I ran across an article recently comparing the performance of a 1986 Mac and a 2007 PC. Of course the new machine would totally blow away the old one on a number crunching benchmark, but when it comes to the most mundane benchmarks — time to boot, launch Microsoft Word, open a file, do a search and replace, etc. — the old Mac pulls ahead slightly. Software bloat has increased at roughly the same rate as Moore’s law, making a new machine with new software no better than an old machine with old software in some respects.
The comparisons in the article resonate with my experience. I expect administrative tasks to be quick and number crunching to be slow, and so I’m continually surprised how long routine tasks take and how quickly numerical software runs.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Mike 02.07.11 at 17:37
Here’s a contrary view, based upon the economics of storage. Excel today is much cheaper than it was in 1993: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html
DaveG 02.09.11 at 15:40
I have also noticed this and it is very irritating.
But there is hope my new MBP with an SSD starts fast and ticks all these boxes.
Daniel Lemire 04.08.11 at 08:11
There is a balance between robustness and speed. The old systems were far less reliable. Mac OS circa 1986 would freeze hard, something that hardly ever happens these days.
Windows 7 is orders of magnitude more robust than Windows 3.1.
Rick Wicklin 04.08.11 at 08:45
And don’t even get me started on software that automatically checks for updates every time I start my computer….
I’ll accept my share of the bloat blame: I write new code all day, and when the new software ships, it’s bigger than it was before.