It's a US thing, but it depends on your ISP. I have Spectrum, which doesn't have data caps, but Xfinity/Comcast caps you at 1.2TB/month, charging $10/50GB after that, or am alternativse, more expensive unlimited plan.
> I always see people remark "wow look how snappy old computers were" when they're essentially built like $10,000 machines if you were to actually have those specs at that time.
But the question is that, if you were to spend $10,000 or more today will you experience the same snappiness.
I would argue that it's impossible to replicate the low-latency experience of "retro" systems today with the overhead of modern software; no matter how much you are willing to spend.
Without a doubt in my mind. For fun I do use retro computers to mess around, often on original spinning rust drives while they still live so I do it side by side.
I've been messing around with some PIII laptops with integrated Intel IGPs running Windows 2000, 256MB RAM, old IDE drives. Loads of applications takes 10+ seconds to launch.
Applying effects on many photo editors is crazy slow. Editing photos taken on my camera today is an exercise in patience. It's even slow just panning around.
It can't even playback most of the videos I'll normally watch, even if you do load something like VLC. Not that it really matters, because it can't even draw a 1920x1080 image.
Doing an IMAP sync with even the crappy crypto it can do takes like a minute. You can see it drawing the graphics in the emails line by line. It takes a moment to switch emails. Replying to an email takes a few seconds for the new email window to appear, you can see it drawing the UI while it loads.
Don't get me wrong, sure maybe in notepad.exe there's a few extra nanoseconds between keystrokes. But my machine today (way less than $10k) doesn't really have any lag for the software I run for text anyways.
Next time, complain that your DOS 6.0 can't run Notepad :-) Maybe you paid a fortune for that system back in the 80s.
If I were on DOS, I'd be happy running Borland C++ with 1-2MB of RAM. Even though Ahem 640k ought to be enough for everybody. The lesser the bloat, the better.
Editing, categorizing, archiving, searching, and viewing my photos and videos isn't bloat though, it's one of the major reasons why I have a computer. There's far more to computers than just entering text on a local filesystem and compiling small applications.
Anyone considering to switch should keep in mind that these are projects with very different philosophies.
Neovim is always chasing the shiny new things; while that's exiting it comes with breaking changes, general instability and the possibility of changes that you might not like.
Vim is the exact opposite. You can drop in a .vimrc from 20 years ago it will most likely work fine. It should be noted that this focus on stability does not necessarily constrain innovation (eg. vim9script), it just sets a conservative pace of improvements.
Lsp support is not shiny and new. I’ve used vim for ages and it’s a huge breath of fresh air to use something not stuck 20 years behind. If you’re the kind of guy who turns JavaScript off to browse the web you’re probably someone who will like old antiquated vim. I of course love vim, original or neo, to the fullest. But I'm also saying it was a massive step up in performance, features, and making vim actually behave like an IDE.
reply