If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
5.12's are out
"Mark" wrote in message .. . You wrote in thusly: "Mark" wrote in message .. . Some people even programmed in assembly, and had to stuffed code into print buffers or pull a tube rack to get a NOR. These days, some people don't have one friggin clue about lean code. Go ahead, toss in another processor or two, you know you will "sooner or later" as someone recently inferred. You missed the point. Sorry if you didn't comprehend my point, I'm not a grammarian. I got 'your' point. You made it well. You sure you're not a grammarian? 'My' point was that you missed the point of the poster you were replying to.... see my point? Users dont need to 'have one friggin clue about lean code' In a group dedicated to ATI, it's not all about correcting bugs in the driver code. If the code was fully optimized that would also increase the speed in games and benchmarking that people are often citing in here and elsewhere. Consider if ATI's software was written in pure X86 assembly language. Accepted (except the X86 bit - didn't understand that) Unfortunately, enough people with that kind of talent requires money and time, not to overlook a company that actually cares whether or not their software oozes bloat. But, then again, why should they care, after all, their 'users don't need to have one friggin clue about lean code'. For the most part they've accepted the pablum of what they have been given from ATI, sad really. But, if enough of their users actually cared about lean code, they would demand it, they would insist on it and in return they would be rewarded by it. Yeah, you're probably right, users deserve what they get, they don't deserve any better. A great deal of programmers (in all walks of software) have become progressively more lazy and have not optimised their code for a long time. Your basic user wont notice, wont know that there is a better option and therefore wont care. They probably do deserve better but they dont know what better is. You wont start a revolution here Mark. EOD4me EOD4me... seen that a few times - curious as to the meaning - enlighten me? |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
5.12's are out
"Gringo" wrote in message
news On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:33:49 GMT, "Gonzo" wrote: You guys must have something wrong with your machines. I only have 1 gig and all my games runs smooth as butter. Even after I run the dreaded dot net app *gasp*. I doubt your computer knowledge is superior to mine. You're just as arrogant as ever is all the problem is. Well your the one who claims to have performance problems on your super system and blames it on dot net Genius. If the shoe fits, wear it. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
5.12's are out
"Acid8000" wrote in message
... Gonzo wrote: "Mark" wrote in message .. . You wrote in thusly: My task manager only showed an increase of about 80megs and after I closed CCC it went back down -50 or so. CPU usage was minimal per task manager so I still do not see what all the fuss is about. Personally, I do not want to install .NET just for configuring GFX drivers when it is completely unnecessary. Moot point. As I said earlier. One way or another you will eventually have to install it sooner or later unless you want to stay at a technological standstill or go Linux. XP by default has a ton of stuff running in memory. IMHO if folks are that worried about a few kbites here and there then they should get one of the many freeware ALL KILL utilites out there that kills all uneeded apps and services etc. What makes you think that we haven't? Further, why do you think some of us have concerns of excessive bloat? Then if you use such an app, where is the problem? What does your machine have, 128megs of ram and a 400MHz CPU or what? Think it's time to upgrade yet? To me a few Kbytes of memory means nothing in this age of gigabyte memory, Gigaherze CPUs and Terrabye hard drives. I would expect someone who just discovered computers yesterday to say something like that. Well if you wish to live in the age of using memory managers to load crap into higher DOS memory and tweaking like crazy just to gain another 2 bytes of ram then knock yourself out. Personally, I joined the 21st centry long ago and Im not looking back to the bad old days. If we were all still running PC XT systems with DOS v.4 and DOS games then I could understand all the fuss. If that was the case this entire conversation would be a moot point. Thank you for helping me make my point. I don't think the days of tweaking were the bad old days. It really gave people who actually knew something about computers the opportunity to really stand out above the rest, so to speak. Whatever makes you feel good I guess. Hope you get that extra 2k of ram free from uninstalling dot net. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
5.12's are out
"Raptor" wrote in message . .. YES! and it seems that both versions of the .Net Framework are required to the run it (CCC). It won't even load on my rig with just version 2.0. Some say that it will only run with the outdated 1.1 version. MS's own SyncToy won't run with just .NET 2.0 ... must install 1.1 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
5.12's are out
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:19:40 -0600, "Markeau"
wrote: MS's own SyncToy won't run with just .NET 2.0 ... must install 1.1 I found this with another program. .NET v2 is meant to be backwards compatible. -- Cheers, Guy ** Stress - the condition brought about by having to ** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights ** out of someone who richly deserves it. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
5.12's are out
"Dr Teeth" wrote in message ... On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:19:40 -0600, "Markeau" wrote: MS's own SyncToy won't run with just .NET 2.0 ... must install 1.1 I found this with another program. .NET v2 is meant to be backwards compatible. ..NET programs need to be run against the version of .NET they were originally compiled against. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|