The effect of bloatware: A 1986 Mac Plus beats a 2007 AMD dual-core PC

The effect of bloatware: A 1986 Mac Plus beats a 2007 AMD dual-core PC

Summary: In what is arguably the most hilarious--yet disconcerting--benchmark comparison ever Hal Licino at HubPages has compared a 1986 Mac Plus vs. a 2007 AMD dual-core PC and the antique Mac generally performed better.

SHARE:
74

In what is arguably the most hilarious--yet disconcerting--benchmark comparison ever Hal Licino at HubPages has compared a 1986 Mac Plus vs. a 2007 AMD dual-core PC and the antique Mac generally performed better.

The takeaway: Your operating system is obese. Really obese.

Licino's pits a Mac Plus running System 6.0.8 with 1 megabyte of RAM against a modern PC. Let's just say his 2007 PC needs a little more horsepower.

Licino writes in his post:

System 6.0.8 requires 1MB, Windows XP requires 1.5GB and Windows Vista 15GB. Yes, Vista needs 15,000 times the hard disk space as System 6.0.8.

System 6.0.8 is not only a lot more compact since it has far fewer (mostly useless) features and therefore less code to process, but also because it was written in assembly code instead of the higher level language C. The lower the level of the code language, the less processing cycles are required to get something done.

When it comes to the chips, the Mac Plus runs on a Motorola chip running at 8MHz. The AMD runs at 2.4 GHz. He splurged on the Mac Plus to give it 4MB of RAM--I used to own one of these Mac Plus systems and the figures Licino tosses around sound prehistoric.

Now before folks start yapping about whether this is a fair comparison, Licino outlines his methodology, which sounds pretty logical to me.

As for the results, here's Licino's money shot:

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 usable.

His point: Today's PCs are clearly better and can do more but bloat has killed any productivity gains. Lucino's post is a must read and the comments are a hoot too.

Topics: Apple, Hardware, Processors

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

74 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • We already knew this

    Programmers live and die to write code. New code must at some point begin to add features, services, and modules that are not primary to the mission of an Operating System. MS excels at adding features to the OS that really are not part of the core OS mission. This includes web browsing and multimedia not to mention DRM provisioning.

    I keep old hardware and software around because these older offerings do 95% of what XP or Vista do and, in many cases, do it faster. The newer equipment is for that 5% that the older stuff doesn't do as well, such as 3D design and modeling as well as video editing.
    jacarter3
    • Just Microsoft?

      OS X beats XP in bloat hands down and we've not seen Vista. Look at initial RAM usage on a current MAC compared to an XP machine. No contest. DRM? hmmm, isn't Apple the most notorious for use of DRM hardware in it's products? And multimedia? <br>
      What's funny is the comparison against the PC and not against OS X.
      xuniL_z
      • Introducing Ultra Sesnitive Lad....not much in the super powers

        relm but can find enemies where none exist and that is a power to be feared!!!

        Pagan jim
        Laff
        • But xuniL_z has a point

          If Microsoft does indeed take all it's ideas from Apple, then would he not be correct in his assertion that [i]all[/i] manufactures are to blame?
          GuidingLight
          • Still not sure how this got into an Apple VS MS thing....

            It's and old machine vs new machine issue. Old machine using an old OS vs a new
            machine using a newer OS. The hardware is clearly lined up so the older machine
            is slower than the new one by leaps and bounds in fact. So why is the older
            machine faster in some cases? It's the bloat that comes with a new OS. The OS
            takes much of the newer machines power just to do basic stuff. Just because one
            is a Mac and the other a AMD PC does not mean a thing and perhaps they should
            have used a 386 running Win3.1 or 95 or even DOS I don't know but the focus
            should be on bloat and all the extra's that have been put into the basic OS in the
            modern era and not on the old and worn Apple vs MS blank.

            Pagan jim
            Laff
          • You are the sensitive lad, be it more subtle.

            Every post you make seems calm, collected but you always see it making it's way...inching it's way till boom....it has to have or finish with a negative pitch. <br>
            As for your question, if a person is comparing an old Mac against a new machine, would it not make the most sense to use the newest version of the same machine? Otherwise it's apples and oranges. I suppose he could have used a modern cray and it would have been valid? See Jim, it makes little sense other than to try and paint the PC in a bad light. Don't worry, I'm not sensitive about that whatsoever. I've simply figured out that this site is all about doing that and it needs a few more on teh other side for balance is all. Afterall with an 85% to 10% anti-ms to just-ok-with-ms balance, they need more people. Sorry if it's not exactly to your liking. God forbid that.
            xuniL_z
          • What are you talking about?

            Laff said nothing negative.

            It is about personal computers not Personal computers and mainframes.

            It is about old systems and new systems. Yes, he could have compared a dual-CPU G5 with OS X v10.3 or a dual-core MaTel with OS X v 10.4 vs the old mac and Mac OS 6.x. He could have also used an IBM PC 386 with OS/2 v 2.0 vs a Dual-core dual-CPU Running Vista. The point is not the particular OS nor the platform. It is the bloatware. That was the point. Hate MS, Love Mac, Hate Motorola, Love Intel,... doesn't matter. Bloatware on home PCs is real.
            Logics
        • Inroducing Pagan Man.

          with powers to misspell almost every word he types. <br>
          Why do you say that anyway Jimbo? You my enemy? And I don't have a sensitive bone in my body. What gives you that impression, other than not being all that bright?
          xuniL_z
          • Not sensitive?

            Yeah right. Keep on believing that you don't throw a hissy on way too many posts. What makes you believe that anyone can believe you that you are not sensitive.
            zkiwi
          • Well, in some ways of course.

            i am sensitive. The chicks dig it. The ones looking for the macho guys are not worth it. They are all fakes. The most beautiful women are looking for a sensitive guy and I would know, being sensitive and all. <br><br>
            Now as for being sensitive toward things said, all i know is that ever since I started playing your own game and giving it back, you have shown a high degree of sensitivity in your replies. Are you the oldest child of a brood? You have all of the characteristics.
            xuniL_z
      • Get a life

        And yes, MS. Safari can be removed from OS-X and no browser is integral to Linux. Can you remove IE?

        No of course not.

        Sorry but the simple fact of life with MS is everything is intimately tied into the OS [b]by design[/b] in order to stifle competition and ruin their profitability until they go under.

        And don't bother replying with some lame response about how Apple does it more. No one believes that but you.
        jacarter3
        • Carter

          It's the 1995, MS controls the world bullshit that nobody wants to hear anymore. Except for those who just can't get over anything, or feel they are oppressed. poor baby. <br>
          I have a life thank you, a beautiful wife and children and live outside of IT. You on the otherhand are on a quest to fill a quota of MS is a big bully waaa waaaaa statements per day. <br>
          It must suck to live with that much hate in your heart Carter. <br> you used to have some tolerance and work as a true professional with what works best. Now you don't post w/o slamming somebody. And don't respond that that's all I do is slam or anything about my pathetic life. Just so sick of hearing that whining...that never ending whining about anti competitive behavior...blah blah freaking blah. It was a business move. Now Google is using it against Microsoft, in case you haven't followed the news. I'd bet Microsoft could take back that it's part of the OS and start licensing ie seperately right now, but they can't. So it was a long term bad move. And don't give me a face full of your sh*t and tell me what I can respond to or not. There is nobody in business that doesn't make moves just like that to solidify marketshare. ONly when viewed at a grand scale does it seem unethical to you cause you can't see the big picture...allthe players doing the same thing and getting away with it everyday.
          <br>
          NZ already provided links that prove IE can be removed and that Apple has it's own rendering engines used by Safari burned into the OS, so what is the difference? Is it enough to start crying about? You can no more remove Apple's core broswer engines than you can Microsoft's. That's the bottom line. Deal with it. <br>
          You don't like what I have to say then just keep your mouth shut and don't reply.
          xuniL_z
          • And Just Who . . . .

            Peed in your Post Toasties today?
            JLHenry
  • HAHAHAHA!!!!

    What a useless test! It does go to show everyone what some of us have known for a long time. Macs smoke PCs! (flame on).
    crash89
    • If he had compared to OS X Tiger

      The old machine would have smoked it worse. Not to mention the overbloated Leopard(Vista wannabe).
      xuniL_z
      • Whatever...

        It was meant to be funny, but I guess that is against your OS religion.
        crash89
        • Whatever....?

          And so was mine. YOu really think a grown man believes what I typed. calm down. It was meant in the same way yours was...right back at ya...k?
          xuniL_z
          • My bad

            I failed to see the sarcasm... My apologies.
            crash89
      • And you've been privy to Leopards performance?

        Somehow I tend to doubt it but I suppose you could be a beta tester and know
        something the rest of us don't.

        Pagan jim

        This isn't a Mac vs PC issue not a Windows vs OSX or an Itel vs AMD or Moto issue
        it's a big bloat vs little bloat issue. I've always said that back in the day I could run
        AppleWorld on an Apple IIe and with the proper setup ie load AppleWorks on a
        ram disk kick the living blank out of a state of the art PC and or Mac running MS
        Office any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
        Laff
        • No Jim.....i wasn't being serious man.

          you think that statement was meant as a serious factual statement? <br><br>
          But I had an Apple II series computer that I wrote a lot of code on with Applesoft Basic. (Of course Applesoft basic was licensed to Apple from Microsoft, but that's a whole other story you wouldn't be interested in). I loved that basic interpreter burned on a ROM chip on the Apples. And I had AppleWorks and actually liked it. However I didn't have a HD..i think you could get a 10 or 20MB disc for the Apple II series...i had the IIc and could only get the external drive...SLOW anyway....but i ran Apple works from 51/4 floppies and doing the floppy swap all the time. Seemed ok then...didn't know of anything else, so that 1MGhz processor was a screamer.
          xuniL_z