This issue has been bothering me for so long.

Have you ever imagined how much data (ie. chars) could fit into 1GB RAM? 1char=1byte, that gives 1024x1024x1024 chars ca. 1`000`000`000 chars. Let`s assume one manually types a char per second. It gives 32 years of constant typing day and night. Why our computers have to move this data to and fro when several years ago they could work with 64KB (Commodore 64)?

I do understand capacity of hardisks has to grow as we store larger and larger files. I can understand RAM needs to grow too. But why executables went into hundreds of MB? What is inside them? Several years ago whole operating system could fit into several KB. What happened except manufacturers of hardware in league with coders want us to buy a new machine every year or maybe that`s just messy coding is to blame?

No, that's not it. What happened was that people demanded 'pretty' and 'cute'. All those pretty little high colour graphic icons need to be stored somewhere as do all the dings, dongs, whoops, kerchangs and plonks that icons have to make when you click them these days.

Then there's the fact that modern OSes are a far more complicated environment to run in. Code running on the old 8 bit machines didn't need to worry about the gubbins they need to do in order to act responsibly in a multi-user/multi-processing environment.

Your programs need to contain functions to redraw the screen when requested by the XServer/WindowManager after someone has moved a window that was previously overlapping yours.

They need to request memory in the correct way and keep track of what they've requested. In the 8 bit world you just poked your data into whatever memory address you felt like (with the exception of a small area that the system kept for itself) and didn't have to worry about coordinating it with the rest of the system.

Then there's other stuff like localisation that will take up additional space for each language supported. 8 bit code didn't tend to worry about that either.


I'm sure sloppy coding is also a factor these days. When you only had a few K to play with you had to be efficient, but these days RAM is plentiful and deadlines are short so developers don't have the time to spend optimising or thinking up efficient ways to do things.

Having said all that, a good few years back I played with both BeOS and QNX neutrino RTOS and they were both scarily responsive on hardware that wasn't a patch on today's kit.

I don't buy into the inefficiency conspiracy theory between hardware manufacturers and software vendors that you suggest, but it does make you wonder where it all went wrong!

5 members found this post helpful.

I saw once a commercial of BeOS where old dual P2-266 with 64M RAM was much responsive than present desktops performing similar tasks. Why aren`t we going this way?

Microsoft's monopoly position. No one is going to run BeOS (or any other OS for that matter) unless they can get/buy the applications they want for it. No one is going to write the applications for an OS no one uses. Catch-22. Inertia. OS\2 had the same problem.

At least that's how it tends to work in the commercial world. Linux has mostly side stepped this issue because of it's open-source nature and linux users tend to be more willing to make-do with other apps if the ones they really wanted aren't available. But you still see people complaining that certain apps aren't available.

Nokia has seen Windows Vista and liked it. And Nokia has said: Let there be KDE4. And it was KDE4.

1 members found this post helpful.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in Linux-General and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

I don't buy a new machine every year. More like every 5-10 years, and that's because some things start to fail, and replacing them becomes more expensive and with less performance that buying a new computer with new interfaces.

For example why would I stay with an old computer with an AGP video card when new ones use PCI-E, and you can get better performance for less price ?

I, like TexMex, only update my hardware if/when the price becomes sweet enough, not because my OS demands it. Because it DOESN'T. MS Windows DOES

1 members found this post helpful.

Yeah, M$ Window$ is likely the real problem here, and probably the real target of the rant.

Not at all. Linux isn`t any better or even worse. I remember running KDE or Gnome with 64M RAM back in 2002 and it was OK. Linux (both kernel and applications) gets more bloated and bloated. If Linux was any better than Windows as regards responsiveness and speed it could take over the old hardware unable to run Vista or 7 (or XP back several years ago) and then the famous "year of the Linux desktop" would have come, but it didn`t because Linux has been as much or more resource hungry as Windows.

It would be better if developers focused on efficiency of drivers (sound, video, etc.) instead of inventing new themes, icons, and other bells and whistles. I currently have problems with intel video card which used to work perfectly with older xorg. Such regress is hardly acceptable

With Linux you have a choice. If you don't use KDE or GNOME, you don't need very much RAM at all.

Unless I`m going to use OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox....

Another issue, why Windows apps are sometimes faster in Wine than Linux native counterparts?

Three letters: KDE

Also I tend to disagree with your statement about Linux becoming bloated (that appears to be a popular saying these days). Linux grows larger because it's a monolithic kernel. That means if there's a piece of hardware that Linux can't use, and you want it to use it, Linux has to get bigger.

If you aren't a fan of the backwards-compatibility of Linux, there's always Microsoft. They would be happy to shove you into the three-year cycle of replacing every last ounce of your hardware.

Compared to flashy desktops and cumbersome apps, the Linux kernel is quite small. Place blame where it rightfully belongs.

And one more thing: Even the bloated Ubuntu 10.10 can run in 256MB of RAM, while WinBloze needs at least 1GB or more for optimal performance. Linux really isn't any more bloated than OS X!

And for my poll vote: I build my own FrankenLinux. As such, I buy replacement parts for my components as I see fit and replace them individually rather than replacing the whole machine.

If I have to replace the case, I replace the case. If I replace the motherboard and CPU, I replace the motherboard and CPU. If I have to replace the graphics card, I replace the graphics card. If I have to replace the hard drive, I replace it. But the one thing I DON'T do is replace the entire machine.

As an addendum to my previous post: I don't replace entire machines either. I replace what/when is needed. But I stopped replacing cases.

How? I don't even use one now... I built a custom computer desk with supports, etc, and leave the various components on a shelf inside with a custom routed and filtered incoming vent from my home A/C system blowing into the space. Everything stays nice and cool, plus the added advantage if I need to swap out ram, PSU, vidcard, or whatever, it takes about 5 seconds and I don't have to dig under my desk, have special tools, or anything. I just have to trade dusting it out more often.

<< Old and lazy