4 ms·

Actually, a computer from 1983 is still the reigning latency champion. https://danluu.com/input-lag/ https://danluu.com/input-lag/

AlexCoventry 7y ago
That comparison's a bit ridiculous, considering how much more a modern system is doing and making possible. I think all it shows is that latencies under 200ms are widely regarded as acceptable. What latencies are observed if you run an OS of comparable simplicity to the Apple 2e's on a modern machine?
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  If you ran an OS that was exactly as simple as the Apple 2e, the Apple 2e would still win. Modern hardware introduces a significant amount of latency, its important to differentiate throughput and speed, a modern computer would crush a 2e in throughput a million times over, maybe more, but that doesn't mean its pipeline is shorter.
  - joshspankit 7y ago
    Definitely dig this theory and feel like it might be spot-on, but do we have any linkable evidence?
    - tripzilch 7y ago
      Evidence? Of how computers work?
      - joshspankit 7y ago
        Evidence that “If you ran an OS that was exactly as simple as the Apple 2e, the Apple 2e would still win.”...
  - Wowfunhappy 7y ago
    Why? Can nothing be done about it short of literally going back to 90s era hardware? I see latency as a silent killer, of sorts. For instance, if you introduce a tiny bit of mouse latency, users won't notice the additional latency, but they will sense that their mouse doesn't feel quite as good. Give them a side by side comparison, and I bet most will be able to tell you the mouse with slightly less latency feels better. This extends to everything. Video games with lower latency appear to have better, smoother controls. Calls with less latency result in smoother, more natural conversations. Touch screens with less latency feel more natural and responsive. (I only have anecdotal evidence of this, but I am absolutely convinced of it.)
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > I think all it shows is that latencies under 200ms are widely regarded as acceptable. They are literally not. At all. You're way off. For anyone who cares about latency, you gotta be sub 50ms at least. For anyone doing generic not latency-sensitive work, maybe you can get away with 100ms, but that's stretching it. 200-250ms is the (purposefully built-in) latency with which an autocomplete may appear while typing. Not the latency for a single character or mouse click! Where do you get 200ms latency anyway? That's a lot

AlexCoventry 7y ago

That comparison's a bit ridiculous, considering how much more a modern system is doing and making possible. I think all it shows is that latencies under 200ms are widely regarded as acceptable. What latencies are observed if you run an OS of comparable simplicity to the Apple 2e's on a modern machine?

throwaway2048 7y ago
If you ran an OS that was exactly as simple as the Apple 2e, the Apple 2e would still win. Modern hardware introduces a significant amount of latency, its important to differentiate throughput and speed, a modern computer would crush a 2e in throughput a million times over, maybe more, but that doesn't mean its pipeline is shorter.
- joshspankit 7y ago
  Definitely dig this theory and feel like it might be spot-on, but do we have any linkable evidence?
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    Evidence? Of how computers work?
    - joshspankit 7y ago
      Evidence that “If you ran an OS that was exactly as simple as the Apple 2e, the Apple 2e would still win.”...
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  Why? Can nothing be done about it short of literally going back to 90s era hardware? I see latency as a silent killer, of sorts. For instance, if you introduce a tiny bit of mouse latency, users won't notice the additional latency, but they will sense that their mouse doesn't feel quite as good. Give them a side by side comparison, and I bet most will be able to tell you the mouse with slightly less latency feels better. This extends to everything. Video games with lower latency appear to have better, smoother controls. Calls with less latency result in smoother, more natural conversations. Touch screens with less latency feel more natural and responsive. (I only have anecdotal evidence of this, but I am absolutely convinced of it.)
tripzilch 7y ago
> I think all it shows is that latencies under 200ms are widely regarded as acceptable. They are literally not. At all. You're way off. For anyone who cares about latency, you gotta be sub 50ms at least. For anyone doing generic not latency-sensitive work, maybe you can get away with 100ms, but that's stretching it. 200-250ms is the (purposefully built-in) latency with which an autocomplete may appear while typing. Not the latency for a single character or mouse click! Where do you get 200ms latency anyway? That's a lot