Dude, there is a lot of nifty things that goes under the OS X hood that Windows does not have.
For example, when you uninstall software from the mac, it really uninstalls, only leave some history and maybe preference setting, how about Windows? Well yeah, you uninstall, but it will leave codes of lines in your registry, try installing 100 apps for a few years, uninstall them and then you will see how slow and crappy your windows OS works.
Hmm, there is no defrag on the Mac, that is badddd. Well a lot of noob Windows user who don't know about the Unix architecture will start saying about there is no proper maintenance stuffs on the OS X but hate to spoil their fun, OS X automatically defrags your hard disk when it is idle (on Leopard, in Tiger it is around 3 am). That's why OS X is always fast and snappy.
There are a lot of things that is running underneath OS X. Oh yea, and everyone knows (stated in PC World by one of the commenters) that Windows sucks at kernel management, lets hope in Win7 they will fix this.
Dude, there is a lot of nifty things that goes under the OS X hood that Windows does not have.
For example, when you uninstall software from the mac, it really uninstalls, only leave some history and maybe preference setting, how about Windows? Well yeah, you uninstall, but it will leave codes of lines in your registry, try installing 100 apps for a few years, uninstall them and then you will see how slow and crappy your windows OS works.
Hmm, there is no defrag on the Mac, that is badddd. Well a lot of noob Windows user who don't know about the Unix architecture will start saying about there is no proper maintenance stuffs on the OS X but hate to spoil their fun, OS X automatically defrags your hard disk when it is idle (on Leopard, in Tiger it is around 3 am). That's why OS X is always fast and snappy.
There are a lot of things that is running underneath OS X. Oh yea, and everyone knows (stated in PC World by one of the commenters) that Windows sucks at kernel management, lets hope in Win7 they will fix this.
Not to disargree that Mac OS X is better in many regards, but you should've picked better examples. The MAc doesn't even have an uninstaller?if a user wants to uninstall an application, it has to be deleted manually. Yes you can drag uninstall some applications, but even then it is guaranteed to leave around files in ~/Library/Preferences, etc. Windows provides a built-in uninstaller that is pretty good?registry entries that get left behind are the fault of the application developer, just like an application on the Mac that leaves around preferences files are the fault of the application developer.
Mac OS X does not automatically defrag. It performs hotfile clustering, which will move the most frequently accessed files to the front of the drive so they are nearest the drive head. However most of the time the hotfiles are temp files and cache files, which are not very interesting.
Windows DOES have a built in (real) defragmentation program. It performs an actual defrag, not just hotfile clustering like OS X. However it's all irrelevant as most studies show that unless you are performing disk-intensive work like video encoding or audio recording, fragmentation is not an issue. Most hard drives are 250-500GB nowadays built-in, and most users use just a fraction of that. Most of the used drive space is from the operating system itself.
Not to disargree that Mac OS X is better in many regards, but you should've picked better examples. The MAc doesn't even have an uninstaller?if a user wants to uninstall an application, it has to be deleted manually. Yes you can drag uninstall some applications, but even then it is guaranteed to leave around files in ~/Library/Preferences, etc. Windows provides a built-in uninstaller that is pretty good?registry entries that get left behind are the fault of the application developer, just like an application on the Mac that leaves around preferences files are the fault of the application developer.
Mac OS X does not automatically defrag. It performs hotfile clustering, which will move the most frequently accessed files to the front of the drive so they are nearest the drive head. However most of the time the hotfiles are temp files and cache files, which are not very interesting.
Windows DOES have a built in (real) defragmentation program. It performs an actual defrag, not just hotfile clustering like OS X. However it's all irrelevant as most studies show that unless you are performing disk-intensive work like video encoding or audio recording, fragmentation is not an issue. Most hard drives are 250-500GB nowadays built-in, and most users use just a fraction of that. Most of the used drive space is from the operating system itself.
You only need an uninstaller if the applications put stuff someplace outside the .app bundle. Things in preferences and application support directories are explicitly named with their application identified. No uninstaller for arcanely named files necessary, just drag and drop of the .app and it won't affect you anymore. if you want all traces gone delete the prefs and application support files. But unlike Windows, those are totally inert and you have no registry worries.
You also do not understand HFS+. It defrags EVERY file 20MB and smaller. period. Specifically, when a file < 20MB has 7+ fragments, the threshold just before fragmentation begins to exhibit performance issues, it is contiguously rewritten to an available space. Files larger than 20MB have access patterns where numbers of fragments are essentially meaningless because they are already large enough to force themselves across many tracks and bandwidth is constrained enough that next sector latency is never exceeded during a large file read. This is even less of an issue with buffered drives where reads are done using HW knowledge of file layout in addition to OS driver knowledge. The only caveat is the ridiculous case of intentionally filling your drive beyond 95% capacity and expecting this to all work. There is no defrag process or program which can handle that in a performance acceptable manner.
As for temp and cache files, they don't have long enough life spans to generate the number of accesses that will be needed to drive them into the hotfile section and leave them there over time. After a clean install you might see some of that in the first day or two, but after a couple days o use the small OS related files will always win since cache and temp files have radically short temporal usefulness compared to OS related files.
Hotfile clustering makes a large difference, clumping the statistically most accessed files where read seek latency tends to near best case rather than average case. Averaging sub-millisecond access is a huge win compared to 3-7 millisecond averages.
Will I have to upgrade all my applications to make full use of now Snow Leopard or does SL 10.6 make better use of multi core processors on existing apps?
When I change to an Intel Mac in January (if the new Mac Pros comes out) I'm thinking of upgrading Final Cut Studio at the same time, but will Apple bring out new versions of this and others after 10.6 is launched?
Will I have to upgrade all my applications to make full use of now Snow Leopard or does SL 10.6 make better use of multi core processors on existing apps?
When I change to an Intel Mac in January (if the new Mac Pros comes out) I'm thinking of upgrading Final Cut Studio at the same time, but will Apple bring out new versions of this and others after 10.6 is launched?
All applications will have to be built-against the new libraries, in order to leverage them.
All applications will have to be built-against the new libraries, in order to leverage them.
Yes and no. The implementation of old libraries can be optimized. More importantly, using system frameworks may bring optimization without changing the application.
Some stuff, however, can not be optimized without changing the application. For example, there is no way for the OS to know if the operation on a collection (array, dictionary etc.) can be made concurrently (in parallel) or needs to be made synchronously (one after another). This need to be explicitly set by the developer.
Comments
For example, when you uninstall software from the mac, it really uninstalls, only leave some history and maybe preference setting, how about Windows? Well yeah, you uninstall, but it will leave codes of lines in your registry, try installing 100 apps for a few years, uninstall them and then you will see how slow and crappy your windows OS works.
Hmm, there is no defrag on the Mac, that is badddd. Well a lot of noob Windows user who don't know about the Unix architecture will start saying about there is no proper maintenance stuffs on the OS X but hate to spoil their fun, OS X automatically defrags your hard disk when it is idle (on Leopard, in Tiger it is around 3 am). That's why OS X is always fast and snappy.
There are a lot of things that is running underneath OS X. Oh yea, and everyone knows (stated in PC World by one of the commenters) that Windows sucks at kernel management, lets hope in Win7 they will fix this.
.
I'd love to have a Mac Pro that suddenly allows for 128GB of RAM. That will be a while.
I would love that too. At work I have a dell T7400 running Redhat and I have 128GB of RAM. And I need every byte of it...
Dude, there is a lot of nifty things that goes under the OS X hood that Windows does not have.
For example, when you uninstall software from the mac, it really uninstalls, only leave some history and maybe preference setting, how about Windows? Well yeah, you uninstall, but it will leave codes of lines in your registry, try installing 100 apps for a few years, uninstall them and then you will see how slow and crappy your windows OS works.
Hmm, there is no defrag on the Mac, that is badddd. Well a lot of noob Windows user who don't know about the Unix architecture will start saying about there is no proper maintenance stuffs on the OS X but hate to spoil their fun, OS X automatically defrags your hard disk when it is idle (on Leopard, in Tiger it is around 3 am). That's why OS X is always fast and snappy.
There are a lot of things that is running underneath OS X. Oh yea, and everyone knows (stated in PC World by one of the commenters) that Windows sucks at kernel management, lets hope in Win7 they will fix this.
Not to disargree that Mac OS X is better in many regards, but you should've picked better examples. The MAc doesn't even have an uninstaller?if a user wants to uninstall an application, it has to be deleted manually. Yes you can drag uninstall some applications, but even then it is guaranteed to leave around files in ~/Library/Preferences, etc. Windows provides a built-in uninstaller that is pretty good?registry entries that get left behind are the fault of the application developer, just like an application on the Mac that leaves around preferences files are the fault of the application developer.
Mac OS X does not automatically defrag. It performs hotfile clustering, which will move the most frequently accessed files to the front of the drive so they are nearest the drive head. However most of the time the hotfiles are temp files and cache files, which are not very interesting.
Windows DOES have a built in (real) defragmentation program. It performs an actual defrag, not just hotfile clustering like OS X. However it's all irrelevant as most studies show that unless you are performing disk-intensive work like video encoding or audio recording, fragmentation is not an issue. Most hard drives are 250-500GB nowadays built-in, and most users use just a fraction of that. Most of the used drive space is from the operating system itself.
Not to disargree that Mac OS X is better in many regards, but you should've picked better examples. The MAc doesn't even have an uninstaller?if a user wants to uninstall an application, it has to be deleted manually. Yes you can drag uninstall some applications, but even then it is guaranteed to leave around files in ~/Library/Preferences, etc. Windows provides a built-in uninstaller that is pretty good?registry entries that get left behind are the fault of the application developer, just like an application on the Mac that leaves around preferences files are the fault of the application developer.
Mac OS X does not automatically defrag. It performs hotfile clustering, which will move the most frequently accessed files to the front of the drive so they are nearest the drive head. However most of the time the hotfiles are temp files and cache files, which are not very interesting.
Windows DOES have a built in (real) defragmentation program. It performs an actual defrag, not just hotfile clustering like OS X. However it's all irrelevant as most studies show that unless you are performing disk-intensive work like video encoding or audio recording, fragmentation is not an issue. Most hard drives are 250-500GB nowadays built-in, and most users use just a fraction of that. Most of the used drive space is from the operating system itself.
You only need an uninstaller if the applications put stuff someplace outside the .app bundle. Things in preferences and application support directories are explicitly named with their application identified. No uninstaller for arcanely named files necessary, just drag and drop of the .app and it won't affect you anymore. if you want all traces gone delete the prefs and application support files. But unlike Windows, those are totally inert and you have no registry worries.
You also do not understand HFS+. It defrags EVERY file 20MB and smaller. period. Specifically, when a file < 20MB has 7+ fragments, the threshold just before fragmentation begins to exhibit performance issues, it is contiguously rewritten to an available space. Files larger than 20MB have access patterns where numbers of fragments are essentially meaningless because they are already large enough to force themselves across many tracks and bandwidth is constrained enough that next sector latency is never exceeded during a large file read. This is even less of an issue with buffered drives where reads are done using HW knowledge of file layout in addition to OS driver knowledge. The only caveat is the ridiculous case of intentionally filling your drive beyond 95% capacity and expecting this to all work. There is no defrag process or program which can handle that in a performance acceptable manner.
As for temp and cache files, they don't have long enough life spans to generate the number of accesses that will be needed to drive them into the hotfile section and leave them there over time. After a clean install you might see some of that in the first day or two, but after a couple days o use the small OS related files will always win since cache and temp files have radically short temporal usefulness compared to OS related files.
Hotfile clustering makes a large difference, clumping the statistically most accessed files where read seek latency tends to near best case rather than average case. Averaging sub-millisecond access is a huge win compared to 3-7 millisecond averages.
When I change to an Intel Mac in January (if the new Mac Pros comes out) I'm thinking of upgrading Final Cut Studio at the same time, but will Apple bring out new versions of this and others after 10.6 is launched?
Will I have to upgrade all my applications to make full use of now Snow Leopard or does SL 10.6 make better use of multi core processors on existing apps?
When I change to an Intel Mac in January (if the new Mac Pros comes out) I'm thinking of upgrading Final Cut Studio at the same time, but will Apple bring out new versions of this and others after 10.6 is launched?
All applications will have to be built-against the new libraries, in order to leverage them.
All applications will have to be built-against the new libraries, in order to leverage them.
Yes and no. The implementation of old libraries can be optimized. More importantly, using system frameworks may bring optimization without changing the application.
Some stuff, however, can not be optimized without changing the application. For example, there is no way for the OS to know if the operation on a collection (array, dictionary etc.) can be made concurrently (in parallel) or needs to be made synchronously (one after another). This need to be explicitly set by the developer.