On my recent family vacation, my experiment in trying to revive an ancient laptop proved fruitful to a degree and enlightening.
I was able to login, get mail, do a post to the blog, and run some perl scripts I use. I didn't try any extensive writing this outing, but Word 97 seems to be doing fine. The speed in which Windows 95 boots up, even on a lowly Pentium, highlights how fat later versions have become. (Can you imagine how fast Windows 95 would boot on the machines we use now? Has anyone tried this out of curiosity?) Using Windows 95 also highlights how cluttered and complex Windows has become. Granted Windows 2000 on is a true 32 bit OS and I have not had the chance to try out XP, but I have to wonder is all of this heft necessary? To that point, I was quite surprised at how memory intensive, and thus sluggish, Mozilla was. I had expected more since the browser is often touted as the client for lightweight application architectures. I also found what seems to be a bug. Trying to save anything to the file system through the browser -- HTML pages, bookmarks or file downloads -- crashes Mozilla. Also 256 colors seem to not be a concern any longer. Is there a 256 color safe skin for Mozilla? Also of note, I missed the high resolution of my desktop (1600 x1200) and some of the interface refinements in versions that came after Windows 95. I also missed not being able to have my music on my laptop. This has more to do with the 800MB HD and not having a network card or CD-ROM either.
Overall I’m not getting as much as much utility as I had originally hoped, but certainly a fair amount out of a machine that most would considered garbage. At the same time I'm frustrated and disheartened by the general lack of optimization in PC desktop software today that this experiment has illustrated to me. It makes we wish Linux on the desktop was more refined and easier to install. Maybe I should try out OS X. I could audition to do a "switch" commercial for Apple.
Intel missed its numbers this quarter on poor sales. AMD and Transmeta continue to struggle also. Dell is expanding beyond PCs, Gateway is still fighting to be profitable again, and others have failed completely. Entry level brand name machines can be had for just over $500. (See "Computers: Why the party's over".) Microsoft reports a slowdown in the frequency of software upgrades and is tightening the monopoly thumbscrews to get users to upgrade and new licensing plan that will maintain is astronomical revenue stream and cash supply despite the slump. the rest of the software industry isn't as fortunate these days.
It makes me consider have we reached the practical limits for general desktop usage? Do we really need Pentium 4's or have desktop CPUs become "fast enough" for most of us? Have software designers fallen into a because-it-was-there syndrome that current hardware presents? Does Windows need all of these features, options and overhead or are these features an attempt to justify upgrades and new computer sales? What if Microsoft made simple, lightweight and ease-of-use the highest priorities in its product designs? Would their products like Windows and Office still look the same? And more importantly, would customers like me be more happy and willing to spend more and more frequently?
Leave a comment