3 ms·

Vast numbers of perfectly servicable computer hardware is thrown out all the time. We would be well served to use this time to get used to reusing and extending

Vast numbers of perfectly servicable computer hardware is thrown out all the time. We would be well served to use this time to get used to reusing and extending the life of the hardware we already have. And, as software engineers, we need to reign in our reckless disregard for performance concerns to ensure that hardware remains useful, longer.

astrange 6y ago
Performance may be improved purely in software (I don’t think this is true) but to improve power use you definitely want to keep throwing out old hardware. We’re not at the end of process shrinks yet and old stuff always uses more power.
- 43920 6y ago
  I would imagine the extra power use probably isn't enough to outweigh the environmental costs of manufacturing new hardware, at least for your average consumer device. For servers, maybe the higher power usage is sufficiently high for it to be beneficial?
  - astrange 6y ago
    Yes, I meant at datacenter scale. In your own house the power bill/the environment won't really be helped, but newer tech does have better battery life, and that's always nice.
zepto 6y ago
When you say ‘perfectly serviceable” what do you mean? Generally, I take it to mean still runs old sofware, but not compatible with current software.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I mean "capable of running useful software". There are vanishingly few use-cases which actually demand the resources of newer computers - 99% of software with high system requirements is due to programmers who have grown fat on the teat of their high-end workstations.
  - zepto 6y ago
    This seems to be an argument for not buying new computers. I don’t entirely disagree with you. I would say that a lot of compute resources are used to make user interfaces more impressive, but not necessarily better than what could be done if we designed interfaces around lower resources. However that isn’t what we’ve done. Older computers often can’t run software that is useful today even if the software they could run when they were new still does the job. Things like file formats and web standards have moved on and are not backwards compatible, and a lot of what people use computers for is communication, so that matters.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      >This seems to be an argument for not buying new computers. That's exactly what this is an argument for. It's also an argument for programmers to accomodate this.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Programmers accommodating this is a deep problem, although I agree it’s one worth solving.
hootbootscoot 6y ago
thank you! Despite all the defenses of such by progammers who claim hardware always improving and code cosmetics/organizational trends obviate software performance concerns, I can attest to the reality that I composed electronic music with completely software instruments and effects on 512mb ram on earlier versions of certain unnamed DAW's with all the "latest" plugins at the time. My last Macbook pro 2011 with 4gb ram on Snow Leopard was sufficient, but once I updated it to Yosemite and went from Cubase 5 to Cubase 9, from Ableton 5.5 to Ableton 10, that it went from "performing just fine" to basically running the fan the entire time and glitching at basic playback of sessions I was previously working on no problem. (same plugins). The Steinberg Cubase one being the biggest noticable turd, and I blame their acquisition by Yamaha, as the customer-service also went down the tubes, as I waited months to get a reply on a replacement USB dongle (also a sucky thing for a laptop with 2 USB ports, but I digress) Software bloat kills. It's not all deliberate, but if our values don't change from "who cares" to "we care", we can't expect any change. Is uncaring mega-corp structure the cause? (programmer wants to go home, project is badly managed, bugs outnumber features, let's start a new project, etc?) I'm curious what folks think is the cause of poor-quality buggy bloated "modern" software that is demonstrably worse than older software. It's not an improvement in technology, it's simply that our modern world cares more about superficial animated menu openings than about performance. Mind you, not ALL software follows this trend. Reaper still kicks A, but that's because Mr. Frankl has a vision, integrity, and still maintains control lol anyway, about chips and processes, it's not about getting tinier and tinier, it's about an intelligent design. All the efficiency improvements in the process are wasted if the goal is to make a mega-poo-renderer that renders 0.1 turds per KW of power expended. Controversial thought of the day: I will reckon that a simple interrupt driven event-loop on a microcontroller running all HID input is a million times more efficient than the convoluted way a context switching multitasking operating system handles the same under full load with full memory saturation.

astrange 6y ago

Performance may be improved purely in software (I don’t think this is true) but to improve power use you definitely want to keep throwing out old hardware. We’re not at the end of process shrinks yet and old stuff always uses more power.

43920 6y ago
I would imagine the extra power use probably isn't enough to outweigh the environmental costs of manufacturing new hardware, at least for your average consumer device. For servers, maybe the higher power usage is sufficiently high for it to be beneficial?
- astrange 6y ago
  Yes, I meant at datacenter scale. In your own house the power bill/the environment won't really be helped, but newer tech does have better battery life, and that's always nice.

zepto 6y ago

When you say ‘perfectly serviceable” what do you mean? Generally, I take it to mean still runs old sofware, but not compatible with current software.

ddevault 6y ago
I mean "capable of running useful software". There are vanishingly few use-cases which actually demand the resources of newer computers - 99% of software with high system requirements is due to programmers who have grown fat on the teat of their high-end workstations.
- zepto 6y ago
  This seems to be an argument for not buying new computers. I don’t entirely disagree with you. I would say that a lot of compute resources are used to make user interfaces more impressive, but not necessarily better than what could be done if we designed interfaces around lower resources. However that isn’t what we’ve done. Older computers often can’t run software that is useful today even if the software they could run when they were new still does the job. Things like file formats and web standards have moved on and are not backwards compatible, and a lot of what people use computers for is communication, so that matters.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >This seems to be an argument for not buying new computers. That's exactly what this is an argument for. It's also an argument for programmers to accomodate this.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Programmers accommodating this is a deep problem, although I agree it’s one worth solving.

hootbootscoot 6y ago

thank you! Despite all the defenses of such by progammers who claim hardware always improving and code cosmetics/organizational trends obviate software performance concerns, I can attest to the reality that I composed electronic music with completely software instruments and effects on 512mb ram on earlier versions of certain unnamed DAW's with all the "latest" plugins at the time. My last Macbook pro 2011 with 4gb ram on Snow Leopard was sufficient, but once I updated it to Yosemite and went from Cubase 5 to Cubase 9, from Ableton 5.5 to Ableton 10, that it went from "performing just fine" to basically running the fan the entire time and glitching at basic playback of sessions I was previously working on no problem. (same plugins). The Steinberg Cubase one being the biggest noticable turd, and I blame their acquisition by Yamaha, as the customer-service also went down the tubes, as I waited months to get a reply on a replacement USB dongle (also a sucky thing for a laptop with 2 USB ports, but I digress) Software bloat kills. It's not all deliberate, but if our values don't change from "who cares" to "we care", we can't expect any change. Is uncaring mega-corp structure the cause? (programmer wants to go home, project is badly managed, bugs outnumber features, let's start a new project, etc?) I'm curious what folks think is the cause of poor-quality buggy bloated "modern" software that is demonstrably worse than older software. It's not an improvement in technology, it's simply that our modern world cares more about superficial animated menu openings than about performance. Mind you, not ALL software follows this trend. Reaper still kicks A, but that's because Mr. Frankl has a vision, integrity, and still maintains control lol anyway, about chips and processes, it's not about getting tinier and tinier, it's about an intelligent design. All the efficiency improvements in the process are wasted if the goal is to make a mega-poo-renderer that renders 0.1 turds per KW of power expended. Controversial thought of the day: I will reckon that a simple interrupt driven event-loop on a microcontroller running all HID input is a million times more efficient than the convoluted way a context switching multitasking operating system handles the same under full load with full memory saturation.