>>11288236>No it doesn't. You have 80+ processes running. It probably takes you twice as long to load stuff. inb4BUTIDON'TNEEDITFASTER, don't bullshit, there's no point in having something run slower if you can help it. If not, optimization wouldn't exist.
Just to experiment, I opened a 720p episode of anime, then one of my larger .doc files. Both loaded in around two seconds. I guess that means you can shave a WHOLE SECOND off the loading time - considering I may open up to ten episodes of anime a day and twenty .doc files, THAT MEANS I'M WASTING HALF A MINUTE OF MY LIFE A DAY! The most memory intensive thing I do other than booting up is shifting files around, and I can do other things whilst waiting for that to finish.>I'm going to college right now, and do use several memory intensive (most of the adobe master collection, .net, etc) programs at once.
All right, fair point. The point I was making was that I don't, I guess I just phrased it badly.>Well, neither do I, but I don't find it necessary to run 80 processes for no reason.
I don't find it necessary to spend the time learning what I need and what I don't need. Taking a quick glance at what I've got running I can spot at least ten instantly that don't need to be there, but why bother doing anything about them? My door sticks when it's wet, but I don't see the need to have one side of it sanded down.>Attacking the same invalid point from the same angle multiple times in succession does not constitute a good argument.>Yes it does.
Come on, you were making intelligent points up until that line.