wake me when they race...

26 replies [Last post]
catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098

so... XP is running on the MacBook Pro (less a few drivers)...

When you come across the tests... put some links here for me and the gang, please.

Of course, the tests referred to ... I'm sure you've heard... the big race between XP and OS X (that I think both parties are dreading).

4 computers, 2 operating systems.
2 MacBook Pros, 1 booted XP, 1 booted OS X x86
2 (identical intel boxes), ditto

Why don't they ever end with some links and an uptime test (where all the machines being tested serve a tiny page until they crash)?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
In what is surely one a great

In what is surely a great irony, the MacBook Pro is - at least according to this article and linked benchmarks - the fastest core duo laptop out there.

edit: Must have been the flu I had...I left out the important point: Windows XP runs faster on the MacBook than any other duo laptops.

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
no one's testing?

I expected this info to be available almost immediately... but I think what I didn't factor in is that those that desire to run XP on a Mac aren't interested in seeing which OS is superior in stability, usability, functionality, and velocity (when HW gets eliminated as a factor). True, mac zealots can be annoying... but not nearly as frustrating as those who bought a MacBook just to make it run Windows, as if it were really a triumph beyond, you know, climbing a mountain because its there, but because they really think OS X is not worth using, and that Windows is the only OS worth considering.... that because it is nearly ubiquitous, it is the only solution.

Here's the challenge... is there ANY application, task, function, whatever, that Windows does better, is more suited to, than OS X? (Necessarily, OS X has had to make itself compatable with whatever the Windows world has been doing, even against the odds of MS purposly making apps/docs/protocols incompatable with other platforms... now... afaik, OS X has succeeded... and I know of nothing that Windows can do that OS X can't, even in an entirely Windows based Active Directory).

madmax_2069's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 24 2005
Posts: 664
as i see it the New intel Mac

as i see it the New intel Mac's are not Mac's they are pc's with a Apple name. the real Mac's was the PPC Mac's. this here just proves my point that there will never be a real Mac once they faze out the power Mac G5. Apple now will only be making iPod's and software. so long Mac

__________________

Beige G3 AIO,Yikes, Digital Audio, Performa 475, Newton MP 2100, Apple IIgs, HP D530 SFF, Wyse winterm 3360SE
http://www.Apple2online.com

Offline
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Posts: 170
(time warp)

as i see it the New PPC Mac's are not Mac's they are IBM's with a Apple name. the real Mac's was the 68k Mac's. this here proves my point that there will never be a real Mac once they faze out the Quadra 950. Apple now will only be making Newton's and software. so long Mac

mudogramx's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 34
Nice burn! ;)

Nice one fynch. Whats made a Mac has always been the fluid integration of hardware and software. As long as Apple designs/controls the hardware that will run their OS, we will still have the Mac. I know that there are generic PCs running OS X right now, but not without trouble. The common PC user would not jump through all of those hurdles just to use OS X on their machines. Hell, most PC users don't even know what OS X is. Embrace the change guys, it was inevitable.

__________________

iMac 20" - 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, 250 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, 256 MB VRAM, 160 GB External HD, OS X.4.7 and Windows XP Pro SP2 Tongue
Mac mini - 1.42 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB 5400 RPM 16 MB Buffer HD, OS X.4.7
PowerBook G3 "Pismo" - 500 MHz G3, 640 MB RAM, 80 GB H

Offline
Joined: Jan 28 2004
Posts: 60
I agree with madmax_2069.

I agree with madmax_2069.

I don't like Intel much and I serviced and programmed mostly Intel based computers for 6 years.

I preferred AMD in the x86 world and still do but I really prefer PPC.

If the mac stayed with PPC you would not get all the other possibilities like Apple dropping OSX for a mac'ed up version of Windows, easy porting of Windows virus (virii) and spyware x86 code, generic x86 PC's OSX piracy and so on.

madmax_2069's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 24 2005
Posts: 664
look could you install window

look could you install windows XP on a PPC mac yea only if you run a emulator. not with the new intel Mac's you can install windows xp just fine if you crack what ever you have to in order to run it but you dont have to run a emulator to install or run xp Because it is now another pc . the ppc and 68k was real Mac's more so the 68k over the ppc yea cause that is what first came out but you have to look ar both ppc and 68k used risk X86 used sisk and still does today and now the Mac used sisk what made the Mac a Mac was the cpu useing risk

__________________

Beige G3 AIO,Yikes, Digital Audio, Performa 475, Newton MP 2100, Apple IIgs, HP D530 SFF, Wyse winterm 3360SE
http://www.Apple2online.com

eeun's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 19 2003
Posts: 1891
I guess the difference is whe

I guess the difference is whether you like the Mac because it's useful and interesting or because it's "not the other guy".

If it gets the job done, and offers some improvements over the last model, I don't care what processor's inside it. And I consider the ability to run Windows natively to be an improvement.

The abbreviations are "risc" and "cisc", and the 68K was not a risc processor.

__________________

"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
(Terry Pratchett)

Jon's picture
Jon
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 2804
And the x86 lines have used [

And the x86 lines have used RISC based cores that have x86 translors running on top of them. Also, VLIW processors run x86 through translation, esp. the Transmeta Processors.

__________________

I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine. - Fritz Perls

dvsjr's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 8 2004
Posts: 135
Re: look could you install window (rant)

I think the guys here pointed the path out of these dark woods to you. Back in the day, changing from 68k to PPC, from HFS to HFS+, 9 to X, Motorola to Intel all come with a bit of that scary "The times the are a changing". But we know the Mac will stay the Mac, precisely because there are people like all of you using it. A processor is not a computer. What made the Mac your favorite? Why did you choose Mac over Dell or IBM or Compaq? Why did you choose Mac OS over Windows? Was it because of the guts deep inside the box you couldnt see? I dont think Ive ever been blown away by the speed of *any* computer. Sure, I loved my twentieth anniversary mac, I used it every day and loved it dearly. But I turned it on the other day and was amazed I had the patience back then to even use the thing. So sloooow. Macs today feel about as fast as a Macintosh should feel, you arent kept waiting for long periods, in some cases you arent waiting at all. So the thing that drew me to the Mac was the hidden language that both the Mac itself and each program shared; the file, edit, window, help. When you learned one app, you were halfway there in using another. The care and the importance Apple gave esoteric concepts like Human Interface. I loved the common sense, the invisible connecton between my self and the developer and the programmer who took the time and the effort to make things simple, hell even elegant in using their software, and the Macintosh in general. There were moments when it was just so obviously great.
I tried to explain this to a friend, she uses windows and proclaimed the mac and the pc are "the same both have their strengths" and I was amazed at how hard it was to articulate my argument to her in favor of the mac. I think one of the most compelling arguments is right here in this thread: Someone combined a blueberry and a bondi and a strawberry imac. (What great product names, remember beige computers? What?) what the hell else *could* you name it besides Frankenberry? What a great name, so much fun. When was the last time someone named a PC out of love and care for a machine? The Mac has a soul. It was given birth by geniuses in programming and engineering, yes. But there were just as many artists in the room. And that makes all the difference.

dvsjr

__________________

--
http://newtonserver.no-ip.com

mudogramx's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 34
Re: I agree with madmax_2069.

ccowner wrote:

easy porting of Windows virus (virii) and spyware x86 code

Since when does hardware have anything to do with viruses and spyware? Thats OS dependent. I use a Mac because its a superior machine with superior software, not because of the processor.

__________________

iMac 20" - 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, 250 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, 256 MB VRAM, 160 GB External HD, OS X.4.7 and Windows XP Pro SP2 Tongue
Mac mini - 1.42 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB 5400 RPM 16 MB Buffer HD, OS X.4.7
PowerBook G3 "Pismo" - 500 MHz G3, 640 MB RAM, 80 GB H

Offline
Joined: Jan 28 2004
Posts: 60
A lot of virii techniques

A lot of virii techniques are coded in x86 assembly.

They are a great template for producing a virus on a different OS that has the same hardware.

For example really tricky x86 virus code that uses the x86 stack is hardware dependent.

Obviously there is no windows API or DLLs on OSX but with a few changes the OSX equivalents can be used.

mudogramx's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 34
Good Point

Hmm, well the majority of infected computers have been attacked by OS dependent viruses. We are talking a low risk for hardware-related viruses. I highly doubt that a virus writer would go through all of the trouble to attack a Mac running OS X when over 90% of the x86 hardware in the wild uses Windows. Good point nonetheless. Anything is possible. In the end, any OS/computer is vulnerable to some sort of virus, its just a matter of time. OS X is still a young system. Well, the Apple part of it...BSD is old. I just hope Apple continues its hard grip on security. OS X is like a maximum security prison while Windows is a backwoods jail cell with a drunk deputy protecting it.

__________________

iMac 20" - 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, 250 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, 256 MB VRAM, 160 GB External HD, OS X.4.7 and Windows XP Pro SP2 Tongue
Mac mini - 1.42 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB 5400 RPM 16 MB Buffer HD, OS X.4.7
PowerBook G3 "Pismo" - 500 MHz G3, 640 MB RAM, 80 GB H

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
You're keeping me up!

uh, guys? can we get back to the topic, please? I really am hoping to see what the results are... hasn't anyone seen anything about the big race yet??

madmax_2069's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 24 2005
Posts: 664
i dont care less about the r

i dont care less about the race all i know i wont buy a intel MaC. i would rather buy a pc for the price i can pay for a intel mini and have the expandability the mini dont have. the only Mac's i will own are ppc only no apple pc's for me. heck i will buy a alienware pc or a voodoo pc for the price of a intel mac. sorry guy's but my ride end's at the ppc Mac.

__________________

Beige G3 AIO,Yikes, Digital Audio, Performa 475, Newton MP 2100, Apple IIgs, HP D530 SFF, Wyse winterm 3360SE
http://www.Apple2online.com

marshmallows's picture
Offline
Joined: Jan 27 2006
Posts: 14
(Sorry but someone had to say it...)

Your loss, not ours.

__________________

Datei nicht gefunden.

madmax_2069's picture
Offline
Joined: Sep 24 2005
Posts: 664
its all X86 pc's now , what s

its all X86 pc's now , what set the ppc mac apart fron windows pc was the cpu and OS now its just a pc with a windows lockout chip wich has been worked around its no loss to me cause its a pc now with a apple logo. i can buy one any where i dont like intel any way im AMD all the way with a pc. and ppc on a Mac. i liked the Mac cause it was diffrent but not now

__________________

Beige G3 AIO,Yikes, Digital Audio, Performa 475, Newton MP 2100, Apple IIgs, HP D530 SFF, Wyse winterm 3360SE
http://www.Apple2online.com

cwsmith's picture
Offline
Joined: Oct 13 2005
Posts: 699
I seem to recall similar arguments over the years ...

1984: Why would they move away from the Apple II? This new Macintosh thing will never fly. I'll switch to DOS.

1990: This System 6 is way too complex and takes up way too much memory. And a lot of my old programs won't run on it anymore. I'll switch to DOS.

1994: Why would they put an IBM chip in a Mac? I liked the 68k Macs because they were different. I'll never do the PowerPC. I'll switch to Windows 3.1.

2000: Why would they drop OS 9? I don't like this new OS X -- and it'll never catch on anyway. I'll switch to Winows 98.

2006: Why would they put an Intel chip in a Mac? I liked the PowerPC Macs because they were different. I'll never do the Macintel. I'll switch to Linux.

Times change. Technology moves ahead. And Apple should never let itself be held hostage to a vendor (Motorola, IBM) that can't or won't get them the chips they need.

The things that truly set the Mac apart from Wintels are the operating system (no comparison), hardware design (rock solid with a couple of notable exceptions), and manufacturer support. If something goes wrong with my Mac, I ultimately know that Apple is responsible and accountable. Ever try getting help with your PC?

• Dell: I think the problem is with Windows. Call Microsoft.
• Microsoft: The problem isn't with Windows. Call the OEM.
• Dell: Must be the hard drive. Call Western Digital.
• Western Digital: No, it's not our fault. Call Microsoft.

I have a PC around because there are times that I need to use a PC. I use Windows because I have to.

I use a Mac because I want to.

I'd rather spend my time using my computer, not just maintaining it.

__________________

Dozens of Macs; a handful of PCs; Apple ][e, ][c and ][gs; a few iPods; lots of parts
17 guitars, 2 baritone guitars, alto guitar, 6 bass guitars, bajo sexto, 3 ukuleles, mandolin, banjo, sitar
3/4 scale upright bass, 4pc drum kit, congas, travel congas, bongos, cajon, cabasa, 12 harmonicas
http://www.cwsmith.fmhttp://www.facebook.com/cwsmith2620

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
great links, guys... thanks.

I knew I could count on you.

dvsjr's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 8 2004
Posts: 135
try google, its a way to search web pages
__________________

--
http://newtonserver.no-ip.com

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
I'm going to

scratch my belly for a minute... ah that's better.

(yes... a post equally as useful and on topic as the ones made above.)
Hope you enjoyed it as much as I have!

mudogramx's picture
Offline
Joined: Jun 21 2005
Posts: 34
Hahaha...

Yeah we kind of did go off topic. As far as benchmarking a MacBook against a Windows laptop goes, I don't think a fair benchmark can be made until a driver is made for the Radeon card in the Macbook. The standard Radeon drivers for Windows won't work with it, neither will the hacked Omega drivers. I think its because the Mac Radeon is UGA, or at least thats what the Windows on Mac project is saying. We can have computational analysis, but no 3D benchmark.

__________________

iMac 20" - 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo, 250 GB HD, 2 GB RAM, 256 MB VRAM, 160 GB External HD, OS X.4.7 and Windows XP Pro SP2 Tongue
Mac mini - 1.42 GHz G4, 1 GB RAM, 40 GB 5400 RPM 16 MB Buffer HD, OS X.4.7
PowerBook G3 "Pismo" - 500 MHz G3, 640 MB RAM, 80 GB H

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
thatd be good

I'm not much of a gamer. The graphics cards that were mediocre 3 years ago are fine for me. A graphics card isn't going to make much difference when, say, linking up to a share, or copying a file, or launching firefox, indexing a HD, searching for a file, etc. It'll be nice when the chipset works for XP... for the head to head... but honestly, that's the last thing I'd care to look at (whether the graphics for OS X is faster than XP).

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
in another post... but belongs HERE

http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=160&Itemid=2

mmmmph... huh?... pths... slurp... mmmph
-(rolls over)-

Jon's picture
Jon
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 2804
[quote]Boot Camp will burn a

Quote:

Boot Camp will burn a CD of all the required drivers for Windows so you don't have to scrounge around the Internet looking for them.

"Gentlemen, start your computers!" Now the comparisons can be much more fair with "official" Apple supplied drivers for (most) of the hardware.

__________________

I am not in this world to live up to other people's expectations, nor do I feel that the world must live up to mine. - Fritz Perls

catmistake's picture
Offline
Joined: Dec 20 2003
Posts: 1098
help with interpretation

Benchmarks of OS X on Sony VIO

Ok, part of the initial work done here, and I think this is one of the rarer tests. There's a lot of XP benchmarking of MacBook's already out there.... Please... lets add to this! We need some (comparable) XP benchmarks with this Sony VIO, and XP and OS X benchmarks of the MacBook Pro, and some astute meta-analysis, and we'll be half done (the other half being OS X and XP benchmarks of a desk machine and the iMac).

I can't believe no one is doing this. Lets break some ground at AF with the information that is already out there, but that no one has put together yet.