I don't understand what you don't agree with - ...
Is it the setting of the console timeout that you disagree with? If so, I'd be interested to hear what differences you have found.
I disagree with logging into the router. I see "logging onto the router" as "doing something", as now, the CPU is probably constantly polling to see if the user enters a command, and is not "idle". This is why when people set the "idle-pc" after they have logged onto the device, that they have to then get to the device console after they turn it on, so that they can "calm down the CPU utilization".
The way the idle-pc works is that it "guesses" when the device shouldn't be doing anything, and saves you some CPU cycles. There is a difference between a device with a logged-in user, and a device "without" a logged in user. There is a greater chance of attaining a more accurate idle-pc value, therefore, if the user is not logged onto the device.
Also, I notice that if you research the ipflow website, when they first came out with the idle-pc feature, it instructed users to do a "wr mem". When you look later at the README's for the 0.2.5 and 0.2.7, you can see that verbiage is removed, and they instead tell you to specifically "NOT" press the enter key, and instead do the key-sequence for calculating idle-pc.
To be honest, I've only observed a noticeable difference in CPU utilisation when setting the console timeout when running GNS3 v0.7.x on Windows. I can't say I observed any difference on OS X or Linux when changing the console timeout, and I have a sneaking suspicion that with GNS3 v0.8.x the console timeout is not so critical for Windows either (don't have time to test it now)
It's not important. The important thing is the idle-pc. Usually, the resultant calculation is different for a "logged in user" versus a "not logged in user". Since there are only so many values, you can probably get an occasional collision, where a logged in value is equivalent to a logged out value (had this a couple times during testing), but so far, the best values I get, are when not logged in. (and, they stay good when you log in, configure BGP/OSPF, etc.). I just disagree with telling people to login first ... I see so many prominent, well-known posters advocating logging onto the devices first, such as yourself here, or Martin over at the cisco forums, when I think people would be better off if the idle-pc was calculated outside of logging onto the device. (wouldn't have that mad scramble to log onto the device and start hitting enter, so you could get an "idle-pc")
Even from the documentation, it appears that idle-pc is a "guess" based upon the current state of the router doing nothing. To me, being at an enabled prompt is "doing something". About the best way to workaround that would be what one poster did state on another forum,, was to logout of the device before setting the idle-pc, after setting your exec-timeout 0, ... but as far as making the same config change over and over again ... the software already allows you to specific a default startup-config for your devices.
Another area I'd also like to test is whether adding modules to your router changes what may have been a good idle-pc into a not-as-good value - especially in relation to the NM-16ESW. Again, I don't have time. Anyone else out there want to take this one up?
I can report that there is no issue with whatever modules you put into the device.
I use 3725's, and I just model them all the same (I figure the more commonalities between the devices, the more efficiently it can use the memory management features.) I like to use NM-4T, and WIC-2T in all the serial slots. The same image/idle-pc I post above, I use all the time, no issues. I decided to throw a NM-16ESW in one, and it used the same old IDLE-PC, and I had no CPU spiking issues with it at all.
I use the same IDLE-PC across Old Dells running XP 32-bit or Ubuntu 32-bit, and a newer ASUS running Windows 7 64-bit.
CPU is not an issue. I also use idlemax (even though it's probably not even necessary), but since it doesn't introduce any errors for me yet, I'll continue to utilize it. I heard some bad press on "idlesleep" and am not sure if it was ever repaired.
My wife used to have horrendous problems on her computer running gns3, until I gave her my idle-PC to use. It made a world of difference. She didn't even need idlemax anymore.
Hope this helps!