XP much smoother than OS X?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Avicenna, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. Avicenna macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    #1
    From what I have experienced so far, I think XP runs much, much smoother on MBP than OS X itself. Is it suppose to be that way? or should it be the other way around, because if it is, then I guess I'm missing something....hmmm

    specs are: 2.8GHZ 4GB RAM 15'.
     
  2. yoyo5280 macrumors 68000

    yoyo5280

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia & Bay Area
  3. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #4
    A clean install of XP is always fast. Add basic utilities, office, antivirus and 1 month of use on it and it changes. I love XP. But unfortunatelly it's starting to show that it's old. Still MS didn't bother to get rid of the registry and fix NTFS in the next two builds :mad:
     
  4. Avicenna thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2009
    #5
    By smoother I mean that programs load up much quickly, and especially Firefox loads up pages in less than a second, compare to safari which takes 2-4 seconds. I am a new mac user, been using pc forever, and I certainly see a difference. Don't know if its the hardware, but in general, its much quicker.
    Only thing i don't like is that boot camp can only use higher GFX card, not the on board one, so it makes a lot of noise. Anyone know how to change that?


    @Gabriel- Maybe you are right, because i haven't installed any heavy duty programs such as PS or After-effects/Premiere yet. I only have about 5-6 programs installed, winrar, adobe reader, skype and such.

    One thing is definitely true: FF on windows is definitely faster than FF on OSX or Safari on OSX.
     
  5. dudeitsjay macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    #6
    Thats why you learn to use ccleaner and diskeeper and Avast antivirus.

    Seriously facepalm when ppl think certain OSes are "prone" to bogging down and yada yada. Granted, macs are out-of-box ready to go, it only takes a couple minutes to get yourself the protection and stability the coveted macs can offer.
     
  6. Ivan P macrumors 68030

    Ivan P

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Home
    #7
    You're comparing an 8 year old OS (XP) to a 2 year old OS (guessing you're running Leopard). XP was designed for machines with much lower specs then today, so of course it's going to run faster then a newer OS on a higher spec'd machine like the MBP...
     
  7. yoyo5280 macrumors 68000

    yoyo5280

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia & Bay Area
    #8
    I wouldn't consider that very good reasoning. Its true in a sense, but leopard is hardly a resource hogging operating system.

    -Omi
     
  8. Ivan P macrumors 68030

    Ivan P

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Home
    #9
    That's true. By today's standards Leopard isn't very resource-intensive at all, but in comparison with XP then it definitely is. XP is from a time where they were releasing computers with processors that were barely pushing the 1GHz mark and many didn't even need more then 512MB of RAM, by the time Leopard came around they were past the 2GHz mark. XP running "smoother" then Leopard isn't unexpected at all, especially on something like a 2.8GHz, 4GB MacBook Pro.
     
  9. dudeitsjay macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    #10
    An oem install of windows xp 32bit takes up ~253mb of ram according to taskmanager upon boot. My mba rev B on boot took up ~435mb according to iStats. Subtract the 256 dedicated towards 9400m...
     
  10. lixuelai macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    #11
    Firefox just starts up faster on Windows. I guess more time is spent optimizing for Windows than OSX.
     
  11. techfreak85 macrumors 68040

    techfreak85

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Location:
    Places
    #12
    totaly right. try Vista vs. Leopard. they are "equal" OS's
     
  12. ThundrChicken macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    #13
    By design the XP kernel is actually faster than Leopard kernel in terms of raw speed, but that's pretty much where it stops. In terms of actual multi-tasking, networking, and memory management the Mach kernel of OS X (and iPhone) are incredibly more efficient. If you want to do a real life comparison to prove this, try opening up more than just one app at a time under XP, and then try to do the same under OS X. There will be a huge difference. Likewise, if you try to open one app at a time on a bare install of either OS, XP will be faster. The BSD sub-sytems of OS X are also pretty resilient to prolonged usage and have many self-optimization systems in place to maintain that speed. This however, is not the same with XP. So although you might start with a super fast XP install, the time it takes for it to slow down is much shorter than it would for OS X.

    Ofcourse, no OS is completely immune to slowdowns/fragmentation, etc but even here OS X has a better management system than Windows. The most common fragmentation (not even a major issue unless you're a creative professional who tends to move massive data to and from your HD) problem with OS X is free space fragmentation. Other than that OS X does do some low level defragging of small files, but for the most part fragmentation on OS X is not an issue for the average user, although to say that OS X doesn't get fragmented is a lie. Windows (and especially XP) on the other hand are prone to both filesystem fragmentation as well as free space fragmentation, which is another reason why your Windows system will slow down much quicker than a similar OS X setup.

    It's kind of like USB 2.0 (Windows) vs Firewire 400 (OS X). Sure USB has a theoretically higher transfer rate, but its transfer rate is highly inefficient in actually reaching anywhere near its limit, whereas even though Firewire's 400's top transfer rate is lower, it can actually reach its top speed while maintaing consistent read/writes.
     
  13. sascha h-k macrumors 6502

    sascha h-k

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Location:
    vienna / austria
    #14
    how can you compare stone age with modern time ?!
     
  14. yoyo5280 macrumors 68000

    yoyo5280

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia & Bay Area
    #15
    Now thats a smart promac post there!

    -Omi
     
  15. dudeitsjay macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    #16
    easy. bootcamp :D. I compare them all the time and frankly I didn't notice a diff between firefox startups. I DID notice a difference on OSX between safari 3.5 and 4.0. God 4.0 is slow...

    @thundrchicken
    your first paragraph sounded like it was full of fluff. i dont really believe you know what you're talking about when you start asking us to test opening apps to see the kernal differences lol. nice to see you've made at least 1 believer in you though, right above me.
     
  16. Gabriel GR macrumors 6502a

    Gabriel GR

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    #17
    I've been using XP since day one and it's still my main os. An antivirus and a defragging program will keek it running safe and steady. But the more stuff you install the slower it becomes. I can't see how you can deny it.
     
  17. ThundrChicken macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    #18
    Actually, what I mentioned was a basic way to see the kernel differences without using any actual benchmarking tests. The runtime subsystem on XP (don't know about 7) actually runs onboard the kernel which gives it direct access to procedure calls in a single memory space, effectively making it seem faster. OS X (after Tiger I believe) uses user space allocation of procedure calls in link for hardware. This results in additional overhead in the kernel also having to handle hardware calls. There is much more to it, but this is the gist of it (not complete by any means). This also makes it possible for the Mach kernel to take advantage of multi-core processors with relative ease, whereas the NT kernel would need some modification to fully take advantage of it.

    I know what I'm talking about, it's just explaining such a complex topic is not that easy. I actually told the ups and downs of both sides, and I wasn't the result of being caught in Apple's RDF like your comment would have you be. ;)
     
  18. commanderkeen macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    #19
    Can we have some speed comparisons to MS-DOS, please?
     
  19. doctoree macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Location:
    Secret lair/ Earthmiddlepoint
    #20
    When I got my MBP I installed XP in Bootcamp and ran Geekbench on both oses natively. I don't remember the exact results but the osx results were much better then the ones in XP. It was about 2700 for xp vs 3200 for osx. Later I ran the 64bit version of geekbench under osx and the difference became even more obvious.
    Long story short: No matter what your feelings are. OSX is faster then XP on the same hardware.
     
  20. reallynotnick macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2005
    #21
    I agree! And how about we test out Ubuntu netbook remix while we are at it?
     
  21. getz76 macrumors 6502a

    getz76

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Location:
    Hell, AL
    #22
    Windows XP SP3 is still the preferred productivity OS all around. Perfect for reasonably specified PC with Microsoft Office. Runs wonderfully and paired with a $300 PC makes for the perfect office machine.

    Vista and OS X is overkill for your average office PC. Even your average user. The people on this forum and similar forums are outside the average user population.
     

Share This Page