I hate software

Originally Posted by DoctorPC
Thunderbird is dead in the water.

mattdocs12345:

I disagree. Thunderbird is rock solid and very stable email client. And it is not dead in the water, it constantly receives security updates.


I agree with 'mattdocs' personally, TB has been and will most likely always be my email client.

 

Norton is a bad example because it was heavier than a lot of other antiviruses back then. The antiviruses you mention with the exception of Norton were on the whole very light back then too. Bitdefender was called AVX back then, and as far I can recall it was fairly light. On the other hand, Trend Micro's products seem to be much heavier now than they were 10+ years back.

 

There something wrong there. I've never seen Publisher start slowly.

 

Point to be taken well!

But, when going pass this, asking the question more simply. What has made the 2ghz cpu today less fast? True, older speeds of the cache and the ram and all parts. Also though, what has wilders or hotmail or yahoo even gotten? more flash content? more pictures, bigger pictures?

Whey then, and use a browser as common application. Why is older computer that USED to be fast, now with new versions of applications very very slow? Take example, and say pentium 4 with 1g ram with new install of xp. Maybe defaults, maybe tweaked, no matter. But now software seems like a crawl. But what need be changed? Could not the same content (not everywhere, but many website) be expected and browser not be using everything and making such slowness?

Other software also suffers from same effect - slow. Sure, on the i7 its fast as slick oil haha. I have, for a time long in now, said to myself, why must all these cycles and banks be used? What could be using them?

So as to your saying, yes, use more of the ram if it is needed. Better than the paging file, and ram is meant to be used, excess unused is, well, wasted. But at what foot print size is a simple program going too far? Not a way to answer of coarse. But in the computer scene a long time, see over years good programs that maybe start out heavey and over time figure out how to optimize, is curious why new programs, many are now always heavy.

Bad coding, lazy? Mine comment is simpler. In years ago, them same people who made the firefox (netscape haha) make faster ones. AV too (many now gone) were at the one time interested in the light footprint. Anyone remember the AVira "luke filewalker" who was embraced as lighter than others? No regard for effective maybe, but yes ran light.

oh, missing that of those days, to here of so many pgormams that were no causing the slowdown haha!

 

I personally think that there is no collusion. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. They just react to each other without thinking. Slap each other around and make a lot of noise.

I prefer one of the free office suites, Libre Office or Open Office. If not those then either Office XP, 2000, 2003. All are reasonable regarding resource consumption and get the job done. And there are many times Notepad works perfectly for distraction-free composition. Haul out the big-guns later to format things and all that.

 

It's that and more. More as in there are multiple layers of high-level languages happening. Back in the Apple II days we had the Monitor (assembly language), and then the real-time BASIC interpreter.

Today you've got APIs stacked upon APIs and all kinds of languages and compilers and scripts and stuff. All kinds of layers to make up for lack of skill in programming.

Just code in binary and call it a day!

 

I must say that I didn't notice any drop in quality during last few years. Since moving to Windows 7 I've never had software related BSOD. If I only remember Windows 98 or even Windows XP times... IMO software is much better than it was few years ago.

Regards, hqsec

 

With operating systems and user apps, I see excuses reasons to explain or justify bloat being offered like defensive programming and more features. By comparison, much of todays malware has features never dreamed of in previous years in some incredibly small packages. Seems to be 2 different standards here.

Very true. Coding is following the same path as user operating systems. The equipment does most of the real work for you, reducing or eliminating the need for any real skill.

 

Well, not that I think 2ghz computer has gotten 'less fast' or any slower or really changed at all:

1) When you've gone from a fast computer back to one you used a few years ago it's hard to believe how slow the thing feels. That's just psychology, not technology.

2) An algorithm can be optimal on one set of hardware but not another. If something is made faster for dual or quad cores it may end up having been made slower for single cores.

3) Things like scheduling can often rely on a baseline speed. Something like deadline scheduling will expect a result in n time, and will be slow otherwise.

Frankly, while I know that 2/3 do happen in programs like browsers, I think 1 is the greatest factor. I think people get a new computer and it feels so fast and new because, at that point, it is to them. And then years go by, they've felt newer faster systems, programs are even designed for them, and now the one they've got will always feel that much slower.

@Noone,

I don't know who you're quoting because I'm in a bit of a rush, but APIs are good and I would call someone who *doesn't* use APIs a very unskilled programmer (outside of embedded systems).

 

Why does Nvidia need to constantly call home even though I got the automatic updates disabled? This is just graphic card isn't it? Things like that should work locally on my machine and not wasting my bandwidth..I had to disable all Nvidia's services to stop it and you know what? My computer still works

 

Nvidia has drivers that call home?? Why?

 

Awsome. Can you block it with a FW?

 

yes, software quality degraded due to the much fast paced MS Windows releasing cycle now. What used to work on Windows 8 probably won't work on Windows 8.1 which was released only a bit more than a year after windows 8. It's a shame.
On the open source side, I saw the opposite, for examples, Ubuntu is much more stable and usable than it used to be, say, 3 years ago.

 

Exactly. With the greater availability of broadband, some web developers have made web pages that are much more multimedia rich and complex. Images, flash, and video all take more bandwidth to download.

I think Hungry Man made some good points, however, there is also the issue of the OS and applications themselves. The system requirements of an application reflect the current hardware available. Software from 2001 will run well on hardware from 2001. You try running Windows 8 on an old XP computer that doesn't even have 1GB of RAM and you're gonna have a bad time. So then why the increase in system requirements? It could be additional features, fancy animations, or maybe the program cannot be easily optimized for both old and new hardware. I honestly don't know.

As for my personal feelings on software, I cannot say if the quality of software has decreased but I will say I am disappointed in the increasing number of installers with bundled toolbars, the increasing popularity of ad-supported freeware (mobile), and the excessive use of in-app purchases (mobile). It seems like clean freeware is a thing of the past or at least a rare jewel

 

More preciecly I am disappointed at the increase tendency of softare switching from paid for upgrade to pay per year system. And of course everything going into the cloud like there is no tomorrow.
On the upside I found Linux software to run fast, smooth, free and away from the cloud. So there is a light at the end of the horizon, at least for those willing to try something different.

 

You mean I'm not alone? Good article, Mrk. This is why I've gotten tired of computers after playing with and working on them since the early 80s. Now, I look at all the new stuff coming out and am thoroughly unexcited. Thus, I use Mahogany for email and K-Meleon for browser. Secure? Likely not. Supports the latest web page? Not always, but I usually don't care because I'm after information not fancy graphics. Solid? Yes; has been for years.

(Incidentally while Thinkpads may not be what they used to be, this w530 has been absolutely solid for the last year plus.)

I have always hated calling myself a "programmer" because I think that term has long been depreciated to being worthless. Programmers are a commodity now and it's very hard to add value because no one wants to pay for it. There is very little elegance to be found in software design and coding and it's been that way for some time. But not only is it a result of our immediate-gratification world, where there's no time for proper testing and debugging, but also of our everything-should-be-free world. Too many demand so much of free or low-priced software; they'll spend thousands on streamlined high-end hardware and then complain that some application isn't free or *gasp* wants $20 per year. And usually it's something that's not only used every day, but all the time. Crap software wanting money is another thing entirely; unfortunately for the rest of software makers it's become a stigma (the Walmart effect).

I'm not saying I like the explosion of adware, but even a read through Wilders is difficult to do without seeing people talk about (and almost demand) free tools, free utilities, free AVs, free firewalls, free ... and then wonder where they disappear to, or complain when the company finally figures out it has to start making money to survive. How many companies can survive and put out quality software when they charge $20 or even $50 per licence? How many licences do they have to sell to pay the salary of only one developer, nevermind a few? How many people have time to put out and support quality software in their spare time? Luckily in my years I've come across a few, but very few indeed.

People want everything fast and free, and that can't happen without a severe compromise in quality. Some of you might recognize something like this: every project has to balance cost, quality, scope, and time. But, you can only control 2 of them at any time.

There is an upside: hardware and software do force each other into better and faster things. This O/S runs slow, so manufacturers find a way to make computers faster. The computer is faster and can do more, so they put more features into the O/S. This is the good side of software bloat; the bad side is having to live with it (or worse, support it).

Cloud computing? Oh, good. I thought the mainframe days were behind us, for good reason.

 

I don't expect applications to be free, I want to own my application. I want to pay $800 one time fee for photoshop 7 like I did before and own it and get upgrades and updates for x many years and after that expires I want to be able to still use it.
What kind of greedy developers I won't support are those that charge $20 per year, after which my application stops working. The model of going from owning an application to renting it is unappealing to me. But that problem has passed - thank you Linux.

 

Exactly. I won't lease or rent software. I won't use software that requires a subscription. When I buy something, I'll use it for as long as I choose or until it breaks. Software shouldn't be any different. Fortunately I don't have to worry about it. I have the software I need/want and none of it has time limits.

I can't put the blame on MS for the rapid update policy that so many are doing now. Seems to me that this started with Google chrome and has been adopted by everyone else. IMO, update frequency is not good criteria for measuring quality or support. It may in fact have the opposite effect by limiting the time available to test releases. I fear that a lot of major bugs (or worse) are going undetected because of this rapid update policy on both applications and operating systems. I have no problems with updating when there's a real reason for it. Updating for its own sake or just to demonstrate that "development" continues is senseless. It's like rearranging the furniture every time you clean the room. Users reverse that to mean "if you didn't rearrange things, you didn't clean". Software can mature to the point that there's no real bugs to fix and has the features it needs. I want my software to be consistent. I don't want to have to go through the settings to see what changed or disappeared every time an app updates. I don't want to deal with broken extensions every time they update the browser.

Looking through the responses here, it's clear that everyone has different criteria. Some formed their own. Some just echo what they're told. Some want the latest stuff, win 8 or 8.1. Others want old reliable, XP, or in my case, a modified 98SE. Neither will convince the other that they're right. What matters is that each of us still has a choice in the matter. I expect that this too will change in the near future. I completely expect to see kill switches in Windows that limit or disable the OS when they decide support ends. I expect that FireFox and Chrome will become virtually the same browser. When it comes to eye candy and trinkets, we've got more choices than ever before. At the same time, we have fewer real choices on things that matter. A couple of (lousy) examples:
Which versions of Windows can make a full backup of the entire registry (not a full system backup) without 3rd party software?
Which versions of Windows enabled the user to create more than one complete registry and switch between them at will?
What was the last version of Windows whose core components all respected blocking entries in the hosts file?
What was the last version of Windows on which administrator had the highest permission level?
What was the last version of Windows that came with the tools necessary to access and modify every file and directory, no matter how protected or hidden?

 

Hmmm?