»

[minator]

There's many reasons that software requires more resources.

Choice of language, programming style, add in libraries.

How you add features is very important, do you:
1) Change the architecture of the app, refactor and integrate the new features
or
2) Just bolt it on
Answer 1 will lead to a more efficient system, but it'll take a lot longer to do.
In reality answer 2 is what you'll get pretty much every time.

Backwards compatibility often means option 1 is not an option so in adding features you may end up having to repeat things that are already there.

The availability of cheap fast hardware with oodles of memory means developers simply don't have to care about efficiency, there's so much computing power available you simply won't notice even if something is incredibly inefficient.

I can remember running BeOS with 32MB on my 120MHz desktop quite happily about 10 years ago.
You'll soon see dual core 1GHz phones with 1GB memory.

OTOH Sometimes it's just plain bad coding, in fact there's probably rather a lot of that:

I know of one (well known) application that was ported to mobile devices only to find it ran like a dog. The reason was it was doing some incredibly stupid things that were completely unnecessary. That app had to be rewritten.

This is likely to become more common, the mobile environment is not very forgiving of badly written software.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by minator

I can remember running BeOS with 32MB on my 120MHz desktop quite happily about 10 years ago.

Thinkpad 390 with 233Mhz P1, 64Mb ram, Neomagic graphics chip here.

Ended up giving it to my sister, only to get a phone call about 3 weeks later to tell me that her puppy had chewed through the power cable

I actually got Windows 2000 to run on that laptop at one point, beyond taking an age to boot up, it was fairly snappy to use one it got going...

Originally Posted by minator

I know of one (well known) application that was ported to mobile devices only to find it ran like a dog. The reason was it was doing some incredibly stupid things that were completely unnecessary. That app had to be rewritten.

Oh come on! Name and shame

[Trev]

Originally Posted by the_leander

And basic, it's gotta have basic!

BASIC!? That implies an interpreter, probably in ROM. If anything, it needs a mechanical switch to keep power away from the CPU until a punch card is inserted.

[Trev]

Originally Posted by minator

Choice of language

My C compiler writes way better assembly than I do. ;-)

I can remember running BeOS

Sigh. One of several operating systems that could have (or rather, should have) been the next AmigaOS....

[runequester]

Originally Posted by the_leander

None of that DMA rubbish either, also, what was wrong with simple CPU driven framebuffers eh?

And basic, it's gotta have basic!

basic in ROM or GTFO

[lsmart]

When you have a look at MacOS X 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 you may notice something interesting: Each of them added functionality but ran faster than it´s predecessor. The amount of RAM used was however increasing, but never doubling.
Clearly they were trading time for space, which is quite common, I believe.

So efficiency is a tradeoff in any case. But if an OS runs slower and needs more RAM and only adds features that aren´t noticed by the casual user ...

... I could´t justify recommending that, even if it was "modern" and "compatible".

I don´t mind eye-candy though. Most of the time it comes pretty cheap. Beautiful pixels take as much RAM as ugly ones.

[dammy]

I voted "Other" since it really depends on why the OS bloated up. Is it doing 2 or 3 times what the original OS was capable of doing? If so, then I can't see a reason to complain. I'm sure most of us on AO probably started with booting their Amiga each time with a floppy in the drive and compare that to say Fedora Core 13 DVD. Very hard to compare the two, but each is capable of booting the OS into operation.

[orb85750]

Originally Posted by 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?

Seems that it would be hard for almost anyone (including Bill Gates) to answer 'step forward' to this question because of the way you worded it, IMO.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by runequester

basic in ROM or GTFO

Hehehe!

Originally Posted by Trev

BASIC!? That implies an interpreter, probably in ROM. If anything, it needs a mechanical switch to keep power away from the CPU until a punch card is inserted.

Wow, we both got served here!

[runequester]

Originally Posted by the_leander

Hehehe!



Wow, we both got served here!

We'll challenge him to a duel. Slide rulers at dawn!

[Linde]

Originally Posted by 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?

Do you have any real life examples of an OS doubling in resource requirements for "only a couple of extra features?"

To me, it sounds like you are talking out of ignorance of what happens between major OS revisions.

[ElPolloDiabl]

Originally Posted by Linde

Do you have any real life examples of an OS doubling in resource requirements for "only a couple of extra features?"

To me, it sounds like you are talking out of ignorance of what happens between major OS revisions.

One word "Windows" on just about every revision.
To a lesser extent Linux and Amiga OS from 3.1 to 3.9 and then OS 4.0.

If I was able to do everything I do now on an 8MB Amiga OS3.1 install and 16MB Windows 95 install what features am I getting now that take up 1GB+ RAM and a much much greater processor. I don't mind current web pages with flash taking up RAM and CPU cycles, but why does it need so much CPU and RAM just to idle the OS when you are playing a game.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

One word "Windows" on just about every revision.

Right, so you're complaining about 20 years of continuous development, with all the differences and developments in both hardware and software? 'kay.

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

To a lesser extent Linux

Depending on what you want to do, you can still get Linux systems that are pretty damned small. A single floppy disk do for you?

Want a top end kde based desktop OS, with all the trimmings? You'll need a DVD, but you do at least get all your basic software (office etc) included in that.

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

and Amiga OS from 3.1 to 3.9 and then OS 4.0.

Cleaning out the assembler and BCPL made AOS slower. Adding new functionality made it bigger.

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

If I was able to do everything I do now on an 8MB Amiga OS3.1 install and 16MB Windows 95 install what features am I getting now that take up 1GB+ RAM and a much much greater processor.

Multi user support, memory protection, support for modern hardware, filesharing, network stacks, bluetooth, usb stacks, backwards compatibility with 15+ years of software in Windows case...

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

I don't mind current web pages with flash taking up RAM and CPU cycles, but why does it so much just to idle the OS when you are playing a game.

...

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by ElPolloDiabl

I don't mind current web pages with flash taking up RAM and CPU cycles, but why does it need so much CPU and RAM just to idle the OS when you are playing a game.

What exactly do you mean, "idle the OS" when playing a game?

We aren't living in the days when hardware was completely taken over by a single application and the OS evicted from the system. These days, games are applications that obey all the same rules as any other application. They run under the OS and use it to provide all the services (HID/graphics/audio/network etc) they need in order to function. The benefit to the game is that it doesn't need to know or care which hardware you are using, the OS sorts all that out for it. The OS provides abstracted access to the hardware.

So, when you are playing a modern game, the OS is doing plenty of work.

[ElPolloDiabl]

Originally Posted by Karlos

What exactly do you mean, "idle the OS" when playing a game?

I didn't want to turn this into a Windows bashing thread... The example I'm using is the minimum system specs printed on computer game boxes. They have one minimum spec for Windows XP and another minimum spec for Windows 7/Vista. It is nearly double the CPU and double the RAM for 7/Vista.