Re: How to make money fast (in science fiction)

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:33:59 -0500, Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>It sounds like you're talking about console-based word processors, giving

>you monospaced fonts and no graphics capabilities, whereas I was
referring 
>to a word processor running in a windowing system such as the Macintosh
or 
>Microsoft Windows, rendering pro****tional text with bitmapped fonts. Such

>systems are significantly more capable than the console-based systems,
but 
>if you want to make your stuff run fast, pu****ng all text rendering into 
>the video hardware and making every character the same width is a great 
>way to do it.
>
>Also I tend to ignore Microsoft products when talking about modern 
>computing. I know they're used a lot, I just do my best never to use them

>personally, so I often forget that they're there. Microsoft Office does 
>seem to be an example of a product which *does* get a lot slower as time 
>goes on for no particularly good reason.

Saying computers are faster (subjectively) now, except for the Microsoft 
stuff, is kind of like saying movies are way better now, except for the 
Hollywood ones. Theoretical improvements or improvements in some small 
areas are not better. An off-the-shelf PC, pre-loaded with bloatware and a

copy of Windows, does not usually boot as fast as a 486, even though it's 
crunching numbers thousands of times faster.

One thing I wonder about is if there's some kind of limit to this. As 
computers keep on getting faster and more powerful, will software bloat 
continue to rise at the same pace? Or will one or the other hit a 
wall? It'd be nice if computers got so fast they could run any human-coded

software "fast enough".




-- 
chuk