6 ms·

"Is performance still an issue in this era of cheap 486 computers and super-fast Pentium computers? You bet. How many programs that you use really run so fast t

"Is performance still an issue in this era of cheap 486 computers and super-fast Pentium computers? You bet. How many programs that you use really run so fast that you wouldn't be happier if they ran faster? We're so used to slow software that when a compile-and-link sequence that took two minutes on a PC takes just ten seconds on a 486 computer, we're ecstatic—when in truth we should be settling for nothing less than instantaneous response." Not sure if I want to laugh or cry at how 100% relevant this still is 20 years later...

ArtWomb 7y ago
People take for granted that an app responds in milliseconds. Engineers at Google, et al, of course immediately recognized that performance was tied to adoption in the early days and left no stone unturned in their quest for optimizations. The analogy today in portable devices is maybe with battery life drain during game play.
- naikrovek 7y ago
  I think with search results you're right, and with things like GMail it seems performance is at the bottom of the priority list. Perhaps even off of the priority list entirely.
  - pradn 7y ago
    Performance is just a requirement. If it's good enough, it's good enough to release. It's not ideal and immensely wasteful, but that's how incentives are aligned.
  - criddell 7y ago
    I sometimes wonder if GMail users are expected to leave it open all day long. I bet that's how most Googlers work.
    - entropicdrifter 7y ago
      I keep a tab pinned in Firefox. Runs great if you never close and re-open it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
anaphor 7y ago
I've had people tell me all of the extra bloat/slowness in modern software is because it has more features, and because accessibility / localization is a thing more often. I'm not sure I actually believe that's true. Maybe accessibility and localization contributes to bloat/slowness, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be much much more efficient and keep the same features.
- vardump 7y ago
  Software is usually slow because most of the time developers don't get paid for runtime performance, but features.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Present day programs aren't optimized because they don't have to be. No one needs to gain a competitive advantage by squeezing the last bit of performance out of hardware because for a long time we've had steadily increasing performance levels and backward compatibility. Applications which need more performance than the present level of hardware can deliver so badly that they need to optimize to that level are very rare. That's why Windows is the size it is nowadays... it's optimized for delivering the same user experience on all hardware, compatibility, language flexibility, manageability and user friendliness (don't laugh) instead of performance. It essentially performs the same function that Windows 3.1 did, but it does it on a far greater variety of hardware running a far larger assortment of software. It's bigger and slower than it could be, but there are always trade-offs, and Microsoft hasn't really had any competition in operating systems for decades... Linux and variants have their place, but it's not on the desktop for most people, at least at the moment.
  - slowhand09 7y ago
    I would disagree with the "they don't need to be" stmt. Many photographers and artist have legit gripes in the lengthy time many filters and transforms take in post processing. Many of these are recipes that are applied en-masse to all files in a directory.
    - 7y ago
godelski 7y ago
Funny, in a thread just the other day I was asking why we use different icons in new updates and focus less on optimization. This was in response to a commentor that suggested apps will use all available resources. If graphics has taught me anything it's: use what you need and make it fast. Other programs are relying on you.
voldacar 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law

ArtWomb 7y ago

People take for granted that an app responds in milliseconds. Engineers at Google, et al, of course immediately recognized that performance was tied to adoption in the early days and left no stone unturned in their quest for optimizations. The analogy today in portable devices is maybe with battery life drain during game play.

naikrovek 7y ago
I think with search results you're right, and with things like GMail it seems performance is at the bottom of the priority list. Perhaps even off of the priority list entirely.
- pradn 7y ago
  Performance is just a requirement. If it's good enough, it's good enough to release. It's not ideal and immensely wasteful, but that's how incentives are aligned.
- criddell 7y ago
  I sometimes wonder if GMail users are expected to leave it open all day long. I bet that's how most Googlers work.
  - entropicdrifter 7y ago
    I keep a tab pinned in Firefox. Runs great if you never close and re-open it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

anaphor 7y ago

I've had people tell me all of the extra bloat/slowness in modern software is because it has more features, and because accessibility / localization is a thing more often. I'm not sure I actually believe that's true. Maybe accessibility and localization contributes to bloat/slowness, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be much much more efficient and keep the same features.

vardump 7y ago
Software is usually slow because most of the time developers don't get paid for runtime performance, but features.
Accujack 7y ago
Present day programs aren't optimized because they don't have to be. No one needs to gain a competitive advantage by squeezing the last bit of performance out of hardware because for a long time we've had steadily increasing performance levels and backward compatibility. Applications which need more performance than the present level of hardware can deliver so badly that they need to optimize to that level are very rare. That's why Windows is the size it is nowadays... it's optimized for delivering the same user experience on all hardware, compatibility, language flexibility, manageability and user friendliness (don't laugh) instead of performance. It essentially performs the same function that Windows 3.1 did, but it does it on a far greater variety of hardware running a far larger assortment of software. It's bigger and slower than it could be, but there are always trade-offs, and Microsoft hasn't really had any competition in operating systems for decades... Linux and variants have their place, but it's not on the desktop for most people, at least at the moment.
- slowhand09 7y ago
  I would disagree with the "they don't need to be" stmt. Many photographers and artist have legit gripes in the lengthy time many filters and transforms take in post processing. Many of these are recipes that are applied en-masse to all files in a directory.
  - 7y ago

godelski 7y ago

Funny, in a thread just the other day I was asking why we use different icons in new updates and focus less on optimization. This was in response to a commentor that suggested apps will use all available resources. If graphics has taught me anything it's: use what you need and make it fast. Other programs are relying on you.

voldacar 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law