4 ms·

I'm only 34, but my first hard drive had a capacity of 40MB. I am genuinely excited to be alive at a time when people can describe having a portable computer w

I'm only 34, but my first hard drive had a capacity of 40MB. I am genuinely excited to be alive at a time when people can describe having a portable computer with a 128GB persistent ram disk as "making do". No snark intended. Technology is amazing. That is all.

K2h 14y ago
I turn 35 this year, and I had computers with much smaller drives but the first HD I purchased was a 212MB for around $200 of my hard earned money. I bought it used. this also reminds me why a cd burner at 650 MB, more if you overburn was so incredible! given the size of hardrives now we need something well into the TB range to give us the same use. I enjoyed the jaunt down memory lane.
ekianjo 14y ago
Yeah, this made me smile too. The Amiga computer ran a full-featured multi-task OS on 512kb of RAM in 1984, and my Windows 7 is still struggling with 4gb on RAM on the board as it constantly writes temporary files on the Disk. Technology is amazing but somehow, our OSes are not "so" amazing. And let's not forget Windows XP and its tendency to turn the MBR into crap over time, making it slower and slower as time goes. Linux is a better OS in all these aspects, but there's still room for improvement. I would say we need a lot of power even for entry-level computers because our software is incredibly bloated in the first place, and not written towards efficiency. That's basically the game Microsoft and other have been playing for a long time: do not care about performance, because the specs will catch up anyway.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  That's not quite fair to compare, a modern computer OS has a lot more features than something like Amiga OS. Say for example, you have a folder full of movie files. The difference in computing required between just displaying a list of the files in there vs interrogating each file, generating a thumbnail on the fly and possibly sorting based on some metadata inside the file is probably more than an order of magnitude. Not to mention all the extra stuff you have for security and stability when you are running so many applications at the same time. You also have the classic trade-off of developer time (and therefor time to market) vs computer time.
  - moe 14y ago
    The difference in computing required between just displaying a list of the files in there vs interrogating each file, generating a thumbnail on the fly and possibly sorting based on some metadata Perhaps it's just me but I would happily trade in all that gimmickery for a usable file manager on OSX. I don't care for thumbnails. I think I have tried every finder-addon and replacement under the sun. Nothing comes close to the frictionless and fast experience that (dare I say it) Windows98 Explorer gave me 14 years ago.
    - OwlHuntr 14y ago
      iTerm + `locate`. It rarely fails to find anything. The solution is a bit "out there," but it solves my problems.
      - tincholio 14y ago
        I'd add zsh to this combo.
      - moe 14y ago
        Well, point taken (I'm a heavy shell-user myself). However there's a range of tasks where a GUI file manager is just the right tool for the job. I maintain OSX should have a proper file manager, regardless how much Apple wants the Filesystem metaphor to die.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Sure, I agree with you, it is not possible to compare them side by side. I am merely pointing out the fact that I have yet to find a smooth experience on modern desktops like I found on previous systems years ago. No matter how much power we now have, it still feel damn slow, and maybe there is an excess of gimmicks vs actual, useful, clean functionality.
tincholio 14y ago
It is funny, in a way. I've had pretty much the same history as you do (not yet 35, 40MB of HDD after surviving on 2 double-density 5.25 floppy drives), but it is true that 128GB today is quite low, space wise. I recently bought a new camera (Nikon D600), and if you shoot at the best possible quality, each RAW file takes up some 30MB. Add a few movies, and suddenly those 128GB feel positively cramped.

K2h 14y ago

I turn 35 this year, and I had computers with much smaller drives but the first HD I purchased was a 212MB for around $200 of my hard earned money. I bought it used. this also reminds me why a cd burner at 650 MB, more if you overburn was so incredible! given the size of hardrives now we need something well into the TB range to give us the same use. I enjoyed the jaunt down memory lane.

ekianjo 14y ago

Yeah, this made me smile too. The Amiga computer ran a full-featured multi-task OS on 512kb of RAM in 1984, and my Windows 7 is still struggling with 4gb on RAM on the board as it constantly writes temporary files on the Disk. Technology is amazing but somehow, our OSes are not "so" amazing. And let's not forget Windows XP and its tendency to turn the MBR into crap over time, making it slower and slower as time goes. Linux is a better OS in all these aspects, but there's still room for improvement. I would say we need a lot of power even for entry-level computers because our software is incredibly bloated in the first place, and not written towards efficiency. That's basically the game Microsoft and other have been playing for a long time: do not care about performance, because the specs will catch up anyway.

jiggy2011 14y ago
That's not quite fair to compare, a modern computer OS has a lot more features than something like Amiga OS. Say for example, you have a folder full of movie files. The difference in computing required between just displaying a list of the files in there vs interrogating each file, generating a thumbnail on the fly and possibly sorting based on some metadata inside the file is probably more than an order of magnitude. Not to mention all the extra stuff you have for security and stability when you are running so many applications at the same time. You also have the classic trade-off of developer time (and therefor time to market) vs computer time.
- moe 14y ago
  The difference in computing required between just displaying a list of the files in there vs interrogating each file, generating a thumbnail on the fly and possibly sorting based on some metadata Perhaps it's just me but I would happily trade in all that gimmickery for a usable file manager on OSX. I don't care for thumbnails. I think I have tried every finder-addon and replacement under the sun. Nothing comes close to the frictionless and fast experience that (dare I say it) Windows98 Explorer gave me 14 years ago.
  - OwlHuntr 14y ago
    iTerm + `locate`. It rarely fails to find anything. The solution is a bit "out there," but it solves my problems.
    - tincholio 14y ago
      I'd add zsh to this combo.
    - moe 14y ago
      Well, point taken (I'm a heavy shell-user myself). However there's a range of tasks where a GUI file manager is just the right tool for the job. I maintain OSX should have a proper file manager, regardless how much Apple wants the Filesystem metaphor to die.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Sure, I agree with you, it is not possible to compare them side by side. I am merely pointing out the fact that I have yet to find a smooth experience on modern desktops like I found on previous systems years ago. No matter how much power we now have, it still feel damn slow, and maybe there is an excess of gimmicks vs actual, useful, clean functionality.

tincholio 14y ago

It is funny, in a way. I've had pretty much the same history as you do (not yet 35, 40MB of HDD after surviving on 2 double-density 5.25 floppy drives), but it is true that 128GB today is quite low, space wise. I recently bought a new camera (Nikon D600), and if you shoot at the best possible quality, each RAW file takes up some 30MB. Add a few movies, and suddenly those 128GB feel positively cramped.