Windows 7 versus Snow Leopard on a MacBook Pro: big cat's faster, 7 is better for games
By Vlad Savov 
posted October 16th 2009 2:33PM
posted October 16th 2009 2:33PM
[Via Apple Insider]
posted October 16th 2009 2:33PM
powered by gdgt
Apple Mac OS X Snow Leopard
Microsoft Windows 7
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The translation of this post:
Apple makes crappy ports for Windows in order to piss off consumers and make them think Windows is slow as balls and that they are gonna get a Mac for their next system so that they don't have to deal with it.
Really? Shutdown and startup tests have something to do with software ports? Please enlighten us, because I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. Also, apologize for Windows harder, why don't you.
A better comparison would be getting a laptop with the same specs (or very close to) as the Macbook Pro that you used for testing. What will the next headline be, that the iPhone does not work on CDMA.
News flash: Microsoft fanboys and apologists butthurt by results that prove OS X is faster than Win 7. News at 11.
Also stay tuned for cry more, why don't you.
Sorry to burst your bubble but a). I am not a boy. b). I own a Macbook and I haven't used Microsoft in my home in years. So with that said I stand by my opinion that in order to do a fair test they should test two computers that are optimized to use those operating systems.
In what way is the Macbook not optimized to run Windows? Do you really think the results would be any different on a PC laptop with the exact same specs? Hint: the key words here are "exact same specs".
Just how many people here actuall spend the time counting the seconds that their computer boots up or shuts down?
I do not care if my pc takes a minute or two to load Vista Ultimate. It does what I want to do with it, so no big deal to me. Or a lot of Windows and OSX users.
Why they not do these so called speed tests on actuall desktop machines? Apple does still make those? Or are they just a laptop maker now?
This is just like those stupid "my Firefox loads a page faster that IE8 does." What does it matter that it takes a 1/2 second faster to do it? You are that worried about that instead of things like your job, the economy, etc?
Bit - OS X starts up and shuts down faster than Win 7 does. So of course it's "no big deal" to you. Now if the results had gone the other way it would be a HUGE deal, wouldn't it? No go ahead, please try to deny that you would be posting that Windows was faster in every reply. Keep living in denial, buddy. As far as desktop machines, what difference does it make? I run OS X and Win 7 on my Mac Pro, which is a tower. OS X is faster than Win 7 on my machine, too. Does that answer your question?
Jack,
Good for you that your Apple laptop boots faster. Great news.
But for me, I have more important things to worry about than how fast my Windows os boots up. There is more to life than that. Like a job, bills, my car, etc.
Every part that your computer has adds time to the boot process. If it has less parts to process thru, then of course it will boot faster. My 4 gigs of ram might not be the "fastest" or my hard drive only spins at 7200 rpm. But on my desktop machine there are more pieces of equipment for the bios to scan as it boots.
Also, we all load different amounts of programs when the os boots up. You might not load a anti-virus program when your machine boots up for now. But I load my Ipod software, etc. That adds time as well.
So, you can "gloat" all you want about how much faster OSX 10.5 loads up. Bur for some of us, like me, I don't care. Unless it takes 5 minutes or something. And it only does that when I do a major software or hardware update.
>In what way is the Macbook not optimized to run Windows?
Apple supplies the drivers used in Bootcamp, and it has been a long standing complaint that they suck balls.
But that's not important. The important thing is that the software used for the "multimedia multitasking" test was Quicktime, which has god-awful performance on Windows, and they used iTunes for the other benchmark, which has god-awful performance on Windows.
The task which has the greatest difference, 444 vs 723 seconds were produced by software which were THREE versions old. The reportage quality of engadget is going down day by day.
"The Mac software also unsurprisingly ran Apple's own native applications more efficiently. Converting a movie from M4 format to iPod in Quicktime X on Snow Leopard took 444.3 seconds, while Windows 7, with QuickTime 7 (the latest version available) took 723 seconds."
You can't possibly be that stupid. Nobody is that stupid. It is the latest version of Quicktime for Windows, REGARDLESS of its name. Quicktime 7 was the latest version of Quicktime before they went to X, so it is NOT three versions old. Idiot.
the cnet test prove everything mac osx is better than windows7
now all the windows users saying its apple hardware , benchamarks are crap etc etc .
well my lovelly windows losers, if the test has a antivirus running in w7 imagine the results, and imagine your windows 7 need to be defragment in a few months, do imagine how slow will be, WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY
shame on you windows zombies, yesterday was a windows party everyone critiizising phill schiller , today YOU CAN STFU.
ITS SLAP WITH A WHITE GLOVE......:-)
windows losers ,windows losers windows losers ,ballmer idiot, ballmer idiot ballmer idiot.
APPLE APPLE APPLE
When we can test MAC OS X on a windows machine then we will compare fairly! OOOOPPPPS Forgot unless you hackintosh it you can't!
Eat your apple tax and quit telling me how good it is. It's completely inflexible.
In case you hadn't noticed, a Macbook Pro IS a Windows machine when you're running Windows on it. Boot Camp isn't emulation. When Windows is running in Boot Camp, it thinks it's running on a PC. That's because for all intents and purposes, it is. This is a perfectly acceptable test, stop crying about it please.
And "inflexible" is not the word I would use to describe a Macbook Pro that can run OS X, Windows, Linux, Unix and anything else you can think of. Don't be dense.
Mac will win all day long...
I can see what a lot of people think that Apple Fanatics are idiots.
Just what does that have to do with any comment that is constructive on here? You think that is going to persuade people to use OSX over Windows?
Wonder if you are that bad in real life too.
Yes, calling all Mac users idiots is a constructive comment, you hypocrite.
I am a hypocrite? At least I have been making comments that are more constructive than name calling.
I have a feeling I am not the only one on here, PC and Mac user, that are tired of all the people like you that name call. And that is ALL that you do.
Why is it that whenever someone says anything negative about a Apple product you have to resort to name calling, etc? You not able to do anything else but that?
I am not saying that Windows is perfect. But at least I will admit that it is not and not have a fit when someone says it too. I will take offense to anyone that has never used any version of Windows or complains about a version that is not officially out yet. You are able to see into the future and know for a fact that Win7 is bad?
Are you willing to try it on a real computer that is not a Macintosh? How can you tell all of us rationally why OSX is the only OS to use and no one else can use anything but it?
More constructive than name calling? You just called all Mac users idiots. How is that not name calling? And nothing about any of your posts has been constructive... at all. Making excuses for Windows being slower is not constructive, and neither is questioning what Mac users are saying, and neither is generalizing all Mac users. Nothing you have said so far has been constructive, which is why you are a hypocrite.
As for the rest of your incoherent rant, I would love for you to show me where I said any of those things. Like for example, where did I say OS X is the only OS you can use? Can you show me where I said that? No, you can't. You are responding to things nobody actually said. Is that constructive?
Also I don't need to see into the future to use Win 7, I've had it installed for a couple months now. Please try to be less stupid with your accusations.
Jack, are you saying that ALL Mac users are fanatics?
once again windows blows. who gives a crap about the scores, not i. i care more about an os that doesnt crap out. btw you think microblow would create something new and exciting, NOPE!!! same shit different smell. you blow balmer!!!!!!
Here we go again.
Why does it that a Apple user has to resort to that kind of language?
Do they ever have anything to say that does not sound like something from a child?
If you have something to say that is at least somewhat constructive and actually proves what ever point you are trying to make, than say it. The more people like you make comments like that are more degrading to you than to other Apple users that have a iq compared to you.
It is sooo nice all the Apple users to talk about what Win7 will be doing when the final realease has not even out officialy yet.
You mean that you NEVER have to defragment a Apple machine? Just how much of that kind of stuff is done without you knowing it? You mean that your hard drive only spins when you load and save something? It never starts to spin on it's own? It is does, it very well could be doing just the thing that you are claiming that Win7 does.
At least Microsoft is not afraid of talking about what Windows does compared to Apple. They not even have the "insert your own word here" to admit that there are problems with their OSX. It is always "a rare event" "we are looking into it", etc. And they not even state that until there are hundreds of posts about it that Apple does not want you to see.
Yes Bit. I have NEVER had to defragment an OS X machine, and there's a good reason for that. OS X automatically picks large files up off the hard drive and moves them to prevent fragmentation. There is no point to defragmenting an OS X drive. Win 7 does NOT do that.
Note: This is a constructive comment, because I'm teaching you something you obviously didn't know before now. Let's hope that will be the end of your stupid generalizations of all Mac users.
>Win 7 does NOT do that.
Actually, Windows 7 does automatically defrag your drive. As well, there is a small performance benefit to the deferred defragmentation scheme implemented by Windows, versus the on-the-fly defragging that some other filesystems use.
Either way, unless you're using ZFS, which you probably aren't, shut the fuck up. Your filesystem is an antiquated piece of crap compared to NTFS or Reiser.
I don't get why the flames - the article clearly says that it's running on OSX-optimized hardware. I'm sure both OSs run fast, and are powerful in their respective ways, and have their own weaknesses (OSX still doesn't give you 64bit as startup, Win7 is a bit slower to wake up)
Operating systems are becoming increasingly similar. I'd run both OSX and Windows 7 if I weren't limited by Apple (well, I do on my netbook - but that doesn't count, really)
Oh Apple doesn't make OS X available for all PCs? That's just too damn bad. Apple doesn't owe you a damn thing. If you want to run both (legally), buy a Mac and run both. Apple is under no obligation to allow OS X to be installed on any PC.
look at these mac users gettin their butt hurt.
From what I can tell, it's the Windows apologists and Apple haters that are getting butthurt, since the tests show that OS X is faster. Have you seen the insane amount of excuses they're making for Win 7's performance in that test?
Butt hurt.
biteme i mean bit
take off your mothers underwear and bump up to a real os. did i offened you? you newb. now go bang your pet gerbil and stay away from unbuuntu and osx you might get hurt you dope
Jack
If you are so sure that OSX is so great and people should buy a Mac to use it, are you willing to buy a Windows machine and use that with Win7 when it comes out? How come Apple does or is not willing to make a version of OSX or whatever the next version is to run on anything that is not a Mac?
If the parts are almost the same as in a Windows OS using machine, how hard is it to run on Windows?
Also, if OSX is soo much better than Windows any version, how come Mac users are willing to put the "inferior" operating system on their computer? And, do they actually buy it and not download or share it around?
If a Mac users buys a copy of Windows then they are adding to the popularity of it.
Hmm, I am so afraid.
Do you have anything to say that does NOT make you look like a imature individual so called Captain America?
What does a woman's underwear have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Guess you have a fascination with that and gerbils.
thats mr. captain america to you, you dope. i only state the facts that you wear your mothers underwear and walk around the house with your pet gerbil. now go get me a beer and let the adults have a conversation.
Jack,
I never said I knew everything about OSX as you seem to claim that you do.
You might not start a defrag yourself, but you just stated that OSX does it for you. That is the same thing that Vista does in the background. How do you know that Win7 will not do the same thing? Have you tried it? Since it will not come out until 10/22/09, you can see into the future and see all that?
Are you willing to learn a few things about Windows before you state something as a fact and wait until the new os comes out before you make all these claims?
easy use easy get
In other news, a Ferrari with a Chevy Aveo engine is slower than a Ferrari with a Ferrari engine.
That's a stupid comparison. Macs run on the same Intel chips PCs do. Try again.
Why not test them on any other build to order system or store bought one? OHHHHH that's f'ing right one of them can't and that's why the other has the majority of the market share while the other is just a overpriced boutique brand aimed at the uneducated who can't understand a computer. Is it any wonder why apple is a darling of media personalities and celebs? Not exactly dealing with mensa candidates there.
Wow if it did that good on the apple it is going to cream it when you compare it to what you can get in a PC for the same price and with optimized drivers.
No surprise whatsoever. This article is moot. Macintosh OS is "Made for Mac" hardware, inside and out. Again, moot point. This article has no purpose.
This test is a sham, to be honest.
They should test both on hardware that they are optimized for.
And use third-party programs for benchmarking (like LAME and ffmpeg for media encoding) just to even out scores. There can be "test neutrality" issues when using iTunes and Quicktime, although ported on Windows but are best used on an OS X.
Come on, did you see a benchmark test running Windows-based apps on an iMac? I don't think so.
Jack,
An "adult conversation" as you state? How can anyone have that with you when you have to stoop to talk that most of us left back when we where in Elementary School.
You get some kind of thrill in that sort of thing? You are the only one here that seems to think that is exciting conversation topic that has anything to do with a Mac or Win7 booting faster.
Not everything that Apple sells it is that overpriced.
I can see them making a profilt on each item they sell. But when some of it has been shown to be over 200% profit, then people should be questioning why is that. And why that they are paying all that $$$ to Apple when, if Apple would allow clones, they could get a machine that ran OSX and was supported by Apple.
But Apple is not willing to give up any money if it could. What is wrong with them making a little bit of each OSX or chipset that is sold for a clone? If it follows the same sets of rules that a "genuine" Apple machine, then there should be no problems. It should run the same software and hardware and allegedly be just as stable. And if it was not, Apple could have had the company sign something stating that if it was not 100% compatible it could not be sold.
Then see how many people would be using OSX (or whenever the EVER get to OSXI, guess the X is more sexy to them!) and Apple market share might get over the 10% or so it is now.
Except that a lot of the new machines that have hardware "built for a Mac" are made by the same companies that make the same thing and can sell it cheaper to Windows operating machine running computers.
Lets see, Intel cpu - pc and Mac, some have a pci bus pc and Mac, usb pc and Mac, firewire pc and Mac. The list goes on.
Why can't Apple allow a person to fix their own machine? Even when they use the exact same part that was in there before? Or wait! I forgot about the Power PC chip that Apple abandoned a year or so after they brouught out new machines that use it and now their own OSX Snow Leopard users can not use without buying a brand new machine the next year.
LOTS of white space in the comment section of this article.
eee.. boot time comparisons??? i dont care.. osx boots up faster? wats the point?? cant play no games on it
Is it just me, or is this article a *complete* waste of time? No really though, you're running Windows 7 on a non Windows hardware device. How is any any indication of its ability? That's like running an the Xbox 360 OS on a PS3 or vice versa and claiming that the native hardware's OS is better for running games then the non native one is.
Seriously Engadget, do you need ad revenue that badly that you're resorting to this garbage? I have more respect for you then that.
The question "which OS is faster" is a fallacy. Either you're new here, Vlad, or you're flame baiting.