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

In rec.arts.sf.science Chuk Goodin <cgoodin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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.

I would say that it's more like saying that media of all kinds is way 
better now, except for the Hollywood movies. There's a lot more to the 
computing universe than desktop PCs. Most of the computers you interact 
with aren't running Windows.

> 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.

How fast it boots is basically irrelevant; the proper benchmark is the 
time required to go from "off" to "ready to use". Even running the Dreaded

Windows, a modern computer should be using sleep/hibernate functionality, 
which will go from off to ready in a few seconds at worst.

I have distinct memories of various times during my childhood where I 
would turn on the computer, then go hunt for snacks or something to wait 
for it to boot. I do not do this on any kind of regular basis anymore, and

I'm sure I wouldn't if I ran Windows either.

> 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".

It's an interesting question. I would say that "fast enough" won't be 
achieved until the computers get smart enough to start designing faster 
versions of themselves, a stage I assume will arrive right around when 
human-equivalent AI occurs. Before that point you can always suck up time 
by doing ever more. I'd be willing to wait an extra five or ten seconds 
for my newsgroups to appear if I had near-human intelligence sorting the 
most interesting messages to the top, for example.

-- 
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software