Thread #108618990
File: images.jpg (5.6 KB)
5.6 KB JPG
Is computing technology a victim of its own success?
>Thought experiment - if computer hardware from 1990 onwards had developed/improved at only 10% of the speed at which it did, do you think everything now would be better?
I do. The focus being taken away from efficiency and optimisation, and making the most of what you had, created this culture of constant evolution with diminshing returns.
It's most obvious in gaming. The focus was always on new shinier graphics or physics, ballooning size and possibilities, so much so that quality was relegated to a mere afterthought. It's why modern games are always riddled with bugs and glitches requiring day one patches.
From my thought experiment, hardware would be much slower now, but software would be thousands of times better, so I don't think the gap would be all that noticeable.
Thoughts?
8 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 8 replies.>>
>>
>>
>>108619039
>>108619041
It must suck to be illiterate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>108619258
That's kind of my point. Computers are ubiquitous, but their proliferation has come at the cost of a severe decline in quality control and efficiency. It's like when you see China building those cities in a ridiculously short period of time, but then you realise all the buildings have hollow walls stuffed with newspaper.
Hence the thought experiment - I'm wondering if the focus had been forced instead into software, perfecting efficiency of code, if computing now might actually be better, faster and more reliable, even if the hardware was massively inferior to what we currently have.