I'm still constantly baffled by just how absolutely beyond shit modern computers are
@OpenComputeDesign x86 was a mistake? :)
@OpenComputeDesign
16 bit was a mistake?
transistors were a mistake?
how modern are we talking? :)

@kabel42 @OpenComputeDesign

16-bit/early-32-bit was my favorite era. (Basically, the #68k era ;)

Computers were just becoming capable, but not too big for their britches.

@rl_dane @kabel42

Yeah, tbh, we really should have stopped at 32-bit

@OpenComputeDesign @rl_dane I had a good time with my first amd athlon 64 but sure, simpler times :)

@kabel42 @OpenComputeDesign

I think computers were honestly better when they were limited to absolutely no more than 1GB RAM, no more than 256 colors, and no more than 1024x768 screen resolution.

1GB RAM: no LLMs
256 colors: no horrid low-contrast soupy interfaces
XGA Resolution: no horrid empty spaces and bloated interfaces

I keep wanting to make that as an OS 😄

(If only I had the skillz)

@rl_dane @OpenComputeDesign
256 Colours is very limited, but i'd like to see what software would be like if hardware stopped at 1G RAM and maybe 16bit colour :)
And 2 cores, I don't miss not being able to use the comupter while something is compiling

@kabel42 @OpenComputeDesign

> 256 Colours is very limited, but i'd like to see what software would be like if hardware stopped at 1G RAM and maybe 16bit colour :)

16bit color still has the problem of allowing for crappy low-contrast interfaces.
When using palette color, the interface itself must be designed to use as few colors as possible to leave more room for displaying images.

Also, with good dithering at XGA resolutions, depending on the image, it's really hard to tell 8-bit from truecolor

Source: used a computer that was limited to 8-bit color at XGA resolution for many years ;)

Actually, I kinda want to make a challenge on that. I wonder if I can come up with some test images for that. :D

> And 2 cores, I don't miss not being able to use the comupter while something is compiling

If you think you can't use your computer while it's compiling on only one core, then modern kernel schedulers are an abject failure.

I did all kinds of things on my computer while it was crunching away at stuff on Linux circa 2000, and it was more stable than today. :/

@rl_dane

Half agree but, realistically, a scheduler will only get you so far.

@kabel42 @OpenComputeDesign

@pixx @rl_dane @kabel42

I mean, surely they can get us farther than they do. Modern schedulers _SUCK_

@OpenComputeDesign

It's kinda funny that maxing cpu with audio playing results in stutter for me on linux but not on plan9

But I'm not running a datacenter so who cares what i want 😂

@rl_dane @kabel42

@pixx @OpenComputeDesign @rl_dane and schedulers have become more optimized for interactive use in the last decades :)

@kabel42 @pixx @rl_dane

Hard disagree. (as I was starting this reply, my brother asked why I paused the game we were playing, and I said because I had to argue about schedulers. "OH MY FUCKING GOD NO ONE CAN POSSIBLY CLAIM SCHEDULERS ARE GETTING BETTER" -my brother)

Modern schedulers went from slowing down a bit sometimes, to just hard locking for seconds to even minutes on end.

@OpenComputeDesign @kabel42 @pixx

When I was (I think) suffering from SSD failures back in 2019-2020, linux would lock up hard for several seconds at a time when running pacman -Syu.

I understand that (what appears to have been) media failures can really gum up the works of a computer, but for the kernel to lock up THAT hard because of bad i/o contention is just not a good sign.

And I even tried the -rt kernel builds. Scarcely any better.