4 ms·

Wonder how much of it is only due to asset. I keep making my colleague notice than a single background image displayed on a high res iphone occupies more ram th

by bsaul 9y ago

Wonder how much of it is only due to asset. I keep making my colleague notice than a single background image displayed on a high res iphone occupies more ram than the total data of their app by a factor of 100 (at the minimum). Same goes for app size on disk : it's most often mainly assets. So just loading from disk, decompressing, put on Ram then moving around and applying visual effects is probably half of the reason everything is slow. Those "bloat" graph should also mention screen resolution and color depth.

wodenokoto 9y ago
My first thought too. I might have done the same on my 2000 era machine as I do today (browse the web, listen to music, program, maybe edit a picture or two) but I'll be damned if I had to do all this in Windows 98 with a resolution of 800x640 again!
- chx 9y ago
  640x480 or 800x600 and I think you mean the latter. 640x480 was more a Windows 95 resolution. We could waste some words here how display resolution didn't keep up due to Windows being crap and people being bamboozled into 1366x768 being "HD" or "HD Ready". 800x600 vs 1366x768 that's only double the pixels and barely more vertical.
  - digi_owl 9y ago
    Win95 would default to 640x480 at some low color depth if there were nothing but vesa drivers to work with. Made for a fun first hour after a fresh install. Back then i had a habit of building up a cache of drivers and common software on drive, later dumped to CDs at irregular intervals, just to lessen the rebuild time. Funny thing is that i kinda miss those days. Back then i could pull the drive from a computer, cram it into another, and more often than not 9x would boot. It may give me that vesa only resolution etc, but it would boot. These days it feels like it would just as well throw a hissy fit ascii screen about missing drivers, or something about the license not being verifiable. I thought maybe Linux would rekindle this, but sadly it seems the DE devs are driving even it head first into the pavement. This so that they can use the GPU to draw all their bling bling widgets and paper over the kernel output with a HD logo...

by bsaul 9y ago

wodenokoto 9y ago

My first thought too. I might have done the same on my 2000 era machine as I do today (browse the web, listen to music, program, maybe edit a picture or two) but I'll be damned if I had to do all this in Windows 98 with a resolution of 800x640 again!

chx 9y ago
640x480 or 800x600 and I think you mean the latter. 640x480 was more a Windows 95 resolution. We could waste some words here how display resolution didn't keep up due to Windows being crap and people being bamboozled into 1366x768 being "HD" or "HD Ready". 800x600 vs 1366x768 that's only double the pixels and barely more vertical.
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Win95 would default to 640x480 at some low color depth if there were nothing but vesa drivers to work with. Made for a fun first hour after a fresh install. Back then i had a habit of building up a cache of drivers and common software on drive, later dumped to CDs at irregular intervals, just to lessen the rebuild time. Funny thing is that i kinda miss those days. Back then i could pull the drive from a computer, cram it into another, and more often than not 9x would boot. It may give me that vesa only resolution etc, but it would boot. These days it feels like it would just as well throw a hissy fit ascii screen about missing drivers, or something about the license not being verifiable. I thought maybe Linux would rekindle this, but sadly it seems the DE devs are driving even it head first into the pavement. This so that they can use the GPU to draw all their bling bling widgets and paper over the kernel output with a HD logo...