Boot Camp makes it easy to compare OSX to Windows

User Comments: 10

1. April 21, 2006 1:01 PM
   asphix said:
   I dont think dual booting is a pain really. It would be good for those who would like to enjoy the best of both worlds.Personally, the thing that attracts me most about OSX (other than the fancy graphics and tools which are sort of a moot issue depending on who you are and what you're looking for) is the security the OS provides.However, I know if I had a Apple laptop, I would end up just using windows XP all the time. The hassle of dual booting would weigh down on me considering that once the novelty of "ooo that icon bounces up and down when I select the application" runs out I'll just be sitting in windows 99% of the time.The added security is really great, but I'm an imformed and smart computer user, thus I can negate about 90% of the threats present to the average Windows user. I believe I am just as secure on Windows as I am on OSX based on my personal habbits and knowledge.And thats why I'd just sit in windows all day. Its nice to have the option of dual booting, thats for sure.. but it certainly isnt for everyone.
   Reply
2. April 21, 2006 2:16 PM
   PanicX said:
   Why would more options for more people be a bad thing? The more choices I have, the happier I am.
   Reply
3. April 21, 2006 2:26 PM
   DragonMaster said:
   Apple users, AFAIK use Mac OS not to use Windows. Then they're talking about having Windows ... Okay... Quite odd, no?Well, I find OS X slower, especially since I upgraded an(Not mine) iMac G5 from 256MB to 1GB of RAM : You start the OS, 450-500Mb of RAM already used! You start a browser, an other 50-60Mb that goes up as you browse! I've been able to get down to 320MB by disabling the talking clock, iCal unused alarm and "iTunes Helper" service (Which is doing nothing, there are no iPods connected to this computer)When I think that WinXP uses 120MB with the fat graphic driver tray icons, anti-virus(Doing nothing at all since Windows is not as virus-prone as everyone thinks -> Don't click on every ads you find and don't download any files), sound driver tray icon, etc.
   Reply
4. April 22, 2006 12:01 AM
   nemesis_256 said:
   To DragonMaster:Yes it's true OS X uses lots of memory. It LOVES memory. But at least it uses it. If you add some to your mac, you're pretty much guaranteed it will use it. Back in my windows days, when I upgraded from 512MB to 1GB, it felt useless. That's different on OS X. Plus having things go in memory is much better than virtual memory.And about OS X being slow. Try doing something extremely processor intensive on OS X (like rendering in Maya for example) and browsing on the side. You won't notice a single dip in performance in your browsing. That isn't possible on windows.
   Reply
5. April 22, 2006 2:52 AM
   Mictlantecuhtli said:
   More comparisons here: [url]http://www.barefeats.com/bootcamp.html[/url]
   Reply
6. April 22, 2006 5:39 AM
   Mictlantecuhtli said:
   [b]Originally posted by DragonMaster:[/b][quote]I find OS X slower, especially since I upgraded an(Not mine) iMac G5 from 256MB to 1GB of RAM : You start the OS, 450-500Mb of RAM already used! You start a browser, an other 50-60Mb that goes up as you browse! I've been able to get down to 320MB by disabling the talking clock, iCal unused alarm and "iTunes Helper" service (Which is doing nothing, there are no iPods connected to this computer)[/quote]The memory is there to be used. Why else would you have added more of it, if not to take advantage of the amount?
   Reply
7. April 22, 2006 7:43 PM
   DragonMaster said:
   [quote]The memory is there to be used. Why else would you have added more of it, if not to take advantage of the amount?[/quote]It's there so that you have some when you need it! Load a 2048x1536 picture and you will use lots of RAM - on any OS. On OS X, the half is already used so I had the impression that I should have put two 1GB RAM sticks instead of two 512MB ones. Or take a game as an example : Some use all the free resources to run better. It's used on Win, only for real tasks, not an UI.[quote] Back in my windows days, when I upgraded from 512MB to 1GB, it felt useless.[/quote]It would be useful on my 512MB computer. I can't load two digicam photos at the same time w/o using all of it.[quote] That's different on OS X. Plus having things go in memory is much better than virtual memory. [/quote]Well, once I did the 256MB to 1GB upgrade, I saw no speed improvement.When UI graphics take all the memory it's not so good, no?Vista will be a real RAM monster!!!!
   Reply
8. April 23, 2006 12:54 AM
   Spike said:
   Extra Ram only provides a speed benefit up to a certain point - a point that is dependant on the processor the northbridge, and to a pont, how resource hungry the operating system is. Beyond that, it's only useful for memory intensive applications and multitasking.
   Reply
9. April 23, 2006 5:20 AM
   nic said:
   [quote][b]Originally posted by DragonMaster:[/b]Vista will be a real RAM monster!!!![/quote]Only if you want it to be...Vista's desktop is vector graphics based (think Macromedia Flash) rather than bitmap. It shouldn't be a memory hog unless you enable a lot of special effects like transparency, glowing window buttons, animation, etc.If this is the kind of thing you're after, then yes, more memory (on the graphics card) will be required.
   Reply
10. April 23, 2006 9:43 AM
    DragonMaster said:
    [quote]If this is the kind of thing you're after, then yes, more memory (on the graphics card) will be required.[/quote]Sh*t! I'll need a graphic card with that computer! (Anyways, before I switch to Vista I'll probably switch from Win2k to WinXP!)
    Reply

Recently commented stories