John Carmack suggests the world could run on older hardware - if we optimized software better

[noblody]

I'd be perfectly OK with less software; that is of a higher quality, than the deluge of absolute trash we have today.

Strangely, the lack of modern coding language and lesser hardware did NOT stop companies and individuals from putting out metric TONS of software int eh 80s and 90s. All the "productive boosting" has resulting in is ever inflating lead times, development delays, and wasted productivity on garbage like micro transaction stores or worthless DRM that doesnt work.

I have fond memories of the games I played on the Z80. Recently, I revisited some of those old titles and they were still fun, but the experience just doesn’t compare to modern games. I also replayed NFS: Porsche Unleashed (which I really enjoyed back in the day). I remembered it having stunning visuals and great handling, at least by NFS standards. But replaying it now, it felt far less impressive, mostly because I'm comparing it to today's games. This just goes to show how gradually software evolves. It can feel like progress has stalled, but when you look back far enough, the difference is like night and day.

 

[JamesBlond]

He is not wrong, no reason is the world thinks the wrong way around, make something heavier then make something stronger to deal with it, but the truth is if you optimise the software, you can run on older hardware for many many years longer, the only good thing with new hardware is power effciency and density

 

[johnsonlam.hk]

Nothing new, and this is the best practice if the software is better designed and coded, both user interface and the way they work and use less CPU and memory resources, my old friend (should be 77 now) in US did his great DOS UltraDMA driver + cache in less than 8K, why a simple printer driver download more than a Gigabyte?

 

[trgz]

As someone who learnt how to code in machine language, before moving on to assembly, the likes of FORTH, and then compiled code, I always saw how much larger, and potentially inefficient programs were becoming, though tremendously easier of course.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

You don't need to write assembly, good old C++ will do the magic.
People have no idea how bad the code that runs in today's games is.

 

[gamerk2]

You don't need to write assembly, good old C++ will do the magic.
People have no idea how bad the code that runs in today's games is.

It's no so much that the code is *bad* per se, it's that the fundamental design is often lacking.

One trend I've seen across the industry the past two decades is an over-reliance on designing software to conform to OOP principles...even when it doesn't make sense. I've seen plenty of over-engineered software that is almost impossible to debug or understand because it's been so over-abstracted out that no one really understands how it works. There's also going to be an inherent performance penalty with this approach (to what extent depends a lot on what you're doing). It isn't the code is "bad", it's just over-engineered.

 

[Later]

Amen to that brother, look at Linux how nice it run's with no crapware and bloatware in it. Microshait wants YOU to pay for the shait they deliver. They could optimize, but why do that ?

 

[gamerk2]

Nothing new, and this is the best practice if the software is better designed and coded, both user interface and the way they work and use less CPU and memory resources, my old friend (should be 77 now) in US did his great DOS UltraDMA driver + cache in less than 8K, why a simple printer driver download more than a Gigabyte?

Tbf, that driver likely supports multiple families of printers, each with their own differences in internal processing, and almost certainly supports code-paths for multiple OS's (even if only one path is active for any specific OS). Much easier for both the developer and end-user to package it this way.

 

[stewi0001]

Carmack is right. Coders need to optimize and refine better.

Tell that to the corporate overlords who only worship their wallets and stock holders.

 

[LemmingO]

When hardware has limits, software gets optimized. We saw that with old computers like the C64 and ZX Spectrum, with developers creating genuine miracles with minimal hardware capabilities. Consoles were the same... if the lifecycle of a console was 5 years, then the games would be highly-optimized for that platform.

 

[Gezzer]

attempt to mandate hardware DRM locks via TPM at worst.

That's my take. M$ ignored the potential of smart phones and the stores that came with them. Apple and Google are making money hand over fist due to the exclusive nature of their respective stores. So now M$ wants the same thing (always late to the party) and the only way is to lock windows down so we have to use their store for software. TPM 2.0 will let them do just that, and IMHO from win8 on that's been the long term goal.