atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#497: Windows stupidity. (I know that's redundant.)

So this morning I put in 2 GB of RAM to bring my system total to 2.5 GB. And guess what?

The virtual memory file PAGEFILE.SYS has grown to nearly three gigabytes.

Why the hell does Windows Vista need that much virtual memory? In fact, given 2.5 GB of RAM--when the "minimum system configuration" requires only 512 MB of RAM, which is 1/5th of 2.5 GB--why does Windows Vista need virtual memory at all?

The whole point of adding more actual RAM to a computer is so you can avoid having huge virtual memory files on your hard drive. Even the fastest hard drives on the planet are dead slow compared to the slowest RAM they make these days. Flash RAM is slower than hell and it is faster than any hard drive.

While we're on the subject of programmer stupidity, why the hell does my 500 GB external drive need a 142 MB installer file? What the hell did they put in there that it's 142 MB?

Processors get faster, memory gets bigger, and there's no obvious difference because the operating systems and the programs bloat up like a 1,000 lb man in a candy factory.

There will come a day--and I hope it comes in my lifetime--when people begin to look down on programmers who write bloated, crappy code because they can hide behind ever-faster processors. Hopefully it'll happen soon.

I realize that it's pretty well impossible to write on OS like Windows Vista in machine code. While it's not technically impossible--it could be done--it's not an economically viable proposition, and Microsoft is a corporation which exists to earn profits by producing computer software. That's fine.

But it is possible to write compact code in a compiled language (like C++ or WTF ever they used to write Vista) which will not clog up the computer with useless dreck and which will run fast. The problem is, Microsoft isn't interested in that.

Microsoft is no different from any of a million other high tech companies, and the only reason it's so visible in their case is because millions of people use their products on a daily basis.

"Apple"? Don't make me laugh. Apple's the same way. They just have a different image, is all. There are two reasons the Mac OS has fewer troubles than Windows OSes: 1) there are fewer Macs out there, thus reducing the "payoff" for people who generate malware; and 2) Apple has historically retained very tight control on Mac hardware, on what could be plugged into Macs, and on how that hardware behaved.

Windows Anything would be that reliable if it didn't have to retain backwards compatibility with every last damned thing that had ever been plugged into an ISA bus. Most of the driver problems people complained about with Windows Vista were the result of a thinly-disguised attempt to limit the scope of this problem, since Vista has a new GDI and API.

The Mac OS is still written in C++WTF, like 99.997% of all commercial software on the planet.

* * *

But I can dream, and in my dreams, I have a windowed operating system which is written in assembler, and it runs so freaking fast and stable it makes Vista look like an abacus. It does all kinds of neat things and looks awesome.

And while I'm dreaming, I'd like the only winning ticket to the next PowerBall drawing.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments