Linked by Amjith Ramanujam on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 14:32 UTC, submitted by ahz1
Thread beginning with comment 324194
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good article; obvious conclusion
by Kroc on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 15:08
in reply to "Good article; obvious conclusion"
No Word 6.0 in the list, my favourite version :'(
For office buffs, who want to see the bloat increase over the years visually, you simply must check out Jenson Harris' articles on the history of office
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/03/29/563938.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/17/577485.aspx
RE: Good article; obvious conclusion
by Doc Pain on Wed 23rd Jul 2008 20:30
in reply to "Good article; obvious conclusion"
Funny how programs used to snap up on the screen on my old 286-20 running windows 3.11.
Or GeoWorks Ensemble as a complete desktop solution started from DOS. :-)
Ain't progress wonderful?
It's just a question how you want to understand "progress"; as it may be concluded from the article, "progress" means to have features implemented step by step that could have existed years before (or have been existing in free / open source applications years before) while you need to update your OS and your hardware to keep the same "usage speed" - I may use this tern to illustrate how users "feel" the speed of their applications, and because this may be a very individual feeling, benchmarks are welcome.
As I write here: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?309755
hardware ressources
---------------------------------- = overall usage speed
application requirements
Due to technical development, the numerator increases, and due to bloat, the denominator increases, too. The quotient seems to stay the same over the years. Yesterday's applications are as fast on yesterdays machines as today's applications are on today's machines. To benefit of the faster hardware of today, you seem to need to run older software on it. Simple math. :-)
I think this benchmark is (at least) interesting when you want to predict how future versions will behave on future OSes and future hardware.






Member since:
2006-11-17
Basically says what a lot of us know anecdotally. My current desktop at home has quad core processor with 4GB of RAM, but I spend a lot of time watching programs load. Funny how programs used to snap up on the screen on my old 286-20 running windows 3.11. Ain't progress wonderful?