Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:

> > Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> And yet, M$ Word is still as slow today as it was all those years ago... 
> > 
> >   No, it isn't. Take MS Word from those days and run it in a modern
> > computer and let's see if it's as slow as then.

> He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old 
> Word on an old computer.

  I know that he meant that, and my answer was that he is comparing apples
with oranges.

  Just because the two pieces of software have been given the same name and
both can be used for the same task doesn't mean that they are the *same*
software. They are two different programs. Saying "Word is *still* as slow
as it was 10 years ago" is wrong: No it isn't. He is comparing the 10yo
program called "Word" with a modern program called "Word" which doesn't
share anything else than the name (and maybe some subroutines perhaps).

  These two softwares can be distinguished by their version number, which
is usually mentioned in the name of the software.

> Software gets slower at around the same rate as 
> computers get faster

  Not true. Software *does more* at the same rate as computing power
allows it.

  Sure, Half-Life 2: Episode 2 played in a 2GHz Pentium4 may be
"as slow as" Doom played in a 33MHz 486 in terms of framerate, but
that's still comparing apples with oranges. The only thing these two
pieces of software have in common is that they are both FPS games.
HL2:Ep2 is *doing more* than Doom.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message