Silliest Computer Comparison Ever: 1986 Mac Plus Versus 2007 AMD Dual-Core

[Lemur]

This one (http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins) actually had me laughing. Due to OS bloat, the 2007 machine doesn't come off too well on everyday tasks ...


Check out the results! For the functions that people use most often, the 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to 8! Out of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53% of the time! Including a jaw-dropping 52 second whipping of the AMD from the time the Power button is pushed to the time the Desktop is up and useable.

We also didn't want to overly embarrass the AMD by comparing the time it takes to install the OS vs. the old Mac. The Mac's average of about a minute is dwarfed by the approximately one hour install time of Windows XP Pro.

Is this to say that the Mac Plus is a better computer than the AMD? Of course not. The technological advancements of 21 years have placed modern PCs in a completely different league of varied capacities. But the "User Experience" has not changed much in two decades. Due to bloated code that has to incorporate hundreds of functions that average users don't even know exist, let alone ever utilize, the software companies have weighed down our PCs to effectively neutralize their vast speed advantages. When we compare strictly common, everyday, basic user tasks between the Mac Plus and the AMD we find remarkable similarities in overall speed, thus 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.

And that's just plain crazy.

[Spino]

This one (http://hubpages.com/hub/_86_Mac_Plus_Vs_07_AMD_DualCore_You_Wont_Believe_Who_Wins) actually had me laughing. Due to OS bloat, the 2007 machine doesn't come off too well on everyday tasks ...


Check out the results! For the functions that people use most often, the 1986 vintage Mac Plus beats the 2007 AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+: 9 tests to 8! Out of the 17 tests, the antique Mac won 53% of the time! Including a jaw-dropping 52 second whipping of the AMD from the time the Power button is pushed to the time the Desktop is up and useable.

We also didn't want to overly embarrass the AMD by comparing the time it takes to install the OS vs. the old Mac. The Mac's average of about a minute is dwarfed by the approximately one hour install time of Windows XP Pro.

Is this to say that the Mac Plus is a better computer than the AMD? Of course not. The technological advancements of 21 years have placed modern PCs in a completely different league of varied capacities. But the "User Experience" has not changed much in two decades. Due to bloated code that has to incorporate hundreds of functions that average users don't even know exist, let alone ever utilize, the software companies have weighed down our PCs to effectively neutralize their vast speed advantages. When we compare strictly common, everyday, basic user tasks between the Mac Plus and the AMD we find remarkable similarities in overall speed, thus 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.

And that's just plain crazy.

Funny article and not surprising at all. Nothing challenges a designer, engineer or programmer more than forcing them to 'get more out of less'. The obscene amounts of processing power, memory and storage space available on the average user's computer may not stifle creativity but it certainly doesn't help it, especially when it comes to efficiency.

Anti-Mac rant in 3, 2, 1....

Mac Plus... bah! In 1988 my Amiga 500 used to boot up lickety split thanks to the Kickstart OS integrated into the onboard ROM chip. Workbench, the Amiga's GUI that offered Windows style functionality, took a wee bit longer to boot since it was read off a floppy but its boot time was about the same as the Mac Plus. A buddy of mine had a Mac Plus in college and while the Mac was a marvel of design efficiency in terms of performance there was no contest between the two, the Amiga positively put it to shame. The Amiga had specialized chips for sound, graphics, etc., all of which took a huge load off the Motorola 68000 CPU. The Amiga also sported a DMA architecture which further cemented its revolutionary design. The Amiga was so far ahead of the competition it wasn't funny. The problem was the Amiga was bought by Commodore who, by that time, really knew how to ruin a great platform. Sometimes I wonder where the computer industry would be right now had the Amiga's potential not been stifled by Commodore.

I miss my Amiga... :sad:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow Amiga.. I havent heard that name in a while. I remember it was sopposed to be the next big thing after thier success with the 64. Supposedly the best graphics machine of its time. Man did I want one of those you lucky dog.

http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/amiga500/system2.jpg
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/amiga500/edge1.jpg
http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/amiga500/amonitor.jpg


What's the coolest personal computer in the world. For my money, it's the Amiga. The Amiga 500 followed the Amiga 1000. It was an all-in-one unit targeted towards the home market. Why were Amigas so cool? Here's why:
Operating System

The Amiga utilized both a graphical interface, and a command line. (A little like having an xterm window open in X Windows.) You could perform most tasks from the graphical interface, but the command line was available to those who liked it. The startup scripts on most Amigas I've seen set up a small command line window at the bottom of the screen. It combined the best of both worlds. Plus you got long filenames.
Graphics

The Amiga excelled at graphics. You had numerous resolutions from which to pick namely:

* 320 x 200
* 320 x 400 (using interlacing)
* 640 x 200
* 640 x 400 (using interlacing)

The low resolution modes (320 x whatever) were good if you had to use a TV as your display device. The high resolution modes worked great with the Amiga monitor. The interlaced modes tended to flicker quite a bit, but that's the price you pay. You could buy additional hardware that would eliminate the flicker.

You also had numerous color depths. You could have anywhere from 2 to 16 colors (from a palette of 4096) in any of the resolutions. In the low resolution modes, your could also have 32 colors.

Additionally, there were two special modes available in low resolution modes. One was called Half-Brite mode. It gave you 64 colors, with a catch. You got to pick 32 colors, and 32 more were created that were half as bright as the 32 you chose. It sounds weird, but was great for games with drop shadows.

The other special mode was called Hold And Modify, or HAM for short. HAM mode let you have all 4096 colors on the screen at once. It performed this trick by creating a 16 color palette. A pixel could be one of those 16 colors, or it could copy two color values from the pixel to its left and define the third color. For example, a pixel could copy the red and green values from its neighbor to the left, and define its own blue value. This let you have all 4096 colors, but limited which colors could be next to each other. Plus, changing one pixel could potentially change the color of every pixel to the right of it. Despite these limitations, HAM mode screen could be gorgeous, for beyond what either IBM or Mac machines could do. HAM mode was used mainly for still screens, but a few games actually utilized it.

The Amiga also had other graphics features. A stock Amiga 500 could output an RGB signal, or a monochrome composite video signal. The 520 adapter allowed it to also output color composite video and even an RF signal.

The AmiGen genlock would let you superimpose computer graphics over a live video signal. The video feed would replace the background color on the screen. This lets you add titles to video and do a host of other neat things.

You could also capture still shots from a video source. Digi-View, one such product, captured monochrome graphics from a standard composite video source. It came with red, green, and blue filters. You would take three separate captures, one through each filter, plus one with no filter, for luminance values. Then the software would combine the 4 images into one glorious HAM screen. (You could also take red and blue captures from two different angles and make your own 3-D images.)
Sound

The Amiga also had great sound capabilities. It used digital sound, through 4 separate channels. (Does your Sound Blaster have 4 separate digital channels? I didn't think so.) The sound was pumped through two audio outputs, with 2 channels assigned to each one. This let the Amiga produce true stereo sound.

Amiga music packages used digitized instruments for their sound. There were programs that let you create your own instruments by digitizing a sample and setting looping points within the sample. The final output was stunning. (Still is!)

Digitizers, like Perfect Sound, let you record your own samples. Perfect Sound had dual inputs, which let you directly record in stereo.
Other Stuff

Amiga hard drives just plugged into the side of the machine. Some had a switch on top that let you easily switch between booting from the hard drive and booting from floppy. The Amiga OS let you do a sort of symbolic link that would allow you to run software designed for floppies off the hard drive.

Amigas could also read 3½" IBM floppies and high density Mac floppies. Memory expansion took the form of a wedge shaped unit that fit into a cavity on the underside.

Software is still being written for the Amiga. The best source for Amiga software is at Aminet. Amigas are capable of surfing the net, and since they can read other systems' disks, it's not that hard to get them set up for it.
* Joystick 1 (standard Commodore joysticks)
* Joystick 2
* Audio Out - Right channels
* Audio Out - Left channels
* External Disk Drive Port
* Serial Port (standard RS-232)
* Parallel Port (audio and video digitizers plug in here)
* Power
* RGB Video Out (520 converter and genlocks plug in here)
* Monochrome Composite Video Out:


LINK (http://www.obsoletecomputermuseum.org/amiga500/)

[Gregoshi]

I had an Amiga 1000. It really was a great machine. As Spino said, Commodore really blew it. It was most likely the amazing success of the C-64 that did in the Amiga as Commodore probably figured they didn't have to do any advertising to break into the business world. Even when they did try to advertise, it was just lame, lame, lame. The Amiga technology has been bought and sold a couple of time over the years, with grand plans to re-introduce it, but I've never seen anything other than words about its return. R.I.P. Amiga my friend. :shame:

[Lemur]

You guys are making me feel like a whelp. By the time I was able to afford my first computer, the Amiga was well on its way to oblivion. They hung around, though, for years at video houses ...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

R.I.P. Amiga my friend

I wouldnt bury the Amiga just yet

Look at all the stuff still coming out for it here (http://aminet.net/)

Truly a machine ahead of its time.

Heres (http://cgi.ebay.com/Amiga-500-Computer_W0QQitemZ180123469696QQihZ008QQcategoryZ4598QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)
one for sale right close to me. High bid is currently only $122

[Slug For A Butt]

You know, I think I've still got an Amiga 500 kicking around in the darkest recesses of my mothers house along with a couple of C64's (1541 disk drive no less!) and a Spectrum 48k with Kempston.
I'd forgotten all about them until now. May have to dig them out and see what still works, man they'd make for a great boozy boys night in (anyone remember MatchDay 2 ?). :balloon2:

[doc_bean]

My first computer was a Commodore 64, I've had two Amiga's I believe, then moved on to a 486...

Those where the days !

[Gawain of Orkeny]

The C-64 is still my favorite pc of all time :help:

Why dont other companies put a cartridge. slot on their pcs? In the old days they all did.

[Whacker]

You guys are making me feel like a whelp. By the time I was able to afford my first computer, the Amiga was well on its way to oblivion. They hung around, though, for years at video houses ...

Pfft, my first foray into the world of PC's was with my dad's insanely expensive 286's at his store. Our first home PC was a Apple IIe that I was never really fond of, our 2nd and the one that really got me interested was our Compuadd 386 with DOS 4.0 and Windows 2.0. Don't feel so old. :no:

[Papewaio]

Amiga has been reincarnated btw... http://www.amiga.com/

[Stuperman]

I'm a little disapointed at the lack of specifics in the tests (how many word were counted/pasted/copied, ect..) and how one computer is Identified by the Brand (Mac) and another by the CPU (AMD). Why not Mac vs Dell, or Motorola vs AMD, as for the one boots way faster than the other, Does the Mac even have a HDD?

If it is a re-load-the-OS-every-time-you-boot system then of course the mac boots faster.

[Lemur]

I'm a little disapointed at the lack of specifics in the tests
Um, yeah, but it's a silly computer comparison. If you're not giggling, then you didn't get the point.

[Stuperman]

Um, yeah, but it's a silly computer comparison. If you're not giggling, then you didn't get the point.

I suppose, ~:)