rayzoredge

Haha... apparently when you say "trusted," people thought "not misguiding with information." Just going out on a limb, but I think Ash-Bash actually means a "trusted member," as in "more privileges."We already have our custom titles, our post counters, spam control, moderators, etc. Why throw out an "elite group" opportunity for a forum? To further separate members from each other? It's not like you actually get anything out of it other than maybe the gloating factor... because I'm not sure about you or anyone else, but I'll continue to look down on idiots, praise good members, applaud improvement, and treat people as they present themselves, not by a title. That works in real life, too... except I just bite my tongue when the douchebag is a superior with direct influence over my career. =)One thing I can add to Ash-Bash's suggestion, however, is maybe as a "trusted member," you'll be able to edit your posts or something small but useful to the user. The custom title was already a nice touch... and I like how people have Spam Control badges, which I'm sure is a form of trust to appreciate another person's judgment. Maybe if you report enough spam topics or plagiarism, you earn badges for Spam Control or COpyright Patrol... COP? =) Could be dumb, but if people are asking for statuses now... probably fits the bill with what Ash-Bash is asking for.I still liked the badge thing we had back in the day... anyone remember that? It was dumb, but at the same time, it was a warm fuzzy feeling to get pats on the back for good posts, which other members could see, and you could give good posters kudos as well as give one-liners and spammers negative feedback. Maybe we can bring that back but not have as many badges (like the WTF? badge... for absurd posting?).

I just wanted to point out also that this HDTV supports a number of file formats and audio and video codecs when playing off of an external USB hard drive connected to one of the two USB ports on it. However, watch out for movie files that have more than one audio track... I'm suspecting that it doesn't play nicely with the HDTV, since my copy of "Holes" doesn't play at all, resulting in frame-by-frame freezing and stoppage. (That particular file has a 2-channel audio track as well as a default 5.1 audio track.) That's what I suspect, anyway. Also, playing movies that have a 5.1 audio track in this way DOES result in 5.1 sound when the digital output is connected to a surround sound receiver. Strange why this works and not the HDMI...

I'm guessing that someone didn't even bother, thinking that it wouldn't be that big of a deal... or that person was "getting around to it." Text files? Do it right the first time and you won't suffer the bad PR that comes with a massive blow to security like this.Even though it was their fault in basically leaving the keys in the car, it goes to show how stupid people really are when it comes to passwords. You trade in security for convenience, and if you're protecting your financial information with these kind of passwords... well, you deserve to have your crap stolen from under your nose if you're that lazy.Good rule of thumb for passwords: letters, numbers, uppercase, lowercase, and symbols. Mix it up and you'll severely reduce your chances of an easy brute force hack. I'm a lazy guy by nature myself, but I still go by that philosophy, and it's relatively simple to stick to it while making it easy to remember.I used to use "ThisSucks11!!" for one of my work stations when I was stationed in Germany. It has two capital letters, the rest lowercase, two numbers, and two symbols to meet DOD standards for passwords, plus it was easy to remember because... well, my job sucked. See how easy that is and how much more of a force it is to be reckoned with compared to "123456?"You can do the same thing too to keep yourself safe. Use a phrase, or a name even. "Michael" can turn into "MichaelJames13!!" "Password" can be something easy as "Pa55word!!" which gives you the effectiveness of adding numbers and symbols to your password, and essentially, it's the same password.Of course, this is all useless if you're the kind of guy who loves to write your passwords down on a sticky-note and stick them to the sides of your monitor...

Yikes... I don't know about you, but from what I'm reading, "Celeron" is synonymous with "suck" in the CPU world. Take that 3.3GHz figure and knock it back to something like 2.6GHz and you'll have more of an idea as to its "effective" clock speed. The world has been changing, and a few years ago, I thought 2GB was all you needed for just about everything short of crazy AutoCAD renders, working with Abobe software, or any other RAM-intensive application. Nowadays, I occasionally bring my laptop with 4GB of RAM to its knees while trying to work with a sizable image file in Photoshop... which makes sense. Upgrade to 4GB of RAM. Then sit on that until I start saying that you'll need 8GB. (You shouldn't really ever need more than 8GB of RAM, though... I swear. And gaming doesn't make much of a difference between a machine equipped with 4GB of RAM compared to one equipped with 8GB... we're talking about single digits for frames-per-second here.)Bluedragon is right on your limitations for most games that are GPU-intensive. 3D games and especially fast first-person shooters can really take a toll on your graphics card, and it's depressing to know that an upgrade isn't exactly cheap. Your card, by initial glance, sounds pretty good relative to your set up, but if you're complaining about slow speeds during gaming, you might just want to look into upgrading to a whole new system. You can snag a pre-built system with a quad-core processor, 4GB of RAM, and a decent hard drive for sub-$600 prices nowadays, so I'd look into that and throw a good graphics card into it to get the best bang for your buck as easily as possible.But I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear, because like 95% of the people here on Xisto (including me), you too have a budget. It's easy for anyone to recommend the obvious: upgrade your hardware, defragment your hard drive, clean this, do that. However, sometimes we just have to do what we can and suck it up. This is what I have to say as far as not having to spend a dime:Defragmentation only improves your performance by a marginal amount. What it does is basically "organize" clusters of data with each other so that your hard drive doesn't have to seek the entire platter to put together some pieces to load something... it can just get all the data from one place on the platter and save you those microseconds. Yeah... not a huge difference, unless your hard drive is really, really badly fragmented. (I believe that NTFS helps with that though.)Cleaning out your registry with third-party tools can be good for your start-up time (since there's less entries for Windows to consider), but I don't know how much of a performance boost it would grant. To me, I don't think having a clean registry will help your overall performance after boot, but I could be wrong.Overclocking your CPU using software could be slightly beneficial, but if your GPU is holding things up, it won't help you that much in that case. Overclocking the GPU would help to an extent, but that's the longevity of your hardware that you're trading there.Making sure you have enough hard drive space for your page file will keep your computer from crashing. The page file usage only occurs when your system runs out of RAM to use at any given point in time, and using your hard drive space as RAM is quite possibly the slowest way to go... which is why everyone says to get more RAM. You won't need more than 4GB unless you run a lot of applications at once and multi-task.Limit your start-up programs to items you really need. Personally, I tell anti-virus auto-protection to take a hike, but leave the firewall up. (I use my AV program to scan manually when I know there may be a possible risk to running risky executables.) Anti-malware programs can take up quite a bit of CPU and RAM sometimes, especially if you allow background tasks.If you want, you can fine-tune your services that start up with Windows, although this will free up just a marginal amount of resources... so it's your call (again) to risk disabling a service that you may need. (Fortunately, you can just turn it back on if you accidentally disable your Internet or your ability to communicate with other computers on your network, etc.)Not sure what else you can do there... like I recommend, I'd upgrade to a whole new machine if and when you can.EDIT: I notice that the "edit" function comes and goes... this is the second time I've seen it.Anyway, SLI (Scalable Link Interface) is nVIDIA's technology that allows for you to use two like graphics cards in tandem to give you more GPU power, although it is hardly doubling your performance. At best, it can give you up to a 60% boost... which can make sense economically if you can just snag up another 9400GT for $60 if your graphics card is indeed the bottleneck in your set up for gaming, but you aren't exactly getting the best bang for your buck. Situation-dependent, really...

Apple's iPad (video) Not sure if QA let this one slip on purpose... but really, they had mocked the name years before and now they're actually naming it the iPad? Bigger iPod Touch... whoop-dee-doo. Yeah... I'll get right on that with its super-fast 1GHz CPU. What's the graphical potential on this thing? Gaming is going to be limited... kind of like how we compare the gaming potential of the Wii to the more powerful 360 and PS3. I guess those accelerometers will make it more fun though... I'll get to play my favorite iPod Touch games in full 1024x768 resolution (if I dock it...)! I do like the connectivity though... 3G capable of wireless anywhere, and unlocked to boot. I guess Steve Jobs learned from the massive failure that was the locked iPhone tethered to AT&T's yet-to-recover network... good to know that he's actually paying attention to consumers. The price point isn't too bad, either. You can spend $200 more from an iPod Touch 8GB 3G and snag this gadget... but in retrospect, you can spend $150 more than the iPad to actually get a functional computer that runs the latest games. (Talking about my laptop, of course.) Or you can spend less and be able to do all of what the iPad can do, albeit in a less "phat" package of a netbook or a mainstream laptop. Another thing I like about it is that you can watch up to "720p" movies (but it's limited to 640x480?!) with stereo sound. Problem is that I'm thinking this will be another gadget with potential... limited by iTunes. It, like the iPod Touch, only supports Apple's painful-to-work-with MOV files, but it does work with MP4. More container support (like the ubiquitous AVI and the superior MKV) would be nice, but we don't care about making this thing as useful as it can be, right? It's not bad, but it's nothing revolutionary. Apple was just slow on the ball... for good reason, to learn how the public responded to the Kindle, the Nook, netbooks, slate tablets, smartbooks, and the successes of the iPod Touch and the iPhone. Now everyone gets to spend the Apple tax to receive homage in the form of an iPad... or should we call it the iPod Touch XL?

It makes sense that you take out the CMOS battery to restore factory default settings... what do you have to lose? Your computer already doesn't boot. Hopefully your CMOS battery is only held by prongs and not actually soldered to the motherboard... for convenience sake.Make sure your CPU heat sink/cooler is mounted properly too. That now can be a contributor to your machine not booting up.You didn't elaborate on what happens either when you try to turn the machine on. Do you hit the power button and everything starts to run for a few seconds, then shuts off? What happens? (If you provide this sort of info, our more hardware-inclined geeks would be more able to help you out.)

Problem: MPC-HC plays video just fine, but every 10ish minutes or so, the audio track for any movie begins to chop/stutter like crazy until I stop playback, then resume it, in which the video plays and the audio is silent for a few seconds until it "catches up" with the timeline and plays normally.Set up: I have an Intel dual core 2.13GHz processor with 4GB of DDR2 RAM. I have MPC-HC installed with the K-Lite Mega Codec Pack. I've also installed CoreAVC 2.0 Pro with CUDA support, thinking that it was a CPU-intensive problem. (CoreAVC utilizes CUDA technology to put some of the video processing load onto the GPU instead of letting the CPU suffer on its lonesome.) I usually play movies encoded with H.264, XviD, and DivX for video and that have AC3 or DTS sound tracks, and they are in AVI, MKV, or MP4 containers. I thought that this was because my machine wasn't fully capable of playing HD movies, but the chopping also occurred during a standard definition movie (700ish x 300ish XviD/DivX, MP3) last night. I set up MPC-HC by blocking both ffdshow audio and video and preferring CoreAVC and AC3filter (3/2+SW with SPDIF on and DTS + MPEG + AC3 passthrough). I watch these movies by connecting them to my HDTV via HDMI cable for video and sound output goes through my SoundBlaster Live! 24-bit External USB sound processor (out of its optical output port) directly into the receiver for surround sound. I am running Windows 7 x64 Ultimate.Any ideas? CPU usage is occasionally high when I play HD content, but it's never maxed out at 100%. Playback is perfectly fine until it chops, and audio playback from a pause or stop or just starting the movie up results in a few seconds of silence before it plays normally again. Is it my settings with MPC-HC? Is it my settings with AC3Filter?

I was just reading about using a PS3 as a computer yesterday... George Hotz has done it again and hacked the final "next-gen" console. Basically, now we can pirate games and open up its potential by quite a bit now. Further reading suggests that it may be a less-than-fruitful endeavour to create a "super-computer" out of multiple PS3s, since the processor in it is a 8-cell microprocessor, with each cell dedicated to specific functions and tasks of the processor as a whole. Think of it as a multi-core CPU with each core doing something different. In my opinion, since I'm not in full understanding with what the PS3 can and cannot do, my best guess is that the PS3, putting multiples of it to single use, would yield more of a super-computer applicable to advanced mathematical computation and not so much beneficial on the home user front, since just about every piece of software out there wouldn't know what to do with a Cell processor and thus not use it to its full potential. (The Cell processor's SPEs are the reason why it is difficult for developers to create games that take advantage of the PS3's hardware, which is also probably why it has a limited gaming library in comparison to the other next-gen consoles. And I'm not including shovelware.) Basically, if you decide to create a super-computer in your home, it would only be beneficial to you if you had the software to take advantage of it. Aside from bragging rights, at the moment it would be as useful as a regular 3.2GHz, 256MB RAM computer running Linux... but that's more useful than a PS3 that can only play Blu-Ray titles and play PS3 games, right?

dfddf I try to be in-depth when I can... it can only help others who are looking for the same answers I was looking for. There is a difference with Blu-Ray vs. DVD. BR titles have a higher pixel count and are finer (720p, 1080p) than what DVD has to offer with 480p and 576p (correct me if I'm wrong?). It basically is less fuzzy with finer details and more vibrant colors. I can't understand how some people say that they can't tell a difference between the two, but it's only understandable if you're standing very far away. As you get closer to the television screen, especially at a normal viewing distance, you'll be able to discern the finer quality of high-definition video. Most people would benefit from upgrading to 720p since you would have to sit rather closely to your HDTV to notice the differences between 720p and 1080p, but videophiles will obviously be happier knowing they spent more money to get the best quality available. Also, keep in mind that if you blow up a DVD image to fit a finer resolution, it will look bad... kind of like resizing a 100x100 image to 400x400 and wrongfully expecting that it retains the same image quality. However, most DVD players nowadays can upscale DVD quality to fit a resolution larger than what would be optimal for 480p, so this statement is applicable up to an extent. Upgrading to HD in the financial perspective is probably what would be keeping people from taking that plunge. With the newer LCD LED HDTVs, a complete home theater system can run you around $2000 or more. However, with the drops in prices for LCD and plasma HDTVs, you can have a pretty decent (and complete) set up for sub-$1000 prices. I don't really know from experience what the difference is between 5.1 and 7.1 sound systems or if it's even worth the extra 2 channels. There aren't a heck of a lot of source materials that even support 7.1 surround sound, although most movie titles carry DTS sound tracks (in addition to Dolby Digital) to help you appreciate the extra two channels. There are arguments for the superior quality of DTS and how it is less compressed, giving you more sound quality, but it's arguable that you won't realize the difference in real-time for sound quality OR the extra two channels of sound. Then again, it's up for debate... unless you're an audiophile. Note that all these images are of different resolutions too, so try stretching the already-fuzzy XviD and DVD and 720p source images to fit a larger HDTV with finer resolution... while you compare it with the 1080p source image that fits right at home with a finer resolution to begin with, no resizing necessary.

The Terminator movies were, for the most part, great for sound. The first movie was a disappointment with no real use with the surround channels, although I can vouch for the 720p up-scaling. It felt like I was watching a DVD, but it wasn't bad.The rest of the Terminator quadrilogy was pretty darn good. Terminator 2 was a nice blast to the past, with booming gun fire, tinkles of broken glass, and whatnot. There was a lot of ambient sound during the chase scenes, but most of the action was really up front. Terminator 3 was surprisingly good, especially during .I liked bits and parts of 3:10 to Yuma too, but haven't fully watched it quite yet.What I'm starting to figure out with most movies is that although there might not be much with engaging action on-screen at any given moment in time, a lot of movies like to use the surrounds for theme or background music. Ambient sounds are rather soft too so sometimes it's hard to notice (especially with incorrect speaker placement), but that's how it's supposed to be. A lot of times, I forget that the surround sound is there and just watch the movie, but then I'm reminded with a well-placed sound effect from time to time to remind me that it's on and working.

First off, if you get so into a game that you throw your controllers around (because you forgot or it slipped), you might find some comfort in the fact that Nintendo reminds you to put the damn wrist strap on and to make sure that there's plenty of room around you. I don't know about you, but my kitchen, although it's a decent size, isn't a good playing place with the island in the way. Also, you're still going to swing that bat or bowl that ball the same way when comparing a fast motion to a whipping motion. I'm surprised there aren't more stories of kids beating each other up with the Wiimotes... but wait, Nintendo did warn us about ample playing area, right? The technology is Bluetooth... advertised ranges are probably 30 feet, but the real range is probably 6 feet. I know I had some input issues playing at the 6-foot line sitting on the couch, but the Wii isn't exactly always the gaming console that you play traditionally with little more than thumb and finger movement. You'd be making a rather dumb decision in omitting the Wii because you couldn't do something as simple as having playing room and wearing the wrist strap that prevents the "issues" that Wii owners have.Secondly, I got sucked into high definition because it IS better. I don't care whether it's Blu-Ray or it's the dead HD-DVD... high definition is high definition. Is it worth upgrading to? In my opinion, watching movies at home should incorporate a surround sound system and a high definition television because it actually makes watching movies even more fun. I like hearing bullets whiz "past" my head. I like explosions that I can feel (coming from the sub). I like being able to see texture on Optimus Prime's face when he falls in the forest scene (all shot with IMAX cameras). Even watching something like Tinkerbell and the Lost Treasure was gratifying, being able to feel like you can touch the animation. It's a crazy upgrade from watching DVDs, depending on what you watch. Is it worth spending money on? If you can appreciate all of what I just described, it's probably worth getting a PS3 to get the gaming console and the Blu-Ray... but I wouldn't make that decision if you can't appreciate the PS3 as a gaming console, since Blu-Ray players are getting less expensive.The 360 might seem like the winner here, then, if you don't go for HD, but you also have to look at what it has to offer and what YOU'RE going to use it for. As we've all pointed out, the 360 and the PS3 have their faults and their strengths. Decide what you're going to use a gaming console/entertainment center medium for and go from there.

Take a look at DocViewer too. You can use SSH to throw PDFs, MS documents, images, and whatnot so you can basically use your iPhone or iPod Touch as a read-only PDA. There's another one called Files, but I haven't used it yet so I can't really comment about it. Also, here seems like an excellent solution that allows you to create and edit in addition to MS document and PDF support... check it out.

I read that Intel leads the way with technology and being ubiquitous with just about every computer out there. It's like the case with Microsoft Windows against Linux: people know Intel, people buy Intel. Those that don't know any better probably don't even realize that they have an AMD processor in their computers when they buy them. AMD is slowly catching up on the tech side, but there seems to be more focus on keeping Intel from dominating the CPU market than there is in new research and development. It's crazy when I hear 6-core (sex-core? ) processors coming out of Intel with their working i7 line-up and the only thing that stands out from the crowd for me is the tri-core processors from AMD. It would make sense that AMD is better with an on-die cache on their processors, reducing lag time with communicating with the northbridge, but I think that Intel has the capital and the reputation to make deals with other companies to "optimize" and work with their technologies... and those companies tend to be a bit higher up in the food chain. Also, I'm not sure if there's more of a focus on developing ATI's graphical powerhouse or if the ATI portion of the company is just cranking out monsters like the HD 4870 that dominates the GPU floor, but if the focus is indeed moreso on graphics, it would kind of explain why the processor technology seems... a tad slow in coming. I don't think there's enough of a performance difference when measuring *BLEEP* for tat between Intel and AMD processors, but if you want the latest and greatest AND can pay for it, Intel is the way to go. However, AMD is still in the ball game with efficiency (IMO) and it would take quite a bit to dismiss it as an inferior product. EDIT: THE EDIT IS BACK! Anyway, the *BLEEP* is actually t-i-t. Not sure why that's censored if I'm not even using it in that context... not to mention that it is a valid word and not just slang.

I need to recall one of my quasi-reviews on WALL-E's sound performance.The reason why I said it wasn't that great as far as surround sound goes would most likely attribute to the fact that I probably wasn't sitting down and watching it. WALL-E deserves a spot in the Recommended list. Sitting down to watch the movie made me realize just how the surround sound was being used, and after being abused by titles like The Taking of Pelham 123, you tend to miss the nuances of sound that is the swirling of sand and dust in the beginning of WALL-E, or the fact that most of the music is played through the rear channels while the action is riding on the front speakers. There's a lot of ambience to be heard, and the funny thing is that you won't notice it... unless you disconnected your rear speakers. That's what surround sound is supposed to be: not knowing it's there until something actually happens "behind" you.

Update 01/20/2010:Concerning HD playback, the performance of playing x264 720p or 1080p with AC3 or DTS 6-channel audio was slightly frustrating. Playback was not exactly seamless with occasional stuttering and re-syncing of the audio track enough to distract you from the movie itself. (The video, however, played seamlessly.) Having done some research, I saw that this laptop barely meets the recommended requirements for full-blown 1080p playback, which was a discouragement straight from Microsoft. But I was determined, considering the fact that this laptop was not that far off from being a quasi-HTPC when I needed it to be.Some homework revealed that CoreAVC would be the best fit to play x264 content from the ton of MKVs and MP4s I've collected in the past couple of months that housed my many 720p and few 1080p movies. (DTS and AC-3 5.1 playback was already being handled by AC3Filter, which, after some fiddling, I got to work.) Since CoreAVC was able to handle passing on the load stressing the CPU to the GPU, I figured this would help with the audio track "skipping" and thus giving me a simple solution for seamless HD playback. I'm still in the middle of downloading an updated revision of drivers for the nVIDIA GeForce 9800M GS straight from nVIDIA for CUDA support, so I can't comment on whether CoreAVC really does help in this aspect. Evidently, however, CoreAVC by itself does not help with the stuttering of audio that has been driving me nuts when running just uTorrent in the background (which apparently takes up a lot of CPU cycles). (Even when running my usual Norton Internet Security Suite 2009, Logitech SetPoint, and a small handful of utilities in the background WITHOUT uTorrent, the performance still stutters.) Since I'm not too partial with having to shut everything down just to play a movie, I looked to another solution: overclocking.This leads to the whole "installation order" gig that I mentioned earlier with this particular Asus. I didn't find any problems, however, installing the Windows 7 x64 counterparts of the ATK drivers and utilities to get them all to work, to include Direct Console, the pain in the *bottom* for most owners of this Asus line-up. This is what I did, just for reference:- I uninstalled just ATK-related drivers and utilities and Direct Console, leaving the power management suite alone.- I reinstalled the Windows 7 x64 ATK drivers one by one with the exception of the ATK ACPI driver, which apparently doesn't have an x64 variant.- I then installed Direct Console, which worked like a charm, first-time go.Firing up Direct Console and putting the overclock setting to Turbo, I saw an immediate difference in the decrease on CPU load and a lessening in audio stutter, but it was still there... probably about half as frequent as it was. Turning up to Turbo Extreme did the trick, and I could watch and listen to my 1080p movie with Media Player Classic using CoreAVC (without CUDA) with uTorrent and Firefox running at the same time as well as my usual start-up programs. Getting to this point netted me about 200MHz or so of additional processing power, so you can probably say that HD playback requires a 2.3GHz dual core processor or better.Just for reference, I play all of my high-definition movies using Media Player Classic - Home Cinema and installations of the latest K-Lite Mega Codec Pack and CoreAVC. During the K-Lite installation, make sure that you prefer AC3Filter over any other codecs, and set it up correctly to match your sound setup. Before playback, set up MPC-HC to utilize your External Filters (by adding AC3Filter and CoreAVC and setting their priorities to Prefer).I also took a look at undervolting but using RMClock 2.35 (with a patched 64-bit file that works in Vista x64 and 7 x64) suggested that I was already running this thing near the lowest voltage it could go. I'm not sure if I'm just not understanding what I'm looking at, but it seems that this laptop is already good to go after having installed RMClock and the Asus power management software.If anyone has questions, let me know and I can try to answer them in the best way I can.

Here are some more good apps to look at and consider: Games I've Tried Archers - very much like the Bowman flash game Paper Toss - stupid game, addicting and challenging Crayon Physics - loved it on my tablet PC and love it here... draw objects with your finger to get a ball to the star Flight Control - swipe and guide planes and helicopters to land at the airport... without crashing Frogger - the classic Hangman Pro - another classic with different word modes Military Sniper - not great with graphics, but not bad for gameplay OMG! Pirates - fun... and you play as a ninja; what's not to like? Para Panic - very fun and very well done: keep your jumpers from dying and land them on boats Finger Physics - use real-time physics and pre-made objects to build upwards... kind of like Topple Waldo - classic Cooking Mama - a surprisingly-fun game that's been out for a while but I found to be delightfully-implemented for the Touch Traffic Rush - +1 to Lauren's recommendation Games You May Consider (I haven't tried these yet) Utility Background Checker - outdated database, but it's neat to know that you can try to check up on your daughter's latest boyfriend Utility Apps I Haven't Tried Yet Splash Notes Splash Photo

Look at what you're going to use it for: limited to no online gaming or related features, first person shooters, and action games. Ask yourself this: Do you want the ability of Blu-Ray playback (PS3)? Are you going to upgrade or have an HDTV (PS3)? Are aesthetics a concern (PS3)? What about exclusive titles to both consoles (like the Halo line-up, Resistance 1 + 2, Uncharted 1 + 2, Killzone 2, etc.)? Will you want to play older games (360, Wii)? What's your budget like? (Figure out the final cost of the console, extra controllers, accessories, and whatnot ahead of time.) The 360 is primarily available in the Elite and Arcade versions, but to save on cash, see if you can find a newer Pro Premium variant with an updated motherboard (if for some reason they offer them, or go online). Otherwise, go for the Elite. The newer releases are not as prone, if even, to the infamous Red Ring of Death since it was a hardware failure/heat issue with the original consoles. Plus, you'll have a warranty to back your console up in the case it does "see" red. (Yeah, it's two weeks without your console, but if you can't survive that, you might have some issues... or are very dependent on it.) The PS3 Slim is at a really, really good selling point now for a Blu-Ray player and gaming console in one for $300. If you're looking for Blu-Ray, this would be a way to go. Both consoles are relatively similar in performance, with the Xbox 360 slightly better than the PS3 (surprisingly enough) in GPU power, but not enough for you to be able to notice without scrutiny. Since you don't care for online features, it's a toss-up between these two for action and first-person shooter play. The Wii is a great console and is at a very good price point, but it may not meet your expectations, depending on what your tastes are like. (The only first-person shooters I can think of right now for the Wii are Call of Duty, The Conduit, and Resident Evil 4.) XBOX-360-PS2 for more repetitive goodness by none other than the guy who loves to repeat himself on this topic. Also, as far as online goes... even though the PSN is free, you get what you pay for: nothing spectacular for nothing. Apparently, people are happy paying $50 a year for a multitude of online features for XBL. It depends on what you are going to use it for, and how well it implements its own features into the games that support online content and multiplayer. As for the Wii (for those other than mahesh2k), don't take it completely out of the list because of some bashing here and there. The Wii seemed to be a novelty and just another toy in the house. It works perfectly fine as a budget-friendly, 480p gaming console... and strictly as a gaming console. Look any further than that and of course it pales in comparison with the entertainment center capabilities of the 360 and the PS3. (It's like comparing a Honda Civic to a Ford Mustang. That's just stupid.) I wish I didn't have to sell the Wii, but since the kids weren't old enough to really enjoy it, the 360 was the quasi-HTPC, and that I needed cash to fend off the bill monster, I had to let it go. Give it a try with some good titles (and not the shovelware that's out there) and you'll see that the Wii is worth its price point for good fun and gameplay if you can look past what it's not.

@Baniboy: Right... that was something I failed to point out, but was an obvious factor. That's why I have the argument against things like chick flicks and, of course, stand-up comedy on Blu-Ray. Sure, some stand-up comedians have visuals, but do I really need to hear the audience in the background through my surrounds, or be able to see every pore on George Carlin's face? That seems like an obvious observation, but maybe I'm wrong? Maybe it "feels" like you're at the stand-up when you hear people talking and laughing next to you?And movies like P.S. I Love You... or any chick flick, rather. Maybe some girls will go ga-ga when Gerrard Butler takes his shirt off and you can see his 300-pack in high-def, but is it really worth it? (Girls that have an obsession with the man need not apply.) What about surround sound in chick flicks? Apart from the occasional rain scene where I can see sound being enhanced... maybe a romantic scene on the beach... who knows? I don't... which is why I'm asking for a different point of view.Maybe it's worth being kissed from just the left channels of my sound system.

So I'm working to justify the $2300 price tag of my new home theater set up, and aside from being blown away by the simple video quality of 720p as well as 1080p, I had to figure out if surround sound was as exciting as it's been toted to be. From what I've seen so far, I'm going to have to say that it's worth going for. I know that it's hard to find movie titles that actually put your system to the test, so I'm compiling my own list here. Below are movies that I've re-watched in 720p/1080p with 5.1 surround sound... and my recommendations as a normal viewer: - Outstanding for Sound: Black Hawk Down - Gunfire is king when it comes to testing your surround sound. Hearing bullets whiz by your head, the dull roar of hovering helicopters, the buzzing sound of the Vulcan cannon, ricochets... Black Hawk Down definitely is a must-have title if you want to throw yourself into the midst of Somalia with the Rangers. Cast Away - Most notably would be the ambient atmosphere of the island that Tom Hanks finds himself deserted on, which is a nice touch when you inadvertently find yourself on the beach. You can hear the quiet splashes of the water as the ocean licks at the sand, hear the driving rain fall when the storm hits the island, and feel yourself on that plane when it goes down into the ocean, din and drowning sounds alike to give you the disorienting feeling of falling from the sky. [Not exactly a spoiler there... hence the name of the movie.] Very nicely done. Gladiator - Obviously, the first battlefield scene was outstanding. Arrows piercing the sky, the roar of the fiery catapults, the din of war with the Germanian natives... then to the dull roar of the Colosseum. This movie was great to begin with, and the sounds of war make it greater still. Heat - Yeah, it's an older movie, but they still did the city heist gunfight pretty well. You can hear the echo of gunshots from the buildings around you as Val Kilmer and Robert deNiro make their way through the streets. Iron Man - "Yes, it's very cool." Explosions, gunfire, and just flying with Robert Downey Jr. makes Iron Man a pretty darn good movie to watch and experience with a surround sound system. Swordfish - To be honest, I've only seen the first 8 minutes or so of the movie... and it will be an eager wait to see this movie in its entirety. In the very beginning where The Dark Knight - Probably one of my favorite movies, thanks to Heath Ledger's excellent performance as a darker, much more psychotic Joker. You will hear the roar of the Batmobile as clear as day and feel the impact of every hit and strike by the Dark Knight as he goes toe-to-toe with the mob's cronies in the beginning of the movie. The chase scenes are done very well, and you can almost "feel" the . I recommend you snag the IMAX version as well if you have a larger HDTV... the visual quality of being able to see Gotham City in its glory makes it worth whatever extra you pay over the regular theatrical version. The Taking of Pelham 123 - We actually just watched this last night and if The Taking of Pelham 123 didn't utilize your sound system at all, you've got it set up incorrectly. It was almost to the point of abuse of my sound system with the ambient sounds of the subway, the roaring of the trains and the screeches of them stopping. Good movie too, to boot. Transformers and Transformers 2: Return of the Fallen: The sequel to the first may have been a ruined movie thanks to the robot twins and some retarded characters, but the surround sound is nothing to balk at. Something as simple as transformation makes for a sweet treat for the ears as Autobots and Decepticons battle it out with typical J.J. Abrams galore. The IMAX version of ROTF is a nice visual treat too with the forest scene, as you can see with . C'mon... its giant robots, battling for the fate of the Earth. What's not to like? Not as Great for Sound: Eraser - Definitely NOT the movie you want to show off your surround sound with. Most of the sound came out of the front channels... the only time I noticed anything from my surrounds was when Arnold Schwartzenegger was with James Caan to "rescue" his client and I heard a dog bark out of the rear left and hearing some of the terrorists walking upstairs (during the same scene). Other than that, nada. Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - During Aki's dreams of the battlefield, the roar of engines in space [yes, I know... scientifically-incorrect], and some things here and there, it makes good use of your system, but not as much as one would hope. Maybe I just couldn't hear it, or maybe the movie is actually a bit weaker in the sound department than what I would have liked. Still a good movie, though... and wonderful CG. The Mask of Zorro - I have no idea when my sound system kicked in to give any indication that it was working during this movie. Maybe it was the part when , but then again, maybe I wasn't paying attention. Or deaf. Or maybe this movie just doesn't have a lot of sound to give. WALL-E - Strangely enough, as much as I love WALL-E, I didn't hear a lot. I expected to feel IN the dust storms, to hear robots whizzing by, to be in the general hustle-and-bustle of the Axiom, to listen to EVE's laser cannon shoot from the left side of the screen to the right when "she" shot at WALL-E, to be deafened by the roar of the engine of the spaceship carrying EVE to Earth... maybe I'm mistaken? - I intend to evaluate more movies in the future to help others identify flukes and diamonds in the rough. Some titles I'm going to be watching, hopefully sooner than later, include: I'll give more of a review as far as sound quality goes as I get to them.

Since I can't EDIT my previous post... My last balance was 113.20 [READY] before I posted the previous post above. It is now at 210.80 [READY] AFTER having cashed to $1, leaving me with a previous working balance of 13.20. This gives me $1.976 in myCents for 1516 words, killing WaterMonkey's theory of only being able to earn $1 max per post (unless I misinterpreted what you wrote... no disrespect). Therefore, wherever I am in the current scheme of things relating to being curtailed for earnings for being at 1030 posts, my earning rate is $0.07672 per word. Your mileage may vary. For those of you that are still myCents-greedy, I advise that you turn your focus to quality posting and just let the myCents flow however it wants to. As much as I hate using that phrase, it apparently doesn't get through to a lot of new members AND regulars.

Simply addressing the concerns with Xisto, and not actually to WaterMonkey: 1.) I did the math at one point but forgot what it came out to. I think it was a couple of cents per word, but I didn't know that we were curtailed after a certain post count. Since it's not to be shared, I'm sure that the secret formula comes out to something like: (myCents rate)*(multiplier, dependent on post count) or $0.02 per word * 1.0 if post count is less than 500 $0.02 per word * 0.9 if post count is less than 750 $0.02 per word * 0.8 if post count is less than 1000 $0.02 per word * 0.75 if post count is less than 2000 It could very well be a more complicated formula, and my given rate is probably pretty high, but hell, that above would make sense to me. Knowing this, it would behoove any new member to understand the system before going out and posting a ton of hackneyed, crappy one-liners as they would just be building their post count and lose out on fuller potential earnings. I found an older post of mine where I said that my average earnings per post comes out to be about $0.16. (Not sure how accurate that is, since this also includes posts I made before myCents was implemented.) Given the moderate posting that I do, you could take that as an example and see to it how it should be done to earn $0.16 a post... or take it with a grain of salt and go for quality, as it always was the case. I think that we should be given somewhat more of an official idea as to how the myCents scheme works. It will raise fewer questions and if someone would like to do an ongoing calculation of what their myCents earnings are to show how the system works, that would be grand. Looking at my myCent count now, I have 85.70. It was somewhere around 35.10 before I posted something in a game thread (Plants vs. Zombies), and before that, I posted something in my home theater question thread. (I'm not sure if I opened the thread that I gauged my myCent count before or after I posted in my home theater thread.) If you only count what I typed in my Plants vs. Zombies post, I had, according to M$ Word, 243 words. Doing that math, I get: (113.20 - 35.10) / 243 = $0.32139... per word That seems a bit too generous, so I'm going to assume it also included what I wrote in my home theater thread and this other thread I posted in earlier today, which had 163 and 211 words, respectively: (113.20 - 35.10) / (243+163+211) = $0.12658... per word That's three posts today. The math seems right, and the system seems pretty generous per word, considering that I have a post count of 1029, not counting this one. I will check and post the math I get with this post alone, now that I know that my myCent count is at 113.20. - 2.) Where is there ever a place online that you actually owned your content out-right? Maybe there is, but if it's free, it's obvious that the company you're dealing with will want to profit from what you contribute. No one does anything for free. You may not pay any money to utilize Google's search engine, but Google will take your search terms and use them to generate statistics, figure out what people are actively searching for in a period of time, and turn it around for profit. Facebook is free to join, but it will take all of your statuses, look for key phrases and key words, and use them to target your interests so that you will buy things from ads catered to you and earn money from those advertisers by offering the service to advertise towards potential customers that are actually INTERESTED in what you're about to advertise instead of throwing out leaflets to a mob of the masses. Here, it seems that Xisto is going to take what you post and make something of it... eventually or now. (It's the same with every other social network or anyone, really, who can use your information to turn a profit somewhere, somehow.) It's the nature of the beast. And knowing that, I still continue to post my crap online. Why? Because I don't know any better. Prime example: A buddy of mine goes out to Picture People and gets an awesome professional photo set of his family. He pays $XX or so for so many wallets, 5x7" pictures, etc. It's his picture, isn't it? Shouldn't he be able to go out and do whatever he wants with it? Fast-forward. My buddy goes to Walmart to get duplicates of the 5x7", because Uncle Joe Snuffy wants a copy to put on his nightstand. He finds out he can't because he doesn't own the rights to the photo, and thus would have to ask Picture People to get duplicates... at their exorbitant rates. Because he originally signed an agreement saying that the photos themselves were properties of Picture People. He physically had the 5x7" in his hand, but he only has the right to "use" that photo on that medium. Kind of like PC games and piracy. When you go out to buy Spore by EA Games, you're not actually buying the game. You're buying the rights to use that game. You might have the disc in hand and have paid for the medium, but the game still belongs to EA Games. Not you. That's why they can keep you from playing the game because they think you pirated it by installing it more than three times. In the case of Xisto, when you hit that Submit button, you're done. You've sent content to Xisto that becomes the property of Xisto. It is Opaque's now for him to use in any which way, shape, or form. And you willingfully did this because you, like most people, skimmed the Terms and Conditions (or didn't even read them), registered, and then fervently started posting to earn myCents. Take all of that pertinent to Xisto for what it is. I haven't read the Terms and Conditions. I don't know what Opaque will do with this post or any of the posts that I write up here at Xisto. But I don't really care too much... yet. Because this is a forum that I can share my thoughts and give my two cents... for "free." Opaque isn't getting anything from us posting mindless banter here. He does, however, get what everyone out there is out to get: information, whether it is in the form of numbers or actual intelligent contributions to this forum. And he has the right to, since he made this whole gig up. Information is money. If you don't want your ideas stolen, used, or copied (which makes me laugh every time I see the IDEAS AND INNOVATIONS category), don't post them. If you don't want private information shared, don't post it. This goes for everything you do on the Internet. And yet we still whine and complain about privacy... and still, by our own hands, submit so much personal information to complete strangers on the web. Crazy, eh? - 3.) At first, I thought it was dumb. But TrueFusion has a point with awkward threads, as I've run into a lot of those online where you will see a lot of responses to... wait, who are they responding to? Posts disappear because they become edited, the member is banned, the member quits, or whatnot, and it makes for some strange moments as well as loss of potentially valuable information that people could use. (See above.) Not just in that manner, however... what if someone posts the cure for cancer, and then a doctor tries to access the thread, only to find out that the information is lost forever since the member was banned for some dumb reason? See what I mean? At the same time, not being able to edit your own posts can be quite absurd in the sense where I can't fix a typo, or just add to a topic that I've already posted in, or whatnot. You're going to see a lot of threads being bumped by me when this happens... and frankly, it happens quite a bit with me. - @WaterMonkey: I don't know you personally, but just by judging what you have to share, I like what you have to contribute. You have some sound arguments, however lost in translation at times (evidently), and I don't think you've posted anything pointless or retarded that I've read yet. I hope you stick around and stay one of those names that I automatically approve as a "quality poster" (corny, I know), because, so far, I'm always willing to lend an "ear" to what you have to say here. That goes for a select handful of you as well... you can probably tell who you are.

+1 Awesome game. It's one of those quirky games that you take a glance, belittle it a little, try it out, then get hooked onto how good the game actually is. It starts out pretty simple and laid back, allowing you to begin familiarizing your "battlefield" that is your back yard which makes evident that the zombies, for some reason, only attack from the back. You collect sun power that rain down in the form of... well, suns, as well as the suns produced by your sunflowers that you plant. The whole battlefield is set up like a grid, with lanes that the zombies wander straight through. You place Peashooters and any other offensive plants that throw, shoot, or blow things at the zombies to incapacitate them as well as slow their progress down, and you also have to your disposal special plants, like the Cherry Bomb mentioned above (that destroys all zombies instantly in a small area) or the jalepeno (which destroys all zombies in one lane). And if you screw up and a zombie gets by your defenses, a one-time lawnmower will mow down any zombies in that lane you left derelict for you... but only one time. It's a lot of repetitive game play, but it's mixed up with additional mini-game types that you can access outside of the main game. Definitely recommended. Watch some game play videos to get a feel for what you're about to get hooked onto...

Thanks for replying, but apparently you didn't read the part in my thread where I said "my HDTV." I actually own a high-definition television and would like some opinions/answers on the questions that I asked, such as what is worth getting on Blu-Ray, not whether Blu-Ray was worth getting. Your arguments for DVDs and BRDs are valid; however, they don't help me in this case here. - Through some more research and some sampling here and there, I deem that cartoons are definitely not worth getting on Blu-Ray UNLESS you can appreciate the finer, sharper details of what's drawn. An example of Sleeping Beauty, first DVD, then BRD: Source Obviously, you can tell the difference. However, is it worth ponying up the extra dough for less-blurry lines and more definitive and vivid colors? In my opinion, I think not, but it's your money. The question to whether to get cartoons in BR for me is answered, but my chick flick question still stands.

Try these: "Hey, how's it going?" "Hi! Name's [your name]. What's yours?" You don't need anything clever or crazy to introduce yourself. Best part about these lines is that you don't need to memorize them, therefore keeping you from tripping up and looking like a fool. That is, unless you have a bad habit of stammering and stuttering... which could also be something that girls find cute. If they're interested, they'll listen and talk to you. Get to know them and LISTEN to what they say. Be part of an engaging conversation. LEARN who they are and if that person is someone that you would like to spend time with, doing anything from going to the carnival to watching movies to doing something that you may consider lame but he/she finds exciting. If all you want is to get into someone's pants, you deserve to be shot down... with no quarter. If you get shot down, it probably wasn't meant to be and you'd be saving yourself a ton of hassle by not pursuing someone who has no interest in you. Sometimes being persistent works, but more than most, you'd be setting yourself up for more hurt than anything positive. Also, keep in mind that there are diamonds in the rough.

So of course, I did some research on my own for routers, which is good since I didn't exactly get much timely feedback here... It seems like people either love or hate every router they buy. I was going to go with the Belkin N+ but apparently it drops connections... or works perfectly. The Belkin F5D8233 looks good and is cheap, but some complaints and no professional reviews.The Netgear WNR2000 sounds promising but has no antennas... and most routers without external antennas received complaints of poor range (which, to me, seems relative to the absence of an external antenna) . I've been reading some unanimous positive reviews with the Linksys WRT54G combined with DD-WRT firmware... would this be the way to go?