Apple trounces PC's

Here is a snippet:

In what columnist Glenn Derene (popularmechanics.com) billed as the “Ultimate Lab Test for New Desktops & Laptops,” both the iMac and MacBook soundly outperformed Vista-running PCs. “In our speed trials,” reports Derene, “Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.

The actual article can be found here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html

This is probably the worst article or "study" I've seen in popular mechanics and a total waste of time. This is not a "Mac vs. PC" test, it's an iMac vs. Gateway and Macbook vs. Asus test. If they wanted to run a true test, why not get computers with the exact same hardware. It's not hard to do since Macs are intel now. That alone made me want to stop reading. Then the other tests like loading programs and ripping CDs really have to do with the programs themselves as well as the platform they operate on.

But all of that doesn't really matter since it's common knowledge that OS X runs leaner and faster than Vista. The really annoying thing is the comment about Mac running Vista faster than the other models. Of course there's going to be a difference when there's a hardware difference! Remove that, and they'll most likely run virtually the same. It is the same hardware, after all. It's just ridiculous.

The one result I find hard to believe is the 4 second shutdown time. As that even true. My MBP has never shut down that fast. Granted, mine is a 2.16 C2D MBP, but according to the author of this article, such a minor difference is inconsequential.

I love my MBP and agree that OS X is better than Vista, but this article is just stupid in my opinion.

The tests are only relevant in terms of doing a product vs product review, although the products are priced and specced quite differently, so not sure what the point it.

Leopard though is almost universally acknowledged as being faster that Vista on the same hardware, so that's not a shock. In fact the Vista machine probably needed the 3GB of RAM (vs the 1 Gig the Leopard machine had) just to be even in the same ballpark.

They should have compared a desktop mid-tower PC against a desktop mid-tower Ma.. ... uh... hmm..

The handicap with these all-in-one things is that to Gateway this is a niche market thing. They don't expect to sell many of them, as many computer buyers tend to gravitate towards the tower machines with separate monitors. The all-in-ones are the exception, not the rule. For Apple however, the iMac *is* their low and mid-range desktop. It's all they have in that segment. They sell more, and produce more, so they can reduce the cost.

The laptop thing is funny too since they compared a whole (1) PC laptop vs. a Macbook, and not even a good one. The startup/shutdown thing is unfair since Apple's EFI beats a traditional PC BIOS. Big freakin' surprise there. Still, I don't know what they did to that poor Asus to make it take two minutes to boot. I'm certain when I have Vista x64 on my Penryn 2.5ghz laptop it takes nowhere near that long to start up. Compared to my MBP 2.4 the OS itself takes a similar time to load on both, once the PC BIOS overhead is not part of the equation. I'll have to time it someday.

At least many of the comments seem to think the way I do.

(PS - Vista may run faster(?) on a Mac according to them, but I know the inverse is also true)

nice read. apple owes microsoft a big thank you for vista.

fletch33 said:

nice read. apple owes microsoft a big thank you for vista.

Click to expand...

Agreed. As an Apple rep once told me, Vista was the best thing to happen to Apple.

If I had to decide if I was a Windows or an OSX user, I'd probably have to say Windows, but I just can't see ANY reason to get Vista.

I should at least try it out - I'm a sysadmin on a Windows network, so it's kind of expected of me, but it is clearly such a large steaming pile of doodoo that I just refuse to go anywhere near it.

Our PCs run XP just fine and dandy.

My company just announced that they are moving to Vista. God help us all ...

*reads* Holy crap did anybody that knows jack about computers do that? Fleurya was right, that article is crap. Is that a serious comparison? The machines they are comparing have totally different specs. 2.4ghz imac vs 2.0 gateway 3gb of ram in the mackbook 2gb in the asus, etc. What kind of comparison is that? How can a magazine like that publish something so crappy.

Trying my crappy Toshiba laptop against there. Shutdown is 18 secs, startup was 36 seconds.

SammySlim said:

My company just announced that they are moving to Vista. God help us all ...

Click to expand...

every time i hear that it makes me wonder if the powers that be ever read any tech magazines, websites, bogs, forums, talk to current users, or have any right making decisions on stuff they will most likely not have to manage?

i am not against microsoft as much as i am vista. xp runs great as long as you dont mind reformatting every 6 moths or so.

fletch33 said:

every time i hear that it makes me wonder if the powers that be ever read any tech magazines, websites, bogs, forums, talk to current users, or have any right making decisions on stuff they will most likely not have to manage?

i am not against microsoft as much as i am vista. xp runs great as long as you dont mind reformatting every 6 moths or so.

Click to expand...

Why do you have to reformat every 6 months? I had mine for over 4 years and the only thing that crapped out was the motherboard (MSI, n00b mistake).

I hear that all the time too, my last XP box lasted until the processor went, after about 5 years.

Dysfunction said:

I hear that all the time too, my last XP box lasted until the processor went, after about 5 years.

Click to expand...

Same here I have a laptop that has had XP installed for years w/o issues. I know its cool to hate MS, and especially Vista but I am running it via Fusion and I have had zero problems. It runs quick, does what I ask and besides asking me often if its okay to do certain things I have no complaints at all. Honestly I don't know what all the fuss is about, other than ppl wanting to bag on MS.

Michael415 said:

Same here I have a laptop that has had XP installed for years w/o issues. I know its cool to hate MS, and especially Vista but I am running it via Fusion and I have had zero problems. It runs quick, does what I ask and besides asking me often if its okay to do certain things I have no complaints at all. Honestly I don't know what all the fuss is about, other than ppl wanting to bag on MS.

Click to expand...

Well count yourself lucky. I have a network running MS Small Business Server and all XP Clients. (Only 6 clients). Now this server is a big Dell poweredge and it is running Quickbooks Enterprise, Exchange, Blackberry Enterprise, tape backup, etc. I have had Macs and PC's since the early 80's. For the last 10 years I have been a dedicated PC guy. Since Windows 2000 I am no longer able to manage my own network. With 6 users over the last 12 months my IT support cost have been $10K and that is insane. All of my machines are 3 years old and all of them have issues. We are moving towards a Mac based Network. Accounting software is the biggest issue. For what it is worth IMHO Microsoft hasn't written a good piece of software in about 8 years. I don't like Office 2007, XP sucks and Vista is worse, they are only concerned about licensing and copy protection. Right now I am typing on the MBP I purchased for my wife last Thursday. The last time I used a Mac (10 years ago) I stressed it so bad it would crash every hour but no more. It really gets me that MS has buggered everything up the way they have. I only hope we can get where we need to be with Mac.

Horrible "Lab Test" when the specs aren't even the same. Only the headline is what most will use and/or read.

What do the categories mean in laments terms?

Integer
Floating Point
Stream



not good with computer terminology