Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple, Microsoft on Windows on Mac; Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like your letter. Your closing statement says:JGowan said:
You're a journalist. You're supposed to be unbiased. You're not.
OMG a biased journalist?!!?
weldon said:
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.
ITR 81 said:
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
Evangelion said: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!"
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.
modernpixel said:
According to Robert Cringely, not only is Microsoft unsurprised about Boot Camp, his inside sources from Microsoft confirm that they have been working with Apple all along to insure Vista compatibility with Intel Macs.
MrCrowbar said: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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
ITR 81 said:
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.
ITR 81 said:
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!
Windows Great?
"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.
"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.
yippy said:
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.
No nonsense at all. Here's why I haven't gotten any viruses the past years:dpaanlka said:
- 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.
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.
"Windows is a great operating system".
Excuse me, Windows is sh*t! 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$: do the world a favor and go out of business!
Excuse me, Windows is sh*t! As is Office, IE and basically all products ever produced by M$. 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!
Butler Trumpet said:
Will it? I thought they'd be out around the same time?
nilmar said:
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).
Arnaud said:
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.
g.x said:
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.
Mikael said: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!
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.
Plecky said: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!
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"
See my post above. There's no alcohol involved, no luck and not even magic. Just a little bit of common sense. Wonderful, no?lazyrighteye said:
getting technically grounded
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_(computer_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
(MacRumors guides has a little info too, but not as detailed as Wikipedia)
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_(computer_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU
(MacRumors guides has a little info too, but not as detailed as Wikipedia)
milo said:
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.