NC> A 15" screen is still a bit tiny though, bigber is 
 NC> better for full on action gaming, do you not agree?
 NC> I know Sega Rally is a lot more involving on the 21" in 
 NC> my bedroom than the 14" portable in the other room. :)
  This is, of course, assuming you only have a 14" or 15" monitor; if you're 
serious about PC gaming, you'll probably have at least a 17" monitor (such as 
I do).  And when you're sitting that close, it looks larger as it is.
  When you look at things in terms of raw numbers, sure the TV (and hence, a 
console) tends to seem better.  But you forget just where' you're positioned 
for the whole affair.
 NC> I /think/ that works out at approximately 150 UK pounds 
 NC> and I've just bough myself a nice hi-fi seperates 
 NC> tuner/amplifier for 85 UK to power my 100W (RMS) 
 NC> speakers (50 UKs). 
 NC> The sound quality from even the low end of seperates 
 NC> components is better than any plastic cased 'PC' sound 
 NC> systems.
 NC> [Just don't put the speakers too close to the moniter 
 NC> or TV or you'll warp the screen, unless the magnets are 
 NC> screened for AV use] 
  Oh, really?  Ever heard a Cambridge Soundworks (and/or Microworks) or 
Altec-Lansing ACS-55s (which I have)?  You'd be surprised at how clear and 
powerful the sound is.  Play Formula 1 for the PC and you can literally FEEL 
the sound waves coming from the speakers.  Actually, as a whole I consider 
the PC version of F1 more satisfying, except that you usually have to sit in 
an office chair with the PC (as opposed to a couch).
 NC> I still prefer a nice big Mac though. ;)
  Macs?  But what kind of gaming can you get with that?  The number of 
current big-name titles could be counted on your fingers, if that.  Also, 
there are hardly any 3D accelerators for the Mac, and you can only accelerate 
a few games.  As a gaming (and/or power-user) platform, it's kind of inept.  
I'd rather go for a console!  :-)
 NC> Theres some nice stuff and the titles usually /are/ 
 NC> cheaper (due to the size of the market place) but then 
 NC> you have to weigh it up with the initial cost and on-
 NC> going upgrade costs of a PC to keep it cutting edge 
 NC> enough to play the neat new games. 
  But of course, consistent upgrades will leave you with a better machine 
each time; on a console, you're largely stuck with what you have until, 3-4 
years later or so, the company who made it decides to release a new machine.  
A diligent PC gamer will probably have a machine that's exponentially better 
than consoles, and occasionally even better than arcade machines; VF2 on my 
new machine (a P2/300) looks BETTER than the Model 2 arcade rigs Sega has put 
out.
 NC> Whereas console developers are squeezing every last 
 NC> drop out of their code and the hardware, but the 
 NC> software is slightly higher in cost to start with (then 
 NC> goes cheaper in the Platinum range...)
  As if PC game designers aren't?  Quake II, relatively speaking, is a 
technological marvel.  Most of the other games I own use engines that squeeze 
every drop of power out of a PC.  There are a few exceptions, such as 
Warhammer: Shadow of the Hornet Rat (not a bad game, but...) and Carmageddon 
(albeit the demo), but on the whole those people are doing their jobs.
  I do sort of admire the "codemeisters" of the PSX world, however.  
Psygnosis, in particular, is practically famous for their engines which use 
every lighting trick in the book.   But then, they also do PC versions of 
their games.  :-)  
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------