k maybe this is a dumb question, but in regards to the dual core - if the OS is on a different core from say AC wouldn't *that* effectively make AC run better? (I realize I dunno if that can be done... no I don't have a dual core system yet so it's a bit new to me).


I find *AC* is a resource hog. I do not see significant less lag/chunking with or without decal on my system. On the older systems, yeah I do, so I choose not to run decal on them. Also, I'm running the high res graphics on my main machine which I suspect tends to make decal being a hog or no, kinda moot. <shrugs>


Sorry for kinda dragging this more o.t. it took an interesting direction.

Intersting is what I'm all about


As for your question...


Dual Cores allow simultaneous execution of 2 different threads. This is differnt than Hyperthreadding which is actually NOT dual core (contrary to popular belief by some people).


This basically allows 2 processes to do their own thing without really impacting eachother. I'm grossly oversimplifying it, and still haven't answered your question so..


there's no such thing as putting the "OS" on one core and AC on another. Dual Cores generally run side-by-side and have their own algorithm for determining which thread runs on which core. You CAN set an affinity (meaning which core you'd LIKE to run on) but there are way too many OS processes to do it to all of them (and you'll most likely missed newly spawned ones).


overall, I believe it would improve overall performance, which can help with AC's performance. Would it make a dramatic difference for AC over a single core of the same speed/power? I don't really think so.

I was wondering why I was having problems with Winamp while playing AC.

 

-----signature-----

If you don't ctrl-shift-escape and end every process running except ac and decal then you are doing something wrong.

I also think that Decal is a resource hog. It actually never used to be so bad untilToD. Now it's just a sad piece of work.

Baiting - no surprise, considering the sad piece of work the author is.

 

-----signature-----

<< I also think that Decal is a resource hog. It actually never usedToD. Now it's just a sad piece of work. >>


I don't think the Decal Devs would be upset if you stopped using it.

 

-----signature-----

I don't believe it's Decal's fault for being a resource hog. It's the mentality of todays programmer and developer. Microsoft are pushing people to create things with no regard for how resource intensive they are.


Just look at the design of the .Net architechure (I hate .Net btw). Masses of unused code that gets loaded at launch, which simply takes up space in memory and never gets used. If this design was put forward 15-20 years ago the designers would have been sacked on the spot.

These days because of the advancement in PC and memory technology it seems to be an accepted design to be wastefull with resources.


So far I've totally boycotted .Net, and will continue to do so, so long as I can achieve the things I need to do without it.

I'll agree with you that .NET is a lot of loaded code with no use.. but it's a shame you are boycotting it considering the speed, power, and developer efficiency of it.


I think that is the tradeoff now. RAD. Web and Applications can be designed and fully coded in a fraction of the time it would take a non-.NET language to do. It's a completely web-based and managed language which makes it powerful in a lot of ways.


I've personally fallen in love with C# and will continue to use it hoping that Microsoft will continue to make improvements to it.

Oh I agree that the benefits of .Net do sound appealing, but I'm totally against the way they have done it. I believe wastefullness is a sackable offence when it comes to programming and development.

I'm 100% certain that the same end result could have been achieved without the huge overheads and wasted resources of the current design.


In todays world the only way to influence a companies model and design is to affect them through their pocket. If enough object then they will rethink their design. I'm one of those refusing to adopt the lazy design of .Net in protest over it's wastefullness.


When I began programming it was good practice to save a few bytes here and there. It was common practice to trim every single byte of space you could.

These days when we have gigabytes of memory instead of killobytes, programmers and designers have become wastefull and the end products performance is the one to suffer. Not only the performance suffers, but the lazy mindset of programming these days produces inferior bug ridden products.

We the customers have been tricked into thinking it's ok for companies to produce bug ridden systems simply because the programs have become larger. It's far from the truth. We have bug ridden programs these days because of the mindset thats become the norm in programming.