AtomicCEO Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) 1986 MacPlus vs 2007 AMD Dual Core XP machine They did simple everyday normal user tests for applications people use all the time: The Mac won these tests: - Booting the machine - Launching Microsoft Word - Opening a Word file - Saving a Word file - Scrolling lag through a Word document - Launching Microsoft Excel - Excel "Arrange" - Excel editing - Excel Subtotal These things are faster despite - 500x less memory - 1500x less OS code - 1000x less processing power Are you getting 500, 1000, or 1500 more use out of Word and Excel today than people did back in 1986? Where is all the computing power going? So although we've vastly increased computing power... we've just gobbled it all up with stuff that we hardly even notice or know we have. Kind of like when I get a raise at work, and I don't suddenly have more money depositing into savings every month. Edited March 28, 2009 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) Is our Computers Faster? Are our grammar skills improved? Edited March 28, 2009 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 (edited) 1986 MacPlus vs 2007 AMD Dual Core XP machine They did simple everyday normal user tests for applications people use all the time: The Mac won these tests: - Booting the machine - Launching Microsoft Word - Opening a Word file - Saving a Word file - Scrolling lag through a Word document - Launching Microsoft Excel - Excel "Arrange" - Excel editing - Excel Subtotal These things are faster despite - 500x less memory - 1500x less OS code - 1000x less processing power Are you getting 500, 1000, or 1500 more use out of Word and Excel today than people did back in 1986? Where is all the computing power going? So although we've vastly increased computing power... we've just gobbled it all up with stuff that we hardly even notice or know we have. Kind of like when I get a raise at work, and I don't suddenly have more money depositing into savings every month. The question would be, "Did they use the same version of Word and Excel for both tests?" I would assume they didn't. And Word and Excel both are hideously written, as functionality was just piled onto core code with translators and jumpers made to hook to the existing architecture. So if they were comparing a modern version of Word on a modern machine versus an early version of word on an early machine, doesn't surprise me they were comparable. IMHO this is more a reflection on how Word hasn't advanced it's speed, more than the hardware not using thiers... Edited March 28, 2009 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 I'd agree. This is more reflective of how bloated programs have become. Word/Excel probably contains functionality where most only use 10% of what it can truly do. The rest is just "fat". I still have the box and disk for MS-DOS 1.1 - the manual has chapters on "deleting", "saving". etc. Programs these days are glutted with crap most people never ever use and there is a price for it - performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 1 million rows, seriously who needs 1 million rows Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted March 28, 2009 Share Posted March 28, 2009 Kind of like when I get a raise at work, and I don't suddenly have more money depositing into savings every month. Now here is a great point! What the hell?!? Just gets sucked into the costs of living. My mother was always a great money manager and would take out every extra cent my father would make after getting a raise and she always had money in her pockets and plenty being saved. And yet others can't figure out where it all goes. I don't know much about computers but I'd have to say that I agree cause I don't know what half the crap on my computer is for and I only ever click on a few things to use. The rest.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 (edited) The question would be, "Did they use the same version of Word and Excel for both tests?" I think the point was that 95% of what people do in Word or Excel probably could have been accomplished in the 1986 version. I know I format text into paragraphs... use some bold, some center justification, some different size text, some bullets, and I spell check. Could I not have done this in Word in 1986? And are the new features beyond that really 500-1500x more processor intensive? Edited March 29, 2009 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 Are our grammar skills improved? This was an intentional reference. Do you know to what? You have 5 minutes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 This was an intentional reference. Do you know to what?You have 5 minutes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 This was an intentional reference. Do you know to what?You have 5 minutes Grammar Check? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 This is a fatuous argument. Can the 1986 machine run Photoshop, Quake 4 and stream movies, never mind do all three things at once? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 This is a fatuous argument. Can the 1986 machine run Photoshop, Quake 4 and stream movies, never mind do all three things at once? I can vouch for Photoshop... but it was black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 If x=10 goto 20 In my youth I recall spending entire afternoons drawing a line across the monitor screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 (edited) If x=10 goto 20 In my youth I recall spending entire afternoons drawing a line across the monitor screen. Oh yeah, I learned BASIC too. Loved it. Spent WEEKS working on my own Zork knockoff in High School on the Trash 80. Edited March 29, 2009 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 If x=10 goto 20 In my youth I recall spending entire afternoons drawing a line across the monitor screen. You needed to put in a line number before the command in BASIC, as the "20" here is another line number. such as 70 if x=10 goto 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 (edited) Oh yeah, I learned BASIC too. Loved it. Spent WEEKS working on my own Zork knockoff in High School on the Trash 80. I wrote a program to teach my daughter basic addition, etc in GW-BASIC. Fun stuff. Edited March 29, 2009 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I'm not sure but as soon as IBM starts making their computers in India there won't be any looking back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted March 29, 2009 Author Share Posted March 29, 2009 I wrote a program to teach my daughter basic addition, etc in GW-BASIC. Fun stuff. GW Basic? 10 FOOL = 0 20 FOOL = FOOL + 1 30 IF FOOL > 1 THEN PRINT "WONT GET FOOLED" AND END 40 GOTO 20 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 GW Basic? 10 FOOL = 0 20 FOOL = FOOL + 1 30 IF FOOL > 1 THEN PRINT "WONT GET FOOLED" AND END 40 GOTO 20 21 IF FOOL = 1 THEN PRINT 'FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON ME" 22 IF FOOL = 2 THEN PRINT "IF FOOL ME CAN'T GET FOOLED AGAIN" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.