I haven't been paying real close attention to this thread so I don't know if this came up but isn't there an issue with the speed of the non-efficient code? Also, when I first got into linux my box never locked up. Now it does like maybe once every 3 months or so. The XBMC server locks up maybe once a month. And if I try to exit the program usually it locks the system rather than exiting the program. :-)~MIKE~(-: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:22 PM, keith smith wrote: > > > I think what you are saying is 4GB of RAM is like $50.00. If it takes > $10,000 more to develop more efficient code that could be compensated by > spending $50 on RAM then just spend the $50.00 and enjoy not spending > $9950.00 for more efficient code. > > > > ------------------------ > Keith Smith > > --- On *Thu, 6/13/13, Kevin Fries * wrote: > > > From: Kevin Fries > Subject: RE: Then vs Now Programming WAS: Re: AMD vs Intel memory > managemement > To: "Main PLUG discussion list" > Date: Thursday, June 13, 2013, 6:43 PM > > I think there is a big reality being missed here. Back in the "old days" > when developers wrote "tight" code, that was out of necessity not out of > some higher purpose. Computers did not do much, spell checkers were a > luxury, as were point and click interfaces. I remember spending more money > for my first 10MB hard drive than i would spend for a 1TB today. The price > to write this tight code today is too high for the benefit it would bring. > Yes code is more bloated today, but if you take a look at the bloat in > proportion to the increase in memory, disk, and network speed, it could be > argued that software has gotten smaller, not larger. > > Just my $0.02 > > Kevin > On Jun 13, 2013 2:03 PM, "Carruth, Rusty" < > Rusty.Carruth@smartstoragesys.com> > wrote: > > IMHO, the answer is yes. And the answer is no.**** > > ** ** > > Operating systems in ‘the olde days’ were REALLY small, and didn’t do > much. No gui, for one! (Well, ok, on the IBM 1130 I used the GUI was the > flashing lights on the console!)**** > > > Shoot, the entire boot loader fit on a single 80 column punch card. The > card had I think 12 bit positions per column, so that means we could load a > program (from cards!) with 120 bytes of program. The computer ran 16 bit > instructions, so that means in 60 instructions we could read binary data > from the card reader (12 bits at a time), and store it into memory!**** > > ** ** > > FORTRAN (and later C) and assembly language were probably the primary > languages in use for applications.**** > > ** ** > > As James said: “Cache? We don’t need no stinkin’cache!” Cache was a > luxury that Idon’t think we even considered…**** > > ** ** > > I’m not sure how much is language bloat, and how much is (perceived?) lack > of need to be careful about ram or anything. I will say that it seems > that, as computers get faster, they run slower due to all the junk that > comes with the OS. It wasn’t that long ago that Linux would run > ‘hummingly’ on a lowly Pentium with 512MB of ram. Try that today with a > current distribution that isn’t aimed at ‘low-end’ computers!**** > > ** ** > > Personally, I think it’s a bad thing that we can turn what would have been > a supercomputer 40 years ago into a machine that runs slower than my > Osborne 2 did! (I can out-type my Lenovo ThinkPad T410 to the point that > I’ve had 40 to 80 characters typed that it had not bothered to process > before I gave up typing and waited for it to catch up!) (Yes, its running > Windows)**** > > ** ** > > (Note, an Osborne 2 was a ‘portable computer’ (about the size of a medium > piece of luggage) that ran CP/M, had 64K of RAM and 2x 5 ¼” floppies! (The > REALLY cool luggable machines had some ‘huge’ hard drive (probably 20MB!)) > **** > > ** ** > > Rusty, climbing down off of soapbox now J**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* plug-discuss-bounces@lists.phxlinux.org[mailto: > plug-discuss-bounces@lists.phxlinux.org] > *On Behalf Of *Nathan England > > **** > > ** ** > > On Thursday, June 13, 2013 07:01:23 AM Lyle Tuttle wrote:**** > > In the 'old' days, I worked for the Atomic Energy Commission designing, > building and maintaining computer controlled experiments using radiation > from and located on the face of the reactor.....our SDS "mainframe" ran > ALL experiments (including some x-ray diffraction projects in remote > locations) in real-time......that computer had 16K core memory.......and > people came from all over the world to see what we were doing....now a > watch has more memory..... > **** > > Lyle has brought up a question that is interesting to me. I hear stories > like this of these amazing things people did with computers 30 and 40 years > ago and then the comment always comes up like "And we only had xx kb of > ram".**** > > **** > > So my question is, was programming in what ever language they used back > then more efficient and today's languages are seriously bloated and require > more ram, or do programmers today not know how to program as efficiently?* > *** > > **** > > Or what gives?**** > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >