jmaster299

Which is what I said. They either lied or used "Trickery" to get those numbers. But you have to keep in mind that the exception does not make the rule. The bus size determining the amount of VRAM is true 99.9% of the time. A couple of one off cases from Nvidia doesn't change the rule.

Which is exactly what I said in my post. But there is still no way for them to get exactly 2048MB that way. They can get close to it, a little under or over, but never exactly that amount.
 
Stop using CoD Ghosts as an example, the RAM usage totals shown when playing that game are not accurate. Also, you have to remember that GPUs can use a combination of VRAM and system RAM, and that's how you can achieve a "usage" greater than the physical amount of VRAM that is installed on the card. Also don't use the info tab on GPU-Z as your basis for what amount of VRAM is being used because GPU-Z is only displaying the number that Nvidia or AMD tells it to display. You would need to do a validation with GPU-Z in order to get that information. That's why the validation function exists, to prove that the base info matches the usage info.
If I run dxdiag on my system, it shows I have an "Approx Memory Total" of 4038MB for my GTX 670 which only has 2GB of VRAM on it. That's how Nvidia can fudge with their numbers and claim that a card with 1914MB of VRAM actually has 2GB of VRAM. The only issue is if a game actually needs to tip into that shared memory pool, you will run into performance issues like GPU usage dropping to 0 because having to pull from that shared memory pool is always slower than using that onboard VRAM.

GPU-Z says whatever the card tells it to say. Again, it is impossible to divide 2048 by 192, making it impossible for the card to actually have 2048MB of RAM. Companies like that all the time. Its why every single HDD and SSD in existence will claim it has 500GB, when in fact it has 500000MB, which is less than 500GB.

Nvidia was either lying or they were using some sort of trickery to achieve that total. 2048 can not be divided evenly by 192. You end up with 10.6666666. The only way they could have done it was with 768 + 1134, which gets them 1914MB of VRAM, which is not technically 2GB.

Sorry, you have some incorrect information right in the first couple of points you try to make. I'm not going to break down your entire post, as I'm sure someone else will get to that later, so I'll just tackle the first few things.

You are partially correct that VRAM usage is not 100% restricted by or related to GPU usage, but CoD Ghost is the worst possible example you can use to make that point. CoD Ghosts will simply fill up what ever VRAM buffer your card has, but its not actually using the VRAM. Crysis 3 on ultra and at 4K resolution does not use 4GB of VRAM, so there is no way CoD Ghost is using it. Games also "reserve" additional VRAM that does not actually get used. Just like Windows will reserve more system RAM based on the total amount of RAM you install. The issue with VRAM is in games that actually need high amounts of VRAM will more often than not run into a limitation of the GPU's processing power.

There is no game in existence that needs and will use 4GB of VRAM where you would not first be limited by the processing power of something like a 4GB GTX 760. There are games that need and will use more than 2GB of VRAM, and a 760 can power those games, but in order to provide that extra VRAM the easiest and cheapest solution was to use an extra stick of VRAM. This leads into the second issue with VRAM totals being determined by the bus size. You can't stick 2.5GB or 3GB of VRAM on a 256bit bus, so the only option is to bump it up to 4GB.

VRAM totals are absolutely determined by the bus width. The bus size will determine the quantity in which VRAM can be added. 
A 128bit, 256bit or 512bit bus will use values of 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 or 8192 MB of VRAM.
A 192bit or 384bit bus will use values of 192, 384, 768, 1536, 3072 or 6144 MBof VRAM.
So yes you can stick 8192MB of VRAM on a 128bit bus, but you will never in a 100 years be capable of achieving a memory clock rate that will be capable of using all that VRAM on such a small bus size.


 

That's exactly how all mice should work. Lose contact with whatever surface you are using it on, tracking cuts out. Not that there is any reason for you to be picking the mouse up anyways. Your issue was 100% user error.

Porn, a multi-billion dollar industry, yet everyone still pretends they don't watch it....

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 4GB 770. The stupid myth that it can't use the extra VRAM needs to die already.

Not true for BF4. A CPU bottleneck means that the processing demand on your GPU(s) exceeds what your CPU can provide. As BF4 only uses 4 threads, that leaves any unused percentage of those 4 threads, plus the 4 extra HT threads to handle all the network traffic for multiplayer. As network traffic is a Windows controlled function, it can use every core/thread you have.
The difference between a 4960X and any 4 thread CPU is only 1-4 FPS. So there will never be a time with two 770's where a 2600K would be holding them back. Just because you are not getting 100% GPU usage does not mean you have a bottle neck. Not all games require 100% of your GPU(s) processing power.
http://www.wowinterface.com/downloads/info13581-LeatrixLatencyFix.html

Fairly sure reposting something that was deleted by a mod won't go over too well. Also, the fact that its Blizzard has nothing to do with the issue. Your claim that the program is bloatware is simply not true, but making nonsense claims like that spread like cancer. Hence the detailed definition I posted earlier. The term bloatware gets tossed around by people who don't actually know what bloatware is and base their claim on nothing but personal bias.

Bloatware would be if they took the exact same original individual game launcher, made no improvements or additions to it, and released it with a significantly larger file size. But that's not the case with the Battle.net launcher. It took multiple programs, combined them into one, then added numerous additional features and graphical UI improvements. All while maintaining a very small and reasonable file size.

Fairly sure reposting something that was deleted by a mod won't go over too well. Also, the fact that its Blizzard has nothing to do with the issue. Your claim that the program is bloatware is simply not true, but making nonsense claims like that spread like cancer. Hence the detailed definition I posted earlier. The term bloatware gets tossed around by people who don't actually know what bloatware is and base their claim on nothing but personal bias.

Bloatware would be if they took the exact same original individual game launcher, made no improvements or additions to it, and released it with a significantly larger file size. But that's not the case with the Battle.net launcher. It took multiple programs, combined them into one, then added numerous additional features and graphical UI improvements. All while maintaining a very small and reasonable file size.

While technically an expansion for Saints Row 4, Gat Out of Hell will be available as a standalone purchase for $20. No need to own SR4 in order to play it.

I was a late adopter of the Saints Row franchise, for SR The Third in a Humble Bundle, but did bother to install it for like a year later. It has everything I've always wanted in the GTA franchise, with none of the tedious nonsense like having to change your clothes to keep your girl friend happy, or your appearance being affected by what you eat. If I want a life simulator, I'd play The SIMS. Yes the stories for the SR series are absurd, but all the more fun because of it. Nothing says "I'm in a video game doing impossible things to have fun like
".

The announcement video for Gat Out of Hell makes it clear they will be sticking with all the absurd things that have made the series so successful in the past. Taking the two most popular characters, Kinzie and Gat, and making them the playable characters instead of "The Boss" is also a nice change.

No, but you can increase your memory clock, which does improveme video memory related performance. 

I question your definition of good. This fits exactly with the crazy stuff they've been doing ever since SR: The Third, and looks just as funny. It's obviously a filler title while they continue to work on the next full SR game. But they are going about it the right way by giving it a "less than full game" price point and making it so you don't have to own the previous version of the game.

The comment about programming knowledge was a rhetorical statement, in that, it doesn't matter what we know or don't know. What matters is its obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about because of the complete lack of proof to back up his claims and the fact that he completely dismisses any point that proves him wrong. He tries to compare the program to stupid things like Pidgin, when in fact the only programs it can be compared to are things like STEAM. Which I mentioned.
 
The fact that his claims are baseless is reinforced when he tries to use his personal opinion and bias as justification for his claims. He doesn't like/prefer a graphically pleasing UI, so he labels any and all resources necessary for as bloatware. He also doesn't like the idea of launchers or centralized programs at all, so he again labels it as bloatware because its something he doesn't like. That's why I quoted that long description of what bloatware really is, because it specifically points out the fact that people like LAwLs are constantly labeling things as bloatware when they are simply ignorant of the facts, and/or are making the statement based on personal preference.

No, we don't know about programming, but @LAwLz doesn't either, and that's the point I am trying to make. When something is as small as a whopping 222MB, and does the two dozen different things that the Battle.net launcher does, and does it looking as good as the launcher does, and does it without bugs or other errors, NO ONE, not one single person the face of the Earth, can call that program bloatware unless they have the technical knowledge to prove other wise.
We are beating a dead horse at this point, but my only hope is people are smart enough to ignore the nonsense that is being spewed by the haters in this thread that are complaining with no actually knowledge to justify those complaints and no proof to back up those claims. People have a right to say they don't like something, but they don't have a right to incorrectly label the launcher as something that its not. It not bloatware, and does not even come close to meeting the proper definition of bloatware.
 
"Software bloat is a process whereby successive versions of a computer program become perceptibly slower, use more memory/diskspace or processing power, or have higher hardware requirements than the previous version whilst making only dubious user-perceptible improvements. The term is not applied consistently; it is often used as a pejorative by end users to describe undesired user interface changes even if those changes had little or no effect on the hardware requirements. In long-lived software, perceived bloat can occur from the software servicing a large, diverse marketplace with many differing requirements. Most end users will feel they only need some limited subset of the available functions and will regard the others as unnecessary bloat, even if people with different requirements do use them.
  Actual (measurable) bloat can occur due to de-emphasising software efficiency in favour of other concerns like developer productivity, or possibly through the introduction of new layers of abstraction like a virtual machine or other scripting engine for the purposes of convenience when developer constraints are reduced. The perception of improved developer productivity, in the case of practising development within virtual machine environments, comes from the developers no longer taking resource constraints and usage into consideration during design and development; this allows the product to be completed faster but it results in increases to the end user's hardware requirements to compensate."The Battle.net launcher took multiple programs and combined them into a single program, with a single and much more graphically pleasing UI, while at the same time adding tons of extra useful features along with much better and much easier to use security. And they did it all while using a whopping 0.00% of my CPU, 70MB of system RAM and 222MB of HDD space. Which is less than what any similar desktop program uses and less than most of the apps on my phone use, all of which are forced by necessity to be extremely efficient for use on my underpowered iPhone 4S. The Battle.net desktop launcher/app can NOT be compaired to crap like Pidgin, or any other non-game related programs. UPlay, Origin, STEAM, those are the only programs the it can be compared to, as they are the only programs that provide the same functions and features, and it uses a lot fewer resources than any one of those programs.

Actually, I have quite a bit of programming and computing knowledge, which is why I called him out (there is also another reason, but it is not worth mentioning here). People can ask for further reduction of resource consumption, but there is eventually one point where it has limited yield without breaking the program. "The Law of Diminishing Returns" does not only apply to hardware expenses, but also software optimization. Take an example of cryptography; you can only reduce the amount of calculations and modulations before the algorithms become ineffective. At the same time however, cascading the algorithms beyond a level of three will earn a small benefit in security, while the performance degradation would spike.
You and I very rarely come to good terms, but in this case, you have made valid points. So hats off to you.

No, we don't know about programming, but @LAwLz doesn't either, and that's the point I am trying to make. When something is as small as a whopping 222MB, and does the two dozen different things that the Battle.net launcher does, and does it looking as good as the launcher does, and does it without bugs or other errors, NO ONE, not one single person the face of the Earth, can call that program bloatware unless they have the technical knowledge to prove other wise.
We are beating a dead horse at this point, but my only hope is people are smart enough to ignore the nonsense that is being spewed by the haters in this thread that are complaining with no actually knowledge to justify those complaints and no proof to back up those claims. People have a right to say they don't like something, but they don't have a right to incorrectly label the launcher as something that its not. It not bloatware, and does not even come close to meeting the proper definition of bloatware.
 
"Software bloat is a process whereby successive versions of a computer program become perceptibly slower, use more memory/diskspace or processing power, or have higher hardware requirements than the previous version whilst making only dubious user-perceptible improvements. The term is not applied consistently; it is often used as a pejorative by end users to describe undesired user interface changes even if those changes had little or no effect on the hardware requirements. In long-lived software, perceived bloat can occur from the software servicing a large, diverse marketplace with many differing requirements. Most end users will feel they only need some limited subset of the available functions and will regard the others as unnecessary bloat, even if people with different requirements do use them.
  Actual (measurable) bloat can occur due to de-emphasising software efficiency in favour of other concerns like developer productivity, or possibly through the introduction of new layers of abstraction like a virtual machine or other scripting engine for the purposes of convenience when developer constraints are reduced. The perception of improved developer productivity, in the case of practising development within virtual machine environments, comes from the developers no longer taking resource constraints and usage into consideration during design and development; this allows the product to be completed faster but it results in increases to the end user's hardware requirements to compensate."The Battle.net launcher took multiple programs and combined them into a single program, with a single and much more graphically pleasing UI, while at the same time adding tons of extra useful features along with much better and much easier to use security. And they did it all while using a whopping 0.00% of my CPU, 70MB of system RAM and 222MB of HDD space. Which is less than what any similar desktop program uses and less than most of the apps on my phone use, all of which are forced by necessity to be extremely efficient for use on my underpowered iPhone 4S. The Battle.net desktop launcher/app can NOT be compaired to crap like Pidgin, or any other non-game related programs. UPlay, Origin, STEAM, those are the only programs the it can be compared to, as they are the only programs that provide the same functions and features, and it uses a lot fewer resources than any one of those programs.

Hi guys, today I got the mouse, G502. So far I'm very happy with it, I have small hands and its just perfect for me.  Thanks for the help =)

That is a bold claim about us not knowing about programming, and yet, you yourself are oversimplifying the matter to draw a crude conclusion... once again.
 
You keep talking about the features in a piecemeal, but you have not once mentioned aggregation. It is not a jigsaw puzzle where you can simply put them together and call it finished. There is mathematics involved in putting everything together. There is a sweet spot between functionality and resource efficiency, and it relies on the target demographic and devices. Also, @jmaster299 has mentioned about features being more extensive than what you have listed, and you have yet to put out an adequate answer to his question.
 
Be careful with the tone of your message, because if you keep doing that, people will simply ignore you. Nobody cares about whether you are correct or not, because they will only see your stubborn behaviour and allow what you say to fly over them.

I'm just glad I'm not the only person that sees this for what it is, complete and utter nonsense with no basis in reality or fact. The OP posted a rant for no other purpose than to rant. He was just upset that a change was being made and nothing else. Like flies to honey, his nonsensical complaints attracted the attention of the "Professional products/programs are evil, Open Source forever!" crowd. They would have all of us using nothing but Linux and other open source programs that are dumbed down enough in features to be able to fit onto a floppy disc and be run by a 40 year old rotten potato. 
If a program doesn't meet those absurd requirements, it makes that program "bloat ware" whatever other nonsense they want to label it. Blizzard is not taking anything away from their customers, or making things more difficult for their customers, or negatively impacting their customers in any way with the Battle.net desktop app. Which is the official name for it since its more than just a launcher now. For a whopping 222MB you have a system that is both easier and faster to use, as well as more secure and offers more features than the old individual launchers for each different game.
The fact that people like the OP are saying the old individual launchers were good proves they don't know what they are talking about since its a double standard. From day one, all Blizzard games have been capable of being run without the use of the launchers. It wasn't possible to install the games without the launchers also being installed, but they were never a requirement to play the game. You could always run the .exe file for the game directly, and you can STILL run the .exe game file directly with the new launcher/app.
All Blizzard did was take the launchers for multiple games, and combine them into a central program. While at the same time that integration allowed them to make their security features less obtrusive for their customers. I can log in once with both my password and authenticator to the desktop app, and if I launch any of my multiple Blizzard games, it will automatically log me in with in the game. While under the old system you would have to run the game and log in each time you wanted to play. The new desktop app can also recognize if I am logging in from a different computer, something the old system couldn't do. I could tell if your IP was different, but not if the actual computer was different. 
But this has gone on long enough. None of the claims or complaints about the launcher are actually ture.

Today I ordered the g502 and got a free logitech powershell with it, if I can sell that for at least 20€ the g502 is cheaper then the g402
The mouse should be here by tommorow

Even the 50MB analogy is deeply flawed. You cannot simply add together the size of different programs to make one program. It takes significant space and development time to properly aggregate the functions without running into bugs. In fact, this is the very definition of debugging; finding errors in code where the end program does not operate as expected. A lot of these functions can be very picky about where they decide to work, so extra segments of code are added in order to make sure that they can fulfill the specific needed tasks. 
 
Now this falls into optimization. It is something that many people take for granted. Watch_Dogs was a good example of poor optimization, but it was brought into topic for the wrong reasons. Optimization is not solely about resource efficiency, but also about the fluidity of the individual tasks and the end product. If all of the programs are barebones with no aggregation in place, and even one of the programs starts to malfunction, we would be unable to complain about developers being lazy, as the debugging process essentially does not exist. In a professional enterprise setting, this is not only problematic, but sometimes outright dangerous.
 
As for LAwLz's antics, this is not his first time; far from it. He has a pretty lengthy reputation of using arbitrary information, treating it as an absolute fact, and downplaying the criticism against it. While he is a generally well mannered person, he can often come across as an incredibly stubborn individual.

It would be nice to see Google respond to criticism like this. As bas things were on MS's app store, Google Play is still a steaming cesspool of malicious apps that Google refuses to remove or block in the first place like Apple does.
http://www.riskiq.com/company/press-releases/riskiq-reports-malicious-mobile-apps-google-play-have-spiked-nearly-400 

Just give it up already. None of what you said is based on actual facts. You are just dumping on the program because you don't like it. So, for the last time, unless you can code a program that does everything the Battl.net launcher does, make it look as good, but only us 50mb or less of HDD space, you have absolutely no business claiming that the 200mb is excessively larger than it needs to be. I'm not alone in seeing through your nonsense either. Just because a program can be stripped down of all quality in terms of looks, and stripped of everything that makes it easy for the widest range of consumers to use, does not make those other programs better. Nor does it make the Battle.net launcher bloatware.
Yes I did read your other post, and yes you still have not listed programs that can do everything the launcher does. Not even close. Since NONE of them allow for things like a multiple platform integrated chat feature, with no use of an overlay, and none of them come close to offering the type of security and account controls that the Battle.net laucnher does.