PDA

View Full Version : Apple, Microsoft on Windows on Mac; Benchmarks


Pages : [1] 2

MacRumors
Apr 7, 2006, 06:59 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Microsoft's response (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/technology/06apple.html) to Apple's release of Boot Camp with a positive statement:

"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Meanwhile, Apple explains (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14305) that the release of Boot Camp addresses some requests from different users and is intended to encourage PC users to switch:

Boot Camp makes the Mac way more appealing to Windows users who are considering the switch by lowering the barrier to moving to Mac

Brian Croll, senior director for Mac OS X product marketing, clarifies that Apple will not preinstall or sell Windows, so users must provide their own copy.

A number of early benchmarks are starting to appear comparing the speed of Windows XP to Mac OS X as well as Windows XP on the Mac compared to other PCs:

- Cinebench 9.8 scores WinXP vs Mac OS X (Bootcamp) (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/apr06/040506.html)
- Adobe Photoshop CS Windows vs Mac (Bootcamp) (http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_Boot_Camp_beta/4505-3672_7-31826794-2.html?tag=nav) - note: Mac Photoshop on Intel Core Duo is emulated
- PCMark '04 MacBook Pro 1.83 vs HP 309F 1.83GHz (Bootcamp) (http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060405225344882)

realityisterror
Apr 7, 2006, 07:06 AM
"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Translation: Oh crap, son! Those fools are getting too much money!

mig
Apr 7, 2006, 07:07 AM
Do I understand the benchmark right, that windows is generally faster on a mac than the OS?

Isn't that terrible news for our beloved OS?

kainjow
Apr 7, 2006, 07:11 AM
Do I understand the benchmark right, that windows is generally faster on a mac than the OS?

Isn't that terrible news for our beloved OS?
*sigh* this has been discussed over and over, and basically, Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking. It's no competition :)

ddcrandall
Apr 7, 2006, 07:11 AM
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.

arn
Apr 7, 2006, 07:12 AM
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.

The Intel Mac's Photoshop is emulated. It's running PowerPC Photoshop on an Intel Mac. There is no Intel-native version of Photoshop for the Mac yet.

arn

kainjow
Apr 7, 2006, 07:13 AM
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.
Photoshop is not x86 yet. It's PPC. Emulating is always slower than native instruction, no butts about it ;)

Whistleway
Apr 7, 2006, 07:14 AM
And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.

Because Photoshop is not universal binary and hence you need to run rosetta which emulates and there by drop in performance. After adobe releases the new photoshop, the results should be comparable.

WeeManDan
Apr 7, 2006, 07:22 AM
Looking at the scores and seeing that Windows looks to be quicker the OSX, is this a case of Apple shooting themselves in the foot and does this mean that Leopard is likely to be a much quicker and more streamlined OS so Jobs can say look at these scores and shows graph compared to XP??

Dan

druggedonions
Apr 7, 2006, 07:24 AM
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.

OpenGL hasn't really been optimized for the Intel processor yet so this will bring the scores down for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Once Apple get those issues dealt with and ATI get their drivers refined I think you'll see those scores improve. :cool:

MrCrowbar
Apr 7, 2006, 07:26 AM
Windows is indeed a bit more snappy on a fresh install. But once you install all the programs you need, it is on par with OSX. AntiVirus is mandatory on a windows mashine and it eats quite some power and makes I/O way slower if you enable live virus testing.

Where OSX shines is multitasking. Run Photoshop, Word and iTunes on a PC and it is just painful on Windows. On OSX you can run a bunch of applications without noticable slowdowns. It's limited on 512MB RAM but when you upgrade to 1GB or more OSX beats XP to death.

PS: You might want to do these benchmarks again with reasonable RAM. Put 2GB in there like every sane MBP owner would.

mig
Apr 7, 2006, 07:26 AM
*sigh* this has been discussed over and over, and basically, Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking. It's no competition :)

Honestly, when I do memory intensive operations, I don't multitask anyway. So what's the point? But I do appreciate, that at least the rendering on OS outperforms the windows (slightly only but it does). But open GL is quite important for me and I am concern about the advantage of windows. I thought GL used to be better in OS?

kainjow
Apr 7, 2006, 07:28 AM
Honestly, when I do memory intensive operations, I don't multitask anyway. So what's the point? But I do appreciate, that at least the rendering on OS outperforms the windows (slightly only but it does). But open GL is quite important for me and I am concern about the advantage of windows. I thought GL used to be better in OS?
See druggedonions's reply above.

druggedonions
Apr 7, 2006, 07:31 AM
Honestly, when I do memory intensive operations, I don't multitask anyway. So what's the point? But I do appreciate, that at least the rendering on OS outperforms the windows (slightly only but it does). But open GL is quite important for me and I am concern about the advantage of windows. I thought GL used to be better in OS?

But is this because you're using Windows?;)

mig
Apr 7, 2006, 07:39 AM
But is this because you're using Windows?;)

Of course not. I am using Mac from day one of my computer literacy. And I will continue, because I also need some beauty around me for work and in private (unlike pc and that awful windows - I am superficial, you know). But I am just concern, that this time, there can be a real competition, and Mac will really loose.

I am using software (e.g. Maxwell), which is more advanced/working on windows than on Mac, and I am mostly concerned, that these developers stop producing for Mac based on some benchmarks and I have to switch finally. I am already taking quite some trouble to work around the absence of ACAD for Mac for years.

I just don't want to use a software (windows), which is so uninspiring and mainstream, just because OS looses to it...

gekko513
Apr 7, 2006, 07:43 AM
The Cinebench total score must be viewed in the light that the different tests have different weight. If you normalise the scores and give each test the same weight, you get:

Cinema Shading
OSX: 100
WinXP: 76

OpenGL SW
OSX: 100
WinXP: 126

OpenGL HW
OSX: 100
WinXP: 140

Rendering:
OSX: 100
WinXP: 93

Rendering MP
OSX: 100
WinXP: 94

Total
OSX: 500
WinXP: 529

WinXP is 5.8% faster. That's not much, especially when you consider the short time Apple has had to optimise their OpenGL drivers for Intel.

Arnaud
Apr 7, 2006, 07:45 AM
Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Ah. Now the mac community is seen as "excited about running Windows". Like, we like Os X, but we are sooooo excited to run Windows. :eek:

I'd say, there's a tiny bit of sarcasm in MS' statement...

yippy
Apr 7, 2006, 07:48 AM
Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.

Chaszmyr
Apr 7, 2006, 07:48 AM
Ah. Now the mac community is seen as "excited about running Windows". Like, we like Os X, but we are sooooo excited to run Windows. :eek:

I'd say, there's a tiny bit of sarcasm in MS' statement...

Well, the reality of the situation is "Mac users are excited to be able to run Windows as infrequently as necessary, but we at Microsoft are excited they are still willing to pay for a copy of our OS"

1macker1
Apr 7, 2006, 07:52 AM
It is a big difference when u are getting ur ass handed to you on your own hardware. I find this to be very funny.
The Cinebench total score must be viewed in the light that the different tests have different weight. If you normalise the scores and give each test the same weight, you get:

Cinema Shading
OSX: 100
WinXP: 76

OpenGL SW
OSX: 100
WinXP: 126

OpenGL HW
OSX: 100
WinXP: 140

Rendering:
OSX: 100
WinXP: 93

Rendering MP
OSX: 100
WinXP: 94

Total
OSX: 500
WinXP: 529

WinXP is 5.8% faster. That's not much, especially when you consider the short time Apple has had to optimise their OpenGL drivers for Intel.

mlrproducts
Apr 7, 2006, 07:54 AM
PEOPLE.....RTFA(s)!

If you've been under a ROCK, Photoshop is NOT NATIVE on the x86 Macs.

Also, in the PC Mark'04 test, why did the idiot reviewer leave 2GB in the HP? I just don't get it!? However, it looks like good news, as the MBP is pretty much neck and neck except those ones where RAM overwhelmingly makes the entire difference.

gekko513
Apr 7, 2006, 07:54 AM
Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.
Yep, in the same way that Windows 98 beats Windows XP on speed, but not on stability, security and functionality.

askegg
Apr 7, 2006, 08:01 AM
"We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

That's funny.

Apple customers are NOT excited about running XP - believe me, I just made the switch and I am never going back.

How f'ed up is Microsoft? If customers wanted to run Windows they would buy an HP. They're cheaper for a start.

VanNess
Apr 7, 2006, 08:06 AM
The Intel Mac's Photoshop is emulated. It's running PowerPC Photoshop on an Intel Mac. There is no Intel-native version of Photoshop for the Mac yet.

Cnet's "benchmark" article was just plain absurd.

Comparing a resource-intensive program such as Photoshop running in emulation in OS X against it's fully native counterpart in Windows is only interesting to the extent that a major technology publication would stoop to such a stunt and publish such a patently misleading result.

A fair (and more informative) comparison would have been XP-based Photoshop performance results on Intel Macs compared with other XP based hardware such as Dell - which the article did cover - but throwing in Photoshop on Rosetta results into the mix was, quite simply, pointless.

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 7, 2006, 08:07 AM
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.Maybe you stopped drinking the Koolaid? Drink up, son!

Comparing a resource-intensive program such as Photoshop running in emulation in OS X against it's fully native counterpart in Windows is only interesting to the extent that a major technology publication would stoop to such a stunt and publish such a patently misleading result.That's cnet for ya. That's why I gave that cnet reporter grief in the other thread when he posted asking for negative responses to boot camp.

Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.In other words you mean Vista will be much slower, because that's the way the OS's normally work, right?

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 08:10 AM
*sigh* this has been discussed over and over, and basically, Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking. It's no competition :)

Who runs 20-25 apps at once? Seriously?

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 08:11 AM
OpenGL hasn't really been optimized for the Intel processor yet so this will bring the scores down for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Once Apple get those issues dealt with and ATI get their drivers refined I think you'll see those scores improve. :cool:

I remember OS X being slower than Windows in OpenGL-apps on PPC as well. Could it be that the OS X video-drivers simply are not as optimized than the drivers on Windows are, regardless of the Mac CPU-architecture?

druggedonions
Apr 7, 2006, 08:16 AM
Of course not. I am using Mac from day one of my computer literacy. And I will continue, because I also need some beauty around me for work and in private (unlike pc and that awful windows - I am superficial, you know). But I am just concern, that this time, there can be a real competition, and Mac will really loose.

I am using software (e.g. Maxwell), which is more advanced/working on windows than on Mac, and I am mostly concerned, that these developers stop producing for Mac based on some benchmarks and I have to switch finally. I am already taking quite some trouble to work around the absence of ACAD for Mac for years.

I just don't want to use a software (windows), which is so uninspiring and mainstream, just because OS looses to it...

The Mac will never loose while it has dedicated Mac users who buy their hardware. And I think current Mac developers will realise that Mac users want to spend their time in the Mac OS and continue developing for it. The release of Boot Camp will probably be used as an excuse for Windows only developers not to release a Mac version, but would they have released a native Mac version if Boot Camp had not been released? I doubt it.

As for the benchmarks, it's early days for Apple on Intel and I think with point releases in Tiger we'll hopefully see an improvement.

jbernie
Apr 7, 2006, 08:20 AM
How f'ed up is Microsoft? If customers wanted to run Windows they would buy an HP. They're cheaper for a start.

Apple hardware is a fashion statement, a lot of people will buy Apple hardware because it looks cool, not because it is cheap. And now that we can run windows on Apple hardware people can look cool and know what they are doing as opposed to getting lost with OSX.

Consumers don't always buy the cheapest item, even if the cheaper item can do something with the same reliability as the more expensive one.

mac-x
Apr 7, 2006, 08:20 AM
funny how ppl defend there osx while test show otherwise.
i know photoshop isnt native, but what about the other tests?
good point in there that xp is old.
i tried the macbook pro yesterday, opening most basic apps were a pain in the ass. I mean im used to speed on my home pc, but with a laptop at 2500euros, which is more then twice the amount my desktop costed, i expected atleast the same speed. i clicked three times on programs thinking the mouse didnt respond.
whats the deal with that? is that just normal? is that laptop behavior?

Morky
Apr 7, 2006, 08:21 AM
Windows sucks. However, the NT kernel at the core of the OS DOES NOT SUCK. It fairly rocks. That's why you see OSX getting beaten here. You'll see the same results in Oracle tests when benchmarked on the same hardware (when the Intel version becomes available). I think this is great for Apple, as they will have something completely objective to test against when working to improve the Mach kernel.

runninmac
Apr 7, 2006, 08:25 AM
Did anyone else want to shoot themselves while watching that uneasyscilence video? I just couldn't stand that mans voice. Also I thought you could have the home edition SP2 for it to work but they strictly say that its for XP Pro, is that right?

Butler Trumpet
Apr 7, 2006, 08:26 AM
Yep, in the same way that Windows 98 beats Windows XP on speed, but not on stability, security and functionality.

Exactly... Im sure if you took a PC that came out the same time the XP came out, and ran that against a Mac that came out the same time 10.4 came out, Tiger would win hands down. Its just that, when you are running and old OS like XP on a computer that is much faster than one it was designed for, its gonna be fast.

Example... could you imagine running OS 7 on a new intel mac? It would be crazy how fast it would be.... it would probably even win over OSX on some things, just because the new mac would have no trouble at all doing anything it dishes out. (and yes... i know that system 7 wouldnt run on an intel mac :)

nagromme
Apr 7, 2006, 08:27 AM
Benchmarking one OS against another is purely academic unless you're running a render farm (or enjoy bragging to other 11-year-olds) :)

Two OS's that are very different from each other DO things differently. There will always be things each does faster than another. That doesn't mean the one that delivers slightly more raw speed is the better OS. In fact, capability and eas of use could be considered more important ;) Otherwise, OS's should be designed for speed first, and everything else is secondary. That certainly doesn't fit the way I use a computer.

In other words, I'll take the OS that does more, not the OS that does less, slightly faster. It's not like current computers are lacking in speed to spare :)


I think this is great for Apple, as they will have something completely objective to test against when working to improve the Mach kernel.
Agreed. This gives Apple a very clear target to keep in mind. A new kind of "competition" in a way--good for us Apple consumers!

lyzardking
Apr 7, 2006, 08:29 AM
"Also, Windows appeared to be stable; it crashed only once when we were investigating DirectX settings, not an unusual occurrence on any Windows-based PC." (I bolded for emphasis)

Should all OS comparisons include the time for reboots? I'm sure the drivers still "green" but still, when a Microsoft-centric pub says this it can't be a XP on Mac issue.

I consider "stable" crashing maybe once a month (and half those instances I did something stupid and caused it myself) :o

BenRoethig
Apr 7, 2006, 08:34 AM
"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Translation: Oh crap, son! Those fools are getting too much money!

Yeah, what are they smoking? I've used extensively and know otherwise.

Do I understand the benchmark right, that windows is generally faster on a mac than the OS?

Isn't that terrible news for our beloved OS?

It's great news if it lights a fire on Apple's rear end and they fix some of the problems with OSX like the OGL implementation and low quality drivers.

peeInMyPantz
Apr 7, 2006, 08:36 AM
if u r like me.. already prepared to switch from windows to mac
it doesn't matter if those programs runs faster..
i'm just happy that I can make the transition slowly and painlessly

i guess this will probably encourage apple to make Leopard runs faster than window programs in mac intel. Isn't that good news?

Stridder44
Apr 7, 2006, 08:37 AM
Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.


http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/ramvista.JPG

You see that number people? That's 820. 820 MB. And this is Vista idling. I know OS X is a RAM hog too, but it manages pretty well with the meager 512 that I have on my old iMac G4 (and Im talking about when it's not idling).

Butler Trumpet
Apr 7, 2006, 08:39 AM
i guess this will probably encourage apple to make Leopard runs faster than window programs in mac intel. Isn't that good news?


Yeah I guess that is some pretty good news..... especially cause 10.5 will be out WAY before Vista

Stridder44
Apr 7, 2006, 08:40 AM
It's great news if it lights a fire on Apple's rear end and they fix some of the problems with OSX like the OGL implementation and low quality drivers.


Hasn't OpenGL always been a problem with OS X?
(Asking an honest question, not trying to argue)

mmmcheese
Apr 7, 2006, 08:40 AM
I remember OS X being slower than Windows in OpenGL-apps on PPC as well. Could it be that the OS X video-drivers simply are not as optimized than the drivers on Windows are, regardless of the Mac CPU-architecture?

DirectX and OpenGL layers in Windows are much closer to the hardware than in OSX. OSX has an extra OS layer due to the OS design, this has always been a problem visible in games (many developers have talked about it). On one hand, you can design an OS to be modular (and usually more stable...a crash in a module will not bring down the entire OS), whereas with Windows, many things are integrated (can be much faster, but an error can bring down the entire OS).

Just look at the war of words between micro and monolithic kernel zealots...same issues. Unfortunately in software development, nothing is free and everything sacrifices something.

Nemesis
Apr 7, 2006, 08:41 AM
Windows sucks. However, the NT kernel at the core of the OS DOES NOT SUCK. It fairly rocks. That's why you see OSX getting beaten here. You'll see the same results in Oracle tests when benchmarked on the same hardware (when the Intel version becomes available). I think this is great for Apple, as they will have something completely objective to test against when working to improve the Mach kernel.

Mate, you live in 1980.

NT kernel sucks, because it's old piece of code, not made for future trends in computing. It's one of the reasons why Windows don't improve at all, but just grow (bloatware) like a cancer. It seems to be faster in single task modes, but when it comes to scalling and multiprocessing, it's just a piece of cr*p.

On the other hand, being more complex in its core, Mac OS X is ready to meet the future of computing.

j26
Apr 7, 2006, 08:41 AM
I loved the first question in the McFixit Article linked to in the first post

How do you CTRL-ALT-Delete in Windows on a MBP?

Aaahh! Brings back the reason I left Windows in the first place:D

Sdashiki
Apr 7, 2006, 08:41 AM
Hasn't OpenGL always been a problem with OS X?
(Asking an honest question, not trying to argue)

I thought openGL was brought to the "forefront" by apple for OSX...

recall Halo and Q3A...

BornAgainMac
Apr 7, 2006, 08:42 AM
Who runs 20-25 apps at once? Seriously?

Check out your processes on a Windows PC and Mac. More is running that you would think. Perhaps apps isn't the correct statement.

mmmcheese
Apr 7, 2006, 08:44 AM
Yeah I guess that is some pretty good news..... especially cause 10.5 will be out WAY before Vista

Will it be out way before Vista? Apple could also delay, taking the extra time to polish any points that are being rushed, and still come out JUST before Vista stealing a lot of its thunder...

VanNess
Apr 7, 2006, 08:46 AM
i clicked three times on programs thinking the mouse didnt respond. whats the deal with that? is that just normal? is that laptop behavior?

Maybe you were having the same problem as this lead architect for the Windows Vista team...

bdkennedy1
Apr 7, 2006, 08:47 AM
Yeah I love how the benchmarks don't say which is faster, XP or OS X.

weg
Apr 7, 2006, 08:51 AM
*sigh* this has been discussed over and over, and basically, Windows is snappier at first, but run 20-25 apps at once on both systems, and Mac OS X blows Windows away in multitasking. It's no competition :)

I don't know many people who run 25 applications. If I have a good day, I might have 25 windows open (most of them Terminals), but 25 Applications?? Are there even that many Apps for the Mac?

Nemesis
Apr 7, 2006, 08:51 AM
Who runs 20-25 apps at once? Seriously?

I run them, every day. At least 30.
13 professional graphics applications, plus dozens of utilities and productivity applications of all sorts. My PowerMac has 12 GB of RAM, something that Windows can't even cope with.

So, I hope you finally begin to understand that comparing Windows and Mac OS X is same as comparing your car with USS Enterprise E.

Your car may take you to the pizza shop in 5 minutes, but USS Enterprise can take you to the next star system.

ccrandall77
Apr 7, 2006, 08:52 AM
DirectX and OpenGL layers in Windows are much closer to the hardware than in OSX. OSX has an extra OS layer due to the OS design, this has always been a problem visible in games (many developers have talked about it). On one hand, you can design an OS to be modular (and usually more stable...a crash in a module will not bring down the entire OS), whereas with Windows, many things are integrated (can be much faster, but an error can bring down the entire OS).

Just look at the war of words between micro and monolithic kernel zealots...same issues. Unfortunately in software development, nothing is free and everything sacrifices something.

I recall reading an article about why the DVD player on Macs sucked. It mentioned something about the software not taking advantage of the GPU to do much of the processor intensive video tasks and leaving that up to the software to do on the CPU. I don't know if that's related to the issue here with OpenGL, but it seems they've had issues with not taking full advantage of the ATI card's capability in the past.

weg
Apr 7, 2006, 08:53 AM
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/ramvista.JPG

You see that number people? That's 820. 820 MB. And this is Vista idling.

This is a beta of Vista, it will probably much better once they take the debugging and logging code out.

Shintocam
Apr 7, 2006, 08:54 AM
That's funny.

Apple customers are NOT excited about running XP - believe me, I just made the switch and I am never going back.

How f'ed up is Microsoft? If customers wanted to run Windows they would buy an HP. They're cheaper for a start.

Speak for yourself. I'm an Apple customer and I am very much excited about running XP. The fanboi's have to take their collective heads out of their butts. There are still MANY applications that only run on XP (or some other flavour of Windows). Why should I buy two computers to be able to run all the software I want. Now I can buy one computer and use ALL the software I need and want. So yes I am VERY excited about this. The scientific lab I work in is also VERY excited about this. We have many Win only apps and now we can have the best of both worlds.

weg
Apr 7, 2006, 08:59 AM
Im sure if you took a PC that came out the same time the XP came out, and ran that against a Mac that came out the same time 10.4 came out, Tiger would win hands down.

Hmm.. are you saying that a PC built 2001 is slower than a PC built 2005? Really? How unbelievable!

kylos
Apr 7, 2006, 09:00 AM
As has been pointed out, Photoshop on Mac is not universal yet. But Cnet's comparison is even worse than that. Rosetta translates on the fly, caching translated code for later use. Their startup time test was completely absurd, since that is when a large portion of translation will occur, and not coincidentally, the period of time where Photoshop will be at it's absolute worst. If they had done a worthwhile test, such as applying a filter, we'd still have the rosetta issue, but it would at least not completely handicap the mac.

mmmcheese
Apr 7, 2006, 09:01 AM
I recall reading an article about why the DVD player on Macs sucked. It mentioned something about the software not taking advantage of the GPU to do much of the processor intensive video tasks and leaving that up to the software to do on the CPU. I don't know if that's related to the issue here with OpenGL, but it seems they've had issues with not taking full advantage of the ATI card's capability in the past.

I believe those are 2 different issues. In fact, the majority of Windows DVD players are software only as well. There are a couple of first party DVD players, but most people favour a player like PowerDVD (which does have an option for hardware playback, but is turned off by default...in fact a lot of times the hardware setting will cause artifacts and other weirdness depending on the specific driver).

Shintocam
Apr 7, 2006, 09:02 AM
"Also, Windows appeared to be stable; it crashed only once when we were investigating DirectX settings, not an unusual occurrence on any Windows-based PC." (I bolded for emphasis)

Should all OS comparisons include the time for reboots? I'm sure the drivers still "green" but still, when a Microsoft-centric pub says this it can't be a XP on Mac issue.

I consider "stable" crashing maybe once a month (and half those instances I did something stupid and caused it myself) :o

Well I can tell you I have two Windows machines that I use fairly regularly (not as much as my Mac but still fairly regularly). I have had them both for 3 years. They are running XP. They have NEVER crashed. Not EVER. Oh and they have never had a virus either. Not one. My Mac G4 15"PB on the other hand, has locked up/crashed probably about 6 times over the last two years. Still not bad at all really however it was pretty much never my fault (usually it was Apple's in my opinion CRAPPY USB driver for the iPod (the firewire works fine) that caused the problem). Still, I love my powerbook (mostly because the I just like the OS) and look forward to getting an iMAC soon (and a new MacBook Pro of course). I may also stop having to have two computers on my desk so that I can run my Win only apps.

But you know most of the crashes in Windows are because someone loaded some piece of junk shareware app onto their computer. There are many fold more apps for Windows than apple when it comes to shareware, 99% of which is written by complete amatuers (which is fine) that cannot possibly account for the thousands of possible variants of a PC. Many crashes are hardware related. How many video cards are there for the Mac? Half a dozen? How many are there for the PC? A few hundred? How is it windows fault if some crappy video card maker comes up with a even worse driver that causes Direct X to crash?

nagromme
Apr 7, 2006, 09:02 AM
It's great news if it lights a fire on Apple's rear end and they fix some of the problems with OSX like the OGL implementation and low quality drivers.

A good sign from last year:
http://lists.apple.com/archives/mac-opengl/2005/Mar/msg00199.html


I run them, every day. At least 30.
13 professional graphics applications, plus dozens of utilities and productivity applications of all sorts. My PowerMac has 12 GB of RAM, something that Windows can't even cope with.
I'm more in the 5-6 range, but point taken. Most OS X apps seem to use 0% CPU when not in use, even if not hidden! (A similar oversight is often made in comparing Core Duo Macs to G5 Macs: run multiple apps at once that DO use CPU time, and those multiple cores become even more useful.)


How is it windows fault if some crappy video card maker comes up with a even worse driver that causes Direct X to crash?
A lot of the problems with Windows aren't MS's "fault." That still doesn't make the problems acceptable to people.

Anecdotally you can find people whose Mac crashes more than their PC (sorry for your bad luck!) but happily the overall trend is the reverse, especially for consumers (as opposed to rigidly limited workplace machines).

Sdashiki
Apr 7, 2006, 09:03 AM
Your car may take you to the pizza shop in 5 minutes, but USS Enterprise can take you to the next star system.

NERD ALERT!
NERD ALERT!
NERD ALERT!
NERD ALERT!
NERD ALERT!
NERD ALERT!
NERD ALERT!

Seriously, good anaolgy though.:o

dalvin200
Apr 7, 2006, 09:03 AM
Did anyone else want to shoot themselves while watching that uneasyscilence video? I just couldn't stand that mans voice. Also I thought you could have the home edition SP2 for it to work but they strictly say that its for XP Pro, is that right?

i saw it last night, and had the same feelings as you (re: the guys voice!!)

i believe u can have xp home sp2

MrCrowbar
Apr 7, 2006, 09:06 AM
I think it's good to see photoshop doesn't suck that much (remember it's running under Rosetta) compared to a native XP version. I guess the intel OSX version will kick ass.

BenRoethig
Apr 7, 2006, 09:06 AM
Hasn't OpenGL always been a problem with OS X?
(Asking an honest question, not trying to argue)

Yep. Hopefully they do something about it this time.

Nemesis
Apr 7, 2006, 09:08 AM
Maybe you stopped drinking the Koolaid? Drink up, son!
That's cnet for ya. That's why I gave that cnet reporter grief in the other thread when he posted asking for negative responses to boot camp.


Nowadays anyone can be a reporter if he can tell his pencil from the computer and his arse from his elbow.
Well, that means cNet's guys are out, I fear ...

BornAgainMac
Apr 7, 2006, 09:12 AM
I run them, every day. At least 30.
13 professional graphics applications, plus dozens of utilities and productivity applications of all sorts. My PowerMac has 12 GB of RAM, something that Windows can't even cope with.

So, I hope you finally begin to understand that comparing Windows and Mac OS X is same as comparing your car with USS Enterprise E.

Your car may take you to the pizza shop in 5 minutes, but USS Enterprise can take you to the next star system.

Comic Book guy comes to mind. I liked that comparison though, I'll have to quote you on it with my Windows buddies.

nagromme
Apr 7, 2006, 09:13 AM
Most amazing:

http://news.com.com/2061-10793_3-6058832.html?part=rss&tag=6058832&subj=news

"Boot Camp finally provides a baseline for a true head-to-head contest of Apple hardware vs. PC hardware, without operating systems or Rosetta or anything else qualifying the results."

And then, with NO further mention of Rosetta at all:

"In our Photoshop test, the original MacBook Pro struggled, running about five times slower than the PC competition--slower than on even the lowest-end iBook. Clearly, the Windows XP platform has made all the difference here."

Wow, that's some serious misinformation. Go C-Net :)

AidenShaw
Apr 7, 2006, 09:13 AM
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/ramvista.JPG

You see that number people? That's 820. 820 MB. And this is Vista idling. I know OS X is a RAM hog too, but it manages pretty well with the meager 512 that I have on my old iMac G4 (and Im talking about when it's not idling).
Look at the "available" number - just about 400 MiB is actually in use.

The PF number includes memory reservations and other overhead - the "available" number is the better one to use.

nataku
Apr 7, 2006, 09:16 AM
"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Lol! :D :D :D Microsoft has really gotten hit on the head really really really hard. Those guys dont know anything about creating something great.. All they do is copy the idea of someone else and use their marketing bullshlt to make it look original. I suddenly have the urge to snap a Win XP CD in half.

sunfast
Apr 7, 2006, 09:17 AM
Apple customers are NOT excited about running XP - believe me, I just made the switch and I am never going back.

Sadly, if you have a look here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=191670&page=4) several apple customers are excited about running XP.

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 09:19 AM
*image*

You see that number people? That's 820. 820 MB. And this is Vista idling. I know OS X is a RAM hog too, but it manages pretty well with the meager 512 that I have on my old iMac G4 (and Im talking about when it's not idling).
That 820MB figure is the size of the page file. As you can also see in the screenshot, there is more than 600MB of free physical memory. Windows uses the page file even if there is sufficient RAM. It's how it works. It may look inefficient, but as can clearly be seen in the tests between OSX and WinXP, performance is pretty good anyhow. It's also important to remember that this is the beta of Vista.

And to you guys that think Windows can't cope with lots of apps running at the same time: I bet your definition of running 25 programs is loading them up and letting most of them sit their, idling. Loading up programs only consumes memory and as long as there is memory, the computer won't slow down. I regularly have about 20 apps running on my WinXP laptop and it, naturally, runs just fine. I've run my laptop like this without rebooting for over a month, as hard as that probably is to believe for most of you. It even went out of sleep without crashing with more than 20 apps open! :eek: :rolleyes:

OSX probably handles high load from several programs better, if both systems are equipped with single core, non-SMT CPUs. It would seem that Windows runs very fast on systems with SMT (like the P4) or more than one CPU, though.

AeChei
Apr 7, 2006, 09:20 AM
I am running 10 full blown applications, at least 3 os haxies, and 3 non-standard menubar items. and all i am doing is surfing the web, email, and word.

studiomeridian
Apr 7, 2006, 09:20 AM
Seeing as how XP runs Window programs very well on the Intel iMac, I'm looking forward to running programs like 3DS Max and XSI on the new Intel Mac Pro's when they come out.

GFLPraxis
Apr 7, 2006, 09:27 AM
Looks like Windows wins on OpenGL (3d graphics run by the graphics card) by a notably margin while Mac OS X wins on CPU-based rendering and all CPU benchmarks.

So Windows is better for games, OS X is slightly better for everything else. About what I expected.

nicksoper
Apr 7, 2006, 09:27 AM
Originally Posted by Bill G. & pals
Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."


On a very personal level I would assume most existing mac users are not excited about xp, but excited about not having to get their of my chair, or ask a colleague to test work on a pc environment.

Originally Posted by ddcrandall
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.


The powerpc photoshop benchmark pretty misleading, although nice to see how much fast the next gen of photoshop will be, assuming the results will be comparable. Does anyone use their brand new intel mac for batch processing in photoshop anyway? I always find a machine in the corner to do them quietly, who cares if it takes an extra couple of minutes?

Something that I would be very interested to know is how flash movies in a web browser are running on intel macs these days? Windows definitely did something right there.

This note is an optimistic note for the cynics. I think that if osx IS slower than xp, on the same machine, with the same apps (universal apps on osx of course) then apple will have to put there hands up (internally if not publicly) and simply optimize leopard to at least make all the scores comparable. At least now apple will know how much faster they have to make it.

Speed and productivity? Are they the same thing? I won't answer that, but if you think yes then perhaps you do too much rendering and not enough work flow.

Vista slower than XP? It’s happened before.

Vista and 10.5 race? Will all this mean apple and windows might race to get there systems done first?

Hattig
Apr 7, 2006, 09:36 AM
The main difference in performance is OpenGL, which is distinctly worse on the Mac than on the PC although everyone suspected that already. Also highly multithreaded applications such as Apache also seem to perform quite badly, according to Anandtech's article last year.

Nobody has run a really decent set of benchmarks yet however. CNet seems to have run an extremely biased and technically incorrect (and incompetant) benchmark though. Processor intensive tests aren't that useful - the processor is the same - you need OS intensive tests - file I/O, threading, system libraries, and so on.

And indeed the apples-to-pears comparison will be vista, once it is out. Right now we've got an apples to, err, carrot comparison. Microsoft loses performance in each OS update, Apple gains performance, and Microsoft is way overdue for their update.

Not that it means anything to me. Mac OS X is nicer to use than Windows, and I prefer it overall even if it turned out it is 5% slower clock for clock than Windows on the same hardware.

nilmar
Apr 7, 2006, 09:36 AM
Guys, can't you see... Apple wants to sell more of its computers, not OS. They allowed windows to boot on Apple computers so that people can enjoy the beautiful white or aluminium machines, not having to be put off by the OS.( face it, many people do not want a Mac because the OS cannot support alot of softwares and games.)

I think Apple realises that many people love the designs of its computers but are afraid of the OS. They are afraid that they can't load their applications on the OS. See...Apple allowed windows user to use ipods, so they are now doing the same thing to macbook pros, imacs, macbooks, mac minis. Look at the response of ipods, 42 million sold! You think all of em are mac users? The market is huge out there, they cannot afford to stay loyal to their own OS. They have to think of a way to get the computers out to everywhere. Face it, Apple is still a business, they wanted to earn as much money as they could. They dont exist to cater your unique needs (counterculture), they exists to make lots of money, so that all the shareholders are happy and their bank accounts are healthy.

Im a switcher myself. I got sick of all the crashes, virus, hangs on windows XP. I have to format my old PC every 1 month. If not for my games, I would have made a complete switch to MAC (im not afraid of the OS..lol..). I recently upgraded my PC for my games and is now waiting for my macbook pro to arrive..which will arrive on Monday or Tuesday ... cant wait to get my hands on it! Im two steps away from becoming a full blown Apple fan, those who wore "I love you , Steve !" tshirts at mac events.. lol

ewinemiller
Apr 7, 2006, 09:37 AM
Where OSX shines is multitasking. Run Photoshop, Word and iTunes on a PC and it is just painful on Windows.

This really is the worst kind FUD. Perhaps you should run a Windows machine newer than say 1995 or with more than 256 meg of RAM. I'm running Outlook, virus protection, Websphere application developer, IIS, Word, iTunes, SQL Server, IE, Corel Photopaint, about half a dozen server processes for the web app I'm working on, yahoo chat, and all the silly asset management things my company adds on a 2 ghz Pentium 4-M (about a 3 year old laptop) with 1 gig of RAM. It runs fine. Windows has the same problem OSX has, if starved of RAM it runs like crap, if you've got enough RAM it's fine.

Photorun
Apr 7, 2006, 09:39 AM
Lol! :D :D :D Microsoft has really gotten hit on the head really really really hard. Those guys dont know anything about creating something great.. All they do is copy the idea of someone else and use their marketing bullshlt to make it look original. I suddenly have the urge to snap a Win XP CD in half.

Well I know it hurts some of the Mac Fanboys here to think this and/or you'll continue in some alternate reality but Microsuck certainly DOESN'T mind being able to run XPee on the Mac... why would they? When they have to bundle XPee on a Dull, Hewsh|t Packturd, Chumpac, Hateway, they only get about $50 per license. If someone has to actually buy their OS, they make $100-150 per sale of XPee. Microsuck, bottom line, is a business, and as such they like making money. To sell copies of their craptacularly woeful OS at retail price to them is a good thing... it's more profit, and like any company more profit is a great thing. It's the other peecee makers listed above that wont be congratulating Apple, after all, they're the ones that may lose a sale, if a switcher buys a Mac because now he/she can run both OSes that doens't hurt Microsuck any.

So that being said, those that may steal XPee as warez or whatever depriving M$ of more profit, I won't lose any sleep over that.

Peace
Apr 7, 2006, 09:40 AM
Windows on Intel should be faster than OS X on Intel...They've been doing it for at least 15 years.What do people expect?..Big deal.So an app opens 1 second faster in XP..Is that what people really want? An app to open a little faster? no way.People want a computer that is trustworthy,stable and most importantly virus free..

Give Apple a break here fans.Let them get stuff going.This is a BIG,BIG switch.

Arnaud
Apr 7, 2006, 09:41 AM
Anyhow, it's funny how people on this thread want the OsX to be faster than Windows.

That's rubbish. We might like/prefer OsX because of its features, or because of its stability, or because of the way it does things (feel free to complete that in your mind). But if you take one type of operation (rendering, or fps for games, or whatever else), there will certainly always be one PC in the world to do it faster than a Mac: such as the PC owned by your neighbour's 15-year old son, who spends all of his money and his time fine-tuning his machine with the latest CPU, the latest video card, the latest motherboard etc... (btw, he's regularly broke).

Apple's catalog is not, and cannot be, as quickly and as often at the top of the performance charts: they release a new product, hopefully a technological bomb, and then it's 6 months before they update it with faster cycles and new gizmos. If you don't agree with me, just check the video cards provided for Minis and iMacs. It's the same with the CPUs, you can only choose between a couple of rather-slow to rather-fast CPUs. There are too few clients to provide an extensive array of products.

On the other hand, the macs are designed globally, which might mean a better design of all interactive elements, and the Os suits better our needs.

My point: Os X might be 25% slower than Windows on the benchmarks on some PCs, and the worst is: it might be true (no need to find explanations why the benchmarks have to be flawed); but I don't care, as long as my Mac does what I want the way I want it, and Windows does not, to my point of view - taking into consideration the time for maintenance and the enjoyment of the computer time.

nilmar
Apr 7, 2006, 09:43 AM
oh yea...one more thing. Im not at all excited bout running windows XP on my new macbook pro. I dun wanna invited virus and spywares into my harddisk.

Photorun
Apr 7, 2006, 09:43 AM
I'm running Outlook, virus protection...

Virus protection? Why would a person need that... oh, right, you poor chap, you're doing Windoze!:D

...Corel Photopaint...

Wow. Just... just wow.

Arnaud
Apr 7, 2006, 09:46 AM
Ah, I see that my last post was preceded by a couple of other posts with the same kind of opinion... :rolleyes:

ewinemiller
Apr 7, 2006, 09:50 AM
Corel Photopaint

Wow. Just... just wow.

Well, sometimes sacrifices must be made for the budget.

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 09:54 AM
Virus protection? Why would a person need that... oh, right, you poor chap, you're doing Windoze!:D
I haven't used an antivirus program in 9 years now and in those nine years I've gotten exactly one virus (Blaster). I would say that the virus threat is somewhat overexaggerated. It's all about common sense really.

And, beore you ask, I run online scans every few months just in case. Nothing so far.

glowingstar
Apr 7, 2006, 09:59 AM
it's not like ms is making the hardware. let's hear what michael dell has to say ... :D

kramerdude
Apr 7, 2006, 10:12 AM
So what's the next step? Licensing OS X out to PC makers???

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 10:13 AM
[QUOTE=Photorun]Virus protection? Why would a person need that... oh, right, you poor chap, you're doing Windoze!:D QUOTE]

Why is it that Apple includes virus protection with a dotmac account? "Virus protection built right in."

I guess the software engineers at Apple don't know OS X very well, huh?

BornAgainMac
Apr 7, 2006, 10:16 AM
So what's the next step? Licensing OS X out to PC makers???

What about a API for creating Universal binaries that run on both Windows and Mac.

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 10:19 AM
it's not like ms is making the hardware. let's hear what michael dell has to say ... :D

I hope AAPL doesn't buy themselves an antitrust lawsuit by doing this.

1. Tying purchase of computer to purchase of OS. (The OS X license prohibits installation on non-AAPL hardware).

2. Monopoly on multi-OS computer.

By allowing this and by disallowing use of OS X on other hardware, I hope they do not embroil themselves in an unfair competition lawsuit.

modernpixel
Apr 7, 2006, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure why I keep reading that Microsoft should be worried, or that this is somehow beating them down. Microsoft is a software company, this just means selling more copies of XP for them.

The people who should be worried are companies like Dell. Although, unless Apple really comes in low on pricing of the iBook and future consumer machines - even Dell probably doesn't have to worry too much, since they don't really deal in high-end computer manufacturing (though they did just buy Alienware - right? That might make them quake a bit.)

This is a win-win situation for Apple and Microsoft. Apple gives added value to their computers by making them Mac and Windows machines, which will attract some new users. Microsoft sells more software - they know they aren't going to lose much market share to Apple...regular people don't care about operating systems, they want to run what they already know - which 95% of the time is Windows.

Joe

p.s. - I am a to-the-core Mac user, in case anyone thinks this is Windows-user flame bait. It's not.

WildPalms
Apr 7, 2006, 10:26 AM
Look at the "available" number - just about 400 MiB is actually in use.

The PF number includes memory reservations and other overhead - the "available" number is the better one to use.

WRONG! The original statement is correct. Stop blathering AIDENSHAW - you are showing a lack of knowledge.

JGowan
Apr 7, 2006, 10:28 AM
I just had to email the author of the NYTimes article, John Markoff, on a couple of things that bugged me that he wrote in. I thought the MacRumors group might like to it...

I take issue with several things you said in "Windows or Mac? Apple Says Both", including...

"The move was greeted with exuberance even among the loyal cult of Macintosh enthusiasts who sustained Apple through many bleak years before its resurgence on the strength of its iPod music player."

First off, people loyal to Macs aren't in a cult. We simply don't want to have to use a Windows PC that has too many bugs to count, too many viruses to count and that are ugly. If it wasn't for Apple, computers would still be beige.

Secondly, your statement implies that Apple hasn't really brought anything to the table since Nov 10, 2001 when the iPod arrived. This is totally false. When Steve Jobs came back in 1997, he turned the company around and started the constant trend of innovation.

Since then Jobs, with the help of Jonathan Ives and a lot of talented people, has managed to give us products used by millions the world over. The iMac and their new operating system, OS X is truly what got them back to selling. But the their desktop computers, laptops, displays and software titles have been what's driving them, not blind loyalty. Oh, let's not forget the Billion songs they've sold legally on their wonderful iTunes.

Apple's innovation has been the catalyst for success. Sure the iPod has helped but Apple was moving fast and hard in the years since '97 when Jobs came back and 4th Q 2001 when the iPod came out. Actually, sales for the iPod have only recently become phenominal. By recent, I would say a couple of years. There's 7 or 8 years of innovation that you blindly blew past and made light of with your statement. Of course, to praise Jobs too much in the early paragraphs, would not allow for a smooth segue about him that you wrote in the following:

"Ever the showman, Mr. Jobs had been accused of excess in a recent product introduction, when he called reporters to Apple's headquarters on short notice for a presentation that included a leather glove to protect the finish of an iPod music player."

Lastly, this event held so much more to it then some leather ipod case. Apparently this statement was simply designed to skew public perception. With this event, another piece of the Mac Intel puzzle came together: the introduction of the Mac Mini with the Intel Chip. Also, Apple was able to publicly announce its very recent sell of it's 1 billionth song on iTunes, a huge milestone. Finally, they introduced a completely new piece of hardware, the wonderful iPod Hi-Fi Music Player that works with all dockable iPods they've ever produced. While the event was not the most jaw-dropping one we've seen, it certainly had enough merit to be held.

I think both statements were designed to downplay Apple's technological advancements since Steve Jobs' return as CEO for almost a decade now. You mention the iPod as if it were the only thing Apple has done well and then suggest that a press conference was hardly called for due to some simple leather case.

You're a journalist. You're supposed to be unbiased. You're not.

asencif
Apr 7, 2006, 10:29 AM
I'm not sure why I keep reading that Microsoft should be worried, or that this is somehow beating them down. Microsoft is a software company, this just means selling more copies of XP for them.

The people who should be worried are companies like Dell. Although, unless Apple really comes in low on pricing of the iBook and future consumer machines - even Dell probably doesn't have to worry too much, since they don't really deal in high-end computer manufacturing (though they did just buy Alienware - right? That might make them quake a bit.)

This is a win-win situation for Apple and Microsoft. Apple gives added value to their computers by making them Mac and Windows machines, which will attract some new users. Microsoft sells more software - they know they aren't going to lose much market share to Apple...regular people don't care about operating systems, they want to run what they already know - which 95% of the time is Windows.

Joe

p.s. - I am a to-the-core Mac user, in case anyone thinks this is Windows-user flame bait. It's not.

Exactly! MS is probably ecstatic about all this as they now can increase their Windows market to the Mac market. More copies sold and more money made. Congrats to Apple and all those loyal Mac users and switchers that love Macs because they are better quality and don't run Windows which is less stable....OH Wait! I forget it's 4/6/06 now. We have MacWinTel machines loved and supported by Mac users.

lyzardking
Apr 7, 2006, 10:30 AM
Well I can tell you I have two Windows machines that I use fairly regularly (not as much as my Mac but still fairly regularly). I have had them both for 3 years. They are running XP. They have NEVER crashed. Not EVER. Oh and they have never had a virus either. Not one. My Mac G4 15"PB on the other hand, has locked up/crashed probably about 6 times over the last two years. Still not bad at all really however it was pretty much never my fault (usually it was Apple's in my opinion CRAPPY USB driver for the iPod (the firewire works fine) that caused the problem). Still, I love my powerbook (mostly because the I just like the OS) and look forward to getting an iMAC soon (and a new MacBook Pro of course). I may also stop having to have two computers on my desk so that I can run my Win only apps.

But you know most of the crashes in Windows are because someone loaded some piece of junk shareware app onto their computer. There are many fold more apps for Windows than apple when it comes to shareware, 99% of which is written by complete amatuers (which is fine) that cannot possibly account for the thousands of possible variants of a PC. Many crashes are hardware related. How many video cards are there for the Mac? Half a dozen? How many are there for the PC? A few hundred? How is it windows fault if some crappy video card maker comes up with a even worse driver that causes Direct X to crash?

XP seems to be to an OS of extremes, it's either super stable or really nasty (someone said they reinstall once a month! -sorry to the poster, to lazy to look)

I'd imagine it's what you do to it/how you use it (haxies, etc) like any system

I agree with the USB observation. Why is it that USB drives are faster in XP than X? Though I have friends that have had problems with firewire in XP. I think each side wants their solution to "look" better :rolleyes:

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 10:33 AM
Exactly! MS is probably ecstatic about all this as they now can increase their Windows market to the Mac market. More copies sold and more money made. Congrats to Apple and all those loyal Mac users and switchers that love Macs because they are better quality and don't run Windows which is less stable....OH Wait! I forget it's 4/6/06 now. We have MacWinTel machines loved and supported by Mac users.

Hmmm...how to calculate marketshare now? I guess there must be 4 categories (Win only, OS X only, dual boot, other). But one would have to rely on user surveys...which is never as accurate as hard sales numbers.

JGowan
Apr 7, 2006, 10:36 AM
Who runs 20-25 apps at once? Seriously?I believe he was exaggerating, but seriously... As a graphic artist/web dude, I oftentimes have open Illustrator, Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, Classic for Streamline, Mail, iTunes, Word and finally DVD to watch a movie while I work. Do that in Windows. Those are some very BIG GUN programs, yet Apple can handle it.

matd
Apr 7, 2006, 10:38 AM
Hi,

I'm just asking myself if some has already tested new games (such as FIFA 2006 or Tomb Raider Legend). Are these games running well, or are the video cards driver not supported ? Has someone a link to provide a detailed benchmark concerning recent video games?
Thx a lot !

odedia
Apr 7, 2006, 10:38 AM
Do I understand the benchmark right, that windows is generally faster on a mac than the OS?

Isn't that terrible news for our beloved OS?

I bought my iMac 20" Core Duo 512MB a week ago. comparing it to my old Asus based desktop with windows, 1.8Ghz P4, 512MB, it feels painfully slow. opening Pages takes well over six seconds. opening dashboard is very slow (and at first, the effect is "jammed", until appearing on screen for the first time). I gave up using safari because like every other Apple product, it sucks for international and right-to-left users. Camino is pretty good as alternative. Importing a short DV clip to iMovie HD was a disater in time (over 5 minutes). What's there to import? what takes it so long? I won't even start talking about using iMovie HD, it is close to impossible as a movie editor. I am currently writing those words from the old P4, and it's still VERY snappy, years after I bought it. It is filled with tons of apps, too. include anti virus.

I hope those issues will get better soon, otherwise I'd very kinda disappointed with my purchase... iMac is mobile technology sold as a desktop computer. Maybe I should have gone for the Macbook Pro, that way i would have been less disappointed...

Oded S.

JGowan
Apr 7, 2006, 10:38 AM
Now that a user can actually get TWO COMPUTERS in one (+ a nominal WinOS charge), I think people will have no problem buying an "expensive" mac. Personally, I want the 20" iMac.

I think $1,699 for a 20-inch Monitor, 2GHz computer with Dual Core chip that has the most sophisticated OS in the world AND does Windows is certainly worth the extra money.

There will certainly be those with a lot of time on their hands that will be posting calculations of what a person would spend whol had to buy both a PC and a Mac with the same/similar specs. I think we'll be amazed.

Tack on the fact that August will probably see most Windows OSs/Linux OSs all in a thin layer under Leopard and that will boost PRICE right out of reasoning.

Apple will suddenly becoming the BARGAIN COMPUTER, no matter if you're buying a Mini or the top of the line.

asencif
Apr 7, 2006, 10:45 AM
Hmmm...how to calculate marketshare now? I guess there must be 4 categories (Win only, OS X only, dual boot, other). But one would have to rely on user surveys...which is never as accurate as hard sales numbers.

Either way I think Windows has a growth here, especially if Mac users purchase Windows more than switchers buy an Intel Mac to dual boot. I'm just surprised at all the excitement to dual boot and turn a Mac into that what was once everyone's punching bag...A Wintel. I can understand Virtualization because you are still having OS X as your primary OS, however this Windows love is very hypocritical by many. Especially the ones that trashed the OS and praised OS X and now we hear...But I can't game on a mac...Or I need this app. Well then if that's the case then why did you get a Mac. Was it just for the looks? It should've been for OS X, its ease of use, iLife apps, innovation, and more stability. Unfortunately, this is a Windows world and no matter how much was tried...Can't get away from it because there's always some method of getting one to stay on. By the way, I know the ins and outs of both systems, but prefer OS X.

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 10:46 AM
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/ramvista.JPG

You see that number people? That's 820. 820 MB. And this is Vista idling. I know OS X is a RAM hog too, but it manages pretty well with the meager 512 that I have on my old iMac G4 (and Im talking about when it's not idling).

I believe that that number has already been discussed in the net, and it has been determined to be 100% meaningless.

Yes, Vista is too little too late

MrCrowbar
Apr 7, 2006, 10:46 AM
I bought my iMac 20" Core Duo 512MB a week ago. comparing it to my old Asus based desktop with windows, 1.8Ghz P4, 512MB, it feels painfully slow.
Oded S.

Max out the RAM of your iMac. OSX Tiger needs a lot of RAM for decent performance. Your Mac will be twice as fast with enoguh RAM.

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 10:46 AM
I believe he was exaggerating, but seriously... As a graphic artist/web dude, I oftentimes have open Illustrator, Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, Classic for Streamline, Mail, iTunes, Word and finally DVD to watch a movie while I work. Do that in Windows. Those are some very BIG GUN programs, yet Apple can handle it.
And exactly how is that going to be a hard load for a Windows system? Just curious.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys ever even sat at a Windows computer... Reformat every month? What the hell! :confused:

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 10:47 AM
Check out your processes on a Windows PC and Mac. More is running that you would think. Perhaps apps isn't the correct statement.

Processes are not same as applications, IMO. "Process" involvoes all kinds of background-things that spend most of their time doing practically nothing. When you talk of "applications", you talk of programs that the user specificly loads and actively uses.

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 10:50 AM
I run them, every day. At least 30.
13 professional graphics applications, plus dozens of utilities and productivity applications of all sorts.

you are then part of that 0.01% minority. Could you name the apps you run at the same time?

My PowerMac has 12 GB of RAM, something that Windows can't even cope with.

64bit Windows can.

So, I hope you finally begin to understand that comparing Windows and Mac OS X is same as comparing your car with USS Enterprise E.

So what if YOU run zillion apps at once on your computer. 99% of users run 3-5 apps AT MOST. So talking about using the system with 30 running apps is for all intents and purposes academic.

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 10:53 AM
Well I know it hurts some of the Mac Fanboys here to think this and/or you'll continue in some alternate reality but Microsuck certainly DOESN'T mind being able to run XPee on the Mac... why would they? When they have to bundle XPee on a Dull, Hewsh|t Packturd, Chumpac, Hateway, they only get about $50 per license. If someone has to actually buy their OS, they make $100-150 per sale of XPee. Microsuck, bottom line, is a business, and as such they like making money. To sell copies of their craptacularly woeful OS at retail price to them is a good thing... it's more profit, and like any company more profit is a great thing. It's the other peecee makers listed above that wont be congratulating Apple, after all, they're the ones that may lose a sale, if a switcher buys a Mac because now he/she can run both OSes that doens't hurt Microsuck any.

So that being said, those that may steal XPee as warez or whatever depriving M$ of more profit, I won't lose any sleep over that.

I must say, your rabid fanboyness and pure hatred of anything related to PC's and Windows still cracks me up :). Now, that's not propably your intention, but you do offer me quite a bit of amusement. That said, I think you should really work on renewing your repertoire. It's getting a bit old.

asencif
Apr 7, 2006, 10:53 AM
And exactly how is that going to be a hard load for a Windows system? Just curious.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys ever even sat at a Windows computer... Reformat every month? What the hell! :confused:

As a Mac and Win tech, I can definitely be careful with a Windows system and secure it and never have really gotten one infected, however the reality is that this is the minority. The majority have gotten infected with spyware, slowdowns, crashes, driver issues, and even corporations I've worked for have had major shutdowns because of attacks. You may be fine and say this can all run great...I don't understand etc....Just go to many Win forums and you'll see countless posts of strange problems and system instability. Just like there have been a few Mac users with HW issues there has also been some Win users with no problems, however that is not too common. OS X right now has been more stable, run more apps at a time better, and for most switchers they have found the OS X experience to be much easier and productive.

Arnaud
Apr 7, 2006, 10:53 AM
I bought my iMac 20" Core Duo 512MB a week ago. comparing it to my old Asus based desktop with windows, 1.8Ghz P4, 512MB, it feels painfully slow. opening Pages takes well over six seconds. opening dashboard is very slow (and at first, the effect is "jammed", until appearing on screen for the first time). I gave up using safari because like every other Apple product, it sucks for international and right-to-left users. Camino is pretty good as alternative. Importing a short DV clip to iMovie HD was a disater in time (over 5 minutes). What's there to import? what takes it so long? I won't even start talking about using iMovie HD, it is close to impossible as a movie editor. I am currently writing those words from the old P4, and it's still VERY snappy, years after I bought it. It is filled with tons of apps, too. include anti virus.

Hello, first of all, expand your ram. 512Mb on an Intel iMac is useless if you want to use something more than the Findr. Yes, Apple should say it, but go for 1 or 1.5Gb.

Second, I don't know about the size of your clip, but iMovie imports the whole file, so you've got disk issues here, beyond the cpu performances. Final Cut Express, on the other hand, does not import the content and is a more real movie editor. iMovie is mostly to transfer/edit your camcorder tapes to a dvd... (but I do like its simplicity).

Good luck then.

slidingjon
Apr 7, 2006, 10:54 AM
This is all very interesting, but I buy mac products to run the Mac OS. I just got my 17" coreduo imac this week and it rocks! It sure beats the pants off my 800mhz ibook g4! (speaking of which...anyone want a used ibook?....)
The mac os is great. It is clean, runs well, networks incredibly well. However, I can understand certain niche needs for windows (at this point). Hopefully that will all soon go away as people realize that not only do macs look great, but they run great. Soon people will realize that if they want to save money in IT, run macs.

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 10:55 AM
This is a beta of Vista, it will probably much better once they take the debugging and logging code out.


Even MS said the Min was going to be 1GB of ram to run it and 2GB for top performance.

Thats a good bit of ram to just run the OS...not mention games and what not.

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 7, 2006, 10:57 AM
So, I hope you finally begin to understand that comparing Windows and Mac OS X is same as comparing your car with USS Enterprise E.

Your car may take you to the pizza shop in 5 minutes, but USS Enterprise can take you to the next star system.
Seriously, good anaolgy though.:oYeah, but would you take the USS Enterprise to the pizza shop?

In other words, do you mow your tiny yard in the city with a tractor? :p :rolleyes:

macFanDave
Apr 7, 2006, 10:57 AM
When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.

If Vista comes out.

ArizonaKid
Apr 7, 2006, 10:58 AM
OS X is still limited to the Pentium M (Centrino Duo/Core) family. Although this comparison was intended to show similar conditions; taking all processor options into account OS X would be toast against a Windows Machine on AMD Athlon™ 64 FX or even AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 Dual-Core.

Which is all the more reason for Apple's Desktop to incorporate AMD's line of processors as well. That would really be a great bombshell!

weldon
Apr 7, 2006, 10:58 AM
I think this is great for Apple, as they will have something completely objective to test against when working to improve the Mach kernel.
I agree. I think this is going to force Apple to work very hard on optimizing the OS for Intel so that it will compare favorably with Linux and Windows running on similar (or the same) hardware. This is going to bring more competition to the computing world and we should see innovative solutions come from it. (I hope!)

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 10:59 AM
And exactly how is that going to be a hard load for a Windows system? Just curious.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you guys ever even sat at a Windows computer... Reformat every month? What the hell! :confused:


Never used Windows XP pro that much...but I've used Win98SE to know it will die on you. Even without a virus my PC died and wouldn't even boot up.
Just kept giving me the BSOD and I'm not even sure why..since I wasn't connected to the net(dialup back then)

Arnaud
Apr 7, 2006, 10:59 AM
Even MS said the Min was going to be 1GB of ram to run it and 2GB for top performance.

Thats a good bit of ram to just run the OS...not mention games and what not.

Come on, that's evolution anyway. Remember the Apple IIe? 64Ko of ram standard ! In 15 years, we'll use 1Tb for the system...

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 11:00 AM
I believe he was exaggerating, but seriously... As a graphic artist/web dude, I oftentimes have open Illustrator, Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, Classic for Streamline, Mail, iTunes, Word and finally DVD to watch a movie while I work. Do that in Windows. Those are some very BIG GUN programs, yet Apple can handle it.

So you have.... 9 apps running at once? I usually have Lotus Notes (which is an gargantuan app), Peregrine Service Center, Smartmail Management Console, Active Directory Management Console, Firefox with over dozen tabs, Winamp and occasionally Word and Powerpoint on top of that. So that's 6-8 apps running simultaneously. And I don't see any problems with the system, and I can't see how things would change if I added few apps in to the mix.

Some of our users run Access with huge files, Word, Lotus Notes, IE, Excel with huge files (100MB+), PowerPoint with huge files etc. etc, all at the same time, and they don't seem to be having any issues.

I know it's fashinable to bash Windows, and Windows IS crap (believe me, I use it every day). But it IS pretty stable, and it handles multitasking just fine.

MrCrowbar
Apr 7, 2006, 11:00 AM
This really is the worst kind FUD. Perhaps you should run a Windows machine newer than say 1995 or with more than 256 meg of RAM. I'm running Outlook, virus protection, Websphere application developer, IIS, Word, iTunes, SQL Server, IE, Corel Photopaint, about half a dozen server processes for the web app I'm working on, yahoo chat, and all the silly asset management things my company adds on a 2 ghz Pentium 4-M (about a 3 year old laptop) with 1 gig of RAM. It runs fine. Windows has the same problem OSX has, if starved of RAM it runs like crap, if you've got enough RAM it's fine.

I should define "using applications". I don't mean just having the app open. iTunes is importing to mp3, Photoshop is doing filter work on 30Meg files, Word is... I don't really know what Word does to suck the system dry...
I have the working apps opend on the small screen and use the big one for the app I'm interacting with. On windows thins kind of work chokes a bit, OSX is very snappy here, i.e I can control my apps without waiting like in windows.

However I admit XP i superior to OSX for gaming and light applications.

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 7, 2006, 11:02 AM
Windows on Intel should be faster than OS X on Intel...They've been doing it for at least 15 years.What do people expect?..Big deal.So an app opens 1 second faster in XP..Is that what people really want? An app to open a little faster? no way.People want a computer that is trustworthy,stable and most importantly virus free..
Then why do they spend hundreds more to go from 2.0GHz to 2.16GHz if they don't care about things being slightly faster? ;)

socamx
Apr 7, 2006, 11:03 AM
Why is it that Apple includes virus protection with a dotmac account? "Virus protection built right in."

I guess the software engineers at Apple don't know OS X very well, huh?

Silly wabbit, virii are for Windows.

Apple is just preventing Mac users from spreading a virus to a Windows friend unintentionally. Mac users wouldn't get affected by a Windows virus in an email and such but we can still pass it on to Windows users.

DJTJ
Apr 7, 2006, 11:03 AM
Running xp on my mac would be like taking my porsche engine and putting it in a chevy cobalt. Its NOT gonna happen.

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 11:05 AM
Even MS said the Min was going to be 1GB of ram to run it and 2GB for top performance.

IIRC, they recommended 1GB. And I find it pretty funny that you blast Vista's memory-requirement, when people are constantly telling that "Get as much RAM as possible, Tiger just LOVES RAM!" :confused:

512 is the absolute minimium for OS X, with 1GB being "enough". I fail to see any dramatic difference between OS X and Vista as far as memory-consumption is concerned.

Cabbit
Apr 7, 2006, 11:06 AM
after useing vista in beta for some time its kinda ok. ram hog yes but it beats the pants of windows xp. it has some strong points over os x but is weak in others. The planned kill-of of opengl in vista is a big downer. Micro$oft is trying to make all the big pro apps switch to DirectX or suffer one opengl app at a time with reduced access to the hardware.

ArizonaKid
Apr 7, 2006, 11:06 AM
Running xp on my mac would be like taking my porsche engine and putting it in a chevy cobalt. Its NOT gonna happen.

Enough with all these car analogies already.

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 11:08 AM
you are then part of that 0.01% minority. Could you name the apps you run at the same time?



64bit Windows can.



So what if YOU run zillion apps at once on your computer. 99% of users run 3-5 apps AT MOST. So talking about using the system with 30 running apps is for all intents and purposes academic.

I hope you know the guy didn't mean Apps he meant processes..which means I'm running 18-19 processes and have around 7-8 apps running...on 512mb of ram.
Check how many processes your running because not all proc. are visible...like an app is.

MrCrowbar
Apr 7, 2006, 11:08 AM
Silly wabbit, virii are for Windows.

Apple is just preventing Mac users from spreading a virus to a Windows friend unintentionally. Mac users wouldn't get affected by a Windows virus in an email and such but we can still pass it on to Windows users.

Hmm... Apple would get more market share if they did the opposite, i.e. forward viruses (correct plural) like hell so Windows users get bored and buy Macs. :D

ImAlwaysRight
Apr 7, 2006, 11:08 AM
I just had to email the author of the NYTimes article, John Markoff, on a couple of things that bugged me that he wrote in. I thought the MacRumors group might like to it...
I like your letter. Your closing statement says:

You're a journalist. You're supposed to be unbiased. You're not.

OMG a biased journalist?!!? :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

digitalbiker
Apr 7, 2006, 11:11 AM
I agree. I think this is going to force Apple to work very hard on optimizing the OS for Intel so that it will compare favorably with Linux and Windows running on similar (or the same) hardware. This is going to bring more competition to the computing world and we should see innovative solutions come from it. (I hope!)

I agree with this.

We have all known for quite sometime that OpenGl performance under OSX was a dog but Apple seemed to be slow at fixing these performance issues.

Likewise, the OSX GUI performance and finder are performance issues as well.

Maybe having direct comparisons of different OS's on the same hardware will finally light some fire under Apple to get with the program on performance.

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 11:14 AM
I hope you know the guy didn't mean Apps he meant processes..which means I'm running 18-19 processes and have around 7-8 apps running...on 512mb of ram.
Check how many processes your running because not all proc. are visible...like an app is.

Well, my work-PC has ALOT of processes running all the time. Propably between 20-30, maybe even more. And there are no issues. So I fail to see the point here.

EDIT: This Linux-machine has 39 processess running in the background :)

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 11:17 AM
IIRC, they recommended 1GB. And I find it pretty funny that you blast Vista's memory-requirement, when people are constantly telling that "Get as much RAM as possible, Tiger just LOVES RAM!" :confused:

512 is the absolute minimium for OS X, with 1GB being "enough". I fail to see any dramatic difference between OS X and Vista as far as memory-consumption is concerned.


And what OS doesn't?
Umm I run with 512mb and still run well enough for anything I need.
I only use 1GB with PhotoShop and some games.

VanNess
Apr 7, 2006, 11:23 AM
I'm not sure why I keep reading that Microsoft should be worried, or that this is somehow beating them down. Microsoft is a software company, this just means selling more copies of XP for them.

According to Robert Cringely, not only is Microsoft unsurprised about Boot Camp (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html), his inside sources from Microsoft confirm that they have been working with Apple all along to insure Vista compatibility with Intel Macs.

socamx
Apr 7, 2006, 11:23 AM
Hmm... Apple would get more market share if they did the opposite, i.e. forward viruses (correct plural) like hell so Windows users get bored and buy Macs. :D

I must say, I like your thinking Crowbar. I think Windows users do a good job on their own though anyway.

By the way it can be said virii also, no rule saying it isn't correct. I like to be different.

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 11:26 AM
Anybody that uses Windows and says "I don't have any anti-virus protection and I've never had a virus" is clearly either lying, or not using their computer a whole lot.

Just take a walk through any college dorm hall and like 90% of the student PCs have viruses or malware of some sort.

Such nonsense.

Plecky
Apr 7, 2006, 11:26 AM
Has anyone else noticed that the store has undergone a bit of reformatting with the MacBook Pro and iMac's switching positions, as well as titles stating "New Macs with Intel Processors" and "Macs with PowerPC Processors" or something along those lines? Where's the rumor thread for the store rearranging? I want to keep hope for MacBooks or something (anything!) new before the end of this month. By that I mean on the hardware side, on the software side - Boot Camp was a great 30th anniversary software present, other then being in beta of course. The only thing that could've outdone it but would be unrealistic would be a release of Leopard with its non-beta Boot Camp technology included, but I'll definitely take what we got happily. But as selfish as it seems, I'm still holding my breath and holding out hope for some new hardware (whether it be Macs or iPods) before the end of April. The store rearranging gets me semi-excited, anyone know where I can find the thread of others like myself who enjoy reading too much into things (such as small changes in the store's arrangement) and continue to rumor about things we likely won't see for another month or two anyways...? Thanks! :D

Peace
Apr 7, 2006, 11:31 AM
According to Robert Cringely, not only is Microsoft unsurprised about Boot Camp (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060406.html), his inside sources from Microsoft confirm that they have been working with Apple all along to insure Vista compatibility with Intel Macs.

Not only that but one of the drivers for the XP on Mac was done by Microsoft.

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 11:32 AM
And what OS doesn't?

So why whine about Vistas mem-consumption?

Umm I run with 512mb and still run well enough for anything I need.
I only use 1GB with PhotoShop and some games.

My work-PC has 512MB of RAM as well, and I run multitude of apps on it without any problems.

ewinemiller
Apr 7, 2006, 11:40 AM
Never used Windows XP pro that much...but I've used Win98SE to know it will die on you. Even without a virus my PC died and wouldn't even boot up.
Just kept giving me the BSOD and I'm not even sure why..since I wasn't connected to the net(dialup back then)

Come on, judging Windows XP bad because how windows 98 performed is like me saying OSX sucks because when I ran OS 8.1 I had to turned off my iMac by unplugging it more than shutting it down because it locked up so much. That was nearly 8 years ago!

jcoffman78
Apr 7, 2006, 11:46 AM
"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."

Windows is nothing more than Digital Crap, that came from Bill GAtes Butt.

prostuff1
Apr 7, 2006, 11:48 AM
Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

Comparing XP to OS X 10.4 while ligit is not really fair. OS X right now offeres so much more then XP. To make it fair i would think you would have to find a program like dashboard and install it. Then one that will do hotcorners. I realize these are small examples but XP really does not include the stuff you get with OS X.

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 11:48 AM
Anybody that uses Windows and says "I don't have any anti-virus protection and I've never had a virus" is clearly either lying, or not using their computer a whole lot.

Just take a walk through any college dorm hall and like 90% of the student PCs have viruses or malware of some sort.

Such nonsense.
No nonsense at all. Here's why I haven't gotten any viruses the past years:

- I don't surf less reputable porn sites
- I don't download pirated software
- I don't open strange e-mail attachments

Pretty much the only way I can get a virus is if it infects the computer just by being connected to the net. This is what happened when I got the Blaster worm. I also mentioned this in my previous post.

I use my computer atleast eight hours a day and I'm not lying about not getting any viruses. I suppose it has to do with my usage style. Most people break all of the above three "rules" more or less daily and that seriously increases the risk of getting viruses. Those three things are also probably stuff you shouldn't be dealing with in the first place. :p

Also, I'm no newbie. I've been seriously into computers since I was ten years old (23 now). What I am trying to say is that the risk of getting a virus is greatly reduced with a little common sense (or experience).

EDIT: Also note that I'm not saying that Windows is secure. I'm just saying that it's easy to avoid the problems that people seem to get over and over again. There seem to be a fair amount of knowledgeable people on these forums, yet hardly no one has figured this out.

lazyrighteye
Apr 7, 2006, 11:50 AM
Who runs 20-25 apps at once? Seriously?

Noobs.

Marx55
Apr 7, 2006, 11:51 AM
"Windows is a great operating system".

Excuse me, Windows is *****! As is Office, IE and basically all products ever produced by M$. Remember DOS? Was it also great? Gimme a break!

The day M$ goes out of business will be a gigantic leap for computing and humanity!

But sadly, meanwhile we need M$ stuff to keep on being compatible. That is why we want Windows in the Mac; not because Windows is great, which is not at all!!!

M$: do the world a favor and go out of business!

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 11:57 AM
So why whine about Vistas mem-consumption?



My work-PC has 512MB of RAM as well, and I run multitude of apps on it without any problems.

I don't think I was whining. I was just stating what MS said.
Either way OSX tends to run opt on 1GB.
Vista will need atleast 1GB to run and play a game or two.

milo
Apr 7, 2006, 11:57 AM
Yeah I guess that is some pretty good news..... especially cause 10.5 will be out WAY before Vista

Will it? I thought they'd be out around the same time?

Guys, can't you see... Apple wants to sell more of its computers, not OS. They allowed windows to boot on Apple computers so that people can enjoy the beautiful white or aluminium machines, not having to be put off by the OS.

I couldn't disagree more. Sure, things like ipods sell for the hardware. But with the macs, the vast majority of people buy them for the OS. Mac sales don't lag PC sales because of the OS (generally), they don't sell as much because macs cost more. There are TONS of people who would buy a mac if it was the same price as a PC. The ability to run XP is a help because it means a switcher doesn't need a second machine. Sure, the mac is more expensive, but the extra cost is worth it because it can do more (run 2 os's versus 1).

Anyhow, it's funny how people on this thread want the OsX to be faster than Windows.

That's rubbish. We might like/prefer OsX because of its features, or because of its stability, or because of the way it does things (feel free to complete that in your mind). But if you take one type of operation (rendering, or fps for games, or whatever else), there will certainly always be one PC in the world to do it faster than a Mac: such as the PC owned by your neighbour's 15-year old son, who spends all of his money and his time fine-tuning his machine with the latest CPU, the latest video card, the latest motherboard etc... (btw, he's regularly broke).

I don't think you understand the article. These benchmarks don't compare apple hardware to PC hardware, they compare OSX vs XP on the same hardware. And the OSX software SHOULD run at about the same speed, there's no real excuse for macs to be slower any more.

2. Monopoly on multi-OS computer.

There's no such thing as "Monopoly on multi-OS computer." There's only a monopoly on "computers". Which is what microsoft has.


How about some benchmarks on apps that are available for both systems. Namely, re-encode some giant audio and video files using iTunes and Quicktime. If those don't run better on OSX than XP, that means apple has a LOT of work to do optimizing OSX.

Chrispy
Apr 7, 2006, 12:00 PM
That 820MB figure is the size of the page file. As you can also see in the screenshot, there is more than 600MB of free physical memory. Windows uses the page file even if there is sufficient RAM. It's how it works. It may look inefficient, but as can clearly be seen in the tests between OSX and WinXP, performance is pretty good anyhow. It's also important to remember that this is the beta of Vista.

And to you guys that think Windows can't cope with lots of apps running at the same time: I bet your definition of running 25 programs is loading them up and letting most of them sit their, idling. Loading up programs only consumes memory and as long as there is memory, the computer won't slow down. I regularly have about 20 apps running on my WinXP laptop and it, naturally, runs just fine. I've run my laptop like this without rebooting for over a month, as hard as that probably is to believe for most of you. It even went out of sleep without crashing with more than 20 apps open! :eek: :rolleyes:

OSX probably handles high load from several programs better, if both systems are equipped with single core, non-SMT CPUs. It would seem that Windows runs very fast on systems with SMT (like the P4) or more than one CPU, though.

This is a great point. It is also worth pointing out that Windows XP x64 edition CAN handle 12GB of ram or more. Since Vista will be realeased in a 64bit version, it too will be able to handle the same amounts of ram that the mac does. Don't get me wrong, I think OSX is a beautiful and effecient OS. However, I think windows is making improvements that are being overlooked by many.

lazyrighteye
Apr 7, 2006, 12:00 PM
Anybody that uses Windows and says "I don't have any anti-virus protection and I've never had a virus" is clearly either lying, or not using their computer a whole lot.

Or don't have an internet connection.
Or are drunk.
If not both.

xUKHCx
Apr 7, 2006, 12:04 PM
Has anyone else noticed that the store has undergone a bit of reformatting with the MacBook Pro and iMac's switching positions, as well as titles stating "New Macs with Intel Processors" and "Macs with PowerPC Processors" or something along those lines? Where's the rumor thread for the store rearranging? I want to keep hope for MacBooks or something (anything!) new before the end of this month. By that I mean on the hardware side, on the software side - Boot Camp was a great 30th anniversary software present, other then being in beta of course. The only thing that could've outdone it but would be unrealistic would be a release of Leopard with its non-beta Boot Camp technology included, but I'll definitely take what we got happily. But as selfish as it seems, I'm still holding my breath and holding out hope for some new hardware (whether it be Macs or iPods) before the end of April. The store rearranging gets me semi-excited, anyone know where I can find the thread of others like myself who enjoy reading too much into things (such as small changes in the store's arrangement) and continue to rumor about things we likely won't see for another month or two anyways...? Thanks! :D

yeah i noticed the change, it hasnt changed over here on the UK store. Also of note over on the USA store it says "New Macs featuring <big space> Intel Processors" and below in the ppc section it says "cessors <big space> Macs with PowerPC pro"

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 12:05 PM
Or don't have an internet connection.
Or are drunk.
If not both.
See my post above. There's no alcohol involved, no luck and not even magic. Just a little bit of common sense. Wonderful, no? :)

longofest
Apr 7, 2006, 12:10 PM
Okay... time to get technically grounded here in our discussion about why XP is getting faster benchmarks than OSX. I'm seeing a lot of stuff flying around in the forum without any kind of backup, and I'm worried that we are just trying to justify our OS without looking at technical reasons why the benchmarks are the way they are.

Much of the speed variance that can be seen in the two OS's can be attributed to their kernels. While the NT/XP kernel and XNU (Darwin/Mac OSX's kernel) are both hybrid kernels, the XP kernel is in general a bit more monolithic in design. One major advantage that the XP kernel has over XNU is that it uses some shared memory (a feature of monolithic kernels) to speed up kernel operations, whereas XNU to my knowledge doesn't use any shared memory within the kernel but rather uses Mach's IPC mechanism (for those of you who are non-technical, you can equate any referance to "mach" with SLOW). So, when two processes communicate with each other, XP has a major advantage. Also, communication with the Kernel is generally faster in WindowsXP.

So... the above could be some of the reasons why XP is getting some faster scores. Also, I'd have to say that MS having about a 10 year head start on fine-tuning the NT system to run on x86 is probably helping them out a bit too. Apple has said that they kept a project alive to make sure that Mac OS X would compile on x86 hardware, but that doesn't mean that they did much more than that (aka optimize the instructions).

For more info on this stuff...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_%28computer_science%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
(MacRumors guides has a little info too, but not as detailed as Wikipedia)

Arnaud
Apr 7, 2006, 12:10 PM
I don't think you understand the article. These benchmarks don't compare apple hardware to PC hardware, they compare OSX vs XP on the same hardware. And the OSX software SHOULD run at about the same speed, there's no real excuse for macs to be slower any more.

Ok, maybe I wasn't clear enough, this was adressed to some of the posts on this thread, who attempted to generally/automatically claim "Windows is slower than OsX", not in the case of BootCamp.

The basic topic of the thread brought an extension of the subject, to the usual, unsupported "Windows is slower than OsX", and I was commenting on the performance of the Intel iMac as a support to XP compared to PCs in the world.

GregA2
Apr 7, 2006, 12:12 PM
Never used Windows XP pro that much...but I've used Win98SE to know it will die on you.

That's like saying, "I haven't tried off-roading in an F-150, but I know my Civic can't handle it."

(another car analogy- my bad....)

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 12:17 PM
Come on, judging Windows XP bad because how windows 98 performed is like me saying OSX sucks because when I ran OS 8.1 I had to turned off my iMac by unplugging it more than shutting it down because it locked up so much. That was nearly 8 years ago!

When I say I haven't worked with XP Pro much...I mean I only worked with it in Mil. environment for approx. 3 yrs
I use to fix all the XP pro laptops and desktops in our unit.
We also ran OSX and Linux and we had less issues with OSX and Linux machines then XP...aka didn't die as much.
I don't think I said XP was bad but it's not much better then 98SE or NT.
But it should since it's basically a user friendly NT machine.
Vista reminds me alot of ME....eh..
Either way I've worked with alot of computers..about 20yrs working with Windows/Macs/Unix

Final judgement will come when Vista and Leo is released.

ITR 81
Apr 7, 2006, 12:22 PM
That's like saying, "I haven't tried off-roading in an F-150, but I know my Civic can't handle it."

(another car analogy- my bad....)

I don't think 3 yrs working with an OS is much time with it.
You need 4-5+ yrs to figure out an OS's in's and out's.

I doubt a reg. F150 would be able to handle off-roading either well..unless it's 4wd and has the off-road package.

A civic can go off road..but I'm only talking about dirt roads and such.
You probably could rally it if you set the sus up for it and give it some dirt gripping tyres.

dornoforpyros
Apr 7, 2006, 12:26 PM
"Windows is a great operating system," a Microsoft statement said. "We're pleased that Apple customers are excited about running it, and that Apple is responding to meet the demand."




Given the reaction to boot camp around here on MR I'd say this is a true statement.

rish
Apr 7, 2006, 12:29 PM
Guy's and Gals, regardless of what the bench marks say I ain't ever going to load up Windows nor do I really care whether at this stage its quicker.

My hard earned cash won't be going to old Bill and his pals in Redmond no sirree. I'm buying Mac and thats that regardless of bench marks.

As for tons of people would buy a Mac if it was the same price as a PC. Well lets think about this for a moment. A Mac will work right out of a box, you've got all these fantastic apps that work. Unlike an unfortunate person I know who bought a laptop with Windows XP Home edition installed on it thinking they had the entire suite of Microsoft apps. That putts now has to fork out a few hundred pounds just to get all the MS Office apps. All of a sudden that cheap laptop/pc is not so cheap after all. They will also have to purchase some decent antivirus software that will extensively protect their new machine from spyware/malware etc that will cost up to double figures at the least. So all of a sudden you find that the price is going up and that bargain no longer seems like one anymore. In fact I'll say that the poor git wishes the earth swallows them up before having to admit that they made a significant mistake.

Purchasing a Mac is value for money and with that you get a beautifully designed machine that you can actually enjoy using. I put up a question to my work colleagues today and asked how many of them could honestly say that they enjoy using their PC's at work. You know the response was not so surprising. None of them enjoyed using their machines and I think given a real choice they would turn their backs on Windows because it was nothing short of dull.

So with MS' announcement today that they are pleased that Mac owners will get use their OS and they think its good is nothing but absolute delusion. Even a hardened Windows person would have to admit the apparent truth, that MS could be further from the truth.

I'm making it my personal goal to ensure that every Windows user I come across switches even if they (for insecure reasons) want to run Windows OS on a mac. Train them on MAC OSX and get them off Windows, its the only way they'll see.

So people feel the fear as they say and do it punch it out there. This is an opportunity not a threat.

Chrispy
Apr 7, 2006, 12:29 PM
No nonsense at all. Here's why I haven't gotten any viruses the past years:

- I don't surf less reputable porn sites
- I don't download pirated software
- I don't open strange e-mail attachments

Pretty much the only way I can get a virus is if it infects the computer just by being connected to the net. This is what happened when I got the Blaster worm. I also mentioned this in my previous post.

I just ran a full virus scan and scanned for spyware using adaware and spybot on my system and it came up clean. Not one thing was found. Mikael is correct in pointing out some simple rules to follow that will keep your computer safe. Running behind a hardware router makes life on the PC side even safer yet. When the blaster virus came around I was spared for this reason. Again, I'm not trying to be a troll here but I just want to make sure both sides are heard. I love macs and when the intel iBooks come out I may snag one if the price is right. However, I also see windows as a functional, productive and imporving operating system. It has come a long way since Windows 98. Adding 64 bit capability to the core (granted a little late in the game) is helping Windows get where it should have been years ago. My biggest gripe with windows is that it is ugly ;)

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 12:29 PM
I think Microsoft is confusing the fact that some software only runs on Windows as meaning Windows itself is a great OS.

Mac users, let us not forget we have great software that doesn't run on Windows.

For starters:

• the entire Final Cut Studio
• iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband
• iWork, Keynote

Evangelion
Apr 7, 2006, 12:31 PM
I don't think I was whining. I was just stating what MS said.

Maybe they are being honest (for once)? I mean, Apple says that OS X requires 256MB of RAM. Would anyone here run OS X with 256MB of RAM ;)?

Vista will need atleast 1GB to run and play a game or two.

I don't think so. If the game doesn't need 1GB of RAM, it will work just fine with less RAM.

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 12:31 PM
I just ran a full virus scan and scanned for spyware using adaware and spybot on my system and it came up clean.

Because you are actively keeping your system secure doesn't mean that Windows is secure. How can you explain all of the people that you see every day with tons of viruses and crap?

The point is we (still) don't have to keep watching out for Viruses. We can download all the illegal stuff we want, look at all the porn we want, and open all the emails we want and not worry about anything.

In conclusion: we should'nt be required to constantly and actively keep our systems secure as part of daily computer use

Saying otherwise is just making excuses.

Chrispy
Apr 7, 2006, 12:45 PM
Because you are actively keeping your system secure doesn't mean that Windows is secure. How can you explain all of the people that you see every day with tons of viruses and crap?

The point is we (still) don't have to keep watching out for Viruses. We can download all the illegal stuff we want, look at all the porn we want, and open all the emails we want and not worry about anything.

In conclusion: we should'nt be required to constantly and actively keep our systems secure as part of daily computer use

Saying otherwise is just making excuses.

That is a fair statement and you will get no argument from me there. However, I would hope mac users do practice some safe computing habits. Just because you are invincible today does not mean in the future you won't get burned. But yes, you can be "more free" with you computing habits on a mac ;)

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 12:48 PM
Well good, just so long as we agree then.

I just get irritated by the argument PC geeks always give me of "Windows doesn't suck, see I have no viruses..."

BTW: yes, in the future we "may" have some viruses... but they've been saying that for six years now and it still hasnt happened yet.

longofest
Apr 7, 2006, 12:52 PM
Because you are actively keeping your system secure doesn't mean that Windows is secure. How can you explain all of the people that you see every day with tons of viruses and crap?

The point is we (still) don't have to keep watching out for Viruses. We can download all the illegal stuff we want, look at all the porn we want, and open all the emails we want and not worry about anything.

In conclusion: we should'nt be required to constantly and actively keep our systems secure as part of daily computer use

Saying otherwise is just making excuses.

I use windows at work and as a gaming computer at home (it is accompanied by 3 macs at home). I have not gotten a virus on any of these computers in about 3 years. Spyware scans occasionally picks up some malicious cookie or a low-level threat or two, but in general they stay clean.

The reason for this is because a) I don't go to suspect websites, and b) I keep all auto-update functionality running and keep the systems patched.

Your notion of "we should'nt be required to constantly and actively keep our systems secure as part of daily computer use" is as stupid as saying "I shouldn't be required to maintain or lock my car in order for it to not break or get hijacked."

I'm not making excuses for any company here. Microsoft is a huge target for a heck of a lot of malicious coders, so yes they have more actual exploitations in the field. However, that does not exclude the fact that our beloved Mac OS X has had many more security vulnerabilities discovered over the past few years (especially critical ones), even if they haven't been exploited to their full potential.

I'm not putting out FUD here... I'm just trying to keep us Mac users honest. Especially as our market share grows, getting over-confident is very dangerous. We all have to remember to use basic security principles in our daily lives, whether we are on Mac or XP.

Chrispy
Apr 7, 2006, 12:52 PM
Well good, just so long as we agree then.

I just get irritated by the argument PC geeks always give me of "Windows doesn't suck, see I have no viruses..."

BTW: yes, in the future we "may" have some viruses... but they've been saying that for six years now and it still hasnt happened yet.

Haha I see what you mean. I was not trying to say windows is better by any means. I just wanted to point out that it was getting better as time passes. OSX is still clearly the easier to use OS by far :)

Counter
Apr 7, 2006, 12:53 PM
I think Microsoft is confusing the fact that some software only runs on Windows as meaning Windows itself is a great OS.

Mac users, let us not forget we have great software that doesn't run on Windows.

For starters:

• the entire Final Cut Studio
• iMovie, iPhoto, Garageband
• iWork, Keynote

Microsoft aren't confusing any facts with that statement.

Facts come second or third when it comes to business.

Think about the perfect (read: pro windows) statement they could release on hearing of BootCamp coming out.

That was it.

They were hardly going to word a response which was inline with Apples reasons of releasing BootCamp.

Apple: BootCamp is to get users to switch
Microsoft: We praise Apple for meeting the enormous demand of their user base for a better operating system.

Okay, so it wasn't that extreme. But they want to word it as close to that as they can get away with.

This is business.

shigzeo
Apr 7, 2006, 12:57 PM
That's like saying, "I haven't tried off-roading in an F-150, but I know my Civic can't handle it."

(another car analogy- my bad....)

i am sure that a ford f150 is an american truck, so your analogy is great. windows 98 was the os that ran on a thread of silk while trying to suspend a bridge. xp is another machine. it is great i think. i prefer osx, but xp has its advantages and i must agree, it is no civic. though, if an f150 is a truck, id never buy it!

cheers

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 12:57 PM
Your notion of "we should'nt be required to constantly and actively keep our systems secure as part of daily computer use" is as stupid as saying "I shouldn't be required to maintain or lock my car in order for it to not break or get hijacked."

Thats a terrible anology. I prevent my computer from getting stolen by locking my bedroom door. When a piece of my hardware breaks, I replace it (maintain it).

If a car's ECU was capeable of getting a demobilizing and corruptive virus (rather easily mind you) every single one of that particular make and model would be recalled, and there would be a huge public inquiry into what was done wrong. The carmaker would have to release public apologese and fix every example for free, and offer compensation.

Could you imagine Microsoft or any PC maker doing that?

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 01:01 PM
I just get irritated by the argument PC geeks always give me of "Windows doesn't suck, see I have no viruses..."
Guess I'm one of those geeks, huh? Anyway, I already told you that I wasn't implying that Windows is a secure OS. I was merely pointing out that the pitfalls are easy to avoid. I don't feel the need to pirate software and what not and because of this I have had an extremely pleasant Windows experience the past decade. Those three "rules" I wrote in my previous post might also be useful for Mac users that want to run Windows occassionally.

Going slightly back on topic, I might also mention that the fact that Macs can now run Windows is extremely important to me, since I run programs that are not available on Mac.

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 01:03 PM
I was merely pointing out that the pitfalls are easy to avoid. I don't feel the need to pirate software and what not

So then what about aunts and grandmas that also get viruses? Are they downloading illegal software and looking at porn too?

Still just making excuses based on your own experiences, which seem a far cry from what appears to be a majority of PC users.

shigzeo
Apr 7, 2006, 01:03 PM
I use windows at work and as a gaming computer at home (it is accompanied by 3 macs at home). I have not gotten a virus on any of these computers in about 3 years. Spyware scans occasionally picks up some malicious cookie or a low-level threat or two, but in general they stay clean.

The reason for this is because a) I don't go to suspect websites, and b) I keep all auto-update functionality running and keep the systems patched.

Your notion of "we should'nt be required to constantly and actively keep our systems secure as part of daily computer use" is as stupid as saying "I shouldn't be required to maintain or lock my car in order for it to not break or get hijacked."

I'm not making excuses for any company here. Microsoft is a huge target for a heck of a lot of malicious coders, so yes they have more actual exploitations in the field. However, that does not exclude the fact that our beloved Mac OS X has had many more security vulnerabilities discovered over the past few years (especially critical ones), even if they haven't been exploited to their full potential.

I'm not putting out FUD here... I'm just trying to keep us Mac users honest. Especially as our market share grows, getting over-confident is very dangerous. We all have to remember to use basic security principles in our daily lives, whether we are on Mac or XP.

i just must agree here so completely. osx is as safe as a person on a deserted island and has been so for yonks when considering viruses. windows has been the london onto which the dreaded virus of "sean of the dead" was unleashed. those zombies may not yet be on the desert island, but rest assured they will be. we have had many many threatening files and warnings of late in our osx, we need to be vigilant. just like our bodies being susceptible, and some more than others, we need to vaccinate, exercise reguarly and keep a watch on our computing diets. if we do open up strange jpeg files and go to certain sites, osx will be connected to london by an enlarging land bridge; that is the day that i must learn to swim.

knewsom
Apr 7, 2006, 01:04 PM
FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY I can play Total War and all the other PC games that I've been missing out on for bleeding YEARS, not the least of which being the new DnD online game! YES!

As the Mac OS grows in popularity (and it will - for a variety of reasons), the demand for NATIVE games will increase. As that happens, the NUMBER of native games will increase. Thing is, it'll take years for this to happen, and it'll probably also take the Mac OS releasing liscense to other computer manufacturers before this will happen, but in the meantime, I can run games in Windoze, and do everything else in my beloved Tiger.

...personally, I can't WAIT for that to happen, I'd LOVE to run Final Cut Pro on a 17" Alienware laptop with a built in RAID-0. Sweeeeet.

whocares
Apr 7, 2006, 01:04 PM
Something is wrong here. Windows is outperforming OS X on almost every test. Especially the second one. How does Windows do better than a Mac in PHOTOSHOP? And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.

Don't care too much for numbers... All I konw is that my 3+ years old G3 iBook with 10.3 feels much snappier than my (work) top of the line vaio laptop running some variant of Windows. It's so surprise I think I should have the SONY checked by IT dept. :eek: :p

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 01:06 PM
i just must agree here so completely. osx is as safe as a person on a deserted island

sigh... we've been hearing this for years... almost as often as "Apple will be bankrupt by years end"

i dont fully believe this argument works

whocares
Apr 7, 2006, 01:10 PM
Who runs 20-25 apps at once? Seriously?

I do:

PID TT STAT TIME COMMAND
1 ?? Ss 0:00.00 /sbin/init
2 ?? Ss 0:00.60 /sbin/mach_init
82 ?? Ss 0:00.17 /usr/sbin/syslogd -s -m 0
88 ?? Ss 0:03.57 kextd
90 ?? Ss 0:05.94 /usr/sbin/configd
91 ?? Ss 0:00.36 /usr/sbin/diskarbitrationd
96 ?? Ss 0:01.12 /usr/sbin/notifyd
121 ?? Ss 0:02.87 netinfod -s local
123 ?? Ss 0:08.32 update
126 ?? Ss 0:00.00 dynamic_pager -F /private/var/vm/swapfile
146 ?? Ss 0:00.01 /usr/sbin/KernelEventAgent
147 ?? Ss 0:00.08 cron
153 ?? Ss 0:00.00 /Library/StartupItems/Tablet/TabletDriverRelauncher
159 ?? Ss 0:01.17 /System/Library/CoreServices/coreservicesd
160 ?? S 0:00.02 /usr/libexec/ioupsd
161 ?? Ss 0:00.82 /usr/sbin/distnoted
165 ?? Ss 0:00.88 /usr/sbin/mDNSResponder
175 ?? Ss 0:00.52 /System/Library/CoreServices/SecurityServer -X
183 ?? Ss 5:45.23 /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Frameworks/CoreGraphics.framework/Resources/WindowServer -daemon
185 ?? Ss 0:24.31 /System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Frameworks/ATS.framework/Support/ATSServer
188 ?? Ss 0:02.47 /System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/Contents/MacOS/loginwindow console
193 ?? Ss 0:00.98 /usr/sbin/DirectoryService
205 ?? S 0:00.43 /Library/StartupItems/Tablet/TabletDriver.app/Contents/MacOS/TabletDriver
215 ?? Ss 0:00.01 /usr/libexec/crashreporterd
256 ?? S 0:00.06 sh ./bin/safe_mysqld --user=mysql
269 ?? Ss 0:06.46 /usr/sbin/cupsd
277 ?? S 0:00.04 /usr/local/mysql-3.23.53/bin/mysqld --defaults-extra-file=/usr/local/mysql-3.23.53/data/my.cnf --basedir=/usr/local/mysql-3.23.53 --
278 ?? Ss 0:01.13 /usr/sbin/AppleFileServer
279 ?? Ss 0:01.47 /usr/sbin/httpd
296 ?? Ss 0:00.00 xinetd -inetd_compat -pidfile /var/run/xinetd.pid
297 ?? S 0:00.00 /usr/sbin/httpd
298 ?? Ss 0:00.55 /System/Library/CoreServices/pbs
304 ?? S 0:04.45 /System/Library/CoreServices/Dock.app/Contents/MacOS/Dock -psn_0_655361
305 ?? S 0:11.63 /System/Library/CoreServices/SystemUIServer.app/Contents/MacOS/SystemUIServer -psn_0_786433
306 ?? S 0:02.88 /System/Library/CoreServices/Finder.app/Contents/MacOS/Finder -psn_0_917505
340 ?? Ss 0:02.61 ntpd -f /var/run/ntp.drift -p /var/run/ntpd.pid
355 ?? Ss 0:00.00 nfsiod -n 4
368 ?? Ss 0:00.00 rpc.lockd -w
371 ?? Ss 0:00.08 /usr/sbin/automount -f -m /Network -nsl
374 ?? Ss 0:00.03 /usr/sbin/automount -f -m /automount/Servers -fstab -mnt /private/Network/Servers -m /automount/static -static -mnt /private/automou
379 ?? Ss 0:00.14 /Library/Audio/Plug-Ins/HAL/iSightAudio.plugin/Contents/Resources/IIDCAssistant.bundle/Contents/MacOS/IIDCAssistant
381 ?? S 0:24.27 /Applications/Utilities/Terminal.app/Contents/MacOS/Terminal -psn_0_1048577
382 ?? S 0:00.60 /Applications/iApps/iCal.app/Contents/Resources/iCalAlarmScheduler.app/Contents/MacOS/iCalAlarmScheduler -psn_0_1179649
383 ?? S 0:03.15 /Users/dom/Library/PreferencePanes/Synergy.prefPane/Contents/Resources/Synergy.app/Contents/MacOS/Synergy -psn_0_1310721
388 ?? S 1:21.66 /Applications/iApps/Mail.app/Contents/MacOS/Mail -psn_0_1703937
544 ?? Ss 0:00.54 /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/InstantMessage.framework/iChatAgent.app/Contents/MacOS/iChatAgent
632 ?? Ss 0:00.02 /System/Library/CoreServices/BezelUI/BezelUIServer
696 ?? Ss 0:03.48 /usr/sbin/lookupd
712 ?? S 11:45.59 /Applications/Internet/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari -psn_0_4194305
714 ?? Ss 0:00.05 slpd -f /etc/slpsa.conf
386 std Ss 0:00.10 -tcsh
799 std R+ 0:00.00 ps -ax

Yeah, I'm in a silly mood. :p :p

Kingsly
Apr 7, 2006, 01:10 PM
"Windows is a great operating system,"
Can someone confirm this rumor? Perhaps some blurry pics to accompany it? Until then, I call }[.. :p

Those benches pitting OSX against XP worry me. C'mon Apple, get it together with Open GL.

drewyboy
Apr 7, 2006, 01:14 PM
Ok ok ok, I think arguing our points aren't gona change anyone else's opinion. I can say I've never gone to any questionable websites or opened questionable email yet have gotten screwed up the butt w/ windows, yet someone else out there will say, they've done the same thing and not had a problem. I could riddle off all the problems I've had with windows, and someone out there will say they've had the same problems with OS X. We can argue which operating system is better and explain why, but the others will say theirs does the same as good if not better. The bottom line is, YOU will buy whatever product YOU prefer.

hulugu
Apr 7, 2006, 01:16 PM
I haven't used an antivirus program in 9 years now and in those nine years I've gotten exactly one virus (Blaster). I would say that the virus threat is somewhat overexaggerated. It's all about common sense really.

And, beore you ask, I run online scans every few months just in case. Nothing so far.

Wouldn't that be an antivirus program?

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 01:18 PM
So then what about aunts and grandmas that also get viruses? Are they downloading illegal software and looking at porn too?

Still just making excuses based on your own experiences, which seem a far cry from what appears to be a majority of PC users.
Well, what do you want me to say? I didn't say that other people weren't having problems! I wrote about my personal experience and how I have avoided getting problems. I'm not making excuses, since I already told you that I don't think that Windows is by any means a secure OS. I hate to ask you this, but do you have a problem comprehending what I'm writing? What kind of excuses is it you think I'm making? I haven't said that Windows is great, so it can't be that.

Also, as for the reason why I don't get viruses but the aunts and grandmas do: I don't know why, really. Ask them instead. Maybe they're downloading strange e-mail attachment because they don't know better? You've already gotten my theory on why I don't get viruses and that's the best I can do.

Wouldn't that be an antivirus program?
Yeah, yeah. Point is that I'm not running any memory resident scanner or have any scanner installed and that I haven't gotten any virus other than Blaster in the past decade.

What the heck is this? Attack of the thick-headed Mac-zealots? Honestly, guys, you're making fools out of yourselves.

dwd3885
Apr 7, 2006, 01:18 PM
it's amazing how a lot of you are now like, "Windows isn't that bad," just as long as you can manage the spyware, etc. This ploy will backfire for Apple. Longtime apple users will find the possibility to run Windows and they'll like it! Snappier, faster, it will end up making people switch to Microsoft!

It's funny how people can turn so quickly on one single issue. Complete 180s I've seen right here in the past few days.

Why would Mac users need Windows now? They haven't for years, now all of a sudden you can put Windows on your Mac and it's Heaven! And those who bad mouthed Windows for years now say it's not all that bad.

You people: lol

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 01:26 PM
Wouldn't that be an antivirus program?

Yeah, yeah. Point is that I'm not running any memory resident scanner or have any scanner installed and that I haven't gotten any virus other than Blaster in the past decade.

What the heck, I didn't say that! (???)

No, it's the attack of the real Mac people annoyed by the *other* people thinking Windows XP on a Mac is the greatest thing since the Mac was invented.

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 01:28 PM
dwd3885: couldn't have said it better myself

i still look at windows with disgust, thank you very much

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 01:30 PM
What the heck, I didn't say that! (???)
Sorry about that. Fixed now.

No, it's the attack of the real Mac people annoyed by the *other* people thinking Windows XP on a Mac is the greatest thing since the Mac was invented.
If you're annoyed with me about that, you're wasting your breath. Being able to use Windows is nice if you need to run software that is only available on Windows, but other than that it's pretty pointless.

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 01:32 PM
If you're annoyed with me about that, you're wasting your breath. Being able to use Windows is nice if you need to run software that is only available on Windows, but other than that it's pretty pointless.

Well, perhaps not you specifically, but there are other people on the internet that seem like they're going to switch back to Windows XP now that it can run on Mac hardware.

hulugu
Apr 7, 2006, 01:33 PM
Yeah, yeah. Point is that I'm not running any memory resident scanner or have any scanner installed and that I haven't gotten any virus other than Blaster in the past decade.

What the heck is this? Attack of the thick-headed Mac-zealots? Honestly, guys, you're making fools out of yourselves.


Maybe, but it is also and important thing to think about. Protecting Windows requires not only some knowledge about firewalls, it also requires a fear of the internet: don't go to dodgy sites; avoid p2p; be very careful about email and attachments sent via AIM; run AV, Spybot, etc.
And, that doesn't necessarily protect you against something like SmithFraud or the Sony Rootkit.
Protecting Windows requires work, and much of this is esoteric enough that most users just simply fail at it. That is a serious problem that can't be explained away by, well it never happened to me.

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 01:43 PM
Maybe, but it is also and important thing to think about. Protecting Windows requires not only some knowledge about firewalls, it also requires a fear of the internet: don't go to dodgy sites; avoid p2p; be very careful about email and attachments sent via AIM; run AV, Spybot, etc.
And, that doesn't necessarily protect you against something like SmithFraud or the Sony Rootkit.
Protecting Windows requires work, and much of this is esoteric enough that most users just simply fail at it. That is a serious problem that can't be explained away by, well it never happened to me.
I agree. It would certainly make my life easier if all my friends used Macs. As you may have understood by now, I don't mind using Windows, but my friends can't handle it very well (which is of course, in the end, is Windows' fault). The problem is usually a massive spyware attack from having pretty much visited every damn pornsite on the 'net... I'd say that spyware is a much larger problem than viruses, judging by what I see when I'm fixing computers.

Detlev
Apr 7, 2006, 01:45 PM
Oy! We need to start a club or something for those of us who are purists. Then we can poke fun at the others and have secret handshakes and stuff. So, what are we going to call it? It's gotta have a good acronym.

dwd3885
Apr 7, 2006, 01:49 PM
Oy! We need to start a club or something for those of us who are purists. Then we can poke fun at the others and have secret handshakes and stuff. So, what are we going to call it? It's gotta have a good acronym.

that's a great idea

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 02:30 PM
Anybody that uses Windows and says "I don't have any anti-virus protection and I've never had a virus" is clearly either lying, or not using their computer a whole lot.

...or isn't aware of what they might have.


Just take a walk through any college dorm hall and like 90% of the student PCs have viruses or malware of some sort.

You can see all that from the hallway? I shudder to think of what you see when you enter the rooms. :eek:

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 02:34 PM
I think you hit the nail on the head.

Comparing XP to OS X 10.4 while ligit is not really fair.


Yep. Exactly. Remember the original X? OS X 10.1? Finder browsing sucked, no SMB, buggy, slow, beachballs, had to Force Quit relatively often.

Yes, they fixed many things with 10.2...for $130.

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 02:51 PM
There's no such thing as "Monopoly on multi-OS computer." There's only a monopoly on "computers". Which is what microsoft has.


You couldn't be more wrong. The point is that competition is whatever a court says it is. A "market" is whatever a court says it is.

In the early nineties, the "computer market" and the "music market" were two separate, distinct markets. You probably would have argued that there is no such thing as the computer music market.

Time change, opinions change and the intepretations of laws change.

Antitrust laws are part of a larger strategy of encouraging competition in the marketplace...ultimately, to benefit consumers. While AAPL's decision to not license OS X to other machines may have a good business reason (integration, quality control, etc.), that doesn't mean it's good for the consumers in the market. It may be good for consumers of OSes...but it is not good for consumers of hardware.

And if judge decides to look at it that way, then there very well be something as silly as a "Monopoly on a multi-OS computer."

Like I said, the "market" in this case is whatever the judge says it is.

g.x
Apr 7, 2006, 03:00 PM
See my post above. There's no alcohol involved, no luck and not even magic. Just a little bit of common sense. Wonderful, no? :)

...along with a side order of smugness and a shot of complacency, apparently.

- Never inserted a disc, huh?
- Never used a friend's flash drive?
- Never noticed in the Wall Street Journal that perfectly "reputable" websites get hacked into from time to time, rendering your "safe surfing" experience a little more dangerous than you thought it was?
- Never used a laptop at a free hotspot and therefore had your IP traffic passed through an unknown router?
- Never noticed that some of java- and flash-based ads on "reputable" websites come from hosting company contracts and not the site owner?

Demoman
Apr 7, 2006, 03:11 PM
Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.

Then it will be Leopard woopin' on Vista. For the amount of effort being put into Vista, with it's numerous delays and with MS's history of rolling out new OS's, I wonder if Vista is going to be a hit, or a belly flop.

Good releases from MS.

DOS 2.1 - finally got a decent workable OS
DOS 3.3 - solved many issues
DOS 5.0 - the best release to date
Windows 3.1 - rescued everyone from the disastrous 3.0 version
Windows 2000 Pro - (really NT 5) the last decent OS they have made

With their history, they do not have much of a track record for getting it right early on. For those folk required to work in the MS world, I hope Vista finally throws off the moronic design paradigm that has plagued Windows since Windows 95.

hulugu
Apr 7, 2006, 03:16 PM
I agree. It would certainly make my life easier if all my friends used Macs. As you may have understood by now, I don't mind using Windows, but my friends can't handle it very well (which is of course, in the end, is Windows' fault). The problem is usually a massive spyware attack from having pretty much visited every damn pornsite on the 'net... I'd say that spyware is a much larger problem than viruses, judging by what I see when I'm fixing computers.

I have to agree, I've been working with a small real estate business and their computers were totally hosed with spyware. It gets even better, after removing this spyware I found the registries on a number of machines just shot full of holes which would create odd and intermitent problems until I just reformatted the hard-drives and restored from back-ups.
And that's not to mention SmithFraud which completely took over one of the laptops.
It's been said that if OSX reaches critical mass these problems will surface there as well, but that's a future problem and right now my clients need to work so they can get paid and Windows is hindering that goal.

All in all, I don't think dual-booting is all that useful, I'd rather Windows become an application sandboxed from the rest of the system ala' VPC. Of course, this would render Windows an application rather than an OS, which would also be great.

milo
Apr 7, 2006, 03:34 PM
You couldn't be more wrong. The point is that competition is whatever a court says it is. A "market" is whatever a court says it is.


Sure. But a court would never call that a market. And even if they did, Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "multi OS computer", since you can dual boot windows and linux on a peecee. The only "monopoly" apple has is running the apple OS (which is pretty much the *opposite* of a monopoly in the OS market). And that's like saying the coca cola company has a monopoly on coca cola.


I'd rather Windows become an application sandboxed from the rest of the system ala' VPC. Of course, this would render Windows an application rather than an OS, which would also be great.

Yeah, it's a shame there isn't an app available that does exactly that. :rolleyes:

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2006, 03:39 PM
Well I know it hurts some of the Mac Fanboys here to think this and/or you'll continue in some alternate reality but Microsuck certainly DOESN'T mind being able to run XPee on the Mac... why would they? When they have to bundle XPee on a Dull, Hewsh|t Packturd, Chumpac, Hateway, they only get about $50 per license. If someone has to actually buy their OS, they make $100-150 per sale of XPee. Microsuck, bottom line, is a business, and as such they like making money. To sell copies of their craptacularly woeful OS at retail price to them is a good thing... it's more profit, and like any company more profit is a great thing. It's the other peecee makers listed above that wont be congratulating Apple, after all, they're the ones that may lose a sale, if a switcher buys a Mac because now he/she can run both OSes that doens't hurt Microsuck any.

So that being said, those that may steal XPee as warez or whatever depriving M$ of more profit, I won't lose any sleep over that.

LOL!

CLASSIC!!!

:D

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2006, 04:03 PM
I must say, your rabid fanboyness and pure hatred of anything related to PC's and Windows still cracks me up :). Now, that's not propably your intention, but you do offer me quite a bit of amusement. That said, I think you should really work on renewing your repertoire. It's getting a bit old.

Funny that over here in the MacRumors forums some Macfanboys can be found.... :rolleyes:

It seems that since this Apple switch to Intel followed by the possibility of running Windows on Mac, the door has been opened to some "new kind of thinking":
Windows bashing seems "old" now. Copy-cat styling of MicroSomething is not-so-bad now.

Over here we are Mac enthusiasts, and some loathe Windows. Some find it enjoyable to be able to play Windows games on their Mac. Some are happy they can use some pro-apps previously only available on PeeCees.
So. you'll find many different opinions about Boot Camp.

Bottom line is most (if not all) of us still believe Mac OS to be superior to Windows. We believe Apple is an innovator and Steve is the visionary leader.

If you want to argue against all Mac fanboynesses over here, you'll never get any sleep.

duhliterate
Apr 7, 2006, 04:19 PM
it's amazing how a lot of you are now like, "Windows isn't that bad," just as long as you can manage the spyware, etc. This ploy will backfire for Apple. Longtime apple users will find the possibility to run Windows and they'll like it! Snappier, faster, it will end up making people switch to Microsoft!

It's funny how people can turn so quickly on one single issue. Complete 180s I've seen right here in the past few days.

Why would Mac users need Windows now? They haven't for years, now all of a sudden you can put Windows on your Mac and it's Heaven! And those who bad mouthed Windows for years now say it's not all that bad.

You people: lol


my thoughts exactly. i have a mac...i have no need for windows.

milo
Apr 7, 2006, 04:24 PM
This ploy will backfire for Apple. Longtime apple users will find the possibility to run Windows and they'll like it!

Like it? Doubt it.

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2006, 04:27 PM
What the heck is this? Attack of the thick-headed Mac-zealots? Honestly, guys, you're making fools out of yourselves.

Eh... any particular reason you ended up here in the MacRumors forum...?

:confused:

JGowan
Apr 7, 2006, 04:45 PM
It's funny how people can turn so quickly on one single issue. Complete 180s I've seen right here in the past few days.

Why would Mac users need Windows now? They haven't for years, now all of a sudden you can put Windows on your Mac and it's Heaven! And those who bad mouthed Windows for years now say it's not all that bad.

You people: lolYou don't get it. You lump everyone into the same little mould. The majority here are happy Mac users and we love the company that brings us the good computers, music players, etc.

When Apple gets something really right, it's a boost in MacCommunity morale. Apple's stock is high. Apple will most likely grow their user base, getting fence-sitters to come over. We feel very strongly that although we've been using a superior product, most of the world doesn't really understand what they're missing out on... typically because of money. PCs are generally perceived as cheaper.

Now, we see the possibility that people can actually have an easy way to try out the Mac and see what all of the crowing was about.

It's kind of like trying to explain to someone who rarely uses their 12:00-blinking VCR just how much better it would be for them to shell out for a TiVo. When they finally do, they see their TV Watching Experience open wide.

Those with TiVos (or ReplayTVs) know what I mean. ;)

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 04:54 PM
...along with a side order of smugness and a shot of complacency, apparently.
Sorry. Side effect of being accused of lying. Should have been more careful with the sarcasm.

- Never inserted a disc, huh?
- Never used a friend's flash drive?
- Never noticed in the Wall Street Journal that perfectly "reputable" websites get hacked into from time to time, rendering your "safe surfing" experience a little more dangerous than you thought it was?
- Never used a laptop at a free hotspot and therefore had your IP traffic passed through an unknown router?
- Never noticed that some of java- and flash-based ads on "reputable" websites come from hosting company contracts and not the site owner?
Again, I don't think I said that using Windows without protection is perfectly safe. I'm not a complete newbie. I was just telling you about what's worked well for me. Having used my computers intensely for a decade without problems, I actually feel quite secure. Sure, one of the scenarios above might get me infected some day, but the past ten years have proven that to be somewhat unlikely. I'm not saying that my computer really IS secure (because it's not) nor am I saying that this is by any stretch an optimal "solution". Now that Windows can be run on the Mac, the optimal solution would probably be to switch completely. Then I could run programs like ModelSim and the occassional game on Windows and use OS X for the rest.

Eh... any particular reason you ended up here in the MacRumors forum...?

:confused:
Yeah, I'm interested in Macs. Didn't know that "thickheaded" and "fanboy" were required attributes for have a pleasant stay and get along. God forbid that I like both Macs and PCs! :eek:

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2006, 05:03 PM
Yeah, I'm interested in Macs. Didn't know that "thickheaded" and "fanboy" were required attributes for have a pleasant stay and get along. God forbid that I like both Macs and PCs! :eek:

You wouldn't think that making a statement like "thick-headed Mac-zealots" would provoke some kind of reaction on a Mac-enthusiasts board?

Sure you can like both. Heck, I enjoy gaming on Windows. I like the price / speed ratio of cheap PC's.

But offending fellow Mac-lovers as "thickheaded" and "fanboy" on Macrumors-forums is just going a bit too far IMHO.

Mikael
Apr 7, 2006, 05:25 PM
You wouldn't think that making a statement like "thick-headed Mac-zealots" would provoke some kind of reaction on a Mac-enthusiasts board?

Sure you can like both. Heck, I enjoy gaming on Windows. I like the price / speed ratio of cheap PC's.

But offending fellow Mac-lovers as "thickheaded" and "fanboy" on Macrumors-forums is just going a bit too far IMHO.
Okay, I might have gone too far in writing that. I just get a little frustrated when people nit-pick to start an argument, even though they know perfectly well what's being said. It seems everything turned out fine in the end anyway. :)

MacsRgr8
Apr 7, 2006, 05:33 PM
Okay, I might have gone too far in writing that. I just get a little frustrated when people nit-pick to start an argument, even though they know perfectly well what's being said. It seems everything turned out fine in the end anyway. :)

I understand your frustrations. Just take a look over at the gaming-forums! :D

And you're right. Everything turned out fine anyway. :)

manu chao
Apr 7, 2006, 06:02 PM
Put 2GB in there like every sane MBP owner would.

My words. I rarely have less than 1.5 GB of RAM in use. 2 GB of RAM is the absolute minimum if you do not like wait for stuff being swapped in again.
I hope, 2 GB laptop RAM chips will become available soon. I have talked to several Apple technicians as to whether MBP can handle 4 GB of RAM, all of them said, they think it should but nobody knew for sure.

Maxx Power
Apr 7, 2006, 07:11 PM
Windows is indeed a bit more snappy on a fresh install. But once you install all the programs you need, it is on par with OSX. AntiVirus is mandatory on a windows mashine and it eats quite some power and makes I/O way slower if you enable live virus testing.

Where OSX shines is multitasking. Run Photoshop, Word and iTunes on a PC and it is just painful on Windows. On OSX you can run a bunch of applications without noticable slowdowns. It's limited on 512MB RAM but when you upgrade to 1GB or more OSX beats XP to death.

PS: You might want to do these benchmarks again with reasonable RAM. Put 2GB in there like every sane MBP owner would.

If you use default settings in each operating system, maybe, but windows xp is highly adjustable. You can first of all, in performance settings set windows to allocate more processor time and ram to system processes, to keep it more snappy if you multitask. Secondly, you can assign individual processes priorities on the run to make sure if you actually multitask with programs that require constant CPU time, that your program you are in responds well. I'm not aware that you can do any of that in OS X, or it can be done conveniently.

dpaanlka
Apr 7, 2006, 07:12 PM
We've gotten along for the entire history of Windows without using Windows on our Macs. Why is this now the biggest topic that we can think of? None of you are even talking about Mac OS anymore, its all "Windows! Windows! Windows!"

This is sad.

Demoman
Apr 7, 2006, 07:27 PM
Sorry. Side effect of being accused of lying. Should have been more careful with the sarcasm.


Again, I don't think I said that using Windows without protection is perfectly safe. I'm not a complete newbie. I was just telling you about what's worked well for me. Having used my computers intensely for a decade without problems, I actually feel quite secure. Sure, one of the scenarios above might get me infected some day, but the past ten years have proven that to be somewhat unlikely. I'm not saying that my computer really IS secure (because it's not) nor am I saying that this is by any stretch an optimal "solution". Now that Windows can be run on the Mac, the optimal solution would probably be to switch completely. Then I could run programs like ModelSim and the occassional game on Windows and use OS X for the rest.


Yeah, I'm interested in Macs. Didn't know that "thickheaded" and "fanboy" were required attributes for have a pleasant stay and get along. God forbid that I like both Macs and PCs! :eek:

There are certainly precautions that can be taken to mitigate the chances for a virus attack. Seems like you have done a pretty good job. I am an IT pro and also take similar steps. I have been hit twice, both by mail. The first time was a complete meltdown - lost it all. The second time I quickly recognized it and just yanked the power cord. Very minimal damage. I get spyware from time to time. I run the utilities and remove it. But, there is nothing like using an Apple and not even having to worry about it.

You might want to read this article in EWeek (link below). Also read the linked articles. You will find the Mac looking even better.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1945782,00.asp

roach
Apr 7, 2006, 07:43 PM
I run them, every day. At least 30.
13 professional graphics applications, plus dozens of utilities and productivity applications of all sorts. My PowerMac has 12 GB of RAM, something that Windows can't even cope with.

So, I hope you finally begin to understand that comparing Windows and Mac OS X is same as comparing your car with USS Enterprise E.

Your car may take you to the pizza shop in 5 minutes, but USS Enterprise can take you to the next star system.

At work I have an XP 2.5 1gb ram and I run about 15 programs and utilities at times. I sometimes have 3 Maya (3D) opened along with photoshop.

fatfish
Apr 7, 2006, 08:11 PM
This discussion seems to have become about much more than the benchmarks which were posted at the beginning, I have a number of thoughts about some of the issues raised, but first the benchmarks.

What a waste of time, first off - what is the point if the configs of the computers aren't the same, RAM makes a lot of difference. The comparisons on the Intel mac for XP and X are also pretty meaningless. Running photoshop through an emulator is ridiculous and even the non emulated comparisons are not much better, I would imagine any app that was built for a PC and ported to a mac will run faster under XP on an Intel just as mac apps ported to the PC will run faster on X (itunes, QT etc.) Such comparisons will never mean anything.

Many have pointed out that XP is old and vista would likely make a better comparison, this is true it is not realistic to compare performance under XP to Tiger with all its bells and whistles.

In comparing the two OS' one has to wonder how the trial has been set up. It is quite possible that the trial has taken place on a mac which has been running in a real environment for some time, with additional apps being added, a build up of caches, extra start up items and so on against a brand new installation of XP.

Even if (and they never will be) the benchmarks are truly relative, they don't have any relevance, anyone wanting real performance on a regular basis from a demanding app are unlikely (in general) to do so on a laptop or a mac mini.

I keep reading about macs being expensive and this isn't really true, I've seen all the arguments and I do believe there is very little difference, infact I'd go so far as to say the cost of comparable set ups is equal, but with the mac you get style for free.

The argument for and against OS' seems to have been won, I don't believe anyone can seriously prefer XP to X. I admit I don't have regular access to XP but when I do I find it confusing. There are some that might say I'm thick and maybe I am, but the point is made in that X is far more user friendly.

I don't understand those that don't see why MS shouldn't be worried by boot-camp. I also don't see this as a big threat to Dell as others do.

Dell is usually associated with cheapo, not a market Apple is in, I see this as more of a threat to the likes of Sony etc.

MS should worry: Those that believe this will lead to mac users being converted to windows are dreaming, there might be a few, but not enough to likely fill a passenger train. Whilst it does open mac users up to purchasing windows I don't see this as producing many sales, I suspect most mac users who use boot-camp will already have a copy of XP, either from their second machine or from using VPC, PC users who buy a mac, will of course in most cases already have a copy of XP. But what I think will happen is that PC users who buy a mac will load their copy of XP and try and like X, when vista does come out they simply won't buy it because they will already be using X more of the time and won't see the purchase they would have made if they still had a PC as not so important anymore.

There seems to be a great debate about stability, and I take the point that there are those that never have any issues with windows. But with a good maintenance crew a company can keep a fleet of Rovers on the road just as well as a fleet of Toyotas (Rover is a demised British car with a tendency to break down a lot) In my experience casual PC users have many many more issues than casual mac users.

There are lots of opinions about why Apple released boot-camp. I feel that Apple had to as much as wanted to. I don't see anything but increased hardware sales from this move, there will be very few who will stop buying mac hardware because of this. But being realistic there are a lot of mac users who have relied on VPC and it looks as though there won't be an Intel version soon, Apple couldn't risk alienating these users.

As for boot vs. emulation, each has it's own merits and I can see some wanting both. I wouldn't want to keep booting to test something on both platforms, but I also wouldn't like to run MS flightsim in emulation mode.

Music_Producer
Apr 7, 2006, 08:15 PM
I really can't believe how much time people waste out here in comparing program performances on Windows vs Mac OS X.,its rather amusing like,

"Photoshop on windows opens faster than on the mac".. ooooh!

Or "Why do apps bounce 2-3 times before opening? Does a laptop with mac os x behave like that?" Stupid...just plain stupid..

There is a reason why serious professionals prefer the macintosh platform.. and thats stability. In our studios for music production.. we do have PCs, but we rarely use them. (Only for Gigasampler.. which unfortunately runs only on windows) And that is the ONLY reason we have PCs.

Sure, we've tried ProTools, Nuendo, etc, on Windows.. worked great.. but there has to be a damn crash at some point of time,, we do backup all the time but do you know how frustrating it is to format the hard drive? And install everything all over again?

In a time sensitive environment like studios, we can't afford to risk computing failures.. and that is exactly what happens with Windows. No, we don't connect them to the internet, we don't install third party hacks or any jacked up pirated software of any kind. We optimise them, run system management tools.. and the bloody things eventually go down.

There's nothing more frustrating than having a great music project going on.. with session musicians, singers, everything just perfect.. and boom! System freeze.. boot up.. and all your data's messed up or lost. You lose that creative vibe, and instead you have to deal with tech stuff.

With macs and OS x, you don't have to go through all that hell. Our macs are operating 24/7 .. and flawlessly. Ok, so pro tools takes about 5 seconds more to open on OS X than on Windows XP.. but bloody hell, do we care about that?!

I don't know about all of you, but I'd rather have a system that might be a little slower (to launch apps) but is stable.. than have a faster windows system which crashes.

So if you're not a professional who has to work under severe time constraints.. then you wont understand why the mac is so important to us.

You'll still see major studios using old G4s with SCSI drives.. which are almost 4-5 years old.. why? Because they work and get the job done!

Tupring
Apr 7, 2006, 09:50 PM
And how is it that the Intel Mac was half as fast as the PPC Mac? I don't understand this at all.Well duh! What the hell do you expect? The new Intel Mac's have Intel processors and are no longer Power PC's and are therefore slow garbage. Macs won't be faster anymore when they have the same processor as the competition. Apple are smoking something there in Cali. Such an ignorant move by them to cader to PeeCee users, completely abandoning their users-of-many-years. Mac OS is going to die, along with Apple. I'm sorry to say it and don't want to beleive it, but I see it coming...

Tupring
Apr 7, 2006, 09:52 PM
We've gotten along for the entire history of Windows without using Windows on our Macs. Why is this now the biggest topic that we can think of? None of you are even talking about Mac OS anymore, its all "Windows! Windows! Windows!"

This is sad.Yes, very! The end is near... :( :mad:

roach
Apr 7, 2006, 10:08 PM
I really can't believe how much time people waste out here in comparing program performances on Windows vs Mac OS X.,its rather amusing like,

"Photoshop on windows opens faster than on the mac".. ooooh!

Or "Why do apps bounce 2-3 times before opening? Does a laptop with mac os x behave like that?" Stupid...just plain stupid..

There is a reason why serious professionals prefer the macintosh platform.. and thats stability. In our studios for music production.. we do have PCs, but we rarely use them. (Only for Gigasampler.. which unfortunately runs only on windows) And that is the ONLY reason we have PCs.

Sure, we've tried ProTools, Nuendo, etc, on Windows.. worked great.. but there has to be a damn crash at some point of time,, we do backup all the time but do you know how frustrating it is to format the hard drive? And install everything all over again?

In a time sensitive environment like studios, we can't afford to risk computing failures.. and that is exactly what happens with Windows. No, we don't connect them to the internet, we don't install third party hacks or any jacked up pirated software of any kind. We optimise them, run system management tools.. and the bloody things eventually go down.

There's nothing more frustrating than having a great music project going on.. with session musicians, singers, everything just perfect.. and boom! System freeze.. boot up.. and all your data's messed up or lost. You lose that creative vibe, and instead you have to deal with tech stuff.

With macs and OS x, you don't have to go through all that hell. Our macs are operating 24/7 .. and flawlessly. Ok, so pro tools takes about 5 seconds more to open on OS X than on Windows XP.. but bloody hell, do we care about that?!

I don't know about all of you, but I'd rather have a system that might be a little slower (to launch apps) but is stable.. than have a faster windows system which crashes.

So if you're not a professional who has to work under severe time constraints.. then you wont understand why the mac is so important to us.

You'll still see major studios using old G4s with SCSI drives.. which are almost 4-5 years old.. why? Because they work and get the job done!

Damn…you’re in your own world there. It’s well know that Apple is used professionally, but to think PC aren’t used professionally shows you’re in your little cocoon. Most of the banks, hospitals and other profession that requires stable system are run on PC. I work for a company with 1000 employees, working on intense 3D oriented games using nothing put PC and we sure don’t get hampered by computer failure the way your company seems to be affected. Maybe you should fire your tech guy. It’s funny, but most bad memory, bad hardware, bad drivers or unstable programs are always blamed on Window OS. My system’s processor is about 3 years old and it’s still going strong. In about a year, the tech guys will put a new motherboard and processor and it should be good for another 3 years…very scaleable!

roxnadz
Apr 7, 2006, 10:59 PM
http://www.theinquirer.net/images/articles/ramvista.JPG

You see that number people? That's 820. 820 MB. And this is Vista idling. I know OS X is a RAM hog too, but it manages pretty well with the meager 512 that I have on my old iMac G4 (and Im talking about when it's not idling).

Er...please look up the meaning of Commit charge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commit_charge) before posting something like this.

While it's certainly not optimal, 820MB of commit charge on a machine that has a gig of memory is not completely out of line with what you'll see when you first boot a machine. The commit charge is the amount of virtual address space being used by the system at the time, not the amount of physical memory the system is using...you can see that in the Physical Memory section on the same page. Of the gig that's installed, some 640MB is free and clear for programs. Windows blows, but that's really not too bad a usage.

What concerns me is that there are 47 processes on what's described as a just-booted machine. I'd like to see this guy's system tray, I suspect it's jammed full of stuff.

Demoman
Apr 7, 2006, 11:08 PM
Damn…you’re in your own world there. It’s well know that Apple is used professionally, but to think PC aren’t used professionally shows you’re in your little cocoon. Most of the banks, hospitals and other profession that requires stable system are run on PC. I work for a company with 1000 employees, working on intense 3D oriented games using nothing put PC and we sure don’t get hampered by computer failure the way your company seems to be affected. Maybe you should fire your tech guy. It’s funny, but most bad memory, bad hardware, bad drivers or unstable programs are always blamed on Window OS. My system’s processor is about 3 years old and it’s still going strong. In about a year, the tech guys will put a new motherboard and processor and it should be good for another 3 years…very scaleable!

Roach - go tell Bill you earned this week's salary. I am sure you convinced at least 1 person that Windows is a professionally stable system.

AidenShaw
Apr 7, 2006, 11:28 PM
Roach - go tell Bill you earned this week's salary. I am sure you convinced at least 1 person that Windows is a professionally stable system.
There are lots of people here familiar with Windows who know that all the blue-screen/virus-infested/sky-is-falling stories about Windows are due to either ignorance (such as assuming that Windows XP and Windows 3.1 are the same) or spite.

Blue-screens are very rare - unless you have a driver or hardware problem. I'll show you an Apple that kernel panics at least once a week - and you'll show me that when I replace the bad DIMM it runs fine. Windows == OSX.

Are you on the Sammamish side of Issaquah?

roach
Apr 8, 2006, 01:19 AM
Roach - go tell Bill you earned this week's salary. I am sure you convinced at least 1 person that Windows is a professionally stable system.

You know if I squint really hard at my PC beige box, I can make it look like I'm using an Apple at work. You happy?

I don't need to convince anybody. People can believe what they want...whether its the truth or not or base on their OS religion or not. Oh...Did Steve tell you that owning an PowerPC Apple gives you crazy advantage over that Intel crap the PC world is using.

Music_Producer
Apr 8, 2006, 01:40 AM
Damn…you’re in your own world there. It’s well know that Apple is used professionally, but to think PC aren’t used professionally shows you’re in your little cocoon. Most of the banks, hospitals and other profession that requires stable system are run on PC. I work for a company with 1000 employees, working on intense 3D oriented games using nothing put PC and we sure don’t get hampered by computer failure the way your company seems to be affected. Maybe you should fire your tech guy. It’s funny, but most bad memory, bad hardware, bad drivers or unstable programs are always blamed on Window OS. My system’s processor is about 3 years old and it’s still going strong. In about a year, the tech guys will put a new motherboard and processor and it should be good for another 3 years…very scaleable!


Um, what did you miss? I did mention that we do use PCs.. but we prefer macs anyday. And, you say that you work on 3D oriented games.. the mac platform isn't exactly known for games! So you don't really have a choice, but to work with pcs.

About banks, hospitals, etc using PCs.. duh, they're cheap to use. There's something called a 'budget' and I don't think huge organisations like banks, or hospitals want to spend extra money on macs (although they do land up spending more money on tech guys anyway)

My 'little cocoon' consists of probably hundreds of studios - audio and film, all in 'Bollywood' across India, .. so while your firm may have a 1000 employees working on 3d oriented games.. uh.. we're looking at hundreds of thousands of professionals working on film and audio..24 hours a day, 365 days a week. And we don't need 'tech guys' because we don't deal with Windows.. so there's a lot of money saved right there. (Besides, all the tech guys in India work for Dell :D )

Yes, kernel panics do occur on the mac.. but the system can reboot and everything's fine.

All my fellow musicians and film engineers/producers use a mac for work, communications,etc. and a pc for playing solitaire.:rolleyes:

roach
Apr 8, 2006, 04:22 AM
~

roach
Apr 8, 2006, 04:42 AM
Um, what did you miss? I did mention that we do use PCs.. but we prefer macs anyday. And, you say that you work on 3D oriented games.. the mac platform isn't exactly known for games! So you don't really have a choice, but to work with pcs.

About banks, hospitals, etc using PCs.. duh, they're cheap to use. There's something called a 'budget' and I don't think huge organisations like banks, or hospitals want to spend extra money on macs (although they do land up spending more money on tech guys anyway)

My 'little cocoon' consists of probably hundreds of studios - audio and film, all in 'Bollywood' across India, .. so while your firm may have a 1000 employees working on 3d oriented games.. uh.. we're looking at hundreds of thousands of professionals working on film and audio..24 hours a day, 365 days a week. And we don't need 'tech guys' because we don't deal with Windows.. so there's a lot of money saved right there. (Besides, all the tech guys in India work for Dell :D )

Yes, kernel panics do occur on the mac.. but the system can reboot and everything's fine.

All my fellow musicians and film engineers/producers use a mac for work, communications,etc. and a pc for playing solitaire.:rolleyes:

Already forgot what you wrote earlier eh(below)...you're probably too dizzy from the fast phase bollywood movies pump out their movies. What it is...4 movies per week?

You also contradicted yourself as wanting an Apple because you require it operating 24/7, 365 days a year, but then you said “Yes, kernel panics do occur on the mac…but the system can reboot and everything's fine.” That what’s called a CRASH!

Oh yes, cheaply made PC...um...you mean the same PC hardware, Apple began using in their machine? And you can now add Intel proc. to that list.

Wow...100,000 thousand people using Mac...er…ok, maybe just fellow musicians and film engineer/producers. When I mentioned 1000 people, I also can prove they all use 1000 PC "professionally" for their work in one building. Before I moved to gaming, I also did FX for film/TV using just PC. I did remember working for one company that had a couple 3D Apple station, but nobody wanted to use it because it was too slow.

When I said cocoon, I did not meant your business, I meant your mind...as being narrow minded. As not knowing what’s going on outside your cocoon. I’m not questioning Apple as being used professionally, but they aren’t the only one in the game…just recognize that.


There is a reason why serious professionals prefer the macintosh platform.. and thats stability. In our studios for music production.. we do have PCs, but we rarely use them. (Only for Gigasampler.. which unfortunately runs only on windows) And that is the ONLY reason we have PCs.

Sure, we've tried ProTools, Nuendo, etc, on Windows.. worked great.. but there has to be a damn crash at some point of time,, we do backup all the time but do you know how frustrating it is to format the hard drive? And install everything all over again?

In a time sensitive environment like studios, we can't afford to risk computing failures.. and that is exactly what happens with Windows. No, we don't connect them to the internet, we don't install third party hacks or any jacked up pirated software of any kind. We optimise them, run system management tools.. and the bloody things eventually go down.

There's nothing more frustrating than having a great music project going on.. with session musicians, singers, everything just perfect.. and boom! System freeze.. boot up.. and all your data's messed up or lost. You lose that creative vibe, and instead you have to deal with tech stuff.

With macs and OS x, you don't have to go through all that hell. Our macs are operating 24/7 .. and flawlessly. Ok, so pro tools takes about 5 seconds more to open on OS X than on Windows XP.. but bloody hell, do we care about that?!

I don't know about all of you, but I'd rather have a system that might be a little slower (to launch apps) but is stable.. than have a faster windows system which crashes.

So if you're not a professional who has to work under severe time constraints.. then you wont understand why the mac is so important to us.

pizzach
Apr 8, 2006, 10:22 AM
We've gotten along for the entire history of Windows without using Windows on our Macs. Why is this now the biggest topic that we can think of? None of you are even talking about Mac OS anymore, its all "Windows! Windows! Windows!"

This is sad.

And just to think, a few days ago it was "iPods iPods iPods!" :)

Whistleway
Apr 8, 2006, 10:25 AM
My 'little cocoon' consists of probably hundreds of studios - audio and film, all in 'Bollywood' across India, ..

Just wanted to say to a fellow indian, namaste !!

Maxx Power
Apr 8, 2006, 12:16 PM
There are lots of people here familiar with Windows who know that all the blue-screen/virus-infested/sky-is-falling stories about Windows are due to either ignorance (such as assuming that Windows XP and Windows 3.1 are the same) or spite.

Blue-screens are very rare - unless you have a driver or hardware problem. I'll show you an Apple that kernel panics at least once a week - and you'll show me that when I replace the bad DIMM it runs fine. Windows == OSX.

Are you on the Sammamish side of Issaquah?

Bingo, exactly. Ask anyone with enough experience on a PC with X86 and Windows XP, they'll tell you the same thing.

Most people seems to be on the Christian side of a witch hunt, don't know enough to say otherwise, just going with the flow.

If you put your windows behind a firewall capable router, and use firefox, like me, you don't need anti-this or that. Unless you absolutely desire to visit pr0n sites in Russia every hour and open up every e-mail attachment from the latest pictures of "insert famous star here" series.

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 8, 2006, 12:49 PM
Apparently this statement was simply designed to skew public perception.
It's NY Times. What else would you expect? :)

Billy Boo Bob
Apr 8, 2006, 01:11 PM
(Sorry if this was mentioned... I made it about halfway through this thread but I just have to jump in)

A lot of people are talking about being able to run the one or two apps that are not available on the Mac and never will be. Others talk about being able to condense two machines (generally laptops) into one. These are both valid and strong points.

But there's another thing that I haven't seen mentioned about people switching. A lot of people have A LOT of money tied up in their current Windows versions of power apps. Even the ones that have a Mac version. Take Adobe CS2, for instance. If someone wants to get a Mac right now, they still have tons of money tied up in the software. Adobe isn't going to exchange the PC version for the Mac version. Not straight up, anyway. So, they can run the software they purchased a while ago on the new Mac hardware without having to go out and purchase the whole thing all over again. This is not limited to Adobe's stuff, but it's probably the most relevent (Photoshop, anyway).

Now, when it's time for CS3 to come out, I would hope that the upgrade path would be the same for upgrading Win CS2 to Mac CS3 as it is for the upgrade on the same platform. I don't see why not. But, in the mean time (outside of purchasing XP if they do/need to), they won't have to dump a ton of money on a new Mac version to run their current software native (granted Mac CS2 isn't Intel native, but it runs better on a Mac than Win CS2 does before Boot Camp).

There's several titles that can be thrown in there. Macromedia suite (back to Adobe now). MS Office... Etc...

So, yeah, the excitement isn't the fact that we can run XP now. If we wanted to do that we wouldn't have a Mac to begin with... It's that (along with the missing app on OS X) a switcher can run the software that was purchased for XP on Apple's hardware now. At least until the next upgrade.

And outside of the apps that really need full run of the hardware (video card), I think you'll find more people doing virtualization.

Music_Producer
Apr 8, 2006, 02:22 PM
You also contradicted yourself as wanting an Apple because you require it operating 24/7, 365 days a year, but then you said “Yes, kernel panics do occur on the mac…but the system can reboot and everything's fine.” That what’s called a CRASH!



When I said kernel panics do occur on the mac, I should have specified that they have never happened in any of the macs in our studios and facilities.. I merely acknowledged the fact that they do happen.. I have had that happen on my laptop once when I messed up an installation.. and that was it.

I'd much rather have a kernel panic, restart my mac and see everything the way it was.. than have to reformat my hard drive, and install Windows XP and all the other software.. all over again.

No system is immune to crashes or bugs, but in MY view.. because of ALL the experience I have had since quite a few years.. is that the macintosh operating system wins hands down in terms of stability.

Demoman
Apr 8, 2006, 02:42 PM
There are lots of people here familiar with Windows who know that all the blue-screen/virus-infested/sky-is-falling stories about Windows are due to either ignorance (such as assuming that Windows XP and Windows 3.1 are the same) or spite.

Blue-screens are very rare - unless you have a driver or hardware problem. I'll show you an Apple that kernel panics at least once a week - and you'll show me that when I replace the bad DIMM it runs fine. Windows == OSX.

Are you on the Sammamish side of Issaquah?

No, I am on South Tiger Mountain. And I agree, blue screens are rare and usually the result of a hardware issue, or a lousy written application. Those can happen in any environment. My issues with Windows are perhaps different than some other people's. For one thing, we are witnessing the predatory licensing costs that years of monopoly have brought in. As an IT Manager I am staggered by how these have escalated.

Music_Producer
Apr 8, 2006, 03:43 PM
Just to show you what I can do on a 1.25 ghz Powerbook g4 with 1.25 gb of RAM:

1. 48 STEREO tracks of audio (thats stereo - so 96 effective tracks)
2. Reason 2.5 running, with sequence
3. Virtual synths
4. Photoshop open (The picture of the Taj Mahal)
5. Word was open and running (the window didnt show up in the grab pic)

All this, on the powerbook's internal 4200 RPM DRIVE :eek:

Everything was running flawlessly.. THIS is what I love about the Mac.

When I try to emulate the same scenario on my AMD Athlon 64 DESKTOP with a 7200 rpm drive, (only the audio part - no word, no photoshop, no reason, no virtual synths) the computer starts farting with 28 stereo tracks.

Push it to 48 stereo tracks, and Lol.. it plays for a few seconds.. stops.. or rather, takes a long pause, restarts .. and then freezes. And then I hit the 'reboot' switch.

Imagine what you can do with an MBP with 2gb of RAM, and a 7200 rpm drive (about to purchase one next week.. yum :D )

Ps - Why do I have a PC desktop? I use it for Quicken (the quicken version for mac sucks) and..er.. my wife plays Solitaire on it!!!

http://www.vishaljrecords.com/screenshot.jpg

Music_Producer
Apr 8, 2006, 03:44 PM
Just wanted to say to a fellow indian, namaste !!

Namaste to you too Whistleway! :) Can't wait to fly back to bombay.. miss the food already!

roach
Apr 8, 2006, 08:00 PM
Just to show you what I can do on a 1.25 ghz Powerbook g4 with 1.25 gb of RAM:

1. 48 STEREO tracks of audio (thats stereo - so 96 effective tracks)
2. Reason 2.5 running, with sequence
3. Virtual synths
4. Photoshop open (The picture of the Taj Mahal)
5. Word was open and running (the window didnt show up in the grab pic)

All this, on the powerbook's internal 4200 RPM DRIVE :eek:

Everything was running flawlessly.. THIS is what I love about the Mac.

When I try to emulate the same scenario on my AMD Athlon 64 DESKTOP with a 7200 rpm drive, (only the audio part - no word, no photoshop, no reason, no virtual synths) the computer starts farting with 28 stereo tracks.

Push it to 48 stereo tracks, and Lol.. it plays for a few seconds.. stops.. or rather, takes a long pause, restarts .. and then freezes. And then I hit the 'reboot' switch.

Imagine what you can do with an MBP with 2gb of RAM, and a 7200 rpm drive (about to purchase one next week.. yum :D )

Ps - Why do I have a PC desktop? I use it for Quicken (the quicken version for mac sucks) and..er.. my wife plays Solitaire on it!!!




If you're trying to impress people with what your Mac can do...sorry, I’m not impressed. My tablet PC also with 4200HD can run Maya, Photoshop and other utilities at the same time. My system which is already 3 years old, can still do pretty intense 3D and particle FX work.

Music_Producer
Apr 8, 2006, 08:48 PM
If you're trying to impress people with what your Mac can do...sorry, I’m not impressed. My tablet PC also with 4200HD can run Maya, Photoshop and other utilities at the same time. My system which is already 3 years old, can still do pretty intense 3D and particle FX work.

Dude, what do you not understand? I am not trying to impress anyone. I have the same software on BOTH systems - mac and pc. What my mac can do with ease, the pc simply cannot. AND, the pc has more powerful specs than my powerbook.

Happy? Or are you going to go on with your 'my dad can beat your dad'?

Uh.. maya, photoshop, video stuff.. the pb can handle with ease. Audio apps..especially multi-tracking >32 tracks, with rewire apps, plugins and virtual synths are WAY more taxing than video/graphics stuff. I've worked with both.

The day you work with music production, then you can share your experience.

plarusa
Apr 8, 2006, 09:09 PM
Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.

Fat chance. I develop system software on a daily basis for Vista, we are now at Beta 2 and I still think it is a not so good imitation of OS X. I think MSFT's decision to use .NET everywhere slows down the OS and increases its memory footprint (you now need 512MB just to install). Somehow, Apple produced a much higher quality product while still using software frameworks based on the old C programming language.

Bosunsfate
Apr 8, 2006, 09:14 PM
I hope AAPL doesn't buy themselves an antitrust lawsuit by doing this.

1. Tying purchase of computer to purchase of OS. (The OS X license prohibits installation on non-AAPL hardware).

2. Monopoly on multi-OS computer.

By allowing this and by disallowing use of OS X on other hardware, I hope they do not embroil themselves in an unfair competition lawsuit.

Ah... I don't think so....5% market share....unfair competition??:confused:

Dude, the only thing they have to fear is what's happening in France and that's a different thing all together.

roach
Apr 9, 2006, 12:03 AM
Dude, what do you not understand? I am not trying to impress anyone. I have the same software on BOTH systems - mac and pc. What my mac can do with ease, the pc simply cannot. AND, the pc has more powerful specs than my powerbook.

Happy? Or are you going to go on with your 'my dad can beat your dad'?

Uh.. maya, photoshop, video stuff.. the pb can handle with ease. Audio apps..especially multi-tracking >32 tracks, with rewire apps, plugins and virtual synths are WAY more taxing than video/graphics stuff. I've worked with both.

The day you work with music production, then you can share your experience.

I can tell you now that your 1.25 ghz Powerbook g4 with 1.25 gb of RAM can not handle Maya running fx particle...it would kill your machine. I know people who struggle working on 3D with G5 workstation let alone your wimpy 1.25 powerbook. And on top of that Apple's openGL is not very well written. Damn…I just don’t believe that an music application running multiple tracks that your 1.25 powerbook can handle, an AMD 64 can’t handle. Like I said earlier bad memory, bad hardware, bad drivers and even bad application...XP always get blame for these problems. If you don't know how to diagnose your PC...you should send it to some who can find the problem...ahhh...you probably leave it, so you have something to blame your problem on.

AidenShaw
Apr 9, 2006, 06:42 AM
Unless you absolutely desire to visit pr0n sites in Russia every hour and open up every e-mail attachment from the latest pictures of "insert famous star here" series.
That's a good use for a virtual machine, if you must go there.

If the VM gets hit, shut it off and copy the backup machine files.

delton05
Apr 9, 2006, 07:52 AM
All this talk about windows and intel ... running inside/on a 'Mac', without much Apple involvement ... who are we kidding. The Wintel dark side HAS won, and are now laughing all the way to the bank with Mac user's money as we 'update' to friggin X86!!! The Mac IS OSX, and thats itl not much Mac in a Intel computer (oh the case, whoppee!)...we're now forced to accept from SJ that Intel X86 are 2 - 3 times faster than PPC and now XP on an Intel Mac. I doubt that the developers will now bother developing for X. The Mac is just like a dual-boot X86 PeeCee now...how many s/w ports are there for Linux? so OSX will be the same.

We're resigned to argue now about the respective age of XP vs X, amount of installed ram to try and justify the less than killer comparison.

I believe this is the final battle/gamble, and people are cheering the fact that Vista is delayed a few months...we're grasping a straws if we think that will mean that Pc users will not wait and just buy a Max to switch to OSX. When Vista hits the media being pushed by the MS adds, for months after release, PC users wont care about OSX running on some 'Mac', with some wierd thing called bootcamp...that will like yesterdays OS, how could it be as 'good' as something thats just released.

Unless Apple makes the Mac less $$$, like MS does with Xbox...the 'Mac' will remain the computer for people who already have faith in Apple.

Super Dave
Apr 9, 2006, 08:20 AM
Ah. Now the mac community is seen as "excited about running Windows". Like, we like Os X, but we are sooooo excited to run Windows. :eek:

I'd say, there's a tiny bit of sarcasm in MS' statement...

If you wanna see sarcasm, check out Apple's Boot Camp Page (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/).

David:cool:

rayz
Apr 9, 2006, 10:34 AM
Damn…you’re in your own world there. It’s well know that Apple is used professionally, but to think PC aren’t used professionally shows you’re in your little cocoon. Most of the banks, hospitals and other profession that requires stable system are run on PC. I work for a company with 1000 employees, working on intense 3D oriented games using nothing put PC and we sure don’t get hampered by computer failure the way your company seems to be affected. Maybe you should fire your tech guy. It’s funny, but most bad memory, bad hardware, bad drivers or unstable programs are always blamed on Window OS. My system’s processor is about 3 years old and it’s still going strong. In about a year, the tech guys will put a new motherboard and processor and it should be good for another 3 years…very scaleable!

It really is very simple. There are so many more PCs than Macs out there, that people are bound to see more problems.

But I'm curious. You have a three year old machine and you're going to fit a new motherboard? Is that a good choice from an economics point of view?

rayz
Apr 9, 2006, 10:40 AM
There are lots of people here familiar with Windows who know that all the blue-screen/virus-infested/sky-is-falling stories about Windows are due to either ignorance (such as assuming that Windows XP and Windows 3.1 are the same) or spite.

Blue-screens are very rare - unless you have a driver or hardware problem. I'll show you an Apple that kernel panics at least once a week - and you'll show me that when I replace the bad DIMM it runs fine. Windows == OSX.


I've only seen one BSOD on XP, and that was caused by a Java application that stepped out of memory (not sure how that happened, I'd always though the JVM was supposed to stop that kind of thing. Perhaps it was a native call or something).

I could repeat the trick on demand, but as it turned out it, was a security feature built into the AMD chip. If it detected an attempt to force a buffer overflow, it triggered a system exception that brought the box to a screaming halt.

I was quite impressed ....

rayz
Apr 9, 2006, 11:21 AM
All this talk about windows and intel ... running inside/on a 'Mac', without much Apple involvement ... who are we kidding. The Wintel dark side HAS won, and are now laughing all the way to the bank with Mac user's money as we 'update' to friggin X86!!!

I think WinTel won some time ago, didn't it? Small sections of the Mac community believe that there will be a second coming of Mac; that the unwashed masses of Windows users will suddenly see the light and race out to their nearest Apple store. Personally, I don't think this is going to happen.


The Mac IS OSX, and thats itl not much Mac in a Intel computer (oh the case, whoppee!)...we're now forced to accept from SJ that Intel X86 are 2 - 3 times faster than PPC and now XP on an Intel Mac.

Well it wasn't just the chip. Apple's overall hardware design hadn't kept pace with the PC industry.

I doubt that the developers will now bother developing for X. The Mac is just like a dual-boot X86 PeeCee now...how many s/w ports are there for Linux? so OSX will be the same.

Linux isn't really a successful desktop OS though is it? I also think that there is an expectation that software for Linux should be dirt cheap, or free. That's certainly going to keep Adobe clear of the platform.

But as for developing for MacOSX, I'm wondering if Apple and Microsoft haven't got something up their sleeve for the WWDC.

I mean I'm just thinking out loud here, but on the surface, there isn't much between the OSs. Both have scrollbars (though the buttons are arranged differently), both have three buttons in the title bar (though they're at different ends). Both have menus (though the Mac uses a single menu bar and Windows has one per application).

What if the next version of VirtualPC worked a bit like the Windows VM in OS/2 (remember that?). No Windows desktop at all (unless you optionally request it), just Windows applications that launch straight onto the desktop like regular Mac apps.
And what if it could also 'skin' the application while it runs, so that it looked like a Mac application.

Adobe could release a single app that looked like Windows when it runs under Windows, but looks like a Mac app when running on VirtualPC.

And what if Apple also released Cocoa for Windows so that Mac developers could also target the Windows platform (as compensation for the possible loss of business) ....


I believe this is the final battle/gamble, and people are cheering the fact that Vista is delayed a few months...we're grasping a straws if we think that will mean that Pc users will not wait and just buy a Max to switch to OSX. When Vista hits the media being pushed by the MS adds, for months after release, PC users wont care about OSX running on some 'Mac', with some wierd thing called bootcamp...that will like yesterdays OS, how could it be as 'good' as something thats just released.

Perhaps you're being a little overdramatic. Wait and see how it plays out. I'm pretty sure Apple management knows what they're doing.

What does amuse is how so many Mac users spend every waking breath running down Windows and its user base, and now that they see the ability to run Windows on the horizon, Mac pride goes out the window (so to speak).

We spend years claiming that the PPC trounces Intel (look Jobs did a demo that proves it!) And then Jobs switches to Intel and claims it's up to 4 times faster (look Jobs did a demo that proves it!) and the PPC is now a piece of junk.

Anyway, I'd probably be a little more careful about all the 'Windows is crap' remarks because the platforms are getting closer together with each passing year. Something unexpected may happen, and there may not be enough humble pie to go around for all of us.

roach
Apr 9, 2006, 12:14 PM
It really is very simple. There are so many more PCs than Macs out there, that people are bound to see more problems.

But I'm curious. You have a three year old machine and you're going to fit a new motherboard? Is that a good choice from an economics point of view?

I added a motherboard that lets me use SLI (two video cards), but still be able to use my current processor with room to grow to newer processor...dual core. Everything else is stock carried on from my previous setup...I think I had the same case for over 5 years. Of course I was FORCE into buying second video card for my SLI setup...but that is another story I can tell if anybody cares to know but it was an issue with the hardware company...not MS.

Maxx Power
Apr 9, 2006, 12:22 PM
We spend years claiming that the PPC trounces Intel (look Jobs did a demo that proves it!) And then Jobs switches to Intel and claims it's up to 4 times faster (look Jobs did a demo that proves it!) and the PPC is now a piece of junk.

Anyway, I'd probably be a little more careful about all the 'Windows is crap' remarks because the platforms are getting closer together with each passing year. Something unexpected may happen, and there may not be enough humble pie to go around for all of us.

Actually, it's a lot funnier than that - Job's showed us that PPC benches faster in "select applications" than a P4 at the time, and it was about 200% or so. Then, when Intel came out with the Core chips, public review sites benched it at as fast as their P4's at half the clock, which makes them twice as fast as the P4's is Job's comparison and 4 times as fast adding on a second core, supposedly. Then, when Jobs took the Core chips, he claimed it is now 4 - 5 times faster than the upper G5's which were obviously faster than the G4's he compared to the P4's with years ago. So if calculate how many times faster the new chips are, it comes out to that the Core chips are (4-5)x4x200% faster than the P4's, and per windows benchmarks, it's ONLY up to 4 times faster. So by going with the Jobs mob, you automatically gain a +(4-5)*200% factor, and I think it should be rightfully be called the Jobs Enchanted Mac Modifier.

The misused benchmarks, it would come back to bite them hard if it were not pulled as it is from the website, someone should keep an archive of all of those performance graphs and present them to us for a good laugh the next time Jobs jump ships.

Oh yeah, almost forgot, whatever happened to Jobs' philosophy that the G4 is faster because it had less stages, that it could "swiftly" execute data when compared to the P4 brothrens with 20 ? The new core duo's are 14 stages, I believe.

mozmac
Apr 9, 2006, 01:00 PM
It makes sense that Windows is fast on a lot of things. It is so much snappier. If I were to pick a machine that I needed just to check my email for five minutes, I would pick windows. However, if I were to choose a machine to do ALL my work on, running TONS of programs at once, I would choose OS X.

billyboy
Apr 9, 2006, 03:51 PM
I can tell you now that your 1.25 ghz Powerbook g4 with 1.25 gb of RAM can not handle Maya running fx particle...it would kill your machine. I know people who struggle working on 3D with G5 workstation let alone your wimpy 1.25 powerbook. And on top of that Apple's openGL is not very well written. Damn…I just don’t believe that an music application running multiple tracks that your 1.25 powerbook can handle, an AMD 64 can’t handle. Like I said earlier bad memory, bad hardware, bad drivers and even bad application...XP always get blame for these problems. If you don't know how to diagnose your PC...you should send it to some who can find the problem...ahhh...you probably leave it, so you have something to blame your problem on.
At the end of the day, if Music producer's limits have been reached and with no amount of tweaking will a PC to do what he wants, but he can do it all on a Mac, then you have to concede that no way can it can be argued that XP is all about usability and user friendliness.

But there may be hope because it sounds like with his top of the range MBP built to Apples tight specs the music man will have a very unwimpy new mac laptop able to easily run your Maya etc apps AND perhaps be able to run Windows platform music apps more easily than his current "who knows what components are in it doing what" pc will allow him to do.

I think a point that keeps coming up is Mac integration cuts out the need to be a systems admin boffin to get great results. XP is a powerful OS and PCs are good bits of kit, but you will have a good experience because your knowledge of XP and PCs clearly is beyond that of the normal plug in and hope user's. An app written for Mac installed on a Mac machine will invariably work for less than stellar computer heads and I think Jobs is convinced that XP users could probably get their new intel Mac working Mac software just fine with a bit of hit and miss experimenting at first menu level, not resorting to delving into the inner workings.

AidenShaw
Apr 9, 2006, 06:45 PM
...top of the range MBP built to Apples tight specs the music man will have a very unwimpy new mac laptop able to easily run your Maya etc apps AND perhaps be able to run Windows platform music apps more easily than his current "who knows what components are in it doing what" pc will allow him to do...
The myth of "Apple's tight specs" is going to take a while to die - but it will, as more and more people realize that Apple is buying exactly the same parts as Dell, Asus, HP and Lenovo. (H#ll, Asus is even building the MacIntel laptops according to the stories.)

Sure the $2000 Apple will have better parts than the $700 Dell, but it will have the same parts as the $1700 Dell.
____________________________________

That isn't to say that OSX isn't a better choice for live music productions - even with identical hardware one OS can have better real-time characteristics than another.

That will be one good thing about dual-booting - these tests can be run with OSX and XP on exactly the same box.

askegg
Apr 9, 2006, 07:30 PM
Apple hardware is a fashion statement, a lot of people will buy Apple hardware because it looks cool, not because it is cheap. And now that we can run windows on Apple hardware people can look cool and know what they are doing as opposed to getting lost with OSX.

Consumers don't always buy the cheapest item, even if the cheaper item can do something with the same reliability as the more expensive one.

I agree - they are fashion statements. I may also argue that people who "know what they're doing" will not get lost with OSX. OSX is simplier than Windows (too simple when trying to do some things). The OS refects the hardware - its clean, uncluttered and beautiful. I think the same reasons people buy the hardware are the same reasons they would choose to run OSX.

askegg
Apr 9, 2006, 07:38 PM
Speak for yourself. I'm an Apple customer and I am very much excited about running XP. The fanboi's have to take their collective heads out of their butts. There are still MANY applications that only run on XP (or some other flavour of Windows). Why should I buy two computers to be able to run all the software I want. Now I can buy one computer and use ALL the software I need and want. So yes I am VERY excited about this. The scientific lab I work in is also VERY excited about this. We have many Win only apps and now we can have the best of both worlds.

Don't get me wrong - I need to run XP on my iMac, but not because I prefer it over OSX. There are applications that are not available on OSX, so I am forced.

I like OSX for the same reasons I like the hardware. Windows is not an elegant solution compared to OSX (I have been using and support Windows in corporate environments for 15 years). There are things about the mac I do not like. I think some things have been simlified too much and this impedes my productivity.

Microsoft's suggestion that Apple customers have been screaming out to run their wonderful (sic) operating system on their shiney new macs is going a little too far. I am forced to run Windows in some circumstances, but that is not the same thing.

Personally I will be using virtual machines rather than dual boot solutions. Parallels VM software is pretty good, I hope VMWare will release a port.

BenRoethig
Apr 9, 2006, 09:43 PM
The myth of "Apple's tight specs" is going to take a while to die - but it will, as more and more people realize that Apple is buying exactly the same parts as Dell, Asus, HP and Lenovo. (H#ll, Asus is even building the MacIntel laptops according to the stories.)

Apple has contracted out production (but not design) for a while now.

Maxx Power
Apr 9, 2006, 10:00 PM
Apple has contracted out production (but not design) for a while now.

AidenShaw knows that, he was making a point with that as an example.

billyboy
Apr 9, 2006, 10:20 PM
The myth of "Apple's tight specs" is going to take a while to die - but it will, as more and more people realize that Apple is buying exactly the same parts as Dell, Asus, HP and Lenovo. (H#ll, Asus is even building the MacIntel laptops according to the stories.)

Sure the $2000 Apple will have better parts than the $700 Dell, but it will have the same parts as the $1700 Dell.
____________________________________



I guess I meant tight specs in terms of the overall package of hardware that Apple knows works well with its inhouse software.

Apple stick with their generally high spec but limited range all built with components known to definitely operate reliably within the limits required by OS X . I wonder if the Apple integration and Apple reliability could be replicated by any PC manufacturer that took the trouble (or the risk) to produce a machine with the specs required to run XP reliably and easily match the Apple hardware/software experience?

ie Do Dell have access to the inner workings of XP and know it as well as Apple know OSX - the big difference being that dell as hardware manufacturers choose to produce cheapo hardware in their range ( so the requirements of XP arent necessarily met long term and that is where the reliability problems running XP arise)