Jump to content

Mac Plus vs. a Dual Core AMD PC


Recommended Posts

http://slashdot.org/articles/07/05/31/1546213.shtml

In the Age of Computer Bloat someone has decided to do a performance comparison between a 1986 Mac Plus and a 2007 AMD Dual core, each running appropriate software. Computer Bloat does not fare so well.

"In order to keep the hoots and hollers of 'unfair comparison' at a minimum, we designed the tests to be as fair and equitable as possible. We focussed on running tests that reflect how the user perceives the computing experience... And no, we didn't include processing-heavy modern software like Photoshop or Crysis! We selected very basic everyday functions that were performed equally by the 1980's and the 2007 Microsoft applications."

Hehe, the Mac Plus is still more productive than a dual core AMD PC. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cringed when it was talking about the relative size in terms of "coded in assembler vs. coded in C". OSes didn't bloat because of coding practice, they bloated because of features and resources. Let's look at resources: a typical graphical resource on a Mac Plus was a 1-bit 32x32 icon. That is 128 bytes. An icon in Mac OS X is about 350 times larger. Even though System 6 was a "graphical" operating system, it wasn't graphical by today's standards. A typical program back then may have had a program icon and a splash screen and maybe a dozen other graphical resources. In a modern application, you have hundreds or thousands of graphical resources, ranging from button bar icons to textures. It used to be that "help" was a paper manual and not online. Now programs hardly ever ship with a manual and depend upon copious amounts of online help. On top of all of that, extra features will add more of the above and more code. In comparison, moving from assembler to C would be a rather small contributor to bloat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the positive response was largely a factor of the author's tone. It was more of a "hey, these computers may not be able to do as much but that doesn't mean that they are slow doing what they were designed for", rather than a "hey, new computers suck because they aren't any faster than old computers."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alas, it also lacks native applications and much of the software that is available for it is both out of publication and would have to be run in the same emulators that you would use to run the software on Windows of Mac OS X.

 

Not to mention that running something as simple as a compliant web browser would start chewing up resources again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish Amiga, inc had the sense to port OS4 to other platforms. It's feature packed, non bloated, and most importantly, fast!

 

That is just a bad idea.

 

But it does run on Mac Minis with a special piece of software which I think is illegal and will probably never be released, so it isn't completelyt limited to Eyetech/ACube systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I cringed when it was talking about the relative size in terms of "coded in assembler vs. coded in C". OSes didn't bloat because of coding practice, they bloated because of features and resources.

I still want MS to carbonize Word 5.1 and build it as a Universal Binary... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alas, it also lacks native applications and much of the software that is available for it is both out of publication and would have to be run in the same emulators that you would use to run the software on Windows of Mac OS X.

 

Not to mention that running something as simple as a compliant web browser would start chewing up resources again.

Oh well... :( I would recommend SymbOS for porting, but the source isn't available and it doesn't look like it can be ported to anything other than a Z80. :'(

 

Still, it would be nice to be able to boot into a fast OS once in a while for simple tasks such as word processing without all that excess bloatware hindering your productivity. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

And while we're at it, you may as well leave all the lights on, water on, oven and stove on, AC on (to account for the oven and stove), TV on, radio on, car on, and every other waste of resources because we're just too lazy to turn it on and off or wait two minutes for it to come to life.

 

But hey, who cares about the future -- for tomorrow we may die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they are talking about ghost-loads with that figure. A ghost-load would include things like standby mode on your computer, or even most modern computers when they are turned off. (Very few computers have a switch that cuts off power completely.) It will include TVs and VCRs and even some coffee machines (you know, the one that adds a fifth clock to your kitchen). Even if your the appliance physically turns off and does not offer a standby mode, you may still have a ghost load. The power brick on my radio uses 4 W even when it is completely disconnected from a load (e.g. the radio). When the radio is on, the total power consumption is 6 W. I should build a cable to test the radio's actual power consumption.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...