On Saturday, March 10, 2012 16:08:28 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > With the exception of notably-expensive things like video processing, ever > since CPUs hit the GHz mark (and arguably for some time before that), there > has been *no* reason to blame slowness on anything other than shitty > software. > > My Apple IIc literally had more responsive text entry than at least half of > the textarea boxes on the modern web. Slowness is *not* a hardware issue > anymore, and hasn't been for a long time. > > You know what *really* happens when you upgrade to a computer that's, say, > twice as fast with twice as much memory? About 90% of the so-called > "programmers" out there decide "Hey, now I can get away with my software > being twice as slow and eat up twice as much memory! And it's all on *my > user's* dime!" You're literally paying for programmer laziness. > > I just stick with software that isn't bloated. I get just as much speed, but > without all that cost.
Yeah. CPU is not the issue. I/O and/or memory tends to be the bottleneck for most stuff - at least for me. Getting a faster CPU wouldn't make my computer any more responsive. > (Again, there are obviously exceptions, like video processing, DNA > processing, etc.) I do plenty of that sort of thing though, so CPU really does matter quite a bit to me, even if it doesn't affect my normal computing much. When transcoding video, CPU speed makes a _huge_ difference. - Jonathan M Davis
