Breaking backwards compatiblity

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.438.1331414665.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 16:08:28 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> With the exception of notably-expensive things like video processing, 
>> ever
>> since CPUs hit the GHz mark (and arguably for some time before that), 
>> there
>> has been *no* reason to blame slowness on anything other than shitty
>> software.
>>
>> My Apple IIc literally had more responsive text entry than at least half 
>> of
>> the textarea boxes on the modern web. Slowness is *not* a hardware issue
>> anymore, and hasn't been for a long time.
>>
>> You know what *really* happens when you upgrade to a computer that's, 
>> say,
>> twice as fast with twice as much memory? About 90% of the so-called
>> "programmers" out there decide "Hey, now I can get away with my software
>> being twice as slow and eat up twice as much memory! And it's all on *my
>> user's* dime!" You're literally paying for programmer laziness.
>>
>> I just stick with software that isn't bloated. I get just as much speed, 
>> but
>> without all that cost.
>
> Yeah. CPU is not the issue. I/O and/or memory tends to be the bottleneck 
> for
> most stuff - at least for me. Getting a faster CPU wouldn't make my 
> computer
> any more responsive.
>

Well, all those busses, I/O devices, etc, are still a lot faster than they 
were back in, say, the 486 or Pentium 1 days, and things were plenty 
responsive then, too. But, I do agree, like you say, it *does* depend on 
what you're doing. If you're doing a lot of video as you say, then I 
completely understand.