Solutions for Industrial Computing

This is a complaint I have entertained for quite some time- every "upgrade" results in lost productivity, which may actually be a slight exageration. I suspect there are two essential causes- feature creep and eye candy. If I use a straight ASCII editor rather than a word processor, I can not type fast enough to outrun the refresh on even the slowest monitor. Using a modern word processing application (MS Word, IBM Symphony, OpenOffice), I sometimes have to take a coffee break while waiting for the screen to catch up to my typing. Then there is the autoformatting feature, where the software designers think they know more about where I want an object (i.e., an illustration) to appear in the document- what I used to be able to do rather easily now can take hours, as the objects start jumping around all over the place just because I corrected a spelling error somewhere above in the document...

It has become rather obvious to me that appearance seems to have more merit when it comes to writing software than actual substance. Is this because bouncy smiley faces tend to distract the audience from the fact that there is really no meat in the production?

I agree and I am of the opinion that the problem is with the bloatware being pushed on the consumer these days. Most software has been so bloated that even the fastest machines will get bogged down. Perhaps the manufacturers should sell several versions of each of their software packages: a bare-bones minimum package w/o the bells and wistles (for those that dont need them), and the full package for those that want all the gadgetry. Even at the same price, I'd take the less intrusive software.

I have seen an idea, but have yet to see an appropriate implementation, of selling a core package that gives you only the guts, then selling specific add-ons to provide those features desired by the individual customer. Something like Firefox as the core package, then adding things like Stumbling, Zotero. etc. Only, it seems to me what Firefox and its ilk consider the "core" is not necessarily what I consider the core...

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Here's mine - same as one of yours - where's the "off" switch for that dadgum autoformat "feature" (not MY first choice of names for it, I assure you!)!!!

I agree that all the gee-gaws thrown in slow it down, with no real merit. But it is also partly a matter of the market, and partly a matter of laziness. Twenty-Thirty years ago when "Billy-Boy" made his infamous "no computer will ever need more than 64K of RAM" statement, programmers used that resource carefully. Since "time to market" priorities preclude spending the time to cleanup programs properly, and RAM is relatively cheap, programmers rarely take the time to optimize the programs anymore.

In order to load faster, most programs like to be loaded as a service, or at least have a small portion loaded on startup. Unfortunately, if enough programs do that, your RAM is "nibbled to death by ducks". Then it has to start using the swap file, which slows things down even more.

First, the address size of the core 2's were not extended, so they can only address about 3 Gig of memory.

Second, nobody has yet taken advantage of the 64-bit architecture.

Third, all the really cool things that your co-processors can do (graphics, physics, etc.) isn't funneled back into the machine to make 3D rendering (or anything else) really super-fast and cool. Photoshop, Illustrator and Bryce could function in a fraction of a second. It's all outputted to the monitor for games.

I have a six year old PC with dual 380 Ghz processors that hyper-thread and have 800 MHz front side busses, use DDR2 memory, uses 2 Gig of memory very efficiently, and has PIC express instead of standard PCI. IT'S A BEAST.

However, I hear that in a relatively short time, there's going to be some major changers to the peripheral architecture of CPU chips (both by Intel and AMD) that will make programs haul-ass!

both by Intel and AMD

Are ya meaning they are different? Like separate by more than advertising scree? It all spells INTEL except for the fruit group and the it ain't my way party...

I use Intel for stability which I value over all else and my old build includes two individual 3.4GHz chips upon one board and I know You're just trying to get by but stop it...stop it now...go quad (Q6600) go big w/buccoo memory and PCIe SLI master/slave graphics pump it up. Quit messing round in the back ground, build it; build a quad/quad core (Q6600) stability and designate core values.

Actually, there is quite a bit of difference currently between Intel and AMD. Both sort of went off and did some really good stuff. And both went off and tried to not implement some things and get away with it.

Now, they're in sort of a race for cache structure/size and getting rid of the "front-side bus," as well as some other tricks. One that I hope will happen is getting rid of the graphics card and building a high-powered graphic co-processors right into the CPU, and allow the rest of the system utilize it - not just pump it to the monitor.

Yeah ain't it sweet!

I was remarking that AMD is Intel's little brother with a chip on his shoulder.

It has gone where lower software writing wages buys equally as much meat...or wheat.

Groan..it's Dels standard rely.

Uncle Bill has done the world a huge diss-service by creating a crap operating system which doesn't get better.
He has made his pile over the years ..he should try giving us what we have all repeatedly paid for. A solid reliable transparent rugged operating system.. ok if he wants to sell eye candy to the masses fine .
But after all this time he could have developed a good open source free clean operating system and given the the bits that people actually use.... e.g MS Word ... it must be the worlds most widely used word processor, yet it is full of inconsistencies (or bugs, if we are being harsh...yes, I'll be harsh damn him... they are bugs) and you still don't get it fee with the operating system ...so we all steal it from some old copy of 'Office' which is lying about at work.

Still whadda ya do 'eh?

Del

Question, Del
If Microsoft has decided that, say, Windows 98 SE, or Word 2000 is no longer a viable commercial product and refuses to make it available for purchase, is it really "stealing" when one preserves a working copy from an archived version? If MS won't sell me what I want, and I don't want what they are selling, what are my options, legally?

No..I'm with you... it's not stealing.. it's appropriating what you have already paid for with every PC you have ever bought ...each time being denied an OS fit for purpose.

I'm hoping that soon Linux will really take off or Mac or someone will sell a cheap.

'Put this OS on your PC and watch it fly' system... But Uncle Bill has such a monopoly I fear it won't happen... For system builder it's the 'soft option' stick on Billy Boys latest version...

The problem is the gullible non technical customer puts up with this crap because they have no choice and get no customer service. The upshot is a plethora of small companies who will 'fix' your PC they often know less than me and most of us on this site, but a bit more than 'Joe Public' ....

Pencil me in for another 30mins moaning...

Del

Actually, what are these bugs you talk of, because I use it everyday, and I gotta tell ya I just don't run into them!

Yes, you do have to pay for MS stuff (usually), but even if you run software on an open source operating system, you still need to pay... Have you priced Mathematica lately?

"...it is full of inconsistencies (or bugs, if we are being harsh..."

I believe the MiniSquishy preferred term is "undocumented feature"...

yet it is full of inconsistencies

code "404"

Firstly, the newer operating systems have more complex graphics, using more of the processor's power.

Then programs tend to be written in higher level languages - like Java - which are not nearly as concise as a "C" program would be, so take longer to process, as there are many more fetch and execute cycles to perform.

Then there are the peripherals. Communications with USB devices are controlled by the processor (unlike SCSI and Firewire [IEEE1394], which have controllers built into the interface.

How many programs are open at the same time?

Internet?

How many items on the desktop/quick start menu?

Now

Compare that with what was expected of the computer 10-15 years ago......