6 ms·
2000 iMac compared to the 2010 iPhone
- thunk 16y agoYou even had to run unapproved software on the 2000 iMac! How far we've come.
- henning 16y agoFruityLoops and Reason compete with Garage Band too closely, application denied. Firefox competes with Safari, application delayed and then withdrawn...
- superjohan 16y agoYes, it is a damn shame that Apple imposes its crazy App Store rules on the Mac as well. (I get what you're trying to say, but that's hardly the point of the post)
- superjohan 16y agoDownvotes? Uh, okay.
- martythemaniak 16y agoWhich led to terrible things like being able to run Flash on it, if you wanted to.
- InfinityX0 16y agoHopefully in 2010 we can do this comparison with our physiological selves and be amazed - the technology leaps don't even wow me anymore. You can call me spoiled.
- zavulon 16y agoVery soon we won't need computers at all, just chips implanted in our skulls.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- thought_alarm 16y ago1990: Mac LC - $2400 - Mac OS System 6 - Motorola 68020 @ 16 MHz - 40 MB Hard Drive - 2 to 10 MB RAM - 256 kB Graphics Memory 1980: Apple /// - $7800 - Apple SOS - Synertec 6502A @ 2 MHz - 140 kB 5.25" floppy disk - 128 kB RAM
- pvg 16y agoThe Apple /// is a bit misleading - the typical entry-level Apple computer in 1980 was an Apple ][+, at about half the specs (memory and CPU performance) and a cost of around $2k, with the monitor and floppy drive thrown in.
- petercooper 16y agoTaking another stride forward, your brain implant in 2020 will, then, be faster than an i7, have 16GB of RAM, 2TB of storage, and be able to re-render the whole of Toy Story 3 in 10 minutes. Somehow, that doesn't even sound surprising to me anymore.
- Metalan 16y agoWhat numbers did you base yourself on for the Toy Story claim? I'm curious.
- petercooper 16y agoThat's the one piece I pulled out of my ass to conclude with a bit of hyperbole :-) I doubt a 2010 PC could render Toy Story 3 in a year if things are similar now to how they were with Toy Story 1 in 1995. I'd also be curious to see how modern PCs would cope with Toy Story 1 though.. [Update: If it helps rescue me, I found a page about the difference between rendering TS1 and TS3 in their respective times: http://watchingapple.com/2009/09/pixars-blistering-rendering-speed-for-toy-story-3d/ http://watchingapple.com/2009/09/pixars-blistering-rendering... It turns out the original Toy Story took an hour per frame to render, whereas Toy Story 3 can render in real-time (or 24fps, at least.) Given that's probably on a server farm, my claim is still hyperbole, unless you expect cloud processing to be mainstream on all devices by then ;-)]
- kinetik 16y agoThe Wired article claims that the average render time is seven hours per frame: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/process_pixar/all/1 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/process_pixar/all/1 Assuming a single machine (which is obviously not true, but I can't find any details about the size of the render farm), that'd mean the entire film would take something like two hundred and thirty seven years to render. Also, note that the WSJ article you linked to is talking about Toy Story 3D which is a re-rendering of the original film in stereoscopic 3D.
- 16y ago
- barmstrong 16y agoRay Kurzweil was right!
- borism 16y agoperhaps you meant Gordon Moore?
- cstross 16y agoApropos the prognostications about circa-2020 brain implants, when I was a twenty-something, back in the mid-1980s, I read Neuromancer. And I wanted to be the first guy on my block to have a cyberspace jack in his skull. Now I am middle-aged and cynical and slightly chewed-up by the dot-com 1.0 startup experience, I want to be the first guy on my block to have, for a brain implant ... a firewall! (One lesson I've drawn from 20 years of reading comp.risks is that the closer we integrate software into our lives, the deadlier the consequences of security exploits. Also? The exploit may be transient but the fallout from it can potentially last for a lifetime.)
- adw 16y agoThe guys behind it'll be the dealers. And given their record - basically-irreversible Parkinsonism from one tainted shot of a designer drug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPPP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPPP, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPTP), you first.
- modeless 16y agoDon't forget: GPS, accelerometer, gyroscope, microphone, second microphone, still/video camera, second still/video camera, flash/light, touchscreen, proximity sensor, light sensor, and to top it all off an internal battery with a minimum life of 6 hours.
- borism 16y agoCrazy to think my $200 phone is now more powerful than my $1200 desktop Mac was only ten years ago. same old fallacy again. iPhone total cost is much more than $1200.
- derefr 16y agoYour statement is more fallacious: the iPod Touch has the same hardware, but a TCO exactly equivalent to its retail price. Similarly, you could buy an unlocked iPhone and then just turn off the 3G radio. It would still be strictly more powerful.
- cabacon 16y agoTo pick nits, the iPod touch lacks the camera and GPS. An unlocked iPhone is more expensive than a locked iPhone. None of that makes the grandparent post correct, but it does bear pointing out that your alternatives are either inferior or cost more than $200.
- borism 16y agodo you pirate all software to your iPod touch? also please let me know when I can edit video and likes on it
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- ekanes 16y agoNo matter what phone you use, you have to pay a monthly fee to use it... If you buy the hardware alone, it's less than $1200.
- someone_here 16y agoN900 works great as a wifi phone (since it has skype, google talk and google voice) and costs $580. Of course, it's also a nearly complete linux computer.
- borism 16y ago
- erikstarck 16y agoMobile phones being roughly ten years after PCs which in turn are roughly ten years after supercomputers has been a fairly consistent pattern for quite some time. At least for the decade I've been working with mobile phones.