Old Mac Beats Dual Core AMD Rig

Post Reply New Topic

I've been trying to make this point to people for a long time, nobody listens. Now there's proof, software is getting slower faster than hardware can get faster.

http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs ... e_Who_Wins

This isn't surprising, considering the fact that in 1986, computers were quite limited as to what they could process per CPU cycle as compared with today. Nowadays people are coding in relatively high level lanquages like C and C++, whilst in 1986, MacOS was coded in Assembler, which is a very processor specific language. --The upside of Assembler, is that you can code much more efficiently.

Efficiency is a thing of the past in this day and age of dual and soon quad core CPU's that run at 3+ Ghz. --Who needs efficient code when you have a desktop PC that has more CPU power than 1986 era Cray Supercomputers?

The sad thing though is that the majority of companies are also writing bloated 'Feature Rich' Apps that are heavy on Eye Candy and other s**t such as that, instead of focusing on creating light, streamlined apps that work with a minimum of glitz.

I always thought that without the bloated, slow software, that there wouldn't be any reason for people to buy computers. This would decrease the motivation to make faster computers.

Look at the Microsoft Office requirements for typing a simple document. Interesting. I remember typing a document on a 33MHz Laptop that was given to me and text appeared on the screen as fast as I typed.

Most of the time people can just use older programs. Most of the newer features and bugs are not used by most people. In 2000 Microsoft Word opened up in less than four seconds on my slow 433MHz Celeron computer with 64MB RAM, maybe faster if nothing else was running. It opens up almost instantly on new computers.

I remember using DOS computers and they were faster than the macs even with a GUI shell running on top. I miss that kind of responsiveness. High level languages like C++ can be used for DOS programs and they are just as fast. I think there's a fundamental flaw in operating systems today.

I'm using OSX right now. It is faster than Windows though the files themselves are larger. (lack of compression perhaps) It has better eye candy than Vista and you don't pay anywhere near the penalty that you do with Vista.

If you want fast, just run a minimal linux.

I tested out a 3d linux desktop a year ago that ran on a laptop that barely met the minimum requirements for Vista. There's a big difference in the speed of 3d desktops.

run gentoo. u can config ur compiler for ur cpu then emerge only packages you want.

It's deliberate - everything is coded as all singing, all dancing, in order to look pretty, and force hardware updates. Otherwise, the computer industry would stagnate, since people wouldnt want/need to buy the latest piece of crap dell or emachine box computer.

The exception to this scorn is games. I love shiney pretty games like C&C 3, despite that theres not a huge improvement in the fun of the actual game compared to the original C&C.