Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 19th Feb 2010 21:15 UTC
Windows It must suck to be a Windows developer. So you already have an entire legion of misguided folk hating your work for no reason (on top of the people hating your work for legitimate reasons), and then a company comes along spreading clear misinformation about Windows' memory usage, based on that company's performance monitoring software. To make matters worse, when said company is called out on its errors, it decides to publish the usage information of an Ars Technica editor's computer. As such, it is advisable to uninstall the software in question.
Thread beginning with comment 410148
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Sat 20th Feb 2010 03:25 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

What I find more enlightening is this post from a user called warrens on Arstechnica link:

Good grief, not these exo.performance losers again. This is the group that, two years ago, was claiming that Server 2008 was in the range of 15% faster than Vista as a desktop OS because it didn't have DRM. They claimed that Vista SP1 wasn't actually faster than RTM because their test suite which runs a series of OLE Automation operations on MS Office wasn't showing an improvement. They got the Windows 7 chkdsk.exe memory usage situation completely wrong, and failed to post a retraction.

And -- here's one of my favouries -- back in 2007, they were suggesting people use 1024x768 with 16 bit resolution in order to improve performance.

Why anyone takes these clowns, led by one Randall Kennedy (who would have absolutely no credibility at all if he hadn't weaseled his way into a writing job at InfoWorld), seriously is beyond me.


When you take into account the fact that Randall Kennedy and his cohorts have been wrong so many times - why the hell would anyone take what he says seriously? he has all the credibility of the mad man standing on the corner screaming, 'the end of the world is near! repent! repent!'. It would be linking to an article by Dvorak and expecting a deep thinking article.

Edited 2010-02-20 03:30 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by Tuishimi on Sun 21st Feb 2010 03:34 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Cosmologically speaking, the end of the world IS near. Let's say the Sun lasts another 10 billion years before it toasts the Earth, possibly sucking it in by creating friction with its outer atmosphere and slowing the Earth's orbit until the Earth spirals in to its death... the entire UNIVERSE in most scenarios will last many many many more billions of years before going dark or what-have-you. So... in terms of the lifespan of the Earth, it is true: the end of the world is near.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by zlynx on Sun 21st Feb 2010 19:55 in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

Well to be honest, *if* you were using a PCI video card, *or* you were using Linux with an X Windows driver without acceleration, like the "nv" driver, then running a lower resolution and bit depth does help performance.

Reply Parent Score: 2