Actually, the OS/2 3.0 NT vaporware was turned into Windows NT. What actually happened is Microsoft and IBM Co-Designed OS/2 Version 1.0. They both had rights to create whatever they wanted on top and not license it to each other. For IBM to agree to this, Microsoft gave them a license to virtualize Win 3.x under OS/2 Then IBM created OS/2 2.0 based on 1.0 and MS created 3.0, also off of the 1.0 code-base, and then, when the disagreed with IBM ran with it, and IBM went and created their own 3.0, which became OS/2 Warp 4.0 and died out/.
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.
Are mac's slower tha PC's?
- Thread starter aditghai
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, the OS/2 3.0 NT vaporware was turned into Windows NT. What actually happened is Microsoft and IBM Co-Designed OS/2 Version 1.0. They both had rights to create whatever they wanted on top and not license it to each other. For IBM to agree to this, Microsoft gave them a license to virtualize Win 3.x under OS/2 Then IBM created OS/2 2.0 based on 1.0 and MS created 3.0, also off of the 1.0 code-base, and then, when the disagreed with IBM ran with it, and IBM went and created their own 3.0, which became OS/2 Warp 4.0 and died out/.
Windows 7 boots faster then Leopard on my MacBook. Free RAM is unused RAM. Each OS has their own algorithms to keep more content in RAM. Why is there so much concern over free RAM?
Do you honestly think that an article that's about 2 years old still holds water? I think not. And the comparison was made on one benchmark, WorldBench 6. Anyone knows that one benchmark isn't enough to draw a conclusion about anything when it comes to computers. PC World is nothing but a joke.
OS X is definitely a slow one. It's the ONLY operating system that has gotten *faster* as the versions went on. It just goes to show how slow 10.0 was upon release.
Snow Leopard hopefully does some big overhauls of the kernel to speed up a few things. If they really go on their word that they did A LOT of under the hood changes, then I will pay them for that, but if it's just hot air then no deal.
Snow Leopard hopefully does some big overhauls of the kernel to speed up a few things. If they really go on their word that they did A LOT of under the hood changes, then I will pay them for that, but if it's just hot air then no deal.
What are you basing this on (aside from the assumption that OS X's current speed has anything to do with what 10.0 was like)?
I use both operating systems extensively. Mac is snappier but, much more importantly, it is much more efficient in terms of workflow.
A big difference between Microsoft and Apple is that Microsoft concentrates on appearances and benchmarks, while Apple concentrates on speed in actual use. So Windows usually boots faster. MacOS X reboots slower, but Mac users actually don't reboot; I close my MacBook when I don't use it, and when I open it, it is back immediately. So if you look for something that you can compare, the Mac is slower, when you actually use it, it is faster.
In the same way, starting applications works faster on Windows. Due to Microsoft's way how windows work, users quit and restart applications very often. Mac users don't. So again, if you want to measure something, you start Word on both machines, compare the time, and MacOS X is slower. But no Mac users care, because once Word is started, you just leave it running. When you close the last window, Word is still running. Open a new window, and it appears immediately. Close that window, put the Mac to sleep, wake it up (immediately), open a new window (immediately). That is a lot faster than Windows can ever reboot and start Word.
There is always a problem when you try to measure speed that you concentrate on things that are easy to measure, not on things that are actually important in daily use that may be hard to measure. You see, you stood there and watched two computers starting Word, because that is easy to compare. But how often do you actually do this?
I have rarely seen such a nonsense. You show clearly that you don't know what you are talking about when you talk about the "rotating beach ball": I has nothing whatsoever to do with efficiency of the operating system or overhead, it is caused by applications which perform long operations in the main thread, usually blocking operations. The only difference between Windows and MacOS X is that Apple gives developers a kick in the butt in form of the "rotating beach ball" when they write unresponsive applications.
That is a basic difference between Microsoft and Apple philosophy: Apple has produced a mechanism that clearly shows when an application is unresponsive, so that users complain and developers fix their applications. Microsoft tries to move the blame for anything that isn't perfect away from Windows to the user.
office opens SO slow on my powerbook. On top of that, there's an update every day for some security threat.
I eventually got fed up with all the updates, deleted it and switched to iWork and could not be happier.
The print sheet is also very slow on my powerbook g4. I usually pinwheel for a second or two before it slides out.
I've always wondered why it's so slow. it's just some print settings. Maybe it's checking to see if your printer is connected before it slides out?
I find it hard to believe it'd be the nice graphics that slow it down because other sheets slide out without hesitation...
Hopefully Snow Leopard will fix all of this. It seems like this is the OS that will fix any little annoyances in OS X
I eventually got fed up with all the updates, deleted it and switched to iWork and could not be happier.
The print sheet is also very slow on my powerbook g4. I usually pinwheel for a second or two before it slides out.
I've always wondered why it's so slow. it's just some print settings. Maybe it's checking to see if your printer is connected before it slides out?
I find it hard to believe it'd be the nice graphics that slow it down because other sheets slide out without hesitation...
Hopefully Snow Leopard will fix all of this. It seems like this is the OS that will fix any little annoyances in OS X
I think most Mac users actually do quit their applications (at least I do), but nevertheless I've found that on the Mac, once you quit an application and restart it, it opens up much faster than if you did the same on Windows. Like if I quit Word 2008, and then reopen it again 10 minutes later, it takes only a second to start up. OS X seems to be better at memory management.
Whoever started this whole bunch of bull needs to go live in a hole or better yet, get out of the one their living in. There are notebooks out there that blow away the macbook pro in power.
What are you basing this on (aside from the assumption that OS X's current speed has anything to do with what 10.0 was like)?
I'm sure there has been huge improvements. I'm only commenting on how slow OS X 10.0 was compared to Windows XP, and with the addition of so many features and optimizations, I feel it is still slower in some respects to Vista, and very much so compared to Windows 7.
However, this missing "snappy" feeling is supplemented with a much better user interface, much better transitions and make the experience much more interesting.
Yeah lol, best laptop running vista is a MBP??!?!?!
Give me 1999 and I'll build you a freaking laptop running Vista that'll trump the 2999 version.
Umm thats true in Xp/Vista too. Heck vista has probably the most aggressive memory cache of all of them which is why people thought it was a memory hog when in fact its not, it took some linux memory management tactics and put them to use.
Well the Mach kernel used to be very slow, less so in OS X 10.0 (but even then), but way before, during the 90's when it was being developed. Part of the problem was that the Mach authors ported BSD onto the Mach kernel in a pretty haphazard fashion. Quick and dirty. Instead of breaking down BSD into parts and building each of them as a server, they just compiled the entire kernel into one server and ran it. The result was known as POE (not the Perl Object Environment.)
With POE running effectively beside the other applications, performance was really poor. Every call from a user application (even just to get the time) required the message to be sent to the kernel (a context switch), which would then send the request to the Unix library with another context switch, and then rinse and repeat it for the response. Big pain in the ass. So Mach, through no real fault of its own, was extremely powerful, but also slow.
Work over the next decade managed to improve the performance of these messages a lot, to the point where the performance of later Mach systems was actually often better than the BSDs they were based on. NeXT improved on this greatly. Apple chose OPENSTEP to be the basis for what would replace the classic Mac OS. It became the Cocoa API of OS X. OPENSTEP is an upgraded version of NeXTSTEP, which used Mach 2.5. And so OPENSTEP's Mach/BSD love-child became Apple's OS X.
It's really interesting to see how OS X evolved into what it is today.