On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 at 08:33:27, Mayayana
wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I don't think it's really a big factor. The main bloat
| is wrappers. When you've got something like Java or
| .Net, or javascript posing as software, you're very
| far removed from the actual operations. The trouble
|
| As a _user_, I am not really that bothered whether it's real or
| "pretend" software. I know enough (just) about concepts, like
| assemblers, compilers, linkers, and so on, as well as general
| programming, to have some idea what people are talking about: but
| really, I just want it to do it. I know enough to appreciate efficient
| code like IrfanView.
|

I think it's worth understanding. And it's not
always bad. Often it's just convenience. Sometimes
it's for security, like with phone apps. But the farther
one is from the CPU, the slower it will be. An SSD will
mostly be noticeable at boot and when moving 2 GB
from one partition or disk to another.

I do understand _that_ much: I understand the concept(s) of wrappers,
and interpreted code. (I really started with BASIC on home computers,
which was always interpreted.)

Example: If you're in IView, or another graphics program,
and you want to sharpen a 30 MB image, that will
probably be relatively slow. But it has nothing to do
with the disk. The image is in memory. The operation is
millions of mathematical comparisons. In IView, compiled
to native code, those operations are probably direct calls
to the CPU itself. If you have a graphics library then you
have calls to the library, which calls the CPU. If that library
is not in the same process then each call will be slowed.

Agreed - though at present, even inefficient code will mostly be memory.
Will still be slower if multilayered code, because it's called for every
pixel (or worse); however, probably wouldn't be affected much by SSD/HDD
differences.

Although having several prog.s running - especially if that's several
(almost inefficient by default) web pages - _is_ more likely to eat
through the RAM you have, sooner.
[]
I don't mean to say that's bad. It provides a lot of
convenience and it has its place. The trouble is that
the more efficient the hardware gets, the more people
figure it's OK to use another wrapper and save themselves

We're singing from the same hymn-sheet (though singing is
counter-indicated at the moment!).

some work. And at the same time, the more people can
write software without knowing what they're doing.

Quite a few years ago now, I remember being startled to find a young
computing graduate had never done any assembler. (Nowadays, I could
imagine one not having done any textual coding at all, having used
entirely graphical tools for code development.)

So if you work as a graphic artist and edit photos all
day, you want lots of RAM, top quality software (not
Java or .Net wrappers. Definitely not Python
or javascript.), and a fast CPU. The disk will be all but
irrelevant. The operations are not happening on the disk
unless you don't have enough RAM to hold the data.

With the "lots of RAM", yes.
|
| My concern is that if it happens to C: - which is where an SSD's speed
| advantage would show best - it's like cutting the power; cloning such a
| disc would I fear have at least some chance of not restoring a working
| system. Most of the time, I imagine it'd just come up with a "Windows
| did not shut down properly" message and fix itself, granted.
|

I wouldn't expect a problem, but I haven't faced that
scenario so far.

Not had one fail, or just not had one failing read-only cause problems
after cloning it?

| So far I haven't lost one, and given the cost I probably
| won't keep them running for their expected life. I'm not

That seems to have been another thing which to me is a sea change in the
change from HDDs to SSDs: the concept of limited life. Yes, I know
everything is really, but actually making it part of planning is (or
will be), to me, a change.

| a person who needs 2-6 TB. An $80 500 GB is ample
| for my needs, and I mirror everything except the
| actual OS on a second disk.
|
| I'm managing on a 1 TB (HD); I image the C: part of that, and copy the
| D: part.

I do that, too. I keep disk images of basic C with software
installed. I back up to a second disk and to DVD. Once in
awhile I also make a current disk image of C. But I try to have
it set up in such a way that if it fails I just need to reinstall
a basic disk image, copy over app data, do any needed
program updates, and be ready to go again. Though it can

Would take me certainly many days - I suspect weeks - to restore
everything, especially including setting changes. So I make an image
that's a lot more than basic. (Once I learnt about imaging, I saw/see no
reason to do _other_ than image all of C:. Maybe OK for business/school
situations where a standard configuration's needed for many machines.
But not for me.)

take a couple of hours to do all of that. Just adjusting prefs
and reinstalling extensions in Firefox is a bear of a job. (Though
I back up copies of prefs.js and keep copies of all extensions.)


--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anything you add for security will slow the computer but it shouldn't be
significant or prolonged. Security software is to protect the computer, not
the primary use of the computer.
- VanguardLH in alt.windows7.general, 2018-1-28