freesafety13's forum posts
Yeah..... Al Davis, im sorry dude.Gippal56Al Davis>Mike Brown. Bengals win division and make playoffs in 90-91 season. Paul Brown dies after that season leaving Mike Brown to take over ALL football operations. Bengals go 14-50 over the next 4 seasons. Post the worst winning percentage of any franchise in any sport during the 90's. And have had only one winning season since 91. Down with Brown.
The Outlaw call was the correct one. If the player shoting the free throw enters the lane before the ball makes contact with either the rim or the backboard, its a lane violation. They got it right. Stop crying about calls and instead ask your Blazers to play some defense.There getting worse every year. I hate how they give all star players calls when there are rookies who wouldnt get the same call. Also they call fouls all the time when a player flops. If the player trips on his own foot the ref will calla foul on the other team. Im mostly complaining about the blazers-warriors game tonight. They called a lane violation on Outlaw after he shot the free throw then ran to the hope to early. Kobe or LeBron wouldnt have been called for that. Also at the end of the game warriors inbounded the ball and a warriors shoved off on Rudy Fernandez but they called a pushing foul on fernandez. If you see the replay you can clearly see Rudy's jersey being stretched out. So Rudy says maybe 5 words to the ref about he was the one shoved and guess what he gets a Technical foul. Im not calling this game fixed I just think the NBA needs a program where they go over the games and they grade the Refs.
Isnt the MLB doing a similiar thing on grading the umpires. I am just fed up with horrible calls an any sports but it seems like the NBA is effected the most.
-sharp-shooter-
i have 3gb of ram, so i think i am set with that. i was thinking of upgrading the CPU because when i did the test it went 1fps or 0fps, and on the windows vista expierence bar (blah, blah, blah) it said my graphics card was a 5.9 and my CPU was lagging behind with a 5.1 I have a AMD proccesor, but i hear people say that INTEL is the gaming choice, i don't know because i've only had AMD. if i upgrade i would go for a quad-core, so if anyone has any specific product that fits my needs (and maybe a matching power supply), it would be appreciated. czechgangster44Its not going to do any good to upgrade anything without first replacing your PSU. Your GPU, CPU alone draw at least 200watts. Like JReefer1 said, get at least a 500w PSU before doing anything else.
The whole point of utilizing a 64bit os is so your os will utilize that much ram. 32 bit os are limited by how much total memory it can utilize at any given time. That is why if you use 4gb with a 32bit os it will only recognize your total ram-video card memory. Theres an exact formula, but its been awhile since I got my A+ and I dont feel like looking it up and refreshing. A 64 bit os will recognize up to 8gb of ram, thus be able to utilize it fully.why isn't it worth it?
bkrawk
i'm running 32bit vista on 2gb ram so far and was planning to upgrade to 64bit and 4gb so i'm wondering what the big difference is with 2gb on x64
my tv is HD for a fact, and there is an HDMI oulet. But is the only way to get it to HD is through an HDMI cable? (or component)?aXidZboth will work equally as well up to 1080i. But HDMI will provide superior sound. And I stand corrected on tv's no supporting 1080p through component, it does appear that allot of Samsungs due in fact support it. It's been along time since I researched HD tv's.
I have this older AMD athlon 64 bit processor and i was wondering - is there any benefit if i use 64 bit Vista over 32 bit one?
I appreciate all you guys,but please answer only if you tried it or know some good benchmarks
Please dont sell me "vista sucks because my friend's friend told so"
Thx in advance
Lidve
Vista x64 by far. I've had Vista Ultimate x64 for about a year now and will never switch back to a 32 bit O.S. if I can help it. One word of advice though, dont go 64 unless you have 4gb of ram. It wont be worth it.
I read that you can only recieve the advantage of Blu-ray from 1080p. I have a 1080i tv. Can i still recieve the advantage or does it HAVE to be 1080p (processive scanning)?
Also, when i look at my tv settings, it says its "COLOR MATRIX" is set at SD and i cant change it to HD, but the tv is HD. First, what is color matrix, is it the whole SD/HD stuff and what makes it HD and all? Second, is the only possible way i can actually use the HD setting by an HDMI cable?
aXidZ
HD= 720p, 1080i, 1080p. 1080p is the best resolution you can get on a tv. Getting a blu-ray is still worth it on a 1080i tv, it looks way better than 480p (also known originally as progressive scan).
As far as the Color Matrix, my guess would be you have to be viewing an HD source in order for it to switch over to HD. Some tv's have built in softners to improve the picture when not viewing a HD source.
Lastly, component cables will support up to 1080p, however there are currently no tv's that can support 1080p through component. But they do 1080i, 720p just as well as HDMI. If you do get HDMI, I highly recommend getting a Rosewill v1.3 HDMI cable.
Log in to comment