GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Originally posted by SlipAway172 i dont understand this... the computer industry is starting to kill itself.
85% of people dont NEED a high end video card, super super fast CPU, Dual Channel RAM or more than 512MB, more than 20-40 GB HDD space, they dont need SCSI,serial ata, 500 watt PSU, or so many fans that your computer will start flying around the house.
since we all run linux we dont need that either except video editor, GIMP editors...etc. like all we need is a little 1.6-2 ghz machine with 256MB, like 20-40 GB, and 64bit in the near future.
i have a 120GB hdd for when i ran XP and i used 70% of it for mainly programs that i needed, but on linux im only using 11% with 10GB of my own personal data.
why cant the keep providing watered down hardware for us like small HDD and slower cpus, and some what older video cards ( but not used) becase that is all we need .
i have been seeing that gateway has gone out of business ( sorta) because most people have the " most" of a computer they would ever need. most companys have been worried that they wont be able to sell there "latest" computer except to the Gamers.
Have you ever tried to use Dragon Naturally Speaking 8? It's a speech-to-text application (sadly doesn't run on Linux).
I intend to buy it, and it requires at least 2 Ghz and 512 Mb RAM to run well.
This is one of the few applications that require a strong computer, but I think speech-to-text will become increasingly important in the next few years.
In a couple years we'll all probably be using Sun's Looking Glass 3D desktop on computers with 64-bit CPUs, 10 gigs of RAM and a terrabyte of hard disk space... and wondering how anyone used to get any work done on a whimpy P4
I heard the same argument when the P-166 came out. According to some, a P-166 with 64 megs of RAM and a 2 gig HDD was all the computing power an office user would ever need. And before that it was the 3 MIPS barrier that the 386 finally broke. That was as much computing power as a typical mainframe, on a user's desk. Why would anyone need more than that? LOL.
Originally posted by Mathiasdm Have you ever tried to use Dragon Naturally Speaking 8? It's a speech-to-text application (sadly doesn't run on Linux).
I intend to buy it, and it requires at least 2 Ghz and 512 Mb RAM to run well.
This is one of the few applications that require a strong computer, but I think speech-to-text will become increasingly important in the next few years.
That is just sloppy programming. A Pentium 60 or even a 486DX2-66 can handle speech-to-text with out any problems. In the old days programmers tried very, very hard to add features, making sure the memory does not get too full, and is very fast for their programs. In those days computers had about 1000 times less memory and speed.
Programmers should learn the old days before writting any program. If they do not want to be sloppy programmers. I have never heard of memory leaks in those days until Microsoft Windows came out. Now almost every Windows, some Mac, and some Linux programs have memory leaks. We as a consumer have to go out and buy more memory which does not help. Adding more memory is band aid fix to memory leak problems.
one of the beautiful things about /linux/unix/and mac is that they are harder to hack and if a new hacker only uses windows they wouldnt know what to do with a *nix computer. though with MDK 10.1 i ha to do 108 updates, there arent as many hackers looking for linux becuase it is harder to take over, so i just dont feel the worring to update out of the box, heck one time i didnt update MDK for 1 week and ran fine, and requires little to no resources compaed to M$!
I won't be happy untill it takes a jiffy to encode the entire LOTR trilogy and a jiffy to write it to my holographic disc...as far as I'm concerned the hardware these days is still far too slow, I want Moore Power!
Originally posted by Electro
That is just sloppy programming. A Pentium 60 or even a 486DX2-66 can handle speech-to-text with out any problems.
How come all the speech to text software that came out around this (mid 90s) time was cr@p then?
(BTW: my first PC was an NEC V40/512Kb/2x3.5" - 8086 clone - which I learned C/C++ and 8086 assembler on).
Quote:
In the old days programmers tried very, very hard to add features, making sure the memory does not get too full, and is very fast for their programs. In those days computers had about 1000 times less memory and speed.
And they still do. However, the feature set(s) required nowadays, time contraints and the availability of fast hardware means it makes more sense to avoid using assembly language where possible.
Quote:
Programmers should learn the old days before writting any program. If they do not want to be sloppy programmers.
Whilst I agree that programmers should learn to program properly, you are talking cr@p. Software nowadays is IME and in general far more reliable than in the "old days". This is quite surprising as it is infinitely more complicated than in "the old days".
Quote:
I have never heard of memory leaks in those days until Microsoft Windows came out.
That would be because DOS had bugger all memory protection as it had no multitasking capability. Why protect memory when there is only one process (more or less) running? DOS S/W just crashed and your PC would reboot (hopefully or you'd hard reset). I definitely rebooted my PC(s) more in the "old days".
Quote:
Now almost every Windows, some Mac, and some Linux programs have memory leaks. We as a consumer have to go out and buy more memory which does not help. Adding more memory is band aid fix to memory leak problems.
More memory will probably not fix memory leaks, which makes me doubt that you really understand what you are talking about.
I want more power to. About six months ago I was still using windows and I was rendering a 1min movie I made whit 3d max, I took 7 days!!. And my comp is pretty up to date.
Originally posted by tripmix I want more power to. About six months ago I was still using windows and I was rendering a 1min movie I made whit 3d max, I took 7 days!!. And my comp is pretty up to date.
if u read what all i wrote i said blah...blah and excluding video,audio,photo editors and other high end tasks
Originally posted by SlipAway172 i dont understand this... the computer industry is starting to kill itself.
85% of people dont NEED a high end video card, super super fast CPU, Dual Channel RAM or more than 512MB, more than 20-40 GB HDD space, they dont need SCSI,serial ata, 500 watt PSU, or so many fans that your computer will start flying around the house.
since we all run linux we dont need that either except video editor, GIMP editors...etc. like all we need is a little 1.6-2 ghz machine with 256MB, like 20-40 GB, and 64bit in the near future.
i have a 120GB hdd for when i ran XP and i used 70% of it for mainly programs that i needed, but on linux im only using 11% with 10GB of my own personal data.
why cant the keep providing watered down hardware for us like small HDD and slower cpus, and some what older video cards ( but not used) becase that is all we need .
i have been seeing that gateway has gone out of business ( sorta) because most people have the " most" of a computer they would ever need. most companys have been worried that they wont be able to sell there "latest" computer except to the Gamers.
So true.
I'm typing this on a Compaq 733MHz box with 384MB RAM.
I have a P4 1.5GHz box and when I go to work and use a 2.8GHz P4 I don't even notice the difference.
Originally posted by Electro That is just sloppy programming. A Pentium 60 or even a 486DX2-66 can handle speech-to-text with out any problems. In the old days programmers tried very, very hard to add features, making sure the memory does not get too full, and is very fast for their programs. In those days computers had about 1000 times less memory and speed.
Programmers should learn the old days before writting any program. If they do not want to be sloppy programmers. I have never heard of memory leaks in those days until Microsoft Windows came out. Now almost every Windows, some Mac, and some Linux programs have memory leaks. We as a consumer have to go out and buy more memory which does not help. Adding more memory is band aid fix to memory leak problems.
It's not sloppy programming. Voice recognition software is some of the most complicated software around.
The only voice recognition software that runs on old computers is pure cr@p.
Yeah software doesn't require more powerful machines because of sloppy programming. If that is so are you saying KDE and Gnome are sloppy programs? games are sloppy programs (well ok in some cases yeah but for the most part no) Its a matter of needing more resoruces in order to do more.
won't be happy untill it takes a jiffy to encode the entire LOTR trilogy and a jiffy to write it to my holographic disc...as far as I'm concerned the hardware these days is still far too slow, I want Moore Power!
Yes, computing is only going it's first or second steps ( defenetly young technology ) and it is doing very fast. So why such technology should kill itself in very begining? As IBM said, need for those machines is 6-7 for whole world . Sounds silly now, right?
i think people feel the need to upgrade because of all the shitty spyware and bloat on their pc. Really if they got a format and a reinstall (im talking bout windows here) they would think they had a new pc
when i go to friends homes and look at there computer, they said somethigs wrong. ( found TONS of spyware) and deleted it and they said it was running 300% faster with no popups. and to think they wanted to buy a new computer. lets think ( buy a new computer or download some free spyware removing software) and i was exiting there homes with thousnds of thanks
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
