Yep, XP IS faster than OSX

[INFNITE]

Windows have some big advantages over OSX

 

- my nvidia have PureVideo drivers in Win - HW h264 playback

- Acorbat 8 is about 5 times faster it can use GPU under win XP

- flash eat 2 - 3 times more CPU in OS X

- opengl speed ...

- win xp use 2 - 3 time less memory than OS X in normal usage (I don't say about system only I have in mind all environment included apps)

 

peaty much, but OS X feel faster in rest of usage and just feel more polished, finished, stress free, give ability to focus what is important and make work and digital play/hobby pleasure.

 

my Mac can render 1080p H264 video at full speed.

Mac's render PDF MUCH faster than Windows PDF rendering.

Windows XP may use less memory, but Mac's have more efficient memory allocation.

[devilhood]

Thing is tho for me im running osx on quite a nice pc are the driver 100% doing the job on my hardware as they will be doing on a real mac ???? So i dont really know that i can compare osx and windows well a lot are running a system on machines is not meant for

 

Don't be so silly, of course you can compare it. OS X x86 is built for Intel hardware, if you run it on Intel hardware and do a side-by-side comparison of XP you ARE getting an accurate comparison.

Running it on a system (with supported hardware) that is different from the Retail Mac often results in better performance, because you have more freedom to upgrade components just like you would a PC.

If you compare OpenGL you would obviously need to have QE/CI fully operational, but I'm sure you understood that much?

[devilhood]

my Mac can render 1080p H264 video at full speed.

Mac's render PDF MUCH faster than Windows PDF rendering.

Windows XP may use less memory, but Mac's have more efficient memory allocation.

 

Rendering video speed is determined by the Graphics Card, Hard-Disk and CPU, not the operating system. However, for all intents and purposes, the Mac is better suited to Video Production purely because of the available software packages. Avid do cater for PC users as well as Mac users though, and their software it top notch.

Adobe Reader has always been slow on Windows; if you use something like Foxit Reader, it will destroy any kind of Mac rendering comparison. It's basically a bloat-free PDF reader that is super fast.

Edited January 25, 2007 by devilhood

[joe75]

Yeah because tons of plist files all scattered across the filesystem and buried in 10+ levels deep directories is the new century better solution.

 

If thats the case, Vista fits right in

[curlyboy]

Don't be so silly, of course you can compare it. OS X x86 is built for Intel hardware, if you run it on Intel hardware and do a side-by-side comparison of XP you ARE getting an accurate comparison.

Running it on a system (with supported hardware) that is different from the Retail Mac often results in better performance, because you have more freedom to upgrade components just like you would a PC.

If you compare OpenGL you would obviously need to have QE/CI fully operational, but I'm sure you understood that much?

 

Oki doki thx mate i see

[Stadsport]

Windows have some big advantages over OSX

 

- my nvidia have PureVideo drivers in Win - HW h264 playback

- Acorbat 8 is about 5 times faster it can use GPU under win XP

- flash eat 2 - 3 times more CPU in OS X

- opengl speed ...

- win xp use 2 - 3 time less memory than OS X in normal usage (I don't say about system only I have in mind all environment included apps)

- And H.264 is a problem for Macs...since when?

- Preview beats the {censored} out of Acrobat or Foxit or anything Windows has to offer. I HATED PDFs on Windows, and I'm starting to like them under OS X.

- Seems to use the same to me.

- OpenGL speed doesn't seem to be an issue to me. I realize its not as good in OS X, but then again I do all my gaming in Windows.

- You're looking at them differently. OS X (and indeed, most unix-like OS) allocate memory they think they'll use. That way its more readily available. Say you boot up your computer and start Firefox. Then close it. Firefox will still be in memory, so if you open it again it does it much more quickly. But if you close it and then open up a bunch of other apps that need that extra memory, it'll remove Firefox from memory.

Right now, I've got 14mb "free," but another 256mb+ "Inactive." That is, ready to be used. This is with Adium X-Chat Aqua, Firefox, iTunes, and xtorrent opened.

tl;dr: XP doesn't use less RAM, it just uses RAM differently.

[joe75]

XP doesn't use less RAM, it just uses RAM differently.

 

[aberracus]

Perfect;y said stadsport, xp is clunky, very goof for games, and would be usefull in other areas if it doesnt get dp vcpngested with voru malawae and everything that can be afixed on the internet.

 

btw how the hell are you comparing flash?

[devilhood]

Perfect;y said stadsport, xp is clunky, very goof for games, and would be usefull in other areas if it doesnt get dp vcpngested with voru malawae and everything that can be afixed on the internet.

 

btw how the hell are you comparing flash?

 

Is your keyboard broken?

[alicheusz]

- And H.264 is a problem for Macs...since when?

I use a mac and I use a Windows on this same machine. I now that new mac has high speed 2 core CPU that can handle all resolution in HD but windows can do these on much slower machine. I play some HD trailers that are choppy and use 100% CPU on mac, on windows they use 60% CPU and are fluid (nvidia hardware video acceleration). It is pretty big difference for me. It would be good to use GPU on mac because of battery life, and overall system performance

- Preview beats the {censored} out of Acrobat or Foxit or anything Windows has to offer. I HATED PDFs on Windows, and I'm starting to like them under OS X.

Preview is good for preview. I have PDF that Preview can't handle. My point was that these same technology are used more efficient on windows because of hardware acceleration

- OpenGL speed doesn't seem to be an issue to me. I realize its not as good in OS X, but then again I do all my gaming in Windows.

It isn't big issue to me to. Read the topic title.

- You're looking at them differently. OS X (and indeed, most unix-like OS) allocate memory they think they'll use. That way its more readily available. Say you boot up your computer and start Firefox. Then close it. Firefox will still be in memory, so if you open it again it does it much more quickly. But if you close it and then open up a bunch of other apps that need that extra memory, it'll remove Firefox from memory.

Right now, I've got 14mb "free," but another 256mb+ "Inactive." That is, ready to be used. This is with Adium X-Chat Aqua, Firefox, iTunes, and xtorrent opened.

tl;dr: XP doesn't use less RAM, it just uses RAM differently.

I am aware of that, but for some reason My mac instead wipe out my inactive memory when I need more RAM for my active apps create swap and use it instead of RAM

I can run more apps and have responsible os in windows than in mac os x. We must say that mac take more memory but has more functionality also, these same as Vista.

btw how the hell are you comparing flash?

I watch CPU usage these same flash site on my windows take lest CPU. It is more noticeable on my hackintosch because CPU fan gets loud when I surf on flash sites. It's like 20% CPU usage on Win to 50% on mac.

Edited January 27, 2007 by alicheusz

[Jeezoflip]

Faster at what? Making you want to kill your self cause it sucks so badly? I agree, it is faster in that sense.

[borisbadenov]

When I saw this article, I thought it would break down the actual speeds of competing machines but this just seems to be nothing more than a flame war, not so much which system is the fastest, just which one people like the best.

 

To be honest, I think computers today have progressed to such a point that the average user could be totally satisfied with either Windows or Apple. Yes, both excel in different areas, Windows more in office workings, (ei: excel, word, etc) and Mac in the creative areas (video, photo, etc) but I think that anyone today can lay claim that one OS is better than another. It all comes down to personal preferences and how the individual people interface with the OS and GUI.

 

My wife is such a person, does not want to know or tinker with a program, settings, etc. She likes to simply point and click, to have a system that "just works". So, I let her take my Hackintosh for a spin and guess what? She prefers XP. To her, the interface is more intuitive. Granted, she has been used to Windows longer but after quite some time, she just did not feel comfortable with OSX. So no matter what "facts" are told to her about OSX, she will not switch.

 

I have three systems. XP/Vista, OSX and Linux. I use each one for a different reason. I like OSX but there are just some programs that either are not found for the OS or work better in Windows, ei: Adobe Encore. Yes, I could switch to Final Cut but I like the Adobe interface and how it intergrates with photoshop. I also like to do on line gaming, Call of Duty and again, XP is better there. For day to day stuff, I use OSX, for serious photo and video work, XP and when I really want to tinker and hack, I have my Gentoo system tunes like a fine musical instriment.

 

So I have a different use for each OS. I use each one to it's best performance

[EPDM]

Faster at what? Making you want to kill your self cause it sucks so badly? I agree, it is faster in that sense.

 

PLaying games for instance. This is a hit and miss on OSX86.

 

In my case it's a severe miss :-(

[kevinosx]

That's funny because using Cinebench 9.5 I got better results on mac os x 10.4.8 with semthex kernel.

 

WinBlows

CPU

Rendering (1cpu) 179 CB-CPU

Rendering (x CPU) 498 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 2.77 X

 

Graphics Benchmark

C4D Shading 300 CB-GFX

OpenGL SW-L 873 CB-GFX

OpenGL HW-L 1069 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup 3.57 x

 

Mac Results

Rendering (1CPU) 300 CB-CPU

Rendering (x CPU) 538 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup 1.79x

 

Graphics Benchmark

C4D Shading 394 CB-gfx

OpenGL SW-L 1142 CB-GFX

OpenGL HW-L 1165 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup 2.96 X

 

This is on a DELL e1705/9400 Core Duo 2.0 with gma 950 and 1 gig ram!

[mifki]

It gives you the reason in the starting topiuc, some compilers are better than others, maybe the coders did some ASM optmising in the Mac OS version, but otherwise this thread is useless

[Guest goodtime]

Lets compare Apples to Apples. Is Vista as fast as Mac OS X?

[BRP]

An interesting benchmark would probably involve all systems using x86 compiled under the same compiler.

 

Which would pretty much narrow it down mostly to icc and gcc.

 

Either way, there are many ways OS's can make results on this test totally unfair. Among other things, they WILL distribute certain resources differently. No question. Different platforms will decide how to do certain things in different ways when it comes to OpenGL implementations, process scheduling, etc. Heck, I have two different Linux boxes that do these things very very differently.

 

In the end, boiling it down to one number doesn't work, just like comparing your weight to someone way shorter than you isn't a good measure of whether you're fatter than them.

[Conan Obrien]

Yep,

 

Accordong to Geekbench results, WinXP is fater than OSX.

 

http://www.geekpatrol.ca/forum/discussion/...ference/#Item_0

 

 

yes it also runs viruses faster than OSX

[Stadsport]

I use a mac and I use a Windows on this same machine. I now that new mac has high speed 2 core CPU that can handle all resolution in HD but windows can do these on much slower machine. I play some HD trailers that are choppy and use 100% CPU on mac, on windows they use 60% CPU and are fluid (nvidia hardware video acceleration). It is pretty big difference for me. It would be good to use GPU on mac because of battery life, and overall system performance

Sorry, but this is a big load. What the hell kind of Mac do you have, a G3? Also, OS X does us hardware acceleration for the GUI (XP doesn't, afaik), how do you think it comes up with all those pretty effects without lagging the system down at all?

Here's viewing an HD video (in Firefox, no less). It uses less than 30% CPU.

 

Edit: Also, I just watched the trailer for 300 in 1080p. It doesn't even fit on my Macbook's screen and yet it runs 100% full speed, zero lag, whether its fullscreen (downscaled to fit the screen!) or actual size.

Here's a screenshot of that; it uses less than 50% cpu.

 

Preview is good for preview. I have PDF that Preview can't handle. My point was that these same technology are used more efficient on windows because of hardware acceleration

Preview is good for viewing PDFs. I've read ebooks, comics, and even the fatory service manual for my car in PDF format through preview. It doesn't lag a bit; how is there some PDF that it magically can't handle? Also you claim Windows uses HARDWARE ACCELERATION for PDFs. Where did you even hear of this? Do you see "OpenGL or DirectX Capable video card" on the requirements for Acrobat?

 

It isn't big issue to me to. Read the topic title.

Then why bring it up?

 

I am aware of that, but for some reason My mac instead wipe out my inactive memory when I need more RAM for my active apps create swap and use it instead of RAM

I can run more apps and have responsible os in windows than in mac os x. We must say that mac take more memory but has more functionality also, these same as Vista.

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your english, but you said "Your mac wipe out my inactive memory when I need more ram for my active apps."

Yeah, that's exactly the point.

 

I watch CPU usage these same flash site on my windows take lest CPU. It is more noticeable on my hackintosch because CPU fan gets loud when I surf on flash sites. It's like 20% CPU usage on Win to 50% on mac.

And comparing a hackintosh with who knows how many incompatiblities to a perfectly functioning Windows machine is a good comparison, right?

 

Edits: Random corrections and such.

Edited February 3, 2007 by Stadsport