Win95

mechanic wrote:
25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated.

You're hard to please. CRT monitors were the norm at 800x600 resolution. We
have hugely powerful multicore CPUs, incredibly fast solid state hard
drives with volumes that were science fiction in the 90s, and GPU
technology is phenomenally powerful. This has all enabled high quality and
high resolution digital photography and film production, advances in
science not previously possible, and data analytics.

The basic
vision behind 'one computer for each home/desk' hasn't changed.

Wrong. Cloud computing, virtual machines, and docker-like software are all
blurring what a computer on your desk can do. From my desk I have access to
almost limitless computing power.

You're also ignoring all the other computers you may own: a phone, a watch,
TVs, gaming consoles, smart speakers, heating controller, your car, etc,
etc.

Cost is also massively reduced. Just look at the raspberry pi.

If you showed a microsoftie from 1995 what we have today you'd blow their
mind.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:28:46 -0400, dale wrote:

On 8/25/2020 6:29 AM, mechanic wrote:
25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated. The basic
vision behind 'one computer for each home/desk' hasn't changed.


won't 128bit computing have to be quantum?

Yes, quantum computers will be a big jump, on the network the move
from copper to optic fibre was a big jump, most other improvements
are just engineering tuneups of known technologies, driven by
Moore's Law. Humans still type at their keyboards though.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:16:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Wrong. Cloud computing, virtual machines, and docker-like software are all
blurring what a computer on your desk can do. From my desk I have access to
almost limitless computing power.

Yes, and there is a trend to more mobile access too. Although most
of that is incremental improvement to concepts familiar in 1995.
Nowadays, with this incredible computing power, we can't even
produce a system of candidate ratings without the exams[1] familiar
to earlier generations without introducing unacceptable biases.

[1] See many articles in the Guardian on the (UK) A and GCSE level
exams in schools, and their replacement due to Covid.

On 2020-08-26 09:35:19 +0000, mechanic said:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:16:10 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

Wrong. Cloud computing, virtual machines, and docker-like software are all
blurring what a computer on your desk can do. From my desk I have access to
almost limitless computing power.

Yes, and there is a trend to more mobile access too. Although most
of that is incremental improvement to concepts familiar in 1995.

It sounds like you're not familiar with how different the concepts are
and how the hardware has enabled them.

Nowadays, with this incredible computing power, we can't even
produce a system of candidate ratings without the exams[1] familiar
to earlier generations without introducing unacceptable biases.

That has nothing to do with computers. A computer will only do what it
is programmed/told to do. The process was broken from the start and was
****ed-up by the people "in charge" - an oxymoron.

They could (and should) have done better:
https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...-algorithm-row


[1] See many articles in the Guardian on the (UK) A and GCSE level
exams in schools, and their replacement due to Covid.

I'm fully aware as I have kids involved in this plus many of my friends do too.

On 8/25/2020 6:29 AM, mechanic wrote:
25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated. The basic
vision behind 'one computer for each home/desk' hasn't changed.


For the longest time, and still, I would say the software has lagged the
hardware. Still, we have ever more cores, and not so much parallel
processing... That's said, I'm disappointed that we seem to have
reached peak CPU speeds at 4-4.5 GHz--they have been there for at least
5 years. Now they are just stacking "cores" like apartments. : )

On 8/26/2020 12:16 AM, Chris wrote:
mechanic wrote:
25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated.

You're hard to please. CRT monitors were the norm at 800x600 resolution.


Not initially. Back when I got my first personal computer in 1987, the
norm was 640x480. 800x600 came later.

Today, of course, it's much higher. I run my two 24" LCD monitors at
1920x1080, and many people run at much higher resolutions.


--
Ken

On 26 Aug 2020 at 16:10:41 BST, "Ken Blake" wrote:

On 8/26/2020 12:16 AM, Chris wrote:
mechanic wrote:
25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated.

You're hard to please. CRT monitors were the norm at 800x600 resolution.


Not initially. Back when I got my first personal computer in 1987, the
norm was 640x480. 800x600 came later.

We're talking about win95 era computers. In 1995/96 800x600 was common and
1024x768 wasn't unusual.


Today, of course, it's much higher. I run my two 24" LCD monitors at
1920x1080, and many people run at much higher resolutions.

I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:06:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.

Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!

On 8/26/2020 9:06 AM, Chris wrote:
On 26 Aug 2020 at 16:10:41 BST, "Ken Blake" wrote:

On 8/26/2020 12:16 AM, Chris wrote:
mechanic wrote:
25 years on, we are reminded of the big changes Win95 showed
compared to the preceding Win3.1 (I'm talking of home/consumer
versions). 25 years is a long time - what is it, 12-15 Moore
periods? Shouldn't we expect rather more change in the hardware as a
result? Software has come a long way, we have AI and virtual reality
on the horizon, but the hardware seems to have stagnated.

You're hard to please. CRT monitors were the norm at 800x600 resolution.


Not initially. Back when I got my first personal computer in 1987, the
norm was 640x480. 800x600 came later.

We're talking about win95 era computers. In 1995/96 800x600 was common and
1024x768 wasn't unusual.


Today, of course, it's much higher. I run my two 24" LCD monitors at
1920x1080, and many people run at much higher resolutions.

I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.



Then you must have a very big monitor. What's best for you isn't best
for everyone. I can't imagine anyone with a 15" monitor being happy with
that resolution.


--
Ken

On 26 Aug 2020 at 19:53:27 BST, "mechanic" wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:06:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.

Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!

That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight, energy
usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I can't
imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor.

If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common
for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m
bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing
that with 25-yo hardware.

"Chris" wrote

| I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.
|
| Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!
|
| That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight,
energy
| usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I
can't
| imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor.
|

I'm using a 27" monitor, at 1920x1080. More pixels
doesn't mean more advanced technology. It's about
the human body using the hardware. My eyes are
getting old. I set up this monitor on a cabinet drawer
slide, mounted under bookshelves over my desk. So
I can pull it out or push it back. Whatever I find
comfortable. It's 24-bit color and it's clear enough.

There might be scenarios where more concentrated
pixels are useful, but that would mostly be on tiny
screens, like phones. Why? Because they're poorly
suited ergonomically. So the detail must be very sharp.

On 8/27/2020 7:27 AM, Mayayana wrote:

"Chris" wrote

| I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.
|
| Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!
|
| That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight,
energy
| usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I
can't
| imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor.
|

I'm using a 27" monitor, at 1920x1080. More pixels
doesn't mean more advanced technology. It's about
the human body using the hardware. My eyes are
getting old.


So are mine, as well as the rest of me.



I set up this monitor on a cabinet drawer
slide, mounted under bookshelves over my desk. So
I can pull it out or push it back. Whatever I find
comfortable. It's 24-bit color and it's clear enough.


How clear the image is has a lot to do with what monitor it is, not just
its size and resolution.



There might be scenarios where more concentrated
pixels are useful, but that would mostly be on tiny
screens, like phones.


*Tiny* screens? A higher resolution means everything appears smaller.
Putting it on a smaller screen makes no sense. Higher resolutions need
*bigger* screens.


Why? Because they're poorly
suited ergonomically. So the detail must be very sharp.




--
Ken

In article , Ken Blake
wrote:


There might be scenarios where more concentrated
pixels are useful, but that would mostly be on tiny
screens, like phones.

*Tiny* screens? A higher resolution means everything appears smaller.
Putting it on a smaller screen makes no sense. Higher resolutions need
*bigger* screens.

actually, it makes a lot of sense. hi-dpi displays show content that is
the same size, but significantly sharper and without any jaggies. the
difference is dramatic, particularly for those with aging eyes.

the same concept applies to printers. a high resolution 1200 ppi
printer doesn't require a bigger sheet of paper than a low resolution
300 ppi printer or a very old 72 ppi printer. what it produces is a
sharper print on the same size paper.

On 8/27/20 9:05 AM, Chris wrote:
On 26 Aug 2020 at 19:53:27 BST, "mechanic" wrote:

On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 16:06:42 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:

I wouldn't use anything less than 2560x1440 nowadays.

Not much of a jump from 800x600 in 25 years!

That's an 8-fold increase in area whilst shrinking the size, weight, energy
usage and improving the quality (analogue vs digital) of the monitor. I can't
imagine what kind of desk I'd need for a 27" CRT monitor.

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

If we look at bandwidth the difference is even larger. 8-bit colour was common
for 800x600 which is 3.8m bits. We can easily do 24bits @ 2560x1440 = 88.5m
bits, nowadays. Nearly 25x larger. At 60Hz refresh that's 5.3Gbps. Try pushing
that with 25-yo hardware.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Religion is all bunk." -- Thomas Edison

Mark Lloyd wrote:

I had a 19" flat screen CRT monitor. IIRC, that weighed about 90 pounds.

Think of what you PAID for it too! I think I bought a light 22" for
about $229 about 8 years ago. Haven't checked prices lately.