Date: Fri, 1 Sep 1995 13:05:41 -0800 From: "Jim Howard" <jiho@sierra.net> To: freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Size vs. Speed [WAS: gnumalloc] Message-ID: <199509012134.AA10393@diamond.sierra.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This thread may be a dead horse, but I'm far from through..... As Garrett Wollman asserted: > > Disk space costs less than $1 per megabyte-year, and is continuing to > > drop sharply. Memory costs are still not as low as they once were, > > but demands placed on the system as a result of other hype in the PC > > world will eventually result in more production capacity coming > > on-line. There's not much value in optimizing for space. And I rejoined testily: > Not much value to whom? You make many assumptions. > > Perhaps the key word is "value," on the other side of the coin: > People with a vested interest in propping up profit margins on > hardware want to have the ante continually raised by software. > > There's a point past which the size-per-feature ratio becomes > ludicrous, suggesting either gross incompetence or intent to > defraud. I now feel compelled to add: Besides, it's gotten hard to find slow hardware lately, so I could argue that there's no value in optimizing for speed. One value in optimizing for size--especially where the user sees no detectable impact on speed--is OBVIOUSLY in reduced cost. And that OBVIOUSLY remains true as costs decline overall. The typical microcomputer of around 1980 would practically fit inside a wristwatch today, and cost about two dollars, assuming you could figure out how to interact with it. As I heard it, the 386BSD project was started in 1989 because people saw value in the reduced cost of the PC, versus other hardware platforms. Another value is in making room: for enhanced usability, new capability, and simply more data. As I heard it, that's what computers are all about. --Jim Howard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199509012134.AA10393>