Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => macOS => Topic started by: cahult on 22 September 2006, 17:09
-
http://www.lowendmac.com/sable/06/0706.html
Processor speed is worth nothing if your system and software is bloated. That conclusion can be drawn from the article above. The writer put vintage macs from 1989-1990 against a fairly new system. Why, Microsoft, do you keep on making bloated software?
-
My 800mhz G3 iBook was faster than most PCs in the office I work before getting rid of it. Not surprising. The problem is Windows, which becomes a unusable sludge after 6 months of real world use.
-
Other factors that may contribute:
- Windows doesn't multitask well
- Macs have larger FSBs than PCs (generally)
- Macs are hardware tuned and optimized
-
M$ keeps making bloated shit so you'll think you need a new computer ... so they can get your $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
-
M$ keeps making bloated shit so you'll think you need a new computer ... so they can get your $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
That would make sense - except for the fact that thanks to volume discount licensing, Microsoft gets less money when you buy a new computer with Windows pre-installed. A smarter company would figure out some way to get existing customers to purchase new versions of their software at retail prices, where the profit percentage is much higher.
-
They make less money, but it raises "market share" which is what Ballmer gives a fuck about. Remember that Windows PC people care about winning some imaginary war against Apple.
We can sit here and say "I don't like Windows because it...
* Has shitty multitasking
* Has shitty memory management
* Has shitty security
* Is a big DRM scam
* Is made by corrupt buffoons
Whatever. We can say why. These are people who say "I hate (Insert "Macs" or "Apple" or "Linux" here)," even though they've never used the stuff. They know they hate something they know nothing about.
It's all because it's a big war to them. Remember, there's a whole lot of people who don't like Windows and MS, and somehow these jokers see it as a threat to them personally, since it casts doubt on their "choice". That is, they're afraid they might be wrong, so they have to constantly make up stuff about how they "like it" or how it's "just as good"... when it's all a lie.
A 2GHz P4 with a 2 month old install of XP starts slower than my Power Mac 6500 (250MHz PPC 603e) with OS 8.6.
So bah.
-
Maybe C/C++/C# is faster than VB6. OS 6 was written in assembler. You could run it from a floppy, GUI and all.
Then again maybe it's the stupid Winblows registry. That never made any sense to me, but someone must have thought it was a good idea.
-
It's all of it ... it's just shit
-
Don't forget all the retro modes and legacy albatrosses. Windows is a sucker for 20-year backwards compatibility. Tiger doesn't even acknowlege pre-OSX existence, and Linux was designed from the inside out to be nicely compatible with ancient flavors via minimum hassle. Windows users think it's great that they can still run shitware from 1996, but everyone else has gotten over it and moved on.
-
OK, while windows is bloated and slow and frustrating, this article is STUPID.
SYSTEM 6, are you kidding me? An OS which did not support preemptive multitasking and could support a maximum of 8 MB ram and no virtual memory, no network stack? Of course it's faster. DOS is also faster than windowsXP. So is GEM for #$%% sake.
And the apps run faster? NO DUH. They are tiny because there was no ram. Again, run GEM or (even win 3.1) on your monster screamer modern box and you will see the same thing.
Maybe if he compared it to BEOS or something that had preemptive multitasking and comparable capabilities I might take this seriously.
-
OS X is generally pretty slow. It takes the lead versus Windows when you start running a ton of apps at once (or one/two giant ones), but otherwise it's quite slow at doing trivial things (drawing windows, for example).
Pre-OS X was exactly the opposite.
-
Other factors that may contribute:
- Windows doesn't multitask well
- Macs have larger FSBs than PCs (generally)
- Macs are hardware tuned and optimized
In the past FSB with slower CPUs didn't matter. Its not like a 400MHz CPU is going to have a massive FSB anyways:rolleyes:
Intels current FSB runs at 1066MHz with something like 12GB/s bandwith
AMD's HyperTransport runs at 1GHz(2Ghz efective) with about 22GB/s bandwith.
22GB/s is enough for QuadCore CPUs, Even Intel's 1066Mhz bus manages with QuadCore CPUs. FSB doesnt really matter anymore..unless your L2 Cache is located on the FSB
-
Intel's quad core chips will be using a 1333MHz bus.
-
Intel's quad core chips will be using a 1333MHz bus.
So...? Ad on an another 1-3GB/s:rolleyes:
Still nothign compared to HT, HT Version 3 will have 30+GB/s bandwith
-
what?
i still got my trusty 410 mhz cpu and the old 30 gb hard ;]
its realy good at what it does
these days every one is like
"oh noes my system is 5 weeks old !!! lets get a new one!"
-
So...? Ad on an another 1-3GB/s:rolleyes:
Still nothign compared to HT, HT Version 3 will have 30+GB/s bandwith
Thankfully, Intel isn't sitting still (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/intel_csi_low/).
-
Thankfully, Intel isn't sitting still (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/12/intel_csi_low/).
DECEMBER 2005. Intel released conroe wich gave them the crown back. Anyways Hyper Transport has 2-4ms latecies...