|
|
scott wrote:
>> No - I'd like 99% of my RAM available for doing *useful work*,
>
> You could always install a minimum Linux build and use a plain-text
> editor instead of MS Word.
It's surprising how much RAM even that requires... You'd think it would
be a few KB, but apparently not.
> What's your definition of useful work btw? I think it would probably be
> quite different to most other users of Windows.
Why? Because I want to use the RAM for surfing the Internet or holding
that document I'm working on, rather than storing some useless annoying
animated paperclib?
>> not just wasted because lazy programmers couldn't be bothered to fix
>> their code.
>
> Why on Earth should they optimise a program for minimum-RAM footprint
> that uses only 10MB in the first place??!?! It would be a total WASTE
> of time and money for precisely ZERO benefit.
It saddens me that these days people think producing a superior product
is "a waste of time".
> Sure, if your program is using a huge chunk of RAM then it would
> probably be worth spending time trying to make sure it is optimised, but
> for something that is only using 10MB in the first place it's a total
> waste of time.
You say "only" as if 10 MB is a small amount of RAM...
> In fact, I think the whole MS OS and Office apps have probably been
> optimised for speed, not RAM usage, as todays machines have many times
> more RAM than you could ever use by loading even 50 copies of Word and
> PowerPoint.
Given how badly many of the PCs at work struggle to run Word, I doubt
that...
I guess it just comes down to how frustrating it is that my PC takes 30
seconds to load or close any given application. I mean, 20 *years* ago
computers could do that instanteneously with a fraction of the RAM and
CPU power. Why are we not coding like that any more??
Post a reply to this message
|
|