Earlier quoted context omitted.
The central reason is that modern video codecs use I-frames and P-frames (sometimes also B-frames; even though as far as I am aware, these are not used for TV broadcasts); see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Video_compression... I-frames are only sent, say, once or twice a second. When a channel is switched, the TV has to wait for the next I-frame, since P-frames (and B-frames) only encode the difference t…
> If you are aware of a possibility for efficient video compression that avoids this problem, tell the HN audience etc... This is a bad comment/reply - upstream wasn't complaining about the codec but about the usability (of the devices).
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
411–420 of 451 posts
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#412Computers jumped the shark in 1998. I remember dual-booting NT4 and BeOS on a PII 300 MHz with 64MB of RAM. Connected to a 256 kbps SDSL modem, it’s the best computing experience I’ve ever had. You could do everything you can on a modern machine. Indeed, even more, because the modern versions of software like OneNote and Word are neutered compared to the ‘97 versions. It feels like all of this effort has been spent m…
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most machines I work with these days take minutes to get rolling. Minutes? That sounds exaggerated. How powerful was your Atari ST compared to other machines at the time versus the machines you work with these days compared to other machines available? Because I'm not even on a particularly new machine and from a powered off state I'm logged into Windows and starting applications within 5 seconds. And for example t…
> Minutes? That sounds exaggerated. POST on a Dell M640 is about three minutes. Other Dell systems are similar. POST on the workstations that I use are in the range of 1-2 minutes. This is before the OS gets control (once that happens, it's usually 15-20 seconds to a usable system). The ST was a pretty decent performer at the time (arguably a little faster than the original Macintosh, for instance). Both the ST and t…
With that said, POST on my Z820 workstation probably takes a minute, even with option ROMs disabled, but still maybe half the time it takes an Gen8 HP MicroServer with a quarter the RAM to do the same.
On the other hand, my old IBM POWER6 server sets local records for boot (IPL) time: in "hyper" boot mode, with "minimal" testing, it still takes slightly longer than the MicroServer to turn control over to the OS, the default, "fast" boot mode takes maybe five minutes to POST, and, well, I could very nearly install Windows 10 on a fast, modern desktop PC in less time than it takes to do a full, "slow" POST.
As for simply booting such a desktop, even with all BIOS and Windows fast boot options disabled and a display connected to both internal (AMD) and external (NVIDIA) GPUs, my Kaby Lake NUC takes no more than ten seconds to boot to the Windows 10 logon screen from a fast (Samsung 970 Pro) SSD.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#414To call this rose-tinted glasses when considering how things worked in 1983 is a massive understatement. A counterexample: in 1983, enter two search terms, one of them slightly misspelled or misremembered, hit f3: "no results", spend 10 minutes trying to find the needle in the haystack, give up and physically search for the thing yourself. Enter two search terms slightly incorrectly now: no of the time it will know e…
Software in the 80s was: extremely low throughput but excellent latency. We could really do better on the latter category here in the 21st century.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#415First of all, when data sets start to get that big it becomes a monumental task to organize just the execution order of the compiled code. Second, the main thing the bitch from the article is complaining about not being able to do is something you just can't do from the phone UI. Google has a trip planner app that specifically helps locate interesting landmarks between the start and destination points, and even plan where to stop for gas or find a hotel for the night all from a single tab. For having spent so long writing his rant, I'm surprised he never tried googling a trip planner app. It would have been faster and prevented him from proving what an idiot he is.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#416Earlier quoted context omitted.
About 60-70 seconds, IRRC. It's been a while since I measured it. We did some optimizations, other folks did a better job (e.g., optimally skewing physical sectors so that they'd be hit nearly immediately after a head seek).
Hah, I didn't notice it was you who I was responding to. How nice of me to tell you the size of the OS you helped write ;-)
[Note: this is the early 80s. A computer with a large amount of memory might have 64K in this period. I think a 64K ROM cost about four dollars, and 64K of RAM was about fifty bucks]
The Atari ST's operating system (TOS, and no I don't want to talk about what that stands for) was written in C and assembly language.
Initially the ST was going to have 128K of ROM; we wanted to one-up the Macintosh (which hadn't shipped yet, but there were rumors and we had copies of Inside Macintosh that were simply fascinating to read) and put both our OS and a version of BASIC in ROM. Most home computers at the time came with some version of BASIC, and the Mac did not; we were hoping that would be a differentiator. Trouble was, nobody had actually sized our software yet (the only things even remotely running were on the 8086, not the 68000 we were going to use, and Digital Research wasn't exactly forthcoming about details anyway).
So mid-October (the project started in earnest in July 1984, and FWIW we shipped in late May 1985, a whole new platform starting from zero in less than ten months) we realized that just the OS and GUI would be 128K, and that the BASIC we were thinking of using was like 80K (but could probably be shrunk). So the hardware guys added two more ROM sockets, for 192K of ROM. A month went by. Wups! -- it turned out that the OS and GUI would be like 170K, with little hope of shrinkage. No, make that 180K. Would you take 200K?
The code topped out at 210K or so, and that wouldn't even fit into the six ROM sockets we now had. No chance in hell of getting another 64K of ROM -- that stuff costs real money -- so we shrunk the code. The team from Atari came from a background of writing things that fit into really tiny amounts of ROM, so we went about this with a fair amount of glee. We got about 1K per programmer per day of tested code savings by ripping out unused functions, fixing all the places where people had "optimized" things by avoiding the expense of strlen or whatever, and coding some common graphics calls with machine trap instructions instead of fatter JSRs. For about a week, the hallway in engineering was full of people calling out to other offices, "Wow, get a load of this stupid routine!" and in a codebase that had been tossed together as quickly as GEM/TOS had been, there was no lack of opportunity for improvement. We found a fair number of bugs doing this, too.
Additionally, the C compiler we were using was not very good, and even its "optimized" code was terrible. Fortunately it had an intermediate assembly language stage, so we wrote some tools to optimize that intermediate code (mostly peephole stuff, like redundant register save/restores) and got a relatively easy 10-12 percent savings. I think we had a few hundred bytes of ROM left on the first release.
I remember that 192K pretty darned well. Though they're fun to talk about, I honestly don't miss those days much; today I wrote the equivalent of
void *p = malloc( 1024 * 1024 * 1024 );
and I didn't even feel bad.Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#417Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mousing is bad. It really is a cumbersome tool. I do a lot with my workspaces so that I can avoid using it.
Hmmm Most Millennials I know who are technical absolutely love mice because they grew up using them, and most of them have extensive PC gaming experience to boot. I’m the Linux/CLI junky among them and even I don’t find mousing cumbersome—to use someone else’s words, it’s an amazing, first class input device. Same goes for trackballs. By comparison touchscreens are a joke, there’s no depth of input like with a mouse(…
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#418Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of my machines are the same. From the time I plug in the power cable and hit the go button I can expect to see my desktop in around 10 seconds. It's fast enough that when I'm in discord with coworkers and need to switch OS it doesn't really affect the workflow at all.
I'm curious about why a workplace would settle on Discord. Are you in game development, is there a killer feature that Discord has compared to the competition, or was it just what people were comfortable with at home? Not implying that it's bad software, I'm just curious because it sounds unusual.
The example I gave above happens regularly, as I use Deepin Linux as my typical daily driver while I'm working. However, if the need to open an adobe suite tool comes up, I can quickly swap over. Discord works fine for me on both platforms and my phone.
All in all, I don't really like discord all that much. It's not the best at anything. But it has the advantage of being both convenient and feature-rich overall. There are better solutions out there, but none are as convenient or free.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#419Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mousing is bad. It really is a cumbersome tool. I do a lot with my workspaces so that I can avoid using it.
Hmmm Most Millennials I know who are technical absolutely love mice because they grew up using them, and most of them have extensive PC gaming experience to boot. I’m the Linux/CLI junky among them and even I don’t find mousing cumbersome—to use someone else’s words, it’s an amazing, first class input device. Same goes for trackballs. By comparison touchscreens are a joke, there’s no depth of input like with a mouse(…
I guess it just depends on what the program requires of your inputs. When it comes to software development, window switching and maneuvering around websites, keyboards are precise and rapid, where the mouse can only do one thing at a time before needing to travel to the next input.
The other important part about ditching the mouse, is that when you're predominantly typing and using both hands on the keyboard, switching over to the mouse takes a non-trivial amount of time. You have to move your hand over there, figure out where the cursor is on the screen, then do what you need to do with it. When you're doing it hundreds of times a day, it adds up.
Re: Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
#420How much LESS am I getting out of of the Raspberry Pi? I'm not exactly sure. I just know I can reboot in seconds and get back online while my Mac is still be showing that stupid grey logo screen.
Of course, the Raspberry Pi can't come close to running Logic Audio and 5 virtual machines simultaneously doing other things in the background as I generally do on that Mac. But the boot up to useful state speed metric favours the much lower spec'd device by far.
For daily stuff like going from OFF to editing an office document, the Mac is sloth slow. It's a very interesting and wide divergence of competencies when it comes to performance and ability.
We are definitely witnessing the later part of the Law of Diminished Returns when it comes to updating and upgrading computer equipment.
I can't say whether or not we've reached the apex, but we sure are close if we haven't. Today, anyone can have a super computer. But nearly nobody does.