🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:31:53 -0700 (PDT), yaugin wrote:

> Blizzard most definitely deserves some of the blame. That post
> indicates very sloppy programming on their part, filling an idle
> rendering loop with as many active draws as possible instead of just
> sending noops like any sane programmer would do.

You're missing the point.

Do you know what a CPU that can't do operations every cycle without
melting is called?  Defective.

It's not the job of game programmers to figure out how many cycles
they are "allowed" to use before hardware starts to fail, especially
when we're all using different hardware!  Most hardware *won't* fail
in this way.

> computers of their millions of customers. The card manufacturer has a
> responsibility to ensure it can run the thousands of properly coded
> games out there, but can't protect against every piece of software
> that behaves maliciously in some way.

There is nothing "malicious" about sending a "stream" of instructions
without idling to a processor.  That is how 99.9999999% of software
works.

> Partial blame can be assigned to the card manufacturer as well. Nobody

No, 100% blame goes to card design.  If the card can't handle
processing instructions at its set clock frequency, it is either not
being cooled properly or is overclocked.

There is no "blame" on Blizzard for this, but obviously they can help
work around bad card design by throttling their instruction speed.
That doesn't make them at fault for hardware that is so badly designed
or cooled that a steady stream of instructions destroys it.

> Maybe so, but that's easy to say if you weren't affected by it or if
> you have a few hundred sitting around to piss away on a new video
> card. Otherwise it's just as fair to say that you're insensitive and/
> or elitist and that you're just taking the opportunity to revel in
> other people's misery merely because you have a graphics card that

No, I just happens that I have actual *practical* experience in
software design and programming, have been building and testing
different computers for my entire adult life, and have basic reasoning
skills.

Your argument is like saying that anyone who sends an all-white, full
intensity image to a monitor is guilty of damaging the screen if it
can't handle showing 100% white.

-- 
Hammer