Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Question for computer nerds: Compared to my first computer, my current computer has a CPU that's over 300 times faster and has 500 times more memory and storage. So WHY DOES EVERYTHING STILL TAKE JUST AS LONG?   (fark.com) divider line 394
    More: Survey  
•       •       •

5151 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2012 at 2:30 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



394 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-11 01:29:55 PM  
Your computer has more to do now.
 
2012-07-11 01:30:55 PM  
I am betting it doesn't take as long. You've just trained yourself to be an increasingly impatient bastard.
 
2012-07-11 01:30:57 PM  
Two words:
Micro Soft
 
2012-07-11 01:31:05 PM  
because you used to touch yourself at night. now you can't keep your hands off your junk.
 
2012-07-11 01:31:10 PM  
You're full of spyware from all the porn sites you surf without protection, you filthy animal.
 
2012-07-11 01:31:31 PM  
because it isn't just running one tiny application anymore.

Likewise because of the advances in memory\cpu\storage, people don't need to code as tight as they used to.
 
2012-07-11 01:31:38 PM  
Because you need to upgrade your dial-up Juno connection.
 
2012-07-11 01:33:43 PM  

Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.


This. It's like biatching about how a tank of gas doesn't take you any farther after you upgraded to an H2.
 
2012-07-11 01:33:43 PM  

dopeydwarf: You're full of spyware from all the porn sites you surf without protection, you filthy animal.


Yup, basically this. Get an iPad for your dirty deeds.
 
2012-07-11 01:33:48 PM  
Because it's still just a magical gnome inside of the box who does all of the actual processing. Give the gnome some damn time to do his job!
 
2012-07-11 01:33:57 PM  
Feature creep, combined with misremembering the past.
 
2012-07-11 01:34:34 PM  

Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.


Also B, you have another bottleneck somewhere else. Possibly hard drive read/write speed.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-07-11 01:34:35 PM  
You're not getting enough electricity to power it. Upgrade with 2 more hamsters.. and for fark's sake, try to treat them differently than you do the gerbils.
 
2012-07-11 01:35:46 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This. It's like biatching about how a tank of gas doesn't take you any farther after you upgraded to an H2.


I'll bet submitter was running Windows 95 prior to this.
 
2012-07-11 01:36:13 PM  

Shakespeare's Monkey: dopeydwarf: You're full of spyware from all the porn sites you surf without protection, you filthy animal.

Yup, basically this. Get an iPad for your dirty deeds.


I swear my ipad has gotten really slow lately. I even restored the thing. I'm sort of going into tin hat land and thinking that apple is intentionally slowing down the 1st gen ones to get me to upgrade.
 
2012-07-11 01:36:17 PM  
This is like a fat guy complaining that his pants are as tight as they were when he was skinny.
 
2012-07-11 01:36:37 PM  
I blame lazy ass web developers.

The things that seems to give my computer the most hangups are websites that think they have to act like full featured apps.
 
2012-07-11 01:39:42 PM  
It is faster. You're just used to it.
 
2012-07-11 01:40:04 PM  

LineNoise: I swear my ipad has gotten really slow lately. I even restored the thing. I'm sort of going into tin hat land and thinking that apple is intentionally slowing down the 1st gen ones to get me to upgrade.


I noticed my phone started suddenly getting really sh*tty about the time Verizon called to tell me I was eligible for my free upgrade. I'm beginning to think it's all a scam.
 
2012-07-11 01:41:28 PM  
This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.

i121.photobucket.com

i121.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-11 01:42:13 PM  

Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.


This.

The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.

It takes quite a bit more to push a full graphical interface with transparent elements at high resolution while running several other programs at once while also maintaining constant connectivity with various outside servers.

If you could manage to run JUST what that first computer did (assuming the OS and programs are even compatible), it would farking FLY.
 
2012-07-11 01:44:10 PM  
Oh admins, you so crazy!
 
2012-07-11 01:44:32 PM  
I'll say this, though... I downloaded Ultima IV for free from gog, and it is a lot faster than it was on my old Atari.

/ still cool, too
 
2012-07-11 01:44:33 PM  

Aarontology: This is like a fat guy complaining that his pants are as tight as they were when he was skinny.


Wut?
 
2012-07-11 01:45:07 PM  

Raging Thespian: Because it's still just a magical gnome inside of the box who does all of the actual processing. Give the gnome some damn time to do his job!


I thought it was magic smoke. As longs as the magic smoke is contained in the computer, it works fine. Once you let the magic smoke out, then you have problems.
 
2012-07-11 01:45:16 PM  
We told you 640KB of memory was enough, but you wouldn't listen.
 
2012-07-11 01:45:34 PM  

akula: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This.

The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.

It takes quite a bit more to push a full graphical interface with transparent elements at high resolution while running several other programs at once while also maintaining constant connectivity with various outside servers.

If you could manage to run JUST what that first computer did (assuming the OS and programs are even compatible), it would farking FLY.


Someone should do this on speed tests/reviews. It would be fun to see how many fps the new video cards can push Doom or Wolfenstein 3d to.
 
2012-07-11 01:45:45 PM  

akula: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This.

The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.

It takes quite a bit more to push a full graphical interface with transparent elements at high resolution while running several other programs at once while also maintaining constant connectivity with various outside servers.

If you could manage to run JUST what that first computer did (assuming the OS and programs are even compatible), it would farking FLY.


Haha, this. Go play some super old DOS game. Watch as all of the animations are insanely fast, everything moves way too fast for your mind to even comprehend what is going on. It's actually kind of funny.

I was playing one game on DOSbox, and even when I had the CPU speed turned down to 1%, the game was still unplayable amounts of fast. Then again, I have a mid-high grade i7, so...yeah. Still, I couldn't play the dumb thing because it was just too fast.
 
2012-07-11 01:45:56 PM  

Aarontology: This is like a fat guy complaining that his pants are as tight as they were when he was skinny.


Silly man.

Fat people wear sweats with elastic waists.
 
2012-07-11 01:46:10 PM  
umm.. were you even AROUND back in the days of dialup BBSes? seven minutes to download a single sexy jpg? squee'd your pants creamy when mom bought you a 28.8 modem? i mean that shiat was awesome but DON'T pretend it isn't any better than it was in '95.
 
2012-07-11 01:47:16 PM  
there are 7 billion more of you than before ...
 
2012-07-11 01:48:16 PM  

Shakespeare's Monkey: Wut?


Well, the guy may have bigger pants (a more powerful computer) than he did years ago, but they're still tight because there's a lot more of him (more intensive tasks for the computer to do)

Timanous: Silly man.

Fat people wear sweats with elastic waists.


Yeah, if they want to be formal.
 
2012-07-11 01:48:31 PM  
I mean. When I first played Space Quest IV, the game after which I am so fark handled, it came in a box containing six 3.5" installation disks. which means the entire game took up less than 10mb of space it the damn thing took twenty minutes to install.

methinks you are not using your remembering brain parts.
 
2012-07-11 01:48:48 PM  

InfamousBLT: Haha, this. Go play some super old DOS game. Watch as all of the animations are insanely fast, everything moves way too fast for your mind to even comprehend what is going on. It's actually kind of funny.


Many years ago I was talking to a guy, reminiscing about old computer games. I remarked how I liked the Test Drive series (especially TD2), but TD3 was unplayable on that 286... it ran, but only at something like 4 or 8 frames/second. He said he played the same game on a 386 and it ran properly, but on a 486 it just was way too fast for you to react.

We don't often go back and dust off old games from generations past, but yeah, when one does so the result is something that's really moving along.
 
2012-07-11 01:48:49 PM  
The heck? It's gone green? This one? There isn't even any poop in this thread.

BRACE FOR IMPACT
 
2012-07-11 01:49:03 PM  
The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.
 
2012-07-11 01:49:15 PM  

Shakespeare's Monkey: Aarontology: This is like a fat guy complaining that his pants are as tight as they were when he was skinny.

Wut?


I.e. when the guy was skinny, his pants were the size necessary to fit him. When he was fatter, his pants were bigger in order to sit exactly the same way. So they fit the same at each time but the size changed.
 
2012-07-11 01:49:28 PM  

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: umm.. were you even AROUND back in the days of dialup BBSes? seven minutes to download a single sexy jpg? squee'd your pants creamy when mom bought you a 28.8 modem? i mean that shiat was awesome but DON'T pretend it isn't any better than it was in '95.


Or the days of Napster where you'd queue up 3 songs right before you went to bed and if you were lucky you'd at least get one downloaded before it kicked you offline...

Not that I ever downloaded illegal music... 'cause I didn't... Unless the statute of limitations is over, in which case I probably did.
 
2012-07-11 01:50:14 PM  
Random access time. It's all about the random access time on your HDD/SSD.
 
2012-07-11 01:50:15 PM  

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: I mean. When I first played Space Quest IV, the game after which I am so fark handled, it came in a box containing six 3.5" installation disks. which means the entire game took up less than 10mb of space it the damn thing took twenty minutes to install.


And honestly, can you say some new game with a gigantor 4 GB install is actually that much more fun than those old games? I don't think so
 
2012-07-11 01:50:22 PM  

akula: InfamousBLT: Haha, this. Go play some super old DOS game. Watch as all of the animations are insanely fast, everything moves way too fast for your mind to even comprehend what is going on. It's actually kind of funny.

Many years ago I was talking to a guy, reminiscing about old computer games. I remarked how I liked the Test Drive series (especially TD2), but TD3 was unplayable on that 286... it ran, but only at something like 4 or 8 frames/second. He said he played the same game on a 386 and it ran properly, but on a 486 it just was way too fast for you to react.

We don't often go back and dust off old games from generations past, but yeah, when one does so the result is something that's really moving along.


I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.
 
2012-07-11 01:51:39 PM  

InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.


brilliant.
 
2012-07-11 01:51:42 PM  
I want to go play Police Quest now.

Dammit...
 
2012-07-11 01:52:28 PM  

Ponzholio: Or the days of Napster where you'd queue up 3 songs right before you went to bed and if you were lucky you'd at least get one downloaded before it kicked you offline...


I actually bought an album off of Amazon in the last week (because the Amazon coupon website gave a free three bucks so lol $3 album so I guess I didn't *really* buy anything) and the album I bought was classical songs played in movies. 100 songs, $3, over a gig of data, ten hours of music. It was done downloading by the time I'd taken all the groceries inside.

So yeah. Stuff it, subby.
 
2012-07-11 01:53:07 PM  

thejoyofpi: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

brilliant.


Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...
 
2012-07-11 01:54:21 PM  

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: umm.. were you even AROUND back in the days of dialup BBSes? seven minutes to download a single sexy jpg? squee'd your pants creamy when mom bought you a 28.8 modem? i mean that shiat was awesome but DON'T pretend it isn't any better than it was in '95.


Pfft. I squeed when we got a 4800. Finally, the lines of text didn't scroll across on the BBS, but popped up line by line.
 
2012-07-11 01:54:24 PM  

Ponzholio: Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...


hahaha my next post was going to be about how the oxen are hauling f*cking ass to Oregon these days
 
2012-07-11 01:55:06 PM  
Look Subby, back in the day you downloaded low res jpegs of nekkid wimmens, today Bit Torrenting Hi-Def Donkey Porn sucks up a lot of bandwidth and CPU cycles. Be thankful you can do it at all, in my day we had to road trip to Tijuana to see Donkey Porn.
 
2012-07-11 01:55:42 PM  

Ponzholio: thejoyofpi: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

brilliant.

Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...


No, but now I want to try! I loved Oregon Trail
 
2012-07-11 01:58:40 PM  

InfamousBLT: Ponzholio: thejoyofpi: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

brilliant.

Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...

No, but now I want to try! I loved Oregon Trail


Remind me of solitaire. Back in the early windows days it would take a minute+ for all the decks to empty after you won. The last time I did it I think it was like a half a second. I'm not sure if the timing has been updated in windows 7/vista.
 
2012-07-11 01:59:49 PM  

Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.


This is the long and short of it.

Not only is your computer doing more, but your developers are doing less. Back in the day, when hardware constraints were exceedingly tight, developers were forced to develop within those constraints. This was very expensive- it requires much more developer time to write highly optimized code that spares memory and CPU and disk space. Developer time is expensive. CPU time is very cheap.
 
2012-07-11 02:00:33 PM  

NickelP: InfamousBLT: Ponzholio: thejoyofpi: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

brilliant.

Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...

No, but now I want to try! I loved Oregon Trail

Remind me of solitaire. Back in the early windows days it would take a minute+ for all the decks to empty after you won. The last time I did it I think it was like a half a second. I'm not sure if the timing has been updated in windows 7/vista.


Lol yeah I do remember that back in the day. It's fixed nowadays...moves at a much more normal speed, instead of "as fast as the computer can render it"
 
2012-07-11 02:01:29 PM  

t3knomanser: Developer time is expensive. CPU time is very cheap.


What about my time as I sit here waiting for an unresponsive Chrome tab to stop choking my browser?
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2012-07-11 02:02:10 PM  

thejoyofpi: The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.


I had that problem (on a work laptop) before getting a machine with the OS on an SSD. Now it's laughable how quickly I can go out and into Windows 7.
 
2012-07-11 02:03:22 PM  
It doesn't and if you think it does then you are too stupid to continue this conversation.
 
2012-07-11 02:03:50 PM  
Because of the callouses.......
 
2012-07-11 02:07:57 PM  

InfamousBLT: The heck? It's gone green? This one? There isn't even any poop in this thread.

BRACE FOR IMPACT


It should've at least gone to the Geek tab... :-/
 
2012-07-11 02:08:01 PM  

thejoyofpi: What about my time as I sit here waiting for an unresponsive Chrome tab to stop choking my browser?


That's not about saving developer time. That's a problem inherent in JavaScript engines- they're all single-threaded, even V8. Chrome should be better about breaking up its own processes (each tab is supposed to be a single process, but one will occasionally hang while waiting for others- I assume there's an IPC bottleneck, but haven't investigated).

What kills me is that the JavaScript language would pretty naturally parallelize, being a functional language and all. Make it a lazy-executing language, and it's basically Haskell minus GADTs.
 
2012-07-11 02:08:09 PM  

discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.


You got the disc drive? I was stuck with the tape drive.
 
2012-07-11 02:13:42 PM  
Well for one thing, in order to read a one paragraph news story, you have to wait for 3 interactive ads, and one full length car commercial to load first.
 
2012-07-11 02:14:23 PM  

InfamousBLT: Haha, this. Go play some super old DOS game. Watch as all of the animations are insanely fast, everything moves way too fast for your mind to even comprehend what is going on. It's actually kind of funny.

I was playing one game on DOSbox, and even when I had the CPU speed turned down to 1%, the game was still unplayable amounts of fast. Then again, I have a mid-high grade i7, so...yeah. Still, I couldn't play the dumb thing because it was just too fast.


I used to use an emulator for Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior; it was great to turn off the throttling while traveling cross-country, because unless you needed to fight or have very precise movement, you'd just fly. Travel was a major slowdown in the original games. Since throttling could be turned on and off at will, I'd use hotkeys when I entered and exited combat.
 
2012-07-11 02:16:21 PM  

labman: discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.

You got the disc drive? I was stuck with the tape drive.


I had the tape drive as well, briefly. I played Zaxxon on it.
 
2012-07-11 02:17:59 PM  
I remember leaving the room to go take a dump or make a sandwich while wing commander loaded missions. Like, seriously, it would sit there and crunch stuff for 5 or 10 minutes for every farking level.
 
2012-07-11 02:19:46 PM  

t3knomanser: thejoyofpi: What about my time as I sit here waiting for an unresponsive Chrome tab to stop choking my browser?

That's not about saving developer time. That's a problem inherent in JavaScript engines- they're all single-threaded, even V8. Chrome should be better about breaking up its own processes (each tab is supposed to be a single process, but one will occasionally hang while waiting for others- I assume there's an IPC bottleneck, but haven't investigated).

What kills me is that the JavaScript language would pretty naturally parallelize, being a functional language and all. Make it a lazy-executing language, and it's basically Haskell minus GADTs.


Ah. So lazy web developers are to blame, right?
 
2012-07-11 02:21:03 PM  

TommyymmoT: Well for one thing, in order to read a one paragraph news story, you have to wait for 3 interactive ads, and one full length car commercial to load first.


Don't forget random requests to give them access to your facebook account and the fact thatthe one paragraph story is broken up into 10 pages for MOAR ADVIEWS
 
2012-07-11 02:29:31 PM  
Personally my computer does most things way faster than computers I had in the past. The things its doing are way more complex too.

Subby's computer is probably full of malware/spyware/adware etc.
 
2012-07-11 02:32:40 PM  
Because you are enjoying 100x the amount of information (with the loss explained by the efficiencies that make developing easier being as well spent as making things go faster -- no point in a fast computer that does nothing for the difficulty in telling it what to do)
 
2012-07-11 02:32:43 PM  

Adjective Bird Whiskey: I am betting it doesn't take as long. You've just trained yourself to be an increasingly impatient bastard.


This.
 
2012-07-11 02:32:51 PM  
Computer power is consumed by programming complexity. As computers become faster, programmers compete to put that speed to work so their programs seem more advanced than their competitors.
 
2012-07-11 02:32:51 PM  
Todays programmers are lazy farks
 
2012-07-11 02:32:55 PM  
use COBOL
 
2012-07-11 02:33:13 PM  
Because you wanted a GUI. Command line interface wasn't good enough for you, ya bastard.
 
2012-07-11 02:33:47 PM  
Because there are several hundred times more tards on the net now.

And they're all downloading pictures, videos and music.
 
2012-07-11 02:34:26 PM  
Because you're moving the goal posts.
 
2012-07-11 02:34:32 PM  
You, the computer user, will never have enough of these things in your computer:

Speed
Memory
Storage space

It's sort of like how you can never be too rich.
 
2012-07-11 02:34:45 PM  
Nothing was more tedious than holding the computer microphone up to the tape player to install the great Dragon Maze. That was pretty slow, considering you had to go through the code later to fix all the syntax errors that the mic created. Good times...
 
2012-07-11 02:34:46 PM  
Wow, there are a lot of pretty specific answers to a very vague question. Shouldn't we be asking for more details? WHAT takes just as long?
 
2012-07-11 02:34:55 PM  
Point -of-Order: Isn't the BIOS in most machines basically the same BIOS from 30 years ago?
 
2012-07-11 02:35:12 PM  
Programmers are lazy.
Companies that employ lots and lots of programmers are cheap.
Most applications are limited by human interaction speed (no matter how fast your CPU is, you can't type 5000 wpm), so extra capacity leads to feature bloat, not speed.
If you field-stripped your machine to do only one thing at a time (and eliminated the gazillion background processes) it would be a lot faster.
 
2012-07-11 02:35:23 PM  
The computers have improved a lot...

Subby, on the other hand, apparently not so much.
 
2012-07-11 02:35:26 PM  
Is Fark becoming a Wiki ?
 
2012-07-11 02:37:10 PM  
1. Lazy or ignorant web app developers
2. Java
3. C++
4. C#
5. .Net

It's not so much the languages or technologies above as much as it is so many programmers have absolutely no clue what effect their design decisions have on the rest of the system.
 
2012-07-11 02:37:17 PM  
My PC is super fast. Honestly the coolest (IMO) "new" tech are SSDs essentially your OS runs as if it were completely loaded into RAM, which is pretty sweet.
 
2012-07-11 02:37:26 PM  
i ran magic carpet on my pc a few years ago.... magic carpet was released in the 90s..... it ran so fast i couldnt play it. needed dosbox to run it so that it would run at the intended gameplay speed.

also, get a solid state drive.... your processor is indeed a bajillion whatevers faster, but it still has to wait on information from your hard drive. and hard drive speeds have been the same for years now.
 
2012-07-11 02:37:47 PM  
The problem is that your computer doesn't have a "Turbo" button:
4.bp.blogspot.com
From 33 mhz, to a blistering 66 mhz!!!
 
2012-07-11 02:38:53 PM  
What Intel give'th, Microsoft take'th away
 
2012-07-11 02:38:56 PM  

Egoy3k: My PC is super fast. Honestly the coolest (IMO) "new" tech are SSDs essentially your OS runs as if it were completely loaded into RAM, which is pretty sweet.


SSDs are extremely nice to have. :)
 
2012-07-11 02:39:00 PM  
Because it's GOING TO SPACE!!!

Then COMING BACK FROM SPACE!!!
 
2012-07-11 02:39:08 PM  
OEM Software, Antivirus Software, and Adobe products
 
2012-07-11 02:39:36 PM  
"NERDS"!!!
 
2012-07-11 02:39:43 PM  
Every year hardware gets faster and software gets slower.

I've been writing a system to create videos from still photos at work. I bought a 6 core server and my vendor laughed when I called it high performance. It is high performance when you put Slackware on it.
 
2012-07-11 02:40:21 PM  
Obligatory:

i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-11 02:40:26 PM  
Subby, your question is about to be answered.
Now please insert floppy #11 and follow the on screen instructions.
 
2012-07-11 02:40:38 PM  

thejoyofpi: The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.


Mine doesn't do this. Normal shut off time, like under a minute. Boot is probably 2 (but it feels like 20).

And can we stop forcing reboots every time there's an update? I had stuff I was working on, man, let me reboot when I'm ready!
 
2012-07-11 02:40:40 PM  

InfamousBLT: The heck? It's gone green? This one? There isn't even any poop in this thread.

BRACE FOR IMPACT


the mods have gone crazy

maybe someone dropped a coke bottle in the office
 
2012-07-11 02:40:40 PM  
1. Wipe drive

2. Reload OS

3. Install decent anti-virus/spyware (e.g. AVG)

4. Get Adblock Plus
 
2012-07-11 02:40:56 PM  
www.oldversion.com
 
2012-07-11 02:41:43 PM  

MrSteve007: The problem is that your computer doesn't have a "Turbo" button:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x445]
From 33 mhz, to a blistering 66 mhz!!!


Ah, the joys of over clocking.
 
2012-07-11 02:42:03 PM  

discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.

[i121.photobucket.com image 300x281]

[i121.photobucket.com image 500x342]


F Yea!

I just dug a pile of mine out of the basement to take with me to LAN party nights, just for the shocked look on the teenagers faces...

BTW, get yerself one of these
www.atarimax.com

Link

It lets you use an old PC as a slave HDD/printer port/cdrom/network connection. Using a P4 laptop as a *slave* for my 800XL is *delicious*.
 
2012-07-11 02:42:14 PM  
Multiple reasons.

1. Your first computer probably did not have a graphical interface. Graphics cost CPU cycles, even when you have a high end video card.
2. Your first computer ran one program at a time. Now you have your email client, browser, spreadsheet, wordprocessor, and god knows what else, all running at once.
3. As CPUs got faster, programmers got sloppier. It's a rare instance that programmers bother to run a performance analysis on their own code. Plus, a lot of the code being executed can't be optimized because it's part of the the OS, and Microsoft is certainly not trying to make YOUR code run faster (they have been caught putting delay loops in common APIs).

My first computer had 1K of memory (Yes, 1 kilobyte, not Meg or Gig). It was a development board. My first "real" computer had 64k (about 56k was usable). It ran cp/m. It wasn't unusual to spend a great deal of time trying to squeeze a few bytes out of the code requirements. These days, coders never think about how much memory they are using. They just keep allocating more and more, and assume the OS will deal with any problems.

And get off my farking lawn.
 
2012-07-11 02:42:18 PM  
Because you're even more impatient now, you brusque fool!
 
2012-07-11 02:42:36 PM  
Buy an SSD drive, huge improvement, traditional drives are a huge bottleneck.
 
2012-07-11 02:42:51 PM  
Subby should try running SimCopter side by side on a Windows 2000 machine versus a Windows 95 machine.

/I literally lol'd the first time I did it
 
2012-07-11 02:42:53 PM  

LineNoise: because it isn't just running one tiny application anymore.

Likewise because of the advances in memory\cpu\storage, people don't need to code as tight as they used to.


This
 
2012-07-11 02:42:56 PM  
"Obvious" tag still loading?
 
2012-07-11 02:42:56 PM  

bigpete53: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: umm.. were you even AROUND back in the days of dialup BBSes? seven minutes to download a single sexy jpg? squee'd your pants creamy when mom bought you a 28.8 modem? i mean that shiat was awesome but DON'T pretend it isn't any better than it was in '95.

Pfft. I squeed when we got a 4800. Finally, the lines of text didn't scroll across on the BBS, but popped up line by line.


I'm not sure there was a 4800 baud modem. It went from 2400 baud to 9600 baud when you could spend $1000 on a US Robotics or a Hayes, and they weren't compatible with each other because they had competing specs. USR sold them really cheaply to BBSs to encourage their spec to spread, and then eventually a spec for formed and they both would talk to each other.

I started out on a 300 baud Zoom modem for the Apple 2e. It was $99 on sale (from $129) and it was a manual dial (you would have to dial it with a phone, and then flip a switch to send it to 'send' or 'receive' mode.
 
2012-07-11 02:43:21 PM  
Because programmers are sloppy and because your computer is doing 50 things at once. Run 10-year-old software and you'll see the difference.

Also, your internet connection is not significantly faster than it was 10 years ago.
 
2012-07-11 02:43:25 PM  
Hey submitter,

Stop using your slow spinning hard drive as your operating system drive and get a Solid State Disk (SSD).

Most operating system actions (including on startup) involve random access IO. Spinning hard drives are terrible at random access. SSD's are a huge improvement in random access time (from milliseconds in HDD to single digit microsecond).

Getting an SSD will be the biggest improvement in your computer's responsiveness. The improvement is so big it's not funny.

Here's a good SSD disk:

Crucial M4 256GB SATA3 6Gbps (newegg)
 
2012-07-11 02:43:47 PM  
Fractool used to take days to process a screen on a 386.
Hours to process on a 486.
Minutes to process on a first generation Pentium.
Nowadays you can pretty much process them on the fly.

Open up your task manager and look at how many process and services are running.
The open up your system tray and uninstall all that BS.
Use the windows drivers for your HP Printer (if you can) instead of the bloated crap HP gives you.
Quit downloading every freebie toolbar on the internet.
And turn off all the goddamn Adobe and Apple services they installed behind your back.
 
2012-07-11 02:43:54 PM  

ozone: because you used to touch yourself at night. now you can't keep your hands off your junk.


edge.ebaumsworld.com

Have you checked your vagina for centipedes?

It's fairly likely.
 
2012-07-11 02:43:56 PM  
Most programmers are incompetent and downright dangerous.

Almost all software is very poorly written these days.

In the 'old days' poorly written code would cause almost an immediate crash. Now, poorly written code is considered the standard. The most popular operating system is riddled with memory leaks.

/ And, yes, I do have a doctorate in computer science.
 
2012-07-11 02:44:04 PM  
Because you weren't using a web browser on that machine?
 
2012-07-11 02:45:14 PM  

labman: discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.

You got the disc drive? I was stuck with the tape drive.


A commodore. PET. With a cassette drive. Uphill both ways. In snow. We ate dirt.

/and we were thankful!
 
2012-07-11 02:45:32 PM  
Here's a corollary question.

Why does it take 100+Mb of memory for a program to display a 150kb file that I could have opened on my 486 with 16Mb of ram?

I'm thinking of browsers and word processors.
 
2012-07-11 02:45:54 PM  

offmymeds: 1. Wipe drive

2. Reload OS

3. Install decent anti-virus/spyware (e.g. AVG)

4. Get Adblock Plus


AVG is soooo 2010. Microsoft Security Essentials is where it's at now.
 
2012-07-11 02:46:29 PM  
because it takes power to run in 3d software, biatch
 
Slu
2012-07-11 02:46:37 PM  

paygun: Every year hardware gets faster and software gets slower.

I've been writing a system to create videos from still photos at work. I bought a 6 core server and my vendor laughed when I called it high performance. It is high performance when you put Slackware on it.


A slideshow?
 
2012-07-11 02:46:43 PM  

zetar: Most programmers are incompetent and downright dangerous.

Almost all software is very poorly written these days.

In the 'old days' poorly written code would cause almost an immediate crash. Now, poorly written code is considered the standard. The most popular operating system is riddled with memory leaks.

/ And, yes, I do have a doctorate in computer science.


I blame abstraction.
 
2012-07-11 02:47:05 PM  

LineNoise: because it isn't just running one tiny application anymore.

Likewise because of the advances in memory\cpu\storage, people don't need to code as tight as they used to.


This.
 
2012-07-11 02:47:20 PM  
In short: OS bloat.

As power and capability has increased, the OS has expanded to use up those resources.

FreeDos is very speedy.
DamnSmall Linux is very fast.

Eye candy, like arm candy, is expensive to get, keep, and maintain.
 
2012-07-11 02:47:21 PM  
Because the scroll bars don't work until the farking double-click ads load.

/off to sort 708,000 rows of 25,000 column wide data in excel
 
2012-07-11 02:47:34 PM  

make me some tea: Because you need to upgrade your dial-up Juno connection.


LIES!
 
2012-07-11 02:47:39 PM  
thejoyofpi
The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.


Maybe you've got automatic updates enabled?
I don't know when Microsoft started doing this, but at some point they thought it would be a good idea to install updates when you shut down the computer.
 
2012-07-11 02:47:47 PM  

LineNoise: I remember leaving the room to go take a dump or make a sandwich while wing commander loaded missions. Like, seriously, it would sit there and crunch stuff for 5 or 10 minutes for every farking level.


I loaded DOS and Wing Commander onto a relatively new computer about a year ago. I even bought an AWE32 so I could have some sound. Turns out Wing Commander doesn't use the real time clock to throttle itself. It's tuned for the specific CPU rate that all computers ran at when it was released (8MHz?). Natrually, it runs a tad faster than real time now. I loaded the first mission, I saw a couple of things whiz by on the screen, and then I was dead.
 
2012-07-11 02:47:53 PM  
My first computer was a Compaq DX2 50 mhz with I believe 2 mbs of ram. The additional 2 mbs I bought to put in cost me almost 500 bucks at the time. I thought that was top of the line shiat.
 
2012-07-11 02:48:10 PM  
THEN: It used to take 70 minutes to burn an audio CD from .wav files (any faster and you'd get buffer underruns which would corrupt the audio).
NOW: An audio CD takes 3 minutes (or less) to burn. And the buffers were huge.

THEN: a 640x480 picture took up your ENTIRE SCREEN, why the hell did you make your images that big.
NOW: 640x480 pictures (of chicks in bikinis) aren't even worth downloading (does this come in a larger size).

THEN: Holy shiat, 3D
dl.openhandhelds.org

NOW: Holy shiat, 3D
8bitalliance.com

THEN: that 640x480 picture would take you a second to download (like that 640x464 image I posted above, which is 49KB)
NOW: that 640x480 picture ... will still take you a second to download (because TCP overhead that's why) but you can download about 50+ other 640x480 pictures in that same second.

THEN: No tabbed browsing, not much in the way of plugins, barely any javascript, etc.
upload.wikimedia.org

NOW:
lordargent.com
 
2012-07-11 02:48:22 PM  
something something Linux something Micro$oft.

/got nothin that hasn't already been said
 
2012-07-11 02:48:48 PM  
All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB
 
2012-07-11 02:49:24 PM  
With an SSD, I haven't timed it but I would guess I can get on the internet within 10-15 seconds of powering my PC on.
 
2012-07-11 02:50:03 PM  
this thread makes me want to go look for old copies for Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards, King's Quest and Archon!
Those are pretty awesome games!
 
2012-07-11 02:50:21 PM  

Slu: A slideshow?


That's what it amounts to. Grab a bunch of stills, narration, background music, data from mysql, and create an intro and outro. The photos do the ken burns thing in the middle with dissolves in between.
 
2012-07-11 02:50:51 PM  
Aliens.
 
2012-07-11 02:51:05 PM  
Lol, I remember when the og Warcraft updates cAme out. 36 hours of dial up download to finish.
 
2012-07-11 02:51:09 PM  
Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

www.ibiblio.org
 
2012-07-11 02:51:13 PM  
Goldfish theory.

Now that everyone has high speed processors, developers no longer need to write programs or code that can run on older slower machines.
For example, a typical website in 1997 would open instantly on a modern machine because it had to be useable on a 56k line. Try opening a modern website on a machine from 1997 and you might get it to load eventually but likely all the background scripts would prevent it from ever fully loading.

However that said, my copy of SimCity 2000 still makes my laptop struggle to keep it going.
 
2012-07-11 02:51:28 PM  

NickelP: akula: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This.

The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.

It takes quite a bit more to push a full graphical interface with transparent elements at high resolution while running several other programs at once while also maintaining constant connectivity with various outside servers.

If you could manage to run JUST what that first computer did (assuming the OS and programs are even compatible), it would farking FLY.

Someone should do this on speed tests/reviews. It would be fun to see how many fps the new video cards can push Doom or Wolfenstein 3d to.


Some of those older games are impossible to play due to the fact they were keyed to the processor speed. So the faster the processor the faster they ran. Scale up the processor by 200-400 times and push the forward arrow one time and your guy will cross an entire map. Generally the emulators fix this behavior.
 
2012-07-11 02:51:35 PM  
WOW! that question made every geek nergasam. None of them own an enhaler big enough to weez out a proper answer.
 
2012-07-11 02:51:50 PM  
It doesn't.

1. Your perception has changed. Example: When I was going to film school, DVD Authoring was just becoming a 'thing', they talked about how it was determined that people didn't want to wait for a menu on their DVD any longer than they wanted to wait for a webpage. "acceptable' web page loading at the time(About 2002-2003)? 17 seconds. Now? Abut 2 seconds before we move on.

2. Everything is doing more. Webpages aren't a few lines of text, a banner, a few ads and nothing more, they contain embedded videos, popup animations, like RSS feeds, etc. Your games and apps are about a billion times more productive, multitasking, working between apps, and doing a thousand times more in the process.

3. You have too much crap like toolbars installed, or Google desktop search. Also, if you're running Norton for your A/V solution, that's an issue.

4. You're building wrong? I have Win 7 on a 7 year old computer(With 5 year old hard drives). It boots in 55 seconds to the login screen, and your desktop is up about 5 seconds after that. I have 4 GB of RAM and a dual core 3 GHz processor, nothing amazing, but I have a hard drive config that makes all of the difference. 3 drives, 1 each for scratch disk/downloads/movies/music, 1 for installed apps, and 1 for the OS. This minimizes the heads on the hard drive jumping around any more than absolutely necessary. These are also 10,000 rpm drives. As a result, my computer is markedly different from all of the previous ones I've owned, yet the only expensive part right now if the hard drives.
 
2012-07-11 02:51:54 PM  
Adventure House is nice and fast on my new computer.
www.mobygames.com
 
2012-07-11 02:52:00 PM  

TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB


Because RAM costs about 10x the price of SSD and because when you turn off your computer you lose everything in RAM. And since Windows will crash (not "might crash", it will farking crash), you can't just say, "don't turn it off".
 
2012-07-11 02:52:51 PM  

discgolfguru: labman: discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.

You got the disc drive? I was stuck with the tape drive.

I had the tape drive as well, briefly. I played Zaxxon on it.


Add me to the Atari 400/800/XL club. I too had only the tape drive at first, got the Floppy Disk Drive as a HS Grad present (awesome gift!!!).

I remember I got some animation where it demoed the Atari slaughtering the Commodore with some apps, with the C64 finally exploding trying to solve a math problem the Atari instantly spit out the solution to. Good times.

/farking Tramiel ruined the company
 
2012-07-11 02:52:56 PM  

brianbankerus: thejoyofpi: The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.

Mine doesn't do this. Normal shut off time, like under a minute. Boot is probably 2 (but it feels like 20).

And can we stop forcing reboots every time there's an update? I had stuff I was working on, man, let me reboot when I'm ready!


Read before you click. Windows Update asks if you want to reboot now or wait.

OT:

Software bloat isn't only due to lazy programmers. A theoretical 1 line program could do its task very well. But then you get people looking for exploits and exploit the hell out of your 1 line program. You need to patch that and your 1 line program turns into a 5 line program, which might need patching later on. Now apply that to your OS.
 
2012-07-11 02:52:56 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]


Tie Fighter! *nostalgasm*
 
2012-07-11 02:53:08 PM  
asset0.cbsistatic.com
 
2012-07-11 02:53:13 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]


I love that I can still play all the Lucasarts adventure games in ScummVM. Hell, they even ported it to PSP.
 
2012-07-11 02:53:19 PM  
I remember when it used to take 10 or 15 minutes to download 1 good porn picture.
 
2012-07-11 02:53:20 PM  
You haven't upgraded the meatware.
 
2012-07-11 02:53:31 PM  
Then: 1GB was a shiatload of drive space.

NOW:

lordargent.com
This screenshot is a year or two old, and those drives are practically filled (one or two more photoshoots and they're done).

// need drive prices to come back down because I need three and I want to avoid paying a $50x3 premium if possible.
 
2012-07-11 02:54:02 PM  
A friend's system was slow at the weirdest things, even though she had an SSD. Turns out the SSD was almost full and was old enough the firmware was unable to maintain speed. Upgraded her SSD for size reasons and was astonished to see how much faster things were!

Moral: Don't let your SSD fill up, especially if it's from 2009 or 2010.
 
2012-07-11 02:54:10 PM  

lewismarktwo: www.oldversion.com


LOOKIT! X-WING! The floppy,iMUSE, Top Ace wingman version! I'm so losing some hours to this tonight.

http://www.oldversion.com/games/X-Wing.html
 
2012-07-11 02:54:30 PM  

InfamousBLT: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

Also B, you have another bottleneck somewhere else. Possibly hard drive read/write speed.


You probably don't have enough CPU fluid ...check the resivoiur and if it's at the full line you need to see if you need to add I & H Dead-Water Copper Sulfate Biocidal PC Coolant Additive

www.frozencpu.com
 
2012-07-11 02:54:34 PM  

thejoyofpi: t3knomanser: Developer time is expensive. CPU time is very cheap.

What about my time as I sit here waiting for an unresponsive Chrome tab to stop choking my browser?


Chrome is free.
 
2012-07-11 02:55:05 PM  
Your computer always seems to be about as fast, no matter the internals, because the problem is you, not the computer.

Even with a clean OS install, most people will gradually expand their computing habits to fill the available resources.
It's just a thing they do. They keep piling shiat on and leaving shiat running, until things tip over the line of "it's now annoyingly slow".

Then they'll close some stuff, delete some stuff, uninstall some stuff -- but only *just* enough that they cross back over the line and get back to a place where they don't find the delays too annoying. Then they slowly expand again, become annoyed again, shrink back down again and repeat. Just ping-pong-ing back and forth across the annoyance threshold.

Different people have different subjective points for where the annoyance kicks in, but the basic behavior seems pretty universal.
 
2012-07-11 02:56:02 PM  

Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]

I love that I can still play all the Lucasarts adventure games in ScummVM. Hell, they even ported it to PSP.


Wait, what? Tell me more.
 
2012-07-11 02:56:44 PM  

OgreMagi: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

Because RAM costs about 10x the price of SSD and because when you turn off your computer you lose everything in RAM. And since Windows will crash (not "might crash", it will farking crash), you can't just say, "don't turn it off".


Point taken. But, I would think that running programs should certainly be faster if not having to hit any harddrive. I don't usually blame my OS for the slow downs. Does the SSD help with graphics as much as the quality and memory of the graphics card?
 
2012-07-11 02:56:55 PM  
Mikey1969: 2. Everything is doing more. Webpages aren't a few lines of text, a banner, a few ads and nothing more, they contain embedded videos, popup animations, like RSS feeds, etc.

As an old school web developer (that moved over to traditional programming), I think all of this embedded shiat has gotten totally out of hand. Now you go to a page and it's trying to serve you things from 20+ different domains (note the scroll arrows), WTF.

lordargent.com
 
2012-07-11 02:56:55 PM  
This was my first system... circa 1982

www.mew3.us

Hooked it into out HUGE 19 inch color TV.
 
2012-07-11 02:56:59 PM  

paygun: Every year hardware gets faster and software gets slower.

I've been writing a system to create videos from still photos at work. I bought a 6 core server and my vendor laughed when I called it high performance. It is high performance when you put Slackware on it.


...iMovie?
 
2012-07-11 02:57:01 PM  

MrSteve007: The problem is that your computer doesn't have a "Turbo" button:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x445]
From 33 mhz, to a blistering 66 mhz!!!


Pshh. The turbo button on the ol' Compuadd 286 went from 6 mhz to 12 mhz and we only had a 5.25" disk drive because that's the way we liked it.
 
2012-07-11 02:57:23 PM  
Get Puppy Linux.

/Zork was pretty fast.
 
2012-07-11 02:57:26 PM  
Andy giveth and Bill taketh away.

The problem largely comes down to abstraction. An abstraction is a layer that makes programming easier at the cost of performance. Different abstractions provide the user interface, the graphics, the input and the system security. Other layers exist to speed up the application development process. And a lot of other things are limited by the speed of your internet connection. The page can't fully render until it finishes downloading.
 
2012-07-11 02:57:35 PM  
codinghorror.typepad.com

It's all of your smooth curved edges and your color gradients and your fancy pants animations! In the 90s I remember getting along on 16 colors with square corners and I was thankful for it!
 
2012-07-11 02:57:37 PM  

DerAppie: Read before you click. Windows Update asks if you want to reboot now or wait.


And two minutes later it pops up the damn dialog box again saying it wants to reboot. It won't leave me the fark alone!

I'm a Linux admin, so I am spoiled. I install updates, there are no reboots. I install a new kernel, it doesn't force a reboot, so I can put it in place now and schedule a reboot at 3am when it's unlikely anyone will be accessing the system.
 
2012-07-11 02:57:49 PM  
cause you never upgraded your 300 baud modem.
 
2012-07-11 02:58:31 PM  

tuna fingers: Two words:
Micro Soft


Not true.
Your precious Mac uses very similar hardware. Your hard drive can only sling data so fast. The system bus can only move data at certain rates. Your streamlined OS? Not really so.

So while the Windows users at least have an easy to get to log file, to see WTF happened, you just sit right back and enjoy the spinning beach ball of failure.

/Owned 2 iMacs, 3PC (windows), and dabbles with Linux.
 
2012-07-11 02:59:14 PM  

lordargent: Then: 1GB was a shiatload of drive space.


My first hard drive was 5 Megs. My geek friends asked me what I could possibly do with all that much space. It was attached to a Vector Graphics S100 cp/m computer.
 
2012-07-11 02:59:20 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]


I loved that game. It played extremely well.
 
2012-07-11 02:59:33 PM  
That 5GB 3000rpm HD that you are running Vista on, isn't helping much.
 
2012-07-11 02:59:49 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]

I love that I can still play all the Lucasarts adventure games in ScummVM. Hell, they even ported it to PSP.

Wait, what? Tell me more.


ScummVM

Supported games list:

Compatibility

It's a beautiful thing. Full Throttle, Monkey Island and Sam and Max never get old.
 
2012-07-11 02:59:59 PM  
Unrealistic expectations?

/also, this thread makes me want to find a copy of Commander Keen or ROTT
 
2012-07-11 03:00:29 PM  

dv-ous: ...iMovie?


I can't say I wouldn't enjoy it if we hired some poor bastard to sit in front of imovie 24/7 and churn out videos. But it makes a lot more sense to just write something that does it all by itself. Last night it made 1400 videos while I read a book and slept.
 
2012-07-11 03:01:17 PM  

MythDragon: That 5GB 3000rpm HD that you are running Vista on, isn't helping much.


That's not funny. I've seen people try that.
 
2012-07-11 03:01:26 PM  
one word......

P0RN
 
2012-07-11 03:01:54 PM  

zetar: Most programmers are incompetent and downright dangerous.

Almost all software is very poorly written these days.

In the 'old days' poorly written code would cause almost an immediate crash. Now, poorly written code is considered the standard. The most popular operating system is riddled with memory leaks.

/ And, yes, I do have a doctorate in computer science.


Jesus, another over-educated CS ass. You want to see the source of 90% of the bloatware out there? Sit in a meeting across the table from some CS PhD while they enchant a clueless program manager on the unparalleled virtues of their chosen framework/pattern/technology of the day. That they only heard about it at a conference and have never actually implemented it and are not responsible for the post-sales support costs and increased sales friction are of no matter to them.

Perfect example right now is Ruby. They talk teams into it, then miss all their dates and blow their dev budgets because they can't hire enough good Ruby developers. Products should be sold and used and changes lives first and foremost. If they're ideally realized that's great, but not at the cost of never seeing daylight.

/or maybe i fell for a troll
// not i didn't, WHARRGARBL
 
2012-07-11 03:02:08 PM  

akula: InfamousBLT: Haha, this. Go play some super old DOS game. Watch as all of the animations are insanely fast, everything moves way too fast for your mind to even comprehend what is going on. It's actually kind of funny.

Many years ago I was talking to a guy, reminiscing about old computer games. I remarked how I liked the Test Drive series (especially TD2), but TD3 was unplayable on that 286... it ran, but only at something like 4 or 8 frames/second. He said he played the same game on a 386 and it ran properly, but on a 486 it just was way too fast for you to react.

We don't often go back and dust off old games from generations past, but yeah, when one does so the result is something that's really moving along.


I loved the TD series too. I also miss wordstar*, tried to save it off of some floppies in storage a couple years ago but they were all corrupt. Norton Utilities probably could have saved them but that disk was corrupt too.

*What I missed was the dictionary/thesaurus with definitions so you were selecting the correct word. That came in handy a plethora of times. I found wordweb though and now use that.
 
2012-07-11 03:02:10 PM  

snake_beater: Unrealistic expectations?

/also, this thread makes me want to find a copy of Commander Keen or ROTT


I would imagine there are probably updated modern engines for both games so you don't have to dig up a copy of DOS to play them. In fact, I KNOW there's one for ROTT.
 
2012-07-11 03:02:39 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]


Yeah, Tie Fighter was 'better' than X-Wing, but it's hard to beat the original.

X-Wing 1992 (floppies) : X-Wing 95 (CD) :: Star Wars 1977 : Star Wars 1997
 
2012-07-11 03:02:41 PM  

LineNoise: Likewise because of the advances in memory\cpu\storage, people don't need to code as tight as they used to.


QFT.
 
2012-07-11 03:03:10 PM  

Pockafrusta: This was my first system... circa 1982

[www.mew3.us image 640x566]

Hooked it into out HUGE 19 inch color TV.


I had a sinclair 1000 when i was a kid!
that thing was awesome.
 
2012-07-11 03:03:15 PM  
Then:
www.mobygames.com
'Oh. look. A dragon'

Now:
andrewhemphill.files.wordpress.com
'OH FARKING FARK FARK! A FARKING DRAGON!'

That's why there is no difference in speed,
 
2012-07-11 03:03:32 PM  

TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB


Because you'll have 4 GB of your 192GB RAM used, and your computer will STILL be dead slow.
RAM only helps when you don't have enough of it. You run out of performance benefit for a PC at ~6GB.

The SSD makes far more sense and makes a much, much bigger performance improvement.
 
2012-07-11 03:03:55 PM  
Dark Helmet:
"F*ck! Even in the future nothing works!"
 
2012-07-11 03:03:58 PM  
subby please do the following
go to start and run "msconfig"
click the startup tab
hit print screen
open up mspaint
hit ctrl+v
hit ctrl+s and save it
upload the image here so we can see how much crap your computer is loading
 
2012-07-11 03:04:29 PM  
PEBCAK or ID - Ten - T error or Layor 8 error. Whatever you want to call it.
 
2012-07-11 03:04:52 PM  
I remember having to run WinAmp in experimental integer mode in order to get just enough horsepower out of my 486SX to play an MP3 file. Now playing music doesn't even register on the CPU meter.

But yeah, computers haven't gotten any faster.
 
2012-07-11 03:04:59 PM  

akula: The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.


You sure about this? Either your resolution/bit depth is incorrect or you are mistaken with the CPU.

320x200 most likely with CGA at the time if you had a 286.

Unless you had a Hercules card, that was 640x200 but monochrome so that nulls your statement.

I'm going to guess you meant a different CPU. :-)

/Without a Turbo button.
 
2012-07-11 03:05:04 PM  

zedster: subby please do the following
go to start and run "msconfig"
click the startup tab
hit print screen
open up mspaint
hit ctrl+v
hit ctrl+s and save it
upload the image here so we can see how much crap your computer is loading


$10 on Bonzi Buddy
 
2012-07-11 03:05:19 PM  

DerAppie: Read before you click. Windows Update asks if you want to reboot now or wait.


Right, but it pops up in the background with a countdown clock. If I'm not sitting at the screen when it happens (which has happened more than twice) I come back to find the damn thing did it without me. It's just too bossy for my tastes.
 
2012-07-11 03:06:04 PM  

Ponzholio: thejoyofpi: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

brilliant.

Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...


I recall a program called MoSlow, which was designed to do nothing more than put a variable load on your CPU, just eating processing cycles. It was designed to overcome just that problem.
 
2012-07-11 03:06:35 PM  

Phoenix87ta: zedster: subby please do the following
go to start and run "msconfig"
click the startup tab
hit print screen
open up mspaint
hit ctrl+v
hit ctrl+s and save it
upload the image here so we can see how much crap your computer is loading

$10 on Bonzi Buddy


I'll see you on that one and go $100 on shopathome
 
2012-07-11 03:06:48 PM  
Because as computers get smarter, people get dumber.
 
2012-07-11 03:07:21 PM  
Your computer is doing 300-500x as much stuff. What did you expect?

Also, it's written by people to human timescales. You're not getting any quicker.
 
2012-07-11 03:07:34 PM  
Because the hard drive is only 1.2x faster.
 
2012-07-11 03:08:31 PM  

Timanous: Aarontology: This is like a fat guy complaining that his pants are as tight as they were when he was skinny.

Silly man.

Fat people wear sweats with elastic waists.


I'll have you know that I have never in my adult life worn sweats.
 
2012-07-11 03:08:36 PM  
Could subby talking about the internet not being any faster? Faster computer won't fix a slow internet connection...
 
2012-07-11 03:08:41 PM  

zedster: Phoenix87ta: zedster: subby please do the following
go to start and run "msconfig"
click the startup tab
hit print screen
open up mspaint
hit ctrl+v
hit ctrl+s and save it
upload the image here so we can see how much crap your computer is loading

$10 on Bonzi Buddy

I'll see you on that one and go $100 on shopathome


And an extra $100 on unnecessary software bundled with subby's device drivers.
 
2012-07-11 03:08:51 PM  
I have an analogy I like to use. It's the freeway one. Build a freeway, and traffic eases. (hardware) Developers come along and build a bunch of new houses/retail and the freeway becomes clogged. (software) Rinse, repeat.
 
2012-07-11 03:09:04 PM  

kiteless: [codinghorror.typepad.com image 640x480]

It's all of your smooth curved edges and your color gradients and your fancy pants animations! In the 90s I remember getting along on 16 colors with square corners and I was thankful for it!


We had a guy in my office during the 90's who set the PCs to black text on a black background with the black scheme when he had the night shift.

Good times were had by all!
 
2012-07-11 03:09:34 PM  

The Voice of Doom: thejoyofpi
The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.

Maybe you've got automatic updates enabled?
I don't know when Microsoft started doing this, but at some point they thought it would be a good idea to install updates when you shut down the computer.


Because it is a good idea. Way better than bugging you all the time and you clicking "remind me later" because you didnt feel like restarting. I remember wishing for an install updates next shutdown the whole time i was using XP.
 
2012-07-11 03:09:39 PM  

thejoyofpi: The weirdness with Windows 7 is that it takes freaking forever to shut down.

Used to be computers would take a long time to boot up, they solved that, now most computers boot up quickly. But shutting down is like a 20 minute process.


You shouldn't really ever need to shut down a Windows 7 machine. Laptops - hibernate. Desktops - sleep.
 
2012-07-11 03:09:47 PM  
Psssh. My first computer ran on coal.
I remember one time waiting 20 minutes for an ASCII picture of a naked girl to load so that I could masturbate, and right in the middle of it, the machine shuts down all because grandma was too lazy to shovel coal.

Biatch. I missed the first ten minutes of Knight Rider because of her.
 
2012-07-11 03:11:25 PM  
This is green?

Focking nerds.

Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]


Last game I think I cared about.

Except for the SS hotties in Return to Wolfenstein.
 
2012-07-11 03:11:26 PM  

thejoyofpi: Hyperbolic Hyperbole: I mean. When I first played Space Quest IV, the game after which I am so fark handled, it came in a box containing six 3.5" installation disks. which means the entire game took up less than 10mb of space it the damn thing took twenty minutes to install.

And honestly, can you say some new game with a gigantor 4 GB install is actually that much more fun than those old games? I don't think so


Depends on the game. There were certainly some old school games that held up (go to gog.com) but Skyrim and the Mass Effect series were way better than anything from the past.
 
2012-07-11 03:11:42 PM  

snake_beater: Unrealistic expectations?

/also, this thread makes me want to find a copy of Commander Keen or ROTT


Keen 6(?) pack is available on steam for a few bucks.
 
2012-07-11 03:12:54 PM  
Because programmers suck.

And because programs do a heck of a lot more now than they did back then.
 
2012-07-11 03:13:05 PM  

Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]

I love that I can still play all the Lucasarts adventure games in ScummVM. Hell, they even ported it to PSP.

Wait, what? Tell me more.

ScummVM

Supported games list:

Compatibility

It's a beautiful thing. Full Throttle, Monkey Island and Sam and Max never get old.


This might be the greatest thing ever -except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe.
 
2012-07-11 03:13:16 PM  
I remember when candy was $0.25 as well.
 
2012-07-11 03:14:00 PM  
I just remembered I have an emulator for an Atari 800. I need to grab Rescue on Fractalus and Koronis Rift, two of my favorites.
 
2012-07-11 03:14:31 PM  

badspella: zetar: Most programmers are incompetent and downright dangerous.

Almost all software is very poorly written these days.

In the 'old days' poorly written code would cause almost an immediate crash. Now, poorly written code is considered the standard. The most popular operating system is riddled with memory leaks.

/ And, yes, I do have a doctorate in computer science.

Jesus, another over-educated CS ass. You want to see the source of 90% of the bloatware out there? Sit in a meeting across the table from some CS PhD while they enchant a clueless program manager on the unparalleled virtues of their chosen framework/pattern/technology of the day. That they only heard about it at a conference and have never actually implemented it and are not responsible for the post-sales support costs and increased sales friction are of no matter to them.

Perfect example right now is Ruby. They talk teams into it, then miss all their dates and blow their dev budgets because they can't hire enough good Ruby developers. Products should be sold and used and changes lives first and foremost. If they're ideally realized that's great, but not at the cost of never seeing daylight.

/or maybe i fell for a troll
// not i didn't, WHARRGARBL


I'm sorry, I should have made this clear, too: most CS PhDs are downright dangerous, too.

/ Better?
 
2012-07-11 03:14:57 PM  

lordargent: As an old school web developer (that moved over to traditional programming), I think all of this embedded shiat has gotten totally out of hand. Now you go to a page and it's trying to serve you things from 20+ different domains (note the scroll arrows), WTF.


Sweet mother of Thor, THIS. Why the fark do you need scripts from twenty different sites to show me a video, or worse yet, a farking image?
 
2012-07-11 03:15:11 PM  
while != 100000
i = random * 100000
loop

The above code is stuck in every few pages of modern code. That and all 435 programs installed on your computer ping the web for updates every few seconds. And animation sequences with 32 alpha channel graphics have to load every time your mouse hovers over an icon/window/button/etc.
 
2012-07-11 03:15:32 PM  

brianbankerus: DerAppie: Read before you click. Windows Update asks if you want to reboot now or wait.

Right, but it pops up in the background with a countdown clock. If I'm not sitting at the screen when it happens (which has happened more than twice) I come back to find the damn thing did it without me. It's just too bossy for my tastes.


I've had that "do you want to reboot now" pop-up open for hours on end without sudden reboots. Methinks something else is going on.
 
2012-07-11 03:17:23 PM  

SevenizGud: Because the scroll bars don't work until the farking double-click ads load.

/off to sort 708,000 rows of 25,000 column wide data in excel


Try dropping 40k cells with array functions into a table.
 
2012-07-11 03:17:26 PM  

SpaceBison: MrSteve007: The problem is that your computer doesn't have a "Turbo" button:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x445]
From 33 mhz, to a blistering 66 mhz!!!

Pshh. The turbo button on the ol' Compuadd 286 went from 6 mhz to 12 mhz and we only had a 5.25" disk drive because that's the way we liked it.


You damn youngin's with your newfangeled, hifalutin' 5.25" disks. Back in my day we had 8" disks. 80kb was enough for anyone. Plenty enough to hack into NORAD

letsbytecode.comletsbytecode.com
 
2012-07-11 03:20:08 PM  

kiteless: It's all of your smooth curved edges and your color gradients and your fancy pants animations! In the 90s I remember getting along on 16 colors with square corners and I was thankful for it!


I wish they would bring back the Windows 3.1 look. Loved it. Hated supporting it and that whole, "MY WINDOW DISAPPEARED AND I CANT BRING IT BACK, OH MINIMIZED PROGRAM MANAGER AND THERE IT IS."

/get off my lawn
 
2012-07-11 03:20:17 PM  
www.fitzenreiter.de

Not my first computer, my first was Apple IIe then an 8088 then a 286 then a 486 which I had to install the mathco processor. I skipped most of the dialup stories by living near a college with a real internet connection.
 
2012-07-11 03:20:56 PM  
You just need to take your computer to Best Buy and get the Geek Squad to take a look at it. I hear that their friendly and knowledgeable staff can use their extensive experience in virtually every aspect of technology to quickly make miraculous improvements in any electronic device's performance for an incredibly low price. In the exceedingly unlikely event that they cannot fix your computer, they will work hard to help you select the most economical replacement from the store's vast stock of reasonably priced equipment.
 
2012-07-11 03:20:59 PM  

Phoenix87ta: zedster: Phoenix87ta: zedster: subby please do the following
go to start and run "msconfig"
click the startup tab
hit print screen
open up mspaint
hit ctrl+v
hit ctrl+s and save it
upload the image here so we can see how much crap your computer is loading

$10 on Bonzi Buddy

I'll see you on that one and go $100 on shopathome

And an extra $100 on unnecessary software bundled with subby's device drivers.


Add $100 that his IE looks like this:
rdmventure.com

Which I had to explain to my mom shouldn't be like that.
 
2012-07-11 03:21:00 PM  

kiteless: [codinghorror.typepad.com image 640x480]

It's all of your smooth curved edges and your color gradients and your fancy pants animations! In the 90s I remember getting along on 16 colors with square corners and I was thankful for it!


F*CK YEAH HOTDOG STAND
 
2012-07-11 03:21:14 PM  

Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.


Yeah, that.

CSB time:

With my second computer (Pentium 200Mhz) I was able to play the PC version of "Road Rage." Fun as hell game.

This past weekend I was foraging through some items when I found the CD and, for the hell of it, tried to install it on my Quad-Core rig and it couldn't be done.

Had a sad for a minute.

/csb
 
2012-07-11 03:21:28 PM  
I remembered how fast my old systems were, just as they are today, until I hooked them back up and tried to use them. Bad memory. And if you still can find a dial-up source, do a 2400 baud connection (hell, even 14,400) and watch it. I almost clawed my eyes out. Just remember, you youngsters who may live in your parents' basement, ATM0=0 will silence that shiat. Assuming it's still like 1992.

/misses the good ole days before all of you idiots and rugrats got on the internets
//eg!
///Trolls were banned immediately from most BBSes that didn't have a "Be a troll forum," too.
////Where oh where have my little MUDs goneeeeeee?
//+++
 
2012-07-11 03:22:25 PM  

MythDragon: Phoenix87ta: zedster: Phoenix87ta: zedster: subby please do the following
go to start and run "msconfig"
click the startup tab
hit print screen
open up mspaint
hit ctrl+v
hit ctrl+s and save it
upload the image here so we can see how much crap your computer is loading

$10 on Bonzi Buddy

I'll see you on that one and go $100 on shopathome

And an extra $100 on unnecessary software bundled with subby's device drivers.

Add $100 that his IE looks like this:
[rdmventure.com image 512x384]

Which I had to explain to my mom shouldn't be like that.


Heh, no wonder I raced over to Netscape, then Firefox.
 
2012-07-11 03:23:05 PM  
It's quite simple. Your old computer was slow, so the programmers that wrote code for it took that into account, and wrote tiny, fast, minimal code. Now you have a fast computer, and the programmers go "ooh! Toys!!! I've programmed on slow crap for too long, let's do neat fancy things!!" So your computer ends up doing a lot more than your original computer, and tends to be built so it responds in about the same timescale because that's what programmers expect of computers.

/Give a programmer 5 Legos they'll use 5 Legos, give them 50,000 and they're use all 50,000 and the original 5 together.
 
2012-07-11 03:23:20 PM  

DerAppie: brianbankerus: DerAppie: Read before you click. Windows Update asks if you want to reboot now or wait.

Right, but it pops up in the background with a countdown clock. If I'm not sitting at the screen when it happens (which has happened more than twice) I come back to find the damn thing did it without me. It's just too bossy for my tastes.

I've had that "do you want to reboot now" pop-up open for hours on end without sudden reboots. Methinks something else is going on.


Mine pops up with a 15-minute countdown, and if I don't select to defer it, it just does its thing. I think something else is going on too but I haven't chosen a conspiracy major yet, so I'm just dealing with it.
 
2012-07-11 03:23:31 PM  

Rwa2play: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

Yeah, that.

CSB time:

With my second computer (Pentium 200Mhz) I was able to play the PC version of "Road Rage." Fun as hell game.

This past weekend I was foraging through some items when I found the CD and, for the hell of it, tried to install it on my Quad-Core rig and it couldn't be done.

Had a sad for a minute.

/csb


Had the same issue when trying to run The 7th Guest. I think that was back from my 486sx25
 
2012-07-11 03:23:57 PM  

meanmutton: You shouldn't really ever need to shut down a Windows 7 machine. Laptops - hibernate. Desktops - sleep.


if only Win7 wifi didn't drop connections when sleeping/hibernating... but it does, but it doesn't tell everything that uses those connections that the connections are gone, when things wake up again. so the printer driver thinks the printer is working fine, but in reality it has no connection. things go into the printer queue but don't come out until you reboot and re-establish a connection. and iTunes gets confused when it can't find its library file that lives on the NAS because it can't find the NAS until the wifi gets a new connection, so it creates a new library, locally. then you have to delete the local library and re-connect to the NAS's library, but that causes iTunes to do a re-scan of the whole farking thing, which means you can't use iTunes for 40 minutes while it "checks" every song.

this is why i use powerline networking.
 
2012-07-11 03:24:26 PM  
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
 
2012-07-11 03:24:57 PM  
Two words: Code Bloat

Too many programmers suck these days. They have more CPU cycles, so they use them. They have more memory, so they use it. Memory leak? Pffft, who cares. Garbage collect? Java does that for me. Multi-thread a task? What you talkin' about?

/first computer: TRS-80 Model 1
 
2012-07-11 03:25:22 PM  
cause you still own a piece of shiat
 
2012-07-11 03:25:49 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]

I love that I can still play all the Lucasarts adventure games in ScummVM. Hell, they even ported it to PSP.

Wait, what? Tell me more.

ScummVM

Supported games list:

Compatibility

It's a beautiful thing. Full Throttle, Monkey Island and Sam and Max never get old.

This might be the greatest thing ever -except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe.


Look behind you, a three-headed monkey!

/couldn't resist.
 
2012-07-11 03:27:13 PM  
I don't know subs, my computer is blazing fast. It is so quick it almost seems like the program loads before I'm done clicking.

/Built a budget computer for $500.
//SSD and 6-core AMD CPU.
 
2012-07-11 03:27:39 PM  
What is this "everything" of which you speak, subby? Dollars to donuts the stuff you are doing with your computer today bears little resemblance to the stuff you were doing with your computer back in the olden times.
 
2012-07-11 03:28:19 PM  
are you trying to do the exact same things you tried to do on your first computer? i highly doubt it.
 
2012-07-11 03:29:08 PM  

Dragonflew: Wow, there are a lot of pretty specific answers to a very vague question. Shouldn't we be asking for more details? WHAT takes just as long?


No, because IT experts are quick to come to conclusions about what the problem is, and 99% of the time the problem is you.

/Works in IT
/Dislikes most IT "troubleshooters"
 
2012-07-11 03:29:28 PM  
 
2012-07-11 03:29:49 PM  

RichieLaw: I don't know subs, my computer is blazing fast. It is so quick it almost seems like the program loads before I'm done clicking.

/Built a budget computer for $500.
//SSD and 6-core AMD CPU.


You magnificent bastard! :D

Thinking about getting an SSD and an 8-core AMD w/ the mobo.

/First: I have to install Win 7
//I don't like Win 7
///But if I want the SSD, I gotta install it
////*groans*
 
2012-07-11 03:30:06 PM  
Then

i47.tinypic.com



Now

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-11 03:30:13 PM  

JackieRabbit: Two words: Code Bloat

Too many programmers suck these days. They have more CPU cycles, so they use them. They have more memory, so they use it. Memory leak? Pffft, who cares. Garbage collect? Java does that for me. Multi-thread a task? What you talkin' about?

/first computer: TRS-80 Model 1


I still don't believe this. I think it's an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Sun.
 
2012-07-11 03:31:24 PM  

Pockafrusta: This was my first system... circa 1982

[www.mew3.us image 640x566]

Hooked it into out HUGE 19 inch color TV.


I remember those. It took a while to get one back then.
I still have my first computer (we always remember our first), a TRS-80 Pocket Computer
1.4k memory, BASIC.
It still works as an overgrown slow calculator.
 
2012-07-11 03:32:20 PM  
Headline and some of the discussion here reminds me of this: Everything's amazing and nobody's happy
 
2012-07-11 03:32:52 PM  

dogboy360: Pockafrusta: This was my first system... circa 1982

[www.mew3.us image 640x566]

Hooked it into out HUGE 19 inch color TV.

I remember those. It took a while to get one back then.
I still have my first computer (we always remember our first), a TRS-80 Pocket Computer
1.4k memory, BASIC.
It still works as an overgrown slow calculator.


I still remember when my fantasy was hooking up my rig to a 21-inch CRT.

/Then the LCDs came along
//YAY!
///Now have a 23-inch LED backlit LCD monitor.
 
2012-07-11 03:33:44 PM  
Yet another parallel of the Jevons Paradox. Increases in efficiency are offset by increases in consumption.
 
2012-07-11 03:34:06 PM  
Heh. Nostalgia thread. I still cringe-smile every time I see a new ad for some sub-$100 / over-1TB USB drive, thinking "fondly" of the first 1TB server I racked. Yeah, a full rack, and well into six figures.

discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.


Indeed. Only the most civil and thoughtful computer enthusiasts rocked the 800XL.

You know, I actually miss the white-on-blue word processing and very much miss the daisy wheel printer. Wonder if I could find one cheap that could be made to work. Actual type-struck printing is sooooo much nicer looking and nicer to read than a laser printer. But now we have Comic Sans and drop shadows. So there's that. That's nice.

wildcardjack: Why does it take 100+Mb of memory for a program to display a 150kb file that I could have opened on my 486 with 16Mb of ram?

I'm thinking of browsers and word processors.


I think this has been beaten to death now, but just to answer yours specifically: Word processors have come a long way. WYSIWYG, graphics, spelling and grammar checkers, and on and on and on. Unfortunately, almost everyone only uses 5-10% of the program's ability... but everyone uses a -different- 5-10%, and everyone wants -their- 5-10% to load instantly... so we get bloat and feature creep and "why the hell does Word do [something I never use] and why won't [something someone else will never use] work more quickly?!"

And, yeah, another overall vote for "keep a tidy system" here... an old Core 2 Duo with a couple GB of RAM I picked up for ~$100 a couple years back flies along just fine, if you don't need the latest games and don't run a bunch of crap. And *especially* if you throw a cheap SSD in for the OS.
 
2012-07-11 03:36:14 PM  

kiteless: It's all of your smooth curved edges and your color gradients and your fancy pants animations! In the 90s I remember getting along on 16 colors with square corners and I was thankful for it!


Well, last I heard, you're going to get all of that back with Windows 8, so yay?
 
2012-07-11 03:36:35 PM  
All the automated stuff that makes setting stuff up easier bogs a system down.
I remember experimenting with DMA, IRQ and COM numbers in config.sys and autoexec.bat files trying to get my game to launch with sound and game port enabled.
Messing around with EMS vs XMS

I remember playing an early version of MS Flight Simulator on a 286 with a monochrome monitor.
the PC speaker made engine sounds, they keyboard arrows controlled pitch and roll, while comma and period controlled yaw.
 
2012-07-11 03:39:40 PM  
The fabric of space-time has been altered by FOX NEWS.

/or it was aliens . .
 
2012-07-11 03:39:49 PM  

Rwa2play: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

Yeah, that.

CSB time:

With my second computer (Pentium 200Mhz) I was able to play the PC version of "Road Rage." Fun as hell game.

This past weekend I was foraging through some items when I found the CD and, for the hell of it, tried to install it on my Quad-Core rig and it couldn't be done.

Had a sad for a minute.

/csb


That's what Virtual Machines are for. I have a few FreeBSD installs for testing firewall configs before hitting production, FreeDOS for a couple old Sierra games, Windows 2000 for Master of Orion 2, Windows XP for iTunes and other garbage I don't want polluting my PC. Running it all as guests on a Windows 7 PC with Oracle VirtualBox. You can use VMWare or MS Virtual Server if you like also.
 
2012-07-11 03:40:16 PM  

Rwa2play: RichieLaw: I don't know subs, my computer is blazing fast. It is so quick it almost seems like the program loads before I'm done clicking.

/Built a budget computer for $500.
//SSD and 6-core AMD CPU.

You magnificent bastard! :D

Thinking about getting an SSD and an 8-core AMD w/ the mobo.

/First: I have to install Win 7
//I don't like Win 7
///But if I want the SSD, I gotta install it
////*groans*


Ha, thanks!

Just do it man. Everything is so cheap now. I was able to get a 120 gig SSD on Newegg for less than $100 and use that as my boot drive. WIN7 runs like a freakin dream.

And I would skip the 8-core. Unless you're going to be running a home server or something anything more than 4-core's is a waste right now. (I just bought my 6-core because it was super cheap and was the best value for the money at the time). If I had to do it all over again I would buy this CPU as you can't go wrong with a quad-core 3.4 GHZ that can easily be OC'd with stock cooling to close to 4 GHZ.

Cheers!
 
2012-07-11 03:40:24 PM  

Phoenix87ta: JackieRabbit: Two words: Code Bloat

Too many programmers suck these days. They have more CPU cycles, so they use them. They have more memory, so they use it. Memory leak? Pffft, who cares. Garbage collect? Java does that for me. Multi-thread a task? What you talkin' about?

/first computer: TRS-80 Model 1

I still don't believe this. I think it's an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Sun.


Oh, it'll do it for you, IF you haven't accidentally left orphan objects floating around. Because orphans take up memory in computers, exactly the opposite of real life.
 
2012-07-11 03:41:14 PM  

TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB


Well I would definitely agree that you want to have at least 4GB of RAM. However, it seems like any decent system from the last couple years will already be there, and if not it's like $20 to upgrade. Still, your performance gain may only be somewhat noticeable. I have seen first-hand computers that struggle become lightning fast with a new SSD (now you can get 120GB for under $100). Put Windows 7 and your main programs on the SSD and your system will load to a useable desktop in less than 10 seconds or so.

Seriously, upgrading to an SSD is probably the single most game-changing upgrade you will ever do on a computer. All those times Windows seems to be "doing something" and you're not sure what it's doing will simply go away.
 
2012-07-11 03:41:52 PM  

SFSailor: And, yeah, another overall vote for "keep a tidy system" here... an old Core 2 Duo with a couple GB of RAM I picked up for ~$100 a couple years back flies along just fine, if you don't need the latest games and don't run a bunch of crap. And *especially* if you throw a cheap SSD in for the OS.


Seconded. Just installed a GeForce GT 610 and maxed out the RAM capacity (8 GB) and mines purrs along just fine.
 
2012-07-11 03:43:33 PM  

thejoyofpi: t3knomanser: Developer time is expensive. CPU time is very cheap.

What about my time as I sit here waiting for an unresponsive Chrome tab to stop choking my browser?


Oh noes!!! Teh facebook is slow so I waste time while I'm wasting time!!!

/get back to us when it affects real work
//I had no idea so many farkers had their GEDs in CS/CE
 
2012-07-11 03:44:12 PM  

Phoenix87ta: JackieRabbit: Two words: Code Bloat

Too many programmers suck these days. They have more CPU cycles, so they use them. They have more memory, so they use it. Memory leak? Pffft, who cares. Garbage collect? Java does that for me. Multi-thread a task? What you talkin' about?

/first computer: TRS-80 Model 1

I still don't believe this. I think it's an elaborate hoax perpetrated by Sun.


Wise man. It does garbage collect - when it decides to. It can be controlled some, but not much and if you don't get it just the way java wants it, it will thrash. Give me the good old days when once you've updated your pointers and something goes out of scope you dalloc and move on.
 
2012-07-11 03:44:55 PM  
It's not your computer; it's your AOL dial up connection, dummy.
 
2012-07-11 03:45:10 PM  

Skw33tis: Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.


heh
 
2012-07-11 03:45:48 PM  

umad: Oh noes!!! Teh facebook is slow so I waste time while I'm wasting time!!!

/get back to us when it affects real work


yeah Google Calendar (which I use for work) choking does affect my real work dumbarse
 
2012-07-11 03:46:14 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: I'm not sure there was a 4800 baud modem. It went from 2400 baud to 9600 baud when you could spend $1000 on a US Robotics or a Hayes, and they weren't compatible with each other because they had competing specs. USR sold them really cheaply to BBSs to encourage their spec to spread, and then eventually a spec for formed and they both would talk to each other.


There was a 4800 baud modem, the v.27 standard. It was short-lived as the 9600 baud modem approved by the ITU (v.32 standard) came out shortly thereafter.

The USR proprietary HST (high speed transfer) allowed 9600 baud transfer rates in an era where everyone had 1200 and 2400 baud modems. In the BBS world at that time, you were hot shiat if you owned a USR modem. Hayes had the far less popular Express 96.

I recall going from a 2400/9600 HST modem that I bummed from a sysop friend of mine to a 19200 v.32 "terbo" SD modem that claimed to be software upgradable to future specifications like 28.8k. Never worked quite right and the company ended up going out of business.

And I bought my original Soundblaster 8-bit card for something like $300. Man, nostalgia time...
 
2012-07-11 03:47:15 PM  
Junk-grade Chinese & other Third World components.
 
2012-07-11 03:48:55 PM  

Invisible Pedestrian: lordargent: As an old school web developer (that moved over to traditional programming), I think all of this embedded shiat has gotten totally out of hand. Now you go to a page and it's trying to serve you things from 20+ different domains (note the scroll arrows), WTF.

Sweet mother of Thor, THIS. Why the fark do you need scripts from twenty different sites to show me a video, or worse yet, a farking image?


Because there's no reasonable standard for cross-domain scripting and we don't have all the content we want to show you on our servers. You're welcome, btw.
 
2012-07-11 03:49:17 PM  

dukeblue219: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

Well I would definitely agree that you want to have at least 4GB of RAM. However, it seems like any decent system from the last couple years will already be there, and if not it's like $20 to upgrade. Still, your performance gain may only be somewhat noticeable. I have seen first-hand computers that struggle become lightning fast with a new SSD (now you can get 120GB for under $100). Put Windows 7 and your main programs on the SSD and your system will load to a useable desktop in less than 10 seconds or so.

Seriously, upgrading to an SSD is probably the single most game-changing upgrade you will ever do on a computer. All those times Windows seems to be "doing something" and you're not sure what it's doing will simply go away.


This! Not to mention that a lot of home computers have Windows 7 32-bit which only uses 4 gig of RAM. I've seen several friends buy (relatively) expensive 8 gig ram to put in their 32-bit machines.

The only thing I would advocate with any SSD is a rock-solid data drive that will back up anything you put on an SSD. It is very difficult to recover data from an SSD if it goes bad.
 
2012-07-11 03:49:18 PM  
Also, Steve Jobs was right. Flash needs to die.
 
2012-07-11 03:49:30 PM  

JohnnyC: Egoy3k: My PC is super fast. Honestly the coolest (IMO) "new" tech are SSDs essentially your OS runs as if it were completely loaded into RAM, which is pretty sweet.

SSDs are extremely nice to have. :)


I have four windows 7 pcs at work with SSDs in them. They take 22 seconds from power on, to ready to login. the Users had them for 3 months before I started getting "they aren't as fast as they used to be". Luckily I benchmarked them. They were still taking exactly the same amount of time to do everything. The user's perception had changed.
 
2012-07-11 03:50:11 PM  

Pockafrusta: This was my first system... circa 1982

[www.mew3.us image 640x566]


Mine too! Timex Sinclair ZX81 - 2 kb onboard, 3 kb 'Expander Pack'.
No nostalgia though -- the thing was a piece o' crap. Had it two weeks and took it back to "Consumers Distributing". Then got a Commodore64 and used it for 9 years.
 
2012-07-11 03:50:41 PM  

IAmRight: LineNoise: I swear my ipad has gotten really slow lately. I even restored the thing. I'm sort of going into tin hat land and thinking that apple is intentionally slowing down the 1st gen ones to get me to upgrade.

I noticed my phone started suddenly getting really sh*tty about the time Verizon called to tell me I was eligible for my free upgrade. I'm beginning to think it's all a scam.


or u mean how sometimes you and ur friends will be listening to music and talking about a song or a band and somehow ur ipod plays that as its next track...idk creeps me out everytime..
 
2012-07-11 03:51:37 PM  

thejoyofpi: What about my time as I sit here waiting for an unresponsive Chrome tab to stop choking my browser?


There are only a very small amount of people making all the tools you use to masturbate and stalk your ex. They are all overworked, because learning how to do it well takes ten years and nobody wants to be lonely for that long.
 
2012-07-11 03:51:38 PM  

weiserfireman: JohnnyC: Egoy3k: My PC is super fast. Honestly the coolest (IMO) "new" tech are SSDs essentially your OS runs as if it were completely loaded into RAM, which is pretty sweet.

SSDs are extremely nice to have. :)

I have four windows 7 pcs at work with SSDs in them. They take 22 seconds from power on, to ready to login. the Users had them for 3 months before I started getting "they aren't as fast as they used to be". Luckily I benchmarked them. They were still taking exactly the same amount of time to do everything. The user's perception had changed.


Sounds like typical users.

/Stupid users.
 
2012-07-11 03:51:52 PM  

dv-ous: Chrome is free.


My time isn't. The point is that users' time is being wasted because developers can no longer be bothered to worry about performance.
 
2012-07-11 03:53:36 PM  
Wirth's Law - Software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
 
2012-07-11 03:55:52 PM  

thejoyofpi: Also, Steve Jobs was right. Flash needs to die.


And ironically, it outlived him.
 
2012-07-11 03:59:11 PM  
It has to keep an eye on you now to make sure your not doing anything wrong. At the same time it is calculating how to lead you down the path it wants you to follow, to do things they way it wants you to. It's under a constant strain.
 
2012-07-11 04:00:22 PM  

thejoyofpi: dv-ous: Chrome is free.

My time isn't. The point is that users' time is being wasted because developers can no longer be bothered to worry about performance.


Code your own web browser that never crashes then you might be able to biatch about the quality of a free web browser without looking silly.
 
2012-07-11 04:01:45 PM  
Computers have long since outrun Microsoft's best valiant attempts to slow them down, although the Office team gives its best attempt every few years, so it's very rare that it's not a third party problem. If it's not the crapware preloaded on the system, it's an overly enthusiastic antivirus that wets its bed and spams you with useless warnings to make sure you don't forget it's there, or a VPN client that takes over your entire computer and hooks into every kernel call to make sure no communication anywhere doesn't go through it. Then they both combine to cause a bluescreen. That's to say nothing of single-threaded programs that piggyback on office apps to connect to remote services, completely hanging the app while the 386 in Siberia on a phone-coupling modem chugs through the request.

However, I will not blame Outlook for politely asking you to hold up for a minute when you have 200,000 emails in your inbox, 90% unread, and only a gig of RAM, as someone who recently asked me why computers are so slow did. I reminded him that back in 1992 it took ten minutes to boot into Windows 3.1 and another 5 to get dialed up into a BBS to check 3 emails, and now he's complaining about two minutes to load Windows and Outlook together.
 
2012-07-11 04:02:41 PM  
My Etch-a-Sketch runs CRAZY fast!
 
2012-07-11 04:05:09 PM  

Needlessly Complicated: My Etch-a-Sketch runs CRAZY CRAY CRAY fast!


ftfy
 
2012-07-11 04:05:16 PM  
I should fire up my 33 Mhz Performa and see how fast it goes. I remember it would take a half hour to scan a negative with my $1000 Nikon scanner. At least it paid for itself.
 
2012-07-11 04:07:32 PM  

LineNoise: Likewise because of the advances in memory\cpu\storage, people don't need to code as tight as they used to.


So true - I do embedded work on a system with 32MB RAM and 128KB of NVRAM. Every byte counts when we code.
 
2012-07-11 04:07:59 PM  

RichieLaw: Just do it man. Everything is so cheap now. I was able to get a 120 gig SSD on Newegg for less than $100 and use that as my boot drive. WIN7 runs like a freakin dream.


Certainly is in my plans for the next 12 months or so: Buy a 120 or 256 gig SSD and install Win 7 on it, then move most of my other programs on my current HD to that SSD.

And I would skip the 8-core. Unless you're going to be running a home server or something anything more than 4-core's is a waste right now. (I just bought my 6-core because it was super cheap and was the best value for the money at the time). If I had to do it all over again I would buy this CPU as you can't go wrong with a quad-core 3.4 GHZ that can easily be OC'd with stock cooling to close to 4 GHZ.

Well that merits a question: wouldn't it be a benefit if you have a multi-core processor while you have a browser (like Chrome) and running/looking at 15-20 pages at the same time?

I honestly would go to the six-core processor since I won't buy a new rig for a long time. If I can get a little more efficiency running an 8-core processor I would do it.
 
2012-07-11 04:08:05 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I remember when candy was $0.25 as well.


Fetus.
 
2012-07-11 04:10:57 PM  

Egoy3k: thejoyofpi: dv-ous: Chrome is free.

My time isn't. The point is that users' time is being wasted because developers can no longer be bothered to worry about performance.

Code your own web browser that never crashes then you might be able to biatch about the quality of a free web browser without looking silly.


This.

I think thejoyofpi is subby.
 
2012-07-11 04:11:28 PM  

RichieLaw: dukeblue219: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

Well I would definitely agree that you want to have at least 4GB of RAM. However, it seems like any decent system from the last couple years will already be there, and if not it's like $20 to upgrade. Still, your performance gain may only be somewhat noticeable. I have seen first-hand computers that struggle become lightning fast with a new SSD (now you can get 120GB for under $100). Put Windows 7 and your main programs on the SSD and your system will load to a useable desktop in less than 10 seconds or so.

Seriously, upgrading to an SSD is probably the single most game-changing upgrade you will ever do on a computer. All those times Windows seems to be "doing something" and you're not sure what it's doing will simply go away.

This! Not to mention that a lot of home computers have Windows 7 32-bit which only uses 4 gig of RAM. I've seen several friends buy (relatively) expensive 8 gig ram to put in their 32-bit machines.


Heh, when I bought my current setup I went for the quad-core processor because I knew I would be upgrading to Vista 64-bit at some point. Well worth it too.
 
2012-07-11 04:12:41 PM  
One thing i've come to notice about many computers now is the quality of parts. There are performance pieces, and there's garbage out there.

What I think, is that the average consumer, when buying a computer looks for big numbers, which isn't always the best idea. Also, i'm willing to bet most people don't know how to do proper research on computer parts or they don't have the patience for it. I think this is what larger companies are hoping for, so they can just throw big numbers at you, with the majority of consumers having the wrong preconceived notion, that they're getting more bang for their buck.

Another major problem is a "factory image" or "clean restore" is still terrible because the pre-installed bloatware will slow your computer down. If computers just came with a clean OS install, they'd run a lot faster, even with crappy hardware.

I'm just tossin that out there because it's not always the user. However, i'm not letting all users off the hook. I've seen a fair amount of people running three or four virus protection programs, or 15 different tool bars while they wonder why their computer is slow.

Today's day and age forces a need for users to be computer savvy, which is unfortunate, because most are not. Acquiring that level of knowledge for a comfortable user experience just isn't worth the hassle, so it's going to be this way for a while. If this same level of knowledge was required to use my car, i'd be walking everywhere.

I love tomshardware and newegg, they're great resources for help.

NOTE: This perspective is coming from someone who builds their own computers, and has worked in the IT industry for a while.
 
2012-07-11 04:13:21 PM  
Inverse-Mooreian Homeostasis™
 
2012-07-11 04:15:14 PM  

MrSteve007: The problem is that your computer doesn't have a "Turbo" button:
[4.bp.blogspot.com image 640x445]
From 33 mhz, to a blistering 66 mhz!!!


LOLKLock. I remember this dude I used to hang around with in middle school always hate those because his dad would lock the computer so he couldn't use it.
 
2012-07-11 04:17:37 PM  
It doesn't.
 
2012-07-11 04:17:57 PM  

Rwa2play: Well that merits a question: wouldn't it be a benefit if you have a multi-core processor while you have a browser (like Chrome) and running/looking at 15-20 pages at the same time?


Only if those pages are doing a lot of heavy work simultaneously. Most likely they're doing next to nothing so your total system load wouldn't even fill one core.

Unless you're doing a lot of heavy computation, like encoding video, the main advantage to multi-core systems is that they remain responsive when one task is busy. It's a big difference going from one to two cores, and you notice a little improvement thereafter, but the point of diminishing returns is around three or four cores, IMHO.
 
2012-07-11 04:20:49 PM  

rooftop235: tuna fingers: Two words:
Micro Soft

Not true.
Your precious Mac uses very similar hardware. Your hard drive can only sling data so fast. The system bus can only move data at certain rates. Your streamlined OS? Not really so.

So while the Windows users at least have an easy to get to log file, to see WTF happened, you just sit right back and enjoy the spinning beach ball of failure.

/Owned 2 iMacs, 3PC (windows), and dabbles with Linux.


/Applications/Utilities/Console.app
Alternatively, if you want to be a real baller: /Applications/Utilities/Activity Monitor.app
Now click your hung app (The red one), and select "Sample Process"

Boom, a WAY better output than anything Microsoft can throw into it's logs.
Additionally, how is this fast?
Right click on "My Computer" and select "Manage"
Wait while mmc loads and figures out what it's supposed to load (There will be no notification that it's doing anything at all until mmc gets it's act together which can be several minutes if an application is plowing through 100% of your CPU time).
Open "Event Viewer"
Hope that the "Applications and Settings" loads without a 2 minute wait.
Realize that even though it's an Internet Explorer lockup, the log you want is actually listed in "Windows Logs->System"
Read the error code and look it up in Microsoft's MSDN database on a different device.

/System Administrator.
//Microsoft has really nice tools for Sysadmins, but your personal computer? fuggedaboutit.
///Linux has problems with programs deciding that it doesn't want to use syslogd and will just write to the install directory.
////Like a dick.
 
2012-07-11 04:21:08 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Rwa2play: Well that merits a question: wouldn't it be a benefit if you have a multi-core processor while you have a browser (like Chrome) and running/looking at 15-20 pages at the same time?

Only if those pages are doing a lot of heavy work simultaneously. Most likely they're doing next to nothing so your total system load wouldn't even fill one core.

Unless you're doing a lot of heavy computation, like encoding video, the main advantage to multi-core systems is that they remain responsive when one task is busy. It's a big difference going from one to two cores, and you notice a little improvement thereafter, but the point of diminishing returns is around three or four cores, IMHO.


Thanks for that. Sounds like I'll have to prioritize getting Win 7 then getting an SSD drive to migrate most of my HD.
 
2012-07-11 04:22:20 PM  
It's called the Red Queen Hypothesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Queen's_Hypothesis
 
2012-07-11 04:22:20 PM  
A realistic answer is that your computer is doing more all the time than it used to be doing.
Way back in 486 days people mostly ran DOS or a pretend to be not DOS GUI windows(3.11). Here you were for the most part just doing one thing at a time and only the one thing was going on. no hotbars, auto updater, firewalls, etc. running.

Today you have "so much" CPU power that software makers feel just fine about soaking up some of that all the time even if it's really not needed. Like how Adobe reader kind of always runs on your system from start up even though you are not looking at a PDF. It pre-loads a little of it self so that when you do go to look at a PDF it loads the PDF an entire second or two faster.
+
Lots of bloatware is loaded on your system from the factory and all the hotbar toolbar let us gather info about you stuff is taking a little bit of umpf out of your system all the time too.
+
And all the 3d mouse shadows, see through window pains, and other shiny pretty distract the stupid monkey stuff also adds up.
+
To go with all of that windows is still using a hard drive based swap file that is so integral to the windows environment that even with 16GB of RAM it still stores some stuff on the drive and slows you down to go look at it from time to time.
+
Also there is the preloading biz. Some games like TF2 take longer to load today than they did just 5 years ago when they came out. This is due to udates that take advantage of the added video and system RAM. Now instead of loading from the drive from time to time while you play(which had it's own issues) we load as much as we can upfront to not have to do it later during game play. This may cause slower upfront(from start to play) times, but should smooth out over all game play during play time. And games are not the only thing to do this.
=
Things seem to move about the same speed as they always have

However all of that is just a bit. Really things are faster, and do measurably take less time to do than they did 10 years ago. Mostly people just think it should be faster than it is because of believing marketing hype, commercials, and the fake O Apple app load screen shot BS, and the human inability to perceive time as a constant(which it more or less is where gravity is a constant).

BTW all of that was really about Windows based PC systems and not OSx based PC systems specifically, though i imagine they share much of the same issues in regards to bloat ware and so on. I just didn't talk about OSx specifically as OSx is still too small a market share to bother thinking about right now in terms of generic answers to broad questions.


All in all you can think about this as not unlike how a modern Honda Civi gets close to the same MPG as a 1993 did when it was new. Sure lots of improvements in the engine and other areas have improved fuel economy. but most of that is off set by all the extra safety features. like more reinforcement bars, airbags, and such. Along with extra comfort features like all power windows and locks and such that adds extra weight to the car.

but really human perception is mostly to blame.
 
2012-07-11 04:23:27 PM  

Rwa2play: RichieLaw: Just do it man. Everything is so cheap now. I was able to get a 120 gig SSD on Newegg for less than $100 and use that as my boot drive. WIN7 runs like a freakin dream.

Certainly is in my plans for the next 12 months or so: Buy a 120 or 256 gig SSD and install Win 7 on it, then move most of my other programs on my current HD to that SSD.

And I would skip the 8-core. Unless you're going to be running a home server or something anything more than 4-core's is a waste right now. (I just bought my 6-core because it was super cheap and was the best value for the money at the time). If I had to do it all over again I would buy this CPU as you can't go wrong with a quad-core 3.4 GHZ that can easily be OC'd with stock cooling to close to 4 GHZ.

Well that merits a question: wouldn't it be a benefit if you have a multi-core processor while you have a browser (like Chrome) and running/looking at 15-20 pages at the same time?

I honestly would go to the six-core processor since I won't buy a new rig for a long time. If I can get a little more efficiency running an 8-core processor I would do it.


Except that the Operating Systems and browers are not configured to use more than 4 cores. Or at least that is what I understand to be the case. By the time that architecture comes out there will be 6 and 8-cores much cheaper and better built. I.e. don't run as hot and higher GHZ.

Then again, I'm only a hobbyist computer guy, so there might be information out there I'm not sure about.
 
2012-07-11 04:26:10 PM  

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: Ponzholio: Or the days of Napster where you'd queue up 3 songs right before you went to bed and if you were lucky you'd at least get one downloaded before it kicked you offline...

I actually bought an album off of Amazon in the last week (because the Amazon coupon website gave a free three bucks so lol $3 album so I guess I didn't *really* buy anything) and the album I bought was classical songs played in movies. 100 songs, $3, over a gig of data, ten hours of music. It was done downloading by the time I'd taken all the groceries inside.

So yeah. Stuff it, subby.


I got that too. Don't make the mistake I did and listen to Bolero from start to finish twice in a row. It stays in your brain permanently after that.
 
2012-07-11 04:27:29 PM  

TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB


*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link
 
2012-07-11 04:28:42 PM  
Aside from all the system technical speak above:
Perhaps this is more internet driven and not system driven, but at the turn of the century I think I would have been crazy to try and have my computer do something like stream a 5 minute Youtube video. I also used to fall asleep drinking and trying to download songs from Napster (don't tell Lars). And back then, how many people had the ability to store 50,000 songs on their hard drive? Plus, your super faster and much more efficient machine costs significantly less than your machine from 10 years ago. And is probably much more portable. Are you Farking and iTuning on a handheld phone-like device? FFS, thinking about some of the peripheral advances of the past 10-15 years makes me unzip my pants. Who needs pron?
 
2012-07-11 04:28:44 PM  
No matter how much faster your new computer is compared to your old one, 2 weeks later it won't be fast enough.

Habituation is a pain.
 
2012-07-11 04:29:27 PM  
ANSWER: It doesn't take just as long.

If you modern computer does the exact same stuff your old computer did, you will find it does indeed do it almost instantly. You are comparing apples and oranges.
 
2012-07-11 04:29:55 PM  

NorKnOAd:
NOTE: This perspective is coming from someone who builds their own computers, and has worked in the IT industry for a while.


Been building my own since 1969.
Working in IT now.

Mostly it's because the majority of people out there, including, most importanly the IT people , have no clue as to what they are doing.

Not naming any names here, but if you lease google software from google and it's hosted on the google server and it's running as slow as molasses in Febuary, you shouldn't blame google. They know better.
Oracle, meh, different story.
But firing google because your own IT ddepartment can't figure out how to move the data as fast as they can provide it is like refusing to eat at a smorgasbord restaurant because they have too many selections and you can't process the menu mentally.

Of course, doing tech support for a company like that, hell, bullet proof job security.
Which is the only reason I took this job.
It's like being the head bandaid tech at a barbed wire fight.
 
2012-07-11 04:31:57 PM  

mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link


If only I had a true server at home.
 
2012-07-11 04:33:16 PM  
It's more and fancier, of course.

Started on a TRS-80 Model I with 4 kilobytes - 4,096 bytes - of RAM. My first hard drive was the size of a tower case, and could have held one average .mp3 file, if it weren't divided into 4 1.25mb platters. Still kept me off the streets at night. And in the daytime, come to think.

/paleface
//adjusts onion
 
2012-07-11 04:37:47 PM  
Short Answer:

You are doing more and you are still using a HD which (access time is a female dog when everything is being cached to it)

Long Answer
Less efficient programming, less efficient programming languages, more built-in support for EVERYTHING so everything is always running in the background, new tech, deeper software stacks and abstraction layers, GUI's, bloatware, you not knowing how to make a computer run right, slow HD's. Bet subby has a laptop with 5400RPM harddrive. SSD, one of the best things that has ever happened to the computing world! list goes on and on and on.
 
2012-07-11 04:40:17 PM  
Super Mario Brothers: 40 KB
World of Warcraft: 31,620,442 KB

Times have changed...
 
2012-07-11 04:43:02 PM  

TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

If only I had a true server at home.


If you had the use for that at home I would be surprised plus I suspect your power bill might go up... Only once have every been able to consume my 24GB's of memory and hexacore 3.2Ghz i7 100% and that was video editing 1080P rendering and rotating the video 90 degrees.
 
2012-07-11 04:52:52 PM  

mstang1988: TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

If only I had a true server at home.

If you had the use for that at home I would be surprised plus I suspect your power bill might go up... Only once have every been able to consume my 24GB's of memory and hexacore 3.2Ghz i7 100% and that was video editing 1080P rendering and rotating the video 90 degrees.


8 TBs? I wave my dick at 8 TBs!

I'll take 16 TBs of PCI-E SSD, rocking 52 Gb/s transfer speeds and 1.4 million IOPS, ALL ON ONE CARD, please and thank you.
 
2012-07-11 04:57:19 PM  

thejoyofpi: I blame lazy ass web developers.

The things that seems to give my computer the most hangups are websites that think they have to act like full featured apps.


This. I am tired of websites written in flash with 20 javascript imports. I tire of just poorly written sites, and shiatty underlying technologies. I'm tired of all of the Gawker media hub of sites requiring that you enable javascript just to display their main body text. I'm tired of error checking in form submissions being so broken that valid information has to be reentered. I'm tired of google using the www.google.com domain for captchas instead of using something like apis.google.com, so that my script blocking is even less sane. I detest when password constraints actually enforce poor practices instead of encourage good ones; where hxWoby2$ is a good password, but theysaythestrawthatbrokethecamelsbackwasecma is not. I find of standards and style both of: A) not being well-established B) not being adhered to. The standards bodies have failed, and web development in general is broken from all angles. To those who disagree, I ask why a CSS reset is neccessary. Why is so much vendor-specific and version-specific code neccessary?

As for shiat in general, perhaps if there was less focus on flair and more on performance and maintainability, we might actually be progressing beyond just having games with bigger explosions and videos with more pixels, interface devices just as shoddy as a qwerty keyboard and voice recognition that can understand a bit of klingon but cannot recognize the single syllable english word "no". I pray that one day word suggestion has advanced enough to recognize from context and without manual input that yes, I do mean the word coont, and not cantata. For every single increase in processor cores, hypertransports, front side bus speed, bit depth and resolution, poor practices and the general abuse of the very principle of technology to begin with, to enable and not to hinder, are fivefold increased. We'll never have truly sane multitasking in a world where an application is allowed to behave in a manner that they even be allowed 100% of cpu bandwidth to draw a page of text and half a dozen lowres jpegs. Instead, I live in an age of arbitrary progress indicators, of metalanguages meant to aid in writing javascript and css because they are so bad at what they do, yet are essential, of cross-site scripting being standard behavior and not the fringe. Where sql injection is [still] commonplace occurrence on sites that retain sensitive data. Where a line in css like a { width: 0; } is commonly neccessary to keep hyperlinking from bleeding through to where there is no valid content to apply linking to.
 
2012-07-11 04:58:04 PM  

Fish in a Barrel: Needlessly Complicated: My Etch-a-Sketch runs CRAZY CRAY CRAY fast!


I see what you did there.
 
2012-07-11 04:58:54 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Phoenix87ta: Nadie_AZ: Wish I could fire up some of the 90s Lucas Arts games ....

Ah 90s Star Wars games. You were awesome.

[www.ibiblio.org image 640x480]

I love that I can still play all the Lucasarts adventure games in ScummVM. Hell, they even ported it to PSP.

Wait, what? Tell me more.

ScummVM

Supported games list:

Compatibility

It's a beautiful thing. Full Throttle, Monkey Island and Sam and Max never get old.

This might be the greatest thing ever -except for a nice MLT - mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-11 05:00:40 PM  

mstang1988: TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

If only I had a true server at home.

If you had the use for that at home I would be surprised plus I suspect your power bill might go up... Only once have every been able to consume my 24GB's of memory and hexacore 3.2Ghz i7 100% and that was video editing 1080P rendering and rotating the video 90 degrees.


I sometimes use several VMWare virtual machine networked together, they like RAM.
 
2012-07-11 05:08:54 PM  
And what's the deal with airline food?
 
2012-07-11 05:13:29 PM  
I'm pretty sure it's voodoo-practicing goblins on coffee break trying to keep everything at a leisurely pace so they don't make the working environment too hot from all the friction of goblins flying all over the place.
 
2012-07-11 05:17:43 PM  
A: Because shiatty software developers insist on coding their software to use every last scrap of system resources it can, to prove to you how awesome, shiny and packed with features their shiatty software is.
 
2012-07-11 05:18:19 PM  

LineNoise: Shakespeare's Monkey: dopeydwarf: You're full of spyware from all the porn sites you surf without protection, you filthy animal.

Yup, basically this. Get an iPad for your dirty deeds.

I swear my ipad has gotten really slow lately. I even restored the thing. I'm sort of going into tin hat land and thinking that apple is intentionally slowing down the 1st gen ones to get me to upgrade.


I have wondered the same thing. However, logically each OS upgrade does more than previous one. Since the hardware is not designed for that it will not be able to keep up. So it will slow down. What pisses me off is that Apple forces you to upgrade via iTunes. So even if you dont upgrade right away they will shove it down your throat because iTunes will become incompatible. If you do upgrade, your iPad will become slow and useless . So either way we end up with useless POS.
 
2012-07-11 05:19:02 PM  

etherknot: You sure about this? Either your resolution/bit depth is incorrect or you are mistaken with the CPU.


100% Positive.

Packard Bell 286/AT with 640K of memory. And it would do VGA, but there wasn't too many VGA games back then, and the few that did exist rarely worked right. The EGA stuff (16 color) tended to work better even if it didn't look near as pretty.

It even had a nice optical mouse. Needed its own special gridded mousepad, but it worked great.
 
2012-07-11 05:19:24 PM  
OOP & Virtual Functions
Pervasive use of non-native (aka script) languages
CPUs are thousands of times faster, but RAM has not been scaling anywhere near as fast.
Odd stuff like code touching 1 byte in a cache line, the CPU's have to read 64 bytes or more to do this.
Poorly written multicore programs can fight for access to the same memory and destroy performance

On the plus side if you care about speed modern compilers for C and C++ are really really good.
 
2012-07-11 05:25:04 PM  

akula: It takes quite a bit more to push a full graphical interface with transparent elements at high resolution while running several other programs at once while also maintaining constant connectivity with various outside servers.


Then they should nix the component heavy parts of the GUI and make everything nice and light again. This way your box will go FASTER and be able to do more things that aren't what some designer geek at microsoft thought was fun to code.
 
2012-07-11 05:27:42 PM  

notShryke: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

If only I had a true server at home.

If you had the use for that at home I would be surprised plus I suspect your power bill might go up... Only once have every been able to consume my 24GB's of memory and hexacore 3.2Ghz i7 100% and that was video editing 1080P rendering and rotating the video 90 degrees.

8 TBs? I wave my dick at 8 TBs!

I'll take 16 TBs of PCI-E SSD, rocking 52 Gb/s transfer speeds and 1.4 million IOPS, ALL ON ONE CARD, please and thank you.


8TB RAM drive would dominate a PCI-E drive in transfer speeds. Not even close. Standard desktops are measured around 4-8GB/s with the current RAM if I remember correctly. That's with only 1 memory controller running in dual/tripple/quadtruple channel on i7's. The IOPS's again, not even close. The only bad is they are volatile but why not just keep a UPS running? Remember, an SSD is only as fast as it can transfer it to RAM. Granted 16TB's would be nice but meh, that's moot here. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-07-11 05:29:10 PM  
we need 300x the processing power so window borders can be rounded, transparent and heavily rendered...
 
2012-07-11 05:30:39 PM  
Remember back when demos were the way to build cred as a developer?

I still remember the first time I ran "Future Crew's" "Unreal" demo. I think it won as best demo in '92. Here's a link to a video made from it: Link

Anyway, as you see in the link, it's a 9 minute and 30 second video (complete with techno audio) and the entire code for it was able to fit on a 1.4MB floppy disk.

Just think about that for a minute. It literally rendered a 9 1/2 minute 3d video with audio with nothing but 1.4MB of compiled code. Those guys were gods among programmers.

Nowadays people likely waste 100's of megabytes in even the simplest of programs.
 
2012-07-11 05:34:27 PM  

InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.


That sounds like a little bit of an urban legend to me, since the smartest chess program I know of right now is Deep Fritz 13, which was only recently updated to be multicore capable, and that software can only analyze around 8 million positions per second by brute force, compared to the 200 million positions per second that the Deep Blue supercomputer was able to analyze back in the mid-90s.

For an old chess program from the DOS era, it seems like you wouldn't be able to get anywhere near the performance of Fritz 13 because of inefficiencies in the older chess algorithms (especially if it was written before the Deep Blue matches) and limitations of apps that were built for DOS (lack of multicore support, limits on the amount of memory that a 16-bit app can address, etc.) I'm sure there might have been some chess programs from the DOS era that would benefit from the power of current hardware, but I don't see them getting to the level where it would take a Kasparov to beat them. Maybe a UNIX based program might be different, since that OS is more scalable, but I can't see a consumer level chess program scaling like that.
 
2012-07-11 05:37:58 PM  
Then...
www.jokelibrary.net

Now...
www.animated-gifs.eu
 
2012-07-11 05:43:18 PM  
When Intel brought out their first 1GHz CPU, some idiot TV station sent a reporter to ask people on the street if they throught they needed a PC with a CPU that fast.

I almost screamed at the TV screen "I want a CPU that's a thousand times faster!"
 
2012-07-11 05:46:53 PM  

TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

If only I had a true server at home.

If you had the use for that at home I would be surprised plus I suspect your power bill might go up... Only once have every been able to consume my 24GB's of memory and hexacore 3.2Ghz i7 100% and that was video editing 1080P rendering and rotating the video 90 degrees.

I sometimes use several VMWare virtual machine networked together, they like RAM.


Yes, VM's eat resources. Still, if you are running that many VM's at home you might want to figure out why you need that many systems.
 
2012-07-11 06:02:44 PM  

Mad_Radhu: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

That sounds like a little bit of an urban legend to me, since the smartest chess program I know of right now is Deep Fritz 13, which was only recently updated to be multicore capable, and that software can only analyze around 8 million positions per second by brute force, compared to the 200 million positions per second that the Deep Blue supercomputer was able to analyze back in the mid-90s.

For an old chess program from the DOS era, it seems like you wouldn't be able to get anywhere near the performance of Fritz 13 because of inefficiencies in the older chess algorithms (especially if it was written before the Deep Blue matches) and limitations of apps that were built for DOS (lack of multicore support, limits on the amount of memory that a 16-bit app can address, etc.) I'm sure there might have been some chess programs from the DOS era that would benefit from the power of current hardware, but I don't see them getting to the level where it would take a Kasparov to beat them. Maybe a UNIX based program might be different, since that OS is more scalable, but I can't see a consumer level chess program scaling like that.


I would suspect that there was an algorithm that allowed the computer to go X-nodes deep into the analysis tree based on a given amount of time utilization. As CPU frequency went up so did X, or the number of nodes in the analysis tree. I would agree that it's not the best algorithm and likely not unbeatable. God I have forgotten the proper terms for AI trees :-(
 
2012-07-11 06:03:15 PM  

mstang1988: TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

If only I had a true server at home.

If you had the use for that at home I would be surprised plus I suspect your power bill might go up... Only once have every been able to consume my 24GB's of memory and hexacore 3.2Ghz i7 100% and that was video editing 1080P rendering and rotating the video 90 degrees.

I sometimes use several VMWare virtual machine networked together, they like RAM.

Yes, VM's eat resources. Still, if you are running that many VM's at home you might want to figure out why you need that many systems.


You gotta hide your porn somehow
 
2012-07-11 06:06:44 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: You gotta hide your porn somehow


On a related note, any of you know anything about tor ?
 
2012-07-11 06:07:00 PM  
Urgh, reminds me of my friend's computer I looked at a week or two ago. It was running a bit slow, Flash crapped itself when trying to update, the usual "OMG BROKEN COMPUTER!" stuff, right? Ehhh, not so much. First, it was a Compaq, which I haven't seen in some time. Then, after it FINALLY booted up, it took its damn sweet time simply letting me check the device specs, much less open a basic file folder. It was some old 500-ish megazertz chip with 356 megs of RAM running XP SP3. Sweet candy coated Christ. o_O

It got worse when I opened up MSConfig and saw all of the extraneous bullsh*t that was in the startup. Y'know, all of that bloatware and other garbage that comes pre-installed on laptops, plus all of the other extra nonsense that software coders just stuff into startup without considering that maybe, just MAYBE the poor system would load faster and cleaner without it. (And why the SH*T was the AV running a scan right as the OS was loading? Save it for later!!) I understand that technically programs will load faster if some stuff starts when the computer does, because it's already partially loaded into memory and all, but FFS, some programs don't need that, and some systems can't handle it...

So, you remember in Apollo 13 where the engineers were trying to figure out how to boot up the Command Module with only 20 amps of power? Yeeeeeah, I spent a few hours doing something similar. I pulled out every damn thing that I could out of startup, and somehow I was still able to leave enough in there that it ran properly. A quick replacement of the AV and some miscellaneous software updates and it's running MUCH better. As soon as she gets a couple of major bills paid off, we're going shopping for a new system for her so I don't have to do that again for a long time. :)
 
2012-07-11 06:16:34 PM  

mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link


no room for dual 6 gb workstation graphics cards

Link
 
2012-07-11 06:17:04 PM  
****ROCKSTAR NORTH****


READY.
LOAD "*",8,1

SEARCHING FOR *
LOADING
READY.
RUN faster!

/this should help you
 
2012-07-11 06:20:33 PM  
So watch what is loading on a slow page that is holding you up. It's always some ad serving app of some kind
 
2012-07-11 06:23:40 PM  

loonatic112358: mstang1988: TheHappTroll: All you guys calling for SSDs why not more RAM? Win7 Pro 192GB

*Yawn*, why not 8TB's
Link

no room for dual 6 gb workstation graphics cards

Link


Umm, it has more then enough room.

20 PCIe in each 24" I/O drawer
640 maximum per system

Now, is it a stock config? NO. Does a driver exist? Probably not. Is there room? I believe so.
 
2012-07-11 06:29:30 PM  

snake_beater: /also, this thread makes me want to find a copy of Commander Keen or ROTT


I saw an Android port of Commander Keen the other day.
 
2012-07-11 06:49:52 PM  
No one's mentioned blazemonger yet?

// you're not worthy of your onions
 
2012-07-11 06:52:47 PM  

RichieLaw: weiserfireman: JohnnyC: Egoy3k: My PC is super fast. Honestly the coolest (IMO) "new" tech are SSDs essentially your OS runs as if it were completely loaded into RAM, which is pretty sweet.

SSDs are extremely nice to have. :)

I have four windows 7 pcs at work with SSDs in them. They take 22 seconds from power on, to ready to login. the Users had them for 3 months before I started getting "they aren't as fast as they used to be". Luckily I benchmarked them. They were still taking exactly the same amount of time to do everything. The user's perception had changed.

Sounds like typical users.

/Stupid users.


22 seconds on a SSD, what the hell?

From cold boot to usable and chrome open on my box w/ a i5 3570k + m3 Crucial SSD takes between 5 and 6 seconds... (with chrome set to open on startup)
 
2012-07-11 06:56:10 PM  

etherknot: akula: The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.

You sure about this? Either your resolution/bit depth is incorrect or you are mistaken with the CPU.


Actually, the first very VGA machines ever made were 286s -- PS/2 Model 50 and 60, 1987. And you could buy a VGA card from IBM for an ISA machine, so you could upgrade an older 286.

Now, standard-official IBM VGA gave you a choice of 640x480 (and 16 colors) or 256 colors (and 320x200), though they could be tricked into a 360x480 256 color mode with sufficiently devious code. But many of the VGA clone cards went ahead and made the fairly minor adjustments necessary to support 640x480 and 256 colors simultaneously.

And there were several years where you had new 286s being made after the VGA clone cards came out. The 386 DX required more expensive motherboards than a 286 or 386SX, and a 286 was clock-for-clock almost the same speed running 16-bit code as a 386SX while costing less. As a result, 286s with VGA clone cards that could support 256 colors shipped in the millions.
 
2012-07-11 06:57:32 PM  
Because you should be outside playing, not sitting in front of that damn computer all day.
 
2012-07-11 07:08:10 PM  
i.imgur.com
All you really need.
 
2012-07-11 07:08:21 PM  
One thing that hasn't been discussed and which I'm curious about is the cumulative effect of cookies.

Sure the needs of each one is tiny, but every web page you go to seems to require them to be enabled, and every one of them is reporting back to base what other sites you're visiting, and how long you linger etc.

Has anybody ever tried to estimate what proportion of traffic is due just to cookies data going back and forth completely independent of what humans are doing?
 
2012-07-11 07:13:59 PM  
Heh. Good thread. I was actually considering posting one this morning about lazy programmers. Everything should be written with 64 bit OS's and at LEAST 2 processor cores in mind.
 
2012-07-11 07:15:04 PM  
I'm assuming bloated code has been mentioned already. Cause that's what does it. Basically programmers have gotten sloppier since with faster chips and more memory it doesn't matter if you waste a bit here and there. So you ended up with bloated code. Hell the overhead for windows could be a lot less than it is.
 
2012-07-11 07:19:06 PM  

WhyteRaven74: I'm assuming bloated code has been mentioned already. Cause that's what does it. Basically programmers have gotten sloppier since with faster chips and more memory it doesn't matter if you waste a bit here and there. So you ended up with bloated code. Hell the overhead for windows could be a lot less than it is.


Does... what? The premise is stupid, things don't take as long today as they did on subby's first computer. Yes, there is code bloat. Yes, programmers are lazier today because they can be. Still, things don't take as long as they used to. If you believe they do, you should go find one of those old systems and try working on it for a bit.
 
2012-07-11 07:21:05 PM  

RobertBruce: Everything should be written with 64 bit OS's and at LEAST 2 processor cores in mind.


Well, it should be compiled that way. Given every good compiler has 64 bit support these days, there's no excuse for not compiling 64 bit code.

timujin: Still, things don't take as long as they used to.


True they don't, however they take longer than they could. And I'd say should.
 
2012-07-11 07:30:02 PM  
I remember getting all excited for the infrequent spikes over 4 kbs while downloading a song off of Napster.
 
2012-07-11 07:31:43 PM  

Then Now Difference

386SX/3 i5 Quad Core
25MHz 3.1GHz 124x
4MB RAM 8GB RAM 2,000x
150MB HDD 1.16TB HDD 7,733x
56k Dial-Up 20Mbps 357x
 
2012-07-11 07:34:59 PM  

Fooshards: From cold boot to usable and chrome open on my box w/ a i5 3570k + m3 Crucial SSD takes between 5 and 6 seconds... (with chrome set to open on startup)


Uhhh... most bios doesn't even post in that amount of time. You sure you're not talking about waking up from hibernation?
 
2012-07-11 07:42:52 PM  

Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.


Yup. When I started with computers there was no such thing as spell check.

Then spell check was something you ran to check over your work.

Next came an option to use it all the time.

These days it's simply there all the time, flagging anything not in the dictionary.

Hyperbolic Hyperbole: umm.. were you even AROUND back in the days of dialup BBSes? seven minutes to download a single sexy jpg? squee'd your pants creamy when mom bought you a 28.8 modem? i mean that shiat was awesome but DON'T pretend it isn't any better than it was in '95.


Jpeg? Did they even exist back then? I thought all we had was .gif.

t3knomanser: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This is the long and short of it.

Not only is your computer doing more, but your developers are doing less. Back in the day, when hardware constraints were exceedingly tight, developers were forced to develop within those constraints. This was very expensive- it requires much more developer time to write highly optimized code that spares memory and CPU and disk space. Developer time is expensive. CPU time is very cheap.


Yup. Across multiple version of DOS one of the things I did very soon after upgrading was to dig through command.com and locate the default environment size and increase it. IIRC it was version 6 that added many layers of crap making it *MUCH* harder to find. I'm sure it represented a change in the underlying language.

ObscureNameHere: Point -of-Order: Isn't the BIOS in most machines basically the same BIOS from 30 years ago?


No. I've flashed this machine--the BIOS image in it is bigger than the total supported memory of the original PC.

lordargent: Then: 1GB was a shiatload of drive space.

NOW:


Last trip I was backing up all the photos I took to a flash drive. Oops--the 16gb flash drive I used wasn't big enough! (Admittedly, I'm shooting Large + Raw and I normally do 3-shot bracketing.)
 
2012-07-11 07:48:23 PM  

mstang1988: Umm, it has more then enough room.20 PCIe in each 24" I/O drawer640 maximum per systemNow, is it a stock config? NO. Does a driver exist? Probably not. Is there room? I believe so.


as long as the internals are arranged so it can handle a very tall graphics card
I made the mistake of assuming that was a rack server, not a friggen cabinet sized one
 
2012-07-11 08:03:19 PM  

Gleeman: [i.imgur.com image 610x390]
All you really need.


Not that anyone can actually get them yet. I was just given a pre-order option, finally, clicked the link and "Sorry, due to high demand we can no longer offer pre-orders".
 
2012-07-11 08:04:12 PM  
Meh, software nowadays is 100 times more complicated. So you can either spend 100 times as long writing it, or use 100 times as much abstraction (like using a managed language, or multiple frameworks, or COM, or what have you). Abstraction adds overhead. It's business, unfortunately.
 
2012-07-11 08:10:29 PM  
I just upgraded to a Intel i5 running at 4.3GHz, 16GBs of RAM, and a SSD boot drive. It sucks because this computer is so fast it really makes all other computers feel slow. I can alt-tab out of a running game and just let it sit in the background using 1 to 2 gigs of RAM with no noticeable effect, I routinely get Firefox up to 2GBs. It is also awesome for running Virtual Machines.
 
2012-07-11 08:11:23 PM  
It's for the same reason that moving to a home with more space results in acquiring more stuff until that space is filled.

/If it's available, it will be used up
 
2012-07-11 08:19:23 PM  

JohnnyC: Fooshards: From cold boot to usable and chrome open on my box w/ a i5 3570k + m3 Crucial SSD takes between 5 and 6 seconds... (with chrome set to open on startup)

Uhhh... most bios doesn't even post in that amount of time. You sure you're not talking about waking up from hibernation?


Could also be domain login (and login scripts). At home you probably don't have that kind of stuff going on.
 
2012-07-11 08:20:58 PM  

t3knomanser: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This is the long and short of it.

Not only is your computer doing more, but your developers are doing less. Back in the day, when hardware constraints were exceedingly tight, developers were forced to develop within those constraints. This was very expensive- it requires much more developer time to write highly optimized code that spares memory and CPU and disk space. Developer time is expensive. CPU time is very cheap.


not only that but back then it was expected that to make things fast nobody really used interpreted code or safe libraries to protect against buffer overflow exploits, etc. these days you have things like java and python and .net that trade a bit of execution time for a lot of developer time and a lot more application hardness against exploits. (feed a python or java or .net program a giant pile of garbage data and you will get a program generated error message or, if the developer was lazy/careless an interpreter generated exception message, throw some c/c++ application running windows 3.1/95/98 a pile of garbage data and either your execution pointer goes into la la land or goes straight into executing whatever binary is in your garbage pile (easy to exploit)

this does not make modern code invincible a python developer could still go out of his/her way to be a knucklehead and read data objects out of a save file with eval()/exec()/execfile() and then a malicious file will when loaded instruct the interpreter to do Bad Stuff™
 
2012-07-11 08:28:13 PM  

zetar: In the 'old days' poorly written code would cause almost an immediate crash


No, in the old days you'd end up stomping all over memory and not knowing a damned thing about it until something started acting weird because your code finally got around to using the part of the stack that you trashed, or a return vector was filled with garbage, or something like that. Nowadays we have formerly mainframe-level features in even the cheapest CPUs that result in a core dump or other immediate feedback when you're careless, and even when you are careless you don't end up taking the whole machine down like you did in the past because the OS can isolate you and tell you specifically where you farked up via a handy stack dump.

/remembers the fun debugging TSRs and interrupt handlers in assembly back in the old DOS days
 
2012-07-11 08:43:15 PM  

Rwa2play: RichieLaw: Just do it man. Everything is so cheap now. I was able to get a 120 gig SSD on Newegg for less than $100 and use that as my boot drive. WIN7 runs like a freakin dream.

Certainly is in my plans for the next 12 months or so: Buy a 120 or 256 gig SSD and install Win 7 on it, then move most of my other programs on my current HD to that SSD.

And I would skip the 8-core. Unless you're going to be running a home server or something anything more than 4-core's is a waste right now. (I just bought my 6-core because it was super cheap and was the best value for the money at the time). If I had to do it all over again I would buy this CPU as you can't go wrong with a quad-core 3.4 GHZ that can easily be OC'd with stock cooling to close to 4 GHZ.

Well that merits a question: wouldn't it be a benefit if you have a multi-core processor while you have a browser (like Chrome) and running/looking at 15-20 pages at the same time?

I honestly would go to the six-core processor since I won't buy a new rig for a long time. If I can get a little more efficiency running an 8-core processor I would do it.


Re the SSD: Go 256 GB. It's like $100-$150 different, but since Windows bloats up to about 30, and your hibernate file is another [however much RAM you have, so 32 GB here*], and Windows likes having free space to cache stuff in, by the time you get your programs installed you have no room for files. Whereas 256 lets you sneak most of your files, a couple video games, a bunch of programs, a few Linux VM's over in the corner for schoolwork, and still have some free space.

Re the processor: Right now, Bulldozer is terrible for end users. Either invest in one of the K-series from Intel, or stick to the Phenom X4. Just because you have 8 cores doesn't mean you're always using 8 cores, because you don't always have 8 things to do at any given time.

Phenom vs. Ivy Bridge i7 comparison

*Note: I am in school. My personal record is 43 GB of combined RAM and swap space for a single program. They gave us a 3 GB input file with about a half a million nodes and about 100 million links, and told us to run page rank. It took like 37 hours to run. Once I'm out of school, I'll drop back to a more sane 8 or 16.
 
2012-07-11 08:44:14 PM  

Raging Thespian: Because it's still just a magical gnome inside of the box who does all of the actual processing. Give the gnome some damn time to do his job!


They're called Fornits.
 
2012-07-11 09:01:15 PM  

LineNoise: because it isn't just running one tiny application anymore.

Likewise because of the advances in memory\cpu\storage, people don't need to code as tight as they used to.


this. I remember studying in college low level programming. memory back then was so expensive that they would overwrite registers to fit within the constraints.
 
2012-07-11 09:05:09 PM  

cgremlin: zetar: In the 'old days' poorly written code would cause almost an immediate crash

No, in the old days you'd end up stomping all over memory and not knowing a damned thing about it until something started acting weird because your code finally got around to using the part of the stack that you trashed, or a return vector was filled with garbage, or something like that. Nowadays we have formerly mainframe-level features in even the cheapest CPUs that result in a core dump or other immediate feedback when you're careless, and even when you are careless you don't end up taking the whole machine down like you did in the past because the OS can isolate you and tell you specifically where you farked up via a handy stack dump.

/remembers the fun debugging TSRs and interrupt handlers in assembly back in the old DOS days


I wrote a lot of games in the '80s and '90s and space was so tight you crashed hard and fast.
 
2012-07-11 09:44:07 PM  
Software companies are continually researching and developing newer, more complex and more advanced applications for us to use. As this occurs, hardware must also evolve to allow us to use the new programs. You'll never notice a change in time because there will always be an equilibrium. That is, until we move beyond our current computing systems and adopt something better.
 
2012-07-11 10:21:24 PM  
I dont buy this shiat about programmers sucking these days. They always sucked. But operating systems are getting more and more integrated bs so basic operations have way too much overhead. But if there's one place I buy the sucky programmer theory it's threading. No matter what the OS it seems more stuff is being done in the same thread so that the UI becomes unresponsive, even if just for that app. E.g. Outlook can't move an email because it's waiting on some disk cache to render some horrible HTML crap so instead of moving it it has to load it first which is stupid.

I haven't used Un*x desktops much in a few years so I don't know if that's different. But I do suspect some clever aging out of older hardware is going on.

And Flash sucks.
 
2012-07-11 10:22:04 PM  
You want fast? Load up Windows 95 or 3.1 or DOS then. You got fast!
 
2012-07-11 10:28:50 PM  
www.commodore.ca
 
2012-07-11 10:31:35 PM  
ok I will jump in with my take on things. Yes, hardware is faster, much, much faster. The programmers ARE lazy. When I first started out programming in the late 60's early 70's I went from SWIFT to BASIC to ASSEMBLY. True programmers who want tight efficient programs use ASSEMBLY. Yes it is a pain to program in and even more of a pain to debug but the programs are 80% smaller than using C, C++ etc. Programmers wanted that ability to program in a language that was closer to "English" than binary. ASSEMBLER programmers had to know hexadecimal and dang near binary. Languages got easier to use, but the down side is that every step of translation the language goes through to get to binary adds bloat to the program. An example would be a subroutine call that in assembly would be written once and then called as needed. In C++ you can attempt to do that but the reality is that it creates 14 separate subroutines for each call that does the same thing instead of just referring to the single subroutine.
And that my friends is why most programmers suxxor big time.
 
2012-07-11 10:51:01 PM  
It could be legitimate hardware failure. One of the unfortunate problems with computer performance is that any component could be faulty and yet not provide a helpful error code or diagnostic response indicating otherwise. 999 out of 1000 components will work perfectly. It's that one time that it farks up that matters.
 
2012-07-11 10:53:42 PM  

paleryder69: True programmers who want tight efficient programs use ASSEMBLY.


F*ck waiting for the assembler. We write native machine code.
 
2012-07-11 11:04:06 PM  

Raging Thespian: Because it's still just a magical gnome inside of the box who does all of the actual processing. Give the gnome some damn time to do his job!


I use KDE, you insensitive clod!
 
2012-07-11 11:18:48 PM  
sseye: I dont buy this shiat about programmers sucking these days. They always sucked.

As a programmer, I have to say that the line between good and suck is not clearly defined at all.

Even with a single programmer, they could write awesome code on one project, but on another project, write sucky code (for one reason or another, didn't get enough sleep the night before, someone was bothering them while they were writing the code, wife left them, etc).

So the question is, where do you draw the line?

I don't think there's any argument that someone that writes decent code only 10% of the time sucks. But what about 60%, 80%, 90%?

// I personally think a true test of good vs bad programmer is if they can catch themselves writing bad code. IE they write code, come back and look at it the next day and go "WTF was I doing" and then correct it.

// how many dedicated code reviewers do you put on a project. You have dedicated code reviewers don't you? Neither do I, and that sucks :(
 
2012-07-12 12:06:37 AM  
My first computer took 2 to 8 MINUTES to load a program.

/Atari 400, cassette interface, 1Kb per minute, 16K RAM.
 
2012-07-12 12:13:04 AM  
Still running my first "real" computer in the music studio - and it boots faster than anything I've had since.

Atari 1040ST. The TOS is in chips on the MoBo so a restart takes a couple of seconds to boot up. Still the best damn MIDI computer going, rock solid timing, not one problem in 26 years! Have gone through a couple of monitors though. The keyboard feel sucks and the mouse is horrible.

Amazing actually.

First computer was a TI/99a with cassette drive - uggg!
 
2012-07-12 12:41:07 AM  

skyshooter: Still running my first "real" computer in the music studio - and it boots faster than anything I've had since.

Atari 1040ST. The TOS is in chips on the MoBo so a restart takes a couple of seconds to boot up. Still the best damn MIDI computer going, rock solid timing, not one problem in 26 years! Have gone through a couple of monitors though. The keyboard feel sucks and the mouse is horrible.

Amazing actually.

First computer was a TI/99a with cassette drive - uggg!


yep. my brain just exploded.

thanks for that...
 
2012-07-12 01:24:16 AM  
I can state categorically that my Windows 7 machine is far faster than any of the previous machines I have built and optimized. Slow operation of any modern computer is the result of the user not knowing how to use and maintain their machine. Instead of googling "how to optimize Windows" and keeping their antivirus updated they wail about the Microsoft devil and are seen in the streets gnashing their teeth.
 
2012-07-12 01:46:35 AM  
It doesnt.
The biggest jump in speed I remember was from a 286 to 486. I was doing a lot of word processing at the time and it took minutes to change from one page to another with the 286.
With the 486 I could change graphical pages as fast as I could hit the button.
 
2012-07-12 01:47:24 AM  

Egoy3k: thejoyofpi: dv-ous: Chrome is free.

My time isn't. The point is that users' time is being wasted because developers can no longer be bothered to worry about performance.

Code your own web browser that never crashes then you might be able to biatch about the quality of a free web browser without looking silly.


That's a helpful answer, thanks. Jerkwad
 
2012-07-12 01:50:16 AM  

elbows_deep_silent_queef: thejoyofpi: I blame lazy ass web developers.

The things that seems to give my computer the most hangups are websites that think they have to act like full featured apps.

This. I am tired of websites written in flash with 20 javascript imports. I tire of just poorly written sites, and shiatty underlying technologies. I'm tired of all of the Gawker media hub of sites requiring that you enable javascript just to display their main body text. I'm tired of error checking in form submissions being so broken that valid information has to be reentered. I'm tired of google using the www.google.com domain for captchas instead of using something like apis.google.com, so that my script blocking is even less sane. I detest when password constraints actually enforce poor practices instead of encourage good ones; where hxWoby2$ is a good password, but theysaythestrawthatbrokethecamelsbackwasecma is not. I find of standards and style both of: A) not being well-established B) not being adhered to. The standards bodies have failed, and web development in general is broken from all angles. To those who disagree, I ask why a CSS reset is neccessary. Why is so much vendor-specific and version-specific code neccessary?

As for shiat in general, perhaps if there was less focus on flair and more on performance and maintainability, we might actually be progressing beyond just having games with bigger explosions and videos with more pixels, interface devices just as shoddy as a qwerty keyboard and voice recognition that can understand a bit of klingon but cannot recognize the single syllable english word "no". I pray that one day word suggestion has advanced enough to recognize from context and without manual input that yes, I do mean the word coont, and not cantata. For every single increase in processor cores, hypertransports, front side bus speed, bit depth and resolution, poor practices and the general abuse of the very principle of technology to begin with, to enable and not to hinder ...


Excellent rant. A++ would read again.
 
2012-07-12 04:03:28 AM  
mjjt
Has anybody ever tried to estimate what proportion of traffic is due just to cookies data going back and forth completely independent of what humans are doing?


Well, cookies is just one of several lines of headers that are transferred each time.
There's actually work being done (an aim of HTTP 2.0) to reduce the overhead of headers by compressing them or reducing the statelessness of HTTP (e.g. don't send stuff like the user-agent string with each subsequent request if the server could already "remember" it from your first request).

I guess with all that AJAX and tracking stuff and whatnot doing lots of small requests transferring next to no data, the amount of data being transferred just for overhead(ers) has increased in relation to the amount of actual content.
 
2012-07-12 06:12:00 AM  

discgolfguru: This was my first system. You Commodore folks were barbarians.

[i121.photobucket.com image 300x281]

[i121.photobucket.com image 500x342]


Also my first computer...and I love Disc Golf, have been playing since only 4 years after obtaining my 800XL!

/still in a box down here in the basement somewhere
//It and the DD both worked the last time I hooked it up...in 1999.
 
2012-07-12 06:15:11 AM  
(The first computer I ever saw was wheeled into my 2nd grade classroom in 1980, a TRS-80 Model 1 or 2 with a reel to reel tape player as an I/O device...The teachers fiddled with it for a long time and couldn't get it to work. When it did finally work, it just did basic math facts.)
 
2012-07-12 07:10:46 AM  
Why?

1. Bad developers who are using higher level programming languages than they were 20 years ago with no "need" to optimize your code (because you paid for a faster processor).
2. Too many running apps (look into your taskbar and at running programs). Ironically the same bad developers decided that their apps ran slightly faster if they were up and running in memory constantly even if it meant they were using the overall memory sub-optimally.
3. Rotational disk speeds haven't increased in *forever*. Seriously... 15000 RPM is the fastest most people get who spend a lot of money these days have and this hasn't changed in years. Most home users have a 5400 RPM SATA disk which is incredibly slow. RAID addresses this, but only to a certain extent.

What to do to fix this?

1. Uninstall crap programs you don't use (this is a free speed boost)
2. Add more memory (99.9% of the time this makes people think their computer runs like it did the day they bought it). In Windows, if you want an idea of how much memory you use... Leave your computer on and open all the apps you normally do... Leave it on for a few days at least (in case some idiot developer didn't fix a memory leak in their app). Bring up the task manager and look at the performance tab. Read under "Commit Charge (K)" where it says "Peak"... Buy this much RAM and you'll have everything in memory all of the time. -Remember this figure is in Kilobytes.
3. Buy a solid state hard drive. -I can't emphasize how much this will help 99.9% of all computer operations. Even if you don't have enough memory, the SSD will make up for that by lowering load times, increasing bandwidth and random read of files from disk. -A lot of people will buy one and replace the hard drive in an old laptop only to think they are using a new laptop.

The above will help with most of what you are looking to do.. The only other upgrade that is worth it is a better video card (but if you need one for gaming or video editing, you already know this, most normal users can get by with on-board video).

And of course, get a faster internet connection.
 
2012-07-12 08:23:53 AM  

buckler: Ponzholio: thejoyofpi: InfamousBLT: I recall tales of one game (I don't remember the name, and I have never played it), but it was a chess game. For some reason, the difficulty of the game increased with the processing power. So, the faster computer you had, the harder the game was.

Apparently it is unplayable on modern computers by anyone except chess geniuses, because they didn't put a cap on the difficulty.

brilliant.

Have you tried to play the original Oregon Trail on a current computer? The end where you have to navigate the river to reach Oregon is f*cking impossible...

I recall a program called MoSlow, which was designed to do nothing more than put a variable load on your CPU, just eating processing cycles. It was designed to overcome just that problem.



DOSBox has a configuration file and everything you need to get all the timing loops to work in an old DOS game is in there.
 
2012-07-12 09:25:30 AM  

lordargent: how many dedicated code reviewers do you put on a project. You have dedicated code reviewers don't you? Neither do I, and that sucks :(

 
2012-07-12 09:28:20 AM  
I stopped complaining when it started to take less time to watch a movie than it did to download it.
 
2012-07-12 09:57:51 AM  

MythDragon: Then:
[www.mobygames.com image 640x400]
'Oh. look. A dragon'



What dragon? I see a set of stairs in another room, some gold, a scroll, a bat, a hobgoblin and a shield(?) No dragon though "D" or "d".
 
2012-07-12 10:02:09 AM  

thiazzi: I stopped complaining when it started to take less time to watch a movie than it did to download it.


Strike that, reverse it?
 
2012-07-12 10:32:32 AM  
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7207971/78018118#c78018118" target="_blank">lewismarktwo</a>:</b> <i>thiazzi: I stopped complaining when it started to take less time to watch a movie than it did to download it.

Strike that, reverse it?</i>

You'd rather it take longer to download than to watch?
 
2012-07-12 10:44:20 AM  

thiazzi: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7207971/78018118#c78018118" target="_blank">lewismarktwo</a>:</b> <i>thiazzi: I stopped complaining when it started to take less time to watch a movie than it did to download it.

Strike that, reverse it?</i>

You'd rather it take longer to download than to watch?


Been readin and writin long?
 
2012-07-12 11:00:30 AM  

lewismarktwo: thiazzi: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7207971/78018118#c78018118" target="_blank">lewismarktwo</a>:</b> <i>thiazzi: I stopped complaining when it started to take less time to watch a movie than it did to download it.

Strike that, reverse it?</i>

You'd rather it take longer to download than to watch?

Been readin and writin long?



While I may fail at HTML replies, I surpass you in reading comprehension.
 
2012-07-12 12:00:24 PM  

thiazzi: lewismarktwo: thiazzi: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7207971/78018118#c78018118" target="_blank">lewismarktwo</a>:</b> <i>thiazzi: I stopped complaining when it started to take less time to watch a movie than it did to download it.

Strike that, reverse it?</i>

You'd rather it take longer to download than to watch?

Been readin and writin long?


While I may fail at HTML replies, I surpass you in reading comprehension.


+1 if you're trolling.
minus one billion if you are serious.
 
2012-07-12 12:59:49 PM  

babtras: Gleeman: [i.imgur.com image 610x390]
All you really need.

Not that anyone can actually get them yet. I was just given a pre-order option, finally, clicked the link and "Sorry, due to high demand we can no longer offer pre-orders".


I haven't been able to get one yet either. Still trying to figure out some kind of random household object to use as a cool case.

I'd like to buy 100 or so and set them up with some distributed/parallel processing software, just because I could...
 
2012-07-12 02:38:18 PM  
Man, you guys sound like Balmer: "developers, developers, developers!"

Go ahead, blame the person with the least control over what he or she builds. There are high-paid managers who make big, fat, bad decisions in 30 seconds that have more to do with your computer than the minutia developers agonize over for hours while everyone else sleeps.

If it weren't for high-level languages, cross-site scripts, and other hacks that developers usually invent themselves (often in their spare time) just to accomplish the silly things they are asked to do, nobody would have any twitters or facespaces or soundmobs or stacheclouds to instagram to each other.
 
2012-07-12 03:49:40 PM  
It's funny - people still blame slow performance on 'it has a gui' logic. Maybe that was true back in the day, but honestly, today most gui's are pretty well optimized as is the hardware used to render them is better.

Operating systems today are decidedly more complex, but they are also doing a lot more than yesteryear. Indexed Searches, Firewall Systems, Fancier User Interfaces, AntiVirus, Encrypted File Systems, Backwards compatibility, Multitasking and Backups to name a few.

If you really want to see how much faster your new hardware is versus your old hardware, try installing Windows 98se on a newer machine. If you can get drivers to work, the speed will be astounding (until it crashes, that is).
 
2012-07-12 04:52:55 PM  
retrofitme:

Indexed Searches: Disabled, I know where my files are, I don't need to 'search' for them.

Firewall Systems: Disabled, the custom firmware in my router acts as a firewall (since the router firmware is linux based, and my desktop is linux based, it would be the same thing).

Fancier User Interfaces: GUI = graphical user interface, so on one hand, you're saying people blame it on "it has a GUI", but then in your list, you talk about the user interface?

AntiVirus: Disabled, in my experience, antivirus programs are useless. I'm smart enough not to click on trojans. I install security updates in a timely manner. And for the stuff that there's no security update for, there's often not a signature for the AV programs to latch onto either. IE, the virus that's going to get me is going to be one that's too new for there to be a patch, and too new for the AV programs to detect.

// plus, on access scan is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of and I always had to configure exemptions on my work machine because it would try to scan programs that I compiled.

Encrypted File Systems: not on the home machine

Backwards compatibility: don't know how much of that goes on in the *nix world, on ubuntu, we install stuff compiled for a given version/platform.

Multitasking: but now there are also multi core CPUs

Backups: nope (I manually run my backups, using rsync).

// not the norm
// like to tweak every drop of performance out of my machines as possible
// I moved my /tmp mount into ram
// I have no swap space
 
2012-07-13 01:12:51 AM  

Needlessly Complicated: My Etch-a-Sketch runs CRAZY fast!


Now give your boss her computer back. It's not nice to pick on mentally disabled people.

spatula-city.org
 
2012-07-13 01:26:41 AM  

MrSteve007: The problem is that your computer doesn't have a "Turbo" button:

4.bp.blogspot.com
From 33 mhz, to a blistering 66 mhz!!!


Lucky you. When I first got my 386, it switched between 8 and 16. Later, 8 and 25. Only after one more upgrade did it switch between 8 and 33. (Changed the LEDs to just say "Hi" and "Lo" at some point just 'cuz.)

Of course, I held onto that case for 4 more years. By the end of its days,I crammed an EISA/VLB server board in that hoss, sporting a 5x86-133 with a whopping 52MB of RAM, and a 3GB SCSI hard drive hooked up via an Adaptec-2740 EISA SCSI card. (Ok, I only owned 32MB of RAM myself, but I borrowed another 20MB from a roommate and a friend while running 15+ hour SPICE simulations for my VLSI class...)

I still twitch when I think about all the hours I stared at that 14" 43Hz interlaced 8bpp display, though...

Why are computers still slow today? A few reasons:

1. They aren't, actually.
2. Software companies know #1, though, and know they can lard it up with as much crap as they can until you, the end user, start to complain.
3. Some software just sucks.
4. All other remaining sources of slowness are probably outside of your computer (eg. crappy servers in teh Interwebs), or maybe something you caught out on the web.

I mean, sure, CPUs are maybe 10,000x faster, RAM's probably 100x faster, and hard drives are easily 10x faster (when seeking), but we're asking them to do quite a bit more than we did before. That 280x192 1bpp Apple ][ screen is a postage stamp on today's 1920x1080 24bpp monitors. Any given icon on your desktop takes up almost as much RAM as that whole display did on that old Apple, in all likelihood.
 
2012-07-13 09:59:17 AM  

NickelP: akula: Quasar: Your computer has more to do now.

This.

The first PC I ever used was a 286 running DOS. It doesn't take too much to run a command line interface, text based everything, and 256 color graphics at 640x480 resolution.

It takes quite a bit more to push a full graphical interface with transparent elements at high resolution while running several other programs at once while also maintaining constant connectivity with various outside servers.

If you could manage to run JUST what that first computer did (assuming the OS and programs are even compatible), it would farking FLY.

Someone should do this on speed tests/reviews. It would be fun to see how many fps the new video cards can push Doom or Wolfenstein 3d to.


IIRC, Doom 3 came with old Doom on it, presumably to justify the price tag after you got sick of the game. XD
 
2012-07-13 04:36:07 PM  
"When I was a kid, adults used to bore me to tears with their tedious diatribes about how hard things were when they were growing up.

But now that I am that adult, just this... when I was a kid we didn't have The Internet. If we wanted to know something we had to go to the damn library and look it up ourselves!

There was no email. We had to actually write somebody somebody a letter... with a pen! Then you had to walk all the way across the street and put it in the mailbox and it would take a week to get there!

There were no MP3s or Napsters. If you wanted to steal music you had to go to the farking record store and shoplift it yourself!

You want to hear about hardship? You couldn't just download porn. You had to bribe some homeless dude to buy you a copy of "Hustler" at the 7-11!

We didn't have any fancy shiat like like Sony Play station videogaes with high res 3-D graphics. We had the Atari 2600. With games like "Space Invaders" and "Asteroids" and the grpahics sucked. Your guy was a little square. You had to use your imagination. And there were no multiple levels or screens... it was just one screen forever! Ad you could never win, the gam kept just kept getting harder and faster until you died! Just like LIFE!

You kids today have got it too easy, you spoiled little bastards! You guys wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes back in 1980!"

Perception is everything.
 
2012-07-13 04:46:17 PM  
P.S. Regarding previous post... I swear there is a Friday the 13th thingie going on with my typing today... also possibly trouble with FARK as they run it through their posting rules?? My apologies for spelling errors... I can spell like the champs but my typing really sucks. I missed that day of school.
 
2012-07-15 12:19:44 AM  

guessi'mdoingfine: "When I was a kid, adults used to bore me to tears with their tedious diatribes about how hard things were when they were growing up.

But now that I am that adult, just this... when I was a kid we didn't have The Internet. If we wanted to know something we had to go to the damn library and look it up ourselves!

There was no email. We had to actually write somebody somebody a letter... with a pen! Then you had to walk all the way across the street and put it in the mailbox and it would take a week to get there!

There were no MP3s or Napsters. If you wanted to steal music you had to go to the farking record store and shoplift it yourself!

You want to hear about hardship? You couldn't just download porn. You had to bribe some homeless dude to buy you a copy of "Hustler" at the 7-11!

We didn't have any fancy shiat like like Sony Play station videogaes with high res 3-D graphics. We had the Atari 2600. With games like "Space Invaders" and "Asteroids" and the grpahics sucked. Your guy was a little square. You had to use your imagination. And there were no multiple levels or screens... it was just one screen forever! Ad you could never win, the gam kept just kept getting harder and faster until you died! Just like LIFE!

You kids today have got it too easy, you spoiled little bastards! You guys wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes back in 1980!"

Perception is everything.


OK, now that, was Airwolf.
Thanks, Mr. Cline.
 
Displayed 394 of 394 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report