 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah yes, if you define the test criteria correctly, you can make anybody
win. ;-)
Back when the old Amiga was around, it used to amuse me to compare how a
16 MHz PC running Windoze 3 would crawl along compared to my dad's 4 MHz
Amiga. Not to mention that the Amiga had vastly superior graphics and
sound, and a true premptive multitasking operating system, and basically
a PC couldn't compare to it on any scale.
And then I discovered FractInt and POV-Ray, and the benefit of a 16 MHz
processor became apparent. ;-)
I still wonder though - what if people wrote code today like they used
to write it back then? How much more stuff could we get done? Even
Debian Linux *crawls* along on an Amiga, and everybody says how Linux is
much more efficient than Windoze. But clearly it's no match for AmigaOS,
so.....
This one amused me though:
"The lower the level of the code language, the less processing cycles
are required to get something done."
Obviously this is demonstratably false.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:32:12 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>This one amused me though:
>
>"The lower the level of the code language, the less processing cycles
>are required to get something done."
>
>Obviously this is demonstratably false.
Is it? Please explain. Depending on the optimization capabilities of the compiler
(or interpreter), and the capabilities of the programmer, it can definitely be true.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 18:32:12 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>> This one amused me though:
>>
>> "The lower the level of the code language, the less processing cycles
>> are required to get something done."
>>
>> Obviously this is demonstratably false.
>
> Is it? Please explain. Depending on the optimization capabilities of the compiler
(or interpreter), and the capabilities of the programmer, it can definitely be true.
>
That's just it, isn't it? It *can* be true - which implies that it *can*
be false as well.
I'm not going to argue that it *tends* to be true - I'm just saying that
it is *not* absolutely true as the statement quoted implies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fa3ien wrote:
> http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
"""
Let's go back to the dawn of personal computing and grab an old
sentimental favorite, the Apple Macintosh Plus.
"""
Wow, I feel old. :-) Even if you're going to claim Apple created
personal computing, you could at least go back to the "dawn" of the
Apple ][.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> "The lower the level of the code language, the less processing cycles
> are required to get something done."
>
> Obviously this is demonstratably false.
It is more precise to say that the lower the level of the code language,
the more closely optimum performance can be achieved on a specific
hardware platform.
But the payoff for most applications isn't worth the increased
expenditure of brain calories, which is why I no longer program in
assembler.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Wow, I feel old. :-) Even if you're going to claim Apple created
> personal computing, you could at least go back to the "dawn" of the
> Apple ][.
What surprises me is the assertion that it was "ubiquitus".
I am almost 30 years old and I have *never* ever seen a real live Mac in
my life...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
470a2019$1@news.povray.org...
> http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
From the article:
"Most users use relatively small spreadsheets so we used a 640 filled-cell
format."
"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".
Now that's research. Here's a few other ones:
- Most people don't have to go faster than 5 km/h, so our donkey vs car
comparison shows that the massive advance in technology in the past century
have brought zero advance in transportation.
- Most people don't expect to live past 30, so our voodoo vs medicine
comparison show that the massive advance in technology in the two past
centuries have brought zero advance in healthcare.
- Keep your expectations as low as possible and you'll always be happy.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> It is more precise to say that the lower the level of the code language,
> the more closely optimum performance can be achieved on a specific
> hardware platform.
I think that's only true in theory. As in, "anything a computer can
calculate, a human can calculate too", except that humans make mistakes
and get bored and can't think fast enough to actually finish the
calculation before the fly-by-wire unstable jet aircraft plows into the
mountainside.
Humans are notoriously bad at guessing where the time in their programs
go, and notoriously bad at keeping track of things like whether the
value in R147 is going to be needed before the value in R93 is.
And if a compiler already generates optimum code, you obviously can't
improve on it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Remember the good old days, when we
used to complain about cryptography
being export-restricted?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:18:57 +0200, Fa3ien wrote:
> http://hubpages.com/hub/
_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins
Well, they started out by crippling the poor AMD system with
Vista....They don't seem to say whether they tested with the 32-bit
version of Vista or the 64-bit version (the latter of which is apparently
notoriously bad, so much so that HP shipped the 32-bit version on my 64-
bit system).
But lots of bad assumptions in that article, overall...
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
