Comparison of the old Mac Plus (86 year) versus dual core Athlone
If you think that Americans are getting fatter, look closely at the operating system (OS) of your computer that is running right now. It gets bigger and harder with every update. We are in the third decade of PC development, and have we really developed so much?
Let's go back to the dawn of personal computers and take the good old Apple Macintosh Plus. Mac Plus is an 80s icon along with hangers, long hair and Devo. It seems that we all had baby Mac, either in our college dorm room, on the top floor in the bedroom, or in our office on the table. With its small 9-inch black and white screen and all-in-one packaging, the Mac Plus is a relic of the days of widescreen LCD monitors and dual / quad-core systems.
However, to run these works of art among modern PCs, we need to install one of the latest operating systems. And so, when we find ourselves in trouble. Most people today have either Windows XP or Vista on their personal computers. These operating systems are modern, have almost infinite potential and can run any modern software. With more functionality comes the size.
')
Comparison
The usual “configuration” for Mac Plus is System 6.0.8. This is an OS that needs a “legitimate” minimum of 1 megabyte of RAM to provide multitasking, network connectivity, printing, WYSIWYG display of millions of colors, and also to run a sufficient GUI. These features that require at least 500 times more memory under Windows XP and 1000 times more memory under Windows Vista.
When we look at the requirements of an OS hard disk, we find similar discrepancies. System 6.0.8 requires 1 MB, Windows XP requires 1.5GB, Windows Vista 15GB. Yes, Vista needs 15,000 times more than System 6.0.8. In TXT, you can write 175,000 words in a file in one megabyte, which is the size of System 6.0.8. This is the length of about two full-size novels. Windows Vista requires so much space on your hard disk where you can easily put 30,000 novels.
System 6.0.8 not only has a much more compact size, because it has much fewer (mostly useless) functions and, therefore, less code to process, but also because it was written in assembler instead of the higher level language C. the lower the language level, the fewer processing cycles required to get what you need.
Mac Plus is a Motorola 68000 CPU that runs at 8MHz. AMD is an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with two cores, each running at 2.4GHz. In absolute terms, computing power is measured solely in processor speed, AMD, with its 4.8GHz, is 600 times faster than Motorola. At the same time, AMD is a much more advanced processor, in normal tests, it is much faster than the old 68000. Thus, we can safely say that AMD is at least 1000 times faster than Mac Plus.
We decided to tinker, scoring the maximum possible 4MB RAM in the old Plus. In the end, he fights against AMD with his 2 to 512MB RAM, a total of 1024MB or 1GB. This is about 250 times more memory than a Mac.
Mac was equipped with an external SCSI hard disk of 40MB. AMD had an internal IDE for 120GB, that is, 3000 times more volume. Both discs were less than 10% full.
Tests
To reduce cries of unfair comparison, we have developed tests that should be as fair and equal as possible. There was no point running PCMark or Sandra Sisoft-like programs, because AMD would eat a Mac for lunch. We focused on tests that reflect how the user works at the computer. In the end, most users don’t know or don’t care if their 65nm computer has a dual-core processor or tiny wizards have settled in the case. All that they worry about is how it works and how quickly it solves the tasks that we most often “ask” to do. And no, we do not include modern "heavy" software, like Photoshop or Crysis! We chose very simple everyday functions that were performed in equal shares in the 1980s and 2007 Microsoft applications.
Since the testing involved both different computers and different versions of the software, it was important to develop tests that would be as repeatable as possible.
1) Time was recorded by one person.
2) All tests were performed on the latest and most effective OS configuration. For Mac Plus, it was System 6.0.8. For AMD, Windows XP Professional SP2.
3) All tests were performed with the recommended amount of RAM.
For Mac Plus - 4MB.
For AMD - 1GB.
4) All tests were performed on the original systems, so the hard drives were freshly formatted, the OS was just installed. No third-party software was beyond the standard Apple and Microsoft installations.
5) All tests were carried out with only one running application. Nothing but OS background tasks that are part of the standard OS installation was not running. No computers were connected to the Internet or local network.
6) All tests were measured with an accuracy of 0.1 seconds.
7) Each test was performed at least three times on each computer and the results averaged.
The tests themselves went flawlessly. No computer "crashed" or zaglyuchil in any way. They just did what they wanted, regardless of the technological advances (or lack thereof) inside the case.
We didn’t try web surfing, because browsers that are supposed to work well on Mac Plus are Mozilla 1.2.1, Mozilla 1.3.1 and earlier versions of WannaBe and iCab. The idea of ​​surfing the net on a 9 "b / w screen seemed silly to us, so we missed surfing. However, some enthusiasts are still doing it!
(yes, yes - dosov browser steers - comment. translator)
Again, there were various ways, including Power R Video Driver Cable and various external gadgets that made it possible to connect all kinds of large external monitors to the Mac Plus. I remember the huge 80 pound Ikegami 24-inch black-and-white monitors going up and down the stairs, as they were the “favorite” screens for the late “compact” poppies like SE and SE / 30 in the artistic literature departments (?) In the 90s . Photos - Hitachi 21-inch, which was the largest of those that I could find. Just imagine that the Ikegami were even much bigger than this monster! I guess why I still suffer from the back!
We launched a variety of tests on two main applications. AMD - Word and Excel from Microsoft Office 2007. Mac Plus got Word 3.01 and Excel 1.5. Yes, we know that these versions were released after one and two years, respectively, after 1986 with Mac Plus. But we just could not run the early and hopelessly bad versions.
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Word is the program most used by people all over the world. Tests that cause the greatest interest for everyday official and personal use of the Word are the most important of them: launching the application itself, “Search and Replace”, “Open File”, “Insert”, “Save”, “Scroll”, “Print” and "Counting words."
Microsoft Excel
In the case of Excel, we also focused on the most repetitive and common tasks. We chose: Launch Application, “Layout Windows”, “Auto Formatting”, “Range Filling”, Cell Editing, Vertical Scrolling, Subtotals and Zoom Out. Most users use relatively small tables, so we used 640 filled cells.
Load time
For fun, we also included in the test list an estimate of the load time, just to find out how long it takes to boot the OS from pressing the Power button until the desktop is ready for use.
Conclusion
See the results! In the functions that people use most often, the vintage 1986 Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800 +: 9 tests against 8! Of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53%! Including shocking 52 second separation from AMD on loading time.
We also do not want to embarrass AMD by comparing the time it takes to install an OS with old Macs. The average time for a Mac is about a minute slightly compared to about one hour of Windows XP Pro installation time.
So does this mean that Mac Plus is better than our AMD? Of course not. Over the past (since the days of Mac Plus), 21 years of technical progress has brought modern PCs to a whole new level of capabilities. But “user experience” (usability is a translation issue.) Has not changed much in two decades. Because of bloated code, which includes hundreds of functions, the existence of which is an ordinary user and does not realize, let alone ever use, software companies have weighed down our PCs effectively neutralizing their enormous speed. When we compare common, daily, simple user tasks between Mac Plus and AMD, we see a remarkable similarity in overall speed, so it can be argued that for most simple office purposes, massive technological advances in the past two decades have brought zero progress in productivity .
And this is just crazy.
Original here
Translated nerfur Nerfur (directly exclusive exclusively for Habr and blog "iron nostalgia" ;-))
Let's go back to the dawn of personal computers and take the good old Apple Macintosh Plus. Mac Plus is an 80s icon along with hangers, long hair and Devo. It seems that we all had baby Mac, either in our college dorm room, on the top floor in the bedroom, or in our office on the table. With its small 9-inch black and white screen and all-in-one packaging, the Mac Plus is a relic of the days of widescreen LCD monitors and dual / quad-core systems.
However, to run these works of art among modern PCs, we need to install one of the latest operating systems. And so, when we find ourselves in trouble. Most people today have either Windows XP or Vista on their personal computers. These operating systems are modern, have almost infinite potential and can run any modern software. With more functionality comes the size.
')
Comparison
The usual “configuration” for Mac Plus is System 6.0.8. This is an OS that needs a “legitimate” minimum of 1 megabyte of RAM to provide multitasking, network connectivity, printing, WYSIWYG display of millions of colors, and also to run a sufficient GUI. These features that require at least 500 times more memory under Windows XP and 1000 times more memory under Windows Vista.
When we look at the requirements of an OS hard disk, we find similar discrepancies. System 6.0.8 requires 1 MB, Windows XP requires 1.5GB, Windows Vista 15GB. Yes, Vista needs 15,000 times more than System 6.0.8. In TXT, you can write 175,000 words in a file in one megabyte, which is the size of System 6.0.8. This is the length of about two full-size novels. Windows Vista requires so much space on your hard disk where you can easily put 30,000 novels.
System 6.0.8 not only has a much more compact size, because it has much fewer (mostly useless) functions and, therefore, less code to process, but also because it was written in assembler instead of the higher level language C. the lower the language level, the fewer processing cycles required to get what you need.
Mac Plus is a Motorola 68000 CPU that runs at 8MHz. AMD is an Athlon 64 X2 4800+ with two cores, each running at 2.4GHz. In absolute terms, computing power is measured solely in processor speed, AMD, with its 4.8GHz, is 600 times faster than Motorola. At the same time, AMD is a much more advanced processor, in normal tests, it is much faster than the old 68000. Thus, we can safely say that AMD is at least 1000 times faster than Mac Plus.
We decided to tinker, scoring the maximum possible 4MB RAM in the old Plus. In the end, he fights against AMD with his 2 to 512MB RAM, a total of 1024MB or 1GB. This is about 250 times more memory than a Mac.
Mac was equipped with an external SCSI hard disk of 40MB. AMD had an internal IDE for 120GB, that is, 3000 times more volume. Both discs were less than 10% full.
Tests
To reduce cries of unfair comparison, we have developed tests that should be as fair and equal as possible. There was no point running PCMark or Sandra Sisoft-like programs, because AMD would eat a Mac for lunch. We focused on tests that reflect how the user works at the computer. In the end, most users don’t know or don’t care if their 65nm computer has a dual-core processor or tiny wizards have settled in the case. All that they worry about is how it works and how quickly it solves the tasks that we most often “ask” to do. And no, we do not include modern "heavy" software, like Photoshop or Crysis! We chose very simple everyday functions that were performed in equal shares in the 1980s and 2007 Microsoft applications.
Since the testing involved both different computers and different versions of the software, it was important to develop tests that would be as repeatable as possible.
1) Time was recorded by one person.
2) All tests were performed on the latest and most effective OS configuration. For Mac Plus, it was System 6.0.8. For AMD, Windows XP Professional SP2.
3) All tests were performed with the recommended amount of RAM.
For Mac Plus - 4MB.
For AMD - 1GB.
4) All tests were performed on the original systems, so the hard drives were freshly formatted, the OS was just installed. No third-party software was beyond the standard Apple and Microsoft installations.
5) All tests were carried out with only one running application. Nothing but OS background tasks that are part of the standard OS installation was not running. No computers were connected to the Internet or local network.
6) All tests were measured with an accuracy of 0.1 seconds.
7) Each test was performed at least three times on each computer and the results averaged.
The tests themselves went flawlessly. No computer "crashed" or zaglyuchil in any way. They just did what they wanted, regardless of the technological advances (or lack thereof) inside the case.
We didn’t try web surfing, because browsers that are supposed to work well on Mac Plus are Mozilla 1.2.1, Mozilla 1.3.1 and earlier versions of WannaBe and iCab. The idea of ​​surfing the net on a 9 "b / w screen seemed silly to us, so we missed surfing. However, some enthusiasts are still doing it!
(yes, yes - dosov browser steers - comment. translator)
Again, there were various ways, including Power R Video Driver Cable and various external gadgets that made it possible to connect all kinds of large external monitors to the Mac Plus. I remember the huge 80 pound Ikegami 24-inch black-and-white monitors going up and down the stairs, as they were the “favorite” screens for the late “compact” poppies like SE and SE / 30 in the artistic literature departments (?) In the 90s . Photos - Hitachi 21-inch, which was the largest of those that I could find. Just imagine that the Ikegami were even much bigger than this monster! I guess why I still suffer from the back!
We launched a variety of tests on two main applications. AMD - Word and Excel from Microsoft Office 2007. Mac Plus got Word 3.01 and Excel 1.5. Yes, we know that these versions were released after one and two years, respectively, after 1986 with Mac Plus. But we just could not run the early and hopelessly bad versions.
Microsoft Word
Microsoft Word is the program most used by people all over the world. Tests that cause the greatest interest for everyday official and personal use of the Word are the most important of them: launching the application itself, “Search and Replace”, “Open File”, “Insert”, “Save”, “Scroll”, “Print” and "Counting words."
Microsoft Excel
In the case of Excel, we also focused on the most repetitive and common tasks. We chose: Launch Application, “Layout Windows”, “Auto Formatting”, “Range Filling”, Cell Editing, Vertical Scrolling, Subtotals and Zoom Out. Most users use relatively small tables, so we used 640 filled cells.
Load time
For fun, we also included in the test list an estimate of the load time, just to find out how long it takes to boot the OS from pressing the Power button until the desktop is ready for use.
Conclusion
See the results! In the functions that people use most often, the vintage 1986 Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800 +: 9 tests against 8! Of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53%! Including shocking 52 second separation from AMD on loading time.
We also do not want to embarrass AMD by comparing the time it takes to install an OS with old Macs. The average time for a Mac is about a minute slightly compared to about one hour of Windows XP Pro installation time.
So does this mean that Mac Plus is better than our AMD? Of course not. Over the past (since the days of Mac Plus), 21 years of technical progress has brought modern PCs to a whole new level of capabilities. But “user experience” (usability is a translation issue.) Has not changed much in two decades. Because of bloated code, which includes hundreds of functions, the existence of which is an ordinary user and does not realize, let alone ever use, software companies have weighed down our PCs effectively neutralizing their enormous speed. When we compare common, daily, simple user tasks between Mac Plus and AMD, we see a remarkable similarity in overall speed, so it can be argued that for most simple office purposes, massive technological advances in the past two decades have brought zero progress in productivity .
And this is just crazy.
Original here
Translated nerfur Nerfur (directly exclusive exclusively for Habr and blog "iron nostalgia" ;-))
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/38610/
All Articles