Re: A chip too far? Where is your solution Mr Larkin?

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:58:55 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur
<dagmargoodboat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 20, 9:40 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:14:04 -0700 (PDT), James Arthur wrote:
On Aug 19, 5:57 pm, Guy Macon wrote:

Leaving aside the fact that the software brains actually *used
up* all that processing power with *slower* operations and cool
new functions, why do we need so many cool new functions?  Sure,
there are some cases (gaming, for example) where the bigger and
newer programs actually deliver more, but why the need for more
and more processing cycles to surf the web, send emails, and do
word processing?

Consider this comparison of Microsoft Windows "Recommended
System requirements" (and we all know that Windows really
needs a lot more than the minimum to run fast and well):

Windows version      Processor  Memory  Hard disk
Windows 95           25 MHz     8 MB    50 MB
Windows 98           66 MHz     24 MB   140?255 MB
Windows Me           150 MHz    32 MB   320 MB
Windows 2000 Server  133 MHz    64 MB   1 GB
Windows XP           300 MHz    128 MB  1.5 GB
Windows Vista        1 GHz      1 GB    15 GB

Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bloat

Are the new features in Vista really worth 40 times more
cycles, 125 times more ram and 300 times more hard disk?
Is Vista 40 times better? Am I 40 times more productive?

Why should a business have to keep buying new PCs, to
support new bloatware when most of the workers are trying
to complete the same tasks?

Meanwhile, I am running the latest version of Slackware
Linux on a box that has:

100 Mhz 486 Processor
100 MB RAM
2.1 GB HDD

...and it runs just fine -- in fact it runs faster than some
of the older versions of Slackware Linux do.  Yet I installed
that same version of Slackware Linux on a 8-processor Xeon box
with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB RAID array, and it worked great there
as well.

 It's getting harder and harder to justify Win__ for technical
stuff; it's so cumbersome; slow.

 Years ago I gasped at the inefficient code output by Microsoft
QuickBasic, needlessly stacking a load of registers and constants,
then calling functions to do simple math (very slow operations on
the 8088). Repeat. I re-wrote some tight-loop stuff in assembly.
An all-integer FFT, I think.

 Then I traced the system calls--OMG, a new height in useless
cycle-burning.  Maybe 1% efficient.

 QuickBasic 4.0's still a great compiler for the user though;
good debugging, nimble response, full access to graphics and
the hardware.

 Fast forwarding to today, I just wrote a simulator for a
stepper+driver+tricks.  It runs faster on the Win3.11 computer
I used writing it than on my 2.5GHz P-IV WinXP machine.  Roughly
a 100x increase in CPU, for a net decrease in performance.

Thanks again Bill!

Cheers,
James Arthur

The PowerBasic compilers are awesome, espacially the 32-bit PBCC
version. Run useful FOR loops at tens of MHz.

John

I read their website. Smaller-faster smaller-faster smaller-faster.
Now *that* is how software ought to be.

Cheers,
James Arthur

The DOS version of PowerBasic is essentially the old Turbo Basic,
coded in assembly. The PBCC (32-bit) version compiler and IDE are
programmed in PowerBasic! It's a really good compiler and a very nice
language. One of the best things about a modern basic is the PRINT
USING (or USING$) capability, where you can format a line of mixed
variables exactly the way it will display. And the inherent string
variables and functions are great.

TCP/IP is absurdly simple. It's even easy to send and receive emails
from inside a program.

If only Windows would let me get at the good stuff...io ports, memory
mapped i/o, pci config space.

John


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A chip too far? Where is your solution Mr Larkin?
    ... 100 MB RAM ... that same version of Slackware Linux on a 8-processor Xeon box ... James Arthur ... Smaller-faster smaller-faster smaller-faster. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: "Insufficient virtual memory" error message in Linux
    ... 4GB of ram and linux redhat. ... to address the memory, hence it can handle at most 4GB of ram ... (Last I knew the Watcom compiler would generate large model 32 bit ... PAE is a lot of work for the user program. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)
  • Re: Really
    ... >>>Look at the List output to see if you inadvertently ask the compiler to do ... >> Anton Erasmus ... So it will use more RAM. ... Often the reason for using C on a '51 is so that one can use the code ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Benchmark: STLs list vs. hand-coded one
    ... bound - in fact it is hard to find anything in a compiler that isn't ... allocation bound (perhaps the scanner as it spends a rather large ... as much or more RAM than it's predecessor. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Compiler Going Flaky on Me
    ... appear after End Sub, End Function, or End Property". ... but then all at once the compiler gave me ... I recently upgraded my machine from 512 MB to 2 GB RAM. ... machine crashes and I get some low-level messages in white letters on ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.programming)
Loading