Computer oxymorons I'm tired of dealing with

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fleabag

Banned
Oct 1, 2007
2,450
1
0
Programmers arent lazy. They're rushed and overworked.
And do you know why?
Because the publishers demand products out the door in half the time they actually need.
And do you know why that is?

When you find out, come back and post the answer.
Don't you know? Programmers are whipping boys.. it's always their fault... Yes I agree you CAN blame the publishers, however why is it that software written a decade ago and software written today that does the exact same task takes up several times the resources of the software written prior? How much of the blame do you want to give programmers and how much for the publishers? You may be on to something as it always seems like certain companies are known for making bloat ware.. (adobe, apple, microsoft, insert a few others)

LOL!!! You have no idea what you are talking about. I cannot start to tell you how many times you are off base on this post.
How many times am I off base? Are you going to give me a long story about how adobe really does try hard to make a great product and that all that activation bullshit software running in the background is actually enhancing my experience? That Photoshop CS3 is 3 times better than 7? Or how Adobe Flash (Macromedia) isn't actually slow? Please....
 
Last edited:

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
145
106
It's not that memory isn't meant to be used, it's just that it could be put to better use elsewhere.. Why do I need 800mb of memory just to listen to an MP3? I don't know about you but I like to multitask, something you can't do when you're using memory hogging applications. A lot of responses are "get more memory" but then it becomes this "one up" thing where computers get more memory and then programmers get lazier and make their applications less conservative in their memory usage. Also keep in mind that not everybody wants to upgrade their machines every few years "just because". You give someone a pay raise who is living paycheck to paycheck and then instead of them being better off, they just spend it all and are no better than when they started off..

Lazy programming is the reason why computers have technically gotten orders of a magnitude faster but when you actually use them with the latest software, it's like nothing has changed. A lot of people including myself hate flash because it runs like dog shit, well I don't like Vista because it runs like dog shit as well. Want another example of crappy programming? Why is it that GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas for the PC have ever increasing hardware requirements despite the fact that they look no better than their PS2 counterparts? Those games run and look like ass on the PC yet run and look fine (for what they are) on the consoles..

Programmers have gotten increasingly lazy with their programming and since they test their products on systems that are no less than 5 years old, they fail to see all the waste their programs have because the systems are able to cope with said programming.

I just don't like this trend and neither should you. Just because it's there, it doesn't mean you have to use it especially when you don't need it.

1. I've never seen a MP3 player take more then a 10 megs. I doubt you have either.
2. most programs that use a lot of memory have to, eg, photoshop, games, ect. Textures and visual effects take up lots of memory, no programmer can change that.
3. Loading stuff from the HD takes time, LOTS of time. a common trick is to pre load it into memory, which is very fast. Nothing lazy about it, it is more of an optimization.
4. Dynamic programming, look it up. Its the trade off between CPU time and memory, lots of programs are going with a dynamic approach in their algorithms because memory is so cheap (nothing to do with lazyness).
5. Flash is an interpreted language, and not generally a memory hog. (unless it is loading video which, surprise, takes a fair amount of memory.)
6. Vista takes the "HD slow, memory fast" approach and preloads a lot of commonly used programs into ram, it is called superfetch, not lazy programming. Guess what, freeing memory takes no time (which is what vista does if it runs out of memory) what takes time is loading data from the HD to memory in the first place.
7. GTA, you have no clue what you are talking about. PS2 runs at a MUCH lower resolution then PCs do, that means that they can get away with lower texture resolutions, as well you inherently require less processing power. Not only that, but the code has to be dumbed down generally (IE less special effects). Not that the game actually runs on the PS2, but if it where, that is what would happen. Models would be less detailed, textures would have their resolution reduced, and extras/special effects would be cut out.

However, the same goes for the PS3 and XBox360. That exact process goes on with games that go over to older/slower console platforms.
8. Some programing has gotten a bit lazier, IE the usage of much higher level languages like python and C#. However, the programmers that use those languages are generally programming simple UI. Who cares if they couldn't run on a 100Mhz CPU? It took the programmer days of less time and will run on any 200Mhz CPU (OMG DOUBLE THE SPEED REQUIREMENT!). Where speed matters, those languages are thrown out the window. Games are generally written in lower level languages such as C++. Programmer are VERY aware of speed requirements and do tons of profiling and testing. The thing is, its a LOT of code, and a LOT of programmers. To get every nook and cranny optimized would take years upon years to do. So they optimize critical sections that are taking up most of the processing time instead of every part of the program. That's how its been since the 70's.

So yes, they do program for 5 year old hardware. When they release their games, 90% of the gamers have 5 year old hardware or newer. Why should they care about the 10% outliers that refuse to upgrade from WinME?

BTW, if you know of a good fast algorithm for compressing textures and 3d models, I'm all ears (as would be 90% of the game developers out there) But until you can come up with a reasonable solution, 90% of your memory is going to be dedicated to those extra models and textures. Pretty stuff costs memory. There is no laziness about it.

Tell ya what though, if you want to see why programmers are all evil and lazy. Go write up an assembly program. Make it display a window with a button on it, when you click the button a message box will pop up and say "Hello World." That should run around 2kb in size, the competing C# program will easily be 100kb or more. Tell me how many hours it takes you to write the assembly level code vs the seconds a C# alternative takes. (and yes, I know how to do both. yasm is what you'll want to use along with microsoft's linker, you'll probably want a copy of masm32 as well)
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
1. I've never seen a MP3 player take more then a 10 megs. I doubt you have either.
2. most programs that use a lot of memory have to, eg, photoshop, games, ect. Textures and visual effects take up lots of memory, no programmer can change that.
3. Loading stuff from the HD takes time, LOTS of time. a common trick is to pre load it into memory, which is very fast. Nothing lazy about it, it is more of an optimization.
4. Dynamic programming, look it up. Its the trade off between CPU time and memory, lots of programs are going with a dynamic approach in their algorithms because memory is so cheap (nothing to do with lazyness).
5. Flash is an interpreted language, and not generally a memory hog. (unless it is loading video which, surprise, takes a fair amount of memory.)
6. Vista takes the "HD slow, memory fast" approach and preloads a lot of commonly used programs into ram, it is called superfetch, not lazy programming. Guess what, freeing memory takes no time (which is what vista does if it runs out of memory) what takes time is loading data from the HD to memory in the first place.
7. GTA, you have no clue what you are talking about. PS2 runs at a MUCH lower resolution then PCs do, that means that they can get away with lower texture resolutions, as well you inherently require less processing power. Not only that, but the code has to be dumbed down generally (IE less special effects). Not that the game actually runs on the PS2, but if it where, that is what would happen. Models would be less detailed, textures would have their resolution reduced, and extras/special effects would be cut out.

However, the same goes for the PS3 and XBox360. That exact process goes on with games that go over to older/slower console platforms.
8. Some programing has gotten a bit lazier, IE the usage of much higher level languages like python and C#. However, the programmers that use those languages are generally programming simple UI. Who cares if they couldn't run on a 100Mhz CPU? It took the programmer days of less time and will run on any 200Mhz CPU (OMG DOUBLE THE SPEED REQUIREMENT!). Where speed matters, those languages are thrown out the window. Games are generally written in lower level languages such as C++. Programmer are VERY aware of speed requirements and do tons of profiling and testing. The thing is, its a LOT of code, and a LOT of programmers. To get every nook and cranny optimized would take years upon years to do. So they optimize critical sections that are taking up most of the processing time instead of every part of the program. That's how its been since the 70's.

So yes, they do program for 5 year old hardware. When they release their games, 90% of the gamers have 5 year old hardware or newer. Why should they care about the 10% outliers that refuse to upgrade from WinME?

BTW, if you know of a good fast algorithm for compressing textures and 3d models, I'm all ears (as would be 90% of the game developers out there) But until you can come up with a reasonable solution, 90% of your memory is going to be dedicated to those extra models and textures. Pretty stuff costs memory. There is no laziness about it.

Tell ya what though, if you want to see why programmers are all evil and lazy. Go write up an assembly program. Make it display a window with a button on it, when you click the button a message box will pop up and say "Hello World." That should run around 2kb in size, the competing C# program will easily be 100kb or more. Tell me how many hours it takes you to write the assembly level code vs the seconds a C# alternative takes. (and yes, I know how to do both. yasm is what you'll want to use along with microsoft's linker, you'll probably want a copy of masm32 as well)

OK YOU NERDS, KNOCK IT OFF :mad:
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Programmers arent lazy. They're rushed and overworked.
And do you know why?
Because the publishers demand products out the door in half the time they actually need.
And do you know why that is?

When you find out, come back and post the answer.

300px-DoNotFeedTroll.svg.png
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,865
105
106
It's not that memory isn't meant to be used, it's just that it could be put to better use elsewhere.. Why do I need 800mb of memory just to listen to an MP3? I don't know about you but I like to multitask, something you can't do when you're using memory hogging applications. A lot of responses are "get more memory" but then it becomes this "one up" thing where computers get more memory and then programmers get lazier and make their applications less conservative in their memory usage. Also keep in mind that not everybody wants to upgrade their machines every few years "just because". You give someone a pay raise who is living paycheck to paycheck and then instead of them being better off, they just spend it all and are no better than when they started off..

Lazy programming is the reason why computers have technically gotten orders of a magnitude faster but when you actually use them with the latest software, it's like nothing has changed. A lot of people including myself hate flash because it runs like dog shit, well I don't like Vista because it runs like dog shit as well. Want another example of crappy programming? Why is it that GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas for the PC have ever increasing hardware requirements despite the fact that they look no better than their PS2 counterparts? Those games run and look like ass on the PC yet run and look fine (for what they are) on the consoles..

Programmers have gotten increasingly lazy with their programming and since they test their products on systems that are no less than 5 years old, they fail to see all the waste their programs have because the systems are able to cope with said programming.

I just don't like this trend and neither should you. Just because it's there, it doesn't mean you have to use it especially when you don't need it.

Wow. Someone has no clue about modern memory management.
 

hanoverphist

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2006
9,867
23
76
:) dang it. Sorry, it was just too much fun writing that down, especially given my experience with software development.

that and youre right in your post. and to take it further, the modeling for 3d console games is very under detailed compared to similar games for a pc. this is usually due to the available resources for both platforms. textures arent the only thing that gets knocked down a notch or three.
 

fleabag

Banned
Oct 1, 2007
2,450
1
0
I appreciate you being courteous responding to my post.
1. I've never seen a MP3 player take more then a 10 megs. I doubt you have either.
VLC uses 10,880K of memory and 4104k of "virtual memory" (page file) without ANYTHING loaded. Then when a 4MB MP3 is loaded, it jumps to 22436K of memory, 21,956k of "virtual memory" (page file)....
Mplayer2 (from run dialog box) 5,396K, 1,460K. nothing loaded.. 13560K, 8408K, 4MB mp3 loaded. But those are just dedicated players, what about iTunes?? Well I know for certain iTunes (at least the older versions) uses about 128MB of ram when operating and all that does is play music, with no video capability! It also runs like ass and is probably the biggest piece of shit software to grace a windows machine.

2. most programs that use a lot of memory have to, eg, photoshop, games, ect. Textures and visual effects take up lots of memory, no programmer can change that.
I agree there is only so much you can do when you load textures but what about the fundamentals of the program itself? Photoshop 5 uses less memory and loads faster than 7 and 7 is faster than CS1,2,3,4 yet IMO the biggest difference between these versions is just more filters. Sure there are more than just filters between these versions but that shouldn't mean the memory usage should explode. Availability of memory is sometimes critically important when working with huge files and having it wasted is something that isn't acceptable when you're already pushing the limits of the system you're working on. Photoshop 5.5 uses 106MB memory 100MB "virtual" when loading a 48MB PNG file. In Photoshop CS2, loading that same 48MB PNG file, Photoshop now consumes 155MB of memory and 164MB of "virtual memory" (page file). I haven't done anything in these programs yet, just loading the file...

Why is it that Acrobat has EXPLODED in memory footprint and in load times as well? I have Acrobat 3,4,5,6 and 8 installed on my computer and I can tell you, scrolling through my very simple PDFs (OCR'd text + pretty graphics) is a hell of a lot faster in Acrobat 3/4/5 than in 6 or 8 with 8 being the slowest. Acrobat 5 is the last version before they started morphing into a bloated POS. I have 8 installed because I *thought* it'd be better than 6 because Adobe tells me so yet I've found it to be the worst version of Acrobat yet! But that's just between Acrobat versions... Why not compare Acrobat with Foxit? Acrobat 8 uses 180MB to load a PDF of mine while Foxit uses 28MB! Foxit also loads the pages faster than Acrobat 8 as well all the while using a fraction of the memory. Adobe Reader 5 uses 100MB of memory to view the same PDF... So yea, Acrobat 5 looks slim in comparison to Acrobat 8 but when you compare Foxit to Acrobat 5, you realize how much of a pig Acrobat truly is..

3. Loading stuff from the HD takes time, LOTS of time. a common trick is to pre load it into memory, which is very fast. Nothing lazy about it, it is more of an optimization.
Yes but that shouldn't give people a license to waste computer resources.. Loading stuff from the HDD isn't that slow if you're not loading a whole bunch of data from various places. That's saying that "it costs money to educate our children and our children are the future" doesn't mean that we should be buying an Amazon Kindle for each child... Yes, it is better to work with 500MB of data from computer memory since it is fast, however, instead of needing 500MB of data to run an operating system, why not have 32MB of memory to run the OS? Starting up the computer and reading several gigabytes of data from the HDD and loading 512MB of that into memory is certainly going to be slower than reading 200MB of data and loading 32MB of that into memory. Do you understand what I'm getting at? Instead of complaining that we need a million dollars to build a 5K square foot home, that it's unreasonable to expect to build that home for $50k, why not build a 1K square foot home instead? Instead of complaining about how much it costs to fill up your car and drive to work, why not get a more efficient car instead? Another analogy, just because I think $100 for a meal at a restaurant is A LOT of money when I'm making $20K a year, it shouldn't mean that the $100 meal at the same restaurant is now "cheap" just because I now make $1,000,000 instead of the $20K like I did before. Just because there is more available, doesn't mean I should not use it sparingly...

I'm very annoyed by you and others like you using a false dilemma in order to defend programs and operating systems as to why they're the size that they are. I don't think it's too much to ask to have software that isn't too buggy and isn't hogging all the computer resources, regardless of whether or not it's 5% of the system resources or 0.005%..

4. Dynamic programming, look it up. Its the trade off between CPU time and memory, lots of programs are going with a dynamic approach in their algorithms because memory is so cheap (nothing to do with lazyness).
See above...

5. Flash is an interpreted language, and not generally a memory hog. (unless it is loading video which, surprise, takes a fair amount of memory.
Memory hog or not, it's extremely CPU intensive and since there are better alternatives, it makes it easier to argue about how badly programmed it is.

6. Vista takes the "HD slow, memory fast" approach and preloads a lot of commonly used programs into ram, it is called superfetch, not lazy programming. Guess what, freeing memory takes no time (which is what vista does if it runs out of memory) what takes time is loading data from the HD to memory in the first place.
Same argument that has been used over and over again.. Yes I'm aware it has that "superfetch" feature but that feature is a crutch, a crutch that is used to speed up the loading of an already bloated OS. Of course the HDD is much slower than memory, but if you're not loading that much information from the HDD in the first place, then that isn't much of a concern now is it? People who argue in defense of vista never seem to be able to properly explain why vista should take 15GB OF SPACE when Windows 95 took only 50MB of space.. I don't see Windows vista as being 302 times better than Windows 95 when comparing HDD consumption or 64 times better if you compare memory footprints. It's like these companies use the space because it's there not because they actually need it. To say I'm not a hypocrite would be a lie, I used to live in a tiny room and moved into a room 3 times it size, yet some how the room is once again "too small"..

7. GTA, you have no clue what you are talking about. PS2 runs at a MUCH lower resolution then PCs do, that means that they can get away with lower texture resolutions, as well you inherently require less processing power. Not only that, but the code has to be dumbed down generally (IE less special effects). Not that the game actually runs on the PS2, but if it where, that is what would happen. Models would be less detailed, textures would have their resolution reduced, and extras/special effects would be cut out.
You've managed to fail to address my concern and instead went off on a tangent that makes you appear to be addressing what I said without actually doing it. To clarify, you and Rockstar entertainment has failed to explain why successive versions of GTA have increased requirements yet still look like their PS2 counterparts. Don't believe me? Look up the game reviews for GTA on the PC and you'll see a lot of reviewers complaining about the poor performance for the given hardware...

Wow. Someone has no clue about modern memory management.
I don't know about you but a program that fails to do garbage collecting or having memory leaks is not what I call "memory management". Even with that aside, sloppy programming has gotten out of hand and what used to take a megabyte of memory now takes a whopping 50mb of memory what with the silly graphics and recursion. I'm just going to throw this out there and ask a very broad question as to why the hell iTunes IS (or was) so badly programmed for Windows? 128MB of ram? REALLY? WTF!? It runs slow as shit and it is horridly buggy. I know I haven't used the latest version (not that I would voluntarily anyway) but knowing Apple, I don't things have changed at all.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,221
17,894
126
I am tired of people who don't know the difference between moron and oxymoron.
 

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2009
3,793
1
81

I can understand some of your frustration with apps like iTunes... and for me, that's why I don't use it.

But the OS? Seriously? You expect the latest greatest OS to consume the exact same amount of memory as Windows 95? There are so many tools and tweaks in each operating system, that it grows leaps and bounds from release to release. From IE6 to 7 to 8, and FireFox 1 to 2 to 3 to 3.57. And to support each new release, you need this plugin or that plugin. This DLL or that DLL. Over time, each piece grows and grows as Flash development moves from version to version, or Java, or whatever. And with the increase in digital content, the plugins needed to support those types of files are going to grow and grow because of the level of complexity to each piece. It's not like the Windows 95 days with 2 channel audio and a 320x240 video. It's now 7 channel audio and 1920x1080 video. Processing that amount/quality of video requires hardware that can keep up with it.

As for GTA... you have consoles that pretty much all run the same hardware within each line with very slight variation: IE an XBOX360 that runs a custom ATI graphics chip, 512mb GDDR3, 3 symmetrical 3.2 GHz cores, and on and on and on. And you know what? My old refurbed pro I bought 4 years ago nearly the same exact hardware as the new arcade unit (with HDMI) that I bought a year ago. So when EA or whomever writes a game for the XBOX 360, they know exactly what testbed every single consumer is going to be using to run the game because they are all the same. Slide it over to the computer, and then you have joe schmoe with dual Radeon 5890s (or whatever is the rage now) who want to run all the eye-candy, or jane schmoe running a single Radeon 5770 on a AMD X2 4000+ who wants to also run the game. What else? You have Andy Schome running a AMD x3 2.7GHz with an NVidia 8800GTS who also wants to run the game. What more? Sally Schmoe wants to run it on her laptop that has the 9400GM with a Core2Duo. That four different testbeds with thousands upon thousands more that all want to run the same game. So it is going to take the computer gamer some time to optimize their configuration (game, drivers, etc.) to be able to run the game smoothly. It's quite a bit more complicated than one setup that is identical from Joe to Jane to Andy to Sally.

I am not the programmer that cogman is by any means, but it'd take a fool to think that none of this stuff is going to be intensive on some level. And as far as iTunes, if it sucks, stear clear. That's why I use google as a search engine and not MSN. That's why I use notepad++ for editing code and not Microsoft Word. That's why I prefer FireFox over IE. It's why I prefer Foxit over Adobe. A lot of it can be fluff, but that's the beauty of any operating system... there are choices out there that give you the opportunity to bitch about how slow Adobe is vs. its alternatives. Whereas if your PS2 has a browser, you're pretty much stuck with whatever they give you.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,228
136
but it'd take a fool to think that none of this stuff is going to be intensive on some level.


Well, you're talking to fleabag, so I think you've got that pegged about right.....talking to a fool. Sad, though, that he's a fool that thinks he's an Einstein......while he's actually dumber than a sack of hair.
 

fleabag

Banned
Oct 1, 2007
2,450
1
0
I can understand some of your frustration with apps like iTunes... and for me, that's why I don't use it.

But the OS? Seriously? You expect the latest greatest OS to consume the exact same amount of memory as Windows 95? There are so many tools and tweaks in each operating system, that it grows leaps and bounds from release to release. From IE6 to 7 to 8, and FireFox 1 to 2 to 3 to 3.57. And to support each new release, you need this plugin or that plugin. This DLL or that DLL.
Oh I know why it has grown, but you're not going to appreciate the answer...

I'll give you an example, why is it that Windows 2000 SP0 uses less memory and has a smaller footprint than Windows 2000 SP4? Sure SP4 adds some needed features over SP0 but really, WHY does it take up much more memory than 2000 SP0? Windows XP SP0 VS SP3, same problem.. Windows NT SP0 vs SP6a, same problem.. Yes you could attempt to argue that it's "features" that are being added that are creating the bloat such as the security center in Windows XP.. But if you disable ALL OF THAT, you still wind up with a much larger footprint....why is that? Hmmm... I know why! It's because of all the damn security patches... They're patches! Meaning instead of actually addressing the fundamentals of how things are done in order to make it more secure, they just add band-aids, LOT OF THEM, and those band-aids are what is sucking up so much memory. This is part of the reason why when a bug is discovered, a patch is released for all the operating systems that are affected with little difference between how the patches are constructed.. So when a successor OS is released, (yes that includes vista "from the ground up my ass!") it includes ALL of the security patches that are still applicable to the core of the OS, and then some.

THAT, is why Windows takes up so much memory, because all that's all it is...PATCHES! Don't believe me? Try to compare XP SP0 RTM with that of SP0 but with all the patches you can possibly install and you'll see the memory footprint of the kernel increase along with the baseline OS.
As for GTA... you have consoles that pretty much all run the same hardware within each line with very slight variation: IE an XBOX360 that runs a custom ATI graphics chip, 512mb GDDR3, 3 symmetrical 3.2 GHz cores, and on and on and on. And you know what? My old refurbed pro I bought 4 years ago nearly the same exact hardware as the new arcade unit (with HDMI) that I bought a year ago. So when EA or whomever writes a game for the XBOX 360, they know exactly what testbed every single consumer is going to be using to run the game because they are all the same. Slide it over to the computer, and then you have joe schmoe with dual Radeon 5890s (or whatever is the rage now) who want to run all the eye-candy, or jane schmoe running a single Radeon 5770 on a AMD X2 4000+ who wants to also run the game. What else? You have Andy Schome running a AMD x3 2.7GHz with an NVidia 8800GTS who also wants to run the game. What more? Sally Schmoe wants to run it on her laptop that has the 9400GM with a Core2Duo. That four different testbeds with thousands upon thousands more that all want to run the same game. So it is going to take the computer gamer some time to optimize their configuration (game, drivers, etc.) to be able to run the game smoothly. It's quite a bit more complicated than one setup that is identical from Joe to Jane to Andy to Sally.
You're not getting it.... I said, the PC requirements for GTA III-San Andreas INCREASED, SUBSTANTIALLY yet those were all released for the Playstation 2. I can assure you, San Andreas for the PC does NOT look better than Vice City for the PC OR PS2 which DOES look better than GTA III for the PC OR PS2. The graphics on the PC version of this game look like you're playing the PS2 version, except somehow SA requires a much faster computer (which means it runs slower) than GTA III which was released 4 years prior. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to BULLSHIT. With that said, not all game publishers are like this... Just look at Half Life 2! That game can run on a computer made in 1999 and it was released in 2004! Can't say that about FPSs released in 2004!
 
Last edited:

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
145
106
Oh I know why it has grown, but you're not going to appreciate the answer...

I'll give you an example, why is it that Windows 2000 SP0 uses less memory and has a smaller footprint than Windows 2000 SP4? Sure SP4 adds some needed features over SP0 but really, WHY does it take up much more memory than 2000 SP0? Windows XP SP0 VS SP3, same problem..
I'm currently using WinXP SP3, it has a memory footprint of 128mb. SP0 had roughly the same footprint.

As for hard disk space, Yep, it takes up more space, it also has more stuff (IE drivers, security center, ect).

Windows NT SP0 vs SP6a, same problem.. Yes you could attempt to argue that it's "features" that are being added that are creating the bloat such as the security center in Windows XP.. But if you disable ALL OF THAT, you still wind up with a much larger footprint....why is that?
Because you are full of crap and don't know what you are talking about? As I said, currently running XP SP3, same footprint as SP0.

Hmmm... I know why! It's because of all the damn security patches... They're patches! Meaning instead of actually addressing the fundamentals of how things are done in order to make it more secure, they just add band-aids, LOT OF THEM, and those band-aids are what is sucking up so much memory.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA LOL.

This here, for all to see is a perfect example for you, fleabag, of why you should shut the hell up. Programming, in general, is nothing more then applying a series of patches. The final product is nothing more then the culmination of those patches into a final product. Patchs, in the computer world, aren't like bandaids, they can change EVERYTHING about the system. They aren't just masking the problem, they are, in fact, fixing it (and potentially introducing new problems, but that is beside the point).

This is part of the reason why when a bug is discovered, a patch is released for all the operating systems that are affected with little difference between how the patches are constructed.. So when a successor OS is released, (yes that includes vista "from the ground up my ass!") it includes ALL of the security patches that are still applicable to the core of the OS, and then some.
Somewhat true, all OS's are built upon their predecessors. You want to hear something scary? Your new i7 920 probably has schematics that hail all the way back to the 8088. Isn't that terrible! Dang lazy processor designers, no wonder processors have been getting slower and slower... Oh wait!

For windows, Generally, the SP releases are not only fixing security issues, but adding new drivers and features ect. This, more then anything is the reason that OS's grow in size over the years.

THAT, is why Windows takes up so much memory, because all that's all it is...PATCHES! Don't believe me? Try to compare XP SP0 RTM with that of SP0 but with all the patches you can possibly install and you'll see the memory footprint of the kernel increase along with the baseline OS.

Again, ALL software is nothing more then a series of patches. Nobody just sits down and writes one huge chunk of software without ever going back and fixing bugs or adding features (That is what a patch is, fixing a bug or adding a feature).

You're not getting it.... I said, the PC requirements for GTA III-San Andreas INCREASED, SUBSTANTIALLY yet those were all released for the Playstation 2. I can assure you, San Andreas for the PC does NOT look better than Vice City for the PC OR PS2 which DOES look better than GTA III for the PC OR PS2. The graphics on the PC version of this game look like you're playing the PS2 version, except somehow SA requires a much faster computer (which means it runs slower) than GTA III which was released 4 years prior. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to BULLSHIT. With that said, not all game publishers are like this... Just look at Half Life 2! That game can run on a computer made in 1999 and it was released in 2004! Can't say that about FPSs released in 2004!
Somebody isn't getting it.

RESOLUTION! 320x240 is a whole heck of a lot smaller then 1280x1024. With smaller resolutions comes smaller textures, less detailed models, ect. And you CAN'T tell the difference. That's because only the higher resolution displays are able to show the differences, It is a trick older then dirt.

You ever see what happens to HL2 when you set it up to be able to run on a computer from 1999? It LOOKS like HL1, seriously. Valve was partially crazy in doing that, they had to spend a fair amount of man hours recreating textures and models just so it could run on the same computers that HL1 was predominantly played on. You don't get HL2 max settings on a 1999 computer. Period.

dx7.jpg
dx8.jpg


See the difference? That is effectively what they do to make GTA III look about the same as its PC counter part. You just can't see the difference because it is a lower resolution.
 

fleabag

Banned
Oct 1, 2007
2,450
1
0
I'm currently using WinXP SP3, it has a memory footprint of 128mb. SP0 had roughly the same footprint.

As for hard disk space, Yep, it takes up more space, it also has more stuff (IE drivers, security center, ect).


Because you are full of crap and don't know what you are talking about? As I said, currently running XP SP3, same footprint as SP0.
Problem is, you make these counter statements and then you can't back it up. How do I know you haven't disabled half of the features that come with the default install of the OS? Don't make me do two installs of XP and pull up task manager to show you what I'm talking about..

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHAHAHA LOL.

This here, for all to see is a perfect example for you, fleabag, of why you should shut the hell up. Programming, in general, is nothing more then applying a series of patches. The final product is nothing more then the culmination of those patches into a final product. Patchs, in the computer world, aren't like bandaids, they can change EVERYTHING about the system. They aren't just masking the problem, they are, in fact, fixing it (and potentially introducing new problems, but that is beside the point).
That's not true at all. That's like saying Windows Vista is just Windows 3.1 with a bunch of patches.. that's bullshit and you know it! The fundamentals of NT and Windows 1,2,3,95,98,ME were indeed different. Notice how I didn't make comparisons between 95 and 2000 in terms of memory footprint and how 2000 has gotten "bloated" over 95. Windows NT was great in comparison to 3.x,9X...you know why? Because they built the OS from the ground up, they reprogrammed it to fix serious security loopholes and this is thanks to the development of OS/2. You can't tell me that through a series of patches, they could have made Windows 9X like 2000/XP.. There comes a point in time where you've got to revamp things, something that Vista was "suppose" to do but instead became this pig of an OS that nobody liked.. Windows 7 is that same pig, Vista, after a losing 15lbs and with some lipstick.. Same pig, different day.. Yes it is true, a lot of software is just a patched version of its predecessors but there is suppose to come a point in a software development's life cycle where they actually reprogram from the ground up...

Somewhat true, all OS's are built upon their predecessors. You want to hear something scary? Your new i7 920 probably has schematics that hail all the way back to the 8088. Isn't that terrible! Dang lazy processor designers, no wonder processors have been getting slower and slower... Oh wait!
Yeah and guess what? Intel tried to do something about this ancient design with its Itanium processors and while they failed at that, the idea to revamp their processors DID make sense. Alpha processors were better than Intel at one point because they were very optimized and were able to be clocked at high speeds despite running on processes like 0.5nm.

For windows, Generally, the SP releases are not only fixing security issues, but adding new drivers and features ect. This, more then anything is the reason that OS's grow in size over the years.
Don't even get me STARTED on drivers.. Nothing has ballooned more in size than those things.. How did a driver that used to fit on a floppy that just lets my computer talk to my printer now become this monstrous 400MB install? WTF is up with that? Even if I want the slimmed down driver which HP now provides for its printers, it's still 50mb in size!


Again, ALL software is nothing more then a series of patches. Nobody just sits down and writes one huge chunk of software without ever going back and fixing bugs or adding features (That is what a patch is, fixing a bug or adding a feature).
Yup, you keep saying that and while you're at it, why not just say Windows 7 is just a series of patches over DOS... Maybe at Adobe that is true (I'd believe that!) but good software companies usually revamp their software at some point..

Somebody isn't getting it.

RESOLUTION! 320x240 is a whole heck of a lot smaller then 1280x1024. With smaller resolutions comes smaller textures, less detailed models, ect. And you CAN'T tell the difference. That's because only the higher resolution displays are able to show the differences, It is a trick older then dirt.

You ever see what happens to HL2 when you set it up to be able to run on a computer from 1999? It LOOKS like HL1, seriously. Valve was partially crazy in doing that, they had to spend a fair amount of man hours recreating textures and models just so it could run on the same computers that HL1 was predominantly played on. You don't get HL2 max settings on a 1999 computer. Period.

dx7.jpg
dx8.jpg


See the difference? That is effectively what they do to make GTA III look about the same as its PC counter part. You just can't see the difference because it is a lower resolution.
No, you're not getting it.. The Playstation 2 has a 4MB video card with the processing power of a video card from 1998. Why is it that I need a Geforce 3 to play GTA III on the PC at 800X600 and need an X800XT to play GTA San Andreas at a similar to slightly higher resolution? I'm quite aware of what the box says, but what the box says and what you actually need are quite different.. I already know the answer, and the answer is, console ports always suck. They do a shit job at porting things over and since their only constraint was the stupid 5 year rule, they effectively made a game that should have worked on a computer from 1999 and instead made a buggy, slow game that required a computer from 2003/4/5 which is utter bullshit. I'm quite aware of what resolution the PS2 is capable of outputting its games but I can assure you that a PC from 1999/2000 is going to have a hell of a lot more processing power than the PS2 and a computer from 2003 is sure as shit going to have several times that of a PS2. So don't give me that bullshit about the resolution being higher on the PC when you damn well know that there is more than enough video memory, system memory and processing capability on the PC to not only play the same damn game at 3X the resolution, BUT with more polygons & higher quality textures & more physics, etc. etc. as well, something you do not see on the PC versions of these games. The texture quality of these games on the PC is on par with the PS2 versions despite the available capacity that is monstrous in comparison to the PS2's hardware capability.

I used Half Life 2 as an example of a well programmed game and yes I'm quite aware that playing HL2 on a Rage 128 pro will make it look like HL1 but that says to me that they programmed the game to be as efficient as possible while the same cannot be said of GTA on the PC.