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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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).
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.
Comments
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.
As for ZFS, I think it was licensing issues.
Correct, one of the beauties of OSX is that it automatically does for you what windows requires be done manually. Now only if they'd do the same with disk permissions
As I already wrote Windows does (and have been doing for quite some versions) file system optimizations all the time in the background. Like OS X it just refrains from a full disk defragmentation. That doesn't mean that strategically important files aren't defragmented and moved to beneficial locations on the hard disk. For instance, AFAIK windows move files relevant to booting to the start of the disk so that disk seeks during boot are reduced.
As for ZFS, I think it was licensing issues
Doubt it. Apple has been working on a port for a long time before they dropped it. I'm not very versed in licensing issues but I very much doubt that they would have started if something as fundamental as licensing wasn't clear. ZFS is licensed under CDDL which should pose no problem other than for GPL people.
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
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.
Please stop. HFS+ is just fine and compared to NTFS it's magical
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).
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.
Even the dumbest allocation algorithm should have no problem finding consecutive blocks on a half-filled disk, especially when the load is minimal. That's not really proving anything.
Really? Using NTFS or worse FAT32 data would be scattered all over that 1 TB HDD. It's only 15 years of Windows experience
Plus, NTFS was revolutionary when it was first introduced. Unicode support, arbitrary amount of meta data, transparent full disk encryption and compression, quotas, etc. Dave Cutler's team actually proved to be quite forward-looking when they designed Windows NT and NTFS. Plus, it's not like Microsoft hasn't updated the file systems in recent years with the usual amount of performance optimizations and new features (e.g. transactions, shadow copies).
HFS+ was also updated
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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).
"It's the only platform, for now, that can run both Windows and OS X."
Psystar!
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.
"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.
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).
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.