Why isn't Microsoft software shrinking?
Monitor
increased. As efficiency increases, the need for space and resources is
diminished. Cars, homes and devices are getting smaller, more efficient and,
hence, more elegant where current technological advancements are applied. I
drive a Honda Fit which sports a 10.8 gal gas tank. I can go 8 days without
filling it and I commute 26 miles a day. I don't need to say that it's the
size of an Air Jordan, either. I think you already know. The thing is:
it's not a hybrid; it's a traditional gasoline engine. Just a more advanced,
efficient design built on concepts learned over decades spent making cars.
(And dealing with oil companies - the 1991 Honda Civic got ~55 MPG.)
Why, then, is Microsoft software getting progressively bigger and greedier?
And who are they creating products for? That cross-section of society that
DEMANDS all their machine's resources are spent on the operating system?
Shouldn't that be transparent in enabling users to make use of their hardware?
Why wouldn't 16 years of graphical o/s development lead to greater efficiency?
Tom van Stiphout
<Mon...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
BillG pronounced many years ago he would use every CPU cycle you have
to offer.
Engines have been around for 100+ years. Software a lot less. We're
still working towards that great happy medium.
Software also doesn't have to be as frugal as engines: your PC has
plenty of memory, plenty of CPU, waiting to be exploited.
IOW: the analogy does not hold.
-Tom.
Tony Toews [MVP]
>Micronization is the future.
Physically sure. But more and more transistors are being stuffed
into CPU cores and more and more RAM gets stuffed into the same form
factor. So I reject your premise when it comes to computer hardware.
>Why, then, is Microsoft software getting progressively bigger and greedier?
Umm, isn't Linux getting bigger and greedier too? As folks demand
more functionality.
>And who are they creating products for? That cross-section of society that
>DEMANDS all their machine's resources are spent on the operating system?
But the 10% of the features of the software that you use is *not* the
same 10% of the features of the software I use.
>Shouldn't that be transparent in enabling users to make use of their hardware?
>
>Why wouldn't 16 years of graphical o/s development lead to greater efficiency?
But it is. Computers are smaller, faster and use less energy.
Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems at
http://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm
Tony's Microsoft Access Blog - http://msmvps.com/blogs/access/
Marshall Barton
Feel better now?
I think your definition of "shrinking" is way out of date.
30 or more years ago, software was measured in its memory
footprint and CPU cycles per feature. Then as memory and
CPU cycle times became smaller and cheaper, the criteria for
measuring software shifted to increasing
flexibility/reliability while decreasing development
time/costs.
Access is an outstanding example of this shifting criteria.
No one in their right mind would have even dreamed of
writing the code to display and use an Access form back in
the days of DOS systems. Nowadays, millions of untrained
people can do it with a few clicks to create a form's design
and little or no code to use it.
--
Marsh
MVP [MS Access]
Monitor
micronization wasn't meant to put anyone on the defensive. And it certainly
wasn't meant to compare Windows to any other O/S.
That said...
> Physically sure. But more and more transistors are being stuffed
> into CPU cores and more and more RAM gets stuffed into the same form
> factor. So I reject your premise when it comes to computer hardware.
The CPU core analogy is PRECISELY what I was talking about - increased
power, efficiency and 'physical' shrinkage with advancement.
Premise: Over time should we not be able to stuff more and more
functionality into the Windows OS while steadily diminishing its size?
But let's run with the RAM analogy, instead. Ram capacity has steadily
increased WITHOUT affecting the form factor/ overall module size (The actual
chips have actually shrunken in depth and length). Will Microsoft at some
point aim to increase Windows functionality without increasing the size of
the O/S? (In other words, increase Windows functional capacity such that it
doesn't grow beyond, say, WindowsXP in size?)
> Umm, isn't Linux getting bigger and greedier too? As folks demand
> more functionality.
Totally! Hence my initial post. Why? I see everything else about
computers and electronics going in one direction and it seems like software's
not following.
Having given it a little more thought I've a greater appreciation for how
"new" the graphical O/S is. Still, the computer as a whole device has
greatly impacted traditional American perspectives on time, speed and age.
What's slow? A 56kbps connection or a letter? What's old? A 62 year old
person or a 2 year old laptop? So I'm confused as to what to expect from the
computer industry when trying to synthesize my own, developmental timeline
for Microsoft. And when I look at how Windows is growing, it freaks me out.
Frankly.
> >Shouldn't that be transparent in enabling users to make use of their hardware?
> >
> >Why wouldn't 16 years of graphical o/s development lead to greater efficiency?
>
> But it is. Computers are smaller, faster and use less energy.
True! The computer has shrunken down to almost nothing. When I look back
on older hardware contemporary hardware is comparatively miniscule. A
coworker of mine first worked with computers in 1969. The computer he worked
on was 4 storeys tall. Everything has shrunken, everything renders greater
functionality, everything has become more efficient.
Where is Windows refinement taking place and how do you expect Windows
refinement to manifest itself 6 years from now?
Tony Toews [MVP]
>> Physically sure. But more and more transistors are being stuffed
>> into CPU cores and more and more RAM gets stuffed into the same form
>> factor. So I reject your premise when it comes to computer hardware.
>
>The CPU core analogy is PRECISELY what I was talking about - increased
>power, efficiency and 'physical' shrinkage with advancement.
>
>Premise: Over time should we not be able to stuff more and more
>functionality into the Windows OS while steadily diminishing its size?
No.
>But let's run with the RAM analogy, instead. Ram capacity has steadily
>increased WITHOUT affecting the form factor/ overall module size (The actual
>chips have actually shrunken in depth and length). Will Microsoft at some
>point aim to increase Windows functionality without increasing the size of
>the O/S? (In other words, increase Windows functional capacity such that it
>doesn't grow beyond, say, WindowsXP in size?)
More functionality requires more CPU instructions and more variables
in RAM therefore the OS and application software get bigger and
consume memory. You can't get around that. Unless, of course, you
want to go back to Windows 98 or Win 3.1/DOS 6.22. Or back to an
multi user IBM S/34 with 48 Kb RAM and 8.6 Mb hard drive that was the
size of a large freezer.
>> Umm, isn't Linux getting bigger and greedier too? As folks demand
>> more functionality.
>
>Totally! Hence my initial post. Why? I see everything else about
>computers and electronics going in one direction and it seems like software's
>not following.
>
>Having given it a little more thought I've a greater appreciation for how
>"new" the graphical O/S is. Still, the computer as a whole device has
>greatly impacted traditional American perspectives on time, speed and age.
>What's slow? A 56kbps connection or a letter? What's old? A 62 year old
>person or a 2 year old laptop? So I'm confused as to what to expect from the
>computer industry when trying to synthesize my own, developmental timeline
>for Microsoft. And when I look at how Windows is growing, it freaks me out.
<shrug> So is Linux. Get over it.
>Frankly.
>> >Shouldn't that be transparent in enabling users to make use of their hardware?
>> >
>> >Why wouldn't 16 years of graphical o/s development lead to greater efficiency?
>>
>> But it is. Computers are smaller, faster and use less energy.
>
>True! The computer has shrunken down to almost nothing. When I look back
>on older hardware contemporary hardware is comparatively miniscule. A
>coworker of mine first worked with computers in 1969. The computer he worked
>on was 4 storeys tall. Everything has shrunken, everything renders greater
>functionality, everything has become more efficient.
>
>Where is Windows refinement taking place and how do you expect Windows
>refinement to manifest itself 6 years from now?
No idea. And if I did know I couldn't tell you as I'm under NDA.
dch3
'OPERATING SYSTEM' and what is a 'APPLICATION' (however big or small).
A webbrowser, a DVD player/burner, a MP3 player, etc. should *NOT* be a part
of the OS as they are applications. The OS should nice a pure - a link
between the hardward and the applications. Yes having all of those things
integrated might be nice and might make them run faster, but they muddle the
term operating system. Why not integrate Office into the OS so that all you
have to buy is on single product?
If anything, MS needs to start ripping out of Windows those parts that are
more application than OS.
Monitor
I would like Windows to be an operating system, not a swiss army knife.