Are programs bloated nowadays or it is natural evolution of memory use?

Are programs bloated nowadays or it is natural evolution of memory use?

Yes

It's literally pointless bloat that is there to intentionally slow down the user in order for them to see upgrading and spending more money as the only possible option to get rid of lag.

It's both.

Define bloated. If you want to return to 1993 and severely limited UI interactivity, go right ahead.

Windows 95 is easier to use than recent versions

But, even complicated dynamic window managers with advanced compositors and fancy animations don't even come close to bulk trains like DWM and Moca. Windows 7 with all bloat removed is 480MB idle, Windows 10 with all bloat removed is 1.5GB, Mac OS X can replace Mocha with X, but still takes a big fat GB of overhead. Where as even Compiz with Gnome 3 only uses 380MB, and AwesomeWM uses almost nothing, and is more feature rich than all the ones I just mentioned.

moron or troll?
>no instant search
>no pinned items on task bar
>no multi-monitor support

yeah nah windows has evolved in some positive ways. Win95 does look better, I'll give you that.

"Bloat" is a completely stupid thought-terminating word.

>>no instant search
Start menu>Search.
If you want to search for a program, just take a look at the Programs menu, there's not much bloat so you can fint it easily
>>no pinned items on task bar
Install internet explorer 4 and you have them
>>no multi-monitor support
Install win98 and you have that

Indexing doesn't need to use 200MB of ram, instant search has always been a thing in Linux, since 94, and doesn't bloat. A taskbar is the least efficient way of using Windows currently.

Maybe you don't only have 16gb of RAM like the rest of us "poor fags" but it's not enough to do anything when you have to deal with constant bloat.

Without a clear definition of the word, it's nothing more than a buzzword like cuck and poo in loo.

>Start menu>Search.
that is not instant, requires another window and at least 10 seconds to find anything of value. not as bad as the damn dog in XP though
>no pinned items on task bar
I meant to say jump lists which are handy especially for file explorer
>Install win98 and you have that
that's not windows 95, and it's not really friendly like current multi-monitor support on every other OS is. no keyboard shortcuts to move to other windows, no taskbar, highly doubt it works better than the shit XP implementation

>Maybe you don't only have 16gb of RAM like the rest of us "poor fags" but it's not enough to do anything when you have to deal with constant bloat.

That doesn't change the fact that "bloat" is a stupid, thought-terminating buzzword.

You can use the word to apply to nearly any program for any reason, because there's always something that came before it that used less resources.

It was also a shell built on top of DOS and incredibly unstable as a result.

NT used a real kernel, but consumer PC's of the day couldn't handle the resource demands.

quick search and native multi-monitor support are pretty much the only useful things that have been introduced with newer versions of Windows since 9x/NT4

otherwise it's practically the same shit, I have no problem using 2K and NT4 productively

>but I can't do ANYTHING without these crutches!
besides, other than the quick searching you can accomplish all of that with microsoft or third-party additions

The point is about bloat. It isn't bloat if people actually use them.

so because there are one or two good things in a modern system, then every new useless feature is automatically some kind of godsend?

Every new feature exists for a reason. If you don't need a certain feature, then so be it. If you say the generalization "new programs are inherently more bloated than old programs" then you are wrong.

>Every new feature exists for a reason.
but just because there's a reason doesn't mean that reason is sound

>If you say the generalization "new programs are inherently more bloated than old programs" then you are wrong.
I was never even attempting to perpetuate this, there have always been shitty programmers and decent ones, there have always been shitty, bloated programs

I'm just shitting on the fag who acts like modern Windows is some drastically different system when it's still Windows 95 with a quick search and some other fluff nobody really needs

>and some other fluff nobody really needs
Such as?

It's partly a combination of higher level programming languages and more 'safe' programming, but also the fact that "moar efficient code" sells less than "moar features".

Too many to list them all. Let's start with this gem. How about 10,000 different file attributes hard coded in to explorer?

Ever felt like you wanted to sort your files by Mood or Orientation? well now you can.

I don't think programs are too bad. Webpages are, imo, as are operating systems with all of the services they run by default.

*properties not attributes

Both

arbitrary example:
A new feature is added to a program which people like, of that 10% of the new code is actually needed to support that new feature the other 90% is poor coding and legacy requirements.
However if we added a new program solely for the new feature the needed code would be around 7% and the user could just alter their OS config file to have it run the way they want. After all that is how modern OS were built before programs started acting like OS for convince of use and coding. This is why we have so many layers in programming now.

Honestly I can't think of anything that would need more then 4 layers, unless you got some crazy inception like VM setup (where you must go higher).

holy shit is that real
show me more useless features

130mb Idle with arch + i3, seems pretty fully featured to me. My 8gb on the laptop will never see full usage. I get like 20 tabs over 4 instance of Firefox before I even start to notice a slow down.

Think about it this way.

The optimal RAM and processor usage on a computer is exactly 100%. Unused capacity is just sitting there, not being useful to people.

Obviously people have different amounts of memory and CPU capacities, and some run more things at once so you need to make some educated guesses. But basically you target the "average" machine.

So newer OS should use more resources as it's targeting a higher spec machine (it should also deliver more capability / speed).

This bloat you speak of is svc Host. And it uses all the ram you're not.
Windows 7 and 10 are nt based.
That's not entirely true. Look at Vista vs 7
8 amd 8.1 vs 10
When the code is really bad even the normies will notice.
Windows 10 was built to be lightweight and fast, their start up configuration wizard shows this to be more than true. My win 10 boots faster than my arch on the same laptop, granted systemd is broken on my arch install.

OS-level bloat is real but isn't as nearly as bad of an issue as third-party app bloat is.

Third-party devs just run fucking wild consuming tens of times more resources than needed for little tangible benefit.

>The optimal RAM and processor usage on a computer is exactly 100%. Unused capacity is just sitting there, not being useful to people.
This is true only if the RAM and CPU are being pushed by 100% by things that are actually useful. Large chunks of CPU and RAM shouldn't be pissed away by gluttonous applications like the Rube Goldberg machines known as electron apps.

>Look at Vista vs 7
Vista being bad was a meme for the most part though.
It was that the first computers it were sold with had barely the minimum specs.

But to that extent, if the codebase is literally horrible people will notice, but it has to be absolutely atrocious for people to care.

sorry user im already on my phone in bed. yes its real.

My Vista Era desktop came with a 2.4 ghz Core 2 quad and 4gb of ram, I later upgraded to 8gb, when I migrated 7 I truly noticed a difference.
The Vista meme is because of aero. A poorly programed shell that assumed everyone had a bad ass graphics card.

>live tiles
>animated menus and windows
>control buttons on media players for people too lazy to quickly alt+tab over and press the big buttons already on the software
>social media integration
the list goes on
or does it? it got increasingly hard to come up with new features that really stood out from previous versions

Fuck you those media buttons are the shit.
That and network integration for streaming. All I need to do is right click my file, choose the tv or device I want to send it to, and boom it's playing already.

I actually don't mind them, just saying that they aren't really needed

shit like pinning is kind of nice to have too, you don't realize how much you love it until you try to find your fucking documents folder on an NT4 system

It's because we are living in the 21st century. You need more memory to maintain a larger filesystem; you need more memory for newer routines built on more complex instructions; you need more memory to buffer for more abstract languages; there's even more memory used just to manage more memory. Back then everything was built off of 8-bit processors with minimal instruction sets and 256k of memory and it was a lot easier to make do. But now, more complex hardware features and software APIs make it more difficult to support even a 1MB kernel image. The cost of the complexity is simply walked over by the fact that RAM and storage are getting cheaper a lot faster than architectures are getting obfuscated.

>4 folders named "downloads" pinned because I can't into renaming them without losing *all* my configuration locations.

Still love my windows 10, it spoils me, but my desktop can handle it.

My laptop is where my true passion is tho, arch.

User folder location + structure has always been goofy as shit on Windows. *nix and OS 9-style structure like

/ [root]
-/Users/
--/joesmith/
---/Documents/


makes way more sense than anything MS ever came up with.

tell me about it
C:\
-\WINNT
--\profiles
---\Joe Smith
----\personal
who came up with that shit????

What is profiles? You mean users? What about the games folder that is directly in c:/? Why wouldn't you place all of a user's everything in their directory? Never made sense to me to have different users with shared application folder but only users who have it installed can use it. Makes no sense.

C:\WINNT\Profiles is the pre-2K NT equivalent of "Documents and Settings" or "Users" in newer Windows versions

for some fucking retarded reason

you're given the option when you install something to make it available to all users. you're more than welcome to change the destination folder if you don't want it in the default shared folder.

Why is that even an option? Either it's shared fully or not at all. it should go
>root
>--user
>---programs
>----publisher names

user directory doesn't seem like a good place to put programs

t. /optfag

>customizations are bad when windows does it

Why not? If the root directory only contains os Specific files and folders as well as user directories why would that be a bad thing?
I never said that. I just think that not having a uniform install directory is kind of shitty. I use Windows 10 and love it. But windows has its quirks. What if you "lose" the folder and it's not indexed?

its an option because 99% of people want installed programs available to all users. nothing is stopping you from installing shit in your user folder

I want my parents to play leisure suit Larry with me bro. 99% bro.
You either give it to all the users, or you keep it for yourself and none of them can run it. Vs in Linux you go to that directory and sudo it if you want to run it. Makes more sense to put your shit, in your own folder. So that "shared" space isn't hogged by others programs.

Modern software meets standards that simply didn't exist a few years ago. For example, an app can try to smartly detect and sync your multiple accounts, interact with other apps to fetch relevant info, get your geo specific info and try to enforce a lot of interface and security policies under the hood.

Are these bloat? When you are working on a terminal you certainly don't need much of these but they are useful especially for the general audience.

User directories are a terrible idea for a personal computer in the first place.

In windows 9x, there are no user directories. It's much more simple and pleasant to use.

Not that guy but OS X has kinda done that for a while now.

/
-/Applications/
-/Users/
--/joesmith/
---/Applications/


Installers are generally discouraged on this platform - direct copies are the preferred method, but both /Applications/ and /Users/[username/Applications/ are common and system-supported locations for programs depending on who you want it to be available to.

wtf? you can open folders under separate credentials in windows or you can change folder permissions are you really so ignorant?

No but those are the type of features that make me look for a better alternative.

though really, that's mostly because 9x is a gimped single-user system

but sometimes I agree with other anons that the multi-user meme was a mistake, that's the biggest bloat of them all, not even shitty node.js hipsters can compare

Os X does this because it's Unix based. Unix was used with a multitude of users in mind. Many users had applications in common, and then many other had their own personal applications. In Windows it's like, you install the applications, it goes into the shared folder, but if you install for only yourself, no one else can use it. Makes no sense to even have it in that folder then.

OP it is feature creep.

To sell new versions of operating systems, Microsoft has to try to justify you paying for it, so they make new features. Even if the feature is shit it's still a feature, pay up!

Multiuser is fine as long as the system is actually designed for it and the feature isn't just bolted on.

This is why *nix systems suck the least at managing multiple user accounts, even today. NT *can* manage multiple accounts well but for a long time Windows multiuser has been hobbled by need for compatibility with older windows software that assumes total unfettered system access under an admin account.

Windows 10 was free, still is for some more time. How does this explain the feature creep you just described?

Consumers don't need much functionality out of a computer or its software

However, business needs to move. Business needs to sell software, and business needs to sell hardware. But nobody needs it anymore, so what do?

Find out what they want. They want to be like the people in the movies, and they want to be entertained, so make everything shinier and more animated so it's like a sci-fi movie and is constantly entertaining on a primitive level. This demands better hardware, and more bloated software. The software still does the same fucking thing, but with more animations.

And then they go on to "justify" it by calling it more interactive, a better user experience, bla bla bla

marketing speak for nobody using computers for work ever gave a fuck, this is to occupy your tiny brain while you flip through sponsored facebook posts

UI designers sound less like engineers working on fighter jet cockpit arrangement and more like veterinarians trying to make a chimp's pen more pleasing BY THE FUCKING DAY

>mfw every time i have to wait for an animation because normies
>mfw every time a program is more bling that functionality and is basically a more decorated version of 90s unix shit (aka mfw every time i use a mac)

wouldn't necessarily call NT's multiuser model "bolted on", it was designed from the ground up to be that way, under the hood it's very similar to other born multiuser systems, especially VMS

but you are right in that NT is still hobbled by those considerations, the same way you could say that a platform like GNU/Linux is great at it

10 makes up for it in other ways, you are the product, not the software

Well the same ideas apply, basically they want people to switch to windows and they have to strain themselves to invent new reasons for it.

Multi-user is a terrible idea for a PC operating system. The only reason unix systems have it is because unix was not designed to be a PC operating system. Windows has it because microsoft was trying to compete with unix in the 90s. 99% of PC users don't need it and it makes things more complicated.

Multi human-user, maybe, but multiuser is a very simple way to manage access to resources.

It can exist and you don't need to see it.

In the perfect world MS would have stopped at XP.

The merging of 9x with NT (in simple terms), the last justifiable upgrade reason.

Just saying.

No lol. Stop with the conspiracy bullshit. Windows 10 doesn't spy on you anymore than other closed source operating systems. Besides if your data isn't encrypted going out, it doesn't matter what os you use, your shit is being sniffed.
They want people to use their market place, why do you think metro was invented? To plaster fucking ads everywhere that's why.
I don't understand though, the only reason I switched from 8.1 to 10 was because it was lighter. Is lightweight a feature now too?
>multi-user is a terrible idea for a pc operating system
Say that again once your children have downloaded "kidsgametotallynotakeylogger.exe.bat.rar" and ran it with root access.
Dumbass.

I'd argue that multi human-user is still pretty valuable for home PCs (share PC with kids until they're old enough to have their own) or any kind of computer lab type of setting.

>It can exist and you don't need to see it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you one of those people who thinks that normal computer users don't have to install software?

GNU/Linux is hobbled by trying to maintain compatibility with an OS from the 70s built upon the assumption that you would use the OS with a really poorly made programming language from the 1970s that is actually a hundred different binaries, some of them their own programming languages. Also, the 1970s OS grew a bit before GNU and linux were made and received all sorts of ad-hoc additions that were inconsistent with the way the original OS was used, resulting in so much complexity that people actually go to school to learn how to use it.

This OS that linux and GNU try so hard to emulate was trashed by its own creators out of sheer disgust, but market inertia refused to change. Linux and GNU could have tried to change it, but they made ANOTHER FUCKING UNIX AND MADE IT FREE SO FUCKING UNIX WOULD LIVE FOR FUCKING EVER AND KEEP ACCUMULATING INCONSISTENT FEATURES LIKE A TRASH SNOWBALL

THE YEAR IS 2064 AND YOU MUST TAKE AN 8 YEAR COLLEGE COURSE TO KNOW HOW TO TRULY USE AND DEVELOP FOR GNU/SYSTEMD/LINUX (MOSTLY REFERRED TO AS SYSTEM-D AT THIS POINT)

My PC experience should not be hobbled to protect from incompetent users. PCs are cheap commodities.

Capitalism doesn't want Haiku or Plan 9.

Capitalism doesn't want an OS you need to spend a lot of time learning to use/develop for either. It means your employees are harder to come by and demand higher pay.

But capitalism is ran by stupid people and didn't want to incur the short term costs of migrating away from the trash snowball.

My pc cost $2,300.... if my kids want to use it to play cool games they can, but there's no fucking way they are getting administrator rights.
Other people's pc experiences should not be hobbled to appease some neet on a Laotian art dealer blog.

>muh kids
fuck you you shite

Your PC cost $2,300 but restoring from a backup costs whatever you think twenty minutes of you not using the PC is worth.

A E S T H E T I C S

>an OS you need to spend a lot of time learning to use/develop for either
this meme is lame af. I have friends who are using ubuntu quite well. they install software from its 'app store', there is libreoffice, word, firefox, etc. only friends with windows need help figuring out bugs in their OS.

>Sup Forums user with kids
>displays tell-tale signs of low intelligence, like misusing ellipsis that aren't even ellipsis and owning a gaming computer
>tfw fertility-intelligence reverse correlation is true and the only way a Sup Forums user can reproduce is by being retarded

When I can just open up a program and it immediately loads.

See: Adobe Reader VS Sumatra PDF

The former takes a long time to load a PDF while the latter instantly loads them.

Hypothetical
Restoring komplete ultimate 10 is 3 days I don't want to waste.
Apparently you can't read. It's not a gaming computer. It's an expensive computer. The processor cost more than the graphics card, the only reason it has a graphics card is because Intel cant seem to into integrated.
So you tell me who is low intelligence friendo :^)

>the actual system is an incomprehensible web of nightmare cruft, but we managed to hack together a braindead push-button frontend
this is a bad thing

You can still just use a lot of old programs without bloat like winamp and utorren 2.1 or even firefox 2.

:^)

Sumatra has a tendency to crash and fails to render more complex pdfs though

20 tabs normally aren't enough to fill 8gb of ram
and even if they did, it wouldn't just slow down your laptop unless you have swap

80 Tabs. Read it again.

>20 tabs over 4 instances
>over
I'm pretty sure I know my English

Left out the word each, my bad. Meant to day 20 tabs over 4 instances of Firefox *each* amounting to 80 tabs. Most of which is hentai.

/thread

Why would you run multiple instances of Firefox?

why the fuck would i want shit to thrash my storage instead of using fast ram? because that's why everything used to be slow a while ago

Because he CAN.

Nice doubly doos.

And I run 4 different workspaces. Keep Firefox on the side for each one. I have my main space which is vertical terminal/pavucontrol, youtube on the second page, email on the third, and what ever monitoring application I may be using on the fourth. Firefox is open on the right side in each page.

Shits the tits bruh

Yes, but on the other hand, more memory and computing power allows people to use high level languages and unoptimized brute force algorithms, and that in turn allows software companies to use Pajeets as programmers, making software development much cheaper. Wouldn't have all these cool apps if it took a CS degree to make anything that actually runs.

>email on the third
I thought e-mail clients exist for e-mail.

/thread

user, wtf are you doing? Stop.

programmers aren't going to care about small memory leaks when everybody has 4gb+ ram

bad programmers, it will only get worse as we move into the age of "stitch shit together until it works and forget about it" development

Both.
Developers aren't restricted by the hardware limitations of the post so just scrap the whole idea of optimization.
So they get lazy because that's just human nature.


Nowadays only tiny projects can afford it.
That's why everyone involved in tiny projects clings to the >muh unix philosophy so much.
"Do one thing and do it well" makes it so once a piece of software has all the planned features included all development efforts go into maintaining it and improving it's performance.