Computers are A Devolutionary Scam

DVerbarg · Jan 29, 2002

Harv,

As a Mac lover you should buy now, while you can still get OS 9. I don't want OSX and will put it off as long as possible. I do like the performance of the new processors combined with the "old" OS.

Harv · Jan 29, 2002

I think that you can do a heck of a lot more with them today.

No argument there, Buck. My point is that for most of our needs, we don't need any more horsepower than has been available for years now. I can surf the net, process words, create and run spreadsheets and manipulate photographic images in a matter of seconds. Even when I'm compiling software I'm barely able to sip my soda before it's done (I'm not part of corporate-sized projects any more, so I don't have multi-million line source code).

If you are heavy into hi-res graphics, video production, 3D rendering or just like to play video games, then of course you can never have too much speed and power.

tremendous improvements in compiler an debugging tools

No argument there, either. But don't fool yourself into thinking the resultant executable code is more efficient than it used to be. These tools are more for improving programmer productivity than they are for reducing the size and execution time of the final product. I wrote a complete TECO editor and a 6502 assembler (not dating myself too much, am I?

), and they each ran in less than 4K of memory. Not bragging here, but although you could write the same thing faster in C++, using OOPS classes, there is no way it would be smaller or faster.

used to love spending all day optimizing code. Today I don't have to. There is no need. 

And that will continue to be the case as long as computers keep getting bigger, faster and more powerful. Some of us just can't afford the upgrades.

I'm not as argumentative as I sound, Buck, but I'm full of opinions. /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

StoneHeartFarm · Jan 29, 2002

glennmac

Never heard of SOAP or MAD, must've been before my day, they were just starting to talk about Turtle when I gave up trying to keep up. Don't even know if anything ever came of it. Gotta admit that I too secretly think the problem is lack of proper respect for memory usage and simply not watching the number of loops running one on top of another. With 32k, you don't keep laying programming loops over each other without clearing out the one that came before. My main business software will let me keep opening new files overtop of one another until I simply run out of memory and crash the system. Just a total waste of memory. (But, after all, you can buy more memory for $30 today than you would have had in a dozen computers 15 years ago-- so, does that mean that your computer today is better than a dozen of the old computers?)

SHF

Harv · Jan 29, 2002

They've just been replaced by the new iMacs

They're not actually shipping until sometime in March, Glenn, but I get your point. I was, in fact, referring to the G4 series in general.

I'd actually love to get one of those sexy new iMacs (for the kids, of course), but I still like to add expansion cards to my machines, so I'll have to get that dual processor job with all the gigaflops you mentioned. Like I just told Buck, I don't really need more horesepower, but as is the case with compact tractors, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want it.

frank_f15 · Jan 29, 2002

GLENN: have to agee with you. i am running a 4 year old 200 mgz,,32 meg ram and win 95. there are some programs i would like but i could not even begin to install them on this machine.BUT! this computer does fine, never frezzes, downlods faily fast and is just a solid computer.can't get into the real techo speak as some of u fellas, but i do know that soon i will have to replace it and i am dreading it.the only thing that i would really like to speed up is my photo editing programs, they work fine just take a little longer. they are loading the new programs with too much glitz, and when that don't work right u got to spend time looking for and dowloading patches. WHY CAN'T THEY DO IT RIGH THE FIRST TIME? IT IS AGANIST THE LAW TO COPY A PROGRAM! BUT IT AIN'T AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO SELL U A PROGRAM THAT DON'T WORK? sorry but this is a sore spot with me.

TWINKLE_TOES · Jan 29, 2002

Frank,
IT IS AGANIST THE LAW TO COPY A PROGRAM! BUT IT AIN'T AGAINST THE LAW FOR THEM TO SELL U A PROGRAM THAT DON'T WORK? /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

This is their plan to discourage illegal copying./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif
Al

kevincook · Jan 29, 2002

I think that computers and software are in general much better than they have ever been in the past. I sure would like it better though if the programmers tried harder to make their programs smaller, more efficient and more robust. If they did then I would acually get more out of the bigger, better, faster hardware I need to keep purchasing. I'm an engineer and the way I look at it is if the programmers don't do their job and provide 'elegant' solutions then I end up paying for it with wasted resources on my computer (along with everyone else). I know it's probably the 'business' guys telling the programmers they don't have time for it to be perfect we need to sell it NOW!

I run some pretty serious number crunching applications at work that were not possible even a couple of years ago with anything less than a high end workstation. One of the machines I have on my desk is a dual 1GHz box with 1GB of RDRAM and the calculations take 10-20 hours to complete. This machine cost about $5K a year ago and a machine that could do this would have cost about $30K just a couple of years ago. Today it costs half of what I paid. A decade ago I had no options. I have no idea what the average user will do with a 2GHz Pentium 4. I know my typing hasn't gotten any faster over the years.

Just two other unrelated comments. I'm running three machines with Windows XP and it is OK but not nearly as good as Windows 2000. Windows 2000 has been absolutely flawless for me. XP is about the same reliabiity as NT...good but not great.

I have been using some external firewire 80GB hard drives for the last couple of months and have fallen in love with firewire. They work amazingly well. I was reading some specs. on USB vs. Firewire vs. USBII the other night and I learned that APPLE invented firewire. That explains why it works so well. I knew it couldn't have been a Microsoft thing.

Harv · Jan 29, 2002

a dual 1GHz box with 1GB of RDRAM and the calculations take 10-20 hours to complete.

What're you doing? Trying to balance Enron's books?

Buck · Jan 29, 2002

Harv,

Not to be argumentative, but I do not find you argumentative. This is all in fun, and if we didn't express our honest opinion, well, I'd probably be down in my barn or watching TV now. Moreover, this forum would get a little too predictable to be fun. So, please don't think I am not up to a little debate here and there. I'll probably only end up making an [censored] of myself, anyway.

My point is that for most of our needs, we don't need any more horsepower than has been available for years now.

No argument there from me, Harv, "For most of our needs." In fact, I believe this is why we have seen the huge economic build-up over the past decade. Most mundane things have been automated. I think we are on the verge of a huge shift. Computer Jobs will become knowledge jobs. "Java, C++ with 3 yrs. experience", will become, "Finance + computer programming". The problem has shifted from the implementation to the application itself.

 But don't fool yourself into thinking the resultant executable code is more efficient than it used to be. These tools are more for improving programmer productivity than they are for reducing the size and execution time of the final product. 

No argument from me here, either. I agree that by 1970's and 1980's standards, code today is grossly inefficient. However, as you say "programmers are more productive". This is because they can solve problems that matter. Improvements in programmer efficiency are proportional to the complexity of the problems that can be solved. Most of today's salient problems, like medical genetic engineering, or even routine automotive engineering problems can't be solved by analytical derivation; the problems require sophisticated software to allow the scientist or engineer to develop an intuition about the problem. Intuition is developed using computer graphics or object oriented methods that relate directly to thought.

Now to restate my point: "The problem that I find is that computers, today... force me to confront the really hard problems, not the implementations." This is the frustrating part of computers for me. I can't just sit down and get a "fix" by writing code that is 2% better. This is no longer the issue. We have to invent. We are now forced to go beyond simply knowing a single language, our problems are far more general. That to me, is the frustrating and magical part of this.

The truth of this matter is that I could have replied with one of my own computer horror stories. But, in fact, of late this topic has been occupying my thoughts. Today I go to work and I am paid for the quality of my thoughts; five years ago, I was paid for the quantity of code. It was easier five years ago.

It is easier for us to get down on ourselves for an ostensibly lower productivity rate, when in fact, the productivity has increased. At least this is the delusion that I have decided to portend.

Buck

Anonymous Poster · Jan 29, 2002

...Spent almost $4000 on "state of the art" hardware and software...

Glenn... somebody sure sold you a bill of goods... /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif With it being a buyer's market out there right now... a $4K. system could buy a blazing/stable server with top shelf software... let alone a $1.2K system for the rest of us...

Remember when you had a BX for a couple weeks/months and traded up for a "B" series... maybe you should consider biting the bullet and go with the flow and go back to a "PC"...

Even WordPerfect has joined the crowd of the "bloated"... so if you can't beat 'um... join 'um...

Today, $4000. is an awful lot of change to spend on a computer system... and still be disappointed... /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif