»

[ElPolloDiabl]

Do you think an operating system having twice the resource requirements of it's predecessor for only a couple of extra features is a step forward or a step backward?

[Gulliver]

I answered Other:

If those few new features are resource demanding, of course, hardware requirements will obviously rise, and can easily double. The question in this particular case is if these new features are worth enough to justify that hardware requirement increase, and if that market can cope with that fact.

Anyway, the question is too generic, you should be more specific.

[runequester]

I think there's a general tendency to simply throw more hardware at the problem, rather than make software run more efficiently.

[ElPolloDiabl]

So would you prefer to patch and update Amiga OS 3.1 yourself for a lean system or would you just go with 3.9?

Alternatively should you be able to manually (in a user friendly way) unselect/disable certain resource hogs. Pop up help and a lot of background functions as an example. If Windows is a GUI based OS why do you need to use the 'run program x' to get at some of the options.

[runequester]

No reason not to give the user the choice. Let me get rid of stuff I will never use, disable things I'll probably not use but want to keep around, and enable anything that fits my specific needs.

[Kesa]

I voted a step forward.

History shows that when new technology is available software will quickly develop to take advantage of it. I call this progress.

But i am also assuming the software is being used efficiently and not being wasteful.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

If Windows is a GUI based OS

Plainly it is.

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

why do you need to use the 'run program x' to get at some of the options.

To stop the headstickers from touching things they have no understanding of.

Back to the original question. The only realistic answer is "other" because it depends on what the OS is doing... Windows, Linux and OSX for instance offer more services out of the box than AmigaOS can offer period.

[AppleHammer]

The problem is that in the early days of home computing hardware resources were very limited and so the challenge was to write software that was incredibly efficient. More efficient programs could do more with the hardware that was available to them and improve the user experience, so it was extremely important to find efficiency where possible. This requirement for efficient programs remained into and through the Amiga days.

These days hardware resources are plentiful, and the programs written are far more complex. As a software writer, you have to make a decision. Is software efficiency your priority, or is software functionality your priority? If you're working on a platform that has plentiful hardware resources like those of home computers today, then inevitably software functionality will be deemed to be the priority. Your time as a programmer is better spent on introducing and improving functionality than it is on extracting the most efficiency from the program. The mindset of programmers has had to change.

For me personally, I still work with systems that have limited resources. Microcontrollers and embedded systems is my background and I regularly work with systems that have <256 Bytes of RAM! Yes that's Bytes, not Kilobytes, not Megabytes, and certainly not Gigabytes.
So for me, program efficiency is still a valuable use of my time as a programmer. But for modern day home computer programmers, extracting the maximum efficiency from your programs is not the best use of your time.

AH.

[ElPolloDiabl]

On the subject of bloatware I don't agree. There are apps that take up 100 times the space, perform slower and only add eye candy over a much leaner app with the same or better functions. It is clearly just shoddy programming.

I do agree that you should be able to push the resources if appropriate.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

On the subject of bloatware I don't agree. There are apps that take up 100 times the space, perform slower and only add eye candy over a much leaner app with the same or better functions. It is clearly just shoddy programming.

I do agree that you should be able to push the resources if appropriate.

Using large amounts of ram does not necessitate the software running poorly. He clearly posted specifically that he would trade "efficiency" for features.

Elive 2.0 linux, it's an ultra slim distribution which pays particular attention to older hardware. On this system it ran for several months and at startup used around 150Mb of ram. After struggling to get it to play nice on this laptop I looked for a successor.

Kubuntu 10.04LTS was selected as it's replacement, at boot it uses around 400Mb or ram. Yet it boots quicker than Elive and is every bit as responsive.

Using less ram doesn't necessarily make your program efficient, it just means it uses less ram. Dismissing anything that uses more ram without bothering to learn why as "bloatware" is shallow, lazy thinking.

[Karlos]

High resource usage is not necessarily indicative of any bad practise. RAM, in particular, is a resource that if not used, is wasted. Areas that aren't presently in use by any application can be used for volatile caches and buffers to help speed up the system.

[AppleHammer]

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

On the subject of bloatware I don't agree. There are apps that take up 100 times the space, perform slower and only add eye candy over a much leaner app with the same or better functions. It is clearly just shoddy programming.

Ah, now... "bloatware" is a different thing altogether. What you're talking about it hulking great bloated applications that are stuffed to the brim with eye candy, poorly programmed and poorly implemented.

What I was talking about was a trade off between giving a programmer efficiency as a priority or program functionality as a priority. These days programs are very complex and it takes a long time to implement all of the functionality that you want. Since resources are plentiful, programmers will naturally choose functionality over absolute efficiency. That doesn't make them bad programmers, it makes them good programmers who make the best use of their time. The best use of their time on a resource plentiful system is to implement features, not to be pedantic over program execution speeds. It's not about being sloppy with your programming, it's about using your time wisely.

With regard to eye candy, the very first thing I do after I've installed Windows is I turn all the rubbish off. I want my system to be as functional and feature rich as possible, and I want it to run as fast as possible. That means turning off all the eye candy crap that Windows wastes resources on. I fully agree with you on that point. There's a difference between blatantly wasting resources and sacrificing absolute efficiency of program execution over the implementation of some cool new features.

AH.

[ajlwalker]

You know, looking at posts #10 and #11, they both essentially say the same thing.

However, poster #10 could still learn a thing or two from reading post #11.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by ajlwalker

However, poster #10 could still learn a thing or two from reading post #11.

You are making the assumption that I don't understand the underlying technical reasons as described by Karlos.

You would be in error in this.

[Kesa]

Originally Posted by the_leander

You are making the assumption that I don't understand the underlying technical reasons as described by Karlos.

You would be in error in this.

I actually thought both posts 10 and 11 were good. But maybe understanding a concept and explaining it are 2 different things. Especially when it is about something complicated like computers.