everything seams a bit much. There are so many things you just could not do at all in 1983, like HD videos or 3D engines or even rendering Mandelbrot fractals
"Things that could be done in 1983" getting worse is fairly defensible.
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
51–60 of 349 posts
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#52Given the speed of modern computers, I'm fascinated by the fact that so many processes complete in human-scale time (seconds-minutes), rather than milliseconds or years+, depending on problem complexity. If times for compute tasks have some power law distribution (a big if...), I'd expect a very small part of that distribution to overlap with the 'seconds' range. Then again, computers do so many things in the millise…
I think it's mostly a cognitive bias, we don't even notice processes that take milliseconds, and we either optimise or simplify (approximate) problems that would have taken years to make solutions more practical.
> and we either optimise or simplify (approximate) problems that would have taken years to make solutions more practical.
Or we just don't do them.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#53The web feels slower than it was 10 years ago too. It's fascinating how we tend to over-engineer and bloat things.
The web is hundreds of times more feature-rich than 10 years ago too though. But, sites like HN are some of the few that are still built like they were 10 years ago. The rest all adds rich JS frameworks (for supposed faster interaction after the first load), a few billion social links, ads, cookie banners, "sign up for our newsletter" or "pay our subscription pls" popups when you first land on them, rich fonts, anima…
And yet I find myself increasingly reaching for tools to remove that complexity: Outline.com, Reader Mode, Pocket (despite its many, many flaws).
Not infrequently: stripping out content, running it in Markdown, and generating a static document (PDF, ePub, text) that I can just fucking read.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#54Given the speed of modern computers, I'm fascinated by the fact that so many processes complete in human-scale time (seconds-minutes), rather than milliseconds or years+, depending on problem complexity. If times for compute tasks have some power law distribution (a big if...), I'd expect a very small part of that distribution to overlap with the 'seconds' range. Then again, computers do so many things in the millise…
You have it on the head. The tasks we pick for computing are the ones that can be completed in seconds. There is plenty of interesting computation we could and would do if what now requires a year would only require a second.
I think the opposite direction is actually more telling. Developers tolerate bloat and BS up to the level of seconds.
So there is plenty of computation being done that only requires milli or microseconds, but due to development practices now stretches just out into the annoying time frame.
(Prime example: the growth of web pages to match increases in processing, RAM, and internet speeds, means that the web is actually slower to use these days.)
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always found it easier to type long strings of numbers on the number pad. I don't know why, it's not as though I ever deliberately trained myself to use it, but for me the number pad is much faster than using the top row.
Your fingers don't have as far to travel, and there's no seeking involved (hand doesn't move)
Less ambiguity (three vertical rows, no horizontal movement), and the most-frequently entered keys (1, 2, 0) are not at extreme and hard-to-assess ends of the movement range.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#56Given the speed of modern computers, I'm fascinated by the fact that so many processes complete in human-scale time (seconds-minutes), rather than milliseconds or years+, depending on problem complexity. If times for compute tasks have some power law distribution (a big if...), I'd expect a very small part of that distribution to overlap with the 'seconds' range. Then again, computers do so many things in the millise…
It's a relief to do a bit of Go from time to time, render a complete html template in 40 ms (with almost 2 MB of JSON data) instead of spending forever figuring out the JS framework du jour to do the same thing, only with it feeling a lot more involved, heavyweight, and slow - even if said framework claims to be faster than all the other JS frameworks. I think I want to do back-end or terminal-based interfaces again.…
> Native interfaces. Mmmmm
If you decide to work on native GUIs, please don't create your own toolkit on the assumption that you can do better than the OS. You'll almost certainly break at least one thing: accessibility for blind people.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#57This! I once took over programming a point of sale system that our (internal to the company) users were complaining about. Turns out there was no concept of tab sequence, you had to use the mouse for everything. I asked the previous programmer to show me how to use the form he created, and he started typing a phone number using the top row of the keyboard instead of the numpad. But hey, it had lots of javascript!
For those of us that have been fortunate enough to avoid having a job that involved an adding machine or cash register the number pad is an awkward AF to use. Conversely the top keyboard row is in range for touch typing.
I dunno, I've used the number pad by default since I was a little cutter begging to sneak into my mom's classroom and play on the Apple II that was in there. I might be a weird one; I can't switch myself over to using WASD controls in video games either; I've got to use the arrow keys, and then hope that I can bind the other important commands to keys in that vicinity.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#58This lends itself to supporting functional physical design. I'm getting tired of the screenification of everything. I don't want a touchscreen in my car. I want a bunch of knobs that I can reach for, feel, and use without looking at them. I cannot do this with a touch screen.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#59The web feels slower than it was 10 years ago too. It's fascinating how we tend to over-engineer and bloat things.
The web is hundreds of times more feature-rich than 10 years ago too though. But, sites like HN are some of the few that are still built like they were 10 years ago. The rest all adds rich JS frameworks (for supposed faster interaction after the first load), a few billion social links, ads, cookie banners, "sign up for our newsletter" or "pay our subscription pls" popups when you first land on them, rich fonts, anima…
I agree modern websites look a lot nicer... Or do they?
They all look the same: big images, not much text, the top bar, yeah this newsletter thing to upsell with these crappy (but effective) marketing techniques...
Somehow I feel old school websites (HN, Reddit, and so) are more sticky, more addictive, more unique. They focus on what we really want: contents and communication with others.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983
#60This! I once took over programming a point of sale system that our (internal to the company) users were complaining about. Turns out there was no concept of tab sequence, you had to use the mouse for everything. I asked the previous programmer to show me how to use the form he created, and he started typing a phone number using the top row of the keyboard instead of the numpad. But hey, it had lots of javascript!
I don't get your point about typing phone numbers. When I was being taught to touch-type in first and second grade, my teachers told me that I should type on the top row, not the numeric keypad. Not sure why. Maybe because it takes less time to move to the top row and back? Anyway, to me, typing numbers on the top row is not an obvious problem.
For a POS system input is probably all numbers- look up customer by phone, make choices from a menu, enter quantities. Letters are for new customers and special instructions.
I worked at a print shop that switched from DOS to Windows for it's POS software, it was an order of magnitude slower. At least we could play solitaire though.