Is it fair to compare hardware of two laptops when they are running different operating systems? Would it be better if they both ran the same operating system while comparing how the hardware affects the experience?
Not only is it fair, it is the proper way to do it.
The point of comparisons is to determine the performance of the system so people have enough information for buying decisions. This necessarily has to include the software stack, including the driving applications running on the software stack. If software is poorly optimized for a platform, the comparisons have to bear that out.
Like, if a platform has a web browser that sucked, and only has that web browser option, the reality to the user is poor web browser performance even though the hardware may be better. What recourse does the user have? Comparisons and benchmarks should bear this out.
Computers are ever more specialized, with many, many, many, axes of performance these days. If you are spending a lot of money for one, it behooves you to drill down to the benchmark that is most applicable to you.
Qualcomm and MS are really pushing the 45 TOPS NPU in the Snapdragon X. That really doesn't tell the whole story. If it is only good at 8 bit integer ops, but sucks at 16 bit integer or 32 bit integer, or floating point NPU ops, well, people need to know that, and many of the aggregate benchmarks will show it.
Your typical home Windows users does not see $1000 notebooks as affordable or reasonable. They have been using the sub $600 POC's not knowing there is a better experience to be add once you get the $1000 or higher. They will not spend the money and no Mac users are jumping ship. Everything more or less stays the same. The shame of it is acting like this is the only computer that can do AI even though Apple has had the equivalent set up 4-5 years ago. The media consists of a bunch of dull tools buying whatever line Microsoft will give them.
"Recall" is something that employers will love. Makes current monitoring look amateur.
Great take! These new Copilot+PC devices are going to help Microsoft maintain Windows' hold on the market share, that's obvious. Apple may have had a head start, which is under-appreciated, but the competition has caught up and Apple is going to have to leap ahead with something spectacular to maintain a noteworthy relevance.
The rendering speed in the Copilot+PC introduction compared to a MacBook M3 was definitely impressive! However, was it rigged, I wonder? Was the macOS app properly optimized to take advantage of the Neural Engine like on the PC? If not, that's not a fault of macOS or the Mac, but of the app itself.
Definitely interesting days ahead. I'd love to be surprised by Apple announcing an M4 Mac at WWDC that blows the Copilot+PC performance out of the water before they're even available in the marketplace!
A typical AppleInsider rant article. The first reply to this article was someone posting the Surface performance and findings. It would have been better and more useful to include elements like that for a more balanced, open-minded report, rather than just being a sour, juvenile attempt at creating the ‘good guys’ and ‘villain’.
Qualcomm and Microsoft did a great job. Great to see some competition, at last! It’ll force Apple to take a good look at their pricing strategy and be a bit more bold and daring with their software rollouts.
The whole “photo copying” argument is a bit weak. Apple has been copying a lot over the years and it’s just how the industry works, how competition works. I see a lot of differences and unique product positioning there. It’s not wrong to compliment the brand you don’t use or like.
A typical AppleInsider rant article. The first reply to this article was someone posting the Surface performance and findings. It would have been better and more useful to include elements like that for a more balanced, open-minded report, rather than just being a sour, juvenile attempt at creating the ‘good guys’ and ‘villain’.
Qualcomm and Microsoft did a great job. Great to see some competition, at last! It’ll force Apple to take a good look at their pricing strategy and be a bit more bold and daring with their software rollouts.
The whole “photo copying” argument is a bit weak. Apple has been copying a lot over the years and it’s just how the industry works, how competition works. I see a lot of differences and unique product positioning there. It’s not wrong to compliment the brand you don’t use or like.
"Photo Copying" is better labeled "diffusion" and it's the reason that Apple won't fall behind, including in AI, and Windows will maintain its hold, even as Arm replaces some x86 hardware. What is happening right now is the hype of the moment as Windows begins to catch up in hardware to Apple.
Good for them, but AI will also drive Apple sales.
Is it fair to compare hardware of two laptops when they are running different operating systems? Would it be better if they both ran the same operating system while comparing how the hardware affects the experience?
Not only is it fair, it is the proper way to do it.
The point of comparisons is to determine the performance of the system so people have enough information for buying decisions. This necessarily has to include the software stack, including the driving applications running on the software stack. If software is poorly optimized for a platform, the comparisons have to bear that out.
Like, if a platform has a web browser that sucked, and only has that web browser option, the reality to the user is poor web browser performance even though the hardware may be better. What recourse does the user have? Comparisons and benchmarks should bear this out.
Computers are ever more specialized, with many, many, many, axes of performance these days. If you are spending a lot of money for one, it behooves you to drill down to the benchmark that is most applicable to you.
Qualcomm and MS are really pushing the 45 TOPS NPU in the Snapdragon X. That really doesn't tell the whole story. If it is only good at 8 bit integer ops, but sucks at 16 bit integer or 32 bit integer, or floating point NPU ops, well, people need to know that, and many of the aggregate benchmarks will show it.
I disagree. Having the same code executed is the real way to compare hardware to hardware. By doing Mac OS against Windows, it like comparing Apples to oranges as the saying goes.
Is it fair to compare hardware of two laptops when they are running different operating systems? Would it be better if they both ran the same operating system while comparing how the hardware affects the experience?
Apple designs its hardware specifically to run its operating systems and vice versa. Scraping MacOS off and replacing it with another OS would be an invalid comparison. Likewise bootlegging MacOS onto another device for which it was not written.
You can’t put gasoline into a diesel car in order to compare it to another car with a gasoline engine.
Comments
The point of comparisons is to determine the performance of the system so people have enough information for buying decisions. This necessarily has to include the software stack, including the driving applications running on the software stack. If software is poorly optimized for a platform, the comparisons have to bear that out.
Like, if a platform has a web browser that sucked, and only has that web browser option, the reality to the user is poor web browser performance even though the hardware may be better. What recourse does the user have? Comparisons and benchmarks should bear this out.
Computers are ever more specialized, with many, many, many, axes of performance these days. If you are spending a lot of money for one, it behooves you to drill down to the benchmark that is most applicable to you.
Qualcomm and MS are really pushing the 45 TOPS NPU in the Snapdragon X. That really doesn't tell the whole story. If it is only good at 8 bit integer ops, but sucks at 16 bit integer or 32 bit integer, or floating point NPU ops, well, people need to know that, and many of the aggregate benchmarks will show it.
Great take! These new Copilot+PC devices are going to help Microsoft maintain Windows' hold on the market share, that's obvious. Apple may have had a head start, which is under-appreciated, but the competition has caught up and Apple is going to have to leap ahead with something spectacular to maintain a noteworthy relevance.
The rendering speed in the Copilot+PC introduction compared to a MacBook M3 was definitely impressive! However, was it rigged, I wonder? Was the macOS app properly optimized to take advantage of the Neural Engine like on the PC? If not, that's not a fault of macOS or the Mac, but of the app itself.
Definitely interesting days ahead. I'd love to be surprised by Apple announcing an M4 Mac at WWDC that blows the Copilot+PC performance out of the water before they're even available in the marketplace!
Qualcomm and Microsoft did a great job. Great to see some competition, at last! It’ll force Apple to take a good look at their pricing strategy and be a bit more bold and daring with their software rollouts.
Good for them, but AI will also drive Apple sales.