 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethis zbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> 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.
The solution is rather simple: Just use the old software. What's
stopping you?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:09:08 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> 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...
Nope, that's something that's pissed me off about the computing industry
for many, many years.
If anything, it takes longer now to do things on a computer than it did
10 years ago, because the machines are doing so much more in the OS and
with other apps, everything slows down significantly.
So while the number of transistors on a chip doubles every 'x' amount of
time, the amount of time it takes to actually do a task generally has
increased by a proportional amount.
Some tasks, obviously, this doesn't apply to. Rendering anything in POV-
Ray on a V20 processor was painful - but something I did often in the
early 90's. Now it's nice and fast.
But as tools have gotten more complex, people's ability to use then
effectively has been reduced significantly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Mar 2008 15:45:50 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> Defining what is the "first computer game ever created" is a bit more
>difficult than one might thing.
The first one I played was a golf game in 1972 the first text game was Kingdom
in about 1975.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> If anything, it takes longer now to do things on a computer than it did
> 10 years ago
I believe this to be just a false memory in most cases. Do you have any
concrete examples?
> But as tools have gotten more complex, people's ability to use then
> effectively has been reduced significantly.
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.
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.
Want to edit the image at 1600x1200 resolution to get a larger editing
area? No problem. Over a decade ago you were lucky if you got a 1024x768
resolution, and that at an acceptable speed.
Want to attach the image to an email (yeah, bad thing to do, but it is
something people do)? Kaboom -> Split second and there it is. Not waiting
for tens of seconds for it to do it.
Want to watch some mpeg4-encoded video? It launches almost immediately
and playing it takes something like 20% of your CPU. If you like, you
can do other things while watching the video. Over a decade ago you
couldn't even play that kind of video because the computer was not
powerful enough. Even playing an mp3 could take most of the CPU time.
And let's not talk about 3D modeling software and real-time previews
(just imagine using a software like Poser 15 years ago.)
Video editing? You could just dream of it 15 years ago.
Sound editing? Yes, perfectly possible 15 years ago, if you had the
time to wait. Today, a breeze.
Browsing the internet with a web browser? Fast and efficient nowadays,
sluggish 15 years ago.
Maybe it's just me.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> That would be a 486, yes. It worked in a 386, but 486 was recommended.
Actually, I'm kind of amused. I realized the files in the boot partition
for my Linux are bigger than you could put on the biggest hard drive
available for the IBM AT.
Then again, I can comfortably fit a memory chip with several orders of
magnitude more storage than the IBM AT could handle up my nose.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > That would be a 486, yes. It worked in a 386, but 486 was recommended.
> Actually, I'm kind of amused. I realized the files in the boot partition
> for my Linux are bigger than you could put on the biggest hard drive
> available for the IBM AT.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.
(Are you expecting linux to do the same things it's doing now but only
use a tiny amount of disk space? How do you expect it to do that miracle?)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> 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.
Yep, updates without you even noticing, then annoys you to death to
reboot. With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you
again in 10 minutes? If you don't click anything in 5 minutes, I'll
reboot anyway.
The only thing that popup is missing is Clippy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Not true. Software *does more* at the same rate as computing power
> allows it.
But if you want to do the same simple thing you did before (ie. you
don't want it to "do more") with modern software, it's still slower.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> That would be a 486, yes. It worked in a 386, but 486 was recommended.
>
>> Actually, I'm kind of amused. I realized the files in the boot partition
>> for my Linux are bigger than you could put on the biggest hard drive
>> available for the IBM AT.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.
Nothing except that I'm amazed at how fast disk sizes grow. It wasn't a
cut on Linux. I just don't have any idea how big the "boot partition"
on a Windows machine would need to be. (Unless you only count NTLDR et
al.) I was merely making an observation.
People complain about "software bloat", and it always seemed like a
silly complaint. I have a five-year-old machine, and I can't even buy a
disk drive as small as twice as big as what's in there now.
It used to be 32 meg was as huge as it got on a desktop machine. Now
that won't even be enough RAM to boot a modern desktop OS, let alone a
enough disk space.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nicolas Alvarez" <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> a écrit dans le
message de news: 47d31bb8$1@news.povray.org...
> Warp escribió:
>> Not true. Software *does more* at the same rate as computing power
>> allows it.
>
> But if you want to do the same simple thing you did before (ie. you don't
> want it to "do more") with modern software, it's still slower.
Like Warp, I'd like to see hard data about that. I've been using computers
for engineering and office work since 1983 (I even punched cards, just to
show you how old I am) and the "modern software is bloated" meme goes
completely contrary to my experience. If anything, I keep being amazed at
the things I'm able to do now, particularly when I look at my archives and
at the things I did back then that seemed to me, at the time, difficult and
slow. I mean, lots of the stuff that people take for granted nowadays, like
printing stuff, could be just painful then.
And I *** have *** metrics: for instance, I've been running on a regular
basis a large and complex set of calculations and queries from a big
database that I've been developing since 1989 (one year before you were
born!). When I started, these processes took one entire day (often I let it
run during the week-end). Sometimes I realised that I had done a mistake so
I had to rerun it (or parts of it). Now this set of processes, expanded to
much more complex ones, runs in less than two hours, even though the
database is 10 times larger. In fact, I gradually increased the complexity
of the queries over the years to take advantage of speed, RAM, disc space
and software abilities. And that's just an example: most of the stuff I do
routinely now would have been extremely difficult 10 years ago, and pure
science-fiction (on a desktop at least) 20 years ago.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Yep, updates without you even noticing, then annoys you to death to
> reboot.
Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.
Some do, like for example firewall programs, but that's understandable.
> With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you
> again in 10 minutes?
Wasn't there an option somewhere to stop windows autoupdate from
showing those dialogs?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>> Yep, updates without you even noticing, then annoys you to death to
>> reboot.
>
> Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
> installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.
All Windows updates do.
>> With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you
>> again in 10 minutes?
>
> Wasn't there an option somewhere to stop windows autoupdate from
> showing those dialogs?
Yes. Not letting it install automatically.
Set it to something like "download but ask me before installing". Then
whenever you're ready to reboot, you install them and reboot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nothing except that I'm amazed at how fast disk sizes grow.
Not only do they grow a lot, they get incredibly cheap. Same for RAM.
I remember when I bought 4 megabytes of extra RAM for my 486. It costed
something like (when converted) 250 US dollars. Nowadays I can buy 1 gigabyte
of RAM with less than half that amount of money.
(Somehow the cost of RAM plummeted at an incredible rate at some point.)
> It used to be 32 meg was as huge as it got on a desktop machine. Now
> that won't even be enough RAM to boot a modern desktop OS, let alone a
> enough disk space.
I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> > Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
> > installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.
> All Windows updates do.
Actually they don't *require* it, they just nag you to do it, by default.
> >> With a countdown. Want to reboot now, or want me to annoy you
> >> again in 10 minutes?
> >
> > Wasn't there an option somewhere to stop windows autoupdate from
> > showing those dialogs?
> Yes. Not letting it install automatically.
No, I meant that I faintly remember there was a way to have automatic
updates *and* not having it to nag about the rebooting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:40:50 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> If anything, it takes longer now to do things on a computer than it did
>> 10 years ago
>
> 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.
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.
In both cases, use older machines, say, a PS/2 model 30 for the older
tests, and a modern 64-bit machine for the Windows tests.
It's not a false memory, it's demonstrable fact.
>> But as tools have gotten more complex, people's ability to use then
>> effectively has been reduced significantly.
>
> 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.
> 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.
Perhaps you missed the bit where I said that certain things are faster.
> 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. 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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:16:53 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Hardly any program nowadays requires you to reboot anymore after
> installation. That was in the Windows 3.x days.
You clearly haven't installed Windows recently, have you?
My stepson reinstalled his Windows XP installation a few weeks ago. It
took 3 freakin' days to get the system built properly, because the
machine needed so many reboots for driver installations, updates applied
to the system - and he couldn't install his wireless card driver until he
plugged the machine into an Ethernet port to do the stupid "Windows
Activation" bull.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
> uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
> light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson escribió:
> My stepson reinstalled his Windows XP installation a few weeks ago. It
> took 3 freakin' days to get the system built properly, because the
> machine needed so many reboots for driver installations, updates applied
> to the system - and he couldn't install his wireless card driver until he
> plugged the machine into an Ethernet port to do the stupid "Windows
> Activation" bull.
And I bet installing the network card made Windows say "New hardware
found. Would you like to search for drivers on Internet?" Erm, guess
what, I can't get on Internet until I install the new hardware!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 22:16:25 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> 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.
There is that as well - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
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.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> > I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
> > uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
> > light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
> capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
The main point is whether you were able to run X with it or not.
To simply use the console you could use a microwave oven. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw schrieb:
> Gary Gygax, co-creator of Dungeons and Dragons, died tuesday morning.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/04/obit.gygax.ap/index.html
>
>
The sunday special from userfriendly says it all
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080309
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro which
>> uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If it's
>> light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of RAM.
>
> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
> capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
>
> Jim
I switched to LINUX when my pretty *new* 386 wasn't sufficient for the
new Mrcrosoft OS requirements. As a nice side effect the LateX version
was capable of running more than 200 pages - unlike the DOS version,
that stopped at 200. At that time I had been very happy about the
performance of LINUX, making the most of my hardware.
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:21:41 +0100, Marc Schimmler wrote:
> I switched to LINUX when my pretty *new* 386 wasn't sufficient for the
> new Mrcrosoft OS requirements. As a nice side effect the LateX version
> was capable of running more than 200 pages - unlike the DOS version,
> that stopped at 200. At that time I had been very happy about the
> performance of LINUX, making the most of my hardware.
Not surprising, really - I was fairly happy with the performance of my
machine as well, until I tried to run mysql and apache on it
simultaneously. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:21:48 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:07:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > I think you could perfectly well fit an ultra-small linux distro
>> > which
>> > uses a light-weight window manager in a bootable 32MB hard disk. If
>> > it's light-weight enough, it probably could even run with 32MB of
>> > RAM.
>
>> I ran a very lightweight Linux distro on a 386 with a maximum memory
>> capacity of 16 MB. The machine physically couldn't take more memory.
>
> The main point is whether you were able to run X with it or not.
> To simply use the console you could use a microwave oven. ;)
I was able to accomplish what I wanted without X - just like with DOS, I
could run WP51, Lotus 1-2-3, and Harvard Graphics without the need for
Windows. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:20:26 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Comparing modern software on modern hardware with a modern OS against the
"modern" equivalents from 20 years ago.
20 years ago, I could run WordPerfect for DOS on a DOS machine that was
an 8086 or 80286 and got decent performance - instant responses and
whatnot.
Today I have a machine that's a billion times faster, and the modern
software *runs slower*.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:07:13 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 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 :)
A lot of the bloat comes from inefficient coding - after all, I can put
32 GB of memory in a machine nowadays, so why do I need to worry about
optimisation?
The type of optimization that was taught in CS classes in the early 90's
doesn't seem to even be a concern any more because "the machines are fast
enough and have enough memory that it doesn't matter if we're sloppy in
our coding".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:35:18 +0200, Gail Shaw wrote:
> Phone - " Sorry, I'm not interested in anyting you have to sell.
> Goodbye"
Add "Stop calling me, because you will never win business from me by
being annoying/persistent".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
47d44731$1@news.povray.org...
> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
> ago. That's the point.
But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in
opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in between,
that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of using
engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes longer, duh.
What about the rest, like actually using the software for the kind of tasks
that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about office software:
spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word processing. That's
really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, sorry.
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 22:01:53 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d44731$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
>> ago. That's the point.
>
> But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in
> opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in
> between, that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of
> using engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes
> longer, duh. What about the rest, like actually using the software for
> the kind of tasks that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about
> office software: spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word
> processing. That's really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses,
> sorry.
No, I'm talking about use of office software - see my example, for
example, of using Word and watching it catch up with my typing. When
that happened, I half expected Clippy to jump in and say "in order to see
your text as you type it, you need to type more slowly" or something
stupid (and about as helpful as Clippy *usually* provided me before I
turned it off) like that.
But I've only been using office and engineering software for 25 years
myself, so I obviously don't know what I'm talking about. ;-)
The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features that
no sane user wants to use. I'll admit that if I were to try to do a
crosstab with Lotus 1-2-3, I'd not have been able to do it (because the
feature wasn't there AFAICR), and that is something I use today that
isn't in the older software.
It may entirely be a perceptual thing - but that doesn't make it any less
of a valid observation.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran escribió:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a �crit dans le message de news:
> 47d44731$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> It takes me more time to do equivalent tasks now to what I did 15 years
>> ago. That's the point.
>
> But what are you doing exactly? Unless your job consists exclusively in
> opening and closing applications and doing absolutely nothing in between,
> that goes *** completely *** against my (20-year) experience of using
> engineering and office software. Startup times are sometimes longer, duh.
> What about the rest, like actually using the software for the kind of tasks
> that are expected in 2008? And here I'm talking about office software:
> spreadsheets, presentation software, databases and word processing. That's
> really looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses, sorry.
Saying "people don't restart the app all the time, so startup times
don't matter" is just like saying "computers are fast nowadays, so
optimization doesn't matter".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> Saying "people don't restart the app all the time, so startup times
> don't matter" is just like saying "computers are fast nowadays, so
> optimization doesn't matter".
Heh, yeah, basically so. But when user uses multitasking to beat startup
times (you don't need to start software often, 'cause you can keep them
open at the background) makes optimization (especially memory-) more
useful :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
47d455a1$1@news.povray.org...
> The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features that
> no sane user wants to use.
Uh, that's really patronizing. Featuritis does exist, but it's a too common
fallacy to think that because one doesn't need certain features the're
completely useless, like in those funny Slashdot discussions where legions
of clueless nerds remind everyone that because *** they *** are happy using
The Gimp to make lolcats everyone using Photoshop is an idiot.
>I'll admit that if I were to try to do a crosstab with Lotus 1-2-3, I'd not
>have been able to do it (because the
>feature wasn't there AFAICR), and that is something I use today that
>isn't in the older software.
1-2-3 would be completely useless by modern standards, and not just because
of crosstab. Really useless, like a brick. And I loved it for years, until I
switched. You'll pry my bloated Excel from my dead cold hands ;)
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features that
> no sane user wants to use.
it's not just feature bloat: the sheer number of code libraries and multiple
layers of indirection given modern programming environments is a huge factor
for slowness. Thus, hardware gets faster and faster and software bloated and
bloated. For us, it's always about the same.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 23:35:14 +0100, Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d455a1$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features
>> that no sane user wants to use.
>
> Uh, that's really patronizing.
It wasn't intended to be.
> Featuritis does exist, but it's a too
> common fallacy to think that because one doesn't need certain features
> the're completely useless, like in those funny Slashdot discussions
> where legions of clueless nerds remind everyone that because *** they
> *** are happy using The Gimp to make lolcats everyone using Photoshop is
> an idiot.
It's not a question of "so many features *I* don't need to use", but "so
many features that *most* users don't need to use". Pivottables are an
example, actually - though I use them a lot, most of the spreadsheet
users I work with have no idea even how to use them effectively. I've
had to teach people how to use them because they were doing it by hand.
(Which actually, I realise, doesn't prove my point).
>>I'll admit that if I were to try to do a crosstab with Lotus 1-2-3, I'd
>>not have been able to do it (because the
>>feature wasn't there AFAICR), and that is something I use today that
>>isn't in the older software.
>
> 1-2-3 would be completely useless by modern standards, and not just
> because of crosstab. Really useless, like a brick. And I loved it for
> years, until I switched. You'll pry my bloated Excel from my dead cold
> hands ;)
I don't know that 1-2-3 would be completely useless by modern standards -
I think a lot of tasks that people use Excel for these days aren't much
beyond what 1-2-3 was capable of.
As for what I use, I'm an avowed OpenOffice 2.3 user. You can have your
Excel, oocalc does everything I have a need for, and the price is most
definitely right. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:17:45 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The problem is that much of our "modern" software includes features
>> that no sane user wants to use.
>
> it's not just feature bloat: the sheer number of code libraries and
> multiple layers of indirection given modern programming environments is
> a huge factor for slowness. Thus, hardware gets faster and faster and
> software bloated and bloated. For us, it's always about the same.
Yep, that's kinda my point. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:39:50 +0200, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>
>> Saying "people don't restart the app all the time, so startup times
>> don't matter" is just like saying "computers are fast nowadays, so
>> optimization doesn't matter".
>
> Heh, yeah, basically so. But when user uses multitasking to beat startup
> times (you don't need to start software often, 'cause you can keep them
> open at the background) makes optimization (especially memory-) more
> useful :).
Yeah, but for $50, you can add another 2 GB of memory to the machine, so
why not?
One of the reasons for Microsoft's success in the industry is their huge
programs. Hardware vendors *loved* Microsoft in the early days, because
in order to use the software, you had to buy the biggest, baddest, *most
expensive* machine they could sell you.
Why on earth would HP, for example, recommend NetWare (a solid, stable,
and secure network OS) in the mid 1990's? It ran on a 386 with 16 MB of
memory, and it ran forever. There are *still* installations of version
2.x and 3.x (current is 6.5) that are perfectly functioning because the
damned thing *just works*.
Conversely, the earliest server releases of Windows required gobs of
memory and processor, and each successive release required more memory,
more disk space, more of everything. The hardware vendors got a
permanent customer upgrade cycle, service contracts, the works - because
the system was overcomplicated, bloated, and a resource hog.
That's not to say there weren't other factors for Novell's decline (some
of which were by all means self-inflicted), but having something that
didn't make any of the hardware manufacturers any money certainly hurt.
It's a shame when the technologically superior product loses due to a
case like this. Even more so when anti-competitive behaviour comes into
play (as is well documented fact).
im
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9 Mar 2008 15:16:01 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>A lot of the bloat comes from inefficient coding - after all, I can put
>32 GB of memory in a machine nowadays, so why do I need to worry about
>optimisation?
>
>The type of optimization that was taught in CS classes in the early 90's
>doesn't seem to even be a concern any more because "the machines are fast
>enough and have enough memory that it doesn't matter if we're sloppy in
>our coding".
Isn't that how you get cheap programmes, though? If you reuse code and generic
solutions combined with not testing fully the production costs are kept low
(ish). BTW I'm not arguing it is just an opinion I've developed over the years.
I know next to nothing about programming and the only lesions I've ever had was
in the 70's writing assembly code for fault finding. Myself, I can't code for
toffee and I know it.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 20 years ago, I could run WordPerfect for DOS on a DOS machine that was
> an 8086 or 80286 and got decent performance - instant responses and
> whatnot.
Was WordPerfect for 8086 wysiwyg? I doubt so.
The programs are doing different things. If you want to compare software
on equal terms, compare it to LaTeX.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
