Test Shows Snow Leopard is Faster Than Win 7

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

daship

Distinguished
Mar 3, 2009
2,900
0
20,960
75
The test is bull shit and Bogus.

Running Windows 7 with boot camp drivers, give me a break. Nt to mention it was probably Beta or RC Windows 7.

I have a PC that runs OSX retail and Windows 7 retail. I will rerun these tests and see what the hell is up. I promise Win 7 will win.
 

griffed88

Distinguished
Nov 12, 2008
204
0
18,680
0
ummm, you cannot get as good a quality laptop as a macbook pro for "waaaaay" less money. Try finding me an aluminum unibody laptop with a decent dedicated graphics card and dual core proc above 2.3ghz and a battery that will last 8 hours on top of some of the best screens in any laptop for at least $500, no ill give you $300 cheaper than a macbook pro. You can't, I've looked. People who buy Mac's arent looking for cheap computers, they don't sell low end. Granted you could get a really fast laptop with better graphics for $1500 but you sacrifice battery life and you get cheaper components than what Apple uses. Also, depending on your point of view, Mac's generally look sexier than gaming PC's. I have an ASUS g50vt-x5 and it is an ugly sumbitch compared to a macbook pro. Everyone seems to think you are getting a piece of crap that is overpriced when in actuality you are getting what you pay for. A solid, stable, good-looking computer that costs slightly more than similarly spec'd systems but is built a helluva lot better.
 

codeman03xx

Distinguished
Apr 16, 2008
25
0
18,530
0
OMG COME ON PEOPLE THEY ARE WRITING TO SPECIFIC HARDWARE TO MAKE IT FAST... ALSO THE FREAKING MACBOOK PRO IS $1699 FOR THE LOWEST MODEL!!! YOU COULD GET THE MOST TOP OF THE LINE COMPUTER FOR LESS THAN THAT AND EXTREMELY OUT PREFORM THIS TIMES. ALSO BETTER MEMORY AND SSD ON A PC WOULD MAKE THIS WAY FASTER AND MAKE IT STILL UNDER MAC BOOKS PRICE.
Here is the breakdown:
ASROCK Motherboard $50
INTEL CPU E3300 Wolfdale $60
ASUS 9600 GT $80
4 GB RAM $90 (CORSAIR DOMINATOR; they didn't use this in the test rig...)
$280!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR A PC!!!!!!!!!!!!!
$1700 for the same damn thing from APPLE SAUCE


THIS IS A BOGUS ARTICLE. THIS ARTICLE NEEDS PULLED. MICROSOFT SHOULD SUE YOU GUYS THIS IS TOTAL LOAD. SORRY THIS IS JUST ENRAGING ME.
 
G

Guest

Guest
@codeman03xx

First off, let me start with this, I am not a Mac fanboi nor any os fanboi. But if you had the decency of actually going to their site and looking at what the macbooks are actually made of and what it has, then you would see something else other than someone on a forum jizzing on your face.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro?mco=MTAyNTQwMDc

I don't anywhere on where the lowest priced macbook pro starting at $1699 and if you actually went to this page:

http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/

You would see right away why it would cost more but that doesn't mean I don't agree with you that the crap is so over priced. I don't know if other manufacturers use that special battery as well and nor do I really see anywhere else that you get a unibody aluminum body. I couldn't care less about the OS though.
 

rajaton

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2009
47
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]griffed88[/nom]ummm, you cannot get as good a quality laptop as a macbook pro for "waaaaay" less money. Try finding me an aluminum unibody laptop with a decent dedicated graphics card and dual core proc above 2.3ghz and a battery that will last 8 hours on top of some of the best screens in any laptop for at least $500, no ill give you $300 cheaper than a macbook pro. You can't, I've looked. People who buy Mac's arent looking for cheap computers, they don't sell low end. Granted you could get a really fast laptop with better graphics for $1500 but you sacrifice battery life and you get cheaper components than what Apple uses. Also, depending on your point of view, Mac's generally look sexier than gaming PC's. I have an ASUS g50vt-x5 and it is an ugly sumbitch compared to a macbook pro. Everyone seems to think you are getting a piece of crap that is overpriced when in actuality you are getting what you pay for. A solid, stable, good-looking computer that costs slightly more than similarly spec'd systems but is built a helluva lot better.[/citation]

Acer Travelmate 6293-6555: $1190 CAD, 2.5GHZ Core 2 Duo, 4GB Ram, 320GB HD, 12" Anti glare Screen, Vista Biz/XP, Webcam, card reader, bluetooth, fingerprint scanner, 4.7lbs, 7 hour battery, firewire, S-video.
Mac equivalent: $1369 for Macbook with a 2.13ghz Core 2 duo with a glossy(EVERYONE HATES THOSE!) screen, and a 5 hour battery. OR a Macbook Pro for $1809 for the same specs. $500 is not a little difference in price.
If Mac matched prices with PC's, didn't make everything proprietary, and changed marketing strategies, I would consider buying one, but the odds of that happening are...well...zilch.
If you look at gaming computers you'll see that everybody has a *GASP* window on the side, water cooling, aftermarket fans, cool paint job, lighting system, list goes on and on. If you don't like the way the laptop looked, then you had the choice to NOT GET IT. There's lots of laptops out there in the PC world that look different, but all Macs look the same. So you have no real grounds to complain, you just were either too lazy or didn't care enough to find a PC that you actually liked the look of. Next time you say a PC looks bad, just google cool computer case and you'll find something you like.
 

wildwell

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2009
658
0
19,060
50
I think this test sounds legit and points out some of the possible variables that could lean towards Apples advantage.

As a control, I would like to see a similar test done on Mac Pro desktop against a PC desktop built with identical hardware but NOT assembled by Apple. Then run the benchmarks against each other.
 

jaragon13

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2008
396
0
18,780
0
- Snow Leopard booted and shut down around six seconds faster than Windows 7.
- Snow Leopard took 149.9 seconds to convert 17 songs from the MP3 format to the AAC format. Windows needed 12 seconds more for the same job.
- Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds vs. Windows 7's 723 seconds to convert a movie file from the MP4 format into the iPod format while having iTunes converting songs in the background the job (versions of QuickTime were different, however).
- In a battery test, Windows 7 lasted 78 minutes, while Snow Leopard managed to stay on for 111 minutes.
- Windows 7's Cinebench R10 score was 5,777 vs. 5,437 for the OS X.
- Windows 7 in Call of Duty 4 scored 26.3 frames per second while Snow Leopard got only 21.2 fps.

Those are all the reasons why this is wrong.

Seriously, Cnet fucked it up, you should stop fucking it up. But no, really, I think I'm removing TH/DT from my bookmarks.
 

rajaton

Distinguished
Oct 15, 2009
47
0
18,530
0
[citation][nom]jaragon13[/nom] But no, really, I think I'm removing TH/DT from my bookmarks.[/citation]

Blame Marcus! He started it! Mmmm Apple..nom nom they go down so much better than PC's :p
 

eddieroolz

Splendid
Moderator
- Snow Leopard took 149.9 seconds to convert 17 songs from the MP3 format to the AAC format. Windows needed 12 seconds more for the same job.

- Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds vs. Windows 7's 723 seconds to convert a movie file from the MP4 format into the iPod format while having iTunes converting songs in the background the job (versions of QuickTime were different, however).
The original writer of this test does realize that iTunes and QT are coded like trash on Windows and probably have a big impact on processor use, right?
 

Euphoria_MK

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2009
492
0
18,790
1
You guys are clueless... Bootcamp drivers slowing down Windows?.... lololol do you even know what you are talking about?

Macbooks use exactly the same hardware as you can find in other laptops configured with same specs. The point is that since Apple makes their own Laptops and Desktops they have the advantage of compiling their kernel and other drivers specifically for the the hardware use, thus you get increased performance and battery life, and why would I want to use my laptop for gaming? For that I have my Vista 64bit 3.6GHz X4 940 BE with 4870 1G x 2 Crossfire @800/1000 .
I use my Macbook 13' for work and occasional internet surfing and watching movies when I am traveling.
I have dual boot Snow Leopard and Win 7 and I absolutely agree with the review.
 

tlmck

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2007
2,570
0
21,160
103
"Test Shows Snow Leopard is Faster Than Win 7"

No it does not. The test shows Snow Leopard runs faster natively on a Mac than Win 7 runs under Boot Camp on a Mac.

Nice try for an amateur though.
 

Euphoria_MK

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2009
492
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]tlmck[/nom]"Test Shows Snow Leopard is Faster Than Win 7"No it does not. The test shows Snow Leopard runs faster natively on a Mac than Win 7 runs under Boot Camp on a Mac.Nice try for an amateur though.[/citation]

No offense but it is you that is the amateur. Boot camp does absolutely nothing to slow down Win 7. All it does is help you repartition the HardDrive and install Win 7 directly from Mac OS X without loosing your current OS. Performance wise it will be the same as reformatting the whole hard drive and doing a clean install of only Win 7.
I can clearly say that you've never used BootCamp, but if you want to find out more about it before making such statements you can use google and research. There is plenty of info on the net of how bootcamp works.
Cheers

 
G

Guest

Guest
With very few exceptions, OSX has always been slower on cross-platform applications that were NOT coded by Apple.

Besides, I'll gladly sacrifice raw speed for the superior eye-candy of Linux, for the cost of a crappy iMac, I can build a screamingly fast Phenom II PC.
 

jjchmiel78

Distinguished
Mar 27, 2009
45
0
18,530
0
Euphoria_MK I will admit I do not know anything about bootcamp. But let me ask you this? Where on the hard drive is OSX installed and where is that new partition?Just assuming as you say is true. I would think such easy software developed by mac would make sure that fresh partition would be on the inner area of the platter reserving the faster read area of the hard drive for OSX. All apple software for the test? really that is fair? Despite the fact you are clearly a mac fan, you have to admit the test is utter complete bull and does more harm for mac image with the users of this site. My mom on the other hand would say "oh how nice, maybe I should get a mac? Oh how much is it? well all I really do is email and ebay, I will get the PC." Mac is all about image and I really hope they cross the 50% market share for "being so much better" and see how well they stand up.
 

randomizer

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]tlmck[/nom]"Test Shows Snow Leopard is Faster Than Win 7"No it does not. The test shows Snow Leopard runs faster natively on a Mac than Win 7 runs under Boot Camp on a Mac.Nice try for an amateur though.[/citation]
*facepalm*
 

Carson

Distinguished
Mar 5, 2008
57
0
18,630
0
I was all set to buy An Apple in 1987, but at that time the company engaged in the smear that DOS was "hard to learn", which was a blatant lie. I was put off that a company marketing to educators would feel that half a day's learning--all anyone NEEDED to learn most of the DOS they'd need--was both difficult and undesirable. For EDUCATORS. That gave that Apple a bad taste in my mouth, and so I went to Microsoft. At the time, that was the only reason.

After I had worked with Windows for quite a few years, I became interested in Linux. It seemed to me that, if I were to go to the trouble of learning a different OS, Linux was free and very friendly and "not so hard to learn" as, for example, why anybody would choose to BUY an Apple instead. Does Apple market to impulsive buyers who are still people who don't like learning a whole lot?
 

scryer_360

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2007
564
0
18,980
0
Someone said you could buy Windows 7 and then get a better processor for the same money as getting snow leopard.

Considering Windows 7 Ultimate is what, $400? And Snow Leopard is $30, I highly doubt that to be the case.
 

Euphoria_MK

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2009
492
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]jjchmiel78[/nom]Euphoria_MK I will admit I do not know anything about bootcamp. But let me ask you this? Where on the hard drive is OSX installed and where is that new partition?[/citation]
It doesnt really matter that much about the partition location. It might give you a second or two in booting but once system is up and running the head of the HD will read the data of the same partition, which means the data is not fragmented all over the HD but is closely located, or as closely as on the Mac partition.
I actually am more of a Linux Os supporter, and Mac OS X being a Unix based OS has some advantages when it comes to it's size and it's stability. Unix based systems can be configured to uses resources more efficiently, and that is why you will find mostly Unix based servers installed in data centers and large NOCs and Server Farms, where performance and efficiency matter.
Now, I am not dissing Win OS. I think that MS has done a great job of designing an OS that can be installed on incredibly large/diverse number of platforms, without requiring the user to have any specific knowledge in Hardware and Software development.
Windows OS is pretty much plug and play, but having the OS so flexible also takes its toll on the size of the OS and on it's performance.
There was a thread on neowin.net that I commented on when Vista came out, and I said that Vista will be replaced by a more efficient OS in couple of years tops and that noone in MS Development was using it at work... I got attacked by Vista supporters... Now Win 7 is here and this is what Vista should have been in the first place...
Why I commented here is that lots of people feel offended when a benchmark is posted comparing the two different OSs. It's like someone is personally offending them...
The truth is Snow Leopard is much smaller and efficient OS then Win 7 as long as it runs on the hardware is designed to run for, that is unless you have the source code of Sno Leopard and you can compile the kernel to run on Different CPUs and also compile the drivers for different hardware.
Win 7 is better in a sense that there are much more applications there for Win OS than for Mac OS, so yes you will find programs that run performance wise faster on Windows than on Mac since they've been designed for Windows. After all Windows user base is much larger and that is where the money is.
 

tmike

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2006
205
0
18,690
2
[citation][nom]codeman03xx[/nom]OMG COME ON PEOPLE THEY ARE WRITING TO SPECIFIC HARDWARE TO MAKE IT FAST[/citation]

So? This test wasn't intended to comment on the means, just the results. Your comment implies that you'd prefer applications that aren't optimized for the hardware (or other platform component) on which they run. Do you also eschew applications written in assembly (or as the ignorati call it, "assembler")?

 

talys

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2009
42
0
18,530
0
The real story is that Windows 7 will work quite well on nearly infinite combinations of hardware -- even Apple's x86 processor Macs.

So, the real question is: How long does it take for Snow Leopard to rip a Blu-Ray disc to DVD or AVI encoding on a $1,000 Dell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS