Slashdot Mirror


How Windows 10 Performs On a 12-inch MacBook

An anonymous reader writes: As Microsoft prepares for the launch of Windows 10, review sites have been performing all sorts of benchmarks on the tech preview to evaluate how well the operating system will run. But now a computer science student named Alex King has made the most logical performance evaluation of all: testing Windows 10's performance on a 2015 MacBook. He says, "Here's the real kicker: it's fast. It's smooth. It renders at 60FPS unless you have a lot going on. It's unequivocally better than performance on OS X, further leading me to believe that Apple really needs to overhaul how animations are done. Even when I turn Transparency off in OS X, Mission Control isn't completely smooth. Here, even after some Aero Glass transparency has been added in, everything is smooth. It's remarkable, and it makes me believe in the 12-inch MacBook more than ever before. So maybe it's ironic that in some regards, the new MacBook runs Windows 10 (a prerelease version, at that) better than it runs OS X."

241 comments

  1. cue raging nerds on how this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    An apples to oranges... err I mean apple to Windows comparison in 3, 2, 1...

    1. Re: cue raging nerds on how this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait till they do the test after the first week of use occures, after the antivirus , anti spyware, and the critters get installed, then see which is faster win10 or OSX

    2. Re: cue raging nerds on how this is... by ahabswhale · · Score: 0

      It will still be the MacBook because it's SSD is ridiculously fast.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    3. Re: cue raging nerds on how this is... by BronsCon · · Score: 2

      It'll be the MacBook either way because the article (as per the summary) is about Windows 10 on a MacBook being faster than OSX on a MacBook.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:cue raging nerds on how this is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not following... I'm not sure that there was a Windows version 3.2.1

  2. Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by future+assassin · · Score: 1, Interesting

    and my beat to shit 2007 DEL Inspirion 1720 Core 2 duo also flies smooth. Stange eh?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your FPS in L4D2?

    2. Re:Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't mint the distro where you don't get security updates?

    3. Re: Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the one that you use when you don't know how to install Debian and you think Ubuntu is too mainstream.

    4. Re:Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      That's what LMDE 1 ended being (semi-rolling snapshotted debian) but LMDE 2 and Ubuntu Mint get plenty security updates (from the upstream distros)

    5. Re:Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don't speak acronym.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    6. Re: Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      No that's the one that just works. Just like I buy my cars instead of building a kit car when I need a new car.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    7. Re: Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just works for you. Last time I gave Mint a spin, that's all it did. Installer sat on a black screen. Real professional. Also, I don't think you understand what is meant by "smooth". You get a constant 60 FPS with desktop composition enabled and can run full-screen apps without manually disabling said compositor and without any performance degradation? Didn't think so. Maybe when Wayland/Mir finally gets some traction you can try again.

    8. Re: Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by crhylove · · Score: 1

      This guy. Lmde mate flies on all hardware. It's prettier than Mac or windows too, and comes with every app I need preinstalled. Plus I can rsync backups to any machine in the house. Fuck windows and Mac. They are years behind mint at this point.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    9. Re:Linux Mint 17 XFCE, SSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and my beat to shit 2007 DEL Inspirion 1720 Core 2 duo also flies smooth. Stange eh?

      Is that accross the room or out the "Window" ?

  3. Too Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Too bad no one wants Windows 10 or a macbook!

    1. Re:Too Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... for certain non-zero values of "no one"

    2. Re:Too Bad by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      ... for certain non-zero values of "no one"

      ... used as an exaggeration by every one!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    3. Re:Too Bad by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Not just that, where is the evidence that Windows 10 runs better than OS-X on Apple's hardware? I run it on my Winbook, right now, it's okay, but still has enough bugs to be ironed out

  4. Get a proper notebook.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it will run even better.

  5. Anecdotal evidence by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There doesn't seem to be much factual evidence to make the claim that "It's unequivocally better than performance on OS X,"...
    The claim, by it's very language deletes a lot of information making the claim worthless.

    Unequivocally ... (says who?)
    Better... (by what standard?)
    Performance (by what metric?)

    I know that this is probably just a personal blog with an opinion.... and he does want to quantify the claim with stats... but it's a bit too early to make the claim.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey everybody! I found the guy who keeps marking every sentence [citation needed] on Wikipedia!

    2. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, though there is some precedence. OS-X does not seem to be particularly zippy in the few cross platform app benchmarks that are to be found. A good example is DAW bench's test on Cubase, Protools, and Kontakt: http://dawbench.com/win7-v-osx.... What you see is that Cubase has a much more efficient engine than ProTools (no surprise) and that on Windows either one gets a lot more polyphony than the Mac. At any given buffer size (lower buffers are harder to deal with) Windows did better.

      Pretty good test too since you are dealing with tools that have long been cross platform. Kontakt has been cross platform for its entire life, Pro Tools was Mac only until version 5 (1998ish), since when it has been cross platform, and Cubase has been cross platform since back in the DOS and Atari ST days. All the software has long development histories on both platforms, yet Windows gives superior results.

      None of this means OS-X is unusable or anything, but it doesn't appear to have the performance Windows does, when pushed.

    3. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      True, though there is some precedence. OS-X does not seem to be particularly zippy in the few cross platform app benchmarks that are to be found. A good example is DAW bench's test on Cubase, Protools, and Kontakt: http://dawbench.com/win7-v-osx.... What you see is that Cubase has a much more efficient engine than ProTools (no surprise) and that on Windows either one gets a lot more polyphony than the Mac. At any given buffer size (lower buffers are harder to deal with) Windows did better.

      Pretty good test too since you are dealing with tools that have long been cross platform. Kontakt has been cross platform for its entire life, Pro Tools was Mac only until version 5 (1998ish), since when it has been cross platform, and Cubase has been cross platform since back in the DOS and Atari ST days. All the software has long development histories on both platforms, yet Windows gives superior results.

      None of this means OS-X is unusable or anything, but it doesn't appear to have the performance Windows does, when pushed.

      That benchmark is a bit dated, there must be a newer benchmark than OS X 10.6? Hower, now that I have let fly the obligtory nitpick of your post, the fact that Windows 10 performs well does not surprise me. I have long been aware of the fact that Microsoft quietly sank a lot of resources into rewriting Windows and improving performance so I'm not exactly thunderstruck by news that they succeeded. What I'd like to see is a benchmark shootout between Windows 10 and the most recent OS X AND Linux distros. Something tells me that if Windows 10 also turns out to be faster than Linux the atmosphere around here would shift from shadenfreude to righteous fury and calls for a Jihad.

    4. Re:Anecdotal evidence by dbIII · · Score: 0

      That's a worry because the MS stuff is just so slooooow at some things - e.g. expects the user to do things like sit and wait a minute after login while lots of little applications start up and then eventually lets the user click on something and get a response.
      "Where do you want to go today?" turned into a wait for tomorrow.

    5. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      OSX also tends to perform worse than linux when running various open source cross platform applications... It just seems performance has never been apple's primary concern.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That hasn't been true for a long time, sucker.

    7. Re: Anecdotal evidence by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      Huh... and here I've been hearing that CoreAudio makes everything pro audio so much better on Macs. I can't really complain on Win7, but I suppose the ASIO drivers for a lot of interfaces could be more stable...

    8. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey everybody! I found the guy who keeps marking every sentence [citation needed] on Wikipedia!

      [citation needed] :P

      --
      READY.
      PRINT ""+-0
    9. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your comparison metric going to be? "Productivity"? Bling per second? I'm pretty sure it's not I/O throughput or anything in the same give a shit category.

    10. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since this morning is a long time?

    11. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing rigorous that I've found. I've seen some things like a Mac user posting on a forum asking why Cubase was hitting harder on OS-X than Windows along with screenshots of the overall load meters that it has, but little in the way of details on methodology.

      While I haven't done extensive looking, I haven't come across anything and it is something I'm interested in.

      Sadly, there seems to be little interest in testing. People who own PCs can't really test it, outside of building a hackintosh, and Mac users are not very interested in testing particularly since many of them have a real need to believe their money was well spend and do not wish to do something which might challenge that idea.

      If someone gave me the hardware and software I'd love to try it, but I own only a PC, and the DAW I use (Sonar) is Windows only.

      The only thing I can point to with some newer data is a Sonar benchmark, conducted by their lead programmer, showing improvements in Windows 8 vs Windows 7. They found basically an across the board improvement, with no code recompile http://blog.cakewalk.com/windo... . Now that says nothing of cross platform (as I noted, Sonar is Windows only anyhow) but does indicate that MS continues to improve Windows' performance with regards to intensive time critical tasks like audio.

    12. Re:Anecdotal evidence by bws111 · · Score: 2

      The Mythical Man Month only really discusses using more resources to shorten delivery time (doesn't work). It does not say more resources cause a worse outcome.

    13. Re:Anecdotal evidence by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is also the "fast enough" metric. Mac users generally have mid to high end equipment. Chances are "slower than windows" for them is probably still plenty snappy. It is like the aero, vs OS X versus lightweight and snappy on a 1990's laptop debate: if you have the money to buy the hardware and feel more comfortable with the UI design, available software, heck just want transparency effects or whatever: who cares? It is a matter of preference. We are like whinny car nuts debating the merits of Ford vs Chevy trucks. It's a box you put shit into, if you are happy with it that is good enough I don't have to prove mine is better.

    14. Re:Anecdotal evidence by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 2

      Both right. I have a late 2009 iMac bootcamped to Win 8.1 pro. 1-2min before I can start opening up my own applications (have autohotkeys, and iTunes autostarting). But at work, SSD box. The system restarts faster than the monitor can detect that the computer has dropped the connection (~10-15 restart from desktop-bounce-login screen). I log in and as fast as I can get a mouse over a shortcut the computer is responsive. It all comes down to hardware at that level particularly ssd vs hdd.

    15. Re:Anecdotal evidence by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      They learned a lot from the Xbox, and developed a lot of tools for optimising game performance that could also be used to optimise Windows. It was most evident with the transition from Vista to 7, where a lot of the major bottlenecks were eliminated and performance vastly improved. With 8 they did a lot of improve application performance too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 10 is smooth. OSX is not smooth. What better benchmark to you want?

    17. Re:Anecdotal evidence by tburkhol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There doesn't seem to be much factual evidence to make the claim that "It's unequivocally better than performance on OS X,"... The claim, by it's very language deletes a lot of information making the claim worthless.

      My guess is that he means "user perception," and I don't find that claim hard to believe at all. Notice the comments in TFS about 'animations?' One of the (to me) most annoying features of every windows from XP is the extensive use of fade in the user interface. Click on the start button, and it spends 300ms fading into existence. Click on an item, another 300 ms fading a sub-menu into existence. This makes the UI feel horribly sluggish and is the first thing I turn off on a new system. OSX has its own bits of animation, like bouncing a task bar item while it starts up. Maybe these things look great at product demos, but they get in the way of me working: always waiting, just a little bit, for the computer to get around to drawing the menu I asked for.

      Point is: if MS turns down or off task bar and menu fade in Win10, it will "feel" much faster than other Windows, and very possibly OSX.

    18. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well your suggestion of trying Windows vs. Linux for performance is really something that wouldn't go well. It is going to depend completely on the workload. For example Linux would likely win with a server type workload (although Microsoft has been releasing much better server stuff lately than the crap they used to have). When you move to a notebook, with a typical user browsing the web a bit and checking email they will likely be pretty close although just like the guy who did the comparison of Windows 10 and OSX on his Macbook Linux probably won't be as smooth as Windows. This typically is going to come down to drivers and the lack of access Linux has to optimizations and such in the drivers. On certain drivers using open GL on both Linux may be nearly on par with Windows (due to the lack of focus nVidia, AMD, and the like put on open GL in their Windows drivers). But if you compare for example an app using DirectX on Windows with one using open GL on Linux it is very likely that will be a lot smoother on Windows - again due to the drivers and not the actual OS.

    19. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple has never been very good at Systems software. The old MacOS was a huge piled-on mess. Their User Interface design took precedence over robust design 'beneath the hood.'

        The Macintosh didn't have per-emptive multitasking until they finally gave up on an in-house redesigned new MacOS. There was Taligent, and Butt-Headed-Astronomer (previously known as 'Sagan' until Sagan sued them!)

      Apple spent many millions in attempts at a new Operating System before finally giving up and buying NeXT Step, which itself is just pretty layers on top of UNIX.

      They are an 'Industrial Design' and 'Marketing' firm. Better at coming up with cute names for APIs and proprietary versions of interfaces than actual nuts and bolts design.

    20. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There doesn't seem to be much factual evidence to make the claim that "It's unequivocally better than performance on OS X,"... The claim, by it's very language deletes a lot of information making the claim worthless.

      Unequivocally ... (says who?) Better... (by what standard?) Performance (by what metric?)

      I know that this is probably just a personal blog with an opinion.... and he does want to quantify the claim with stats... but it's a bit too early to make the claim.

      Not to mention that benchmarking a pre release is just about irrelevant to the final software performance.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    21. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      None of this means OS-X is unusable or anything, but it doesn't appear to have the performance Windows does, when pushed.

      Where do we get jobs running benchmarks?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      People who own PCs can't really test it, outside of building a hackintosh, and Mac users are not very interested in testing particularly since many of them have a real need to believe their money was well spend and do not wish to do something which might challenge that idea.

      Yeah, that must be it - I'm afraid to find out something that doesn't agree with my worldview.

      Or it could be that there is a lot of us that don't give a flying fig what the benchmarks are. If the computer starts running slow, and the usual culprits are ruled out, it's time to get a new one.

      Benchmarking is the computer equivalent of audiophiles listening to test tones on their stereo systems, People who install loudest sound system ever in their cars that won't play music, and rednecks at the corner gas arguing about their Fords versus Chivvies. I tried it a few times on some PC's and it was a waste of time.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    23. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      There is also the "fast enough" metric. Mac users generally have mid to high end equipment.

      Careful, he has a real need to believe his money was well spend and does not wish to do something which might challenge that idea.

      We'll be on to those silly one button mouses any moment here........

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    24. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    25. Re:Anecdotal evidence by fermion · · Score: 1, Interesting

      MS Windows, by definition, has to run acceptably on crappy hardware. That is the selling point. You can buy a laptop made with reject parts for $300 and it will run. Therefore that is where MS puts it resources. Anecdotal evidence. I ran Windows 7 with Autodesk software in Parallel or Virtual Box. Windows 7 ran very well, I don't know if ran better than Mac OS X, but maybe it did. Autodesk stuff rendered fast, and had very little lag in modeling. Much better than most other laptops. But most other people did not have the speed, memory, or dedicated graphics card. For what I do, the Mac runs better overall than when I try to use my Windows laptop. The only thing the Mac really seems to suck at is transferring large amounts of data through USB. I wish Apple would fix that problem. It has been well known for several years that the best machine for MS Windows is running virtually on a Mac. If the MS Windows image gets borked,which it regularly does because of viruses, it is easy to copy the backup that was made an hour ago by Time Machine back and get to work.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    26. Re:Anecdotal evidence by phayes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple has been optimising OS X for years, but not for Graphics Performance. They've been optimising it for longer battery duration.

      It's been years since I've needed or even noticed needing better graphics performance yet battery performance of OS X pure versus Windows? Oh yeah, THAT I notice. On the occasions I forget a charger I have to minimise running Windows or I'll be running out of battery at least twice as fast as when using OS X. I can get work 7 Hours using just the battery on my rMBP with occasional excursions to Windows to check mail but or use corporate windows only tools but running windows will only give me 3 hours. Windows isn't even doing much, it just does it all the time & never lets the CPU sleep for any significant time - see here for reasons why.

      Yeah, the pure graphics performance may be poorer on OS X. Most people don't care as long as it's good enough.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    27. Re:Anecdotal evidence by phayes · · Score: 2

      Snort, Selective memory? At the same points in time Windows is/was also a "huge piled-on mess".

      To your Classical MacOS I reply Windows Me.

      To your preemptive Windows NT I reply A/UX.

      Need I compare OS X & Vista? Windows 8?

      There are/were piled on messes on both sides.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    28. Re:Anecdotal evidence by caseih · · Score: 2

      Hardly. Windows Me (and Win 9x), as bad as it was, was lightyears ahead of classic MacOS from an architecture pov. It was fully preemptive, multitasking. And it was to a large degree really 32-bit, though it was bootstrapped from a 16-bit environment, and some of the drivers appear to have been 16-bit. But it did run in protected mode. Wasn't nearly as good as Windows NT of course, which was also pretty darn good, based on the venerable VMS operating system's architecture.

      As for Vista, under the hood it was similar to XP and Windows 7. There were horrible UI decisions (the UAC mainly), but the core was solid and stable, and fast. Windows 8 was just fine too. It was just a UI mess.

      OS X, while not particularly speedy under the hood, is solid and stable also. Of late their UI has started to suck more and more though.

    29. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use a user style sheet for wikipedia, and are tired of see that crap everywhere

      a[title="Wikipedia:Citation needed"],
      sup[title^="This claim needs references to reliable sources"]{display:none!important}

    30. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      On the occasions I forget a charger I have to minimise running Windows or I'll be running out of battery at least twice as fast as when using OS X. I can get work 7 Hours using just the battery on my rMBP with occasional excursions to Windows to check mail but or use corporate windows only tools but running windows will only give me 3 hours.

      The 15" rMBP has a 95 Wh battery and lasts 7-8 hours. The Dell XPS 15 with similar hardware and a higher res screen has a 91 Wh battery and lasts 6-7 hours under Windows. If you're only getting 3 hours in Windows on your rMBP, that's more an indication that Apple has put very little effort into optimizing their Windows drivers. Not an indication that Windows sucks.

      If you want to compare the 13" rMBP, it has a 75 Wh battery and lasts about 10-12 hours. The Dell XPS 13 manages 9-10 hours with a battery only 2/3rds the size (52 Wh) and a higher res screen (3200x1800 vs 2560x1600). If you get the lower res screen (1920x1080) it'll go 15 hours.

    31. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I will preface this by saying that I was a Mac user and developer for over a decade until very recently...

      To your Classical MacOS I reply Windows Me.

      Sorry, will have to call this one out. At the time that classical MacOS was around, most users were either running Windows 98 or Windows 2000. Few people ran ME... I worked in the industry and I think at the time for every 10 Win2K boxes I saw, I saw maybe one ME and 15 Windows 98. Noone saw a compelling need for ME so they didn't upgrade. And early versions of OSX up to Jaguar (10.2) were horrendous messes under the hood. The interface was gorgeous but some of the APIs were kludged together wrecks.

      Now, I'm not saying that Windows was much better, at least on the 98/ME track... but the Windows 2000 API cleanup actually produced some really nice results. This was at the same time (roughly) as Mac OS9 which was one of the most awful kludges of an OS I think I've ever had the displeasure to work on. It was obvious that OS9 was created in a place where OSX was getting all the attention, but even OSX wasn't really properly clean until 10.2... and even then it was slow. Have you ever used 10.0 or 10.1 on hardware of the time? It was horrifyingly slow to do anything and the only thing it really had going for it was the interface.

      Speaking of the interface... seriously... Finder is significantly worse than Explorer in terms of threading, resource utilization and stability. You want to see a kludged mess, check out Finder circa... well... any version of OSX actually. Of course, I've recently abandoned the Mac platform for Windows 8 for various reasons so I can't speak to Yosemite... but every time I work on a machine running Yosemite I just feel like the entire OS is going in a direction I don't appreciate.

      Need I compare OS X & Vista? Windows 8?

      Vista and Windows 8 both had huge improvements under the hood. Windows 8 in particular has gotten a bad rep simply because it has a UI that people find really polarizing... but it's seriously a fast and efficient OS that really takes advantage of the underlying hardware. It actually is a better operating system than the much-vaunted Windows 7 (which was itself an improvement over Vista) but most people never get to see it because they get hung up on the UI.

      I have played with Windows 10, and I like it. I run 8.1 on my computers today but will switch to 10 when it comes out. That's not to say it's a fundamentally "better" operating system than OSX... but for my needs the priorities are all screwed up in OSX. They're both modern, stable and secure operating systems... and if that's all you need then great. However, running the same applications on both platforms does show the weaknesses of OSX; memory management is of questionable value in OSX and the storage management is kludgy at best.

      Windows has been faster than OSX on the same hardware since Windows 7. I know; I've always had a Windows Boot Camp installation on my Macs. My last Mac is still a good one (2012 15" MBP) but has now been surpassed significantly. It used to be that Macs had a 5 year lifespan whereas Windows had a 3... that's one reason I liked Macs. Nowadays, not so much... and it's not changing workloads that are killing it but rather the overly heavy APIs and core problems with OSX that just don't scale quite so well... so new versions get heavier and slower on the same hardware.

    32. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2

      It's been years since I've needed or even noticed needing better graphics performance yet battery performance of OS X pure versus Windows? Oh yeah, THAT I notice. On the occasions I forget a charger I have to minimise running Windows or I'll be running out of battery at least twice as fast as when using OS X. I can get work 7 Hours using just the battery on my rMBP with occasional excursions to Windows to check mail but or use corporate windows only tools but running windows will only give me 3 hours. Windows isn't even doing much, it just does it all the time & never lets the CPU sleep for any significant time - see here for reasons why.

      What you're seeing here really is driver issues. Apple doesn't put the resources into developing the Boot Camp drivers properly for Windows... they're good enough so they're shipped. Apple doesn't want you to run Windows, or Linux or anything else. They want their beautiful machines running their beautiful OS, to hell with what the end user actually needs. A good set of power management drivers would go a long way to fix Windows on Mac hardware but they're not going to put the time and energy into it.

      This philosophy of Apple's is part of the reason I've abandoned them as a platform for my own use.

    33. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If by "shorten delivery time" you mean "deliver on schedule," then sure.

      Brooks's Law is: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." I would say that's a worse outcome.

    34. Re:Anecdotal evidence by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      The Mythical Man Month only really discusses using more resources to shorten delivery time (doesn't work). It does not say more resources cause a worse outcome.

      yes it does, did you read it? more resources need to be brought up to speed, thus requiring meetings with existing resources, taking time away from them, slowing down the project. new resources mean new priorities, changes in direction and a different (probably worse) outcome. it's all there, read it.

    35. Re:Anecdotal evidence by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      Where do we get jobs running benchmarks?

      if you have to ask, you're not worthy

    36. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Where do we get jobs running benchmarks?

      if you have to ask, you're not worthy

      (walks away sulking) heheh.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So salty. I wish I knew how it was to care about a few hundred bucks on the price of hardware. i feel so out of touch with you neck beards

    38. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea I have to agree with you. I noticed though that Yosemite(10.10) is a lot more resource hungry than 10.9 was. But this has happen since every release of OS X.

    39. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding me? I have the same 2012
      Mbp 15" with an i7 I purchased a month ago and Maxed it out and it's super responsive. I don't notice any lags or glitches. And it boots in 25 seconds (even with FileVault turned on) which I think could drop to ~20 seconds with an SSD.

      Reason I got a 2012 mbp was because its the last mbp you can replace the hardware yourself. Not sure what I am going to do now because I hate the fact that new the macs are all soldered.

    40. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should apple cater to Microsoft when Microsoft doesn't cater to apple. I don't see Microsoft writing their own boot camp and optimizing their drivers for Mac users.

      If it's good enough, ship it. Windows is an afterthought, so if you buy a Mac but need to run windows, boot camp gets the job done, albeit a little less effective.

    41. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      So salty. I wish I knew how it was to care about a few hundred bucks on the price of hardware. i feel so out of touch with you neck beards

      I tend to buy what a I like - and a lot of us do. That's why there are more autos out there than the Toyota Coralla

      Wow - getting to be a lot of auto analogies in this thread...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    42. Re:Anecdotal evidence by jimbo · · Score: 1

      People always righteously wave that book about as if it was some little known religious text of ultimate authority, without knowing the nature of the project in question.
      It is true, there are a lot of really good points in that book. Any project or engineering manager should know it and I've known too many who didn't. I've seen the prophecies sadly come true too many times.

      However, we have no idea how Microsoft achieved this; was it a fully staffed project with specific deadlines? Was it many separate projects (an OS could have many areas to examine), possibly scattered in time? A small working group? A long running initiative with domain experts pulled in as needed and no specific deadline? Was it initially small but then grew as different separate problem domains were discovered? A specific goal allocated within each OS project? Etc. etc.

      Until we know how they ran the initiative (or initiatives) we can't say at all whether adding more people would be or were bad.

    43. Re:Anecdotal evidence by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I have read it. What it says is that if you are time constrained, more developers does not necessarily speed up the process, and may lead to quality problems if you keep the same time constraints. It does NOT say that more resources is always a problem. Time is a resource, does adding time to a project mean it is going to be worse? Money is a resource, does hiring some top developers, and paying them accordingly, lead to a worse outcome? Good leadership is a resource, same question. Does having 10 people looking for bugs lead to a worse outcome than 1?

    44. Re:Anecdotal evidence by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Also, learn the difference between may and will. Yes, there are certain situations where adding resources makes it worse. However, there are also situations (probably more situations) where adding resources makes it better. Therefore, the statement 'adding resources makes it worse' is false.

    45. Re:Anecdotal evidence by jasmusic · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has been secretly refactoring Windows for modularity for several years now, Mark Russinovich referred to the effort repeatedly as "min-win" (minimum Windows?). It's how Windows can share a kernel between phone and desktop. All those old KERNEL32 etc exports? Look at all the weird places they're redirected. There has been major work done. Vista had major new asynchronous I/O features, Windows 7 removed the dispatcher lock, etc etc.

    46. Re: Anecdotal evidence by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Well they get away with it I think because they can stop supporting older hardware should they hit a limit vs the Windows ecosystem where you have people buying everything from $200-10k workstations/laptops.

      They haven't stopped supporting systems for a long time though, my home desktop is a 2009 iMac and I was able to install Yosemite on it no problem. Didn't find that much difference performance wise from Lion, I guess slow is slow :). New system (Dell XPS 15 maxed out) comes on Tuesday so back to a reasonable system at home again for while. Non-SSD is so hard to tolerate once you get used to it.

    47. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Speaking of the interface... seriously... Finder is significantly worse than Explorer in terms of threading, >resource utilization and stability. You want to see a kludged mess, check out Finder circa... well... any version >of OSX actually. Seriously, your post could not have been more vague, whilst at the same time conflating your supposed personal experience with the general state of things. In all my years of using Finder on OS X (I've used every version of OSX released) I've never once had a stability problem. When you mention 'threading' and 'resource utilization' I have to wonder.. how on earth do you know how the Finder or Explorer application is managing it's threading? Never mind being able to make a valid comparison between the two. Want to see a real Kludged mess? Check out unmounting a USB resource in Explorer. What a mess. Also, setting Folder preferences so that you can actually see hidden OS files, like .dlls , horrible. Want to know the best feature of Finder? The search, it's amazingly fast and is miles better than anything Windows has ever had. >the overly heavy APIs Now I really have no idea what you're talking about. Anything, you know, specific?

    48. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL @ you. When Windows is .1% slower than Linux at some arbitrary task (or browsers for that matter) it's time to throw Windows to the curb and you laugh like hell. When it's faster, we start with the old "OS X is 'snappy enough' " subjective malarkey.

    49. Re:Anecdotal evidence by phayes · · Score: 1

      Read the article that I linked. Grand Central Dispatch & other optimisations that Apple has brought to OS X are what makes the difference in Battery life. It goes far beyond mere driver optimisation. The entire GUI stack has changed & you cannot bring equivalent optimisations to other OSs by "optimising the drivers".

      The level of ignorance ("it's a driver optimisation problem) & bias ("thats why I've abandoned Apple") you display are unfortunately all too common.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    50. Re:Anecdotal evidence by phayes · · Score: 0

      So you were a OS X dev for years until recently yet you think that "Driver lever changes" can bring OS X's power management to Windows? You don't even know what Grand Central Dispatch is but you were an OS X Dev? Serious credibility problems there. You're a troll. Ta, ta

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    51. Re:Anecdotal evidence by phayes · · Score: 1

      Nope, the problem is that Windows does not have task aggregation like Grand Central Dispatch so the CPU is constantly getting interrupted & never actually spends much time in low power states. Read the article I linked. Driver non-optimisation is not the problem, less OS optimisation in Windows is.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    52. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butthurt fanboy above. Give him a wide berth.

    53. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that he quoted you hardware running windows, which has better power management than the apples is entirely unworthy of your attentions then? It is entirely down to one rather obscure (to non-mac users) subsystem, that makes apples superior power wise to windows, despite evidence to the contrary? Well done apple devs, your Grand Central Dispatch has not only solved power issues, it has also repealed the logical systems by which we operate. A part of the problem is the power management Apple does for Boot camp installs. Now, Windows isn't the primary OS for the hardware, so this is forgivable. However, this does not make OSX superior to windows, assuming proper effort is devoted to drivers and other optimizations. Apple feels no need to do this on their products, and I see no reason why they would need to spend several days or month re-writing drivers for hardware to better support an OS most people won't use on it. However, a good OEM does spend this time for windows, producing products which post superior performance/Wh specs than windows on apple, or even OSX on apple. I cannot though, say that all windows is better than all macs, or even that Windows is a superior product for all applications. Macs have their place, and i usually find them belonging to creatives, who have no need to know about FPS, nor have the additional flexibility. They need something which gets out of their way when they have an idea or job to do. OSX mostly does that.

    54. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Dell is manufacturing computers with better specs and better performance per watt hour suggests that driver optimization can make the difference. Windows has at time had entirely separate systems to do really weird things in windows, such as imitate OS/2 and POSIX environments, allowing applications from OS/2, and fully POSIX compliant applications to function under windows. It is entirely possible that they have a series of low power modes and stacks, from which windows can make a large difference. Hell, I can, from in windows, choose to power down sata buses, admittedly only because of hardware features. But I can also manage voltages and power targets for CPUs and GPUs, clock rates, and fan speeds. Windows, because it is versatile, is entirely capable of blowing OSX out of the water on any given task/target, given time and budget to optimize the proper drivers/software. Linux shows this even more so, because you can replace anything but the kernal. And soon you'll be able to patch that without rebooting, and there are potentially alternative kernals for linux. I've just never encountered any I've found worth using.

    55. Re:Anecdotal evidence by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What about opening MS Office instead of a Metro toy mini-application?
      What about getting to the real desktop instead of that Metro splash screen?
      Win7 is where the time lag is especially painful even with an SSD and recent i7, but Win8 still has the underlying problem and launching anything that needs more than trivial resources has to fight with the antivirus, skype and a pile of notification shit starting up.

    56. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      Yet other laptops running Windows get just fine battery life with the same or smaller battery. Simply put; Apple develops their own EFI to manage fans and power states and when the driver doesn't exist or is non-optimal, the hardware runs "hot". Grand Central Dispatch is a nice technology but does NOT magically increase your battery life despite what Apple wants to claim. It merely provides a common framework for addressing the EFI and power management customizations in a way that is pretty nice, but not a magic bullet. As Scotty was fond of saying, "You cannae change the laws of physics, Captain".

      The level of ignorance and bias you display are unfortunately all too common. I get it; you're an Apple fan. Just because you read an article on a nice API doesn't mean you know diddly about hardware and power management. I don't claim to be an expert, but after doing embedded systems development for a while in my youth I think I might have some more knowledge of which I speak.

    57. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you explain how this works, exactly?

    58. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damnit, beaten.

    59. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BHA? thanks for the lead to go down the wikipedia rabbit-hole. I'll be out in a couple of hours.

    60. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Pubstar · · Score: 1

      I also don't see Microsoft making hardware.

    61. Re:Anecdotal evidence by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Pretty good test too since you are dealing with tools that have long been cross platform. Kontakt has been cross platform for its entire life, Pro Tools was Mac only until version 5 (1998ish), since when it has been cross platform, and Cubase has been cross platform since back in the DOS and Atari ST days. All the software has long development histories on both platforms, yet Windows gives superior results.

      You mean more likely a pretty good test of the particular Development Teams. Who knows whether each of these Products has dedicated Dev. teams for each platform, what their relative skill-levels are, whether (as is often the case) the Mac versions are contracted-out to who-knows-who, etc. etc.

      I'm not saying that these anecdotal results aren't valid; just that they need more in the way of validation.

    62. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to remember that the stated battery times for Windows are purely theoretical when the computer isn't doing anything.
      My Win8.1 laptop is stated to do up to 5 hours of usage, but actual usage (light browsing with skype texting) only gets me 3 hours.

    63. Re:Anecdotal evidence by garote · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! And I mean that sincerely. The next step in your transcendence is: Abandon Slashdot. It is the corner gas station.

    64. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Windows 2000 API cleanup"
      I've been a Windows coder since forever and there has been no such thing. The W2k API is largely just an extended version of the API of the previous NT, as you would expect.

    65. Re: Anecdotal evidence by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      I think what people get concerned with - and this is a real problem - is not that you like what you bought, but that many people like it because they bought it. There is a rationalization/bargaining internal dilemma in purchasing. A simple experiment selling or taste testing the same exact cake for three times the price gets better reviews for the more expensive cake. It may not be you, but there really are a chunk of apple fans that end up in that trap, and they tend to be the most vocal and by far the most annoying in defending their zealotry. I think its why many people see 'the cult of Apple' because the behavior of those few is very cult-like.

      Not saying its you at all, just saying that that's where the distrust and skepticism of Apple user's opinions come from.

    66. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      So you were a OS X dev for years until recently yet you think that "Driver lever changes" can bring OS X's power management to Windows? You don't even know what Grand Central Dispatch is but you were an OS X Dev? Serious credibility problems there. You're a troll. Ta, ta

      Wow, you're hilarious.

      I know exactly what GCD is, and have worked with it. I just am under this strange belief that there's no magic in software and that computers still succumb to the laws of physics. Better power management comes primarily from hardware... and while GCD is a very good framework for controlling that hardware it's not a magical route to better battery life. Software can help with coordination but you still need the hardware.

      While I won't argue the concept and implementation of this framework are good, most of the magical gains you'll hear about because of GCD are marketing numbers and not real-world.

    67. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! And I mean that sincerely. The next step in your transcendence is: Abandon Slashdot. It is the corner gas station.

      But.....but that would mean coming out of Ma's basement!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    68. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Not saying its you at all, just saying that that's where the distrust and skepticism of Apple user's opinions come from.

      As a computer lover, I buy and use and support all manner of computers, Mac, Linux, Windows, and even ChromeOS, which I'm typing on at breakfast. It's how I became mac support where I worked, as well as regular PC support for the suits. The "real" computer support people hated them, mostly because of silly memes about the people who used them. Snobbery of any Mac users aside, they are rather capable machines, and that is my my metric, not people I don't like, because there is enough of that crap on both sides of this gas station war.

      I do tend to defend Apple products though, because of my performance versus bulltshit outlook. And given that there are still significant numbers of Wndows lovers who say the macs still use one button mice, I have to tell you that you need to take their opinions with a big grain of salt too.

      As apocryphal as this sounds, I've helped two people in the last 3 months who inherited a Mac, and were trying to find 1 button mice so they could use them. Weird thing was they didn't believe me at first when I told them Mac's can use normal USB mice just like Windows machines do. RIghtclick, leftclick, scrollwheel, who could ask for more?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    69. Re:Anecdotal evidence by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      +1 to notification crap. You can disable it but I'm amazed at the software that thinks it needs to startup an updater on boot just in case a new version is available. In my case at work: java, adobe, graphics driver etc. You can disable most of it but I agree it is stupid. My graphics card is particularly spammy( "you might not be planning on using it, but just in case, we really really need to let you know we have a driver that will give you a 5% improvement on Dirt 4"). Once a week or more it gives me an update notification.

      Nivida: I like to stay up to date but I'm sorry I really don't care about your point-point release as in 187.02.03. Apps IMO should only check for updates when they are actually used (hard to get around the graphics driver I guess) and even then I think it should be limited to once a month or something.

    70. Re: Anecdotal evidence by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Surface?

      Still, the point remains that Microsoft is primarily a software company that makes a bit of hardware, whereas Apple is primarily a hardware company that makes a bit of software. Both are moving toward a substantial presence in services, though each has a different focus.

    71. Re:Anecdotal evidence by tibit · · Score: 1

      There has been much improvement in lowering thread and sync primitive overheads since 10.6, as well as improving the scheduler. About the only thing OS X really doesn't like is mechanical hard drives - it performs much worse from 10.9 onwards than Windows when you have a mechanical hard drive.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    72. Re: Anecdotal evidence by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Gas station war, what a great analogy. I find it rediculous but its impossible to look away from, just like a trainwreck.

      The thing that perplexes me most, as someone who dislikes the apple ecosystem, is usually discussions about purchases after an apple product review. I'll read the comments about how apple A in review doesn't meet the person's need, nor does the apple B they were considering, but they'll choose apple B. I mean, when I make a purchase decision for let's say tablets, I look at the iPads and look at the alternatives. Some people are so far into the Apple garden that they don't even realize there's a fence and consider other options, their only options being iPad A, iPad B, or iPad C. I always try my best to think in another person's shoes, but I simply can't comprehend that kind of behavior.

      What it really comes down to is those fanatic-types are unbearable to discuss merits/downsides with, because they don't consider anything outside the apple ecosystem as an option. I guess there are the opposite of that camp as well. Tribalism at its worst.

    73. Re:Anecdotal evidence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In one chapter, Brooks discusses the bad effects of having too many people making architectural decisions. It appears to be the decision he most regrets.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    74. Re:Anecdotal evidence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      MacOS was technically about as advanced as Windows 3, but it usually managed to be better than Windows in other ways for most of its life.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    75. Re:Anecdotal evidence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are those battery lives actually comparable? A while ago, I was reading reviews that expressed surprise that Apple's battery life claims turned out to be generally accurate or even conservative, in contrast to the rest of the industry.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    76. Re:Anecdotal evidence by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I found it to be about as advanced as Windows as Windows 3, but without the stability. At least with Windows 3, once you learned what would take it down, with a generous helping of "don't do that" it was actually usable. Mac OS on the other hand, would crash constantly and for no apparent reason. It was like playing Russian roulette with your data.

    77. Re:Anecdotal evidence by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I think he was referring to a lot of the legacy stuff like the VXD drivers which never made the transition from the 9x/ME line to the NT line (thank God!).

    78. Re: Anecdotal evidence by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Actually, they do. You'll find that Microsoft keyboards and mice work just fine on OSX, and Microsoft publishes drivers so Mac users can utilize the advanced features found on them. What you don't see is Microsoft making a bootloader to turn an XBox 360 into a hackintosh.

    79. Re:Anecdotal evidence by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Where do we get jobs running benchmarks?

      1. Create a website.
      2. Publish benchmarks on it.
      3. Add a shitload of ads, trackers, etc.
      4. ???
      5. Profit!

    80. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac users are not very interested in testing particularly since many of them have a real need to believe their money was well spend and do not wish to do something which might challenge that idea.

      Macs are actually a good value for the money.

      If you think Macs are expensive, look at what they USED to cost. I bought one of the first PCI Power Macs (a 7500) in 1995 for $2700. That's about $4,000 in today's dollars. I paid $300 for an extra 8MB of RAM. I had to get a loan to buy it, but it was worthwhile because I got an Orange PC card that let me run Windows in the same machine.

      Macs are much cheaper nowadays, expensive only in comparison to cheap commodity PC hardware sold by sketchy vendors at razor-thin margins.

    81. Re:Anecdotal evidence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Which wasn't my experience with it, for whatever that's worth.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    82. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you point out as the advantages of Windows vs OSX are exactly the reasons I run OSX primarily with various Windows VMs as needed; stabilty of the underlying OS, performance, memory management - especially with 2 simultaneous VMs, network - wired/wireless performance [ did you know that the thunderbolt adapter is capable of 10G duplex and you can connect 2 at one time ? A Macbook Pro is the ONLY portable 10G traffic capture / analysis device I know of ].

      Ask your friends who do Windows support vs Apple support who is busier ? It won't be the folks from Infinite Loop.

      Windows has not been faster the OSX on the same hardware since Windows 7 - nor Window 3.1, nor DOS 4 or even back to CPM or C/CPM.
      The LCII might have been a little slower but since the IBM/DOS platform at the same time was a big ass beige brick with a crappy keyboard ( what was that PS2 box ? ) , a small sleek box was ok.
      The Lesa and Fat Macs were great and kicked MS products all day long. ( 68000 chip vs 8088/8086 ).

      Storage Management being "kludgy at best ?" What - you like "G:, H:" and File_server\departments\ITS\Development\Project#1_2015v2 vs an icon in Finder.

      It used to be a joke that Linux was user friendly, it was just picky who it was friendly with. You seem to be in the camp of not being able to be friendly with Macs. I get it .. you probably remember Nixon too from the TV.

    83. Re:Anecdotal evidence by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them : +1 read the book

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
    84. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can launch Office within ~15 seconds of pushing the on button with my box running Win8. Maybe it's because I don't have skype run on boot, but I haven't had any problems doing real work right away.

    85. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comparison between the XPS 13 and the rMBP isn't completely correct. The rMBP uses a 28W CPU versus a 15W version on the XPS. En plus, the battery claims by Dell are far from realistic. I get about 8h with normal (human) use on a 1080p XPS.

  6. Nice... by Buck+Feta · · Score: 0

    But does it run Linux?

    --
    I am Audience.
    1. Re:Nice... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      But does it run Linux?

      Not "funny" dude... many people run Linux on Windows running on MacBooks!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
  7. elitist gamer detected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's fast. It's smooth. It renders at 60FPS

    Super smooth, rendering like a pro, bro! Framerate is king, and MY RIG has a HUGE COCK.

  8. yes, but... by cosmin_c · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... there's still a long-ish way to go until Windows 10 is out. And I'm afraid it'll come with surprises that we don't want (more bloatware? Advertising?).

    I'm impressed by the performance boosts Windows got through 8, 8.1 and now 10, but unfortunately that is not enough for an OS. I'm uncomfortable with navigating the OS, something which should be seamless, logical and extremely easy to do; imagine if you had to think about every step you take whilst you go shopping.

    I've also installed Windows 7, 8, 8.1 on a Macbook Pro and it's terrible. Oh, it is fast, trouble is the energy management is so poor the processor is overheating so the fans go turbo-mode. Not a pleasant experience.

    I'll stick to 7 for the moment and OS X, they do the job properly without the hassle of a sad smilie BSOD.

    1. Re:yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which Macbook Pro do you have? The problem mine has is the UEFI bios mode, i.e. BootCamp for the 2011 Macbook Pro's, does not tell windows it exists. So windows can't use it, and must use the AMD GPU. Which means it is in use the whole time, unlike with OS X that will switch between the two depending on the workload.

      And Windows can't see the AMD GPU under UEFI mode, thanks to the version of UEFI being 1.xx. And the Intel drivers don't work, nor does the audio.

      But, the graphics applications I use are faster on Windows. The OpenGL that Apple supports is very slow, so they created fast paths like Core Audio and Core Image for developers. Instead of fixing the problem, they created a solution that encourages developers to write code that will only work on their platform.

    2. Re:yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm hearing running windows 8.1 on my surface pro is almost complete silence. If the fans on your Macbook Pro are going into turbo mode and your processor is overheating, you have a problem with your computer, not Windows. Perhaps you should entertain the idea that Apple has forcefully constrained os x thereby giving you a product that won't cause you fans to go turbo or your processor to overheat with the penalty being that it underperforms. Because I can categorically state that nothing I've done with windows on my surface pro has caused it to enter 'turbo mode' and/or overheat. And the power schemes offered by Windows 8.1 are thorough, IMO. Lots of options that seemingly cover just about every kind of user. Beyond just standard power plans, they allow complete customization of each plan. I don't love 8.1 but I've got no complaints about power management.

      And I'm pretty sure you're completely wrong about Windows coming with bloatware, crapware,etc. What you might be referring to are computers that run Windows might come with bloatware. But if you buy a computer from Microsoft, it doesn't come with any third party software. None. Oh sure, you get a trial of Office, and some other MS apps, but nothing that is a bit different than what comes preloaded on a Mac.(Apple apps)It irks me when people say crap like this. It's the same as when iPhone users try to knock Google for Android fragmentation when in fact that is caused almost entirely by the oem's and the carriers.

      So if you're afraid of bloatware, understand that Microsoft has a fairly decent policy with the stuff they can control through sales made by them. It applies to all the manufacturers whose product they sell. To quote, "Forget about any pre-installed junk that slows down your PC." Don't get me wrong. I understand and have endured crapware on Windows Pc's. That's one of the reasons I think Microsoft doesn't deserve to be bunched in with the rest. They , cough, cough, deserve a few kudos for obviously negotiating with various OEM"S in order to be able to sell their computers without any crapware. The website has posted some performance figures purporting to show how much of an increase in performance this leads to, but I'm not going to buy all that at least until I see more. But it makes sense.
      There's plenty to dislike about Microsoft without taking aim at them for stuff that isn't there fault, IMO.

    3. Re:yes, but... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      ... there's still a long-ish way to go until Windows 10 is out. And I'm afraid it'll come with surprises that we don't want .

      Problem is, mow that a pre release version has presumably beat a OSX install, now will enter the PC fanbois lexicon, and will be brought up forever and anon, just like we still see them bitching about one button mice, which is something like 18 years irrelevant.

      Perhaps we might wait until the final version, and then keep comparing them after each new update. If it is anything like any previous Windows OS I've used, it will slow down plenty between pre release, and 2 years from now.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish shopping at a store were as easy as Windows 10. "Hey Cortana, buy me a can of peas, corn starch, and an L510 watch battery using my Visa card."

  9. let me know in 6 months by aglider · · Score: 1

    Whether this Marvel is still smooth and fast!

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
  10. I just switched. Not going back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    My beloved 7 crashed, bad, again, this past week and I finally decided to try out 10, I am running 10074 and it made my ....5? year old pavilion DV6 6135 feel like a brand new computer. It really is gorgeous and has a lower overhead. Not sure that this is relevant other than additional praise for 10, but I thought you would like to know.

    1. Re:I just switched. Not going back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we're sharing anecdotes, I "upgraded" my Win 7 machine to Windows 10.

      Performance totally sucks now. I'm glad I didn't try it on an important machine.

      I imagine much has to with how well it's been tuned to your particular hardware.

    2. Re:I just switched. Not going back. by shihonage · · Score: 1

      Early adopters have been singing this same tune since Windows 95 at least. It's NEVER been true. Each version of Windows is more bloated than the one before it. It's part of their development strategy.

      The impression of new OS being snappier is always created by comparing the previous OS's well-worn install to the new OS's fresh, bare install, in other words, placebo effect and wishful thinking. ALWAYS.

    3. Re:I just switched. Not going back. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking, yes. Though the minimum requirements for Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1 have not changed, and I must say that 7 is generally faster than Vista (mostly from reining in Vista's overly aggressive Superfetch), and 8/8.1 are significantly improved over Windows 7. Though unlike what some people are saying about Windows 10, I've found it to be a total dog. The versions from last January or so were a tad sluggish but otherwise seemed okay, whereas the latest builds I've found to be basically unusable. Granted, it's a preview so I don't expect it to be well optimized yet, but I'm not sure what Microsoft has been up to the past few months.

    4. Re:I just switched. Not going back. by cavebison · · Score: 1

      > My beloved 7 crashed, bad, again, this past week and I finally decided to try out 10, I am running 10074 and it made my ....5? year old pavilion DV6 6135 feel like a brand new computer.

      So would a new install of XP. :)

  11. Re:Couldn't care less. by MessageDrivenBean · · Score: 0

    Tried that but wasn't able to get something useful from "cat /proc/cpuinfo".

    --
    Quisque verborum suorum optimus interpres...
  12. Lets cut through to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Windows fanboys: We told you so...

    Mac fanboys: Pfft buncha Windows fanboys

    Linux fanboys: Whatever, Linux is free and runs on anything lightning fast

    1. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference is that Linux and Mac GUIs get choppy under the slightest load, while Windows says smooth like butter in every situation. Some people have even installed Windows on their Macs and they are getting more graphics performance from the same hardware.

    2. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that Linux and Mac GUIs get choppy under the slightest load, while Windows says smooth like butter in every situation. Some people have even installed Windows on their Macs and they are getting more graphics performance from the same hardware.

      You're conflating a couple of different things. Windows general-purpose multitasking is terrible compared to Linux/MacOS (at least based on Win7 experiences).

      On the other hand, Microsoft has had a laser focus on Windows gaming, with the obvious tie-in to Xbox gaming. This has resulted in very fast graphics drivers for Windows.

      Linux seems to be doing well lately, with some Steam games getting higher frame rates on Linux than on Windows. Linux may end up being the best of all possible worlds (well out of three worlds anyhow) given its lean design, performance and stability. Perhaps eventually it'll see more proprietary software ports like Solidworks and ProEngineer.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by armanox · · Score: 1

      Maybe Apple dropped the ball in newer versions, but my MBP stays pretty smooth under a load (MBP 1,1 running OS X 10.6).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    4. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anecdotal, but windows 8.1 performs worse under load for me than Slackware Current does. Any time that there's a lot of I/O going on Windows will practically grind to a halt. Something to do with the very aggressive use of the pagefile I think.

    5. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows general-purpose multitasking is terrible compared to Linux/MacOS (at least based on Win7 experiences).

      Because you say it is? Bullocks.

      Linux seems to be doing well lately, with some Steam games getting higher frame rates on Linux than on Windows.

      In the case of Valve, they recently spent a lot of time optimizing their OpenGL code to get it working on Linux while leaving their DirectX code to stagnate (as they so often do). In other cases, the Linux version benchmarks are flawed because they aren't using equal graphical settings either because they aren't available or due to poor test methodology.

      Linux may end up being the best of all possible worlds (well out of three worlds anyhow) given its lean design, performance and stability.

      Um... yeah... you guys have been saying that since Windows XP. "Oh yeah, Linux is finally good now!" If you can ever get Wayland/Mir widely accepted you might get closer. The only time Linux is lean, performs well, and stable is WITHOUT running a DE.

    6. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      MBP never had a problem. This is about the seriously underpowered Macbook (one-port wonder, mobile grade RAM, motherboard same size as that of a phone, no fan). Since Windows 10 runs on everything from $50 phones to $10k workstations, I am not surprised that it is much better optimized than OSX.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    7. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by eeyoredragon · · Score: 1

      That's weird

      That's exactly the opposite of my experience. One of the main things I noticed when I switched to OS X was that when I was compiling my code for work, if I was on my windows machine, everything stuttered. Window movement... visual feedback from clicking buttons, etc. Whereas on my mac I'd forget I was compiling something if the terminal wasn't visible.

      I haven't done my work coding on my mac in a couple of years, so maybe things have changed, but I was always amazed that the GUI stayed usable even under heavy CPU use on OS X as compared to Windows (XP and 7) which became unusable.

    8. Re:Lets cut through to the chase by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Really? In my experience, when I'm feeling annoyed at a half-second delay in responding to my commands, I'm running Windows 7. It may be smooth like butter for some purposes, but doing what I want when I want it doesn't seem to be one.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  13. one burning question by yanyan · · Score: 1

    How is testing windows 10 on a macbook "the most logical performance evaluation of all"?

    1. Re:one burning question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are NOT "Designed for windows" ? :)

      Everyone can provide anecdotal info, so here mine: W7 runs better in my MacBookPro than it did in a Vaio, both with > 6GB RAM and i7 processors. I cannot understand how a "designed for windows" machin can suck so badly, both in the ~ 1300 € range :).

      I only hope W10 doesn't suck... just keep it like 7 but up to date, the rest, we don't need it.

    2. Re:one burning question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These performance evaluations from hipster ruby developers are useless.

      So why not do one that is so useless it's unlikely to inform anyone's purchasing decision, ever?

    3. Re:one burning question by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      It is the most logical evaluation of performance of OS X. How else are you going to test it?

    4. Re:one burning question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give you a hint... it has a logo with a penguin....

    5. Re:one burning question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way Linux is generally used is competely different from Windows and OSX, so comparing the latter (no #1 desktop os to no #2 desktop os) is indeed the most logical thing to do.

      And to be honest, Linux couldn't have picked a worse logo. No matter how you picture that stupid penguin, there's no way to make it look cool and advanced.

    6. Re:one burning question by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      Vaio has been discontinued for a reason. Try a decent machine and watch Windows fly :)

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  14. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ballmer is gone, the nightmare is over.

    Seriously though, I like the things Nadella has been doing. Reverting the Windows 8 start screen, releasing Windows 10 for free and developing HoloLens into a product (something Ballmer would have left collecting dust in some Microsoft research lab).

  15. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know how I know you're lying?

  16. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Try the same in powershell!

  17. Re:News for shills, stuff that costs money by etinin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh hey, this whole site is ridiculous, isn't it? Look, they talk about computers, computers cost money... And cellphones? Have you seen how expensive these are, gosh... Thank god we live in the United Federation of Planets and don't use this kind of thing anymore. Hey computer, where's my free coffee?

    --
    "I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
  18. cygwin? you're a horrible person by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't wish cygwin on my worst enemy.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:cygwin? you're a horrible person by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound very nice. What's the point of having enemies then?

    2. Re:cygwin? you're a horrible person by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      Why? Seriously?

      First tool I install on my Windows boxes is MobaXTerm which contains a fully configured and set up cygwin including X Server. Works like a champ for me managing my Linux boxes, and all I had to do was install it. SSH works, remoted X works, and I can run bash scripts even referencing /proc entries from my Linux box and most of them work with no modifications.

  19. Used.... by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    This submission (as some of the others recently) are there to troll slashdotters. We're being used as THEY know that there'll be factions and fanbois sprouting stuff about their favourite OS. It's a matter of respect and there is little of that around any more.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  20. Intel chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason Windows can run at all on macs is because it is the exact same hardware. That is to say, Apple use Intel chipsets. Yes there is boot camp & the like for selection & any trusted platform module chip to allow it. Likewise if you run Mac OSX, mavericks on a PC (hackintosh) it runs same. Apple doesn't allow that legally, naturally, it refuses to run. No OEM ever produced a Mac. They are proprietary, hardware & software together, unlike Windows which has always been licences. Only OEMs & Microsoft partners once manufactured PCs, but now Microsoft is also a hardware company, so they can manufacture their own now too as well as put their own software on them too.

    1. Re:Intel chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were several companies that produced Macs in the 90's. And while it is the exact same hardware, it used the UEFI firmware from the start, long before Windows was ready for it. So, bootcamp is necessary to run Windows on all older Intel Macs because it emulates a bios environment.

      I am not sure what the other points you are trying to make.

    2. Re: Intel chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happen to Tandy computers lol.

      My first computer was a Tandy in 1993-94.

  21. 60 FPS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No operating system renders on a constant frame rate. It's repainting parts of the screen on demand.

    1. Re:60 FPS? by tepples · · Score: 1

      I thought this "dirty regions" system went out of style with Windows XP in favor of Windows Vista's composited Aero environment.

    2. Re:60 FPS? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      More specifically DWM is the compositor, Aero is the theme. :)

  22. same hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also, unlike PCs, where the hardware uses 'open architecture', being made by many different manufacturers & assembled together & running software produced by another company, Macs use 'closed hardware architecture'. No one other than Apple can produce a Mac & even the software that runs on a Mac is by Apple (no Original Equipment Manufacturer ever produced a Mac).

    As Apple does both hardware & software, the 'closed architecture' has very little in the way of user-serviceable parts, with RAM soldered to the motherboard & battery packs glued into place). Also by security locking certain components, Intel-based versions of the MacOS only run on special, Apple-branded PCs that contain a proprietary security chip. The MacOS looks for the security chip, & refuses to run if it's installed in a Computer without the chip- which is to say: It will refuse to run on any other brand PC, even if all the other hardware is identical. Apple use legal measures to remain the sole provider of Mac hardware; thus allowing them to charge their premium prices (& therefore offer their own first party support where required).

    For these reasons & because Windows can be an infinitely better operating system when it isn't smothered by the demoware, adware, & other bloatware that many PC manufacturers & vendors splay onto the start menus, the desktop, & the System Tray, PC owners usually get proper performance with a fresh clean signature install of the operating system itself.

    1. Re: same hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 errors of fact:

      - Apple had licences OEMs building Macs in the mid-1990's , mostly they just competed directly with Apple , rather than growing into different market niches and it did not end well. One of Steve's first acts as iCEO was to kill the clones.

      - Apple has never used TPM units in its Mac hardware , and has never shipped them with a locked boot loader. Only the very first Intel Macs, based on Intel reference designs had TPM circa 2006. They were unused. The thing that makes running other OS on Apple hardware sometimes tricky is the smattering of custom chipsets and EFI firmware , that is subtly different from OEM PC hardware . Apple often doesn't use standard Intel CPUs , often with different cache setups, power management or clock speeds from Intel's standard parts. That's just a software problem.

    2. Re: same hardware by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 1

      You can in fact run Mac OS X on a non-Apple piece of hardware. Hackintosh is how it's done. I am unsure of the legality of running OS X on non-Apple hardware due to EULA, but it is entirely possible and there is a small cottage industry around building non-Apple Macs.

  23. Re:Couldn't care less. by edittard · · Score: 2

    Reverting the Windows 8 start screen

    So he did the needful?

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  24. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must really hate how OS X breaks all sorts of Linux things, even though it actually qualifies as an official Unix distribution.

  25. Embed controllers by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh, it is fast, trouble is the energy management is so poor the processor is overheating so the fans go turbo-mode. Not a pleasant experience.

    Welcome to the fantastic world of "embed controllers" (EC). The small custom chip sitting in the middle of a laptop, and in charge with all the peculiar functionality that are peculiar to this laptop, but don't exist in standard desktop/workstations. (like battery management, etc.)

    The problem is that there is absolutely no standardisation of ECs. Every model is its own special snow flake (and when I say "model" I mean model of motherboard. In some case, specially consumer oriented laptop, some product range might have the same model name and the same plastic case and looks absolutely the same from the outside, but is actually different revisions which looks completely different under the hood, depending on which parts were the cheapest during the month this one was produced) (that's why for the same "Model" you have a few different BIOS downloads depending on part number, revision, etc.)

    To get it working the manufacturer could write a specific driver. Usually this is done by the hardware manufacturer who write drivers for the target OS they have. Most laptop manufacturer write drivers for Windows, because they produce windows laptops. Here it's an *Apple* don't expect much.

    To make things worse: usually these aren't your garden variety of drivers. Very often, platform functionality like ECs are handled by ACPI (now part of UEFI). i.e.: by firmware that is byte-code interpreted by the running system. In theory it should make things more OS-agnostic and portable. In practice it's a nightmare as every ACPI implementation is buggy in its own way, and every OS has a different variety of quirks. So writers of firmware (BIOS/UEFI/ACPI) for laptops have to release new versions of firmware (again, one per model of EC on mother board).
    You can count on big brands to release a new BIOS pack download to cover the major flavours of Windows that they ship with this model. Maybe cover an update.

    But don't count on engineers working for Apple to scram to release a new firmware update, just because some random schmuck decided to install a newer version of windows whose ACPI implementation is broken in a subtly different way than the preceding.
    Their official OS that they support is OS X, they might have decided to add as a bonus a version or two supported as part of their Boot Camp offering.
    And that's about it, don't count much more from them.

    Funny that *windows* is now at the receiving end of this firmware/EC problem, that usually haunts Linux users on laptop that mostly run Windows.
    (The problem that you report trying to run Windows on Apple hardware ? That's the daily plight of Linux users on most Windows laptops).

    --------------

    Also that might be the reason of the performance gain and "overall smoothness" reported by TFA:
    - when running under OS X, the OS balances performance with battery life, thermal limits, etc. hardware runs at an equilibrium. Thus isn't as smooth as it theoretically could, because OS decides to save a bit power.
    - Windows 10 has very probably an ACPI implementation that is subtly broken in a different way that its predecessor. Power management doesn't work. GPU is run at max power profile, CPU is run at max frequency. Results are probably smoother, but if the guy had actually carred to measure it in details, he would probably have observed shittier battery life.
    Relevant quote (emphasis by me):

    Battery life seemed very good from the short time I used it. I didn't fully deplete the battery, but I was on track to get over 9 hours of use with brightness at 40%. Mac battery life is rarely as strong on Windows, but there doesn't seem to be as enormous of a gap here, which is good.

    Yup definitely a possibility that shitty battery life and heat that you describe and the high performance that the author got are the

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Embed controllers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The days of custom chips are in recession, not advancing. Apple's laptops don't contain secret custom chips, it's all off the shelf and anyone's laptops could be made out of the same parts. The only difference between a macbook motherboard and anyone else's Foxconn-built laptop is the BIOS. The BIOS and the use of the TPM (which is now built into every modern CPU, rather than having to be integrated separately) are what make the system 'special'. Even supposedly custom chips (like console GPUs) are just cobbled together out of existing cores.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Embed controllers by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      These days there is a more standard way of doing thermal management in laptops. Intel built the capability into their CPUs with configuration data loaded by the BIOS. Fan control is via the Intel chip set in the same manner.

      You used to need a driver back in the Core 2 days, but most (all?) Core i devices don't.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re: Embed controllers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That just is not true, especially in the SoC and embedded world. Many chip makers only ship binary blobs. That's an huge problem for users, starting in the open world.

    4. Re: Embed controllers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That just is not true, especially in the SoC and embedded world.

      No, it is completely true. Those SoCs are slapped together from shit they had lying around already, they're not totally custom. The issue of closed-source drivers is real, but not the issue that was raised.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows 10 will be broken by design somehow. We just don't know what yet. But they will never get it right. Ever. Some proof: I tried "ls -l" this morning, and it did NOT work.

    The "ls" command (Get-ChildItem) works just fine in PowerShell. The "-l" parameter is not needed as the listing is wide by default.

  27. Windows revolution? by jlpelaz · · Score: 0

    Will the new windows 10 be the revolution for this network or will be a new windows ME?

    --
    http://www.abogadoamigo.com/
  28. Re:Couldn't care less. by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    Seriously though, I like the things Nadella has been doing. Reverting the Windows 8 start screen, releasing Windows 10 for free

    Let's not forget that a lot of those decisions have actually been made by the Operating Systems Group, which is lead by Joe Belfiore and Terry Myerson.

  29. Re:News for shills, stuff that costs money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A tribble drank your coffee and ate your chicken sandwich too.

  30. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get-ChildItem gci dir ls

    Too verbose PowerShell is, more cryptic should be.

  31. This judgment is entirely subjective by DavidinAla · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's nice to hear that Win10 runs well on a MacBook, but it's pure clickbait to claim that it "runs better" than does OS X. The measure being used is completely subjective. Microsoft and Apple might be optimizing for entirely different things. Without far more objective tests, we simply have no idea. It's silly to claim to have an objective answer based on this observation. Even the writer's claim that Win 10 runs at 60 fps turns out to be made up, because he admits that it simply looks that way and he hasn't found a way to test it. In other words, this is purely subjective AND this subjective observation about one thing says nothing about how either operating system performs overall. He can reasonably say that he installed Win 10 on the MacBook and he liked the way it performed. He can't reasonably compare the performance of the two operating systems, at least not based on anything he said here. Windows may be better by some objective measures. We just can't tell that from anything here.

    1. Re:This judgment is entirely subjective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      You don't seem to be knowing the difference between subjective and inaccurate, Apple fanboy.
      If I watch two runners, and I see one is ahead, that isn't a subjective observation and the runner is really ahead. I have no timer or slomo camera, so I cannot accurately measure the difference. But the one runner is objectively still doing better.

  32. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried that but wasn't able to get something useful from "cat /proc/cpuinfo".

    Hah. Learn to use the tools that are available in the system. Type the following into PowerShell and be amazed. :)

    Get-WmiObject Win32_Processor

  33. Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've recently installed the latest 64bit Windows 10 technical preview on a new computer running a gen 5 Intel processer with 6 cores and hyperthreading, SSD raid array and nVidia graphics card and the performance appears to be suboptimal. It requires DEP on by default, minimum RAM and other weirdness like specifying the type of cpu name (which I set to "core2duo") just to install but does allow all the usual hardware acceleration. I assigned several CPUs and a good chunk of DDR4 RAM to it with 16GB of hard drive space.

    Running next to my trusty virtual XP windows 10 is a dog, even with all the settings for performance switched on. The integrated "search my computer and Internet" is painfully slow and the start button brings up this wacky osd box with embedded "metro style" elements. If you click a couple of times as it loads (can take any random amount of time) it doesn't ever appear again. I suppose this is a bug that will be fixed, but the whole thing feels slow to respond (including the mouse pointer and drag+drop snappiness). Some of this seems to be due to clunky design rather than the optimization of the codebase.

    The only thing I can say is quicker is the startup and shutdown. I suppose the new "Spartan" thing loads alright, but I'm not a fan.

    1. Re:Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "virtual environment" means fuck-all. Are you using QEMU-KVM? Virtualbox? Or are you actually using VMware, which is what you do when you care about performance?

      Running next to my trusty virtual XP windows 10 is a dog,

      Again, which environment are you using? What's your config look like?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am running QEMU-KVM. My Windows XP virtual machine and other machines run really smooth and quick with the same type of settings (actually less much RAM and CPU allocated), adjusting for 32bit XP and 64bit Windows 10.

      I don't think most of my performance issues with Windows 10 can be solved by moving to VMWare, or even running it native. The problem for me is that it is just a clunky interface that slows down the process of doing things (e.g. waiting for another mode to open for the 2 different control panels, WTF?). Some of the things actually appear to be time based in waiting, because I have a really fast setup hardware-wise and it should "just work" as the other virtual machines I've tried do.

      I'm not a big fan of the Mac OSX interface either, but at least it appears smooth when you stick an SSD in an old Mac. I use Mac at work with Windows 7 in a virtual machine (VMWare) (I also use linux on servers) and am evaluating Windows 10 with enterprise deployment in mind. I wonder if the author of the article actually clicked the start button or tried to type much in the new integrated search bar of Windows 10. I mean things like this -- Firefox works well, but if you try to set it as a default application Windows appears to freeze for half a second as it loads some weird "default application" selecting application that is like it is part of a completely different OS that has to load with it.

    3. Re:Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised that windows 10 doesn't run well in KVM yet. That's never surprising. Give it some time. Try it in vmware before you decide the performance is bad.

      I don't think most of my performance issues with Windows 10 can be solved by moving to VMWare, or even running it native. The problem for me is that it is just a clunky interface that slows down the process of doing things

      That's not a performance issue, then. It's a gewgaw bullshit issue. That's a real issue, but not the smae thing.

      Firefox works well, but if you try to set it as a default application Windows appears to freeze for half a second as it loads some weird "default application" selecting application that is like it is part of a completely different OS that has to load with it.

      Every time it loads, or just then?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 1

      I am running QEMU-KVM. My Windows XP virtual machine and other machines run really smooth and quick with the same type of settings (actually less much RAM and CPU allocated), adjusting for 32bit XP and 64bit Windows 10.

      So what you're saying is that a 14 year old operating system performs better in a suboptimal virtual environment where the programmers have specifically targeted the performance profiles of said OS for about 10 of those years? Stop the freaking presses, mate.

      Seriously? Windows 10 isn't final, and QEMU-KVM optimization for Win10 will probably lag at least 6 months to a year after release. Let me know then how it performs given your adjustments. I'm not a Microsoft fanboy but even I can tell you that your test is even more horrendously flawed than the article poster's.

    5. Re:Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think most of my performance issues with Windows 10 can be solved by moving to VMWare, or even running it native.

      Because you apparently still don't get it, let me be perfectly blunt. You, sir, are a stupid motherfucker. Save your next McDonald's paycheck and buy a cheap hard drive the next time you want to test drive an operating system.

    6. Re:Not that snappy in virtual environment on linux by InfiniteLoopCounter · · Score: 1

      Fine. You are right -- my "test" isn't really that useful for gauging performance objectively. I do however feel like I've got a better handle on where things are going with it from playing with the technical preview and it's certainly worth more people doing this. I'm probably also a bit biased in what I write because I was hoping real hard that the whole "Metro" thing would disappear and it hasn't.

  34. criteria? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we used to measure compute performance in flops or #tx/second, alas performance to get real work done. Nowadays youngsters seem to measure animation smoothness when dragging around windows. O tempora o mores!

  35. Not sure how I can believe this. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 2

    The writer is saying Apple came out with a MacBook that cannot smoothly run the OS that was preinstalled on it?

    Frankly, I can understand if it was a 4 year old laptop with the latest OS, but Apple's usually pretty good about integration. Can anyone else verify that the latest MacBook that OS animations aren't smooth?

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  36. parts of me by dkman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The pessimist in me says "That's ok. MS has plent of time to screw it up before release."

    The realist in me says "You paid too much for the Windows laptop."

    Isn't the Apple motto "It just works"? Not it works well, or quickly.

    The optimist in me is still sleeping.

    --
    I refuse to sign
    1. Re:parts of me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It just works" meaning failure is only a small step away.

  37. Wrong choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Windows 10 on a 12 inch MacBook? Can't work, it's obviously designed for a 10 inch MacBook.

  38. speed isn't everything by cellocgw · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Granted, for many users, speed matters. But, here are some other concerns.

    1) The Registry File. Enough said.
    2) Under OS X, open any kind of file in any kind of editor. Go back to the Finder window, rename the file, move it to a different folder no problem. Can't be done under Windows. Half the time, even after you close the file (not the editor app), the app fails to 'release' the lock and you STILL can't rename the file.
    3) None of Microsoft's pseudo-shell implementations come close to bash/csh/ksh in useability.

    For most users, most of the time spent on a computer is in dealing with the UI/GUI/UX (whatever you want to call it). That's what matters; raw speed of calculation is the primary need of a rather small subset of users (who probably buy time on a cluster node :-) )

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:speed isn't everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) The Registry File. Enough said.

      Systemd. Enough said.

      2) Under OS X, open any kind of file in any kind of editor. Go back to the Finder window, rename the file, move it to a different folder no problem. Can't be done under Windows.

      Nor should it be done. That's a feature that's bound to backfire.

      Half the time, even after you close the file (not the editor app), the app fails to 'release' the lock and you STILL can't rename the file.

      I've never experienced that, ever, in my 35 years of computing on various platforms and various text/document editors. The only possible explanation is a DFO error.

      3) None of Microsoft's pseudo-shell implementations come close to bash/csh/ksh in useability.

      You're hopelessly crippled by the Unix mentality, thus unable to function in other environments. This is a clear case of blaming the tools rather than the operator.

    2. Re:speed isn't everything by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well for registry file, we'll see, I think it might only be for universal apps but win 10 is supposed to have a virtual registry similar to how WoW works. An app sees a registry but in actuality it is a private clone of the registry. When the app is uninstalled the OS just blasts away that clone and no cruft is left. At least that is the theory. For the desktop user, I think Mac has the cleanest installation process. Drag and drop. Things are installed in a single folder. Drag and drop the app to the trash and it is gone. For the power user: debian like is my favorite: apt-get is great. But still always having to remember what's in bin, whats in sbin, etc etc. Things do get scattered all over the place in Linux. Oddly it is the command line friendly OS that requires a lot of jumping between directories (which is a pain in the ass from command line) to get anything done. VS windows where everything is pretty much dumped in the windows folder and or available in the ui from a single (albeit huge) widget (control panel).

    3. Re:speed isn't everything by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      I've never experienced that, ever, in my 35 years of computing on various platforms and various text/document editors.

      It happens to me occasionally on my Win7 box at work, and sometimes requires firing up Process Explorer to find out who still has a lock on the file if the file had been closed a while back. Getting out of the editor is the only thing that releases the lock in those cases. It's happened in Word, Notepad++, and UltraEdit.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    4. Re:speed isn't everything by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2

      2) Under OS X, open any kind of file in any kind of editor. Go back to the Finder window, rename the file, move it to a different folder no problem. Can't be done under Windows. Half the time, even after you close the file (not the editor app), the app fails to 'release' the lock and you STILL can't rename the file.

      So what you're saying is that Windows implements logical and useful locking mechanisms whereas OSX implements something bound to break eventually? Wow... what a crime. I've used Mac OS, Windows, Linux, BSD and more flavours of UNIX than you can shake a stick at... I think Windows' file locking semantics are just fine the way they are. Anything else can lead to confusion, corruption and lost files.

      Having said that, I do wish Windows would implement a "Can't do this because file is open in (blah).exe" error message instead of "Access denied", which is really dumb.

      3) None of Microsoft's pseudo-shell implementations come close to bash/csh/ksh in useability.

      Actually, PowerShell is really good. I wasn't a believer the first time I used it but once you got the semantics and ideas down in your head it becomes an incredibly powerful tool for systems administration. At my last job I had a folder full of .ps scripts that I used daily to simplify my job, run reporting and generally make myself stand out among my GUI-focused peers on the Windows networks. That standing out helped me get a job where I no longer need them, but that's cool because I like my new job even better. And I still have them if I need them again.

      And on Windows you can install Cygwin. I have MobaXTerm installed on all my Windows machines and it's really good; fully functional Cygwin and X-Server environment with a single click of the mouse... compatibility with a lot of my Linux scripts. Awesome.

    5. Re:speed isn't everything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But OSX doesn't delete everything by dropping an application in the trash. It loves to leave behind preference files and other config files in much the same way as Linux. Which is why there's an "AppDelete" application that monitors for application deletes and then offers up the cruft it finds for you to decide to keep or delete.

      The Windows registry can be properly cleaned-up if (and only if) an application's installer/uninstaller is correctly designed. Which means some applications uninstall cleanly every time, and others leave behind a festering mess.

      Ultimately, it's a matter of picking your poison.

    6. Re:speed isn't everything by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Mac OSX implements Unix-style file locking, which separate the file itself from the file name better. This seems like a really good idea to me, but then Unix seems like my native language.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  39. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not amazed. This reeks of the Microsoft approach.

    - WMI is an acronym. Why is it in CamelCase except to make it the hard-to-guess impossible-to-guess?
    - The processor is physically in my system, why is the parameter conflating "processor" (an element of an enumeration of physical devices I might want to task about) with an element of a separate enumeration (Win32 and other arbitrary subsystem layers/APIs)?
    - Why does Get-WmiObject exist as an API into a WMI specific factory rather than as a general call to (Get-Object (WMI, ...)). Is it because you have a numpty language or that precedence rules are hard?

  40. Some things never change by Pecisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ohhhh, old Slashdot - some things never change. Upcoming Windows release and "ohh so much true this Windows version is a best" posts, for one example. Sorry, people, Windows 10 is just rehashed Windows 8.1, with quite a few subsystems optimized. It is just another Windows. No, it won't convince people to switch. It merely will make Windows fans less frantic about not knowing what to do.

    --
    user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  41. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    CamelCase and every numpty that pushes it should die in a fire.

  42. What !? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, so now operating system are judged by how smooth their animations look? Shame on you Slashdot!

    1. Re:What !? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Why not? Smooth animations make the computer relaxing to use.

  43. but how about Xubuntu versus OSX? by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 2

    I am pretty sure it will blow Windows 10 out of the water and you won't have to do work to install all the extras (assuming you like free software). If someone gives me a MacBook, I'm happy to run this experiment ;-)

  44. Re:Couldn't care less. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    Probably because it supports a lot of .Net functionality.

  45. Re:Couldn't care less. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Tried that but wasn't able to get something useful from "cat /proc/cpuinfo".

    I had exactly that experience! Though mine was on Linux and was one of the things that pushed me to *BSD. An unstable text-based format that varies between architectures and between kernel versions turns out to be a piss-poor way of getting information from the kernel.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  46. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clearly you're not a programmer or tech person in any way. When you type for a living, typing thisIsAName is much easier to type than this-is-a-name. Typing the dashed version just now, I had to delete 2 equals signs, no screw ups in the camel case version.

  47. OSX performance is dismal nowadays by ironduke-particle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It has long appeared to me that all the best talent at Cupertino is being assigned to work on iOS, and OSX is suffering as a result.

    One upon a time, a new MacOSX release meant you might need to put more RAM in the box, but even some seven-year-old piece of hardware would go faster, and there would be fewer bugs or crashes. [Consider a late G3 iMac, upgraded all the way from Public Beta to Tiger.] These days, you put more RAM in (if you can if you have a machine old enough that Apple didn't solder all the memory in during manufacture) just to make it less sluggish.

    Drawing performance seems especially poor, which makes me wonder: if I bought a top-end top-of-the-range Mac Pro, would it be any better at being a desktop computer than what I have now? I'm not sure it would.

    1. Re:OSX performance is dismal nowadays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iOS is also pretty rubbish this days...

  48. Good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a person who hates Windows, I will admit that Microsoft has made a lot of progress in making Windows, especially since Windows 8, run faster. But one thing I have also noticed is that the performance of nearly any Windows machine seems to degrade much, much more over time than either OSX or Linux. Also, certain Windows tasks, most notably Windows Update, are always slow as molasses. I have watched Windows Update on prior versions sit there at downloading 0% for about 10 minutes before actually starting to download the update. That is just stupid. However, viruses are the number one reason to avoid Windows. The viruses I try to remove from people's Windows systems are getting worse and worse. When I get Mac jobs, they are far more fun because it is usually figuring out how to do xyz task instead of just trying to get the system to boot up properly.

    1. Re:Good article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These days it's very easy to avoid malware under Windows if you are a geek: just don't install shady software. The main reason why Windows installations get infected so often is that the OS allows installing third-party software really easily. Under Linux, for example, most of the software comes from the walled garden of the distro's repositories, which contain high-quality software.

  49. Laugh by koan · · Score: 2

    Reminds of another study some years ago where WIndows 7 was found to be more secure out of the box than OS X was at the time, or for that matter likely still is.

    Maybe there's a place but I never seem to see any info on who is doing the in house OS X coding, the age line, would be interesting to see.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  50. Re:Couldn't care less. by armanox · · Score: 1

    Funny, that didn't work for me on Solaris, IRIX, or OS X either (you know, all real UNIX systems).

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  51. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - Why does Get-WmiObject exist as an API into a WMI specific factory rather than as a general call to (Get-Object (WMI, ...)). Is it because you have a numpty language or that precedence rules are hard?

    You could as well ask why there are dpkg, apt-get and aptitude, when there could be a single command that handles it all.

  52. Re:Couldn't care less. by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 1

    It starts at the top. There's a reason why those things didn't happen when Ballmer was in charge.

  53. Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a MacBook Pro Retina (Mid 2012) with 8GB RAM and 256GB Flash storage. OS is 10.10.3.

    I'm running Windows 10 inside of Fusion. It does seem very snappy. It is much quicker than XP or 8.1 on the same host.

    Regardless, OSx is my prefered OS, Ubuntu my preferred guest VM, and Amazon Workspaces for my Windows compute.

    I think of these all as tools to get jobs done. My favorite tool being that old Commodore 64 which prestigiously sits in my office.

    1. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a real computer ... an Atari 800XL !

  54. Test of interactive responsiveness by tepples · · Score: 1

    we used to measure compute performance in flops or #tx/second, alas performance to get real work done.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you're assuming that "real work" means batch processing. Dragging a window around is a test of the responsiveness of an operating system's event handling and graphics components, which are correlated with the responsiveness of gaming and multimedia production applications. It's in fact a form of the "#tx/second" you mention, as each frame is the result of a "move window object to these coordinates" transaction.

    1. Re:Test of interactive responsiveness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dragging a window around is a test of the responsiveness of an operating system's event handling and graphics components, which are correlated with the responsiveness of gaming and multimedia production applications.

      ... the fuck it is

  55. Issues not performance but power managemet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I never found an issue with Windows running native on a Mac. My only issues with Windows on a Mac has been reduced battery life vs OS X on same hardware,
    BootCamp has never had the best drivers for power management. I get that Apple is not trying too hard to support running Windows on their hardware, The virtual machines are acceptable for 2D and minimal needs for Windows. But if you have a Macbook Air or Macbook your probably not going to have the ideal RAM amount for a good VM experience. I also as a side note bought a HP Stream 11 Which has even worse hardware then a Macbook 12" but does run Windows 10 better then Windows 8.1. However even though Windows 10 has tweaked its performance, my Stream's small SSD is pretty much useless after installing Windows 10. Think I had around 4GB to run apps and programs. I ended up with Ubuntu just because it works better and has way less footprint on small drive.

  56. PC games under BootCamp also run faster. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On my MBPro laptop, the difference between Elder Scrolls on-line Win7 vs. OSX10.10 is staggering 10 fps. For Windows7.

  57. "Renders at 60FPS" by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

    That's not how Windows works, it's not running a continuous render-loop like a game.

    1. Re:"Renders at 60FPS" by jopsen · · Score: 1

      That's not how Windows works, it's not running a continuous render-loop like a game.

      Are you sure... I mean it would explain a lot :)
      (Sorry, I just long for the good old days where we could get away with windows bashing)

  58. Hey Mac Users... by Glasswire · · Score: 1

    If you really needed smooth animation and graphics, Apple would tell you that was important and then you would have it. In the meantime, this is clearly not important. Remember it's much more important to be stylish and cool than effective and efficient.

  59. Re: News for shills, stuff that costs money by jackspenn · · Score: 1

    That is the Trouble with Gribbles.

    --
    Respect the Constitution
  60. Run Wine on your Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can purchase CodeWeavers CrossOver at 25% off with promo code ( WEAVEME ) and be Microsoft free once again...

  61. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hah. Learn to use the tools that are available in the system.

    The Linux hipsters aren't smart enough to do that.

  62. Beta Software - Different Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man. I'll bet DOS just FLIES on it. Maybe because it isn't message driven.

    While OS X may be in need of another tuning, it's not designed so that you can brag to your buddies about benchmark numbers. It's designed to be fairly cohesive and self consistent [yeah yeah - citation needed]. If you wonder what I mean by that, let me just say that I have no fucking idea what the "refresh" shortcut is for the Finder. And the only time I use it in the browser is to actually reload a page. When something happens in the file system, everything gets updated. If I have a file open in an application and I rename the file from elsewhere or move it, the changes are reflected in the app immediately (well, at least in Preview because I tend to do that with PDFs a lot - I suppose I should try that with something other than Preview but not Word - Office still reeks of Windows port). If Safari has an issue with the network because I'm dicking with the WiFi, the return of network notification causes Safari to reattempt the connection [to be fair, IE 11 seems to do this now - and may have prior].

    So my long winded point is that there's a lot going on under the hood when it's running to make the interface integrate well. I was surprised that Win10 Tech Preview runs on my Dell i5 laptop with similar performance to Win7, but there's also a lot of things that aren't running or possibly implemented yet. I think the true test will be Win10 SP1. You know, the one that always doubles the base requirements and brings the system to its knees.

  63. Re:Couldn't care less. by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

    Reverting the Windows 8 start screen

    So he did the needful?

    Kindly?

  64. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly you are a shit programmer.

    I am highly paid. I don't "type" for a living, I create software, not rambling MassiveJavaPrograms ThatHaveToUseCamelCaseBecauseWeCantWriteShitOurselves And NeedToImportMultiMegabytePackagesFromAllOverThePlace.

  65. I believe it... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

    Up until Windows 8 I would say that OSX seemed a bit faster and smoother. I've got an old iMac (circa 2007). It has 4GB of RAM and a 256GB SSD. When I run OSX it feels slow and sluggish. I have it dual booted with Windows 8 and Windows, much to my surprise, runs much faster. It consistently uses 1.5 - 2 GB of memory. It never crashes.

    It runs well enough that it is my everyday home office computer. I can do everything on it that I need. Granted, most of what I do involves connecting via Remote Desktop to someone else's server so I don't need a lot of local horsepower. But it's good enough that I can't justify buying a new rig.

  66. Lowering expectations by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    20 years ago I was impressed when I was first able to move entire windows around the screen in real-time on a Pentium 90mhz machine running NT 3.5.1.

    Today I half heartedly expect articles to talk about the responsiveness of calculator applications.

  67. Boot Camp Retina by wywh · · Score: 1

    Any tips how to tweak Windows settings for non-retina applications? At work I have some Windows apps that I occasionally use from a Mac at home via VPN. They have worked OK although somewhat sluggishly on my late-2009 4GB Mac mini via Win 7/VMware. We recently got mid-2014 MBP so I tried Win 8 via Boot Camp but the initial experience was very bad: Win 8 Remote desktop client app's text & icons are way too tiny. One PACS client's image area is OK but the user interface elements are way too big so they fill almost the whole screen leaving only a small area for the images. The other PACS client severely crops its display area. It behaves slightly better if I adjust its window smaller but it is still unusable. I tried to tweak the "Make Text and other (Desktop?) items larger or smaller" and tweaked the resolution down to 1980x1080 but the results were not satisfactory. Any suggestions? Is Win 10 any better with Boot Camp?

  68. Like a stab in the eye with a broadhead arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am talking of case of Windows train wreak of a GUI. Who cares if something that is basically unusable is faster? My mother went from XP to Windows 8 when she got her new computer and she is calling me in tears because of the illogical and confusing GUI. Why no buttons? Why sometimes and some time alt-f4 to back out? Why the godawful Metro that tries to force its way down the users throat and has no logical way back? Why no clear buttons? Why no clear entry boxes?

    Is a oz of looks REALLY worth a lb of performance? (especially when the looks are shitty)... I'm getting her a Mac, I hate seeing my mother cry...

    1. Re:Like a stab in the eye with a broadhead arrow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, the whole flat-gui rubbish has made the interface much harder to figure out, especially for older people.
      And this is made much worse with Windows 8 (even 8.1) with its hidden options and virtually unusable gui.

      Sadly, I think OSX is also going down the flat-ui look and feel.

  69. Good News for Mac users by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

    If this is true, then in the long run it's good news for Mac users - it will spur Apple on to make OS X better. That's what competition is good for - just as Windows users are now reaping the rewards of greater Mac market share in having Windows get better.

    I have never understood why Windows users wanted to "win" by having all competition sink without trace, nor Mac users for that matter. If there's only one game in town, why would anyone ever want to make it any better? Healthier for everyone if there are at least 2 viable systems, preferably 3 or 4.

    1. Re:Good News for Mac users by hamsterz1 · · Score: 1

      If this is true, then in the long run it's good news for Mac users - it will spur Apple on to make OS X better. That's what competition is good for - just as Windows users are now reaping the rewards of greater Mac market share in having Windows get better. I have never understood why Windows users wanted to "win" by having all competition sink without trace, nor Mac users for that matter. If there's only one game in town, why would anyone ever want to make it any better? Healthier for everyone if there are at least 2 viable systems, preferably 3 or 4.

      I wholeheartedly agree!. More true competition is GOOD for all consumers, not matter what are needs, or wants are.:)

  70. Only at first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only at first. Once windows gets crudded up(3. Months. ) it will slow down. The Mac will still be just as fast. The tortoise wins the race.
    Fanboys: Rush to say 'this time it won't happen'- take your c drive and go home. You're STILL DOS based.

    1. Re:Only at first. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're STILL DOS based.

      err, what?
      Windows hasn't been dos-based for 15 years now!

  71. Re:News for shills, stuff that costs money by Phoghat · · Score: 2

    Problem childhood?

    --
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  72. A matter of the OS manufacturer's priorities. by hamsterz1 · · Score: 1

    I like Windows for Games, Apple for Graphic Arts, Linux for tinkering. Each OS has it's own pool of hardware it's been tested to work with, and each OS coder's have their own priorities, and deadlines. There's no perfect OS that does everything well "out of the box", it all depends on your needs, perspective, and budget. That said "dual booting" or booting an OS from an external drive are good, if not perfect alternatives. Just my 2ct's. :)

  73. Specialization by harryjohnston · · Score: 1

    Apple specialize in hardware. Microsoft specialize in software. Is it really surprising that when you combine Microsoft's software with Apple's hardware you get something that performs well?

    (My own experience with Mac hardware - as an IT professional in an education environment - is that it was better than the bulk of PC manufacturers, but not as good as the best. But that was years ago, and even then may have been biased by budgetary constraints.)

    1. Re:Specialization by ruir · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is a damn piece of shit that does scale multitask well, or rather does it very badly under heavy loads. And typically and historically bully manufacturers into providing sub-par versions of drivers to others. It could be very well it gives the impression of being faster if you are only using the UI and nothing else. Nevertheless, the article has not much in the way of scientific testing, or anything that could stand between them and their perceived "truth". News for nerds? What a sad joke.

  74. Re:Couldn't care less. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could, but it's irrelevant with respect to what I asked about a single scripting language which is produced by a vendor which notoriously owns the entire OS.