Can LMG at least try to be reasonable? - screen recording is possible on a dual-core.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

Sorry, didn't read all 5 pages before replying.

 

 

 

 

I agree dual cores should be out. But if you have a dual-crore that idles at 50%, it's an issue with your installation, not the hardware.

 

My wife still uses a 2nd gen dual-core pentium (B820 IIRC), and it's nowhere near 50% at idle. Does it suck? Yeah, does it peaks at 100% utilization from time to time? Of course. But it's closer to 5-10% at idle (and I haven't done any major cleanup for the last 2 years).

 

Nowadays, 8GB of RAM and an SSD is what really makes a difference (my work laptop has a shit HDD, and it will often feel slower than my wife's 8yo laptop, even though my work laptop has a 6300U).

I have zero idea what the hell IT did so horribly  wrong with the Software installations at work, but the PCs, all with Kaby i5s, 8 GB RAM, and 256 GB SSDs, sometimes will become abysmally slow, to the point even my Atom tablet (reminder, 1.3 GHz Silvermont, 2 GB Ram and eMMC) can outrun them for our web applications. Hand typing barcode info on my phone becomes an appealing option, even with an archaic, desktop-centric UI. 
 

Trying to shut them down in this state takes multiple minutes, I often just force a reset, and they behave themselves for a few days before doing the same thing again. 

[Kilrah]

3 hours ago, wkdpaul said:

I agree dual cores should be out. But if you have a dual-crore that idles at 50%, it's an issue with your installation, not the hardware.

 

My wife still uses a 2nd gen dual-core pentium (B820 IIRC), and it's nowhere near 50% at idle. Does it suck? Yeah, does it peaks at 100% utilization from time to time? Of course. But it's closer to 5-10% at idle (and I haven't done any major cleanup for the last 2 years).

Depends when you look. Earlier my quad core laptop was "idle" i.e. I was not doing anything, but still had 50% use for 10 minutes because Windows defender and MS telemetry were both hogging a core each...

[TempestCatto]

11 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

never mind load up all your startup apps where you have to leave it 5 mins just to settle

No one should have that many startup apps. I have only 3 - Open Shell, iCue, and Avast. As soon as my desktop appears, I can use my pc like it was never restarted. Granted, I'm on an NVMe SSD. Even still, whether Mac, Windows, or Linux, no one needs anything except antivirus and maybe one or two things max at startup.

 

I remember my first gaming pc I built that had an FX 6100 and 8gb of RAM. On a 7200rpm HDD with Windows 7, I had one thing to load at startup (Avast) and that was it. As soon as my desktop appeared, I was able to use that machine as if it had never been shut down in the first place.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, TempestCatto said:

No one should have that many startup apps. I have only 3 - Open Shell, iCue, and Avast. As soon as my desktop appears, I can use my pc like it was never restarted. Granted, I'm on an NVMe SSD. Even still, whether Mac, Windows, or Linux, no one needs anything except antivirus and maybe one or two things max at startup.

 

I remember my first gaming pc I built that had an FX 6100 and 8gb of RAM. On a 7200rpm HDD with Windows 7, I had one thing to load at startup (Avast) and that was it. As soon as my desktop appeared, I was able to use that machine as if it had never been shut down in the first place.

Was only steam, defender, discord and a couple of other things. But HDD = bad time. 

[TempestCatto]

22 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Was only steam, defender, discord and a couple of other things. But HDD = bad time. 

With the exception of Defender, I see no reason those should be set to launch at startup. If all that was turned off, you'd have a much faster experience.

[Lord Vile]

45 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

With the exception of Defender, I see no reason those should be set to launch at startup. If all that was turned off, you'd have a much faster experience.

Nah doesn’t make much of a difference. I looked into it. It’s a HDD it’ll always be slow. There’s a reason why people have boot SSDs or go all SSD like myself

[TempestCatto]

51 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Nah doesn’t make much of a difference. I looked into it. It’s a HDD it’ll always be slow. There’s a reason why people have boot SSDs or go all SSD like myself

What's there to look into? It's simple, disable everything at startup and you'll have a faster boot time. Like I said before, I had a 7200rpm HDD coupled to some shite tier hardware, it can very well be a faster experience if you disable all that shit. Otherwise you're just bogging down your system and wasting your time needlessly.

[Nine Tailed Fox]

Yeah if your fine with screen recording the desktop and not doing anything else

[Lord Vile]

8 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

What's there to look into? It's simple, disable everything at startup and you'll have a faster boot time. Like I said before, I had a 7200rpm HDD coupled to some shite tier hardware, it can very well be a faster experience if you disable all that shit. Otherwise you're just bogging down your system and wasting your time needlessly.

I mean I disabled it all and it didn’t make a difference. 

[Kilrah]

8 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

What's there to look into? It's simple, disable everything at startup and you'll have a faster boot time.

If it's stuff you actually need and have to launch it manually afterwards and have to wait just as long it won't help you much...

[Lord Vile]

59 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

If it's stuff you actually need and have to launch it manually afterwards and have to wait just as long it won't help you much...

In my case it was just trouble shooting, ending up being some ram but still the HDD made it take about 5x longer than it would have with a SSD

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

9 hours ago, Nine Tailed Fox said:

Yeah if your fine with screen recording the desktop and not doing anything else

read the whole thread. at some point i recorded the screen while running cinebench and it still worked fine.

[TempestCatto]

8 hours ago, Kilrah said:

If it's stuff you actually need and have to launch it manually afterwards and have to wait just as long it won't help you much...

I've actually found that to be faster.

 

8 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

I mean I disabled it all and it didn’t make a difference. 

Fair enough.

[WkdPaul]

23 hours ago, Kilrah said:

Depends when you look. Earlier my quad core laptop was "idle" i.e. I was not doing anything, but still had 50% use for 10 minutes because Windows defender and MS telemetry were both hogging a core each...

True, Windows Defender and Windows Update sometimes bring my 8700 to a crawl ... 

 

But that's not the majority of the time, thankfully!

 

Was browsing for laptops earlier today and I'm happy to see some "real" multi-core i5s out there!!! (8th gen U line up looks nice really! And I put real in quote 'cause while a dual-core is a multi-core, I think we all agree dual-cores suck and that they should've been gone a long time ago!!!)