- vcf-midatlantic - lists.vcfed.org

efficiency, put another way
by Herb Johnson 09 Jun '16

09 Jun '16

In the context of the previous discussion - which was about gleaning any values from, or interests today in, vintage computing - my strategy is to say that personal computing and minicomputing of the 1970's and into the 1980's was a *resource poor* environment. "Efficiency" in using scarce resources is a necessity, to get something done. As gains were made in memory, processor complexity, speed and storage capacity, these resources were fairly quickly maxed out - and then improved again, and again. Some of this stuff was crude, some of it was well crafted in the McGuire sense. But at some point - certainly over a decade ago, probably more - computing for most purposes, for most people, provided more than enough resources. Processor speed topped off (any faster and they'd cook). Memory was cheap. Storage was cheap. Even the Internet became cheap and common. There's powerful languages and environments for various domains. What became expensive? *People.* Programmer time, engineering time, production time. Craft is not cheap. Even time itself has become an expense. I call the 21st century a "resource rich* period of "computing" - it's odd to talk about computing now, it's like telling fish about water, it's just part of living. My point - It's hard to conserve when there's an (apparent) abundance. Resource-poor and people-cheap, to resource-rich but people-expensive. Bringing it back to vintage computing..... So one value of preserving vintage computing, is to remind us by example and fact, about the issues of "efficiency", from a time when we had no choice but to be efficient. the tools and methods from then, can be applied in principle now. Why bother? - for the reasons that Jonathan noted, there are times and situations where convenient in-efficiency bites us in the ass. Or as Dave McGuire noted, as a matter of quality. Current resources can be overtaxed when mis-used. Old-school methods and quick fixes don't work well when scaled too large. Smart tools used by the less-informed produce un-scalable results. And so on. Resource-poor to resource-rich; and now to maxed-out or inefficient. That's the argument. So we in vintage computing may be able to offer some perspective in how to solve problems of excessive, at least inefficient, use of resources. Or not....smarter software may be smarter than the programmers, and avoid the worst of these problems. Compared to the 1970's, we have computers now to program computers, they do it better than the worst engineers and programmers. This is annoying to us, who take pride in being smarter and more efficient. Also: old stuff is clunky, boring to many. Those are the counter-arguments. Herb Johnson -- Herbert R. Johnson, New Jersey USA http://www.retrotechnology.com OR .net

2 2

Auction update
by Evan Koblentz 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

Bidding on the Apple II is beyond $3,000: http://www.ebay.com/itm/191890608380 Sol-20 is around $1,200: http://www.ebay.com/itm/191890605553

1 0

efficiency, put another way
by Dave McGuire 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

[sorry if you see this twice; I sent it to the "old" list in error] To put the efficiency argument another way.. It seems we (the larger "we", societally) have called into question the basic value of efficiency. Is efficiency inherently valuable? I say it is. Many people, however, say it isn't, or at least imply that it isn't, because they say things like "RAM is basically free, so it doesn't matter". (Evan, I know you were speaking as devil's advocate there) The problem is, these people are gratuitously and cavalierly stating that efficiency is no longer important in order to excuse themselves from having to know what they're doing, to absolve themselves of responsibility for creating crap results (crappy software, etc), or to give themselves an "out" by justifying their laziness. I assert that efficiency is inherently good, and laziness is inherently bad. These assertions are, I firmly believe, beyond question. -Dave -- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA

4 4

Re: [vcf-midatlantic] efficiency, put another way
by Brian L. Stuart 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

Neil Cherry wrote: > Fast (amount of time to do), Good (quality, meets > requirements), and Cheap (overall cost). Pick any 2 I've heard this all my life, but it not really true. To some degree it does say something about the finished product, but it doesn't extend to the process of creating that product. No amount of money will buy time. Throwing more people at a project won't make it happen any faster. The reality is that you can either say what or you can say when, but you can't say both. The greatest project failures I've seen all come down to someone who can't design their way out of a paper bag thinking they can manage their way around this fundamental law. If you like, think of it like the uncertainty principle for project management. The more you know about what is going to be delivered, the less you know about when it's going to be delivered, and vice versa. The effect that the amount of money has on that is lost in the noise. BLS

1 0

Re: [vcf-midatlantic] efficiency, put another way
by VAXman＠tmesis.org 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

Dan Roganti via vcf-midatlantic writes: >=E2=80=8BI think the term "resource-poor" for describing the 60s, >70s=E2=80= =8B or maybe the 80s is inaccurate It is relative, depending >on your viewpoint - if you keep looking from the 21st century viewpoint >But if you were there in the thick of it back then, it was actually the >norm. So you were expected to design with those constraints Constraints >are a fact of life in engineering Dan Especially, the constraints tying you to a desk until the job is complete. ;)

1 0

Re: [vcf-midatlantic] efficiency, put another way
by Dan Roganti 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

I think the term "resource-poor" for describing the 60s, 70s or maybe the 80s is inaccurate It is relative, depending on your viewpoint - if you keep looking from the 21st century viewpoint But if you were there in the thick of it back then, it was actually the norm. So you were expected to design with those constraints Constraints are a fact of life in engineering Dan

2 1

Re: [vcf-midatlantic] efficiency, put another way
by VAXman＠tmesis.org 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

Neil Cherry via vcf-midatlantic writes: >I view efficiency as: > >Fast (amount of time to do), Good (quality, meets requirements), and >Cheap (overall cost). Pick any 2 There's more to weighing in efficiency in today's computing environments than just tossing some faster processor at the problem. Many multiple processors, VLM architectures and NUMA pose issues that can NOT be addressed simply with sloppy programming masked/cured by faster processing. However, if you and or your programmers only have experience with simple desktop type systems, these issues are as foreign a concept as tensor calculus is to a grade schooler. I have seen applications in such environments, well written too, degrade rather quickly because someone configured the environment without consideration for and of the ramifications of these modern system aspects.

2 1

Re: [vcf-midatlantic] efficiency, put another way
by VAXman＠tmesis.org 08 Jun '16

08 Jun '16

Dave McGuire via vcf-midatlantic writes: > I assert that efficiency is inherently good, and laziness is >inherently bad. These assertions are, I firmly believe, beyond >question. Dave for President!

1 0

Fully working Woz-signed straight Apple 2 + Lee F.-signed Sol-20 for auction
by Evan Koblentz 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

VCFed is doing some fundraising. We're auctioning a fully working and Woz-autographed straight Apple II * and * a fully working and Felsenstein-autographed Processor Tech Sol-20. Both computers are SUPER-CLEAN. Apple II: http://www.ebay.com/itm/191890608380 Sol-20: http://www.ebay.com/itm/191890605553 We're using eBay to maximize the value since we're a non-profit. Have fun!

3 4

Re: [vcf-midatlantic] Fully working Woz-signed straight Apple 2 + Lee F.-signed Sol-20 for auction
by Systems Glitch 07 Jun '16

07 Jun '16

> Be sure to drink your Ovaltine? That's it? > A stinken' commercial? Careful, you'll put your eye out! (Amy and I laughed) Thanks, Jonathan

1 0