So there I was, browsing my favorite tech parts site looking for some possible system parts for my brother. In doing so I noticed something that really should bother me after all these years working with and building computer systems for various needs. I built my new computer system 3 years ago and at the time had a top of the line computer, with all the bells and whistles added on as I spent quite a good deal getting the latest and greatest components. The core of the system cost me about 850, being the motherboard processor and memory. Today, I found that I can build the whole system, minus a high end video card, for $302 shipped. I am talking everything minus a monitor, with case hard drive, cd-rom, case with power supply, everything you need to get a fully functional computer.
Now I know Moore’s law says that about every two years the processing capability available to the general market should double, and it’s been fairly consistent throughout the time of the personal computer. What strikes me as odd now is the operating systems that use this capability are not keeping up to this pace. For the first time since I started really diving into the hobby and trade of system building, I am finding the upgrades in hard hardware to not carry over into real performance in the software. A dual core processor will run XP almost identical to a quad core in terms of normal use. Copying files doesn’t noticeably decrease in time, and general times of opening multiple programs at once doesn’t seem to be extremely faster on the new processors you can buy today.
Now I know that Vista is out and that it is the “latest and greatest” from M$, but when I run a new operating system that is supposed to be better than the last, and have it full of holes and bugs (ex. Windows Millenium), it makes me not want to consider it until the bugs are worked out, if they ever are. So far in my usage tests of vista, it runs slower on dual core systems than xp, and runs that same amount slower with quad core systems. The file copying is slower, the overall interface is slower, and many programs and drivers either are very buggy or just flat out don’t work.
It’s been speculated that the next O.S. from M$ will be out in the next 2 years, which would harken back to the millennium days of a declared failure. My question is, if XP has peaked out in terms of performance, and vista is having so many problems, at what point does Moore’s law become ineffective. In other words, at what point does the increase of processor speeds become irrelevant. At this time, I can have 10 programs open at the same time, while I copy files and surf the web, and go through all my menus and suffer little if any slow down. Why should I upgrade to either an operating system that is SLOWER than the previous one, giving me no real necessary extra features, or a processor that won’t show a difference in capability because the O.S. is maxed out? If it were up to me, XP would just go all 64 bit native and have DX 10 capability, with the option to have a 3d graphical interface. Wait a minute, that sounds strangely familiar…Isn’t that exactly what Vista is now? Don’t fix what’s not broke, although then M$ wouldn’t make as much money now would they.
No comments:
Post a Comment