Again what the hell are you talking about? All the quote above says is that windows CPU usage reporting can be innacurate. I never said it could never reach 100% and I never made a single claim about Windows reporting more or less CPU usage than is true. Jesus.
Wait...you say that it's "inaccurate", but then "I never made a single claim about Windows reporting more or less CPU usage than is true." Please explain these two diametrically opposed statements.
No CPU usage reporting system is perfect, I don't see your argument here. It seems like you want to just keep touting your own horn.
Yes, I'm "touting" my own horn. *sigh* Except that what you said was NOT that "No CPU usage reporting system is perfect." You said "It's an established fact that windows can be very inaccurate when reporting CPU usage." The point was that when he presented to you the fact that running with the kind of low CPU usage that he was seeing with 2.4.9 was not only *possible* in Win32, but that it did, in fact, directly correlated with the numbers he was seeing, showing that it *IS* indeed possible. However, you fire back that Win32 CPU reporting "can be very inaccurate", which means that you don't trust *IT*, either. The problem is, nobody else has seen whatever it is that you've seen to create your inherent distrust of 2.4.9 and Win32.
Instead you put words in my mouth that I never said and start up an argument that you want me to now prove that Windows CPU usage isn't perfect.
Hahaha...backpeddle much?
> How so? You've never seen a process reach 99% CPU?
...as the entirety of your response. Thanks for the enlightenment.
I'm not going to waste my time on every flame put forth by you.
That's, unfortunately, the kind of response I was expecting. You're not a politician by trade, by any chance, are you?
-- Eric (the Deacon remix)
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
