kony said:
As I wrote, I _don't_ feel it would (necessarily) ... have
fewer features, rather that they simply aren't concerned
with controlling code size.
They're certainly not as concerned as they'd be with a 64 Kbyte RAM 70's
minicomputer.
Far more likely would be that they simply want to sell more
copies by issuing a new "version" number,
The incentive for new features, as buyers are not as stupid as that posit
implies.
and they do it as
cheaply as possible to maximize their profits.
I really do get tired of the socialist 'maximize their profits' mantra.
'Profit' is a measure of value (an individual assessment) after an exchange
and everything that everyone does, voluntarily, is in anticipation of a
'profit'. When you buy a ticket to see a movie you do so because the value,
to you, of seeing the movie is more than the cost of the ticket. You
'profit' from the exchange.
Now why, in heaven's sake, give the choice of seeing the movie, with
everything being identical, would you chose to pay more at one theater vs
the other? You wouldn't. You'd 'maximize' your 'profit' and, in that case,
by 'cutting costs'. I.E. "as cheaply as possible." (arguments about one
perhaps being closer, more convenient, showing the movie at a better time,
or whatever, are all added value and do not alter the fact that you'll
minimize cost vs the value.)
And it's absurd to expect 'companies' to behave differently, more so to
complain about it.
That also destroys a critical myth of the socialist philosophy: that life
is a zero sum game with 'profit' only possible at the 'expense' of someone
else. By far the most common voluntary exchange results in profit for *all*
involved parties. E.g. Hopefully you come out of the theater glad you went,
your profit, and the presenter (et all), hopefully, reaped a profit from
showing it.
And while I'm myth busting I might as well throw in another biggie "money
is the root of all evil." The *ACTUAL* phrase is "--->THE LOVE OF<--- money
is the root of all evil." BIG difference.
Certainly
there's a lot of variability in what's "possible", but
likewise when users get tired of hundreds of MB, if not
Gigabyte(s) to do something they could do with smaller and
less expensive apps, sales will be lost.
I already said that, except it's an 'if' and don't hold your breath.
Often it may simply be that it was rewritten to be
compatible with newer OS... maybe not even the app itself as
much as the installer... and they merely added a few
features and tweaked GUI to further the idea that it's a
"new version". not just a patch that users might not feel is
worth same $, regardless of whether user wants these new
features.
Quibbling about individual features, and that includes any particular
'release', isn't illustrative nor useful.
Certainly this is a can of worms that could be discussed
over a lengthly period, and yet all the cross-posted groups
are in fact hardware, not software groups so I'll soon
bow-out of this discussion.
ok
That argument only holds if you presuppose the more
processor or memory is "necessary". Often it isn't. In
fact is almost always isn't. Slower CPU simply takes longer
and I for one don't recall many desktop apps that won't run
on 384MB of memory, providing the working data isn't large,
but that data set is a constant and could be unrelated to
the memory footprint of the app.
That is the same old "640K is enough for anyone" kind of argument.
Progress is a synergistic thing. What wasn't 'necessary', because there was
nothing to utilize it or no way to do it, becomes 'necessary' as new
capabilities make possible things that couldn't previously be done. Which
stimulates new ideas, many of which can't be done till new capabilities exist.
The quickest route to the "Lack of Vision Hall of Fame" lies through
stating what "isn't necessary," such as the Digital Equipment Corp.
executive who proclaimed they wouldn't make home computers because there
was simply no reason whatsoever for anyone to have one at home.
I agree, and actively do seek these apps if/when necessary.
I'll 'actively seek' the best combination of useful features vs price, but
not a one minded quest for using the least amount of comparatively cheap
memory.
Not one specific equivalency, but when I feel a feature set
increase doesn't justify the increase in size, that is my
personal preference
Your personal preference is your personal preference, and that's fine. But
the point was, and is, there is no meaning to 10% of 'this' vs 50% of
'that'. There's no common denominator, or anything else, by which to
'compare', nor is it constant even if there were. It is simply, as you say,
"personal preference" or, as in my example, dependent on what the benefit
vs cost is; both of which vary by person, circumstance, and time.
to be swayed towards choosing
alternatives that have a more efficient (and almost always
less intrusive impact on the OS) set of applications.
It also makes them more portable, takes up less storage for
backups. It's not too hard to envision scenarios where it
would be convenient to have browser, email client, and a
whole office suit plus documents on a flash card or
thumbdrive, so you don't work at "your" computer but at ANY
computer with modern I/O capabilities.
I can imagine lots of scenarios for lots of products but one scenario
doesn't necessarily preclude the other just as a market for PDAs, or
'portable system disks', doesn't preclude a market for desktops.
Then we don't always have same definition of bloat. I can
accept size increases for more *desirable* features. I can't
accept that adding a few features would add what I feel is a
disproportionate increase in size.
What we don't necessarily have is the same definition of what constitutes
desirable features, not that I would even expect it, but, and pardon me for
saying so, it's rather arrogant, and unfair, of you to accuse the industry
of writing 'bad code' simply because they don't make everything to suit
just you alone.
Quite simply, I feel they didn't make the effort to do it
optimally or clean up after themselves.
Yes, I know you 'feel' that way. What I'm trying to get across is there are
reasons why things are done the way they are and just because you 'feel'
one way or the other doesn't mean everyone else is writing 'bad code', or
that they're lazy, or involved in some 'memory conspiracy', or any of the
other things that get bandied around.
Anyone can grab a
stack of wood, throw it down on a workbench and hack out a
crude chair...
Wouldn't sell many of them in the current market, though.
making that chair smaller than 2x4 legs and
putting the clutter in the trash bin when you're done, takes
more time and labor. No customer would accept a crude chair
like this in the modern world
Well, most wouldn't, because it's now inexpensive to add those 'bloated'
features.
Those crude chairs you say 'anyone' could make used to be prized
possessions and a medieval home was lucky to have one. Not really
'necessary', though. But, of course, nowadays they're so cheap no one would
be caught dead without a house full of 'em.
Speaking of homes, no modern home would be caught dead without a toilet
either but Versailles was built without a single one.
'Necessary' is a contextual thing.
but their software- if the
GUI looks ok they don't know what's under that interface.
Interesting that you pick what is basically an 'appearance' example, the
less crude modern chair, to rail against people enjoying a less crude GUI.
What they might do instead is take the quickest route that
requires the least labor.
And why would anyone expend more time and effort than needed? More to the
point, why would you expect people to waste time and effort? Why would you
*want* them to?
I don't see software prices going
down
But the features increase.
so if the price will remain the same I will still seek
applications that aren't as bloated.
You're perfectly free to do so and, who knows, if enough people make that
demand then the market will respond.
I don't suggest you hold your breath but that's just my opinion.
I do not expect nor
ask anyone else to do the same.
Fair enough.
Maybe it does, maybe not.
Take for example Norton Utilities. I don't use it myself,
but I vaguely recall one or more autoupdate features which
are in themselves involved enough in the app and OS that
they're even on the add/remove programs menu, though you may
not even be able to uninstall them alone.
Close enough for discussion.
How much extra
code does it require to find a file version, goto a url and
download a newer file if that newer file has a greater #?
I"m guessing less than 4K,
And you base that estimate on *what*? Voo-doo?
You haven't a clue what the specification is and with even what you did
list you left out "install it."
Btw, what do you do if there is a product version level mix/mismatch? An
abort halfway through? How about updating the current version information
so you know what the heck it is next time?
And I don't mean to suggest that's anywhere near a complete list. It's just
an example of how things are almost always more involved than they first
appear.
but the "feature" is nowhere near
that small.
Because it takes more than 4k.
They expending effort making/acquiring this
"brick" for no reason.
Simply not so. No programmer, or anyone else for that matter, is going to
expend more effort than they deem necessary.
They may be mistaken, they may be lousy at it, or you may disagree with it
but they are *not* going to expend effort for no reason.
Here I disagree, it takes less effort and attention to
detail to just sloppily hack out a solution than to do so
optimally.
That's where the market, as well as hire and fire, come in.
Your idea of "expend effort" is where you are
going wrong here.
No. Those 'no use whatsoever' bricks didn't get into the car from "less
effort and attention to detail" nor were they, in your example, anything
akin to "sloppily hack out a solution than to do so optimally."
As for how it relates to bricks in a
trunk- we don't need to know WHY there were bricks in the
trunk.
You most certainly do if you're going to make an assessment about their
worth, or lack of it.
If those bricks are in the trunk to add ballast so the rear end doesn't
slide off the road each time you twitch the steering wheel then they're not
there 'for no reason'.
Btw, molding a lead 'brick' into the front bumper of early Porsche 911s was
done to stop front end float at high speed so if you were to look at one
and think you could save some 'dead weight' by getting rid of it you'd be
making a BIG mistake.
Lots of things in life don't make sense to the
casual observer until they know how and why...
And *that* is precisely the problem: making judgments about things not
understood.
but they can
still see the result and recognize that the result could be
a problem in some (if not many) ways.
And the not understood part, as you say "we don't need to know WHY," may be
a thousand times worse than anything "they can still see." (see above
Porsche example).
Yes, I do want a rwd "car" again, snow traction be damned.
Yeah, they just don't feel the same.
I'd like a mid engine again but there's no place to put 'people' in them. hehe
