Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 451 posts

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#61

Post by FussyZeus »

sonofaplum wrote: post #20

There are some good points here, but of course I am going to ignore those to talk instead about the stuff I disagree with! The section about google maps follows a form of criticism that is widespread and particularly annoys me, namely => popular service 'x' doesn't exactly fit my power user need 'y', therefore x is hopelessly borked, poorly designed, and borderline useless. There is always room for improvement, but a…

Except the guesses need to be good. I make it a point to avoid criticizing applications for not being power usery enough but there's a line you can draw where it becomes clear that the guesses are too frequent and consuming too much computing power, just to be ignored.

I've seen this a lot with my mother in particular, who is certainly not a power user but knows enough to get by, struggle to use software that's trying too damn hard to guess what she wants, instead of letting her just tell it what she freaking wants.

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#62

Post by seriesf »

thedaemon wrote: post #23

Well, I think it's much more valid to claim it's much slower than 2000. Take for instance, Microsoft Office products. On a business class desktop, i3-i5, they are much slower than they were in 2000 in all aspects. Software has become slower as computers have zoomed in speed.

We have a whole generation of programmers who believe that developer productivity is the most important thing, but this ceases to be true as soon as you have any users at all.

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#63

Post by grenoire »

seriesf wrote: post #46
phonon wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feel free to find a chipset on the market that can decode hundreds of channels of Full HD H.264 simultaneously...

You wouldn’t have to actually decode it, just receive it all and buffer everything after the last key frame. That eliminates waiting for the next key frame.

Essentially waiting for I-frames as the mini-GP noted it?

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#64

Post by BuildTheRobots »

Reminds me of John Carmack complaining that it was quicker to send a packet of data internationally compared to drawing on screen: https://www.geek.com/chips/john-carmack-explains-why-its-fas...

More relevant to the article, I fully agree with the authors upset at trying to do two parts of the same task in google maps, it's entirely infuriating.

Edit: duplicate submission: one directly on twitter, this one through hte threaded reader. The other submission has >350 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21835417

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#66

Post by tangue »

I won't go back to 1983 but I have an old Mac with Snow Leopard and Text Edit is way more responsive on the old Imac than on my new Macbook pro. I know there was some change due to security, but I definitely feel this one. And I won't talk about the Adobe Suite ...

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#68

Post by vidanay »

thibaut_barrere wrote: post #39

Sorry, but in 1983 I was using CLOAD and CSAVE, and it took very long minutes to save & load anything (on cassette!).

I was doing advanced Sprite manipulation on a TI-99/4A

And also saving and loading to audio cassette. :-(

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#69

Post by seanalltogether »

jaywalk wrote: post #43
seanalltogether wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless I'm very mistaken about modern digital transmissions, cable coming into the house is still based on a broadcast system, which means you're getting everything all the time. The frames are all there for every channel, they're just not being read. I don't know how much processing or memory it would take to read and store frames for surrounding channels to the one you're on, but I imagine its possible.

While everything is usually on the cable (there are exceptions) the STB only has a limited number of tuners, which means it can't "see" everything at once. The channels that are nearby in number may or may not be on the same physical channel, which would mean the STB is effectively blind to them. But even in boxes with multiple tuners (DVRs) your solution would require tying up at least three tuners (current channel…

Actually that's a good point, my sky tv box lets me record 6 streams plus watch a channel at once, however i rarely have more then 1 or 2 recordings at a time, so on average i have +2-2 channels available to holder in buffer.

Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)

#70

Post by ddingus »

wolfgke wrote: post #38
fortran77 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's not a codec problem. They can leave it on the last decoded frame and fade it nicely to, say, the average color for the 1 second without going to black, and you don't have to be a super decoder genius to implement something that's a little less aesthetically jarring.

joncrane was complaining about the time to change channels. This approach does nothing to decrease this time.

Exactly. It does placate users with some indication of activity.

This can impact how someone feels about the change, but does nothing to solve the time to change problem.

One thing it does do is confirm the change is in progress. That is a subset of the time to change problem.

Many current UX on this do not give a very good, or any indicator of successful input.

Quite a few people may see their feelings about the time to change improve because they can diver their attention away from the change knowing it will eventually happen.

Post reply on HN