Slashdot Mirror


The Biggest Time Suck at the Office Might Be Your Computer (bloomberg.com)

Sharing personal anecdotes and recent studies, a new report on Bloomberg blames outdated computers, decade-old operating systems and ageing equipments for being one of the biggest hurdles that prevents people from doing actual work in their offices. From the article: Slow, outdated computers and intermittent internet connections demoralize workers, a survey of 6,000 European workers said. Half of U.K. employees said creaking computers were "restrictive and limiting," and 38 percent said modern technology would make them more motivated, according to the survey, commissioned by electronics company Sharp. Scott's (a 25-year-old researcher who works at an insurance firm) PC runs the relatively up-to-date Windows 8 operating system, but his computer sometimes struggles to handle large spreadsheets and multiple documents open simultaneously, slowing him down. Others are in a worse spot. One in every eight business laptops and desktops worldwide still run Windows XP, which was introduced in 2001. [...] Some businesses can't help using old hardware or operating systems, because they use specialized software that also hasn't been brought up-to-date.

169 comments

  1. Biggest time suck? by old7 · · Score: 1

    Biggest time suck? There has to be 101 better ways to word that.

    1. Re:Biggest time suck? by hattig · · Score: 0

      HackADay, sure. Always need to know more about ESP32s.

      Slashdot? Not since 2002 to be honest.

    2. Re: Biggest time suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's "time sink."
      Fucking idiot editors these days. You guys do control what your site says, it's up to you to not look stupid.

    3. Re: Biggest time suck? by Archtech · · Score: 0

      Ah... the cliche police strike again!

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    4. Re:Biggest time suck? by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The biggest is Fighting Windows and MS's 'we know better than you' attitude.
      Add on top of that the local Admins restrictions and you get a virtual straight jacket.
      That hits productivity hard.

      --
      I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
    5. Re:Biggest time suck? by F34nor · · Score: 1

      God damn fucking time vampire?

    6. Re: Biggest time suck? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you need admin access to a company machine? If you are w typical user, you are not supposed to be installing unapproved software on company property. If you don't like that, submit a written, notarized and bonded letter guaranteeing you will indemnify the company against any costs, including license and security audits, labor downtime, and BSA penalties as a result. No? Then shut up until the company policy is change. IT doesn't write it, they are held responsible when you break it though.

      If you are a dev, request a legal license for VM ware or whatever to be installed along with licenses for as many VMs you are capable of running. Or just hyperV and you can make all the Linux you want. Don't expect IT to give you sympathy when you break the underfunded network by adding a new .1 on a preexisting network though. I say underfunded because if they had time to setup and funds for gear that caught and blocked that at the switch, it wouldn't break.

      You don't "need" admin access. You want it because it makes your job easier by letting you ignore proper permissioning and behavior on the file system for your app. What your job "needs" you to do is comply with all the policy bullshit the company decided to impose on everyone else, including special snowflakes like you while you find a way to also do what your immediate supervisor requests. If you can't do both, get a better job or a better self.

  2. Second biggest hurdle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HR

  3. Always pointing at hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, vendors have done their job. They always find a way to make hardware seem old. Seriously, if you're running a newer laptop and can't handle multiple spreadsheets, the problem isn't the hardware. Nor is it the operating system, for that matter. No, it's the simple fact that it's easier to lean on increased compute capacity to shorten the software release cycle.

    If only I had known how slow XP made my system back in 2001, when it was new!

    1. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP will run smoothly on the 2GB junk TFSfag was given (if he even has that) and office98 or whatever will launch instantly, multiple sheets and all.

    2. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      if you're running a newer laptop and can't handle multiple spreadsheets, the problem isn't the hardware

      I don't entirely disagree that a lot of problem is bloat in SW, it's out of control. However, many, many employers buy new laptops that are cheap but have lousy processors, inadequate memory, horrible video chips (i.e. Intel default) low res displays and small hard disks. That really is a HW problem.

      The first thing I do is drop the engineer card, and find the process for getting a top of the line laptop (or best: desktop). So far I've never been rejected. However most employees cannot do that, and I can imagine their fustration since engineering in the corporate world is still 90% bullshit spreadsheets and word docs, 9% cleaning up management induced technical mess, and 1% actual design. I survive that 90% by having multiple spreadsheets, documents and browser tabs open at once, along with email that is always on (and using insane memory due to the 1000s of emails that come to me a week). I also use multiple displays, so that I can have many of these up at the same time, making cut'n'paste work a whole lot faster.

      I do not know how the marketing dolts get by, but I always assumed someone handed them a basket and some wicker and told them quitting time is 5pm sharp.

    3. Re:Always pointing at hardware by dnaumov · · Score: 1

      Intel gpus have not been inadequate for non-gaming desktop use for a very very long time now, they have no problems driving HIDPI retina monitors. But vendors selling new computers in the year 2017 without an SSD just make me sigh.

    4. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet I managed to limp by on a dual-processor system with 4G while developing large Enterprise Java web applications and only one monitor while keeping email, a web browser and Word open. And when they asked me about a new system, I said, "why bother? I've got all I need already!"

      Well, I suppose a second monitor would have been nice so that I could have the IDE and app both fully visible at the same time, but it wasn't killing me.

      What actually sucks up my resources - both then and now - are web sites that grind through massive amounts of downloaded cruft - video I didn't ask for, audio that wants to suddenly and loudly play to annoy both me and co-workers, overly clever technical effects. And page layouts that don't pre-format, causing the browser to keep having to re-render the entire page multiple times on a single presentation. For example all that crap that goes on on the Slashdot pages where you click on items on the right-hand sidebar at your peril, because unless you sit patiently until the page fully loads and stabilizes, it's a frickin' yo-yo.

    5. Re: Always pointing at hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardware is not a problem. I used a laptop for 7 years, till the rotating disk wore out. It was still fast enough and could do big spreadsheets and multiple windows.

      PCs don't get slower with time and age, unless you use windows. 2GHz, 4GB and 2 cores is plenty for office work. If it was fast in 2010, it is fast today too. Some vendors add bloat and spyware, some don't. Go with the sane ones, use linux. Slow pcs are other peoples problems.

    6. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      How do you make that assessment? On any given system I can tell without looking when I'm on intel graphics. If I can tell without looking, it's inadequate. I could not distinguish AMD from nVidia without looking or a game workload. Those are adequate.

    7. Re:Always pointing at hardware by ewibble · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry it is bloat, I don't care how crappy your laptop is if it can't run a spreadsheet or two well. Excel 2.0 was released in 1987 that is 30 years ago, the speed even your cheapest computer is well over 1000 times faster (I am being very conservative here, and excluding multi core) they had what memory measured in kilobytes not Gigabytes, and yet people still have problems running a few spreadsheets.

    8. Re:Always pointing at hardware by eneville · · Score: 1

      Yep. Stuff is meant to get better over time. It does mostly with Linux stuff if you look at good WM's. Libreoffice is pretty nippy too. We forget that the OS is a tool to do a job, it should be working for us, not the other way around. We also forget that MS s a company which likes money. They employ the cheapest to give the share holders ROI. You don't get features quickly without cost. At least with GNU there's some chance of code getting vetted. When tickets need to be resolved quickly at MS I doubt there's any consideration towards quality of code.

    9. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Lennie · · Score: 1

      How about running: new hardware and old software. That is a good way to increase productivity (no loss of productivity getting used to new software and a speed boost form running newer hardware).

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    10. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For years I've been advocating that our IT department gets the slowest, least upgraded machines in the company as their daily box. It would definitely put an end to, "It works fine for me" as their default argument when there is a problem.

    11. Re: Always pointing at hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because spreadsheets in the 80's would have been fine on one piece of paper.
      Spreadsheets today are GBs by themselves.

    12. Re:Always pointing at hardware by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      On a laptop with Ivy Bridge i3 I could tell it was recent (2012) graphics as the web videos were so buttery smooth compared to older stuff or linux.

  4. Biggest time suck? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    Slashdot, HackADay, etc...

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  5. PC Load Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck does that mean anyway?

    1. Re: PC Load Letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PC= Paper Cartridge
      Load = what you need to do
      Letter = the size you need to do it with

  6. No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Companies are still buying HDD based computers instead of with SSDs. I blame the vendors too for having no class and selling terrible computers without any sense of shame.

    1. Re:No shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are dumb. Shitty software written in shitty languages that hog resources and literally sit there contemplating their virtual navels because their runtime packages are incredibly bloated are what are slowing everything down. You're obviously a clueless end-user who never codes anything thus you blame the hardware or 'the internets' for being too slow. Get non-shitty software and STFU.

    2. Re:No shit by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's generally easier to get higher-end hardware than to make software vendors make their stuff more efficient.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Economics is hard by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The cost of a new high-end PC over a three-year lifetime is trivial compared to a typical office-worker salary. The cost of a decent chair over its 10-20 year lifetime is even smaller. Yet somehow companies refuse to spend 1% of a salary on something that will make people 5% more efficient.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Economics is hard by Brett+Buck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, the cost of 3-6 months trying to get a new machine configured properly and the correct software installed is NOT trivial in terms of time wasted. And 3 months would be an optimistic estimate. The biggest time waste I see is the dreaded "refresh", where you have everything working, then someone comes around wanting to "upgrade" your machine, and then you spend weeks or months arguing with IT about which applications should be installed, finding that half your documents are corrupted because this version of WORD is incompatible with the last 5 (all of which are also incompatible with each other), and poking around the internet trying to troubleshoot because no one has any idea what to do about it.

    2. Re:Economics is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Will it make them more efficient though. is efficiency even the goal?

      Suppose i assign my salaried employee Tom a certain amount that at peak efficiency can be done in 40 hours a week. his computer and uncomfortable chair reduce his efficiency by 5%. So he has to work 42 hours a week to complete it. do i care they he stayed an hour late twice a week to finish his work? it not like I'm playing him overtime or anything.

    3. Re:Economics is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of a new PC isn't *just* the cost of a new PC.

      Someone - you, it's always you - needs to install it: drivers, applications, configurations, the whole lot. Remember also that some times, a new PC means a new OS, which brings its own complications (incompatibilities, etc), which you have to deal with.

      Then you need to deal with the inevitable problems that the new hardware+software combo will bring. If the OS changes, you'll have to teach people to use the new OS, and you need to test your applications with it to ensure that they are working (Murphy's Law: they won't).

      And you can't upgrade all PCs at once because then nobody can do anything. You'll have to stagger your upgrades, which will take weeks or months depending on your size.

      And then there's the near certainty that one out of about fifty PCs is going to break down in the first week (or the first day) which means a replacement + all the bureaucracies involved.

      This is a massive investment in time and effort. Meaning, money. And you want to do it every 3 years? Not gonna happen.

      As they say, if it ain't broken, don't try to fix it. And despite all the grumblings, business still gets done, so it must be working.

    4. Re:Economics is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your IT staff are imbeciles and so are you for using WORD at all.

    5. Re:Economics is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, the cost of 3-6 months trying to get a new machine configured properly and the correct software installed is NOT trivial in terms of time wasted. And 3 months would be an optimistic estimate. The biggest time waste I see is the dreaded "refresh", where you have everything working, then someone comes around wanting to "upgrade" your machine, and then you spend weeks or months arguing with IT about which applications should be installed, finding that half your documents are corrupted because this version of WORD is incompatible with the last 5 (all of which are also incompatible with each other), and poking around the internet trying to troubleshoot because no one has any idea what to do about it.

      And thanks to the shift in business models from perpetual licenses purchased via one-time expenses towards Services As A Software Substitute, combined with "Agile," "Continuous Delivery," and "Evergreen" releases, your employees can be in upgrade hell 24/7/365!

      But the accounts payable department at your company is happy because rather than having to decide whether to fork out $600 every 5 years for the latest version of Photoshop, they just spend $100/month or $1200/year whether they upgrade or not. Predictable and comes out of OpEx not CapEx.

      And the accounts receivable department on the other side is happy because "Hey, we fired the QA department and just throw shit over the wall and our customers pay us double what they used to!"

    6. Re:Economics is hard by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The cost of a new high-end PC over a three-year lifetime is trivial

      Before you look into cost you need to ask yourself what problem are you trying to solve? I have yet to see a computer slowdown in an office that could be fixed by better hardware or more high-end.

      Computers are bogged down primarily by crap software, corporate management software, and my personal favourite: share point. Well okay that last one is extreme but we do that with every web interface.

      Maximo turned from a great asset management database with a great front end into an in the browser special that worked only in IE could no longer use multiple windows, and was hosted somewhere in the cloud which would have worked great in the presentation to management but sucks when 300 people are suddenly sucking on the end of a thin internet pipe.

      High performance computers? Yeah we got those. They aren't worth even an employee's salary for a day.

    7. Re:Economics is hard by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are good reasons for using MS Word in many situations. There are no good reasons to take 3-6 months getting a new computer set up, because IT staff that isn't all imbeciles is cheaper to hire than having workers' computers crippled for months at a time.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Economics is hard by Solandri · · Score: 1

      It probably just looks that way to you from the employee side because you overlook everything that the company does buy for you, and concentrate on the few things you want/need but the company hasn't bought yet.

      From the employer's viewpoint, the cost to hire an employee is typically 1.5x to 3x the employee's salary. 1% is roundoff error.

    9. Re:Economics is hard by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there is no way to separate out the time wasted on this problem VS actual work. And, it always works for managers (which by definition, don't usually produce anything) and their secretaries (which are the first/only people they ask about it.

    10. Re: Economics is hard by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that anyone is stuck with old custom software. If you had it made before, you can do it again, it's just an excellent excuse for refusal to replace PCs and get some unpaid overtime from people whose PC takes half an hour to boot up, but you don't start paying them until they signed in.

    11. Re:Economics is hard by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Your IT staff are imbeciles and so are you for using WORD at all.

      says the PHB...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    12. Re: Economics is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That assumes that there is anybody around with the technical knowledge, business process knowledge and time to design, code and test the replacement for the old custom software.

    13. Re: Economics is hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I just ran into this exact problem. I had a perfectly working system with admin rights and a bunch of essential dev tools that I spent well over a year setting up to the point where my workflow was pretty damn efficient. Welp, all that was flushed down the toilet about a month ago when my laptop wouldn't boot up. Turns out the help desk did a "security upgrade" disabling hundreds of systems in our organization. Except in my case it completely bricked my system and all they could do was completely WIPE the machine like I wipe ass when I take a massive shit. All was lost and I spent the last month trying to get it resolved, with numerous calls and visits to the helpdesk, countless emails, and tons of status reports to my managers and team leads explaining why I couldn't do anything (and of course asking what I have been doing to help the situation). It was the most stressful and demoralizing time in my career not
      to mention all that lost productivity. Now I will spend a few more months getting my system set up again and restoring everything. All because sone flunky pissant at the Help(less) Desk decided to push an untested security update. Fuck him/her I hope s/he gets fired and has to eat beans out of a can for a year. Gawd.

    14. Re:Economics is hard by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      There are good reasons for using MS Word in many situations.

      MS Word may be better for a few. But 99% if users would be better off with something like Google Docs, where there is zero setup time and zero compatibility problems. Plus it is easy to share docs without passing them around as email attachments.

    15. Re: Economics is hard by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Businesses get stuck with custom software all the time. The trick is a business is on a 10 year+ hardware refresh cycle while IT is pushing 5 at best.

      I started working for a company in 2012. The computer for me to use to start with was a Windows 2000 with a 19" crt.
      Now my work station was quickly upgraded as a computer refresh was going around so in a couple of weeks I had dual 21" monitors and a modern tower. However the software connected to was windows 2003 terminal server running Great Plains software that hadn't been updated since installation in 2005. (We upgraded at a cost of $100k to new erp software and computers by the end of 2012) but that was only to Windows 2008 server. Those win 2008 and win 2003 servers are still running though they got pushed to the side when we were bought out in 2016. And are being maintained only for historical reasons. As it is cheaper to keep them isolated and running than to pay some to export the databases completely.

      And that is how you find 14 year old software running in a business. Because upgrades are expensive and not always worth it

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    16. Re:Economics is hard by NoSalt · · Score: 1

      The cost of a decent chair over its 10-20 year lifetime is even smaller. Yet somehow companies refuse to spend 1% of a salary on something that will make people 5% more efficient.

      I am currently sitting in a chair that absolutely sucks, and I have no hope that my telling my boss will have any effect whatsoever.

    17. Re:Economics is hard by PPH · · Score: 2

      The cost of a decent chair over its 10-20 year lifetime is even smaller.

      Until Microsoft yanks my chair out from under me and tries to install a new one. While I'm standing, they tell me how great it will be when I finally get to sit down again.

      Then, it will take me a few weeks to find where the new height and seat back tilt controls are.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    18. Re: Economics is hard by Ricwot · · Score: 1

      I know, I live there. We're on XP using a buggy terminal emulator from the nineties to access some systems, and internet explorer 7 for others. It's just sad that nobody has been willing to put any effort in to these systems since the millennium.

    19. Re:Economics is hard by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Computer geeks like using computers, most people are not computer geeks and do not really like using a computer all that much. People who do not like using computers will find all sorts of faults using a computer (computer geeks will look at most of the computer faults and understand that the majority of them are computer faults but user faults). Many office computer users want the computer to do their job for them, and ask the computer techs why isn't this so, whilst blaming computer techs for the failure. Smart computer techs remind computers workers, if the computer could do their job for them, why would the company continue to employ them. After that many computer workers are much happier about the lack of ability and are content with the faults in their computer.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    20. Re:Economics is hard by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      The cost of a decent chair over its 10-20 year lifetime is even smaller.

      Until Microsoft yanks my chair out from under me and tries to install a new one. While I'm standing, they tell me how great it will be when I finally get to sit down again.

      Then, it will take me a few weeks to find where the new height and seat back tilt controls are.

      And then you find out the height control is locked out by a domain policy and the tilt control is buggy, causing you to periodically flop back so far you stare at the ceiling, at which point you're supposed to reset the chair...

    21. Re:Economics is hard by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of the overheads, and see this from both sides. For us, procurement rules make it trivial to spend £3000 on a laptop that we'll replace after 2-3 years, but almost impossible to spend £1000 on a chair that comes with a 15 year warranty and is likely to reduce absences due to back pain by a month over its lifetime.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Economics is hard by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      MS Word is more suitable for businesses, where MS Word is a standard format, and if the customer's MS Word doesn't work perfectly with the document you sent them not produced by Word it's your fault. I use LibreOffice at home, and it does everything I want an office suite to do and more. (Then again, I use vim to write fiction and poetry.) Most individual users are better off with something else.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  8. Um...audience? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    >> his computer sometimes struggles to handle large spreadsheets and multiple documents open simultaneously

    Hi "MsMash" and welcome to SlashDot! We are a thriving community of developers and IT folks who do interesting things like "compile code", "simulate load" and "troubleshoot." Having to deal with a computer too slow to handle a bunch of crappy Office documents isn't something we really ever face, since our challenges are greater than those faced by the poor schlubs (like this imaginary office worker) we mock.

    Do you have any stories that might interest us instead?

    1. Re:Um...audience? by hattig · · Score: 2

      You should see some of the abominations of spreadsheets non-developer people come up with, instead of using a more suitable solution!

    2. Re:Um...audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just how high *is* that horse you're on?

    3. Re:Um...audience? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's horses all the way down.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Um...audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have seen this project I took over. 3 years and the "developers" ONLY "worked" in excel spreadsheets. You'd say "Well, how could they have developed anything if they were only using spreadsheets? You can't create useful applications in excel! There's no compiler, no UI components, etc" and.... you'd be right.

      Maybe if they had faster laptops they could have gotten nothing done in less time.

    5. Re:Um...audience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three real world examples:
      1.) Procedure manuals in Excel because the person who designed it was more interested in form vs. function and knew how to adjust columns. Also a shared workbook that is used by multiple offsite locations. What a nightmare.
      2.) Copy paste from last weeks version of the report rather than using a template - maxed out the number of styles Excel could support in a single workbook.
      3.) The best one: Production report 'database' in Excel. Copied year after year and after all the genetic drift, grew to 150 MB in size, took 30 minutes to open or save if at all and needed a recovery from backup about once a month.

  9. In most cases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not the computer, but the software. Nobody is advocating that everything should be written in machine language, but let's not pretend that we need to buy newer and faster computers every year to do the same tasks we did last year. A good example is the recent debacle of a little blinking cursor in Visual Studio Code hogging 10% or more CPU power.

    And for people running Windows, be aware that the Windows Defender Real-time Protection setting will make file copying and archive extraction literally magnitudes slower. Knowing when to disable this setting will reduce a lot of waiting for basic file handling.

  10. Re:The biggest time suck was named Destiny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It is Brittany with her lush cleavage that rises and falls with every breath she takes after walking down the hall....

  11. Clouds are good mkay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Charlotte Robson, 27, works in London’s finance sector. Her workplace computer runs through a remote desktop, connecting to an off-site server—ostensibly to allow employees to work remotely. However, the it also means that things load slower than they should, even if you’re in the office."

    So she works in an office, but her computer is remote..... erm, sometimes things are so fucking stupid they defy belief. You probably have a PHB CIO or CTO who read about clouds, and so he put everything in the cloud because clouds are good, and this is the result.

    A faster PC won't help, it's the connection lag. All the PC on your desk is doing is playing a 'video' of a remote screen and sending a few key presses and even crap computers can do that. But the obvious fix is to have your computers in your office, not off site in some remote office. All the pointless complexity is adding nothing.

    1. Re:Clouds are good mkay by Archtech · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's time I mentioned again that IBM mainframe I came across about 25 years ago. The users were complaining about slow response time, but a waiver was issued because they were in Australia and the mainframe was in London.

      Oh, didn't I say? The slow response time was 2 seconds. Normally it would have had to be under half a second.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  12. Re:The biggest time suck was named Destiny by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Janitor at the Ba Da Bing is a job? Your dad sells pork, right?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  13. Ugh spreadsheets by athmanb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In a recent ticket I got, one of our finance guys complained that our computers (Haswell i7, 8GB RAM with an SSD) were too slow and that he needed a better one. The finance director of course immediately signed off on the purchase request before even asking me for a price. I couldn't quite believe that complaint and had him show me what wasn't fast enough, and was treated to a horrible mess of a XLSX with a million rows, two hundred columns, and vlookups and pivot tables everywhere.

    Out of pure curiosity I let that run on a 64 bit Excel on an empty terminal server with 128GB of RAM and of course it ran like crap on there too. I never tried deciphering the spaghetti code of that spreadsheet, but I'm almost certain that if it had been developed in a real programming language, it would've stepped down the O(n) complexity by a couple levels and made the whole calculation run in seconds.

    Never believe anybody who says his computer is too slow because of a spreadsheet.

    1. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have seen a bunch of those, but the speed seems to be a secondary consideration. You can't tell whether the results are correct in any more than trivial cases.

    2. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what's more cost effective? Optimizing the spreadsheet or buying a better computer?

      Hardware is cheap.

    3. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Option 3:

      Putting the data in a database where it belongs. Yes, it's more expensive but according to the GP a better computer wasn't solving the problem.

    4. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      One of my colleagues needed a newer laptop. the previous one wasn't even 2 years old, i5 with 16GB RAM, but it was getting slow. They needed a fast laptop because they worked on complex queries for reports... the queries are executed on the database server.

    5. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it STILL ran slow on that server, what the fuck do you think?

      If you are buying a gaming rig to process your spreadsheet, your spreadsheet is crap and you should just be fired.

    6. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > ...it would've stepped down the O(n) complexity by a couple levels and made the whole calculation run in seconds.

      ITYM "it would've reduced the constant factors by many orders of magnitude". Linear complexity is not bad. It's the best you can do for something that has to consider every piece of input data at least once.

    7. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get extra credit for getting the incorrect answer faster. Unless of course you either work for the government, especially the IRS.

    8. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You don't know the half of it. Google "HPC services for Excel"

      I apologize, but it's important to know that this.. Exists.

      You've had a glimpse of the madness that leads men to do terrible things.. But what kind of sick depravity must one endure to device compute node clusters for Excel spreadsheets?

    9. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't so much spreadsheet or the language or even the complexity. But rather that people just don't have a frigging clue how to write macros.

      My three pet peeves:
      - Application.ScreenUpdating - You did remember to try and not draw every action on the screen like CSI Miami doing the worlds slowest fingerprint searches right?
      - Not understanding that you can nest loops, and if statements. How many times have you seen code that causes the same set of cells to be looped through sequentially three times rather than using a multidimensional array or god forbid just copying and pasting the code three times.
      - Not using Excel. I helped a colleague who's sheet was running slowly. She was looping through cells reading their value, going to the next cell, reading that value, doing some basic math and then outputting it to the next cell. errr you do know what a spreadsheet formula is right?

      I've yet to see a spreadsheet which wasn't created by an IT professional that I couldn't optimise, and I mean A LOT. And that's not bragging. I will be the first to admit I suck at programming.

    10. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      In any more than trivial cases, you cannot double-check the results, they just come out. And you cannot check the calculations themselves, because they can't be listed in any useful way, nor can you make sense of them.

    11. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A million rows? When did MS fix the 16 bit unsigned int limit of 65535?

    12. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Ginguin · · Score: 2

      Part of the problem comes when an "urgent" request for data comes in, and you have to cobble together a piece of crap that is only supposed to be used once. Then it gets requested again. And again.

      I have some VBA code that I am proud of (well, as proud as anyone can be of something done in VBA). I have a few monstrosities that I hope no one ever sees. The difference is that I had time to think about the first group. The second group grew as management requirements and requests changed mid audit/lawsuit/whatever. "We need data X." "Now we need data X, correlated with Y, then compared to Z." "Now tell me the number of hours for each gender on Y". I left a biotech company a couple of years ago and got a call just last month asking for help with a macro I had made that they should never have been using. They found an old version I had sent to my manager and just continued using it without anyone having the skills to go in and change things, despite extensive comments.

      Sadly, the beast is created far more often than the beauty in certain environments.

      --
      "Anything you say can and will be used against you in a targeted advertisement" - Adam Harvey
    13. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for blowing my mind. That's enough slashdot for today...

    14. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "You can't tell whether the results are correct in any more than trivial cases."

      In most cases, I think you can safely assume that non-trivial results are probably mostly wrong. Coding a spreadsheet correctly is no easier than coding the same logic in FORTRAN, Python, or any other relatively sane programming language. Which is to say -- it's damn difficult.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    15. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least a decade ago. Excel 2007 supports over 1 million rows.

    16. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the condescension dripping from this post. In many cases the finance guy either can't get the proper tools needed to build what he needs to do from IT due to "security" or have never been taught any other way, so they improvise. Maybe some training by an expert such as yourself would go a long way to them doing their job right?

    17. Re:Ugh spreadsheets by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      In fact, it's massive MORE difficult than a real computer language. If nothing else, you can't examine the code in any useful way.

  14. Local friendly office IT guy here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there is SOME truth to this article. There are definitely really old machines in my organization. Just last month we finished switching out the last of our XP machines that were still around for no other reason than "it has software that'll only run on this OS!". And again this morning, I helped migrate a persons data over from a 10 year old win7 machine with only 3gb of RAM. It was painfully slow, and I felt for the guy when he was like "yeah I've been on this machine the past 3 years... but the help desk is too hard to understand and can't tell me what to do so I just suffered through it".

    -BUT- there are also those users that just received a brand spanking new device... that call me up a week later saying "it's just... slow, it won't do what I tell it to". I show up, and of course they have IE & chrome open, both running multiple tabs (with a youtube video, and their music streaming service of choice playing), an IM client, an email client, multiple folders to network drives, spreadsheets.... and, and, and! you folks get the point. It's as if the users are trying to see just how far they can push their device lol. It may be new, but it's still "business class".

    1. Re: Local friendly office IT guy here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! I run that and more on my Linux box with no slowdown whatsoever. Although it's Chrome and Firefox instead of IE.

    2. Re:Local friendly office IT guy here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 spreadsheets, 4 documents, ie and vivaldi with multiple tabs, password manager, im, one note, and outlook with 10k + emails. on a "Business class" laptop. No issues here.

  15. Big crock of bull by holophrastic · · Score: 1

    Sure, if we're talking about an office of programmers, this might all hold true, but most businesses in this world manufacture white tube socks. They manufacture white tube socks the same way today as they did thirty years ago. If my 486DX250 hadn't gone missing in 1998, it would still be adequate for the manufacturing of white tube socks.

    There are many employees who feel demoralized because they manufacture white tube socks. And if you show them new, shiny, expensive things, then they'll feel better about themselves. . .for a few days. Life is like a mop; it gets full of dirt and crud and hairballs and stuff. Sometimes, people just want a new mop because they don't want to clean the old mop -- even though their job is to clean.

    As for the lovely comment of spending 1% of a salary to improve 5% productivity, that presumes a whole lot of crap, like a) the 5% won't dwindle a week later; b) there's 5% more work that could be done; and c) that same employee won't ask for six more 1%'s because they really can't stick with a set of tools that work.

    I have a car, a sportscar, it's 8 years old. Do I want a new car? Hell no! Does my car have a back-up camera, heated seats, gps, fantastic speakers, well-retractive seat belts? It has none of those. But none of those are a part of a car. Those are weird luxuries and dumb conveniences that may be nice but they aren't a part of a car. Instead, it has all of the wonders of a great sportscar. I'm not going to throw out the great car for a new car just because the new car has more gizmos. Because guess what. . .the new car doesn't have the limited slip differential. Those new gizmos are all nice, and they are nice added value, but you need to have something to add it to.

    I do have/run/operate a small business. It's a web-programming business. My desk is a solid wood gorgeous desk, now 15 years old. My main workstation is 9 years old -- spec'd properly in the first place, it's faster than most reasonably-priced new machines. Abuse it, and it'll be garbage in ten minutes.

    Take care of your tools, whatever they may be, and not only will they last, but you'll be so much happier with them than you ever would with a new replacement.

    1. Re:Big crock of bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just not sure I believe that you can get 5% productivity anyway- most law offices would be fine with XP-era machines if they stuck to XP-era office software. It's not like the case searches get run locally or that you'd ever do mass OCR instead of farming it out.

    2. Re:Big crock of bull by holophrastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What a concept. We've eighty-seven thousand versions of microsoft office later. Does anyone's book report need anything newer than wordperfect? And if you thought that was dating myself, wordstar? It's black text on white page. Textart became useless when tractor-feed paper was gone -- you can't do banners on pre-cut paper. Count the number of office workers who use anything more than bold, italics, underline, a bulleted list, and maybe a numbered list. Even pivot tables have been around for decades now.

      You need the latest hardware to run the latest software. But you don't need the latest software to do the latest business -- because the latest business, most of the time, is nothing new.

    3. Re:Big crock of bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell software to quit the annual bloating if you want to assume the goalposts are static. Until then, yes, PC hardware obsoletes just by existing.

    4. Re:Big crock of bull by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "I have a car, a sportscar, it's 8 years old. Do I want a new car? Hell no! Does my car have a back-up camera?"

      FWIW, I just installed a backup camera in my 18 year old Toyota Camry. It's useful because they stopped making cars with adequate rear visibility about four decades ago. But I didn't have to buy a new car with no spare tire and a lot of truly obnoxious electronics in order to get the capability. (The camera was actually a bonus. I really bought the new radio mostly because the old one had no decent way to play mp3s).

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    5. Re:Big crock of bull by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      "I have a car, a sportscar, it's 8 years old. Do I want a new car? Hell no! Does my car have a back-up camera?"

      FWIW, I just installed a backup camera in my 18 year old Toyota Camry. It's useful because they stopped making cars with adequate rear visibility about four decades ago. But I didn't have to buy a new car with no spare tire and a lot of truly obnoxious electronics in order to get the capability. (The camera was actually a bonus. I really bought the new radio mostly because the old one had no decent way to play mp3s).

      Hah! I use a '92 Ford Sierra daily to work and back. It doesn't even have a radio. On the plus side, no one wants to steal it, repairs are shockingly cheap (equiv to perhaps 90USD in the last two years for oil/filter/plug changes) and it will probably take me to work and back daily until my eventual retirement. Don't ask me what the mileage is, cause the clock has rolled over anyway, so I stopped noticing.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  16. CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    The biggest time sink at my job is the system that exports CSV files to use in Excel. If you don't select your data and copy into a new Excel spreadsheet, updating the calculations on a 70MB file takes 90 minutes. That's not a problem on a clean Excel spreadsheet.

    1. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Excel? 70MB? Golly Gee whiz, what could the problem be here? Nothing for it, we'll just need to get you a faster computer ...

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    2. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Excel? 70MB? Golly Gee whiz, what could the problem be here? Nothing for it, we'll just need to get you a faster computer ...

      It's a $3,000 17" Dell laptop. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to help.

    3. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But a bigger monitor will help !!!

    4. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's suggesting that you shouldn't be using Excel on 70 MB files, but rather software better designed to be used on such large files.

    5. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Excel? 70MB? Golly Gee whiz, what could the problem be here? Nothing for it, we'll just need to get you a faster computer ...

      It's a $3,000 17" Dell laptop. Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to help.

      Woosh

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    6. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      The biggest time sink at my job is the system that exports CSV files to use in Excel. If you don't select your data and copy into a new Excel spreadsheet, updating the calculations on a 70MB file takes 90 minutes. That's not a problem on a clean Excel spreadsheet.

      I'm curious - in a previous story and previous post you said you were a programmer. Why can't you write a program that eats in that CSV file and spits out the numbers and charts you need?

      I did that once for a multi-megabyte spreadsheet with millions of rows that took roughly 60 mins on the user's computer in Excel. They ran this perhaps once a day. Exporting that data to CSV takes them a few mins, and my program (written in R, of all things) processed it and spat out the correct matrices (in CSV form) in a matter of minutes.

      Most people have no idea how fast their calculations can be done when it is a command-line program reading all millions of numbers from a file straight into RAM. The numbers in your 70MB spreadsheet should easily fit into RAM into a single contiguous memory location. After that it's simply a matter of iterating over the RAM with the correct functions written in native code.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:CSV to Excel spreadsheets... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      I'm curious - in a previous story and previous post you said you were a programmer.

      I have an A.S. in computer programming but I don't work professionally as a programmer. I do occasionally write or modify a PowerShell script at work. I program in Python at home.

      Exporting that data to CSV takes them a few mins, and my program (written in R, of all things) processed it and spat out the correct matrices (in CSV form) in a matter of minutes.

      It takes me a few minutes to highlight the text in the columns that I need, create a blank Excel file, and paste the text into the new Excel file. The new Excel file behaves fine. If I worked with the original CSV file, Excel has to recalculate the entire spreadsheet with 1M+ blank cells for every little change.

  17. kids these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the day, you could watch the spreadsheet recalculate.

    This sounds Millenial. "My computer does not give me instant gratification, waah". Yeah, THATS why you're not productive, hipster. Not Youface or Instachat, or your lack of attention span or work ethic. It's your computer.

  18. Nope, it's meetings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specifically my boss being stuck in one meeting or another most of the day pretty much every day of the week. He can't be around to tell me what it is he needs me to do, or to come work with me on things that need both of us present to do them. Of course the endless meetings are a result of most people having their heads up their asses so completely that nobody seems to be able to get anything done without going over all of it dozens of times before enough people get on the same page that something productive can occur. Meanwhile you've either got people sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for some direction that makes sense, or working on something they end up not having had to work on in the first place, or done in the wrong way because people can't get their heads out of their asses and give them correct direction on what they should be working on. Then there's the perpetual, incessant 'oral tradition', instead of there being information available on current projects, in places where people can actually access it, or worse, someone goes to all the trouble of setting up project sites on the enterprise-wide network, the everyone else ignores it for whatever reasons and puts documentation and other mission-critical files in other places and they don't tell everyone where, or just plain don't make it accessible to anyone except a few people. Then there's the clueless beancounters who have no fucking idea what it is anyone is actually hired to do or anything really about the projects they're assigned to work on, except of course the meaningless drivel on pieces of paper they have on their desks, who regardless of being clueless see fit to dictate how, when, and where things (allegedly) get done, and also institute all sorts of Byzantinian and otherwise pointless and useless ways of tracking test equipment usage, thinking that if something doesn't literally have it's front panel buttons being pressed by someone 24/7/365, that it's being 'under utilized', and furthermore incorrectly thinking they can just rip the stuff off the benches they're being used on and put them somewhere else -- which, of course, would completely and totally derail any ability to get actual work done, if and when anyone actually gets their heads out of their asses long enough to figure out what NEEDS to be done. Seriously, it's a total mystery how this corporation manages to ship anything to anyone, ever.

  19. Nothing's wrong with that machine. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop using a spreadsheet for database tasks. Stop thinking you need 28 tabs open in your web browser. Stop leaving thousands of unread emails sitting in your inbox in Outlook because you may need to reference them some day. That accounts for a good 90% of the problems I see users having with their PCs.

  20. Hey! If it works by ArhcAngel · · Score: 1

    If it works for McClaren's F1 Team it's good enough for you!

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  21. Users lie. by ledow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    500+ users
    150+ machines.

    Not one of them is slow enough to discourage a user (doesn't stop them trying to claim that).

    Windows 8.1. 8Gb, SSD. EVERYWHERE. Everything you could want to do, office-wise, will fly. We have no power usage and EVERYONE has the same exact source image for their machine. Even IT.

    The biggest restriction is really that we *only* have Gigabit to the desktop. Plenty of oomph on the switches, more than enough backbone, massive internet line, servers and storage sitting mostly idle, but sometimes the gigabit is a bottleneck (e.g. 1Gb profile takes 8 seconds to download!).

    But turn the PC on, within 30 seconds you are at the logo-wallpaper of the logon screen. Type in your username/password, if it "knows" you (i.e. it's your computer or you logged in there recently), if gets to desktop in 10-20 seconds. If it doesn't know you, it's profile download and (possibly) GPO setup etc. which can take a minute or two admittedly. Applications launch and then work. You can open EVERYTHING on the image at once (I know, I've done it) and it still works just fine.

    Last time someone claimed something was slow (after re-images and all sorts), we took the machine apart on their desk, "changed" the hard drive for the exact same drive through some sleight of hand, re-imaged it again. They still - months later - keep telling me how much faster it now is (than the previous re-image of an identical image on the exact same hardware? Really?).

    It's all in their head. In the same way time slows when you are bored and speeds up when you're in a hurry, they perceive it differently when they're desperate to get something important done, but nobody's ever demonstrated an unreasonable logon, program startup, or response time.

    After years of doing IT and actually collecting metrics on this (perflog etc.), I just take it in my stride now.

    The irony: The IT Office machines - including my own - are their rejects from last year, that were deemed "slow". I put the exact same image back on them, put the IT software GPOs on (so they actually have MORE junk than a normal machine), and have been using them for 3 years now.

    Eating your own dogfood kinda throws out all the crazy performance theories. And if it's bad enough to bug them for even ten minutes, I assure you it will bug me more using it for EVERYTHING every single day of my working life.

    1. Re:Users lie. by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      I used to tweak the MenuShowDelay entry in the registry in WinXP machines. Default was something like 400 (ms), which is about half a second; I'd "adjust" some performance things, then just set that to something like 5 or 1...now their Start menu "feels snappier" and they get that notion of a speed increase. Now the computer's faster, and they think I did a wonderful job when there was nothing to be done to begin with because their HDD is just slow and they only have 512MB RAM.

    2. Re:Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EXCELLENT WRITEUP! Your professionalism & office metrics are noteworthy. Really :)
          But "time suck" they're referencing is the computer's ability to distract (goof off) from your work. Not the slow operation of yesteryear machines as the time suck.

    3. Re: Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And engineers sometimes don't connect parts quite properly..

    4. Re:Users lie. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      The problem isn't that users are lying. It's that one time in the 3 years they've worked at that company, the computer was slow because it was receiving an update in the background at the same time that a hung browser session was eating up 99% of the CPU cycles. The computer worked fine 99.99% of the time. But to the user's mind, that 0.01% experience is evidence that the computer isn't fast enough and needs to be replaced.

    5. Re:Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to be the jerk but.... 30 seconds to a login screen with a SSD? What's the machine, a PIII? I have a PC with a Phenom II (Callisto), Sata1 SSD, and 8gb loading to desktop in 17 seconds (no password) with Win7. Am I missing something? How old are these machines?

      That's the last Windows machine I've bothered with so I can't really say what goes on today but that seems awful slow.

    6. Re:Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh give it a rest. You're little more than a load the paper money type admin. If business people are waiting on their tools, that's money and resource lost. This is why you dweebs constantly fail. You think you're great because you run and update a fscking virus checker once in a while, or install a new DIMM. Well guess what, lacky? You're here to do what we business people want. We can do it ourselves, but that's a cost -ve issue - something you lowlings fail to grasp.

    7. Re:Users lie. by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      30 whole seconds? My 4 year old linux laptop goes from power button to fully booted gnome with wifi loaded in 2.91 seconds. And that's comparing to "done everything, all services loaded" (mine) to "ready to take some basic input and wait another 4 minutes to load bloatware" (winblows)

    8. Re:Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. No it doesn't.

    9. Re:Users lie. by ledow · · Score: 1

      From cold boot, with BIOS, yes.

      From normal Windows 8 "sleep" power off? Seconds.

      I'm not picking and choosing my metrics here. I gave you worst-case, real-world, observed. They don't take 4 minutes to load bloat because they're a managed system. Nothing on startup that doesn't need to be, everything works and loads in seconds when you want it.

      And even 30 seconds isn't "too long" to wait for a computer to turn on. Normal working day, however? It never goes off so doesn't even figure.

      If I wanted to Wake-on-LAN them just before people got in, they wouldn't even know. But they're so quick, it's not worth taking the time to write the script to do that.

      P.S. Stock, commodity Lenovo clients. Nothing special. All same image.

    10. Re:Users lie. by ledow · · Score: 1

      We deploy Classic Shell.

      Same reasons, and fixes the Metro shite so it goes away unless someone really wants it (we tie it to Shift-Win-key instead).

      Take off the delays, animations and other shite and stuff just appears when you click the button.

    11. Re:Users lie. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Worst case. From BIOS cold-boot.

      Hell, the BIOS can take 5-10 seconds if you turn off that default "hide all the useful info" option.

    12. Re:Users lie. by ledow · · Score: 1

      Read the summary again.

    13. Re:Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't that users are lying. It's that one time in the 3 years they've worked at that company, the computer was slow because it was receiving an update in the background at the same time that a hung browser session was eating up 99% of the CPU cycles. The computer worked fine 99.99% of the time. But to the user's mind, that 0.01% experience is evidence that the computer isn't fast enough and needs to be replaced.

      As an engineer fuck you both. I had ADHD, and the computer is my working memory. I eat 8 GB of RAM for breakfast. I want to be able to leave TONS of shit open if I want. Don't tell me how to do my job. Get me a better fucking machine. I cost over $50 / hr before benefits and overhead.

    14. Re:Users lie. by allquixotic · · Score: 1

      Similar kit here, except replace the SSD with a 5400 RPM HDD and Windows 8.1 with Windows 10. And McAfee. Yeah. YEAH.

      These are Haswell i7 boxes with otherwise extremely high-end hardware (for a business PC), running Windows 10 v1607 x64, basically the fastest version of modern Windows (compressed RAM is awesome). But they were too cheap to spend on SSDs, so we wait. And wait. And wait.

      Outlook startup, cold cache: 68 seconds.

      Firefox launch, cold cache: 35 seconds.

      Eclipse launch, cold cache: 3 to 5 minutes. Same Eclipse profile loads in 5 seconds on my (personal) Macbook Pro with an SSD.

      `mvn verify` (run some integration tests), cache irrelevant: 25 to 35 minutes (compared to about 6 seconds on our CI server with 128 GB of RAM and an array of SSDs).

      Git clone of a ~3 MB repo: 0.5 seconds networking, 5 minutes disk I/O (compared to about 0.5 seconds of disk I/O on our CI server.)

      I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that your kit isn't part of the problem. The fact that you have SSDs is the biggest factor in ensuring that your kit *isn't* the problem. But if you had 5400 RPM HDDs like me (and I'm sure zillions of other IT shops), you'd be in a world of hurt, like we are. Doubly so if you use(d) McAfee.

      And no, our network isn't the bottleneck. Our network is much faster than anyone needs it to be. We have enough bandwidth that every employee can get symmetrical gigabit and fully saturate the line speed of their gigabit NIC, simultaneously. And a comfortable bit of extra beyond that. We sit on a fiber trunk.

      BTW, fuck McAfee a.k.a. "Intel Security".

    15. Re:Users lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. I'm still thinking that something is wrong here but if you say so. I'm including all the BIOS stuff too. I really think there is something amiss here but hey, you're the big IT guy. Don't take it as constructive criticism. Keep wasting your users time. You suck.

  22. You're focusing on things: It's about MANAGEMENT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're focusing on things: It's about MANAGEMENT.

  23. How odd... by Archtech · · Score: 1

    ... Electronics manufacturers diagnose that poor office performance is caused by lack of up-to-date electronic hardware!

    In other news, Oracle announces that lack of database software costs the USA $671 billion a year. [Disclosure: I made that up].

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  24. Windows 7, the next OS that will not die by supremebob · · Score: 2

    It looks like Windows 7 is going to become the next Windows OS that will not die, replacing Windows XP as Microsoft's most problematic legacy OS. Windows 7 is less than 3 years away from it's end of support date at this point, and people are still doing new deployments of it every day.

    No wonder Microsoft is trying to block Windows updates on new AMD Ryzen and Intel Kaby Lake PC's.... they're trying to force organizations to upgrade to Windows 10 sooner than later to avoid having even more unpatched systems to deal with 2 1/2 years from now.

  25. Slashdot by Nukenbar · · Score: 1

    Doesn't exactly help things.

  26. Mop! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Way to channel Michael Richards from UHF!

    1. Re:Mop! by holophrastic · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to drink from the fire hose.

  27. Boo hoo! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    One in every eight business laptops and desktops worldwide still run Windows XP, which was introduced in 2001.

    My car still uses a steering wheel and pedals, which were introduced in the 1800's. It would seem to me that RETRAINING all your workers to learn a new OS every 5-7 years would be much more expensive in terms of productivity than just leaving things alone.

  28. It could be the phone system by Revek · · Score: 1

    It sucks and its always ringing.

  29. SSD + Fast CPU by WoodburyMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is the reason we upgraded ALL our workstations (about 200-250 workstations between two sites) to SSD's about two years back. We calculated the time it takes for a system to boot, assuming once a day, time lost while they get coffee / etc waiting for it to boot, and time during the day spent waiting for things to load. The ROI for us on these purchases was less than a year with time lost taken into account. Let alone moral/frustration issues.

    We also have done away with ordering bare minimal system. Everything we order has the latest generation i5 Quad Core or better (i7 Quad Cores or Xeons) for users that do CAD work. Back in 2009-2011 during the downturn, that his us hard, we had to buy a lot of lower end systems to replace dead hardware, and we felt the effects of it for years with users being frustrated.

    1. Re:SSD + Fast CPU by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      I haven't the slightest idea why we haven't switched to all SSDs yet, but at least if you are using a laptop they're default there.

    2. Re:SSD + Fast CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have very stringent requirements for hard drive destruction. HDDs require grinding of the drive, SSDs require smelting of the drive. The facilities and environmental concerns from smelting hard drives make it impossible to find a place within 200 miles that can do this.

    3. Re:SSD + Fast CPU by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that! That's actually a plausible reason I'd not thought of.

    4. Re:SSD + Fast CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "smelting"??? ...I didn't realize that the highly refined materials used for semiconductors count as ore and that there's enough material there to bother smelting it.

      Odd.

    5. Re:SSD + Fast CPU by Revek · · Score: 1

      So, I guess you know what a unfortunate smelting accident looks like.

  30. No no no.... This isn't right... by oneiron · · Score: 1

    The biggest time suck at my office is definitely the presence of excessive and mindless multi-taskers who burden both their computers and colleagues with their totally unnecessary and unbearably scatterbrain BS.

  31. Be careful what you wish for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Faster computers=more free time=more pointless meetings with PHB

    Maybe work on them TPS Reports...

  32. You're kidding, right? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    A spreadsheet so large and complex that a PC running Windows 8 (or even XP) is a time sink because it slows down during data entry? Really. Hey you fucking little kid - go do that shit by hand like we did before spreadsheets. I'll show you what a time sink is.

    The real time sink? Slashdot. Reddit. Facebook. Any of a thousand sites with content that is infinitely more interesting than entering data into a spreadsheet. That's your god damned time sink.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  33. Here we go again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We got i7 based computers which freeze or take ages to login. Docx that won't print, files that won't appear in Windows Explorer when saved etc. etc.

    One day we'll buy another computer but there won't be more powerful specs to get... you'll just pay a lot of money for a Windows n+1 sticker.

    And some geniuses want Munich to return to that... really brilliant...

  34. Windows 8 dual UI does slow people down by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Windows 8 dual UI does slow people down

  35. Re: by pele · · Score: 1

    Or the lot of them, all 6000, are just a bunch of your run-of-the-mill OFFICE MOANERS who have time to participate in surveys. Their shitty computers load survey pages so fast you see. Must be a virus or something.

    Wait, 6000? I thought there are 500.000.000 people in Europe? So 6000 MOANERS makes a decent sample-size now, does it?

    I have never EVER had issues with workplace machines, only a few times when office laptops were stolen overnight, promptly replaced by new laptops and ONCE when the multi-core CPU and RAM far-outclassed the ageing HDDs inside new thinkstations. And that was only getting on some peoples nerves when booting up in the morning! 1 minute and 28 seconds WASTED!!! EVERY DAY!!! And even then IT support picked up on the fact rather quickly and proceeded to do performance monitoring and ask us to time boot ups etc. Don't know what happened afterwards as I left but I presume they bought a cardboard box of SSDs soon after...

    MOANERS.

  36. The real message by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    When a company doesn't care if you have the tools to do your job properly, they obviously aren't worried about how productive you're being. Given that, why should you sweat it?

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  37. Biggest time sink for users by ai4px · · Score: 2

    Over the years I've gone from putting my own PC together (and the driver conflicts and the like) to just buying an off the shelf PC like your average schmoe. I've got both iOS and android tablets at home,and win10. The biggest time sink for me is hands down, Win10. Both my office laptop and home PC run it. I dread the super tuesday updates. At first Win10 would reset all my program preferences, but that has settled down. Most of all, it's the boot process that takes 5 minutes and then the user login that takes an additional 8 minutes. My tablets on the other hand can reboot in 60 seconds or less. Windows is simply bloated.

  38. Re:The biggest time suck was named Destiny by Archtech · · Score: 0

    Your dad sells pork, right?

    Is that a euphemism for being a US Senator?

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  39. Misleading article by evolutionary · · Score: 2

    Okay,this article is a mess and it's missing some key factors and some VERY misleading information. The biggest, that people need a crazy amount of RAM to run basic operating systems. In my experience speed problems are not because you don't have the latest operating system. Contrary to popular belief, the newest operating system (especially Windows 8/10) actually CREATE slowdowns. Those "live" tiles, the windows store monitors, the data collection scanning/transmitting to ms your private data all take more Memory resources. Windows XP in fact consumes less memory but it's 64-bit version is virtual unusable because of lack of proper drivers for hardware. Windows 7 can be tweaked in a few ways. Take off those fancy graphical theme/effects that alone helps.I find disabling SuperFetch makes a significant difference. On a Windows 8 Mini computer (by Asus) I was able to improve performance significantly by disabling and uninstalling all the tile features (which is a pain in the arse), as well as Superfetch) made a difference. See these articles:

    http://www.techregar.com/maste...
    http://www.windowsbleu.com/201...
    IT Professional often do NOT have the latest OS (except for testing) because we as professionals know of the memory consumption as well as privacy/OS control issues surrounding windows 8/10. So they will opt for Windows 7 pro (64-bit), a Mac or Linux variant (usually CentOS, Debian, or Scientific Linux..Linux Mint is for consumer use and it excels there).

    Most people use computers for 4 things: Internet, Word Processing, Multimedia and gaming). The first 3 don't require that much memory unless you are creating a media server. If you are a gamer then you truly need the memory of the games. No way around that. And the latest games may not run as well as Windows 7 (but every game I've seen doesn't require Windows 8 or 10). But those systems are typically 1k to 2k USD to build. If you are an professional artist or musician or developer you may need more. I find 16 GB is a real blessing if you need to run Virtual machines or do a lot of Java development.

    A few other things to improve Windows performance: There are services that truly have no business being there. The Update services that people seem to keep putting into systems are creepy. For example Mozilla Firefox actually installs an update service. Why would you even need a service running for a browser update? The browser gives you update alerts when it's running? Google has a updating service which you mess up the programs if you remove it. Adobe is one of the WORST offenders as they keep installing crap to try to push you to use their "cloud" services. The Adobe updater background applications can be disabled or removed. (they are sometimes preinstalled on laptops). Oh, And let's not forget Antiviruses. Some a great with memory, others are memory hogs. Symantec products are wasteful in resources in every respect. The best memory effecient antiviruses I've seen are Eset, BitDefender (not the free edition...sorry), and F-Secure. While I like Gdata it's a memory hog, no question. The most common reasons for PC slow downs are malware running on most people's PC without knowing it. For that I suggest a regular scan with Malware Bytes and Search & Destroy. I personally prefer the "classic" one without any of the automatic stuff but some may prefer the newer one. IT Professionals use these tools and a regular basis as they know no tool finds everything. Here are links to both:

    https://www.safer-networking.o...
    https://www.safer-networking.o...

    and Malwarebytes:
    https://www.malwarebytes.com/m...

    There are free versions but some should

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
  40. Seriously computers? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    And not powerpoint presentations or pointless meetings with people who you're not sure why were invited (and oftentimes that includes yourself)?

    What about status updates to management who require them in powerpoint which is just an export of all the dashboards you specifically made for them so they could refresh them 10x a day instead of asking for status on a 20 person concall every week?

  41. I needed a good laff by 3seas · · Score: 1

    Certainly the author does not work at Microsoft.
    Today hardware is far faster then even a few years ago, so why is it slower for the users? A: Developers think the extra power is to accommodate more layers of program code? But if you are running an earlier OS like AmigaDOS (AROS)... it flys faster than my three finger typing, on current hardware.
    So let me guess, the NSA uses current hardware but programs in assembly... How else might they process all the spying they do?

    1. Re:I needed a good laff by PPH · · Score: 2

      the NSA uses current hardware but programs in assembly

      The NSA uses high end FPGAs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  42. Tired of hearing that same old story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all know how the oil crisis of 1973 wrecked industry and caused massive unemployment. A decade later all the factories were torn down and replaced by towering office buildings where the former working class was employed for administrative tasks, but thanks to the ubiquitious PC, productivity dropped to nearly zero, whilst cars and tvs were imported from Japan.

  43. McAfee! = SlowCafee by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    McAfee slows and jams up lots of stuff at our org.

    The cyber security team has used very aggressive McAfee settings. The security manager gets awards for security, but there is no anti-award for jamming productivity to counter. Thus, his incentive is to crank McAfee to 11. Productivity is somebody else's problem.

    For example, McAfee is set to On Access scanning on every desktop and server, meaning it scans almost every file accessed. Java "compressed" files, such as JAR's take forever to de-compress and scan, often more than 2 minutes. Thus, anything that uses Java as its engine is almost useless.

    One can request such files be white-listed on a case-by-case basis, but the security team is too bogged down to get to them in a timely manner, and they often use a narrow interpretation "to be safe" such that they miss some files, requiring multiple rounds of requests to get such apps use-able.

    McAfee's scan logs don't give enough info to be useful for up-front white-listing. Most users stopped bothering and just avoid using Java-based apps, paying for the more expensive alternatives. They blame Java instead of McAfee because they don't know the difference. (Arguably it could be said that large compressed libraries are a bad idea on Java's part. I hope they rid that feature. Or McAfee could make its scanners more Java-friendly.)

    On a more general level, performance consultants have looked at our slow systems and concluded we should get PC's with SSD's instead of disks. But there's (allegedly) no budget for that, so even new PC's are disk-based and McAfee and On Access scanning gradually eats them up over time as typical Windows time-bloat piles up. Thus, we go through PC's faster, and in the end DON'T save money by using disks (productivity aside).

    And lately they install more security doo-dads from other companies. They don't talk much about them to keep them stealthy. Those just add slugs on top of snails.

    We joke we don't get hacked because our slow systems make the hackers fall asleep waiting for response. Security through Snoozativity.

    I guess I shouldn't entirely blame the fastidious security manager because breaches could cause real havoc at our org. But, resources are not allocated to deal with the downsides of such fastidious cyber security. That's the top boss's fault.

    1. Re:McAfee! = SlowCafee by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      We have a smallish Windows Server estate running on vSphere supporting 400+ client machines. Because we're not allowed to spend money on a real VM-aware AV solution, we're forced to run Configuration Manager Endpoint Protection locally ("It's free!") on each individual VM, which is absolutely killing the I/O performance on our SANs. I'm not allowed to turn it off or even down. We scan everything on access, so our file server, even ridiculously over-resourced with its very own physical disks in the SAN, is slow as shit. Guess where all user profiles and files live. First time logging onto a client is abysmally slow. SQL server: same thing. It's horrific.

      I've campaigned for a virtual-appliance type AV solution that sits "above" the VMs and monitors their filesystems and memory from the outside (Bitdefender's offering is my preference here), which I believe would greatly improve performance, but have been repeatedly turned down for cost reasons. Apparently, it's more important that we buy another 40 shitty laptops than AV software that would increase performance and productivity enterprise-wide.

      That's before we even get to the performance impact on the clients themselves. Mid-range business laptops with 5400rpm HDDs scanning everything on access. No wonder our users despise us.

    2. Re:McAfee! = SlowCafee by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      Oh, needless to say the root causes remain unaddressed because of bean-counters slashing our budgets and upper management over-ruling our advice.

  44. Re: The biggest time suck was named Destiny by rickb928 · · Score: 0

    Nope. That would have been 'which one of your parents sells pork?'

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  45. Quick! Everybody upgrade! by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

    ... a new report * on Bloomberg blames outdated computers, decade-old operating systems and ageing equipments for being one of the biggest hurdles that prevents people from doing actual work in their offices.

    * sponsored by Microsoft and Intel

  46. My entire day! by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    Never mind time suck, I spend my entire day, every day, sitting in front of a computer! Please, take it away, so I can get something done!

    Wait, I'm a programmer, that might not work so well.

    1. Re:My entire day! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, if you're a real programmer you'll be fine, a butterfly is all you need...

  47. Biggest time sink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the company I used to work at, the geniuses in purchasing got awards and raises for killing our on-site file server in favor of a vendor-maintained one over 2000 miles away. Now everyone spends about 20 seconds per file waiting for it to download over the network. (Company policy prohibits having local copies of files.) The daily cost of the lost productivity (~15 minutes times 2000 users) per day is about the same as the monthly cost savings. But since the cost isn't measured or reported, it doesn't exist.

  48. Frustration is not proportional to loss by Kjella · · Score: 1

    I can get really frustrated with other drivers in a matter of seconds, but in reality I always get where I'm going a minute or two later. Then I can get pulled into an hour long BS meeting but hey, I'm getting paid to sit here so... sure, the computer can frustrate me for a few seconds here and there. But I doubt it's really a big time sink, even if I got the ultra-extreme top of the line model. That said, I have some issues with the servers/SAN...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  49. Healthcare has been hit hard by this. by uncoveror · · Score: 2

    I work at a help desk for a hospital and Physician's office network in Cincinnati, Ohio. Technology, as a boat anchor stopping people in their tracks, is especially bad in healthcare. The network here behaves like two cans and a string, especially since they piled on it with thin clients that have n internal storage and zero clients that are really just dumb terminals. Also, many full-fledged PCs are really showing their age. On top of that, most people who have to use the computers are intimidated by them, especially when dealing with Epic, an electronic medical records software that is obscenely complicated and unwieldy, but has somehow become the industry standard. There are also other software packages that complicate tasks that used to be simple. Even people like janitors and cooks who need supervisors to dial the help desk for them are expected to use the computers to due tasks like check their now paperless pay stubs, and sign off on performance reviews. It seems computers have been simply thrown at problems they are not the right tool to solve, and created problems that did not previously exist. This is at a system that some magazine named the most wired in the region, or maybe it was the most wired in the industry. This distinction does not seem award worthy from my perspective.

    --
    The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    1. Re:Healthcare has been hit hard by this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My clinic is not on EPIC (our providers prefer a more customizable option) so I cannot comment on it fully. But I cannot tell you how many times I have been told by my EMR/EHR support to "just install Internet Explorer 9. It will work then." Sorry. No.

      So much of our technology is being held back from vendors not producing updated versions of their software/hardware. Those who do keep up to date expect the organization to pay obscene amounts of money yearly for the product then additional for expensive support contracts.

      My IT team gets the brunt of it. No matter how much juice we pump into the servers or how good we make your terminal, shitty programs are going to continue being shitty. Even if you paid thousands for them.

  50. Big news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, tools need maintenance. Film at 11.

  51. Re:The biggest time suck was named Destiny by scdeimos · · Score: 0

    How do I sign up? I'd love to play games all day and get paid for it!

  52. Specialized software stops upgrades? by scdeimos · · Score: 2

    Some businesses can't help using old hardware or operating systems, because they use specialized software that also hasn't been brought up-to-date.

    Nonsense! Virtualize that crap and run everything else on shiny new hardware. I'm sure there are still brain-dead banking applications that require ActiveX controls to run in MS-IE 5.5 or 6.x but that shouldn't stop everything else in the world from progressing.

  53. Bias? No way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    according to the survey, commissioned by electronics company Sharp

    Surely the survey methodology has no bias whatsoever. I mean, what motivation could there be?

    Nothing fishy at all.

    Move along.

  54. Bullcrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The biggest time suck in my office is hardware and software upgrades. Everyone has to move to Windows 10 because Microsoft says so, and consequently everyone has to reinstall software on their new pc, including proprietary software that requires a new license because you can't move it to a new pc, figure out where Microsoft has hidden old menus and config options (not to mention that bloated POS office software they make and everyone has to use), and send out a bunch of service calls to the IT department to get them to fix all the bugs in their mega-upgrade. If you actually do anything useful with the companies computers, chances are upgrades will hit you hardest.

  55. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, 6000 is a decent sample size, even for a population of 500M. The tricky bit is ensuring it is representative and not biased.

  56. Still happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... creaking computers were "restrictive and limiting ...

    I remember the days of XP: The company would buy minimum spec. workstations then bury them with a commercial anti-virus and a network user-profile. Workstations, now have some grunt, so is security still a problem?

  57. That's right folks by n329619 · · Score: 1

    The Biggest Time Suck at the Office Might Be Your Computer!

    Now would you kindly excuse me as I have to check a few Facebook post on my smartphone. This is important.

  58. No complaints here by vandamme · · Score: 1

    .... but I run Linux.

  59. A modest upgrade would probably solve it... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

    The user who is having trouble with multiple open documents probably doesn't have a computer that is too slow overall. What the user has is a computer with insufficient RAM to handle the workload. That gets worse over time; although the memory demands of Microsoft's operating systems has been pretty stable since Vista, the applications keep getting bigger. (Web browsers in particular consume more and more RAM because the web pages keep getting more complex.)

    Installing more RAM in that computer would likely make it much faster at handling all those documents. Some older systems have already hit their RAM ceiling, but many have not and it's usually not a costly upgrade. It is true that many companies never upgrade existing computers, in which case they won't be considering that option.