On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:16:55 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   I believe this to be just a false memory in most cases. Do you have
>> >   any
>> > concrete examples?
> 
>> Boot DOS.  Boot Windows.  Compare the boot times.
> 
>   Yeah. Boot to Windows. Don't start the computer at all. Compare the
>   times.

With DOS the machine was able to be used when it started up.  I spent 
more than enough time working with DOS to know the difference between the 
machine being turned on and usable and it not.  Don't be ridiculous.

>> Create a letter using WordPerfect 5.1.  Create a letter using Microsoft
>> Word 2003.  Including the time just to start the applications, WP51
>> starts quicker, and you finish quicker.
> 
>   So WP51 starts in 5 seconds and Word starts in 6 seconds, you spend
> a half hour writing the letter in both, and when you are finished, you
> have spent 1805 seconds in WP51 and 1806 second in Word. Yeah, maybe you
> are right. It's slower to do it nowadays.

5s vs 6s?  Are you on crack?  WP51 started *instantly*, not in 5s, and 
Word 2003 - unless Windows pre-caches it (thus wasting memory that could 
be used for other tasks) takes significantly longer to start.

>   (Naturally let's forget how long it takes to *print* that letter with
> hardware of each era.)

How about let's not?  IBM Laser printer would crank them out at 19 ppm.  
Compare to the ubiquitous deskjet-style printer that's used today, the 
printers are even slower (I've got an 882c right here that's about 
equivalent if it's printing using only black ink).
 
>> >   Really? I have noticed the exact opposite trend. Just in the
>> >   Windows
>> > side of the world, for example updating software is easier than ever:
>> > In many cases the software updates itself automatically without you
>> > having to do anything about it. Even if you have to start the
>> > updating manually, it's usually pretty automated.
> 
>> And when the automated updates screw the machine up, the user is
>> basically screwed.
> 
>   How exactly is this related to the topic?

I'm not the one who brought up the unrelated topic of automated updates.  
Ask Tim.

>> As I said, there are some tasks that are faster on modern equipment
>> with modern software.  But the majority of people need a word
>> processor, a spreadsheet, and access to the 'net.  Maybe presentation
>> software.
> 
>   And those run much faster today than they did 15 years ago.

Baloney.  WP51 could keep up with my typing.  I can't count the number of 
times when using Word (prior to switching to Linux full-time) that I 
would type and the machine would just sit there, and then a few seconds 
later my text would appear.

>> >   Browsing the internet with a web browser? Fast and efficient
>> >   nowadays,
>> > sluggish 15 years ago.
> 
>> With a decent connection to the 'net, surfing the web 15 years ago was
>> generally faster, if only because the amount of crap that people put on
>> web pages was reduced.
> 
>   That's irrelevant with regard to whether *software* is faster today
>   than
> back then or not.

It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years 
ago.  That's the point.

>   Basically what you are saying there is equivalent to "it takes 1
>   second
> for a 386 to open a 320x240 image, and 5 seconds for an AMD64 to open a
> 32000x24000 image, hence the 386 is faster".

What I'm saying is "if I want to do a task today that's not CPU-
intensive, the applications are generally slower".  I note that you 
*still* aren't acknowledging that I said that there are *some* tasks 
(such as image editing) that this is NOT true for, and continue to use 
that as a counterexample.

>>  15 years ago, the big thing being talked about
>> was whether or not to use blink tags for $DEITY's sake.  Now it's all
>> about flash animations and dynamically updating web applications which
>> should *really* be implemented not using web technologies, but rather
>> using desktop development technologies.
> 
>   Still irrelevant with regard to whether software is nowadays faster
> or not.

Again, it takes longer to do the same tasks in many cases.  15 years ago, 
I could turn my machine on and start working.  Today, using Windows XP, I 
could go and buy a snack from the vending machine before the machine has 
finished starting up after needing applying updates.

Jim

Post a reply to this message