Back in the early 2000s all you really need was about 256MB of RAM and like 20GB of slow HDD storage and a single core...

google grew too much

time to purge desu

more features instead of optimized code

Windows 10 did get slower after the latest update though.

This, but he is just trying to not be racist. Good code is White code.

Somebody here forgot how the 70's went!

...

>desu
desu nigger

>not running GNU/Linux with a WM and only using 20mb of RAM on idle

dude, I'm on a NVMe SSD, 8GB ram and quadcore 4ghz system.
it doesn't lag like shit.
chrome is fine with up to 60 tabs
start menu takes like 0.3 seconds to load
you have a virus.

Mesa drivers are far better than proprietary AMD drivers

>things loaded instantly
Nice rose tinted glasses there
Things didn’t load instantly, it’s just no one complained about it since there was nothing that you could do and many did not see storage as a bottleneck
Faster hard drives existed but random performance never improved much

mesa drivers are good but they are not GNU

>thinking apps is a term invented by apple in 2007
found the real zoomer

i did like the 15 second cold boots.
windows7 had like a 30 second cold boot.
then bought an SSD so it could drop it back down to 15 second cold boots.

>barely clocking at 3GHZ
it was 1 GHz at most if you bought AMD.
Fucking gen X troll.

>why do we need to optimise people have 32gb of ram and a billion cores and 4000gb hdds.

Unironically this.

My average-tier OEM desktop from 2003 running XP on 2 gigs of ram could run firefox with dozens of tabs of various types of content without a hitch.

Now my current PC maxes out its ram due to bloated modern browsers, and they all have this problem. Even just a couple tabs and firefox is gobbling up all my ram.

Maybe he had the misfortune of owning a bentium 4.

Attached: 1560543837197.jpg (750x1330, 138K)

i did a fresh win 10 install on an e6400 last year thinking i can get a work exclusive pc. was running dota on it well into 2013/2014. it couldn’t run shit no joke. wth happened. was it those specter patches or whatever?

Windows 7 is quite heavy, people tend to forget that since by the time 7 came the hardware requirement problems that plagued Vista machines was solved
I actually find it quite impressive that an OS with 8X the minimum RAM requirements only takes 2x the time to load

Nah.

youtube.com/watch?v=88ancHxItOc

There it is. Back when computing power wasn't doubling every 2 years, code had to be optimized; no way around it. Win10, 8,and 7 to an extant were made when power was abundant, and are now paying a hefty toll since they cannot get away with slow, heavy, unoptimized code.

Attached: 1557070892581.gif (600x600, 1.87M)

Imagine if shitty unoptimized, memory leaking code were rewritten in Rust.

it.gearbest.com/blog/new-gear/xiaomi-mix-4-parameter-exposure-16gb-storage-120hz-screen-100w-fast-charge-4890
we need 16gb or ram user

Capitalism

Attached: no_steppy_snaky.jpg (450x450, 27K)

Fuck bloat. I might just become a luddite and swear off anything newer than 2005.

What's worse is that I remember when KDE 3 was "bloated" but used less resources and was faster than Windows XP, but now even "light" DEs like XFCE use twice what XP did.

Technically yes, but on practice nobody bought Intlel P4 NetBurst Housefires due to the price, and it was down to P3 or Athlons.

I ask myself the same question OP. Windows 10 pisses me off so much when I look back at the xp and even w7 days.

Japan is still using XP.
Pic related is from a series airing this season.

Attached: 1563605757732.jpg (1280x720, 448K)

I used Windows 10 for about an hour before I said "fuck it." Everything is so clunky and sluggish. Not in the "it takes a while to load" way, but operating as intended everything is just slow as a matter of design.

I still use XP on my old work PC that hasn't gone online for years.

>Windows 10 lags like shit even on a quad core CPU turbo boosted to 4GHz, requires 16GB of RAM just for Google Chrome, and NVMe SSDs and still takes 2 seconds for the start menu to load.
4790K with 16GB RAM and only SATA storage here, can't replicate your experience. Everything is very fast and highly responsive. Your vision of the past is also very selective. I remember having a single HDD and the entire computer essentially freezing up if I was downloading a torrent at any decent speed, or old versions of Firefox taking literal minutes to open if you had even a fairly modest number of tabs open that it needed to restore, not to even mention how long the boot process itself was or having to wait until background shit loaded (HDD was so slow that trying to do anything else would be unresponsive). I remember I even had to be careful about what my system was doing when I was burning CDs, because taxing it too much could easily lead to a buffer underrun and a ruined CD in the early days.

Nowadays with my 5 year old hardware this shit boots in under 10s with like 10 background applications too, not to mention that it never actually becomes unresponsive because random access performance on SSDs is literally in another order of magnitude compared to HDDs. Firefox can have 100s of tabs open and it loads up in a few seconds. It's true that resource usage has gone way up, but a modern computer most certainly isn't sluggish or slow.

So only way for sane person is buying mac and use their macOS or is there any alternative?
I tried Ubuntu and Kubuntu many times on my workstations but update problems, KDE crashes, shitty drivers always piss me to max levels.

desu tee bee ayy-ch

>and that was enough for all your software to load instantly.
not it wasn't, shut the fuck up

>Back in the early 2000s
>load instantly
>mechanical drive
what planet are you from?
>What the fuck happened?
compulsive lying fucking morons like you were born to shitpost on the internet.

If you want to run Linux on a laptop, get a ThinkPad.

I remember using RISC-OS on a Pi 1, with a slow SD card, and it booted in 4 seconds to a usable desktop. Obviously RISC-OS has its issues, but that such limited hardware can perform that fast shows what can be done if you use low-level languages intelligently. IIRC even much of the OS is written in ARM assembly.

t. angry microsoft software zoomer developer

It's ok though microsoft can't do shit to fix that spaghetti code unless they built a new OS starting from scratch which they will never do.

use dillo

A WIRUZ?

Haiku boots lighting fast even on laptop mechanical drives. The issue isn't the hardware, but the software. The issue is ALWAYS the software.

why does windows do this?

Attached: 456758.png (1918x1045, 100K)

> buy a shit laptop just to run linux
or user could just run linux in a vm and not be a fucking faggot.
> opinions of compulsive liars mean something
into the trash they go.
>The issue is ALWAYS the software.
> be linux in early 2000s
> oh boy! it's so fucking fast!
> oh boy! driver support? lel.
> wowzers! this gui really sucks giant cocks
i see your point.

(You)

At least office suites did start up fast. I set up a beaten up machine in a kindergarten with a Pentium-S 166 MHz, a bare 16 MB of RAM and Win95 OSR2, Word 97 still came up with an empty document within 2 seconds after disk thrashing from the OS boot was over.
Photoshop and e.g. Visual Studio were indeed huge beasts back then. Firefox 2.0 was the peak of bloated browsers that could take half a minute to start on an underspeced machine.

It’s the fucking botnet. You need all this insane power to allow the gubment to spy on you.

Why does that bother you ?

>hasn't gone online for years
I cranked my old rig last year for a restoration.
With my old firefox most web pages wont work.
I updated firefox to the last compatible version (ESR?) but it now takes a ton of resources, I can only open an instance of firefox and it will eat almost all the RAM (1G).
Tried to update the lightweight acrobat reader to the last compatible version and the installer failed.

Please stop.

sure, but it was far from "instant" or whatever retard fantasy op has going in his pea sized brain.

Perhaps the real technological progress is the friends we made along the way?

>but websites still load slowly because of the vast amount of javascript and ad trackers being used.
use noscript

because I would like to know wtf my computer is doing?

Back in the windows xp and 7 days I would laugh at the thought but w10 is actually starting to seriously unironically make me consider linux.

(Soulja Boy Tell Em)

>Perhaps the real technological progress is the friends we made along the way?
too deep for this board.

>Windows 10 lags like shit
No it doesn't?

Anyway, probably because it's a lot harder to optimize a 50,000 line application than a 2,000 line one.
Plus most things are written in C# on windows, which requires an initial compilation step at runtime.
But, I'm using a celeron with an HDD and it's literally fine.

Use Google and everything will be bright as a day. No need to worry, w10 is still the best OS out there.

i have an atom powered netbook from 2009.
i use it as a simple home media server.
i downloaded some modified chorme/firefox browser called slimjet.
it kinda was able to load facebook without crashing but in order to actually use facebook i had to use a user-agent switcher addon and basically use mobile version of websites.
a very very shitty CPU with a Nvidia graphics chipset that could play 1080p x264 without a problem.

the CPU is so shitty that just using encryption (SSL) will make the CPU run at 100%.

Dunno, the big increase was going from hdd to ssd to 3dxpoint. I think we're more bottlenecked in the memory bandwidth than with computing power/code efficiency.

>Why does it feel like technology has regressed over the past decade?

Because you are not older enough to remember making coffee whilst your PC booted .PCs have improved immeasurably in almost every way since

>Back in the early 2000s
>Why does it feel like technology has regressed over the past decade?

Ten years ago was the end of the 2000s.
You even got your question wrong.

Every advancement in hardware just allowed for even more bloated software. When you look at the transfer speed of an even moderate HDD it should be plenty for an OS and an office suite, but it's not at all. So I don't consider "get this faster hardware" to be much of an argument when the hardware that is present SHOULD be enough as it is.

That just the Microsoft equivalent of systemd.

>256MB of RAM not slow on XP
Found the zoomer pretending to be a boomer. Anything below 768MB ran like dogshit on XP. That was minimum for everything to run smoothly and fast and I still upgraded my Compaq to 1.5 GB. It's all relevant to cost and what the software runs. I'm maxing my RAM out next month at 32GB for about 130 bucks. RAM was a shit ton more expensive for less, especially Rambus. This magical time of yours where everything was super fast with less hardware didn't exist.

Attached: 52696139_336869276960834_5928259881684434944_n.jpg (550x412, 29K)

>Anything below 768MB ran like dogshit on XP
I'm not him, but I actually got 256 MB when I bought my PC in 2001. That was 90.90 € at the time (have the bill in my hand right now). It was an upgrade because the PC came originally with 128 MB (48.05 €). Years later I upgraded it to 512 MB and stayed like that for most of its life, only in the last years (2005) did I have to upgrade it to 1 GB (the maximum the mobo could take). I used it until 2007, was fine except for games.

literally this

>(have the bill in my hand right now)
Freak.

OP doesn't know if hes talking about 200 or 2009 anyway, dont defend his bullshit. .

Yeah. might be right on XP post-SP2 (I remember that laptops in 2005 often either came with 512 MB RAM and a dedicated GPU or 1 GB and Intel chipset graphics for the same price), but 256 MB was a comfortable amount of RAM for XP RTM as it wasn't too much of step up from Win2k.

>Because you are not older enough to remember making coffee whilst your PC booted
in 2009?
most people were still on XP, myself included, i can tell you XP booted in no time at all on the Athlon 64 machine i assembled 3 years prior

XP only uses ~70-90M ram by itself, 256M in the early 2000's was fine, it only became too small in the mid-2000's when programs started wanting more than 150M on their own, not XP's fault, just shit getting bigger

Boot up a 15 year old computer and see what you think idiot. Things were way slower back then.

my 2003 sony heavy brick of a sony vaio laptop with p4 and 512MB of RAM ran XP, GTA VC/III/SA, Doom III, FarCry, Photoshop CS2, Opera and Skype just fine

i remember when my friends pc has 2GB of ram, i was like holy shit thats insane.

Well. back in the day, software was designed specifically for optimization. Nowadays, because we have so much "power," software has been leaning more toward just functionality and less speed. It's the reason why also websites are basically bloated process runners compared to the simpler html of old. Now everything uses javascript, razor, or some other convoluted web programming language.

Attached: 1562836439448.jpg (579x584, 39K)

>Early 2000s
>Only need 256MB RAM and 20GB of slow ass HDD on single core processor and all your software loads instantly
OK, OP. Go make that retro battlestation and load up Win2K on it. Get your shitty pre-Web 2.0 HTML 5 browser, and find out that none of your shit cloud syncs. your computer fucking dry heaves at the sight of anything resembling a FHD video file. Your ethernet is 100Mbps. Fucking live with that. I fucking dare you.

I miss the times when things were actually optimised and not just churned out by a team of Indian bio robots from overseas barely able to run at 60 fps on the best hardware humanity ever had to offer for consumers.
To this our only realistic hope is Moore's Law actually ending or being stalled enough so people are forced to optimise their shit again because there is no relying on marginal improvements year over year anymore. Imagine giving the original Doom developers a current day integrated GPU, they would have made that thing chug out thousands of frames per second at 4k.
And it's not just purely vidya. I could literally run XP on my bloody router yet any halfway usable desktop OS of today needs gigabytes of RAM to barely function for merely browsing the web because of the retards needing a billion line framework and 200 dependencies to display a single and often useless image.

We sent people to the MOON on a fraction of the juicy processing power a modern budget phone has yet old or current smawtphawnes can't run a up to date version of Android or IOS without lagging.

To hell with the industry and all these pretentious "sOfTwArE eNgInEeRs"...

youtube.com/watch?v=V7lG4bont7g

>Back in the early 2000s
>your software to load instantly
nope. It was slow as fuck and it took ages to load anything, mostly because of the utterly slow HDD speeds. Turns out that's the absolutely biggest bottleneck. I have a working Athlon XP with 2 GB RAM. Not exactly the worlds most powerful thing. It's slow for most things. It's horribly slow with the original 80 GB HDD. There's exactly two SATA 1 ports on the board and I tried it with a 120 GB SSD. That's blazing fast in comparison.

As for the rest of "what happened", well, if you look at normal stuff we just do today it's trivial yet somewhat demanding. For example, I watched videos on my computer then and I still do that now. There's a pretty big difference between 4k and 480p and it's not strange that 4K requires a better GPU and more RAM and so on.

>early 2000's
>html5
>fhd

Stability, this why when some background process fails, it doesn't take out the system with it. Multi process is more stable but way less efficient on resources. It's part of the reason we need so much to do so little.

>nonwhite
Yeah, those japs are terrible coders. Fucking retard.

>women
I'll give you that.

>poor programming practices...
I'll give you that too.

You mean consumer culture, "big data" , planned obsolescence, and always trying to roll out new features before the competition.

It's mostly how popular distros implement those desktop environments, especially the ubuntu derivatives and mint. LXQt, LXDE, and Xfce - after disabling useless startup items and other cruft - really only consume about 500mb ram after startup.

>really only consume about 500mb ram after startup.
Which is still twice what XP did.

>only if you literally open like 70 tabs
Using windows 10 with 4gb of ram is pure suffering, even on a high end processor like an i7

Unironically, a relatively clean mac will launch and run the more common shit faster and have fewer freezes. It shits the bed with the 10% higher level shit though, so it's only a solution as a media consumption device or for low level creative stuff. It's just a shame that Win 10 handles even low level shit so poorly and with so much bloat that it really feels like a chore if you aren't on a top spec machine. There's absolutely no excuse for even a low spec machine to lag when opening one browser window.

youtube.com/watch?v=kZRE7HIO3vk

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

Such a thing wont work today in terms of security since devices are always connected to the internet.

You are aware that ptoprietary software is available for linux right? I use slack and steam on a daily basis with no difference to their performance on xp

loving my x220 from 8 years ago- run everything faster in linux than my faggot friends windows

Anyone point out OP is a fucking liar.
>Early 2000s software loading instantly.
My ass, you're probably too young to remember, but that shit was slow as balls, all around. I'd load Photoshop and have time to grab a coffee and take a shit.

Attached: 1524748801705.png (650x450, 644K)