Slashdot Mirror
OS Performance — Snow Leopard, Windows 7, and Ubuntu 9.10
BeckySharp writes "With the nearly simultaneous release of Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' (available right now) and Microsoft's Windows 7 (available Oct. 22), you get the inevitable debate: Which is the better operating system, Windows 7 or Snow Leopard? To help determine that, Computerworld's Preston Gralla put both operating systems through their paces, selected categories for a head-to-head competition, and then chose a winner in each category." Relatedly, Phoronix has posted Snow Leopard vs. Ubuntu 9.10 benchmarks. They ran tests from ray tracing to 3D gaming to compilation. Their tests show Ubuntu 9.10 winning a number of the tests, but there are some slowdowns in performance and still multiple wins in favor of Snow Leopard, so the end result is mixed.
The most thoughtful article I read that truly explains what the technical tradeoffs are with dock/taskbar design: here.
On a similar topic, if you want to work on the home page GUI for Android, there is an on-going project as well.
The good news for consumers is that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are great-looking OS. Computerworld is just wrong to give a point to Apple on price :-)
the freedom involved in using ubuntu (or other distros) over mac and windows
Someday we'll hit the human carrying capacity. And the band will just play on.
These sorts of comparisons are fun from a head-to-head desktop performance perspective (with all the skewing that can bring, regardless of how impartial the tests might claim to be), but they're rarely reflective of how each OS would perform in mixed environments. I'll keep Mac OS X on the desktop, Ubuntu on the server (along with Debian), and Windows on someone else's computers, thank you.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
The first category of their "comparison" is the OS name? Really? That's enough for me to stop reading. The article doesn't even take itself seriously.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
This sort of psuedocomedy/ad revenue scam makes me wish I was illiterate.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
: For testing Windows 7, I did a clean install of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition RTM on a Dell Inspiron E1505 notebook with 1GB of RAM and a 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo processor. To test Snow Leopard, I did an upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard on my MacBook Air, which is loaded with a 1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2GB of RAM. So the Windows machine is worse in just about every way. It doesn't even have the same type processor (Core Duo vs Core 2 Duo). He should have just installed both on the Macbook with Bootcamp.
It pretty much shows Ubuntu 9.10 beating Snow Leopard most of the time.
Yay, we've come a long way. Unfortunately Karmic also displays a few significant regressions from Jaunty, hopefully someone is trying to do some profiling for those...
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
The article linked to in the quote block is a terrible little summary of Snow Leopard and Windows 7, split unnecessarily over 5 pages, with nary a benchmark to be seen. Most of the comparisons are subjective, vague, and really not very useful to anyone.
The only benchmark I care about is porn downloading performance. My porn folder has several thousand files. In Windows, the "Save Image" dialog in Firefox always opens snappily. In Ubuntu, the same dialog somehow takes several seconds when there are many files. This makes porn downloading very painful. Until Ubuntu fixes this bug, I'm afraid I can't use it seriously.
I don't care about Ubuntu, but it's users seem happy. Anyway, Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are both performing very well for me on less then bleeding edge (3 years old) hardware and have fixed various irritations in their predecessors. Both MS and Apple seem to have created OS's that are well worth the cost and time to upgrade from earlier versions.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
99.997% of the people using these computers don't care.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Stopped reading when he split the hardware. Why not do all your tests with SL, then reformat and load Win7 from scratch and do your next set of tests. Does this guy actually get paid to write this crap?
"Windows 7, on the other hand, remains the corporate standard"
That's fast, considering it was just RTM'd a few weeks ago and won't see a general release until Oct. 22nd.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
I can't afford a Mac, so the performance results are pretty bad. I can't find a linux notebook, so not so good performance either. That leaves all the Windows notebooks. Let me tell you, those are the worst of the three!
Its only 30 if you forked out 130 for the last one, so you could really call it 160.
The place where I do give them kudos is the family pack, I can upgrade five machines for $50... only have two currently.
OK, so I have a second kudo, they don't have some weird multiple available configurations locked to a DVD like windows, I can install SL on a fresh machine using the same disc as I did for the upgrade without giving it a second thought.
But giving it points for being only $30, look if it is such a minimal upgrade; for some its a total no go as they cannot install it because they run PowerPC; makes me wonder, why didn't it just download and install like the patch it comes across as?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
.. so interesting that people can actually chose which operating systems to run; what these comparisons don't mention is, what about the software that I run? Will it work if I switch OS? (rhetorical question). Knowing the answer, I will certainly not switch OS. Two: Leopard runs on Mac not on PC; I don't see what the purpose of the comparison is. Am I going to buy a different piece of hardware, because I want to switch OSes? In that case, I would install Linux and a dual boot system. That being said, if I am buying a new PC, and I am not attached to any software, which OS should I install? Well for most people, the OS is pre-installed, so they have no choice. Few manufacturers offer Linux as an alternative to Windows. The best solution? Get yourself a kick ass hardware, install VMWare, and install all the OSes you want; your hardware shouldn't have to dictate which OS to run and you OS shouldn't have to dictate which software to run.
TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
Is Apples GCC 4.3 significantly different from a vanilla GCC 4.3? I know they've been doing a bunch of work on llvm, so they can get a compiler not under the gplv3, is this part of the difference?
I use Ubuntu for my daily work, mainly because we install what we develop on Linux servers. It is just much easier to have on my desktop the same environment that I'll be facing with customers. I do not care a whole lot about performance, but I am very grateful that is so stable. A windows desktop would not compare.
Another thing I noticed with Vista, is that it keeps the hard drive light on at all times, no matter what I'm doing (or not doing). This can downgrade performance to almost unusable levels at times. With Ubuntu, it make more sense when the hard drive is accessed and the cache is clearly working well.
Having said that, it is funny to see that Ubuntu outperforms Mac in the categories that matter to me.
Cheers,
E. Conde
jBilling.com Open Source Billing
How many people are still upgrading their systems often enough for this to be relevant to them anyways? I was a pathological upgrader for years, but I honestly have spent on average less than $100 on hardware per year over the past 5 years. Granted this is partially because of how my financial situation changed in that time, but also because from my vantage point it doesn't seem that there has been any great progress made in the past 5 years in terms of hardware or software that requires new hardware.
Honestly, with the exception of the gamers that want to run Half Life 7 or Quake 9, are many people really bothering to upgrade anymore? From my vantage point it will be surprising to see Windows 7 do well commercially - not because of vista - because there haven't been great reasons to upgrade from the hardware and software of 5 years ago.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The authors of the first study actually realize that speed isn't the only metric that matters.
Still seem to confuse "operating system" and "user interface", though.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Given that the license terms for OsX force (by the terms, nothing else) the user to run it on Apple hardware, the comparison is really one of hardware. Where we have two camps:
camp 1: Apple hardware; expensive and nice, and able to run all three operating systems as the user needs or desires. This provides the user with the ability to run all software on tidy but expensive hardware. Price is the barrier to entry.
camp 2: Windows vs. Ubuntu on anything other than Apple hardware. This opens up the low end of hardware as well as other form factors and styles of hardware that Apple doesn't think you need.
These articles suck because they assume that you CAN do the same task on other operating systems. For many tasks that just isn't so. I can't do serious CAD on my shiny Apple under Snow leopard or any other non-domesticated cat. There are a TON of applications that don't work or are painful under Linux. I love Linux and use it frequently, and I also love my Mac, but there are and always will be a need for the mainstream OS, and today that is Windows.
Sheldon
It's sole purpose is to spawn comments saying it's flawed and discuss totally off-topic matters. Sounds like your average slashdot poll to me!
But giving it points for being only $30, look if it is such a minimal upgrade; for some its a total no go as they cannot install it because they run PowerPC; makes me wonder, why didn't it just download and install like the patch it comes across as?
It's not a minimal upgrade. There was a boatload of under the hood work, including rewriting a lot of programs. They've trimmed 6 GB of fat from the OS, due mostly to not including PPC stuff, which is why you can only upgrade on Intel machines.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
David Gerard is a leather clad queer who loves to take it up the ass from Roy Schestowitz, then write a Wikipedia article about it.
First of all, I think that number is way too high. While it may seem that way sometimes, people do care. Maybe not even a majority of them, but enough that it does make a difference.
Second of all, those who in theory don't care, when explained why it's important, start to care. When you add up the cost of upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7, along with all of its associated applications (I'm looking at you, Microsoft Office), versus the cost of upgrading through the various versions of Ubuntu or any of the other popular distributions and their associated applications, people really start to notice. One of my favorite things to do when I'm showing off Ubuntu to people is to open the package manager application. I tell them it's like the "Add or Remove Programs" applet, except that you can actually add programs. "All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."
When you explain to these people how there is absolutely zero technical reason why they can't have a movie or song play on the DVD player in their living room, their iPod, their computer, and anywhere else (and anyway else) they want to play it, but that thanks to DRM systems incorporated into Windows 7 and Mac OS X, they are artificially restricted from doing so because some third party has decided to "manage their digital rights" for them, it definitely gets their attention.
When you explain to these people how honest competition from really smart people doing really smart things just because they can and because they feel that others should benefit from their collective knowledge is one of the reasons why a lot of commercial closed-source software these days that might otherwise cost hundreds or thousands of dollars is sold for really low cost or given away for free because of how hard it is to compete with volunteer work, it also gets their attention.
When I show people my web browser (Firefox with AdBlock) and how I don't see particularly onerous ads on web sites because the person who wrote my browser isn't beholden to financial interest or corporate mandates, it has raised a lot of eyebrows.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. Free and open source software benefits everyone, even people who don't otherwise care, even people who shun it in favor of commercial and/or closed-source options. And sitting back and saying that people don't care isn't very productive. It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.
In the Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7 article, I ran across this gem:
That's because they're in the Optional section of Windows Updates on Windows 7, bundled as "Windows Live Essentials."
It's not hard to miss, seeing as it's the only entry in the Optional section (because although Virtual PC and XP Mode are also optional, but they're still release candidates).
Also, why is Previous Versions not mentioned here? It's not new either, Windows Vista had the Previous Versions functionality.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Well they needed something to make the score even. That's diplomacy ^^
Apple has confirmed that you can install the $30 upgrade version on top of Tiger.
In addition, Microsoft has a host of IT and management tools for deploying, maintaining and updating Windows hardware and software. Windows 7 adds some new ones, including management tools that use the scripting and automation capabilities of Windows PowerShell 2.0.
Snow Leopard makes a nod toward the enterprise, with built-in support for Microsoft Exchange Server 2007. But that's simply not enough. Snow Leopard is a consumer operating system, and isn't accompanied by the kind of management tools and IT ecosystem that enterprises need in order to manage large deployments.
Obviously this guy has not worked in an OSX or UNIX enterprise environment. There is a plethora ïof tools for OSX that make it very easy to manage across the enterprise. Add OSX server and netboot, and you have a very robust infrastructure built on OSX. Works well with exchange, but there are better groupware systems that also work with mail.app, And if he thinks 'powershell 2.0' can even come close to bash, hes gotta be on somethingï.
I find it annoying with reviewers play down OSX as some silly consumer product, unworthy of enterprise, management, or doing 'real work'. You goto a F/OSS developer conference and always over half, if not near 8 of 10 laptops will be OSX. Goto a film, media, or science tech conference and you'll find that number pushing 90%.
At an Apple store I asked if the $30 dollar was an upgrade or a full install disk. I was told it was a full install disk and no copy of leopard or even tiger was required. I installed it successfully on my sisters computer AFTER wiping it clean (Read: no previously purchased OS installed.) It is a full blown OS for only $30 (not an upgrade disk.) They do sell a more expensive copy that comes bundled with iLife and iWork.
Operating system name:
OK, let's get this issue out of the way quickly. Which operating system would you rather run: one with the cool name Snow Leopard, or one with the unimaginative moniker Windows 7?
Enough said.
The Winner: Snow Leopard. Wild animals are inherently more exciting than panes of glass.
The first comparison made is the name, and has nothing to do with the performance of the operating systems.
Who the hell writes this kind of tripe? More importantly, who the hell wants to read this tripe?
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
The Winner: Windows 7. Many people might consider this a toss-up, but this choice reflects my predilection for tweaking and customizing. Those who want simplicity will appreciate Snow Leopard's System Preferences' easy and accessible way to configure the operating system. Tweakers who like as many choices as possible, no matter how confusing and inelegantly presented, will prefer Windows 7's Control Panel.
I guess he doesn't get into the command line much, I'd take that any day over a confusing maze of windows and tabs.
"With the nearly simultaneous release of Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" (available right now) and Microsoft's Windows 7 (available Oct. 22)..."
You heard it here first - August 28th is the new October 22nd. Update your calendars appropriately!
That green slime had it coming.
removing ppc support was not a major rewrite, that was just trimming some files from their build script. Snow Leopard is a service pack to Leopard that they are charging you for, don't fool yourself. Apple unconsciously acknowledges it in both the name and the price
Well theoretically you are breaking a EULA if you install Snow Leopard without a Leopard license for that computer. But Apple probably won't care.
Besides the issues already mentioned (OS name? Seriously? Major hardware differences on test machines? No actual speed tests of any kind?) there are several parts of the article which are just plain wrong: 1. Installation. You do have to decide with Snow Leopard if you want to upgrade or clean install--it's just that normally that decision is suggested for you. Anybody competent enough to be upgrading their operating system should know that typically, inserting the disk while booted will start an OS upgrade, and booting from the disk will allow a clean install. There's also no mention in this section of the fact that of course Snow Leopard won't have any driver issues; Apple has a limited set of hardware to work with, while Microsoft has to deal with everything. I think Microsoft's solution of installing basic drivers, then getting the correct ones through Windows Update, is a lot better than the alternative of installing most or all of the possible drivers you might need, bloating your installation a several GB. 2. Launching Applications. Yes, when running Internet Explorer in Windows, separate tabs will show up as thumbnails, but only in Internet Explorer. I'm surprised the reviewer didn't even try Firefox, since he apparently did in Snow Leopard. I guess some people think Firefox is more acceptable as a replacement for Safari than Internet Explorer? Additionally, it mentioned Jump Lists. I have Snow Leopard, and I can personally attest to the fact that there ARE jump lists in Snow Leopard, and they function EXACTLY like in Windows, i.e. the application can add menu items to it. Also, Snow Leopard has Alt-Tab (actually Command-Tab), that also activates with a four-finger multitouch swipe on the trackpad of a laptop (and multitouch gesture drivers are now available for older macbooks and macbook pros, which previously didn't have such gestures). 3. Enterprise Readiness. Major Blud made note of the fact that this reviewer has thrust Windows 7 into a de facto position of corporate standard. Frankly, just because businesses use Windows doesn't make Windows more enterprise ready. I happen to work in an environment that administers both Windows and Mac systems. Macintosh has had major management and IT tools for a while now, and some of the advanced features are a lot easier to manage, I think. These tools are mostly available through the Apple developer network, and through Mac OS X Server. The remote administration, imaging, and configuration services in Server are, in my opinion, on the level with Windows administration tools. That all said, the review isn't all bad. It offers an important look at the features that are important to the everyday user, and while most of us Slashdotters would be more interested in benchmarks, it's important not to lose sight of the average user. I just wish the reviewer had gotten his facts straight.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
that's where I stopped reading... If they think Ubuntu Linux is written entirely by Canonical, then I don't give a shit about these Noobs' opinion on anything...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Maybe interesting to shareholders. Not everyone is a technogeek.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Apple doesn't have an in between system. You have their all-in-one, but if you want to go past that, the next thing is a high end workstation. So suppose you want a quad core with a reasonable graphics card. Bare minimum price from Apple is $2700 for a quad with 3GB RAM, a 4870, and a 640MB HD. So if you want a similar thing from Dell you get a Core 2 Quad, 4GB RAM, a 4870 and a 750MB HD for $1150, less than half the price. Now you'd be correct in pointing out that the Mac Pro has hardware the Dell doesn't, like a second CPU slot. Ok, but what if you don't need that? Well too bad, you have to pay for it anyhow.
That is a big problem you get in to with Mac prices. In a very large segment of the market, they have no good offerings. You have to buy much higher end hardware which drives the price way up. You can argue all you like that it isn't "equal" it doesn't matter. If those extra features aren't needed or wanted, then all you are doing is driving the price up.
"Snow Leopard did do a better job of recognizing the hardware -- it did it without a hitch" Sure it does, Apple did both Software & Hardware, if it didn't recognize any hardware part suing them would be a right thing to do. on the other hand I am still amazed on how Microsoft can manage to support this huge number of hardware parts that they didn't even know about, and not even exist yet.
If I want to run an OSX app, it's probably faster on Snow Leopard than either Windows 7 or Ubuntu 9.10 (since it doesn't run on them, AFAIK), and an Ubuntu binary is probably faster on it than Snow Leopard or Windows 7.
The real question, to me, if how well the odd Windows 7 app, that "simply cannot be avoided", for whatever reason, runs on Ubuntu 9.10 and Snow Leopard, whether in WINE, Parallels, ..., and if that is usable compared to its performance in its native Windows.
FPSs and MMO clients, for example, have generally been faster in their native Windows or simply don't run the other OSs. What about something like SolidWorks?
You are free to ignore their terms. The 130 box which includes iLife and iWork is for those who did not adhere to the terms of the $30 upgrade price. In other words.. If you didn't upgrade to Leopard when you had the opportunity your saving money because the upgrade straight to SL is only $130. So again, why give credit to $30 OS when it really should be seen as $160. Again, for only those who adhered to their rules. Since I paid for Leopard for my iMac this is now a 130+ portion of family pack cost upgrade for that machine and portion of family pack for my MBP which came pre-installed with Leopard.
As I posted before, it is a full disc. Some of us are just anal about following the rules. If I did not have leopard I would have bought the suggested upgrade, which is the $130 box with iLife/iWork.
On a side note, install was painless on the MBP. I will do the iMac later in the week pending a few days of smooth running on the MBP. Took about 35 minutes though the screen stated 45 when I started.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
In Firefox: Tools, Downloads, ClearList (button). Then install the Save Image in Folder add-on.
Your porn breaks will now be 32% shorter or collection 32% larger; thus decreasing pain by 64%, seriously.
Also, you can dd the disc to a flash/firewire drive for even faster installation.
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
is shit.
When I glanced at the site, the differences between the two Ubunto distros look like they are mostly in cpu intensive code, and not things like OS drivers, etc (some of the differences between Snow Leopard are OS/filesystem issues). Given a change from GCC 4.3 to GCC 4.4 was made between the two distributions, it is likely due to the compiler. It may be something simple like not using -mcpu=native on the compilation (not specifying the cpu means GCC has to choose the generic cpu model, which is a compromise between various AMD and Intel chipsets). It could also be one of the places that was made slower, because incorrect code was generated, but you didn't always see the effect of the bad code in the sample dataset.
Who cares whether it runs faster on CPU with nominally similar specs. For many of these measurements, I/O, disks, and other components make a big difference, too.
What they should do is compare performance on regular, mainstream desktops and laptops that you can get at various price points: $500, $1000, $2000.
please link EULA stating this.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
Running Linux on Apple hardware is not supported. Furthermore, Apple hardware is weird in some ways, and it also changes haphazardly over time even for the same model number. Overall, you're much better off buying hardware from vendors that actually support Linux.
In terms of quality, my experience with Apple hardware has been decidedly mixed, while I have never had a problem with HP.
I just recently found out about the FF plugin autopager, and both links in the story worked flawless. What a smooth and useful add-on. Now if there was a way to lock FF autoscrolling, so you could set your reading speed and then let go of the mouse....
What he failed to point out is Microsoft drunk the Koolaide and largely just mimiced Leopard. He even pointed out how little difference there was in the interface. The whole article felt like a Windows fan doing the comparison so shockingly Windows won eventhough there was little difference between the two OSs. I found the article very missleading because it was a review of interface changes and not performance or which was truly better. He pointed out that once software developers incorporated the new changes there would be major improvements in speed and performance with Snow Leopard. He wasn't able to say the same about Windows 7. I've got both a Mac Leopard and a Windows Vista on my desk so I have no name preference. I found Vista a screaming pain to use and after all the initial claims with Vista all they did with Windows 7 is confirm that they are following Mac's lead. Since there were so few changes with Snow Leopard I have to wonder if Microsoft are scratching their heads over what to do next. I'm unhappy with the shift both are making because I want to see more basic interfaces with more stability rather than focusing on bells and whistles. I want to see OSs more background but those days are gone. An OS should be a platform to launch software but the developers seem to want the OS to be the main focus. Given how little useful the OS actually does it's a bad direction to take.
It's a moderate upgrade at the moment. There's some nice stuff in there. BUT, when developers start releasing products that use the new features, Snow Leopard is going to be a very decent upgrade over Leopard.
That's the way it SHOULD be. The OS should provide a clean, usable interface for the user and target most of it's features at the developer. I run an OS so I can run apps to do things.
You know what I mean? Of course you do. Anyone with half-a-brain for computers and Operating Systems regards this for what it is: CRAP. Seriously, "let us compare an OS upgrade (Snow Leopard) and the OS that is what MS wanted to release when they did Vista (7) and then throw in a completely different story about comparing to Ubuntu."
Seriously?
I've seen XKCD comics more story-worthy. I won't even go into why comparing two OSes that run on completely different hardware (for the most part) is utterly pointless, let's just say that Windows 7 wins for people using Vista while XP still wins for anyone running XP still, and Snow wins for anyone running Leopard or Tiger (and can upgrade to Snow), while Ubuntu wins for people who don't want to shell out for a major OS and who enjoy the experience that is Linux.
In the end, this is all moot: please, start comparing something useful, like sound editing software, or office productivity suites, or organic peanut butter and Jiffy.
ARARGARGASRGASDRGADRGHFDHDFJADFHJADFJADFJDFJ *loses all hair*
Okay, try installing your disk on non-mac hardware & see how easy it is for you.
Or try buying mac hardware without Mac OS preinstalled.
Hmmm....
Nope, it wasn't exactly trimming with a script. They're using LLVM and clang now instead of bread and butter gcc4.2. which i believe isn't stable/tuned to powerpc.
This i think is also a political move, because gcc 4.3 and up are GPL3 (please correcte me if i'm wrong). FreeBSD is also doing this.
Relevant quote from the original article:
Apple has said it would install; they have not sanctioned doing so. If you don't care for this distinction, I suggest you head to your friendly neighborhood torrent tracker.
Are you adequate?
Another expense with Apples is the inability to run new OSes on old hardware.
my school used various generations of macs on campus. the response time for 10.5 leopard was the same on all the machines from the mac pro towers in the media labs to the 1998 imac net nodes tucked away in obscure corners of the more neglected lecture halls.
anyone who has tried to make xp run on hardware dating from a similar time period would fall asleep from boredom waiting for "ye olde exe" to launch.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
They ran tiger, not leo, at the time.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Under section C.
Relatedly, a new word was added to the English language!
I can't wait until I can download Windows 7 illegally and bypass Microsoft's activation. Awesome!
The one that meets your needs.
Oh, I forgot, this is slashdot. Of course the answer is Snow Leopard unless you want to compile all your software from scratch. Then it's Ubuntu. Windows 7 is that crappy OS from the evil company up in Redmond. No one in their right mind would run that software.
Most new software as direct conversions from Windows versions? E.g. EA games? Yes. Also, lets not forget G5 is a great CPU but of course, it can't keep up with the new Intel desktop CPUs. Intel's job is that, even AMD can't go near the Intel high end right now. Absolutely, the people who upgraded their PowerPCs to Leopard (10.5) are in same area as 10.6 is designed in a way that supporting it doesn't mean you have to drop 10.5 support. It wasn't same deal on 10.4--10.5 transtition. Of course, software requiring (note, requiring), only possible with OpenCL, grand central is out of the question. If a Developer drops 10.5 support just because 10.6 shipped while it is possible to support 10.5 with fallback etc. strategies, he is a complete idiot amateur. I am sorry for his customers, that is all. Look to goodly written commercial software and even shareware system requirements. You will be amazed.
If you were a G5 owner, you wouldn't want a "pure 64bit" OS.
First, there is NO ADVANTAGE, no kind of "2x more registers when run in 64bit".
Second, thanks to the vision of IBM/Apple/Motorola, PowerPC was already designed with 64bit in mind but perfectly capable of running 32bit software without any kind of limitations.
Third, there were absolutely nothing stopping any developer to release 64bit versions of software, right on Leopard,not snow leopard. Adobe did it? Nope! Even while Apple gives them perfect toolset on Snow Leopard, they use the opportunity to whine, use false information, confusion to drop support for CS3. Adobe can release 32/64 Intel/PPC binary that can run both on OS X 10.5 and 10.6 right now. Don't be fooled, just see XCode 3.x on Leopard.
Fourth, IBM/Mot did almost nothing regarding CUDA, OpenCL, making things easier for multi core programming (grand central) as their focus is either enterprise or dying phone business (mot case). Lets say Apple decides to do a last favour to G5 owners and release Snow Leopard. It would be a total rip off with the stuff that isn't there and possibly will never be. In case of IBM, we speak about a company who produces a perfectly good high performance compiler (XL) and still allows their dealers to list it with $600 price until recently.
Fifth and most important of all. G5 and POWER doesn't like unnecessary 64 bit. If "zip" you use won't have to deal with 4GB+ of memory, it better stay as 32bit binary since in some cases, it can run half speed. Pure 64bit need is a Intel thing, not related to any other CPU arch. So, th-erotically speaking and if Adobe and others weren't complete idiots lacking rivalship, you would want Adobe Photoshop CS5 in 64bit checked (via Finder) on G5 Leopard to deal with 39 mpixel RAW images but you would want your kernel and other stuff in 32bit.
Oh what happens when 10.7 ships, Apple drops 10.5 support even ignoring security issues? There is Linux and BSD. I would pick one, donate some good money and start torrenting it.
The whole point of this test was to show how well Windows, SN, and Linux perform on similar hardware. Talking about old or cheap stuff is kind of...pointless.
I'd love to see the retail sales figures vs. the number of copies licensed through Volume Licensing and other Enterprise Agreements. Yes, Windows 7 is all pretty like OSX now. Ubuntu is a great alternative in some cases. Does the average corporate care? No. They are more concerned with licensing, ease of deployment, manageability, compatability etc. Windows 7 (and in some cases Vista) allows activation via a KMS Server, BranchAccess for Remote Access, new Group Policy features, BitLocker etc which go largely unnoticed by the average desktop OS "deathmatch" but which are a major differentiating factor to a corporate buyer. XP Mode (XP in a VM) is a packaged workaround for those companies still using that old accounting app bob's nephew wrote 12 years ago which runs the entire business. I am not saying there are no alternatives and I'm sure next year will definitely be the year of Linux on the desktop. I'll admit my view is entirely skewed as I've never had to pay for MS Software (working in IT you rarely do due to work arrangements) and use it/deploy it as a job but the desktop at home is not the be all of an OS. Personally I have dealt with a number of customers planning SOE deployments of desktop refreshes and plan on using Windows 7. The fact that XP is in extended support turns a lot of customers off deploying it fresh on a large scale. Vista is effectively dead in the water for all but the few who have already begun deploying it. I'm sure there will be the fanboys out there on release day queuing at stores to get it, but Joe user will probably get upgraded when they buy their next PC from the local electronics store.
...because there is no more subjective scale than that! ;)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The Box Set that you refered to goes for $169. Not bad considering the apps it comes with and an office suite. Thats the one I plan to get along with a bigger HDD for my MacBook Pro. I think its a pretty good deal. :)
~Petaris "The world is open. Are you?"
Good thing EULA's are unenforceable notions of fancy, then. And I mean that in the legal sense, not in the you-can-get-away-with-it sense.
My intended tone was that the prices are already high enough, without the need for exaggeration.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Netcraft confirms it
how much do you get paid for such a twitteresque shill?
To be more specific: Windows 7 requires 1GB of RAM for the 32-bit version and 2GB for the 64-bit version. The 16-bit version requires 16GB of hard disk space, while the 32-bit version needs 20GB.
I hope I can find 16GB of storage somewhere, because here I come Windows 7!
PS: This article seemed more like an attempt to get slashdotted than a legitimate study. The comparison of names was unneeded and marking down Windows for needing to install a single device driver is just plain silly. If I installed any OS and only had to go to Nvidia website and install a single driver to have a fully functional computer, I'd be extremely happy!
at least come up with some new material you fucking douchebag
I was under the impression it was a compile-time flag even for GCC.
I really don't think it's political vis-a-vis compiler drama, just performance. i can't imagine there's not a gcc 4.4 fork that's not PPC tuned.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
How are Sept 1 and Oct 22 near simultaneous?
do people actually care? I'm really not trolling, I just wonder how many people who have tiger are paying full price given that they know they don't have to. I once knew a guy who deleted all his mp3s in a fit of conscience once, but he was a bit religious and bit strange (and no that really isn't redundant). I don't consider myself a sociopath but if murdering a baby got me a song I liked and the risk was negligible...
Really, this is just silly.
How much time do you spend working with a computer during its lifetime? What does that work out to, in dollars?
Now how does that compare to the price of the hardware?
How much of your time will you expend in terms of the price difference in the hardware?
If you think that a better system will save you that much time in the life of the computer, it's a no-brainer.
People who work with their tools every day do NOT go scraping the bottom of the barrel when they shop for their tools. They go for the good stuff.
Going by the Phoronix report, it looks like we need to wait for 10.6.1 or 10.6.2 for the graphics engine to be fixed. It is apparently slower than 10.5 right now.
don't users care about running the apps they like, and how much they have to spend ( i honestly think it you are doing email and web and some simple office docs, you can get a decent wintel box for less then $500, which is hard to do in a mac) and,if they are mac users, how cool they are ?
I can't actually believe that more then a small fraction of people care about benchmarks
Just for your information (unless you were joking), "kudos" is not a plural, so there is no single "kudo". Sort of like there is no "octopu" as a singular octopus. OK octopuses are countable, while kudos is not, but you get the drift.
Maybe a better example would be you can put hommos on your pita bread with your falafel, but not one hommo.
So... how about the original topic of the story? OS performance??
From the reviews, and from seeing other comparissions, it seems that we have three damn good stable reliable operating systems, the best ever in each class, with a compelling case for each one, based finally only on what really matters: what you actually want to do with the OS.
The classes being: Free as in Beer. Free as in Warez. Not free as in Hackintosh (you pay in pain)
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Not a single mention of the bloatware? One of my biggest turn offs of Windows has been the bloatware.
You buy a new computer from Best Buy, and you get a box full of crap along with it. You ask them for a pure and clean version of windows without all the baggage and they look at you like you're crazy.
The other big, big, very big reason I stick to Macs (that I didn't see mentioned in the original article) is that they run UNIX under the hood. The shell in a Mac is far superior to the windows prompt. In fact, I'd say that the access to this type of underlying control allows you infinitely more power to configure the OS that the clumsy control panel of windows. Just because it has more icons doesn't make it more powerful.
Even if Windows were prettier (not quite yet, but getting closer) I'd still have a hard time making the switch myself.
I do give them credit for making an improvement and doing it relatively fast, but they better keep it up. Once Google and Apple start playing keepaway, Windows will be helpless to ever get back in the game.
No, seriously. I'm tired of these head-to-head comparisons of OSes, because for the most part they're the same. My husband uses Windows (currently Vista) and I use a Mac. Why? Because he likes the way Windows works (and no, he's never had a virus or a trojan horse despite all the FUD spread by the freetards and the Mac fanbois) and DOESN'T like the way Linux and Mac OS X work. I use Mac OS X because I greatly prefer its elegance and the way it works to either Windows or Linux. If I were going to switch to another OS, however, it would be to Windows 7, and because I like the way it looks and works.
These OS comparisons can be informative, but for the most part they're just a waste of time, and generally produced by people pushing one OS over the others. I'd rather read a pure review of a particular OS from the viewpoint of a Mac user (since that's what I am), and I think Windows users would find reviews of Mac OS X and Linux more helpful from the perspective of a Windows user. But that's just me and my crazy view of the computing world. :)
How can you test a 1G RAM system against a 2G RAM system?
Well theoretically you are breaking a EULA if you install Snow Leopard without a Leopard license for that computer.
The EULA says that if I purchased an upgrade license then I am allowed to install it on a Mac that has a Leopard licence. But nothing on the order I placed, the packing slip, the box itself, the piece of paper in the box, nor the install DVD says anything about the licence that I purchased being an upgrade. Price: $29. (Well actually more, because I am in Canada and I bought the family pack.)
Linus is doing the same thing with the Linux kernel.
Trying running the latest Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, etc on your 9 year old (PC).
He'll thrash, cry and beg to get XP back. In short it runs like crap.
You can interpret that both ways.
There must be a reason RedHat is still running old kernels.
Hey Torvaulds!
stfunoob
'better operating system' is a function of reliability and usability, not of speed performing some arbitrary task.
10% faster or slower just doesn't matter in normal use.
Retarded article... I'll only address the most retarded of details. First category of comparison: Which has the cooler name? Seriously, I know Macheads think about things like that but does Joe Consumer care what the OS name is as long he/she can run their internets and send emails, they are happy. Last category of comparison: Which OS comes with more extras? Well, MS tried including lots of extras, but a few small organisations like the DoJ and the EU got all pissed off and put restrictions on them. The EU being the worst offender in this case. If MS included the suite of extras that Apple does, they would be slapped down with an anti competition suit as quick as you could say 'Fuck Apple'.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
they are comparing time to compile.. could it be possible that a newer version of GCC has more optimisations and so takes longer to compile but might produce a binary that executes faster.
why not compile some compression algorithms and raytracers and then benchmark the resulting binaries?
What is current Linux OS release on the Ubuntu 8.04? The article says that Ubuntu ships with Linux 2.6.28 release but isn't it now 2.6.30.something already?
lol
To be more specific: Windows 7 requires 1GB of RAM for the 32-bit version and 2GB for the 64-bit version. The 16-bit version requires 16GB of hard disk space, while the 32-bit version needs 20GB.
I am not devoid of humor.
for some its a total no go as they cannot install it because they run PowerPC
Which is part of why the following quote from page 1 of the article is complete bollocks:
Not only does this gloss over the new OS's increased system requirements, but it also glosses over the big holes in Apple's product line 1. below the Mac mini and 2. between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro.
makes me wonder, why didn't it just download and install like the patch it comes across as?
After the options backdating scandal, Apple's lawyers interpret Sarbanes-Oxley to require charging for new features.
pricing delta is defined by hardware prices of Apple vs any OEM that will bundle Windows, which in turn depends on your precise needs.
My precise needs are something more powerful than a Mac mini and less powerful than a Mac Pro. What do you recommend?
What i hate about these comparison is that they always mention graphic application but the world does not revovle around graphic application like photoshop or quarkxpress but office application, gaming and programming tools and such
Mac has a very very nano short list of games and as for office application it's about the same so comparing apples with tomatoes.
If you want to do things which are barely supported on the world largest OS (Windows) then go ahead but dont complain when people cant see or view your things, yeahh mac is slick but it's shitty for gamers, tweakers and office productivity.
This guy gave Windows 7 the win on Control Panel vs the OS X configuration screen? Clearly he is in some drug induced hallucination. I refuse to work on people's Vista/Win7 problems because I can't just fix shit. I have to go through a maze of stupid Fisher Price interface bullshit and stupid questions just to get at the setting I want. In OS X I can pretty much get at any setting I need in a pretty intuitive fashion. The Vista/Win7 nonsense makes XP look like it has a fine tuned configuration interface with all of its hidden tabs and registry only configurable bits.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
if you want to get really technical about the pricing by saying that windows software costs more, just sign up for a technet account (they can be had for $250 if MS is running a deal). i paid $250 for mine and i have 100 Win7 Ultimate licenses. 100 licenses for $250, so $2.50 a license...................if that were the only software that you could get on technet. you get a majority of Microsoft's whole catalog of software for $250.
A note about "family pack" licensing. Apparently there's verbiage in the Windows license now to accommodate for this too, but I haven't seen pricing for it yet.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
What do you do with your normal "desktop PC" that you can't use a low profile machine for?
For one thing, standard-definition video editing. This requires some way to get the analog composite video into the machine. Have USB video capture adapters become cheaper than PCIe yet?
Or maybe gaming. Is the on-board video comparable to a low-end PCIe video card, or is it comparable to a Voodoo3 like the Intel GMA on a lot of PC motherboards?
And what fills the gap between an iPod Touch and a low-end MacBook that netbooks fill on the Windows side?
That's a very long post, but you missed my point: 10.5 PPC will be dropped by most developers when they move to 10.6.
Of course he threw in a whole category for "Coolest name".
Hurm... think he might be a BIT predisposed to one of the competitors?
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
The most developers are stupid than. Interestingly none of the software I use (including open source) plans to drop 10.5 soon, at least until Apple drops it which you can understand when iLife suite doesn't support 10.5.
I always pick good software companies and good, real OS X developers. They aren't so trendy types and not windows converts. I wouldn't be surprisd a bit when couple of software drops 10.5 support in coming months but I don't use them anyway. If I was on Intel, I wouldn't still use, trust me on that.
10.6 is built on 10.5, that is what Apple says. That is a signal for developers, even if they don't have the expensive developer account for beta seeds. Do you know how many software use Leopard (10.5) features let alone to use 10.6 exclusive ones? For example VLC folks dropped 10.4 support for a basic reason, gcc 4.2 LVM didn't ship for 10.4 and they couldn't find a way. On the other hand, Core Player, MPlayer, Apple Quicktime keeps 10.4 support. That is what I say when I talk about amateurs and trendy types. Even OSS included.
BTW this new generation (Win 7, SL) is built on same principles, do not re-invent the wheel, fix it and add some features. Ask if any Windows developers think of dropping Vista support when Win 7 ships. Win 7 is same deal too, it is built on Vista.
Apple did not confirm it, nor is it permitted by the license. Just because you can do it doesn't make it legal. It was Walt Mossberg's quote that stated it can be done, but he doesn't write Apple's license agreements!
The Mac Box Set, available from the Apple store, costs $169. But keep in mind that for that price you're also getting iWork and iLife, which together cost $158. That's a pretty good deal.
Except that's an upgrade price. And the upgrade from Tiger is $169.
What about all the service packs that MS give out for free? The point is that it's unfair to compare - Windows has major jumps (with corresponding price) occasionally, but has many intermediate increases offered for free. OS X OTOH has had more regular updates, that cost money, but each update costs less. So which costs more overall, if you'd been an upgrader since say, Windows 2000 versus the first version of OS X?
I mean, come on - everytime someone points out that the Windows upgrades are free, we get no end of people coming out the woodwork telling us that you can't compare the different upgrade styles. So where are all those people now?
How much does OS X costs buying new, compared to Windows?
To give the point to Apple, and claim the price is $29, shows that CW are just part of the same pro-Apple bias in the media (presumably because of the traditional use of Macs in the niche of DTP), rendering the whole article worthless.
It is also meaningless to claim "It's the best of times if you're a lover of operating systems", when it's not like people have any real choice in what OS they can install on what computer. I might as well claim it's the best of times because you can also buy AmigaOS.
Hi all,
I purchased a Mac Mini just after Leopard (10.5) came out. As a result I received a Mac Mini that had Tiger (10.4) on it. But I also received a Leopard (10.5) install disk (A MAC OS X V 10.5 DROP-IN KIT, labelled "CPU Drop-in DVD"). So I own both 10.4 and 10.5, legit, install DVDs. I used the 10.5 to install Tiger on both my machine and my brother's G5. No issues at all.
So as far as I know Apple did not bother to repeat the Microsoft license-verification/activation/contact-the-hotline-when-you-changes-components madness.
Maybe my brother infringed the EULA by installing Leopard using the disk I received with my Mac Mini, but AFAIK Apple:
1. doesn't care
2. has no way to detect if you're using a version of their OS X while infringing on their EULA.
That Leopard disk (CPU DROP-in DVD whatever that means) I received with my Mac Mini required no serial number, asked nothing during the install and I'm pretty sure that that DVD was identical to millions of others Leopard "CPU Drop-in" install DVDs.
It seems like apple did nothing to prevent a single Leopard installation DVD from being used on any number of machines and that, anyway, they didn't even have a way to verify if several people were using the same Leopard "copy" (once again, there wasn't even a serial number asked !?).
Am I mistaken ?
What about Leopard 10.6, is this the same ?
Is there a serial number asked ?
The article seems to intentionally avoid any issues that any user is likely to prioritise when deciding whether to go with Windows 7 or Snow Leopard. They are not two different operating systems, they are two different platforms and the points used to compare them are utterly trivial.
OS X Snow Leopard Box Set: $169
OS X Snow Leopard Server with unlimited clients: $499
Windows 7 Home Premium: $199
Windows 7 Business: $299
Windows 7 Ultimate: $319
Windows Server 2008 Standard with 5 clients: $999
Windows Server 2008 20-client license pack: $799
Snow Leopard Box Set includes iLife and iWork. To get similar functionality on Windows, add Microsoft Office. How much is that?
but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac
iMac: 24" LCD, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 1066 RAM, 640GB HD, nVidia 9400m: $1499
HP iQ500t: 22" LCD Touchscreen, 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2 800 RAM, 640GB HD, nVidia 9300m: $1369
no way you're getting a 9 year old PC to run Windows 7 with a "simple" RAM upgrade. A 9 year old PC would be an original Pentium 4, at most you're running at 2.2GHz, and you're using DDR 266 or 333 RAM. Windows 7 performance is horrible on the older Pentium 4's, and it's horrible on less than 2GB of RAM, even though the minimum states 1GB. Finally, you'll need to upgrade your video card significantly, or have to turn off all the graphics features. A 1GB DDR 333 stick of Kingston Value RAM is over $70. You really going to sink $140 for lousy performance on your 9 year old machine? Yeah, right.
It's clever how you compared it to a touchscreen. That alone pops the price up by $400 - $500 bucks. At the retail establishment in which I used to work, we sold a similar touchscreen machine, and it was twice as expensive as a comparable desktop. The sale price of such a comparable desktop could be as low as $600. In a RETAIL establishment, God knows what you can find online. Add $150 for a monitor (yeah, pretend you don't already have three sitting around). A tad over half the price of the Mac.
New totals:
$600 PC + $150 Monitor + $200 Win7 Home Premium + $100 MS Office: $1150.
$1500 Mac including SL: $1500.
I compared it to a touchscreen because that's the only all-in-one PC I know of. I don't where you shop, but touchscreen isn't that expensive. So add $100 for your touchscreen. Now deduct $100, because the iMac is 24" not 22". Now look at the fact that the iMac is better RAM, and better Video card, and you'll see that the price is pretty much identical.
Dell XPS One 24" all in one system, $2499!!!!!!! It costs $1000 more than the iMac costs. And for that, you get a Q8200 CPU, which is about $40 more expensive than the E7300. More cores, but lower clock speeds. The Dell has a crappier chipset, as evidenced by the DDR2 instead of DDR3 RAM. The Dell has a crappy video chipset. The Dell has a smaller hard drive.
Unless those "masses" want to use the Internet. If they do, then they damned well be computer experts beyond the average Linux "geek" or else their computer will soon be part of a botnet.
Windows being "for the masses" is one of the classical OS-pigeonholing mistakes. Windows is for experts with inescapable legacy needs. If you're not an expert and you're not also stuck with using some Windows-only app, then Windows is very likely the wrong OS for you.
A million spammers can't be wrong.
Removing the PPC half of a fat binary is literally something you can automate.
When they get rid of the 32-bit legacy in a few years, they can trim another 3 gigs of fat... automatically.
He is "testing" a crappy Dell with 1Gb of RAM to a Macbook Air? That doesn't seem very fair. Of course going down and looking at the "test" it looks like all he cares about is bling bling crap, so I have to give this article a meh. I mean seriously, who spends all their time messing with the bling bling crap in their OS? The first thing I do is turn that crap off, as I want the OS to....oh I don't know....actually RUN PROGRAMS and not try to dazzle me with bullshit.
Man I miss the days when Windows had workstations and home crap, like my beloved Win2K. Win2K is dull and grey and just gets the fuck out of my way and leaves my resources for running MY stuff. Is that really too much to ask anymore? Or all we all doomed to have Operating Systems that look like the crap on a 14 year old's cell?
Damned shame I can't afford Win2K8, as from what I have seen it makes a great workstation, but shelling out that kind of dough just to get away from the bling is just nuts. And please don't say Linux, as a good 40%+ of my hardware doesn't actually work on that OS, so it would probably cost me more than a Win2K8 license. Maybe businesses will avoid Win7 like they avoided Vista and we can get rid of that damned Steve Jobs wannabe Ballmer (We can be as cool and as hip as Apple! Yes we can! I'm serious! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!) and bring somebody in from the office section that knows about Business and don't want to wear mock turtlenecks. Yeah I know the odds are low, but I can dream, can't I?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Which one has the highest framerates when running DirectX applications?
See, the link you posted costs $150 (ebay stores screw you intentionally on shipping, it's just over $50 in this case), AND it's DIY. Since when does the price of a DIY upgrade = the price of purchasing a computer with the upgrade included? Furthermore, the touchscreen is irrelevant. My price quotes are accurate. Yours are still inaccurate because you're making irrelevant comparisons.
So basically, going from XP to Win7 price is $120 on Amazon. Going from Tiger to 10.6 is $170.
Now, in both cases hopefully you got in on the special win7 pricing ($50) or you are skipping the official Apple price ($30).
I may put it on my Mini via boot camp. :)
I might be tempted to install Windows 7 on an external drive for my MacBook Pro but only if it does not require Activation. I switched to Macs and OS X as well as Linux from Windows because I hate it that Microsoft is now requiring Activation by either allowing Windows and Office to use the net to contact MS servers or by calling MS. If I pay for something the most that should be required is to input a license key.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Or, you just sign up for BizSpark and get it all for free!
$30
The upgrade price for Snow Leopard, that $30, is only good if you're upgrading from Leopard. The upgrade checks to see if Leopard is installed, you may be able to hack Snow Leopard on top of Tiger but you'd be breaking the license.
And unlike other OS X upgrades the only way I see to legally upgrade from Tiger to Snow Leopard is by getting the Mac Box set, which costs $170.
I like Apple's (outside of the insane "must upgrade" cycle)
There is no must upgrade. I had my Leopard disk for more than a year before I nuked Tiger and installed it. The only reason I did was because I wanted to install Java SE 6 and it required Leopard. But there was no must upgrade, I wanted to.
I now have my Snow Leopard upgrade disk, again there was no must upgrade. I only got it because it only cost $30 and I had a $10 gift certificate. With taxes I only paid $22 and change.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And what do I actually get from it, that wasn't available in XP?
DirectX 11. Also not available on Mac or Linux.
You left something out that you also get, vendor lock-in.
I have preview panes in XP, too - not only that, but I have labels in my taskbar!
W7 has labels too, just not on by default (right-click taskbar -> Properties -> Taskbar buttons:
Ah but GP didn't have to pay to upgrade to get labels.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
From all I heard the Snow Leopard disk is a full install of OS X, and not an upgrade. I might be wrong though, I'm going mostly on hearsay.
There is no must upgrade.
This might be true as far as official Apple software goes (actually isn't this release killing Rosetta support?), but Apple also adds very small API (which don't effect OS operations in any noticeable way) changes that third party developers pick up and run with, and promptly stop supporting older versions of the software. Quicksilver did this about a month after Leopard came out, so basically you drop out of the upgrade cycle if you don't go spend $X on an new OS release that is pretty much the same as the last one. A couple of the big editors did the same, as did a couple GTD apps. Its not official, but it still puts pressure to upgrade on the consumer.
Most people would be best off upgrading every OTHER release, since the changes are generally rather small. Compare Tiger -> Leopard, to XP -> Vista, or Vista -> Win7, or ever between most Ubuntu or Debian major releases.
That said, I'll probably pick it up as well. $30 for a OS isn't bad, and I've been meaning to convert my Mini into a media center/hub.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
They compared nearly identical machines but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac
2009 calling. When it came tyme to get a new laptop I compared the prices of various laptops from different OEMs and Apple. The MacBook Pro I finally got was in the middle between the cheapest Windows laptop and the most expensive. Heck a Dell was $200 more. That was more than 2 years ago.
Why do myths refuse to die?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Figures, what I would expect from them. Lame, uninformed review. He liked Snow Leopard, ok thats fine but what if he actually put it in 64 bit mode? Try holding 6 and 4 and reboot. Jeeze lame. If you want to see if your in 32 or 64 bit go to the utilities/system profiler and look in software. It will show it. Oh and you must be running a 64 bit EFI. Most newer Macs are fine.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Do a comparison yourself if you don't think the Mac Tax exists. It does.
The Mac Tax does not exist.
MacBook Pro "17
Total: $2,849.00
Alienware M17x
Total: $2,774
Dell Precision Workstation M6400
Total: $3,414
HP EliteBook 8730w Mobile Workstation
Total: $3,203.00
I'd rather pay my Microsoft tax and get an OS that is compatible with the majority of hardware out there then pay a similar amount of money on the Mac Tax and get a computer plagued with incompatibilities for much of the software that exists.
Not only can I install Mac software on my Mac, I can also install Linux and Windows software on it. Try installing Mac software in Linux or Windows.
Of course, I am reliant on very little Windows-only products. I only use 2, but I do know those two can be royal pain in the ass to use on a Mac.
Before switching from Windows to both Linux and OS X I made a list of what I wanted to do, not specific software but tasks. I then looked at what was available for each task on each platform and I didn't find anything I needed Windows for, everything I wanted and needed to do I could use a Mac for, and most could be done with Linux as well.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Another expense with Apples is the inability to run new OSes on old hardware.
My Windows machine machine is almost 9 years old, but could run Win 7 with a simple RAM upgrade (from 1/2 gig to 1 gig). Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware.
The hardware requirements for Windows 7 is higher than for Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard will run on a 867 MHz Power PC G4 which was released in 2001. That beats your "5-year-old hardware" and almost meets 9 years. On the other hand the specs for Windows 7 requires a 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, yet that I was able to find out the first Intel I could find that was at least 1 GHz was the Tualatin-256 which was released several months after the 867 MHz Power PC G4. After, not before.
This is why I have a perfectly-good G4 PowerMac, but it stopped being supported only 4 years after I got it (with 10.4)
I bought a brand new Windows NT4 Workstation in December 1997 and a little over 2 years later in January 2000 when I ran Windows Update a pop-up told me I had to order, and pay for, a disk for the latest updates.
I mentioned this a few days ago and another slashdotter posted a link to NT4 updates, I don't recall who it is but whoever I want to thank. Now if only I get around to it I want to upgrade the workstation. It's still good but I want to increase the RAM, swap the hard disk with larger ones, and add USB and Firewire.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Must be where you live, here in Canada I just compared to comparable laptops, one from Apple Canada, and one from Dell (Alienware).
So did I, though I used Alienware and Dell as well as an HP. The Alienware was less than $100 less, and had a slower CPU, but both the Dell and HP were more than $300 more with the same CPU.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No they're not.
(or Euro or whatever)
Maybe in currency other than US dollars.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is a big problem you get in to with Mac prices. In a very large segment of the market, they have no good offerings. You have to buy much higher end hardware which drives the price way up. You can argue all you like that it isn't "equal" it doesn't matter. If those extra features aren't needed or wanted, then all you are doing is driving the price up.
I agree and think that that where Jobs is screwing up.
Now if Apple does offer a system configuration you want their prices are comparable to Windows OEM prices.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'm the opposite. I'm typing this on a MacBook Pro but I would never buy a MacBook or MacBook Air. I'd buy a Mac Pro but not a Mac Mini or iMac. I wouldn't buy an Apple TV, iPhone, or iPod either.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Oops, those requirements are for Leopard not Snow Leopard.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Still not sure what my hopes are for running Linux on an Intel Mac.
From what I've read Ubuntu runs pretty good on Macs. I have a MacBook Pro I've been researching how to install Ubuntu 9.04 on. To install Ubuntu or any other Linux distro you have to install Bootcamp and or rEFIt first. Here's more info on installing Ubuntu on MacTels.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I've been using Photoshop CS2 on Leopard. My $29 upgrade will mean either no Photoshop or another few hundred bucks additional cost in order to get CS4.
CS2 was PPC only though. If you call Adobe maybe they'll reduce the price of CS4.
What I don't like about it it though CS4 for Windows was released as a 64 bit app it wasn't for OS X.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At an Apple store I asked if the $30 dollar was an upgrade or a full install disk. I was told it was a full install disk and no copy of leopard or even tiger was required.
Yesterday I asked the same at an Apple store as was told the install routine checks to see if Leopard is installed. I said I wanted to wipe my disk before installing Snow Leopard.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The Box Set that you refered to goes for $169. Not bad considering the apps it comes with and an office suite. Thats the one I plan to get along with a bigger HDD for my MacBook Pro. I think its a pretty good deal. :)
I use NeoOffice and see no need for iWorks. And I don't use iLife, in the 2 years I've had my Mac I haven't used it once. I may start using iCal though to set up "to do" lists. I don't think I'll need to upgrade to iLife 2009 for that though.
Now if I wanted iWorks and iLife then yes I'd say $170 was a good deal.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
show me a new 15" Apple laptop computer that you can buy for under $500. Oh wait. You can't.
Can you show me a Windows laptop that has two video systems and can drive a 17" 1900x1200 LCD and a 24" external LCD at the same tyme for less than $3000? Oh, 4GB RAM, and a 500GB 7200 RPM hard drive are required too.
One last requirement, it has to last for more than a couple of years and not end up as a doorstop. There are added points for such a laptop that runs Linux and not MS spyware.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
From all I heard the Snow Leopard disk is a full install of OS X, and not an upgrade.
A number of other slashdotters posted the same thing, with some say simply that Apple will not support it. If so though I still think it would be worth it to buy the Mac Box Set for $170 than invalidate the year I have left of Apple care.
Actually one of the things I like about Apple is that if I have a problem with my Mac I may have to wait 12 hours or so but I can put the Mac in my car and drive to one of 3 Apple stores where I can make an appointment with a Genius to have my problems diagnosed and possibly fixed then and there. I tried the same thing when I bought my HP Pavilion from Best Buy. I bought Best Buy's extended service plan as well, I don't mind paying a little extra for peace of mind when I can afford it, for the same reason. However when I used it turnaround was slower than it is at Apple.
actually isn't this release killing Rosetta support?
I don't know, however that doesn't mean it's a must have upgrade. If anything it argues the opposite, if you upgrade you lose Rosetta. Personally I switched after Apple switched so it doesn't matter to me, I just made sure that either there was a universal or an Intel binary.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If so though I still think it would be worth it to buy the Mac Box Set for $170 than invalidate the year I have left of Apple care.
A bit of a non-issue for me, I never bother with Apple Care. Mostly out of habit, if I can't fix it myself, then perhaps I asked for the problem. Granted this mantra dies a bit with Apple, since replacing their hardware is a rather nasty (bordering on impossible) issue. That and with my Mini, one of first things I did was rip it apart and put in 3rd party RAM (Apple's RAM prices are insane), voiding all support I would have got to begin with.
Actually one of the things I like about Apple is that if I have a problem with my Mac I may have to wait 12 hours or so but I can put the Mac in my car and drive to one of 3 Apple stores where I can make an appointment with a Genius to have my problems diagnosed and possibly fixed then and there.
Your lucky! My girlfriends MacBook Pro died awhile back (it was our fault, heffeweizen spills are not under the warrenty), and we had to wait 6 days to get an appointment. Granted Phoenix only has two stores (might be three now), and for some reason they all are preternaturally busy.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
A bit of a non-issue for me, ^^^ Mostly out of habit, if I can't fix it myself, then perhaps I asked for the problem.
It's not just Apple Care that I'll pay for. As I said earlier when I bought the HP Pavilion from Best Buy I bought Best Buy's extended plan. When I bought the Gateway laptop I got Gateway's extended plan. I'd love to be able to fix stuff myself but as my brother-in-law jokes, or used to joke, all I have to do is look at something and it stops working. Whether it's bad luck, coincidence, or what I don't know but since I had an accident I've had problems with hardware.
Your lucky! My girlfriends MacBook Pro died awhile back (it was our fault, heffeweizen spills are not under the warrenty), and we had to wait 6 days to get an appointment.
I've been to three Apple stores in my area, there are 4 that I know of but I don't know where the fourth is. When I have a problem I'll put my Mac in my car then drive to one of the 3. The other two are about equidistant to the one I go to though in different directions. There I'll check when their earliest appointment availability is. If they don't have one that day I'll check the availability at the other stores. I have had to wait once though. When I went to one appointment the tech, Genius, said the graphics had to be repaired. After looking he said they were out of the part and had to order it. So I took the Mac home and backed the previous day's files, I keep an on going backup, and waited for him to call saying he got the part. That took 4 days, on the fifth day I went back and dropped off my Mac. Unfortunately they had a backlog of repairs so it took them a few days to repair mine.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Macs ARE more expensive than PCs, it's really just that simple.
Being on diability and not having worked in more than 10 years, I am cost conscious. I got my Mac in part because it was cheaper.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?