GordonSweetMemberAug 31, 2014 at 6:33 am #164198
Sometimes I would dearly love to return to the days of the early 80s long before the US such as MS dominated PCs with their vastly cumbersome over bloated complicated ways of storing massive GBs of such as Windows data mostly only onto Disk Drives. In spite of no doubt considerable increased speeds of both CPUs and Disk drives, it takes increasing longer and longer for the latest Windows to boot up and close down.
Fore example those of you too young to ever have heard of it let alone use it, there was a UK PC called the BBC Micro at explained at http://www.sigord.co.uk/BBC/BBCBASIC.htm which I would have thought used a far more sensible way of storing the OS on ICs. So that believe it or not it took only a second or two to boot up or close down. In fact just like any monitor today that took longer to start than the PC. Many of you will ridicule the idea of even comparing such a computer with today’s monsters, doubting any PC could store such as today’s Windows massive GBs of data on ICs. But I ask has anyone ever tried it or are we forever to be a slave to the likes of MS and their Windows?
biggles77SpectatorAug 31, 2014 at 9:10 am #213245
Re: ReminiscingGordon wrote:In spite of no doubt considerable increased speeds of both CPUs and Disk drives, it takes increasing longer and longer for the latest Windows to boot up and close down.
Throw an SSD into your system and your boot times may just shock you. The best I have seen is 13 seconds. Windows 8/8.1 on a regular mechanical spin drive shuts down quite fast at around 15 to 20 seconds. Have not tried it on an SSD.
I have an SSHD in my laptop and it takes around 40 seconds to boot. Before the SSHD I used to use Hibernation so all I had to do was close the lid because booting up and shutting down was taking too long. The SSHD change that.
As for your BBC Micros, a company in Tasmania collected all the machines they could as schools upgraded because the BBC Micro ran the software for their fish processing factory and they were concerned about not being able to get parts since the computers were no longer in production.
As for reminiscing, The Little River Band liked to do that also, however, progress goes on. Would you still want to be driving round in Model T Fords? I too get frustrated by Intel making faster and more powerful chips only to have Microsoft and Apple (yes Apple) bloat their software and kill the gains Intel make. We can’t totally blame MS and Apple. Look at the last version of Adobe Creative Suite. Compressed it is just over 8GB!! 1GB just for Photoshop (but look what you can do with it) but then GIMP can do a lot of the same stuff at just 85MB. Just a tad smaller, eh.
GordonSweetMemberSep 01, 2014 at 1:03 am #296657
Thanks. I do not think I will go to all the bother and expense in replacing the drive on this PC with a SSHD just to save a minute each time it boots up and closes down. I have plenty of time on my hands.
However the reason why I often get frustrated especially with all MS bloated software is I suspect it is often produced primarily to provide ‘ jobs for the boys ‘. In fact much of today’s software seems to be created to try to cater for everyone. So we finish up with very complex packages full of options most of which we will never use. This is the mains reason why for years I have spent hours creating simple free software on my site just to do one job, though no doubt somewhere MS have often included it but hidden somewhere among their Windows etc, if only you can find it.
The classic example is I have never found a way to persuade Word to reformat a paragraph similar to Ctrl + B in the old Wordstar and various clones. So years ago I concocted simple code to remove all formatting in a whole file. Then reinstate all the paragraphs afterwards, such by replacing a * inserted with two manual line breaks.
cruachanParticipantSep 04, 2014 at 9:21 am #330695
You want to see bloat and changes for changes sake, do a comparison of versions of Veritas/Symantec Backup Exec ending with the 2012 version. It is without doubt the worst piece of software I have ever used and is in no way any improvement over the previous versions.
tykuyukMemberSep 05, 2014 at 9:57 am #387163
no one would disagree with you about the overall bloat that occurs with new releases in software editions, but there is one exception… and that is Backup Exec’s latest version Backup Exec 2014. worth a look and definitely a comparison.
I am not at all trying to sell you anything. Just saying…
cruachanParticipantSep 05, 2014 at 5:28 pm #330697
Haven’t used 2014 yet, but frankly it will need to come with Karen Gillan and Scarlett Johansen to win me back over.
AnonymousSep 05, 2014 at 6:34 pm #371746
I second that sentiment, including the girls! BUE 2012 should have been recalled a week after it was released. I only upgraded from 2010 because I let a developer talk me into upgrading his SQL install, only to find I couldn’t do backups with the BUE 2010 any longer.
universalMemberSep 06, 2014 at 1:31 pm #388699
Re: ReminiscingRicklesP;286241 wrote:I second that sentiment, including the girls! BUE 2012 should have been recalled a week after it was released.
I couldn’t agree more. A customer bought the 2012 edition, and actually ended up using a different product. Couldn’t get a refund either.
Next time I won’t even consider Backup Exec. I haven’t yet decided what I’ll be using/recommending for tape-based backups in the future, but I see ArcServe is still around. Haven’t used it since the late 90’s, so I guess I’ll have to download the evaluation version and take a look.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.