Whoa, Chris...! TELL IT LIKE IT IS...! Say it again, Brother...! "The machine I am running is probably several thousand times as fast as the Apple II+ I used so many years ago (comparing a 700 MHz Pentium to a 1 MHz 6502), but it doesn't respond as quickly when I want to write a letter or run a spreadsheet. Since my software runs slower than it did before, I suggest that PC hardware is also losing the fight with bloated, inefficient code written by software engineers who count on the next generation of processors to carry the load of their poor code." jt | -----Original Message----- | [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Chris Rehm | Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 3:18 PM | | | Then how come it takes longer for my OS to load, my word processor to | load, my spreadsheets to load, my games to load, etc. than it did 5 | years ago or 10 years ago? | | Could it be because programmers in the PC world decide what "fast | enough" is so that even though processors have skyrocketed in their | speed and power, they can't keep up with the horrendous bloat added by | improvements in software? While I sure see the changes made in the games | I'm using, the truth is I don't do much more with my word processor than | I did 10 years ago. The machine I am running is probably several | thousand times as fast as the Apple II+ I used so many years ago | (comparing a 700 MHz Pentium to a 1 MHz 6502), but it doesn't respond as | quickly when I want to write a letter or run a spreadsheet. | | Since my software runs slower than it did before, I suggest that PC | hardware is also losing the fight with bloated, inefficient code written | by software engineers who count on the next generation of processors to | carry the load of their poor code. | | I'm really sorry you brought this up because I am an advocate of Java. | But compiler and code optimization needs to be better than it has been. | I am shocked that people think the hardware should just "carry the load" | of whatever crummy code is heaped upon it. Don't people care about the | quality of their work any more? PC coders don't worry about efficiency | and that helps the economy by forcing PC users to buy faster and bigger | machines every year just to keep installing the newer versions of their | software. | | When you say optimizing something that is already sub second is | "counterproductive" you are being a little myopic. I'm sure you have | some particular setting in mind, but if that routine (or method) you are | talking about is used a billion times a day then there can be a lot of | value in optimizing it. The difference between 1/10000th of a second and | 2/10000ths of a second could be a difference of 28 hours of processing | time. Now, you probably think that is okay if you spread it out among a | thousand users but the problem is the next programmer felt the same way | and his code added another minute and a half to their wait, and the next | and the next. | | Just because my word processor did a zillion things in a big hurry | doesn't mean I don't mind waiting.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.