CPU Benchmarks, from 1995 CPUs to 2005 CPUs

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 1:39 am

http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041220/index.html
http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041221/index.html
take a look. VERY interesting read... a well made CPU chart

(Note: If you just wanna see benchmarks, click on the 2nd link)

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 8:21 am

That's what I'm always saying. Here's the proof that there's a performance increase of two orders of magnitude, and we still have the same unresponsive UIs...

coelurus · Post by **coelurus** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 10:47 am

Things get easier to develop -> developes get lazy. "When CPUs get better, we can make a maintainability/performance trade-off." Not a good thing when everybody thinks that way.

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 10:56 am

Unfortunately, I don't see increased stability or software quality in general in return for the lost performance. That's not a tradeoff, I'd rather call it deterioration. Everyone is talking about increased software complexity, but that's simply not true. Desktop applications haven't become 100 times more complex, yet they are just as buggy despite the increased (?) ease of development. A topic worth a thousand rants...

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 12:19 pm

Im afraid i have to agree with CoBB on that one

.

leofox · Post by **leofox** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 3:20 pm

coelurus wrote:Things get easier to develop -> developes get lazy. "When CPUs get better, we can make a maintainability/performance trade-off." Not a good thing when everybody thinks that way.

you're right, would any calc programmer even dare to release a program as slow as most computer menu's? An example: i had a program that took 30 seconds to open the 'open file' menu. Ion or MOS, or any other shell is WAAAY faster, even though the computer program had a 200 times faster processor...

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 8:06 pm

I will have to agree with CoBB especially on Windows. The retiring of the old DOS based Windows was long overdue and so is Windows NT.
They are having trouble with programming Longhorn, since SP2 incorporates Longhorn Technology they started earlier before with SP2. It was built from XP before they decided to build it on SP2.
I think NT is being too overused. I tihnk it's time Microsoft made a new OS core for their next next gen Windows... NT is "decent" but ... there needs to be a stopping point.

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 1:57 am

Also you must see what is happening. Microsoft could NOT care less about performance, all they care about is bringing in the $$$.

From a business perspective it would be against their interests to release an OS that would run fast and remain stable for 10 years ... because their annual sales would drop dramatically.

It really is a dirty trick, i have a feeling that there is all sorts of performance traps built into windows. Most likely stuff based on time, processor type, how long the OS has been installed etc.

Post by **benryves** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 3:21 am

There are a number of reasons why Windows slows down. As long as you prune it from time to time and keep it clean, you can have Windows running for a good long time.
In fact, we've had a machine running Windows 95 since 1994 and only just got rid of it

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 3:36 am

tr1p1ea wrote:Also you must see what is happening. Microsoft could NOT care less about performance, all they care about is bringing in the $$$.

From a business perspective it would be against their interests to release an OS that would run fast and remain stable for 10 years ... because their annual sales would drop dramatically.

It really is a dirty trick, i have a feeling that there is all sorts of performance traps built into windows. Most likely stuff based on time, processor type, how long the OS has been installed etc.

Actually Ben does have a good reason there. I would keep in mind too that Windows has a LOT of hardware and software to support. But still I agree that it would be nice if Windows could actually support all those devices made for it. It's improving i'd say but Microsoft needs to pick it up at a faster pace.
Also, Windows isn't stable so people buy it hoping it would be more stable. Is stability all that matters now? I think it's the features in the OS that counts... if only M$ got that..

CoBB · Post by **CoBB** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 6:24 am

Features of the OS? The OS should do nothing more than provide a stable and robust base platform for running programs, storing data and providing an interface to the hardware. The rest should be separable and replaceable.

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 6:37 am

So I take it then, that the MacOS X and Windows XP are both evil platforms?

Post by **DarkAuron** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 7:27 am

Anything that was produced mostly from greed instead of compassion is evil. We the calc programmers aren't capable of having greed, except maybe fame.. but we sure as hell aren't getting paid to do this stuff; we do it for FUN! Microsoft does it for money it doesn't really need (rich !@#$!$s!).

Post by **kv83** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 7:40 am

strangely, I got yesterday a conversation over getting money for our games, and we agreed that it would be nice, since we have so high rents to pay

so I wouldn't mind

Post by **tr1p1ea** » Mon 14 Feb, 2005 8:56 am

I cant imagine charging for a calc game O_o.