[F@H SPAM 23MAY10Su] MY E-PEEN IS BIGGER THAN YOURS!

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 7th, 2010, 01:05 AM

....and SPAM again to bring us onto a new page.......

**nemowolf** · July 7th, 2010, 12:57 PM

in case anyone noticed, my folder is offline until further notice. I had to move out of my apartment due to family issues and had to move in with my gf unexpectedly. We are working out how to incorporate me into the living situation and i have had little to no downtime to actually spend working on moving anything but the essentials over. Go Go Good team.

Cheers! Happy halfway mark through the year.

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 8th, 2010, 04:19 AM

xkcd: Porn For Women

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 8th, 2010, 04:23 AM

xkcd: Furtive

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 8th, 2010, 05:22 AM

xkcd: Computer Problems

**ShyguyXPC** · July 8th, 2010, 05:51 AM

Hows this for Ironic Humor?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a1...SHITTINGME.jpg

Internet connection at the time, I could access Google from FF, IE and safari, as well as Chrome when it first loads up, but doing a search for Google, Chrome loads up Google.com in a Bing search for some stupid ass reason (why Bing, Why not google search you morons?), when you type in Google in the address/url bar...

basically try this on a new install of chrome.

open up chrome, you get main google web page, type in google in URL/address box, and it comes up with a BING search instead?

I'm assuming this is because I have Bing set for IE, and it imported all of IE's settings upon install, but still you'd think they would eliminate that option for in favor of their search engine, or at least ask if you would like to switch to Google over Bing, when installing Chrome?

seriously, if their going to copy over everything from IE, why even offer the browser...

granted it runs better, but still.

anyways, I just found it a bit asinine and stupid, let alone humorous that Google Chrome, Could not Find Google in its own search via a Bing search none the less.

Especially the Message displayed, as well as the links below the message box, "Why am I seeing this Page?" yes, I would like to know, Why am I seeing this stupid page LOL?

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 8th, 2010, 06:50 AM

LAWL...!

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 8th, 2010, 03:49 PM

Anyway, in case there's anyone interested, the pics (from this year) are all uploaded and linked...

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 11th, 2010, 10:30 AM

Wow... Almost three days without any posts in here - it'd even managed to drop off of the list when I looked at my subs page; though that's got more to do with my BlackBerry only loading up that page enough to list the three or four latest threads with responses...

Watching WSB at the moment, then should be sorted to watch the footie final tonight... I'm not too bothered which way it goes, as I like both countries, but I think I'd rather Holland to win..

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 11th, 2010, 06:19 PM

SPAM....

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 11th, 2010, 07:11 PM

Well, seems that my (marginal) preference didn't work out as the winners, but there we a number of errors by the [English] ref, and things could have been different if the Dutch had a corner after two touches by Spanish players, and the goal for Spain could've been ruled out (haven't seen the reason, and didn't see anything wrong - other than a possible offside, which I was wrong about on the replay) but overall it could've been considerably different to that considering that the Netherlands could have been down to less than 10 by half time......... I almost wish our hols had been starting a fortnight later, and not just as the weather here has been pretty reasonable for the last twenty days, but to see how the island of Mallorca would take the Spanish win, and whether any places were giving out free drinks - in celebration, rather than just to try to pull in punters......

**Nude_Lewd_Man** · July 12th, 2010, 12:42 AM

Is this thing on....???!!?!??

**ShyguyXPC** · July 12th, 2010, 04:17 AM

Fucking TWIT!!!

should know better than to be giving advice with all of their problems they've had over the years...

just fucking pisses me off to see such erroneous and dim witted, fucking advice like that...

Just want to bitch slap them upside the head a few dozen time in person for being so stupid...

oh, in case your wondering, our resident bone head, Anonymous7 decided to put their 2 cents worth in on a thread tonight.

Graphics Card or RAM Increasing?

yeah, I blew a gasket, but with the lame ass stupid freaking asinine, so on and so forth, comments, can anyone blame me?

yeah sometimes I give the wrong advice, but usually its only slightly off, not LIGHT YEARS off like his comments.

Hey did you know that if your running a shitty Pentium 4 2GHz single core CPU, and a mid range video card, and a whopping 16GB of RAM (64-bit OS) you can run some games at max settings no problem, but if you run a Intel 6 core i7 with 2GB of RAM, and a Superior Video card, at same max settings for same games, and you have 50+ fps, it'll run horribly?

Did you know that?

Did you know that a geforce 9600GT with 16GB of System RAM and an old Athlon X2 4200 will run Crysis at Very high settings and 16x Antialiasing?

yeah, variations on some of his dumb ass comments.

yeah, upgrading to another 2GB of RAM may help, but so would a better video card, for that persons thread, but Anonymous Claims Upgrading RAM should always be priority, then GPU, then CPU last.

yeah makes sense, CPU should be last, this way RAM doesn't help much with graphics for the games being displayed. Then get the GPU, make sure you get a really powerful one that'll bottleneck your CPU and won't perform to its fullest potential. THEN get a CPU that will balance all of the prior upgrades out.

**nemowolf** · July 12th, 2010, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by ShyguyXPC

Fucking TWIT!!!

should know better than to be giving advice with all of their problems they've had over the years...

just fucking pisses me off to see such erroneous and dim witted, fucking advice like that...

Just want to bitch slap them upside the head a few dozen time in person for being so stupid...

oh, in case your wondering, our resident bone head, Anonymous7 decided to put their 2 cents worth in on a thread tonight.

Graphics Card or RAM Increasing?

yeah, I blew a gasket, but with the lame ass stupid freaking asinine, so on and so forth, comments, can anyone blame me?

yeah sometimes I give the wrong advice, but usually its only slightly off, not LIGHT YEARS off like his comments.

Hey did you know that if your running a shitty Pentium 4 2GHz single core CPU, and a mid range video card, and a whopping 16GB of RAM (64-bit OS) you can run some games at max settings no problem, but if you run a Intel 6 core i7 with 2GB of RAM, and a Superior Video card, at same max settings for same games, and you have 50+ fps, it'll run horribly?

Did you know that?

Did you know that a geforce 9600GT with 16GB of System RAM and an old Athlon X2 4200 will run Crysis at Very high settings and 16x Antialiasing?

yeah, variations on some of his dumb ass comments.

yeah, upgrading to another 2GB of RAM may help, but so would a better video card, for that persons thread, but Anonymous Claims Upgrading RAM should always be priority, then GPU, then CPU last.

yeah makes sense, CPU should be last, this way RAM doesn't help much with graphics for the games being displayed. Then get the GPU, make sure you get a really powerful one that'll bottleneck your CPU and won't perform to its fullest potential. THEN get a CPU that will balance all of the prior upgrades out.

Totally support and added my two cents!

**nunyadam** · July 12th, 2010, 02:19 PM

Come on now you know 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

**ShyguyXPC** · July 12th, 2010, 02:52 PM

no no no, its not the minimum, its the fact he thinks MORE will get you the performance you want in games.

in otherwords instead of 640K, should be Windows 64-bits max of 128GB, with a 80286 and a 1MB Super VGA card, that should have no problem running Crysis on Max settings with 32x AA, and at 1920x1080.

**nemowolf** · July 12th, 2010, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by RicheemxX

WOW I think my IQ just dropped a few points after reading some of anon's post - dude you seriously need to stop responding to people threads when you have no idea what you are talking about. I've seen you ask some of the most basic of questions having no clue how to handle even some of the simplest crap and yet you want to give out advice to newer users? Give me a break!!

Shy ... I think this totally validates you.

**ShyguyXPC** · July 12th, 2010, 04:56 PM

yeah, saw your added 2 cents to the thread, pretty much spot on for suggestions. even reiterated some of the points I already posted about, but much clearer with less frustration in the reply than I did.

the fact that the guys card sets the game for ultra settings with the 9600GT, could simply be that the game is detecting the hardware, and some of its features it supports and then sets it to ultra, then when playing the game, the GPU core may simply not be able to keep up, hence the reason I mentioned too that the game is Beta, and the full release isn't until the 27th. as you mentioned the requirements could change too once the game is released.

as there have been a few games as of late, that have done that, changed their requirements AFTER it was already printed on the boxes and game released, or after a major patch for the game, some requirements have changed. I know for one of the WoW add on's or patches, there was some hardware requirement changes needed to run the add on, or whatever. and this is on a much older game too.

**nemowolf** · July 12th, 2010, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by ShyguyXPC

yeah, saw your added 2 cents to the thread, pretty much spot on for suggestions. even reiterated some of the points I already posted about, but much clearer with less frustration in the reply than I did.

the fact that the guys card sets the game for ultra settings with the 9600GT, could simply be that the game is detecting the hardware, and some of its features it supports and then sets it to ultra, then when playing the game, the GPU core may simply not be able to keep up, hence the reason I mentioned too that the game is Beta, and the full release isn't until the 27th. as you mentioned the requirements could change too once the game is released.

as there have been a few games as of late, that have done that, changed their requirements AFTER it was already printed on the boxes and game released, or after a major patch for the game, some requirements have changed. I know for one of the WoW add on's or patches, there was some hardware requirement changes needed to run the add on, or whatever. and this is on a much older game too.

More then likely, they want to test what the lowest set of hardware they can run at ultra. Most companies have no real basis for their minimum hardware except for previous games. They probably wrote the min into the software to make sure there was enough horsepower to launch but its trying to break your system on purpose. He should be posting in the beta forums about how his system is responding so Blizzard knows that their min might be too low for Ultra.

I personally have never played a game that run a system check everytime i launched it and changed any settings on me so i am not sure why he is still at ultra. Unless of course he is just as guilty as Annon and doesnt know what he is doing and hasnt actually changed it out of Ultra settings.

**ShyguyXPC** · July 12th, 2010, 11:55 PM

I've played a couple where it automatically sets your settings to max, or moderate or whatever.

its frustrating sometimes, because it may set your game to Moderate, when you know it can run a lot of the extra Eye candy settings just fine, and have to go in and manually change stuff anyways.

I think what it does is detects your hardware and if a majority of it falls into predefined categories, its loads a predefined Profile for settings based on how many of your hardware components fall into that category.

so for example, there is low, medium and hgh profiles for settings.

and your CPU lands in Medium, RAM in Medium, Video card in High, it will load the medium profile, since 2 or 3 are in that category.

which makes sense, but is a pain in the ass if you know your card can handle visuals in High, and have to go in and change things anyways.

even some older games, like Joint Operations that I still play, does this, and even on all HIGH settings, as it detects things, there's still most of the settings I have to set manually to max anyways, like Texture Compression, well crap when the game came out, if you ran a 64-128MB video card, yeah setting texture compression to high was ok, but with a freaking 1GB video card, thats too many times over, to mention, what cards back then were, in performance, why do I have to set the texture compression to minimal, should already be set, same goes for AA settings, most of the stuff I have to set anyways, and no reason to automatically set things for me.

(only auto sets stuff, when you've reinstalled drivers, changed drivers, or changed cards)