Ask HN: When did computers get 'fast enough' for you?

29 points by karmakaze ↗ HN
Unless gaming, machine learning, or the like, computers have been fast enough not to make a difference to me for quite a while. I was trying to recall any pivotal moments but have to go pretty far back. I'm also excluding overcoming slowdowns from abstractions because we could.

The last time I remember computers being very slow was waiting for C++ compiles in the late-90's/early-00's. Of course C++ compiles could still be slow for people, but I haven't had reason to need to use C++ since because of languages like Java or Go.

We always want faster server software as there can be many users using it at once, but even then an SQL db, indexes, and thoughtfully written queries generally get the job done. I remember there was a time that vertically scaling/federating dbs was almost not enough on bare metal, but add sharding and there's very little that you can't handle unless you're FB/Twitter.

[The slowest things I've run into in the last decade was Spring/Boot startup, and a React front-end where running all the assembly (TypeScript, CSS, images, polyfills, what-have-you) took over 30s to reload a page.]

89 comments

[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] thread
Hm… I would say in 2013 when I bought a laptop with an SSD.
I'll second this. Getting an SSD was the last big "oh shit" upgrade. Now the only things I recognize myself waiting for are really heavyweight programs, like yes, gaming.
Third. Still using my 2013 mb air. I’ll probably replace soon but not because I’m having performance issues.
I still use mine too! It has started to feel slow though compared to newer Macs. Not sure why.
While there is often a perceptible difference between a SATA SSD and an NVMe, it's nothing compared to the gap between a spinning disk and any reasonable SSD.

If you're doing anything on the web, a good adblocker makes a big difference.

If you have 'enough' RAM, more doesn't help.

For most tasks, CPUs are wasted most of the time. 2 3Ghz x86-64 cores are good enough not to be noticed on a general desktop.

Latency remains more noticeable than bandwidth at modern levels: the difference between 100Mb/s and 1Gb/s is only noticeable when doing bulk transfers.

All that being said... most of what we use our end-user computers for is wasteful overhead. Too many layers.

Same here. It was criminal how long Apple sold 5400rpm drives in macbooks.
I agree, for me computers mostly became fast enough when SSDs became standard.
Computer has been fast enough for me when I no longer wanted to play AAA FPS games, i.e. probably around the year 2008. Then as the last time I actually built a computer.
With the notable exceptions of advanced use cases, such as web browsing and the I/O speed of the SD card, the Raspberry Pi 4 is fast enough for most common computing tasks (assuming you prefer vim over IntelliJ/PyCharm).
Web browsing is an advanced usecase?
There was a small dash of sarcasm in my previous comment. There is no reason why web browsing should be slower on a Pi4 than on a Windows XP machine with 512MB of RAM from 2001.
My Vic 20 was plenty fast for me. It needed more RAM.
> because of languages like Java or Go

Sounds like you haven't spun up a large project recently :) Anything Maven build times are terrible and Go isn't much better once you start bringing in a ton of dependencies and codegen frameworks for stuff like protobuf and dependency injection. Java builds can easily take 30 mins and Go at least 3-4 mins.

Don't even get me started on MacOS Docker IO performance. Every time something gets faster we fill it up with more inefficiency.

I did mention working on Spring projects, which was a monolith that did use Maven. The slow part wasn't Maven or the dependencies, it was the Spring startup with all the dependency injection and filter loading taking most of the 2 minutes. There was also some Thrift generation but again that was rather quick.

I would classify this as self-inflicted as I don't believe there's anything intrinsic to what's going on for it to be as slow as it is, only poor implementation of extensibility or other ideas (maybe JPQL, idk).

Just curious, how big is a project that requires a single source file edit to take 3-4 minutes? Do you have a NVMe disk? At least a quad core CPU?

I've seen some pretty big projects compile way faster than 3-4 minutes, even with protobufs.

Oh, that's a good point, and one that I've forgotten about.

These days most of my work is in Python, with some Terraform and shell scripting thrown in. In 2019 I was working on JVM projects: both Clojure and Kotlin. The JVM build tooling is painful, even on a very powerful machine.

> Don't even get me started on MacOS Docker IO performance.

This seems to have gotten much better for me. It sucked for a while with the introduction of the M1, but it seems to have gotten back to about where it was, even when using x86_64 containers.

I've been playing with aarch64 containers on my personal M1, and they seem to be significantly faster. I'm expecting (and looking forward to) ARM making big inroads into the SaaS hosting arena. It seems like it would have significant benefits in terms of power consumption at the datacenter level, and with more and more developers moving to ARM (via Apple Silicon), it will only get easier to develop for.

Still not. I could do with a couple of orders of magnitude for better audio DSP.

No-compromise 3D video rendering would be interesting too. Not game quality - which is very good, in limited ways - but full truly photorealistic render quality at game frame rates.

Until recently I thought my 2015 MacBook Pro was "fast enough", and I think arguably it still is for casual usage. But I've just gotten one of the new 2022 MacBook Pro's, and for work usage it's making an absolutely huge difference. Things that I had to wait for are now instant, my editor's language support is much more responsive, and my computer now no longer lags when video calling and screen sharing.

The slowest tasks I had before were probably live-reloading a React app, which has gone from "takes a few seconds" to "pretty much instant". And compiling a fresh build of an iOS app, which has gone from ~20mins and the my computer lagging slightly while doing other tasks to ~3mins and it performs other tasks perfectly fine while it does it.

It is almost 10x faster (2x faster in single core, 4.5x more cores) so perhaps it shouldn't have been surprising.

I believe the biggest leap is in latency, it can still be improved but it is a very nice and very welcomed new trend that was ignored for so long.
I have a 2015 Macbook Pro for myself and a 2021 Macbook Pro for work, and I still don't notice much difference between the two. 2021 is a bit snappier, but 2015 is still quick for everything I use it for too (writing, coding, browsing the internet). Coding a React app on it right now, actually.

I have a separate gaming desktop for gaming and game development.

Hmm... that's interesting to hear. My 2015 also needs its battery replaced. I wonder if that could be causing it to throttle.
Thermal paste on CPUs usually only lasts about 5 years. Might want to consider replacing that, might help with any throttle issues. I've considered doing the same on mine, just in case.
I am still waiting on ≈45 minute software builds a few times a week and am constantly annoyed by slow-loading web sites. I don't expect computers to get fast enough "to not make a difference" for daily tasks in my lifetime.
If I had a sufficiently fast computer, I would love to "solve chess".

Crunch through all possible games to figure out if ...

- White always wins

- Black always wins

- Every game ends in a draw

... when the players have enough computing power and all uncertainty is removed from the game.

But there probably won't be a fast enough computer in the foreseeable future.

Ever. The combination of all chess games is larger than the number of atoms in the universe. There is no way to store all the progress you need to find an answer.

Maybe someone can mathematically answer the question, but that won't be by exhaustive solving (though it might be work down to a subset of all games that then are solved exhaustively)

Computers became "fast enough" in the Pentium 4 days for me, which is when I was finally able to properly multitask. I couldn't do much simultaneously on my Pentium 3, as I recall (e.g. couldn't browse the web and listen to mp3s at the same time without occasional distortion). Installing Gentoo took hours.

I built a P4 box with 15k RPM Seagate Cheetahs at the time, and on Windows XP, everything loaded near instant. Things feel way more bloated nowadays, though everything still loads near instantly, so I think we're roughly even to what we had once threaded processing came out.

> e.g. couldn't browse the web and listen to mp3s at the same time without occasional distortion

This comes from most desktop operating systems being shit at the task of being a desktop operating system. BeOS could do that just fine on a fast-ish Pentium I. Windows and Linux at the time, couldn't do it on hardware twice as powerful (and I don't think either's gotten much better about prioritizing media stability and user input performance)

Around 2012, when a Retina screen, fast SSD, and a 8 core CPU was something you got in a base model laptop.
Believe it or not, I don't really use computers outside of work - no gaming, video editing, etc...so that impacts my answer.

NUC8i5 was the first time I felt like machines weren't really getting faster year after year. I bought a 4x4 last year just because I assumed things have changed, and don't really notice any difference in day to day usage.

Computers - a long time ago. The software that runs on them? That swings back and forth. More specifically, I feel like we're in a "slow" part of the pendulum swing, and I keep hoping it will reverse directions.

I mean, my $400 crappy laptop can run Factorio flawlessly (because the devs give a fuck about performance), but gets bogged down while scrolling on a webpage. It can run gvim (or Sublime Text or Notepad++) with dozens of plugins as fast as I could wish for, but if I pull up a "modern" IDE, suddenly my computer "can't even". A Logitech mouse using default drivers is smooth as silk, but the moment I set up branded drivers, the computer gives up for several minutes.

It, frankly, makes me pretty sad.

A couple months ago I took on a project that involved working with coda, figma, with a company on the google productivity stack (gmail, meet, gcal), and the workload (mainly ram requirements) really crushed my computer. I had to get a new one, and maxed out the ram, and now I’m fine.

So I’d add web-based or electron-based apps to your “unless” list.

Yes absolutely, I thought of calling out Electron but instead went with a classy 'slowdowns from abstractions because we could' self-inflicted category.
Pentium III. One of my favorite computers was a dual coppermine, one ghz. I know my computer now can deal with much heavier multimedia workloads but the experience of sitting at it and using it is the same at best, and sometimes far worse. Recently I started a new job where I need to use Microsoft Teams and it brings the computer to its knees. None of this advancement matters. It offers me nothing.
Oh yes, I remember these times. I was already into multithreading with OS/2 and Windows NT, before the multi-core days. I remember my first dual-slot Pentium-II's and dual-socket Pentium-III's. The best feature was that you could actually multitask with Netscape/Mozilla open because it used 100% of one of the CPUs leaving one free for everything else.
They're still not, due to software bloat.

Technical and human-imposed restrictions mean iOS devices tend to be the closest to feeling "fast enough". Desktops are hampered by little always-on utilities being written in fucking Electron and eating a GB+ each while also burning lots of processor cycles while not doing anything. Or feature-weak productivity suites living in the browser and taking 20x the resources of a more-featureful native equivalent from years ago (or well-written, native, modern alternatives). Or bad low-level building blocks leading to e.g. UI freezing, stuttering, or jankiness. Or vendor malware (Windows) doing god knows what.

I've only seen a couple operating systems that seem to give what I'd call enough priority to keeping UI snappy so the user feels like they're really in control and not just begging the OS to give them some time, in competition with their own software. iOS and BeOS... I struggle to think of another. QNX Proton was pretty good but I think that was a side-effect of design decisions made for other reasons, though I guess that still counts. Those would probably struggle to remain so running five different JS + HTML layout engines at the same time, like a modern OS is commonly subjected to. Human-imposed restrictions on iOS are what keeps it from suffering that fate.

However I don't think the bloat has yet overcome the benefits of SSDs, in particular, so things are still overall better than they were in, say, the 90s or early '00s.

Sadly, I think the benefits of SSDs are about to be overwhelmed at least for gaming. Some 'direct storage' APIs are about to hit the market, which will inevitably make SATA SSDs (which were plenty fast enough, thank you) into the new spinning HDDs in terms of subjective performance.
Steadily though at times sluggishly going along on my (pretty much exactly) today 14 years old Laptop with HDD ... I dread the next few years ... almost everyone (developers/users) will take the luxury of fast seek and generally fast disk IO of SSDs for granted ... and this lack of incentive for strict IO optimisation will lead to medium to big everyday applications such as office suites, web browsers and others becoming pretty much unusable (on my machine).

Paired with ever increasing RAM usage it'll make my machine obsolete.

On the other hand I'm thankful for the selection of quite efficient applications that still allow me to do most things even with the luxury of a GUI .. to another 14 ^^

The Intel Core i5 3320M in the Thinkpad x230 is a CPU from 2012, and I reckon for me that could be the turning point where even laptop CPUs were about good enough. Desktop CPUs have been good enough for a bit longer than that, maybe mid-2000s?
There are two types of tasks that run on my computer. Tasks I told it to do, and tasks someone else told it to do (with my begrudging acceptance).

The former category has always felt fast to me. Word processing, programming/scripting, number crunching, compiling code, viewing documents, etc.

The latter category is what feels slow even to this day, on high-end hardware.

- OS/software updates that take hours (monstly on Windows/macOS).

- Janky animations that drop frames (Discord "stickers").

- Webpages overloaded with useless JS.

- Horrendously slow backend webservers (technically nothing to do with my computer, but it affects my UX nontheless)

I have a 2016 desktop with a E5-1620 CPU, 16G ram, and a Quadro K2200. I never feel like it's slow.

Browsers are the main thing which seem to gobble up resources, specifically memory.

It depends on the OS/application. My accelerated A500 at 14Mhz is perfect for playing VIRUS, my accelerated A3000 at 25Mhz makes the game almost impossible to play. The A500 is too sluggish for PageStream and PageRender 3D. Both these machines are running SCSI HDDs, so even sequential disk access is a tad slow (ha) compared to what's common these days. But for a lot of things, even running on 35 year old hw, the classic AmigaOS runs just fine compared to Windows 10 on an i7 or XEON CPU, etc. And you really can't beat Autoconfig and Datatypes, and all the other brilliant efficiencies of the OS. How much of today's CPU/RAM/NIC/SSD performance is sucked up by in-your-face advertising and behind-your-back telemetry?
Around 1991

It was the first time the computer was not slowing my workflow. AutoCAD and Turbo Pascal running on a 80286 with a floating point coprocessor and a 50MB HDD.

Previous hardware/software stacks in 8086/Tandy/Osborne/PCjR... were not fast enough.

Actually this was true for me too. I remember Borland and Brief editor, and MS C with CodeView around that time as well.
For everyday usage, it's pretty simple and can be traced back to a moment in time: computers without SSDs are not 'fast enough', computers with SSDs are.

For programming, the 2 applications where computers aren't quite fast enough is compiling massive C++ projects and getting julia to first plot. I recently lept from having ~6 cores to having ~32 cores, and this has helped with the C++ but not really with julia - I think that's a programming issue.

This is why languages like Go are a jewel. It was made to compile very fast, disregarding our current era of software bloat and turtles all the way down.
I bought my boy a basic gamer rig in 2012. I'm using now it because I can do everything I need to do on it.
They're not. I have a 2017 Macbook Air and gmail frequently takes many seconds to display an email when I click to open it. I used to use Mozilla Thunderbird and emails loaded basically instantly. I encounter minor annoyances like this almost every time I use a computer. Mostly I don't even consciously notice them anymore since these things happen so frequently, but if they magically disappeared I'm sure the change would feel incredible.