Somewhat O/T - eBay slowness?

The issue with E-Bay is mostly due to their heavy use of Adobe Flash Player 10. That's what sucks up all that CPU since regular HTML rendering takes a trivial amount of CPU and memory capacity. This issue can also be impacted by how well the Adobe Flash Player interacts with your browser and OS. I'm running Safari 4.0.3 on Snow Leopard 10.6.1 with Adobe Flash Player 10 and it's very responsive, even with multiple tabs open with other tabs running video streaming. This was not the case with Snow Leopard 10.6 (RTM) and the previous version of Safari. The current Safari/Flash 10 combination is now noticeably faster than the Firefox/Flash 10 combination on my Mac. On my Windows 7 (RTM) netbook running Chrome 3 with Flash 10, E-Bay's site is downright snappy even with a measly Atom processor and only 2 GB of RAM.

I guess you can blame E-Bay for putting a lot of Flash content on their web site. But more and more sites are doing it in their quest to provide a slicker and more visually appealing user experience. This just means that you'll need a reasonably fast computer with as much general purpose and video processing capacity and memory as you can stuff in it and as fast of an Internet connection as you can afford if you want to enjoy the (or being subjected to) the online experience that web sites are providing these days. Then you have to find the right combination of operating system, browser, and flash player plug-in (which in turn is also dependent on the underlying Java runtime environment) to get everything running smoothly. Then you have to hope that one of the many system, browser, and plug-in updates that are getting pushed down to your computer doesn't break the magic combination that works well.

Keep in mind that these big browser plug-ins, like Adobe Flash (and AIR), Microsoft Silverlight, and JavaFX are really like small operating systems. That's "small" by today's behemoth OS perspective. By legacy OS standards, they are larger than most older operating systems. The system requirements for some of these plug-ins may exceed the system requirements for your base operating system.

I worked in the mainframe computer field for over 25 years. It is hard for me to comprehend the amount of resources it takes to run a single user PC. I can remember when an entire corporation could run on an IBM mainframe with only 16 meg (not GIG, but MEG) of memory. The operating system, to handle hundreds of users and run batch programs, only took up about 8 meg. Our online programs were designed to be no more than 12k in size.

The amount of resources required to run a PC have simply gotten out of control. Because of my situation (spending time in multiple locations) I still use a dial-up connection, which allows me to only pay for one account and access it anywhere. eBay is no longer an option as the response time and memory required far outpaces the machines I dedicate to the internet.

A single IE 6 session on my PC uses close to 500 meg just to access eBay. And pegs the processor at 100%.

I use old machines that others no longer want in order to access the internet. My internet machines are occassionally replaced with "newer" machines when they become available. I don't do anything fancy, so they should be fine. However, the resources required (for both the operating system and web sites) have now far outpaced the power of any of these machines. Most will go to 256 meg of physical memory, which is simply not enough.

My first machine was a 486/33 running DOS with 8 meg of memory. Except for upgrading to 32meg years ago, and adding in larger (2 gig) hard drives, I still use that machine for all personal record keeping. And you know what? It still does all I need and more running DOS and Windows 3.1. I have tons of unused disk space, the machine NEVER crashes and the software is old enough that you can still understand most of the functions.

There is clearly a need for an ongoing maintainable operating system and internet browser that don't require NASA sized supercomputers to do simple tasks. Computers are being thrown away that are perfectly good, yet the software makes them obsolete.

In the mainframe world, we used to have to write programs to run within the capabilities of the machine. In the PC world, the user is forced to buy more and larger hardware to run the programs. In the mainframe world, a program written 40 years ago will still run on today's hardware and software. In fact, new software often results in better memory usage. In the PC world, a new operating system may well mean those old programs are obsolete.

It's insane.

Too funny Joe. I understand your sentiment. My original PC, which was equipped with a 30 Meg hard disk would today hold a whopping 3 or 4 high fidelity MP3 files. A 40 pound beast for playing less than half an LPs worth of music. Only trouble is, the pokey old 8088 wouldn't be up to the task of decoding the files, much less driving the audio circuitry at a data rate fast enough to produce decent playback quality. A modern PMP like the iPod Touch, which is running a fairly beefy version of OS X, which is built on Unix, and the Zune HD which has a multi-core are full blown multi-processor equipped computers that are orders of magnitude faster than my first PC and fit in my pocket. So there are reasons for bringing more power to bear in computing. Yeah, a 1950s record player can serve this application using vinyl platters with grooves stamped in them. No gigabytes and gigahertz involved but it won't fit in your pocket, especially if you have several dozen albums you want to carry around with you all the time.

Bottom line is that it all comes down to what you want to do with a computer. If you have a 1970s vintage mainframe computer in your garage and just need to run 1970s applications, and don't mind the power bill, then there is no compelling reason to update your setup.

If you can figure a way to run You-Tube from a teletype terminal and do email using punch cards, now that's something I'd like to see.

Clearly there have been technological advantages of which you SHOULD be able to take advantage. But the problem, as I see it, is that you are being FORCED to use them (if you want a computer).

My old 486 simply doesn't have the power to do all sorts of fancy things, like streaming video. But it has more than enough horsepower to do what I bought it to do; run a word processor or spreadsheet, play a CD or play (older) games. It doesn't need to be a combination of every electronic gadget on the market.

However, if I were to try to buy some software today to use on that machine, I would be out of luck. Why does a word processor or spreadsheet need a multi-gigahertz processor and a couple gig of memory? Sure the new programs may do more, but I don't need the features and probably don't want them.

Do you know anyone who knows more than 10% of the functions available in Microsoft Office?

Windows 95 was the big jump up from DOS/Windows. But all the releases after that may have added lots of whiz-bang features, but the basic functionality is all that I every really needed. All I would have asked for is that each new release of the operating system be more stable and more efficient. Isn't that what we ask of every other applicance we own?

An internet browser that allowed the user to turn off features of a webpage would permit more computers to access the internet. I started accessing eBay with a P233 with 32 meg of memory and got fairly decent response time. What I got then would do me just fine today. Whatever it is that is causing eBay (and other sites) to demand more and more resources is something I don't need. I really do not see where my enjoyment of eBay is enhanced.

Most of us probably forget just how small DOS and Windows 3.1 really are and the low resources they required. When Windows 95 came along, I was surprised that it took over 100 meg of storage to load. I now understand that the new Windows 7 may take as much as 8 gig of storage. DOS could run in 1 meg of memory, Windows 3.1 wanted only 4 meg. Windows 95 wanted at least 8 meg of memory. I guess Windows 98 wanted a little more. I now use Windows 2000 on my internet machines and 256 meg isn't enough. I'm sure XP and Windows 7 want multi-gig memory. The resource reqirements have jumped beyond belief.

So, until an operating system and browser come along that will actually do just the basics, my internet access will be limited to those sites that allow me to use the machines and software I already own.

Joe

Gee, it's kinda like government, ain't it?

I ran into a guy that had been in computers for over thirty years.
He told me what he was currently running and about all the advancements that were coming.
I said, you know it's funny, but back in 95, I had to wait about 3 minutes for my 486 to load up where I could start using it.
Today, I still gotta wait about the same time for my average computer to run today.
Then, I could browse the internet on dial up, it would take about 10 to 15 seconds for a page to load.
Today, it seems about the same speed with a cable connection.
Then, the Pentiums were coming out.
I guess we were all excited about the prospect of computers reacting to us as fast as we could think.
I guess that's just never going to happen.

Windows 98 rules.

Rich

Corporate PCs are always bloated up with all kinds on "inventory control" and configuration management software, plus all the services for connecting to the corporate LAN and domains.

Win7 on my netbook booted from cold iron to login prompt in 26 seconds and is ready to go with the full desktop running in 51 seconds, which included the time it took me to login. This is a low end box. On a faster, higher end multicore PC (like a $400 bargain box PC) I'd expect it to be even faster.

When looking at old PCs you also have to keep in mind that you probably paid a lot of money for precious RAM and hard disk space back then. Today, 2 gigs of RAM will set you back $80 and a 1.5 terrabyte hard disk, all of $125 (this month - next month it will be less). Hardware costs have plummeted dramatically and the hardware itself has become commodity. Even low end gaming video cards have 512 meg of RAM, with high end cards having 2 gigs. Unless you're a hard core gamer the greatest expense in a Windows based home PC is or will soon be the software, with the OS itself being a big part of the total software cost.

Joe, I know you'll be disappointed to hear that Win7 (64-bit) can only take 192 gigabytes of RAM. I know, disappointment is hard to swallow. Someday the 128 bit systems arrive and we'll be able to break free from the nasty 192 gigabyte bottleneck. It will happen, be patient.

You guys crack me up! Yeah, I REALLY miss the days when I was surfing the web in text on my 2400 baud modem. Those were the good old days. Waiting in line at the VAX lab to get a paper done? Awesome! Spending $300 on a single speed CD-ROM drive? Not so priceless!

I love hearing the old guys say everything was better... those 5 guys that knew how to use the mainframe only took up 8 K of space, as long as your punch cards were in order. Records sounded better, people were friendlier, poop smelled like roses.....

The first PC I bought actually cost me $1700, it was a 486-33DX (math co-processor built right in, woohoo!) with 2 MB RAM and a 170MB hard drive which friends said I would NEVER fill up. I recently built up a mini server to do some virtual computing work for $250 and it will run Windows XP, Windows 2003, and Ubuntu Linux at the same time with no problems at all.

So yeah... sign me up for some of that old school slowness any day of the week, with regards to the good old days of computers.... they can stay right there.

Just tell the million other tools, you guys included, to stop trying to find deals on my slotcars!