and it has migrated to web apps today - where doing something causes the UI to show a loading/progress wheel, but it takes forever in actuality (or on start up of the webpage, you get a blank screen with placeholder bars/blurred color images etc).
And this is the so-called responsive design...
I’m not sure if this was meant to be a pun, but “responsive design” has nothing to do with how quickly a UI loads. It’s about adapting to different screen sizes.
I would imagine that to be the case for a lot of webapps out there.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We got a winner!
Yeah, maybe we could expect machines which got 40 years of Moore's law to give you an experience at least as snappy as what you got on DOS apps.
It's honestly very sad.
Loading apps on it definitely did not take one second. The prevalence of splash screens was a testament to that. Practically every app had one whereas today they're rare. Even browsers had multi-second splash screens back then. Microsoft was frequently suspected to be cheating because their apps started so fast you could only see the splash for a second or two, and nobody could work out how they did it. In reality they had written a custom linker that minimized the number of disk seeks required, and everything was disk seek constrained so that made a huge difference.
Delphi apps were easier to create than if you used Visual C++/MFC but compared to modern tooling it wasn't that good. I say that as a someone who grew up with Delphi. Things have got better. In particular they got a lot more reliable. Software back then crashed all the time.
I remember Windows Explorer opening swiftly back in the day (fileman even faster - https://github.com/microsoft/winfile now archived sadly) and today's Explorer experience drives me insane as to how slow it is. I have even disabled most linked-in menu items as the evaluation of these makes Explorer take even longer to load; I don't see why it can't be less than 1 second.
Anyway, I do recall Netscape taking a long time to load but then I did only have a 486 DX2 66MHz and 64MB of RAM.... The disk churning did take a long time, now you remind me...
I think using wxWidgets on Windows and Mac was quite nice when I did that (with wxFormBuilder); C++ development on Windows using native toolkits is foreign to me today as it all looks a mess from Microsoft unless I have misunderstood.
In any case, I can't see why programs are so sluggish and slow these days. I don't understand why colossal JS toolkits are needed for websites and why the average website size has grown significantly. It's like people have forgotten how to write good speedy software.
Why is my software slow? Partly because the task is inherently intensive. Partly because I use an old Intel MacBook that throttles itself like crazy after too much CPU load is applied. Partly because I'm testing on Windows which has very slow file I/O and so any app that does lots of file I/O suffers. And partly because it's a JVM app which doesn't use any startup time optimizations.
But mostly it's because nobody seems to care. People complain to me about various things, performance isn't one of them. Why don't I fix it anyway? Because my time is super limited and there's always a higher priority. Bug fixes come first, features second, optimizations last. They just don't matter. Also: optimizations that increase the risk of bugs are a bad idea, because people forgive poor performance but not bugs, so even doing an optimization at all can be a bad idea.
Over the years hardware gave us much better performance and we chose to spend all of it on things like features, reducing the bug count, upping complexity (especially visual), simplifying deployment, portability, running software over the network, thin laptops and other nice things that we didn't have on Windows 98. Maybe AI will reduce the cost of software enough that performance becomes more of a priority, but probably not. We'll just spend it all on more features and bug fixes.
which is fine, and you are doing the absolutely correct thing regarding fixing what's being complained about.
But the complaints i keep hearing (and having myself) is that most apps are quite slow, and has been increasingly growing slower over time as updates arrives - mobile phones in particular.
Win 9x era software relied entirely on files for sharing, and there was no real notion of conflict resolution or collaboration beyond that. If you were lucky the program would hold a Windows file lock on a shared drive exported over a LAN using SMB and so anyone else who tried to edit a file whilst you'd gone to lunch would get a locking error. Reference data was updated every couple of years when you bought a new version of the app.
This was unworkable for anything but the simplest and tiniest of apps, hence the continued popularity of mainframe terminals well into this era. And the meaning of "app" was different: it almost always meant productivity app on Win 9x, whereas today it almost always means a frontend to a business service.
Performance of apps over the network can be astoundingly great when some care is taken, but it will never be as snappy as something that's running purely locally, written in C++ and which doesn't care about portability, bug count or feature velocity.
There are ways to make things faster and win back some of that performance, in particular with better DALs on the server side, but we can't go backwards to the Win 9x way of doing things.
I disagree that those apps were dog slow at the time. They were fairly responsive, in my experience. It's true that loading took longer (thanks to not having SSDs yet), but once the app was up it was fast. Today many apps are slow because software companies don't care about the user experience, they just put out slop that is barely good enough to buy.
People underestimate how slow the network is, and put a network between the app and its logic to make the app itself a thin HTTP client and "application" a mess of networked servers in the cloud.
The network is your enemy, but people treat it like reading and writing to disk because it happens to be faster at their desk when they test.
Latency.
The issue the parent mentions is one of latency, if you’re in the EU and your application server is in us-east-1 then you’re likely staring at a RTT of 200ms.
The Pi under your desk from NY? 30ms- even less if its a local test harness running in docker on your laptop.
It is almost like they realized users are happy to wait 30-60 seconds for an app to open in 2001 and kept that expectation even as the task remained the same and computers got an order of magnitude more powerful in that time.
I know it's very simple, I know there isn't a lot of media (and definitely no tracking or ads), but it shows what could be possible on the internet. It's just that nobody cares.
[1] Yes, Hacker News is also quite good in terms of loading speed.
It's the right thing to do to load resources asynchronously in parallel, but you shouldn't load the interface piecemeal. Even on web browsers.
I'd much rather wait for an interface to be reliable than have it interactive immediately but having to make a guess about its state.