OS X Yosemite vs Windows 10 beta performance

[bcam117]

I found this to be a rather interesting read http://www.alexvking.com/12_inch_macbook_and_windows_10.html

The most interesting part being the paragraph before the last.

UI on OS X has gotten quite bad over the years. I'm tired of people defending OS X's UI performance when there is obviously something wrong. Especially when other OSs run just fine.

Where I found the article and a discussion at http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/35yasx/testing_the_12inch_macbooks_performance_with/

 

[walkie]

Neither of the links work.

 

[bcam117]

Neither of the links work.

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the heads up. Pretty sure there is another post with this now, but I did post it first If only I inserted the links in correctly.

 

[Freyqq]

This is certainly a very real problem. Part of it stems from the fact that retina scaling on OSX is fundamentally more taxing than the way it is done in Windows. Also, the transitions OSX uses are more complicated than Windows. Even with these challenges, there is no reason why such powerful GPUs that can run Starcraft II at 60fps can't smoothy render a relatively simple UI.

 

[bcam117]

This is certainly a very real problem. Part of it stems from the fact that retina scaling on OSX is fundamentally more taxing than the way it is done in Windows. Also, the transitions OSX uses are more complicated than Windows. Even with these challenges, there is no reason why such powerful GPUs that can run Starcraft II at 60fps can't smoothy render a relatively simple UI.

Could anyone explain how windows does scaling vs OS X? Honestly like, I don't know but I'd like to find out.

 

[steve62388]

This is certainly a very real problem. Part of it stems from the fact that retina scaling on OSX is fundamentally more taxing than the way it is done in Windows.

I'm sure you're right, but scaling in Windows 8.1 is absolutely pants. Text, borders and windows all over the place overlapping and what not. At least OS X handles Retina effectively, but this comes as no surprise considering Apple handles both hardware and software.

I haven't tried Windows 10 yet but I'm hoping they have finally fixed it.

EDIT: After reading the page linked on this thread it looks like scaling is still borked in Win10.

 

[dieseltwitch]

The second to last sentence... Who cares if mission control run at 60fps? I never even use it. Cmd+space... If I was building an OS I would devote resources to more important things. I don't care if windows run at 300FPS it overall interface is so stupid, clumsy and pointless. When I install windows I spend most of my time removing all the stuff that makes windows "new"...

 

[Freyqq]

Could anyone explain how windows does scaling vs OS X? Honestly like, I don't know but I'd like to find out.

OSX example:
The 15" native display is 2880x1800. When you scale up to it looking like hidpi 1920x1200, the computer renders at 3840x2400 regardless of the resolution of your actual display. So, the computer has to work harder.

Windows example:
The same 15" computer renders at 2880x1800 regardless of the scaling setting.

----------

I'm sure you're right, but scaling in Windows 8.1 is absolutely pants. Text, borders and windows all over the place overlapping and what not. At least OS X handles Retina effectively, but this comes as no surprise considering Apple handles both hardware and software.

I haven't tried Windows 10 yet but I'm hoping they have finally fixed it.

EDIT: After reading the page linked on this thread it looks like scaling is still borked in Win10.

Well, it's really the fault of the application developers. OSX's implementation is easier for a developer to implement, but it is also fundamentally worse performance. All the Windows applications made by Microsoft do scaling properly and they behave correctly when scaling is applied. Long-term, when everyone eventually designs for proper hi-dpi support, OSX's implementation will have no benefits over Windows' way of doing things. Hopefully 10.11 improves things.

 

[pickaxe]

Regardless of the way OS X does scaling, I have to point out that OS X totally lags at 1440x900 as well.

 

[bcam117]

OSX example:
The 15" native display is 2880x1800. When you scale up to it looking like hidpi 1920x1200, the computer renders at 3840x2400 regardless of the resolution of your actual display. So, the computer has to work harder.

Windows example:
The same 15" computer renders at 2880x1800 regardless of the scaling setting.

----------



Well, it's really the fault of the application developers. OSX's implementation is easier for a developer to implement, but it is also fundamentally worse performance. All the Windows applications made by Microsoft do scaling properly and they behave correctly when scaling is applied. Long-term, when everyone eventually designs for proper hi-dpi support, OSX's implementation will have no benefits over Windows' way of doing things. Hopefully 10.11 improves things.

But if you're using it at the standard best for retina 1400*900, is OS X still doing something differently compared to windows?

 

[Freyqq]

But if you're using it at the standard best for retina 1400*900, is OS X still doing something differently compared to windows?

You would be rendering at native resolution, so in that sense it will be similar.

Windows is still more optimized though. Video drivers are released on a monthly basis by vendors optimizing performance. Apple doesn't release new video drivers often. Windows also uses the latest OpenGL technologies, while Apple is using an older one for stability and legacy reasons. Finally, Windows UI transitions are very simple compared to OSX' transparency effects and long animations. All this translates to Windows 8.1 running a retina display on an Atom processor with 2gb of ram and a 32gb slow SSD and still being usable with no UI lag.

I'd really like to see some optimizations from Apple in the next OSX revision. There's really no excuse anymore, and they need to catch up to the competition.

 

[Michael Goff]

You would be rendering at native resolution, so in that sense it will be similar.

Windows is still more optimized though. Video drivers are released on a monthly basis by vendors optimizing performance. Apple doesn't release new video drivers often. Windows also uses the latest OpenGL technologies, while Apple is using an older one for stability and legacy reasons. Finally, Windows UI transitions are very simple compared to OSX' transparency effects and long animations. All this translates to Windows 8.1 running a retina display on an Atom processor with 2gb of ram and a 32gb slow SSD and still being usable with no UI lag.

I'd really like to see some optimizations from Apple in the next OSX revision. There's really no excuse anymore, and they need to catch up to the competition.

There's also likely a DX 11 vs OpenGl argument there somewhere.

 

[MrNomNoms]

I'm sure you're right, but scaling in Windows 8.1 is absolutely pants. Text, borders and windows all over the place overlapping and what not. At least OS X handles Retina effectively, but this comes as no surprise considering Apple handles both hardware and software.

I haven't tried Windows 10 yet but I'm hoping they have finally fixed it.

EDIT: After reading the page linked on this thread it looks like scaling is still borked in Win10.

I can confirm that after running it on an XPS 13 - it has less to do with the hardware and more to do with Microsoft's flat out refusal to move their operating system UI from win32 to XAML/WinRT which is why there is the mishmash mess right now and will be for quite some time because as much as I'd like to see universal applications improve the experience I'm also realistic given how lazy software developers are in the Windows world from updating their code base.

 

[Tech198]

To me, beta software can in no way be any better than a full release.

 

[Traverse]

To me, beta software can in no way be any better than a full release.

Have you used OS X's stable releases lately? It feels like beta software.

 

[Tech198]

Have you used OS X's stable releases lately? It feels like beta software.

non-beta software yes, i've used.