Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Apple MacBook Pro 'Fastest Windows XP Notebook'?

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the dear-apple-we-need-new-laptops-xoxo dept.

360

rgraham writes "The Register has a great opening line in a recent article, "Want the fastest Windows XP Core Duo notebook? Then buy a Mac. According to benchmarks carried out by website GearLog, Apple's MacBook Pro running Windows XP is a better Adobe Photoshop rig than any other Core Duo laptop on the market." GearLog ran the same tests that were run by PC Magazine with the Mac coming out on top."

cancel ×

360 comments

1992 Called (-1, Flamebait)

1992 Called (893858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981815)

They want Photoshop back. Long live the GIMP.

Apple? Bah/

Re:1992 Called (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981915)

Fuck you first

Best tool for the job (4, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981816)

Now all I want to know is which is faster: Photoshop on XP or OSX?
-nB

Find out next year (4, Informative)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981854)

Now all I want to know is which is faster: Photoshop on XP or OSX?

That will have to wait until next year, sine Adobe has stated that the Intel version of Photoshop for MacOS X won't be available until next year.

Re:Best tool for the job (0, Redundant)

cei (107343) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981856)

We'll have to wait for Adobe to code a Universal Binary build of Photoshop before any real comparisons can be made.

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

DiscoFreq (260884) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981877)

Yes, finally it's possible to compare that (speed of Windows vs OSX) on the same machine!

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981975)

Not really. As others posted before you, Adobe still doesn't have the Intel version (or should I say "Universal version" of the binaries). So OS X would be running it under Rosetta, which slows things down big time.

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982252)

You couldn't test adobe, but you could test some other piece of software. Maybe apache. See which OS can handle the most requests.

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

wiggles (30088) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981898)

Better yet, with the same processor and memory, why is one computer significantly faster than the other? This makes me wonder if Apple and Adobe have some sort of back room deal to slow down Adobe apps on non-Apple hardware.
*dons tinfoil hat*

Re:Best tool for the job (4, Interesting)

bunratty (545641) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982075)

Differences in cache size, cache speed, disk access time, and disk throughput, among other things, would cause two computers with exactly the same CPU, RAM, and bus to run at different speeds. This is part of the MHz myth -- there's more to how fast a computer is than the speed of its individual parts.

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

fak3r (917687) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981956)

Ah, now that will be interesting; not that I'm a Photoshop guy, but I've long argued that OS X is a HEAVY OS. I know it's not a fair comparision, but Ubuntu is MUCH faster (even running Gnome) on my 800Mhz iBook than OS X. While I never plan on installing Windows on a new Mac (I am waiting to see what they come out with to replace the iBook) I will dual boot OS X and Linux first thing. Anyone who has run Linux, with Mac-on-linux at the same time will know what I mean.

Re:Best tool for the job (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982007)

Some parts of OS X are much slower than others. System calls are quite expensive (roughly 10x the cost on a conventional UNIX system), for example. The slowest part of the system I have found is the VM subsystem, which absolutely crawls. I wrote some fairly I/O intensive code with a number of back ends. The aio back end is about half the speed on OS X as on FreeBSD on similar hardware. The mmap backend is an order of magnitude slower on OS X than the aio back end, while they are both about the same speed on FreeBSD. This means that anything that causes page faults is going to slow the system down to a painful speed, which is why Mac users always recommend that you buy a lot of RAM.

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

noewun (591275) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982165)

FWIW, Ubunto is slower on my Powerbook than 10.4.5. Could be due to the age of the hardware, tho. It's a six year old laptop.

Re:Best tool for the job (1)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982275)

Really? I have quite the opposite experience. While Ubuntu takes all week to boot, once it's running it feels faster than OS X. Scrolling a web page, for example, seems faster, and I can play larger and more complex videos using VideoLAN under Ubuntu than I can under OS X.

Nevertheless, I still triple-boot that system: Ubuntu for almost everything, OS X when I want to use iTunes, QuickTime, etc, and Mac OS 9 for old games.

Non Mac specs not given (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982024)

I couldnt help but notice the Mac had 2 GB of RAM .. what did the others have (at what cost) ? Also could the gfx card be skewing for some of the benchmarks?

AMD (4, Interesting)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981819)

It would be nice if they tested AMD notebooks.

Re:AMD (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981833)

AMD doesn't have anything that competes with this.

Intel wins battery life, hands down, also.

Re:AMD (2, Interesting)

hawkbug (94280) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981864)

Yeah, you're right. I only build AMD systems because they run cooler, faster, etc, etc - when compared to the Pentium 4 that is. With this new Intel CPU, things have changed. AMD needs to respond quickly with a good dual core notebook product. Unfortunately, they still haven't mastered the 65 nm process yet - so it will be a while. My question is, is the CoreDuo 64 bit? If not, it seems rather stupid to buy one of these right now.

Re:AMD (1)

ditoa (952847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981903)

Core Duo has EM64T (Intel's version of AMD64) support. So your answer is yes.

Re:AMD (1)

ditoa (952847) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981926)

Shit actually looks like I am wrong, I was thinking of Merom, the successor to Yonah (which are the current chips).

Re:AMD (3, Informative)

IronTek (153138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981943)

AMD will release their Turion64 X2 dual core processor pretty soon. But I am impressed with the Intel CoreDuo. It does not seem to be (and is not) the POS that their first "dual core" processor was.

Re:AMD (1)

teg (97890) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981985)

My question is, is the CoreDuo 64 bit?

No, it isn't. However, for most users, those extra bits are rather pointless - the notebook will run programs just as well as todays 64 bit processors for the lifetime of the laptop.

I'd love a 64 bit notebook, for binary compatibility with 64 bit servers.... however, for almost everyone, that is irrelevant. And while I want 64 bit, I don't think I'd do the sacrifice in other areas and get an AMD-based laptop - the surrounding technologies and the chip itself just aren't as good for laptops. Wireless is likely to be a pain, too: Intel's centrino chips work well, just download the firmware and they're up in e.g. Fedora - not the latest one yet, I guess, but the track record is a good one.

Re:AMD (4, Informative)

hattig (47930) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981996)

Current Core Duo (Yonah) is 32-bits only.

AMD will be releasing 25W Dual-Core Turions in May, running with DDR2 memory (which will save a few Watts over DDR memory).

Yonah is 31W (TDP, actual power consumption is lower. Same goes for AMD of course.). AMD includes half of a northbridge on their processor as well.

Of course, AMD's 25W Turion X2s only come in 1.6GHz and 1.8GHz variants. The 2.0GHz and 2.2GHz versions are 35W, but still comparable in power consumption to Yonah. The interesting thing is that this is at 90nm. If AMD has any of the hi-speed, low-power-consumption features of IBM's 65mn process, then next year could be very interesting however.

Doesn't negate the fact that Intel was there first, nor that AMD isn't overtaking them but merely having a competitive offering in the mobile arena.

IBM (& PowerPC) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981894)

The American engineers at Apple have built and continue to build outstanding desktops. They do not use cheap, low-performance standardized parts made by slaves in a Taiwanese factory based in mainland China. Rather, the engineers use high-performance parts specially designed for the Apple desktop. Hence, Apple management can charge a slight premium for the machine.

If Apple had stuck with the PowerPC chip, its engineers could have delivered the ultimate workstation: BSD (or Linux) on PowerPC.

Sigh. Some dreams were never meant to be.

Re:AMD (5, Informative)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981922)

AMD doesn't make any dual-core notebook chips...

Re:AMD (2, Insightful)

Eightyford (893696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982152)

AMD doesn't make any dual-core notebook chips...

That doesn't make comparisons impossible. Who cares how many cores there is. People want speed.

Re:AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982241)

My notebook (sager 9750) has a dual-core AMD chip in it. Granted, the dual core athlon 64 is intended for desktop use, but still...

Re:AMD (2, Informative)

loony (37622) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982017)

Not really - AMD doesn't have dual core laptops out yet and even if you look at just one core, the Intel Core architecture beats anything AMD has right now hands down...

Peter.

Re:AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982223)

Where can I order one again?

fastest in one test (4, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981827)

Fastest WinXP notebook for the Photoshop test. It doesn't look like it fared so well in the Windows Media encode test.

Re:fastest in one test (3, Funny)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981873)

Am I the only one who feels a little dirty reading about encoding windows media on windows xp running on apple hardware? It just feels so wrong.

Re:fastest in one test (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981889)

Fastest WinXP notebook for the Photoshop test. It doesn't look like it fared so well in the Windows Media encode test.

I would be curious to know what aspects caused the slow down. Maybe the lack of a properly supported (by the OS, as opposed to Microsoft) graphics card.

Re:fastest in one test (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981923)

Does the Windows Media Encoder now offload part of the task to the graphics card? I know that the WMV9 renderer can take advantage of a GPU during playback, but I don't know if it can for encoding.

Re:fastest in one test (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981940)

The graphics card isn't involved in media encoding. Well, there ARE schemes that involve it, but it's not normal. Of course, if they were actually displaying the clip while they encoded it, that could possibly do it - but that's a silly thing to do unless you're doing a very short clip and you want to see what the compression artifacting looks like as-you-go.

Re:fastest in one test (1, Insightful)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981902)

Well, it didn't have a working video card. It was a slightly (.16 GHz) faster processor, but didn't have a working video card driver. So anything that would have otherwise been put on the graphics card processor landed on the CPU

Re:fastest in one test (5, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982107)

And please tell us what portions of the video encoding task are handled by the GPU.

Re:fastest in one test (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982111)

I was disappointed when I saw it was a one-application benchmark, and moreso that it's Photoshop. For years I tried to determine how fast Macs really were, and all I could find were Photoshop benchmarks... a program which I have never used.

Anyways, now that Macs and PCs are the same hardware, running a hardware comparo test seems pointless to me. CPU-bound apps will be the same on both, other than when one manufacturer gets the jump on another in shipping the latest Intel processor or third party graphics card.

Benchmarking OSX against Windows XP and Linux will be easier now, due to the common hardware platform. But personally I think OS decisions hardly ever swing on raw performance; it's all about integration, software compatibility, features, in-house expertise, and price.

Re:fastest in one test (-1, Troll)

TgmBxA!X8(TNDWr_,+xv (962259) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982170)

"For years I tried to determine how fast Macs really were, and all I could find were Photoshop benchmarks... a program which I have never used."

Most Windows software is nothing a Mac user would want to use, either. Application development on Windows is aimed at the fratboy demographic, more or less, and Macs have never been for fratboys. Software for artists, musicians, filmmakers, scientists, and other creative types has always been written first for Macs; much of the best is still Mac-only. It's just a fact of life.

Benchmarking the compiler (2, Insightful)

Rob Y. (110975) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982212)

Ultimately, a Windows vs. Mac CPU benchmark on the same hardware would amount to a comparison of the code generated by the respective compilers.

Don't know how fast the code generated by the Visual C++ compiler is, but I've read that the proprietary Intel compiler generates much faster code than gcc, which (I think) is the default compiler for OS/X apps these days. Does that bode poorly for the Mac in any benchmark wars?

Wintel Boxen (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981831)

Let me guess, MacOS X runs the best on Wintel boxes too...

This is weird... (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981832)

Why did it had to be Microsoft confirming that Steve Jobs was correct that the Intel Mac was a lot faster than the PPC Mac?

Re:This is weird... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982206)

What would MS have had to do with anything? Intel, perhaps, but what processors Macs are using is hardly relavent to the goings-on of Microsoft. Consider:

"Your decision to use Intel's chips instead of PowerPC chips was a wise one" - MS
"Your decision to use our chips instead of PowerPC chips was a wise one" - Intel

Microsoft is indifferent to Apple's architecture - MS has always coded for x86 chips, and most likely always will (you know, computer-always, meaning till that big thing that's so big it shouldn't be bogged down by needing backwards compatibility, most likely quantum chips). Intel, OTOH, is now doing more business.

Logically, why would an opposing software vendor care about a hardware change? I'd much more expect something from AMD saying that 'x86 is faster than PPC, but our x86 is faster than Intel's so switch to our chips'.

Fixed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981840)

"Want the fastest Windows XP Core Duo notebook at Photoshop?"

Fixed it for you.

Bah! Plugins are not a real benchmark... (3, Interesting)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981846)

Fastest at running certain photoshop plugins :-/

Still - yet another reason to not dismiss windows-on-mac-hardware efforts.

Re:Bah! Plugins are not a real benchmark... (1)

truthsearch (249536) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982256)

yet another reason to not dismiss windows-on-mac-hardware efforts.

Has anyone confirmed the process is not against the Microsoft Windows EULA? If it's not in there today I can image a new paragraph in the near future.

How things change. (-1, Troll)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981849)

A few years ago, the Mac crowd said there was no need for stuff like PCI, AGP, PMT, SMP, protected memory, Intel, USB, etc. etc....

But just how is a Mac running x86 and Windows XP, a Mac?

Re:How things change. (1)

cmoney (216557) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981918)

That's probably close to a decade ago now! Wow, how things change in 10 years!

Re:How things change. (2, Informative)

ccollao (227727) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981932)

That's not completely accurate. The fisrt company into make USB massive was apple. Regarding PCI, several years ago they introduced it into their PPC market. Gee, even Sun did (altough, PCI was slower than other buses but just plain cheaper).

The other Technologies before mentined, AGP, PMT, SMP Protected memory never said so. About intel, well different story, but with your comment you are just trolling (me thinks).

Re:How things change. (1)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982001)

No, what made USB massive was Windows 98.

For more proof of that we can watch the failure of Firewire...

Re:How things change. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982180)

No. No peripheral manufacturere bothered with making USB devices. After 2 years on the market, there were only 12 usb devices. Then Apple added USB. 6 months later, there were over 400 usb devices. All marketed towards Apple customers. Read back issues of MacWorld and look at the ads. Dumbass.

Re:How things change. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982103)

Not to mention he posts the same thing, word for word, in any somewhat Apple related discussion. Also, his nickname is MSFanboi. ;)

Re:How things change. (1, Informative)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981935)

Because Apple still decides to call their machines "Macintosh"? They could call it "Red Delicious", but it just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Re:How things change. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982234)

No they don't. Apple is referring to everything as "Mac" now. Go ahead...go to the Apple site and try to find a recent page with the entire word "Macintosh" on it. Strangely, a search for "Macintosh" on the Apple site search engine returns some pages that when you go to them don't actually have that word on the page. Now, most references to "Macintosh" are to old hardware and software.

It's like Macs no longer refer to apples (the fruit), but to English rain gear.

Re:How things change. (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981965)

A few years ago, the Mac crowd said there was no need for stuff like PCI, AGP, PMT, SMP, protected memory, Intel, USB, etc. etc....

Ummm, what? More than a few years ago macs already shipped with USB and PCI by default. Heck macs had USB before anyone else was producing a significant number of peripherals for it. The only item on this list I ever heard people argue against was Intel (as in processors).

But just how is a Mac running x86 and Windows XP, a Mac?

Macintosh is a brand name. How is a Dell Inspiron running Linux still a Dell Inspiron? The answer to both questions is that is the name under which it is sold.

Re:How things change. (1)

Synesthesiatic (679680) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982136)

Grandparent needs to get a life. He posted pretty much the same thing yesterday [slashdot.org] and it's no more true now than it was then. Good thing we're around to set the record straight!

Re:How things change. (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982189)

I'm getting a sense of deja vu...

Suck it up Apple Fanboys !!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982126)

It doesn't matter what zig or zag Apple takes, the Applepologists will rationalize it.

Look how they pretend that they are an alternative to Microsoft when Bill Gates has always maintained Apple as a sort of minimum security prison [com.com] for people who shy away from Microsoft. I don't know how apple fans can look themselves in the face after that little stunt. The sad thing is, they could have jumped on the OSS bandwagon then when it really meant something. Instead, they rationalized away and still do.

Re:How things change. (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982297)

Um, weren't Mac computers the first to come out with USB (and firewire)? I understand intel invented the USB standard, but no PC compatible motherboard manufacture actually touched it until it became more popular on the Mac.

And what does certain hardware do whether or not something is a Mac?

Speaking of WinXP Pro on a Mac (-1, Offtopic)

xrecruit (956246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981852)

Check out this article [giveaguyabreak.com]

Re:Speaking of WinXP Pro on a Mac (0, Offtopic)

xrecruit (956246) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982012)

funny as hell [giveaguyabreak.com]

Ummm... (-1, Troll)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981855)

Does this mean Apple's suddenly changed their wimpy memory policy, or did they just only try tiny 8MP images? Last year they were still marketing Dual G5s with only 256MB RAM as being good for photo and video editing... not with that amount of RAM they're not.

Re:Ummm... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981893)

oh good god. a 8MP image can be printed at 20X30 and look better than 35mm film. Most pro photographers do not shoot at more than 6MP because THERE IS NO USE for higher res right now.

Do you hear me? Pros are not rushing out to buy new digitals they are getting FANTASTIC results with 6mp right now.

you weenies that think that megapixels are everything are getting on my nerves.

Re:Ummm... (1)

1336.5 (901985) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981901)

They were marketing the computer type ie. PowerMac, iMac, Powerbook, therein lies different system hardware configurations which are more than capable of running aforementioned software. It is the CUSOMERS discretion to add more memory.

Try understanding how computers work before flaming them.

Re:Ummm... (3, Interesting)

MustardMan (52102) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981906)

Ya know, I'm pretty much an apple zealot... but the biggest thing they do to piss me off is include far too little ram in their systems. I bought a powermac dual g5 that came standard with 512 megs of ram. This is supposedly a top of the line powerhorse, and I paid a price premium for it. The LEAST they could do is throw in a couple sticks of ram to get the thing up to par. Applications on an imac launched every bit as fast as those on my top end dual processor beast. After I threw an extra gig in there, the machine started really smoking - like it should have off the factory floor.

Re:Ummm... (2, Interesting)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982089)

That's GOOD. Nothing like ordering a G5 with 256 MB, throwing that away and putting in 8 GB or whatever from a commodity memory place. Oh, and saving $1000 while you're at it. I think Apple puts the base configs on their workstation machines really low on purpose because they don't want to be bothered running a big memory business (no profit) so they're tacitly encouraging you to go buy your own memory.

Re:Ummm... (2, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982054)

Minimum memory configuration on a MacBook Pro is 512MB and 1GB for the 2.0GHz model.

Re:Ummm... (1)

kainewynd2 (821530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982127)

I would have agreed about 7 months ago... that's the last time they sold anything but the eMac with anything less than 512 MB RAM.

Check out the apple store and see for yourself now... http://store.apple.com/ [apple.com]

What utter crap. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981858)

This has gotta be the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. THis article is talking of speed improvements of better than 40% on similar hardware, but it's "Mac".

How can ANYTHING run that faster? it's the same hardware!!!!

Typical Mac bullshit marketing again. Nothing to see....

Commence Circle Jerk. (-1, Flamebait)

kurt_ram (906111) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981866)

fap fap..

Apple no happy (-1)

komodo9 (577710) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981868)

I bet Apple is PISSED right now. They're handing all their technology over to Microsoft.
--
BMW Enthusiast Community [unitedbimmer.com]

Re:Apple no happy (4, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981986)

I bet Apple is PISSED right now. They're handing all their technology over to Microsoft.

But Apple is get paid $$ for the hardware, so they can't be that annoyed.

Re:Apple no happy (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982119)

Not to mention they get to put their OS on each one so that's what you see when you boot up. Kind of like MS did with IE... except OS X is nice. ;)

Re:Apple no happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14981993)

I suppose they are pouting all the way to the bank. Ka-ching, way to sell more hardware with standard software... Ka-ching indeed!

Commercial Offering for Dual Boot (4, Insightful)

RunFatBoy.net (960072) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981871)

Now that the Mac is showing off it's quality hardware and such, as the Intel models become commonplace, I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple of commercial offerings for dual boot between Mac and Windows.

There's an opportunity for business to finally transition to a quality hardware platform/OS, and I hope someone steps up to the plate to make a formal solution in this area (not that I don't appreciate the current hacks offered).

-- Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ [runfatboy.net]

Re:Commercial Offering for Dual Boot (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981936)

Why a commerical offering? I mean, there's already a freeware one. How much extra beyond a Mac and XP is a person going to pay? And all you'd really be doing is providing support to people who try it. Doesn't sound like a great business plan to me.

Re:Commercial Offering for Dual Boot (3, Insightful)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982019)

Why would you pay for an ipod when you can build your own MP3 player with a altoids can and some electronics parts. Geez Doesn't sounds like a a great buisness plan to me.

Thats really not a fair comparison I know. But people will pay a premium for a preconfigured system with good support. Hell I quit building my own machines are work because I just have the time to support them, and just order from dell (work for a university grant, so dell sees us as the university which means we get top tier support)

Re:Commercial Offering for Dual Boot (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982185)

Why a commerical offering? I mean, there's already a freeware one.
Because lots of people -- namely, many Windows and Mac users -- are scared of free software. They're expecting some kind of "catch" (time-expiring demos, nagware, spyware, etc.) so they stay away because it's free.

Put it in a nice, glossy box on a shelf at Best Buy and only then will they consider it. It's sad, but true (and part of the reason so many are still skeptical about Free [libre] Software).

Why photoshop? (5, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981874)

Because photoshop is one of the few applications out there that is actually designed to take advantage of multiple CPUs by splitting up the work.

Re:Why photoshop? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981908)

Personally I'd have gone for premiere if it is indeed multithreaded as I seem to remember. It's even more demanding, but more importantly, it will exercise more of the system and will have longer run times which will help smooth out the results.

Re:Why photoshop? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982175)

Because photoshop is one of the few applications out there that is actually designed to take advantage of multiple CPUs by splitting up the work.
Mac benchmarks have always been Photoshop-centric, going back for years. (decades?) Long before Macs were dual core, anyways.

In reality, using a single application to benchmark is ridiculous. I think they do it because the Photoshop product is historically tied to the Mac, and the Mac version is always carefully optimized for it.

Re:Why photoshop? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982267)

CAD, video encoding, video compositing, 3D rendering also can efficiently use multiple CPUs. A person using a computer for any one of those tasks is more likely than a typical photoshop user to stress their computer.

hmm is it released now (0)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981941)

the patch for running xp on the mac that is?

Re:hmm is it released now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982002)

Here you go:

http://onmac.net/ [onmac.net]

Re:hmm is it released now (5, Informative)

jinushaun (397145) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982036)

Here is the official Windows XP on Mac website: http://onmac.net/ [onmac.net]

The patch is available here: http://download.onmac.net/ [onmac.net]

Macbooks are also the most expensive (4, Interesting)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981957)

I have been shopping around for a notebook for a family member. I found that Lenovo and Apple have the highest price dual core. Dell is of course the lowest. But looking at the specs, the lower price ones tend to have GMA or ATI Hypermemory GPU, slower memory, and are pretty bulky. Apple does put in the best stuff available at the launch. I would even venture to guess that the Macbooks are gaming quality.

Re:Macbooks are also the most expensive (1)

Enrique1218 (603187) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982114)

would even venture to guess that the Macbooks are gaming quality

That is if the video drivers ever start working!! Just out of curiousity, what errors were feedbacked when ATI's catalyst drivers were tried?

The Reg sexed up our dossier (5, Informative)

saschasegan (963148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14981963)

Just wanted to preemptively strike out and mention that the Reg "sexed up our dossier" a little, to use a British reference.

Over here at PC Mag/Gearlog (it's the same thing - Gearlog is the blog of PC Mag) we like to say that our tests show Apple makes a "fast" Windows machine, not "the fastest." As somebody else pointed out, while the MacBook squeaked out a win on the Photoshop test, it came in behind other Core Duo laptops on the Windows Media Encoder test. But the news in my mind isn't a one-second difference in this or that. It's that Apple's machines run Windows comparably to the best designed-for-Windows machines. That bodes very well for folks who want to have the best of both worlds by running both OSes natively.

We couldn't run 3DMark, Sysmark, etc. because of the missing video drivers - wouldn't have been fair. The Photoshop and Windows Media tests were the only ones of our standard benchmark suite we thought would generate results that made any proper sense, because they hit processor/disk/RAM rather than video.

Also, for the AMD fanboys, we haven't tested any AMD dual core notebooks yet, so we didn't have the data to compare those.

If you haven't already, read our original story: http://gearlog.com/blogs/gearlog/archive/2006/03/2 1/8212.aspx [gearlog.com]

Re:The Reg sexed up our dossier (1)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982109)

"But the news in my mind isn't a one-second difference in this or that. It's that Apple's machines run Windows comparably to the best designed-for-Windows machines."

Hmm...what exactly do think is different between an Intel box designed to run OSX and one designed to run WinXP? I really don't see how the OS has much sway here. After all, you can run Linux on an Intel box (desinged to run WinXP) and it works hot shit. OSX is based on BSD as I understand it, so why should it be any different?

Re:The Reg sexed up our dossier (4, Interesting)

saschasegan (963148) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982245)

Apple has a tendency to heavily customize their machines, and one of their selling points is a tight coupling between hardware and software (namely, OS X.) So we wanted to make sure there was nothing in the Macs that would have prevented XP from running to the limits of the performance of the hardware, and to prove that a dual-boot solution could be both viable and desirable. I'll personally wait for the video drivers to call it "desirable," but we're safely within the realm of viable.

Running these benchmarks also allowed a direct comparison between Apple hardware and other manufacturers' that always used to be cloaked a little by the difference in OSes. Now of course you can argue that the driver situation may have affected our results, but I hope this will be only the first of many data points. It's a start.

Why? (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982077)

Why should the MacBook be any faster then any other DuoCore notebook out there. They use the same CPU, memory technology, hard drive technology, etc, etc, etc. Either the original article is biased or people just are not aware of how similar the MacBook is to any other PC notebook running the DuoCore CPU.

Can anyone name one reason (not "because its an Apple") as to why the technology in the MacBook should run faster then in an equivalently equiped PC? And I don't believe EFI has anything to do with it either.

Perhaps Intel purposely gave Apple a leg up on the DuoCore chipset by perhaps slightly overclocking them to give them an edge, or some special hardware tweak that only the MacBook is getting over other PC notebooks. I just can't see how the same equipment can run better on one system over another.

Re:Why? (3, Funny)

hahiss (696716) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982094)

Dude, its because the Apple has speed holes

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982135)

Why should the MacBook be any faster then any other DuoCore notebook out there.

Because each laptop uses slightly different hardware. They use different brands, with different specs, and in different configurations. For any given test, one will win. If you read the article you'd know Macbook Pros scored about the same as the best other Duo Core notebooks out there. Sure they took first in a given photoshop test, but not by a really significant margin. They did worse in some other tests. There are no conspiracies here.

People willfully misinterpreting this test should be ashamed of the FUD they are spreading. This does not prove MacBooks are the "fastest" laptop. It proves they are (aside from the non-existant video drivers) as good as anything else out there for running Windows. This is good news for people who plan to dual boot. This is a good sign for those interested in emulating/VMing Windows. It is just trivia to anyone else.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982285)

Love. It run on love.

Triple Threat (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982085)

The MacBookPro is the triple threat:

1) Ridiculously sexy hardware
2) Insanely great OS
and...
3) Crazily overpriced!

#3 is actually the most threatening to me...

I'm confused... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982121)

A few weeks ago, Slashdot posted a story saying that the Dell laptop ran OS X faster than the Apple.

And now the Apple is running Windows XP faster than dedicated Windows machines?

I think someone has their wires crossed.

Currently (3, Interesting)

Upaut (670171) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982149)

The solution of many problems, by having a Windows partition on ones Macbook, does have a few issues that will both effect preformance, and ones comfort. With the GPU not having any drivers yet, the CPU is doing all the work. So slower animations, more heat (massive amounts) being generated, and an inability to play any games. Now, I am still glad that I have this partition, so I can use a lkot of "Windows only" software my work/school wants me to be able to run, but until the graphics chip is running, I don't think most benchmarkes will be really reliable. That and while running Windows, until a driver is written, I really recomend that you don't have the machine in your lap, unless its a really cold day...

Other issues that are less important are:
*Trackpad does not work
*That little camera doesn't work

Adoption (2, Interesting)

Truman Starr (949802) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982166)

Ok, I am all for the Mac - my first 'puter was a II-GS back when I was 6 or so. But I haven't been following the hardware "jam XP into a Mac" soap opera like some have, so I'm not sure of the complexity of getting both OSes to share one living space (Talk about "The Odd Couple").

I am, interested, however, in hearing about it as it pertains to adoption by non-techies. I read /. but I've never had a dual-boot system myself. I have a Powerbook, an Ubuntu box, and my company thinkpad, so I've never needed to. Each box does its particular tasks, and does them pretty well (with the exception of the T23 my company insists is SOTA).

However, the specs from this article look quite promising. Like many of you, I salivate at the thought of running not only WoW on my MacBook, but games from developers who don't touch OSX. I'm not foolish enough to presume I'm in any kind of majority on that, but I think it has ramifications beyond the hardcore. I think when the new intel iBooks come out, they will be the perfect computer for just about any non-technical person; i.e. students, moms, grandmoms, whomever. If you can give them something familiar, adoption is going to be 1000 times easier. I'm not asking that Apple blow away other OEM's while running windows. The fact that it comes close (in all of the tests so far) is good enough for me. And grandma too.

What a retarded article (5, Insightful)

greg1104 (461138) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982261)

It's been widely noted that the basic hardware in the MacBook pro is nearly identical to that in the Acer model mentioned in TFA; see http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/ faq/technical_performance_2.html [everymac.com] for a rundown. So it's no wonder the run-time is the same.

The appropriate conclusion here is "Macbook Pro runs XP as fast as the fastest PC with the same CPU and chipset", to which I would say, duh!

Photoshop Test (4, Interesting)

chowhound (136628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14982269)

I've always felt the photoshop tests were an absurd measure of a computer's speed. I run Photoshop CS1 on my G4/400 1GB at home. The only time I ran into a problem was attempting to work on a backlit movie poster for a theatre - 3x5 foot by 300 dpi, with layers, effects & filters. But that is an absurdly huge file. As a designer for 10 years, I never encountered a file that big.

The point is that today's computers are overpowered. The now-deprecated Quad 2.7 G5 is vastly more powerful than any Photoshop jockey needs. Unless you're rastering 3D shiz or crunching a full length DVD-quality movie (neither of which requires Photoshop) it's just gonna be an issue for most users.

inforMative BitchBITCH (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14982291)

By c7icking here stupid. To the
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...