Yes, of course. The point of my heavy-handed post was to try to find out what is actually going on here. Does this person have any insider info? Or are they (as many are in the discussion, and as I suspect is the case here too - but I am going only on the balance of probabilities!) just using this as an opportunity to relate this to their own grievances, so they can discuss those?
We've only got one side of this particular story, we don't know what happened from the other person's point of view, we don't know what form this HR complaint took - or any of the other details. We can bet, just as I did in my last paragraph, but in my view the odds are more questionable and the topic more likely end up as unproductive venting. Any good comments will get lost.
Still, it's also true that the link is just there as a starting point for discussion, and the discussion can take any forms that the readership would find interesting.
It’s also super rude to make claims as to what occurred and why in any situation you yourself were not privy to or involved in but I don’t see you rushing in with the same vigour to point that out.
Yes. Seems pretty clear from the post to me that they are making assumptions based on a similar event in their past, not that they were involved first hand in this event.
In many (most?) salary jobs, employees are typically paid both to get the job done, and to supply at least N hours of their time for the company to have them use as it sees fit.
If you used them when they were current, the emulator experience is never quite the same. The input latency is always detectably worse, especially without a CRT (and even now you're no longer 15-25 years old), and there's always at least a bit of sound latency. Also, you're using a modern keyboard and mouse.
On the flip side, all the original hardware is now ancient and at least somewhat broken (or going that way), and it's a pain to keep it running as an ongoing prospect. CRTs, floppy disk drives, floppy disks, hard disk drives, key switches, mice with balls, aging capacitors, batteries, little plastic bits inside the keyboard that you didn't even realise were there until they crumbled into dust - they all go bad in the long run, and the repair always eats up at least a bit of time. (Even assuming it's actually repairable! Battery damage can be literally unfixable. Parts supply generally can be an issue. Mouldy floppy disks are time-consuming to rescue, and can damage the drives as you attempt it. Those little plastic keyboard bits are theoretically 3d printable, but you'll need to figure out what shape they were originally and how to glue them into place. And so on.)
The long-term prognosis for modern computers is uncertain too - but the nice thing about them is that you can always just buy another one. Turns out they're always making more of them!
> On the flip side, all the original hardware is now ancient and at least somewhat broken (or going that way), and it's a pain to keep it running as an ongoing prospect
Fortunately there are FPGA implementations, though you might want a non-USB gamepad and keyboard, and a CRT (or maybe a 120Hz or better HDMI display?) to get closest to the original performance.
Assuming they’re not doing any kind of fancy processing and are just pumping data straight to pixels, shouldn’t some OLED displays now be capable of latency close to that of CRTs?
That’s not the whole picture. I have a “mini Mac” I built that runs BasiliskII directly on a Raspberry Pi 3’s framebuffer (using SDL on a directly attached LCD) and the thing is _much_ faster and snappier than the SE/30 it sort of looks like.
Were it not for the size (it’s 1/3 scale, so the screen is tiny), it would be pretty “usable” with Word and Excel.
Yup. I've got quite the collection of old computers, including all that were mine in the past, dating back to my Atari 600 XL, Commodore 64 (several of these), Commodore 128, Commodore Amiga 500 and then a few others I collected throughout the ages: a cool Texas Instrument Ti/99-4a (had one for a few days in the past so I had to get one), a Macintosh Classic (as in TFA), the little Atari Portfolio that young John Connor uses in Terminator 2 to hack doors (I had to have one), etc.
But these are complicated to keep working, especially when you know nothing about electronics.
As the years are passing by, fewer and fewer of these are still working (yup, I did remove the batteries when applicable). And they don't bring much, if anything, compared to a modern one.
My most prized possession is however a vintage arcade cab, complete with its CRT screen and both original (and bootleg) vintage PCBs and a Raspberry Pi with a Pi2JAMMA (an arcade cab standard) adapter and thousands of arcade games on MAME.
There's something about an actual arcade cab with a CRT and proper joysticks that a modern PC with a 4090 GPU cannot reproduce. Say playing Robotron 2084! with two 8-directions joysticks (one in each hand): that's simply not an experience you get on anything else but a proper full-sized arcade cab.
Even kids, who have no nostalgic appeal to vintage arcade cabs, are drawn to that thing.
That cab I plan to keep working for a very long time. But all my 8 bit and 16 bit computers? I'm not so sure.
Because enough people clicked the flag link. If enough of them click the flag link on this one, it'll get flagged too!
Flagging is there for stuff that's off-topic or generating low-quality discussion in the views of the people clicking the flag link. Sometimes the admins will step in to unflag the article if it looks like neither of these apply, and/or if it would be helpful to have a containment topic for discussion of a particularly popular contentious topic.
Tautology isn't a useful reply to this question. At best it's a distraction, and at worst deflection. That people clicked the flagged link is already apparent by virtue of the post having been marked as flagged. That doesn't engage with why it was flagged.
I disagree, but maybe if I elaborate (as perhaps I should have done) it'll be clearer. The comment was intended to make two points:
0. the link was clicked by users of the site. The admins claim not to have any influence; I'm sure they do (if they want), but they seem to often enough rescue discussions from the flagged set that we can assume the readership exercises significant influence and there's no shadowy cabal generally trying to suppress wrongthink, as some seem to suppose. (Of course, perhaps there are a lot of people in the readership that are, and maybe they collude, but that is true for everything, and a far less interesting point)
1. if you want to know why the article was flagged, you will have to individually ask the people that flagged it. Sure, if you post the question here, it stands a non-zero chance of attracting the odd comment from these people, but it's quite obviously an inefficient way of finding out. What better ways are there? Well... none, really. But that means the answer is essentially unknowable, and the question barely worth asking.
So with the question barely worth asking - why ask it? It's just a sure-fire way to attract low-quality speculation, that will almost certainly blame it on: well, take your pick! - in some unproductive fashion, probably engendering some ongoing predictable discussion about the current bugbears of cranks of whatever stripe end up joining in.
(Or, suppose the question is posed by somebody unsure how the flag mechanism works: I think my reply actually does cover this case well enough.)
But what if that's not how prayer works? What if rotating the prayer wheels is just as effective as saying the prayers out loud? And what if that effect really can be multiplied up mechanically, somehow, and what if it doesn't actually matter whether people say them out loud or not? There'd be little reason not to use prayer wheels. And the people using them would be doing the exact opposite of praying less. They'd be praying more!
You're claiming prayers are not real, but then seem not to be following through fully with this, by subsequently assuming that if they were real, it would be inevitable that they'd have to operate in some particular way. But that wouldn't automatically follow. I think this is the reply's point.
My point is that since writing is a human invention (and a recent one at that), having a tradition where you can conveniently multiply your prayers through scripture seems utterly convenient and manufactured
Maybe it's phoning home to verify the app, or whatever it is it does? Launch times for MS Word on my 11 year old Macbook Pro, approx time to the opening dialog:
First run since last reboot: 19 seconds
Second run: 2.5 seconds
Third run after sudo purge: 7 seconds
Maybe it's an artefact of where I live, but the verify step always takes ages. First run of anything after a reboot takes an outlandish amount of time. GUI stuff is bad; Unix-type subprocess-heavy stuff is even worse. Judging by watching the Xcode debugger try to attach to my own programs, when they are in this state, this is not obviously something the program itself is doing.
I think you're right. I rarely use word and so it was definitely running "cold"
I went ahead and did another run and it was much faster. About 2 seconds. So things are definitely being cached. I did a trace on it (Instruments) and there's a lot of network activity. Double the time after sudo purge. There's 2 second of network time where the previous run only spent 1 second. Ran a tad faster when I turned the network off, though ended up using more CPU power.
FWIW, looks to be only using 4 of my 8 cores, all of which are performance cores. Also looks like it is fairly serialized as there's not high activation on any 2 cores at the same time. Like I'll see one core spike, drop, and then another core spike. If I'm reading the profiler right then those are belonging to the same subprocesses and just handing over to a different thread.
For comparison, I also ran on ghostty and then opened vim. Ghostty uses the performance cores but very low demand. vim calls the efficiency cores and I don't see anything hit above 25% and anytime there's a "spike" there's 2, appearing across 2 cores. Not to mention that ghostty is 53MB and nvim is more than a magnitude less. Compared to Word's 2.5GB...
I stand by my original statement. It's a fucking text editor and it should be nearly instantaneous. As in <1s cold start.
Another tip: don't use normal asprintf as-is, but write your own very similar helper!
1. have it free the passed-in buffer, so that you can reuse the same pointer
2. have it do step 1 after the formatting, so the old value can be a format argument
3. when getting the size of the full expansion, don't format to NULL, but do it to a temp buffer (a few KB in size) - then if the expansion is small enough, you can skip the second format into the actual buffer. Just malloc and memcpy. You know how many chars to memcpy, because that's the return value from snprintf
reply