it still can't run Crysis at 60FPS :p

Your "obsolete" CPU will still be many times faster than anything in an ebook reader. Many netbooks are capable of running Windows 7, which I doubt Microsoft will drop security support for anytime soon (it's been out less than a week..). You could also go with a nice compact linux distro as well.

I think the hardware (in both the netbooks and the ebook readers) is likely to fail long before security on an aging OS becomes an issue.

A valid point, but for me a netbook is still an improvement over regular books. They are generally about the same/size weight as an average book, but can hold thousands of books. So if you are carrying one book you sort of "break even", but multiple books are a lot easier to carry around, although admittedly not as easy as an ebook reader.

The battery life is nice, but I am never away from electricity long enough for that to be an issue (you can get 10 hours battery life if you use it as an ebook reader). I could see it being useful for someone who travels a lot though.

I've "trained" people to use new software (Outlook is one of them actually), and as soon as people think "computer", their brains go to mush. I would be telling people click something on the upper-left of the screen, and they would move the mouse to the right... I know computers are complicated, but surely they know right from left?

There were no Nazi comparisons though, therefore I can only award him/her 9/10 internet points.

That one is easy to forget.

You apparently aren't the "only one on the planet who cares", because many of the reviews for this card tested exactly the things you are concerned about. TechReport, HardOCP, and Anandtech all did, just to name a few. To be honest, I've never read even visited PC Perspective before, and I guess this is a good reasons reason not to. That being said, high-end CPUs and GPUs are going to tend to use more power and run hotter. They are pushing the limits of what is possible, and running at higher frequencies, so naturally they will use more power and run hotter than a slower product. As for the cost, are you new to PC hardware? High-end has always been very expensive. I remember many $1000 CPUs in the past (and that's not even accounting for inflation). The card isn't worth the cost for me personally, but it's not as outrageous as you seem to think (for those with lots of money and 30" monitors) The efficiency of this card is still pretty impressive though. Double the performance (of the previous gen) with less overall power draw, and the same temperatures, yet quieter cooling. I think the really interesting thing will be the mid-range/lower-end variants of this architecture. I can see them having very solid performance with very little power draw.

There is a much better history of graphics cards at: http://accelenation.com/?ac.id.123.1&CFID=5425096&CFTOKEN=25318798 IMO of course. It has a lot more details and gives you a better sense of the "mood" of the industry

Not for long without medical assistance from other people.

Either that or one of the tubes got clogged.

I don't know why you said "You don't use Vista as a computer, you use it as a gaming platform", because I don't use vista AT ALL. Besides, a "gaming platform" is just one of many uses for a computer. That's like saying "You don't use linux as a computer, you use it as a database platform". Do you happen to have a list of programs that are considered valid uses for a computer? I'm curious.

Dictionary definition of computer: "a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data". Do games have some kind of magical ability that somehow excludes them from this? I think the stability of the OS as it relates to the programs people use is quite relevant.

Also, I haven't said anywhere that Windows is as stable as linux, or that windows is a completely stable OS. All I said was the vast majority of people don't need that stability, so it is completely irrelevant for them, and not the most important factor when choosing an OS. The only thing that matters to most people is being able to run the programs they want/need. Like I said, DOS is very stable, but it can't provide what most people want from their computer, so it's stability is useless for most people, just as the stability of many linux distros is also useless for people who use programs that don't support it. Believe it or not, not everyone uses computers for exactly the same reasons that you do.

I'm currently running 2 Windows versions, Red Hat, Debian, and ASUS Express Gate. So I just choose my OS on the fly to suit my current needs. I would hate being restricted to one or the other. I have never needed a 60+ day up-time, or anything close, but I do have the ability if I ever needed it for some reason.

If I am setting up servers for clients/users, I do tend to lean towards using a linux distro of some sort, rather than Windows Server, but in some cases you have to use Windows Server to be able to run the things they need (just as in some cases you have to use linux). Yes, there are linux-based alternatives for many things (not all), but reconfiguring the entire network and teaching users completely new programs isn't the cheapest or easiest solution a lot of the time. I haven't found any serious stability problems in properly maintained Windows Server installations either, but YMMV.

I'm just sitting here chilling out, and had some time to kill, so don't presume to think I'm "wasting" my time. I will use my time however I wish, and I hope you do the same. Trying to insult me was a nice touch too by the way. Next thing I know, you'll be calling me a doodeyhead or a boogerface.

There should be an apostrophe in "everyones" by the way, since you seemed to be concerned with grammar before. I'm glad I could help.

I have to get going now though. Have a nice day sir/madam.

You are the one who talked about video games specifically, and ironically recommended a rather unstable COMPUTER (X-BOX) for playing them.

Or do video games not require any computation now?

You seem to be saying we should never be running anything else on an OS besides the OS itself. Well, in that case most OS's are very stable, and DOS is a perfectly capable and stable OS.

X-box can't run at 2560x1600, and it has pitiful video memory (and regular memory) bandwidth and capacity, so it can't handle really high resolution textures and high poly models.

There are practically no RTS, simulators, or MMOs available for x-box, and gamepads sort of suck for FPSs. Also many PC games have a strong modding community and are highly customizable.

Don't get me wrong x-box/ps3/wii have their uses. In fact they excel in certain types of games. They just have an incredibly sparse library for many genres of games though, and it can't even come close to the level of visuals a PC can produce.

Nice try though.

I'm curious why you need your OS to be on non-stop for more than 60 days. Even for servers I don't think having a brief downtime every couple months would be a serious issue for the vast majority of users. Besides, who runs servers on Vista anyway? At least use Windows Server.

P.S. I don't run Vista and I never will, but I just don't understand what you would need years of up-time for on a home PC. I power down my PC most nights (unless I'm downloading/uploading something), just because there's no sense wasting electricity.

I absolutely love the last.fm service, but I have to say I've barely even used the radio part of the site. As long as I can still find people with similar tastes and music recommendations I'll be happy. Still, it sucks that "international" users have to pay for a service that is free for Americans (for how long?).

I guess it makes sense that the radio is the only thing they are charging for though. That has to be where the vast majority of their bandwidth is used.