4 ms·

A Quadra 950 feels fast running old Mac OS applications.

by rjsw 6y ago

antonyh 6y ago
I concur. Booted up my G4 this week, on OS9. Feels so much faster than anything released this century. So much so, I'm keeping it as an air-gapped word processor. Modern computers, SSDs, super fast RAM, GPUs etc, all needed for computing. But the older machines with outdated hardware, low and slow RAM, and tiny slow PATA or SCSI HDDs feel so fast. I don't doubt that the Quadra feels just as quick. It's not just Apple, same goes for Windows of the same pre-Y2K era compared to now. The question is why. Why is the user experience so poor. Why is it all so sluggish now. Have we exchanged performance for developer convenience just to punt out more underperforming software? Is the art of creating fast UI code dying out? Is the shift from C/C++ to Swift/.net interpreted bytecode-type solutions the cause? Too many layers of abstraction, too much cross-platform code with compromises to make it run anywhere? Whatever it is, we're churning out software quicker now but on faster hardware it runs worse than the older tools. It feels backwards to me.
- chooseaname 6y ago
  > The question is why. Why is the user experience so poor. Why is it all so sluggish now. Have we exchanged performance for developer convenience just to punt out more underperforming software? Generally speaking, yes. We prioritize speed to market over everything always.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Why? I can maybe understand it in the early experimental phase, but there ought to be a point where the software's authors go back and do it properly. It's worth the effort! If one application is significantly more responsive, people will think it feels nicer to use.
    - WalterSear 6y ago
      Because speed to market equals speed to market dominance.
- mycall 6y ago
  > The question is why. Simple answer: Abstractions.
pjmlp 6y ago
Not when measured against PCs or graphical UNIX workstations of the same age.
- rjsw 6y ago
  You couldn't run Mac OS applications on a PC or UNIX workstation. The point is that older Mac software was written to run well on the hardware. WriteNow on the Q950 is particularly fast. I haven't run any benchmarks but I would expect the Q950 to be comparable to an early SUN SPARCstation, the Q950 has more RAM too. I do run NetBSD on both of them.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    I thought we were comparing platforms over here, that was the whole point of my remark regarding the LC II usage at the computer lab.

A Quadra 950 feels fast running old Mac OS applications.

by rjsw 6y ago

A Quadra 950 feels fast running old Mac OS applications.

I concur. Booted up my G4 this week, on OS9. Feels so much faster than anything released this century. So much so, I'm keeping it as an air-gapped word processor. Modern computers, SSDs, super fast RAM, GPUs etc, all needed for computing. But the older machines with outdated hardware, low and slow RAM, and tiny slow PATA or SCSI HDDs feel so fast. I don't doubt that the Quadra feels just as quick. It's not just Apple, same goes for Windows of the same pre-Y2K era compared to now. The question is why. Why is the user experience so poor. Why is it all so sluggish now. Have we exchanged performance for developer convenience just to punt out more underperforming software? Is the art of creating fast UI code dying out? Is the shift from C/C++ to Swift/.net interpreted bytecode-type solutions the cause? Too many layers of abstraction, too much cross-platform code with compromises to make it run anywhere? Whatever it is, we're churning out software quicker now but on faster hardware it runs worse than the older tools. It feels backwards to me.

chooseaname 6y ago
> The question is why. Why is the user experience so poor. Why is it all so sluggish now. Have we exchanged performance for developer convenience just to punt out more underperforming software? Generally speaking, yes. We prioritize speed to market over everything always.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Why? I can maybe understand it in the early experimental phase, but there ought to be a point where the software's authors go back and do it properly. It's worth the effort! If one application is significantly more responsive, people will think it feels nicer to use.
  - WalterSear 6y ago
    Because speed to market equals speed to market dominance.
mycall 6y ago
> The question is why. Simple answer: Abstractions.

pjmlp 6y ago

Not when measured against PCs or graphical UNIX workstations of the same age.

rjsw 6y ago
You couldn't run Mac OS applications on a PC or UNIX workstation. The point is that older Mac software was written to run well on the hardware. WriteNow on the Q950 is particularly fast. I haven't run any benchmarks but I would expect the Q950 to be comparable to an early SUN SPARCstation, the Q950 has more RAM too. I do run NetBSD on both of them.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  I thought we were comparing platforms over here, that was the whole point of my remark regarding the LC II usage at the computer lab.