 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> 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. Software gets slower at around the same rate as
computers get faster (well, GUI stuff... CPU-intensive software like
POV-Ray does notice the speedups, or the increase in quality).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old
> Word on an old computer. Software gets slower at around the same rate as
> computers get faster.
And I find this extremely annoying. But apparently I am entirely alone
in this opinion, so...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>
> And I find this extremely annoying. But apparently I am entirely alone
> in this opinion, so...
>
Wrong. I share the annoynment.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:56:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I'm amazed how you again and again succeed in showing your ignorance
> about basic things all computer and other nerds know.
Some people live very sheltered lives.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:19:18 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> - I have only watched about 3 episodes of Babylon 5. The only cool
>> thing about it was the graphics being done on an Amiga.
>
> Yet you know what B5 is?
A space opera/soap opera set in space. Yes, I watched it....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 04:56:23 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> I'm amazed how you again and again succeed in showing your ignorance
>> about basic things all computer and other nerds know.
>
> Some people live very sheltered lives.
...or just aren't interested in specific aspects of the world.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:15:37 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> The mainstream news seems to only be interested in telling you about all
> the BAD news. It's damn depressing to watch.
Exactly my sentiments. I never watch the news myself, because all it is
over here in the US is generally:
1. Politics (which I follow elsewhere)
2. A body count
3. The Weather (which I can get anytime I want online)
4. Sports (which I don't care about)
5. Some feel-good story about a family saved by their pet or some other
nonsense like that.
#2 generally takes up most of the newscasts I've seen - accidents,
shootings, robberies, etc. If I want to be scared, I'll watch a horror
movie.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > He means a *current* Word on a *current* computer is as slow as the old
> > Word on an old computer. Software gets slower at around the same rate as
> > computers get faster.
> And I find this extremely annoying. But apparently I am entirely alone
> in this opinion, so...
If you liked Word from 10 years ago, nothing stops you from taking it
and using it in your current supercomputer. It will be much faster than
it was 10 years ago.
You seem to refuse to accept that modern software *does more* than 10
years old software. You always talk as if they did the *exact same thing*,
just much more slowly.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
