Moderator: MaxCoderz Staff
lolwut? Saving 30-45 minutes every hour doesn't save any time? And your 3.5 seconds per hour does?King Harold wrote:that does not save time.hop wrote:If I have a process running at 100% that long I'd rather use multiple threads and save 50% or 75% of the time due to omgmulticores rather than waste more of my time working the code than I'd ever get back in saved execution time.
0-1% running the newest wtfisthisshit (Vuze or something) version which you shouldn't be using anyway. Only RAM use is higher than µtorrent, and only that for obvious reasons. If you don't want 10% cpu use I suggest you stop scrolling through the ugly naked women on the r&b album covers in the stupid commercial view.5% is 4% too much for a program that idles most of the time. It takes 10% here though, uTorrent about 1,5%, the difference is quite significant.hop wrote:What the hell are you doing with Azureus if it generally takes even 5% cpu? Or are you saying 5x0%? Are you running a Pentium 1 or something?
AMD 64 Athlon 3400+ @ 2.3 GHz, not pentium 1.
Ah that explains why my idle CPU use in Vista is 0-1% just like in XP (performance settings at max detail and all that in both).Windows Vista doesn't actually do anything heavy except waste resources on purpose. When it isn't doing anything and supposed to be idle it keeps doing stuff and taking some CPU time that goes who-knows-where.
100% is 100%, if you get it down to 50 by adding a processor you're cheating, one could add 918374598134750 processors and claim that every horrible program performs good.hop wrote:lolwut? Saving 30-45 minutes every hour doesn't save any time? And your 3.5 seconds per hour does?
Azureus uses more CPU time, clock it if you wish.hop wrote:0-1% running the newest wtfisthisshit (Vuze or something) version which you shouldn't be using anyway. Only RAM use is higher than µtorrent, and only that for obvious reasons. If you don't want 10% cpu use I suggest you stop scrolling through the ugly naked women on the r&b album covers in the stupid commercial view.
maybe for you, but we can't all have the newest computer with 5 processors and 4 video cards and 4GB RAM or more. Vista jams my RAM full up to 90% and gets a constant 15% CPU with all it's "tasks" combined. XP uses a nice 0 - 4% for me, which is good enough (even) for me.hop wrote:Ah that explains why my idle CPU use in Vista is 0-1% just like in XP (performance settings at max detail and all that in both).
Unlike you I've actually read more than one person's report on Vista's CPU and RAM performance and know that idle CPU use is similar to XP for systems with the recommended specs or higher, as it should be. RAM use is obviously higher due to more services and graphics, but similar again if you disable those.No, the additional cores aren't used automatically, the program has to make use of threads properly.King Harold wrote:100% is 100%, if you get it down to 50 by adding a processor you're cheating, one could add 918374598134750 processors and claim that every horrible program performs good.hop wrote:lolwut? Saving 30-45 minutes every hour doesn't save any time? And your 3.5 seconds per hour does?
Not on my dual core PC, my PIII server, or my sister's AMD 800. Nor my friend's dual core, laptops, and P4's.hop wrote:The 10% is used when Azureus is minimized to the tray.
maybe for you, but we can't all have the newest computer with 5 processors and 4 video cards and 4GB RAM or more. Vista jams my RAM full up to 90% and gets a constant 15% CPU with all it's "tasks" combined. XP uses a nice 0 - 4% for me, which is good enough (even) for me.hop wrote:Ah that explains why my idle CPU use in Vista is 0-1% just like in XP (performance settings at max detail and all that in both).
you're saying XP used 90% RAM? I can give you a screeny of Vista using 90% when it's doing absolutely nothing if you like.And btw. Vista is on new machines today, with the same performance, as Windows XP was when it came out, and Windows 98, and Windows 95 before it.
true, but not as good as it could have been.The code for it is as good as you are going to get.
then look. The point is that all those lazy programmers who aren't doing their utmost best to deliver good programs should get their cup of coffee and start thinking about doing something usefull, like optimizing just a little bit more. Even if it's just milliseconds, it does matter.I fail to see King Harold's point in any of this.
even if it did you aren't about to admit it anyway, but it doesn't matter, what matters is that there is a program that carry out the same task with less.Not on my dual core PC
yea I'm 17 so.. call me immature all you want, it's than betting being called "dull adult" or some such.In my humble opinion he is making himself look foolish and immature.
I certainly should hope you were being sarcastic there!coelurus wrote:No point wasting time on PC programming newcomers, hehe. (Take that with a bucketload of sarcasm-o-jelly.)
Although I do agree one should do their research before claiming much.Jim e wrote:I don't see any proof that substantiates King Harold's claims other than his opinion.
I assume you mean on a relative scale?CDI wrote:And btw. Vista is on new machines today, with the same performance, as Windows XP was when it came out, and Windows 98, and Windows 95 before it. So stop complaining. The code for it is as good as you are going to get.
What are your PC's specs? I could only imagine this happening if you're using less than recommended RAM.King Harold wrote:And btw. Vista is on new machines today, with the same performance, as Windows XP was when it came out, and Windows 98, and Windows 95 before it.
you're saying XP used 90% RAM? I can give you a screeny of Vista using 90% when it's doing absolutely nothing if you like.
I couldn't agree more. If only people could see Microsoft is leading them round by the horns!King Harold wrote:true, but not as good as it could have been.
Here's something you're going to learn in college or real IT job soon: 80%-90% of all IT projects in the entire world don't conform to schedule. And you wan't programmers to spend another huge load of project time (remember, the last 20% of the work takes 80% of the time) on perfectionizing low level assembly code to save some milliseconds in execution time? I'd honestly rather they think of better algorithms (something there's already barely enough time for) and actual features because means are limited.King Harold wrote:The point is that all those lazy programmers who aren't doing their utmost best to deliver good programs should get their cup of coffee and start thinking about doing something usefull, like optimizing just a little bit more.
I care about milliseconds in algorithms too, but I care more about the general quality of the program than low level optimizations. Sure, if means (time and money) where unlimited you should raise the quality through the roof with high and low level optimizing, but that's simply not a realistic way of developing projects.And that is were my opinion differs from almost everyone elses, no one seems to care about milliseconds, I do.
Azureus does a huge load of other things that µtorrent does not. It's a lot more graphical, for starters. So it's not doing the exact same task. You want to use it for the same task, but all the other things it does make it too heavy for your preferences. That does not mean it's performing all the little tasks it does but you don't want it to do with poor performance.there is a program that carry out the same task with less.
Fighting for your opinion is actually a lot more mature than half the people here claiming otherwise have ever been.yea I'm 17 so.. call me immature all you want, it's betting being called "dull adult" or some such.In my humble opinion he is making himself look foolish and immature.
finally a good argument, and truely, if you don't have the time then don't do low lvl optimizing, but otherwise...but that's simply not a realistic way of developing projects
thumbs up manFighting for your opinion is actually a lot more mature than half the people here claiming otherwise have ever been.
here they come:What are your PC's specs?
Which has been brought up quite a few times already...King Harold wrote:finally a good argument
Deciding to let go of your opinion if it is based on insufficient research or faulty logic is mature. Clinging to unrealistic visions is harmful. If truth is not on your side, what's the point? Really, isn't it just a little bit suspicious that all these excellent developers are so vehemently arguing against the overblown importance of low-level optimisation? Are all of them deluded and the lone warrior is right? What's the odds of that?hop wrote:Fighting for your opinion is actually a lot more mature than half the people here claiming otherwise have ever been.
Haven't you seen the whole ui looking like a flash app thing with all the online media info and stuff?King Harold wrote:Where is Azureus more graphical? uTorrent has the same pieces, blocks, and speed graphs forexample.
Check if the HTT speed doesn't exceed 1000Mhz or 2000T for DDR2. The HTT bus isn't ment to be overclocked and actually screws with performance if it is (you won't ever fill the bus at 1Ghz anyway). Auto settings are known to completely mess this up.auto overclocking.
So you'll agree with me that the act of fighting for your opinion isn't immature, as that's just as much what said developers are doing.Really, isn't it just a little bit suspicious that all these excellent developers are so vehemently arguing against the overblown importance of low-level optimisation?
I don't think there's any such relation between the willingness to fight and maturity. It's rather the means of this 'fight' that matters. No matter how long I keep looking at this discussion, I don't see any arguments for making low-level optimisation a top priority, neither in favour of the wonderful xor trick (apart from it being 'fun'), while there are quite a few points against them. Disagreement is not the problem--in fact, it's vital for real progress--, but the lack of balance in the arguments is.hop wrote:So you'll agree with me that the act of fighting for your opinion isn't immature, as that's just as much what said developers are doing.
