That's really funny:) On Dec 16, 2011, at 7:13 PM, John Zabroski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, John Zabroski <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Steve Dekorte wrote: >>> >>>> [NeXTStation memories versus reality] >>> >>> I still have a running Apple II. My slowest working PC is a 33MHz 486, >>> so I can't directly do the comparison I mentioned. But I agree we >>> shouldn't trust what we remember things feeling like. >>> >>> -- Jecel >> >> >> The Apple booting up faster was not simply a feeling, but a fact owing >> to its human-computer interaction demands. They set fast boot speeds >> as a design criteria. Jef Raskin talks about this in the book The >> Humane Interface. Even modern attempts to reduce boot speed have not >> been that good, such as "upstart", an event-driven alternative to >> "init". >> >> Eugen has some very good points about human limits of managing >> performance details, though. Modern approaches to performance are >> already moving away from such crude methods. > > By the way, slight tangent: Modern operating systems, with all their > hot-swapping requirements, do a poor job distinguishing device error > from continuously plugging-in and plugging-out the device. For > example, if you have an optical mouse and damage it, it might slowly > die and your entire system will hang because 99% of your CPU will be > handling plugin and plugout events. > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
