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 3

post #81 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #82 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

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.
post #83 of 169
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.
post #84 of 169
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.
post #85 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

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.

Quote:
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.
post #86 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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 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.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #87 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.
post #88 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

Please stop. HFS+ is just fine and compared to NTFS it's magical 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).
post #89 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

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.
post #90 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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

Quote:
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.

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply

Which of us is the fisherman and which the trout?

Reply
post #91 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeasar View Post

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.
post #92 of 169
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!
post #93 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

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

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

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.
post #94 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

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

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?
post #95 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by S8ER01Z View Post

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.
post #96 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerl View Post

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).
post #97 of 169
EEEEHHHH FALSE!

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

Psystar!
post #98 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by pondosinatra View Post

But the real question is which seems snappier?

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.
post #99 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

"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.
post #100 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

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).
post #101 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by S8ER01Z View Post

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.
post #102 of 169
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).
post #103 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

┬┐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.
post #104 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAdiMundo View Post

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).

They used Win7 drivers. Vista drivers are Win7 drivers until the MFG releases updates.
post #105 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

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

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.
post #106 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

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.
post #107 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.

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.
post #108 of 169
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)tMach-O executable ppc
/Applications/iTunes.app/Contents/MacOS/iTunes (for architecture i386)tMach-O executable i386

I wonder if iTunes and QuickTime for 64 bit Windows 7 are 64 bit?
post #109 of 169
According to CNET baselines the should have said "If your a gamer, GET A MAC and install Windows".
post #110 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

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.
post #111 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimerl View Post

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.
post #112 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.

You don't have to give me a history on the use of Windows PCs 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.
post #113 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.

Newsflash: Macs are PCs with a different operating system and a better looking case.
post #114 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

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.
post #115 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezekiahb View Post

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.
post #116 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.
post #117 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.
post #118 of 169
Apple store is down. Maybe their changing the game yet again...
post #119 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by xwiredtva View Post

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.
post #120 of 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erunno View Post

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.
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