Why is Windows so much slower at most everyday tasks than OS X?

[FieryFurnace]

It was just updated; it's a really competitive system now with 4 GB of RAM and the 2.66 GHz C2D option. Remember that it's not a full size tower!

Besides, the uMB (before it morphed into the 13" Pro) and uMBP had 1066 MHz buses on their C2Ds and 1066 MHz DDR3 RAM quite some time before most PC laptops had them. By "most" I mean the ordinary ones that aren't labelled as pro models (such as the Dell Latitudes).

Comparing an ordinary laptop (around $500) with a uMB(P) which is around $1000 wouldn't be called a fair comparison.

 

[mac2x]

Comparing an ordinary laptop (around $500) with a uMB(P) which is around $1000 wouldn't be called a fair comparison.

Partially true; I can spec out a Dell Studio 15 (which starts at around $600-700 IIRC) with a 2.8 GHz C2D with a 1066 MHz bus. However, the RAM options are all 800 MHz DDR2. And by that time the system is around $1200.

 

[Dan73]

Yes it is.

Does boot time really matter, both my desktop and laptop are put to sleep and turn on within seconds of each other.

I can't really say how far OS X has come but since using Win7 I've NEVER gotten a BSOD or had any problems with it, had a few problems and a handful of BSOD with Vista but nothing major.

With my laptop, which I love, I have had programs freeze a few times, once or twice the whole OS froze. I do usually seen the beachball on a daily basis but I blame the slow HD, can't wait to get a SSD for it.

 

[chowmein]

No, everybody knows that exactly the opposite is true. Just install Windows 7 64-Bit on your precious Intel Mac and you will see immediately just how much faster Windows is -- and how much better it handles multi-tasking and multi-processing than OS X. (You could also run good old Windows XP or even 64-Bit Vista to get the same result.)

One of the main reason for the better performance of the Microsoft OS is the Mach kernel architecture used in OS X - it requires too much communication overhead. NT originally also used a Mach kernel design, but Microsoft successively dropped it for performance reasons.

Also, Windows has much better memory management than OS X. And to add insult to injury, it is also a much better optimized 64-Bit operating system.

The performance difference between the two platforms was even worse for Apple when Macs still used PowerPC CPUs -- those sluggish beasts didn't stand a chance against the Intel CPUs. Guess why Apple dropped them.

In terms of stability and robustness, Windows NT-based systems blow OS X out of the water without even thinking about it. I still see the rotating beach ball in OS X quite often. But I have forgotten what a blue screen looks like.

Now with Windows 7 around, Microsoft also gives OS X a run for the money when we're talking about usability.

And when you need an enterprise-ready platform, only one of the two is going to cut it. And it's not OS X.



Well, since you obviously haven't read the news in the last seven years: Windows Vista -is- a complete re-write, and Windows 7 is the optimized version of that re-written Windows. And old code-bases tend to contain tons of unnecessary legacy code - and Linux and Unix are included in that statement. But for the sake of compatibility, people --WANT-- and even --NEED-- that bloat in a platform. No big company wants to spend a couple of million dollars on re-writing their own software just because fancy Uncle Steve Jobs decided to drop some features just to push his hardware sales. That's why you don't find Macs in corporate environments, but tons of PCs with Microsoft software on them.

I think you need to read this article: http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/11/inside-minwin-the-windows-7-kernel-slims-down.ars To summarize the article in a sentence: The Windows kernel is such a jumbled mess that even Microsoft can't figure out how to slim it down without breaking anything.

I don't get how you thought Vista was a rewrite! Based on what you wrote, your definition of a "rewrite" is simply adding more bloat to the mess that is Windows.

 

[macrem]

Depends how you put faster into the terms.

If you mean boot times yes SL is faster.

But if you put it into how fast you can get things done on windows to OSX that's a different story. As I use win7 most of the time on my macbook now as i find it faster to do my work as the SVN clients are better less steps to get a update and commit. the PHP IDE's are better. but it will be different for each people.

Have you tried SCPlugin? It appears to be integrated into Finder like Tortoise is in Explorer, but in my experience Tortoise causes lags in MS Explorer when traversing folders under version control. There are dozens of SVN gui apps for both platforms. Have you compared all of them? OS X comes with PHP pre-installed. Does Windows? PHP IDE's in Eclipse for instance are cross platform, not sure what the diff is.

 

[macrem]

Does boot time really matter, both my desktop and laptop are put to sleep and turn on within seconds of each other.

I can't really say how far OS X has come but since using Win7 I've NEVER gotten a BSOD or had any problems with it, had a few problems and a handful of BSOD with Vista but nothing major.

With my laptop, which I love, I have had programs freeze a few times, once or twice the whole OS froze. I do usually seen the beachball on a daily basis but I blame the slow HD, can't wait to get a SSD for it.

I agree about rebooting. I hardly ever do it. On OS X I only reboot when an update requires it, which is approx. once every 2-3 months & I have gone months longer with no distinguishable performance hit.

But aren't updates which require reboots about ~once per 1-2 week(s) on Windows? They also seem to take longer & Windows slows down if you do not reboot often + OS performance degrades over time.

I have also posted a comparison which claims that operational tasks are faster on OS X. This is comparing new installs of both OSes after fresh reboots. In my experience, OS X is faster & stays fast. Windows is slower & bogs down over time.

 

[macrem]

Comparing an ordinary laptop (around $500) with a uMB(P) which is around $1000 wouldn't be called a fair comparison.

We're comparing OSes. OS X costs significantly less than Windows. On my PC hardware I use Linux, which is more stable & efficient than Windows + free, but I am still willing to pay $ for OS X.

 

[maflynn]

Wow, this thread's got some interesting posts.

I find OSX on my 2.53 umbp to be faster then the 2.6GHz core 2 duo workstation I use at work.

OSX win
boot times, much faster
Stability much better
program interaction much more seamless and smooth
program execution faster

I'm running XP at work and it can be a dog, needing to be reboot often and when I do reboot, I have to force quit all sorts of running programs and I sit there for what feels like an eternity hile it tries to shut down and start back up at least start up to the point where I can use it again.

 

[baddj]

Have you tried SCPlugin? It appears to be integrated into Finder like Tortoise is in Explorer, but in my experience Tortoise causes lags in MS Explorer when traversing folders under version control. There are dozens of SVN gui apps for both platforms. Have you compared all of them? OS X comes with PHP pre-installed. Does Windows? PHP IDE's in Eclipse for instance are cross platform, not sure what the diff is.

Okay ill take one thing at a time

1) SCplugin does not have support for SL.

2) I have tried raidsvn it kills the svn when trying to delete a file and it takes forever to open.

3) I read some where OSX has a svn client built in could never find it.

3) PHP pre-install???

4) Eclipse ??? are you talking about the website www.eclipse.org if so there site does not load.

 

[G-Force]

10.5 is pretty much the same story. The Intel GMA 950 in my MacBook is much slower than your 9400M and it also has pretty bad drivers.

Not much I can do about it, it just isn't silky smooth.

I have to say, I've just installed a new hard disk in this MacBook and restored it using Time Machine. Snow Leopard is definitely more responsive now. The graphics effects, of course, did not get faster but that's the GMA's fault I guess.

 

[mac2x]

I have to say, I've just installed a new hard disk in this MacBook and restored it using Time Machine. Snow Leopard is definitely more responsive now. The graphics effects, of course, did not get faster but that's the GMA's fault I guess.

Glad it's working a little better at least!

 

[lamadude]

Windows "feels" faster to me on my bootcamp partition, especially firefox and MS Word load a lot faster on windows. Also, chrome on windows seems faster than even safari on mac, and games always seem to run faster (even WOW and WCIII)
That's just my feeling though, I have no figures to back this up, and I'm happy with the speed on both OSX (Snow Leopard) as Windows (7)

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Windows is just as fast. it just feels slower because people install all sorts of programs that run at start-up, which slows it down.... but that happens on OS X too.

 

[njean777]

Well the problem i have with windows are a lot of little things.

I dont like that the windows always maximize, this is just me but i love that osx windows do not take up the whole screen.

Also in windows 7 i dont like the windows resize when you drag them to the corners, it get annoying when you dont want that to happen.

Also windows does tend to slow down to a halt when you use it often. I had it for 6 months on my gaming rig, after about 10 games installed, no antivirus it took about a minute just to start up.

Of course windows runs useless startup services which you can stop with msconfig, but i shouldnt have to do that to speed it up.

 

[roadbloc]

I was on Windows 98 and then Ubuntu before switching to Mac. Windows 98 ran perfectly on my presario, and I only moved on to Ubuntu becuase I was unable to keep up with technology and software on 98. Before moving to Ubuntu... I foolishly bought and tried Vista. Utter joke it was. All looks and no trousers.

Thats why I'd say it was nothing to do with the Kernal or how the operating system works, but the GUI. I find navigating, browsing and changing settings all a lot simpler to do in OS X and Gnome than in Windows and KDE. The simpler GUI, i find, the fast and easer tasks get done. I'd rather have less of the eye candy and more of the production. That is why I love Ableton Live 7 for my producing and not Logic Pro.

 

[SeenJeen]

Photoshop as an "everyday task" is an understatement for me. I use it nearly every hour

Photoshop CS4 is slower for me in OS X than it is in Windows.

MS Office is also a slug when compared to Office 2007. Office 2007 is nearly instant open for me on Windows, where as, Apple's Pages is pretty slow on launch.

Firefox is faster on Windows for me, too.

Of course most of this isn't really Apple's fault. But this shows how not everything runs better on a Mac.

 

[mac2x]

[///] Apple's Pages is pretty slow on launch.

Not for me.

Firefox is faster on Windows for me, too.

I agree with you there; the latest updates for Firefox on my Mac have improved things, but it's still slow to launch and quit compared to the Firefox on my XP box. I use Safari most of the time because of that.

 

[SeenJeen]

Not for me.



I agree with you there; the latest updates for Firefox on my Mac have improved things, but it's still slow to launch and quit compared to the Firefox on my XP box. I use Safari most of the time because of that.

OK, OK, Pages isn't as bad as I say, but it's still slower than Word 2007 on Windows. On my MBP/W7, If I double click on Word, it is up within 2 seconds, and is ready to type.

Pages, though, bounces on my Dock for at least 5 seconds and then I get the Template dialog. But then, when I launch it again (because it's in memory) its almost instant.

Maybe it has to do with W7 pre-loading apps when starting up Windows, but that's what I've noticed.

And I'm stuck using FireFox on OS X beacuse Safari is a resource hog, and flash crashes WAY too much in Safari for my liking.

Well, I wouldn't say "STUCK", I do like Firefox

 

[macrem]

[...]MS Office is also a slug when compared to Office 2007. Office 2007 is nearly instant open for me on Windows, where as, Apple's Pages is pretty slow on launch.

MS Office Startup on Windows initializes shared Office code so MS Office programs start faster when you use them, wasting resources on your system when you're not using Office which is why a lot of people turn it off. Also Windows programs that are poorly ported are not useful indicators to compare speed & efficiency.

 

[SeenJeen]

MS Office Startup on Windows initializes shared Office code so MS Office programs start faster when you use them, wasting resources on your system when you're not using Office which is why a lot of people turn it off. Also Windows programs that are poorly ported are not useful indicators to compare speed & efficiency.

Disabled on my system and Word is still faster than Pages.

 

[macrem]

Wow, this thread's got some interesting posts.

I find OSX on my 2.53 umbp to be faster then the 2.6GHz core 2 duo workstation I use at work.

OSX win
boot times, much faster
Stability much better
program interaction much more seamless and smooth
program execution faster

I'm running XP at work and it can be a dog, needing to be reboot often and when I do reboot, I have to force quit all sorts of running programs and I sit there for what feels like an eternity hile it tries to shut down and start back up at least start up to the point where I can use it again.

I have the same impression & experiences with a PC at work. Windows looks really unpolished compared to OS X. Although I'm using OS X Mail to access a Microsoft Exchange mail server, OS X Mail is much, much faster than Outlook. I can go have a coffee while Outlook loads. Shutdowns on Windows are ridiculous with all the programs that need to be force quit after a long timeout period.

 

[HLdan]

Disabled on my system and Word is still faster than Pages.

While it is true that MS preloads their own apps upon startup which makes them launch faster, I have to agree about the Pages thing. It's not just Pages, Keynote and Numbers are slow on the first launch. It's really annoying how Apple's own office suite launches so slowly on Snow Leopard.
My Macbook Pro has an SSD so Pages launches immediately on first launch but my iMac with a standard hard drive takes 5 or so bounces to launch Pages for the first time and it's quite annoying. I use Pages everyday for work so I prefer it but I think Apple's office suite has too much bloat, it's not OS X.

 

[macrem]

I'm getting one bounce to load Pages using a HDD.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

It takes 7 bounces to get Keynote open for me

 

[63dot]

Photoshop as an "everyday task" is an understatement for me. I use it nearly every hour

I just hope that you are getting paid for doing Photoshop all those hours, every day. I know, just noodling around in it, can be a full time thing, as a hobby.