I am not so sure this is true. Windows 7 in my opinion, is unquestionably better than Windows XP, and runs better than Windows Vista. The user interface is better, it is more stable, and it is somewhat safer. The undisputed fact it requires much beefier hardware to run on is, I believe, a non-issue.
The same is actually true in the HP3K world you know - while you can get significant work done on a 917,
you cannot run the latest software, which means you cannot do some of the more interesting things you might want to do. Also, you are limited in the size of projects you can run, and the number of users you can support because of the hardware limitations.
What might MPE/ix look like today if it were running on Intel machines? MMMm?? A nice $600 machine with four 2.6ghz cores, 8 gigabytes of RAM, a terabyte or two of modest disk storage, and 1gbs network connections?
I will answer at least part of that question. Someone would have grafted GUI text editors and a GUI desktop on it to suck up all those nice CPU cycles of course. <grin>
Heck, even top of the line IBM mainframes today graft on special processors to handle tasks like that. There are special processors for running Java, Linux, and other workloads. There are CELL processors (think Playstations I think?) that handle GUI or highly processor intensive loads, and so forth. That is in addition to all the conventional processors that handle IO and such, as well as the CP processors to actually run programs.
But it would sure be one sweeeeeeeeet machine.
-Paul
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Roy Brown
> Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2009 10:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] HP Marketing anounces end of Moore's Law...
> sort of
>
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Craig Lalley
> <[log in to unmask]> writing at 01:05:55 in his/her local time
> opines:-
> >Now I know Moore's Law really only addresses the number of transistors
> >on the chip will double every 18 months.
> >
> >We have come to expect that this means a doubling in CPU performance.
> >
> >A certain Mark R. from the list pointed this out to me from an HP add
> >that was e-mailed out and can be found halfway down the page here;
> >
> >http://www.hp.com/united-states/windows7/small-medium-
> business.html?jump
> >id=ex_r602_go/ms7/smb
> >
> >Here's the statement...
> >
> >HP Advantage: Compared to a 4 year old laptop
> >with Windows® XP, and new HP laptop with Windows® 7 can deliver: 68%
> >increase in performance power(7), 38% faster start up and 7 times
> >faster shut down times(8)
> >
> >4 years and 68% faster??? a very underwhelming,... wow.
> >
> >-Craig
>
> Faster chips are not an opportunity for you to get your work done any
> quicker. They are an opportunity for Microsoft to release ever more
> complex and bloated versions of Windows to soak all that extra CPU
> power
> up.
>
> The universal raspberry that was blown at Vista has meant that Intel
> and
> AMD have had to mark time while Microsoft gets its act back together;
> and for Microsoft, it means that 7 has to be what Vista should have
> been; and the plaudits it has gained for being 'smaller' than Vista
> have
> not masked a deafening silence about whether it is more efficient than
> XP or not.
>
> It's worth looking at what (7) and (8) say:
>
> (7) Source: PC Mark05 benchmark comparison of Intel T2400 (1.83 GHz) HP
> nc6400 Notebook to Intel Core™2 Duo T9600 HP EliteBook 6930p
>
> (8) Start up and shut down times compare an HP EliteBook 6930p running
> Windows® 7 to the same HP EliteBook 6930p running Windows® XP
>
> So (7) shows they were comparing a 1.83GHz chip then with a 2.80GHz
> chip
> today.
>
> That's a 53% increase in raw CPU performance.
>
> So they got a further 15% from somewhere - The dual cores? The improved
> bus support for the chip? More and faster memory? Bigger and faster
> HDD?
>
> Plus enough, if any were needed to account for any difference in
> overhead between XP and 7.
>
> Where, interestingly, the (8) comparison of start up and shutdown times
> was done on the same machine.
>
> So obviously, they can run 7 on a machine they could run XP on.
>
> But nowhere is there what you'd naturally expect following on from
> that;
> a (7)-type comparison of the relative performance of that same machine
> on the PC Mark05 benchmark with Windows 7 versus Windows XP.
>
> Both to see what the XP versus 7 overhead difference was, and to see if
> the apparently compelling case to upgrade an existing machine from XP
> to
> 7 extends beyond start up and shutdown times.
>
> The absence of these figures from the advert lead me to believe that:
> (1) there isn't
> and
> (2) HP, like Alan Clarke, have been a little economical (or at least
> very selective) with the actualité...
>
>
> The bellwether for Windows 7 will be whether we see it appearing, and
> giving satisfactory performance, on current Intel Atom netbook
> platforms.
> (And I mean *current*, not any enhanced Atom Intel might release so
> netbooks can run 7 no worse than they currently run XP).
> --
> Roy Brown 'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to
> be
> Kelmscott Ltd useful, or believe to be beautiful' William Morris
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
