battery life who uses laptops and need performance for Call of Duty 4 at the same time...seems pointless...itunes encoder is fast on mac then windows no shit cause apple doesnt know how to code anything for windows...another thing mac suck for gaming!
17.10.2009 11:52 #1
No,
Being Win7/Vista/Ubuntu user the differences seem UNREAL... Snow Leopard wins virtually on any field. See the magnitude -- more than 10 per cent on any aspect???
Waiting to see if this can be confirmed on other tests. If so, I think we have a winner. Even though I am very happy with Win7 performance, this would be the next step.
There is so huge margin for Snow L that I seriously doubt if it is true.
17.10.2009 15:07 #2
looks to me like windows wins. Battery life is meaningless to me. Consider the price difference between running leopard and win 7 on a laptop. Windows 7 has its flaws like any other os, but I do think it's a good improvement and a worthy upgrade from xp. I have always hated apple, but have had to work on them for certain jobs. They really arent that cool, even after getting used to them. Not terrible, but not anything id ever use.
17.10.2009 16:46 #3
And Windows 7 works on hundreds of thousands of different configurations, while OSX is able to optimize for a few dozen.
I challenge you to take the money you spent on that crappy, generic Apple hardware and build a PC with the same amount of cash. Then re-do the comparison using OSX86 vs. Win7. You'll see a vast performance increase in BOTH OS's, but I bet there's a larger performance gap in favor of the PC side.
Comparing performance on Mac AND PC hardware would make it a fair comparison.
17.10.2009 18:08 #4
OSX beating Windows on its native hardware...no freaking duh!
17.10.2009 19:46 #5
NO IT DOESN'T. As someone else pointed out, look at the huge margin on some tests. You can't conclude all macs running osx will be like this compared to windows 7. First of all he cherry picked most tests that would look good and discarded others. Another problem is bootcamp does NOT run things as fast as if you just booted windows into a pc. Even if they say it runs natively, it's not quite as fast. One reason for this is the virtual memory on HD isn't as fast because drive accesses are not the same. There are other reasons. But rather than go there, I did my own tests by NOT having windows load through bootcamp, and by also loading osx in the same machine. Each OS got to load the way it wanted to load with it's favorite drivers etc. And what I found out is that the test results showed the them much closer in performance than he's showing. In many cases windows 7 was faster. A few osx was quicker, but it was like with in 99%, not like 94% like his bogus tests show. I wish they'd do a rematch and make it more fair, and pick less tests that revolve around macs.
17.10.2009 19:54 #6
By the way, even if there are 1 to 2% or even 5% speed differences, there is no advantage speedwise in speed to getting a mac because they give out shitty core 2 duo's for their $1200 to $1600 machines. It's 3 year old technology. I have an i7 @3.6ghz ddr3, 1TB hard drive and it's much, much faster than an imac. And it only cost $800. For example, on his test of cinebench he gives mac 5437 and windows 7 5777 scores respectively. My cinebench score is about 17300 in windows 7! Yes, my machine is about 2 to 3 times faster and on rendering video sometimes more. So who cares about 1% speed differences? Or even 5% when the whole computer is like 200% faster or better? No one. So why these mac fanboys are jumping up and down with joy I have no clue, lol. Next I'll hear about how my windows crashes all day long. No it doesn't. If anything I've had more crashes in safari on youtube than IE8 in windows 7. Windows 7 is ROCK stable! Maybe not perfect, but it's pretty good.
17.10.2009 20:00 #7
for all of you who are bashing macs, you are totally reading this article the wrong way. its not saying that snow leopard is BETTER. its showing how windows 7 is coming almost up to par to macs osx, but not there yet.
17.10.2009 23:23 #8
What I find funny is that the last two tests they show seem to favor Windows 7...
In other news, apples have officially been declared superior to oranges.
17.10.2009 23:50 #9
Originally posted by deejizzle: for all of you who are bashing macs, you are totally reading this article the wrong way. its not saying that snow leopard is BETTER. its showing how windows 7 is coming almost up to par to macs osx, but not there yet.
Haha, you write like a damn politician, or some sleazy lawyer:)...even if one says that "A" is almost as good as "B", but not quite, no matter how you read it, it means exactly the same thing- "B" is better than "A"!
So yes, it's saying that the Leopard is better than Win 7!.
17.10.2009 23:50 #10
this is garbage. this is the least controlled and least scientific test. There are way too many unknowns that are not accounted for as mentioned above. It is completely biased and shows only the things that snow leopard will outperform windows7. And no DUH leopard runs faster on a mac... its called OPTIMIZATION! apple (idunno) coded leopard to run on that hardware and it is optimized for that. windows 7 doesnt have that advantage. that by itself negates any best of windows 7. Why not run on it not on a macbook pro? This test is simply apple propaganda and just trying to dampen the great reviews and hype surrounding windows 7.
18.10.2009 03:34 #11
That Cinebench R10 benchmark is ridiculously misleading, an unprofesional IMHO. The graph doesn't go down to zero.
It gives the impression that Snow Leopard scores more than twice
as much as Windows 7, when in fact it's only scoring 6% more.
I read above that the test is done on a mac running boot camp.
Which isn't exactly a fair test, but I'm interested to know
how much of a performance difference is there when running an
OS through bootcamp?
For example, what benchmarks would they get if they ran
'Snow Leopard' vs 'bootcamp running Snow Leopard'?
Hopefully there will be some more professional benchmarks out there
soon, ones that have both OS's running on native & matching, similar
hardware.
18.10.2009 04:23 #12
Seems reasonable. I suppose the real question is, "Is it worth paying ridiculously more money for?" For me that's a resounding no.
The Macbook Pro they used retails for $1699
I went on HP.com and saw a Quad Core Laptop with 1gb video card selling for $1099.
That extra $600 can go along way. If you wanted to use it all on hardware, you could come up with some beastly machine. Or for me, id probably take that and buy a prosumer soundcard along with a the full version of some recording suite software... while the mac is only going to give me Garageband... but I will get a nifty brushed aluminum case... :(
18.10.2009 09:54 #13
Originally posted by zing99: I did my own tests by NOT having windows load through bootcamp, and by also loading osx in the same machine. Each OS got to load the way it wanted to load with it's favorite drivers etc. And what I found out is that the test results showed the them much closer in performance than he's showing. In many cases windows 7 was faster. A few osx was quicker, but it was like with in 99%, not like 94% like his bogus tests show.
Your results make much more sense to me.
18.10.2009 17:31 #14
Originally posted by shade47: That Cinebench R10 benchmark is ridiculously misleading, an unprofesional IMHO. The graph doesn't go down to zero.
It gives the impression that Snow Leopard scores more than twice
as much as Windows 7, when in fact it's only scoring 6% more.Um...Windows was the winer in that test, Snow Leopard. Windows won the last two tests.
Considering that you can get a nice one-generation-old Windows 7 laptop for less than the price of the current Apple offering (built on three-generation-old PC parts), it is just one more confimation that PC is a better deal...and getting better by leaps and bounds now that Windows 7 is out.
18.10.2009 22:55 #15
Quote:Originally posted by shade47: That Cinebench R10 benchmark is ridiculously misleading, an unprofesional IMHO. The graph doesn't go down to zero.
It gives the impression that Snow Leopard scores more than twice
as much as Windows 7, when in fact it's only scoring 6% more.Um...Windows was the winer in that test, Snow Leopard. Windows won the last two tests.
Considering that you can get a nice one-generation-old Windows 7 laptop for less than the price of the current Apple offering (built on three-generation-old PC parts), it is just one more confimation that PC is a better deal...and getting better by leaps and bounds now that Windows 7 is out.Whoops!
Sorry, wrong way around... My bad :(
...It's Still misleading however.
18.10.2009 23:26 #16
How about Mac makes an OS that will run on something besides there own hardware and then we can start to talk about a fair comparison. Other wise this is bull crap. Of course there OS is gonna win on their computer, nevermind I forgot every computer is exactly the same.
19.10.2009 12:01 #17
Good read, thanks guys/gals!
I find that some of the AD users actually did a more professional test than the ones used in the article.
I do enjoy the Mac vs PC commercials, but come on, in actuality, i know all of the facts are bloated and distorted...
22.10.2009 12:09 #18
Originally posted by 3ntreri: Comparing performance on Mac AND PC hardware would make it a fair comparison.The test was done on the same computer. That is the same hardware.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1846
(yes, I know it's Vista)
The MacBook Pro was once the fastest windows machine due to it having more than 4 GB of ram. The new 27" iMac's are quad core with up to 16 GB!
22.10.2009 16:39 #19
Who or what is this Dong Ngo over at Cnet? is he really that dumb. How can you test Windows on an Apple Mac which is so tightly controlled with everything optimized for the Mac? Try installing the lastest games on that Mac. Wow they don't work at all - zero performance than. Want a fair test. Give the Crapple fanatics a $1000 to buy a Mac and install the Mac OS and then give the computer users a $1000 to buy a real PC and install Windows 7 64 bit. The PC will thrash the living daylights out of the Mac every single time. I love Macs and Mac users - they are the biggest joke in the computing world. If only Mac users had the brains to match the amount of money they have. I have a new Intel Core i7 950, with 7TB HDD, Gigabyte EX58 Extreme MB, 6gb Corsair Ram, Corsair HX850 PS, Gigabyte HD5850 Video and 4 DVD-RWs running Windows 7 64bit and a 27 inch Dell monitor. Try buying that from Apple - I'd need a new morgage and have to give up an arm and a leg and then it still wouldn't play any decent games.
23.10.2009 04:07 #20
Leopard which has NO viruses or spyware>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Winblows which is has TONS of viruses and spyware.
23.10.2009 22:14 #21
Originally posted by vyze: The MacBook Pro was once the fastest windows machine due to it having more than 4 GB of ram. The new 27" iMac's are quad core with up to 16 GB!It was never the fastest windows machine...not even the fastest windows laptop...laptops supporting 8GB were common when the MacBook Pro came out. As for the new iMac, it is not a laptop, and should not be compaired with laptops. It is a desktop, and not a very impressive one...it does have a big screen and a interesting mouse idea, but for their Top-Of-The-Line to cost $2000 without a I7 CPU is just as insane as charging $1200 for a base model.
24.10.2009 04:04 #22
Quote:It was never the fastest windows machine...not even the fastest windows laptop...laptops supporting 8GB were common when the MacBook Pro came out.I meant to say portable, not machine, and that is going on a new article that I read. What isn't common is the use of windows supporting 8GB. I run only 64-bit operating systems between Windows, Linux and OSX but most people do not.
27.10.2009 00:17 #23
Originally posted by fb2000: Leopard which has NO viruses or spyware>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Winblows which is has TONS of viruses and spyware.Liar, there are several Mac viruses out there, but who is gonna take all that time to write a virus to break 4 computers.
27.10.2009 15:04 #24
Quote:Liar, there are several Mac viruses out there, but who is gonna take all that time to write a virus to break 4 computers.Mac doesn't have a virus the way that windows has virus.
You can get a trojan virus which is the same as spyware/adware/malware that you install proactively unintentionally.
29.10.2009 12:17 #25
Originally posted by vyze: Quote:Liar, there are several Mac viruses out there, but who is gonna take all that time to write a virus to break 4 computers.Mac doesn't have a virus the way that windows has virus.
You can get a trojan virus which is the same as spyware/adware/malware that you install proactively unintentionally.There realy are not that many Windows Viruses by your standards...most of it is spyware & trojans & malware. BTW...a trojan is not the same as spyware, adware, or malware; none of these are the same thing...though some of the items can be more than one at a time.
30.10.2009 04:37 #26
I think of the fools who buy Macs as very simple people who are unable to learn any basic computer skills. They need their hand held for everything and pretty much has to be dumbed down to the lowest point. An Apple product is more for the 'fashion' as they are horribly overpriced and the technology is old or limited. There is a better product in every field that Apple is in but, yuppies and tools don't care as Apple is whats cool now.
1.11.2009 21:47 #27
