It's a very good time to be a Mac user. Our current OS, updated
recently to version 10.5.6, is fast, stable, and a joy to use even in
mixed platform settings. Current Apple hardware is sleek, attractive,
and, if not inexpensive, at least represents good value when compared
to similar first-tier (meaning premium) PC equivalents.
The corresponding popularity of OS X and the Mac and disappointment
with Windows Vista lead many, including Low End Mac's Simon Royal, to
believe that Vista is a bad OS and that this is a lousy time to be a PC
user.
Actually, the truth is not quite so cut and dry.
In his article, Simon compared the performance of an 867 MHz Titanium PowerBook
with 768 MB of RAM running Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" to the
performance of a 2.0 GHz Core Duo
Toshiba Satellite Pro running Vista, most likely the home premium
version, with 1.0 GB of RAM.
We know from the specifications of the PowerBook that it barely
meets the specifications for Leopard (867 MHz G4, 512 MB of RAM). We
can assume that the Leopard system is a fairly clean installation, as
Macs do not need antivirus and the like, and Apple doesn't install
crapware on either its computers or as part of its OS installers.
What about the Toshiba? Who knows?
Does it have a dedicated GPU that is required for good graphics
performance under Vista? An 867 MHz TiBook has a dedicated GPU that,
while far from cutting edge, is fully supported by Leopard and is up to
most of the graphical requirements. What video card is in the Toshiba?
Is it one of the
"lawsuit laptops" that had Intel's GMA 900 integrated graphics, was
sold as Vista Capable, but is not actually capable of running the Aero
interface at all? It is very possible as the original Core Duo of 2006
is contemporary with both GMA 900, which cannot run Aero, and the
Aero-capable GMA 950, which actually runs Aero rather well on my
daughter's Core 2
Duo MacBook with the same graphics chip.
Bloatware
There is also the question of bloatware. The Toshiba, like most PCs,
probably came loaded down with all sorts of crapware, and if you add to
that a resource intensive antivirus app and a bunch of downloaded
crapware - toolbars and the like - then yes, even a fast Core Duo with
1 GB of RAM will be dog slow.
Another issue with Vista speed is the installation of Vista itself.
If the computer is brand new, it will be extremely slow while Vista
indexes the hard drive. Of course, Leopard does the same thing when
newly installed on a Mac, which results in similar system slowdown.
Leopard vs. Vista
I did my own comparison and got very different results than Simon.
To show how big a role configuration plays, I used a faster Mac and a
slower PC - much slower - than he did.
On the Mac side, I went a step up from the minimum and put Leopard
on my 5-year-old 1.0 GHz
12" PowerBook G4. This machine has a Quartz Extreme and Core Image
capable dedicated graphics card (Nvidia GeForce FX5200 GO) with 32 MB
of dedicated RAM. In addition to the 133 MHz faster processor on my
PowerBook compared to Simon's, I also have 1.25 GB of RAM, compared to
Simon's 768 MB. I have no idea what kind of hard drive Simon's
PowerBook has; mine has a fairly middle-of-the-road 5400 RPM 120 GB
Samsung Spinpoint, which is a major speed-boost over the 40 GB 4200 RPM
drive that the PowerBook came with.
On the PC side, I used a one-year-old
Lenovo ThinkPad R61e that is far more marginal that the Toshiba in
Simon's comparison. It has a 1.83 GHz Intel Celeron M processor. Just
as Simon's PowerBook is 133 MHz slower than mine, my PC is 170 MHz
slower than his and has one core to his two. Both systems have 1.0 GB
of RAM. Again I have no idea about the hard drive in Simon's Toshiba;
my Lenovo has a middle-of-the-road 80 GB 5400 RPM Hitachi
TravelStar.
For giggles, I also threw my MacBook Pro into the
mix, which has a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, 4 GB of RAM, a 256 MB Nvidia
GeForce 8600 GT dedicated graphics card, and a 200 GB 5400 RPM hard
drive. I tested the MacBook Pro in both Leopard and Vista,
giving an even better indication of the speed of the two operating
systems on the exact same hardware.
Where my test differs is that I very strictly controlled the
software load on both computers, optimizing them for speed and function
without any crapware. The PowerBook and MacBook Pro are both running
Leopard, Microsoft Office 2008, and Adobe Acrobat Professional 8. The
PC and MacBook Pro are both running Windows Vista Business (32-bit for
the Lenovo, 64-bit for the MacBook Pro), Microsoft Office 2007
Professional, and Adobe Acrobat Professional 8. All operating systems
and applications have all upgrades installed (using Apple Update and
Microsoft Update respectively) and use the system's default browser:
Safari for Macs and Internet Explorer 7 for Windows (Safari for Windows
is even faster). Macs use Microsoft Entourage for Exchange mail and
calendar and Apple Mail for POP3 email, while PCs use Microsoft Outlook
for Exchange email and calendar and Windows Mail for POP3 email.
Finally, I installed AVG
antivirus free edition on the PCs. AVG is a fast and free virus
scan application that is far less resource intensive than Norton or
McAfee and is consistently rated highly by PC magazines and
websites.
Running the Benchmarks
So what did I find? Did Leopard "smoke" Vista?
Let's have a look.
In each application or task, the first number indicates how long the
task took the first time, while the second number represents the time
required to repeat the task. For example, it took a whopping 18 seconds
to launch Word 2008 on the PowerBook the first time, but if I quit Word
and launched it again, it would only require 9 seconds.
Each task was timed from start to finish, meaning clicking the dock
or quicklaunch icon to launch an application until the cursor and all
toolbars or page content appeared and was available for editing in the
application window. For email applications, the task ends when the
application initially connected to the mail server. For browsers, it
was when my home page was fully rendered. For Word and Acrobat, I used
a 1 page document in the new docx or PDF format, respectively. Boot is
timed until all menubar or taskbar icons are fully populated and all UI
elements fully rendered, a stage at which the UI is responsive, but at
which background processes may still be loading.
|
MacBook Pro
Leopard |
PowerBook
Leopard |
MacBook Pro
Vista |
ThinkPad
Vista |
| Cold Boot |
58 |
73 |
53 |
62 |
| Launch Safari or IE7 |
8/2 |
9/5 |
4/3 |
4/3 |
| Launch Safari only |
8/2 |
9/5 |
11/3 |
13/3 |
| Launch Word |
14/4 |
18/9 |
5/2 |
15/3 |
| Launch Entourage or Outlook |
10/7 |
18/12 |
12/2 |
15/3 |
| Launch Apple or Windows Mail |
3/1 |
5/3 |
9/3 |
12/5 |
| Launch Acrobat Professional 8 |
3/1 |
5/4 |
4/2 |
5/3 |
| HandBrake iPod video encode |
1:34:12 |
8:14:50 |
1:35:34 |
3:43:17 |
| Full Shut Down |
6 |
5 |
29 |
22 |
Which Is Fastest?
Boot Speed: Vista (barely)
My results were very different from Simon's, suggesting that his PC
is loaded with crapware, spyware, or both. The MacBook Pro took only 53
seconds to fully boot into Vista business - surprisingly 5 seconds
faster than a boot into its native OS X. The ThinkPad made a
decent showing at 1:02, while for its age the PowerBook was very swift
at 1:13.
What this probably shows more than anything is that a fast hard
drive makes a huge difference, as all three machines have modern 5400
RPM drives. The PowerBook has a much slower CPU than the other two and
has its drive connected to a slower PATA interface, with one or both of
those factors bringing with it the slowest boot time, but not by
much.
Launch Browser: Tie
Wow, IE launches fast! Safari actually renders web pages far quicker
than IE does, on either platform, but for initial application launch
and display of my home page, IE is a rocket. For second or subsequent
browser launches, the MacBook Pro in OS X is fastest, but not by
much.
Other than initial launch, Safari is a faster browser on either
platform, and credit to Apple, renders just as quickly in Mac or
Windows. I give the nod to OS X due to its Safari performance, but
since IE launches so much quicker I'll call it a draw.
Word: Vista
This one isn't even close, though to be fair, it is in Microsoft's
interest to make Word for Windows faster than Word for Mac. Whether you
are launching the application for the first time or the fiftieth, Word
launches much faster in Windows Vista than on OS X and is more
responsive as well. In fact, the slow ThinkPad launches and relaunches
Word faster in Vista than the MacBook Pro does in OS X. The PowerBook
really struggles here, suggesting that Microsoft put most of its
emphasis on the Intel half of the universal binary.
Exchange Mail: Vista (barely)
Entourage launches faster on the MacBook Pro in OS X than Outlook
does on the same computer in Vista, but relaunches put Outlook ahead.
Even the lowly Celeron-powered ThinkPad relaunches Outlook faster than
the MacBook Pro can relaunch Entourage, suggesting that Outlook caches
its code better, but that Entourage may actually have leaner code.
Once open, Outlook is more feature-rich and has a better interface
for dealing with multiple mail and calendar accounts, but both are
solid performers. The old PowerBook really struggles here.
POP3 Mail: OS X
This was perhaps the most one-sided test I did, and OS X cleaned up.
Apple Mail is now a mature product that benefits from years of
optimization, whereas Windows Mail is technically brand new. Of course,
both are descendants of Outlook Express, which itself is a descendant
of Claris Emailer.
Whether used on a fast or slow computer, the default email client
from Apple is faster (and nicer) than the default email client from
Microsoft.
Acrobat Pro: OS X (barely)
On the fast computers (MacBook Pro OS X and Vista), the Mac version
is faster, while Vista comes out ahead on the slower computers. Of
course, my PowerBook is far older and slower than my ThinkPad, so
comparatively the PowerBook is really flying here. OS X gets the
nod, but since the fastest and slowest are only separated by 2 seconds,
I have to say just barely.
HandBrake: Tie
Clearly this is a Unix application ported to both OS X (a version of
Unix) and Windows (not a version of Unix). As such, the OS X
version is just a bit more responsive, but once the actual encoding
begins, there is very little difference. Where there is a massive
difference is in processors, with the MacBook Pro absolutely smoking
the other two computers regardless of OS and the PowerPC G4 really
choking.
Shut Down: OS X (decisive)
The numbers don't lie. OS X shuts down very quickly, with the
PowerBook surprisingly shutting down faster than the MacBook Pro.
Vista, on the other hand, is a quite a hog when it comes to letting go
of your PC, taking up to six times as long.
Don't get me wrong: I like OS X a lot more than I like Windows
Vista. It is more pleasant to use, prettier, and, most important to me,
sleep works a lot better. That said, Vista is, in my experience
(your mileage will vary) just as stable, just as fast, and does have
some aspects of its UI that I actually prefer. Vista really does have a
bad name, but its actually quite a nice OS.
Leopard and Vista Can Be Equally Fast
What I believe this informal test really shows, however, is that
neither system is appreciably faster for routine tasks than the other,
and that neither system needs high-end hardware to run well. My
ThinkPad is a very low-end system that cost $500 brand-new last year
and sells for about $300 on
eBay today. It is far less powerful than Simon's Toshiba in every
way, except probably video (I suspect his laptop has GMA 900
video).
The difference is OS installation.
The ThinkPad R61e with its lowly Celeron processor is actually quite
fast in Vista, coming within a second or two of the MacBook Pro in most
tasks that I tested and generally feeling about the same in routine
office type use. Even more demanding tasks are just fine on the cheap
Celeron, like DVD movie playback, 3-year-old games, and the like. The
video encoding was perhaps most telling, as it is strictly a
processor-centric task and didn't care much whether it was running in
Vista or OS X.
I am certain that if Simon took his Toshiba and did a clean install
of Vista and then refrained from loading all of the silly toolbars and
the ultra-bloated antivirus suite, it would be a quite a pleasant
machine. More RAM would help (I usually keep 2 GB in my ThinkPad),
but then it helps Leopard every bit as much as it helps Vista.
The point is, a 2.0 GHz Core Duo is faster than a 1.83 GHz Celeron,
and while not Aero capable, the GMA 900 performs about on par with the
slightly newer GMA 950. The GMA 900, in fact, is quite a decent
performer in Vista - it just won't display the fancy eye-candy a newer
GPU will. For this test I used Aero, but I normally turn it off even on
my MacBook Pro, as I prefer the classic Windows look. I also disable
the new start menu and other so-called enhancements. Aero can
occasionally bog down the GMA 950 on my ThinkPad, but with the "Windows
Classic" theme enabled, the machine is actually faster in Vista than it
was in XP.
Leopard Does Run Well on Older Macs
Likewise, Simon correctly points out that Leopard runs rather well
on older PowerBooks. I had Leopard on my G4 and downgraded to Mac
OS X 10.4 "Tiger" because I thought it felt faster. After reading
Simon's article, I tried Leopard again, and after letting the install
settle (Spotlight indexing), I've found it to be just as fast as Tiger.
I've had Leopard on the PowerBook for about three days now, and I am
quite enjoying it. Even the DVD Player application, which is
extremely resource intensive in Leopard (its an HD app now)
plays smoothly and doesn't stutter.
Finally, Simon mentions that Windows traditionally doesn't run well
on the minimum hardware, to which I emphatically disagree. I've enjoyed
playing with low-end PC laptops for years and always try to get the
most out of them. I have run Windows 2000 on a 133 MHz laptop and XP on
a 233 MHz laptop, and in both instances, the same rules apply as
running Vista on my ThinkPad today: Do a clean install, keep the
crapware off, and you will be rewarded with a system that won't set any
speed records, but will perform just fine with a minimum of
frustration.
NT-based Windows took a performance hit on older hardware compared
to DOS-based Windows, but then, OS X in any flavor takes a speed
and responsiveness hit compared to Mac OS 9. Just as I wouldn't
consider running OS 9 today, I would never consider Windows 98 or
ME.
Mac OS X since 10.3 "Panther" and Windows since 2000 are both
stable and capable systems, and both run well when properly configured
on the minimum hardware - as long as you don't load them down with
junk. 
Andrew J Fishkin, Esq, is a laptop using attorney in Los Angeles, CA.
