2007 Dual Core AMD vs. 1986 Mac

[kkant]

Hmph. In my day we had to line the bits up by hand. And we STILL booted in 3 secs.

 

[jaegertech]

actually yes... since a huge majority of computers are in the workplace

Excel, Access, and Outlook are the majority of my computer time at work with Outlook being the largest portion. I would REALLY wonder how many people use Word lately.

 

[SmokeRngs]

So many people that allowed the main intent of the article to pass them by. This wasn't an article about hardware or lack of features in older software vs features found in current software.

The article's intent was to show that even with tremendously more powerful systems, the same basic tasks performed on a twenty year old system are really no slower than the same basic tasks on modern systems with modern software. Due to the bloat of modern software, computing speeds for everyday tasks from twenty years ago are no faster now with modern hardware. It's obvious that in many cases, the user is the bottleneck.

It's also obvious that over time software has become more bloated and slower. Just stop with your "features" talk for a few minutes and actually look. With almost every new version of some software package the same old functionalities which carried over take longer to complete with the same hardware. One of the best examples of this is the Adobe pdf software. Each new iteration has been slower to startup and bring up a pdf than before even on an older pdf which makes absolutely no use of the "newer features".

The author also brings up the point about customizing the software. Why isn't this allowed at all? I don't use a lot of the stuff which is installed by default in Windows and it can be rather difficult to remove it. This is one of the reasons I use nLite to create my own XP install CDs. I have no use for IE, Outlook, Paint, Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, Movie Maker and a host of other things. I have other software I use for the same tasks which I install on my own. I find that my personal software choices are "better" for my uses than those MS gives me. I don't give a rats ass if they are on the install CD for someone else to install and use if they want. I just don't want them. The same can be said for just about any software package. I have absolutely no use for mail merge in Word. Why do I need it installed?

I see the article saying two things. Common tasks systems twenty years apart have in common are really no faster today. The second point is that much of this could be taken care of if we were allowed to actually customize the installations of the software we have. I utilize the "custom installation" options of any software I use. It's extremely rare I allow a "typical install" to run on my system.

I understand that many people would not utilize this type of customization because it is likely they don't know what they do or don't need. Keep the "typical install" option there for them. But give me the opportunity to choose not to install something I do not need. I can always install those "features" at a later time if I want or need to.

 

[CyberDeus-RagDoll]

If you pit a brand new dual core AMD system against a 20 year old Mac Plus running every day tasks…who do you think would win? Hit the link and see for yourself.

I think this entire thing is retarded.
Render 10 seconds of my 3840x2160 (yes, 4x the pixels of 1080p), 137 minute long movie on that Macplus and let me know when you are finished. I'll see you next year.

I read this article from slashdot today on my cellphone. That cellphone has more power than that macplus. My cellphone pulled down 5Mb of google map data today as I was just "looking around the neighborhood" with the satellite view - real photo maps, wirelessly, with no delay. (Unlimited data plan)


I don't care that a macplus can run IT'S antique applications well, or that it can run it's antique apps BETTER than a "modern" computer can run base apps. Apps were much smaller than and you didn't have to factor in support for 17 different types of processor from multiple vendors, and different command sets like you do today. Macplus had, as far as I know, ONE choice for video, so it's far more simple to write an optimized app. This is why embedded computers can usually do so much more than general purpose machines with the same power (My mp3 player can play music @ 320Kbps, run a stopwatch, radio, voice recording, etc).. My old pentium 166mhz would skip when I'd play 320K mp3s. My p2-450 would skip if playing music and my virus scanner was working. I would bet that the processing power of my p2-450 far suprasses what's in my sandisk m240 player

The macplus was technically much closer to an embedded system than a general purpose machine.

My vista box runs up to 6 operating systems simultaneously, while doing renders, rips, burns, surfing, gaming, syncing my phone, downloading, uploading.. all without noticably slowing down.

(I have actually done all these tasks at once.)

 

[CyberDeus-RagDoll]

I think this entire thing is retarded.
Render 10 seconds of my 3840x2160 (yes, 4x the pixels of 1080p), 137 minute long movie on that Macplus and let me know when you are finished. I'll see you next year.

I read this article from slashdot today on my cellphone. That cellphone has more power than that macplus. My cellphone pulled down 5Mb of google map data today as I was just "looking around the neighborhood" with the satellite view - real photo maps, wirelessly, with no delay. (Unlimited data plan)


I don't care that a macplus can run IT'S antique applications well, or that it can run it's antique apps BETTER than a "modern" computer can run base apps. Apps were much smaller than and you didn't have to factor in support for 17 different types of processor from multiple vendors, and different command sets like you do today. Macplus had, as far as I know, ONE choice for video, so it's far more simple to write an optimized app. This is why embedded computers can usually do so much more than general purpose machines with the same power (My mp3 player can play music @ 320Kbps, run a stopwatch, radio, voice recording, etc).. My old pentium 166mhz would skip when I'd play 320K mp3s. My p2-450 would skip if playing music and my virus scanner was working. I would bet that the processing power of my p2-450 far suprasses what's in my sandisk m240 player

The macplus was technically much closer to an embedded system than a general purpose machine.

My vista box runs up to 6 operating systems simultaneously, while doing renders, rips, burns, surfing, gaming, syncing my phone, downloading, uploading.. all without noticably slowing down.

(I have actually done all these tasks at once.)

Oh.. and my vista rig boots, even though it has to spin up - 9 harddrives - in under 30 seconds.

His argument is based on this conclusion

thus it can be stated that for the majority of simple office uses, the massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity.

Fuck that. I can do in 30 seconds what it would have taken me a month to do on a macplus, if it were even possible.

How long would it take that macplus to save a 45 megabyte spreadsheet?
Wait.. it couldn't even do it.

We are not less productive, We do MORE with our machines.

 

[[Spectre]]

On that note the article is an utter failure because indeed tasks are faster than 20 years ago as a whole. Take for instance an article I am writing as we speak. 20 years ago I couldn't have open word, Firefox with 20 tabs, a half dozen pdf's, Outlook, Opera, photoshop, illustrator, and notepad to be seamlessly moving data around in order to write an article like I am right now while talking to you. 20 years ago doing any of those tasks would have taken exponentialy longer. THose tasks together would have been impossible.

While a funny saying...if you haven't become more productive and faster in he last 20 years with the advances in technology....you are doing it wrong.

So many people that allowed the main intent of the article to pass them by. This wasn't an article about hardware or lack of features in older software vs features found in current software.

The article's intent was to show that even with tremendously more powerful systems, the same basic tasks performed on a twenty year old system are really no slower than the same basic tasks on modern systems with modern software. Due to the bloat of modern software, computing speeds for everyday tasks from twenty years ago are no faster now with modern hardware. It's obvious that in many cases, the user is the bottleneck.

It's also obvious that over time software has become more bloated and slower. Just stop with your "features" talk for a few minutes and actually look. With almost every new version of some software package the same old functionalities which carried over take longer to complete with the same hardware. One of the best examples of this is the Adobe pdf software. Each new iteration has been slower to startup and bring up a pdf than before even on an older pdf which makes absolutely no use of the "newer features".

The author also brings up the point about customizing the software. Why isn't this allowed at all? I don't use a lot of the stuff which is installed by default in Windows and it can be rather difficult to remove it. This is one of the reasons I use nLite to create my own XP install CDs. I have no use for IE, Outlook, Paint, Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, Movie Maker and a host of other things. I have other software I use for the same tasks which I install on my own. I find that my personal software choices are "better" for my uses than those MS gives me. I don't give a rats ass if they are on the install CD for someone else to install and use if they want. I just don't want them. The same can be said for just about any software package. I have absolutely no use for mail merge in Word. Why do I need it installed?

I see the article saying two things. Common tasks systems twenty years apart have in common are really no faster today. The second point is that much of this could be taken care of if we were allowed to actually customize the installations of the software we have. I utilize the "custom installation" options of any software I use. It's extremely rare I allow a "typical install" to run on my system.

I understand that many people would not utilize this type of customization because it is likely they don't know what they do or don't need. Keep the "typical install" option there for them. But give me the opportunity to choose not to install something I do not need. I can always install those "features" at a later time if I want or need to.

 

[xX_Jack_Carver_Xx]

I was just reminicing about the good ole days of the 68000 (one of the worst technical decisions ever made in human history was selecting the 8088 over the 68000 for the PC XT) and I realized something.

You could use 45nm technology and build a chip with 16,000 68K core on it running 4Ghz or higher with the number of transistors on the X2900XT video chip.

I venture a guess 16K 68000's in parallel could kick the Q6800's ass.

 

[matrix563]

This article can be summed up by saying that program load times SUCK. This has been a pretty significant problem ever since I got my first computer. While part of this can be blamed on bloated code, an even larger portion of it can also be blamed on the physical limitations of disk based hard drives. Non-sequential read rates for hard drives have not been keeping pace with the technological advancements made in other components such as processors and memory. Even worse, they have not been keeping pace with advancements in hard drive capacity. I doubt that 500GB hard drives are a full 100 times faster than 5GB models.
It will be many years before solid state storage digs us out of this hole.

However, I am curious about how they did the file save. A lot of those old computers get bogged down while navigating through folders containing lots of files.

i'm playing tomb raider anniversary and the graphics are pretty sweet, and the load time is just 1-2 seconds for a level, from the main menu. pretty sweet. i wish all games were like this.

stalker is a prime example of slow loading times

 

[matrix563]

It's hard that anyone could be so mind-numbingly stupi that they would make a comment like that.

I just mail-merged over 50,000 pages of documents for mailing. It took 2 minutes. How many days would it take on the Mac?

If the people that wrote that article are serious they make me pity the human race.

your not human?

 

[Catweazle]

..I just mail-merged over 50,000 pages of documents for mailing. It took 2 minutes. How many days would it take on the Mac?...

That right there is the point, the whole point and nothing but the point! People who are hung up on their "OMGZ! Software Bloat! DRM infections!" hobbyhorse miss the point completely.

My primary productive use of the computer is writing-related tasks. That's remained a 'constant' for me since the late 70s/early 80s. And there's no way known I'd want to go back to an earlier PC as a working tool. The average ultra-budget PC running one of today's word-processors makes what we had in earlier times look absolutely primitive.

It's not just mail-merge either. Search and replace, applying formatting, spell-checking, revision-tracking. You name it and on today's machine it's dramatically more capable and blindingly fast in comparison to years gone by!

So what if there's "bloat"? A gigabyte of RAM costs me about as much as a couple of cases of beer. So does a couple of hundred gigabytes of hard drive storage space. The software programs are larger in size, but for the same money as I used to spend I can now have more of them installed and have more of them running concurrently. Where's the 'bloat' had a detriment? Pfffft!