Once upon a time, I had a Commodore64. On that computer, I had a GUI called GEOS which was in every sense of the word, Windows for a Commodore64. It had co-operative Multitasking and application support.
Within that Operating Environment was a word processor which had support for fonts, inline images, spell checking, alignment and other functions which you would expect in a wordprocessor, even down to WYSIWYG - something very rare for home computers in those days.
While it should be accepted that a floppy disk drive was essential for this (and that disk, single-sided, stored just around 300k - I think), all that fitted into a computer that had 64Kb of RAM. That's not 64Mb (which isn't enough to run Word on a modern PC), but 64Kb.
In those days, developers (programmers) had to be clever. Forget all that fancy RAD nonsense, these guys had to write applications with system overheads in mind. These guys had to write applications
smartly.

Microsoft came along with the PC and instead of improving its products (products which it never actually designed from the ground up but bought off other people - even MS-DOS) started the now inevitable upgrade path which all PC users are on, whether they like it or not.
This has resulted in such paradoxes as this photo; The Microsoft Word document (illustrated here) is a newly created document and is 19Kb in size. Compare that to the size of the photo itself which is only 6.31Kb. Another three of those documents in a Commodore64's memory and there'd be no room for application code!
No need to write smart applications any more, just make sure you have enough RAM, a huge Hard Drive and plenty or Processor power.
Have you noticed that today's Microsoft mobile devices brag not about the features of the software as much as they do about the RAM and processor speed? That's because Microsoft's idea of 'smart' (and that of the general technical world) has been to shove in more RAM, more processor power and more storage space and everybody will be happy.
But what we actually have are computers that take less time to crash and more time to draw 3D boxes which nobody needs, especially if they're going to take too long to draw!
We're taking away the responsibility of humanity to think about better ways of doing things and just increasing the burden on machines to keep up with what we think are cool fashion icons (every pun intended ;-).
You may think that I'm being a luddite because as long as hardware technology keeps moving on, software doesn't need to be streamlined and improved. But what's happening to us as a result? We're not meeting basic requirements, we're failing to addressing fundamental flaws and we find ourselves convinced that we are smarter than those who came before us when the reality is far from the truth.
What on earth does this have to do with politics and the link above?
I'll tell you...
The chief constable of Nottinghamshire police has complained that he doesn't have enough resources to address all the murder enquiries with which his force must deal. The response of the government has been a swift quote of the amount of extra money that has been pumped into the force.
Nice.
Money.
Lots of money.
More money equals more police on the streets.
Hoorah.
But just throwing money at a situation is not addressing the real need and it shows a failure to understand the situation. It's like the difference between American military forces who like to throw huge numbers of people at an operation until it works, and British forces who use stealth, intelligence and just a handful of highly skilled people to complete an operation before the enemy knows anything has happened.
Maybe the chief constable isn't spending the extra money wisely, or maybe he's being constrained by Labour's target driven mindest which forgets about reason and just focuses on getting statistics to look good. Either way, it seems that the Tories may have hit on the right idea with smarter spending.
I remember my manager telling our departmen that we were all working very hard and he appreciated it, but we had to work smarter. And this is precisely what the government has to do with law enforcement, the NHS and education. Throwing money at these problems will not make them better. Someone has to use a brain and use it soon before they all go down the pan.
And to those who say that the government doesn't put its faith in being able to spend money, I'd like to ask that whenever someone asks what is it that the government actually is doing in the NHS or Education, why is the first thing the minister comes out with almost ALWAYS a quote on how much spending has increased for the given organisation?
They go on about year-on-year increases in fiscal and real terms which means that the spending budget is more generous now than it has been in the last twenty five years and are you still reading this paragraph because if you are then you're paying as much attention to this post as I do when a politician starts quoting figures like this.....
Do you see what I mean?
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime (or words to that effect).
[READ MORE]