or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › WoW/OS X is much slower than WoW/Windows on MacBook Pro - why?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WoW/OS X is much slower than WoW/Windows on MacBook Pro - why?

post #1 of 63
Thread Starter 
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31121

Edit:

Placating the moderator:

Is there merit to the conclusion drawn that OS X is an inferior OS in some respects, including gaming, or is the conclusion reached by the article erroneous?

Happy?

Edit by mod:

Weak, man.
post #2 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31121

Please don't just post links without content.
"I have a dream, that one day, my posts will be judged by their content, not their spelling."
Reply
"I have a dream, that one day, my posts will be judged by their content, not their spelling."
Reply
post #3 of 63
Huh? So World of Warcraft plays slower on Mac OS X than Windows according to that article. How does that equate to "OS X is slower than Windows"?

A true statement would have been "World of Warcraft plays slower on OS X than Windows."
post #4 of 63
That article could have supplied more info.

I can't help but wonder if the version of WoW he was running under OSX was not universal. I can't imagine Rosetta would handle that very well.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #5 of 63
Yeah, talk about content-free reporting...

1) Was the copy of WoW under MacOS X Universal or not?

2) Did they happen to stop and consider, even for a *microsecond*, that the drivers for the video card are different?

I mean really, JC, that was pretty weak.

A content-free post linking to a content-free verbal spewage?

Ya gotta try harder than *that*...
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #6 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
[B]Yeah, talk about content-free reporting...
2) Did they happen to stop and consider, even for a *microsecond*, that the drivers for the video card are different?

That does not in any way change anything. If you have bad drivers, that's not Windows' unfair advantage. That's just OS X's (or Apple's, or ATi's, whoever writes the drivers) weakness.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #7 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yeah, talk about content-free reporting...

1) Was the copy of WoW under MacOS X Universal or not?

2) Did they happen to stop and consider, even for a *microsecond*, that the drivers for the video card are different?

I mean really, JC, that was pretty weak.

A content-free post linking to a content-free verbal spewage?

Ya gotta try harder than *that*...

For a moderator you jump to conclusions far too quickly.
post #8 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
That does not in any way change anything. If you have bad drivers, that's not Windows' unfair advantage. That's just OS X's (or Apple's, or ATi's, whoever writes the drivers) weakness.

You're right. But it doesn't mean that one *OS* is slower than the other, it only means that the *drivers* are slower than the other on that task.

The article is still ill-thought out drivel based on a fact-light informal post on Penny Arcade. It was just designed to get hits, is all.

I mean heck, why don't we compare how long it takes to copy a file on the same volume, and then make grandiose sweeping statements about network speeds?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #9 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
For a moderator you jump to conclusions far too quickly.

Oh please. I read the article, *and* the original PA post, before commenting. It's content-free, and doesn't provide enough info to make any conclusions at all, one way or the other.


As for the rest...

Posting Guidelines. Again.

9. Be descriptive with the title of new threads. Do not start a thread with an ambiguous title like "Guess what..." and then use the text portion of the post to explain. Give your post a headline. This courtesy is especially appreciated in the more highly trafficked forums. Furthermore, threads with no original content will not be allowed. Do not post a link or quote an article while contributing little to nothing of your own.

Edit your original post, or this gets locked, like it should have been in the first place.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #10 of 63
There's an issue with full screen glow in WoW for Mac that cuts frame rate nearly in half...for fuck's sake, how many of these exact same threads will be started today?

Here, I've done JavaCowboy's homework: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...&tmp=1#post224

I told his teacher too...so he's getting a zero.
post #11 of 63
Not to mention that games are written for Windows and ported to OS X. So naturally the game code never uses some of the advanced features of OS X - just enough to glue the Windows calls into a workable OS X call.

This "comparison" is completely useless. These guys apparently do not even realize that they are comparing two different source codes.

I would never expect a cross-platform port of anything to be faster than the original that was written for its platform.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #12 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
I mean heck, why don't we compare how long it takes to copy a file on the same volume, and then make grandiose sweeping statements about network speeds?

Don't get him started on how OS X takes 20 minutes to do a simple 20 MB file copy.
post #13 of 63
Well, until Vista comes out, at least OS X file searches will always be 1000 times faster than Win.
post #14 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
There's an issue with full screen glow in WoW for Mac that cuts frame rate nearly in half...for fuck's sake, how many of these exact same threads will be started today?

Here, I've done JavaCowboy's homework: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...&tmp=1#post224

I told his teacher too...so he's getting a zero.

You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc.

Maybe it would occur to you that the reason I posted is because I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL , and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

From the pattern you've established, I'm sure that if I were to ask if the Mach kernel needs further optimization to catch up vis-a-vis the Windows or Linux kernels, you'd probably have a conniption.

You need to lighten up. Seriously.

Edit: Yeah, I know I should have put a question mark in the title, but from what I see (I could be wrong) it's not possible to edit the title of the thread.
post #15 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc.

Maybe it would occur to you that the reason I posted is because I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL , and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

From the pattern you've established, I'm sure that if I were to ask if the Mach kernel needs further optimization to catch up vis-a-vis the Windows or Linux kernels, you'd probably have a conniption.

You need to lighten up. Seriously.

Edit: Yeah, I know I should have put a question mark in the title, but from what I see (I could be wrong) it's not possible to edit the title of the thread.

Hey...I'm not the one bolding and capitalizing entire phrases. Are *you* ok?
post #16 of 63
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Hey...I'm not the one bolding and capitalizing entire phrases. Are *you* ok?

Uh...emphasis, and for those with short attention spans?
post #17 of 63
It's always been the case that Mac gaming was slower because the market was always so small, people were glad to have a port no matter what condition it was in. Windows was *the* gaming platform so people not only expected the game but that it was highly optimized.

Mac on Intel could help because developers will now be able to test and optimize builds on the same machine but since Mactel is just out, you can't expect instant results.

Also, if it wasn't a universal binary they used, then it speaks for itself. Benchmarks are generally unreliable especially when they are presented in such an ambiguous way.
post #18 of 63
Give Windows a couple months of use, trust me it will be much slower than OS X.
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
MacBook Pro 15" (Unibody)/2.4GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250GB HD/SuperDrive
iMac 20"/2 GHz Core 2 Duo/2 GB RAM/250 GB/SuperDrive
PowerBook G4 12"/1 GHz/1.25 GB RAM/60GB/Combo
iMac G3 333 MHz/96 MB...

Reply
post #19 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc...and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

You did say, in your first post:

Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Is there merit to the conclusion drawn that OS X is an inferior OS in some respects, including gaming, or is the conclusion reached by the article erroneous?

I would suggest that the "defensiveness" to which you refer is simply an answer to your question. People are trying to get across (correctly) that the article is entirely devoid of merit. Yes, Mac OS X can be slow at gaming sometimes. Is it right to test one game on one mac running OS X and Windows, see that the game is slower on OS X, and then conclude that OS X is "slower than Windows"? No, of course it isn't.

The only thing you can conclude is that OS X is slower at running that particular game. That could be OS X's fault, or it could be the game's fault.

Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Uh...emphasis, and for those with short attention spans?

As I understand it, "cap locks" on an online forum is equivalent to shouting. Some people consider it to be impolite.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #20 of 63
Using a single example to prove a wholly more complex thesis is simply nonsensical. Observe one Frenchman driving at 100 km/h and a Spanish-man driving at 50 km/h and you'll state that the Spanish always drive slower than the French?
post #21 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You guys are so defensive. You all feel so threatened by the implication of the slightest imperfection in Mac/OS X, etc.

Hardly. I've got my own hitlist of things wrong in the OS. This was simply a facts/logic issue. WoW is a lot slower. That's true. Jumping to 'the OS is slower' without any qualifiers, parameters, or such is fallacious. That's all.

It's a lot more interesting to deduce *why* than to make sweeping generalizations that aren't really founded in reality, isn't it?

Quote:
Maybe it would occur to you that the reason I posted is because I DON'T HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS ISSUE AT ALL , and that I want to hear other peoples' opinions. Instead, you've all assumed that I'm out to get you... or something.

See, now *that* would have been a great thing to put in your first post: "Anyone have any ideas on why there's this huge slowdown??"

Quote:
From the pattern you've established, I'm sure that if I were to ask if the Mach kernel needs further optimization to catch up vis-a-vis the Windows or Linux kernels, you'd probably have a conniption.

Naw, we'd trot out funnels and point at them and laugh with you.

Quote:
Edit: Yeah, I know I should have put a question mark in the title, but from what I see (I could be wrong) it's not possible to edit the title of the thread.

I got it for you. Actually, I edited it to have both the factual info (and even added the word 'much' because, yeah, 50% the FPS is much slower), without the conclusions the article jumped to, and added a question to prod discussion. *whew*

Work, work, work.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #22 of 63
uh, not that i play any video games, but for the sake of discussion: compilers could have something to do with it. intel compilers are much, much better at producing x86 code than gcc is. plus, GL vs. D3D (not taking sides on that one though), it could be a lot of things.
i freebase user interface
Reply
i freebase user interface
Reply
post #23 of 63
It's not 'it could be a lot of things' in this particular case.

One of the main problem with the test, and Gabe says so, is that both ran with max settings so there's no reason to believe that 'Full Screen Glow' was turned off during the Mac test.

Blizzard says (and you can check it out in the link I provided) that full screen glow kills performance on Macs. I'm not saying WoW for OS X performance will suddenly be on par with WoW for Windows performance but I'm saying it won't be anywhere near twice as slow.

Can someone with an iMac CD and Boot Camp do a test without full screen glow under OS X and Windows so this thread can die?

I know I've said all this and it'll again fall onto deaf ears and the thread will still be overflowing with "it could be a number of things". "of course, Mac graphics drivers are not as optimized as Windows graphics drivers", once I stop posting.

I'm not saying the full screen glow is Blizzard's fault. I don't know who's fault it is...it could be Apple's drivers, Blizzard's code, or both...but in general, OpenGL performance on Mac isn't 'much slower' or 'twice slower'.

There are many instances where OS X beats Windows in OpenGL performance...look no further than Cinebench. There's also a Bare Feats test that shows Quake 3 for Mac beating Quake 3 for Windows by almost 50% (although this one's a bit hard to believe.)
post #24 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Well, until Vista comes out, at least OS X file searches will always be 1000 times faster than Win.

Google Desktop Search.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #25 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Google Desktop Search.

Third party app. Doesn't count.
post #26 of 63
Thread Starter 
Is it possible that OS X, being a relatively young operating system, just does some things well and some things poorly, vis-a-vis Windows?

There's no question that OS X is more secure, user friendly, and, most importantly, more modern (ex Unix shell) than Windows.

However, is it possible that OS X has weaknesses, such as its ability to run games?

This is a sincere question.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It's not 'it could be a lot of things' in this particular case.

One of the main problem with the test, and Gabe says so, is that both ran with max settings so there's no reason to believe that 'Full Screen Glow' was turned off during the Mac test.

Blizzard says (and you can check it out in the link I provided) that full screen glow kills performance on Macs. I'm not saying WoW for OS X performance will suddenly be on par with WoW for Windows performance but I'm saying it won't be anywhere near twice as slow.

Can someone with an iMac CD and Boot Camp do a test without full screen glow under OS X and Windows so this thread can die?

I know I've said all this and it'll again fall onto deaf ears and the thread will still be overflowing with "it could be a number of things". "of course, Mac graphics drivers are not as optimized as Windows graphics drivers", once I stop posting.

I'm not saying the full screen glow is Blizzard's fault. I don't know who's fault it is...it could be Apple's drivers, Blizzard's code, or both...but in general, OpenGL performance on Mac isn't 'much slower' or 'twice slower'.

There are many instances where OS X beats Windows in OpenGL performance...look no further than Cinebench. There's also a Bare Feats test that shows Quake 3 for Mac beating Quake 3 for Windows by almost 50% (although this one's a bit hard to believe.)
post #27 of 63
It's possible that OS X's OpenGL implementation is sub-par. A lot of results appear to suggest this.

It's also possible that OS X's graphics drivers are sub-par.

Finally, it's possible that OS X's architecture generally delivers lower per-application performance and focuses more on overall performance, or that its algorithm for perceived performance vs. real performance works very much differently.

However, this thread is too highly speculative to be of any value.
post #28 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
Third party app. Doesn't count.

Why not? It's searching files just fine.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #29 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Why not? It's searching files just fine.

Don't be silly. The point was to compare Windows XP to Mac OS X Tiger. Tiger contains fast file searching (in fact, so did Panther). XP does not. Third-party software, or even first-party add-on software has nothing to do with it, regardless of its price.

For the many features Mac OS X still lacks or has broken support for, you can't state either "yeah, but there's some thing you can download and then it's much better".
post #30 of 63
Google Desktop, and MSN Desktop Search which is MICROSOFT PROVIDED AND FREE AND THUS SHOULD BE COUNTED, are both cample replacement equivalents to Spotlight.
post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Google Desktop, and MSN Desktop Search which is MICROSOFT PROVIDED AND FREE AND THUS SHOULD BE COUNTED, are both cample replacement equivalents to Spotlight.

So where do we draw the line then...if a line must be drawn. If no line can be drawn, I can name quite a few apps that run much faster under OS X than under Windows.

Please, tell us what should count and what shouldn't...
post #32 of 63
I think he did. If it's provided for free by the OS vendor, include it.

Personally, I'd rather see the line at what ships in the box, just because many people aren't going to be savvy enough to go grab the tool online. (Yes, believe it or not, there are still tons of people out there in that category.) But the above distinction is valid, and I can't *really* argue with it.

Given the above line, I'd include MSN Desktop Search, but not Google's version. That's 3rd party, and I can't see a valid rationale for including those. Otherwise it becomes an intractable fanboi argument. "Oh yeah? Well I know about application RandomObscureApp that shows a 2% improvement over your piece of crap, so MY OS IS BETTER!" Feh. Mindless drivel, that.

(Although I'm still trying to figure out what a 'cample' replacement is... )
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #33 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So where do we draw the line then...

It depends upon whether you are trying to compare operating systems or platforms. Whilst the first is an interesting exercise, the later makes more sense as that is what you use, the platform as a whole, not just the OS in isolation.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #34 of 63
Except that the latter is almost impossible to create meaningful comparisons for that are relevant to all but niches areas. Outside of specialized realms, it's hard to find two people who use the *exact same apps* in general. The best you can really do is say "App A runs better on OS X, but App B runs better on OS Y." and then let people mix and match the apps they use to try and decide which OS to select.

Unfortunately, very precious few people want to do that, because it's like, y'know, hard and stuph, and instead they'd like to state unequivocally that one OS is better than another based on individual data points.

Besides, look at what we're discussing - not just the actual OS, but the applications that come with it. Is that not a platform? You pay for a box o' software, which now includes the OS and some apps. That's the default install, which you are right, is a platform, but it makes a natural line in the sand for comparisons, IMO.

Once you bring 3rd party apps into it, the permutations become essentially boundless, and any given comparison loses whatever statistical significance it may have had.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #35 of 63
Indeed, the user needs to think of what they want to achieve, and then decide which platform lets them do that best.

However, there are a lot of users out there that fit into certain user-segments, such as image editing, video editing, publishing, engineering, consumer etc., and it is possible to compare Windows and Macintosh as platforms in each of these areas.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #36 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Indeed, the user needs to think of what they want to achieve, and then decide which platform lets them do that best.

However, there are a lot of users out there that fit into certain user-segments, such as image editing, video editing, publishing, engineering, consumer etc., and it is possible to compare Windows and Macintosh as platforms in each of these areas.

Er, only vaguely and roughly, IMO. Heck, define 'consumer', and a list of the apps they'll be using. \

I mean, yeah, you can fuzz the definitions out, but the fuzzier you make them, and the more generalized, the less pertinent and relevant they are.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #37 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, only vaguely and roughly, IMO. Heck, define 'consumer', and a list of the apps they'll be using. \

I mean, yeah, you can fuzz the definitions out, but the fuzzier you make them, and the more generalized, the less pertinent and relevant they are.

I agree. I just think they are likely to be more relevant to someone than a straight comparison of OSes.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #38 of 63
World of Warcraft is the only game I play..
Read below to see where I play it..
I don't care if it's slower than WINSHIT..
I use MAC OS.


"for the alliance"
zenga
Reply
zenga
Reply
post #39 of 63
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I agree. I just think they are likely to be more relevant to someone than a straight comparison of OSes.

Agreed - which is why I always try and talk to someone about the specific apps and tasks they need, when helping them decide on a system to buy. The more specific you can get, the more useful to that particular individual. Aggregate data in this case only works for aggregate groups of people, not individuals.

Funny how we went from a specific app to generalizing about the quality of OS, and them from comparing OSs to specific apps, eh?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #40 of 63
Just so you don't feel left out of your own thread...

Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Is it possible that OS X, being a relatively young operating system, just does some things well and some things poorly, vis-a-vis Windows?

Well... *yeah*. No OS is perfect. Every OS has flaws. I can't imagine anyone arguing otherwise with a straight face.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › WoW/OS X is much slower than WoW/Windows on MacBook Pro - why?