I run an old iMac 266 under OSX and a 1.2 Celeron with WinXP.
running one app at a time, they seem about equal, but I can run 3 or 4 apps on the Mac and still get a smooth (if not snappy) response from the system. The XP box, though, bogs WAAAAY down when running multiple apps ... app changes and window opening can take 5 seconds or sow... VERY SLOW.
I would bet, however that with a P4 and a dedicated Graphics card, XP would probably be very comparable to OSX on a G4 .... but...
...but ... I have spent way more time trying to make things work in XP than I do in OSX ... plug-and-play is still way behind in the Windows world.
In the end, either system would work, but I am willing to pay the premium $$ for a Mac in the same way that I am willing to pay $$ for a Caddillac rather than drive a Kia !!!
Invalid argument. These discussions nearly ALWAYS ignore the fact that near to all Mac applications behave according to rules, as far as cycle sharing goes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some far better than others (the MS apps, in particular, are terrible in this regard).
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's impossible to multitask in Mac OS. I did, well enough, for years. But there's multitasking and there's multitasking. OS X is smoother even then well-behaved apps under OS 9, and much better with not-so-well-behaved apps *cough*Canvas*cough*. Principally, for me, it's a boon just to be able to switch to and from an application while it's churning away on a task for all it's worth (c.f. the difference between Sherlock indexing on OS 9, and on OS X).
[quote]<strong>It's a cinch to use multiple applications concurrently - I do it all the time. However, I agree that the two multitasking strategies advantage two different work methods: those that work with few applications at the same time will prefer OS9; those having a number of automated tasks (ripping, compressing, downloading, replaying, rendering) running concurrently and demanding the same level of computation will opt for OSX and preemptiveness.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sort of, but not really. If you work with a few single-threaded applications in OS 9, it's nice as long as every one but the foreground app is idle. Unfortunately, OS 9's threading support sucks, especially in performance, so you're stuck there. If you have a DP system, OS X is almost automatically better, just because it uses both processors without having to be told to.
Also, the preemptive nature of OS X gives you better AppleScripting (no more timing out on the Finder because it's busy) and Services, both of which can be used to enhance the currently running app. Finally, if the frontmost app uses OS X's preferred event handling mechanism, it will run more smoothly without having to behave greedily. In OS 9, behaving well carries a fairly stiff performance penalty.
Comments
I run an old iMac 266 under OSX and a 1.2 Celeron with WinXP.
running one app at a time, they seem about equal, but I can run 3 or 4 apps on the Mac and still get a smooth (if not snappy) response from the system. The XP box, though, bogs WAAAAY down when running multiple apps ... app changes and window opening can take 5 seconds or sow... VERY SLOW.
I would bet, however that with a P4 and a dedicated Graphics card, XP would probably be very comparable to OSX on a G4 .... but...
...but ... I have spent way more time trying to make things work in XP than I do in OSX ... plug-and-play is still way behind in the Windows world.
In the end, either system would work, but I am willing to pay the premium $$ for a Mac in the same way that I am willing to pay $$ for a Caddillac rather than drive a Kia !!!
<strong>
Invalid argument. These discussions nearly ALWAYS ignore the fact that near to all Mac applications behave according to rules, as far as cycle sharing goes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some far better than others (the MS apps, in particular, are terrible in this regard).
I don't think anyone is arguing that it's impossible to multitask in Mac OS. I did, well enough, for years. But there's multitasking and there's multitasking. OS X is smoother even then well-behaved apps under OS 9, and much better with not-so-well-behaved apps *cough*Canvas*cough*. Principally, for me, it's a boon just to be able to switch to and from an application while it's churning away on a task for all it's worth (c.f. the difference between Sherlock indexing on OS 9, and on OS X).
[quote]<strong>It's a cinch to use multiple applications concurrently - I do it all the time. However, I agree that the two multitasking strategies advantage two different work methods: those that work with few applications at the same time will prefer OS9; those having a number of automated tasks (ripping, compressing, downloading, replaying, rendering) running concurrently and demanding the same level of computation will opt for OSX and preemptiveness.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sort of, but not really. If you work with a few single-threaded applications in OS 9, it's nice as long as every one but the foreground app is idle. Unfortunately, OS 9's threading support sucks, especially in performance, so you're stuck there. If you have a DP system, OS X is almost automatically better, just because it uses both processors without having to be told to.
Also, the preemptive nature of OS X gives you better AppleScripting (no more timing out on the Finder because it's busy) and Services, both of which can be used to enhance the currently running app. Finally, if the frontmost app uses OS X's preferred event handling mechanism, it will run more smoothly without having to behave greedily. In OS 9, behaving well carries a fairly stiff performance penalty.