Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > 1986 Mac Plus takes on a 2007 AMD Dual Core

1986 Mac Plus takes on a 2007 AMD Dual Core
Thread Tools
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 03:45 PM
 
86 Mac Plus Vs. 07 AMD DualCore. You Won't Believe Who Wins

Hehe. Kinda interesting, though, from an efficiency perspective and a look at bloatware. They loaded up Word and Excel on both computers and did all sorts of different benchmark tasks. Because of all the new software running on the AMD 4800+, it really didn't do much better than a Mac Plus. In fact, the Mac Plus beat the AMD on several tests.

Their conclusion was that in the past decade, computers (or is it Windows and Office) have brought us zero increase in productivity.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 04:01 PM
 
Wow, that is surprising. I shouldn't be so shocked because I have a 450MHz cube running office and photoshop and I was surprised to see how perky it was at running both. Mind you I wasn't trying to computer the mass of the sun in excel or rendor anything indepth in PS but doing what I normally do, work with images for the web and the G4 cube held its own.
Michael
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 04:04 PM
 
I love that perspective of things.

OTOH, I was running System 7 on a Mac SE with 2.5MB RAM, and that was a PAIN.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 04:07 PM
 
Now a days its all abut ram. and they shortchanged the AMD machine.
     
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 04:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
Now a days its all abut ram. and they shortchanged the AMD machine.
Not really most consumer level machines found at best buy or dell have a gig or less. Heck, windows out of the box will only see 2 gig or is it 3 I forget.
Michael
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 04:18 PM
 
Yeah, but they maxed out the Mac Plus.
     
residentEvil
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Detroit
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 04:18 PM
 
a 32-bit OS will see 4GB...
     
TheoCryst
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 06:39 PM
 
Amusing. It's pretty true, actually: the computing experience hasn't changed for the end user, other than being a little lighter, a little more colorful, and a lot more confusing. It's sad from a developer's standpoint to realize that in more than twenty years, nothing's changed. Word is still Word, Excel is still Excel, and computers take even longer to boot than they used to.

Any ramblings are entirely my own, and do not represent those of my employers, coworkers, friends, or species
     
ShivaReborn
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
86 Mac Plus Vs. 07 AMD DualCore. You Won't Believe Who Wins

Hehe. Kinda interesting, though, from an efficiency perspective and a look at bloatware. They loaded up Word and Excel on both computers and did all sorts of different benchmark tasks. Because of all the new software running on the AMD 4800+, it really didn't do much better than a Mac Plus. In fact, the Mac Plus beat the AMD on several tests.

Their conclusion was that in the past decade, computers (or is it Windows and Office) have brought us zero increase in productivity.
I know we have really powerful processors these days, but I kinda wonder how 'fast' OS9 would feel if we could somehow use today's hardware on them. EVERYTHING is slower in OSX. Games, visualizations, computations... I stayed away from OSX for a very long time because of the performance hit. I used to run OS9 on a dual 1.42ghz G4, and MAN WAS THAT FAST.
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 06:55 PM
 
Betcha the AMD running a Mac emulator running the Mac OS (system 6?) would kick the Mac Plus's ass!

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
slpdLoad
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 07:39 PM
 
Things like launch and boot times are the things that tick me off the most. I have a couple Mac Pluses in my basement and whenever I occasion to boot them up for nostalgia I'm constantly amazed at how it soundly trounces my PowerBook in terms of boot speed. A .2 -> .1 difference in typing lag over 21 years? No big deal, since these kinds of tasks take place at human speeds. But having a computer boot 52 seconds SLOWER in 21 years? That's ridiculous in my opinion.
     
mac128k-1984
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by slpdLoad View Post
Things like launch and boot times are the things that tick me off the most.
I hear ya. I had a laptop from work and it literally took 10 minutes to boot up, where as my mac pro seems to boot up in record time.

Windows is really bad at this, where as OSX (and class os be it OS 9 or 8, system 7 etc) seems to be very quick
Michael
     
Sherman Homan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 09:20 PM
 
Fastest launch I ever saw was a Mac II with an '030 card running System 6. It had 32 megs of ram because 32 was the most ram that anyone would ever need, ever. It would boot from cold dead off and launch Excel in less than 15 seconds. With the 24 bit graphics card and 21" monitor, it cost 15,000 American dollars...
     
slpdLoad
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 View Post
where as OSX (and class os be it OS 9 or 8, system 7 etc) seems to be very quick
The Intel transition made a huge difference in this respect. It's somewhere near reasonable now as long as you keep your login items to a minimum.
     
ShivaReborn
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by mac128k-1984 View Post
I hear ya. I had a laptop from work and it literally took 10 minutes to boot up, where as my mac pro seems to boot up in record time.

Windows is really bad at this, where as OSX (and class os be it OS 9 or 8, system 7 etc) seems to be very quick
True. Every windows machine I've used does this thing that's so freaking annoying: It loads the desktop, but you can't actually USE the desktop for another 10-30 seconds, because it's still loading crap. It just likes teaasing you, that you're almost there.
     
slpdLoad
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShivaReborn View Post
True. Every windows machine I've used does this thing that's so freaking annoying: It loads the desktop, but you can't actually USE the desktop for another 10-30 seconds, because it's still loading crap. It just likes teaasing you, that you're almost there.
My PowerBook does the same thing while I wait for it to load the menubar items and Quicksilver.
     
Oneota
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Urbandale, IA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 31, 2007, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sherman Homan View Post
Fastest launch I ever saw was a Mac II with an '030 card running System 6. It had 32 megs of ram because 32 was the most ram that anyone would ever need, ever. It would boot from cold dead off and launch Excel in less than 15 seconds. With the 24 bit graphics card and 21" monitor, it cost 15,000 American dollars...
I remember booting a Performa 575 running System 7.5.5 from a RAM disk. That was freaking cool.
"Yields a falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields a falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 12:08 PM
 
If someone could write some support libraries and actually hack System 7.1 onto a G5... I wonder how fast it would run?

Dark Castle at 2309872937507935 fps.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 12:28 PM
 
It would be fun to draw a comparison like that aimed to game systems.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 12:31 PM
 
I often wonder how much more I'd play some games if they weren't LOAD choose mode LOAD play LOAD results LOAD back to menu
     
olePigeon  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 01:21 PM
 
If you ask me, I think games were a lot more entertaining and inventive from the 80s and up through the mid 90s. Because of the limitations, the source code was often written a lot cleaner, faster, and better. The games also had to be ingenious to keep people interested in them given the limited amount of resources available for the game itself.

The original Ultimas (1-5), Bard's Tale and Dragonwars, Dark Castle, Pirates!; even little games like Bolo and Spindoctor were great.

Anyone remember Super Maze Wars? I saw the demo way-back-when my Dad got to go to Macworld for his company in like 92 or 93. There was a huge line of people waiting for their chance to play this game on an AppleTalk network of 6 LCs.

People were going NUTS over seeing another ship in the maze that was another person on a different computer.

Good times.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Lateralus
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 01:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShivaReborn View Post
I used to run OS9 on a dual 1.42ghz G4...
How? The FireWire 800 line (Dual 1.42 included) are incapable of booting into OS 9.
I like chicken
I like liver
Meow Mix, Meow Mix
Please de-liv-er
     
Oneota
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Urbandale, IA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
How? The FireWire 800 line (Dual 1.42 included) are incapable of booting into OS 9.
Maybe it was an upgraded processor?
"Yields a falsehood when preceded by its quotation" yields a falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
     
bradoesch
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dakarʒ View Post
I often wonder how much more I'd play some games if they weren't LOAD choose mode LOAD play LOAD results LOAD back to menu
What a pain. I have been playing PGA tour mode of Tiger Woods 07 for months now, and it's the same stupid 3 splash screens while loading, then a menu to choose PGA mode, then the next set of menus insists on highlighting each choice individually and blocks me from doing anything, then click calendar, then click the event. Then load level. Since the events all go in order why can't I have a shortcut to just resume my last played character's newest tournament?
     
Super Mario
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 1, 2007, 10:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by TheoCryst View Post
Amusing. It's pretty true, actually: the computing experience hasn't changed for the end user, other than being a little lighter, a little more colorful, and a lot more confusing. It's sad from a developer's standpoint to realize that in more than twenty years, nothing's changed. Word is still Word, Excel is still Excel, and computers take even longer to boot than they used to.
I hope that is sarcasm. I hope every comment in favor of the Mac Plus is sarcasm.
( Last edited by Super Mario; Jan 10, 2018 at 03:25 PM. )
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,