 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Outside "*sizeable* number of 'basic everyday' functions" category.
I think the argument is about what is "sizeable". A *sizable* number of
people plug third-party printers into their machines, read email, surf
the web, and play with digital photos.
> And we're talking about software bloat here, not hardware performance.
I think that was Warp's point: The title is wrong.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:08:51 +0100, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Fa3ien wrote:
>
>> Of course, the comparison is unfaire to some extents. However, it
>> shows well that, in everyday situations encoutered by many people, not
>> much has really be gained, and hungry OS's and office apps tend to
>> spoil the availiable resources.
>
> I tend to agree. It sadens me that nobody seems to bother trying to
> write efficient code any more...
I've been saying that for *years*. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 18:37:09 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Outside "*sizeable* number of 'basic everyday' functions" category.
Which logically *could* be defined as "anything that meets the criteria
that makes the older system look to perform about the same as the modern
system".
I know what you're saying, that thought just struck me. By definition,
it would exclude anything a high-powered computer would use.
So the bottom line *really* is that the average person's use of a PC
hasn't changed in almost 20 years - and as the machines tend to spend
most of their time idle, it's a question largely of who's machine is
idling faster and what benefit that idling provides...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
>> The point is: the AMD is thousands
>> of times faster, yet it doesn't feel a thousand times faster because the
>> OS is a thousand times more bloated.
>
> Try running povray in both systems and then repeat that.
The article focuses on what is everyday computing for a majority
of people : office applications.
Fabien.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
470c6e52$1@news.povray.org...
> The article focuses on what is everyday computing for a majority
> of people : office applications.
And this is where the article is patronising and dumb, because it's
completely clueless about the way people use office applications in 2007.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> but 'everyday computing for a majority of white-collar office workers'.
No, more like "everyday computing for a majority of white-collar office
workers 10+ years ago."
Because, you know, nobody nowadays uses shared calendars,
SalesForce.com, or Microsoft Exchange. Virtual no business serves
dynamic web pages based on a database. Indeed, most businesses don't
even have inventory or personnel records in a computerized database at
all. Nobody would *conceive* of actually having all their customers,
sales, and scheduled deliveries in electronic format, and it's
mind-boggling science fiction to think maybe such a database would be
shared between employees. And banks will never get to the point where
you could use computers to reconcile your accounting with theirs...
A deeply stupid comparison indeed.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Ok, fine: Try running a web browser in both systems.
Also done that.
Running IBrowse on my 20 MHz Amiga is... not amusing. If you thought IE
was slow on a 133 MHz laptop, think again! :-S
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> There's a lot more to office computing, and
> always has been, than just word processing and spreadsheets.
Not in my office.
(Hell, we're still using M$ Office 97 - because our customers ask us to...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> ... and if the application writer understands not only the application
> but also the machine details, and if the application is not signficantly
> larger than the compiler ...
When I did assembler, I usually had my C compiler generate an assembler
listing. I could then pick through the assembly code, and eliminate
instructions that didn't add value to the function, or replace them with
shorter or quicker sets of instructions that accomplished the same
thing. Maybe my compiler sucked, but I could often reduce a function by
50% in both size and execution time by whacking code that compilers need
to put in, but which isn't really required by the algorithm.
I generally did this only for sections of code that got executed a lot
in a given period of time; otherwise it wasn't worth it.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>
>> There's a lot more to office computing, and always has been, than just
>> word processing and spreadsheets.
>
> Not in my office.
Don't you complain that NT4 doesn't support USB? And don't you run lab
equipment and everything as a normal part of your office environment?
With links to computers in the USA? Or am I misremembering who has that
job??
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
