Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OS Performance — Snow Leopard, Windows 7, and Ubuntu 9.10

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-how-do-they-run-as-vms dept.

Operating Systems 688

BeckySharp writes "With the nearly simultaneous release of Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard' (available right now) and Microsoft's Windows 7 (available Oct. 22), you get the inevitable debate: Which is the better operating system, Windows 7 or Snow Leopard? To help determine that, Computerworld's Preston Gralla put both operating systems through their paces, selected categories for a head-to-head competition, and then chose a winner in each category." Relatedly, Phoronix has posted Snow Leopard vs. Ubuntu 9.10 benchmarks. They ran tests from ray tracing to 3D gaming to compilation. Their tests show Ubuntu 9.10 winning a number of the tests, but there are some slowdowns in performance and still multiple wins in favor of Snow Leopard, so the end result is mixed.

cancel ×

688 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dock/Taskbar design (5, Informative)

alain94040 (785132) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266347)

The most thoughtful article I read that truly explains what the technical tradeoffs are with dock/taskbar design: here [arstechnica.com] .

On a similar topic, if you want to work on the home page GUI for Android, there is an on-going project [fairsoftware.net] as well.

The good news for consumers is that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are great-looking OS. Computerworld is just wrong to give a point to Apple on price :-)

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (3, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266439)

The most thoughtful article I read that truly explains what the technical tradeoffs are with dock/taskbar design: here [arstechnica.com] .

On a similar topic, if you want to work on the home page GUI for Android, there is an on-going project [fairsoftware.net] as well.

The good news for consumers is that both Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are great-looking OS. Computerworld is just wrong to give a point to Apple on price :-)

30 bucks..

a proprietary OS for 30 bucks deserves 5 points on price.

apple releasing a version of osx for 30 bucks is metaphorically equivalent to an 2010 infiniti M slapped with a 20k(US) sticker price.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (4, Insightful)

Doctor_Jest (688315) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266493)

Or $10 if you bought a mac after June 15th of this year. :) Still, I know people are saying that Windows 7 is a great OS (and I'm inclined to agree), I think it's more Snow-Leopard-esque in terms of upgrade than a whole new OS. I can't be entirely sure, though. Ah well... at least we're getting decent and more stable OSes around. And that is indeed a good thing. :)

When Windows 7 settles down a little bit, I may put it on my Mini via boot camp. :)

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (4, Interesting)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266567)

I'm really enjoying Windows 7 (aside from audio troubles in L4D). Thus far I've been impressed with the stability, performance and compatibility. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the assessment regarding price - it's absurd. Yes, Win 7 is a big improvement. It's also the sort of polished product one would have expected when they first bought Vista. We all know Microsoft is desperately hoping to win back some respect with Win 7. You'd think they'd have the brains to fix the pricing / packaging issues at the same time. Apparently, that's not the case.

Would I recommend it to a friend? Absolutely. Would I suggest that it's actually worth the retail price? I'm not so sure. It may be if you're upgrading from Windows XP, but if you're upgrading form Vista you're getting shafted.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266871)

Recently bought a laptop that was loaded with Vista (^@#%$^@#) but it comes with a free upgrade to Windows 7, when it is released :)

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (5, Insightful)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266649)

or $2,000+ if you don't have a mac and want to switch. Why has NO article mentioned the overwhelming price of mac hardware, but they mention having to replace hardware for Win 7 machines? WTF?

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (1, Insightful)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266701)

Exactly what I tell people who bitch about the cost of Win 7. If you don't own a computer, you will be spending easily twice as much for the mac as the PC for identical hardware performance. If you factor that cost in the cost of win 7 doesn't look so bad.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (0, Flamebait)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266725)

Don't forget that Apple charges for it's service packs, in the long run, even if you own the hardware compatible for the OS, you spend about the same after all service packs/updates are done.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266805)

get a life - if you read hear at all you would know that apple maybe even over charges for some things BUT OS and Security updates are free.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (5, Informative)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266813)

Don't forget that Apple charges for it's service packs

No. They. Don't.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266903)

And yet if there were true competition in the marketplace between various operating systems Windows 7 would cost about $25/license, a much more reasonable number. Don't try to defend Windows OS licensing costs - it's nonsensical from the get-go.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266973)

It does cost $25/license. For OEMs. I don't know why anyone would pay retail or (face palm) wait in line on opening day.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (3, Insightful)

jimmyfrank (1106681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266743)

2000, holy cow, I only spent around 1k for my Mac.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (0, Flamebait)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266807)

When I buy a machine, I buy for the future. I don't want to have to buy another one for a while, so I pump it up with decent specs. Fully decked out mac pro right now is going to cost over $4k. I spent $600 on a AMD Phenom 9500 Quad, 8 GB RAM, 750GB HDD, 1GB video ram, 650 watt power supply... and 23" 1080p monitor..... do the math.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (2, Informative)

jimmyfrank (1106681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266831)

Ah, so 2000+ if you don't have a mac and want to switch to a fully decked out one...

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (0, Troll)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266851)

And how does your system compare spec-wise to a fully decked out mac pro? It doesn't. A top of the line mac pro would include (2) Nehalem processors (8 cores total), 32GB of RAM, 4TB of disk.... Your system doesn't even come close.

In terms of the $4k mac pro, it still outspecs what you've listed. If you are going to do comparisons, at least use comparable parts.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (1, Informative)

Kratisto (1080113) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266539)

30 bucks... Plus you have to put it on a Mac computer, which is marked up at least ten percent compared to a comparable computer from any other manufacturer. Some brands are even offering free upgrades to Windows 7 from Vista if you buy a computer from them now rather than waiting for the OS switch. That price tag looks less appealing when you consider those attached strings.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266783)

30 bucks... Plus you have to put it on a Mac computer, which is marked up at least ten percent compared to a comparable computer from any other manufacturer.

Except of course every respectable analyst who has looked into it disagrees with you. Apple's margins are higher than average in the personal computer industry, but that's not comparing comparable machines, that's counting all the low end crap machines with razor thin margins. If you look at machines with hardware reliability numbers and features similar to Apple, Like Sony, for example, the margins are about the same and so are the prices.

That price tag looks less appealing when you consider those attached strings.

The price tag is certainly less appealing because it's tied to Apple hardware and that severely limits your choices, especially on the low end. You, however, overstated the argument by making statements about their margins that are simply untrue. The lack of choice in hardware will result in higher prices for the average person because they won't be able to select a model that fits their needs as closely, which is a compelling argument without bringing blatantly wrong assertions about pricing into it.

30? Try 130. (3, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266613)

Its only 30 if you forked out 130 for the last one, so you could really call it 160.

The place where I do give them kudos is the family pack, I can upgrade five machines for $50... only have two currently.

OK, so I have a second kudo, they don't have some weird multiple available configurations locked to a DVD like windows, I can install SL on a fresh machine using the same disc as I did for the upgrade without giving it a second thought.

But giving it points for being only $30, look if it is such a minimal upgrade; for some its a total no go as they cannot install it because they run PowerPC; makes me wonder, why didn't it just download and install like the patch it comes across as?

Re:30? Try 130. (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266729)

But giving it points for being only $30, look if it is such a minimal upgrade; for some its a total no go as they cannot install it because they run PowerPC; makes me wonder, why didn't it just download and install like the patch it comes across as?

It's not a minimal upgrade. There was a boatload of under the hood work, including rewriting a lot of programs. They've trimmed 6 GB of fat from the OS, due mostly to not including PPC stuff, which is why you can only upgrade on Intel machines.

Re:30? Try 130. (5, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266875)

Its only 30 if you forked out 130 for the last one, so you could really call it 160.

Apple has confirmed that you can install the $30 upgrade version on top of Tiger [appleinsider.com] .

Re:30? Try 130. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266911)

At an Apple store I asked if the $30 dollar was an upgrade or a full install disk. I was told it was a full install disk and no copy of leopard or even tiger was required. I installed it successfully on my sisters computer AFTER wiping it clean (Read: no previously purchased OS installed.) It is a full blown OS for only $30 (not an upgrade disk.) They do sell a more expensive copy that comes bundled with iLife and iWork.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266765)

Well, the price of either is a matter of what you already have :).

If I have the immediate previous version of the software:
Leopard-->Snow Leopard: $30.
Vista Home Premium-->Win7 Home Premium: $120 (if you want Ultimate, then $220)

If I have the second-previous version:
Tiger-->Snow Leopard: $170 (bundled with a couple other items)
XP-->Win7 Home Premium: $120 (Ultimate is $220)

Even earlier version (rare):
Mac: you're SOL
Windows: $200 ($320 for Ultimate)

If I have a very recent computer:
Leopard-->Snow Leopard: $10
Vista (any) --> Win7 (same): $0

If you're getting a new computer:
Generally bundled; pricing delta is defined by hardware prices of Apple vs any OEM that will bundle Windows, which in turn depends on your precise needs.

If your current computer is anything other than a Mac: you need to buy a Mac to be legal, or do hackintosh (at which point you could throw in that you can get illegal copies of either OS free, but maybe your personal ethics permit a breach of law in one case but not the other).

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (4, Informative)

caerwyn (38056) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266887)

Tiger->Snow Leopard does not actually require the bundle- it's been confirmed that the $29 SL upgrade installs just fine.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (3, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266959)

apple releasing a version of osx for 30 bucks is metaphorically equivalent to an 2010 infiniti M slapped with a 20k(US) sticker price.

To extend the car analogy, it's like getting a 2010 Infiniti M for $20K after you trade in the 2008 Infinity M you bought 18 months ago ... and you got that one after trading in your 2007 M ... and you got that one after trading in your 2006 ...

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (1)

o-hayo (700478) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267041)

So if I buy a $70k car today, I can in-place upgrade it for just $20k every year or two when they facelift the models or add more horsepower. Sounds awesome to me.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (2, Insightful)

Qubit (100461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267001)

30 bucks..

a proprietary OS for 30 bucks deserves 5 points on price.

Sure, $30 isn't much money, but would you pay $30 for the latest release of Debian or Ubuntu? I mean, the use of having a powerful operating system on a new laptop is certainly worth $30 in productivity after only a day or two of work. I don't know if you use or fund FOSS, but it's funny how in general how people are so willing to pay $30 for a proprietary piece of software, and so reticent to donate even $10 to a Free Software project whose program they use every day.

Saying that a proprietary OS for $30 deserves 5 points on price is like saying that a $30 b.j. from a prostitute with STDs deserves 5 points on price: Sure, you get temporary happiness really cheaply, but in the end you might end up with an itch you just can't scratch.

I still have to use proprietary OSes to test and develop some software at my lab, and it bites us in the a** just as hard as everyone else. At least I have some small comfort in knowing that I can use a nice chunk of my salary to fund Free Software development.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29267017)

IF you bought price inflated hardware from them, they give you a deal on the OS they sell you.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266961)

Not really. It wasn't a fair fight. QUOTE: "Windows 7 Ultimate.....with 1GB of RAM and Snow Leopard.....with 2GB of RAM." I have no great love for either MS or MAC, but we all know Windows on just 1 gig is going to lots of hard-drive caching and slower performance. He should have either upgraded the Win-PC to 2 gig, or downgraded the Mac to 1 gig, in order to make the test as identical as possible.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (3, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266975)

The most thoughtful article I read that truly explains what the technical tradeoffs are with dock/taskbar design: here.

While it startd off as a nice read, it is flat out wrong in a lot of places (at least for Windows). For instance:

Windows needs a window for each application, and this need doesn't go away just because there are no documents open. So, Word has little choice but to display this ugly application window. There's simply nowhere for the application to exist without having a window--the window is the application.

and ...

The other kind of application that suffers from Windows' design is software that runs mostly in the background, but which needs to provide alerts or messages periodically. Instant messaging applications typically fall into this category. Most of the time an IM app is running, you don't want any window visible at all. But you don't want closing the window to close the application; you want it to run in the background. Windows has no good way of doing this; if an application has no windows, that normally means it isn't running, after all.

Seriously? Someone actually believes this? An application doesn't need a window AT ALL. For ANY REASON. Windows are used for GUI I/O, and occasionally, message passing. But you absolutely don't need one at all.

Then there is this shiny bit:

The common response is to use the notification area (often incorrectly called the "system tray") to provide ready access to these running-but-windowless applications.

Orly? You DO know that the it was called the "system tray" up until Windows XP, don't you? It was even instantiated by a process called systray.exe. Even MSDN is littered with its own references to it being the "system tray", like here [microsoft.com] .

Then I quit reading when I came to this:

The addition of the Quick Launch toolbar meant that the Taskbar contained not only running applications, but also non-running applications. It thus includes three main kinds of content; icons representing non-running programs, icons representing running applications, and icons representing documents.

Um, what? At this point the guy is a total idiot, or he is intentionally muddying the waters to invent a WTF.

Re:Dock/Taskbar design (1)

mehemiah (971799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267007)

I dissagree with their giving the taskbar innovations to windows 7. the jumplists are app spesific and so are the Dock Icon of your app is completely customizable by the designer. See the API here [apple.com] You MAY need an apple developer ID but I'm not sure.

Lets not forget (4, Insightful)

Dayofswords (1548243) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266403)

the freedom involved in using ubuntu (or other distros) over mac and windows

STFU, freetard (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266515)

No one gives a shit about linyux any more. You guys are the epitome of FAIL. So go back to recompiling your video driver to try to get it to play a youtube video smoothly and without crashing, and leave the adults here to talk about real operating systems.

Re:Lets not forget (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266551)

How about the freedom to simply get stuff done rather than spending 5 hours unsuccessfully trying to get your sound card to work?

Yeah and (5, Insightful)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266555)

99.997% of the people using these computers don't care.

But they should, they just don't know it. (5, Insightful)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266835)

99.997% of the people using these computers don't care.

First of all, I think that number is way too high. While it may seem that way sometimes, people do care. Maybe not even a majority of them, but enough that it does make a difference.

Second of all, those who in theory don't care, when explained why it's important, start to care. When you add up the cost of upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7, along with all of its associated applications (I'm looking at you, Microsoft Office), versus the cost of upgrading through the various versions of Ubuntu or any of the other popular distributions and their associated applications, people really start to notice. One of my favorite things to do when I'm showing off Ubuntu to people is to open the package manager application. I tell them it's like the "Add or Remove Programs" applet, except that you can actually add programs. "All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."

When you explain to these people how there is absolutely zero technical reason why they can't have a movie or song play on the DVD player in their living room, their iPod, their computer, and anywhere else (and anyway else) they want to play it, but that thanks to DRM systems incorporated into Windows 7 and Mac OS X, they are artificially restricted from doing so because some third party has decided to "manage their digital rights" for them, it definitely gets their attention.

When you explain to these people how honest competition from really smart people doing really smart things just because they can and because they feel that others should benefit from their collective knowledge is one of the reasons why a lot of commercial closed-source software these days that might otherwise cost hundreds or thousands of dollars is sold for really low cost or given away for free because of how hard it is to compete with volunteer work, it also gets their attention.

When I show people my web browser (Firefox with AdBlock) and how I don't see particularly onerous ads on web sites because the person who wrote my browser isn't beholden to financial interest or corporate mandates, it has raised a lot of eyebrows.

I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. Free and open source software benefits everyone, even people who don't otherwise care, even people who shun it in favor of commercial and/or closed-source options. And sitting back and saying that people don't care isn't very productive. It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.

Re:But they should, they just don't know it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266931)

I know the difference and sure, all other things being equal I'd pick the free software. But 'free' is a lot lower in priority than 'does it get the job done.' Sometimes the software that does is free and it's great. Other times that's not the case and I'm not going to adopt an ass-backwards way to do something in order to remain truly free.

Re:But they should, they just don't know it. (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266983)

When I show people my web browser (Firefox with AdBlock) and how I don't see particularly onerous ads on web sites because the person who wrote my browser isn't beholden to financial interest or corporate mandates, it has raised a lot of eyebrows.

It's all in how you spin it. If people can be shown why freedom is good and why they should care without you sounding like a raving lunatic then you'll get some traction.

Re:But they should, they just don't know it. (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267013)

Sorry to reply to my own reply, but a couple of other notes:

"All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."

I also explain to them that when the next whiz-bang version comes out, they don't have to go out to any store and shell out hard-earned cash to get it. I get a notice that there's a new version, I click a button to install it, and voila, I'm good to go. Also, there's almost never a "home" version versus a "professional" or "ultimate" version. You get all of the features, plain and simple. For software that does have different versions (e.g. desktop versus server Ubuntu, Ubuntu versus Kubuntu, etc.), it is simply a matter of which feature set you need more and/or which you prefer. It's not a matter of how much you're willing to shell out; they all cost exactly the same whether you just want a simple command-line shell or the latest graphics card-busting bells and whistles.

It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.

To preempt accusations of being a zealot, I really don't even care of someone decides that they just plain like Windows better. It is a nice OS, and there are things about it that just plain work better than on Linux-based distributions. If someone makes an educated decision to go with Windows, more power to them. But I resent the notion that because Microsoft has a majority of market share, nothing else matters. That's stupid, and if everyone felt that way, we'd all probably still be using Internet Explorer 6 in all of its ActiveX glory.

Re:Yeah and (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266839)

... As calculated by Pentium FPU

Re:Yeah and (0, Offtopic)

swanzilla (1458281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266971)

I presume that stat was fabricated to make a point. My blog's traffic paints a far different picture of the state of the market...

Windows 22786 79.1 %
Linux 2997 10.4 %
Unknown 2462 8.5 %
Macintosh 528 1.8 %

...looks like you are off by several significant figures there.

Re:Lets not forget (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266951)

What freedom am I losing if I use a Mac or Windows-based PC? What freedom am I gaining from using Ubuntu?

I don't mean hypothetical, idealistic legalese that only matters to people who type in all lowercase on Slashdot. Tell me exactly how it's going to affect my free will. Having used all three systems, I have to say I hadn't noticed a difference.

If all you can offer is "GPL source code," I don't consider the GPL free, either.

Re:Lets not forget (2, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267009)

and don't forget all the time and money saved by not bathing or shaving.

Save Vista! (-1, Offtopic)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266409)

Microsoft has said it may ditch Vista the moment Windows 7 comes out! They've since backtracked - but we need to make sure they know our feelings.

Windows 7 is CASTRATED APPEASEMENT to soy latte-sipping girly-men who wish they owned a Mac. We want a REAL operating system. An operating system that PERSONIFIES America's INDUSTRIAL MIGHT. That makes you feel AWE at the MAJESTY of the progress of its operation. VISTA is a monument to everything that makes us the country we are!

Like Chrysler, like Hummer, like Edsel - "Vista" is a name that will be remembered as the greatest operating system in Microsoft's history.

Just Say "No" To Seven -

SAVE VISTA!

Original blog post [today.com] .

"I fully support this initiative. My computer business employs 200 people; the best possible thing for it is to make sure Vista continues and goes forward." - M. Shuttleworth, London

"I can't tell you how much Vista has done for my business. So many people depend on it." - S. Jobs, Cupertino

"Vista is the one thing that will keep people seeking out and using systems that are at the forefront of technology. It's been the best thing for all of us." - L. Torvalds, Portland.

"I'm ... I'm touched. *sob* I didn't think anyone cared. You guys. Developers! *sob*" - S. Ballmer, Seattle.

Facebook group [facebook.com] .

Re:Save Vista! (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266451)

This sort of psuedocomedy/ad revenue scam makes me wish I was illiterate.

Re:Save Vista! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266777)

David Gerard is a leather clad queer who loves to take it up the ass from Roy Schestowitz, then write a Wikipedia article about it.

Usage matters. (4, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266421)

These sorts of comparisons are fun from a head-to-head desktop performance perspective (with all the skewing that can bring, regardless of how impartial the tests might claim to be), but they're rarely reflective of how each OS would perform in mixed environments. I'll keep Mac OS X on the desktop, Ubuntu on the server (along with Debian), and Windows on someone else's computers, thank you.

Re:Usage matters. (0, Flamebait)

oogoliegoogolie (635356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266547)

Yep. Comparisons of simple benchmark metrics between OS's aren't very useful except for entertainment purposes. I've said it before, OSX running on 2GB of RAM feels snappier, has less HD chatter, and switching between apps is smoother than on Windows using 4GB.

I keep windows around as a gaming platform.

Operating System Name? (5, Insightful)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266431)

The first category of their "comparison" is the OS name? Really? That's enough for me to stop reading. The article doesn't even take itself seriously.

Re:Operating System Name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266795)

Exactly what I thought when I was reading it. After that I just glanced over it, and nothing caught my attention...

Re:Operating System Name? (2, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266817)

My personal theory is that the author wanted, at least a little bit, for the "score" to come out a "tie." When it was 5-4, he added the "name" category to make it so.

(I don't think I actually think that, but it is a convenient explanation.)

Make the score even. (1)

skywatcher2501 (1608209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266873)

Well they needed something to make the score even. That's diplomacy ^^

Re:Operating System Name? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266997)

The first category of their "comparison" is the OS name? Really? That's enough for me to stop reading.

You didn't lose much - the rest of it is equally inane. All "tests" were just as subjective - I mean, comparing OS X dock and Win7 taskbar? how do you reasonably quantify that?

From the title of the Slashdot story, I hoped to see some real perf test numbers comparing the three OSes, and that would've been very interesting (especially how Win7 fares against others). But TFA has nothing of a kind, and is a waste of of time.

DUH!!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266441)

Linux o course.

oh and natalie portman likes hot grits while sitting in a beowolf cluster of new os overloads in soviet russia operating systems perform surgery. SHA WANG

Machines arn't even remotely comparable (5, Insightful)

BondGamer (724662) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266475)

: For testing Windows 7, I did a clean install of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition RTM on a Dell Inspiron E1505 notebook with 1GB of RAM and a 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo processor. To test Snow Leopard, I did an upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard on my MacBook Air, which is loaded with a 1.86GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor and 2GB of RAM. So the Windows machine is worse in just about every way. It doesn't even have the same type processor (Core Duo vs Core 2 Duo). He should have just installed both on the Macbook with Bootcamp.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266575)

As there was no performance comparison, this matters why?

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (3, Informative)

BondGamer (724662) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266763)

It sounded like a performance comparison from the Slashdot article title ("OS Performance -- Snow Leopard, Windows 7, and Ubuntu 9.10"). I didn't read past the system specifications because of this. While the review wasn't based on performance it would be a good idea to match both machines anyway.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266599)

Not to mention Windows lost the "Ease of Installation" category since it was a clean install and wanted to know if you had a previous license you were upgrading from...

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266607)

He isn't comparing performance at all, so that doesn't really seem like much of an issue. Although I agree it was silly to do that rather than installing Windows 7 on the Macbook.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (5, Insightful)

beuges (613130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266627)

Not only that, but he gives Snow Leopard a point for doing a 'flawless upgrade' while Windows 7 didn't pick up his video card during installation, but it was rectified immediately afterwards when it pulled it from Windows Update. Then later in the article he goes on about how Apple controls the entire hardware platform and Microsoft has to battle with countless configuration combinations. Why didn't be bring that point up in the installation/upgrade section? Microsoft can't include every possible driver on the disc, but the fact that all his hardware was working as soon as he visited Windows Update is a feather in MS's cap in my opinion. Apple only had to care about a handful of different setups, and they control them all.

It seems the author went out of his way to make sure that the 'test' resulted in a tie, to prevent being flamed from either side. I mean really... giving a point based on the name... that's just ridiculous.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266919)

Then later in the article he goes on about how Apple controls the entire hardware platform and Microsoft has to battle with countless configuration combinations.

This is actually a two-edged sword. MS doesn't write the drivers for hardware. Their dominance in the market ensures hardware companies will do that for them. Apple has to write (or convince hardware makers to write) drivers for OS X, because they're still a pretty small chunk of the market and arguably not worth pursuing. So the comparison between what happens on Windows and OS X is both more different and more disparate than you imply. The same reason many hardware components and devices don't work with OS X results in the hardware Apple does ship being smoother out of the box.

That said, i don't think it is necessarily reasonable to ding Windows 7 for not having a driver out of the box, although maybe for making it too difficult for OEMs to ship a single disk that will do a clean install including drivers without resorting to pulling stuff over the internet.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (3, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267037)

I agree that the "comparison" was largely bull, but I also have to say that I've been using Windows since there was a Windows to use, and Lord how I've suffered. The fact that the video card was usable after the installing updates is nice, but usable doesn't necessarily equal stable. That's one of the biggest problems with Windows; everything under the sun works, for varying definitions of "works." Note that I'm not bashing Microsoft for this; I'm simply saying I've learned my lesson over the years, and I'll be sticking to MacOS on the desktop and Linux on the server for the forseeable future.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266645)

Perhaps the tests should have been done on the same hardware, having two separate hard disks, and installing Vista directly, only using the OS X media for drivers. Vista understands EFI machines and can boot on an x86 Mac without the MBR emulation that BootCamp offers. I wonder if this would make any performance difference, especially on I/O.

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266709)

Seriously, if you aren't running it on the same hardware why even fucking bother?

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (1)

Looce (1062620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266827)

This.

Run Windows 7 in Bootcamp (like a comment below suggests), so that the results are fairer; hell, run Mac OS Snow Leopard on a PC if it's got less RAM, the bottlenecks will appear sooner. Though the PC would have to emulate more stuff than Bootcamp does to run Mac OS on itself, so that would be less fair, I admit.

Then there's the trouble of hardware compatibility, which you have much less of on a Mac because Apple controls the hardware and Microsoft does not. (Microsoft and its hardware partners doing a great job with their drivers, in comparison...)

Anyhow, the W7 : Snow Leopard article basically concludes by saying neither is better (?!), which was an unexpected result for me; I thought the winner would be Snow Leopard by a landslide because it would run smoother...

The Ubuntu 9.10 : Snow Leopard article starts better, stating that they used the same system as they did when testing Snow Leopard, again, to test Ubuntu 9.10. Since it has 10 pages, though, I didn't read it.

Now all that's left to finish the Triforce of Operating Systems is a W7 : Ubuntu 9.10 article! :)

Re:Machines arn't even remotely comparable (1)

SWBgHz (1605223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266901)

What a useless waste of font, let's review Snow Leapord verse Windows 7 with the Windows 7 PC getting inferior hardware for the test. Typical Apple fanboy dribble. The talk about the $29 upgrade but fail to mention the serious investment in other software, Apple and otherwise, just to get what Windows comes with or is easily available with the vast array of free Windows software.

To summarize the phoronix benchmark... (2, Informative)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266491)

It pretty much shows Ubuntu 9.10 beating Snow Leopard most of the time.

Yay, we've come a long way. Unfortunately Karmic also displays a few significant regressions from Jaunty, hopefully someone is trying to do some profiling for those...

Re:To summarize the phoronix benchmark... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266557)

That someone is you. Stop being a parasite and contribute, douchebag.

Re:To summarize the phoronix benchmark... (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266761)

The thing I love about Phoronix is that if you dig around the comment section nearly every article, there's a whole bunch of users that are much smarter than the author who detail why and how the differences between the OS occur. So while I haven't looked yet, I assume that there's someone who's already linked to the bugs in question and are discussing the patch for them.

Performance, where? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266517)

The article linked to in the quote block is a terrible little summary of Snow Leopard and Windows 7, split unnecessarily over 5 pages, with nary a benchmark to be seen. Most of the comparisons are subjective, vague, and really not very useful to anyone.

Re:Performance, where? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266957)

Is very useful to Computerworld and Preston Gralla. Who knows how much ad impressions they got by such bad article.

Irrelevant benchmarks (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266519)

The only benchmark I care about is porn downloading performance. My porn folder has several thousand files. In Windows, the "Save Image" dialog in Firefox always opens snappily. In Ubuntu, the same dialog somehow takes several seconds when there are many files. This makes porn downloading very painful. Until Ubuntu fixes this bug, I'm afraid I can't use it seriously.

Re:Irrelevant benchmarks (1)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266849)

In Windows, the "Save Image" dialog in Firefox always opens snappily. In Ubuntu, the same dialog somehow takes several seconds when there are many files.

You could just drag the image you want onto the desktop, or directly into the finder window you want to keep it in. At least it works that way in OSX.

Great time for Computer users (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266523)

I don't care about Ubuntu, but it's users seem happy. Anyway, Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are both performing very well for me on less then bleeding edge (3 years old) hardware and have fixed various irritations in their predecessors. Both MS and Apple seem to have created OS's that are well worth the cost and time to upgrade from earlier versions.

Re:Great time for Computer users (3, Insightful)

Naturalis Philosopho (1160697) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266915)

I think you've just about nailed it. Computer's and OS's are now mature with the differences being mostly on the fringes. We've hit the point where computers are like cars; everyone's got one, and you buy (for home at least) based more on personal style than real differences. Now if MicroSoft would just wake up and sell their upgrades accordingly I wouldn't have to explain to friends that no-you-need-the-version- that's-$150-more-expensive to use the fax capabilities in your modem (is it me or is that like having to pay extra for a car with windshield wipers?). Apple did it right for a commercial OS by giving everyone the same thing and making the server version different mainly through the support you get for the cost. Ubuntu, of course, goes that one step further in that direction and makes all support ala carte so you really only pay for what you need help with. Interesting that it's the free OS that has the most market driven model (you pay only for what you use, in terms of support anyway).

stupid TFA is stupid. (1)

o-hayo (700478) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266559)

Stopped reading when he split the hardware. Why not do all your tests with SL, then reformat and load Win7 from scratch and do your next set of tests. Does this guy actually get paid to write this crap?

I love this quote (5, Insightful)

Major Blud (789630) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266563)

"Windows 7, on the other hand, remains the corporate standard"

That's fast, considering it was just RTM'd a few weeks ago and won't see a general release until Oct. 22nd.

Re:I love this quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266943)

I would love it too if it were an actual quote from the article.

Re:I love this quote (2, Insightful)

norminator (784674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266981)

And considering that its predecessor, Vista, is still not the corporate standard after almost 3 years.

My comparisons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266587)

I can't afford a Mac, so the performance results are pretty bad. I can't find a linux notebook, so not so good performance either. That leaves all the Windows notebooks. Let me tell you, those are the worst of the three!

It is .. (1)

SlashDev (627697) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266615)

.. so interesting that people can actually chose which operating systems to run; what these comparisons don't mention is, what about the software that I run? Will it work if I switch OS? (rhetorical question). Knowing the answer, I will certainly not switch OS. Two: Leopard runs on Mac not on PC; I don't see what the purpose of the comparison is. Am I going to buy a different piece of hardware, because I want to switch OSes? In that case, I would install Linux and a dual boot system. That being said, if I am buying a new PC, and I am not attached to any software, which OS should I install? Well for most people, the OS is pre-installed, so they have no choice. Few manufacturers offer Linux as an alternative to Windows. The best solution? Get yourself a kick ass hardware, install VMWare, and install all the OSes you want; your hardware shouldn't have to dictate which OS to run and you OS shouldn't have to dictate which software to run.

GCC comparison (3, Interesting)

rmdir -r * (716956) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266621)

According to tfa, Apple's GCC beats Ubuntu's quite handily- though Snow Leopard seems to be using 4.3, and Karmic Koala 4.4. Does anyone know if this is a difference between GCCs, or between operating systems?

Is Apples GCC 4.3 significantly different from a vanilla GCC 4.3? I know they've been doing a bunch of work on llvm, so they can get a compiler not under the gplv3, is this part of the difference?

Re:GCC comparison (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266865)

I'm hoping that compiler performance was sacrificed in favour of compiled binary size and optimisation.

Re:GCC comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266885)

Apple uses GCC 4.2.x. The reason is because versions 4.3 and later use the GPLv3, which Apple does not like.

Re:GCC comparison (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267019)

Apple uses GCC 4.2.x. The reason is because versions 4.3 and later use the GPLv3, which Apple does not like.

I hardly think Apple is alone in that. Heck, there are a lot of Linux-loving folks who don't seem to like the GPLv3.

It also seems pretty obvious the folks who wrote the GPLv3 don't particularly like Apple (or Microsoft, or maybe even Red Hat or Novell...).

Performance not as important as stability (2, Interesting)

goldrimtang (1608755) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266625)

I use Ubuntu for my daily work, mainly because we install what we develop on Linux servers. It is just much easier to have on my desktop the same environment that I'll be facing with customers. I do not care a whole lot about performance, but I am very grateful that is so stable. A windows desktop would not compare.

Another thing I noticed with Vista, is that it keeps the hard drive light on at all times, no matter what I'm doing (or not doing). This can downgrade performance to almost unusable levels at times. With Ubuntu, it make more sense when the hard drive is accessed and the cache is clearly working well.

Having said that, it is funny to see that Ubuntu outperforms Mac in the categories that matter to me.

Cheers,

E. Conde
jBilling.com [jbilling.com] Open Source Billing

This leads me to wonder... (4, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266655)

How many people are still upgrading their systems often enough for this to be relevant to them anyways? I was a pathological upgrader for years, but I honestly have spent on average less than $100 on hardware per year over the past 5 years. Granted this is partially because of how my financial situation changed in that time, but also because from my vantage point it doesn't seem that there has been any great progress made in the past 5 years in terms of hardware or software that requires new hardware.

Honestly, with the exception of the gamers that want to run Half Life 7 or Quake 9, are many people really bothering to upgrade anymore? From my vantage point it will be surprising to see Windows 7 do well commercially - not because of vista - because there haven't been great reasons to upgrade from the hardware and software of 5 years ago.

Re:This leads me to wonder... (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266699)

How many people are still upgrading their systems often enough for this to be relevant to them anyways?

I suspect that the only people who will be seriously interested in upgrading to Windows 7 are dissatisfied Vista users. (And people who don't know any better... the ones who tried to upgrade old XP machines to Vista... if only Darwinism worked faster...).

On the upside any machine that runs Vista well will probably do better on Windows 7. I found I got better frame rates for a number of things when I tested the beta.

Re:This leads me to wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266847)

Honestly, I'll take 7 over XP any day.

I have been running 7137 for months now, and have had absolutly zero issues aside from Wolfenstein causing my GPU to overheat thus causing the PC to reboot.

Aside from that, after two weeks of working with 7, you will realize 7 is a HUGE improvement over XP.

Re:This leads me to wonder... (1)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266939)

I am not going to go out and buy W7 for either of my existing PCs, but I usually build a new rig every 2 or 3 years. When the 3Ghz i7 chips and DDR3 memory prices drop to a more reasonable price, I'll likely build a new PC with Windows 7 as the OS...

Although, Ubuntu has come a long way since I last ran it.

-Rick

Wow (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266661)

The authors of the first study actually realize that speed isn't the only metric that matters.

Still seem to confuse "operating system" and "user interface", though.

Comparison?! (3, Insightful)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266665)

Given that the license terms for OsX force (by the terms, nothing else) the user to run it on Apple hardware, the comparison is really one of hardware. Where we have two camps:

camp 1: Apple hardware; expensive and nice, and able to run all three operating systems as the user needs or desires. This provides the user with the ability to run all software on tidy but expensive hardware. Price is the barrier to entry.

camp 2: Windows vs. Ubuntu on anything other than Apple hardware. This opens up the low end of hardware as well as other form factors and styles of hardware that Apple doesn't think you need.

These articles suck because they assume that you CAN do the same task on other operating systems. For many tasks that just isn't so. I can't do serious CAD on my shiny Apple under Snow leopard or any other non-domesticated cat. There are a TON of applications that don't work or are painful under Linux. I love Linux and use it frequently, and I also love my Mac, but there are and always will be a need for the mainstream OS, and today that is Windows.

Sheldon

the entire arcticle could be a /. poll (2, Insightful)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266677)

It's sole purpose is to spawn comments saying it's flawed and discuss totally off-topic matters. Sounds like your average slashdot poll to me!

Re:the entire arcticle could be a /. poll (1)

Errtu76 (776778) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266695)

s/arcticle/article/

Sorry, was watching tv and posting a NO YOU FOOL, PASS comment at the same time

Dear Apple (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266737)

Please rename OS X to OS Yuck. I can't wait for your
nth upgrade.

Unix forever.

Yours In Volgograd,
K. Trout

Fact checking? (3, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266837)

In the Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7 article, I ran across this gem:

By way of contrast, Microsoft has made the decision in Windows 7 to strip out many of the extras in Windows. For example, Windows Movie Maker and Windows Mail -- both very good programs -- shipped with Windows Vista, but will not ship with Windows 7.

That's because they're in the Optional section of Windows Updates on Windows 7, bundled as "Windows Live Essentials."

It's not hard to miss, seeing as it's the only entry in the Optional section (because although Virtual PC and XP Mode are also optional, but they're still release candidates [microsoft.com] ).

Windows 7 does include a usable backup program -- finally -- but it's not up to the standards of Time Machine.

Also, why is Previous Versions not mentioned here? It's not new [lockergnome.com] either, Windows Vista had the Previous Versions functionality.

Not Enterprise ready, wha? (1)

Falc0n (618777) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266893)

In addition, Microsoft has a host of IT and management tools for deploying, maintaining and updating Windows hardware and software. Windows 7 adds some new ones, including management tools that use the scripting and automation capabilities of Windows PowerShell 2.0.
Snow Leopard makes a nod toward the enterprise, with built-in support for Microsoft Exchange Server 2007. But that's simply not enough. Snow Leopard is a consumer operating system, and isn't accompanied by the kind of management tools and IT ecosystem that enterprises need in order to manage large deployments.


Obviously this guy has not worked in an OSX or UNIX enterprise environment. There is a plethora ïof tools for OSX that make it very easy to manage across the enterprise. Add OSX server and netboot, and you have a very robust infrastructure built on OSX. Works well with exchange, but there are better groupware systems that also work with mail.app, And if he thinks 'powershell 2.0' can even come close to bash, hes gotta be on somethingï.

I find it annoying with reviewers play down OSX as some silly consumer product, unworthy of enterprise, management, or doing 'real work'. You goto a F/OSS developer conference and always over half, if not near 8 of 10 laptops will be OSX. Goto a film, media, or science tech conference and you'll find that number pushing 90%.

Ew (1, Troll)

kuzb (724081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29266945)

Operating system name:

OK, let's get this issue out of the way quickly. Which operating system would you rather run: one with the cool name Snow Leopard, or one with the unimaginative moniker Windows 7?

Enough said.

The Winner: Snow Leopard. Wild animals are inherently more exciting than panes of glass.

The first comparison made is the name, and has nothing to do with the performance of the operating systems.

Who the hell writes this kind of tripe? More importantly, who the hell wants to read this tripe?

Umm it Unix .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29266995)

The Winner: Windows 7. Many people might consider this a toss-up, but this choice reflects my predilection for tweaking and customizing. Those who want simplicity will appreciate Snow Leopard's System Preferences' easy and accessible way to configure the operating system. Tweakers who like as many choices as possible, no matter how confusing and inelegantly presented, will prefer Windows 7's Control Panel.

 
I guess he doesn't get into the command line much, I'd take that any day over a confusing maze of windows and tabs.

You heard it here first! (3, Funny)

Xaroth (67516) | more than 4 years ago | (#29267043)

"With the nearly simultaneous release of Apple's Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" (available right now) and Microsoft's Windows 7 (available Oct. 22)..."

You heard it here first - August 28th is the new October 22nd. Update your calendars appropriately!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>