nairpicmacos Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 I managed to successfully install Leopard 10.5.1 OSx86 Kalyway. Everything worked out of the box. I also managed to update Leopard and it works fine. The OS runs pretty fast on my computer, but apps like iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb, Aperture run slower than I expected. I'm most interested in HD movie editing and photo editing and I always thought Apple's Macs to be a good solution with apps like FinalCut Pro, Aperture. That's why I wanted to try MacOSX before considering buying a Mac. Thanks to OSx86 project I managed to give it a try without paying considerable amount on money. But I'm really dissapointed with the way the applications run. They're not that fast like every Mac guy says. I also made a comparison between Photoshop CS3 running on Windows and Leopard 10.5.2 Kalyway, and I must say both run very fast on both operating systems. So is it only Apple's software that runs slower? I consider my computer to have good hardware specs: Processor: Intel Core2Duo E6300 1.86Ghz Motheboard: Gigabyte 965P DS3 RAM: 4GB DDR2 800Mhz Video: Leadtek GeForce7600 GT Extreme 256Mb HDD: WD SATA II 250GB So my question is do you think running MacOS X and mac applications running natively on a Mac computer are faster than running them on a regular PC with Hackintosh installed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hecker Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 Software "speed" depends on many factors so there is no real straightforward answer to your question. It will depend mainly on the machine the software is running and the amount of resources available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josh256 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 99% hackintoshes are using Intel Desktop chipsets, RAM and processors (EDIT: 99% of desktop hackintoshes). These have ~twice the raw bus/throughput of their mobility counterparts (which are employed on Mac Minis and iMacs.. eg. Merom FSB is 667MHz while Conroe is 1066MHz). Dollar for Dollar a hackintosh will easily outperform it's Mac Mini/iMac counterpart as you're comparing desktop components to mobility components (Mac Pro withstanding as you'll spend about same to build a hackintosh on server mobo/CPU/ECC RAM/etc). "MBs, Mac Minis and iMacs do *not* run the Intel Desktop CPUs (at present: Conroe) but rather its mobile siblings, Yonah and Merom.. Minis were still running on obselete Yonah Duos well into 2007 while the rest of the fam was upgraded to Meroms (which weren't all that much faster than the yonah but deliver the true 64-bit [EM64T] instruction sets). So for anything except the Mac Pro across the board the accompanying mobile/express chipsets are also noticeably slower. Of course they also use slower RAM, slower disks, etc.. but in short we're comparing notebook/mobility components (across all but the Mac Pro) to desktop components. So in a nutshell: Yonah = Mobility Core Duo Merom = Mobility Core 2 Duo Conroe = Desktop Core 2 Duo" http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...3&hl=sd39p2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aspirina750 Posted January 22, 2008 Share Posted January 22, 2008 If you compared to identical machines, one Apple the other a Hackingtosh, I would say the Apple, probably because it will run all the hardware optimizations that apple provides. Comparing costs a hackingtosh should be faster. My 2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurdFergasun Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 it's all speculation without benchmarking the programs. xbench not included, but maybe some file compression numbers. RAW conversion within CS3, and perhaps even some intel gaming benchmarks, all done in leopard, but one on a comparable mac and one on a hack. Problem with the hackintosh is that one hardware setup may be more ideal than another, and therefore perform differently. still would be interesting to see some numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagutial Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 I managed to successfully install Leopard 10.5.1 OSx86 Kalyway. Everything worked out of the box. I also managed to update Leopard and it works fine.The OS runs pretty fast on my computer, but apps like iMovie, iPhoto, iWeb, Aperture run slower than I expected. I'm most interested in HD movie editing and photo editing and I always thought Apple's Macs to be a good solution with apps like FinalCut Pro, Aperture. That's why I wanted to try MacOSX before considering buying a Mac. Thanks to OSx86 project I managed to give it a try without paying considerable amount on money. But I'm really dissapointed with the way the applications run. They're not that fast like every Mac guy says. I also made a comparison between Photoshop CS3 running on Windows and Leopard 10.5.2 Kalyway, and I must say both run very fast on both operating systems. So is it only Apple's software that runs slower? I consider my computer to have good hardware specs: Processor: Intel Core2Duo E6300 1.86Ghz Motheboard: Gigabyte 965P DS3 RAM: 4GB DDR2 800Mhz Video: Leadtek GeForce7600 GT Extreme 256Mb HDD: WD SATA II 250GB So my question is do you think running MacOS X and mac applications running natively on a Mac computer are faster than running them on a regular PC with Hackintosh installed? Hi, Strangely I have similar spec to you, same processor, similar motherboard and the same RAM. The only difference is my video card which is a 1gb Nvidia 9500GT. To speed up, after installing applications try repairing disk permissions from disk utility. Also, go to system profiler and see if the system is detecting both of your processing cores. A lot of people have had this problem and it can significantly slow your system down as some of the processor's operation rely on multi-core processing. Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts