> Fa3ien <fab### [at] yourshoesskynetbe> wrote:
>> http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
> 
>   Why is the article called "86 Mac Plus Vs. 07 AMD DualCore" when it's
> comparing the System 6 OS with Windows Vista? It's continuously comparing
> how much memory the OSes require, how much memory their applications
> require, how much time it requires for the OS to boot, as well as how
> much time it require for their applications.
>   It's definitely comparing operating systems, not computers. Then why
> is it named as a comparison between two computers?
> 
>   Want to compare something which regular people would be expected to
> want to do with their computers? How about this:
> 
>   You own a cheap 5-megapixel digital camera with a 1GB memory card,
> and you have taken a couple of dozens of full-resolution photos with it.
> Because you are concerned with how the camera itself would compress the
> photos as JPG, you have set up the camera to store then in TGA format
> instead.
>   Now you want to upload these images to the computer, make some adjustments
> to them (such as gamma correction, cropping, etc) and save them in JPEG
> format. After that you want to select the best ones and put them up in
> your webpage. (Naturally you want to check with several browsers that the
> webpage looks ok.)
> 
>   So, Windows Vista, in a dualcore AMD, vs. Mac Plus. Which one does this
> faster?
> 
>   Oh, you can't? Oops!
> 
>   Even taking one single step from that process: Applying some gamma
> correction to a 5-megapixel image. Even if the Mac Plus was able to do
> that, which computer would do it faster?
> 

Nice to see everybody missing the point. From a comment: "for a 
*sizeable* number of 'basic everyday' functions the computing paradigm 
has not improved at all in over two decades".

I agree, the title is totally wrong. It's comparing operating systems 
and software bloat, not processors. The point is: the AMD is thousands 
of times faster, yet it doesn't feel a thousand times faster because the 
OS is a thousand times more bloated.

And by the way: It's using Windows XP, not Vista.

Post a reply to this message