What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- dogearedboy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1As far as I know Apple's drivers in Boot Camp are for XP, not Vista.
I don't think that you could accurately test this without native drivers.- gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3I have found OSX to be fast but not quick. Almost every windows machine that I've used that hasn't been totally destroyed by some idiot with yahoo toolbars and the like was much more responsive than OSX. However, I still choose OSX over windows anyday because no matter how fast the toilet flushes, it's still a pile of crap.
- timbro1, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5Also what people aren't aware of is that MaCOSx Has about 5 times as many viruses as there are on windows.
http://timbro11.blogspot.com/
- bmaltais, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22All drivers except from audio are from MS Vista, not bootcamp. I would think more appropriate drivers would just make Vista faster.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yes, better drivers would help, but not much. The Mac hardware is very generic - undoubtedly an Intel chipset. Vista's drivers for Intel chipsets are pretty good. The only place where Vista lacks good drivers for the iMac is in the graphics department, as this model uses an ATI card. The tests in this article really have nothing to do with video.
The most significant thing that this article hints at is that SuperFetch does it's job. It's clearly an area where Microsoft put a lot of effort, and as a result, programs on Vista start much more quickly than they do on XP, and also OSX, evidently.
Macs, by virtue of the Universal Binary, are also further disadvantage. If you compare executables for Windows and the same software for OSX, OSX applications are much larger. There's a bit of overhead when you have to load the larger executable, and then separate the Intel code from the PPC code.
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Yes, better drivers would help, but not much. The Mac hardware is very generic - undoubtedly an Intel chipset. Vista's drivers for Intel chipsets are pretty good. The only place where Vista lacks good drivers for the iMac is in the graphics department, as this model uses an ATI card. The tests in this article really have nothing to do with video.
- flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -32/+4oh well. Leopard will be better.
- joaob, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Could it be that OS X wasn't built especially to take advantage of Intel processors?
- RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11joaob : this isn't a CPU test, it's a test general system performance. it has nothing to do with OS X being optimized or not for intel CPUs, it has to do with some newer vista technologies that increase the overall system speed like superfetch, readybost, newer audio/video/network stacks, a newer version of NTFS, etc. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_features_new_to_Windows_Vista you can read all the technical changes in Vista and especially the 'System performance' enhancements. There's also a more specific article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista_IO_technologies
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1Yes, the "secuirty" for the RIAA/MPAA is greatly "improved". Big media can be very secure that Vista users will have to buy their media over and over in any format they want to use it on, instead of exercising their fair use rights.
- justnick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9rattler -- are you here spreading lies again? Read a bit and you will know that the DRM in Vista is for Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. It is not a haven for DRM. Ignorance is bliss but it also makes you look like an idiot.
- RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Ratteler: breaking news (not that breaking after all), Apple is backing blu-ray [ http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/03/11/1217236.shtml?tid=174&tid=1 ] and this means that apple will be forced to implement the same DRM protections on OS X in order to play that format
- MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5OSX was built *specifically with Intel processors in mind. It's pretty well know that OSX (particularly Rosetta) requires SSE3.
Vista will run on pretty much any x86 processor, which is actually a performance weakness. It doesn't get to take advantage of SSE, SSE2, or SSE3 the way that OSX does. If Vista was compiled for modern processors, rather than the least-common-denominator, Vista probably be a bit faster. Unfortunately, it would be even slower on old processors (or it would just crash), and that's why Microsoft doesn't utilize any extensions. - Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Breaking news Red Lion. Apple doesn't haven't to put DRM in the OS. They need to put it in the APPLICATION that access the Blue Ray Media.
Microsoft put the DRM as deeply into the OS as they could so they could DRM things other than HD Movies or Music files.
And JustNic, you are a well established liar when it comes to defending M$. So calling me a liar is practically a complement. If the DRM is JUST for BlueRay and HD DVD, why is it in the Kernal instead of Windows Media Player?
Because is if options like Media Player Classic, VLC, or TBA media players came along that got around the DRM, WMP would be in just as bad a shape as IE6 and 7!!! How the ***** to you loose ground in a browser market when your browser is shipped free with every computer?
Yes, that uncomfortable felling in your lying ass is the TRUTH! - gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"They need to put it in the APPLICATION that access the Blue Ray Media."
*****. They have no choice but to implement support for the DRM. It's Sony, remember? Apple will be forced to do it if they want Bluray. Even for HDDVD, they still have to do it.
- cheez, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4I used RC2 on my macbook for a time, but it was so slow I couldn't stand it anymore and I got rid of it. did it get faster in the final version or is my macbook just slow as *****?
- magic6435, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5your macbook is just slow as .. apple
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The Beta/RCs had additional debug code that slowed down the system"
Actually, that was just in the checked builds. The free builds didn't have the extra debugging code. They just had a few extra kernel bugchecks active (PAGE_NOT_ZERO, for instance. This one was pushed out via a STOP whenever a memory inconsistency was found).
However, a good portion of the slowdowns were fixed (along with the OS receiving lots of tweaks) during the RTM branch of builds. Builds 5800 and up are considered a part of the RTM branch.
5808 was one of the builds I looked at. It was just as fast as 6000.
- GoodOlClint, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10I installed Vista on my Mom's Macbook just for kicks because it had been messing up real bad.
Vista ran much much faster then OS X even after I reinstalled OS X and didn't migrate settings. - Colesif, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5An extra .5 seconds doesn't turn me off to tiger. It just shows me how badly people are trying to get Windows hyped up. There is more to macs than just speed, I prefer the layout much more, and the fact that it has few viruses. Oh and also all of the nice user made apps.
- TyroPyro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Instead of just ignoring the 2x slower USB stick speed, I would have said that Windows and OSX both have their ups and downs
- TwilightKing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Ok, now OSX has actually been proved inferior! But wait, Steve Jobs can't be wrong! Impossible! Quick, revert to denial!
/sarcasm
I'm a Mac user too, but I realize that for once, Windows has got OSX beat. Just admit it. And yes, OSX will probably improve with Leopard. But don't lie to yourself. Thats when it just gets pathetic.
- JayRod, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8This story has opened the gates of Mac fanboys. I better stay quiet, don't want to get stampede.
- USAOwnz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Eh, I can go to digg on both, so I'm good.
- astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -12/+11Anyone who's actually used Vista knows that performance is not one of its strong points.
And to address the only two benchmarks that differed:
- Firefox is simply slower on OS X than in Windows. The Mac version just doesn't get nearly as much developer attention as the Windows version.
- USB drives formated as HFS+ are significantly faster than those formatted in FAT32. FAT32 performance on Mac obviously isn't going to be as good as it is in Windows.- NateB2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Um, I've been using Vista since November, and it is *way* faster than XP on the same, single core machine. Opening Windows explorer, launching apps, etc. is *much* faster. I also haven't experienced "WinRot", the slowing down of the OS as it is used. Vista is as fast now as it was when I first installed it. Also, I have a copy of Diskeeper 2007, but it has *hardly ever* automatically defragged my HD; Vista does a superb job at keeping the HD defragged. Overall, I have been _very_ impressed by Vista's performance.
- pogfreak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9"Vista knows that performance is not one of its strong points."
Hmm thats odd, every machine I've seen running it has been smooth as better. If its an old machine, turn off the fancy GUI stuff. problem solved. - RedLion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"FAT32 performance on Mac obviously isn't going to be as good as it is in Windows."
Any proof to back this up? - astrosmash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@redlion
http://community.livejournal.com/macosx/5336012.html#cutid1
- sputnike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The simple fact that vista pretty much works with all hardware now is great, especially seeing as Windows Update is now officially the biggest driver database on the web :) therefore there are no need for Apples drivers except for the cam and airport.
- twermund, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I wonder how Jaguar is going to stand up to these same tests?
- USAOwnz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Mac OS 10.2? Well, it isn't as good as the new Mac stuff, so it'd do worse.
Leopard, however, remains to be test against it, so that testing should be interesting!
- USAOwnz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Mac OS 10.2? Well, it isn't as good as the new Mac stuff, so it'd do worse.
- TKardinal, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9No evidence to back it up, but purely my impression and anecdotal evidence is that, on the same laptop (Dell Latitude 820, 2GB of RAM, Core Duo (first gen)), Vist is noticably faster than XP. What I especially notice NEVER happens in Vista is the rather significant delay in listing large directories of disparate file types, such as the Start Menu or an Explorer window. I assume this is because Vista caches every icon that's used by the system, so Windows doesnt' have to go and look them up again.
But even in other things, Vista "feels" faster. As for OSX...I'm afraid I've never used it and can't compare.
There are other things that irritate me about Vista, though, no doub.t - Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Yeah, and I bet this car seat that I bolted to a barrel full of rocket fuel could beat your car in a race
disclaimer: not a mac fanboy by any means, but the comparison seems silly- justnick, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7it is absolutely silly. I mean why compare two competing operating systems with real world tests? It's just silly.
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15WHY IS THIS ARTICLE REMOVED FROM FRONT PAGE IN FEW MINUTES?!?! JOBS ARMY AT WORK?
- TyroPyro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Pretty amazing, really. Shows just what a hardcore mac fanboy base there is on Digg. For an article stating nothing but factual test conditions and results to get burried...
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Relax, it's still on the front page.
P.S. Reduce your caffeine intake. - GoodOlClint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8no, it's not on the front page anymore
try refreshing - undersky, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I have taken pictures (screen shots) of this removal with a digital camera. It captures both the time of my computer as well as the evidence to show that it was removed within 10 minutes of its popularity. I will make a public campaign that publicize this to show how corrupted and biased the Digg system is.
I am typing this comment on a MacBook 2Ghz, but I cannot, cannot, believe what I am witnessing here tonight on Digg. This really moves me toward leaving this hopelessly biased site that is doomed for its lack of journalistic integrity. - Thargok, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Dude, chill it is probably being reviewed as it could have been flagged for wrong topic or something similar. I'm sorry that the world doesn't correct itself in 15 minutes, so come back tomorrow.
- consonance, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6My bad. I hadn't refreshed my browser in a few minutes, so I thought it was still on the front page. I'm a bit puzzled that it's been buried so quickly. What if it wasn't posted to the Apple section?
- GoodOlClint, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4thargok, it wasn't flagged, just removed. Digg tells you if it's been flagged as inaccurate. But it just removes it if it's marked as lame enough, which is exactly what happened here.
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21. it is posted in apple section.
2. it's not news that digg is biased, honestly, is it? - Thargok, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Still you are up in arms over 15 minutes at an hour where over 70% of the user base is asleep?
Sure it may be 20 minutes now, I don't care if it in a hour or seventeen hours. Chill.
It's not like this article is ground breaking or accurate or the results of repeated trials.
- Thargok, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Universal Binaries could account for most of the slowdown. However here is when the debate about the effects of a microkernel come into question. For simple operations Vista will always be faster, but for true multitasking OS X should in theory one up it.
- tpink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Universal binaries won't slow down an application, only add to its file size. When an application is launched, OS X picks the binary based on the machine architecture, which would have no measurable performance hit. Now if you mean the LACK of universal binaries could cause the slow down, I would wholeheartedly agree because Rosetta does incur a reasonable performance hit.
Interesting thing I found a few months ago. If you're curious whether or not a specific application is universal or not, you can cd INTO the .app and running 'file' on the various files in there will tell you the architecture that the binary targets. I don't remember the specific files or folder names since it's been a few months, but eventually you'll hit the files. - Thargok, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ah but file size does correlate to times it takes to launch. As OS X launches and then determines which binary to load. Precaching a Universal Binary means that you take up more space.
This is like the arguement that 64-bit applications are always more effective, which isn't true when binary size and access times are an important factor on even the basic level.
- tpink, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Universal binaries won't slow down an application, only add to its file size. When an application is launched, OS X picks the binary based on the machine architecture, which would have no measurable performance hit. Now if you mean the LACK of universal binaries could cause the slow down, I would wholeheartedly agree because Rosetta does incur a reasonable performance hit.
- Shadowsnake, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3OOOHH SNAP of course it runs faster its a mac...Im pretty sure if god ran he would use a mac..
Then lookout they have the new "Insert hardware here" of course you can go ahed and pop open your mac...and uh....Get a new one!!!! You can afford one why not another?
Its cool ill be here using my Pc... The one that cant run things as good as a mac, but on the plus side i can upgrade this piece of *****.. - CanuckMakem, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1Meh... just wait till Leopard comes out.
- arcarael, on 10/12/2007, -8/+0however true it may be that vista is faster than tiger, just keep a couple things in mind. first, i just want to say that, from what i've heard, vista is a computer hog. now, i don't know this from experience, but i guy i work with just got it for his pc. i don't know the specs, but he says that as an os, it takes up quite a bit of space on his hd and also requires at least a gig of ram. now, i know a gb of ram isn't *****, but come on... second, if you used vista, you'd be using a mircrosoft product. actually though, i am somewhat considering running a parallel system. it would be nice to have xp at least to run windows native software when i wanted. if vista won't take up too much of my cpu then i may consider that. however, i'll take i slightly less fast os and have more space, than visa versa.
- GoodOlClint, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I ran Vista RTM on my mom's Macbook with 512 Megs of shared ram and it ran like a champ so it doesn't require a gig.
OS X takes just as much HDD space as Vista
Vista looks nicer, runs faster, and can run a ton more apps then OS X.
- GoodOlClint, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I ran Vista RTM on my mom's Macbook with 512 Megs of shared ram and it ran like a champ so it doesn't require a gig.
- miyamotofreak, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3These aren't the best ways to test a OS's speed. Firefox on Vista vs. OS X? You've got to be ***** kidding me.
- eMadman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1A much better test could have been devised. Sticking with 256mb files is simply too small to show a proper comparison in transfer times over a broad spectrum. For example, the 26s vs 22s on the SMB share could be attributed to a lag in handshakes or something of the sort. That difference would only make itself clear with larger files - say 500mb and 1gb
As for the the USB issue, I believe it has something to do with the file system - after all, NTFS and FAT32 are native to Windows - not mac. I have a pair of G4 powered machines and both run pretty slowly with my USB and firewire based drives. It's just something I've gotten used to since I was never really able to figure out why. My best explanation to date was simply poor support for the two file systems. - Shadowsnake, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2silence me will you mac fags?
- huygens, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0If you look at all the fact on your site, apart from the USB write and perhaps Firefox, Vista is comparable or slightly faster. As for Firefox, it is only compatible Power PC and not Intel. So it is using the Rosetta emulation. Then the performance against Vista are understandable, and I would say, wow pretty fast!!
Now, I had so many troubles with XP and Linux with my firewire HD or USB memory stick that I would be cautious on this one too.
With my firewire HD, there is a huge difference because of a simple checkbox in XP settings. If I have activated "Optimised for performance" in my device manager for my HD, the throughput is about 20MB/s for 2GB of data (approx 6000 files). However, Win XP came with the option "Optimised for fast remove" for my firewire HD, the throughput as about 1.2MB/s!! The advantage of the second is that I can unplug the drive without first unloading it from Win XP.
Perhaps, this could explain the difference between Mac OS X and Win Vista. Because, now that I have activated the best performance for my HD under both Linux and XP, the perf are pretty similar with a slight advantage for XP (20MB/s vs. 19.5MB/s under Linux). As Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD, I would expect similar performance as of Linux.
Note that is is really difficult to measure the exact time a set of file has been copied to. As when it seems finish from the UI point of view, it is sometimes still copying in the background invisible...
PS: I did not digg or bury this news. Though, I'm incline to bury it because Firefox is not universal binary and is using Rosetta. And there is no information on the USB memory stick test. I would like to see the same test with a Firewire HD. ;-)- bmaltais, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My understanding is that Firefox is actually Universal. I think it was Universal since at least 1.5.0.2. Follow this link to read about it: http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/releases/1.5.0.2.html
- johlin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2This will never get more than 300 diggs. Why? Because it's bad news for Mac-guys.
- MonocularJack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There is a big difference between benchmarking for raw numbers and doing an informal time test to compare real life working situations. At the end of the day you don't really care if one OS can out perform another in raw power, you care if your OS of choice can open the applications you use everyday quickly. Maybe OS X opens Photoshop CS2 like a champ while Vista chokes but if you don't use Photoshop that doesn't really mean much to you. Vice versa, Vista whips the pants off of Firefox compared to OS X but if you prefer Safari then those numbers might as well be last year's winning lottery picks.
As the guy says, he's not going to switch away from OS X just because of the numbers, but it is interesting to see someone talk about the Vista/OS X issue calmly instead of frothing at the mouth. It's also nice to see positive proof that the ReadyBoost is making a big difference, now I finally have a use for all those USB drives I seem to have collected over the years.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is