|
 |
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 17:16:20 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>> > The only way that the Amiga would outperform a P4 would be if you
>> > added some busy loops into the program to deliberately make it
>> > slower.
>
>> Just launch Microsoft Office - that'll add the requisite number of busy
>> loops.
>
>> (Mostly joking)
>
> I don't own it, but I'm pretty certain that if I launched MS Office,
> I would not notice any slowdown anywhere.
>
> Andrew's problem is that he's saying "I run program A on the Amiga and
> program B on the PC, and the former is more responsive than the latter."
>
> So what? That's like saying that rendering one frame of some CGI movie
> on a 1000-computer renderfarm using Maya takes 48 hours, while rendering
> some scene with POV-Ray on a 80486 takes 5 minutes. Does that mean that
> the 80486 or POV-Ray are faster than Maya on the 1000-computer
> renderfarm?
>
> If we are comparing, we should compare the *same thing*, not different
> things.
>
> For instance, let's see how fast the Amiga opens a 2048x1536 full color
> PNG image, applies some gaussian filter to it, and saves it back to PNG,
> and let's compare it to a PC.
You're assuming a lot about the environment though - my point (aside from
joking about it) was that Amiga generally didn't do a lot of multitasking
(though it was one of the early multitasking OSes IIRC), so it could
actually have a more responsive interface than modern systems that are
doing a lot more than an older system.
It's the complement to Moore's law (some call it May's Law).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
