CPU Benchmarks, from 1995 CPUs to 2005 CPUs
Moderator: MaxCoderz Staff
-
- Calc Wizard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 4:00 am
- Location: My Computer/Someone else's computer
- Contact:
CPU Benchmarks, from 1995 CPUs to 2005 CPUs
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)
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)
"Not long ago, the Black Gate of Armonk swung open. The lights went out, my skin crawled, and dogs began to howl. I asked my neighbor what it was and he said, 'Those are the nazgul. Once they were human, now they are IBM's lawyers.'"
-
- MCF Legend
- Posts: 1601
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 8:45 am
- Location: Budapest, Absurdistan
- Contact:
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...
-
- Calc Master
- Posts: 1064
- Joined: Fri 17 Dec, 2004 3:22 pm
- Location: Probably playing DDR
- Contact:
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...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.
-
- Calc Wizard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 4:00 am
- Location: My Computer/Someone else's computer
- Contact:
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.
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.
"Not long ago, the Black Gate of Armonk swung open. The lights went out, my skin crawled, and dogs began to howl. I asked my neighbor what it was and he said, 'Those are the nazgul. Once they were human, now they are IBM's lawyers.'"
- tr1p1ea
- Maxcoderz Staff
- Posts: 4141
- Joined: Thu 16 Dec, 2004 10:06 pm
- Location: I cant seem to get out of this cryogenic chamber!
- Contact:
Also you must see what is happening. Microsoft could NOT care less about performance, all they care about is bringing in the $$$.
From a business perspective it would be against their interests to release an OS that would run fast and remain stable for 10 years ... because their annual sales would drop dramatically.
It really is a dirty trick, i have a feeling that there is all sorts of performance traps built into windows. Most likely stuff based on time, processor type, how long the OS has been installed etc.
From a business perspective it would be against their interests to release an OS that would run fast and remain stable for 10 years ... because their annual sales would drop dramatically.
It really is a dirty trick, i have a feeling that there is all sorts of performance traps built into windows. Most likely stuff based on time, processor type, how long the OS has been installed etc.
-
- Calc Wizard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 4:00 am
- Location: My Computer/Someone else's computer
- Contact:
Actually Ben does have a good reason there. I would keep in mind too that Windows has a LOT of hardware and software to support. But still I agree that it would be nice if Windows could actually support all those devices made for it. It's improving i'd say but Microsoft needs to pick it up at a faster pace.tr1p1ea wrote:Also you must see what is happening. Microsoft could NOT care less about performance, all they care about is bringing in the $$$.
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.
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..
"Not long ago, the Black Gate of Armonk swung open. The lights went out, my skin crawled, and dogs began to howl. I asked my neighbor what it was and he said, 'Those are the nazgul. Once they were human, now they are IBM's lawyers.'"
-
- Calc Wizard
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 4:00 am
- Location: My Computer/Someone else's computer
- Contact:
So I take it then, that the MacOS X and Windows XP are both evil platforms?
"Not long ago, the Black Gate of Armonk swung open. The lights went out, my skin crawled, and dogs began to howl. I asked my neighbor what it was and he said, 'Those are the nazgul. Once they were human, now they are IBM's lawyers.'"
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!).
[Gridwars Score] - E: 1860037 M: 716641 H: 261194