PDA

View Full Version : XP vs. OSX performance on my Mini Solo...




solace
Apr 6, 2006, 04:05 AM
wow... it's kinda depresing how speedy XP is here on my 1.5 Core Solo Mini vs. OS X...

especially Photoshop (which i realize will be better once a Universal Binary comes out, ie: CS3)

Photoshop CS2 under OSX on my mini takes at least 30-45 seconds to start up w/o anyother apps running. under XP it's literally about 5-6 seconds tops, even w/ 3000 fonts installed... doesn't even load that fast on my Athlon XP 2600!!

i can see myself booting into XP to do design work until Adobe releases CS3 unfortunately.



tom1502
Apr 6, 2006, 04:08 AM
wow... it's kinda depresing how speedy XP is here on my 1.5 Core Solo Mini vs. OS X...

especially Photoshop (which i realize will be better once a Universal Binary comes out, ie: CS3)

Photoshop CS2 under OSX on my mini takes at least 30-45 seconds to start up w/o anyother apps running. under XP it's literally about 5-6 seconds tops, even w/ 3000 fonts installed... doesn't even load that fast on my Athlon XP 2600!!

i can see myself booting into XP to do design work until Adobe releases CS3 unfortunately.

would you mind to try installing the MediaPortal software from mediaportal.sf.net on your Mac-mini?! It is a MediaCenter Application, and i wonder how smooth it will run...
Maybe you even got a USB-TV solution?!

greatdevourer
Apr 6, 2006, 04:18 AM
That's not really performace you're witnessing :p For now, Photoshop being used to test performance is redundant. Try testing it with summat else (iTunes, for example)

Takumi
Apr 6, 2006, 09:50 AM
Try testing it with summat else (iTunes, for example)

Try Winamp, and you'll realise how bad iTunes really is or DBpower amp to convert CD's to MP3's

Takumi

Chaszmyr
Apr 6, 2006, 09:52 AM
Of course Photoshop runs slowly under OSX. Photoshop is not yet a universal binary, and on your Intel Mac Mini it is being emulated under Rosetta.

All benchmarks I've seen suggest that native applications running under OSX are slightly faster than applications running under WinXP on the new intel macs.

Takumi
Apr 6, 2006, 09:54 AM
Of course Photoshop runs slowly under OSX.
And the reason graphics types are using Mac's?

Takumi

Chaszmyr
Apr 6, 2006, 09:56 AM
And the reason graphics types are using Mac's?

Takumi

Because they're not using Intel Macs yet.

Togglehead
Apr 6, 2006, 10:05 AM
Try Winamp, and you'll realise how bad iTunes really is or DBpower amp to convert CD's to MP3's

Takumi
TRUTH!

Eric5h5
Apr 6, 2006, 10:11 AM
And the reason graphics types are using Mac's?

Because of the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, which you didn't quote (or read?): "Photoshop is not yet a universal binary, and on your Intel Mac Mini it is being emulated under Rosetta." So, like, duh. ;) Graphics types have G5s....

--Eric

BlizzardBomb
Apr 6, 2006, 10:40 AM
Because they're not using Intel Macs yet.

I think Takumi is having trouble grasping the Intel transition.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2290783#post2290783

DougTheImpaler
Apr 6, 2006, 10:54 AM
Try Winamp, and you'll realise how bad iTunes really is or DBpower amp to convert CD's to MP3's

Takumi

Ahhhhh.......no. As an ex-WinAmp user, I use iTunes now even on my Windows box.

solace
Apr 6, 2006, 12:53 PM
Of course Photoshop runs slowly under OSX. Photoshop is not yet a universal binary, and on your Intel Mac Mini it is being emulated under Rosetta.

All benchmarks I've seen suggest that native applications running under OSX are slightly faster than applications running under WinXP on the new intel macs.
did you even read my initial post? :rolleyes: i stated as such already, i'm aware of the Unversal Binary thing w/ Photoshop... but even CS2 on my 1.42 PPC mini wasn't even remotely as fast as CS2 under XP on my 1.5 Intel mini, and like i said, it bests the performance of my Athlon XP 2600+ PC.

but i'm shocked just how snappy overall XP is on here than OS X i guess.

CanadaRAM
Apr 6, 2006, 01:01 PM
Concept: Startup times are not a measure of performance

If it were, I would pitch my P4 machine out the window -- it's a good 5 + minutes from the Windows logo to when it is usable -- EVEN THOUGH THE INTERFACE IS DISPLAYED WITHIN SECONDS!

A seeming characteristic of Mac programs is when the present the interface, they are good to go, and Windows programs typically write a pretty picture on the screen a LONG time before they are actually finished loading. It drives me nuts that in Windows you can click on what looks like a dialog box, and 45 seconds later another box comes onscreen and intercepts the click and does what you didn't intend. Or modal dialogs get covered over with other windows and nothing works until you unbury the one that needs attention. A profoundly user-hostile interface.

I have learned to keep myhands off the Windows keyboard until I can hear the hard drive stop churning, only then can I be sure that the onscreen items will respond as I expect.

solace
Apr 6, 2006, 01:02 PM
Concept: Startup times are not a measure of performance

i didn't say it was the end all be all, i was just talking simply about Photoshop in this case, but not only is startup time quicker, rendering time on plugins/filters is way way faster under XP too, and just general interface navigation, fwiw.