To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"I think is this kind of tolerance of the user that leads to developer care less to develop more efficient application. Saying go to get a more powerful cpu and more ram and you would get smooth experience is not the right way to solve problem. And that is why after so many years of hardware improvement, we still experience more or less the same speed feeling on desktop usage."
Which totally makes sense considering how expensive development time is compared to hardware costs. I can write an app in C in 200 hours and spend another 100 optimizing it to death. But why should I if I can also spend $40 on a hardware upgrade, and write the app in Python in 60 hours, which still performs acceptably?
A lot of people complain about this increase in "bloat", but I call it lowering development costs at the expense of increase resource usage. Considering that computers are meant to serve humans it makes total sense.
You may argue that open source software is free, so there's no "development costs". This is not true: the developer of said software may have invested tremendous amounts of time, which are also costs.
I can't agree more. I am a commercial and open source software developer. I am disgusted with the amount of bloat-ware out there! Our current computers could give us 100x the speed improvement with more optimized applications.
Just look at MS Windows for example: Win95 installed in less than 100MB of hard drive space. Win98 around 160MB, Win2000 around 200-300MB, Vista 4-8GIG, Win7 around 15GIG. It's totally ridiculous!!! It's just sloppy coding!
I take pride in my code and try to optimize all my applications using my preferred programming language. After all, I became a programmer because I enjoy doing it - and doing it well.
Are you giving your own experiences or just quoting the hardware requirements? Particularly regarding Vista and 7, you are way off. Vista Ultimate is indeed in the 4-8GB range, though if I remember correctly it is on the low end, around 5.5GB last time I set it up for someone; nowhere near 8GB. Windows 7, which I have on a partition on my main PC (and am posting from now) was roughly 6GB after installation. Also, you skipped XP entirely, which depending on the included service pack can vary from about 1GB to nearly 2GB in my experience.
You do have a valid point, but don't go making up numbers to "prove" it.
Note: I'm not a Microsoft apologist by any stretch of the imagination, it just irks me to no end to see someone make up bullshit to prove a point. Windows 7 is on my main PC because the rest of the family requires Windows (for now; I'm working on that) and it's free for a year. I'm enjoying testing it out too; it's really the best thing they've ever put out there in my opinion. For my own computing I prefer OS X, BeOS or Slackware.




Member since:
2008-06-04
I think is this kind of tolerance of the user that leads to developer care less to develop more efficient application. Saying go to get a more powerful cpu and more ram and you would get smooth experience is not the right way to solve problem. And that is why after so many years of hardware improvement, we still experience more or less the same speed feeling on desktop usage.