dev@chinet.chi.il.US (Lawrence Weeks) (06/16/91)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms Subject: Re: Mac Vs. Windows? (sorry) Summary: Expires: References: <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> <1991Jun4.154854.19649@dbase.A-T.COM> <56nD02AQ08cd01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX Keywords: In article <1991Jun4.154854.19649@dbase.A-T.COM> tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts) writes: >In article <0E010021.e0mxxc@gla-aux.uucp> glenn%gla-aux.uucp@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu writes: >> >>In article <1991May18.050842.5732@cs.uoregon.edu>, akm@obelix.cs.uoregon.edu (Anant Kartik Mithal) writes: >>> So, my question is: if the Mac is faster than a "comparable" pc in >>> execution, what is the reason? Is it ROM? (I don't think so for the >>> reasons listed above.) What other things can make a difference? >> >>Two things -- processor effeciency and levels of routines. > >[ rest of post deleted ] > >>2) The Motorola (and for that matter, any linear-addressing processor) is >>faster than segmented memory. One must keep in mind that Motorola architecture has always been superior to Intel architecture. This is the widely accepted opinion in the design circles, and is why introductory microprocessing is taught on something from Motorola (e.g. 6809) rather than Intel in the good EE schools. I've heard professors laugh about the Intel 80x8x family. :-) Granted, Intel may have finally caught up with the 80386. But it retains the stilted opcodes, etc... from the previous members of the family. A Mororola processor running at the same clock speed as the "equivilent" Intel processor will be faster, because the Motorola executes instructions more efficiently. Intel's solution is to pump up the MHz on their CPUs to overcome the inefficiency. If only IBM had contracted with Motorola's 6809 (still considered the best 8-bit chip by many) back then rather than Intel's 808x family, it would be a vastly different and better PC world. Hell, my old 2 MHz 6809B handles 512K of RAM and multi-tasks in windows more solidly and smoother than MSWindows 3.0 does. And maybe now PC users wouldn't be saddled with umpteen versions of an OS (MS-DOS) that's so bad the software writers choose to ignore it rather than work with it. And one so bad that it gives them that option too. A good OS will CONTROL the machine, not let any old piece of software come up and take over. I have a friend who knew one of the authors of MS-DOS. He tends to make jokes about him. Oh well, what is done is done. Only now are the PC users starting to climb out of the dark ages induced by the mating of Intel and Microsoft's incompetency. At least OS/2 2.0 (from IBM, not Microsoft) looks promising as a real OS. Windows could have been nice if they had abandoned the DOS foundation. Writing something for DOS is like building a house on top of an active tectonic fault line. Such is the PC world. Larry
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (06/16/91)
In article <m0joeFD-0000v7C@chinet.chi.il.us> dev@chinet.chi.il.US (Lawrence Weeks) writes: > > >One must keep in mind that Motorola architecture has always been superior >to Intel architecture. WOW!!! What a sweeping statement. **WHY** is it superior?? >This is the widely accepted opinion in the design >circles, and is why introductory microprocessing is taught on something from >Motorola (e.g. 6809) rather than Intel in the good EE schools. I've heard >professors laugh about the Intel 80x8x family. :-) Now we know - the 68... is superior for teaching elementary courses. Now that, perhaps, I'll agree. HOWEVER - does that make it superior for building computers??? Not necessarily. There are many things besides elegance that matter there. Like how well it fits in with the rest of the hardware, how fast it is, how cost effective, etc. >Granted, Intel may have >finally caught up with the 80386. But it retains the stilted opcodes, etc... >from the previous members of the family. Why cares?? I seldom write machine code. Most people NEVER write machine code. [Yes, I have and still do sometimes write machine code. For those academic heads who don't know what "write machine code" means, it means to look up the numerical values of op-codes and operand codings in the processor hardware manual and code the bits yourself. Somebody has to do this, you know.] >A Mororola processor running at the >same clock speed as the "equivilent" Intel processor will be faster, because >the Motorola executes instructions more efficiently. Intel's solution is to >pump up the MHz on their CPUs to overcome the inefficiency. > For the 680x0 and 80y86 series the is NOT SO if y == x. I used to think that the 68040 had caught up with the 80486, then along came two more benchmark tests that showed the 80486 faster even for floating point. YOU CANNOT MAKE VAILD CLAIMS THAT THE 680x0 IS FASTER THAN THE 80y86 WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP WITH REAL BENCHMARKS ON REAL PROGRAMS ON REAL COMPUTERS. And this is impossible to do for x == y < 4 and not conclusive for x == y == 4. The IBM PC is the most successful computer the world has ever seen. An absolute majority of all computers are based on the Intel family. It is now almost to the point where more Intel computers are SOLD every year than the TOTAL of all other types sold in all previous years. This did NOT happen by accident: it happened because the PC was the right design for its time - it was efficient and cost effective. There WERE, you know, Motorola based computer for sale then. They are on the ash heap of history now. Only one maker (Apple) has ever sold a significant number of Motorola computers and their sales are minute compared to those of PCs. IF the original poster wishes to convince me that the Motorola chips are superior, he is welcome to point me at standard, REAL, benchmarks, that show it is superior. I also point out that I accept comparisons of two sorts: two computers that cost the same thing, OR two computers, each of which is currently the absolute fastest using the given chip. It is required to use the best available compiler for each chip. It is up to him to prove it. Doug McDonald
mtang@sgi.com (Man Kit Tang) (06/20/91)
In article <m0joeFD-0000v7C@chinet.chi.il.us> dev@chinet.chi.il.US (Lawrence Weeks) writes: >One must keep in mind that Motorola architecture has always been superior >to Intel architecture. This is the widely accepted opinion in the design >circles, and is why introductory microprocessing is taught on something from >Motorola (e.g. 6809) rather than Intel in the good EE schools. I think a cleaner architecture is actually more easy to understand than a messed-up one. >I've heard >professors laugh about the Intel 80x8x family. :-) Granted, Intel may have >finally caught up with the 80386. But it retains the stilted opcodes, etc... >from the previous members of the family. A Mororola processor running at the >same clock speed as the "equivilent" Intel processor will be faster, because >the Motorola executes instructions more efficiently. Intel's solution is to >pump up the MHz on their CPUs to overcome the inefficiency. My experience tell me otherwise, Intel processors starting from 386 (even though still an architecture disaster) actually execute most integer intensive programs much faster than equivalent Motorola processors (i.e. 386 vs 030 and 486 vs 040) at the same clock speed. Motorola processors however execute floating codes much faster. These observations are under UNIX of course so that the 386/486s are actually used as 32-BIT processors ! -mkt P.S. Standard disclaimer that the above opinions are solely mine and have nothing to do with my company!