Pitting a Mac Plus Against an AMD Dual Core

In the Age of Computer Bloat someone has decided to do a performance comparison between a 1986 Mac Plus and a 2007 AMD Dual core, each running appropriate software. Computer Bloat does not fare so well. "In order to keep the hoots and hollers of 'unfair comparison' at a minimum, we designed the tests to be as fair and equitable as possible. We focussed on running tests that reflect how the user perceives the computing experience... And no, we didn't include processing-heavy modern software like Photoshop or Crysis! We selected very basic everyday functions that were performed equally by the 1980's and the 2007 Microsoft applications."

Comments

Lets compare a typewriter to a word processor.

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

As with this article, what really would that prove?

I think I would find my words per minute would not vary. The legibility of the document would be identical. I could even say that the typewriter is superior in some ways - for instance, my document autosaves on every keystroke.

Calling features "bloat" strikes me the same as when a person will call a reason an "excuse". There are times and places when "bloat" and "excuses" are valid words, but they can be inserted where they are invalid just as easily.

Perhaps the law of diminishing returns holds true. After all, a typewriter really is all one needs to write a novel, and in fact I do not think a computer helps one write a novel thousands of times more quickly. However, there are features (spell check, formatting, fonts, predictive text, voice recognition...) that enhance the writing experience.

I guess I just don't get the point of this article.

Re:Lets compare a typewriter to a word processor.

[jfengel]

Having written a few books myself, I can say that the biggest advantage of a computer over a typewriter is the ability to correct and reorganize.

I once reviewed a preliminary copy of a text by Jef Raskin, one of the Mac designers. It was double-spaced Courier, with hand-drawn diagrams. I found that ironic, coming from him, but it made sense. There were professionals to make the drawings look nice and format the text. His job was the words and the gist of the diagrams.

Nonetheless, it was typed on a computer. (It's easy to spot typewritten text; it will always have some typos or irregular letters). I'm sure it's because it let him rearrange sentences, paragraphs, and even chapters without having to re-type from scratch, and it's no harder than typing. The diagrams, however, are still more work than hand-drawing. (At least, I know of no tool that's as easy, even with a drawing tablet.)

Some writers prefer the notion of organizing everything in your head before typing anything, but that's more memory than I've got. I relied on the ability of the word processor so I could start a paragraph and come back to it later without having to change the paper in my typewriter a huge time boost.

Despite what I've just said, I concur that the article is mostly silly. Others are making that point as well as I can. I just wanted to show why I thought a computer was much better than a typewriter, for different reasons than you gave.

Re:Lets compare a typewriter to a word processor.

[phasm42]

spell checking, formatting and fonts are useful and can be done with the 20+ year old software as well as the new (and faster on the old).

What if you need to work in Swedish and Japanese documents? Oh wait, only English matters.

But to anyone who types at a reasonable rate, predictive text is a huge annoyance (and often causes wrong values to be input into fields and just slows the typing of documents. Good typists turn that crap off, it IS bloat. Voice recognition is much slower and much less accurate than typing, I wouldn't even consider using it to create a document.

I guess disabled people shouldn't be using computers then?

Re:Developer motivation

[Kadin2048]

I admit the boot-time figure isn't anything to obsess too hard about, but things like application-launch times certainly are. How quickly an application launches adds a lot to how often I use it and how reluctant I am to open it. If I know that launching it is going to take a minute or two (like Photoshop used to on my old PowerMac), I'm not going to click that sucker without a damn good reason. In fact I'm probably going to find some other tool to do the job, if I have a lot of quick tasks to accomplish.

Similarly, if an app takes a long time to save a document, and it blocks the user from doing other things during this process, that's pretty obnoxious. Most people save frequently (or at least they should), and if it takes longer than a second or two at most, you've just interrupted their workflow.

UI responsiveness is definitely king, I'm firmly with you there, but speed in other areas shouldn't just be written off. Applications and system software needs to be designed to do what the user wants, while getting in the way as little as possible. Sometimes I think that gets forgotten by developers, from time to time.

Re:Huh?

[chriss]

Why didn't he compare the Mac Plus against an OS X machine, or the XP machine against a DOS 6 machine?

Because the Mac Plus and the WinXP Pro SP2 systems were the most widely used GUI based desktop machines at their respective time, thus making a comparison about productivity feasible.

Re:Huh?

[jellomizer]

Well the Mac Plus was a GUI system at the time so it is a closer match for comparing Windows XP then DOS 6 is. As well many of the tests used would be unfair with OS X for Intel. Excel and Word for mac are still Power PC version so they need to run via Rosetta which will slow down the resusults running XP will actually have a better performance for the Test.

Yes everyting the Mac Plus couldn't do was left out. Also they didn't run the normal benchmark software as well. Knowing quite well the new system will eat its lunch. Also they are using different versions of software. But the point of the test was comparing the quality of life for people with the Mac Pro back in the 80s vs. the Quality of Life today with people with PCs today, doing the same jobs.

Bootup Speet is important espectially back in the 80's where people turned off their computers when they were done, and people still do that today. So bootup time is quite useful in measuring productivity. In Linux if you misconfigure say sendmail in Red Hat when you boot up you are waiting for minutes for it to load and fail. Making Linux Boot time painfully slow. This effects productivity (say your job is to insure Sendmail works properly at bootup). For windows reboots are frequent when you have updates so you are working on you job and you get an automatic update you need to reboot and wait 2 minutes when you get everything back you need to refresh were you left off.

The point of the article is that as computers get faster the software get proportionally slower so you tend to get a 0 net gain in productivity in the common jobs you do on your system now.

The Anthropic Principle

[briglass]

The anthropic principle helps to explain why this comparison makes no sense. By virtue of the fact that both computers are market-ready and market-tested machines (especially in the highly successful Mac Plus), their usability speeds MUST be under or around market-acceptable levels. Otherwise, they would either not have survived alpha and beta testing or not have survived as a marketable product. What this comparison is really tapping into is the user-acceptable speed level, which has not changed since the 1980s (because humans haven't changed much).

Re:Developer motivation

[gurps_npc]

You misunderstand the point. Basically, the author is saying what you describe is a BAD BAD IDEA.

The writers know about the issue you are talking about and believe that all the crap that they have a modern computer load is NOT neccessary.

Me personally, I know that EVERYTIME I install software, no matter how rarely I wish to use it, I have to check and remove all this GARBAGE that they put into my start up. You gave a list of things such as scanners, DVD burners. I use those rarely.

For 99 out of 100 people there is NO good reason to put those things in the startup. Those are great examples, proving my point. It makes far more sense to 'start' those processes once a month when you actually use them instead of taking 1 second every single day.

If you personally use them every day instead of 1/month, then fine YOU can put them in your startup. Wasting my time (and worse, using vile, hard to understand names making it dificult to realize what your PC is doing and therefore hard/dangerous to remove) placing all that CRAPWARE into startup is obnoxious, rude, and bad business