 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> (There was also a big performance hit, IIRC...)
>
> So, asking a program to use 3MB of RAM on a 2MB Amiga with the VM
> support is different to you trying to use more than 256MB on your
> Windows machine how?
95% of all Amigas are factory standard. If your software requires custom
hardware, you just lost 95% of your market.
All PCs on the market already have VM hardware.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Apparently you still don't understand what I'm trying to say...
>
> That you'd prefer 99% of your RAM to be left unused, while sitting at
> very basic and streamlined versions of the OS and all applications (that
> the developers have spend years optimising RAM usage to a bare minimum
> and so is generations behind what is normal today and 5x the price)?
>
> Perhaps I don't understand then...
No - I'd like 99% of my RAM available for doing *useful work*, not just
wasted because lazy programmers couldn't be bothered to fix their code.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> No - I'd like 99% of my RAM available for doing *useful work*, not just
> wasted because lazy programmers couldn't be bothered to fix their code.
Code doesn't even get read off the disk these days unless you use it.
The amount of data in control structures is tiny compared to the amount
of RAM in a modern computer, and the amount of RAM occupied by actual
data. Why do you think enough of it is wasted that it's worth spending
the time and effort reducing the amount used?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So, asking a program to use 3MB of RAM on a 2MB Amiga with the VM support
>> is different to you trying to use more than 256MB on your Windows machine
>> how?
>
> 95% of all Amigas are factory standard. If your software requires custom
> hardware, you just lost 95% of your market.
>
> All PCs on the market already have VM hardware.
So it's ok for Amigas to be slow with VM, but for Windows PCs you expect
them to magically use VM as fast as normal RAM?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
What's your definition of useful work btw? I think it would probably be
quite different to most other users of Windows.
> 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.
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.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chop the tails off the Cathedral mice! Their tails take up too much space!!
:-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> So, asking a program to use 3MB of RAM on a 2MB Amiga with the VM
>>> support is different to you trying to use more than 256MB on your
>>> Windows machine how?
>>
>> 95% of all Amigas are factory standard. If your software requires
>> custom hardware, you just lost 95% of your market.
>>
>> All PCs on the market already have VM hardware.
>
> So it's ok for Amigas to be slow with VM, but for Windows PCs you expect
> them to magically use VM as fast as normal RAM?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I was saying was that on the Motorola 68000 series, turning on the
MMU (regardless of whether you use it to implement VM or whatever)
imposed a largish performance hit on all running code. And that is all.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/23 13:19:
> 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??
20 years ago, a striped down version of a document you use today may not fit on
your HD, if you where lucky enough to have one, or would need several floppies.
20 years ago, applications where still in the "stone age", with only a small
fraction of the functionality you have today, making them much smaller. 20 years
ago, there was no "what you see is what you get"! It was white text on black
with formating codes breaking your text. You had to actualy print your document
to realy know how it will print.
At that time, there was already some programms that needed almost a minute to
get up and running...
When you only have less than 64K to play with, you often had to do some
acrobatics to cram the programm AND it's data on your machine.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when you've converted POV-Ray into an
operating system; now you've got all the system resources to do your renderings.
Vimal N. Lad / Gautam N. Lad
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Alain" <ele### [at] netscape net> wrote in message
news:471e6036$1@news.povray.org...
> When you only have less than 64K to play with, you often had to do some
> acrobatics to cram the programm AND it's data on your machine.
>
I have un-fond memories of the hoops I had to jump through to get X-Wing
running. TSRs had to be loaded in precisely the right order, or there
wouldn't be enough memory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
