3 ms·

The problem here is mostly the piece of s* Android OS. 1gb of storage is enough for a complete OS(100mb) and user files. 256mb ram and 500mhz single core is eno

The problem here is mostly the piece of s* Android OS. 1gb of storage is enough for a complete OS(100mb) and user files. 256mb ram and 500mhz single core is enough to drive a good OS without very much latency. And we only need a few functionalities (communicate and record) ... The 1000000 apps are a symptom we are confused about how computers work best. In time, we will have to figure this out, or we will have deserved to lose this tech.

userbinator 8y ago
Or in general, blame software bloat and the developers who push this sordid movement of inefficiency upon everyone else. A 1.3GHz quad-core with 512MB of RAM should be plenty powerful for what people use smartphones for; it wasn't too long ago when the typical desktop PC was around that specification (albeit only a single core) --- and yet, people used them for watching videos, VoIP/IM/video chat, and otherwise most of the things that smartphones would usually be used for today. At least, I could remember doing those things comfortably on a 733MHz PIII with 256MB of RAM. Scrolling through my Twitter timeline was a stuttering, jerky mess, despite Twitter's claims to “load quickly on slower connections.” I absolutely do not fathom how we got to the point where basic functionality like displaying some text and images seems to take far more processing power than they did years ago, and yet no one notices and tries to put a stop to it. IMHO something is very wrong when apps that do seemingly trivial things are multiple megabytes; surely one does not need millions of bytes of code to open a browser window to a website or implement IM functionality, for example. When software came on floppies, size was measured in kilobytes and a 1MB app was huge and accordingly did quite a lot.
- kwhitefoot 8y ago
  > people used them for watching videos, VoIP/IM/video chat, I used a 260 MHz Win98SE for VOIP and video chat a long time ago (when Win98SE was current). No one cares about efficiency any more.

userbinator 8y ago

Or in general, blame software bloat and the developers who push this sordid movement of inefficiency upon everyone else. A 1.3GHz quad-core with 512MB of RAM should be plenty powerful for what people use smartphones for; it wasn't too long ago when the typical desktop PC was around that specification (albeit only a single core) --- and yet, people used them for watching videos, VoIP/IM/video chat, and otherwise most of the things that smartphones would usually be used for today. At least, I could remember doing those things comfortably on a 733MHz PIII with 256MB of RAM. Scrolling through my Twitter timeline was a stuttering, jerky mess, despite Twitter's claims to “load quickly on slower connections.” I absolutely do not fathom how we got to the point where basic functionality like displaying some text and images seems to take far more processing power than they did years ago, and yet no one notices and tries to put a stop to it. IMHO something is very wrong when apps that do seemingly trivial things are multiple megabytes; surely one does not need millions of bytes of code to open a browser window to a website or implement IM functionality, for example. When software came on floppies, size was measured in kilobytes and a 1MB app was huge and accordingly did quite a lot.

kwhitefoot 8y ago
> people used them for watching videos, VoIP/IM/video chat, I used a 260 MHz Win98SE for VOIP and video chat a long time ago (when Win98SE was current). No one cares about efficiency any more.