Windows 7 vs Snow Leopard benchmarks

CNet.com has benchmarked Windows 7 and Snow Leopard using the same hardware to test both operating systems. The performance test ran using software available on both operating systems including iTunes 9, QuickTime, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare and Cinebench R10; testing multimedia multitasking, shutdown time, boot time and iTunes encoding.

The laptop used was a 15-inch MacBook Pro with 2.5Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB of RAM with a 512MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT video card. Snow Leopard was installed on a stock 320GB hard drive (Hitachi model HTS543232L9SA0), while Windows 7 64-bit was installed on a 320GB Western Digital Scorpio Blue (model WD3200BEVT). The hard drives were identical in the tests, both supporting SATA 3Gpbs interface with 8MB of cache memory, spinning at 5,400rpm.

Windows 7 64-bit was running on Boot Camp 3.0. The computer was set for high performance in power management for optimum performance on both operating systems. All software tested was in 64-bit, except QuickTime and Call of Duty 4.


(image courtesy of: CNet.com)

The Benchmarks

The benchmarks indicate that Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) performs better, on a MacBook Pro. However, Windows 7 64-bit seemed to run applications like, Cinebench R10 and Call of Duty 4 better, even on Mac hardware. The battery performance test was a bit skewed because Boot Camp and the drivers were using more energy than Snow Leopard would have been. Windows 7 64-bit has been seen to last longer on a full charge with other laptops.


(images courtesy of: CNet.com)

Conclusion

It appears that Snow Leopard users are getting better performance than Windows 7 would, but by seconds. Windows 7 64-bit users would be the better choice for gamers, who would get better performance when running games, not to mention more games are available for Windows PCs than Mac computers.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Exclusive: Xbox 360 Sky TV channels and prices revealed

Next Story

Microsoft: Trojans like USA, worms prefer Brazil!

335 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

This test is clearly biased. Why they are testing quicktime and itunes is beyond me but why they stuck this review on the frontpage is completely absurd.

Please Neowin, that "comparison" is so bloated for several obvious reasons, that you are only hurting yourselves by making it a big fat button on the front page... i mean wtf? Get serious........ do not buy that cheap c|net crap.

ziph said,
Please Neowin, that "comparison" is so bloated for several obvious reasons, that you are only hurting yourselves by making it a big fat button on the front page... i mean wtf? Get serious........ do not buy that cheap c

explain the obvious?

offroadaaron said,

explain the obvious?


Honestly, if you don't get it by now you never will. Quicktime on windows sucks, itunes on Windows sucks. Windows on bootcamp by default (which is what CNet was using) has old outdated and low performance drivers. Compare 2 equally spec'd laptops running third-party cross platform apps for a fair comparison

CCRATA said,

Honestly, if you don't get it by now you never will. Quicktime on windows sucks, itunes on Windows sucks. Windows on bootcamp by default (which is what CNet was using) has old outdated and low performance drivers. Compare 2 equally spec'd laptops running third-party cross platform apps for a fair comparison

Drivers have just been updated by Apple to 3.0 which was the same up-to-date drivers as any other normal PC, Encoding an MP3 or whatever else should be the same in itunes mac or Windows and quicktime that is just fail but.... Most of those tests are actually not to bad.

Low performance drivers.... Blame the manufactures as Apple don't create the drivers!

offroadaaron, all people are getting at is the software used isn't for benchmarking. I'm no benchmarking expert but I'd never EVER use iTunes or Quicktime for that purpose.

iTunes, imho, is not designed for Windows, they changed what they needed to and never optimized anything. ( You know, using System calls instead of hack code. I'm not 100% sure on that but it's a hunch. )

Boot and shutdown is a not bad test? I'm sorry but I an a little worried that the numbers were 6 seconds longer than OS X in both cases. Makes me curious. Just saying ...

No need to read the whole thing if you want an accurate benchmark between the two operating systems. You can't have any integrity when your bias is so obvious. Right, c|net?

Wow, people are actually up in arms over which OS is actually better... (They BOTH have pros and cons, agree to disagree?)

I'm sorry you all can't just get a machine you like and use it because someone HAS to be better. Thats just ridiculous, I'm sorry, but I read the Norton thread and now this... it just looks like a bunch of kids arguing about who has the best dad. If someone likes vanilla and you HATE it, do you tell them they are wrong? 'Cause thats all this seems like to me. Now can you stop bashing each other because someone likes something you don't?

We digress back to the ACTUAL topic though....
Why don't you just bash the fact they didn't use an actually benchmarking program? Shutdown and Start-up? Really?

Itunes speed sucks on Windows. It's a very poorly coded app. All other media player and encoder are way faster. I mean it's faster to 'Process' (when the download is complete) a music download on the Itouch, than on my PC.. LOL!

Ok, ok ok people! Enough said about QX or QT7. I think the same set of people who find this "benchmark" satisfactory and valid should also validate the same test with, say, a hackintosh and a Windows PC? I'm think I hear some "Noo-s"; I figured so too.

That said I'm pretty dissapointed with CNet releasing sunch article...did a senior editor even look over the article before itwas published? I won't be surprised if it was a genuine attempt to feed the trolls. [sigh].

In the mean time, I'm waiting for some serious, and I mean SERIOUS, head-to-head comparison of Windows7 and Snow Leopard.

Also why would Apple create poor drivers and make Windows run badly on a Apple machine.

Apple have Shares in MS if MS doesn't do well Apple lose money as well!!!

offroadaaron said,
Also why would Apple create poor drivers and make Windows run badly on a Apple machine.

Apple have Shares in MS if MS doesn't do well Apple lose money as well!!!


Your posts are getting particularly incoherent and degenerating to gibberish and ranting as I scroll down... calm down!

resol612 said,

Your posts are getting particularly incoherent and degenerating to gibberish and ranting as I scroll down... calm down!

Meh I'm calm mate, just because I'm posting in this thread lot doesn't mean I'm not calm.

And the reason it's incoherent is because people in here:

1) They rely on what other poeple say
2) Most of the people don't state any facts
3) They don't exactly know what's being tested
4) They make assumptions which are incorrect

Are you the rant patrol?

Haha... and who makes the drivers for this hardware??? Thats much more important than how fast the OS boots....

This test was really flawed, and I wish it was never posted here.

daddy_spank said,
Haha... and who makes the drivers for this hardware??? Thats much more important than how fast the OS boots....

This test was really flawed, and I wish it was never posted here.

The manufactures of the hardware obviously! Just like any other Windows based PC.

LOL, Love how MS fanboys defend their OS by saying Bootcamp has poor drivers.
They always find a way to defend their precious OS :)

I've seen far worse drivers written for Windows.

When you dropped the, "MS fanboys" comment. Oh, and..."They always find a way to defend their precious OS."

If they're defending, you're attacking.

Damian. said,
LOL, Love how MS fanboys defend their OS by saying Bootcamp has poor drivers.
They always find a way to defend their precious OS :)

I've seen far worse drivers written for Windows.


It really doesn't take an MS fanboy to realise that this benchmark was flawed.

RAID 0 said,
When you dropped the, "MS fanboys" comment. Oh, and..."They always find a way to defend their precious OS."

If they're defending, you're attacking.


I wasn't attacking.
I did not blame windows or microsoft for anything.
Just stating that i've seen worse drivers on windows.

But the MS Fanboys are obvious blaming Apple for it.

Damian. said,
I wasn't attacking.


You might wish to reconsider re-reading your post, or acquire an upgrade to your comprehension skills.

resol612 said,
You might wish to reconsider re-reading your post, or acquire an upgrade to your comprehension skills.

You might wanna post on topic next time

Pretty funny watching Mac fanboys get all bent out of shape, particularly offroadaaron. Wow. Talk about redundant fanboyism.

I'd like to see this test done again on an actual PC with the same specs as the MBP. I'm willing to bet the results will be different.

FrozenEclipse said,
Pretty funny watching Mac fanboys get all bent out of shape, particularly offroadaaron. Wow. Talk about redundant fanboyism.

I'd like to see this test done again on an actual PC with the same specs as the MBP. I'm willing to bet the results will be different.

But I'm I don't even go into results LOL, I'm just informing people that its the same as a normal average PC, there is no fanboyism in my comments LOL.

Why would it be different on the same hardware, thats just idiotic.

Post some facts as to why running Windows on a Macbook is different to running Windows on a HP appart from the different companies creating the Machine.

offroadaaron said,
LOL plus I'm not the one with the flashing Windows 7 banner in my signature ;)


Stop getting so hyper, worked-up and beginning to use emoticons once you see the word "fanboyism".

I'd love to have the video. PM it to me or something.

It's been a few years already that a minority of people that I encounter say "hey, my computer starts in under 15 seconds". Now, I've owned a few PCs back in the time, great machines that I built myself. And now I own a Mac.

Even when I had clean installs of anything, Windows or OS X, it would NEVER start in under 30 seconds. Remind you : clean installs. Then, after adding a few apps, it would start in about a minute. And I even managed 2 minutes on both OSes (I have too many startup daemons launching, and a personal server, and many apps starting up, I had an antivirus on Windows as well as Anti-spyware x_x)

So tell me about it. You must be hibernating or something. If not, for Christ's sake, upload the video and show it to me. All the times that I asked this, I just got people who ignored me and went away (forums and real life).

Just the BIOS part lasts about 10-15 seconds. So are you using this XDR memory yet? SSD?

This is an i7 2.66 GHz with 1066 DDR3 6GB. Asus P6T Motherboard, SSD Samsung 220MBps Read/120MBps Write, ATi Radeon 4890 1GB RAM and an ASUS XNR D2X Audio Card. The PC has a lot of applications installed such as:
Windows Live Suite (ofc)
Office 2007 Enterprise
Visual Studio 2008 Team Suite
Sun VirtualBox
Windows Virtual PC
MS Security Essentials
Lots of games

The only OS that I've seen slow down when multiple applications are installed is Windows XP and Mac OS. Actually a mac funboy friend of mine admited that he had to do a clean install after his mac slow down. the 12 seconds exclude BIOS time. That is mainly due to my "30 sec wait for DVD boot" setting I have set. The 12 seconds start from loading the OS, to seeing press CTRL+ALT+DEL to login. Video coming soon ( I am at work)

iTunes encoding? Must be joking. The only encoding testing one should perform nowadays is H264 and at least 720p res in DD 5.1 surround. Anything less is unacceptable and futile.
Since when and by whom is Apple-made software used as a decoder/encoder testing suite standard? And talk about the crappy mov format? Try at least mkv, even M$'s wmv is better than mov. Again, a joke.
And no Photoshop or some serious graphics rendering tests? Puhhhhleeez!
Think about it for 1 nanosec... Cnet is co-owned by Intel, who supplies CPUs for most PCs on the market [sorry AMD fans], and as y'all know, most PCs sold in stores have Windows or MacOS pre-loaded.
Yeah, lets' compare apples [sic!] and oranges, OSes with totally different architectures, in order to prove what? That both M$ and Apple have "stellar" new "shiny" OSes out there? Like they need any extra advertising...
Proper comparison would be a popular Linux distro [Ubuntu comes to mind] against MacOS X, same architecture.
And pitch Win7 against its sorry "uncle", WinV!sta [oh, I'm sorry it's been overdone already].

*/ It's a conspiracy. MacBooks have hardware coded cheats, they detect Windows OS on the HD and the purposely perform slower, and they suck the life out of the battery faster /* sarcasm ends or maybe it continues for bit longer :)

Now everything is clear, this review is clearly rigged and biased. CNET how could you do this benchmark. Many people will stay awake tonight....

Instead of running Windows applications on a Mac OS X-based application, why not just stuff a new rig with the same exact hardware as the iMac and test each system? Surely there shouldn't be any different between the two besides the OS. (Apple's hardware is not that proprietary).

Skullpture said,
Instead of running Windows applications on a Mac OS X-based application, why not just stuff a new rig with the same exact hardware as the iMac and test each system? Surely there shouldn't be any different between the two besides the OS. (Apple's hardware is not that proprietary).

What? that makes minimal sense!

Instead of running Windows applications on a Mac OS X-based application??/ Makes no sense at all

both OS's were run independantly and natively it was run on the same hardware.

offroad, you think Apple used competent coding in the windows versions of the software? I think the program coding in apple software and OS's give it a huge advantage.

ChrisJ1968 said,
offroad, you think Apple used competent coding in the windows versions of the software? I think the program coding in apple software and OS's give it a huge advantage.

Encoding should be the same between iTunes Windows and Mac OS X... But yes I have stated that the software used could've been better.

What software in the OS? isn't that the test to begin with! The coding between Windows and Mac and which is better!?

offroadaaron said,
Encoding should be the same between iTunes Windows and Mac OS X... But yes I have stated that the software used could've been better.

What software in the OS? isn't that the test to begin with! The coding between Windows and Mac and which is better!?


You aren't answering the question.

WOW just WOW!!Scrolling down through the comments of this article was a bumpy ride.According to some (snipped),iTunes & Quicktime in Windows 7 are just pathetic but comparison of Call of duty 4 on DX11 enabled windows 7 and poor(certainly not for gaming) openGL3 enabled OSX is perfectly reasonable.And Boot Camp 3.0 was designed for windows 7 to look bad.
I'm getting an impression that there is something especial about Mac hardware.That is why apple charge so much money for it..

Hahaha, these comments are really good laugh. Is a collection of uneducated guesses and theories.
Bootcamp is "not native" for Windows... hahaha I mean come on... Where do you guys pull your statements/ideas from ? lol

Anyhow I come back here from hour to hour to see what other brainiac statement will pop-out.

Regarding the main topic, the review was done properly, using same hardware and same apps but two separate OSs. If you see otherwise I would advise you to read up on OSs and get yourself a MAC or borrow a MAC from someone and do a dual install, and do some tests yourself. I run both Win 7 and Snow Leopard and I absolutely agree with the findings of this review.

Cheers

Euphoria said,
Hahaha, these comments are really good laugh. Is a collection of uneducated guesses and theories.
Bootcamp is "not native" for Windows... hahaha I mean come on... Where do you guys pull your statements/ideas from ? lol

Anyhow I come back here from hour to hour to see what other brainiac statement will pop-out.

Regarding the main topic, the review was done properly, using same hardware and same apps but two separate OSs. If you see otherwise I would advise you to read up on OSs and get yourself a MAC or borrow a MAC from someone and do a dual install, and do some tests yourself. I run both Win 7 and Snow Leopard and I absolutely agree with the findings of this review.

Cheers

MAC = Media Access Control, not Macintosh.

Anyway, I don't know why people say that OSX won because it actually lost.
Look at the game performance, windows kills OSX performance.
Now, like other said, you CANNOT count the quicktime test since it's for one, NOT EVEN THE SAME VERSION of the app and it is also an application known to be bloatware on PC. I hope Julius Carlos can understand that once for all, NOT THE SAME VERSION.
Noooow, take a 3rd party app and redo the test.... like hmm.. encode with LAME okay! and let's see the result :)
Is that clear for everyone? this test is biased!!
As for the battery performance, I won't comment because OSX might be the best here (I am not qualified to comment since I don't know much about battery life tests)

Actually, let me put it in point form:
- The iTunes/Quicktime version were not the same on both OS (they tested windows with a deprecated version of Quicktime)
- They should have tested with a 3rd party app. iTunes/Quicktime is Apple software and it's NOT optimized to run on Windows.
- The game tested were the same (non-Microsoft or Apple games, 3rd party) and Windows dwarfed OSX.
- I would say that the startup test is also biased since you need to count Bootcamp's BIOS emulation through EFI. So this might have warped the results.
- Shutdown test.... well OSX wins... true... I can believe that since OSX shuts down faster than windows if I compare my two machines here. But, really... WHO CARES ABOUT THAT!

Any comments now?

djesteban said,
Anyway, I don't know why people say that OSX won because it actually lost.
Look at the game performance, windows kills OSX performance.
Now, like other said, you CANNOT count the quicktime test since it's for one, NOT EVEN THE SAME VERSION of the app and it is also an application known to be bloatware on PC. I hope Julius Carlos can understand that once for all, NOT THE SAME VERSION.
Noooow, take a 3rd party app and redo the test.... like hmm.. encode with LAME okay! and let's see the result :)
Is that clear for everyone? this test is biased!!
As for the battery performance, I won't comment because OSX might be the best here (I am not qualified to comment since I don't know much about battery life tests)

Actually, let me put it in point form:
- The iTunes/Quicktime version were not the same on both OS (they tested windows with a deprecated version of Quicktime)
- They should have tested with a 3rd party app. iTunes/Quicktime is Apple software and it's NOT optimized to run on Windows.
- The game tested were the same (non-Microsoft or Apple games, 3rd party) and Windows dwarfed OSX.
- I would say that the startup test is also biased since you need to count Bootcamp's BIOS emulation through EFI. So this might have warped the results.
- Shutdown test.... well OSX wins... true... I can believe that since OSX shuts down faster than windows if I compare my two machines here. But, really... WHO CARES ABOUT THAT!

Any comments now?

I agree what the app choice is poor and makes no sense.

But what Im trying to say is that people are saying that windows is running under some obscure compatibility layer that's hindering its performance.

Pcs and Macs are the same damn thing, with the EFI/BIOS difference. On a PC running OS X with equally obscure (if not more) compatibility modes to get it to run on a PC, the test would have yielded the same results. My point is, the windows fanboys so outraged by OS X won in some categories should stop spreading FUD about bootcamp. Bootcamp mightn't be ideal, but you can still install the official vendors drivers or not install bootcamp drivers at all and still get windows working. Or linux. You can install linux on any mac and I dont read people complaining about how poor the performance is.

But you are right though. Windows still kicked OS X's ass running "under" bootcamp in the gaming test, "non-natively" like some ignorant people are saying.


Julius Caro said,
I agree what the app choice is poor and makes no sense.

But what Im trying to say is that people are saying that windows is running under some obscure compatibility layer that's hindering its performance.

Pcs and Macs are the same damn thing, with the EFI/BIOS difference. On a PC running OS X with equally obscure (if not more) compatibility modes to get it to run on a PC, the test would have yielded the same results. My point is, the windows fanboys so outraged by OS X won in some categories should stop spreading FUD about bootcamp. Bootcamp mightn't be ideal, but you can still install the official vendors drivers or not install bootcamp drivers at all and still get windows working. Or linux. You can install linux on any mac and I dont read people complaining about how poor the performance is.

But you are right though. Windows still kicked OS X's ass running "under" bootcamp in the gaming test, "non-natively" like some ignorant people are saying.


As for being native, or non-native, that's out of the question... it's as native as it can get when windows is booted. It's the same damn hardware that you could find on one's PC, SAME architecture. Like I said, what could've made a difference here in the boot time is Bootcamp's BIOS emulation through EFI, that could've played for MAYBE 2-3 seconds (not more though). The IDE issue might have had an impact also, since Windows runs natively in AHCI mode.

The thing that's really insulting here is the quicktime/itunes test. Not only it's not even the same version, but it's not even an application to consider on PC if you have half of a brain. This crap shouldn't even be allowed to encode anything... garbage encoder, ****ty output, couldn't be worst.

djesteban said,

As for being native, or non-native, that's out of the question... it's as native as it can get when windows is booted. It's the same damn hardware that you could find on one's PC, SAME architecture. Like I said, what could've made a difference here in the boot time is Bootcamp's BIOS emulation through EFI, that could've played for MAYBE 2-3 seconds (not more though). The IDE issue might have had an impact also, since Windows runs natively in AHCI mode.

The thing that's really insulting here is the quicktime/itunes test. Not only it's not even the same version, but it's not even an application to consider on PC if you have half of a brain. This crap shouldn't even be allowed to encode anything... garbage encoder, ****ty output, couldn't be worst.

EFI has nothing to do with it Windows performance at all:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...rt_extended.jpg

and AHCI looks like it has minimal performance gain if any:
http://expertester.files.wordpress.com/200...ahcivsideb2.gif


Read what EFI is before stating its another layer, when its clearly not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that people are saying it is. But the way windows works on a mac is not "windows + EFI". A fake BIOS hides the underlying EFI. And people think that makes windows on macs 'non native'.

somebody is bound to do their own benchmark test because of this and from the looks of it they will strive for it to be fair. i'm looking forward to it.

The main problem with the test is that the hardware drivers are highly optimized for Snow Leopard, but not at all optimized for Windows 7. Bootcamp is a boot manager, so it has nothing to do with performance one way or the other.

If Apple persuades hardware manufacturers that supply parts for their systems to provide better and more optimized Windows 7 drivers, then the situation for Windows 7 should improve running on Apple's hardware. I would guess that a similarly configured system from Dell, as an example, with the latest drivers installed from the manufacturers would perform much better under the same tests.

We have all seen new graphics drivers for video cards, for example, provide 10, 20, 30% performance improvements in various scenarios. Optimized drivers do have a massive impact on overall system performance. It may still be true that Snow Leopard would outperform Windows 7 running on the same hardware, but this test only proves it runs better on Apple hardware. I'm sure if somebody found a way to run Apple's OS on a non-Apple system in a non-virtual environment, the results would be reversed.

I have to agree with everyone arguing about the test balance. The benchmark should have been run with applications that can be verified as having an identical code base, i.e.: Handbrake, Audacity, OpenOffice, etc. Comparing a BSD kernel with the Windows kernel is sure to show flaws and merits of both.

GreyWolfSC said,
I have to agree with everyone arguing about the test balance. The benchmark should have been run with applications that can be verified as having an identical code base, i.e.: Handbrake, Audacity, OpenOffice, etc. Comparing a BSD kernel with the Windows kernel is sure to show flaws and merits of both.

What? Windows kernal and BSD kernel? :S

We had a similar thread about Mac OS X performance vs Vista, and I said there the same thing. Mac OS X is compiled for that specific hardware and will run more efficiently than Win 7 or Vista or XP will. If you know anything about UNIX OS you will see that it all makes sense.
Now I know that there are a lot of Windows fans here that are taking defensive positions but seriously be happy with what you have... Are 200+ post really necessary to rant about how your OS is the best sh*t in the universe?

Cheers

It's possible that snow leopard is faster but this "test" is just ridiculous. I don't see how people knowing that the test was flawed are "apologists".

LOL at all apologists :D

Anyway, it's not surprising IF Snow Leopard would win in some tests, because it's a less complex OS with less off a backwards compatibility backpack to carry, for good and bad.

CNET is not a serious review site and constantly embarrasses themselves. No surprise that Snow Leopard boots quicker, throw in Ubuntu 9.10 and it reportedly boots faster than both but why is that a claim to fame? Who buys an operating system based on how fast it boots up?

Thanks All, the comments were/are a much better read than the article... Sorry Andrew, blame CNET.

If the article the other day is to be believed, by far most MAC owners have PCs too, so the only reasons for the comparison really would be 1) score points with someone at Apple, & 2) produce something so flawed it generated all sorts of interesting, sometimes humorous comments. ;-)

I leave all my personal opinions out of the article, so i'm not considered biased against a single company.

I'm not disappointed you didn't enjoy the article, it is what it is. I can't change the news to make things more exciting or really change what is given to me.

Isn't it weird that Snow Leopard was only better than Windows 7 in the benchmarks that used Apple applications like Quicktime and iTunes, but Windows 7 was consistently better than Snow Leopard in all benchmarks that used neutral, third party apps like Call of Duty and Cinebench?

If you are evaluating two competing OSs, what would you believe more? A benchmark that uses an application from one of the competitors, or a benchmark that uses an application from a neutral third party?

Plus, Cinebench is reputable and tests ALL the system performance, including multimedia, 3D, video, multitasking, etc. The Quicktime test is flawed because SL uses Quicktime X, the next generation of this software that uses Apple's Core Audio, Core Video and Core Animation features to access GPU acceleration, while who knows what Quicktime for Windows does, which is a software that was never thought for performance on Windows and was only made to allow windows play .mov videos.

I bet that further benchmarks that include more third party applications will show a consistent advantage to Windows 7, which is a very streamlined OS that can even run well with 512Meg RAM, can Snow Leopard do that? I didn't think so...

I agree the applications side of things is definitely a flaw in this test.

Neutral applications and benchmarking programs would've been best used in this case.

I agree with you there offroadaaron
I would love to see these benchmarks carried out in a fairer way, not because i'm a fan boy of either product but just because i want to know!

One issue with this comparison is on the MacBook Pro, Windows is forced to use IDE compatibility not native AHCI. This has a noticeable impact on HD performance. There is currently no way to enable AHCI on them. Until that is possible this comparison is flawed and the MacBook Pro would perform worse than an identically specced laptop from another company.

As far as Bootcamp goes you do not need to install the Bootcamp drivers, you can source your own but i'm not sure how big an impact it will have.

dfua said,
One issue with this comparison is on the MacBook Pro, Windows is forced to use IDE compatibility not native AHCI. This has a noticeable impact on HD performance. There is currently no way to enable AHCI on them. Until that is possible this comparison is flawed and the MacBook Pro would perform worse than an identically specced laptop from another company.

As far as Bootcamp goes you do not need to install the Bootcamp drivers, you can source your own but i'm not sure how big an impact it will have.

And finally something posts some facts! I agree with the above with AHCI and IDE compatibility, but isn't the performance between the 2 modes questionable?

http://expertester.wordpress.com/2008/07/2...mark-advantage/

Advantage of AHCI

1. Hot-Plugging (will not cover here as it will not affect computer performance)
2. Native Command Queuing (might improve computer/system/hard disk responsiveness, espcially in multi-tasking environment

Also Benchmarks: http://expertester.files.wordpress.com/200...ahcivsideb2.gif

I don't have any benchmarks, I'm going mainly off what I noticed on my desktop pc running Windows 7 x64 RTM and the standard windows IDE drivers. It really didn't perform like it should and performance seemed to bog down a lot particularly during file transfers. After sorting it out into AHCI mode and installing the Intel drivers it performed noticeably faster and performing more like it should.

Windows 7 x64 on my 13.3" MacBook Pro has similar performance issues and at times feels worse than when I tried it on my much older laptop. Its not all the time, just a feeling of it getting bogged down at times and taking longer to get up to speed after boot. I can't see any reason other than the AHCI as to why it could be slower, it could just be the generic IDE driver in Windows 7 doesn't work too well for it.

Its funny you asked Windows uses would you switch to Apple Mac's... They answer no I can get the same hardware cheaper somewhere else.

You put Windows on an Apple Mac and people start saying drivers are crap when infact its exactly the same as the drivers you have on many Windows based laptops.

So is it actually special hardware now guys? is that what your trying to tell us?

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/13/technology/13pogue.html

they run faster than they ever did. Most people comment that an Intel Mac runs Windows faster than any PC they've ever owned. And if the Windows side ever gets bogged down with viruses and spyware, you can flip into Mac OS X and keep right on being productive.

I don't believe that it does, I believe it runs native speed like any other Windows machine.

Of course, if you buy a new computer (in that case a MacBook) with latest hardware, it will run Windows faster than any other computer the user had just because it has better and newer hardware, not for the intervention of the Holy Spirit or something like that.

The hardware is cheaper if you buy a comparable PC.

About this test, I will like to see other software being tested, not Apple software which is known to be slower on Windows than on a Mac.

This kind of benchmark should be made on two different machines with similar hardware and using software like photoshop or premiere and a slew of apps that exist for both platforms.

ajua said,
About this test, I will like to see other software being tested, not Apple software which is known to be slower on Windows than on a Mac.

Encoding an MP3 should be the same on pretty much any program though, but I agree with different software

ajua said,
This kind of benchmark should be made on two different machines with similar hardware and using software like photoshop or premiere and a slew of apps that exist for both platforms.

This I don't agree with, adds to many variables and is pointless.

offroadaaron said,
Encoding an MP3 should be the same on pretty much any program though, but I agree with different software


Where's the proof, since you love asking about proofs so much.

resol612 said,
Where's the proof, since you love asking about proofs so much.

Where is the proof that its not? I stated it should be the same I haven't stated anywhere that it is....

Please someone do a fair comparison because i would actually like to know which is faster etc etc.
Tests like this do nothing for either party but start the trolls fighting, i'm not here to argue which is better but just to say that this test is fatally flawed.

Mike Chipshop said,
Please someone do a fair comparison because i would actually like to know which is faster etc etc.
Tests like this do nothing for either party but start the trolls fighting, i'm not here to argue which is better but just to say that this test is fatally flawed.

How is it flawed though?

Mike Chipshop said,
offroadaaron, i think if you try scrolling up a bit you'll find many reasons.

I would like you to specify some because it seems many people have minimal knowledge on the hardware and drivers for boot camp, so lets see you explain it to us and see if you actually know what your talking about :)

I also think you'll find that most of the comments above are very incorrect and if you went by what everyone else has stated you have very poor judgment.

Mike Chipshop said,
... but just to say that this test is fatally flawed.

The only flawed thing is that they compared QuickTime X to QuickTime 7... and iTunes shouldn't be a benchmark application, but they compared the "encoding" in iTunes, which should be exactly the same in Windows and OS X, so that's fine with me. Encoding absolutely any file possible should take as much time in OS X than in Windows on the same config. I would only partially agree that this particular benchmark (iTunes) shouldn't have been done.

If you were talking about Boot Camp, and thinks it virtualizes a copy of Windows, etc. you are WRONG my friend. Get your facts real before talking **** like that. Or get a Mac and get to know it, this must be one of the reasons why you hate them so much.

First off i can not comment on bootcamp as i have neither the knowledge or the time.

The points i'll lay down for you in plain English are...
1)SL is optimized for Mac hardware. Apple use hardware they have written the operating system to work with that hardware so the OS works well with it. MS did not have this luxury so installing 7 on the mac hardware automatically gives SL an advantage.

2) The programmes are renowned to be bad ports

Mike Chipshop said,
First off i can not comment on bootcamp as i have neither the knowledge or the time.

All this time you had no clue what boot camp was and you were arguing *SIGH* and you do have time because you have been replying non-stop about how I've been wrong.

Fact is boot camp is nothing its a program that partitions a HDD and burns a driver CD

If you really didn't like Mac OS X say, you could simply format the drive and boot from the Windows CD and install it like any other machine, The Apple hardware is no different.

So in the end you read the article and what everyone said and made you judgement from the people who didn't know what they were talking about....

Mike Chipshop said,
The points i'll lay down for you in plain English are...
1)SL is optimized for Mac hardware. Apple use hardware they have written the operating system to work with that hardware so the OS works well with it. MS did not have this luxury so installing 7 on the mac hardware automatically gives SL an advantage.

ROFL!

Apple don't optimise it for the hardware, they say here is the hardware we are using, create drivers to work with that system...

MS don't get a certain type of hardware they create the OS to work on any system, and let hardware companies create drivers for the operating system and include some on the Windows disk so the system can boot for the very first time.

So installing on boot camp you are in fact installing Windows the same way as on a normal none Apple hardware machine and then installing the drivers for nvidia (video card) intel mobo drivers (if needed), Bluetooth drivers, wireless drivers, everything you would install on a normal machine.

Mike Chipshop said,
2) The programmes are renowned to be bad ports

Agreed, but encoding MP3's (or whatever it was) should be the same as any other program on Windows to be honest, quicktime is not the same at all though that test is flawed.

offroadaaron said,
All this time you had no clue what boot camp was and you were arguing *SIGH*

I never once argued anything about bootcamp.
I would not argue against anything i haven't had experience or knowledge of.

I think this test actually makes Windows 7 look great. It's obviously not fair but Windows 7 still comes out with great results which just shows how good it is.

If Microsoft made laptops, and wrote drivers that enabled OS X to run on said laptops (although with these Microsoft provided drivers installed), and benchmarks showed Microsoft's OS to run faster than Apple's OS...well, the same people telling Windows users to deal with these benchmarks would be screaming that they're unfair.

Apple's Boot Camp drivers are known to be poor. Apple's apps for Windows are known to be poor. Why would anyone use either of them, or especially a combination of them, to compare the two OS's?

The only way this benchmark is decent, is if they're comparing Apple software on OS X to Apple software on Windows. If that was their goal (and just attached the wrong article to it), then they're golden!

waruikoohii said,
Apple's Boot Camp drivers are known to be poor.

I don't agree with that, the trackpad drivers and certain aspects are annoying and poor, but the other drivers come from the manufactures or Windows itself, no different to any other machine.

waruikoohii said,
Apple's apps for Windows are known to be poor. Why would anyone use either of them, or especially a combination of them, to compare the two OS's?

I'll agree with this though Apple software on Windows is bad and MS software on Mac is just equally as bad.

offroadaaron said,
I don't agree with that
Then why is the heat generation and power consumption so much higher than with other laptops with similar specs?

waruikoohii said,
Then why is the heat generation and power consumption so much higher than with other laptops with similar specs?

I dunno ask nvidia not apple LOL Apple just placed the hardware in their System and grabbed Nvidias drivers.

offroadaaron said,
I dunno ask nvidia not apple LOL Apple just placed the hardware in their System and grabbed Nvidias drivers.

So what you're saying is "doesn't matter that the drivers don't work properly. It's still a fair comparison."?

Also, nVidia drivers work properly with that hardware in other computers. It's only Apple's package that doesn't work properly.

waruikoohii said,
So what you're saying is "doesn't matter that the drivers don't work properly. It's still a fair comparison."?

Also, nVidia drivers work properly with that hardware in other computers. It's only Apple's package that doesn't work properly.

What? Its the same hardware? Are you now stating the hardware in a Apple Mac is completely different? nvidia make the hardware... Not Apple..... Nvidia create the drivers.... not Apple!

justmike said,
I expect people to take this and make a test from the windows side next.

I don't understand why its a Windows side Mac side, it's a comparison between Windows and Mac on Mac hardware, but hardware is hardware its the same thing!

So really it seems that both companies have written very good operating systems?

And we get the choice of using either?

This seems like an excellent reason to start calling each other names.

Unfair comparison to be honest.

SL is designed around specific hardware. While it is on the x86 platform like Windows, Apple optimise their operating systems with stuff like SSE1/2/3/4/etc optimisations. That's why some hackintosh systems won't work with Leopard etc because they don't support specific optimisations that Apple have enabled.

Another reason why these benchmarks are inaccurate which has already been said is down to drivers. Custom drivers are needed which Bootcamp provide, but they are crap compared to the latest updated versions.

One more thing, the applications used. Quicktime X vs Quicktime 7? Not a fair comparison. Apple makes crap ports to Windows.

Tony. said,
Unfair comparison to be honest.

SL is designed around specific hardware. While it is on the x86 platform like Windows, Apple optimise their operating systems with stuff like SSE1/2/3/4/etc optimisations. That's why some hackintosh systems won't work with Leopard etc because they don't support specific optimisations that Apple have enabled.


Windows is also optimised for the same architectures. The hardware is simply intel and nvidia hardware.

Tony. said,
Another reason why these benchmarks are inaccurate which has already been said is down to drivers. Custom drivers are needed which Bootcamp provide, but they are crap compared to the latest updated versions.

One more thing, the applications used. Quicktime X vs Quicktime 7? Not a fair comparison. Apple makes crap ports to Windows.

no custom drivers are needed for boot camp, you install nvidia drivers for video card, bluetooth drivers (probably not even needed), trackpad drivers... All the same things you install on a normal system.... There is no difference between the hardware here, its just that Mac OS X has drivers for the hardware on these systems so its compatible, in the end your still running Ubuntu, *nix, Windows natively on a machine.

You can install these drivers from the boot camp CD or find them on the net from the suppliers it's, Apple just put the drivers together to make it an easier install for everyone.

offroadaaron said,


Windows is also optimised for the same architectures. The hardware is simply intel and nvidia hardware.


Again, that's incorrect. Windows doesn't use specific optimisations because of the huge hardware support they provide. That's why people can install Windows 7 on Pentium 1's etc. Try doing the same with SL, it won't happen.

Tony. said,


Again, that's incorrect. Windows doesn't use specific optimisations because of the huge hardware support they provide. That's why people can install Windows 7 on Pentium 1's etc. Try doing the same with SL, it won't happen.

What Windows can still look at the hardware and install drivers and optimise performance, Again SSE/1/2/3/4 are on Windows Based PC's and have been for longer than Mac OS X. The reason why hackintosh systems don't always (some do) straight out the box is because there are no supported drivers for the platform.

So no you are incorrect.

Tony. said,


Again, that's incorrect. Windows doesn't use specific optimisations because of the huge hardware support they provide. That's why people can install Windows 7 on Pentium 1's etc. Try doing the same with SL, it won't happen.

Also reading this back again it makes no sense.

To restate what has been stated before and has been ridiculed.
1) Windows7 on a Mac vs OSX on a Mac is one side of the coin.
2) OSX on a Dell (or HP, Lenovo... your favorite Windows PC) vs Windows7 on a Dell is the other side of the coin.

Only after evaluating both it's fair game.
The first test is done, the second test can be done as well (using the latest bootloaders for SL allows even vanilla installations of SL on a Dell etc. ).

DerAusgewanderte said,
To restate what has been stated before and has been ridiculed.
1) Windows7 on a Mac vs OSX on a Mac is one side of the coin.
2) OSX on a Dell (or HP, Lenovo... your favorite Windows PC) vs Windows7 on a Dell is the other side of the coin.

Only after evaluating both it's fair game.
The first test is done, the second test can be done as well (using the latest bootloaders for SL allows even vanilla installations of SL on a Dell etc. ).

I don't understand why it would be different, Windows on Random Apple hardware or Windows on random DELL hardware, WTF is the difference?

offroadaaron said,
I don't understand why it would be different, Windows on Random Apple hardware or Windows on random DELL hardware, WTF is the difference?

not random of course, the hardware on a new dell is tailored to run windows 7 fast. or pick a model on which Win7 runs well. it would pose random hardware for OSX just like in their test but the other way around.

DerAusgewanderte said,
not random of course, the hardware on a new dell is tailored to run windows 7 fast. or pick a model on which Win7 runs well. it would pose random hardware for OSX just like in their test but the other way around.

DELL tailer make Windows 7 to run faster? Are you joking?

Most people that know anything about Windows and DELL will format and reinstall Windows.

Snow Leopard was installed on a stock 320GB hard drive (Hitachi model HTS543232L9SA0), while Windows 7 64-bit was installed on a 320GB Western Digital Scorpio Blue (model WD3200BEVT)

Would be good to know the different in speed between the 2 hard drives I guess.

naap51stang said,
Nice way to "stack the deck" in favor of a mac fanboy.
My recently built Quad-Core, x64 does just fine.

But thats not what the test was about at all? The test was about which runs faster on the same hardware.

ompare CS4 performance on both...oh wait... CNet couldn't get copies of software that's...freely available for testing in circumstances very similar to this? Fail on CNet's part to only use one of the OS provider's products.

No office comparasion? (Expeciallay since Window's version is now a few years out of date and OSX's would be the newer, faster one... I wonder how Micrsoft's product would perform...oh wait that's bias).

No Open Source alternatives, who have dedicated teams to make each branch of the project as fast as possible like audacity... nope...just Apple products running on a system with apple-designed drivers (HOW THE HELL CAN THEY STILL NOT HAVE WRITTEN PROPER TOUCHPAD DRIVERS FOR WINDOWS YET? "same performance" my foot. I can't right-click on my windows machine on my macbook without the divine wind of god helpign me...or putting on a addon mouse...but we're supposed to trust the drivers THEY approve of for their hardware (yes, apple still has approval over drivers written for window on their hardware) are going to perform exactly the same as they do on Mac...

Nope. Not buying it. you can buy all the parts of a apple pro desktop on retail, (usually for cheaper...) and you could build actually equvilent versions of their desktop systems with the exact same clock times and non-apple drivers... THAT is a test I'd like to see... but it's not one we're likely to see.... oh well

Office comparisons? Please, Office is far from being optimized on the Mac, but it's perfectly optimized on Windows.

Microsoft did one of the worst jobs I have ever seen to port Office on the Mac. We don't get all those features from 2007, we certainly don't get this new ribbon interface right, the apps feel anti-optimized, and on top of that, we don't even get all Office products (Project, Access, ...).

If CNET listened to you, then yeah, it would be biased.

About writing proper touchpad drivers for Windows, have you tried Boot Camp 3.0? I hated 2 because my trackpad on my MacBook Unibody didn't work well. Now on my new MacBook Pro, it works flawlessly and I have the same trackpad, thanks to Boot Camp 3.0 :)

Btw, the drivers in Boot Camp are from the official manufacturers. Apple won't invent drivers for an nVidia card, when nVidia has it already, hmkay? Get your facts right, buddy.

PsykX said,
Office comparisons? Please, Office is far from being optimized on the Mac, but it's perfectly optimized on Windows.

Microsoft did one of the worst jobs I have ever seen to port Office on the Mac. We don't get all those features from 2007, we certainly don't get this new ribbon interface right, the apps feel anti-optimized, and on top of that, we don't even get all Office products (Project, Access, ...).

Can't really say iTunes and Quicktime are that greatly ported to Windows though

iTunes and Quicktime are DEFINITELY optimized for Windows!
They run SOOOOOO fast on Windows!
This test is the FAIREST you can possibly get!

Where is Photoshop?? I think it's the first big widely used program that runs on Mac OS and Windows.
Maybe they didn't want to **** Apple?

RealFduch said,
Where is Photoshop?? I think it's the first big widely used program that runs on Mac OS and Windows.
Maybe they didn't want to **** Apple?

Probably didn't have the software to test it.... Anyways you'd probably see the same sort of results as itunes or quicktime.

Photoshop was never said to be faster on Mac OS X but it was meant to be easier to use especially when using many graphic design apps. Its hard to explain but if you had ever used Photoshop on a Mac for work its much easier than Windows but probably somewhat slower (I dunno) in computing performance.

offroadaaron said,
Photoshop was never said to be faster on Mac OS X but it was meant to be easier to use especially when using many graphic design apps. Its hard to explain but if you had ever used Photoshop on a Mac for work its much easier than Windows but probably somewhat slower (I dunno) in computing performance.

I think you are wrong. As far as I know the whole "Mac is for artists" stemmed from the fact that Apple included RGBCMYK conversion commands in their CPUs at some time thus making color space conversion really faster. It's irrelevant for a long time, but minds are conservative.

RealFduch said,
I think you are wrong. As far as I know the whole "Mac is for artists" stemmed from the fact that Apple included RGBCMYK conversion commands in their CPUs at some time thus making color space conversion really faster. It's irrelevant for a long time, but minds are conservative.

They wouldn't use that any more I'm sure as they use normal intel based CPU, although I don't know enough about that to be honest.

GUYS, I'VE GOT AN EQUAL TEST:

"Dell GX280 runs XP SP2 fine and Server 03 fine too.
Runs Mac 10.5.5 like a heap of ****, takes ages to boot up or do anything, the really annoying special effects slow it RIGHT down and it takes ages to do anything."

So how do I go about publishing this obviously pathetic test result?

Windows7 also wasn't designed to be run on a Macbook. I'm sure it took extra time trying to detect the stupid propietary Mac hardware.

TC17 said,
Windows7 also wasn't designed to be run on a Macbook. I'm sure it took extra time trying to detect the stupid propietary Mac hardware.

WOW both your comments Mac no sense! Funny read though!

offroadaaron said,
WOW both your comments Mac no sense! Funny read though!


I'm afraid you still have him beat in stupidity.. judging from all your posts so far.

Kharhaz said,
I'm afraid you still have him beat in stupidity.. judging from all your posts so far.

Explain? Or hang on you probably don't know what your talking about and just thought you'd comment to make yourself look superior, right.... Post some facts, because I don't see one single comment from you against what I have stated in this thread.

offroadaaron said,
Explain? Or hang on you probably don't know what your talking about and just thought you'd comment to make yourself look superior, right.... Post some facts, because I don't see one single comment from you against what I have stated in this thread.


Facts? You haven't posted any either. You haven't posted one single reason as to why this is a good test. Not one.

All you've been doing is spinning peoples words to support your own argument.

How do you know I don't know what I'm talking about when I haven't even begun explaining? Oh yea, that's right.

Nice try though. Go troll some where else please. Neowin has enough.

Kharhaz said,
Facts? You haven't posted any either. You haven't posted one single reason as to why this is a good test. Not one.

All you've been doing is spinning peoples words to support your own argument.

How do you know I don't know what I'm talking about when I haven't even begun explaining? Oh yea, that's right.

Nice try though. Go troll some where else please. Neowin has enough.

I've explained everything, hardware is hardware, its not designed to run mac os x its designed to run whatever is compatible.

Mac OS X drivers are made towards the hardware and Windows Supports the same hardware, hence there are drivers from the manufactures for this hardware.

IN THE END its the same hardware as any normal PC!

So no you are actually trolling and not explaining yourself with any facts to back yourself up!

SO post some facts to support yourself? Or don't post at all.

offroadaaron said,


I've explained everything, hardware is hardware, its not designed to run mac os x its designed to run whatever is compatible.

Mac OS X drivers are made towards the hardware and Windows Supports the same hardware, hence there are drivers from the manufactures for this hardware.

IN THE END its the same hardware as any normal PC!

So no you are actually trolling and not explaining yourself with any facts to back yourself up!

SO post some facts to support yourself? Or don't post at all.


It is NOT the same hardware as any normal PC...

Show one PC that has EFI 1.1.
Show one PC that has the Mac keyboard controller chipset.
Show one PC that has the Mac Intel Chipset (yes it is different).
Show one PC that uses a non standard 9600m Geforce GPU, like you find in MacBook?

And we could go through TONS of componets in the Mac from the 'display port' that you don't find on PCs to the lack of hardware features YOU DO find on PCs.

Just having an NVidia card and Intel CPU doesn't make it exactly the same. Truly...

Go read my comments on EFI alone above, please...

---
I know 'Apple' wants people to believe, and a lot of 'people' do believe the architectures are identical, but they are NOT.

Even Apple themselves have issues with variations in their own architectures, look at the SATA controllers, and how they vary from model to model and driver support even in OS X varies based on the SATA controller in the Mac.

These 'specification' differences also exist in the PC world, but have been the ongoing debate of problems that were 'compensated for' or 'fixed'.

Look at ACPI for example, as Vista had problems with some hardware ACPI implementations - why? Because Vista held to the ACPI specifications, and many Mainboard MFRs didn't implemented all the ACPI features, so things broke. Microsoft they got the Mainboard companies to create BIOS updates to fix this, or issue driver patches, and Microsoft has Vista even 'compensate' for many of these non-compliant ACPI systems.

So then you have a whole new 'architecture' that doesn't conform to any PC specifications, unless they want to, and this makes it a very NON-PC hardware setup.

Heck even take CPU versions - there are several revisions of an Intel Duo Core 8500 - some have VT, some don't, some have known processing flaws if they are an early release, the later ones don't. Even these types of discrepencies are massive, and Apple CPU chips are not always even the same revisions or versions you can get in PCs, even though they are technically Intel Duo Core.

A Mac is 'close' to a standard PC, but it is NOT. There are actual 'guidelines' for building a PC, these are designed and updated by companies like Intel, AMD, and Microsoft to name a few. The Mac hardware DOES NOT CONFORM to these standards, nor does Apple even try to, understand?

sigh!

eeepc uses EFI
Non standard 9600m... But nvidia site drivers work fine with it, anyways Windows beat Mac in this area of graphics
Yes the keyboard would just make the different in benchmarking!
Just because certain parts on the outside are different does not mean that the components/ drivers are any different

WTH @ CPU versions every PC has different CPU's and even so if they had flaws they would have them in Windows or Mac OS X...

Wait the designs are updated by companies like Intel that make the chipsets and stuff for Mac? and nvidia that make the graphics ares for Mac...

I don't particularly understand where you are coming from they are both running on the same hardware..... Drivers from the hardware manufactures........

Seeing that this was tested on a Macbook, you can bet the author is an Apple fanboy. And why use two different drives? Just because they have the same specs doesn't make them the same.

TC17 said,
Seeing that this was tested on a Macbook, you can bet the author is an Apple fanboy. And why use two different drives? Just because they have the same specs doesn't make them the same.

That makes no sense, explain?

I don't care which is faster, because Mac OS X will always be, but since I like more Windows because almost any program that I download is compatible, I'd rather choose it than OS X. Plus it run games smoother

needs to be compared directly to Windows 7 on a PC and OSX on the same PC. OSX can be installed on a PC using pc_efi... (some systems perfect vanilla). After benchmarks from that are available the discussion is fair. hdds with identical specs but from different vendors are never identical, that's seems to be false information and I'd like to see the data that proofs it before I believe it.

DerAusgewanderte said,
needs to be compared directly to Windows 7 on a PC and OSX on the same PC.

dude...that is exactly what they have done. A friggen MacBook Pro *IS* a PC!

doug_jnr said,
dude...that is exactly what they have done. A friggen MacBook Pro *IS* a PC!

I am talking about e.g. a Dell, HP or Lenovo, dude. And that can be done as seen in many of the posts under the link in my post above.

DerAusgewanderte said,
I am talking about e.g. a Dell, HP or Lenovo, dude. And that can be done as seen in many of the posts under the link in my post above.

What would be the differents, hardware is hardware, just because its DELL or HP its the same crap in a different packaging.

lol bootcamp....I wonder if that's optimized to run windows at its peak ?
Or setup to run windows slower making your own software look better hmmmmm I wonder lol

LMAO seriously you can't use software from one competitor to run another vendors SW and expect it to be a unbiased comparison.

1. Quicktime X on SL, Quicktime 7 on Windows
This explains Multimedia benchmark

2. 32-bit kernel used on SL
This explains Multimedia benchmark as well as Quicktime X was 32-bit.

3. Bootcamp 3.0 drivers for that particular machine are known to be of poor quality or outdated. Latest official drivers should have been sourced. The drivers also take extra time to start up and shut down.
This explains Boot Time, Shutdown Time and Battery Life benchmark

4. Most notably, that machine is not a good choice due to its dual-gpu configuration. It always runs on 9600 and makes laptop very hot.
Explains Battery Life benchmark

5. Itunes and Quicktime are known to be poorly coded applications in Windows.
This explains iTunes Encoding as well as Multimedia benchmark

There is no reason for these issues to occur. Fix these and the benchmark would not be flawed. Most importantly, (a) hold '6' and '4' when booting SL, (b) download latest official drivers and do not use the Bootcamp drivers, (c ) use a machine without the dual-gpu configuration and finally (d) use cross-platform benchmark application that are coded the same/similiary in both environments (not a port or complete rewrite).

Sacha said,
3. Bootcamp 3.0 drivers for that particular machine are known to be of poor quality or outdated. Latest official drivers should have been sourced. The drivers also take extra time to start up and shut down.
This explains Boot Time, Shutdown Time and Battery Life benchmark


Do you have any real evidence of this?
Not saying its not true....just curious as I run Win 7 on my MBP

What is the point? People are still not going to put out a bucket full of money just because Mac may or may not run faster then Windows. Why wasn't Linux tested against the Mac, or Windows? Why because Linux can't run the test applications unless it is using Wine or a Virtual Machine which wouldn't give the bench mark the proper readings. Also what is the purpose of running Mac native applications on Windows 7? Why not run MS office as the test application, oh, how stupid of me, that's right MS Office is a Microsoft product. Next time fine something that can be used to bench mark all three OS's so we the Geek Community can see which OS is quicker.

Mac users probably boot into windows just for games anyway.

Like I do.

Windows for Games, Snow Leopard for everything else...

(snipped)

Yeah, I don't know why Apple doesn't invest more in gaming. Now they're pretty cool with the iPod Touch and they're starting to sell it as a gaming platform, I thought they would learn that it can change a product from A to Z if it has good games on it or not.

I can't wait for the day Apple gets serious about gaming on OS X. It still remains my best OS, and I always play my games on my PS3 because I have a 50" TV and will never have to worry about the hardware requirements, but still, I want games on OS X

Best way to go.

If you are into laptops there is no point shelling out £2000 for a lappy that will play the latest games with some jerko-vision. PS3 ends all that pain.

Lappies for gaming just isn't worth it imo.

st_tammy said,
Mac users probably boot into windows just for games anyway. Like I do. Windows for Games, Snow Leopard for everything else...

(snipped)

hmmmm... taking a quick look, while I can get a MAC for over $2k with multiple graphics cards, seem to be having a bit of trouble finding an option for a pair or more of the ATI X2s, or anything with decent RAM. No indication they'll have the new 5K X2s either. Oh wellll.... s'pose I could spend that $2k+, buy win7, & run the PacMan clone they're giving away at GOTD.

And I'll get SL after all, which will, ummmm, let me do something manly I'm sure, like cruise the dealnews site looking for a *Cheap* winter coat cause after all I did just spend over $2k... I may shiver & whine all winter long, but I'll do it like a man cause I got SL!
;?P

Quicktime and iTunes? Really? That's what you're benchmarking with?

This benchmark is less than meaningless. Use LAME or something for a fair comparison.

Lets benchmark CNET on the merits of fairness see how they perform.

When it comes to benchmarks, I guess I will wait to see what Toms or Anand has to say.

Macs are still PCs. Run the same tests on a PC with a hackintosh'd snow leopard and you'll get the same results. By the way, itunes may suck on windows, but the piece of code that takes care of encoding an mp3 file (or whatever they did) is probably the same binary (or a very similar one) on both OSX and windows (both 32-bit binaries). Hence the small difference.

Quicktime X and quicktime .. 7 , they shouldn't even have compared those two.

Julius Caro said,
Macs are still PCs...

To do a *REAL* world test comparison, hardware match as close as possible a separate MAC & PC, &/or MacBook & laptop. Then use the fastest app on either platform & compare benches. Or better yet, start out with a set amount of $, and spend that each on the best MAC, win7 PC, & Linux PC you can get, then compare tasks using the fastest software for each platform.

I mean, Quicktime -- c'mon... millions of PCs don't even bother having it installed anymore. Compare how long it takes to get the same vid to AVC for BD. Or make it easier & encode to DVD spec mpg2. And iTunes?... you can have speed, &/or quality encodes -- or you can use iTunes. You wanna compare gaming, it's only fair (& realistic) if you pick your favorite game(s), regardless if it's available for MAC or not.

Running both operating systems on a single machine with the same specs make the test more fair.

You couldn't do it on a PC though!

robert_dll said,
This should be named "Windows 7 vs Snow Leopard ON A MAC benchmarks"

No it should be HARDWARE IS THE SAME AND WE BENCHED WINDOWS AND SNOW LEOPARD

Doesn't matter what machine you bench it on as long as its the same hardware.

You know what? I'm not exactly a mac fanboy, I dont have a mac (though there is one in my house) and I dont use snow leopard.

But just install SL the 'hackintosh' way on a PC that also has windows, snow leopard will still boot faster and have a better battery life. I had a hackintosh leopard and it got me to my desktop faster than any other OS on my computer. I got rid of it, and windows 7 still rocks. But I can accept hard facts, too.


I'd say that OS X having better battery life and boot times is, at this stage, an indisputable fact. 'Bootcamp' or 'hackintosh' discussions aside, those mac laptops ALWAYS had better battery life than windows pc laptops running with similar li-ion batteries.

That actually would have been very interesting - to test Win7 and Snow Leopard (hackintoshified) on a separate system. It probably would have yielded a lawsuit from Apple, though.

Ledgem said,
That actually would have been very interesting - to test Win7 and Snow Leopard (hackintoshified) on a separate system. It probably would have yielded a lawsuit from Apple, though.

Apple wouldn't like that at all, they'd lose and have the software pirated.

Julius Caro said,
...

But just install SL the 'hackintosh' way on a PC that also has windows, snow leopard will still boot faster and have a better battery life. I had a hackintosh leopard and it got me to my desktop faster than any other OS on my computer. I got rid of it, and windows 7 still rocks. But I can accept hard facts, too.

...

Actually no, as then OSX has an unfair disadvantage as it wasn't designed specifically for that machine.

The Teej said,

Actually no, as then OSX has an unfair disadvantage as it wasn't designed specifically for that machine.

Nor was Windows Specifically Designed for that machine though... so your point is?

The Teej said,

Actually no, as then OSX has an unfair disadvantage as it wasn't designed specifically for that machine.

Well, try it. People seem to be ignoring the fact that macs have pc chipsets, pc processors, pc GPUs, pc memory, evertyhing. The only difference is that there is an EFI instead of a BIOS.

I've tried it myself (leopard, vista and ubuntu), and leopard booted faster than the rest, on a PC. Leopard, in the 'unfair disadvantage' of a modified kernel, and without installing EFI on my PC, still booted faster.

Julius Caro said,
Well, try it. People seem to be ignoring the fact that macs have pc chipsets, pc processors, pc GPUs, pc memory, evertyhing. The only difference is that there is an EFI instead of a BIOS.

I've tried it myself (leopard, vista and ubuntu), and leopard booted faster than the rest, on a PC. Leopard, in the 'unfair disadvantage' of a modified kernel, and without installing EFI on my PC, still booted faster.

People normally push that Macs are overpriced and running the same hardware. Now it's all different when a benchmark like this pops up? I don't know how people say that Windows on a Mac is crippled; people always say how Windows flies under Bootcamp. I guess people just change their tune to fit their argument. And Julius, thanks for your test, which no one, as of yet, has responded to with the drivel that is all over the comments.

Julius Caro said,


Well, try it. People seem to be ignoring the fact that macs have pc chipsets, pc processors, pc GPUs, pc memory, evertyhing. The only difference is that there is an EFI instead of a BIOS.

I've tried it myself (leopard, vista and ubuntu), and leopard booted faster than the rest, on a PC. Leopard, in the 'unfair disadvantage' of a modified kernel, and without installing EFI on my PC, still booted faster.


You do know that technically boot times have less to do with the OS than the hardware and the OS 'paired' to the hardware?

For example, OS X would boot faster on a machine than Win7, where OS X wasn't seeing or even acknowleding many of the legacy devices on the system, where Win7 would be setting and loading the drivers for all the legacy devices from old COM and LPT ports to PC Floppy controllers and other things many people don't even think about or often even realize are present in their hardware even if they don't have a Floppy drive or a LPT port on the computer, as the chipset has all this legacy stufff built in.

So on an average system with all this legacy device crap in the chipset, Win7 by definition will boot slower, as assumes the devices are real and loads them whether you use them or not.

However, if you take a non-legacy PC, that doesn't have the 'extra' legacy devices, the boot time differences between Win7 and OS X become a different story all together.

Even without 'admitting' to hackintosh testing, I can give this example...

Machine #1:
Netbook PC (Slow Atom CPU, 1GB RAM) However - no-legacy devices - Win7 boots to desktop where you can open a browser in about 16secs.

Machine #2:
Desktop PC (Fast Intel CPU, 4GM RAM) However - chipset has legacy devices like Floppy controller, and LPT, COM, etc - Win7 boots to desktop where you can open a browser in about 28secs.

In theory Machine #2 should be significantly faster, and it is at everything but boot times.

So you see, Win7's compatibility is also it's bitch when it comes to just focusing on boot times, especially with mainboards that have chipsets with lots of legacy device support.

And OS X doesn't notice the legacy crap on the Intel platform, nor does it even take time to test for it or take time to load drivers or initialize the legacy devices.

So OS X on Machine #2 is about 6secs faster than Win7 at booting. However on the Netbook, OS X is about 15secs slower than Win7 booting.

Make sense?

PS. Do people really reboot computer more than once a month at the most anymore? There is a reason sleep and hibernate work well, and why on even a Netbook I have with me everyday wasn't rebooted since August, as I just sleep or hibernate the machine 10-100 times a day. And it was finaly rebooted for the first time Since August for the first Win7 security updates this week.

So seriously, boot times are kind of worthless anymore, even on a machine like a netbook you are powering on and off all day long. They are even more worthless when things don't crash like they use to. Back in the Win9x days, crashes and reboots were a daily thing, since XP and especially Vista/Win7, they are non-existent unless the computer's hardware is failing.

Take Care...

Funny how "Multimedia Multitasking" was tested using Quicktime. I've never had the Windows version of Quicktime perform well. Even using Quicktime Alternative through WMP runs better. And to make matters worse, it was QuickTime X on MacOSX, and QuickTime 7 on Windows. Hardly a true comparison.

Why don't they try something that's not skewed, like Photoshop?

GP007 said,
I suppose you're limited on the OSX side as to how many apps you can use eh?

While their are less apps for OS X, there are enough cross platform apps to replicate this test properly. Audacity for audio encoding and Handbrake for video encoding instantly come to mind.

geoken said,
While their are less apps for OS X, there are enough cross platform apps to replicate this test properly. Audacity for audio encoding and Handbrake for video encoding instantly come to mind.


That sounds good to me, I am one of those who see the flaws in the test above. But in the end it's CNet, not the place I run to for reviews or benchmarks.

JonathanMarston said,
Funny how "Multimedia Multitasking" was tested using Quicktime. I've never had the Windows version of Quicktime perform well. Even using Quicktime Alternative through WMP runs better. And to make matters worse, it was QuickTime X on MacOSX, and QuickTime 7 on Windows. Hardly a true comparison.

Why don't they try something that's not skewed, like Photoshop?


This is why they don't use Adobe for benchmarks, as it pokes holes in the reality distortion bubble:

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=167680

Seriously though, Adobe themselves CONTINUE to show and benchmark and explain why OS X cannot run the same applications as fast as Windows. This goes back to when OS X was a PowerPC only platform, and Adobe found Windows and Intel massively faster.

Now that OS X is an Intel based OS, Adobe again states and shows that OS X is still slower at raw computing.

The link I provided is an older test, as the newer onces comparing OS X and Windows when running Adobe applications can be significantly even faster on Windows, as with CS4 Adobe supports 64bit on Windows.

(Also Adobe couldn't even do 64bit on OS X because of Apple dropping the 64bit version of the development platform Adobe was using, and the fact OS X is not a full 64bit OS. Snow Leopard gets closer, but 99.999% of users are still not running the 64bit kernel of OS X. So on OS X 64bit only = more memory address space, not 64bit computing chunks.)

Is SL running with a 32 or 64-bit kernal in these tests? Also why is Windows installed on different drive? Why not just install it on the same stock drive?

You're right. My computer reboots in 61 seconds. And I have a weaker computer than they are testing. And I have some quite programs in startup.

Crucify said,
HAHA, as Glendi said.
When doing this the Windows partition is put on the slowest part of the drive. "Fact"

Each OS was put on a separate drive, so the partitioning scheme shouldn't have had a major hit on performance.

5Horizons said,

Each OS was put on a separate drive, so the partitioning scheme shouldn't have had a major hit on performance.

No, Bootcamp reserves the fastest part of drive "edge" for Apple O/S regardless if it's alone on a separate HD

One would believe we are not on a Tech website right now... People are so clueless, it's astonishing.

How in the world can one part of a drive be slower than another?

PsykX said,
One would believe we are not on a Tech website right now... People are so clueless, it's astonishing.

How in the world can one part of a drive be slower than another? :

the inner side of the hard disk is slower then the outer side of the disk
and this is a fact

Crucify said,

No, Bootcamp reserves the fastest part of drive "edge" for Apple O/S regardless if it's alone on a separate HD

Nah that placed Windows on 1 drive and Mac OS X on another, so the test hard drive wise was performed correctly but on 2 different drives (company, model)

PsykX said,
One would believe we are not on a Tech website right now... People are so clueless, it's astonishing.

How in the world can one part of a drive be slower than another?


The inner of the drive is smaller which = less time to seek and transfer data, but its marginal anyways.

PsykX said,
One would believe we are not on a Tech website right now... People are so clueless, it's astonishing.

How in the world can one part of a drive be slower than another?


As the disk rotates logically it would make sense that the outer part of the disk moves faster than the inner part, right? Well it's a fact that the outer parts of the disk read faster than the inner parts. This is why Windows will purposely begin data location at the outer part then work its way in which is why drives get measurably slower as they get fuller. This is a fact.

This is one of the many reasons SSD's have an advantage over traditional HDD's.

Crucify said,
No, Bootcamp reserves the fastest part of drive "edge" for Apple O/S regardless if it's alone on a separate HD

You have no need for Boot Camp Assistant in the first place if you're installing Windows on a separate HD. You just pop-in the Windows 7 Install DVD > restart using that > Let the Windows Installer format the target drive and install Windows. So what are you talking about?

macs have specific hardware, try re-doing the bench marks with a core i7 and 8gb ram vs the most poweful mac and also do it without bootcamp, then we'll see who's laughing :P

I love Windows 7 and all. I know this testing is unfair to Windows. But run osx86 on that system to do benchmarks then if you feel Macs don't have good drivers, hardware, etc.

Electric Jolt said,
I love Windows 7 and all. I know this testing is unfair to Windows. But run osx86 on that system to do benchmarks then if you feel Macs don't have good drivers, hardware, etc.

WRONG!

It not unfair to Windows at all, its running Native Windows 7 VS Native Mac OS X on the same hardware.

offroadaaron said,
WRONG!

It not unfair to Windows at all, its running Native Windows 7 VS Native Mac OS X on the same hardware.

Maybe. But I'll believe when I see the same comparison on a generic non-Apple desktop.

RealFduch said,

Maybe. But I'll believe when I see the same comparison on a generic non-Apple desktop.


(snipped) Hardware is hardware Apple or not, whats so hard to understand about that?

You guys don't get it either it seems. While the main BootCamp app is a nice looking GUI that helps you partition your hard drive, the requirements needed to run Windows on a Mac are quite clear, if you care to look for them as well.

Fact: You need BIOS compatibility and a MBR partition table to boot Windows

Both Windows XP and Windows Vista rely on the good old BIOS to boot on 32-bit platforms. They also require a MBR partition table to boot (hybrid GPT/MBR is fine as usual).

Microsoft has announced that they plan to support native UEFI 2.0 booting in a future service pack for the 64-bit version of Windows Vista. Presently, that excludes all Intel Macs because Apple̢۪s firmware is based on EFI 1.10, not UEFI 2.0. Core Solo and Core Duo models are 32-bit only, and have no chance of using this, ever. Core 2 based models could work in the future if Apple releases UEFI-compatible firmware updates for them.

Now unless your mac has been updated to UEFI and so on, then you're using an extra emulation layer to get windows to run. This may or may not be the case on your Mac. That I don't know. Regardless of the whole BIOS and EFI/UEFI bit, there are other parts to the above test that are bogus regardless.

You would emulate something to get Windows to actually boot/run but then after that its all by itself.

eeepc's use EFI as well to boot. I don't think it has any bearing on tests to be honest but if you can explain it better I'm listening.

offroadaaron said,
You would emulate something to get Windows to actually boot/run but then after that its all by itself.

eeepc's use EFI as well to boot. I don't think it has any bearing on tests to be honest but if you can explain it better I'm listening.


There is nothing wrong with EFI...

The problem is that Apple BootCamp basically does a 'shunt' to mimic BIOS instead of letting x64 of Win7 natively just use EFI. So by putting a 'translation layer' to mimic older BIOS, as BootCamp does, it is going to destroy performance, and that is assuming the BootCamp 'shunt' is well designed and optimized, which it actually is pretty crappy.

So the hardware may be the same, but Win7 in these test is running in a non-native EFI mode, and is using BootCamp to shunt/translate/fake a non-EFI BIOS mechnism.

And this doesn't even get into the really bad drivers versions BootCamp isntalls and it also doesn't even get into the select Apple based software used for testing that isn't even the same versions, nor is something like Quicktime optimized for Windows, as it is a very generic port.

So EFI isn't bad, the way Apple's BootCamp handles EFI emulation is bad, and it also is NOT NEEDED on Vista x64 or Win7, as they support EFI, and can even be forced to support the EFI 1.1 that Macs use, when UEFI is what is primarily used outside of Mac world on PCs, like the eeepc you cite probably does.


EFI is not something entirely foreign to Windows, as there were Toshiba Laptops in 2001/2002 that used an early form of EFI, and suppied a GOOD driver for WindowsXP, and it worked well, and those systems even back then with slow P4m CPUs booted in 15-20 seconds because of the EFI structures and the lack of the legacy devices and legacy BIOS.

Make more sense?

thenetavenger said,

There is nothing wrong with EFI...

The problem is that Apple BootCamp basically does a 'shunt' to mimic BIOS instead of letting x64 of Win7 natively just use EFI. So by putting a 'translation layer' to mimic older BIOS, as BootCamp does, it is going to destroy performance, and that is assuming the BootCamp 'shunt' is well designed and optimized, which it actually is pretty crappy.

So the hardware may be the same, but Win7 in these test is running in a non-native EFI mode, and is using BootCamp to shunt/translate/fake a non-EFI BIOS mechnism.

And this doesn't even get into the really bad drivers versions BootCamp isntalls and it also doesn't even get into the select Apple based software used for testing that isn't even the same versions, nor is something like Quicktime optimized for Windows, as it is a very generic port.

So EFI isn't bad, the way Apple's BootCamp handles EFI emulation is bad, and it also is NOT NEEDED on Vista x64 or Win7, as they support EFI, and can even be forced to support the EFI 1.1 that Macs use, when UEFI is what is primarily used outside of Mac world on PCs, like the eeepc you cite probably does.


EFI is not something entirely foreign to Windows, as there were Toshiba Laptops in 2001/2002 that used an early form of EFI, and suppied a GOOD driver for WindowsXP, and it worked well, and those systems even back then with slow P4m CPUs booted in 15-20 seconds because of the EFI structures and the lack of the legacy devices and legacy BIOS.

Make more sense?


Explain how Apple created (even though they didn't intel did) this bad EFI?

Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is the firmware-based replacement for the PC BIOS from Intel. Designed by Intel, it was chosen by Apple to replace Open Firmware, used on PowerPC architectures. Since many operating systems, such as Windows XP and many versions of Windows Vista are incompatible with EFI, Apple has released a firmware upgrade with a compatibility support module that provides a subset of traditional BIOS support with their Boot Camp product.

It doesn't actually emulate anything so there is no degraded performance.

Manmohanjit Singh said,
Snow Leopard users may get better performance, but I am really not a fan of Mac's, whats so cool about it?

Mac's what? What does he have and am I missing out by not having it?

Wow I've never realized people were so clueless about what Bootcamp is. Like giga said it's a special interface for Disk Utility to repartition your hard drive and then burn a CD with the drivers on it. You can safely delete Bootcamp from your mac and still boot into Windows (and you can install Windows without Bootcamp).

The drivers provided by Bootcamp are the same ones provided by the hardware manufacturer (eg: Nvidia video card), alternatively you can go and download the drivers yourself (you won't be able to find Apple specific drivers like HFS+ drivers etc etc).

Rudy said,
The drivers provided by Bootcamp are the same ones provided by the hardware manufacturer

1) why Bootcamp has version 3.0 if it's so simple?
2) did you know there are older and newer drivers?
3) what about battery and other perfomance-related drivers? Doesn't Apple create them?

RealFduch said,
1) why Bootcamp has version 3.0 if it's so simple?
2) did you know there are older and newer drivers?
3) what about battery and other perfomance-related drivers? Doesn't Apple create them?

1) Driver updates, most companies do them
2) you can check the version if you like
3) Apple can create some but its mostly up to the Windows 7 and the hardware in the long run.

RealFduch said,
1) why Bootcamp has version 3.0 if it's so simple?
2) did you know there are older and newer drivers?
3) what about battery and other perfomance-related drivers? Doesn't Apple create them?

1) If I remember correctly, 1.0 was the one released for Tiger (preview version), 2.0 was for Leopard and 3.0 is for Snow Leopard
2) You are free to install newer drivers, it won't break anything
3) Actually the chipsets etc are all made by Intel (and nvidia in some newer macs) and the drivers come from them not Apple (Apple only puts them in a nice package that installs everything at once)

"CNet.com has benchmarked Windows 7 and Snow Leopard using the same hardware to test both operating systems."

"Windows 7 64-bit was running on Boot Camp 3.0"

Stopped right there.

SVG said,
lol.. they've strategically written it at the end :P

Oh and also let's test iTunes and Quicktime, both Apple software. How pathetic.

EXACTLY

Boot Camp 3.0, just like all previous versions is HORRIBLE. Odd glitches everywhere, you run those same marks on an equally equiped dell, you are going to get much better results.

I can say that battery life is horrible on the macbooks running bootcamp, they lock the video card to the power hungry and burning hot 9600, not the cool running 9400 (the system has two graphic chips). This causes the system to act odd when you use it for more than a few minutes as the internal temp skyrockets to 90+ degrees C.

The system drivers are also out of date.

Not a fair test in the least.

Glendi said,
"CNet.com has benchmarked Windows 7 and Snow Leopard using the same hardware to test both operating systems."

"Windows 7 64-bit was running on Boot Camp 3.0"

Stopped right there.

Yeah, we all know it's always better to benchmark 2 different operating systems on 2 different computers...

Btw, Boot Camp 3.0 is actually the first one that works flawlessly for me. I don't know why the guy above me said it's horrible. It finally WORKS.

Eh? what's wrong with boot camp?

It just creates a boot partition for windows to run and installs drivers (which it does for Windows 7 64bit)

Nothing to slow it down there.

Glendi said,
"CNet.com has benchmarked Windows 7 and Snow Leopard using the same hardware to test both operating systems."

"Windows 7 64-bit was running on Boot Camp 3.0"

Stopped right there.

And with that said, Windows 7 does amazingly well, even when running on a wannabe virtual machine!

dimithrak said,

And with that said, Windows 7 does amazingly well, even when running on a wannabe virtual machine!

Virtual machine?

sonyman said,
Virtual machine?

Boot camp is NOT a virtual machine! LOL. It just creates a drive partition for Windows and installs necessary drivers! Haven't you installed more than 1 OS on a single system? Boot Camp simply helps you do it painlessly.

Sheesh!

Test was fair and Windows is was found to lag behind SL. get over it!

Ah, so he wasn't complaining the test was made on the same machine. He thought Boot Camp was a virtual machine?

(snipped)

st_tammy said,
Test was fair and Windows is was found to lag behind SL. get over it!


It lags behind as far as OSX-optimized Apple-Software is concerned, that's hardly noteworthy. Additionally my PC is about as powerful as the MBP and shuts down waaay faster than 12 seconds and it's no secret that there are a few compatibility problems with Boot Camp.

st_tammy said,
Eh? what's wrong with boot camp?

It just creates a boot partition for windows to run and installs drivers (which it does for Windows 7 64bit)

a) While very thin, BootCamp does incorporate an emulation layer. It must do bios emulatiuon (on top of EFI)

b) Due to the minor hardware differences, you are relying on using Apple sourced drivers for many core system components. The quality of these drivers has been suspect since bootcamp first released and Windows users where reporting I/O performance significantly slower (like half the speed) of what they would obtain on similar hardware.

st_tammy said,
Boot camp is NOT a virtual machine! LOL. It just creates a drive partition for Windows and installs necessary drivers! Haven't you installed more than 1 OS on a single system? Boot Camp simply helps you do it painlessly.

Sheesh!

Test was fair and Windows is was found to lag behind SL. get over it!

It was? I saw Windows handily defeat OS X in two applications, loose in iTunes encoding (iTunes is known to be slow as hell on Windows) and loose at video transcoding while using a completely different (read: older) version of quicktime.

Doesn't seem that clear cut to me. If they re-did the test with Handbrake for transcoding video and Audacity for audio conversion it would have some merit.

Glendi said,
"CNet.com has benchmarked Windows 7 and Snow Leopard using the same hardware to test both operating systems."

"Windows 7 64-bit was running on Boot Camp 3.0"

Stopped right there.

Yeah, same here. That was laughable...

PsykX said,
Yeah, we all know it's always better to benchmark 2 different operating systems on 2 different computers...

Btw, Boot Camp 3.0 is actually the first one that works flawlessly for me. I don't know why the guy above me said it's horrible. It finally WORKS.

Boot Camp does have virtualization, and it needs Apple-made drivers. check out most common problems of Boot Camp and come tell me again that it does none other than 'just helping install Windows'.

PsykX said,
I don't know why the guy above me said it's horrible. It finally WORKS.

Because works and WORKS WELL are two entirely different things...

Any proper benchmark protocol must make sure the hardware, drivers, and then CODE being benched are identical, or else the results are INVALID.

Outdated Bootcamp drivers (even if they now finally work better than they initially did) can invalidate the results.

Using two different versions of QuickTime (one newly accelerated, one not), completely invalidates the results.

32-bit vs. 64-bit can invalidate the results.

Etc. etc.

st_tammy said,
Boot camp is NOT a virtual machine! LOL. It just creates a drive partition for Windows and installs necessary drivers! Haven't you installed more than 1 OS on a single system? Boot Camp simply helps you do it painlessly.

Sheesh!

Test was fair and Windows is was found to lag behind SL. get over it!


Wow. I don't even know where to begin pointing out how wrong you are. It's just so easy that it almost seems like you're looking for something....TROLL!

Tim Dawg said,

Wow. I don't even know where to begin pointing out how wrong you are. It's just so easy that it almost seems like you're looking for something....TROLL!

UUUMMM someone doesn't know what boot camp is.

Boot camp is just a GUI partition program which after partitioning lets you burn drivers for Windows.

Boot Camp has nothing to do with the install process its just a nice name badge for people like you do think its something special.

Ryanlm said,
EXACTLY

Boot Camp 3.0, just like all previous versions is HORRIBLE. Odd glitches everywhere, you run those same marks on an equally equiped dell, you are going to get much better results.

I can say that battery life is horrible on the macbooks running bootcamp, they lock the video card to the power hungry and burning hot 9600, not the cool running 9400 (the system has two graphic chips). This causes the system to act odd when you use it for more than a few minutes as the internal temp skyrockets to 90+ degrees C.

The system drivers are also out of date.

Not a fair test in the least.


They do lock the GPU drivers to 100%, but additionally, they don't use the hybrid NVidia drivers that Vista and Win7 natively support that allows the OS to flip to the lower powered GPU on the fly. (Which OS X cannot even do without restarting the GUI and logging the person off.)

At the very least the BootCamp drivers are BAD, and is why a lot of techs tend to think that not only are they sloppy bad, but Apple intentionally uses the worest drivers or retards the drivers they provide in BootCamp.

If you take and replace what drivers you can on a Mac and stay away from the BootCamp 'crap', Windows Vista and Windows7 run about 25-50% faster than OS X for most benchmarks.

Anyone that thinks OSX is a faster OS, obviously has never seen a benchmark analysis from a company like Adobe, where they basically are shoving RAW computing at the CPU through the operating system, and it shows that OS X is significantly slower. (Notice even this article when doing raw rendering tests - that Windows even on BootCamp crap outpaces OS X easily.)

There are reasons people should 'like' and 'use' OS X, but performance over other OSes is not one of them. If you like OS X and Macs for the UI or the Apple brand, or whatever, that is why you buy a Mac, you don't use OS X for performance.

As for pure performance, in the professional world, even movie studios that use Final Cut and other OS X based tools almost ALWAYS, do the final rendering and processing on a Windows NT or Linux based system.

They do this because they need it rendered FAST, and OS X is horrid at raw data crunching, especially when dealing with multi-CPU systems, as OS X has the fatal FUNNEL LOCK flaws that prevent more than one CPU core from being used most of the time. (Reference XNU/Darwin OS X Funnel Locks)

Kirkburn said,
Wait, what? Are you reading a different article to us?

Personally I completely agree with toadeater

Just wonder how easy it is to manipulate most of you, guys. I'm sure the article like the one above brings much more result to the Microsoft marketing team than one written about "how far ahead is Windows over MacOS".

That's what in real world is called "black PR" and "provocation"

artfuldodga said,
sorry but try using a comparable PC next time, instead of an Apple PC, the results will surprise you ;)


Umm, it was bootcamp on a Mac, so same hardware for both test. Apple uses the same hardware the rest of the industry does, can't get more comparable than the "same".

bob_c_b said,
Umm, it was bootcamp on a Mac, so same hardware for both test. Apple uses the same hardware the rest of the industry does, can't get more comparable than the "same".

The problem is that BootCamp drivers are known to be of poor quality. If you spec'd a computer identically to a MacBook, then did hardware specific benchmarks on various components (but especially HD reads/writes) you'd see how the drivers are bad. The author of the article himself states that battery performance decreased with the newest bootcamp drivers.

geoken said,
The problem is that BootCamp drivers are known to be of poor quality. If you spec'd a computer identically to a MacBook, then did hardware specific benchmarks on various components (but especially HD reads/writes) you'd see how the drivers are bad. The author of the article himself states that battery performance decreased with the newest bootcamp drivers.

Drivers are fine and can be updated at will anyways just like any other Windows based PC, the boot camp drivers are nothing special they are just the drivers provided by the manufactures of the hardware which Apple use. Complain to them not Apple because its the same for every other machine out there using those drivers LOL.

offroadaaron said,
Drivers are fine and can be updated at will anyways just like any other Windows based PC, the boot camp drivers are nothing special they are just the drivers provided by the manufactures of the hardware which Apple use. Complain to them not Apple because its the same for every other machine out there using those drivers LOL.


Actually, No...

The drivers are NOT directly provided by the hardware MFRs. Apple controls the drivers the average Mac user gets and uses for bootcamp, JUST AS THIS PERSON DID.

There are drivers for various chipsets and components that can be 'sourced' from the MFRs, but this person DID NOT.

If you do a bit of testing yourself, or even READ on the internet, when you replace the Apple Boot Camp drivers with what you can from the MFRs, you will find that Windows's performance has a massive increase, which is why you find many tech people questioning what Apple is doing to 'retard' the drivers and if they are doing it on purpose.

This is especially true of the battery differences that many Mac owners complain about, as they get about 1/2 the battery time on Windows that they do on OS X, yet Windows has a more advanced power management system that the Apple drivers DO NOT USE properly.

If you even just look at the NOTES from the article, the person set the power management of Win7 to HIGH, and then goes on to show that OS X does better on battery performance.

On Windows BALANCED is the proper power profile to use for desktops and notebooks, as it ramps up to 100% really fast and then suspends to virtually no GPU/CPU usage. (Of course unless the drivers don't let it do it, like the Apple Boot Camp GPU drivers fail to do properly.)

When you use HIGH for the power management, it LOCKS the CPU to 100% as the minimum, so the CPU can NOT step down to an idle state. Which means that the battery tests from this article are worthless at the very least.

As for architecture and drivers, there is a lot of things DIFFERENT on a Mac, even if it has a standard Intel CPU. For example, the EFI architecture of Macs present a very specific difference in environment that is VERY specfic to the Mac.

The BootCamp drivers for EFI also use a 'shunt' instead of letting Windows7 or Vista natively use their EFI support, which could also be problematic and staving the OS of performance to translate the EFI loaded driver sets. (Apple does this because XP and 32bit Vista doesn't have native EFI support.)

thenetavenger said,
Actually, No...

The drivers are NOT directly provided by the hardware MFRs. Apple controls the drivers the average Mac user gets and uses for bootcamp, JUST AS THIS PERSON DID.

There are drivers for various chipsets and components that can be 'sourced' from the MFRs, but this person DID NOT.

As for architecture and drivers, there is a lot of things DIFFERENT on a Mac, even if it has a standard Intel CPU. For example, the EFI architecture of Macs present a very specific difference in environment that is VERY specfic to the Mac.

The BootCamp drivers for EFI also use a 'shunt' instead of letting Windows7 or Vista natively use their EFI support, which could also be problematic and staving the OS of performance to translate the EFI loaded driver sets. (Apple does this because XP and 32bit Vista doesn't have native EFI support.)

Drivers are supplied by the manufactures weather you like it or not, it is no different to installing drivers on a normal PC Apple control the drivers (no) they provide the average user with the drivers.

If EFI is sooo special how come Windows 7 has EFI Support?

Also the BIOS that your talking about that is apparently emulated is not and is create by intel and used by Apple so that Windows that do not support EFI can be loaded, but it is infact not emulating or slowing the OS down in any kind of way!

Extensible Firmware Interface
Main article: Extensible Firmware Interface

Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) is the firmware-based replacement for the PC BIOS from Intel. Designed by Intel, it was chosen by Apple to replace Open Firmware, used on PowerPC architectures. Since many operating systems, such as Windows XP and many versions of Windows Vista are incompatible with EFI, Apple has released a firmware upgrade with a compatibility support module that provides a subset of traditional BIOS support with their Boot Camp product.


I don't know where you are pulling this information from but it is in fact incorrect.

thenetavenger said,
This is especially true of the battery differences that many Mac owners complain about, as they get about 1/2 the battery time on Windows that they do on OS X, yet Windows has a more advanced power management system that the Apple drivers DO NOT USE properly.

If you even just look at the NOTES from the article, the person set the power management of Win7 to HIGH, and then goes on to show that OS X does better on battery performance.

On Windows BALANCED is the proper power profile to use for desktops and notebooks, as it ramps up to 100% really fast and then suspends to virtually no GPU/CPU usage. (Of course unless the drivers don't let it do it, like the Apple Boot Camp GPU drivers fail to do properly.)

When you use HIGH for the power management, it LOCKS the CPU to 100% as the minimum, so the CPU can NOT step down to an idle state. Which means that the battery tests from this article are worthless at the very least.

Power was set to Max on both OS's

There is no power management stuff that the Mac hardware doesn't use, its hardware LOL it just gets told to calculate stuff.

I seriously don't know where you come up with this stuff.

Examinus said,
Brilliant, there's nothing I love more than multimedia multi-tasking, shutting down, booting and iTunes encoding.


Haha, exactly

brent3000 said,
why would anyone who has 64bit use itunes to encode any way :S

Because after putting two wins in the Windows column he knew he had to do something to rack up points for OS X. Encoding with bloatTunes and using an outdated version of QuickTime were just what the doctor ordered.

yeeeah... like encoding with bloatTunes is a standard of encoding speed and quality. LOL!
Ohhh, I forgot that if they would have done the test with LAME on both platform, the PC would have crushed the Mac. This benchmark should be moved to the joke section.... seriously

doug_jnr
please enlighten us

Will post it here since it is the actual flaws of this benchmark and how to improve them. I am not saying Bootcamp is invalid, just flawed in this case.

1. Quicktime X on SL, Quicktime 7 on Windows -> This explains Multimedia benchmark
2. 32-bit kernel used on SL -> This explains Multimedia benchmark as well as Quicktime X was 32-bit.
3. Bootcamp 3.0 drivers for that particular machine are known to be of poor quality or outdated. Latest official drivers should have been sourced. The drivers also take extra time to start up and shut down. -> This explains Boot Time, Shutdown Time and Battery Life benchmark
4. Most notably, that machine is not a good choice due to its dual-gpu configuration. It always runs on 9600 and makes laptop very hot. -> Explains Battery Life benchmark
5. Itunes and Quicktime are known to be a poorly coded application in Windows (on purpose?). -> This explains iTunes Encoding as well as Multimedia benchmark

There is no reason for these issues to occur. Fix these and the benchmark would not be flawed. Most importantly, (a) hold '6' and '4' when booting SL, (b) download latest official drivers and do not use the Bootcamp drivers, © use a machine without the dual-gpu configuration and finally (d) use cross-platform benchmark application that are coded the same/similiary in both environments (not a port or complete rewrite).

This is such a fail test. As if the Windows and Mac implementations of QuickTime and iTunes are same. If you really must test, test apps on a cross-platform runtime and apps that are neither from Apple nor Microsoft. It's established from Anandtech's balanced and thorough tests and other benchmarks that OS X has superior battery life management.

tuxplorer said,
As if the Windows and Mac implementations of QuickTime and iTunes are same. If you really must test, test apps on a cross-platform runtime and apps that are neither from Apple nor Microsoft.

Going further, they didn't even test the same version of the app. How can you test multimedia encoding under QuickTime 7 on one OS, then QuickTime X (which boasts significant performance increases) on another OS and claim the OS, and not the difference in apps, is the source of the disparity?

tuxplorer said,
This is such a fail test. As if the Windows and Mac implementations of QuickTime and iTunes are same. If you really must test, test apps on a cross-platform runtime and apps that are neither from Apple nor Microsoft. It's established from Anandtech's balanced and thorough tests and other benchmarks that OS X has superior battery life management.

haha! so true... Quicktime and iTunes for Windows is just bloatware and you obviously can't compare it to the OSX version. Now, try comparing compressing an album on iTunes on OSX and with LAME+Foobar (V0 setting) on a PC. I am ready to bet my life that the results will crush OSX iTunes in no time (with a better quality output, that is a given). Now, for multimedia multitasking, this is just ridiculous. On my Mac here, I struggle to open a x264 1080p movie, whereas on my PC here with MPC-HC, I opened 10 playing at the same time, without any lag, and just gave up opening any other because I was already bored.
Anyway, whaaaaat a biased benchmark, this is pure bull****. Mac is for the girlfriend and the PC is the core of the house, workhorse and HTPC, final.

worst benchmark review ive ever seen
Different specs, bootcamp, everythings just wrong
mac fanboys are getting DESPERATE if thats what theyre resorting to, oh wait, lying is still the only thing apple and its mindless zealots have been able to do to attract new users

Thanks for the points Sacha! Saves the rest of us some time from pointing out the obvious flaws in this test for the Mac fanboys out there. I just can't believe CNet did this. I thought they were a reputable and unbiased source but now I'm not so sure.