Why is XP faster?

[springscansing]

Re: OS X is slower overall

Originally posted by Sayer

And the mechanism that OS X uses to notify user-level apps about mounted disks is buried deep inside the OS and is not meant to be seen/understood/or used because you might break something! Heaven forbid you might want to know when someone inserts blank media in a drive so that your app can pop up and ask to format it before the Finder gets to it (which apparently handles the high-level notifications sent to other apps, which means if Finder isn't running you never hear about disks being mounted or unmounted).

That's just not true at all. Quit the finder, and discs mount and unmount just fine in toast or disk copy.

 

[AppleMatt]

Originally posted by springscansing
They're faster because they're running on 3.06ghz P4s with hyperthreading with fully-utalized DDR RAM. Period.

No, not period. OS X is slow. Everyone knows it and everyone freely admits it, there's no point stomping your foot and saying "no it isn't". Apple are working on it.

For a member who has posted so much I was surprised to read your comment.

AppleMatt

 

[groov']

what is multi-user exactly

there is a lot of "it is" and "it isn't" going on in this thread on the multi-user capabilities of XP.

My experience: you cannot login at he same time on the same machine and see both your own specified UI, be it the mac or the PC.

What I surely can do on both systems at the same time from whatever other machine is: copying, using, deleting, opening and changing files, creating and so on of directories, and a lot of other things, while somebody is working on that particular machine and doing all of the same stuff on whatever other machine and while in the same time some processes are running for one of the others that logged onto the machine and didn't quit but simply changed users...

How do you call that kind of use? I would say: multi-user.

 

[billyb]

theory of relativity

I think that the issue of one OS being faster than another is very dependent on the use of the machine. For instance, it seems to me that many of the people who post on this site are developers or do very intense processes like graphics design, video, etc. So for them, how "fast" an OS is may have nothing to do with how "snappy" the interface is.

On the other hand, many other people, who generally only use simpler programs like browsers, word processors, etc (read: the general public) are likely to judge how "fast" an OS is by how snappy it is; how fast it opens programs and responds to your input. I certainly count myself in this category, which is why I've always considered XP faster than X.

FOr that reason, I think that 2 people could both try 2 OSs (on somewhat similar hardware) and come to opposite conclusions about which was "faster."

and as a side, it's certainly true that copying or (ESPECIALLY) burning a CD totally slows up XP. I always assumed that all computers were like that, and that it was a fact of life that i had to start burning and go...eat a sandwich. but I've never tried burning on a Mac, though I use them all day at work (and will ALL the time after the AlBook 15 comes out!). I'm off to go try that now...

 

[Sloth]

Originally posted by the future
Exactly! And just wait how fast OS X 10.3 will be on PPC 970 based RAM-ed up desktop machines! XP will seem very slow then, clean install or not...

mmm.... just think of how awesome that will be. I am sooo gonna get that 970 when it comes out. ha! my WinUser friends (most of which are still on Win98 *snicker*) will drool when they see the kick ass performance.

Mac OS X is the only way to go!

 

[techne]

Originally posted by groov'
And, sorry to agree, XP is faster.

So what.. OSX does what they say it does and it does well. Don't want to even remember the bunch of nightmares I had when I was a PC user. It took years to me to have a decent amateur video editing PC setup and it kept giving me problems. Then, Just a week with a PB made me realize that speed and money are secondary to REALLY get the job done. Faster? Who cares.. I don't.

 

[jholzner]

Re: Why is XP faster?

Originally posted by B@SS_SHOCK
It dosen't worry me the bit but when friends say that XP is faster overall than X, unfortunately, it's true. I remember someone told me that most microsoft programs on XP are intergrated on the OS level, so that probably explains why IE is so slow on Mac (even though Microsoft promised it would be no different to the Windows. Well, I think the sooner they intergrate BeOS (probably never happen), the fatser OS X would be. After all, that OS was heaps faster than the Mac System OS's of the time.

Why would Apple integrate the BeOS?? They don't even own it...i think Palm bought it.

 

[Porshuh944turbo]

I think you're right.. palm bought beos...