Apple OS X versus Vista, RAM division

Interesting note comparing RAM useage on OS X and Vista

"As I noted earlier this week, I’ve begun using a MacBook (the basic white model) and keeping a log of my experiences.


Now that I have this system up and running on a full-sized screen, I’m ready to make some head-to-head comparisons with Windows. Because this system has a mere 1GB of RAM, I was curious to get a sense of how thrifty OS X Leopard is when it comes to memory usage. I was especially curious to see how Leopard compares to Vista, which as been slammed by critics as a resource hog.
To get started I opened Safari and opened a single web page, then began playing an MP3 track in iTunes. With those tasks running, I checked the results from Activity Monitor:

As you can see, the OS reports that 581MB is in use, with 430MB free.
Next, I launched a similar set of tasks on a system running Windows Vista Ultimate. To make the comparison fair, I used the System Configuration utility to disable all but 1024MB of memory in the system, which has 4GB of RAM. This system is using the full Aero interface (disabling it had no significant impact on the RAM footprint). I opened Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, began playing the same MP3 tune and browsed to the same page that was open on the Macbook. Here’s what Task Manager showed for memory usage:

For those keeping score, the Vista machine is using 594MB of RAM, which is roughly 2% more than its Mac counterpart running the same set of tasks.
Vista gets a bad rap for lots of things, including its reputedly voracious appetite for memory. As you can see, Vista compares favorably to OS X in this regard and doesn’t deserve that reputation."


OS X versus Vista, RAM division | Ed Bott’s Microsoft Report | ZDNet.com

 

[Adamd]

Well that's cool, but I had a feeling it was always like that...

It's all that marketing hype and just the bad rep Vista got from the beginning that made everyone think everything was wrong with vista lol.

But that's cool you did that since you are most likely showing true facts and are not changing any stats like some companies like to do lol.

 

[joel406]

Very good in house testing NormCameron. Honest results such as this keep people properly informed.

Having said that.

I had the plesure(pun) of having to try and figure out a problem on 2 Mac book pros.

It involved Palm sync software. The Mac books were being used by an investment brokarage and syncing the contact list to the mac from the Palm was cruciel.

After 3 hours of balking with the system I was put in contact with the companies resident mac specialist. After an hour of danceing with him over a 2500 mile long distance call he finaly told me I would need to constantly re apply everything we did, over and over until it eventually took.

He then went on to say that its was bugs in the system that you basically have to keep sqashing until it finaly worked. After asking if other software presented similar problems there was a sigh and a breif pause over the speakerphone followed by a "pretty much all of it" answer.

I was floored.

It seems that most production base software for macs is so full of bad code that most bussiness avoid it.

I was in a hospital emergency room last night and found every system in the place running a MS base system.

Also I didnt enjoy useing the mac books. One was runnng Tiger and the other Leporad. Both 2.4 ghz CPUs and 1 gig ram. Slow as hell, with nothing but the office production software in place.

They say they just work.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt.

I'll stick with Gates. I already got a job.

Sorry for the long post, this really is NormCamerons thread. But after Apples latest smear campaign and my own personal mac nightmare, I"m a little fumed.

 

[Adamd]

Very good in house testing NormCameron. Honest results such as this keep people properly informed.

Having said that.

I had the plesure(pun) of having to try and figure out a problem on 2 Mac book pros.

It involved Palm sync software. The Mac books were being used by an investment brokarage and syncing the contact list to the mac from the Palm was cruciel.

After 3 hours of balking with the system I was put in contact with the companies resident mac specialist. After an hour of danceing with him over a 2500 mile long distance call he finaly told me I would need to constantly re apply everything we did, over and over until it eventually took.

He then went on to say that its was bugs in the system that you basically have to keep sqashing until it finaly worked. After asking if other software presented similar problems there was a sigh and a breif pause over the speakerphone followed by a "pretty much all of it" answer.

I was floored.

It seems that most production base software for macs is so full of bad code that most bussiness avoid it.

I was in a hospital emergency room last night and found every system in the place running a MS base system.

Also I didnt enjoy useing the mac books. One was runnng Tiger and the other Leporad. Both 2.4 ghz CPUs and 1 gig ram. Slow as hell, with nothing but the office production software in place.

They say they just work.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttttt.

I'll stick with Gates. I already got a job.

Sorry for the long post, this really is NormCamerons thread. But after Apples latest smear campaign and my own personal mac nightmare, I"m a little fumed.

Well that makes at least 2 of us lol.

I have not experienced what you have, and I am sure it was complete crap lol...

The only thing that I see that Mac's having going for them is not able at least at the moment to get spyware, malware, viruses etc.

Other than that I find them just boring to use with that gray border every program uses and the way its so hard to just close a program and when you have like 3 apps running it's just harder than it should be to find them.

How anyone can say they are easier to work on is completely nuts.

I would love to talk about it more in detail, but I rather try to stay on topic

 

[dmex]

OSX is bloat if you consider Windows can still run applications from 1995 plus its executing more work than OSX at runtime while keeping the similar footprint

I dont like them for the simple reason you pay twice the price than Windows for three times the less available functions and software for a less configurable/flexable, unrepairable machine thats useless for anyone who wants to do tasks like play Games or repair the hardware

 

[Adamd]

Well typically Mac users are complete idiots. Not to be 100% rude, but they buy them because they know it's harder to **** up and when something fails they come running into the mac store like they are going to rob the place saying WHAT THE #$%# IS GOING ON and will pay a high price for that repair like when they pay an INSANE amount of money on a ram upgrade when you can buy it from newegg for less than half the price

Face it. Most people buying Mac have no idea what they are doing and just want it because they say how "pimp" or how cool the looks are and the OS is just amazing, and they also say how crappy Vista is without even using it because that's what the ad says.

For some reason they will NOT believe political ads, medical pill ads, but they will hold true everything Apple says in it's ad's.

A complete joke.

I do find it funny and really Odd that Apple focuses so much on what Vista CAN'T do and they NEVER and I mean that I have never seen an Ad about OSX that says what it's better at then Vista. If they need to always bash Microsoft that should be a red flag right there that it's all BS.

I still can't find anything OSX can do that Vista can't do by itself or with help of a 3rd party program that is almost always free.

It just makes me upset because I hate people spending more money they should have to, and when people are spending tons of money on a mac laptop when they can get a vista laptop that has equal or better specs for 1/4 to 1/2 off the price of what mac charges. It's just a giant big LOL.

OSX is bloat if you consider Windows can still run applications from 1995 plus its executing more work than OSX at runtime while keeping the similar footprint

I dont like them for the simple reason you pay twice the price than Windows for three times the less available functions and software for a less configurable/flexable, unrepairable machine thats useless for anyone who wants to do tasks like play Games or repair the hardware

 

[NormCameron]

It would be nice to take the credit for this, but as you can see from the link a gentleman named Ed Bott is responsible, Glad you liked the post though. It reinforced my belief that a lot of what is written about Vista is uninformed rubbish from hacks who have to justify their existence. It was nice to see an objective viewpoint.

 

[Adamd]

Don't always click the links, but he proved that there is little difference.

Thanks for posting

 

[rasmasyean]

Well, one of the things that causes vista to hog resources is the video. Thus, if you have a good video card, which is pretty much standard nowadays, it would make the machine perform better. What happens is vista distributes a lot of the graphics processing into the video card to relieve the processor of other tasks. So having a good video card is one of the keys to a well performing Vista machine. It would be interesting to note that the tests you did probably involved a computer that had a decent video card, if I would imagine.

Regarding Microsoft windows on machines in hospitals, windows based software is used a lot to control machines because it has many of the technologies already built into the operating systems that interface with much of the off-the-shelf hardware as well as being able to be customizable by engineers who build systems based on embedded computers. Although at this point, most of them are not using vista per say, but all running other operating systems like windows NT, windows 2000 and maybe windows XP in certain cases. It takes a little while for everything to be shaken out of a new OS before it could be used for something that is dangerous or may involve lives.

 

[eggyuk]

I do find it funny and really Odd that Apple focuses so much on what Vista CAN'T do and they NEVER and I mean that I have never seen an Ad about OSX that says what it's better at then Vista.

I was in an Apple Store not too long ago with a friend who was thinking of buying an iMAc. I went up to the salesman and said why should my friend buy a Mac? He said "well you can make professional dvds and photo albums"
"You can do that on a pc"
"OK well you can listen to your music and watch films and view photos through Frontrow"
"You can do that in Media Centre"
"You will never get viruses or spyware"
"I haven't had a virus on my Windows system for as long as I can remember"
"Macs look really cool"
"You can get a really nice looking PC if thats what floats your boat plus it will be way cheaper"

Needless to say we left without buying anything.

Now I've played on OSX quite a bit and truthfully I quite like it but I would never consider switching to it because its too restrictive. I want to be able to pick the components I want and not have to take out a loan to pay for them.

The main thing that attracted me to OSX was the looks and that was when I was on XP but now with Vista the looks are enough to make me consider switching.

 

[Adamd]

I do find it funny and really Odd that Apple focuses so much on what Vista CAN'T do and they NEVER and I mean that I have never seen an Ad about OSX that says what it's better at then Vista.

I was in an Apple Store not too long ago with a friend who was thinking of buying an iMAc. I went up to the salesman and said why should my friend buy a Mac? He said "well you can make professional dvds and photo albums"
"You can do that on a pc"
"OK well you can listen to your music and watch films and view photos through Frontrow"
"You can do that in Media Centre"
"You will never get viruses or spyware"
"I haven't had a virus on my Windows system for as long as I can remember"
"Macs look really cool"
"You can get a really nice looking PC if thats what floats your boat plus it will be way cheaper"

Needless to say we left without buying anything.

Now I've played on OSX quite a bit and truthfully I quite like it but I would never consider switching to it because its too restrictive. I want to be able to pick the components I want and not have to take out a loan to pay for them.

The main thing that attracted me to OSX was the looks and that was when I was on XP but now with Vista the looks are enough to make me consider switching.

That is interesting lol.

I am interested in what made your experience on OSX a good one other than looks?

I have used it and I guess I just get annoyed that I can't just download anything I want and the entire user face is just so so.

I mean I use Object Doc and I could make it look just like a Mac, but including the start menu is like a life saver.

What I completely hated about the OS is how it's so difficult to see what programs you have running and completely closing them has always been a pain in the butt. I have used Mac's through school from the early days to now and they have never made it as easy as clicking the big red X. That along is enough to drive me nuts lol.

 

[rasmasyean]

Macs traditionally had market dominance in the Arts niche, both because it was easier to use for “non-techies” back in the day and Adobe started with favoritism for Apple. That might change a little bit now since Adobe CS4 is 64-bit only for Vista and it’s not so hard to use Windows anymore. Who knows. But for one thing, a large company would not have trouble building an IT staff to support Windows. You can even go to India for that as well for cheap labor…and with the “global capabilities” of Windows tech…

The other avenue Apple markets to is the “digitally challenged”…and coupled with the “fashion aspect”, this has worked well for Apple these days. The Mac experience has more “hand-holding” (i.e. the i-way) and Apple has devoted a bit of thought into “human-factor design” to make it more intuitive.

Today, a few pockets of scientists have also adopted Macs since it turned Unix-based. This way can do their programming in the environment while not having to suffer the clunkiness of *Nix.

 

[eggyuk]

That is interesting lol.

I am interested in what made your experience on OSX a good one other than looks?

Well when I played on OSX I was still using XP. The things I like about it where that without addons you had the ability to launch an app by searching for it, a document/file search that was quick, and in an overall sense things seemed smoother and easier than in XP.

Now with Vista (and hopefully W7) there is nothing that I want vista to do and it cant but OSX can do it. Conversely I think if i was a mac user there would be things that I could do in Vista that I wished I could do on a mac.

 

[rasmasyean]

That is interesting lol.

I am interested in what made your experience on OSX a good one other than looks?

Well when I played on OSX I was still using XP. The things I like about it where that without addons you had the ability to launch an app by searching for it, a document/file search that was quick, and in an overall sense things seemed smoother and easier than in XP.

Now with Vista (and hopefully W7) there is nothing that I want vista to do and it cant but OSX can do it. Conversely I think if i was a mac user there would be things that I could do in Vista that I wished I could do on a mac.

Now XP has it as an optional update.

 

[SgtBaxter]

I see a lot of typical PC bashing Macs stuff going on, so I thought I'd chime in seeing how I've used multiple operating systems, and Windows/Mac OS X side by side seemingly forever. Plus since I build/overclock/etc. maybe my views will hold a little more merit. I think there's a lot more to it than just "looks".

Some things I'd like to give a plus to Mac OS X in regards to memory performance against Windows for:

When I click on say the volume in the menu bar (or any item I have running in the menu bar) the response has never been anything but instantaneous for quite some time. On some XP boxes I've had, it could take as long as a minute for the volume to come up while the disk ground away. So far on x64, it hasn't been much of a problem probably due to 8gigs of RAM, but I have noticed slight delays. This is rather unacceptable on a modern OS.

My OS X boxes always seem to have an even performance level no matter how long they've been used. i.e. startup times are pretty constant. Plus, I've *never* defragged any OS X box I use (it is not needed). I certainly can't say that for any Windows box I've used. This PC I have now that's basically brand new has already started hiccuping on starups, sometimes it's quick, sometimes it takes seemingly forever and there is no real rhyme or reason for it. I can of course fix that - but I simply shouldn't have to!

None of my OS X boxes have ever sat there and just ground away at the HD for hours when I wasn't even doing anything (unless I was running time machine or indexing). I like idea of SpeedBoost in Vista, but I think it is poorly implemented.

Anyway, it's difficult to compare memory usage/performance against these two operating systems as they have very different cores. XP was very clunky compared to OS X in terms of memory and task switching, however OS X wasn't really decent overall until 10.3 when it really started humming along. When I'd work in XP I must say I absolutely hated doing so if I had to open more than two programs, even with decent amounts of memory. XP absolutely sucks in that regard. x64 actually feels like OS X in terms of having lots of stuff open, although I've been able to grind both OSes to a standstill (I work in large display work and can have extremely large files upward of 10GB). OS X might have stood still for a few minutes while it ground out VM files, but it's never crashed on me when doing so, where XP most certainly would fail. Vista 64 works a lot like OS X in that regard, so it's greatly improved.

Now, a few things I think are greatly superior in OS X compared to Vista:
• Unified menu at the top of the screen has always been better both in terms of operation (you can't overshoot it), and elegance. Apple got this right from it's very first OS.
• As stated before, performance doesn't seem to deteriorate or fluctuate as wildly as it does with windows, and never any delay for menu (tray type) items.
• Drag and drop application install, and Application packages can contain all needed directories and files is much neater, when used that is. No need to uninstall such apps, just toss it in the trash and you're done.
• No DLLs or registry to worry about.
• It's certified UNIX, dammit!
• Quartz is more advanced and output works in PDF (yes, actual PDF)
• Networking more straightforward.
• Applications stay OPEN when you close the window.
• Widgets much better than sidebar in vista
• The Dock which I thought I'd initially hate I love and can't live without (personal preference)
• Multiple OS versions on one HD are a breeze to select and boot from.
• "Just works" really is just about the case and always has been.

Things I like better in Vista:
• Contextual menus
• Metadata support
• While I hate application installers/uninstallers and the associated mess, it is more consistent than in OS X where apps can be installed by several methods.
• Media Center
• Memory management now up to par with OS X (tie)
• Easier to tweak/upgrade machines (okay not a function of the OS)
• "Just works", the first time I've been able to say that.

I must say Vista 64 is the first Microsoft OS I've actually not had major complaints with, and like almost as much as OS X. It's almost a tie. I'm wondering what Snow Leopard will do to that perception though.

 

[SgtBaxter]

Today, a few pockets of scientists have also adopted Macs since it turned Unix-based. This way can do their programming in the environment while not having to suffer the clunkiness of *Nix.

Scientists have used Macs since before the OS 9 days, it's not just a "few pockets", programs like Mathematica started on the old Mac OS.

Also, as of 10.5, OS X is actual branded UNIX, not just "unix based":

 

[SgtBaxter]

I want to be able to pick the components I want and not have to take out a loan to pay for them.

Me too to some regards, but we're a minority with a hobby. Most folks simply want something to surf the web on, and play an occasional game or two. For them, something like an iMac is ideal.

If you're a pro in video, audio, or whatever you're not likely to be picking parts and putting together a machine, then hoping it doesn't work two months down the road. You'll pay $5K for a BOXX or PowerMac and support because time is money. The $2K you save putting it together yourself is wiped out if something goes wrong.

In that regards, at least the PowerMacs actually are price comparable and even a better value in many instances. For instance when I compared the intel mac I have to a Dell workstation with as close a configuration I could make, the PowerMac was a lot less expensive. The Dell doesn't run Final Cut Pro anyway so it wasn't really a consideration, I just did it for ****s and giggles.

Now, my personal PC is better than an iMac spec/performance wise and I paid less. Does it outrun my PowerMac as far as the graphics work I do? No it doesn't. Will it kick it's ass in games? Hell yeah.

 

[rasmasyean]

I want to be able to pick the components I want and not have to take out a loan to pay for them.

Me too to some regards, but we're a minority with a hobby. Most folks simply want something to surf the web on, and play an occasional game or two. For them, something like an iMac is ideal.

If you're a pro in video, audio, or whatever you're not likely to be picking parts and putting together a machine, then hoping it doesn't work two months down the road. You'll pay $5K for a BOXX or PowerMac and support because time is money. The $2K you save putting it together yourself is wiped out if something goes wrong.

In that regards, at least the PowerMacs actually are price comparable and even a better value in many instances. For instance when I compared the intel mac I have to a Dell workstation with as close a configuration I could make, the PowerMac was a lot less expensive. The Dell doesn't run Final Cut Pro anyway so it wasn't really a consideration, I just did it for ****s and giggles.

Now, my personal PC is better than an iMac spec/performance wise and I paid less. Does it outrun my PowerMac as far as the graphics work I do? No it doesn't. Will it kick it's ass in games? Hell yeah.

Are you sure you were comparing "equivalent" Dells? I know they sometimes have Core 2 Extreme Quads or something that costs a lot more than ones with standard processors.

When I built my computer for $1,800, an equivalent Mac I speced out cost $4,500.

 

[rasmasyean]

I see a lot of typical PC bashing Macs stuff going on, so I thought I'd chime in seeing how I've used multiple operating systems, and Windows/Mac OS X side by side seemingly forever. Plus since I build/overclock/etc. maybe my views will hold a little more merit. I think there's a lot more to it than just "looks".

Some things I'd like to give a plus to Mac OS X in regards to memory performance against Windows for:

When I click on say the volume in the menu bar (or any item I have running in the menu bar) the response has never been anything but instantaneous for quite some time. On some XP boxes I've had, it could take as long as a minute for the volume to come up while the disk ground away. So far on x64, it hasn't been much of a problem probably due to 8gigs of RAM, but I have noticed slight delays. This is rather unacceptable on a modern OS.

My OS X boxes always seem to have an even performance level no matter how long they've been used. i.e. startup times are pretty constant. Plus, I've *never* defragged any OS X box I use (it is not needed). I certainly can't say that for any Windows box I've used. This PC I have now that's basically brand new has already started hiccuping on starups, sometimes it's quick, sometimes it takes seemingly forever and there is no real rhyme or reason for it. I can of course fix that - but I simply shouldn't have to!

None of my OS X boxes have ever sat there and just ground away at the HD for hours when I wasn't even doing anything (unless I was running time machine or indexing). I like idea of SpeedBoost in Vista, but I think it is poorly implemented.

Anyway, it's difficult to compare memory usage/performance against these two operating systems as they have very different cores. XP was very clunky compared to OS X in terms of memory and task switching, however OS X wasn't really decent overall until 10.3 when it really started humming along. When I'd work in XP I must say I absolutely hated doing so if I had to open more than two programs, even with decent amounts of memory. XP absolutely sucks in that regard. x64 actually feels like OS X in terms of having lots of stuff open, although I've been able to grind both OSes to a standstill (I work in large display work and can have extremely large files upward of 10GB). OS X might have stood still for a few minutes while it ground out VM files, but it's never crashed on me when doing so, where XP most certainly would fail. Vista 64 works a lot like OS X in that regard, so it's greatly improved.

Now, a few things I think are greatly superior in OS X compared to Vista:
• Unified menu at the top of the screen has always been better both in terms of operation (you can't overshoot it), and elegance. Apple got this right from it's very first OS.
• As stated before, performance doesn't seem to deteriorate or fluctuate as wildly as it does with windows, and never any delay for menu (tray type) items.
• Drag and drop application install, and Application packages can contain all needed directories and files is much neater, when used that is. No need to uninstall such apps, just toss it in the trash and you're done.
• No DLLs or registry to worry about.
• It's certified UNIX, dammit!
• Quartz is more advanced and output works in PDF (yes, actual PDF)
• Networking more straightforward.
• Applications stay OPEN when you close the window.
• Widgets much better than sidebar in vista
• The Dock which I thought I'd initially hate I love and can't live without (personal preference)
• Multiple OS versions on one HD are a breeze to select and boot from.
• "Just works" really is just about the case and always has been.

Things I like better in Vista:
• Contextual menus
• Metadata support
• While I hate application installers/uninstallers and the associated mess, it is more consistent than in OS X where apps can be installed by several methods.
• Media Center
• Memory management now up to par with OS X (tie)
• Easier to tweak/upgrade machines (okay not a function of the OS)
• "Just works", the first time I've been able to say that.

I must say Vista 64 is the first Microsoft OS I've actually not had major complaints with, and like almost as much as OS X. It's almost a tie. I'm wondering what Snow Leopard will do to that perception though.

You probably had a really low-end XP computer or had bad software/spyware/viruses or something. The XP that I messed around with at home never suffered what you suffered and I multitasked a few things even. I crashed but only on occasion. Probably mostly due to myself. The XP I've used at work had an average of 30 windows open...stayed on for months because I never wanted to reboot in the morning (not even for vacation ). Heck, Desktop Support used to complain when I tell them I don't have a software that a co-worker has and they find out it's because I haven't loged off to activate the "auto-deployer" last month!

After some Service Packs, XP became a pretty solid system...assuming you didn't mess it up, I guess.

True Windows is slower than OSX with the same hardware. But there is a reason for that. Windows has more technology built in to support industrial class usage. Perhaps it would have been great for them to make it "modular" and you can scale it to your needs...but that would just complicate the whole thing I guess. And I guess someone felt it more cost effective for the average user to just over-spec the system a bit rather than endure the pain for liscensing "parts of Windows". Who knows.

 

[smarteyeball]

• Applications stay OPEN when you close the window.

I would have thought that was a flaw. When I close an app, it's because I WANT it to close. Otherwise I would just minimize it