OSX vs XP: Boot Camp allows easy comparison

I installed Boot Camp and now my 17" Intel Mac can boot Mac OSX or Windows XP at will. With both OS' on the exact same computer, it makes it easy to compare the Mac Universal version of SL with the Windows XP version.

I assume the Universal version of SL runs much slower than the Windows version, because the code is written for Windows and adapted for Mac. And I've seen plenty of comments to that effect - that Mac versions of SL are much slower. SL runs very sluggishly indeed on my dual 1GHz G4 machine, that's for sure. The Universal version on my iMac and MacBook Pro does run _vastly_ better though. [I just wish SL took advantage of the second CPU, that would be a quantum leap]

So, let's see. Just hanging, doing not much at my home in the South shore of Zoe, with the graphics turned up (including the dreaded Local Lighting) I get around 18fps on Windows. On OSX, I get a miserable... 17fps? Hey, that's not miserable at all! In fact, that's very comparable - in the noise level. Nice!

Good news! On the exact same Intel Mac, the performance of the Universal version of SL is on a par with the Windows XP version.

It's great to be able to make such direct comparisons now.

Great post, Lepton. And good information regarding SL performance on the Intel iMac with both the Mac OSX and Windows XP.

No wonder Apple Computers was named "The Most Innovative Company" last October. Once again, Steve Jobs has scooped Microsoft - which is still struggling with a very much overdue release of Vista. The consumer edition release date has now been pushed to at least January 2007, representing a 5 year period between major releases for the Windoze OS. Meanwhile, Apple provided 3 major OS releases over the same period, with another on the way in the near future.

An article today on the CNN News website also only reinforces Apple's re-captured reputation as the the recognized creative force in computing.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/7000%2F20060331%2F0245000005.htm&sc=ustop

The migration of the Mac to Intel processors and the introduction of Boot Camp for Windows is just another example of Steve Jobs' fantasitc vision, drive and entrepreneurship.

Can't wait for the the Dual Intel, 64-bit Quad-Core Desktops, and the quality, power, speed and ease of use they will bring.

What's most curious about Mac's latest jump in popularity and outlook is that Apple had to achieve these by embracing the TWO things all Mac users' hatred were united in -- Intel & Windows.

Is Apple really being "innovative" if they are simply embracing what the rest of the computer industry has been doing since the 80s? They aren't pioneering new ground here, it's the old OS running on new hardware -- new hardware that Apple swore was inferior to their own.

But they've 180'd on both of those. "Hey, we're going to use Intels now, and oh, yeah, here's Windows for you, too. Now PLEASE buy our hardware so we can get out of the 2-3% market!?"

haha I never thought of it that way but it does make sense.

Actually, the biggest advantage of Boot Camp is that it will allow Windows users to migrate to Mac withough having to replace all their software at once. They can now do it gradually, as they can afford to replace older PC apps with new Mac versions, and they can boot back to XP to run the stuff that they haven't yet, or can't ever, upgrade.

What it does is let me say to my boss "it's about time to upgrade my laptop, and I can run Windows on the MacBook pro for the evil timecard software... how about it?"

He laughed, but he didn't say "no".

Don't you love it, Lepton?

Apple never made the CPUs, they just found companies that made chips they liked. They liked what Intell had to offer now (they make more than one type of chip you know) and went with that. The added bonus for those that want to get away from Windows but don't want to give up or can't get away from one or more apps is that switching now becomes much easier.

This could mean more people with Macs and more people that want to do everything in OS X so more real Mac versions and more Mac only apps. At least that surely is what Apple is hoping for.

not really true, i never hated MS or intel.

And when apple users and apple themselves said that Intel chips sucked, and now say that Intel chips are good, its completely true. Intel chips did suck. They dont anymore, and when all the Core versions are out in the intel Macs by the end of the year, youll see how much intel is even going to be stomping AMD back down to its place.

The move to intel Core chips is the best move theyve made since OSX.

yea but why would i want to pay 2-3 grand for less performance than my 600 buck 2 year old PC?

being serious here, 1.9ghz (real speed) amd athalon 1.5gb of ram and a geforce 6600GT

I was in a full sim most of the night yesterday standing infront of the crowd and getting 20fps 99% of the time (@ 1280x1024 default options)

There's one big assumption with that line of thinking, and that is the assumption that software developers will even bother making Mac versions of software now. Sure the mac-only developers will of course continue to do so, but what about other companies that have a small Mac division? Bootcamp, and its inclusion in the next MacOS, will appear to many of them, I'm sure, as a reason to finally ditch their Mac developers since Mac-users can now use their better-developed and better-tested Windows version.

For the record, as soon as I can afford it, I'm switching to Mac, and it was BootCamp that clinched the decision for me. I'll always have a PC in my house, but I my dual-booting Mac/Windows machine will be my primary one once I upgrade, that's for sure.

Because the $300 or so premium the apple hardware costs you gets you an operating system that doesn't suck.

I read on slashdot a while back a theory about Apple doing away with the Macintosh OS within 5 years. The theory stated the following:

1. Apple gives up firewire support on its most popular seller, iPod, so they can sell to windows users. This dosent phase Apple in the least.

2. Apple has abandoned the PowerPC line of processors (Motorola?) and moved to an intel platform. Right next to windows.

3. (My Addition) Apple releases a program that allows you to dual boot Windows on your Mac. And this dosent phase Apple in the least.

So anyways, the guy with the theory basically stated that he believes that within 5 years, Apple will stop producing the Macintosh OS, and will start selling PCs (yes, PCs) that have M$ Windows installed, but with a "special" theme, so it will look different and be appealing to a large audience, who is sick of looking at the same old Windows appearance.

Oh and of course, it wont be a problem, for your Mac software and hardware, since they spent the last 5 years slowly changing over...

Again this is just a theory, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

Oh and one more thing, they sold way more iPods for Windows folks, then they did for Mac folks

Flame me now.

They were selling Windows usable iPods, and even iTunes for Windows, before ever dropping firewire support on iPods. They did the Firewire later on, because it was just a waste of time and money, and let them get extra profit on the iPods since all the Apple users had USB as well. Trying to say they stopped Firewire on iPods just to support Windows users is just wrong.

Apple moved to a better chip and company that had a better roadmap for the future. They were very far behind the competition by still being with PPC as it just isnt keeping up with x86. This has nothing to do with moving to Windows either.

Apple released bootcamp to help allow OSX Apple machines to be able to dual boot into Windows. This was done because of apple customer request. I dont see how this is any evidence of Apple wanting to switch to Windows.


And added of my own, if Apple wanted to switch to Windows, then why are they using EFI over BIOS, which made bootcamp needed int he first place? they could have used a standard BIOS so anyone could have just dual booted with no extra help needed. And MS has already said the Windows Vista when released will not support EFI.

yea and hardware that cost 3x more becuase it has an apple sticker on it and a special bios, i used to be an apple tech, i can personally say they are out to screw over their customers as much as possible, i dont know how many times ppl would rack up hundereds of dollars in repair bills for me to remove the cpu and hold down a reset button for 30 seconds... and that doesnt sit well with me. (the reasons for this range from the power went out and now it wont boot, to my macintosh where i unpluged the cd-rom and plugged it back in or refused to pay 90$ for a 30$ ati video card and therefore hacked the bios on a pc version, or just swapped out memory from bank a to b and vicea versa)

operating systems, mac osx is better yes, but when osx came out ching 130 bucks, 3 months later the NEW mac os x came out ching 130 bucks, for a cupple bug fixes and some color schemes, 3 or our more versions of osx for 130$ each really starts to add up ...

least winblows i dont have a need to plop down 130 bucks every 3-6 months to keep my system up to date

Also winblows isnt the only OS on the pc block, yes you can run linux on a mac (both distros) and now winblows, why? well altho mac runs its 5-10 killer apps really well, theres jack for a software library

i have nothing against apple, ive had apples since the days of the ][e, but in the decades ive had apples its the same thing, buy a propiertary computer, dubble the cost for "options" that are standard on a pc, use a slightly better OS but has little software choices ... me just having one is a novelty, sorta like my amiga or commodore 64

But if they have Boot Camp, what keeps them from using Windows Vista anyways?

Oh and since we got all that off of our backs.. Im not anti Mac at all. When I have used the machines, I have been perfectly happy with the way they performed. But not spellbound, and here is why:

1. They are way to expensive for what you get.

2. They cant run all my windows applications. Well at least not without an emulator, and thats too much of a hassle.

Now I have heard that they run Photoshop considerably better than Windows, and that is all good and well... but, I also hear that the SL Mac client sucks, which defeats the purpose of me running Photoshop on one.

So, here is my challenge to you, o' diehard fan of the Mac, give me 1 good reason why I should make the switch. Stability dosent count, my Windows box is pleanty stable, dosent crash very often at all... I would say maybe once a month or so. Linux crashes far more often than that for me. Of course, SL crashes alot, but thats SL, not Windows.

Oh, and if you can give me a good reason, I will truely consider switching, so make it a good one =)

As an owner of a firewire iPod (nearly four years old, used every day and still going strong on the original battery) I always thought that they switched to docking stations to enable the launch of all those iPod accessories...

A program like SL is not really a good way to compare the relative performance of an OS, because once it's running SL hardly uses the OS at all .....

Maybe because Windows Vista sucks, is possibly the worst reviewed new OS to come out in ten years and is mostly just a poor copy of all the stuff that has been in Mac OS-X anyway? This statement right here shows that you don't know what your talking about and aren't worth arguing with.

mmm, Windows Vista is still being beta tested and is not "out" yet, you cant just judge an OS that is still being tested. When it comes out in the 1st Q of 07 then you can say this.

Okay ..."relative to other reviews of other OS's at the same stage of their development then."

Doesn't change the facts though. I have read reviews of Vista by die hard "Windows is God and Bill Gates is Jesus" type of web-sites that can only muster a "well it's not *too* bad" kind of review.

Also, while Windows 95 got some jazz from Mac supporters for being a copy of the Mac OS, windows *users* mostly denied that fact. With Vista, you have even the Windows users and reviewers saying flat out that it looks like a direct copy of many parts of OS-X.

Vista is shaping up to be one of the worst OS releases ever from Microsoft.

Fair enough, and I do believe also that Windows took ideas from other OS's, but they did take some from Windows also, it works both ways, just one may be more extreme than the other.

Dvorak is an idiot. He just posted that Apple should open-source OSX, another idea that would kill the company.

Apple is a software company that makes their money off the hardware people buy to run their software. the only reason people buy Macs is because they run Mac software: they run an OS that doesn't suck, and software that works well together without all the hassles of Windows horrid layers of all-the-way-back-to-CP/M legacy junk. If they were just cool looking Windows boxes they would have to cut the prices of EVERYTHING by about 30-40%... because nobody's going to buy a Powerbook for $2000 that's comparable to a $1300 Thinkpad.

Not 3x more, closer to $200 to $400 depending on the model. Their profit margin's been pretty consistently 30-40 percent.
They racked up hundreds of dollars in repair bills for the right not to have to know about removing the CPU and holding down the reset button for 30 seconds. I've had PC users willing to spend hundreds of dollars for me to download Spybot Search and Destroy for them.
That "3 months" has been 18 months, and I'm still running 10.2 and 10.3 and probably won't upgrade until 10.5. And that $130 gets me a non-crippled OS that won't force me to reregister and I can use it with Unix, Mac, or Windows file shares and domains.

Windows: 3 years, $120 for A/V plus $300 for XP pro.
Mac OS X: 3 years, $130-$260 for OS X, depending on whether I upgrade every version.
There are only two operating systems out there that you can find non-trivial numbers of applications for. Mac OS X and Windows. before OS X 10.2 came out i was running TWO PCs, a Windows box and a free UNIX box. My Mac replaced them both, and my Air Conditioning was happy.
"Both"? I've used Debian, Redhat (and Fedora variants), Suse, and Slackware, and I know of at least a dozen more. Which of these are you thinking of as "both"?
Mac runs all portable UNIX software, native. There's a couple of nasty Linux-specific apps that are hard to port, but they're not portable without a lot of pain to non-Linux versions of UNIX either. Most "big name" UNIX software is ported to Mac OS X, either using Apple's X11 or native Aqua. And apart from "gaming" (and I have a Playstation for that... SL is the only 3d game I play off consoles) there's really good coverage in software on Macs. In fact, when I was looking for a DICOM image viewer to check an MRI, the OSX version of Osiris (OsiriX) was light-years ahead of ANY of the Windows or generic packages.
Ah, that would be it. You're a recovering Appleholic. I'm not... I use everything, I don't have to remind myself not to touch the Demon Fruit any more.