A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Customizing Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #106  
Old March 12th 07, 01:10 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

Nobody debugs until bug free because it can be shown
mathematically to be impossible, never mind its cost.


Yep, it's a Goedel thing. It's debatable whether there really
is a schism between determanism and chaos, or whether it's
just a matter of computational power limitations.

With enough energy, can you break molecules, atoms,
electrons...?

With enough computational power, can you break DES, or the
mysteries of turbulance, or predict the stock market?


In producing anything, hard or soft, the Law of Dimishing Returns
is what determines how many bugs you will squash. You CAN rid the
product of more, but it will take longer and cost more, both of
which are denied to you as the developer by your manager.

If you take the "bugs tend towards zero but never really reach
zero" perspective, then how far down the slope you need to go
depends on how complex is the system you're debugging. A
1:100 error rate may be low enough to write 5-line batch
files, and 1:1000000 error rate may be OK for DOS and small
apps... but for today's code, processed at over a million
instructions a millisecond, you're unlikely to beat Murphy.


Exactly. Suppose, for example, that operating systems and apps
were sold Sears-style: good, better, and best. YOu could then
choose by price alone the ones that have the most bugs and bloat
to the least bugs and bloat. Wish it worked that way, but it
doesn't. The degree of bug-freeness and least bloat is an
economic compromise sort of thing in order to bring the product
in on-time at the price target selected by management. And, yes,
computer aided testing is a great help, as is statistical
analysis to predict the impact of remaining problems and to
predict how the product will work. So, too, is alpha and beta
testing, inclunding beta testing by the Visa cars of the early
adopters.

optimization is just one of many criteria used in development
of ANY software, and again is a compromise based almost
exclusively on the express purpose of the company - to
generate profits.


Optimization is fading from significance as hardware
capabilities improve, and reliability needs increase.


That is true, but just think of the performance you would see if
developers didn't take this approach!

The beauty of an elegant algorithm is still there, but of all
the tricks and tweaks one used to dance around the lumpy
limitations of hardware, I doubt if any remain relevant a
decade later.

Hand-crafted, bug-free Assembler code is like diamonds;
essential in a narrow range of contexts, but far too costly to
use as the sole material for buildings, oil tankers, aircraft
etc. That's why Win95 kept some 16-bit code for the UI; it
was exactly this quality of highly-optimized, reliable code
that is well worth keeping.

The challenge is how to accept that code will always be buggy,
and design reliable systems anyway. I think a problem we have
is that devs are in denial on this; they still reckon that if
they "try harder", they can use code as if it were reliable
and trustworthy.

This is like trying to divide by zero by Thinking Really Hard.


--
HP, aka Jerry
Ads
  #107  
Old March 12th 07, 05:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 274
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:10:34 -0000, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
"Today", cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)


Nobody debugs until bug free because it can be shown
mathematically to be impossible, never mind its cost.


Yep, it's a Goedel thing. It's debatable whether there really
is a schism between determanism and chaos


In producing anything, hard or soft, the Law of Dimishing Returns
is what determines how many bugs you will squash. You CAN rid the
product of more, but it will take longer and cost more, both of
which are denied to you as the developer by your manager.


Yep. Often the most solid inventors get left out of the loop, because
they can't "sign off and ship"; Tesla comes to mind there.

Exactly. Suppose, for example, that operating systems and apps
were sold Sears-style: good, better, and best. YOu could then
choose by price alone the ones that have the most bugs


That relies on "you get what you pay for", which is not a truism, but
rather like the waterline on an iceberg. It's best-case; usually you
get a lot less than what you pay for.

And then there's the "Nike Effect", i.e. meaningless "brand tax"...

If you had the computational power to ascertain the true bug load of
an item of s(oft)ware, you'd have written it ;-)

You could, however, pay a premium based on the degree of pain the
vendor's contractually obliging themselves to undergo, should the
product fall short of expectations.

Optimization is fading from significance as hardware
capabilities improve, and reliability needs increase.


That is true, but just think of the performance you would see if
developers didn't take this approach!


Indeed... sometimes one might want a skeletal OS that does nothing
more than hand over full control to a single encapsulated app; rather
like what a thing called "DOS" used to do :-)



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #108  
Old March 12th 07, 06:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Does Vista Actually Want 18 Gigabytes Of Disc Space?

Today, cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) made these interesting
comments ...

In producing anything, hard or soft, the Law of Dimishing
Returns is what determines how many bugs you will squash. You
CAN rid the product of more, but it will take longer and cost
more, both of which are denied to you as the developer by
your manager.


Yep. Often the most solid inventors get left out of the loop,
because they can't "sign off and ship"; Tesla comes to mind
there.


Yep, he bolted when his boss wouldn't listen.

Exactly. Suppose, for example, that operating systems and apps
were sold Sears-style: good, better, and best. YOu could then
choose by price alone the ones that have the most bugs


That relies on "you get what you pay for", which is not a
truism, but rather like the waterline on an iceberg. It's
best-case; usually you get a lot less than what you pay for.


Of course, I was being facious here ...

And then there's the "Nike Effect", i.e. meaningless "brand
tax"...

If you had the computational power to ascertain the true bug
load of an item of s(oft)ware, you'd have written it ;-)


If I thought I could write an O/S maybe I would, but there are
few companies large enough to successfully do that today, and
impossible for individuals. Linux is a cooperative effort of many
programmers using its open architecture, much as Unix was
intended to be a generation ago, but it lost its way when the HW
manufacturers wanted proprietary versions for marketing reasons.

You could, however, pay a premium based on the degree of pain
the vendor's contractually obliging themselves to undergo,
should the product fall short of expectations.


That's a thought! See who can stand the most pain, the developer
or the consumer! grin

Optimization is fading from significance as hardware
capabilities improve, and reliability needs increase.


That is true, but just think of the performance you would see
if developers didn't take this approach!


Indeed... sometimes one might want a skeletal OS that does
nothing more than hand over full control to a single
encapsulated app; rather like what a thing called "DOS" used
to do :-)

I did a LOT of useful work on my old Apple //e with just 128KB
memory and a suite called Appleworks. And, I did a lOT of useful
work in the DOS days. I do a lot of useful work today, and it is
much easier to do thanks to standards of data interchange and
standards for how all apps and utilities to adhere to so as to
make the learning curve as shallow as possible.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.