Computer OS preference

Okay, I've got you now. Programming in a windowed, event driven environment is a complex transition from a primitive user interface. Complex tasks are much easier to do, but you have to wade through so much documentation to find anything that first attempts are an exercise in frustration. I feel your pain.

That's one of the reasons I like embedded code on small devices: When I hit the power button it jumps to my code: no OS, no windowing system. I have complete control.

Tom

 

Hi Dogfriend - FYI, the XP licensing terms allow you to run a 2nd copy of XP in a virtual machine as long as its on the same computer as the hard copy, for your own use (not as a server). It did take a couple of calls to the activation support number to install the 2 copies of XP and 2 copies of office (1 in bootcamp, 1 in parallals pointing at the bootcamp partition). I just wiped my bootcamp partition though, because I found the only time I ever used it was when someone's wifi router wasn't properly configured for macs (while I was traveling). Now that I have an iphone, I don't care.

 

I have the OEM copy of XP ($120), not the $300 ripoff copy. I think the license is different for the OEM version. I'm not enthusiastic about talking to any MS activation support people about it.

 

I prefer Apple hardware and MS operating systems.
Exception is my iPhone
I find the hardware Apple produces rock solid as opposed to the last experiences I have had with HP and Dell (Dell by far the worst).
However, the Apple OSs just don't support the peripherals I want for gaming withough ham-handed cludgy 3rd party work arounds that are succesful much of the time, but certainly not all.
So I use bootcamp to load up Windows and everything works smoothly

 

Oh sure, take the easy way out

 

Linux, Windows (XP, Vista, and Windows 7 RC (Release Candidate) and MacOS are what I am using on my desktops.

 

Can anyone shed any light on the nasty rumour that Windows runs better on a mac? That would be too funny. (Not that Bill's laughing.)

 

It is not a nasty rumor (don't know about rumour, though). The hardware specs for the Intel-based Macs were much more robust than what was available from Dell, HP, etc. As a result, the Macs would run away and hide from the rest of the crowd when it came time to run the various benchmarks of Windows and Office operating on the different platforms. Some vendors are narrowing the performance gap, but that can change with the next release of Mac hardware.

 

Haha, Windows is faster on a mac. And the gap likely just got bigger with Snow Leopard. There's gotta be an ad for that. The one about tech support was hilarious.

 

I think that what you might find is that the price pressure due to all the competition forces the pre-built PC makers to cut corners. It would be interesting to see a benchmark done between a custom built PC and comparable Mac. Keep in mind the only real difference in hardware between a PC and a Mac is the BIOS. In the PC's I've built over the years, I've found a HUGE difference in motherboards, as an example, a number of years ago I built two PC's one was based on an Intel 80386 (I told you it was a number of years ago), using an Asus mother board, they are the same people that make the Apple motherboards BTW. The other was based on an Intel 80486, a more powerfull processor but I used a bargin basement motherboard. Well running the same OS, the 386 based machine was just as fast, and in a couple benchmarks faster than the 486. In reality the 486 should have blown the pants off the 386.

 

The volume PC manufacturers make a decision on what to include and what not to include. Sure, a PC could be made that would outperform a Mac. But what would it cost? It comes down to a decision as to what the mix of features is going to be for the respective price point. Apple has its mix and Dell, HP etc. have their mix. The fact that the Mac could run away from the competition was more of an irony than anything - the new-comer to the Intel hardware game is beating the old-timers at their game.... And that continues to be the circumstance, although to not as great an extent as when the story first broke.

 

Which, of course, is why you can buy a PC cheaper than a Mac: The PCs are cheaper because they use inferior components. -- Unless, of course, you build you own with top-quality components.

Click & Clack say "It's the stingy man who pays the most." If you want a cheap computer you get cheap components, and you have to run a garbage OS (Windows) that requires you to spend big bucks on security software: the software that keeps on charging.

 

LOL... Snow Leopard has absolutely nothing to do with the speed Windows runs on the Mac - it's all hardware based, and no piece of software Apple comes out with will change that.

 

When Apple first switched to Intel, there were a ton of comparisons done - it seemed that everyone was loading Windows onto their mac and running performance benchmarks. Naturally, of course, i can't find any of those strict comparisons now.

However, i did find this article: Mac vs PC - Benchmark and Speed Tests - PC versus Mac - Apple, Windows Reviews - Popular Mechanics

Once you get through to the 4th page with the results, they say

(emphasis mine)

Yeah, they don't post the scientific results, but it's there.

 

Actually, although I agree with your major point, Apple writes the drivers that Windows uses under BootCamp and these undoubtedly have an influence on speed and stability. Apple has a big advantage because they know the hardware combinations - just like they do for the Mac OS.

 

I still love Xp professional, baaaaah

 

Then why is Apple advertising snow leopard as a speed improvement? Is it only my assumption that the increase affects both mac and windows software? I hunch your statement would apply more to windows running with bootcamp than under parallels or fusion.

 

Although the cpu is Intel generic, Apple motherboard ASICs are not. In the old days Apple systems usually fared worse than windows systems in peripheral to peripheral speed contests, because Apple engineered in OS overhead for UI reasons. Ever since the systems could be tested using windows as a common denominator, the superior Apple motherboard engineering has been apparent.

 

Windoze speed would be affected only if it is running inside an emulator or VM. If Windoze runs from a boot, then Snow Leopard is not involved.

Tom

 

hyo, Snow Leopard gets a boost because of the hardware.
Any OS will run faster when it is run on more powerful hardware. So Leopard, Vista, XP, etc will ALL run faster.
Leopard may also be intrinsicly more efficient than Vista. However Leopard has zero affect on how fast Windows runs on a Mac.
As for their drivers, they have video and mousepad drivers, and I believe a few others. The majority of the drivers are all MS or the third party peripherals.