Registered: Sep, 2003
Re: A practical point I think will be important
Posted: Oct 1, 2010 1:01 PM
> Thanks, this 3rd article has some stats on things getting
> slower. Good. (Though I couldn't get his interactive
> table to work)
> I'm not sure what they did in Office 2007 to make it so
> slow. But, until them, for 7 years, things were either
> stable, or getting slower due to virus issues.
> "the development team was being sidetracked by a string of
> security breaches in the Windows XP code base. The
> resulting fix, Windows XP Service Pack 2, was more of a
> re-launch than a mere update. Whole sections of the OS
> core were either replaced or rewritten, and new
> technologies – like Windows Defender and a revamped
> firewall – added layers of code to a rapidly bloating
> So, according to this, it wasn't MS who was plotting with
> Intel, arguably, it's the Virus and Anti-Virus writers who
> are. (And I find that fairly believable)
Starting with Win95, M$ issued edicts that the new version couldn't be run on current machines; go buy a new one. Memory upgrades, when possible, might allow Win/Office to function, but run substantially slower than the previous versions. Computerworld's archive will have all the history one would need.
That Windoze *needs* anti-virus is *not* due to 95% monopoly (or whatever the %-age). That's a bit gas passed by M$ fanboys. The reason is that DOS (which M$ did not write, but stole), and Windoze following, was built to allow applications to fiddle the hardware. The first program to need that ability (and the program, killer app, which made M$ viable) was 1-2-3. DOS was a control program, not an operating system. It was largely a clone of CP/M for the 8086/8. That mindset was built into the foundation of all the M$ folks did, and remains. *nix in general, and linux in particular, is an operating system; applications don't get to fiddle the hardware. linux is parsimonious of memory and cycles. The M$ folk have been backfilling against viruses ever since. You can only patch so much. Vista was supposed to be the blank sheet of paper answer. We all know how well that worked out.
> Office 2007 made the mess. They did add a lot of new file
> formats and used XML. And the super-cool GUI I mentioned
> before. My take-home message is that the continued
> rampant misuse of XML has ruined programming. I've seen
> it used to hold binary results data as text, expanding
> file sizes by more than 100X.
They didn't use xml, another prevarication out of Redmond. They tried, and sort of got away with it, to subvert xml. I have no use for xml, either. What M$ did was take a simplistic syntax specification, and slip in proprietary binary bits which make their files unusable by any other program. As bad as xml is, having a clear-text (sharable) document is a laudable goal. Not that I would chose xml for that role.
> It's ironic that we are in a forum discussing future
> languages that run interpreted on a virtual machine, and
> likely will do away with primitives and raw arrays to be
> "pure OO", and discussing raw speed and code bloat.
Yeah, how did that happen? :)