Speaking of Vista coming out.

T

taeric

Flaccid Member
May 6, 2005
1,369
0
0
45
Marklar
₥0
So I finally got my old computer working and it got me to thinking. Do we expect more of our computers or have things really gotten incredibly ineffecient?

I ask because now that I have this computer up and running again, I have it ripping a cd, playing an audio file, running IM, all while trying and write some code. (Actually, I guess at the moment I'm more typing in this than writing code.) I wouldn't think of it, except I know this used to work fine back in the day and I didn't notice any slowdown at all. Now, it is running dog ass slow. My first thought is simply that I didn't notice it before.

However, I'm thinking more on it and I don't think that is it. It seems to me if I reduce everything to the same exact variables as before, the system would probably be just as fast. For example, for audio I simply installed iTunes. I'm guessing that iTunes does a hell of a lot more than whatever I used to use. I know that the codecs are more processor intensive than the age old mp3. Same with writing code. Before, I would have been using emacs. Now, I have eclipse complete with about 10 plugins. Some of which I absolutely love, but most of which I don't even know about. With regards to email, I used to use Mutt. Loading a 5k email required the transfer of about 5k of data. Now, that would probably be at least 2 megs. (I use gmail.)

All of this is to ask, does everyone else see everything getting complex all around them? How many people still work on their computers exactly like they did 6 years ago. (Roughly the age of my computer.)
 
Until 2003 I had a computer with Win 98 and applications from that era. It was just as fast as what Im using now. The difference was that it wasnt as pretty and couldnt do quite as much.

I remember writing a program to find primes on my IBM PC 8086 and it would take days to get where I do now in seconds. Computers are faster, just not faster for what your average office drone does in a day. Maybe easier, definitely more pretty, but you can do in LaTEX on an 386 what you can do now with Word.
 
I guess I am getting irritated with more than that. It seems that if you do the same stuff, but with the newer applications to do them, then it actually does require more processing power to do essentially the exact same thing.

For example, I don't think the first computer I used to play mp3's on could play the newer acc files of today It would actually have a hard time keeping up processing wise. I know this is true with regards to video. The computer you have right now that is perfectly able to play HD mpeg2 streams will most likely choke when it comes to playing HD mpeg4 streams. The video could be identical, but the processing power is much higher for the mpeg4.

Then there is the problem of indexing. With how much all applications (and, evidently, operating systems) are starting to index all data for people now, the simple act of saving a file could require tons of operating cycles. Why? Essentially because people couldn't keep their rooms clean. (Incidentally, this is why I refused to buy a bigger car/home before I got good at keeping a smaller one clean.)
 
you just gotta pick your apps wisely if you want to see the performance increase. i still use old winamp for music, and media player classic for videos. i use firefox with very few plugins (adblock, greasemonkey). Some things are unavoidable though. I do use gmail rather than a simple email client, but I like the additional features. I don't have any indexing software, I keep track of my own files.

I know there are some massive benefits to be had, but I'm kind of getting stuck in "old dog, new tricks" mode.
 
That is pretty much what I was figuring. I was starting to look at all the programs I have installed and saying to myself that they were the reason the computer seemed slow. It irritates me some that a lot of what slows computers down seems to be included in the OS now. Ah well.
 
taeric said:
I guess I am getting irritated with more than that. It seems that if you do the same stuff, but with the newer applications to do them, then it actually does require more processing power to do essentially the exact same thing.

For example, I don't think the first computer I used to play mp3's on could play the newer acc files of today It would actually have a hard time keeping up processing wise. I know this is true with regards to video. The computer you have right now that is perfectly able to play HD mpeg2 streams will most likely choke when it comes to playing HD mpeg4 streams. The video could be identical, but the processing power is much higher for the mpeg4.

Then there is the problem of indexing. With how much all applications (and, evidently, operating systems) are starting to index all data for people now, the simple act of saving a file could require tons of operating cycles. Why? Essentially because people couldn't keep their rooms clean. (Incidentally, this is why I refused to buy a bigger car/home before I got good at keeping a smaller one clean.)
Click to expand...
I'm sorry comparing mp3/aac and mpeg2/mpeg4 decoding and calling it the exact same thing is a really poor example.
 
theacoustician said:
I'm sorry comparing mp3/aac and mpeg2/mpeg4 decoding and calling it the exact same thing is a really poor example.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean to directly compare those two. I was more just pondering. (Though, I see it did come out looking like a direct comparison.)

The reason that one entered my mind is that iTunes skipped a little on the file it was playing. I was basically wondering why in the hell that happened, as I know I wouldn't have settled for that back when I bought that computer.
 
fly said:
and/or these high level languages, that essentially end up going through 2-3 conversions before actually becoming machine code.
Click to expand...

More than just conversions before doing stuff, you usually have to juggle many more data structures in order to do stuff. The flipside is there is now much more that you can do. So, I am not trying to turn this into an argument of how programming sucks. (Though, I do sorta wish when programming stuff people would only worry about what is actually going to happen, and not what "could" happen.)
 
taeric said:
I didn't mean to directly compare those two. I was more just pondering. (Though, I see it did come out looking like a direct comparison.)

The reason that one entered my mind is that iTunes skipped a little on the file it was playing. I was basically wondering why in the hell that happened, as I know I wouldn't have settled for that back when I bought that computer.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you're using iTunes. Its really a bloated resource hog on Windows. Can't speak to how it performs on a Mac though. If you're having to use it simply because you bought stuff through the iTunes store, use Hymn to un-DRM your files and then use a player more to your liking.
 
theacoustician said:
I'm surprised you're using iTunes. Its really a bloated resource hog on Windows. Can't speak to how it performs on a Mac though. If you're having to use it simply because you bought stuff through the iTunes store, use Hymn to un-DRM your files and then use a player more to your liking.
Click to expand...

I originally started using it a while back for reasons I don't remember. I think I hated winamp and just took a look around at other options. It does seem to have gotten even worse lately, though. And on my laptop it doesn't cause any problems. (I was also considering an iPod for a time.)

At any rate, I'm thinking of switching to something else for this run. Just haven't decided what, yet. I seem to remember hearing a lot of good things of foobar. Any suggestions?

Also, I do realize that it probably wasn't the codec that made the audio skip, but I am curious to know if it is more processor intensive. This is mainly due to listening to the insane requirements of mpeg4 streams.
 
taeric said:
I originally started using it a while back for reasons I don't remember. I think I hated winamp and just took a look around at other options. It does seem to have gotten even worse lately, though. And on my laptop it doesn't cause any problems. (I was also considering an iPod for a time.)

At any rate, I'm thinking of switching to something else for this run. Just haven't decided what, yet. I seem to remember hearing a lot of good things of foobar. Any suggestions?

Also, I do realize that it probably wasn't the codec that made the audio skip, but I am curious to know if it is more processor intensive. This is mainly due to listening to the insane requirements of mpeg4 streams.
Click to expand...

I'd say first try Songbird http://www.songbirdnest.com/ It has some serious promise, even if it is still in beta. Being cross platform helps as well. Also in the crossplatform arena is Mplayer http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html and VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc

Foobar is a decent, low impact player for windows. If you want something spiffy for Linux only, I <3 amaroK.
 
theacoustician said:
I'd say first try Songbird http://www.songbirdnest.com/ It has some serious promise, even if it is still in beta. Being cross platform helps as well. Also in the crossplatform arena is Mplayer http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html and VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc

Foobar is a decent, low impact player for windows. If you want something spiffy for Linux only, I <3 amaroK.
Click to expand...

I looked at songbird a time back. I guess a lot of the things it promises are neat, but I wasn't impressed with it as a player. I think a lot of what it offers would make great plugins to a standard web browser.

And I'll have to look at the others. (Sadly, I don't have a dedicated non-windows box anymore. I'm seriously considering reconfiguring my home computer as one, though.)
 
taeric said:
That is pretty much what I was figuring. I was starting to look at all the programs I have installed and saying to myself that they were the reason the computer seemed slow. It irritates me some that a lot of what slows computers down seems to be included in the OS now. Ah well.
Click to expand...

Included as in how? Operating Systems are meant to evolve and nowadays its not just enough to run other programs, they are expected to have some form of virus protection, 3d capability and so forth. It would be nice to keep that 6 year old computer in the loop but its just not possible to keep progress going.

Microsoft does understand what you are talking about and they did do something about it last year in the name of Windows for legacy Computers which basically brings the XP kernel to computers as slow as a P1 233 however it wont be sold to consumers. Find it by other ways, but dont if you use dialup since it dosn't support that.
 
Wait, from the title and the first thread are you saying that you installed vista on a 6 year old machine. Didnt read the rest, sorry in advance
 
Ryokurin said:
Included as in how? Operating Systems are meant to evolve and nowadays its not just enough to run other programs, they are expected to have some form of virus protection, 3d capability and so forth. It would be nice to keep that 6 year old computer in the loop but its just not possible to keep progress going.

Microsoft does understand what you are talking about and they did do something about it last year in the name of Windows for legacy Computers which basically brings the XP kernel to computers as slow as a P1 233 however it wont be sold to consumers. Find it by other ways, but dont if you use dialup since it dosn't support that.
Click to expand...

See, I just don't buy that. I don't think a computer has to have a heavy duty virus protection program, or fancy 3d backdrops that fade in and zoom out, or constant connections to the internet so that I know exactly when Brad Pitt shaves (face or other).

And I'm also not blaming Microsoft on this. (No, I haven't installed Vista, yet. Just reinstalled XP and started loading up applications again.) For me, it is my fault. I installed the google desktop thing to give it a chance. It is somewhat neat and I may keep some stuff it does, but it is definitely going. I think it single handedly rendered my computer a third as fast as it could be. But, honestly, the things I like about it can be done with less resources just as well.

Of course, the thing that irritates me is that I have it installed on my laptop and it is fine. Evidently that dual core setup is a god send in terms of useless crap I can now let my computer do. I'm probably going to take it off of here, as well. I don't see it slowing me down, but I also don't really see it helping me out.
 
Well, you can compile your own Linux distro and install Beryll. Then you can have performance and eyecandy on a lower powered machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back