MacBook Pro 2010 vs 2006 boot speed

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by oujea, Mar 11, 2014.

  1. oujea macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #1
    Hello

    Here is the video of speed comparios between my old 15'' MacBook Pro from 2006 (2.0 Core Duo with fresh copy of Snow Leopard installed, 2 GB of RAM and 250 GB HDD 5400 RPM) and new 13'' MacBook Pro from 2010 (Core2Duo 2.4 GHz, 4 GB of RAM and 500 GB HDD 5400 RPM, Mavericks freshly installed). I'm worried about 13's shut down time (you can see the video below). Is it normal and if not how can I speed it up? I mean, I cant understand how notebook older more than 4 years and 32 bit slower cpu can work faster?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MDx3u1aYoA&feature=youtu.be
     
  2. SCOLANATOR macrumors 6502a

    SCOLANATOR

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I can't help you other than say. Upgrade to an SSD, the difference is night and day. On my rMBP I don't even notice the Boot or Shutdown times, it sort of just 'happens'.
     
  3. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #3
    I know that SSD will speed it up, but I'm wondering how the older mac with the same type of hdd works faster than a model from 2010
     
  4. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #4
    Snow Leopard is a much faster and lighter OS than Mavericks.
     
  5. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #5
    and intel core 2 duo 2.4 ghz and 4 gb ram is faster than core duo 2.0 ghz 32bit and 2gb of ram, right? I'm just trying to compare things and compensate difference.
     
  6. SCOLANATOR macrumors 6502a

    SCOLANATOR

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2013
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Yes if they are from the same family with the same number of cores and sized cache. But it's probably got more to do with the HDD's.

    Mavericks is my first OSX and yeh I have no doubt that what you say is true, but I wouldn't go back to Snow Leopard. Mavericks supports loads of new features and standards and I would never call it slow, everything is snappy and seems to load instantly for me so how could I want it to be any faster? Hell even Photoshop CS6 loads in around 2 secs max.
     
  7. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #7
    I agree that Mavericks is way better than SL (I'm using mac for last 4 years) and I tried a lot of different systems, and I'm just a little bit dissapointed that machine 8 years old runs faster than 4 year old machine with better processor, more cache, more ram and so on. I'm upgrading to SSD 256 GB soon, and I hope it will make significant difference (Sata II 3Gb/s).
     
  8. Watabou macrumors 68040

    Watabou

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Location:
    United States
    #8
    I would say the difference mostly because of the HDD. Maybe the newer mac has a really fragmented HDD, causing the OS to spend more time looking for fragments.

    An SSD is really night and day as one of the previous posters said. My machine literally boots up in 12 seconds, it's amazing.
     
  9. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #9
    Snow leopard was a much lighter OS. When you boot, the computer reads OS data off of the hard drive then puts it into RAM.

    The bottleneck here is the hard drive's slow speed, and no matter how much more RAM you add or how fast the processor is, the computer cannot go faster than the speed at which it reads the data off the drive.

    Since Snow Leopard was much less ressource intensive, you have less things to load from your slow hard drive, hence the quicker boot times. You could have a gazillion processor cores and a few terabytes of RAM, and it'd still boot at the same speed.
     
  10. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #10
    I've doing more tests between these two Macs and I noticed that almost every app loads faster on 2006 model, for example:

    Microsoft Word loads faster on 2006
    Microsoft Excel loads faster on 2006
    System Preferences loads faster on 2010
    Adobe Photoshop loads faster on 2006
    Photo Booth loads way faster on 2006

    What's the explanation for this?
     
  11. simon48 macrumors 65816

    simon48

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #11
    The optimization and OS X and hardware combinations may just have been better for their time in 2006.
     
  12. definitive macrumors 68000

    definitive

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2008
    #12
    mavericks requires more resources than snow leopard. as for the slow shutdown - that has been introduced into the operating system since mountain lion's early updates. no one knows for sure if it's a feature or a bug, but it hasn't gone away since it started.
     
  13. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
  14. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #14
    I agree the HDD is the slowest part of the system, but both computers have exactly the same disks. I'm engineering student and I'm really interested into this "problem", what are the causes that "better" and newer machine is slower in almost every task. Okay, we solved boot time issue (size of OS and time needed to load into memory), but same version of word, photoshop and so on works slower on machine with more RAM and faster processor.
     
  15. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #15
    The same bottle neck exists today. If that test was run with a modern machine with an ssd (the evolutionary step) then you would see a 10-11 second boot time and word loading in a bounce or two.
     
  16. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #16
    I think you didnt understand my thread wholly. And what if I put same SSDs in both macs? 2006 will be faster again? And whats the point? Don't buy new macs, older is faster? Thats what I'm wondering about.
     
  17. psik macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    #17
    Loving this thread, apple fanboys can't just give an answer now by criticizing the Mac itself in order to praise the mac.! Ok shhh I'll shut up now
     
  18. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #18
    Ok if you put an ssd in both you will find that the new mac will wipe the floor with the old.

    If you were to actually put the systems to use properly by encoding a video or something along those lines you would see the new system will work through the task significantly faster!

    Boot times and load times are of no consequence to most it's how long the computer gets through a set task.
     
  19. Fishrrman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #19
    Reply #4 above explained "why" in one sentence.

    Put an SSD into the 2010 MacBook, and your problems will disappear.

    I just did that in my own 2010 MBPro, and the speed difference is amazing...

    Use the "ifixit.com" drive replacement guide -- the procedure is remarkably easy.

    IMPORTANT:
    Be sure you have THE RIGHT TOOLS for the job:
    - Phillips #00 screwdriver
    - Torx T-6 driver.
     
  20. oujea thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2012
    #20
    Please dont get me wrong, I'm absolutely satisfied with my macs, and I dont see it as something bad, just trying to find causes of this appearance. When someone is normally using these macs (internet browsing, reading documents and so on), he just has a feeling that older mac is more fluid and runs smoother. Thats why I'm asking what if I hypothetically insert SSDs in both macs, would 2006 still work faster (in normal using conditions)
     

Share This Page