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?

"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.

"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.

"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

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.

"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.