"Jonathan M Davis" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > 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. >
Well, all those busses, I/O devices, etc, are still a lot faster than they were back in, say, the 486 or Pentium 1 days, and things were plenty responsive then, too. But, I do agree, like you say, it *does* depend on what you're doing. If you're doing a lot of video as you say, then I completely understand.
