SteveC said:gee, thanks for the intelligent advice.
Derek Baker said:Look guy,
You set the aperture to a given value, benchmark with your main
application(s), set the value to a different value, and repeat.
Whichever value gives the best performance, assuming all are stable, is the
one that you use.
The main problem with top posting, and I don't think it's been mentioned in
the replies yet, is that a lot of users (I know, you won't believe this)
don't use a newsreader that puts threads together. In that case, these
people have to scroll to the bottom of the message to figure out what the
hell it's replying to, then scroll all the way back up to read the response.
Certainly, many more people use newsreaders that do organize posts into
threads now, but it is still customary to post in this standard way
according to an article i read on tweak3d.net, generally speaking, the
higher the aas, the better. however, benchmark testing will be
required to determine what setting works best with your system.
if you're doing a lot of 3d rendering, then yes 256mb should be good,
but again, test to determine which aas boosts your performance the
most.
SonOfAGun typed:
"Certainly, many more people use newsreaders that do organize posts into
threads now, but it is still customary to post in this standard way."
To hell with "customary". It's easier to top post.
Why "snip" or read the original post and/or replies over and over again ??
The "new" way is better. Get with the program !
Ancra said:I saw a bunch of benchmarks on this on the web somewhere a good time
ago, more than a year ago, I think. Might have been tweak3d.net, don't
remember.
Anyway, those benchmarks showed almost absolutely linear performance
up to the moment of the aperture becoming too small, or too large.
And the lowest probability of it ever becoming too small or too large,
seemed to be achieved by setting it to 64MB. Seemingly almost
regardless of your hardware.
Ohh well, Shit happens. I'm happy with my video card so far.
Guido said:"Certainly, many more people use newsreaders that do organize posts
into threads now, but it is still customary to post in this standard
way."
To hell with "customary". It's easier to top post.
Why "snip" or read the original post and/or replies over and over
again ?? The "new" way is better. Get with the program !
I have same findings. 128 was slightly better than all in many tests.
ati9800pro 256 card
to when 128megs of rams was considered overkill.
Good luck.
Steve Vai said:i dont see the bitching with top posting, its easier to read...you
read the first post, then go to the next and WHAT DO YOU KNOW? the
reply is on top so you dont have to scroll all the way through what
you JUST READ to read a reply...
Steve Vai said:i dont see the bitching with top posting, its easier to read...you
read the first post, then go to the next and WHAT DO YOU KNOW? the
reply is on top so you dont have to scroll all the way through what
you JUST READ to read a reply...
Christos Stamos said:But still, I would venture to say that most people "without the resources" would more probably use
free www usenet search engines such as Deja (aka Google Groups), which most certainly make it easier
to read top-posted replies, than the other way around.
The problem with top posting is that it is convenient only if the person reading the thread does so post by post, as you implied.
Unfortunately, many people are forced to use inferior NNTP servers that either lose posts or have atrocious retention.
Some don't have the money to pay for the use of a commercial NNTP server, others use ISPs that block ports, etc.
In short, the assumption is (still) that whoever reads your post, may not have easy access (if at all) to the whole thread.
That is why we quote - to provide the context necessary to understand our posts.
Now the problem with top posting becomes obvious:
If everybody uses bottom posting, the post reads naturally, like a dialog from a book page. It is easy to follow and easy to understand who said what in response to whom.
On the contrary, if you top post, the flow becomes unnatural. You must go down to the bottom of the post, scan up to find the beginning of the first post, read down to the end, scan up to find the beginning of the second post, read down to the beginning of the first post, scan up to the beginning of the third post, read down to the beginning of the second post, etc...
That's why top posting is disrespectful. You make reading harder on the people who don't have the resources to get the whole thread.