How Naughty Dog Fit Crash Bandicoot into 2MB of RAM on the PS1

Re:How Naughty Dog Fit Crash Bandicoot into 2MB of RAM on th... by shultays on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:01AM (#9737792)

I feel a little sad every time someone says "We have much higher CPU power/memory now, those things are unnecessary". Maybe they are right but I feel like this is not the path we should take

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Naughty Dog Fit Crash Bandicoot into 2MB of RAM on th... by JustSomeNobody on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:29AM (#9737878)

100% agree. And this goes for everything from server side, to games, to mobile to client side web. Some of my favorite web sites have gone from a 1-2 second load time to well over 6 seconds. And then they're sluggish after they load. It's sad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Naughty Dog Fit Crash Bandicoot into 2MB of RAM on th... by kuschku on Thursday June 18, 2015 @07:29PM (#9742207)

You even see this with Google.

A typical Google search from 2009:

"Meaning of Life: Approximately 72,000,000 Results (0,00000042 Seconds)"

A typical Google search today:

"Meaning of Life: Approximately 364,000,000 Results (0,62 Seconds)"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Naughty Dog Fit Crash Bandicoot into 2MB of RAM on th... by Cthulhu_ on Thursday June 18, 2015 @11:22AM (#9739114)

It's not, but what is true is that people can focus more on features than on hacks to squeeze the maximum performance out of their system of choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Naughty Dog Fit Crash Bandicoot into 2MB of RAM on th... by jimmaswell on Thursday June 18, 2015 @08:02PM (#9742335)

If we're free to not waste time on tons of little performance hacks anymore, why do them anyway?

[ Parent | on HN ]