View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 114
01-24-2010, 08:28 PM
People don't seem to understand some basic facts about the operation of computers here, so let me put this real simply.

Software uses computational cycles on the computer when executed. If the software is intensive, it takes more computational cycles to be executed; all computer parts have a computational limit. The is nothing a piece of software can do, just be being run, that can physically overload hardware. Software is not a physical object, it is a logical construct, and doesn't physically exist, therefore it cannot physically alter hardware in any way just by being executed (in other words, anything short of overclocking the hardware, which STO obviously doesn't do). The most software can do is run your hardware at the aforementioned computational limit, putting your hardware at "full load"; there is no magical means by which one piece of programming can harm a computer whilst others do not, as all that differs from the hardware perspective is the size of the program in memory, and the number of computational cycles needed for execution. I hope this point has been sufficiently stated and reiterated.

So, with that in mind, here's a breakdown of what you can and can't blame Cryptic for:

You can blame Cryptic for software that puts hardware under a heavy load, insofar as you can blame them for making a high-end, system-intensive game (which should have been the understanding upon purchase).

You cannot blame Cryptic if your hardware is incapable of taking said heavy load. Yes, under certain circumstances, STO can computationally max out hardware, which most games do not, but hardware is designed to run in such a state for prolonged periods. CPUs and GPUs are designed to run at 100% load if the component is good, well maintained, and not subject to imprudent levels of overclocking; as such STO does nothing that a given piece of hardware is not designed to do.

To reiterate yet again, software can do nothing but consume computational cycles, and that, in itself, cannot harm hardware no matter how much it maxes that hardware out, because in a proper setting, hardware is designed for such function. In fact, there would be no point in making a processor which couldn't operate at its computational capacity (even though half the Netburst chips couldn't, but I digress), because then you wouldn't be getting the advertised level of performance for said hardware.