OS Performance — Snow Leopard, Windows 7, and Ubuntu 9.10 688
BeckySharp writes "With the nearly simultaneous release of Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' (available right now) and Microsoft's Windows 7 (available Oct. 22), you get the inevitable debate: Which is the better operating system, Windows 7 or Snow Leopard? To help determine that, Computerworld's Preston Gralla put both operating systems through their paces, selected categories for a head-to-head competition, and then chose a winner in each category." Relatedly, Phoronix has posted Snow Leopard vs. Ubuntu 9.10 benchmarks. They ran tests from ray tracing to 3D gaming to compilation. Their tests show Ubuntu 9.10 winning a number of the tests, but there are some slowdowns in performance and still multiple wins in favor of Snow Leopard, so the end result is mixed.
Lets not forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Operating System Name? (Score:5, Insightful)
The first category of their "comparison" is the OS name? Really? That's enough for me to stop reading. The article doesn't even take itself seriously.
Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
When Windows 7 settles down a little bit, I may put it on my Mini via boot camp.
Great time for Computer users (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lets not forget (Score:1, Insightful)
How about the freedom to simply get stuff done rather than spending 5 hours unsuccessfully trying to get your sound card to work?
Yeah and (Score:5, Insightful)
99.997% of the people using these computers don't care.
I love this quote (Score:5, Insightful)
"Windows 7, on the other hand, remains the corporate standard"
That's fast, considering it was just RTM'd a few weeks ago and won't see a general release until Oct. 22nd.
Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:1, Insightful)
As there was no performance comparison, this matters why?
Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but he gives Snow Leopard a point for doing a 'flawless upgrade' while Windows 7 didn't pick up his video card during installation, but it was rectified immediately afterwards when it pulled it from Windows Update. Then later in the article he goes on about how Apple controls the entire hardware platform and Microsoft has to battle with countless configuration combinations. Why didn't be bring that point up in the installation/upgrade section? Microsoft can't include every possible driver on the disc, but the fact that all his hardware was working as soon as he visited Windows Update is a feather in MS's cap in my opinion. Apple only had to care about a handful of different setups, and they control them all.
It seems the author went out of his way to make sure that the 'test' resulted in a tie, to prevent being flamed from either side. I mean really... giving a point based on the name... that's just ridiculous.
Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the tests should have been done on the same hardware, having two separate hard disks, and installing Vista directly, only using the OS X media for drivers. Vista understands EFI machines and can boot on an x86 Mac without the MBR emulation that BootCamp offers. I wonder if this would make any performance difference, especially on I/O.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparison?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Given that the license terms for OsX force (by the terms, nothing else) the user to run it on Apple hardware, the comparison is really one of hardware. Where we have two camps:
camp 1: Apple hardware; expensive and nice, and able to run all three operating systems as the user needs or desires. This provides the user with the ability to run all software on tidy but expensive hardware. Price is the barrier to entry.
camp 2: Windows vs. Ubuntu on anything other than Apple hardware. This opens up the low end of hardware as well as other form factors and styles of hardware that Apple doesn't think you need.
These articles suck because they assume that you CAN do the same task on other operating systems. For many tasks that just isn't so. I can't do serious CAD on my shiny Apple under Snow leopard or any other non-domesticated cat. There are a TON of applications that don't work or are painful under Linux. I love Linux and use it frequently, and I also love my Mac, but there are and always will be a need for the mainstream OS, and today that is Windows.
Sheldon
the entire arcticle could be a /. poll (Score:3, Insightful)
It's sole purpose is to spawn comments saying it's flawed and discuss totally off-topic matters. Sounds like your average slashdot poll to me!
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
30 bucks... Plus you have to put it on a Mac computer, which is marked up at least ten percent compared to a comparable computer from any other manufacturer.
Except of course every respectable analyst who has looked into it disagrees with you. Apple's margins are higher than average in the personal computer industry, but that's not comparing comparable machines, that's counting all the low end crap machines with razor thin margins. If you look at machines with hardware reliability numbers and features similar to Apple, Like Sony, for example, the margins are about the same and so are the prices.
That price tag looks less appealing when you consider those attached strings.
The price tag is certainly less appealing because it's tied to Apple hardware and that severely limits your choices, especially on the low end. You, however, overstated the argument by making statements about their margins that are simply untrue. The lack of choice in hardware will result in higher prices for the average person because they won't be able to select a model that fits their needs as closely, which is a compelling argument without bringing blatantly wrong assertions about pricing into it.
Re:Operating System Name? (Score:2, Insightful)
My personal theory is that the author wanted, at least a little bit, for the "score" to come out a "tie." When it was 5-4, he added the "name" category to make it so.
(I don't think I actually think that, but it is a convenient explanation.)
But they should, they just don't know it. (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I think that number is way too high. While it may seem that way sometimes, people do care. Maybe not even a majority of them, but enough that it does make a difference.
Second of all, those who in theory don't care, when explained why it's important, start to care. When you add up the cost of upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7, along with all of its associated applications (I'm looking at you, Microsoft Office), versus the cost of upgrading through the various versions of Ubuntu or any of the other popular distributions and their associated applications, people really start to notice. One of my favorite things to do when I'm showing off Ubuntu to people is to open the package manager application. I tell them it's like the "Add or Remove Programs" applet, except that you can actually add programs. "All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."
When you explain to these people how there is absolutely zero technical reason why they can't have a movie or song play on the DVD player in their living room, their iPod, their computer, and anywhere else (and anyway else) they want to play it, but that thanks to DRM systems incorporated into Windows 7 and Mac OS X, they are artificially restricted from doing so because some third party has decided to "manage their digital rights" for them, it definitely gets their attention.
When you explain to these people how honest competition from really smart people doing really smart things just because they can and because they feel that others should benefit from their collective knowledge is one of the reasons why a lot of commercial closed-source software these days that might otherwise cost hundreds or thousands of dollars is sold for really low cost or given away for free because of how hard it is to compete with volunteer work, it also gets their attention.
When I show people my web browser (Firefox with AdBlock) and how I don't see particularly onerous ads on web sites because the person who wrote my browser isn't beholden to financial interest or corporate mandates, it has raised a lot of eyebrows.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. Free and open source software benefits everyone, even people who don't otherwise care, even people who shun it in favor of commercial and/or closed-source options. And sitting back and saying that people don't care isn't very productive. It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:1, Insightful)
And yet if there were true competition in the marketplace between various operating systems Windows 7 would cost about $25/license, a much more reasonable number. Don't try to defend Windows OS licensing costs - it's nonsensical from the get-go.
Re:Great time for Computer users (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:4, Insightful)
apple releasing a version of osx for 30 bucks is metaphorically equivalent to an 2010 infiniti M slapped with a 20k(US) sticker price.
To extend the car analogy, it's like getting a 2010 Infiniti M for $20K after you trade in the 2008 Infinity M you bought 18 months ago ... and you got that one after trading in your 2007 M ... and you got that one after trading in your 2006 ...
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
While it startd off as a nice read, it is flat out wrong in a lot of places (at least for Windows). For instance:
Windows needs a window for each application, and this need doesn't go away just because there are no documents open. So, Word has little choice but to display this ugly application window. There's simply nowhere for the application to exist without having a window--the window is the application.
and
The other kind of application that suffers from Windows' design is software that runs mostly in the background, but which needs to provide alerts or messages periodically. Instant messaging applications typically fall into this category. Most of the time an IM app is running, you don't want any window visible at all. But you don't want closing the window to close the application; you want it to run in the background. Windows has no good way of doing this; if an application has no windows, that normally means it isn't running, after all.
Seriously? Someone actually believes this? An application doesn't need a window AT ALL. For ANY REASON. Windows are used for GUI I/O, and occasionally, message passing. But you absolutely don't need one at all.
Then there is this shiny bit:
The common response is to use the notification area (often incorrectly called the "system tray") to provide ready access to these running-but-windowless applications.
Orly? You DO know that the it was called the "system tray" up until Windows XP, don't you? It was even instantiated by a process called systray.exe. Even MSDN is littered with its own references to it being the "system tray", like here [microsoft.com].
Then I quit reading when I came to this:
The addition of the Quick Launch toolbar meant that the Taskbar contained not only running applications, but also non-running applications. It thus includes three main kinds of content; icons representing non-running programs, icons representing running applications, and icons representing documents.
Um, what? At this point the guy is a total idiot, or he is intentionally muddying the waters to invent a WTF.
Re:I love this quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
30 bucks..
a proprietary OS for 30 bucks deserves 5 points on price.
Sure, $30 isn't much money, but would you pay $30 for the latest release of Debian or Ubuntu? I mean, the use of having a powerful operating system on a new laptop is certainly worth $30 in productivity after only a day or two of work. I don't know if you use or fund FOSS, but it's funny how in general how people are so willing to pay $30 for a proprietary piece of software, and so reticent to donate even $10 to a Free Software project whose program they use every day.
Saying that a proprietary OS for $30 deserves 5 points on price is like saying that a $30 b.j. from a prostitute with STDs deserves 5 points on price: Sure, you get temporary happiness really cheaply, but in the end you might end up with an itch you just can't scratch.
I still have to use proprietary OSes to test and develop some software at my lab, and it bites us in the a** just as hard as everyone else. At least I have some small comfort in knowing that I can use a nice chunk of my salary to fund Free Software development.
Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
What math? You gave me a vague "fully decked out mac pro for $4k" without specifying ANY stats. Which tells me you probably just went to their site found the biggest number and used that as your argument. I can do the same with Dell. Their fully decked out Gaming PC is $3999, on sale for $4832. Did your $600 System include the OS? Case? I'm assuming your components like the power supply and monitor are not crappy no names either?
Are Mac's overpriced? YES. But comparing a $600 computer with a $4000 Mac? Your hurting your argument pulling these numbers out. Had you said something like "a $4000 Dell includes x processor and y Video card while the Mac only includes z....", you'd have had a valid point.
Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (Score:3, Insightful)
The end-user doesn't see these distinctions; they just know if their computer works or not.
Furthermore, given the *massive* market share that Microsoft has enjoyed, it's fair to partially blame them for the state of consumer hardware drivers.
Funny part (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of a "service pack". A long-running joke here on Slashdot is that Win7 is "Vista SP3". If you accept that, then, yes, Apple does charge for service packs.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
Another expense with Apples is the inability to run new OSes on old hardware.
My Windows machine machine is almost 9 years old, but could run Win 7 with a simple RAM upgrade (from 1/2 gig to 1 gig). Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware. The OS requirements are designed to force obsolescence so you HAVE to go-out and get new Apple hardware. You can't even "override" to force an install; you just get blocked. This is why I have a perfectly-good G4 PowerMac, but it stopped being supported only 4 years after I got it (with 10.4), while my ancient PC still gots "juice".
Yeah I know you're going to label me "troll" but it's really just my opinion based-upon owning both systems. The PC was the cheaper route.
Re:But they should, they just don't know it. (Score:3, Insightful)
While KOffice isn't really that great, Open Office is perhaps the best office suite save for iLife and MS Office.
That's hilarious. "If you exclude its two main competitors which are better, OpenOffice.org is THE BEST!"
(FWIW, I use iWork, because OpenOffice.org on Mac is ass and Numbers is just perfectly suited to my needs)
Re:GCC comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Since compilers are usually compiled using themselves I'm pretty confident no such sacrifice will be made.
Apple can tweak compiler parameters due to the fixed and well-defined set of hardware. As any Gentoo guru can tell you, this can also be done on Linux, but is not generally the case (I too did not want to optimize too much lest I need to recompile everything due to a motherboard swop-out)
Re:The problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when are a Core 2 Duo and Nehalem 3000 series processor anywhere near each other in price or performance? I'm assuming you also didn't account for the difference in price/performance between DDR2 and DDR3.
You're missing the point though... the parent's point is that Apple doesn't let you make the price/performance decision between a Core 2 and a Nehalem, or between DDR2/3.
When I built my system, I was able to look at the cost of DDR2 and DDR3 RAM and decide that the cost of DDR3 wasn't worth it. If you reject the iMac, Apple doesn't let you make that decision. I didn't seriously consider the Xeons, but I was able to choose the Core 2 when I built my computer. If you reject the iMac, Apple doesn't let you make that decision.
Basically if you want a decently upgradable system from Apple, your only choice is the Mac Pro. And for most people, it's going to be very very hard to say that the price/performance tradeoff is in favor of the Nehalem and DDR3.
Re:GCC comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple knows what hardware things will run on, so they can enable a lot more CPU-specific options when they compile.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:4, Insightful)
Though technically correct, it all still comes down to the UI paradigm. You can have Mac programs that require a window open (CoolBook I'm looking at you), and you can have Windows programs that operate effectively without a main window (IM apps as you suggest). However, these are the outliers of the system, and programs on both systems tend to follow the suggested paradigms pretty well. Consider MS Word:
Windows Version: Double click on the icon, you usually get a blank document window. You decide you really don't want to write that report right now, and close the window, and Word is no longer running.
OS X Version: Open Word from the Dock or from Spotlight, and the menu comes up on the 'menu bar to rule them all', and a blank document opens up. Decide you'd rather not write that same report again, and close the window. In this case word is still happily running, and you could start a new document with a simple Command+n.
Which one you like more, or find more productive is a matter of personal preference. I think that the App-centric model (OS X) allows more control and seems more natural than the Doc-centric model (Windows), but the Doc-centric model keeps you from accidentally leaving a lot of stuff open unnecessarily and might be more efficient. I prefer the app-centric mode, and am very happy using OS X, but of course, thats just me.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Usage matters. (Score:4, Insightful)
You were duped, bud. This article was definitely *not* a performance metric analysis; it was another shilltastic article from an IT newbie using questionable "facts" and two completely different testbeds that posed as a performance comparison.
Both operating systems are great from technical and aesthetic standpoints, but this article fails to highlight why.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:5, Insightful)
Would I recommend it to a friend? Absolutely. Would I suggest that it's actually worth the retail price? I'm not so sure. It may be if you're upgrading from Windows XP, but if you're upgrading form Vista you're getting shafted.
My opinion: No. If it was just $60 or $70, I'd get it, but $200+ is a bit steep.
And what do I actually get from it, that wasn't available in XP? (either in the core of from third party programs) Just about nothing.
It's plain to see when you actually read the entire article. Most of the points are fawning over GUI elements. Where's the miraculous new features that are supposed to wow me? :P I have preview panes in XP, too - not only that, but I have labels in my taskbar!
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:4, Insightful)
The words don't really matter. You can call them service packs or upgrades or updates or revisions or whatever. None of that matters. What matters is how many times you have to open your wallet to get *paid* releases:
XP-to-Vista-to-Win7 (average) - 4 years
10.1-to-...-to-10.6 (average) - 1.6 years
As you can see the Mac OS will be more costly for you as a user, with more frequent support costs. It's why even though I've been using Macs since the Quadra days (as a replacement for my 68040 Commodore=Amiga), I've decided it's time to move-on. I liked that they used alternative Motorola and PPC architectures, but now that distinction has disappeared. Such alternates only exist in the game consoles.
I suspect this is also why I've seen Macs disappear from Penn State's computer labs. You can still find some, but it used to be a 50-50 PC-to-Mac mix and now the Macs are rare.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:2, Insightful)
Try running 10.6 Snow Leopard on nine-year-old hardware. Or even 5-year-old hardware.
I run 10.5 on seven-year-old hardware and five-year-old hardware. Given that Snow Leopard is largely the 64-bit-optimized version, I'm not sure why I would even want to try to force the upgrade. Is OpenCL gonna fly on my 1.25GHz G4, or the 800MHz G4 in the next room? There are a few features I'd like sure, but I can totally understand why Apple is dropping my old hardware, even if I wish I could use the new version (mostly for the sake of shininess; Leopard still runs great here).
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
What matters is how many times you have to open your wallet to get *paid* releases
You have a strange definition of "have to". Don't upgrade if you don't think it's worth it! Just because Apple puts it up for sale it doesn't mean you have to buy it. Especially considering that Apple continues to offer security patches and support for the previous version of the OS, upgrading every other version seems pretty reasonable.
I suspect this is also why I've seen Macs disappear from Penn State's computer labs. You can still find some, but it used to be a 50-50 PC-to-Mac mix and now the Macs are rare.
I suspect it's due to an IT department with a platform bias. Most universities have seen a vast increase in Macintosh market share in the last 5 years. They're probably not even paying per-seat for the OS upgrades anyway.
so what's your point? (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of this test was to show how well Windows, SN, and Linux perform on similar hardware. Talking about old or cheap stuff is kind of...pointless.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, but $30 isn't a lot. I might've forked that out last time OSX got upgraded, simply for Time Machine.
There's always a feature that sticks out to make an OS important. I think for me it's probably DX10/11, but neither of those is worth $200 to me.
Not having DX10/11 on other operating systems is more of a negative in my eyes. Platform lock-in, plus an excessively high price. :/
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
And what do I actually get from it, that wasn't available in XP?
DirectX 11. Also not available on Mac or Linux.
True! DX10/11 are important to me - just not $200 important.
I have preview panes in XP, too - not only that, but I have labels in my taskbar!
W7 has labels too, just not on by default (right-click taskbar -> Properties -> Taskbar buttons: [always combine, hide labels/combine when taskbar is full/never combine]). As for XPs preview panes, I shouldn't have to install a bunch of 3rd party programs just to get previews, jump lists, window transparency, search index from the start menu, media sharing to compatible devices (Windows Mobile, Xbox 360, Media Center PCs etc). These features really make a difference to your regular eye-candy suck.. er, consumer. Not as big a difference for the power users, but I've come to appreciate them and genuinely regard them as worthwhile improvements to the Windows platform.
As for XPs preview panes, I shouldn't have to install a bunch of 3rd party programs just to get previews, jump lists, window transparency, search index from the start menu, media sharing to compatible devices (Windows Mobile, Xbox 360, Media Center PCs etc).
True. But from my point of view, I've already spent time (not money) getting my computer set up this way, and now I'm supposed to pay for what I already had for free? No thanks!
Worse yet, the free stuff isn't compatible anymore, so to get DX11 I have to pony up the cash and live with Microsoft's solutions.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
Snow Leopard may not be a full OS update in terms of what we think a full update should be (hence the lower price point) but it is not a service pack in that it introduces completely new technology. Windows 7 does not do this.
This kind of attitude was precisely my point when I wrote that comment. You simply do not know what you're talking about: Windows 7 introduces some fairly major UI changes, but it also adds a lot of things [wikipedia.org] under the hood - I dare say far more than Snow Leopard does [wikipedia.org].
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
New features get added when you go from 10.3 to 10.4 - to which they most certainly do charge for.
I fail to see your point.
Why are we arguing about hardware prices? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really, this is just silly.
How much time do you spend working with a computer during its lifetime? What does that work out to, in dollars?
Now how does that compare to the price of the hardware?
How much of your time will you expend in terms of the price difference in the hardware?
If you think that a better system will save you that much time in the life of the computer, it's a no-brainer.
People who work with their tools every day do NOT go scraping the bottom of the barrel when they shop for their tools. They go for the good stuff.
Re:Fact checking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Previous Versions is THE reason to use Vista (and now 7). No other OS takes delta snapshots of your disk daily (sometimes more often, like when you install software), by default, and exposes them in a user-friendly interface.
Time Machine requires a second disk, which is OK for a desktop but bad for a laptop.
There are versioning filesystems in Linux, but they are more difficult to use and aren't enabled by default on any major distro.
Previous Versions protects me from the most likely source of data loss - my own mistakes. Hard drives are unreliable, but they aren't that unreliable. I have NEVER had a disk fail on me. That doesn't mean that I don't make backups (once a week) to an external drive. But it does mean that a transparent, automatic backup to the same disk as my OS is far more useful to me than a backup that requires an external drive.
The benefit of Previous Versions is that it's on by default. You don't even have to know about it and it could still save your ass.
Re:This leads me to wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the whole price issue is bogus anyway. They compared nearly identical machines, but a nearly identical 1.86Mhz Core 2 Windows box is going to cost significantly less than a corresponding Mac; they didn't compare retail full version prices, they only talked about upgrade prices... because that's where you get a huge difference and can put a "check" in the MacOS column.
Most people simply don't upgrade. If Mac users are more likely to upgrade the OS, it's only because they don't get that huge benefit from trading up hardware at the same time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Windows. I have XP and use it sparingly (versus Ubuntu), and all things being equal would take a Mac in a heartbeat over a PC. But all things aren't equal, so giving the MacOS a win in price is disingenuous.
Re:Dock/Taskbar design (Score:1, Insightful)
>Another expense with Apples is the inability to run new OSes on old hardware.
Good Grief. You must be new here.
>My Windows machine machine is almost 9 years old, but could run Win 7
>with a simple RAM upgrade (from 1/2 gig to 1 gig).
So your Windows machine is a year older than you are. Big deal. Seriously, that had to be one expensive Windows machine to support 1/2 gig, (let alone 1 gig) 9 years ago. I call BS. It's a bit naive to think you a 9-year-old-memory-upgrade would be "simple". I'm sure I could buy at least 2 modern machines for the price of your "simple" memory upgrade.
Clearly, you don't understand computing history and what Apple has managed to pull off navigating its flagship OS to different chipsets as business pressures deemed necessary.
Re:But they should, they just don't know it. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the DRM in Windows 7 or Mac OS X, which hinders the media consumption on Linux, it's the lack of DRM on Linux.