Orbiter-Forum  

Go Back   Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge
Register Blogs Orbinauts List Social Groups FAQ Projects Mark Forums Read

Brighton Lounge General off-topic discussions. Political or religious topics may only be posted in The Basement forum.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-15-2009, 11:08 PM   #61
Scarecrow
Orbinaut
 
Scarecrow's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 Did you misunderstand me, or twist that? I have said repeatedly that the effect of this is a continued push back on both sides - software reaches a point where people need more powerful hardware, and that then enables software to do more, and on and on it goes. The result is that we have immensely powerful and ridiculously cheap computers. THAT is a good thing, and THAT is what I talked about. You think that is thoroughly ridiculous?
Ah, I did misunderstand that slightly. It makes more sense now. However, what I think is bad is when software package A that does X is augmented to also do Y at the expense of it's ability to do X. Usually the solution is to have the Y ability be a separate package, or make Y an option that doesn't have any effect unless activated, or whatever. That's what I think of as bloat. It's very bad when you must upgrade hardware specifically because your software is bloated, and there is no appreciable difference between old software on old hardware, and new software on new hardware. Now if you actually needed feature Y, then this is fine, but when you don't (and you don't need features Z, alpha, beta, gamma, or delta either) then this is bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 As above, you will see that I have been illustrating how improved hardware power means reduced prices, not just for the top of the line stuff (though there too), but also for the bottom end stuff - all sectors of the computer market have gotten more powerful and cheaper, because of what I outlined above. So yet again, I'm in favor of low prices, and showing how you are benefiting from them, yet you claim the opposite?
I don't claim the exact opposite, which would be either that more development at the high end means higher prices at the low end, or that less development at the high end means lower prices at the low end. It's true that those are stupid positions to take. What I do believe is that if there is less development at the high end, that that will not decrease the rate at which prices are falling at the low end. This is because (taking the extreme case for simpler terminology, in spite of a more moderated reality), if there is no market for high end computers, then manufacturers won't put their R&D money into making the high end higher. They will instead put it into making the low end cheaper, which is also a perfectly viable developmental direction. And this doesn't negatively impact the people who want supercomputers, because if the low end computers are small and cheap, they can just buy more of them. There is more than one way to get to any given destination, and even so, no single destination is best for everyone.
Scarecrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2009, 11:13 PM   #62
movieman
Addon Developer
 
movieman's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 A DX9 graphics card with 128mb memory? Please, that's not high-end.
I believe 60+% of new PCs come with integrated graphics chips, most of them Intel; compared to those, a five-year-old Radeon is high-end.

Heck, in my house we have:

Windows PC, Geforce 7800
Windows laptop, Integrated Intel crap
Linux desktop, Integrated AMD crap
Linux MythTV box, Integrated Intel crap

The integrated Intel chips don't even support DX7 properly, and while you can run DX9 software, you can't do so at any reasonable frame-rates. The integrated AMD chips are better, but they're still scraping the bottom of the barrel.
movieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 12:00 AM   #63
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 I believe 60+% of new PCs come with integrated graphics chips, most of them Intel; compared to those, a five-year-old Radeon is high-end.

Heck, in my house we have:

Windows PC, Geforce 7800
Windows laptop, Integrated Intel crap
Linux desktop, Integrated AMD crap
Linux MythTV box, Integrated Intel crap

The integrated Intel chips don't even support DX7 properly, and while you can run DX9 software, you can't do so at any reasonable frame-rates. The integrated AMD chips are better, but they're still scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The integrated chips will run Win7 fine, you just won't be able to have Aero.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 12:13 AM   #64
Usquanigo
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjp View Post
 I think the only applications that actually require more than a modern low-end system(***) are games, simulations like Orbiter, and very job-specific software like 3D renderers and video editing software. The OS should not count as an application: it should only assist the user in running applications, provide a user interface for that, and, okay, give a nice experience to the user(****). For the rest, the OS should not eat resources, but give them to the apps instead. I don't mind when the OS takes 10% of the resources, but when it takes 50% for no reason, I will start looking for a more efficient OS. When it has a good reason, I will start looking for better hardware.
Great. And this means that EVERYONE should use this minimalist approach, because the VERY THING which drives the price down is bad? This isn't a matter of preference for you (guys), it's religious. And you apparently don't care and don't want to see the symbiotic relationship involving the thing you hate so much that has gotten us where we are today.

If your OS is taking 50% of your resources, get more resources. And don't give me crap about price. It's far too cheap, and far too plentiful today. The applications ALONE would demand more power, even IF you got an OS to run well on whatever museum piece you are trying to claim as being "reasonable".

Stop taking it to the extreme and trying to claim that it means spending $7000 on a balls to the wall monster workstation.

And as for the OS, it IS an application. As more stuff is added, it takes more power. Text editing, reading and working with zip files, file compression, defragging, visual toys, widgets/gadgets.... (and more) it was all an application at one point in time (or could have been had development gone another route). It all takes resources. As that functionality gets subsumed into the OS, the req's for the OS itself increase, while the number of additional apps you need decreases.

Then there is plug n play. The reason it works better on a Mac and why Windows has such a large foot print, is drive and hardware control. Windows has to have a HUGE DB of drivers to work with as much stuff as possible to ease the user experience, Apple controls the hardware and drivers and can not only ensure better reliability (between hardware, drivers and OS), but also get by with a smaller footprint, while STILL handling plug n play properly. Another reason your Linux has such a small footprint too - it tends to be customized.

Compare -

(btw, given your philosophy, get one of those and try to do all that stuff you do. Afterall, it's not about power, but efficiency, right? Look at it scream with the incredibly resource lite OS that's on it. </sarcasm>)

To -


This is a fictional OS/Cyberspace setup from a mid-90's game (during the (missed) FMV era). Games and applications and internet/network connectivity and Operating Systems are and have been converging. To do it means needing power. Picture for a moment this was real. Aside from the intense HMD and interface (hardware) setup you need, it also means heavy duty video processing, audio processing, intense interface processing, and of course a high speed connection (and more traffic means more processing power required).

I want that. I came from a command line, and hated the GUI, but now I understand the power, and I want the Gibson-esque Cyberspace, and that means BIG hardware power, not small.

Speaking of Gibson....


Just like the above - you can see the heavy game influence in hardware, and graphic interface, but it's not used for gaming exclusively (there). That would be a heavy and extremely feature rich OS, and require some serious hardware and a big pipe.

Now again, if you guys want light and small and goodwill hardware, great. Why claim it to be a superior way and hold others back? Notice that nobody is telling you you can't have that? Nor that you MUST spend lots of money?



Quote:
Let's say:
AMD Athlon 2.6GHz
512MiB RAM @ 333MHz
120GiB harddisk
ATI Radeon 9200 (AGP 8x, 256MiB video RAM)
When did you buy that, and how long have you had it? (and why haven't you pushed it higher?)

No matter WHAT OS you use, that's too little RAM and too small a drive for that speed processor (my video and audio collection alone would nearly fill that drive - even before getting to installed apps)
Usquanigo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 02:18 AM   #65
movieman
Addon Developer
 
movieman's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 The integrated chips will run Win7 fine, you just won't be able to have Aero.
Which means you might as well run XP.
movieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 03:25 AM   #66
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 Which means you might as well run XP.
Because Aero is totally the only new feature in Win7, mirite?

Go download the beta and try it for yourself.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 03:45 AM   #67
movieman
Addon Developer
 
movieman's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 If your OS is taking 50% of your resources, get more resources.
This is the attitude that's given us graphics cards that use 300W of power and need a fan that could lift a 747.

My new PC uses less than 50W total at full load, and it's still good enough to transcode two SDTV videos to MPEG-4 in realtime while transcoding a third video to Flash in realtime so it can stream to my laptop from the web server, while doing commercial-scanning on a fourth video at 4x realtime, while capturing another video to disk from the TV tuner while web-browsing at the console; and, unless the DVD drive is chugging away, it's barely audible in the process. Why would I want to use vastly more power just to run an operating system?

And I'm getting particularly averse to noise after spending much of the last two months surrounded by a couple of dozen dual quad-core Xeon servers that are so loud I have to wear ear-defenders.

Quote:
And don't give me crap about price.
Why pay $500 for a cheap Windows system for email and web-browsing when you can pay $250 for a cheap Linux system?

Quote:
The applications ALONE would demand more power, even IF you got an OS to run well on whatever museum piece you are trying to claim as being "reasonable".
99% of the time the dual-core CPU in my Linux desktop is clocked down to 1GHz. Most applications simply don't need much CPU power these days; Microsoft are trying to figure out how to suck up as much CPU power as possible when they should be trying to figure out how to give people the application performance they want on cheaper and cheaper systems.

Quote:
Windows has to have a HUGE DB of drivers to work with as much stuff as possible to ease the user experience
Yet when I buy new hardware for Windows I normally have to download and install a new driver, whereas when I buy new hardware for Linux, the driver is normally already there; of course the fact that Linux drivers aren't wrapped in 50MB installers probably helps... I seem to remember the last Windows video driver I downloaded was around 80MB, which is absolutely insane.
movieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 04:39 AM   #68
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 This is the attitude that's given us graphics cards that use 300W of power and need a fan that could lift a 747.
Must be a new generation of 747 then. And those are the kind of graphics cards that give me gorgeous scenes in games. More, please.

Quote:
My new PC uses less than 50W total at full load, and it's still good enough to transcode two SDTV videos to MPEG-4 in realtime while transcoding a third video to Flash in realtime so it can stream to my laptop from the web server, while doing commercial-scanning on a fourth video at 4x realtime, while capturing another video to disk from the TV tuner while web-browsing at the console; and, unless the DVD drive is chugging away, it's barely audible in the process. Why would I want to use vastly more power just to run an operating system?
Grats?

Quote:
And I'm getting particularly averse to noise after spending much of the last two months surrounded by a couple of dozen dual quad-core Xeon servers that are so loud I have to wear ear-defenders.
Well, with the ear-defenders, it shouldn't be that much noise.

Quote:
Why pay $500 for a cheap Windows system for email and web-browsing when you can pay $250 for a cheap Linux system?
If the $250 gets you all the computer you need and it does what you need it to, that's great. The operating system doesn't matter if all you want to do is e-mail and web browsing.

Quote:
99% of the time the dual-core CPU in my Linux desktop is clocked down to 1GHz. Most applications simply don't need much CPU power these days; Microsoft are trying to figure out how to suck up as much CPU power as possible...
Actually, I can guarantee you that no one at Microsoft is doing any such thing. None of the meetings I was at over the summer were "Hey, let's see just how much we can slow down these computers." They were all "Okay, these are the features that people are asking for, that's what we need to give and we need to make it run no slower than Vista, preferably just as fast as XP."

Quote:
...when they should be trying to figure out how to give people the application performance they want on cheaper and cheaper systems.
No. The market for new OSes and new systems is not "Let's do more with less." It is, and always has been, "Let's do more at the same price point" or "Let's do the same at a lower price point." Eventually you get to the point where you can do more with less, but that's a two-step process.

The main Windows lines have never targeted low-performance machines. That's not the market share they're looking for, and that's not the niche they're going to focus on. If you're always making software that can run just as well on the oldest machines out there, you're going to reach a point at which you cannot possibly get more features in to your product, and there would be no point for hardware companies to make better stuff, because it won't do you any good.

Bloodspray's said it several times and I don't think you've gotten it yet. The reason that the hardware which is good enough for you is so cheap nowadays is because it's no longer top of the line. Progression of the bleeding edge allows price drops throughout the lineup.

Quote:
Yet when I buy new hardware for Windows I normally have to download and install a new driver, whereas when I buy new hardware for Linux, the driver is normally already there;...
Windows does not contain all the newest drivers for all the possible types of hardware out there. It does contain basic drivers for almost all the possible types of hardware out there. Of course if you want the company's latest and greatest, you're going to need to download it from them.

Quote:
...of course the fact that Linux drivers aren't wrapped in 50MB installers probably helps... I seem to remember the last Windows video driver I downloaded was around 80MB, which is absolutely insane.
Yes, because Microsoft has anything at all to do with the contents of an installer provided by Nvidia or Radeon.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 05:39 AM   #69
movieman
Addon Developer
 
movieman's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hielor View Post
 Because Aero is totally the only new feature in Win7, mirite?
Aside from the fancy windows, what does the average user gain from switching to 'Windows 7' from XP?

I mean that quite seriously. There were clear benefits from moving from Win98 to XP, whereas even Microsoft couldn't come up with any way of convincing people to upgrade from XP to Vista, which is why they had to try to force them by refusing to release DX10 for XP.

I haven't seen a single thing on Vista (and 'Windows 7' is just a tweaked Vista, which is why it's being released so fast) that would make me want to switch. Microsoft are actively putting me off the idea of buying a new Windows desktop machine to run newer games because I'll have to load Vista onto it.


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Actually, I can guarantee you that no one at Microsoft is doing any such thing.
Odd, because I've heard people say that Microsoft employees basically told them precisely that; Vista was supposed to suck up all that extra power to give people a reason to buy faster PCs with new hardware, because most people didn't need a 3GHz octo-core CPU for email and web browsing. Unfortunately people seem to have twigged to the fact that they don't need to buy such systems, despite Microsoft's attempts to convince them otherwise.

Quote:
No. The market for new OSes and new systems is not "Let's do more with less." It is, and always has been, "Let's do more at the same price point" or "Let's do the same at a lower price point."
This is no longer the 1990s. You seem to be stuck in them, along with Microsoft... the market for new OSes these days is increasingly going to be doing more with less, because computers are well past 'fast enough' for the majority of users. More to the point, in a recession, it's going to be about doing more at less cost, which is a big problem when one of your competitors is giving their operating system away for free; you can't make a living for long out of selling a $300 OS for a $200 PC.

Quote:
The main Windows lines have never targeted low-performance machines. That's not the market share they're looking for, and that's not the niche they're going to focus on.
Then they're toast, because that's one of the largest growing areas in the PC marketplace. Why do you think they had to relent and continue selling XP? Because all those cheap new netbooks are unable to run a pig like Vista; like the dinosaurs of the automotive industry, Microsoft is building a software SUV when people are switching to Civics.

Quote:
If you're always making software that can run just as well on the oldest machines out there, you're going to reach a point at which you cannot possibly get more features in to your product
In the majority of software I use today, most new features are a problem, not a solution. Too much of the software I use comes out with 'new features' solely as a reason to try to justify charging more money, not because they're actually useful to more than a few percent of their customers.

The exceptions are things like video editing and 3D rendering, which are still a long way from 'good enough'. But the market for those is small compared to web browsing, email and word processing.

Quote:
Windows does not contain all the newest drivers for all the possible types of hardware out there.
But you just said that Windows is so bloated because it has to contain vast numbers of drivers for all kinds of hardware. You can't have it both ways.
movieman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 05:52 AM   #70
Linguofreak
Orbinaut
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 As above, you will see that I have been illustrating how improved hardware power means reduced prices, not just for the top of the line stuff (though there too), but also for the bottom end stuff - all sectors of the computer market have gotten more powerful and cheaper, because of what I outlined above. So yet again, I'm in favor of low prices, and showing how you are benefiting from them, yet you claim the opposite?
The general drive is for more performance per unit of resources expended. For some people that shows up as more performance for the same resources, for others it shows up as the same performance for less resources. Either one will drive manufacturers to design hardware that can give a better performance to resource ratio, and both will benefit from a better performance to resource ratio. The difference is that the whole cycle is now being driven more from the low-resource side than it was before. So you shouldn't be suprised when people demand out of software what they're demanding out of hardware, equal performance in a smaller, cheaper package.
Linguofreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 06:05 AM   #71
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 Aside from the fancy windows, what does the average user gain from switching to 'Windows 7' from XP?

I mean that quite seriously. There were clear benefits from moving from Win98 to XP, whereas even Microsoft couldn't come up with any way of convincing people to upgrade from XP to Vista, which is why they had to try to force them by refusing to release DX10 for XP.
I'm not going to give you the entire features list for Win7 and Vista. You can look that up yourself.

Quote:
I haven't seen a single thing on Vista (and 'Windows 7' is just a tweaked Vista, which is why it's being released so fast) that would make me want to switch. Microsoft are actively putting me off the idea of buying a new Windows desktop machine to run newer games because I'll have to load Vista onto it.
Win7 is just as much a tweaked Vista as XP was a tweaked 2000.

"Released so fast"? Let's look at the release dates for the standard desktop OSes, from Win95 on:

Windows 95: 1995 Aug 24
Windows 98: 1998 June 25 (~34 months)
Windows ME: 2000 Sept 14 (~27 months)
Windows XP: 2001 Oct 25 (~13 months)
Windows Vista (Retail): 2007 Jan 30 (~63 months)
Windows 7: 2009 Q3/Q4 (~30-36 months)

Notice that XP's long lifespan of more than five years is not the norm for Windows OSes--it's the outlier. Throughout Windows' history, OSes have been released on about a 3-year product cycle. Win7 will be no different.

XP has stuck around for so long because it was an excellent OS, yes--and that's been aided by the fact that Vista had an extremely rocky start. Also note how quickly ME got replaced: that was when they dropped the separate business/consumer model and just combined them, because ME was nothing special.

All I can say is: try the Win7 beta. If you refuse to try it, then I'm sorry, you're just being stubborn. My favorite part is how you've never even used Vista and you're complaining about it.

If you want to get a brand-new gaming rig, then yes you'll need Vista. Except, I thought we already established that Vista runs perfectly well on a gaming rig? You were complaining that Vista (and Win7) won't work on low-end machines. Are we now talking about high-end gaming rigs? Because if we are, Linux's inability to play games means that Linux just lost.

I would, however, not suggest buying a new Vista computer anytime soon. Wait for Win7, or if you don't want to wait, put the Win7 beta on it (and save some money in the process) (note that having a beta OS as your primary and/or only OS is done at your own risk).


-----Post Added-----


Quote:
Originally Posted by movieman View Post
 Odd, because I've heard people say that Microsoft employees basically told them precisely that; Vista was supposed to suck up all that extra power to give people a reason to buy faster PCs with new hardware, because most people didn't need a 3GHz octo-core CPU for email and web browsing. Unfortunately people seem to have twigged to the fact that they don't need to buy such systems, despite Microsoft's attempts to convince them otherwise.
A Microsoft employee would never say that. Think about it, that would be an awesome way for them to get fired. I would imagine that I have much closer experience than your "well i heard some people say that some people said" situation.

Quote:
This is no longer the 1990s. You seem to be stuck in them, along with Microsoft... the market for new OSes these days is increasingly going to be doing more with less, because computers are well past 'fast enough' for the majority of users. More to the point, in a recession, it's going to be about doing more at less cost, which is a big problem when one of your competitors is giving their operating system away for free; you can't make a living for long out of selling a $300 OS for a $200 PC.
People who want cheap computers should not buy Windows. I fully encourage them to look into Linux at that point, because if they want cheap, that's their best option.

Quote:
Then they're toast, because that's one of the largest growing areas in the PC marketplace. Why do you think they had to relent and continue selling XP? Because all those cheap new netbooks are unable to run a pig like Vista; like the dinosaurs of the automotive industry, Microsoft is building a software SUV when people are switching to Civics.
The netbooks were an extremely weird occurrence in computer hardware and pretty much went against the "faster = better" philosophy that computer hardware manufacturers have had since the dawn of the tech age. For now, there will always be people who are still buying SUVs. As for the Civic market--Microsoft will either adapt and begin having lightweight versions, or they will die. It's that simple.

Quote:
In the majority of software I use today, most new features are a problem, not a solution. Too much of the software I use comes out with 'new features' solely as a reason to try to justify charging more money, not because they're actually useful to more than a few percent of their customers.

The exceptions are things like video editing and 3D rendering, which are still a long way from 'good enough'. But the market for those is small compared to web browsing, email and word processing.
That's an issue you have with all of the software industry, not just Windows or Microsoft. Most people want features, apparently, so that's what MS gives them.

Quote:
But you just said that Windows is so bloated because it has to contain vast numbers of drivers for all kinds of hardware. You can't have it both ways.
I noticed that you didn't quote the sentence I had right after that in which I said that Windows has basic drivers for almost all kinds of hardware. And no, Bloodspray was the one who said that originally.

Re-read the sentence after the one you quoted.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 06:13 AM   #72
Scarecrow
Orbinaut
 
Scarecrow's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 If your OS is taking 50% of your resources, get more resources. And don't give me crap about price. It's far too cheap, and far too plentiful today. The applications ALONE would demand more power, even IF you got an OS to run well on whatever museum piece you are trying to claim as being "reasonable".
WHY????? Price is not crap. Mabye you're significantly richer than I am, but I DO NOT like spending hundreds of dollars when there are perfectly viable opportunities for less money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 ...Compare -
YouTube - Olivetti M15 running CP/M (CPM)
(btw, given your philosophy, get one of those and try to do all that stuff you do. Afterall, it's not about power, but efficiency, right? Look at it scream with the incredibly resource lite OS that's on it. </sarcasm>)
There are limits, of course. To use your own terminology, stop taking it to the extreme. But I'll bet that if that OS could be compiled for my computer, and optimized for the hardware, and generally tweaked in other ways, that it would outperform Vista. Granted, Vista provides more features, but everything is a trade off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 To -
YouTube - Ripper Longplay Pt. 26/29 (Act 3 Part 7/10)

This is a fictional OS/Cyberspace setup from a mid-90's game (during the (missed) FMV era). Games and applications and internet/network connectivity and Operating Systems are and have been converging. To do it means needing power. Picture for a moment this was real. Aside from the intense HMD and interface (hardware) setup you need, it also means heavy duty video processing, audio processing, intense interface processing, and of course a high speed connection (and more traffic means more processing power required).

I want that. I came from a command line, and hated the GUI, but now I understand the power, and I want the Gibson-esque Cyberspace, and that means BIG hardware power, not small.
You want that. Do others? Not necessarily. Are they preventing you from getting that? Not at all. Go right ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 Now again, if you guys want light and small and goodwill hardware, great. Why claim it to be a superior way and hold others back? Notice that nobody is telling you you can't have that? Nor that you MUST spend lots of money?
They're not holding others back. And it's true that it's not superior for everything, but it certainly is for some things. Notice that nobody is telling you you can't have a supercomputer (or just a very powerful desktop, which even I would like, if I could afford it).





Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 When did you buy that, and how long have you had it? (and why haven't you pushed it higher?)

No matter WHAT OS you use, that's too little RAM and too small a drive for that speed processor (my video and audio collection alone would nearly fill that drive - even before getting to installed apps)
Well now, it all depends on what you're doing, now doesn't it? You refer to your video and audio collection. Fine. Now answer me this: if he doesn't have such a video and audio collection, then why should he have a hard disk as big as you have? It seems fine for him. And I might add that nearly all my data, (except for backups) would fit on that, including a half dozen or so virtual machines, and OS images that I don't actually need. And about the RAM to processor speed ratio: I would want a blindingly fast processor (or set of many processors) and wouldn't give a darn about my 128MB of ram, if all I wanted to with my computer was break cryptographic keys by brute force. Of course, that's probably not what he's doing with his computer, but you should get the idea that everything is application dependant, and your idea of what applications are worth-while is not universally shared.
Scarecrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 10:50 AM   #73
cjp
Donator
 
cjp's Avatar

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 And don't give me crap about price. It's far too cheap, and far too plentiful today. The applications ALONE would demand more power, even IF you got an OS to run well on whatever museum piece you are trying to claim as being "reasonable".
I care about price, and I'm sure most people do. Currently, the price where I stop thinking about price (for long-lasting products like computers) is about 25 euro. For people in developing countries it's probably a lot less. They want computers too, and you have to know they represent a far bigger market than the rich countries.

the application requirements do matter, up to a certain point. Suppose an OS could be made 10 times more efficient; if that means the difference between 10% resources for the OS or 1% resources for the OS, then I don't mind: I only need 10% faster hardware for my application. But if it's the difference between 100% for the OS and 10% for the OS, it's an entirely different story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 And as for the OS, it IS an application. As more stuff is added, it takes more power. Text editing, reading and working with zip files, file compression, defragging, visual toys, widgets/gadgets.... (and more) it was all an application at one point in time (or could have been had development gone another route). It all takes resources. As that functionality gets subsumed into the OS, the req's for the OS itself increase, while the number of additional apps you need decreases.
Defragging and widgets are OS tasks. You can't use widgets in a useful way without applications, and defragging is a system maintenance utility. Working with zip files is a bit in-between, but it isn't useful in itself. Text editing is an application, even when it's distributed with the OS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 Compare -
YouTube - Olivetti M15 running CP/M (CPM)
(btw, given your philosophy, get one of those and try to do all that stuff you do. Afterall, it's not about power, but efficiency, right? Look at it scream with the incredibly resource lite OS that's on it. </sarcasm>)
I know it's sarcasm, but let me respond to it:
Commandline environments are great. They are resource-efficient and incredibly productive for people who know how to use them. But, while GUIs are a lot more resource-hungry, they do have a lot of added value: they are a lot more intuitive for the average person. So, for the average desktop, they're worth the money.
I still have to see a 3D environment with the same amount of added value. For now, it's more like a gadget.

And about "get one of those and try to do all that stuff you do": I have a very lightweight Debian Linux system running as a server for hobby purposes. Until not too long ago, it ran on a Pentium 75 with 48MiB RAM. But of course I don't try to do everything on that computer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 Now again, if you guys want light and small and goodwill hardware, great. Why claim it to be a superior way and hold others back? Notice that nobody is telling you you can't have that? Nor that you MUST spend lots of money?
Different people want different things. It's perfectly fine to me when people who want a heavy machine with a heavy OS get what they want. But it needs to be a free choice, and I'm afraid it won't stay a free choice. There will be applications that depend on Vista or 7, because e.g. they use some system call that didn't exist yet in XP, but that could have run on cheaper hardware if the OS wasn't so hungry.

A distant friend of me made a word guessing game. It's the kind of game that could easily be text-mode, but he added all kinds of fancy 3D effects. That's perfectly fine to me, in fact I like it that way, but he used Direct3D 10. Now I have to wait until Wine starts supporting DX10, or microsoft finally releases an XP version. If I really wanted to run the game now, that would force me to use Vista or 7, and as a result force me to upgrade my hardware. While I'm sure the game itself is light enough to run on my current machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 When did you buy that, and how long have you had it? (and why haven't you pushed it higher?)

No matter WHAT OS you use, that's too little RAM and too small a drive for that speed processor (my video and audio collection alone would nearly fill that drive - even before getting to installed apps)
I bought it a long time ago (maybe about 5 years ago). It was a quite decent amount of RAM in those days, and the processor was fairly high-end. Since then, clock rates have kind of stopped growing due to physical constraints: now the growth is in having multiple cores. My processor is single-core. But RAM amounts are still increasing.

I didn't push it higher because I didn't need to. I still use the computer for the same things I bought it for, so it's still sufficient.

I am thinking of buying new hardware, because I want to run GTA IV. Do you think this system can be uprgaded to run GTA IV, or should I go for a completely new system? What are the requirements of GTA IV anyways?
cjp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 12:28 PM   #74
RisingFury
OBSP developer
 
RisingFury's Avatar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodspray View Post
 You guys are a trip. You hate M$ so much that you actively preach going backward on the hardware front. If everybody thought like you, nobody would ever upgrade (anything), we'd be extremely limited in what our hardware and software could do, and the whole industry would dry up and blow away, and in time, even replacement parts would become unobtainable.

I'm sorry, but this can't be further from the truth.


It's not development of the OS that drives the development of new, powerful hardware. It's mostly GAMING. Latest games (by that I mean latest at the time) are the ones who have to run on best hardware and if you look at the race between ATI and nVidia, you'll notice it's mostly about the high end graphic cards.


If development of new OS would drive the computing power-craze then why have the past few years, with only XP available from MS, seen a 10 fold increase in computing power? To run XP better? Come on.



The OS requirements should be as low as possible, leaving resources for the applications that run on it. That means if you have 1 GB of RAM, let 950 MB be used for applications, not 250.

Why would someone like my grandpa, who checks the news online and plays solitaire need 2 GB of RAM, where the same function could be achieved with a lighter OS running o a P3?
RisingFury is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2009, 05:00 PM   #75
Hielor
Defender of Truth

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjp View Post
 I am thinking of buying new hardware, because I want to run GTA IV. Do you think this system can be uprgaded to run GTA IV, or should I go for a completely new system? What are the requirements of GTA IV anyways?
It will need more RAM before being able to run GTA IV acceptably. At this point, however, I'd say you're better off buying a new one. You can get a pretty awesome gaming rig at this point for not much more than a few hundred dollars.

However, as I've mentioned before, if OS price is a concern for you and you don't *need* to play the game *now*, you should wait until Win7 comes out.
Hielor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Orbiter-Forum > Far Side of the Moon > Brighton Lounge

Tags
security


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 PM.

Quick Links Need Help?


About Us | Rules & Guidelines | TOS Policy | Privacy Policy

Orbiter-Forum is hosted at Orbithangar.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2017, Orbiter-Forum.com. All rights reserved.