>had less than 10% of the hardware of modern systems
>had at least 90% of the capabilities for normal users
What went wrong, /g/? What made people want a desktop to be as visually intensive as a light videogame? How did we get to the point where one of the most intensive parts of using a computer is browsing files in an animated window?
>>53675787
Where is this picture from? Looks like a film still, any clues?
>>53675787
It's the extra 10% that's the expensive part.
A $1000 single server will get ~95% uptime.
A $6000 3 node cluster will get you 99% uptime
A $20000 5 node cluster across 2 DC's will get you 99.99% uptime.
That last little bit is the expensive part.
Anyone remember watching Children of Men, and there's that scene where Michael Cain's character starts dancing to that fucking awful "music"? Remember the fear you felt as you knew this would actually be something people listen to?
That was the same reaction I had when I saw OSX when it first came out.
I switched to Linux when Vista came about and carried on down that path, and now even KDE and GNOME are following that lead.
I'm getting so old...
>>53675787
>10%
>90%
>What made people want a desktop to be as visually intensive as a light videogame?
those are pretty extraordinary claims to be making like that, anon. i'm sure you can back those up without saying 'people are doing computers wrong'
hell, in this glorious future of ours you can indeed find an old 10% machine on craig's list or ebay or [used goods marketplace] to use just the way you want. or you can build a machine yourself and then install whatever you want to get that 90%.
all without needing to get mad at people that you've convinced yourself exist!
It's true. It seems as though using Gnome 3 would be more taxing on my computer than playing a last gen videogame. I don't get why.
>I Know Computers because i'm smart
>reeeeee how do i use this what is happening i don't want to learn i don't understand any of this reeeeee
>>53676112
What would the learning OP must do exactly? Learn to buy a whole new PC just to browse the internet? Learn to use and defend bad software like a good goy?
>>53676159
>buy a whole new PC just to browse the internet?
i think the salesman must have seen you coming, anon
>>53675787
>you'll never be as retarded as op
feels good to be a functioning human being
>>53676184
OK, so the OP doesn't have to learn to buy a new PC. So what does he need to learn?
Was I on the right track? Does he need to learn to buy a new PC just to manage files the same way he did with Win95, only now Win10 demands multiple GB of RAM to do it rather than a handful of MB?
Teach us, teacher.
>>53676214
you, uh
you don't need to buy a whole new PC, you can download RAM these days
>>53676214
>implying that he couldn't find a 200 shittop that can run a modern desktop
Hell, he could even get a Raspberry Pi to browse the internet with a light weight Linux distro.
>>53675787
Go live in a cave you fucking luddite.
>>53676239
>Hell, he could even get a Raspberry Pi to browse the internet with a light weight Linux distro.
The Pi2 stutters as soon as you open Firefox, and it takes about 10 seconds to load.
Yes, you could use Midori or Dillo, but that would just fuck up things like javascripts that pollute every page these days.
Really the tragedy of the Pi and Pi2 is that they're NOT functional as a daily driver, despite them having better specs than what was a normal desktop not really that long ago.
>>53676239
>run a modern desktop
I would love to see a single core 1.6GHZ, 512MB RAM machine run GNOME 3 or KDE4.
I'd love to see it run MATE or XFCE, since I've got MATE on a laptop with 1.8GHZ dual core, and 2GB of RAM and this is currently using 750MB of RAM.
>>53676269
Advancement for the sake of it is pointless and benefits only those that force it.
>>53676328
>Advancement for the sake of it
Yeah, like I said, go live in a fucking cave you retarded Luddite. It has all the advanced features a human being could ever need.
'i hate new stuff'
'don't use it then'
'noo everyone else must be miserable too'
>>53676343
Does it make you sad that people use computers 5 years old?
>>53676388
If your 5 year old or 25 year old computer does everything you need it to, bully for you. Other people have different needs.
>>53676441
>Other people have different needs.
90% of computer users have needs even less than mine. They still need to buy new computers every few years. They're not going to know you can just slap Xubuntu on it and do the same shit they always did.
It wasn't even that long ago that what Ubuntu was selling itself on was "Hey, put us on that old computer/laptop! It will work much better!" Now Ubuntu and the other major distributions (which run Untiy, GNOME and KDE as a headline DE) are exactly the same as what they were trying to distance themselves from.
>>53676493
Apparently you're the authority on what others' needs are.
>>53675920
You don't like Aphex Twin? That song was mixed specifically for that scene. The actual song is way better. People do listen to noise and screamsinging though.
Then again, if you looked at what was clearly a comedic moment in disgust, then music might not be for you.
>>53675787
>costs less than 10% of a mattress, box spring, bed frame
>90% of people can still sleep on it
What went wrong, /g/?
OP is obviously a butthurt Amiga fanboy who can't stand the fact that the computing world moved on from where his dead platform stopped.
>>53675787
You're so close to, yet so far from, a good argument.
The thing about the Amiga in 2016 isn't that it's good enough for most users, it's that it was 10 years ahead of it's time in 1985. Hardware did have to move on (and so far as I've read, the Amiga was a bit of a dead-end in terms of unique hardware in the long term) and most of this progress wasn't "bad".
The second problem is bloat on the modern web. I don't want every site to be black times-new-roman on a white background, but the fact that reasonably powerful (though outdated) systems choke to death on the modern web is a disgrace. I'm no luddite, I'm not going to fight HD video on the web just because it won't run on my Powerbook Duo, but it most certainly does bother me that hardware that could run a low res youtube video just fine in 2009 now dies on the same video, or that multi-tabbed browsing can be hell even on a machine from [THE CURRENT YEAR].
(There are also problems with bloat in software, but the web is the most illustrative and inexcusable example.)
>>53676845
yo dog, I can browse the web just fine on a device that fits in my pocket. you're doing something wrong
posted from my phone with a 1.5ghz ARM processor
>>53676876
>I can browse the web just fine
Feh. I'll bet it doesn't have CSS 'improvements' for your Mongolian cheesemaking boards, a menagerie of download helpers, and image viewer 'helpers' for your favourite anime scanlation emporiums. Also why are browsers so bloated these days
>>53675854
That's not film, it's most certainly video.
Early digital or very late analogue video.
From the looks of it's resolution, it's a 1:1 frame capture from D1.
>>53675787
Extremely tight software/hardware integration. Zero portability. Looks ugly as shit. No security model, at all. The only thing it really had going for it was pre-emptive multitasking in some miniscule amount of RAM.
>>53676943
...which means that this is the correct aspect ratio (sd video typically has a non-square pixel aspect ratio).
>>53675879
Good point but OP's talking about personal use
>>53676845
Amiga was ahead of its time, yes, but Commodore failed to see it just like everybody else. Had they survived another hardware iteration, or released the 68030 machine in 1987 like they had planned, maybe it would have been the de facto platform for home-based video editing and possibly even brought about a youtube-like environment 5 or 10 years earlier... but the jew and the paki weren't interested in sustainability, just looting the meager market share carved out by guys editing wedding videos.
>>53677102
Home/recreational users were a miniscule market share in the mid-80s compared to businesses.
Another issue is that a lot of the best computers from the past were made with specific hardware in mind.
I'd like a return to that, and various dedicated chips.
MIDI soundchips again when, senpai?
Gamers see the benefit from faster CPUs and GPUs.
Video hobbyists benefit from fast internet, fast cpus, and large hard drives.
Most every web user needs a faster more capable computer (could be a phone, tablet, desktop, etc..) because developers keep pushing out more and more engaging advertisements that pays for the "free" web. Unfortunately this means that a computer that provided a good experience when surfing the web five years ago, will have difficulty keeping up with all the latest flash and html5 and video streams that pollute many web pages. Even phones seem to have built-in obsolescence because they keep updating apps until they run out of space or have so many processes that they no longer perform adequately.
Bloat is everywhere. Millions of lines of code running the my automobile's information and entertainment system that needs access to everything in my iPhone that has access to most every digital aspect of my life. If don't keep upgrading my technology then I can't keep up with everyone keeping a job, shopping, or socializing. If I "go dark" then society paints me as eccentric and a potential terrorist.
Why is this board full of autists constantly complaining about "muh RAM?" How old are people here, is everyone a grandpa or something? It's the same threads everyday, whining about kids and their new-fangled GUI desktops and RAM-hogging bells and whistles.
>>53677017
The correct resolution should be 648x486
(yes, NTSC is 486 lines, 480 is a compromise to make encoding easier)
>>53677775
ram is the easiest hill to die on. the hip cool thing is to have >16Gb but complain when anything uses it because efficiency
another cool thing is to ham-fistedly tear guts out of your operating system and then complain that your os is buggy trash
>>53676930
Asian scanlation imporiums is now a meme
>>53677493
Yeah. I blame the high demand and thus shortage of classically trained computer scientists and engineers. Now it's basically get 15 cheap programmers to knock something out and only worry about performance if the customer complains.
>>53677908
>ram is the easiest hill to die on. the hip cool thing is to have >16Gb but complain when anything uses it because efficiency
I do stock trading and use computers for order management and charting. Generally keep these machines running continuously, rebooting one or twice a week. I keep these machines pretty locked down, even hiding web browsers, because system stability and performance are important and unfortunately some of the proprietary software I run requires real windows hardware and software (the vendor tells me they will support virtual "very soon").
One of the reasons I don't allow Firefox or Adobe-anything on these computers is memory leaks. How can Firefox consume 5Gb just looking at a few news websites? Why do flash plug-ins always break? I don't have time to do my own software development now, but over twenty years ago we had AIX and Solaris computers than ran for months without problems.
>>53678133
I think the issue is that the variation is far less. It used to be that a business machine would ONLY do business. Granted there was probably a few games on floppies with a boss key, but largely they were what they were.
>>53677809
I cropped it as it had six black lines, and to factor for the extra on the sides (720 is ~16 pixels bigger than image area) before scaling.
>>53678133
i think you have more of a specialist need than someone neet-grumping because something's 'using more ram than it needs to'
>>53675787
It's because websites don't run natively.
If everything ran in C++ as a native application it would all be insanely snappy, fast, and the most vulnerable pieces of shit you have ever seen in your life.
>>53678133
I blame the internet for the lowering of software quality.
Software is so easy to update.
In the past, it was either read-only hardware, or mass produced offline media. Software was tested until it bled, because if a massive flaw was found, you'd have to recall every copy and then produce new ones. There was serious business sense to get it right. Now? "eh, just post a patch".
>>53676943
It's from a documentary featuring Amiga 4000 as a NASA ground control computer.
https://youtu.be/w1Ct3trjD-o?t=328
>>53675787
The Amiga had three custom chips when it first appeared and could pump out 4096 colors when CGA was considered the best PC video available, stereo sound out of the box, a Motorola 68000 processor and some other goodies as well. Frankly, it is what the IBM PC could have been at the time had IBM actually considered the potential for the market (yes, the 68k family would have been the chip in our machines today instead of Intel's crappy x86).
Design compromises, hurried production, typical corporate bullshit, and of course Commodore's mismanagement lead to its downfall. This isn't new.
The problem with tech is that the best and most useful doesn't cut it; marketing and budgets and mass rollouts cut it. I've seen great tech ideas over the last 30 years get killed one by one, each one bursting onto the scene with something that had some merit, only to be copied and eventually driven into a buyout or (more typically) bankruptcy.
>>53679032
The success of MS and Intel is so many flukes upon flukes that it's really amazing.
Like the luck that Kiddall was in the air when IBM called.
>>53675787
Lots of things went wrong, but it come down to "respect".
I think the lack of computer train classes and this notion that everyone can just use one because they "just work".
It is the same reason we deal with so many deadly car wrecks, we stopped treating them like powerful metal tools harnessing explosions and started think this is a great gift for an irresponsible teenage.
>>53675920
28, but born old.
>>53676032
I for one agree with OP's general premise.
My fancy new computer (~2011) broke and I got stuck with my Dad's old one (~2001) which I had been messing with for fun. Thing was that when I got my new replacement I found it was slower and less useful for 95% of my typical stuff despite being orders of magnitude more powerful. So much so that I basically kept the new one only for 3D editing (which is not vital to me) and the modern mandatory software (namely Microsoft Office that supports .docx). And do everything else on my optimized old one. I even write most of my papers in Vim then transfer it to the other one to reformat into .docx so I can email it to regular folks.
10 years and only thing to show which was actually better was more memory and a dedicated graphic card, things which are largely unnecessary for most things.
>>53676228
Yes, but you don't actually download RAM. What you do is you download a integrated compression software that compresses all your files when not used to save RAM. This is not always helpful as it basically off loads the work to the CPU which now has to compress and decompress a lot more data. But if you really need that space it can be worth it for some things.
>>53676699
You want a live grass bed, not a dead one. It is more springy and cleans the air around you as helping you to breath better as you sleep (unless you got grass allergies).
>and the tall ones help you hide from predators.
>>53679548
hannibal lecter was a computer authority?
>>53675787
>>had at least 90% of the capabilities for normal users
No.
Do you ever find yourself having to pick and choose which applications you can run at the same time because of your system's limited RAM?
Or being forced to delete/compress data and software you still frequently use because even though your 160 MB disk is double the stock capacity, it's /still/ not enough?
Have you ever had to close an SSH or Serial console session because your operating system's shitty cooperative multitasking slows your screensaver to a crawl every time top refreshes?
How about the last time you had to hard reset your system because of a misbehaving program?
Or you opened a CSV file in Excel that's just a little too big?
Do you find yourself having to rebuild your desktop file every five fucking restarts to keep your system from looking like an NES game with a dusty cartridge?
Or downloading third-party shareware extensions for basic things such as non-autistic task switching or window hiding?
Or having to attach a second fucking monitor to your system because 640x480 is a pathetic resolution for multitasking?
Those are some lot of the things I've had to deal with doing things oldschool in 2016, and that's with a piece of $6,000 flagship hardware leaps and bounds above the shitty 8-bits, XT clones and monochrome compact Macs the majority of the population was using. I love old hardware as much as the next guy, but there's no reason to look at it through such rose-tinted glasses.
>>53676930
As I understand it is lack of rigor, new high level software languages and bloatware.
Well people started adding new functions faster then standards could be made. Just look at how gif and webm got mashed up in here. Then new standards tried to include everything which reduced the effectiveness as it made it too big to be useful.
The World Wide Web Consortium is trying to keep things working nicely (they got a lot about this), and has worked hard to address these issues, but people making websites rarely follow their guidelines as coding a proper website takes work.
In addition to new functions we got whole new language developing to address these issues. I am not against a new good standard language to reboot things (HTML5, looks like our best hope right now) , but these competing ones splinter development and lead to compatibility issues.
Ad to it bots, ads, analytic tracking and countless other things which the user doesn't need clogging the "tubes" and taking other resources.
Then greedy web browsers that try to do everything at once to please people, when that is not enough here come the plugins to take more resources.
And it is not like you can just turn many of these things off as they get rolled into support systems you have to use.
Seriously see how fast and far you get with w3m or if you want to get real deep try lynx.
>>53677971
That's a big part of it. My sample site for a class project loaded 20% faster and cut memory load in half because I took the time to follow the good coding guidelines, it was a lot of work but worth it to see the shock on everyone's faces as they thought I had broken some ancient law of the universe. (Not something I would do for a living.)
>>53678133
"ran for months without problems" with less ram?
How far have we have fallen?
Clearly this pit is even deeper then I had thought.
>>53678917
wow, this is neat
wounder what we could do with the growing open hardware stuff we are getting now
>>53680298
>"ran for months without problems" with less ram?
Solaris and AIX were built for that kind of stability and uptime longevity, Windows is not.
>>53680298
>Well people started adding new functions faster then standards could be made. Just look at how gif and webm got mashed up in here. Then new standards tried to include everything which reduced the effectiveness as it made it too big to be useful.
is this why firefox seems so fucking slow? listen to pandora or have youtube video playing... open new tab and everything stops for 30-90 seconds... don't have issue with chrome. win10, 2.4ghz i7 3630, 6GB ram
>>53675879
>It's the extra 10% that's the expensive part.
>
>A $1000 single server will get ~95% uptime.
>A $6000 3 node cluster will get you 99% uptime
>A $20000 5 node cluster across 2 DC's will get you 99.99% uptime.
>Not buying 2x 3 node clusters and gluing them together to get 198% uptime at 2/3 price of a 5 node
>>53680431
To be honest I don't know. I rarely have Firefox slow down on me, but I do have it hog my primary CPU core.
I have come to the unconfirmed conclusion it is mostly bots, ads, analytic tracking and countless other things taking my processing power as it seems to spike with changes in my No-Script settings and update checkers, especially with YouTube and stuff.
Makes me wounder if they aren't just outsourcing their CPU loads to me.
>>53680020
Actually, Professor X is right. In 1977 there wasn't much of a home computer market, strangely enough!
Threads like this make me want to try set up a Raspberry Pi (the first one with 512 RAM, a pi2 is cheating also I don't have one) to act as a desktop and see what it can really do comfortably.
Get Openbox and a bunch of terminal programs and see what I can do.
mocp for music, mc for file management, see what happens.
I have a old external HDD laying around so the read/write limit of the card wont be an issue when I put the OS on that.
>>53677174
Those were the dark ages. The reason x86 won out is it's flexibility above all else.
>>53680912
I would have said the economy of scale.
>>53680912
As a hobbyist rather than someone who works with computers I consider the sheer number of various different and interesting (if mostly shite) computers to be great.
I kind of miss that mess in hindsight, even if it was bad at the time. I just wish we could have had a middle ground between "everything is the same" and "sorry this ubiquitous technology doesn't work here because the 1s and 0s are wrong (fuck floppy formats)".
>>53680842
A Pi is built from the ground up to be weak and shitty. If you want to experience this "90%" functionality OP is talking about you should go for something older and actually built to be functional in the first place.
>>53680842
Get a shitty smartphone with 512 MB RAM and you've got a pretty close approximation. I have one (Xperia Tipo). It is ass for pretty much anything but the bare essentials, even for a smartphone. But it can still play music while looking at websites. That's how far we've come.
If you really want a challenge try finding a 486 with 8 MB RAM at Goodwill and see how far you can get before you go insane.
>>53680685
It wasn't strange. Computers at the time were absurdly expensive and the only ones who could justify the cost were businesses.
>>53679104
Microsoft, yes. Not so much IBM.
IBM was always going to succeed because it was fucking IBM. Hence why an average system built from off the shelf parts went and fucked everyone else.
>>53680202
>SSH
>Normal users
>>53675854
http://obligement.free.fr/articles_traduction/amiganasa_en.php
>>53681968
>>53681431
https://kmandla.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/one-week-at-100mhz-i-found-a-desk/
Yeah, nah, I'll today today over the past any day.
I did love this goddamned Tandy, though.
>>53682235
Anon, are you having a stroke?
>>53682128
Pretty much every computer user at that time accessed some sort of remote system, whether it was a BBS or their mainframe at work/school.
>>53682723
I'm only 30.
>>53682178
Why did you quote me? I'm shitting on the idea that a Pi is anywhere close to what it's like to use old hardware, not the hardware itself.
>>53682723
Of my dongus? Of course.
>>53680202
90% of those are "not enough RAM."
it was kind of retarded being barely able to open Word and Excel at the same time though, and have the tiniest of files open in either though (and god help you if you had any extensions open, but this was with 4MB RAM running System 7.5 -- and the OS took like 1.3MB of the stuff)
and you'd reboot the machine every once in a while, not just for stability but so some RAM would be freed because it wasn't managed properly
also, what the hell is up with your machine that you're rebuilding the desktop constantly (and if you're going to run System 7, why don't you have 7.5 installed (7.6 if you're on PPC, otherwise more bloat if on 68k), there's no reason to run 7.0/7.1 over 7.5 (which feels quite nearly modern and fixes some issues from earlier 7 releases) or System 6 (which is light and fast as fuck, if a bit barebones))
shit, I think I've rebuilt the desktop like, 4 times, ever
Running out of space was some shit though (mostly due to programs rather than normal files), but then Zip disks were a thing, and all was good (that's almost a lie, Zip was slow and kind of unreliable, but I generally carried like a gig of Zip disks around with me all the time for years).
I can live at such small screen resolutions just fine (even today), but I'd rather have more than less of course.
oh, and multitasking was an afterthought on pre-X Mac OS, even Windows 95 did that shit better
>>53681968
With Windows 3.1, you can semi-enjoy using that machine, although you'd probably want to SSH into another machine that connects to the open internet (fuck, even a raspi) if you wanted to use the net at all.
>>53680842
You can do it. It won't be nice at all, but you can more than do it.
if you use all console programs and tmux, you can do it easily and comfortably, it's just a boar under X and that only really gets too tolerable on a Pi 2
>>53683693
>90% of those are "not enough RAM"
It's more software design and additional storage limitations beyond just a matter of RAM capacity (which is still a huge issue that you really can't simply wave away like that, dumping hundreds on an extra 32 MB of RAM wasn't really a feasible decision for every user)
>why don't you have 7.5 installed
My box shipped with 7.0.1, and I actually haven't ran into a lot of issues with it, at least not enough to motivate me to break out some floppy disks and fight with it.
>Running out of space was some shit though (mostly due to programs rather than normal files), but then Zip disks were a thing,
I attach an external 710 MB drive to mine, offsets a lot of the struggle. I'd use Zip disks too it I could find my SCSI Zip drive, for now I settle with 40 MB SyQuest cartridges.
At least with beige Macs, high-end PCs and other flagship gear you can attach a ton of SCSI peripherals, for the average user stuck on ATA disks you'd be in a world of hurt short of totally upgrading your disks every so often.
>I can live at such small screen resolutions just fine (even today), but I'd rather have more than less of course.
It's a real bitch when you're trying to reference a spreadsheet or PDF and use another program at the same time, it's much more pronounced on Macs though since there's no quick keyboard shortcut to switch applications.
>oh, and multitasking was an afterthought on pre-X Mac OS, even Windows 95 did that shit better
There's a lot of stuff I love about this platform, cooperative multitasking is not one of them.
>>53684904
>It's a real bitch when you're trying to reference a spreadsheet or PDF and use another program at the same time
Even with multitasking that's usually the case.
Fuck whoever decided to do away with printed manuals for complex software.
>>53675787
>How did we get to the point where one of the most intensive parts of using a computer is browsing files in an animated window?
Not a damn clue. My current Debian install is using 1070 MB of RAM right now with 18 tabs of 4chan and a Youtube video open in Iceweasel, the Tor browser bundle running, and Icedove running. Yet there are people who insist that they need more than 2 GB of RAM in a laptop that they aren't using for games or any other particularly hardware intensive task.
Hardware became better, but people didn't need it to be better. So businessmen came up with the brilliant idea of making people want it to be better by turning the computer into a fucking video game.
>>53676112
>hurr u don wanna learn
Most linux/windows users who do learn to use something like a mac end up hating it because it sucks and can't be changed easily. It's less time wasting to just install a better OS.
>>53684904
>dumping hundreds on an extra 32 MB of RAM wasn't really a feasible decision for every user
true
shit, I wished I had that much RAM, especially since I ran 7.5
Man, Apple is still kind of stingy about RAM, which is retarded these days (you can get like 16GB RAM for about $60 if you make no attempt to get a deal on it).
>>53676722
The Amiga's failure, at least early on, was kind of depressing. It was a low-cost GUI-based machine that ran circles around the competition and probably should have made more of a dent. Better underlying OS than anything on other home computers for nearly a decade.
Later on, its failure made sense, the competition caught up, the Amiga had a small handful of features that were a bit better but it didn't have the software support or interoperability that a DOS-based PC did, and by the early 90s, there was nearly no reason to have an Amiga unless you did computer video production.
>>53680485
>>53675879
math for full failover + watchdog:
Assuming using the $1000 servers:
failover 2 servers: 95% + .95*5% = 99.75%
failover 3 servers: 95% + .95*5% + .95*0.25* = 99.9875%
failover 4 servers: 95% + .95*5% + .95*0.25% + .95*0.0125% = 99.999375
ohshit businessplan brb
>>53676159
what are you even on about? Amiga is a wonderful part of computing history, you learn about it just for the joy of learning about computing history.
OP isn't telling you to go out and buy a new computer you consumer whore.
>>53690723
A real tragedy of modern internet is that more of it isn't usable like that.
I hate HATE how many sites wont even load until you allow a branch of scripts. Why the fuck do I need to allow 6 different javascripts (most of which are related to totally unrelated things, from what I can gather) to read some pure text.
How did we get to the point where pure text is hard to render?
>>53691234
>How did we get to the point where pure text is hard to render?
It's because of hipsters who don't understand that people care more about the words on the page than their faggy "design". Even fucking Wordpress degrades semi cleanly to text mode by default.
>>53676328
>Really the tragedy of the Pi and Pi2 is that they're NOT functional as a daily driver, despite them having better specs than what was a normal desktop not really that long ago.
Coders are beyond fucking lazy, and it's dragging the entire software stack down.
>>53677971
>Yeah. I blame the high demand and thus shortage of classically trained computer scientists and engineers. Now it's basically get 15 cheap programmers to knock something out and only worry about performance if the customer complains.
1,000x this.
>>53680202
Preemptive multitasking, protected memory, multi core processors, lots of RAM, and SSDs have led to dramatic improvements in usability today over what was around in the 90's.
But 3 of those things are Moore's Law, and the other 2 were actually understood and implemented by the 70's. (Early personal computers didn't implement PM/PMT for lack of RAM and proper hardware PMMUs. By the time there was enough RAM and common PMMUs the old APIs and software standards acted like a boat anchor preventing implementation.)
More to the point: NONE of those things are responsible for the bloat. Programmers have been way too fucking lazy, and it's dragging down systems that should scream.
Case in point: when I bought my current MBP spaces (mission control) were smooth as fuck. Jumping to a space felt like silk. 5 years later spaces are jerky on El Capitan. What the holy fuck? My graphics subsystem didn't die. My CPU didn't slow down. I've got a bigger SSD and more RAM. WTF did that happen?
Somewhere buried in the OS code that a Pajeet didn't care about replaced code that a real engineer did care about. And this is fucking Apple. The problem is far worse at Microsoft and many application vendors. It's getting ridiculous.
>>53680912
>The reason x86 won out is it's flexibility above all else.
No, the reason it won out is because IBM choose it. IBM was the instant standard in microcomputers the day they released their first PC. Once the BIOS was reverse engineered and Microsoft started selling MS-DOS to cloners, everything was cast in stone.
Too early for RISC to have been a choice, but it would have been nice to have 68K rather than x86.
>>53682723
Has anyone ever been so far as to today today over the past love this goddamned any day?
Because people (including you), want to view things in high quality, you fucking dumbass luddite.
Jesus Christ this thread.
Advancement for the sake of advancement? They're fucking luxury goods. Advancement is everything.
>>53693478
>Jesus Christ this thread.
A huge amount of this thread is calling out legitimate bloat or attacking OP, not "who needs HD video or 3D graphics!?"
>>53684904
>There's a lot of stuff I love about this platform, cooperative multitasking is not one of them.
And to think Lisa had both PMT and PM.
I recall putting a shit ton of work into one project to develop code that
* Ran fast (long running task).
* Yet yielded enough time back to Mac OS, at even enough intervals, that the user could do something else.
Ah WaitNextEvent...the good old days.
I'm with you op.
I don't know why Android and Microsoft are trying to copy crapple by updating the interface so often.
Just fix bugs...stop making it look different
I'm just glad I can make windows 7 look like windows 2000.
Oh but really, dumb people want flashy things for the most part.
