I came here looking for this. It's an old idea, from the days when spinning rust was the limiting factor - precache the binaries.
If you ever tried Office 97 on a PC of 10+ years later, it's amazing how fast and lightweight it was. Instant startup, super snappy. And those apps were not lacking in features. 95% of what you need out of a desktop word processor was in Word 97.
MisterTea · 36d ago
> from the days when spinning rust was the limiting factor
How did we get back to this though? We have gigabytes/sec with NVMe and stupid fast CPU's with at least 4 cores in even low end models. Yet a text editor takes so long to load we need to load it up on boot... Such a frustrating field to work in.
afavour · 36d ago
I know this is such a stereotypical "get off my lawn" statement but we've lost the art of software engineering. It's all about stuffing as many features in as quickly as we can and pushing it out to as many people as possible. Performance is always secondary.
Not that I'm that nostalgic for the old days, we would have been doing the exact same thing if we were able to get away with it. But performance restrictions meant you had no choice but to care. Modern tech has "freed" us from that concern.
trealira · 36d ago
Niklaus Wirth wrote about this in 1995, in his essay A Plea for Lean Software.
About 25 years ago, an interactive text editor could be designed with as little as 8,000 bytes of storage. (Modern program editors request 100 times that much). An operating system had to manage with 8,000 bytes, and a compiler had to fit into 32 Kbytes, whereas their modern descendants require megabytes. Has all this inflated software become any faster? On the contrary, were it not for a thousand times faster hardware, modern software would be utterly unusable.
That said, as someone fairly young, I still don't think that makes it wrong or something only an old man would think. Software seems to perform exactly as well as it needs to and no more, which is why hardware advances don't make our computers run software much faster.
nextos · 36d ago
Aside from slowness, feature creep leads to poor quality, i.e. tons of bugs and user confusion with ever-changing graphical interfaces.
If software was simpler, we could afford to offer some formal guarantees of correctness. Model check protocols, verify pre and post conditions à la Dafny, etc.
There's too much change for the sake of change.
aylmao · 35d ago
> There's too much change for the sake of change.
+1 to this. Like a lot of issues, I think the root is ideological, but this one in particular very clearly manifests organizationally.
The companies building everyday software are ever bigger— full of software engineers, designers and various kinds of managers who are asked to justify their generous salaries. At an individual level I'm sure there's all sorts of cases, but at a general level there's often almost no other option but to introduce change for the sake of change.
chipsrafferty · 33d ago
I once asked a man who worked in marketing why Oreos keep making crazy new flavors like "sour patch kids Oreos" when the normal kind is great and clearly has no issues being sold. I could see some upside - it gets people talking about them, it's fun, it reinforces the normal flavor as the best chocolate cookie, etc. but I was still dubious that those benefits outweighed the cost of developing new flavors in a lab, paperwork for food safety, a new manufacturing process, new ads, new packaging, etc. especially for something temporary.
He said it's often just some new marketing exec wants to put something on their resume, and they have certain metrics that they target that don't necessarily align with long term profits of the company.
I'm sure software has a similar problem.
aylmao · 35d ago
> There's too much change for the sake of change.
+1 to this. Like a lot of issues, I think the root is ideological, but this one in particular very clearly manifests organizationally.
The companies building everyday software are ever bigger— full of software engineers, designers and various kinds of managers who are asked to justify their generous salaries. At an individual level I'm sure there's all sorts of cases, but at a general level there's almost no other option but to introduce change for the sake of change.
etruong42 · 35d ago
This is exactly what I see as well.
At a general level, I believe there are other options - changes/features need to meet some level of usage or it is scrapped out of recognition that supporting all these features make bugs more likely, performance likely to degrade, increase difficulty of adding features, make the product more difficult to use, etc.
etruong42 · 35d ago
> Software seems to perform exactly as well as it needs to and no more
The cynical spin I would put on this idea is that software performs as poorly as it can get away with. MSFT is feeling the need/pressure to have Office load faster, and they will try to get away with preloading it.
Otherwise, there is a strong pull towards bloat that different people will try to take credit for as features even if the cumulative experience of all these "features" is actually a worse user-experience.
naikrovek · 36d ago
software authors that don't care about performance annoy me (and I am an old man.)
The amount of things a computer can do in a single thread are amazing, and computers now have a dozen or more threads to do work. If developers cared about performance, things would easily be 20x as performant as they are today.
I'm not talking about "write in assembly, duh" I'm talking about just doing things intelligently instead of naively. The developers I support often simply are not thinking about the problem they're solving and they solve the problem in the simplest way (for them) and not the simplest way for a computer.
Software is an inefficiency amplifier, because the number of developers for a piece of code is much smaller than the number of computers that run that code; how much coal has been burned solely because of shitty implementations? I'd wager that the answer is "a LOT!"
Even if you don't care about coal usage, think about how much happier your users would be if your application was suddenly 5x faster than it was previously? now think of how many customers want their software to be slow (outside of TheDailyWTF): zero.
languages like javascript and python remove you so much from the CPU and the cache that even if you were thinking of those things, you can't do anything about it. JS and Electron are great for developers, and horrible for users because of that amplification I described above.
I am dead tired of seeing hustle culture overtake everything in this field, and important things, to me, like quality and performance and support all fall straight down the toilet simply because executives want to release features faster.
things like copilot could help with this, i hope. presumably copilot will help introduce better code into applications than a daydreaming developer would, though the existence of vibe coding sort of nulls that out probably.
one thing that AI will do quite soon is increase the amount of software that exists quite dramatically. and I am kinda concerned about the possibility that it's all going to suck horribly.
ppenenko · 36d ago
I commiserate with your frustration with developers writing things suboptimally all too often. However, I disagree with the assumption that it's a JS/Python vs C issue.
Example: when VS Code came out, it was much, much faster, more responsive and stable than Visual Studio at the time. Despite being based on Electron, it apparently was much better on architecture, algorithms and multithreading than VS with its C++ and .NET legacy codebase. That really impressed me, as a C++ programmer.
Overall, it feels like folks who idealize bygone eras of computing didn't witness or have forgotten how slow Windows, VS, Office etc. used to feel in the 90s.
Nevermark · 36d ago
> Overall, it feels like folks who idealize bygone eras of computing didn't witness or have forgotten how slow Windows, VS, Office etc. used to feel in the 90s.
Let’s normalize speed over time like we do dollars, so we are talking about the same thing.
Given the enormous multiplier in CPU and storage hardware speeds and parallelism today vs. say 1995, any “slow” application then should be indistinguishable from instant today.
“Slow” in the 90’s vs. “Slow” in 2025 are essentially different words. Given unclarified co-use pushes several orders magnitude of either speed or inefficiency difference under the rug.
naikrovek · 36d ago
“Slow” is when the human waits on the computer.
The promise of computing is that what was slow in the 1960s and 1970s would be instant in 1990. And those things were instant, but those things aren’t what people did with computers anymore.
New software that did more than before, but less efficiently, came around, so everything felt the same. Developers didn’t have to focus on performance so much, so they didn’t.
Developers are lazy sacks who are held skyward because of hardware designers alone. And software developers are just getting heavier and heavier all the time, but the hardware people can’t hold them forever.
This cannot continue forever. Run software from the 1990s or 2000s on modern hardware. It is unbelievably fast.
Maybe it was slow in the 1990s, sure. I ask why we can’t (or won’t) write software that performs like that today.
The compiler for Turbo Pascal could compile something like a million lines per second in 1990. We have regressed to waiting for 60+ minute C++ compile times today, on even moderate project sizes.
Debugging in visual studio used to be instant when you did things like Step Over. You could hold the Function key down and just eyeball your watch variables to see what was going on. The UI would update at 60FPS the entire time. Now if I hold down that key, the UI freezes and when I let go of the key it takes time to catch up. Useless. All so Microsoft could write the front end in dotnet. Ruin a product so it is easier to write… absolute nonsense decision.
All software is like that today. It’s all slow because developers are lazy sacks who will only do the minimum necessary so they can proceed to the next thing. I am ashamed of my industry because of things like this.
Gigablah · 34d ago
“Developers are lazy sacks who are held skyward because of hardware designers alone”
As a programmer who studied computer and electrical engineering in university, never before have I been so offended by something I one hundred percent agree with
wonnage · 36d ago
Counterpoint: single threaded performance hasn't improved much in the past 20 years. Maybe 5x at best. And virtually every UI programming environment still has problems with work done on the main thread.
DrillShopper · 36d ago
Single thread performance increased every processor generation, and is still doing so today.
(I'm sure someone could dig up more recent graphs, but you get the idea).
In order to get more performance, your app needs to use multithreading.
Nevermark · 35d ago
Too true!
RAM parallel bandwidth, increased caching levels and size, and better caching rules, instruction re-ordering, predictive branching, register optimization, vector instructions, ... there have been many advances in single thread execution since the 90's. Beyond any clock speed advances.
antod · 36d ago
Office 4.3 loading on Win3.1 was glacial. I haven't forgotten.
p_ing · 36d ago
> The amount of things a computer can do in a single thread are amazing, and computers now have a dozen or more threads to do work. If developers cared about performance, things would easily be 20x as performant as they are today.
Why? A good portion of programs are still single-threaded, and often that's the correct choice. Even in games a single-threaded main thread or logic thread may be the only choice. Where multi-threading makes sense it should be employed, but it's difficult to do well.
Otherwise, it's up to the OS to balance threads appropriately. All major OSes do this well today.
ExoticPearTree · 35d ago
I think what the author wanted to say is that because computers are very fast today developers have no incentive of writing optimized code.
Nowadays you just "scale horizontally" by the magic of whatever orchestration platform you happen to use, which is the modern approach of throwing hardware at the problem in the vertical scaling days.
naikrovek · 36d ago
It’s not about programs being multithreaded. It’s about computers running multiple programs at once on different threads and they all perform well.
One can write software that uses the CPU cache in non-dumb ways no matter how many threads your program has. You can craft your structs so that they take less space in RAM, meaning you can fit more in cache at once. You can have structs of arrays instead of arrays of structs if that helps your application. Few people think of things like this today, they just go for the most naive implementation possible so that the branch predictor can’t work well and everything needs to be fetched from RAM every time instead of building things so that the branch predictor and the cache are helping you instead of impeding you. People just do the bare minimum so that the PM says the card is complete and they never think of it again. It’s depressing.
The tools to write fast software are at our fingertips, already installed on our computers. And I have had zero success in getting people to believe that they should develop with performance in mind.
p_ing · 35d ago
So your assertion is that developers should get in a big huddle to decide how they’re going to consume L1 between applications? Which of course no dev has control over since the OS determines what runs and when.
naikrovek · 35d ago
You can make your time in the CPU more efficient by thinking of the cache and the branch predictor, or you can say “nothing I do matters because the OS schedules things how it wants.” Up to you I guess, but I know which of those approaches performs significantly better.
njarboe · 36d ago
My standard is that software should appear to work instantly to me, a human. Then it is fast enough. No pressing a button and waiting. That would be great.
naikrovek · 35d ago
That is probably the correct measure. If “The Promise of Computing” is ever to come true, people must never wait on computers when interacting with them.
Waiting is ok when it comes to sending batches of data to be transformed or rendered or processed or whatever. I’m talking about synchronous stuff; when I push a key on my keyboard the computer should be done with what I told it to do before I finish pushing the button all the way down. Anything less is me waiting on the computer and that slows the user down.
Businesses should be foaming at the mouth about performance; every second spent by a user waiting on a computer to do work locally, multiplied by the number of users who wait, multiplied by the number of times this happens per day, multiplied by the number of work days in a year… it’s not a small amount of money lost. Every more efficient piece of code means lighter devices are needed by users. Lambda is billed by CPU and RAM usage, and inefficient code there directly translates into higher bills. But everyone still writes code which stores a Boolean value as a 32-bit integer, and where all numbers are always 8-bytes wide.
What. The. Fuck.
People already go on smoke breaks and long lunches and come in late and leave early; do we want them waiting on their computers all of the time, too? Apparently so, because I’ve never once heard anyone complain to a vendor that their software is so slow that it’s costing money, but almost all of those vendor products are that slow.
I’m old enough that I’m almost completely sick of the industry I once loved.
Software developers used to be people who really wanted to write software, and wanted to write it well. Now, it’s just a stepping stone on the way to a few VP positions at a dozen failed startups and thousands of needlessly optimistic posts on LinkedIn. There’s almost no craft here anymore. Businessmen have taken everything good about this career and flushed it down the toilet and turned teams into very unhappy machines. And if you don’t pretend you’re happy, you’re “not a good fit” anymore and you’re fired. All because you want to do your job well and it’s been made too difficult to reliably do anything well.
autoexec · 36d ago
> languages like javascript and python remove you so much from the CPU and the cache that even if you were thinking of those things, you can't do anything about it.
Even operating systems don't get direct access to the hardware these days. Instead a bunch of SoC middlemen handle everything however they like.
nativeit · 35d ago
Wait…those dastardly systems architecture engineers with their decadent trusted platform modules, each with an outrageous number of kilobytes of ROM. They are the true villains of software performance?
naikrovek · 32d ago
that doesn't matter; if you make your cache usage smart and your branches predictable, the CPU will take advantage of that and your program will run faster. It is in the interests of the system and CPU designers to make sure this is the case, and it is.
If you do the things which make your code friendly to the CPU cache and the branch predictor, when it comes time for your code to run on the CPU, it will run faster than it would if you did not do those things.
ralphc · 36d ago
What's your proposal for a "compromise" language between programmer productivity and performance, especially for multiple threads and CPUs? Go, Rust, a BEAM language?
Voultapher · 35d ago
I don't think the tools are the issue here, they are tools you can do good and bad jobs with all of them. What is lacking are the right incentives. The tech market has never been as anti-competitive as it is today. Let's repeal DMCA 1201 and go from there.
naikrovek · 36d ago
Jai seems to be an excellent start. Possibly Zig as well.
Both are written/designed by people who care a lot about application performance and developer experience.
teg4n_ · 35d ago
This is an unserious take. Jai doesn’t even have official documentation and zig hasn’t reached a 1.0 release
naikrovek · 32d ago
I wasn't asked for examples of software that is congruent to whatever definition you want. I was asked for a proposal of a "compromise" language, and I answered that question.
colonial · 36d ago
> presumably copilot will help introduce better code into applications than a daydreaming developer would
Copilot is trained on Github (and probably other Git forges w/o permission, because OpenAI and Microsoft are run by greedy sociopaths.)
I'd wager that the majority of fleshed out repositories on these sites contain projects written at the "too-high level" you describe. This certainly seems to be true based on how these models perform ("good" results for web development and scripting, awful results for C/++/Rust/assembly...) - so I wouldn't get your hopes up, unfortunately.
tough · 36d ago
I dont know if its just the training data, or that CRUD and webapps are more inherently easy to parrot away.
Low level programming means actual -thinking- about the system, resources, and language decisions etc
Even humans struggle with it, Its much easier to build a website than say a compiler, for anyone, humans and llm's included
colonial · 36d ago
That probably plays into it as well. I have yet to see any convincing evidence that contradicts LLMs being mere pattern parrots.
My personal benchmark for these models is writing a simple socket BPF in a Rust program. Even the latest and greatest hosted frontier models (with web search and reasoning enabled!) can only ape the structure. The substance is inevitably wanting, with invalid BPF instructions and hallucinated/missing imports.
tough · 36d ago
imho these tools are great i fyou know what you're doing, becasue you know how to smell test the output, but a footgun otherwise.
It works great for me, but it is necessarily an aid learning tool more than a full on replacement, someone's still gotta do the thinking part, even if the llm's can cosplay -reasoning- now
vacuity · 36d ago
I'm also young and heavily favor simple, quality software. Age is a highly coarse proxy for one's experiences, but in this case I think it has more to do with my personality. I have enough experience in computing that I don't think I'm making demands that are unrealistic, although they are certainly unrealistic if we maintain current incentives and motives.
joelwilliamson · 36d ago
“What Andy giveth, Bill taketh away”
mapt · 36d ago
I saw the writing on the wall when I had to install a couple 150MB IDEs to run 101-level Java programs in the mid 2000's. 150 megabytes. MEGABYTES. I could consume about 1 kilobyte per minute of fantasy novel text in uncompressed ASCI, call it 1/8th that fully compressed. That means this compressed binary you're handing me is around 1.2 billion minutes of work (more if ingesting a novel is faster than writing/testing/debugging a program) for what is functionally a text editor, file manager, syntax library, compiler, and debugger. Pretty sure that got done in 150 kilobytes a generation earlier. A generation later, maybe it will be 150 gigabytes.
Having used it quite extensively (Well, five solid days over two weeks, which is about 1000x longer than most people gargling on the internet), it's surprisingly capable.
Imagine if someone with the same talent and motivation was working on today's hardware.
<aside> Someone on Atari Age wrote a LISP for the same machine.
MisterTea · 36d ago
> I know this is such a stereotypical "get off my lawn" statement but we've lost the art of software engineering.
Indeed. I am sure many of us here are burnt out on bloat. I am also sure many of us want to move to smaller stuff but cant simply because of industry momentum. BUT that doesn't mean the dream is dead, only that we must work towards those goals on our own time. I found Plan 9 and haven't looked back. I can rebuild the entire OS in seconds on a fast machine. Even my little Celeron J1900 can rebuild the OS for several supported architectures in minutes. I can share a USB device seamlessly across my network, PXE booted from a single disk without installing anything. Cat(1) is just 36 lines of C.
There's still hope. Just ignore the industry hype noise and put in the effort ourselves.
ryandrake · 36d ago
And just when we think we can't make software any more inefficient, slow, and bloated, they release things like Electron, where you ship an entire browser with your app! And then when we think it can't even get worse, we have Docker and containers where we ship the entire OS with the application.
I'm looking forward to when app developers ship you an entire computer in the mail to run their text editor.
bloomca · 36d ago
The problem with Electron is that business-wise it is an excellent decision. You can get by with a few people to wrap the web app and integrate it with the OS, and then get updates pretty much for free.
Yet for the user it is bad -- bloated, slow, feels non-native, has specific bugs which are hard to address for the devs, etc.
I don't see any light for the desktop UI development unless there is some lightweight universal rendering engine. Tauri with WebView is somewhat promising, but it has problems on Linux and it is hard to target older systems.
ryandrake · 36d ago
It's a pretty OK example of a negative externality. A little like polluting: Just dumping your waste into the environment is business-wise an excellent decision. You avoid the cost and everyone else has to deal with the downsides.
bloomca · 35d ago
Polluting is indeed an excellent business decision. The thing about apps is that all of them are polluting, just some of them are worse than others. And we tend to fill all available resources, so over time it only gets worse.
bigstrat2003 · 36d ago
It's an excellent business decision... right up until your customers abandon you because you make bad quality software. Like many businesses have found time and again, deliberately sacrificing quality for profit is a short term gain for a long term loss.
tekknik · 35d ago
there are quite a few examples of software built with electron that have very large user bases. this sounds like a personal vendetta against electron rather than meaningful insight.
LuciOfStars · 35d ago
Electron is horrid, but as a user, I prefer bloated "apps" to no support at all.
I love that I work at a place (Row Zero) where caring about performance is baked into the culture, and I can spend days fixing weird perf edge cases our users discover without management asking why I'm wasting my time. And it's office software, no less!
zer00eyz · 36d ago
>> It's all about stuffing as many features in as quickly as we can...
The problem isn't "engineering" the problem is the culture of product management. (Note: NOT product managers per se).
I ask this basic question, how many Directors, VP's or CPO's do you know who got their job based on "cutting out unused features"? If you can find one, it will end up being the exception that proves the rule. The culture of "add", "new" and "shiny" doesn't reward keeping things lean and effective. T
In the tangible world we look to accountants for this sort of thing (because they tend to have costs). Think cheap Costco hotdogs and free cookies at Double Tree. No one in product, dev and accounting is going to sit down and try to justify loosing some code, features and maybe a few customers to make it faster when you can just "engineer" you way out of it and not have to sell less is more.
zero_bias · 36d ago
> I ask this basic question, how many Directors, VP's or CPO's do you know who got their job based on "cutting out unused features"?
Google goes a step further and kills entire apps
LuciOfStars · 35d ago
Moment of silence for Play Music. YT Music isn't any less awful now than it was a decade ago.
bigfatkitten · 35d ago
Ford does. They look at connected vehicle telemetry to strip out features nobody uses in order to save software maintenance, hardware and third party IP licensing costs.
My personal theory is there is a threshold of performance. Below the threshold the experience is bad enough it affects revenue so getting the program up to speed becomes a priority. Above the threshold only features are prioritized to drive more revenue. That's why despite computers getting orders of magnitude faster computer programs seem to run about the same speed.
nativeit · 35d ago
I think the threshold is more about how much more rent can we seek to collect from users, and making things more performant or ergonomic doesn’t do anything to allow sales to add another 10% to the per-user subscription pricing (I assume this is a product with per-user subscriptions, even though it’s almost certainly unnecessary).
But adding yet another gateway to ChatGPT’s API…that’s a $15/mo/user add-on right there, and not just a monkey, but one of the slower intern monkeys, could write the code for such an incredibly innovative and, there’s no other word for it, powerful new feature that everyone should be thrilled to pay for at a 200-300% (or more!) markup.
So guess who gets that VP of New Bullshit Development position, and guess what kind of choices get reinforced?
(EDIT: grammar)
acdha · 36d ago
How does someone get promoted at Microsoft? How do they avoid being seen as a low performer?
Performance just isn’t on that list, and it’s often more and harder work than a given new feature took to create. Office users are getting what Microsoft is designed to deliver.
No comments yet
ambicapter · 36d ago
I really don't think we've "lost it", I think performance has just not been a consideration in the engineering of Office for a long time, if ever.
No comments yet
trinsic2 · 34d ago
> I know this is such a stereotypical "get off my lawn" statement but we've lost the art of software engineering.
Absolutely this. I think this is evidence that points to modern civilization starting to collapse. When we can engineer correctly, we're fucked.
90s_dev · 36d ago
> we've lost the art of software engineering
Yes! This is what all my projects are geared towards restoring. The big one is not quite ready to announce yet, but I am very proud of it, and extremely excited to release it, to solve exactly that: it makes engineering fun again!
makapuf · 35d ago
Well that username matches
ysofunny · 36d ago
we don't have software engineering anymore than the romans had civil engineering
we now DO have civil engineering but that is it
gwbas1c · 36d ago
It was always like that
Salgat · 36d ago
It's a matter of resource allocation. Lowering your design requirements for performance can save significant developer cost. Also, Word in 2025 is doing a lot more under the hood than 97.
Workaccount2 · 36d ago
I'll take the hate for this, but I have been using gemini to build narrow scope apps and they are extremely fucking fast compared to their bloated software package suite $200/user/month counterparts. It's amazing how fast and efficient programs can be when not trying to cover every use case for every possible user at every possible moment on top of a sea of tech debt programming.
While true LLMs fall flat on their face when fed massive codebases, the fact of the matter is that I don't need a 200k LOC program to accomplish a single task that an LLM can do in 2k LOC.
To give an example, we have proprietary piece of software that is used to make (physical) product test systems using flow charts and menus. It's expansive and complex. But we don't need it when we can just spend 30 minutes prompting your way to working test code and it produces way faster and more robust systems.
Maybe the devs of that software package cannot dump that whole codebase into an LLM and work on it. But they are completely missing the forest for the trees.
tharkun__ · 36d ago
I will make this analogy:
Have a large ZIP file. Preferably like a few gigs and lots of (small) files.
Try to open it with the built-in Windows 11 tooling from Microsoft. It's going to be super slow to even show anything never mind unpack it.
Now install say 7-zip and do the exact same thing(s) and it's going to be instant opening and unpacking it takes a much much smaller amount of time (only limited by disk speed).
Turns out optimizations / not doing stupid things is still a thing even with all this raw power we now have.
jlarocco · 36d ago
Because an entire generation of developers and their managers believe the hardware is so fast there's no point trying to optimize the software.
Besides, the only thing that matters is getting tickets "done" before the arbitrary sprint deadline in 2 weeks, so best not to spend any extra time cleaning up or optimizing the first thing that works. You can't think about performance until the sprint dedicated to performance.
boringg · 36d ago
100% thought process is: why waste internal resources on speeding up software when the user has enough hardware to manage the workload.
codr7 · 36d ago
Battery use is a pretty big concern these days; also, some users like running several things at the same time.
hunter2_ · 35d ago
For the local OS and sustained workloads like video playback, yes, battery optimization is huge. For an individual app with bursty compute, less so, plus some of that inefficient code can run in the cloud instead, which is costly, but premium subscriptions can pay for it, and power plants are now colocated with data centers so power transmission cost is negligible. The incentive to be efficient is insufficient.
prussian · 36d ago
I think people forget that some of this software may be relatively fast. The problem is, most corporate environments are loaded up with EDRs and other strange anti-malware software that impede quick startup or speedy library calls.
I've seen a misconfigured Forcepoint EDR rule block a window for 5 seconds on copy and paste from Chrome to Word.
Another example: it takes ~2 seconds to run git on my work machine
(Measure-Command { git status | Out-Null }).TotalSeconds
while running the same command on my personal Windows 11 virtual machine is near instant: ~0.1 seconds.
Still slower than Linux, but not nearly as bad as my work machine.
No comments yet
bigmattystyles · 36d ago
Telemetry, syncing to the cloud by default…
dagmx · 36d ago
Neither of which contribute significantly to size though. The size aspect is what these new preloaders would help with.
2OEH8eoCRo0 · 36d ago
We stopped developing for users/customers and instead added layers to make developer lives easier.
Why the hell are all my desktop apps written in JS now?!
cogman10 · 36d ago
> Why the hell are all my desktop apps written in JS now?!
Have you seen the state of pretty much every non-js UX framework?
That's why.
JS/css/html won the UX domain in a way that no other language comes close to. If you look at the most recent most modern UX frameworks, they are often just half implemented poor mimics of the js/css/html stack with approximately 0 devs writing new 3rd party extensions.
Intellij uses swing, SWING, as it's UX. A framework written in the 90s filled with warts. Yet, it's still a better experience than the more recent JavaFX experience. Swing simply has more support.
ezst · 36d ago
Call me an idiot, but I still gladly take Swing and javafx over JS and monstrosities like react. The state of Qt is also very good. Web won because the distribution model is easier on the user, and because managers thought UX designers would be making whole apps now, saving on rates. Not because it's technically superior.
cogman10 · 36d ago
You're not an idiot for liking the Swing/javafx/QT way of doing things. Or even for thinking they are technically superior.
The bigger issue isn't the tech, it's the ecosystem. While you might like swing, you simply are never going to find the swing version of Material UI or D3.js. That's more the problem that you'll run into.
For some of our apps because we need charting, we are using GraalJS just to run the JS charting library to export to an image that we ultimately put on some of our downloadable reports. It's a huge pain but really the only way to do that.
ezst · 35d ago
> you simply are never going to find the swing version of Material UI or D3.js. That's more the problem that you'll run into.
I remember a time when having your application look "out of place" was undesired, and the ultimate goal was to be "as native as possible". If you are running a website selling something, I agree that you want a brand-identity and a unique look. But productive software shouldn't require users to adapt to new UX paradigms (guessing whether the cancel button comes on the left or on the right, dealing with slightly do different input method and entry shortcuts…).
Anyhow, I think things could be worse, since, as you say, we can embed a webview into any JavaFX/Qt/… app and get the best of both worlds.
baobun · 35d ago
It's quite something that there hasn't been any real successor living up to Delphi or even goddamn Visual Basic for modern desktops.
stcroixx · 36d ago
Skilled programmers working on boring stuff like office. Most programmers today don't have the skills they think they do and would find working on something like Office boring.
layer8 · 36d ago
Ironically, at the start of my career working on something like Office was my dream, and would actually still be. I reserve to change my mind once I’ve seen the code base, though. ;)
bradley13 · 36d ago
Cruft built on frameworks using libraries with a zillion dependencies, some of which are cruft built on frameworks...
PJDK · 36d ago
So, we often look back on the old days with rose tinted glasses. But let me recount my IT classes from the 90s.
We'd sometimes go to the library to write something up in MS Word. We always liked this because it would be a good 5-10 mins to boot up some kind of basic Unix menu. You'd then select windows 3.1 and wait another 10-15 minutes for that to load. Then you could fire up word and wait another 5 minutes. Then you could do 5 minutes work before the class was over!
sh34r · 33d ago
Well, we networked all the computers together around that time, and it turned out that all the 1337 performance hacking that people did back then had severe unintended consequences. You’re talking about an era in which the NX bit would not be utilized by Windows for another ~7 years. “Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit” was contemporary work.
It’s not rocket science to eke out oodles of performance out of a potato if you don’t care about correctness or memory safety.
Word 97 will only delight you if you use it on an airgapped computer, as a glorified typewriter, never open anyone else’s documents with it, and are diligent about manually saving the doc to multiple places for when it inevitably self-corrupts.
But at that point, why not be like GRRM and write on a DOS word processor? Those were historically a lot more reliable than these second-generation GUI apps.
layer8 · 36d ago
> How did we get back to this though?
By piling up nonzero-cost abstractions left and right.
wk_end · 36d ago
And it's easy to understand how we get into that trap. Each one of those abstractions is very low-cost, so it seems harmless.
And getting out of the trap is hard too, because no single abstraction is to blame - you can't just hit things with your profiler and find the hot spot. It's all of them. So now you either live with it or rewrite an entire stack of abstractions.
lukan · 36d ago
"How did we get back to this though?"
Probably because windows needs to make a connection for every file somewhere else first and wait for the reply, before granting you the advanced software as a service feature called text editing.
It definitely feels like this at times and I fear there is too much truth in my statement.
But it is not just windows only. My old chromebook took seconds to open a folder in the file browser (even if it was already open). But a "ls" on the terminal was instant for any folder. So getting the information was not the problem. But from there to displaying it in a GUI, there seems to be myriads of important (tracking?) layers involved.
7657364574 · 36d ago
My guess is that we're already seeing the consequences of "AI-assisted programming". Just yesterday, Microsoft's CEO revealed that 30% of their code is written by AI.
drjasonharrison · 36d ago
Given the game of telephone which would have to had occurred for that 30% figure to travel from developers up to the CEO, it's probably including things like autocomplete...
The Plan
In the beginning, there was a plan,
And then came the assumptions,
And the assumptions were without form,
And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers,
And they spoke among themselves saying,
"It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said,
"It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying,
"It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong,
Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying,
"It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another,
"It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them,
"It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him,
"This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor
Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan
And saw that it was good,
And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how shit happens.
from anonymous email
Dylan16807 · 35d ago
Interesting that this story is not really a game of telephone, but instead a single layer replaced the meaning on purpose.
codr7 · 36d ago
By software, most of it is probably generated scaffolding.
miunau · 35d ago
There are no financial or career incentives to optimise existing, working things in these institutions. The structures which these large companies use are for people working on new things, so that's what we get. Making office faster doesn't create headlines, but a new product that does the same thing somehow will.
causality0 · 35d ago
Ever notice how Windows 7 and 10 and 11 have basically the same features and benchmark the same on performance tests yet 10 and especially 11 completely shit the bed if you try to run them off a hard drive? Like they might all boot in twenty seconds from an SSD but booting from a hard disk might take W7 two minutes and W11 ten minutes to a stable desktop.
intelVISA · 34d ago
Software 'engineering' is too abstract, yet imagine the outrage if every new highway had a 20km/h limit...
PeterStuer · 34d ago
In the old days there was the saying 'What Intel Giveth, Microsoft Taketh Away'
skywhopper · 36d ago
How much engineering time do you think is spent optimizing startup time on most modern editors? I’m guessing next to nothing.
marcod · 36d ago
"eight megabytes and constantly swapping"
Cthulhu_ · 36d ago
I wish companies would go back to building fast apps, but alas. Everything is feature-packed and requires you to download half the internet.
My intellij license just expired so today I'm back using Sublime Text, and honestly it's a breath of fresh air / relief - and it's not even the fastest editor, iirc it uses Python under the hood. I've installed Zed but getting plugins and keyboard shortcuts all lined up is always challenging. That one took ~2-3 seconds to cold start.
qwerty456127 · 36d ago
> I wish companies would go back to building fast apps
It seems fascinating how much more efficient Windows apps were back in the nineties, capable do to almost everything the same today apps do in a similar manner on orders of magnitude less powerful hardware, often performing even faster.
The last time I expressed this, probably also here, somebody suggested the performance drop is the cost of modern security - vulnerability mitigations, cryptography etc.
dbalatero · 36d ago
I think the performance drop probably has more to do with managers & product folks expecting growth and features at all costs at the expense of keeping performance at some baseline.
I also wonder if it's just harder to continually monitor performance in a way that alerts a team early enough to deal with regressions?
That said, security _can_ impact performance! I work on Stripe frontend surfaces, and one performance bottleneck we have comes from needing to use iframes to sandbox and isolate code for security. Having to load code in iframes adds an additional network load before we can get to page render.
zerkten · 36d ago
I think you need to add that many more developers, or even teams of developers, are building these apps. They have their own fiefdoms and it's less common for devs to have a complete understanding of the code base.
Over time decisions are made independently by devs/teams which cause the code bases to get out of alignment with a performant design. This is exacerbated by the growth pressure. It's then really hard for someone to come in and optimize top to bottom because there is everything from a bug to a design problem. Remediation has significant overhead, so only things around the edges are touched.
Fast forward a couple of years and you have a code base that devs struggle to evolve and add features to as well as keep performant. The causes are many and we come to the same one whether we complain about performance or maintainability. You probably don't feel this way, but Stripe and other premier engineering companies are way ahead of others in terms of their practices when you compare with the average situation developers are facing.
Independent mobile development is often where I see most attention to performance these days. The situation for these devs is a little bit closer to what existed in the nineties. They have a bigger span of control and performance is something they feel directly so are incentivized to ensure it's great.
apricot · 36d ago
> It seems fascinating how much more efficient Windows apps were back in the nineties
I remember everyone complaining about how bloated they were at the time. Pretty sure someone in 2055 is going to run today's Office on 2055 computers and marvel at how streamlined it is.
Illotus · 36d ago
My recollection is completely different, software was really slow on contemporary PCs in the 90s. Spinning disks, single core cpus, lot more swapping due to memory being so much more expensive.
barrkel · 36d ago
Contemporary software was slow. You could tell you should consider more RAM when the HDD light and chugging noises told you it was swapping. But if you ran the same software with the benefit of 10 years of hardware improvement, it was not slow at all.
hedora · 36d ago
This might match your recollection. x86 Win95 raytracing in javascript on my arm laptop is usable, but sort of slow:
It took over 2 minutes to render biscuit.pov, though it did manage to use SSE!
reaperducer · 36d ago
It took over 2 minutes to render biscuit.pov
We used to wait two hours for a mandelbrot to display on a Commodore 64, and were delighted when it did.
spookie · 36d ago
Nah, it's about favouring bad programming practices, not thinking about the architecture of the software and giving developer experience a bigger role than end user experience. All these stemming from a push to get to market earlier or making employees replaceable.
taeric · 36d ago
I'd guess less on "bad programming practices" and more "prioritizing development speed?" Mostly inline with your next point. We value getting things released and do not have a solid process for optimizing without adding new things.
Ironically, it was specifically the longer feedback cycle of long builds and scheduled releases that seems to specifically have given us better software?
spookie · 36d ago
Fair, I just think there is a huge overlap between bad practice and speed of development. The latter fuels the former in many ways.
taeric · 36d ago
Oh, I likely fully agree with you on it. I'm just pointing at the hazard that a lot of these practices aren't, intrinsically, bad. Rapidly getting something done is, generally, a good thing. I'm not entirely sure how to make it not the priority, but it does feel that that is the problem.
ralphc · 36d ago
How much modern security do I need to write & print a term paper or church bulletin on my own computer?
qwerty456127 · 35d ago
This depends on whether you want to exchange data with other computers using even removable media, let alone the Internet. Also whether you want to use Unicode. In case you only want to hand-type, edit and print a plain English paper right away by dumping plaintext/PostScript/PCL to LPT you probably are fine with any computer you can find. It's just nobody is using standalone computers anymore, almost every modern computer is a network device.
toast0 · 36d ago
I mean, as mentioned upthread, Office 97 (and Office 95 before it) was slow to load, so slow that they added the start up accelerator.
You can run Office 97 now and it'll start fast because disk i/o and cpus are so much faster now. Otoh Excel 97 has a maximum of 256 columns and 64k rows. You might want to try Excel 2007 for 16k columns and 1M rows, and/or Excel 2016 for 64-bit memory.
spitfire · 36d ago
The 90s was a time when computers were doubling in speed every 18 months.
I remember office 97* being lightning fast on. A 366mhz celeron - a cheap chip in 1998.
You could build fast software today by simply adopting a reference platform, say. A 10 year old 4core system. then measuring performance there. If it lags then do whatever work needs to be done to speed it up.
Personally I think we should all adopt the raspberry pi zero as a reference platform.
Edit: * office 2000 was fast too with 32 megs of ram. Seriously what have we done?
hedora · 36d ago
Oddly, I remember timing it, and the startup accelerator didn't seem to speed up Office start time. It slowed everything else down though.
I rebooted a lot though (mostly used Linux by then), so maybe it was just fighting with itself when I immediately fired up office after boot.
kyrra · 36d ago
If you like fast apps, maybe check out FilePilot, a Windows explorer alternative.
It's amazingly fast, though it's missing some features and will be really expensive when it leaves beta.
QuicklyNow · 36d ago
I made an account to thank you for this. I've been looking for a _fast_ alternative to explorer since Windows XP. But one that doesn't require a change in workflow. This is the fastest I've tried by far. I've only been using it for 5 minutes, but I'm sold. Earlybird discount too!
Thank you for posting this, and if you have any other speedy apps you'd recommend I'd welcome suggestions. Mine top suggestions are Speedcrunch [0] (calculator app) and Everything [1] file search combined with Listary [2]
Listary has slowed down tremendously ever since they included search. For a launcher I'm still using "find as run robot", which truly is a 90s era piece of softer but works blazingly fast. I do have a plug-in to tie it into search everything.
zerkten · 36d ago
Have you tried xplorer²? I only know about it because I was into Windows programming using the WTL eons ago.
qwerty456127 · 36d ago
In my opinion Total Commander has always been the most ideal (also fast) file management tool since Windows 3.x. It was named Windows Commander back in the days but it still supports Windows 3.x as Total Commander.
vlachen · 36d ago
I never knew it was a Windows program. I've been using it on my Android phones for years.
Oleksa_dr · 36d ago
All of these ‘fast’ file managers have a big problem: they don't support system calls to dialog windows.
Mostly users interact with the explorer in this scenario to open/save a file in ‘BrowserOS’
zerkten · 36d ago
>> they don't support system calls to dialog windows.
It's a little unclear what you mean exactly. Do you want the browsing experience changed for the system's file open/save dialogs? i.e. a third-party file explorer opens instead with all of it's features.
gymbeaux · 36d ago
Do you know how it compares to Dolphin for interacting with very large (100k+ files) directories? Dolphin is the only file manager I’ve found that keeps up with the large directories- GNOME (Nautilus) and Windows Explorer are dogshit slow, even after the file list populates. macOS Finder is somewhere in the middle but still very slow.
When you have 100k+ files sometimes the filesystem itself matters. Have you set your expectations appropriately, aka compared it to a raw ls/dir ?
aloisdg · 36d ago
I like dolphin but pcmanfm is fastet
ct0 · 36d ago
how does it compare to directory opus?
jacurtis · 36d ago
I actually use IntelliJ and Sublime interchangeably throughout the day. I default to sublime for most work because of how snappy fast it is. I only load up Intellij when I need to do something that leverages its full IDE capabilities. To second your comment, I encourage people to try Sublime, you will be shocked at how fast it feels.
I still love IntelliJ, its a great product. But it is slow, bloats the computer, needs constant updating. But at least its incredibly powerful as a tradeoff to the bloat.
The Office debate is slightly different. It is slow, bloats the computer, needs constant updating. But unlike IntelliJ i dont feel that there is any advantage to all that added weight. We are using a word processor. We type words onto a blank screen. Why is Word and Outlook the most common applications to crash my computer that has an M1 Max Chip with 48Gb of Memory? I can literally run and build AI models on my computer with no problem but you boot up Microsoft Word to type words onto a blank page and you have a 33% chance of crashing the computer.
Google Sheets and Docs are actually better tools in my opinion for most people. 99% or more of the features you need are available in the google equivalents. These products are fast and run in a browser! The UI is actually VASTLY superior to Microsoft's ribbon. I still can't find stuff that I need on a routine basis and have to google it. I don't have this problem when using Google's office equivalents.
ben-schaaf · 36d ago
> and it's not even the fastest editor, iirc it uses Python under the hood
The majority of the app is written in C++. Python is used for plugins.
mdhb · 36d ago
Instead they decided to build it with React if I remember correctly which is truly one of the fucking dumbest ideas I’ve ever heard of.
I don't think these apps were ever built to be fast, they were built with the resource constraints of the time. Moore's law is what's making these apps fast.
rollcat · 36d ago
Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh.
This is even more sad with Apple. My M1 Mac felt incredibly snappy with Big Sur, but is getting ever so slightly slower with each update. My iPhone SE2 is a complete disaster.
mleo · 36d ago
They used no networking services either. Now, I open a shared PowerPoint and am stuck waiting for a couple of minutes while it is syncing or doing who knows what. People have no sense of what templates they copy from other documents causing the size of the file and load times to bloat.
formerly_proven · 36d ago
Word 2000 definitely was not very quick on a contemporary office PC (Pentium II or III), though I'm pretty certain it was much, much faster than desktop O365 is on a contemporary office PC today, despite those being >100x faster. So Fermi would estimate modern office to probably require at least 1000x more resources than Office 2000.
citizenpaul · 36d ago
>I wish companies would go back to building fast apps
My prediction is that we are about to enter a great winter of poor performance across the industry as AI slop is put in to production en mass. Along with bugginess that we have not seen since the early dotcom days.
bell-cot · 36d ago
> I wish companies would go back to building fast apps...
Similar to the slow-opening glove box in a car, many humans perceive slow computers & software as a signifiers of importance/luxury/prestige. At least at first. By the time they are familiar with the slow software, and impatient to just get their work done - too late, SnailSoft already has their money.
jonhohle · 36d ago
I always think the same thing. 486s could run real-time spell check and do wisiwig layouts and came on floppy disks. Now we have screen recording apps that require 256MB downloads every 5 minutes (yesterday’s story).
I have a small utility app that I sell and make great pains to keep it small and resource light. I really appreciate when other devs do the same.
hedora · 36d ago
486's were way past when that became practical. I remember using Prodigy on a 286. Screenshots are rare, since you can't fire it up in an emulator unless you have a modem that can make phone calls to the 1980's. Also, machines from back then didn't really have room to store screenshots:
Their service used vector art to render interactive pages like that over <= 2400 baud modems. Other than it being proprietary and stuff, I'm guessing the web would be a much cooler place if HTML hadn't eaten their lunch. SVG is a decent consolation prize, I guess.
ralphc · 36d ago
Let me point you to Prodigy Reloaded, https://github.com/ProdigyReloaded. We're reviving the Prodigy server and as many cache files as we can find, using Elixir as the backend language.
It's not merged yet but I've written an Elixir library that writes graphics files in Prodigy's graphics format, NAPLPS. I'm using it to get current weather and creating weather maps that are displayed in Prodigy.
https://github.com/rrcook/naplps_writer
You can run Prodigy in DOSBox and get screenshots.
donny2018 · 36d ago
Where is that guy who coded RollerCoaster Tycoon in Assembly?
alliao · 36d ago
some of the modern software is slower because someone made a poor decision to fetch something from the network on the critical path of main functionality... kills me
Opening a spreadsheet, even if you don't want to print it, will hang for 30 seconds doing nothing, because LibreOffice will load the printer settings for the document, which means asking the printer, which if the printer is network-based and turned off, means a 30 second wait for a timeout.
This... 100 times. Everyday wastes my few minutes. 5 figure commercial application, state of art in it's domain, but somehow It has to wait for that unresponsive network printer and hang the startup UI.
HideousKojima · 36d ago
Best workaround (still ridiculous that it hasn't been fixed) is to set a PDF printer as your default printer.
hedora · 36d ago
I frequently have to do this for a different reason on MacOS/iOS. Printing directly sends bad PCL to my printer and makes it spew garbage pages.
"Print to PDF -> print the PDF" is much more reliable.
"I was one of the many who reported this problem in one from or another. The problem is Windows-specific. I have found out that the problem actually comes from the Windows print system. There is no way to check that a printer is actually active or working or even present without incurring a long time-out in case the printer is not present or powered. Trying to check the defualt printer will incur the same time-out.
Calc apparently wants to check the printer to know how to construct its layout, and has to wait for the time-out to continue.
Some of the comments that claim that Calc hangs and never returns have probably not waited long enough for the timeout.
On my new Windows 11 computer, this printer system behavior has been changed and I no longer experience a delay while opening Calc."
Twirrim · 35d ago
I don't recall spreadsheets ever having any visible printer formatting until the point at which you print them? So surely it's not even a case of "even if you don't want to print it"?
sgarland · 36d ago
It’s because modern devs by and large have zero concept of latency differences. I had to explain to people yesterday why an on-disk temporary table in MySQL was slower than an in-memory one. “But the disk is an SSD,” was an actual rebuttal I got. Never mind the fact that this was Aurora, so the “disk” is a slice of (multiple) SSDs exposed over a SAN…
osigurdson · 36d ago
Agree. I've heard people say things like "it is slow because it is not C++". When, in reality, the problem was I/O and N^2 algos.
zahlman · 36d ago
I've been trying to impress upon people from my own research in Python packaging: Pip is slow because it defaults to pre-compiling bytecode (and doesn't invoke multiprocessing for that, although this seems to be in the works from the discussion I've seen); imports literally hundreds of modules even when it ultimately does nothing; creates complex wrappers to set up for connecting to the Internet (and using SSH, of course) even if you tell it to install from a locally downloaded wheel directly; caches things in a way that simulates network sessions instead of just actually having the files... you get the idea.
"It's written in Python and not e.g. in Rust" is simply not relevant in that context.
(For that matter, when uv is asked to pre-compile, while it does some intelligent setup for multiprocessing, it still ultimately invokes the same bytecode compiler - which is part of the Python implementation itself, written in C unless you're using an alternative implementation like PyPy.)
osigurdson · 36d ago
There may be a bit of culture at play sometimes as well. If a language isn't meant to be fast, then perhaps devs using the language do not prioritize performance very much. For some, as long as it is possible to point to some externality ("hey this is Python, what do you expect") this is sufficient.
Of course, not always the case. C++ is a good counter example with a massive range of performance "orientedness". On the other hand, I suspect there are few Rust / Zig or C programmers that don't care about performance.
zahlman · 36d ago
To me, Python is more of a challenge than an excuse when it comes to performance.
On the flip side, I've seen quite a few C developers using their own hand-rolled linked lists where vector-like storage would be more appropriate, without giving it a second thought. Implementing good hash tables from scratch turns out not to be very much fun, either. I'm sure there are off the shelf solutions for that sort of thing, but `#include` and static compilation in C don't exactly encourage module reuse the same way that modern languages with package managers do (even considering all the unique issues with Python package management). For better or worse.
(For what it's worth, I worked in J2ME for phones in the North American market in the mid 00s, if you remember what those were like.)
__mharrison__ · 35d ago
Do you have a real world example of a Python project that does selective import?
zahlman · 35d ago
Not sure what you mean, but I guess you're getting at something like "is it really pip's fault that it imports almost everything on almost every run?".
Well first off, pip itself does defer quite a few imports - just not in a way that really matters. Notably, if you use the `--python` flag, the initial run will only import some of the modules before it manages to hand off to the subprocess (which has to import those modules again). But that new pip process will end up importing a bunch more eventually anyway.
The thing is that this isn't just about where you put `import` statements (at the top, following style guidelines, vs. in a function to defer them and take full advantage of `sys.modules` caching). The real problem is with library dependencies, and their architecture.
If I use a library that provides the `foo` top-level package, and `import foo.bar.baz.quux`, at a minimum Python will need to load the `foo`, `foo.bar`, `foo.bar.baz` and `foo.bar.baz.quux` modules (generally, from the library's `foo/__init__.py`, foo/bar/__init__.py`, `foo/bar/baz/__init__.py` and `foo/bar/baz/quux.py` respectively). But some libraries offer tons of parallel, stand-alone functionality, such that that's the end of it; others are interconnected, such that those modules will have a bunch of their own top-level `import`s, etc. There are even cases where library authors preemptively import unnecessary things in their `__init__.py` files just to simplify the import statements for the client code. That also happens for backward compatibility reasons (if a library reorganizes some functionality from `foo` into `foo.bar`, then `foo/__init__.py` might have `from . import bar` to avoid breaking existing code that does `import foo`... and then over time `bar` might grow a lot bigger).
For pip, rich (https://pypi.org/project/rich/) is a major culprit, from what I've seen. Pip uses little of its functionality (AFAIK, just for coloured text and progress bars) and it tends to import quite a bit preemptively (such as an emoji database). It's very much not designed with modularity or import speed in mind. (It also uses the really old-fashioned system of ad-hoc testing by putting some demo code in each module behind an `if __name__ == '__main__':` block - code that is only ever used if you do `python -m rich.whatever.submodule` from the command line, but has to be processed by everyone).
And yes, these things are slow even with Python's system for precompiling and caching bytecode. It's uniformly slow, without an obvious bottleneck - the problem is the amount of code, not (as far as I can tell) any specific thing in that code.
athenot · 36d ago
It's also a Product issue: "fast and snappy" is almost never on their list of priorities. So product managers will push devs for more features, which satisfy the roadmap, and only get concerned about speed when it reaches painful levels.
jMyles · 36d ago
> only get concerned about speed when it reaches painful levels.
...and by then, the requests for performance are somewhere between onerous and ridiculous.
I'm as wary of premature optimization as anyone, but I also have a healthy fear of future-proofed sluggishness.
jeltz · 36d ago
But is it actually faster by any significant amount on your workload? Did you benchmark? Temporary tables in databases rarely actually do disk IO in any blocking code path but mostly just dirty buffers in the OS or in the database itself and then something writes it to disk in the background. This limits throughput but does not add much extra latency in the common cases.
Edit: It still might be a bad idea to waste the IO if you do not have to but the latency of a temporary table is usually RAM latency, not disk latency even for temporary tables on disk.
sgarland · 36d ago
Didn’t have to, prod benchmarked it for us, twice.
If you’re curious, the EBS disks Aurora uses for temporary storage, when faced with a QD of approximately 240, can manage approximately 5000 IOPS. This was an r6i.32xlarge.
My hypothesis is currently that the massive context switching the CPU had to do to handle the interrupts slowed down its acceptance of new connections / processing other queries enough such that everything piled up. I’ve no idea what kind of core pinning / isolation AWS does under the hood, but CPU utilization from disk I/O alone, according to Enhanced Monitoring, was about 20%.
101008 · 36d ago
That is what happens when your dev learnt it from an online course instead of going to college or through proper education. "Anyone can code!"
dns_snek · 36d ago
And I thought we were past this sort of gatekeeping and elitism. I've worked with people who had a master's degree in CS who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. In my experience there's very little correlation between how someone learned programming and how deep their understanding of the entire stack is.
dbalatero · 36d ago
Yeah, deep understanding I think is a matter of how much time you spend investigating the craft and improving. Maybe the real question is: what motivates that to happen? Maybe it's school type, but maybe it's not.
My personal anecdotes, which are music centric but all apply to my software career:
1. I've studied music my whole life, and baked into music is the idea of continual practice & improvement. Because of this experiential input, I believe that I can always improve at things if I actively put a bit of energy into it and show up. I believe it because I've put in so many hours to it and have seen the results. This is deeply ingrained.
2. When I picked up bass in high school, I spent the first year learning tabs in my bedroom. It was ok, but my ability accelerated when I started a band with my friends and had to keep up. I really think the people you surround yourself with can: push you more, teach you things you didn't know, and make the process way more of a fun hang than doing it by yourself.
3. Another outcome from music education was learning that I really love how mastery feels. There's a lot of positive feeling from achieving and growing. As a result, I try to seek it out in other places as well. I imagine sports/etc are the same?
aleph_minus_one · 36d ago
> I've worked with people who had a master's degree in CS who couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag.
"Programming" consists of an insanely large number of isolated communities. Assuming the respective person is capable, I would assume that he simply comes from a very different "programming culture".
I actually observe a very related phenomenon for myself: the more I learn about some very complicated programming topics, the more "alien" I actually (start to) become to the programming topics that I have to do at work.
bsrkf · 36d ago
Hope this doesn't come off as disrespectful, as in that I don't believe you, but out of personal interest, would you consider expanding on that? I'd love to hear about the particular example you were thinking of, or in what ways self-taught coders surprised you over academically-taught ones, if you've had experience working with both over a meaningful span of time. Also, if the case, in what ways self-taught coders were/are maybe lacking on average.
If you've ever given answers to that in another comments on HN or elsewhere, feel free to link.
MattPalmer1086 · 36d ago
It's certainly true in my experience. The main thing that makes a difference is simply how curious and interested you are.
Plenty of graduates simply got into to it to make money, and have no real deep interest. Some of them love the theory but hate the practice. And some of them are good at both of course.
By contrast, self taught people tend to have personal interest going for them. But I've also worked with self taught people who had no real understanding (despite their interest), and who were satisfied if something just worked. Even if they are motivated to know more, they are often lacking in deeper theoretical computer science (this is a gap I've had to gradually fill in myself).
Anyway, the determining factor is rarely exactly how they acquired their skills, it's the approach they take to the subject and personal motivation and curiosity.
bsrkf · 36d ago
Makes sense, out of all the potential differentiators the source of skill attainment simply isn't the necessarily dominant one. Thanks for the answer :)
dns_snek · 36d ago
Not disrespectful at all. I agree with the sibling comments, I think what allows someone to become a great software developer, to have great intuition, and to understand systems and abstractions on a really deep level is their curiosity, hunger for knowledge, and a lot of experience.
There are many college educated software developers who have that sort of drive (or passion, if you will) and there are just as many who don't, it's not something college can teach you, and the same is true for self-taught developers.
At the end of the day "self-taught" is also a spectrum that ranges from people who created their first "hello world" React app 2 months ago to people who have been involved in systems programming since they were 10 years old, and have a wealth of knowledge in multiple related fields like web development, systems administration, and networking. That's why I think it's silly to generalize like that.
Software development is extremely broad so depending on the discipline self-taught developers might not be missing anything essential, or they might have to learn algorithms, discrete mathematics, linear algebra, or calculus on their own. I learned all of that in college but I'd probably have to learn most of it again if I really needed it.
bsrkf · 36d ago
Thanks for the answer, very nice of you to take the time even hours after.
Guess it makes sense; I'm self taught myself, but thought academically taught developers should have a leg up in theory and mathematics, at the same time though, at one point I considered further formal education for myself (in at least paid courses and such), I realized that I don't think there's much I can't teach myself with the resources available (which includes high quality university lectures which are available for free).
Thanks for your perspective.
mbork_pl · 34d ago
Not the GP, but here is my N=1 (N=3, actually, as you'll see).
I have a Master's in Economics. After 3 years of economics, I started a Master's program in maths (back then the Master's degree was the standard thing you achieved after 4.5–5 years of studying in my country, there was basically nothing in-between high school and that). 9 years later I got a PhD in mathematical analysis (so not really close to CS). But I've been programming as a hobby since late 80s (Commodore 64 Basic, Logo, then QBasic, of course quite a bit of Turbo Pascal, and a tiny bit of C, too). I also read a bit (but not very much) about things like algos, data structures etc. Of course, a strong background in analysis gives one a pretty solid grasp of things like O(n) vs O(n log n) vs O(n^2) vs O(2^n). 9 years ago I started programming as a side job, and 2 years later I quit the uni.
I lack a lot of foundations – I know very little about networks, for example. But even in our small team of 5, I don't /need/ to know that much – if I have a problem, I can ask a teammate next desk (who actually studied CS).
Of course, _nemo iudex in causa sua_, but I think doing some stuff on the C64 and then Turbo Pascal gave me pretty solid feeling for what is going on under the hood. (I believe it's very probable that coding in BASIC on an 8-bit computer was objectively "closer to the bare metal" than contemporary C with all the compiler optimizations.) I would probably be able to implement the (in)famous linked list with eyes closed, and avoiding N+1 database queries is a natural thing for me to do (having grown up with a 1 MHz processor I tend to be more frugal with cycles than my younger friends). Recently I was tasked with rewriting a part of our system to optimize it to consume less memory (which is not necessarily an obvious thing in Node.js).
Another teammate (call them A) who joined us maybe 2 years ago is a civil engineer who decided to switch careers. They are mainly self-taught (well, with a bit of older-brother-taught), but they are a very intelligent person with a lot of curiosity and willingness to learn. I used to work with someone else (call them B) who had formal CS education (and wasn't even fresh out of a university, it was their second programming job, I think), but lacked general life experience (they were 5-10 years younger than A), curiosity and deep understanding, and I preferred to work with A than with B hands down. For example, B was perfectly willing to accept rules of thumb as a universal truths "because I was told it was good practice", without even trying to understand why, while A liked to know _why_ it was a good practice.
So – as you yourself noticed – how you acquire knowledge is not _that_ important. IMHO the most important advantage of having a formal CS education is that your knowledge is more likely (but not guaranteed!) to be much more comprehensive. That advantage can be offset by curiosity, willing to learn, some healthy skepticism and age. And yes, I think that young age – as in, lack of general life experience – can be a disadvantage. B was willing to accept even stupid tasks at face value and just code his way through them (and then tear the code apart because it had some fundamental design problem). A, as a more mature person, instinctively (or maybe even consciously) saw when a task did not fit the business needs and sometimes was able to find another solution which was for example simpler/easier to code and at the same time satisfied the actual needs of the customer better.
sgarland · 36d ago
I’ve worked with both (I personally have an unrelated BS and an MS in SWE, which I used purely to get my foot in the door – it worked), and IMO if someone has a BS, not MS, there’s a decent chance they at least understand DS&A, probably took an OS course, etc.
That said, I have also worked with brilliant people who had no formal education in the subject whatsoever, they just really, really liked it.
I’m biased towards ops because that’s what I do and like, but at least in that field, the single biggest green flag I’ve found is whether or not someone has a homelab. People can cry all they want about “penalizing people for having hobbies outside of their job,” but it’s pretty obvious that if you spend more time doing something – even moreso if you enjoy it – you will learn it at a much faster rate than someone who only does it during business hours.
jeltz · 36d ago
Maybe you should skip bashing modern devs and people who learnt from online courses when the parent poster is the one in the wrong. Unless InnoDB has a particularly bad implementation of disk backed temporary tables almodt all disk IO should be done in the background so the latency cost should be small. I recommend benchmarking on you particular workload of you really want to know hur big it is.
I am an old-school developer with a computer engineering degree but many of the old famous devs were self taught. Yes, if you learn how to code through online courses you will miss some important fundamentals but those are possible to learn later and I know several people who have.
We have excellent metrics between PMM and AWS Perf. Insights / Enhanced Monitoring. I assure you, on-disk temp tables were to blame. To your point, though, MySQL 5.7 does have a sub-optimal implementation in that it kicks a lot of queries out to disk from memory because of the existence of a TEXT column, which internally treated as a BLOB. Schema design is also partially to blame, since most of the tables were unnecessarily denormalized, and TEXT was often used where VARCHAR would have been more appropriate, but still.
StefanBatory · 36d ago
I wish. I did my undergrad, and now doing my Masters, at a top 10 uni in Poland.
Trust me so much, some of the stuff I learned there was actively harmful. Half of subjects were random fillers, and so on.
I envy Americans so much with that, their CS education seems to be top notch.
That really should include "sync write 4KB to an SSD". People don't realize it's purely in-RAM on the disk these days (you pay a PCIe round trip, and that's about it).
sgarland · 35d ago
I do want to add that many of the devs I work with and have worked with are genuinely interested in learning this stuff, and I am thrilled by it.
What bothers me is when they neither have an interest in learning it, nor in fixing their bad patterns, and leadership shrugs and tells infra teams to make it work.
mjmas · 36d ago
Opening any ms office app with the network disconnected opens up almost instantly...
deeThrow94 · 36d ago
This is also a classic emacs mistake, so I wouldn't put it all on age.
qwerty456127 · 36d ago
What I am glad to leave behind and forget like a nightmare is Windows local networking with shared folders etc - these never worked nice and the last time anybody I know used these was pre-2010. Today we just use NextCloud, Matrix, email and Git for all our collaboration needs.
vladvasiliu · 36d ago
Who's "we"? I work for a company who drank the MS cool-aid, so running Windows on laptops, using Office365 for e-mail, word processing, spreadsheets, teams for chat, sharepoint / onedrive for shared ressources.
Have you tried launching a local app by typing in the start menu on a default win11 install with limited / slow internet access? Good times. How about doing some operation (say delete an e-mail) in one window of "new" outlook and having the others refresh?
I have never understood how some otherwise reasonable people are able to consider this absolute shitshow of a work environment good enough.
bluedino · 36d ago
A lifetime ago when I was doing MSP work, our law office clients were using the DOS versions of WordPerfect because the Windows version was too slow.
They refused to store files in directories and use good file names (although they were limited to 8.3), so they just scrolled through all their files until they found the right one. But they could open them so fast they didn't care.
In windows you had to use the mouse, click three times, wait for the document to load and render....it was instant under DOS character mode.
layer8 · 36d ago
I agree with the point about the immediacy of TUIs, but I use MS Office (and Windows in general) almost exclusively by keyboard, so the point about having to use a mouse isn’t completely accurate.
bluedino · 36d ago
Right, but you could just hit up/down to scroll through the files in the directory listing. Very simple
layer8 · 36d ago
You can still do that? I mean, there are certainly places where the interaction happens to be more cumbersome than it is in a TUI, because the relevant piece was designed mouse-first. However, one reason I prefer Windows as a desktop UI is that it was designed to be fully operable by keyboard as well.
bluedino · 35d ago
You could see the files as you scrolled through them. I don't think you understood how it works, I didn't do a great job explaining it. You can see the content of the files instantly on the screen as you go through them. Similar to how preview works on Mac
layer8 · 35d ago
Ah, I see. Yeah, that’s more rare to come across on Windows for text documents.
psunavy03 · 35d ago
The worst thing Office ever did was effectively kill WordPerfect, and I will die on this hill.
Reveal Codes was an order of magnitude more useful than whatever crap MS continues to pass off as formatting notation to this day 20+ years later, and that's before we even get into Word being over-helpful and getting ahead of you by doing things with autoformat you never wanted to have happen.
Yes, I know WordPerfect is still around, but fat chance being able to conveniently use it anymore.
SoftTalker · 36d ago
Yeah that era of Office, pre-ribbon, was pretty nice as Office goes.
Illotus · 36d ago
Ribbon was better for most people who didn't have all the shortcuts in muscle memory. It is much more discoverable.
SoftTalker · 36d ago
I find its discoverability is terrible. I am always hunting for what I want to do and it's never anywhere that seems to me to be sensible. I usually end up doing a google search for what I want. Perusing the ribbon takes me much more time than just looking at the various options under the old style menus.
Also traditional menus had some traditional standards. Once you learned what was under "File" or "View" or "Insert" or "Format" it was often pretty similar across applications.
CrimsonCape · 35d ago
Logically, users have to learn the name of the tool before performing any sort of geographical associations (which menu, symbol, etc to find the tool).
There is no faster discoverability than O(log(N)) search using the letters of the name as a lookup.
The biggest failure of modern operating systems is failing to standardize this innate reality.
Windows,Linux,etc should have 1. keyboard button to jump to search box 2. type 1-2 letters and hit enter. Operating systems and applications should all have this kind of interface.
The most ironic apps have a ribbon named something like "Edit" but then the most used "edit" command lives in an unrelated ribbon.
allears · 36d ago
Anecdotal evidence from myself: Although I've been using Word for many decades, I've never had much "muscle memory" in terms of accessing features. It was always a case of learning which pulldown menu held the required function.
When the accursed ribbon came along, "discoverability" went out the window. Functions were grouped according to some strange MS logic I could never understand, and it takes me twice as long to format a page as it used to. Now, I basically just use Word for text entry, and if I want an elegant format, I use a graphic design app like Illustrator.
Judging from what I've read online, you may be the only person who actually likes the ribbon.
mcswell · 36d ago
Hieroglyphics are the opposite of "discoverable". That's why they became uninterpretable for almost two thousand years, until the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. And even then it took considerable work to figure out how they functioned.
In the Ribbon, in order to discover what some hieroglyph does, you have to mouse over it. Since there are lots of hieroglyphs there, that's a lot of mouse-over.
And no, the Ribbon's images make no sense in 99% of the cases.
hedora · 36d ago
That might have been true for the first five minutes of using the software (assuming the person had not yet used a CUA application before the first time they used office). After that, it was strictly worse.
Its probably a case of UI discoverability vs usability. Brand new users might discover better with the ribbon, but as brand new users keep using the product, they transition to experienced users, and the UI needs to adapt to that. My experience is that the ribbon doesn't. Its tolerable, and for me thats enough but I get the points about the ribbon. Its sort of like the new reddit UI, but props to reddit they at least have kept much of the old UI available for longer than I expected them to.
hedora · 36d ago
The problem with it was that it constantly moved the buttons around. So, you had to constantly rediscover it.
hedora · 36d ago
Sadly, none of the links I tried work anymore. (Though the conversation in the comments where they have to explain how to open a ppt in powerpoint is internet gold!)
I was hoping to figure out what led to design incompetence so spectacular that people would still be discussing it after 17 years.
I think there’s a clue in the abstract: The author claims they made 25,000 mock UI screenshots, but doesn’t mention user studies or even internally prototyping some of the concepts to see how they feel.
Illotus · 35d ago
Looks like the links in the posts no longer work, but all the posts are readable and he goes through the work they did and why. They did a lot of usability testing for the ribbon. But anyways I have no horse in this race other than liking ribbon over 16x16 icons and menus, so no point in hashing this over.
layer8 · 36d ago
The Ribbon is more difficult to visually grep for me than the classic menus. Not to mention that a number of functions are still hidden in mini-menus in the Ribbon.
It wouldn’t be so bad if keyboard navigation was as good as with the classic menus, but having to press the Alt key separately, and general increased latency, kills it.
sh34r · 33d ago
Ignoring the serious memory safety and security problems that were exploited to get acceptable performance on contemporary hardware, I’d point to shared document editing, automatic backups via OneDrive, and version history as rather significant features in that missing 5%.
I think rosy recollection is tainting your memory here. How often docs would get corrupted due to those aforementioned memory safety issues, even if that Win95/98 box was never connected to the internet.
Of course it’s gonna be super snappy. It was designed to run on any Doom-compatible hardware. Which includes some toasters now.
Edit: it’s also worth noting that 1997 was right around the time where Moore’s law succumbed to the laws of physics for improving single-core CPU performance via clock speed alone.
josephernest · 36d ago
I still use Office 2007 on my computer. Super super snappy, I think Word or Excel starts and finishes loading in 0.5 second after clicking the icon. It has 99% of the features I need compared to the newest Office version.
benjiro · 36d ago
Same ... Office 2007 for the win. Frankly, i do not even use 90% of Office 2007 feature, so why do i even need more? For AI ... no.
And funny thing, barely uses any memory! Makes todays apps look like monsters. Even my music player uses 5x more memory while paused, then freaking Excel with multiple pages open.
ajolly · 35d ago
Do you have a good way to run multiple versions of office? I do sometimes need some of the newer features but I'd like to default to using the older versions.
mcswell · 36d ago
And 100% of what you don't need--the Ribbon--was not in Word 97.
lizknope · 36d ago
I remember a laptop in the early 1990's that had Microsoft Office in ROM to load faster. I can't find a reference to it right now.
> Built-in ROM applications don't use up disk space
- Microsoft Windows
- Microsoft Word for Windows
- Microsoft Excel
- Appointment Book
- Phone Book
- HP Calculator
- Microsoft File Manager
- LapLink Remote Access™
lizknope · 35d ago
That looks like it. I didn't have one but I remember the magazine ads for it.
gymbeaux · 36d ago
Man you can still get by with Photoshop CS3 as far as features go.
erkt · 36d ago
Lightroom 5 is miles better than what they offer today. Lightroom Creative Cloud is steaming dog shit. Adobe seriously gets to extort over $120 a year out of me simply for the privilege of reading raw files from a new camera. They provide zero positive contribution these days. All of these incumbent tech companies extract rents on algorithms written decades ago. This needs to end. I am very excited for AI to get advanced enough to whip up replacement programs for everything these companies maintain monopolies over.
mrguyorama · 36d ago
> I am very excited for AI to get advanced enough to whip up replacement programs for everything these companies maintain monopolies over.
You are wildly off base. The algorithms aren't difficult or special. They were written by people reading text books for the most part.
They are able to sit on an on old algorithm for decades because the DMCA made interoperability and selling cheaper tools like that basically illegal.
Because of the DMCA, the work that was done to make IBM PC clones would have been close enough to illegal to kill all the businesses that tried it. They still tried with the liberal IP laws at the time.
erkt · 35d ago
Well that's a bit disappointing but i am aware that their are gaps in my knowledge. I had assumed it was the feasibility of competing with an entrenched firm, not lack of access to research texts. I will chat with Chat to learn more about how DMCA applies, thank you.
gymbeaux · 36d ago
Back in those days it took 15 minutes for Windows to “finish” booting. You’d hit the desktop but the HDD was still going ham loading a dozen programs, each with their own splash screen to remind you of their existence.
toast0 · 36d ago
If you've had the priviledge of running Windows 10 on a spinning drive, it never gets to disk idle. Who knows what it's doing, but by that metric it never finishes. It probably never gets to disk idle on an SSD either, but SSDs have so much more io capacity it isn't noticed.
Grazester · 36d ago
Ah the ole slash screen.
I remember in high school days writing programs in VB and of course it had to have some "Cool" splash screen.
> The thing is, all of these bad features were probably justified by some manager somewhere because it’s the only way their feature would get noticed. They have to justify their salary by pushing all these stupid ideas in the user’s faces. “Hey, look at me! I’m so cool!” After all, when the boss asks, “So, what did you accomplish in the past six months,” a manager can’t say, “Um, a bunch of stuff you can’t see. It just works better.” They have to say, “Oh, check out this feature, and that icon, and this dialog box.” Even if it’s a stupid feature.
On the other hand, I very much enjoyed going to Excel 97 cell X97:L97, pressing tab, holding Ctrl+Shift and clicking on the chart icon, because then you could play Excel's built in flight simulator
qwerty456127 · 36d ago
> OpenOffice.org (predecessor of LibreOffice) copied this feature, which they called "QuickStarter"
It still does. Neither LibreOffice itself nor it's installation process with its components choice have changed seriously since the old days and I'm very grateful for this. The QuickStarter isn't as relevant anymore as we have fast SSDs now but some slow computers are still around and that's great we still have the option.
agilob · 36d ago
This has always been the problem with Microsoft. Here is a rant from 2020 about Visual Studio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC-0tCy4P1U and live comparison of performance degradation while loading the same project.
silon42 · 36d ago
I remember about 15 years ago running Windows + VS in VMWare because I could skip installing Office inside the VM and the system would run noticeably faster.
d_tr · 36d ago
I thought Windows had a generic subsystem for "warming up" frequently used apps for faster launches.
xquce · 36d ago
People don't use Office frequently, and then when they do it's slow and a bad look. So they will cheat in a way that prioritize their own software, and then every one else will then that feature loses all value, as all programs launch on startup as not to be "slow"
SuperFetch was supposed to work with any app. It never seemed to have much effect IMO.
infinet · 35d ago
My workplace has two Windows 10 machines, one in daily use, and the other is mostly idle. Both are extremely slow. The one in daily use takes at least 15 minutes to become usable after boot. The other is not much better. They are domain-controlled so not much we can do to improve. In contrast, we still have a 20+ years computer, which has an IDE hard drive, running Windows 2000 with MS Office to operate an instrument, and it is much more responsive.
plorg · 36d ago
Huh. Maybe it's because I haven't installed Office since the 2010 version, I assumed OSA was still a thing. My work computer has O365 managed by IT and I could swear I've seen resident daemons (besides, say, Teams) running in the background.
araes · 35d ago
Equivalently useless back in 2004.
Notably, a solution to the current issues with modern office is to use a copy of Office 97.
20+ page XLS uses ~7MB and loads effectively instantly (on a frankly horribly performing laptop that can usually barely run demos on HN)
lolinder · 36d ago
Yeah, I'm honestly trying to figure out why this is getting so much attention. Applications setting themselves to start up at login in order to avoid doing a bunch of work when they're asked for later is one of the oldest patterns in Windows. It's annoying to regularly have to go in and clear out new startup applications, but it's been part of maintaining a Windows machine for decades, and Microsoft Office is hardly the worst offender.
Why is HN suddenly so interested in Microsoft doing the same thing that has always been done by large, bloated app suites?
fredoliveira · 36d ago
> Why is HN suddenly so interested in Microsoft doing the same thing that has always been done by large, bloated app suites?
Probably because it is horrible? It's indicative of how we spend less time optimizing code than we do coming up with computationally expensive, inefficient workarounds.
Let's say a hypothetical Windows user spends 2% of their day using Office (I made that number up). Why should Office be partially loaded the other 98% of the time? How is it acceptable to use those resources?
When are we actually going to start using the new compute capabilities in our machines, rather than letting them get consumed by unoptimized, barely decent code?
vladvasiliu · 36d ago
> Let's say a hypothetical Windows user spends 2% of their day using Office
I don't know about a "hypothetical" user, but I'd bet a "mean" (corporate) user probably uses office all day long. Hell, I've lost count of the number of e-mails I've seen having a screenshot which is inside a word document for some reason, or the number of excel files which are just a 5x4 table.
raincole · 36d ago
You're honestly trying to figure out why people want performant apps...?
lolinder · 36d ago
That's not at all what I asked.
mrandish · 36d ago
Between Office's increasingly bloated size, slow booting and super annoying CoPilot icon right where I'm working (which still can't be turned off in OneNote) - I'm on the edge of dumping Office. I pretty much only use OneNote and a little OneDrive (3% of the included storage plan) to sync files between machines and I run Word and Powerpoint less than a dozen times a year combined.
Even as a paying customer, all the Office apps and services are now so aggressively pushy it's gone beyond "Rude", is now passing "Annoying" and accelerating toward "Yeah, I can't do this." I just want to ask Satya "How much more do I have to pay you to simply STFU and let me NOT use (and not even know about) services I already pay for but don't need?"
I bought three 12 month Office subs for $49 each on a black Friday blow-out three years ago. The last one will expire in January and if it doesn't get better, I'll be ending my 30 year Office relationship. I'll probably go to Libre Office and replace OneDrive cloud storage with SyncThing + my own server. I'd be fine to keep paying $50 a year for the 5% of Office I actually use - but only if I can use the exact Office I had around three years ago before it was so annoying.
swores · 36d ago
This is one of those times when I wish HN still displayed comment karma publicly, not only to the author of the comment. Because I'm sure various Microsoft employees read HN, and they should see what I assume will be a large number of upvotes on that comment, especially for this:
> «Even as a paying customer, all the Office apps and services are now so aggressively pushy it's gone beyond "Rude", is now passing "Annoying" and accelerating toward "Yeah, I can't do this." I just want to ask Satya "How much more do I have to pay you to simply STFU and let me NOT use (and not even know about) services I already pay for but don't need?"»
Office used to be software that justified its cost, it's now just consistently annoying to use.
dfedbeef · 36d ago
The windows experience is trash for regular users, it looks like a casino now unless you are aggressive about turning _everything_ off.
However: raising concerns is a bad career move apparently. These ideas... aren't proposed by devs; if that makes sense.
ubermonkey · 36d ago
In a conversation with a pal yesterday, I realized I had LONG since stopped doing any actual writing in Word. It's just too huge and slow and clunky. I write in a plaintext environment (options vary, but probably Obsidian or emacs). If or when I fire up Word, it's to structure the document and format it for distribution.
Word is no longer useful to me for composition. This seems like a bad thing.
Tempest1981 · 36d ago
Does it still have the smooth-animated cursor as you type? That thing messes with my brain, so that I lose my train of thought.
doctorwho42 · 36d ago
Every time I reinstall office, I am actively googling how to disable that within 5 minutes of using word. I don't get why all these companies keep trying to add flashy crap to what is essentially a hammer.
It reminds me of that college humor sketch about the CEO of Oreo shouting at his team for trying to innovate on the Oreo... It's a solved problem, we made the perfect cookie 100 years ago. Just stop
bambax · 36d ago
Office 2003 still works absolutely fine and is free if you bought a licence some time in the past. It doesn't have the stupid ribbon or any other annoying new feature.
I recently wrote a macro so that Word could call an AI API to do AI-assisted translation, works like a charm.
spapas82 · 36d ago
Main problem with office 2003 is that it can't reliably open docx and friends making it more or less non compatible with anything newer. Being able to open only docs you create yourself isn't very useful in a collaborative environment.
The main advantage of office 2003 of course is that it's the last office without activation and other crap: you pass the serial and own it for life, it won't bother you again.
I wantwd to only use 2003 but after the 10th time I argued with a person that sent me a docx for editing I gave up.
bambax · 36d ago
Office 2003 can absolutely open docx and xlsx and pptx files. It is annoying because it usually opens those in read-only mode, and then you need to "save as" to do your modifications. But it works fine otherwise.
taneq · 36d ago
“View” unfortunately isn’t the same as “Open and edit”, and in business you need to do the latter. Otherwise we’d be 100% libreoffice from the start. Yep, that’s the moat.
pessimizer · 36d ago
It's been a while, but I think what they're saying is that you have to "save as" in order to be allowed to edit. Office 2003 thinks of the compressed versions as export formats rather than internal formats.
jasode · 36d ago
> I think what they're saying is that you have to "save as" in order to be allowed to edit.
The issue is that roundtripping between Office 2007+ and Office 2003 is unreliable and will often result in corrupted files.
Using Office 2003 (with Compatibility Pack add-on to open xlsx and docx) is ok for isolated work but can be unreliable for collaborative back & forth editing depending on what features are used. E.g. cell colors used in Excel 2007 xlsx get corrupted in Excel 2003 xls.
im3w1l · 36d ago
It's a completely different format. Iirc .doc files are basically implementation defined files and consist of c-structs dumped to disk. .docx is a properly specified format of compressed xml.
int_19h · 36d ago
It's not "C structs dumped to disk". It's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COM_Structured_Storage, which is basically a filesystem-in-a-file. And it has been documented for a long time, ever since Microsoft was forced to write docs for Office file formats because of antitrust:
Yes that's what I meant. You can edit xlsx in Excel 2003; you open, modify and save as. It's a little annoying but it works.
chungy · 35d ago
> The main advantage of office 2003 of course is that it's the last office without activation and other crap: you pass the serial and own it for life, it won't bother you again.
That's actually not true, Office has had activation since XP (2002), so 2003 is included in that.
kevin_thibedeau · 36d ago
There is an addon for 2003 that enables OOXML support. Look for FileFormatConverters.exe.
reddalo · 36d ago
I used to love Office 2003, and I still do. But... just use LibreOffice at this point. It has an interface that reminds a lot of classic Office, but at least it's more updated and probably safer. It also supports newer file formats.
jasode · 36d ago
>Office 2003 still works absolutely fine
It works fine if the user is ok with the features from 2003. E.g. Excel 2003 is limited to smaller spreadsheets of 65536 rows by 256 columns but Excel 2007+ can handle larger worksheets of 1048576 rows by 16384 cols.
I also recently used Excel's new LAMBDA() function which was introduced 2020. In earlier versions, it required writing a VBA UDF to accomplish the same task of assigning a temp variable with a ephemeral value to calculate on intermediate values. VBA is a workaround but LAMBDA() is nicer to use because Excel will throw up scary security warnings whenever the xls file containing VBA macros is opened.
I might be able to get by with Word 2003 more than Excel 2003.
bambax · 36d ago
You're right about Excel; however, I think big data files should be handled in a db rather than in a spreadsheet. And sqlite can query Excel files (with an extension), and it's super fast and you can use any function you want, or write your own.
jasode · 36d ago
>; however, I think big data files should be handled in a db rather than in a spreadsheet. And sqlite can query Excel files (with an extension)
A lot of normal users of Excel are not users of database software like SQLite or MS Access. That's too cumbersome. E.g. they download a csv file that has ~100000 rows (which really isn't that "big") and clicking on it gets them an instant visual grid as a GUI in Excel. Slicing & dicing and pivoting data is way faster in Excel than coding SQL WHERE GROUP BY statements. I've commented previously on why databases are not substitutes for the workflow ergonomics made possible by spreadsheet tools : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30987638
It's similar to reasons why Python/R or Jupyter notebooks are also not substitutes for Excel for the typical users of Excel.
The low row count of 65536 in Excel 2003 was just a legacy limitation of 1980s 16-bit computing that was carried over into 32-bit computing for many years for backwards compatibility reasons. Spreadsheet users don't really want to switch to databases or Python just to get more usable rows than 65536.
bambax · 36d ago
From your linked comment:
> The scenario of "I just sent you an xlsx where the rows highlighted in red are problems and if you can just add your notes to column K, that would be great. Thanks!" -- is not easy in other tools that are not spreadsheets.
There are no words to tell how much I hate that!!! ;-) Users are too creative. Some will merge some cells and not others and boom the file can't be properly sorted anymore. Many will use font color, font weight or background color to mean wildly different things, which is very difficult or impossible to sort or do a sumif over. Others will add footnotes, because why not?, and links to spreadsheets that never leave their own device, or mini-blank-rows for spacing and general layout, etc. It's completely insane.
justin66 · 36d ago
> I think big data files should be handled in a db rather than in a spreadsheet.
Your side lost completely. Pop a signal flare or build a bonfire, maybe someone can rescue you from the island you've been living on since the war ended.
bambax · 36d ago
I don't want to be rescued.
ok123456 · 36d ago
duckdb is doing fine.
pcwalton · 36d ago
If Microsoft had adopted this attitude, then by now Excel's market share would probably be 0% and Google Sheets' would be 100%. Microsoft doesn't add features because they like bloated software; they add features because the market demands them, and the market demanded support for more than 65,535 rows.
codr7 · 36d ago
I've thankfully never had to deal with anything close to that size, what kind of super computers are they running?
tomatocracy · 36d ago
Although I agree about the ribbon and UI, I think Excel 2003 in particular feels quite limited today - it can deal with a max of 255 columns in a sheet and is missing some of the most useful functions (SUMIFS and XLOOKUP spring to mind especially but also the newer array functions like SORT).
bambax · 36d ago
Sumif (without the s) worked in Excel 4 (1992), you just had to enter it with CTRL+Enter and use curly braces IIRC. I used it to build dashboards. Not sure what problem sumifs solves beyond sumif.
XLookup sure is useful but again you can probably replace it with a combination of vlookup and hlookup (or index match).
Regarding the size... If you're dealing with huge spreadsheets it's really better to use a proper db. Or even manipulate data with sqlite. sqlite can query xlsx files directly (with an extension), it's extremely fast and stable.
tomatocracy · 36d ago
The problem with the column limit is not so much about huge datasets as limiting flexibility in how you can lay things out - 65k rows and 16.7m cells are plenty and I’d be wanting to use a database well before I got there. But 255 columns does feel quite constraining.
And whilst you can work around lack of XLOOKUP or SUMIFS using the older functions, again it constrains how you lay things out (eg VLOOKUP needs you to presort your table by the lookup column if you don’t want an exact match) and this can often result in sheets which are much more unwieldy and slow to calculate.
Tempest1981 · 36d ago
I seem to recall some layout issues running on a 4k display, or with scaling set to 150% or higher.
I remember Outlook clipping the last character off the email subjects, for example. Might have been Office 2010.
threatripper · 36d ago
How can it be free if you need to buy a license?
reddalo · 36d ago
I think the user meant that it's "free to keep", it's not a recurring subscription like modern Office versions.
bambax · 36d ago
Yes.
subscribed · 36d ago
No subscription. "Free" to use forever once to obtained the licence, unliie the current crop.
bhouston · 36d ago
I switch to Google Docs/Sheets/Presentations many years ago as my primary tool and I haven't installed any type of local office in 6 years. Google Workspace has built in digital signature tools and the change tracking in Google Docs is also really good.
worik · 36d ago
I find Google docs very frustrating.
What blows my mind is how dreadful search is in Google docs. The thing that should be really good is really bad.
Strange days
aniforprez · 36d ago
Now that even Google search is garbage, can't really claim they're good at search. It's also always been true that their search at anything aside from the main search product is horrible. YouTube search is its own level of colossal uselessness and has always been that way and has only gotten worse over time. These days it doesn't even show you 10 videos related to your search before going out of its way to show other "related" categories.
486sx33 · 36d ago
Google workspace is awful , it’s super dooper awful with Gemini shoved up my ass all the time , which is impossible to disable, and trains on all my data. Gsuite makes office look good !!
Ferret7446 · 36d ago
The workspace admins can disable Gemini, among many other things. Google also does not "steal" your data if you read the ToS; any training is strictly scoped to that workspace.
If you thought for a few seconds, you would realize that companies with big legal teams would not sign a contract that would give Google the right to their data.
ptx · 36d ago
> any training is strictly scoped to that workspace
Are they really doing training separately for each workspace? I thought LLM training was enormously expensive and needed lots of data, which wouldn't make sense to do separately.
arccy · 36d ago
they're no so much training as providing context just when you invoke it
bflesch · 36d ago
Yeah google does not steal your data and that's why companies like amazon dont even send you full details of your online shopping order so google can't crawl what you bought and what price you bought it for.
arccy · 36d ago
my recent amazon order emails actually came with a full itemized list with prices
pavlov · 36d ago
Is it reasonable to assume that individuals and small companies get the same friendly terms as companies with big legal teams and expensive contracts?
That may be the case, but I wouldn’t count on it. Probably it can change with one email from Google that has “oh btw we’re changing some contract terms, you have 14 days to opt out, no big deal” buried deep down.
bArray · 36d ago
I use LibreOffice for 99% of documents completely fine, and generate my own documents via Pandoc. The setup has served me really well so far.
esperent · 36d ago
I do this too, however there is considerable formatting issues when you're working collaboratively on documents with other people who use MS Office.
bArray · 36d ago
True, I had a large contract recently with this issue, but it worked out in the end.
The problem is that we thought "let's switch to the online MS Word editor", which then proceeds to delete your text as you write [1]. Bare in mind that my company pays an Office subscription per employee for that crap.
Try ONLYOFFICE Desktop, it is open source and has superior compatibility with MS Office.
ohgr · 36d ago
There are considerable formatting issues when you're working collaboratively on documents with other people who use MS office when you are using MS office too.
We gave up for large documents, assigned an editor and just send them chunks of text.
taurath · 36d ago
I can’t stand libreoffice - between tons of bugs (waiting for printers on startup is a default..), extremely janky UI from 20 years ago, poor performance, exceptionally slow load times, and bad formatting issues and incompatibilities.. it’s just an awful experience overall.
bArray · 36d ago
> between tons of bugs (waiting for printers on startup is a default..),
Never had issues with printers to be fair, but it sounds like something that could be done in a background thread.
Bare in mind that we are contrasting this with Office, which is itself incredibly slow to start.
> extremely janky UI from 20 years ago
I love this about Libreoffice, everything can be located super reliably.
> poor performance
For a Java application I think it's crazily fast?
> and bad formatting issues and incompatibilities
It's certainly not a 100% drop-in replacement. A lot of the formatting issues I have experienced is because a Office user did something that assumes a perfect renderer - something we don't even get in browsers. Like people pressing enter multiple times to create a new page and not just CTRL+ENTER.
ptx · 36d ago
> For a Java application I think it's crazily fast?
It has better compatibility with MS Office OOXML format.
rs186 · 36d ago
I used to always have an Office installation on my computer, whether it's pirated (many years ago)/using my personal license/using my school license/etc.
Then I got a new computer without bothering to do the installation. It was a long time before I discovered that I need any of Word/Excel/PowerPoint. And I was able to get by with Google Docs. If that's not good enough, I go to the free version of Office 365. In the rare occasions where I need the actual, native Office software for compatibility/functionality reasons, I do it on another machine I have access to. This has worked out surprisingly well.
packetlost · 36d ago
I've been pretty happy with OnlyOffice. I'm pretty sure it's based on Libre or OpenOffice but looks much more similar to 2012~ era MS Office.
n3storm · 36d ago
OnlyOffice is not based on LibreOffice. CollaboraOffice does. jfyi
nguyenkien · 36d ago
No. It's js, render in qtwebengine.
mkayokay · 36d ago
I guess you already know, but you do not necessarily need a server for Syncthing if the devices are on at the same time. If they are not, a simple low-power rpi-like device would be more than enough to implement a star topology, with the pi being receive-only.
peppers-ghost · 36d ago
I switched to onlyoffice + joplin for notes and am very happy with both.
Propelloni · 36d ago
If you go the Syncthing-Route anyway, take a look at Softmaker Office [1], it's an almost-drop-in replacement for MS Office and would set you back 50 EUR/year for 5 devices.
We evaluated it for our migration away from MS software and would have gone with it, but it lacks an office server for Nextcloud integration.
I’d recommend switching to Obsidian and never looking back. And unless you have additional software that requires windows, Linux is also a lower-stress compute experience these days.
I also used OneNote for the better part of a decade before switching to Linux in 2017. Joplin is ok-ish, but Obsidian is closer to OneNote with its folder-based layout.
n3storm · 36d ago
I was a hardcore desktop LibreOffice user both Calc and Write, but I have been using Write exclusively online through CollaboraOffice in a Nextcloud Instance and did not have any issue in two years. I know it was buggy before because I have been checked every two or three releases.
niutech · 30d ago
Check out ONLYOFFICE Desktop, it's open source and provides great compatibility with MS Office files.
polotics · 36d ago
you use OneNote? I had text search randomly stop working in that thing, no explanation just nothing found. For me this was the Microsoft last straw.
Spooky23 · 36d ago
You’ll be back. LibreOffice is so visually gross it’s pretty hard to use.
noisy_boy · 36d ago
LibreOffice should have provided a theme/icon pack "Office Icons" - half the time I can't tell what an icon is for because most of us have been raised on MS Office. Also, it would do well with a "Simple" mode ala Google Docs that is sufficient most of the time for most folks.
Otherwise it works fine, haven't had any issues with the documents it produces and I particularly like the direct export to pdf feature.
bflesch · 36d ago
LibreOffice has several themes that makes it look like MS Office (e.g. ribbons, modern UI, etc).
Select TOOLS > OPTIONS > ADVANCED > Enable experimental Options (WARNING this is experimental and may be unstable) > OK and then RESTART LIBREOFFICE. On restart VIEW > TOOLBAR LAYOUT > NOTEBOOKBAR. You can then play with the options with VIEW > NOTEBOOKBAR > CONTEXTUAL GROUPS/ CONTEXTUAL SINGLE / TABBED.
noisy_boy · 36d ago
It is actually View -> Toolbars -> Customize -> Notebookbar but within that there is only "Tabbed" option which doesn't really show a way to change themes.
This is a perfect example of actions that make adoption harder. This should have been at most 2 clicks and prominently displayed assuming LibreOffice wants to be a great alternative to MS Office and make the transition easier. I have been using Linux daily for over 20 years now and it is not intuitive to me - it doesn't make me very optimistic about the experience for a new user.
Found it - thanks! I wish this was more easily accessible to new users - it actually makes a difference in terms of organization of icons and ease of finding things.
KronisLV · 36d ago
> LibreOffice is so visually gross it’s pretty hard to use.
I don't know, I quite like it, reminds me of the old Office look.
It probably depends mostly on what you're used to. I find that LibreOffice looks fine - no worse than most apps, and much better than Microsoft's UI.
al_borland · 36d ago
For the occasional user, various online office suites are also an option.
On my personal computers, I haven’t use MS Office in close to 20 years.
I use it at work, because that’s what we’re given to use, but 95% of my usage is opening CSV files in Excel. I find documents are rarely written in Word anymore, and the use of PowerPoint is actively discouraged at this point.
If the parent commenter only uses Office a dozen times per year, they should quite easily get by with something else. Google Docs, iWork, a simple text editor… there are options beyond LibreOffice. Which specific options would depend one what those dozen uses actually are.
maccard · 36d ago
My work pays for a full O365 subscription for me. The web apps are more than I'll ever need as someone who basically uses Excel and Word as an interchange format.
mrandish · 36d ago
Oh, that's too bad. I haven't checked it out in a long time. However, in recent years the Office UX has been getting increasingly worse for me too. Not ugly, just bigger and fatter, taking up more screen space to show less info.
If open source alternatives aren't suitable, my fallback is to get whatever the last retail box versions were of the few Office apps I actually occasionally use and then never update them. There hasn't been a single new Office feature I care about added in about ten years.
bflesch · 36d ago
OpenOffice/Libreoffice lets you choose between multiple UX styles, which rearranges the buttons like old office, the ribbon stuff, and many more. I was amazed when I first noticed this (kind of hidden) feature. You should check it out.
ptx · 36d ago
LibreOffice also does this.
bflesch · 36d ago
Correct. Thanks for the hint. I keep mixing up openoffice and libreoffice even though I only use libreoffice on my system.
gtech1 · 36d ago
Check out Only Office
chewonbananas · 36d ago
It's not as bad as it was 5 years ago. It's closer to the flat office design.
tpm · 36d ago
MS Office is much harder to use for the casual user not already used to it - the interface is very disorienting.
chneu · 36d ago
To be fair, office is also hot garbage. It's just that most people are used to that kind of hot garbage.
As someone who hasn't used office much in the last 15 years, it's nearly unusable for me. I have to Google how to do basic things because everything is confusing, ugly, and hidden(or hard to find amongst the huge number of icons).
vjk800 · 36d ago
I use Office software at work daily and I don't understand how that piece of shit can be so fucking slow. It's a serious productivity sink too; I often procrastinate small tasks just because I know half of the time doing it is spent waiting for various part of the office to load and that is somehow very stressful. I realise it is not a huge amount of time per se, but the psychological effect of the piece of crap stopping at any random time to load some bullshit becomes unbearable after some time. A bit like the chinese torture method where they would drop single drops of water on your head and over time it becomes painful.
godelski · 36d ago
People question why I use vim and live in the terminal. Well... because everything opens up instantly, and I can run email, spotify, my editor, debugger, pdf reader, file browser (with image previewing), and everything I need while using less than a gig of ram and barely any CPU usage. Not only that, but I get to make the things work in the way I want them to, not have to constantly hunt down random menus. If I'm ever confused I just press ? and 99% of the time find the answer faster than it takes to reach for the mouse. Even a shitty TUI usually is faster and easier to use than many GUIs. Yes, there are times GUIs are better. I don't want a TUI Gimp, but for a lot of stuff, I don't need the bloat.
It's because I don't like the Chinese torture you're referring to. We're programmers, we don't have to live that way.
hsbauauvhabzb · 35d ago
I was going to agree until I realised that I’ve aliased emacs to open emacsclient and do exactly what office is planning on doing.
you win this one vim, but I’ll get you next time.
godelski · 35d ago
I always say that there's only one reason to use vim over emacs, and that's that vi is on almost every machine you touch. It's an optional POSIX command[0], but it is as common as `more` or `type`. Though that is a bit of a lie. The other reason is that you're more likely to find vim bindings in random programs than emacs :P
As someone who came from vim, I find evil to be great tbh.
godelski · 35d ago
Why go to emacs then? What do you get that vim couldn't provide?
hsbauauvhabzb · 34d ago
Emacs probably enables more functionality than vscode or any other tool. You can literally browse the web or send emails from emacs - I’m not saying you should, but the potential for performing tasks are infinite.
Vim has by far the better default user interface, though.
tomrod · 35d ago
Neat. I'm interested in your TUI setup. What do you use?
godelski · 35d ago
Nothing too fancy. I'm not going to dox myself, I like to (pretend to) keep this account anonymous so I'm not going to drop my dotfiles (though I am pretty proud of them). But I don't do anything too fancy. vim, neomutt, spotify-player, yazi, and tdf for pdfs (not still mixed about this one). I'll also maybe play around with a few for random tools but I usually don't use more than these.
Day to day I'm listening to music, reading emails, internet, and writing programs with vim (half my time I'm ssh'd into other machines anyways. I do ML research). So I got pretty much everything covered except Slack and Signal
tomrod · 35d ago
Thanks! Your use case sounds similar to mine (and some the same workload).
DecentShoes · 35d ago
How are you doing Spotify?
godelski · 35d ago
I'm using spotify_player[0]. It is pretty bare-bones but honestly, what do you need? I got album art, a progress bar, and can search and go to my library
Note that if you google you will probably get spotify-tui[1] which DOES NOT work
side note: man... I really wish I had the time to write or rewrite some TUIs. I'm sure I'm not the only one... Problem with a lot of open source is that they're side projects. I'd imagine there could be state of things could be a lot better if some small org just paid a few engineers to make and maintain a few of them.
brainzap · 36d ago
Its sad because using Excel for quick decision making can be a super power, these days I use apple numbers
EFreethought · 35d ago
> "using Excel for quick decision making"
Could you expand on that?
max51 · 35d ago
not op, The long story short is that a lot of data analysis that would normally require days of development can be done with a few clicks in excel.
Would you get a better result if a team of 7 people spent en entire week working on it? Yes. Can a normal competant accountant get 99% of the way there by spending 2 hours in Excel, also yes.
Excel takes care of a lot of things that are a massive pain in the ass the deal with with any other solutions. It starts witht he ability to import data with a simple ctrl-c + ctrl-v instead of having to write code, but it doesn't end there.
jajko · 36d ago
If only slow... it has tons of accepted bugs and nobody seems to care.
Yesterday I was using Outlook 365, there was one URL in one of the emails and I needed to find other emails containing it. Trivial and one of main use cases, right.
Put URL in search box, 0 finds (including email I just copy&pasted it from). Mkay, maybe non-alphanumeric chars are messing with some internal regex or similar, stripped those into bare hostname, still 0 finds (when searching all mailboxes, including body).
Maybe its some exchange settings, who knows, who cares. Pissed off fighting such basic tech instead of doing actual work.
geekifier · 36d ago
I use Mail.app on macOS as my daily these days, and it’s somehow even worse than this. Especially the search function, which works in even more bizarre ways.
It’s truly amazing that we have seemingly regressed in basic desktop functionality since the early 2000’s.
jeroenhd · 36d ago
I think people overestimate 2000s desktop functionality. macOS's mail application is still the good old crap app that it was since its inception. Outlook Express, Windows Live Mail, and the Windows 8/8.1/10 mail apps are all terrible in their own ways. Thunderbird looks like a skinned version of a late 2000s mail client and works exactly like it. Search is quirky and unpractical, but in completely different ways Outlook's and Mail.app's are!
Just for fun, try installing an old OS in a virtual machine. Marvel at how fast the old OS runs at modern SSD speeds. Get frustrated at the random hangs, freezes, glitches, and plain bad behavior of the programs you know and love, because the slowness of computers at the time hid it all. 20 cores of unused CPU power, dozens of gigabytes of RAM laying at the ready, disk I/O hitting dozens of megabytes per second, but still loading screens everywhere.
I once tried to go back, for nostalgia's sake, just doing the things I do on an old OS for fun. The grass wasn't much greener back then, I just had lower standards.
wkat4242 · 36d ago
> and plain bad behavior of the programs you know and love, because the slowness of computers at the time hid it all.
Can't really blame the devs though because very often they only had single threads and definitely single cores to work with.
int_19h · 36d ago
I mean, it was common knowledge even back then that Outlook Express etc was far from the best email client. That's why people used alternatives, so much so that some of them were paid and yet had enough people buying them to remain in business - e.g. The Bat!
brobdingnagians · 36d ago
I am genuinely confused why search is so bad in the major email webapps/clients. Search is a well studied feature, and it seems like it's something that should just work but I can never find the thing I'm searching for in my email (especially O365). Knowing the date and then scrolling often seems to be the most accurate way of finding things...
pessimizer · 36d ago
I think search has been deprecated in general because it gives the user too much control over the output. Through search, people can quickly find what they are looking for, which is bad. The goal has instead become to feed people tiny scraps and hints of what they're looking for, while leading them on a long trip past any number of sponsors to where the thing they're looking for might be.
I have to assume that Outlook email searches have already been set up to have ads injected into them, when/if one day Microsoft decides to flip the switch. Actually, I'm so out of touch with Windows they might already be doing this.
gpderetta · 36d ago
> The goal has instead become to feed people tiny scraps and hints of what they're looking for, while leading them on a long trip past any number of sponsors to where the thing they're looking for might be
The airport approach to computing!
hnick · 36d ago
Search just seems bad in general in many applications. So many these days do not even support a verbatim (as in, find what I typed, exactly) search. They insist on ignoring certain characters, fuzzy matching, or treating everything as individual words and if it finds one it has done its job and earned a gold star.
I have a feeling it's based on tokenising the input rather than a string scan like we'd do in the old days. Harder to match a literal string if all you have is a tree of tokens or something, I guess.
Opengrok was the first time I ran into this years ago. We had a perl code base, perl syntax is well known as "an explosion in an ASCII factory", so it was a real pain trying to find exact text matches using it.
9dev · 36d ago
As I’m professionally working on a niche search engine, let me offer this: it’s a notoriously hard problem that seems simple at first, but requires catering to a bazillion different edge cases; every optimisation you do makes another case worse.
Having said all that: I also hate how shitty search almost everywhere is. It’s hard, but not that hard.
nikanj · 36d ago
I’d be happy if it catered to exactly one edge case: ”Show me all emails that contain this word”
9dev · 36d ago
…which is the problem I was referring to: by optimising for that—your—use case, those of other people will invariably suffer.
We only have a single text field as the input; how are we supposed to guess whether you want to find an exact match of the phrase, a fuzzy match, at least one of the words provided, or any other possible variation? Also, are you interested in the content, the subject, the recipient, the sender address you used, a header field, an attachment, what have you? Do you want them ranked by the frequency of the word, or the position from the start of the text? Does it count those occurrences in quoted passages of previous mails downthread multiple times? What if it’s a stop word?
There are of course sensible ranking solutions and heuristics for these questions. I just want to highlight it’s not as trivial as it first sounds. Most mail clients probably don’t ship with a Lucene index—while they should.
const_cast · 36d ago
You could always... you know... ask?
I use Thunderbird and it's approximately 100x better at searching for emails than Excel. I just tell it if I'm looking in the subject, in the body, in the sender, whether it's fuzzy, etc, and then it pulls up the emails.
Whereas Excel doesn't ask shit and, in return, doesn't have a working search.
ajolly · 35d ago
Outlook on the other hand has an extremely powerful search
nikanj · 36d ago
Having only a single box is a fully self-imposed leg wound
floathub · 36d ago
The answer, as always is Emacs :-)
With mu4e (an Emacs package), you can have lightning fast searching across multiple mail accounts. And with a bit of work (https://stuff.sigvaldason.com/email.html) it will happily interoperate with Microsoft Exchange systems that require the OATH2 dance.
CrimsonCape · 35d ago
Haha, I love your reply because it brings up auth. You can't do the slightest search or action without first pinging a web server with an auth token. Yet another source of wasting milliseconds.
dawnerd · 36d ago
Have to make it bad so when they inevitably force AI into it, it looks amazing.
selimnairb · 36d ago
Spotlight search on macOS is in general kinda…spotty. Now that we have super fast SSDs it should be instantaneous very reliable. How hard can this be? BeOS seem to have figured it out 30 years ago. Apple missed a chance to fix this once and for all when APFS was developed, but they are fat and happy, no fire in their guts. Craig Ferengi must go.
kergonath · 36d ago
> Spotlight search on macOS is in general kinda…spotty. Now that we have super fast SSDs it should be instantaneous very reliable.
Which is maddening because back when it was released on Tiger it was great, and on spinning disks.
eastbound · 36d ago
What’s infuriating is, `find` and `grep` are snappy, they find everything you need in microseconds per gigabyte, and they have no index!
If the macOS or Windows searches were just wrappers for find/grep, it would already be an improvement!
const_cast · 36d ago
On KDE systems, we have baloo which forms a filesystem index for universal (spotlight-like) search. It's very, very fast and the ranking algorithm for krunner is quite good. I think commercial software should have no issue matching this.
nyarlathotep_ · 36d ago
IIRC, VSCode packages a rg binary and uses it for search.
Probably explains why it's something that works well and works fast.
ubermonkey · 36d ago
Do you really have trouble with Mail.app search? Because I find it STARKLY better than Outlook.
Granted, creating any kind of complex multi-clause query is a pain, but for simple searches it never lets me down whereas Outlook often just fails to find things I know are present.
We're building an IMAP-primitive, cross-platform, multi-account email client that is single-digit-ms fast in terms of search.
geekifier · 30d ago
As an update, I found that some of my issues were due to some bug in FileVault. My Spotlight would seemingly stop working altogether. The only solution was to toggle FileVault off/on.
I am using my mac with an LDAP (AD) user account, so I am possibly in the minority of people here.
ctkhn · 36d ago
I've given on on macos' mail app too, mailspring isn't perfect but I had mail crash and lose my emails and I couldn't have that happen again. never been an issue with mailspring
no_wizard · 36d ago
Wouldn’t the server always have your mail?
noisem4ker · 36d ago
Not in the old days of the POP3 protocol, as opposed to today's IMAP.
wkat4242 · 36d ago
Yeah the Outlook search function is... exotic.
It's so annoying when I KNOW I sent an email to someone a year ago and I put TO: Their name and it still doesn't come up.
Also: Smart folders still don't exist (e.g. a folder that automatically lists every email with a flag on it or some other condition). At least not in the "New Outlook" which we have to use at work. Apple had this back in 2007.
Same with OneNote by the way and the web version can't even search in whole notebooks, just single folders.
ubermonkey · 36d ago
We are a small software company.
We use Office 365 and their hosted Exchange for email. I manage my mail in the native Mac Mail tool; my boss uses Outlook. For commercial exchanges (ie, dialog about sales with customers), we're almost always both on copy.
SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH he asks me to find a mail for him, because Outlook search is letting him down, often on bone simple searches (e.g., for something like a specific PO number or software serial number).
I find it immediately. Outlook strikes out. How do you break search so badly?
wkat4242 · 36d ago
Yeah it's because Mac Mail downloads every single email and indexes it locally. Outlook (especially the new one) is just electron-based webmail. So every search happens in the cloud and it doesn't have a full copy of all your emails.
This would not be a problem for searching of course, if the cloud-based search worked properly. But yeah... About that. :X
The "classic" outlook should do it better but it also doesn't in my experience. Though I can't use it anymore at work lately.
It's just so bad because how can they screw this up? It's not some fluff feature, it's a core feature in an email client.
PS: If you have copilot, it does a lot better at finding stuff somehow, though like every AI it can be a bit hit and miss.
ubermonkey · 31d ago
He's running full Outlook, not the shitty new one. And anyway this problem has existed for 10 years.
codr7 · 36d ago
AI in search is just evil, something either exists or it doesn't, maybe on a Tuesday isn't good enough.
wkat4242 · 35d ago
Well I have mixed feelings about it.
For general searches, I agree. I want those to be highly deterministic. But in that case I need to know exactly what I'm looking for.
There's also the other kind of thing though. "Who was that guy that I emailed with a year or two ago about this issue with MacBook Enrolment?". Yes I can filter by company or other details if I remember those things but sometimes I don't. And that's when AI search can really shine. Or not, it can also totally make up stuff out of its ass. But at least when it comes to emails that's easily verifiable.
codr7 · 34d ago
I can see the usefulness.
But I'm already sick and tired of search not returning stuff I know is in there, because I forgot to check the blessed combination of boxes.
Vilian · 36d ago
At that point i would switch to thunderbird or something
wkat4242 · 36d ago
It's really a PITA to use standard protocols on M365 now though. They try to make it as difficult as possible. And you need lots of exceptions from your admins. Everything is "legacy", the Microsoft word for Not Invented Here and they make it sound like something super dangerous.
Of course that third party clients don't give them any telemetry, "insights", cross-marketing opportunities like copilot, has nothing to do with it.
dspillett · 36d ago
How bad the search features in outlook and teams are, is part of the reason I don't bother trying Bing. If you can't get local search right, global search is going to suck too.
gpderetta · 36d ago
They are completely unrelated teams (or at least used to). Might as well be different companies.
dspillett · 35d ago
Aye, I was being at least a little facetious. The team of indexing global content is quite different to that of searching my local mail and chat logs. The various "English language search" features attempted for SQL Server are different again.
But they are still all search functions, and the Outlook & Teams search functions seem so terrible that you'd think they'd try do something about it to support the pubic view of their other search related efforts.
windward · 36d ago
Only half a century after the creation of grep
kevin_thibedeau · 36d ago
For Word, go back to Draft (formerly Normal) mode. That makes pagination asynchronous and reduces clutter not needed while editing.
rochak · 36d ago
Why does a user need to know and do this to get a just bearable experience? Has the bar gotten so low?
mpweiher · 36d ago
Yes.
bluedino · 36d ago
The Mac version is even worse.
behnamoh · 36d ago
And it keeps getting worse. I had to downgrade to the Oct. 2024 version in order to get back to a working version.
pete1302 · 36d ago
Don't even get me started, it one of the many reason why I switched the job.
krembo · 36d ago
It's so shitty and slow because it's a bloatware. Lucky for MS they are kind of a monopoly in the corporate world.
jeroenhd · 36d ago
Office is like Jira: taken on its own, it sucks, but there are no real alternatives to it.
BarryMilo · 36d ago
It's crazy to me how because 1% of Excel users need pivot tables or something we're all stuck on it. LibreOffice is enough for the vast majority of use cases.
aleph_minus_one · 36d ago
> It's crazy to me how because 1% of Excel users need pivot tables or something we're all stuck on it.
Finance and insurance industries are full of Excel powerusers.
> LibreOffice is enough for the vast majority of use cases.
Often (from my job experience I can at least attest this for the finance and insurance sectors), Excel is an integrated part of many large workflows. Changing from Excel to LibreOffice would mean rewriting important parts of central business applications, so you better have a really good reason why you want to do the switch from Excel to LibreOffice.
ponector · 36d ago
We are working on backend for life insurance. They have a separate pricing team who creates calculations for different insurance products. The results are usually presented as excel files with heavy scripting inside. Really heavy! Have you seen 100mb excel files? I did!
On the funny note: as powerful excel is, it cannot open two files with the same name from different folders! Or at least my version can't.
strongpigeon · 36d ago
I used to work on Excel extensibility. I’ll never forget when we were talking with one of the top 5 insurance companies in the US and they showed us this huge VBA macro and told us they processed the top 10% of their claims using this file. That moment made me realize Excel powers at least 10% of the world economy.
smallerize · 36d ago
Oh yeah, because references to the book name would conflict. If you open a new instance of Excel (e.g. shift-click the taskbar icon), you can open one file in each, but they can't reference each other.
pete1302 · 36d ago
I have seen 600mb+ geodata based, script bloated, slow as hell, make your MB Air commit sucide type of excel every day for 4 months, working on a project.
const_cast · 36d ago
Excel is also used and abused. In finance and insurance, often Excel isn't used as a spreadsheet and visualization application. It's used as a database and application engine.
This is really bad for a lot of reasons. Of course it's painfully slow, but it's also incredibly brittle and foot-gunny. Excel IS NOT a competent database engine or application engine. It makes JS and C++ look sane and safe.
Excel shouldn't be switched out to LibreOffice. It should be switched out to a proper application with a proper database. What, finance bros don't know how to navigate a database. Tough fucking luck! In the 70s, secretaries could do that. They better figure it out. Because these existing "systems" are a disaster waiting to happen.
hannob · 36d ago
I mean, it's not as if Libreoffice was created yesterday. Its predecessor OpenOffice is now 25 years old. Your question becomes: Why did you choose the expensive version where you never know what it will cost next year in the first place?
aleph_minus_one · 36d ago
Concerning
> Why did you choose the expensive version
Big companies have (sometimes hard negotiated) volume contracts with Microsoft, which makes Excel much cheaper to them than to, say, small companies. Thus Excel is not really expensive for them.
Concerning
> where you never know what it will cost next year in the first place
For open source software there exists a similar risk that you don't know into which direction the product will develop.
In the past, Microsoft has been quite reliable in keeping backwards compatible, and continue selling office for decades.
In my observation, the zigzag course that Microsoft starting doing with Windows (but is now also doing with office), and, relatedly, deviating from the course of being very insanely dependable in delivering the software that companies need from them, is what by now got big companies at least have a look at what possible alternatives to Microsoft products could be.
dijit · 35d ago
> For open source software there exists a similar risk that you don't know into which direction the product will develop.
You know what's really interesting to me about this argument point?
It is actually the proprietary solution that is at risk of this, and we feel it daily. The next version of Microsofts own flagship product (Windows) is nearly universally denigrated, but people are forced to upgrade.
With FOSS, there's significantly less risk, if the product changes direction you and your other company friends can just use old versions or in the worst case.. fork it.
tech234a · 36d ago
As a counterpoint, Microsoft is in the process of discontinuing Publisher and plans to remove it from M365 installations next year.
jeroenhd · 36d ago
Entire departments run on the "pivot table" button. Most companies have at least one person who needs some Excel feature that isn't available in the common alternatives.
I've worked on software that communicated with other software using custom Excel spreadsheets exported by yet different software, modified by humans. Every stage of the process was specs-incompliant and was using edge case features, but this process oversaw transport for goods worth millions every day. I tried my very best not to reach for a Windows VM, but there was nothing that could work on these files.
For the vast majority of times, bikes are good enough for the majority of travels, yet there are cars everywhere.
skrebbel · 36d ago
> For the vast majority of times, bikes are good enough for the majority of travels, yet there are cars everywhere.
Wow that was a very Dutch comment! I wonder whether it resonates with the Americans here :D
kermatt · 36d ago
> software that communicated with other software using custom Excel spreadsheets exported by yet different software, modified by humans
This sums up my entire experience of "Enterprise applications".
Maxion · 36d ago
For any modern SaaS to be enterprise grade, it has to have an excel export feature.
TinkersW · 36d ago
I tried using LibreOffice on Windows, and it was super slow and kept crashing. It is also so ugly & annoying to use that it must be intentional.
I really don't understand how this market is dominated by an abusive platform(MS Office) & a broken POS(LibreOffice).
Maxion · 36d ago
The only way for a competitor to have a chance at breaking in to the market, they need to be able to open any xls or xlsx file.
freeAgent · 36d ago
You are vastly underestimating the number of people who use pivot tables and even more “advanced” Excel functionality like Power Pivot/Query.
Qem · 36d ago
LibreOffice has dynamic tables, an equivalent to pivot tables, for many years already.
Nemo_bis · 36d ago
They're also just called "pivot tables" in some locales.
jodrellblank · 35d ago
> "because 1% of Excel users need pivot tables or something"
It's crazy to me how often Open Source pushers have the vibe "I don't use computers, I don't know what anyone does with computers, but I'm still dismissive and superior". I almost made this comment earlier today in reply to [1] which was another "You have problems with Linux? I daily-drive Linux for years and I've never had any problems" comment and the issues were common/well-known things - fractional scaling in Gnome, HDMI, screen sharing in Slack, crashes in Google Meet, crashes in Chrome, KDE unstable, missing desktop software they use, audio too buggy, constant crashes in another program after days of work.
Nothing anyone would be surprised at, except a Linux user who - apparently - never does anything with their computer and is baffled that other people do. I decided my comment was too trolling and didn't finish it, but here you are bringing that vibe again: you don't know what Excel does or why people use it, but you're confident that you know better; prompting me to actually call it out.
The first thing I looked for when I installed LibreOffice most recently, I found a thread[2] asking: "In excel you can create a table simply by using insert->table. Is there a way to create tables in calc, as well?" and the first visible reply is them explaining that they don't want to create a table in Write, they want Excel's "insert table" feature in Calc. Why would they have to explain that again already, their question was two short lines. Presumably the people replying don't know that feature exists. There are some people being helpful and suggesting ways to get similar effects, but of course there's "Why do you want to insert a table into a Calc spreadsheet? It doesn’t seem like a feature that I’d use much" ("I don't know what the feature does but I know I don't want it"), a couple people commenting explanations of what Excel's tables are and why they are useful including a link to a video demonstration ... followed by someone saying "It already works, they are called database ranges" - no, that's different. Someone who doesn't know what they are, didn't read the explanations or watch the video and still thinks they know better. Crazy.
One of the earlier repliers comes back with "LibreOffice has a database component which is by far more powerful than any fake tables on a calculator’s grid." doubling down on "I don't understand it, didn't read the explanations, don't respect you enough to consider that you know anything about what you want or do on a computer, I still know better" and with namecalling it 'fake'. Crazy.
Note, to avoid the obvious tangent, that I'm not demanding people implement features for me in free software. As the thread ends by kerosene5 "Instead of spending so much time poo pooing the feature request, you could explore it. It really is a good feature. I just downloaded and opened my bank transactions and the very FIRST thing I did was look how to convert it to a table. . . . back to Excel."
It's not "1% of Excel users need pivot tables or something" it was the very FIRST thing they wanted, and multiple people in that thread want, and the second thing I wanted. No this is not the only feature Excel has that LibreOffice hasn't; if you want to know why people aren't using Open Source software? Try actually looking and listening instead of whatever that is you are doing.
My god the amount of projection in your comment. It seems you've mistaken me for everyone who ever commented in favor of migrating off of Excel.
I"m aware that there are things I'm unaware of. Perhaps I don't know how to use Excel, I'm "no true Excel user" if you will, and therefore my opinion is invalid. Like you I'm baffled not by the technical side of things but by our reaction to it. People say "it powers 10% of the world's economy" but not "and it's a problem".
It's a problem. My point is not that LO is better, it's that we should work to remove our dependency on closed-source software for universal office work. Governments should be doing that. But no, let's just say "the other one sucks" and continue to act like depending on a single for-profit company for all our economies is a good thing.
Not sure how my other comment relates to this. Is it arrogant to have preferences?
jodrellblank · 32d ago
Your other comment related because it shows the amount of projection in my comment was just the right amount.
> "Is it arrogant to have preferences?"
No, it's arrogant to not know what people are doing but still tell people that you know better what tools would be good to do what they are doing.
> "My point is not that LO is better, it's that we should work to remove our dependency on closed-source software for universal office work"
If that is what you had said, I wouldn't have replied.
dartharva · 35d ago
Hear, hear!
__mharrison__ · 35d ago
Excel powers the world and is the most common programming environment.
Programmers don't like to hear that truth.
kgeist · 36d ago
Interesting, our company migrated from Jira to Youtrack (by JetBrains) and never went back.
dfedbeef · 36d ago
I migrated to a team where you just tell your manager what you're doing and they remember it.
bokchoi · 36d ago
Me too! It's been so much nicer not having scrum and moving jira tickets around. We still have an issue tracker but it doesn't rules our lives.
msravi · 36d ago
Apart from Excel, isn't google docs or libreoffice a viable alternative?
alex989 · 36d ago
Depends on what you do. You lose like 85% of the features but I bet most users never touch any on them.
leshenka · 35d ago
Lots of documents have to be styled in a very particular way. These rules aren’t laws of physics, they’re made by humans to make other people’s lives more miserable than it’s necessary
Absolute most of the time what is offered by markdown is enough.
When doing my thesis I was asking myself “is it really that important to use 16pt font or 14pt one or this is a made up rule because someone said so many years ago”
asdsadasdasd123 · 36d ago
There are tons of alternatives, you just need to accept that its missing 1 or 2 features you like, because if the app supported the 1 or 2 features for everyone, it turns into jira/office
steebo · 36d ago
There are alternatives. Loads of them. But using them requires thinking about what office software you use, which is too much for the vast majority.
freeAgent · 36d ago
The alternatives are honestly not as good.
jeltz · 36d ago
Libreoffice has vastly superior CSV support compared to Microsoft office. The alternatives often have different strengths and weaknesses.
freeAgent · 36d ago
I’ve never had a problem working with CSVs in Excel, but I’ll take your word for it. For text operations, I frequently find myself using Notepad++ anyway.
jeltz · 36d ago
I had a colleague who did most of his work in Excel but used LibreCalc when he had to open a weird CSV and then cobtinued working in Excel.
emeril · 35d ago
I've found not to trust excel for CSV's generally unless I build them manually in excel as a concatenation
gopher_space · 35d ago
Notepad++ has no problem displaying characters like checkmarks that Excel will mangle.
MarcelOlsz · 36d ago
Linear.app and it's not even close.
codr7 · 36d ago
Definitely has everything I need and then some, a breath of fresh air compared to Jira.
freeAgent · 36d ago
It’s not an Excel alternative?
MarcelOlsz · 36d ago
No it's a JIRA alternative.
Ygg2 · 36d ago
I'm using OnlyOffice and it's pretty great. Definitely better than LibreOffice.
gregmac · 36d ago
> It's so shitty and slow because it's a bloatware
Bloatware is unwanted software, usually pre-installed or otherwise not installed by the user, that slows down your computer and takes up space.
So if a user wants Office, it is, by definition, not bloatware.
Even if we do consider it bloatware -- pre-installed, unwanted by the user, and using up system resources -- that isn't an explanation of why Office itself is slow.
superconduct123 · 36d ago
Its because everyone is already locked in to use it
deburo · 36d ago
They switched to hardware acceleration in the last few years and they removed the toggle to disable it. It still sucks (perf & rendering issues, eg. scrollbar not updating when scrolling) and there's no way to go back to the old rendering engine unless you disable hardware acceleration on Windows as a whole. Lmao.
naikrovek · 36d ago
what kills me about things like this is if you load a 1-2 decade old version of office on a computer today, things are fast.
all they had to do was keep up with whatever features are different in excel between now and then and implement those. leaving the menus and UX mostly alone, only improving things as time went on. update the engine to do the new features, and update the UI only enough to expose the new features and make them accessible.
but no... UX people don't have jobs if they can't redesign shit for no obvious reason. PMs don't have jobs if they can't force nonsense features no one ever asked for. Developers don't have jobs if they don't aggressively chase every new fad and tool and be in a constant state of learning (and thus unlearning).
this whole world is stupid and was a mistake.
ii41 · 36d ago
Wait, I have the impression that water torturing is either US or Soviet invention?
gilgoomesh · 36d ago
From Wikipedia on Chinese Water Torture:
> Despite the name, it is not a Chinese invention and it is not traditional anywhere in Asia. Its earliest known version was first documented by Hippolytus de Marsiliis in Bologna (now in Italy) in the late 15th or early 16th century, and it was widely used in Western countries before being popularized by Harry Houdini in the early 20th century.
However, I don't recommend reading those articles beyond the first paragraph and list of contents!
earnestinger · 36d ago
Americans go big. They use plenty more water during enhanced interrogation.
_ah · 36d ago
Wow, this takes me back.
I actually worked on Office performance many years ago. We did a lot of very clever stuff to improve the product, even to the point of optimizing the byte ordering on disk (spinning rust) so that the initial boot would be faster.
That said, it always felt a bit like a losing battle. The goal was "make Office not get slower". It's very hard to convince app teams that their new shiny abstraction or graphics object is actually the reason everything is worse, and it's even more challenging when there's no direct impact- just a broad increase in system memory pressure.
Typically, perf isn't a few bad decisions. It's a very large number of independently reasonable decisions that add up to a bad result. If the team loses that discipline for even one moment then it's very very difficult to fix. I wonder if my former team still exists or if they've all been reassigned elsewhere.
pradn · 36d ago
> Typically, perf isn't a few bad decisions. It's a very large number of independently reasonable decisions that add up to a bad result. If the team loses that discipline for even one moment then it's very very difficult to fix. I wonder if my former team still exists or if they've all been reassigned elsewhere.
This is precisely where the adage "premature optimization is the root of all evil" falls apart. You really do need everyone to care about performance to an obsessive, unreasonable degree to keep the entire, massive system performant. Companies with good engineering leadership understand this. The thousand cuts can come from language, libraries, feature creep, and pure ignorance or carelessness.
navane · 35d ago
It's not premature if your crafting an office product in 2025 which sits in a direct line of 30 years of the same word processor.
pradn · 35d ago
It's premature in the sense that you need to care about it before you do profiling, which is the usual advice for perf improvements: "you don't know where the hotspots are, so write your code, profile it, and fix the slow bits".
nikanj · 36d ago
And if you try to bring up perf at any point during the design phase, people pull the ”Knuth said premature optimization is the root of all evil” card. As if you could design and build a Ford Pinto, then hotspot optimize it into a Saturn V
godelski · 36d ago
> people pull the ”Knuth said premature optimization is the root of all evil” card.
Incredible how so many people misuse quotes and end up undermining the the whole point of the quote.
So for everyone that doesn't understand, here's the longer quote
There is no doubt that the holy grail of efficiency leads to abuse. Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil.
Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%. A good programmer will not be lulled into complacency by such reasoning, he will be wise to look carefully at the critical code; but only after that code has been identified.
Knuth said: "Get a profiler and make sure that you're optimizing the right thing"
It is incredible how this became "don't optimize".
I guess he was thinking that u might not need Saturn V. If u later decide based on more info that u need it, drop the old work and make perfy version from 0. I yhink that is reasonable given how much more work and resources it requires
calf · 36d ago
Was Knuth talking about deployed software when he wrote that?
nikanj · 36d ago
He wrote that in 1974. Software products were orders of magnitude smaller back then.
MaxGripe · 36d ago
I recently discovered that Apple has something called "Pages" and "Numbers" - simple apps that serve as alternatives to Word and Excel. They're so straightforward and intuitive that they require no learning curve. They just work.
It seems like things like this are no longer possible for Microsoft. They keep producing clunky tools which, although functional, always come with a horribly frustrating UX (as usual).
I've been working within the Microsoft tech stack for around 25 years now (mostly SQL Server). I used to be a huge fan of their products because they were one of the best companies when it came to developer experience (developers! developers!). Unfortunately, that was a long time ago. Things are very different now. Of all the things I once liked, only SQL Server really remains (ironically, it's a technology they acquired - it used to be Sybase). I still think C#, F#, and PowerShell are great, but I actively discourage people from using most of their so-called "products" because the quality is just appallingly low.
Even something like Visual Studio is better replaced with Rider + LINQPad. Their GitHub repositories are full of open issues that have been dragging on for years. There's virtually nothing left of the old Microsoft that I still respect or admire.
That said, I have to admit that most other corporations aren't any better - there's a general trend of maximizing profit while offering the lowest quality that customers are still willing to tolerate. If I were starting IT studies today, I would go 100% down the open-source path.
gloosx · 36d ago
I'm a Macbook user, but I often have screen sharing experiences with people using Windows laptops, god, it's painful watching them. Brand new, solid book with decent specs, only used for few months and everything is visibly very slow. Opening some documents and presentations while being on screen share takes minutes, file explorer lags, screen compositor lags. Notifications with weather, STOCKS info, murders and clickbait news around just pop up mid-conferences.
The most funny part? I was debugging application .exe not starting. Reason? AVG antivirus UPLOADED EXE to their server for EXAMINATION. EXE with an 600$ Extended Validation license. There was a message for the user TO WAIT FEW HOURS before they studied it and exe could be unblocked from launching. All was completely normal to the said windows user. What a dystopian thing they are used to
efdee · 36d ago
Sounds like an AVG problem, not a Windows problem.
bobbylarrybobby · 36d ago
The very normalization of antivirus on Windows is a Windows problem. For better or worse, Mac users simply don't think about AV.
efdee · 32d ago
Like you say: "for better or worse".
FWIW, I haven't ran antivirus software on Windows (other than the included Defender, but that's not something I think about) in literally decades.
gloosx · 32d ago
I think letting certain software thrive which just blatantly disregards your own certification and validation processes is exactly Windows problem. Some developer(s) paid 600$ and emailed their passport to Microsoft affiliates to get rid of that "SmartScreen" warning, do they have to pay and email their passport copy to AVG as well so their application can be ran without uploading step and needing to wait few hours of "examination"?
efdee · 32d ago
What are you saying here, though? That Microsoft should have the monopoly on deciding what software is safe and what is not?
gloosx · 30d ago
Windows historically allowed a dire situation with security, so no-one really freaking knows what software is safe and what not. Even monopoly they have on deciding what software is safe and what is not (extended validation certification procedure) is not helping anyone, because anyone can circumvent it with photoshop and 10$
Are you saying Microsoft shouldn't care about making a secure system and they can just outsource the subject to a third company which will upload .exe to their server and tell user to wait few hours before it can be launched?
smelendez · 36d ago
I use Pages as my default word processor. It doesn’t have all of Word’s features but I seldom need them, and it’s much faster than Word. I highly recommend it.
kstrauser · 36d ago
Same. I use Word only to edit Word files that I have to send back to someone outside my company. That's not often for me. Pages is vastly better for every other use case I have.
No comments yet
tbirdny · 36d ago
Numbers used to be painfully slow. It was just maybe 3 years ago or so it improved a lot. It was practically unusable for large spreadsheets. I swear spreadsheets from 20 years earlier performed better on much slower hardware. If you haven't used Numbers for a few years, maybe give it another try.
bbatha · 36d ago
Also shout out to Keynote which is the best presentation software. PowerPoint is so clunky in comparison. Nice features like making image backgrounds transparent are huge wins.
Pages is also pretty nice. Its definitely enough for home usage, and if my colleagues could read the pages files natively I would find it completely sufficient for professional use. I find it does layout much better than MS Office. Which honestly is a much bigger concern for home users: professional users will just switch to professional layout tools when they need it, but Sam doesn't need that cost/complexity for some bake sale fliers.
Numbers can also be nicer for home use cases, but is a bit weird if you're used to excel. And unlike pages or keynote quickly hits upper limits on complexity. I would never use numbers in a professional setting.
gtk40 · 36d ago
Meanwhile Microsoft removed WordPad in the latest version of Windows 11. It was a great simple word processor and text editor. It even supported docx and odt files.
jasonephraim · 36d ago
Numbers has it's issues as well. I have to open .csv files dozens if not hundreds of times a day - always the same format. Numbers will not allow me to default to freezing the first/header column or _not_ show the formatting sidebar on open. I have to set the freeze header option and close the sidebar every time.
At this point, I've started using IDE extensions when I just need to view/filter
dagmx · 36d ago
If you’re doing it often enough, you might benefit from using AppleScript to automate opening it in an app and changing setting . Not ideal, but it’ll make it a lot less annoying.
jeroenhd · 36d ago
Microsoft's free web app office suite is a slimmed down, quick version of Office that does most of the stuff most users want most of the time, for the cases where Pages or Google Docs would also suffice.
The alternative to the full office suite with decades of backwards compatibility and hundreds of features, is the quick, free version Microsoft made to fight off Google Docs.
bitwize · 36d ago
We've reached peak bloat when the version of an app that lives in a fucking browser is "slimmed down" and "fast" compared to the real app.
stevage · 36d ago
> A recently discovered that Apple has something called "Pages" and "Numbers" - simple apps that serve as alternatives to Word and Excel. They're so straightforward and intuitive that they require no learning curve. They just work.
And yet, weirdly, macOS comes up with absolutely no image editor of any kind. There's no equivalent of MS Paint. It's infuriating.
carlosjobim · 36d ago
They just purchased Pixelmator ;)
SSLy · 35d ago
I assume we should wait and see whether they'll roll up their software into next macOS right?
varunneal · 36d ago
hey there's preview
naikrovek · 36d ago
yeah preview can do more than it appears it can do.
quicktime pro was like that. it was insanely powerful and things were all hidden behind just a few menu items and a few little added UI elements here and there. quicktime pro was amazing and I miss it a bit.
daedrdev · 36d ago
yeah I was surprised to find myself donwloading gimp for image editing. However, Microsofts modern paint (paint3d? I dont remember what they call it) is atrocious imo so I can't really fault apple.
nkotov · 36d ago
I use Numbers daily for simple local spreadsheet math / tables. It works for what I need and I'm glad every new Mac comes with it.
dimgl · 36d ago
Windows is bafflingly bad. It's gotten so much worse in the last four years, but it's always been bad. I've never gotten bluetooth to work correctly on Windows. Apps randomly crash. Three different versions of settings pages, and they crash. Snipping Tool only works half the time. I had to run a debloater on my system because searching for something in the Start Menu would never give me the results I wanted. Xbox ads during gameplay... I mean the list goes on.
I'm done with it. I've switched to Ubuntu and I haven't looked back. I only boot up my Windows installation when I need to do game development on Unreal or use an incompatible program. But for now, MacOS and Linux are covering everything.
I used to be a big gamer but I've basically given up on playing games that don't work on Linux. The selection of games is steadily growing and some games work at launch (like Oblivion Remastered).
I know there's a lot of animosity for GNOME, but it's the best Linux desktop in my opinion. In terms of polish it's definitely the closest to MacOS.
Application installs are still an absolute pain, but it's gotten better. At the very least I can now go through the Ubuntu App Center to get the most common apps. There's the occassional app that doesn't work (like VLC) and then I'll have to look into Snap or Flatpak or whatever other variation of app packaging Linux devs decide to unleash on the masses... but then it works and I don't think about it again.
One last gripe for me is the lack of HDR support in Ubuntu. I can't use my LG C2 with it. But I've switched to using two Dell monitors with DisplayPort and now it doesn't matter... and I use the LG C2 with something else.
For the average user this experience sucks. But for me, I'm okay putting up with this pain if it means never using Windows again.
y-c-o-m-b · 36d ago
> Windows is bafflingly bad. It's gotten so much worse in the last four years, but it's always been bad. I've never gotten bluetooth to work correctly on Windows. Apps randomly crash. Three different versions of settings pages, and they crash. Snipping Tool only works half the time. I had to run a debloater on my system because searching for something in the Start Menu would never give me the results I wanted. Xbox ads during gameplay... I mean the list goes on.
Not to defend Microsoft, as I've firmly believed them to be a shitty entity for a loooong time now, but as a counter example and many years going on Windows 10/11, I don't have any of these issues and I've only run debloater maybe a few times in the last 5 years.
I don't know wtf people are installing on their PCs to make them so shitty like this, but I've not encountered these things across dozens of personal or employer devices in recent in times. Like not even once. Maybe you're downloading beta drivers? Maybe the manufacturer of your devices are cheapo brands with poorly made chipsets? Maybe you have bloatware installed by your manufacturer that you haven't uninstalled? At this stage, it's hard to believe this is not some kind of user error. Be it a lack of research before acquiring a device, or lack of knowledge on how to navigate the device.
Edit: to put into perspective a bit more, I use my main laptop - a Lenovo Legion laptop - for gaming (many acquired through the "dark waters" even), full-stack software development, AI video up-scaling, photo-editing, running a media-server (Jellyfin), torrenting, office programs, running virtual machines, running WSL2 with docker, running many various open-source programs, producing music with Ableton and a plethora of third-party VSTs, etc.
No issues.
const_cast · 36d ago
Windows doesn't have "issues", per se. As in the system is pretty stable and it works, presumably, like it's designed.
The problem is the design is just bad. Lots of things are just sucky and they're meant to be that way. Search is ass, explorer is half-decent only in Windows 11. There's way more than 3 settings panels, and yes, they all look different. You still have to edit the registry for some random tweaks. Apps put there files god knows where. Every app updates independently. You still have to go online and download random .exe and .msi files to install things. If you get errors the message is typically worthless. The system tray is a fucking mess. IIS sucks. powershell is okay but cmd is still around and yes, sometimes you have to use it. And, cherry on top, everything is slowwwww. Especially the file system. You don't really notice it until you have a version controlled code base but NTFS has to be, like, 1000x slower than competing Linux filesystems.
the__alchemist · 36d ago
LibreOffice, the most popular office suite available for Linux, is comparably slow and bloated.
prmoustache · 36d ago
There are other like Anyoffice or Caligra Office. Or you can use any web based one...even office365 ;-)
If your needs are smaller you can do a lot with just abiword and gnumeric. They launch instantly.
Gnome evolution is much nicer to use than Outlook in my experience.
marcosdumay · 36d ago
Personally, I live the Office license my workplace pays for untouched, and use LibreOffice on my work Windows computer instead.
Yes, it's slow and bloated. But it's comparably faster and leaner, and it doesn't use undocumented APIs to take resources away from everything else running on the same computer and make every other thing unusable.
And yeah, calc lacks features when compared to excel. So, avoid spreadsheets for complex problems.
dimgl · 36d ago
I haven't used Office tools in over a decade...
bborud · 36d ago
I haven't used the office tools on Linux for years, but since they are based on the same 30 year old idea of an office suite, would you expect them to be much better? I don't think it is productive to choose among equally antiquated and poor quality alternatives. It isn't going to advance the status quo.
In terms of word processing (which is perhaps an archaic term by now) I would ask people to look at what Visual Studio Code is. A rather minimal, skeletal, code editing platform that derives nearly all its value from the extensions people make for it. There are lots and lots of editors and IDEs. But extremely few of them serve as platforms. As the infrastructural basis for creating applications.
Yes, there are IDEs that are possibly marginally better at editing, say, Java or Go code. But VSC is pretty good at almost every language that is in common use today. And it manages to compete pretty well with more specialized solutions. It does this because an editor that does 90% in all the languages you use is far more valuable than switching between two editors that perhaps achieve 95%.
Word, and its open source counterparts, are antiquated and obsolete. I don't think the field can be advanced by building word processors that are just iterations of 30 year old ideas. Yes, you can probably extend them, but people don't. You have to understand what it is that makes some pieces of software work as platforms (like VSC), and why other pieces of software do not inspire people to build on them.
I think Microsoft should reinvent Word as a platform that is designed to be extended and that is easy to extend. I would then release the base software platform as open source. Much of the functionality that resides in Word today I would move to paid extensions - including useful bundles of extensions. This way Microsoft would retain its revenue stream, and I wouldn't have to deal with all of the crud Word contains.
I would also create a marketplace for both paid and free (open source) extensions. Which in turn would make the product more valuable (even though the base product is free). Because other companies and people invest in it and have a shared interest in its health beyond mere existence.
Of course, not only Microsoft can do this. Anyone could create an editing platform. But it would have to be someone with a bit of money who can spend perhaps 5-6 years supporting the effort to see if it takes off. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
One reason I see this as perhaps the only way forward for this class of application is that I'm doing some work for a company that manufactures physical products. A would-be advanced user of office automation tools. This kind of business has a very complex document structure where there's a vast hierarchy of thousands of documents that goes into every project and even spans projects. Doing this with Word, Sharepoint and whatnot is complicated, fragile and requires a lot of work. It doesn't work very well. It also means you have to memorize a lot of procedures. This could have benefitted from very narrow, domain specific tooling. Including LLMs that allow you to ask questions with context derived from sources other than the Word documents. Yes, Microsoft is trying to stuff this into their products, but it isn't actually all that useful because it is generic. It is never going to support what our customer needs.
I don't think Office, LibreOffice etc are the right kind of tools. They are children of the 1990s. We have better starting points today and better technology. It is time to re-think this.
the__alchemist · 36d ago
I love this idea, and agree with your assessment of office tools in general. You almost make me want to try it, but it's evident the size this body of work would take.
SSLy · 35d ago
What you might be thinking of is Notion and its cohort: capacities, miro, (maybe) craft, etc
moooo99 · 36d ago
Oh it absolutely is, but at least it’s free
bborud · 36d ago
Most of what Microsoft does is indeed bafflingly bad. With a few exceptions. The baseline for software from Microsoft appears to be slow, bad UX and very buggy. And it isn't like this is some image thing; Microsoft products are always worse than I could remember when I'm confronted with them after some time away from them.
Developers at Microsoft are obviously not rewarded for quality. You have to assume that this is because managers and leaders in Microsoft are not rewarded for quality. You would think that a company that has deep pockets would be in a great position to do more ground-up re-implementations. And to do so with quality, performance and correctness as the main focus.
For instance the office suite. The last 20 or so years have taught me that an Office suite can be a lot simpler and it will actually work better if it is simpler. Just in the last 5 years I have observed three different companies where people routinely perform most of their writing and editing in other tools and then insert what they have written in Word. Because it is far better than creating the content in Word itself. At my current consulting gig a lot of people write things in Google Docs and then import them into Word documents to produce the official versions of documents.
Word is a mess. It is packed with too many features you will never use. Those have a cost because they take up screen space, and make the features you do care about harder to find and use. Word constantly distracts you because it misbehaves and you have to somehow try to deal with its quirks and interruptions. It is slow, complex and resource intensive.
Word is objectively not a very good piece of software. I have never met anyone who loves it. Who feels that Word makes them more productive than any alternatives. It is software you have to cope with. Software that must be tolerated. Or not.
I do not understand why Microsoft, with its deep pockets, has made no attempt to reinvent, for instance, Word, to create a word processor from scratch. With focus on quality, correctness, performance, usability, and perhaps most importantly: easy extensibility.
They could draw some inspiration from Visual Studio Code. There are many things that are wrong with VS Code, but they got a few things right. The most important being that unlike other IDEs it is essentially just a skeletal platform that derives its value from extensions. Third party extensions. This means that VS Code can be adapted to fit your individual needs, or more importantly, the needs to segments of users. It means that people who want to make tools can build on VS Code rather than having to do a lot of work orthogonal to their goal to create tooling.
Yes, you can probably wrangle special functionality into Word. But nobody does. Not at any meaningful scale.
Word is rooted in a world that existed before many of you were born. A world that is long gone. There has been decades of technology evolution. If you were to develop a word processor today, you would be starting from a point that is completely different.
And let's not get started on Azure. I have to deal with it about every two years. And every two years I try to approach it with an open mind and with optimism. Surely they have fixed things now? I am always disappointed. Things look slick on the surface, but then you start to use them, and you are confronted with systems that are slow, slow, slow, ugly and buggy. AWS is certainly not the belle of the ball. Its constant complexity and the awkwardness and just overall badness of the tooling makes me limit how much of it I make myself dependent on AWS services.
But at least AWS isn't as bad as Azure.
I don't get why Microsoft can't seem to invest in quality. Yes, I get all the arguments that it just needs to be good enough for their customers to keep using them, but surely, at some point it has to hurt your pride.
If I were in Nadella's shoes I would invest heavily in quality. In stripping things down. In starting over. In making sure that I understand the required cultural change required to make products that are objectively speaking, good. If not great. And perhaps that requires getting rid of a lot of long-time leaders that just can't change gears. Perhaps it requires creating teams that are isolated to a greater degree from other teams so they don't drag each other down.
morning-coffee · 36d ago
> Developers at Microsoft are obviously not rewarded for quality.
I work at Microsoft and you're absolutely correct as far as I've observed. Rewards are for speed and doing things (usually hyped-based) that advance the goals of leadership... these goals are rarely if ever about "let's make sure we nail the basics first". I think it comes down to serving shareholders vs. serving real customers.
saratogacx · 36d ago
> You would think that a company that has deep pockets would be in a great position to do more ground-up re-implementations. And to do so with quality, performance and correctness as the main focus.
Why is this always the go-to? The Windows 11 start menu and task bar are exactly that, from scratch re-implementations of what existed before and they are garbage. There is a lot of institutional knowledge in that old code and to pretend it holds no to little value gives us half-hearted replacements which never quite ascend to the heights they were supposed to replace.
Sure, there are some exceptions where the concept around "what the thing is" needed to change and a new product needs to re-imagine a solution (VS -> VSCode). However, I feel that we, the software development community, put way more hope that this is true way more often than it is in reality.
bborud · 35d ago
Well, then they are one in four. The other three were quality, performance and correctness. Simply re-implementing something, or writing something that is poor software isn't sufficient.
As for knowledge: yes, it is more valuable than the software. That does not imply the software is the only place where software is stored. In its most useful form it is stored in people. Which is why you should revisit, and rewrite, code that is important often enough to ensure the knowledge is passed on.
However, don't forget to make room for new knowledge and new ideas. That has hardly happened to Office suites for 30 years. They just tend to become "more".
efdee · 36d ago
> I had to run a debloater on my system
Hot take: your ""debloater"" screwed up your system.
I've had problems with Windows, but none of the ones you've described.
> For the average user this experience sucks. But for me, I'm okay.
I guess this describes my Windows experience. I _know_ some people have problems. I don't, because I guess either I got used to it or I know how to avoid it.
const_cast · 36d ago
Windows kind of has this property where it rots. Both in time between reboots and in time in general. Running Windows 1+ week without a reboot and it just... gets a little more buggy and a little more slow each day. And then after a few years, it's time for a reinstall.
goalieca · 35d ago
Windows rot used to mean periodically reformatting. With WinMe you had 1 month. With XP I found it unbearable around 9 months.
dimgl · 36d ago
This is a great comment. I may wipe my Windows machine a 10th time and try again, but I'm sticking with Linux for now.
naikrovek · 36d ago
this is like a word-for-word repeat of a comment that i've seen probably 1,000 times in my career.
> never gotten bluetooth to work on windows
I seriously doubt this. seriously. if true, it is a user problem, because i've never had an issue, nor has anyone I know.
> apps randomly crash
true of any operating system, also that's not what "randomly" means. you mean "unexpectedly" I think.
> settings pages crash
never happened to me, ever. if it has, it was infrequent enough that i have no memory of it, and i've never heard this complaint before from anyone.
> snipping tool only works half the time
again, I use that thing continuously on Windows and it always works.
> xbox ads during gameplay
what game? what [everything]? I've never seen this and I play games on windows all the dang time.
it very much sounds like you've cherry picked experiences that others have had and piled them all here and declared that they happen to you. Maybe they have, I don't know, but if this has all happened to you in the last 4 years, you are the only person on the planet who has experienced this. Not even in the depths of Microsofts online communities and the Microsoft Discord do I read of a single person with all of these problems.
I don't know what your problems are underneath, but they're not Microsoft. If they were, I would have those problems, and I don't. Some of these were common 10 years ago when Windows 10 came out, but only for a month or two. Certainly not in the past 4 years. not unless you're intentionally avoiding upgrades or something.
dimgl · 36d ago
I love these kinds of comments. It reminds me of the Reddit threads of people complaining about bugs on Cyberpunk 2077's release, only for people to reply with "I played the game, I didn't run into any bugs! What bugs are you talking about?" Meanwhile a quick Google/YouTube search reveals entire montages devoted purely to bugs.
Here are Windows Forum threads talking about each of the problems I've mentioned, with thousands of people saying "I have the same question":
This is likely because people take their customizations (like custom setup scripts to “decrapify” windows) that used to work great on previous versions of windows and apply them unchanged to new versions or something, because “windows is the same underneath, this is just a reskin that they charge you $150 for.” Every time I have helped someone with problems like these (when I did see them a lot earlier in my career) it was because they did something goofy to cause it. Like using a PCIe to PCI adapter with a PCI to ISA adapter, so they could plug in a flipping Sound Blaster64 or something. “I’m not buying a new sound card!! I’m not using the onboard sound!! I bought this sound blaster in 1996 and I want to use it!! Microsoft should let me!!”
Others would show me how the computer would act weird after unplugging PCI cards while the computer was running, and blame Microsoft. “See!? SEE?!” Every single WTF moment I had in desktop support with issues like this was user error.
Maybe yours aren’t. Maybe the Microsoft Answers forum is filled with exceptionally smart people who all know exactly how to use a computer, never ask stupid questions, and never give wrong answers, but I think we both know that isn’t really true.
bigfatkitten · 36d ago
> I seriously doubt this. seriously. if true, it is a user problem, because i've never had an issue, nor has anyone I know.
I have about a 50% success rate with Bluetooth devices pairing and reconnecting properly on Windows, so at least I’m doing better than OP.
The Bluetooth software stack on the whole is a disaster, but the only platform where I’ve had a trouble free experience is macOS.
efdee · 36d ago
THANK YOU.
riskable · 36d ago
> Snipping Tool only works half the time.
This started happening to me too like six months ago. I figured, "yet again they broke something with an update, but it'll probably fix itself eventually."
Nope!
I'd switch to some 3rd party tool but my employer doesn't allow any since we all got upgraded to Windows 11. Why don't they allow it anymore? Because the snipping tool (Snip & Sketch).
At least they still let me install Ditto (I never liked how the Windows clipboard history feature works... No, I'll paste when I want to paste—not when I select the item!)
vivzkestrel · 36d ago
stupid question: why haven't we even heard of an attempt to say rewrite office from scratch or how about even bigger like write windows from scratch for the next version and scrap all the 20 yr old+ workarounds hardcoded into it
bicolao · 36d ago
because it's not worth the risk of breaking plenty applications out there (or in the case of office, documents). I have heard stories of MS making changes to keep older apps working. Imagine carrying all that to a new rewrite.
matteoraso · 36d ago
Check out Libreoffice. It's like MS Office, but less resource-intensive.
kilotaras · 36d ago
Team X is responsible for feature Foo; feature Foo is slow; team X introduces Foo-preload, metrics go up, person responsible gets a bonus.
Multiply that by tens (or even hundreds) of teams and your app startup (either on desktop or mobile) is now a bloated mess. Happened to Office, Facebook iOS and countless others.
One solution is to treat startup cycles as a resource similar to e.g. size or backend servers.
bjackman · 36d ago
> One solution is to treat startup cycles as a resource similar to e.g. size or backend servers.
The only way to achieve performance metrics in a large org IMO.
Google Search is still fast because if you degrade p99 latency an SRE will roll back your change. Macbooks still have good battery life because Apple have an army of QA engineers and if they see a bump on their Ammeters that MacOS release doesn't go ahead.
Everything else (especially talking about "engineers these days just don't know how to write efficient code") is noise. In big tech projects you get the requirements your org encodes in its metrics and processes. You don't get the others. It's as simple as that.
Never worked at MS but it's obvious to me that the reason Windows is shit is that the things that would make it good simply aren't objectives for MS.
netruk44 · 36d ago
As an ex-Microsoft SDET who worked on Windows, we used to test for those things as well. In 2014.
Then Microsoft made the brave decision that testers were simply unnecessary. So they laid off all SDETs, then decided that SDE’s should be in charge of the tests themselves.
Which effectively made it so there was no test coverage of windows at all, as the majority of SDE’s had not interacted with the test system prior to that point. Many/most of them did not know how to run even a single test, let alone interpret its results.
This is what Microsoft management wanted, so this is what they got. I would not expect improvement, only slow degradation as Windows becomes Bing Desktop, featuring Office and Copilot (Powered By Azure™).
bjackman · 36d ago
Makes perfect sense. It recently became clear to me (e.g. [2]) that it's not a cohesive concept but to me personally this is the meaning of POSIWID [1].
Basically making Windows a good desktop OS is not in any meaningful way the "purpose" of that part of MS. The "purpose" of any team of 20+ SWEs _is_ the set of objectives they measure and act upon. That's the only way you can actually predict the outcomes of its work.
And the corrolary is that you can usually quite clearly look at the output of such an org and infer what its "purpose" is, when defined as such.
Then the OS team will fight back with options to disable all of these startup things. Like the Startup tab in Windows Task Manager with an "impact" column and easy button to disable annoying startup programs. It's interesting to even see it play out within the same company.
macleginn · 36d ago
The only impact values I see on my home machine are "Not measured" and "None".
threatripper · 36d ago
The solution is simple: New OKRs and KPIs in the next cycle reversing some of the current ones, then new bonuses for reaching them. Repeat.
taneq · 36d ago
“I could do this all day!”
vasco · 36d ago
Office codebase is soon going to probably be older than most people that work on it.
andruby · 36d ago
That could already be the case. The initial release is from 1990, so the codebase is at least 35 years old.
I don't have a good guess for the average age of software developers at Microsoft, but claude.ai guesses the average "around 33-38 years" and the median "around 35-36 years old".
bcraven · 36d ago
"but claude.ai guesses"
To my ears this is the equivalent of "some guy down the pub said", but maybe I am a luddite.
n8m8 · 36d ago
You're not a luddite, they disclosed it because you're _supposed_ to take it with a grain of salt
claudex · 36d ago
Office was released in 1990, but Excel in 1985 and Word in 1983.
gigel82 · 35d ago
I'm told from MS friends that there are still files with the intact 1987 changelog in Word; as well as workarounds for dot matrix printers that were released 40+ years ago.
Also, the Office codebase is significantly larger than Windows (and has been for a while), that was surprising to me.
alliao · 36d ago
make the apps trade with each other using cpu/memory as money lol and they earn money by usage
RegW · 36d ago
No. No. No.
Microsoft need to update the spec for all new personal computers to include mandatory pre-load hardware. This would have a secondary CPU, RAM and storage used for pre-loading licensed Office products before your laptop boots. AI would analyse your usage patterns and fire-up Office for you before you even get to work in the morning.
Perhaps, this could even allow you to have Office on-hand, ready-to-use on its own hardware module, while you develop Linux application on your main CPU.
Further down the line. Someone see an opportunity to provide access to compatible modules in the cloud, allowing re-use of older incompatible hardware. But there would be the danger that service (without the support of MS), may go bust, leaving those users without their mandatory instant access to licensed Office products, forcing upgrades to even newer hardware.
immibis · 36d ago
Raymond Chen wrote about this.
rafaelmn · 36d ago
At this point I view Windows as a legacy/compatibility OS, all the news about Windows is how they are making it worse for everyone.
And using it now and then it feels like that too. Windows 10 Mail app had integration with system calendar, you would get itsycal built into the OS. Windows 11 removed that and made the OS Mail app spam infested shit, and they expect me to pay a subscription for something that comes bundled with the OS I paid for.
Linux desktop is getting better but I still wouldn't daily drive it, so MacOS it is until Linux desktop gets to a more reliable state. I wouldn't be shocked it gets there - I believe Valve made relatively low investments and got a lot out of it, GPU vendors have an incentive to support it - for compute workloads and the gaming on Linux is becoming a thing. Also for office stuff the EU-US hostility could force EU to look for alternative software providers and move away from Microsoft.
Actually thinking about this just made me donate some $ to Gnome project.
bigfatkitten · 36d ago
I really want to like GNOME, but GNOME's developers have almost as much arrogance and contempt for their users as Microsoft.
As an example, the power button can no longer be configured to power off the machine, because this is "too destructive". I'm not talking about defaults -- they removed the ability for me to make this choice for myself. Not even Microsoft has done that.
On my machine, the power button is recessed and requires quite a bit of force to press. It is impossible to press accidentally, but the GNOME developers apparently know best.
bardak · 36d ago
My favorite GNOME developer's hill to die on is their refusal to implement a system tray or work with the rest of the Linux desktop community to create an alternative to the system tray. Don't get me wrong there has been a abuse of the system tray but the refusal to acknowledge that there is a use case for persistent notifications or status indicators is ridiculous. there suggestion is that notifications are the solution is so inadequate. It's pretty telling that their arguments aren't sound when they have chosen to implement traditional system tray items such as a battery indicator and volume indicator as built in items on the task bar but they dismiss the idea that a chat app status indicator would be useful.
bigfatkitten · 36d ago
Mark Shuttleworth (of Ubuntu fame) had quite a bit to say about trying to get AppIndicators into GNOME.
I guess, those of us who actually like the idea should be more vocal. As otherwise the devs would read the comments and decide nobody likes what they do. Personally, I’m super happy about current Gnome. Coming after 10+ years of macOS. I don’t want to see that ugly mess of visual distractions on my screen all the time. Basic vitals like battery is okay for me. Distractions from apps, I don’t need them. They serve zero purpose to me, and being a computer user of 20+ years, I never interacted with those widgets. Even on Windows. So, kudos to Gnome team, I really like Gnome since 42 or when they started this radical simplicity thing. I enjoy the system each and every day I interact with it, and it does not wear off. It’s not like it looks cool, but after a couple of days I understand it isn’t.
v1ne · 35d ago
Thing is: That's your preference and nobody should force you to use these indicators. Even on Windows, the tray icons are usually mostly hidden away.
I find them highly useful on macOS, but there I lack the configurability I have on Windows.
wltr · 34d ago
Having to interact with them, even having to hide them, is forcing them upon me. I don’t understand a reason for them to exist. They’re simply useless to me and a sign of a complex design.
tristan957 · 36d ago
GNOME is open to adding a system tray. There are even designs for it.
There is just no one working on the technology. TingPing, an Igalia employee and GNOME contributor, was working on a new D-Bus protocol for it, but the work stopped. There is a PR up on the freedesktop xdg-specs repository.
amiga-workbench · 36d ago
I am personally so glad Gnome does not have a system tray, on every other DE its a disgusting mess of differently scaled and styled icons.
rendaw · 36d ago
So rather than disable the system tray, or use other applications that don't have inconsistent scaled and styled icons, you'd prefer that nobody who uses Gnome is able to have a system tray?
amiga-workbench · 36d ago
I prefer not having to worry about it at all, and I don't. Its tidy by default and stays tidy no matter what I install. Many other "deficiencies" in Gnome, like the lack of desktop filing, or the austere file manager contribute to this tidiness.
The first versions of Gnome 3 did indeed have a system tray for backwards compatibility, and it was hidden out of the way until you needed it. Eventually it was scrapped once enough software was updated to not rely on it.
If somebody insists on having a messy UI, they can use literally any other DE available for Linux.
Saris · 36d ago
That sounds like an issue that could be solved by forcing icons and sizes for the tray.
alyandon · 36d ago
Just give users the ability to pin the icons they care about and hide the others in a pop-out panel like Windows does.
Saris · 36d ago
That too, very basic feature that should be in every DE.
BarryMilo · 36d ago
As much as I'm a diehard Linux defender, Gnome can get bent. XFCE does everything I want, which is to say, almost nothing.
cess11 · 36d ago
It does a lot of things, though many are somewhat subtle, like screen locking timeout and stuff with networking and a bunch of utility programs and so on. I like to start off Xfce Debian and plaster i3wm over it, it's the best 'power user' setup I've come across.
I wouldn't hesitate to put a 'regular' computer user in front of Xfce, it strikes a nice combination of simple and discoverable with very few annoyances. It's also where I go when I want to use some many-windowed application that doesn't fit into tiling.
frainfreeze · 36d ago
XFCE is wonderful. I wish it got more dev time
dingdingdang · 36d ago
XFCE is the Win 2000 UI of the Linux ecosystem, perfectly functional and fine; tweaks are possible if needed.
While it may seem overblown, it's absolutely RIDICULOUS how fast it flies on contemporary systems, and even older ones.
One can also omit most of their other apps, with the exception of KWIN, drawing the desktop and its window decorations, and konqueror, the filemanager, and the things managing the menu(bar(s)), applauncher.
Using modern apps for the rest, like anywhere else.
And have them styled, themed however you like. With a few mouseclicks.
MSFT_Edging · 36d ago
I've never been big on the Windows UI patterns but I recently started using KDE on one of my machines and it feels more polished than the Windows desktop. It has a few quirks but it's one of the most satisfying out-of-the-box desktops I've used, and I primarily use a niche dynamic tiling wm on all my other machines.
troad · 36d ago
KDE is great. It gets slept on because of its bad rap circa 2004, but it has low-key become the best DE by far. Sane defaults, nothing tries to fight you, everything is configurable.
If you don't have the time or inclination to tinker with things like tiling WMs - and more power to you if you do, but I don't - KDE is the best there is.
const_cast · 36d ago
I've been using KDE for a good decade or so, and what a lot of people don't know is that not only is the desktop great, the applications are, too.
Everyone knows Dolphin is by far the best file manager, but not a lot of people know that Kate is fantastic. Konsole is really good too. The new System Monitor basically replaces a ton of programs. Spectacle is a great and snappy screenshot utility. Filelight is so useful.
There's definitely a few misses, though. kmail in particular. But, overtime the applications actually improve, both in performance and features. This seems to be in contrast in gnome, where apps like Nautilus have been getting worse for a long time. And in contrast to Windows.
LargoLasskhyfv · 35d ago
> The new System Monitor basically replaces a ton of programs.
Like what? Running htop or btop++ in Konsole(or whichever terminal emulator you prefer), as I do?¹ :)
Just opened that thing right now, and it gives nothing to me.
Shrug?
¹ On one of 9 virtual desktops, arranged 3x3, usually upper left.
System monitor can do all this stuff, pstree and all, and you can get really cool visualizations. Pi charts, line graphs, and my personal favorite, color grid. That one's really good for CPU utilization.
But the real icing is that it doesn't just work for processes, applications, CPU usage and whatnot. It works for any sensor, including temperature and fans. And, of course, it's all customizable.
LargoLasskhyfv · 34d ago
Be that as it may, it is slow to start, or switch between different views. I tested that again just now. Furthermore, it's causing more load by running, than one btop++ or htop running in Konsole. Which btw. both show temperatures, and could also show the rpm of the little 'Miefquirl'...err.. fan if I wanted them to.
That's seems to be common for all the monitoring stuff running graphically, no matter if Gnome, XFCE, or even old KDE (Trinity).
That aside, htop and especially btop++ are heavily customizable, too.
Whatever. To each his own. It's a matter of taste.
const_cast · 33d ago
Yeah it's pretty fast but it's still a full graphical application. It's probably written using QtQuick so it's fast... ish. Terminal applications are almost always going to be much faster. But, it's a neat application that doesn't get much competition on the GUI side.
crabmusket · 35d ago
> Sane defaults
I have a tiny tiny bone to pick with whoever decided to enable bouncing app launch icons on my mouse that look terrible.
But like you said, it was just a matter of finding the right config setting to turn them off! I have been quite happy with KDE all things considered.
Zambyte · 36d ago
Tiling WMs have more up front cost, but they don't require continuous tinkering if you don't want to tinker. I have been using the same SwayWM config for like 5 years now.
robotnikman · 36d ago
I started using KDE regularly after trying it out on the Steam Decks desktop mode. It works great! I had used it previously over a decade ago and was not impressed with it at first, but now it's my daily driver desktop enviornment.
amiga-workbench · 36d ago
I don't think that's the case any more. I'm running the latest Fedora release.
Interesting! Hopefully this is part of a broader change in their attitude.
chuckadams · 36d ago
At some point, the GNOME folks are going to have to hire people to go door-to-door and take hardware away from people, because they won't have any software left to remove features from.
alyandon · 36d ago
I've always joked about the eventual evolution of the GNOME desktop converging to a single login screen followed by a full screen button labeled LOGOFF because they will claim anything else is too confusing for their users.
> This is rather unfriendly and considerably more effort than editing logind.conf
"I don't like the tone in this sentence."
What a genuinely horrible person
sgarland · 36d ago
From your link:
>> gsd
> gnome-settings-daemon.
>> no-longer
> Don't think that's in the OED
>> This is rather unfriendly and considerably more effort than editing logind.conf
> I don't like the tone in this sentence.
I am dumbstruck that someone can be so utterly full of themselves that they can smugly correct someone’s grammar, and an obvious acronym, only to turn around and clutch their pearls that their victim said mean things in the nicest way possible about their software.
I knew there was a reason I haven’t liked GNOME for years. XFCE is the way.
DrillShopper · 36d ago
That exchange is what happens when CADT and therapy language collide head first.
sgarland · 35d ago
Not familiar with CADT, and Google wasn't any help for anything that seemed relevant.
I currently use Gnome on my machine (plain vanilla Ubuntu with no mods). It's such a love hate relationship. On the one hand everything you said and everything the child comments mention are totally valid and very annoying. But on the other hand (at least in my experience), Gnome has been the only solid DE that is "consistent", the only other one that got close was XFCE.
I might eventually switch back to XFCE but for now I just need a DE that works and gets out of my way so I can write code, and for all it's faults Gnome still gets the job done.
ohgr · 36d ago
No Linux desktop delivers what the user wants, needs or expect. Only what the developers think they need and find interesting to fix. It's more fun reinventing wheels badly than fixing shit generally. Some people are lucky this aligns with their needs, but for most it doesn't. It's jarring and unproductive.
It needs corporate (or government!) drive behind it or that won't change. I'm not talking about Redhat either who appears to just be a holding pen for the above.
bigfatkitten · 36d ago
Some of the more influential developers are Red Hat employees, and Red Hat has retasked them with other work in recent years.
That might be enough to prompt a change in direction, I guess time will tell.
EdwardDiego · 36d ago
Oh wow, that Nocera is great, correcting spellings to be passive-aggressive.
> Review of attachment 312719 [details] [review]:
>> gsd
> gnome-settings-daemon.
>> no-longer
> Don't think that's in the OED
>> gsd no-longer facilitates users overriding power key actions
> And include references about when this happened.
>> This is rather unfriendly and considerably more effort than editing logind.conf
> I don't like the tone in this sentence.
So helpful.
prox · 36d ago
I really dislike these turf sitting devs. They try to just defend their throne rather than looking at the merits.
swayvil · 36d ago
I like Mate. I recommend it.
jortr0n · 36d ago
agree
luckys · 36d ago
Weird, I'm using the latest stock fedora with gnome and the option is there to use the power button as "power off" command.
_kidlike · 36d ago
Gnome sucks... KDE is awesome :)
LtWorf · 36d ago
Try plasma.
procaryote · 36d ago
+1 plasma is pretty nice and also lets you reconfigure things if you like. The rate of "we broke this and you were stupid for ever wanting it" is much lower than for gnome
rafaelmn · 36d ago
Plasma was super unstable and janky, and the whole KDE desktop environment feels like developer art.
const_cast · 36d ago
Early days of Plasma 5 definitely can be described this way. Although I think we all forget just how fucking ugly early gnome 3 was.
But since mid Plasma 5 and on, it's incredibly stable and consistent in design. At this point, more consistent than gnome.
rafaelmn · 35d ago
I was using Plasma 6 to get fractional scaling working (wrote the wrong version in original post)
robotnikman · 36d ago
That's what I thought for a long time, until I tried it on the Steam deck since they use it for its desktop mode. I now use it as my daily driver desktop environment
LtWorf · 36d ago
You last tried it 25 years ago right?
tremon · 36d ago
That's because you're not the target audience: both Windows and GNOME primarily target the computer illiterate. If you know what you're doing and understand how the computer works, these desktops at best are a nuisance and more than likely to get in your way.
My go-to comparison is power tools: there's a consumer line that's underpowered but pretty easy to use by anyone, and then there's the professional tools for people that know how to handle these tools properly: more power, versatile, and user serviceable.
Smartphones take this to the extreme: on both Android and iOS every user is illiterate, because the OS is deliberately opaque to the user.
abrouwers · 36d ago
I'm not a huge fan of this statement - just because some users prefer simplicity, doesn't make them "illiterate." I'm happy to be a pretty tech-savvy gnome user - everyone uses a computing device for different purposes (as a tool, not a hobby). For example, it's great that KDE offers 2 or 3 kick-off menus, multiple clock plasmoids, etc, but just because a user is fine with a single, well-refined option, doesn't mean they are less "computer literate."
nottorp · 36d ago
> the power button can no longer be configured to power off the machine
Seriously?
Are they removing ways to access the terminal or you can still at least do shutdown -h now?
bigfatkitten · 36d ago
Don't give them any ideas!
anothernewdude · 36d ago
The best UI is one that stays consistent and doesn't change.
Narishma · 36d ago
XFCE in other words.
PuppetSoup · 36d ago
> Linux desktop is getting better but I still wouldn't daily drive it,
I'm genuinely interested what Linux is missing for you? I've been daily driving it for years and do all my work and gaming on it. Is it specific software or?
rafaelmn · 36d ago
It's just general polish. Like I was daily driving fedora last year and :
- fractional scaling did not work in Gnome with Wayland for X11 Apps
- I still cannot use my LG C4 as a monitor in full capacity because AMD on Linux does not support HDMI 2.1
- Screen sharing was very buggy - in Slack especially - it would constantly crash the slack app during calls, ditto for camera, but even in Google meet and Chrome I've had desktop crashes
- When I switched to KDE/Plasma 5 to get fractional scaling it was extremely unstable
- Right now I upgraded my GPU to 9070XT - I'm still not sure if that would work on Linux yet because of driver support delay
- Guitar Amp simulator software I use does not support Linux, neither does Ableton (which supposedly can run on proton but with many glitches)
- The audio DAW situation was way too complicated and buggy
- I spent days to get the distro functional and usable with Ardour and it would still crash constantly - I just wanted to run some amp sims :(
It's just the little things and rough edges, but for example the fractional scaling stuff already improved because more apps that I use added Wayland support. And the emulation is getting better, with more users I could see larger DAWs supporting Linux as well. Not sure about the audio progress - JACK was a complete mess.
kuschku · 36d ago
> Right now I upgraded my GPU to 9070XT - I'm still not sure if that would work on Linux yet because of driver support delay
You can install AMDs driver from their repo directly, it works just fine (using it every day).
> I still cannot use my LG C4 as a monitor in full capacity because AMD on Linux does not support HDMI 2.1
That will never be possible. To prevent pirates from breaking it (lol), HDMI has decided to keep HDMI 2.1 secret. No open source version of HDMI 2.1 can exist.
That said, AMD's driver repo includes both the open source drivers and some proprietary versions of the driver, maybe that'll work for you.
Another option would be using a displayport output and a DP to HDMI converter, as e.g. Intel is using for their GPUs.
scq · 36d ago
- Fractional scaling: That's because X11 itself does not support it. Many older Windows apps also have problems with fractional scaling.
- HDMI 2.1: The HDMI Forum blocked it, as they don't want the details of HDMI 2.1 publically available. If you can, use DisplayPort, which is an actual open standard, and is better anyway. Nvidia works because they implemented it in closed-source firmware instead. https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected
rafaelmn · 36d ago
> That's because X11 itself does not support it.
Strangely enough Plasma was able to handle this regardless (guess it was misreporting the resolution to X11 app or something like that to make it work ?) it was a Gnome/Wayland thing.
DisplayPort isn't an option - the TV only has HDMI in and converters suck (they crash constantly, even the expensive ones)
asmor · 36d ago
You can also buy active DP to HDMI 2.1 adapters now - if you already have an HDMI KVM for instance. Cable Matters makes one.
promiseofbeans · 36d ago
If you're happy to dip your toes into another DAW, Reaper has excellent first-class Linux support, works with all your plugins, and has a 60 day trial* for you to get used to it.
* The free trial is enforced as heavily as WinRAR's, and it's pretty cheap (~$60) to buy a licence if the nag screen makes you feel bad enough
rafaelmn · 36d ago
I tried that first but had trouble getting it to launch so I decided might as well goo with the OSS option. Boy was I in for a fun ride with getting the whole jackd and audio subsystems running.
v1ne · 35d ago
The problem is not only the DAW support, but the support of low-latency audio interfaces in Linux. Audio interface makers rarely create a Linux driver, and a low-latency setup on Linux is its own hell, with real-time kernel patches.
On MacOS and Windows, it works out of the box.
SSLy · 35d ago
rt patches are upstream since about a year ago. You might need to swap to rt Kconfig, sure, but not patches.
richrichardsson · 36d ago
Alternatively Bitwig has Linux support and wouldn't be such a big jump.
commoner · 36d ago
> When I switched to KDE/Plasma 5 to get fractional scaling it was extremely unstable
KDE Plasma 6 made major improvements and has excellent fractional scaling, the best I've seen in a Linux desktop environment and comparable to scaling in Windows 10-11. I encourage you to give it a try.
rafaelmn · 36d ago
Sorry I misspoke - I was using Plasma 6, as that was the only way to get fractional scaling in X11 apps
asimovfan · 36d ago
you can use Carla in linux to run windows VSTs, i do it all the time. Works great. Midi and audio routing is also quite good. Ableton also runs with Wine.
skissane · 36d ago
Our 12 year old recently switched from Windows to Ubuntu…
and now I’m constantly getting these complaints “I can’t get screen capture to work under Wayland… I switched from lightdm to sddm and I can’t work out how to switch back… I accidentally started an i3 session and I can’t work out how to log out of it.”
It makes me kind of miss Windows, in a way. It is good he’s learning so much. But the downside is Linux gives him lots more ways to break things and then ask me to fix them for him. And a lot of this stuff I then have to learn myself before I can fix it, because most of my Linux experience is with using it as a server OS, where desktop environments aren’t even installed
noAnswer · 36d ago
Well, don't help him. People(me) grew up without the Internet or Smartphones and broke Windows on the family PC all the time. In 2000 when I got SuSE it only slowed down the breakdowns. He can always fix stuff himself by reinstalling the OS. As long as he doesn't format the /home partition he will not lose data. And he will learn his lessons.
lolinder · 36d ago
12-year-old me installed Linux on an old desktop tower and I also broke things constantly. The difference is my parents were both humanities majors and I knew full well there was no point in asking them for help. Even at the time, the resources were all there for me to teach myself to Linux. Sure, I spent many many hours troubleshooting things instead of doing whatever it was I had as my end goal, but I was a kid—learning is the point!
It's harder as a parent to know that you're capable of solving their problem and still say no, but by age 12 that's pretty much your primary job: to find more and more things that they can start doing for themselves, express your confidence in them, and let them figure out how to adult bit by bit. Breaking a Linux install and fixing it again is among the lowest stakes ways that dynamic will play out from here on.
sgarland · 36d ago
> Ubuntu
Well, there’s your problem ;-)
This is great, though, really. I broke our computer so many times growing up, I couldn’t possibly count. I don’t think I ever lost anything of import, other than some savegames of mine. I keep telling people who ask, “how do I learn Linux?” that they need to use it, tinker with it, break it, and fix it, ideally without anything other than man pages and distro docs. It is a shockingly effective way to learn how things work.
Microsoft introduced the "Office Startup Assistant" or "Office Startup Application" (osa.exe) in Office 97, it sat in the system tray and loaded the main office DLLs at startup: https://web.archive.org/web/20041214010329/http://support.mi...
OpenOffice.org (predecessor of LibreOffice) copied this feature, which they called "QuickStarter", I don't know exactly when, but no later than 2003: https://www.openoffice.org/documentation/setup_guide2/1.1.x/...
Microsoft made OSA made non-default in Office 2007, and _removed_ it from Office 2010: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/office/o...
Are they now bringing it back?
If you ever tried Office 97 on a PC of 10+ years later, it's amazing how fast and lightweight it was. Instant startup, super snappy. And those apps were not lacking in features. 95% of what you need out of a desktop word processor was in Word 97.
How did we get back to this though? We have gigabytes/sec with NVMe and stupid fast CPU's with at least 4 cores in even low end models. Yet a text editor takes so long to load we need to load it up on boot... Such a frustrating field to work in.
Not that I'm that nostalgic for the old days, we would have been doing the exact same thing if we were able to get away with it. But performance restrictions meant you had no choice but to care. Modern tech has "freed" us from that concern.
About 25 years ago, an interactive text editor could be designed with as little as 8,000 bytes of storage. (Modern program editors request 100 times that much). An operating system had to manage with 8,000 bytes, and a compiler had to fit into 32 Kbytes, whereas their modern descendants require megabytes. Has all this inflated software become any faster? On the contrary, were it not for a thousand times faster hardware, modern software would be utterly unusable.
https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/co/1995/02/r2064/13rR...
That said, as someone fairly young, I still don't think that makes it wrong or something only an old man would think. Software seems to perform exactly as well as it needs to and no more, which is why hardware advances don't make our computers run software much faster.
If software was simpler, we could afford to offer some formal guarantees of correctness. Model check protocols, verify pre and post conditions à la Dafny, etc.
There's too much change for the sake of change.
+1 to this. Like a lot of issues, I think the root is ideological, but this one in particular very clearly manifests organizationally.
The companies building everyday software are ever bigger— full of software engineers, designers and various kinds of managers who are asked to justify their generous salaries. At an individual level I'm sure there's all sorts of cases, but at a general level there's often almost no other option but to introduce change for the sake of change.
He said it's often just some new marketing exec wants to put something on their resume, and they have certain metrics that they target that don't necessarily align with long term profits of the company.
I'm sure software has a similar problem.
+1 to this. Like a lot of issues, I think the root is ideological, but this one in particular very clearly manifests organizationally.
The companies building everyday software are ever bigger— full of software engineers, designers and various kinds of managers who are asked to justify their generous salaries. At an individual level I'm sure there's all sorts of cases, but at a general level there's almost no other option but to introduce change for the sake of change.
At a general level, I believe there are other options - changes/features need to meet some level of usage or it is scrapped out of recognition that supporting all these features make bugs more likely, performance likely to degrade, increase difficulty of adding features, make the product more difficult to use, etc.
The cynical spin I would put on this idea is that software performs as poorly as it can get away with. MSFT is feeling the need/pressure to have Office load faster, and they will try to get away with preloading it.
Otherwise, there is a strong pull towards bloat that different people will try to take credit for as features even if the cumulative experience of all these "features" is actually a worse user-experience.
The amount of things a computer can do in a single thread are amazing, and computers now have a dozen or more threads to do work. If developers cared about performance, things would easily be 20x as performant as they are today.
I'm not talking about "write in assembly, duh" I'm talking about just doing things intelligently instead of naively. The developers I support often simply are not thinking about the problem they're solving and they solve the problem in the simplest way (for them) and not the simplest way for a computer.
Software is an inefficiency amplifier, because the number of developers for a piece of code is much smaller than the number of computers that run that code; how much coal has been burned solely because of shitty implementations? I'd wager that the answer is "a LOT!"
Even if you don't care about coal usage, think about how much happier your users would be if your application was suddenly 5x faster than it was previously? now think of how many customers want their software to be slow (outside of TheDailyWTF): zero.
languages like javascript and python remove you so much from the CPU and the cache that even if you were thinking of those things, you can't do anything about it. JS and Electron are great for developers, and horrible for users because of that amplification I described above.
I am dead tired of seeing hustle culture overtake everything in this field, and important things, to me, like quality and performance and support all fall straight down the toilet simply because executives want to release features faster.
things like copilot could help with this, i hope. presumably copilot will help introduce better code into applications than a daydreaming developer would, though the existence of vibe coding sort of nulls that out probably.
one thing that AI will do quite soon is increase the amount of software that exists quite dramatically. and I am kinda concerned about the possibility that it's all going to suck horribly.
Example: when VS Code came out, it was much, much faster, more responsive and stable than Visual Studio at the time. Despite being based on Electron, it apparently was much better on architecture, algorithms and multithreading than VS with its C++ and .NET legacy codebase. That really impressed me, as a C++ programmer.
Overall, it feels like folks who idealize bygone eras of computing didn't witness or have forgotten how slow Windows, VS, Office etc. used to feel in the 90s.
Let’s normalize speed over time like we do dollars, so we are talking about the same thing.
Given the enormous multiplier in CPU and storage hardware speeds and parallelism today vs. say 1995, any “slow” application then should be indistinguishable from instant today.
“Slow” in the 90’s vs. “Slow” in 2025 are essentially different words. Given unclarified co-use pushes several orders magnitude of either speed or inefficiency difference under the rug.
The promise of computing is that what was slow in the 1960s and 1970s would be instant in 1990. And those things were instant, but those things aren’t what people did with computers anymore.
New software that did more than before, but less efficiently, came around, so everything felt the same. Developers didn’t have to focus on performance so much, so they didn’t.
Developers are lazy sacks who are held skyward because of hardware designers alone. And software developers are just getting heavier and heavier all the time, but the hardware people can’t hold them forever.
This cannot continue forever. Run software from the 1990s or 2000s on modern hardware. It is unbelievably fast.
Maybe it was slow in the 1990s, sure. I ask why we can’t (or won’t) write software that performs like that today.
The compiler for Turbo Pascal could compile something like a million lines per second in 1990. We have regressed to waiting for 60+ minute C++ compile times today, on even moderate project sizes.
Debugging in visual studio used to be instant when you did things like Step Over. You could hold the Function key down and just eyeball your watch variables to see what was going on. The UI would update at 60FPS the entire time. Now if I hold down that key, the UI freezes and when I let go of the key it takes time to catch up. Useless. All so Microsoft could write the front end in dotnet. Ruin a product so it is easier to write… absolute nonsense decision.
All software is like that today. It’s all slow because developers are lazy sacks who will only do the minimum necessary so they can proceed to the next thing. I am ashamed of my industry because of things like this.
As a programmer who studied computer and electrical engineering in university, never before have I been so offended by something I one hundred percent agree with
Source: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/11/a-history-of-intel-v...
(I'm sure someone could dig up more recent graphs, but you get the idea).
In order to get more performance, your app needs to use multithreading.
RAM parallel bandwidth, increased caching levels and size, and better caching rules, instruction re-ordering, predictive branching, register optimization, vector instructions, ... there have been many advances in single thread execution since the 90's. Beyond any clock speed advances.
Why? A good portion of programs are still single-threaded, and often that's the correct choice. Even in games a single-threaded main thread or logic thread may be the only choice. Where multi-threading makes sense it should be employed, but it's difficult to do well.
Otherwise, it's up to the OS to balance threads appropriately. All major OSes do this well today.
Nowadays you just "scale horizontally" by the magic of whatever orchestration platform you happen to use, which is the modern approach of throwing hardware at the problem in the vertical scaling days.
One can write software that uses the CPU cache in non-dumb ways no matter how many threads your program has. You can craft your structs so that they take less space in RAM, meaning you can fit more in cache at once. You can have structs of arrays instead of arrays of structs if that helps your application. Few people think of things like this today, they just go for the most naive implementation possible so that the branch predictor can’t work well and everything needs to be fetched from RAM every time instead of building things so that the branch predictor and the cache are helping you instead of impeding you. People just do the bare minimum so that the PM says the card is complete and they never think of it again. It’s depressing.
The tools to write fast software are at our fingertips, already installed on our computers. And I have had zero success in getting people to believe that they should develop with performance in mind.
Waiting is ok when it comes to sending batches of data to be transformed or rendered or processed or whatever. I’m talking about synchronous stuff; when I push a key on my keyboard the computer should be done with what I told it to do before I finish pushing the button all the way down. Anything less is me waiting on the computer and that slows the user down.
Businesses should be foaming at the mouth about performance; every second spent by a user waiting on a computer to do work locally, multiplied by the number of users who wait, multiplied by the number of times this happens per day, multiplied by the number of work days in a year… it’s not a small amount of money lost. Every more efficient piece of code means lighter devices are needed by users. Lambda is billed by CPU and RAM usage, and inefficient code there directly translates into higher bills. But everyone still writes code which stores a Boolean value as a 32-bit integer, and where all numbers are always 8-bytes wide.
What. The. Fuck.
People already go on smoke breaks and long lunches and come in late and leave early; do we want them waiting on their computers all of the time, too? Apparently so, because I’ve never once heard anyone complain to a vendor that their software is so slow that it’s costing money, but almost all of those vendor products are that slow.
I’m old enough that I’m almost completely sick of the industry I once loved.
Software developers used to be people who really wanted to write software, and wanted to write it well. Now, it’s just a stepping stone on the way to a few VP positions at a dozen failed startups and thousands of needlessly optimistic posts on LinkedIn. There’s almost no craft here anymore. Businessmen have taken everything good about this career and flushed it down the toilet and turned teams into very unhappy machines. And if you don’t pretend you’re happy, you’re “not a good fit” anymore and you’re fired. All because you want to do your job well and it’s been made too difficult to reliably do anything well.
Even operating systems don't get direct access to the hardware these days. Instead a bunch of SoC middlemen handle everything however they like.
If you do the things which make your code friendly to the CPU cache and the branch predictor, when it comes time for your code to run on the CPU, it will run faster than it would if you did not do those things.
Both are written/designed by people who care a lot about application performance and developer experience.
Copilot is trained on Github (and probably other Git forges w/o permission, because OpenAI and Microsoft are run by greedy sociopaths.)
I'd wager that the majority of fleshed out repositories on these sites contain projects written at the "too-high level" you describe. This certainly seems to be true based on how these models perform ("good" results for web development and scripting, awful results for C/++/Rust/assembly...) - so I wouldn't get your hopes up, unfortunately.
Low level programming means actual -thinking- about the system, resources, and language decisions etc
Even humans struggle with it, Its much easier to build a website than say a compiler, for anyone, humans and llm's included
My personal benchmark for these models is writing a simple socket BPF in a Rust program. Even the latest and greatest hosted frontier models (with web search and reasoning enabled!) can only ape the structure. The substance is inevitably wanting, with invalid BPF instructions and hallucinated/missing imports.
It works great for me, but it is necessarily an aid learning tool more than a full on replacement, someone's still gotta do the thinking part, even if the llm's can cosplay -reasoning- now
Not Java, but an IDE in 4K: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC_Programming
Having used it quite extensively (Well, five solid days over two weeks, which is about 1000x longer than most people gargling on the internet), it's surprisingly capable.
Imagine if someone with the same talent and motivation was working on today's hardware.
<aside> Someone on Atari Age wrote a LISP for the same machine.
Indeed. I am sure many of us here are burnt out on bloat. I am also sure many of us want to move to smaller stuff but cant simply because of industry momentum. BUT that doesn't mean the dream is dead, only that we must work towards those goals on our own time. I found Plan 9 and haven't looked back. I can rebuild the entire OS in seconds on a fast machine. Even my little Celeron J1900 can rebuild the OS for several supported architectures in minutes. I can share a USB device seamlessly across my network, PXE booted from a single disk without installing anything. Cat(1) is just 36 lines of C.
There's still hope. Just ignore the industry hype noise and put in the effort ourselves.
I'm looking forward to when app developers ship you an entire computer in the mail to run their text editor.
Yet for the user it is bad -- bloated, slow, feels non-native, has specific bugs which are hard to address for the devs, etc.
I don't see any light for the desktop UI development unless there is some lightweight universal rendering engine. Tauri with WebView is somewhat promising, but it has problems on Linux and it is hard to target older systems.
As for your second point: [1]
1: https://snapcraft.io/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it around 800 lines[1]?
1. https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/master/src/cat.c
The problem isn't "engineering" the problem is the culture of product management. (Note: NOT product managers per se).
I ask this basic question, how many Directors, VP's or CPO's do you know who got their job based on "cutting out unused features"? If you can find one, it will end up being the exception that proves the rule. The culture of "add", "new" and "shiny" doesn't reward keeping things lean and effective. T
In the tangible world we look to accountants for this sort of thing (because they tend to have costs). Think cheap Costco hotdogs and free cookies at Double Tree. No one in product, dev and accounting is going to sit down and try to justify loosing some code, features and maybe a few customers to make it faster when you can just "engineer" you way out of it and not have to sell less is more.
Google goes a step further and kills entire apps
https://www.slashgear.com/1513242/ford-gets-rid-of-self-park...
But adding yet another gateway to ChatGPT’s API…that’s a $15/mo/user add-on right there, and not just a monkey, but one of the slower intern monkeys, could write the code for such an incredibly innovative and, there’s no other word for it, powerful new feature that everyone should be thrilled to pay for at a 200-300% (or more!) markup. So guess who gets that VP of New Bullshit Development position, and guess what kind of choices get reinforced?
(EDIT: grammar)
Performance just isn’t on that list, and it’s often more and harder work than a given new feature took to create. Office users are getting what Microsoft is designed to deliver.
No comments yet
No comments yet
Absolutely this. I think this is evidence that points to modern civilization starting to collapse. When we can engineer correctly, we're fucked.
Yes! This is what all my projects are geared towards restoring. The big one is not quite ready to announce yet, but I am very proud of it, and extremely excited to release it, to solve exactly that: it makes engineering fun again!
we now DO have civil engineering but that is it
While true LLMs fall flat on their face when fed massive codebases, the fact of the matter is that I don't need a 200k LOC program to accomplish a single task that an LLM can do in 2k LOC.
To give an example, we have proprietary piece of software that is used to make (physical) product test systems using flow charts and menus. It's expansive and complex. But we don't need it when we can just spend 30 minutes prompting your way to working test code and it produces way faster and more robust systems.
Maybe the devs of that software package cannot dump that whole codebase into an LLM and work on it. But they are completely missing the forest for the trees.
Have a large ZIP file. Preferably like a few gigs and lots of (small) files.
Try to open it with the built-in Windows 11 tooling from Microsoft. It's going to be super slow to even show anything never mind unpack it.
Now install say 7-zip and do the exact same thing(s) and it's going to be instant opening and unpacking it takes a much much smaller amount of time (only limited by disk speed).
Turns out optimizations / not doing stupid things is still a thing even with all this raw power we now have.
Besides, the only thing that matters is getting tickets "done" before the arbitrary sprint deadline in 2 weeks, so best not to spend any extra time cleaning up or optimizing the first thing that works. You can't think about performance until the sprint dedicated to performance.
Another example: it takes ~2 seconds to run git on my work machine
while running the same command on my personal Windows 11 virtual machine is near instant: ~0.1 seconds. Still slower than Linux, but not nearly as bad as my work machine.No comments yet
Why the hell are all my desktop apps written in JS now?!
Have you seen the state of pretty much every non-js UX framework?
That's why.
JS/css/html won the UX domain in a way that no other language comes close to. If you look at the most recent most modern UX frameworks, they are often just half implemented poor mimics of the js/css/html stack with approximately 0 devs writing new 3rd party extensions.
Intellij uses swing, SWING, as it's UX. A framework written in the 90s filled with warts. Yet, it's still a better experience than the more recent JavaFX experience. Swing simply has more support.
The bigger issue isn't the tech, it's the ecosystem. While you might like swing, you simply are never going to find the swing version of Material UI or D3.js. That's more the problem that you'll run into.
For some of our apps because we need charting, we are using GraalJS just to run the JS charting library to export to an image that we ultimately put on some of our downloadable reports. It's a huge pain but really the only way to do that.
I remember a time when having your application look "out of place" was undesired, and the ultimate goal was to be "as native as possible". If you are running a website selling something, I agree that you want a brand-identity and a unique look. But productive software shouldn't require users to adapt to new UX paradigms (guessing whether the cancel button comes on the left or on the right, dealing with slightly do different input method and entry shortcuts…).
Anyhow, I think things could be worse, since, as you say, we can embed a webview into any JavaFX/Qt/… app and get the best of both worlds.
We'd sometimes go to the library to write something up in MS Word. We always liked this because it would be a good 5-10 mins to boot up some kind of basic Unix menu. You'd then select windows 3.1 and wait another 10-15 minutes for that to load. Then you could fire up word and wait another 5 minutes. Then you could do 5 minutes work before the class was over!
It’s not rocket science to eke out oodles of performance out of a potato if you don’t care about correctness or memory safety.
Word 97 will only delight you if you use it on an airgapped computer, as a glorified typewriter, never open anyone else’s documents with it, and are diligent about manually saving the doc to multiple places for when it inevitably self-corrupts.
But at that point, why not be like GRRM and write on a DOS word processor? Those were historically a lot more reliable than these second-generation GUI apps.
By piling up nonzero-cost abstractions left and right.
And getting out of the trap is hard too, because no single abstraction is to blame - you can't just hit things with your profiler and find the hot spot. It's all of them. So now you either live with it or rewrite an entire stack of abstractions.
Probably because windows needs to make a connection for every file somewhere else first and wait for the reply, before granting you the advanced software as a service feature called text editing.
It definitely feels like this at times and I fear there is too much truth in my statement.
But it is not just windows only. My old chromebook took seconds to open a folder in the file browser (even if it was already open). But a "ls" on the terminal was instant for any folder. So getting the information was not the problem. But from there to displaying it in a GUI, there seems to be myriads of important (tracking?) layers involved.
The Plan
In the beginning, there was a plan, And then came the assumptions, And the assumptions were without form, And the plan without substance,
And the darkness was upon the face of the workers, And they spoke among themselves saying, "It is a crock of shit and it stinks."
And the workers went unto their Supervisors and said, "It is a pile of dung, and we cannot live with the smell."
And the Supervisors went unto their Managers saying, "It is a container of excrement, and it is very strong, Such that none may abide by it."
And the Managers went unto their Directors saying, "It is a vessel of fertilizer, and none may abide by its strength."
And the Directors spoke among themselves saying to one another, "It contains that which aids plants growth, and it is very strong."
And the Directors went to the Vice Presidents saying unto them, "It promotes growth, and it is very powerful."
And the Vice Presidents went to the President, saying unto him, "This new plan will actively promote the growth and vigor Of the company With very powerful effects."
And the President looked upon the Plan And saw that it was good, And the Plan became Policy.
And this, my friend, is how shit happens.
from anonymous email
My intellij license just expired so today I'm back using Sublime Text, and honestly it's a breath of fresh air / relief - and it's not even the fastest editor, iirc it uses Python under the hood. I've installed Zed but getting plugins and keyboard shortcuts all lined up is always challenging. That one took ~2-3 seconds to cold start.
It seems fascinating how much more efficient Windows apps were back in the nineties, capable do to almost everything the same today apps do in a similar manner on orders of magnitude less powerful hardware, often performing even faster.
The last time I expressed this, probably also here, somebody suggested the performance drop is the cost of modern security - vulnerability mitigations, cryptography etc.
I also wonder if it's just harder to continually monitor performance in a way that alerts a team early enough to deal with regressions?
That said, security _can_ impact performance! I work on Stripe frontend surfaces, and one performance bottleneck we have comes from needing to use iframes to sandbox and isolate code for security. Having to load code in iframes adds an additional network load before we can get to page render.
Over time decisions are made independently by devs/teams which cause the code bases to get out of alignment with a performant design. This is exacerbated by the growth pressure. It's then really hard for someone to come in and optimize top to bottom because there is everything from a bug to a design problem. Remediation has significant overhead, so only things around the edges are touched.
Fast forward a couple of years and you have a code base that devs struggle to evolve and add features to as well as keep performant. The causes are many and we come to the same one whether we complain about performance or maintainability. You probably don't feel this way, but Stripe and other premier engineering companies are way ahead of others in terms of their practices when you compare with the average situation developers are facing.
Independent mobile development is often where I see most attention to performance these days. The situation for these devs is a little bit closer to what existed in the nineties. They have a bigger span of control and performance is something they feel directly so are incentivized to ensure it's great.
I remember everyone complaining about how bloated they were at the time. Pretty sure someone in 2055 is going to run today's Office on 2055 computers and marvel at how streamlined it is.
https://copy.sh/v86/?profile=windows95
Once it boots, run povray, then click run.
It took over 2 minutes to render biscuit.pov, though it did manage to use SSE!
We used to wait two hours for a mandelbrot to display on a Commodore 64, and were delighted when it did.
Ironically, it was specifically the longer feedback cycle of long builds and scheduled releases that seems to specifically have given us better software?
You can run Office 97 now and it'll start fast because disk i/o and cpus are so much faster now. Otoh Excel 97 has a maximum of 256 columns and 64k rows. You might want to try Excel 2007 for 16k columns and 1M rows, and/or Excel 2016 for 64-bit memory.
You could build fast software today by simply adopting a reference platform, say. A 10 year old 4core system. then measuring performance there. If it lags then do whatever work needs to be done to speed it up.
Personally I think we should all adopt the raspberry pi zero as a reference platform.
Edit: * office 2000 was fast too with 32 megs of ram. Seriously what have we done?
I rebooted a lot though (mostly used Linux by then), so maybe it was just fighting with itself when I immediately fired up office after boot.
https://filepilot.tech/
It's amazingly fast, though it's missing some features and will be really expensive when it leaves beta.
Thank you for posting this, and if you have any other speedy apps you'd recommend I'd welcome suggestions. Mine top suggestions are Speedcrunch [0] (calculator app) and Everything [1] file search combined with Listary [2]
[0] https://github.com/ruphy/speedcrunch
[1] https://www.voidtools.com/
[2] https://www.listary.com/
(For reference, I've tried Total Commander, DOpus, Files, Explorer XP, XY Explorer, Explorer ++, FreeCommander, Double Commander, Q-Dir)
I learned about File Pilot (whose author posts here: https://x.com/vkrajacic) from Casey Muratori (https://x.com/cmuratori) who pushed it a bunch because he loves fast things.
Mostly users interact with the explorer in this scenario to open/save a file in ‘BrowserOS’
It's a little unclear what you mean exactly. Do you want the browsing experience changed for the system's file open/save dialogs? i.e. a third-party file explorer opens instead with all of it's features.
I still love IntelliJ, its a great product. But it is slow, bloats the computer, needs constant updating. But at least its incredibly powerful as a tradeoff to the bloat.
The Office debate is slightly different. It is slow, bloats the computer, needs constant updating. But unlike IntelliJ i dont feel that there is any advantage to all that added weight. We are using a word processor. We type words onto a blank screen. Why is Word and Outlook the most common applications to crash my computer that has an M1 Max Chip with 48Gb of Memory? I can literally run and build AI models on my computer with no problem but you boot up Microsoft Word to type words onto a blank page and you have a 33% chance of crashing the computer.
Google Sheets and Docs are actually better tools in my opinion for most people. 99% or more of the features you need are available in the google equivalents. These products are fast and run in a browser! The UI is actually VASTLY superior to Microsoft's ribbon. I still can't find stuff that I need on a routine basis and have to google it. I don't have this problem when using Google's office equivalents.
The majority of the app is written in C++. Python is used for plugins.
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17310738
This is even more sad with Apple. My M1 Mac felt incredibly snappy with Big Sur, but is getting ever so slightly slower with each update. My iPhone SE2 is a complete disaster.
My prediction is that we are about to enter a great winter of poor performance across the industry as AI slop is put in to production en mass. Along with bugginess that we have not seen since the early dotcom days.
Similar to the slow-opening glove box in a car, many humans perceive slow computers & software as a signifiers of importance/luxury/prestige. At least at first. By the time they are familiar with the slow software, and impatient to just get their work done - too late, SnailSoft already has their money.
I have a small utility app that I sell and make great pains to keep it small and resource light. I really appreciate when other devs do the same.
https://www.vintagecomputing.com/index.php/archives/1063
Their service used vector art to render interactive pages like that over <= 2400 baud modems. Other than it being proprietary and stuff, I'm guessing the web would be a much cooler place if HTML hadn't eaten their lunch. SVG is a decent consolation prize, I guess.
It's not merged yet but I've written an Elixir library that writes graphics files in Prodigy's graphics format, NAPLPS. I'm using it to get current weather and creating weather maps that are displayed in Prodigy. https://github.com/rrcook/naplps_writer
You can run Prodigy in DOSBox and get screenshots.
Opening a spreadsheet, even if you don't want to print it, will hang for 30 seconds doing nothing, because LibreOffice will load the printer settings for the document, which means asking the printer, which if the printer is network-based and turned off, means a 30 second wait for a timeout.
Reported in 2011, still not fixed: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673
"Print to PDF -> print the PDF" is much more reliable.
sigh
Perhaps spurred by this comment, there was new discussion in the report and it turned out Microsoft has fixed the issue in Windows 11: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42673#c8...
Quote:
"I was one of the many who reported this problem in one from or another. The problem is Windows-specific. I have found out that the problem actually comes from the Windows print system. There is no way to check that a printer is actually active or working or even present without incurring a long time-out in case the printer is not present or powered. Trying to check the defualt printer will incur the same time-out.
Calc apparently wants to check the printer to know how to construct its layout, and has to wait for the time-out to continue.
Some of the comments that claim that Calc hangs and never returns have probably not waited long enough for the timeout.
On my new Windows 11 computer, this printer system behavior has been changed and I no longer experience a delay while opening Calc."
"It's written in Python and not e.g. in Rust" is simply not relevant in that context.
(For that matter, when uv is asked to pre-compile, while it does some intelligent setup for multiprocessing, it still ultimately invokes the same bytecode compiler - which is part of the Python implementation itself, written in C unless you're using an alternative implementation like PyPy.)
Of course, not always the case. C++ is a good counter example with a massive range of performance "orientedness". On the other hand, I suspect there are few Rust / Zig or C programmers that don't care about performance.
On the flip side, I've seen quite a few C developers using their own hand-rolled linked lists where vector-like storage would be more appropriate, without giving it a second thought. Implementing good hash tables from scratch turns out not to be very much fun, either. I'm sure there are off the shelf solutions for that sort of thing, but `#include` and static compilation in C don't exactly encourage module reuse the same way that modern languages with package managers do (even considering all the unique issues with Python package management). For better or worse.
(For what it's worth, I worked in J2ME for phones in the North American market in the mid 00s, if you remember what those were like.)
Well first off, pip itself does defer quite a few imports - just not in a way that really matters. Notably, if you use the `--python` flag, the initial run will only import some of the modules before it manages to hand off to the subprocess (which has to import those modules again). But that new pip process will end up importing a bunch more eventually anyway.
The thing is that this isn't just about where you put `import` statements (at the top, following style guidelines, vs. in a function to defer them and take full advantage of `sys.modules` caching). The real problem is with library dependencies, and their architecture.
If I use a library that provides the `foo` top-level package, and `import foo.bar.baz.quux`, at a minimum Python will need to load the `foo`, `foo.bar`, `foo.bar.baz` and `foo.bar.baz.quux` modules (generally, from the library's `foo/__init__.py`, foo/bar/__init__.py`, `foo/bar/baz/__init__.py` and `foo/bar/baz/quux.py` respectively). But some libraries offer tons of parallel, stand-alone functionality, such that that's the end of it; others are interconnected, such that those modules will have a bunch of their own top-level `import`s, etc. There are even cases where library authors preemptively import unnecessary things in their `__init__.py` files just to simplify the import statements for the client code. That also happens for backward compatibility reasons (if a library reorganizes some functionality from `foo` into `foo.bar`, then `foo/__init__.py` might have `from . import bar` to avoid breaking existing code that does `import foo`... and then over time `bar` might grow a lot bigger).
For pip, rich (https://pypi.org/project/rich/) is a major culprit, from what I've seen. Pip uses little of its functionality (AFAIK, just for coloured text and progress bars) and it tends to import quite a bit preemptively (such as an emoji database). It's very much not designed with modularity or import speed in mind. (It also uses the really old-fashioned system of ad-hoc testing by putting some demo code in each module behind an `if __name__ == '__main__':` block - code that is only ever used if you do `python -m rich.whatever.submodule` from the command line, but has to be processed by everyone).
And yes, these things are slow even with Python's system for precompiling and caching bytecode. It's uniformly slow, without an obvious bottleneck - the problem is the amount of code, not (as far as I can tell) any specific thing in that code.
...and by then, the requests for performance are somewhere between onerous and ridiculous.
I'm as wary of premature optimization as anyone, but I also have a healthy fear of future-proofed sluggishness.
Edit: It still might be a bad idea to waste the IO if you do not have to but the latency of a temporary table is usually RAM latency, not disk latency even for temporary tables on disk.
If you’re curious, the EBS disks Aurora uses for temporary storage, when faced with a QD of approximately 240, can manage approximately 5000 IOPS. This was an r6i.32xlarge.
My hypothesis is currently that the massive context switching the CPU had to do to handle the interrupts slowed down its acceptance of new connections / processing other queries enough such that everything piled up. I’ve no idea what kind of core pinning / isolation AWS does under the hood, but CPU utilization from disk I/O alone, according to Enhanced Monitoring, was about 20%.
My personal anecdotes, which are music centric but all apply to my software career:
1. I've studied music my whole life, and baked into music is the idea of continual practice & improvement. Because of this experiential input, I believe that I can always improve at things if I actively put a bit of energy into it and show up. I believe it because I've put in so many hours to it and have seen the results. This is deeply ingrained.
2. When I picked up bass in high school, I spent the first year learning tabs in my bedroom. It was ok, but my ability accelerated when I started a band with my friends and had to keep up. I really think the people you surround yourself with can: push you more, teach you things you didn't know, and make the process way more of a fun hang than doing it by yourself.
3. Another outcome from music education was learning that I really love how mastery feels. There's a lot of positive feeling from achieving and growing. As a result, I try to seek it out in other places as well. I imagine sports/etc are the same?
"Programming" consists of an insanely large number of isolated communities. Assuming the respective person is capable, I would assume that he simply comes from a very different "programming culture".
I actually observe a very related phenomenon for myself: the more I learn about some very complicated programming topics, the more "alien" I actually (start to) become to the programming topics that I have to do at work.
If you've ever given answers to that in another comments on HN or elsewhere, feel free to link.
Plenty of graduates simply got into to it to make money, and have no real deep interest. Some of them love the theory but hate the practice. And some of them are good at both of course.
By contrast, self taught people tend to have personal interest going for them. But I've also worked with self taught people who had no real understanding (despite their interest), and who were satisfied if something just worked. Even if they are motivated to know more, they are often lacking in deeper theoretical computer science (this is a gap I've had to gradually fill in myself).
Anyway, the determining factor is rarely exactly how they acquired their skills, it's the approach they take to the subject and personal motivation and curiosity.
There are many college educated software developers who have that sort of drive (or passion, if you will) and there are just as many who don't, it's not something college can teach you, and the same is true for self-taught developers.
At the end of the day "self-taught" is also a spectrum that ranges from people who created their first "hello world" React app 2 months ago to people who have been involved in systems programming since they were 10 years old, and have a wealth of knowledge in multiple related fields like web development, systems administration, and networking. That's why I think it's silly to generalize like that.
Software development is extremely broad so depending on the discipline self-taught developers might not be missing anything essential, or they might have to learn algorithms, discrete mathematics, linear algebra, or calculus on their own. I learned all of that in college but I'd probably have to learn most of it again if I really needed it.
Guess it makes sense; I'm self taught myself, but thought academically taught developers should have a leg up in theory and mathematics, at the same time though, at one point I considered further formal education for myself (in at least paid courses and such), I realized that I don't think there's much I can't teach myself with the resources available (which includes high quality university lectures which are available for free).
Thanks for your perspective.
I have a Master's in Economics. After 3 years of economics, I started a Master's program in maths (back then the Master's degree was the standard thing you achieved after 4.5–5 years of studying in my country, there was basically nothing in-between high school and that). 9 years later I got a PhD in mathematical analysis (so not really close to CS). But I've been programming as a hobby since late 80s (Commodore 64 Basic, Logo, then QBasic, of course quite a bit of Turbo Pascal, and a tiny bit of C, too). I also read a bit (but not very much) about things like algos, data structures etc. Of course, a strong background in analysis gives one a pretty solid grasp of things like O(n) vs O(n log n) vs O(n^2) vs O(2^n). 9 years ago I started programming as a side job, and 2 years later I quit the uni.
I lack a lot of foundations – I know very little about networks, for example. But even in our small team of 5, I don't /need/ to know that much – if I have a problem, I can ask a teammate next desk (who actually studied CS).
Of course, _nemo iudex in causa sua_, but I think doing some stuff on the C64 and then Turbo Pascal gave me pretty solid feeling for what is going on under the hood. (I believe it's very probable that coding in BASIC on an 8-bit computer was objectively "closer to the bare metal" than contemporary C with all the compiler optimizations.) I would probably be able to implement the (in)famous linked list with eyes closed, and avoiding N+1 database queries is a natural thing for me to do (having grown up with a 1 MHz processor I tend to be more frugal with cycles than my younger friends). Recently I was tasked with rewriting a part of our system to optimize it to consume less memory (which is not necessarily an obvious thing in Node.js).
Another teammate (call them A) who joined us maybe 2 years ago is a civil engineer who decided to switch careers. They are mainly self-taught (well, with a bit of older-brother-taught), but they are a very intelligent person with a lot of curiosity and willingness to learn. I used to work with someone else (call them B) who had formal CS education (and wasn't even fresh out of a university, it was their second programming job, I think), but lacked general life experience (they were 5-10 years younger than A), curiosity and deep understanding, and I preferred to work with A than with B hands down. For example, B was perfectly willing to accept rules of thumb as a universal truths "because I was told it was good practice", without even trying to understand why, while A liked to know _why_ it was a good practice.
So – as you yourself noticed – how you acquire knowledge is not _that_ important. IMHO the most important advantage of having a formal CS education is that your knowledge is more likely (but not guaranteed!) to be much more comprehensive. That advantage can be offset by curiosity, willing to learn, some healthy skepticism and age. And yes, I think that young age – as in, lack of general life experience – can be a disadvantage. B was willing to accept even stupid tasks at face value and just code his way through them (and then tear the code apart because it had some fundamental design problem). A, as a more mature person, instinctively (or maybe even consciously) saw when a task did not fit the business needs and sometimes was able to find another solution which was for example simpler/easier to code and at the same time satisfied the actual needs of the customer better.
That said, I have also worked with brilliant people who had no formal education in the subject whatsoever, they just really, really liked it.
I’m biased towards ops because that’s what I do and like, but at least in that field, the single biggest green flag I’ve found is whether or not someone has a homelab. People can cry all they want about “penalizing people for having hobbies outside of their job,” but it’s pretty obvious that if you spend more time doing something – even moreso if you enjoy it – you will learn it at a much faster rate than someone who only does it during business hours.
I am an old-school developer with a computer engineering degree but many of the old famous devs were self taught. Yes, if you learn how to code through online courses you will miss some important fundamentals but those are possible to learn later and I know several people who have.
We have excellent metrics between PMM and AWS Perf. Insights / Enhanced Monitoring. I assure you, on-disk temp tables were to blame. To your point, though, MySQL 5.7 does have a sub-optimal implementation in that it kicks a lot of queries out to disk from memory because of the existence of a TEXT column, which internally treated as a BLOB. Schema design is also partially to blame, since most of the tables were unnecessarily denormalized, and TEXT was often used where VARCHAR would have been more appropriate, but still.
Trust me so much, some of the stuff I learned there was actively harmful. Half of subjects were random fillers, and so on.
I envy Americans so much with that, their CS education seems to be top notch.
Have you tried launching a local app by typing in the start menu on a default win11 install with limited / slow internet access? Good times. How about doing some operation (say delete an e-mail) in one window of "new" outlook and having the others refresh?
I have never understood how some otherwise reasonable people are able to consider this absolute shitshow of a work environment good enough.
They refused to store files in directories and use good file names (although they were limited to 8.3), so they just scrolled through all their files until they found the right one. But they could open them so fast they didn't care.
In windows you had to use the mouse, click three times, wait for the document to load and render....it was instant under DOS character mode.
Reveal Codes was an order of magnitude more useful than whatever crap MS continues to pass off as formatting notation to this day 20+ years later, and that's before we even get into Word being over-helpful and getting ahead of you by doing things with autoformat you never wanted to have happen.
Yes, I know WordPerfect is still around, but fat chance being able to conveniently use it anymore.
Also traditional menus had some traditional standards. Once you learned what was under "File" or "View" or "Insert" or "Format" it was often pretty similar across applications.
There is no faster discoverability than O(log(N)) search using the letters of the name as a lookup.
The biggest failure of modern operating systems is failing to standardize this innate reality.
Windows,Linux,etc should have 1. keyboard button to jump to search box 2. type 1-2 letters and hit enter. Operating systems and applications should all have this kind of interface.
The most ironic apps have a ribbon named something like "Edit" but then the most used "edit" command lives in an unrelated ribbon.
When the accursed ribbon came along, "discoverability" went out the window. Functions were grouped according to some strange MS logic I could never understand, and it takes me twice as long to format a page as it used to. Now, I basically just use Word for text entry, and if I want an elegant format, I use a graphic design app like Illustrator.
Judging from what I've read online, you may be the only person who actually likes the ribbon.
CUA ~= "standard menus + keyboard shortcuts for dos and windows": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
I was hoping to figure out what led to design incompetence so spectacular that people would still be discussing it after 17 years.
I think there’s a clue in the abstract: The author claims they made 25,000 mock UI screenshots, but doesn’t mention user studies or even internally prototyping some of the concepts to see how they feel.
It wouldn’t be so bad if keyboard navigation was as good as with the classic menus, but having to press the Alt key separately, and general increased latency, kills it.
I think rosy recollection is tainting your memory here. How often docs would get corrupted due to those aforementioned memory safety issues, even if that Win95/98 box was never connected to the internet.
Of course it’s gonna be super snappy. It was designed to run on any Doom-compatible hardware. Which includes some toasters now.
Edit: it’s also worth noting that 1997 was right around the time where Moore’s law succumbed to the laws of physics for improving single-core CPU performance via clock speed alone.
And funny thing, barely uses any memory! Makes todays apps look like monsters. Even my music player uses 5x more memory while paused, then freaking Excel with multiple pages open.
`Omnibook300Intro-5091-6270-6pages-May93.pdf` https://www.hpmuseum.net/exhibit.php?hwdoc=123 sez:
> Built-in ROM applications don't use up disk space
- Microsoft Windows
- Microsoft Word for Windows
- Microsoft Excel
- Appointment Book
- Phone Book
- HP Calculator
- Microsoft File Manager
- LapLink Remote Access™
You are wildly off base. The algorithms aren't difficult or special. They were written by people reading text books for the most part.
They are able to sit on an on old algorithm for decades because the DMCA made interoperability and selling cheaper tools like that basically illegal.
Because of the DMCA, the work that was done to make IBM PC clones would have been close enough to illegal to kill all the businesses that tried it. They still tried with the liberal IP laws at the time.
> The thing is, all of these bad features were probably justified by some manager somewhere because it’s the only way their feature would get noticed. They have to justify their salary by pushing all these stupid ideas in the user’s faces. “Hey, look at me! I’m so cool!” After all, when the boss asks, “So, what did you accomplish in the past six months,” a manager can’t say, “Um, a bunch of stuff you can’t see. It just works better.” They have to say, “Oh, check out this feature, and that icon, and this dialog box.” Even if it’s a stupid feature.
On the other hand, I very much enjoyed going to Excel 97 cell X97:L97, pressing tab, holding Ctrl+Shift and clicking on the chart icon, because then you could play Excel's built in flight simulator
It still does. Neither LibreOffice itself nor it's installation process with its components choice have changed seriously since the old days and I'm very grateful for this. The QuickStarter isn't as relevant anymore as we have fast SSDs now but some slow computers are still around and that's great we still have the option.
SuperFetch was supposed to work with any app. It never seemed to have much effect IMO.
Notably, a solution to the current issues with modern office is to use a copy of Office 97.
20+ page XLS uses ~7MB and loads effectively instantly (on a frankly horribly performing laptop that can usually barely run demos on HN)
Why is HN suddenly so interested in Microsoft doing the same thing that has always been done by large, bloated app suites?
Probably because it is horrible? It's indicative of how we spend less time optimizing code than we do coming up with computationally expensive, inefficient workarounds.
Let's say a hypothetical Windows user spends 2% of their day using Office (I made that number up). Why should Office be partially loaded the other 98% of the time? How is it acceptable to use those resources?
When are we actually going to start using the new compute capabilities in our machines, rather than letting them get consumed by unoptimized, barely decent code?
I don't know about a "hypothetical" user, but I'd bet a "mean" (corporate) user probably uses office all day long. Hell, I've lost count of the number of e-mails I've seen having a screenshot which is inside a word document for some reason, or the number of excel files which are just a 5x4 table.
Even as a paying customer, all the Office apps and services are now so aggressively pushy it's gone beyond "Rude", is now passing "Annoying" and accelerating toward "Yeah, I can't do this." I just want to ask Satya "How much more do I have to pay you to simply STFU and let me NOT use (and not even know about) services I already pay for but don't need?"
I bought three 12 month Office subs for $49 each on a black Friday blow-out three years ago. The last one will expire in January and if it doesn't get better, I'll be ending my 30 year Office relationship. I'll probably go to Libre Office and replace OneDrive cloud storage with SyncThing + my own server. I'd be fine to keep paying $50 a year for the 5% of Office I actually use - but only if I can use the exact Office I had around three years ago before it was so annoying.
> «Even as a paying customer, all the Office apps and services are now so aggressively pushy it's gone beyond "Rude", is now passing "Annoying" and accelerating toward "Yeah, I can't do this." I just want to ask Satya "How much more do I have to pay you to simply STFU and let me NOT use (and not even know about) services I already pay for but don't need?"»
Office used to be software that justified its cost, it's now just consistently annoying to use.
However: raising concerns is a bad career move apparently. These ideas... aren't proposed by devs; if that makes sense.
Word is no longer useful to me for composition. This seems like a bad thing.
It reminds me of that college humor sketch about the CEO of Oreo shouting at his team for trying to innovate on the Oreo... It's a solved problem, we made the perfect cookie 100 years ago. Just stop
I recently wrote a macro so that Word could call an AI API to do AI-assisted translation, works like a charm.
The main advantage of office 2003 of course is that it's the last office without activation and other crap: you pass the serial and own it for life, it won't bother you again.
I wantwd to only use 2003 but after the 10th time I argued with a person that sent me a docx for editing I gave up.
The issue is that roundtripping between Office 2007+ and Office 2003 is unreliable and will often result in corrupted files.
Using Office 2003 (with Compatibility Pack add-on to open xlsx and docx) is ok for isolated work but can be unreliable for collaborative back & forth editing depending on what features are used. E.g. cell colors used in Excel 2007 xlsx get corrupted in Excel 2003 xls.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocol...
That's actually not true, Office has had activation since XP (2002), so 2003 is included in that.
It works fine if the user is ok with the features from 2003. E.g. Excel 2003 is limited to smaller spreadsheets of 65536 rows by 256 columns but Excel 2007+ can handle larger worksheets of 1048576 rows by 16384 cols.
I also recently used Excel's new LAMBDA() function which was introduced 2020. In earlier versions, it required writing a VBA UDF to accomplish the same task of assigning a temp variable with a ephemeral value to calculate on intermediate values. VBA is a workaround but LAMBDA() is nicer to use because Excel will throw up scary security warnings whenever the xls file containing VBA macros is opened.
I might be able to get by with Word 2003 more than Excel 2003.
A lot of normal users of Excel are not users of database software like SQLite or MS Access. That's too cumbersome. E.g. they download a csv file that has ~100000 rows (which really isn't that "big") and clicking on it gets them an instant visual grid as a GUI in Excel. Slicing & dicing and pivoting data is way faster in Excel than coding SQL WHERE GROUP BY statements. I've commented previously on why databases are not substitutes for the workflow ergonomics made possible by spreadsheet tools : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30987638
It's similar to reasons why Python/R or Jupyter notebooks are also not substitutes for Excel for the typical users of Excel.
The low row count of 65536 in Excel 2003 was just a legacy limitation of 1980s 16-bit computing that was carried over into 32-bit computing for many years for backwards compatibility reasons. Spreadsheet users don't really want to switch to databases or Python just to get more usable rows than 65536.
> The scenario of "I just sent you an xlsx where the rows highlighted in red are problems and if you can just add your notes to column K, that would be great. Thanks!" -- is not easy in other tools that are not spreadsheets.
There are no words to tell how much I hate that!!! ;-) Users are too creative. Some will merge some cells and not others and boom the file can't be properly sorted anymore. Many will use font color, font weight or background color to mean wildly different things, which is very difficult or impossible to sort or do a sumif over. Others will add footnotes, because why not?, and links to spreadsheets that never leave their own device, or mini-blank-rows for spacing and general layout, etc. It's completely insane.
Your side lost completely. Pop a signal flare or build a bonfire, maybe someone can rescue you from the island you've been living on since the war ended.
XLookup sure is useful but again you can probably replace it with a combination of vlookup and hlookup (or index match).
Regarding the size... If you're dealing with huge spreadsheets it's really better to use a proper db. Or even manipulate data with sqlite. sqlite can query xlsx files directly (with an extension), it's extremely fast and stable.
And whilst you can work around lack of XLOOKUP or SUMIFS using the older functions, again it constrains how you lay things out (eg VLOOKUP needs you to presort your table by the lookup column if you don’t want an exact match) and this can often result in sheets which are much more unwieldy and slow to calculate.
I remember Outlook clipping the last character off the email subjects, for example. Might have been Office 2010.
What blows my mind is how dreadful search is in Google docs. The thing that should be really good is really bad.
Strange days
If you thought for a few seconds, you would realize that companies with big legal teams would not sign a contract that would give Google the right to their data.
Are they really doing training separately for each workspace? I thought LLM training was enormously expensive and needed lots of data, which wouldn't make sense to do separately.
That may be the case, but I wouldn’t count on it. Probably it can change with one email from Google that has “oh btw we’re changing some contract terms, you have 14 days to opt out, no big deal” buried deep down.
The problem is that we thought "let's switch to the online MS Word editor", which then proceeds to delete your text as you write [1]. Bare in mind that my company pays an Office subscription per employee for that crap.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Office365/comments/11be6wd/firefox_...
[2] https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/all/how-c...
We gave up for large documents, assigned an editor and just send them chunks of text.
Never had issues with printers to be fair, but it sounds like something that could be done in a background thread.
Bare in mind that we are contrasting this with Office, which is itself incredibly slow to start.
> extremely janky UI from 20 years ago
I love this about Libreoffice, everything can be located super reliably.
> poor performance
For a Java application I think it's crazily fast?
> and bad formatting issues and incompatibilities
It's certainly not a 100% drop-in replacement. A lot of the formatting issues I have experienced is because a Office user did something that assumes a perfect renderer - something we don't even get in browsers. Like people pressing enter multiple times to create a new page and not just CTRL+ENTER.
LibreOffice isn't written in Java. It can optionally use Java for extensions and for some database reporting features: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Faq/General/015
https://github.com/ONLYOFFICE/DesktopEditors
Then I got a new computer without bothering to do the installation. It was a long time before I discovered that I need any of Word/Excel/PowerPoint. And I was able to get by with Google Docs. If that's not good enough, I go to the free version of Office 365. In the rare occasions where I need the actual, native Office software for compatibility/functionality reasons, I do it on another machine I have access to. This has worked out surprisingly well.
We evaluated it for our migration away from MS software and would have gone with it, but it lacks an office server for Nextcloud integration.
[1] https://www.softmaker.com/en/products/softmaker-office
I also used OneNote for the better part of a decade before switching to Linux in 2017. Joplin is ok-ish, but Obsidian is closer to OneNote with its folder-based layout.
Otherwise it works fine, haven't had any issues with the documents it produces and I particularly like the direct export to pdf feature.
Select TOOLS > OPTIONS > ADVANCED > Enable experimental Options (WARNING this is experimental and may be unstable) > OK and then RESTART LIBREOFFICE. On restart VIEW > TOOLBAR LAYOUT > NOTEBOOKBAR. You can then play with the options with VIEW > NOTEBOOKBAR > CONTEXTUAL GROUPS/ CONTEXTUAL SINGLE / TABBED.
This is a perfect example of actions that make adoption harder. This should have been at most 2 clicks and prominently displayed assuming LibreOffice wants to be a great alternative to MS Office and make the transition easier. I have been using Linux daily for over 20 years now and it is not intuitive to me - it doesn't make me very optimistic about the experience for a new user.
Then this dialog appears: https://postimg.cc/YhVWyQVJ
I don't know, I quite like it, reminds me of the old Office look.
Plus, there's at least a bit of customization that you can do, which is pleasant: https://imgur.com/a/libreoffice-ui-80hwOp0
Very much seems like a matter of preference.
On my personal computers, I haven’t use MS Office in close to 20 years.
I use it at work, because that’s what we’re given to use, but 95% of my usage is opening CSV files in Excel. I find documents are rarely written in Word anymore, and the use of PowerPoint is actively discouraged at this point.
If the parent commenter only uses Office a dozen times per year, they should quite easily get by with something else. Google Docs, iWork, a simple text editor… there are options beyond LibreOffice. Which specific options would depend one what those dozen uses actually are.
If open source alternatives aren't suitable, my fallback is to get whatever the last retail box versions were of the few Office apps I actually occasionally use and then never update them. There hasn't been a single new Office feature I care about added in about ten years.
As someone who hasn't used office much in the last 15 years, it's nearly unusable for me. I have to Google how to do basic things because everything is confusing, ugly, and hidden(or hard to find amongst the huge number of icons).
It's because I don't like the Chinese torture you're referring to. We're programmers, we don't have to live that way.
you win this one vim, but I’ll get you next time.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_POSIX_commands
Vim has by far the better default user interface, though.
Day to day I'm listening to music, reading emails, internet, and writing programs with vim (half my time I'm ssh'd into other machines anyways. I do ML research). So I got pretty much everything covered except Slack and Signal
Note that if you google you will probably get spotify-tui[1] which DOES NOT work
[0] https://github.com/aome510/spotify-player
[1] https://github.com/Rigellute/spotify-tui
side note: man... I really wish I had the time to write or rewrite some TUIs. I'm sure I'm not the only one... Problem with a lot of open source is that they're side projects. I'd imagine there could be state of things could be a lot better if some small org just paid a few engineers to make and maintain a few of them.
Could you expand on that?
Excel takes care of a lot of things that are a massive pain in the ass the deal with with any other solutions. It starts witht he ability to import data with a simple ctrl-c + ctrl-v instead of having to write code, but it doesn't end there.
Yesterday I was using Outlook 365, there was one URL in one of the emails and I needed to find other emails containing it. Trivial and one of main use cases, right.
Put URL in search box, 0 finds (including email I just copy&pasted it from). Mkay, maybe non-alphanumeric chars are messing with some internal regex or similar, stripped those into bare hostname, still 0 finds (when searching all mailboxes, including body).
Maybe its some exchange settings, who knows, who cares. Pissed off fighting such basic tech instead of doing actual work.
It’s truly amazing that we have seemingly regressed in basic desktop functionality since the early 2000’s.
Just for fun, try installing an old OS in a virtual machine. Marvel at how fast the old OS runs at modern SSD speeds. Get frustrated at the random hangs, freezes, glitches, and plain bad behavior of the programs you know and love, because the slowness of computers at the time hid it all. 20 cores of unused CPU power, dozens of gigabytes of RAM laying at the ready, disk I/O hitting dozens of megabytes per second, but still loading screens everywhere.
I once tried to go back, for nostalgia's sake, just doing the things I do on an old OS for fun. The grass wasn't much greener back then, I just had lower standards.
Can't really blame the devs though because very often they only had single threads and definitely single cores to work with.
I have to assume that Outlook email searches have already been set up to have ads injected into them, when/if one day Microsoft decides to flip the switch. Actually, I'm so out of touch with Windows they might already be doing this.
The airport approach to computing!
I have a feeling it's based on tokenising the input rather than a string scan like we'd do in the old days. Harder to match a literal string if all you have is a tree of tokens or something, I guess.
Opengrok was the first time I ran into this years ago. We had a perl code base, perl syntax is well known as "an explosion in an ASCII factory", so it was a real pain trying to find exact text matches using it.
Having said all that: I also hate how shitty search almost everywhere is. It’s hard, but not that hard.
We only have a single text field as the input; how are we supposed to guess whether you want to find an exact match of the phrase, a fuzzy match, at least one of the words provided, or any other possible variation? Also, are you interested in the content, the subject, the recipient, the sender address you used, a header field, an attachment, what have you? Do you want them ranked by the frequency of the word, or the position from the start of the text? Does it count those occurrences in quoted passages of previous mails downthread multiple times? What if it’s a stop word?
There are of course sensible ranking solutions and heuristics for these questions. I just want to highlight it’s not as trivial as it first sounds. Most mail clients probably don’t ship with a Lucene index—while they should.
I use Thunderbird and it's approximately 100x better at searching for emails than Excel. I just tell it if I'm looking in the subject, in the body, in the sender, whether it's fuzzy, etc, and then it pulls up the emails.
Whereas Excel doesn't ask shit and, in return, doesn't have a working search.
With mu4e (an Emacs package), you can have lightning fast searching across multiple mail accounts. And with a bit of work (https://stuff.sigvaldason.com/email.html) it will happily interoperate with Microsoft Exchange systems that require the OATH2 dance.
Which is maddening because back when it was released on Tiger it was great, and on spinning disks.
If the macOS or Windows searches were just wrappers for find/grep, it would already be an improvement!
Probably explains why it's something that works well and works fast.
Granted, creating any kind of complex multi-clause query is a pain, but for simple searches it never lets me down whereas Outlook often just fails to find things I know are present.
https://marcoapp.io/blog/marco-an-introduction
We're building an IMAP-primitive, cross-platform, multi-account email client that is single-digit-ms fast in terms of search.
I am using my mac with an LDAP (AD) user account, so I am possibly in the minority of people here.
It's so annoying when I KNOW I sent an email to someone a year ago and I put TO: Their name and it still doesn't come up.
Also: Smart folders still don't exist (e.g. a folder that automatically lists every email with a flag on it or some other condition). At least not in the "New Outlook" which we have to use at work. Apple had this back in 2007.
Same with OneNote by the way and the web version can't even search in whole notebooks, just single folders.
We use Office 365 and their hosted Exchange for email. I manage my mail in the native Mac Mail tool; my boss uses Outlook. For commercial exchanges (ie, dialog about sales with customers), we're almost always both on copy.
SEVERAL TIMES A MONTH he asks me to find a mail for him, because Outlook search is letting him down, often on bone simple searches (e.g., for something like a specific PO number or software serial number).
I find it immediately. Outlook strikes out. How do you break search so badly?
This would not be a problem for searching of course, if the cloud-based search worked properly. But yeah... About that. :X
The "classic" outlook should do it better but it also doesn't in my experience. Though I can't use it anymore at work lately.
It's just so bad because how can they screw this up? It's not some fluff feature, it's a core feature in an email client.
PS: If you have copilot, it does a lot better at finding stuff somehow, though like every AI it can be a bit hit and miss.
For general searches, I agree. I want those to be highly deterministic. But in that case I need to know exactly what I'm looking for.
There's also the other kind of thing though. "Who was that guy that I emailed with a year or two ago about this issue with MacBook Enrolment?". Yes I can filter by company or other details if I remember those things but sometimes I don't. And that's when AI search can really shine. Or not, it can also totally make up stuff out of its ass. But at least when it comes to emails that's easily verifiable.
But I'm already sick and tired of search not returning stuff I know is in there, because I forgot to check the blessed combination of boxes.
Of course that third party clients don't give them any telemetry, "insights", cross-marketing opportunities like copilot, has nothing to do with it.
But they are still all search functions, and the Outlook & Teams search functions seem so terrible that you'd think they'd try do something about it to support the pubic view of their other search related efforts.
Finance and insurance industries are full of Excel powerusers.
> LibreOffice is enough for the vast majority of use cases.
Often (from my job experience I can at least attest this for the finance and insurance sectors), Excel is an integrated part of many large workflows. Changing from Excel to LibreOffice would mean rewriting important parts of central business applications, so you better have a really good reason why you want to do the switch from Excel to LibreOffice.
On the funny note: as powerful excel is, it cannot open two files with the same name from different folders! Or at least my version can't.
This is really bad for a lot of reasons. Of course it's painfully slow, but it's also incredibly brittle and foot-gunny. Excel IS NOT a competent database engine or application engine. It makes JS and C++ look sane and safe.
Excel shouldn't be switched out to LibreOffice. It should be switched out to a proper application with a proper database. What, finance bros don't know how to navigate a database. Tough fucking luck! In the 70s, secretaries could do that. They better figure it out. Because these existing "systems" are a disaster waiting to happen.
> Why did you choose the expensive version
Big companies have (sometimes hard negotiated) volume contracts with Microsoft, which makes Excel much cheaper to them than to, say, small companies. Thus Excel is not really expensive for them.
Concerning
> where you never know what it will cost next year in the first place
For open source software there exists a similar risk that you don't know into which direction the product will develop.
In the past, Microsoft has been quite reliable in keeping backwards compatible, and continue selling office for decades.
In my observation, the zigzag course that Microsoft starting doing with Windows (but is now also doing with office), and, relatedly, deviating from the course of being very insanely dependable in delivering the software that companies need from them, is what by now got big companies at least have a look at what possible alternatives to Microsoft products could be.
You know what's really interesting to me about this argument point?
It is actually the proprietary solution that is at risk of this, and we feel it daily. The next version of Microsofts own flagship product (Windows) is nearly universally denigrated, but people are forced to upgrade.
With FOSS, there's significantly less risk, if the product changes direction you and your other company friends can just use old versions or in the worst case.. fork it.
I've worked on software that communicated with other software using custom Excel spreadsheets exported by yet different software, modified by humans. Every stage of the process was specs-incompliant and was using edge case features, but this process oversaw transport for goods worth millions every day. I tried my very best not to reach for a Windows VM, but there was nothing that could work on these files.
For the vast majority of times, bikes are good enough for the majority of travels, yet there are cars everywhere.
Wow that was a very Dutch comment! I wonder whether it resonates with the Americans here :D
This sums up my entire experience of "Enterprise applications".
I really don't understand how this market is dominated by an abusive platform(MS Office) & a broken POS(LibreOffice).
It's crazy to me how often Open Source pushers have the vibe "I don't use computers, I don't know what anyone does with computers, but I'm still dismissive and superior". I almost made this comment earlier today in reply to [1] which was another "You have problems with Linux? I daily-drive Linux for years and I've never had any problems" comment and the issues were common/well-known things - fractional scaling in Gnome, HDMI, screen sharing in Slack, crashes in Google Meet, crashes in Chrome, KDE unstable, missing desktop software they use, audio too buggy, constant crashes in another program after days of work.
Nothing anyone would be surprised at, except a Linux user who - apparently - never does anything with their computer and is baffled that other people do. I decided my comment was too trolling and didn't finish it, but here you are bringing that vibe again: you don't know what Excel does or why people use it, but you're confident that you know better; prompting me to actually call it out.
The first thing I looked for when I installed LibreOffice most recently, I found a thread[2] asking: "In excel you can create a table simply by using insert->table. Is there a way to create tables in calc, as well?" and the first visible reply is them explaining that they don't want to create a table in Write, they want Excel's "insert table" feature in Calc. Why would they have to explain that again already, their question was two short lines. Presumably the people replying don't know that feature exists. There are some people being helpful and suggesting ways to get similar effects, but of course there's "Why do you want to insert a table into a Calc spreadsheet? It doesn’t seem like a feature that I’d use much" ("I don't know what the feature does but I know I don't want it"), a couple people commenting explanations of what Excel's tables are and why they are useful including a link to a video demonstration ... followed by someone saying "It already works, they are called database ranges" - no, that's different. Someone who doesn't know what they are, didn't read the explanations or watch the video and still thinks they know better. Crazy.
One of the earlier repliers comes back with "LibreOffice has a database component which is by far more powerful than any fake tables on a calculator’s grid." doubling down on "I don't understand it, didn't read the explanations, don't respect you enough to consider that you know anything about what you want or do on a computer, I still know better" and with namecalling it 'fake'. Crazy.
Note, to avoid the obvious tangent, that I'm not demanding people implement features for me in free software. As the thread ends by kerosene5 "Instead of spending so much time poo pooing the feature request, you could explore it. It really is a good feature. I just downloaded and opened my bank transactions and the very FIRST thing I did was look how to convert it to a table. . . . back to Excel."
It's not "1% of Excel users need pivot tables or something" it was the very FIRST thing they wanted, and multiple people in that thread want, and the second thing I wanted. No this is not the only feature Excel has that LibreOffice hasn't; if you want to know why people aren't using Open Source software? Try actually looking and listening instead of whatever that is you are doing.
[Edit: THIS IS YOU: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43855927 ! Of course it is. Of course it is].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43855663
[2] https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/creating-tables-in-calc/1433
I"m aware that there are things I'm unaware of. Perhaps I don't know how to use Excel, I'm "no true Excel user" if you will, and therefore my opinion is invalid. Like you I'm baffled not by the technical side of things but by our reaction to it. People say "it powers 10% of the world's economy" but not "and it's a problem".
It's a problem. My point is not that LO is better, it's that we should work to remove our dependency on closed-source software for universal office work. Governments should be doing that. But no, let's just say "the other one sucks" and continue to act like depending on a single for-profit company for all our economies is a good thing.
Not sure how my other comment relates to this. Is it arrogant to have preferences?
> "Is it arrogant to have preferences?"
No, it's arrogant to not know what people are doing but still tell people that you know better what tools would be good to do what they are doing.
> "My point is not that LO is better, it's that we should work to remove our dependency on closed-source software for universal office work"
If that is what you had said, I wouldn't have replied.
Programmers don't like to hear that truth.
Absolute most of the time what is offered by markdown is enough.
When doing my thesis I was asking myself “is it really that important to use 16pt font or 14pt one or this is a made up rule because someone said so many years ago”
Bloatware is unwanted software, usually pre-installed or otherwise not installed by the user, that slows down your computer and takes up space.
So if a user wants Office, it is, by definition, not bloatware.
Even if we do consider it bloatware -- pre-installed, unwanted by the user, and using up system resources -- that isn't an explanation of why Office itself is slow.
all they had to do was keep up with whatever features are different in excel between now and then and implement those. leaving the menus and UX mostly alone, only improving things as time went on. update the engine to do the new features, and update the UI only enough to expose the new features and make them accessible.
but no... UX people don't have jobs if they can't redesign shit for no obvious reason. PMs don't have jobs if they can't force nonsense features no one ever asked for. Developers don't have jobs if they don't aggressively chase every new fad and tool and be in a constant state of learning (and thus unlearning).
this whole world is stupid and was a mistake.
> Despite the name, it is not a Chinese invention and it is not traditional anywhere in Asia. Its earliest known version was first documented by Hippolytus de Marsiliis in Bologna (now in Italy) in the late 15th or early 16th century, and it was widely used in Western countries before being popularized by Harry Houdini in the early 20th century.
However, I don't recommend reading those articles beyond the first paragraph and list of contents!
I actually worked on Office performance many years ago. We did a lot of very clever stuff to improve the product, even to the point of optimizing the byte ordering on disk (spinning rust) so that the initial boot would be faster.
That said, it always felt a bit like a losing battle. The goal was "make Office not get slower". It's very hard to convince app teams that their new shiny abstraction or graphics object is actually the reason everything is worse, and it's even more challenging when there's no direct impact- just a broad increase in system memory pressure.
Typically, perf isn't a few bad decisions. It's a very large number of independently reasonable decisions that add up to a bad result. If the team loses that discipline for even one moment then it's very very difficult to fix. I wonder if my former team still exists or if they've all been reassigned elsewhere.
This is precisely where the adage "premature optimization is the root of all evil" falls apart. You really do need everyone to care about performance to an obsessive, unreasonable degree to keep the entire, massive system performant. Companies with good engineering leadership understand this. The thousand cuts can come from language, libraries, feature creep, and pure ignorance or carelessness.
So for everyone that doesn't understand, here's the longer quote
Knuth said: "Get a profiler and make sure that you're optimizing the right thing"It is incredible how this became "don't optimize".
It seems like things like this are no longer possible for Microsoft. They keep producing clunky tools which, although functional, always come with a horribly frustrating UX (as usual).
I've been working within the Microsoft tech stack for around 25 years now (mostly SQL Server). I used to be a huge fan of their products because they were one of the best companies when it came to developer experience (developers! developers!). Unfortunately, that was a long time ago. Things are very different now. Of all the things I once liked, only SQL Server really remains (ironically, it's a technology they acquired - it used to be Sybase). I still think C#, F#, and PowerShell are great, but I actively discourage people from using most of their so-called "products" because the quality is just appallingly low.
Even something like Visual Studio is better replaced with Rider + LINQPad. Their GitHub repositories are full of open issues that have been dragging on for years. There's virtually nothing left of the old Microsoft that I still respect or admire.
That said, I have to admit that most other corporations aren't any better - there's a general trend of maximizing profit while offering the lowest quality that customers are still willing to tolerate. If I were starting IT studies today, I would go 100% down the open-source path.
The most funny part? I was debugging application .exe not starting. Reason? AVG antivirus UPLOADED EXE to their server for EXAMINATION. EXE with an 600$ Extended Validation license. There was a message for the user TO WAIT FEW HOURS before they studied it and exe could be unblocked from launching. All was completely normal to the said windows user. What a dystopian thing they are used to
FWIW, I haven't ran antivirus software on Windows (other than the included Defender, but that's not something I think about) in literally decades.
Are you saying Microsoft shouldn't care about making a secure system and they can just outsource the subject to a third company which will upload .exe to their server and tell user to wait few hours before it can be launched?
No comments yet
Pages is also pretty nice. Its definitely enough for home usage, and if my colleagues could read the pages files natively I would find it completely sufficient for professional use. I find it does layout much better than MS Office. Which honestly is a much bigger concern for home users: professional users will just switch to professional layout tools when they need it, but Sam doesn't need that cost/complexity for some bake sale fliers.
Numbers can also be nicer for home use cases, but is a bit weird if you're used to excel. And unlike pages or keynote quickly hits upper limits on complexity. I would never use numbers in a professional setting.
At this point, I've started using IDE extensions when I just need to view/filter
The alternative to the full office suite with decades of backwards compatibility and hundreds of features, is the quick, free version Microsoft made to fight off Google Docs.
And yet, weirdly, macOS comes up with absolutely no image editor of any kind. There's no equivalent of MS Paint. It's infuriating.
quicktime pro was like that. it was insanely powerful and things were all hidden behind just a few menu items and a few little added UI elements here and there. quicktime pro was amazing and I miss it a bit.
I'm done with it. I've switched to Ubuntu and I haven't looked back. I only boot up my Windows installation when I need to do game development on Unreal or use an incompatible program. But for now, MacOS and Linux are covering everything.
I used to be a big gamer but I've basically given up on playing games that don't work on Linux. The selection of games is steadily growing and some games work at launch (like Oblivion Remastered).
I know there's a lot of animosity for GNOME, but it's the best Linux desktop in my opinion. In terms of polish it's definitely the closest to MacOS.
Application installs are still an absolute pain, but it's gotten better. At the very least I can now go through the Ubuntu App Center to get the most common apps. There's the occassional app that doesn't work (like VLC) and then I'll have to look into Snap or Flatpak or whatever other variation of app packaging Linux devs decide to unleash on the masses... but then it works and I don't think about it again.
One last gripe for me is the lack of HDR support in Ubuntu. I can't use my LG C2 with it. But I've switched to using two Dell monitors with DisplayPort and now it doesn't matter... and I use the LG C2 with something else.
For the average user this experience sucks. But for me, I'm okay putting up with this pain if it means never using Windows again.
Not to defend Microsoft, as I've firmly believed them to be a shitty entity for a loooong time now, but as a counter example and many years going on Windows 10/11, I don't have any of these issues and I've only run debloater maybe a few times in the last 5 years.
I don't know wtf people are installing on their PCs to make them so shitty like this, but I've not encountered these things across dozens of personal or employer devices in recent in times. Like not even once. Maybe you're downloading beta drivers? Maybe the manufacturer of your devices are cheapo brands with poorly made chipsets? Maybe you have bloatware installed by your manufacturer that you haven't uninstalled? At this stage, it's hard to believe this is not some kind of user error. Be it a lack of research before acquiring a device, or lack of knowledge on how to navigate the device.
Edit: to put into perspective a bit more, I use my main laptop - a Lenovo Legion laptop - for gaming (many acquired through the "dark waters" even), full-stack software development, AI video up-scaling, photo-editing, running a media-server (Jellyfin), torrenting, office programs, running virtual machines, running WSL2 with docker, running many various open-source programs, producing music with Ableton and a plethora of third-party VSTs, etc.
No issues.
The problem is the design is just bad. Lots of things are just sucky and they're meant to be that way. Search is ass, explorer is half-decent only in Windows 11. There's way more than 3 settings panels, and yes, they all look different. You still have to edit the registry for some random tweaks. Apps put there files god knows where. Every app updates independently. You still have to go online and download random .exe and .msi files to install things. If you get errors the message is typically worthless. The system tray is a fucking mess. IIS sucks. powershell is okay but cmd is still around and yes, sometimes you have to use it. And, cherry on top, everything is slowwwww. Especially the file system. You don't really notice it until you have a version controlled code base but NTFS has to be, like, 1000x slower than competing Linux filesystems.
If your needs are smaller you can do a lot with just abiword and gnumeric. They launch instantly.
Gnome evolution is much nicer to use than Outlook in my experience.
Yes, it's slow and bloated. But it's comparably faster and leaner, and it doesn't use undocumented APIs to take resources away from everything else running on the same computer and make every other thing unusable.
And yeah, calc lacks features when compared to excel. So, avoid spreadsheets for complex problems.
In terms of word processing (which is perhaps an archaic term by now) I would ask people to look at what Visual Studio Code is. A rather minimal, skeletal, code editing platform that derives nearly all its value from the extensions people make for it. There are lots and lots of editors and IDEs. But extremely few of them serve as platforms. As the infrastructural basis for creating applications.
Yes, there are IDEs that are possibly marginally better at editing, say, Java or Go code. But VSC is pretty good at almost every language that is in common use today. And it manages to compete pretty well with more specialized solutions. It does this because an editor that does 90% in all the languages you use is far more valuable than switching between two editors that perhaps achieve 95%.
Word, and its open source counterparts, are antiquated and obsolete. I don't think the field can be advanced by building word processors that are just iterations of 30 year old ideas. Yes, you can probably extend them, but people don't. You have to understand what it is that makes some pieces of software work as platforms (like VSC), and why other pieces of software do not inspire people to build on them.
I think Microsoft should reinvent Word as a platform that is designed to be extended and that is easy to extend. I would then release the base software platform as open source. Much of the functionality that resides in Word today I would move to paid extensions - including useful bundles of extensions. This way Microsoft would retain its revenue stream, and I wouldn't have to deal with all of the crud Word contains.
I would also create a marketplace for both paid and free (open source) extensions. Which in turn would make the product more valuable (even though the base product is free). Because other companies and people invest in it and have a shared interest in its health beyond mere existence.
Of course, not only Microsoft can do this. Anyone could create an editing platform. But it would have to be someone with a bit of money who can spend perhaps 5-6 years supporting the effort to see if it takes off. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
One reason I see this as perhaps the only way forward for this class of application is that I'm doing some work for a company that manufactures physical products. A would-be advanced user of office automation tools. This kind of business has a very complex document structure where there's a vast hierarchy of thousands of documents that goes into every project and even spans projects. Doing this with Word, Sharepoint and whatnot is complicated, fragile and requires a lot of work. It doesn't work very well. It also means you have to memorize a lot of procedures. This could have benefitted from very narrow, domain specific tooling. Including LLMs that allow you to ask questions with context derived from sources other than the Word documents. Yes, Microsoft is trying to stuff this into their products, but it isn't actually all that useful because it is generic. It is never going to support what our customer needs.
I don't think Office, LibreOffice etc are the right kind of tools. They are children of the 1990s. We have better starting points today and better technology. It is time to re-think this.
Developers at Microsoft are obviously not rewarded for quality. You have to assume that this is because managers and leaders in Microsoft are not rewarded for quality. You would think that a company that has deep pockets would be in a great position to do more ground-up re-implementations. And to do so with quality, performance and correctness as the main focus.
For instance the office suite. The last 20 or so years have taught me that an Office suite can be a lot simpler and it will actually work better if it is simpler. Just in the last 5 years I have observed three different companies where people routinely perform most of their writing and editing in other tools and then insert what they have written in Word. Because it is far better than creating the content in Word itself. At my current consulting gig a lot of people write things in Google Docs and then import them into Word documents to produce the official versions of documents.
Word is a mess. It is packed with too many features you will never use. Those have a cost because they take up screen space, and make the features you do care about harder to find and use. Word constantly distracts you because it misbehaves and you have to somehow try to deal with its quirks and interruptions. It is slow, complex and resource intensive.
Word is objectively not a very good piece of software. I have never met anyone who loves it. Who feels that Word makes them more productive than any alternatives. It is software you have to cope with. Software that must be tolerated. Or not.
I do not understand why Microsoft, with its deep pockets, has made no attempt to reinvent, for instance, Word, to create a word processor from scratch. With focus on quality, correctness, performance, usability, and perhaps most importantly: easy extensibility.
They could draw some inspiration from Visual Studio Code. There are many things that are wrong with VS Code, but they got a few things right. The most important being that unlike other IDEs it is essentially just a skeletal platform that derives its value from extensions. Third party extensions. This means that VS Code can be adapted to fit your individual needs, or more importantly, the needs to segments of users. It means that people who want to make tools can build on VS Code rather than having to do a lot of work orthogonal to their goal to create tooling.
Yes, you can probably wrangle special functionality into Word. But nobody does. Not at any meaningful scale.
Word is rooted in a world that existed before many of you were born. A world that is long gone. There has been decades of technology evolution. If you were to develop a word processor today, you would be starting from a point that is completely different.
And let's not get started on Azure. I have to deal with it about every two years. And every two years I try to approach it with an open mind and with optimism. Surely they have fixed things now? I am always disappointed. Things look slick on the surface, but then you start to use them, and you are confronted with systems that are slow, slow, slow, ugly and buggy. AWS is certainly not the belle of the ball. Its constant complexity and the awkwardness and just overall badness of the tooling makes me limit how much of it I make myself dependent on AWS services.
But at least AWS isn't as bad as Azure.
I don't get why Microsoft can't seem to invest in quality. Yes, I get all the arguments that it just needs to be good enough for their customers to keep using them, but surely, at some point it has to hurt your pride.
If I were in Nadella's shoes I would invest heavily in quality. In stripping things down. In starting over. In making sure that I understand the required cultural change required to make products that are objectively speaking, good. If not great. And perhaps that requires getting rid of a lot of long-time leaders that just can't change gears. Perhaps it requires creating teams that are isolated to a greater degree from other teams so they don't drag each other down.
I work at Microsoft and you're absolutely correct as far as I've observed. Rewards are for speed and doing things (usually hyped-based) that advance the goals of leadership... these goals are rarely if ever about "let's make sure we nail the basics first". I think it comes down to serving shareholders vs. serving real customers.
Why is this always the go-to? The Windows 11 start menu and task bar are exactly that, from scratch re-implementations of what existed before and they are garbage. There is a lot of institutional knowledge in that old code and to pretend it holds no to little value gives us half-hearted replacements which never quite ascend to the heights they were supposed to replace.
Sure, there are some exceptions where the concept around "what the thing is" needed to change and a new product needs to re-imagine a solution (VS -> VSCode). However, I feel that we, the software development community, put way more hope that this is true way more often than it is in reality.
As for knowledge: yes, it is more valuable than the software. That does not imply the software is the only place where software is stored. In its most useful form it is stored in people. Which is why you should revisit, and rewrite, code that is important often enough to ensure the knowledge is passed on.
However, don't forget to make room for new knowledge and new ideas. That has hardly happened to Office suites for 30 years. They just tend to become "more".
Hot take: your ""debloater"" screwed up your system.
I've had problems with Windows, but none of the ones you've described.
> For the average user this experience sucks. But for me, I'm okay.
I guess this describes my Windows experience. I _know_ some people have problems. I don't, because I guess either I got used to it or I know how to avoid it.
> never gotten bluetooth to work on windows
I seriously doubt this. seriously. if true, it is a user problem, because i've never had an issue, nor has anyone I know.
> apps randomly crash
true of any operating system, also that's not what "randomly" means. you mean "unexpectedly" I think.
> settings pages crash
never happened to me, ever. if it has, it was infrequent enough that i have no memory of it, and i've never heard this complaint before from anyone.
> snipping tool only works half the time
again, I use that thing continuously on Windows and it always works.
> xbox ads during gameplay
what game? what [everything]? I've never seen this and I play games on windows all the dang time.
it very much sounds like you've cherry picked experiences that others have had and piled them all here and declared that they happen to you. Maybe they have, I don't know, but if this has all happened to you in the last 4 years, you are the only person on the planet who has experienced this. Not even in the depths of Microsofts online communities and the Microsoft Discord do I read of a single person with all of these problems.
I don't know what your problems are underneath, but they're not Microsoft. If they were, I would have those problems, and I don't. Some of these were common 10 years ago when Windows 10 came out, but only for a month or two. Certainly not in the past 4 years. not unless you're intentionally avoiding upgrades or something.
Here are Windows Forum threads talking about each of the problems I've mentioned, with thousands of people saying "I have the same question":
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/unable...
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/window...
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/window...
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/snippi...
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/xbox/forum/all/unwanted-...
Others would show me how the computer would act weird after unplugging PCI cards while the computer was running, and blame Microsoft. “See!? SEE?!” Every single WTF moment I had in desktop support with issues like this was user error.
Maybe yours aren’t. Maybe the Microsoft Answers forum is filled with exceptionally smart people who all know exactly how to use a computer, never ask stupid questions, and never give wrong answers, but I think we both know that isn’t really true.
I have about a 50% success rate with Bluetooth devices pairing and reconnecting properly on Windows, so at least I’m doing better than OP.
The Bluetooth software stack on the whole is a disaster, but the only platform where I’ve had a trouble free experience is macOS.
This started happening to me too like six months ago. I figured, "yet again they broke something with an update, but it'll probably fix itself eventually."
Nope!
I'd switch to some 3rd party tool but my employer doesn't allow any since we all got upgraded to Windows 11. Why don't they allow it anymore? Because the snipping tool (Snip & Sketch).
At least they still let me install Ditto (I never liked how the Windows clipboard history feature works... No, I'll paste when I want to paste—not when I select the item!)
Multiply that by tens (or even hundreds) of teams and your app startup (either on desktop or mobile) is now a bloated mess. Happened to Office, Facebook iOS and countless others.
One solution is to treat startup cycles as a resource similar to e.g. size or backend servers.
The only way to achieve performance metrics in a large org IMO.
Google Search is still fast because if you degrade p99 latency an SRE will roll back your change. Macbooks still have good battery life because Apple have an army of QA engineers and if they see a bump on their Ammeters that MacOS release doesn't go ahead.
Everything else (especially talking about "engineers these days just don't know how to write efficient code") is noise. In big tech projects you get the requirements your org encodes in its metrics and processes. You don't get the others. It's as simple as that.
Never worked at MS but it's obvious to me that the reason Windows is shit is that the things that would make it good simply aren't objectives for MS.
Then Microsoft made the brave decision that testers were simply unnecessary. So they laid off all SDETs, then decided that SDE’s should be in charge of the tests themselves.
Which effectively made it so there was no test coverage of windows at all, as the majority of SDE’s had not interacted with the test system prior to that point. Many/most of them did not know how to run even a single test, let alone interpret its results.
This is what Microsoft management wanted, so this is what they got. I would not expect improvement, only slow degradation as Windows becomes Bing Desktop, featuring Office and Copilot (Powered By Azure™).
Basically making Windows a good desktop OS is not in any meaningful way the "purpose" of that part of MS. The "purpose" of any team of 20+ SWEs _is_ the set of objectives they measure and act upon. That's the only way you can actually predict the outcomes of its work.
And the corrolary is that you can usually quite clearly look at the output of such an org and infer what its "purpose" is, when defined as such.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_w...
[2] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comment...
I don't have a good guess for the average age of software developers at Microsoft, but claude.ai guesses the average "around 33-38 years" and the median "around 35-36 years old".
To my ears this is the equivalent of "some guy down the pub said", but maybe I am a luddite.
Also, the Office codebase is significantly larger than Windows (and has been for a while), that was surprising to me.
Microsoft need to update the spec for all new personal computers to include mandatory pre-load hardware. This would have a secondary CPU, RAM and storage used for pre-loading licensed Office products before your laptop boots. AI would analyse your usage patterns and fire-up Office for you before you even get to work in the morning.
Perhaps, this could even allow you to have Office on-hand, ready-to-use on its own hardware module, while you develop Linux application on your main CPU.
Further down the line. Someone see an opportunity to provide access to compatible modules in the cloud, allowing re-use of older incompatible hardware. But there would be the danger that service (without the support of MS), may go bust, leaving those users without their mandatory instant access to licensed Office products, forcing upgrades to even newer hardware.
And using it now and then it feels like that too. Windows 10 Mail app had integration with system calendar, you would get itsycal built into the OS. Windows 11 removed that and made the OS Mail app spam infested shit, and they expect me to pay a subscription for something that comes bundled with the OS I paid for.
Linux desktop is getting better but I still wouldn't daily drive it, so MacOS it is until Linux desktop gets to a more reliable state. I wouldn't be shocked it gets there - I believe Valve made relatively low investments and got a lot out of it, GPU vendors have an incentive to support it - for compute workloads and the gaming on Linux is becoming a thing. Also for office stuff the EU-US hostility could force EU to look for alternative software providers and move away from Microsoft.
Actually thinking about this just made me donate some $ to Gnome project.
As an example, the power button can no longer be configured to power off the machine, because this is "too destructive". I'm not talking about defaults -- they removed the ability for me to make this choice for myself. Not even Microsoft has done that.
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=755953
On my machine, the power button is recessed and requires quite a bit of force to press. It is impossible to press accidentally, but the GNOME developers apparently know best.
https://archive.is/M1MW2
I find them highly useful on macOS, but there I lack the configurability I have on Windows.
There is just no one working on the technology. TingPing, an Igalia employee and GNOME contributor, was working on a new D-Bus protocol for it, but the work stopped. There is a PR up on the freedesktop xdg-specs repository.
The first versions of Gnome 3 did indeed have a system tray for backwards compatibility, and it was hidden out of the way until you needed it. Eventually it was scrapped once enough software was updated to not rely on it.
If somebody insists on having a messy UI, they can use literally any other DE available for Linux.
I wouldn't hesitate to put a 'regular' computer user in front of Xfce, it strikes a nice combination of simple and discoverable with very few annoyances. It's also where I go when I want to use some many-windowed application that doesn't fit into tiling.
While it may seem overblown, it's absolutely RIDICULOUS how fast it flies on contemporary systems, and even older ones.
One can also omit most of their other apps, with the exception of KWIN, drawing the desktop and its window decorations, and konqueror, the filemanager, and the things managing the menu(bar(s)), applauncher.
Using modern apps for the rest, like anywhere else.
And have them styled, themed however you like. With a few mouseclicks.
If you don't have the time or inclination to tinker with things like tiling WMs - and more power to you if you do, but I don't - KDE is the best there is.
Everyone knows Dolphin is by far the best file manager, but not a lot of people know that Kate is fantastic. Konsole is really good too. The new System Monitor basically replaces a ton of programs. Spectacle is a great and snappy screenshot utility. Filelight is so useful.
There's definitely a few misses, though. kmail in particular. But, overtime the applications actually improve, both in performance and features. This seems to be in contrast in gnome, where apps like Nautilus have been getting worse for a long time. And in contrast to Windows.
Like what? Running htop or btop++ in Konsole(or whichever terminal emulator you prefer), as I do?¹ :)
Just opened that thing right now, and it gives nothing to me.
Shrug?
¹ On one of 9 virtual desktops, arranged 3x3, usually upper left.
https://postimg.cc/K35Qv6Pg < btop++
https://postimg.cc/0zGttJMC < htop
https://postimg.cc/pyTLRfPp < Itsatrap!
But the real icing is that it doesn't just work for processes, applications, CPU usage and whatnot. It works for any sensor, including temperature and fans. And, of course, it's all customizable.
That's seems to be common for all the monitoring stuff running graphically, no matter if Gnome, XFCE, or even old KDE (Trinity).
That aside, htop and especially btop++ are heavily customizable, too.
Whatever. To each his own. It's a matter of taste.
I have a tiny tiny bone to pick with whoever decided to enable bouncing app launch icons on my mouse that look terrible.
But like you said, it was just a matter of finding the right config setting to turn them off! I have been quite happy with KDE all things considered.
https://pics.mos6581.com/misc/gnome-power.png
> no-longer
"Don't think that's in the OED"
> This is rather unfriendly and considerably more effort than editing logind.conf
"I don't like the tone in this sentence."
What a genuinely horrible person
>> gsd
> gnome-settings-daemon.
>> no-longer
> Don't think that's in the OED
>> This is rather unfriendly and considerably more effort than editing logind.conf
> I don't like the tone in this sentence.
I am dumbstruck that someone can be so utterly full of themselves that they can smugly correct someone’s grammar, and an obvious acronym, only to turn around and clutch their pearls that their victim said mean things in the nicest way possible about their software.
I knew there was a reason I haven’t liked GNOME for years. XFCE is the way.
I might eventually switch back to XFCE but for now I just need a DE that works and gets out of my way so I can write code, and for all it's faults Gnome still gets the job done.
It needs corporate (or government!) drive behind it or that won't change. I'm not talking about Redhat either who appears to just be a holding pen for the above.
That might be enough to prompt a change in direction, I guess time will tell.
> Review of attachment 312719 [details] [review]:
>> gsd
> gnome-settings-daemon.
>> no-longer
> Don't think that's in the OED
>> gsd no-longer facilitates users overriding power key actions
> And include references about when this happened.
>> This is rather unfriendly and considerably more effort than editing logind.conf
> I don't like the tone in this sentence.
So helpful.
But since mid Plasma 5 and on, it's incredibly stable and consistent in design. At this point, more consistent than gnome.
My go-to comparison is power tools: there's a consumer line that's underpowered but pretty easy to use by anyone, and then there's the professional tools for people that know how to handle these tools properly: more power, versatile, and user serviceable.
Smartphones take this to the extreme: on both Android and iOS every user is illiterate, because the OS is deliberately opaque to the user.
Seriously?
Are they removing ways to access the terminal or you can still at least do shutdown -h now?
I'm genuinely interested what Linux is missing for you? I've been daily driving it for years and do all my work and gaming on it. Is it specific software or?
- fractional scaling did not work in Gnome with Wayland for X11 Apps
- I still cannot use my LG C4 as a monitor in full capacity because AMD on Linux does not support HDMI 2.1
- Screen sharing was very buggy - in Slack especially - it would constantly crash the slack app during calls, ditto for camera, but even in Google meet and Chrome I've had desktop crashes
- When I switched to KDE/Plasma 5 to get fractional scaling it was extremely unstable
- Right now I upgraded my GPU to 9070XT - I'm still not sure if that would work on Linux yet because of driver support delay
- Guitar Amp simulator software I use does not support Linux, neither does Ableton (which supposedly can run on proton but with many glitches)
- The audio DAW situation was way too complicated and buggy
- I spent days to get the distro functional and usable with Ardour and it would still crash constantly - I just wanted to run some amp sims :(
It's just the little things and rough edges, but for example the fractional scaling stuff already improved because more apps that I use added Wayland support. And the emulation is getting better, with more users I could see larger DAWs supporting Linux as well. Not sure about the audio progress - JACK was a complete mess.
You can install AMDs driver from their repo directly, it works just fine (using it every day).
> I still cannot use my LG C4 as a monitor in full capacity because AMD on Linux does not support HDMI 2.1
That will never be possible. To prevent pirates from breaking it (lol), HDMI has decided to keep HDMI 2.1 secret. No open source version of HDMI 2.1 can exist.
That said, AMD's driver repo includes both the open source drivers and some proprietary versions of the driver, maybe that'll work for you.
Another option would be using a displayport output and a DP to HDMI converter, as e.g. Intel is using for their GPUs.
- HDMI 2.1: The HDMI Forum blocked it, as they don't want the details of HDMI 2.1 publically available. If you can, use DisplayPort, which is an actual open standard, and is better anyway. Nvidia works because they implemented it in closed-source firmware instead. https://www.phoronix.com/news/HDMI-2.1-OSS-Rejected
Strangely enough Plasma was able to handle this regardless (guess it was misreporting the resolution to X11 app or something like that to make it work ?) it was a Gnome/Wayland thing.
DisplayPort isn't an option - the TV only has HDMI in and converters suck (they crash constantly, even the expensive ones)
* The free trial is enforced as heavily as WinRAR's, and it's pretty cheap (~$60) to buy a licence if the nag screen makes you feel bad enough
KDE Plasma 6 made major improvements and has excellent fractional scaling, the best I've seen in a Linux desktop environment and comparable to scaling in Windows 10-11. I encourage you to give it a try.
and now I’m constantly getting these complaints “I can’t get screen capture to work under Wayland… I switched from lightdm to sddm and I can’t work out how to switch back… I accidentally started an i3 session and I can’t work out how to log out of it.”
It makes me kind of miss Windows, in a way. It is good he’s learning so much. But the downside is Linux gives him lots more ways to break things and then ask me to fix them for him. And a lot of this stuff I then have to learn myself before I can fix it, because most of my Linux experience is with using it as a server OS, where desktop environments aren’t even installed
It's harder as a parent to know that you're capable of solving their problem and still say no, but by age 12 that's pretty much your primary job: to find more and more things that they can start doing for themselves, express your confidence in them, and let them figure out how to adult bit by bit. Breaking a Linux install and fixing it again is among the lowest stakes ways that dynamic will play out from here on.
Well, there’s your problem ;-)
This is great, though, really. I broke our computer so many times growing up, I couldn’t possibly count. I don’t think I ever lost anything of import, other than some savegames of mine. I keep telling people who ask, “how do I learn Linux?” that they need to use it, tinker with it, break it, and fix it, ideally without anything other than man pages and distro docs. It is a shockingly effective way to learn how things work.