Do not rush to switch to the new version of your favorite program

    A year and a half ago, he updated his computer, joining the lucky owners of Core 2 Duo processors. Then I thought that all problems with computer speed were solved for a couple of years, only for games I would have to update the video card. But, as soon as I installed new versions for many years of used programs, I discovered an interesting feature - they did not get better.This applies in particular to Winamp and Nero.

    I used Winamp from the 90s, when not all computers allowed to play music. If anyone remembers, then the Pentium 166 MHz system requirements were written on mp3 disks. What new useful features have appeared over the years? Good support for Russian fonts and beautiful themes. But do not be surprised if you have to wait for a while when you press some buttons. This is probably the price paid for such a rich expansion of functionality.

    Another example of Nero. I still use the sixth version and am completely satisfied with it (fortunately, I have an IDE drive). But I tried to install new versions. Seven in my personal ranking on importunity takes the first place among all existing programs, and I did not have time to get to know it well, because after a few minutes it was already deleted. I got acquainted with the eight a little better (a couple of hours), it took one and a half gigabytes of space on the system disk and did not allow creating boot disks. Half of the time I was looking for how to create a boot disk in it. It turned out that it was a stripped-down version (a stripped-down version is one and a half gigabytes, fine!). There is still such a miracle as the ninth version, but it was not possible to try it.

    The question arises: where do the creators of the programs use increased processor speeds and increased volumes of hard drives? If the player, with essentially the same functionality, on processors, at least 10 times faster, still slows down, and another program weighing one and a half gigabytes cannot provide the same functionality as it was in the 70mb version. These examples, of course, are special cases and most other programs do not suffer from such obvious shortcomings. But the tendency for software to use resources for nothing is present. But the speed of modern computers is no longer growing as before, the "megahertz race" has long ended. And nothing revolutionary is visible on the horizon: the increase in the number of cores does not yet provide an increase in all applications, and the frequencies have stopped for several years near the magic number "3". So when does the real "bulk optimization of programs" begin? I have a strong feeling that if the programs were optimized, as before, they would now not just fly, they would overcome the gravity of the Earth. :) And the main emphasis should be on design, usability and integration with the Internet. Programs such as Winamp, Nero, and Word have been providing essentially unchanged functionality for many years. Why pay for it with computer resources?

    In my understanding, quad-core home computers are only needed for 3D modeling, video transcoding and some games (hi GTA 4). It turned out that no. Software manufacturers seem to be preparing us: get ready that the next version will "work especially well" on the quad.

    PS Do not ask why he cited so few examples. I do not use a huge number of programs not related to work. When counting, the fingers of two hands are enough. Why do not I use other programs that are similar in functionality? The library is well configured in winamp, and it is much more convenient for me to use it than, for example, foobar 2000. And Nero 6, as I already mentioned, I am completely satisfied with how to replace the drive with a satash one, of course, I will have to change the program used. But you yourself can give examples of such programs, there are many of them.

    PPS There are reverse examples, although I started using them relatively recently, their speed and consumed resources amazed me: BitTorrent, VMWare. The virtual machine was especially surprised - pressing a pause puts Linux into sleep in a few (up to 5) seconds, and the speed of work in Linux itself is excellent. Of course, the virtual machine consumes enough resources, but it is surprising that Amarok inside the virtual machine works no worse than Winamp in Windows.

    PPPS All this applies only to Windows XP. I can’t say anything about whist.

    UPD: As an advertisement. ) Many advised to try AIMP2. Downloaded, tried. An excellent program, in the basic configuration already includes support for .cue and .flac files. No need to change anything for the correct display of Russian fonts. It occupies 6-8 MB of memory, the processor loads a fraction of a percent. In no, it does not climb without demand. In a word, I recommend it.

    Also popular now: