1986 Mac Vs 2007 Amd Dualcore

[maximusz]

1986 Mac Plus Vs 2007 AMD DualCore You Wont Believe Who Wins

summary:

When we compare strictly common, everyday, basic user tasks between the Mac Plus and the AMD we find remarkable similarities in overall speed, thus it can be stated that for the majority of simple office uses, the massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity.

large article:

http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07...elieve_Who_Wins

This just proves that the Z will be here for a while to come....... just too bad Sharp didn´t stop with their next device with built in WiFi & Bluetooth, slightly more memory, HD and CPU speed. (Same size package of course) and we would all be happy.....

[Da_Blitz]

i dont know about you guys but nano dosent seem any faster on a dual core processor than my Z.

perhaps its just me as the marketing goons and stores people normally say:

Store: so nano is a text editor
ME: Yeah
Store: well you know how long those take to start up, it will be faster on a dual core
ME: well i dont mind waiting for it to start up. its not really that long
Store: what are you talking about, the other day i went to get a coffe while word opened
ME: well i dont think nano is really like that
Store: trust me it will be faster
Me: well lets compare speeds then, i have my old 600Mhz machine here, lets see how much longer it takes
Store: sounds good, it will show you how much faster it is
<pulls out Z>
Store: whats that
Me: Its my old machine
<Store man relises somthing is going on here>
Me: lets start
<store guy clicks word>
<i type in one command>
Me: done
Store: ......
<minutes latter>
Store: here we go, now you can begin typing
Me: what are you talking about, i typed up the note and saved it already
<scilence>
Store: im going to have to ask you to leave

and that my friends is how i get my kicks when shopping on weekends

anyway back on topic its intresteing, when you develop on a machine like that you tend to know it intamatly, i have done some work with 12c509's from microchip that had about 20bytes of ram and space for 512 instructions and you quickly learn the price of instruction exectuiton time and space

these days we have an abundence of the stuff, i dont belive that its wrong but i think that most people could get away withan old apple without any prolems if it were not for video and fancy graphics

[adf]

i dont know about you guys but nano dosent seem any faster on a dual core processor than my Z.

perhaps its just me as the marketing goons and stores people normally say:

Store: so nano is a text editor
ME: Yeah
Store: well you know how long those take to start up, it will be faster on a dual core
ME: well i dont mind waiting for it to start up. its not really that long
Store: what are you talking about, the other day i went to get a coffe while word opened
ME: well i dont think nano is really like that
Store: trust me it will be faster
Me: well lets compare speeds then, i have my old 600Mhz machine here, lets see how much longer it takes
Store: sounds good, it will show you how much faster it is
<pulls out Z>
Store: whats that
Me: Its my old machine
<Store man relises somthing is going on here>
Me: lets start
<store guy clicks word>
<i type in one command>
Me: done
Store: ......
<minutes latter>
Store: here we go, now you can begin typing
Me: what are you talking about, i typed up the note and saved it already
<scilence>
Store: im going to have to ask you to leave

and that my friends is how i get my kicks when shopping on weekends

anyway back on topic its intresteing, when you develop on a machine like that you tend to know it intamatly, i have done some work with 12c509's from microchip that had about 20bytes of ram and space for 512 instructions and you quickly learn the price of instruction exectuiton time and space

these days we have an abundence of the stuff, i dont belive that its wrong but i think that most people could get away withan old apple without any prolems if it were not for video and fancy graphics
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I suspect that even a lot of  window dressing could be done much less expensively.  I've argued for a while that thin-clients and low pwer consumption arm-based are a better bet for large organizations-think about it-lower initial cost, way lower power use--pretty much the same productivity.  Somehow, though, you can't seem to convince anyone that a desktop is a tool, not symbol of rank-so we have thousands of clerks and secretaries entering memos and payroll data on boxes that probably have exponentially more computing power than all devices NASA used from the mercury project to the initial space shuttle launch combined.

I like guis, but the basic concept hasn't changed much. They guys who did the work at Xerox parc would certainly recognize elements of their stuff in Beryl.  

The only "make or break" app that has changed since the days of the original mac seems to me to be the web browser.  I do want enough guts to run firefox (which my Z does OK), and I think that is a rasobnable place to draw the line. Otherwise, I seem to recall fortune 500 companies working quite well with stuff like lotus123 on dos

[speculatrix]

first thing I do on WindowsXP is to change the theme to "windows classic", then get properties of "my computer" and set to maximise for performance. I don't want eye candy, I want to achieve things.

the most stupid thing is the automatic self-customising menus. the whole point of learning to use a computer is that things are consistent and you learn where they are!

/rant

[Capn_Fish]

i dont know about you guys but nano dosent seem any faster on a dual core processor than my Z.

perhaps its just me as the marketing goons and stores people normally say:

Store: so nano is a text editor
ME: Yeah
Store: well you know how long those take to start up, it will be faster on a dual core
ME: well i dont mind waiting for it to start up. its not really that long
Store: what are you talking about, the other day i went to get a coffe while word opened
ME: well i dont think nano is really like that
Store: trust me it will be faster
Me: well lets compare speeds then, i have my old 600Mhz machine here, lets see how much longer it takes
Store: sounds good, it will show you how much faster it is
<pulls out Z>
Store: whats that
Me: Its my old machine
<Store man relises somthing is going on here>
Me: lets start
<store guy clicks word>
<i type in one command>
Me: done
Store: ......
<minutes latter>
Store: here we go, now you can begin typing
Me: what are you talking about, i typed up the note and saved it already
<scilence>
Store: im going to have to ask you to leave

and that my friends is how i get my kicks when shopping on weekends

anyway back on topic its intresteing, when you develop on a machine like that you tend to know it intamatly, i have done some work with 12c509's from microchip that had about 20bytes of ram and space for 512 instructions and you quickly learn the price of instruction exectuiton time and space

these days we have an abundence of the stuff, i dont belive that its wrong but i think that most people could get away withan old apple without any prolems if it were not for video and fancy graphics
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162410\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

You could easily beat the dual-core box when underclocked to 102 MHz. It makes it more impressive.  

EDIT: I really need to try that sometime (the store thing, not launching Nano while underclocked).

[Da_Blitz]

i just wish the web considered what a text bassed web browwser saw a bit more and was more graceful without java script

i think that the top 5 apps i use would be
email: thunderbird/mutt
Web: firefox/Links
Notes: Nano in xterm/Nano
IM: Gaim/Centericq/gaim-text
Moives: Mplayer/Mplayer (FB output)

i find it quite funny when people ask me how i work so fast on my PC (mainly on IM when they ask me too look up somthnig for them) and the first thing i tell them is i dont use the gui or use "cut down" apps

so what if it dosent have fade in effects, i dont want to have to wait for it to fade in. like speculatrix i do alot of those tweaks, including "always show file extension" "show protected OS files" and show hidden as well as a whole lot of reg tweaks. takes me about an hour or two to get one set up

[dougeeebear]

86_Mac_Plus_Vs_2007_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins

This long title with all underscores (no spaces) messes up the page width on "View New Posts".
Could you put some spaces in there?

Thanks,
Doug

[Snappy]

I wanted to post a comment after reading ... but saw the long list of comments and decided not to.

As many mentioned, a 6.0 Mac vs a 10.x Mac will yield the same results. So it is quite apparent that this is a fan boy out on a MS-bashing trip. Childish at best.

MS, Mac, Palm, HP, Dell, IBM, Sony and any MNCs out there, have done some good and some bad. Go ahead and point out their fault where they mess up but don't turn it into a religious affair to skewer them whenever you get a chance. It's simply insane.

And I think they deserve credit where they are due as well. Let's play fair.

The other point is that the very skewed choice of 'simple' everyday applications is definitely not quite what ppl do today. I no longer code so frequently, but that 6.0 Mac is definitely not gonna let me code and build binaries for Windows, Palm, PocketPC, HandheldPC and linux. Windows does, albeit using cygwin for Palm and linux. I don't just surf text based web sites today. I surf content rich sites like youtube, ajax based sites like gmail and I like using Firefox with like ... 13 ~ 20+ tabs open. Yes, it's wierd, but I do. And I think the 20+% FF users probably can attest to the ease of using tabs, never mind 2 or 20. 6.0 Mac does not run FF right?

I also like to be able to plug in my SD and CF card from my pda, mini-sd from my phone and thumbdrives to share data around. I also like to use Bluetooth to sync up with my phone or use the USB 2.0 cable if I want an easier sync up and no blue-jacking.

Surfing the net wirelessly with 802.11g is also good and so is peer network using wifi for sharing files between two notebooks. Oh did I also mention that I like downloading ubuntu and Redhat iso images at 5000mbps broadband and burning to disc. After that, I like to dual-boot to Ubuntu and someday try installing Redhat just to see how it works.

Try all that with 6.0 Mac or for matter with a 1986 Mac+.

[Snappy]

You may want to PM or email him.

86_Mac_Plus_Vs_2007_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins

This long title with all underscores (no spaces) messes up the page width on "View New Posts".
Could you put some spaces in there?

Thanks,
Doug
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

[desertrat]

like speculatrix i do alot of those tweaks, including "always show file extension" "show protected OS files" and show hidden as well as a whole lot of reg tweaks. takes me about an hour or two to get one set up

Ditto here, I also set it to NOT show as "webpage", but for some reason every windoze I setup I have to set it to NOT show as "webpage" several times before the setting stays set - bloody obnoxious windoze.

[desertrat]

Try all that with 6.0 Mac or for matter with a 1986 Mac+.

A major minus for the old Macs is that they didn't multitask, only taskswitched. Even Windoze 3.1 had rudimentary multitasking. Of course the best multitasking machine was the Amiga.

[maximusz]

Sorry about that - the title has been changed.  
I only had the title that way originally because I was lazy   and just copied it from the website

You may want to PM or email him.

86_Mac_Plus_Vs_2007_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins

This long title with all underscores (no spaces) messes up the page width on "View New Posts".
Could you put some spaces in there?

Thanks,
Doug
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162470\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162491\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

[maximusz]

I wanted to post a comment after reading ... but saw the long list of comments and decided not to.

As many mentioned, a 6.0 Mac vs a 10.x Mac will yield the same results. So it is quite apparent that this is a fan boy out on a MS-bashing trip. Childish at best.

MS, Mac, Palm, HP, Dell, IBM, Sony and any MNCs out there, have done some good and some bad. Go ahead and point out their fault where they mess up but don't turn it into a religious affair to skewer them whenever you get a chance. It's simply insane.

And I think they deserve credit where they are due as well. Let's play fair.

The other point is that the very skewed choice of 'simple' everyday applications is definitely not quite what ppl do today. I no longer code so frequently, but that 6.0 Mac is definitely not gonna let me code and build binaries for Windows, Palm, PocketPC, HandheldPC and linux. Windows does, albeit using cygwin for Palm and linux. I don't just surf text based web sites today. I surf content rich sites like youtube, ajax based sites like gmail and I like using Firefox with like ... 13 ~ 20+ tabs open. Yes, it's wierd, but I do. And I think the 20+% FF users probably can attest to the ease of using tabs, never mind 2 or 20. 6.0 Mac does not run FF right?

I also like to be able to plug in my SD and CF card from my pda, mini-sd from my phone and thumbdrives to share data around. I also like to use Bluetooth to sync up with my phone or use the USB 2.0 cable if I want an easier sync up and no blue-jacking.

Surfing the net wirelessly with 802.11g is also good and so is peer network using wifi for sharing files between two notebooks. Oh did I also mention that I like downloading ubuntu and Redhat iso images at 5000mbps broadband and burning to disc. After that, I like to dual-boot to Ubuntu and someday try installing Redhat just to see how it works.

Try all that with 6.0 Mac or for matter with a 1986 Mac+.
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

I dont own a Mac - just two Ubuntu Laptops.

This article is not to prove that 1980s technology is better - just that we have the equivalent of a supercomputer in our homes and everything still runs slow as hell. Windows software is bloated and prone to viruses.

Feel free to use it. Just know that there are alternatives

[Snappy]

I dont own a Mac - just two Ubuntu Laptops.

This article is not to prove that 1980s technology is better - just that we have the equivalent of a supercomputer in our homes and everything still runs slow as hell. Windows software is bloated and prone to viruses.

Feel free to use it. Just know that there are alternatives
[div align=\"right\"][a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a][/div]

You are perhaps right. The article is not trying to prove that, but the title seem to imply so. What annoys ppl is that the article masquerades itself as some deep and thoughtful revelation about technology when all it is is a shallow rerun of Windows bashing.

As an aside, on my notebooks, I can't really say that WinXP runs slow as hell. It runs fast enough. I don't run any anti-virus software and I don't get viruses; I do run Windows Firewall.

If the author makes a side-by-side comparison and list Mac OSX, Windows and Linux as 'bloated' compared to Max OS 6.0, then I say it is really focused on highlighting that modern OSes are not making efficient use of the latest greatest hardware. But it's not. It's again a lame fanboy attempt to denigrate Windows.

The title reads "1986 Mac Plus Vs 2007 AMD DualCore You Wont Believe Who Wins" but when you read the article, it keeps on comparing Mac OS6.0 with WindowsXP. And end up concluding that Windows is bloated and all. Tell me that is unbiased.

When we compare strictly common, everyday, basic user tasks between the Mac Plus and the AMD we find remarkable similarities in overall speed, thus it can be stated that for the majority of simple office uses, the massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity.

In many cases pointed out, the Mac Plus *cannot* even perform the basic user tasks. How does that bring about the conclusion that "massive advances in technology in the past two decades have brought zero advance in productivity"? In most side-by-side comparison tests, hardware or software that fails to perform the tests are usually given zero points for that segment or disqualified for testing altogether and just given marginal appraisal.

I'm with you on the 'alternative' view. I for one, no longer get the latest, greatest, fastest, biggest hardware or software. I often get 2nd or 3rd gen old notebooks or gadgets. For the past 7 years or so, I upgraded mainly to have USB2.0 built-in my notebook or to have a lighter notebook with a longer batt life. Going by the title, this is one aspect of increase in productivity that the article fails to look at. I wish moderate articles could be written instead of such types that is totally skewed.

As much as I admire linux for its design and efficiency, I'm really sick of linux fanboys rant.

[desertrat]

As an aside, on my notebooks, I can't really say that WinXP runs slow as hell. It runs fast enough. I don't run any anti-virus software and I don't get viruses; I do run Windows Firewall.

Wow, how do you know you don't have any viruses if you're not running any antivirus? A firewall will do diddly squat to protect you against virus or trojan infection. For example the recent animated cursor exploit simply requires that you visit a malicious website (or a site with links to that malicious site). AVG does a free version of their antivirus software which is pretty good for the price.