One more from me (it hurts, I know)
Google won't give ♥♥♥♥
But if it could load in 15 wouldn't it be cooler?!
Which things pls .
Ehm I'm not the only one exaggerating and I didn't exagggerate actually - it is possible with ease.
CPU after time is hardly upgradable because 1) it's cheaper to buy a new pc 2)new sockets appear.

If Crysis runs at high and with max AA on that GFX card of yours I'd say someone has hacked the matrix.

I thought about it, but it's not worth having a technical argument with someone who's making ♥♥♥♥ up.
@OP: Computer is awesome, has yet to give me any trouble, but if you use Linux you're gonna have a ♥♥♥♥♥ of a time getting it to work. I had to jump through hoops with PCLOS.

I'm NOT making stuff up -__-
Maybe I'm wrong at something but it's not made up.
Linux is time spending by definition. But the 1337ness you gain is imeasurable. Anyway, for a gamer Linux is not the weapon of choice...

Haha, it takes a bit of work but a lot of stuff works in Linux.

OP if you listen to someone who uses "1337ness", "^_^", "-__-", and other stupid smilies over Ophanim then there must be something wrong with your thought process.

I'd say go with Ophanim's build.


And to LayZ, Linux doesn't give you any "1337ness". It gives you a reason to waste your time when you could be doing other stuff.

Everything can be run on linux, the only question is how much time it'll take.
Linux is for people who like challenges

If you consider one who uses smilies an idiot then it's sad.

You kinda seem douche.
Or I am really far less advanced than you. *lol*

HEY GUYS.

HOW ABOUT WE SHUT UP NOW.

My christ.

I am very close to slapping all three of you with a board warning.

Would it kill you elitist ♥♥♥holes to just answer a question once in a while, WITHOUT bringing your personal preferences into everything?

Christ.

This may sounds strange, but I'm under 15, and I've built a total of 3 computers, 1 of which had $1.5K in parts. It's REALLY easy, the first time is just a little nerve-racking because your afraid you'll do something utterly stupid. Really, you should build your own computer, it saves money, atleast in the long run. If you build the computer yourself, you can easily repair, and upgrade it, instead of getting a whole new computer.

I concur.

Learning the inner workings of a computer, much like learning the inner workings of a vehicle, will save a person a phenomenal amount of money.

I got paid 50 bucks the other day to fix somebody's internet. Granted it took a while, half of the time I was there it was spent socializing. (I didn't charge by the hour or anything, just a flat 50$ fee.) All I had to do was set the computer's IP to automatic (It was set to 192.168.0.1, and there was no router.. Weird.) and access the internet through windows Explorer/ftp because their browser froze upon startup.

$50 for me to go there, drink a can of their Pepsi, chat with them, change a setting or two and download firefox to bypass the mysterious IE issue that I still can't explain.



What I'm getting at is.. Specialist service = $$$$$. After building your first computer, you should realize that it's not as frightening as people say.. They just say it so they keep their high-paying specialist jobs. This is probably why I'm unemployed right now, I give away tricks of the trade. Also.. You feel a little closer to your computer knowing that you made it. My mouse and I have been best of buddies ever since I gave it open-heart surgery and installed a UV LED into it.

WINGING IT = BAD IDEA. Notice my suggestion to ask the comp shop guys to teach him.
Grif: ♥♥♥♥ off, not personal preference, merely dispelling misinformation.
LayZ: Linux is for people who like control over their machine. Not for people who like challenges. If you want a challenge, go attempt to build Compiz in Windows.

Oh, someone recommended to me to stick with Window XP as opposed to Vista. Would I want to do that?



Also, where could I take the list that would help me? Would Best Buy or Radioshack or somewhere mainstream, or would I want to look for a local computer shop?

Depends on what you want to do, really.

I haven't been following the high-demand-on-system games, because I can't afford them right now, but last I heard, XP won't be DX10 compatible, only vista.

IF this is still the case, and you want to play those fancy DX10 games, you're going to want Vista, but someone else should confirm or disprove my out-of-date knowledge.

I'm still on XP, myself, but I hear Vista isn't that much of a resource hog if you just disable all the superfluous features.

... That, or people just really like Vista for some reason.

You know, there are fixes and things to get DX10 on XP.

No, there aren't.

DX10 is designed from the ground up for the Vista system architecture.

There are no "fixes and things" to put DX10 on XP.

Anyways, Virus, you're correct; DX10 is Vista-only, and most new PC games are going to use it.

Also, if I am still not ill-informed, DX10 is designed to thrive on multi-core processors, whereas DX9 applications aren't as... I guess the best term would be 'compatible'. Not to say it doesn't work, but it doesn't use multi-core processors to the best of its potential.

If you end up getting something like a quad core processor, and if I am still correct, Vista would bring out the full potential of the cores.