Jump to content
9 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Does anyone think that computers are getting kind of annoying?

 

I remember my SE/30 when I got a 4 MB ram upgrade (can't remember HD)

 

I remember my Mac II when I got a 20 MB ram upgrade and 80 MB HD adobe PS 1.0 9 MB roughly

 

I remember my 840av when I got a 128 MB ram upgrade and 4 GB HD adobe PS 3.0 30 MB roughly

 

I remember my Beige G3/300 when I got a 512 MB ram upgrade and 4 x 60 GB HD adobe PS 7.0 250 MB roughly

 

and Now My G4/533 Dual with 1 GB ram and 4 x 250 GB HD adobe PS 10.0 500 MB roughly

 

but the real reason of this thread is what do you think the best system with the ratio and proportion of adobe products and microsoft and etc.

 

It seems like the faster chips we get and more ram and hd that the programs seem to require more and more

 

While this has been said before it's seem like a "flaw". I just wonder if it will ever level off. Cause I keep saying to myself this mac (G4/533 dual) could last another 5 years as long as the browser wars and html (etcs) don't get to nasty or crazy in revisions. 10.5 seems too heavy with graphics and time machine style stuff. So 10.4 seems really strong. But I think about a system like a Dual 1.25 G4 with OS 9 and the thinest apps I could find. Like a Photoshop 3.0, Ill 5.0 and just live with that. Cause newer version are so bogged down this is seeming like a rat race. I am rambling but damn it...

 

Any opinions on this would be cool

Welcome to the technology curve. Just be glad you're not a system's integrator/administrator/engineer that has to CONSTANTLY stay on the bleeding edge like some of us do, in order to make the best recomendations based on personal experience. I on average build at least 2 machines a year, and in this last year, I built 1 for around $1,500, and bought 2 macs for over $5,000. I admit, it's extremely rare that I "buy" a machine, but alas my only way to complete thorough testing (after I had completed testing with my hackintosh ZD8000) was to actually buy a few of the High End macs (MBP and MacPro) for seamless integration.

 

I will admit tho, yeah it suxx sometimes, but this career field pays pretty dam well and keeps me in a job.....

It will never stop and I even believe it will grow exponentially.

 

The cost of development to push the envelope for professional/enterprise level software by far exceeds that of faster workstation level hardware.

 

Purely as an example, Adobe could optimize CS3 to run acceptably on a 486-level hardware with 128MB. To develop it that way could mean it doubles or even triples in cost. Buying a new computer that runs CS3 reasonably fast is cheaper.

One of the main falls in a lot of programmers these days, is that they rely too much on newer processors to power their heavy programs, and don't go to the bottom of their code in Assembly to optimize it for all processors.

Although that may be true I'm not convinced that is the main reason and unfairly blames programmers.

  • With older processors/OSes it was often a necessity to use assembly to achieve "practical" performance levels.
  • Applications are more complex and maintaining assembly is harder. Higher level language compilers can catch errors and possible problems that an assembler/linker can't.
  • From a business point why expend the time and effort when you can place the burden on the consumer to get more powerful hardware?
  • It sucks maintaining multiple assembly cores for programs that run on many CPUs.
  • People are still going to buy the non-assembly coded version, even if it is slower, so what is the real return in using assembly?

So from a programmer's point of view the trade off between time vs. flexibility and time to market isn't sufficient to warrant it.

 

P.S. Brings back memories of coding a sprite library on an Apple II in assembly. Still amazed how they handled video memory back then and how there was a "hole" in the middle of video memory. Indexed Indirect addressing, good stuff. :construction:

OP, you're running a program that was released maybe 5 months ago on a machine that was released over 5 years ago. Not only that, you did similar "behind the curve" comparisons on earlier machines. For example, PS7 probably came out around the time your G4 did if not just a little later. That's a more apt comparison than what you're making.

 

Personally I have 2GB of RAM and a dual-core processor for a reason, so I'll let the programs I use make the most of it. And with programmer time being far more costly than CPU time, I'd rather have frequently-updating programs with new features over something really fast that gets updated less often and may or may not include the features I want.

×
×
  • Create New...