|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.214.36.239
In Reply to: Re: it does have )50 million lines of code posted by KeithC on August 24, 2006 at 15:57:53:
that's the end of it... ;-)
Follow Ups:
Yet somehow WMP is half the size of Powerdvd 7.Bloatware is the name of the game nowadays, chiefly to make copying/txing as painfull as possible. All suppliers, not just Microsoft.
The MS corporate pack is even bundled so that it requires dual layer dvds for copying.
Look, I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best thing since sliced bread - I don't believe that they are any better, worse, smaller, or more bloated than the viable alternatives. I'm just trying to get people to think, rather than just paraphrasing populist media.
Or, to put it another way: "40 billion flies can't be wrong - eat shit".
... if you are familiar with fmak's posts, he has very fixed views on a lot of things and seldom change them no matter what other people say.I would agree that Microsoft does not necessarily produce code any more bloated than other developers. Though I could possibly suggest I have been less than impressed with some of their code.
Still, I do remember the days where you could comfortably fit a full Unix System V distribution on less than 20MB. And MS-DOS for many years can be installed on a single floppy.
When MSDOS first came out it had a slow take up in the UK 'cos people thought an OS that required 128KB ludicrous.
I remember the Apple II had an operating system (the Apple Monitor) that fits into 2K.By contrast, I rewrote the operating system for the Commodore 64 when I was a kid, borrowing a lot of the concepts from the Apple II, and it fits into 4K.
Here's a bit of interesting trivia: the current Apple MacOS is based on the Mach "micro-kernel" (there was quite a lot of research into distributed operating systems in the 80s, and micro-kernels came out of there) - but the Mach "micro-kernel" is far larger than the completely monolithic statically linked Unix V7 kernel :-)
A lot of the bloat is intentional though, because cheap memory allows you to have algorithms that are memory intensive but computationally cheap. Eg. my paper on Unix password decryption, rather than than doing the DES algorithm step by step, it's far easier to look up a 4MB precomputed table.
A lot of implementations these days do something similar, precompute, and use a lookup table. However, this causes large code.
instead they have bloated backwards compatible crap in there that creates a nightmare for interdependent processes and all the rest of the nonsense...
It's because of the "Microsoft way" - the majority of Microsoft development is done by very bright but recent university graduates. In other words, "mini Bill Gates"They have great productivity, and occasionally fantastic innovation, but it does mean Microsoft tends to have a "not invented here" syndrome and often the same mistakes are repeated again and again by each new team. Also the design tends to be long on "kruftiness" but sometimes short on the bigger architecture picture and longer term maintenance issues are sometimes not well thought through.
Take DLLs for example. Microsoft made the same mistake as Sun in not considering versioning - hence the issues we all face today. At least Sun was able to rectify their mistake - Microsoft took too long and the flawed design became entrenched.
I can understand "not invented here" because one believes one can do a better job, but jeez at least try and learn from your competitors' mistakes! :-)
that's why...
Inertia - changing policy in a large corporate is like turning a supertanker, so with Microsoft it must be like having several supertankers strapped together.Problem is the decision makers are too far away from the workface.
So you now agree with me?No, I do not have fixed views. I respect relevant views and learn from them, not comments that onlt computer codes and bits matter in audio.
Christine, if I have a view on band width and audio, it is because in 30 years of listening and measuring, limited band audio can sound nice, but never as good as wide band audio done right.
No I don't agree with you - it seems you filter every post to suite your requirements. Try reading all the words out loud (under your breath if this embarrasses you) it may help.How do you decide what is relevent?
What has longevity got to do with it - in fact, it could be argued that your training & premises are obsolete.
Certainly you should cultivate listening skills, open-mindedness, tolerance and flexibility. I can point you at suitable training material if you wish.
Just to show you how infantile your arguments are ...For the record, I have been "listening and measuring" for over 35 years. So you have 5 years of experience to catch up on.
Come and and talk to us then!
I made no arguments; if what I post is infantile, then you remarkds are stupid.
Christine,Fmak knows all. Remember this.
40 years in my case. Course this just means we are all hf deaf....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: