-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
86 Mac Plus Vs. 07 AMD DualCore
- Thread starter Abe
- Start date
killadoob
Honorary Master
hmmm strange thing to do if you ask me
of course a mac would load faster it had 10 times less to load
very silly i think
comparing apple's with chalk
of course a mac would load faster it had 10 times less to load
very silly i think
comparing apple's with chalk
Abe
Expert Member
I think the purpose of the comparison was to try and show how much bloat has been added to modern systems. To the extent that nothing has gotten faster, they have just become fancier. How many people need all of these fancy enhancements? Would you not prefer your Word Processer load in under a second? Far more productive that way. Instead, today we are getting Ribbons, fancy graphics and bloat.
supersunbird
Honorary Master
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
"the massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity.
And that's just plain crazy."
No, that's just plain stupid. You probably couldn't print a bloody page off that word proccesor on the Mac. The advances have changed things a lot, but it is an interesting comparison..
They aren't comparing the hardware at all, they shouldn't have made it sound like a hardware comparison, they are comparing the OS's and using different hardware to highlight the differences.. So anyway, do you think that it would have been better to use the hardware we have today and kept the OS more like a 86 Mac?
I think a lot of the bloat is actually needed in XP or even Linux, there's just so much networking and features that you, or others, need even if you hardly ever use them.
And that's just plain crazy."
No, that's just plain stupid. You probably couldn't print a bloody page off that word proccesor on the Mac. The advances have changed things a lot, but it is an interesting comparison..
They aren't comparing the hardware at all, they shouldn't have made it sound like a hardware comparison, they are comparing the OS's and using different hardware to highlight the differences.. So anyway, do you think that it would have been better to use the hardware we have today and kept the OS more like a 86 Mac?
I think a lot of the bloat is actually needed in XP or even Linux, there's just so much networking and features that you, or others, need even if you hardly ever use them.
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
I load 2007 pretty quickly, and on my 3500+. Probably 1 or 2 seconds..
I guess that's because Vista has it "superfetched".
killadoob
Honorary Master
i think of program like photoshop corel draw
plz the applications we use to do are so advanced that its stupid to compare
i would love to think of a world still running a mac from 86
performance is nothing, the appz we have today have made our lives so easy
i also dont think computers are that slow considering what they do
i wanna see that mac run games as 90fps in full colour on an lcd
i wanna see that mac load up corel or photoshop in less than a minute
plz the applications we use to do are so advanced that its stupid to compare
i would love to think of a world still running a mac from 86
performance is nothing, the appz we have today have made our lives so easy
i also dont think computers are that slow considering what they do
i wanna see that mac run games as 90fps in full colour on an lcd
i wanna see that mac load up corel or photoshop in less than a minute
AK65
Well-Known Member
I still think the article makes a huge point.
For niche apps, you can't compare modern machines - they are awesome, and for things like video editing, graphics editing and pro-audio, they use every bit of power.
But for the average user doing email and wordprocessing, the advance is zero. Compare a print of a document from 1986 and 2007. There is no difference.
For niche apps, you can't compare modern machines - they are awesome, and for things like video editing, graphics editing and pro-audio, they use every bit of power.
But for the average user doing email and wordprocessing, the advance is zero. Compare a print of a document from 1986 and 2007. There is no difference.
Abe
Expert Member
People write very innefficient code now days. Things like Video encoding obviously requires the power and those algoritms are pretty good. But if you start looking at something like Vista. People today will write reams and reams of bad inefficient code because there are no consequences to doing so. The destination machines have massive CPU's so who cares if it is 20 times slower then it could be.
BTW: Ever wonder why it cost so much money to make Vista?
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
BTW: Ever wonder why it cost so much money to make Vista?
http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html
andres101
Expert Member
It is not all the programmers' fault...
Higher level languages make it easy to write bad code, because they hide the inner workings from you. Lower level languages force you to think memory/performance continuously.
I think the programming methodology taught these days are partly to blame for this as well. Generally, object orientated code is slow compared to non-OO code.
Don't get me wrong, the advantages of OO-programming far outweigh the disadvantages and RAM is cheap compared to the cost of time!