Reserving one core for the GUI and mouse would be pretty wasteful. And it doesn't really address the problem. The problem is that shared resources need to be protected from corruption when multiple processes/threads access them. This is usually done with locks. If you are'nt careful then these locks can limit serialization.

In this case the likely fix is to reduce contention for the lock, perhaps by not creating/destroying GDI objects for processes that don't need them.

I'm not sure if this answer was intended to be serious or not. Either way, just to clarify, it is entirely false. The process that updates the mouse position is not frequently recycled.

The real reason is that the same system-global lock is used for a lot of purposes. The same lock appears to protect GDI objects (destroyed when processes are destroyed, even those that never use GDI) and process message queues. Thus, mouse-movement and UI updates are fighting over the same lock which process destruction uses.

So, is it square root (100 is the square root of 10,000) or cube root (like the post said) or is it the square of the fifth root (100 compared to 100,000).

'cause so far the more information I'm given about this story the less I know, and the apology didn't actually clarify anything.

How is this better or different from the single-step option of setting the WpadOverride registry key to "1"? And since you say this "should work for most users", what users will it not work for?

It is unfortunate that the original article didn't explain this carefully (or at all, actually).

Yeah, seriously. Telling people that you are at risk of account compromise unless you do "X" and then giving zero instructions on how to do "X" is pretty terrible.

I did Google for instructions on how to disable Wpad and found the registry setting mentioned above, but it didn't seem clear whether that was sufficient. The instructions below saying "This should work for most users" just add to the confusion.

Fair enough. I didn't realize how ambiguous that sentence would appear, especially when the slashdot summary omitted '2015'. I fixed the sentence in my blog post.

> and is not that much important news

I thought it was interesting, which was why I wrote it. Whether it is important is up to each reader to decide.

The post says:

> Shingled Magnetic Recording drives, can not typically be used natively by the OS

but gives no reference or explanation for this claim. Searching for this claim finds it repeated verbatim on many sites, but no explanation.

The details of the recording technology rarely matter to the OS which treats the device as block-level storage. I'm not saying it's impossible for SMR to require an OS update, but I would like an explanation or reference.

It sounds like problem is that an SMR drive can't write to a single track, so using it *efficiently* requires an OS update, much like SSDs. But some clarification would be nice.

Please stop describing this book as "using only the thousand most common English words". The word 'thousand' is not one of the thousand most common English words, which is why Randall describes the book as "using only the ten hundred most common English words". Missing that detail is practically missing the entire point.

> This is all just superstition at this point without numbers.

Yep. That. Let's see some numbers so that we can do science instead of divining.

I've been running the same Windows install on my laptop for 4.5 years and it still feels quite fast to me. I installed an SSD last year, which obviously helps a lot. Prior to that there was the predictable delay whenever I launched a program that I hadn't run for a while (that wasn't in the disk cache), and now I don't even have that. I have *lots* of programs installed, but I see none of the sluggishness which you describe.

A noticeable slowdown in four weeks is quite odd, unusual, and not normal.

The problem with your report is that it is hopelessly vague. What is slow? Launching programs? Running programs? Poor frame rate in some games?

Do you have enough memory? Do you have enough CPU cores?

Three possibilities come to mind:
1) You don't have enough RAM. If so (if there aren't many GB available at all times according to task manager) then get more.
2) Your CPU is overheating. While doing performance investigations for Valve I found that a lot of game slowdowns were caused by thermal throttling: https://randomascii.wordpress....
3) Something else is wasting CPU or memory. When I did hit sluggishness a few years ago I investigated and found the buggy device driver that was clearing the system disk cache: https://randomascii.wordpress....

So no, it's definitely not normal. To figure out what is going on you need to monitor specific details about your system in order to find and fix the root cause. slow/sluggish is not an actionable bug report.

If a buy a computer with a CPU that is rated at X GHz then that CPU had better be able to maintain that frequency, always. Otherwise it's a meaningless number. CPUs can already overclock themselves (Turboboost) above that frequency so if they can also legitimately underclock themselves then the 'rated frequency' is completely meaningless. I don't think that is acceptable. I encourage all slashdot readers to test their new computers under load and if they cannot maintain their rated frequency RETURN THEM! Or better yet, file a formal complaint for false advertising or fraud and then return them.

I blogged about this a while ago and I think the problem has only gotten worse. Lots of consumers are getting a crap experience because of insufficient cooling, manufacturers are selling rigs that can't do what they promise, and software developers waste time dealing with complaints about slow games/etc.

https://randomascii.wordpress....

> who've either spent thousands on astrological equipment

Well there's your problem -- you should have been focusing on telescopes instead of the Zodiac.

I've got a 6" Dobsonian telescope -- not terrifically expensive, under $1,000 I'm sure -- and I've enjoyed Jupiter moon transits before. It's no Hubble, but I enjoy it.

I've only used inline assembly in VC++ and, as you observe, it usually disoptimizes the rest of the function. I don't know if gcc/clang handle it better.

> the human eye has difficulty seeing more than 60hz.

Not true. And, a broad claim like that conflates many different concepts. Flicker fusion can require 85 Hz to not cause headaches for some people (especially with the low persistence needed for non-blurry VR), and smooth motion continues to feel smoother up to at least 120 Hz.

In addition, lower frame rates generally mean increased latency, and latency is probably the biggest cause of VR nausea.

But don't take my word for it. This blog post does a great job of summarizing the latest research on the topic:
http://home.comcast.net/~tom_f...

I have no idea what cheap CPUs and server I/O have to do with motion tracking, but tracking a single point (translation and rotation) is exactly what is needed for VR -- that point is the user's head, and tracking it with low latency is what makes VR work.

> The only difference between now and 20 years ago...

is everything. The technology is orders of magnitude cheaper and more capable.

What about the add with carry? That's the particularly hairy bit. Even if clang/gcc/VC++ recognize the pattern and turn it into optimal code, add with carry is a case where assembly language is cleaner and more elegant than the equivalent high-level language code.

I'm not a fan of inline assembler because it often gives you the worst of both worlds -- incomplete control over code generation, and worse syntactic messiness than pure assembly language. But yes, a mixture of C++ and assembly is definitely the right solution, either inline assembly or a single separate function to do the messy math.