 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, Wing Commander was
> released the year I was born.
suddenly, I feel terribly old.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:05:05 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson escribió:
>> 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. 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.
>
> OMG somebody with common sense...
>
> Some months ago I started writing my own NNTP server just so I could
> read web forums from Thunderbird, along with news.povray.org. The idea
> was writing both the server and the web scraper. Yet another abandoned
> project, for now.
I wish more software projects would recognize a few things:
1. NNTP is very efficient for those who read lots of messages
2. It's not impossible to have web-based forums and still provide an
NNTP interface (vBulletin is quite good for this, actually)
3. Creating 500,000 different discussion areas that are not connected
doesn't make your project *better*, it dilutes the expertise to a point
that it actually weakens the project.
One of the reasons I really like the POVRay project - good, strong,
community and a common-sense approach to managing that community.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.
A more appropriate comparison would be WordPerfect 5.1 to Wordpad if
you're just doing bare-bones word processing that needs a little
formatted text.
> 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.
The majority of people these days run most commonly a web browser (with
several windows/tabs open *at the same time*), some sort of file sharing
program (BitTorrent, whatever other P2P clients are popular these days),
iTunes if they have an iPod *shudder*, music/video player of choice,
some kind of game from Freecell to Crysis, an instant messaging program,
an antivirus program.
A 'casual computer user' is far more likely these days to just have
their computer for playing WoW and chatting than typing letters or doing
spreadsheets.
Or did you mean *business* users? *They're* the ones who need the word
processor, spreadsheet, access to the 'net and presentation software. I
don't even have presentation software installed.
> 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.
1993, surfing the web was *not* generally faster. The web was this
strange new thing, people used gifs more often than jpegs, *didn't* use
img size tags so the browser (if it had the ability, given the
attributes) would know how to do page layout so you didn't see anything
until the page finished loading, had background images on every page
whether it was useful or not, loaded MIDI or wav files to play at full
volume, and not split their site into useful subsections so you just had
one long long page...
...great heavens, I just described the average MySpace page.
*bangs head against wall*
Nowadays, you can get more garbage in a lot less time. :P
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:12:04 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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.
>
> A more appropriate comparison would be WordPerfect 5.1 to Wordpad if
> you're just doing bare-bones word processing that needs a little
> formatted text.
WordPad didn't exist on DOS. EDIT did, but most people used a program
like WordPerfect rather than EDIT. EDIT was used for changing
autoexec.bat, config.sys, etc.
>> 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.
>
> The majority of people these days run most commonly a web browser (with
> several windows/tabs open *at the same time*), some sort of file sharing
> program (BitTorrent, whatever other P2P clients are popular these days),
> iTunes if they have an iPod *shudder*, music/video player of choice,
> some kind of game from Freecell to Crysis, an instant messaging program,
> an antivirus program.
>
> A 'casual computer user' is far more likely these days to just have
> their computer for playing WoW and chatting than typing letters or doing
> spreadsheets.
>
> Or did you mean *business* users? *They're* the ones who need the word
> processor, spreadsheet, access to the 'net and presentation software. I
> don't even have presentation software installed.
Yes, business users. When talking about productivity (as I was), you
talk about business apps.
> 1993, surfing the web was *not* generally faster. The web was this
> strange new thing, people used gifs more often than jpegs, *didn't* use
> img size tags so the browser (if it had the ability, given the
> attributes) would know how to do page layout so you didn't see anything
> until the page finished loading, had background images on every page
> whether it was useful or not, loaded MIDI or wav files to play at full
> volume, and not split their site into useful subsections so you just had
> one long long page...
Bingo. I could get a lot of information similar to what's on the web now
over a dialup connection. Try using a dialup connection today.
Why doesn't it work? *Bloat*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Mar 2008 21:05:53 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>Some of the folks here have struck a nerve with me by continuing to "pick
>on" you. That *normally* comes out of a need to feel superior to someone
>- I grew up being the target of that kind of behaviour from my peers, and
>I really won't stand for it when I see people doing it to others.
>
>And it seems especially ridiculous to me for *adults* having the need to
>feel superior by making fun of someone who hasn't had the same common
>experience they have had or likes different things, or whatever. That
>smacks of serious insecurity on the part of those who are doing the
>"teasing".
>
>This constant need that some members here have to continue to put Andy
>down *must* stop. I'm not going to name names - you know who you are.
>Knock it off already.
>
Too true
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2008 00:44:20 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>Why doesn't it work? *Bloat*.
True but you've got to remember that 15 years ago. The only people who used the
internet were IT folk and did not need to be coddled and who could set up their
own programmes. Bloat is for those who like formatted text and microwave dinners
:)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> The solution is rather simple: Just use the old software. What's
> stopping you?
>
Actually, I mostly do. That doesn't prevent me being bugged from the
fact that if software didn't get bloated as fast, there could be more
resources allocated to eg. stability and lower energy consumption
instead of plain speed and price.
But then, it's a marketing world, so those resources would be wasted to
lower the price...
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47d2fd26@news.povray.org...
> >> Hmm, and I'll bet you've met a lot of salepeople in your line of work
> >> too. ;-)
> >
> > None if I can help it.
>
> TELL ME YOUR SECRET!! >_<
>
> I am *so* fed up of that Russian girl trying to sell me AV licenses...
Phone or email?
Email - a good spam filter.
Phone - " Sorry, I'm not interested in anyting you have to sell. Goodbye"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
No, we are not comparing apples to oranges here at all.
> 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.
(Naturally let's forget how long it takes to *print* that letter with
hardware of each era.)
> > 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?
> > This update doesn't require all your computer resources, but you can
> > nowadays actually do something else while it's updating, and you won't
> > even notice.
> > If I want to open a gigantic image in basically any software, it takes
> > but a split second, while over a decade ago it could take a long time.
> > Making modidications to the image is extremely fast, while over a decade
> > ago it could take minutes.
> 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.
> > 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.
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".
> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:12:04 -0500, Tim Cook wrote:
> > Jim Henderson wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > A more appropriate comparison would be WordPerfect 5.1 to Wordpad if
> > you're just doing bare-bones word processing that needs a little
> > formatted text.
> WordPad didn't exist on DOS.
Neither did Word 2003. I completely fail to see your point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
