Apple MacBook Pro 'Fastest Windows XP Notebook'? 360
rgraham writes "The Register has a great opening line in a recent article, "Want the fastest Windows XP Core Duo notebook? Then buy a Mac. According to benchmarks carried out by website GearLog, Apple's MacBook Pro running Windows XP is a better Adobe Photoshop rig than any other Core Duo laptop on the market." GearLog ran the same tests that were run by PC Magazine with the Mac coming out on top."
AMD (Score:4, Interesting)
fastest in one test (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:AMD (Score:1, Interesting)
Intel wins battery life, hands down, also.
Bah! Plugins are not a real benchmark... (Score:4, Interesting)
Still - yet another reason to not dismiss windows-on-mac-hardware efforts.
Re:AMD (Score:3, Interesting)
Why photoshop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ummm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Macbooks are also the most expensive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Best tool for the job (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Currently (Score:4, Interesting)
Other issues that are less important are:
*Trackpad does not work
*That little camera doesn't work
Adoption (Score:2, Interesting)
I am, interested, however, in hearing about it as it pertains to adoption by non-techies. I read /. but I've never had a dual-boot system myself. I have a Powerbook, an Ubuntu box, and my company thinkpad, so I've never needed to. Each box does its particular tasks, and does them pretty well (with the exception of the T23 my company insists is SOTA).
However, the specs from this article look quite promising. Like many of you, I salivate at the thought of running not only WoW on my MacBook, but games from developers who don't touch OSX. I'm not foolish enough to presume I'm in any kind of majority on that, but I think it has ramifications beyond the hardcore. I think when the new intel iBooks come out, they will be the perfect computer for just about any non-technical person; i.e. students, moms, grandmoms, whomever. If you can give them something familiar, adoption is going to be 1000 times easier. I'm not asking that Apple blow away other OEM's while running windows. The fact that it comes close (in all of the tests so far) is good enough for me. And grandma too.
Re:The Reg sexed up our dossier (Score:4, Interesting)
Running these benchmarks also allowed a direct comparison between Apple hardware and other manufacturers' that always used to be cloaked a little by the difference in OSes. Now of course you can argue that the driver situation may have affected our results, but I hope this will be only the first of many data points. It's a start.
Photoshop Test (Score:4, Interesting)
The point is that today's computers are overpowered. The now-deprecated Quad 2.7 G5 is vastly more powerful than any Photoshop jockey needs. Unless you're rastering 3D shiz or crunching a full length DVD-quality movie (neither of which requires Photoshop) it's just gonna be an issue for most users.
Re:Photoshop Test (Score:1, Interesting)
Second, you are thinking small with regard to PS. You aren't thinking in terms of what it "could" do, as opposed to what it has historically done. Off the top of my head, I can imagine a number of features that photoshop doesn't currently have that would only be feasible with more powerful machines, like "live" filter layers that render in real-time, Liquify and (the useless) Extract Image as tools, rather than separate panes (which is done because they are too processor-intensive to run in real time), etc. Plus lots of other features that I can't even imagine, because no one has even considered them possible before.
Bottom line -- give a creative programmer capacity and he/she will find a way to use it.
Re:Best tool for the job (Score:3, Interesting)
How many Mach messages per second does my conventional UNIX benchmark at? None. It can't. Does this preclude me from doing anything I need to do? No.
2, The 4/4 memory split only applies to 32 bit environments. Haven't the G3/G4/G5 been 64 bit? I know the current Core Duo's are 32 bit, but the next generation are supposed to support AMD's x86-64 (called EM64T in Intel language.). There's no advantage to seperate virtual address spaces when you have 64 bit architectures. Even on 32bit architectures, a 2/2 or 3/1 split is only a problem if you have more than two or three gigabytes of physical ram or if your application wants to memory map more than two or three gigs of virtual address space. If you need to do that, then get an architecture that supports it. Most people still have less than 2 gigs of ram in their computers, why optimize for those that do when the computers people will be buying when four gigs of ram or more is common will already be 64 bit.
3, Are you suggesting that FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, or any other modern operating system doesn't use dynamic libraries? What is so special about OSX's dynamic loader that Benchmarks need to take it into account?
1, Agreed.
2, What? Please. Yes, there is an advantage to not using the buffer cache in some cases, something you can do in linux with the O_DIRECT filedescriptor flag, but in most cases, it's not worth the trouble. Bypassing the buffer cache spares you the cost of a copy, but if you ever need the block again, you are at a clear advantage if it could have been read out of the buffer cache.
3. Don't know anything about it, but it's quite possible.
Apples and oranges, truly (Score:4, Interesting)
A more valid comparison would be SPEC tests between the MacBook and other machines. What you'd likely see is, given the same hardware, they perform exactly the same -- which is the point.
As someone pointed out, most geeks would be interested in a box that runs both XP and Mac OS equally well. Apple is in a big transition year: with Vista delayed and the switch to Intel, they finally have means to court a massive number of geeks to their platform. Some random people claiming the MacBook is somehow "faster" than PCs with different hardware damages this. Geeks will look at the specs and know it's not a valid comparison. Mac fans just need to sit tight and let the benchmarks speak for themselves.
Re:Find out next year (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if Adobe was quite as fanatical about doing SSE optimizations on their code on Intel as they were with Altivec on PPC. As others point out, Apple always used them as a benchmark so their code was definitely optimized. I wonder if they did that to the same extent on Windows, where they got considerably less attention (though possibly more sales).
You're probably right though, copy and paste job. How come it's taking so long?
I run photoshop ONLY on my laptop (Score:4, Interesting)
Some people such as myself need Photoshop on the go. Others, also like myself, only have 1 license. Third, I have two systems: a Mac mini (G4) and a Thinkpad T40 (1.3 GHz Centrino, I believe). Should I therefore not use Photoshop, since both are (basically - the Mac mini is an iBook) laptops? Should people with iMac's not use Photoshop either, since those systems use Core Duo's?
Low end systems and laptops both passed the point years ago where they were fast enough for almost anything. Sure, Photoshop is faster on a high end G5 or P4 or whatever system, but it's very useable on any modern laptop or low end system.
Mac? (Score:2, Interesting)
Powerbooks have PowerPC processors. MacBook's have Intel processors.
So when the PowerMac's are switched to Intel, are they called MacMac's??
Battery life (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Apples and oranges, truly (Score:2, Interesting)
That's very interesting, because it tells folks that they have a good chance of buying machines that will dual-boot the two OSes, getting market-competitive performance in both.
That's never been the case before, and even once Apple went to Intel there were murmurings that either Apple or Microsoft would do something to hurt Windows performance on the new Macs. Our results go some distance towards disproving that.
How is that conclusion invalid?