Alan L.
Elite Member
I agree. What Intel speeds up, Microsoft vows to slow down.
Computers are A Devolutionary Scam
- Thread starter glennmac
- Start date
- Views: 6018
Bird
Rest in Peace
That's not too far off, Glennmac./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif
TWINKLE_TOES
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 1,366
Terry,
<font color=blue>As you noticed, the systems/programming guys threw in the towel!!/w3tcompact/icons/king.gif Smart move!!/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif</font color=blue>
I wouldn't count em down and out, Scruffy hasen't weighed in yet./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Al
<font color=blue>As you noticed, the systems/programming guys threw in the towel!!/w3tcompact/icons/king.gif Smart move!!/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif</font color=blue>
I wouldn't count em down and out, Scruffy hasen't weighed in yet./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Al
Alan L. wrote
"I agree. What Intel speeds up, Microsoft vows to slow down. "
I am convinced it is a competition between the hardware and software guys. The hardware guys are determined to build machines that are faster than ever and the software guys are just as determined to slow it back down.
"I agree. What Intel speeds up, Microsoft vows to slow down. "
I am convinced it is a competition between the hardware and software guys. The hardware guys are determined to build machines that are faster than ever and the software guys are just as determined to slow it back down.
Harv
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2000
- Messages
- 3,346
- Tractor
- Kubota L2500DT Standard Transmission
Glenn -
It's usually more fun to disagree with you, but I just can't do it this time.
I've been using computers professionally for over 35 years now, and although both computers and software have come a long way in that time, I'd be hard pressed to call it all "improvement". When I first started, we were cramming some pretty impressive functionality into 4K or RAM -- the idea of a megabyte was still science fiction. Our "mainframes" at that time had a whopping 16K of core memory, and we thought we'd died and gone to heaven when we eventually upgraded to a 32K machine. I remember when our entire engineering staff failed to justify an additional 32K expansion unit. 32K was plenty enough to support a dozen programmers. /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif
[Here comes my soapbox issue] -- I was always an afficionado of lean, mean software and I loved squeezing cycles and bytes out of my assembly language programs. When the world was switching to Fortran and Pascal, I stubbornly held onto my principles and pitted my assembled code against the "higher level" programs. It was never a contest really -- my stuff ran several times faster and took an order of magnitude less memory. Where I eventually lost out was when it became apparent that I couldn't produce complex programs in time to meet deadlines, so I gave in and stepped up to the next level. I still found ways of streamlining my code, including coding portions of it with inline assembly code. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif
Getting a little geeky here, so let me skip the general evolution of languages up through and including the current object-oriented stuff (talk about bloat). Whenever I raised my hand in protest about how ineffecient our software products were becoming, I was pooh-poohed out of the room by claims that RAM was getting bigger and cheaper, CPU's were getting faster and competition was getting tougher. From a business standpoint, I could almost see their point. Almost. /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif
So now I'm seeing the computer world from as much a consumer standpoint as I do as a developer, and I'm getting pretty disgusted. I probably put more demand on my computer than most folks, but even my old 250MHz PowerMac with 128 Megs of RAM and 8 Gigabytes of hard disk provide me with virtually all the computer speed and power that I can use. With the possible exception of manipulating 32 MB image files with Photoshop (which I don't do that much any more), the response and functionality of the system is plenty enough to keep me happy.
I keep thinking I want one of them fancy new-fangled translucent machines, but from what you've said, I'm probably just as well off staying put where I am. The problem, of course, is that more and more software is being released that will only work on the newer systems.
Eventually I will be forced to upgrade, and I hate being forced into anything.
Okay, I've had my say. You may kill me now.
It's usually more fun to disagree with you, but I just can't do it this time.
I've been using computers professionally for over 35 years now, and although both computers and software have come a long way in that time, I'd be hard pressed to call it all "improvement". When I first started, we were cramming some pretty impressive functionality into 4K or RAM -- the idea of a megabyte was still science fiction. Our "mainframes" at that time had a whopping 16K of core memory, and we thought we'd died and gone to heaven when we eventually upgraded to a 32K machine. I remember when our entire engineering staff failed to justify an additional 32K expansion unit. 32K was plenty enough to support a dozen programmers. /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif
[Here comes my soapbox issue] -- I was always an afficionado of lean, mean software and I loved squeezing cycles and bytes out of my assembly language programs. When the world was switching to Fortran and Pascal, I stubbornly held onto my principles and pitted my assembled code against the "higher level" programs. It was never a contest really -- my stuff ran several times faster and took an order of magnitude less memory. Where I eventually lost out was when it became apparent that I couldn't produce complex programs in time to meet deadlines, so I gave in and stepped up to the next level. I still found ways of streamlining my code, including coding portions of it with inline assembly code. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif
Getting a little geeky here, so let me skip the general evolution of languages up through and including the current object-oriented stuff (talk about bloat). Whenever I raised my hand in protest about how ineffecient our software products were becoming, I was pooh-poohed out of the room by claims that RAM was getting bigger and cheaper, CPU's were getting faster and competition was getting tougher. From a business standpoint, I could almost see their point. Almost. /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif
So now I'm seeing the computer world from as much a consumer standpoint as I do as a developer, and I'm getting pretty disgusted. I probably put more demand on my computer than most folks, but even my old 250MHz PowerMac with 128 Megs of RAM and 8 Gigabytes of hard disk provide me with virtually all the computer speed and power that I can use. With the possible exception of manipulating 32 MB image files with Photoshop (which I don't do that much any more), the response and functionality of the system is plenty enough to keep me happy.
I keep thinking I want one of them fancy new-fangled translucent machines, but from what you've said, I'm probably just as well off staying put where I am. The problem, of course, is that more and more software is being released that will only work on the newer systems.
Okay, I've had my say. You may kill me now.
DVerbarg
Platinum Member
Software is much overrated! As a past programmer, (I saw the error of my ways, and quit!) and Director of IS, it was extremely frustrating/expensive to buy the first iteration of any software, Macs included. Don't get me wrong, I love Macs and have a G4 at home in addition to the Wintel PCs.
Glenn, IMHO, it is a combination of OSX and Microsoft that is the issue with your performance. My "old" 400 MHz G4 with OS 9.? runs pretty snappy for the graphics/video/games it gets used for. Its gets pretty sluggish whenever Microsoft programs are used.
Hang in there, since you can't hang the programmers, and wait for the next version of the software. Hopefully Apple and MS will get around to tuning the software once it reaches a stable position.
Glenn, IMHO, it is a combination of OSX and Microsoft that is the issue with your performance. My "old" 400 MHz G4 with OS 9.? runs pretty snappy for the graphics/video/games it gets used for. Its gets pretty sluggish whenever Microsoft programs are used.
Hang in there, since you can't hang the programmers, and wait for the next version of the software. Hopefully Apple and MS will get around to tuning the software once it reaches a stable position.
Buck
Platinum Member
Well I guess I have to disagree with all of you. I don't think computers are harder to use. I think that you can do a heck of a lot more with them today.
You guys sound like you've given up.
It was less than 10 years ago that my company bought a supercomputer for us engineers. We paid over 1 million dollars for it. Last week I worked from home and had to develop some software on my PC. The software runs as fast and actually allows me to interact with the data.
The same software was developed 10 years earlier by myself and took six months for me to develop. Last week I wrote the same algorithm up in less than an afternoon. (The earlier work work fell in a classified umbrella, so I couldn't just port the code) This development time decrease is due to tremendous improvements in compiler and debugging tools, coupled with vast improvements in visualization tools.
I think a lot of the magic in computers is gone, because computing is now pervasive. But, in fact, computers are more magical than ever before. I used to love spending all day optimizing code. Today I don't have to. There is no need.
The problem that I find is that computers force me to confront the really hard problems, not the implementations.
Maybe that is why so many of us spend so much time on this forum!
Just to stir the pot, this new .NET stuff from Microsoft is revolutionary!
Buck
You guys sound like you've given up.
It was less than 10 years ago that my company bought a supercomputer for us engineers. We paid over 1 million dollars for it. Last week I worked from home and had to develop some software on my PC. The software runs as fast and actually allows me to interact with the data.
The same software was developed 10 years earlier by myself and took six months for me to develop. Last week I wrote the same algorithm up in less than an afternoon. (The earlier work work fell in a classified umbrella, so I couldn't just port the code) This development time decrease is due to tremendous improvements in compiler and debugging tools, coupled with vast improvements in visualization tools.
I think a lot of the magic in computers is gone, because computing is now pervasive. But, in fact, computers are more magical than ever before. I used to love spending all day optimizing code. Today I don't have to. There is no need.
The problem that I find is that computers force me to confront the really hard problems, not the implementations.
Maybe that is why so many of us spend so much time on this forum!
Just to stir the pot, this new .NET stuff from Microsoft is revolutionary!
Buck
StoneHeartFarm
Veteran Member
<font color=blue> I want one of them fancy new-fangled translucent machines </font color=blue>
Harv,
Must be a MAC, the new PC's are available with a window in the side of the case and your choice of several different colored neon lights inside.
It's a known fact that putting neon lights on your computer makes it run faster. It's like painting 4x4 in 6" high letters on the side of a truck. Makes it run better, faster and go through more stuff. You only have to watch the Soccer Moms driving them to know it's true. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif
SHF
Harv,
Must be a MAC, the new PC's are available with a window in the side of the case and your choice of several different colored neon lights inside.
It's a known fact that putting neon lights on your computer makes it run faster. It's like painting 4x4 in 6" high letters on the side of a truck. Makes it run better, faster and go through more stuff. You only have to watch the Soccer Moms driving them to know it's true. /w3tcompact/icons/grin.gif
SHF
Buck
Platinum Member
I hear he is moving up North. Maybe he's getting tired of all those humid, sweat filled, flood ridden days in Frost.
Harv.......the transluscent ones are now obsolescent not new-fangled. That is, if you were referring to the 1998 iMacs. They've just been replaced by the new iMacs, which look like a half a melon sprouting an LCD display. Jobs has proclaimed that CRT's, like floppy disks, are dead. I think he's right......Apple just announced yesterday new dual processor 1 gig G4 machines, which they claim can run at 15 gigaflops. I remember in the 1980's when only a Cray vector processor exceeded one gigaflop.......Actually, one of the reasons I like Macs, too, is their obsession with style. I see that as a virtue, given that the insides of computers are so prosaic....Yes, software obsolescence and microprocessor obsolescence, those are other wonderful phenomena. That's why I went OSX, knowing that in two years no one would be writing programs for pre-OSX anymore.... I think the best thing is to drop out of the computer rat race and, if you are happy with your current configuration and it is stable, just keep it alive and stay with it.......Speaking of soapboxes, in 1960 I learned to program an IBM 650 in a language called SOAP and another called MAD. Any of you youngsters ever heard of them?