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 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.
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.
: 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.
Or $10 if you bought a mac after June 15th of this year. :) Still, I know people are saying that Windows 7 is a great OS (and I'm inclined to agree), I think it's more Snow-Leopard-esque in terms of upgrade than a whole new OS. I can't be entirely sure, though. Ah well... at least we're getting decent and more stable OSes around. And that is indeed a good thing. :)
:)
When Windows 7 settles down a little bit, I may put it on my Mini via boot camp.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
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
"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.
or $2,000+ if you don't have a mac and want to switch. Why has NO article mentioned the overwhelming price of mac hardware, but they mention having to replace hardware for Win 7 machines? WTF?
30 bucks... Plus you have to put it on a Mac computer, which is marked up at least ten percent compared to a comparable computer from any other manufacturer.
Except of course every respectable analyst who has looked into it disagrees with you. Apple's margins are higher than average in the personal computer industry, but that's not comparing comparable machines, that's counting all the low end crap machines with razor thin margins. If you look at machines with hardware reliability numbers and features similar to Apple, Like Sony, for example, the margins are about the same and so are the prices.
That price tag looks less appealing when you consider those attached strings.
The price tag is certainly less appealing because it's tied to Apple hardware and that severely limits your choices, especially on the low end. You, however, overstated the argument by making statements about their margins that are simply untrue. The lack of choice in hardware will result in higher prices for the average person because they won't be able to select a model that fits their needs as closely, which is a compelling argument without bringing blatantly wrong assertions about pricing into 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.
It depends on your definition of a "service pack". A long-running joke here on Slashdot is that Win7 is "Vista SP3". If you accept that, then, yes, Apple does charge for service packs.
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 OS requirements are designed to force obsolescence so you HAVE to go-out and get new Apple hardware. You can't even "override" to force an install; you just get blocked. 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), while my ancient PC still gots "juice".
Yeah I know you're going to label me "troll" but it's really just my opinion based-upon owning both systems. The PC was the cheaper route.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Since when are a Core 2 Duo and Nehalem 3000 series processor anywhere near each other in price or performance? I'm assuming you also didn't account for the difference in price/performance between DDR2 and DDR3.
You're missing the point though... the parent's point is that Apple doesn't let you make the price/performance decision between a Core 2 and a Nehalem, or between DDR2/3.
When I built my system, I was able to look at the cost of DDR2 and DDR3 RAM and decide that the cost of DDR3 wasn't worth it. If you reject the iMac, Apple doesn't let you make that decision. I didn't seriously consider the Xeons, but I was able to choose the Core 2 when I built my computer. If you reject the iMac, Apple doesn't let you make that decision.
Basically if you want a decently upgradable system from Apple, your only choice is the Mac Pro. And for most people, it's going to be very very hard to say that the price/performance tradeoff is in favor of the Nehalem and DDR3.
If Win7 is "Vista SP3" doesn't that mean that Microsoft also charges for service packs?
1178161 is prime...
Would I recommend it to a friend? Absolutely. Would I suggest that it's actually worth the retail price? I'm not so sure. It may be if you're upgrading from Windows XP, but if you're upgrading form Vista you're getting shafted.
My opinion: No. If it was just $60 or $70, I'd get it, but $200+ is a bit steep.
And what do I actually get from it, that wasn't available in XP? (either in the core of from third party programs) Just about nothing.
It's plain to see when you actually read the entire article. Most of the points are fawning over GUI elements. Where's the miraculous new features that are supposed to wow me? :P I have preview panes in XP, too - not only that, but I have labels in my taskbar!