On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 04:21:12 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:jl3n59$qf7$1...@digitalmars.com...
Yea, I've seen that. It's a very good article, though. Although I've
been
saying this since before that article, and even before multi-cores.
Contrary to the title, I wasn't at all surprised which won ;)
Of course, I don't expect software to be as super-fine-tuned as it was
on,
say, the Apple 2 or Atari 2600. There *is* definitely some value in
loosing a certain amount of performance to abstractions, up to a point.
But we've blown way, way, WAAAY beyond that point.
It's sickening how much gratuitous waste there is in a lot of "modern"
software, and really for not much benefit, as D proves.
100% agree. There has been a huge trend in software to disregard
performance because "the hardware will take care of it." Interestingly
enough though, performance still turns heads :) That is, when faced with
two applications that do the same thing, but one is twice as fast, most
people will choose (and probably pay more for) the faster one.
Actually, one thing that really gets me is shutdown times: RAM is
*volitile*. How much processing can really be needed when the RAM's just
gonna get wiped anyway? You ask the user if they want to save, you flush
the
output queues for anything non-volitile, and you cut the power. Sheesh!
One of the things I was extremely impressed with on my new macbook is that
it usually shuts down in under 2 seconds.
Desktops are the worst offenders, and paricularly WinXP.
Windows 7 is vastly better at both startup and shutdown than WinXP. I
think part of the problem is that shutdown on these systems defers to the
user applications. Sometimes I shutdown, and come back the next day to
find it was still asking me some questions. Grrrr. Now I have to answer
the questions, let it power off, then power back on again. The apps
should save enough state so they can resume the next day without issue
(this is how the mac seems to work, and I love it).
But then even on my
brother's PS3, you can literally count the seconds before it actually
turns
off. It's just a set-top gaming console, is that really necessary? (They
can
spare me their "It does everything!" - like I give a crap about any of
those
gimmicks.) On my old (super-low-power) NES, you could hit the power
button,
and within one second you were at the title screen.
You must have had a different version of NES. The process to start mine
up was not nearly as fast. It went something like this:
1. Insert cartridge, push down cartridge, power on. (I cite this as one
step because it became automatic to do this in 2 seconds)
2. Screen with horribly large pixellated game appears.
3. Power off, pull out cartridge.
4. Blow in bottom of cartridge, even though the pins are clean and free of
dust (did this actually ever do anything?)
5. Re-insert cartridge, this time more firmly, push down deliberately to
make sure game locks into place
6. Power on, normal screen comes up, push start button.
7. Play for about 2 minutes, game hangs with single audio tone.
8. Bang hand on top of NES to show it you mean business. Sometimes it
will whimper back to playing mode.
9. After second hang, attempt to press reset button about 15 times.
Peanut-sized pixels return.
10. Power off, remove catridge, repeat blowing procedure from step 4, but
with slower more deliberate breath. Try a blowing pattern, like quick
bursty blows in various locations. Insert cartidge even MORE firmly.
Jiggle cartridge a bit to make sure the NES is aware there is a valid game
for it to consume.
11. Lower cartridge, power on. Play game for another 5 minutes.
12. After next hang, turn power off, and watch cartoons.
I exaggerate a bit :) But sometimes I swear it was like this. I don't
miss those days, though I don't get to play many video games these days.
I'm waiting for my kids to get old enough to play them so I can mooch off
of their video game time :)
Some of that stuff isn't even a technical matter at all, but deliberate
design: Who the hell decided we need twenty company logos (fully
animated,
one at a time), then 10+ minutes of exposition and building "atmosphere",
followed by half an hour of (typically patronizing) tutorials before
actually getting to the real gameplay? Zelda Skyward Sword is the worst
offender, it literally takes *hours* to get past all the initial
exposition,
tutorials and shit into the real core of the game (I honestly started
wondering if there even *was* a game - "Did I pick up a Harry Potter
movie
by mistake?"). The original Zelda, you could get from power off to the
meat
of the gameplay in literally seconds. Game devs won't let you do that
now:
They've gotta show off their cinematography so they can get hired by
Pixar,
where they *really* wanted to be all along. (Meh, Dreamworks was always
better anyway ;) )
When I bought the new Wii motion plus (that gives better sensitivity) with
Wii Sports Resort, the first time you play, it makes you watch 8 minutes
of instructional video on how to use your Wii motion plus. I thought at
the time "Wow, that was a bit long, but I guess I only have to do it
once." Then I went to my sister-in-law's house, and wanted to show her
the game. This was *her* Wii's first time playing the game, so again, I
had to watch the damn video (no way to skip). It happened a third time on
my parents' Wii, and I was thinking "Man, this was a *bad* design
decision".
-Steve
