Apple, Microsoft on Windows on Mac; Benchmarks

[Evangelion]

*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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Windows kernel

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]

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]

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]

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]

this is classic...

"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)

 

[BenRoethig]

"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]

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]

Don't forget how old XP is. When Vista comes out I bet the tables will turn dramatically.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sdashiki]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yeah I love how the benchmarks don't say which is faster, XP or OS X.

 

[weg]

*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]

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.