Apples are Slow

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by MikeLaRiviere, Aug 3, 2004.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    #1
    Here is something I can't believe: people say that Macs are slow. My 1.33 GHz G4 PowerBook is faster than most, if not all, PCs I've used. My brother's 2.4 GHz P4, for instance, is excrutiatingly slow - and it's got 512 MB RAM. Our 933 MHz PIII is disproportionately slower than the G4. Now, I'll concede that games run slower on the Mac... FAR slower... but I chalk it up to poor porting and lack of DX9.

    But when it comes to using everyday programs, launching applications, using the OS in general, and programs such as Photoshop GoLive, the Mac is incredibly faster. So I'm curious why people say Macs are slow, and what they use to back that up. People seem to complain that Apple laptops are too slow, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

    Mike LaRiviere
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    Ames, IA/Eden Prairie, MN
    #2
    Agreed. I can't imagine why anyone would say that macs are slow. On my PB I can go into the applications folder, select EVERY application and open them all at once without it crashing (try it, it makes the dock go NUTS). Everything I do on my mac is zippy, I never find myself waiting more than a few seconds for an app to load. Even mac gaming isnt THAT slow.
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    JeDiBoYTJ

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    #3
    simple reason... they only look at the numbers.

    "pfft... your mac is only a 1.0ghz? ha! my PC is a 2.0ghz P4, much faster than yours" when in reality, its not.

    its just ignorance. 95% of the people who hate macs have never used one, or just used one at school.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Solafaa

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Daddy said not to talk to strangers
    #4
    Yup, i agree 100%.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Location:
    NJ USA
    #5
    Mike,

    You didn't mention how much RAM you have on your PB. Mac OS X loves RAM. I think that the people who say Macs are slow are only using a Mac for a few seconds in CompUSA. Those machines have the base RAM--sometimes still just 128mb if they are previous generation machines. You are also right about gaming. Much better on the PC.

    Most of the people on these forums are power users and have upgrade their RAM and now see excellent performance even compared to much higher clock speed PCs.

    There used to be a general rule that G4s could complete with a Pentium that was twice the G4s clock speed. So a 500Mhz G4 could stay up to speed with a 1Ghz Pentium. I'm not sure if this is still true but I'd also add RAM into that mix and say that while Macs love and need RAM, PCs need a bit more RAM (probably not 2x) to be as usable as a Mac.

    I agree with you, once you have enough RAM for OS X, Macs blow away PCs for general use apps.
     
  6. Guest

    garybUK

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    #6
    It depends what you class as fast, and there are sooo many permiatations of pc's out there that no one can say which is faster.

    Spec's aren't everything, yeah you may have the same specs as a dull on paper but use a fast motherboard / ram / cpu etc. and you can have a pc that screams.

    I love my DP 1.8ghz G5 and i have found most things are a lot faster than on my XP2800+ machine and something not quite as fast. The G5 really excells at number crunching e.g. Seti & Adobe Photoshop Transforms etc.. I have also noticed from using my mac a lot recently and only just building a pc again (for VB.NET/SQL needed for work) that the mac handles media soooooooooooooooooooooooo much better than Windows XP its not even funny!
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    South Jersey
    #7
    The first expression I get from switchers is that their PC's are "much snappier"— whatever that means... I haven't used a PC in so long I can't relate... I do agree with alot of the other views that MHZ myth is the main reason for this perception... I just feel that all computers currently being manufactured right now are already pretty frickin fast... How much faster can they get ?... I suppose much- but I'm NEVER sitting around waiting for my computer to process a task before I can proceed.. Macs are plenty fast for me...
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #8
    Those Windows people who say Macs are slower are WRONG. A mhz to mhz comparison is not accurate. They are not on the same scale. The architecture is completely different- the PowerPC is a RISC chip, the Intel/AMDs are CISC- the comparisons don't match up. A 700 mhz PowerPC chip is roughly equivalent to a 1.4 to 1.7 ghz chip. :D

    700 mhz = 700 million bytes
    1.7 ghz= 1 Billion 700 million bytes
    From mac to PC add 1 ghz
    Emac .......................................... 2.25 ghz
    Powermac G4............................2.5/2.6 ghz
    Powermac G5............................ dual 3.5 ghz
    imac.............................................2.5ghz
    ibook............................................2.2ghz
    powerbook...................................2.33 ghz
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Timelessblur

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    #9
    there is one reason why people call macs slow and you can blame intel for it. Intel force it on everyone that Clock speed means all. I am some who likes AMD chips and I keep here from my friends who think my computer is a lot slower then theirs because it CPU is only clock at 2 GHZ and theres is a 2.7-3.0 GHZ chip. Yet my computer is faster because that 2ghz chip of mine is an AMD 64 3000+. Also most people on PC as well as macs know jack about computers and what all the numbers mean. The people who know a lot about PC are more like to respect macs becasue they know what the numbers mean on the ram and what not. Most macs are running on pc2700 Ram which is a faster than the ram that are in the lower end PC made out there.

    Trust me there are blind and ingornet Maccie out there who refuse to see the advatage of using a Windows computer over a Mac or refuse to admint that macs are using more and more standarzided parts.
     
  10. jsw
    Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #10
    When people don't understand the speed-isn't-everything argument, I use an analogy like this one:

    Supppose you have a pickup truck with a big engine in it. A fast pickup.

    Suppose you have an 18-wheeler as well. A big, slow tractor trailer.

    Which one is faster? The pickup.

    Now, suppose you're moving the contents of yor house cross country. You need to use one or the other. Now which one is faster?

    The Gx chips move more with each cycle. Hence, they get more work done, given the right jobs.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    #11
    well, I just paid out the wazoo for the 15" g4 1.5 powerbook. i love it, but when i run my own c code for signal processing research, it's a simple fact that the code, even using altivec where possible, will run more slowly on this computer than a fast PC laptop. this is probably not so true on a fast g5 desktop machine vs. a fast PC desktop, but it's certainly true for laptops.

    however, for day-to-day use, the powerbook seems quite snappy. since i bought it for the environment and the GUI, not raw speed, i got what i wanted. if i really need speed, i can get a linux box to run the simulations. i'll still do coding on the mac.

    but anyway, when i say my powerbook is slow, that's because it is slow for cpu-intensive work.
     
  12. macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #12
    And when they use the schools they are old ass. My old high school got a bunch of quicksilver and MDDs but they all ran OS9. Probably because the IT guys don't care or know about OSX so they run 9 just to keep things working on the network with the least hassle. So the kids go in there and see the old crappy mac os and don't care for the computers at all. I say this knowing full well and good I wouldn't have switched without osx. period.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #13
    Yea I just did that... pretty amazing. Haha, and guess what App was the last one to load? Microsoft Internet Explorer. It took like twice as long as the other apps.

    It took probably 15 seconds on my 1.25 GHz eMac with 756 memory.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    FredAkbar

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    #14
    Sorry to be nitpicky, but FYI those aren't bytes, they're hertz (a measure of frequency).

    Anyway...I agree with the whole "megahertz myth" thing and that Macs are generally faster per Mhz.

    JeDiBoYTJ, it was good to see you say "just used one at school" because I'm in high school and we have an "iMac lab" full of old blueberry and indigo iMacs running OS 8.6 or 9, they're always crashing and freezing and stuff...no wonder all the kids at my school hate Macs :rolleyes:. I try to explain that "the Macs at school suck" (if I had a dollar for every time I've used that phrase...), meaning that new Macs don't, but probably only half of them bother to understand.
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    FredAkbar

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2003
    Location:
    Santa Barbara, CA
    #15
    Hehe, I did that once...on my old blueberry 400 MHz G3 with 256 MB of RAM...it took hours...of course I had 3rd-party apps like Limewire which take forever (don't worry I don't use Limewire anymore).
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #16
    How it was at my school- but we are switching to OS X this year (finally). Our school is a museum of mac technology- we run Macintosh SE's with System 5 through to PowerMac G5's and Panther. :rolleyes:
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2003
    Location:
    DC
    #17
    I agree for the most part, except that OSX can be less "snappy" as Windows, which is true. For example, when resizing a window in OSX, it has to catch up to the curser, but on Windows, it stays on it. Now, this barely makes a difference of half a second, but it is noticable. On the other hand, OSX does not make you defragment the hard drive.

    As for pure processing speed, I think G5's are faster at most tasks than PC's, but personally I don't think the ability to render an image 10 seconds faster than another computer is that big of a deal. What's important is that it gets the job done, and that's really where OSX shines.
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #18
    Thanks for pointing that out. :p
     
  19. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    #19
    To answer someone's earlier question, my PB has 768 MB RAM. My brother's computer has 512 MB (DDR 2700, maybe 2100 I believe), and our old Dell has 256 MB. But here's the thing. I build what I thought would be a screaming machine: 3.0 GHz P4 Prescott HT, 512 MB PC3200 RAM, Asus P4P800 motherboard, GeForceFX 5950 Ultra, SATA HD, overclocked... I thought it would be pretty fast, but it gave me many problems that vastly outweighed the speed. The games didn't run as fast as they should have; after turning off overclocking, things were negligibly more stable. I got so sick of the computer that I just sold the parts on eBay one day. I'd have to say that the Mac runs faster than that machine.

    Now, I'm wondering if the operating system is to blame. I've been thinking about how OS X differs from Windows, and I've come to a few conclusions. XP seems to require slighly less or about the same amount of RAM as OS X; 512 seems to be good for XP, while both 640 and 768 have worked well for me in OS X (I haven't tried 512). But about the OS itself: OS X seems to "cover up" the underlying processes, kernel, etc. better than Windows XP does. To explain what I mean, I'll use an analogy: the OSs used in cell phones, game consoles, and pocket/palm PDAs are extremely functional, yet display only pertinent information; navigation, use, and speed are the most important aspects. Now, OS X seems to me to be much like those OSs, except that the user can find great functionality that may not be immediatly obvious. XP, on the other hand, seems to sacrifice these good aspects for immediate functionality; that is, advanced features seem more accessible, and the OS seems to make less of an attempt to cover up its inards.

    It's difficult to explain. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about / feel the same way?

    Mike LaRiviere
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    JeDiBoYTJ

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Location:
    Ft. Lauderdale, FL
    #20

    thats one of the reasons why I used to dislike macs, because I only used the old colored iMacs, and really hated it. then one day our school ordered a bunch of new iMac G4's with OS 10.1 loaded on. they upgraded to 10.2, and gave them out to classes. I sat down at it and played around (restrictions have not been turned on yet, so I had full access). I swear, I was on it for hours that day (I had the same class twice). and ever sence that day I played with that iMac, ive loved Apple. a LOT of other people in that class also switched because of that. :D
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #21
    Thats the reason why all of my PC friends hate macs. :rolleyes:
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Ryan1524

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Canada GTA
    #22
    heheh. i just tried opening all my apps, and it opened about 50 apps in about 5 minutes. and they're still on while i'm posting this. i'm a PBG4 15" 1.5G (loaded) with 1GB of RAM. if i had tried this on a PC, i'm pretty sure it would've crashed long time ago. :D
     
  23. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    While I love my 12" Powerbook (1GHz, 512MB) and now use it more than my Athlon 2000+ PC - the PC just blows the powerbook out of the water in terms of sheer responsiveness, boot time, etc. I know it is kind of unfair to compare the two, but I don't have a desktop Mac to compare it to.

    I obviously prefer the Powerbook for its usability, and its easily fast enough for anything I do - but after using it for a while, then going to my PC to play a game of Battlefield Vietnam or something, I am always surprised with how much more responsive the GUI is on my Windows box. One thing that really bothers me about the Powerbook (and all Macs I've used) is just how terribly it scrolls web pages and deals with java. On my PC I can whip end to end on webpages full of graphics and java crap that my Powerbook chugs through at a snails pace. Its the minor things like this that bug me about Macs - something hopefully that will be resolved in upcoming OS updates.
     
  24. Moderator emeritus

    yellow

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
  25. thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    #25
    That's pretty interesting, yellow. I've also heard something about greater instructions per cycle in the PowerPC architecture?

    Mike LaRiviere
     

Share This Page