Bruce, One other thought I had.
On Microsoft's part, while maybe not a deliberate *conspiracy*, but surely a deliberate act, operating systems are written with little attempt to optimize efficiency, with the knowledge that they will require new hardware. New hardware will necessarily come with the new operating system pre-installed. I'm sure hardware makers (the fat cats there) rejoice at the new OS releases as much as the software fat cats. Is it bad? Well it's kept the economy going for a long time. Is it good? Depends who you are. Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Re[2]: Windows XP - Scary! (Was=3 A OT: A computer question...) > aimcompute, > > I've been writing code for 20 years and have never encountered a > company requiring the code to be ineffecient. On the contrary, > programmers are quite capable, without being told, to write > ineffecient code. Most commonly are deadlines, which don't allow the > code to be optimized. The other big problem is that code is very > heavily layered, such that most of the layers were not written by the > programmer trying to do the optimization. They are many times viewed > as black boxes. > > In the old days, hardware was more expensive than software > development, so you had to be very careful to not overtax the > hardware. Today, hardware is quite cheap, so many just rely on > hardware upgrades to make up for ineffecient code. > > Conspiracy? No. > Something else (attitude, economics, ineptitude)? Yes! > > For the ultimate in inefficiency, try checkout out the Palm OS world > to the PocketPC world. PocketPC tries to overcome in hardware, great > waste and inefficiency in software. It is a real eye opener. > > > Bruce Dayton > > > > Friday, November 09, 2001, 9:54:53 AM, you wrote: > > a> Do you know better? > > a> I've worked with some commercial software products where when you look at > a> the internals, a program may be doing something thousands of times that it > a> only needed to do once. Or it's not filtering data at the appropriate > a> places and hence tablizing tens of thousands of records and moving them all > a> over the place. > > a> As time goes by, data volume grows, and performance nose dives. Time to > a> upgrade the hardware! > > a> Suspicious that the software and hardware companies always "partner" to > a> bring the best to corporate America and consumers. > > a> Tom C. > > a> ----- Original Message ----- > a> From: "Kent Gittings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > a> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > a> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 7:36 AM > a> Subject: RE: Windows XP - Scary! (Was=3 A OT: A computer question...) > > > >> It also depends on the speed of the PC. If I didn't know better I suspect > >> that Microsoft put in some instability code tied to a timing loop that > a> makes > >> it a little shaky the slower the machine you put it on. Sort of a deal to > >> make people buy faster PC's. > >> Kent Gittings > a> - > a> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > a> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > a> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
