I just "Stumbled Upon" this article from Hubpages.com and article which compared one of the earliest 'personal' computers (an Apple Mac Plus). What it concluded was what Adam and I complain about on the show often and what all computer users feel when they sit down at their keyboards; our computers are not any faster today, than they were 10 or more years ago.
Processors, hard drives, RAM have all increased exponentially in the last 20 years, but unfortunately so has modern operating systems. The article I linked above pointed out the gargantuan disk requirements of Windows Vista, so I decided to put together a little table comparing disk space and RAM requirements for the different flavors of operating systems. It is quite eye opening.
It is my experience that the vast majority of computer users simply want their computer to work for their activities. They don't need hundreds of extra 'features' that never get used or provide any real benefit. Computers now boot too slowly, perform slowly and don't give us any more productivity than they did 20 years ago.
| Operating System |
Hard Drive Space Required |
RAM Required |
| Windows 3.11 | 10 megabytes (mb) | 4 mb |
| Mac OS 6 | 1 mb | 1 mb |
| Windows 95 | 60 mb | 8 mb |
| Mac OS 9 | 40 mb | 32 mb |
| Windows 98 | 250 mb | 16 mb |
| Windows XP | 1,800 mb | 256 mb (prefer 512 or greater) |
| Mac OS 10.4 | 3,000 mb | 256 mb |
| Windows Vista | 15,000 mb | 512 mb (prefer 1024 or greater) |
| Ubuntu Linux | 3,000 mb | 256 mb |
Related articles:
Loading ...
HelpMeRick.com started as a monthly tip site for beginners in 1996, and now supports our popular call-in computer show, and hosts thousands of useful computer tips and links.
I agree with Adam's comments regarding the article and my Shotgun for today, BUT… I think the point to be made here is that most of Adam's functions required the Internet and a fast web connection. Putting the power and speed on servers is something Sun Microsystems has been preaching about for years and it is finally coming to fruition. Programmers and operating systems have gotten to carried away with the extra power we have available to us today and no longer write programs that are lean and mean. Instead, they tend to be bloated, slow loading, behemoths that become horribly underutilized by the computer user.
I truly think that a computer with a lean profile and operating system hooked to a high speed Internet connection is all about 80-90% of the computing population needs and desires. For the other 10% of so of users who need the extra power and features, they can have it.
I must issue my own side of the argument. I read the article Rick mentioned before I saw that he posted it but I think that the logic is a little flawed. They did not test how long it took to download a six megapixel picture, how long it took to open an MP3 file, they didn't test video editing, skype, broadband, CAD drawing, greeting card creation, iPod sync, Google Earth, etc.
Computer's don't run any faster as for time allowed to boot up, open programs or create a document, but they are immeasurably faster working and more powerful.
I agree that computers can be simpler than they are today, but I also feel that most users want to use their computer for something that requires at least a Ghz processor and 512 MB of RAM. Even basic uses like digital photography, opening email attachments, YouTube, are too complex to run reliably on a pre-XP or OS X computer.
Simplifying computers shouldn't have to mean dumbing them down.