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."

44 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. Re:Anecdotal evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    14. 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
    15. 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
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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!
  7. 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?

  8. 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.
  9. 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 ]
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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 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.

  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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!
  16. 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 ;-)

  17. 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).

  18. 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.

  19. 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."
  20. 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.

  21. 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.
  22. 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.