4 ms·

The problem you’re highlighting is a simple design issue. My problem with progress bars is they are usually nonsense estimates based upon random programmer cho

The problem you’re highlighting is a simple design issue. My problem with progress bars is they are usually nonsense estimates based upon random programmer choices. I know former MSers who worked on progress bars for old Windows versions. Specifically I remember them saying the progress bar for copying files to USB was estimating how long until a USB hardware buffer was clear, without any idea how much more data there was intended to be jammed into the buffer once it cleared. Buffer would immediately refill and increase the wait time. Given how slowly Windows deprecates code, who knows what subroutines any given progress bar is relying on. They’re nonsense features meant to soothe users who seek progress. They don’t need to be interesting visually. I’d accept a simple countdown that made sense. I’m hoping manufacture of application specific chips takes off. That we embed a 3D engine into silicon and this “software engineering is life” mind virus can go away. We simply did not do it that way before because we lacked the manufacturing capabilities. If manufacturing hopes and dreams of colleagues in the chip biz come to fruition, software is on its way out as a routine part of developing new technology. But I mean they’re biased; attention on hardware versus software makes them more valuable.

bmn__ 5y ago
> I know former MSers who worked on progress bars for old Windows versions. https://explainxkcd.com/612 https://explainxkcd.com/612
- chmsky00 5y ago
  Yep. That was around the time I worked with those folks. I would not be surprised if the topic came up because of that comic.
spookthesunset 5y ago
If we are gonna bitch about progress bars, Microsoft’s are almost always the worst. So many of them get to 99% and them stall out… dunno how they get their progress bars so bad.
- WorldMaker 5y ago
  The problem isn't Microsoft. The problem is that progress bars are the worst way to indicate progress ever invented except for all the other terrible ways to indicate progress we've invented. Percentage numbers are always a lie and shouldn't even be shown, but some people like the soothing comfort of "number go big".
  - tjoff 5y ago
    No, you want to know if the command spewing out text is going to be done in about 5 seconds (I'll wait), 5 minutes (time for coffee or whatever) or 5 hours... They also are there to indicate progress if no other visuals are present (no, it hasn't crashed yet). Progress bars solve that given some uncertainty in most cases. And that is very much appreciated. Everyone knows or learns that they aren't perfect, and that is fine.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      If they are tied to actual progress, then at least you have an indication of whether a task is hanging or still (slowly) working.
      - WorldMaker 5y ago
        Except 0/100 isn't a lot of granularity to indicate "still slowly working". (0/1000 or 0/10000 if you show percentages to the second or third decimal point aren't much better either, especially if the working set is in the millions or billions of things to do.)
        robertlagrant 5y ago
        > especially if the working set is in the millions or billions of things to do That depends on how fast they get done. I'm not saying it covers every case, which I think would be the thesis you're countering. I'm just saying they are sometimes useful.
WorldMaker 5y ago
I've been starting work on a long rant title "Counting is Harder Than You Think". In general, I think most people think counting is one of the easiest things for computers to do because people learn counting in elementary school and just forever associate it with "easy". (Someone's never asked the elementary school teacher's opinion of that.) "How hard can it be, it's just a Select Count() in SQL!" Uh, that Count() is possibly doing a ton of work in CPU/IO that the server could be doing for other things, and sure an Index might speed that up, but you can't really index an Index and eventually you get right back to where you can't afford the CPU/IO time. People just assume computers have exact numbers at all times. Some of that is just a problem of bad UX design ("why are we showing a meaningless estimate number like 1,492,631 and not 'about a Million things to do'?"), but so much of it just seems to be that people think counting is easy.

bmn__ 5y ago

> I know former MSers who worked on progress bars for old Windows versions. https://explainxkcd.com/612 https://explainxkcd.com/612

chmsky00 5y ago
Yep. That was around the time I worked with those folks. I would not be surprised if the topic came up because of that comic.

spookthesunset 5y ago

If we are gonna bitch about progress bars, Microsoft’s are almost always the worst. So many of them get to 99% and them stall out… dunno how they get their progress bars so bad.

WorldMaker 5y ago
The problem isn't Microsoft. The problem is that progress bars are the worst way to indicate progress ever invented except for all the other terrible ways to indicate progress we've invented. Percentage numbers are always a lie and shouldn't even be shown, but some people like the soothing comfort of "number go big".
- tjoff 5y ago
  No, you want to know if the command spewing out text is going to be done in about 5 seconds (I'll wait), 5 minutes (time for coffee or whatever) or 5 hours... They also are there to indicate progress if no other visuals are present (no, it hasn't crashed yet). Progress bars solve that given some uncertainty in most cases. And that is very much appreciated. Everyone knows or learns that they aren't perfect, and that is fine.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    If they are tied to actual progress, then at least you have an indication of whether a task is hanging or still (slowly) working.
    - WorldMaker 5y ago
      Except 0/100 isn't a lot of granularity to indicate "still slowly working". (0/1000 or 0/10000 if you show percentages to the second or third decimal point aren't much better either, especially if the working set is in the millions or billions of things to do.)
      - robertlagrant 5y ago
        > especially if the working set is in the millions or billions of things to do That depends on how fast they get done. I'm not saying it covers every case, which I think would be the thesis you're countering. I'm just saying they are sometimes useful.

WorldMaker 5y ago

I've been starting work on a long rant title "Counting is Harder Than You Think". In general, I think most people think counting is one of the easiest things for computers to do because people learn counting in elementary school and just forever associate it with "easy". (Someone's never asked the elementary school teacher's opinion of that.) "How hard can it be, it's just a Select Count() in SQL!" Uh, that Count() is possibly doing a ton of work in CPU/IO that the server could be doing for other things, and sure an Index might speed that up, but you can't really index an Index and eventually you get right back to where you can't afford the CPU/IO time. People just assume computers have exact numbers at all times. Some of that is just a problem of bad UX design ("why are we showing a meaningless estimate number like 1,492,631 and not 'about a Million things to do'?"), but so much of it just seems to be that people think counting is easy.