That's why I use Windows 2000. I've almost filled up half of my 10-gigabyte hard disk. It's more efficient than Windows XP, and a LOT more efficient than Vista, but still does everything I need. Imagine Vista taking 2 seconds total for the complete shutdown process on a 10-year-old computer!
(A) Manufacturers are struggling to convince people of the merits of things that they don't need.
(B) I'd say the likes of Intel and MS are going to have some pretty serious problems.
Right... I think the top priority for the software industry now is
Making money and protecting money (DRM - Digital Right Management)
When you are large enough and hold the population by the balls (MS), making a good product is not the right solution to make money. Because it would be a one time deal.
A crappy product always need support and improvements. Make sure your client pay for it and you generate a constant stream of income.
But I think the population realizes that and that is why we are also seeing another shift in the software industry. What used to be products models are slowly but surely moving to the service models. No more buy once and use forever. Pay per use is much more revenue efficient.
That, and software keeps getting more and more inefficient. If it weren't for such a lazy software industry, perhaps computers would actually feel somewhat faster each generation.
That, and software keeps getting more and more inefficient. If it weren't for such a lazy software industry, perhaps computers would actually feel somewhat faster each generation. But no, the bloat continues, and you need a high end computer to run what should be a simple program.Yes, it is asking too much. Unless you find your niche product, software development is a business with loads of suppliers, each willing to push something that bearably works out of the door (with "bearably" depending on the type of software).
Size of software programs has risen to absurd levels. The speed has frozen to glacial levels. Is it so much to ask for some optimization so that newer hardware actually seems faster?
Ugh. Whatever happened to pics of babes in bikinis around here?
yeah...
note: *nobody post pics of stallman in a bikini*
Ugh. Whatever happened to pics of babes in bikinis around here?
ugh. Whatever happened to pics of babes in bikinis around here?
you buy a copy of windows, you have a key
it is illegal to download (like, "illegally") a copy and use that key
so why do people get 'caught' for DOWNLOADING windows, not trying to activate?
and even if you are able to disprove my example my points still remain
and yes free software is not the key to money but it is best for all, it does not inspire competition but linux right now is not the result of competition anyway
downloading a movie you already own will get you in trouble
Well, no. Free software is something noble to strife for but it is probably not viable just to make open-source software.
I have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for downloading Windows. All you pay for is the key. There was a rash of people getting in "trouble" for illegal keys/activation, but not for d/ling the actual program. Hell, I just bought 2 keys (one 64-bit, one 32-bit) for Win7 ($30 ea.) from MS, and they are having me download the software from them. I am not even getting a pressed CD. The only thing I can think of is that some ISPs were throttling/monitoring P2P traffic awhile back, and maybe somthing came out of that, but downloading Windows, in and of itself, is not illegal.
what's cool about open source licensing is that it enables software evolution by tiny random contributions, rather than relying on expensive product-as-a-whole intelligent design :)
I used to admire the Free Software (tm) concept, but then I realized that the desire to force their terms on everyone else is actually costing it utility.
I think the only sensible license choice is the WTFPL (http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/).
Or you could just use the BSD license, which is basically the same thing.
They still expect you to include indication you took their work. Too much!
Historical Note: The original license used on BSD Unix had four clauses. The advertising clause (the third of four clauses) required you to acknowledge use of U.C. Berkeley code in your advertising of any product using that code. It was officially rescinded by the Director of the Office of Technology Licensing of the University of California on July 22nd, 1999. He states that clause 3 is "hereby deleted in its entirety." [...] The license below does not contain the advertising clause.
That, and software keeps getting more and more inefficient. If it weren't for such a lazy software industry, perhaps computers would actually feel somewhat faster each generation. But no, the bloat continues, and you need a high end computer to run what should be a simple program.
Hardware is cheap whereas developer time is expensive.
Software can be copied at zero cost. What is an expensive cost divided by an infinite number of copies?
omg!
he mysql server on my machine is now consuming 50% of the cpu, but it's under almost no load!
John Siracusa has a good write up (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8) about this. It is framed within the context of a Snow Leopard review, but he does a great job of explaining the issues at hand.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/8
imagine what people used to manage with 1MHz CPUs and a few hundred bytes of code, and scale that up to the machines we have today.
I also spent a huge chunk of my weekend rebuilding the customized webserver environment on my desktop that I use for my development work... not fun and stuff is still screwed up, but it is faster at least.
Is it just me or the overall progress in processing power is stalling since couple years?Depends on what you want to process I think, and if you just compare CPUs alone or complete systems which would add graphic cards to the equation...
They should pass a law banning the use of compilers and make all programmers work in machine code, entered in hex. Advanced programmers should be allowed to use assembler, but only once they pass a test to show it doesn't make them lazy.
Harsh and unrealistic? Maybe. But imagine what people used to manage with 1MHz CPUs and a few hundred bytes of code, and scale that up to the machines we have today. Where is all that power disappearing? I'm damned if I know. Even accounting for compiler inefficiency and GUI overheads, something has gone horribly wrong.
Good question. I've given it some more thought. Here's a shot at an answer:
It's not that programmers have become lazy. It is simply beyond human ability to implement complex systems using machine code. What people used to do with 1MHz CPUs was limited by what the hardware could do at the time.
When hardware became faster, we tried to build more and more complex software. However, we quickly found out that humans don't scale as well as the hardware. It is beyond human capability to keep track of bits and registers when we are trying to program our iPhone to send out a tweet. Our brain does not have enough bandwidth.
One way to manage complexity is to break things down into manageable chunks. We design layers of abstraction. When we send a tweet from our iPhone, we may be using: TCP/IP, HTTP, SSL, OAuth, XML (or JSON, RSS, Atom), Unicode, Cocoa Touch, Media Layer, Core Services, Core OS. Each layer may dial in a degree of inefficiency.
Sure, abstraction comes at a price. The alternative? There is none. We are not capable of building complex systems without it.
The alternative? There is none. We are not capable of building complex systems without it.
other people have the same problem on a variety of os, but i have *never* seen a resolution. i blame software/os complexity :(
Any reason why you haven't upgraded to MySQL 5.0? I don't know if it'll fix this particular problem, but I've had new bursts of speed with each version of MySQL.
Any reason why you haven't upgraded to MySQL 5.0? I don't know if it'll fix this particular problem, but I've had new bursts of speed with each version of MySQL.
Imagine Windows 7 booting in under ten seconds - no chance.Sorry, but I don't think you realize what your OS is doing.
Sorry, but I don't think you realize what your OS is doing.
It works on a whole lot of hardware, with some stuff being 10 years old or even older than that.
And most of all, programs written for windows 9x still work (more or less).
All of this stuff comes at a price, especially when you can't recompile the NT kernel and strip out the stuff you don't need.
The drawback is that your OS may be unable to boot once you do change the hardware...
I know that the NT kernal is ancient (Windows 7 is based on the NT kernel) and I don't see why I should change my hardware every 2-3 years because Microsoft forces us to upgrade.There comes a time when you've got to say - who's in control here - You or the software companies.
Windows 7 boots faster than XP on the same hardware (3 y/o Dell Centrino-based, single-core 32 bit, Intel integrated graphics laptop) for me and is more reponsive in use.. YMMV, I guess.
can successfully uninstall explorer and Internet explorer and still run 7 w/o issues
really?
Have you actually ever tried Windows 7? I say this, because I used to have the attitude that I was going to stick to XP for Windows-related stuff, but Windows 7 is many many times better than it. Far more reliable too.
It's power to weight ratio, sometimes you can play a better tune on an older fiddle.
i understand your zeal for a slim OS but boot time and hard drive space are really not huge factors nowadays (at least, for most people)
i restart maybe weekly and have plenty of hdd space, even those with tiny 80gb SSDs dont seem THAT bothered by the size of win7.
youre using a ramdisk? how is boot time relevant if you are using a ramdisk?
i am yet to use nlite on windows 7, but got really into tiny (<200mb) winxp images
well sure we all like hdd space and i am definitely not in need of most of the features windows has, but to discredit 7 compared to XP based LARGELY on losing 10gb (when most to all computers sold today start at 250gb) is a little bit muchThat's two or three games that I don't have room for, when I have a 160GB hard drive.
When Windows SHRINKS and gets faster - I'll buy it then.Until then - No Chance.
Windows 7 is 17GB - A huge O/S to me is 400MB.I also like a small system memory footprint.My version is 50MB of system RAM.On a 4GB RAM system it flies.
I tried AVI to DVD conversion whilst using a torrent client and with 20 web pages utilising Flash open simultaneously on both pcs and the smaller one won by a significant margin.Doing more with LESS resources.
I have tried Windows 7 - My friend lent me his o/c Q6600 HTPC for a weekend.My C2D Dell with a highly optimised Tiny XP installation floored it for boot times and shutdown.
QUOTE]
old computers are great for legacy issues. But as someone who has a copy of xp home running in vista 64x under an emulation window, its a better experience by far. it just sounds as if some people are acting as if the motorized vehicle is a passing fad. Larger and larger OS’s are going to be something we are going to have to deal with as technology advances. as far as the hardware, manufactures have gone with the multi core route along with a much small architecture, placing more/small switches onto a chip to do more work with less or the same power requirement on average. i run the AMD phenom II 955. over the original phenom 9550 it has a 40% increase in efficiency at an equivalent power level. If you want to consume large amounts of electricity place a water cooling system onto your processor and OC it to 4.5 ghz. I have mine OC’d to 3.91 ghz on air cooling alone. Trying to maintain an old system will eventually become a loosing battle as parts become less available, dump your old files onto a 2tb HD and move on to a newer system that doesn’t care how big your OS is.
got selective start up in msconfig and sysedit, turned off all but a few Windows services,
Doesn't work with entering Japanese through the Microsoft IME, last I checked.
I've got two main computers, one has a VIA Nano at 1.6GHz, the Other a Phenom II 940 BE @ 3.00GHz. Despite the speed difference, the Nano does pretty much the same thing. I've got an S3 card in the Via rig, and a Radeon HD 4870 in the Phenom II rig.s3 is a brand. what card?
With the exception of some sound glitches, the Nano rig is as capable of playing Crysis as is the Phenom II. That's 1 core at 1.6GHz, vs. 4 cores at 3GHz.
You want Autoruns. Written by Mark Russinovich of Sysinternals (which was bought by Microsoft).
Small download, no TSR. just works. Access to *everything* without tedious reghacks. Run as admin, kinda goes without saying.
Search M$ for the link.
Well Hard Drive space is something that I aim to keep as much as I can. After all, the games take up a lot of space, so I'd rather have room for two more big title games, than extra languages, or something else taking up space, related to the OS.
By the way, is there a way to eliminate OS logging in Windows?
s3 is a brand. what card?
but regardless, either you are using "capable" very literally, as in, they are both 100% capable (which makes no real point...) or you are doing something very wrong
not that 4 cores at 3ghz really helps much for games