Originally Posted by alan0354
The power amp part of the receivers have NOT evolve much( if any) in the last 30 years, a good amp that is 30 years old is not by default inferior. In fact all the new bells and whistles can make it worst like all the digital stuffs. Notice the faster and newer the computers, the SLOWER they are? The ones 20 years ago were more primitive, but they run faster and more reliable than today's computers. The fancier they get, the slower, more inconsistent they are? Don't even get me started on the new cars. Let's just say my new car spent at least a month in the first half year in the shop dealing with strange problems and they couldn't exactly resolve it.
I will hold onto a good amp from 30 years ago than a new amp.
The reason computers feel "slower" today is because companies are more concerned about their bottom line and taking the time to engineer and build efficient software is costly. Thus, the chosen technology is generally
inferior performance-wise, but can more quickly turn around a working piece of software. But, if you think that computers are actually physically slower then you're just way out of touch with technology -- a travesty for someone who lists their location as "Silicon Valley", IMO.
Moreover, amplifier technology has evolved with Class D/G/H amps. Better, because technology marches on, they no longer perform "worst like all the digital stuff" -- but, I guess "digital stuff" is just another thing you're clueless about (and, for a Class D amp, the "D" doesn't mean "digital" like the clueless believe).
And cars...well, let's say they make it harder for people to work on them, but, again, if you think the engine technology required to eek out the MPG that modern gas engines are capable of could be implemented through simple carburetors then you're also crazy and you have no clue what goes into them!
So...yeah, you're just wrong, 100%, on everything you typed. Maybe educate yourself regarding newer technology before wrongly dismissing it?
Finally, let's not equate the average human's incompetence (e.g., can't fix your car in months) with technological inferiority. If anything, it's the reverse -- things are getting so much more complicated that fewer of the typical morons that run rampant in the world can actually comprehend (and therefore diagnose) them.
Originally Posted by _tk
I get what he's saying. Yes, processing power is waaay more powerful in today's computers. So is software bloat (and poorly engineered and written software).
With those older computers, developers were writing within certain limitations and thus were forced to streamline and optimize their code. Some of that older software made direct calls to the hardware too.
I have an old windows 95 computer that boots the O/S from a flash drive (no mechanical drives involved). It is absolutely lightening quick in everything that it does.
Also, those older processors ran with passive heatsinks and that's it. They were designed very robust. Today's processors are so far on the cutting edge that they wouldn't survive a minute or two (without active cooling) before they shut down.
Mostly true -- software bloat (even things like anti-virus) add complexity to the system and slow things down. It's a combination of a lot of things, but in general, more work gets done and the processors are faster, but much of the work is "background" tasks that have to time-share with "productive work" (that the user actually sees).
That said, I'm unsure we can say that older processors were designed more robustly because they didn't use anything but heatsinks -- you do realize that older processors had significantly less transistor density and therefore could withstand more heat in general, right?