First Hand with Mac OS X on Toshiba Intel (x86)

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif

Category: Mac OS X
Link: Apple Mac OS X on x86: a first test

Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug

[Mudbug]

lemme make sure I understand what just happened here - ZDNet just reviewed software that, according to the NDA signed by developers, wouldn't be distributed or used for review.

It got good marks for it's relative position in development, but still... c'mon, Apple. You sued ThinkSecret and AppleInsider and others for talking about pre-release information - how is this any different?

[iGary]

I wonder how much it cost them to consult their lawyers on whether to run this or not.

[twoodcc]

i don't image that will be up for long

[iGary]

Originally Posted by twoodcc

i don't image that will be up for long

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worst, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.

[Mudbug]

Originally Posted by iGary

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worse, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.

Yep - as the saying goes - "I don't care what it is you say about me, as long as you spell my name right."

[winmacguy]

Originally Posted by iGary

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worse, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.

You cant buy this kind of publicity Who needs advertising when journos just want to "unlawfully" grab your stuff and test it and then post in on the web so that everyone can read about it and talk about it in discussion forums Shocking

[plinden]

So, the only application test they did was iTunes encoding, using the PPC version of iTunes via Rosetta, and found that it was 3x faster with WinXP. They said that this "may be" due to using emulation with Rosetta.

Still, plenty of people responded pointing out the flaws in the review, and the dubious legality.

[angelwatt]

I thought it was a fun little article and was good of them not try to say this was how the end result would and realized Apple will definitely have it in better shape when release time comes. I definitely agree Mac has an easier install than any windows OS. I think Bill might start sweating when he sees how well Mac runs on Intel in comparison to his Windows.

I'm stoked for relase day.

[mkjellman]

to be honest I couldn't believe that a large name like this posted this. it looks like a blog. the pictures are horrible quality and it seems like someone posted this without the editors approval. but we know that probably didn't happen.

as a select member I know apple is very stringent about even talking about pre-releace software. x86 OS X comes with the same terms as any other pre-releace non-public apple software.

what I do like about this information is that even with rosetta mp3 encoding is only 21 seconds on that AMD configuration. By the time this goes live I think we can be looking forward to a real treat.

also, i'd love to know what the "boot loader" is they talked about. Is it just the "Startup" control panel in System Preferences? That would be sweet!

[Abstract]

All these tests mean nothing to me until they're tested on machines using the proper Intel Chips that will go into the new Macs. Also, what about using software made for Intel Macs? Surely the iTunes we use when the system comes out will be a bit different.

All these early reviews are pointless in the real world until we get some real retail laptops and desktops (and real tests......iTunes encoding? ) to test them on.

[Sun Baked]

Originally Posted by iGary

ZDNET isn't stupid.

At the worst, Apple sues them and they get a ton of publicity for it.

Apparently they are ...

They get a cracked pirated copy of Mac OS x86 and put it on their machines, then write a review on it.

They proudly tell the world...

1. I pirate software.

2. I used pirate software.

3. I tell the world I use that pirate software.

4. Somebody files a complaint with www.bsa.org

5. My ass and ZDnet's are lubed for the software audit.

6. The audit finds lots of unregistered software.

7. I cry when I write the check.

Edit: If the BSA posted their reward policy more clearly, I'd probably be turning these end-users in left and right. Heck an extra couple/few hundred a month would be cool for sending some e-mails.

Especially since it's so hard to catch corps doing this crap and going for the up to $50k reward for turning in a company.

[freiheit]

Originally Posted by Abstract

All these early reviews are pointless in the real world until we get some real retail laptops and desktops (and real tests......iTunes encoding? ) to test them on.

Agreed; any review of any pre-release product is pointless in the real world. But what's wrong with using iTunes encoding as a benchmark? Lots of people do it. That makes it a better benchmark that a lot of the WinBench or Sandra tests which are common among PC reviewers, which don't reflect real-world usage. As a reader, I'd much rather know how fast the system will do something I actually care about than to know what mystical scoring method came up with a high score on the system.

[Silencio]

Stupid article for any number of reasons.

However, I did have to chuckle over their apparant amazement and stupification over Mac OS X's graphical Installer and Disk Utility! XP's installer is still text-based, convoluted, requires way too much user intervention, and is otherwise generally horrible. Pretty sad that the vast majority of PC pros out there don't think it gets any better than that!

[autrefois]

If Apple doesn't ask ZDNet to take this down and/or doesn't sue them (the article was just posted yesterday), could Think Secret and AppleInsider use that in their defense to say they were unfairly targeted?

I would think that actively breaking NDA oneself (the ZDNet article says "our preliminary labs test", my emphasis) would be worse than reporting information obtained from a source who broke that NDA. ThinkSecret was just reporting, whereas ZDNet broke the agreement themselves.

If that doesn't prompt action by Apple, obviously Apple is closing their eyes to ZDNet's infringement.

[liketom]

this is very usefull for all them people out there who crave more info on Mac OS on X86

but this is just adding fuel to the fire for people to download iffy cracks of X86 Tiger - which in my view is wrong.

saying that it does look promising , and i wonder if apple is chucking out a few bones to get the hype up over there MAYBE release of a new Mac at macworld that just happens to have a Intel CPU in ?

who knows buy i think this will be left up on ZDNET for at least 2-3 days


//Rock
///On
////Tommy

[Passante]

Actual quotes for the review

"Partitioning the hard disk is also straightforward thanks to the efficient Disk Utility program. Unlike in Windows, this requires no data entry, but lets you use the mouse to create and resize a partition easily. Windows users will also be surprised by Mac OS X's disk imaging and backup capabilities. All this is possible simply by starting the setup CD; a Windows setup is light-years away from the user-friendliness of a Mac installation."

"All of which makes the current test results for Mac OS X x86 more remarkable. Clearly, essential components of the power-saving functions in the Pentium M processor (in our testbed Toshiba Portégé M300) are already supported. There can be no other explanation for the fact that the power consumption of Mac OS X x86 is on a par with Windows XP running on the same notebook computer. Mac OS X is even a little faster than Windows XP at starting up, while the two operating systems shut down at about the same speed. As far as resource hunger is concerned, Apple's OS is a little less demanding: after loading, Mac OS X x86 leaves 324MB of RAM out of 512MB free, while XP releases only 290MB."

"Mac OS X looks in amazingly good early form on the x86 platform. As far as power consumption and OS performance are concerned, it can already keep up with Windows XP."

?Apple Mac OS X on x86: a first test



Kai Schmerer November 09, 2005

Steve Jobs might not approve, but Apple's latest operating system can be installed on any x86 hardware. How well does it function? Read our preliminary labs test to find out.



Conclusion

Mac OS X looks in amazingly good early form on the x86 platform. As far as power consumption and OS performance are concerned, it can already keep up with Windows XP. Application performance clearly lags behind, though, and still needs to improve.



"
Mac OS X offers many advantages over Windows. The installation routine uses a graphical interface from the start, and any user interventions that are required are more intuitive than with Windows. You will look in vain within Windows for programs as effective as Disk Utility, which is available during the setup phase, while the efficient network tools make it straightforward to connect to a Windows network. Apple has continued to improve its intuitive control concept with Mac OS X, using 3D effects and other visual devices (see above).

[Seasought]

The whole thing feels like a planned PR stunt that Apple is part of. My reasoning is based on the very 'sales pitch' feel of the entire article that lacks much quality content and instead pushes inflated impressions of basic features.

I'm not complaining mind you, just a conspiracy theorist.

[atari1356]

I can't believe how they just flat out admit to installing a pirated version of the OS - hacked to make it run on non-Apple hardware.

Pretty pointless too since the Mac hardware that the final version will run on will be much different than the laptop they installed the pirated copy onto.

Oh well, I guess they're getting lots of press... and at least it's not through Mac-bashing like in previous years.

[AtHomeBoy_2000]

OS startup time:
23.5s (XP)
20.5s (OS X)

SINCE WHEN!? Every PC I have EVER starte up takes at least 2 minutes and then once you see the actual desktop, it takes another minute before you can actuallt begin to start an Application. My iMac G5 goes from pressing the power button to first App in under 50 seconds!

[GorillaPaws]

I'm also a little dumbfounded at the legality of all of this???

Originally Posted by Abstract

All these early reviews are pointless in the real world until we get some real retail laptops and desktops (and real tests......iTunes encoding? ) to test them on.

Yes and no. I was plesantly suprised to see how well iTunes worked w/ Rosetta, even though it was slower than XP. I mean if iTunes can run fairly decently through what is essentially an emulator, on a slower processor, I'm starting to feel somewhat confident that native apps on the final products with better chips will be very competitive w/ apps running on XP.

That and the fact that Rosetta isn't all hype like I was fearing. It seems like it does a decent job (at least in iTunes). At least it's much better than running a Windows version of iTunes on VPC.

[liketom]

Originally Posted by AtHomeBoy_2000

SINCE WHEN!? Every PC I have EVER starte up takes at least 2 minutes and then once you see the actual desktop, it takes another minute before you can actuallt begin to start an Application. My iMac G5 goes from pressing the power button to first App in under 50 seconds!

i read it as it takes a PC that long to boot OS X

but my mrs sony viao boots from cold to open in 64 sec snOOOORRRE

my mac wakes from sleep in like a billazilionth of a second hehe wel not quiet but its quick

[plinden]

Originally Posted by freiheit

Agreed; any review of any pre-release product is pointless in the real world. But what's wrong with using iTunes encoding as a benchmark? Lots of people do it.

That would be fine if it were iTunes compiled for x86. But it wasn't. So it says it took 3x longer for OSX than XP to encode using iTunes, and that "may be" due to Rosetta emulation.

It was due to Rosetta emulation, so is a pointless comparison.

[heartsglory]

A true comparison would be to compare any app compiled on OSX86 vs the same app on a windows machine. It isn't a fair comparison when considering running an app on emulation vs running it natively. You automatically lose about 20% if not more speed under emulation. A better comparison would be for something like MATLAB (that was demonstated during Steve's last Keynote when he announced the arch. switch).

[James Philp]

And where did they gat this marvelous copy of OS X 10.4?
I thought it was agreed that 10.5 would be the OS released with/for x86 Macs?
Where's this leak come from all of a sudden. Apparently Apple have been developing 10.x to work on x86 from the beginning, and now all of a sudden there's a leaked version of Tiger?