or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard bests Windows 7 in speed tests
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Snow Leopard bests Windows 7 in speed tests - Page 4

post #121 of 169
Can't we all just get along?

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?

post #122 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Can't we all just get along?

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?


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...
post #123 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

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?"
post #124 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

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.
post #125 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Can't we all just get along?

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
post #126 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

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.
post #127 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

Can't we all just get along?

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?


The red computer is about as powerful as that computer in the middle.
post #128 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

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.
post #129 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

*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.
post #130 of 169
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 taskand 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.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone that can do him absolutely no good.
  Samuel Johnson
Reply
post #131 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

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.
post #132 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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
post #133 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.
post #134 of 169
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.
post #135 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

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.
post #136 of 169
CNET forgot to install AntiVirus on the 7. I bet it will make the 7 even slower. ;p
post #137 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

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.
post #138 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

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

The sad thing is that people actually believe this bullcrap
post #139 of 169
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.
post #140 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

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.
post #141 of 169
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.
post #142 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

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.
post #143 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

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.
post #144 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

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.
post #145 of 169
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 $$ and software $$.
post #146 of 169
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

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 $$ and software $$.
post #147 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asherian View Post

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?
post #148 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #149 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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.
post #150 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by buceta View Post

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

Yeah, but which has Wifi?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #151 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

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.
post #152 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

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.
post #153 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

How do you explain this:

http://gizmodo.com/317060/macbook-pr...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.
post #154 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

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..?
post #155 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerl View Post

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?
post #156 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

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.
post #157 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

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??

You'd be surprised - much better than any iMac, whatever they are made of
post #158 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

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.
post #159 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb510 View Post

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.
post #160 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard bests Windows 7 in speed tests