The Acorn BBC Micros you used at school were all 6502 based and without any coprocessor. The ARM1 coprocessor was never a commercial product (if I remember correctly). The first ARM2 processor that most of saw or used was in the Archimedes.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Vs. M1 shock
- Thread starter MacLawyer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe I'm just old now and can't remember the year!Ha. I was experimenting with RAM drives on my 512ke Mac in 1986. I added an internal memory board hack that increased RAM to a whopping 2 MB. I could allocate a whole floppy sized RAM disk of 800k and it was so fast...
Was fun though when those files would load blazingly fast and we'd say, "why can't we make this happen..." If we had only known...
Well no, I had an excel database with like 10,000 formulas/cells in 20 sheets in 1 workbook in 1993 and it took an hour to open the xls, and then today, it can open in 45-60 seconds so a hmm IDK (but I do)...
¯\(°_o)/¯
A bit of an extreme example (27 years) and you should have bought the Quadra with the co-processor not the Centris ;-) . I have a few import procedures that currently make millions of string comparisons and when the software runs I should be delighted by the speed. I remember rotating pictures at the same time and leaving them for hours.
But as many use computers today – to communicate, as we are doing, 1 or 10 years old doesn't really matter and OS/Security obsolescence appears needed to keep the industry going. I mentioned Word 5.1 as a bit of a joke - many used to rave about it long after OS9 had gone.
The great power of much faster chips will be that things such as more accurate speech to text, understanding and predicting workflows and the like will be possible. That rather than the speed in itself, will be most revolutionary for most.
No, you're still looking at current technology. Just because Apple is changing the chip game somewhat with Apple Silicon and M1 doesn't mean the technology you have is any less current. It's just not the best that's out there (hence Apple making this switch).
Considering that you are most likely a general email/web/office user your speed improvements come from SSD that is double the speed of the previous one found in Intel model. Shared memory can't be a good thing for anyone that uses GPU extensively in their workflow but once again none of MBA or vanilla MBP users are into that anyway so they might fall for everything is faster with unified memory but in their user workflow that is not even noticeable cause it doesn't make an impact.
TRUE, it was an LCII that work got me, and I had an 840av at home that I b(r)ought the spreadsheet home to REALLY work on, LOL! But at work I had to take smoke breaks while that loaded... Hey buy me a faster computer! Then they eventually got me a 950 with A/UX haha...
I stand by what I wrote. I have (had, it's my daughter's now) a 2010 MBP. Basically the same tech except for the retina screen: Intel processor, separate graphics, non-shared memory, and lots of latency because everything is on bus.
As far as I can see, the upgrade from 2010 is the SSD. Otherwise same design theory.
I had no idea that flushable toilets go back that far.
You're forgetting new buses such as thunderbolt and usb3, faster memory, many more cores, better integrated GPU, CPU support for things like AES encryption and h.264 video, enhanced virtualisation support, etc.
You may as well be comparing a car from 1990 to one from 2020. Yeah they both have wheels and an internal combustion engine but...
...you mean you don't know how to use the 3 shells?
Demolition Man: How Do The Three Seashells Actually Work?
Here's how the Three Seashells method works.
Microsoft provides OS support for as long as most Linux distros/vendors. Whilst technically possible, realistically an enterprise is not going to put the time into back-porting security updates for EOL Linux deployments.
Isn't "separate graphics, everything on bus" the tech that the Commodore 64 used?
I had a 24Kb (!) RAM disk on my Commodore 64!
But about the two things above, for me, the retina screen and SSDs are the top innovations of the last 10 years. I also enjoy my Bluetooth headset (Beyerdynamic Lagoon), though it's a bit large and without cable, it will drop instead of dangle off a cable.
Old tech! A sewer was known in the stone age, as in Skara Brae in Scotland (according to my guide when I toured there). I refuse to buy any Apple stuff that can't beat 3000 year old tech!
? I misinterpreted what you meant. But if you think about it like that, macOS is the worst offender - once they make a machine obsolete you basically have to turn it into a hackintosh to run the latest OS. Windows won't prevent the installation, you're more likely to have performance issues than a lack of legacy drivers.
But yes, Linux is by far the best in this regard, especially the plethora of distros purpose built for a minimal performance footprint on legacy hardware.