1. Welcome to the forums! Take a second to look at our Beginner's Guide. It contains the information necessary for you to have an easier experience here.

    Thanks and have fun. -NF staff
    Dismiss Notice
  2. GN

    Come join the Football/Soccer Women's World Cup and Copa America predicting competitions.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Dismiss Notice

  4. Come enter in the KCC Cooking Contest -- Drinks!
    Dismiss Notice

80's computer beats modern PC in speed test.

Discussion in 'The NF Café' started by Geat_Masta, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. Geat_Masta Pineapple

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Reputation:

     
    Tags:
  2. GrimaH Absurdist

    Messages:
    7,895
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    753
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    Reputation:
    Ah, but can a Mac Plus on system 6.0.8 play Football Manager 2007 or MSN Messenger or DVDs or mp3s or even surf the Net as well as an AMD with Windows XP SP2?
    If not, I'll take the AMD anyday.
    I'll need to get a good graphics card though :/
     
  3. sel Agatha, This is Magnus

    Messages:
    21,349
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Reputation:
    1980's Mac >> 2007 Windows

    i love my tiger <3
     
  4. TDM Toast

    Messages:
    6,844
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Reputation:
    I was expecting the Commodore 64 and I find Mac Propaganda? Bah! *shakes fist angrily*
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2007
  5. Dionysus Brandy and Death

    Messages:
    8,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1,056
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Reputation:
    The advances of computers allows for more computations per second. Productivity software's (minus added useful features) bottleneck has become the user. But, math software, games, etc. have vastly improved in speed and abilities.

    I'm really looking for features, not speed, these days.
     
  6. ComputerFriendly Married To Sexy Kin Tsuchi

    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Reputation:
    I believe this is what the 80's Mac had to say to Windows after the test:

    Respect your elders!!!
     
  7. mislead it's just Che Guevara

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Reputation:
    Meh, so the conclusion is that a Mac Plus is as good of a typewriter as a modern PC with WinXP? That's a bit obvious...

    Not to mention that the author of the article doesn't seem to understand how Operating Systems work too well, and I honestly find some of his figures and statements outright false. I can elaborate if anyone is interested, I doubt it though.

    On a related note, does Vista really eat up that much disk space?
     
  8. Chi Technical knockout

    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    311
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Reputation:
    Wow..My pocket calculator starts faster. I got Windows and Mac beat all together..
     
  9. Fulcata I don't recognize your names.

    Messages:
    1,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Reputation:
    He's a lesson for you computards:
    Computers from that era basically force-output every process.
    That's much simpler than actually computing anything.
    $1,000 dollars says a 48 cent calculator from the dollar store is faster than any computer you have ever seen.
    Why? The simpler the process, the faster the speed.
    So basically all they proved was that the '86 Mac is simple, or retarded if you will.
     
  10. chaosakita 我愛羅の愛好者~~!

    Messages:
    3,615
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    319
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Reputation:
    Yeah, since the advances have brought us free time to do things such as this instead of working more.
     
  11. mislead it's just Che Guevara

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Reputation:
    I still cannot grasp why advances in technology might affect the speed of typing, of all things...

    What's "force-output"?

    Also, unless you measure "speed" in some weird way, a 48 cent calculator is in fact a lot slower than a PC, at least as far as it's amount of FLOPS is concerned (and since arithmetic operations are the only thing calculators can do, it's the only readily available measure).

    If your point was that Windows generates a considerable amount of overhead when running processess, then that's probably true. I'd like to see how fast an emulator of Mac Plus would run on a modern PC. Chances are, that it would be quite a lot faster than the original.
     
  12. Lain doesn't afraid of anything

    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Reputation:
    Although that is pretty funny... it's not really fair for the the PC. Like a few have said, a calculator does things faster than both Macs and PCs. But people don't value calculators over computers because calculators do less. They give you numbers. Computers give you GUI, internet, games, stuff like that.

    So... it's not fair to say that an 80's mac is faster than a modern PC running Vista, considering a modern PC can do much more, which requires more computations, and yadayada...

    Vista still blows nuts though.
     
  13. Deathinstinct Member

    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Reputation:
    He means anything that is typed is automatically displayed on the screen reguardless of the key that is pressed. Where as in Windows and other current OSs, when a key is pressed it is intercepted by a hundred different entities before it can be displayed. Each interception stalls the display of the character.
     
  14. DemonAbyss10 Demigod

    Messages:
    768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Reputation:
    Vista = overrated IMO, XP pro is alot better... for my own purposes...


    The person who made the article doesnt know much at all... IMO the MAC back then would be useless now. Yeah, to the user it may seem faster in a sense, but really, a 3 percent difference in the end does not PROVE shit... its just says that that version of MAC OS in the 80s is equivalent to windows Vista Today...

    id rather go with todays OSes OTHER than windows vista just because i cant run my favorite games of all time on vista... fucking backwards compatability issues with legacy games... Fuck microsoft, but MAC isnt really any better with the lack of games...
     
  15. Mintaka Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    34,700
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    943
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Reputation:
    I'd rather get one of the new octoprocessers my teacher told me about.....
     
  16. Freiza Banned

    Messages:
    8,279
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Reputation:
    lolz well said, i agree, i dont give one hoot, do you want us looking at Nf on a little 9" screen?
     
  17. sel Agatha, This is Magnus

    Messages:
    21,349
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Reputation:
    Put it like this. IF anyone gave you a choice between the 2 mentioned, we all know what everyone would pick
     
  18. AbnormallyNormal 1 + 2 + 3 = 1 * 2 * 3

    Messages:
    20,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Reputation:
    astonishing, i think this makes sense, in my opinion video game systems could have stopped with the SNES, everything since is just better graphics but also more awkward graphics and no real advantage to the overall game ideas
     
  19. Ember* Advent One

    Messages:
    990
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    Reputation:
    Well I be Dammed, that's so true what you stated, the whole test is pointless at the end of the day also.
     
  20. Dionysus Brandy and Death

    Messages:
    8,872
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1,056
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Reputation:
    Nonsense. This is one area where technical improvements can be showcased. It's not just graphics. Physics, AI, etc. Add to that that you can't load as much on the comparably small amount of RAM, increased latency, inferior sound technology, limited storage capabilities... There is lots to be thankful for.

    That many game companies focus on graphics is not the fault of computing power. Talent is lacking.
     
  21. sadated_peon King of the potato people.

    Messages:
    7,943
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    393
    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Reputation:
    Man, what a complete and total BS article.

    for example, the things listed for word,
    "Application Launch, Find & Replace, Open File, Pasting, Saving, Scrolling, Typing and Word Count."

    I don't know about you guys but my f&r, pasting, scrolling, typing are so fast that any speed increase would not be noticed.

    my open file, save and word count happened almost instantaneously.

    the application launch took a while, but that is to be expected with more features. But the second launch of word happened instantaneously.

    But I find it funny that he has ignored spell check, which to me is the most used feature much above word count.

    Maybe it had something to do with fact that trying to do auto-spell check is a very heavy load process as you are referencing a dictionary upon every key stroke.

    The guy who wrote this is obviously a douche.
     
  22. mujb1988 O.o;

    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Reputation:
    I don't know who has made this comparison, but it's utter nonsense.
    The power of the CPU has no relation to the mega-hertz the architecture is waaaay more important, also we are facing the limitations of the silicon now.Both the power leakage and other problems.[I ask you, why the P4 CPU at 3.6 Giga-hertz can never hope to catch up to a 1.8GHz E6300.]
    And what comparison ?
    There are many area's in which we can compare the CPUs.
    We can never expect the mega-hetrz/performance for a certain CPU to be linear either.
     
  23. Geat_Masta Pineapple

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Reputation:
    it wasn't comparing raw power, it stated that computers are doing things at much the same speed as 20 years ago because of sloppy code. also auto-spell check might not even have existed for that computer.
     
  24. mislead it's just Che Guevara

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Reputation:
    The author suggesting that code written in Assembler necessarily runs faster than one written in higher-level languages suggests that he isn't much of an expert on the topic. Furthermore, raw performance isn't necessarily the most important issue when designing normal applications, much less modern operating systems.

    For example, Java, an immensely popular programming language, is primarily focused on portability, rather than speed. That's what the JVM is all about.

    In general, higher-level object-oriented languages aren't really meant to be faster than the structural ones (though it sometimes turns out that way too, like with STL for example); they're meant to be more portable and understandable. And really, if you're working on a project that spans ~40 million lines of code (WinXP, supposedly), it being understandable to a human being is a lot more important than tweaking performance here and there.

    Having said all that, Vista does pretty much suck, but not really due to "sloppy code", but due to design issues.

    Bottom line being: If you want to do more things, you'll have to devote more computing power in general, there's no way around it.

    I wonder if anyone will really read this. Ah well, back to writing my excruciatingly boring assembler....
     
  25. Geat_Masta Pineapple

    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Reputation:
    no it is sloppy code, or the zen of computing; just because it seems that a piece of code will do things more efficiently than another doesn't mean it does. on the olden days people would have tried every way to do something and timed it to see which was the best way; and the answer would change with different processors. testing every way and using the most efficient used to be done to squeeze every ounce of power out of a computer that they could, and was nicknamed the computing zen.

    also the idea in the article that assembler itself is faster than C++ is inversely proportional to the quality of the compiler used, so it is probably irrelevant when used to reference operating systems as they would use the best.

    also in the words of programers:
    i have style
    you are obscure
    he is a moron

    in other words while the commands and such are very understandable pieces of code never are; because it is easiest for people to understand things if it's written the way they would have written it. so while the java reference is relevant to cross-platform; it doesn't really have to do with how understandable code is, as no code is understandable.
     
  26. Esponer Brief Intermission

    Messages:
    21,760
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Reputation:
    There is some point to be had here. I've been through and at times used quite a few computers, including a Commodore 64, an Amiga 1200, a Macintosh LC and just about every generation of Macintosh computer since. All through this, I've casually used equivalent PCs, while not having owned them.

    I've actually yet to sit down at a computer that doesn't annoy me occasionally with quarter of a second lags on basic operations. All right, I'll own up to the fact that my Macintosh LC literally could not keep up with my typing speed, which at least every computer since can do, but it seems that all the specs of a computer can double, or triple, and I'm still getting those irritating moments.

    It's never been instantaneous.

    I'd imagine some of the absolute beasts of PCs and Macs may have eliminated those little moments, but I've not been able to afford anything like that yet. It does seem odd somehow that something with specs an order of magnitude greater in every area doesn't eliminate those little lags that a Macintosh LC felt so, so close to eliminating. Why is a Powermac G4 "so, so close" to doing what an LC was "so, so close" to doing? It should be instant!

    Of course, it's because the systems have to get more and more complicated, and so they need to be far faster.
     
  27. NeonRoses ANBU Slave Driver, rawr

    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Reputation:
    Apple > Microsoft

    No, I'm not a Mac fangirl at all :pleased

    But seriously, an outdated Mac vs a Windows XP? There's a lesson to be learnt here Mr Gates.
     
  28. Esponer Brief Intermission

    Messages:
    21,760
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2004
    Reputation:
    Eh, it would've probably beaten a modern Mac too… or at least, we'd still see a similar trend overall: new computers have a lot of (necessary) baggage that means they don't kick as much ass at the basics as some of us impatient folk might want.
     
  29. mislead it's just Che Guevara

    Messages:
    3,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Reputation:
    So, programmers are now magically less competent than they were in the mid-80's? That's difficult to believe, for several reasons. Do you include the people like Linus Torvalds into this, or just the poor Microsoft developers? Also, I don't see anything particularly enlightening in programming in Assembler.

    Allow me to rephrase myself. The source code itself, aka the implementation, is as understandable as the programmer makes it. However, the design is specifically made so that it's as understandable as possible - and it's a lot more important than any particular batch of code. Yet again, if you're making something as humongously complicated as a modern OS, you want it to be well-structured and orderly. That's why object-oriented programming was developed - not because it allowed for increases in raw processing speed, but because it allows for a nearly seemless transition from a project to a working program. Yet again, there are more important aspects of an OS, than it's raw speed - like, for example, security.

    I do believe that Microsoft doesn't trouble itself much with it's software's requirements, and that the software simply sucks quite often, but to condemn a whole generation of software just because of that, is ignorant at best.

    Hey, my PII 266 with 64Mb RAM would own the Mac Plus any day, any week. It's running a very basic version of Debian though.
     
  30. Deathinstinct Member

    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Reputation:
    No, he never mentioned sloppy code. His entire point was that code has become bloated with unnecessary functions. Which is only slightly demonstrated by his loading tests, and even those aren't performed properly.
     
Loading...