Catching up with Win XP

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Ok, first off, I'm not trolling. I'm looking for objective opinions. Second, I spit out the Apple cool-aid long ago, so I am willing to consider new and "different" things.



I just used a PC extensively for the first time in about 5 or 6 years, since my wife just got a laptop with a 1.5 GHZ Celeron processor and 256 MB RAM.



I was utterly amazed at how fast the interface is, even with the XP look. Window zooming was smooth, Web browsing was rediculously fast, Flash performance was amazing, and apps launched really quick (even apps other than the web browser). And keep in mind that this computer is supposedly WAY slower than my PB G4 667. (Probably still is for core tasks, such PS image editing and AE rendering).



I was so impressed, that I really must consider a PC as I am about to buy a new machine for myself (to do graphics and light effects work).



After using this interface for a couple of hours, I honestly don't think OS X will be able to compete against it in the long run, unless things drastically improve performance-wise. The usability issues are about the same for both OS's. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, and both are relatively easy to figure out. So when it comes down to it, I think speed and responsiveness will be the defining factor.



What do you think?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    ddmaddma Posts: 19member
    For speed, a new brand PC should be faster than a Mac in general matter. I think if you concern about speed preformmance, PC would be much suitable for you. But you want to enjoy your computer experience, Mac would be a better choice... There are no any iApps like applications in Windows platform yet.
  • Reply 2 of 48
    The only things I would miss are FCP and DVD Studio Pro. iPhoto is nice, but not crucial.



    I do prefer the Mac OS, but gosh, when it comes down to whether a render will take 2 days or a day and a half, which would you choose?
  • Reply 3 of 48
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Ddma,



    Though I tend to agree that OSX is a much more attractive OS to use, I find the lack of speed annoying as well. The Apple community might argue that Windows XP is the worst OS conceived, it?s just hard to ignore the fact that it is very fast. It?s so fast, I can even overlook some of the bugs and unpolished parts that it might have. However it is Microsoft and their attempts to rule the world that is disturbing. I did go out recently and buy a tablet PC, love it, however I will stop using Microsoft when they come out with this Paladium. Having Microsoft out of the picture only gives me two choices. Apple with their beautiful but slow OS and mediocre hardware or Linux with there I can?t choose a look so here?s a 1000 to choose from but superior hardware. I only wish Apple would get their act together and give us something for our money.

    They would rule this industry, it's like they want to fail. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 4 of 48
    The one feature I really dig in XP is the ability to log yourself out without quitting all of your applications. So if my girlfriend wants to check her email on my box, I don't have to close BBEdit, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, etceteras. Those tasks just keep running until I log back in. I guess it is called "Switch User", whereas "log out" would quit all of those. Whatever it's called, I like it



    In regards to the speed issues, I don't recall a time when web browsing was faster on a Mac than on a PC. It is annoying when you use an XP box and it operates a lot faster than your Mac. But having to use that XP box for an extended period of time reminds me why I use a Mac.



    The work I do on my Mac is mostly interactive. I run BBedit, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, Director, Avid XPress, etceteras. About the only time I ever have to render anything (or do anything that takes prolonged, raw CPU power) is if I have to render an effect in Avid XPress, which is kind of rare. I do ocassional AE work on this box too, but most of my compositing for video is done on an SGI where I do kick the crap out of a Windows or a Mac box for rendering



    But basically, yeah, if I was building a renderfarm, I'd buy a bunch of cheap PCs. But I'm not, and the OS X interface, in my opinion, allows me to navigate my filesystem and applications faster than XP, so I really don't lose sleep over the fact that applications take four extra seconds to launch or that window zooming isn't as smooth as on XP; Who cares? Not to mention I have access to a CLI, and I can run Apache and setup domains on the box in a matter of minutes.



    Mac OS X is perfect for my work, so the whole XP thing doesn't irritate me. XP only irritates me when I'm using it, and thankfully that isn't very often.
  • Reply 5 of 48
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Hey, I'm a member now, cooool
  • Reply 6 of 48
    dygysydygysy Posts: 182member
    Yeah, well I have a Gateway store near my work so I stop in from time to time to see what they have.



    The last time I was there they had a 2.8gig machine with nVidia Geforce 4Ti-4600 graphics card.



    Needless to say it was damn fast, they have an internet connection and surfing was instantaneous.



    Photoshop 7 was on the machine and it loaded in like 3 seconds.



    BUT, I hate Windows XP, OS X is so much a more put together OS and very elegant and an absolute pleasure to use.



    Personally I am willing to give up a little speed for OS X and Apples products.



    I do hope though that in the near future Apple will at least somewhat close the gap between it and its PC cousins.
  • Reply 7 of 48
    XP fast GUI? Are you guys joking?



    The XP-GUI ( with and without the wannabe-fancy look ) is the slowest GUI I've ever tried. This seems a little like swearing in the church, but I am a little amazed that noone has the same experience with the OS that I (and several of my mates) have. It's not that I've tried it on a slow PC either, a P4 1,6Ghz, P4 1,9Ghz, P4 2,63Ghz with 512MB RAM and GeForce 4Ti, and especially menu performance (but generally GUI) was horrible, on all systems. Internet surfing is pretty fast, I agree in that, but not significantly faster than OS X/Chimera..

    Flash is another issue
  • Reply 8 of 48
    stunnedstunned Posts: 1,096member
    XP is fast no doubt, but OS X provides a much better computing experience. If only OS X has XP's speed, OS X would rock!!!



    But really, I dun see this happening anytime soon...
  • Reply 9 of 48
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I haven't used WinXP that much. My impression is that it's much more intrusive with wizards, obscure layouts, and stuff. I'm sticking to Win2K in the meantime.
  • Reply 10 of 48
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    XP is impressive in a lot of ways.



    It's also furiously annoying in others. Product registration, Passport pestering, and MS's preference for you use everything MS. But if you can stomach this (and the XP license), there is a great deal of much improved UI there. I don't think Apple is going to get any great numbers of people to switch from XP -- based solely on user experience.



    That's why the Switch campaign is being broadcast right now. They're not marketing it to XP users, of course; they're targeting Win 98 and Win ME users. The people who are going to need to buy a new computer anyway. For the basics Win XP does much of what OS X can do (digital hub, stable OS, etc). The difference, for the most part, has come down to refinement, UI philosophy... and personal preference.



    The one good thing is that Apple is maybe a year ahead; by the time XP catches up with OS X in graphics and polish with Longhorn, Apple will have the opportunity to set new benchmark in UE.



    BTW. All this said, personally speaking, there is something about OS X that I *far* prefer to XP. Windows still refuses to give up old Windows anachronisms (E drive, anyone?), can be way overcomplicated, and constantly presents a layer of mediation between what's on the computer and the user. OS X, on the other hand, feels clean, direct, and simple.



    [ 11-22-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 48
    Why anyone in these days of broadband access would even consider a MS OS is beyond me.



    [quote]There is an unchecked buffer in Microsoft Data Access Components (MDAC) prior to version 2.7, the company said. MDAC is a "ubiquitous" technology used in Internet Explorer and the IIS web server. The buffer can be overrun with a malformed HTTP request, allowing arbitrary code to be executed on the target machine.



    "This vulnerability is rated critical because an attacker could take over an IIS server or an Internet Explorer client and run code," Microsoft warned. "Any IIS server with MDAC and all Internet Explorer clients should apply the patch immediately."



    Since Tuesday, Microsoft has defined "critical" as: "A vulnerability whose exploitation could allow the propagation of an internet worm without user action." This suggests this latest vulnerability could give rise to a virus as dangerous as Code Red, which spread to thousands of IIS servers last year.



    To make matters worse, it is currently possible to make patched systems vulnerable again, Microsoft said.



    Normally, when an ActiveX control is vulnerable to an attack, Microsoft's patch merely delivers a new, invulnerable control and sets a "Kill Bit" on the old one. Controls with set Kill Bits cannot be invoked by Internet Explorer. However, in this case it is not possible to set the Kill Bit without rendering countless web sites unreadable, Microsoft said.<hr></blockquote>



    The fix is to remove Microsoft from the list of trusted sites. HAR HAR.
  • Reply 12 of 48
    rhoqrhoq Posts: 190member
    Although I am a "Mac Man" all the way and will never purchase anything other than an Apple-made computer, I will admit that I am curious about trying the new Linux based PC-OS "Lindows". I saw some screen shots and it appears to combine elements of WindowsXP and MacOS-X into a rather interestingly familiar GUI (looks a lot like OS-X).
  • Reply 13 of 48
    ryukyuryukyu Posts: 448member
    Can someone please explain what they mean when they say OSX is slow?

    I don't get it at all. Are you guys that re sayin g that on older Macs?

    I see nothing that I would call slowness on my Mac.

    Oh, and I use an XP box everyday at work, yet I still don't see why everyone thinks XP is so much faster than OSX.

    Yes, the processors are not as fast, but that's not the OS.

    Not trying to argue,just trying to understand what it is you guys are talking about.
  • Reply 14 of 48
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    i don't understand why people complai about speed, although i know its a little slower, i too don't notice a hugantic difference. I don't see why it should bother you that other people's computers are faster other then the fact that you must have some sort of speed driven pride. I tend to have 2-3 macs in my home at a time, and the only time you need to replace one, IMHO, is when software and OS's start to have the minimum hardware listed as your HW. As long as ur machine does what you want it to do then i don't see a problem, i only recently disconnected my Starmax 4000/200 from the internet to be used as my sisters .edu gaming computer
  • Reply 15 of 48
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    [quote]Originally posted by ryukyu:

    <strong>Can someone please explain what they mean when they say OSX is slow?

    I don't get it at all. Are you guys that re sayin g that on older Macs?

    I see nothing that I would call slowness on my Mac.

    Oh, and I use an XP box everyday at work, yet I still don't see why everyone thinks XP is so much faster than OSX.

    Yes, the processors are not as fast, but that's not the OS.

    Not trying to argue,just trying to understand what it is you guys are talking about.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm with ya my friend, I don't get it either
  • Reply 16 of 48
    All I'm saying is that I have a 667 PB G4 that is less than a year old. When I compare Jagwire on it, against XP on my wife's 1.5 GHZ Celeron, I noticed that web browsing, scrolling, window responsiveness, application launching, and Flash performance is SIGNIFICANTLY faster on the XP system. And the Celeron is supposed to be a really slow chip, too.



    Her system really eats up the battery, though. And the hard disk is always spinning for some reason-- probably because she doesn't have enough RAM. But keep in mind that her $900 laptop is way faster than my $3,000 laptop in average everyday tasks like web browsing, e-mail, and MS Office use.



    So I don't understand how any of your can objectively claim that OS X is just as fast as XP...



    [ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: browncow ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 48
    robbyrobby Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by browncow:

    <strong>All I'm saying is that I have a 667 PB G4 that is less than a year old. When I compare Jagwire on it, against XP on my wife's 1.5 GHZ Celeron, I noticed that web browsing, scrolling, window responsiveness, application launching, and Flash performance is SIGNIFICANTLY faster on the XP system. And the Celeron is supposed to be a really slow chip, too.



    Her system really eats up the battery, though. And the hard disk is always spinning for some reason-- probably because she doesn't have enough RAM. But keep in mind that her $900 laptop is way faster than my $3,000 laptop in average everyday tasks like web browsing, e-mail, and MS Office use.



    So I don't understand how any of your can objectively claim that OS X is just as fast as XP...



    [ 11-23-2002: Message edited by: browncow ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    in terms of web browsing are you talking about IE.Dude as if M$ is gonna put it on par with windows
  • Reply 18 of 48
    um what people overlook is

    windows has always been a bitmapped display

    gui whike osx is vector based so osx will have

    a large performance hit than windows at this

    point



    where osx really shines is in it bsd core, you

    can go to console mode & still pretty much do

    everything.

    on the pc side win2k is somewhat better than xp

    stability wise



    aqua simply needs some fine tuning which will

    come with time & the finder needs some serious rework ...explorer still beats it for quick navigation.

    if you like os's use & enjoy both ...they are

    just tools after all.
  • Reply 19 of 48
    [quote]Originally posted by Robby:

    <strong>



    in terms of web browsing are you talking about IE.Dude as if M$ is gonna put it on par with windows</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There have been many discussions which have shown that browsing on OSX (regardless of browser) is slower than on Windows. Check out Ars.



    Omniweb, my favorite browser, is the slowest browser in the world. Chimera is about on par with Mozilla in the Windows world. Windows IE is obviously faster. Heck, I read somewhere that IE is in the Windows kernel so it launches faster.



    My main Mac is a 600 iBook, and when I get this thing going, I'm watching beachballs. The NT at work is a 650 PII with only 128MB RAM, and it's often more responsive, even at heavy loads.



    My wife doesn't do much with her TiBook, but it still feels like it's half a step slow, especially compared to my XP AMD Duron (1GHz) at home. My Sawtooth with a 1Ghz Sonnet (+Radeon) is the only Mac I have that feels fast, but that's only when I run OS9.



    I love OSX, but it feels so... pokey. In terms of responsiveness, XP beats OSX in my book.
  • Reply 20 of 48
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>i don't understand why people complai about speed, although i know its a little slower, i too don't notice a hugantic difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    One explanation is obvious: Windows is more quick to respond when there's a lot going on. another explanation is that in OS 9, the top process gets the system's full attention. The difference is that in OS X it will share more with other processes, and one process doesn't keep you from jumping to any other while it's at work (unless it's really really sucking up processor, which just makes it that much slower to switch to anther process.) Browser speeds contribute to this feeling, though it sounds like OW 5 will take care of this while Chimera and Mozilla don't have this problem. Also, some apps take longer to launch sometimes, which they probably shouldn't. You can't do much against IE for Windows when it captures a chunk of RAM to always reside in, but the iApps with the exception of iTunes and maybe less so with iMovie are cuprits. When I'm in one app for a long time and I switch to another, there will be a delay too. So it's a lot of little things that give this general impression. I notice this "pokiness" when I'm doing some more intense stuff but it's not a constant problem on my machine.
Sign In or Register to comment.