PC Prices Through The Ages

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 2, 2009.

  1. Interesting comparison of prices of various classic PCs in inflation-
    adjusted dollars, compared to what you can buy today
    <http://technologizer.com/2009/10/25/pc-prices/>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 2, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In message <4aefe48e$>, vitw wrote:

    > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:15:43 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting comparison of prices of various classic PCs in inflation-
    >> adjusted dollars, compared to what you can buy today
    >> <http://technologizer.com/2009/10/25/pc-prices/>.

    >
    > Never ceases to amaze me how, as the hardware capacity grows, the
    > software developers make their code increasingly hungry so it eats up all
    > that extra capacity.


    Speak for proprietary software only.

    On the Free Software side, you still have access to low-overhead OSes like
    FreeDOS, if you want. And for a low-overhead GUI to run on top of it, how
    about OpenGEM?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 3, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:06:38 +1200, vitw wrote:

    > Never ceases to amaze me how, as the hardware capacity grows, the
    > software developers make their code increasingly hungry so it eats up
    > all that extra capacity.


    I have to say that it doesn't amaze me in the least.

    Many developers aren't interested in writing fast, efficient, resource-lean code. Witness the use of such
    platform-specific but resource-hungry garbage as Microsoft dot net and Microsoft Visual BASIC.

    Note the number of developers who can happily produce Assembly Language code.

    And note the number of applications that leak memory like sieves and can't run in less than 250mb of
    RAM without paging out to the swap file!

    Now I don't pretend to be a software developer, but I too have noticed the trend towards sloppy coding
    with the attitude that they don't need to produce efficient code any more.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Carnations, Nov 3, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Max Burke Guest

    vitw wrote:
    > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:15:43 +1300, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> Interesting comparison of prices of various classic PCs in inflation-
    >> adjusted dollars, compared to what you can buy today
    >> <http://technologizer.com/2009/10/25/pc-prices/>.


    > Never ceases to amaze me how, as the hardware capacity grows, the
    > software developers make their code increasingly hungry so it eats up all
    > that extra capacity.


    Let me get this right...

    You spend $xxxx.xx to get a computer with 8GB ram and a 750GB Hard drive....

    Then you complain coz the software you installed is actually USING the
    hardware that you paid for.

    Something ain't right here....


    If I buy a computer I want software that USES ALL the hardware capacity
    it can. That's why I bought the hardware and software in the first place..


    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Nov 3, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Nov 3, 10:18 pm, Carnations <> wrote:
    > Many developers aren't interested in writing fast, efficient, resource-lean code. Witness the use of such
    > platform-specific but resource-hungry garbage as Microsoft dot net and Microsoft Visual BASIC.
    >
    > Note the number of developers who can happily produce Assembly Language code.


    You complain about dot net being platform specific, then sing the
    praises of assembly language?

    Don't confuse taking advantage of higher level languages and more
    powerful libraries with sloppy coding.

    Most apps today would take an order of magnitude longer to write and
    debug/maintain if they were created in assembly and most would
    probably never even reach a stable release.

    There is no point trading away developer productivity for efficiency
    when in most cases efficiency isn't a problem.

    I think you've also forgotten just how slow apps could be 15+ yrs ago
    - eg office suites now are subjectively way faster than they were in
    the mid 90s.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Nov 3, 2009
    #5
  6. In message <>, AD. wrote:

    > - eg office suites now are subjectively way faster than they were in
    > the mid 90s.


    Rather big counterexamples here
    <http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/fat-fatter-fattest-microsofts-kings-bloat-278>.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 3, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Nov 4, 10:19 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <..com>, AD. wrote:
    >
    > > - eg office suites now are subjectively way faster than they were in
    > > the mid 90s.

    >
    > Rather big counterexamples here
    > <http://www.infoworld.com/t/applications/fat-fatter-fattest-microsofts...>.


    Not really what I was talking about. That only goes back as far as
    Windows 2000 and Office 2000 which was very fast compared to stuff 5-6
    yrs earlier. That test seems more about the changes that have happened
    to Office 2007.

    I was referring the bad old days towards the end of 16bit Windows era
    eg Office 4.x 15 yrs ago. When that came out it brought most PCs to
    their knees. Back then a 386 with 4MB was a common PC as the DX2 and
    DX4 486s with more ram were still very expensive items. Sometimes Word
    could take a minute or more to open, and even responding to mouse
    clicks was visibly sluggish. It wasn't just Office either, other large
    apps bogged down too eg AutoCAD R12 for Windows, Aldus Photostyler,
    StarOffice etc.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Nov 3, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:54:59 -0800, AD. wrote:

    > You complain about dot net being platform specific, then sing the
    > praises of assembly language?


    Of course assembly language stuff is very much indeed CPU specific.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Carnations, Nov 4, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:54:59 -0800, AD. wrote:

    > There is no point trading away developer productivity for efficiency
    > when in most cases efficiency isn't a problem.


    And that is the point - they consider their time to be more important than producing a good product!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Carnations, Nov 4, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:54:59 -0800, AD. wrote:

    > I think you've also forgotten just how slow apps could be 15+ yrs ago -
    > eg office suites now are subjectively way faster than they were in the
    > mid 90s.


    Um... no.

    Office productivity suites perform substantially the same stuff today as they did 15 years ago, only the
    hardware is considerably more powerful.

    How economical is MS Office with resources today compared with, say, the oldest version of MS Office
    that could actually run without error on the same platform that MS Office 2003 can be installed onto?

    If you put the two onto identical computers will the older one run substantially much faster? Most likely
    yes - because the newer version is much less efficient with hardware resources!


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Carnations, Nov 4, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    AD. Guest

    On Nov 4, 6:46 pm, Carnations <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:54:59 -0800, AD. wrote:
    > > I think you've also forgotten just how slow apps could be 15+ yrs ago -
    > > eg office suites now are subjectively way faster than they were in the
    > > mid 90s.

    >
    > Um... no.


    Um.. yes.

    >
    > Office productivity suites perform substantially the same stuff today as they did 15 years ago, only the
    > hardware is considerably more powerful.


    Which has nothing to do with what I said.

    >
    > How economical is MS Office with resources today compared with, say, the oldest version of MS Office
    > that could actually run without error on the same platform that MS Office 2003 can be installed onto?


    That was not the point.

    >
    > If you put the two onto identical computers will the older one run substantially much faster? Most likely
    > yes - because the newer version is much less efficient with hardware resources!


    Putting them on identical hardware is not the point.

    Office suites from 15 yrs ago ran like absolute dogs on typical PCs of
    15yrs ago. Office suites from this decade haven't run anywhere near as
    bad on the typical hardware of their time. Even if Office 2007 is a
    step backwards compared to 2003, it would still be much better than
    Office 4.3 was on a high end 386 or low end 486.

    Either you weren't using that stuff back then, or you've forgotten how
    bad it really was. Back then you'd get awfully familiar with each apps
    splash screens, this decade those apps start in a second or so.

    So if more modern apps on the typical hardware of their time still
    feel faster than their equivalents did 15 yrs ago, then their extra
    resource usage isn't as big a deal as you make it out to be. And
    that's not even taking into account that a typical new computer was
    many times more expensive back then.

    And that's not even getting into just how unstable that stuff was
    15yrs ago.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Nov 4, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Carnations Guest

    On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:25:19 -0800, AD. wrote:

    >> Office productivity suites perform substantially the same stuff today
    >> as they did 15 years ago, only the hardware is considerably more
    >> powerful.

    >
    > Which has nothing to do with what I said.


    Actually, it has everything to do with my point.


    >> How economical is MS Office with resources today compared with, say,
    >> the oldest version of MS Office that could actually run without error
    >> on the same platform that MS Office 2003 can be installed onto?

    >
    > That was not the point.


    It is exactly the point!


    >> If you put the two onto identical computers will the older one run
    >> substantially much faster? Most likely yes - because the newer version
    >> is much less efficient with hardware resources!

    >
    > Putting them on identical hardware is not the point.


    It's entirely the point because it demonstrates how grossly inefficient the newer version is.


    --
    "Filtering the Internet is like trying to boil the ocean"
    Carnations, Nov 4, 2009
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DavidM

    Wireless connection takes ages - help?

    DavidM, Apr 3, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    666
    DavidM
    Apr 5, 2005
  2. uerbe
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    714
    uerbe
    May 21, 2005
  3. Brando

    C: Drive takes ages after SP2 installed

    Brando, Sep 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    569
    Pennywise
    Sep 24, 2004
  4. Mini Moebius

    Camcorders = Dark Ages?

    Mini Moebius, Nov 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    527
    Jay Beckman
    Nov 18, 2003
  5. Phil
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,839
Loading...

Share This Page