes for computers.

Re:Oblig. (3, Insightful)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205573)

Yes, but only to use the extra RAM and processing time to "cache" all of the crap you never use, and to help index your hard drive since apparently us users can never seem to remember where we put anything despite the fact we get a UAC prompt if we choose to save anything outside of our home directory.

And lets see how well the SLI/Crossfire graphics cards run games while also being called by the desktop window manager and and explorer to redraw aero effects constantly. And by the way, you're paying an assload of money for all of this too, including another crappy chassis.

</rant>

Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (4, Informative)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205667)

Your Vista criticism is sound except for the indexing part. I have over a terabyte of stuff on my home machine and despite my best efforts I often cannot find things. OS X Spotlight has literally become my Finder replacement. These days I rarely ever even navigate through the windows. Of course I have had to learn to be a lot more careful when I label documents, but the time savings more than makes up for the occasional indexing. To me at least, real comprehensive search is the killer app of the modern desktop.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (3, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205845)

Not that I don't agree with you in principle, but how hard is to have a bunch of organized folders: docs, mp3s, porn, etc.? Same argument: do a little work first, save time later.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (4, Insightful)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206033)

In principle it's not that hard. That being said, desktop searching is incredibly helpful. You organized your mp3s by genre, band, album... Now you don't feel like clicking through a bunch of folders to get to your music. Sure, the bands you listen to often, you might have down with muscle memory. But when you try to look for something you haven't listened to in a while, it gets frustrating to sit around reading through band name after band name. Desktop search and you're done.

Desktop search has its place. Organizing yourself is form of self restraint and discipline that is absolutely vital to getting stuff done. On the other hand, the reason we have all this technology is to make life easier.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (2, Insightful)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206301)

The thing is, I use media players like (dare I say it) iTunes, WMP, Media Center, or RhythmBox to manage my songs and/or videos for me (as well as play them), so I don't need to sit there and browse folders or take a performance hit for indexing.

When the great grandparent post said they liked indexing because they have a huge hard drive, the only thing I can think of for having such a hard drive would be Music/Video libraries, games, or absolutely huge Flash documents. The music/video most certainly would have a manager like iTunes or Media Center, the games are just apps with start menu/desktop launchers, and as a Flash dev myself I just put all of my .flas in a directory such as ~/Documents/Flash.

And if you need a terabyte of hard drive space to store a bunch of word processing documents, then not only do I feel sorry for you but by all means enable indexing since you apparently do nothing other than edit word processing documents all day long.

And as far as UAC, Indexing, and Aero having the ability to be turned off, I personally turn off Indexing for better personal organization, and always use the "classic" theme under any Windows version, but I would never turn off UAC in Vista because it is just as vital to security as sudo/gksu/root/wheel in *nix, and one of the reasons Vista does not have nearly the amount of security problems other past Windows versions have had.

Vista has its share of problems other than what can be disabled (DirectX 10, WDM issues, memory management issues etc.), but many of these have been somewhat resolved in the Windows 7 betas I've tested, although driver issues persist (they were betas, after all). I am personally skipping Vista from my work-related virtual machine collection for these reasons, awaiting the production build of Windows 7 (actually Windows 6.1). Microsoft has been paying attention to our complaints with Vista, and 7 reflects this, e.g. a toned down UAC, better memory management, more streamlining, and graphics without quite as much performance hit.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (5, Informative)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206043)

Hold it, you are assuming people are going to search only by file name. However, the rest of us do search by content. How will you remember which file contains "int restriction_level = 1;" on a project with thousands of files and a class diagram that looks like spiderweb on steroids? Indexing is very useful in that aspect.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (1)

hellwig (1325869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206281)

Unless you write your code in Word, thats what "Find in Files" or grep are for. Until we develop algorithms to search by image or sound, there are already better tools for context searching.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206419)

Unless you write your code in Word

Hmm...not that I use Word, of course, for coding, but if I did use Word and was, well, looking for a suitable alternative for writing code, not that I am, what might you, err, recommend?

And where's the Save button for this comment thing...

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206549)

ed.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206771)

I prefer Emacs. It is a great IDE and web browser, and unlike the myths circulating around it, it does not eat up too much memory. In fact, I have it open behind Firefox even as I write th

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (1)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206519)

"Find in Files" are inadequate in most the cases without proper indexing. It misses matching files very often and will take a long time crawling through those files when you try to match without indexing. Especially when the files are sufficiently big, the search algorithm just gives up after a certain point. Also, have you ever run into character conversion issues? Anything you write in unicode will not get searched well using the "Find in Files" option. Grep on the other hand is a very good tool in term of accuracy and search flexibility. Although, indexed search is a lot faster and will save you tons of time in long term. Note that I am not saying indexing is the be all end all answer, I am just pointing out that there are significant uses for such methods and curbing user habits is rather archaic.

Re:Indexed Search is a Lifesaver (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206165)

I think the problem with that, is when you want files indexed more than one way. Your approach can work, but you might end up having a shitload of softlinks, since a given file might appear in several different directories. Then let's say you want to delete a file: do you really want to delete it from everywhere, or just that one directory you were looking at. Maybe you want hardlinks instead. But then, maybe not.

Re:Oblig. (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205713)

Yes, but only to use the extra RAM and processing time to "cache" all of the crap you never use

I'm confused, you'd rather Windows just didn't do anything with the extra memory and processing power? If you really don't want you hard drive indexed, you can turn off indexing. The memory used to cache frequently used programs is reallocated when necissary, don't let the little graph in the task manager fool you into thinking you don't have enough memory just because your memory is actually being used for a change.

And lets see how well the SLI/Crossfire graphics cards run games while also being called by the desktop window manager and and explorer to redraw aero effects constantly.

Aero is automatically disabled when running any full screen game. If you really hate it that badly, disable it.

Vista has a lot of problems. Having features that many people like, which can be disabled by those who don't, isn't one of them. The only valid complaint you make, in my opinion, is obnoxious UAC prompts.

Re:Oblig. (2, Insightful)

HAKdragon (193605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205799)

The only valid complaint you make, in my opinion, is obnoxious UAC prompts.
 
..which can also be turned off.

Re:Oblig. (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205875)

..which can also be turned off.

Slight problem there. As techies, we'll work on Vista machines more than actually installing the damn thing for ourselves. As such, do you really want to turn off UAC on some luser's PC? Much as I hate to give MS any credit, UAC actually does help a little bit. And if you troubleshoot MS machines for a living, every little bit helps.

Re:Oblig. (2, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205877)

The only valid complaint you make, in my opinion, is obnoxious UAC prompts.

Which is also pretty groundless, since generally speaking UAC prompts appear for the same reasons, and with similar frequency, as sudo prompts on Linux or Windows.

And you can even turn them off, if you want to expose yourself to more risk.

Re:Oblig. (1)

Retric (704075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205885)

Vista tends to swap memory to disk that's "stale" so it replaces stuff I want in memory with files that help programs load faster. This is stupid, I would like to quickly tab to something I opened 3 hours ago no reload it from disk. I don't care about programs I might at some point use I want the 5 programs I am using right now to all say in ram. I have a tun of ram I would like to be able to use it vs. swapping stuff out to free up memory I might want to load some other application.

Re:Oblig. (3, Insightful)

benjymouse (756774) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206093)

It would be stupid if it was correct. However, that is why Vista also has a unique memory priority feature. It is exactly to ensure that a process with lower priority memory requirements (such as the cache, readyboost, disk defrag, defender etc) does *not* page out normal priority memory. What's stupid is how some people are all prepared to make all kind of assumptions about Vista and then use those - often false - assumptions to knock it.

Re:Oblig. (2, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206461)

That's not stupid as such, it's the standard human thought process for making decisions which is:

1. Make a decision based on what you feel or what other people tell you to decide.
2. Find evidence that supports your decision, ignore evidence that counters it.
3. If there isn't much evidence make some up so you don't look stupid for making the wrong decision.

Nothing to do with Vista, or Microsoft, just the usual method of thinking.

Re:Oblig. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205965)

Parent is not troll, it is valid Vista criticism. Get off your broomstick, mods.

Re:Oblig. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206041)

Since you appear to dislike any "pretty" desktop-type stuff, RAM swapping, indexing, etc., you would be a perfect candidate to use Linux and rain down your hate upon Compiz, KDE, Beagle, and GUIs in general. After all, it's a waste of that awfully expensive $25-for-4GB RAM.

Meanwhile, some of us may enjoy having a cool looking desktop. If the OS actually interferes with your foregrounded tasks by doing cpu, ram, or disk intensive background tasks, that's a problem. But it sounds like you are conjecturing that it does that because it's obviously a horrible product because it was made by Microsoft, as opposed to an open source community.

On the other hand, I know firsthand that Linux's X windows system/KDE, especially wiht something like Compiz, pretty much uses as much RAM as it can, because RAM does NO GOOD if it is sitting empty. Why can't Windows do that?

I don't like Vista, either, much prefer XP, and like Linux (albeit I prefer SuSE over RedHat, but use both at work), but let's critique OS's on an equal level, without the preconceived it-has-to-be-bad-because-it's-Microsoft junk...

Re:Oblig. (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206557)

Lets get something straight. I bought my laptop with 1GB of RAM/1.6Ghz dual core proc in late 2006, and it came with Vista. It was absolutely unusable after about a month, so I started disabling Indexing, aero (then reverting to classic), tweaking registry values and paging options, and defragging daily. Still terrible responsiveness.

So I upgraded to 2GB of RAM, and damn if Vista still took its own sweet time doing anything.

After months of this, I gave up and tried Ubuntu 8.04 via Wubi, and not only did it have incredible speed, but the out-of-the-box compiz effects were astonishing, and later I would roll out the cube, wobbly windows, zoom etc. for no performance hit whatsoever.

Fast forward to now: Vista is gone from my laptop, I triple boot Ubuntu 8.10, Mac OS X Leopard (hackintosh), and Solaris 10. My Ubuntu installation runs almost the entire plethora of compiz plugins, which run incredible on the exact same hardware vista abused, and even running Windows XP in a 384MB RAM virtual machine on top of said Ubuntu has absolutely no performance loss whatsoever, even after coming out of suspension or hibernation, something Vista took literally 45 minutes to do with just a word document open.

In a nutshell, I love graphics, but I'm not willing to lose productivity over them, and Linux/compiz gives 100% better graphics for an iota of the overhead Aero/Vista in general needs. If Windows 7 (6.1) outperforms Vista as I've seen its betas do (in virtual machines running on top of Ubuntu) then I might consider installing it for good in a VM in the same manner as I've done Windows XP since Vista ruins performance in both virtual machines and right on top of the bare metal.

Re:Oblig. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206169)

ugh. If you are going to rant about Vista, at least pick reasonable problems to bitch about (lots of them exist). If you really thing searching is bad, or that windows is redrawing aero during a game... whatever. why am I responding to you?

Re:The Oblig. VISTA FUD (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206441)

And lets see how well the SLI/Crossfire graphics cards run games while also being called by the desktop window manager and and explorer to redraw aero effects constantly.

Explain to me how the Aero GUI becomes a load on the GPU when you are running Crysis full screen and with F/X cranked up to the max --- which is, after all, the reason why you lay out the big bucks for a high performance gaming system.

How Do I ... tweak Vista indexing options for better performance [com.com] [Dec 15, 2008]
The Great Vista/Mac Showdown: Goodbye, WinRot [zdnet.com] [Feb 21, 2007]

Re:Oblig. (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206455)

Since you apparently know nothing about Vista, here's a few things you might want to know:

-The extra memory that caches all the crap you never use is freed if it is required. Which means it's used only to speedup your computer, and you won't notice the microsecond it takes to free it.

-The hard drive indexing can be turned off. Windows XP has a similar feature, this isn't new.

-Redrawing aero effects doesn't happen when you're running a fullscreen game. If you launch Half-Life 2 for example, aero will idle until you alt-tab back in, and thus there is no loss of performance.

No problem! Glad I could get some myths out of your head!

Re:Oblig. (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206465)

Oh and before you pull the "Vista fanboy" card, I use Windows XP, Gentoo and Ubuntu at home. I don't randomly insult stuff I know nothing about, though.

Windows again (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205423)

The more you use Windows as a gaming platform, the less likely it is to die as a home desktop OS.

Ditch the damn thing already.

Signed, a Mac, Nintendo DS, Wii and Sony PS3 user.

Re:Windows again (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205445)

some of us don't have a grudge against microsoft and don't care if it dies.

get that through your thick skull already.

signed, the other 99.5% of the world.

Re:Windows again (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205493)

this isn't the world, it's slashdot.

signed, a fat basement dweller who can't wait for 2009, year of the linux desktop.

Re:Windows again (4, Funny)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205551)

this isn't the world, it's slashdot.

signed, a fat basement dweller who can't wait for 2009, year of the linux desktop.

Oh that's next year!? YES! I'm going to hit up thinkgeek and buy myself every linux shirt I can find. In your face MS admins!

Re:Windows again (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205895)

Actually, it should be:

signed, the other 89.5% of the world

Re:Windows again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206471)

do you honestly think that the majority of mac users want windows to die? who would they be snobs to if there was no microsoft?

Re:Windows again (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205529)

I admire your dedication. Another way to look at it though is that Windows is the most used desktop OS. Ditching it only means (for now) losing access to the majority of games. Wii and PS3... blah. I much prefer my games running on PC. If that means having to own Windows, then that is how it is for the moment. Windows, for me, is only a gaming OS anyway. Does it really matter if, one day, Windows is a gaming OS and serious stuff gets done in, say, Linux?

Re:Windows again (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205973)

Does it really matter if, one day, Windows is a gaming OS and serious stuff gets done in, say, Linux?

Yeah, it does. I don't want to have to waste time and resources on Windows. If I was going to do that, I'd buy a console... which is the why of Xbox.

Re:Windows again (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206075)

Yeah, ok. I agree with that. But I also don't see why having an OS dedicated to gaming is bad either. If it weren't for driver issues (and this could probably be worked out anyway) I think that an OS designed just to play games would be great. The "OS" would just have to be able to load and support games and do nothing else. I'd buy it. And if XP lost all the crap and became a game only OS then I could live with that as well.

Re:Windows again (2, Interesting)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206769)

And if XP lost all the crap and became a game only OS then I could live with that as well.

I'm not getting my head around why this appeals to you so much. Maybe its just how I look at it.

For me - Linux is great. I work in it. I dabble with various hobbies in it. When I want to game, its nice to just swing over to a virtual desktop and fire up a game for an hour or two (or hell - a weekend lost to downing bosses and fighting battlegrounds). A specialized gaming OS would mean I have to reboot (I couldn't imagine running in an emulator but hey - we're getting there).

What you're asking for is a specialized OS. That seems to go against the nature of multi-purpose computing. That environment has been producing some very interesting effects over the years and pushing games that didn't exist anywhere else. Narrow the focus and you might miss the Next Big Thing.

Even consoles are wandering away from their specialized roots. PS3 and Xbox are trying very hard to be all things entertainment; gaming, media, web browsing... it goes on. Unless the market gets burned by this, it is the thing of the future. Even my Tivo wants me to use it to order a pizza (apparently unsatisfied with just recording my TV, delivering movies / internet TV shows / podcasts, and streaming internet music stations).

Re:Windows again (4, Interesting)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205559)

While I don't really disagree with your assessment, I find it interesting to note that many people have blamed the fall of the Amiga as a platform on it being too heavily marketed as a games platform rather than being for "work stuff".

Ironic that now it seems that one of the major obstacles preventing a particular platform's wide level acceptance is the presence of games.

Truthfully given how limited my scope of gaming is these days Linux could PROBABLY serve all my needs if there were a good WoW (and Ventrilo) client for it. For the time being though my Mac is thankfully able to handle both those tasks.

Re:Windows again (4, Informative)

LarsG (31008) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205757)

From what I can remember, it was also management issues at the top.

Not to mention that the Amiga was tightly bound to the custom chips they did in-house (Paula/Agnus, etc). Commodore didn't spend (or didn't have?) enough resources on R&D to keep up with the PC, and was also too slow in changing the platform so that it could use PC components instead.

Re:Windows again (5, Informative)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206053)

There were a lot of reasons. Probably the number one overall was the same reason Mac market share dropped: the large prevalence of cheap PC clones from different vendors. The average user didn't see a real difference between Windows and another OS.
As far as the technical side, you are correct in that the custom chips ultimately held the Amiga back. The updated AGA chipset machines (more or less comparable to VGA at the time) were pricey for the power they offered. For example the A1200 was released with a 68020 at a time when 486s were becoming common on PCs.

Re:Windows again (1)

slyn (1111419) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205857)

I wish Apple would take OpenGL by the balls and do to it what they managed to do with OpenCL.

Right now DirectX's advantages (from what I understand) are its integration between all the necessary services needed to actually put together a game (video, sound, user i/o, etc.). If they could code an IDE that took a base of an improved OpenGL (what OpenGL 3.0 was supposed to be essentially) _and_ integrated its services with all the other necessary ingredients required to make a game, throw in some of Apples magical usability sprinkles, and Boom!, they have an oven to churn out delicious multi-platform cake that could turn another tide in the "Year of the Alternative Desktop".

Currently said cake is a lie, but oh god I can practically taste it now.

brb pastries

Re:Windows again (1)

Domini (103836) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206353)

Yea, the Amiga was seen as too much 'for children' what held it back was paradoxically its more thought-through and superior architecture. I had a choice at the time between similarly priced Amiga 500 and an XT with no graphics. I should have gotten the XT I suppose, but at least I had lots of fun while other people learned to use Lotus 123.
(I did design and develop a 3D CAD application (with GUI and mouse etc.) while still at high school in 1988 while the rest of my class were still messing around with writing 'hangman' games.)

Then I skipped DOS and windows entirely and went from OS/2 to Linux. Later to use Windows NT.

Yea, you can run WoW quite nicely in Linux nowadays... it's just a bit of an issue with Ventrilo still. But, yes, I prefer using a Mac for this as well... even though I have a gaming machine (to play things like Crysis and Fallout 3 on) I still spend about 99% of my time on my Macbook (WoW, VMWare with XP and Linux, mail, browsing).

Re:Windows again (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206513)

WoW runs perfectly in -opengl mode, and Ventrilo has a hack to make it work (under wine) with working keybindings. It used to be on Gentoo-wiki, but they lost their database recently and I'm not sure if it's still there.

This assumes you have a graphic card which has decent drivers (In my case this was the nvidia-drivers package with a 8800 GTS). I never got it to work right with an ATI card.

Re:Windows again (1)

omnirealm (244599) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206591)

MBGMorden (803437) wrote:
> Truthfully given how limited my scope of gaming is these days Linux
> could PROBABLY serve all my needs if there were a good WoW (and
> Ventrilo) client for it.

For the record, I leveled a priest all the way to level 70 on
WINE/Gentoo. Never had a single crash. Ventrilo on WINE works fine for
me too.

Re:Windows again (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206607)

While I don't really disagree with your assessment, I find it interesting to note that many people have blamed the fall of the Amiga as a platform on it being too heavily marketed as a games platform rather than being for "work stuff".

Ironic that now it seems that one of the major obstacles preventing a particular platform's wide level acceptance is the presence of games.

I have to admit that I didn't pay much attention to the Amiga. Which is odd, since I was such a fan of the C=64. One of my good friends at that time picked up an Amiga and it did look pretty interesting. But I never went for one. And that has me really wondering.

I find myself disagreeing with the assessment at face value; it wasn't gaming vs. business that caused the Amiga trouble. There was a more fundamental issue that could have been misinterpreted as business computing. That issue was commodity platforms.

Business computing was important. That's what got IBM to jump in to the fray. And IBM's hat to be tossed in to the microcomputer ring was the IBM PC. IBM themselves are important. IBM lends a lot of credibility, demands loyal budget spending, and simply draws attention from those who didn't realize a revolution was going on around them. But it doesn't end there.

It really starts with Compaq. Compaq re-engineers the gatekeeper to IBM PC -- the BIOS. Then Compaq produces a better, cheaper "IBM PC" than IBM. And so begins the clone wars (stop transposing that in a Yoda voice).

The introduction of clones really means that what used to be IBM's platform instead becomes a commodity platform. And commodities are really difficult to deal with in the business world. What we have is a force that sweeps away almost anything competing against it (and more than a few competing within it). Commodore was one such entity that tried to stand against, instead of figure out how to surf, that wave (Microsoft sells surfboards).

Truthfully given how limited my scope of gaming is these days Linux could PROBABLY serve all my needs if there were a good WoW (and Ventrilo) client for it. For the time being though my Mac is thankfully able to handle both those tasks.

I use Wine. I've had minor issues in the past. But things are pretty decent right now. WoTLK seems to have handed me a performance hit (although I have to admit I haven't done a lot to tweak performance - either in game settings, addons, or wine).

Re:Windows again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205957)

anyone else find it ironic that the signer of this document holds the banner of apple and sony high but wants to see microsoft dead? i thought around here that was like being a member of the axis and praising germany and japan but wanting to see italy get over run by the allies.

i simply can not think of a company worse than apple when it comes down to keeping independent development away from their products.

Re:Windows again (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205985)

Well what are the options.
Macs yea they can probably be a good gaming system. However you will always need to buy Apple Hardware with Apple OS (As I type it on my MacBook Pro in Safari for OS X). But for gaming where these guys often make their own uber boxes, going Mac isn't really an option.

Linux for Gaming... That is actually laughable. Linux is great for a server. Passible for a desktop system, but not much for gaming... To many diver makers will not support Linux other who do take so much heat about not making their drivers open source. Oh I am sure I can get hundreds of responses saying how great linux runs this game or the other so much better then windows with the same configuration. But there are also the a slew of people who cannot get the App to run in Xwindows much less getting 3d acceleration running. Then people will point out all the problems the Windows users have with their cards. However for the most part you buy the hardware you get the drivers and the usually work. In linux you get the hardware then you need to hunt down the drivers find the right configuration etc... All in all if you want to play games on your computer, and not the game of lets get it configured, then you better off with Linux.

Re:Windows again (2, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206821)

Bullshit. There are two makers of capable GPUs, and both support Linux well with decent drivers downloadable from their web sites. Installing the drivers is straight-forward for anyone capable of reading simple instructions. Different from Windows, yes, but not in any way difficult. You forget that while Linux is different from Windows, the users aren't in general any less competent.

Also, the fact that you believe there is such a thing as hunting down drivers in the Linux world shows that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. If that's how you tried solving your problems, then it's obvious why you couldn't get it to work: you're doing it wrong. Don't blame the OS for your own incompetence.

XPS cases sucks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205449)

I ordered a Dell XPS because I was too lazy to rebuild a computer on my own.

Found out it was a BTX case, the cables were all bent and I had to fix the front with sticky tape.

Conclusion, only fat pasty linux users buy dells.

Re:XPS cases sucks (5, Informative)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205535)

BTX is a far superior mobo layout for air cooled cases. The only reason it didn't end up usurping ATX is because manufacturers didn't want to spend the money to support the new form factor.

Re:XPS cases sucks (2, Interesting)

DigitalisAkujin (846133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205579)

I don't want it either because I have to buy a new case.

If I'm just swapping out mobos and CPUs every now and then I don't wanna be buying new cases. Especially if I"m using a really good and very expensive one.

Re:XPS cases sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26206061)

You have been trolled again. See flamewars such as

HDDVD/ Bluray
GNOME / KDE
Emacs / Vim
Linux / BSD
VHS / betamax
Windows 9x / NT

Welcome to the club.

Oh yeah bitches (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205479)

FfFFFffF
fFF
fFfffF
Fff
fFF

PpPPppp
ppP P
pPppp
pPP
PPp

Re:Oh yeah bitches (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205585)

I think you misspelled "I suck cocks."

But can you upgrade? (1)

SIBM (1114319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205557)

Can I put in another HDD without having to disassemble the whole case or sacrifice my current one?

Re:But can you upgrade? (2, Informative)

Swift Kick (240510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205831)

Yes, you can.

There are 4 drive slots located below the power supply towards the rear of the case.

1) open the side panel,
2) remove the drive tray in one of the empty slots,
3) place your drive in the drive tray, slide it in,
4) connect the SATA and power cables,
5) close the side panel.

That's it.

$5099 for a gaming computer... without SLI? (5, Funny)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205587)

Hmm, this really doesn't make much sense. If you're going to spend that much money, the thing should have four graphics cards and its own nuclear powerplant. The one they reviewed, priced at 5099 dollars, only has one graphics card, so it gets whooped by a $1500 computer at Crysis.

Re:$5099 for a gaming computer... without SLI? (1)

mad_cat_elite (1058276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206661)

When I did support for Dell, a few years back, I use to joke that their XPS top of the line machines, mainly the 700 series, was more of an overpriced space heater than an actual computer.

Dell? (1)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205589)

Since when did Dell become the de-facto gaming rig? Most gamers that want the machine at the top end of the performance curve will build their own with the top CPU and GPU of the day. And the few who will buy a prebuilt system would probably go with something like AlienWare.

Next we'll see a story showing just how cheap laptops have become showing an Apple AirBook as the example. I'd give a car analogy, but there are just too many to choose from... and it's too easy to throw dirt at the American car companies at the moment, and it'd be in poor taste. :P

Re:Dell? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205617)

Judging by all the grilles, lights, and windows, it certainly looks the part of a dedicated gaming rig to my eyes. At least, no business user would let it near their office.

Re:Dell? (1)

CRiyl (1086791) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205909)

Judging by all the grilles, lights, and windows, it certainly looks the part of a dedicated gaming rig to my eyes. At least, no business user would let it near their office.

At least not this guy [penny-arcade.com].

Re:Dell? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205621)

Dell bought Alienware.

Re:Dell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205627)

slashvertisement!

Oh, and Alienware = Dell now. It has been for quite a while.

Re:Dell? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205779)

I wouldn't say Dell became the purveyor of 'de-facto gaming rigs', but they've been trying to get a piece of the action when it comes to higher-end gaming systems.

Chances are the average consumer is familiar with Dell, so they'll go there first to get a 'bitchin desktop', rather than go to the places that most gaming snobs would look at, like Falcon Northwest, VoodooPC or whatever (which often times are even more expensive than Dell).

Besides, if you ignore all the whizz-bang lighting effects and other annoying things, they're pretty good development machines.
I have a air-cooled XPS 720 that I bought from the Dell Outlet as a refurb a couple of years ago. Paid less than 1/2 the retail price, and I'm running Vista64 Ultimate, and VMWare with 3 virtual machines running 24/7 (Ubuntu 8.10, Centos52, XP Pro for VPN access to work).
The video card is a 7900GTX, so pretty 'old', and I only have 4GB of RAM, but I have no complaints whatsoever about performance (and I do quite a bit of work on it). Also, it's virtually silent even with high workloads, and that's something I've never seen in any custom-built boxes that are air-cooled.

If you're into building your own systems, more power to you, but if you want a well-performing system at a decent price, go look at the refurbs in the Dell Outlet. Never buy new.

$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (5, Insightful)

larsoncc (461660) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205663)

I think it's funny that we're using Crysis as a benchmark, rather than an object-lesson in "what not to do in game development."

The only reason why Crysis is being chosen here is because it's notoriously difficult to get it running on any system maxed out. The article's graph notes that the test was run without adding in anti-aliasing, and it manages to barely squeak out a playable frame rate (on a 22" widescreen lcd resolution).

Crysis looks good, sure, but so do most games at this point. It can scale down to run OK on lower machines, but again, so do most games at this point.

Benchmarking aside, I think it's beyond ridiculous that anyone would buy a $4,500+ PC for home / game use. What could possibly justify that? I have a year old system (quad core, 8800GT) that can literally play every game on the market at max settings... at 1920x1600! Oh, I guess with the singular exception of Crysis, which I haven't bothered with.

I wouldn't dream of spending that much cash on a game system. Think about it this way: You can buy this PC, -or- a used Audi. Or... a well-equipped gaming PC, a Sony XBR TV, a PS3, 360, AND Wii, and still have money left over for games.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205731)

Some people have [a lot of] disposable income and like to have new toys.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (2, Insightful)

Zordak (123132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206145)

Yes, but enough about Bill Gates. Some people have a lot of debt and like to have new toys.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (2, Funny)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206257)

I feel like your post make some sense, but I was warned not to rely on your post for any reason.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (3, Interesting)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205769)

I think it's funny that we're using Crysis as a benchmark, rather than an object-lesson in "what not to do in game development."

What are you talking about. Computer games have *always* been designed to have settings headroom so that they can take advantage of new hardware. Crysis is normal, not some wacky exception.

I have a year old system (quad core, 8800GT) that can literally play every game on the market at max settings... at 1920x1600!

That's bullshit. FarCry 2, for example, also wouldn't run on max on that rig. And that's good. It means that game graphics haven't stagnated. It means that games can look better, and all you need to do is upgrade to see them. Just like it's been for the past 15 years.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205823)

I actually like the approach that Crytek took. Sure, Crysis maxed out is hard to achieve (at the moment) but what is the alternative? A game that does less but can run on high or near-high settings on PC, PS3, Xbox2. A game that doesn't have nearly as many effects as Crysis. Crytek took the approach of pushing technology to its limits. And even then it's not all that hard to get Crysis to run on high settings. It would certainly not cost $4,500. Gimme more games like Crysis instead of game engines designed to run "maxed out" on current hardware.

Well put... (0, Troll)

CaptnCrud (938493) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205887)

I agree completly with the parent, why in the name of ZUES`S BUTHOLE would/could you justify paying that much cash for a gaming machine....

Re:Well put... (3, Funny)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26205993)

You're missing the point. Maxis is releasing SimEarth soon, which will model weather systems tracking each individual water molecule; geological processes and modeling of the seismic activity including the role every soil particle assumes; the wind velocities inside a tornado; real-time fluid dynamics; life; accurate supernova recreations/simulations; and a whole lot more.

Re:Well put... (3, Funny)

GXTi (635121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206625)

I heard it will also simulate the LHC, which makes you wonder why CERN wasted untold billions building the damn thing in the first place.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (1)

east coast (590680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206077)

That's the market and who are you to say?

Dell is building this thing for gamers. Who else do you think the target market is?

And not to be rude but if someone can afford to buy this rig and still have enough money to ride the bus who are you to question it? It's not like they're molesting children or kicking puppies.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't pay a dollar for an extra frame a second out of any game that I play but at the same time I normally pay many times the normal going rate for a set of headphones. We each have our thing that we're into. It's ok, it doesn't hurt anyone. Live and let live, brother.

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (1)

mad_cat_elite (1058276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206745)

Built for gamers, bought by old people who think the more money something is, the less that will go wrong with it (and boy are they mad when they have to call into tech support).

Re:$4,700 later, you can play a $40, year-old game (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206463)

I think it's beyond ridiculous that anyone would buy a $4,500+ PC for home / game use.

My dad, approaching 65 years young, purchased a Dell gaming rig recently for over $3K. He showed me the specs and I was surprised to find that I could have built a similar machine for at most half the price (sans warranty and support of course). But building a machine isn't hard, but it's got some nuances (power supply pins for one) and if you don't want to attempt it, you'll buy one pre-built. And who will you go to? The company you've heard of, or maybe even bought from before.

4k base and only 6gb of RAM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26205707)

I just can't believe that for their top of the line system, XPS 730x H2C, that you can only get it with 6GB of RAM--if you are going to spend minimum of 4k on a machine and have the assumption that you will get all the bells and whistles no hold backs, why would you short change yourself at 6GB of RAM instead of 12GB?

Re:4k base and only 6gb of RAM? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206085)

Agreed. Especially since RAM is so much cheaper now. I know the chip is expensive, and the graphics card, but $4500 is a lot of money to get 6GB RAM with, and a 7200rpm hard drive...

Re:4k base and only 6gb of RAM? (2, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206555)

Because no games out right now use 6 Gb of RAM. However, plenty of games are still limited by CPU and GPU power.

Mobo? (1)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206235)

What about the mobo? What is it?

Supporting both CrossFire and SLI is interesting, most interesting is X58 chipset being Intel's ... and it gets SLI?

Intel's chipsets are faster than Nvidias, partially thereof, Nvidia won't license Intel the SLI technology to make it work on their chipsets. On the other note then again, some Nvidia chipset (MOST OF THEM infact) refuse to work at all, or almost completely on them (Core Quad Extremes 9600-9770), even on the latest chipset.

I'm running a Q9660 UNDERclocked to 2.4Ghz to make it stable on a Nforce 680i SLI mobo, 780i SLI mobo was actually WORSE than a 680i SLI mobo.

Regular Quads, and dual core 45nm works fine, but not the very top end, and the word around is it's because Intel won't release the microcodes or something along those lines. More curiously even, the engineering samples worked flawlessly on these mobos, therefore marketing that it would work, and general assumption that they do work. However, 3 mobos and 2 CPUs later, still no stability.

In a recession (1)

wshwe (687657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206349)

In a recession few people care about a PC that starts at $1,800 and tops out at $4,400.

Buy low, sell high (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206727)

In a recession few people care about a PC that starts at $1,800 and tops out at $4,400.

There are winners and losers in every turn of the market.

In the 1930s folks went to the movies - an evening out for 25 cents - or stayed home and listened to the radio.

Those quarters added up quickly.

So did the return on every pack of cigarettes or bar of soap sold through "our sponsor tonight, your neighborhood Rexall drugstore."

?Booting games (1)

uassholes (1179143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206413)

I asked once before without any luck. Not being a gamer, I'm very surprised about something. It seems obvious to me that when performance is the measure of satisfaction, a game should boot on the bare metal, instead of running on top of an OS. Especially a pig of an OS that robs you of a good percentage of the hardware you paid dearly for. Maybe you want something else from the OS at the same time? What if the game company built in email, IM, or etc.; would you still need Windows?

Re:?Booting games (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26206523)

How would you handle hardware support that way? It would have to go back like the days of the DOS game, where a game only supported a finite subset of hardware, and everything else had to run on the CPU...it was possible back then, with games being minimalistic, but now?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...