OSX vs. Windows - Page 2

sirstaunch · #9 August 9th, 2005, 09:12 PM

Even Bill Gates said once, "don't use Windows to surf the internet, it's not safe"

contoursvt · #10 August 9th, 2005, 09:58 PM

where did he say that?

texanpenguin · #11 August 10th, 2005, 03:16 AM

Just so you know, you CAN install Firefox on a Mac.

But it's not usual for it to be DOG slow. Could we have some specifics on your configuration (RAM, MHz, OS)?

Viro · #12 August 10th, 2005, 05:45 AM

To be fair, Safari isn't the most responsive beast on the planet. Sometimes when loading up flash intensive sites, or even browsing with a few tabs open, I get loads of beach balls. This is truly annoying, as I have a 1.33 GHz G4 processor, 1.25 GB RAM and a 7.2K RPM hard drive on my Powerbook 12". This baby should be anything but slow. Surfing on my Powerbook is just slightly better than on my Dell Inspiron laptop, which is 6 years old, has a 433 MHz Celeron and 256 MB of RAM (runs Linux though). Something is wrong somewhere.

I don't like Firefox on the Mac. It does not behave like a proper Mac application. Ah well, the trade-offs

.

contoursvt · #13 August 10th, 2005, 10:48 AM

Ya we know installing Firefox is possible but I personally dislike firefox so thats not an option for me. So are we saying that Safari needs 2-3x the processor power for proper surfing compared to a PC with IE?

nixgeek · #14 August 10th, 2005, 12:36 PM

How about Camino? Does Camino act more Mac-like than Firefox? I would probably use that anyways on the Mac before I use Firefox even though I love Firefox on any other OS.

ElDiabloConCaca · #15 August 10th, 2005, 12:55 PM

You can't compare Windows 98 to OS X... you gotta compare Windows 98 to OS 8/9, since those operating systems were available about the same time.

And, as you can see, Windows has gotten slower over the years as well -- Windows 2000 was slower than 95, XP slower than 2000, etc. Same for Mac OS X.

Sure, if you upgrade your computer at the same time you upgrade your OS, then you'll probably perceive a speed increase. Try loading Windows XP on that Windows 98 machine and see how slow browsing is.

The point is that you're comparing a 7 year old operating system with half of the bells-and-whistles of the current Windows release with the most recent release of Mac OS X. That's not apples-to-apples.

nixgeek · #16 August 10th, 2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElDiabloConCaca

You can't compare Windows 98 to OS X... you gotta compare Windows 98 to OS 8/9, since those operating systems were available about the same time.

And, as you can see, Windows has gotten slower over the years as well -- Windows 2000 was slower than 95, XP slower than 2000, etc. Same for Mac OS X.

Sure, if you upgrade your computer at the same time you upgrade your OS, then you'll probably perceive a speed increase. Try loading Windows XP on that Windows 98 machine and see how slow browsing is.

The point is that you're comparing a 7 year old operating system with half of the bells-and-whistles of the current Windows release with the most recent release of Mac OS X. That's not apples-to-apples.

To add, I have installed OS X Tiger on an old G4 (one of the first gens) with 384 MB of RAM. I definitely have to say that it's quite snappy, even for an old system like this. Something comparable would be a PIII system. I doubt that Windows XP would feel snappier than Windows 2000 on that computer, and that's not even including all the supplemental apps that need to run in the background (antivirus, antispyware).