MS's support logic

Ken Springer wrote:
On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over the
years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
computer software.

snip

Programmers can use this kind of tool, to find
really bad coding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profili...er_programming)

So if they're at all curious about why their code is
slow, there are ways to hunt down the "hot spots".

Paul

In message , Paul
writes:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:
snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors)
are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.
I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over
the years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost
all computer software.
snip

Programmers can use this kind of tool, to find
really bad coding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profili...er_programming)

So if they're at all curious about why their code is
slow, there are ways to hunt down the "hot spots".

Paul

They _can_, but _do_ they? Rather than just throw more processing power
at it?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The boffins think the artists ... frivolous, living off the hard graft of those
who... create the comfortable ... life that makes the money for art possible.
The artist ... look ... down on the scientists as dull mechanics, ... worthy but
lacking the spiritual dimension ..." (Polly Toynbee, Radio Times 8-14 May 1999.)

| I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
| so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
| code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
| _does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.
|
| I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over the
| years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
| computer software.
|
| snip
|
| Programmers can use this kind of tool, to find
| really bad coding.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profili...er_programming)
|
| So if they're at all curious about why their code is
| slow, there are ways to hunt down the "hot spots".
|
Boy, this thread is getting long!

I think there's truth in what J.P. says, but I don't think
it's accurate to view design and code as a dichotomy. Nor
is bad code the same as bloated code. Nor is design just
the fluff part. Nor is good design necessarily costly or
complex. (And of course the opposite is also true. Bad
design can be very clean and simple. Steve Jobs managed
to limit the usability of numerous gadgets by applying his
obsession for pseudo-Zennie simplicity. Last time I ran
across a Mac I had to ask the owner how to turn it on.
The power button was hidden on the back of the all-in-one
monitor, as though it were an embarassment.)

In webpages the bloated, bad code is a result of using
WYSIWYG editors. Many webpages are also far more
functional than they used to be. (Adding another 1/4 MB
worth of javascript "libraries".) And a lot of the bloat is
the code for ads and tracking. In most cases a gigantic
mess of a webpage has very little in terms of design, other
than the layout required to squeeze everything in. It's just
auto-generated, squeezing in as many ads and links as
possible without requiring any human labor. (Efficient in
terms of cost and speed of production, not code.) Then
a 22-year-old unpaid "intern" can insert each day's ads
into the page, while someone else changes the links and
stories, and no one involved needs to have any technical
expertise.

Software is a different thing. Speed and memory use
are not as much of an issue there these days, but it
really depends on the product. A graphic editor needs
to be as efficient as possible because it deals with very
calculation-intensive operations, while the techno-kitsch
window decoration in Windows 7 can afford to burn
up a few hundred GHz of processor power and a few
hundred MBs of RAM. There's more than enough to spare.
One could say that's wasteful design, but most people
probably see those semi-transparent window frames as
indicative of improvement. They're there to sell the product.
In fact, even the wastefulness is there to sell the product.
It's designed to require people to buy new computers.

There are so many issues involved. I think it's a
red herring to view it as attention to code vs attention
to design.

"Ken Springer" wrote in message

On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over the
years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
computer software.

Likewise. And web pages...some/many of them are so design oriented that
their readability is severly compromised.



--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors)
are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if
your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not
coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over
the years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost
all
computer software.
[]
Which - that it's getting cheaper and faster all the time, so it doesn't
matter, or that it still does?

IMO, that it should matter. My programming days were long ago, mostly
with assembler and pre-hard drives. Lots of bit/byte tweaking
then...shorter code or faster? Always a trade off.

With that background I am amazed at the size of OSs...16 gigabytes for
Windows 8; how they manage to use that many bytes is beyond my
comprehension.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
Boy, this thread is getting long!

(-: [I do keep snipping bits, but like a bramble bush it keeps growing
back!]

I think there's truth in what J.P. says, but I don't think

(Name's John, BTW.)
[]
There are so many issues involved. I think it's a
red herring to view it as attention to code vs attention
to design.

Indeed, those are not complementary. But once one _has_ (more or less)
decided what the design should be, how you code that design can be
either quick (in terms of _coding time_, not how fast - or well - the
code runs!), or good, but rarely both.

2
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... at resorts so exclusive that even the tide struggles to get in - Kathy
Lette in RT 2014/1/11-17

In message , dadiOH
writes:
"Ken Springer" wrote in message

On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over the
years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
computer software.

Likewise. And web pages...some/many of them are so design oriented
that their readability is severly compromised.

Yes, I'm afraid that can also be the case. (And no, that doesn't mean
I'm against clever webpage design [unless it's easily broken].)


3
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... at resorts so exclusive that even the tide struggles to get in - Kathy
Lette in RT 2014/1/11-17

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 17:36:22 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Mayayana
writes:

I think there's truth in what J.P. says, but I don't think

(Name's John, BTW.)


Interestingly, I know someone else with the initials J.P. He wants to
be called "JP."

On 8/12/14, 10:01 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 8/12/14 4:40 PM, Justin wrote:
On 8/8/14, 2:01 PM, pjp wrote:


Isn't stopping IE as well as XP security updates kinda like extortion
and/or blackmail on MS's part?

They act as if money isn't an issue for most people and it's little to
no "effort" for most people to simply throw out their old computer and
buy another.

Get a Mac, you can easily use a Mac for 5+ years.

You can use any computer for 5+ years, as long as it's running and does
what you want.

There is no $200 discount laptop that is 5 years old and still being used.


http://macdailynews.com/2014/02/26/a...le-to-attacks/

So?
Mavericks cost is...
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013...App-Store.html



How long did MS support XP? How old is Vista?


See, I really don't give a rat's ass about malware, virus's etc. So what
if they cause DOS attacks etc. That's MS's problem for not fixing their
software not mine for using it. As I said, I can reimage anytime so if
it don't affect me ...


Well, if Law enforcement traces something back to your machine, it can
be your problem really quickly. Unlikely, but possible. Most of the
usenet spam in the binaries groups come from compromised windows
machines. If they can post spam they can post anything.

Get a Mac, you won't have to worry about malware or viruses. It's a
simple fact.

Also not true, but you get to worry about it a lot less. Apple has made
many patches to OS X for malware that targeted OS X.

The same is true for Linux. If you go search the web, you'll find there
is malware for Linux also.


Malware on the mac and Linux is quite ineffective and isn't installed
simply be one false click. One false click in IE and it's installed.
I use ClamxAV because I get alot of files from Windows users. Sometimes
I even use the Sentry option.

On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:01:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


You can use any computer for 5+ years, as long as it's running and does
what you want.


You can use any computer for as long as you want to, as long as you
replace the parts that fail.

The same is true of cars.

Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:01:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


You can use any computer for 5+ years, as long as it's running and does
what you want.


You can use any computer for as long as you want to, as long as you
replace the parts that fail.

The same is true of cars.


I've my later mother's Kitchen Aide mixer that was purchased 48 years
ago in 1965. Same parts and attachments. Based on what I've seen, heard,
and know...it has well over 20,000 hours of use. Nothing has ever
failed. It might just outlive me.

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 8/17/14 6:57 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 8/17/14 3:17 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Mayayana
writes:

snip

I guess that the argument that, these days, links (and processors) are
so fast, and storage so cheap, that it doesn't actually matter if your
code is inefficient (so spend your limited time on design not coding),
_does_ have some validity these days - but it still offends me.

I'm no programmer, but with bits and pieces of things I've read over
the years, and what I see, I've thought the same thing about almost all
computer software.
[]
Which - that it's getting cheaper and faster all the time, so it doesn't
matter, or that it still does?

I don't mind the cheaper and faster, that should be normal course of things.

But I hate the inefficiency of the coding, it's wasting the abilities of
the hardware. Not to mention the users time and money. So, we
essentially end up standing still, somewhat like putting larger and
larger engines in our speed boats, but leaving bigger anchors stuck in
the sand.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:00:25 -0400, ". . .winston"
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:01:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


You can use any computer for 5+ years, as long as it's running and does
what you want.


You can use any computer for as long as you want to, as long as you
replace the parts that fail.

The same is true of cars.


I've my later mother's Kitchen Aide mixer that was purchased 48 years
ago in 1965. Same parts and attachments. Based on what I've seen, heard,
and know...it has well over 20,000 hours of use. Nothing has ever
failed. It might just outlive me.



I guess that's because it's neither a computer nor a car. g

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:00:25 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:01:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


You can use any computer for 5+ years, as long as it's running and does
what you want.


You can use any computer for as long as you want to, as long as you
replace the parts that fail.

The same is true of cars.


I've my later mother's Kitchen Aide mixer that was purchased 48 years
ago in 1965. Same parts and attachments. Based on what I've seen, heard,
and know...it has well over 20,000 hours of use. Nothing has ever
failed. It might just outlive me.

My friend had a Kitchen Aid mixer that failed, but the Kitchen Aid
people sent her a new one and a return label so she could easily return
the old one free of shipping charges.

Although it was "neither a computer nor a car" (from Ken's post), it was
a recent model, & the failure was in the electronic control module.

She feels she was treated quite well by the company :-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 22:00:25 -0400, . . .winston wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 20:01:46 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


You can use any computer for 5+ years, as long as it's running and does
what you want.


You can use any computer for as long as you want to, as long as you
replace the parts that fail.

The same is true of cars.


I've my later mother's Kitchen Aide mixer that was purchased 48 years
ago in 1965. Same parts and attachments. Based on what I've seen, heard,
and know...it has well over 20,000 hours of use. Nothing has ever
failed. It might just outlive me.

My friend had a Kitchen Aid mixer that failed, but the Kitchen Aid
people sent her a new one and a return label so she could easily return
the old one free of shipping charges.

Although it was "neither a computer nor a car" (from Ken's post), it was
a recent model, & the failure was in the electronic control module.

She feels she was treated quite well by the company :-)


I've purchased some Kitchen supplies (individual items ranging in price
from $70-120) online from the companies web sites in the last few years
two of which showed up as slightly damaged (knick, dent type - one by
UPS, other unknown) but perfectly functional. A phone call to each
yielded immediate replacements. I asked about an RMA, both said 'keep it
or discard it'. The church's soup kitchen were quite happy with the
discarded equipment.

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps