"Demystification" is just as important as "Abstraction" in "Computer Science" (Was: Know any Fortran
30 Oct
2015
30 Oct
'15
4:22 p.m.
Our industry is saturated with such refusal to understand. Consider
Microsoft's "throw hardware at the software problems" argument that if
their software runs too slowly on your computer, then that shows that YOUR
COMPUTER (and you) is inadequate, and you should get a faster computer.
Seems perfectly logical to me. Microsoft blames your hardware for their
bloatware running slowly. You update the hardware and it solves the problem.
Then they can ratchet up the bloat level again and convince you that the
reason the new version runs so slowly is because the hardware you are running
it on is no longer up to it. They were right the first time, so why wouldn't
they be right this time? GOTO 10.
Writing efficient software to get the best out of the hardware would sure spoil
that business model.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
30 Oct
30 Oct
5:18 p.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Peter
Coghlan
Sent: 30 October 2015 23:22
To: cctalk at classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: "Demystification" is just as important as "Abstraction"
in
"Computer Science" (Was: Know any Fortran
Seems perfectly logical to me. Microsoft blames your hardware for their
bloatware running slowly. You update the hardware and it solves the
problem.
Not for a long time. Windows/7 was faster than Vista and XP. Never tried 8.0
or 8.1 in anger but they generally needed the same hardware as 7.
Windows/10 might use more disk space but it runs more quickly than 7.
Our industry is saturated with such refusal to understand. Consider
Microsoft's "throw hardware at the software problems" argument that if
their software runs too slowly on your computer, then that shows that
YOUR COMPUTER (and you) is inadequate, and you should get a faster
computer.
Then they can ratchet up the bloat level again and
convince you that the
reason the new version runs so slowly is because the hardware you are
running it on is no longer up to it. They were right the first time, so
why
wouldn't they be right this time? GOTO 10.
It no longer works because new machines are not orders of magnitude faster.
Writing efficient software to get the best out of the
hardware would sure
spoil that business model.
Why? Hardware hasn't really got much faster over the last four years. More
CPU's have been added. In hardware terms anything that runs XP well will run
anything later.
There might be missing drivers, but in general its not a spec problem.
Regards,
Peter Coghlan.
Dave Wade
G4UGM
6:12 p.m.
On 10/30/2015 05:18 PM, Dave Wade wrote:
Why? Hardware hasn't really got much faster over
the last four years. More
CPU's have been added. In hardware terms anything that runs XP well will run
anything later.
There might be missing drivers, but in general its not a spec problem.
I run XP on non-SSE2 hardware, but I suspect W10 demands it--certainly,
many browsers do.
--Chuck
31 Oct
31 Oct
4 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck
Guzis
Sent: 31 October 2015 01:12
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: "Demystification" is just as important as "Abstraction"
in
"Computer Science" (Was: Know any Fortran
On 10/30/2015 05:18 PM, Dave Wade wrote:
Possibly, but if it does I would expect Windows/7, 8 and 8.1 to also need
it.
On looking on YOUTUBE someone claims to have installed one of the Windows/10
beta's on a P3.
Wikipedia tells me the P4 was the first chip with SSE2 so perhaps Windows/10
will run without SSE2.
SSE2 isn't exactly "leading edge" technology. It dates back to P4 in 2001
so
is actually older than the XP.
Also whilst XP would run on a small machine it was dire.
I once was sent to look at a 256Mhz PII running XP to see if I could speed
it up. Must have have been 2008 or 9 I think.
Whilst fiddling I accidentally swapped the mouse and keyboard connections
only to find it wouldn't boot set up like that.
I left it that way and no one else figured out what was wrong so the user
got their PC upgraded...
Why? Hardware hasn't really got much faster
over the last four years.
More CPU's have been added. In hardware terms anything that runs XP
well will run anything later.
There might be missing drivers, but in general its not a spec problem.
I run XP on non-SSE2 hardware, but I suspect W10 demands it--certainly,
many browsers do.
--Chuck
Dave
10:03 a.m.
On 10/31/2015 04:00 AM, Dave Wade wrote:
SSE2 isn't exactly "leading edge"
technology. It dates back to P4 in 2001 so
is actually older than the XP.
Also whilst XP would run on a small machine it was dire.
I once was sent to look at a 256Mhz PII running XP to see if I could speed
it up. Must have have been 2008 or 9 I think.
Whilst fiddling I accidentally swapped the mouse and keyboard connections
only to find it wouldn't boot set up like that.
I left it that way and no one else figured out what was wrong so the user
got their PC upgraded...
Well, XP runs just fine on my dual P3 (1GHz) server box. I know that
Whistler was being tested and had many beta releases before the P4. The
P3 certainly wasn't dead in 2001--the Tuallies were just being released
then.
I started testing Whistler and developing for it using a P1, then a K6
machine. While not as snappy as 2K, it was and is certainly usable.
The be-all and end-all of any PC OS isn't necessarily running a bloated
browser.
Let's also not forget that XPe was deployed on all sorts of non-SSE2
hardware, from thin clients to POS system.
--Chuck
10:36 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Chuck
Guzis
Sent: 31 October 2015 17:03
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
Subject: Re: "Demystification" is just as important as "Abstraction"
in
"Computer Science" (Was: Know any Fortran
On 10/31/2015 04:00 AM, Dave Wade wrote:
Whistler
SSE2 isn't exactly "leading edge"
technology. It dates back to P4 in
2001 so is actually older than the XP.
Also whilst XP would run on a small machine it was dire.
I once was sent to look at a 256Mhz PII running XP to see if I could
speed it up. Must have have been 2008 or 9 I think.
Whilst fiddling I accidentally swapped the mouse and keyboard
connections only to find it wouldn't boot set up like that.
I left it that way and no one else figured out what was wrong so the
user got their PC upgraded...
Well, XP runs just fine on my dual P3 (1GHz) server box. I know that was being tested and had many beta releases before the
P4. The
P3 certainly wasn't dead in 2001--the Tuallies were just being released
then.
I should hope so too. I would expect Windows/7 to run just fine as well,
provided there are drivers.
I started testing Whistler and developing for it using a P1, then a K6
machine.
While not as snappy as 2K, it was and is certainly
usable.
I had a K6-350 for ages. I can't remember what I ran on it W2K I think.
I think at about that time in work I had an Armada 700 with perhaps a 450Mhz
CPU.
That ran 2k fine but XP was not nice and not usable.
The be-all and end-all of any PC OS isn't
necessarily running a bloated
browser.
When I last looked at an XP machine it was more the AntiVirus that killed
memory.
Also Java was pretty much a resource hog. But I have an eMachine with an
Atom CPU
It really crawls with XP. Seems much better now I have put 7 on it.
Debating if I should try 10...
Let's also not forget that XPe was deployed on all
sorts of non-SSE2
hardware, from thin clients to POS system.
That would mostly be the embedded version. There is a windows/7 8 & 8.1
embedded as well.
I believe that the Win/7 embedded is lighter than the XP embedded.
XP on was a total pain as some of the HP clients were susceptible to a nasty
that sneaked in via a downlevel JAVA
The would re-boot up clean but when running if they got infected they would
attack other machines on the network.
--Chuck
Dave
3339
days inactive
3340
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cclist＠sydex.com -
cctalk＠beyondthepale.ie -
dave.g4ugm＠gmail.com