Apple's Snow Leopard bests Windows 7 in speed tests

[AppleInsider]

When both Mac OS X 10.6 and Windows 7 were tested on a MacBook Pro, Apple's new operating system clearly beat Microsoft in terms of speed, a new test has shown.

Both operating systems were tested on a 2008 MacBook Pro machine by CNet, and each was given its own, separate, clean hard drive. The 64-bit version of each OS was included in the test, which measured a variety of speed and performance related tasks. Snow Leopard was given true, full 64-bit support with most of its native applications taking full advantage of modern processors.

Each OS had the same software installed: iTunes 9, QuickTime, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Cinebench R10. In the test, Snow Leopard booted and shut down significantly faster than Windows 7.

"In time-based tests, Snow Leopard consistently outdid Windows 7," the study found. "It took only 36.4 seconds to boot up, while Windows took 42.7 seconds. In a shutdown test, Snow Leopard took only 6.6 seconds, while Windows needed twice the amount of time: 12.6 seconds. Both computers, however, took just about 1 second to return from sleeping. For this reason, I didn't actually test the wake-up time as it was too short in both operating systems to produce meaningful numbers or even allow me to measure the difference."

The Mac software also unsurprisingly ran Apple's own native applications more efficiently. Converting a movie from M4 format to iPod in Quicktime X on Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds, while Windows 7, with QuickTime 7 (the latest version available) took 723 seconds. Similarly, converting 17 songs in iTunes from MP3 to AAC took 149.9 seconds in Snow Leopard, while Windows 7 required 162 seconds.



The test also found that Mac OS X 10.6 had better battery life on the MacBook Pro than Windows 7. The 2008 model has a removable battery. But author Dong Ngo said he believes Boot Camp drivers were mostly responsible for the Windows 7 battery life, as many PC laptops fared much better than the 77 minutes the Microsoft OS fared.

One area where Windows 7 was able to easily trump Snow Leopard was in graphics performance. The system's 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT graphics card helped the system score much better in the latest version of Windows, earning a 5,777 3D rendering score in Cinebench R10. Snow Leopard scored 5,437.

In testing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Windows 7 again came out on top, with an average 26.3 frames per second performance, compared to 21.2 frames per second within Snow Leopard.

Ngo's conclusion: Unless you are a gamer, get a Mac.

"If you can get by with just software designed by Apple and if money is not a big issue, you will be happy with a Mac," he said. "Examples of these software choices are iTunes, iLife, QuickTime, Safari, iChat, and so on (and you probably won't need much more than those for daily entertainment and communication needs). Finally, if money is not an issue--and it definitely is for most of us--you should get a Mac anyway. It's the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X."

See also:

Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard

Exploring Windows 7 on the Mac

Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard

[Quadra 610]

Hardly surprising. OS X is designed for Apple hardware.

[iekozz]

A Apple OS is faster on a Apple machine.. WOW I did NOT expect that! /sarcasem I'd say that a Windows 7 is faster on a Windows laptop. But oh wait, os x can only run on Apple stuff.

I find this test a waste of time for something we already knew. :no:

[AppleStud]

Unless you are a gamer, get a Mac.


Groundbreaking work they're doing over there at CNET.

[zeasar]

actually, windows runs faster on my mac then on a regular pc.

but i think they really need the same version of itunes for a fairer result.

[Hattig]

This is barely a test! There are so few test points, and the ones that are chosen are dubious because they favour one manufacturer (iTunes, Quicktime, using MacBook Pro with suspected dodgy Win7 drivers).

If iTunes used Grand Central to dispatch encoding tasks, or OpenCL for the tasks themselves, I could see why it would be faster on Snow Leopard. Clearly it doesn't.

The gaming result isn't unexpected, and is probably due to lack of platform optimisation in the game itself, and possibly slightly less performant drivers and using OpenGL instead of DirectX (I don't know what this game uses on Windows, but if it is DX, then porting to OpenGL quickly would be less than optimal). We can't expect improvements here rapidly however, however the rise of console gaming vs windows gaming is allowing the Mac's graphics hardware to be competitive with the fixed hardware over lifetime consoles, and hence the games that are written.

How long is the wake from sleep, when it includes reconnecting to the wireless network?

[Cransy]

...that historically Apple Hardware has been shown to run windows more quickly than "PC" laptops. Let's also not forget that for all intents and purposes a Mac is essentially a PC, down to the intel processor. I think this is a fair test between the two OS's given the afore mentioned items.

[bdkennedy1]

Anyone with common sense can see this is biased. How about comparing Office versions?

[Hutcho]

actually, windows runs faster on my mac then on a regular pc.


You have a PC with exactly the same specs for as your Mac? Unlikely.

What would be more fair is getting a PC running Windows 7 for $2000, and a Mac running OSX 10.6 for $2000 and see which is faster. The Windows machine would win convincingly.

[Lorre]

Anyone with common sense can see this is biased. How about comparing Office versions?

Indeed. Or iTunes encoding on Snow Leopard vs WMP encoding on Windows 7. WMP o, modern hardware is much more snappy than iTunes on the Mac is...

[BenRoethig]

Hardly surprising. OS X is designed for Apple hardware.

No, it thrives in spite of Apple Hardware. Also, there is no such thing as Apple hardware anymore, they died with the PowerPC. They design ways to cram other people's parts into pleasant looking forms.

[Shookster]

This report assumes that the applications are fully optimized for each operating system and the only difference is the OS itself, but in the real world this is obviously not the case. There are a lot of additional factors here that are being ignored.

[doyourownthing]

it would be interesting if they gave these computers to actual users and ran the same tests after 1 year

would like to see how the windows computer performs with a bloated registry and viruses

these tests are a joke

[doyourownthing]

You have a PC with exactly the same specs for as your Mac? Unlikely.

What would be more fair is getting a PC running Windows 7 for $2000, and a Mac running OSX 10.6 for $2000 and see which is faster. The Windows machine would win convincingly.

i can tell you first hand, a windows on a 4-core processor will not outperform snow leopard in a 2-core processor...this is just from my everyday use...

[Hudson1]

You have a PC with exactly the same specs for as your Mac? Unlikely.

What would be more fair is getting a PC running Windows 7 for $2000, and a Mac running OSX 10.6 for $2000 and see which is faster. The Windows machine would win convincingly.
OK, but make sure that Windows machine has equivalent software installed (including the version of Windows itself) for a grand total of $2000. You're not looking at a "$2000 Windows computer" anymore.

[ascii]

Just goes to show how hard it is to compare the two platforms. You have to use Apple hardware, since you can't legally use anything else, and you have to use apps common to both, many of which are written by Apple. It will inevitably be called unfair to Windows but how else could you do it?

Edit: actually a better way might be to make a common list of tasks a home user might perform and then do them on both platforms using whatever apps are available on both platforms.

[Hutcho]

i can tell you first hand, a windows on a 4-core processor will not outperform snow leopard in a 2-core processor...this is just from my everyday use...

What speed processor and running what? Your blanket statement means nothing. Of course, in apps that don't take advantage of multicore processors, then a 3ghz Dual Core is going to be much faster than a 2.4ghz Quad Core. But when the program does, the Quad Core is going to kill the Dual Core (in CPU intensive tasks).

[DKWalsh4]

...or surfing the internet using Flash sites.

Actually, using click2flash ignoring all the pointless ads, my Mac runs Flash sites much faster then my windows machine. And YouTube is using my built in H.264 capabilities, not the resource hog that is your beloved Flash.

[buceta]

Despite the naysayers, this is a fair test. In fact it is biased towards PCs because it has been PROVEN windows and applications for windows runs faster on a Mac than PC.

It is a fair test for the PC. It still does not answer the bigger questions: i) which is the most productive and satisfying computer to use?

For instance, the test does not take into account the ridiculous amount of time you will be spending upgrading each and every 3rd party app including antivirus on your windows box. Something that does not happen in a mac since applications are fewer (since they accomplish more with less) and the upgrade path is unified (via Software Update...)

Ngo's conclusion: Unless you are a gamer, get a Mac.

Correct again. I have been saying this all along.

[suckerpunch86]

what would the results be if Apple delivered Windows-7 optimized and compatible drivers?

[Povilas]

Despite the naysayers, this is a fair test. In fact it is biased towards PCs because it has been PROVEN windows and applications for windows runs faster on a Mac than PC.

It is a fair test for the PC. It still does not answer the bigger questions: i) which is the most productive and satisfying computer to use?

For instance, the test does not take into account the ridiculous amount of time you will be spending upgrading each and every 3rd party app including antivirus on your windows box. Something that does not happen in a mac since applications are fewer (since they accomplish more with less) and the upgrade path is unified (via Software Update...)



Correct again. I have been saying this all along.


Or you can run Geekbench and everything will start to make sense. Another problem is that Call of Duty 4 is not optimized for Snow Leopard.

[Povilas]

what would the results be if Apple delivered Windows-7 optimized and compatible drivers?

Apple provides drivers for Windows 7. They are included in Snow Leopard DVD.

[Asherian]

Despite the naysayers, this is a fair test. In fact it is biased towards PCs because it has been PROVEN windows and applications for windows runs faster on a Mac than PC.

It is a fair test for the PC. It still does not answer the bigger questions: i) which is the most productive and satisfying computer to use?

For instance, the test does not take into account the ridiculous amount of time you will be spending upgrading each and every 3rd party app including antivirus on your windows box. Something that does not happen in a mac since applications are fewer (since they accomplish more with less) and the upgrade path is unified (via Software Update...)

This really doesn't make any sense at all.

Windows Update will update all MS software on a Windows computer, Software Update will update all Apple software on a Mac. Just claiming that the Mac's software update is significantly different than Windows goes to show how very little experience you have with the platform, and not in a position to judge.

As for "proven windows" applications running faster on Mac than PC -- which ones would those be? None of those on the list are really examples of Windows Native apps. Just more nonsense...

[Asherian]

Apple provides drivers for Windows 7. They are included in Snow Leopard DVD.
They're not optimized drivers. In fact, they're frequently broken (eg, using the microphone port on a MacBook Pro doesn't work in Vista or 7) or very old (like the packaged Nvidia drivers). On my MBP I've had to hack in more modern drivers, and got noticable speed gains out of it.

[Povilas]

They're not optimized drivers. In fact, they're frequently broken (eg, using the microphone port on a MacBook Pro doesn't work in Vista or 7) or very old (like the packaged Nvidia drivers). On my MBP I've had to hack in more modern drivers, and got noticable speed gains out of it.

So they are intentionally cripling those drivers?

[Asherian]

So they are intentionally cripling those drivers?

I wouldn't say that. They're just not going out of their way to ensure the Windows experience is the best it could be. It's probably laziness or lack of caring more than malice.

[Povilas]

I wouldn't say that. They're just not going out of their way to ensure the Windows experience is the best it could be. It's probably laziness or lack of caring more than malice.

How do you explain this:

http://gizmodo.com/317060/macbook-pro-is-the-fastest-windows-vista-notebook

[S8ER01Z]

actually, windows runs faster on my mac then on a regular pc.

but i think they really need the same version of itunes for a fairer result.

Do you think about your comments prior to posting them? Tell me...what is the difference between the Mac hardware and the PC hardware? Does Intel ship Apple different i7 920s than they do everyone else? Does apple use better DDR3 memory than Corsair offers for PC? Does Apple get higher performing Nvidia cards than what Nvidia offers PC owners? Please... educate me here, what is giving the Apple hardware it's advantage?

[Povilas]

Do you think about your comments prior to posting them? Tell me...what is the difference between the Mac hardware and the PC hardware? Does Intel ship Apple different i7 920s than they do everyone else? Does apple use better DDR3 memory than Corsair offers for PC? Does Apple get higher performing Nvidia cards than what Nvidia offers PC owners? Please... educate me here, what is giving the Apple hardware it's advantage?

I don't know what kind of magic is involved, but Windows 7 boots faster on my iMac compared to friends Dell.

2 Ghz C2D vs 3.06 Ghz C2D
4GB RAM vs 4GB RAM
1TB Hitachi vs 1TB WD

Go figure.

[vachi]

""Apple's Snow Leopard bests Windows 7 in speed tests"""

shoud be ""Apple's Snow Leopard beats Windows 7 in speed tests"""

[jimerl]

i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.

[S8ER01Z]

I don't know what kind of magic is involved, but Windows 7 boots faster on my iMac compared to friends Dell.

2 Ghz C2D vs 3.06 Ghz C2D
4GB RAM vs 4GB RAM
1TB Hitachi vs 1TB WD

Go figure.

:no: Boots faster? Both machines have zero software installed and are of the same exact specifications in hardware? Please tell me you don't think 'boot time' is a performance number that shows an Operating systems dominance over another?

Do you compare cars by turning the key and timing how long it takes the engine to start up?

[S8ER01Z]

i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.

Driver maturity for one...DirectX maturity...and it would probably have a lot to do with the developers of the game that was tested. If they initially wrote the COD series for OSX and not Windows I'm sure it would be the other way around by now. They have had a long time to figure out how to get the most from the PC platform running under Windows. As far as I know the OSX platform is relatively new for hardcore gaming and the COD series. (I could be wrong on that though)

[Povilas]

:no: Boots faster? Both machines have zero software installed and are of the same exact specifications in hardware? Please tell me you don't think 'boot time' is a performance number that shows an Operating systems dominance over another?

Do you compare cars by turning the key and timing how long it takes the engine to start up?

Dell with better hardware boots longer than iMac which is 2 years old. So to you it's completely irrelevant? Of course Dell will outperform my iMac in most of tasks I have no illusions about that, but the fact is it boots slower than my iMac. Is it so hard to believe?

[Povilas]

Driver maturity for one...DirectX maturity...and it would probably have a lot to do with the developers of the game that was tested. If they initially wrote the COD series for OSX and not Windows I'm sure it would be the other way around by now. They have had a long time to figure out how to get the most from the PC platform running under Windows. As far as I know the OSX platform is relatively new for hardcore gaming and the COD series. (I could be wrong on that though)

OS X Nvidia drivers are quite bad. I guess it's one of the reasons.

[kpluck]

I think all you really need to know about this test is in the graphic. They only show the tests where OS X wins and conveniently leave out the two tests where Windows 7 wins.

Basically, all the article proves, at best, is that Apple hardware runs Apple software better then Microsoft software.

Here is a test for you. I just compared over 100 different benchmarks tests on my HP Vista Laptop. In every test, Vista out performed OS X. In fact, OS X wouldn't even boot the machine. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that OS X has major compatibility issues and should be avoided.

-kpluck

[Povilas]

I think all you really need to know about this test is in the graphic. They only show the tests where OS X wins and conveniently leave out the two tests where Windows 7 wins.

Basically, all the article proves, at best, is that Apple hardware runs Apple software better then Microsoft software.

Here is a test for you. I just compared over 100 different benchmarks tests on my HP Vista Laptop. In every test, Vista out performed OS X. In fact, OS X wouldn't even boot the machine. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that OS X has major compatibility issues and should be avoided.

-kpluck

Looks like BS to me ;)

[mytdave]

I like Macs, and the tests showed Mac in a good way, but those "tests" were pointless and all over the map. Really, there is a large difference between SL and Win7. These types of tests need to be revamped, and conducted later when both OSes have a little time to mature.

Keeping in mind no test will ever be perfect, you have to make some decisions about what you want to test. Do you want to test SL & Win7 performance on Apple hardware, or do you want to test performance on *equivalent* hardware? Are you testing the hardware or the OS? Are you going to test the OS or test Apps running on the OS? Testing with Apps shows the performance of the App on a particular platform, not the performance of the OS. Choose what you want to test for.

If you want to test the OS, then boot/shutdown times are good. Disk access, network performance, I/O, graphics performance and other subsystems are what you look at.

Separately you can test App performance... but seriously, you need to find 3rd party Apps, but those where the developer has optimized for BOTH platforms, not just ported generic code from one to the other.

Based on Windows to Windows testing conducted elsewhere, Win7 is faster than Vista but slower than XP. MacOS X has been shown to be consistently faster in some functions than Windows, but behind in some others (like graphics performance ironically).

What do you need your computer to do? Games will likely always be faster on Windows cause developers optimize for DirectX. Other Apps such as video editing run exceptionally well on Mac. When serious developers optimize for multi-core processing that MacOS does very well, those apps run better on Mac. When developers start to take advantage of the full 64bit, GCD, OpenCL, etc. features of SL, then those particular apps will really spank similar/equivalent apps on Win7.

There is no blanket "faster" system. It's case by case, over time.

[Povilas]

I like Macs, and the tests showed Mac in a good way, but those "tests" were pointless and all over the map. Really, there is a large difference between SL and Win7. These types of tests need to be revamped, and conducted later when both OSes have a little time to mature.

Keeping in mind no test will ever be perfect, you have to make some decisions about what you want to test. Do you want to test SL & Win7 performance on Apple hardware, or do you want to test performance on *equivalent* hardware? Are you testing the hardware or the OS? Are you going to test the OS or test Apps running on the OS? Testing with Apps shows the performance of the App on a particular platform, not the performance of the OS. Choose what you want to test for.

If you want to test the OS, then boot/shutdown times are good. Disk access, network performance, I/O, graphics performance and other subsystems are what you look at.

Separately you can test App performance... but seriously, you need to find 3rd party Apps, but those where the developer has optimized for BOTH platforms, not just ported generic code from one to the other.

Based on Windows to Windows testing conducted elsewhere, Win7 is faster than Vista but slower than XP. MacOS X has been shown to be consistently faster in some functions than Windows, but behind in some others (like graphics performance ironically).

What do you need your computer to do? Games will likely always be faster on Windows cause developers optimize for DirectX. Other Apps such as video editing run exceptionally well on Mac. When serious developers optimize for multi-core processing that MacOS does very well, those apps run better on Mac. When developers start to take advantage of the full 64bit, GCD, OpenCL, etc. features of SL, then those particular apps will really spank similar/equivalent apps on Win7.

There is no blanket "faster" system. It's case by case, over time.

Couldn't agree more.

[newbee]

No, it thrives in spite of Apple Hardware. Also, there is no such thing as Apple hardware anymore, they died with the PowerPC. They design ways to cram other people's parts into pleasant looking forms.


Yea, I looked at a mac pro with the side panel open just the other day to see everything "crammed" in there.... Get real.

[Abster2core]

When both Mac OS X 10.6 and Windows 7 were tested on a MacBook Pro, Apple's new operating system clearly beat Microsoft in terms of speed, a new test has shown.

Both operating systems were tested on a 2008 MacBook Pro machine by CNet,…

"In time-based tests, Snow Leopard consistently outdid Windows 7," the study found. "It took only 36.4 seconds to boot up, while Windows took 42.7 seconds. In a shutdown test, Snow Leopard took only 6.6 seconds, while Windows needed twice the amount of time: 12.6 seconds…Finally, if money is not an issue--and it definitely is for most of us--you should get a Mac anyway. It's the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X."

See also:
Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard
Exploring Windows 7 on the Mac
Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard

In fairness and true journalism, the headline should have read, "Apple's Snow Leopard bests Windows 7 in speed tests running on a MacBook Pro."

Otherwise, this report was well written, not because one beat the other, but that the protocol was well designed and the author did not stray from the only results that could be stated because of it.

As for, "why didn't they run the comparison on of the two OS's on separate pc's and Macs?' well, this was done and reported, for example, as per the author's link to Mossberg's review:

"Speed: In my tests, on every machine, Windows 7 ran swiftly and with far fewer of the delays typical in running Vista. All the laptops I tested resumed from sleep quickly and properly, unlike in Vista. Start-up and restart times were also improved. I chose six Windows 7 laptops from different makers to compare with a new MacBook Pro laptop. The Mac still started and restarted faster than most of the Windows 7 PCs. But the speed gap has narrowed considerably, and one of the Lenovos beat the Mac in restart time." http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20091007/a-windows-to-help-you-forget/

[Zoolook]

What a waste of Bandwidth. I assume these tests were done in BootCamp for Windows, where there aren't even any official Windows7 drivers (and even the Vista ones are hugely out of date, last time I looked).

Snow Leopard may well be faster than Win7 (although I have my doubts outside of Apple specific applications... I mean, seriously, Quicktime encoding is well known to be slow at the best of times anyway,) but the CNET article doesn;t really prove that.

Check this out to see how Ubuntu outperforms OS X 10.6

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_karmic_leopard&num=2

OpenGL in SL (in fact in OS X generally) is terrible (mainly thanks to sucky drivers).

Again here

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_karmic_leopard&num=3

When using a NEUTRAL application (LAME), OS X brings upthe rear... again...

Actually OS X generally doesn't do well in benchmarks, so Apple fans are better off not banding them around, IMO.

[Povilas]

What a waste of Bandwidth. I assume these tests were done in BootCamp for Windows, where there aren't even any official Windows7 drivers (and even the Vista ones are hugely out of date, last time I looked).

Snow Leopard may well be faster than Win7 (although I have my doubts outside of Apple specific applications... I mean, seriously, Quicktime encoding is well known to be slow at the best of times anyway,) but the CNET article doesn;t really prove that.

Check this out to see how Ubuntu outperforms OS X 10.6

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_karmic_leopard&num=2

OpenGL in SL (in fact in OS X generally) is terrible (mainly thanks to sucky drivers).

Again here

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_karmic_leopard&num=3

When using a NEUTRAL application (LAME), OS X brings upthe rear... again...

Actually OS X generally doesn't do well in benchmarks, so Apple fans are better off not banding them around, IMO.

Also looks like BS ;) Binaries in phoronix suite are not optimazed for OS X. This test is as biased as CNET's.

[pondosinatra]

But the real question is which seems snappier? :D

[Chachi]

Not sure which is more lame...this so called test or the balloon boy story.

[Rot'nApple]

You have a PC with exactly the same specs for as your Mac? Unlikely.

What would be more fair is getting a PC running Windows 7 for $2000, and a Mac running OSX 10.6 for $2000 and see which is faster. The Windows machine would win convincingly.

Has it ever been tried? Create a PC with high end, high price components that would cause that PC to be $2000.00? Can PC's plastic case handle the heat?? 8-)

[buceta]

This really doesn't make any sense at all.

Windows Update will update all MS software on a Windows computer, Software Update will update all Apple software on a Mac. Just claiming that the Mac's software update is significantly different than Windows goes to show how very little experience you have with the platform, and not in a position to judge.

As for "proven windows" applications running faster on Mac than PC -- which ones would those be? None of those on the list are really examples of Windows Native apps. Just more nonsense...

Windows Update updates windows only. Software Update on the Mac updates all Apple software. The problem really starts, however, when you realize that in order to do serious work in Windows you need a vast array of 3rd party little software to do things like virus, malware, defrag, memory defrag, clearing of cashes, mail, calendar, contacts, a descent web browser, etc, etc.

[Gwydion]

Can PC's plastic case handle the heat?? 8-)

PC's plastic cases?

I asure you that a $2.000 PC runs cooler an quieter than any $2.000 Mac

[Gwydion]

Windows Update updates windows only. Software Update on the Mac updates all Apple software


False, Windows Update updates Microsoft software, including Office, Live and so on.

Memory cleaner? Disk defrag? Are you talking about Windows 98?

[Foo2]

Not sure which is more lame...this so called test or the balloon boy story.

This should be the lead on the national news, too.

[Abster2core]

Retraction

[Povilas]

False, Windows Update updates Microsoft software, including Office, Live and so on.

Memory cleaner? Disk defrag? Are you talking about Windows 98?

Vista and 7 use NTFS and NTFS has to be defragmented, so in Vista and 7 there is a service which does the defragmenting once in a while. HFS+ does not require defragmenting because of it's nature.

[PaulMJohnson]

But the real question is which seems snappier? :D

You're absolutely right, and that's subjective and will vary from person to person.

The key thing for me in an OS is stability when running multiple apps. To be honest, it doesn't matter if iTunes takes longer to encode a CD on a PC or a Mac to me, since as soon as something takes more than a few seconds, I'll open up something else to keep me amused whilst it's doing it's thing, then it really doesn't matter to me how long it takes.

[doyourownthing]

What speed processor and running what? Your blanket statement means nothing. Of course, in apps that don't take advantage of multicore processors, then a 3ghz Dual Core is going to be much faster than a 2.4ghz Quad Core. But when the program does, the Quad Core is going to kill the Dual Core (in CPU intensive tasks).

mac: macbook pro early 2009 (core 2 duo) - 2.0 ghz - 2 gb ram
pc: core 2 quad - 2.4 intel - 4 gb ram

applications?

mac: mail, open office, ie, ff, vnc viewer, virtual box
pc: thunderbird, open office, ie, ff, vnc viewer, virtual pc

[Mazda 3s]

Windows Update updates windows only. Software Update on the Mac updates all Apple software. The problem really starts, however, when you realize that in order to do serious work in Windows you need a vast array of 3rd party little software to do things like virus, malware, defrag, memory defrag, clearing of cashes, mail, calendar, contacts, a descent web browser, etc, etc.

1) Windows Update updates Windows, Office, other Microsoft programs, AND hardware device drivers -- just like Software Update and respective Apple software. So what's your problem?

2) Disk Defrag is built into Windows. Memory defrag? WTF? Mail and Contacts are built-in with Windows. IE8 is a sucky browser for power users, but it works just fine for everyday users. My parents use it just fine (they're 59 and 60). Malware detection is present natively in Windows 7 with Windows Defender.

I'll spot you the antivirus, but Microsoft provides their AV software for free:

http://www.microsoft.com/security_Essentials/

Don't quit your day job :no:

[Gustav]

You have a PC with exactly the same specs for as your Mac? Unlikely.

What would be more fair is getting a PC running Windows 7 for $2000, and a Mac running OSX 10.6 for $2000 and see which is faster. The Windows machine would win convincingly.

That would depend on how you configured the PC.

Regardless, the only speed test I care about is me. I can get my work done quicker on a Mac than on a PC - I couldn't care less about individual tests that make up none or only a small part of my work day.

[Gustav]

what would the results be if Apple delivered Windows-7 optimized and compatible drivers?

And which drivers are you referring to that would affect these speed tests. Who cares if Apple has a flaky mic driver if none of the speed tests involve recording audio?

[Povilas]

1)
I'll spot you the antivirus, but Microsoft provides their AV software for free:


Which eats CPU cycles.

[Gustav]

I tried click2flash for 1 week and couldn't stand the way my web pages looked- like something out of George Orwell's "1984". It looked like I was banned from viewing 15% of the web. I un-installed it last night. I hate to impose censorship just because Apple and Adobe can't solve the problem. I'm not running any other Apps (usually) when I surf at nioght anyway. But I'm glad you can tolerate the look of censorship.

"The look of censorship" Ha ha! Give us a break! Flash wastes RAM and CPU and ClickToFlash is the best way to solve that problem.

Your opinion that it "looks like censorship" is irrelevant and it's simply your opinion. The rest of us are able to tell what real censorship looks like so ClickToFlash is not a problem.

[pt123]

Anyone with common sense can see this is biased. How about comparing Office versions?

Word and Excel is dog slow on the Mac. It runs a lot faster on a PC. But we will stick with the iTunes and Quicktime results because it looks better :-)

[Gwydion]

Regardless, the only speed test I care about is me.

Exactly, and in the same exact hardware there are applications I use that run faster in Mac OS X and others that run faster in Windows 7.

[Mazda 3s]

Which eats CPU cycles.

Well I declare!!! You serious? Really?? An application that runs in the background uses CPU cycles? Well spank my ass and call me Charlie!! :rolleyes:

You don't want to know how much crap I have running on my MacBook Pro right now :lol:

[Povilas]

"The look of censorship" Ha ha! Give us a break! Flash wastes RAM and CPU and ClickToFlash is the best way to solve that problem.

Your opinion that it "looks like censorship" is irrelevant and it's simply your opinion. The rest of us are able to tell what real censorship looks like so ClickToFlash is not a problem.

ClickToFlash saves CPU cycles and my nerves :) Flash on Mac OS X realyy sucks. How 320x240 flash banner can eat 60% CPU?

[Povilas]

You don't want to know how much crap I have running on my MacBook Pro right now :lol:

You are right, I don't.

[JCP21]

Word and Excel is dog slow on the Mac. It runs a lot faster on a PC. But we will stick with the iTunes and Quicktime results because it looks better :-)
I have never found word and excel to be slow on my mac? My brother is running windows 7 and my mac always boots quicker. http://tsutton.co.cc/imgs/signature_apple-12.jpg

[jb510]

Crappy article... Couldn't this have just as easily been titlted "Apple software runs slower under windows"? They really should have tested more non-apple software. Especially something modern and available in 64-bit on both, Lightroom comes to mind. for example.tOt would have been good to also see something like Photoshop which is 64-bit on Windows but 32-bit on Mac. I look forward to someone doing a proper and thourough review.

[Tofino]

But the real question is which seems snappier? :D

ahh! thank god - the voice of reason! :lol::lol:

[Gwydion]

Crappy article... Couldn't this have just as easily been titlted "Apple software runs slower under windows"? They really should have tested more non-apple software. Especially something modern and available in 64-bit on both, Lightroom comes to mind. for example.tOt would have been good to also see something like Photoshop which is 64-bit on Windows but 32-bit on Mac. I look forward to someone doing a proper and thourough review.

On the same hardware, Lightroom and DXO Optics Pro run faster on Windows 7 than in Leopard

[Tofino]

A Apple OS is faster on a Apple machine.. WOW I did NOT expect that! /sarcasem I'd say that a Windows 7 is faster on a Windows laptop. But oh wait, os x can only run on Apple stuff.

I find this test a waste of time for something we already knew. :no:

er... doesn't running windows on a macbook make it a windows laptop??

[Povilas]

On the same hardware, Lightroom and DXO Optics Pro run faster on Windows 7 than in Leopard

I'm not surprised. All Adobe products run faster on Windows, mainly because Mac version are still 32 bit and carbon based.

[souliisoul]

I do love Apple and all its products, but this article should never have been posted. the difference in response rates for the average user is really nothing and to be frank and its all about bragging rights, which is not much.

[Gwydion]

I'm not surprised. All Adobe products run faster on Windows, mainly because Mac version are still 32 bit and carbon based.

DXO is not from Adobe, is a OS X Cocoa 32 bit application and Windows .NET 32 bit application.

And iTunes is still a 32 bit Carbon application, doesn't it?

[MacTel]

Even if this was compared with a comparable HP system with a Macbook and Windows 7 edged OSX SL that still would be bad.

Tack on anti-virus and anti-malware software and you'll lose anywhere between 5 to 20% of your system performance. Then over time your registry becomes bloated and slows down lookups that all apps do and so on. Whatever edge Windows 7 had at the beginning is soon gone after a month of use. :)

[talksense101]

This is a stupid review.

[Povilas]

DXO is not from Adobe, is a OS X Cocoa 32 bit application and Windows .NET 32 bit application.

And iTunes is still a 32 bit Carbon application, doesn't it?

I was refering to Adobe part :) Yes, iTunes is still 32bit carbon.

[Gwydion]

Even if this was compared with a comparable HP system with a Macbook and Windows 7 edged OSX SL that still would be bad.

Tack on anti-virus and anti-malware software and you'll lose anywhere between 5 to 20% of your system performance. Then over time your registry becomes bloated and slows down lookups that all apps do and so on. Whatever edge Windows 7 had at the beginning is soon gone after a month of use. :)

5% to 20%? No, 134%.

My God, I'm using now Windows 7 because I'm downloading Steam games. I'm using Windows Microsoft Essentials.

Task manager says I have 69 (I like his number :P) open processes, Steam is downloading 8 games at a time, I have 17 open tabs in Firefox (the program which uses most RAM, 125MB) and those are the stattistics:

CPU use: 2%-5%
Memory use: 17% of 8GB

[buceta]

1) Windows Update updates Windows, Office, other Microsoft programs, AND hardware device drivers -- just like Software Update and respective Apple software. So what's your problem?

2) Disk Defrag is built into Windows. Memory defrag? WTF? Mail and Contacts are built-in with Windows. IE8 is a sucky browser for power users, but it works just fine for everyday users. My parents use it just fine (they're 59 and 60). Malware detection is present natively in Windows 7 with Windows Defender.

I'll spot you the antivirus, but Microsoft provides their AV software for free:

http://www.microsoft.com/security_Essentials/

Don't quit your day job :no:

Windows Update worked for %30 of my software and took forever. Because of the instability one had to update by parts, restart numerous times, and every week there was a freaking update. Factor into that the other 70% of software which had their own separate updates, each happening very often and you have a situation where you spend a considerable time every day updating and restarting.

With a Mac all of that is gone. Updating works for 80% of my software (because Apple has the best in class in what I need almost always), it happens completely in the background and only occasionally (a few times a year) asks you to restart, which takes 1 minute.

So one has a situation where you spend a couple of hours a week on one OS and a couple of hour a YEAR with the other OS.

That to me is a deal-breaker.

[Erunno]

Windows Update worked for %30 of my software and took forever. Because of the instability one had to update by parts, restart numerous times, and every week there was a freaking update. Factor into that the other 70% of software which had their own separate updates, each happening very often and you have a situation where you spend a considerable time every day updating and restarting.

Hi! I've been using the final version of Windows 7 for several weeks now together with Office 2007 and Visual Studio and Windows Update worked for me each and every time quite reliably. Are you sure that you used Windows recently? Even updates which require a restart will usually just wait until you shutdown the computer. This has actually been the case for a couple of years, even the XP updater got revamped with a service pack. For your information, with Security Essentials there's even now a daily update (signatures).

So what's your point? Playing the anecdotal evidence game?

[Erunno]

Tack on anti-virus and anti-malware software and you'll lose anywhere between 5 to 20% of your system performance. Then over time your registry becomes bloated and slows down lookups that all apps do and so on. Whatever edge Windows 7 had at the beginning is soon gone after a month of use. :)

Hi! Macs are overprized PCs with an insecure operating system for fashion divas with an inferiority complex who define themselves through the computer they own. Geez, I love making those blanket statements, too!

[Povilas]

Hi! Macs are overprized PCs with an insecure operating system for fashion diva's with an inferiority complex who define themselves through the computer they own. Geez, I love making those blanket statements, too!

Good for you.

[Erunno]

Vista and 7 use NTFS and NTFS has to be defragmented, so in Vista and 7 there is a service which does the defragmenting once in a while. HFS+ does not require defragmenting because of it's nature.

It's, um, nature. Right. For your information: OS X does some defragmentation in the background although AFAIK there's a size limit to the files which will be considered. Windows does all kinds of funky performance optimizations on file system level automatically as well. HFS+ will fragment like any other file system. Apple did not invent the magic fragmentation busting algorithm which will avoid fragmentation under all kinds of loads. Actually, compared to recent file system developments HFS+ is quite ancient, that's why Apple has been looking around for a replacement for a while (ZFS was considered for some time, but Apple dropped it for unknown reasons).

EDIT:

Actually, while Windows users can use the default defrag tool for some questionable benefits Mac users are usually left with the old way of fully copying data between two volumes so that associated blocks will be reallocated in a sequential order.

[Marvin]

The measures of performance should last for a significant period of time such as an extended photoshop action series or multiple mp3 and aac encodings and renderings like Cinebench. Boot/shutdown times are irrelevant and a few seconds here and there for a single encoding is also meaningless. But hey, reviewers are too busy doing other things like counting revenue from their click-rate to do any real testing. After all, it might take up a whole afternoon.

[BenRoethig]

Correct, one of the beauties of OSX is that it automatically does for you what windows requires be done manually. Now only if they'd do the same with disk permissions.

As for ZFS, I think it was licensing issues.

[Erunno]

Correct, one of the beauties of OSX is that it automatically does for you what windows requires be done manually. Now only if they'd do the same with disk permissions

As I already wrote Windows does (and have been doing for quite some versions) file system optimizations all the time in the background. Like OS X it just refrains from a full disk defragmentation. That doesn't mean that strategically important files aren't defragmented and moved to beneficial locations on the hard disk. For instance, AFAIK windows move files relevant to booting to the start of the disk so that disk seeks during boot are reduced.

As for ZFS, I think it was licensing issues

Doubt it. Apple has been working on a port for a long time before they dropped it. I'm not very versed in licensing issues but I very much doubt that they would have started if something as fundamental as licensing wasn't clear. ZFS is licensed under CDDL which should pose no problem other than for GPL people.

[Povilas]

It's, um, nature. Right. For your information: OS X does some defragmentation in the background although AFAIK there's a size limit to the files which will be considered. Windows does all kinds of funky performance optimizations on file system level automatically as well. HFS+ will fragment like any other file system. Apple did not invent the magic fragmentation busting algorithm which will avoid fragmentation under all kinds of loads. Actually, compared to recent file system developments HFS+ is quite ancient, that's why Apple has been looking around for a replacement for a while (ZFS was considered for some time, but Apple dropped it for unknown reasons).

EDIT:

Actually, while Windows users can use the default defrag tool for some questionable benefits Mac users are usually left with the old way of fully copying data between two volumes so that associated blocks will be reallocated in a sequential order.

Please stop. HFS+ is just fine and compared to NTFS it's magical :lol: By the way speaking about ancient file systems NTFS was introduced in 1993 and HFS+ in 1998 ;) My 1 TB HDD is half-full and iDefrag shows 1.2% fragmentation ;) That's pretty good.

[PaulMJohnson]

Doubt it. Apple has been working on a port for a long time before they dropped it. I'm not very versed in licensing issues but I very much doubt that they would have started if something as fundamental as licensing wasn't clear. ZFS is licensed under CDDL which should pose no problem other than for GPL people.

I suspect you are right, I doubt there were any licensing issues with ZFS.

I would have thought the reason Apple have not introduced it just yet is more down to it being a nightmare to change something as fundamental as the file system without causing huge undesirable problems, and it's probably just taking them a long time.

[Erunno]

Please stop. HFS+ is just fine and compared to NTFS it's magical :lol: By the way speaking about ancient file systems NTFS was introduced in 1993 and HFS+ in 1998 ;) My 1 TB HDD is half-full and iDefrag shows 1.2% fragmentation ;) That's pretty good.

Even the dumbest allocation algorithm should have no problem finding consecutive blocks on a half-filled disk, especially when the load is minimal. That's not really proving anything.

Plus, NTFS was revolutionary when it was first introduced. Unicode support, arbitrary amount of meta data, transparent full disk encryption and compression, quotas, etc. Dave Cutler's team actually proved to be quite forward-looking when they designed Windows NT and NTFS. Plus, it's not like Microsoft hasn't updated the file systems in recent years with the usual amount of performance optimizations and new features (e.g. transactions, shadow copies).

[Erunno]

But hey, reviewers are too busy doing other things like counting revenue from their click-rate to do any real testing. After all, it might take up a whole afternoon.

Come on, Appleinsider also does profit from an increased click-rate judging by the amount of comments some of these news spawn. Since you are running Google Analytics on this site maybe you could share with us lowly folk which articles receive a higher than usual attention. Plus, some of the flame wars spawned by this article are pure entertainment. :D

[Povilas]

Even the dumbest allocation algorithm should have no problem finding consecutive blocks on a half-filled disk, especially when the load is minimal. That's not really proving anything.

Really? Using NTFS or worse FAT32 data would be scattered all over that 1 TB HDD. It's only 15 years of Windows experience ;)

Plus, NTFS was revolutionary when it was first introduced. Unicode support, arbitrary amount of meta data, transparent full disk encryption and compression, quotas, etc. Dave Cutler's team actually proved to be quite forward-looking when they designed Windows NT and NTFS. Plus, it's not like Microsoft hasn't updated the file systems in recent years with the usual amount of performance optimizations and new features (e.g. transactions, shadow copies).

HFS+ was also updated :) Latest addition per-file compresion.

[hezekiahb]

actually, windows runs faster on my mac then on a regular pc.

but i think they really need the same version of itunes for a fairer result.

As it would also be more fair to test a game on both OSes that is not designed with OS X as an afterthought. They also should run it in OpenGL since games & 3D graphics chips have typically been designed with DirectX as priority.

[timgriff84]

An os designed for specific hardware starts up faster than one designed for anything what a shock that is.

And apple software works better on a mac rather than there ports to windows where it generally isn't as good as other windows software. Yet another shock! This article really was a waste of time. The only test that actually compared the os was the time it wakes up from sleep and they performed the same!

[hezekiahb]

Anyone with common sense can see this is biased. How about comparing Office versions?

And while we're at it we can compare iWork.:rolleyes:

Office for Mac is made by Microsoft & any shoddyness in it's design & performance is Microsoft's fault. Not fair to compare it because Microsoft clearly crippled Office for Mac in order to help sell PCs.

Apple's crossover software has always been designed to work well & have a similar feel to the OS X version as they recognize the quality of their software effects people's perspective of them as designers.

[Gwydion]

And while we're at it we can compare iWork.:rolleyes:

Office for Mac is made by Microsoft & any shoddyness in it's design & performance is Microsoft's fault. Not fair to compare it because Microsoft clearly crippled Office for Mac in order to help sell PCs.

Apple's crossover software has always been designed to work well & have a similar feel to the OS X version as they recognize the quality of their software effects people's perspective of them as designers.

¿Safari, iTunes and Quicktime in Windows have the same performance and quality than in OS X?

[hezekiahb]

Do you think about your comments prior to posting them? Tell me...what is the difference between the Mac hardware and the PC hardware? Does Intel ship Apple different i7 920s than they do everyone else? Does apple use better DDR3 memory than Corsair offers for PC? Does Apple get higher performing Nvidia cards than what Nvidia offers PC owners? Please... educate me here, what is giving the Apple hardware it's advantage?

Lets throw the question back at you. You are wrong to think that there is no difference in hardware on a Mac vs a PC. Apple engineers design the circuit boards & paths, they choose the best combination of chips to provide the most optimized & efficient circuitry. They don't just make it pretty, they actually design for reduction of bottlenecks.

This can also be true of PC manufacturers, which is why you can buy system boards for a computer that cost less than $100 or some that cost half a grand.

Macs also run EFI, which allows the much faster & efficient EFI system to manage hardware vs letting a slower & more bloated (plus less optimized) OS manage all the hardware such as in BIOS systems.

It is the combination of all those tiny details that give the Macs the performance gain.

[hezekiahb]

i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.

Not all operations, specific 3D functions that have always favored DirectX (because of physical graphics chips optimized for DirectX).

[shavex]

EEEEHHHH FALSE!

"It's the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X."

Psystar!

[hezekiahb]

But the real question is which seems snappier? :D

I know when I multitask on my Mac, running couple VMs & using Expose/Spaces my Mac hardly skips a beat. Windows seems pretty snappy when just a few apps are running but If I open up more than like 4 apps in BootCamp it starts slowing down immediately.

I have a 13" Unibody MacBook.

[hezekiahb]

"The look of censorship" Ha ha! Give us a break! Flash wastes RAM and CPU and ClickToFlash is the best way to solve that problem.

Your opinion that it "looks like censorship" is irrelevant and it's simply your opinion. The rest of us are able to tell what real censorship looks like so ClickToFlash is not a problem.

It's not censorship if I'm choosing not to expose myself to flash garbage, it's not even censorship if I won't let others be exposed to it on my own computer. Now if I installed it on their computer against their will then that might be censorship. Censorship, geesh, no common sense left in the world.:no:

[xwiredtva]

You have a PC with exactly the same specs for as your Mac? Unlikely.

What would be more fair is getting a PC running Windows 7 for $2000, and a Mac running OSX 10.6 for $2000 and see which is faster. The Windows machine would win convincingly.

Then the test of the OPERATING SYSTEM would be unfair. THE TEST OF THE OPERATING SYSTEM SPEED needs to be done on SAME HARDWARE.

What was biased before was comparing the G5/G4 CPU's to PC's with Intels... The PPC was blowing them away in specific tasks it was better at. This is a level playing field.

And, if Win7 Update doesn't have the drivers for a 1 YEAR OLD laptop... What do you think new ones are gonna come with?

EDIT: We do tests here in our office from time to time, it's the normal part of development. Our tests are not biased to one system or another but it strains the operating system more than the hardware. On a MacMini 1.83 CD with 2gb ram... Filemaker Pro 9. Windows XP on bootcamp, OS X 10.5 on Mac (Same 7200rpm WD Scorpio black drive). Importing 1mil records, then exporting with calculation scripts being performed to seperate the "Full_Name" field into First and Last name fields. On the Mac it would take less than 10mins. On Windows it would take over an hour. Same hardware, Same application, same script, same database files.

Reason?

We always recommend an Apple system as a server. A Dual G5 2.0 running Filemaker Pro Server will outpace a Quad Intel running windows any day of the week (and including weekends).

[IQ78]

:no: Boots faster? Both machines have zero software installed and are of the same exact specifications in hardware? Please tell me you don't think 'boot time' is a performance number that shows an Operating systems dominance over another?

Do you compare cars by turning the key and timing how long it takes the engine to start up?

Dude,
If my car took 2.8 minutes or more to start up... yeah... I would be comparing it. You think people would shy away from a car that required a 2 minute wait every time you started it?

I have heard of people's PCs taking more than 5 minutes to fully start up. No joke.

And, even at 30 seconds vs. 60 seconds... it's noticeable, it's annoying and it effects the computer experience and usefulness of your computer. If you want to do something quick on your computer (check e-mail, look something up) and realize that you have to wait 60 seconds to do a task that will take roughly 30 seconds... it becomes an issue.

[TiAdiMundo]

If I get it correctly they have used Vista drivers for this test. And because these drivers don't use the advantages of Windows 7 (like the new WDDM 1.1 graphic driver model that only uses half of the memory for the UI) it's a great result for Windows 7!

If they had used Windows 7 drivers and QuickTime X for Windows, then the Microsoft OS would be ahead.

Is there even a 64 bit version of iTunes and QuickTime available for Windows right now?

And in other words this "test" has shown that Windows 7 runs faster than Leopard on Apples own hardware (if you believe the advantages that Snow Leopard should have). :lol:

[hezekiahb]

¿Safari, iTunes and Quicktime in Windows have the same performance and quality than in OS X?

Pretty close, & certainly Apple has tried to make the experience very similar as iTunes & iPod/iPhone are tools they use to steal away Windows users.

Keeping in mind that Outlook 2001 for OS 9 was more compatible with exchange than Entourage 2008 I think it is safe to say Microsoft hasn't put much into bringing back 100% cross platform functionality. Supposedly this is changing though & we are being promised this will be much different with Office for Mac 2010.

[xwiredtva]

If I get it correctly they have used Vista drivers for this test. And because these drivers don't use the advantages of Windows 7 (like the new WDDM 1.1 graphic driver model that only uses half of the memory for the UI) it's a great result for Windows 7!

If they had used Windows 7 drivers and QuickTime X for Windows, then the Microsoft OS would be ahead.

Is there even a 64 bit version of iTunes and QuickTime available for Windows right now?

And in other words this "test" has shown that Windows 7 runs faster than Leopard on Apples own hardware (if you believe the advantages that Snow Leopard should have). :lol:

They used Win7 drivers. Vista drivers are Win7 drivers until the MFG releases updates.

[sflocal]

1) Windows Update updates Windows, Office, other Microsoft programs, AND hardware device drivers -- just like Software Update and respective Apple software. So what's your problem?

2) Disk Defrag is built into Windows. Memory defrag? WTF? Mail and Contacts are built-in with Windows. IE8 is a sucky browser for power users, but it works just fine for everyday users. My parents use it just fine (they're 59 and 60). Malware detection is present natively in Windows 7 with Windows Defender.

I'll spot you the antivirus, but Microsoft provides their AV software for free:

http://www.microsoft.com/security_Essentials/

Don't quit your day job :no:

It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.

Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:

1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.

2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.

AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.

So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.

If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.

On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.

This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.

[xwiredtva]

An os designed for specific hardware starts up faster than one designed for anything what a shock that is.

And apple software works better on a mac rather than there ports to windows where it generally isn't as good as other windows software. Yet another shock! This article really was a waste of time. The only test that actually compared the os was the time it wakes up from sleep and they performed the same!

By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.

[xwiredtva]

It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.

Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:

1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.

2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.

AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.

So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.

If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.

On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.

This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.

Windows is built for IT Job security, Apple's are built for People.

I'm in the same boat. I put 2 iMac's in a clients site for "testing" now they are the only machines I never touch and the first machines people run to when they need something done now.

[Abracadabra]

iTunes on the mac is 32 bit (so it uses 32 bit QT for encoding):

> file /Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture ppc): Mach-O executable ppc
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386

I wonder if iTunes and QuickTime for 64 bit Windows 7 are 64 bit?

[xwiredtva]

According to CNET baselines the should have said "If your a gamer, GET A MAC and install Windows".

[Erunno]

1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.

You don't keep fully patched images of Windows around? Or even normal install disks where the updates have been integrated. No automated installation? I can see who's productivity is a problem here. ;)

[tawilson]

i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.

Well, the tests performed by Cnet (especially for CoD4, but most likely the other app) would have been running using CrossOver which is a layer between normal operation on Windows. This means that there is something else which requires processing too.

So the tests aren't exactly flawless either.

To be honest, all those tests are pretty worthless.

[Mazda 3s]

It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.

Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:

1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.

2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.

AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.

So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.

If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.

On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.

This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.

You don't have to give me a history on the use of Windows PCs :lol: I've been an exclusive Windows users for the past 15+ years. It wasn't until the two months ago that I started using Macs when I bought my 13" MacBook Pro.

As for hours of productivity lost with Windows Updates. With Vista and Windows 7, updates are downloaded in the background and installed when you want them -- either right then and there are they are saved for when you shutdown. I see no problem with that.

Since I have had my MacBook Pro, I've had a few updates downloaded for the machine from Apple. And a few required a reboot. Did I bitch? Nope, I just did what it told me to.

As for the other stuff you mentioned regarding handholding, I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment. I installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my parents' machine and it downloads updates automatically and keeps the systems in check. Same with Windows Defender.

My parents use their computer every single day and it's been running Windows Vista Basic since day one (they bought the Dell for Christmas 2007). They never call me concerning problems with Vista, they never get viruses, and they are generally happy. The only time I ever get calls from them regarding the computer is when the DSL modem starts acting funny and cuts off their internet.

If my 60-ish parents can handle it, I don't see what the big deal is. As I said, Windows Updates, virus/malware updates/scans, etc. are all done for them automatically. What more do you need?

Windows 7 and OS X are both great operating systems that go about different ways of getting things accomplished. I use both (VirtualBox installation of Windows 7 RC1 on my MacBook Pro) and I love them both. I don't understand the hate that gets thrown around from either side.

[Erunno]

By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.

Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.

[Erunno]

As for the other stuff you mentioned regarding handholding, I'm not quite sure I agree with your assessment. I installed Microsoft Security Essentials on my parents' machine and it downloads updates automatically and keeps the systems in check. Same with Windows Defender.

But Windows uses "twice the horsepower"!!11 He didn't mention what he means by "maintenance system" (I doubt he himself knows) or when and under what circumstances but it must be true because he is a self-confessed professional.

[Erunno]

Pretty close, & certainly Apple has tried to make the experience very similar as iTunes & iPod/iPhone are tools they use to steal away Windows users.

Of course they do. Apple couldn't probably care less if Windows people buy Macs as long as they are happily purchasing songs, applications and ringtones from the iTunes store for their brand new iPhone or iPod. If some switch to Apple the better. But they would never willingly cripple the Windows experience of their cash cow.

[Mazda 3s]

But Windows uses "twice the horsepower"!!11 He didn't mention what he means by "maintenance system" (I doubt he himself knows) or when and under what circumstances but it must be true because he is a self-confessed professional.

Yeah, my bull**** meter goes off when I hear "requires twice the horsepower to accomplish the same tasks" or other crap like that.

I've been ass-deep in Windows for a long time. My first job was working at a mom and pop PC repair shop in the mid-90s. I've dealt with horrible Windows/PC crap from IRQ/Com Port bullcrap in the Windows 95 days to general crapiness in the Windows 98 days to software incompatibilities with Windows 2000, etc. Believe me, I have plenty of reasons to hate Windows.

But with XP, and even Vista (which I didn't have much of a problem with), and now Windows 7, I'm quite happy with Microsoft's progress. Windows 7 is a good operating system. OS X is a good operating system.

That's all there is to it.

[xwiredtva]

Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.

EFI, speed matched components, lastest tech when released... But yep, they are PC's and price for price they are also the same cost.

One question: Why is it in PC-Land if I want to get a lightweight 12-13" Laptop that's 1" thin or thinner I have to pay a premium? And it's the cheapest Mac that can not only run Windows but meets my requirements AND has a 1066 bus, better graphics than Intel GMA stuff and can take higher RAM?

Or did I miss (piss) on your statement.

[xwiredtva]

Apple store is down. Maybe their changing the game yet again...

[Erunno]

Or did I miss (piss) on your statement.

No, you only missed the point. Wipe of that foam off your mouth first, think over the implications of my statement and in which context and it was made and maybe, just maybe I will grace you with serious answer.

[xwiredtva]

No, you only missed the point. Wipe of that foam off your mouth first, think over the implications of my statement and in which context and it was made and maybe, just maybe I will grace you with serious answer.

Do grace.

[Mazda 3s]

Can't we all just get along? :lol::lol:

My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we? :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/2n9knip.jpg

[xwiredtva]

Can't we all just get along? :lol::lol:

My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we? :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/2n9knip.jpg

You, uh, see that iPhone there on the counter... goto www.enabletethering.com and enable it... Then, uh, those two brothers that it's between... Uh, they can buddy up to the phone and use the phone as a modem...

Nice in all red. My MSI U123 only has a red top...

[Erunno]

Do grace.

*sigh*

Configuration and price falls under market segregation. A lot of vendors for various products do this. It has nothing to do whether the Mac is a PC or not (it is). It has nothing to do whether you can find a configuration that suits you in a price range which is acceptable to you. This was purely a technical statement by me. The original poster made the correct observation that Windows 7 should run on a Mac as well as on any other PC provided that all drivers are present. What you did was simply putting up a straw man by making arguments which might or might not be true but which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

"A Giraffe is a mammal as well".

"But can your giraffe also fetch the newspaper?"

[buceta]

It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.

Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:

1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.

2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.

AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.

So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.

If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.

On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.

This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.

Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them. I would think this day and age it would be obvious that Macs take up < 1% that PCs takes in overhead.

Time is money which you can more or less quantify, which is not a small $$ amount. Over the course of, say, a year it sums up to a lot of time and money saved. Macs are for people who value their time and want to apply their efforts into getting stuff done, not into keeping their machines from falling apart.

[Erunno]

Can't we all just get along? :lol::lol:

Na, heated discussions (aka flame wars) can be fun to a certain extent. You stop when it becomes tiresome.

Welcome to the Internet. :)

Ninja edit:

Judging by the screenshot you are using Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Safari and Mail. Note that this will make you suspicious in the eyes of the more ardent Apple customers of being a Windows convert. You have been warned. :-P

[CoreyB]

Macs also run EFI, which allows the much faster & efficient EFI system to manage hardware vs letting a slower & more bloated (plus less optimized) OS manage all the hardware such as in BIOS systems.

Windows Vista SP1 and Windows 7 both use UEFI 2.1, most Macs use EFI 1.1.

[buceta]

Can't we all just get along? :lol::lol:

My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we? :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/2n9knip.jpg

The red computer is about as powerful as that computer in the middle.

[Erunno]

Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them.

Don't, arguing with an estimate of 99 percent of AI participants would be a hazard to ones mental health. ;)

[xwiredtva]

*sigh*

Configuration and price falls under market segregation. A lot of vendors for various products do this. It has nothing to do whether the Mac is a PC or not (it is). It has nothing to do whether you can find a configuration that suits you in a price range which is acceptable to you. This was purely a technical statement by me. The original poster made the correct observation that Windows 7 should run on a Mac as well as on any other PC provided that all drivers are present. What you did was simply putting up a straw man by making arguments which might or might not be true but which had nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

"A Giraffe is a mammal as well".

"But can your giraffe also fetch the newspaper?"

Apple has no market seperation model aside from Consumer and Pro. They also don't make crap which is what I was implying. You don't see them offer Intel Dual-Core based systems, or Celeron's. You don't see them offer up OS X 10.6 basic edition with no more than 1gb of ram.

[Xian Zhu Xuande]

This was a pretty crappy comparison test. I don't see what is 'surprising' about Apple software running much faster on OS X than it does on Windows. iTunes has a reputation for being more stable and reliable on OS X, for example. On the flip-side, it is likely that Call of Duty for Windows is much more heavily optimized than Call of Duty for the Macintosh, as is often-times the case with games. I guess for the home user, though, something like an iTunes benchmark will be meaningful, even if it is surely skewed.

Still, if I had to use Windows, I would definitely do so on a Macintosh.

I've used both systems extensively and the choice is dead simple for me. I prefer OS X and Macintosh hardware for virtually every single task—and I especially hate Windows, despite knowing it inside and out. I'm just not sure how you can express many of these things with a benchmark.

[Erunno]

Apple has no market seperation modem aside from Consumer and Pro. They also don't make crap which is what I was implying. You don't see them offer Intel Dual-Core based systems, or Celeron's. You don't see them offer up OS X 10.6 basic edition with no more than 1gb of ram.

Missing the point twice in a row. I give up.

[Mazda 3s]

Na, heated discussions (aka flame wars) can be fun to a certain extent. You stop when it becomes tiresome.

Welcome to the Internet. :)

Ninja edit:

Judging by the screenshot you are using Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Safari and Mail. Note that this will make you suspicious in the eyes of the more ardent Apple customers of being a Windows convert. You have been warned. :-P

Haha, you can easily spot a Windows-to-Mac convert with Thunderbird/Firefox ;) I tried giving Mail and Safari both a try, but I've been using Thunderbird/Firefox for years and have just grown accustomed to both -- and I love all my extensions in FF :)

[xwiredtva]

Missing the point twice in a row. I give up.

I got your points. But your simply side stepping the comments. Or somehow we got tied together on something similar but completely different.

The comparison was between Win7 (which is better, not saying it isn't. As someone who has to manage over 130 PC's myself at client sites I know...) and OS X running specific applications on a single hardware setup.

Going through CNET's previous tests on those same apps, the MacBook Pro did better than SAME SPEC PC's built by Lenovo, Hp and Dell. But I also added that MS makes rediculous license requirements to the MFG's in order to run certain Low-Cost OS versions. So in order to run VistaB you can't apply more than 2gb of ram, 2 core cpu's, or whatever it was (it has loosend up). And when it came to netbooks Vista basic or XP home on Atom PC's was the only options. HP used VIA CPU's in order to install Vista Biz/XP Pro and it was the only netbook with XP Pro or VB installed by default... Also came with a 7200rpm drive, 2gb of ram... But all because they bypassed the CPU limitation set forth by MS... WHICH is the comparison being made here.

I still can't for the life of me purchase an Eco-Powered PC for a business client through any vendors because of this idiotic license issue which means I have to do an In-Place upgrade on these systems and LOOSE OS Support by the MFG (meaning I couldn't get corp support in the first place which is nice when your stacked), void some of the warranty and pay full retail price. Yet, I can purchase a MacMini which comes with an unrestricted OS, is very powerful for the price and sips electricity. So that's the route I take. I get a Mini and either link it into the AD with Directory Services and use TS to apply the UI to the user OR purchase a VL of Vista Biz.

This is a HUGE issue and nobody at Microsoft would even care if they knew it existed.

[mosx]

What a BS test.

It's a well known fact that Apple's Windows support is downright terrible. The touchpad on the unibody systems was completely useless in Windows until Boot Camp 3.0 came along. Apple ships extremely old and outdated drivers for Windows. In fact, the Windows 7 driver included with Boot Camp 3 for the nvidia GPU is one of the very first Windows 7 drivers available, not anywhere close to the then current driver when Boot Camp 3 and Snow Leopard went gold. To actually get Windows up to full speed on a Mac you need to install Boot Camp 3 then manually update the drivers, since Apple ships such outdated drivers.

Let's also not forget that in the Windows world, the hardware Apple uses is incredibly low-end. $2,000 for a Core 2 Duo and a 256MB GeForce 9600M GT? Try a Core 2 Extreme (quad core) or Core i7 along with a GeForce GTX, as well as blu-ray.

[mosx]

Yet, I can purchase a MacMini which comes with an unrestricted OS, is very powerful for the price and sips electricity. So that's the route I take. I get a Mini and either link it into the AD with Directory Services and use TS to apply the UI to the user OR purchase a VL of Vista Biz.

This is a HUGE issue and nobody at Microsoft would even care if they knew it existed.

What? The Mac mini is powerful for the price? Seriously?

$600 gets you a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and 1GB of RAM.

$600 in the PC world will get you a quad core processor (these days a Core 2 Quad), AT LEAST 4GB of RAM, and at least 500GB of HDD space as well as more powerful dedicated graphics. Pretty soon at that price point we'll see Core i5.

[h.rav]

CNET forgot to install AntiVirus on the 7. I bet it will make the 7 even slower. ;p :D

[Gwydion]

The red computer is about as powerful as that computer in the middle.

No, the computer in the middle is a lot more powerful than the red.

[Mazda 3s]

No, the computer in the middle is a lot more powerful than the red.

The sad thing is that people actually believe this bullcrap :rolleyes:

[kotatsu]

Bit of a silly test as for the price of a Macbook Pro running OSX you could have a Win7 laptop with a much quicker CPU and GPU, and more RAM. All of which would make the Win7 machine a lot quicker than the Mac for the same amount of cold, hard cash.

And that's all that really matters.

[sflocal]

Thanks for putting together this reply as it is what I would write if I had the time to spend in the people of these forums who seem to have huge reality-distortion field generators around them. I would think this day and age it would be obvious that Macs take up < 1% that PCs takes in overhead.

Time is money which you can more or less quantify, which is not a small $$ amount. Over the course of, say, a year it sums up to a lot of time and money saved. Macs are for people who value their time and want to apply their efforts into getting stuff done, not into keeping their machines from falling apart.

I use both OSX and Windows. They each have their pluses and minuses and I certainly do not consider one OS superior to the other. There is plenty of room for both to co-exist and I prefer it that way. But when it comes to time spent doing actual productivity (i.e. doing their job) versus dealing with system issues, then Windows takes 1st place for providing job security for IT departments. It's not just my personal opinion. It's a reality in the workplace.

Now of course, there are know-it-all people (two in particular) in this thread that seem to have all the answers to every one of my points of a prior post about keeping fully-patched OS images, their experience with their 60+ y/o parents, etc. and know how to maintain ill-behaving PC's yet never seem to take into consideration the bigger-picture of non-systems issues like a user's productivity and the value of one's time. To them I say, "well good for you". I will waste no time on you. Keep drinking your Window's Kool-aid and leave the rest of us front-line folks to continue doing the real work of making sure users can use their PC to get their job done (whatever that is) instead of being a frustrated individual that is forced to submit to a poor performing system. I'll keep my 60+ y/o mom on her iMac knowing in a year from now, it will still perform great without my having to touch a single key.

This wasn't about PC vs. OSX. This was about time vs. time-waster.

[X38]

So, OS/X is still being crippled by OpenGL. Apple should have kept Quickdraw 3D around as an alternative. Since OpenGL still can't be brought up to par, Apple should use their increased market share (especially with the iPhone) to bring Quickdraw 3D back.

[paxman]

Bit of a silly test as for the price of a Macbook Pro running OSX you could have a Win7 laptop with a much quicker CPU and GPU, and more RAM. All of which would make the Win7 machine a lot quicker than the Mac for the same amount of cold, hard cash.

And that's all that really matters.
No no, you are very much mistaken. What really matters is your happiness. If it makes you happy to work on a windows PC, and it makes you happy that you spent less money on your initial purchase, then you'd be stupid to buy a Mac. And vice versa. A lot of people pay willingly for the experience of their choice. Not just in computing, but in every walk of life.

[timgriff84]

By your quote Win7 shouldn't run faster on anything then... Because Win7 is designed for PC's and all intel mac's are also PC's. Or did I miss something.

Yeah you missed something. Windows is never going to have as faster boot time as a mac as it needs to contain support for huge combinations of hardware. But in comparison macs only need very limited support as Apple has dictated what goes into every mac. At the very least the mac will always have an advantage of a driver db that is microscopic in comparison.

Another example of this I have seen is with more experimental os's that don't have any boot time due to the fact the hardware has been fixed removing the need for any scan.

[timgriff84]

Windows Update worked for %30 of my software and took forever. Because of the instability one had to update by parts, restart numerous times, and every week there was a freaking update. Factor into that the other 70% of software which had their own separate updates, each happening very often and you have a situation where you spend a considerable time every day updating and restarting.

With a Mac all of that is gone. Updating works for 80% of my software (because Apple has the best in class in what I need almost always), it happens completely in the background and only occasionally (a few times a year) asks you to restart, which takes 1 minute.

So one has a situation where you spend a couple of hours a week on one OS and a couple of hour a YEAR with the other OS.

That to me is a deal-breaker.

I have the complete opposite experiance. I have an iMac running vista, the vista half largely sorts itself out and will download all the updates in the background. Then when I shut down I get the option to install them then or just leave it (I have noticed though if I leave the machine turned on a lot of them appear to just get installed on their own). In contrast though on the mac half every time there's an update software update flashs up on the screen with it's icon bouncing away trying to stop what your doing. You then either stop what your doing and install the update or close it. Problem with this though is unless you remember to open software update and install the update os x will just let you turn the machine off with no reminder. Then next time you start working you get another prompt which you then cancel and it all repeats.

My issue here is while all the windows updates can happen when you turn the machine off and largely not affect you, with osx I either sit and wait to use my computer again or have to remember to install updates myself.

[buceta]

Look guys, this is the same as everything else:

- The vast majority of people can't afford the good stuff and will pay for el-cheapo piece of crap product and then either deal with it in a mature way (c'est la vie...) or go into denial and think their piece of crap product is as good as the more expensive stuff.

- The few will have the money to afford the good stuff. They buy it and they immediately realize why it costs more and they become glad they paid more because it is so much much much better.



The ironic twist of this story is that Macs may have a slightly higher upfront fee, but over time you pay less because the system depreciate less and requires way less maintenance $$ and software $$.

[s.metcalf]

Or you're left with a dead PC after one year when the video card (botched NVIDIA) dies and the manufacturer couldn't care less. This has happened to several people I know. Also had a friend whose PC laptop screen died under warranty and the manufacturer refused to replace it because they said it was "impact damage" implying user mistreatment despite no obvious impact or mark on the case. It wasn't impacted, I was there when it died. It died because it had cheap-arse componants that have a high failure rate. I would have taken it further but my friend gave up and bought another cheap PC that will probably only last another year.

There are companies that exist solely to peddle cheap rubbish and encourage a high-turnover. They couldn't care less about their reputation, as long as they sell the cheapest hardware they will still be successful and with a non-existant customer service, stiill profitablt. Apple is not one such company and it owes it's present success largely to it's reputation for building quality products.

We live in such a throwaway society that even computers now have because cheap accessories that need to be upgraded with the season. :( I for one am happy I am not contributing unnecessarilly to mountains of eWaste because I buy a computer that is built to last.


The ironic twist of this story is that Macs may have a slightly higher upfront fee, but over time you pay less because the system depreciate less and requires way less maintenance $$ and software $$.

[s.metcalf]

They're not optimized drivers. In fact, they're frequently broken (eg, using the microphone port on a MacBook Pro doesn't work in Vista or 7) or very old (like the packaged Nvidia drivers). On my MBP I've had to hack in more modern drivers, and got noticable speed gains out of it.

Can you tell us which drivers you've had to update to get the best performance?

[a_greer]

When both Mac OS X 10.6 and Windows 7 were tested on a MacBook Pro, Apple's new operating system clearly beat Microsoft in terms of speed, a new test has shown.

Both operating systems were tested on a 2008 MacBook Pro machine by CNet,

from Apple.com Bootcamp support page:

"Important: Boot Camp supports only Microsoft Windows Home Edition and Professional with SP2 or later, and Microsoft Vista. The required Macintosh-specific drivers provided by Apple are only intended for these releases."

so the test is bullshit, it is unsupported firmware/drivers/software


The Mac software also unsurprisingly ran Apple's own native applications more efficiently. Converting a movie from M4 format to iPod in Quicktime X on Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds, while Windows 7, with QuickTime 7 (the latest version available) took 723 seconds. Similarly, converting 17 songs in iTunes from MP3 to AAC took 149.9 seconds in Snow Leopard, while Windows 7 required 162 seconds.


Apple software is optimized for the apple OS, no shit Sherlock! run the test using Adobe compression tools, Avid, or some 3rd party cross platform tool and get back to me.


The test also found that Mac OS X 10.6 had better battery life on the MacBook Pro than Windows 7. The 2008 model has a removable battery. But author Dong Ngo said he believes Boot Camp drivers were mostly responsible for the Windows 7 battery life, as many PC laptops fared much better than the 77 minutes the Microsoft OS fared.


at least they touched on the fact that they were running it on a macbook...for Gods sake, I have 7 on a 4 year old laptop at work to determine a hardware baseline, and it gets like 3 hrs on a 4 year old battery.


OSX is definitely better than 7 outside of large managed enviornments, but hey, Windows is a lot better than these clowns make it look...I would expect this kind of yellow journaliosum from Macworld, but not from a PC centric publication like C|NET

[Rokcet Scientist]

When both Mac OS X 10.6 and Windows 7 were tested on a MacBook Pro, Apple's new operating system clearly beat Microsoft in terms of speed, a new test has shown.

Both operating systems were tested on a 2008 MacBook Pro machine by CNet, and each was given its own, separate, clean hard drive. The 64-bit version of each OS was included in the test, which measured a variety of speed and performance related tasks. Snow Leopard was given true, full 64-bit support with most of its native applications taking full advantage of modern processors.

Each OS had the same software installed: iTunes 9, QuickTime, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Cinebench R10. In the test, Snow Leopard booted and shut down significantly faster than Windows 7.

"In time-based tests, Snow Leopard consistently outdid Windows 7," the study found. "It took only 36.4 seconds to boot up, while Windows took 42.7 seconds. In a shutdown test, Snow Leopard took only 6.6 seconds, while Windows needed twice the amount of time: 12.6 seconds. Both computers, however, took just about 1 second to return from sleeping. For this reason, I didn't actually test the wake-up time as it was too short in both operating systems to produce meaningful numbers or even allow me to measure the difference."

The Mac software also unsurprisingly ran Apple's own native applications more efficiently. Converting a movie from M4 format to iPod in Quicktime X on Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds, while Windows 7, with QuickTime 7 (the latest version available) took 723 seconds. Similarly, converting 17 songs in iTunes from MP3 to AAC took 149.9 seconds in Snow Leopard, while Windows 7 required 162 seconds.



The test also found that Mac OS X 10.6 had better battery life on the MacBook Pro than Windows 7. The 2008 model has a removable battery. But author Dong Ngo said he believes Boot Camp drivers were mostly responsible for the Windows 7 battery life, as many PC laptops fared much better than the 77 minutes the Microsoft OS fared.

One area where Windows 7 was able to easily trump Snow Leopard was in graphics performance. The system's 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT graphics card helped the system score much better in the latest version of Windows, earning a 5,777 3D rendering score in Cinebench R10. Snow Leopard scored 5,437.

In testing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Windows 7 again came out on top, with an average 26.3 frames per second performance, compared to 21.2 frames per second within Snow Leopard.

Ngo's conclusion: Unless you are a gamer, get a Mac.

"If you can get by with just software designed by Apple and if money is not a big issue, you will be happy with a Mac," he said. "Examples of these software choices are iTunes, iLife, QuickTime, Safari, iChat, and so on (and you probably won't need much more than those for daily entertainment and communication needs). Finally, if money is not an issue--and it definitely is for most of us--you should get a Mac anyway. It's the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X."

See also:

Windows 7 vs. Mac OS X Snow Leopard

Exploring Windows 7 on the Mac

Inside Mac OS X Snow Leopard

References and links would be nice.

[Ireland]

The red computer is about as powerful as that computer in the middle.

Yeah, but which has Wifi? :rolleyes:

[nikon133]

Anyone with common sense can see this is biased. How about comparing Office versions?

Would be nice to see Adobe products comparison, too.

But it is completely irrelevant, IMHO.

Those "testers" forgot simple thing - for the price of MacBook or iMac units, PC users can get systems with Windows 7 that will utterly dominate - and still save some money.

So even if OSX is better optimized for hardware it is supposed to run with (which is hardly a surprise), bang-for-the-buck is definitely on the PC size.

Quad core Macs could level that a bit, if they come out.

[nikon133]

Apple provides drivers for Windows 7. They are included in Snow Leopard DVD.

Drivers that come with Windows installation CD/DVD are by default not performing as good as fresh drivers downloaded from manufacturers' web sites. This in particular works for graphics drivers, but for others as well even if not to the same extend.

There is no conspiracy there - OS CD/DVD image has "locked" drivers from some point back in time, as it is really hard to update that image whenever new drivers are released. They are included to provide initial functionality, but it is up to user to grab latest drivers if he/she wants to squeeze better performance from computer.

So the question here is how good are W7 drivers included with OSX are? I'd be really surprised if they are latest and greatest.

[nikon133]

How do you explain this:

http://gizmodo.com/317060/macbook-pro-is-the-fastest-windows-vista-notebook

Well how do you know if machine is tested with basic drivers supplied with OSX or tester went an extra mile downloading fresh drivers from Intel, Nvidia, Realtek...?

Additionally, Apple did great job by securing latest hardware from Intel for that generation's MacBook; if I recall well, it was one of the fastest (if not the fastest) notebook on the market hardware wise, regardless OS installed.

But as other manufacturers got hold of same technology (and kept improving on it faster than Apple), you can find at the end of the article that (quote): Correction: The MacBook Pro's reign as fastest notebook ended on 10/25/2007, not 11/23/2007 as was previously reported. We apologize for the error.

[nikon133]

I don't know what kind of magic is involved, but Windows 7 boots faster on my iMac compared to friends Dell.

2 Ghz C2D vs 3.06 Ghz C2D
4GB RAM vs 4GB RAM
1TB Hitachi vs 1TB WD

Go figure.

It is not too hard to figure, if you are really interested to.

Each software you install on computer - if it runs in the background - will add a bit to boot-up time. Antivirus, firewall, latest (usually bigger) drivers.

My Creative X-Fi audio card came with huge driver/apps package, and while it doesn't load everything on the startup, it did add a few seconds to my boot time compared to integrated Realtek audio.

Do you have exactly same hardware and software on both computers..?

[nikon133]

i'm a bit puzzled why windows is able to perform graphics operations significantly better.

Because there is strong competition between Graphics cards manufacturers in PC segment and everyone is trying to squeeze last atom of optimization from their respective hardware. Graphics card drivers are being updated monthly, and while one really doesn't have to install every update, doing it 2-3 times a year will give better results in games and other graphics-intensive apps, specially with lower-end graphics.

High end graphics might have enough muscle in reserve not to be so dependable of drivers' optimization; if your card is giving you 80fps in a specific game, you don't really care if it could give you 120fps as you are not going to notice it anyway.

Additionally, Microsoft did good job with maturing DirectX over the last decade. OpenGL - when it comes to desktop applications - was left behind time ago.

Macs come with preinstalled graphics and choice is limited, such is volume of chips moved. I think those two factors are de-stimulating hardware manufacturers to invest too much time and effort in optimizing drivers for Macs. And considering that Macs are traditionally not gaming machines, having drivers good enough rather than best possible, is, well... good enough?

[nikon133]

Yea, I looked at a mac pro with the side panel open just the other day to see everything "crammed" in there.... Get real.

:) I think he was referring to common, consumer Macs.

Mac Pro is nice beast.

[nikon133]

Has it ever been tried? Create a PC with high end, high price components that would cause that PC to be $2000.00? Can PC's plastic case handle the heat?? 8-)

You'd be surprised - much better than any iMac, whatever they are made of :D

[nikon133]

Which eats CPU cycles.

I actually had task manager opened and was looking at MSSE (MS Security Essentials, actually) while opening files, starting programs, checking email, installing Batman: Arkham Asylum (big game).

I failed to see MSSE creating any visible load on CPU. It has to, but it seems to be so low on resources and time intervals it fails to register in task manager.

Quad core CPU might be helping there.

[nikon133]

Crappy article... Couldn't this have just as easily been titlted "Apple software runs slower under windows"? They really should have tested more non-apple software. Especially something modern and available in 64-bit on both, Lightroom comes to mind. for example.tOt would have been good to also see something like Photoshop which is 64-bit on Windows but 32-bit on Mac. I look forward to someone doing a proper and thourough review.

Photoshop was actually benchmarked some time ago, though on Vista 64 and Leopard (not 7 and SL) both clean-installed on MacBook Pro. Conclusion, if I remember correctly, was that PS on Leopard was a bit faster while processing smaller files, while large files did better on Vista. On average, they were pretty much the same.

[nikon133]

Even if this was compared with a comparable HP system with a Macbook and Windows 7 edged OSX SL that still would be bad.

Tack on anti-virus and anti-malware software and you'll lose anywhere between 5 to 20% of your system performance. Then over time your registry becomes bloated and slows down lookups that all apps do and so on. Whatever edge Windows 7 had at the beginning is soon gone after a month of use. :)

On new quad core AV takes much, much less. Probably bellow 1% (my experience at least).

Registry bloating is over-exaggerated, as most Windows "problems" are observed here. With all the games, freeware, shareware... going through my PC, my load times or responsiveness in a year time does not change enough to be noticeable (I will run registry cleaner approximately once a year, by habit). For less demanding users, registry will not cause performance problem within the life of computer, old-fashioned as it is.

[nikon133]

It's interesting how you sugarcoat the reality of Windows maintenance. I do it everyday and my job requires setting up windows machines for corporate and personal use.

Here's what you "conveniently" failed to mention in your points:

1) Windows Update does update everything it can. Unfortunately, it requires multiple restarts, multiple updating, and then those updates after restart requires even more updates to the updates it just applied. Then, any 3rd party add-ons and plugins need to be updated. Depending on the release-date of the install, it takes literally hours to get a windows PC fully patched and updated. Hours of lost productivity.

2) The Disk Defragmenter included with Windows is a crippled version of Executive Software's Diskeeper. It is useless and does little to address the problem. On corporate and personal levels, I install the full-version of Diskeeper and recommend to personal users to also purchase and install it. There are freeware version that holds promise that I've been testing called Defraggler from Piriform: http://www.piriform.com/defraggler . In addtion, I use another freeware product from Piriform called CCleaner http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner to keep the registry in check and remove all wasted disk space. It also has an excellent program uninstaller which does a better job of removing unwanted programs compared to the regular windows-supplied add/remove programs option. The sad part is that I have to seek 3rd party solutions since Microsoft does not provide for it or includes a crippled version of it for whatever reason. It's a sad state when I have to clean up registries that are so easily corrupted again impeding performance. Microsoft fails big-time in this area.

AntiVirus is a necessity for Windows folks. I personally don't use it on my personal windows machines since the performance hit of every vendor (including Microsoft's new - and free - AV solution) is just too much to accept. Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running? It's a joke.

So the point of my response to you is that Windows requires a ridiculous amount of handholding just to keep the system humming. My machines run great as I have the knowledge and knowhow to do it. But for the 99% of regular folk, it is a lesson in futility. Even when I get someone's machine running perfectly, in a month it will be back to some level of problem as windows does not do a good job to fend for itself.

If you really think that what is provided within Windows is adequate to keep a system running smoothly, I recommend to you that you don't quit YOUR day job. You probably have a very low standard of how a PC should run. Productivity takes a back seat in that case soon enough.

On the Apple systems I work on they take care of themselves right out of the box. Within 15 minutes, they are ready to go and be put to use. And in most cases, I never have to touch them again.

This is from years of experience on BOTH systems and it is my day job.

I figured out your opinion is extremely biased right at "Is it any wonder why a Window's machine requires twice the horsepower just to keep all the necessary maintenance systems running?"

[igorleandro]

I think all you really need to know about this test is in the graphic. They only show the tests where OS X wins and conveniently leave out the two tests where Windows 7 wins.

Basically, all the article proves, at best, is that Apple hardware runs Apple software better then Microsoft software.

Here is a test for you. I just compared over 100 different benchmarks tests on my HP Vista Laptop. In every test, Vista out performed OS X. In fact, OS X wouldn't even boot the machine. Thus, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that OS X has major compatibility issues and should be avoided.

-kpluck

Errr.... are you retarded or something?

[cmf2]

On new quad core AV takes much, much less. Probably bellow 1% (my experience at least).

Registry bloating is over-exaggerated, as most Windows "problems" are observed here. With all the games, freeware, shareware... going through my PC, my load times or responsiveness in a year time does not change enough to be noticeable (I will run registry cleaner approximately once a year, by habit). For less demanding users, registry will not cause performance problem within the life of computer, old-fashioned as it is.

I find that a little hard to believe. Even after 6 months with Windows 7, I had very noticeable reductions in loading times and my PC became less and less responsive after initial startup. Connecting to the internet took longer than it had in the past, etc. This is not something I say because I am a mac user, as I switched after Apples intel transition. When all I had were PCs, Windows slowing down over a period of time was a common complaint of mine. Duting this same time I bashed Macs even though I had no experience with them, I just parroted the common talking points that Windows users used against macs. The slowdown is real, and I think most people do notice it. In fact I would argue that many people replace their PC's earlier than they need to because Windows has slowed down, when all they really needed was a reformat. Maybe I am just more aware of these reductions in responsiveness, but they are definitely there.

Of course not all problems are necessarily due to the registry. Windows has never had a good way for the average user to manage startup programs, so they tend to pile up, slowly leaching the performance out of the system (note that I managed mine, so that wasn't why it slowed down). One place where it seems that Microsoft has made strides is in the reduction of spyware you get while surfing the internet. An adaware scan found next to nothing after six+ months of use with Windows 7.

As far as this test goes, it is rather useless. The only telling feature is the startup and shut down times which are mostly unimportant factors for everyday use. Other than that, the study found that programs optimized for OSX run better in OSX and programs optimized for Windows and ported to OSX run better in Windows.

[hypoluxa]

No, it thrives in spite of Apple Hardware. Also, there is no such thing as Apple hardware anymore, they died with the PowerPC. They design ways to cram other people's parts into pleasant looking forms.

Exactly. You can buy a Win PC with the same hardware and then compare them. The only difference is the OS running the HW.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Can't we all just get along? :lol::lol:

My wife's Acer Aspire One AOD250 (just came in today... only $250 new) and my 13" MacBook Pro. They live together in harmony, why can't we? :)

http://i35.tinypic.com/2n9knip.jpg

No, Mazda, this is harmony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FNU81WgGOE)!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i319/RokcetScientist/Picture2-2.jpg

[S8ER01Z]

Dude,
If my car took 2.8 minutes or more to start up... yeah... I would be comparing it. You think people would shy away from a car that required a 2 minute wait every time you started it?

I have heard of people's PCs taking more than 5 minutes to fully start up. No joke.

And, even at 30 seconds vs. 60 seconds... it's noticeable, it's annoying and it effects the computer experience and usefulness of your computer. If you want to do something quick on your computer (check e-mail, look something up) and realize that you have to wait 60 seconds to do a task that will take roughly 30 seconds... it becomes an issue.

Come on...did you look at the numbers? 6 seconds on shutdown difference and 6 seconds on startup... 6 seconds. Also where do you stop the clock? When the desktop appears? When CPU usage drops to 0? What's the criteria here? Regardless 6 seconds is nothing. If you don't have both machines in front of you booting head to head you are NOT going to notice a 6 second difference. That's rediculous.

[pmz]

Boot Camp and Windows 7? I haven't heard or read anything about this so I'm wondering if there are any experiences yet.

[buceta]

I find that a little hard to believe. Even after 6 months with Windows 7, I had very noticeable reductions in loading times and my PC became less and less responsive after initial startup. Connecting to the internet took longer than it had in the past, etc. This is not something I say because I am a mac user, as I switched after Apples intel transition. When all I had were PCs, Windows slowing down over a period of time was a common complaint of mine. Duting this same time I bashed Macs even though I had no experience with them, I just parroted the common talking points that Windows users used against macs. The slowdown is real, and I think most people do notice it. In fact I would argue that many people replace their PC's earlier than they need to because Windows has slowed down, when all they really needed was a reformat. Maybe I am just more aware of these reductions in responsiveness, but they are definitely there.

Bingo!!!

[daniel84]

I got my copy of 7 Home Premium yesterday and it's noticeably slower than Snow Leopard on a quad core with 12GB RAM.