Well it is comforting to believe that, but by and large I don't think that much thought is put into it by most programmers.
I have a machine which quite clearly has less memory in it than I am expected to have these days. Doing something like starting up Mozilla (in Linux) is quite a lengthy experience and often involves making a cup of tea,and sipping it whilst waiting for it to finish loading.
The problem I've experienced with XP in an environment with little RAM seems to involve the aggressive swap to disk it seems fond of doing when running certain applications. I expect it is constantly going "oops almost out of memory" and swapping out to disk, but isn't actually swapping in anything useful in its place.
There doesn't seem to be the slowness which you normally get if you end up resorting to constanly reading pages in from swap, so I can only assume it is over eagerness to free some RAM.
I do wonder how much of this memory burden is due to modern applications. My Firefox is using up 60MB at the moment, and I'm sure I used to use a web browser in the days when computers were endowed with rather less memory.
I think our expectations of performance have gone up too. I remember many happy (well maybe not happy) minutes spent each time I waited for Corel Draw to re-plot the screen. We'd never tolerate an application that behaved in that way now.
Well, Linux runs well on older hardware too. Infact, the older...the better!
That's funny, when I mention to linux users how long it takes me to compile a kernel and then tell them my machine specs, I get laughed at. Actually compiling Hello World takes a depressing length of time.
Gmail does seem to be quite good at disposing of it. But I did get a whole heap of spam in my brand spanking new Gmail account before I'd ever used it.
I think the converter boxes cost more than my TV did.
Still I'm sure it'll will all be worth it for those game show TV channels, 24 hour big brother, betting and shopping channels.
Hmm think I'll go read a book.
I suppose it all depends on what Intel likes to pretend their compiler is for. If it supposed to be a good general purpose compiler and the claims are true, then it isn't going too well. If it is supposed to compile only for the P4 and having the code run on anything else is a happy accident then it seems a poor choice for developers.
Maybe we need to start producing Intel and AMD versions of all our x86 binaries?
Slashdot Mirror
Why stop at two?
I have a machine which quite clearly has less memory in it than I am expected to have these days. Doing something like starting up Mozilla (in Linux) is quite a lengthy experience and often involves making a cup of tea,and sipping it whilst waiting for it to finish loading.
The problem I've experienced with XP in an environment with little RAM seems to involve the aggressive swap to disk it seems fond of doing when running certain applications. I expect it is constantly going "oops almost out of memory" and swapping out to disk, but isn't actually swapping in anything useful in its place. There doesn't seem to be the slowness which you normally get if you end up resorting to constanly reading pages in from swap, so I can only assume it is over eagerness to free some RAM.
I do wonder how much of this memory burden is due to modern applications. My Firefox is using up 60MB at the moment, and I'm sure I used to use a web browser in the days when computers were endowed with rather less memory. I think our expectations of performance have gone up too. I remember many happy (well maybe not happy) minutes spent each time I waited for Corel Draw to re-plot the screen. We'd never tolerate an application that behaved in that way now.
I'm curious how XP performs relative to 2k if you turn off all the extra crud 2k doesn't have, has anyone tried this?
Gmail does seem to be quite good at disposing of it. But I did get a whole heap of spam in my brand spanking new Gmail account before I'd ever used it.
> my god, it's full of crappy javascript. I don't recall David Bowman ever saying that!
I think the converter boxes cost more than my TV did. Still I'm sure it'll will all be worth it for those game show TV channels, 24 hour big brother, betting and shopping channels. Hmm think I'll go read a book.
I suppose it all depends on what Intel likes to pretend their compiler is for. If it supposed to be a good general purpose compiler and the claims are true, then it isn't going too well. If it is supposed to compile only for the P4 and having the code run on anything else is a happy accident then it seems a poor choice for developers. Maybe we need to start producing Intel and AMD versions of all our x86 binaries?
I wonder what the govt/councils get for daylight robbery of the general population.
The expression I've seen used is "handling event".
It isn't real! Chill.