a self-esteem punk

Also, Mac OS X has got faster on the same hardware with each successive release.

That said, it's probably because Mac OS X 10.0 was dog slow, but that's not the point. Every release of Windows has been dog slow and has got slower on the same hardware :)

From:

Oh, also: all the graphic niceties on Mac OS pretty much get offloaded to your GPU to do the dirty work, generally because when you're sat doing non-gaming/non-3D work, it's got bugger all else to do.

From:

This would pretty much be my point.

How many computer-owners actually use available GPUs for anything other than gaming?

I have an interest in 3d and do fire up Max every now and then, but even for me, the most I use the hardware for is to buy virtual coffee from a virtual starbucks in second fucking life.

Your super-powerful GPU's sitting there doing fuck all (while your super-powerful CPU plays solitaire / idles), so what do we make it do? UI transition effects. Wizzy icons. How glorious we are.

From:

Well, yes…

But, there's no reason why an immensely powerful system shouldn't be pleasant to use: I'm perfectly happy with screensaver effects, scalable UIs, control-scroll zooming, GPU-offloaded window compositing and photo-realistic icons (not to mention the more directly useful things like Exposé) if when I run ‘./configure && make’ (and I do that a lot, but other people do plenty that's CPU intensive, albeit not constantly—and our systems are optimised for bursted intensive use: just look at how hot everything gets when you leave them ripping your DVD collection for a few days) those effects) it's not slowed down by any of those things: and my GPU is cheap (Intel GMA950 integrated thing), and still perfectly capable.

So, yeah… better CPUs and GPUs? I get a nicer UI and I can do ‘traditional boring computer use’ more effectively. Win-win.

I suppose you're right in part, though: whatever we come up with, we'll find some way to utilise it. We have better GPUs, so we use the graphics processor to make graphical user interfaces nicer to use (perish the thought). We have better CPUs that are having to do less in the way of superficial processing and so are able to do more computationally-intensive processing. Certainly, Word and Excel aren't computationally intensive (well, not normally), but the stuff that they do get through can now be done faster, and using less power, and that can only be a good thing.

From:

Not sure that's actually true. On (my) (semi) modern x86 hardware, XP is noticeably faster than NT4. Tho' of course NT4 can actually run acceptably on hardware that XP couldn't even try.

From:

Run NT4 on the same semi-modern hardware that you currently run XP on. If it'll run (driver issues, etc), I'll place money on it being quicker than XP.

From:

But I have; that's the point. 'Course I have it running the Classic theme for Explorer. XP boots quicker and starts programs quicker.

From:

I stand corrected on that, then; it doesn't tally with my experience—but then that doesn't indicate much—but I am very surprised.

From:

Semi-modern in this case: 800Mhz processor, 512M main memory. This box just sits in the corner running the scanner, the DVD burner, the printer and large uploads and downloads.

I'd prefer to be running NT 3.51 (the only NT before 2003 to be halfway sensibly architected) but there's no chance of getting drivers for anything these days.

From:

Not a fecking hope. Unless by "hardware" you mean a clockwork processor and a squigabyte of RAM. XP may or may not "run" faster than W2K or NT4, but it _certainly_ needs a far bigger playpen to do it in. If you try to run XP on a "typical" memory rigout of 2001, then you're in for a good thrashing.

From:

Wow, you developers know better than me what I can see with my own eyes!

From:

How much memory do you have in your comparison system?
How much memory did you have in 2000?
I've got 2GB in the box in front of me. 6 years ago "2GB" wasn't quite Gibson-territory any more, but it was more than we got to put in the desktops.

I note also that you haven't even _run_ a comparison test. You've simply observed "System c. 2007 runs better than System c. 2000" (which might even be true) and then extrapolated this to "XP is faster than NT4", which is the most errant bollocks.

From:

I don't know why you want to convince me of anything here, do you have some ego tied up in which OS is "faster"? Or do you just hate MS so much for whatever reason that you can't admit that they might be able to learn from their mistakes?

FWIW I have run both operating systems on the same hardware, and for my usage, XP is faster. So that's what I use. Sorry if this offends you in some way. My computers are tools for me to accomplish goals, not fetish objects. Get a life.

From:

No matter how much you troll it, I don't think you can spin "XP vs. NT" into "Linux vs. M$oft".

I'm merely pointing out the logical fallacy in extrapolating from your observation to your conclusion.

From:

As I say above, and this is clearly quite complicated, so I will try to go slowly, I compared on the same PC. The actual, same machine. I don't care about operating systems, no-one who isn't a pathologically boring nerd does, I care about getting my stuff done. On my PC, for my workload, I choose what works for me.

I didn't mention Linux at all, BTW. But you clearly cannot even think about operating systems beyond that tired and pointless debate. Grow up!

From:

glitteringlynx.livejournal.com

I dunno that you could've been that introspective if you'd had a pint. :) I agree completely.

From:

squishymoo.livejournal.com

dear deathboy.
i think i love you.

from rosie.

From:

There is a myth among developers (who we all know are sooooo special, because it takes actual talent to make fucking web pages) that processor time is cheaper than developer time, so efficiency doesn't matter anymore. But as you say, you've got to have something to do with all that power, and no-one can think of anything. So the developers who actually know what they're doing have now automated everything that anyone can think of to so, and the rest will have to go back to flipping burgers...

From:

hirez.livejournal.com

Hm. So I think what's happened is that the tools have got better, which lowers the barrier to entry for many of the geek trades. Thus you get a set of people in the door who wouldn't have been there (say) five/ten years before.

This is both good and bad. Most of them are basically rubbish and can make the tools work well enough to foot the Solitaire-players out there, because they think it's all magic anyway. A few turn out to be very good and give the previous generation a kick up the arse because they ask hard questions like 'What's this makefile-vi-compiler shit? It's rubbish'. Most of the previous generation will go 'That's the way it is. I had to do it the hard way and I don't see why you shouldn't, etc.' Some will go 'Hm. Good point. Let's make it better.'

IIRC, it's been accepted wisdom for A While that you couldn't hand-craft machine code better than a good compiler and you were better off working further up the stack on, say, making better abstractions so that coders no longer have to cock about with registers and word-length. Unless they're hacking on space-probes in orbit around distant planets.

Anyway. Computers are actually rubbish. The hardware's cack, the OSes are worse, they're all entirely unfuckingreliable because New Features dreamed up by crackmonkeys at typewriters are more important than making existing stuff work and because most coders are doing that job because there are no longer large offices to employ them as clerks and because they're too dull to burn out like the good ones.

The only good computers are the ones you don't know you're using. Everything else is fucking awful and we should be collectively slightly ashamed about that.

On the other hand, bollocks to it. I am in work because computers are shit and the users are dim.

From:

m0rbid-princess.livejournal.com

On the other hand, bollocks to it. I am in work because computers are shit and the users are dim.

Same here - I have a vested interest in computers remaining rather unreliable and used by 90% morons... The day computers can be looked after on an industrial scale by their own users is the day I am out of a job :)

From:

Any of my team trot out that line (‘processor time is cheaper, so efficiency doesn't matter’) and I have them in front of a firing squad before dawn.

From:

I work on a high-volume OLTP system. Our workload in transactions/sec doubles every 12 months. Moore's Law doubles our power every 18 months. We are very, very interested in efficiency, as you can imagine.

From:

I work on a high-volume OLTP system.
You answer phones in a call-centre?

From:

If you equate "developer" with "web monkey" like that, there's a long queue of developers wanting to introduce you to a hot clueiron.

From:

There're certainly no shortage of developers who vastly over-estimate both their own talent, and the talent required to do their jobs.

From:

To quote your sarcastically litotic comment, "because it takes actual talent to make web pages".
Of course it doesn't take talent to make mere web pages. That's the _point_ of the web: accessible publishing for anyone and everyone, without needing talent or huge resources beforehand. Long may it so continue, even if it does mostly lead to, "My cat Mittens' Homepage".

Nor, before I'm lynched by the geek chorus, does this mean that some web designers don't have talent, or don't even sometimes use it to produce web pages.

Your rhetorical point though was clearly to belittle "developers" whilst simultaneously crowing about your own prowess in high-volume OLTP. Well lets all stop for a trouser-break while we get over that little one. You work on the modern equivalent of COBOL, churning out gasbills and ATM receipts. That must need a really shit-hot pair of sunglasses.

From:

'gonna have to make you pair kiss soon, you know.

From:

Wow, I seem to have really touched a nerve!

What's the matter, your "l33t" HTML "sK1Lz" not cutting it anymore?

From:

Room! You pair! Get! One!

From:

hughe.livejournal.com

maybe someone can make a decent reverb vst then.

From:

Waves RVerb is pretty decent, but likes its processor cycles.

From:

hughe.livejournal.com

yeh, but i can't get the waves plugins to work with FX-Teleport (http://www.fx-max.com/fxt/)

(deleted comment)

From:

Just as soon as I finish the things that require me to be sober today, that is very much on the agenda.

From:

megashrike.livejournal.com

If I ever have the poor luck to be using a Windows machine personally I'll immediately strip off all the fancy dancy look at me graphical shit. It irritates me. And I've never been bothered by getting the fastest machine, or the fanciest hardware, or the biggest hard drive, I have no need for anything that runs a million terraflops a nanosecond or gives me a bigger ePenis. Well, maybe the bigger ePenis would be good, I could use it in Second Life to bludgeon people across the fake globe.

From:

angryangeltoo.livejournal.com

It's a bit "Angels on the head of a pin" though.

From:

porgymcnasty.livejournal.com

Well look what they did with the internet; Porn and Wikipedia.

We think we are more intelligent than we are, because Wikipedia and its unverified information is but a click away. You can download entire discographies which you will never listen to.

From: