2 ms·
You're right that we can do more with our computers now than we did a decade ago (though I don't care for the transparency and other visual effects; I used the
by mwcampbell 12y ago
You're right that we can do more with our computers now than we did a decade ago (though I don't care for the transparency and other visual effects; I used the Windows Classic theme until MS took it away in Windows 8). But the increasing resource requirements of software don't always come with an increase in functionality, and the increased requirements sometimes force hardware upgrades even if one doesn't want more functionality. Would an original 2007 iPhone be able to run iOS 7, even if one only expects it to do the things that it could do in 2007? (Hint: Even an iPhone 4 is sluggish on iOS 7.) So maybe it's just an inaccurate perception, but the increased resource requirements of newer software make it feel like we're on an upgrade treadmill. Or as the saying went in the 90s, Andy (Grove) giveth and Bill (Gates) taketh away.
- wvenable 12y agoThe upgrade treadmill is a good thing. I'm sitting in front of a machine with a quad-core processor and 16GB of RAM that cost way less than the 486 system I bought back when the specs you described were relevant. Is it really useful to have 15.93600 GB of free memory because everything could, if unchanged from 1999, run in 64 MB of RAM? Of course, the big differences from 1999 is that I'm also sitting in front of 3840x1080 pixels. Something that my previous computer from 6 years ago couldn't handle adequately. I have a game open in a window that uses 23GB of harddrive space -- and it's totally worth it! I have 60 browser tabs open and any one of them could be play HD video in real time from the Internet (In 1999, HD wasn't even a real thing yet). It's never been easier to write software or create any sort of media content. It's not bloat -- we're making use of the power that we have. Anything less than 100% utilization is a waste.