Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Apr 2008 20:12 UTC, submitted by Craig Barth
Microsoft "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away. Such has been the conventional wisdom surrounding the Windows/Intel (aka Wintel) duopoly since the early days of Windows 95. In practical terms, it means that performance advancements on the hardware side are quickly consumed by the ever-increasing complexity of the Windows/Office code base. Case in point: Microsoft Office 2007, which, when deployed on Windows Vista, consumes more than 12 times as much memory and nearly three times as much processing power as the version that graced PCs just seven short years ago, Office 2000. Despite years of real-world experience with both sides of the duopoly, few organizations have taken the time to directly quantify what my colleagues and I at Intel used to call The Great Moore's Law Compensator (TGMLC). In fact, the hard numbers above represent what is perhaps the first-ever attempt to accurately measure the evolution of the Windows/Office platform in terms of real-world hardware system requirements and resource consumption. In this article I hope to further quantify the impact of TGMLC and to track its effects across four distinct generations of Microsoft's desktop computing software stack."
Thread beginning with comment 309754
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by asr4096
by dabooty on Tue 15th Apr 2008 21:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by asr4096"
dabooty
Member since:
2007-06-15

While i agree about the bloat, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Microsoft. For example OS X and Apps consume RAM and CPU-Power like mad, too.
Some bloat may be explained by advanced features of certain apps or OS, some may be no optimization in code or concept at all.


Indeed, the "bloat" is universal and not only due to advanced featores or no optimization but often due to frameworks decreasing development time.

Of course everything ran fast when developed in c or assembly, but when you start using java or python or whatever, development costs go down and speed decreases (which is offset by hardware improvements)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 9

RE[2]: Comment by asr4096
by sakeniwefu on Tue 15th Apr 2008 22:12 in reply to "RE: Comment by asr4096"
sakeniwefu Member since:
2008-02-26

Hopefully Moore's law decline will bring back the great coders from the 80s that used to be able to write a real time 3D game for a monochrome 8bit microcomputer with 64 k of addressable memory.
If people cannot just upgrade to a new computer, fast programs will be profitable again.
Linux, Apple and Microsoft will have to change their ways.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by asr4096
by lemur2 on Wed 16th Apr 2008 00:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by asr4096"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hopefully Moore's law decline will bring back the great coders from the 80s that used to be able to write a real time 3D game for a monochrome 8bit microcomputer with 64 k of addressable memory.
If people cannot just upgrade to a new computer, fast programs will be profitable again.
Linux, Apple and Microsoft will have to change their ways.


Linux is not "one size fits all" unlike OSX and Vista.

Linux runs on mainframes and all the way down to mobile phones, photo frames and even wristwatches.

http://www.freeos.com/articles/3800
http://www.top500.org/charts/list/30/osfam

As for speed and lack of bloat on desktops running current versions of applications:

http://www.puppylinux.org/user/viewpage.php?page_id=1

http://www.zenwalk.org/

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by asr4096
by gustl on Thu 17th Apr 2008 19:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by asr4096"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Linux, Apple and Microsoft will have to change their ways.


Small correction: Apple and Microsoft will have to change their ways.

A Debian 4.0 Linux install (current stable release) runs on my 1.2 GHz single processor Athlon (bought cheap in 2003) with 512 MB RAM quite satisfactory.

At my workplace I have to use a Windows XP on a 3GB double Dual Xeon with 3 GHz, which should have approximately 6 to 8 times higher performance. But in reality it "feels" like being only 50% faster. It is easily outdone by a Linux computer which I also can use at work with a dual 2.5GHz P4 setup.

No, Linux already has a different way, and that is: Choose your level of bloat!

You want 3D effects and all the graphical whizbang you can think about? No problem, if you have the machine for it, go for it.

You want to have a decent low-cost Office+Internet machine with limited RAM? Get a stripped down, optimized for speed Distro.

Today I can put myself a quite silent PC together with a processor which has similar speed as a 1 GHz Celeron, 1 GB RAM and a 100 GB Hard disk for as much as EUR 250,- (including Software).

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by asr4096
by Tom K on Wed 16th Apr 2008 14:59 in reply to "RE: Comment by asr4096"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

Just because something is written in C or assembly doesn't make it fast. One can write crappy and slow C/ASM just like they can write crappy and slow Java code.

Case in point: GNOME

:-)

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by asr4096
by TemporalBeing on Thu 17th Apr 2008 02:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by asr4096"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

Just because something is written in C or assembly doesn't make it fast. One can write crappy and slow C/ASM just like they can write crappy and slow Java code.


True, but one generally has to out of one's way to make C or Assembly code run slow - at least once one gets past the learning curve (but even during the learning curve it can be hard to do so).

Oddly enough:

Case in point: GNOME

:-)


That said, Linux is not immune to the 'bloat' either. In fact, F/OSS can sometimes be worse at bloat because every developer chooses their preferred system to build upon (Qt, KDE, Gtk, WxWidgets, SDL, Motif, X11, to name a few) so you end up with a lot of duplicated effort.

Granted, under Windows you have everyone and their brother providing the same copy of the same library all over the place (b/c of how Microsoft handles library versions - e.g. mfc42.dll, mfc60.dll, mfc71.dll, etc. - or rather, the lack for proper support of it).

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 1