Earlier Performance Beasts

[dingdongbubble]

The rate of development of computer hardware nowadays is very fascinating. A Mac Mini should equal in performance to a PowerMac G5.

But with this development, I cant really see a noticeable difference of productive output. I mean people did video editing 5 years ago and those computers from 5 years ago are only good for basic tasks today. People used to use Dreamweaver on G3s but today to use Dreamweaver you need a good computer.

Is this software and hardware development actually bringing out much more productivity proportional to the much higher performance from CPUs and much higher RAM capacities etc?

Why is it that previous generation performance beats are capable of carrying out only basic tasks? Did the people not edit documents and browse the web earlier? I am sure most people did and they did not buy performance beasts do that.

Wouldnt it be great if I only used old programs on old cheap hardware? Or would doing that be a big hit on my productivity?

Computers seem to get noticeably faster and faster with more capacities but the output that we as normal people/consumers improves very little or it is not noticeable.

Your thoughts?

 

[dingdongbubble]

Maybe I will go to the past and start using cheap hardware and old software and ossibly get the same results!

Doesnt anyone get frustrated because of this?

The good thing is that not all hardware gets outdated quickly. Like sound cards and speakers and printers other wise I would have diabetes

 

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have two opinions:

1. Technology becomes outdated quickly, but looking at productivity in such a vague way sense seems foolish. I think that adding more power to the equation allows developers to push their applications to the next level, often times increasing productivity. Think video editing, coverflow, expose, and dashboard. These technologies couldn't have worked the same way only a few years ago.

2. I think you should read the Forum Rules. Posting four sequential posts is a quick way to get yourself in trouble.

 

[dingdongbubble]

......

Darn thts the secon time I have been warned about forum rules. I am sorry again.

 

[Shadow]

Its the nature of the computer industry. People are more interested in pure power, rather than how they utilize the power they already have. I have an AMD K6 233MHz sitting on my desk which used to be top-of-the-range, but now it can't really do anything useful. It wont run XP cos its only got 32MB RAM (one of the 2 sticks died, but I'm buying more ), and Linux is too rough around the edges to use (DSL, Puppy, etc-Ubuntu wont run).

Some people need massive ammounts of computing power to full their iEgos-but TBH most people coul survive with only 512MB RAM and a G4 (not everyone, but the majority could-consumers dont need an octo Xeon Mac Pro just to surf the web).

 

[Chaszmyr]

In response to video editing: Video editing on slow computers always sucked. In fact, brand new bleeding edge 8-core machines are still slow for a lot of things, including video encoding. In that regard, it was never good and it is becoming more tolerable. Faster computers do gain you something with video editing though. For example, new computers allow real time editing, which actually does help improve productivity a lot.

In response to Dreamweaver: Who says you need a good computer to use Dreamweaver today? Any new computer Apple sells is more than capable of runnning Dreamweaver efficiently. Sure, you can't run it on a G3 these days, new features have been added, it does still run on G4s though.

About computing in general: I think if you use old computers and new computers you'll find that not only has performance for specific tasks been improved a lot, but the whole computing experience has been streamlined, and the technologies that make that possible depend on newer hardware.

 

[disconap]

The rate of development of computer hardware nowadays is very fascinating. A Mac Mini should equal in performance to a PowerMac G5.

Depends; mine can outperform my associate's new mini. But then I've built up mine to that point; stock it would probably lose, or at least equal performance. I'm curious to see what effect Leopard has on that (intel vs. ppc)...

But with this development, I cant really see a noticeable difference of productive output. I mean people did video editing 5 years ago and those computers from 5 years ago are only good for basic tasks today. People used to use Dreamweaver on G3s but today to use Dreamweaver you need a good computer.

That all depends. We use a G3 for audio recording, and it works just as well now as it did five years ago (better, actually, since we've been able to add new tech to it). We run it in OS9 and use Cubase 5. Records just as well as a modern intel mac running protools. Audio doesn't change that much, though we do do editing on a different machine.

A machine that ran well with a task five years ago will run just as well now running the same task. Newer software has newer demands; older software has the same demands it always did. It's the project that matters; if you need something cut in hi-def, then you need it cut in hi-def and need a machine that can do so. If you're editing super-8 film, than the same machine you used in the 90s to do so will still work just as well.

Is this software and hardware development actually bringing out much more productivity proportional to the much higher performance from CPUs and much higher RAM capacities etc?

Again it depends on your specs, but in general yes, it is running things faster and more efficiently with fewer errors.

Why is it that previous generation performance beats are capable of carrying out only basic tasks? Did the people not edit documents and browse the web earlier? I am sure most people did and they did not buy performance beasts do that.

Yes, but we rarely did it at the same time. I remember working for a pre-press (design and layout firm for textbook publishers), and when, for example, archiving, the machine pretty much had to be dedicated, as network information leading in and out could corrupt your archives. Things like that are definitely improvements; after all this time, I still feel weird browsing the web while burning a dvd, even though I logically know that my machine can handle it with no problem...

Wouldnt it be great if I only used old programs on old cheap hardware? Or would doing that be a big hit on my productivity?

Depends what you do. I have an old performa that runs Linux, and it's great for email, database entry, and inventory. I wouldn't try loading Myspace on it, though.

Computers seem to get noticeably faster and faster with more capacities but the output that we as normal people/consumers improves very little or it is not noticeable.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you notice the slowdown. The code grows every year, everywhere; web pages never used to contain more than a few k; now the ads alone are hundreds of k, before you even start loading the page. We have older machines in the office, some G3 imacs, that are noticeably slower, but still just as usable. I also notice when my machine lags, and I was just thinking the other day how I was pissed as CS2 for taking a whole 4 seconds to load, when PS7 used to take like 10 or so on my barebones G4. We grow more impatient with our tech in a similar proportion to its development...